Talcott v. Draper
| Decision Date | 30 September 1871 |
| Citation | 1871 WL 8199,61 Ill. 56 |
| Parties | LEMAN H. TALCOTTv.CHARLES DRAPER. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Bureau county; the Hon. EDWIN S. LELAND, Judge, presiding.
Mr. GEORGE O. IDE and Mr. MILO KENDALL, for the appellant.
Mr. THOMAS J. HENDERSON and Mr. JOSEPH I. TAYLOR, for the appellee.
This case is similar to that of Shortall v. Hinckley, 31 Ill. 219, and it is insisted by the counsel for the appellant that that case governs the present. In that case, as in the one before us, the husband and wife had united in a conveyance of the wife's land in which the husband had a life estate as tenant by the curtesy. The court held that the grantee took the two estates as they were held by the husband and wife, and that he could not recover the life estate of the former because its recovery was barred by the statute of limitations, nor could he recover the fee of the latter, because the husband was still living, and that estate would not accrue until his death.
An essential difference between the two cases is, that in the former one the husband and wife conveyed after the statute of limitations had commenced to run, and while it was running against the husband's life estate; whereas, in the present case, the entire seven years, the full term of limitation, ran after the conveyance by the husband and wife to the plaintiff.
The husband, as tenant by the curtesy, had a life estate in the wife's land, one which he might sell and convey in the same manner as any other life estate. He had the right of possession during his life, and he might have commenced suit and recovered possession in the same manner that other tenants for life recover possession of their estates. The statute of limitations has the same application to it that it has to other estates of that nature. In the case of Shortall v. Hinckley, six of the seven years of limitation had run against the husband's life estate at the time he and his wife conveyed. His grantee should have brought the suit for the husband's interest within the seven years, but he suffered the remaining one of the seven years to run, whereby, by operation of the statute of limitations, the life estate of the husband became barred and was vested in the adverse possessor, and he then held it in the same manner and with the same rights that he would have had if the husband had conveyed the same to him. Jacobs v. Rice, 33 Ill. 371.
There are reasons why the doctrine of merger should not apply in such case, and the two estates not be held to merge, by their union, in the grantee. It would not consist with the rule that, when the statute of limitations has once commenced to run, it will continue to run. The statute had commenced to run against the husband's life estate, and its running could not be arrested by a mere conveyance of the husband and wife.
Six years of the statutory period had run in favor of the adverse possessor, and a merger would impair his right to acquire a bar...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coryell v. Klehm
...note secured by the trust deed became merged in the legal title, and this because the legal title is the greater of the three. Talcott v. Draper, 61 Ill. 56;Dexter v. Harris, 2 Mason, 531, Fed. Cas. No. 3,862;Cohn v. Hoffman, 45 Ark. 376; Jones, Mortg. § 873. The title to the equitable esta......
-
Jones v. Hill
...60 Ark. 70; 62 Ark. 31. The statute began to run from the date of the conveyances. 21 Me. 379; 22 Am. St. 358; 44 Ark. 153; 165 Mass. 359; 61 Ill. 56. The description of the land conveyed no title. 48 Ark. 60 Ark. 487; 34 Ark. 534; 41 Ark. 495; 50 Ark. 484. OPINION BUNN, C. J. The evidence ......
-
Rosenberg Investment & Realty Trust v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
...petitioner to amortize the cost of its leasehold estate. The petitioner relies upon Wisconsin National Bank, 4 B. T. A. 109; Talcott v. Draper, 61 Ill. 56, 58, and the legal definitions regarding the merger of estates which are hereinafter The respondent, while recognizing the force and eff......
-
Sapp v. Wightman
... ... Talcott v. Draper, 61 Ill. 56; Prescott v. Fisher, 22 Id. 390; Carroll v. Pollard, 24 Id. 20; 1 Washburn on Real Estate, 65.The statutes then in force ... ...