Bullock v. Narrott

Citations

• 49 Ill. 62

Syllabus

<p>1. Fraud—how shorn. It is not the rule that fraud must be shown by affirmative testimony. Proof of such fact may be shown by circumstances, from the existence of which, the inference of fraud is natural and irresistible.</p> <p>2. Instructions—must be based upon the evidence. It is error for the court to give an instruction which presumes the existence of a fact, that the evidence does not show to exist.</p> <p>3. Same—which direct the jury to decide upon a question of laxo—ex'roneous. The question, whether a mortgage had been properly executed and acknowledged, is one of law, to be passed upon by the court, and which it is error to leave to the decision of the jury.</p> <p>4. Fraud—presumptive evidence of. Where a party executed and delivered to another a chattel mortgage upon certain property, wnich was duly recorded, and shortly after died, and in an action of replevin for the mortgaged property, which had been taken upon execution, subsequently brought by the mortgagee, it was shown, that at the time of the mortgagor’s death, he had in his possession the note for which the mortgage was given as security: JHeld, that this fact was a strong circumstance against the bonafides and honesty of the mortgage transaction, the presumption being, either that the note had never been delivered, or had been paid and taken up; and this, no matter how honest the transaction may have been.</p>