Lowell v. Wren
Decision Date | 30 September 1875 |
Citation | 1875 WL 8742,80 Ill. 238 |
Parties | JOHN W. LOWELL et al.v.MARGARET J. WREN. |
Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. E. S. WILLIAMS, Judge, presiding. Messrs. IVES & ROBINSON, for the appellants.
Mr. J. H. KNOWLTON, and Mr. E. P. WEBER, for the appellee.
Appellee, by her bill, prayed the court below to enjoin a sale under a pretended deed of trust, purporting to have been executed and acknowledged by her to J. C. Robinson, as trustee, to secure the payment of certain notes given by her to Lowell and Dalton.
She charges that Lowell and Dalton conspired with her husband, John Wren, to defraud her, by procuring the notes and deed of trust to be executed as if by her, and that she never signed, or authorized any one to sign, the notes and deed of trust, or acknowledged the deed of trust.
The court, on hearing, decreed in conformity with the prayer of the bill.
The notes purport to be signed by appellee, “per John Wren.” Appellee testified that she never authorized John Wren to sign the notes for her, and, on this point, we have discovered no contradictory evidence. She also testifies that she never, knowingly, signed the deed of trust, and that she never acknowledged it. While on this point there is some conflict in the evidence, the clear preponderance seems to be in her favor. The acknowledgment was written out and attested by one Albin, as notary public. Appellee's testimony is, that she is unacquainted with Albin; no such person was ever introduced to her as notary public; that, on one occasion, her husband brought her a paper to sign--she asked him what it was, being herself unable to read or write. He replied: “It's only a matter of form;” and she then made her mark, not knowing what the paper was, and that her husband then gave the paper to Lowell. She says, positively, no one asked her anything about whether she acknowledged her signature, or whether she executed the paper. Patrick M. Buchan, William McMahan, Levy Rosenfeldt, all of whom appear to be disinterested, and her husband, fully corroborate her. They all swear, when asked to put her mark to the paper, in response to her inquiry, what it was for, she was told it was only a matter of form, and that no one explained it to her or asked her if she acknowledged the paper or her signature, or anything of that kind.
Lowell denies that he was present when her...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lewis v. McGrath
......Kerr v. Russell, 69 Ill. 666, 18 Am. Rep. 634;Lowell v. Wren, 80 Ill. 238;McDowell v. Stewart, 83 Ill. 538;Griffin v. Griffin, 125 Ill. 430, 17 N. E. 782. We do not agree with the ......
-
Council Bluffs Savings Bank v. Smith
...... faith and credit of the public records. See Banning v. Banning, 80 Cal. 271, 22 P. 210; Lowell v. Wren, 80 Ill. 238; Louden v. Blythe, 16 Pa. 532; Rollins v. Menager, 22 W.Va. 461; Baldwin. v. Snowden, 11 Ohio St. 203; Moore v. Fuller, 6. ......
-
Council Bluffs Sav. Bank v. Smith
......Banning v. Banning, 80 Cal. 271, 22 Pac. 210;Lowell v. Wren, 80 Ill. 238; Louden v. Blythe, 16 Pa. St. 532; Rollins v. Menager, 22 W. Va. 461; Baldwin v. Snowden, 11 Ohio St. 203; Moore v. Fuller, 6 ......
-
Bank of Jennings v. Jennings
...... this latter is negative testimony. Mrs. Jennings was not a. witness, and the circumstances are very different from those. in [71 Fla. 155] Lowell v. Wren, 80 Ill. 238. The. notary's affirmative testimony as to what transpired. between him and Mrs. Jennings with reference to a duty the. law ......