*1 the de- sure, in we are already This, time served 44-106. The control of the length fendant is seeking. term the Parole Board. with imprisonment the manner The term of imprisonment 44-106 its in that case. service is controlled judgment We find no error the record.
Judgment affirmed. (No. 31885.
Dorothy et al., vs. Appellees, Louis J. Bremer
et al.— Bremer, (Louis Appellant.) J. Opinion January 24, March Rehearing denied filed *2 J., part. took no Bristow, J., dissenting.
Crampton, and Hut Bookwalter, Carter, Hickman, Gunn & all of Danville, (H. ton, & Hut Hutton, Clark Ernest ton, Hickman, Hutton, Z. R. Robert Jackson for counsel,) appellant. Henry Urbana, I. H. Green, Wheat, James se, W. pro Danville, Leo E. Burk, Bremer, John of Los Angeles, California, appellees. Daily delivered the opinion
Mr. Chief Justice court:
On March 2, widow and two of the children of Fred filed this suit in the circuit court Bremer, deceased, Vermilion Bremer Irma County against Louis Bremer brother and sister Esslinger, decedent, John Bremer, one of decedent’s sons who se and pro appeared the same relief as and the two tenants requested plaintiffs, on the farm land in Plaintiffs seek to recover controversy. an undivided one-half interest in acres approximately 236 of land and an undivided interest in an addi- two-fifths tional 160 that defendant acres, alleging holds title such trustee interests as constructive for plain- tiffs by virtue of a obtained from decedent conveyance February by both actual and constructive fraud. 23, 1937, Other relief was not material to the requested issues pre- sented An herein. answer and were filed and a hear- reply *3 held before the which thereafter ing court, entered a decree for plaintiffs. decree found that a fiduciary relation- existed ship between and Fred that Bremer; took the title to the farms with the that he understanding would reconvey Fred’s interests when a debt, mortgage will be shown by facts, satisfied from the proceeds of the farm; that the conveyance was without procured of payment reasonable or adequate consideration; that plaintiffs had established clear and convincing proof the existence of a constructive trust at the time of the challenged conveyance, Bremer had failed prove transaction to be fair and equitable.
Louis Bremer has appealed this court, contending, first, that the evidence does not show the existence aof strict fiduciary or even a relationship confidential relation- of a lesser ship degree, and, that if it second, be deter- mined that a fiduciary did exist such relationship relation- does ship not rise give to a constructive trust when the dependent party conveys land to the dominant party,
457 influence. and undue fraud factor of a second absence trust for a constructive basis that the too, legal He argues, un clear, convincing, in this record is not established but one leads to which unmistakable evidence equivocal con trust. Plaintiffs viz., that of a constructive conclusion, fiduciary that a found, as the trial court course, tend, Louis, and that brothers, exist between did relationship to maintain his burden as the failed dominant party, and just fair, the transaction equitable showing and that it from did fraud. proceed evidence, account of the
Before to a detailed proceeding laid down by would be well to consider tests perhaps of this with decisions court previous regard pre burdens which cases. such sumptions proof prevail Constructive trusts are into classes; divided two one where actual fraud is considered as equitable for ground raising and the other trust, those cases which consisting of a existence relation and the subsequent abuse of the confidence is sufficient to establish the reposed trust. (Suchy Hajicek, v. Ill. Catherwood v. 502; Morris, Ill. McMullen, v. Ill. Neagle 168.) 617: A standard of a constructive example trust is where prop erty is to a conveyed grantee upon parol promise to a third convey the use person, benefit other persons. Gretz, Ill. (Brooks In the first 290.) type referred to the burden is the one to establish seeking the constructive trust to that the claim prove is of such char acter as to raise the trust. (Delfosse v. Ill. Delfosse, 287 Where the existence 251.) of a fiduciary has been established, law presumes any transactions be tween the which the dominant parties, has party profited, *4 is fraudulent. This is not presumption but conclusive, may be rebutted clear and convincing that the proof dominant has exercised party faith and has good not betrayed the confidence in The reposed him. burden rests dominant such party produce if evidence, and the burden
458 in equity. be set aside the transaction will discharged
