James v. Bushnell
Illinois Supreme Court
This bill in chancery alleges, that complainants are ■ seized in fee simple as tenants in common of the undivided one-third of the undivided ten-sixteenth parts of a part of north half of west half of south-east quarter of Sec. 18, Town. 33, Range 5, describing the lands by metes and bounds. That said land is covered with timber and contains a valuable coal mine. The defendants, except James, claim some interest in the land.
Read the full summary
This bill in chancery alleges, that complainants are ■ seized in fee simple as tenants in common of the undivided one-third of the undivided ten-sixteenth parts of a part of north half of west half of south-east quarter of Sec. 18, Town. 33, Range 5, describing the lands by metes and bounds. That said land is covered with timber and contains a valuable coal mine. The defendants, except James, claim some interest in the land. That James is engaged in mining coal upon land adjoining, which belongs to Daniel Ward, and has made an entrance on the land of Ward near the line of the land on which…
1Opinion of the CourtWalkee, J.
Ho exhibits, or other proof, appear in this record. The answer, although not very positive, does deny the allegations of the bill, and requires proof of complainants’ title. If such proof was heard on the trial, it is not presented in the record. It is one of the plainest of all the elementary principles, that a party to recover must, unless it is confessed, prove his right by sufficient evidence. The bill alleges, and to present a case in which the court could grant relief, had to allege, that the complainants were the owners of the land, that defendant was trespassing, and that from…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Bressler v. McCuneIllinois Supreme Court · 1870
- Crawford-Adsit Co. v. BellAppellate Court of Illinois · 1901
- John V. Farwell Co. v. PattersonAppellate Court of Illinois · 1898
- Schmid v. SchmidAppellate Court of Illinois · 1895
- King v. LamonIllinois Supreme Court · 1901