State Bank v. Christensen

Appellate Court of Illinois

State Bank v. Christensen

195 Ill. App. 496, 1915 Ill. App. LEXIS 379

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedDecember 8, 1915

DocketGen. No. 21,024

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 195 Ill. App. 496 (State Bank v. Christensen) 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

State Bank v. Christensen, 195 Ill. App. 496, 1915 Ill. App. LEXIS 379 (Ill. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Scanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.

6. Appeal and error, § 726*—necessity of proper certificate of evidence. Where a complainant assigns as error a decree dismissing the bill for want of equity, the burden of showing that the decree was not warranted by the evidence cannot be sustained where complainant fails to file a proper certificate of evidence. 7. Bills and notes, § 446*—sufficiency of evidence to establish ownership of note. On a cross-bill raising the question of title to a note secured by a trust deed of which defendant was in possession, claiming to be a holder in due course, a decree finding affirmatively that plaintiff was the owner of the note and deed and that defendant was not a holder in good faith and for value in due course and had no title thereto, held sustained by the evidence.

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

Mr. Presiding Justice Scanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.

6. Appeal and error, § 726*—necessity of proper certificate of evidence. Where a complainant assigns as error a decree dismissing the bill for want of equity, the burden of showing that the decree was not warranted by the evidence cannot be sustained where complainant fails to file a proper certificate of evidence. 7. Bills and notes, § 446*—sufficiency of evidence to establish ownership of note. On a cross-bill raising the question of title to a note secured by a trust deed of which defendant was in possession, claiming to be a holder in due course, a decree finding affirmatively that plaintiff was the owner of the note and deed and that defendant was not a holder in good faith and for value in due course and had no title thereto, held sustained by the evidence.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

195 Ill. App. 496, 1915 Ill. App. LEXIS 379, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-bank-v-christensen-illappct-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack