Gage v. DuPuy

Citations

• 134 Ill. 132
• 24 N.E. 866

Syllabus

<p>1. Btjbnt Reoobds act—parties to suit—claims to be adjudicated. In a proceeding under the Burnt Records act, all persons claiming the title or any-interest in the land are required to be made parties, and they are required, by answer or otherwise, to set forth their claims of title, and to establish the same by proof; and it is made the duty of the court to adjudicate in respect to all conflicting titles or claims.</p> <p>2. Same—defendant claiming no title—of the proper decree. On petition under the Burnt Records act, to establish title, etc., one of the defendants pleaded the limitation under the Bankrupt law, which was held a bar to the relief sought. The other defendant set up no title, and was in no way connected with his co-defendant’s superior title. The court dismissed the bill, only as to the successful defendant, but held, that as against the other defendant the petitioner was the owner of the fee: Held, no error in refusing to dismiss the suit as against the defendant making no defense.</p> <p>3. Where a party in a chancery proceeding under the Burnt Records act, by his petition offered to pay the defendant the moneys expended in acquiring any tax titles, if he relied on any, and they should be declared invalid, and the tax title of one defendant was held good and the other defendant showed no title of any kind, it was held, that the court did not err in refusing to require the petitioner to pay for tax titles not shown or not set aside.</p> <p>4. Assignment of error—by whom. A party will not be allowed to complain of an error that does not injuriously affect him or his interests. So where a defendant in a suit under the Burnt Records act claims no title to the premises to be affected by the decree rendered, he can not be allowed to assign for error that such decree is not broad enough to protect him.</p>