Legal Opinion

Lusk v. Thatcher

Illinois Supreme Court

Decided November 10, 1881PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Appeal from the County Court of Cook county; the Hon. Mason B. Loomis, Judge, presiding.

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Scholfield

We are of opinion the decree below should be affirmed, upon the ground that an indispensable party defendant was not before the court. The court itself may state this “objection, and refuse to make the decree, or if a decree is made, it may, for this very defect, be reversed on a rehearing or on an appeal.” * * * Story’s Equity Pleading, (5th ed.) secs. 75, 236; Herrington v. Hubbard, 1 Scam. 569.

The object of the bill was to contest an election held for the purpose of determining whether certain territory should become incorporated as a village. The only defendants named or brought before…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Thomas v. AdamsIllinois Supreme Court · 1862

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. United States Insurance v. LudwigIllinois Supreme Court · 1884
  2. Kehr v. City of ColumbiaMissouri Court of Appeals · 1909
  3. Village of Metamora v. Village of EurekaIllinois Supreme Court · 1896
  4. McCarthy v. HetznerAppellate Court of Illinois · 1896

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

Powered by the Exa API