Skip to main content
· 9/15/1868

Hardin v. Kirk

Citations

  • 49 Ill. 153

Syllabus

<p>1. Practice at law—in actions of ejectment—where two separate actions were brought by different plaintiffs for the same land—concerning consolidation of the same. H and W brought two separate actions in ejectment, against the same defendant, at the same term of court, for the same land, and by different attorneys; but both cases were docketed as on» suit; the plea was so entitled and filed, and the docket entries showed that it was so treated by the parties. Upon the trial, after hearing the evidence, on motion of the defendant, the court required the plaintiffs to elect upon which declaration they would proceed, whereupon they elected to proceed in favor of H, and a judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant. Sel4, that W having failed to establish a right to recover, the action of the court requiring such election, was not error, it operating merely, as though the court had rendered a judgment against him, which could have been properly done.</p> <p>2. But had W shown a right of recovery, such action of the court would have been error. Both cases having been treated as one suit, and the proofs heard, the defendant’s objection came too late.</p> <p>3. Ejectment—consolidation of suits in—construction of the ninth section of ejectment act. Under the ninth section of the ejectment act, parties may sue jointly, and proceed jointly in one count for the land, and each separately in other counts, and either for the whole, a part, or for separate and undivided interests, but parties cannot bring separate actions, as in this case, and be required to consolidate them, without their consent.</p> <p>4. Acknowledgment on deeds—when certificate fails to showin what State it was made—deed insufficient. Where the venue to the certificate of acknowledgment was simply “ county of New York,” and nothing appeared in the body of the deed, indicating in what State the ackowledgment was taken: Held, that this was insufficient, and rendered the deed inadmissible in evidence as sho

Judges: Walker

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.