Durand v. Lord

Citations

• 115 Ill. 610
• 4 N.E. 483

Syllabus

<p>1. Lis pendens—diligence required in the prosecution of the suit— limitations to.the doctrine—and effect of fraud and delay, in its application. The doctrine of Us pendens is founded upon public convenience and necessity, but has its limitations, which are essential to the proper administration of justice. When sought to be enforced against a bona fide purchaser without notice in fact, it is regarded as a hard rule of law, and will not be enforced unless the party invoking it brings himself clearly within it.</p> <p>2. The principal limitation upon the doctrine of lis pendens is, that there must be a continuous prosecution of the suit,—that is, the suit must be kept upon the docket, and there should be no such delays in taking the ordinary steps in bringing it to a final hearing as to lead the opposite party or the community at large to suppose the suit has been abandoned. More especially one will not be heard to invoke the doctrine who has deliberately made false representations to his adversary for the purpose of throwing him off his guard, and surreptitiously obtaining a decree against him, when there is reason to suppose his adversary might, and otherwise would, have successfully resisted the decree.</p> <p>3. What is an unreasonable delay in the prosecution of a suit, under some circumstances, so as to defeat or destroy a lis pendens, may not be under others. So where there was a delay of four years between the date of a reversal of a decree and the filing of the mandate in the court below, and the complainant’s counsel gave the defendants to understand that the suit, so far as it sought to affect the title to certain real estate, was abandoned, but took a decree that was not expected, and which might have' been successfully resisted but for such assurance, it was held, inequitable to apply the doctrine of lis pendens.</p>