Dean v. O'Meara

47 Ill. 120
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 15, 1868
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 47 Ill. 120 (Dean v. O'Meara) 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
Dean v. O'Meara, 47 Ill. 120 (Ill. 1868).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Lawrence

delivered the opinion of the Court:

The chief question argued in this case, relating to the power of a married woman to convey her real estate without joinder by her husband, has already been decided by this court, in the the case of Cole v. Van Riper, 44 Ill., 58. The decree must, however, be reversed, for the failure of the court to direct the commissioners, in making partition, to set off to Mary Dean that portion of the premises upon which she had built a house, and to do this without charging her share with the value of the improvements. She owned, as appears by the pleadings and proof, an undivided interest in the lot, and-built the house at her own expense. In the event that the commissioners report the lot not susceptible of partition, the court will determine the relative value of the lot and the house, and so apportion the purchase money as to give to Mary Dean the increased value of the property derived from the house, besides her jiro rata interest in the land. It will also be equitable, in the event of a sale, to refund to Mary Dean, out of the shares of Margaret A. O’Meara and James Stanton, the heirs of Catharine Smith, the forty-five dollars paid to the latter, by Mary Dean, at the time she executed to Mary the contract of conveyance and the void deed.

Decree reversed.

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

Related

Denton v. Lazenby
879 P.2d 607 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1994)
Mauch v. Mauch
1966 OK 145 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1966)
Preston v. Preston's Adm'x
53 S.W.2d 957 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1932)
Mastin v. Mastin's Administrator
50 S.W.2d 77 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1932)
Morris v. Glaser
151 A. 766 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1930)
Oppenheimer v. Szulerecki
130 N.E. 325 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1921)
Manternach v. Studt
88 N.E. 1000 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1909)
Ure v. Ure
79 N.E. 153 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1906)
Noble v. Tipton
76 N.E. 151 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1905)
Carson v. Broady
77 N.W. 80 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1898)
Ward v. Ward's Heirs
29 L.R.A. 449 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1895)
Moore v. Thorp
7 L.R.A. 731 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1889)
Alleman v. Hawley
20 N.E. 441 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1889)
Beam v. Scroggin & Sawyer
12 Ill. App. 321 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1883)
Elrod v. Keller
89 Ind. 382 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1882)
Tyner v. Fenner
72 Tenn. 469 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1880)
Packard v. King
3 Colo. 211 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1877)
Lucas v. Peters
45 Ind. 313 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1873)
Mahoney v. Mahoney
65 Ill. 406 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1872)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
47 Ill. 120, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dean-v-omeara-ill-1868.