is not Roberts, McCord Clark, v. Ill. v. Ill. 592; (Clark 334 Ill. Meyers, of Peters v. 253, The cases 233.) recent Kulichek, Fisher, Stephenson Ill. and 102, Curtis v. that it is not the existence of Ill. have stated 139, is the for rais- which, relationship alone, ground fiduciary in order to but establish such trust, constructive ing in there must addition to the relation- be, fiduciary trust factor of undue influence. None of these second ship, that a however, destroyed have cases, presump- concept tion of fraud or undue influence arises from confidential nor have shifted the burden of proving relationship, to the the so-called second factor As we dependent party. seek does not the burden of it, view put appellant prov- fraud but contends that there is insuffi- ing upon appellees, i.e., cient evidence to satisfactory establish legal basis, that fraud, for resulting constructive trust, of the trial court finding Bremer had failed to the transaction to prove Louis be fair and equitable likewise the manifest against weight of the evidence. These are the factors which must be de- termined in the evidence. considering
The evidence discloses, on and substance, prior February 23, Fred Bremer each Louis owned an undivided one-half interest in the tract of farm 236-acre and an undivided land, two-fifths interest the 160-acre Another tract. one-fifth interest the latter tract was held by as trustee for their sister, Irma Bremer Esslinger. two brothers owned livestock and equip- ment jointly the farms operated together, usually the farm supervising with work, finan- handling cial affairs. was an at attorney law, while Fred was an experienced businessman, been a having con- building tractor for many years, of real appraiser and a estate, owner part of a Their greenhouse. farm business was oper- ated under the name of and the farm Bros., account *5 In addition to con- in that name. at the bank was carried asso- activities in common were their ducting farming in a lumber ciated business. in addition Fred had acquired,
Prior to depression, business and residential to his farm several land, pieces his however, years, prop- During depression property. at and some of it had to be sold became erty unproductive and he owed substantially reduced, a loss. His income was He was substantial sums of to various creditors. money for the record shows not alone his trouble, however, his that not without financial difficulties. Louis, too, was Fred owed the bank By February, $6300, 1937, Louis owed with and the jointly Fred, partnership operat- $6650 the farms owed total indebtedness ing $2050, aggre- indebtedness gating $15,000. joint with was Louis secured but that of Fred and of the alone partnership and the not, bank was Fred for pressing payment security on his Bank unpaid portions officials, indebtedness. who were in office at the testified that in time, to response their demands Fred he had no replied money with which the debts and pay could not because his give security wife would not sign necessary papers.
The record discloses that over the years prior awas at frequent Louis visitor Fred’s home and it was not uncommon for them to discuss their business and legal problems. Plaintiff Dorothy testified that during one of such visits prior February 23, 1937, Louis pro- posed they borrow some at the money with the farm bank, security, order to clear up indebtedness existing Bros, of Fred and Bremer and to enable to remodel Louis a residence so that it property could be rented, and when assured her the could be mortgage off paid the income from the farm she to the agreed proposition. further She testified that on a second visit two weeks later, said the bank had consented to grant loan; he a produced which he paper asked her sign; room table with dining
he paper upon placed to sign was about Dorothy of it. When hand over top her that indicated to which it she noticed something it, a objected signing whereupon deed paper and that the same as mortgage said was thing find nothing would loan We the bank to partnership. the bank officials that why testimony explains *6 in as tenants loan to or to the brothers partnership any event, not have been In common would acceptable. until to she talked to refused Dorothy sign paper lawyer. the conversations and occurrences related denied
Louis testified he no by Dorothy. He that had deed, mortgage and that he never asked her to any one. paper kind, sign He related of the visit that, involved, occasion he their called attention the debts to the bank; to owing that the bank was him about them that it was calling that he all mentioned of Fred’s getting embarrassing; land would not be worth $10,000 they sell and suggested deed him it to and he would take Fred’s notes at up a note bank, due their sister pay Irma, and hold Fred harm- less on rents due any the sister for the use her interest in the farm and other which the brothers had property been renting. Dorothy then remarked she would not sign until she had seen her anything lawyer.
A days few later, on February 23, 1937, Fred, Dorothy met in the Louis office of Dorothy’s attorney, who had acted for her in other A matters. deed was then exe- cuted Fred and Dorothy their interests conveying to property Louis. Dorothy testified that to the de- prior livery of the deed promised give contract to convey land back when the proceeds from the farming operations repaid indebtedness. Louis contradicted this version of the He transaction. testified that he made no agreement to deed the land back; that both Fred and Dorothy remarked the land was not worth the amount the two told attorney Dorothy’s that debts, Fred’s here because deal good out of pretty were “getting indebtednessand all this this land for is taking would Dorothy they the attorney explained that when “I do she in the farm, replied: interest have no more This it anyway.” out of are not anything we care, getting occa- subsequent Dorothy same attorney represented but Bremer’s death, and after sions both before their cause of this the trial that before shortly appears Before note. unfriendly relation ceased on business had been who Dorothy, however, June, 1947, occurred, reconvey, procured unheeded demands on Louis making in- which attorney, statement from the following at the understanding evidence: “It was troduced into Bremer and time the execution the deed Dorothy to Fred and were to execute a contract wife the mort- them the land when convey agreeing and the undersigned the sum of $18,000 paid, gage executed and never knew but what the contract had been as a witness delivered.” At the trial, attorney appeared Dorothy for the defendants and testified he advised *7 if an and if she she had equity thought property, the farm she should indebtedness, had more value than the the she that she to which answered sign deed, might as from the well deed as received sign nothing farm He further to the execu- anyway. testified prior tion of the deed was said about agreement nothing to deed it back a that after the contract; Louis give deed was asked if he would “contract Dorothy signed Louis it back” and he if he would knew he was replied Louis to his he going money. statement, As to written get testified had been made on moment spur after his memory had been refreshed by Dorothy’s version of the February, transaction. 1937,
On March 1, a note for to 1937, signed $15,000 Louis the bank and a on the tract gave as mortgage 236-acre Fred’s note Bremer took up this note By
security. Louis Fred for and note with joint for $6300, $6650 Thereafter, *8 Owner or Operator,” or “Fred Bremer, Louis Bremer, partnership, by Bremer.” Louis Louis Bremer testified that name his own with Fred’s name appeared together where used inadvert- name was forms, Fred’s on such as owner from AAÁ office county because ently employees from the pre- each new set of papers to copied of the committee county The chairman of year. ceding Association, which supervised Marketing Production “I know testified, however, personally AAA program, me the and gave Bremer in and talked me came Louis and stated exhibits,” spe- information on some those but anyone never with he had worked cifically Louis Bremer on the farm plans. Bros, for Bremer income tax returns for
Partnership and sworn each of the years inclusive, signed 1943-1945, of farm in division Bremer, equal showed Louis income between the two For the year 1946, come brothers. as a from the farm part reported partnership tax income return for another partnership composed Fred and as Bremer Bremer, business Lumber doing income and ex Yard. farm 1040F, Supply Schedule carried the notation “one-half credited pense, typed Fred Bremer and Bremer.” one-half credited to Louis J. The return and sworn two brothers. signed Bremer the prepa personally prepared supervised ration income tax returns of Fred Bremer personal in wife, years Dorothy, these clusive. returns disclosed income from Each Bros, Bremer farm and Dor which partnership income tax. When cross-examined as to othy paid income these tax Bremer claimed his returns, privi self-incrimination refused to lege against explain returns sworn to by him.
All the real-estate taxes and all on farms amounts on notes were out of paid mortgage the bank paid only of Bremer Bros.' The sources of income for account far as discloses, this so the record were the farm- account, land and contributions made operations ing *9 The evidence in the amount of Fred Bremer $1752.20. from Bremer made per that Fred payments discloses of into this account on 5, 1938, $500, funds April sonal and on January 17, 1942, March 23, 1939, $500, on he is that borrowed testimony Bremer’s $752.20. execution of the deed from Fred about a after the year $500 in It be that on April 5, observed and, may again, a of interest in the amount of was 1938, payment $675 made to the bank and March that, 1, 1941, $597-75 to the bank as interest and evi Such paid principal. $200 dence reason reflection Fred’s as whether was gives financial which induced him to make the situation, alone, conveyance Louis. the farm
Beginning and, operations prospered by July, 1944, indebtedness was mortgage completely satisfied. In the December, Fred and following Bremer each withdrew from the bank account $1500 Bremer Bros. notations were made Although customarily on the lower left-hand corner their checks, identifying the transactions rise their issuance, each these giving two checks had the lower left-hand corner torn off. Louis Bremer disclaimed as to who tore off the bottom knowledge A checks. inference permissible is that these two checks were issued to the two as a partners distribution of after profits had off the paid debt. That is mortgage the inference drawn the trial who judge, said, “It really ais coincidence that the Court cannot be asked to believe that this mutilation in at the handling [accidental bank] to both happened of the checks. I have no doubt but what it was a distribution made to them from the farm account.” the rule
Relying upon that the constructive trust arose on the day the deed from Fred and Dorothy to Louis Bremer was executed, or not at all, (Rubin Midlinsky, Ill. 436,) defendants objected to the evidence relating to events and circumstances after the occurring execution of the deed, and contend in this again court that no fact date can change after that occurring or circumstance admissible, evidence the transaction. nature Such date, occur on what did however, help interpret to show is of value case, this further, particular brothers, between confidential relationship continuing executed. deed was before the its long which had inception found that plain- the chancellor evidence, all From con- and convincing proof tiffs established clear of the conveyance did at the time structive trust exist existing that there question; *10 Bremer that that date; between Fred and Louis the took that he reconvey title would prop- understanding after the from the erty, satisfied proceeds mortgage in the the same as existed to the farm, proportion prior transaction; failed to the transaction prove was fair and but in trust; has fact equitable, repudiated and that are entitled relief in to the their plaintiffs prayed It cannot be complaint. questioned the conclusions reached are such as rise the of a existence con- give structive trust. There remains the only as inquiry whether those conclusions are the evidence supported in the clear and manner convincing required.
A fiduciary relation does not arise from the merely fact that are parties Scherman, brothers. (Scherman v. Ill. Nor does the 574.) law assume that a conveyance 395 between brothers is fraudulent on account of A kinship. fiduciary exists as matter a relationship of law between sustain parties who toward each position other of attor ney and client, principal agent, guardian and ward, and the like. (Wennerholm Wennerholm, v. Ill. 254.) 382 a Also, fiduciary in exists relationship every case where, in trust fact, and confidence are by one reposed in person who, as a another, result thereof, gains influence and over superiority the other. Kern, (Steinmetz v. Ill. Where 616.) a fiduciary does relationship not exist as a matter law, must be clear a estab- when claimed as basis to evidence, conclusive O’Neill, lish a Ill. constructive trust. v. (Galvin 475.) exists Thus, of whether relation question fiduciary between so that confidence is one brothers, reposed must the facts and other, all circumstances depend upon of the case. particular of whether the evidence in this case suffi- problem establishes that
