Barnett v. George T. Cline.

• Decision Date: 30 September 1871
• Citation: 60 Ill. 205,1871 WL 8115
• Parties: JAMES BARNETTv.GEORGE T. CLINE.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

60 Ill. 205

1871 WL 8115 (Ill.)

JAMES BARNETT

v.GEORGE T. CLINE.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

September Term, 1871.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. WILLIAM A. PORTER, Judge, presiding.

Mr. THOMAS S. MCCLELLAND, for the appellant.

Mr. GEORGE G. BELLOWS, for the appellee.

Mr. JUSTICE WALKER delivered the opinion of the Court:

The bill in this case was filed to remove a cloud on appellant's title to certain city lots. It charges that appellee had purchased the property at three several sales for taxes, upon the two latter of which he had received a tax deed, but on the first only a certificate of purchase.

The bill charges the sales and the title derived thereunder to have been irregular and void, and states grounds in support of the allegation, which, if true, would render them worthless as title, and that the lots have been redeemed from the tax sales.

No answer was filed, and the bill was taken as confessed. The court below thereupon rendered a decree granting the relief sought, and ordered appellee to convey the title he claimed under these tax sales to appellant by deed of release, and upon his failing to do so, that the master execute the release, which he did. After this decree was rendered, appellee came in and filed affidavits that there had not been a sufficient sum of money paid to the county clerk to effect a redemption from the sale first made for State and county taxes, and thereupon the court referred that question to the master to hear evidence and report to the court.

After a hearing, the master reported that appellee had, after purchasing the lot, in 1854, for State and county taxes, paid city taxes six years, and the sum thus paid was $56.47. He also reported that the law did not require appellant to pay these taxes to redeem; that the first sale for delinquent city taxes was in 1865, and that only taxes subsequently paid, and not those paid prior to the sale, should be paid to redeem; that, although the city taxes were paid after the sale of 1854, appellant was not bound to refund those taxes in order to redeem, but he recommended that the complainant be required to pay defendant the $56.47, with interest either at six or ten per cent. The court approved the master's report, and rendered a decree for that sum with ten per cent interest, which amounted in the aggregate to $118.96, and it is to reverse this latter decree that complainant brings the record to this court on appeal.

Upon a careful...