Seibert v. Seibert

Decision Date13 May 1942
Docket NumberNo. 26532.,26532.
Citation379 Ill. 470,41 N.E.2d 544
PartiesSEIBERT v. SEIBERT et al.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Suit by Ernest J. Seibert against Ralph E. Seibert and others for cancellation of a deed to realty and removal thereof as a cloud upon plaintiff's title, wherein the named defendant filed a counterclaim seeking cancellation of deed conveying same realty to plaintiff and removal thereof as a cloud upon defendant's title, and also seeking cancellation of oil and gas lease and assignment thereof. From a decree dismissing plaintiff's complaint for want of equity and finding in favor of named defendant on his counterclaims, the plaintiff and others appeal.

Decree affirmed.Appeal from Circuit Court, Wabash County; Blaine Huffman, judge.

Murray & Miller, Charles R. Myers, and Matthew E. Murray, all of Vandalia, for appellants.

Ben H. Townsend, of Mt. Carmel, for appellee.

WILSON, Justice.

A decree of the circuit court of Wabash county dismissed the complaint of plaintiff Ernest J. Seibert seeking to remove a deed from defendants James F. and Maria E. Seibert to defendant Ralph E. Seibert to 40 acres of land in Wabash county and granted the relief sought by the defendant and counter-claimant, Ralph Seibert, adjudging him the owner of the property. Plaintiff prosecutes a direct appeal, a freehold being necessarily involved.

February 2, 1925, James F. Seibert borrowed $2,100 from the Federal Land Bank of St. Louis and secured the indebtedness by a mortgage on 120 acres of land in Wabash county, a mile and a half northeast of Lancaster, and 20 acres in Lawrence county. Included was the 40-acre tract in controversy. February 21, 1927, Seibert executed a warranty deed, conveying the 40 acres to his son Ernest. The conveyance was made subject to $600 of the mortgage indebtedness which, according to the deed, the grantee assumed and agreed to pay as a part of the purchase price. When or how Ernest obtained possession of the deed is not disclosed. The same day, Seibert executed another deed conveying 60 acres in Wabash county and the 20 acres in Lawrence county to his son Ralph. Of the 60 acres in Wabash county, 20 acres were unencumbered. This conveyance was made subject to the mortgage indebtedness to the extent of $900. The deed recited that Ralph assumed and agreed to pay the sum named as a part of the purchase price. Ralph was present when the deed to him was executed. Thereafter, he turned over to his father, from time to time, funds to pay the taxes on the 80 acres conveyed to him and, also, his portion of the payments due on the debt to the land bank. Ralph caused the deed to him to be recorded April 29, 1929. It appears that Ernest turned over sufficient moneys to his father to pay taxes for the years 1926, 1927 and 1928 on the 40 acres conveyed to him, the last payment of taxes being on April 29, 1929, and, also, until 1929, to meet the payments due on $600 of the mortgage indebtedness. James Seibert, it is admitted, continued in possession and control of and managed the entire farm during these years. December 5, 1929, Ernest, then residing at Mt. Carmel, wrote a letter to his father at Lancaster announcing, in part: ‘by the way I have paid the last cent on the land taxes and all. anytime you are down will give back the slip of paper sorry if it causes you any more trouble but this is final.’ By 1933, James Seibert was experiencing considerable difficulty in meeting his mortgage payments and taxes, and foreclosure of the farm was imminent. Ralph, employed by a railroad company at Mattoon, was summoned home and acquainted with his father's precarious situation. March 15, 1933, the parents executed and delivered to Ralph a warranty deed conveying the 40 acres previously conveyed to Ernest, and an additional 40 acres in Wabash county. This deed was caused to be recorded the next day, March 16, 1933. Ralph was then the record owner of the entire farm, namely, the 140 acres in Wabash county and, also, the 20 acres in Lawrence county. This deed recited that it was subject to a mortgage held by the Federal Land Bank of St. Louis, the amount of the debt then being $1000. It appears that Ralph had advanced money to his father from time to time, that he concelled all claims and debts owed him by his father and, in addition, satisfied delinquent payments on his father's note to the bank. Subsequently, all payments of principal and interest due on the mortgage debt were paid by Ralph and he has paid all taxes assessed against the property, excepting only those for the year 1939. When the 1939 taxes became payable Ralph remitted the amount assessed against the entire 140 acres in Wabash county but was advised by the collector that Ernest had already paid the taxes for 1939 on the 40 acres deeded to him in 1927. A refund of this amount was, accordingly, made to Ralph.