ciently occupied at the time the deed was is Fred, executed, one fact for in the first determination, instance, by chancellor who heard the court and heard testimony open and all their witnesses. His him parties enables position to ascertain the true facts more than this easily court can do so, and it has been the rule that we will not reverse long such of fact unless are findings palpably against of the evidence. weight (West LePage, Ill. 131.) We are aided in this case aby particularly thorough scholarly memorandum written opinion chancellor who heard the cause, and, it in relation to considering the entire we find record, which leads us to believe nothing that his existence holding fiduciary relation- ship palpably against weight evidence. While Fred was a businessman competent and Louis experienced is evident lawyer, that in the conduct of *11 their mutual business affairs each brother within operated of the sphere business to which he was best adapted. Fred handled the of their practical business aspects ven- while tures, Louis and managed financial legal aspects. Each within operated his own and each orbit, con- reposed fidence in the other in his Under field. this method of operation, Fred necessarily reposed utmost confidence and trust his brother in the transaction that was designed by and entered Louis into by not parties only for the stabilization of Fred’s financial but situation, for that of and their Louis’s farm as well. partnership At the time deed was disputed executed, evidence shows that had the past, as he done Louis, Fred was depending difficulties him his financial out of way a to lead to provide take, of the farm to care partner- and embarrassment bank The fact to the bank. indebtedness ship individual Fred’s for assistance with Louis approached witnesses several is of a belief, difficulties persuasive do as relied to could be Louis Fred testified, advised. arose whether the here conveyance
The determination of from the circumstance of the between fiduciary relationship it arose Fred, whether independently Louis deliberate, and as the voluntary relation intelligent desire ques- of both the is again grantee grantor, tion of which can best be determined the chan- fact, He cellor. concluded that fraud attached transaction because was to be from the evidence that presumed Louis did not intend to at the time he took reconvey the deed, and that fraud was the fact that established did out his carry While the evidence agreement. as to the agreement reconvey we sharply are not conflicting, inclined to a view different adopt from that of the chan- cellor who was to determine the position credibility the witnesses and the be accorded their weight testimony. His memorandum indicates a opinion thorough analysis the evidence and an evaluation of the conflicting testimony. We find his conclusions to be amply supported. Appellant’s view that the transaction awas sale from Fred, conceived and entered into for the solely purpose relieving of his financial burdens, and that it was not engendered by the fiduciary is difficult relationship, in view of adopt the fact that the same transaction also alleviated indebted- ness of and of the farm partnership. testimony of the parties to the relating negotiations which led to the deed suggests business in which arrangement did agree rather reconvey, than sale. outright The same is true of the interpretation placed parties themselves
468 manner in which as evidenced transaction,
on was after the deed was given. the farm operated partnership have shown with the chancellor We appellees agree relation and a abuse subsequent the existence of a the confidence sufficient to establish a construc- reposed, tive trust.
It is that when a donee true, appellant suggests, deed has received under an oral to hold it realty promise the donor in reliance another, for has, Statute refused to and has retained Frauds, perform promise his relief own of a constructive use, by way property trust is v. Hajicek, denied. Ill. generally (Suchy 502; 364 A Morris, Catherwood v. Ill. 617.) recognized excep 345 tion to the rule however, where a confidential prevails, exists between House- grantor grantee. Steinke, v. Kochorimbus wright 398; Ill. v. Maggos, 326 Kern 510; Beatty, Ill. v. Ill. 323 267 has also but failed Appellant raised, at any argue length, five-year Statute as a Limitations special defense. The Statute of does not strictly Limitations apply to suits in equity. (Moneta v. Ill. Hoffman, Green 56; 249 man Greenman, v. Ill. There can 404.) be no laches 107 where there is no and mere will delay not bar knowledge, relief where the injured was of the fraud party ignorant and filed his within bill a reasonable time after acquiring of it. knowledge (Duncan v. Dazey, Ill. Bishop 500; Thompson, v. Ill. 206.) facts here show that within acted appellees reasonable time after the mortgage from the completely paid proceeds farm, and after it became manifest that did not intend to keep agreement reconvey. makes the
Appellant contention in this court that was erroneous for the trial court to order the deed set aside and the land because partitioned, Ireta Bremer, wife of Bremer, not made a party defendant. This court held in Cole Cole, Ill. that husband or wife suit to a a necessary party is not in common of a tenant *13 to be divested liability as the real estate, the partition the law affixes is an incident which a sale by partition inchoate joint estates, the of all and the right to seizin in the is and exists only dower to incident subject corn- which the tenant in realty share of or personalty is In no man takes in there severalty by partition. addition, claim to wife was party showing Louis’s to It not error for the court reconvey. agreement to a decree. proceed
The decree the circuit court County, of Vermilion in our it is is and therefore opinion, correct, affirmed.
