{
  "id": 5427337,
  "name": "Jacob Glos et al. v. Sarah A. Randolph",
  "name_abbreviation": "Glos v. Randolph",
  "decision_date": "1890-05-14",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "197",
  "last_page": "198",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "133 Ill. 197"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "99 Ill. 366",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2829784
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/99/0366-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "26 Ill. 86",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5245755
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/26/0086-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 Gilm. 679",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Gilm.",
      "case_ids": [
        2558300
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/7/0679-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "86 Ill. 313",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2773934
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/86/0313-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 195,
    "char_count": 2700,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.504,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.137900975139121e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9670345645634166
    },
    "sha256": "49851aec9037a824fd9f57dd7ca7015985adbfff65bd28da195a969a49a7e8f5",
    "simhash": "1:5dd10ee7784ad432",
    "word_count": 484
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:35:59.913163+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Jacob Glos et al. v. Sarah A. Randolph."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Wilkin\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nBill by appellee against appellants to remove cloud from title to \u201csouth four acres of west half of block 22, in Stough\u2019s second addition to the town of Hinsdale.\u201d Decree as prayed, and appellants appeal.\nThe bill alleges, among other things, \u201cthat said real estate is vacant and unoccupied.\u201d This allegation is material. There are but two cases, under our statute, in which a bill to remove cloud from title can he maintained, viz., where the complainant is in possession of the premises, or where they are unoccupied. (Hardin et al. v. Jones, 86 Ill. 313; Oakley et al. v. Hurlbut, 100 id. 204; Johnson et al. v. Huling, 127 id. 14.) There is no evidence whatever in this record tending to prove the' allegation, nor is it admitted by the answer. It is true there is no specific denial of it, but the rule is well settled, that in a chancery proceeding all material allegations of the bill neither admitted'nor denied by the answer must be proved by the complainant. DeWolf et al. v. Long, 2 Gilm. 679; Dooley v. Stipp, 26 Ill. 86; Morgan et al. v. Herrick, Admr. et al. 21 id. 481.\nFor want of proof, on the part of the appellee, that at the time she filed her bill the premises in question were unoccupied, her bill should have been dismissed.\nDecree reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Wilkin"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. H. S. McCartney, for the appellants:",
      "Mr. Thomas S. McClelland, for the appellee:"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Jacob Glos et al. v. Sarah A. Randolph.\nFiled at Ottawa May 14, 1890.\n1. Behoving cloud upon title\u2014in what cases a bill will lie. There\nare but two cases under our statute in which a bill to remove a cloud from title can be maintained, viz., when the complainant is in possession of the premises, or where they are unoccupied. \u201e\n2. An allegation in a bill to remove a cloud on title, that the premises are vacant and unoccupied, is material, and without proof of it the bill should be dismissed.\n3. Allegations and proofs\u2014in chancery. In a chancery proceeding, all material allegations of the bill neither admitted nor denied by the answer must be proved by the complainant.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of DuPage county; the Hon. C. W. Upton, Judge, presiding.\nMr. H. S. McCartney, for the appellants:\nIt was necessary for the complainant to have proved the allegation that the premises were vacant and unoccupied. Gage v. Abbott, 99 Ill. 366; Gage v. Parker, 103 id. 534; Hardin v. Jones, 86 id. 313; Oakley v. Hurlbut, 100 id. 204.\nAppellee failed to prove she was the owner of the premises.\nMr. Thomas S. McClelland, for the appellee:\nThe bill alleges that the premises were vacant and unoccupied, and the decree finds the bill to be true, and this gives jurisdiction.\nThis is not an action of ejectment, and to prove title from the government to appellee was not necessary."
  },
  "file_name": "0197-01",
  "first_page_order": 197,
  "last_page_order": 198
}