{
  "id": 2906302,
  "name": "Emma Boulter, Appellant, v. Clayton Cunningham et al., Appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "Boulter v. Cunningham",
  "decision_date": "1914-11-25",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 19,250",
  "first_page": "597",
  "last_page": "598",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "189 Ill. App. 597"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 240,
    "char_count": 3051,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.556,
    "sha256": "127044e06793fe860f0073887ed8d73955b70bcdf8211b7e933a485367bff0b6",
    "simhash": "1:545ecea2d31dc07b",
    "word_count": 526
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:38:10.053698+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Emma Boulter, Appellant, v. Clayton Cunningham et al., Appellees."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Graves\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Graves"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "G. H. Sugrue, for appellant.",
      "George R. Mitchell and Samuel B. King, for certain appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Emma Boulter, Appellant, v. Clayton Cunningham et al., Appellees.\nGen. No. 19,250.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Marcus A. Kavanaqh, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1913.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed November 25, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nBill in chancery by Emma Boulter against Clayton Cunningham, Franklin Stillwell and Jacob D. Rosenberg to redeem certain lands sold under a decree of foreclosure. The orator claimed to be the assignee of the mortgagor, and claimed the right to redeem, though the statutory period had expired, by virtue of a contract between the mortgagor and trustee in the trust deed, whereby she claimed to be the owner of the equity of redemption for two months before the expiration of the time limited by the contract, for redemption.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Mortgages, \u00a7 674 \u2014what is effect of foreclosure. A foreclosure proceeding is lis pendens until the decree is executed hy delivery of possession of the premises to the grantee in the master\u2019s deed.\n2. Mortgages, \u00a7 674 \u2014when purchaser is effected by foreclosure. One who purchases pendente lite any rights in property thaf is the subject of a decree is to all intents and purposes a party to the decree, and cannot be heard to say that he does not know of the pendency of the suit and the steps that are taken therein.\n3. Mortgages, \u00a7 716 \u2014when hill to redeem, insufficient. In a suit to redeem property sold under a decree of foreclosure, an allegation that the fact of the pendency and the sale of the premises were \u201cfraudulently concealed\u201d from the plaintiff is a mere conclusion and amounts to nothing in the absence of averments of facts constituting the fraudulent conduct complained of.\n4. Mortgages, \u00a7 716 \u2014when hill to redeem insufficient. A hill to redeem property sold under a decree of foreclosure is fatally defective when there is no averment that the plaintiff has ever paid, or offered to pay, or tendered, or was willing to pay the 'sum of money for which the premises were sold with interest.\n5. Mortgages, \u00a7 716 \u2014what allegation in hill to redeem insufficient to show payment. An allegation in the prayer of a bill to redeem property sold under a decree of foreclosure that the property he declared to he the property of the orator on the payment of a certain sum to the \u201clegal holder of the note\u201d hereinbefore referred to, is insufficient as an offer to pay the sum for which the property was sold, since the offer did not include the necessary interest, and since the holder of the note and the holder of the title were under the circumstances, two different persons.\nA general and special demurrer to the bill was sustained and the bill dismissed for want of equity, whereupon the orator appealed.\nG. H. Sugrue, for appellant.\nGeorge R. Mitchell and Samuel B. King, for certain appellees.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and se\u00f3tion number."
  },
  "file_name": "0597-01",
  "first_page_order": 623,
  "last_page_order": 624
}