Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

67 Ill. 55

Wolf v. Wolf

Illinois Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1873

Illinois Supreme Court · decided 1873-01-15

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of McLean county; the Hon. Thomas F. Tipton, Judge, presiding.</p> <p>This was an action of ejectment by Andrew J. Wolf against William H. Wolf, Henry H. Wolf, Adelia Wolf and Caroline Wolf, for the recovery of a lot in the city of Bloomington. The plaintiff in his declaration claimed a life estate.</p> <p>The plaintiff introduced in evidence a quit-claim deed from J. H. Rowell to Susannah Wolf, his late wife, dated October 3, 1870, purporting to convey the lot to her. The plaintiff was then sworn, and testified that Susannah Wolf was his wife; that defendants were his children; that Susannah Wolf died in April, 1872; that defendants were in possession of the premises; and that Susannah Wolf lived upon the premises at the time of her death. This was all the evidence on his part.</p> <p>The defendants proved that they lived upon the premises with their mother up to her death, and were still in possession of the same; that the plaintiff had not lived with his wife for more than two years past, and had abandoned her and refused to support her or the family; that one of the defendants was still a minor, and that the premises were occupied as a homestead by the defendants.</p> <p>There was a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, from which the defendants appealed.</p>

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently November 1887

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1873-01-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam :

¶1Appellee claims a life estate in the premises described in the declaration. His late wife, Susannah Wolf, had been in possession under a quit-claim deed from Jonathan H. Bowell. The deed, though in form a quit-claim, was as effectual as a deed of bargain and sale to invest her with the fee.

¶2Living children had been born unto them, and on.the death of the wife, which occurred before the commencement of this suit, the life estate of appellee by the curtesy became consummate. There can be no doubt, from the evidence, the possession was that of Mrs. Wolf, although her children resided Avith her, one of Avhom Avas a minor.

¶3The prior possession of the Avife, under a deed purporting to convey the fee as betAveen the parties, appellants being the children of appellee and his deceased wife, is itself evidence of an inheritable estate; and as both parties claim under a common source of title, appellee has established his right to a life estate in the premises.

¶4It is not perceived hoAV the question of homestead can arise as betAveen these parties.

¶5The judgment of the circuit court Avas fully-warranted by the law and the facts, and must be affirmed.

¶6Judgment affirmed.

/67/ill/55 · .json · Public domain