¶1delivered the opinion oe the Court.
¶2The principal question here presented is whether Wright was authorized to seize the cow “ damage feasant.”
¶3We think he was not.
¶4He was the owner, but Mahoney was in possession of the farm, by peaceable entry as his tenant, and an action was pending to determine whether the right of occupancy had expired.
¶5Under such circumstances Sec. 21, Chap. 54, R. S., does not invest an “ owner ” with authority to distrain animals belonging to the “ occupier.”
¶6It was unlawful under the statute of forcible entry and detainer for the owner in the case at bar to enter upon premises in the actual possession of the “ occupier,” his tenant, for the purpose of seizing and removing from the premises animals of the latter. Being unlawful, such entry was a trespass, even though the tenant was holding over wrongfully. Reeder v. Purdy, 41 Ill. 284; Farwell v. Warren, 51 Ill. 467.
¶7Section 21 aforesaid can not be construed to authorize the commission of a trespass.
¶8The cow was, therefore, wrongfully in the possession of Wright and was properly restored to its owner by the judgment in replevin.
¶9Whether the tenant was rightfully in possession of the farm, under the terms of lease, was unimportant.
¶10He had actual possession, and the statute of forcible entry and detainer forbade forcible interference therewith.
¶11Hence the court properly rejected evidence relating to the terms and conditions of the contract under which the tenant obtained possession of the farm.
¶12The evidence upon which the award of damages was made in the main was incompetent.
¶13But it was not objected to, nor was the court asked to withdraw it, or to instruct the jury as to the true measure of damages, or to grant a new trial for that reason.
¶14We are without power to consider objections that might have been, but were not, made, and which might have been obviated in the lower court had they been made.
¶15The judgment is affirmed.