Larson v. Glos
| Decision Date | 26 October 1908 |
| Citation | 235 Ill. 584,85 N.E. 926 |
| Parties | LARSON v. GLOS et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Appellate Court, First District, on Appeal from Superior Court, Cook County; Willard M. McEwen, Judge.
Bill by Jennie Louise Larson against Jacob Glos and another. Judgment for plaintiff was affirmed by the Appellate Court (138 Ill. App. 412), and defendants bring error. Reversed and remanded.
John R. O'Connor, for plaintiffs in error.
David G. Robertson, for defendant in error.
Jennie Louise Larson, defendant in error, filed her bill in the superior court of Cook county against Jacob Glos and the county clerk of said county, plaintiffs in error, praying that a certificate of a sale for taxes of lot 14, in block 9, in the original subdivision of Irving Park, in said county, issued to said Jacob Glos, should be canceled as a cloud upon her title to said lot, that Glos be restrained from applying to the county clerk for a tax deed, and that the county clerk be enjoined from issuing a deed on said certificate. Glos answered, denying every material allegation of the bill, alleging ownership of the lot in himself, and praying that, if his title should be found invalid, he should be reimbursed therefor. A replication being filed, the issues were referred to a master in chancery, and on the hearing before the master the complainant offered evidence tending to prove that she was the owner and in possession of the lot, and that no notice when the period of redemption would expire had been served, as required by law. August A. Timke appeared before the master as a witness for the defendant Glos, and produced the tax sale certificate, indorsed in blank ‘Jacob Glos,’ and testified that he was the owner of the certificate; that he purchased it and other certificates from Glos about December 1, 1905, nearly two months before the bill was filed, and paid for it and the other certificates; that he had worked for Glos, off and on, for about 14 years, but not all the time; that during that time he had also been engaged in buying at tax sales for himself and Glos and other clients; that the certificate was delivered to him at the time he purchased it; and that he had had possession of it from that time, and had kept it, either in his box at home, or in his pocket, or in his private box in the vault in the office of Glos. The master found and reported to the court that Glos was at the time of filing the bill, and then was, the owner and holder of the certificate of sale, and he recommended a decree canceling the certificate upon payment of the amount of the sale, with subsequent taxes and interest, and enjoining the issuing of a tax deed. The chancellor heard the cause on exceptions to the report, overruled the exceptions, and entered a decree finding the certificate a cloud upon the title of complainant, and finding that Glos was the owner and holder of the certificate. A perpetual injunction was awarded as prayed for, the certificate was canceled, and it was decreed that Glos should pay the fees of the master, amounting to $41.55, which had accrued after a tender of $14, made in open court, to reimburse Glos for the amount of the sale and subsequent taxes and interest. The Branch Appellate Court for the First District affirmed the decree.
Counsel for the defendant in error recognizes the established rule, stated in Hopkins v. Roseclare Lead Co., 72 Ill. 373, and other cases, that a court of equity can make no decree which so involves the interest of a person not a party to the suit that complete justice between the parties cannot be done without affecting his rights, and that where the execution of a decree would materially affect the rights of such a party the decree must be reversed; but he is of the opinion that the decree in this case may be sustained upon two grounds: First, that the master disregarded the testimony of August A. Timke as unworthy of belief, and was justified in doing so; and, second, because the indorsement and delivery of the certificate by Glos did not operate as an assignment of the same to Timke.
To sustain the first proposition counsel cites some early decisions of an Appellate Court to the effect that the finding of a master on a question of fact is entitled to the same consideration and weight as the verdict of a jury in a common-law action, and that every presumption which exists in favor of a verdict of a jury is to be indulged in favor of such a report. Even if that were the rule, there is nothing in this record which would justify a jury in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McBride v. Bank & Trust Co., 31671.
...Panhandle & S.F. (Tex. Civ. App.), 35 S.W. (2d) 194; McAfle v. Robertson, 41 Tex. 355; Cooley v. Barcroft, 43 N.Y.L. 363; Larson v. Glos, 235 Ill. 584, 85 N.E. 926; St. Louis-S.F. Ry. Co. v. Harmon, 15 S.W. (2d) 310; Boudeman v. Arnold, 200 Mich. 162, 166 N.W. 985; Beene v. Rotan Grocery Co......
-
McBride v. Mercantile-Commerce Bank & Trust Co.
... ... v. Panhandle & S. F. (Tex. Civ. App.), 35 S.W.2d 194; McAfle v ... Robertson, 41 Tex. 355; Cooley v. Barcroft, 43 ... N. Y. L. 363; Larson v. Glos, 235 Ill. 584, 85 N.E ... 926; St. Louis-S. F. Ry. Co. v. Harmon, 15 S.W.2d ... 310; Boudeman v. Arnold, 200 Mich. 162, 166 N.W ... ...
-
People v. Small
...their judgment whilst doing so, and not their will merely. Robertson v. Dodge, 28 Ill. 161 .’ On the same subject, in Larson v. Glos, 235 Ill. 584, 85 N. E. 926, Mr. Justice Cartwright said: ‘There is nothing in this record which would justify a jury in discrediting and rejecting the testim......
-
Bucktown Partners v. Johnson
...a jury." (People ex rel. Brown v. Baker (1981), 88 Ill.2d 81, 85, 58 Ill.Dec. 875, 876, 430 N.E.2d 1126, 1127; accord, Larson v. Glos (1908), 235 Ill. 584, 85 N.E. 926; Dill v. Widman (1953), 413 Ill. 448, 109 N.E.2d 765; Kelly v. Jones (1919), 290 Ill. 375, 125 N.E. 334.) People ex rel. Br......