Groch v. Stenger

Citations

• 65 Ill. 481

Syllabus

<p>1. Chancery practice—reference to master to find amount due on mortgage. Where it appeared on bill to foreclose a mortgage that the note described in the mortgage was given to secure future advances, and did not represent the state of account between the parties, the evidence being voluminous, and disclosing a complicated state of account running through a considerable period of time subsequent to the making of the note and mortgage, showing the advance of varioiis large sums of money, and that the mortgagor was entitled to numerous credits from time to time, and the evidence was unsatisfactory: Held, that it was the duty of the court to have referred the case to the master to state the account, leaving the parties to take exceptions to his report as to any matter with which they were dissatisfied; and for want of this, and because the evidence was unsatisfactory, the decree was reversed.</p> <p>2. Same—error to take decree on lost dill. Where the supplemental bill upon which a decree was based did not appear in the record and was lost before decree taken: Held, that it was a fatal error to proceed to a decree before supplying the lost files.</p>