Lynch v. Jackson

14 N.E. 697, 123 Ill. 360
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 19, 1888
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 14 N.E. 697 (Lynch v. Jackson) 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
Lynch v. Jackson, 14 N.E. 697, 123 Ill. 360 (Ill. 1888).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Scott

delivered the opinion of the Court:

The hill in this case was brought by John Lynch, in the circuit court of Kane county, against D. B. Jackson, Andrew L. Jackson and Eva M. Norris, to redeem certain premises from what is alleged to be a mortgage, made by complainant to S. L. Jackson, since deceased, and for an account against the mortgagee in possession. On the hearing, the court dismissed the bill for want of equity, and complainant asked for and was allowed an appeal directly to this court, which he afterwards perfected by giving bond as required by the order of the court.

The bill is framed on the theory the deed made by complainant to S. L. Jackson, although absolute in form, is nevertheless a mortgage deed, subject to a defeasance written in a separate agreement, and executed at the same time, by the parties, as a part of the same transaction. There is no difference, in law, whether the condition in a mortgage deed upon which it is to become inoperative, is written in the body of the deed itself, or in a separate instrument executed at the same time, as a part of the same transaction, by the parties to the deed. On the theory on which the bill is framed,—that the deed from complainant to Jackson is only a mortgage,—it follows, the title to the mortgaged premises is not involved in the litigation, for the obvious reason the payment of the indebtedness secured, discharges the mortgage lien, and the appeal should have been taken, in the first instance, to the Appellate Court. Pinneo v. Knox, 100 Ill. 471.

The appeal will therefore be dismissed, with leave to withdraw the transcript of the record, together with the briefs and abstracts, for the purpose of filing the same in the Appellate Court, if it is desired by complainant to do so.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Related

Vidon v. Roberts
64 N.E.2d 736 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1946)
Morgan v. Carson
152 N.E. 564 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1926)
Lill v. Pace
151 N.E. 517 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1926)
Hill v. Viele
128 Ill. App. 5 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1906)
Eddleman v. Fasig
75 N.E. 977 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1905)
Schoendubee v. International Building Loan & Invest. Union
55 N.E. 710 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1899)
Adamski v. Wieczorek
54 N.E. 1034 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1899)
Hoover v. Ekdahl
59 Ill. App. 312 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1895)
Grimes v. Hilliary
36 N.E. 977 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1894)
Piper v. Headlee
39 Ill. App. 93 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1890)
Kirchoff v. Union Mutual Life Insurance
128 Ill. 199 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1889)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
14 N.E. 697, 123 Ill. 360, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lynch-v-jackson-ill-1888.