Prout v. Lomer
| Decision Date | 30 September 1875 |
| Citation | 79 Ill. 331,1875 WL 8629 |
| Parties | AUGUSTUS C. PROUTv.D. HERMAN LOMER et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. WILLIAM W. FARWELL, Judge, presiding.
Messrs. CHASE & CROOKER, for the appellant.
Messrs. HITCHCOCK & DUPEE, for the appellees. Mr. JUSTICE BREESE delivered the opinion of the Court:
Two questions are presented by this record: First, and preliminary, Does an appeal lie in the case? Second, Is there equity in the bill?
In answer to the first question, it is only necessary to say, the bill of complaint filed was for an injunction, and that only. Disposing of the injunction disposed of the case. That an appeal lies in such case, is settled in Titus et al. v. Mabee, 25 Ill. 257, and subsequent cases.
Upon the second question, the bill charges that the notes, the collection of which is sought to be enjoined, were given by complainant for the accommodation of Lomer, and procured by fraudulent statements made by Lomer, and held by the bank as collateral to Lomer's indebtedness to the bank, alleging that the bank has other and adequate security.
The case is argued by appellant on the theory that he occupies the position of a surety, and can therefore direct the course the creditors shall pursue as to the principal debtor. He contends, the bank, having other and sufficient collaterals, is bound to exhaust them before calling upon complainant, and invokes the aid of an acknowledged principle of equity, that, when a party has a lien or interest in two funds, out of either of which his debt can be paid, and another party has a lien or interest on one only of the funds for his debt, the latter has the right in equity to compel the former to resort to the other fund in the first instance, for satisfaction, whenever it will not trench upon the rights or operate to the prejudice of the party entitled to the double fund.
This principle, we understand, is applicable to sureties only. Such may compel the creditor to resort to a fund in which he has an exclusive interest, before resorting to the fund to which the surety can only resort. But that is not this case. Appellant is in no sense a surety. He is the principal debtor on the note. Cronise v. Kellogg, 20 Ill. 11. We are aware of no principle by which the bank can be compelled to any particular course in regard to such collaterals as it may have. We fail to perceive any obligation on the bank to convert its securities or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dilworth v. Fbderal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
...449; Hanesley v. National Park Bank, 147 Ga. 96, 92 S.E. 879; Chandler v. Merchants & M. Nat. Bank, 30 Ga.App. 694, 118 S.E. 785; Prout v. Lomar, 79 Ill. 331; Dallemand v. of Nova Scotia, 54 Ill.App. 600; Elk Valley Coal Co. v. Third Nat. Bank, 157 Ky. 617, 163 S.W. 766; Haas v. Bank of Com......
-
Dilworth v. Federal Reserve Bank Of St. Louis
... ... National Park Bank, 147 ... Ga. 96, 92 S.E. 879; Chandler v. Merchants & M. Nat. Bank, 30 ... Ga.App. 694, 118 S.E. [170 Miss. 380] 785; Prout v. Lomar, 79 ... Ill. 331; Dallemand v. Bank of Nova Scotia, 54 Ill.App. 600; ... Elk Valley Coal Co. v. Third Nat. Bank, 157 Ky. 617, 163 S.W ... ...
- Leonard v. Garland
-
Citizens' Bank & Trust Co. of Belzoni v. McCoy
... ... 6; Hanesley v. National Bank, ... 147 Ga. 96, 92 S.E. 879; Chandler v. Merchants & M ... Bank, 30 Ga.App. 694, 118 S.E. 785; Prout v ... Lomer, 79 Ill. 331; Dellemand v. Bank of Nova ... Scotia, 54 Ill.App. 600; Elk Valley Coal Co. v ... Third Nat. Bank, 157 Ky. 617, 163 ... ...