Bale v. Bale
| Decision Date | 22 December 1909 |
| Citation | 242 Ill. 519,90 N.E. 233 |
| Parties | BALE v. BALEet al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Peoria County; Leslie D. Puterbaugh, Judge.
Action by Sarah J. Bale against Richard Bale and others. Plaintiff had judgment, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Winslow Evans and Francis H. Tichenor, for appellants.
Radley & Radley, for appellee.
William Bale, Jr., filed his bill in the circuit court of Peoria county for the purpose of setting aside the will of his father, William Bale, Sr., as a cloud on his title to the N. 1/2 of the S. E. 1/4 of section 14, township 10 N., range 6 E. of the fourth principal meridian, in Peoria county, Ill., and to quiet his title thereto. The complainant charged in his bill that he had been in the open, adverse possession of the land in question for more than 21 years under a claim of title; that William Bale, Sr., had by his last will, which had been probated and admitted to record, devised to him the land in question for his life, charged with the payment of $600 to his sisters and $25 per year to his mother, and the remainder in fee was devised to the complainant's brothers, Richard and George. The defendants below answered the bill, denying all of the material averments as to complainant's claim of ownership and title, and after the filing of the replication the case was referred to a master to take the proofs and report the same, together with his conclusions of law and fact. The master found that William Bale, Sr., had left a last will containing provisions, as set out in the bill, which affected the title to said land, and also found that complainant was the owner of said land, and that the provisions of the will of William Bale, Sr., in so far as they applied to the lands in question, constituted a cloud upon the title. Objections were duly filed to the several findings of the master, and overruled, and the same were allowed to stand as exceptions in the court below. After the master's report had been filed, and before the hearing upon the exceptions, William Bale, Jr., the complainant, died. His death was suggested upon the record, and thereupon Sarah J. Bale, his widow and devisee of the land in question under the will of her husband, was substituted as party complainant. The court overruled all of the exceptions to the master's report and entered a decree in accordance with the prayer of the bill. Defendants below have appealed to this court, and insist that the evidence is insufficient to warrant the decree.
The evidence shows that William Bale, Sr., was a farmer, and resided on a tract of land adjoining the premises in controversy, in Peoria county, for many years prior to and at the time of his death; that William Bale, Jr., Richard Bale, and George Bale were his sons, and Amelia Slane, Ann Bale, and Elizabeth Challacombe were his daughters; that William Bale, Jr., remained with his father about 10 years after he became of age, and worked for his father during this time; that William Bale, Sr., recognized his obligation to compensate his son for the services rendered after he attained his majority. The evidence shows that the father considered that he ought to pay the son $100 a year for his work, or a total of $1,000; that on February 20, 1881, William Bale, Sr., purchased the 80 acres of land involved in this suit for $1,000, one-half of which he paid at the time, and secured the remainder by a mortgage upon the premises; that this mortgage was afterwards duly released of record on May 2, 1882, the same having been paid in full by William Bale, Sr. The evidence also shows that William Bale, Sr., told William Bale, Jr., that he would give him this 80 acres of land in payment for his 10 years' services, or, if the son preferred it, he would give him $1,000 in money, but said, however, that he did not have the money, and if the son insisted on having the $1,000 in cash he would have to borrow it for him; that the son said that he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dibble v. Winter
...of Michigan. Appellants argue that the bill in this cause should be sustained as one to remove a cloud on the title, under Bale v. Bale, 242 Ill. 519, 90 N. E. 233, and Bieber v. Porter, 242 Ill. 616, 90 N. E. 183. These decisions do not sustain that contention. The case of Bieber v. Porter......
-
Schramm v. Schramm
...within the testator's direct line of descent. Admittedly, in prosecuting this action, plaintiff has relied heavily upon Bale v. Bale, 242 Ill. 519, 90 N.E. 233, where the court upheld an alleged verval gift of land. However, in that case not only did the donee move upon and improve the prem......
- Maciejewska v. Jarzombek
- People ex rel. Cooley v. Toledo, St. L.&W.R. Co.