Doe v. Hileman
| Decision Date | 31 December 1836 |
| Citation | 1836 WL 2360,1 Scam. 323,2 Ill. 323 |
| Parties | JOHN DOE, ex dem. JAMES S. SMITH, and HARRIET, his wife, WILLIAM WEAVER, JAMES WEAVER, WILLIAM ECHOLS, and SOPHIA, his wife, and BARTHOLOMEW J. EVANS, and MARIA, his wife, plaintiffs in error,v.DANIEL HILEMAN, defendant in error. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
THIS cause was tried at the November term, 1835, of the Union Circuit Court, before the Hon. Jepthah Hardin and a jury.A verdict and judgment were rendered for the defendant.DAVID J. BAKER and HENRY EDDY, for the plaintiffs in error.
J. DOUGHERTY, W. J. GATEWOOD, and W. B. SCATES, for the defendant in error.
This was an action of ejectment brought by the heirs of J. Weaver, deceased, for the recovery of the possession of a quarter section of land in Union county, sold by the administrators of Weaver, and purchased by the father of the defendant, Hileman, and devised to the defendant.There were separate demises laid from each heir, and a plea of not guilty; a verdict and judgment for defendant.The cause is brought to this Court on a writ of error.During the progress of the trial, a bill of exceptions was taken to the opinion of the Circuit Court in admitting the petition, proceedings, and judgment of the Circuit Court of Union county some years previous, under the laws relative to the sale of the real estate of intestates, whose personal estates were insufficient to pay the debts of such intestates, and the evidence of such sale, and the deed made to Jacob Hileman, the purchaser, at such administrator's sale.Under the exceptions taken, the counsel for the plaintiffs in error now make the following points for the consideration of this Court, and assign the same for error.
1st.The Circuit Court erred in permitting said defendant to read to the jury the order of said Circuit Court, directing the sale of the land in question.
2d.The Circuit Court erred in permitting the said defendant to read in evidence to the jury, the paper purporting to be a deed from the administrators of Weaver, deceased, to Jacob Hileman, deceased.
3d.The deed is defective and void, because it does not set forth the order of sale at large.
4th.It does not show a sale made according to the order of the Court.
5th.The order of sale authorizing the notes of the State Bank of Illinois to be received in payment, was unauthorized, and the Court had no legal power to make such order.
6th and 7th.The application for the order of sale, was not made in the county in which letters of administration were granted.
The preceding objections seem to resolve themselves, except that made under the fifth head, into two, and are embraced in them.
1st.That the application for the order to sell the lands was addressed to a tribunal having no legal cognizance of the subject.
2d.That the deed does not conform to the prerequisites of the law giving the form and mode of conveyance.The first objection is not tenable.The act of 1827, under which the proceedings were had, does not, like the act of 1829(R. L. 641-2;Gale'sStat. 711), require that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kipp v. Collins
... ... substantially comply with the statutory form and does not ... show a sale made in conformity with the statute. Blackwell on ... Tax Titles, 210, 368; Davison v. Gill, 1 East, 64; ... Grim v. O'Connell, 54 Cal. 522; Hubbell v ... Campbell, 56 Cal. 527; Smith v. Hileman, 1 ... Scam. 323; Long v. Burnett, 13 Iowa 28; Boardman ... v. Bourne, 20 Iowa 134; Sutton v. Stone, 4 Neb ... 319; Williams v. McLanahan, 67 Mo. 499; Atkins ... v. Kinnan, 20 Wend. 241; Condit v. Blackwell, ... 22 N.J.Eq. 481; Chandler v. Spear, 22 Vt. 388; ... Lain v. Shepardson 18 Wis ... ...
-
John Den James Murray and John Kayser, Plaintiffs v. the Hoboken Land and Improvement Company John Den James Murray Et Al v. the Hoboken Land and Improvement Company John Den William Rathbone Et Al v. Rutsen Suckley Et Al
...to Constitution, article 4. If the proceeding is constitutional, still, the statute must be strictly pursued. 6 Pet. 470; 3 ibid. 8; 1 Scam. 323; 6 Wheat. But it does not appear that there were no goods or chattels upon which to levy; on the contrary, that the marshal levied upon some, but ......
-
Stow v. Kimball
...debts is not remedial, but is special and extraordinary, and to be strictly construed. Langworthy v. Baker, 23 Ill. 487; Smith v. Hileman, 1 Scam. 323; Herdman v. Short, 18 Ill, 60; Whitney v. Porter, 23 Ill. 447. Cases cited in opening, Point II. III. The plaintiffs in the ejectment suits ......
-
Atkins v. Hinman
...v. Carlin, 3 Scam. 104; Swiggart v. Harber, 4 Scam. 364; Garrett v. Wiggins, 1 Scam. 335; Hill v. Leonard, 4 Scam. 140; Smith v. Hileman, 1 Scam. 323-5; Fitch v. Pinckard, 4 Scam. 70. The principles maintained by these cases are applicable to all the proceedings under the law of 1839, conce......