Tilton v. Fairmount Lodge A. F. & A. M.

149 Ill. App. 530, 1909 Ill. App. LEXIS 503
Appellate Court of Illinois·Decided May 19, 1909·Published

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Puterbaugh

delivered the opinion of the court.

Inasmuch as neither party objected or excepted to the report of the master, they are concluded thereby so far as his findings of fact are concerned. Imp. Co. v. Whitehead, 128 Ill. 279; Matthews v. Whitehorn, 220 Ill. 36; Jones v. Crary, 234 Ill. 26.

As to his conclusions of law no objections or exceptions were necessary to enable them to question the propriety thereof. Gillett v. T. & T. Co., 230 Ill. 373.

The general rule is that a mistake of law, pure and simple, is not adequate ground for relief. 2 Pomeroy’s Eq. Jur., sec. 842. If an agreement is what it was intended to be, equity will not interefere with it, because the parties have mistaken its legal effect and import. Ibid, sec. 845.

Upon applying the foregoing rule to the facts as found by the special master, by which both parties are concluded, it is apparent that the chancellor erred in not dismissing the bill on the hearing for want of equity. The decree of the Circuit Court is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the views herein expressed.

Reversed.

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

Tilton v. Fairmount Lodge A. F. & A. M., 149 Ill. App. 530, 1909 Ill. App. LEXIS 503 (Ill. Ct. App. 1909).

149 Ill. App. 530 (Tilton v. Fairmount Lodge A. F. & A. M.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cheltenham Improvement Co. v. Whitehead
21 N.E. 569 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1889)
Matthews v. Whitethorn
77 N.E. 89 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1906)
Gillett v. Chicago Title & Trust Co.
82 N.E. 891 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1907)
Jones & Dommersnas Co. v. Crary
84 N.E. 651 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1908)