| Notes |
- Per Allyson Tilton, they resided in Lawrence County, Illinois in 1840 and 1850.
Per Jeanine Scholz:
Henry Geines stated in the 1880 census records that he and both of his parents were born in PA. Henry and Catherine Gines are listed on 1850 Lawrence Co, Il census records, not far from Henry. It seems likely these are his parents as they were both born in PA and were of the right age and living close to him.
1850 Lawrence Co, IL census records:
Philip Geines, 65, farmer, 1,500 acres, born in PA
Catharine, 55, born in PA
They are living next door to Washington Grove and his wife Sarah, she was born in PA in 1827.
1860 census records, Philip and Catharine cannot be found.
1870 Lawrence Co, IL census records:
Philip Geines, 86 years old, born in PA. Philip is found living with Washington Grove, his wife Sarah and son Philip. There is a marriage record for Sarah Grimes to Washington Grove in Lawrence Co, IL in 1849. It seems likely that this Sarah Grimes is the daughter of Philip Gines and the sister of Henry Geins (he was listed as Henry Greiner on his marriage record.)
- Thomas Selby vs. Philip Geines, 1850
Lawrence County IL Archives Court.....Geines, Thomas Selby V Philip 1850
************************************************
Copyright. All rights reserved.
http://www.usgwarch.org/copyright.htm
http://www.usgwarch.org/il/ilfiles.htm
************************************************
File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by:
Deb Haines http://www.genrecords.net/emailregistry/vols/00003.html#0000719 May 18, 2008, 2:05 am
Source: Reports Of Cases
Written: 1850
Thomas Selby, plaintiff in error, v. Philip Geines, defendant in error.
Error to Lawrence.
Relief will not be granted upon a bill where the answer denies the allegations of the bill, if the proof is loose and unsatisfactory.(a)
The bill of complaint filed in this cause by Geines, shows that he was indebted to Selby in December, 1842, in the sum of $200, on a note drawing twelve per cent interest, which Selby wished to have secured by a mortgage on a farm, which was agreed to be given upon the conditions, that if Selby should attempt to enforce payment by foreclosure, that the land should be sold in a body, after it had been appraised by three disinterested individuals, and provided it brought two-thirds of its appraised value. That it was agreed by Selby that these conditions should be inserted in the mortgage, and that instructions were given to the person who drew the mortgage, to insert them, but that they were omitted, that Geines not being able to read the English language, misunderstood its terms. That both parties supposed the valuation laws were then in force, but their constitutionality being doubted, it was believed that the insertion of the terms of the law in the mortgage would be binding. That Selby attempted to foreclose his mortgage in 1846, when Geines obtained an order from the court, directing that Selby should comply with the above conditions; that thereupon Selby dismissed his bill, and obtained a judgment upon the note by a suit at law, and is seeking to evade the terms of the mortgage, by selling the land upon execution without appraisement, which proceeding this bill prays may be enjoined. A master in chancery allowed the injunction.
Selby's answer admits the indebtedness of Geines, the recovery of the judgment, the attempt to sell upon execution, but denies the other charge in the bill, and insists that the mortgage contains all that the parties agreed upon, and truly sets forth the contract, and concluded with a prayer for a dissolution of the injunction.
The testimony on the part of Geines shows that there was some dispute between himself and Selby, as to what the mortgage should contain. Geines insisted upon the insertion of the conditions, and Selby refused to admit them, but that the party who drew the mortgage is not certain whether it contained precisely the conditions insisted upon by Geines, but that he insisted that they should be there, and that he executed the mortgage with that understanding.
The testimony on the part of Selby shows that the money was loaned, upon the condition that its payment should be secured by mortgage, without such conditions as Geines pretends; Geines observing at the time, that real estate
in Illinois was the same as personal property in Ohio, that it could be sold for anything that was bid for it; that Selby should have a mortgage on lands and chattels worth $1,200, and that it would at any time sell for enough to pay the debts of Geines.
At the September term, 1850, of the Lawrence Circuit Court, the injunction was perpetuated by Harlan, Judge, and a decree entered, directing the sale, en masse, of the lands mortgaged, after the same shall have been appraised, etc., etc. To reverse this decree Selby sued out this writ of error, and assigns for error the perpetuation of the injunction, and the decree directing that the lands shall be appraised, etc., etc.
C. Constable and A. Kitchell, for plaintiff in error:
The plaintiff in error had a right to pursue his remedy at law on his note, or by foreclosure of the mortgage, or both at the same time, and defendant had no right to set up the mortgage in restraint of the judgment, or compel him to collect it out of the mortgaged land only: Dunkley v. Van Buren, 3 John. C. R., 330; Jackson v. Hull, 10 John. R., 482; Delahay v. Clement, 3 Scam., 203.
The bill was insufficient, because the complainant had no right to change the terms of the mortgage by parol evidence. There is no pretense of fraud, and there is no such mistake shown as entitles the complainant to change the mortgage by parol evidence: 1 Greenleaf's Ev., secs. 276, 282.
The testimony of one witness is not sufficient to overthrow the answer of defendant: Gresley's Eq. Ev., 4, 5; reenleaf's Ev., sec. 206.
U. F. Linder and J. G. Bowman, for defendant in error.
Treat, C. J. The bill sets up, as the ground for relief, an express agreement of the parties?omitted by mistake to be inserted in the mortgage?to the effect that the mortgaged premises, in case of default in the payment of the note, should not be sold unless they would bring, en masse, two-thirds of the appraised value. The answer denies the allegation, and insists that the real agreement of the parties is correctly set forth in the mortage. The proof is altogether too loose and unsatisfactory to justify a decree reforming the mortgage, by the introduction of the provision alleged to have been omitted. At most, it only shows that the complainant was very anxious that the provision should be incorporated in the mortgage, and contended that such was the agreement of the parties, while the defendant insisted that no such agreement had been made. The mortgage was then drawn in the usual form, and executed by the complainant. It may, perhaps, have been his impression at the time that the mortgage contained the condition in question, or that the legal effect of the instrument would be what he desired, but there is no satisfactory proof of fraud or unfairness in the execution, or that it did not embrace all of the tipulations actually assented to by both of the parties.
The decree of the Circuit Court will be reversed, and the bill dismissed, with costs.
Decree reversed.
-------------------------
(a) Relief will only be granted upon clear and satisfactory proof: Harris v. Reed, 5 Gil., 212; Ruffner v. McConnel, 17 Ill., 212.
Additional Comments:
Reports of Cases Determined in the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois from November Term, 1850, to June Term, 1851, both inclusive by E. Peck, Counsellor at Law. Volume XII. Reprinted from the Original Edition, with Annotations by William Gordon McMillan of the Chicago Bar. Callaghan & Company, Chicago, Ill. 1881.
File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/il/lawrence/court/geines18gwl.txt
This file has been created by a form at http://www.genrecords.org/ilfiles/
File size: 6.8 Kb
- Bible of Philip Geins:
Front sheet (the actual cover of the bible is missing.) Done in Fraktur:
This Bible Belongs to Philip Geins
First page:
Philip Geins was born 12/18/1785
Married
Catharine Gutthatel on 7/29/1810
She was born 5/1/1794
Children:
Elizabeth born 5/23/1811 at noon between 11 and 12 under the sign of the fish. Died 10/13/1813
Henrich born 9/17/1813 in the morning at 6 under the sign of Pisces
Anna born 10/30/1815 in the morning at 6 under the sign of Libra
Philip? (illegible) born 1819 in the morning
Sarah born 12/6/1826 in the morning at 1.
|
1785 - 
[1] 
