Legal Opinion

Snell v. Hill

Illinois Supreme Court

Decided April 23, 1914PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Writ OR Error to the City Court of East St. Louis; the Hon. Mortimer M. Millard, Judge, presiding.

1Opinion of the Court

.Mr. Justice Craig

delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiffs in error, complainants in the court below, filed their bill in chancery for the specific performance of a contract for the conveyance of certain real estate in the city of East St. Louis. The bill alleges that the father of the complainants, J. S. Snell, Sr., on May 16, 1891, entered into k contract with the owmers of said real estate, the material parts of which are as follows:

"May 16th, i8pi.
“In consideration óf a good warranty deed, to be delivered on completion of a contract, of a certain tract of land, being one hundred feet…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Oliver v. PiattSupreme Court of the United States · 1845
  2. Decouche v. SavetierNew York Court of Chancery · 1817
  3. Fowler v. FowlerIllinois Supreme Court · 1903
  4. Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad v. HayIllinois Supreme Court · 1887
  5. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. BoydIllinois Supreme Court · 1886

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Decatur Coal Co. v. ClokeyIllinois Supreme Court · 1928
  2. Tedford v. Wenatchee Reclamation DistrictWashington Supreme Court · 1923
  3. Thomas v. PopeIllinois Supreme Court · 1942
  4. Page v. CaveSupreme Court of Vermont · 1919
  5. Garfein v. McInnisAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1928

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

Powered by the Exa API