Smith v. Stevens

• Decision Date: 30 September 1876
• Citation: 82 Ill. 554,1876 WL 10255
• Parties: CARTER SMITHv.FRANCIS A. STEVENS et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

82 Ill. 554

1876 WL 10255 (Ill.)

CARTER SMITH

v.FRANCIS A. STEVENS et al.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

September Term, 1876.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. JOHN G. ROGERS, Judge, presiding.

Mr. ROBERT F. WINSLOW, for the appellant.

Messrs. GOOKINS & ROBERTS, for the appellees.

Mr. JUSTICE BREESEdelivered the opinion of the Court:

This was ejectment, in the Cook circuit court, by Francis A. and Frank L. Stevens, plaintiffs, and against Carter Smith and Emanuel Points, defendants, to recover the possession of lot 13, in block 2, in Duncan's addition to Chicago.There was a plea of not guilty, and a submission to the court for trial without a jury, when, it appearing the lot was held in severalty by the defendants, Points claiming the north half and Smith the south half, plaintiffs elected to proceed against Smith alone for the south half of the lot, and dismissed their suit as against Points.There was a finding and judgment for the plaintiffs, to reverse which the defendant Smith appeals and assigns various errors.

The first point made by appellant is, in permitting the proceedings in the partition case of Fish v. Carter Smith et al. to be read in evidence against defendants' objection, that objection being that no bill of complaint, as a foundation for the decree, was shown, and no title shown in any of the parties to the proceedings.

We do not see any force in this objection.The purpose was not, by these proceedings, to show an adjudication of title, but to show the defendant was a party to proceedings wherein it was ascertained the legal title was in one person, and the equitable title in the complainant, and decreeing the legal title be conveyed to the complainant.It was a link, merely, in the plaintiff's chain of title, and appellant being a party to the suit, it is clear the record was competent, though no decree may have passed against him.It was competent evidence, being a record of a court.

The point most earnestly pressed by appellant is, admitting in evidence the abstract of title offered by plaintiffs.We do not think the objections taken to this abstract are well founded.The abstract was approved under the act of the General Assembly in force April 2, 1872, bearing this title: “An act to remedy the evils consequent upon the destruction of any public records, by fire or otherwise.”

The condition of property owners in Chicago after the great fire of October, 1871, was appalling, demanding legislative interference.A great evil had befallen them, which this act was designed to remedy.It is emphatically a remedial act, and, in accordance with a well established canon, it must receive a...