Hajicek v. Goldsby
| Decision Date | 20 October 1923 |
| Docket Number | No. 15523.,15523. |
| Citation | 141 N.E. 140,309 Ill. 372 |
| Parties | HAJICEK v. GOLDSBY et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Suit by Frank g. Hajicek against David W. Goldsby and others. Decree for defendants, and complainant appeals.
Cause transferred to Appellate Court.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Cook County; Hugo M. Friend, judge.
Joseph Z. Klenha and Abraham Greenfield, both of Chicago (Louis M. Mantynband, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellant.
William Slack, of Chicago, for appellees.
The bill in this case was filed by the complainant, Frank G. Hajicek, for the purpose of quieting the title to lot 34 in block 1 of a certain subdivision in Cook county, Ill., by setting aside a certain affidavit and quitclaim deed, a mortgage, judgment, and mechanic's lien claims as clouds upon his title. The defendants were all defaulted, except David W. Goldsby, who filed an answer, claiming to be the owner of an undivided three-fourths interest in the premises, and a cross-bill, praying for partition. On the hearing of evidence before the master,Goldsby was unable to produce evidence to sustain the allegations of his cross-bill, and upon his motion the hearing before the master was continued. Thereupon Edward A. Reinick, who was not a party to the original bill, obtained leave to enter his appearance as a defendants, the defaults entered against the defendants Anton Reinick and Fred Reinick were set aside, and they, together with Edward A. Reinick, filed an answer to the bill of complaint, alleging that the deed under which the complainant claimed title to the premises was not meant or intended as an absolute deed, but was in the nature of a mortgage to secure an indebtedness, and that the defendants were the owners of the premises. Goldsby filed an amended answer, in which he alleged that the Reinicks were the owners of the premises in fee simple, and that their conveyance, under which the complainant claimed title to the premises, was not intended as an absolute conveyance but as a mortgage. The Reinicks also filed a cross-bill to redeem from the deed to the complainant as a mortgage.
The cause, after having been referred to the master, was heard upon his report of the evidence and his findings and conclusions and exceptions thereto, and a decree was entered, finding that the complainant's deed was not an absolute conveyance of the premises, but was solely as additional security for indebtedness due the complainant upon mortgages held by him on the premises, dismissing the bill for want of equity, finding the Reinicks entitled to an accounting for the rents and profits received by the complainant since he took possession of the premises, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coal Creek Drainage & Levee Dist. v. Sanitary Dist. of Chicago
...original judgment or decree, but not in the point assigned for error, the appeal should be taken to the Appellate Court. Hajicek v. Goldsby, 309 Ill. 372 141 N. E. 140;Schmidt v. Schmidt, 277 Ill. 191, 115 N. E. 189; Lewis v, Lewis, supra; Crowley v. McCambridge, 237 Ill. 222, 86 N. E. 725;......
-
Vidon v. Roberts
...Co., 375 Ill. 125, 30 N.E.2d 632;Swinson v. Sodaman, 369 Ill. 442, 17 N.E.2d 40;Lill v. Pace, 320 Ill. 522, 151 N.E. 517;Hajicek v. Goldsby, 309 Ill. 372, 141 N.E. 140;Lennartz v. Boddie, 304 Ill. 484, 136 N.E. 718;Funk v. Fowler, 264 Ill. 21, 105 N.E. 754;Oswald v. Hexter, 254 Ill. 158, 98......
-
Potter v. Potter, 606
...of an estate at the same time to different purchasers gives rise to an easement by implication. Cassidy v. Cassidy, 1923, 309 I11. 465, 141 N.E. 140; Baker v. Rice, 1897, 56 Ohio St. 463, 47 N.E. 653. And the weight of authority here and in England is that on a partition or division of prop......
-
Swinson v. Sodaman
...its face, declared a mortgageand to redeem from it does not involve a freehold. Lill v. Pace, 320 Ill. 522, 151 N.E. 517;Hajicek v. Goldsby, 309 Ill. 372, 141 N.E. 140; Lennartz v. Boddie, supra; Funk v. Fowler, 264 Ill. 21, 105 N.E. 754;Oswald v. Hexter, 254 Ill. 158, 98 N.E. 255; Peterson......