Calkins v. Worth

Citation215 Ill. 78,74 N.E. 81
PartiesCALKINS v. WORTH et al.
Decision Date17 April 1905
CourtSupreme Court of Illinois

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Appellate Court, First District.

Bill by William P. Worth and others against J. Vernon Calkins. From a judgment of the Appellate Court affirming a decree for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.Samuel B. King, for appellant.

Bulkley, Gray & More, for appellees.

This appeal is prosecuted by the appellant, J. Vernon Calkins, to reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court for the First District which affirmed the decree of the superior court of Cook county rendered against appellant and in favor of appellee William P. Worth, finding that said Worth is entitled to $1,100 of a fund of $2,200 on deposit in the Northern Trust Company, being the proceeds of a principal note for $2,000 and two $50 interest notes, in which Worth claimed that he was entitled to a one-half interest. The decree is based upon the finding of the court that appellant in and about the sale of an improved piece of real estate knowingly and intentionally misrepresented the actual considerationpaid by the vendee for the property, whereby appellee as joint owner of the property, was defrauded out of one-half part of said sum of $2,200. The bill alleges, and the answer of appellant admits, that in the month of March, 1901, the parties to this appeal became the owners of the real estate, an apartment building described in the bill, each of them paying half of the purchase price, and each of them owning one-half of said real estate, and that from the time of the purchase of said real estate until the same was disposed of said complainant and defendant were to, and did, share equally the profits and expenses of said real estate. The bill also alleges that the title to the property was taken in appellee, and that thereafter appellee, at the request of appellant, deeded an undivided one-half interest to one Genevieve Frances York, who held the same for the use and benefit of appellant. The bill further sets forth that about November 1, 1901, appellant informed appellee that he had an offer for the property of $17,000, $6,500 of which was to be paid by assuming an incumbrance, $2,000 in cash, and the balance in 13 unimproved lots in Morgan Park; that on or about the 8th of November appellant presented to appellee for signature a written contract with one Caroline S. McEntee for the sale of his one-half interest, which contract was executed, and that about the same time a contract, also drawn by appellant, was executed by Genevieve Frances York conveying to the said Caroline S. McEntee one-half interest in the property, the title to which she held in trust for appellant, as above stated. The bill further alleges, in substance, that complainant recently learned that he had been deceived by the defendant, Calkins, in that the purchase price of said property was $2,000 in excess of that which he (Calkins) had represented it to be, for which $2,000 a note secured by a trust deed upon the whole property had been executed by the purchaser and delivered to said Calkins. It is further alleged in the ninth clause of the bill ‘that the said note falls due on the 8th of November, 1903, that it is still owned by the defendant, J. Vernon Calkins, and would be paid and taken up by the maker at the time if falls due, and that your orator is equitably and justly entitled to one-half of the proceeds of said note,’ etc.

The defendant (appellant here), in his answer, admitted the joint ownership of the property; that they each advanced one-half the purchase price, and each became half owner of said real estate, and that the said Genevieve Frances York received a conveyance of an undivided one-half interest for the use and benefit of said defendant; and the answer further admits that ‘from the time of the purchase of said real estate until the time the same was disposed of said complainant and defendant shared equally the proceeds and expenses of said real estate.’ It is further admitted by the answer that said Caroline S. McEntee afterwards became the owner of the property, and that she paid for said property a certain consideration, but denies the making of the contracts as alleged in the bill, and that he deceived said complainant, and falsely and fraudulently stated or represented or led complainant to believe that the consideration of the purchase of said building by said Caroline S. McEntee was other than it was, and denies all allegations of fraud and deception. Further answering, the defendant denies the allegations of the ninth clause of said bill, and each of them, and denies that he was the owner of said note, or had any interest therein, on the 8th day of November, 1903. Subsequently one August L. Johnson, father-in-law of appellant, was permitted to intervene in said suit. By his sworn petition he alleges that he is the owner of said note described in said bill of complaint; that said note, by its terms, became due on the 8th day of November, 1903, and that he was the owner of said note before maturity, for a valuable consideration in that behalf paid to the said J. Vernon Calkins, and that neither said complainant nor said J. Vernon Calkins had any interest whatsoever in said note.

