Murphy v. MurphyMurphy v. Murphy
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Orr
delivered the opinion of the court:
This сase comes from the circuit court of Madison county оn a writ of error procured by Patrick Murphy, (herein called dеfendant,) alleging error in a chancery proceeding whеrein Emma Murphy was awarded partition in a tract of land which she owned with defendant as tenant in common.
Patrick Murphy and Emma Murphy had been husband and wife, but she procured a divorce in Madisоn county because of his faults. The evidence and proсeedings .in the divorce action are not included in the record in this case except a copy of the decree of divorce, which was introduced in evidence at the hearing before the master in chancery. All presumptions, therefore, are in favor of the validity of the decree. The divоrce decree, evidently in compliance with a prayer in the bill, adjusted the rights of the parties in real estate which they held in joint tenancy, and this same property is the subject mattеr of the partition suit. The divorce decree changed the joint tenancy to a tenancy in common, thereby terminating thе right of survivorship. The decree made no award of alimony tо Emma Murphy.
The errors assigned by defendant can be embodied in оne issue, namely, Does a court of equity in an action for divоrce have the power to change a joint tenancy of the litigating parties into a tenancy in common in adjusting and settling their property rights? By raising this issue defendant collaterally attаcks the divorce decree. This he can not do. (Clarke v. Lott, 11 Ill. 105; Marvin v. Collins, 48 id. 156; Hewitt v. Long, 76 id. 399.) When a court becomes fully invested with jurisdiction its judgment is absolutely binding and conclusive in all collateral proceedings; and this is true on a trial on a bill in equity as well as in a court оf law. (Hernandez v. Drake, 81 Ill. 34.) Furthermore, the changing by the divorce decree of the joint tenancy to a tenancy in commоn is immaterial, as section 1 of the Partition act (Smith’s Stat. 1929, chaр. 106, p. 2121,) gives to a joint tenant as well as to a tenant in commоn the right to a partition. In Hill v. Reno, 112 Ill. 154, this court held, in accordanсe with well settled and long established law, that the right to partition is imperative and absolutely binding upon courts of equity where a сase is fairly brought within the law authorizing such proceeding. Partition has become a matter of right and not of mere grace. An ex-animation of the conveyance creating the joint tеnancy between the parties and of the divorce, deсree separating them does not disclose any language restricting the right to partition or any language creating spеcial equities that would make partition itself inequitable. Partitiоn proceedings in chancery must conform to the Partition аct. An examination of the record shows that complainаnt followed the requirements of the act, and consequently dеfendant has no ground for complaint.
The constitutional objеctions raised by defendant are predicated upon the joint tenancy being founded upon a contractual basis and that he has been deprived of his property without due process of law. These contentions are without merit.
The decree of the circuit court in awarding partition is affirmed.
n Decree affirmed.