King v. Mason
| Decision Date | 30 April 1866 |
| Citation | 89 Am.Dec. 426,42 Ill. 223,1866 WL 4668 |
| Parties | JOSEPH P. KINGv.JEDUTHAN MASON. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Kendall county; the Hon. MADISON E. HOLLISTER, Judge, presiding.
This was an action of assumpsit commenced in the Court of Common Pleas of the city of Aurora by Jeduthan Mason against Joseph P. King. The cause was removed, on change of venue, into the Circuit Court, where a trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant brings the cause to this court by appeal.
The opinion of the court contains a sufficient statement of the case.
Mr. L. R. WAGNER, for the appellant.
Messrs. METZNER & WHEATON, for the appellee.
This was an action for money had and received, brought by Mason against King to recover certain rents received by King and alleged by Mason to belong to himself in right of his wife, who was a sister of King. The premises from which the rent accrued seem to have belonged to one Hall, and to have been bought from him by the father of King and Mrs. Mason. After his death a deed was made by Hall to Mrs. Mason, under an arrangement between her and King, by which the latter was to retain possession of the house until he had received five or six hundred dollars due to him. It appears that the father and son worked together before the death of the former, who was, in the language of one of the witnesses, “under a cloud,” and the son worked with the father in building the house which paid the rent in controversy. One of the witnesses swears the house was built by defendant.
Admitting that the deed from Hall to Mrs. Mason vested the legal title in her, of which, however, there is no evidence, there is no proof whatever that the appellant acted as agent for Mrs. Mason in collecting the rents, or that he collected them, in any sense, for her. On the contrary, it appears that he had possession of the house, as landlord, from the time it was built, that he collected the rents in his own right, and never acknowledged any title in Mrs. Mason. Giving, then, the evidence its most favorable construction as to the claim of the plaintiff, and it is still clear that he cannot make the defendant liable until it is shown that the latter has received the amount which was to be allowed him, before his sister, Mrs. Mason, should come into the enjoyment of the rents. There is some controversy whether this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bernard v. Fisher
... ... Oliver, 20 Vt. 118, 122, 49 Am. Dec ... 764, 768; Kimball v. Lincoln, 7 Ill.App. 470, 473; ... Lovingston v. Short, 77 Ill. 587, 591; King v ... Mason, 42 Ill. 223, 224, 89 Am. Dec. 426; Timmerman v ... Stanley, 123 Ga. 850, 51 S.E. 760, 761, 1 L. R. A., N. S., ... 379, 381.) ... ...
-
Jones v. Thomas
...contract is completed. Dermott v. Jones, 23 How. (U. S.) 220, 16 L. Ed. 442;McClurg v. Price, 59 Pa. 420, 98 Am. Dec. 356;King v. Mason, 42 Ill. 223, 89 Am. Dec. 426. A discussion of the principle is found in a note to Sargent v. McLeod, 52 L. R. A. (N. S.) 381, and is as follows: “It is we......
-
Jones v. Thomas
... ... contract is completed. Dermott v. Jones , 23 How ... (U.S.) 220, 16 L.Ed. 442; McClurg v. Price , 59 Pa ... 420, 98 Am. Dec. 356; King v. Mason , 42 Ill. 223, 89 ... Am. Dec. 426. A discussion of the principle is found in a ... note to Sargent v. McLeod , 52 L.R.A. (n.s.) 381, and ... ...
-
Foster v. Strong
...Jennings v. Gage, 13 Ill. 611; Buchanan v. Harney, 12 Ill. 336; Bowen v. Schuler, 41 Ill. 193; Ryan v. Brant, 42 Ill. 78; King v. Mason, 42 Ill. 223; Hogan v. Meyer, 5 Hill, 390; Moyer v. Shoemaker, 5 Barb. 322. Where there is a pledge of negotiable securities it is the duty of the pledgee ......