Lietze v. Clabaugh
This text of 59 Ill. 136 (Lietze v. Clabaugh) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The complainants in this case being the equitable owners of the first of two promissory notes, secured by a mortgage, filed a bill to procure a sale of the mortgaged premises, making Lietze, the appellant, a defendant, and alleging that the second note had been assigned to him, that he had obtained judgment on it, and had sold and bid in the mortgaged premises under his judgment. Lietze answered, setting up that in doing this he was acting merely as agent for one Hume, to whom the note, judgment," and certificate of purchase belonged and had been assigned. The interest of Hume in the subject matter of'the litigation being thus disclosed, the complainant should have amended his bill and made him a party. Herrington v. Hubbard, 1 Scam. 569. This decree may seriously prejudice his interests, and he should have ati opportunity to protect them. The decree is reversed and the cause remanded.
Decree reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
59 Ill. 136, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lietze-v-clabaugh-ill-1871.