Cooke v. Cooke

• Decision Date: 18 December 1901
• Citation: 194 Ill. 225,62 N.E. 536
• Parties: COOKE v. COOKE.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

194 Ill. 225

62 N.E. 536

COOKE

v.COOKE.¹

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 18, 1901.

Error to circuit court, Cook county; E. Hanecey, Judge.

Action by Mary L. Cooke against Samuel J. Cooke and others. From a decree for plaintiff, defendant Samuel J. Cooke brings error. Writ dismissed.Cunningham, Vogal & Cunningham, for defendant in error.

H. H. Ferrell, for plaintiff in error.

CARTWRIGHT. J.

The defendant in error, Mary L. Cooke, alleging that she was the owner of a life estate in sublot 1 in the Fractional Section addition to the city of Chicago, and also known as 468 Wabash avenue, in said city, by devise from her deceased brother, Andrew T. King, with remainder to her heirs, filed her bill in this case in the circuit court of Cook county, asking the court to sell said real estate and convert it into personal property, to appoint a trustee to make said sale and invest the proceeds in interest-bearing securities, and to pay the annual income to her as life tenant, and to deliver the principal to her heirs at her death. The facts averred as ground for the relief were, in brief, that the devise to her was of the rents, issues, profits, and income of the property for her life, without power to sell or incumber such property; that the property was worth $40,000, but produced no income, that the taxes amounted to nearly $1,000 per year; and that the property would be sold for taxes and other expenses, and lost to her and her heirs, unless it could be sold and the proceeds invested. Two infant children of complainant, a niece, who was also a minor, Samuel J. Cooke, the plaintiff in error, her husband, and all other living persons who might become heirs of the complainant, were made defendants to the bill. A guardian ad litem was appointed for the three minors, who answered, neither admitting nor denying the allegations of the bill, and praying for proof of its averments. Samuel J. Cooke, the husband, answered, admitting the facts alleged in the bill, and the other defendants were defaulted. The court heard evidence and entered a decree appointing the complainant, the life tenant, trustee for herself and her future heirs, with directions to sell the property and to invest the proceeds in interestbearing securities, and as such trustee, for herself and her heirs, to pay the income to herself during her life, and after her death the principal of said trust to go to her heirs in fee. Said Samuel J. Cooke, one of the defendants, sued out the writ in this case, and has brought the record into this court.

This is a case where both parties are desirous of having the decree affirmed, and the other parties affected by the joing decree, some of whom are minors, and who are at least equally parties in interest, have not been brought before the court. Defendant in error filed the bill in the circuit court, and the plaintiff in error, her husband, answered, admitting the facts, and testified on the hearing, in...