Gage v. Stokes
Citations
- 125 Ill. 40
- 16 N.E. 925
Syllabus
<p>1. Former adjudication—in the Supreme Court—as to what matters have been determined. A, the holder of an undivided two-thirds interest in land derived by sheriff’s deed in a proceeding by attachment against the original owner, filed his bill for partition against B, the owner of the other third, making O and D, the holders of an adverse title derived by deed from the attachment debtor, and also the holder of certain tax deeds, parties defendant, seeking to have such adverse titles and deeds set aside as a cloud on the title of A and B. The trial court found that the title of A and B was invalid, and dismissed the bill. This court reversed the decree, finding that the title of A and B, under the sheriff’s deed, was superior to the title of C and D derived under the deed from the attachment debtor, but expressing no opinion as to the validity of the tax deeds, and remanded the cause for further proceedings in conformity with its opinion: Held, that the judgment of this court was conclusive as to the invalidity of the title of C and D derived from the attachment debtor, but not as to the tax titles held by them.</p> <p>2. Same—and herein, of proceedings allowable after remandment. Before the hearing, after the remandment, C and D asked leave to amend their answer in respect to the title held invalid, by showing that C held that title only in trust for D, which the court refused to allow: Held, that the refusal was proper, as that title had been passed upon by this court adversely to C and D, and it was practically immaterial which of them was the beneficial owner of it.</p> <p>3. The trial court then entered a decree for partition between A and B, finding them to be the owners of the land as tenants in common, and thus impliedly disposed of the tax titles without any proof of their invalidity, or requiring A and B to pay C and D, or the holders of the tax deeds, the amounts advanced by them for taxes and interest: Held, that the decree was erroneous, in not being li
Judges: Magruder
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.