Roseman v. Miller

• Decision Date: 30 September 1876
• Citation: 1876 WL 10499,84 Ill. 297
• Parties: JAMES H. ROSEMAN et al.v.HENRY L. MILLER.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

84 Ill. 297

1876 WL 10499 (Ill.)

JAMES H. ROSEMAN et al.

v.HENRY L. MILLER.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

September Term, 1876.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Grundy county; the Hon. JOSIAH MCROBERTS, Judge, presiding. Mr. CHARLES W. NEEDHAM, for the appellants.

Mr. S. W. HARRIS, for the appellee.

Mr. JUSTICE SCHOLFIELD delivered the opinion of the Court:

The present appeal is prosecuted to reverse a decree of the court below allowing the complainant to redeem from a sheriff's sale, and setting aside certain deeds and enjoining the prosecution of a suit in ejectment.

The only question made is, whether the evidence in the record is sufficient to sustain the decree.

At the June term, 1869, of the Superior Court of Chicago, one Lake obtained a judgment against the complainant for $1735.45, and costs of suit. Execution was thereupon issued to the sheriff of Grundy county, and by him levied upon the east half of the south-east quarter, and the east half of the south-west quarter, of section 16, township 33, range 7, in that county. On the 19th day of February, 1870, the lands were struck off and sold by the sheriff, en masse, to the defendant Roseman, for $10, and, there being no redemption from the sale, the sheriff executed and delivered to him a deed therefor, on the 24th day of May, 1871. On the 26th day of October, 1871, Roseman conveyed, by quitclaim deed, an equal undivided half of the land to the defendant Beach.

The two tracts of land, as is apparent by reference to the description, do not adjoin each other, there being another 80-acre tract between them. The evidence shows that there is a house, barn, orchard, etc., on each tract, and they constitute two wholly separate and independent farms. They were worth, in the aggregate, at the time of the sale, a sum varying, in the opinions of different witnesses, from $6000 to something over $8000; but they were incumbered by a mortgage, the balance on which was $1889.86.

The policy of selling en masse, as was here done, separate and wholly independent tracts of land, neither of which has any apparent tendency to augment the value of the other, when taken together, is liable to produce great injustice; and, notwithstanding they may have been previously offered separately without obtaining bidders, where the amount bid for them en masse is merely nominal, the officer should, ordinarily, postpone the sale and re-advertise. Ten dollars, when compared with the value of the property to be sold, even after making due allowance for the depreciation in value in consequence of the mortgage lien, was purely a nominal bid, and no one making it could reasonably anticipate that he was, therefore, to become the owner of the property. In cases of such gross inadequacy between the value of the property and the amount bid, as was observed in Hamilton v. Quimby et al. 46 Ill. 96, the court will seize upon any circumstances of unfairness towards the debtor, to afford him relief.

The defendant Beach, in our opinion, has shown no equity in his favor which places his title upon a better footing than that of the defendant Roseman. Although he may have been a purchaser without notice, yet, if he took the deed as a volunteer, or has not paid the purchase money, he is not an innocent purchaser for value, and can not be protected. It was incumbent on him to prove that he was a purchaser for value, and had paid the purchase money, and this, too, independently of the recitals in the deed; and not having done so, there is no presumption to aid him. Brown v. Welch, 18 Ill. 343; Hamilton v. Quimby, supra.

The case made by the evidence for the complainant is, that he was induced to believe, and did believe, that the sale to Roseman was not consummated, and would be canceled on his paying the amount due...