Seitman v. Seitman

• Decision Date: 26 October 1903
• Citation: 204 Ill. 504,68 N.E. 461
• Parties: SEITMAN v. SEITMAN.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

204 Ill. 504

68 N.E. 461

SEITMAN

v.SEITMAN.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 26, 1903.

Appeal from Appellate Court, Fourth District.

Bill by Bernard H. Seitman for an injunction restraining Bernard Seitman from incumbering or selling certain real estate. From a judgment of the Appellate Court for the Fourth District (106 Ill. App. 671), affirming a decree of the chancellor denying the relief prayed, except in part, complainant appeals. Affirmed.R. C. Harrah and Barney Overbeck (Benson Wood, of counsel), for appellant.

Chas. H. Kelly and Sylvester F. Gilmore, for appellee.

This is a bill for an injunction, filed by the appellant, Bernard H. Seitman, the son and only child of the appellee, Bernard Seitman, in the circuit court of Effingham county, against the appellee, to restrain him from selling or incumbering any part of his real estate, consisting of a farm of 365 acres, in that county.

The bill alleges that in 1876, the complainant having reached his majority the year previous thereto, the father made an agreement with him that if he, with his wife, would remain on the premises and work and assist defendant in the care of the farm without compensation, the latter would not sell, incumber, or convey the same away, and complainant should have the real estate as his own forever; that since the making of the agreement the work and labor of complainant have been done for the purpose of carrying out the agreement on his part in good faith. After praying for an order restraining defendant from conveying any part of the land during his lifetime, the bill asks, in case that relief is denied, that an accounting be taken, under the direction of the court, of the value of the labor performed by complainant and his wife on the premises, and of the improvements made thereon, and that a sufficient amount of land be conveyed by the father to complainant to compensate him therefor.

The father answered, admitting that at the time alleged an agreement was made that if complainant would remain with defendant, assist in taking care of the farm and affairs of the household, and work on said farm, the land of which the defendant might be seised at his death should descend to the son, and that as a part of said agreement the son and his wife should live with and care for defendant and wife during their lifetime, there being no agreement that the defendant should not have the liberty to convey and incumber any portion of the real estate belonging to him; that, in pursuance of the agreement set up in the answer, complainant and his wife continued to reside with defendant for two years, until the death of complainant's wife; that thereafter complainant continued to reside there for the period of three years, when he remarried, and he and his second wife continued to live with defendant and labor upon the farm for the further period of nine years, ending in 1889, when he and his wife removed from defendant's home and rented a farm a mile distant therefrom, at which time the agreement therefore exising was canceled and an equitable division was made between the father and son of all the property accumulated on the farm, complainant taking with him horses and other stock and farming implements, which he accepted in discharge of all obligations of defendant to him, since which time the son continued to work for himself. After answering, the defendant also filed a cross-bill, alleging the facts set forth in the answer, and averring that in 1897 he (the father) consented that complainant might build a new house upon a part of the home farm, which the latter still occupies as a residence, and which the father prays may be delivered up to him. The cross-bill also pleads the statute of limitations. The answer of complainant denied the right to the relief sought by such cross-bill, and as a defense thereto set up the statute of frauds.

Upon a hearing in open court the chancellor rendered a decree denying the relief prayed by the original bill, except as to certain improvements, the house, etc. made by the complainant, for which he was allowed $1,100 and given a lien upon a part of the lands for the payment of that amount. From a judgment of affirmance in the Appellate Court for the Fourth District this further appeal is prosecuted. Further facts material to the decision of the case are stated in the opinion.

WILKIN, J. (after stating the facts).

The agreement alleged in the bill is that appellant should work on the farm without compensation, assisting appellee to care for the premises, in return for which the land should descend to him. Appellee, in his answer,...