Sperry v. Young

Appellate Court of Illinois

Sperry v. Young

7 Ill. App. 402, 1880 Ill. App. LEXIS 242

DecidedDecember 4, 1880

StatusPublished

This text of 7 Ill. App. 402 (Sperry v. Young) 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

Sperry v. Young, 7 Ill. App. 402, 1880 Ill. App. LEXIS 242 (Ill. Ct. App. 1880).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Curiam.

In the case before us the controversy involves a freehold estate. From the bill, it appears that appellee Young, sought to set aside a tax deed to the premises in controversy, held by appellant, claiming the land himself, in fee, setting up irregularities and omissions to conform to law by appellee in obtaining his tax title.

Appellant, on the other hand, filed a cross-bill, seeking to set aside a master’s deed held by appellee to the premises, through which appellee claimed his fee estate. Thus it will be seen that a freehold is involved on both sides. This court has no jurisdiction to hear appeals of this character. The appeal should be taken directly to the Supreme Court, under Sec. 2, concerning appeals. Laws 1879, p. 222; Patterson v. McKinney, 6 Bradwell, 394.

The appeal is therefore dismissed for, want of jurisdiction.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Pee Curiam.

In the case before us the controversy involves a freehold estate. From the bill, it appears that appellee Young, sought to set aside a tax deed to the premises in controversy, held by appellant, claiming the land himself, in fee, setting up irregularities and omissions to conform to law by appellee in obtaining his tax title.

Appellant, on the other hand, filed a cross-bill, seeking to set aside a master’s deed held by appellee to the premises, through which appellee claimed his fee estate. Thus it will be seen that a freehold is involved on both sides. This court has no jurisdiction to hear appeals of this character. The appeal should be taken directly to the Supreme Court, under Sec. 2, concerning appeals. Laws 1879, p. 222; Patterson v. McKinney, 6 Bradwell, 394.

The appeal is therefore dismissed for, want of jurisdiction.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 Ill. App. 402, 1880 Ill. App. LEXIS 242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sperry-v-young-illappct-1880.