Haworth v. Huling
| Citation | 1877 WL 9792,87 Ill. 23 |
| Parties | DAVID B. HAWORTHv.DAVID HULING et al. |
| Decision Date | 30 September 1877 |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Kankakee county; the Hon. N. J. PILLSBURY, Judge, presiding.
This was a bill in chancery, filed by David Huling against David B. Haworth and others, to foreclose a mortgage given by Laban Haworth and Martha, his wife, to Augustus N. Wylie, dated Oct. 19, 1858, to secure the payment of two promissory notes given for the purchase money of the lands mortgaged, each for $2559, payable two and three years after date, with ten per cent interest after maturity, which said notes had been assigned by Wylie, the payee, to the complainant.
After the execution of this mortgage Martha Haworth, the purchaser of the same, cut up the mortgaged premises into lots, lot 4 containing 147 acres, lot 5 containing 211 acres, lot 6 containing 56 acres and lot 10 containing 48 acres, and she and her husband, on March 9, 1859, conveyed lots 5 and 10 to Richard M. Haworth, and he, on Oct. 12, 1865, conveyed 108 acres off the east side of lot 5 and all of lot 10 to appellant, David B. Haworth, and afterwards Richard M. Haworth conveyed the remainder of lot 5 to John Welch, who conveyed it to appellant.
On March 18, 1861, Laban and Martha Haworth conveyed lots 4 and 6 to Sarah M. Brown, and she, on April 30, 1864, quitclaimed her interest in both said lots to Laban Haworth. On Jan. 26, 1864, Laban Haworth and wife conveyed lot 6 to Edwin R. Wilkinson, who, on April 30, 1864, conveyed lot 6 to the appellant. On April 30, 1864, Laban Haworth and wife conveyed 77 acres off the west side of lot 4 to William Legg, one of the defendants. Subsequently the other defendants obtained conveyances of portions of said mortgaged premises.
In 1863 Laban Haworth and David Huling entered into a contract extending the time of payment of the mortgage notes three years, at te?? per ce?? annual i??erest.
The complainant contended that on July 11, 1865, he had a settlement with Laban Haworth of the several sums paid, and applied such payments on the note, the appellant claiming that a part was applied upon interest that had accrued on the annual interest due.
The cause was referred to the master in chancery to report the sum due on the mortgage. The master reported that he had computed the interest separately upon each of the notes from July 11, 1865, to Dec. 2, 1875, the date of his report, and then allowed interest on the several payments up to the same date.
The decree found there was due on the notes $6816.21, and apportioned the same on the lots as follows: $4035.28 on lots 5 and 10, $1063.33 on lot 6 and $1717.60 on lot 4, the east half thereof to be sold first. The decree ordered the sale of lots 5 and 10 for the amount apportioned to it, with a proportionate share of the costs, such sum being the amount due and unpaid, which Richard M. Haworth assumed and agreed to pay at the time he bought said lots of the mortgagor, and in case these lots did not sell for enough to pay said sum, with the interest and costs, the remaining lots should be sold to satisfy balance unpaid, etc.
Mr. THOMAS P. BONFIELD, for the appellant.
Mr. STEPHEN R. MOORE, for the appellee Huling.
This bill was to foreclose a mortgage. The cause was referred to the master in chancery to compute the amount due on the notes secured by the mortgage to be foreclosed. On the coming in of the report defendants filed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States Mortgage Co v. Sperry
...it may by agreement between the parties be turned into principal, and made to bear interest for delay of payment.' See, also, Haworth v. Huling, 87 Ill. 23; McGovern v. Insurance Co., 109 Ill. 151, 156, and Gilmore v. Bissell, 124 Ill. 488, 16 N. E. Rep. In none of these cases were there se......
-
Law v. Grommes
... ... 1082]But Timmerman v. Phelps, 27 Ill. 496;Coursen v. Hixon, 78 Ill. 339;Turner v. Jenkins, 79 Ill. 228; and Haworth v. Huling, 87 Ill. 23,-are cited and relied upon as holding that the presumption contended for obtains in direct as well as collateral proceedings ... ...
-
Hemmer v. Wolfer
... ... 440]under the authority of Turner v. Jenkins, 79 Ill. 228,Haworth v. Huling, 87 Ill. 23, and Miller v. Handy, 40 Ill. 448, for the purpose of sustaining the recitals in the decree, presume that proper service was ... ...
-
Telford v. Garrels
... ... Haworth v. Huling, 87 Ill. 23. The claim made by Garrels for interest on the overdue interest was acquiesced in by appellant, and the amount claimed was paid ... ...