124 U.S. 552 (1888), Knight v. Paxton

Citation:124 U.S. 552, 8 S.Ct. 592, 31 L.Ed. 518
Party Name:KNIGHT v. PAXTON. [1]
Case Date:February 06, 1888
Court:United States Supreme Court

Page 552

124 U.S. 552 (1888)

8 S.Ct. 592, 31 L.Ed. 518




United States Supreme Court.

February 6, 1888

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois.

This is a suit brought by James W. Paxton against James M. Marshall and Susan C. Marshall, his wife. James M. Marshall died pending suit, and his widow became Susan C. Knight. The complainant obtained a decree in the circuit court, and Mrs. Knight appeals.


[8 S.Ct. 593] Geo. L. Paddock, for appellant.

L. H. Boutell, for appellee.



This suit was brought by James W. Paxton, the complainant below, in the circuit court of the United States for the

Page 553

Northern district of Illinois, to obtain a decree that so much of certain described real property, situated in Chicago, as was of the value of $1,000, be set off to the defendants for their homestead, and that the possession of the residue be delivered to him; or, if the premises could not be divided, that the possession of the whole be delivered to him on his paying into court, for the use of the defendants, the sum of $1,000. The facts, as set forth in the bill, are in substance as follows: On the thirteenth of February, 1872, James M. Marshall, of Chicago, being indebted to the complainant in the sum of $10,000, executed and delivered to one Francis Bradley his bond of that date, in the penal sum of $20,000, conditioned to pay the amount of that indebtedness on the thirteenth of February, 1877, with semi-annual interest; and also 10 coupon notes, each for $450, payable to the order of the said Francis Bradley. The bond and coupon notes were on the same day assigned to the complainant, and Marshall and his wife at once executed a deed of the real property mentioned to one Lyman Baird, in trust for the security of the principal and interest of the bond and the coupon notes, and subject to a condition of defeasance on their payment according to their terms, and the performance of the covenants mentioned therein. This deed purported to be acknowledged by Marshall and his wife, and was, on the following day, recorded in the recorder's office of the county. Default having been made in the payment of the principal sum, the trustee, Baird, at the request of the complainant, and by virtue of the power contained in the trust deed, on the eighth of March, 1879, sold the premises, and the title and equity of redemption of the grantors therein, for the sum of $10,000, to the complainant, he being the highest bidder therefor. A deed thereof was executed to him by the trustee. Immediately afterwards he demanded possession of the premises from Marshall and his wife, who were, when the trust deed was executed, in the occupation of the premises as a residence. But they refused to surrender them, and about a year afterwards set up that Susan Marshall, the wife, had never acknowledged the deed of trust, and by reason of this fact her...

To continue reading