Skip to main content
· 1/15/1866

Tourville v. Pierson

Citations

  • 39 Ill. 446

Syllabus

<p>1. Jurisdiction op defendant in chancery—how acquired. By our practice in chancery, prayer for process against a person, and service of process upon Mm, give the court jurisdiction of that person, whether or not there be a formal prayer that he be made a defendant.</p> <p>2. The homestead right—when it exists. The right to a homestead does not consist in purchasing property for a homestead, but in actually occupying it as such. Hence, when a bill for a forclosure alleged that the premises were not occupied as a homestead at the time of the execution of the mortgage, and the answer did not allege an occupation, but did allege that the complainant knew, at the time of such execution, that it was purchased as a homestead, the answer was not responsive to the hill, and there was no homestead.</p> <p>3. Occupation—under the homestead law, and what will constitute. Where a tract of land was leased to a tenant, who raised a crop on it, hut did not occupy the buildings wMch were upon it, while the owner and family lived on another and distinct tract of land, owned by them, of the value of sixteen hundred dollars, there is no such occupation of the tract so leased, as would defeat a mortgage executed at that time, by reason of the homestead law.</p> <p>4. Lot op ground and the buildings thereon—what constitutes. Where a mortgage on the north twenty acres of an “ eighty,” was executed by parties whose homestead where they then resided, and which was worth sixteen hundred dollars, was the south forty acres of the same “ eighty,” and the twenty acres lying between these two tracts had been previously sold by said parties, and deeded away, there the continuity between the forty and the twenty was broken, and it isolated the south end of the “ eighty,” making that “ the lot of ground and the buildings thereon,” which was the homestead.</p> <p>5. Owner OF homestead—may he the wife. Where the title to the “ lot of ground, and the buildings thereon ” is in the wife, and she, with

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that courts may refer to \contemporaneous legislation not precisely in pari materia\
  • “[A]cts in pari materia . . . may be referred to in order to discern the intent of the legislature in the use of particular terms, or in the enactment of particular provisions . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

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.