Edwards v. Edwards
Illinois Supreme Court
This was an action of ejectment to recover the seizin and possession of north-east quarter of section nine, and the east half of the north-west quarter of section nine, township thirteen north, range two west, fourth principal meridian. Plea: Not guilty.
Read the full summary
This was an action of ejectment to recover the seizin and possession of north-east quarter of section nine, and the east half of the north-west quarter of section nine, township thirteen north, range two west, fourth principal meridian. Plea: Not guilty. The plaintiff, to maintain the issue on his part, introduced and read in evidence a duly authenticated copy of patent from United States, granting to William Edwards the land in question, dated 6th day of July, A. D. 1818. Next, a deed from William Edwards to George J. Edwards, dated 25th day of October, A. D. 1845, duly acknowledged,…
1Opinion of the CourtBreese, J.
The ground assumed by the appellant’s counsel is not tenable. The award of a new trial in the first ejectment suit, wiped out the verdict, and no judgment was or could be rendered on it. It is not a bar to anything. It might well happen that a plaintiff with a perfect title might fail in his suit, by failing to prove possession by defendant at the time of suit brought, and a verdict pass for the defendant. In such case, or in any case, if the verdict be set aside, it could not bar another action.
Setting aside the verdict is, as if it had never been, and cannot be used anywhere, for any…
2Cited by14 opinions
- Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co. v. MillerIndiana Supreme Court · 1894
- Multnomah County v. Willamette Towing Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1907
- Phelps v. Winona & St. Peter RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1887
- State ex rel. Downard v. TemplinIndiana Supreme Court · 1890
- Witter v. Bank of MilpitasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.