Gault v. Hoagland
Illinois Supreme Court
This was a bill filed to foreclose a mortgage on real estate, executed by James 0. Gault and Joseph Smeetzer, (plaintiffs in error,) to Julien S. Hoagland and John Ricketts, to secure the payment of a debt of $2,400, due from mortgagors to mortgagees. The mortgaged property is described in bill and mortgage.
Read the full summary
This was a bill filed to foreclose a mortgage on real estate, executed by James 0. Gault and Joseph Smeetzer, (plaintiffs in error,) to Julien S. Hoagland and John Ricketts, to secure the payment of a debt of $2,400, due from mortgagors to mortgagees. The mortgaged property is described in bill and mortgage. The bill states, that the debt and mortgage was to be discharged by the delivery of three hundred thousand brick, as per three obligations referred to, and the payment of a promissory note, due January 1st, 1858, for six hundred dollars. The bill "admits the delivery of the three hundred…
1Opinion of the CourtBreese, J.
A decree pro confesso, as we understand it, concludes the party only as to the averments in the bill. He cannot, on error, allege the want of testimony, or the insufficiency or amount of the evidence the court may have heard. The rule is well settled that a defendant in chancery cannot, on error, object to the sufficiency of complainant’s proof when the bill is taken for confessed. It is, in such case, discretionary with the court to require proof or not. Manchester et al. v. McKee, Ex’r, 4 Gilm. 517; Johnson v. Donnell et al., 15 Ill. 98. He may however, on error, contest the sufficiency of…
2Cited by12 opinions
- London & Lancashire Indemnity Co. of America v. TindallIllinois Supreme Court · 1941
- Boston v. NicholsIllinois Supreme Court · 1868
- Armstrong v. Douglas Park Building Ass'nIllinois Supreme Court · 1898
- Duval v. DuvalIllinois Supreme Court · 1894
- Free v. LittleUtah Supreme Court · 1907
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.