Walker v. Rand

Appellate Court of Illinois

Walker v. Rand

31 Ill. App. 636, 1888 Ill. App. LEXIS 427

DecidedApril 3, 1889

StatusPublished

This text of 31 Ill. App. 636 (Walker v. Rand) 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

Walker v. Rand, 31 Ill. App. 636, 1888 Ill. App. LEXIS 427 (Ill. Ct. App. 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Gaby, J.

This is a bill by the appellant for the assignment of dower. Dower is a freehold estate. 2 Bl. Comm. 119, 129. Of an appeal from a decree in which a freehold is involved this court has no jurisdiction. The' exact case was decided in this court in 1884 in McManaman v. Blocks, 15 Ill. App. 476.

In addition to this objection to the jurisdiction the appellant seeks to have a title, which is a fee simple on its face, declared to be only an incumbrance to which she shall be required to contribute. The effect of granting this relief is to destroy a freehold. In principle it is like establishing a resulting trust, a subject that pertains to the direct appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Lehman v. Rothbarth, 111 Ill. 185; see Helm v. Boyd, 124 Ill. 370, where the appeal was taken direct to the Supreme_ Court and.entertained, the object of the bill being to have a deed declared a mortgage.

It is true that this litigation has, before the decision in 15 Ill. App., twice gone through this court without objection here or in the Supreme Court as to the jurisdiction of this court. Doane v. Walker, 101 Ill. 628; Walker v. Doane, 108 Ill. 236.

And it is also true, that since the case in 15 Ill. App., this court, without noticing this objection, has affirmed a decree assigning dower. Reich v. Berdel, 20 Ill. App. 668. So the Supreme Court in Browning v. Harris, 99 Ill. 456, affirmed the judgment of the-Appellate Court of the fourth district, where the homestead right was the subject of litigation, and in Snell v. Snell, 128 Ill. 403, sustained their own jurisdiction of a like case on an appeal direct from the Circuit Court. Cases are not authority upon questions not made in them.

The appeal must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Pratt v. Kendig, last term.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Gaby, J.

This is a bill by the appellant for the assignment of dower. Dower is a freehold estate. 2 Bl. Comm. 119, 129. Of an appeal from a decree in which a freehold is involved this court has no jurisdiction. The' exact case was decided in this court in 1884 in McManaman v. Blocks, 15 Ill. App. 476.

In addition to this objection to the jurisdiction the appellant seeks to have a title, which is a fee simple on its face, declared to be only an incumbrance to which she shall be required to contribute. The effect of granting this relief is to destroy a freehold. In principle it is like establishing a resulting trust, a subject that pertains to the direct appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Lehman v. Rothbarth, 111 Ill. 185; see Helm v. Boyd, 124 Ill. 370, where the appeal was taken direct to the Supreme_ Court and.entertained, the object of the bill being to have a deed declared a mortgage.

It is true that this litigation has, before the decision in 15 Ill. App., twice gone through this court without objection here or in the Supreme Court as to the jurisdiction of this court. Doane v. Walker, 101 Ill. 628; Walker v. Doane, 108 Ill. 236.

And it is also true, that since the case in 15 Ill. App., this court, without noticing this objection, has affirmed a decree assigning dower. Reich v. Berdel, 20 Ill. App. 668. So the Supreme Court in Browning v. Harris, 99 Ill. 456, affirmed the judgment of the-Appellate Court of the fourth district, where the homestead right was the subject of litigation, and in Snell v. Snell, 128 Ill. 403, sustained their own jurisdiction of a like case on an appeal direct from the Circuit Court. Cases are not authority upon questions not made in them.

The appeal must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Pratt v. Kendig, last term.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 Ill. App. 636, 1888 Ill. App. LEXIS 427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walker-v-rand-illappct-1889.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack