Templeton v. William S. Horne.
| Decision Date | 30 June 1876 |
| Citation | 1876 WL 10236,82 Ill. 491 |
| Parties | JOHN A. TEMPLETON et al.v.WILLIAM S. HORNE. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Warren county; the Hon. ARTHUR A. SMITH, Judge, presiding.
Mr. JOHN J. GLENN, for the appellants.
Messrs. MARSHALL & STREET, for the appellee.
Both parties claim to own the title to the premises in controversy that was in the Mechanic's Manufacturing Company. The title which defendants insist is paramount, is derived through a sale under a trust deed executed by that company, and also under a master's sale on a decree establishing a mechanic's lien against the manufacturing company, in favor of certain creditors, and which were declared to be prior liens to the trust deed. On the other hand, the title plaintiff is seeking to maintain comes to him under a sheriff's sale of the premises on executions in favor of judgment creditors of the manufacturing company, who had caused their executions to be levied upon the property, and had redeemed it from the sale under the mechanic's lien decree. The contracts made by the mechanics and material-men with the manufacturing company were made before the act of 1869, allowing redemption from sales under such decrees, was in force. Proceedings to establish their respective liens had been instituted, but no decree was pronounced until after that act took effect. The decree then made allowed redemption of the property sold according to the provisions of the statute. That portion of the decree, it is now assumed, was invalid, and the reason assigned is, that it impairs the obligation of the contracts made with the manufacturing company by the several mechanics and material-men.
The parties whose rights it is insisted are affected are not before this court complaining that the obligation of their contracts with the manufacturing company has been impaired by any action of the legislature, and it seems illogical that defendants can avail of that which most materially affects others. The purchaser at that sale knew he was buying the property subject to redemption, and we are at a loss to understand what right he has to complain. He gets all he bought, and, in justice, he can claim no more. His title, whatever it is, was obtained under that decree, and it would seem he ought to be estopped to deny it was valid.
But leaving out of view this consideration, we do not think the position taken can be maintained. No doubt the law of 1869, if it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Turner v. John
...222. The right to a particular remedy is not a vested right. Cooley Const. Lim. (5th Ed.) 443; Woodbury v. Grimes, 1 Colo. 100; Templeton v. Horne, 82 Ill. 491; Watson v. Co., 47 N.Y. 157; Frost v. Ilsley, 54 Me. 345; Hall v. Bunte, 20 Ind. 304; Smith v. Bryan, 34 Ill. 364. Cochrane & Corli......
-
Kendall v. Fader
...constitute no part of the contracts themselves, and are within the control of the legislature. Smith v. Bryan, 34 Ill. 364;Templeton v. Horne, 82 Ill. 491;Woods v. Soucy, 166 Ill. 407, 47 N. E. 67. Here, however, the allowance of such lien for an attorney's fee, when it was not authorized b......
-
Natural Carbon Paint Co. v. Fred Bredel Co.
... ... appellee contends that Turney v. Saunders, 4 Scam ... (Ill.) 527, 532, and Templeton v. Horne, 82 ... Ill. 491, state the rule otherwise, and leave the question ... open for an ... ...
-
Woods v. Soucy
...v. Goold, 11 N. Y. 281. For other authorities on the subject, see 23 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 504; Farmer v. People, 77 Ill. 322;Templeton v. Horne, 82 Ill. 491;Williams v. Waldo, 3 Scam. 264;People v. Riggs, 56 Ill. 483;Bank v. Willard, 24 Ill. 433. Holding, as we do, that the act of 1865 appl......