Patterson v. Northern Trust Co.

• Decision Date: 20 February 1919
• Docket Number: No. 12001.,12001.
• Citation: 286 Ill. 564,122 N.E. 55
• Parties: PATTERSON v. NORTHERN TRUST CO. et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

286 Ill. 564

122 N.E. 55

PATTERSON

v.NORTHERN TRUST CO. et al.

No. 12001.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 20, 1919.

Appeal from First Branch Appellate Court, First District, on Appeal from Superior Court, Cook County; Denis E. Sullivan, Judge.

Suit by John C. Patterson against the Northern Trust Company, trustee, and others, for an accounting. From a decree dismissing the suit, plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Court, and upon that part of the decree, denying defendant's motion for solicitor's fees, defendants assigned cross-errors. The Appellate Court affirmed the decree (207 Ill. App. 355), but granted a certificate of importance to the Supreme Court, and certain of the defendants have prosecuted separate appeals, which have been consolidated. Judgment affirmed.

Judah, Willard, Wolf & Reichmann, of Chicago, for appellant Northern trust co.Oliver & Mecartney, of Chicago, for appellant Shedd.

John C. Patterson, of Riverside, pro se.

CARTWRIGHT, J.

John C. Patterson is the owner of a life estate in a one-twelfth interest in real estate at the northwest corner of State and Washington streets, in the city of Chicago, improved with a 12-story building, known as the Stewart Building and held in trust for the beneficiaries by the Northern Trust Company. On June 8, 1915, Patterson filed his bill of complaint in the superior court of Cook county against the trustee, Edward A. Shedd, a beneficiary, and others, asking the court to set aside a former decree and to require the trustee to account. The trustee and Shedd filed separate motions to strike the bill of complaint from the files and dismiss the suit, on the ground that the suit was frivolous and vexatious, and in violation of an injunction, and a clear and palpable abuse of the process of the court. The trustee and Shedd also filed separate motions that the court ascertain and fix the amount of solicitor's fees necessarily incurred by them in defense of the suit, and to tax the same as a part of the costs, and enter judgment against Patterson for them. The court sustained the motion to strike the bill from the files and dismiss the suit, but denied the motions to fix and allow solicitor's fees and tax the same as costs against Patterson, and entered a decree accordingly. From that decree Patterson prosecuted an appeal to the Appellate Court for the First District, and assigned for error the striking of his bill from the files and dismissing his suit. The trustee and Shedd each assigned cross-errors on the denial of their motions to fix and allow their solicitor's fees. The Appellate Court affirmed the decree of the superior court (207 Ill. App. 355) and granted a certificate of importance to the trustee and Shedd, and appeals from that part of the judgment affirming the denial of their motions. The appeals were perfected and have been consolidated. Patterson has assigned cross-errors, so far as the judgment affirmed the decree dismissing his bill.

Any question concerning costs being dependent upon the correctness of the decree dismissing the bill, the cross-errors are first to be considered.

On March 15, 1904, John C. Patterson commenced the litigation concerning the subject-matter of this suit by filing his bill against the Northern Trust Company, as trustee, and others. After a hearing the bill was dismissed for want of equity, and the decree having been affirmed by the appellate Court for the First District, a petition for a writ of certiorari was denied by this court. Since the filing of the first bill Patterson has kept up a continual litigation with the trustee and his cobeneficiaries about the same matters. As soon as one suit was decided against him he brought another, and in March, 1910, commenced his fifth suit, and the trustee filed its cross-bill to enjoin the prosecution of any more such suits, and secured an injunction on February 26, 1912, enjoining Patterson from commencing any more suits of the same kind. Some of the cases reached this court. Patterson v. Northern Trust Co., 230 Ill. 334, 82 N. E. 837;Patterson v. Northern Trust Co., 231 Ill. 22, 82 N. E. 840,121 Am. St. Rep. 299;Johnson v. Northern Trust Co., 265 Ill. 263, 106 N. E. 814. In the case of Johnson v. Northern Trust Co. the Appellate Court directed a decree, and, the judgment having been affirmed by this court, the decree was entered.

The bill filed in this case is a nondescript, bearing no resemblance, either in form or substance, except in calling for an account, to any known bill for equitable relief, but asks to have the decree entered as directed by the Appellate Court set aside, and for that purpose makes general charges of fraud and conspiracy on the part of the trustee and Shedd and their counsel. A court has inherent power to protect itself and litigants against harassing and vexatious ligigation and an abuse of process of the court. By his bill Patterson attempted to relitigate matters finally and conclusively determined, and in violation of an injunction of the court and contempt of its authority. In such a case courts have power to protect themselves by the summary remedy of dismissing the suit. Edmunds v. Attorney General, 47 L. J. 345; Barrett v. Day, 43 Ch. Div. 435; Barstall v. Beyfus, 26 Ch. Div. 35; Metropolitan Bank v. Pooley, 10 App. Cas. 210; Stewart v. Butler, 27 Misc. Rep. 708,59 N. Y. Supp. 573;Berks County v. Jones, 21 Pa. 416; 20 Ency. of Pl. & Pr. 45. The court did not err in dismissing the bill.

It is a rule universally recognized that a trustee not at fault is entitled to be reimbursed for all his expenses properly incurred in the administration of his trust and has an equitable lien on the trust estate for the same. Perry on Trusts, 894; Lewin on Trusts (12th Ed.) 1267; 39 Cyc. 339; 28 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 1030; King v. Cushman, 41 Ill. 31, 89 Am. Dec. 366;Stewart v. Fellows, 128 Ill. 480, 20 N. E. 657;Waterman v. Alden, 144 Ill. 90, 32 N. E. 972; 15 Corpus Juris, 105.

Where a beneficiary brings a suit against his trustee which is groundless, the solicitor's fees and expenses of the trustee in defending the charge are to be paid out of the share of the complainant in the trust estate, and not charged against the estate generally nor a general fund by which cobeneficiaries would have to contribute. The suit by Patterson was frivolous, oppressive and a wrongful attempt to relitigate matters already decided, and the rule that his share of the trust estate should pay the expenses applies with all its force.

The right and duty of the court to allow to the trustee out of Patterson's share of the trust estate all legitimate expenses in defending against his charges, including solicitor's fees, cannot be doubted, and we see no reason why a court of equity may not likewise protect a beneficiary from such an...