Hall v. First Nat. Bank of Pittsfield
| Decision Date | 21 April 1928 |
| Docket Number | No. 18750.,18750. |
| Citation | 161 N.E. 311,330 Ill. 234 |
| Parties | HALL v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF PITTSFIELD et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Petition by William C. Hall to set aside an order probating the will of Thomas N. Hall, deceased, and granting letters to the First National Bank of Pittsfield and another as executors. From an order of the circuit court dismissing petitioner's appeal from an order of the county court striking the petition from the files, petitioner appeals.
Affirmed.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Pike County; Fred G. Wolfe, Judge.
A. W. Schimmel and Capps & Weaver, all of Pittsfield, and Marsh, Lewis & Thompson, of Galesburg, for appellant.
L. T. Graham and William & Barry Mumford, all of Pittsfield, for appellees.
Thomas N. Hall, a resident of Pike county, died testate August 26, 1926, leaving an estate consisting of both real and personal property in Illinois, and leaving him surviving as his heirs at law, William O. Hall, the petitioner, and many nephews and nieces. The will provided for the appointment of the First National Bank of Pittsfield, Ill., and Alonzo Leonard, as executors. The bank and Leonard filed their petition on August 30, 1926, for the probate of the will, and the will was admitted to probate on the 4th day of October, 1926, and thereafter the bank and Leonard were appointed executors of the will and qualified as such. On May 25, 1927, W. C. Hall filed his petition in the county court of Pike county praying that the order of probate of October 4, 1926, and the order entered granting letters to the bank and Leonard, as executors, be declared null and void and of no effect, upon the ground that the petition for the probate of the will was not verified by affidavit and that no amended or supplemental petition for the probate of the will was at any time thereafter filed, and setting up, among other things, that the will was not executed or witnessed as required by law. The county court, on motion, ordered the petition stricken from the files, from which order Hall, as petitioner, excepted and prayed an appeal to the circuit court of Pike county, which the court allowed upon the filing of an appeal bond in the sum of $200, to be approved by the clerk of the court. The petitioner filed his appeal bond in the sum of $200, on the back of which bond appeared, among other things, the following:
‘Appeal bond from county court to circuit court, Pike county, Ill.’ ‘Filed July 9, 1927-J. D. Harpole, County Clerk.’ ‘Taken and approved this 9th day of July, A. D. 1927-J. D. Harpole, County Clerk.’ ‘Approved by me this 9th day of July, A. D. 1927-Mark Bradburn, County Judge.’
The county court approved the bond on July 9, 1927. Upon call of the cause in the circuit court counsel for the executors limited their appearance strictly to the making of the following motion:
‘The above-named parties move that the appeal in the above-entitled matter be dismissed for want of jurisdiction in this court.’
The circuit court sustained the motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal, whereupon the petitioner prayed an appeal, which was allowed.
[1] It is contended by appellant that the appeal bond from the county court to the circuit court was filed in apt time and that the circuit court erred in dismissing the appeal. This was an appeal of the character for which provision is made by section 122 of the County Court Act (Cahill's Stat. 1927, p....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brauer Mach. & Supply Co. ex rel. Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Parkhill Truck Co.
...463;Johnson v. Cook County, 368 Ill. 160, 13 N.E.2d 169;People ex rel. Bender v. Davis, 365 Ill. 389, 6 N.E.2d 643;Hall v. First National Bank, 330 Ill. 234, 161 N.E. 311. Section 77 of the Civil Practice Act limits the right of appeal to appeals from ‘final judgments, orders or decrees.’ I......
-
Connor v. Wahl
... ... During May, 1922, the Wahls, supposing that their first note and trust deed had been fully paid by the note and ... Whittier, 117 Ill. 282, 7 N. E. 642;Mullanphy Savings Bank v. Schott, 135 Ill. 655, 26 N. E. 640,25 Am. St. Rep ... ...
-
Davison v. Heinrich
...court in probate proceedings is purely statutory, and a strict compliance with the statutory provisions is required. Hall v. First Nat. Bank, 330 Ill. 234, 161 N. E. 311;Hill v. City of Chicago, 218 Ill. 178, 75 N. E. 766. Section 14 of the Wills Act (Smith-Hurd Rev. St. 1927, c. 148, § 16)......
-
Welch v. Worsley
... ... Error to Third Branch, Appellate Court, First District, on Appeal from Circuit Court, Cook County; Walter ... Cas. 339;Zeigler v. Illinois Trust & Savings Bank, 245 Ill. 180, 91 N. E. 1041,28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1112,19 ... the school near by made their purchases, and a dance hall, where the young people of the island frequently ... ...