Trainor v. Greenough

Citations

• 145 Ill. 543
• 32 N.E. 545

Syllabus

<p>1. Partition—conveyance of undivided interest—as giving jurisdiction on bill for partition and to remove cloud. The holder of the legal title to land in the adverse possession of another person, may, by deed of gift, convey an undivided interest therein to a son, and thereby give the court jurisdiction of a bill for partition, and to set aside the title of the occupant as a cloud upon the title of the tenants in common, although such adverse title is of a purely legal character.</p> <p>2. Same—removing cloud—on title of joint tenant, tenant in common or parcener. Where a defendant in a partition suit has a cloud on the title of the joint tenant, tenant in common or parcener, he, under sec. 39 of the Partition act, is liable to have it set aside whenever the court, at the instance of either of them, shall decree partition between them; and when the defendant’s title is set aside as a cloud as to the entire premises, he will have no interest in the partition made between the owners.</p> <p>3. Same—essential allegations and proof. Sec. 5 of the Partition act requires that the petition for partition of land shall particularly describe the premises and set forth the rights of all parties interested therein, so far as known, including tenants for years, for life, and all persons who, upon any contingency, may be or become entitled to any beneficiary interest in the premises, and pray for the partition of the same. This is all that is required to be alleged and proved. It is not necessary to allege or prove the inability of the tenants in common to agree upon a division.</p> <p>4. Same—motive of petitioner immaterial. The right to have partition decreed between the owners of land is an absolute right, resulting from the mere existence of the relation of joint tenants, tenants in common, etc. Therefore, the motive that may have moved a party to seek a decree of partition is wholly immaterial.</p>