Chicago Terminal Transfer R. Co. v. Barrett

• Citation: 96 N.E. 794,252 Ill. 86
• Parties: CHICAGO TERMINAL TRANSFER R. CO. v. BARRETT.
• Decision Date: 06 December 1911
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

252 Ill. 86

96 N.E. 794

CHICAGO TERMINAL TRANSFER R. CO.

v.BARRETT.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 6, 1911.

Error to Circuit Court, Cook County; E. M. Mangan, Judge.

Ejectment by the Chicago Terminal Transfer Railroad Company against David Barrett. There was a judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed and remanded.Jesse B. Barton, for plaintiff in error.

John J. Coburn, Fred W. Bentley, and David Alexander, for defendant in error.

CARTWRIGHT, J.

The plaintiff in error, the Chicago Terminal Transfer Railroad Company, brought its action of ejectment in the circuit court of Cook county against the defendant in error, David Barrett, for the possession of those parts of five lots in the town of Brighton, in said county, lying east of the right of way of the Chicago Junction Railway Company. The cause came to trial before the court and a jury upon the issue formed by a declaration alleging ownership in fee by the plaintiff and a plea of not guilty. The court directed the jury to find the defendant not guilty, and, after the return of the verdict so directed, the court overruled motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment, and entered judgment on the verdict. A writ of error was sued out of this court, and the record has been brought here for review.

The plaintiff offered in evidence a transcript of the record of a suit in equity in the circuit court of Cook county in which the defendant, David Barrett, was complainant, and the plaintiff, the Chicago Terminal Transfer Railroad Company, and others, were defendants, which was instituted to quiet the title of Barrett and remove tax deeds and conveyances under the same as clouds upon such title. The transcript was objected to, and the court sustained the objection. The plaintiff proved that it had acquired the title of the other railroad companies which were defendants in the equity suit, and this was the only evidence admittedby the court. The questions to be determined are whether the transcript of the record was admissible in evidence, and, if so, whether it would have been sufficient to authorize a judgment for the plaintiff.

[1] When a court having jurisdiction decides a controversy, the question involved is settled forever between the parties to the suit and persons in privity with them, and neither can again litigate with the other any fact or question actually or directly in issue which was passed upon and determined by the court. Hanna v. Read, 102 Ill. 596.40 Am. Rep. 608;Tilley v. Bridges, 105 Ill. 336;Wright v. Griffey, 147 Ill. 496, 35 N. E. 732,37 Am. St. Rep. 228;Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co., 164 Ill. 88, 45 N. E. 488;Dempster v. Lansingh, 244 Ill. 402, 91 N. E. 488;People v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co., 247 Ill. 340, 93 N. E. 422.

[2] The transcript of the record of the former suit offered in evidence by the plaintiff and excluded by the court showed the following facts: Barrett filed his bill on November 11, 1902, alleging that he was the owner in fee of the property in controversy in the subsequent ejectment suit; that he derived his title under the 20 years statute of limitations by open, exclusive, and adverse possession for more than 20 years; and that there had been certain tax sales, under which deeds had been executed and conveyances made, which were void on account of defects in the proceedings. The bill was amended several times and a supplemental bill was filed and amended, and the bill in its final form made the averments already stated, and also that the Chicago Terminal Transfer Railroad Company had in its possession a writing purporting to be a lease to Barrett from the Chicago, St. Louis & Pittsburgh Railroad Company to the property in question, dated December 1, 1884. Barrett charged that the lease was not his deed, and, if the signature was his genuine signature, it was obtained by fraud and circumvention. Several railroad companies, including the Chicago Terminal Transfer RailroadCompany, were made defendants with individuals, and the bill contained an offer to pay the amount due under the tax sales, and prayed that the tax deeds and conveyances under the same be set aside and declared null and void as clouds upon the title of Barrett; that his title be confirmed and quieted, and defendants forever enjoined from disputing the same, and from interfering in any manner with his possession and enjoyment of the property, and also for general relief. Only two of the defendants answered. The Chicago & Alton Railroad Company by its answer denied that Barrett was the owner in fee of the premises described, and called for proof of the other averments of the bill. The Chicago Terminal Transfer Railroad Company by its answer denied that Barrett was the owner in fee, or otherwise, of the property or any part of it, or that he had derived title by possession for 20 years or any other period, and alleged that whatever possession he had was by the consent of that company and its predecessors in title, and that his occupation was as tenant of the said company and its said predecessors. The Chicago Terminal Transfer Railroad Company also filed its cross-bill on December 1, 1903, claiming title through mesne conveyances from the government, and alleging that it and its grantors had been in actual possession, through its tenant, for more than 20 years. David G. Hamilton, who was a defendant to the original bill, was also made a defendant to the cross-bill as holder of tax deeds alleged to be void, and the prayer of the cross-bill was that the tax deeds be set aside and Barrett be ordered to surrender possession. The cause was heard and the original bill was dismissed for want of equity on December 4, 1903. Barrett had demurred to the cross-bill, and that bill was retained for further adjudication. A certificate of evidence was filed, containing all the evidence heard by the court. Barrett and several witnesses testified that he had been in the exclusive possession of the property for more than 20 years, and there was no contradictory evidence on the question of possession, which was not in controversy in any manner. A stipulation of facts was made showing defects in the tax proceedings which would render the deeds, and the conveyances under them, void. The Chicago Terminal Transfer Railroad Company did not dispute the fact of possession by Barrett, but offered in evidence a lease dated December 1, 1884, from the Chicago, St. Louis & Pittsburgh Railroad Company to Barrett, of the premises in controversy for a rental of $25 per annum, subject to cancellation on 30 days' notice, together with the testimony of two subscribing witnesses to the execution of the lease by Barrett and the evidence of other witnesses that his signature was genuine. The railroad company also proved that it had succeeded to the title of the Chicago, St. Louis & Pittsburgh Railroad Company through successive conveyances. Witnesses for Barrett gave testimony in rebuttal tending to show that the signature on the lease was not his genuine signature. Upon consideration of the evidence the court dismissed the bill for want of equity, and afterward, on May 24, 1904, sustained the demurrer of Barrett to the cross-bill. The action of ejectment was begun on September 26, 1904.

The bill in equity filed by Barrett contained two material averments upon which he based his prayer for relief: First, his ownership of the premises, by virtue of the statute of limitations, through open, exclusive, and adverse possession for twenty years; second, the invalidity of certain tax deeds and conveyances made by the holder of the tax titles. To meet a claimed defense, the bill alleged that the lease in the possession of the Chicago Terminal Transfer Railroad Company was void. That company made no denial of the possession of Barrett but denied that such possession was adverse, and...