Mosher v. Rogers

• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois
• Writing for the Court: SIBLEY, J.
• Citation: 3 Ill.App. 577,3 Bradw. 577
• Decision Date: 31 December 1878
• Parties: B. R. MOSHER ET AL.v.STEPHEN ROGERS.

3 Ill.App. 577
3 Bradw. 577

B. R. MOSHER ET AL.
v.
STEPHEN ROGERS.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District.

December Term, 1878.

[3 Ill.App. 577]

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of La Salle county; the Hon.

[3 Ill.App. 578]

JOSIAH MCROBERTS, Judge, presiding. Opinion filed May 2, 1879.

Mr. E. F. BULL and Mr. A. W. HARD, for appellants; in support of the sufficiency of defendant's plea, cited Stricklin v. Cunningham, 58 Ill. 293; Gridley v. Bane, 57 Ill. 529; Young v. Ward, 21 Ill. 223; Easter v. Minard, 26 Ill. 494.

The evidence offered tended to support the issues formed under the pleadings, and should have been admitted: Davis v. Hoxey, 1 Scam. 406; Phelps v. Jenkins, 4 Scam. 48; Reese v. Henck, 14 Ill. 482; Smith v. Gillett, 50 Ill. 290; Seeley v. Porter, 53 Ill. 102; Crowley v. Crowley, 80 Ill. 469; Hugh v. Cook County Land Co. 73 Ill. 23.

Mr. G. S. ELDREDGE, for appellee; argued that the plea presented no defense to the note, and cited Neely v. Lewis, 5 Gilm. 31; Moss v. Riddle, 2 Pet. 277; Warrell v. Munn, 1 Seld. 229; Walker v. Crawford, 56 Ill. 445; Wimple v. Kesoph, 15 Minn. 440; Lane v. Sharpe, 3 Scam. 565; Wood v. Price, 46 Ill. 435; Emory v. Mohler, 69 Ill. 221; Merchants' Ins. Co. v. Morrison, 62 Ill. 242; Foy v. Blackstone, 31 Ill. 538; Snyder v. Griswold, 37 Ill. 216; Jones v. Albee, 70 Ill. 34; Conwell v. S. & N.W. R. R. Co. 81 Ill. 232; Mason v. Burton, 54 Ill. 350; Cease v. Cockle, 76 Ill. 484.

The Association had no authority to lay out and plat an addition to the village of Millington; it was ultra vires, and all executory contracts founded upon it necessarily void, and the plat was properly excluded: Carroll v. City of East St. Louis, 67 Ill. 568; Cin. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rosenthal, 55 Ill. 85; Starkweather v. Am. Bible Soc. 72 Ill. 50; Bank of U. S. v. Owen, 2 Pet. 538.

If a part of the consideration be illegal, the entire contract is void: Henderson v. Palmer, 71 Ill. 579; Craft v. McConnoughy, 79 Ill. 346; Winston v. McFarland, 22 Ill. 38.

The statute limits the power of corporations; they can take nothing by implication: Charles River B. Co. v. Warner B. Co. 11 Pet. 543; Newhall v. Galena R. R. Co. 14 Ill. 273; Petersburgh v. Metzker, 21 Ill. 205; Penn. R. R. Co. v. Canal Com'rs,

[3 Ill.App. 579]

21 Pa. St. 9; President, etc. v. McConnell, 12 Ill. 138; Caldwell v. City of Alton, 33 Ill. 416; Mix v. Ross, 57 Ill. 121.

All contracts to promote the exercise of unauthorized powers are void, as being against public policy: Miller v. Goodwin, 70 Ill. 659; City of Alton v. Ins. Co. 75 Ill. 566; People v. Dupuyt, 71 Ill. 651; Metropolitan Bank v. Godfrey, 23 Ill. 604; People v. Board of Trade, 45 Ill. 112; East Anglian R'y Co. v. Eastern Counties R'y Co. 7 Eng. L. 505; B. & O. R. R. Co. v. Wheeling, 13 Gratt. 75; Clark v. Farrington, 11 Wis. 323; Barret v. A. & S. R. R. Co. 13 Ill. 512; Bissell v. Mich. S. R. R. Co. 22 N. Y. 265; Bank of Peru v. Farnsworth, 18 Ill. 563.

SIBLEY, J.

This suit was brought by Stephen Rogers against the appellants, upon a promissory note, as follows:

+-----------------------------------------+
                ¦“$2,000.¦MILLINGTON, ILL., Dec. 13, 1875.¦
                +-----------------------------------------+
                

One year aft?? date, for value received, we promise to pay Stephen Rogers, or order, two thousand dollars, with interest at ten per cent. It is further agreed, that should the payee so elect, he may at any time within six months from date, by the delivery of this note, receive twenty shares of the stock...