Brown v. Richardson

Appellate Court of Illinois

Brown v. Richardson

77 Ill. App. 436, 1898 Ill. App. LEXIS 71

DecidedAugust 31, 1898

StatusPublished

This text of 77 Ill. App. 436 (Brown v. Richardson) 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

Brown v. Richardson, 77 Ill. App. 436, 1898 Ill. App. LEXIS 71 (Ill. Ct. App. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

Hr. Justice Worthington

delivered the opinion of the court.

This action was brought to foreclose a mortgage securing a promissory note for $500. Defendants in error claim that the note is paid. Plaintiff in error denies payment. This is the only issue in the case. The testimony is squarely conflicting. It would serve no useful purpose to review or analyze it. There is abundant evidence to sustain the finding of the chancellor that the note has been paid if the witnesses who testified to its payment told the truth. He saw and heard them, and for this reason was better qualified to pass upon their testimony than we are. Findings of facts by the chancellor upon oral evidence will not be disturbed unless clearly against the preponderance of evidence. Burgett et al. v. Osborne et al., 172 Ill. 227.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Hr. Justice Worthington

delivered the opinion of the court.

This action was brought to foreclose a mortgage securing a promissory note for $500. Defendants in error claim that the note is paid. Plaintiff in error denies payment. This is the only issue in the case. The testimony is squarely conflicting. It would serve no useful purpose to review or analyze it. There is abundant evidence to sustain the finding of the chancellor that the note has been paid if the witnesses who testified to its payment told the truth. He saw and heard them, and for this reason was better qualified to pass upon their testimony than we are. Findings of facts by the chancellor upon oral evidence will not be disturbed unless clearly against the preponderance of evidence. Burgett et al. v. Osborne et al., 172 Ill. 227.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 Ill. App. 436, 1898 Ill. App. LEXIS 71, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-richardson-illappct-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack