Coggeshall v. Ruggles

• Decision Date: 31 January 1872
• Citation: 62 Ill. 401,1872 WL 8059
• Parties: WILLIAM H. COGGESHALL et al.v.JAMES M. RUGGLES.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

62 Ill. 401

1872 WL 8059 (Ill.)

WILLIAM H. COGGESHALL et al.

v.JAMES M. RUGGLES.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

January Term, 1872.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Mason County; Hon. CHARLES TURNER, Judge, presiding.

In April, 1855, Wm. H. Coggeshall, as principal, and James M. Ruggles, as surety, executed a note to Howard & O'Neal, administrators of the estate of one Marshall, deceased. In June, 1857, Ruggles becoming doubtful of the solvency of Coggeshall, purchased of him a pair of horses and a buggy for four hundred and twenty-five dollars, and agreed to pay three hundred dollars of the amount on the note. Failing to do so, the payees brought suit and recovered judgment on the note.

In June, 1865, Coggeshall having sold corn to one Beasely, the then owner of the judgment, to the amount of four hundred dollars or four hundred and fifty dollars, arranged with Beasely to apply this in satisfaction of the judgment, but let it stand without any entry of satisfaction. In January, 1868, execution was issued thereon, and certain lands of Ruggles sold, and certificate of purchase made to Beasely, who shortly afterward transferred the same to a son of Wm. H. Coggeshall without any new consideration.

Messrs. LACEY & WALLACE, for the appellants.

Mr. JOHN B. COHRS, for the appellee. Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE LAWRENCE delivered the opinion of the Court:

In April, 1855, William H. Coggeshall, one of the appellants, as principal, with Ruggles, the appellee, as surety, executed a promissory note for three hundred dollars to the administrators of the estate of one Marshall, deceased. In 1861 suit was brought upon the note in the county court of Mason County, and a judgment rendered in favor of the administrators. The defendants appealed to the circuit court, where the appeal was subsequently dismissed and a procedendo awarded. In 1866 an execution was issued on the judgment and levied on the land of Ruggles. There was a sale under the execution and the property was bid off in the name of one Beasely, to whom the judgment had been assigned as guardian of a daughter of Marshall. After the expiration of twelve months he assigned the certificate of purchase to Francis S. Coggeshall, a son of William H. Coggeshall, and he, on the day this suit was commenced, assigned it to Dummer for the benefit of one Martin, who had obtained a judgment against William H. Coggeshall. Dummer, however, merely took the certificate under an agreement that, if it should prove valid, he would satisfy the judgment in favor of Martin, but declined to take it at any price, absolutely, conjecturing, as he says in his answer, that there might be some controversy. Martin is not, therefore, in a position to claim any equities under this assignment. This bill was filed by Ruggles to set aside the sale on the ground that, prior to the sale of the land, an arrangement had been made between Beasely and William H. Coggeshall by which the judgment was in fact paid, though not satisfied in terms, and that it was kept in apparent life in order that Ruggles' property might be sold under it. The court below set aside the sale.

Beasely testifies that he was owing W. H. Coggeshall...