{
  "id": 863636,
  "name": "Henry H. Porter, Impl'd, etc., v. William H. Clark",
  "name_abbreviation": "Porter v. Clark",
  "decision_date": "1887-07-27",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "567",
  "last_page": "569",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "23 Ill. App. 567"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "113 Ill. 273",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2864882
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/113/0273-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 217,
    "char_count": 3232,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.454,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.380125665320789e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3914147118229673
    },
    "sha256": "62bd2e91249f4771a92c585aa294f80b5eb91a34771e4a2158a9329aced2bb84",
    "simhash": "1:582c4991284064f0",
    "word_count": 567
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:14:28.772601+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Henry H. Porter, Impl\u2019d, etc., v. William H. Clark."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam,\nWe have carefully considered all the evidence in this record, and we are unable to conclude from it that appellee Clark was estopped by anything that he did from asserting his vendor\u2019s lien against the land in the hands of Porter. There is no evidence that would justify us in finding, against the conclusion of the chancellor, that he waived his vendor\u2019s lien. We agree with counsel for appellant that the notice of lien filed in the recorder\u2019s office did not avail as constructive notice of the lien claimed.\nThe evidence is not satisfactory with reference to the contract under which Clark paid rent after his deed to Parker. It would seem from Parker\u2019s letter to Clark, introduced in evidence, that the rent was applied on the notes for the purchase money from Parker to Clark. If that was the understanding, we could not say that Clark\u2019s possession as tenant was inconsistent with his claim of lien for the purchase money. It would seem to be the rule in this State that possession of land is notice of all rights^of whatever nature, that the possessor has in the land.\nIn the late case of Farmers\u2019 National Bank v. Sperling, 113 Ill. 273, it is said: \u201cWe regard the doctrine, as derived from the decisions of - this court, to be that when one purchases land of which another is at the time in actual and visible possession, such possession is constructive notice to the purchaser of all rights whatever of the possessor in the land at the time of the purchase.\nIf Porter, knowing as he did that Clark was in possession, had gone to him and inquired as to his rights, he would undoubtedly have been told that the purchase money had not been paid, and that he, Clark, claimed a vendor\u2019s lien on the land. If Clark, on being asked, had set up no right other than under a lease, that would, no doubt, be evidence of a waiver of his lien. Taking Parker\u2019s note for the purchase money was no waiver of his lien, and putting the notice on record, though in law no notice of his lien, is at least evidence that he did not intend to waive it. If the meager evidence as to -Clark\u2019s becoming Parker\u2019s tenant can be taken as establishing .a tenancy, without any arrangement that the accruing rent was to be applied on the Parker notes, a question which we should be inclined to regard as not altogether clear would be presented. On the whole we regard the decree of the coui't below as doing substantial justice, and do not feel authorized to reverse it on any ground suggested.\nThe decree will therefore he affirmed.\nDecree affvrmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Gabdneb, MoFadon & Gardbeb, for appellant.",
      "Mr. Elheb W. Adkinson, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Henry H. Porter, Impl\u2019d, etc., v. William H. Clark.\nSeal Property\u2014Vendor's Lien\u2014Notice of, Filed in BeeordePs Office\u2014 Possession as Notice\u2014Possession under Lease.\n1. Where one purchases land of which another is at the time in actual and visible possession, such possession is constructive notice to the purchaser of all rights whatever of the possessor therein.\n2. A notice of vendor\u2019s lien filed in the recorder\u2019s office can not avail as constructive notice of the lien claimed. \u2022\n[Opinion filed July 27, 1887.]\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Grwrim GtAbnett, Judge, presiding.\nMessrs. Gabdneb, MoFadon & Gardbeb, for appellant.\nMr. Elheb W. Adkinson, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0567-01",
  "first_page_order": 563,
  "last_page_order": 565
}