¶1dissenting. I do not agree with either the reasoning or conclusion of the majority of the court in this case. I think the proof clear that appellee had abandoned his homestead, and that that fact is shown by his own admissions and conduct-in relation to the property. I think also the damages are grossly excessive, far exceeding in value the property taken. I also hold that the objections urged by appellant against the instructions given for appellee and refused for appellant are well made, and that the court erred in that respect. I think the judgment does injustice to the appellant, who seems to have been guilty of no offense except an effort to collect an honest debt.
30 Ill. App. 469
Feldes v. Duncan
Decided December 8, 1888
Appellate Court of Illinois · decided 1888-12-08
<p>Homestead — Abandonment — A ttaohment — Trespass — Damages —Instructions—Error without Injury.</p> <p>1. The holder of any possessory interest in lands, without regard to the extent of such title, is entitled to an estate of homestead therein.</p> <p>2. The appellant can not complain of an error which worked him no injury.</p> <p>3. In an action of trespass brought to recover damages for the tearing down and conversion of a dwelling-house claimed as a homestead, this court holds: That the question of abandonment was for the jury, the evidence being conflicting; that the verdict is not excessive; and that there is no error in the instructions.</p>
Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently April 1903
2 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1888-12-08
View the full empirical analysis of this case →