Sachs v. Giesenschlag

Appellate Court of Illinois

Sachs v. Giesenschlag

188 Ill. App. 462, 1914 Ill. App. LEXIS 547

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedOctober 6, 1914

DocketGen. No. 19,846

StatusPublished

This text of 188 Ill. App. 462 (Sachs v. Giesenschlag) 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

Sachs v. Giesenschlag, 188 Ill. App. 462, 1914 Ill. App. LEXIS 547 (Ill. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Appeal and erbob, § 1864*—what not a defense by surety on appeal bond. A surety on an appeal bond, where the appeal was dismissed, cannot in a suit on the bond interpose the defense that the decree appealed from was satisfied by reason of the fact that a receiver appointed by the court below took possession of sufficient property of the obligor to pay the decree, costs and interest. 3. Subrogation, § 30*—right of surety on appeal bond. A surety on an appeal bond who is required to pay the amount of the judgment, costs, etc., is entitled to be subrogated to the obligor’s right pro tanto to funds in the hands of a receiver, who was appointed by the trial court to take possession of the obligor’s property.

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

Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Appeal and erbob, § 1864*—what not a defense by surety on appeal bond. A surety on an appeal bond, where the appeal was dismissed, cannot in a suit on the bond interpose the defense that the decree appealed from was satisfied by reason of the fact that a receiver appointed by the court below took possession of sufficient property of the obligor to pay the decree, costs and interest. 3. Subrogation, § 30*—right of surety on appeal bond. A surety on an appeal bond who is required to pay the amount of the judgment, costs, etc., is entitled to be subrogated to the obligor’s right pro tanto to funds in the hands of a receiver, who was appointed by the trial court to take possession of the obligor’s property.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 Ill. App. 462, 1914 Ill. App. LEXIS 547, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sachs-v-giesenschlag-illappct-1914.