Tabero v. Sutkowski
Appellate Court of Illinois
1Opinion of the CourtJustice O’Connor
Plaintiff, the assignee of a deficiency decree for $1,824.99, rendered in a foreclosure suit against Sutkowski, being unable to collect the deficiency, filed his creditor’s bill to discover assets of Sutkowski, who will hereinafter be referred to as defendant. Defendant filed his answer and counterclaim by which he denied he was liable for the deficiency and sought to have the collection of it perpetually enjoined. Plaintiff filed a written motion to strike the answer and counterclaim. The motion was allowed and defendant appeals.
Plaintiff contends that the order entered is but interlocutory…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Union Mutual Life Insurance v. HanfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Lyman v. GedneyIllinois Supreme Court · 1885
- Clark v. GlosIllinois Supreme Court · 1899
- Caley v. MorganIndiana Supreme Court · 1888
- Done Bros. v. TaussigIllinois Supreme Court · 1886
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Bank of America v. JorjorianAppellate Court of Illinois · 1940
- PRUDENTIAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASS'N v. NadlerAppellate Court of Illinois · 1976
- Commercial Merchants Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Le TourneauCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1943