Harding v. Durand

Citations

• 138 Ill. 515
• 28 N.E. 948

Syllabus

<p>1. Statute oe Limitations—equitable remedy, when barred—mort- ■ gage foreclosure. Where there is a legal and an equitable remedy in respect to the same subject matter, the latter is under the control of the same statutory bar as the former. If, therefore, an action at law on a note would be .barred by the statute, a bill to foreclose a mortgage given to secure the same will also be barred.</p> <p>2. Same—construed—notes executed within or without the State. The first section of the act of 1849, limiting actions upon promissory notes, etc., to sixteen years after the cause of action has accrued, applies to notes executed within or without the State, alike.</p> <p>3. Evidence—in avoidance of Statute of Limitations—allegations in the bill. On a bill to foreclose a mortgage, to which the Statute of Limitations is interposed as a defense, the complainant can not give in evidence a new promise or evidence of the absence of the mortgagor from the State in avoidance of the bar, unless such matter of avoid-A anceus alleged in the bill.</p> <p>4. Chancery pleading—avoidance of bar of Statute of Limitations. The rule in chancery cases, where the Statute of Limitations is interposed as a defense, and it is ihtended by the complainant to rely upon grounds of exception which prevent the bar of the statute, is to allege those grounds in the bill. This may be done by an amendment to the . bilk</p>