Skip to main content
· 1/15/1870

Pearson v. Herr

Citations

  • 53 Ill. 144

Syllabus

<p>1. Forcible entry and detainer—/»?' what purposes a deed is admissible in evidence. In the action of forcible entry and detainer, the title to the premises is not involved, and the introduction of a deed to the plaintiff, if for such purpose, is not allowable; but for the purpose of establishing the extent of Ms claim, it is admissible. It is also admissible to show the animus—the intention with which the party entered, in connection with the possession and improvements on a farm, to which a wood lot is an adjunct, the latter being the land in controversy.</p> <p>2. Same—of the character of possession required to maintain Hie action. It does not require an actual pedis possessio in all cases, to support the action of forcible entry and detainer. Actual possession may exist, by proof of something short of an actual residence on the land, or inclosing it by a fence, as in case of a wood lot, uninclosed, but used as an adjunct to a farm, from which the latter is supplied with timber, wood and rails.</p> <p>3. In this case a party purchased two tracts of land from the same person, one, a farm, on which the purchaser resided, the other, a wood lot, three-fourths of a mile from the farm, uninclosed, with no improvements upon it, but used for the purpose of supplying the farm with timber, wood and rails, and used in that manner constantly and regularly, and without question by any one, for near sixteen years, when a forcible entry was made upon it: Held, the owner had such a possession of the timber land, as would enable him to maintain an action of forcible entry and detainer, and the deed to him, for both tracts, was admissible, in connection with proof of the use of the tract, to show the character and extent of his possession.</p> <p>4. The possession of a farm draws to it the possession of the woodland belonging to it, though not inclosed, especiallyif repeated and unchallenged ■acts of ownership are shown.</p> <p>5. Same—former decision. The case of McCartney v. M

Judges: Breese

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.