Moore v. Cunningham

Illinois Supreme Court

Moore v. Cunningham

23 Ill. 328

DecidedJanuary 15, 1860

StatusPublished

This text of 23 Ill. 328 (Moore v. Cunningham) 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

Moore v. Cunningham, 23 Ill. 328 (Ill. 1860).

Pincite

Opinion

Caton, C. J.

The brick in question were laid up into the the walls of the building, under the contract with the county to construct the house. As fast as the brick were laid into the wall, they became a part of the freehold, and the title to the brick vested in the county. The county could safely pay the contractor for the brick so fast as they were laid in the walls of the building, without any apprehension that they could be seized upon by the creditors of the contractor. Had brick been taken down by Miller himself, because of defective work, and in good faith with the view of replacing them properly or with better brick, it may be that the title would have revested in Miller. But when they' were taken down by subsequent contractors, under the directions of the county, they no more became Miller’s brick again, than if they had stood there for twenty years, or had been put there by some other person.

The judgment of the Circuit Court must be reversed, and the cause remanded.

Judgment reversed.

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

Caton, C. J.

The brick in question were laid up into the the walls of the building, under the contract with the county to construct the house. As fast as the brick were laid into the wall, they became a part of the freehold, and the title to the brick vested in the county. The county could safely pay the contractor for the brick so fast as they were laid in the walls of the building, without any apprehension that they could be seized upon by the creditors of the contractor. Had brick been taken down by Miller himself, because of defective work, and in good faith with the view of replacing them properly or with better brick, it may be that the title would have revested in Miller. But when they' were taken down by subsequent contractors, under the directions of the county, they no more became Miller’s brick again, than if they had stood there for twenty years, or had been put there by some other person.

The judgment of the Circuit Court must be reversed, and the cause remanded.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 Ill. 328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-cunningham-ill-1860.