Brown v. Devine

Citations

• 61 Ill. 260

Syllabus

<p>1. Mortgage—statute of limitations. Where the mortgagor of land conveyed the same, and the grantee complied with all the requirements of the limitation law of 1839, and when sued he relied upon that statute as a bar: Held, as against the mortgagee,the statute would not apply.</p> <p>2. Same. This case distinguished from the case of Cook v. Norton, 43 Ill. 391, and 48 Ill. 20. In that case it was held that a purchaser from a judgment debtor, buying after a sale on execution, and within fifteen months, might set up and rely upon this statute, against the purchaser under the execution, and that the statute began to run from the time the purchaser might have obtained his sheriff’s deed. In that case it was said, if the purchaser had the right to suppose that the purchase from the debtor was for the purpose of redeeming, he had no right to so think after the time to redeem had expired. And in that consists the distinction between tiie two cases, as in this the mortgagee has no right to suppose the purchase was made for any other purpose than to redeem.</p>