{
  "id": 5373489,
  "name": "Anna C. Wieland et al. v. Margaretha Kobick",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wieland v. Kobick",
  "decision_date": "1884-05-19",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "16",
  "last_page": "18",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "110 Ill. 16"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "10 N. H. 184",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.H.",
      "case_ids": [
        6755061
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nh/10/0184-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "26 Minn, 389",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Minn.",
      "case_ids": [
        754268
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/minn/26/0389-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "10 Pet. 58",
      "category": "reporters:scotus_early",
      "reporter": "Pet.",
      "case_ids": [
        5616266
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/35/0058-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 Johns. 127",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Johns.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 Hill, 147",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Hill,",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "54 N. Y. 249",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.Y.",
      "case_ids": [
        514583
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ny/54/0249-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "36 Miss. 685",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Miss.",
      "case_ids": [
        8838499
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/miss/36/0685-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "25 Cal. 147",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Cal.",
      "case_ids": [
        2219319
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/cal/25/0147-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "5 Sandf. 228",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Sandf.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "11 Cush. 40",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Cush.",
      "case_ids": [
        1970419
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/mass/65/0040-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "38 Ill. 150",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "59 Ill. 346",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "38 Vt. 311",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Vt.",
      "case_ids": [
        749640
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/vt/38/0311-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "10 N. H. 184",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.H.",
      "case_ids": [
        6755061
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nh/10/0184-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "26 Minn, 389",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Minn.",
      "case_ids": [
        754268
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/minn/26/0389-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "54 N. Y. 249",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.Y.",
      "case_ids": [
        514583
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ny/54/0249-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "5 Sandf. 228",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Sandf.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "11 Cush. 40",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Cush.",
      "case_ids": [
        1970419
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/mass/65/0040-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 313,
    "char_count": 5190,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.516,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.9422272884947486e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7356540863965428
    },
    "sha256": "69128867199bee4caff0ced6daa2942ac8f9ec3ce6969926fc8c98d2ec4cb88b",
    "simhash": "1:a2460064d85b067b",
    "word_count": 929
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:18:15.024927+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Anna C. Wieland et al. v. Margaretha Kobick."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Chief Justice Sheldon\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThis was an action of ejectment, for the recovery of a certain lot of land in an addition to Chicago. There was recovery by the plaintiff, and the defendants appealed.\nOn the trial in the court below there was introduced in evidence, in defence, a deed from the plaintiff to Emily C. Cummings, in which it is recited that \u201cMargaretha David, (the plaintiff,) unmarried, and of age,\u201d for $3500 conveys and quitclaims to Emily C. Cummings the property in question, and a deed from Emily C. Cummings to Anna C. Haas, one of the defendants. The plaintiff then introduced evidence to prove that at the date of the deed to Emily C. Cummings the plaintiff was a minor, and under the age of eighteen years, and that after coming of age she filed her disaffirmance of the deed, and a demand for possession of the premises, in the recorder\u2019s office of Cook county.\n. It is objected that the evidence is not sufficient to justify a recovery against all of the defendants, as there is no evidence to connect the three other defendants with Anna C. Haas. Defendants having pleaded the general issue only, it was not necessary, under the statute, for plaintiff to prove that defendants were in possession of the premises, or claimed an interest or title therein. Rev. Stat. 1874, chap. 45, sec. 22.\nThe only other question which appellants make upon the record, is as to the effect of plaintiff\u2019s deed to Emily C. Cummings,\u2014whether or not plaintiff was estopped from disaffirming such deed made while she was a minor, she having stated therein that she was of age. The authorities seem abundantly to establish that a defendant is not estopped from setting up infancy as a defence to a contract, by his fraudulent representations that he was of full age. Merriam v. Cunningham, 11 Cush. 40; Studwell v. Shapter, 54 N. Y. 249; Gilson v. Spear, 38 Vt. 311; Burley v. Russell, 10 N. H. 184; Conrad v. Lane, 26 Minn. 389; Brown v. McCune, 5 Sandf. 228. In the latter case the court said: \u201cWe are not aware that any case has gone the length of holding a party estopped by anything he has said or done while he was under age, and we think it would be repugnant to the principle upon which the law protects infants from civil liabilities in general.\u201d And further on: \u201cWe are clear that the doctrine of estoppel is inapplicable to infants.\u201d\nThe conclusion, we think, from the authorities, must follow, that the statement in the deed of plaintiff that she was of age is not an estoppel to the disaffirmance of it.\nThe judgment will be affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Chief Justice Sheldon"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. A. A. Exline, for the appellants:",
      "Mr. C. C. March, and Messrs. Rubens, McGaffey & Ames, for the appellee:"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Anna C. Wieland et al. v. Margaretha Kobick.\nFiled at Ottawa May 19, 1884.\n1. Ejectment\u2014proof of defendant\u2019s possession and claim of title\u2014 whether necessary. In an action of ejectment, where the defendant pleads the general issue only, it is not necessary, under the statute, for the plaintiff to prove that the defendant was in possession of the premises, or claimed an interest or title therein.\n2. Infancy\u2014estoppel to disaffirm contract\u2014fraudulent representations. A person is not estopped from setting up infancy as a defence to a contract, by his fraudulent representation at the time the contract was made that he was of full age. So a statement in a deed of a minor that she is \u201cunmarried, and of age, \u201d is not an estoppel to the disaffir nance of it when becoming of age. The doctrine of estoppel is inapplicable to infants.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. John G. Rogers, Judge, presiding.\nMr. A. A. Exline, for the appellants:\nThe evidence is not sufficient to justify a recovery against all the defendants, there being none to connect the three other defendants with Anna C. Haas.\nThe court below held that plaintiff was not estopped in a court of law to deny her infancy, when in her deed she states the fact to be that she was of age. At the age of seventeen years and six months she knew that she was not of age.\nIt is said in Mathews v. Cowan, 59 Ill. 346, that an infant is responsible for his torts and frauds, and in Davidson v. Young, 38 Ill. 150, it is very clearly intimated that the court would hold the infant estopped from pleading infancy, where, by his representations that he was of age, he induced another to purchase from him. Such a holding is clearly sustained in Kilgore v. Jordan, 17 Texas, 341.\nMr. C. C. March, and Messrs. Rubens, McGaffey & Ames, for the appellee:\nDefendants below having pleaded the general issue only, it was not necessary for plaintiff to prove that defendants were in possession of the premises, or claimed an interest or title therein. Rev. Stat. 1874, chap. 45, sec. 22.\nA defendant is not estopped from setting up infancy as a defence to a contract, by his fraudulent representations that he was of full age. Merriam v. Cunningham, 11 Cush. 40; Tyler on Infancy and Coverture, sec. 54; Brown v. McCune, 5 Sandf. 228; Lackman v. Wood, 25 Cal. 147; Cook v. Toombs, 36 Miss. 685; Studwell v. Shapter, 54 N. Y. 249; McCoon v. Smith, 3 Hill, 147; Curtin v. Patten, 11 S. & R. 305; Conroe v. Birdsall, 1 Johns. 127; Tucker v. Moreland, 10 Pet. 58; Conrad v. Lane, 26 Minn, 389; Burley v. Russell, 10 N. H. 184."
  },
  "file_name": "0016-01",
  "first_page_order": 16,
  "last_page_order": 18
}