Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

29 Ill. 135

Beyer v. Tanner

Illinois Supreme Court

Decided April 15, 1862

Illinois Supreme Court · decided 1862-04-15

The plaintiff below, Tanner, filed a declaration in trespass, containing three counts ; in the first of which it is charged that the defendants, on the first day of December, 1860, and on divers other days between that time and the commencement of this suit, broke and entered plaintiff’s close, to wit, the north-west quarter of section six, in the township of Aurora, in Kane county, and destroyed the fence, and trod down and destroyed grass and wheat.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently April 1902

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1862-04-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Breese, J.

¶1We have not been favored by either party with any arguments in this case, they choosing to submit it on the record alone..

¶2We have examined the record, and the plats of the road, and the testimony of all the witnesses, and our minds have reached the same conclusion at which the jury arrived. We think there can be little doubt, that Wilder’s survey is the true survey of the road. That, and his testimony, for he testifies like a man of sense and as one well informed on the subject, must have convinced the jury, as it has convinced us, that the true line of the old State road, which was about to be opened, and which the route of the county road occupied, passed through the township of Sugar Grove, several chains (13.50 chains) south of the opening made by the defendants, and the same or a greater distance south through the township of Blackberry. Through Sugar Grove township, a line of old blazed trees was found on the course of the old road, and a blazed white oak tree in Blackerry township, a noted monument in the old survey, and through the township of Aurora, the old road, as fenced out and worked, was found and traced. This survey, so minute, so scientifically and skillfully made, connected with the intelligent. testimony of Wilder himself, can leave no doubt on the mind of any one, but that these defendants were misled as to the true line of the road which they were authorized to open, and got too far north, and destroyed wood and timber they had no right to touch. Gutting it down was a trespass for which the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages. There is no point made that they are excessive.

¶3We see no particular objection to the action of the court in giving or refusing instructions.

¶4The judgment is affirmed. Judgment affirmed.

/29/ill/135 · .json · Public domain