{ "id": 5122602, "name": "Goodwin et al v. Bishop", "name_abbreviation": "Goodwin v. Bishop", "decision_date": "1893-02-01", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "145", "last_page": "148", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "50 Ill. App. 145" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "104 Ill. 491", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5348574 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/104/0491-01" ] }, { "cite": "120 Ill. 390", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5384892 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/120/0390-01" ] }, { "cite": "122 Ill. 352", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5390278 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/122/0352-01" ] }, { "cite": "141 U. S. 411", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 3556597 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/us/141/0411-01" ] }, { "cite": "132 Ill. 550", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5421468 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/132/0550-01" ] }, { "cite": "90 Ill. 283", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2757264 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/90/0283-01" ] }, { "cite": "113 Ill. 382", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2866790 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/113/0382-01" ] }, { "cite": "110 Ill. 390", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5372036 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/110/0390-01" ] }, { "cite": "110 Ill. 235", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5371535 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/110/0235-01" ] }, { "cite": "109 Ill. 151", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2852447 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/109/0151-01" ] }, { "cite": "141 U. S. 384", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 3555626 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/us/141/0384-01" ] }, { "cite": "133 Ill. 199", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5428658 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/133/0199-01" ] }, { "cite": "126 Ill. 433", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "120 Ill. 392", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "122 Ill. 354", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "111 Ill. 506", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 828360 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/111/0506-01" ] }, { "cite": "28 Ill. App. 305", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 4960362 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/28/0305-01" ] }, { "cite": "100 Ill. 611", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2822430 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/100/0611-01" ] }, { "cite": "50 Ill. 270", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2606840 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/50/0270-01" ] }, { "cite": "28 Ill. 52", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "21 Ill. App. 403", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 2414541 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/21/0403-01" ] }, { "cite": "103 Ill. 363", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "21 Ill. 338", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2599465 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/21/0338-01" ] }, { "cite": "57 Ill. 138", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5241706 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/57/0138-01" ] }, { "cite": "40 Ill. 520", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "34 Ill. App. 541", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5000711 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/34/0541-01" ] }, { "cite": "83 Ill. 519", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2658913 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/83/0519-01" ] }, { "cite": "132 Ill. 550", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5421468 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "554" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/132/0550-01" ] }, { "cite": "90 Ill. 283", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2757264 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/90/0283-01" ] }, { "cite": "113 Ill. 382", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2866790 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/113/0382-01" ] }, { "cite": "110 Ill. 390", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5372036 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/110/0390-01" ] }, { "cite": "111 Ill. 506", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 828360 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "510" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/111/0506-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 425, "char_count": 6529, "ocr_confidence": 0.466, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.1555013439007448 }, "sha256": "e463823b596591cf9060b402bc70500f375f8da94277e6f3d7a35c26550b521a", "simhash": "1:95ca99d93813e81e", "word_count": 1166 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:57:42.711650+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Goodwin et al v. Bishop." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Opinion by the Court.\nA bill having been filed by H. E. Lowe, trustee, and E. F. Bagley, successor, to foreclose a trust deed made by appellants to secure their note for $5,000, with interest thereon at seven per cent per annum, a decree was rendered from which this appeal is prosecuted.\nIt was urged in. the court below, and is here, that the loan was usurious; the statement of the answer as to this was as follows:\n\u201cAnd these respondents say that they did not, nor did either of them, receive the full sum of $5,000 from said complainants at the time of making said loan, nor at any time, nor did they receive any money at the date of said notes and trust deed, and so these respondents say that the amount claimed by said complainants is largely tainted with \u2022 usury.