Husband claim in Illinois

2023There is a clear intimation in Francis v. Roades, 146 Ill. 635 , and Madison v. Madison, 206 [Ill.] 534, that no such presumption exists.

1909There is a clear intimation in Francis v. Roades, 146 Ill. 635 , and Madison v. Madison, 206 id. 534, that no such presumption exists.

2004Consortium, in this context, "includes, in addition to material services, elements of companionship, felicity and sexual intercourse, all welded into a conceptualistic unity." Dini 20 Ill.2d at 427 , 170 N.E.2d 881 .

2004Consortium, in this context, “includes, in addition to material services, elements of companionship, felicity and sexual intercourse, all welded into a conceptualistic unity.” Dini, 20 Ill. 2d at 427 .

2014Id. at 689 .

1980Ct. 82 , 38 A.2d 391 , is the only intermediate court of review in Pennsylvania to indicate, in dictum, that a husband may claim damages for loss of consortium where his spouse sustained injury prior to marriage.

1943In Stevenson v. Stevenson, 285 Ill. 486 , this court said: “All of the authorities are to the effect that no words can be added to or taken from the will that have the effect to vary the intent expressed by the will itself, where the doctrine prevails that wills cannot be corrected or reformed because of a mistake in the will.” In Moeller v. Moeller, 281 Ill. 397 , it was said that where a testator in disposing of his property overlooks a particular event, which, had it occurred to him, he would, in all probability, have provided against, the court will not supply a provision by intendment, on

1943In Stevenson v. Stevenson, 285 Ill. 486 , this court said: “All of the authorities are to the effect that no words can be added to or taken from the will that have the effect to vary the intent expressed by the will itself, where the doctrine prevails that wills cannot be corrected or reformed because of a mistake in the will.” In Moeller v. Moeller, 281 Ill. 397 , it was said that where a testator in disposing of his property overlooks a particular event, which, had it occurred to him, he would, in all probability, have provided against, the court will not supply a provision by intendment, on

1943In Stevenson v. Stevenson, 285 Ill. 486 , this court said: “All of the authorities are to the effect that no words can be added to or taken from the will that have the effect to vary the intent expressed by the will itself, where the doctrine prevails that wills cannot be corrected or reformed because of a mistake in the will.” In Moeller v. Moeller, 281 Ill. 397 , it was said that where a testator in disposing of his property overlooks a particular event, which, had it occurred to him, he would, in all probability, have provided against, the court will not supply a provision by intendment, on

1943In Stevenson v. Stevenson, 285 Ill. 486 , this court said: “All of the authorities are to the effect that no words can be added to or taken from the will that have the effect to vary the intent expressed by the will itself, where the doctrine prevails that wills cannot be corrected or reformed because of a mistake in the will.” In Moeller v. Moeller, 281 Ill. 397 , it was said that where a testator in disposing of his property overlooks a particular event, which, had it occurred to him, he would, in all probability, have provided against, the court will not supply a provision by intendment, on

1934(John v. John, 322 Ill. 236 ; Brooks v. Gretz, supra; Stelling v. Stelling, 323 Ill. 122 .) Where a husband purchases real estate with his money and takes the title in his wife’s name the presumption is that it was intended as a gift or an advancement, and unless this presumption is overcome the husband can claim no resulting trust by the mere proof of the payment of the purchase money.

1934(John v. John, 322 Ill. 236 ; Brooks v. Gretz, supra; Stelling v. Stelling, 323 Ill. 122 .) Where a husband purchases real estate with his money and takes the title in his wife’s name the presumption is that it was intended as a gift or an advancement, and unless this presumption is overcome the husband can claim no resulting trust by the mere proof of the payment of the purchase money.

1934(Partridge v. Berliner, 325 Ill. 253 ; Schultz v. Schultz, 274 id. 341 ; Scott v. Cornell, 295 id. 508; Fry v. Morrison, 159 id. 244; Maxwell v. Maxwell, 109 id. 588.) The undisputed evidence in the case shows that far more of the money of the defendant than of the complainant went into the several properties.

1934(Partridge v. Berliner, 325 Ill. 253 ; Schultz v. Schultz, 274 id. 341 ; Scott v. Cornell, 295 id. 508; Fry v. Morrison, 159 id. 244; Maxwell v. Maxwell, 109 id. 588.) The undisputed evidence in the case shows that far more of the money of the defendant than of the complainant went into the several properties.

1881And, again, in Whitford et al. v. Daggett, 84 Ill. 144 , where bill in chancery was brought by the widow against the heirs and representatives of the intestate to admit her as a general creditor of the estate for certain moneys lent to him by her before their marriage, and other moneys lent to him by her after their marriage, we said: “ Since our statute of 1861, relating to the rights of married women, the husband does not, by marriage, acquire title to the money and personal property of the wife. * * Money of the wife loaned to the husband, either before or after marriage, is a proper charge

1881And, again, in Whitford et al. v. Daggett, 84 Ill. 144 , where bill in chancery was brought by the widow against the heirs and representatives of the intestate to admit her as a general creditor of the estate for certain moneys lent to him by her before their marriage, and other moneys lent to him by her after their marriage, we said: “ Since our statute of 1861, relating to the rights of married women, the husband does not, by marriage, acquire title to the money and personal property of the wife. * * Money of the wife loaned to the husband, either before or after marriage, is a proper charge