Knights v. Knights , 14252.

• Decision Date: 22 December 1921
• Docket Number: No. 14252.,14252.
• Citation: 300 Ill. 618,133 N.E. 377
• Parties: KNIGHTS v. KNIGHTS et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

300 Ill. 618

133 N.E. 377

KNIGHTS

v.KNIGHTS et al.

No. 14252.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 22, 1921.

Suit by Vilena Knights against Elmer Knights, trustee, and others. Decree for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Coles County; Walter E. Brewer, judge.

T. N. Cofer and Miles A. Tipsword, guardian ad litem, both of Charleston, for appellants.

Charles C. Lee and C. M. Heinlein, both of Charleston, for appellee.

THOMPSON, J.

This appeal is prosecuted to review a decree of the circuit court of Coles county, awarding homestead, dower, and other rights growing out of the marriage relation, to appellee, Vilena Knights, in a certain 80-acre tract of land held by appellant Elmer Knights as trustee, in a suit brought by appellee, charging that she had been defrauded of her marital rights in this property by the fraudulent conduct of her deceased husband, Charles H. Knights.

Appellee testified that she was married to Charles H. Knights January 29, 1914; that she had known him about 3 years before their marriage; that she was then past 60 years of age, and he was past 70 years of age; that it was the second marriage for both of them; that during their courtship deceased told her that he owned 200 acres of land; that this land was heavily mortgaged, and that he proposed to sell it and buy a smaller farm, so that they might have an unincumbered home and extra money to make them comfortable; that he sold the 200-acre farm, and realized about $20,000 in cash from it; that they went together to look at a number of places, and picked out the 80 acres in question as the place they wanted for their home; that he arranged to have one Craig buy this place in Craig's name, because he thought Craig could get it cheaper than he could; that he said he would furnish Craig the money with which to pay for it; that he told her Craig agreed to buy the property for him; that later he told her that Craig had bought the land for him, and that they would get the place for their home as they had planned; that all this conversation and these transactions happened before they were married; that they went to town and bought their furniture and had it moved into the house about two weeks before they were married; that they moved into the house on this farm March 4, 1914, and lived there from that time until the death of her husband, February 2, 1921. Her testimony stands uncontradicted in this record.

Other testimony shows that Charles H. Knights sold his 200-acre farm early in the fall of 1913, and that he received, after all indebtedness had been paid, about $20,000; that he contracted with one Bolin for the purchase of the 80 acres in controversy at $200 an acre; that the formal written contract was made between Bolin as vendor and J. E. Craig as vendee; that Craig was acting for Charles H. Knights; that the contract was dated November 4, 1913; that Craig gave his personal check to Bolin for $16,000, and that Charles H. Knights protected this check by depositing $16,000 to Craig's credit; that Bolin conveyed this farm to Craig by a deed dated November 10, 1913; that Craig conveyed the farm to Elmer Knights as trustee, Charles H. Knights to have the use, control, and income from the farm during his lifetime, and at his death the trustee to sell the farm and divide the proceeds into nine equal parts, one part to go to each of eight of his nine living children, and one part to the children of a deceased son; that neither Elmer Knights nor any one else paid any consideration to Craig or to Charles H. Knights; that the deed was delivered to Charles H. Knights by Craig, and that Elmer Knights, the trustee, did not know for 2 years that the property had been conveyed to him; that the trustee has never exercised any control over said lands; that Charles H. Knights left a will dated December 23, 1915, by which he bequeathed all his personal property to appellee; that this will was filed for probate by appellee February 7, 1921, and the petition for probate was set for hearing March 14, 1921; that in the petition filed by appellee she stated under oath that Charles H. Knights died seized of real estate of the value of $16,000 and of personal property of the value of $700; that the will was admitted to probate on March 14, 1921; that March 15, 1921, appellee filed a written renunciation of the will and elected to take under the statute and that this bill was filed the following day.

The first contention made by appellants is that appellee was not a competent witness, but they cite no authority to support this contention. Appellants are defending as...