Armstrong v. Cooper
Illinois Supreme Court
The substance and object of the bill filed in this case, are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the Court. The decree was taken pro confesso, at the May term, 1848, of the Peoria Circuit Court.
Read the full summary
The substance and object of the bill filed in this case, are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the Court. The decree was taken pro confesso, at the May term, 1848, of the Peoria Circuit Court. The respondents in the bill have sued out this writ of error, and assign that the decree was improperly entered; because the bill is wanting in equity; because the bill shows there was personal property, which should have been exhausted before the lands of the heirs of Bigelow, deceased, were subjected to the payment of the alleged debt; because the bill did not show that the personal property of…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by Treat, C. J.:
This was a bill in chancery, filed against the surviving administrator and heirs at law of Lewis Bigelow, and the surety on the administration bond. It alleged that Bigelow borrowed a sum of money of Brooks, and, as security for its re-payment, executed a mortgage on real estate; which mortgage was after-wards placed in the hands of Bigelow, for the purpose of being recorded, but was suppressed by him. It prayed that the mort gage might be set up and foreclosed, and also for general relief. Subsequently, the complainant dismissed the suit as to the surety, and so…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Goodman v. KopperlIllinois Supreme Court · 1897
- Hughes v. StubblefieldAppellate Court of Illinois · 1886
- Covington v. BurnesU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Missouri · 1870