Carbine v. Morris
Illinois Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. S. M. Moobe, Judge, presiding. Prior to, and on October 18, 1866, one Hull was the proprietor of two town lots described as 101 and 102, Hull’s subdivision in one of the additions to Chicago. On that day he entered into a contract with one O’Brien to sell to O’Brien these lots.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. S. M. Moobe, Judge, presiding. Prior to, and on October 18, 1866, one Hull was the proprietor of two town lots described as 101 and 102, Hull’s subdivision in one of the additions to Chicago. On that day he entered into a contract with one O’Brien to sell to O’Brien these lots. The record shows that the price was to be paid in instalments, but fails to show the amount, or the time within which it was required by the terms of the contract to be paid. The record shows that by the 14th of 6 February, 1867, O’Brien had paid Hull, as part of…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Dickey
The decree in this case must be affirmed. The complainant, Morris, shows a clear title to lot 102, and Carbine fails to show any valid claim against this property. The record fails to show that there was really any judgment in favor of Good-willie and King, and against O’Brien. The recitals of the certificate of purchase in the sheriff’s deed are not competent evidence to establish the judgment, and a judgment is a necessary foundation to the efficiency of such a deed. There is no intimation in the record as to the time when the supposed judgment was rendered, or became a lien upon the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Springer v. WassonNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1917