Decree affirmed. no in the Mr. Bristow took consideration part Justice or decision of this case.
Mr. Crampton, dissenting: Justice When a constructive trust is claimed must the evidence be clear and and must establish convincing certainly definitely the terms In trust. this case Dor- alleged othy, Fred, W. O. were the only Edwards at the persons present time the deed was executed, Fred has since died. The only testimony supporting decree that of arid this is Dorothy, contradicted directly but only by also own by testimony of her attorney matter, W. It is there O. true, Edwards. are subsequent statements made by reports government and in agencies documents to other relating different which matters, tend disclose recognition some interest in Fred. But remaining such statements are at least balanced by evidence of subsequent statements made no Fred, with apparent serve purpose thereby, to the effect that he had all his conveyed interest to his brother. It is manifest that the trust was not established by evidence which is definite, and clear, unequivocal character. Neagle McMullen, See Ill. ten after the deed years lived for more than indi- far he never as the record discloses
delivered, so never claimed transaction, dissatisfaction any cated with at the time he had his brother he been overreached hav- and never even at deed, executed the regret expressed If felt he his interest in the he conveyed property. ing time his been there was during had ample imposed if he so have invoiced the aid lifetime, desired, to and to have he have suffered. any may courts righted wrong he did not On the all This, contrary, do. however, during the time his death he years recognized up farms as to his and on least solely brother, at belonging one occasion satisfaction with cleared expressed having up conveyance. debts Under such circumstances, *14 evidence introduced even by plaintiffs, though tending some to show an trust, oral to hold in degree agreement far the falls short of standard to set aside a deed required for fraud or undue influence. if it is the assumed, case,
Fven of this purpose the evidence the sufficiently shows existence of a verbal to reconvey after the debts the agreement bank had been satisfied from the the proceeds farms, of the decree would still not be for the justified, would within be agreement the of Statute Frauds. Defendants the having pleaded it was statute, incumbent upon establish plaintiffs by clear and evidence that convincing Fred was induced to enter the transaction some fraud or undue influ- through ence on the There is part no Louis. this record proof that fraudulent were or representations made undue means resorted to by to influence and Dorothy execute the deed. The matter at fully discussed and to the prior at which the deed meeting signed, conveyance was made in the presence Dorothy’s attorney, whom she had consulted with reference to the matter, there is no that Fred was dispute fully to trans- competent act business. an If, then, oral or understanding agreement show only it could as claimed existed plaintiffs, relief could as which trust, an express .existence entirely Statute without disregarding be granted rule Ill. Williams, 180 361.) Frauds. v. (Williams of authority citation is too settled require where land, grantee trust between a grantor express land in trust for the grantor to hold the grantee is invalid to him a certain is to reconvey contingency, some under the statute unless evidenced writing signed grantee. sufficiently Plaintiffs contend the evidence shows existence of a between Fred and fiduciary relationship with the latter as the dominant Louis, they urge party, the rule that in such cases the burden rests the domi- nant to show that the transaction was fair and party equi- table did not from undue influence. The de- proceed fendant on the maintains a fiduciary other Louis, hand, was not shown to exist transaction relationship It is February the mere facts that true, are brothers and tenants in parties and that common, the farm land as do not operate of themselves partners, show that a exists in a transaction where is at arm’s In the dealing absence of length. that one cotenant showing trust and reposed confidence in the there is no other, that a presumption conveyance between them results from fraud or undue influence. (McDonald McDonald, Ill. It 388.) is, however, at unnecessary case bar to decide this question. *15 Here, we again, may assume for the present that purpose a fiduciary was established the by evidence and that was shown to be the dominant For, party. even under such the of circumstances, execution the deed must be held valid if it it was executed appears with full of the nature and of knowledge effect the conveyance and resulted from the deliberate, voluntary and de- intelligent of sire both and not grantee grantor through influence 472 Winkel- their (Winkelman v. by relationship.
