Lonergan v. Daily

• Decision Date: 16 December 1914
• Docket Number: No. 9629.,9629.
• Citation: 266 Ill. 189,107 N.E. 460
• Parties: LONERGAN v. DAILY et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

266 Ill. 189

107 N.E. 460

LONERGAN

v.DAILY et al.

No. 9629.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 16, 1914.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Sangamon County; James A. Creighton, Judge.

Suit by Mary Lonergan against Michael Daily, administrator, and others. Bill dismissed, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Alonzo Hoff, of Springfield, for appellant.

Drennan & Lawler, of Springfield, for appellees.

CARTER, J.

This was a bill filed by appellant, Mary Lonergan, in the circuit court of Sangamon county, against appellees, Michael Daily and Sarah E. Murphy, as heirs at law of Patrick Daily, deceased, and said Michael Daily as administrator of said deceased, praying for specific performance of a parol agreement for the purchase of real estate, or, in the alternative, to recover for money and board furnished said Patrick Daily, and for an accounting. After the pleadings were settled, the cause was referred to a master in chancery to take evidence. He reported, recommending that the bill be dismissed at the complainant's costs for want of equity. After a hearing in the circuit court a decree was entered in accordance with the recommendations of the master. This appeal is from that decree.

The deceased, Patrick Daily, was an uneducated man about 73 years of age, and had resided on a farm in Illinois much of his life. His wife died while he was living on the farm. He had a grown son and daughter, who were living, with their families, away from him. He was considered a man of means, owning two farms and some chattel property. In 1908 he moved to Springfield, Ill., and shortly thereafter went to board with the appellant at her home in that city. Her sister and niece made their home with her, and she also had boarding with her a part of the time another elderly man. Daily boarded in her house for some 3 or 4 years and up to the time of his death, on July 26, 1911. During the year 1909 he purchased the premises here in controversy, being a house and lot in Springfield located near where appellant resided. She claims that Daily on January 24, 1910, verbally agreed to convey said premises to her for the sum of $1,550, which she that day paid him, and also in payment for 2 years and 10 months' board then due her, and on the further condition that she would keep and care for him during the rest of his life. The brother of appellant is the only witness who testified to this agreement being made on the date above referred to. He also testified that Daily told him about a year later, shortly before his death, that he was going downtown in a few days to make a deed conveying the premises to appellant. There is testimony of other witnesses tending strongly to show that the brother was not in Springfield on the date that he claims he had this last talk with Daily. The evidence shows that appellant did pay to the deceased, on January 24, 1910, $1,550, but the evidence also clearly shows that in December, 1908, Daily loaned appellant $1,600, to be used by her as part payment for another piece of property in Springfield which she had then purchased. Appellees claim that the $1,550 paid to the deceased by appellant was in repayment of this loan. The record does not show any payments by the deceased to appellant for room and board, but it is shown that she collected rents on the property in controversy at the rate of $23 a month after this purchase until the time of his death, and that the deceased collected rent from his farms and drew a considerable amount of cash from the bank during the period he was boarding with appellant. Counsel for appellees argue that, as it cannot be shown where this money has gone, it reasonably follows that it was used by the deceased in paying his board and other expenses, including the repairs and improvements on the property here in controversy. These improvements, such as electrical fixtures, awnings, and screens, counsel for appellant claims she paid for out of her own money. The tenant...