Smith v. Smith
Illinois Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court of Chicago; the Hon. John A. Jameson, Judge, presiding. This was a suit in chancery instituted in the court below, by Orville D. Smith against Edward H. Smith, Sarah C. Broad and Sarah D. Broad, for a partition of certain real estate. Sarah D. Broad filed a cross bill, claiming the entire interest in the property. Upon a hearing, the court dismissed both the original and cross bills, whereupon the complainant in the "original bill appealed.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Superior Court of Chicago; the Hon. John A. Jameson, Judge, presiding. This was a suit in chancery instituted in the court below, by Orville D. Smith against Edward H. Smith, Sarah C. Broad and Sarah D. Broad, for a partition of certain real estate. Sarah D. Broad filed a cross bill, claiming the entire interest in the property. Upon a hearing, the court dismissed both the original and cross bills, whereupon the complainant in the "original bill appealed. The opinion of the court sets out fully the facts of the case.
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Sheldon
June 20, 1855, Walter S. Gurnee entered into articles of agreement with Dexter Broad, for the sale to Broad of ten acres of land, described as southwest quarter southeast quarter northwest quarter section three, township thirty-eight", north range fourteen, east third principal meridian. The contract was on “ canal terms,” so called, viz., one-fourth cash, balance in one, two and three years, with annual interest on the amount unpaid. Broad covenanted to make the payments as provided, and pay all taxes imposed on the land. The contract also contained the usual clause giving the vendor the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Smith v. SmithIllinois Supreme Court · 1873
- Grandjean v. BeylNebraska Supreme Court · 1907