TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Steinman v. Steinman

Ernst H. Steinman v. Margaret Steinman, Adm'x

Steinman v. Steinman, 105 Ill. 348 (1883)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Illinois Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 31, 1883
Citations
105 Ill. 3481883 Ill. LEXIS 96
Syllabus
1. County court—its jurisdiction as to matters relating to estates. Ihe county court has express statutory jurisdiction, on the application of an administrator of an estate, to inquire and determine whether another person has in his possession property belonging to the estate; and such question is one purely of fact. 2. Appeals—reviewing question of fact by this court. On a trial had by the circuit court, without a jury, on appeal from an order or judgment of the county court, in a proceeding to determine whether the defendant had in his possession property, etc., belonging to the estate of a deceased person, no instructions were asked, nor were any propositions of law submitted to the court. On appeal to the Appellate Court the judgment of the circuit court was affirmed. On a further appeal to this court, it was considered, as no questions of law were presented, and the court was precluded from reviewing the facts, the judgment must be affirmed.
Summary
Appeal from the Appellate Court for the Fourth District;— heard in that court on appeal from the Circuit Court of Clinton county; the Hon. George W. Wall, Judge, presiding.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Per Curiam

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam: The statute conferred jurisdiction on the county court to determine whether appellant had in his possession property belonging to the estate of Charles S. Steinman, deceased; and whether the property involved in this controversy belonged to the estate or to appellant, was purely a question of fact, for the determination of the circuit court, before whom a trial was had, without a jury, on appeal from the county court. The circuit court, upon the evidence introduced, found the issue in favor of appellee, and that judgment was affirmed in the Appellate Court. On the trial in the circuit court no instructions were asked, nor were any propositions of law submitted for decision. This appeal, therefore, presents no questions of law for our decision, and as we are precluded by the statute from considering controverted questions of fact, the judgment of the Appellate Court was conclusive, and will have to be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Mr. Chief Justice Scott dissenting.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1890: 11895: 11897: 118902026peak 1890 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Martin v. Martin48 N.E. 694 (Ill. 1897)
  2. Blair v. Sennott24 N.E. 969 (Ill. 1890)
  3. Miller v. People ex rel. Simons39 N.E. 477 (Ill. 1895)

Most recent

  1. Martin v. Martin48 N.E. 694 (Ill. 1897)
  2. Miller v. People ex rel. Simons39 N.E. 477 (Ill. 1895)
  3. Blair v. Sennott24 N.E. 969 (Ill. 1890)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list