lawful claim in Illinois

2010Inland, 127 Ill.

2010Inland, 127 Ill.

2007Moreover, Heaps v. Dunham, 95 Ill. 583 (1880), and Fiege v. Boehm, 210 Md. 352 , 123 A.2d 316 (1956), merely stand for the unremarkable proposition already recognized by this court that forbearance to sue for a lawful claim or demand is sufficient consideration for a promise to pay for the forbearance “if the party forbearing had an honest intention to prosecute litigation which is not frivolous, vexatious, or unlawful, and which he believed to be well founded.” Fiege, 210 Md. at 361 , 123 A.2d at 322 .

2007Moreover, Heaps v. Dunham, 95 Ill. 583 (1880), and Fiege v. Boehm, 210 Md. 352 , 123 A.2d 316 (1956), merely stand for the unremarkable proposition already recognized by this court that forbearance to sue for a lawful claim or demand is sufficient consideration for a promise to pay for the forbearance “if the party forbearing had an honest intention to prosecute litigation which is not frivolous, vexatious, or unlawful, and which he believed to be well founded.” Fiege, 210 Md. at 361 , 123 A.2d at 322 .

2007Moreover, Heaps v. Dunham, 95 Ill. 583 (1880), and Fiege v. Boehm, 210 Md. 352 , 123 A.2d 316 (1956), merely stand for the unremarkable proposition already recognized by this court that forbearance to sue for a lawful claim or demand is sufficient consideration for a promise to pay for the forbearance “if the party forbearing had an honest intention to prosecute litigation which is not frivolous, vexatious, or unlawful, and which he believed to be well founded.” Fiege, 210 Md. at 361 , 123 A.2d at 322 .

2007Moreover, Heaps v. Dunham, 95 Ill. 583 (1880), and Fiege v. Boehm, 210 Md. 352 , 123 A.2d 316 (1956), merely stand for the unremarkable proposition already recognized by this court that forbearance to sue for a lawful claim or demand is sufficient consideration for a promise to pay for the forbearance “if the party forbearing had an honest intention to prosecute litigation which is not frivolous, vexatious, or unlawful, and which he believed to be well founded.” Fiege, 210 Md. at 361 , 123 A.2d at 322 .

2026“The agency decision is clearly erroneous only where the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Boggio, 2018 IL App (3d) 170432, ¶ 16 (quoting AFM Messenger Service, Inc., 198 Ill. 2d at 395 ). -9- 1-25-0519 ¶ 26 The Board determined that plaintiff was discharged from work for refusal to follow a lawful instruction from the employer pursuant to section 602(A)(5) of the Act.

1988Corp. 5th ed. sec. 791): ‘The history of the workings of municipal bodies has demonstrated the salutary nature of this principle, and that it is the part of true wisdom and of judicial duty to keep the corporate wings clipped down to the lawful standard.’ ” Avery v. City of Chicago (1931), 345 Ill. 640, 649-50 , 178 N.E. 351 .

1984(Firebaugh v. Wittenberg (1923), 309 Ill. 536, 544 .) 2 We hold that if the claim of the county defendants for back taxes was a lawful claim or demand enforceable against the Seiferts, then the unexercised authority of these defendants to impose the back taxes constituted an incumbrance on the property at the time of transfer from the De-Furgalskis to Seifert and Rynes.

1945(Arnold v. Alden, 173 Ill. 229 ; Robeson v. Cochran, 255 Ill. 355 .) “Lawful issue” and “legal heirs” have different meanings.

1945(Arnold v. Alden, 173 Ill. 229 ; Robeson v. Cochran, 255 Ill. 355 .) “Lawful issue” and “legal heirs” have different meanings.

1919In Hope v. City of Alton, 214 Ill. 102 , relied upon by appellant, there was an ordinance in evidence which showed that the employment of the plaintiff there was void, but the bill of exceptions does not show any such ordinance in force here, and in the absence of an ordinance the general rule is stated in Hope v. City of Alton, supra, on page 105, as follows: “A municipal corporation which may sue and be sued, or which has legal business to transact, unless restrained by its charter, may employ attorneys to conduct such business.” Moreover, the proofs that since this suit was begun the city p

1919In Hope v. City of Alton, 214 Ill. 102 , relied upon by appellant, there was an ordinance in evidence which showed that the employment of the plaintiff there was void, but the bill of exceptions does not show any such ordinance in force here, and in the absence of an ordinance the general rule is stated in Hope v. City of Alton, supra, on page 105, as follows: “A municipal corporation which may sue and be sued, or which has legal business to transact, unless restrained by its charter, may employ attorneys to conduct such business.” Moreover, the proofs that since this suit was begun the city p

1901The defendant was justifiable in acting for his defense according to the circumstances as they appeared to him.” To a like effect, in principle, is the very thoroughly considered case of Morris v. Platt, 32 Conn. 75 -83.

1901In the case of Higgins v. Minaghan, 76 Wis. 298 , -which was an action to recover damages for a gunshot wound inflicted by the defendant during a riot, it was held that the question as to the defendant’s liability under the evidence should have been submitted to the jury, and the court say : “ Even a homicide is justifiable when committed by any person while resisting any attempt to commit any felony upon him or upon his dwelling house, or in-the lawful defense of his person or of his wife and children, when there shall be reasonable ground to apprehend a design to do some great personal injur