Beatty v. Clegg
| fullCitation | Beatty v. Clegg , 214 Ill. 34, 73 N.E. 383 (Ill. 1905) |
| Decision Date | 21 February 1905 |
| Citation | 73 N.E. 383,214 Ill. 34 |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
| Parties | BEATTY v. CLEGG et al. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Coles County; J. W. Craig, Judge.
Suit by Thomas R. Clegg and others against William Beatty for partition. From a decree in favor of complainants, defendant appeals. Affirmed.Andrews & Vause, for appellant.
Edward C. & James W. Craig, Jr., and Henry C. Cox, for appellees.
This is a suit for the partition of 80 acres of land and several town lots at one time owned by George Beatty, who died in 1893, leaving his daughter, Elizabeth Beatty, his only heir at law. She claimed the town lots as heir at law, and the land by virtue of a deed from her father, George Beatty, dated August 29, 1885, under which she occupied said land until her death, on March 31, 1904. Her heirs at law were three uncles on her mother's side, two of whom were complainants in the original bill filed in the circuit court of Coles county, and the other was a defendant. One of the complainants died, and his widow and heirs were substituted in his place. Appellant was also made a defendant, under an allegation that he claimed some interest in the premises, which was disputed by complainants. He filed a separate answer denying that Elizabeth Beatty had title to the premises, except a life estate, with remainder to him at her death. He also filed his cross-bill, alleging, in substance, that his father was a brother of George Beatty, father of Elizabeth Beatty, from whom she claimed title, and his mother was a sister of George Beatty's wife; that appellant's mother, when ill and without hope of recovery, gave him, when two months old, to George Beatty, her husband's brother, and his wife, her sister, upon an agreement that they would raise him as their own son, and make him an heir equally with their own children; that his mother died when he was two years old, and he was raised by George Beatty and wife, and did not know until he was grown that he was not their son; that in 1883 George Beatty, in furtherance of said agreement, gave him all the property that he might die seised of, subject to the support and maintenance of Elizabeth Beatty during her life, and agreed to make a will to that effect; that in August, 1885, George Beatty made the deed of 80 acres of land to his daughter, Elizabeth, but the deed was not delivered; that afterward, in 1886, he made, published, and declared his last will and testament, in due form of law, devising all his property to his daughter, Elizabeth Beatty, for her natural life, and at her death to the appellant; that the will remained in full force and effect at the time of the death of George Beatty, but for some reason was never probated; that after his death Elizabeth Beatty got possession of said deed and had it recorded; that the will disappeared, and upon diligent search and inquiry the appellant had been unable to find it; and that he was willing and able to establish and prove it. The prayer of the cross-bill was that the court should establish the alleged will of George Beatty, and that the original bill should be dismissed. The cross-bill was demurred to, and the demurrer was sustained, and the cross-bill dismissed. After a reference to a master, a decree for partition was entered, and there was a subsequent decree for sale of the premises.
The question to be decided is whether a court of equity has jurisdiction of a bill to establish and prove a lost or destroyed will. Appellant concedes that, if a court of equity should take jurisdiction and establish the will, it must afterward be probated in the county court, to become operative as a will, and to be available as a grant or devise of the land and lots to him. That is correct, since a will is not evidence of title until it has been admitted to probate. Hicks v. Deemer, 187 Ill. 164, 58 N. E. 252. A court of equity will not recognize or act upon a will until it has been admitted to probate. 3 Pomeroy's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bley v. Luebeck
...of the will and its contents. Crooker v. McArdle, 332 Ill. 27, 163 N.E. 384;Mather v. Minard, 260 Ill. 175, 102 N.E. 1062;Beatty v. Clegg, 214 Ill. 34, 73 N.E. 383;In re Page, 118 Ill. 576, 8 N.E. 852,59 Am.Rep. 395. Section 330 of the Probate Act, Ill.Rev.Stat.1939, c. 3, § 484, provides f......
-
Adams v. First Methodist Episcopal Church of Irving Park
...could not admit either will to probate; the exclusive original jurisdiction for that purpose being in the probate court. Beatty v. Clegg, 214 Ill. 34, 73 N. E. 383. But the circuit court did have jurisdiction to set aside the second will, which revoked the first one. The complainant had a s......
-
St. Mary's Home for Children & Dispensary for Poor of Chicago v. Dodge
...to show that it was in existence at the time of her death, and that it had been lost or destroyed since that time. Beatty v. Clegg, 214 Ill. 34, 73 N. E. 383. [6] In the light of a further consideration of the facts presented by this record, this error becomes unimportant, as we are of the ......
-
Crooker v. McArdle
...Cas. 1918A, 1197. [5] A court of equity, in this state, has no original jurisdiction to establish a lost or destroyed will. Beatty v. Clegg, 214 Ill. 34, 73 N. E. 383;Mather v. Minard, 260 Ill. 175, 102 N. E. 1062;Wild v. Sweeney, 84 Ill. 213. Section 18 of article 6 of the Constitution giv......