Bourland v. County of Peoria
Illinois Supreme Court
The complainant by his bill alleges, that, on May 2nd, 1826, the county of Peoria was possessed of north-east fractional quarter section nine, township eight north, range eight east of fourth principal meridian, on which the seat of justice for that county had been located, and then was located.
Read the full summary
The complainant by his bill alleges, that, on May 2nd, 1826, the county of Peoria was possessed of north-east fractional quarter section nine, township eight north, range eight east of fourth principal meridian, on which the seat of justice for that county had been located, and then was located. County having acquired a pre-emption right to the land under the act of 26th May, 1824. On said 2nd May, 1826, county commissioners, at a session of court, passed the following order, which was entered of record: “ Obdebed, That the town of Peoria be re-surveyed; that the streets all run parallel with…
1Opinion of the CourtSoates, J.
As between the county of Peoria and Hamilton, we have no doubt, from the allegations, exhibits and answers, that Hamilton purchased and paid for lots eight and nine, block one, in controversy. While the entries do not specify this arrangement particularly, yet taking the dates of the service in surveying and platting the town, the terms of sale and payment, the entry on the sale book, the price, and the allowance of the order for services, two days after, of the exact price of the lots previously bid off, and the memorandum as part of the allowance, the county order being receivable in full…
2Cited by14 opinions
- Anthony v. WheelerIllinois Supreme Court · 1889
- Vider v. City of ChicagoIllinois Supreme Court · 1896
- Schmidt v. ShaverIllinois Supreme Court · 1902
- Pohrer v. Title Ins. Co. of MinnesotaDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1987
- SKYLINE WOODS HOMEOWNERS v. BroekemeierNebraska Supreme Court · 2008
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.