{
  "id": 2570080,
  "name": "Jacob Ellis v. Conrad Seipp Brewing Co. et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ellis v. Conrad Seipp Brewing Co.",
  "decision_date": "1903-02-27",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "139",
  "last_page": "141",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "107 Ill. App. 139"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "190 Ill. 105",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3243934
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/190/0105-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "90 Ill. App. 58",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        1673297
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/90/0058-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "60 Ill. 380",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        8501480
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/60/0380-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "84 Ill. 183",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2652854
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/84/0183-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "74 Ill. 238",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2702811
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/74/0238-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "111 Ill. 462",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        828326
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/111/0462-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "34 Ill. 508",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5288221
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/34/0508-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "190 Ill. 105",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3243934
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/190/0105-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "84 Ill. 183",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2652854
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/84/0183-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "111 Ill. 462",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        828326
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/111/0462-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "34 Ill. 508",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5288221
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/34/0508-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 228,
    "char_count": 3429,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.551,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0846280562546492e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7595184120773064
    },
    "sha256": "a670cf44b28c5265b1d3e11ff3e5e362a236d7ba661b1109cfca5ed0c24cbbd3",
    "simhash": "1:d1112f81749bd699",
    "word_count": 599
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:28:25.672987+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Jacob Ellis v. Conrad Seipp Brewing Co. et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Hr. Presiding Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis is an appeal from a mortgage foreclosure decree. Plaintiff in error contends that he did not understand the significance of a written agreement between him, one Wolfe and the brewing company; and that therefore there was no meeting of minds and the writing made may be disregarded. There is no evidence warranting our so doing.\nPlaintiff in error urges that if we shall not agree with him as to the binding force of such writing, we should set aside the decree because Wolfe, as between himself and Ellis, was the principal, and he, Ellis, a surety as to the indebtedness of Ellis to the brewing company; and the decree does not provide for the release of certain valid collateral liens securing such indebtedness upon other property belonging to Ellis, unless under the foreclosure sale there shall be realized enough to pay the entire debt secured by the mortgage made by him.\nWhen collateral is held for the payment of a debt, the owner of such collateral', although a surety, is not entitled to a release of the collateral until the entire debt is paid. Henry v. Eddy, 34 Ill. 508; Jenkins v. The International Bank, 111 Ill. 462.\nThe question before us is not as to the right of Ellis as between himself and Wolfe, but as to the respective rights of the brewing company and plaintiff in error.\nPayments made by a debtor without direction as to the application thereof by either creditor or debtor will be by the law first applied toward the satisfaction of that debt the security of 'which is most precarious; that is, is least secure. Wilhelm v. Schmidt, 84 Ill. 183-188; Monson v. Meyer, 190 Ill. 105-107.\nThe decree of the Superior Court is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Hr. Presiding Justice Waterman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Samuel J. Howe, attorney for plaintiff in error.",
      "WrasTon, Babcock, Strawx & Shaw, attorneys for defendants in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Jacob Ellis v. Conrad Seipp Brewing Co. et al.\n1. Debtor and Creditor\u2014Rights of Owner of Collateral Held for Payment of a Debt.\u2014When collateral is held for the payment of a debt, the owner of such collateral, although a surety, is not entitled to a release of the collateral until the entire debt is paid.\n2. Same\u2014Payments Made Without Direction as to Application is Applied by Law to the Most Precarious Debt.\u2014Payments made by a debtor without direction as to the application thereof by either creditor or debtor will be by the law first applied toward the satisfaction of the debt the security of which is the most precarious, that is, is least secured.\nBill for Foreclosure.\u2014Error to the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Philip Stein, Judge presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1902.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed February 27, 1903.\nSamuel J. Howe, attorney for plaintiff in error.\nWrasTon, Babcock, Strawx & Shaw, attorneys for defendants in error.\nA surety is not entitled to release until the payment of the whole of the principal debt. Brandt on \u201c Suretyship and Guaranty,\u201d (2d Ed.), Vol. 2, Sec. 306; Henry v. Eddy, 34 Ill. 508; Jenkins v. International Bank, 111 Ill. 462.\nWhere there is -no agreement by the parties as to the application of payments, it is the creditor\u2019s right to have the payment applied to the debt which is most precarious, and the law will make the application in the manner most advantageous to the creditor. Hansen v. Rounsavell, 74 Ill. 238; Parsons on Contracts, Vol. 2, Sec. 631-632; Wilhelm v. Schmidt, 84 Ill. 183; Hare v. Stegall, 60 Ill. 380; Chicago Title & Trust Co. v. McGlew, 90 Ill. App. 58; Monson v. Meyer, 190 Ill. 105."
  },
  "file_name": "0139-01",
  "first_page_order": 161,
  "last_page_order": 163
}