McCurley v. Pitner

Appellate Court of Illinois

McCurley v. Pitner

65 Ill. App. 17, 1895 Ill. App. LEXIS 1023

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedMay 16, 1896

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 65 Ill. App. 17 (McCurley v. Pitner) 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

McCurley v. Pitner, 65 Ill. App. 17, 1895 Ill. App. LEXIS 1023 (Ill. Ct. App. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Pleasants

delivered the opinion op the Court.

Appellees filed the original bill herein to foreclose a chattel mortgage of household furniture executed by Eugene F. Yoorhies and his wife to complainants, to indemnify them as sureties upon a promissory note of the mortgagor which they were compelled to pay. Appellant,'who was a party defendant, filed a cross-bill setting up a prior mortgage upon a part of the same property, which the court below hold void as against them on the ground that the wife of Yoorhies did not join in the execution of it, as required by the statute.

The officer who certified to her acknowledgment testified that she did not in fact appear before him or acknowledge the execution of it; and the controlling question in the case is whether he was competent as a witness to impeach his official certificate. We think the rule declared by the authorities generally, as applicable to the situation here, makes him .competent, leaving the question of the weight of his testimony to the judgment of the trier. The certificate is the act of a ministerial officer and not conclusive like a judicial record, and does not estop him as between these parties. The Illinois cases examined are Lowell v. Wren, 80 Ill. 238; McDowell v. Stewart, 63 Id. 538; Sisters of Loretto v. Catholic Bishop, 86 Id. 174; Berdel v. Egan, 125 Id. 302. Numerous cases from other States arecited and quoted from in the brief for appellees.

The chancellor held that the library (excepting bibles and school books) was not household furniture, but no cross-error is assigned on that holding, and wre do not consider the question. The decree will be affirmed.

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

Mr. Presiding Justice Pleasants

delivered the opinion op the Court.

Appellees filed the original bill herein to foreclose a chattel mortgage of household furniture executed by Eugene F. Yoorhies and his wife to complainants, to indemnify them as sureties upon a promissory note of the mortgagor which they were compelled to pay. Appellant,'who was a party defendant, filed a cross-bill setting up a prior mortgage upon a part of the same property, which the court below hold void as against them on the ground that the wife of Yoorhies did not join in the execution of it, as required by the statute.

The officer who certified to her acknowledgment testified that she did not in fact appear before him or acknowledge the execution of it; and the controlling question in the case is whether he was competent as a witness to impeach his official certificate. We think the rule declared by the authorities generally, as applicable to the situation here, makes him .competent, leaving the question of the weight of his testimony to the judgment of the trier. The certificate is the act of a ministerial officer and not conclusive like a judicial record, and does not estop him as between these parties. The Illinois cases examined are Lowell v. Wren, 80 Ill. 238; McDowell v. Stewart, 63 Id. 538; Sisters of Loretto v. Catholic Bishop, 86 Id. 174; Berdel v. Egan, 125 Id. 302. Numerous cases from other States arecited and quoted from in the brief for appellees.

The chancellor held that the library (excepting bibles and school books) was not household furniture, but no cross-error is assigned on that holding, and wre do not consider the question. The decree will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 Ill. App. 17, 1895 Ill. App. LEXIS 1023, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccurley-v-pitner-illappct-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack