Howett v. Selby
54 Ill. 151
Opinion
delivered the opinion of the Court:
As between the mortgagee, Howett, and the mechanics in this case, the court decreed in conformity with the rule laid down in Crosby v. N. W. Manuf. Co. 48 Ill. 481, and in previous cases. As to the seventy-three dollars claimed by Howett for materials furnished, he can not complain that this claim was postponed to that of the mechanics who had filed their petitions, since he does not make this claim in his cross bill, and only sets it up in his answer. We find no error in the record.
Decree affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Howett v. Selby, 54 Ill. 151 (Ill. 1870).
54 Ill. 151 (Howett v. Selby) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
LaSalle Bank National Ass'n v. Cypress Creek 1, LP
950 N.E.2d 1109 (Illinois Supreme Court, 2011)
LaSalle Bank National Association v. Cypress Creek 1
Illinois Supreme Court, 2011
Moulding-Brownell Corp. v. E. C. Delfosse Construction Co.
26 N.E.2d 709 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1940)
Mitchell v. Robinovitz
272 Ill. App. 414 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1933)
Albrecht v. Buelow
191 Ill. App. 481 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1915)
Clark v. Moore
64 Ill. 273 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1872)