Galway v. Galway
| Decision Date | 17 December 1907 |
| Citation | 83 N.E. 154,231 Ill. 217 |
| Parties | GALWAY v. GALWAY et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Appellate Court, Third District, on Error to Circuit Court, Edgar County; James W. Craig, Judge.
Bill by May B. Galway against James H. Galway and others for partition. From a judgment of the Appellate Court for the Third District affirming a decree for complainant, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Van Sellar & Van Sellar, for appellants.
H. S. Tanner, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Court for the Third District affirming a decree of the circuit court of Edgar county in a partition suit, in so far as it allowed the solicitor of the complainant a solicitor's fee of $2,500, and apportioned it between the complainant and defendants.
The record filed in this court consists of the bill for partition filed by appellee, an answer and cross-bill filed by appellants, a decree for partition which fixed and apportioned the appellee's solicitor's fees, a motion to modify that part of the decree fixing the solicitor's fees and apportioning the same, and an order overruling the said motion. From the record it appears that William B. Galway died testate, leaving May B. Galway, the appellee, as his widow, and leaving no child or children or the descendants of a child or children him surviving, but leaving him surviving two brothers, Joseph H. Galway and John B. Galway, as his only heirs at law; that the will of William B. Galway, deceased, was admitted to probate; that the appellee declined to take under the will, and elected to take under the law, and filed a bill for the partition of the real estate of which William B. Galway died siesed, claiming certain interests in said real estate, to which bill Joseph H. and John B. Galway, and the legatees under the will of said William B. Galway, deceased, were made defendants. The appellants filed an answer denying the appellee was entitled to the interest in said real estate claimed by her in her bill, and filed a cross-bill setting up the interests of the parties as claimed by them. On December 15, 1905, a decree was entered by the court, without appointing commissioners, upon the pleadings and the agreement of the parties, settling the rights of the parties and investing them, respectively, with the title to the real estate allotted to each of them, and fixing the solicitor's fees of the appellee's solicitor, and opportioning the same between the parties; and on January 5, 1906, the appellants moved the court to vacate the portion of the decree with reference to solicitor's fees, on the ground that the bill did not correctly state the interest of the parties, which motion the court denied. The Appellate Court declined to disturb the decree of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lamp v. Lamp
...decree so entered by consent can not be reviewed by appeal or writ of error. (Paine v. Doughty, 251 Ill. 396, 96 N.E. 212; Galway v. Galway, 231 Ill. 217, 83 N.E. 154.) It can only be set aside by an original bill in the nature of a bill of review. (Hohenadel v. Steele, 237 Ill. 229, 86 N.E......
-
People v. Joliet Trust & Sav. Bank
...A decree so entered by consent cannot be reviewed by appeal or writ of error. Paine v. Doughty, 251 Ill. 396, 96 N.E. 212;Galway v. Galway, 231 Ill. 217, 83 N.E. 154. It can only be set aside by an original bill in the nature of a bill of review. Hohenadel v. Steele, 237 Ill. 229, 86 N.E. 7......
-
Sharp v. Hui Wahine, Inc.
...Realty Co., 84 Wash. 654, 147 P. 421, 423; Hoosier Finance Co. v. Campbell, 86 Ind.App. 62, 155 N.E. 836, 838; Galway v. Galway, 231 Ill. 217, 83 N.E. 154. However, here the consent on the part of the mortgagees through their counsel was not as to a specific amount but to a 'reasonable' fee......
-
Sims v. Powell
...review. Bergman v. Rhodes, 334 Ill. 137, 165 N.E. 598, 65 A.L.R. 344;Mooney v. Valentynovica, 262 Ill. 355, 104 N.E. 645;Galway v. Galway, 231 Ill. 217, 83 N.E. 154;Krieger v. Krieger, 221 Ill. 479, 77 N.E. 909. The order of the probate court of October 19, 1943, was agreed to not only by t......