Heustis v. Johnson

84 Ill. 61
Illinois Supreme Court·Decided September 15, 1876·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Mr. Justice Dickey

delivered the opinion of the Court:

Appellants filed their bill in chancery against appellees, to which a demurrer was sustained by the circuit court, and the bill dismissed.

The only question presented is, did the court err in sustaining the demurrer?

The gist of the complaint is, that Johnson, one of defendants, has failed to discharge his duties promptly as an executor, and has, by divers plausible devices, excused himself from properly accounting, when he ought long since to have made final settlement of the estate.

In Freeland v. Dazey, 25 Ill. 294, this court laid down as a rule, that “ a court of chancery will not exercise jurisdiction over the administration of estates, except in extraordinary cases. Some special reason must be shown why the administration should be taken from the probate court.”

In the statements of this bill we find no sufficient reason for the intervention of a court of chancery. The county court has full power to grant relief in the case made by the bill. The demurrer was properly sustained.

Decree affirmed.

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

Heustis v. Johnson, 84 Ill. 61 (Ill. 1876).

84 Ill. 61 (Heustis v. Johnson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bedford Quarries Co. v. Thomlinson
95 F. 208 (Seventh Circuit, 1899)
Sutton v. Read
51 N.E. 801 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1898)
Goodman v. Kopperl
67 Ill. App. 42 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1896)
Duval v. Duval
49 Ill. App. 469 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1893)
Waterman v. Alden
42 Ill. App. 294 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1891)
Shepard v. Speer
41 Ill. App. 211 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1891)
Winslow v. Leland
21 N.E. 588 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1889)
Crain v. Kennedy
85 Ill. 340 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1877)