Smith v. Brittenham
Citations
- 98 Ill. 188
- 1881 Ill. LEXIS 240
Syllabus
<p>I. Former adjudication—decision as to parts of case. Where only two rulings of the circuit court in a case have been reviewed by this court—the denial of a motion to vacate the decree entered, with leave to answer, and an order awarding a writ of assistance—those being the only questions presented by the appeal and passed upon, the defendant will not be barred from having the original and main decree of the circuit court reviewed in this court on writ of error.</p> <p>2. Practice—notice of vacating an order of dismissal. Where a defendant has once been brought into court by service of process, he is bound to take notice of all orders made in the cause; and so where, at the second term, a bill in chancery was dismissed for want of prosecution, and two days after-wards, at the same term, the order of dismissal was set aside, it was held that no notice was required to be given to the defendant of the vacating of the order of dismissal and reinstating the cause.</p> <p>8. Contract—rescission—offer to return property received necessary. Before a party can rescind an executed contract for the exchange of lands for goods, on the ground of fraud, he must return or offer to return the goods received by him, unchanged in their condition, and if he has innocently changed that condition while ignorant of the fraud, so that he can not put the other party in as good a position as he was before the trade, he can not rescind.</p> <p>4. Chancery—sufficiency of bill to rescind purchase on the ground of fraud. On bill filed to rescind an exchange of land for goods taken of the defendant, on the ground of fraud, where the contract price of the goods was their original cost, not their value, an allegation that a large amount of goods included in the inventory was not delivered to the complainant, but, on the contrary, the value of the goods delivered was $5000 less than the amount of the inventory, it was held not to charge that any goods included in the inventory was kept back, unde
Judges: Scott, Sheldon
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
17 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Mitter v. Black Diamond Coal Co.Wyoming Supreme Court· 1922-04-18· cited 25×
- Murphy v. MurphyIllinois Supreme Court· 1901-02-20· cited 23×
- Bouxsein v. First National BankIllinois Supreme Court· 1920-04-21· cited 20×
- Merrill v. WilsonMichigan Supreme Court· 1887-06-09· cited 19×
- Jackson v. FultonMissouri Court of Appeals· 1901-03-04· cited 14×
- Irwin v. DykeIllinois Supreme Court· 1885-06-12· cited 7×
- Heffron v. RiceAppellate Court of Illinois· 1893-05-24· cited 7×
- Felt v. United States Mortgage & Trust Co.Appellate Court of Illinois· 1923-12-19· cited 4×
- Worthey v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.Appellate Court of Illinois· 1929-02-15· cited 4×
- Cherry v. CoxCourt Of Appeals Of Indian Territory· 1898-04-02· cited 3×
- Boynton v. AlwartAppellate Court of Illinois· 1907-11-22· cited 2×
- City of East St. Louis v. MillardAppellate Court of Illinois· 1884-04-18· cited 1×
- Miller v. SchaeferAppellate Court of Illinois· 1898-04-18· cited 1×
- Chilvers v. HuenemoerderAppellate Court of Illinois· 1928-12-04· cited 1×
- Hemphill v. MillerAppellate Court of Illinois· 1898-06-03
- Madden v. LubkeAppellate Court of Illinois· 1905-03-21
- George Green Lumber Co. v. Nutriment Co.Appellate Court of Illinois· 1906-06-26
Cites
3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
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.