Hough v. Wells

Appellate Court of Illinois

Hough v. Wells

86 Ill. App. 186, 1898 Ill. App. LEXIS 862

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedDecember 19, 1899

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 86 Ill. App. 186 (Hough v. Wells) 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

Hough v. Wells, 86 Ill. App. 186, 1898 Ill. App. LEXIS 862 (Ill. Ct. App. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Shepard

delivered the opinion of the court.

This appeal is from a decree of sale in a mortgage foreclosure proceeding. The decree finds that there is due to the appellee, for principal and interest, $2,268.68, and for solicitor’s fees five per centum thereon, to wit, $113.43, and orders a sale of the mortgaged premises unless the amount found due be paid within fi ve days.

The only errors urged are (1), the allowance of solicitor’s fees, and (2) that the depositions of the witnesses who testified before the master are not signed, and their signatures were not waived.

The trust deed provides for the allowance of a solicitor’s fee equal to five per centum upon the amount of the principal and interest, in case of default, and a bill being filed to foreclose. In addition thereto, it was testified, by an attorney practicing at the Chicago bar, that a solicitor’s fee equal to five per centum upon the amount found due was a customary and reasonable fee in the cause. There was no error in respect of the solicitor’s fee. Springer v. Cochran, 84 Ill. App. 644.

The objections that the depositions taken before the master are not signed by the witnesses is first made in this court.

This might have been good ground to suppress the evidence had a motion been entered in the Circuit Court for that purpose, but appellant has waived the objection by his silence. Made for the first time in this court, the objection comes too late. Jones v. King, 86 Ill. 225.

Appellee asks that the decree be affirmed with statutory damages of ten per centum for delay, under Sec. 23, Ch. 33, R. S., entitled “ Costs,” and, following Town v. Alexander, 85 Ill. App. 512, the court being of opinion that the appeal is prosecuted for delay, the order is that the decree be affirmed, and judgment entered against appellant in favor of appellee for five per centum on $2,268.68, the amount found due by the decree for principal and interest, and that execution issue therefor. Affirmed with five per cent damages.

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

Mr. Justice Shepard

delivered the opinion of the court.

This appeal is from a decree of sale in a mortgage foreclosure proceeding. The decree finds that there is due to the appellee, for principal and interest, $2,268.68, and for solicitor’s fees five per centum thereon, to wit, $113.43, and orders a sale of the mortgaged premises unless the amount found due be paid within fi ve days.

The only errors urged are (1), the allowance of solicitor’s fees, and (2) that the depositions of the witnesses who testified before the master are not signed, and their signatures were not waived.

The trust deed provides for the allowance of a solicitor’s fee equal to five per centum upon the amount of the principal and interest, in case of default, and a bill being filed to foreclose. In addition thereto, it was testified, by an attorney practicing at the Chicago bar, that a solicitor’s fee equal to five per centum upon the amount found due was a customary and reasonable fee in the cause. There was no error in respect of the solicitor’s fee. Springer v. Cochran, 84 Ill. App. 644.

The objections that the depositions taken before the master are not signed by the witnesses is first made in this court.

This might have been good ground to suppress the evidence had a motion been entered in the Circuit Court for that purpose, but appellant has waived the objection by his silence. Made for the first time in this court, the objection comes too late. Jones v. King, 86 Ill. 225.

Appellee asks that the decree be affirmed with statutory damages of ten per centum for delay, under Sec. 23, Ch. 33, R. S., entitled “ Costs,” and, following Town v. Alexander, 85 Ill. App. 512, the court being of opinion that the appeal is prosecuted for delay, the order is that the decree be affirmed, and judgment entered against appellant in favor of appellee for five per centum on $2,268.68, the amount found due by the decree for principal and interest, and that execution issue therefor. Affirmed with five per cent damages.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 Ill. App. 186, 1898 Ill. App. LEXIS 862, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hough-v-wells-illappct-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack