Huftalin v. Misner
| Decision Date | 30 September 1873 |
| Citation | 70 Ill. 55,1873 WL 8546 |
| Parties | DAVID HUFTALINv.CORNELIA R. MISNER. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
WRIT OF ERROR to the Court of Common Pleas of the city of Aurora; the Hon. RICHARD G. MONTONY, Judge, presiding.
This was an action of trespass, by Cornelia R. Misner against David Huftalin. The material facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. C. J. METZNER, for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. B. F. PARKS, for the defendant in error.
This was an action of trespass, the declaration containing two counts: one, for shooting into the house of the plaintiff balls and shot, in the night time; the other, for, at a subsequent time, forcibly expelling her from her house and farm, and taking her crops. The plaintiff recovered a verdict and judgment for $1100.
For the reversal of the judgment errors are assigned, in the admission and rejection of evidence, in the giving and refusing of instructions, and that the damages are excessive.
As the second count was for the expulsion of the plaintiff, and converting to defendant's use the crops growing on the premises, it is claimed to be error that the court allowed a witness to answer the question how much some grass seed in the stack was worth. It is enough to say that the record does not show that the question was answered, hence we can not see that any prejudice resulted to the defendant from allowing the question to be answered. The court allowed a witness to state what was the value of the farm. Whilst that testimony might very properly have been excluded, its admission is not an error of sufficient gravity to affect the judgment.
A question was put to a witness who composed one of the party of persons who went along with the defendant, what they went up to Misner's for; and an objection to the question was sustained. But nevertheless, the witness made answer, that they had no design to shoot Misner, or injure his property or family; that there was no damage done to his house or premises prior to his shooting at the boys. Even if there had been error in disallowing this question, it was substantially answered as above, for all purposes beneficial to the defendant, and this would obviate the error.
The court properly excluded evidence of proceedings in attachment against the plaintiff, and a certificate of purchase of the land by the defendant. The mere certificate of purchase gave to the defendant no title or interest in the land, especially as the time for redemption by the defendant in execution had not run out.
The witness Wyatt had previously rented the farm of Mrs. Misner for one year, and he was asked whether he was not in possession at the time of the alleged expulsion of the plaintiff. The court excluded the question. The witness did testify to the facts that his year had expired, and that he had not moved any thing away; that he had given Misner and wife possession of but one room, which they occupied. This was sufficient, and what the witness should have been confined to--a statement of the facts. Whether the witness was in possession, was but a legal conclusion from the facts, and the question was properly enough excluded.
But the principal question upon excluded evidence arises on the following:
“The defendant, by his counsel, stated to the court that he proposed to prove that, prior to the alleged shooting, said William Misner and the plaintiff, under the pretense that the plaintiff was sick, and required some one to help her, coaxed a daughter of the defendant, about fifteen years of age, into their house, for the purpose of seducing her; that while the girl was so there, said Misner did seduce her; that he afterwards took the girl from her father's house, and, by plaintiff's assistance, kidnapped her, run away out of this State, and lived with her some time as man and wife, and then attempted to induce the girl to become an inmate of a house of ill fame; that finally defendant recovered his daughter, and took her to his home; that the plaintiff and said Misner continually attempted to kidnap the girl again, and nearly succeeded in one or two efforts; that to accomplish their design, and get defendant out of the way, the said Misner attempted to hire persons to assassinate the defendant, and also poison his well; that said Misner wrote insulting letters to the defendant's wife; that these facts came to the knowledge of the defendant a short time before the alleged shooting; that said Misner was, at the time, living in an open state of adultery, with Johnny and Molly, with the consent of his wife.”
The court held all such facts incompetent, and sustained the objection of the plaintiff to their introduction in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bradley v. Lightcap
...of purchase conveyed no title to the complainant. Johnson v. Baker, 38 Ill. 98, 87 Am. Dec. 293;Rockwell v. Servant, 63 Ill. 424;Huftalin v. Misner, 70 Ill. 55; Hays v. Cassell, Id. 669. In Whiting v. Butler, 29 Mich. 122, the four justices were divided in opinion, and the judgment was affi......
-
United States v. Meyer
...words are taken out of context, and do not show the full reasoning of the Court. The Court said, p. 518, 115 N.E. p. 659: "In Huftalin v. Misner, 70 Ill. 55, it was held that a certificate of purchase on an execution sale gave to the defendant in that suit no title or interest in the lands ......
-
Lightcap v. Bradley
...redemption has expired. Rockwell v. Servant, 63 Ill. 424. The certificate of purchase confers on the holder no title in the land. Huftalin v. Misner, 70 Ill. 55. In Hays v. Cassell, Id. 669, it was said (page 672): ‘The certificate of purchase conveyed no title to the purchaser, nor did it ......
-
West v. Middlesex Banking Co.
... ... Rockwell v ... Servant, 63 Ill. 424. The certificate of purchase ... confers on the holder no title in the land. Huftalin v ... Misner, 70 Ill. 55. In Hays v. Cassell, 70 Ill ... 669, on page 672 it was said: 'The certificate of ... purchase conveyed no title to ... ...