Bustard v. Morrison
| Decision Date | 31 December 1835 |
| Citation | 2 Ill. 235,1 Scam. 235,1835 WL 2187 |
| Parties | JOHN BUSTARD and CHARLES NOOE, plaintiffs in error,v.WILLIAM MORRISON, administrator of the estate of John Edgar, deceased, JAMES EDGAR, ISABELLA EDGAR, RACHEL M. MCCRACKEN, ROBERT MCCRACKEN, and NICHOLAS MCCRACKEN, heirs at law of said John Edgar, deceased, and ROBERT MORRISON, THOMAS SHORT, LEONARD JONES, JAMES NELSON, and CHARLES GARNER, defendants in error. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
THIS cause was decided in the Court below, by the Hon Theophilus W. Smith, at the April term, 1834.
J. SEMPLE, for the plaintiffs in error.
D. J. BAKER, for the defendants in error, contended:
A judgment creditor can not go into equity to set up or enforce the judgment lien against the real estate of a debtor who dies after judgment, the existence of the lien and the method of enforcing it being purely legal matters. Miami Ex. Co. Bank v. Turpin et al., 3 Ohio, 517; Conover's Dig. Index, 136.
Bill in equity, etc., can not be sustained, as complainant has his remedy at law. Bustard v. Dabney et al., 4 Ohio, 70; Conover's Dig. Index, 137.
Judgment liens are matters purely legal, etc. 6 Ohio, 162; Con. Dig. Index, 141-2.
The material facts set out in the complainant's bill are, that in 1821 they obtained a judgment in the Randolph Circuit Court against J. Edgar for $829; that in 1823 an execution issued on this judgment, which was replevied, with R. Morrison as surety. Other executions afterward issued, which were returned unsatisfied. The bill further sets out that Edgar died insolvent, but that at the time of the rendition of the judgment he was the owner of lands in the counties of Randolph, Jackson and Perry, all of which were sold to persons who are made defendants to the bill of complaint, subject, however, to the judgment of the complainants, and concludes with a prayer that the lien may be perpetual, and the land sold to satisfy their judgment.
To this bill the defendants demurred. The Court sustained the demurrer, and the decision of the Court sustaining the demurrer is the error assigned for the reversal of the judgment below.
It is clear that the complainants have mistaken their remedy, and the effect of their judgment. It is not the province of a court of chancery to carry into effect the judgments of a court of law. The powers of a court of law are amply sufficient to carry into effect its own adjudications. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schindler v. Watson
...a judgment debtor from selling the subject property to a third party during the life of an enforceable judgment lien. Cf . Bustard v. Morrison , 2 Ill. 235, 236 (1834) (noting that the sale or transfer of land will not exempt it from operation of a lien at any time during the seven-year lif......
-
Rock Island Nat. Bank v. Thompson
...Hall v. Green, 60 Miss. 47; Reid v. House, supra. There has been similar judicial reasoning by the supreme court of this state. Bustard v. Morrison, 1 Scam. 235;Durham v. Heaton, 28 Ill. 264.Jones v. Guthrie, 23 Ill. 421 (ejectment), was decided upon the assumption that a judgment rendered ......
-
Paschall v. Hailman
...after his judgment was obtained, claims his lien on the assets in the hands of the administrator. In the case of Bustard v. Morrison, administrator of Edgar, 1 Scam. 235, this court say: “If by the lapse of time, and their (the plaintiffs') own laches they have lost their lien, a court of c......
- Vanlandingham v. Fellows