Moore v. Dunning
Illinois Supreme Court
This was an action of ejectment, brought by appellee against appellant, to recover possession of the east half of the south-west quarter, and the north-west quarter of the southwest quarter, of Sec. 34, Town 42 north, of range 2 east of the third principal meridian. Declaration in the usual form for the premises above described. Notice and proof of service. Plea, not guilty.
Read the full summary
This was an action of ejectment, brought by appellee against appellant, to recover possession of the east half of the south-west quarter, and the north-west quarter of the southwest quarter, of Sec. 34, Town 42 north, of range 2 east of the third principal meridian. Declaration in the usual form for the premises above described. Notice and proof of service. Plea, not guilty. Trial by jury, and verdict as follows : “We, the jury, find the issue for the plaintiff, and that he has established tin the trial a title in himself in fee simple, in and to the lands and premises described in his…
1Opinion of the CourtCaton, C. J.
This trust deed was not acknowledged as required by the statute, in order to release the homestead. Consequently, if it still continued to be the homestead of the family, it remained unaffected by that deed, even if the deed could take effect after that, which is a point we do not now decide. The only question, therefore, is, whether the desertion by the husband, leaving his family still occupying the homestead, was an abandonment of it as a homestead. To this there can be but one answer, which is in the negative. This place still continued the home and residence of the husband, as well as…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Newton v. RussianSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
- Green v. SimonIndiana Court of Appeals · 1897
- Buck v. ConlogueIllinois Supreme Court · 1868
- White v. ClarkIllinois Supreme Court · 1865
- Montgomery v. DaneSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.