Clark v. Conrad

Appellate Court of Illinois

Clark v. Conrad

201 Ill. App. 549

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedOctober 18, 1916

DocketGen. No. 21,329

StatusPublished

This text of 201 Ill. App. 549 (Clark v. Conrad) 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

Clark v. Conrad, 201 Ill. App. 549 (Ill. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Taylor

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. Compromise and settlement, § 11*—when rights of judgment debtor under settlement agreement not forfeited. A judgment debtor held not to have forfeited his right under an escrow agreement with the judgment creditor, whereby on payment of certain sums at certain times the judgment was to be canceled, where, though in default, he had made tender to the party in whose hands the escrow agreement had been placed, which payment was however refused because of lack of authority to receive it, and made tender to other parties which was also refused, he not having been able to locate the former attorney for the creditor, who drew the agreement, though he could, by the exercise of diligence, have found out the residence of the creditor or the party who was acting as her agent to receive payrhent, time not being of the essence of such agreement.

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

Mr. Justice Taylor

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. Compromise and settlement, § 11*—when rights of judgment debtor under settlement agreement not forfeited. A judgment debtor held not to have forfeited his right under an escrow agreement with the judgment creditor, whereby on payment of certain sums at certain times the judgment was to be canceled, where, though in default, he had made tender to the party in whose hands the escrow agreement had been placed, which payment was however refused because of lack of authority to receive it, and made tender to other parties which was also refused, he not having been able to locate the former attorney for the creditor, who drew the agreement, though he could, by the exercise of diligence, have found out the residence of the creditor or the party who was acting as her agent to receive payrhent, time not being of the essence of such agreement.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 Ill. App. 549, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-v-conrad-illappct-1916.