Legal Opinion · Dissent

Jurgens v. Eads

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided December 19, 1978No. 14855Published

1DissentJustice Trapp

It is difficult to perceive that we achieve a rational purpose in holding that the several respondents are barred from electing to receive their interests in a manner other than that preferred by a trustee.

The principal opinion leaves unresolved and undefined the question of the “time for distribution.” It may be the date of sale, a trustee’s report of sale, a petition for distribution, or the writing of the checks by the trustee, or the cashing of his check by an individual distributee. The possibility of divestiture must be determined at some point in time but that point remains…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Wiener v. SeversonIllinois Supreme Court · 1957
  2. Costello v. WarnisherAppellate Court of Illinois · 1955
  3. Guttman v. SchillerAppellate Court of Illinois · 1963
  4. Klocksieben v. OrrisAppellate Court of Illinois · 1942

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API