Holmes v. Standard Oil Co. of Indiana

• Decision Date: 18 December 1899
• Citation: Holmes v. Standard Oil Co. of Indiana, 183 Ill. 70, 55 N.E. 647 (Ill. 1899)
• Parties: HOLMES v. STANDARD OIL CO. OF INDIANA.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

183 Ill. 70

55 N.E. 647

HOLMES

v.STANDARD OIL CO. OF INDIANA.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 18, 1899.

Appeal from appellate court, First district.

Action by the Standard Oil Company of Indiana against William A. Holmes, executor. From a judgment of the appellate court reversing a judgment in favor of defendant (82 Ill. App. 476), he appeals. Affirmed.E. W. Adkinson, for appellant.

Alfred D. Eddy, for appellee.

The appellee company presented in the probate court of Cook county a claim against the estate of Charlotte E. Holmes, deceased, of which the appellant, William A. Holmes, is the executor. The demand was for the recovery of money paid by the appellee company in discharge of a special assessment levied against certain premises belonging to the company (formerly the property of the deceased and the appellant executor) for the purpose of defraying the cost of opening and extending Armour avenue through lot No. 7 in School Trustees' subdivision of section 6, township 38 N., range 14 E., in Cook county. The right to recover was based upon the following bond, which the deceased and said appellant executed when they conveyed said premises to the grantor of appellant, viz.: ‘Know all men by these presents, that we, John Holmes and Charlotte E. Holmes, his wife, of the city of Chicago, in the county of Cook, and state of Illinois, are held and firmly bound unto Alfred D. Eddy, of the same place, and to his executors, administrators, and assigns, in the penal sum of one thousand ($1,000) dollars, for the payment whereof, well and trully to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, and administrators, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. Witness our hands and seals, this 31st day of July, 1891. The condition of the above obligation is such that whereas, the said Alfred D. Eddy is about purchasing from said obligors the north one hundred and eighty-six and three-tenths (186.3) feet of the west ninety-eight and thirty-three one-hundredths (98.33) feet of that part lying east of the railroad of lot number seven (7) in School Trustees' subdivision of section number sixteen (16), township thirty-eight (38) north, range number fourteen (14) east of the third principal meridian, in Cook county, Illinois; and whereas, the city of Chicago has commenced cendemnation proceedings for the opening of a street through said lot number seven (7) in School Trustees' subdivision of section number sixteen (16) aforesaid: Now, therefore, if the said John Holmes and Charlotte E. Holmes, his wife, shall and do pay all of the assessments, liens, judgments, and demands of every kind and nature that may at any time be levied or come against said premises so as aforesaid purchased or to be purchased by said Alfred D. Eddy by reason of the opening of said proposed street, and shall pay all judgments, costs, charges, damages, or expenses whatsoever which may hereafter happen or come to or against said premises by the reason of the opening of the said street, then this obligation to be void; otherwise, to remain in full force and effect. Witness our hands and seals. John Holmes. [Seal.] Charlotte E. Holmes. [Seal.] Witness: E. Goldstein.’ The claim was disallowed in the probate court, and came into the circuit court of Cook county on appeal. It was there submitted to the court on the written stipulation of the parties that the obligators were joint owners of the fee of the premises referred to in the bond; that the obligee of the bond purchased the premises as the agent of the appellee company, and afterwards conveyed the premises and indorsed and assigned the bond to it; that the ordinance under which the condemnation proceeding referred to in the bond as pending was instituted was repealed by the city council of the city of Chicago, and that proceeding dismissed; that another ordinance was adopted by the city council providing for the opening and extending of Armour avenue from and between the same points as provided in the former ordinance; that an assessment of $3,700 was confirmed under the last ordinance as for benefits accruing to the premises mentioned in the bond; that the obligors in the bond had due notice of the confirmation of such assessment, but failed to pay the same; that said assessment...