Murray v. Brokaw

Appellate Court of Illinois

Murray v. Brokaw

67 Ill. App. 402, 1896 Ill. App. LEXIS 113

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedNovember 21, 1896

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 67 Ill. App. 402 (Murray v. Brokaw) 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

Murray v. Brokaw, 67 Ill. App. 402, 1896 Ill. App. LEXIS 113 (Ill. Ct. App. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Wall

delivered the opinion of the Court.

These were actions to recover penalties provided by Sec. 8, Ch. 95, for failing to release mortgages after the same had been" paid as alleged. The .cases were tried by the court without a jury by consent, and the finding in each was for defendant. Judgment was entered accordingly. The mortgages in question were executed by John Murray, since deceased, in favor of John and Charles Ellsworth, also since deceased.

Bills to foreclose were filed and decrees were entered for the amounts found due.

These decrees were fully paid and acknowledgment of payment was entered upon the record of each decree.

The appellants insisted that satisfaction should also be entered upon the margin of the record of each mortgage, and after making a demand for such entry of satisfaction, brought these actions for the specified penalty. Waiving the question as to whether there was a tender of “ reasonable charges ” before the suits were brought, we think the judgments are correct upon the ground that the statute involved applies only when the mortgage debt is paid -without foreclosure. When it is necessary to foreclose, and a decree is rendered for that purpose, the mortgage becomes merged in the decree and a satisfaction of the decree is all that is required. This we think is quite apparent from the language of the statute and from a consideration of the object in view.

The judgment will be affirmed.

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

Mr. Justice Wall

delivered the opinion of the Court.

These were actions to recover penalties provided by Sec. 8, Ch. 95, for failing to release mortgages after the same had been" paid as alleged. The .cases were tried by the court without a jury by consent, and the finding in each was for defendant. Judgment was entered accordingly. The mortgages in question were executed by John Murray, since deceased, in favor of John and Charles Ellsworth, also since deceased.

Bills to foreclose were filed and decrees were entered for the amounts found due.

These decrees were fully paid and acknowledgment of payment was entered upon the record of each decree.

The appellants insisted that satisfaction should also be entered upon the margin of the record of each mortgage, and after making a demand for such entry of satisfaction, brought these actions for the specified penalty. Waiving the question as to whether there was a tender of “ reasonable charges ” before the suits were brought, we think the judgments are correct upon the ground that the statute involved applies only when the mortgage debt is paid -without foreclosure. When it is necessary to foreclose, and a decree is rendered for that purpose, the mortgage becomes merged in the decree and a satisfaction of the decree is all that is required. This we think is quite apparent from the language of the statute and from a consideration of the object in view.

The judgment will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 Ill. App. 402, 1896 Ill. App. LEXIS 113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murray-v-brokaw-illappct-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack