Case ID: ill_271/html/0178-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Mr. Justice Dunn", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John McNeil, Appellee, vs. Sarah Allen, Appellant.
    
      Opinion filed December 22, 1915.
    
    Appears and errors — a freehold not involved in controversy over boundary line. Where the only controversy in a proceeding under the act to provide for the permanent survey of lands is over the boundary line, and the decree does not affect the title but only purports to establish corners and fix the boundary line between the land of the petitioner and the land of the defendant, no freehold is involved.
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Whiteside county; the Hon. Frank D. Ramsay, Judge, presiding.
    A. A. WoleerspergEr, for appellant.
    Henry C. Ward, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Dunn

delivered the opinion of the court:

John McNeil filed a petition in the circuit court of Whiteside county against Sarah Allen under the act of the General Assembly entitled “An act to provide for the permanent survey of lands./’ approved May io, 1901, (Hurd’s Stat. 1913, p. 2417,) for the purpose of establishing the boundary line between their lands. Surveyors were appointed, who made a report, which was approved by the court and ordered to be recorded, and the costs were divided equally between the parties. Sarah Allen has appealed to this court.

This appeal should have been taken to the Appellate Court. No freehold is involved and there is no other ground of jurisdiction in this court. The title is not involved in the pleadings and neither party gains or loses a freehold by the decree. The petition states that the appellee is the owner in fee simple of that part of the east half of the northwest quarter of a certain section lying north of a certain road, and that the appellant is the owner of that part of the west half of the same quarter section lying north of the same road. The decree does not affect the title and such is not the object of the proceeding. Its purpose is only to locate the true boundary line between the appellant’s and the appellee’s land. The effect of the decree is only to establish the corners and fix the line. As to these matters it is conclusive, (Ellis v. Whan, 91 Ill. 77,) but as to all actions and defenses which affect the titles of the respective parties it is of no effect. Where the only controversy is as to the location of the line and not as to the title a freehold is not involved. Posey v. Commissioners of Highways, 264 Ill. 19.

The cause will be transferred to the Appellate Court for the Second District.

, , Cause transferred.