Howett v. Selby
| Decision Date | 30 June 1870 |
| Citation | 54 Ill. 151,1870 WL 6272 |
| Parties | EDMUND L. HOWETTv.NICHOLAS SELBY et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
WRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of Clay county; the Hon. RICHARD S. CANBY, Judge, presiding.
On the sixteenth of October, 1868, Edmund L. Howett conveyed to Robert Hall a certain lot of ground in the town of Flora, Illinois, for a consideration of $1900, taking a mortgage on the premises to secure the payment of the purchase money. Subsequently to the purchase, and execution of said mortgage, Hall made improvements on the premises, and various mechanics' liens attached therefor, and proceedings were commenced to enforce them, Howett being made a party defendant. Howett answered, setting up his mortgage, and also claiming seventy-three dollars, for materials furnished by him and used in the improvements. He also set up his mortgage in a cross bill. Hall made default, and the court, after hearing the proofs, found that seven twenty-fifths of the present value of the premises was the increased value on account of the improvements, for which the liens attached, since the execution of the mortgage, and ordered that the premises be sold, and that eighteen twenty-fifths of the proceeds of sale be first applied in payment of the mortgage, and that seven twenty-fifths of the proceeds be applied in payment of said liens, and that any surplus of said seven twenty-fifths of said proceeds, after discharging said liens, be applied first, on any balance due on said mortgage, and then in satisfaction of Howett's claim for materials furnished by him, the remainder, if any, to be paid to Hall. To reverse this decree, Howett brings the record to this court.
Mr. W. B. COOPER and Mr. B. B. SMITH, for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. RUFUS COPE and Mr. S. A. BOYLES, for the defendants in error.
As between the mortgagee, Howett, and the mechanics in this case, the court decreed in conformity with the rule laid down in Crosby v. N. W. Manuf. Co. 48 Ill. 481, and in previous cases. As to the seventy-three dollars claimed by Howett for materials furnished, he can not complain that this claim was postponed to that of the mechanics who had filed their petitions, since he does not make this claim in his cross bill, and only sets it up in his answer. We find no error in the record.
Decree affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lasalle Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Cypress Creek 1
...and to the complainants a paramount lien on the improvements towards which they furnished materials ” (emphases added)) 1; Howett v. Selby, 54 Ill. 151 (1870); Clark v. Moore, 64 Ill. 273 (1872). The language added to this provision in 1903 merely codifies the interpretation of the courts. ......
-
Bayard v. Mcgraw
...to the decree: Croskey et al. v. N. W. M. Co. 48 Ill. 481; Smith v. Moore, 26 Ill. 393; N. Pres. Ch. v. Jevne et al. 32 Ill. 214; Howett v. Shelby, 54 Ill. 151; Tracey et al. v. Rogers, 69 Ill. 662; Lunt v. Stephens, 75 Ill. 507. Suit was not commenced against Bayard the cestui que trust wi......
- Seibel v. Siemon
-
Lasalle Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Cypress Creek 1, Docket No.109954.
...and to the complainants a paramount lien on the improvements towards which they furnished materials" (emphases added))1; Howett v. Selby, 54 Ill. 151 (1870); Clark v. Moore, 64 Ill. 273 (1872). The language added to this provision in 1903 merely codifies the interpretation of the courts. Th......