Daveis v. Collins

• Decision Date: 24 June 1890
• Citation: 43 F. 31
• Parties: DAVEIS v. COLLINS et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

43 F. 31

DAVEIS v. COLLINS et al.

United States Circuit Court, N.D. Illinois.

June 24, 1890

Charles H. Aldrich, for plaintiff.

Louis Shissler, James H. Ward, A. T. Powers, and Robert B. Kendall for defendants.

BLODGETT J., (orally charging jury.)

This is an action of ejectment to recover possession of block 111 in the original subdivision known as 'Canalport,' an addition to the city of Chicago. The plaintiff has offered proof showing that this Canalport subdivision was made upon a portion of section 30, in township 39, range 14 E., lying in Cook county; that this portion of section 30 was patented by the United States to one Welch; that Welch conveyed it to Hamilton and Pearsons; that Pearsons conveyed his interest in it to Hamilton; that Hamilton, in 1853, conveyed to Samuel J Walker; that Samuel J. Walker conveyed block 111 to one H. H Walker; that H. H. Walker made a conveyance by mortgage to one Prather; that Prather obtained title by foreclosure of his mortgage, and conveyed to Matthews, and Matthews to Cooper, Cooper to Pierce, Pierce to Bridge, and Bridge to the plaintiff,-- thereby showing an undisputed chain of title from the United States to the plaintiff in this case, which entitles the plaintiff to recover unless the defendant has made out a defense. The defendant does not claim to have ever had any paper title to this property; the only title which the defendant sets up is a title by possession. It is an undisputed fact in this case-- that is, the testimony on the part of the defendant tends to establish it, and there is no testimony contradicting it-- that the defendant's husband in May, 1861, entered upon these premises, and built a house or shanty; that the defendant's husband continued to reside on the premises with his family until he died, in September, 1882.

It is urged, and must talk is had here about the defendant Mrs Collins having rights here aside from her husband. I say to you, as a matter of law, that by mere possession, as long as her husband was living and the head of the family, she could gain nothing by her possession.

Her possession was simply subordinate to her husband's possession. He had the right, if he entered there without right, to admit that he had no rights there, and that admission would be binding upon her. If the party owning the land found Collins in possession of the property, he was not obliged to go to his wife and ask her by what right he or she was there; but if he made negotiations with Collins to take a lease, or Collins admitted he had no rights there, such action was binding upon Mrs. Collins. Now, the testimony shows without doubt-- there is no question made upon it-- that Mrs. Collins was probably an industrious and hard-working wife and mother. She had a large family of children, and worked hard to support those children, and may even have done more than the husband towards supporting them; but the husband was the head of the family in the eye of the law, and whatever he did in reference to this property was binding upon her and the family, no matter if he was a drunkard, unless his drunkenness was produced or occasioned by the act of the parties now claiming as against her.

The law provides, in substance, that unchallenged, uninterrupted possession of lands, under an assertion or claim of title, or an interest in them for the term of 20 years, protects that title; but it must be continuous, complete, and unbroken for the entire 20 years. Now, there is no doubt but what the Collins family went in there, as I said, in 1861, and that they have remained upon the premises ever since that time. If they entered upon those premises as mere squatters, without asserting any title whatever, just merely by the sufferance of the owner, they could only acquire, in the extremest point of view, a title as against that owner, by asserting that they entered there by some right of their own, and continuing that possession and that assertion of right until the expiration of 20 years. Now, is that state of facts established in behalf of this defendant, admitting that she succeeds to the rights which began to inure under her husband? The testimony on the part of the plaintiff tends to show that, in the early part of the year 1871, Mr. Henry Jones was on these premises in company with Mr. Samuel J Walker, who was then the owner of the patent or paper title; that Mr. Walker and Mr. Jones went to the house where the Collins family resided; that they saw Collins there. Mr. Walker asked Collins what...