Knox v. the Winsted Sav. Bank.
| Decision Date | 30 September 1870 |
| Citation | 57 Ill. 330,1870 WL 6636 |
| Parties | JOSEPH KNOX et al.v.THE WINSTED SAVINGS BANK. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Chicago; the Hon. JOSEPH E. GARY, Judge, presiding.
Messrs. OWEN & FOLLANSBEE, for the appellants.
Messrs. FULLER & SMITH, for the appellee.
This is an appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Chicago, overruling a motion to vacate a judgment rendered by confession, against appellants and one Carpenter, at the June term, 1870, of said court. The note and warrant of attorney upon which the judgment was rendered, were signed by the appellants and Carpenter, and also by “Tucker & Ritchie,” to whose order the note was payable, and were joint and several.
At the July term, 1870, appellants Weber and Griswold, (two of the defendants below,) moved to set aside the judgment upon affidavits filed, alleging usury. At the same term, appellants Knox and Lawrence, (two other of the defendants below,) moved to vacate the judgment because of the alleged error in its rendition, that it was not entered against “Tucker & Ritchie,” as well as the five actually made defendants.
Both these motions were heard at the same time, July 20, upon affidavits, and the motions granted, on condition that appellants pay into court, for appellee's use, the amount they admitted they originally received, with six per cent interest to date of payments claimed to have been made; and after deducting such alleged payments, interest at six per cent, on the balance.
This appellants refused to do, and their motions were overruled.
Affidavits were submitted on both sides upon the point, whether the note upon which the judgment was rendered, was assigned to the appellee before its maturity without notice of the alleged defense. We think the affidavits establish, very satisfactorily, that the appellee was a bona fide assignee of the note in question before its maturity, and that there was not enough of a question in this respect raised, to make it worth while that an issue should be submitted to a jury to try it. Such being the case, there was no defense to the note disclosed, as against the appellee, and the court was justified upon this ground, in overruling the motion of Weber and Griswold.
The object of the motion of Knox and Lawrence, was to present a technical error alleged to exist in the rendition of this judgment, namely, that the judgment is against Knox, Lawrence, Griswold, Weber and Carpenter, and not against Tucker and Ritchie also.
This case, as now pending here, is an appeal from the order...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jansen v. Grimshaw
... ... Sanford, 1 Denio, 224;Smith v. Black, 9 Serg. & R. 142;Downey v. Bank, 13 Serg. & R. 288;Sloo v. Lea, 18 Ohio, 279;Robertson v. Smith, 18 Johns ... 222;Messervey v. Beckwith, Id. 452; McKindley v. Buck, 43 Ill. 488;Knox v. Bank, 57 Ill. 330;Lill v. Stookey, 72 Ill. 495;Coursen v. Hixon, 78 ... ...
-
Troutman v. Hills
...v. Lee, 14 Ill. 167; Smith v. Wilson, 26 Ill. 186; McKindley v. Buck, 43 Ill. 488; State Sav. Inst. v. Nelson, 49 Ill. 171; Knox v. Winsted Bank, 57 Ill. 330; Ill. Land and Loan Co. v. McCormick, 61 Ill. 322; Robinson v. Brown, 82 Ill. 279; Jackson v. Ashton, 10 Pet. 480; Cameron v. McRober......
-
Darby v. Dixon
... ... Buck, 43 Ill. 488; Windett v. Hamilton, 52 Ill. 180; Knox v. Winsted Savings Bank 57 Ill. 330; T. P. & W. R'y Co. v. Eastburn, 79 ... ...
-
People ex rel. Carr v. Omega Chapter of PSI Upsilon Fraternity
...v. Henshaw, 80 N. E. 1076, 226 Ill. 605;Baldwin v. McClelland, 38 N. E. 143, 152 Ill. 42;Becker v. Sauter, 89 Ill. 596;Knox v. Winsted Savings Bank, 57 Ill. 330;Cox v. Brackett, 41 Ill. 222;Cook v. Wood, 24 Ill. 295. [2] Appellee points out that no bill of exceptions was filed in this court......