Smith v. Smith
| Decision Date | 30 June 1876 |
| Citation | 1876 WL 10218,82 Ill. 392 |
| Parties | MARIA L. SMITH et al.v.JACOB KNOEBEL et al.JAMES L. D. MORRISONv.MARIA L. SMITH et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of St. Clair county.
Mr. CHARLES W. THOMAS, and Mr. G. A. KŒRNER, for the appellants, the heirs of William C. Kinney.
Mr. W. H. UNDERWOOD, for the appellee J. L. D. Morrison.
The proceedings brought before this court by these two appeals were begun in the circuit court of St. Clair county on the 18th day of July, 1866, by a bill in chancery, filed by Maria L. Kinney, Mary F. Kinney, and Elizabeth K. Kinney, complainants, against James L. D. Morrison, Jacob Knœbel, Frederick Meyer, Edward Abend, and Wm. C. Davis.
By their original bill, complainants sought a decree setting aside a certain sale, made on the 11th of March, 1860, by Meyer, as sheriff of St. Clair county, of 640 acres of land in that county, known as sec. 12, town. 1 north, of range 8 west, upon an execution in which Davis was plaintiff. At this sale the land in question was bought by Morrison. Complainants were, at the time of the sale, minors, and were the only heirs at law of Wm. C. Kinney, deceased. The land was sold as a part of the estate of deceased. Issues were formed, proofs taken, and the suit was first heard in the circuit court in October, 1867.
The circuit court, at that hearing, dismissed the bill, and complainants appealed to this court, and the case was decided here at the June term, 1868. It is reported in 51 Ill. 112, under the title of Kinney et al. v. Knœbel et al. To that report of the case reference is made for a full statement of the then condition of the record, and the grounds upon which the judgment of the court was placed. It was then decided, in substance, that what purported to be a sheriff's sale to Morrison, could not be sustained, but must be set aside upon terms. The decree was reversed, and the cause remanded for an account to be taken of rents and profits, taxes and improvements, and for further investigation of Morrison's claim, under what was called the Whitesides bond, and under what was known as the Knœbel deed.
After the suit was reinstated in the circuit court, amendments were made to the bill and to Morrison's answer. Maria L. Kinney had intermarried with George W. Smith, and Mary F. Kinney had intermarried with Gustavus A. Kœrner, and the respective husbands of these parties were made parties. Additional proofs were taken, and the suit was brought again to a hearing on the merits, November 23, 1871.
The circuit court found the thirty acres claimed by Morrison under the Whitesides bond to be the property of the original complainants, held in fee by them, unaffected by the sheriff's sale to Morrison, and the north-west quarter of the section to be the property of Morrison, held in fee, by virtue of the deed to him by Knœbel and wife, and that his title to the same was not to be affected by the setting aside of or the redeeming from the sheriff's sale to Morrison, and a decree was entered that the complainants might redeem the residue of the section, by the payment of $95,369.69 to Morrison, within a time fixed by the decree, and in default thereof that they should be forever barred of all claim to that part of the land. From this decree both complainants and defendants have appealed to this court.
This decree of the circuit court can not be sustained. The proof relating to the claim of Morrison, founded upon the bond to Whitesides, is meagre, and far from sufficient to establish any title in Morrison. Palpably it was not regarded by Whitesides or any one else as such an equity as gave him absolute right to this thirty acres of land in fee. Thirty acres of this land could not have been worth less than $1600, yet Whitesides relinquished his claim upon it for $400. Morrison, so far from claiming title thereunder, at first seems to have regarded it as a mere incumbrance upon a part of the estate, and to have thought, by the conditions of his purchase, that he should not be required to pay for its extinguishment. He presented a claim therefor against the estate of Kinney, in his settlement with the executor, and it was then allowed, and he received credit for the amount he thus paid Whitesides.
The circuit court was right in refusing to sustain Morrison's claim under this Whitesides bond, but it is not perceived upon what ground it can be held that the complainants thereby acquired any title to this thirty acres, other than that they inherited from their father, or which should place their claim to that tract on any basis differing from the basis upon which their claim to other parts of the section rests. Morrison's purchase at the public sale was of the whole section. If that sale be set aside, and the title he professed to buy be restored to the heirs, they should refund any money he may have advanced to preserve their title. They thereby acquire no independent title, nor any title not subject to the equities which pertain to the whole subject matter of the sale.
The decree is equally erroneous in holding that Morrison acquired an independent and valid fee simple title, by his deed from Knœbel, for the north-west quarter of the section. At the time of the sheriff's sale of this entire section, at which Morrison became a purchaser, Knœbel had a claim against the north-west quarter of this section, evidenced by a sheriff's deed made to him on the 14th day of July, 1859. This deed was founded upon a sheriff's sale, made to Knœbel February 13, 1858. At that time the property was struck off to him at $928.12, and a certificate of purchase issued to him. That sale to Knœbel was made by the sheriff by virtue of two executions, issued upon judgments rendered at the September term, 1857, each in favor of one Terrill, one for the sum of $167 and costs, against Kinney and Abend, and the other for the sum of $701.50 and costs, against Kinney and Knœbel.
