Black v. Miller
| Decision Date | 18 June 1898 |
| Citation | 173 Ill. 489,50 N.E. 1009 |
| Parties | BLACK et al. v. MILLER. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to appellate court, Third district.
Bill by Amos Miller against Mary E. Black and others for the cancellation of a note. From a decree granting the relief sought, defendants bring error. Reversed.Howett & Jett, for plaintiffs in error.
George R. Cooper, for defendant in error.
Defendant in error filed his bill in the circuit court of Montgomery county, against plaintiffs in error, as executors of Robert Black, deceased. Complainant alleged that on March 8, 1887, while residing in the state of Illinois, he sent $1,000 to Johnson & Blackwelder, real-estate agents in the city of Wichita, Kan., to be invested in real estate for him; that on March 5, 1887, they purchased for him from Robert Black an undivided one-half of four lots in said city, and Black and wife on that day executed a deed to him; that Johnson & Blackwelder were agents of Robert Black, and had the property for sale, and acted as such agents in making the sale to him, of which fact he had no knowledge until about April 1, 1896; that Johnson & Blackwelder paid to Robert Black $800 cash on the purchase out of the $1,000 sent them, and complainant executed his promissory note to Robert Black for $800, the balance due, payable six months after date, with interest at 8 per cent., and secured by mortgage on the premises; that the property was not worth the amount paid; that, after the note and mortgage became due, Robert Black commenced foreclosure proceedings, and obtained a decree, under which the lots were sold and bought by him at $25 each, and conveyed to him; that Robert Black died in March, 1894; and that defendants were appointed executors, and brought suit in assumpsit on the note in said circuit court of Montgomery county to recover the balance due. Complainant tendered a reconveyance of the premises to the heirs of Robert Black, and prayed that the sale to him should be annulled, the suit in assumpsit against him enjoined, and the note canceled. The bill was demurred to, and the demurrer challenged the jurisdiction of the court to equity, on the ground that the complainant had an adequate remedy at law, and that he might set up all such matters as were alleged in the bill in defense of the suit at law. The demurrer being overruled, the defendants answered, admitting the commencement of the suit on the note by them, but denying the material allegations of the bill upon which relief was claimed, and disputing the right of the complainant to resort to a court of equity or to have the controversy adjusted in that court. There was a hearing, at which it was proved that complainant's brother, Eli Miller, was bookkeeper for the firm of Johnson & Blackwelder, at Wichita; that there was a great boom in city lots at that place in March, 1887; that complainant sent $1,000 to his brother, with orders to turn it over to Johnson & Blackwelder; and that said Johnson & Blackwelder were agents for Robert Black, and purchased the premises from him, receiving a commission therefor, but making no charge against, and receiving nothing in the way of commission or compensation from complainant. The court granted the relief asked for, perpetually enjoined the suit at law, and ordered the note delivered up for cancellation.
In this court the jurisdiction of the court of equity is disputed, as it was by the demurrer and answer; and it is contended that a bill in equity would not lie, and that no relief should have been granted thereunder, because the complainant had a complete and adequate remedy at law. In reply, it is first insisted that plaintiffs in error cannot raise that question, because ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Horwitz v. Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal
...relief if the plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law. Anderson v. Olsen , 188 Ill. 502, 506, 59 N.E. 239 (1900) ; Black v. Miller , 173 Ill. 489, 491–92, 50 N.E. 1009 (1898) ; see Watson v. Sutherland , 72 U.S. 74, 76, 5 Wall. 74, 18 L.Ed. 580 (1866) ("The absence of a plain and adequate r......
-
Tronson v. Colby University
...by demurrer or answer, appellant cannot now for the first time be held to question respondent's right to the relief prayed. Black v. Miller, 50 N.E. 1009; Stout v. Cook, 41 Ill. 447; Ryan v. 88 Ill. 144. An objection to the jurisdiction of the court that there is a perfect remedy at law can......
-
Johnson v. Swanke
...R. A. 577, 48 Am. St. Rep. 753; Johnson v. Andrews, 28 Ga. 17; Johnson v. Murphy, 60 Ala. 288; Huff v. Ripley, 58 Ga. 11; Black v. Miller, 173 Ill. 489, 50 N. E. 1009;Vannatta v. Lindley, 198 Ill. 40, 64 N. E. 735, 92 Am. St. Rep. 270;County of Ada v. Bullen Bridge Co., 5 Idaho, 188, 47 Pac......
-
Law v. Ware
... ... 362][87 N.E. 309]Barker, Church & Shepard (William T. Church, of counsel), for appellant.Horton & Miller (O. H. Horton, of counsel), for appellee.[238 Ill. 363]CARTWRIGHT, C. J.Robert H. Law, appellee, filed his bill in equity in the superior court of ... Duncan, 88 Ill. 144;Chicago Public Stock Exchange v. McClaughry, 148 Ill. 372, 36 N. E. 88;Kaufman v. Wiener, 169 Ill. 596, 48 N. E. 479;Black v. Miller, 173 Ill. 489, 50 N. E. 1009. Although defendant in his answer claimed the same right and advantage as if he had especially demurred to the ... ...