Legal Opinion

Hurlbut v. Kantzler

Illinois Supreme Court

Decided September 27, 1884PublishedCited by 11 opinions

Appeal from the Appellate Court for the First District;— heard in that court on appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. George Gardner, Judge, presiding. This is a bill for a specific performance, brought in the Superior Court of Cook county by Horace A. Hurlhut, against Frederick M. Kantzler, Daniel F. Crilly, Charles H. Blair, and the Board of Education of the City of Chicago.

Read the full summary

Appeal from the Appellate Court for the First District;— heard in that court on appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. George Gardner, Judge, presiding. This is a bill for a specific performance, brought in the Superior Court of Cook county by Horace A. Hurlhut, against Frederick M. Kantzler, Daniel F. Crilly, Charles H. Blair, and the Board of Education of the City of Chicago. On May 12, 1876, the board of education of the city of Chicago leased to said Kantzler the south eight feet of lot 23, and lots 24, 25, 26 and 27, in block 142, in school section addition to Chicago,…

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Dickey

Waiving all other objections to the relief sought by appellant in his bill, there is one objection which we regard as fatal to his claim. It is obvious that no effective and valid assignment of this lease could have been made by Kantzler without the consent of the board of education, and the board never did consent to such an assignment to Hurlbut,—and Crilly & Blair can not now assign to Hurlbut without such consent of the board. Kantzler having surrendered his lease, and the board having executed a new one to Crilly & Blair on different terms and running for a much longer time, it has…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Love v. . Cobb .Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1869

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Ormsby v. GrahamSupreme Court of Iowa · 1904
  2. Sellers v. GreerIllinois Supreme Court · 1898
  3. Childs v. ReedIdaho Supreme Court · 1921
  4. Farson v. FoggIllinois Supreme Court · 1903
  5. Citronelle Turpentine Co. v. BuhligSupreme Court of Alabama · 1913

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

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

Powered by the Exa API