Harding v. Kuessner
80 Ill. App. 353, 1898 Ill. App. LEXIS 431
Opinion
This was an appeal from an interlocutory order. The only question involved is the sufficiency of a creditor’s bill. Affirmed on authority of Bowen v. Parkhurst, 24 Ill. 257; First Natl. Bank v. Gage, 79 Ill. 207; Dormueil v. Ward, 108 Ill. 216; Edwards v. Rogers, 41 Ill. App. 405.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Harding v. Kuessner, 80 Ill. App. 353, 1898 Ill. App. LEXIS 431 (Ill. Ct. App. 1899).
80 Ill. App. 353 (Harding v. Kuessner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Bowen v. Parkhurst
24 Ill. 257 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1860)
First National Bank v. Gage
79 Ill. 207 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1875)
Dormueil v. Ward
108 Ill. 216 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1883)
Edwards v. Rodgers
41 Ill. App. 405 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1891)