Monroe v. Poorman
| Decision Date | 31 January 1872 |
| Citation | 62 Ill. 523,1872 WL 8085 |
| Parties | GEORGE MONROEv.AMANDA E. POORMAN et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Coles County; the Hon. JAMES STEELE, Judge, presiding.
Mr. JAMES A. CONNELLY, for the appellant.
Mr. O. B. FICKLIN, for the appellees.
This was a bill in chancery, in the Coles circuit court, to foreclose a mortgage. The widow and heirs-at-law of the mortgagor were made parties, and guardians ad litem appointed for the infants.
An answer was filed by the widow, oath being waived, in which she denied executing the mortgage and the acknowledgment thereof.
The acknowledgment was as follows:
+--------------------------+
¦“STATE OF ILLINOIS, ¦)¦ ¦
+--------------------+-+---¦
¦ ¦)¦SS:¦
+--------------------+-+---¦
¦COLES COUNTY, ¦)¦ ¦
+--------------------------+
I, D. C. M. Evans, a notary public in and for the city of Charleston, said county, in the State aforesaid, do hereby certify that Allison C. Poorman and Amanda Poorman, his wife, personally known to me as the same persons whose names are subscribed to the foregoing mortgage, appeared before me this day in person and acknowledged that they signed, sealed, and delivered the said instrument of writing as their free and voluntary act, for the uses and purposes therein set forth. And the said Amanda Poorman, wife of the said Allison C. Poorman, having been by me examined, separate and apart, and out of the hearing of her husband, and the contents and meaning of said instrument of writing having been by me made known and fully explained to her, and she also by me being fully informed of her rights under the homestead laws of this State, acknowledged that she had freely and voluntarily executed the same, and relinquished her dower to the lands and tenements therein mentioned, and also all her rights and advantages under and by virtue of all laws of this State relating to the exemption of homesteads, voluntarily and freely, and without the compulsion of her said husband, and that she does not wish to retract the same.
Given under my hand and notarial seal, this 21st day of August, A. D., 1867.
+-------------------------------+
¦[SEAL.]¦D. C. M. EVANS, N. P.” ¦
+-------------------------------+
The widow was sworn as a witness, and she denied having relinquished her dower and homestead right. The notary public was sworn, and he testified that he told her when he gave her the mortgage to sign, that if she signed it, it would release her dower and homestead; does not recollect that he told her she was entitled to a homestead worth one thousand dollars; remembers he told her if she signed the mortgage, the act would be a relinquishment of her homestead and dower. Her husband having previously at another place signed it, she took the mortgage and went into another room of the house to sign it; she returned soon into the room where the notary was, and handed him the mortgage with her name signed to it. She said she had signed it; she seemed to be crying. The notary then told her she was not bound to sign or acknowledge the mortgage, and she said she understood it. The notary said to her: “You seem to be crying;” and she replied, “it was not on that account, but it was because Mr. Poorman was going into the kind of business he was, though it seemed he could not do any thing else, and she was willing to help him.” She then acknowledged the mortgage as certified by the notary. Her husband was not present at the time, nor was he about the house.
A. H. Chapman testified that the evening before...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ogden Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Mensch
...by its completeness and reliable character, fully and clearly satisfy the court that the certificate is untrue and fraudulent.’ Monroe v. Poorman, 62 Ill. 523;McPherson v. Sanborn, 88 Ill. 150;Marston v. Brittenham, 76 Ill. 611. The authorities very clearly lay down the rule that evidence o......
-
Dugger v. Oglesby
...grantors in the deed appeared in person before the officer and made the requisite acknowledgment. Kerr v. Russell, 69 Ill. 666; Monroe v. Poorman, 62 Ill. 523. It may be unusual for persons who have given a power of attorney authorizing the making of a deed, to appear themselves in person b......
-
Linton v. National Life Ins. Co. of Vermont
... ... 624, 24 L.Ed. 1027; Marston v. Brittenham, 76 ... Ill. 611, 614; Lickmon v. Harding, 65 Ill. 505; ... Graham v. Anderson, 42 Ill. 514, 519; Monroe v ... Poorman, 62 Ill. 523, 527. The testimony that the ... certificate of acknowledgement was false is not of this clear ... and convincing ... ...
-
Kosturska v. Bartkiewicz
... ... 385;Marston v. Brittenham, 76 Ill. 611;Watson v. Watson, 118 Ill. 56, 7 N. E. 95;Calumet & Chicago Canal & Dock Co. v. Russell, 68 Ill. 426;Monroe v. Poorman, 62 Ill. 523;Lickmon v. Harding, 65 Ill. 505;Graham v. Anderson, 42 Ill. 514, 92 Am. Dec. 89;Oliphant v. Liversidge, 142 Ill. 160, 30 N ... ...