Nuernberger v. Von Der Heidt

Appellate Court of Illinois

Nuernberger v. Von Der Heidt

39 Ill. App. 404, 1890 Ill. App. LEXIS 478

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedFebruary 26, 1891

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 39 Ill. App. 404 (Nuernberger v. Von Der Heidt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Nuernberger v. Von Der Heidt, 39 Ill. App. 404, 1890 Ill. App. LEXIS 478 (Ill. Ct. App. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Phillips, P. J.

It is urged as grounds for reversal of this judgment, that the evidence does not show a sale of the interest in the crops by appellant’s grantor. And secondly, that the grantor of appellant while the landlord of appellee, had no property in the wheat which could be the subject-matter of sale by fraud.

As between landlord and tenant, between debtor and creditor, and under our statute between executor and heir, growing crops are personal property. But between a trespasser and the. owner of the soil, and a vendor and a vendee, they are real estate. Powell v. Rich, 41 Ill. 466. As between the grantor of appellant as the landlord of appellee, and appellee as her tenant, growing crops, being personal property, may be sold by parol contract. The evidence in this ease shows the grantor of appellant sold her interest in the growing wheat to appellee, while she was still the landlord of appellee; and the weight of proof shows that appellant had notice of that sale before the completion of the contract of purchase. Appellee was in possession of the premises, and the appellant having notice of the sale, the judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Phillips, P. J.

It is urged as grounds for reversal of this judgment, that the evidence does not show a sale of the interest in the crops by appellant’s grantor. And secondly, that the grantor of appellant while the landlord of appellee, had no property in the wheat which could be the subject-matter of sale by fraud.

As between landlord and tenant, between debtor and creditor, and under our statute between executor and heir, growing crops are personal property. But between a trespasser and the. owner of the soil, and a vendor and a vendee, they are real estate. Powell v. Rich, 41 Ill. 466. As between the grantor of appellant as the landlord of appellee, and appellee as her tenant, growing crops, being personal property, may be sold by parol contract. The evidence in this ease shows the grantor of appellant sold her interest in the growing wheat to appellee, while she was still the landlord of appellee; and the weight of proof shows that appellant had notice of that sale before the completion of the contract of purchase. Appellee was in possession of the premises, and the appellant having notice of the sale, the judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 Ill. App. 404, 1890 Ill. App. LEXIS 478, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nuernberger-v-von-der-heidt-illappct-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack