Ellis v. Hill

• Decision Date: 12 May 1896
• Parties: ELLIS v. HILL et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

162 Ill. 557

44 N.E. 858

ELLIS

v.HILL et al.¹

Supreme Court of Illinois.

May 12, 1896.

Appeal from circuit court, Mercer county; John J. Glenn, Judge.

Bill by Thomas B. Ellis against Charlotte B. Hill and others for the partition of lands. From a decree in favor of defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Wray & Watson, for appellant.

J. H. Connell and W. A. Meese, for appellees.

MAGRUDER, J.

The original bill in this cause was filed on May 22, 1894, by the appellant against the appellees, for the partition of about 480 acres of land, a portion of which is underlaid with coal. The appellee Charlotte B. Hill is a sister of the appellant, and holds the legal title to the land in question, claiming to be the legal and equitable owner thereof. Appellees Willis Hill and Harry W. Hill, sons of said Charlotte, and John M. Waters, their brother-in-law, under an agreement with said Charlotte, sank a coal shaft upon the land, erected buildings, put in machinery, and have taken out some coal. The appellee William T. Crawford is a son-in-law of said Charlotte, and acted as her agent to take charge of the land and collect the rents. The appellees thus named answered the bill. There were other defendants, against whom the bill was taken as confessed. For more than 20 years there had been litigation between appellant and one Cable, who held the title to the premises in controversy. Finally, in 1887 a decree for $41,500 was rendered in favor of appellant, under which said premises were sold on June 7, 1887, and bid in by appellant for the amount of the decree, and a certificate of purchase was issued to him. On September 1, 1887, appellant assigned this certificate of purchase to his sister, Mrs. Hill. Cable did not redeem the land from the sale, and on September 10, 1887, the master or special commissioner issued the deed to Mrs. Hill, the appellee, the assignee and holder of the certificate of purchase. While appellant was engaged in the litigation referred to, his sister, Mrs. Hill, made advances or loans to him of large amounts of money. It is averred in the answer that this indebtedness of appellant to Mrs. Hill, including interest thereon, amounted in 1888 to upwards of $30,000, and it is contended on the part of the appellees that the averment of the answer is sustained by the proofs. It is clearly established that there was an indebtendess, and that it was very large. The original bill alleges that on September 1, 1887, when appellant assigned the certificate of sale to his sister, he made a verbal agreement with her by which she was to advance money to pay the indebtedness incurred by appellant in his litigation, and the taxes, etc., and by which she was to take one undivided half of said land, and he was to retain the other half; that she took out the deed or deeds in her own name, and holds the legal title to all of the land, but that she holds the title to one-half thereof in trust for him. The prayer of the bill is for partition of the premises,-one-half to be set off to appellant, and one-half to Mrs. Hill. Mrs. Hill set up in her answer that the deed of September 10, 1888, was executed to her in payment of the indebtedness of over $25,000 then due to her from her brother, and that she thereby purchased the land for what he owed her. She denies that she made any agreement or entered into any arrangement by which she was to have one half of the land, and hold the other half in trust for her brother. In her answer she pleads and relies upon the statute of frauds. The cause was heard by the circuit court in January, 1895, and held under advisement until May 2, 1895, when the final decision was made, dismissing appellant's bill. At that time appellant made certain amendments to his bill, by inserting allegations therein to the effect, in substance, that in the spring of 1889 appellant and Mrs. Hill entered into a verbal agreement by which she was to let appellant have about $6,000, and that she should retain the title to said real estate as security for the same, and permit appellant to redeem the same in some reasonable time, but that, if he could not redeem the whole amount in such time as Mrs. Hill chose to wait on him, then she should retain the absolute title to one half of the land, free of any defeasance, and she should convey the other half to appellant, free of any lien or incumbrance. The contention of counsel for appellant is thus stated by them in their brief: ‘Upon the part of appellant, we maintain that the certificates were assigned to Mrs. Hill as security for money loaned by her to him, and that when the time expired during which Cable could redeem the land, and he did not redeem it, the deed was, by Ellis' consent, issued to her as a continuance of said security. We further maintain that about two years later he and his sister made an agreement by which she contracted to supply him with money to pay certain specified debts, to wait upon him a reasonable time for repayment, and, in case he failed to repay her, to reconvey to him one half the lands, and retain the other half as full satisfaction of all his obligations to her.’ The following disposition of the cause appears in the certificate of evidence: ‘The court said, in deciding this case, at the conclusion: ‘This complainant asks, under the general prayer of this bill, for such other and further relief as might seem meet and proper to the court, and under that general prayer he would be entitled to relief; but this bill should be amended, stating the transaction as a mortgage, and then in that case it should be referred to the master, to have the account stated between the parties, and the complainant given an opportunity to redeem. If, however, the complainant does not desire to stand by this announcement of the court, then, as a matter of course, the court will deny the relief asked for in the amended bill, and dismiss the original bill, and then the case can go up on that record.’ The complainant elected to stand by his original bill, and the court then dismissed the bill for want of equity.'

Did the circuit court err in dismissing the bill? The bill was a bill for partition, proceeding upon the theory that, although the legal title to the whole of the land was in the appellee Charlotte B. Hill, yet she owned only an undivided half of the land, and held the legal title to the other undivided half in trust for appellant; in other words, that she owned the legal title to one undivided half, and that appellant owned the equitable title to the other undivided half. The contention that appellant was the equitable owner of an undivided half of the land rests upon an alleged verbal agreement set up in the bill as finally amended, and claimed to have been made in the spring of 1889. At the latter date Mrs. Hill held the legal title to all the land, under a deed executed to her on September 10, 1888, by the master or special commissioner. It will be here noticed that there is an essential difference between the transaction as alleged in the original bill, and the transaction as alleged in the original bill after it was amended. In the original bill it is stated that when appellant assigned the certificate of purchase to his sister, on September 1, 1887, he verbally agreed with her that she should hold half of the land as security for, or in payment of, his indebtedness to her, and the other half in trust for him. Under this view the transaction was only a mortgage or sale, as to half of the land. The assignment of the certificate operated as a security or a sale only so far as it had the effect of transferring the equitable interest in one half of the land; and so when in September, 1888, the certificate was taken up, and a deed was...