ADA WILSON NELSON, Aрpellant, vs. ALFRED WILSON et al. Appellees.
No. 18100
June 23, 1928
CHARLES J. TRAINOR, for appellees.
Mr. COMMISSIONER PARTLOW reported this opinion:
On July 19, 1924, appellant, Ada Wilson Nelson, filed her bill in the circuit court of Cook county against appellees, Alfred Wilson, Eva Erickson, Irv. Erickson, the Chicago Title and Trust Company, John C. Berg and Emma C. Berg, to set aside certain deeds. Two years latеr an amended bill was filed. A demurrer was sustained to the amended bill, it was dismissed for want of equity, and an appeal has been prosecuted to this court.
The bill alleged that appellant was born in Sweden on July 31, 1885. When she was nine years old she was brought to this country by Clara J. Wilson and Alfred Wilson, her aunt and uncle, and shе lived with them as their child for many years. Her name was Eda Maria Alm, but she was known as Ada Wilson. Clara Wilson, who was her father‘s sister, owned two lots in Chicago. On one of them was a two-story frame house and the other was vacant. Clara Wilson died January 5, 1898, leaving a will, in which she devised the lot on which the house was loсated to appellant, subject to the homestead rights of the testatrix‘s husband, who was to have the use of the premises as long as he occupied them as a home. The will directed the executor to sell the vacant lot and use the proceeds for the education and suppоrt of appellant. The executor refused
The bill alleged that appellant, by reason of her having been brought to this country by her aunt and uncle when a mere child and having lived in their household at various times, was told they would adopt her; that by virtue of said relation Wilson exercised a parental control over and a fiduciary relation toward her, and that she as a dutiful child submitted to his will, orders and commands; that immediately after the death of Clara Wilson, Wilson began conniving, scheming and designing to deprivе and divest appellant of the property; that in 1900 he married Ida C. Wilson, and with her assistance continued to so conspire, scheme and connive; that for the purpose of accomplishing this end he told appellant it was necessary that she quit-claim the property to him; that he falsеly and fraudulently told her that the property would be sold by the sheriff to pay debts against the estate, when in truth and in fact the only claims filed against the estate were two doctor bills, aggregating $265; that he falsely and fraudulently represented to her that if she would quit-claim the property to him it would be safe from sale and execution and would revert to her after his death; that at that time she was eighteen years of age and had no worldly experience and was not familiar with transactions of this kind, and by reason of the utmost trust, confidence and implicit faith which she had in Wilson, on July 7, 1904, she executed a quit-claim deed to him for the property, which deed was recorded July 13, 1904; that in furtherance of the conspiracy Wilson and wife executed a quit-claim deed to the property
Appellant insists that the bill stated sufficient facts to excuse and explain any laches on her part and that the demurrer was improperly sustained. She insists that laches should not prevail where the bill alleges fraud and the commencement of an equitable action for relief within a reasonable time after the discovery thereof; that the allegations of the bill as to a fiduciary relation, parental control, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation, ignorance, youth and inexperience were sufficient to overcome any charge of laches.
Equity does not encourage or enforce stale claims. (McMeen v. Grant, 268 Ill. 64.) Mere lapse of time is no bar to equitable relief where a reasonable excuse for the delay appears from the bill. (Duncan v. Dazey, 318 Ill. 500; Moneta v. Hoffman, 249 id. 56; Middaugh v. Fox, 135 id. 344.) A delay beyond the time fixed by the Statute of Limitations must be explainеd by averments in the bill before a complainant will be entitled to relief. (Totten v. Totten, 294 Ill. 70; Coryell v. Klehm, 157 id. 462; Harding v. Durand, 138 id. 515; Walker v. Ray, 111 id. 315.) In Howe v. South Park Comrs. 119 Ill. 101, and Oliver v. Ross, 289 id. 624, it was held that the party who challenges the title of his adversary to real property must be diligent in discovering that which will avoid the title and render it invalid and must be diligent in his application for re-
The bill shows that appellant came to America in 1894, when she was nine years old. Clara Wilson died in 1898, when appellant was thirteen years old. Appellant began work for herself in 1899, when she was fourteen years old, and continued such work until she was married, in 1918, at the age of thirty-three years. The deed from her to Wilson was executed July 7, 1904, when she was about nineteen years old. The original bill was not filed until six years after she was married and the amended bill was filed two years later, which was ovеr twenty years after the execution of the deed. The bill alleged that by reason of appellant having lived in the Wilson home at various times they told her they would adopt her; that by virtue of such relationship Wilson exercised a parental control over and a fiduciary relation towards her, аnd that she as a dutiful child submitted to his will, orders and commands. There is no allegation as to when, or how long, such relation existed, or that she ever lived in Wilson‘s home after she went to work at the age of fourteen years, or that he ever sustained a fiduciary relation to her after she was fourteen yeаrs old, which was five years before the deed was executed. These allegations were not sufficient to show a fidu-
The bill alleged that after the death of Clara Wilson Wilson connived, schemed and designed to deprive and divest appellant of her property, and that this continued after his marriage to Ida Wilson, in 1900. There is no allegation as to what constituted this conniving, scheming and designing. There are no facts stated except that Wilson told appellant it was necessary that she deed the proрerty to him; that he falsely and fraudulently told her the property would be sold by the sheriff to pay debts, and if she would deed it to him it would be saved from sale and would revert to her at his death. There is no allegation of any demand ever having been made by appellant upon Wilson to convey the title so it wоuld revert to her upon his death or any refusal on his part to do so. From all that is alleged in the bill he may have so fixed the title or may have been willing to do so, in either of which events he would have complied with this part of the contract. The bill shows that there was a mortgage of $600 on the property, claims of $265 had been allowed against the estate with no personal property out of which to pay them, and a petition had been filed to sell the property to pay the debts. Under this state of facts the property would probably have been sold to pay debts if some actiоn had not been taken by someone to prevent such a sale. So far as appears from the bill these statements made by Wilson may have been true. The property was saved from sale, and it may yet be left to appellant upon the death of Wilson.
After the property was deedеd by appellant to Wilson he deeded it to Berg, who deeded it back to Wilson and wife. A son was born to Wilson and Ida. Ida died in 1916. The bill prayed that the son be made a party to the bill, but he was not made a party. There is no allegation as to what became of the interest of the son, who was an heir оf his mother. It is alleged that on the death of Ida
It is alleged that appellant was unaware of the fraud that had been perpetrated upon her until 1923, when she was so advised by her friends. The only fraud alleged is the statement of Wilson to her that she should deed the property to him or the property would be sold by the sheriff and if she would deed it to him it would be saved from sale and execution and would revert to her after his death. All of these statements were made directly to appellant either before or at the time the deed was executed. She did not have to be informed of these matters by any of her friends. According to the allegations of the bill she was told by her friends in 1923 something she had known for almost twenty years. She was nineteen years old when she executed the deed. She was in possession of all of her faculties during all of the twenty years that elapsed after the deed was executed and before the bill was filed. If during that time there were facts which would put her upon inquiry as an ordinarily prudent person, she was chargeable with such knowledgе as could have been obtained by such inquiry. The property at the time the deed was executed was subject, and still is subject, to the homestead and dower of Wilson. It was mortgaged for $600 and was subject to the claims allowed against the estate of
The bill alleged that Wilson and wife conveyed the premises to the Chicago Title and Trust Company on September 12, 1911, to secure the payment оf an indebtedness of $600, due in five years; that this indebtedness is barred by the Statute of Limitations and it has been paid although not released of record, but there is no prayer for relief against the Chicago Title and Trust Company. There is no prayer for relief against Eva and Irv. Erickson, who are alleged to be in possession of a part of the premises. There is no allegation as to the nature of their occupancy, whether as tenants, grantees or otherwise. Being in possession they are presumptively in lawful possession. Without some allegation concerning their interest and a prayеr for relief the bill was not complete and failed to state a cause of action against them.
The bill failed to state sufficient facts to show such fiduciary relation, parental control, fraud, misrepresentation, ignorance, youth and inexperience as entitle appellant to a decree. It failed to state sufficient facts to excuse her long continued delay in filing her bill. In the other respects above mentioned the bill was defective, and the demurrer was properly sustained.
The decree dismissing the bill for want of equity will be affirmed.
Per CURIAM: The foregoing opinion reported by Mr. Commissioner Partlow is hereby adopted as the opinion of the court, and judgment is entered in accordance therewith.
Decree affirmed.