Anson Rising Et Ux. v. Carr
| Decision Date | 30 September 1873 |
| Citation | 70 Ill. 596,1873 WL 8649 |
| Parties | ANSON RISING et ux.v.JAMES H. CARR. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Jo Daviess county; the Hon. WILLIAM BROWN, Judge, presiding.
Mr. D. W. JACKSON, for the appellants.
Mr. JAMES H. CARR, pro se.
This cause was before this court at a former term. A brief history of the litigation between these parties, and a statement of the facts presented by the record, will be found in the opinion then delivered. Carr v. Rising, 14 Ill. 62.
Two causes between these parties, involving the same subject matter, were submitted together. The former decree, holding the deed, though absolute in form, a mortgage, and declaring the right of homestead in the premises did not exist, was modified, by the decision of this court, so that the decree, so far as it held the deed a mortgage, was reversed, and the remaining portion was affirmed. The latter decree, based on the former finding, directing an account to be taken, and permitting appellants to redeem on payment of the amounts found due, was reversed.
On the remittitur from this court being filed, appellants, by leave of the circuit court, exhibited their amended bill, not materially different from the original bills. The scope of the bill, as amended, is, in general terms, that appellee holds the property as mortgagee, and prays that an account be taken, and appellants have the privilege of redeeming. Appellee, by his answer, claims, in substance, this matter is res adjudicata, by the decision of this court, and also denies he holds the property as mortgagee, but alleges he made an absolute purchase of it at the time it was conveyed to him.
On the former hearing, the cause was reversed, for the reason, as the court say in its opinion: “Upon a careful examination of all the testimony in the case, we are satisfied it fails to establish the fact, as claimed, the deed was given as security, in the nature of a mortgage; but, on the contrary, we are convinced that it was intended to be absolute.”
Conceding, as claimed, it was regular, under the rule announced in Chickering v. Failes, 29 Ill. 294, where there is a reversal of a decree, with general, but no specific, directions as to the decree that shall be entered, for the party to amend his pleadings and offer new evidence, yet it does not appear the right to claim equitable relief in this case was placed upon any other or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cain v. Northern Pacific Railway Company
...is not open in the lower court as to such questions. Brooklyn v. Orthwein, 140 Ill. 620, 31 N.E. 111; Reed v. West, 70 Ill. 479; Rising v. Carr, 70 Ill. 596; Ogden v. Larrabee, 70 Ill. 510; Champaign v. Reed, 106 Ill. 389; Loomis v. Cowen, 106 Ill. 660; Smyth v. Neff, 123 Ill. 310, 17 N.E. ......
-
Woodward v. Perkins
... ... 413, Idaho Comstock Min. & Mill. Co. v ... Lundstrum, 9 Idaho 785, 76 P. 762; Rising v ... Carr, 70 Ill. 596; In re City of Boston, 223 ... Mass. 36, 111 N.E. 412; Kerr v ... ...
-
People ex rel. Leighty v. Young
...of the school and receive a good common school education, was settled and finally determined. Hollowbush v. McConnel, 12 Ill. 203;Rising v. Carr, 70 Ill. 596;Smith v. Brittenham, 94 Ill. 624;Hough v. Harvey, 84 Ill. 308;Moshier v. Norton, 100 Ill. 63;Newberry v. Blatchford, 106 Ill. 584;Tuc......
-
Peck v. the Coalfield Coal Co.
...have been presented and determined, cited Clayes v. White, 83 Ill. 540; Reed v. West, 70 Ill. 479; Ogden v. Larrabee, 70 Ill. 510; Rising v. Carr, 70 Ill. 596; Kingsburg v. Buckner, 70 Ill. 514; Cook v. Norton, 61 Ill. 286; Rogers v. Higgins, 57 Ill. 247; Hollowbush v. McConnell, 12 Ill. 20......