Hurd v. Slaten

Citations

• 43 Ill. 348

Syllabus

<p>1. Judgment—assignment of— effect of release by attorney of assignor. A, on the 19th of December, 1860, executed his note with surety to B, upon the purchase of a certain judgment held by B, against 0, who was considered insolvent, but the written assignment thereof was not made until July, 1863, and was then antedated to correspond with the note. At the date of this assignment, an execution was in the hands of the sheriff upon this judgment, and the attorney for B indorsed upon it a receipt in full, and directed it returned, which was done, whereby A lost all benefit of the judgment. B afterward died, and A paid the amount of his note given for the purchase of the judgment to B’s administrator. A then filed his claim against B’s estate for the amount of such judgment. Held, first, that B, by his assignment, covenanted that the judgment against C was unsatisfied, and was for the amount specified therein. Second, that, it appearing, by the proof, that A, at the time he purchased the judgment, knew of a tract of land out of which the amount could have been collected, but that by the act of B’s attorney, and the insolvency of C, he had been deprived of all benefit of that for which he had paid value to B, the estate of B was liable for the amount of A’s claim.</p> <p>3. Probate court—equitable jurisdiction over claims presented. The probate court has equitable jurisdiction in the allowance of claims against the estates of deceased persons.</p>