Pool v. Phillips

Decision Date11 May 1897
Citation167 Ill. 432,47 N.E. 758
PartiesPOOL et al. v. PHILLIPS et al.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from circuit court, Cook county; John Gibbons, Judge.

Suit by Cornelia Pool and others against William T. Phillips and others. From the decree, complainants appeal, and defendants assign cross errors. Modified.Prussing & McCulloch and C. W. McCulloch, for appellants.

Woolfolk & Browning and Humphrey & Humphrey, for appellees.

Prior to January 18, 1855, William T. Phillips purchased certain real estate in Newark, N. J., from one Lewis Nichols, for which he had Nichols execute a deed naming one of his minor daughters as grantee. His family then consisted of a wife and six children. The property was designed for a homestead, and soon after the purchase a dwelling house was built thereon, but before it was completed, in February, 1855, the wife died. On the 12th of the following December, Phillips married Phoebe Ann Cooper, and, with her and his children, occupied the premises as their home. In April, 1859, he negotiated an exchange of that property for the S. W. 1/4 of section 20, town 37 N., range 13 E., in Cook county, Ill., with one John Williams. The deed to the minor daughter had never been delivered to her, nor placed on record, but remained in the father's custody; and about April 22, 1859, he erased the name of the daughter as grantee, and inserted the name of Phoebe Ann Phillips, his wife, and also changed the consideration named therein from $500 to $2,500. He then had Nichols reacknowledge the same as of that date; leaving the date of the deed, however, January 18, 1855. The deed, thus changed, was duly recorded. A deed to this property was then executed to John Williams; William T. Phillips appearing therein as the grantor, and Phoebe Ann Phillips joining as his wife. On May 11, 1859, John Williams and wife conveyed the Cook county property, by warranty deed, to Phoebe Ann Phillips, which deed was duly recorded in the recorder's office of Cook county June 23, 1859. An arrangement was at that time entered into between the parties by which, upon the payment of $1,900 to Williams within two years, he was to reconvey the Newark property. Failing to pay the money within the time named, on August 21, 1861, Williams executed a second deed to Phoebe Ann, conveying the same Cook county land, and that deed was also duly recorded November 12, 1868. Soon after the execution of the first-named deed, Phillips removed with his family from New Jersey to Cook county, and thereafter occupied the Chicago property as his home, and placed improvements thereon. On April 1, 1868, he purchased from E. P. Van Wyck the E. 1/2 of the S. E. 1/4 of section 19, township 37 N., range 13, Cook county, and caused a deed therefor to be executed by Van Wyck and wife to the said Phoebe Ann Phillips, and that deed was duly placed upon record. In June, 1868, William T. Phillips sold the south 45 acres of the E. 1/2 of the S. W. 1/4 of section 20, township 37, range 13, to John Holm, and conveyed it by warranty deed, in which he was named as grantor; Phoebe Ann Phillips joining as his wife. Phoebe Ann Phillips died February 25, 1879, leaving no child or children, or descendants of such. The deeds to her from Williams and wife were then in the possession of her husband, the record having been destroyed in the Chicago fire of 1871. William T. Phillips then erased the name of his wife in one of these deeds as grantee, and in lieu thereof inserted his own, and, thus changed, caused it to be again recorded on October 9, 1879. On October 1, 1887, he deeded all the land to his son George Phillips, taking back a lease for life. On November 1, 1890, George conveyed the same land to his wife, Georgiana Phillips. On January 31, 1877, Phoebe Ann Phillips, and her husband, joining her as such, mortgaged the Van Wyck tract to secure an indebtedness of $600, and that incumbrance remained unsatisfied at the time of the bringing of this action. The original bill was filed by appellants, claiming the undivided one-half of the lands, the legal title to which was in Phoebe Ann Phillips, subject to the dower of William T. Phillips and the mortgage incumbrance upon the Van Wyck tract. William T. Phillips, George Phillips, and Georgiana Phillips, and the representatives of said incumbrance were made parties defendant. Complainants sought by their bill to have the deed from Williams and wife, changed by Phillips, as above stated, from his wife to himself, set aside, and the premises partitioned, after assigning dower to said Phillips; also, an accounting for rents and profits. Having answered the bill, the defendants, William T., George, and Georgiana Phillips, filed a cross bill, charging, in substance, that the said real estate was in fact owned by William T. Phillips, who caused the title thereto to be placed in the name of his wife, Phoebe Ann, for the purpose of better securing himself and family a home, and that she held the title, not in her own right, but in trust for him; also, setting up the conveyances from William T. to George, and from the latter to Georgiana, and alleging title in her, subject to a life estate in William T. and the $600 mortgage. The circuit court found in favor of the complainants in the original bill as to the Van Wyck tract, and ordered partition thereof, subject to the incumbrance thereon, but made no order as to an accounting for rents and profits; also, holding that William T. Phillips had waived his right to dower in said lands. As to all the other lands, the finding and decree were for the complainants in the cross bill. Both parties excepted to the finding and decree of the circuit court, and prayed an appeal to this court, which was allowed. Complainants in the original bill prosecute this appeal, and appellees assign cross errors.

WILKIN, J. (after stating the facts).

Although the printed arguments are exceedingly voluminous, the merits of the cause lie in a small compass. The question is, did Phoebe Ann Phillips hold the title to this real estate, or any part of it, in her own right, at the time of her death, or was there a resulting trust in favor of her husband, William T. Phillips? That the legal title was in her is, we think, clear. The execution of the deeds by Williams and wife and Van Wyck and wife, and the delivery of them to the husband for her, were a sufficient delivery to vest title in her. It is equally clear that the land was purchased and paid for by William T. Phillips with his own means. Whatever may be said of the moral character of his act in erasing the names of grantees in the deeds and inserting others, we do not regard that fact as in any way affecting the question of title...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Platt v. Huegel
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • November 18, 1930
    ......1 Perry on Trusts (7 Ed.) sec. 147; Hall v. Hall, 107 Mo. 110; Poole v. Phillips, 167 Ill. 432. (d) Fraud in any form in obtaining title will itself rebut the presumption. Darrier v. Darrier, 58 Mo. 227. (c) The fact that the ......
  • Platt v. Huegel
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • November 18, 1930
    ...... rebut the presumption of a gift. 1 Perry on Trusts (7 Ed.). sec. 147; Hall v. Hall, 107 Mo. 110; Poole v. Phillips, 167 Ill. 432. (d) Fraud in any form in. obtaining title will itself rebut the presumption. Darrier v. Darrier, 58 Mo. 227. (e) The fact that. ......
  • Veitch v. Woodward Iron Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • May 10, 1917
    ...... resulting trust will be more readily inferred, as it is. always the intention of the party whose property is conveyed. that must control. Pool v. Phillips, 167 Ill. 432,. 47 N.E. 758; Bacon v. Devinney, 55 N.J.Eq. 449, 37. A. 144; Lane's Case, 80 Me. 570, 16 A. 323;. Gilliland's Case, ......
  • Scanlon v. Scanlon
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • June 16, 1955
    ...... Pool v. Phillips, 167 Ill. 432, 442, 47 N.E. 758; Skahen v. Irving, 206 Ill. 597, 607, 69 N.E. 510; Bachseits v. Leichtweis, 256 Ill. 357, 362, 100 N.E. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT