Uedelhofen v. Mason

• Citation: 201 Ill. 465,66 N.E. 364
• Parties: UEDELHOFEN et al. v. MASON et al.
• Decision Date: 18 February 1903
• Court: Supreme Court of Illinois

201 Ill. 465

66 N.E. 364

UEDELHOFEN et al.

v.MASON et al.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 18, 1903.

Appeal from appellate court, First district.

Bill by John B. Mason and another against Nikolaus Uedelhofen and another for the foreclosure of a deed of trust. From a judgment in favor of defendants, reversed by the appellate court (102 Ill. App. 116), defendants appeal. Affirmed.James J. Barbour, for appellants.

Ives, Mason & Wyman, for appellees.

The appellees John B. Mason and Henry P. Kransz brought their bill in equity in the superior court of Cook county against the appellants, Nikolaus and Katharina Uedelhofen, to foreclose, as a mortgage, a deed of trust on real estate given to secure the payment of appellants' note for $1,000 and interest. The note was payable to the order of the makers, and indorsed in blank. The complainant Mason claimed to be the legal holder. Kransz was the trustee in the deed of trust. Before the trial the appellee John A. Schmidt was also made a complainant by amendment to the bill. The appellants failed to perform their covenant to keep the property insured as further security for the debt, and to repay the amount paid out by the holder of the note for such insurance and for procuring an abstract, and, in accordance with the provisions of the deed of trust, the note and interest thereon were declared to the due and payable. The bill was then filed. On the hearing it appeared that complainant Schmidt, and not Mason, was the legal holder of the note, but the defendants' failure to keep their covenants having been proved, the chancellor entered a decree as prayed, finding that Mason was the legal holder of the note, and that there was due him for principal and interest, and for moneys paid for insurance and for abstract of title, and $150 solicitor's fees stipulated for in the deed of trust, the total sum of $1,244.14, and ordering sale of the property after 20 days, if not paid. After praying an appeal, and obtaining time for filing a certificate of evidence, the defendants (appellants here) moved the court to amend the decree by striking out the allowance of solicitor's fees and the costs of suit, ‘and also that said decree be in other respects amended so it will conform to the evidence in the cause.’ A continuance was granted, and at the March term said motion was heard, and the chancellor entered a decree reciting the motion, and stating that the defendants had, upon the hearing of the motion, tendered the complainants $1,112.15 to satisfy the amount unpaid on the notes, insurance, and abstract fees mentioned in the bill, and that, the complainants having refused in open court to accept such tender as a complete satisfaction of their demands alleged to be due, the court finds ‘that the evidence considered upon the hearing of this cause and preserved in the certificate of evidence filed herein on February 23, 1901, doth not sustain...