Ringhouse v. Keever
| Decision Date | 31 January 1869 |
| Parties | PETER RINGHOUSEv.MARIA KEEVER. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Mason county; the Hon. CHARLES TURNER, Judge, presiding.
The opinion states the case.
Messrs. LACEY & WALLACE, for the appellant.
Mr. B. S. PRETTYMAN, for the appellee. Mr. JUSTICE LAWRENCE delivered the opinion of the Court:
This was an action in ejectment, brought by Maria Keever, claiming as widow and heir of her former husband, Henry Hardie. It is objected, that the proof of the death was not sufficient. The ordinary rule is, that it is general reputation among the kindred only of a deceased person, that is admissible in proof of death, but that rule has been sometimes relaxed, as in Scott's lessee v. Ratcliff, 5 Pet. 81. Where, as in the present case, the deceased left no kindred that are known, the rule must be relaxed from necessity.
In this case, the depositions of two witnesses were taken, who lived in New Orleans, and who were present at the marriage of Hardie in that city, in 1845. They testify that he had but one child, who died, and that he, also, died of cholera in 1849. His death was announced in the newspapers, and he was spoken of by his acquaintances as dead. His widow subsequently married her present husband.
The instruction given for the plaintiff is not sufficiently qualified as a rule of universal application, but in this case it worked no prejudice, as the evidence was competent and sufficient. In a population as unstable as ours, and comprising so many persons whose kindred are in distant lands, the refusal of all evidence of reputation in regard to death, unless the reputation came from family relatives, would sometimes render the proof of death impossible, though there might exist no doubt of the fact, and thus defeat the ends of justice.
In the case before us, the plaintiff, in one count, claimed the fee simple to an undivided half of the premises, and in another an undivided third of an undivided half as dower.
The defendant moved to strike from the declaration the last count, which motion the court overruled, and on trial gave judgment for the plaintiff upon both counts--upon the first, for the recovery of an undivided half, and upon the second, that commissioners be appointed to assign her dower in the entire premises, which commissioners the court proceeded to appoint. The 9th section of our Statute of Ejectment seems, by implication, to forbid the joinder of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blankenship v. Hall
...remain after the payment of the just debts and claims against the estate of the deceased husband. Brown v. Pitney, 39 Ill. 468;Ringhouse v. Keever, 49 Ill. 470;Gullett v. Farley, 164 Ill. 566, 45 N. E. 972;Laurence v. Balch, 195 Ill. 626, 63 N. E. 506. She takes this one-half of the real es......
-
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Lyons
...had no known kindred. In that case, reputation among the acquaintances of the person alleged to be dead was admitted. Ringhouse v. Keever (1869), 49 Ill. 470. declarations of persons not members of the family of the person whose death is the subject of inquiry are not competent to prove the......
-
Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Lyons
...deceased had no known kindred. In that case reputation among the acquaintances of the person alleged to be dead was admitted. Ringhouse v. Keever, 49 Ill. 470. The declarations of persons not members of the family of the person whose death is the subject of inquiry are not competent to prov......
-
Mccillick v. Mccllister
... ... 487; Dixon v. Nichols, 39 Ill. 372.Common reputation may be shown as evidence in questions of marriage: Scheel v. Eidman, 77 Ill. 301; Ringhouse v. Keever, 49 Ill. 470; Pile v. McBratney, 15 Ill. 314; Myatt v. Myatt, 44 Ill. 473; Harman v. Harman, 16 Ill. 87; Miller v. White, 80 Ill ... ...