Roby v. Calumet & C. Canal & Dock Co.

• Citation: 154 Ill. 190,40 N.E. 293
• Court: Supreme Court of Illinois
• Decision Date: 29 October 1894
• Parties: ROBY v. CALUMET & C. CANAL & DOCK CO.

154 Ill. 190

40 N.E. 293

ROBY

v.CALUMET & C. CANAL & DOCK CO.¹

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 29, 1894.²

Appeal from superior court, Cook county.

Bill by the Calumet & Chicago Canal & Dock Company against Jacob Bremer, and cross bill by William Colehour against the company, Jacob Bremer, Charles W. Colehour, and Edward Roby. There was a decree on the cross bill, from which cross-defendant Roby appeals. Affirmed.

E. Roby, in pro. per.

Cohrs & Green and S. A. Lynde, for appellees.

WILKIN, C. J.

This case has been three times before this court. 123 Ill. 104, 13 N. E. 837; 127 Ill. 464, 18 N. E. 321; 137 Ill. 289, 27 N. E. 72. The first and second opinions filed contain full statements of the case. The first case was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. In the second case the decree of the trial court was reversed in part, and the case was remanded, with directions to modify the decree as therein expressed. In the last case it was held that the decree had not been modified to conform to the directions of this court, and it was again reversed and remanded, with further directions to the lower court to modify the decree so as to conform to the directions formerly given. The cause was reinstated, and a modified decree entered in the trial court, and the case is again brought here by Edward Roby, a defendant in one of the cross bills, upon the contention that the decree does not now conform to the directions given by this court as to the terms of the decree. This is the only question presented by this appeal.

The Calumet & Chicago Canal & Dock Company filed its bill against one Bremer to remove a cloud upon the title of complainant to lots 1 and 2 in block 47, Iron Workers' addition to the village of Hyde Park. Its title was derived through a sale under a power in a mortgage or trust deed. Bremer answered and filed a cross bill, making William Colehour also a defendant. William Colehour answered and filed a cross bill, making the company, Bremer, Charles W. Colehour, and Edward Roby (appellant here) parties defendant. The parties to the cross bills, except the canal and dock company, claimed a right of redemption from the mortgage sale under which the company held title. The original decree in effect found that Bremer, the two Colehours, and Roby had the right of redemption, found the amount to be paid, directed payment thereof within a specified time, and, in default of such payment, directed that Bremer should convey the lots to the Calumet & Chicago Canal & Dock Company, and that, in case of his failure to so convey, the master in chancery should make a conveyance. In case of his failure to so convey, the master in chancery should make a conveyance. In case of failure to pay the amount found due, the decree also forever barred the parties named of all right of redemption, and confirmed the title of the canal and dock company to the premises. The original bill asked no affirmative relief, except a removal of the cloud from complainant's title; and, when the decree came before us, this court: ‘The decree came, however, directing Bremer to convey, and, in his default, the master in chancery to do so, and in assuming to give affirmative relief to the Calumet & Chicago Canal & Dock Company, in any other respect is unauthorized,’-and concluded its opinion by saying: ‘The decree is in all respects affirmed, except in so far as it assumes to give affirmative...