Baldwin v. Pool
| Decision Date | 30 September 1874 |
| Parties | LETITIA S. BALDWIN et al.v.ALEXANDER POOL. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Peoria county; the Hon. JOSEPH W. COCHRANE, Judge, presiding.
Messrs. H. M. & S. D. WEAD, for the appellants.
Messrs. STARR & CONGER, for the appellee.
This was a bill in chancery, filed by Letitia S. Baldwin and Thomas Baldwin, her husband, in the circuit court of Peoria county, against Alexander F. Pool to enjoin him from digging a raceway and building a dam on land claimed to be owned by complainants.
The defendant, Pool, answered the bill, and exceptions were filed to the answer; the court overruled the exceptions, and complainants filed their replication.
The defendant filed a cross-bill, to which complainants demurred, which the court overruled; complainants thereupon answered the cross-bill, to which a replication was filed.
Proofs having been taken before the master, the court, upon hearing the cause, entered a decree dissolving the injunction and dismissing the bill. The complainants bring the record here by appeal.
It appears from the record that on the 1st day of March, 1873, the appellant Letitia S. Baldwin, being the owner of a certain tract of land, containing two hundred acres, sold the same to Mahala Thurston for $7,000. Two thousand dollars of the purchase money was paid down, and promissory notes were given for the deferred payments, payable in installments. A bond for a deed was executed and delivered to Mahala Thurston, providing that, upon the payment of the balance of the purchase money at certain specified times, the appellants would convey the premises by general warranty deed of conveyance. Mahala Thurston, upon receiving the bond for a conveyance of the land, was let into possession under the purchase, and while she was in possession and in no respect in default under the contract, and on the 29th day of June, 1873, she conveyed, by an instrument in writing, to the defendant, Pool, the privilege or right to build a low dam across the creek on one corner of the land, to draw off the water in a mill-race to his mill; at the same time Pool executed a contract not to flood the adjoining lands.
In the month of September, after this right was conveyed to Pool, Mahala Thurston sold her contract of purchase which she had obtained of complainants to one William Baldwin, and delivered over her contract to him and possession of the land, he having notice of the purchase made by Pool; at the same time she delivered Baldwin the contract Pool had given her not to flood the adjoining lands.
Pool commenced work some time in June, 1873, on the land under the right granted him by Mahala Thurston, and prosecuted the work contemplated in the instrument of writing he had obtained until he was enjoined by a writ issued upon the filing of this bill.
The only question which we deem it necessary to consider is, whether the final decree dissolving the injunction and dismissing the bill was proper, under the evidence disclosed by the record before us.
It is neither claimed nor pretended by the complainants that Mahala Thurston, or Wm. Baldwin, her assignee of the contract of purchase, who assumed the payment of the balance of the purchase money, is insolvent, nor is there any claim that the balance of the purchase money will not be paid, and the land likely to fall back to complainants on account of default in payment.
Neither...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stagg v. Small
...cited Sutherland v. Harrison, 86 Ill. 368; Lombard v. Chicago Sinai Cong. 64 Ill. 477; Baker v. Bishop Hill Colony, 45 Ill. 264; Baldwin v. Pool, 74 Ill. 97; Borders v. Murphy, 78 Ill. 81; Seton v. Slade, 7 Ves. 214; Rood v. N. Y. R. R. Co. 18 Barb. 80; Fitzhugh v. Maxwell, 34 Mich. 138; Da......
-
Fuller v. Bradley
...to stand seised of the land for the benefit of the purchaser. Story, Eq. Jur. §§ 789, 790; Lombard v. Congregation, 64 Ill. 477;Baldwin v. Pool, 74 Ill. 97;Sutherland v. Goodnow, 108 Ill. 528;Robinson v. Appleton, 124 Ill. 276, 15 N. E. 761; Kerr v. Day, 14 Pa. St. 114; Sparks v. Hess, 15 C......
-
Jones v. Williamson
...in issue by their 'Separate Affirmative Defense,' filed with their answer. Both parties appear to find some solace in the cases of Baldwin v. Pool, 74 Ill. 97 and Chicago Title and Trust v. Wabash Randolph Corp., 384 Ill. 78, 51 N.E.2d 132. These cases, in discussing the rights of a third p......
-
Sutherland v. Goodnow
...and the rents, issues and profits, of the land. And those who derive a privilege from such purchaser are equally protected. Baldwin v. Pool, 74 Ill. 97; Smith v. Price, 42 Id. 399. Where there is a valid contract for the sale of land, the purchaser is treated as the owner of the land, and m......