Shackleford v. Bailey

• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: BREESE
• Citation: Shackleford v. Bailey, 35 Ill. 387, 1864 WL 3064 (Ill. 1864)
• Decision Date: 30 April 1864
• Parties: JAMES M. SHACKLEFORDv.SAMUEL P. BAILEY.

35 Ill. 387

1864 WL 3064 (Ill.)

JAMES M. SHACKLEFORD

v.SAMUEL P. BAILEY.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April Term, 1864.

ERROR to Circuit Court of Tazewell County.

Ejectment by plaintiff in error against defendant in error.

Upon the trial of the cause, in April, 1858, the plaintiff having read in evidence a patent to himself for the land in controversy, and the possession of the defendant being admitted, two tax deeds were offered and read in evidence by the defendant, against the plaintiff's objection that the land in controversy was not sufficiently described therein, the descriptions contained in which are sufficiently stated by the court. The first of said tax deeds was not dated; the second, for the seven acres, was dated March 17, 1848. Receipts for the taxes of 1843, and the years from 1848 to 1857, both inclusive, were also read in evidence by the defendant.

The court gave the following instruction for the defendant, to the giving of which the plaintiff excepted:

“(1) That if they are satisfied from the evidence that the defendant had color of title, made in good faith to, and paid all the taxes assessed on the land in controversy, the same being vacant and unoccupied for seven successive years, before the commencement of this suit, he shall be adjudged the legal owner thereof to the extent and according to the purport of his paper title.”

The following verdict having been found by the jury: “We, the jury, find for the defendant;” it was thereupon ordered and adjudged by the court that the defendant recover of the said plaintiff the costs and charges about his suit expended, and that execution issue therefor. The above verdict was found April 13, 1858; and in February, 1860, a motion was made by the plaintiff that said verdict having been reduced to proper form, the court render final judgment thereon, and the motion for rendition of final judgment was denied; but an entry was made by the court upon his docket of the following order: “ Ordered by the court, that the clerk ??o amend the record of the court in said cause, and put the verdict in proper form, and write up the record accordingly.”

The entire costs were then paid by the plaintiff, and a motion made by him to vacate such amended verdict, and for a new trial as provided by statute, which being denied, he brought error, and assigned as such the admission in evidence of said tax deeds against the plaintiff's objection aforesaid; the denial of plaintiff's motion for a new trial, which he insists was applied for in due time; and the giving of said instruction.

R. E. Williams, for plaintiff in error.Wead & Cochran, for defendant in error.

BREESE, J.

It is agreed by the parties to this record, that the bill of exceptions taken on the trial shall be considered the record in the cause, and the facts stated in it shall be taken as all the proofs in this behalf, and the supreme court shall decide upon the merits of the case as shown by the bill of exceptions.

Common courtesy, laying out of view the duty of the plaintiff in error, required him to present, in his abstract, this bill of exceptions, and the instructions of which he complains. This he has not done, and for the inexcusable omission, we might well refuse to consider the case on his abstract. We warn the counsel fo...