Cottingham v. Parr

93 Ill. 233
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 15, 1879
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 93 Ill. 233 (Cottingham v. Parr) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cottingham v. Parr, 93 Ill. 233 (Ill. 1879).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Dickey

delivered the opinion of the Court:

The majority of the court are of opinion that the judgment of the circuit court is right. The case turns on the construction of the deed of John F. Cottingham to Patterson, made on the 16th day of March, 1869. If the land in dispute passed to Patterson by that deed the defendant must prevail. That deed was made before the deed to Rice, and was recorded before the deed to Bice was recorded, and when Bice’s deed was made Patterson was in. actual open possession under his deed. The case then stands as it would stand had John F. Cottingham never made any conveyance except that to Patterson, and were he the plaintiff- in this action.

The description in his deed to Patterson says expressly that the line between that part of the east half of the south-east quarter which he conveys and the balance is the hedge. It is true he calls it “half (J) acre.” This may, under the description, be equivocal; but the rule is, that a deed must be construed most strongly against the grantor. It is' also a rule that where land is described in a deed by monuments and quantity, and upon a survey they are not harmonious, the quantity must yield to the monuments. ' In fact, of all the indicia by which the boundaries of land are to be ascertained that of quantity is held perhaps the least reliable. Quantity yields to course and distance, course and distance to monuments.

The judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

DEPT. OF PUB. WKS. & BLDGS. v. Klinefelter
255 N.E.2d 81 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1970)
Branstetter v. Dahncke
67 N.E.2d 212 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1946)
Forest Preserve District v. Lehmann Estate, Inc.
58 N.E.2d 538 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1944)
Kleven v. Gunderson
104 N.W. 4 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1905)
Seeders v. Shaw
65 N.E. 643 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1902)
Chicago & Alton R. R. v. Hogan
105 Ill. App. 136 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1902)
Ely v. Brown
183 Ill. 575 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1899)
Peoria & Pekin Union Railway Co. v. Tamplin
40 N.E. 960 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1895)
Henderson v. Hatterman
34 N.E. 1041 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1893)
People v. Guthrie
46 Ill. App. 124 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1892)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
93 Ill. 233, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cottingham-v-parr-ill-1879.