Great Lakes Mortgage Corp. v. Collymore

2 Citing cases

  1. Ramirez v. Smart Corp.

    371 Ill. App. 3d 797 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007)   Cited 49 times
    Holding that Illinois "has an interest in transactions that violate 'statutorily-defined public policy'" such that "the voluntary payment rule will not be applicable"

    The effect of such transgressive acts, generally speaking, is that the voluntary payment rule will not be applicable. Pratt, 968 S.W.2d 868; see, for example, Great Lakes Mortgage Corp. v. Collymore, 14 Ill. App. 3d 68, 71 (1973) (statute in derogation of common law abrogates common law rule to extent expressed by words of the statute or necessarily implied from what is expressed). Here, if proved, Smart's allegedly excessive charges might well violate the intent of the Hospital Records Act, i.e., that a party must act reasonably when fulfilling its mandate.

  2. Lites v. Jackson

    70 Ill. App. 3d 374 (Ill. App. Ct. 1979)   Cited 27 times
    Holding that "the word Employee is used in a limited and restricted sense," and only includes "all persons hired to render services of the same general nature that are due from a Mechanic, artisan, miner, laborer or Servant"

    Statutes in derogation of the common law cannot be construed as changing the common law beyond what is expressed by the words of the statute or is necessarily implied from what is expressed, and it will not be presumed that an innovation was intended further than that which was specified or was clearly implied. See Great Lakes Mortgage Corp. v. Collymore, 14 Ill. App.3d 68, 71-72, 302 N.E.2d 248, 250 (1973); 34 Ill. L. Prac. Statutes § 176. (1958). • 3 The remedial aspect of a statute in derogation of the common law does not warrant construing the statute liberally from the standpoint of exclusion and inclusion of persons, but the statute will be strictly construed in determining what persons are within the statute.