Tabler v. Yaple

Appellate Court of Illinois

Tabler v. Yaple

120 Ill. App. 69, 1905 Ill. App. LEXIS 603

DecidedApril 20, 1905

StatusPublished

This text of 120 Ill. App. 69 (Tabler v. Yaple) 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

Tabler v. Yaple, 120 Ill. App. 69, 1905 Ill. App. LEXIS 603 (Ill. Ct. App. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Baume

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a bill filed by appellee against appellant to foreclose a mortgage given to secure one principal note for §1,000 and five interest notes for $60 each. The answer of appellant alleges payment by him of the notes before maturity, to one Henry 0. Agnew, the authorized agent of appellee, and the important questions involved upon the hearing, were whether payment was in fact made to said Agnew, and if made whether said Agnew was authorized ■ to collect the said notes, or any of them, before maturity.

We are advised by the briefs and arguments of counsel for the respective parties that the chancellor sustained exceptions to the report of a special master finding that the notes involved had been paid and that appellee was not entitled to a decree of foreclosure, and entered a decree foreclosing the mortgage, but the abstract of the record filed by appellant, gives us no information upon the subject, other than such as may'be obtained from the following excerpts; “ Exceptions taken by complainant to- report by special master“ Decree.” The assignment of errors relied upon by appellant for a reversal of the decree, is abstracted thus; “ Assignment of Errors.”

Whether Henry G. Agnew was the agent of appellee authorized to collect notes before maturity, appears to have been sharply controverted, and it is apparent that a course of dealing between Agnew and appellee, as evidenced by certain letters, reports and checks, was relied upon by both parties as determining that issue. Twenty-three exhibits offered in evidence by appellee, appear in the abstract' as follows : “ Defendant here offered the following exhibits, marked defendant’s exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23. Exhibits objected to by plaintiff.” Eighty-four exhibits, consisting of certain letters, checks, receipts and reports and a power of attorney, are not abstracted, but merely indexed.

The abstract does not comply with the rules of this court, and we cannot determine therefrom what errors are assigned or whether there was error in the court below. The decree is therefore affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Mr. Presiding Justice Baume

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a bill filed by appellee against appellant to foreclose a mortgage given to secure one principal note for §1,000 and five interest notes for $60 each. The answer of appellant alleges payment by him of the notes before maturity, to one Henry 0. Agnew, the authorized agent of appellee, and the important questions involved upon the hearing, were whether payment was in fact made to said Agnew, and if made whether said Agnew was authorized ■ to collect the said notes, or any of them, before maturity.

We are advised by the briefs and arguments of counsel for the respective parties that the chancellor sustained exceptions to the report of a special master finding that the notes involved had been paid and that appellee was not entitled to a decree of foreclosure, and entered a decree foreclosing the mortgage, but the abstract of the record filed by appellant, gives us no information upon the subject, other than such as may'be obtained from the following excerpts; “ Exceptions taken by complainant to- report by special master“ Decree.” The assignment of errors relied upon by appellant for a reversal of the decree, is abstracted thus; “ Assignment of Errors.”

Whether Henry G. Agnew was the agent of appellee authorized to collect notes before maturity, appears to have been sharply controverted, and it is apparent that a course of dealing between Agnew and appellee, as evidenced by certain letters, reports and checks, was relied upon by both parties as determining that issue. Twenty-three exhibits offered in evidence by appellee, appear in the abstract' as follows : “ Defendant here offered the following exhibits, marked defendant’s exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23. Exhibits objected to by plaintiff.” Eighty-four exhibits, consisting of certain letters, checks, receipts and reports and a power of attorney, are not abstracted, but merely indexed.

The abstract does not comply with the rules of this court, and we cannot determine therefrom what errors are assigned or whether there was error in the court below. The decree is therefore affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 Ill. App. 69, 1905 Ill. App. LEXIS 603, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tabler-v-yaple-illappct-1905.