Ward v. Clendenning

• Decision Date: 08 June 1910
• Parties: WARD et al. v. CLENDENNING et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

245 Ill. 206

91 N.E. 1028

WARD et al.

v.CLENDENNING et al.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April 21, 1910.

Rehearing Denied June 8, 1910.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Cook County; Lockwood Honore, Judge.

Action by Thomas C. Clendenning and others against James R. Ward and others. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.James R. Ward and Frank Mach, for appellants.

Dunn & Hayes, Arthur M. Cox, and Wells & Blakeley, for appellees.

On December 7, 1905, Thomas C. Clendenning filed his bill of complaint in the circuit court of Cook county against John F. Labahn, seeking to compel Labahn to convey to him certain real estate in the city of Chicago, which Labahn had purchased at master's sale, made under a decree of the superior court of Cook county in a suit by Napoleon Provost against Anthony Kozlowski and others to enforce a mechanic's lien. The bill alleged that Labahn purchased the property in pursuance of a contract between himself and the successful lien claimants, by the terms of which Labahn agreed to bid in the premises at the master's sale for not less than $22,000, and to pay for the same with receipts to be signed by the lien claimants for the amounts found due them by said decree, and with money to be furnished by them; also to secure a master's deed if the premises should not be redeemed, and hold the property in trust for the other parties to the contract, to collect the rents, issues, and profits, pay the taxes and assessments, sell and convey the premises for not less than $22,000 upon the written consent of the beneficiaries, and pay over the proceeds of sale, declared by the contract to be personal property, and the surplus of rents, to the cestuis que trust in proportion to the amounts of their respective liens as found by said decree. The bill further alleged that Clendenning had purchased the interests of all the beneficial owners of the premises, and had requested Labahn to convey the premises to him, but that Labahn had refused to comply with the request. The prayer is that Labahn be required to make such conveyance. Labahn answered the bill, admitting the purchase of the premises by him in pursuance of the contract, as alleged in the bill, and that he held the title to the premises as trustee under the terms and provisions of the said contract, but alleged that he had no knowledge concerning the purchase by Clendenning of the interests of the beneficial parties to the contract, and submitted that such parties should be made defendants to the bill. Clendenning filed a replication, and the cause was referred to the master. Thereafter Napoleon Provost and Andrew J. Graham were, upon their petitions, permitted to become defendants, and each filed an answer to the bill, alleging that Provost was one of the persons in whose favor liens had been established in the suit of Provost against Kozlowski and others, and was one of the parties to the contract under which Labahn purchased and held the said premises, but denying that Clendenning had acquired the interest of Provost in the premises, or his rights and interests under said contract. They also filed cross-bills, making numerous persons defendants, and some of the new defendants answered and filed cross-bills, which resulted in a large number of cross-bills, demurrers, answers, and replications, presenting a great variety of issues for determination by the circuit court, only a few of which, being the issues formed upon the cross-bill filed by Labahn, the original defendant, are involved in this appeal.

By his cross-bill Labahn claims title to the premises by virtue of the master's deed issued to him as the purchaser at the sale under the decree rendered by the superior court in the mechanic's lien suit, but as trustee for the uses and purposes set forth in the contract between himself and the claimants who had established liens in that proceeding, and alleges that the interests of such claimants in the real estatewas not subject to levy and sale under execution or to sale and transfer by act of the parties; that the cross-complainant has never been able to obtain possession of the real estate, and is informed and believes that Anthony Kozlowski, or St. Anthony's Hospital, Home for the Aged, and Orphanage of the Polish Catholics of the Diocese of Chicago (which will be hereinafter referred to as St. Anthony's Hospital), is now in possession of the same; that the premises were sold for taxes in 1902, and a tax deed was issued to Paul MacGuffin on September 26, 1904; that on account of the tax deed, and because he was unable to deliver possession, he has not been able to sell the premises; that there appears of record in the recorder's office of Cook county a trust deed filed July 16, 1902, from St. Anthony's Hospital, conveying said premises to William Roulet to secure 120 bonds of $500 each, and that the same is a cloud upon his title; that the hospital acquired all its rights in the premises from Kozlowski without consideration, and during the pendency of the mechanic's lien proceedings in the superior court, to which Kozlowski was a party, for the purpose of evading the rights of the lien claimants, and with full notice of the pendency, nature, and scope of the proceedings, and that the decree under which the master's sale was had was entered June 30, 1902, after a long litigation establishing mechanics' liens for work done and material furnished in erecting a hospital building on the said real estate. The cross-bill makes Provost, Graham, Clendenning, Kozlowski, St. Anthony's Hospital, Roulet, individually and as trustee, James R. Ward, MacGuffin, and other parties, defendants, and prays for a decree adjudging Labahn to be the owner of the premises in fee simple, in trust for the uses and purposes set forth in said contract or trust agreement; that the title to said real estate be quieted; that the trust deed from St. Anthony's Hospital to Roulet be set aside and removed as a cloud upon the title; that full power be declared and conferred upon Labahn, as trustee, to sell and convey said real estate free and clear of all liens and incumbrances, and for general relief.

