Dorlarque v. Cress

Decision Date31 January 1874
PartiesREBECCA A. DORLARQUE et al.v.CHARLES CRESS et al.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Montgomery county.

Mr. A. N. KINGSBURY, for the appellants.

Mr. JESSE J. PHILLIPS, for the appellees.

Mr. JUSTICE SCHOLFIELD delivered the opinion of the Court:

The only question presented by the several assignments of error on this record is, are the appellees, Francis Cress and Laura R. Cress, estopped from asserting their claim to the lands in controversy?

Absalom Cress died intestate, but, prior to his death, requested that his son James M. should have the lands in controversy; that another son should have certain other lands, and that each of his remaining children should have $1000, in lieu of their interests in these lands. After his death, the children that were of age carried out his wishes, by making the necessary conveyances, and paying the money; and such as were then under age, with the exception of Francis and Laura R., on arriving at the years of majority, also executed conveyances, and received the $1000. Francis and Laura R. were, at the time of their father's death, quite young, but the money intended for them, in lieu of their interests in the lands, was paid to their guardian, and by him loaned, upon interest, until a short time after they became of age, when it was paid to them. It does not appear precisely how long this was before the bill was filed, but the length of time was not important enough to cut any material figure in the case. After the money was paid, deeds were demanded of them for their interests in the lands, which they refused to execute. There is no evidence showing that, when the money was paid to and receipted by them, they were informed, or knew, that it was intended to be in lieu of their interests in the lands. They have since retained the money, and made no offer to return it.

It is insisted that, although the mere wish of their father was not obligatory, so as to divest them of their titles, yet that, by the acceptance of the money, they elected to ratify the arrangement, and are now estopped from asserting title inconsistent with it.

The obvious objection to this is, that, in order to constitute a ratification, the act relied upon as such must have been done with full knowledge of the rights of the party, and of the consequences of the act. Davidson v. Young et al. 38 Ill. 153; Schnell v. Chicago, Id. 382. Had it appeared...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Brown v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of United States
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • January 30, 1899
    ... ... First v. Ricker, 71 Ill. 439; People v ... Brown, 67 Ill. 435; Ball v. Hooten, 85 Ill ... 159; Davidson v. Young, 38 Ill. 145; Dorlarque ... v. Cress, 71 Ill. 380; Chandler v. White, 84 ... Ill. 435; Thomas v. Bowman, 29 Ill. 426 ...          Under ... the provisions of ... ...
  • Clough v. Wing
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • February 20, 1888
    ...claim to water covered by plaintiff's prior appropriation. Anaheim Water Co. v. Semi Tropic Water Co., 64 Cal. 195, 30 P. 623; Dorlarque v. Cress, 71 Ill. 380; Weise Moore, 22 Mo.App. 537-8; Alexander v. Kerr, 2 Rawle (Pa.) 83, 19 Am. Dec. 169. Herndon and Hawkins, for Appellee. This is an ......
  • Talcott v. Brackett
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • October 31, 1879
    ...Roe v. Jerome, 18 Conn. 138; Letcher v. Morrison, 27 Ill. 209; Rogers v. Farwell, 9 Barb. 618; Mills v. Graves, 38 Ill. 467; Dorlarque v. Cress, 71 Ill. 380. MCALLISTER, J. This was a bill filed by Brackett, in the Superior Court of Cook county, against Talcott, to restrain the latter from ......
  • Wilson v. Roots
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • January 25, 1887
    ...Ill. 438;People v. Brown, 67 Ill. 435;Ball v. Hooten, 85 Ill. 159;Noble v. Chrisman, 88 Ill. 186;Davidson v. Young, 38 Ill. 145;Dorlarque v. Cress, 71 Ill. 380. It is not material to inquire whether the form of assignment of the stock was sufficient, since, if the stock was, as we have held......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT