Dorr v. Root

Appellate Court of Illinois

Dorr v. Root

104 Ill. App. 417, 1902 Ill. App. LEXIS 830

DecidedDecember 16, 1902

StatusPublished

This text of 104 Ill. App. 417 (Dorr v. Root) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dorr v. Root, 104 Ill. App. 417, 1902 Ill. App. LEXIS 830 (Ill. Ct. App. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Waterman

delivered the opinion of the court.

Appellant insists that the writ of assistance was improperly issued, because no petition therefor had previously been filed, and in support of her contention, cites Bruce v. Roney, 18 Ill. 74; Smith v. Brittenham, 3 Ill. App. 62; Vol. 2 of the Encyclopedia of Pleading and Practice, page 982.

Rone of the authorities cited by counsel for appellant are applicable to the present matter. In this case, under proceedings of foreclosure, a receiver had, upon notice, been duly appointed to take possession of the premises, receive and collect rents thereof. Appellant, being in possession, refused to either surrender possession or to pay rent to the receiver, and afterward, upon application, it would seem that she was allowed to remain in the premises, provided she paid the taxes due thereon. This she failed to do, and thereupon, upon notice to her, a writ of assistance was ordered to put the receiver in possession of the premises. ■

The proceedings were entirely regular. Appellant had notice from the beginning as to what was sought and was as fully informed of the claim of right made against her as she possibly could have been by a petition. She had also the same opportunity to contest, and did contest the issuing of various orders, the same as if a petition had been filed.

The order of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

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

Mr. Presiding Justice Waterman

delivered the opinion of the court.

Appellant insists that the writ of assistance was improperly issued, because no petition therefor had previously been filed, and in support of her contention, cites Bruce v. Roney, 18 Ill. 74; Smith v. Brittenham, 3 Ill. App. 62; Vol. 2 of the Encyclopedia of Pleading and Practice, page 982.

Rone of the authorities cited by counsel for appellant are applicable to the present matter. In this case, under proceedings of foreclosure, a receiver had, upon notice, been duly appointed to take possession of the premises, receive and collect rents thereof. Appellant, being in possession, refused to either surrender possession or to pay rent to the receiver, and afterward, upon application, it would seem that she was allowed to remain in the premises, provided she paid the taxes due thereon. This she failed to do, and thereupon, upon notice to her, a writ of assistance was ordered to put the receiver in possession of the premises. ■

The proceedings were entirely regular. Appellant had notice from the beginning as to what was sought and was as fully informed of the claim of right made against her as she possibly could have been by a petition. She had also the same opportunity to contest, and did contest the issuing of various orders, the same as if a petition had been filed.

The order of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 Ill. App. 417, 1902 Ill. App. LEXIS 830, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dorr-v-root-illappct-1902.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack