Huggins v. Gottschalk 195 Ill. App. 64

Sara G. Huggins, Appellee, v. Lilly Gottschalk et al. Albert Wesley Gottschalk, Appellant.

Gen. No. 20,942.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. John M. Connor, Judge, presiding.

Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1914.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed October 6, 1915.

Statement of the Case.

Bill to foreclose a trust deed covering certain real estate in Cook county, filed in the Superior Court by Sara G. Huggins. The trust deed was executed by Lilly Gottschalk, and was given to secure the payment of certain promissory notes. All of the notes were signed by said Lilly Gottschalk and were made payable to herself, and were indorsed by her and Albert Wesley Gottschalk. At the time of the filing of the bill, some *65of the notes were owned by the complainant. A decree was entered finding, inter alia, that there was due to the complainant the sum of $641.47, with interest thereon from December 27, 1912, and also the sum of $75 as reasonable solicitor’s fees, and a sale of the real estate was ordered, unless such sums, together with the costs of the suit, yrere paid within ten days. The decree further provided that “after the coming in and the confirmation of the master’s report of sale in case any deficiency is shown in the amount due to the complainant, Sara G. Huggins, she shall be entitled to execution against the defendant, Lilly Gottschalk and Albert Wesley Gottschalk, personally liable therefor.” This appeal is prosecuted to reverse said decree, and the sole appellant is Albert Wesley Gottschalk.

Abstract of the Decision.

Appeal and error, § 308 * —what decision not reviewaMe on appeal. A conditional deficiency decree not being final nor appealable, the propriety of entering such a decree against the indorser of mortgage notes is not reviewable.

Albert Wesley Gottschalk, pro se.

Sonnenschein, Berkson & Fishell, for appellee.