Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/195/24/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/195/24/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
Bradley v. Lightcap No. 2, 195 U.S. 24 (1904)
Bradley v. Lightcap No. 2
No. 306
Argued April 21, 1904
Decided May 31, 1904
195 U.S. 24
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Syllabus
This case having been decided by the state court on the authority of its own decision in a case between the same parties which has been reversed by this Court, this judgment is also reversed on the authority of Bradley v. Lightcap, ante, p. 195 U. S. 1.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER delivered the opinion of the Court.
After the decision reported 186 Ill. 510, Mrs. Bradley filed her bill in equity in the circuit court of Fulton County, Illinois, to quiet her title to the land in controversy in the action in ejectment, and for appropriate relief. The bill was dismissed on demurrer, and Mrs. Bradley carried the case to the Supreme Court of Illinois, which affirmed the decree below.
Bradley v. Lightcap, 202 Ill. 154. Three of the members of the court dissented. The opinion of the supreme court proceeded on the strength of the decisions in 186 Ill. 510 and 201 Ill. 511.
As we have reversed the judgment in the prior case, this case must take the same course.
Decree reversed, and cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with our opinion in No. 243.
