Shaughnessy v. Rothmann

Appellate Court of Illinois

Shaughnessy v. Rothmann

194 Ill. App. 484

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedOctober 5, 1915

DocketGen. No. 20,843

StatusPublished

This text of 194 Ill. App. 484 (Shaughnessy v. Rothmann) 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

Shaughnessy v. Rothmann, 194 Ill. App. 484 (Ill. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Bills and notes, § 293*—when payment not binding on holder. Payments on the principal of a note secured by trust deed, to the person named therein as successor in trust, who did not have possession of the notes, and whose office was not the place of payment fixed in the trust deed, held not binding upon the owner of the notes where such person failed to turn over the sum so paid, although previous interest payments made to him had been turned over to the owner through his attorney, especially where, after! making the payment, an extension agreement was signed by the parties acknowledging that a sum was due in excess of the amount which would be due if the payment so made had been deducted, and the interest notes made at the same time called for an amount which showed that interest was being charged on such excess.

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

Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Bills and notes, § 293*—when payment not binding on holder. Payments on the principal of a note secured by trust deed, to the person named therein as successor in trust, who did not have possession of the notes, and whose office was not the place of payment fixed in the trust deed, held not binding upon the owner of the notes where such person failed to turn over the sum so paid, although previous interest payments made to him had been turned over to the owner through his attorney, especially where, after! making the payment, an extension agreement was signed by the parties acknowledging that a sum was due in excess of the amount which would be due if the payment so made had been deducted, and the interest notes made at the same time called for an amount which showed that interest was being charged on such excess.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 Ill. App. 484, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shaughnessy-v-rothmann-illappct-1915.