Voorhees v. Campbell

• Decision Date: 06 December 1916
• Docket Number: No. 10537.,10537.
• Parties: VOORHEES v. CAMPBELL et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

275 Ill. 292

114 N.E. 147

VOORHEES

v.CAMPBELL et al.

No. 10537.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 24, 1916.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 6, 1916.

Error to Circuit Court, Cook County; Thomas Taylor, Jr., Judge.

Suit by Oscar M. Voorhees against David C. Campbell and others. Decree for defendants, and complainant brings error. Reversed and remanded, with directions.Cleland, Lee & Phelps, for Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

Tenney, Harding & Sherman, of Chicago, for defendants in error.

COOKE, J.

On July 8, 1908, Oscar M. Voorhees, the plaintiff in error, filed his bill of complaint in the circuit court of Cook county against David C. Campbell, John A. Campbell, and Charles P. Campbell, the defendants in error, for rescission of an executed contract of sale of certain real estate by defendants in error to plaintiff in error on the ground of fraud perpetrated upon plaintiff in error by defendants in error. Defendants in error answered the bill, denying the charges of fraud. Replication was filed to the answer, and the cause was referred to the master to take the evidence and report the same, together with his findings, to the court. The master found that no fiduciary relation existed between plaintiff in error and defendants in error at the time the real estate in question was purchased by plaintiff in error; that no material false representations were made by defendantsin error to plaintiff in error at any time; that plaintiff in error had knowledge of all the facts upon which he relies in this suit as early as 1904, 1905, and 1906, and is therefore guilty of laches; that the parties cannot be placed in statu quo, and it would therefore be inequitable to grant the relief sought; that plaintiff in error is not entitled to any relief; and that the bill should be dismissed for want of equity. Exceptions filed to the master's report were overruled, and a decree was entered by the court dismissing the bill for want of equity. The record of the circuit court has been brought here for review by writ of error.

Defendants in error were at the time of the transactions between them and plaintiff in error, and had been for some years prior thereto, engaged in the real estate business in the city of Chicago. Their business was conducted under the name of the Campbell Investment Company. Plaintiff in error was a clergyman, then residing in the state of New Jersey but now residing in the city of New York. During the year 1894 the defendants in error began to send to the plaintiff in error circular letters concerning real estate which they were offering for sale in and about Chicago. Plaintiff in error finally became interested in the investments offered by defendants in error in these circular letters, and in January or February, 1898, wrote to defendants in error. Upon receipt of the letter from plaintiff in error, the defendants in error sent one of their agents to call upon plaintiff in error at his home in New Jersey, and, as a result of negotiations between plaintiff in error and this agent, plaintiff in error on March 10, 1898, purchased from defendants in error two lots in Beverly Hills, in Chicago, for $950 cash, and received a deed therefor executed by John A. Campbell, one of the defendants in error. Before purchasing these lots, plaintiff in error wrote to certain persons residing in Chicago whose names had been furnished him by defendants in error as references, one of them being a clergyman, and, according to his testimony, received ‘very flattering references' from these persons. Plaintiff in error did not personally investigate these lots before purchasing them and did not personally meet any of the defendants in error, but relied upon the letters which he had received regarding the honesty and integrity of defendants in error and the statements made by defendants in error in their circular letters and the representations made by their agent through whom plaintiff in error purchased the lots. Thereafter occasional letters passed between plaintiff in error and defendants in error with reference to the lots, and each year plaintiff in error received notice from defendants in error of the taxes due on the lots and plaintiff in error paid these taxes.

For some time prior to 1902 defendants in error were interested in a subdivision known as Oaklawn, lying outside the city of Chicago. On May 3, 1900, defendant in error Charles P. Campbell obtained title to block 35, lots 23 to 34, inclusive, of block 40, block 41, block 37, except lot 12, and block 38, except lots 3 and 42, in Minnick's Oaklawn subdivision of a certain tract, by deed from Victor L. Cunnyngham, for an expressed consideration of one dollar. The revenue stamps affixed to the deed show that the real consideration for these lots and blocks was between $4,500 and $5,000. From a release deed executed by Edwin G. Lancaster, trustee, to Charles P. Campbell on March 18, 1902, it appears that at the time Charles P. Campbell purchased the above-described property from Cunnyngham he mortgaged the same to secure a loan, the amount of which is not disclosed by the record before us. Thereafter, on September 24, 1900, block 37, except lot 12 thereof, and block 38, except lots 3 and 42 thereof, were sold by the master in chancery under decree in a chancery suit brought by Ella M. Sutherland, to Charles P. Campbell for $1,900, and deeds therefor issued to Campbell December 26, 1901.

