Board of Supervisors v. Thompson
Board of Supervisors v. Thompson
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the Court:
It is unnecessary to examine the grounds on which the appellee bases his case, or to discuss them, for the reason that the whole subject presented by them has been fully considered and determined by this court, in the case of the Supervisors of Whiteside county v. Burchell and Bressler, 31 Ill. 68.
The object of the bill in that case and of the suit in this, is the same—to compel the county to execute a trust supposed to have devolved upon it, by reason of the surrender to it, by the State, of the swamp and overflowed lands lying within the county.
We have held, no such trust existed, and that the purchasers of those lands from the county were remediless.
We will not go over the ground taken in that opinion, but merely refer to it as deciding this case, with the remark, if the plaintiff relies on a breach of trust, as he clearly does, he should file his bill in chancery, then it would be precisely like the case cited. Assumpsit will not lie, and the stipulation of the parties is of no avail. The judgment is reversed.
Judgment reversed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- The Board of Supervisors of Bureau County v. Jacob T. Thompson
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Swamp lands—rights of purchasers from a county to recover back purchase-money paid, where the proceeds of swamp lands have been diverted to other purposes than their drainage,—the rule laid down in Supervisors of Whiteside county v. Burchell, 31 Ill. 68, is applied, holding that no trust existed and the purchaser had no remedy. 2. Jurisdiction IN chancery—and at law. Where a purchaser of swamp lands from a county, seeks to recover back the purchase-money paid therefor, upon the ground that a trust was devolved upon the county, under the several laws on that subject, requiring the application of the proceeds of the sales of swamp lands to their drainage, and that the money has been diverted to other purposes, the remedy, if any exists, is in chancery and not at law. 3. Same—consent will not give jurisdiction. And where an action of assumpsit was brought in such case, it was held that a stipulation by the parties that no advantage should be taken, in regard to the form of action or the condition of the pleading, would not avail to give the court of law jurisdiction.