Longenbach v. Cole

Appellate Court of Illinois

Longenbach v. Cole

201 Ill. App. 237, 1916 Ill. App. LEXIS 656

DecidedApril 21, 1916

StatusPublished

This text of 201 Ill. App. 237 (Longenbach v. Cole) 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

Longenbach v. Cole, 201 Ill. App. 237, 1916 Ill. App. LEXIS 656 (Ill. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Graves

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. 1. Limitation of actions, § 103*—necessity of alleging matter to prevent running of statute. A bill to foreclose a mortgage securing a note, which shows on its face, that it is barred by the statute of limitations, must, where the statute is relied on as a defense, show either by original averment or by amendment some fact that will prevent the running of the statute. 2. Mortgages, § 503*—when evidence insufficient to show insanity of mortgagor. In a suit by administrators to foreclose a mortgage securing a note held by the intestate, evidence held to justify a finding that the intestate was not insane as averred by the complainants in their replication to a plea of the statute of limitations. 3. Appeal and error, § 1775*—When cause not reversed and remanded to permit amendments to hill. Where, in a suit to foreclose a mortgage securing a note in which the statute of limitations was set up as a defense, the evidence introduced to show payment on the note was incompetent to support a decree for the complainants, held that the cause would not be reversed and remanded so as to permit proper averments to be made in order to make the bill correspond with the proof, though no objection to such incompetent evidence was raised on the trial.

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

Mr. Justice Graves

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. 1. Limitation of actions, § 103*—necessity of alleging matter to prevent running of statute. A bill to foreclose a mortgage securing a note, which shows on its face, that it is barred by the statute of limitations, must, where the statute is relied on as a defense, show either by original averment or by amendment some fact that will prevent the running of the statute. 2. Mortgages, § 503*—when evidence insufficient to show insanity of mortgagor. In a suit by administrators to foreclose a mortgage securing a note held by the intestate, evidence held to justify a finding that the intestate was not insane as averred by the complainants in their replication to a plea of the statute of limitations. 3. Appeal and error, § 1775*—When cause not reversed and remanded to permit amendments to hill. Where, in a suit to foreclose a mortgage securing a note in which the statute of limitations was set up as a defense, the evidence introduced to show payment on the note was incompetent to support a decree for the complainants, held that the cause would not be reversed and remanded so as to permit proper averments to be made in order to make the bill correspond with the proof, though no objection to such incompetent evidence was raised on the trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 Ill. App. 237, 1916 Ill. App. LEXIS 656, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/longenbach-v-cole-illappct-1916.