Under date of January 14, 1902, defendants in error sent plaintiff in error a letter reading as follows:‘We have been thinking for some time of selling or trading your lots 19 and 20, in block 27, Hilliard & Dobbins' subdivision, Beverly Hills. We are free to confess that the real estate market in Chicago has not been as active for the past two years as we thought it would be, but it is beginning now to pick up quite a good deal; inquiries are stronger and sales are being made. Of course, one has to pick the location yet before he can find property that is at all active.

‘For the past three years we have been at quite a considerable expense in the way of improving a subdivision known as ‘Oaklawn,’ about which we have undoubtedly written you. It is in the southwestern part of the city of Chicago and is exceptionally desirable for a residence district. There are local conditions that make it desirable, also, from an investment point of view. We have purchased in the neighborhood of fifteen hundred lots in all, and only recently have we had offered to us what we consider to be an exceptional bargain in acres that join our subdivision on the south. This is a five-acre block and a two and a half-acre block.

‘I inclose a plat of our subdivision proper, and have marked just where blocks 37 and 38 are. Block 37, you will notice, is south, just across the street from our block 29. Lots in block 29 have sold, and are selling, for $400 and $440 each. The average price of the lots in this block has been $420. There are but five lots left in the block, so you can see the forty-five lots have sold for $18,060.

‘There is a slight difference in the lay of the land, however, between blocks 29 and 37 and 38. Blocks 37 and 38 pitch a little bit to the south, and the southern part of these two blocks is not quite such high ground as is block 29, although it is all good. The west half of block 38 sold the early part of last month for $1,400 an acre, and the person who purchased it considered he was getting a bargain in these acres.

‘We have the other seven and one-half acres for sale, and I think I have gotten the owner to consent to take your two lots in block 27, Beverly Hills, as part trade on these acres. The price of the acres would be $10,500. I have told the owner that I thought we could handle his acres provided he would take your lots in block 27 for $2,100. I figured your lots this way in order that you might have a fifth interest in these acres, provided you decided to take them. This is with the understanding that you can organize a syndicate, say, of four other men in your town, letting each of them go in for $2,100. These acres will subdivide into sixty-three lots, and I have figured that all the lots will readily sell at an average of $300. They certainly ought to if the property just across the street, north, sells for $420.

‘We would undertake to sell the property for such a syndicate, at such figures, upon the following basis: That their money should be returned to them, with six per cent. interest added, before any portion of the profits should be divided, but that we should take out of the gross selling price:

‘First, the exact cost of putting the property on the market; and this would not be great, because the property is improved, has sidewalks, graded streets and trees, so the only expense would be advertising, commissions, taxes, abstracts, etc.

‘Second, the return of the money invested, with six per cent. interest on same from the time it was invested, to the syndicate, and after that a division of the profits between the syndicate and the Campbell Investment Company.

‘I do not know, Mr. Voorhees, that I could get such a trade through, but I have been talking it, and if you could see your way clear to form such a syndicate, raising $8,400 cash, we would endeavor to complete the trade. This property is on the market only for a limited time, for I am confident it will be sold. The west two and one-half acres of block 38 were sold within nine days after the property was offered. This has not been offered to any one else that we know of.

‘I wish you would write me at once regarding this proposed trade.

‘Campbell Investment Company,

‘C. P. Campbell.

‘P. S.-It might be wise for you to come on to Chicago and look at this property. We would only be too glad to have you come if you could.’

The plat referred to in this letter showing the territory called Oaklawn and the location of blocks 37 and 38 with reference to Oaklawn was inclosed. Upon this plat appeared the following written...