Crow v. Mark

Decided September 15, 1869

Illinois Supreme Court · decided 1869-09-15

<p>1. Tenants in common—remedies as between themselves. One tenant in common of realty can not maintain an action of assumpsit against his co-tenant for his proportion of the rents, the latter having had exclusive possession. His only remedy is by an action of account under the statute, or by a bill in chancery.</p> <p>2. Jurisdiction of justices of the peace. A justice of the peace has no jurisdiction in an action of account.</p>

Relies on Belden v. Seymour

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1869-09-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently October 1934

8 state decisions

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. Justice Lawrence

¶1delivered the opinion of the Court:

¶2This was an action brought before a justice of the peace by one tenant in common against a co-tenant, to recover the plaintiff’s portion of the rent for a tract of land, of which the defendant had had exclusive possession. The case was brought by appeal to the circuit court, and on the trial there, after the plaintiff closed his evidence, the court, on motion of the defendant, dismissed the suit. There was no error in this. One tenant in common of realty can not maintain an action of assumpsit against his co-tenant for his proportion of the rents. His only remedy is by an action of account under the statute, or by a bill in chancery. Sherman v. Ballou, 8 Conn. 306 ; Wheeler v. Howe, Willes, 208. A justice of the peace has no jurisdiction in an action of account, and therefore this suit was properly dismissed.

¶3Judgment affirmed.