Binga v. Bell

4 Citing cases

  1. Griffin Wellpoint Corp. v. Engelhardt, Inc.

    92 Ill. App. 3d 252 (Ill. App. Ct. 1980)   Cited 11 times
    In Griffin Wellpoint Corp. v. Engelhardt, Inc. (1980), 92 Ill. App.3d 252, 414 N.E.2d 941, a supplier did not insist on or demand prompt payment of invoices; it accepted a note and extended the time of payment, the note reciting a reservation of rights in favor of the supplier.

    ( E.g., Dupee v. Blake (1893), 148 Ill. 453; Mueller v. Dobschuetz.) Although the Albee opinion has been cited in later decisions, it has never been relied upon for the proposition that Peabody and Federal urge. (See, e.g., Metz v. Dionne (1928), 250 Ill. App. 369; Douglass v. Ullsperger (1929), 251 Ill. App. 145; Binga v. Bell (1930), 259 Ill. App. 361; Farmers Merchants Bank v. Narvid (1931), 259 Ill. App. 554; see also Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Bass (1934), 357 Ill. 72, 191 N.E. 284, aff'd (1934), 274 Ill. App. 76 ( Albee found controlling by appellate court, but not cited by the supreme court).) Thus, we cannot accept Federal's and Peabody's contention that the Albee decision is controlling in this case.

  2. Kazunas v. Wright

    4 N.E.2d 118 (Ill. App. Ct. 1936)   Cited 8 times
    In Kazunas v. Wright, 286 Ill. App. 554, the question arose as to whether the mortgage notes had been paid by a series of transactions at the Cottage Grove State Bank, and in discussing that question, it was held (p. 559): "... that the defense of payment is not sustained by the evidence.

    The theory of the author seems to be that these far reaching results arise solely out of the fact of the assumption of the mortgage debt by the grantee. That this theory prevails in the law of this State plaintiff cites cases such as Scholten v. Barber, 217 Ill. 148; Albee v. Gross, 250 Ill. App. 98; Douglass v. Ullsperger, 251 Ill. App. 145; Binga v. Bell, 259 Ill. App. 361, and other cases. We will allow the plaintiff to state his contention in his own words; he says:

  3. Prudential Ins. Co. v. Bass

    274 Ill. App. 76 (Ill. App. Ct. 1934)   Cited 6 times
    Interpreting contract stating insured was totally disabled when "rendered wholly, continuously, and permanently unable to engage in any occupation or perform any work for any kind of compensation of financial value during the remainder of his life.

    We therefore conclude that the Albee case settles the controverted question in this case in accordance with the contention of the appellees. The Albee case has been followed by the Appellate Courts in this State in Metz v. Dionne, 250 Ill. App. 369; Douglass v. Ullsperger, 251 Ill. App. 145; Binga v. Bell, 259 Ill. App. 361; Farmers Merchants Bank v. Narvid, 259 Ill. App. 554. For the reasons stated the decree is affirmed.

  4. Farmers and Merchants Bank v. Narvid

    259 Ill. App. 554 (Ill. App. Ct. 1931)   Cited 5 times

    Defendants contend that this ruling was erroneous and prejudicial and we think the contention must be sustained. If the time of payment had been extended by plaintiff with the subsequent owner or owners of the farm by agreement, for a consideration, so that it might be held that such owner or owners had agreed to pay the mortgage but without defendants' assent, this would discharge the defendants from personal liability for the debt for the reason that the relation of the grantee and grantor towards the mortgagee is that of principal and surety. Albee v. Gross, 250 Ill. App. 98; Douglass v. Ullsperger, 251 Ill. App. 145; and cases therein cited; Binga v. Bell, 259 Ill. App. 361. ( Union Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Hanford, 143 U.S. 187; Spencer v. Spencer, 95 N.Y. 353.)