Ames v. Ames

44 Ill. App. 576, 1892 Ill. App. LEXIS 661
Appellate Court of Illinois·Decided October 10, 1892·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Gaby; P. J.

The plaintiffs in error filed a bill for partition of real estate, of which their father, Miner T. Ames, " died seized in fee, intestate. The lands were in several counties. Some in Cook County, so that the bill ivas properly filed here, and some in Woodford County. The- Circuit Court found it was not for the interest of the plaintiffs, who are infants, that the Woodford County lands, which constitute a mining property, should at present be partitioned, and made provision for continuing the business of mining, etc. Upon that decree the plaintiffs assign for • error: “ 1. In denying partition of the Minonlc property;” that is, the Woodford County lands.

That assignment ousts this court of jurisdiction. Bangs v. Brown, 110 Ill. 96, covers the whole ground, and the writ of error must be dismissed.

Writ dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Ames v. Ames, 44 Ill. App. 576, 1892 Ill. App. LEXIS 661 (Ill. Ct. App. 1892).

44 Ill. App. 576 (Ames v. Ames) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hasterlick v. Hasterlick
234 Ill. App. 572 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1924)
Bernstein v. People
70 Ill. App. 175 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1897)