Rose v. Choteau

11 Ill. 167
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 15, 1849
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 11 Ill. 167 (Rose v. Choteau) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rose v. Choteau, 11 Ill. 167 (Ill. 1849).

Opinion

Opinion by Treat, C. J.:

Choteau recovered a judgment against Rose and Campbell, and, under executions issued thereon, purchased certain real estate, and received a conveyance from the officer. On his application, the Circuit Court set aside the executions, and all the proceedings under them; and Rose and Campbell prosecuted an appeal from the decision setting aside- the executions; which the appellee now moves to dismiss.

Appeals are allowed " where the judgment or decree appealed from he final, and shall amount, exclusive of costs, to the sum of twenty dollars, or relate to a franchise or freehold.” Rev. Stat., chap. 83, sec. 47. The question before the Court related to the regularity of the proceedings under the judgments, and not to the title to the land. The Court held the proceedings to be irregular; it did not determine the rights of the parties in the cause. There was no adjudication of that question,. To justify an appeal on the ground that the judgment relates to a freehold, the right of the freehold must have been directly the subject of the action—not incidentally or collaterally; and the judgment must be conclusive of the right, until it is reversed. The judgment in this case does not conclude either party from asserting title to the land. The effect of it may be to prevent Choteau from claiming title under the judgment, but he is not precluded from setting up title derived from any other source. The proper mode of reviewing the decision is by a writ of error. The appeal will be dismissed.

•Appeal dismissed.

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

Related

Bartley v. Pleasure Driveway & Park District of Peoria
96 N.E. 241 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1911)
Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. Wynkoop
85 P. 595 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1906)
Mayor of Roodhouse v. Briggs
62 N.E. 778 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1902)
Knowles v. Lower Clear Creek Ditch Co.
27 Colo. 469 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1900)
Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc Co. v. City of La Salle
117 Ill. 411 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1886)
Johnson v. Gibson
6 N.E. 205 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1886)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
11 Ill. 167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rose-v-choteau-ill-1849.