Gautzert v. Hoge

Citations

• 73 Ill. 30

Syllabus

<p>1. Party PLAmriEE at law—on simple contract. It is well settled, as a general rule, that, in cases of simple contracts, the person for whose use the contract is made may maintain an action in his own name upon it, although the consideration does not move from him.</p> <p>3. Same—on specialty. But in the case of specialties, where there is a covenant with one person to pay another a sum of money, the latter can not maintain an action thereon, but suit must be brought in the name of the former.</p> <p>3. Thus, where the purchaser of land executed to the vendor a mortgage to secure the purchase money, which contained a covenant on the part of the mortgagor to pay the mortgagee the sum of §600 in one year after its date, and also a covenant to pay a mortgage given by the mortgagee to a third party, of §550, on the same land, it was held, that such third party could not maintain an action of covenant on the mortgage, but that the suit should have been brought in the name of the mortgagee.</p> <p>4. Evidence—patrol, to vary written contract. Parol testimony can not be received to vary the legal effect of a written instrument, but it must be construed as it is, unaffected by parol evidence beyond that of surrounding circumstances.</p>