Delfosse v. Delfosse

• Decision Date: 03 April 1919
• Docket Number: No. 12406.,12406.
• Citation: 287 Ill. 251,122 N.E. 484
• Parties: DELFOSSE v. DELFOSSE et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

287 Ill. 251

122 N.E. 484

DELFOSSE

v.DELFOSSE et al.

No. 12406.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 20, 1919.

Rehearing Denied April 3, 1919.

Appeal from Superior Court, Cook County; Denis E. Sullivan, Judge.

Bill by Anthony F. Delfosse against Marie C. Delfosse and others. Decree for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed in part, and remanded, with directions.

Joseph H. Muhlke, of Chicago, for appellant.

Holt, Cutting & Sidley, of Chicago, for appellees.

DUNN, J.

Antoine J. C. Delfosse died on March 25, 1913, leaving a widow, Marie C. Delfosse, and three sons, two daughters and a granddaughter, the daughter of his deceased son Charles, as his heirs. On June 16, 1913, Anthony F. Delfosse, one of the sons, filed a bill in the superior court of Cook county against the widow and the other heirs, alleging that the deceased at the time of his death owned five parcels of real estate in Cook county, but that he had caused the title to four of such parcels to be conveyed to Marie C. Delfosse by deeds which he had caused to be delivered to her upon her express promise that she would hold the title in trust for Antoine, who was to be the owner of the premises; that she would not record the deeds, except upon his express request, and that upon his death the premises should be conveyed to his children as tenants in common, in equal shares, subject to the life estate of Marie therein, and that she would, upon demand from Antoine, reconvey the premises to him or to any person under his direction; that after receiving the deeds conveying the property to her, she, without the knowledge or consent of Antoine, in violation of her promises and trust and against her express agreement, caused them to be recorded, and that the record title was in her. It was alleged that the record title to the other parcel of real estate was in the name of Henry G. Dinet, who held the title in trust for Antoine Delfosse in his lifetime and now holds the title in trust for his heirs at law. As to two of the parcels conveyed to Marie C. Delfosse it was alleged that after the conveyance to her was recorded, she, together with her husband, conveyed the premises to Henry C. Barthel, Jr., who thereupon conveyed them to Antoine Delfosse; that after the conveyances were delivered to Antoine he did not record them, but kept them in a safety deposit box to which Marie C. Delfosse had access; and that she afterward, without the knowledge or consent of Antoine, abstracted from the safety deposit box the deed executed by her and her husband to Barthel, and has since retained it or has destroyed it. The bill alleges that, when Antoine Delfosse discovered that Marie C. Delfosse had recorded the deeds to her, he demanded of her that she immediately convey the promises to him; but she refused to comply with the demand, though admitting that the premises were conveyed to her in trust, and that she did not claim to hold title to the property, except the record title, and that she would hold it in trust as she had formerly agreed.

Later an amended bill was filed, in which it was averred that Antoine Delfosse caused the deeds to be executed as alleged in the original bill, but that he hesitated to have the conveyances executed until Marie C. Delfosse assured him that she would honestly and faithfully carry out the conditions and limitations of the trust as alleged in the original bill; that Marie intended to procure the title in her name, and afterwards to refuse to carry out her promises, and thus defeat the intention of Antoine and obtain an unlawful and an unconscionable benefit for herself, but that Antoine, believing and relying on her assurances and promises that she would not record the deeds, and would carry out the limitations, promises, and conditions as aforesaid, and relying on the relationship between him and his wife, caused the deeds to be executed and delivered to him, and after receiving them deposited them in a safety deposit box to which Marie had access, and afterwards she, without the consent or knowledge of Antoine, and in violation of her promises and assurances, and pursuant to her intent and purpose to defraud him and obtain the title in her own name, secretly abstracted the deeds from the safety deposit box and filed the same for record, though they had never been delivered to her. This amended bill included another parcel of real estate, not included in the first, the title to which it was alleged was held, at the time of Antoine Delfosse's death, by William Hornberg in trust for Antoine, and remained in him after the death of Antoine, but that afterwards, on June 17, 1913, Marie C. Delfosse procured from Hornberg and his wife a deed conveying the title to Marie. Afterward a second amended bill was filed which omitted all allegations of misrepresentation or promises made by Marie C. Delfosse, alleging only that Antoine Delfosse caused deeds to be executed of which he informed his wife, and further advised and explained to her that the property so deeded belonged to him, but was being deeded to her to be held in trust for his use and benefit; that the deeds were not to be recorded, except upon his express request, and upon demand she was to reconvey the premises to him, and, if he should die before making such demand, then she was to convey the premises to his children, share and share alike, subject to her dower estate, which she should retain, but that the deeds never were delivered to her; that without the consent or knowledge of her husband she secretly abstracted the deeds from his safety deposit box and wrongfully filed them for record; that he frequently demanded a reconveyance of the property to him, but that she refused to make such conveyance. The prayer was for a partition of the premises.

