Blankenship v. Stout
Illinois Supreme Court
This bill alleges that complainant was on the 4th day of October, 1854, a minor of the age of twenty years, and on intimate terms with Spencer Blankenship, deceased, the ancestor of the defendants. That on said 4th of October, 1854, complainant was the owner in fee simple of the south-east quarter of section twenty (20), town one (1) north, of range four (4) east, in Marion county.
Read the full summary
This bill alleges that complainant was on the 4th day of October, 1854, a minor of the age of twenty years, and on intimate terms with Spencer Blankenship, deceased, the ancestor of the defendants. That on said 4th of October, 1854, complainant was the owner in fee simple of the south-east quarter of section twenty (20), town one (1) north, of range four (4) east, in Marion county. At said date, complainant was a citizen of Payette county, and ignorant of the location and value of his said land. That said Spencer Blankenship, being then alive, was acquainted with the exact location and value…
1Opinion of the CourtCaton, C. J.
It is of the greatest importance that the common assurances of the country be rendered as certain as possible. Purchasers should be able to know, after ascertaining the facts, whether they can purchase a good title or not. While this certainly may not, in all cases, be attainable, courts should ever have this end in view, in laying down rules for the government of titles. This end is essentially promoted by fixing a definite limit within which a conveyance made by an infant shall be repudiated after he attains his majority. Although the tenth section of the statute of conveyances does not, in…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Illinois Land & Loan Co. v. BonnerIllinois Supreme Court · 1874
- Nathans v. ArkwrightSupreme Court of Georgia · 1880
- Law v. LongIndiana Supreme Court · 1873
- Bozeman v. BrowningSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1876
- Sayles v. ChristieIllinois Supreme Court · 1900
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.