Gould v. Sternburg

Decision Date16 May 1889
Citation128 Ill. 510,21 N.E. 628
PartiesGOULD et al. v. STERNBURG.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Error to circuit court, Will county; CHARLES BLANCHARD, Judge.

Ejectment by Mary E. Sternburg against Hiram Gould, Charles Gould, and George Gould. Plaintiff obtained judgment. Defendants bring error.

Haley & O'Donnell, for plaintiffs in error.

R. E. Barber and B. M. Munn, for defendant in error.

WILKIN, J.

To maintain the issue on her part plaintiff below proved a common source of title in Hiram Gould. She then introduced in evidence, without objection, a sheriff's deed for the premises in question, dated September 23, 1871, reciting that at the January term, 1868, of the Will circuit court, as administratrix of her deceased husband, Philip A. Sternburg, she obtained a judgment against said Hiram Gould for $322.40, upon which by execution and sale said deed was executed and delivered to her, also a bill in chancery in the same court by her as complainant, against Hiram Gould, Elizabeth Gould, Delancy Jackson, and James Gould, in which, among other things, it is alleged that on the 11th day of November, 1856, one Richardson and Hiram Gould made and delivered to Philip A. Sternburg, since deceased, a promissory note for $200, due in three years, with interest; that said Philip, prior to his death, had brought suit upon said note, and that afterwards, January, 1868, she as his administratrix recovered the judgment, and obtained the deed above mentioned; that at the time of making said note said Hiram Gould owned the land described in said sheriff's deed in fee unincumbered, and continued to own the same up to and at the time of said sale, but in November, 1859, for the purpose of preventing the collection of said note, and without any consideration, he, with his wife, Elizabeth, conveyed the same to said Jackson, and that afterwards said Jackson and wife, without consideration, reconveyed the same to said Hiram Gould, but that said Hiram secretly held said deed for several years, and on May 1, 1880, placed it on record with the name Hiram errased, and the name James inserted, thereby making the conveyance to James Gould, instead of Hiram Gould, which change is alleged to have been a forgery, made for the purpose of cheating and defrauding creditors of said Hiram. She also introduced in evidence the answer of Hiram Gould, in which he avers that the conveyance made by him to Delancy Jackson was in good faith for a valuable consideration, and that said Jackson took possession under the same, and afterwards conveyed to James Gould. The answer denies generally all the allegations of said bill. The answer of James Gould was also introduced, which is a general denial of the bill. The prayer of the bill was that said conveyances should be set aside as against the complainant therein, and that she be put in possession of said premises. The decree, after finding the facts substantially as alleged in the bill, decrees that the deed from said Hiram and wife to Jackson be held void, and a cloud upon complainant's title, and orders that ‘the title to the premises described in said sheriff's deed be declared vested in her the complainant under said sheriff's deed, and she is entitled to the possession of the same against defendants and any person holding under them, and that a writ of possession issue.’ This cause was submitted at the September term, 1873, and taken under advisement, with a stipulation that the decree should be rendered as of that term. The case was decided March 4, 1874. On appeal to this court the decree was affirmed September 19, 1876. 84 Ill. 170. Hiram Gould, on behalf of plaintiffs in error, testified that Charles Gould (the father of part of plaintiffs in error) and George Gould had been in possession of said premises since 1877. There was also offered in evidence on their behalf certain deeds from James Gould and wife to said George Gould and Charles Gould, but neither of them described the land in controversy in this suit. They proved, over the objection of defendant in error, that the judgment of January, 1868, in favor of defendant in error against Hiram Gould, was, by an order of this court made on the 30th day of January, 1874, reversed, (see 69 Ill. 531,) and it is upon this last evidence that the decision must turn; it being insisted by plaintiffs in error that the effect of such reversal was to annul and wipe out the legal effect of all that had been done under and in pursuance of that judgment.

It is well settled in this...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • Pettis v. Johnston
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • 1 Junio 1920
    ... ... 304; McCormick v ... McClure, 6 Blackf. (Ind.) 466, 39 Am. Dec. 441; ... Taylor v. Boyd, 3 Ohio, 337, 17 Am. Dec. 603; ... Gould v. Sternberg, 128 Ill. 510, 21 N.E. 628, 15 ... Am. St. Rep. 138; Reynolds v. Harris, 14 Cal. 667, ... 76 Am. Dec. 459; Hudepohl v. Liberty ... ...
  • Pettis v. Johnston
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • 1 Junio 1920
    ...85 N.E. 304; McCormick v. McClure, 6 Blackf. 466. 39 Am. Dec. 441; Taylor v. Boyd, 3 Ohio 337, 17 Am. Dec. 603; Gould v. Sternberg, 128 Ill. 510, 15 Am. St. Rep. 138, 21 N.E. 628; Reynolds v. Harris. 14 Cal. 667, 76 Am. Dec. 459; Hudepohl v. Liberty Hill Water Co., 94 Cal. 588, 28 Am. St. R......
  • Dunfee v. Childs
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • 6 Marzo 1906
    ... ... purchasers for value without notice. Hogg's Eq. Princ. § ... 293; 3 Cyc. 462, 467; Zollman v. Moore, 21 Grat ... (Va.) 313; Gould v. Sternberg (Ill.) 21 N.E. 628, 15 ... Am.St.Rep. 138; Reynolds v. Harris, 76 Am.Dec. 459 ... The authorities are very numerous, and almost of ... ...
  • Dunfee v. Childs
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • 6 Marzo 1906
    ...for value without notice. Hogg's Eq. Princ. § 293; 3 Cyc. 462, 467; Zollman v. Moore, 21 Grat. (Va.) 313; Gould v. Sternberg (111.) 21 N. E. 628, 15 Am. St. Rep. 138; Reynolds v. Harris, 76 Am. Dec. 459. The authorities are very numerous, and almost of one voice, to show that a stranger to ......
  • 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