Keady v. White

• Decision Date: 01 November 1897
• Citation: 168 Ill. 76,48 N.E. 314
• Parties: KEADY et al. v. WHITE.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

168 Ill. 76

48 N.E. 314

KEADY et al.

v.WHITE.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Nov. 1, 1897.

Error to appellate court, Third district; Thomas F. Tipton, Judge.

Creditors' bill by John L. White against Alexander Keady, Cora S. Keady, and others, to set aside a conveyance of real estate, and to subject the same to a judgment against defendant Alexander Keady. A decree dismissing the bill was reversed by the appellate court (69 Ill. App. 405), and a decree there entered for complainant, from which defendants bring error. Modified.

Owen T. Reeves and Harvey Hart, for plaintiffs in error.

Fifer & Barry, for defendant in error.

CRAIG, J.

This is a creditors' bill in the circuit court of McLean county by John L. White against Alexander Keady and others to set aside a deed dated September 27, 1893, from Alexander Keady to his brother, Samuel B. Keady, and also a deed from Samuel B. Keady to Cora Keady, wife of Alexander Keady, for lot 6 and the south half of lot 5 in block 2 of the Fell Park addition to the town of Normal, McLean county, Ill. The bill alleges the recovery of a judgment on February 4, 1894, against Alexander Keady, John N. Boyer, W. P. Marley, G. A. Griggs, E. A. Vencil, and the Home Nursery Company, for the sum of $3,038.02, on two notes,-one dated July 9, 1891, for $1,000, with 7 per cent. interest, and also one note dated August 29, 1891, for $1,500, and drawing 7 per cent. interest. Shows the issuance and return of execution and demand upon all the defendants, and that all the defendants scheduled under the statute (except the Home Nursery Company), claiming exemptions as the heads of families, and the schedules showed that none of them had any personal property over and above the exemptions allowed by the statute of this state. The Home Nursery Company was placed in the hands of a receiver, and when its business was closed up there was not enough to pay its indebtedness, by about $20,000. The bill seeks to subject to the payment of this judgment the lots described in the deeds aforesaid, as being the property of Alexander Keady; alleging that they were without consideration, and in fraud of the rights of complainant, John L. White, and other creditors. Alexander Keady filed an answer, admitting the recovery of the judgment. Sets up that he was a widower, with three children, and that prior to his marriage to Cora Schnebley, January 6, 1886, he entered into a contract with her, in which it was agreed that, if she would marry him and care for his children, at some future day, when it should be convenient, and he should be financially able, he would deed to her a home, in her own right, and that in consideration thereof she gave herself in marriage to him, and shortly after marriage, placed in his hands the sum of $400, to be used by him until such time as it, with interest for the use of the same, should be used for the purpose of a home; that he used the $400 for about 5 1/2 years, and with the said $400 and interest he purchased for his wife, Cora Keady, the real estate in question, for a home; that her brother, who was the contractor who built the house, made her a present of $500, in labor, work, and materials used in the construction of the said house built on the said lots. Denies want of consideration and fraud. Samuel B. Keady (the brother), in his answer, admits the conveyance from Alexander Keady to himself; denies want of consideration, fraud, etc.; and admits that the property was conveyed to him for the purpose of having him reconvey to Cora Keady, the wife of Alexander Keady. Cora Keady also filed her answer, denying the allegation of want of consideration, fraud, etc. Sets up the same antenuptial agreement contained in the answer of her husband, Alexander Keady, that he would deed her a home in her own right, when he was financially able, if she would marry him; that she accepted and married him; and that soon after the marriage she placed in his hands $400, to be used until such time as said money, with interest, should be put into a piece of land, upon which should be erected a home, which she should have in her own right. The cause was heard in the circuit court upon the pleadings and proofs, and on the hearing a decree was entered dismissing the bill for want of equity, which decree was reversed by the appellate court of the Third district, and the cause remanded, with directions to the circuit court to enter a decree that the conveyance from Alexander Keady to Samuel B. Keady, and that from Samuel B. Keady to Cora Keady, were fraudulent, as against the judgment of John L. White; that Cora S. Keady is entitled to a lien in the sum of $400 against the premises, superior to the lien of the judgment, but was not entitled to interest thereon; and that Alexander Keady and Cora Keady are entitled to a homestead estate in the property. From the judgment of the appellate court an appeal was taken to this court.

It appears from the testimony that a deed was made to ...