Blanchard v. Pratt
| Decision Date | 30 April 1865 |
| Citation | 37 Ill. 243,1865 WL 2813 |
| Parties | WILLIAM A. P. BLANCHARD and WILLIAM MCLARENv.THOMAS PRATT. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Bureau county; Hon. MADISON E. HOLLISTER, J.
This was begun as an action of forcible entry and detainer, by Pratt against Blanchard and McLaren before a justice of the peace. Verdict and judgment for Pratt, from which defendants appealed to the Circuit Court, where the same judgment was rendered. The instructions given for the plaintiff and excepted to by the defendants were as follows:
2. Although the jury should believe, from the evidence, that Blanchard and McLaren, the defendants, or one of them, broke up a portion of ground on the land in dispute in the spring of 1861, for the purpose of taking possession, claiming the whole in such public manner as to apprise the neighborhood of such facts, if the jury believe, from the evidence, that at the time they so took such possession, they had no color of title to the tract of land in dispute, then their possession is confined in law to the quantity of ground so broken up.
9. If the jury believe, from the evidence, that at the time of the breaking by Pratt, he had a lease or paper title to the entire quarter section in dispute, and he did such breaking under such lease or paper title with the intention of taking possession of the entire tract, and claimed title to the entire tract, such breaking extended his possession to all the land embraced in the lease or paper title.
13. If the jury find, from the evidence, that Pratt took actual possession, by breaking of part of the land in dispute, claiming the whole under a lease, and that afterwards, while he was so in possession, Blanchard and McLaren entered upon the land, by moving a house upon it, and breaking or fencing it against Pratt's consent, wrongfully and without right, and that Pratt's possession was prior to any legal possession of the defendants, they should find for the plaintiff.
19. If the jury believe, from the evidence, that any witness has sworn willfully, knowingly and falsely to any material point, they are warranted in entirely discrediting his whole testimony.
Mr. MILO KENDALL and Mr. GEORGE O. IDE for appellants.
Mr. T. G. FROST for appellee. Mr. JUSTICE BREESE delivered the opinion of the court:
The points on this record arise out of the instructions given by the court, on behalf of the plaintiff, the appellee here, and which were accepted to at the time by appellants. They are twenty-one in number, the most of which we deem pertinent and relative to the case on trial, and based on the evidence adduced. Some of them are objectionable, which we will notice.
The ninth instruction for the appellee is as follows:
“If the jury believe, from the evidence, that at the time of the breaking by Pratt, he had a lease or paper title to the entire quarter section in dispute, and he did such breaking under such lease or paper title with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Patrick
...v. Mix, 15 Mo. 153; State v. Dwire, 25 Mo. 553. The case of State v. Cushing, 29 Mo. 215, is not in conflict with this doctrine. Blanchard v. Pratt, 37 Ill. 243, is to contrary, but was cited by this court in Paulette v. Brown, 40 Mo. 52, and expressly disapproved. The authorities in other ......
-
Wheat v. Summers
...v. Estelle, 92 Ill. 218; Joequin v. Davidson, 49 Ill. 82; Carpenter v. Davis, 71 Ill. 395; McNally v. O'Brien, 88 Ill. 237; Blanchard v. Pratt 37 Ill. 243; Dishon v. Schorr, 19 Ill. 59; Beseler v. Stephani, 71 Ill. 400; Collighan v. Evans, 71 Ill. 397. MCCULLOCH, P. J. This was a suit broug......
-
United States v. Cameron
...387. And it was decided that the court must determine the validity of the color of title. Shackleford v. Bailey, 35 Ill. 387; Blanchard v. Pratt, 37 Ill. 243. See to Tate v. Southard, 14 Am. Dec. 578. There can therefore be no doubt as to the power of the court to look into defendant's pape......
-
State v. Patrick
...v. Mix, 15 Mo. 153; State v. Dwire, 25 Mo. 553. The case of State v. Cushing, 29 Mo. 215, is not in conflict with this doctrine. Blanchard v. Pratt, 37 Ill. 243, is to the contrary, but was cited by this court in Paulette v. Brown, 40 Mo. 60, and expressly disapproved. The authorities in ot......