Harding v. Strong

Illinois Supreme Court
Harding v. Strong, 42 Ill. 148 (Ill. 1866)
Walker

Harding v. Strong

Opinion of the Court

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.

Reference

Full Case Name
Abner C. Harding v. Henry C. Strong
Cited By
10 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
1. Description of premises in a deed— omitting the name of the State and county. Where a deed described the premises intended to be conveyed, as “ lot five in block one, in Haley’s addition to the city of Monmouth,” without stating in what State or county, the court, on the trial of a suit in ejectment in which such deed is offered in evidence, will take notice that the city of Monmouth is in Warren county, in this State, and will presume that the lot is in the city of Monmouth in this State. 3. Pleading and evidence in ejectment—proof of possession m defendant. Under the statute, the return of the officer who serves the process in an action of ejectment, is sufficient proof that the defendant was in possession at the commencement of the suit, unless he files a plea denying such possession. 3. Ejectment—requisites of the finding as to the characterr of estate recovered. On the trial of an action of ejectment by the court, without a jury, the judgment, which was for the plaintiff, stated: “ The court finds that the plaintiff is seized in fee, and also finds the defendant guilty,” etc. This was a sufficient finding as to the character of estate recovered.