Mason v. McGirr
Illinois Supreme Court
The complainants are the executor and devisees of Jesse 0. Smith, deceased, and file their bill, alleging, that a patent for the premises in controversy was issued, by the United States, to John Reynolds, John Claypool and Samuel B. Chandler.
Read the full summary
The complainants are the executor and devisees of Jesse 0. Smith, deceased, and file their bill, alleging, that a patent for the premises in controversy was issued, by the United States, to John Reynolds, John Claypool and Samuel B. Chandler. That Chandler, by warranty deed, dated Oct. 10, 1839, conveyed his interest to Reynolds; that Reynolds, by deed dated March 20, 1846, and recorded September 24, 1847, conveyed all his interest to said Jesse O. Smith; and that Claypool, by deed dated September 2, 1845, conveyed his interest to Smith. That Smith died July 30,1850, and the two conveyances,…
1Opinion of the Court
Wat/kyb, J.
This cause was tried in the court below, on bill and answers, without replications. The answers denied all the material allegations contained in the bill. When a trial is had upon bill and answer, and no replication is filed, according to the uniform rule of practice in a court of equity, the answer must be considered as true. De Wolf v. Long, 2 Gilm. 682; Kitchell v. Burgwin, 21 Ill. 40. The answers deny any notice of McGirr’s agency, all knowledge that' complainants were the owners of the title, which is claimed by the bill, or of their unrecorded deeds, as well as all fraud in…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Kitchell v. BurgwinIllinois Supreme Court · 1858
- Rowan v. BowlesIllinois Supreme Court · 1858
- McConnel v. SmithIllinois Supreme Court · 1860
3Cited by6 opinions
- Skahen v. IrvingIllinois Supreme Court · 1903
- Pankey v. RaumIllinois Supreme Court · 1869
- White v. WhiteIllinois Supreme Court · 1882
- Goddard v. Chicago & North-Western Ry. Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1902
- Babcock v. FarwellAppellate Court of Illinois · 1914
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.