Mccagg v. Heacock
| Decision Date | 30 April 1864 |
| Citation | 85 Am.Dec. 327,34 Ill. 476,1864 WL 3008 |
| Parties | EZRA B. MCCAGG et al.v.WILLIAM O. HEACOCK et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
ERROR to Superior Court of Chicago.
The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.
W. C. Goudy, for plaintiff in error.
A. Garrison, for defendant in error.
This is a suit in equity by the widow and heirs-at-law of Reuben B. Heacock, to redeem seventeen lots of land in block 129 in school section addition to Chicago, from a mortgage dated October 25, 1836, executed by Russell E. Heacock and wife to Henry Van Antwerp. In the year 1838, a suit by scire facias was commenced to foreclose the mortgage, in which a judgment was rendered on the 16th of May, 1839, directing a sale of seventeen of the lots mentioned in the mortgage; and it was released as to the remaining three lots. On the 1st day of July, 1840, Russell E. Heacock and wife conveyed the seventeen lots to Van Antwerp, in satisfaction of the debt. The premises remained vacant and unoccupied from 1840 until January 13, 1853, when Van Antwerp sold the same to McCagg, one of the plaintiffs in error; during which time Van Antwerp paid all the taxes thereon. McCagg entered into possession soon after his purchase, and was in possession when the suit was commenced on the 11th of February, 1854. On the 5th of July, 1837, James Kinzie et al. recovered a judgment in the municipal court of Chicago against Russell E. Heacock, for $165.43, and under a pluries fi. fa., which was issued thereon, and dated January 13, 1841, all the right, title and interest of the defendant therein was, on the 24th of February, 1841, sold to Reuben B. Heacock. There was no redemption from the sale, and on the 13th of June, 1842, the sheriff executed a deed to the purchaser. Russell E. Heacock died in 1849 intestate, and Reuben B. Heacock died in 1854 intestate, leaving the appellees (excepting Elizabeth Heacock, his widow) his heirs-at-law, who were also heirs-at-law of Russell E. Heacock. Pending the suit, McCagg filed a cross-bill, praying that the appellees might be decreed to release to him all claim which they might have to the premises.
We think it is unnecessary to discuss many of the questions raised in argument. The deed of Russell E. Heacock to Van Antwerp, dated July 1, 1840, was color of title. Any instrument, indicating an intention to pass a title to lands, of which a description is given, from one party to another, gives color of title to the lands described. For some reason, such an instrument often fails to effect that intention, and passes only the color, or semblance of a title. It makes no difference whether the instrument fails to pass a title because the grantor had none to convey, or had no authority in law or in fact to convey one. Inasmuch as the instrument fails to pass an absolute title, for the reason that the grantor was not possessed of one or more necessary requisites, it gives the semblance or color only of what its effect would be if they were not wanting. For more than seven years from the time when Van Antwerp acquired his color of title, the premises were vacant and unoccupied; and during all that time he paid all taxes assessed thereon. The law presumes that all acts are done in good faith until there is evidence to the contrary; and color of title is presumed to have been thus acquired till it is shown to have been acquired otherwise. The good faith required by the statute, in the creation or acquisition of color of title, is a freedom from a design to defraud the person having the better title.
The lands in controversy were conveyed to pay a just debt, and there was not even a suggestion of any fraud. The appellees do not seek to redeem as the heirs-at-law of Russell E. Heacock; and under the allegations of their bill they are not at liberty to insist that undue advantage was taken of his necessitous condition. They seek to redeem as the heirs-at-law of Reuben B. Heacock, under a title anterior in its origin to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wallace v. Chicago B. & Q. R. Co
...trespass by one without authority to enter; good faith in acquiring color of title will be presumed until the contrary is shown; (McCagg v. Heacock, 34 Ill. 476; 83 Dec. 327;) if the injury was such that final compensation would have followed in condemnation proceedings, its character is no......
-
Lewis v. Barnhart Same v. Phillips Same v. Johnson Same v. Dirks Same v. Dye Same v. Boner
...and payment of taxes for seven successive years. Holloway v. Clark, 27 Ill. 483, 486; Dickenson v. Breeden, 30 Ill. 279, 326; McCagg v. Heacock, 34 Ill. 476, 478; Stubblefield v. Borders, 92 Ill. 279, 284; Brooks v. Bruyn, 35 Ill. 394; Fagan v. Rosier, 68 Ill. 84, 87; Hardin v. Gouverneur, ......
-
Sedgwick v. Culp
... ... Bad faith will not be presumed, but must be established by ... proof. McConnel v. Street, 17 Ill. 253; McCagg v. Heacock, 34 ... Ill. 476 [85 Am.Dec. 327]; Brooks v. Bruyn, 35 Ill. 392; ... Morrison v. Norman, 47 Ill. 477; Stumpf v. Osterhage, 111 ... Ill ... ...
-
Hocker v. Vande Walle
... ... Pendergast, 308 Ill. 255, 139 N.E. 407; McCagg v. Heacock, 34 Ill. 476 ... There is no direct evidence that Beasley in fact killed Hocker. There is a total failure of proof of ... ...