Kandlik v. Hudek
Illinois Supreme Court
1Concurrence
Mr. Justice, Stone,
specially concurring:
I concur in the conclusion reached in this opinion but not in certain rules of property announced therein. It is because such are rules of property and because, in my opinion, they are incorrectly stated, that I concur specially. In the opinion of the court it is said, “Boundary lines may be fixed by parol agreement or by acquiescence when supported by possession in harmony with such agreement.” The opinion cites Berghoefer v. Frazier, 150 Ill. 577. This statement of the rule is, in my opinion, too broad to be considered accurate. The rule recognized in…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Hanlon v. Ten HoveMichigan Supreme Court · 1926
- Fisher v. BennehoffIllinois Supreme Court · 1887
- Kip v. NortonNew York Supreme Court · 1834
- Cutler v. CallisonIllinois Supreme Court · 1874
- Jackson ex dem. Nellis v. DyslingNew York Supreme Court · 1804
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.