Snite v. Gehrke

Appellate Court of Illinois

Snite v. Gehrke

189 Ill. App. 382

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedNovember 9, 1914

DocketGen. No. 19,737

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 189 Ill. App. 382 (Snite v. Gehrke) 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

Snite v. Gehrke, 189 Ill. App. 382 (Ill. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. 1. Chattel mortgages, § 68*—when acknowledgment insufficient. Where a chattel mortgage is not acknowledged by one of the mortgagors, it will not be effective as against the claim of a third party. 2. Chattel mortgages, § 36*—when statement as to maturity of note defective. A provision in a chattel mortgage that the note secured thereby “became due and payable on or before 35 months after date of option of the legal holder thereof,” held to state no time for the maturity of the debt and to constitute a defect of which a third party may take advantage. 3. Replevin, § 44*—necessity of demand. Where defendant is in possession of goods, under a distress warrant, his possession is lawful and a demand is necessary before replevin can be brought.

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

Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. 1. Chattel mortgages, § 68*—when acknowledgment insufficient. Where a chattel mortgage is not acknowledged by one of the mortgagors, it will not be effective as against the claim of a third party. 2. Chattel mortgages, § 36*—when statement as to maturity of note defective. A provision in a chattel mortgage that the note secured thereby “became due and payable on or before 35 months after date of option of the legal holder thereof,” held to state no time for the maturity of the debt and to constitute a defect of which a third party may take advantage. 3. Replevin, § 44*—necessity of demand. Where defendant is in possession of goods, under a distress warrant, his possession is lawful and a demand is necessary before replevin can be brought.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 Ill. App. 382, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/snite-v-gehrke-illappct-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack