Skip to main content

Timmons v. Kidwell

Citations

  • 138 Ill. 13
  • 27 N.E. 756

Syllabus

<p>1. Ejectment—prima facie proof of title. In 1812 A conveyed a tract of land to B, who took immediate possession, and continued in the possession until 1861, when he conveyed to C, who took immediate possession and retained it until in 1868, when he, by a verbal contract, sold the premises to D, who gave his notes for the price and took possession, but never paid the notes. In 1887 0 died testate, having devised his interest in the land to the plaintiffs: Held, on ejectment by the plaintiffs against one holding under D, that these facts showed aprima facie title in plaintiffs, entitling them to recover, in the absence of proof of a paramount title by the defendant.</p> <p>2. Same — demand when necessary — waived by failure to plead it. Where a party acquires the possession of land under a parol contract of purchase, and he and those succeeding to his interest fail to pay the purchase money, and the vendor’s devisees bring ejectment for the land, no proof of a prior demand will be necessary under the statute, where no plea is filed, under oath, denying demand of possession. If demand were necessary before suing, it will be waived by a failure to interpose such a plea.</p> <p>3. Statute op Limitations—color of title—seven years’ payment of taxes—who must pay taxes. To constitute a bar under the act of 1839 evidence of’actual possession, and payment of taxes, by or on behalf of the party having color of title, for seven successive years, is indispensable. It is not enough that the taxes have been actually paid for that period. They must have been paid by or on behalf of the person having color of title and actual possession, and the burden is on the party claiming under such title to prove the payment by clear and satisfactory evidence.</p> <p>4. Where the color of title was in a married woman, the payment of the taxes thereon for over seven successive years by her husband, in his own name and under a claim of ownership, will not constitute a bar to an action by the

Judges: Scholfield

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.