As to the character of that claim, Knœbel testifies that before the sale on these executions, Terrill's agent threatened to levy on his (Knœbel's) land, to satisfy one of these judgments, which had been entered against Kinney and Knœbel, and was founded upon a note of Kinney, signed by Knœbel as security. Knœbel reported this threat to Kinney. Kinney told Knœbel, that “sooner than that Knœbel should lose one cent by him, he would sacrifice everything he (Kinney) had.” He said “he would see the sheriff, and get him to levy upon some of his (Kinney's) own land; that he had not then the money, and Knœbel would have to advance the same.” Kinney did see the sheriff, and induced him to levy upon the north-west quarter of this section 12, and when the sale occurred (Knœbel not being present), Kinney bid in the land in Knœbel's name, at $928.12, and immediately reported to Knœbel what he had done, and Knœbel advanced to Kinney the money to pay the bid, and a certificate of purchase was issued in Knœbel's name, and given to him.
This land, at that time, was worth from $8000 to $10,000. Knœbel and Kinney were evidently intimate friends. Kinney, before that time, had made his will, and in it had named Knœbel as his executor. It can hardly be doubted that both Kinney and Knœbel regarded this whole proceeding merely as a means of securing to Knœbel the repayment of the money so advanced by him, with interest and costs, growing out of the transaction, nor did Knœbel ever treat this as anything more than such a security.
Some weeks before the sale to Morrison, and after Knœbel had received his sheriff's deed for this quarter section, Knœbel called a meeting of the creditors at Trumbull's office, and laid before them the then condition of the estate.
Trumbull, in his testimony as to what transpired at this meeting, says:
This, evidently, has reference to the Knœbel claim, and shows that, in laying before the creditors the affairs of the estate, he claimed only a lien on this quarter for some $1200.
In his answer, filed October, 1869, Knœbel admits that Wm. C. Kinney died seized of this entire section of land, as stated in the bill, clouded, however, by the claim of the State of Illinois, and incumbered as set forth in Morrison's answer; and a reference to Morrison's answer shows that Morrison sets out what is called the State claim, the Whitesides bond, and the sheriff's sale of this north-west quarter of the section to Knœbel. The bill had charged Knœbel, among other things, with having fraudulently neglected to have redemption made from this sheriff's sale to himself. It was also charged that the subsequent taking by him of a sheriff's deed, under that sale, was fraudulent and void. Answering this charge, Knœbel, in his answer, says, that what he had done he “did solely for the benefit of said estate.” And he further says, that “all and everything he did in relation to said lands (meaning all the section), was done by him through the advice of counsel, and that all and every act of this defendant (Knœbel) * * * were in the utmost good faith, and solely for the purpose of saving said Kinney's estate--that all the creditors might be paid, and save all that could be saved for the benefit of heirs.” In another part of his answer he says, that “although not legally bound so to do, he treated his acts and liens as in trust for said estate, and so accounted and finally settled said estate.”
In his deposition, given in 1867, Knœbel. speaking of his purchase at sheriff's sale of this north-west quarter, swears: “I purchased in the quarter section to secure myself, and had received a sheriff's deed therefor.”
It is plain that this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cable v. Ellis
... ... Thomas , Id. 428; Gardner v. Diederichs , 41 Ill. 158; Kinney v. Knoebel , 51 Ill. 112; Roberts v. Fleming , 53 Ill. 196; Smith v. Knoebel , 82 Ill. 392; Worth v. Worth , 84 Ill. 442; Ebelmesser v. Ebelmesser , 99 Ill. 541. There is, however, no principle of law ... ...
-
Wilkinson v. Johnson
...taken in McElmeel's wife's name simply as security for the total amount loaned. See, Daven v. Downey, 378 Ill. 543, 39 N.E.2d 45; Smith v. Knoebel, 82 Ill. 392, (involving a deed received by the alleged mortgagee at a judicial An equitable mortgage arises in a situation where money is loane......
-
Pratt v. Pratt
... ... McNeil, 38 Ill. 400; [3 Ill.App. 583] Smith v. Doyle, 46 Ill. 451; Kloch v. Walter v. 70 Ill. 416; Smith v. Knoebel, 82 Ill. 392; Strong v. Shea, 83 Ill. 575; Smith v. Cremer, 71 Ill. 185.A ... ...
-
Asher v. Mitchell
... ... Bagley, Hard. 597; Jones v. Jones, 4 Gill. 88; Montag v. Linn, 27 Ill. 328: Blair v. Chamberlain, 39 Ill. 521; Morgan v. Clayton, 61 Ill. 35; Smith v. Knoebel, 82 Ill. 392; North v. North, 84 Ill 442; Thomas v. Thomas, 16 B. Mon. 420; Whitney v. Richardson, 31 Vt. 306; Cawder v. Lewis, 1 Young & ... ...