#### Robert S. Iles and Robert D. Martin, Defendants in Error, v. Julius Heidenreich et al. Julius Heidenreich, Plaintiff in Error. Michael Zimmer, Sheriff, Defendant in Error, v. Robert S. Iles et al. Julius Heidenreich, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 22,554.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Error to the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Denis E. Sullivan, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1915.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed November 14, 1916.

Statement of the Case.

Creditor’s bill by Robert S. lies and Robert D. Martin, complainants, against Julius Heidenreich, Ida M. Heidenreich and Michael Zimmer, sheriff of Cook county, defendants, in the Superior Court of Cook *5county, to reach a master’s certificate of sale in foreclosure proceedings, alleged to have been transferred by defendant Julius Heidenreich, a judgment debtor of complainants, to defendant Ida Heidenreich, in fraud of plaintiffs; cross-bill by defendant Zimmer, as sheriff of Cook county, in the nature of interpleader, against complainants lies and Martin, and defendants Heidenreich, to determine the title to a fund in his hands as sheriff, being money paid to him in redemption of the certificate in question. This case was consolidated with cases No. 21,708, 201 Ill. App. 619, and 21,709, ante, p. 1, which were appeals by Ida Heidenreich from a decree on an amended creditor’s bill and a separate decree on a cross and supplemental bill of interpleader, respectively. To reverse a decree on the bill setting aside the transfer of the certificate, and a separate decree on the cross-bill, granting the inter-pleader and ordering the fund paid to the clerk, and that cross complainant be discharged from further liability, defendant Julius Heidenreich prosecutes a single writ of error.

Farlan H. Ball and Gr. A. Buresh, for plaintiff in error.

No appearance for defendant in error.

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Cbeditobs’ suit, § 48 * —when MTl insufficient. On a creditor’s bill to reach a master’s certificate of sale in foreclosure proceedings, alleged to have been conveyed by a judgment debtor of plaintiffs, in fraud of plaintiffs, a decree granting the prayer of the bill and setting aside the transfer of the certificate, held erroneous for want of sufficient allegations to sustain the decree, on the authority of Iles v. Heidenreich, No. 21,708, 201 Ill. App. 619.

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

*

Illinois Notes Digest, Yols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.

*62. Interpleader, § 18 * —when decree on cross-hill of is erroneous. On a creditor’s bill to reach a master’s certificate of sale in foreclosure proceedings, alleged to have been conveyed by a judgment debtor of plaintiffs, in fraud of plaintiffs, where the sheriff to whom money had been paid in redemption of the land from the certificate filed a cross-bill of interpleader to determine the title to the fund, a separate decree on the cross-bill granting the prayer of the cross-bill and ordering the fund paid to the clerk of court and cross complainant discharged from further liability, held erroneous for want of an order to cross defendants to interplead, on the authority of Zimmer v. Iles, No. 21,709, ante, p. 1.

3. Appeal and ebbob, § 384*—when separate decrees on hill and cross-hill of interpleader treated as made in same cause. Although where separate decrees are rendered on a bill and cross-bill, it is anomalous to combine the objections to both decrees in one writ of error, yet where the point was not raised in the trial court the decrees will be treated on review as made in the same cause.