{
  "id": 2515588,
  "name": "William Schroeder v. William H. Wolf",
  "name_abbreviation": "Schroeder v. Wolf",
  "decision_date": "1906-06-26",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 12,539",
  "first_page": "506",
  "last_page": "510",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "127 Ill. App. 506"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "97 Ill. 156",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2842716
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/97/0156-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "168 Ill. 384",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3188771
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/168/0384-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 474,
    "char_count": 8927,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.581,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.087085966315723e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3776260700913451
    },
    "sha256": "680c203cd579ef6f4a8a84bcc153b069c10877030ba0ab4203e7410958be3c0f",
    "simhash": "1:e1fe0d939715d049",
    "word_count": 1515
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:18:02.092160+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William Schroeder v. William H. Wolf."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Freeman\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nIt is apparent from the undisputed evidence that the original trust deed executed by Thomas Cronin September 8, 1894, never having been released of record, was not discharged nor its lien affected by the unauthorized arrangement made by Schumacher in accordance with which he secured a conveyance of Cronin\u2019s equity in the premises in controversy nominally to Maggie A. Horn, his employee, but actually for his own use and benefit, as his subsequent conduct disclosed. When Mrs. Anna Schroeder, deceased, by her agent purchased from Schumacher the note and trust deed made by Dimond she seems to have accepted it and paid the money for it in blind reliance upon Schumacher\u2019s honesty. Had she caused the records to be examined she would have discovered that the Dimond trust deed purported to convey at the most nothing but the equity in the property therein inaccurately described, subject to the original Cronin trust deed owned by appellant. Schumacher had never ventured to release the Cronin trust deed of record, having, so far as appears, no authority to do so and possibly fearing the consequences which might result to him if he did so. . At the time of her purchase, an examination of the record would have shown not only that Dimond had at the best nothing more than an equity in the land covered by his trust deed, but that he did not even possess that, the conveyance to him by Maggie Horn covering a lot in \u201cblock 5 in Corwith\u2019s resubdivision\u201d instead of \u201cblock 15,\u201d where the land in controversy is located.\nThe Cronin note secured by his trust deed was not paid, nor was the trust deed satisfied by the transaction which resulted in Cronin\u2019s conveying his equity to Maggie Horn for Schumacher. The latter paid Cronin $75 for the conveyance of his equity, but as Cronin\u2019s testimony shows, the note never was paid. The trust deed never was released of record. Ho reason appears, therefore, why appellee could not maintain his bill of foreclosure. The mere marking of the note and trust deed \u201cpaid\u201d did not affect the fact, and so far as appears, the deceased, Mrs.- Schroeder, made no ex-animation to ascertain the condition of the title and never knew of the existence of appellee\u2019s trust deed. She was not, therefore, deceived .by Schumacher\u2019s fraudulent and false indorsement on appellee\u2019s note and trust deed, which she never saw. See Jones on Mortgages, 6 Ed., sec. 918, also sec. 967. In Hilliard on Mortgages, Vol. 1, Chap. XVII, sec. 3, it is said that the general rule is that \u201cnothing short of actual payment of the debt or an expi-ess release will operate as a discharge of the mortgage. The lien lasts as long as the debt.\u201d Schumacher as agent of appellee had, so far as appears, no authority to buy Cronin\u2019s equity of redemption for $75, and his subsequent conduct is inconsistent with the view that it was in any way authorized.by appellee, the owner of the incumbrance. Even as between appellee and Cronin, the act of Schumacher in marking the notes and trust deed as \u201cpaid\u201d would not operate to release the debt. In McClintock v. Helberg, 168 Ill. 384-392, it is said that \u201can attorney has no power without express authority to bind his client by a compromise of a pending suit or other matter intrusted to his care. * * * He cannot commute a debt or materially change the security which his client may have without his consent; nor has he the power to assign or sell a claim or judgment of his client without special authority.\u201d There is no evidence tending to show that Schumacher was the agent of appellee to purchase Cronin\u2019s equity nor to write \u201cpaid\u201d upon the note and trust deed in his possession. As said in Keohane v. Smith, 97 Ill. 156-160, \u201cThe fact of such agency was an affirmative issue resting on defendants to prove.\u201d This has not been done.\nWe find no material error in the decree complained of and it must be affirmed;\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Freeman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mason & Wyman, for appellant.",
