Sachsel v. Farrar

Appellate Court of Illinois

Sachsel v. Farrar

35 Ill. App. 277, 1889 Ill. App. LEXIS 553

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedJanuary 22, 1890

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 35 Ill. App. 277 (Sachsel v. Farrar) 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

Sachsel v. Farrar, 35 Ill. App. 277, 1889 Ill. App. LEXIS 553 (Ill. Ct. App. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Gary, P. J.

This is a bill of interpleader filed by the appellee Beuel W. Bridge, requiring the appellant and the appellee Farrar, to interplead as to which of them shall have the commissions to be paid by Bridge on a sale of real property owned by him, which each of them claims to have been effected through his exertions.

If either of them is entitled to commissions it is because of some contract he had with Bridge, and not because of anything that has happened between themselves. Heither of them claims by a title derived from the other. If Bridge has incautiously committed himself writh both of them, he must make, at law, the best defense he can to the double claim. It is no case for an interpleader. 3 Pom. Eq., Secs. 1319 to 1329. The answer of the appellant denying the title to the relief prayed, and praying the same advantage of his answer as if he had demurred, saves the objection to the case made by the bill, even if a general answer would have waived it. Ryan v. Duncan, 88 Ill. 144.

The decree is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to dismiss the bill for want of equity.

Reversed <md remanded.

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

Gary, P. J.

This is a bill of interpleader filed by the appellee Beuel W. Bridge, requiring the appellant and the appellee Farrar, to interplead as to which of them shall have the commissions to be paid by Bridge on a sale of real property owned by him, which each of them claims to have been effected through his exertions.

If either of them is entitled to commissions it is because of some contract he had with Bridge, and not because of anything that has happened between themselves. Heither of them claims by a title derived from the other. If Bridge has incautiously committed himself writh both of them, he must make, at law, the best defense he can to the double claim. It is no case for an interpleader. 3 Pom. Eq., Secs. 1319 to 1329. The answer of the appellant denying the title to the relief prayed, and praying the same advantage of his answer as if he had demurred, saves the objection to the case made by the bill, even if a general answer would have waived it. Ryan v. Duncan, 88 Ill. 144.

The decree is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to dismiss the bill for want of equity.

Reversed <md remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 Ill. App. 277, 1889 Ill. App. LEXIS 553, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sachsel-v-farrar-illappct-1890.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack