Skip to main content

Davis v. Hall

Citations

  • 92 Ill. 85

Syllabus

<p>1. Chancery practice—right to dismiss suit after cross-bill. Where a party files a petition for partition at law, and other parties file cross-bills in equity for partition and the assignment of dower, and the petitioner acquiesces in the proceedings in equity for a number of years, submitting to the equity jurisdiction of the court, he will not have the right to dismiss his suit without the consent of the defendants filing the cross-bills.</p> <p>2. Same—cross-bill without answering. Where cross-bills are filed without answering the original bill or petition, which is lost, if the complainant or petitioner answers the cross-bills without taking any steps to require an answer from the defendants, or to restore his bill, and allows the cause to proceed in this manner, he will waive the irregularity in filing cross-bills without first having answered.</p> <p>3. Same—submitting issue of fad to jury. In a suit in chancery for partition, in which the limitation act of 1839 is set up, it is a matter of discretion in the court to submit to a jury an issue of fact presented by the pleadings as to the good faith of the party in acquiring color of title.</p> <p>4. Limitation—color of title. A master’s deed for land sold under decree apparently regular on its face, and properly describing the land, and purporting to convey the land, is good as color of title, although sealed by the master several years after its delivery. The sealing, in such case, relates back to the original delivery.</p> <p>5. Same—of the good faith. Under the Limitation law of 1839 good faith will be presumed, until rebutted by proof. Claim of title in good faith is one acquired under the sincere belief that the party is the owner. The good faith required in the acquisition of color of title is a freedom from a design to defraud the person having the better title. Actual or constructive notice of irregularities does not necessarily impute bad faith or fraud to the party chargeable with notice.</p> <p>6.

Judges: Dicicey

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

1 case in this archive is cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

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.