Terry v. the Trustees of Eureka Coll..

Decision Date30 September 1873
Citation1873 WL 8583,70 Ill. 236
PartiesNANCY TERRY et al.v.THE TRUSTEES OF EUREKA COLLEGE.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

WRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of Woodford county; the Hon. SAMUEL L. RICHMOND, Judge, presiding.

This was a bill in chancery, by the trustees of Eureka College, against Nancy Terry and N. B. Terry, her husband, to foreclose a deed of trust. The opinion states the necessary facts.

Messrs. CLARK & KETTELLE, for the plaintiffs in error.

Messrs. BANGS & SHAW, and Messrs. BRIGGS & MEEK, for the defendants in error. Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE BREESE delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was a bill in chancery, in the Woodford circuit court, to foreclose a trust deed, as it is called. The sheriff returned the summons duly served upon the defendants, and the bill taken for confessed against them, and the matters thereof decreed to complainants.

A sale of the premises was made by the master on the terms of the decree. On the coming in of his report, various objections were made to it by the defendants, which were disallowed by the court, and his report approved, and confirmed, to all which defendants excepted, and bring the record here by writ of error. They make the point that the bill of complaint was prematurely filed, the notes not being due.

There is no ground for this objection. By the terms of the deed, the whole amount became due and payable on default in the payment of the interest on the notes. Another point is, that the deed was not admissible in evidence, for the reason it was not acknowledged by the grantors, one of whom, and the owner of the property, being a married woman.

There is no force in this objection. The bill alleges the defendants made, executed, and acknowledged and delivered the deed to complainants, and the default of defendants admits the fact, and concludes them. Williams et al v. Soutter, 55 Ill. 130.

Since the act of 1869, the deed of a married woman is valid and binding upon her, though not acknowledged as required by the act of 1845. The deed in question was executed on the 19th of August, 1870. Under the act of 1869, the execution of the deed by the wife could be proved as in the case of a feme sole. Sess. Laws 1869, p. 359. As, by the default, she admitted the execution of the deed, as charged in the bill of complaint, proof of its execution was unnecessary. The sheriff's return, if defective, or not according to the precise fact, as to the mode of service, could be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • La Salle Cnty. v. Milligan
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • October 18, 1892
    ...Planing Mill Co. v. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 97 Ill. 294;Thrifts v. Fritz, 101 Ill. 457;Howell v. Insurance Co., 62 Ill. 50;Terry v. Eureka College, 70 Ill. 236;Thatcher v. Miller, 13 Mass. 271. But the amendment can only be made by the officer who made the return, and upon proper notice. Wils......
  • Ledford v. Weber
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • July 31, 1880
  • Gorham v. Farson
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • January 25, 1887
    ...were begun, and by filing his bill declared all notes due for failure in payment of first note, as he had a right to do. Terry v. Eureka College, 70 Ill. 236;Princeton L. T. Co. v. Munson, 60 Ill. 371;Chapin v. Billings, 91 Ill. 539;Hoodless v. Reid, 112 Ill. 105.Abbott & Johnson, (E. A. Cr......
  • Race v. Sullivan
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • April 30, 1878
  • 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