{
  "id": 5203157,
  "name": "Jacob Glos, Philip Knopf, County Clerk, and D. H. Kochersperger, County Treasurer, v. Henry J. Hewes",
  "name_abbreviation": "Glos v. Hewes",
  "decision_date": "1897-03-08",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "75",
  "last_page": "77",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "69 Ill. App. 75"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "44 Ill. App. 188",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5066378
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/44/0188-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "103 Ill. 528",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2804878
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/103/0528-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "60 Ill. App. 654",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5156709
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/60/0654-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 295,
    "char_count": 3550,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.506,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.572654163217837e-08,
      "percentile": 0.40246400465818666
    },
    "sha256": "220ed46b281dd836048787eef7d17e1920d9266230c674122bc539d37941cfb1",
    "simhash": "1:318f46f2f508c3a5",
    "word_count": 641
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:55:23.961114+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Jacob Glos, Philip Knopf, County Clerk, and D. H. Kochersperger, County Treasurer, v. Henry J. Hewes."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nIn Hewes v. Village of Winnetka, 60 Ill. App. 654, is reported a former decision of this court upon the subject-matter of the present controversy.\nThe appellee in his brief now says:\n\u201c This is not a bill to cancel or set aside a deed to Glos, or even to set aside the certificate of sale issued to him, but the bill is filed for the purpose of obtaining an injunction restraining the county clerk or treasurer from taking any further proceedings to enforce the special assessments in question, and more especially restraining them from issuing deeds to appellant Glos and his brother tax sharks; \u201d which we infer was intended, partly, to express disapprobation of Glos.\nThe bill alleges that the appellee, on the 9th day of March, A. D. 1891, was, and since then has been, the owner in fee simple of the following described real estate, to wit: Lots 1 to 16 inclusive, in blocks 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, and lots 1 to 18, inclusive, in blocks 4 and 5, all in the Winnetka Land Association subdivision of the H. \u2022\u00a7\u2022 of the W. 90 acres of the H. W. i, section 20, township 42 north, range 13 east of the 3d P. M., in Cook county, Illinois; and to prove that allegation, the appellee put in evidence a warranty deed from William M. Craig and wife conveying to Henry J. Hewes the north 45 acres of the west 90 acres of the northwest quarter of section 20, township 42 north, range 13 east of the third principal meridian, subject to certain incumbrances therein named, dated March 9, 1891, and acknowledged by the grantors on May 4, 1891, and recorded in the recorder\u2019s office of Cook county on May 5, 1891.\nHo other evidence relating to title or possession was put in.\nIt is true that in Gage v. Parker, 103 Ill. 528, where the decree was reversed for other errors, the court said that the title was not a mooted question in the case, and that the testimony of the party that he bought the property with his own money, in connection with the deed to him, might be regarded as sufficient. Such a case is not enough to overturn settled law; nor do we regard the position of the appellee, that under the statute a deed from one in whom no title is shown is prima facie evidence of title, as well taken.\nIn chancery everything alleged in the bill, and not admitted by pleadings of defendant, is in issue. Bachmann v. Supreme Lodge, 44 Ill. App. 188.\nTwice the general public, at considerable cost, have held open to the appellee an opportunity for the redress of his grievances. On the case made by him on his last effort, his bill should have been dismised. The decree in his favor is wrong, and it is reversed and the bill dismissed here, at the cost of appellee.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Enoch J. Price, attorney for appellants.",
      "Masterson & Haft, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Jacob Glos, Philip Knopf, County Clerk, and D. H. Kochersperger, County Treasurer, v. Henry J. Hewes.\n1. Evidence\u2014Of Title to Land.\u2014A warranty deed from a person in whom no title is shown is not sufficient to prove the ownership of land in a suit in chancery where the answer denies the allegations of the bill, even though the allegation as to ownership is not specifically contested.\n3. Equity Pleading\u2014Facts not Admitted are in Issue.\u2014In chancery-everything alleged in the bill, and not admitted by pleadings of the defendant, is in issue.\nBill for an Injunction. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Elbridge Haneoy, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1896.\nReversed and bill dismissed.\nOpinion filed March 8, 1897.\nEnoch J. Price, attorney for appellants.\nMasterson & Haft, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0075-01",
  "first_page_order": 73,
  "last_page_order": 75
}
