Hadlock v. Hadlock
Illinois Supreme Court
In 1856, Samuel Hadlock commenced this suit in the Circuit Court of Woodford county, for certain tracts of land, described in the declaration. On the application of appellant, the venue in the cause was changed to Tazewell county, where, at the April term, 1858, the same was tried by jury, and a verdict and judgment rendered in favor of appellee; from which defendant appealed to this court.
Read the full summary
In 1856, Samuel Hadlock commenced this suit in the Circuit Court of Woodford county, for certain tracts of land, described in the declaration. On the application of appellant, the venue in the cause was changed to Tazewell county, where, at the April term, 1858, the same was tried by jury, and a verdict and judgment rendered in favor of appellee; from which defendant appealed to this court. The verdict finds the “ defendant guilty of withholding the premises in the plaintiff’s declaration mentioned, and that the plaintiff is the owner thereof, and assesses his damages at one cent ” ; and the…
1Opinion of the CourtCaton, C. J.
It has been repeatedly decided by this court, that a verdict in ejectment which finds that the plaintiff is the owner of the land, is sufficiently explicit as to the plaintiff’s title. It is equivalent to saying that he owns the entire estate in the land—the fee simple. This verdict was good.
The two instructions, to the giving of which, exception was taken, we think were correct. Where possession of a deed, which has never been delivered, has been surreptitiously obtained and placed upon record by the grantee, nothing short of an explicit ratification of the deed, or such an acquiescence,…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Steffian v. Milmo National BankTexas Supreme Court · 1888
- Drake v. RootSupreme Court of Colorado · 1875
- Johnson v. CrookshanksOregon Supreme Court · 1891
- Phelps v. PrattIllinois Supreme Court · 1906
- Spotts v. WhitakerCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1913
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.