Lyman v. Russell

Notice—possession—effect upon subsequent purchasers. If a party is in the open and notorious possession of land, it is sufficient notice to put subsequent purchasers upon inquiry, and operates as legal notice of the rights of the possessor.

Writ oe Error to the Circuit Court of Iroquois county; the Hon. Charles R. Starr, Judge, presiding. This was a bill in chancery, filed by Jonathan J. Lyman, the plaintiff in error, in the Circuit Court of Iroquois county, against Lucy Russell, Frank Russell, and Lora Russell, heirs of William E. Russell, deceased, setting forth that on the 27th day of June, 1855, one William Bandy sold and conveyed to Samuel Lyman the north-east quarter of the north-east quarter of section 25, town 28 north, range 13 west; and that said Samuel Lyman took and continued in the actual possession until February 17, 1860, when he sold to Jacob Lyman, who then took possession and continued to hold the actual possession of the same until February 18, 1863, when he sold it to the plaintiff in error, Jonathan J. Lyman; that all of said Lymans were and continued in the open and notorious possession of the land from June 1855. The bill alleges that on the 20th day of January, 1858, while said Samuel Lyman was in the actual and notorious possession, the said William Bandy mortgaged said land to O. L. Davis, executor of William E. Russell, deceased, and the mortgage was subsequently foreclosed, and the land sold to pay the amount due thereon. Hone of the Lymans were made parties to the bill of foreclosure. The bill alleges, that the deed from Bandy and wife to Samuel Lyman, was not filed for record until August, A. D. 1864. The bill prays that the mortgage and the proceedings to foreclose be set aside. The oath of the defendants was waived. The answers denied all knowledge of the deed from Bandy and wife to Samuel Lyman, and the subséquent conveyances; and denied all knowledge of any interest of said Samuel Lyman and others in the land, until after the foreclosure of the mortgage. The complainant filed a general replication. The cause was heard upon bill, answer, replication and proof submitted upon the trial, and a decree rendered dismissing the bill. The proofs fully sustained the allegations of the bill.