Thompson v. Calhoun

• Decision Date: 23 June 1905
• Citation: 216 Ill. 161,74 N.E. 775
• Parties: THOMPSON v. CALHOUN.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

216 Ill. 161

74 N.E. 775

THOMPSON

v.CALHOUN.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 23, 1905.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Peoria County; N. E. Worthington, Judge.

Bill by Louisa B. Thompson against Ezra B. Calhoun. Decree for defendant, and complainant appeals. Affirmed.

Winslow Evans and Barnes & Bulware, for appellant.

Oliver R. Barrett and Edwin Hedrick, for appellee.

BOGGS, J.

This was a bill in chancery for a decree canceling a deed made by Henry E. Calhoun, deceased, to the appellee, converying the west half of the northwest quarter of section 27, town 11 north, range 6 east, in Peoria county, and establishing title to said tract in the heirs of said Henry E. Calhoun, and for partition of the premises among said heirs. The court, on a hearing, held the deed to be a valid and effectual conveyance, and dismissed the bill for want of equity. This is an appeal to reverse that decree.

The question arising on this record is whether the deed sought to be canceled had been delivered so as to constitute a valid and effectual instrument. The deed bore date July 28, 1900, and was acknowledged on that day. The grantor, Henry E. Calhoun, was then an aged man and a widower. The grantee was his only son, aged about 49 years, and was a married man. During the last four years of the life of the father, the son, with his family, lived on the land, and the father made his home with the family of the son. The father died on the 27th day of October, 1900. On the said 28th day of July, 1900, about three months prior thereto, the father called upon one George Conover and procured the deed here involved to be prepared, and afterward, on the same day, signed it and acknowledged it before Conover, as a notary public. He thebn handed as a notary public. He then handed be determined is whether he placed the deed in the possession of Conover with the intent to thereby permanently divest himself of all power of control and dominion over it.

Conover testified that the deceased told him to prepare the deed, and that he would come over in the evening and sign it; that he (the witness) prepared the deed, and Mr. Calhoun came back in the evening, ‘between sundown and dusk,’ and signed and acknowledged the deed. Conover further testified: ‘After Mr. Calhoun had signed and acknowledged the deed he gave it to me, and said, ‘Keep this deed in your possession in a safe place, and, as soon as you can after I am dead, place it on record.’ At the same time he asked how much revenue stamps this deed would take. I had two other deeds. He gave two other deeds. I did not know that one deed would take $5. I did not know about the others exactly. I said I would have to find out and let him know. He said, ‘You find out and let me know, and I will give your the money for the stamps.’ I kept the deed until after his death. He saw me about it afterwards-I don't remember when-at my shop, and asked if I remembered the instructions when he gave me the deeds. I told him one day I found out how much the revenue stamps for those deeds would take. He said, ‘I have not that much money with me to-day; I will get it and give it to you, and you get the stamps and put them on the deed.’ He died, and did not give it to me. I put the stamps on the deed, but don't remember when-not long before fetching them for record. I don't remember exactly. I had a conversation with Ezra Calhoun after his father's death-the first or second day after; I don't remember-between the time of his death and my bringing the deeds to record. I simply told him I had some deeds to be recorded after his, the old gentleman's death.'

We have carefully consulted the record with reference to the insistence of the appellant that it was to be understood from the testimony of Conover that the grantor in the deed qualified the directions given to Conover to hold and keep the deed so as to permit the grantor to call for and receive the deed if he desired to do so. Conover had held other deeds in his possession at the request of the grantor, under instructions to keep them until the grantor should call for them, and the statements on which the appellant relies to show that the possession of the deed here involved was qualified by the right of the grantor to recall it related to those other deeds, and not to the deed here under consideration.

Appellant claims that it was proven that the appellee did not know that the deed...