Eames v. the Germania Turn Verein.

• Decision Date: 30 September 1874
• Citation: 74 Ill. 54,1874 WL 9069
• Parties: HENRY F. EAMES et al.v.THE GERMANIA TURN VEREIN.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

74 Ill. 54

1874 WL 9069 (Ill.)

HENRY F. EAMES et al.

v.THE GERMANIA TURN VEREIN.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

September Term, 1874.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. JOHN G. ROGERS, Judge, presiding. Messrs. SLEEPER & WHITON, for the appellant.

Mr. ADOLPH MOSES, for the appellees.

Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE WALKER delivered the opinion of the Court:

Appellees, being desirous of erecting a hall for the use of their society, and of purchasing a suitable site for the same, entered into negotiations with the agents of appellants for the purchase of certain real estate in the city of Chicago. A written agreement was entered into, by which appellees were to pay $33,000, in installments, the deferred payments to draw eight per cent interest. Five hundred dollars was paid when the writing was executed, and was to be part of a $9,000 payment in cash. The purchasers were to have ten days for the examination and approval of title, after being furnished with an abstract. If it proved not to be good, the $500 thus paid was to be refunded, but in case no valid objections were found, and the first payment not made, the sellers were to hold the deposit, as liquidated damages, and the contract to become null and void. Time was made of the essence of the contract. Appellees to receive a good and sufficient warranty deed, and to give notes and trust deed as security for the deferred payments. The contract was dated June the 8th, 1870, and the abstract of title was soon after furnished.

An attorney was consulted, and he pronounced the title good. Thereupon appellees paid at various times the aggregate sum of $2,500 on the purchase. The time for the first payment was extended. But a member of the organization not being satisfied with the title, had it examined by Rosenthal & Pence, who decided that the property was subject to the lien of a decree of over $51,000. The vendors were informed of the fact, and promised to have it removed, or to have it made right. Notice was given to Rosenthal & Pence by Eames, that, unless payments were made according to the terms of the agreement, he would resell, and in case of loss would hold the company liable for the difference. He also stated that he was prepared to convey a perfect title in fee, on appellees complying with their contract. And appellees gave notice that they declared the contract ended on account of the lien of the decree.

An action was brought by the company to recover back the money paid on the purchase. A trial was had before the court, resulting in a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, from which defendants have appealed to this court.

The decree against Gage was rendered on the 17th day of June, 1868, when he was the owner of this property sold by Eames and wife to appellees. Eames and wife subsequently acquired Gage's title to the portion of the property which they sold to appellees. And to this portion of the property no other objection is interposed to the title, but the supposed lien of the decree against Gage. It finds that Gage and others were indebted to Lawrence in the sum of $51,288.99, and they were ordered to pay it in ten days, or in default thereof that the property involved in that suit should be sold by the master, and if it failed to produce a sum sufficient to pay the decree, that then an execution should issue for the balance. This was strictly in accordance with the act of 1865 (Sess. Laws, p. 36).

Was this decree a lien on the property of Eames and wife at the time of the sale? The fourteenth section of the chapter entitled “Chancery” R. S., 1845, declares that “a decree for money shall be a lien on...