Crow v. Crow

• Decision Date: 23 April 1932
• Docket Number: No. 21070.,21070.
• Parties: CROW v. CROW.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

348 Ill. 241

180 N.E. 877

CROW

v.CROW.

No. 21070.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April 23, 1932.

Commissioners' Opinion.

Suit by Leslie Crow against Ada S. Crow. From a decree dismissing the bill, complainant appeals.

Affirmed.Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Clair County; Henry G. Miller, judge.

W. E. Knowles, of East St. Louis, for appellant.

H. L. Browning and Joiah Whitnel, both of

H. L. Browning and Josiah Whitnel, both of

EDMUNDS, C.

Leslie Crow, son of George A. Crow, deceased, filed a bill in the circuit court of St. Clair county naming Ada S. Crow, widow of George, defendant, praying that the homestead of Ada in certain real property be assigned to her, and that the residue be partitioned. The chancellor sustained a demurrer to the bill and entered a decree dismissing it for want of equity. From that decree, Leslie Crow has appealed.

The bill alleges that on or about September 10, 1910, George A. Crow acquired the property in fee simple by warranty deed from Edward E. Miller and wife; that immediately thereafter he went into possession of the premises, and together with his wife, Ada, occupied it as a homestead; and that on December 5, 1912, while so occupying the premises, he and Ada executed a warranty deed to the same, said deed being in words and flgures as follows: ‘This indenture witnesseth, that the grantor, George A. Crow, and Ada S. Crow, his wife, of the county of St. Clair and State of Illinois, for and in consideration of the sum of one dollar, in hand paid, convey and warrant to John M. Chamberlin, Jr., as trustee, to re-convey to us as joint tenants and not as tenants in common of the county of St. Clair and State of Illinois the following described real estate, to-wit, * * * situated in the county of St. Clair, in the State of Illinios, hereby releasing and waiving all rights under and by virtue of the homestead exemption laws of this State.’ The bill alleges that on December 5, 1912, Chamberlin, grantee in said deed from the Crows, executed a warranty deed to the property to the Crows; this deed being in words and figures as follows: ‘This indenture witnesseth, that the grantor, John M. Chamberlin, Jr., as trustee, of the county of St. Clair and State of Illinois, for and in consideration of the sum of one dollar in hand paid, conveys and warrants to George A. Crow and Ada S. Crow, as joint tenants, and not as tenants in common, of the county of St. Clair and State of Illinois, the following described real estate, to-wit: * * * This conveyance is made, executed and delivered in full execution of the trust declared in a conveyance of this date from the grantees to the grantor, as trustee.’ The bill further alleges that both of said deeds were duly acknowledged and were executed at the same time and filed for record in the office of the recorder of St. Clair county at the same hour and minute on December 5, 1912; that while the conveyances purported to be from George A. and Ada S. Crow to Chamberlin as trustee, and from Chamberlin, as trustee, to George A. and Ada S. Crow as joint tenants and not as tenants in common, yet, in fact, no relation of trustee was actually created and no joint tenancy was, in fact, created, and the conveyances resulted only in the creation of a tenancy in common in the Crows; that the deed in which Chamberlin was named as grantee was never actually delivered to him; that he paid no consideration for the same and the property was never surrendered to him; that he did not take possession of the property or have any control over it; that the property was at all times under the full and exclusive control of the Crows and occupied by them as a homestead until May 25, 1929, when Crow departed this life intestate, leaving Ada S. Crow as his wife, and complainant, Leslie Crow, as his child and only heir-at-law, since which time Ada has occupiedthe property as a homestead; that ‘by reason of the above described deeds' the Crows became tenants in common of the premises; that, subject to the homestead, Ada is the owner of an undivided one-half interest in the premises, and, subject to the homestead and payment of claims in the probate court, Ada is further the owner of an undivided one-third interest in the other undivided one-half interest in the premises; and that appellant, subject to the homestead and payment of claims, is the owner of the remaining two-thirds of the last mentioned undivided one-half interest in the premises.

Appellant's first reliance is upon the contention that no delivery was made of the deed from the Crows to Chamberlin, hereinafter spoken of as the Crow deed. He refers to the allegation of the bill that there was no such delivery and argues that this was admitted by the demurrer. The contention is without merit. From an analysis of the bill it appears that the rights which appellant asserts therein are grounded upon the very deed in question. Assuming that he is in a position to invoke the contention of nondelivery, the allegation referred to is a conclusion of the pleader, which cannot, in view of the facts appearing in the bill, be held to be admitted by demurrer. The Crow deed was placed on record. Chamberlin executed a deed reciting that it was in execution of the trust declared in the Crow deed, and this Chamberlin deed was also placed on record. The Crow deed having been recorded, a presumption arises that it had been delivered. Harshbarger v. Carroll, 163 Ill. 636, 45 N. E. 565. The manual possession of a deed by the grantee is not necessary to the conveyance of title provided he has knowledge of the execution and recording of it and assents to it. Abernathie v. Rich, 256 Ill. 166, 99 N. E. 883. That Chamberlin had such knowledge of the Crow deed and assented to it sufficiently appears from the fact that he executed and delivered an instrument carrying out the trusts which it imposed and so reciting.

[7] Appellant next contends that if the...