Friedlaender v. McCann

Appellate Court of Illinois

Friedlaender v. McCann

91 Ill. App. 415, 1899 Ill. App. LEXIS 723

DecidedOctober 23, 1900

StatusPublished

This text of 91 Ill. App. 415 (Friedlaender v. McCann) 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

Friedlaender v. McCann, 91 Ill. App. 415, 1899 Ill. App. LEXIS 723 (Ill. Ct. App. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion per Curiam.

The questions presented by the record and briefs in this appeal are precisely the same as in the case of Metzger and Baker v. McCann et al. (opinion filed October 10, 1900). The only essential difference between the two cases exists in the fact that the appellant Friedlaender is the owner of the notes secured by trust deed on lot six mentioned in the opinion, and filed his bill to foreclose the lien of said trust deed, while the there appellant, Metzger, is the owner of the notes secured on lots one and two by the trust deed his bill Avas filed to foreclose. Everything that is discussed in the opinion referred to, is equally applicable to this case, and for the reasons stated in that opinion the decree in this case is reversed and the cause remanded to the Superior Court Avith directions to dismiss appellees’petition fora mechanic’s lien and to decree the lien of appellant Friedlaender under said trust deed to be a first and valid lien on said lot six, and to direct a sale of said lot six free from any claim or lien of appellees. The motion to dismiss Baker’s appeal that Avas reserved to the hearing is also denied, his position as to lot six being the same as to lots one and íavo. Beversed and remanded Avith directions.

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

Opinion per Curiam.

The questions presented by the record and briefs in this appeal are precisely the same as in the case of Metzger and Baker v. McCann et al. (opinion filed October 10, 1900). The only essential difference between the two cases exists in the fact that the appellant Friedlaender is the owner of the notes secured by trust deed on lot six mentioned in the opinion, and filed his bill to foreclose the lien of said trust deed, while the there appellant, Metzger, is the owner of the notes secured on lots one and two by the trust deed his bill Avas filed to foreclose. Everything that is discussed in the opinion referred to, is equally applicable to this case, and for the reasons stated in that opinion the decree in this case is reversed and the cause remanded to the Superior Court Avith directions to dismiss appellees’petition fora mechanic’s lien and to decree the lien of appellant Friedlaender under said trust deed to be a first and valid lien on said lot six, and to direct a sale of said lot six free from any claim or lien of appellees. The motion to dismiss Baker’s appeal that Avas reserved to the hearing is also denied, his position as to lot six being the same as to lots one and íavo. Beversed and remanded Avith directions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 Ill. App. 415, 1899 Ill. App. LEXIS 723, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/friedlaender-v-mccann-illappct-1900.