Cadwell v. Brown

• Decision Date: 30 April 1864
• Citation: 1864 WL 3107,36 Ill. 103
• Parties: SHERMAN W. CADWELLv.NATHANIEL BROWN.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

36 Ill. 103

1864 WL 3107 (Ill.)

SHERMAN W. CADWELL

v.NATHANIEL BROWN.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April Term, 1864.

APPEAL from Circuit Court of Lee County.

The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.

W. F. Ives, for appellant.

James K. Edsall, for appellee.

WALKER, C. J.

This was a bill in equity filed by appellee to compel appellant to convey to him certain land, which he alleges he purchased and paid for according to the terms of the contract. It appears that appellee agreed to give for the land the sum of $1,120, and paid in hand $330, and for the balance, he gave two notes, due at different times, one for $300, and the other for $490. Afterwards appellee sold twenty acres of the land to one Smith, for the sum of $280, which was applied as a credit on the first named note. After the maturity of these notes, and in the latter part of February or the first of March, 1861, appellee being the owner of a steam mill and the land on which it was situated, in Ohio, and a note on one Arvin Brown for the sum of $95, an agreement was entered into by which the steam mill property was conveyed to appellant, to enable him to sell the property and apply the proceeds to the payment of appellee's notes, and to pay the balance to appellee.

The evidence is clear and satisfactory that it was the understanding of the parties at the time the deed was executed, that appellant was not to sell the mill property for less than eight hundred dollars. Appellee expressed himself as unwilling to sell for less than that sum, and appellant received the deed with that understanding. This was testified to by the attorney who drew the deed. He also says that appellant agreed to take the note on Brown, as he knew him to be solvent. Appellant also stated that he would take the threshing machine, if it was as good as appellee represented it. This witness further states, that it was agreed that appellee was to pay appellant's expenses in going to Ohio to attend to the business.

Appellant went to Ohio, and rented the mill for one year for the sum of $150, paid the taxes on the mill property, and paid $120 on a security debt owing by appellee, and then returned home. After the lease had expired, he sold the mill property for $400, and made a deed to the purchasers. After an account was stated, the court below decreed a conveyance of the land purchased by appellee from appellant, except the twenty acres sold to Smith, and that he pay to appellee the sum of $268, the amount found to be due after discharging the notes given for the lands. In stating the account, the court allowed appellee $800 for the mill property, and $95, the amount of Brown's note. Against this he was charged the balance due on the purchase of the Lee county lands, $502; the sum paid his creditors in Ohio, $120; the amount of taxes paid on the mill property, $18; and traveling expenses of appellant, $36; leaving a balance due appellee, of $219, which, with the interest to the date of the decree, makes the sum for which the decree was rendered.

Appellant insists that he is only chargeable with the sum received on the sale of the mill property, and not with the sum of eight hundred dollars. On the other side, it is urged that he made the property his own and should account for it at the price limited by the appellee, when it was conveyed to him. This was the view taken by the court below. Opposed to the view of the case adopted by the court below is the testimony of Smith. He testifies, that in a conversation between the parties, about four days before appellant went to Ohio, it was understood he was to get the best price he could for the property. He thinks this conversation was before the deed was made. That it was the calculation that appellant was to do the best he could, and appellee would be satisfied. He also states that he heard appellee say to appellant that he “had done...