Johnston v. Johnston

Decision Date15 June 1891
Citation138 Ill. 385,27 N.E. 930
PartiesJOHNSTON v. JOHNSTON.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Error to circuit court, Mercer county

Pepper & Scott, for plaintiff in error.

J. H. Connell, for defendant in error.

SCHOLFIELD, C. J.

This was a bill in equity in the circuit court of Mercer county, by Michael H. Johnston against his infant daughter, Anna G. Johnston, in which it was alleged that the complainant on the 29th of August, 1882, and on the 28th of August, 1884, purchased the property in question, being certain parts of lots in the village of North Henderson, Mercer county, Ill., and paid for the same, and procured the deeds therefor to be made to his then wife, Anna G. Johnston, thereby having conveyed to her the title to said lots; that it was intended by the complainant that said Anna G. Johnston should hold the title to said lots in trust only, for complainant's benefit, and it was understood by her that she was to hold said lots in trust for complainant, and convey the same to him whenever he should request her so to do; that he took possession of both tracts or lots, built valuable buildings on both of them, made other improvements, and continued to occupy them ever since; that said Anna G. Johnston died on the 5th of November, 1889, intestate, leaving her husband, and Anna G. Johnston, plaintiff in error, her only child, and sole heir at law; that she died without conveying said lots to complainant, although she intended and had promised so to do. The bill then states the plaintiff in error is a minor, asks for a guardian ad litem, and prays for relief, that a deed may be executed to him for the premises. Summons was duly issued and served. The court appointed a guardian ad litem, who filed a pro forma answer, requiring full proof to be made of the allegations of the bill. The court referred the cause to the master in chancery to take and report the testimony, and the master reported the testimony taken by him, as follows: Michael H. Johnston testified: ‘I am the complainant in this suit. Anna G. Johnston, the defendant, is my daughter. My wife died November 5, 1889. The defendant was born the 26th day of October, 1889. I purchased one lot on the 29th of August, 1882, and the other on the 28th of August, 1884. I had the deeds made to my wife to be held by her in her name in trust for my benefit. I paid one hundred and twenty-five dollars for one lot, and paid seventeen hundred and fifty dollars for improvements on it. I paid one hundred and five dollars for the other, and built a store building thereon at a cost of one thousand dollars, and procured the deed to be made to my wife, in trust for my benefit. My wife paid no part of the cost for the lots or the improvements. I procured the title to all the above lots to be made to her as a temporary expedient only, and it was understood between us that when I desired she would convey to me. I never requested such conveyance, and the title still stands in her name.’ On cross-examination he said: ‘My wife paid no part of the money for any of these lots or the improvements thereon. All the property was possessed and used by me from the time it was purchased.’ W. C. Galloway testified: Complainant's wife was my sister. The defendant is my niece. I know that Mr. Johnston purchasedthe property and erected the buildings thereon, one of which he occupied as a store, and the other as a residence. I always understood from my sister that it was his property, and never knew that the title was in her name until after her death. I know that such means as she had were invested in other property or loaned out.’ James Galloway testified: Anna G. Johnston, wife of complainant, was my daughter, and the defendant is my grand-daughter. I know M. H. Johnston purchased the property described in the bill. I know M. H. Johnston purchased it, and put the buildings on it. He occupied one piece as a store-room and the other as a residence. What money my...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Spotts v. Spotts
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 20 Diciembre 1932
    ... ... 320 (incompetent ... evidence in equity case excluded on appeal although no ... objection on behalf of infant party); Johnston v ... Johnston (Ill.), 27 N.E. 930 (incompetent evidence ... likewise excluded); Jespersen v. Mech (Ill.), 72 ... N.E. 1114; Spradlin v ... ...
  • David Adler & Sons Clothing Company v. Hellman
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • 9 Junio 1898
    ...communications properly intrusted to him in his professional capacity. (Wertz v. Merritt, 39 N.W. 103 [Ia.]; Johnston v. Johnston, 27 N.E. 930 [Ill.]; Muir v. Miller, 47 N.W. 1011 [Ia.]; Bradford v. Cinton, 26 N.W. 401 [Mich.]; Brock v. Brock, 9 A. [Pa.] 486; Skinner v. Skinner, 38 Neb. 756......
  • Dorman v. Dorman
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 19 Octubre 1900
    ...court in numerous cases. Taylor v. Taylor, 4 Gilman, 303;Adlard v. Adlard, 65 Ill. 212;Wormley v. Wormley, 98 Ill. 544;Johnston v. Johnston, 138 Ill. 385, 27 N. E. 930;Smith v. Smith, 144 Ill. 299, 33 N. E. 35;Goelz v. Goelz, 157 Ill. 33, 41 N. E. 756;Van Buskirk v. Van Buskirk, 148 Ill. 9,......
  • Lewis v. McGrath
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 19 Junio 1901
    ...court in numerous cases. Taylor v. Taylor, 4 Gilman, 303;Adlard v. Adlard, 65 Ill. 212;Wormley v. Wormley, 98 Ill. 544;Johnston v. Johnston, 138 Ill. 385, 27 N. E. 930;Smith v. Smith, 144 Ill. 299, 33 N. E. 35;Goelz v. Goelz, 157 Ill. 33, 41 N. E. 756:Van Buskirk v. Van Buskirk, 148 Ill. 9,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT