Brinkerhoff v. Telford

Appellate Court of Illinois

Brinkerhoff v. Telford

58 Ill. App. 56, 1894 Ill. App. LEXIS 517

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedMarch 23, 1895

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 58 Ill. App. 56 (Brinkerhoff v. Telford) 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

Brinkerhoff v. Telford, 58 Ill. App. 56, 1894 Ill. App. LEXIS 517 (Ill. Ct. App. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Sample

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Brinkerhoff and Oliver obtained a judgment against Tel-ford in the Circuit Court for commissions for securing a loan for him. Telford was not present in court at the time judgment was rendered, but was sick at his home in the country. After judgment the facts in regard to his illness, and the alleged facts in regard to the conduct of one Whitlow, Avho Avas the agent of the plaintiffs, were set out fully in affidavits filed in support of a motion for new trial. These affidavits tended to show that Telford had a meritorious defense, Avhich he Avas prevented from making by the misconduct of WhitloAV. Counter affidavits or evidence was heard, and the motion for a new trial was overruled and the case appealed to this court, where the judgment was affirmed. After that, this case was begun in chancery by Telford, to set aside said judgment, to which Whitlow was made a party defendant, Avith Brinkerhoff and Oliver.

The bill sets up substantially the same facts that were set out in the affidavits used on the motion for uoav trial. It alleges the defendants conspired to deceive and defraud Telford. It Avould be useless to set out in detail the evidence introduced on this trial and on the motion for a new trial, and go into a minute analysis thereof. It is conclusion and not argument that is wanted in an opinion based upon facts. After a careful investigation of the exddence, we are unable to find that any conspiracy existed on the part of any of the defendants to defraud or deceive Telford, and especially are we unable to find that Whitlow designed or desired to mislead him. The bill is based upon such alleged fraud of WhitloAV. These averments are the life of this case. Our finding, therefore, defeats it. Ward v. Durham, 134 Ill. 195.

- The subject-matter of this bill was litigated in the case of Telford v. Brinkerhoff et al., 45 Ill. App. 586, and therefore it is res adjudieata.

It is unnecessary to look into other questions raised in the arguments of counsel. The decree will be and is hereby reversed, with directions to dismiss the bill.

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

Mr. Justice Sample

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Brinkerhoff and Oliver obtained a judgment against Tel-ford in the Circuit Court for commissions for securing a loan for him. Telford was not present in court at the time judgment was rendered, but was sick at his home in the country. After judgment the facts in regard to his illness, and the alleged facts in regard to the conduct of one Whitlow, Avho Avas the agent of the plaintiffs, were set out fully in affidavits filed in support of a motion for new trial. These affidavits tended to show that Telford had a meritorious defense, Avhich he Avas prevented from making by the misconduct of WhitloAV. Counter affidavits or evidence was heard, and the motion for a new trial was overruled and the case appealed to this court, where the judgment was affirmed. After that, this case was begun in chancery by Telford, to set aside said judgment, to which Whitlow was made a party defendant, Avith Brinkerhoff and Oliver.

The bill sets up substantially the same facts that were set out in the affidavits used on the motion for uoav trial. It alleges the defendants conspired to deceive and defraud Telford. It Avould be useless to set out in detail the evidence introduced on this trial and on the motion for a new trial, and go into a minute analysis thereof. It is conclusion and not argument that is wanted in an opinion based upon facts. After a careful investigation of the exddence, we are unable to find that any conspiracy existed on the part of any of the defendants to defraud or deceive Telford, and especially are we unable to find that Whitlow designed or desired to mislead him. The bill is based upon such alleged fraud of WhitloAV. These averments are the life of this case. Our finding, therefore, defeats it. Ward v. Durham, 134 Ill. 195.

- The subject-matter of this bill was litigated in the case of Telford v. Brinkerhoff et al., 45 Ill. App. 586, and therefore it is res adjudieata.

It is unnecessary to look into other questions raised in the arguments of counsel. The decree will be and is hereby reversed, with directions to dismiss the bill.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 Ill. App. 56, 1894 Ill. App. LEXIS 517, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brinkerhoff-v-telford-illappct-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack