{
  "id": 2481154,
  "name": "Joseph Lovett and Hiram Ingersoll, appellants v. Mark Noble, Sen., appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lovett v. Noble",
  "decision_date": "1835-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "185",
  "last_page": "186",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "1 Scam. 185"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "2 Ill. 185"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "2 Ohio 105",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ohio",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 Wendell 466",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Wend.",
      "case_ids": [
        2003207
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/wend/1/0466-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "12 Johns. 183",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Johns.",
      "case_ids": [
        2139285
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/johns/12/0183-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 Johns. 511",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Johns.",
      "case_ids": [
        2128287
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/johns/1/0511-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 204,
    "char_count": 2578,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.688,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.081274429513072
    },
    "sha256": "29243d89a6ca69c2121dbc30e8de0f23ea7848c09caf94efbe84fe3c82cc41db",
    "simhash": "1:2d5c7c6d1866a44b",
    "word_count": 452
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:34:33.017060+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Joseph Lovett and Hiram Ingersoll, appellants v. Mark Noble, Sen., appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Lockwood, Justice,\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThis was an action of trespass quare clausum fregit, commenced by Noble against Lovett and Ingersoll, in the Cook Circuit Court. The defendants below pleaded not guilty, and on the trial of the cause, moved the Court to instruct the jury, \u201cThat the plaintiff must show himself to have been in the actual and exclusive possession of the land at the time of the trespasses complained of; and that it was not sufficient for the plaintiff to show that he was residing upon and cultivating another part of the same legal subdivision, unless he also proved that the alleged trespasses were committed upon the part 'of the lot enclosed or under cultivation by him.\u201d This instruction the Court refused to give, but instructed the jury, that \u201c The peaceable occupation and possession by building, or cultivating and residing on any portion of the legal subdivision of the public lands, not exceeding 160 acres, will entitle such possessor to an action against the unauthorized entry of any individual who may enter and cut down the timber, or interfere with the possession of such legal subdivision.\u201d\nThis instruction was clearly erroneous according to the decision of the case of Webb v. Sturtevant, decided at the present term.\nThe judgment must therefore be reversed with costs.\nJudgment reversed.\nAnte 181.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Lockwood, Justice,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. D. Caton and S. A. Douglass, for the appellants.",
      "E. Peck and G. Spring, for the appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Joseph Lovett and Hiram Ingersoll, appellants v. Mark Noble, Sen., appellee.\nAppeal from Cook.\nA settler upon the public lands of the United States, cannot maintain an action of trespass against a person who may enter and cut down the timber, upon a portion of the legal subdivision of land upon which he is settled, but which is not actually enclosed or occupied by such settler.\nThis cause was tried at the May term, 1835, of the Cook Circuit Court, before the Hon. Sidney Breese and a jury. A verdict was rendered for the apellee for $195. Judgment was rendered on this verdict, and an appeal taken to this Court.\nJ. D. Caton and S. A. Douglass, for the appellants.\nThe plaintiff, in an action of trespass quare clausum fregit, must show himself to be in the actual possession of the locus in quo at the time the trespasses complained of were committed. 1 Chit. Plead. 175-8; 1 Johns. 511; 12 Johns. 183; 2 Saunders\u2019 Plead. and Ev. 866, and cases there cited; 2 Wheat. Selwyn\u2019s N. P. 482, n. 1; 1 Term R. 430; 2 Phil. Ev. 132 ; Esp. N. P. 347, or 266 in Part 2d; 1 Wendell 466; 2 Ohio 105.\nIt is the exclusive province of the jury to judge of evidence, and to determine facts.\nE. Peck and G. Spring, for the appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0185-01",
  "first_page_order": 185,
  "last_page_order": 186
}