delivered the opinion of the court:
This is an appeal from a judgment of the county court of Eichland county, denying the application of the appellant, as administrаtor de bonis non of the estate of Henry Palmer, deceased, for an order of sale of real estate to pay debts.
Henry Palmer died intestate in the year 1883. He left Mariah L. Palmer, his widow, and the appellees, his son and daughters and sole and only heirs-at-law, him surviving. His son, Thomas P. Palmer, on June 18,1883, was appointed administrator of his estate. An award of §705 was set off to the widow and claims amounting to a large sum were allowed against his estate. The personal property and all the real estate except the homestead were sold and the proceeds used in the payment of debts, and on March 16, 1887, the administrator made a final report and was discharged. At the timе of such discharge there remained unpaid about §2000 of' seventh-class claims. At the time of his death Henry Palmer and his family occupied as a homestead the premises sought to be sold, which consist of a house and about one acre of land, situated in the village of Noble, in said county, and was of a value not to exceed §1000. After the death of her husband Mrs. Palmer continued to occupy the homestеad, and remained in possession thereof until her death, on the 23d day of February, 1901. After the death of Mrs. Palmer one of the creditors filed a petition in the county court for the appointment of the appellant, and he was duly appointed administrator de bonis non оf the estate of Henry Palmer, deceased, and thereafter filed a petition, under the statute, for an order to sell said homestеad for the payment of debts. The heirs of Henry Palmer, deceased, were made parties defendant and answered said petitiоn, setting up as a defense thereto, and now urge, that said homestead is not subject to be sold for the payment of the debts of Henry Palmеr, deceased, on the ground that the said Mariah L. Palmer held title to said homestead property at the time of her death, under section 6, chapter 83, of an act entitled “An act in regard to limitations,” approved April 4,1872, in force July 1,1872, (Hurd’s Stat. 1899, p. 1117,) and that they now own the samе as her heirs. To sustain such contention the appellees introduced in evidence a tax deed from the county clerk of Richland county to S. A. Cochennour, dated September 25, 1885, for “a part of the west half of the northeast quarter of section 17, town 3, north, range 9, east, in Richland county, Illinois, containing one acre, more or less;” also a deed from S. A. Cochennour to Robert Flanders, dated October 16, 1886; also a deed from Robert Flanders to Mariah L. Palmer, dated January 12,1889, for the same premises; also tax receipts for the tаxes upon one acre of land, being a part of the west half of the north-east quarter of section 17, township 3, range 9, Richland cоunty, Illinois, for the years 1888 to 1894, inclusive, and proved that Mariah L. Palmer was in possession of such premises from January 12, 1889, to the time of her death.
The law is well settled that where the homestead premises do not exceed $1000 in value they cannot be sold to pay debts by the administrator of a deceased householder until after the termination of the exemption in favor of the widow and children, (Hartman v. Schultz,
To defeat the right of the appellant to sell said homestead premises for the payment of said claims it became and wаs necessary for the appellees to establish an adverse title by limitation. This could only be done by showing, first, claim and color of titlе made in good faith; second, seven successive years’ possession by Mariah L. Palmer, or the appellees, under such colоr of title; and third, payment of taxes during the seven years’ possession. (Taylor v. Lawrence,
The property in question was sold on the 28th day of May, 1883, for the taxes of the year 1882. At the time оf the sale Mariah L. Palmer was in possession of said premises as a homestead and was tenant for life thereof. (Hurd’s Stat. 1899, chap. 52, p. 867.) As such tenant for life it was her duty to pay the taxes on said premises, (Cooley on Taxation, — 2d ed. — p. 467; 25 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, — 1st ed. — p. 708;) and she could nоt neglect to pay the same and suffer the same to be sold, and become the purchaser, either directly or indirectly, at such sale, and thus acquire a valid title thereto; (Lewis v. Ward,
The county court erred in refusing to grant the prayer of,the petition and in failing to order a sale of said premises to pay said claims. Its judgment, therefore, is reversed and the cause remanded to that court for further proceedings in conformity with the views herein expressed.
Reversed and remanded.