Schoonhoven v. Pratt
Illinois Supreme Court
Philemon B. Pratt and Mary L. Pratt, complainants below, in the Kane Circuit Court, filed their bill against James Schoonhoven, Smith Herford and Edward Scofield. On same day the clerk of said court issued a writ of injunction, and also issued a summons in the cause. No service was ever had on Scofield, nor was he ever brought into court, and the complainants dismissed their bill as to him. Schoonhoven by his counsel moved to dissolve the injunction.
Read the full summary
Philemon B. Pratt and Mary L. Pratt, complainants below, in the Kane Circuit Court, filed their bill against James Schoonhoven, Smith Herford and Edward Scofield. On same day the clerk of said court issued a writ of injunction, and also issued a summons in the cause. No service was ever had on Scofield, nor was he ever brought into court, and the complainants dismissed their bill as to him. Schoonhoven by his counsel moved to dissolve the injunction. Complainants, on motion, caused the venue of the cause to be changed to the Cook Circuit Court. The bill alleges, that Pratt and wife are…
1Opinion of the CourtWalker, J.
There is but one question in this case which we deem it necessary to discuss, and it is, whether there was a valid agreement to extend the time for the redemption of the farm from the deed of trust, for one year after the money became payable. Appellee, before he went South, made the necessary arrangements to have collected and deposited, four hundred dollars, with Davidson, giving him directions to pay it to appellant as advance interest for the extension of the time of redemption for another year. Ellen and William Pratt both testify that in conversations in reference to the extension of…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Union Mutual Life Insurance v. WhiteIllinois Supreme Court · 1883
- Union Mutual Life Insurance v. KirchoffIllinois Supreme Court · 1890
- Stribling v. HartSupreme Court of Florida · 1883
- Honnihan v. FriedmanAppellate Court of Illinois · 1883