Nolan v. Jackson

Citation16 Ill. 272,6 Peck 272,1855 WL 5410
PartiesBERNARD NOLAN, Administrator,v.ALEXANDER J. JACKSON.
Decision Date30 June 1855
CourtSupreme Court of Illinois

16 Ill. 272
1855 WL 5410 (Ill.)
6 Peck (IL) 272

BERNARD NOLAN, Administrator,
v.
ALEXANDER J. JACKSON.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June Term, 1855.


[16 Ill. 273]

THIS cause was tried by SHELDON, Judge, at the March term, 1855, of the Jo Daviess Circuit Court.

A. L. CUMMINGS, for Appellant.J. A. ROWLINS, for Appellee.

SKINNER, J.

Bernard Nolan, administrator of Bernard Nolan, deceased, sued Alexander J. Jackson in assumpsit, in the Jo Daviess circuit court. The parties submitted the cause to the court for trial. The bill of exceptions shows that the parties agreed that Jackson bought, at public sale, made by Nolan as administrator of Bernard Nolan, deceased, a lot in Galena for the sum of $395; that Jackson has paid Nolan $195, all of the purchase money except $200, and interest on the whole amount. Nolan denies that said $200 have ever been paid to him, or to any person for him authorized to receive the same. Jackson avers that said $300 have been paid. This is the only matter between the parties except interest on said $395.

A deed from Nolan, as administrator of Bernard Nolan, deceased, to Jackson for the lot, was read in evidence. Robert Brond then testified, that he was acquainted with the handwriting of B. D. Jackson, deceased, a brother of Alexander J. Jackson, and that the signature to the paper shown him was in the handwriting of said B. D. Jackson. This paper was read, bore date the 29th of November, 1853, and purported to be a receipt to Alexander J. Jackson for $197.50, half of the purchase money for the lot, and recited that the sale was made on the 26th day of November, 1853, and that said Jackson would be entitled to a deed on complying with the terms of sale, and was signed “B. D. Jackson, attorney for Bernard Nolan, administrator of the estate of Bernard Nolan, deceased.” The witness further testified that he sold the lot as auctioneer, for $395, half cash and half in six months, with interest; that the sale was made on the 26th day of November, 1843; that B. D. Jackson employed him to sell the lot as auctioneer; that he made the sale at his request, but did not receive the purchase money; that Nolan and B. D. Jackson were present at the sale; that B. D. Jackson took an active interest in the sale; that B. D. Jackson requested Alexander J. Jackson to go down with himself and Nolan to his office to pay the money; that they all together went down the street towards said office; that he did not know who received the money; that B. D. Jackson paid him...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • Welge v. Batty
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • May 31, 1882
    ......440; Willitts v. Paine, 43 Ill. 432; Marc v. Kuffer, 34 Ill. 286;         [11 Ill.App. 463] Kuffer v. Marc, 28 Ill. 388; Nolan v. Jackson, 16 Ill. 272; 2 Parsons on Contracts, 615; Edwards on Bills, 550.         An acceptance by a creditor is conditional upon the ......
  • Kurrus v. Mayo
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • July 31, 1879
    ......108]         In support of instruction as to lack of authority in the attorney to agree to dismissal: People v. Sanborn, 2 Scam. 123; Nolan v. Jackson, 16 Ill. 272; Trumbull v. Nicholson, 27 Ill. 149; Vickery v. McClellan, 61 Ill. 311; Wadhams v. Hieland, 67 Ill. 278.        Not ......
  • Dorchester Trust Co. v. Casey
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • September 27, 1929
    ......Lockhart v. Wyatt, 10 Ala. 231, 235, 44 Am. Dec. 481;Nolan v. Jackson, 16 Ill. 272, 275;Roberts v. Smith, 3 La. Ann. 205;Pendexter v. Vernon, 9 Humph (Tenn.) 84;Varnum v. Bellamy, Fed. Cas. No. 16,886, 4 ......
  • Danziger v. Pittsfield Shoe Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • October 26, 1903
    ......They cannot compromise the debt, give day of judgment, receive a less amount in satisfaction, or receive in payment anything but money.’ Nolan v. Jackson, 16 Ill. 272;Lochenmeyer v. Fogarty, 112 Ill. 572. Nor can it be said that there is any ratification of such contract of settlement by the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT