Case ID: ill-app_184/html/0325-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Thompson", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Gertrude H. Kelsey, Appellant, v. Frank M. Palmer, Appellee.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Forcible entry and detainer, § 87
      
      —when evidence insufficient to show defendant's possession. In an action of forcible detainer to recover possession of premises, the defendant owning an adjoining tract, and a house being built on about the center of the two tracts, evidence held to sustain finding of trial court that defendant was not guilty of forcible detainer after demand for possession, it appearing that the defendant had moved into his portion of the house, and the only evidence tending to show that he was in possession of plaintiff’s premises being that the constable who served the notice saw some cows and calves on the premises, and that defendant was residing in part of the house but he did not know which part.
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of DeWitt county; the Hon. William G. Cochean, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in this court at the April term, 1913.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed October 16, 1913.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action of forcible detainer by Gertrude H. Kelsey against Frank M. Palmer to recover possession of premises formerly belonging to defendant but after-wards acquired by plaintiff under a master’s deed. The defendant owns an adjoining tract of land and about one-half of a residence stands on plaintiff’s tract and the other half on defendant’s tract. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals.
    Johh Fuller, for appellant.
    Lemon & Lemon, for appellee.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Thompson

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Forcible entry and detainer, § 24—effect of plaintiff’s conveyance of premises pending suit. Fact that plaintiff in an action for forcible detainer conveyed her interest in the premises to a third party pending suit is no defense to the action.