Richeson, 115 id. 431; Gage v. Bailey, 119 id. 539; Sanders v. Peck, 131 id. 407; Buck v. Buck, 119 id. 613.” In Lynn v. Lynn, 160 Ill. 307, which was a proceeding by an administratrix to sell real estate to pay debts, the decree of the lower court was reversed and the cause was remanded "for further proceedings consistent with this opinion." After the case was re-docketed in the probate court the administratrix asked leave to file an amended petition. On page 317 it was said: "Was it the duty of the court to permit an amended petition to be filed and enter upon another trial of the cause, or was it the duty of the court to enter a decree in conformity to the decision of this court, as was done, denying the application? It will be observed that this court, in the decision of the case, passed on all the questions there involved, and upon an examination of the amended petition it will be found that the new matters attempted to be litigated were all in existence when the first hearing was had in the probate court. If the deed to Gardner was obtained by undue influence or fraud, that could have been proven on the first hearing; or if the title conveyed or attempted to be conveyed by that deed was barred by any statute of limitations, that was a matter which could have been proven on the first trial. Indeed, we find nothing attempted to be set up on the last hearing which the administratrix could not have brought up on the first." In Washburn & Moen Manf. Co. v. Chicago Galvanized Wire Fence Co. 119 Ill. 30, on page 35, it was said: "Since the direction that one part of a decree be modified is, by necessary inference, an approval of that part omitted from that direction, the substantial rights of the parties to the decree are not perceptibly different from what they would be were it expressly ordered, in the formal entry upon the record, that such omitted part of the decree is affirmed. No statute requires that the specific modification directed shall be embodied in the formal order of court entered of record by the clerk of this court, and it is conformably with our practice, and sufficient, if the modification be specifically directed in the written opinion of the court filed in the case. And so it is held that it is the duty of the lower court to examine the opinion and conform its action to it.". * * And in Wadhams v. Gay, 83 Ill. 250, on page 253, it was said: "On the receipt of the mandate and opinion the superior court was bound to carry into complete effect the decision of this court not to re-try the cause or place the complainants, the appellees, in a position by which the cause might be re-tried. * When a case has received full consideration in this court and the merits fully explored, discussed and settled and the cause remanded for further proceedings in conformity to the expressed views and opinion of this court, there can be no power remaining in the court to which the opinion and mandate are sent, to re-try the cause or do any other matter or thing in the cause but to obey the mandate. The opinion of this court was on the merits. They had been declared by this court against the complainants. The mandate required of the superior court the execution of the decree of this court,-not a re-trial of the cause or the entry of any order which might have that effect, and which, unquestionably, was the design of the party asking such an order." In a case like this, where a cause is reversed by this court and remanded to the trial court with directions to proceed in conformity with the views of this court, it is clearly the duty of the trial court to examine the opinion and be governed as to the decree it will enter by the views expressed in the opinion. If the questions involved in the appeal have been considered and determined by this court upon the merits, in whole or in part, then it is the duty of the trial court to enter a judgment or decree as to those questions in accordance with the determination and decision of this court without a re-trial, and it would be error under such circumstances to permit the pleadings to be amended and thereby so change the issues involved as to require a new trial upon the facts before a final decree was entered. If, however, the questions involved, or any of them, are not decided upon their merits by this court, and the cause is reversed and remanded to the lower court with directions to proceed in conformity with the opinion of this court, then only the legal principles involved and which have been announced in its opinion. by this court will control the lower court in its further consideration of the questions involved in the case which have not been determined on their merits in this court. The opinion of this court filed upon the first appeal was upon the question of the delivery of said deed upon the merits. The mandate of this court required the circuit court to proceed in accordance with the views expressed in that opinion, and upon the question of the delivery and validity of said deed it was the duty of the trial court to enter a decree holding said deed to be null and void, and not to re-try that question or to permit the appellant to so amend his pleadings as to prevent a decree upon that question and to cause a re-trial of the case upon a question not involved in the case on the first appeal. Finding no reversible error in this record the decree of the circuit court will be affirmed. Decree affirmed. INDEX. ABSTRACTS OF TITLE. PAGE. when affidavit as to sole heirship of certain grantors of a 13 when affidavit fails to show title of certain grantors by lim- 13 the sufficiency of an abstract of title, as respects a contract 13 ACKNOWLEDGMENT. that a deed acknowledged in a foreign State is acknowl- 629 ACTIONS AND DEFENSES. performance of acts in violation of constitution will not be what must appear to justify awarding mandamus to com- in certiorari the trial is upon the record alone 9 ΤΟ 63 88 199 when stockholders of corporation may maintain a bill to 254 when payee of note is not a necessary party to a suit to 265 265 proof of exact compliance with contract is not essential.. 319 319 ACTIONS AND DEFENSES.-Continued. when right of action on contract is not barred by the five year Statute of Limitations .... when suit may be brought on administrator's bond. facts under which the right to redeem pledged property is not lost by laches ... what finding of facts by the Appellate Court is conclusive PAGE. 319 325 396 421 against right of recovery for alleged negligence .... 517 ... 522 court of equity may enjoin the obstruction of highway at 560 when equity will not stay enforcement of ordinance. 561 561 when bill for injunction cannot be maintained upon ground 561 unlawful fees demanded by a probate clerk and paid by ex- TRATORS. AFFIDAVITS. 578 when affidavit as to sole heirship of certain grantors in a 13 when affidavit does not show that certain grantors appear- 13 AMENDMENTS. when refusal of leave to amend sworn bill is an abuse of ANTE-NUPTIAL CONTRACTS.-See CONTRACTS. APPEALS AND ERRORS.-See INSTRUCTIONS. when lower court, upon remandment, may render final de- when constitutional question is waived on appeal... 639 41 57 |