Brown v. Brown

Decision Date02 November 1892
PartiesBROWN v. BROWN et al.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from circuit court, McDonough county; CHARLES J. SCHOFIELD, Judge.

Bill by Margaret Brown and Mary E. Kirk against Ellen Brown, James A. Brown, Jr., and others. On hearing, the bill was dismissed. Complainant Brown appeals. Affirmed.Prentiss, Baily & Holly

, for appellant.

Sherman & Tunnicliff, for appellees.

The other facts appear in the following statement by BAILEY, J.:

This was a bill in chancery, brought by Margaret Brown and Mary E. Kirk against Ellen Brown, James A. Brown, Jr., and others, for the recovery of dower, and for partition. The lands in which dower was claimed, and which were sought to be partitioned, were the following: The N. W. 1/4 of section 17, the N. E. 1/4 and S. E. 1/4 of section 18, and the W. 1/2 of the N. E. 1/4 and the N. 1/2 of the N. W. 1/4 of section 19, in township 7 N., of range 2 W., in McDonough county. The original bill, which was filed on July 31, 1890, alleged that on the 20th day of August, 1885, James A. Brown died intestate, leaving him surviving Margaret Brown, his widow, and Mary E. Kirk and James A. Brown, Jr., his only legitimate children and heirs at law; that at the time of his death he was the equitable owner of all of said land, he having bought the same and paid for it with his own money, and having had possession and control of the same up to and at the time of his death; that the legal title of only 40 acres of said land, to wit, the N. E. 1/4 of the N. E. 1/4 of said section 18, stood in his name at the time of his death, the legal title to the N. W. 1/4 of said section 17 standing in the name of James A. Brown, Jr., and the legal title of the residue of said land standing in the name of Ellen Brown; that James A. Brown bought the S. E. 1/4 of said section 18 in 1867 of one Jackson, and paid for the same with his own money, but had said land conveyed to Ellen Brown; that James A. Brown bought and paid for all the residue of said land, and had the same conveyed to himself; and that he occupied, controlled, possessed, and farmed all of said lands up to the time of his death. Said bill further alleged that shortly prior to his death James A. Brown entered into a fraudulent conspiracy with Frank L. Brown, a pretended son of his, and Ellen Brown, to divest himself of the title to all of said land, and to vest the same in Ellen Brown, for the purpose of depriving the complainants of their just portion and interest therein. That, in pursuance of such conspiracy, James A. Brown executed to Frank L. Brown his judgment note for $300, bearing date February 17, 1885, and due one day after date; and that on the 21st day of February, 1885, Frank L. Brown caused a judgment to be entered on said note in the circuit court of McDonough county for said sum of $300 and costs, and had execution issued thereon, and that by virtue of said execution all of said lands except the S. E. 1/4 of said section 18 were levied on and sold, and that in pursuance of such sale the sheriff of McDonough county, on the 9th day of May, 1885, executed to Frank L. Brown a deed conveying said lands to him. That on the 11th day of May, 1885, Frank L. Brown and wife executed to Ellen Brown a deed conveying to her all of said lands except the N. W. 1/4 of section 17, and that on the 19th day of May, 1885, Frank L. Brown and wife conveyed that tract to James A. Brown, Jr. That at the time of the execution of said promissory note James A. Brown was not indebted to said Frank L. Brown in said sum of $300, or any other sum; and that said note was wholly without consideration; and that said conveyances from Frank L. Brown and wife to Ellen Brown and to James A. Brown, Jr., were also without consideration. That at the time of said transactions James A. Brown was in failing health, and that said transactions were all had for the purpose of defrauding the complainants out of their interest in said lands in case of his death. That said lands are reasonably worth not less than $50 per acre, and that the amount bid therefor was grossly indequate. That said conveyances were therefore fraudulent and void, and that James A. Brown, at the time of his death, was the real owner of said lands. The bill claimed that by reason of the premises Margaret Brown, as the lawful widow of James A. Brown, was entitled to dower in all of said lands, and that Mary E. Kirk and James A. Bown, Jr., as the only legitimate children and heirs at law of James A. Brown, were entitled, as tenants in common, to said lands, subject to said dower. Various other persons were made parties defendant to the bill, on the allegation that they claimed some interest in said lands; and the bill prayed that said sheriff's deed to Frank L. Brown, and the deeds from Frank L. Brown and wife to Ellen Brown and to James A. Brown, Jr., be canceled and set aside, and that the dower of Margaret Brown in said lands be set off to her, and that said lands be partitioned between Mary E. Kirk and James A. Brown, Jr., according to their interests therein.

The Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company (one of the defendants) answered, setting up an interest in said premises by virtue of a mortgage thereon for $6,000, bearing date January 7, 1886, executed by Ellen Brown and Frank L. Brown, conveying the W. 1/2 of the N. E. 1/4 and the N. 1/2 of the N. E. 1/4 of said section 19, and the S. E. 1/4 of the N. E. 1/4 of said section 18; said mortgage being given by way of renewal or extension of a mortgage for the same amount, executed January 7, 1881, by James A. Brown to the AEtna Life Insurance Company. Among the defendants named in the bill were the children of Ellen Brown, 10 in number; and Ellen Brown and her said children answered, admitting the death of James A. Brown as alleged in the bill, and that he was seised of the N. E. 1/4 of the N. E. 1/4 of said section 18, and that the legal title of the other lands described in the will, with the exception of the tract conveyed to James A. Brown, Jr., was in Ellen Brown. They deny that Margaret Brown is the widow, or that Mary E. Kirk and James A. Brown, Jr., are the only children and heirs at law, of James A. Brown, deceased. They deny that James A. Brown was the real owner of said lands, except the 40-acre tract standing in his name, or that he bought them or paid for them with his own money. They deny that Ellen Brown, Frank L. Brown, and James A. Brown, Jr., conspired to put the title to said land out of James A. Brown, and also deny that Margaret Brown is entitled to dower in said lands.

