Case ID: ill-app_207/html/0143-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Dever", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Edward A. Mechling, Appellant, v. Henry F. Meyers et al., Appellees,
    Gen. No. 23,057.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Partition, § 9
      
       — what is rule as to partition of land in which infant is interested. In proceedings to partition land, the right to such partition is imperative and binding upon courts of equity, subject, however, to the duty which the law imposes upon such courts to protect the interests of infants who may be parties to such proiceedings, and to determine whether the best interests of such infants may be conserved by allowing or denying the partition of lands in which such infants have an interest, and it is immaterial whether the infant is a party defendant or complainant.
    2. Infants, § 25* — what is duty of court as to protection of rights of. Infants are peculiarly the wards of a court of chancery, and it is the duty of that court to protect the rights of such infants whenever their interests are presented to the court for adjudication.
    
      Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Denis E. Sullivan, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1917.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed July 2, 1917.
    Statement of the Case.
    Bill by Edward A. Mechling, complainant, against Henry F. Meyers, Louis H. Berkes, Charles W. Bassett, Jessie M. Madison and Francis Boy Bassett, a minor, defendants, for partition of certain real estate in which defendant Meyers had a life estate and the complainant and other defendants a tenancy in common in the remainder. From a decree dismissing complainant’s bill for want of equity, complainant appeals.
    Frank O. Campe and Max C. Liss, for appellant.
    John S. Hummer, for appellees.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI ¿o XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, game topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Dever

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Partition — when evidence sufficient to shoio to be against best interests of minor to partition land. In a suit to partition a remainder in real estate, evidence held sufficient to show that it would be against the best interests of the minor defendant to partition the land.