Freese v. Glos
| Decision Date | 10 February 1911 |
| Citation | 93 N.E. 745,248 Ill. 280 |
| Parties | FREESE v. GLOS et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Cook County; Adelor J. Petit, Judge.
Suit by Wilhelm C. Freese against Jacob Glos and others to cancel as clouds upon plaintiff's title certain tax deeds. From a decree for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
John R. O'Connor, for appellants.
Harry C. Levinson and Enoch J. Price, for appellee.
This was a bill in chancery filed by the appellee, Wilhelm C. Freese, in the circuit court of Cook county, against Jacob Glos, Emma J. Glos, August A. Timke, trustee, and unknown owners, to cancel as clouds upon his title to lot 3 in Garfield Boulevard Syndicate addition (a subdivision of lot 1, block 7, circuit court partition of the W. 1/2 of the S. W. 1/4 of section 14, township 39 north, range 13 east, of the third principal meridian, in Cook county, Ill.) two tax deeds issued to Jacob Glos by the county clerk of Cook county. Answers and replications were filed, and the case was referred to a master to take the proofs and report his conclusions. The master took the proofs and filed a report, in which he found said tax deeds were void, and recommended that they be canceled and set aside as clouds upon the appellee's title, and the court having overruled exceptions to said report entered a decree in accordance with the recommendations of the master. Jacob Glos, Emma J. Glos, and August A. Timke, trustee, have prosecuted an appeal to this court.
The first contention of the appellants is that there was no order of reference entered in the cause which authorized the master to take the proofs and report his conclusions, and that the decree, for want of such order, is void and should be reversed. The record shows that on May 5, 1909, the cause was referred to Roswell B. Mason, one of the masters in chancery of the circuit court of Cook county, to take the proofs and report to the court his conclusions of law and fact, and that on June 29, 1909, on motion of complainant's solicitor, the order of reference entered on the 5th of May was set aside and the unknown owners of said lot 3 were defaulted, and it was ‘further ordered that the above-entitled cause to Roswell B. Mason master in chancery of this court.’ It also appears that Emma J. Glos and August A. Timke appeared by their solicitors before the master in chancery during the taking of the evidence; that Jacob Glos was served with summons and entered his appearance pro se, but the master's report is silent as to whether or not Jacob Glos appeared before the master by his solicitor or in person during the taking of the testimony. It appears, however, from the objections filed by Jacob Glos with the master and renewed as exceptions in the circuit court, ‘comes now the defendant Jacob Glos and objects to said report for the following reasons: (1) Because the master, upon the hearing before him, received in evidence, over the objections of defendant, the document described in the evidence as the complainant's Exhibit 1, and overruled the objections of this defendant thereto and considered the same in making up his report and based his report, in part, thereon,’ and said objection is repeated by Jacob Glos in the same form as to Exhibit 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. The words ‘be referred’ were omitted from the order of July 29th, and the order in that particular was defective. If, however, the parties treated the order as a valid order of reference, as they appear to have done, and appeared before the master and participated in the hearing before the master and made no objection as to the order of reference before the master or in the court below, it is too late for them to raise the question that the order of reference was insufficient after the case has reached this court on appeal. In Preston v. Hodgen, 50 Ill. 56, it was held that when it appears from a decree that the court acted upon a master's report, it will be inferred that an order of reference has been made although no such order appears in the record; and in Hawley v. Simons, 157 Ill. 218, 41 N. E. 616, that if a party appears and participates in the taking of evidence before a master without objection he cannot question the authority of the master to act, although no order referring the case to the master had been entered. We are of the opinion the trial court properly acted upon the master's report as against the appellants, although the order of reference was imperfect in form.
It is next contended that the court erred in allowing the master in chancery $13.05 for stenographer's fees for writing up the testimony in the case taken before him. Attached to be master's report was the following itemized statement of his fees and disbursements:
+------------------------------------------------+
¦Master's Fees and Expenses. ¦...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Strom v. Strom
...the case would make it highly inequitable to hold that he can now urge this point. The cases support this conclusion. Freese v. Glos, 1911, 248 Ill. 280, 93 N.E. 745; Phillips v. O'Connell, 1947, 331 Ill.App. 511, 73 N.E.2d 864. Bushnell v. Cooper, 1919, 289 Ill. 260, 124 N.E. 521, 6 A.L.R.......
-
Robinson v. Miller
...676;Jones v. Neely, 72 Ill. 449), and the plaintiff in error cannot complain of any informality in the order of reference (Freese v. Glos, 248 Ill. 280, 93 N. E. 745;Hawley v. Simons, 157 Ill. 218, 41 N. E. 616). [3] Third. While Beak sought an extension of the time of payment of the note d......
-
Andrulis v. First Nat. Bank of Lake Forest
...Ill.2d 424, 167 N.E.2d 553; Howard v. Burke, 248 Ill. 224, 93 N.E. 775; People v. Severinghaus, 313 Ill. 456, 145 N.E. 220; Freese v. Glos, 248 Ill. 280, 93 N.E. 745.) The amendment to the judicial article of the Constitution of 1870 abolishing the office of master in chancery effective Jan......
-
Sebastian v. Gorecki
...that appellant is right in his figures, we think the doctrine of the maxim de minimis non curat lex should be applied. Freese v. Glos, 248 Ill. 280, 93 N. E. 745. Without further discussion, we are of opinion the demurrer was properly sustained, and the decree is affirmed. Decree ...