Herman v. Mueller
| Decision Date | 10 April 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 26015.,26015. |
| Citation | 376 Ill. 304,33 N.E.2d 472 |
| Parties | HERMAN v. MUELLER et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Suit by Maxwell R. Herman, as successor trustee under a deed of trust securing certain bonds made by the Michigan-Chestnut Building Corporation, against Celia Daniels and others praying for directions as to whether plaintiff should accept an offer of compromise made by certain guarantors of the bonds secured by such trust deed in satisfaction of all their liability thereunder, wherein Margaret Fischer intervened. From an adverse decree, Celia Daniels and Margaret Fischer appeal.
Cause transferred to the Appellate Court for the First District.
SHAW, J., dissenting.Appeal from Circuit Court, Cook County; William V. Brothers, judge.
McCabe, Abrahams & Daly and William Vihon, all of Chicago (Harry Abrahams, William Vihon, and Nunzio Giambalvo, all of Chicago, of counsel), for appellants.
Hirsch E. Soble, of Chicago, for appellee.
Maxwell R. Herman, as successor trustee (appellee) under a deed of trust securing certain bonds made by the Michigan-Chestant Building Corporation, filed a suit in the circuit court of Cook county against appellant Celia Daniels and others praying for directions as to whether he should accept an offer of compromise made by certain guarantors of the bonds secured by such trust deed, in satisfaction of all of their liability thereunder. Appellant Celia Daniels was served with process, and appellant Margaret Fischer was an intervenor. Appellant Daniels filed a motion to dismiss the proceeding on the ground that the court was without jurisdiction of the subject matter of the suit, and upon said motion being overruled filed an answer denying that plaintiff was entitled to the relief prayed for. Appellant Fischer filed an intervening petition and motion to vacate the decree because she had not been made a party, and because the court had no power or jurisdiction to decree that the plaintiff might compromise or settle the claim of all of the bondholders against the guarantors. Leave was granted to file the intervening petition, but the prayer thereof denied. The appeal is taken directly to this court upon the theory that the constitutional rights of appellants have been violated.
Before appellee's complaint for directions was filed, a foreclosure proceeding had been instituted by the trustee against the Michigan-Chestnut Building Corporation and all of the guarantors of the bonds, to foreclose the deed of trust, which cause was pending and undisposed of at the time the suit for directions was filed. It appears that bonds in a total amount of $575,000, secured by said trust deed, had been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Bissell Carpet Sweeper Co. v. Shane Co.
-
Ernhart v. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Ry. Co.
...in Ockenga v. Alken, 376 Ill. 533, 34 N.E.2d 711;Lewis v. West Side Trust and Savings Bank, 373 Ill. 245, 25 N.E.2d 818;Herman v. Mueller, 376 Ill. 304, 33 N.E.2d 472. In the Ockenga case we said: ‘the growing practice of bringing cases directly to this court upon the pretense that a consti......
-
Herman v. Mueller
...Celia Daniels and Margaret Fischer appealed to the Supreme Court and that court transferred the cause to the Appellate Court, 376 Ill. 304, 33 N.E.2d 472. Affirmed. McCabe, Abrahams & Daly and William Vihon, all of Chicago, for appellants.Hirsch E. Soble, of Chicago, for appellee.KILEY, Jus......