Kraatz v. Workman

<p>Abstract of the Decision.</p> <p>1. Fobcible entby and detained, § 24*—when entry under elaim of right no defense. The invasion of land obviously in possession of another against the wish and protest of the owner, and the removal of fences and their re-erection in another place, constitutes a forcible .entry and will enable the owner to maintain an action of forcible entry and detainer, although defendant acted under a claim of right to the land.</p> <p>2. Fobcible entby and detainee, § 73*—what evidence inadmissible as defense. In actions of forcible entry and detainer, evidence of a paramount title in defendant is incompetent, the action being wholly statutory and involving only possessory rights, so that rights derived from a paramount title can only be claimed in ejectment or other appropriate proceeding.</p> <p>- 3. Forcible entry and detainer, § 60*—when description of premises not materially defective. In an action of forcible entry and detainer, a description of the premises sought to be recovered as “a strip of land belonging to the east 40 acres taken off the east side of the north fraction of the northwest quarter of section nineteen (19),” held not materially defective where it appeared that all parties to the action knew exactly what property was intended to be designated.</p> <p>4. Forcible entry and detainer, § 108*—what objection cannot be raised for first time on appeal. Objection that description of premises is defective cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.</p>