Beadle v. Cole
Cases that cite this one
12 later published cases cite this decision.
- Tilton, Exrs. v. Mullen (Ohio Ct. App. 1956)
- Smith v. Shafer (Ohio Ct. App. 1993)
- Harold S. Hobson v. Cyrus S. Eaton (6th Cir. 1968)
- Central National Bank v. Society for Savings (Ohio Ct. App. 1959)
- Jones, Admr. v. Neu (Ohio Ct. App. 1958)
- Bauman v. Walter (Ohio 1953)
- Bolles v. Toledo Trust Co. (Ohio 1936)
- Van Horn v. Stockham (Iowa 1922)
- Wade v. Edwards (Ga. Ct. App. 1919)
- Varley v. Sims (Minn. 1907)
- Drefahl v. Security Savings Bank (Iowa 1906)
- Jacobs v. Jolley (Ind. Ct. App. 1902)
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 is an appeal by plaintiff.below from a judgment for defendants below in an action of ejectment. The suit involves the same title which was adjudicated upon and settled by this court in Whitehead v. Hall, 148 Ill. 253. That suit was brought for one part of a tract of 255 acres, and this suit is for another. The appellant here occupies no better position than the appellant occupied in that case. He assails the same title, founded on the same redemption sale, which in the case cited was held good. We have carefully examined and considered the elaborate arguments made by appellant for a reconsideration of the questions involved, but are unable to see that any error was committed in the decision mentioned. The fact urged upon our attention that the redemption creditor was a defendant to the first foreclosure suit did not deprive him of the right to redeem under his own decree rendered in the second foreclosure suit. (Boynton v. Pierce, 151 Ill. 197.) We see no reason for overruling the former case, but are satisfied it was correctly decided.
The judgment of the circuit court will be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.