Taylor v. Pearce

Decision Date18 April 1899
Citation179 Ill. 145,53 N.E. 622
PartiesTAYLOR v. PEARCE et al.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Error from circuit court, Iroquois county; C. R. Starr, Judge.

Bill by Mary Taylor against A. L. Pearce and others. Bill dismissed, and complainant brings error. Affirmed.

Robert Doyle, for plaintiff in error.

Kay & Kay, for defendants in error.

WILKIN, J.

The plaintiff in error filed her bill in the court below against the defendants in error to enjoin them from interfering with her possession of a strip of land 30 feet in width off of the north end of the N. 1/2 of the S. W. 1/4 of section 18, township 27 N., range 11 W. of the second P. M., Iroquois county. The defendants answered the bill, setting up taht said strip was a part of a public highway, and on March 12, 1897, filed their motion, upon the bill and answer, to dissolve the temporary injunction theretofore ordered. The court sustained the motion and dismissed the bill. The appellate court for the Second district affirmed that decree (71 Ill. App. 525), to reverse which judgment the complainant prosecuted a writ of error from this court. But we dismissed the writ on the ground that the appellate court had no jurisdiction of the case, a freehold being involved. 50 N. E. 1109. She now prosecutes this writ of error to the circuit court.

It appears from the bill, and is not denied by the answer, that the complainant owns the land described in her bill; that on the north line thereof there has been a fence for more than 20 years, she being in the peaceable possession of the whole of the tract south of that fence during all of that period; that about two years prior to the bringing of this action the present controversy arose, resulting in the removal of said fence by the defendantsseveral times, which the complainant as often replaced on her north line; also, that two or more actions at law had been prosecuted against each other by the parties. It is shown by the answer (no replication having been filed) that by an act of the general assembly which went into effect February 28, 1854, a public road was located on the north of the complainant's lands, her north line being designated as the center of the road, which was to be 60 feet wide; also, that in pursuance of that act a road was laid out, and has since been used by the public as a highway. Prior to the beginning of this controversy the owner of the lands north of the complainant's land inclosed them by a fence, alleged in the bill to have been placed 60 feet north of her fence; but when this was done does not appear. Immediately prior to the first removal of the complainant's fence by the commissioners, the then owner of the lands on the north caused his fence to be placed some distance south of its original location, and in the line of the road. We think sufficient facts are alleged in the bill, and admitted by the answer, to give a court of chancery jurisdiction of the cause, on the ground that the action is to prevent a multiplicity of suits at law, and to restrain a continuing trespass. McIntyre v. Storey, 80 Ill. 127;City of Peoria v. Johnston, 56 Ill. 45.

The contention of a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Pool v. Baker
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 25 Enero 1916
    ......Giorgetta, 20 Colo.App. 338, 78 P. 612;. Huxford v. Southern Pine Co., 124 Ga. 181, 52 S.E. 439; McIntyre v. Storey, 80 Ill. 127; Taylor v. Pearce, 179 Ill. 145, 53 N.E. 622; Alden Coal Co. v. Challis, 103 Ill.App. 52, 200 Ill. 222, 65 N.E. 717;. Ellis v. Wren, 84 Ky. 254, 1 S.W. ......
  • Town Of Weston v. Ralston
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • 12 Junio 1900
    ...act of abandonment upon a city or town, though you may do so as to an individual. Under the head of "abandonment, " Taylor v. Pearce, 179 Ill. 145, 53 N. E. 622, is strong in favor of the town. "The opening of a highway its full length, and its use by the public, protect the public right to......
  • Foley v. Doddridge County Court
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • 7 Noviembre 1903
    ...... idea of mere abandonment, see, further, De Kalb v. Luney, 193 Ill. 185, 61 N.E. 1036; Shirk v. City, 195 Ill. 298, 63 N.E. 193; Taylor v. Pearce, 179 Ill. 145, 53 N.E. 622; Chafee v. City of. Aiken (S. C.) 35 S.E. 800; Crocker v. Collins, . 37 S.C. 327, 15 S.E. 951, 34 ......
  • Foley v. Doddridge County Court
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • 7 Noviembre 1903
    ...abandonment, see, further, De Kalb v. Luney, 193 Ill. 185, 61 N. E. 1036; Shirk v. City, 195 Ill. 298, 63 N. E. 193; Taylor v, Pearce, 179 Ill. 145, 53 N. E. 622; Chafee v. City of Aiken (S. C.) 35 S. E. 800; Crocker v. Collins, 37 S. C. 327, 15 S. E. 951, 34 Am. St. Rep. 752; Reilly v. Cit......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT