Pain v. Kinney
| Decision Date | 24 October 1898 |
| Citation | 51 N.E. 621,175 Ill. 264 |
| Parties | PAIN et al. v. KINNEY et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from appellate court, First district.
Bill in equity by Charles E. Pain and others against William C. Kinney and others for specific performance. From a judgment of the appellate court (73 Ill. App. 115) dismissing complainants' appeal from an order of the trial court, complainants appeal. Affirmed.
Parker & Pain, for appellants.
Knight & Brown, for appellees.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the appellate court dismissing an appeal to that court from an order of the circuit court of Cook county in a chancery cause for specific performance. The appeal was dismissed by the appellate court on the ground that the order or decree appealed from was not a final decree, and that is the only question involved in the appeal to this court. Appellee Julianna Chambers was the owner in fee of certain lots which had been leased to one Brady for 99 years. Brady and one Skinner had contracted with the Farson & Libbey Company to furnish millwork and materials, which, though not specified in the contract, were to be and were used in constructing a building on the said lots. After furnishing a portion of the materials, Skinner made an assignment for the benefit of his creditors, and the Farson & Libbey Company refused to furnish any more. Thereupon a written agreement was entered into, which also included the work of the other contractors, whereby the company was to furnish the balance of the material, and receive promissory notes for the amount of $3,000, to be secured by a deed of trust on the lots, including the fee-simple title thereto in Julianna Chambers. The deed of trust was to be recorded, and the notes placed in escrow, before the company should deliver the material. It does not appear that Julianna Chambers signed this contract, but it seems she undertook to comply with it so far as she was to perform it. She, with appellee Patrick Chambers, her husband, and Brady, executed the deed of trust to secure the notes, which notes were given by Brady. These notes were payable at the office of William C. Kinney, who was the trustee in the deed of trust, and were delivered to him in escrow, as provided by the contract, and the deed of trust was duly filed for record. The bill charged that the company performed the contract on its part, but that Kinney, acting with the consent and advice of Julianna Chambers, refused to deliver to it the notes, and the prayer is for specific performance,-that Julianna Chambers and Kinney be required to deliver said notes.
Answers and replications were filed and the cause was referred to the master. He reported the evidence and his conclusions to the court, recommending a decree as prayed in the bill. All of the appellees excepted to the report, and the court made the following order: ‘This cause coming on to be heard upon the exceptions of the defendants, Julianna Chambers, Patrick Chambers, and William C. Kinney, to the report of the master, and to his rulings upon the motion of said defendants to exclude the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sheaff v. Spindler
...might be brought up for review. This case followed the previous decisions of Dreyer v. Goldy, 171 Ill. 434, 49 N. E. 560,Pain v. Kinney, 175 Ill. 264, 51 N. E. 621, and Brodhead v. Minges, 198 Ill. 513, 64 N. E. 998, which were cited in the opinion. In addition to them may be cited the case......
-
Phillips v. O'Connell
...whole record, including the order of dismissal, might be brought up for review. Dreyer v. Goldy, 171 Ill. 434, 49 N.E. 560;Pain v. Kinney, 175 Ill. 264, 51 N.E. 621;Brodhead v. Minges, 198 Ill. 513, 64 N.E. 998.’ A similar practice prevails under the Civil Practice Act. In Walters v. Merc. ......
-
People v. Banks
...of Chicago, 166 Ill. 451, 46 N. E. 1073;Thompson v. Follansbee, 55 Ill. 427;Dreyer v. Goldy, 171 Ill. 434, 49 N. E. 560;Pain v. Kinney, 175 Ill. 264, 51 N. E. 621. While there are exceptions to the rule that this court will not review a decree under the circumstances here presented, yet it ......
-
Foote v. Yarlott
...whole record, including the order of dismissal, might be brought up for review. Dreyer v. Goldy, 171 Ill. 434, 49 N. E. 560;Pain v. Kinney, 175 Ill. 264, 51 N. E. 621;Brodhead v. Minges, 198 Ill. 513, 64 N. E. 998. The only case cited by counsel in support of his position having any relatio......