St. Louis v. Mathers

• Decision Date: 28 September 1882
• Citation: 1882 WL 10403,104 Ill. 257
• Parties: ST. LOUIS, JACKSONVILLE AND CHICAGO RAILROAD COMPANYv.JULIET M. MATHERS.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

104 Ill. 257

1882 WL 10403 (Ill.)

ST. LOUIS, JACKSONVILLE AND CHICAGO RAILROAD COMPANY

v.JULIET M. MATHERS.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Filed at Springfield Sept. 28, 1882.

APPEAL from the Appellate Court for the Third District;--heard in that court on appeal from the Circuit Court of Morgan county; the Hon. CYRUS EPLER, Judge, presiding.

Messrs. BROWN, KIRBY & RUSSELL, for the appellant:

The court below erred in rendering the decree dismissing complainant's bill. This court has very plainly decided that the evidence was incompetent to affect the validity of the deed of April 25, 1860. St. Louis, Jacksonville and Chicago R. R. Co. v. Mathers, 71 Ill. 572. A condition in a grant which is contrary to the policy of the law, is void. Doe dem. Mitchinson v. Carter, 8 T. R. 61.

If the condition subsequent be against the law, the estate of the grantee being once vested is not thereby divested, but it becomes absolute, and a court of equity will never lend its aid to divest an estate for the breach of a condition subsequent. 4 Kent's Com. (5th ed.) 130; 1 Washburn on Real Prop. 447.

The court below should at least have charged the land in question with the taxes paid on it by appellant. The rule is, that when one, in good faith, believing himself to be the owner, either in law or in equity, of a piece of land, has made necessary and valuable improvements thereon, upon the defeat of his title should be reimbursed for his outlay. Union Mutual Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 95 Ill. 267; Smith et al. v. Knoebel et al. 82 Id. 392; Kinney et al. v. Knoebel, 51 Id. 114.

Messrs. MORRISON, WHITLOCK & LIPPINCOTT, for the appellee:

The deed of April 25, 1860, and the resolution of May 2, 1860, are parts of the same transaction, and were construed together in St. Louis, Jacksonville and Chicago R. R. Co. v. Mathers, 71 Ill. 592.

The complainant and defendant were equally involved in an unlawful combination, and a court of equity will assist neither. Craft et al. v. McConoughy, 79 Ill. 346; Jerome v. Bigelow, 66 Id. 452; Henderson v. Palmer, 71 Id. 579; Paton et al. v. Stewart, 78 Id. 481; Parsons v. Elby et al. 45 Id. 232; Lyon v. Culbertson, 83 Id. 33; DeWolf v. Pratt, 42 Id. 148; 1 Story's Eq. Jur. secs. 297, 298.

If the court can, upon equitable principles, compel the payment of the sums paid for taxes by appellant, it can, on the same principles, enforce the performance of the contract. Craft et al. v. McConoughy, 79 Ill. 344; Neustadt v. Phillippi, 54 Id. 309; Jerome v. Bigelow, 66 Id. 452. Mr. JUSTICE CRAIG delivered the opinion of the Court:

The principal facts presented by this record were before this court at the January term, 1874, in the case of St. Louis, Jacksonville and Chicago R. R. Co. v. Mathers, reported in 71 Ill. 592. In the case cited, Mathers filed a bill to compel the trustees, who held the legal title to the lots in question, to convey to him, on the ground that the railroad company had disregarded the contract under which it obtained the conveyance. Since the decision was rendered, the trustees, of their own accord, conveyed the property to John Mathers, and this bill was brought by the railroad company to obtain a decree for a sale of so many of the lots as may be necessary to pay taxes which have been advanced by it, and to pay for the erection of a freight house, side track, etc., and if any of the lots remain, that Mathers be required to convey them to a trustee to be designated by the court. On a hearing in the circuit court, a decree was rendered dismissing the bill, which, on appeal, was affirmed in the Appellate Court.

The consideration for the conveyance to the trustees named in the deed was, that no depot or station should be established within three miles of Ashland. The board of directors of the railroad company adopted a resolution accepting the donation of the property upon these terms and conditions. When the case was here before, the contract was held to be illegal and it was held that a court of equity would not lend its aid to enforce the performance of such a contract. In deciding the case it was said: “A court of equity will not lend its aid to enforce the performance of a contract which appears to have been entered into by both the contracting parties for the express purpose of doing that which is illegal; and where such a contract has been executed by one of the parties by conveying real estate, a court of equity will not, in general,...