Crow v. Mark

52 Ill. 332
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 15, 1869
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 52 Ill. 332 (Crow v. Mark) 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
Crow v. Mark, 52 Ill. 332 (Ill. 1869).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Lawrence

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was an action brought before a justice of the peace by one tenant in common against a co-tenant, to recover the plaintiff’s portion of the rent for a tract of land, of which the defendant had had exclusive possession. The case was brought by appeal to the circuit court, and on the trial there, after the plaintiff closed his evidence, the court, on motion of the defendant, dismissed the suit. There was no error in this. One tenant in common of realty can not maintain an action of assumpsit against his co-tenant for his proportion of the rents. His only remedy is by an action of account under the statute, or by a bill in chancery. Sherman v. Ballou, 8 Conn. 306 ; Wheeler v. Howe, Willes, 208. A justice of the peace has no jurisdiction in an action of account, and therefore this suit was properly dismissed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Kucera v. Novak
277 Ill. App. 301 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1934)
Clarke v. Clarke
182 N.E. 12 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1932)
Cady v. Ridenour
158 Ill. App. 97 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1910)
Kran v. Case
123 Ill. App. 214 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1905)
Hollahan v. Sowers
111 Ill. App. 263 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1903)
Cheney v. Ricks
58 N.E. 234 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1900)
Cheney v. Ricks
87 Ill. App. 388 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1900)
Final Settlement of Tyler v. Cartwright
40 Mo. App. 378 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1890)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
52 Ill. 332, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crow-v-mark-ill-1869.