Kronenberger v. Heinemann

• Decision Date: 18 April 1901
• Citation: 190 Ill. 17,60 N.E. 64
• Parties: KRONENBERGER et al. v. HEINEMANN.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

190 Ill. 17

60 N.E. 64

KRONENBERGER et al.

v.HEINEMANN.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April 18, 1901.

Error to superior court, Cook county; F. Q. Ball, Judge.

Suit by Anna Kronenberger and others against Louis Heinemann to set aside the sale and cancel the master's certificate in a foreclosure proceeding. From an order denying the petition, petitioner brings error. Dismissed.

Ernst F. Herrmann and Edward M. Winston, for plaintiffs in error.

H. Stuart Derby, for defendant in error.

HAND, J.

This is a writ of error to the superior court of Cook county to review an order of that court refusing to set aside the sale and cancel the master's certificate in a foreclosure proceeding. It appears from the record that the bill was filed in this case on February 21, 1899, to foreclose a trust deed bearing date December 14, 1896, executed by Nicolaus Kronenberger and Anna Kronenberger, his wife, to William Heinemann, trustee, upon certain premises situated in Cook county. A decree of foreclosure and sale was entered, and said premises were advertised for sale by the master in chancery, and sold to Louis Heinemann, the holder of the indebtedness secured by said trust deed, at 11 o'clock a. m., July 6, 1899. The master issued a certificate of sale and made report of such sale, which was confirmed by the court. Nicolaus Kronenberger died at 3:30 a. m. on July 6, 1899. On the 16th day of July, 1900, said Anna Kronenberger, as widow, and Katherine and Elizabeth Kronenberger, the adult heirs of said Nicolaus Kronenberger, deceased, filed their petition in said cause praying that said sale be set aside and annulled; that the certificate of sale be canceled; and that the purchaser, Louis Heinemann, be restrained from taking, and the master in chancery and his successor from making, a deed under said sale to said premises, on the ground that said certificate of purchase was void, as said Nicolaus Kronenberger was not living at the time of said sale. The court denied the prayer of said petition, and refused to set aside said sale and cancel such certificate. The certificate of purchase issued by the master in chancery did not convey title to the purchaser of said premises at said sale, and if the sale should be set aside and the master's certificate canceled, on the ground that the same was void, the only effect thereof would be a resale of said premises. A freehold, therefore, is not involved. In Lightcap v. Bradley, 186 Ill. 510, 58 N. E. 221, on page 528, 186 Ill., and page 226, 58 N. E. we say: ‘A certificate of purchase does not purport to convey title, but on its face shows the contrary, by stating the amount of the bid and when the holder will be entitled to title if the premises are not redeemed. A purchaser is not entitled to possession by showing that he bid off the land at a sale. Johnson v. Baker, 38 Ill. 98. The purchaser of land under an execution of the foreclosure of a mortgage has no legal title, or right to be invested with a legal title, until the time allowed for redemption has expired. Rockwell v. Servant, 63 Ill. 424. The certificate of purchase confers on the holder no title in the land. Huftalin v. Misner, 70 Ill. 55.’ In Gage v. Busse, 94 Ill. 590, which was a suit in chancery to cancel certain tax certificates, it was held no freehold was involved, although the time for redemption had elapsed...