Case ID: ill-app_196/html/0401-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Elizabeth Strickland, Executrix, Appellee, v. Alexander H. Strickland and Elizabeth Hibbs, Appellants.
    Gen. No. 6,143.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Woodford county; the Hon. Thomas M. Harris, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in this court at the October term, 1915.
    Transferred to Supreme Court.
    Opinion filed October 22, 1915.
    
      Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Appeal and error, § 126
      
      —when question of freehold involved on appeal from decree construing will. On appeal from a decree construing a will disposing of both real and personal property, which will, after making certain specific bequests of personalty, devised to testator’s wife, for her use during her natural life, all the remaining property of testator, with remainder to others after the termination of the life estate, an assignment of error asking a remand with mandate to determine and decree that such residuary legatee took only a life estate in testator’s real estate, held to raise a question of freehold, in that the determination asked for does not give to such residuary legatee power to sell such real estate.
    2. Appeal and error, § 123
      
      —when Appellate Court no power to determine question of freehold. The Appellate Court has no legal power to determine a question of freehold.
    3. Appeal and error, § 123
      
      —when cause involving freehold transferred to Supreme Court. Where a cause appealed to the Appellate Court involves a question of freehold, the cause must be transferred to the Supreme Court under section 102 of the Practice Act (J. & A. ¶ 8639), providing for the disposition of cases improperly appealed.
    Statement of the Case.
    Bill by Elizabeth Strickland, in her own right and as .executrix, complainant, against Alexander H. Strickland and Elizabeth Hibbs, defendants, in the Circuit Court of Woodford county, praying for a construction of the will of James M. Strickland, deceased. The main question involved was whether defendants took a contingent or a vested remainder in testator’s real estate under the will sought to be construed. From a decree that defendants took a contingent remainder in such real estate, defendants appeal.
    Kirk & Shurtleff, for appellants.
    Bosworth & Bosworth and Riely & Riely, for appellees.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Per Curiam.