Reinhardt v. Seaman

• Decision Date: 17 February 1904
• Citation: 69 N.E. 847,208 Ill. 448
• Parties: REINHARDT v. SEAMAN et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

208 Ill. 448

69 N.E. 847

REINHARDT

v.SEAMAN et al.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 17, 1904.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Cook County; E. O. Brown, Judge.

Bill to foreclose a trust deed by Sophia Seaman and others against Martha Reinhardt and others. From the decree rendered for complainants, defendant Martha Reinhardt appeals. Reversed in part.

Ludmil Kandlik, for appellant.

David Eichberg (Charles L. Bartlett, of counsel), for appellees.

BOGGS, J.

Bernhard Reinhardt died December 15, 1893, in Cook county, leaving a widow, Pauline, and six children, all of whom, including the appellant, Martha, were minors. At the time of his death, and for some years prior thereto, said Bernhard owned lot 24 in Webb's subdivision of lots 7 and 8, in block 2, of Cochran's subdivision of the west half of the southeast quarter of section 6, town 39 north, range 14 east, in the city of Chicago. On the premises were situate a stone and brick flat building, three stories high in the front, and a two-story brick flat building in the rear. The said Bernhard, together with his said wife and children, resided in one of the flats of the building, and had for many years made such flat his home. The other flats were rented to tenants. He and his wife had executed two trust deeds on the premises, both to Charles H. Fleischer, as trustee; one to secure an indebtedness evidenced by a note for $3,000, the other to secure a note in the sum of $300. Each of these trust deeds was acknowledged by the said Bernhard and his wife, and in the body of the deeds and in the acknowledgments thereof the homestead rights and interests of the makers of each of the trust deeds were duly and legally waived and relinquished. The entire property was of the value of about $6,000 or $6,500. After the death of said Bernhard his widow and children continued to reside in the said flat.

In June, 1895, Frank A. Stauber, administrator of the estate of the said Bernhard Reinhardt, filed a petition in the probate court of Cook county for a decree to sell the said lot and the building thereon the pay the debts of the decedent. The widow and heirs of the deceased were made parties defendant to the proceeding, and were served with process. The petition set forth the existence of the two trust deeds, recited the amount of the indebtedness secured by each of them, the rate of interestsecured to be paid, the date of the maturity of each indebtedness, and prayed for a decree ordering sale of the premises subject to the two trust deeds, and subject also to the dower interests of the said widow, and also the homestead rights of the widow and children of the deceased. The widow suffered a default. Isadore H. Himes was appointed guardian ad litem to litigate and defend for the minor defendants, including Martha, the appellant. The guardian ad litem filed an answer for the minors, neither admitting nor denying the allegations of the petition, but reserving all rights, and praying for strict proof of all matters and things alleged against them. On the hearing a decree was entered directing the premises to be sold by the administrator subject to the lien of the two trust deeds before mentioned, and also subject to the dower of the widow and the homestead rights of the widow and children of the deceased. At a sale under the decree the widow bid the sum of $1,400 for the premises, subject to the said trust deeds, her dower, and the homestead rights of herself and her children, which was the highest and best bid therefor. The sale was reported to and approved by the probate court, and on the 20th day of September, 1895, the administrator executed and delivered to said widow, Pauline, an administrator's deed for the said premises.

In May, 1896, the trust deed for $3,000 having matured, the said widow, Pauline, executed a note for that amount, and a trust deed upon the property securing the note, and delivered the said note and trust deed to the said Charles H. Fleischer, who was the payee in the note and the trustee in the trust deed, who thereupon canceled and delivered to her the former note for $3,000, and released of record the former trust deed given by herself and her husband securing the same. In April, 1899, the note and trust deed given by the widow in 1896 became due, and the widow, said Pauline, together with Lizzie, the older of her children, who had arrived at legal age, in order to procure the money to pay and discharge the same, executed their note for $3,600, payable to Sophia Seaman, one of the appellees, five years thereafter, and bearing 6 per cent. interest per annum, and to secure the same executed also a trust deed to appellee Samuel Eichberg, as trustee, whereby they mortgaged the premises aforesaid to secure the payment of the said note. This trust deed, both in the body and in the acknowledgment thereof, released and relinquished the homestead interests of the makers.

On the 5th day of February, 1902, the appellees, Sophia Seaman, the holder and owner of the said note, and said Eichberg, the trustee in the trust deed given to secure the same, filed this, their bill in chancery, to foreclose the said trust deed. The appellant and the other children of the said Bernhard Reinhardt were, among others, made parties defendant to the bill. The appellant, Martha, filed a separate answer to the bill for foreclosure, in which she set up that the premises were the homestead of her father, Bernhard Reinhardt, during his lifetime, and upon his death the homestead right, under the statute, inured to her mother, the widow, Pauline, and herself and the other minor children of said Bernhard; and alleged that the widow, Pauline, and the said Stauber, the administrator, fraudulently procured to be entered the decree for the sale of the premises, subject to the dower of the said Pauline and the homestead rights of the said Pauline and said minor children of the deceased, well knowing that, if so sold, no one would bid a fair price at the sale for such an interest in the property. The answer also averred that the administrator ‘fraudulently made a pretended sale’ of the premises to the widow, Pauline, for a grossly inadequate consideration; that said Pauline did not pay, nor did Stauber receive, said...