Hill v. William Hill.

• Decision Date: 31 January 1871
• Citation: Hill v. William Hill., 58 Ill. 239, 1871 WL 7911 (Ill. 1871)
• Parties: JOHN HILL et al.v.WILLIAM HILL.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

58 Ill. 239

1871 WL 7911 (Ill.)

JOHN HILL et al.

v.WILLIAM HILL.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

January Term, 1871.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

WRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of St. Clair county; the Hon. JOSEPH GILLESPIE, Judge, presiding.

Mr. EDWARD L. THOMAS, for the plaintiffs in error.

Messrs. SNYDER & DILL, and Messrs. KASE & WILDERMAN, for the defendant in error.

Mr. JUSTICE SHELDONdelivered the opinion of the Court:

This was a petition filed in a partition suit, for the purpose of charging William Hill with the difference between the amounts of a sale and resale of the partitioned premises, which had been had in the case by the master.

The petition sets forth, that at a master's sale the premises were struck off and sold to said Hill, for the sum of $11,500; that he failed to comply with the terms of the sale; that the master reported the sale and non-compliance; that his report showed his acceptance of the bid of Hill, and the sale to him, which report was approved, and a resale was ordered by the court; that there were two successive resales to Hill, for less sums than the above, with a like non-compliance on his part, followed by like proceedings on the part of the master and court; that on a third resale, the premises were struck off and sold by the master to one Rainey, for $5,650; that petitioners have each sustained a loss, by reason of non-compliance with the first sale, of $1,308.75, the difference in their respective shares of the first sale for $11,500, and the last one for $5,650.

The petitioners ask that William Hill be held, by proper order in the cause, to pay to them the difference in their shares so caused, out of his share of the proceeds of said sale for $5,650,--such share being five-ninths of said proceeds, and he being a complainant in the partition suit.The petition alleges that he has no other property out of which he could be made to respond in damages.

A demurrer was sustained to the petition, and we think rightly, for the reason, that the necessary preliminary steps had not been taken, to make Hill liable for the deficiency on the resale.

The order of the court was one of resale simply, without directing that it should be made at Hill's risk, and without his first having been called upon to show cause why he should not comply with the terms of the first sale.He might have had good cause for refusal to do so, and he should have had an opportunity to show cause, before making a resale at his risk; and if a resale was to be...