James v. Indianapolis & St. Louis Railroad

Citations

• 91 Ill. 554

Syllabus

<p>1. Limitation—twenty years—title, how claimed. Where a railroad eompany has been in the actual, visible and exclusive possession of land for a right of way for twenty years, it is not essential to the bar of the Statute of Limitations, in ejectment against the company, that its officers should have made oral declarations of claim of title, but it will be sufficient if the proof shows that the company has so acted with reference to the property as to clearly indicate that it claimed title.</p> <p>2. Same—and herein, as to extent of possession. The continued occupation of land by a railway company for a right of way for its road for over twenty years, with acts of ownership during that period, will constitute a bar to a recovery by the former owner. But where such possession is not taken and held under color of title, it will extend only to the portion actually occupied, and not apply to any portion of such right of way as may have been occupied within twenty years by the original owner.</p> <p>3. Same—promise to pay for land does not stop the running of the statute. The promise of officers of a railway company to pay for land occupied and used by the company for a right of way, within the period of limitation, is not an admission of title in the promisee, so as to prevent the running of the limitation of twenty years.</p> <p>4. Agency—when authority must appear. The promises of officers of a railway company to pay for land occupied by the company can not be received in evidence to bind or affect the company, without proof of their authority to make them.</p>