Russell v. Conners
Illinois Supreme Court
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Knox county; the Hon. Arthur A. Smith, Judge, presiding. This was a proceeding in chancery in the court below, by appellee, against appellant, her husband, James Russell, and Knox College.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Knox county; the Hon. Arthur A. Smith, Judge, presiding. This was a proceeding in chancery in the court below, by appellee, against appellant, her husband, James Russell, and Knox College. The bill is called a bill for partition, but it is rather for a specific performance, the allegations being, in substance, that on the 16th day of June, 1885, the complainant purchased of said college lot 1 and the north half of lot 2, in block 119, in the city of Galesburg, for the sum of $225; that afterwards the defendant,. Bridget Russell, desiring to purchase the other…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Wilkin
Conceding every allegation of the hill of appellee to have been supported by proof, it is clear from the foregoing statement of facts that if Knox College was complaining of this decree it could not be sustained. But as it suffered a default below, and has not joined in this appeal, our only inquiry must be, is it sustained by the allegations of the bill and the proofs, as between appellant and appellee.
Clearly, appellee’s claim to the north half of said three lots can not be upheld on the ground of a parol partition between himself and appellant. The bill makes no such case. It shows that…
2Cited by5 opinions
- State v. McDanielOregon Supreme Court · 1901
- Jacksonville Hotel Building Corp. v. Dunlap Hotel Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1931
- Lang v. MetzgerAppellate Court of Illinois · 1902
- Baker v. PierceAppellate Court of Illinois · 1915
- Loewenthal v. ElkinsIllinois Supreme Court · 1898