Kiebel v. Leick

• Decision Date: 23 June 1905
• Citation: 75 N.E. 187,216 Ill. 474
• Parties: KIEBEL et al. v. LEICK et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

216 Ill. 474

75 N.E. 187

KIEBEL et al.

v.LEICK et al.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 23, 1905.

Appeal from Superior Court, Cook County; M. Kavanagh, Judge.

Suit by Anna K. Kiebel and Jacob Kiebel against Edward J. Leick and others for partition sale. From an order setting aside the sale to complainants, they appeal. Affirmed.

Rehearing denied October 12, 1905.

Lynden Evans, for appellants.

Ernest Saunders, for appellee guardian ad litem.

On July 11, 1904, a bill was filed in the superior court of Cook county for the partition of certain real estate in the city of Chicago between Jacob Kiebel, Anna K. Kiebel, Edward J. Leick, Casper J. Leick, Alfonse M. Leick, and Isabel May Leick; the last four being minors. The premises, being reported not susceptible of partition, were appraised at $9,000, and a decree of sale entered. On January 6, 1905, at a sale by the master, they were purchased by appellants for $11,000. After the report of sale had been filed, but before it was approved, appellee Mathias J. Leick, as guardian ad litem of the infant defendants, moved the court to set the sale aside, and in support of the motion filed a petition, and alleged that it had been made upon the terms that the title should be perfect, or the sale vacated; that one George Manierre was desirous of purchasing said premises, but his attorneys did not consider the order of sale a protection to bidders, and for this reason he had declined to make any bid; that the abstract of title was in the possession of the said Jacob Kiebel, and other parties did not have access to it; that, owing to the absence of the abstract, the sale was not made for the best price obtainable, and said Manierre, if a complete abstract of title were delivered to him, and the same showed a good and merchantable title, would bid for said premises the sum of $12,100, and would deposit with the master the sum of $1,000 as earnest money, to be returned if the title was not good. The petition prayed that the sale be vacated, set aside, and a resale ordered. The purchasers answered the petition, asking that the sale be confirmed, and offering to take the title without an abstract, alleging there was no fraud in the sale; that the premises had been sold for their full value; and that the offered bid of Manierre was merely conditional. Upon a hearing of the motion and the answer thereto, the court found that it was for the best interest of the minors that the sale be vacated, and a resale ordered, and the bond of Manierre was ordered to stand in lieu of a cash tender. From this order an appeal has been prosecuted to this court.

WILKIN, J. (after stating the facts).

The only question for determination is whether or not the superior court properly set the sale aside. It is the policy of the law to give permanency and stability to judicial sales, and to give to the purchaser the benefit of his bid, but there are cases in which such sale will be set aside even in the absenceof fraud. The chancellor is vested with a sound legal discretion in such cases, which, however, must be exercised according to established rules of law. Ayres v. Baumgarten, 15 Ill. 444. Where a judicial sale has been conducted in the usual manner, and the purchaser is a stranger to the order of sale, mere inadequacy of price will not justify a court in vacating the sale and depriving the vendee of the benefit of...