Kramp v. Thexton

Appellate Court of Illinois

Kramp v. Thexton

205 Ill. App. 622

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedMay 29, 1917

DocketGen. No. 22,403

StatusPublished

This text of 205 Ill. App. 622 (Kramp v. Thexton) 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

Kramp v. Thexton, 205 Ill. App. 622 (Ill. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice McDonald

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Mortgages, § 635*—when order directing receiver to recover amount of deficiency decree is vacated by order of vacation. A decree in foreclosure found that defendant and his codefendant were personally liable for the indebtedness and a deficiency decree was entered against them and the receiver was ordered to remain in possession of the premises during the period of redemption “for the purpose of collecting such deficiency or such part thereof as he may be able to collect.” Subsequently the decree was modified by an order vacating the provision finding defendant personally liable. Held, that such order of vacation necessarily affected every part of the decree inconsistent therewith respecting the payment of the rents, issues and profits collected during the period of redemption and therefore vacated the order directing the receiver to collect the amount of the deficiency decree.

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

Mr. Justice McDonald

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Mortgages, § 635*—when order directing receiver to recover amount of deficiency decree is vacated by order of vacation. A decree in foreclosure found that defendant and his codefendant were personally liable for the indebtedness and a deficiency decree was entered against them and the receiver was ordered to remain in possession of the premises during the period of redemption “for the purpose of collecting such deficiency or such part thereof as he may be able to collect.” Subsequently the decree was modified by an order vacating the provision finding defendant personally liable. Held, that such order of vacation necessarily affected every part of the decree inconsistent therewith respecting the payment of the rents, issues and profits collected during the period of redemption and therefore vacated the order directing the receiver to collect the amount of the deficiency decree.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 Ill. App. 622, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kramp-v-thexton-illappct-1917.