Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

28 Ill. 158

James v. Bushnell

Illinois Supreme Court

Decided April 15, 1862

Illinois Supreme Court · decided 1862-04-15

This bill in chancery alleges, that complainants are ■ seized in fee simple as tenants in common of the undivided one-third of the undivided ten-sixteenth parts of a part of north half of west half of south-east quarter of Sec. 18, Town. 33, Range 5, describing the lands by metes and bounds. That said land is covered with timber and contains a valuable coal mine. The defendants, except James, claim some interest in the land.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1862-04-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently December 1901

5 state decisions

2018621870188018901900decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Walkee, J.

¶1Ho exhibits, or other proof, appear in this record. The answer, although not very positive, does deny the allegations of the bill, and requires proof of complainants’ title. If such proof was heard on the trial, it is not presented in the record. It is one of the plainest of all the elementary principles, that a party to recover must, unless it is confessed, prove his right by sufficient evidence. The bill alleges, and to present a case in which the court could grant relief, had to allege, that the complainants were the owners of the land, that defendant was trespassing, and that from insolvency their remedy at law was worthless. Until these allegations were either proved or admitted, the court could afford no relief. They were not proved or admitted, but on the contrary were denied. In proceedings in courts of chancery the practice requires the evidence to be preserved in the record, and if it fails to show grounds for granting the relief ordered- by the decree, it must be reversed on appeal or writ of error.

¶2There being no evidence in this case upon which to base the decree of the court below, it must be reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

¶3Decree reversed.

/28/ill/158 · .json · Public domain