Pogue v. Clark
Illinois Supreme Court
This was a bill filed by appellees, Clark and Whitaker, against the appellants, in the Circuit Court of Bond county, for the foreclosure of a mortgage given by the appellants to the appellee, Samuel E. Clark, on certain described lands supposed to contain two hundred and eighty-eight acres, more or less, to secure the payment of two notes given by the said appellants, (except Emily J. Pogue,) to the appellee, Samuel P. Clark, for the sum of fourteen hundred and four dollars…
Read the full summary
This was a bill filed by appellees, Clark and Whitaker, against the appellants, in the Circuit Court of Bond county, for the foreclosure of a mortgage given by the appellants to the appellee, Samuel E. Clark, on certain described lands supposed to contain two hundred and eighty-eight acres, more or less, to secure the payment of two notes given by the said appellants, (except Emily J. Pogue,) to the appellee, Samuel P. Clark, for the sum of fourteen hundred and four dollars and four cents, each, and one due in twelve months, and the other in two years from date, with ten per cent, interest.…
1Opinion of the CourtBreese, J.
The objection to this bill, presented by the general demurrer, that it does not show which note was assigned, is purely technical, and should have been specially pointed out in the demurrer. Both notes were of the same tenor and amount, and both due, and practically, it was no difference which was assigned. It is not for the appellant to complain that the decree does not declare that the note first due should be first paid, it must be a matter of perfect indifference to him. The other party might complain as depriving him of an advantage.
We see no objection to the holders of the two notes…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Town of Pleasant v. KostIllinois Supreme Court · 1863
- On Yuen Hai Co. v. RossUnited States Circuit Court · 1882
- Kirby v. RunalsAppellate Court of Illinois · 1890