{
  "id": 5000493,
  "name": "Ann Stillman v. Raymond Palis",
  "name_abbreviation": "Stillman v. Palis",
  "decision_date": "1890-02-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "540",
  "last_page": "541",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "34 Ill. App. 540"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 173,
    "char_count": 2448,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.497,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.380125665320789e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3936862728290337
    },
    "sha256": "7b44088a11c9b33b239929cbbf26398f0615dd44e674dff3189d0fd53239f458",
    "simhash": "1:4a6f84d1951eae50",
    "word_count": 399
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:16:31.539979+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Ann Stillman v. Raymond Palis."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Phillips, J.\nThe question of ownership or title is not involved and can not be considered in this case. The description of the land in the complaint is by course and distance and is full and complete. The judgment follows the complaint, so that the objection taken, that the description of the land in the complaint and judgment is insufficient, can not be sustained.\nThe evidence shows that appellee was in possession of the premises, and as the question of title is not involved the act of defendant in entering upon that possession and fencing the land under claim of title, can not be sustained; the invasion of appellee\u2019s possession being forcible and against his will, he had such possession as would sustain .this action.\nThe instructions for the plaintiff were proper.\nThe misuse of the pronoun in the first instruction asked by appellant rendered that instruction misleading, so that it was properly refused. The instruction given by the court of its own motion, better stated what was included in the second instruction asked by appellant. The other instructions asked by appellant were properly refused. Appellant\u2019s entry being forcible, it was not necessary to make a demand for possession before bringing suit.\nThe motion of appellant to quash the complaint had been piassed on, except as to the amendment setting up the want of notice.\nThe complaint being for a forcible entry and detainer, and demand for possession not necessary before suit, the motion was properly stricken from the files.\nThe evidence sustains the verdict and the judgment must be affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Phillips, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ur. William P. Launtz, for appellant.",
      "Messrs. M. W. Schaeffer and J. U. Perrin, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Ann Stillman v. Raymond Palis.\nReal Property\u2014Forcible Entry and Detainer\u2014Possession\u2014Description.\nThe evidence supporting the judgment of the court below in behalf of the plaintiff in an action of forcible entry and detainer, the same is affirmed.\n[Opinion filed February 4, 1890.]\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of St. Clair County; the Hon. B. H. Caney, Judge, presiding.\nThis is an action of forcible entry and detainer; the facts appearing are, that the appellant and appellee own land adjoining each other, and that the appellee was in possession, when the appellant, claiming title, forcibly entered upon appellee\u2019s possession and erected a wire fence, taking the same land particularly described in the amended complaint for which appellee brought suit.\nUr. William P. Launtz, for appellant.\nMessrs. M. W. Schaeffer and J. U. Perrin, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0540-01",
  "first_page_order": 536,
  "last_page_order": 537
}