Legal Opinion

Cummins v. Holmes

Illinois Supreme Court

Decided September 28, 1883PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Appeal from the Appellate Court for the Second District; —heard in that court on appeal from the Circuit Court of Mercer county.

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Mulkey

• This is a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. It appears from the record that William H. Holmes and others, the appellees, having become sureties of Samuel W. Gailey, on a note for $500, the latter, by way of indemnity, executed to them a chattel.mortgage on a stock of goods belonging to him. After appellees had taken possession of the goods under the mortgage, James A. Cummins, the appellant, having in his hands, as sheriff, an execution in favor of Crofoot, Steele & Co., against Gailey, for $722 and costs, levied the same upon the stock of goods in question, as the…

2Cited by3 opinions

  1. Jordan v. DavisIllinois Supreme Court · 1883
  2. Martin v. DuncanIllinois Supreme Court · 1895
  3. Hannigan v. MosslerAppellate Court of Illinois · 1892

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API