Jamison v. Graham

Citations

• 57 Ill. 94

Syllabus

<p>1. Forcible entry and detainer—possession of plaintiff. In this form of action, two questions must arise, first, as to the exclusive possession of the plaintiff, ancl second, the invasion of his possession by the defendant.</p> <p>2. Where there was evidence tending to show both plaintiff and defendant used the premises jointly, as a pasture, it was error in the court to instruct the jury, that the plaintiff might recover, if lie was in possession, without reference to defendant being also in possession. The instructions should have informed the jury that plaintiff, to recover, should have had exclusive possession.</p> <p>3. Jury—should find the facts. It is erroneous for the court, in instructions, to assume that facts are proved, but they should leave the jury to find the facts. It is error in the court, by instructions, in such case to prevent the jury from finding, on the evidence, as to whether there was a joint possession.</p> <p>4. Forcible entry—when maintainable. To maintain an action of forcible entry and detainer, it is not necessary that the plaintiff should have a pedis possession it is sufficient, if the premises are used and occupied for some useful purpose; but if such possession is joint, as to different persons, neither one would be entitled to the exclusive possession.</p> <p>5. Joint tenants—exclusive possession by one. Even if one joint tenant could maintain this action against another, who has taken exclusive possession, still that could not apply to a case where the parties occupy the premises jointly, and one party seeks to recover the entire premises, to the exclusion of the other. One joint tenant can not recover the exclusive possession of the premises against his co-tenant.</p>