Huddleston v. Francis

Decision Date28 March 1888
Citation124 Ill. 195,16 N.E. 243
PartiesHUDDLESTON v. FRANCIS et al.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from appellate court, Third district.

Action by William H. Huddleston against Charles Francis and John Halpin on a promissory note. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals.Rinaker & Rinaker

, for appellant.

C. A. Walker, for appellee.

CRAIG, J.

On the 4th day of March, 1869, the following statute was enacted: ‘That whenever the principal maker of a joint note shall depart this life, it shall be the duty of the payee or assignee thereof to present the same against the estate of decedent for allowance to the proper court within two years after granting of letters testamentary or of administration on his estate; and if said payee or assignee shall fail or neglect so to do, the surety or sureties on such note shall be released from the payment thereof: provided, that this act shall not be construed so as to release any surety or sureties from the payment of the whole or any part of such debt that may remain unpaid after the estate of the decedent is fully administered, nor to prevent the holder of such notes from proceeding against the surety or sureties at any time before the expiration of two years after the granting of letters testamentary or of administration upon said estate.’ While this statute was in force, and on the 1st day of October, 1872, John Jones as principal, and Charles Francis and John Halpin as sureties, executed and delivered to William H. Huddleston a promissory note for $1,000, due in one year, with interest at 10 per cent. per annum. On the 31st day of October, 1873, John Jones, the principal in the note, died intestate in Macoupin county. On the 13th day of December, 1873, letters of administration upon the estate were issued to Charles Francis and Weye Smith by the county court of Macoupin county, who on that day duly qualified as such. The payee of the note, William H. Huddleston, did not within two years after the granting of letters of administration, or at any time, present the note for allowance against the estate of John Jones, the principal in the note; but on March, 1877,-long after the time had expired within which the note should have been presented for probate,-the payee brought this action against the sureties to recover a judgment for the amount of the note and interest against them. The circuit court held that the sureties were released, and the correctness of this ruling is the only question presented by the record.

The first part of the section of the statute under consideration, in plain and emphatic language, requires the owner of a note to present the same against the estate of the deceased principal for allowance to the proper court within two years after the granting of letters of administration; and the statute also declares that a failure to do so shall relieve the sureties. This provision is so plain that there is no room for construction; indeed, it is conceded in the argument that, if the act did not contain a proviso, appellant would have no standing in court. Reliance is therefore placed on the provision to authorize a recovery against the sureties. Upon this branch of the case, it is claimed that notwithstanding the note was not presented for allowance within two years next after the grantingof letters of administration, and was not allowed, still the plaintiff was entitled, under the proviso in the act, to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Wade v. Boone
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • June 20, 1914
    ......234;. McKinstry v. Railroad, 153 Mo.App. 546; Brown v. Worthington, 162 Mo.App. 508; R. S. Ill. Chapt. 132,. sec. 3; Huddleston v. Francis, 124 Ill. 195. (4) The. allegations of respondents' petition were denied by the. answer of appellant, and the burden of proof rested ......
  • Anderson v. City of Park Ridge
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • March 12, 1947
    ......Wells Bros. Co. v. Industrial Com, 285 Ill. 647, 121 N.E. 256;In re Day, 181 Ill. 73, 54 N.E. 646,50 L.R.A. 519;Huddleston v. Francis, 124 Ill. 195, 16 N.E. 243. Ordinarily its grammatical and logical scope would confine it to the subject matter of the enacting clause to ......
  • In re Day
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • June 19, 1899
    ......Boon v. Juliet, 1 Scam. 258;Sarah v. Borders, 4 Scam. 341;Huddleston v. Francis, 124 Ill. 195, 16 N. E. 243;[181 Ill. 80]City of Chicago v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 126 Ill. 276, 18 N. E. 668;Voorhees v. Jackson, 10 Pet. 449. ......
  • State v. Smith
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • November 9, 1911
    ...... Potter's Dwarris on Statutes, page 118; State v. Goulden, 134 N.C. 743, 47 S.E. 450; Huddleston v. Francis, 124 Ill. 195, 16 N.E. 243; and Sutton v. People, 145 Ill. 279, 34 N.E. 420, and authorities. cited. In that case it is said: "At ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT