Mills v. Teel

Appellate Court of Illinois

Mills v. Teel

149 Ill. App. 519, 1909 Ill. App. LEXIS 500

DecidedMay 19, 1909

StatusPublished

This text of 149 Ill. App. 519 (Mills v. Teel) 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

Mills v. Teel, 149 Ill. App. 519, 1909 Ill. App. LEXIS 500 (Ill. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Puterbaugh

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action in forcible entry and detainer by appellee against appellant, by which she seeks to recover possession of certain real estate which she claims appellant wrongfully withholds from her. A trial was had before the court without a jury, which resulted in a judgment in favor of appellee. Appellant contended upon the trial that he had been appointed, had qualified, and at the time of the commencement of the suit was acting as conservator of appellee, and as such was entitled to possession, while appellee contended that such appointment was void for the reason that at the time the same was made the County Court had no jurisdiction of her person. The position of appellant in this court is that he was at the time and under the circumstances, conservator de facto and that his acts as such cannot be questioned in a collateral proceeding. The question presented is purely a legal one, and inasmuch as no propositions of law were submitted to the trial court, there is nothing for this court to review, and the judgment must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Mr. Presiding Justice Puterbaugh

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action in forcible entry and detainer by appellee against appellant, by which she seeks to recover possession of certain real estate which she claims appellant wrongfully withholds from her. A trial was had before the court without a jury, which resulted in a judgment in favor of appellee. Appellant contended upon the trial that he had been appointed, had qualified, and at the time of the commencement of the suit was acting as conservator of appellee, and as such was entitled to possession, while appellee contended that such appointment was void for the reason that at the time the same was made the County Court had no jurisdiction of her person. The position of appellant in this court is that he was at the time and under the circumstances, conservator de facto and that his acts as such cannot be questioned in a collateral proceeding. The question presented is purely a legal one, and inasmuch as no propositions of law were submitted to the trial court, there is nothing for this court to review, and the judgment must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 Ill. App. 519, 1909 Ill. App. LEXIS 500, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mills-v-teel-illappct-1909.