The decree of the superior court, upon the pleadings, oral and documentary proof taken in open court, found the equities with the complainant, and that the parties hereto were joint and equal owners of the property, and that defendant had fraudulently deceived complainant, having led him to believe that the consideration for the sale of the property was $2,000 less than it was in fact, and that the alleged transfer of said note by the defendant to Johnson was not in good faith, and that Johnson obtained no title to said note, or the proceeds thereof, as against complainant; that the amount of said note, together with unpaid interest, having been paid into the Northern Trust Company Bank, complainant was entitled to receive of the same the sum of $1,100. Appellant and Johnson jointly and severally prayed appeals, the appeal being perfected by Calkins only.

RICKS, C. J. (after stating the facts).

The only evidence introduced in the case of any importance was that of appellee upon his own behalf and appellant in his behalf, together with the separate contract for the sale of the property by appellee and appellant to Mrs. McEntee. Appellant's property stood of record in the name of Genevieve Frances York, and the contract was accordingly made with her. Both contracts were entered into the same day, and each was drawn by appellant, and were identical in all respects in reference to the terms, etc., except appellant's contract contained the following additional clause: ‘And said second party hereto shall execute her promissory note for the sum of $2,000, due in two years from date closing this negotiation, with interest at the rate of five per cent. per annum, evidenced by four coupon interest notes, due six, twelve, eighteen and twenty-four months, respectively, after date; said $2,000 note and interest to be secured by a trust deed on the property hereby agreed to be conveyed by Genevieve Frances York at 420 Forty-First...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Denny v. Guyton
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • May 27, 1931
    ... ... 373; King v. Wise, 43 Cal. 628; Hamburg v ... Lotz, 4 Cal.App. 438; Hambleton v. Rhind, 84 ... Md. 456, 40 L. R. A. 216; Calkins v. Worth, 215 Ill ... 78; Runkle v. Burrage, 202 Mass. 89; Church v ... Odell, 100 Minn. 98; Seehorn v. Hall, 130 Mo ... 257; Knapp v ... ...
  • Botsford v. Van Riper
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court
    • September 2, 1910
    ... ... and the plaintiffs, 100,000 shares of the capital stock of ... the Goldfield Consolidated Mines Company, which said stock ... was worth at the time of the commencement of this action ... $1,000,000 or $10 per share. That out of said 100,000 shares ... so received by the defendant ... 571; Jones v. Davis, 48 N ... J. Eq. 493, 21 A. 1035 (1891); Spier v. Hyde, 92 ... A.D. 467, 87 N.Y.S. 285; ... [110 P. 711] ... Calkins v. Worth, 215 Ill. 78, 74 N.E. 81; ... Putnam v. Burrill, 62 Me. 44; McCutcheon v ... Smith, 173 Pa. 101, 33 A. 881; Getty v. Devlin, ... ...
  • Stein v. George B. Spearin, Inc.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Court of Chancery
    • April 25, 1936
    ... ... Sterling Realty Corporation, 94 N.J.Eq. 128, 119 A. 184, affirmed 95 N.J.Eq. 274, 126 A. 926; Jones v. Davis, 48 N.J.Eq. 493, 21 A. 1035; Calkins v. Worth, 215 Ill. 78, 74 N.E. 81; Getty v. Devlin, 54 N.Y. 403; McCutcheon v. Smith, 173 Pa. 101, 33 A. 881; Irvine v. Campbell, 121 Minn. 192, 141 ... ...
  • Lind v. Webber
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court
    • August 21, 1913
    ... ... Kerfoot, 64 Ill.App. 571; Jones v ... Davis, 48 N. J. Eq. 493, 21 A. 1035; Spier v ... Hyde, 92 A.D. 467, 87 N.Y.S. 285; Calkins v ... Worth, 215 Ill. 78, 74 N.E. 81; Putnam v ... Burrill, 62 Me. 44; McCutcheon v. Smith, 173 ... Pa. 101, 33 A. 881; Getty v. Devlin, ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT