Hartmann v. Hartmann
| Decision Date | 30 June 1871 |
| Citation | 59 Ill. 103,1871 WL 7989 |
| Parties | LOUIS HARTMANN et al.v.HUBERT HARTMANN. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of St. Clair county; the Hon. JOSEPH GILLESPIE, Judge, presiding.
Mr. N. NILES for the appellant.
Appellants filed their bill for partition. Appellee answered, and joined in the prayer for relief.
Appellants are minors, who sue by their guardian. They inherited the lands from their mother; and appellee is their father, and tenant by the curtesy.
The circuit court refused the relief prayed for.
From the report of the master, we find that the lands are valuable, are underlaid by coal, are worth three dollars per acre for cultivation, and that, though less productive, they constitute a safer investment than money loaned.
It is assumed that the right of partition of lands, and the consequent sale, if not susceptible of division, is absolute, and that it is arbitrary to refuse the prayer of the bill.
A general superintendence of infants is now exercised in courts of chancery, as a branch of general jurisdiction. Indeed, it is one of the peculiar duties of courts of equity to protect the rights of infants. From the earliest period, courts of chancery have been vested with a broad and comprehensive jurisdiction over the persons and property of infants. Cowls v. Cowls, 3 Gilm. 435; Grattan v. Grattan, 18 Ill. 167; King v. King, 15 Ill. 187.
The power and duty of the courts in this regard are clearly shown by Judge STORY, 2 Vol. Eq. Ju., Ch. 35. He says: “Whenever a suit is instituted in the court of chancery, relative to the person and property of the infant, although he is not under any general guardian appointed by the court, he is treated as a ward of the court, and as being under its especial cognizance and protection.”
This proceeding has been instituted in behalf of the minors. No reason has been shown why partition should be granted. We can not perceive that it would be for the interests of the minors to grant the division. A decree in their favor would necessarily result in a sale, for the proof shows that there could be no partition. The answer and affidavit of appellee, also disclose that his sole object is to obtain the money.
We are satisfied that the land is the safest investment. It can not be squandered, as too often happens with the money of infants. It is now worth $80 per acre,--lying in one of the richest and fairest portions of the State,--and will probably increase in value. It is permanent and can not be lost, either by dishonesty or carelessness. Valuable coal mines, too, underlie its surface, and their development will probably prove a source of large profit.
We can not consent that this property, now safe from the fluctuations of prices, the accidents of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Heady v. Crouse
......C. 616, 53 Am. Dec. 421; Smith v. Sackett, 10 Ill. 534; Allman v. Taylor, 101 Ill. 185; Ames v. Ames, 148 Ill. 322, 36 N. E. 110; Hartmann v. Hartmann, 59 Ill. 103; Lynch v. Rotan, 39 Ill. 14; Dorsey v. Gilbert, 11 Gill & J. (Md.) 87; Downin v. Sprecher, 35 Md. 475; Taylor v. Peabody ......
-
Alford v. Bennett
......If these infants had been adults, then there might be some force in this argument. This court said in Hartmann v. Hartmann, 59 Ill. 103: ‘A general superintendence of infants is now exercised in courts of chancery, as a branch of general ......
-
Chapman v. American Sur. Co.
...estates and protect their interests. Grattan v. Grattan, 18 Ill. 167, 65 Am. Dec. 726;Lynch v. Rotan, 39 Ill. 14;Hartmann v. Hartmann, 59 Ill. 103;Ames v. Ames, 148 Ill. 321, 36 N. E. 110, and 151 Ill. 280, 37 N. E. 890; 3 Pomeroy's Eq. Jur. (3d Ed.) § 1154, and note. The rule now appears t......
-
Thomas v. Thomas
......Lynch v. Rotan, 39 Ill. 14;Hartmann v. Hartmann, 59 Ill. 103;Allman v. Taylor, 101 Ill. 185;Ames v. Ames, 148 Ill. 321, 36 N. E. 110. Where some proceeding is instituted in which an ......