Pool v. Marshall

Illinois Supreme Court

Pool v. Marshall

48 Ill. 440

DecidedSeptember 15, 1868

StatusPublished

This text of 48 Ill. 440 (Pool v. Marshall) 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

Pool v. Marshall, 48 Ill. 440 (Ill. 1868).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Lawrence

delivered the opinion of the Court:

It is insisted by the plaintiff in error in this case, who was also plaintiff below, that he and the defendant had purchased land incumbered by the same mortgage; that he had been obliged to pay the entire mortgage debt, and that, having done so, he should be permitted to recover from the defendant the proportion which equitably attached to the latter’s land. The difficulty with this argument is, that it does not fit the facts. It was not the plaintiff who paid the mortgage, but Baker, the common grantor of both plaintiff and defendant. The plaintiff was merely the agent through whom payment was made. It was not his money that was paid, but the money of Baker, retained by the plaintiff'in his hands from the purchase money of his share of the land, and retained for the express purpose of paying the mortgage. Neither was there any objection to proving this fact by parol. It did not vary a written instrument. It was simply proof of a fact in pais, entirely in harmony with the conveyances from Baker to both plaintiff and defendant.

The verdict and judgment were clearly right.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Mr. Justice Lawrence

delivered the opinion of the Court:

It is insisted by the plaintiff in error in this case, who was also plaintiff below, that he and the defendant had purchased land incumbered by the same mortgage; that he had been obliged to pay the entire mortgage debt, and that, having done so, he should be permitted to recover from the defendant the proportion which equitably attached to the latter’s land. The difficulty with this argument is, that it does not fit the facts. It was not the plaintiff who paid the mortgage, but Baker, the common grantor of both plaintiff and defendant. The plaintiff was merely the agent through whom payment was made. It was not his money that was paid, but the money of Baker, retained by the plaintiff'in his hands from the purchase money of his share of the land, and retained for the express purpose of paying the mortgage. Neither was there any objection to proving this fact by parol. It did not vary a written instrument. It was simply proof of a fact in pais, entirely in harmony with the conveyances from Baker to both plaintiff and defendant.

The verdict and judgment were clearly right.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 Ill. 440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pool-v-marshall-ill-1868.