TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Sallee v. Morgan

Alexander Sallee v. Julia A. Morgan

Sallee v. Morgan, 67 Ill. 376 (1873)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Illinois Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 15, 1873
Judges
McAllister
Citations
67 Ill. 376
Syllabus
Accounts—in chancery, should be stated by master. Where an intricate and complex account is involved in a suit in chancery, the matter should be referred to a master in chancery to take and state the account; and when this is not done, this court will not state it, but reverse the decree, dividing the costs of this court equally between the parties.
Summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Scott county; the Hon. Charles D. Hodges, Judge, presiding. This was a bill to foreclose a mortgage, filed by Julia A. Morgan against James Watt and Alexander Sallee. The note described in the mortgage was credited with numerous payments, and was entitled to a great many other credits, so that the computation of the sum due was rendered intricate and complex. The court below found that there was due on the note and mortgage $203.44, and decreed its payment, with costs. The defendant Sallee, alone, appealed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — McAllister

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Mr. Justice McAllister delivered the opinion of the Court:

The appellant presents a record in this cause, upon which error is assigned, where the only matter in controversy is the proper result of an intricate and complex account. There has been no reference to a master, but a mass of figures is embodied, and counsel, in effect, say, we want the Supreme Court to do the labor of stating, making the computations and give us the result, in a written opinion, of such account. We have repeatedly said, that an intricate and complex account is not a fit subject for examination in a court of justice; that counsel can not impose upon us the duties which appropriately belong to a master in chancery.

The decree in this case will be reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to refer the matter in dispute to a master in chancery, to take and state the account between the parties. The costs in this court will be equally divided between the parties.

Decree reversed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1884–1885: 11890–1891: 118842026peak 1884 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. City of Elgin v. Joslyn36 Ill. App. 301 (1890)
  2. Sconce v. Sconce15 Ill. App. 169 (1884)

Most recent

  1. City of Elgin v. Joslyn36 Ill. App. 301 (1890)
  2. Sconce v. Sconce15 Ill. App. 169 (1884)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list