Heberer v. Heberer
| Decision Date | 31 January 1873 |
| Citation | 67 Ill. 253,1873 WL 8188 |
| Parties | HENRY HEBERERv.MARGARET HEBERER et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of St. Clair county; the Hon. JOSEPH GILLESPIE, Judge, presiding.
This was a proceeding by Henry Heberer, the appellant, against Margaret Heberer, widow of George H. Heberer deceased, and Henry Heberer, Adam Heberer, Peter Heberer, and Charles Heberer, minor heirs of said George H. Heberer, for the partition of land. The commissioners appointed to make partition reported that the premises were so circumstanced that a division and partition could not be made without manifest prejudice to the proprietors thereof, and appraised the same at $3720. The decree of sale found that the widow was entitled to hold and occupy, during her natural life, two rooms in the dwelling house as a homestead, etc. The lands were first offered separately, and there being no bids, they were sold en masse for $3500. The other facts appear in the opinion of the court.
Messrs. HAY & KNISPEL, for the appellant.
Mr. W. C. KNEFFNER, for the appellees.
At the March term, 1872, this cause was referred to the master to take proof; and upon the coming in of the report, commissioners were appointed to make partition. At the same term they reported that division could not be made of the premises, and appraised the land, according to the requirement of the statute; and the court thereupon rendered a decree, finding all the proceedings to have been regular, and that the allegations of the bill were true, and ordered a sale.
At the August term following, the master made a report of the sale, from which it appeared that there had been due advertisement, and that the land had been properly offered at public auction, and purchased by appellant, to whom a deed had been executed. The bid was nearly the amount of the appraisement.
Exceptions were filed to the report of the master, that the land had been sacrificed; that there was no competition at the sale; that the appraisement was too low; and a motion was made to open the bid, and for an order for a re-sale.
Two witnesses testified that the lands were sold at less than their value, and two other persons offered, in case of a re-sale, to bid $280 more than the amount bid. The exception that there was no competition, was not sustained. Another bid was made besides the one made by the purchaser; other persons were present...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barnes v. Henshaw
......Duncan v. Sanders, 50 Ill. 475;Heberer v. Heberer, 67 Ill. 253;Sowards v. Pritchett, 37 Ill. 517;Quigley v. Breckenridge, 180 Ill. 627, 54 N. E. 580;Wilson v. Ford, 190 Ill. 614, 60 N. E. ......
-
Osmond v. Evans
...alone, to set aside a sale, unless it is so grossly inadequate as in itself to raise the presumption of fraud. Heberer v. Heberer, 67 Ill. 253;[269 Ill. 284]Quick v. Collins, 197 Ill. 391, 64 N. E. 288; Abbott v. Beebe, supra. ‘Public policy requires stability in all judicial sales, and tha......
-
Abbott v. Beebe
......Inadequacy of price is not in itself sufficient to set aside a sale unless it is so [226 Ill. 420]grossly inadequate as to establish fraud. Heberer v. Heberer, 67 Ill. 253;Quick v. Collins, 197 Ill. 391, 64 N. E. 288. These heirs were all duly made parties to the partition proceedings and had ......
-
Quigley v. Breckenridge
......Purple, 49 Ill. 158;Duncan v. Sanders, 50 Ill. 475;Heberer v. Heberer, 67 Ill. 253. None of the parties here were minors, or under any disability. The decision of the court below was not made ......