Webster v. French
Illinois Supreme Court
After the decision of this case as reported in the 11th of Illinois page 254; on the case being remanded to the Circuit Court, the complainants, plaintiffs in error, filed a supplemental bill, to which answers were filed by all the respondents. But as the case turns exclusively upon the time, within which the bid-dings in controversy were offered, it is not necessary that the pleadings and proofs should be set out.
Read the full summary
After the decision of this case as reported in the 11th of Illinois page 254; on the case being remanded to the Circuit Court, the complainants, plaintiffs in error, filed a supplemental bill, to which answers were filed by all the respondents. But as the case turns exclusively upon the time, within which the bid-dings in controversy were offered, it is not necessary that the pleadings and proofs should be set out. The record shows .conclusively, that the bid of the complainants, (as also the bids of other parties,) were offered on the 2d of July, 1849. The bill was heard, before Davis,…
1Opinion of the CourtCaton, J.
At what time were the biddings closed ? This is the first and most important question, and it must be determined by the true construction of the act of the legislature, under which the sale was made. That act says: “The Governor shall receive written sealed bids for said property, from allpersons until the first day of July, A. D., 1849, at which time all the bids received shall be opened and compared by the Governor,” &c= In order to determine whether all the bids must be in before the first day of July, we must not only look at the language of the act, but we must also consider its objects,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- People v. LutherNew York Supreme Court · 1828
3Cited by21 opinions
- Wampler v. State ex rel. AlexanderIndiana Supreme Court · 1897
- Henderson v. EdwardsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1921
- State ex rel. Cosgrove v. PerkinsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1897
- State ex rel. Birdzell v. JorgensonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1913
- St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co. v. GracySupreme Court of Missouri · 1895
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.