Knowlton v. Hanbury

• Decision Date: 25 January 1886
• Parties: KNOWLTON v. HANBURY and others.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

117 Ill. 471

5 N.E. 581

KNOWLTON

v.HANBURY and others.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Filed January 25, 1886.

Appeal from superior court, Cook county.

B. M. Munn, for appellant.

A. M. Rorke, for appellees.

CRAIG, J.

Miner N. Knowlton, who claimed to own title to Nos. 18, 20, and 22, Winthrop place, Chicago, entered into a contract with Anna Hanbury to exchange the property for 27 Vacant lots at Clarendon Hills, Massachusetts. The legal title to the Chicago property appears to have been in the name of Knowlton, but his sister, Emily Hoyt, was the real owner. The Chicago property was transferred subject to an incumbrance on No. 22 of $1,800, and the lots at Clarendon Hills were transferred subject to an incumbrance of $1,000. Some time after the exchange of the property Lyman Baird, who was named in the deed of trust on No. 22 as trustee, advertised the property for sale, and Anna Hanbury, on the eighth day of February, 1883, filed her bill to enjoin the sale. Lyman Baird, Knowlton, and Emily Hoyt were all made parties to the bill. The complainant alleged in her bill that in the trade Knowlton had agreed to pay all interest on the note named in the deed of trust which had accrued prior to October 1, 1882, and that after that date the rate of interest was agreed to be changed from 9 to 8 per cent. The balance of the incumbrance complainant offered to pay. The defendants answered, denying every material allegation of the bill, and defendant Knowlton filed a cross-bill, in which he set up, in substance, that complainant in the bill, Anna Hanbury, by fraud and false representations respecting the character, value, location, and price paid for the Clarendon Hills property, procured the sum of $500 in cash, and the execution of said contracts and deeds, thereby acquiring title deeds and the possession of property renting for $1,320 per annum, and worth at least $12,000, subject to the $1,800 incumbrance only on No. 22, for said 27 vacant lots, incumbered for $1,000, (but not worth the incumbrance;) that he relied upon said representations, and believed them to be true, and made the exchange without seeing the Clarendon Hills property; but shortly afterwards, upon inspection, he found that he had been victimized and defrauded to the extent of $12,000 or more. The cross-bill contained a prayer that the contract and all deeds made thereunder might be canceled, and that Anna Hanbury might be compelled to account for rents, etc. To the cross-bill Anna Hanbury filed a plea of former recovery in bar of the matters set up in the cross-bill. In the plea it was averred that a certain cause had been determined in the United States circuit court for the Northern district of Illinois, wherein Emily Hoyt was complainant and Knowlton, Hanbury, and others defendants. The pleas set out copies of the pleadings in said cause as exhibits, and, in substance, avers that the subject-matter of Knowlton's cross-bill and the prayer for relief as against Hanbury is the same as the subject-matter and prayer for relief in the bill interposed by Emily Hoyt in the United States circuit court. It is also alleged and set up in the plea that the bill in the United States circuit court on the hearing was dismissed for want of equity, and that the decision is conclusive of the matters relied upon here. After the filing of the pleas the cause was set down for hearing, and on the hearing the court sustained the plea and dismissed the cross-bill. On the original bill the court found that Emily Hoyt, sister of Knowlton, was the holder of the note for $1,800, secured by deed of trust, and decreed the payment of the note and interest from June 25, 1881 to February 21, 1883, and that the note and trust deed be surrendered to the clerk of the court to be canceled. The court also found that Knowlton was indebted to Hanbury in the sum of $307.55, but this amount was not decreed to be paid, but Hanbury was left free to sue at law to recover said sum. Emily Hoyt, the holder of the note, acquiesced in the...