Mueller v. Nichols

50 Ill. App. 663, 1893 Ill. App. LEXIS 497
Appellate Court of Illinois·Decided December 21, 1893·Published

Opinion

Opinion of the Court,

Waterman, J.

The question presented in this case is whether the holder of a warehouse receipt for ten barrels of whisky, pledged to him as security for the payment of the pledgor’s note, is bound upon request of the pledgor to sell such whisky or the receipt and apply the proceeds to the payment of the note.

Such pledge is but a mortgage and we are not aware of any rule that requires the holder of a mortgage to foreclose the same upon the request of the mortgagee.

The pledgee of negotiable paper is bound to use reasonable diligence for its collection, but the pledgee of either chattels or choses in action is not bound to sell the same at the request of the pledgor. Rozet v. McClellan, 48 Ill. 345; Story on Bailments, Sec. 308; Granite Bank v. Richardson, 1 Met..401; Smith v. Stoul, 63 Me. 205; Robinson v. Hurly, 11 Iowa, 410; 3d Parsons on Contracts, 289.

If, in this case, the pledgor desired to have the receipt or whisky sold, he should have paid up his debt and then he could have done what he liked with his property. He can not hold the pledgee liable for any loss occasioned by his failure to sell.

The order of the Circuit Court striking appellant’s affidavits, etc., from the files is affirmed.

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

Mueller v. Nichols, 50 Ill. App. 663, 1893 Ill. App. LEXIS 497 (Ill. Ct. App. 1893).

50 Ill. App. 663 (Mueller v. Nichols) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Smith v. Strout
63 Me. 205 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1874)
Rozet v. McClellan
48 Ill. 345 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1868)
Robinson v. Hurley
11 Iowa 410 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1860)