Wheeler v. Wheeler
Citations
- 134 Ill. 522
- 25 N.E. 588
Syllabus
<p>1. Contest oe wmiiS—limitation as to time of filing the bill—jurisdictional. The power of a coiirt of equity to set aside the probate of a will is purely statutory, and the jurisdiction can only be exercised in -the mode and under the limitations prescribed by the statute. The time limited for the filing of a bill to contest a will is jurisdictional, and if the jurisdictional facts are not alleged, a demurrer will lie.</p> <p>2. Same—saving clause—as to time of filing bill—in respect of “persons absent from the State”—the statute construed. The saving clause in section 7 of the Statute of Wills, relating to the limitation of the time for contesting wills by bill in chancery, in favor of infants, femes covert and persons insane, applies equally to such persons, whether residents •or non-residents of this State; but the provision “saving to persons absent from the State,” applies to those only who are subject to the jurisdiction of the State, and have gone out of that jurisdiction for temporary purposes. It does not apply to persons who have never been residents of the State.</p> <p>3. Same—former decision. The decision in White v, Sight, 1 Scam. 204, extending the saving clause to non-residents, is no longer the rule in this State.</p> <p>4. Construction of statutes—how far controlled by Slate policy. While the policy of the State indicated by a series of legislation is not ■of controlling weight in the construction of statutes, it is a matter that may be properly considered in determining the legislative intention in employing words susceptible of two meanings. Other things being equal, that construction will be adopted which comports with such State policy.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “It is familiar that if the words employed are susceptible of two meanings, that will be adopted which comports with the general public policy of the state, as manifested by its legislation, rather than that which runs counter to such policy.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Shope
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
21 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Khan v. BDO Seidman, LLPAppellate Court of Illinois· 2011-03-16· cited 425×
- Regents of the University of New Mexico v. New Mexico Federation of TeachersNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1998-06-23· cited 144×
- Carlton v. BlackCourt of Appeals of Washington· 2003-04-15· cited 42×
- In Re Estate of BlackCourt of Appeals of Washington· 2003-04-15· cited 37×
- State ex rel. Wood v. Superior CourtWashington Supreme Court· 1913-10-10· cited 36×
- Black Hawk Motor Transit Co. v. Illinois Commerce CommissionIllinois Supreme Court· 1947-11-20· cited 28×
- Chicago Title & Trust Co. v. BrownIllinois Supreme Court· 1899-12-18· cited 20×
- Medill v. SnyderSupreme Court of Kansas· 1905-06-10· cited 20×
- Jamieson v. PottsOregon Supreme Court· 1909-11-30· cited 18×
- Brooklyn Union Gas Co. v. McGoldrickAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 1945-12-14· cited 17×
- Chuchuru v. ChutchurruTenth Circuit· 1950-11-03· cited 16×
- In Re Estate of SuteraAppellate Court of Illinois· 1990-05-23· cited 12×
- O'Brien v. BonfieldIllinois Supreme Court· 1906-02-21· cited 12×
- Barnes v. City of ChicagoIllinois Supreme Court· 1926-10-28· cited 8×
- Wallace v. McDanielOregon Supreme Court· 1911-08-01· cited 8×
- Kanorowski v. PeopleAppellate Court of Illinois· 1904-04-11· cited 4×
- Sutera v. PulizzanoAppellate Court of Illinois· 1990-05-23· cited 4×
- Storrs v. St. Luke's HospitalAppellate Court of Illinois· 1898-03-24· cited 2×
- Palmer v. BradleyU.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois· 1905-12-18· cited 2×
- Opinion No.Arkansas Attorney General Reports· 2006-02-24
Cites
6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Gaines v. FuentesSupreme Court· 1876-03-20· cited 191×
- Luther v. LutherIllinois Supreme Court· 1887-09-26· cited 44×
- Snoddy v. CageTexas Supreme Court· 1849-12-15· cited 39×
- Stuart v. HamiltonIllinois Supreme Court· 1872-09-15· cited 25×
- Hall v. LittleMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1817-06-15· cited 18×
- Holden v. MeadowsWisconsin Supreme Court· 1872-06-15· cited 18×
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.