Cairo & St. Louis Railroad v. Wiggins Ferry Co.

Citations

• 82 Ill. 230

Syllabus

<p>1. Forcible detainer—complaint need not show that plaintiff was ever in possession. Whilst, in an action of forcible entry and detainer, it is necessary for the plaintiff to aver and prove he was in possession of the premises, and his possession was invaded by the defendant, it is sufficient, in an action of forcible detainer, if the complaint shows the relation of landlord and tenant to have existed, that the time for which the premises were let has expired, and that the tenant persists in holding- the premises after demand made, in writing, for the possession thereof.</p> <p>2. Same—description of premises. Any description by which the premises can be readily identified and located, is all that is required in a complaint in an action of forcible detainer.</p> <p>3. Landlord and tenant—effect of holding over hy tenant, after termination of lease. A tenancy from year to year can not be inferred from the mere fact of holding over by the tenant; the landlord must, in some manner, recognize the tenancy, and the mere fact that he takes no steps, after a lease expires by its own terms, to regain the possession, can not be regarded as an act from which an inference of a new tenancy can be drawn.</p>