Wieland v. Kobick

Citations

• 110 Ill. 16
• 4 Colo. L. Rep. 741

Syllabus

<p>1. Ejectment—proof of defendant’s possession and claim of title— whether necessary. In an action of ejectment, where the defendant pleads the general issue only, it is not necessary, under the statute, for the plaintiff to prove that the defendant was in possession of the premises, or claimed an interest or title therein.</p> <p>2. Infancy—estoppel to disaffirm contract—fraudulent representations. A person is not estopped from setting up infancy as a defence to a contract, by his fraudulent representation at the time the contract was made that he was of full age. So a statement in a deed of a minor that she is “unmarried, and of age, ” is not an estoppel to the disaffir nance of it when becoming of age. The doctrine of estoppel is inapplicable to infants.</p>