Higgins v. Crosby
| Decision Date | 30 April 1866 |
| Parties | MILTON O. HIGGINSv.BENJAMIN F. CROSBY. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Chicago; the Hon. JOSEPH E. GARY, Judge, presiding.
The opinion of the court contains a statement of the case.
Messrs. HURD, BOOTH & KRAMER, for the appellant
Messrs. BORDEN & SPAFFORD, for the appellee. Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE WALKER delivered the opinion of the Court:
This was an action of ejectment, brought by plaintiff in error, in the Superior Court of Chicago, against defendant in error, for the recovery of a lot in the city. The parties claim title from a common source. It appears that Ann Wright, on the 22d of December, 1863, conveyed the premises in controversy to plaintiff in error. It likewise appears that she, together with her husband, William Wright, executed a deed of conveyance of the land to Elizabeth Rogers, on the 10th day of February, 1847. Mrs. Rogers, on the 6th day of December, 1855, conveyed the premises to defendant in error. Soon after, Mrs. Rogers purchased, and she went into the actual possession of the lot, and so held it until her sale to defendant in error, and that he took actual possession, and continued in such possession from his purchase until this suit was brought; that he and his grantor paid all taxes legally assessed on the premises during the time they were severally in possession. They thus had actual possession and payment of taxes under color of title concurring for nearly eighteen years. It also appeared that, when the land was conveyed to Mrs. Wright, and at the time she and her husband conveyed the land to Mrs. Rogers, she was a married woman; that he died about three years and a half before this suit was brought; that, of the marriage of Wright and his wife, there was issue, born alive, capable of inheriting from Mrs. Wright. The deed from Wright and wife to Mrs. Rogers having been executed out of this State, after the 10th day of September, 1845, and before the 22d day of February, 1847, it was without legal authority. During that period we had no statute which authorized a feme covert, residing beyond the limits of the State, to convey her property, and this deed consequently did not pass the fee. It follows that, under the law as it then existed, Mrs. Rogers only acquired the life estate held by Wright by the curtesy, and only became a tenant for the life of Wright, Mrs. Wright holding the reversion in fee. This, then, presents the question whether the statute can run against a reversioner so as to toll the entry.
There is no dispute that possession and payment of taxes, under claim and color of title for seven successive years, will bar a recovery in all cases where there is a present right of possession during...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Murch v. Epley
...to and vested his life estate in the adverse holder, plaintiff, that it also destroyed the interests of the remaindermen. From Higgins v. Crosby, 40 Ill. 260, to Dunlavy v. Lowrie, 372 Ill. 622, 25 N.E.2d 67, this court has repeatedly and consistently held that the statute does not begin to......
-
Wright v. Stice
... ... Warren v. Warren, 148 Ill. 641, 36 N. E. 611;Huston v. Tribbetts, 171 Ill. 547, 49 N. E. 711;Higgins v. Crosby, 40 Ill. 260;Enos v. Buckley, 94 Ill. 458. It is also well settled that the tenant for life is entitled to the possession of the premises ... ...
-
Lewis v. Barnhart Same v. Phillips Same v. Johnson Same v. Dirks Same v. Dye Same v. Boner
...no right of entry, he is not deemed guilty of laches in failing to assert his rights during the existence of the life estate. Higgins v. Crosby, 40 Ill. 260, 262; Dugan v. Follett, 100 Ill. 581, 589; Orthwein v. Thomas, 127 Ill. 555, 569, 21 N. E. Rep. 430; Mettler v. Miller, 129 Ill. 630, ......
-
Maring v. Meeker
...of entry. Having no right of entry, he is not deemed guilty of laches in failing to assert his rights during the life estate. Higgins v. Crosby, 40 Ill. 260;Mettler v. Miller, 129 Ill. 630, 22 N. E. 529;Cassem v. Prindle, 258 Ill. 11, 101 N. E. 241;Lewis v. Barnhart, 145 U. S. 56, 12 Sup. C......