McDonald v. Shimeall
| Decision Date | 06 February 1918 |
| Docket Number | No. 11580.,11580. |
| Citation | 282 Ill. 42,118 N.E. 399 |
| Parties | McDONALD et al. v. SHIMEALL et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Superior Court, Cook County; Charles M. Foell, Judge.
Bill by Guy C. McDonald and others against Wesley Shimeall and others. There was a decree in accordance with the prayer of the bill, and complainants bring error. Writ dismissed.
Lawrence Harmon, of Chicago, for plaintiffs in error.
Adams, Crews, Bobb & Wescott, of Chicago, for defendants in error.
Guy C. McDonald, Cassius M. McDonald, and Harold A. McDonald filed a bill in the superior court of Cook county on July 3, 1914, against Wesley Shimeall, Charles Winship, and Dennis Colbert, individually and as trustees of the estate of Michael C. McDonald, deceased, and Dora McDonald, for the purpose of obtaining a construction of the will of Michael C. McDonald, praying that the trust created by the will be terminated, that the trustees make an accounting of the trust, and that they be decreed to convey and deliver the property to the complainants and be discharged as trustees. On the same day the defendants answered the bill, the cause was heard on the pleadings and evidence, and a decree was entered in accordance with the prayer of the bill. On June 30, 1917, Guy C. McDonald and Cassius M. McDonald sued out a writ of error to reverse the decree.
The plaintiffs in error now contend that the decree is erroneous because their interest under the will was contingent and will become vested only at the expiration of 15 years from the testator's death, in 1907, upon the condition that they survive that period; that the unborn children of the complainants were not represented in the suit; that the decree was a clear subversion of the trust, and that the court had no jurisdiction to make it. The cause has been submitted on demurrer to five pleas filed by Dora McDonald, one of which is that the decree was rendered by consent. A decree by consent cannot be appealed from, error cannot be assigned on it, a rehearing cannot be granted, and it cannot be set aside by a bill of review. Armstrong v. Cooper, 11 Ill. 540;Galway v. Galway, 231 Ill. 217, 83 N. E. 154;Mooney v. Valentynovicz, 262 Ill. 355, 104 N. E. 645. It appears on the face of the record that the decree was precisely according to the prayer of the bill and granted the complainants exactly the relief, and all the relief, they asked. Under such circumstances, a complainant cannot...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arndt v. Arndt
...alternative prayer of his petition. Under such circumstances he cannot appeal from it, and his appeal must be dismissed. McDonald v. Shimeall, 282 Ill. 42, 118 N.E. 399;Henry v. Metz, 382 Ill. 297, 46 N.E.2d 945;City of Chicago v. Sayer, 330 Ill.App. 181, 70 N.E.2d 870;McNulty v. Hotel Sher......
-
Trapani's Estate, In re
...for relief: Commissioners of Union Drainage Dist. No. 3 v. Commissioners, etc., 1906, 220 Ill. 176, 77 N.E. 71; McDonald v. Shimeall, 1917, 282 Ill. 42, 118 N.E. 399; if a party has not obtained all that he deems himself entitled to, he may appeal, but not when he receives all that he claim......
-
Illinois Legislative Investigating Commission v. Markham, s. 76-163
...party may not appeal from a judgment granting him full relief. (Bullman v. Cooper (1936), 362 Ill. 469, 200 N.E. 173; McDonald v. Shimeall (1917), 282 Ill. 42, 118 N.E. 399; Highsmith v. Allstate Ins. Co. (1974), 17 Ill.App.3d 615, 308 N.E.2d 204; In Re Trapani's Estate (1959), 21 Ill.App.2......
-
McArthur v. Thompson
... ... Cooper , 11 Ill. 540; Galway v. Galway , 231 Ill ... 217, 83 N.E. 154; Mooney v. Valentynovicz , 262 Ill ... 355, 104 N.E. 645." McDonald v. Shimeall , 282 ... Ill. 42, 118 N.E. 399. See, also, Clark v. Charles , ... 55 Neb. 202, 75 N.W. 563 ... A ... "consent ... ...