Brockway v. Rowley
| Decision Date | 30 September 1872 |
| Citation | 66 Ill. 99,1872 WL 8512 |
| Parties | DILLIS A. BROCKWAYv.WARREN B. ROWLEY et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Will county; the Hon. JOSIAH MCROBERTS, Judge, presiding.
Messrs. HILL & DIBELL, for the appellant.
Mr. F. GOODSPEED, for the appellees.
This was a bill in chancery, in the Will circuit court, having two objects, the one to restrain defendants therein from disposing of certain property of complainant which they held as tenants of complainant under a written lease containing various stipulations.
The defendants answered the bill, and on the coming in of the answer, the court modified the original injunction, and, on further consideration, dissolved the injunction and dismissed the bill.
To reverse that decree the complainant appeals.
Complainant was the owner of a farm in Peotone township, in Will county, with various descriptions of personal property upon it, all which, as specified in the lease, he let to the defendants for one year, and was left upon the farm by appellant as stock, as his portion of the capital stock, the tenants putting in some property of the same description and their labor, as their portion of the capital stock.
The whole controversy hinges upon the construction of the contract, mainly upon this clause of it:
“The party of the second part agrees to take the above said farm, stock, tools, etc., on the following conditions: the above mentioned stock, together with four horses, one cow, one boar hog, 12 hens, (belonging to the said party of the second part,) to be fed from the products of the farm, and divide the sales of the proceeds of said farm and stock in the following manner: The party of the first part receives (5-12ths) five-twelfths, and the party of the second part receives (7-12ths) seven-twelfths, and return, at the expiration of the time, to the party of the first part, stock, tools, hay and grain belonging to the said party of the first part as above described, keeping the tools in repair.”
By another stipulation in the lease, the lessees, the party of the second part, were “to draw out (at the expiration of the lease) the same property they put in.”
Appellant contends that, by the true construction of the above clause, there should be returned to him all the property he put in, and that defendants should draw out the property they put in--that is, as we understand the argument, the identical property; and that the proceeds to be derived of the farm and stock were the crops raised on the farm, and the proceeds of the stock were the butter, eggs, calves, pigs and chickens raised or made from them--that those only were to be divided.
The claim of appellees is, that not only these are to be taken as the proceeds of the stock, but also the pork made from the hogs and the growth of the young stock; that the clause, that the party of the second part shall return, at the expiration of the term, to the party of the first part, “stock, tools, hay and grain belonging to the party of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leonard v. Garland
...it cannot be made good by amendments. Thomas v. Adams, 30 Ill. 37;Vieley v. Thompson, 44 Ill. 9;Hummert v. Schwab, 54 Ill. 142;Brockway v. Rowley, 66 Ill. 99;Grimes v. Grimes, 143 Ill. 550, 32 N. E. 847;Canal Com'rs v. Village of East Peoria, 179 Ill. 214, 53 N. E. 633;Leonard v. Arnold, 24......
-
Millard v. Harris
...point made by appellee that the appeal should be dismissed is inopportune. They have joined in error, and hone to the merits.’ Brockway v. Rowley, 66 Ill. 99. While the rules of practice required a joinder in error to be formally made, it was held that the right to insist upon a reversal of......
-
Millard v. Harris
...point made by appellee that the appeal should be dismissed is inopportune. They have joined in error, and hone to the merits.’ Brockway v. Rowley, 66 Ill. 99. While the rules of practice required a joinder in error to be formally made, it was held that the right to insist upon a reversal of......
-
People v. Warren
...to appeal without giving bond, cited R. S., Ch. 110, § 71; Emerson v. Clark, 2 Scam. 490; Caton v. Harmon, 1 Scam. 581; Brockway v. Rowley, 66 Ill. 99. Payment of the fines to Kyle was a breach of the bond, and defendants are liable for the $198, unless they can show that the town received ......