Chrisman v. Garr

Appellate Court of Illinois

Chrisman v. Garr

14 Ill. App. 405, 1883 Ill. App. LEXIS 213

DecidedFebruary 5, 1884

StatusPublished

This text of 14 Ill. App. 405 (Chrisman v. Garr) 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

Chrisman v. Garr, 14 Ill. App. 405, 1883 Ill. App. LEXIS 213 (Ill. Ct. App. 1884).

Pincite

Opinion

Higbee, J.

Plaintiff in error executed and delivered to defendants in error on June 11, 1880, his promissory note for $497 and secured the same by a chattel mortgage on an engine and separator. On the trial of this cause, which was a suit brought on the note, a judgment was rendered against plaintiff in error for the full amount of the note and interest thereon, notwithstanding the undisputed fact, as it appears by the record, that before the suit was commenced, defendants in error had taken possession of the mortgaged property, sold it under the mortgage, and bought it themselves at the sale for the sum of $695. Plaintiff in error claimed the benefit- of this credit on the trial of the cause and was entitled to it under the pleadings and proofs, and no good reason is shown why it was not allowed him.

The plea of usury was not sustained. The note was made in the State of Indiana and it was not shown to have been usurious by the laws of that State.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Beversed and remanded.

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

Higbee, J.

Plaintiff in error executed and delivered to defendants in error on June 11, 1880, his promissory note for $497 and secured the same by a chattel mortgage on an engine and separator. On the trial of this cause, which was a suit brought on the note, a judgment was rendered against plaintiff in error for the full amount of the note and interest thereon, notwithstanding the undisputed fact, as it appears by the record, that before the suit was commenced, defendants in error had taken possession of the mortgaged property, sold it under the mortgage, and bought it themselves at the sale for the sum of $695. Plaintiff in error claimed the benefit- of this credit on the trial of the cause and was entitled to it under the pleadings and proofs, and no good reason is shown why it was not allowed him.

The plea of usury was not sustained. The note was made in the State of Indiana and it was not shown to have been usurious by the laws of that State.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Beversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 Ill. App. 405, 1883 Ill. App. LEXIS 213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chrisman-v-garr-illappct-1884.