Morse v. Seibold

• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: The other facts fully appear in the following statement by MAGRUDER
• Citation: Morse v. Seibold , 147 Ill. 318, 35 N.E. 369 (Ill. 1893)
• Decision Date: 26 October 1893
• Parties: MORSE v. SEIBOLD et al.

147 Ill. 318

35 N.E. 369

MORSE

v.SEIBOLD et al.¹

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 26, 1893.

Appeal from circuit court, Peoria county; T. M. Shaw, Judge.

Bill by James M. Morse against Baltheus F. Seibold, William Seibold, and Charles D. Clinton. Defendants obtained a decree. Complainant appeals. Affirmed.Jack & Tichenor, for appellant.

Wm. Don Maus, (J. M. Tennery, of counsel), for appellees.

The other facts fully appear in the following statement by MAGRUDER, J.:

This is a bill filed in the circuit court of Peoria county on November 2, 1889, by appellant against appellees and one Clinton, for the specific performance of a contract, by which appellee Baltheus F. Seibold agreed to sell to appellant, Morse, six acres of land. The defendants answered the bill, denying the material allegations, and charging laches on the part of the complainant. Clinton filed a cross bill. The circuit court, by its decree, dismissed both the cross bill and the original bill, for want of equity. The present appeal is prosecuted from said decree.

The contract is as follows: ‘Peoria, Ills., Jan. 2, 1883. Received of James M. Morse twenty-five dollars, in consideration of which we agree to sell to said James M. Morse, or his legal assignee, the following land, * * * for the sum of fifteen hundred dollars, payable as follows: $25 cash, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged; $275 payable on or before January 15, 1883; and, upon payment of $275 cash on said date, warranty deed to be made to said Morse, on his executing a mortgage on said land to secure the balance of the purchase money, to be represented by four notes of $300 each, due on or before one, two, three, and four years, with interest at 6 per cent. per annum, interest payable annually. Friedericke Seibold.’ It is conceded that Baltheus F. Seibold and the signer of the above contract were one and the same person, and that the word ‘we’ refers to him and his wife. After the making of the contract, Morse discovered that there was a defect in the title. In 1866, Charles D. Clinton, being the owner of the premises, mortgaged the same to William Harsch, who foreclosed his mortgage by scire facias, and obtained judgment in 1867. At a sale under the judgment, Harsch purchased the property, on December 18, 1867, and on that day a certificate of purchase was issued to him by the sheriff, and he went into possession of the premises. On April 2, 1868, Harsch sold the property, and delivered the possession thereof to the appellee Baltheus F. or Friedericke Seibold, executing to him a quitclaim deed of that date, which contained the following provision: ‘And said party of the first part does by these presents absolutely release and quitclaim unto the said party of the second part any and all right, title, claim, and interest that he may now have * * * by a deed which he got from the sheriff of Peoria county, but, if the above land shall be redeemed from said sheriff's sale, then the party of the first part will refund the above money to the party of the second part.’ Said quitclaim deed was recorded on the day of its date. Said certificate of purchase was also recorded within the time required by law. No deed was ever issued by the sheriff in pursuance of said certificate, either to Harsch or to his grantee, B. F. Seibold. In view of this fact, the following agreement, dated March 17, 1883, was executed by B. F. Seibold, and delivered to Morse: ‘Whereas, on the 2d day of January, 1883, J. M. Morse purchased of the undersigned, B. Freidericke Seibold, six acres of land, which he purchased of William Harsch on or about 1868, and described * * *; and whereas, it appears that one Charles B. Clinton appears to have some equitable interest therein, and the same not having been quitclaimed or conveyed to me: Now, I hereby agree, in consideration of the former agreement and other considerations, to extend the time of the payment of the $275 which was to have been paid on or about January 15, '83, until May 1, 1883, so I can have the title cleared, so I can convey to said Morse, by good and sufficient deed or deeds of conveyance, said property; it being agreed that said Morse shall pay interest on the purchase money from January 2, 1883, at 6 per cent., and he shall be allowed credit for all the rent I shall receive from said land.’ Both of the foregoing contracts were recorded shortly after their respective dates. After the execution of the contract of March 17, 1883, both Morse and Seibold made efforts to obtain a quitclaim deed from Clinton, but failed. About June 12, 1883, Seibold tendered to appellant a special warranty deed of the property, dated May 1, 1883, but appellant refused to accept it. On November 23, 1883, Clinton commenced an action of ejectment against the tenant in possession, and Seibold was made defendant, and defended the suit, which was finally dismissed on December 21, 1885, for want of prosecution. In January or February, 1886, B. F. Seibold, through his attorney, again tendered a special warranty deed to Morse, but the latter again refused to accept it. On January 4, 1887, B. F. Seibold executed a deed of the property to his son, the appellee William Seibold, who gave back to his father a mortgage to secure $1,500, payable in one, two, three, four, and five years, at 4 per cent. interest per annum, which deed and mortgage were duly recorded, and are alleged in the bill to be without consideration, and fraudulent and void as to the complainant. It is conceded that Seibold had acquired good title by possession for 20 years before the filing of the original bill herein, and it was because of the bar thus made complete that Clinton's cross bill was dismissed.

MAGRUDER, J., (after stating the facts.)

The material question in this case, and the only one which we deem it necessary to consider, is the question of laches. Has the appellant been guilty of such delay in filing his bill as to make it inequitable to grant him a specific performance of the contract? It is claimed by appellees that B. F. Seibold acquired title by an adverse possession of 20 years on April 2, 1888, as he had been in possession of the premises ever since April 2, 1868, the date of his deed from Harsch; and that appellant was guilty of laches because he waited 19 months after the expiration of the 20 years on April 2, 1888, to wit, until November 2, 1889, before he filed his bill. On the other hand, appellant contends that the period of limitation did not commence to run on April 2, 1868, the date of Seibold's entry into possession, but that it began to run on March 18, 1869, the date when the time of redemption from the sale made by the sheriff to Harsch on December 18, 1867, expired; and that there was no laches, because only 7 1/2 months elapsed after March 18, 1889, the date assigned for the completion of the bar of 20 years, before the filing of the bill on November 2, 1889. The basis of this contention is found in the language of the deed from Harsch to B. F. Seibold, which provided that, if the land should be redeemed from the sheriff's sale, then Harsch would refund the money to Seibold. The interest quitclaimed is that which Harsch obtained ‘by a deed which he got from the sheriff of Peoria county;’ but the word ‘deed’ was evidently used by mistake for ‘certificate,’ as the land could not have been redeemed from the sale if the sheriff had already made a deed. As matter of fact, Harsch had only the equitable title when he conveyed to Seibold. He held nothing but a sheriff's certificate of sale, dated December 18, 1867; and when he made his deed to Seibold, on April 2, 1868, only three...