Home/Illinois Supreme Court/Campbell v. Campbell

Campbell v. Campbell

116 N.E. 679, 279 Ill. 337
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedJune 21, 1917
DocketNo. 11334
StatusPublished
Cited by28 cases

This text of 116 N.E. 679 (Campbell v. Campbell) 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
Campbell v. Campbell, 116 N.E. 679, 279 Ill. 337 (Ill. 1917).

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Carter

delivered the opinion of the court;

No abstract of the record in this case has been filed, as required by rule 14. The briefs of the parties agree in the statement that the case was begun by the filing of a bill in chancery by the plaintiff in error against the defendants in error praying for the declaration of a trust in certain real estate in Hamilton county, that the bill was afterward amended and was answered, and that upon a hearing it was dismissed by the court for want of equity. No statement of the allegations of any of the pleadings has been made, and the nature of the controversy is indicated only by what is called "an abstract 'of the evidence contained in a statement, brief and argument filed on behalf of the plaintiff in error. There is no description, either in this so-called abstract or the briefs, of the various tracts of land supposed to be involved, of the instruments by which they are supposed to have been conveyed or the mortgages and other liens supposed, to affect the title. The claims made by the parties as to the value of the land in which the plaintiff in error appears to have had an equity of redemption and as to the value of her interest are widely at variance, the evidence so far as set forth in the briefs is conflicting, and there is no preponderance of the evidence in favor of plaintiff in error. The cause has been submitted in entire disregard of the rules . of the court and no error has been disclosed for which the decree should be reversed. It is therefore affirmed.

Decree affirmed.

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

Related

Roles v. State
604 P.2d 731 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1979)
People v. McCord
379 N.E.2d 1325 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1978)
People v. Meng
369 N.E.2d 549 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1977)
State v. Olsen
258 N.W.2d 898 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1977)
People v. Thompson
366 N.E.2d 375 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1977)
People v. Precup
365 N.E.2d 1007 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1977)
State v. Hunt
338 A.2d 95 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1975)
People v. Dickens
311 N.E.2d 705 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1974)
Brown v. State
269 A.2d 96 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1970)
People v. Hudson
240 N.E.2d 156 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1968)
Baker v. State
202 So. 2d 563 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1967)
Mueller v. State
145 N.W.2d 84 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1966)
People v. Van Hyning
219 N.E.2d 268 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1966)
People v. Chapman
214 N.E.2d 313 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1965)
Massey v. State
137 N.W.2d 69 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1965)
People v. Kerfoot
184 Cal. App. 2d 622 (California Court of Appeal, 1960)
State v. Martineau
101 N.W.2d 410 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1960)
Devandlis Wiggins v. Joseph E. Ragen, Warden Illinois State Penitentiary
252 F.2d 205 (Seventh Circuit, 1958)
State v. Karston
72 N.W.2d 463 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1955)
State v. Brazile
75 So. 2d 856 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1954)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
116 N.E. 679, 279 Ill. 337, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/campbell-v-campbell-ill-1917.