      "J. G-. G-Rossberg, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William Schroeder v. William H. Wolf.\nGen. No. 12,539.\n1. Trust deed\u2014what does not release lien of. The lien of a trust deed is not released until the debt secured thereby has been paid.\n2. Attorney\u2014extent of authority to cancel obligation to client. An attorney has no power, without express authority, to cancel and mark \u201c paid \u201d an obligation due to his client.\n8. Records\u2014effect of failure to examine. One who purchases real estate without examining the public records does so at his peril.\nForeclosure proceeding. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, the Hon. John L. Healy, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1905.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed June 26, 1906.\nStatement by the Court. This is an appeal from a foreclosure proceeding begun by appellee, as the holder of a note for $1,200 made by one Thomas Cronin, September 8, 1894, payable to his own order and by him indorsed, secured by a trust deed to Charles C. Schumacher as trustee, which conveyed the premises therein described.\nIt appears that complainant was the owner of said note and left it with three coupons and the trust deed with said Charles C. Schumacher, to be foreclosed, receiving from him a receipt therefor^ which stated that he received the papers \u201cto be foreclosed.\u201d Subsequently Schumacher handed the instruments to a lawyer with instructions to begin ejectment and foreclosure proceedings. This was done' and as a result of negotiations apparently brought about by the litigation, Cronin and wife upon receipt of $75 paid them by Schumacher, executed and delivered a deed conveying the mortgaged property to one Maggie A. Horn, an employee of Schumacher\u2019s, and the latter caused the original notes and trust deed to be marked \u201cPaid February 15,1899.\u201d The foreclosure and ejectment suits were then dismissed, but the Cronin trust deed was not released. Of these proceedings, conducted under the direction of Schumacher, complainant Wolf, the owner of the note and trust deed, was apparently ignorant. Subsequently, March 20, 1899, Maggie A. Horn, Schumacher\u2019s employee to whom the title to the mortgaged premises had been conveyed by the Cronins, conveyed the land at Schumacher\u2019s direction to one Frank M. Dimond. The deed making this conveyance was recorded April 10, 1899, and contained an error in description which was corrected by a later deed of June 22,1903, recorded June 23, 1903. Meanwhile Dimond executed and delivered a note dated January 7, 1903, for $1,500 payable to his own order and by him indorsed, secured by a trust deed to Schumacher as trustee.\nThe situation then was this: Schumacher who had received for foreclosure from complainant Wolf, its owner, the original note and trust deed made by Cronin, had made an arrangement with the debtor and obtained a conveyance of the mortgaged property to an employee of his own who held it for Schumacher himself. He apparently concealed the transaction from appellee Wolf and had the land conveyed to a third party named Dimond, who also took title and held it for Schumacher, gave no consideration for the conveyance and himself had no interest in the property. At Schumacher\u2019s request and as a favor to him, Dimond executed a note for $1,500 to his own order and by him indorsed, which was secured on the land by trust -deed to Schumacher as trustee. Both the note and trust deed were delivered to Schumacher, this transaction also being, so far as appears, without the knowledge of complainant Wolf. Schumacher then in 1902 sold the Dimond note of $1,500 dated June 7, 1902, with interest coupons and trust deed of the same date obligingly made for him by the latter, to Anna Schroeder, since deceased, receiving therefor the full, face value, which, so far as appears, he seems to have appropriated to his own use. Neither she nor her agent examined the records to ascertain the condition of the- title.\nAppellee Wolf filed his bill to foreclose the original Cronin trust deed which with the note for $1,200 thereby secured he had placed in Schumacher\u2019s hands for foreclosure and collection, claiming that said note has never been paid. On the other hand appellant as administrator of the estate of his mother Anna Schroeder, deceased, who seems to have purchased of Schumacher in good faith the note given by Dimond for $1,500, secured by the latter\u2019s trust deed on the same land, claims that the Cronin note was actually paid and cancelled, and that Schumacher was, in effect, authorized by Wolf to do what he did.\nThe master found in favor of appellant\u2019s contention that Anna Schroeder must be considered a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of complainant\u2019s claim, and recommended that appellee\u2019s bill be dismissed for want of equity. The chancellor sustained complainant\u2019s exceptions to the master\u2019s report, found in favor of complainant and-decreed the sale and foreclosure of the premises to satisfy complainant\u2019s claim.\nMason & Wyman, for appellant.\nJ. G-. G-Rossberg, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0506-01",
  "first_page_order": 524,
  "last_page_order": 528
}