Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

42 Ill. 148

Harding v. Strong

Illinois Supreme Court

Decided April 15, 1866

Illinois Supreme Court · decided 1866-04-15

John S. Thompson, Judge, presiding. Henry C. Strong brought his action of ejectment in the court below, against Abner C. Harding, to recover certain premises described as lot five in block one, in Haley’s addition to the city of Monmouth, in Warren county, in this State, the plaintiff claiming title thereto in fee. The defendant pleaded not guilty.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1866-04-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently May 1948

11 state decisions

40186618701880189019001910192019301940decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. Chief Justice Walker

¶1delivered the opinion of the Court:

¶2This was an action of ejectment brought by Henry 0. Strong, in the Warren Circuit Court, against Abner C. Harding for the recovery of lot five in block one in Haley’s addition to the city of Monmouth. Defendant filed the plea of not guilty, upon which issue was joined. A trial was had by the court, the parties having waived a jury, when the court found the issues for the plaintiff. Defendant entered a motion for a new trial, which the court overruled, and rendered a judgment in favor of plaintiff, and awarded a writ of possession ; and, to reverse that judgment, defendant brings the case to this court by appeal.

¶3The objections to this judgment seem to be purely technical. It is first insisted that the court cannot know that the lot in controversy is in the city of Monmouth, Illinois. The court will take notice that the city of Monmouth is in Warren county in this State. And when the deed was read in evidence describing a tract of land as lot five in block one in Haley’s addition to the city of Monmouth, the presumption would be that it was in Monmouth in this State.

¶4There was no plea filed denying possession of the premises by appellant, and, under the statute, proof of possession was unnecessary. In such cases the statute declares that the return of the officer who served the writ shall be sufficient proof of possession unless it is denied by plea. But, if it had been necessary, Davidson testified that appellant admitted to him after the commencement of the suit, that he was in possession when the notice and declaration were served.

¶5The court below in the final judgment does find that appellee was seized in fee of the premises. This is all the statute requires.

¶6The judgment of the court below must be affirmed.

¶7Judgment affirmed.

/42/ill/148 · .json · Public domain