Spellman v. Mathewson
Spellman v. Mathewson
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the Court:
We see no ground for reversing the decree of sale contained in this record. The objections taken to the notice and the. certificate of its publication are insufficient. The former showed that a petition by guardian to sell the real estate of his wards would be presented at the next term of the circuit court of Will county, and stated the time when said term would be held. It was not necessary that it should also state the special reasons why the order of sale would be asked. The certificate of publication, it is true, does not show that the Lockport Telegraph was published in Will county, but the court could receive other evidence of that fact, and we must presume it did so, as was held in Pierce v. Carleton, 12 Ill. 364, and subsequent cases.
The petition was sufficient, and the master’s report sustained its allegations
Decree affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Martin F. Spellman v. A. Julius Mathewson, Guardian
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. ChJABDiArr’s sale of lands—notice of application. The notice by a guardian of the presentation of Ms petition for an order to sell lands of his wards was as follows, to wit: “ Notice is hereby given that a petition to sell the real estate belonging to the minor heirs of Martin Spellman, deceased, will be presented to the circuit court of Will county, Illinois, at the next term, thereof, to be holden at the court house in Jdiet, in said Will county, on the third Monday in December next, when and where all persons interested may appear and show cause, if any they have, why such petition should not be granted. Lockport, Oct. 27, 1858.” And it was signed, “ A. J. Mathewson, guardian: ” Held, that the .notice was sufficient, and that it was not necessary to have stated the special reasons why the order of sale should be asked. 2. Same—certificate of publication. Where the certificate of the publication of the notice of a guardian’s application for an order to sell lands was in due form, except it did not state that the newspaper was published in the county: Held, on error to reverse the decree, that as the court below could receive other evidence of that fact, it would be presumed that it did so.