Bennett v. McFadden

61 Ill. 334
Illinois Supreme Court·Decided September 15, 1871·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam :

Where the court, ujion a motion made to dissolve an injunction for want of equity in the bill, sustains the motion, dissolves the injunction and dismisses the bill, the allegations of the bill are to be taken as true, the same as upon a demurrer. The matters alleged in the bill in this case bring it within the principle of the ease of Christie et al. v. Hale, 46 Ill. 117.

The court below erred in dissolving the injunction-and dismissing the bill for want of equity, and the decree must be reversed and the cause remanded.

Decree reversed.

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

Bennett v. McFadden, 61 Ill. 334 (Ill. 1871).

61 Ill. 334 (Bennett v. McFadden) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hayes v. Carey
210 Ill. App. 497 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1918)
Stamatakos v. McCaffrey
177 Ill. App. 370 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1913)
White v. Young Men's Christian Ass'n of Chicago
84 N.E. 658 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1908)
Clark v. Evans
138 Ill. App. 56 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1907)
Bishop v. Moorman
98 Ind. 1 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1884)
First National Bank v. Deitch
83 Ind. 131 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1882)