Torrence v. Shedd
Citations
- 112 Ill. 466
Syllabus
<p>1. Champerty—of the essential elements to constitute champerty. There are two essential elements in every champertous agreement,—that is, first, there must be an undertaking by one person to defray the expenses, in whole or in part, of another’s suit; and second, an agreement or promise on the part of the latter to divide with the former the proceeds of the litigation in the event it proves successful.</p> <p>2. Same —the particular case. In a case of an absolute sale and transfer of an undivided interest which the grantor has or may afterward acquire in land in the adverse possession of others, the grantor having no suits pending to recover his interest or any part of it, under an agreement that the grantee shall institute legal proceedings in his own name and at his own expense, for the purpose of recovering and establishing the title of the, grantor so conveyed, no part of which is to be divided between them, but by which agreement the grantee is to pay a given price per acre of the land recovered, and nothing if the litigation proves unsuccessful, it was held, that both the essential elements to a champertous agreement were wanting, and that the transaction was not void for champerty.</p> <p>3. A party owning an interest in land held and claimed adversely, may sell the same for a consideration to be paid upon a contingency, as, upon a recovery of the land by the grantee. The owner may convey his interest in land even Without any compensation, present or prospective, and he may contract to receive nothing in case his interest can not be legally established so that the purchaser may recover the same.</p> <p>4. Same—when and between whom the question of champerty may arise. If a conveyance of an undivided interest in land in the adverse possession of others is made under a champertous agreement, the adverse claimants .can not avail of the champerty as a defence to a proceeding by the grantee for a partition. The question of champerty can not properly arise excep
Judges: Mulkey
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
11 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Elser v. Village of Gross PointIllinois Supreme Court· 1906-10-23· cited 29×
- Oil, Inc. v. MartinIllinois Supreme Court· 1942-09-21· cited 15×
- Torrence v. SheddIllinois Supreme Court· 1895-06-15· cited 15×
- Brush v. City of CarbondaleIllinois Supreme Court· 1907-10-23· cited 12×
- Richmond Postal Credit Union, Inc. v. BookerSupreme Court of Virginia· 1938-03-10· cited 10×
- Luck v. WoodSupreme Court of Virginia· 1926-03-18· cited 9×
- Dunne v. HerrickAppellate Court of Illinois· 1890-06-30· cited 9×
- Euneau v. RiegerSupreme Court of Missouri· 1891-04-15· cited 9×
- Granat v. KruseAppellate Court of Illinois· 1904-06-17· cited 1×
- Torrence v. SheddIllinois Supreme Court· 1903-04-24
- Neal v. County of FranklinAppellate Court of Illinois· 1892-06-21
Cites
1 case in this archive is 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.