Smith v. Marc
Illinois Supreme Court
This was an action of ejectment, commenced by appellee against appellant, to recover the possession of lots one, two, three, four, seven and eight, in block sixty-four, Ninawa Addition to city of Peru, at the February term, A. D. 1861. By consent of parties a jury was waived, and the cause submitted to the court for trial, upon the declaration (which is in the usual form), and the plea of general issue.
Read the full summary
This was an action of ejectment, commenced by appellee against appellant, to recover the possession of lots one, two, three, four, seven and eight, in block sixty-four, Ninawa Addition to city of Peru, at the February term, A. D. 1861. By consent of parties a jury was waived, and the cause submitted to the court for trial, upon the declaration (which is in the usual form), and the plea of general issue. The plaintiff offered in evidence a certain indenture of mortgage, in the words and figures following : “ This Indenture, Made this second day of March, A. D. 1853, by and between Samuel G.…
1Opinion of the CourtBreese, J.
The appellant’s counsel argues very ingeniously, that the object and design of the Homestead Act was to prescribe a mode by which the homestead could be alienated, and at the same time, in effect to declare all attempts at alienation invalid, unless they conform to that mode. He cites the amendatory act of 1857, as expressive of the intention of the legislature as to the objects and requirements of the Homestead Act, as it was originally passed. That amendment is as follows: The first section of an act to exempt homesteads from sale or execution, approved February 11th, 1851, be amended by…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Kitchell v. BurgwinIllinois Supreme Court · 1858
3Cited by3 opinions
- Moran v. ClarkWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1887
- Karcher v. GansSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1900
- Silsbe v. LucasIllinois Supreme Court · 1865