Heacock v. Swartwout
Illinois Supreme Court
The bill of complaint of Swartwout sets forth and avers, that on the 81st of October, 1855, he, Swartwout, became the owner, and held a certificate duly made and issued by the board of trustees of the Illinois and Michigan Canal, of a purchase of a lot of land, viz., South half south of canal, Section 23, Township 38 north, of Range 12 east of third principal meridian, containing 300 acres.
Read the full summary
The bill of complaint of Swartwout sets forth and avers, that on the 81st of October, 1855, he, Swartwout, became the owner, and held a certificate duly made and issued by the board of trustees of the Illinois and Michigan Canal, of a purchase of a lot of land, viz., South half south of canal, Section 23, Township 38 north, of Range 12 east of third principal meridian, containing 300 acres. That being such owner, he did on that day make and execute a certain agreement with William O. Heacock, by which it was agreed that after Swartwout- had procured a deed of said land from said canal…
1Opinion of the Court
Catón, C. J.
Ho case could be more clearly made out than this, of a loan of money and a sale and agreement to re-sell, for the purpose of covering up an usurious rate of interest agreed upon between the parties. The testimony is all one way, perfectly consistent with the appearance and completion of the transaction. We shall spend no time on this part of the case.
What, then, were the rights of the parties ? Simply these. The complainant had a right to have his money back, with six per cent, interest, so soon as due, or,’ in default, to have the land sold as upon a decree foreclosing a…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Kinney v. SmithOregon Supreme Court · 1911
- Green v. CappsIllinois Supreme Court · 1892
- Kemper v. CampbellOhio Supreme Court · 1886