Fisher v. Dillon

Citations

• 62 Ill. 379

Syllabus

<p>1. Mortgage—sub-ogation—right of one of two mortgagors paying for the other. When A and B, being equally interested in the purchase of land, gave their joint notes for the unpaid purchase money, secured by their mortgage on the premises, and B refused to pay $800 of his part of the last note, so that the land of A (a partition having been made) was sold under decree of foreclosure, and he was compelled to redeem the same : Held, on cross bill of A, to a hill filed by B, that A was entitled to a decree against B for the amount so paid by him of B’s part of the note, with six per cent interest.</p> <p>2. Fraud—misrepresentation as to value. Where a party, before purchasing an undivided half of a tract of land, went upon it to satisfy himself of its situation and value, and after its partition with the defendant, the owner of the other half filed his bill in chancery, alleging that the defendant had falsely represented that the half set apart to him was of less value than the other half: Held, that as the complainant had seen the land, though he had not gone over it with a view to have it divided, he could not be heard to say that he relied on the representations of the comparative value of the two parts thereof, and that it would be presumed he acted upon his own judgment.</p> <p>3. Same. In such case, a statement of the relative value of two portions of a tract of land, with a view to a division between the owners, will he regarded simply as an expression of opinion as to value.</p> <p>4. Same—¡division of land. Where the land of two joint owners is divided by the parties without either knowing which part he will receive as his share, it will be presumed that the division was fairly made, or as nearly so as the parties were able to make it.</p>