Skip to main content
· 6/21/1881

Bridges v. Rice

Citations

  • 99 Ill. 414
  • 1881 Ill. LEXIS 189

Syllabus

<p>1. Freehold — removing cloud from title — right of appeal. A freehold is involved in a suit in chancery to remove a cloud from the title of real estate by setting aside a judicial sale of the premises, and the case is properly brought before this court for review on appeal or error, directly from the trial court.</p> <p>2. Chancery jurisdiction — to advise executors and trustees. A court of equity has always assumed jurisdiction to control and advise as to the management of ti’usts and trust estates. It has jurisdiction of a bill by executors asking the advice of the court as to the manner in which the trust resting upon them shall be performed, where the trust becomes embarrassed, or their duties under the will are complicated by circumstances not foreseen or provided against by the testator.</p> <p>3. Where a bill filed by executors alleged that it was their duty under the will to sell certain town lots, either at private or public sale, to pay the debts of the estate, and that no such sale could be effected without a ruinous sacrifice of the property and great detriment to the parties interested therein, and that there were salable lands belonging to the estate, and asking the advice of the court as to the manner in which the trust should be performed: Held, that the court had jurisdiction to give the necessary advice, and having obtained jurisdiction for one purpose, it could afford such relief as pertained to right and justice, and that a sale of the lands under its decree to a stranger to the record was valid, and should be protected.</p>

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • The denial of a state constitutional right “requires reversal, unless the record clearly shows that the right was waived or that no injury could have resulted to the accused by reason of such denial.”
  • endorsing defendant's right to counsel in pretrial proceedings
  • in a case where officers repeatedly denied defendant’s requests to consult with counsel while confined in jail awaiting arraignment, concluding “that appellant was denied the right to be heard by counsel as guaranteed by the letter and the spirit of our state Constitution”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Scott

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.