Bryant v. Vix

• Decision Date: 30 September 1876
• Citation: 1876 WL 10278,83 Ill. 11
• Parties: OLIVER G. BRYANT et al.v.SARAH J. VIX.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

83 Ill. 11

1876 WL 10278 (Ill.)

OLIVER G. BRYANT et al.

v.SARAH J. VIX.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

September Term, 1876.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. SAMUEL M. MOORE, Judge, presiding.

Mr. HENRY DECKER, for the appellants.

Messrs. ABBOTT & OLIVER, for the appellee. Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE SHELDON delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was a bill in equity, to enjoin the enforcement of a chattel mortgage.

The bill alleges, that on the 15th day of March, 1873, Oliver G. Bryant loaned to the complainant the sum of $400 for three months, at the usurious interest of six per cent per month, for which complainant gave to Bryant her promissory note, and a chattel mortgage upon certain personal property, to secure its payment; that there were successive renewals of the loan, and a subsequent additional one of $100, from time to time, at short intervals, at the same rate of interest, until June 14, 1874, when there was a renewal for two months longer, and the former note and mortgage canceled, and complainant gave her promissory note for $394, payable two months after date to the order of Edward P. Carter, secured by a chattel mortgage, upon the same property, to Carter, and that Bryant then stipulated to receive from her the same rate of interest above specified, which he afterward received; that the making of the note and mortgage to Carter was only colorable, and was for the benefit of Bryant; that Carter had transferred the note to William D. Sherwood, who was not an innocent purchaser for value, and was in collusion with Bryant; that the amounts which had been paid to Bryant were more than sufficient to pay the money loaned by him, with lawful interest.

The bill was filed against Bryant and Sherwood, who answered. The answer of Bryant admits the allegations of the bill with respect to the loan and reservation of the interest, and denies all else. It denies that the loan was renewed on the 14th of June, 1874, and avers, on the contrary, that on that day the complainant paid up the loan by the draft or check of Carter on the Third National Bank of Chicago; that she executed the note and mortgage to Carter for his (Carter's) sole use, in which Bryant never had any interest whatever.

The court below decreed in favor of the complainant, perpetually enjoining any proceeding under the chattel mortgage. Bryant and Sherwood appealed.

The principal point of controversy is, as to the transaction between the complainant and Carter, whether it was one really with Carter himself, on his own individual account, or only colorably so, and in reality but a renewal of the former loan of Bryant in the name of Carter, for Bryant's benefit, making Carter but a nominal party, and Bryant the real party in interest. All the direct testimony upon the point is that of the two parties themselves, the complainant and Bryant, which is contradictory.

There are circumstances in the case which are corroborative of the testimony of the complainant, and of the idea that the transaction with Carter was a colorable one, as alleged. The decree must have found that it was such, and after a full examination of the testimony, we are unable to say that the finding in this respect was not warranted by the...