Gage v. Busse
| Decision Date | 31 March 1880 |
| Citation | 94 Ill. 590,1880 WL 9998 |
| Parties | HENRY H. GAGEv.CHRISTIAN C. BUSSE et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Cook county.
This was a suit in chancery, instituted in the court below by Busse and Sturtevant against Gage, to remove a cloud upon title, consisting of certain certificates of sales of land for taxes held by Gage. The court below granted the relief sought by the bill, and the defendant thereupon appealed directly to this court.
The appellees now move the court to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that the case does not come within any of the classes in which an appeal is allowed to be taken from the trial court to this court, but that it should have been taken to the Appellate Court. Messrs. MATTOCKS & MASON, for the motion:
The direct appeal to this court can not be sustained except upon the ground that a freehold is involved in the litigation. There is no freehold involved in this suit.
The case of Akin et al. v. Lloyd, 28 Ill. 331, decides that a bill to remove a cloud is not a suit affecting real estate. The code of chancery practice then in force required that suits which “may affect real estate,” should be brought in the county “where the same is situated.” Complainants, living in Bureau county, filed a bill to remove a cloud upon the title to to real estate situated in Bureau county. Defendant Lloyd pleaded in abatement that he was a resident of Marshall county. The plea was sustained and the suit dismissed. The Supreme Court affirmed the decree.
The case at bar is far stronger. The record shows that the bill was filed, and the defendants brought into court before the time of redemption from the tax sale had expired. The thing to be determined is the respective rights of the parties at that time. There was then no possible dispute between them as to any freehold. Gage claimed that they ought to pay him the face of certain taxes, with 50 per cent interest per annum, or 100 per cent in all. They claimed to be entitled to a cancellation of the certificates upon the payment of their face, with 6 per cent per annum, or about 11 per cent in all. The question was, then, simply this: Shall Busse and others pay Gage a penalty of 89 per cent in addition to legal interest, or not? The whole controversy is measured by this 89 per cent, and relates only to it. There is no question of freehold here. Gage does not claim to own the land. When the bill was filed he had no deed; the time for applying for a deed had not come; he has no deed now.
It is evident, then, that the appeal has been prayed and allowed in error, and that it should be dismissed.Mr. AUGUSTUS N. GAGE, and Mr. MARTIN R. M. WALLACE, contra:
This litigation, as we contend, involves a freehold, and in such case, under existing legislation, the appeal lies directly to this court.
It is said that a freehold is not involved in this case, because at the time the bill was filed appellant only held a certificate of purchase at a tax sale, and no deed had been, nor has any deed since...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Meyer
...and not his heirs, and that it was a mere bid for the land that might or might not become an interest in the soil. In Gage v. Busse, 94 Ill. 590, a bill was filed to remove as a cloud upon title certificates of sales of land for taxes, and it was held that no freehold was involved. In Light......
-
Kronenberger v. Heinemann
...Servant, 63 Ill. 424. The certificate of purchase confers on the holder no title in the land. Huftalin v. Misner, 70 Ill. 55.’ In Gage v. Busse, 94 Ill. 590, which was a suit in chancery to cancel certain tax certificates, it was held no freehold was involved, although the time for redempti......
-
Wells v. Glos
...and not his heirs, and that it was a mere bid for the land that might or might not become an interest in the soil. In Gage v. Busse, 94 Ill. 590, a bill was filed to remove as a cloud upon title certificates of sales of land for taxes, and it was held that no freehold was involved. In Light......
-
Johnson v. McDonald
...when the holder will be entitled to a deed if the premises are not redeemed. Kronenberger v. Heinemann, 190 Ill. 17, 60 N. E. 64;Gage v. Busse, 94 Ill. 590;Wilkinson v. Gage, 133 Ill. 137, 24 N. E. 562;Galbraith v. Plasters, 101 Ill. 444;Hutchinson v. Howe, 100 Ill. 11. In Gage v. Busse, su......