Bremer v. Calumet & Chicago Canal & Dock Co.

Citations

• 123 Ill. 104
• 13 N.E. 837

Syllabus

<p>1. Freehold—whether iwoolmed—on bill to remove cloud on title—trying legal titles in equity. Except under special circumstances, a freehold is not involved in a bill to remove an alleged cloud upon title to land, although it is necessary for the complainant to allege title in his bill. Courts of equity will not, under the guise of removing a cloud, try legal titles, but will remit them to a court of law.</p> <p>2. Same—the pwrticula/r case. A, the owner of real estate, sold the same to B, who gave therefor his three notes for the unpaid price, bearing eight per cent interest, secured by deed of trust on the premises, and on a sale under the trust deed A became the purchaser, and received a deed. B made a conveyance to C, which A sought to have set aside as a cloud on his title. B and C answered, and by cross-bill set up, that by a subsequent arrangement with A new notes were given for the price, without interest until their maturity, secured by a mortgage without any power of sale, and sought to have the sale under the trust deed set aside, and this charge was denied. The court denied the specific relief prayed, but under the general prayer allowed a redemption from the trustee’s sale, thereby practically setting aside the trustee’s deed: Held, that on the issues under the cross-bill the question of a freehold was involved, and therefore a writ of error did not lie from the Appellate Court, and this, regardless of the fact whether A objected to the decree on the ground it gave him money in place of the land.</p> <p>3. Allegations and proofs—in chancery. In a chancery suit, proofs without corresponding allegations in the bill are just as unavailing to a party as allegations without proof.</p>