{
  "id": 868969,
  "name": "Peyton R. Chandler and Frank R. Chandler, Co-partners as Chandler & Co., v. Nicholas J. O'Neil, Patrick O'Neil and Delaney & Murphy, a Corporation",
  "name_abbreviation": "Chandler v. O'Neil",
  "decision_date": "1896-02-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "418",
  "last_page": "420",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "62 Ill. App. 418"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "133 Ill. 278",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5426672
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/133/0278-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "34 Ill. App. 122",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        4998745
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/34/0122-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "70 Ill. 581",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5309292
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/70/0581-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 Doug. (Mich.) 217",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Doug.",
      "case_ids": [
        228871
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/doug/1/0217-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "41 Ill. 273",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5217648
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/41/0273-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "17 Ill. 259",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2592852
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/17/0259-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "58 N. W. Rep. 1134",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.W.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "40 Neb. 569",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Neb.",
      "case_ids": [
        4441572
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/neb/40/0569-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "23 Ill. 30",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5802769
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/23/0030-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "160 Ill. 394",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3128323
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/160/0394-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "43 Fed. Rep. 105",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.",
      "case_ids": [
        3726017
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f/43/0105-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "4 N. J. Eq. 72",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.J. Eq.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 Johns. Ch. 242",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Johns. Ch.",
      "case_ids": [
        1178051
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/johns-ch/2/0242-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "94 U. S. 741",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        5644736
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/94/0741-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 Ill. App. 126",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2403656
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/1/0126-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "141 Ill. 116",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5458973
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/141/0116-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 291,
    "char_count": 4476,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.561,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2078119812641517e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5951939669069509
    },
    "sha256": "0dfab9c34e21dc79ce2cef253a185f25441426b25655f9733d2afd5dc55b4246",
    "simhash": "1:5d5b5e4ec699a692",
    "word_count": 778
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:10:11.174453+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Peyton R. Chandler and Frank R. Chandler, Co-partners as Chandler & Co., v. Nicholas J. O\u2019Neil, Patrick O\u2019Neil and Delaney & Murphy, a Corporation."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nIn this State the different installments of a mortgage, secured by corresponding notes, may be regarded as so many successive mortgages, each installment having priority according to its time of becoming due. Schultz v. Plankinton Bank, 141 Ill. 116-121.\nThe holder of a mortgage, filing a bill to foreclose the same, need not make other mortgagees parties; the rights of those whose mortgages have precedence over his, he can not disturb, and his bill will affect the rights of only such subsequent mortgagees as he makes parties to his suit; they are proper, but not necessary, parties. Boyer v. Chandler, Supreme Court, Jan\u2019y 20, 1896.\nThe trustee in a trust deed is a necessary party to a suit for its foreclosure. Walsh v. Truesdell, 1 Ill. App. 126.\nFrank E. Chandler is the trustee, and he is a party to the bill. Being in court as a complainant holding coupon notes and seeking to foreclose the trust deed given to secure the same, under the charge in the bill that he is the trustee named therein, he is also a party to the bill as such trustee. Corcoran v. C. & O. C. Co., 94 U. S. 741; Brasher v. Van Cortlandt, 2 Johns. Ch. 242; Walton\u2019s Exrs. v. Herbert, 4 N. J. Eq. 72; Cornell v. Green, 43 Fed. Rep. 105.\nThe prayer of the bill was proper. Boyer v. Chandler, 160 Ill. 394.\nThe decree of the Circuit Court sustaining a demurrer to the bill is reversed and the cause remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Waterman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Stillman & Martyn, attorneys for appellants,",
      "Sullivan & Healy, attorneys for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Peyton R. Chandler and Frank R. Chandler, Co-partners as Chandler & Co., v. Nicholas J. O\u2019Neil, Patrick O\u2019Neil and Delaney & Murphy, a Corporation.\n1. Priorities\u2014Different Notes Secured by Mortgage.\u2014The different installments of a mortgage secured by corresponding notes, are to be regarded as so many successive mortgages. Each installment having priority according to its time of becoming due.\n3. Parties\u2014Mortgage Foreclosure.\u2014The holder of a mortgage, filing a bill to foreclose the same, need not make other mortgagees parties. The right of those whose mortgages have precedence over his, he can not disturb, and his bill will affect the rights of only such .subsequent mortgagees as he makes parties to his suit.\n3. Same\u2014Suing in Different Capacities.\u2014A complainant in a suit holding coupon notes and seeking to foreclose the trust deed given to secure the same, is, under the charge in the bill that he is the trustee named therein, also a party to the bill as such trustee.\n4. Foreclosure Suit\u2014Necessary Parties, etc.\u2014A trustee in a trust deed is a necessary party to a suit for its foreclosure. Subsequent mortgagees are proper, but not necessary parties.\nForeclosure of a Trust Deed.\u2014Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Richards. Tuthill, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1895.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed February 11, 1896.\nStatement of the Case.\nThis was a bill to foreclose a trust deed.\nThe bill was filed by the holder of certain coupon notes only.\nThe holder of the principal note ivas not made a party.\nA demurrer to the bill was sustained.\nThe following questions are presented :\n1. Whether the owner or holder of the first two coupon notes are necessary parties to the bill.\n2. Whether the owner or holder of the principal note mentioned in the bill of complaint, is not a necessary party.\n3. Whether the trustee mentioned in the trust deed is not a necessary party.\n4. Whether a bill to foreclose for interest coupon notes, then clue, can. properly specifically pray that any decree of sale of said premises, as prayed for in said bill, may direct that such sale be made subject to the lien of the trust deed, for the indebtedness secured by it, other and in addition to the amount found due complainants.\nStillman & Martyn, attorneys for appellants,\ncontended that a partial foreclosure may be had, by any note holder, subject to the continuing lien of the incumbrance foreclosed, for the security of indebtedness thereafter to accrue. Vansant v. Allmon, 23 Ill. 30; Burnett v. Hoffman, 40 Neb. 569; 58 N. W. Rep. 1134; Weiner v. Heintz, 17 Ill. 259; Mines v. Moore, 41 Ill. 273; Sargent v. Howe, 21 ill. 148; Kimmell v. Willard\u2019s Admrs., 1 Doug. (Mich.) 217.\nInterest coupons are in effect promissory notes. Harper v. Ely, 70 Ill. 581.\nNote holders, on default, are under no obligation to declare the entire debt due, but may proceed to foreclose separately. Bressler v. Martin, 34 Ill. App. 122; 133 Ill. 278.\nSullivan & Healy, attorneys for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0418-01",
  "first_page_order": 414,
  "last_page_order": 416
}