{
  "id": 5220913,
  "name": "W. W. Watts, Ex'r, etc., v. John P. Hoffman et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Watts v. Hoffman",
  "decision_date": "1898-08-31",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "411",
  "last_page": "413",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "77 Ill. App. 411"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "22 Ill. 249",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5281652
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/22/0249-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 Gil. 490",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Gilmer",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 253,
    "char_count": 3891,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.61,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2855415014244854e-07,
      "percentile": 0.618617533300204
    },
    "sha256": "55ded923a89c15697d43ae4a620386ff41c43d3e051ff725b2b5244b3bb9abe3",
    "simhash": "1:9c48c8b05cbb9cd4",
    "word_count": 685
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:36:43.320990+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "W. W. Watts, Ex\u2019r, etc., v. John P. Hoffman et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Me. Peesiding Justice Ceeighton\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis was a bill in chancery filed on the 26th day of February, 1895, in the Circuit Court of Clay County, to foreclose a mortgage given by John P. Hoffman and Maria Hoffman, two of defendants in error, to. the testator of plaintiff in error, to secure five notes of date November 20, 1882, for $230, each bearing eight per cent interest from date, to be paid one, two, three, four and five years, respectively, after date. Each note, except the one to be paid in one year after date, contained the following: ' \u201c Interest payable yearly, and if interest is not paid when due, the whole of this note to fall due;\u201d and the mortgage contained : \u201c But it is expressly provided.and agreed, that if default be made in the payment of the said five promissory notes or any part thereof, or the interest thereon, or any part thereof, at the time and in the manner above specified for the payment thereof, or in case of waste or non-payment of taxes or assessments on said premises, or of a breach of any of the covenants or agreements herein contained, then, and in such case, the whole of said principal sum and interest, secured by the said five promissory notes in this mortgage mentioned, shall thereupon, at the option of said mortgagee, * * * become immediately due and payable.\u201d\nThe bill averred that the makers had not paid the principal sum of said notes or the interest thereon or any part thereof. A demurrer was interposed, upon the ground that under the above averment and the terms of the notes set out in the bill, the whole- debt matured at the end of the first year, so that the statute of limitations began to run; and that at the time of filing the bill, all right of action, as to all of said notes, was barred.\nThe trial court sustained the demurrer, dismissed the bill, and ordered execution to issue against executor for costs.\nWe are of opinion the learned chancellor erred in his disposition of the case. A provision in a note and mortgage that upon default in the payment of interest, the entire debt shall immediately become due and payable, is permissive only. It does not of itself cause the notes to mature, so as to start the running of the statute of limitations. Nebraska City National Bank v. Nebraska City Gas Light & Coke Co., 4 McCrary\u2019s Reports 319; Richardson v. Warner, 28 Federal Reporter, 343.\nHad it been proper to dismiss the bill, still it would be error to award execution against the executor for costs. A recovery against an administrator or executor, should be adjudged to be paid in due course of administration. Welch, Adm\u2019r, v. Wallace, 3 Gil. 490; Granjang v. Merkle, 22 Ill. 249.\nThe order, decree and judgment of the Circuit Court are reversed and cause remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Me. Peesiding Justice Ceeighton"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. W. Watts, attorney pro se.",
      "B. D. Muneoe, attorney for defendants in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "W. W. Watts, Ex\u2019r, etc., v. John P. Hoffman et al.\n1. Statute of Limitations\u2014When it Begins to Run on Notes, with Provision that on Default in the Payment of Interest, the Entire Debt Becomes Due.\u2014A provision in a note and mortgage that upon default in the payment of interest, the entire debt shall immediately become due and payable, is permissive only. It does not of itself cause the notes to mature, so as to start the running of the statute of limitations.\n2. Execution\u2014Error to Award Costs and Execution Against an Executor.\u2014On the dismissal of a bill against an executor, it is error to award execution against the executor for costs. A recovery against an administrator or executor should be adjudged to be paid in due course of administration.\nBill of Foreclosure.\u2014Trial in the Circuit Court of Clay County; the Hon. Edmund D. Youngblood, Judge, presiding. Finding and decree for defendant on demurrer. Error by plaintiff.\nHeard in this court at the February term, 1898.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed August 31, 1898.\nW. W. Watts, attorney pro se.\nB. D. Muneoe, attorney for defendants in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0411-01",
  "first_page_order": 413,
  "last_page_order": 415
}
