Johnson v. Miller

• Decision Date: 22 October 1921
• Docket Number: No. 13970.,13970.
• Citation: Johnson v. Miller, 299 Ill. 276, 132 N.E. 490 (Ill. 1921)
• Parties: JOHNSON v. MILLER et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

299 Ill. 276

132 N.E. 490

JOHNSON

v.MILLER et al.

No. 13970.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 22, 1921.

Suit by C. E. Johnson against Bert Miller and another. Decree for defendants, and plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Appeal from Circuit Court, De Kalb County; C. F. Irwin, judge.

Faissler, Fulton & Roberts, of Sycamore, and Joseph O. McKiernan, of Chicago, for appellant.

J. E. Matteson, of De Kalb (Mary Hamsmith, of Sycamore, of counsel), for appellees.

FARMER, J.

Appellant, C. E. Johnson, filed his bill in chancery in the circuit court of De Kalb county to rescind and set aside an exchange of real estate made between himself and appellee Bert Miller. At the time of the transaction Johnson resided in the city of De Kalb and Miller resided on a farm in De Kalb county. Johnson owned a residence and business property in the city of De Kalb and conducted a boot and shoe store in the business property. Miller owned 200 acres of farm land in Adams county, Wis. September 30, 1914, the parties entered into a contract by which Johnson agreed to convey his two properties and shoe business to Miller subject to a $2,800 mortgage on the store property and a $400 mortgage on the residence. Miller agreed to convey his Wisconsin farm of 200 acres to Johnson subject to mortgages aggregating $5,000 and unpaid drainage assessments; also to transfer to Johnson his (Miller's) interest in the personal property on the farm and to pay Johnson in cash or note $2,000. Conveyances were exchanged between the parties December 15, 1914, and Miller gave Johnson his note for $2,000, due January 15, 1915, and a bill of sale of the personal property on the Wisconsin farm. Possession of the stock of shoes was delivered to Miller on the same day. Johnson was to get possession of the Wisconsin farm March 1, 1915. The original bill was filed by Johnson on May 27, 1915, and an amended and supplemental bill was filed by him January 16, 1916. The cause was tried on the issues made by the amended and supplemental bill and answer thereto. The cause was referred to a special master in chancery to take the proofs and report his conclusions. The master reported that Johnson was not entitled to have the exchange of properties annulled and the deeds set aside, and after overruling exceptions of Johnson to the master's report the chancellor so decreed, and this appeal is prosecuted from the decree.

The bill charges appellees, Bert Miller and O. L. Senneff, a real estate agent who was on very intimate terms of friendship with appellant, entered into a conspiracy to take advantage of the confidence reposed in Senneff by appellant and secure his property; that in furtherance of the conspiracySenneff suggested from time to time that appellant exchange his property for farm property, and finally told him he had secured a man who owned a 200-acre farm in Wisconsin and would trade it for appellant's property; that Senneff introduced Miller to appellant, and they represented to him that the Wisconsin farm was of the market value of $90 per acre and proposed an exchange of it for appellant's De Kalb property, each subject to the incumbrances. They also proposed to transfer the personal property on the Wisconsin farm to appellant. It consisted of stock, tools, and crops and was represented to be of the value of $1,000, and in addition Miller was to give appellant his note for $2,000, due in 30 days. The bill alleges that, relying on the advice and counsel of Senneff and his and Miller's representations, he made the contract for the exchange of properties and performed his part of the agreement; that he learned, after doing so, the Wisconsin farm was not worth to exceed $15 per acre, and that the representations of Senneff and Miller that it was worth $90 per acre were false and fraudulent and were known by them to be false and fraudulent; that they were made to deceive appellant; that they did deceive him and induceed him to make the exchange. The bill also alleges Miller did not deliver the personal property on the farm to appellant, but removed it beyond his control, and did not pay his $2,000 note when it became due; that Miller had transferred the De Kalb property to Nelien Miller, but the conveyance was only colorable and was made in pursuance of the scheme to defraud and cheat appellant, and Miller had also disposed of the stock of shoes. The bill alleges appellant was wholly without knowledge of the value of the Wisconsin land, but relied on Senneff, who he has since learned was acting in conjunction with Miller to cheat and defraud appellant out of his property. Necessary parties were made defendant to the bill, which prayed that an account be taken; that appellant be decreed what, if anything, appeared to be due him, he offering to pay anything found due from him; that the deeds be set aside; and for general relief.

The decree found that Miller and Senneff did not enter into a conspiracy to defraud appellant and did not make false representations as to any material fact pertaining to the exchange...