Masterson v. Cheek
Illinois Supreme Court
This was an action of ejectment to recover seventy acres of land, known as the “ John M. Hull Tract,” lying in the county of Monroe. The declaration was filed in favor of said plaintiffs, and against Silas T. Cheek. The defendant filed his plea of the general issue. On the 9th of November, 1858, the death of the original defendant was suggested, and the present defendants were substituted.
Read the full summary
This was an action of ejectment to recover seventy acres of land, known as the “ John M. Hull Tract,” lying in the county of Monroe. The declaration was filed in favor of said plaintiffs, and against Silas T. Cheek. The defendant filed his plea of the general issue. On the 9th of November, 1858, the death of the original defendant was suggested, and the present defendants were substituted. A guardian ad litem was appointed for the minor defendants, who answered, requiring strict proof of the allegations in plaintiffs’ declaration. The case was submitted to the court for trial. The plaintiffs…
1Opinion of the CourtBreese, J.
The court in this case, before whom the issue was tried, did not err in finding it for the defendants, if they succeeded in showing an outstanding title in another party, though they were not connected with the title of that party in any manner. And this, on the well known principle, that a plaintiff in ejectment must recover on the strength of his own title, without regard to the weakness of his adversary’s. A legal, subsisting title, outstanding in another in the land claimed, is inconsistent with title in the plaintiff, and must defeat him. Hulick v. Scoville, 4 Gilm. 159.
Was such…
2Cited by30 opinions
- Weber v. ChristenIllinois Supreme Court · 1887
- Estate of Tetsubumi YanoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
- Cecil v. BeaverSupreme Court of Iowa · 1869
- Baker v. HallIllinois Supreme Court · 1905
- Blankenship v. HallIllinois Supreme Court · 1908
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.