Wimberly v. Charles R. Hurst.
| Decision Date | 30 November 1863 |
| Parties | ABRAHAM WIMBERLYv.CHARLES R. HURST. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
ERROR to Circuit Court of Jefferson county.
The facts are sufficiently stated by the court.
James Bassett and Michael Schaeffer, for the plaintiff in error.
W. P. Thomas, for the defendant in error.
Several objections are made to the recovery in this case, the most important of which we will notice.
The action was ejectment brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error to recover the possession of a certain quarter section of land in Marion county. The plaintiff in the action, to show title on his part, introduced the certificate of the register of the land office at Springfield, after proving his handwriting, of the entry and purchase of the land by William Kinney and John Taylor; also the record of the proceedings of the Circuit Court of Sangamon county on the application of the administrator of Taylor to sell the lands, of which he was supposed to have died siezed, to pay his debts. He also introduced a deed from the administrator reciting this decree to him, for the premises, and also a deed from William C. Kinney and wife to him for the same lands, and the will of William Kinney by which, after giving certain legacies, he devised the residue of his personal and real estate to his son, William C. Kinney, whom he appointed executor. The plaintiff then proved the defendant was in possession of the premises at the time of the commencement of the suit.
The defendant showed no other title to the premises than this possession.
It is objected here, that the proceedings of the Circuit Court, on the petition of the administrator, were irregular, and so defective as to convey no title to the purchaser.
It may be admitted the proceedings were not strictly regular, yet at the same time, the court having jurisdiction both of the persons of the parties and of the subject matter, the decree rendered is valid and binding, and cannot be attacked, collaterally, in this action.
The decree recites that due notice of the application had been given to all persons interested, of the intention of the administrator to file the petition, by publication in the Illinois State Register, in the manner and for the period required by law.
The decree also finds that John Taylor died seized of the lands described in the petition; it finds and names his heirs-at-law, and that they were of full age; it also finds that the administrator had applied the proceeds of the personal estate to the payment of the debts of the deceased, and that there was still due and unpaid of debts the sum of more than seven thousand dollars. The decree directed the administrator to sell the lands described in the petition to pay these debts, and required him to report his proceedings to the court for confirmation.
No substantial objections are perceived to any of the proceedings in the Circuit Court, nor to the regularity of the sale by the administrator. They all appear to be in reasonable conformity to the statute. The objection that the land was sold, not in the lowest legal subdivisions, is an objection, if it was one, which no mere intruders or trespassers could be permitted to make, however available it might be for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Phelps v. Heaton
...save those affecting the jurisdiction. The moving parties attacked the judgment for other grounds. 1 Story, Conf. Laws, 607; Wimberly v. Hurst, 33 Ill. 166; Conner v. Hutchinson, 12 Cal. 127; Bissell Briggs, 9 Mass. 461; D'Arcy v. Ketchum, 11 How. 165, 175; Dorman v. State, 56 Ind. 454, 457......
-
Gray v. Bowles
...Kane v. McCown, 55 Mo. 199 to 202; Ellis v. Jones, 51 Mo. 186; Jeffries v. Wright, 51 Mo. 221; Brackett v. Brackett, 53 Mo. 266; Wimberly v. Hurst, 33 Ill. 166; Feaster v. Fleming, 56 Ill. 458; Chase v. Christianson, 41 Cal. 253; Pursely v. Hayes, 22 Iowa 11. But the justice's court, by exp......
-
Powell v. Rogers
...Wetmore v. Roberts, 10 How. Pr. 51. A judgment of a court having jurisdiction is valid, and can not be attacked collaterally: Nineberly v. Hurst, 33 Ill. 166; Wight v. Wallbaum, 39 Ill. 555; Elston v. Chicago, 40 Ill. 514; Mulford v. Stalzenback, 46 Ill. 303; Huls v. Buntin, 47 Ill. 396; Ho......
-
Schott v. Youree
... ... Error to appellate court, fourth district.Action by Charles S. Youree, late coroner of Madison county, for the use of Timothy Gruaz, against Martin J. Schott, ... Wimberly v. Hurst, 33 Ill. 166;Graceland Cemetery Co. v. People, 92 Ill. 619;Cooper v. Reynolds, 10 Wall ... ...