Holbrook v. Coney
Illinois Supreme Court
This was an action of ejectment by plaintiff to recover portions of Campbell, Durley & Newhall’s addition to the town of Pekin, tried at the February term of the Circuit Court, before Harriott, Judge, without a jury, and resulted in a verdict and judgment for defendants.
Read the full summary
This was an action of ejectment by plaintiff to recover portions of Campbell, Durley & Newhall’s addition to the town of Pekin, tried at the February term of the Circuit Court, before Harriott, Judge, without a jury, and resulted in a verdict and judgment for defendants. The plaintiff, in order to sustain the issue on his part, and to show that plaintiff and defendants claimed title to the premises described in the declaration from a common source, to wit, from James B. Campbell, a bankrupt, by William C. Bostwick, his assignee, read in evidence, without objection, a deed by said Bostwick, as…
1Opinion of the CourtWalker, J.
The first objection raised to the validity of the deed offered in evidence, is that the lots in controversy were never scheduled by the bankrupt. The third section of the bankrupt act of 1841 provides that all the property and rights of property of every description, name and nature, and whether real, personal or mixed, of every bankrupt, except the articles of property exempted by the statute, who by the decree of the proper court, shall be declared a bankrupt within the act, shall by mere operation of law, ipso facto, from the time of such decree, be deemed divested out of the bankrupt…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Pope v. DavenportTexas Supreme Court · 1879
- Kinzie v. WinstonIllinois Supreme Court · 1870
- Robinson v. DennySupreme Court of Alabama · 1877
- Crane v. CraneIllinois Supreme Court · 1930
- Holbrook v. BrennerIllinois Supreme Court · 1863