Comer v. Comer
Citations
- 119 Ill. 170
- 8 N.E. 796
Syllabus
<p>1. Advancement—evidence that a gift teas intended as an advancement—proof of intention necessary. Proof that a father has made gifts of lands, money or personal property to one of his sons, is not sufficient to prove an advancement. It must appear in some way that they were intended as advancements, before the child’s part in his father’s estate can be charged with them. The fact that the father has bestowed more upon one child than another, standing alone, will not be sufficient to charge such child with the excess.</p> <p>2. Casual statements of a common ancestor, made to persons having no sort of interest in the subject matter of the conversations, and at a time when not transacting any business in regard to the matters, offered to show that such ancestor had bought lands and had the title made to a deceased son as an advancement, if competent evidence, are entitled to but little weight.</p> <p>3. But if such declarations or statements were made in the presence of such son, they will be competent evidence against his heirs on the question of an advancement; but their character and force as evidence will be greatly weakened by the fact of the death of both the father and son, as the latter, if living, might explain the statements of his father.</p> <p>4. A person died intestate, seized of lands occupied as his homestead, leaving a widow and two sons, one married and the other single. The latter ■ thereafter remained upon the land with his mother for a period of over twelve years, during which time the married brother made no claim for any share of the premises or for an)' of the rents and profits: Held, that no importance could be attached to his failure to assert his rights as tenant in common, and that such fact afforded no evidence, by way of admission, that certain gifts of his father to him were advancements.</p> <p>5. Limitation—as between tenants in common. While the relation of tenants in common exists between two persons in respect to a tract of land i
Judges: Scott
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
8 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Laurence v. LaurenceIllinois Supreme Court· 1896-11-23· cited 45×
- Griffin v. GriffinIllinois Supreme Court· 1888-06-16· cited 16×
- Hall v. WaddillMississippi Supreme Court· 1900-03-15· cited 8×
- Martinez v. AndersonNew Mexico Court of Appeals· 1981-07-16· cited 6×
- Matter of Estate of MartinezNew Mexico Court of Appeals· 1981-07-16· cited 5×
- Doubet v. DoubetAppellate Court of Illinois· 1914-04-15· cited 3×
- Patton v. GullettIllinois Supreme Court· 1915-04-22· cited 1×
- In re Will MagnesArapahoe County District Court· 1902-08-08
Cites
1 case in this archive is cited by this case.
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.