Quick v. Collins
| Decision Date | 19 June 1902 |
| Citation | 197 Ill. 391,64 N.E. 288 |
| Parties | QUICK v. COLLINS. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Piatt county; W. G. Cochran, Judge.
Partition by Florence Ida Collins against Wm. D. Hancock and others. There was a decree for plaintiff, pursuant to which the land involved was sold by a master, and plaintiff filed objections to the confirmation of the sale. From a decree refusing to confirm the sale James F. Quick, the purchaser thereat, appeals. Affirmed.
Eckhart & Moore and James L. Hicks, for appellant.
E. J. Miller and W. G. Cloyd, for appellee.
On November 4, 1901, the circuit court of Piatt county entered a decree in a suit for partition pending in said court, in which the appellee, Florence Ida Collins, was complainant, directing the master in chancery to sell 183 acres of land in said county. On December 28, 1901, the master in chancery filed in said cause his report, stating that, after having duly advertised the land according to the requirements of said decree, he had on that day sold 160 acres of the land to the appellant, James F. Quick, and also sold the remaining 23-acre tract to another purchaser. Complainant filed her objections to the report of sale as to the 160 acres on the grounds that the land was sold for an inadequate price and that the master in chancery did not comply with the requirements of the decree in publishing and posting notices of the sale. That land was sold for $83.81 per acre, subject to the taxes for the current year, and she tendered a bond in the sum of $10,000, with securities, conditioned that it would bring at least $90 per acre on a resale. No objection was made as to the 23-acre tract, and the report was confirmed as to that tract. Notice having been served on appellant as purchaser, he was admitted, on his motion, as a party defendant for the purpose of resisting the objections. The court heard the evidence of the parties and sustained the objections, and ordered the master to readvertise and resell said 160 acres. Appellant excepted and prosecuted an appeal from the order.
The decree directing the sale made the following provisions as to notice: ‘The said master shall first give public notice of such sale and the time and place, and the terms thereof, by publication in some public newspaper printed and published in said county, for at least four weeks prior to such sale, and by posting written or printed notices thereof in at least ten of the most public places in the neighborhood and in the county where said premises are situated.’ The notice was published by the master in chancery in a newspaper on December 4, 11, 18, and 25, 1901, and gave notice of a sale to be held, and which was held, December 28, 1901; the first publication being 24 days prior to the sale. The master's report did not show that he posted any notices. The burden was on the master to show that he had complied with the decree, and if he posted the notices the report should have shown that fact and where they were posted, or, if they were posted by others, it should have been accompanied by affidavits proving the posting. The report did not show anything on that subject, but it was proved on the hearing of the objections that the master posted only one notice, which was on December 3, 1901, on the north door of the court house in Monticello, 17 miles distant from the land. It was also proved that he had 50 notices printed. and on December 4, 1901, delivered them to other parties and mailed them to other places to be posted. Some of these notices were afterward posted up in towns or cities not in the neighborhood of the land to be sold. There was also evidence that before the sale notices were seen posted in the neighborhood of the premises, but there was no evidence when they were posted. The notice was not published 4 weeks before the sale, and no notice was posted for that length of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barnes v. Henshaw
...v. Pritchett, 37 Ill. 517;Quigley v. Breckenridge, 180 Ill. 627, 54 N. E. 580;Wilson v. Ford, 190 Ill. 614, 60 N. E. 876;Quick v. Col. 197 Ill. 391, 64 N. E. 288;McCallum v. Chicago Title & Trust Co., 203 Ill. 142, 67 N. E. 823;Kiebel v. Leick, 216 Ill. 474, 75 N. E. 187;Compton v. McCaffre......
-
Moore v. Sievers
... ... Jacobus v. Smith, 14 Ill. 359;Reynolds v. Wilson, 15 Ill. 394, 60 Am. Dec. 753;Wilson v. Ford, 190 Ill. 614, 60 N. E. 876;Quick v. Collins, 197 Ill. 391, 64 N. E. 288. The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters applies to judgments as well as to ... ...
-
Wood v. First Nat. Bank of Woodlawn, 26870.
...by proof of fraud of that character. Plaintiffs rely on cases such as Armstrong v. Obucino, 300 Ill. 140, 133 N.E. 58;Quick v. Collins, 197 Ill. 391, 64 N.E. 288; and Welch v. Louis, 31 Ill. 446. The Armstrong case was an action under the Mechanic's Lien Act to declare a lien in favor of th......
-
Osmond v. Evans
...a sale, unless it is so grossly inadequate as in itself to raise the presumption of fraud. Heberer v. Heberer, 67 Ill. 253;Quick v. Collins, 197 Ill. 391, 64 N. E. 288; Abbott v. Beebe, supra. ‘Public policy requires stability in all judicial sales, and that they should not be disturbed for......