Hill v. Bishop
Cases that cite this one
16 later published cases cite this decision.
- Sullivan v. Board of Commissioners of Oak Lawn Park District (Ill. App. Ct. 2001)
- Sullivan v. The Board of Commissioners of Oak Lawn Park District (Ill. App. Ct. 2001)
- S. Siwel Co. v. County of Los Angeles (Cal. 1946)
- Smith v. Prime Cable of Chicago (Ill. App. Ct. 1995)
- Scoa Industries, Inc. v. Howlett (Ill. App. Ct. 1975)
- Cohon v. Oscar L. Paris Co. (Ill. App. Ct. 1958)
- Woodruff v. City of Chicago (Ill. 1946)
- People Ex Rel. Ammann v. Dipper (Ill. 1945)
- Woodruff v. City of Chicago (Ill. App. Ct. 1945)
- Leonard's of Plainfield, Inc. v. Dybas (N.J. 1943)
- Illinois Merchants Trust Co. v. Harvey (Ill. 1929)
- Gannaway v. Barricklow (Ill. 1903)
- Dymond v. Bruhns (Ill. App. Ct. 1902)
- Horney v. Town of Coldbrook (Ill. App. Ct. 1896)
- Talbott v. Goddard (Ind. 1876)
- Croskey v. Corey (Ill. 1868)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
This petition is manifestly insufficient. It shows that the lumber was furnished upon an open general account, and without reference to its being put into any particular building, or even that it should be used in any building. It would have been no violation of the agreement to purchase it, if the material bought had been used in making furniture, or any other personal property. Under our statute, no lien could be created upon any premises by such a purchase of lumber.
The decree must be reversed, and the suit remanded, with leave to the petitioner to amend his petition.
Decree reversed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.