American Hoist & Derrick Co. v. Hall

• Decision Date: 20 April 1904
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Parties: AMERICAN HOIST & DERRICK CO. v. HALL.

208 Ill. 597

70 N.E. 581

AMERICAN HOIST & DERRICK CO.

v.HALL.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April 20, 1904.

Appeal from Appellate Court, First District.

Action by the American Hoist & Derrick Company against William E. Hall and another. From a judgment of the Appellate Court affirming a judgment in favor of defendants (110 Ill. App. 463), plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Hoyne, O'Connor & Hoyne, for appellant.

John W. Smith, for appellee.

WILKIN, J.

On January 9, 1899, the appellant filed a creditors' bill to set aside certain conveyances of real estate made by Charles E. Hall to his son William E. Hall, the appellee. The bill charges that the conveyances were made without any consideration, and for the purpose of hindering, delaying, and defrauding the creditors of Charles E. Hall, and that the appellee, William E. Hall, holds the property in secret trust for the benefit of Charles E. Hall. The bill made Charles E. Hall a party defendant, but he died during the pendency of the suit.

On October 20, 1898, the appellant recovered a judgment against Charles E. Hall in the circuit court of Cook county for $4,453.56 and costs of suit, upon three promissory notes dated September 15, 1897, signed by the Minnehaha Granite Company, and guarantied by Charles E. Hall and others. An execution was issued upon this judgment against Charles E. Hall, and on December 20, 1898, it was returned nulla bona. The property in controversy is situated in the city of Chicago, and is known as 3550 Vernon avenue, 7143 South Chicago avenue, 8457-8459 Ontario avenue, and 5235 Wabash avenue. The deed conveying the Vernon avenue property is dated July 21, 1897, and purports to have been acknowledged upon the same day, and filed for record September 28, 1897. It recites a consideration of $7,000, and warrants the premises to be free and clear of incumbrance. The deeds conveying the other pieces of property are all dated September 28, 1897, and purport to have been acknowledged upon the same day, and filed for record October 1, 1897. The deed conveying the South Chicago avenue lot recites a consideration of $2,000, subject to an incumbrance of $600. The deed conveying the Ontario avenue lot recites a consideration of $2,000, and the deed for the Wabash avenue lot recites a consideration of $1,000, and states that the property is subject to an incumbrance of $3,000.

The cause, being at issue, was referred to a master in chancery, who made his report, recommending that the bill be dismissed for want of equity. Exceptions were filed to this report, and were overruled by the chancellor, and the bill dismissed, at complainant's cost. An appeal was prayed to the Appellate Court, where the order of the circuit court was affirmed, and a further appeal has been prosecuted to this court.

There are two questions raised upon this appeal. It is first insisted by appellant that the evidence sustains the allegations of the bill, and that the chancellor erred in dismissing it. Upon the trial before the master the appellee, William E. Hall, was placed upon the stand by appellant, and he gave the principal testimony appearing in the record. He testified that all of the properties in controversy had been in the name of his father, Charles E. Hall, for a great many years before they were conveyed to him; that the father, though holding the title, had no interest whatever in the Vernon avenue property, but it belonged to him (the witness), and at the time of the conveyance was occupied by him as a homestead, and had been so occupied for several years. He also testified that he had for many years owned a half interest in all of the other pieces of property, and they were purchased by himself and his father on their joint account, each owning a half interest; that the title to all the properties was taken in his father's name, because, witness being a physician, he feared blackmailing suits might be brought against him for malpractice; that by the deeds of conveyance in controversy he acquired from his father only the other half interest in the properties, other than the Vernon place; and that his father's half interest in the properties was conveyed to him in part payment of a large indebtedness which his father owed him for money loaned from time to time, during many past years, and to help his father pay his share of the purchase price of the same, and for improvements, repairs, and taxes on the property. He further testified that prior to January, 1895, he carried a small pocket memorandum book in which he entered the amounts advanced by him to his father, but had lost it, and at the time of the loss it showed the balance which his father owed him to be $7,280; that on the 3d day of January, 1895, his father called at his office, and he then informed his father of the balance due him; that thereupon his father took from his pocket a small memorandum book in which he kept account of the sums received by him from the witness, and, after looking it over, said the balance of $7,280 was correct, and that thereupon he (the witness) directed his bookkeeper to enter this balance in his office ledger, and he himself entered it in a small memorandum book in which he afterwards kept his account of all sums advanced by him to his father after that date. He also testified that he loaned his father a considerable amount of money to invest in the Minnehaha Granite Company, and, after the investment was made, lost...