Case ID: ill-app_195/html/0017-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Barnes", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Edward J. Baker, Appellee, v. J. Verne Benjamin and Fred Meyer, Defendants, on appeal of Fred Meyer, Appellant.
    Gen. No. 20,860.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Clarence N. Goodwin, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1914.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed October 5, 1915.
    Rehearing denied October 11, 1915.
    Statement of the Case.
    Bill in equity to cancel a note and chattel mortgage by Edward J. Baker against J. Verne Benjamin and Fred Meyer. Plaintiff conducted a tin shop and went to Benjamin, a loan broker, to obtain a loan of five hundred dollars. The latter agreed to procure it, and Baker executed a note and chattel mortgage on the property in the tin shop which were delivered to Benjamin together with an assignment of accounts. Later, Benjamin gave his note to Meyer to cover an indebtedness and, as collateral thereto, Baker’s note and mortgage. Meyer was advised that the Baker note was non-negotiable and called at the tin shop to inquire about the same but Baker was absent and his conversation was with Baker’s brother. The Baker note was for five hundred and fifty dollars, but he was to receive only five hundred dollars. Baker signed and received a receipt for fifty dollars, but he claimed that no money was paid and the transaction was merely to cover up usury. This bill was filed because the loan was not consummated, and a receiver was appointed to take possession pf the note, mortgage and assignment. The case was referred to a master who found that the fifty dollars for which the receipt was given was not paid, and that the assignment of accounts, note and mortgage were without consideration.
    Charles E. Selleck, for appellant.
    
      Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Appeal and error, § 1399
      
      —when findings of master will not be disturbed. A court’s approval of a master’s finding will not be disturbed on appeal unless obviously incorrect.
    2. Cancellation of instruments, § 12
      
      —when note and mortgage may be canceled. A maker of a note and chattel mortgage is not estopped from having same canceled, after being transferred to a third person, when such note and mortgage are without consideration and no statement is made by the maker to the third person that there was a valuable consideration.
    3. Appeal and error, § 499
      
      —when question of receiver's compensation will not be reviewed on appeal. Where a decree approves a receiver’s report and discharges him, and there is nothing to indicate that the question of compensation was brought before the court, error cannot be assigned because the court did not take up such matter on its own motion.
    Samuel G. Hamblen, for appellee.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.