Wright v. Logan

• Decision Date: 17 June 1936
• Docket Number: No. 23587.,23587.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Parties: WRIGHT et al. v. LOGAN.

364 Ill. 33

2 N.E.2d 904

WRIGHT et al.

v.LOGAN.

No. 23587.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 17, 1936.

Suit by Elizabeth Wright and another against William S. Logan. From a decree dismissing the bill, plaintiffs appeal.

Cause transferred.Appeal from Circuit Court, Edgar County; Craig Van Meter, judge.

Steely & Steely and Graham & Dysert, all of Danville (Walter V. Dysert, of Danville, of counsel), for appellants.

Van Sellar & McClain, of Paris, for appellee.

FARTHING, Justice.

The appellants filed their bill in the circuit court of Edgar county asking that they be permitted to redeem from a foreclosure within a reasonable and definite time to be fixed by the court. The bill set forth a verbal agreement for an extension of time for redemption from a foreclosure sale of a forty-acre dairy farm near Paris. The answer of the appellee alleged that the appellants did not rely upon the extension agreement, if any such was made, but filed a petition in bankruptcy under section 74 of the Bankruptcy Act, as amended (11 U.S.C.A § 202), for an extension of time for the payment of their debts. The appellants filed a replication, alleging that they were compelled to file the petition in bankruptcy to prevent the appellee from violating his agreement and from procuring and recording a master's deed to the premises in question. It also set up other matter showing a refusal on the part of the appellee to perform his agreement. Upon a hearing the chancellor found the equities of the case to be with the appellee and dismissed the appellants' bill for want of equity. The appellants have perfected their appeal directly to this court, apparently on the hypothesis that a freehold is involved.

A freehold is involved in all cases where the necessary result of the judgment or decree is that one party gains and the other loses a freehold estate, and also in cases where the title to a freehold is so put in issue by the pleadings that the decision of the case necessarily involves a decision of that issue. The bill in this case prayed that an accounting be had as to the amount due from the appellants to the appelleeand that the court fix a reasonable and definite time within which the appellants could redeem. The only controversy between the parties was as to the right of redemption. The court found that no such right existed. If the prayer of the bill had been granted, it would have merely given the appellants the right to redeem from the sale. The gain or loss of...