Enos v. Buckley

Citations

• 94 Ill. 458

Syllabus

<p>1- Limitation act of 1839—saving clause as to married women abrogated by Married Woman’s act. Since the passage of the Married Woman’s act of 1861, the saving clause in favor of married women in the Limitation law of 1839 has no force, and the statute since that time applies against a married woman equally as against an unmarried woman, without regard to whether the property of the unmarried woman he strictly, in legal contemplation, before the passage of the act, her separate property or not, and without regard to the time of its acquisition, whether since or before the passage of the act, and whether before or during coverture.</p> <p>2. Where land was acquired by a woman in 1842, by devise from her father, and she married in 1846, and in June, 1865, a party went into possession of the same under claim and color of title, and he and those succeeding to his claim and color of title, while in possession, paid all the taxes thereon for seven successive years before suit brought by her to recover the land, it was held, that the action was barred under the Limitation law of 1839.</p> <p>3. Same—bow defeated. The limitation of 1839 might have been prevented by the payment of the taxes by the owner, and the outstanding title in the husband formed no impediment to their payment since the act of 1861. The taxes should have been kept paid, not on any one’s particular interest in the land, hut on the whole land.</p>