Hart v. Strong
| Decision Date | 18 December 1899 |
| Citation | 55 N.E. 629,183 Ill. 349 |
| Parties | HART et al. v. STRONG et ux. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from appellate court, First district.
Suit by Mary E. Hart and another against George Strong and wife. A decree for complainants was reversed by the appellate court (83 Ill. App. 213), and complainants appeal. Reversed.H. G. Colson, for appellants.
William F. Wiemers and Elmer E. Wagner (Frederick S. Baker, of counsel), for appellees.
Mary E. Hart, alleging herself to be the owner of a principal note for $1,200 and a coupon for $36, secured by a trust deed, and F. B. Hart, as successor in trust under said trust deed, filed their bill in the circuit court of Cook county against George Strong and Sarah M. Strong, his wife, the makers of said trust deed, to foreclose the same. The note and coupon were executed by George Strong, and signed by Sarah M. Strong as security, and were payable to John W. Hart, and the trust deed was executed to John W. Hart as trustee. The defendants answered the bill, admitting the execution and delivery of the note, coupon, and trust deed, but alleging certain facts as a defense thereto. They also filed their cross bill, setting up the same defense, and praying for a cancellation of the note and coupon and the release of the trust deed. The court sustained exceptions to the allegations of the answer setting up the defense, and also sustained a demurrer to the cross bill. The defendants in the original bill and complainants in the cross bill elected to stand by their answer and cross bill, and, after a reference to a master, a decree of foreclosure was entered. A writ of error was sued out from the appellate court, and that court reversed the decree, and remanded the cause to the circuit court, with directions to dismiss the original bill, and to grant the relief prayed for in the cross bill.
The facts set up in the answer and cross bill, which the circuit court held insufficient to constitute a defese, or to authorize relief under the cross bill, were, in substance, as follows: On or about August 21, 1895, Mary E. Hart and George Strong made an exchange of real estate in Cook county, owned by them, respectively. The property conveyed to Mary E. Hart in the trade was subject to three incumbrances, two of which she assumed. The third one-a mortgage to Ella E. Raquet for $650-George Strong agreed to have released, and executed a note for $650, secured by a trust deed on the property conveyed to him, payable in seven weeks after date, to secure the release of said mortgage. The agreement to have the Raquet mortgage released was not performed, and in January, 1896, between two and three months after the maturity of the note given to secure such release, George Strong informed John W. Hart that he was unable to pay the mortgage, and asked for time. John W. Hart refused, and threatened to foreclose the trust deed given to secure the release. George Strong, believing that he would be in danger of losing the property in case of foreclosure, proposed to re-exchange the property, putting the parties in statu quo. His proposition was refused unless he would pay John W. Hart $1,200, to be secured by the note and trust deed sought to be foreclosed. Strong agreed to this, and, pursuant to the agreement, reconveyances were made by the parties, and the note and trust deed were executed. Afterwards, in June or July, John W. Hart became ill, and on July 5, 1896, wrote to George Strong, requesting him to call. Strong went to see Hart, who told him that he believed he would not recover; that he knew he had taken an unfair advantage of Strong in demanding the note and trust deed, and was anxious to rectify the matter while he was living, and have his conscience freed and relieved from the burden thereof; and that, if Strong would pay the coupon note for $36, due July 9, 1896, he would give him a complete and full forgiveness, release, and discharge of the principal note and the trust deed. On July 9, 1896, Strong again called at the house, and paid Hart the $36 due that day. Hart told him that the note and coupon and trust deed were in a safety-deposit vault, but he would give a receipt for the note, and forgive the claim, and, as soon as he could, would get the note, coupon, and trust deed, and return them to Strong. Hart then gave Strong a receipt for $36 for the interest due, and another receipt for $1,200 in full for the note. The note and trust deed were never surrendered to Strong, nor was the trust deed ever released. Afterwards, on August 1, 1896, said John W. Hart transferred and delivered the note and trust deed to his wife, Mary E. Hart, for a valuable...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mississippi Valley Trust Co. v. Begley
... ... First Natl. Bank, 260 S.W. 714; Murray Fixture Co ... v. Sullivan, 115 P. 259; Miller v. Davis' ... Estate, 52 Colo. 485; Hart v. Strong, 183 Ill ... 349; Van Alstine v. McAldon, 121 Ill.App. 27; ... Chambers v. Irish, 132 Iowa 319; Riney v ... Doll, 225 P. 1059; ... ...
-
Mississippi Valley Trust Company v. Begley
...84 Kan. 385; Creveling v. Saladino, 89 N.Y.S. 834; Lillienthal v. Brew. Co., 102 N.Y.S. 1051; Chambers v. Irish, 132 Iowa 319; Hart v. Strong, 183 Ill. 349; 13 C. J. 399. (b) To hold that a threat to do that which a party has a legal right to do may constitute duress would be subversive of ......
-
In re Prima Co.
...this conclusion. French v. Shoemaker, 14 Wall. 314, 20 L.Ed. 852; Silliman v. United States, 101 U.S. 465, 25 L. Ed. 987; Hart v. Strong, 183 Ill. 349, 55 N.E. 629; Sargent v. Roberts, 265 Ill. 210, 106 N.E. 805; Morton v. Morris, 8 Cir., 72 F. 392; Andrews v. Connolly, C.C., 145 F. 43; Con......
-
Knights Templar & Masons' Life Indem. Co. v. Crayton
...to pay the entire debt thus owing, and the release relied upon was ineffectual because there was no consideration for it. Hart v. Strong, 183 Ill. 349, 55 N. E. 629;Jaffary v. Davis, 11 L. R. A. 711, note; Tyler v. Odd Fellows' Mutual Relief Ass'n, 145 Mass. 134, 13 N. E. 360. The case last......