Stephens v. Collison

• Decision Date: 21 April 1928
• Docket Number: No. 17112.,17112.
• Citation: 161 N.E. 68,330 Ill. 48
• Parties: STEPHENS v. COLLISON et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

330 Ill. 48

161 N.E. 68

STEPHENS

v.COLLISON et al.

No. 17112.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April 21, 1928.

Commissioner's Opinion.

Suit by Nancy Stephens against Emma B. Collison and others, wherein Josephus W. Martin filed a cross-bill. Decree dismissing the cross-bill, and cross-complainant appeals.

Affirmed.Appeal from Circuit Court, Ford County; Stevens R. Baker, judge.

Dobbins & Dobbins, of Champaign, for appellant.

Schneider & Schneider, of Paxton, for appellees.

R. L. Schneider, of Paxton, guardian ad litem.

CROW, C.

This is the fifth time this cause has come to this court for review. Each previous case is reported as Stephens v. Collison. The respective decisions are reported in 249 Ill. 225, 94 N. E. 664; 256 Ill. 238, 99 N. E. 914; 274 Ill. 389, 113 N. E. 691, Ann. Cas. 1918D, 559; and 313 Ill. 365, 145 N. E. 81. We refer to the preceding decisions for a full statement of the facts in controversy at those times. After the cause was remanded the third time, Josephus W. Martin filed an amendment to his cross-bill. Upon a hearing on the issues made and evidence taken, a decree was rendered in his favor, and this court reversed it. The decree rendered in the instant case was upon his cross-bill as amended July 7, 1920, which was part of the record in the case last reported. Upon the last hearing without additional evidence, the circuit court dismissed the cross-bill for want of equity, and cross-complainant has appealed to this court.

The original and amended bills and answers are not set out in the abstract. The amendment to the cross-bill filed July 7, 1920, is abstracted. The questions for decision on this appeal, in view of the last decision, will be more clearly presented by stating the amendment as abstracted substantially at large. Cross-complainant, for brevity, is designated as complainant.

The only bill contained in the abstract of the record is paragraph 4 to the conclusion of the cross-bill as amended July 7, 1920. Substantially it avers that several years prior to September 24, 1902, complainant was residing in the city of Chicago, where he was then employed, and his father, Josephus Martin, was the owner of the premises, known as his home farm; that he was extremely anxious that complainant, his only son, should occupy, cultivate, drain, and improve the farm, in order that it might be carefully maintained, and that complainant might reside near him; that he was very much averse to complainant residing in Chicago and being engaged in other business than that of farming, and, with the above ends in view, he proposed to complainant that, if he would give up his home, occupation, and position in Chicago, and remove to the home farm and reside thereon, and cultivate and care for it as he would his own farm and become a farmer, instead of following the occupation which he then followed in Chicago, he would deed to him the tract of land described, meaning and intending that he would convey to complainant the title to said premises in fee simple in consideration of the acts required on the part of complainant; that thereupon, in consideration of the promises on the part of Josephus, complainant did give up his home and occupation in Chicago, and with his family removed to and established himself upon the farm as a farmer, and proceeded to cultivate, drain, manage, and improve it, the same as he would, were it his own, relying upon the promises of his father; that on October 2, 1902, Josephus caused to be prepared and signed by himself and wife several conveyances in and by which he undertook to convey portions of other premises which he then owned to Emma B. Collison and Mary Elizabeth Collison, his daughters, and to Effie Karr (now Effie Ireland), Walter Karr, Charles Karr and Edna Karr (now Edna Duncan) certain real estate described in each of the deeds, copies of which were attached to the original bill filed by Nancy Stephens in this cause on June 24, 1910, and marked Exhibits A, B, and C, and which deeds are made a part hereof, reference thereto being had for greater certainty; that at the time said deeds were made complainant was informed and believed that Josephus, as part of the same act, did have prepared and signed by himself and wife another deed conveying certain premises to his daughter Nancy Stephens, and that as a part of the same act, and at the same time, he caused to be prepared and signed by himself and wife a warranty deed in the same form as the deeds referred to as Exhibits A, B, and C, which conveyed to complainant the home premises; that all of said deeds were executed in the same manner, and, if one of said deeds was delivered, then all of them were delivered, at one and the same time; that all of the deeds were left in the possession of Fred Collison, with the same direction with reference to their delivery, and that, if said deeds referred to as Exhibits A, B, and C have become delivered and effective, then the deed to complainant became effective with the deeds referred to as Exhibits A, B, and C, and conveyed to complainant the home farm, and which deeds, and each and all of them, were left by him in the possession of his son-in-law, Collison, and, so far as complainant can ascertain, there was no distinction or difference in the manner or directions by which said deeds were left with Collison at the time they were signed by Josephus on October 2, 1902; that on June 11, 1906, Collison was engaged in the banking business in Rantoul; that he is a brother of Harry Collison, then deceased, who had theretofore intermarried with Mary Elizabeth Collison and was then her brother-in-law, both by the marriage of his brother to her and by the fact that she is a sister of the wife of Collison; that Collison then understood that the wife of complainant had undergone an operation, which he believed rendered her incapable of giving birth to children; that he contrived and designed to so manipulate the conveyances made by Josephus that the wives of himself and his brother would obtain all of the estate of complainant at complainant's death, and the wife of complainant be deprived of any interest therein; that he was then acting as the agent and business adviser of Josephus, who reposed great confidence in him; that Collison, because of his confidential relations with Josephus, was familiar with all of the business transactions, conveyances, and testamentary dispositions which Josephus had theretofore made of his property, and was able to control and direct him, because of his physical and mental condition on June 11, 1906; that Josephus on said day was, as complainant avers, not of sound mind and memory, and not of disposing mind. but, on the contrary, was in his dotage, in ill health, and his body and mind were so diseased and his memory so impaired as to render him incapable of making any just and proper distribution of his estate, or of making voluntary deeds or conveyances of his property, especially where he was subject to the influence and control of those in whom he had theretofore reposed confidence and with whom he had instrusted the management of his business; that it was not his desire or intent on said date to give complainant a life estate, only, in said property in any conveyance conveying property to complainant, but that it was his wish and intention, and always had been his intention, to deed said premises to complainant in fee simple in compliance with his contract and his long-sustained desire as to the distribution of his property; that he had always theretofore intended that his property should be divided among his children in approximately equal proportions, and that complainant should receive the home farm and the children of Dora Karr should take their mother's portion of said estate; that Collison, having in his possession the deeds theretofore drawn and signed by Josephus, and designing and intending to obtain an advantage for his wife and his brother's wife out of the property which Josephus intended and desired to convey to complainant, took advantage of the physical and mental condition of Josephus, and by means of his position of confidential adviser and business manager, and by means of undue influence by him then and there exerted over him, induced him to sign and acknowledge another deed on June 11, 1906, in and by which he again purported to convey to complainant the home farm, but undertook therein to limit the estate of complainant in said premises to a life estate, with a contingent remainder to Emma and Mary Collison, if complainant should die leaving no legitimate heirs of his body at the time of his death, and did also induce him to execute a will, in which all of his other property, besides the premises described in Exhibits A, B, C, and D, including the premises deeded to Nancy Stephens, should largely go to the wife of Collison and his sister-in-law; that by means of undue influence, and of his control over Josephus, Exhibit D was made and drawn; that said deed and will were, in fact, the deed of and will of Collison, and were not as Josephus desired the same to be when he was in his sound mind, and not under any undue restraint and improper influence; that Collison did either conceal or destroy the deed theretofore made by Josephus on October 2, 1902, conveying the home farm to complainant in fee simple, and conveying other premises to Nancy Stephens, and filed for record on June 11, 1906, the deeds designated as Exhibits A, B, C, and D; that Exhibits A, B, and C were left with Collison under no other or different arrangements or directions as to the delivery than was the deed conveying the home farm to complainant made on the same date, and that, if Exhibits A, B, and C were delivered and became effective, then said deed conveying the home farm to complainant in fee was effective, and conveyed the fee simple therein to complainant, subject to the life estate of Josephus, and subject to no other remainderwhatsoever; that,...