Palmer v. Douglas

• Decision Date: 14 June 1883
• Citation: 107 Ill. 204,1883 WL 10290
• Parties: JOHN PALMERv.DAVID T. DOUGLAS et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

107 Ill. 204

1883 WL 10290 (Ill.)

JOHN PALMER

v.DAVID T. DOUGLAS et al.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Filed at Springfield Jun. 14, 1883.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of McLean county; the Hon. OWEN T. REEVES, Judge, presiding.

Messrs. WELDON & MCNULTA, and Mr. J. M. WEAKLY, for the appellant.

Mr. IRA J. BLOOMFIELD, for the appellees.

Mr. JUSTICE MULKEY delivered the opinion of the Court:

The bill in this case was brought by John Palmer, the appellant, in the McLean circuit court, against David T. Douglas and James S. Pearson, the appellees, to redeem from an execution sale, and to remove an alleged cloud upon the title of the land in controversy.

The evidence shows that in 1877 Douglas loaned to Palmer $80, to secure which Palmer gave him a mortgage on ten acres of land, being the same now in dispute. Afterwards one Steadman obtained a judgment against Palmer, which became a lien upon the land. On the 24th of August, 1878, the land was sold at sheriff's sale, under this judgment, for the sum of $76, to Douglas, to whom the sheriff at the time executed a certificate of purchase, which was subsequently assigned by him to Pearson, his father-in-law. The land not having been redeemed within the time prescribed by law, the sheriff executed to Pearson, as assignee of the certificate of purchase, a deed to the premises. Palmer thereupon filed the present bill, for the purposes already stated. The bill in substance charges, that Douglas, confederating with Pearson, his father-in-law, for the purpose of cheating and defrauding appellant out of his land, by sundry deceptive assurances, false promises, artifices and misrepresentations, specifically set forth in the bill, lulled appellant into security, and thereby induced him to allow the time for redemption to pass by without redeeming. On the hearing the circuit court rendered a decree dismissing the bill, and the complainant appealed to this court.

The appellant is an illiterate old man, some fifty-seven years of age, a blacksmith by trade, having followed the business ever since he was eighteen, and evidently with a very imperfect conception of his legal rights, at least so far as the subject matter of the present controversy is concerned. He was not on good terms with Pearson, who had not spoken to him for ten years. Appellant, however, had great confidence in Douglas, Pearson's son-in-law, with whom appellant was on intimate terms. Douglas is a physician by profession, and was, prior to the time of this controversy, the family physician of Palmer.

The appellant's account of the circumstances out of which this controversy arises, is testified to by him as follows: “I mortgaged the land to Douglas for $80. Steadman got a judgment against me for a balance on an old blacksmith shop, before a justice of the peace, took a transcript, and got a lien on the land after the mortgage. Douglas got the certificate of purchase. He said: ‘I will make it all right.’ I paid on the mortgage three different times. When I made the last payment I wanted to know when I should pay this certificate. He (Douglas) said he would give me time. I asked him several times. He said he would give me any time. Then one day I wanted to know if he would give me time if he would let me know when the time was up. I told him I wanted to sell my hogs to pay it. He said I had better not sell now,--to hold awhile, and get better prices. I didn't sell them for about ten days. He said then that there was no hurry,--not to hurry about it,--if he was in my place he would not sell. In ten days I sold the hogs,--on a Monday,--and was to deliver them on Thursday following. I went to him. He said the time was out in two days, then. I asked him what was to be done about it. He said to ask 'Squire Davidson to fix it,--to get an order of court to make a deed to me. I went to Davidson. He said to see Douglas, and have him sign the certificates over, and then go to Bloomington and get the deed. That is what I told Douglas. He said, all right,--we will fix it up all right; and still said he would do that. I found out what he had done, and asked him if he had signed to Pearson. He said he had,--that he took Pearson's note for it. In the conversation when he told me to go to Davidson, I asked him how it was to be fixed. I told him what Davidson said. I suppose it was because he wanted to settle with me. It went a month and two days when I learned that Pearson had taken the deed. Then I got the money, and two or three dollars more, and gave it to Douglas, and told him I wanted him to fetch that deed to the land. He said he would see the old man, and he would fix it up all right. Me and him had a running account. He gave me his bill, and I made out my bill. It left something coming to me. He paid me a little one day. I had given him $90. He had carried it four weeks and two days. He had paid me $5 on it, and told me in a few days he would pay me the balance. One morning he said, here is the money.

I thought it was the money he owed me. I saw one corner of a $20 bill. I said I didn't want this money. He said he did not want to carry it. He wouldn't take...