Miller v. Sutliff
| Decision Date | 26 October 1909 |
| Citation | 89 N.E. 651,241 Ill. 521 |
| Parties | MILLER v. SUTLIFF et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Peoria County; L. D. Puterbaugh, Judge.
Suit by James B. Miller against Milton Sutliff and others. From a decree dismissing the bill for want of equity, on sustaining a demurrer thereto, complainant appeals. Affirmed.
Francis H. Tichenor, for appellant.
George J. Jochem, for appellees.
James B. Miller filed his bill of complaint in the circuit court of Peoria county against Milton Sutliff, Dwight R. Chapman, Moses J. Richards and their unknown heirs, and Augustus E. Scott, praying the court to set aside a deed made by the complainant to Sutliff, Chapman, and Richards of the undivided one-half of the coal and mineral underlying the lands of the complainant, and a deed of the same made to said Augustus E. Scott, and to declare the same void and a cloud upon complainant's title. The service was by publication of notice, and Augustus E. Scott alone appeared and demurred to the bill. The court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the bill for want of equity, and this appeal was taken from that decree.
The material facts alleged in the bill and admitted by the demurrer to be true are as follows: On October 1, 1869, the complainant was the owner and in possession of 900 acres of land in Peoria county, under which there were deposits of coal. The lands were in a rural community, with no railroad nearer than seven miles, and no markets other than the city of Pekin, eight miles distant, and Peoria fifteen miles, from the lands. On that day the complainant, with his wife, executed a deed to Milton Sutliff, Dwight R. Chapman, and Moses, J. Richards, three of the defendants, conveying the undivided one-half of all the coal and other minerals under said lands. The deed recited a consideration of $400, and that it was made in pursuance of a contract subsisting by and between the complainant and Chapman and Phillips and by them performed. There was, in fact, no consideration paid, but the complainant was induced to make the deed by representations and promises of said defendants made first at a meeting at the farm of one of his neighbors, and afterward at a meeting held at a public school house, and finally when the conveyance was made. The representations were that said defendants were the owners of large foundries, smelters, coke ovens, and iron mills near Youngstown, Ohio; that they were men of large means and resources; that the supply of coal such as was used in their industries had practically become exhausted at their present location, necessitating a removal of the industries; and that they would remove he industries to complainant's locality if they could find and obtain in sufficient quantities a suitable kind of coal. These representations were first made to secure the privilege of boring and prospecting for coal, and, after prospecting and making borings, said defendants stated that they had found suitable coal in sufficient quantities, and, if the complainant and his neighbors would convey to them the undivided one-half of the coal and other minerals underlying their lands, they would immediately remove their plants and industries to the locality, and would employ a great number of men and build a railroad giving facilities for transportation. They represented to the complainant that, if he would make the conveyance, they would locate one of their plants upon his premises and the remainder in the vicinity, and would proceed at once toward opening up mines on his land, and that they would mine the coal at their own expense, utilizing their portion thereof, and deliver to the complainant, at the mouth of the mine, his one-half, free from all costs and expreses whatsoever. They had already surveyed and set stakes on complainant's land for a railroad to transport their machinery and supplies, and represented that before the winter they would have the construction of the railroad under way, and that they then had one of their plants in Ohio in course of transportation, and had a steamboat in the Ohio river loaded with machinery and ready to start for this locality. The complainant relied upon the representations and executed the deed in consideration of the same and the promises of the said defendants, without any other consideration, but said defendants did not perform any of their agreements and took no steps toward fulfilling any of their promises. They were never on the premises after they received the deed, but refused, and still refuse, to carry out their promises. The complainant has been in possession of the premises ever since, and neither said defendants, nor any one claiming under them, has ever been in possession of the subject-matter of the conveyance. Dwight R. Chapman, shortly after receiving the deed, conveyed a portion of his interest to James H....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Orion Refining Corp. v. Uop
...misrepresented his personal present intent, or the intent of another, to perform a promise in the future. See id.; Miller v. Sutliff, 241 Ill. 521, 89 N.E. 651, 652 (1909). As applied to this case, the Illinois bar to a claim of promissory fraud means that Orion may not rely on statements i......
-
Smith v. Prime Cable of Chicago
...68 Ill. 604; Goldberg v. Goldberg (1981), 103 Ill.App.3d 584, 59 Ill.Dec. 303, 431 N.E.2d 1060.) As noted in Miller v. Sutliff (1909), 241 Ill. 521, 526-27, 89 N.E. 651: "In order to constitute fraud in law a representation must be an affirmance of a fact and not a mere promise or matter of......
-
Gagnon v. Schickel
...a knowledge of an inability to perform, nor an intention not to do so, would make the transaction fraudulent.” Miller v. Sutliff, 241 Ill. 521, 526–27, 89 N.E. 651, 652 (1909). ¶ 33 This promissory fraud doctrine is limited, however, by the rule that even such fraud is actionable if it was ......
-
Harriage v. Daley
... ... Such representations could not form the ... basis of an action for deceit and fraud. Conoway v ... Newman, 91 Ark. 324, 121 S.W. 353; Miller ... v. Sutliff, et al., 241 Ill. 521, 24 L. R. A ... ...