Searle v. Galbraith
| Decision Date | 30 September 1874 |
| Citation | 1874 WL 8974,73 Ill. 269 |
| Parties | ELMER SEARLEv.JAMES G. GALBRAITH. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Whiteside county; the Hon. WILLIAM W. HEATON, Judge, presiding. Messrs. EUSTACE, BARGE & DIXON, for the appellant.
Messrs SACKETT & BENNETT, for the appellee.
At the May term, 1866, of the Whiteside circuit court, Henry R. Sampson obtained a decree, as the conservator of appellant, authorizing him to sell and convey certain lands, including those in controversy, for the purpose of paying appellant's debts.
Pursuant to this decree, on the 18th of August, 1866, Sampson sold the land to one Wilson, who purchased it for appellee. In executing the deed to Wilson, however, Sampson omitted to affix a scroll or seal after his signature. Subsequently Wilson conveyed to appellee, who went into possession, and appellant brought ejectment to the October term, 1867, of the Whiteside circuit court, against him for the land. Trial was had, resulting in a judgment for appellant; and, on motion of appellee, the judgment was set aside and a new trial ordered, by virtue of the provision to that effect in the act relating to ejectment. Pending the second trial the present bill was filed in the same court, praying that the proceedings in ejectment be enjoined, and that Sampson be required to make and deliver a deed in conformity with the decree and sale.
It is recited in the decree, that the case was referred to Henry Hudson, Esq., a special master in chancery, to take and report the evidence; and his report thereof is received and approved. It then proceeds in these words: “And the court, upon the examination of said report, does find therefrom that the said Henry R. Sampson has been appointed as conservator of the estate of Elmer Searle, who this court finds has been ascertained by a jury, according to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, to be an insane person,” etc.
On the hearing below, appellant gave evidence tending to show that he was not served with notice of the proceedings taken in the county court declaring him insane; and the question is, whether he can be allowed to contradict the findings of the decree, so far as it relates to the appointment of Sampson as his conservator. There is no charge or proof of actual fraud in the matter. The land sold for about what it was worth; and it is conceded that appellant was in fact insane; that he was sent to the lunatic asylum at Jacksonville, and Sampson was attempted to be appointed his conservator, by order of the county court.
The counsel for appellant cites numerous authorities, which we have carefully examined but deem it unnecessary to refer to, in support of the position, that, however conclusive the record of a court may be in other respects, the question of its jurisdiction is always open to investigation. We do not regard the question as an open one with us, and shall therefore refer to but few authorities.
In Fitzgibbon v. Lake, 29 Ill. 165, the record of a guardian's sale was offered in evidence, by the defendant in an action of ejectment. It was argued by the counsel for the appellants, who were plaintiffs in the lower court, that there were two testamentary guardians appointed, whereas the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Miller
...fact, and the court would not disregard it except upon very clear and satisfactory proof that due notice had not been given. In Searle v. Galbraith, 73 Ill. 269, it is said that this case, and subsequent cases of like character, only hold that the finding of the court on the question of jur......
-
McKenzie v. Donnell
... ... Co. v ... Hunt, 79 N.Y. 541; Hovey v. Hobson, 55 Me. 256; ... Dennett v. Dennett, 44 N.H. 531; Hedrick v ... Bailey, 132 N.Y. 87; Searle v. Galbreath, 73 ... Ill. 269; Water Supply Co. v. Root, 56 Kan. 187; ... Thorpe v. Hanson, 64 Minn. 201; Elston v ... Jasper, 45 Tex. 409 ... ...
-
Lindberg v. Mut. Nat. Bank of Chicago
...v. Waggoner, 27 Ill. 395;Clay v. Hammond, 199 Ill. [370] 377 [65 N.E. 352,93 Am.St.Rep. 146];Langdon v. People, 133 Ill. 382 ;Searle v. Galbraith, 73 Ill. 269;Speck v. Pullman Car Co., 121 Ill. 33 ;Titcomb v. Vantyle, 84 Ill. 371;Am. Bible Soc. v. Price, 115 Ill. 623 ;Martin v. Jamison, 39 ......
-
Drum v. Capps
...the same effect are American Bible Society v. Price, 115 Ill. 623, 5 N. E. 126,Huggins v. Drury, 192 Ill. 528, 61 N. E. 652, and Searle v. Galbraith, 73 Ill. 269. A person may become prejudiced against some of his children or the natural objects of his bounty without a proper foundation and......