Tuttle v. Garrett
Decision Date | 30 June 1855 |
Parties | JOHN G. TUTTLE et al.v.AUGUSTUS O. GARRETT. |
Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
16 Ill. 354
1855 WL 5435 (Ill.)
6 Peck (IL) 354
JOHN G. TUTTLE et al.
v.
AUGUSTUS O. GARRETT.
Supreme Court of Illinois.
June Term, 1855.
In an application for a decree against infants for a conve yance of land nothing will be taken as admitted, but complete proof must be made as against them.
CITED: 18 Ill. 81; 23 Ill. 38, [35]; 27 Ill. 149; 43 Ill. 249; 47 Ill. 416.
THE decree in this case was rendered by PETERS, Judge, at a special term of the Peoria Circuit Court, in March, 1855.
N. H. PURPLE and E. N. POWELL, for Plaintiffs in Error.MANNING and MERRIMAN, for Defendant in Error.
CATON, J.
The bill in this case shows that Garrett executed a deed of the premises in question to Tuttle, the father of the defendant, for the purpose of securing him against any loss which he might sustain by reason of his having become security for Garrett in certain transactions, particularly specifying an appeal bond which Tuttle had signed, as security for Garrett, for the purpose of appealing a certain case from the circuit to the supreme court, in which case, the bill shows that the supreme court rendered a decree against Garrett for over $1200. And also to indemnify Tuttle for any loss which he might sustain by reason of his having become security for Garrett to Kidder, for several hundred dollars. The bill further avers, that Garrett
has since paid off and satisfied both these demands, by reason of which, he is entitled to have the premises conveyed to him by the defendants...To continue reading
Request your trial- Hemmer v. Wolfer
- Tymony v. Tymony
-
Lalakea v. Laupahoehoe Sugar Co.
...8 Ohio 377; Shultz v. Sanders, 38 N. J. Eq. 156; Stinson v. Pickering, 70 Me. 273; Crain v. Parker, 1 Ind. 374; Tuttle v. Garrett, 16 Ill. 354; Holden v. Hearn, 1 Beavan 445; Claxton v. Claxton, 56 Mich. 557, 23 N.W. 310. The same doctrine has been held by the federal courts. In Kingsbury v......
- Lalakea v. Laupahoehoe Sugar Co.