Skip to main content
· 1/15/1880

Mapes v. Scott

Citations

  • 94 Ill. 379

Syllabus

<p>1. Change of venue—may be upon equitable terms. Under the Rev. Stat. of 1874, an order for a change of venue in a civil case may be made subject to such equitable terms as safety to the rights of the parties may require, and the court, in prescribing the terms and conditions, must exercise a sound discretion, and the exercise of such discretion is no ground of error unless there is an abuse of it clearly prejudicial to the rights of the party complaining.</p> <p>2. Where the defendants in an action of ejectment applied for a change of venue, and it was made to appear by affidavit of the plaintiffs that they had bought the land from parties who obtained title from the defendants, or some of them, and that the use of the property was worth $600 per annum, that two of the defendants resided out of the State, and that the others had no property out of which the rents or damages for withholding the property could be recovered, and that the case had once been tried resulting in favor of the plaintiffs, and that the plaintiffs had been subjected to a loss of not less than $600 annually since the commencement of the suit, by being deprived of the use of the premises, it was held no abuse of discretion, and no error, in requiring the defendants, as a condition to granting a change of venue, to execute a bond to the plaintiffs in the sum of $500, conditioned to secure the plaintiffs in the payment of rents for the premises in the event of a recovery by them.</p> <p>3. Description of land in a patent. A description of land in a patent from the United States as “ the west half of the south-west quarter of section 9. in township 15 north, range 10 west, in the district of lands offered for sale at Springfield, Illinois,” is sufficiently certain. It is not essential to name the county in the patent, and describing the land as in the district of lands offered for sale at Springfield, Illinois, shows sufficiently the State in which the land is situated.</p> <p>4. National bank—m

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • “[A] contract is not void as against public policy [on the basis of its illegality] unless the contract itself … is forbidden by law, or its consideration is illegal or immor- al.”
  • “[A] contract is not void as against public policy [on the basis of its illegality] unless the contract itself … is forbidden by law, or its consideration is illegal or immor- al.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Craig

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.