Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

other than the day advertised for the sale is void. Kepley v. Fouke, 187 Ill. 162; Glos v. Gleason, 209 id. 517; Glos v. Hanford, 212 id. 261; Glos v. Ault, supra.

There were some other objections to the validity of the tax sale, but the one already pointed out is sufficient to warrant the conclusion of the court below that the tax deed was void. The tax deed being invalid, the conveyance to August A. Timke, as trustee, not being connected with any other source of title and no possession being shown thereunder, is wholly void. Glos having no title in himself could convey none to Timke. McCraney v. Glos, supra.

There are no other reasons urged for the reversal of this decree. The decree below was in accordance with the law and the evidence, and it will accordingly be affirmed.

Decree affirmed.

MARION J. LAVERY, Appellee, vs. Douglas W. HUTCHIN

SON, Exr., Appellant.

Opinion filed February 25, 1911.

1. Equity-when fact that complainant has conveyed land does not deprive her of her standing in equity. Where the owner of the legal title to land, the railroad company seeking to condemn the same and an intervening petitioner seeking to establish dower agree upon the price to be paid for the land, the money paid by the company under such agreement takes the place of the land and is subject to the same burdens the land was under, and the fact that the owner conveys all her interest in the land to the company does not deprive her of her standing in equity to have the value of the dower ascertained and the fund freed from claim of dower.

2. DOWERin Illinois a common law wife is entitled to dower. In Illinois every marriage is a marriage for all purposes and is attended with the same civil rights and obligations, and a common law wife entitled to dower in all the lands of which her husband was seized during coverture, provided she has not joined in her husband's conveyance thereof or released or barred her dower.

3. Same-what instrument does not amount to release of dower. An instrument purporting to be a release of personal claims of a

common law wife against her husband cannot be held to be a release of an inchoate right of dower, (which is not a personal claim against a husband,) particularly where the husband, by his answer to a bill for separate maintenance, sets up the instrument as evidence that no common law marriage relation existed between him and complainant and alleges that the sole purpose of the agreement was to compensate complainant for her past relations with him.

4. Same-dower need not be assigned to widow in each tract separately. Under the statute, dower need not be assigned to the widow in each tract separately, but may be allotted in a body out of one or more tracts of land, when it can be done without prejudice to the interest of any person interested in the premises.

5. Same-estate of grantor is ultimately liable to make good his covenants of warranty. Where the grantor in a warranty deed describes himself as a bachelor, his estate is liable to make good his covenants of warranty in the event of a subsequent claim of dower in the premises by his common law wife.

6. Samewhen equity may transfer dower interest to lands of which the husband died seised. Where a person having a common law wife executes a warranty deed to land, describing himself as a bachelor, and the land passes to innocent purchasers by mesne conveyances containing full covenants of warranty, a court of equity, in a proceeding by the common law wife to assign dower in such land, may transfer the dower interest to lands of which the husband died seized at his death, where his estate over and above his debts is sufficient for that purpose.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Thomas G. WINDES, Judge, presiding.

John T. MURRAY, for appellant.

PADDOCK, FURNESS, CLARKSON & RUTTER, for appellee.

Mr. JUSTICE COOKE delivered the opinion of the court:

On September 1, 1888, Charles G. Hutchinson, now deceased, being the owner in fee of the east forty-one feet of original lot 10, in block 45, in the original town of Chicago, in Cook county, Illinois, conveyed said premises by warranty deed to Coit & Co., a corporation, describing himself in the deed as a bachelor and executing it alone.

