Keller v. Bading

Appellate Court of Illinois

Keller v. Bading

64 Ill. App. 198, 1896 Ill. App. LEXIS 879

DecidedApril 27, 1896

StatusPublished

This text of 64 Ill. App. 198 (Keller v. Bading) 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

Keller v. Bading, 64 Ill. App. 198, 1896 Ill. App. LEXIS 879 (Ill. Ct. App. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Gary

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Very shortly stated, this case is: Bading and wife, as tenants in common (Cooper v. Cooper, 76 Ill. 57), owned a lot from which part had been taken in proceedings under the eminent domain act, and the money for it was in the hands of the county treasurer. There was a mortgage upon the lot executed by the husband and wife, and a judgment later in the Circuit Court against the husband, in favor of the appellants.

The husband and wife filed this bill to have the court, decide who should have the money, and the appellants demurred. Their demurrer being overruled, and they electing to stand by it, the court awarded the money, by consent of the husband and wife, to the mortgagee, who had asked for it by answer only, filing no cross-bill.

The mortgagee was entitled to the money. Colehour v. State Savings Inst., 90 Ill. 152. The appellants do not question that, but they say that they “do not know how to designate this bill.” Had it been filed by the county treasuerer, it would have been a bill of interpleader, and his costs would have come out of the fund. But Bading and his wife were concerned to have the money properly appropriated, thereby stopping interest. Had the appellants disclaimed, doubtless the court would not have adjudged costs against them; but denying, by demurrer, the authority of the court to act, the costs were properly adjudged against them. Converse v. Rankin, 115 Ill. 398.

Whether the mortgagee filed a cross-bill or not does not concern the appellants, nor do they complain of the manner of proceeding, if the bill was properly filed, except as to costs.

The decree is affirmed.

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

Mr. Presiding Justice Gary

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Very shortly stated, this case is: Bading and wife, as tenants in common (Cooper v. Cooper, 76 Ill. 57), owned a lot from which part had been taken in proceedings under the eminent domain act, and the money for it was in the hands of the county treasurer. There was a mortgage upon the lot executed by the husband and wife, and a judgment later in the Circuit Court against the husband, in favor of the appellants.

The husband and wife filed this bill to have the court, decide who should have the money, and the appellants demurred. Their demurrer being overruled, and they electing to stand by it, the court awarded the money, by consent of the husband and wife, to the mortgagee, who had asked for it by answer only, filing no cross-bill.

The mortgagee was entitled to the money. Colehour v. State Savings Inst., 90 Ill. 152. The appellants do not question that, but they say that they “do not know how to designate this bill.” Had it been filed by the county treasuerer, it would have been a bill of interpleader, and his costs would have come out of the fund. But Bading and his wife were concerned to have the money properly appropriated, thereby stopping interest. Had the appellants disclaimed, doubtless the court would not have adjudged costs against them; but denying, by demurrer, the authority of the court to act, the costs were properly adjudged against them. Converse v. Rankin, 115 Ill. 398.

Whether the mortgagee filed a cross-bill or not does not concern the appellants, nor do they complain of the manner of proceeding, if the bill was properly filed, except as to costs.

The decree is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 Ill. App. 198, 1896 Ill. App. LEXIS 879, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keller-v-bading-illappct-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack