Schultz v. O'Hearn

• Decision Date: 16 December 1925
• Docket Number: No. 16920.,16920.
• Citation: 319 Ill. 244,149 N.E. 808
• Parties: SCHULTZ et al. v. O'HEARN et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

319 Ill. 244

149 N.E. 808

SCHULTZ et al.

v.O'HEARN et al.

No. 16920.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 16, 1925.

Bill by Katherine Schultz and others against John O'Hearn and others. From a decree dismissing the bill, plaintiffs appeal.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.Appeal from Circuit Court, Mercer County; William T. Church, judge.

R. D. Robinson, of Galesburg, for appellants.

Church & Mannon and James A. Allen, all of Aledo (Walter L. Mannon and Virgil C. Lutrell, both of Aledo, of counsel), for appellees.

DUNN, C. J.

The circuit court of Mercer county sustained a demurrer to a bill filed by some of the heirs of William O'Hearn, deceased, against the other heirs, to set aside an administratrix's deed of 80 acres of land, which O'Hearn owned in his lifetime, and other deeds, and to partition the land. The complainants elected to stand by their bill, it was dismissed for want of equity, and they have appealed.

The bill showed that William O'Hearn died on October 6, 1898, owning the east half of the southeast quarter of section 4, town 13, north, range 4, west of the fourth principal meridian, in Mercer county, leaving his widow, Hannah, surviving him, and ten children, the complainants and defendants, as his heirs. His widow, Hannah, was appointedadministratrix of his estate, which she settled and closed so far as the personal property and debts were concerned. It was further alleged that the administratrix pretended to sell the real estate on November 8, 1902, to John O'Hearn for a consideration of $3,250, but that no part of the consideration was ever paid; that the sale was approved by the county court, and a deed made to the purchaser on November 29, 1902, and on the same day the administratrix executed a deed conveying the land to John, and it was filed for record. On the same day John and his wife executed a warranty deed of the same land for the pretended consideration of $3,250 to Hannah in her individual capacity, which was also filed for record on the same day. It was further alleged that on the same day an agreement was entered into between Hannah and John Whereby Hannah agreed, for the sum of $3,250, that upon her death John should have the right to purchase the real estate for the sum of $3,250, and she also executed a deed to John, to be delivered at her death upon the payment of $3,250 to her heirs within 30 days, less the mortgage upon the premises. This agreement was not filed for record until January 17, 1913. The deed to John mentioned in that agreement was filed for record April 17, 1922, after the death of Hannah, but the $3,250 was not paid to the heirs of Hannah within 30 days after her death. It is alleged the Citizens' State Bank of Keithsburg, Ill., claims to have some interest in the real estate by way of mortgage or otherwise, the nature and extent of which is unknown to the complainants. The bill prays that the deeds of Hannah O'Hearn, as administratrix and individually, to John O'Hearn be set saide; and that the land be declared to be the property of the heirs of William O'Hearn; that partition may be made; and that the complainants may have such other and further relief as equity may require.

[1][2] The bill alleges a colorable sale and deed by the administratrix for which no consideration was paid and an immediateconveyance by the purchaser to the administratrix. The law forbids such a transaction. An administrator may not purchase, directly or through the intervention of another, property belonging to the estate of which he is administrator, at his own sale as such administrator, though made at public auction under a judicial decree for full value and with honest intentions. Such a transaction the law deems fraudulent, for the reason that the interests of the buyer and seller in a contract of sale are opposed; that the administrator acts in a fiduciary relation in making the sale; and that he ought not to be exposed to this conflict of interest in selling as trustee for the estate and buying for himself. The rule is inflexible, and in many cases the right of heirs by a bill in equity to have a sale by an administrator set aside where the administrator himself has been the purchaser has been sustained. Miles v. Wheeler, 43 Ill. 123;Kruse v. Steffens, 47 Ill. 112;Lagger v. Mutual Union Loan Ass'n, 146 Ill. 283, 33 N. E. 946;Elting v. First Nat. Bank, 173 Ill. 368, 50 N. E. 1095;Miller v. Rich, 204 Ill. 444, 68 N. E. 488;Rittenhouse v. Smith, 255 Ill. 493, 99 N. E. 657. Such a sale is not, however, void, but only voidable. The heirs have their election to let the sale stand, or by taking appropriate action within a reasonabletime to have it set aside. They must act promptly when they are not under any disability and are acquainted with the facts if they would insist upon having the sale set aside.

[3][4][5][6] The defendants set up laches appearing from the allegations of the bill as one ground of demurrer. The objection of laches may be made by demurrer when it appears on the face of the bill. Elting v. First Nat. Bank, supra; Foss v. People's Gas Light Co., 293 Ill. 94, 127 N. E. 347. There is no absolute rule as to what constitutes laches-it must be determined from the facts of each particular case. Unreasonable delay in asserting a right, with knowledge of the facts, by reason of which the person against whom the right is claimed has incurred expense or obligation or changed his position to his detriment, is ordinarily sufficient reason for equity to refuse its aid to establish an asserted right. Where, however, there is no knowledge of the wrong done or refusal to ascertain facts there is no laches. A confessed wrongdoer, who has not been misled, deceived, or harmed by the delay of the person injured in asserting his legal remedies, has no cause of complaint that he was not sooner called to account for his wrongdoing. Stewart v. Finkelstone, 206 Mass. 28, 92 N. E. 37,28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 634, 138 Am. St. Rep. 370.

[7][8][9][10][11] The sale...