Eldridge v. Walker

Citation1875 WL 8750,80 Ill. 270
PartiesJOHN W. ELDRIDGEv.SAMUEL G. WALKER et al.
Decision Date30 September 1875
CourtSupreme Court of Illinois

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. SAMUEL M. MOORE, Judge, presiding.

This was a bill in chancery, filed by John W. Eldridge against Samuel G. Walker, Martin O. Walker, Thomas Dyer and Curran Walker, to set aside a conveyance of certain lots on the grounds stated in the bill. This bill was filed June 23, 1848. Answers and replications were filed, and the cause stood on the docket until February 10, 1866, when the cause was heard on the merits, and the bill dismissed. After the order of dismissal, other parties became purchasers of the lots, and made valuable improvements on portions of them. The complainant then prosecuted a writ of error to this court, and the decree was reversed and the cause remanded. After the cause was remanded, other parties were brought in by bill of revivor and supplemental bill, including the subsequent purchasers. The cause was again heard on the pleadings and proofs taken, resulting in the dismissal of the bill, to reverse which order this appeal was taken.

Mr. W. J. DURHAM, for the appellant.

Messrs. HOYNE, HORTON & HOYNE, for the appellees Phelps, Dodge and Palmer.

Messrs. SLEEPER & WHITON, for the appellees the heirs of Edward and Michael F. McKey.Messrs. SMALL & MOORE, for the appellees Samuel O. and Edward S. Walker, and A. S. Chetham, Admr. etc.Mr. GEO. W. SMITH, for the appellee Miller.

Mr. JUSTICE BREESE delivered the opinion of the Court:

It is argued by appellant, there is nothing in this record to change the character of the transaction as reported in Eldridge v. Walker, 60 Ill. 230.

That case is so reported as not to give a full account of the nature of the bill of complaint, or of its prayer, or who were the parties defendant, besides Walker, and our memory does not enable us to supply the deficiency. In the case, however, the negotiations had with Thomas Dyer by Walker resulting in a conveyance to Dyer by Frink and Walker of the lots in controversy, were examined and discussed, and on the facts then appearing in that record, it was held, that, Walker being agent for Frink in the disposal of the property, he could not be the purchaser of Frink's undivided moity, without the consent of Frink to the transaction. Such a transaction would be presumed to be fraudulent, and would permit the owner, whose title was thus sought to be acquired, to disaffirm the sale, if he elected so to do, where the rights of innocent parties have not intervened.

The complaint there appears to have been, that Walker, secretly and for a fraudulent purpose personal to himself, placed the title in Dyer for Walker's own benefit.

There was nothing disclosed in the case tending to relieve it from this feature. It was then inferred, from the facts shown, that Walker had studiously concealed the real nature of the transaction from Frink, hence the condemnation.

The record now before us contains testimony not in the former record, tending to show that, soon after the transaction, Walker informed Frink of it, with which he expressed himself satisfied. And why should he not have been satisfied? The firm of Frink & Walker were, on the day the lots were conveyed to Dyer, in great stress for money, to save their credit. It was a startling emergency. Walker, on the suggestion of Dyer, failing to obtain the money from sources to which he had recourse, hired the money on his own personal responsibility, at three per cent per month, and relieved the firm from its embarrassment. The lots...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • Turner v. Edmonston
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 17, 1908
    ......Ed.), p. 1141; Ripley v. Morris, 7 Ill. 381; Allen, Ball & Co. v. Mayor,. etc., 9 Ga. 286; Robinson v. Magarity, 28 Ill. 423; Eldridge v. Walker, 80 Ill. 270;. International Bank v. Jenkins, 104 Ill. 143;. Pierce v. Stinde, 11 Mo.App. 364.]. . . ......
  • Smith v. Herdlicka
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • December 23, 1926
    ......Livingston, 131 Ill. 161, 23 N. E. 352;Hannas v. Hannas, 110 Ill. 53;Thompson v. Frew, 107 Ill. 478;Barlow v. Stanford, 82 Ill. 298;Eldridge v. Walker, 80 Ill. 270;Wadhams v. Gay, 73 Ill. 415; Buckmaster v. Carlin, supra.        [7][8] Appellees were not parties to the suit for ......
  • Pierce v. Stinde
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • January 24, 1883
    ...7 Ill. 381; Allen v. Mayor, 9 Ga. 286, 293; Gregg v. Berthea, 6 Port. 9; Robinson v. Magarity, 28 Ill. 423, 426; Eldridge v. Walker, 80 Ill. 270, 273. This doctrine is not at all peculiar to the common-law writ of error. It has been held equally applicable to the statutory writ of error whi......
  • Pierce v. Stinde
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • January 24, 1883
    ......337; Ripley v. Morris, 7 Ill. 381; Allen v. Mayor, 9 Ga. 286, 293; Gregg v. Berthea, 6 Port. 9; Robinson v. Magarity, 28 Ill. 423, 426; Eldridge v. Walker, 80 Ill. 270, 273. This doctrine is not at all peculiar to the common-law writ of error. It has been held equally applicable to the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT