Watson v. Hobson
| Decision Date | 19 May 1947 |
| Docket Number | No. 29643.,29643. |
| Citation | 396 Ill. 617,72 N.E.2d 857 |
| Parties | WATSON v. HOBSON et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Superior Court, Cook County; John J. Lupe, Judge.
Suit by John Wesley Watson against Mella Hobson and others for partition of real estate and accounting of rents, wherein other parties were allowed to intervene and filed answers and cross-complaints. From an order that defendants stand defaulted, that plaintiffs' complaint and cross-complaint of Sophia Willis be taken as confessed, and that cause be referred to master in chancery, defendants appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
Duck & McManigal, of Chicago (Thomas Marshall, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellants.
Morris K. Levinson and Samuel L. Cohen, both of Chicago, for appellees.
Appellee John Wesley Watson filed, in the superior court of Cook county a complaint for partition of certain real estate located in the city of Chicago, making various persons parties defendant. In this complaint Watson claimed an interest in fee as tenant in common with appellant Mella Hobson. It is asserted in the complaint that, upon the death intestate of Edna B. Mitchell, then owner of the property, it descended to Sophia Willis and appellant Mella Hobson; that by a warranty deed Sophia Willis had conveyed all her interest in the property to him, Watson, and that no one but he and appellant Hobson had any mterest in the property.
The complaint prayed for partition and accounting of rents. Parties in interest were named as defendants. Certain others were allowed to intervene and filed answers and cross complaints. The joint defense filed by appellants was an oral contract not to partition, a contract by Sophia Willis to convey for support for life, and a contract for certain equitable liens in favor of attorneys and others. A cross complaint was filed which, with other relief, sought removal of the deed to appellee Watson as a cloud on the title.
The chancellor, on motion, struck the appellants' third amended joint answers and cross complaint, with leave to file further amended answer and cross complaint. The ground of this order was the legal insufficiency of the answers and cross complaint in that they were conclusions and not allegations of facts germane to the original complaint.
Concerning this matter the abstract shows that the court ordered that the third amended answers and cross complaint be stricken and leave given to file further amendment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O'Donnell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 77-1557
...raised the jurisdiction of this court as an issue. However, the parties cannot confer jurisdiction where none exists. (Watson v. Hobson (1947),396 Ill. 617, 72 N.E.2d 857; Daab v. Ritter (1938), 294 Ill.App. 203, 13 N.E.2d 636.) Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 304(a) (Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. ......
-
People v. Reiner
... ... In deed, an appeal is not normally permitted unless the order appealed from is final. Watson v. Hobson, 396 Ill. 617, 72 N.E.2d 857. And where the word 'final' has not been used in the sense of a completed disposition in the tribunal of ... ...
- Watson v. Hobson
- People v. Kemp