Bride v. Stormer
| Decision Date | 07 October 1937 |
| Docket Number | Gen. No. 9225. |
| Citation | 10 N.E.2d 208,291 Ill.App. 502 |
| Parties | BRIDE ET AL. v. STORMER ET AL. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Lee County; Albert H. Manus, Judge.
Suit to foreclose trust deed by Nicholas Bride and others against Joseph W. Stormer and others. From the decree, complainants appeal.
Affirmed. C. R. Birkett, of Peoria, Orman Ridgely, of Eureka, Ernest J. Henderson, of Minonk, and Nathan Weiss, of Peoria, for appellants.
George W. Hunt, of Peoria, and C. L. Conder, of Pekin, for appellees.
This is a foreclosure proceeding brought by appellants, who were the holders of notes secured by a trust deed on certain real estate. The right of foreclosure is not in dispute. It appears that at a sale of the lands herein, made by the master pursuant to a foreclosure decree, the lands were sold to Stormer, who later received a master's deed therefor. After Stormer became the owner of the premises under the master's deed, he executed four notes aggregating $12,000, payable to himself, and indorsed by him. These notes were secured by a trust deed on the said lands. Henry Denhart was named as trustee in the trust deed. Denhart was president of a banking corporation composed of himself, Frank W. Hopps, and H. A. Kingsbury. Their bank operated under the corporate name of Henry Denhart & Co.
The above notes were issued by Stormer under date of March 5, 1925. The appellants became the owners of the several notes in due course. The notes became in default and this foreclosure suit was commenced by appellants in April, 1931. On April 11, 1930, the bank of Henry Denhart & Co. was closed by the auditor of public accounts, and subsequently placed under receivership for the purpose of liquidating and winding up its affairs. Stormer had been an employee of that bank for about twenty-two years. Appellants in their foreclosure suit made the receiver of the bank a party defendant, and also made the three owners of the bank parties defendant, but as to them prayed for no relief. As to Stormer and the receiver of the bank, appellants prayed for the fixing of the amount due them under their notes, for a sale of said premises under the trust deed, the proceeds thereof to be applied upon the satisfaction of their debt, and in case of any deficiency, that a decree therefor be entered against Stormer and the receiver of the bank.
Appellants claim that Stormer in the purchase of the land was acting for and on behalf of the bank and that the notes he issued were issued as accommodation paper for the bank; that the bank was the actual owner of the premises and liable upon the notes; and that they were in truth and in fact the obligation of the bank. The receiver answered disclaiming any interest in the premises and denying all allegations going toward the liability of the bank. The cause was referred to the master, who found that Stormer was acting for and on behalf of the bank, that the debt was that of the bank, and that it was the owner of the equity in the premises to which Stormer held the legal title. The master found that Stormer executed the notes as an accommodation maker for the bank; that he held the legal title in trust for the bank; that the bank was primarily liable on the notes; that a conditional deficiency decree should be entered against the bank; and that Stormer should convey the legal title to the land to the receiver. Objections were filed to the master's report, which were overruled with respect to the controlling features of the case now before this court. The objections as filed were permitted to stand as exceptions. In general, the trial court confirmed the master's report in all respects except as to the power to grant a deficiency decree against the receiver of the bank. It is impossible within the limits of this opinion to discuss the objections of the several parties, as the receiver had seventy objections before the master, in addition to those filed by appellants. Upon sale of the premises, a deficiency resulted in the sum of $16,550.65. The court denied a deficiency judgment against the receiver of the bank, granting same against Stormer alone. It is from the refusal of the court to grant a deficiency judgment against the receiver of the bank that appellants have prosecuted this appeal.
Appellee urges that in a foreclosure proceeding, a deficiency decree cannot be had against a beneficial owner of the land, when such person did not sign the notes secured. It is the position of the appellants that such is a proper procedure and within the power of the court upon a foreclosure proceeding. It is therefore apparent that the controversy in this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bride v. Stormer
...deficiency decree against the receiver of Henry Denhart & Company, a defunct state bank. From a judgment of the Appellate Court, 291 Ill.App. 502, 10 N.E.2d 208, affirming decrees of the circuit court dismissing the bill for want of equity as against the receiver and rendering a deficiency ......
-
City of Chicago v. Chatham Bank of Chicago
...even though they were joined as parties-defendant in the suit to foreclose a mortgage. The court cited with approval Bride v. Stormer, 291 Ill.App. 502, 10 N.E.2d 208. In the instant case, the counter-defendants in their brief argue in this court that the deficiency judgment is valid, altho......
-
First Nat. Bank of Chicago v. Marks
...as guarantors. Moreover, the foreclosure suit was instituted before the Civil Practice Act became effective. See Bride v. Stormer, 291 Ill.App. 502-507, 10 N.E.2d 208, 209, where the court said: “It is generally considered, except in States having an express provision of statute to the cont......