Wilson v. Lyon

• Decision Date: 30 September 1869
• Citation: 1869 WL 5293,51 Ill. 166
• Parties: WILLIAM C. WILSONv.WILLIAM B. LYON.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

51 Ill. 166

1869 WL 5293 (Ill.)

WILLIAM C. WILSON

v.WILLIAM B. LYON.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

September Term, 1869.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Woodford county; the Hon. S. L. RICHMOND, Judge, presiding. The opinion states the case.

Mr. A. E. STEVENSON, for the appellant.

Mr. E. N. POWELL, for the appellee.

Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE BREESE delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was a bill in chancery, in the Woodford Circuit Court, by William B. Lyon, and against William C. Wilson, to enforce a vendor's lien, and a decree accordingly.

To reverse this decree, the defendant appeals to this court.

It appears complainant sold by deed to John M. Wilson, certain valuable real estate, in the town of Eureka, on which was a flouring mill, taking Wilson's notes for the purchase money. Suit was brought on the notes and judgment recovered against Wilson for the amount. In the mean time, John M. executed a mortgage to his brother, William C. Wilson, the appellant, to secure the sum of ten thousand dollars. Afterwards satisfaction was entered on the mortgage, and an absolute deed executed by John M. to William C. Wilson for the premises.

The case turns upon the fact of notice to William C. before he took the deed of mortgage, and subsequent absolute deed from his brother, that he had not paid Lyon for the property.

That he had such notice, is clearly proved by the testimony of Lyon. William C. Wilson is a resident of St. Louis, and in the spring of 1864, after the sale by Lyon to John M., Lyon visited William in St. Louis, and there, in the conversation between them, he asked if John had paid all up for the mill. Lyon told him that he had not; that he sold the mill to him for seven thousand dollars, one thousand dollars in cash and his six notes for one thousand dollars each, due in one, two, three, four, five and six years from date, with ten per cent. interest. William then asked him if he had taken any security. Lyon answered no, that he promised if he got into any difficulty he would make Lyon secure on the mill. This conversation is not denied, and was notice. And after the second note became due, Lyon had a conversation with William, at his house in St. Louis, relative to his paying the note, John having said William would pay the notes. This was early in February, 1864. In this interview William admitted it was the agreement, when he took the deed from his brother, that he was to pay the notes.

All this furnishes abundant proof of notice of the lien.

Another point made by appellant is, that the vendor took other and independent security, and thus waived his lien.

It seems John M. Wilson, after he had conveyed the property to his brother, assigned to Lyon a policy on his life. John M., in his testimony, says, he assigned it for the purpose of securing the notes; that the policy was on the endowment plan, and became due at the end of fifteen years or at his death.

Lyon, in his testimony, says there was nothing said between them when Wilson gave him the policy; that he did not take it as collateral, but as security only that his brother would meet the paper as it became due, as John had told him his brother would certainly do; that...