Johnson v. McDonald
| Decision Date | 16 April 1902 |
| Citation | 63 N.E. 730,196 Ill. 394 |
| Parties | JOHNSON v. McDONALD et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Cook county; R. W. Clifford, Judge.
Suit by Michael C. McDonald against Ida Johnson and another. From a decree for complainant, defendant Johnson appeals. Appeal dismissed.
Bancroft & Adams, for appellant.
Edward Maher, for appellees.
A motion has been made in this case to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction in this court, upon the ground that no freehold is involved. The motion, the decision of which was reserved to the hearing, must be allowed.
The bill was filed on September 11, 1901, by the appellee Michael C. McDonald against the appellant, Ida Johnson, and the appellee Ernest J. Magerstadt, for the purpose of removing a cloud upon the title of McDonald to four certain lots. The bill alleges that the complainant is in possession of the premises. It also alleges that on April 5, 1901, an execution was issued from the superior court of Cook county on a judgment rendered at the April term, 1901, of said court in favor of C. W. Hinckley and J. O. Hinckley, executors, etc., against one Edwin Walker; that thereafter the sheriff of Cook county levied said execution on the lots in question, alleged to be owned by the complainant in the bill, and sold the same on May 7, 1901, at public sale to the appellant, Ida Johnson, for $4,800; and that a certificate of sale therefore was issued to the appellant, and was recorded on May 10, 1901. The certificate of sale, thus issued to appellant, is the alleged cloud upon the title which is sought to be removed.
This court has held that a freehold is not involved in a proceeding to remove a certificate of sale as a cloud upon title, upon the ground that such certificate does not convey title, nor purport to convey title. Upon its face it only states the amount of the bid at the sale and when the holder will be entitled to a deed if the premises are not redeemed. Kronenberger v. Heinemann, 190 Ill. 17, 60 N. E. 64;Gage v. Busse, 94 Ill. 590;Wilkinson v. Gage, 133 Ill. 137, 24 N. E. 562;Galbraith v. Plasters, 101 Ill. 444;Hutchinson v. Howe, 100 Ill. 11. In Gage v. Busse, supra, which was a suit in chancery to cancel certain tax certificates of sale, and where, as was the case here, the court below granted the relief sought by the bill, it was held that no freehold was involved, although the time for redemption had elapsed at the time the bill was filed. In the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harrigan v. Peoria Cnty.
...out and the premises are not redeemed under the statute, entitle him to a deed. Galbraith v. Plasters, 101 Ill. 444;Johnson v. McDonald, 196 Ill. 394, 63 N. E. 730;Hammalle v. Lebensberger, 256 Ill. 547, 100 N. E. 138; 2 Blackwell on Tax Titles (5th Ed.) § 954. The court held in the former ......
-
Bednarczyk v. Kudla
...when the holder will be entitled to title if the premises are not redeemed. Karle v. Badeaux, 255 Ill. 582, 99 N.E. 617;Johnson v. McDonald, 196 Ill. 394, 63 N.E. 730;Lightcap v. Bradley, 186 Ill. 510, 58 N.E. 221. Likewise, the order approving the master's sale does not purport to pass tit......
- Gougar v. Buffalo Specialty Co.
-
First Nat. Bank of Denver v. Gibson
...a certificate of sale as a cloud on the title, since the certificate does not convey or purport to convey the title. Johnson v. McDonald, 196 Ill. 394, 63 N. E. 730;Johns v. Boyd, 117 Ill. 339, 7 N. E. 588;Blackman v. Preston Bros., 119 Ill. 240, 10 N. E. 669;Herdman v. Cooper, 125 Ill. 359......