Quinn v. Perkins

• Decision Date: 20 January 1896
• Citation: 43 N.E. 759,159 Ill. 572
• Parties: QUINN et al. v. PERKINS.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

159 Ill. 572

43 N.E. 759

QUINN et al.

v.PERKINS.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Jan. 20, 1896.

Appeal from circuit court, Cook county; O. H. Horton, Judge.

Suit by Richard F. Perkins against Mary E. Quinn and others. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and Mary E. Quinn and certain other defendants appeal. Affirmed.

This is a proceeding brought by Richard F. Perkins in the circuit court of Cook county on May 6, 1892, against Mary E. Quinn and others, under what is known as the ‘Burnt Record Act,’ to restore the record of petitioner's title, and to establish his title to lot 16 in the city of Chicago. On September 1, 1875, one Hayden, under whom both parties claim, together with his wife, by their deed conveyed the lot to Elijah C. Cole, to secure the payment of a note for $400, of even date with such deed. The deed of trust contained a power of sale, which provided that in case of default in the payment of the note, or any part thereof, etc., then, on the application of the holder or owner of such note, the trustee should sell such premises and all right or equity of redemption of the parties of the first part, at auction, for cash, on the premises, or at such other place as may be specified in the notice of said sale (said notice having been previously given by advertisement in a newspaper published in said city of Chicago, inserted not less than once in each week, the first insertion to be at least 30 days before the sale), and to make conveyance to the purchaser of the premises so sold. The trustees advertised the premises for sale, under the power, in the Chicago Legal News, the first issue being dated September 16, 1876, the dates of insertion being the 16th, 23d, and 30th days of September, and the 7th day of October, in the year last named. On October 16, 1876, the day of sale set, it is recited in the trustee's deed that sale was made at public vendue, the purchaser being Samuel C. Perkins, the father of appellee. No steps were taken by the purchaser or his heirs to obtain possession of the lot, it remaining vacant and unoccupied for some time; but on January 24, 1890, Hayden made a deed of the lot to one George B. Quinn, who thereupon took possession of the same, by placing a coal shed thereon. On June 26, 1892, George B. Quinn departed this life, having on May 6, 1892, made his quitclaim deed to Mary E. Quinn. Joseph B. Quinn also claimed some title or interest in the property. All the parties to the suit were defaulted except Mary E. and Joseph B. Quinn, who answered, and filed a cross bill, seeking to set aside the deed of Cole to Hayden as a cloud on their title. The cause was referred to the master, who reported that the petitioner was entitled to the relief sought, and the decree was accordingly.

Crocker & Crocker, for appellants.

J. D. Hubbard, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The first objection urged against the decree in the case is one of jurisdiction. Appellants contend that as the deed made by Cole, the trustee, was not made before 1876, it is not embraced in the provisions of the burnt record act, and the court had no jurisdiction. In answer to such contention, it may be stated that the petitioner sought no specific relief in respect to the trustee's deed. The main object of the petitioner was to have the record evidence of his title entered. The cross bill sought to call in question the sufficiency of the trustee's deed to pass title. We said in Harding v. Fuller, 141 Ill. 310, 30 N. E. 1053, that the destruction of the original instruments and proceedings and of the records thereof, which showed the title of petitioners prior to October, 1871, authorized them to proceed under the burnt record act for the purpose...