\u201d\nThis was insufficient. It is not suffi cient at law or in chancery to plead in general terms that the transaction was usurious; the facts- constituting the usury must be set forth. Mosier v. Norton, 83 Ill. 519; Hoskins v. Cole, 34 Ill. App. 541; Dunham v. Tucker, 40 Ill. 520; Frank v. Morris, 57 Ill. 138.\nThe answer not being under oath, it was not necessary that the complainant should except thereto. Supervisors of Fulton Co. v. Mississippi & Wabash Ry. Co., 21 Ill. 338.\nEven had usury been properly set up in the answer, we do not think that such defense ivas made out.\nAppellant having applied to Lowe for a loan, voluntarily paid to him, the agent, a commission for procuring the loan, and also paid him for expense he had incurred in having the abstract of title examined.\nThe payment of these sums was entirely proper, and did not tend to make the transaction usurious. Anmondson v. Ryan, 111 Ill. 506, 510; Tulford v. Garrels, 132 Ill. 550, 554; Boylston v. Bain, 90 Ill. 283; Kihlholz v. Wolf, 103 Ill. 363; Hoyt v. Pawtucket Ins. Co., 110 Ill. 390; Cox v. Life Ins. Co., 113 Ill. 382.\nThe fixing of an amount to be allowed for solicitors\u2019 fees was a matter committed by the complainants to the judgment of the court; the sum allowed was warranted by the evidence on that subject, and seems to have been reasonable and proper.\nWe see no objection to the course pursued by the chancellor upon' the coming in of the master's report.\nThe decree follows the law, and is just and equitable, and will be affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": null } ], "attorneys": [ "Appellants\u2019 Brief, Lyman M. Paine, Attorney.", "Appellee\u2019s Bribe, Marston, Augur & Tuttle, Attorneys." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Goodwin et al v. Bishop.\ni. Usury\u2014Pleading at Law and in Chancery.\u2014It is not sufficient at law or in chancery to plead in general terms that the transaction was usurious; the facts constituting the usury must be set forth.\n2. Chancery\u2014Exceptions to Answer.\u2014Where the answer in chancery is not under oath, it is not necessary to file exceptions to it.\n3. Usury\u2014What Constitutes.\u2014Where a person applied to an agent for a loan and voluntarily paid him a commission for procuring it, and also paid him for expenses he had incurred in having the abstract examined, it was held, that such payment was entirely proper, and did not tend to make the transaction usurious.\n4. Foreclosure\u2014Fixing Solicitor's Fees.\u2014The fixing of the amount to be allowed for solicitor\u2019s fees, in the foreclosure of a trust deed, is a matter which rests in the reasonable judgment of the court upon the evidence offered for that purpose.\nMemorandum.\u2014Bill to foreclose a trust deed. Bill filed July 8, 1891. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Murray F. Tuley, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1892, and affirmed.\nOpinion filed February 1, 1893.\nStatement op the Case.\nThis was a bill in chancery to foreclose a trust deed, given by appellants to H. E. Lowe, trustee, to secure their note for $5,000, due in three years, with interest at seven per cent. Appellants answered, setting up usury in the transaction and claiming that fees for the trustee and solicitor were unreasonable. Testimony was taken before a master in chancery, who reported that $5,486.20 was due complainant and $250 for solicitor\u2019s fees. Objections were made before the master and overruled, and the same renewed before the court at the hearing. The court sustained one exception made by appellants, and eliminated from the amount reported by the master the interest accruing on the loan from the date of the notes till the money was received by appellants, and confirmed the master\u2019s report in other respects. The court added to the amount found due by the master the sum of $95, interest on the principal note, and entered a decree, etc.\nAppellants\u2019 Brief, Lyman M. Paine, Attorney.\nAppellants insisted that when usury is apparent, it need not be pleaded. Bank v. Barton, 21 Ill. App. 403; Stockham v. Munson, 28 Ill. 52; Drake v. Latham, 50 Ill. 270.\nIt is not enough that the money was paid to the lender\u2019s agent or broker or attorney by direction of the borrower. The money must go direct to the borrower or to the payment of his legitimate obligations. The payment to Bishop\u2019s agent or to Bishop\u2019s attorneys was in effect a payment to Bishop, and since these items amount to $175, the transaction became tainted with usury, and the court should have so decreed. This subject has been before the courts of this State quite frequently of late, and the law is well settled. Payne v. Newcomb, 100 Ill. 611; Jackson v. May, 28 Ill. App. 305; Ammondson v. Ryan, 111 Ill. 506; Barton v. Farm. Nat. Bk. 122 Ill. 354; -Haldeman v. Mass. M. L. Ins. Co., 120 Ill. 392; Barry v. Guild, 126 Ill. 433; Sanford v. Kane, 133 Ill. 199; Fowler v. Equitable Trust Co., 141 U. S. 384.\nAppellee\u2019s Bribe, Marston, Augur & Tuttle, Attorneys.\nAppellee insisted that the difference between the rate per cent allowed by law and the rate reserved in the notes, can be received as commissions or otherwise without rendering the loan usurious. McGovern v. Life Ins. Co., 109 Ill. 151; Brown v. Mortgage Co., 110 Ill. 235.\nPayment by borrower of charge for examination of abstract and making out papers is proper. Ammondson v. Ryan, 111 Ill. 506.\nBrokers negotiating loans of other people\u2019s money may charge the borrower commissions, without making a loan at the full rate of legal interest, usurious. Hoyt v. Pawtucket Inst., 110 Ill. 390; Cox v. Life Ins. Co., 113 Ill. 382; Fowler v. Trust Co., 141 U. S. 384; Boylston v. Bain, 90 Ill. 283; Telford v. Garrels, 132 Ill. 550.\nA provision in the trust deed for the allowance of solicit- or's fees, is proper and will be sustained. Fowler v. Trust Co., 141 U. S. 411; Barton v. F. & M. Nat. Bank, 122 Ill. 352; Haldeman v. Mass. Ins. Co., 120 Ill. 390; McIntire v. Yates, 104 Ill. 491; Telford v. Garrels, 132 Ill. 550." }, "file_name": "0145-01", "first_page_order": 141, "last_page_order": 144 }