Jones v. King
Illinois Supreme Court
This was an action of ejectment. Plea, not guilty. Trial by court, and judgment for defendant. Motion for new trial, and motion overruled. The declaration counts for a leasehold estate and also for the fee.
Read the full summary
This was an action of ejectment. Plea, not guilty. Trial by court, and judgment for defendant. Motion for new trial, and motion overruled. The declaration counts for a leasehold estate and also for the fee. The plaintiffs proved on the trial, that at the time of the service of the declaration herein, and at the time of the commencement of this suit, the defendant was in the actual possession of the premises in the plaintiffs’ declaration described, claiming possession thereof adversely to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs then read in evidence the following deed and covenants therein contained:…
1Opinion of the CourtBreese, J.
The important question in this case is, do the covenants of the defendant in error, in his deed to the ancestor of the plaintiffs, estop him from setting up title to the premises conveyed by the deed, and now in controversy.
It appears by the record that the deed executed by the defendant to the plaintiffs’ ancestor is a general warrantee deed. The habendum clause is as follows: “ To have and to hold the aforesaid tract of land or lot of ground, together with all and singular the appurtenances, etc., to the only proper use, benefit and behoof of the said Thomas C. King, his heirs and assigns…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Scoffins v. GrandstaffSupreme Court of Kansas · 1874
- Dobbins v. CrugerIllinois Supreme Court · 1883
- Dodge v. HoganSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1893