Shannon v. Hall
| Decision Date | 30 June 1874 |
| Citation | 1874 WL 8822,72 Ill. 354,22 Am.Rep. 146 |
| Parties | ALBERT R. SHANNON et al.v.JAMES HALL et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
WRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of Wabash county; the Hon. JAMES M. POLLOCK, Judge, presiding. Messrs. BELL & GREEN, for the plaintiffs in error.
Mr. S. Z. LANDES, for the defendants in error.
This was a bill in equity, in the Wabash circuit court, exhibited at the April term, 1871, by Albert R. Shannon and James R. Webb, executors of the last will and testament of Samuel D. Ready, deceased, to foreclose a mortgage on certain lots in the town of Mt. Carmel, executed by one William T. Page to Ready, in his lifetime.
Page was brought in by publication, and the other defendants appeared and answered. At this stage of the proceedings, it was agreed between the parties that the answers should be considered as if sworn to by all the defendants; that, in addition to the bill, answer, exhibits and replications, the following shall be taken as all the facts proved on the hearing and considered by the court: That the principal of the note and the interest accrued since November 1, 1865, are unpaid, the interest having been paid annually by Page to that time; that the mortgage in question was executed, acknowledged and recorded as alleged; that all of the deed and mortgage records were destroyed by fire when the court house was burned, April 7, 1857, and that the mortgage was not afterwards recorded; that Hall purchased and paid for the premises without any information or knowledge of the existence of the mortgage, and that those claiming under him purchased without notice; that a commission was held under the act referred to for about nineteen months, and that Ready knew, in the summer of 1865, that Hall was in possession of the mortgaged premises, claiming to have perfect title to the same.
The court, on this state of facts, found the equities to be with the defendants, and dismissed the bill of complaint, with costs.
To reverse this decree, the complainants bring the record here by writ of error, relying, for a reversal, upon the fact that the mortgage was duly recorded, and was notice to all persons, and though the record was subsequently destroyed by fire, still Hall and all others were affected by it. They insist that, inasmuch as Ready, their testator, had, in due time, placed the mortgage on record, he had done all the law required, and that from that day all persons are presumed to have notice thereof; and they further insist that the destruction of the record by fire destroyed none of his rights, and that, although a law was passed by the General Assembly to restore the records so burnt and destroyed, he was under no obligation to incur the trouble and expense of its restoration, and claim that the deed, when filed for record and recorded, was notice to all the world from the time of filing the same.
On the other side, it is insisted, as the note, to secure which the mortgage was executed, matured eighteen years before Hall purchased from Page, and twenty-two years before Hall sold to the Fredericks and Webert, twenty-four years before ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Paxson v. Brown
...caveat emptor threw upon the purchaser from his grantor the burden of loss from fire, flood, or the carelessness of officials. Shannon v. Hall, 72 Ill. 354, 355; Gammon v. Hodges, 73 Ill. 140, 141; v. Prather, 84 Ill. 330, 349; Fitch v. Boyer, 51 Tex. 336, 349; Armentrout v. Gibbons, 30 Gra......
-
Asher v. Mitchell
...85 Ill. 328. Mr. WM. M. JACKSON and Messrs. SNEDEKER & HAMILTON, for defendant in error; as to notice by recording of deed, cited Shannon v. Hall, 72 Ill. 354; Farrar v. Payne, 73 Ill. 82; Hall v. Shannon, 85 Ill. 473. A purchaser pendente lite is bound by the decree, the same as parties to......
-
Cooper v. Flesner
... ... Lowry & Lowry, for plaintiff in error, citing: Wilson's Rev. & Ann. St. 888, 2788, 2789, 2790; Wade on Law of Notice, 3, 4, 5; Shannon v. Hall, 72 Ill. 354. Geo. P. Uhl, for defendants in error, citing: Weber v. Morse (Tex.) 21 S.W. 609; Stanley v. Schwalby, 162 U.S. 255, 276 ... ...
-
Battenhausen v. Bullock
...was bound to take notice of the trust deed, and the purchase was subject to it, cited Buchanan v. International Bank, 78 Ill. 500; Shannon v. Hall, 72 Ill. 354; Hall v. Shannon, 85 Ill. 473; King v. McVickar, 3 Sandf. Ch. 193; Oliver v. Piatt 3 How. 333; C. R. I. & P. R. R. Co. v. Kennedy, ......