Koch v. Arnold
| Decision Date | 09 December 1909 |
| Citation | 242 Ill. 208,89 N.E. 1028 |
| Parties | KOCH v. ARNOLD et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Superior Court, Cook County; Farlin Q. Ball, Judge.
Action by Barbara Koch against D. Arnold and others. Judgment for complainant, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.John R. O'Connor, for appellants.
Charles F. Vogel, for appellee.
This appeal is from a decree of the superior court of Cook county setting aside a tax deed, and raises only the question of the sufficiency of the recitals of the decree to sustain it; the record containing no certificate of the evidence. The bill alleged that the complainant was the owner and in possession of the premises. The answer denied this allegation, and the decree finds that the complainant was at the time of the commencement of the suit, since then has remained, and now is, the owner of the premises, and at the commencement of the suit was in the actual and exclusive possession thereof.
It is insisted that the finding that the complainant is the owner of the premises is not sufficient, because it is merely a conclusion of law, and not the finding of a specific fact. It is necessary to the validity of a decree granting relief that the record shall show the facts warranting the decree. It is not, however, necessary that all the evidence by which the facts were proved should be set forth in the record. If it appears that the court, from the evidence before it, found the ultimate facts justifying the relief granted, it is sufficient. The decree need not recite subsidiary or evidentiary facts, tending merely to sustain the ultimate conclusion of fact upon which the decree is founded. A general finding of the fact is enough, and it is not necessary to find minutely all the circumstances tending to sustain the general finding; for these circumstances are matters of evidence only. Almost any statement of fact may be shown by a refined analysis to depend upon an inference to be drawn from other facts, and to require the application of legal rules in making the deduction. Besides ownership, may be cited marriage, residence, possession, partnership, assessment, delivery, and many other acts, relations, or conditions, as examples of a complex fact, the finding of which may require the consideration of few or many subordinate facts and the application of legal principles to their consideration; but the final conclusion reached as an inference of fact drawn from all the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dibble v. Winter
...upon an inference to be drawn from other facts and to require the application of legal rules in making the deduction.’ Koch v. Arnold, 242 Ill. 208, 89 N. E. 1028. Whatever may be the holding in other jurisdictions, we are disposed to hold, on principle as well as under the authorities of t......
-
Anderson v. Anderson
...facts is enough, and it is not necessary to find minutely all the subsidiary facts which tend to prove the ultimate fact. Koch v. Arnold, 242 Ill. 208, 89 N. E. 1028;Cobe v. Bartlett, 270 Ill. 61, 110 N. E. 325;Stevenson v. Earling, 290 Ill. 565, 125 N. E. 322;Chicago Title & Trust Co. v. W......
-
Chicago Title & Trust Co. v. Ward
... ... Cobe v. Bartlett, 270 Ill. 61, 110 N. E. 325;Stevenson v. Earling, 290 Ill. 565, 125 N. E. 322. The finding of an ultimate fact, as ownership (Koch v. Arnold, 242 Ill. 208, 89 N. E. 1028), is often a conclusion drawn from the evidentiary facts, and the application of legal principles may be ... ...
-
Sabinske v. Patterson
... ... It was the finding of essential ultimate facts necessary to entitle the appellee to recover. Koch v. Arnold (1909) 242 Ill. 208, 89 N. E. 1028;Bogda v. Glos (1910) 244 Ill. 575, 91 N. E. 657; Pittsburgh, etc., Ry. Co. v. O'Brien, supra.[12] As ... ...