Dalby v. Maxfield

• Decision Date: 08 April 1910
• Citation: 91 N.E. 420,244 Ill. 214
• Parties: DALBY et al. v. MAXFIELD.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

244 Ill. 214

91 N.E. 420

DALBY et al.

v.MAXFIELD.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 16, 1910.

Rehearing Denied April 8, 1910.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Macoupin County; Robert B. Shirley, Judge.

Suit by Joseph F. Dalby and others against Hannah Caroline Maxfield, in which defendant filed a cross-bill for specific performance. From a decree dismissing the cross-bill and granting the prayer of the bill, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Buckingham & Gray, for appellant.

Walker, Searcy & Woods and Bell & Burton, for appellees.

VICKERS, J.

This is an appeal from a decree dismissing a cross-bill for specific performance filed by Hannah Caroline Maxfield against the complainants in the original bill, which was a bill for partition filed by Joseph F. Dalby and others, as the heirs at law of John W. Dalby, deceased, and granting the partition as prayed for in the original bill. The only errors alleged which require consideration relate to the decree dismissing the cross-bill.

John W. Dalby was the owner, at the time of his death, of 341 acres of farm lands in Macoupin county and about $10,000 worth of personal property. He left no widow and no child or children, he never having been married. The parties to this suit are his brothers and sisters and the descendants of deceased brothers and sisters.

The cross-bill of Mrs. Maxfield alleges that in 1891 the deceased, John W. Dalby, made a parol contract with her that if she would continue to live with him, and keep house for him, and aid and assist him in his business during his lifetime, he would leave all of his property, both real and personal, to her; that she accepted his proposition, and thereafter entered upon the performance of her part of said contract; that she kept house for her brother, John W. Dalby, from the time said contract was made until his death, a period of about 17 years; that during said time cross-complainant did all of the housework, including cooking and washing, for said John W. Dalby without the aid of any one, and in addition to her duties in the house she milked the cows and raised chickens, worked in the garden, and sold milk, butter, and eggs, and applied the proceeds to the support of the family. The cross-bill also alleges that about the year 1862 cross-complainant became a widow; that she had two children-a daughter, Lizzie Maxfield, and a son, Dr. J. C. Maxfield; that soon after her husband died she went to live with her mother, Eliza Dalby, who was then the owner in fee and was residing upon a part of the land involved in this partition; that Mrs. Maxfield resided in the house with her mother, and took care of her until her mother's death, which occurred in 1890; that after the death of Eliza Dalby a partition suit was commenced by her heirs for a partition of the real estate of which she died seised; that John W. Dalby purchased the interest of all of the heirs in the home farm except the interest of Mrs. Maxfield; that he paid in cash or his note from $500 to $1,200 per share; that Mrs. Maxfield conveyed her interest to John W. Dalby without consideration, in pursuance of his promise to leave her the entire farm, together with his personal property, at his death; that John W. Dalby died in 1907, never having made any will or executed any deed vesting Mrs. Maxfield with the title to his property. The cross-bill prays for a specific performance of the alleged parol contract, and that the cross-complainant be decreed to be the owner of all of the property, real and personal, which belonged to John W. Dalby at the time of his death.

The evidence shows, beyond question, that the contract was entered into between John W. Dalby and his sister, Mrs. Maxfield, as alleged in the cross-bill. There were four persons present when the contract was made: Jane S. Maxfield (the wife of Dr. Maxfield), Israel Asbury Dalby, a brother to the contracting parties, and the two parties who made the agreement. All of these persons are now living except John W. Dalby, and they testify positively to the making of the contract substantially as it is set out in the cross-bill. There is much evidence in the record corroborating the statements of these witnesses, such as numerous admissions made by John W. Dalby, in his lifetime, that he had agreed and promised to leave all of his property to his sister, Mrs. Maxfield. Appellees' answer to this testimony consists of attacks made upon the credibility of the witnesses. There is no evidence that is competent to the contrary.The case must be disposed of upon the assumption that the contract alleged was in fact made as stated in the cross-bill.

Appellees insist that it is highly inequitable to enforce the contract, and that, in view of the large amount of the estate which appellant will receive, a court of equity should, in the exercise of the discretion which it possesses in cases of this character, refuse a specific performance. In answer to this contention it must be borne in mind that at the time the contract was entered into John W. Dalby was a very poor man. He had at that time very little property except his undivided interest in his mother's estate. Appellant at that time had her undivided interest in her mother's estate and about $700 in cash, a claim against her mother's estate for services rendered in taking care of her mother, and also a claim against her mother's estate for a horse belonging to her, which her mother had disposed of for her benefit. We will not stop to consider either the amount or the validity of these claims. It is enough for our purpose to point out the fact that the claims were being made and...