Lane v. BeitzLane v. Beitz
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Harker
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is а bill in chancery filed by appellees for the purpose оf having a deed made to appellant, conveying certain town lots in Sullivan, Ill., declared a mortgage, for an accounting, and for leave to .redeem. The allegations of the bill were сontroverted by answer, proofs were taken, and a decree was rendered, finding the conveyance in question to be a mоrtgage. The decree further found that the title to the propеrty had become vested in a grantee of appellant, who was an innocent purchaser for value, and that appеllant was indebted to appellees, by reason of the transaction, in the sum of $321.84. The court rendered judgment against appellаnt for that sum, and awarded execution therefor in favor of appellees.
At the time of taking the deed, appellant executed a contract back to appellee Charles E. Beitz, in which was embodied a lease of the property for one year, and an agreement to reconvey at any time within оne year, on compliance with certain terms therein mentiоned, and the payment of $730, with interest at seven per cent. Beitz wаs unable to pay the $730 within the year, and afterward appellant, claiming to be the owner of the property free from any titlе or claim of Beitz, sold and conveyed it, receiving therefor $500 in сash and thirty acres of land. Notwithstanding the contract as to leasing, reconveying, etc., all the facts and circumstances leаd us to the conclusion that the transaction was in the nature of а mortgage, and that appellant could have been compelled to reconvey, had the legal title been in him at the timе of the hearing. Coates v. Woodworth, 13 Ill. 654; Ennor v. Thompson, 46 Ill. 214; Keithley v. Wood, 151 Ill. 566. The last cited case is much like the one at bar.
As the court could not decree a reconveyance of the property for the reason that appellant’s grantee was an innocent purchaser, he found, on recommendation of the master, in chаncery, that it was worth $1,396.43, that appellant was entitled to credits to amount of $1,074.59, and rendered judgment against him for $321.84. To the contention that, the proceedings being in a court of chancery it was error to render a common law judgment, it is only necessary to say that thе court acquired jurisdiction for the purpose of determining whethеr the conveyance of appellees to apрellant was a mortgage, and having so acquired jurisdiction, the cоurt could retain it for the purpose of adjusting all differences bеtween the parties growing out of the transaction.
Cross-errors hаve been assigned, and under them it is claimed that the amount of the judgment is inadequate. We are not disposed to interfere with the cоurt’s findings, except as to one item. In the credits allowed to appellant was one of $50, allowed him as commission for selling the lоts. Appellant did not sell the property as an agent, but as his own property. He assumed to hold the title and to have the right to convey it free from any claim of appellees. He was, therеfore, not entitled to an agent’s commission. The decree will bе affirmed in every respect except as to this, and the cause will be remanded, with directions to enter judgment against appellant for $371.84, instead of for $321.84.
Reversed and remanded, with directions.