Ross v. Weber
Illinois Supreme Court
This action was assumpsit, in the Superior Court of Chicago. The declaration of the plaintiff below, who is also plaintiff in error, was the single count for'money had and received, with a bill of particulars, claiming that the sheriff of Cook county paid to the defendants the proceeds of the goods of one McKinlay, which he should have paid to plaintiff.
Read the full summary
This action was assumpsit, in the Superior Court of Chicago. The declaration of the plaintiff below, who is also plaintiff in error, was the single count for'money had and received, with a bill of particulars, claiming that the sheriff of Cook county paid to the defendants the proceeds of the goods of one McKinlay, which he should have paid to plaintiff. Plea, non assumpsit, with notice of former verdict against the sheriff for the same money, which verdict the plaintiff remitted. Verdict and judgment for defendants. The bill of exceptions shows that the defendants had a judgment and…
1Opinion of the CourtWalker, J.
That the defendants in error by their agreement with McKinlay to stay their execution, lost all right as between the parties to that agreement, to proceed for its collection, is certainly true. And by entering into a valid and binding contract for the stay of execution, it became dormant as to other judgment creditors. A party having a judgment or execution which is a lien on property, has no legal right to extend the time for its collection, to the injury of other creditors. A judgment creditor so situated has no right to place himself in a position that he cannot proceed for its collection,…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Gilmore v. DavisIllinois Supreme Court · 1877
- Sweetser v. MatsonIllinois Supreme Court · 1894
- Marshall v. MooreIllinois Supreme Court · 1865
- Baldwin v. FreydendallAppellate Court of Illinois · 1882