Wolfe v. Mcclure
| Decision Date | 30 September 1875 |
| Parties | JOHN WOLFE et al.v.ALLEN MCCLURE. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Carroll county; the Hon. W. W. HEATON, Judge, presiding.
Mr. WILLIAM BARGE, and Mr. SHERWOOD DIXON, for the appellants.
Messrs. ARMOUR & SHAW, for the appellee.
This was debt, in the Carroll circuit court, on an indemnifying bond executed to McClure, the sheriff of that county, in the penalty of one thousand dollars, with a condition reciting that, whereas, on the 18th of April, 1871, a writ of replevin issued out of the clerk's office, in favor of John Wolfe, and against Andrew Phillips, directed to the sheriff of Carroll county, and reciting that the sheriff, at the instance of Wolfe, was about to execute the writ, by taking, as Phillips' property, certain articles (naming them) liable to execution and attachment, of the value of five hundred dollars. It was provided, if Wolfe should thereafter and at all times defend, save, keep harmless and indemnify the said McClure, sheriff, as aforesaid, etc., etc., then the obligation to be void.
The bond purports to have been signed by John Wolfe, Eli D. Thomas and John H. Bowman, and was accepted by the sheriff.
To the action, the defendants Thomas and Bowman each pleaded non est factum, verifying the same by their respective oaths. The issue was tried by the court without a jury, and finding and judgment for the plaintiff. To reverse this judgment the defendants appeal.
The bond in question shows an important interlineation, by which the liability of the sureties was largely increased, and the principal question presented was, when was this interlineation made? Appellants testified it was made after the bond was signed, whilst Bradley, the deputy sheriff, who performed the business and had the papers, testified the interlineation was made before the bond was signed. There is a direct conflict between the parties on the point, but as the transaction was three years old when the parties testified, and as Thomas and Bowman spoke from recollection only, that they did not remember seeing the interlineation when they read and signed the bond, and as Bradley knew the effect and consequences of an alteration of a writing after its execution, and swears positively to the fact that the writ and bond were both interlined in the office of Mr. Armour, when the omission was discovered, and before the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. Ward
...... entered into for a good consideration, is valid where it does not contravene the policy of the law and is not repugnant to some statute: Wolfe v. McClure, 79 Ill. 564; Pritchett v. The People, 1 Gilm. 525. [2 Ill.App. 263] The burden of proof is upon the ......
- Bowen v. Lovewell
-
Forbes v. Williams
......Larden, 86 Ill. 361. Any obligation entered into voluntarily and for a good consideration is valid at common law: Wolfe v. McClure, 79 Ill. 564; Tonica & Petersburg R. R. Co. v. McNeely, 21 Ill. 71; Wordsworth v. Thompson, 3 Gilm. 429. As to ......
-
Spillman v. the People
......Ogden, 10 Bradwell, 226; Chilton v. People, 66 Ill. 501; Wolfe v. McClure, 79 Ill. 564; Schill v. Reisdorf, 88 Ill. 411; Richardson v. People, 85 Ill. 495; McLain v. People, 85 Ill. 205; Coons v. People, 76 Ill. ......