Lancey v. Brock

Citations

• 110 Ill. 609

Syllabus

<p>1. Possession—of part, under color of title of whole tract. The visible and exclusive appropriation and use of a part of a tract of land, claiming the whole under color of title, is in law an actual possession of the entire tract, except so far as there may be adverse possession.</p> <p>2. This rule only applies, however, where the deed purports to convey the whole. The possession does not extend beyond the color of title, and hence where a deed only purports to convey a particular interest in land, it is not evidence of possession beyond that interest.</p> <p>3. Where it is impossible to say what interest, if any, passes by a deed, the grantee or holder can not make it available to extend his possession of a part of the premises over the whole.</p> <p>4. Same—to show title to land. Where possession alone is relied on as evidence of title to a tract of land, it must be an actual, not a merely constructive, possession. Possession per se is evidence only of the mere fact of present occupancy by right, and the facts and collateral circumstances may be looked to as affording evidence whether or not the possessor claimed a fee. Abandoning possession, ceasing to pay any taxes, and allowing others to enter and occupy, will repel any presumption of a claim of title in fee, and raise a presumption that the claim pf the former occupant was less than' a fee, and had terminated.</p> <p>5. Conveyance—sufficiency of description. A deed described the land as “sixty-seven acres, part of claim 1096, survey 117.” Survey 117 contained one hundred and thirty-four and a fraction acres: Held, that the description was fatally defective, it failing to describe definitely any specific tract; held, also, that it could not convey an undivided half of survey 117, for the reason that an undivided half of the north-west half of the undivided half of a tract of land describes nothing tangible, either in quantity or interest.</p>