{
  "id": 820155,
  "name": "Richard Osborn v. William Rabe",
  "name_abbreviation": "Osborn v. Rabe",
  "decision_date": "1873-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "108",
  "last_page": "109",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "67 Ill. 108"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "39 Ill. 28",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5260031
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/39/0028-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 168,
    "char_count": 2076,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.571,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.6922169990516086e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2939109577430962
    },
    "sha256": "cf0f7cbd856f50f7fcc532dd13986093001f7d0dce8d85e10f8e43bbe734d4ee",
    "simhash": "1:c58745709614bf92",
    "word_count": 349
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:18:48.240811+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Richard Osborn v. William Rabe."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice McAllister\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nAppellee was the owner of the soil on which trees were growing in a nursery. Appellant, as sheriff, and having a fieri fiadas against appellee, levied it upon the growing trees as personal property, dug them up and removed them, for which appellee brought trespass and recovered. Appellant insists that growing trees in a nursery are personal property.Under some circumstances they may be, but when the ownership of the land and the trees is in the same person, they are part of the freehold. Growing trees, fruit and grass are parcel of the land, and descend with it to the heir, and can not be seized as chattels under an execution until severed from the land. Smith v. Price, 39 Ill. 28; Bank of Lansingburg v. Crary, 1 Barbour Sup. Ct. R. 542, and authorities there cited. This rule is so elementary that it is unnecessary to multiply citations.\nWe are of opinion that the rulings of the court below were correct, and that the evidence sustains the verdict. The judgment will, therefore, be affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice McAllister"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Rowell & Hamilton, and Mr. O. W. Aldrich, for the appellant.",
      "Messrs. Hughes & McCart, for the appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Richard Osborn v. William Rabe.\nReal estate\u2014whether nursery trees cure. Where the ownership of land and nursery trees growing thereon is in the sam\u00e9 person, the latter, like fruit trees and grass, are part of the freehold, and descend with it to the heir, and can not he seized as chattels under an execution until severed from the land.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of McLean county; the Hon. Thomas F. Tipton, Judge, presiding. \u2022 \u2022\nThis was an action of trespass quare clausum fregit, by William Rabe against Richard Osborn, for entering plaintiff\u2019s close and digging up and carrying away trees, and shrubs growing upon the plaintiff\u2019s land in a nursery. The defendant justified under two writs of execution against the plaintiff. A trial was had, resulting in a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $325, from which judgment the'defendant prosecuted this appeal.\nMessrs. Rowell & Hamilton, and Mr. O. W. Aldrich, for the appellant.\nMessrs. Hughes & McCart, for the appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0108-01",
  "first_page_order": 110,
  "last_page_order": 111
}