Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

7 Ill. App. 506

Whitehead v. Alexander

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided December 13, 1880

Appellate Court of Illinois · decided 1880-12-13

<p>JuniSMCTioir — Rkeehold.—Where a bill in chancery is filed, alleging that shortly before complainant obtained the judgment therein mentioned, the defendant was the owner of certain land, but that he had convoyed the same for the purpose of defrauding complainant, the question of freehold is involved, and the Appellate Court has no jurisdiction.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently September 1897

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1880-12-13

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

McAllister, P. J.

¶1The bill in this case alleges that shortly before the recovery by the complainant of the judgment against the defendant Alexander, the latter was the owner of certain real estate, particularly describing it, and that September 20, 1879, said Alexander and wife conveyed the same by warranty deed, to the defendant Beser, which conveyance was upon á grossly inadequate consideration, colorable only, and a fraud upon the rights of complainant; the bill praying for discovery in respect to said real estate, and that upon the hearing of the cause, said deed may be vacated and declared null and void.

¶2The case, as made by the bill, is one in which a freehold was involved within the meaning of section 88 of the Practice Act, as amended in 1879, defining the jurisdiction of the Supreme and Appellate Courts in respect to appeals and writs of error-The appeal in this case should, therefore, have been taken directly to the Supreme Court, and this court has no jurisdiction. Patterson v. McKinney, 6 Bradwell, 394. The appeal must be dismissed, for want of jurisdiction.

¶3Dismissed.

/7/illapp/506 · .json · Public domain