Smith v. Ferguson

Citations

• 91 Ill. 304

Syllabus

<p>1. Limitation—good faith of holder of color of title. A defect in the title, if known to the purchaser of land when he purchases, is not enough to establish the fact that he was not a purchaser in good faith, under the Limitation law of 1839. If the purchase is made with an honest purpose of obtaining title, and under & bona fide belief that the party is getting title, he will be protected, under the statute, on possession and payment of taxes for seven successive years. The question of good faith is one of fact, for the jury.</p> <p>2. The fact that a party purchasing land, in 1858, is shown to have had knowledge of a suit in regard to its possession in 1842, affords no sufficient evidence that his purchase was not made in good faith, nor is the fact that a partner of a former occupant, in 1856, leased 'the property to the grantor of the party sufficient to destroy the good faith of his purchase, in 1858, from the lessee, who then claimed the title, nor will the fact that the party, before purchasing, was informed that the title was not good, impeach the purchase.</p> <p>3. Where a party purchases land, taking a deed therefor and paying for the same, it will be presumed, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that he purchased in good faith. Knowledge that his grantor’s title was defective, or was not a perfect title, will not impeach the good faith of his purchase.</p> <p>4. Where there is no actual fraud, and no proof showing that the color of title was acquired in bad faith (which means in or by fraud), it must be held to have been acquired in good faith. Where there is no proof that the party, in making the purchase, designed to defraud the person having the better title, or was actuated by fraud, the good faith of his color of title is not impeached.</p>