Bonner v. Peterson
Citations
- 44 Ill. 253
Syllabus
<p>1. Dower—decree in chancery for, when reversed — cannot he setup asahar to — under what circumstances. In February, 1857, P. filed her bill for dower, in which suit a money decree was rendered for §3,455.44, in lieu of dower in the lands; and in December, 1858, she assigned the decree to S. In June, 1855, the city of Chicago condemned a portion of the lands in which dower was claimed for public improvements, and assessed the damages thereon, hut refused to pay them, whereupon suit was brought by the heirs against the city, and judgment recovered for §12,162.65, which in December, 1861, was satisfied hy the payment of §11,500, in city bonds, and the balance in money. In January, 1863, upon a hill of review brought by the heirs, the decree allowing dower in gross was set aside, and thereupon P. filed her second petition, and the court decreed dower in the lands unappropriated hy the city, and also in the bonds, at the sum of §1,277.73, and §426.72 as interest on the sameS., the assignee of the first decree, was not made a party to the hill of review, nor to this second petition filed by P. Held, that, the decree rendered in the former suit having been set aside, it constituted no bar to the proceedings under the second petition filed by P. for the same purpose.</p> <p>2. Same — assignment of decree—no har. Nor can the heirs of the estate set up the assignment of the decree to S., as a bar to the widow’s dower, after having reversed such decree.</p> <p>3. Same—rights of assignee—cannot he urged ■hy the heirs as an excuse for not assigning dower. Nor can the heirs urge the rights of S., under the assignment of the former decree, as an excuse for refusing to assign the widow her dower.</p> <p>4. Same—what must he shown—to har the widow’s dower—on the ground that it was purchased hy another. Until the heirs can show, either an assignment of dower to P., or a release hy her, they cannot set up, as a bar to her dower, what another may have paid her for such right.</p> <p
Judges: Walker
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
14 cases in this archive cite this case.
- United States v. RodgersSupreme Court· 1983-05-31· cited 801×
- Warner v. WarnerIllinois Supreme Court· 1908-06-18· cited 28×
- Flynn v. FlynnMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1898-05-21· cited 24×
- Bartlow v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy RailroadIllinois Supreme Court· 1909-12-22· cited 22×
- Heisen v. HeisenIllinois Supreme Court· 1893-06-19· cited 20×
- Hartmann v. HartmannIllinois Supreme Court· 1871-06-15· cited 11×
- Peyton v. JeffriesIllinois Supreme Court· 1869-01-15· cited 8×
- Stow v. SteelIllinois Supreme Court· 1867-09-15· cited 6×
- Strawn v. Strawn's HeirsIllinois Supreme Court· 1869-01-15· cited 5×
- Rawson v. CorbettIllinois Supreme Court· 1894-06-19· cited 3×
- Cool v. JackmanAppellate Court of Illinois· 1883-10-10· cited 2×
- Crawley v. HoweAppellate Court of Illinois· 1921-10-25· cited 2×
- Gridley v. WoodIllinois Supreme Court· 1931-02-18· cited 1×
- Bradley v. BradleyMississippi Supreme Court· 1966-04-25
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.