Thompson v. Hoagland

Citations

• 65 Ill. 310

Syllabus

<p>1. Vabiance—waiver of, in chancery proceeding. Where a mortgage contained a copy of the note it was given to secure, except the words “ value received,” which followed the words “from date,” but on the hearing of a bill to foreclose the same, the note was objected to, but not on account of the variance: Held, that the objection came too late on appeal, as, if it had been made in the court below, it could have been obviated by an amendment of the bill.</p> <p>2. Pbomissoby note—construction in respect to interest. Where a promissory note was given in the following form: “ §374.79. Middleport, Sept. 8, 1858.</p> <p>One year after date I promise to pay Wm. Thompson or order §374.79, at ten per centum from date, value received.</p> <p>George Hoagland.”</p> <p>Held, that the words “ at ten per centum from date ” made the note an interest bearing note at the rate of ten per cent per annum from its date.</p> <p>3. Pbactice in supbemb court—when the cause will he remanded on reversal. Where a decree for the foreclosure of a mortgage was reversed, and the interposition of a master in chancery was necessary to compute the interest due, which was not allowed by the court below, this court declined to enter the decree on reversal which the circuit court ought to have rendered, but remanded the cause with special directions.</p> <p>4. Promissory note—possession evidence of ownership. Where it was contended that the payee of a note had assigned the same so as to let in proof of payment to the assignee, it was held that possession of the note by payee, who was seeking to enforce the payment, was strong evidence to show it was still his property.</p>