Roby v. Chicago Title & Trust Co.

Citation62 N.E. 544,194 Ill. 228
PartiesROBY et al. v. CHICAGO TITLE & TRUST CO. et al.
Decision Date18 December 1901
CourtSupreme Court of Illinois

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Error to appellate court, First district.

Action by the Chicago Title & Trust Company and others against Edward Roby and others. From a judgment of the appellate court (94 Ill. App. 379) affirming a judgment for plaintiffs, defendants bring error. Affirmed in part.James E. Munroe, for plaintiffs in error.

William C. Snow and Charles Hugh Stevenson, for defendants in error.

This is a writ of error to the appellate court for the First district to review the judgment of that court affirming a decree of foreclosure and sale of the superior court of Cook county. The appellate court, in deciding this case, made the following statement of facts:

Defendants in error filed their bill in the superior court against plaintiffs in error to foreclose a trust deed made by plaintiffs in error to defendant in error the Chicago Title & Trust Company, as trustee, to secure the note of plaintiff in error Edward Roby, dated May 29, 1896, for the sum of $7,500, payable to the said trust company, as trustee, three years after its date, with interest at 7 per cent. per annum, payable semiannually; the interest being evidenced by six promissory notes of said Edward Roby, payable to the said trust company, of the same date as the principal note, each for the sum of $262.50, and becoming due, respectively, 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, and 36 months after date, and bearing interest at 7 per cent. per annum from maturity, and conveying certain real estate in Cook county therein described. By said trust deed it is provided, among other things, ‘that in case a right of foreclosure or other right of procedure shall arise hereunder, either upon the maturity of said principal note or by breach of any of the covenants herein, said trustee shall, upon request of the legal holder of said principal note, bring such legal or equitable proceedings for the collection of the moneys hereby secured as may be necessary; that all expenses and disbursements paid or incurred in behalf of the said trustee in connection with the foreclosure hereof, including reasonable solicitor's fees, outlays for documentary evidence, stenographers' charges, and cost of procuring or completing abstract showing the whole title to said premises, embracing foreclosure decree, shall be paid by the grantor; and the like expenses and disbursements occasioned by any suit or proceeding wherein the grantee or any holders of any part of such indebtedness, as such, may be a party, shall also be paid by the grantor. All such expenses and disbursements shall be an additional lien upon said premises, and shall be taxed as costs and included in any decree that may be rendered in said foreclosure proceedings.’ The bill alleges, among other things, the foregoing provisions of the trust deed, a default in the payment of all said notes, that a request had been made of the trust company to institute the suit, and that there was due the amount of each of said notes, together with interest, and, among other things, prays an accounting and decree for the amount due to the complainants (defendants in error), including the expenses of suit and reasonable solicitor's fees, and, in case of default in payment, for a sale of the premises described in the trust deed. The defendants (plaintiffs in error) were served with process, and, not having answered, the bill was taken as confessed by both of them, and the cause referred to a master in chancery to take the proofs and report the same to the court, with his opinion upon the law and the evidence. The master took evidence, both oral and documentary, and reported the same, together with his conclusions, to the court, in which report he found that there was due to the complainant the said trust company, on said principal and interest notes, together with interest thereon from the respective dates of their maturity, the sum of $9,680.31, and in addition thereto a solicitor's fee of $484.01, being 5 per cent. of the total amount due on the said notes, and stated in his report that his fees for report and depositions were $20. No objections or exceptions were taken to the master's report, and the same was accordingly approved and confirmed by the decree of the chancellor, and the master's fees on the reference were thereby taxed at $20, and a sale of the premises conveyed by the trust deed directed in default of payment, within five days, of the amount found due by the master, including said solicitor's fees, the costs of suit, and said master's fees. Pursuant to the decree, and in default of the payments therein provided, the master sold said premises for $7,500 to the complainant the trust company, and after paying the costs of suit, master's fees allowed by the decree, and master's fees, commissions, and disbursements for advertising, making the sale and report thereof to the court, and said solicitor's fees, and a credit of $6,850.35 on account of the amount due on the decree, there remained a deficiency of $2,871.63, which he reported to the court. Included in the master's disbursements are two items,-one, $2.50, for approving decree, and another, 75 cents, for real estate board fee. The decree directs that the master make the sale ‘at the judicial salesrooms of the Chicago Real Estate Board, No. 57 Dearborn street, in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Curran v. Harris Trust & Sav. Bank, Gen. No. 46221
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • May 11, 1954
    ...bearing on this question, Boyd v. McConnell, 209 Ill. 396, 70 N.E. 649; Roby v. Page 485 [2 Ill.App.2d 399] Chicago Title and Trust Co., 194 Ill. 228, 62 N.E. 544, and Rieker v. City of Danville, 204 Ill. 191, 68 N.E. 'In Chapin v. Dake, 57 Ill. 295, this court refused to allow solicitor's ......
  • Weltner v. Thurmond
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • December 24, 1908
    ......Lewis, 12 O. 281;. Schnadt v. Davis, (Ill.) 57 N.E. 652; Roby v. Chicago &c. Co., (Ill.) 62 N.E. 544; Bank v. Tamajo, 77 N.Y. 475.) ... 945; Cobb v. Rhea, (N. C.) 49 S.E. 161; Trust. Co. v. R. R. Co., (N. Y.) 70 N.E. 925; In re. Lamona. Est., 29 Wash. ...The. defendants claimed that they received an absolute title and. that the plaintiff had no further interest in the land or. ......
  • Wilson v. Clayburgh
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • June 23, 1905
    ...... in that court, brought to have the resignation of the Illinois Trust & Savings Bank, the trustee named in the will of William G. Wilson, ...McCowan, 53 Ill. 363;Campbell v. Campbell, 63 Ill. 502;Roby v. Chicago Title & Trust Co., 194 Ill. 228, 62 N. E. 544;Rieker v. City of ......
  • Kennedy v. State Pub. Utilities Comm'n
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • February 20, 1919
    ...from the statute. Smith v. McLaughlin, 77 Ill. 596;Dobler v. Village of Warren, 174 Ill. 92, 50 N. E. 1048;Roby v. Chicago Title & Trust Co., 194 Ill. 228, 62 N. E. 544. The proceeding in the circuit court does not come within any provision of the Cost Act, and the party successful in the c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT