Hodgen v. Henrichsen

Citations

• 85 Ill. 259

Syllabus

<p>1. Limitation—of 1839, as to minors, construed '. The limitation act of 1839 runs against minors, unless they shall, within three years after becoming of age, bring suit to recover the land, and prosecute the same to judgment, or, in case of vacant and unoccupied land, they shall, within that period, refund the taxes, and twelve per cent interest thereon to the person who has paid them.</p> <p>2. Same —former decision. So far as the case of Huls v. Buntin, 47 Ill. 396, seems to hold that the act does not'run against a person under disability, it must be regarded merely obiter dicta. The correct rule is as above stated.</p> <p>3. Same—good faith as to claim and color of title. Under the limitation law of 1839, a deed to a party will be presumed to have been executed in good faith, unless circumstances are proved tending to show bad faith; and the mere fact that the deed, by and of itself, does not pass a good title, where it does not appear on its face to be insufficient, is not sufficient evidence of bad faith to overcome the presumption that it was executed in good faith.</p> <p>4. Same—as a defense to partition. Possession and payment of all taxes on land for seven successive years, under color of title, made in good faith, by one of several tenants in common before suit brought, is a good defense against proceedings by the other tenants in common for partition.</p>