Beauchamp v. Reuben Putnam.
| Decision Date | 30 April 1864 |
| Citation | 1864 WL 2993,34 Ill. 378 |
| Parties | FELIX BEAUCHAMP et al.v.REUBEN PUTNAM. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
ERROR to Circuit Court of Kankakee County.
The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.
C. A. Lake, for plaintiff in error.
Thomas P. Bonfield, for defendant in error.
This is a suit in equity to restrain the prosecution of a suit at law in favor of Antoine Lottenville against the appellee upon a bond executed by him, dated April 9, 1861, in the penal sum of $2,000, conditioned that he should, by deed, with the usual covenants, convey to Lottenville, the obligee, or his assigns, a tract of land in Kankakee county within one year from that time. The bill alleges that Lottenville had, by deed, conveyed all his interest in the premises to Beauchamp, who, soon after the execution of the bond, entered into, and still remains in possession of the premises. The condition of the bond not having been performed, a suit at law was brought upon it, for the use of Beauchamp, to recover damages; but before any trial was had, the appellee caused a deed to be executed and delivered to Beuchamp, which was sufficient to vest in him a perfect title to the premises. He received the deed, subject to but not waiving any claim which he might have by reason of not receiving the title at the proper time. Thereupon the appellee filed the present bill, setting forth the execution and delivery of the deed last named, and a great number of excuses for not having caused the deed to be made before that time, and prayed that the suit at law might be enjoined.
An answer was filed admitting the execution and delivery of the deed last named, and denying the truthfulness and validity of the excuses alleged for not causing it to be made at the proper time, and claiming damages for the delay. To the answer a replication was filed. At the hearing, the defendant asked leave to file a cross-bill, recapitulating his view of the controversy, and praying for damages sustained by the delay in the nondelivery of the deed, which was refused. The filing of a cross-bill is a matter of right, and requires no leave; but it does not necessarily stay the hearing of the original cause. If the complainant in the cross-bill desires a stay of proceedings, he should make an application for that purpose. Such applications are usually granted when made at the proper time, or where the furtherance of justice requires such a bill to be filed. A...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parke v. Brown
...or a rule to answer, is error: Blair v. Reading, 99 Ill. 600; Purdy v. Henslee, 97 Ill. 390; Thielman v. Carr, 75 Ill. 385; Beauchamp v. Putman, 34 Ill. 378; 2 Dan Ch. Pl. and Pr. 1648. A cross-bill must be germane to the original bill: 2 Dan. Ch. Pl. and Pr. 1649; Thompson v. Shoemaker, 68......
- Fread v. Fread
-
Kinney v. Bauer
...is prima facie evidence of its receipt: In re Hickey, 10 Irish Eq. 127; 2 Wharton's Ev. § 1323. A cross-bill is a new suit: Beaucamp v. Putnam, 34 Ill. 378; Myers v. Manny, 63 Ill. 211. The facts stated in the affidavit in support of the motion to strike from the files, were not privileged ......
-
Quick v. Lemon
...the ground, alone, that the court struck the cross-bill from the files, and refused to require the defendants to answer it. In Beauchamp v. Putnam, 34 Ill. 378, it was held that the filing of a cross-bill was a matter of right, and requires no leave; but it does not necessarily stay the ori......