Harding v. Strong

42 Ill. 148
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedApril 15, 1866
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 42 Ill. 148 (Harding v. Strong) 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
Harding v. Strong, 42 Ill. 148 (Ill. 1866).

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Walker

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was an action of ejectment brought by Henry 0. Strong, in the Warren Circuit Court, against Abner C. Harding for the recovery of lot five in block one in Haley’s addition to the city of Monmouth. Defendant filed the plea of not guilty, upon which issue was joined. A trial was had by the court, the parties having waived a jury, when the court found the issues for the plaintiff. Defendant entered a motion for a new trial, which the court overruled, and rendered a judgment in favor of plaintiff, and awarded a writ of possession ; and, to reverse that judgment, defendant brings the case to this court by appeal.

The objections to this judgment seem to be purely technical. It is first insisted that the court cannot know that the lot in controversy is in the city of Monmouth, Illinois. The court will take notice that the city of Monmouth is in Warren county in this State. And when the deed was read in evidence describing a tract of land as lot five in block one in Haley’s addition to the city of Monmouth, the presumption would be that it was in Monmouth in this State.

There was no plea filed denying possession of the premises by appellant, and, under the statute, proof of possession was unnecessary. In such cases the statute declares that the return of the officer who served the writ shall be sufficient proof of possession unless it is denied by plea. But, if it had been necessary, Davidson testified that appellant admitted to him after the commencement of the suit, that he was in possession when the notice and declaration were served.

The court below in the final judgment does find that appellee was seized in fee of the premises. This is all the statute requires.

The judgment of the court below must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Owens v. Green
81 N.E.2d 149 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1948)
People ex rel. Smith v. Rodenberg
186 Ill. App. 623 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1914)
Holley's v. Curry
51 S.E. 135 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1905)
Harvey v. Territory of Oklahoma
1901 OK 32 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1901)
Wilkinson v. Webb
75 Miss. 403 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1897)
Weaver v. Snow
60 Ill. App. 624 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1895)
Black v. Pratt Coal & Coke Co.
85 Ala. 504 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1888)
Quinn v. Champagne
37 N.W. 451 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1888)
Buffalo Pipe Line Co. v. N. Y., Lake Erie & Western R. R. Co.
10 Abb. N. Cas. 107 (New York Supreme Court, 1880)
Murphy v. Hendricks
57 Ind. 593 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1877)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
42 Ill. 148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harding-v-strong-ill-1866.