Helbreg v. Schumann
Decision Date | 02 April 1894 |
Citation | 37 N.E. 99,150 Ill. 12 |
Parties | HELBREG et al. v. SCHUMANN et al. |
Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from superior court, Cook county; Phillip Stein, Judge.
Bill for redemption brought by Mathias Helbreg and Sophia E. Schumann, as conservators of Julius Schumann, an insane person, against Gustav Schumann and others. Defendants obtained a decree. Complainants appeal. Reversed.James E. Munroe, for appellants.
Hofheimer, Zeisler & Mack, for appellees.
This is a bill in the superior court of Cook county to redeem, brought by Mathias Helbreg and Sophia E. Schumann, as conservators of Julius Schumann, an insane person, against Gustav Schumann, Theodor Guenther, Magdalena von der Heide, and Thomas J. McGrath, trustee.
In 1881, and prior thereto, Julius Schumann was the owner in fee of a tract of land containing 55 acres in Cook county, upon which he resided as a homestead. On June 6th of that year, Julius executed a trust deed upon the entire tract to secure his note for $2,000, payable to one Johann von der Heide, five years after that date, with 6 per cent. interest, payable annually. Subsequently he sold the north half of the tract to his brother Gustav, the latter assuming to pay one-half of the incumbrance just mentioned, or $1,000. Gustav discharged his half of the indebtedness, including interest, by July 3, 1882. Julius paid no interest after June, 1882; neither did he ever pay the principal. Johann von der Heide, the owner of the note, died June 23, 1887. The note passed into the hands of his administrators, Magdalena von der Heide and Theodor Guenther. Shortly after their appointment as such administrators, they demanded payment of the note, and, failing to obtain the money, on January 6, 1888, they filed a bill in the superior court of Cook county, to foreclose the deed of trust, in which Gustav Schumann was joined as a defendant with Julius Schumann. Prior to January 21, 1888, the administrator of the estate had recovered a judgment before a justice of the peace against Julius Schumann for $40, and, including the amount last mentioned, there was due the administrators from Julius Schmann, on account, of the judgment and on account of the indebtedness secured by the trust deed, $1,435. Julius Schumann made an effort to raise the money from several different parties, but failed. Finally, on January 21, 1888, the following arrangement was consummated between him, his brother Gustav, and the administrators: Julius Schumann and his wife conveyed by warranty deed to Gustav Schumann, the 55-acre tract of land, for a consideration expressed in the deed of $1,450. Gustav Schumann paid the administrators $125 in cash, and executed and delivered to them his note for $1,310, due in five years, with interest at 7 per cent., payable semiannually, and a trust deed on the 55-acre tract, to secure payment of the note. At the same time the following agreement was executed by Julius and Gustav Schumann:
At the date of the above memorandum, Julius Schumann was residing on the south half of the 55-acre tract, and he continued to occupy the land until July 17, 1889, when he was taken before the county court of Cook county on a complaint that he was insane, and on a trial before a jury he was adjudged insane, and placed in the Cook County Insane Asylum, where he still remains. Schumann's wife continued to reside on the premises until December, 1889, when Gustav Schumann demanded possession of the premises, and threatened to remove her with an officer, and she finally left, and Gustav went into possession of the property, which he still retains.
The bill was filed March 18, 1891, and subsequently an amended bill was filed, in which, among other things, it is alleged that the said warranty deed from orator and his wife to said Gustav Schumann, although appearing on its face to be absolute, was not intended to be such by orator and said Gustav Schumann, but, on the contrary, it was expressly agreed and understood between them, at and before orator signed the same and gave the same to Gustav Schumann, that the same, and the south half of the premises thereby purportingto be conveyed, were to be held by said Gustav Schumann simply as security for the payment of the said sum of $125 paid by said Gustav Schumann, to said Theodor Guenther and Magdalena von der Heide as aforesaid, and interest thereon at the rate of 7 per cent. per annum, and as security for any taxes levied or assessed against the south half of said 55-acre tract, and paid by Gustav Schumann, and to indemnify said Gustav Schumann from loss or damage to him arising from the execution by him of the $1,310 note, secured by the trust deed to McGrath, and the interest thereon; and that upon payment by orator of said $125, and interest thereon at 7 per cent. from January 21, 1888, to the date of such payment, and of all such taxes levied or assessed on the south half of said 55-acre tract, and all money paid by Gustav Schumann on said $1,310 note, and upon payment of said $1,310 note, or upon said Gustav Schumann being indemnified from all loss because of his execution of said $1,310 note, or the trust deed securing the same, that said Gustav Schumann should reconvey to orator the south half of said 55-acre tract by an absolute deed of conveyance in fee simple. The bill also contains the following: ‘That orator is ready and willing and offers to pay to Gustav Schumann said $125, and interest thereon at seven per cent. from January 21, 1888, and all the interest paid by Gustav Schumann on said $1,310 note, and all taxes paid by him; and orator offers to pay said $1,310 note, both principal and interest, or, in case the legal holder thereof refuses to accept payment thereof, orator offers to pay into this court the whole of the principal and interest due or to become due thereon, and to secure said Gustav Schumann by bond, with security to be approved by this court, against all loss and injury caused by his...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bowman v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.
... ... Helbreg v. Schumann, 150 Ill. 12, 25-26, 37 N.E. 99; Clay v. Hammond, 199 Ill. 370, 377, 65 N.E. 352. The question raised is whether Bowman's incompetency ... ...
-
Dixon v. Wright
...it will be treated in equity as a mortgage. Miller v. Thomas, 14 Ill. 430; Keithly v. Wood, 151 Ill. 566, 42 A. S. R. 265; Helberg v. Schuman, 150 Ill. 12, 42 S. R. 339. It has been said that the fact that no consideration whatever moved to the grantor except money advanced to be expended u......
-
Robison v. Moorefield
...this state that parole evidence is competent to show that a deed absolute in form is in fact in the nature of a mortgage. Helbreg v. Schumann, 150 Ill. 12, 37 N.E. 99; Kulik v. Kapusta, 303 Ill. 208, 135 N.E. 402; Cassem v. Heustis, 201 Ill. 208, 66 N.E. 283; Tepper v. Campo, 398 Ill. 496, ......
-
Wells v. Wells
... ... grantor's presumed mental deficiency due to his extreme ... age, and his illiteracy, put upon the transaction the stamp ... of fraud. Helbreg v. Schumann (1894), 150 ... Ill. 12, 37 N.E. 99, 41 Am. St. 339; Sims v ... McLure, supra. The rule applicable in other cases of ... fraud where ... ...