Kennedy v. Neil

• Decision Date: 20 February 1929
• Docket Number: No. 19344.,19344.
• Citation: 333 Ill. 629,165 N.E. 148
• Parties: KENNEDY v. NEIL.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

333 Ill. 629

165 N.E. 148

KENNEDY

v.NEIL.

No. 19344.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 20, 1929.

Suit by Marion C. Kennedy against E. Palma Beaudette Neil, who filed a cross-bill. From a decree dismissing complainant's bill and granting the relief prayed in the cross-bill, complainant appeals.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.Appeal from Circuit Court, Cook County; Ira Ryner, Judge.

William T. Pridmore, of Chicago, for appellant.

Jose Ward Hoover, of Chicago (Otto W. Jurgens, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellee.

HEARD, J.

Appellant, Marion C. Kennedy, filed her bill in chancery in the circuit court of Cook county praying for the specific performance of a contract for the sale of real estate. Appellee, E. Palma Beaudette Neil, filed her answer, alleging, among other things, the forfeiture of the contract of sale, and denying that appellant was entitled to specific performance. She also filed a cross-bill, alleging the forfeiture of the contract, and asking that it be declared null and void and that her title be declared to be free and clear of all claims under it. The cause was heard by the court without reference to a master, and after considering the evidence the court entered an order that appellant present to the court within 14 days a decree for specific performanceof the contract involved herein, upon the payment of the sum of $6,000. Appellant failed to present such decree within the time specified, and thereafter the court entered a decree finding that the equities were with appellee, dismissing the bill for want of equity, declaring the contract null and void in accordance with the prayer of the cross-bill, and ordering a writ of assistance to remove appellant from the possession of the premises and put into possession thereof appellee. The cause is now before this court upon appeal from that decree.

The evidence shows that on June 1, 1922, Marie M. Dowd and appellant entered into a contract whereby Mrs. Dowd agreed to convey to appellant by warranty deed, accompanied by a certificate of title issued by the registrar of titles or a complete merchantable abstracted title or merchantable guaranty policy, the premises described in the bill, for which appellant agreed to pay the sum of $10,500, as follows: $1,000 cash, the assumption of an incumbrance of $4,500, and $5,000 in installments of $100 each on the 1st day of each month, beginning July 1, 1922, and every month thereafter until all of the $5,000 was paid, with interest at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum, payable monthly, on the whole sum remaining from time to time unpaid. Payments were made by appellant to Mrs. Dowd from time to time, and on April 17, 1924, Mrs. Dowd by a written instrument, in consideration of the sum of $1, sold and assigned to appellee, E. Palma Beaudette Neil, all of her right, title, and interest in and to the contract in question and to all sums of money due or to become due thereon, and authorizing appellee at her own cost to take the necessary and proper legal measures to collect, receive, and enjoy the same.

[1] There is much conflict in the evidence and much conflict as to the rights of appellee under her contract with Mrs. Dowd. Appellee claims that the contract between appellantand Mrs. Dowd had become forfeited before April 17, [333 Ill. 632]1924, and that she herself declared a forfeiture thereof after that time. It is not necessary for us to consider many of these conflicting claims. Appellee brought an action of forcible entry and detainer against appellant to recover possession of the premises. On January 20, 1925, appellant paid appellee $2,165.32, whereupon appellee dismissed the forcible entry and detainer suit and gave to appellant the following receipt:

‘Received of Marion C. Kennedy the sum of two thousand one hundred sixty-five 32/100 dollars in full payment of all (11) installments due to and including January, 1925, on premises known as No. 3847 S. Michigan ave., Chicago, also including money paid out for taxes, special assessments and interest up to date.

‘E. Palma Beaudette Neil.’

Whatever may have been the actual facts theretofore existing with reference to the controverted claims of the parties, this payment and the receipt given by appellee constitute an accord and satisfaction and a recognition by both parties of the validity and existence of the contract for the sale of the real estate to appellant on January 20, 1925, as continuing in force, and were a waiver of all defaults which had occurred before that time (Neil v. Kennedy, 319 Ill. 75, 149 N. E. 775), and it is not necessary for us to inquire into and consider the claims of the parties with reference to the contract prior to that time.

[2] January 31, 1925, Attorney Thomas C. Kennedy, for appellant, sent appellee his personal check for $109.50 as payment due under the contract February 1, 1925, which check appellee indorsed and cashed after consulting with her attorney as to whether or not she could legally refuse it. Appellee testifies that on February 20, 1925, she saw appellant at the back gate of the premises and said to her, ‘Miss Kennedy, I want you to make all the payments to me in person at my front door when the installment payments fall due,’ and that appellant said, ‘All right, dearie.’ This conversation is denied by appellant. On February 27, [333 Ill. 633]1925, a check drawn by Kennedy on the Central Manufacturing District Bank of Chicago for $109, payable to the order of appellee, certified by the Central Bank on February 28, 1925, with a notation on the face of the check, ‘Monthly payment on 3847 Michigan Ave.,’ was sent to appellee. On the 28th of February, 1925, she returned this check to the bank with a letter which stated: ‘Enclosed check which I respectfully return. I cannot accept money in this form.’ March 1 fell on Sunday, and appellant was therefore not required to make the payment until March 2. On March 2, 1925, H. C. Anderson, an employé of the Central Bank, went to appellee's home at about 10:30 in the morning and tried to gain admission through the front door and also through another door. The bell on the front door was marked, ‘Out of order.’ He then knocked on the window several times. Getting no response, he left and returned in the afternoon and again tried to get admission, but...