The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1881-02-05
THE COURT HOUSE,
The Supreme Court.

A number OF opinions were tilcd in the Supreme
Court this week. In three cases La Sale county
people are interested, which cases are summa
ri2ed as follows the first named being of decided
public interest:
Merritt V. Merritt was partition suit from
this county, involving the question as to the ex.
tent of the interest Of widow in the proceeds OF
the homestead when sold with her assent. The
Circuit Court held she was entitled to The entire
81 COO and rendered decree to that effect This
decree was affirmed by the Appellate Court and
an apppal taken from that court TO the Supreme
Court, which, in November, 1879, filed an opin-
ion concurrcd in by all the judges affirming the
DEGREES Of the Circuit and Appellate Courts.
ThercupOn petition for rehcarng was flied,
which was granted, and now an opinion is filed,
concurred in, as the former one was, by all the
judges, reversing their former decision and that
of the Circuit and Appellate Courts, and decld.
ing that when the widow assents to the sale Of
the homestead he is only entitled to the value
Of life estate in the ) 600, or that the 81 600
should be invested and the income paid to her
during hc~life, and after her death it should be
divided between the heirs.
Messrs. Duncan & O'Connor and Messrs. lie
land e Gilbert represented the appellants, and
Mr.. Geo. II. Locey the appellee.
Simpson V. Gardner was suit by Gardiner
for partition of lard and to establish lien for
money advanced by him to pay Simpsons share
OF the purchase money. The Circuit Court
granted the relief asked for by Gardiner and
allowed him ter per cent. interest on the money
he had advanced. This decree was affirmed 10y
fbn An a bpi tp tbn
Supreme Court it was reversed by the unan.
nous opinion Of the court oa the ground that
Gardiner should have been allowed only six per
cent. interest. Upon petition for rehearing
Icing filed, however, it was granted by the court,
and now they unanimously retract their former
decision and affirm the DEGREES of the Appellate
and Circuit Courts which give Gardiner ten per
cent. interest.
Mr.. ID. p. Jones and Mr.. L. W. Brewer repre-
sented the Simpsons, and Mr. q. 5. Ellredge
and Mcssrs. Leland e Gilbert represented Gar
diner.
DiRnaick v Valtham was suit brought by
the Commissioners of Highways of Dmmck
against those of Walham to recover one-half
the cost of bridge over stream on the line be-
tween the two town. The Circuit Court decided
against Dimmick, which decision was affirmed
by the Appellate Court. Upon appeal to the
Supreme Court the latter has filed an opinion
reversing the judgment. Chief Justice Dickey
and Mr., Justice Walker dissent from the opin.
ion. The substance of the decision is that where
there is stream dividing two towns, the com.
missioners of one town, who think it necessary
TO build or repair a bridge over it, may give
notice to the other town. and if the latter refuse
TO build or repair, the former may do the work
and recover onc-half the cost from the latter A
petition for a rchearing will be filed in this case,
and consequently the final result is not certain.
Messrs. Blanchard ~ Blanchard represent the
town of Dmmck, and Mr.. G. 5. Eldredge the
town of Waltham.