Mcilwain v. Karstens
| Decision Date | 22 October 1894 |
| Citation | 38 N.E. 555,152 Ill. 135 |
| Parties | McILWAIN v. KARSTENS et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to appellate court, Fourth district.
Action of forcible entry and detainer brought by James A. McIlwain against Fritz Karstens and Fritz Duensing. Defendants obtained judgment, which was affirmed by the appellate court. 41 Ill. App. 567. Plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
G. & G. A. Koerner and R. G. Goddard, for plaintiff in error.
H. Clay Horner, for defendants in error.
One William Murphy, in his lifetime, executed a mortgage to Borders & Boyle on 160 acres of land in the east part of survey 205, etc. After his death, the mortgage was foreclosed against his widow and heirs at law; and on the 13th day of June, 1889, the lands were sold by the master in chancery, and purchased by James J. Borders for the sum of $2,268.17. A claim had been allowed by the probate court of Randolph county on the 19th of April, 1883, against the estate of Murphy, in favor of Hayner & Co., for $625.57. Hayner & Co. assigned the judgment to plaintiff in error about June 14, 1890; and he, on that date, caused a special execution to issue thereon. Under that execution, he made redemption from the foreclosure sale, and became the purchaser for $2,478.44, and obtained a sheriff's deed under the redemption sale, dated July 7, 1890. On July 31, 1890, plaintiff in error commenced suit of forcible entry and detainer before a justice of the peace against defendants in error, who were in possession of the land, as the tenants of the heirs of William Murphy, deceased. The judgment of the justice of the peace was for plaintiff in error; but, on appeal to the county court and trial de novo, judgment for the defendants was entered, which has been affirmed by the appellate court.
The principal error relied on by plaintiff in error to reverse the judgment below is the refusal of the county court to admit the sheriff's deed to plaintiff in error in evidence. It will be seen that the special execution upon which the redemption was made and the land sold by the sheriff to plaintiff in error was issued more than seven years after the allowance of the claim in the probate court, and that was the ground of the objection to its being admitted in evidence, which was sustained by the trial court. Its ruling was clearly right. This precise question was presented and fully discussed in the case of Wilson v. Schneider, 124 Ill. 628, 17 N. E. 8, In that case we held that ‘the object of section 27, c. 77, of the Revised Statutes was to give a judgment creditor whose judgment was obtained after the death of his debtor, by the allowance of his claim in the probate court, the same right of redemption as was given to the judgment creditor who had recovered his judgment in the lifetime of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fitzgerald v. Quinn
...show a right of possession in himself, and he cannot rely upon the lack of right in those whom he seeks to dispossess. McIlwain v. Karstens, 152 Ill. 135, 38 N. E. 555. It is urged that either the immediate grantor or some prior grantor of appellants wrongfully entered upon lot 19, and incl......
- Fagan v. Stuttgart Normal Institute
-
Corning v. Loomis
...letters did not constitute a valid contract of sale of the land. Ryan v. U. S., 136 U.S. 68, 10 S.Ct. 913; Wilcox v. Cline, 70 Mich. 517, 38 N.E. 555. The price was upon, and the time and mode of payment. The letter accepting the defendant's proposition is signed by the plaintiff, and payme......
- St. Louis v. Barrett