White v. White

Decision Date30 September 1878
Citation1878 WL 10058,89 Ill. 460
PartiesHARRY S. WHITE et al.v.HARRY WHITE et al.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Kane county; the Hon. HIRAM H. CODY, Judge, presiding.

Messrs. BOTSFORD & BARRY, for the appellants.

Mr. IRUS COY, and Mr. W. S. COY, for the appellees.

Mr. JUSTICE WALKER delivered the opinion of the Court:

The bill in this case charges that appellant Williams obtained a conveyance of a valuable farm in Kane county, also, a house and lot in Kaneville, in this State, from appellees, through fraudulent representations; that the deed was not delivered by them to Williams; that he paid no consideration therefor; that the other appellants, knowing that the conveyance was obtained by fraudulent means, and knowing all of the facts, and aiding Williams in procuring the deed, took from him a conveyance of the premises. On a hearing, the court below rendered a decree setting aside the deed from appellees to Williams, and the deed from him to appellant Harry S. White, and defendants appeal to this court, and ask a reversal.

Appellee Harry White, it appears, settled on the farm in controversy some eight years before it was offered for sale by the government. He then purchased it, and resided thereon until his children were raised and had left him. His wife having died, he rented his farm to a nephew, and for a time lived alternately with his children and two brothers. He so lived for about five years, when he married Louisa A. White, the other appellee. Whilst living with his brother George, he became acquainted with Williams, and became attached to him, and gave him his entire confidence. Harry White was then seventy years of age, and had been stricken with paralysis, and moved about with difficulty. Williams was a single man, and worked by the month on the farm for George White, the brother of appellee, and had no property except a horse. About that time Harry White married his present wife, and afterwards purchased the house and lot in Kanesville, and moved thereto. Some three months afterwards, Williams represented to Harry White that his children and brothers had conspired, and had frequent meetings at his brother George's, and had determined to have a conservator appointed to take charge of him and his property. White asked what he had better do, and Williams advised that he convey his property to one Castar, and that he could convey it to his wife. Williams, a few days afterwards, informed him that Castar refused to have anything to do with the matter, as he feared his buildings would be burned if he did. Williams then proposed to act in the matter. Mrs. White, it seems, objected to having the property thus conveyed to her; said she was willing to take the house and lot, but did not want the farm. White said he was willing to trust her to act fairly with his children, but was unwilling to trust them to act fairly by her. She, however, consented to take both pieces of property.

The proof further shows, that about the first of February, 1874, Williams came to White, and said: “By ____, Uncle Harry, I have turned out to save you, or I would not have come out on such a stormy night. They are going to commence on to-morrow morning, and we must do our business, and get ahead of them. George is going to Aurora in the morning, and they are going to start the thing.” He then proposed that they should go to Batavia and have the deeds made. White wanted the deeds made at home, but Williams urged that Batavia was near the county seat, and the deeds would have to be recorded. It was finally agreed to go there, and have both deeds then made. All three went to Batavia the next morning, and found a justice of the peace. Whilst the justice was writing the deed from White to Williams, he asked what was the consideration, when Williams replied, that “Uncle Peter Castar told me that a good consideration would be, the support of Mr. White, his necessary...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Beattie v. Bower
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • October 20, 1939
    ...especially in this case where he is shown to have been acting for the defendant. Kastell v. Hillman, 53 N.J.Eq. 49, 30 A. 535;White v. White, 89 Ill. 460, 461;Duncombe v. Richards, 46 Mich. 166, 9 N.W. 149, 151. In the latter case, it was said: ‘To show such a will the magistrate who drew a......
  • Frasier v. Finlay
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • December 12, 1940
    ...possession of real estate is notice to all persons of all of the occupant's rights therein, which could be ascertained on inquiry. White v. White, 89 Ill. 460;Ronan v. Bluhm, 173 Ill. 277, 50 N.E. 694;Nelson v. Joshel, 305 Ill. 420, 137 N.E. 389;Bullard v. Turner, 357 Ill. 279, 192 N.E. 223......
  • Bullard v. Turner
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • October 3, 1934
    ...person in possession had inquiry been made of him. Nelson v. Joshel, 305 Ill. 420, 137 N. E. 389;Williams v. Brown, 14 Ill. 200;White v. White, 89 Ill. 460;Coari v. Olsen, 91 Ill. 273;Ford v. Marcall, 107 Ill. 136;Tillotson v. Mitchell, 111 Ill. 518;Rock Island & Peoria Railway Co. v. Dimic......
  • Wiggenhorn v. Daniels
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 30, 1899
    ...Pike v. Martindale, 91 Mo. 268; Barksdale v. Brooks, 70 Mo. 197; Martin v. Jones, 72 Mo. 23; Blackburn v. Tweedie, 60 Mo. 505; White v. White, 89 Ill. 460; Ford Marcall, 107 Ill. 136; Bartlett v. Glasscock, 4 Mo. 62; Major v. Bukley, 51 Mo. 227; Leavitt v. La Force, 71 Mo. 356; Roan v. Winn......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT