Press v. Woodley

• Decision Date: 28 March 1896
• Citation: 43 N.E. 718,160 Ill. 433
• Parties: PRESS v. WOODLEY et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

160 Ill. 433

43 N.E. 718

PRESS

v.WOODLEY et al.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

March 28, 1896.

Appeal from appellate court, First district.

This was an action by George Woodley to enforce a mechanic's lien on certain premises owned by Imogene L. Cobb. Whiting C. Press, as trustee, under a deed of trust given to secure a note, was made a party defendant. There was judgment for plaintiff, which was affirmed by the appellate court (57 Ill. App. 123), and defendant Press appealed. Affirmed.

J. W. Smith, for appellant.

Smith, Helmer & Moulton, Pease & McEwen, F. S. Murphy, and W. H. Safford, for appellee.

CARTER, J.

This was a proceeding by bill, or petition, brought by appellee, Woodley, on the chancery side of the Cook county circuit court, to enforce a mechanic's lien, upon certain premises owned by Mrs. Cobb, for work and materials furnished in the building of a house. The owner and the other lienholders were made defendants. Cross petitions were filed by certain of the defendants, claiming similar liens. There were two deeds of trust, given by the owner, upon the premises, to secure borrowed money. The first of these had been made to defendant Head for $2,000. Head filed his cross bill to foreclose his deed of trust. There was no dispute as to his claim or its priority. But a second deed of trust had been given to appellant, Press, as trustee, to secure a note for $15,000, payable to the order of the maker, and by her indorsed in blank, and delivered to Press. Press answered, as trustee and owner of the note, setting up his mortgage lien, and on the same day Head amended his cross bill making the Lemont State Bank and the Calumet State Bank parties defendant to his cross bill,-it appearing that they were the owners of the note secured by the trust deed to Press. Issues were made, and the cause was referred to the master, to take and report the evidence, with his conclusions, to the court. Press filed exceptions to the master's report, which were in part sustained and in part overruled. The court thereupon rendered its final decree, settling the respective claims of the parties, and questions of priority between them, ordering the sale of the premises, and the payment and distribution of the proceeds to the parties as they were found by the decree to be entitled. As the principal questions raised and discussed by counsel cannot be determined on this appeal, it is unnecessary to set out with any detail the findings of the trial court in its decree. Press, trustee, alone appeals; and, the appellate court having affirmed the decree (57 Ill. App. 123), he brings the record to this court by his further appeal.

Motions by appellees to dismiss the appeal, or to affirm, were made in the appellate court, and are also made in this court. These motions were reserved to the final hearing. The principal ground of these motions is that Press is in no way, either individually or as trustee, affected by the decree, and that the errors assigned and relied upon by him do not concern him, but affect only other parties, who have not appealed, and who are not complaining of the action of the courts below. In its decree the trial court, among others, made the following finding: ‘And the court further finds that the notes secured by the trust deed from the defendant Imogene L. Hanchett Cobb to the defendant Whiting G. Press, trustee, dated March 14, 1892, and recorded in the recorder's office of Cook county, ad document No. 1,627,190, on the 14th day of March, A. D. 1892, in Book 3735 of Records, on page 132, are held and owned by the defendants the Lemont State Bank and the Calumet State Bank, and that there is due to the defendants the Lemont State Bank and the Calumet State Bank, from the defendant Imogene L. Hanchett Cobb, upon the notes and trust deeds sued upon and set forth in the answer of Whiting G. Press herein, and by them adopted as and for their own answer, the sum of $16,578.55, for which amount the said defendant banks are entitled to a lien upon the premises.’ The decree also directs that Mrs. Cobb pay to those banks the sum so found due them, but makes no finding for or against Press, not even as to costs. Press, however, was made defendant by appellees, and, being invested with the legal title to the property, was a necessary party. Besides, it appeared that, at the commencement of the proceedings, he claimed to own the note secured by the deed of trust. The decree, however, found that the note belonged to the two banks, and the property was ordered to be sold by the master, and its effect was to practically terminate any interest Press had. If the court erred in finding that the note belonged to the banks, and in ordering the money paid to them instead of to him, or in failing to protect any interest which may have belonged to him by virtue of the note or deed of trust, or by virtue of any disbursements made or liability incurred under the provisions of the deed of trust, he would clearly have the right to have such errors corrected on appeal. But Press has not assigned for error, in this court, the decision of the court below on any question in which he had any interest. He does not, under errors assigned, even claim that the note belonged to him, or that he was entitled to anything under the deed of trust, or that his interests have been affected by the decree in any way. He is, doubtless, satisfied with the decree in these respects. He simply attacks, as trustee, the findings in the decree, in so far as th...