Loomis v. Gerson

62 Ill. 11
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 15, 1871
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 62 Ill. 11 (Loomis v. Gerson) 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.

Bluebook
Loomis v. Gerson, 62 Ill. 11 (Ill. 1871).

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Lawrence

delivered the opinion of the Court:

We held, in Conroy v. Sullivan, 44 Ills., 451, that, under the laws of 1851 and 1857, the homestead was protected from sale under a judgment obtained against the husband for his torts, as vrell as under one obtained for violation of his contracts. The object of these laws was to furnish a shelter for the wife and children, which could not be taken away or lost by the act of the husband alone. This principle must equally exempt the homestead from sale under a judgment for a fine and costs rendered in a criminal prosecution for a misdemean- or. The wife is not to suffer for the wrongful act of the husband. The State must submit to the same exemptions of a defendant’s property that it imposes upon its citizens. The court, therefore, did not err in overruling the demurrer to the bill.

The'sale, however, should not be absolutely set aside. All that the judgment debtor has a right to claim is $1,000, and if the defendant prefers to pay that sum to the complainant, who stands in the shoes of the judgment debtor, he should be permitted to do so, and retain the title.

The mortgages paid by the complainant were extinguished by his payment in the manner stated in his bill.

For the error in setting aside the sale absolutely, the decree must be reversed and the cause remanded.

Decree reversed.

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

Related

Lehman v. Cotrell
19 N.E.2d 111 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1939)
Van Winkle v. Weston
276 Ill. App. 66 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1934)
Diets v. Hagler
141 N.E. 194 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1923)
Olp v. Meyer
115 N.E. 221 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1917)
Hamalle v. Lebensberger
267 Ill. 602 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1915)
Leman v. Chipman
117 N.W. 885 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1908)
Betterton v. O'Dwyer
101 S.W. 628 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1907)
Brun v. Mann
151 F. 145 (Eighth Circuit, 1906)
Misener v. Glasbrenner
77 N.E. 467 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1906)
Heirs of Hastings v. Dorrance
2 Ill. Cir. Ct. 300 (Illinois Circuit Court, 1904)
Krupp v. Brand
65 N.E. 780 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1902)
Kilmer v. Garlick
56 N.E. 1103 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1900)
Flanagan v. Forsythe
1897 OK 68 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1897)
Mertz v. Berry
24 L.R.A. 789 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1894)
Hollis v. State
27 S.W. 73 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1894)
Bullen v. Dawson
29 N.E. 1038 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1892)
Maloney v. Newton
85 Ind. 565 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1882)
Smith's v. Cockrell
66 Ala. 64 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1880)
Leupold v. Krause
95 Ill. 440 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1880)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
62 Ill. 11, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loomis-v-gerson-ill-1871.