Thereafter, in 1899, Jennie C. Hutchinson brought suit for separate maintenance in the circuit court of Cook county against said Charles G. Hutchinson, and it was established by the decree rendered in that cause, which was affirmed by this court in Hutchinson v. Hutchinson, 196 Ill. 432, that said Charles G. Hutchinson and Jennie C. Hutchinson had contracted a valid common law marriage in April, 1875, and had lived and cohabited together as husband and wife until about the month of October, 1884, at which time Charles G. Hutchinson, without good cause, abandoned his said wife and the four children who had been born unto them and had ever since neglected and refused to provide for them. Subsequently, appellee, Marion J. Lavery, by incsne conveyances and without any knowledge of the said marriage or the suit for separate maintenance, became the owner in fee of said premises, each of the deeds in her chain of title from Coit & Co. containing covenants of warranty. After appellee obtained title to the premises, and on January 19, 1907, the Chicago and Northwestern Railway Company instituted a proceeding in the superior court of Cook county to condemn said premises for railway purposes, making appellee and her husband defendants thereto. On September 12, 1907, Jennie C. Hutchinson became a party to the condemnation proceeding by filing her crosspetition therein, in which she alleged that she intermarried with Charles G. Hutchinson in April, 1875; that her husband died February 25, 1907, leaving her as his widow; that during the time of their marriage her husband, Charles G. Hutchinson, was seized in fee simple of said real estate, and that upon his death she became entitled to dower in the premises, which dower has never been assigned or set off to her and that she has never received any compensation or equivalent therefor, and praying for assignment of dower in the premises and for an award for the amount of her damages therefor separate and apart from any award to the owner of the fee. On September 20, 1907, the superior court entered an order finding the allegations of the cross-petition to be true and that Jennie C. Hutchinson was entitled to dower in the premises but reserving the question of the value of such dower for future determination by the court. Thereafter, with the consent of Jennie C. Hutchinson, appellee and the railway company agreed upon $55,000 as the value of the premises and as the just compensation to be paid therefor, and upon the execution and delivery of a warranty deed to the premises by appellee to the railway company $42,500 was paid by the railway company to appellee, and the balance, $12,500, was deposited with the Northern Trust Company in trust, to pay therefrom to Jennie C. Hutchinson whatever sum should be finally fixed by the court as the value of her dower in said premises, the surplus, if any, to be paid to appellee.

On November 17, 1907, appellee filed her bill of complaint in the circuit court of Cook county against the widow, heirs, legatees and devisees of Charles G. Hutchinson, deceased, Douglas W. Hutchinson, as executor of the last will and testament of said deceased, and the Northern Trust Company, praying that the value of the dower of Jennie C. Hutchinson in said premises be determined; that the premises, and the just compensation standing in lieu thereof, be relieved from the charge of said dower, and that the value of the dower, when ascertained and fixed by the court, be made a charge upon the lands whereof Charles G. Hutchinson died seized or upon the personal estate left by him, or upon both, as to the court should seem proper, and that the Northern Trust Company be ordered to pay appellee the sum of $12,500 so held by it in trust. Issues were formed upon the bill and the cause was referred to the master to take the proofs and report the same to the court, together with his conclusions as to the law and facts. The master found all the material issues of fact in favor of the complainant, and reported his conclusions as to the law to be that the estate of Charles G. Hutchinson, deceased, is liable for an amount equivalent to the value of the dower of Jennie C. Hutchinson in the premises, and that in order to prevent multiplicity of suits and circuity of action the dower right should be made a lien upon and satisfied out of the real estate in Cook county owned by Charles G. Hutchinson at the time of his death, and that the $12,500 held by the Northern Trust Company should be turned over to appellee.

Upon the filing of the master's report the court overruled the exceptions of the defendants thereto and entered a decree finding that Jennie C. Hutchinson, as the widow of Charles G. Hutchinson, is entitled to dower in said real estate, and that on account of improvements to the premises which had been made since the conveyance by her husband to Coit & Co., her dower should be computed upon a valuation of $50,500; that Charles G. Hutchinson died February 25, 1907, seized and possessed of real estate in Cook county of the value of not less than $125,000 and of personal property of the value of not less than $125,000, and that the claims against his estate do not exceed the sum of $52,000; that the estate of Charles G. Hutchinson is liable to Jennie C. Hutchinson for the value of said dower, and that she is entitled to a lien upon the real estate in Cook county owned by Charles G. Hutchinson at the time of his death to secure to her the value of said dower; and it was ordered and decreed that the premises taken by the railway company and the $12,500 held by the Northern Trust Company be released and freed from the dower of and any claim of dower by Jennie C. Hutchinson therein, and that the Northern Trust Company pay over to appellee said sum of $12,500 within three days from the entry of the decree, and that the dower of Jennie C. Hutchinson in said premises, computed upon the sum of $50,500, be made a lien and charge upon the real estate in Cook county owned by Charles G. Hutchinson at the time of his death. From that decree Douglas W. Hutchinson, as executor of

« ForrigeFortsett »