Turgrimson v. J. P. Seeburg Piano Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Turgrimson v. J. P. Seeburg Piano Co.

192 Ill. App. 512, 1915 Ill. App. LEXIS 875

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedMay 11, 1915

DocketGen. No. 20,569

StatusPublished

This text of 192 Ill. App. 512 (Turgrimson v. J. P. Seeburg Piano Co.) 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

Turgrimson v. J. P. Seeburg Piano Co., 192 Ill. App. 512, 1915 Ill. App. LEXIS 875 (Ill. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Usury, § 38*—when chattel mortgage not invalidated by usury in loan for which security. The fact that the loan which a chattel mortgage secures is tainted with usury does not render the mortgage invalid. 3. Appeal ahd ebrob, § 1487*—when refusal to submit question of good faith in executing second mortgage not error. In suit by a chattel mortgagee to replevy the mortgaged property from one who had replevied the property under another mortgage, it is-not error to refuse to submit to the jury the question whether plaintiff’s mortgage was executed in good faith, where the evidence relative thereto merely tends to show that the loan secured by plaintiff’s mortgage was tainted with usury.

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

Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Usury, § 38*—when chattel mortgage not invalidated by usury in loan for which security. The fact that the loan which a chattel mortgage secures is tainted with usury does not render the mortgage invalid. 3. Appeal ahd ebrob, § 1487*—when refusal to submit question of good faith in executing second mortgage not error. In suit by a chattel mortgagee to replevy the mortgaged property from one who had replevied the property under another mortgage, it is-not error to refuse to submit to the jury the question whether plaintiff’s mortgage was executed in good faith, where the evidence relative thereto merely tends to show that the loan secured by plaintiff’s mortgage was tainted with usury.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 Ill. App. 512, 1915 Ill. App. LEXIS 875, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turgrimson-v-j-p-seeburg-piano-co-illappct-1915.