Palmer v. Woods
Citations
- 149 Ill. 146
Syllabus
<p>1. Reversal of decree—its effect on the case on remandment. A judgment of the Appellate Court reversing the judgment or decree of the trial court, and remanding the cause without specific directions, gives the trial court power over the record to allow amendments to the-pleadings, to permit the introduction of further testimony, or to take any other step in the proceeding consistent with the principles announced in the opinion of the Appellate Conrt.</p> <p>2. But such remandment does not, ipso facto, open up the sufficiency of the pleadings previously passed upon, nor does it have the effect of vacating all orders made in the case prior to the appeal or writ of error. By the reversal the decree is, in effect, expunged from the record, and the court has the same power over the record as it had before the judgmentor decree was rendered. The pleading, and all orders in the case, as they did before the trial or hearing, unless they are disturbed by the decision of the Appellate Court.</p> <p>3. Where the circuit court held certain pleas in a chancery suit to be insufficient to bar relief, and such decree was reversed by the Appellate Court, and the case was remanded generally, leaving the order as to the pleas in full force and unreversed, it was held, that such order was not opened for further argument as to the sufficiency of the pleas.</p> <p>4. Parties—in chancery—on hill to reach a fund where many persons have claims thereon. Where there are many persons standing in the same situation as to their rights or claims upon a particular fund, and where the shares of a part can not be determined until the rights of all the others are settled or ascertained, as in the case of creditors of an insolvent estate, all the parties interested in the fund must, in general, be brought before the court, so that there maybe but one account and one decree settling the rights of all.</p> <p>5. And if it appears upon the face of the complainant’s bill that an account of the whole fu
Judges: Wilkin
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
11 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Heine v. DegenIllinois Supreme Court· 1935-12-19· cited 30×
- Babka Plastering Co. v. City State BankAppellate Court of Illinois· 1931-12-29· cited 16×
- Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. Central Republic Trust Co.N.D. Illinois· 1935-08-13· cited 14×
- Waters v. WatersIllinois Supreme Court· 1907-02-21· cited 7×
- Hillmer v. AndersonW.D. New York· 1936-06-24· cited 6×
- Cohen v. Toy Gun Manufacturing Co.Appellate Court of Illinois· 1912-10-03· cited 4×
- Siegel v. FishAppellate Court of Illinois· 1906-11-07· cited 3×
- Gross v. SloanAppellate Court of Illinois· 1895-04-04· cited 2×
- Seymour v. O. S. Richardson Fueling Co.Appellate Court of Illinois· 1905-11-14· cited 2×
- United States v. FreemanD. Massachusetts· 1941-03-21· cited 2×
- Pyatt v. RileyIllinois Supreme Court· 1914-10-16· cited 1×
Cites
3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Other cases named Palmer v. Woods
2 other CourtListener records share this case 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.