Login

Login

To access this feature, please Log In or Register for your Casebriefs Account.

Add to Library

Add

Search

Login
Register
Register

Bybee v. Hageman

Law Dictionary
CASE BRIEFS

Law Dictionary

Featuring Black's Law Dictionary 2nd Ed.
AA
Font size

Property Law Keyed to Cribbet

View this case and other resources at:
Bloomberg Law

Citation. 22 Ill.66 Ill. 519 (1873)

Brief Fact Summary. Hageman (Plaintiff) sued to foreclose a mortgage. A second mortgage was made on the property to Manly, who assigned the second mortgage to Bybee (Defendant). Defendant contended that the description of the first mortgage of the property was insufficient to put Manly on notice of the first mortgage.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. The ambiguity was a latent ambiguity because the county in which the land was situated had more than one section five. The Court found that the ambiguity was susceptible to more than one explanation.


Facts. Plaintiff sued to foreclose a mortgage, which was executed by Ewald and his wife on their property. After the mortgage to Plaintiff, a second mortgage was made on the property to Manly, who assigned the second mortgage to Defendant. Defendant contended that the description of the first mortgage of the property was insufficient to put Manly on notice of the first mortgage. The language of the first mortgage described the property as “one acre and a half in the northwest corner of section five (5), together with the brewery, malthouse, all buildings thereon and fixtures contained therein.” The first mortgage also described the property as being situated in McDonough County, Illinois. The Defendant contended that the first mortgage was void for uncertainty, inasmuch as it specifies neither township nor range. The lower court found in favor of the Plaintiff, and Defendant appealed.

Issue. Was the description of the property in the first mortgage sufficient to put the Defendant’s predecessor on notice?

Create New Group

Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following