The answer of Marie C. Delfosse and Cecelia Delfosse, two of the defendants, denies that Antoine Delfosse was the owner of the property in controversy at the time of his death; admits that the title had been held for him by the various persons named, as alleged in the bill, and that he caused the deeds to Marie C. Delfosse to be executed; but denies that the deeds were deposited by him in his safety deposit box and alleges that they were delivered to Marie for the purpose of vesting the title to the premises in her without any restrictions or conditions. It denies that Antoine informed his wife of the execution of such deeds and explained to her that the property belonged to him and was being deeded to her to be held in trust for his benefit; that the deeds were not to be recorded except upon his express request; that upon demand she was to reconvey the premises to him, and that if he should die before making demand for such reconveyance she was to convey the premises to his children, subject to her dower estate. It denies that the deeds were recorded without the consent or knowledge of Antoine, or that Marie abstracted them from his safety deposit box, or that he ever demanded of her that she reconvey the premises to him. The answer denies that Marie C. Delfosse executed a deed to Henry C. Barthel, Jr., or that he executed the deed to Antoine Delfosse, or that Marie abstracted any deed executed by her and her husband to Barthel from the safety deposit box, or has retained or destroyed any such deed. As to the parcel of real estate alleged in the second amended bill to be held in trust by Henry G. Dinet, the answer alleges that such real estate was held in trust by Dinet for Marie C. Delfosse, and that on March 8, 1907, at the same time the other deeds were executed, Dinet executed a deed conveying said premises to Marie, subject to no conditions or limitations whatever; that she accepted the deed without any agreement, condition, or limitation whatever, and that she delivered the same to her attorney for the purpose of having it recorded, but that some time thereafter her attorney informed her that Joseph T. Delfosse had requested her attorney to deliver the deed to him, and he had done so, and Joseph either now has the deed in his possession or has disposed of it without the knowledge or consent of Marie, and she claims to be, and is, the owner in fee simple of the premises, and is entitled to a decree directing the conveyance of the legal title to her in case the original deed is not produced and delivered to her. As to the property held in trust by William Hornberg, the answer alleges that it was purchased by Antoine Delfosse with the joint funds of himself and his wife, but that the premises were conveyed to the complainant, who afterwards, at the request of Antoine and Marie C. Delfosse, conveyed the premises to Hornberg, who held the legal title to the same although the equitable title was in Marie; that it is not true that Hornberg was induced to execute the deed to Marie by fraud and misrepresentation, but that such deed was given in direct accord with the wish and request of Antoine Delfosse, and was recorded in order that the legal title to the premises might by vested in Marie, where the equitable title had long been. The answer also set up the statute of frauds and claimed the benefit of its provisions. The court dismissed the bill for want of equity, and the complainant appealed.

The question of first importance in the case concerns the delivery of the deeds to Marie C. Delfosse, and upon this question the evidence is extremely conflicting. Antoine J. C. Delfosse and his wife came to this country in 1863, going first to Madison, Wis., and then to Chicago. He was a bricklayer, and at first worked at his trade by the day. Afterward he bought property, built on it, and sold it, and continued to do so, and by 1896 was the owner of several parcels of real estate, including all of the property in controversy in this case. Mrs. Delfosse testified that she had $3,000 or $4,000 which she got from her father and mother, with which one of the parcels, called the May street property, was bought. Antoine afterwards...