Zerwick v. Weir

Appellate Court of Illinois

Zerwick v. Weir

81 Ill. App. 181, 1898 Ill. App. LEXIS 534

DecidedMarch 10, 1899

StatusPublished

This text of 81 Ill. App. 181 (Zerwick v. Weir) 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

Zerwick v. Weir, 81 Ill. App. 181, 1898 Ill. App. LEXIS 534 (Ill. Ct. App. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Worthington

delivered the opinion of the court.

In this case the money deposited went into the general fund. It was increased from time to time as the treasurer received school moneys, and decreased as it was checked out or paid on vouchers. Seiter knew that it was school money, but testifies that it was not a special deposit, no orders being given to keep it separate and apart from the bank’s money. It is not claimed that it could be followed and identified in the assignee’s hands. Being so mingled and its identity lost, plaintiff in error has no priority for payment out of the .fund in the hands of the assignee. School Trustees v. Kinvin, 25 Ill. 73; Union Nat. Bank of Chicago v. Goetz, 138 Ill. 135; Wetherell v. O’Brien, 140 Ill. 146.

This case being similar in principle to the case of Emma J. Iineisley et al. v. M. W. Weir, decided at this term of court, reference is made to the opinion filed in that case for a fuller discussion of the question involved.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Mr. Justice Worthington

delivered the opinion of the court.

In this case the money deposited went into the general fund. It was increased from time to time as the treasurer received school moneys, and decreased as it was checked out or paid on vouchers. Seiter knew that it was school money, but testifies that it was not a special deposit, no orders being given to keep it separate and apart from the bank’s money. It is not claimed that it could be followed and identified in the assignee’s hands. Being so mingled and its identity lost, plaintiff in error has no priority for payment out of the .fund in the hands of the assignee. School Trustees v. Kinvin, 25 Ill. 73; Union Nat. Bank of Chicago v. Goetz, 138 Ill. 135; Wetherell v. O’Brien, 140 Ill. 146.

This case being similar in principle to the case of Emma J. Iineisley et al. v. M. W. Weir, decided at this term of court, reference is made to the opinion filed in that case for a fuller discussion of the question involved.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 Ill. App. 181, 1898 Ill. App. LEXIS 534, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zerwick-v-weir-illappct-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack