Prichard v. Littlejohn

Citations

• 128 Ill. 123
• 21 N.E. 10

Syllabus

<p>1. Bill for partition—requisites—in setting forth the interests of all the parties. A bill for the partition of land must set forth the interests of all the parties in the premises, as the court is required by the statute to find and declare the rights, title and interests of all parties. A bill which fails to do this is insufficient.</p> <p>2. Same—cross-bill—not appropriate or necessary. A cross-bill is not an appropriate pleading in a suit in chancery for the partition of land. The defendant, by requiring the complainant to file a proper bill and specifically answering the same, may obtain all the relief he can on a cross-bill. But by answering the cross-bill the eomplain'ant treats'it as a proper pleading.</p> <p>3. Same—allegations and decree—should correspond. A cross-bill in a suit for partition averred that the complainant therein and one S. owned the premises as tenants in common, and showed that the complainant in the original bill had an interest in the land in common with the complainant in the cross-bill. The court, by its decree, found that the two complainants were tenants'in common : Held, that there was a material variance between the cross-bill and the decree.</p> <p>4. A cross-bill for the partition of land averred that the complainant was the owner of an undivided one-third interest in one of the tracts, and one S. of the other two-thirds, and this part of the bill was wholly disregarded in the decree : Held, that if it appeared on the hearing that the complainant in the original bill, and not S., was tenant in common with the complainant in the cross-bill, as the decree found, then the cross-bill should have been dismissed, unless it was amended so as to make it correspond with the proofs.</p>