Brown v. Stewart

Illinois Supreme Court

Brown v. Stewart

42 N.E. 793, 159 Ill. 212

CourtIllinois Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 17, 1896

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 42 N.E. 793 (Brown v. Stewart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brown v. Stewart, 42 N.E. 793, 159 Ill. 212 (Ill. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Phillips

delivered the opinion of the court:

Under the evidence there is no equity with appellants. The conveyance sought to- be set aside was the transfer of property to pay debts for which the grantor was liable. Process of law would have effected a transfer from the grantor, by which he and the appellants would have lost the land. The evidence as to the mental capacity of the grantor at the time of the execution of the deed was taken before the court as oral evidence, and is conflicting, but we are of opinion it preponderates to sustain this decree. The rule is, in chancery cases, where the evidence is conflicting and witnesses are heard in open court, the same necessity exists as when there has been a trial by jury that the error in the findings of fact shall be clear and palpable to authorize a reversal. Coari v. Olsen, 91 Ill. 273; Johnson v. Johnson, 125 id. 510 ; Rackley v. Rackley, 151 id. 332.

The decree is affirmed.

Decree affirmed.

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

Mr. Justice Phillips

delivered the opinion of the court:

Under the evidence there is no equity with appellants. The conveyance sought to- be set aside was the transfer of property to pay debts for which the grantor was liable. Process of law would have effected a transfer from the grantor, by which he and the appellants would have lost the land. The evidence as to the mental capacity of the grantor at the time of the execution of the deed was taken before the court as oral evidence, and is conflicting, but we are of opinion it preponderates to sustain this decree. The rule is, in chancery cases, where the evidence is conflicting and witnesses are heard in open court, the same necessity exists as when there has been a trial by jury that the error in the findings of fact shall be clear and palpable to authorize a reversal. Coari v. Olsen, 91 Ill. 273; Johnson v. Johnson, 125 id. 510 ; Rackley v. Rackley, 151 id. 332.

The decree is affirmed.

Decree affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 N.E. 793, 159 Ill. 212, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-stewart-ill-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack