Daniels v. Aholtz

81 Ill. 440
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 15, 1876
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 81 Ill. 440 (Daniels v. Aholtz) 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
Daniels v. Aholtz, 81 Ill. 440 (Ill. 1876).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Dickey

delivered the opinion of the Court:

Aholtz and one Prather each owned and occupied a tract of arable land. The tracts adjoined each other and were inclosed by a fence, both tracts constituting one field or inclosure. In 1874 each of these proprietors cultivated his land in corn. In the fall of 1874, after Prather had gathered his corn from his part of the land, he showed the field to Daniels, claimed to own all the stalks in the inclosure, and sold the same to Daniels for $60, upon condition that Daniels might turn cattle into the field to feed upon the stalks.

At this time, Aholtz had not gathered his corn from his side of the field, and Daniels had no knowledge that any one but Prather had any interest in the corn or stalks raised in the field that year.

In this state of affairs. Daniels brought cattle and turned them into the field, and they strayed upon Aholtz’ part of the field and destroyed part of his corn. At the time Daniels turned in his cattle, Prather told him there was still some corn in the field, which would be removed in a few days, and he would have the cattle kept off the corn until removed. Daniels assented to this, supposing the ungathered corn to belong to Prather.

Aholtz sued Prather and Daniels in trespass, and recovered judgment against both, from which Daniels appeals to this court, and insists that, under the proof, he was not a trespasser. This position can not be maintained. He turned his cattle upon Prather’s part of the field, and they strayed, without the fault of Aholtz, upon his possesssion and did him damage. The license of Prather, who had no lawful authority to give license, can not protect him.

The judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

O'Riley v. Diss
41 Mo. App. 184 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1890)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
81 Ill. 440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniels-v-aholtz-ill-1876.