Stark v. Crismore

Appellate Court of Illinois

Stark v. Crismore

100 Ill. App. 392, 1902 Ill. App. LEXIS 728

DecidedFebruary 21, 1902

StatusPublished

This text of 100 Ill. App. 392 (Stark v. Crismore) 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

Stark v. Crismore, 100 Ill. App. 392, 1902 Ill. App. LEXIS 728 (Ill. Ct. App. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

Me. Justice Wateeman

delivered the opinion of the court.

It not having been shown upon the hearing that the Western State Bank had any mortgage upon the premises it was unnecessary to make, in the decree, any mention thereof, or to find separately the value of the ground and the improvements, and apportion its and the complainants’ lien. The abstract shows mention in the bill of a mortgage, only by the allegation that certain parties “ have or claim interest in the premises; ” this is not sufficient to, with the answer setting up a claim by way of mortgage, dispense with proof thereof.

It may be that the plaintiff in error Stark should have been allowed damages for delay, or for defective material, or because certain doors were not by one-fourth of an inch as thick as the specifications demanded, but the evidence is not such that we ought to overturn the decree of the court in this regard and it is affirmed.

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

Me. Justice Wateeman

delivered the opinion of the court.

It not having been shown upon the hearing that the Western State Bank had any mortgage upon the premises it was unnecessary to make, in the decree, any mention thereof, or to find separately the value of the ground and the improvements, and apportion its and the complainants’ lien. The abstract shows mention in the bill of a mortgage, only by the allegation that certain parties “ have or claim interest in the premises; ” this is not sufficient to, with the answer setting up a claim by way of mortgage, dispense with proof thereof.

It may be that the plaintiff in error Stark should have been allowed damages for delay, or for defective material, or because certain doors were not by one-fourth of an inch as thick as the specifications demanded, but the evidence is not such that we ought to overturn the decree of the court in this regard and it is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 Ill. App. 392, 1902 Ill. App. LEXIS 728, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stark-v-crismore-illappct-1902.