Ackley v. Croucher

• Decision Date: 16 June 1903
• Citation: 203 Ill. 530,68 N.E. 86
• Parties: ACKLEY v. CROUCHER.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

203 Ill. 530

68 N.E. 86

ACKLEY

v.CROUCHER. ^*

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 16, 1903.

Error to Circuit Court, Cook County; Ellridge Hanecey, Judge.

Suit by Maggie Ackley against Ida Moore and another. Alfred Croucher became a defendant and filed a cross-bill, on which he had a decree. Complainant brings error. Affirmed.J. Kent Green, for plaintiff in error.

James E. White and F. A. Denison (Edward H. Morris, of counsel), for defendant in error.

This is a writ of error to the circuit court of Cook county by plaintiff in error, seeking to reverse a decree wherein the defendant in error was held to be the owner in fee simple of certain real estate.

The plaintiff in error, Maggie Ackley, filed a bill on February 8, 1899, to which Ida Moore and William Moore were made parties defendant, praying to have a certain deed from her to them declared void as a cloud upon her title to certain lots in Cook county, and to enjoin them from incumbering the same until the further order of the court. By an amendment to the bill, Alfred Croucher, who claimed some interest in the property and petitioned the court to be heard, was made a party defendant thereto. Ida Moore and William Moore answered the bill, denying the allegations thereof, denying all equity as alleged, and averring that the property was purchased with the joint funds of complainant and Alfred Croucher. Croucher also answered, alleging that he and complainant,in 1885, began business together, as partners, for the purpose of buying property for their own common profit, and continued the same until July, 1898, and as such partners purchased and paid for the lots in question, placing valuable improvements thereon out of their joint moneys; that he had paid more than one-half of the purchase money and expense of improvements; that by agreement the title was taken in the name of Maggie Ackley, to be held for their joint benefit.

On May 27, 1899, Croucher filed a cross-bill, alleging the formation of the said partnership, and the purchase of the property in question, also certain other lots in Tolleston, Ind., and alleging also that the property was improved with their common labor and means; that she, since July 1, 1898, has collected the rents and refuses to account to him; that one of the foregoing pieces of property, known as the Langley avenue premises, was paid for with purchase money furnished by him; that after the purchase of said premises they together took possession of the last-mentioned premises, and occupied, managed, and controlled the same in common as a home until July 1, 1898, when she dispossessed him; that she then conveyed the premises to her daughter Narthena, and afterwards to her daughter Ida Moore, and that Ida Moore and her husband knew of the partnership relation and that Croucher had an interest therein. The cross-bill then alleges that Maggie Ackley is committing waste and squandering the rents, and concludes with a prayer for an accounting, and for a decree declaring the copartnership void, and that the premises be declared to be held by Maggie Ackley in trust for cross-complainant to the extent of one-half thereof, and that partition be made. Ida Moore and husband answered this cross-bill, admitting, among other things, that Maggie Ackley conveyed to her daughters Narthena and Ida to defeat Croucher's interest therein. The answer claims one half of the premises in fee in Ida Moore by virtue of the deed, and concedes that Croucher is the owner of the other half thereof. Maggie Ackley then filed an answer to the cross-bill of Croucher, denying its allegations, and averring that she bought and paid for said property independently, and without cross-complainant's aid, and is now the absolute owner thereof. Ida Moore and her husband then filed a cross-bill, in substance setting up the facts contained in their answer, praying for partition.

After answers to this latter cross-bill were filed, the cause was referred to the master, who took the testimony, and made a report on March 6, 1900. Croucher thereupon, by leave of the court and pursuant to an order thereof, on March 6, 1900, amended his cross-bill so as to conform to the decree as reported by the master, striking out from the cross-bill all allegations about joint interests, partnership dealings, and joint purchases by Mrs. Ackley, with an agreement to hold the title for the benefit of herself and cross-complainant, and substituting in place thereof the allegation that in 1885 he brought Maggie Ackley and family to Chicago; that they resided with him, and he provided them with their support continuously, until 1898; that he furnished the money with which she purchased and took title in her own name to the Langley avenue property and the other lots in question; that she had no means of her own; that he specifically furnished the sum of $960, the purchase money with which the Langley property was purchased, took possession thereof, and erected valuable improvements, paying for said improvements with his own money, and that he thereby acquired an equitable interest equal to the whole value of the premises, the said Maggie Ackley receiving the title in trust for him. Maggie Ackley filed an answer to this amended cross-bill, denying its allegations, and setting up the statute of frauds as a defense to the amended cross-bill, on the ground that the trust therein alleged is not manifested and proved by any writing; also setting up the statute of limitations in bar to his right to an accounting for rents.

On stipulation, the court ordered the original bill dismissed as to Ida and William Moore, and also ordered their cross-bill dismissed. Upon re-reference to the...