Karnes v. Lloyd
| Decision Date | 30 September 1869 |
| Parties | JOHN KARNESv.MAHLON B. LLOYD et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Henry county; the Hon GEORGE W. PLEASANTS, Judge, presiding.
The facts in this case are fully stated in the opinion.
Messrs. SHAW & CRAWFORD, for the appellant.
Mr. O. E. PAGE, for the appellees.
The rights of the parties to this record were discussed and settled in the case of Lloyd v. Karnes, 45 Ill. 62, and are not now open to further contest.
On a petition for a rehearing, the opinion was so modified, on the suggestion of fraud in the rendition of the judgment under which the redemption was effected, the cause was remanded to the circuit court, with leave to appellant here to make such motion as he might deem advisable, on which the circuit court might make the proper order.
Accordingly, on the remand, at the term next ensuing, it being the October term, 1868, the appellant entered his motion for leave to file an amended and supplemental bill, which motion was granted at the March term, 1869, following.
In the amended and supplemental bill, fraud was alleged in the confession of the judgment by Davenport, under which the redemption had been made by appellee, and questioning, also, the consideration of the judgment and irregularity in issuing and levying the execution, it appearing to have issued before the court had adjourned the term at which the judgment was rendered.
To this amended bill, Davenport and Lloyd were made defendants. Davenport answered, alleging the execution was issued on the affidavit of counsel, made for that purpose before the court adjourned; he denied all fraud in confessing the judgment, affirming it was confessed in good faith, and that it was upon a good and valid consideration, setting out in what it consisted.
Lloyd's answer embraced in it all the matters with which he was connected in the original bill, and to which he had filed a cross-bill, alleging that appellant was in possession of the premises, holding them against his rights, and prayed possession thereof. He also amended the cross-bill with a view to restrain the tenants in possession under the appellant from paying rent to him, and made them parties to the suit. In this amended cross-bill, there appears no charge against appellant which was not in the record when before us on Lloyd's appeal. No relief was sought against appellant in that amended cross-bill, nor was any answer demanded from him, the only object appearing to be to get the tenants in possession before the court, so that their rights might be adjudicated.
The tenants made an appearance by answers filed, in which they disclaimed any interest, except as tenants of appellant.
Appellant, also, without being called upon to do so, put in an answer to the cross-bill, reiterating the statements in his own amended and supplemental bill, and setting up as a defense, that the redemption money paid by appellee was less than the amount, by a few cents, that was due and should have been paid.
Leave was given appellant to examine as witnesses the defendants Lloyd and Davenport, and also Elizabeth, his wife. The two first named were fully examined--the latter was not--and upon the hearing, the court held, there was no fraud in confessing the judgment by Davenport, on which the redemption was made, and entered a decree dismissing the bill, and awarding possession to Lloyd on his cross-bill.
To reverse this decree, the record is brought here by appeal, assigning as errors, in rendering a decree for the defendant in the original and amended bills, in finding the redemption of Lloyd to have been made in good faith, and in finding the same regular and valid.
Appellant insists that the redemption was void, because contrived for dishonest purposes.
The fact is very apparent, that Davenport, the judgment debtor, was largely indebted to Lloyd, on honest transactions, at the time he confessed the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Peoria v. Bryan
...of the railroad on credit, without redemption: Rev. Stat. 1874, 623; Farrell v. Parler, 50 Ill. 274; Wolf v. Hogden, 24 Ill. 525; Karnes v. Lloyd, 52 Ill. 113. It was error to strike the cross-bill from the files: Higgins v. Curtiss, 82 Ill. 28; Jones v. Smith, 14 Ill. 229; McConnell v. Hod......
-
Jones v. Ramsey
...v. Heintz, 17 Ill. 259, 262; Rhinehart v. Stevenson, 23 Ill. 524; D'Wolf v. Hayden, 24 Ill. 525; Farrell v. Parlier, 50 Ill. 274; Karnes v. Lloyd, 52 Ill. 113; Bronson v. Kinzie, 1 Howard, 311; Brine v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. S. C. U. S., opinion filed May 13, 1878. For the reasons indicate......
-
Hart v. Brown, 31125
...683; Whitehead v. Hall, 148 Ill. 253, 35 N.E. 871. The policy of the law is to encourage redemptions rather than to suppress them. Karnes v. Lloyd, 52 Ill. 113; Phillips v. Demoss, 14 Ill. 410. A judgment by a court having jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter cannot be collate......
-
Becker v. Friend
...to the land, either legal or equitable. Phillips v. Demoss, 14 Ill. 410;Martin v. Judd, 60 Ill. 78;Arnold v. Gifford, 62 Ill. 249;Karnes v. Lloyd, 52 Ill. 113. We have said that ‘a liberal construction is to be given to our redemption laws, to the end that the property of the debtor may pay......