engendered Valbert, man, Ill. The 249; Valbert Ill. v. 415.) alone is not the basis existence of fiduciary relationship a constructive but there must addition trust, for raising factor of undue influence. there is be the second While no that second factor where presumption present to the is made con- contrary by showing grantee, not be set aside if it is that no undue will shown veyance was taken means of the fiduci- advantage grantor Meyers, (Peters ary Ill. relationship. 253, 259.) the deed The evidence here shows that great weight executed as a result desire voluntary and not because of undue influence exerted any grantors them by Louis. In the case at Bremer and her bar, children Dorothy were the material witnesses only testifying plaintiffs’ whereas her foimer behalf, attorney’s testimony supported that of defendant and several Bremer, prominent disinterested witnesses testified for defendants as to subse- statements made quent the decedent. The record dis- closes that the amount of Fred’s liabilities discharged to the substantially equivalent value of (cid:127) Fred’s interest and that no property, complaint the transaction was made until after Fred’s death and the market value real estate had risen. appreciably in the case at that evidence, bar, shows the trans- action did arise out of the relation but from Fred’s desire relieve himself debts; of his it took at arm’s in the office of place length Dorothy’s attoimey; it was fair and at the time it equitable was entered into; and that Fred did not thereafter of any complain abuse of confidence or claim the to a right reconveyance.
Not unmindful of the rule that, when the evidence is the decree of the chancellor will not conflicting, be reversed unless manifestly of the I against am weight evidence, decree is opinion mani- present against *16 establish it is fest evidence. Where sought weight must be testimony, a constructive trust proof parol unmis- and so clear, uneqeuivocal convincing, strong, If takable to lead but one the evidence conclusion. is doubtful or of reasonable capable explanation theories other than the existence of the is not suffi- trust, cient to a decree the trust. support declaring enforcing
(No. 32057. People of Defendant in Illinois, the State Er ror, vs. U. Plaintiff Tilley, Donald Error. Opinion January 24, Rehearing denied March filed farm notes Louis totalling partnership $2050. The the indebtedness to Irma. also made payments refinanced in when indebtedness was Louis $15,000 a and for $11,000, and his wife executed note mortgage and acres of the lien was final payment clearing made in Bremer died It May 6, Fred July, 1944. death, does that at time to Fred’s any not appear prior ever Dorothy Fred and had a contract or deed requested in- from Defendants several witnesses, produced Louis. the bank, former two other broth- president cluding ers Fred, tenant on farm, stenographer Louis’s and the local testified office, many who postmaster, conversations with Fred subsequent February 23, 1937, in which he stated that the farms and belonged Louis had he sold and his interest deeded in con- Louis sideration of the latter his debts. paying For the it was that after shown the transaction plaintiffs February business 23, 1937, relationships Bremer continued Louis as before. The bank account farm for the remained in the operations name of Bremer Bros. Fred checks on the just account signed he had done before the conveyance, continued to handle Louis the financial affairs farm. relating Fred continued to work on and assist with the management farms, which were leased in the names of both brothers. farms were insured in both names. The United De- States partment AAA records Agriculture listed both Fred and Bremer Louis as owners of the farms after the convey- ance ; AAA farm plans applications payments were either “Fred signed Bremer” as “Title Owners,” “Fred and Bremer, by Louis Bremer, “Fred Agent,” and Louis Bremer, Bros., by Bremer as