McKibben v. Newell

Citations

• 41 Ill. 461

Syllabus

<p>1. Ejectment — what relation between the parties will authorize a recovery. A plaintiff in ejectment may recover, even though he fails to show a paramount paper title, if it appear the defendant entered under a contract of purchase from him, which had been surrendered up; and in such case the defendant cannot dispute his vendor’s title without showing an outstanding paramount title in a third person.</p> <p>2. And a party claiming under such vendor through a conveyance from him, may, upon the same principle, recover against a party who has entered under such prior purchaser after he had surrendered his contract to the vendor.</p> <p>3. Same—who may question the character of the verdict. Where a verdict in ejectment in favor of the plaintiff, finds the fee to be in him, it cannot be taken advantage of on error, by the defendant, when he has no title, and pretends to none, even though the verdict may be incorrect in that respect.</p> <p>4. Evidence—necessity of showing its relation to the case, when offered. WTiere a deed is offered in evidence in an action of ejectment, which, standing by itself, proves nothing material to the controversy, but the offer to read it is accompanied by a declaration that it would be followed - by other evidence showing it to be a link in a chain of title, it should be admitted; but without such declaration it would not be error to reject it.</p> <p>5. Erasures and interlineations in contracts, will not be regarded when they are wholly unimportant, and the contract would be as valid and intelligible without them as with them.</p>