Chicago v. Tebbetts

Decision Date01 October 1881
Citation104 U.S. 120,26 L.Ed. 655
PartiesCHICAGO v. TEBBETTS
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois.

James D. Bruner, the owner of certain premises in the city of Chicago, conveyed them by two deeds of trust bearing date July 10, 1866, and June 12, 1867, respectively, to Levi D. Boone, as trustee, to secure to the Union Mutual Life Insurance Company the payment of two notes, one for $10,000 and one for $8,000. On Sept. 9, 1867, Bruner conveyed the premises to Charles A. Gregory, subject to the outstanding indebtedness. Dec. 12, 1867, $2,000 with interest was paid on the $8,000 note.

The city council having, May 25, 1868, passed an ordinance for the extension of Dearborn Street, it became necessary to take the premises for that purpose. Condemnation proceedings were had accordingly, and and the damages assessed at $36,000. The city paid Gregory, March 22, 1869, $20,000, and on the early part of the following May issued to him a voucher for $16,000, which he, on the eighteenth day of that month, assigned to Boone as trustee and general agent of the company, as collateral security for the payment of the notes.

Certain property-holders who had a large pecuniary interest in the opening of the street stipulated, in writing, that if Boone would take no steps to prevent the city from immediately occupying the land and defer enforcing the collection of the notes, they would pay the company interest semi-annually on the said sum of $16,000, or on so much thereof as should remain unpaid. It was stipulated that Boone and the company did not thereby 'waive or abandon any right they might have on said notes against the maker thereof, or any right of suit against the said city for the recovery of said money, or any right of entry or possession of said land.'

On June 1, 1869, the city, with the consent of the company, entered upon the land, and has since that date kept and used it for a public street. On June 5 the city paid Boone $6,000, which, with the $2,000 before referred to, paid the $8,000 note.

It is admitted by stipulation that the city, after the execution of the agreement, had knowledge thereof, and, but for such knowledge, would not then have taken possession of the premises; also, that it had only paid $26,000 on account of the damages awarded.

Neither the balance due on the voucher nor the $10,000 note having been paid, Boone, as trustee, pursuant to the power of sale contained in the deed of trust, sold the premises at public auction to the insurance company, and executed to it a conveyance therefor. The company conveyed, Dec. 27, 1872, to William C. Tebbetts, a citizen of Massachusetts, the premises, together with any claim which it had either against the city or Bruner. At the same time Boone, as trustee and general agent of the company, indorsed and delivered to him the voucher of the city. Failing to obtain payment thereof, Tebbetts, in November, 1873, brought ejectment against the city, but dismissed his action before judgment.

In June, 1877, Tebbetts filed his bill against the city to compel the payment of the balance due on the voucher.

The court below decreed in his favor for the $10,000 due on the voucher, together with interest at six per cent per annum from Jan. 1, 1870.

The city thereupon appealed to this court.

Mr. William C. Goudy for the appellant.

Mr. W. B. Wilson and Mr. George Payson, contra.

MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY delivered the opinion of the court.

The decree in this case must be affirmed. The grounds taken by the appellant for resisting payment of the $10,000 due on the note given by Bruner to the insurance company, and secured by the trust deed given to Boone, are quite remarkable. It is conceded that the land embraced in the deed was regularly condemned for a street in 1868, and assessed at $36,000, without any deduction for benefits; and that no one was interested in it except Gregory, the owner of the fee, and Boone, as trustee for the insurance company, who held two deeds of trust thereon to secure two several notes for money loaned,—one for $10,000, before referred to, and one for a balance of $6,000. On March 22, 1869, the city paid Gregory, the owner of the equity of redemption, his proportion of the award, namely, $20,000, and on the 14th of May following the board of public works of the city gave him a voucher, showing the amount of the award, the payment made to him, and the balance still due, namely, $16,000, being the amount due to the insurance company and secured by the deeds of trust. This voucher Gregory indorsed with an order to pay the said balance to Boone as trustee of the insurance company in full of principal due said company for lien on the land, and delivered the same...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Roberts v. Best
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 18 Febrero 1903
    ... ... all of the rights of his vendor in the property. Sheldon on ... Subrogation (2 Ed.), sec. 34, p. 54; Chicago v ... Tibbits, 104 U.S. 120; McKeag v. Ins. Co., 81 ... N.Y. 39; Sickles v. Flamigin, 79 N.Y. 224; ... Thompson v. Kenyon, 100 Mass. 108; ... ...
  • United States Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. City of Asheville
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • 6 Octubre 1936
    ...have same applied to the payment of the note, and this without regard to the express promise of the city to pay same. Chicago v. Tebbetts, 104 U.S. 120, 26 L.Ed. 655; Keystone Bridge Co. v. Summers, 13 W.Va. 476; Engelhardt v. Brooklyn, 3 Misc. 30, 21 N.Y.S. 777; City of Vallejo v. Superior......
  • Agency of Canadian Car & Foundry Co. v. American Can Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 21 Abril 1919
    ... ... nevertheless chargeable with it from the time of his default ... in making payment is undoubtedly the law in this country. In ... Chicago v ... Tebbetts, 104 U.S. 120, 125, 26 L.Ed ... 655, the principle was recognized and applied that a party ... guilty of unreasonable and vexatious ... ...
  • Swanson v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 25 Junio 1946
    ...with such statement, but this does not deny the recognition and preservation of the mortgagor's rights. See City of Chicago v. Tebbetts, 1881, 104 U.S. 120, 26 L.Ed. 655; City of Detroit v. Fidelity Realty Co., 1921, 213 Mich. 448, 182 N.W. 140; 18 Am.Jur. p. 868, § 235; 29 C.J.S., Eminent ......
  • 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