The defenses to Labahn's cross-bill, so far as material upon this appeal, are set forth in the answer of James R. Ward thereto. This answer alleges that St. Anthony's Hospital is a corporation organized under the laws of this state for religious and benevolent purposes; that Kozlowski was the bishop of a religious diocese, having a church near the premises in question, and was also president of the hospital corporation, and held in trust all conveyances of real estate for the use and benefit of the hospital; that the legal title to the premises in question was taken in the name of Kozlowski, and was until June 7, 1900, held by him in trust for the hospital; that St. Anthony's Hospital was for many years prior to the last-mentioned date, and has ever since been, in the actual possession and occupancy of the premises, and that such possession was notice to the world of its rights and interests in the premises; that on June 7, 1900, Kozlowski made a written declaration of trust, and conveyed the premises to St. Anthony's Hospital; that thereafter, on June 15, 1902, the hospital conveyed the premises to Roulet in trust, to secure 120 bonds of $500 each; that certain of these bonds were delivered to Kozlowski, others were retained by Roulet, and the remainder were delivered to and are held by Ward. The answer further alleges that at the time Provost brought the proceedings in the superior court to enforce his lien St. Anthony's Hospital was in actual possession of the premises, that the hospital was not a party to that suit, and that the superior court did not have jurisdiction of the hospital, or jurisdiction to enter a decree affecting its property, when it rendered the decree from which Labahn claims to derive title to said premises, and that neither Labahn, nor any other person, acquired any interest in the premises by virtue of said proceedings or master'ssale, and that Labahn has never been in possession of the premises. St. Anthony's Hospital permitted default to be taken against it upon all the cross-bills to which it was defendant, except the cross-bill filed by Ward and Roulet, which sought a foreclosure of the trust deed from the hospital to Roulet, and the hospital answered that cross-bill, admitting the right of Ward and Roulet to the relief prayed for therein.

The various cross-bills were referred to the same master as the original bill, to take the evidence and report the same, with his conclusions of law and fact, to the court, and he filed a report making specific findings of fact upon the various matters in controversy, and finding all the material allegations of the Labahn cross-bill proven, and recommending a decree in accordance with the prayer thereof, and that the original bill be dismissed for want of equity. Ward and Roulet filed objections to the master's report, which were overruled by the master, and were renewed as exceptions in the circuit court. None of the other parties filed objections or exceptions to the report. The court overruled the exceptions, and entered a decree in accordance with the master's findings, dismissing the original bill for want of equity; declaring the trust deed from the hospital to Roulet null and void and a cloud upon the title; adjudging the equitable and legal title to the premises to be in Labahn, with full power to sell and convey the same, free and clear of all charges and incumbrances, for not less than $22,000; and directing Labahn, upon sale being made, to pay MacGuffin $604.04 in satisfaction of all rights under his tax deed, and to divide the balance of the proceeds of sale between Clendenning and Provost in proportion to their respective interests as found by this decree, the share of Provost, however, being declared subject to the rights of Graham and certain other defendants, and the...