{
  "id": 5549514,
  "name": "Emma J. Glos v. John S. Huey",
  "name_abbreviation": "Glos v. Huey",
  "decision_date": "1899-10-13",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "149",
  "last_page": "150",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "181 Ill. 149"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "129 Ill. 308",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2963632
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/129/0308-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "119 Ill. 22",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2902789
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/119/0022-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "133 Ill. 197",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5427337
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/133/0197-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 162,
    "char_count": 2282,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.606,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.916138033315254e-08,
      "percentile": 0.535952096048843
    },
    "sha256": "8a7b0eed9ab8b3276ecb0a97421e212b224c2f8b6c2df7f81276d93ee51ebce6",
    "simhash": "1:7fc206bd92f86b35",
    "word_count": 405
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:59:48.138368+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Emma J. Glos v. John S. Huey."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Carter\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe appellee obtained a decree in the \u2022 court below against Jacob Glos and the appellant, setting aside a certain tax deed to Jacob Glos, and a quit-claim deed from him to the appellant, as clouds upon the complainant\u2019s title.\nThe bill alleged that the complainant (appellee here) was the owner in fee of the property, and that it was vacant and unoccupied. These were material allegations, and, being denied by the answer of appellant, should have been proved. It does not appear from the evidence whether any person was in possession of the premises or whether they were vacant and unoccupied. To maintain a bill to remove a cloud from the title to real estate the owner must show either that he is in possession or that the property is vacant and unoccupied. (Glos v. Randolph, 133 Ill. 197; Johnson v. Huling, 127 id. 14.) The only proof to sustain complainant\u2019s allegation that he was the owner in fee of the property was a warranty deed from William H. Colvin. No proof was made that Colvin ever had any title to or was ever in possession of it. Proof of possession under claim of ownership is prima facie evidence of such ownership in the claimant so in possession, (Harland v. Eastman, 119 Ill. 22,) but a mere deed from a third person, without further proof as to possession or title, does not prove title. Anderson v. McCormick, 129 Ill. 308; Sedgwick & Wait on Trial of Title to Land, sec. 792.\nThe decree must be reversed and the cause remanded.\nReversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Carter"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Enoch J. Price, for appellant.",
      "John S. Huey, pro se."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Emma J. Glos v. John S. Huey.\nOpinion filed October 13, 1899.\n1. Cloud on title\u2014what proof essential to maintain bill to remove cloud. To maintain a bill to remove a cloud from the title to real estate, the owner must show either that he is in possession or that the property is vacant and unoccupied.\n2. Evidence\u2014mere deed without proof of possession does not prove title. Proof of possession under claim of ownership is prima facie evidence of such ownership in the claimant so in possession, but a mere deed from a third person, without further proof as to possession or title, does not prove title.\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Farlin Q. Ball, Judge, presiding.\nEnoch J. Price, for appellant.\nJohn S. Huey, pro se."
  },
  "file_name": "0149-01",
  "first_page_order": 149,
  "last_page_order": 150
}