In the meantime, Sheldon Seibert, a third son of James F. Seibert, returned to Lancaster from Detroit where he had been employed for eighteen years. Sheldon consulted with Ralph with respect to moving into the dwelling located on land owned by Ralph by virtue of the deed to the latter dated February 21, 1927. Conformably to an agreement between them, Sheldon moved on to the farm in March, 1933, occupied the house and proceeded to plant crops on such portions of the entire farm as he desired. According to Sheldon, he rented the land from his brother as a tenant farmer and agreed to pay him one third of the grain and one half of the hay as rent. Sheldon was unaware of any claim on the part of Ernest to ownership of the 40 acres in controversy. Likewise, he did not know that his father had made deeds to Ralph and Ernest in 1927. Shortly thereafter, in the latter part of June, 1933, Sheldon was called back to work in Detroit. He then made arrangements with Ernest to take care of his crops and other property for him. Ernest harvested and turned over to Ralph one third of the crops as rent. The former continued to live on the farm until 1940, paying and delivering to Ralph the one-third rental of all crops raised upon the farm, including the 40 acres in controversy, until he commenced this action. Upon notice and demand from Ralph, Ernest then left the property.

December 9, 1939, Ralph Seibert and his wife executed an oil and gas lease to H. K. Riddle covering the entire farm. Thereafter, Riddle assigned the lease to the Seaboard Oil Company of Delaware. March 7, 1940, thirteen years after the execution of the deed from James Seibert to him, Ernest caused it to be recorded. March 11, he paid the taxes on the 40 acres, not having paid taxes thereon for over eleven years. March 13, Ernest wrote to Ralph as follows: ‘I shure hate this thing has happened and would like to have it settled some way as I have no rest as it is. Now if you want to split 50/50 on the oil & gas rights, we will fix out the deeds so there will be a clear title for you. Or I will let this man [N. E. Biffle] have an agreement. He will get the lease if he gets a clear title for me which he says he will at his [Biffle's] own expense. Now I would far rather settle this thing out of court. Aspin & Riddle was here the other day & said they were sewing you through Federal court at Danvill. So think it over & let me know before I turn it over to this fellow.’ March 18, plaintiff and his wife executed an oil and gas lease on the 40 acres in question to Biffle who, in turn, sold it to the Seaboard Oil Company. May 2, 1940, plaintiff and his wife, by an unrecorded contract, conveyed a portion of the oil, gas and other mineral interests in and to the 40 acres to Charles R. Myers and Biffle.

July 13, 1940, Ernest Seibert filed his complaint in the circuit court of Wabash county claiming to be the owner in fee simple of the 40 acres conveyed to him in 1927 and seeking to have the deed of March 15, 1933, to Ralph Seibert cancelled and declared void, to the extent it covers the 40 acres, and removed as a cloud upon his (Ernest's) title. The defendants, Ralph Seibert, his wife, James F. Seibert and his wife, answered that the deed to plaintiff of February 21, 1927, was executed upon the condition that he pay all taxes and also assume and pay $600 of the mortgage indebtedness owing to the Federal Land Bank of St. Louis; that the deed was not delivered to Ernest for the purpose of transferring title to him and was not accepted by him; that, as narrated, he later renounced and abandoned all right and interest, and, by reason thereof, the title to the property did not vest in him; that because of plaintiff's failure and refusal to comply with the conditions upon which the deed was executed to him the title remained or revested in the grantor, James F. Seibert, and that, accordingly, on March 15, 1933, the title to the 40 acres...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Estate of Martinek, Matter of
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 27 Enero 1986
    ...intended that the deed should past title at that time and that he or she should lose all control of the deed. (Seibert v. Seibert (1942), 379 Ill. 470, 477-78, 41 N.E.2d 544.) In the present case, there is no evidence in the record that the vendor has transferred title of the property by de......
  • In re Estate of Wittmond
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 22 Junio 2000
    ...through the execution of a deed. The grantor must also deliver the deed, and the grantee must accept it. Seibert v. Seibert, 379 Ill. 470, 477-78, 41 N.E.2d 544, 547 (1942). Delivery of a deed is essential to complete a conveyance, and although no particular method of delivery is required (......
  • Spero v. Bove
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • 3 Enero 1950
    ...of the death of the grantor before the grantee. Hood v. Nichol, 236 Ky. 779, 34 S.W.2d 429. It is stated in Seibert v. Seibert, 379 Ill. 470, 41 N.E.2d 544, 547, 141 A.L.R. 299, that 'placing a deed in the hands of a grantee does not constitute delivery where it is shown the intention of th......
  • Wilbourn v. Wilbourn
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 25 Octubre 1948
    ... ... Smith, 67 Cal. 547, 4 P ... 473, 8 P. 46, 56 Am.Rep. 726; Brady v. Huber, 197 ... Ill. 291, 64 N.E. 264, 90 Am.St.Rep. 161; Seibert v ... Seibert, [204 Miss. 225] 379 Ill. 470, 41 N.E.2d 544, ... 141 A.L.R. 299; Kingsbury ... [37 So.2d 264] ... v ... Burnside, ... ...
  • 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