Brewster v. Peter Schoenhofen Brewing Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Brewster v. Peter Schoenhofen Brewing Co.

66 Ill. App. 276, 1896 Ill. App. LEXIS 668

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedJune 29, 1896

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 66 Ill. App. 276 (Brewster v. Peter Schoenhofen Brewing Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brewster v. Peter Schoenhofen Brewing Co., 66 Ill. App. 276, 1896 Ill. App. LEXIS 668 (Ill. Ct. App. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Waterman

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Appellant insists that the plaintiff was estopped from offering evidence of the terms of the sale to Radtke, or that at the time of the execution of the mortgage the possession of the ^property was in appellee, because such evidence, it is alleged, was in contradiction of the recitals in the mortgage. In support, of its contention, appellant cites Schultz v. Plankinton Bank, 141 Ill. 116. That case was between a mortgagee and one in privity therewith, claiming thereunder. As such privy and claimant, Schultz was not allowed to contradict the terms of the written instrument under which he sought to defend. In the present case, appellee is a party to the mortgage, while appellant is neither party nor privy thereto. Appellant is not estopped by anything in the mortgage, and therefore in a suit with him, appellee is not; estoppels are mutual. Bigelow on Estoppel, 334; 1 Greenleaf on Ev., 13th Ed., Secs. 211-379.

But for the transaction resulting in the mortgage, Badtke would not have had the property which is the subject of the present controversy, and, consequently, appellant’s execution would not have been levied thereon.

Only by reason of the one transaction, sale and mortgage, was appellant’s execution made a lien at all; by reason of the sale and mortgage the execution became a lien subject to that of the mortgage. Paterson v. Higgins, 58 Ill. App. 268; Curtis v. Root, 23 Ill. 53-58; Van Duzor v. Allen, 90 Ill. 499; Blatchford v. Boyden, 122 Ill. 657.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Justice Waterman

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Appellant insists that the plaintiff was estopped from offering evidence of the terms of the sale to Radtke, or that at the time of the execution of the mortgage the possession of the ^property was in appellee, because such evidence, it is alleged, was in contradiction of the recitals in the mortgage. In support, of its contention, appellant cites Schultz v. Plankinton Bank, 141 Ill. 116. That case was between a mortgagee and one in privity therewith, claiming thereunder. As such privy and claimant, Schultz was not allowed to contradict the terms of the written instrument under which he sought to defend. In the present case, appellee is a party to the mortgage, while appellant is neither party nor privy thereto. Appellant is not estopped by anything in the mortgage, and therefore in a suit with him, appellee is not; estoppels are mutual. Bigelow on Estoppel, 334; 1 Greenleaf on Ev., 13th Ed., Secs. 211-379.

But for the transaction resulting in the mortgage, Badtke would not have had the property which is the subject of the present controversy, and, consequently, appellant’s execution would not have been levied thereon.

Only by reason of the one transaction, sale and mortgage, was appellant’s execution made a lien at all; by reason of the sale and mortgage the execution became a lien subject to that of the mortgage. Paterson v. Higgins, 58 Ill. App. 268; Curtis v. Root, 23 Ill. 53-58; Van Duzor v. Allen, 90 Ill. 499; Blatchford v. Boyden, 122 Ill. 657.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 Ill. App. 276, 1896 Ill. App. LEXIS 668, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brewster-v-peter-schoenhofen-brewing-co-illappct-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack