Maxwell v. Lincoln & Fifth Ward Building & Loan Ass'n

74 N.E. 804, 216 Ill. 85
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedJune 23, 1905
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 74 N.E. 804 (Maxwell v. Lincoln & Fifth Ward Building & Loan Ass'n) 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
Maxwell v. Lincoln & Fifth Ward Building & Loan Ass'n, 74 N.E. 804, 216 Ill. 85 (Ill. 1905).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Hand

delivered the opinion of the cburt:

The only question raised and discussed in this court is the constitutionality of the act of May 15, 1903, (Hurd’s Stat. 1903, p. 447,) passed by the legislature after an opinion was filed by this court in Ogden Building and Loan Ass. v. Mensch, 196 Ill. 554, to legalize acknowledgments of deeds, mortgages and other instruments in writing made to corporations when the officer taking the acknowledgment was, at the time of taking the same, a stockholder in such corporation. The question here raised arises between the mortgagors and mortgagee, the rights of no other parties having intervened, as was the case in Steger v. Traveling Men’s Building and Loan Ass. 208 Ill. 236, and Fugman v. Jiri Washington Building and Loan Ass. 209 id. 176. In those cases, however, the question here raised was fully considered and decided, and the conclusion was there reached that, as between the original parties to the instrument, the act of May 15 was a valid enactment and cured the defective acknowledgment. In the Fugman case, on page 179, it was said: “In this case the owners of the homestead estate attempted to convey it in conformity with the statute, but failed because the officer was disabled, by personal interest, to take the acknowledgment. In case the homestead estate should be extinguished by abandonment or surrender the trust deed would become operative. There was, in fact, an acknowledgment, which was illegal only on account of the personal interest of the officer, and this disability the legislature might remove as between the parties to the instrument.” We see no reason for receding from the doctrine thus announced.

The decree of the superior court will therefore be affirmed.

Decree affirmed.

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

Related

State Bank v. Barbaras
252 Ill. App. 115 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1929)
Illinois Tractor Co. v. English
235 Ill. App. 462 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1924)
Garlick v. Mutual Loan & Building Ass'n
86 N.E. 236 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1908)
Garlick v. Mutual Loan & Building Ass'n
129 Ill. App. 402 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1906)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
74 N.E. 804, 216 Ill. 85, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maxwell-v-lincoln-fifth-ward-building-loan-assn-ill-1905.