Rankin v. Rankin

• Decision Date: 23 June 1905
• Citation: 74 N.E. 763,216 Ill. 132
• Parties: RANKIN v. RANKIN.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

216 Ill. 132

74 N.E. 763

RANKIN

v.RANKIN.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 23, 1905.

Appeal from Appellate Court, Third District.

Action by Lewis T. Rankin against Henry B. Rankin. From a judgment of the Appellate Court affirming a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.N. W. Branson and John A. Bellatti, for appellant.

Albert Salzenstein and Charles A. Barnes, for appellee.

This was a bill in chancery filed in the circuit court of Morgan county by the appellee, against the appellant, to have a warranty deed bearing date November 13, 1896, executed by the appellee and his brother, William L. Rankin, to Henry B. Rankin, whereby the grantors conveyed to said Henry B. Rankin, in consideration of $46,410, two farms located in Menard county, one containing 663 acres of prairie land, herein referred to as the ‘Prairie Farm,’ and the other 166 1/2 acres of timber land, herein referred to as the ‘Timber Farm,’ declared a mortgage with the right of redemption, and for general relief. Answers and replications and a cross-bill having been filed, the cause was referred to a master to take the proofs. Upon the master's report being filed, further proofs were heard in open court, and the court entered a decree finding said deed to be a mortgage, and that the appellee was entitled to redeem therefrom. An appeal was perfected to the Appellate Court for the Third District, where the decree of the circuit court was reversed and the cause remanded. 111 Ill. App. 403. Upon the cause being reinstated in the circuit court, by stipulation the testimony taken upon the first trial was introduced in evidence, and additional testimonywas heard, and the court then held, in accordance with the view expressed by the Appellate Court, that the appellee was entitled to repurchase the said prairie farm from said Henry B. Rankin under the terms of a contract between the appellee and Henry B. Rankin, called ‘Additional to Lease,’ and entered a decree for the specific performance of said contract of repurchase, from which decree the defendant again appealed to the Appellate Court for the Third District, where the decree of the circuit court was affirmed, and a further appeal has been prosecuted to this court.

It appears from the pleadings and proofs that the prairie farm had been owned by the family of the appellee for many years; that his father, William L. Rankin, Sr., inherited it from his father, and that in 1890 appellee and his brother, William L. Rankin, Jr., purchased the same from their father, he reserving a room in the dwelling house, and some fruit, etc., during his life; and that appellee and his brother farmed the same until 1896, when they found themselves largely in debt, money difficult to borrow, and their real estate heavily incumbered. At that time Henry B. Rankin held a first mortgage on the prairie farm for $15,000, upon which 2 1/2 years' interest was unpaid, and on the 12th of Cotober, 1896, the appellee went to Jacksonville, the home of Henry B. Rankin, they being cousins, and sought to obtain a further loan of $5,000 from him, offering to secure the payment thereof upon certain chattel property which he and his brother then had upon the farm. Henry B. Rankin declined to loan them more money, especially upon chattel security, and the appellee returned home. After he had been at home a few days he received word from Henry B. Rankin to come and see him, and during the last days of October, 1896, he again went to Jacksonville. Henry B. Rankin then suggested to him that he might be willing to buy said farms. When appellee was in Jacksonville early in October, he had made a statement to Henry B. Rankin of the indebtedness of himself and brother, which then amounted to something like $50,000. Before the appellee went home the second time, Henry B. Rankin asked him to give him an option on the farms until December 25th at $46,410, and had then prepared a writing which gave him such option. The appellee did nothing, but went home, taking the written option with him. On the 7th of November he returned to Jacksonville and again asked Henry B. Rankin to let him have $5,000 upon chattel security. This he declined to do, and appellee then stated to Henry B. Rankin he had made up his mind to give him the option upon the farms, and signed a writing whereby Henry B. Rankin was to have the right to buy said farms for $46,410 on or before December 25, 1896, said sum of money to be used, so far as necessary, in paying off the liens against said farms, with the exception of $1,500, which was to remain a first lien upon the timber farm. On November 13, 1896, Henry B. Rankin notified the appellee he would take the lands, and on that day the farms were conveyed to him by appellee and his brother. Henry B. Rankin afterwards paid off and satisfied liens upon said farms to the amount of $47,021.50, which was $611.50 more than he had agreed to pay for the farms, which amount was repaid to him by appellee and his brother by a sale to him of corn, and by cash. On the 30th day of December, 1896, Henry B. Rankin leased the farms to the appellee from March 1, 1897, to March 1, 1898, and on the 1st day of March, 1897, the appellee and Henry B. Rankin entered into an agreement called ‘Additional to Lease,’ by which it was provided the appellee was to have the right to repurchase said lands during the life of said lease, or any renewal that might be made thereof, upon the payment of $46,410, provided he had made all other payments provided to be made by the terms of said ‘additional to lease.’

The parties have assigned errors and crosserrors, which we will consider in what we deem to be their logical order.

HAND, J. (after stating the facts).

It is first contended by the appellee that the court erred in declining to hold that said deed was a mortgage. Appellee testified that when he was at the home of Henry B. Rankin in the latter part of October, 1896, Henry B. Rankin agreed to loan him $46,410 upon said farms, and to accept a deed thereof as security for the payment of that sum, and that the deed was made in pursuance of said arrangement, but that no definite time was fixed when said sum was to be repaid. This statement was denied by Henry B. Rankin, who testified that he purchased said farms for $46,410, and that said deed was an absolute conveyance. We have examined all the testimony found in the record with care, and find nothing therein which corroborates the statement of the appellee that said transfer was a mortgage and not an absolute deed, while Henry B. Rankin is corroborated in many particulars in his statement that said transfer was an absolute sale and not a mortgage. The option contract, which was in writing and was signed by the appellee, was not signed by him until he had taken time to consult with his father and brother, and they had full opportunity to examine the writing. It shows the transaction to have been an absolute sale. The deed, which was made in pursuance of the option contract, was absolute in terms, and afterwards the appellee leased, in writing, the farms from Henry B. Rankin, and accepted the contract in writing called ‘Additional to Lease,’ which gave him the right to repurchase said farms. The record contains a number of letters written by appellee to Henry B. Rankin, and by Rankin to him, with reference to the transaction, and we have discovered nothing in any of these letters which indicates that the parties considered said transaction other than an absolute sale. A part of the indebtedness secured by mortgage upon said farm, and which Henry B. Rankin agreed to take up, was a $4,000 loan, the proceeds of which the appellee and his brother claimed should be paid to them, and which his father contended should be paid to him. Henry B. Rankin filed a bill of interpleader in the circuit court of Menard county against the appellee, his brother and father, to determine to whom the said sum of $4,000 should be paid. The record of that proceeding was introduced in evidence, and the bill, answers, and decree, and an agreement between appellee, his father and brother, upon which the decree was largely based, all show that there was an absolute sale of the farms by appellee and his brother to Henry B. Rankin. Henry B. Rankin paid off and discharged mortgage liens upon said prairie farm for a large sum, and released the $15,000 mortgage held thereon by himself. When said mortgages were paid, the notes were canceled and delivered to appellee, so that said mortgage indebtedness was paid and...