Padfield v. Padfield

Illinois Supreme Court

Padfield v. Padfield

64 Ill. 166

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Padfield v. Padfield. Read the opinion of the Court — 78 Ill. 16 →

Illinois Supreme Court·Decided June 15, 1872·Published

Opinion

Mr. Justice Breese

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was a bill in chancery, to correct a mistake in a deed, in which all the material facts alleged in the bill are admitted in the sworn answer of the plaintiff in error, and the court decreed accordingly.

We do not perceive any grounds for reversing the decree, as none of the facts are controverted, and it must be affirmed.

Decree affirmed.

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

Mr. Justice Breese

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was a bill in chancery, to correct a mistake in a deed, in which all the material facts alleged in the bill are admitted in the sworn answer of the plaintiff in error, and the court decreed accordingly.

We do not perceive any grounds for reversing the decree, as none of the facts are controverted, and it must be affirmed.

Decree affirmed.

Padfield v. Padfield, 64 Ill. 166 (Ill. 1872).

Pincite

64 Ill. 166 (Padfield v. Padfield) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.