The answer alleges that Ellen Brown bought the S. E. 1/4 of said section 18 in 1867, with her own means, and that she has ever since that time been in possession thereof, and paid the taxes thereon; that on the 21st day of September, 1883, Thomas Spence and others recovered a judgment against James A. Brown in the circuit court of McDonough county, for $1,350; that on the 23d day of February, 1884, all of said lands were sold on an execution issued on said judgment, the judgment creditors becoming the purchasers, the sale being made subject to the lien of the $6,000 mortgage; that on the 17th day of February, 1885, James A. Brown, being indebted to Frank L. Brown in the sum of $300, executed to him his judgment note for that sum, and that on the 21st day of February, 1885, judgment was entered on said note in favor of Frank L. Brown, and execution issued thereon, and that, after the expiration of 12 months from said sale, Frank L. Brown caused his execution to be levied on said lands, and that he thereupon redeemed them from said sale, and caused them to be sold under his execution, he becoming the purchaser, and receiving a sheriff's deed therefor; that said proceedings to redeem were in good faith; that the title he then obtained was subject to the $6,000 mortgage, and that he paid all the interest he acquired was reasonably worth; that he thereby became vested with a good title to said lands as against the complainants, and that it was no concern of theirs what disposition he subsequently made of said lands. The answer further alleges that after the death of James A. Brown, to wit, on the 16th day of January, 1886, Ellen Brown and Margaret Brown adjusted and compromised the claims of Margaret Brown in the estate, real and personal, of James Brown, deceased, and that Ellen Brown then and there paid to Margaret Brown the sum of $1,000 in full satisfaction of all her alleged interest in said lands and in said estate, and that Margaret Brown thereupon, in consideration thereof, released and conveyed to Ellen Brown all her right, title, claim, and interest in said lands and said estate, and that, by reason of such release and conveyance, Margaret Brown has no right or interest in said lands. The answer also alleges that Ellen Brown is the true and lawful widow of James A. Brown, deceased, and as such was appointed administratrix of his estate, and as such administratrix sold the N. E. 1/4 of the N. E. 1/4 of said section 18 under the order of the county court of McDonough county to pay debts, and that William S. Brown became the purchaser thereof at such sale, and received an administratrix's deed therefor.

On the 12th day of May, 1891, by leave of court, the complainants filed an amendment to their bill, in which they alleged, in substance, that Margaret Brown and James A. Brown were married February 8, 1849, in Butler county, Pa.; that they lived together as husband and wife in Butler county for about nine years, during which time four children were born to them, two of whom died in infancy; that on or about the 1st day of April, 1858, James A. Brown left Margaret Brown, and fled from the state of Pennsylvania; that during the period of about two years prior to his leaving one Ellen Spence had been employed in his family as a servant; that when James A. Brown deserted Margaret Brown he and Ellen Spence left the ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Fitch v. Miller
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 16 December 1902
    ...also, Kerfoot v. Billings, supra; Eastman v. Littlefield, 164 Ill. 124, 45 N. E. 137;Carpenter v. Carpenter, 70 Ill. 457;Brown v. Brown, 142 Ill. 409, 32 N. E. 500;Williams v. Rhodes, 81 Ill. 571;Connely v. Rue, 148 Ill. 207, 35 N. E. 824;Bush v. Sherman, 80 Ill. 160;Miller v. Shaw, 103 Ill......
  • Anderson v. Chicago Trust & Sav. Bank
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 21 February 1902
    ... ... 897; Campbell v. Fleming, 1 Adol. & E. 40; Herrington v. Hubbard, 1 Scam. 569,33 Am. Dec. 426;Greenwood v. Fenn, 136 Ill. 146, 26 N. E. 487;Brown v. Brown, 142 Ill. 409, 32 N. E. 500;Day v. Improvement Co., 153 Ill. 293, 38 N. E. 567;Brady v. Cole, 164 Ill. 116, 45 N. E. 438;Sutter v. Rose, 169 ... ...
  • Bishop v. Brittain Investment Company
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 2 July 1910
    ...v. Perry, 197 Mo. 531; Sorensen v. Sorensen, 56 Neb. 729; Same issue, another case, 100 N.W. 930; Lorimer v. Lorimer, 83 N.W. 609; Brown v. Brown, 142 Ill. 409. (2) What said by counsel of defendant in argument was within the record and within their right. The trial court did not consider t......
  • Brady v. Cole
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 23 November 1896
    ... ... Strong, 107 Ill. 295;Dowden v. Wilson, 108 Ill. 257;Kelsey v. Snyder, 118 Ill. 544, 9 N. E. 195;Greenwood v. Fenn, 136 Ill. 146, 26 N. E. 487;Brown v. Brown, 142 Ill. 409, 32 N. E. 500;Day v. Investment Co., 153 Ill. 293, 38 N. E. 567. In this case such rule was not followed, except the mere ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT