{ "id": 5550276, "name": "Gerald B. Crandall, Administrator of the Estate of Miles Crandall, Deceased, and F. M. Hamilton, Defendants in Error, v. Lenain H. White, Plaintiff in Error", "name_abbreviation": "Crandall v. White", "decision_date": "1934-11-21", "docket_number": "Gen. No. 8,849", "first_page": "371", "last_page": "373", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "277 Ill. App. 371" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "171 Ill. 501", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "177 Ill. 606", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3153000 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/177/0606-01" ] }, { "cite": "293 Ill. 573", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 4986089 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/293/0573-01" ] }, { "cite": "293 Ill. 54", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 4986969 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/293/0054-01" ] }, { "cite": "282 Ill. 523", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 4904871 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/282/0523-01" ] }, { "cite": "292 Ill. 536", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 4980560 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/292/0536-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 253, "char_count": 3169, "ocr_confidence": 0.531, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.16144570590795063 }, "sha256": "7e641a5d40d13fa3c2fa748e1c0b0f58b81244ed355cf7834ef00ac1d80b0ae6", "simhash": "1:234ce52cca7caf76", "word_count": 556 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:35:45.826377+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Gerald B. Crandall, Administrator of the Estate of Miles Crandall, Deceased, and F. M. Hamilton, Defendants in Error, v. Lenain H. White, Plaintiff in Error." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Huffman\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nPlaintiff in error prosecutes this writ of error from the circuit court of Ogle county, granting a foreclosure decree against certain land owned by plaintiff in error. No controversy exists as to the indebtedness for which the mortgage and notes were executed, nor the execution of said notes and mortgage. The decree was entered August 16, 1932. This writ of error was sued out August 15, 1934.\nThe defense interposed by plaintiff in error to the foreclosure proceeding in the trial court was that he was not seized with the property mortgaged at the time it was mortgaged, in such manner as to be able to make a valid mortgage. He urged that by virtue of a provision of his father\u2019s will placing a restraint upon the right of alienation of said lands, he was thereby precluded from placing a valid incumbrance upon the premises.\nPlaintiff in error became seized of the lands in question by virtue of a devise thereof in his father\u2019s will. The pertinent portion of said will under which plaintiff in error interposes his defense to this foreclosure suit is contained in a codicil thereto, and consists of the following words: \u201cI further direct that no sale be made of my real estate by those tailing the same herein until after the lapse of five years from the date of the demise of my said wife, except that the sale and purchase be made among those who take the same herein. \u2019 \u2019 The mortgage was given during the prohibitive period.\nThe testator made a devise of the land involved herein, in fee simple to plaintiff in error, by the third paragraph of his will. This is conceded by plaintiff in error. On page 1 of his reply brief, he makes the statement: \u201cIt may be conceded that the will in question does devise a fee to plaintiff in error.\u201d Therefore, the only question before this court is whether the trial court erred in granting a foreclosure decree under, the terms of the mortgage.\nThe fee title to land carries with it the inherent power to alienate, and after a devise of land in fee by a testator to a child, a subsequent provision prohibiting the sale or incumbrance of the property devised is void. Noth v. Noth, 292 Ill. 536; Davis v. Hutchinson, 282 Ill. 523; McNamara v. McNamara, 293 Ill. 54; Gray v. Shinn, 293 Ill. 573; Muhlke v. Tiedemann, 177 Ill. 606; Jones v. Port Huron Engine & Thresher Co., 171 Ill. 501; Tiffany Real Property, vol. 1, page 52; vol. 3, page 2306; Restraints on the Alienation of Property, Gray, p. 91 et seq. The above question is so well settled that we do not consider any discussion thereof necessary.\nWe have examined and considered the other contentions urged by plaintiff in error, and do not find wherein the trial court committed error.\nThe decree of the trial court is affirmed.\nDecree affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Huffman" } ], "attorneys": [ "B. A. Knight, for plaintiff in error.", "Smith, Menzimer & Smith, Floyd J. Tilton and John B. Hayes, for defendants in error; Lisle W. Menzimer, of counsel." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Gerald B. Crandall, Administrator of the Estate of Miles Crandall, Deceased, and F. M. Hamilton, Defendants in Error, v. Lenain H. White, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 8,849.\nOpinion filed November 21, 1934.\nB. A. Knight, for plaintiff in error.\nSmith, Menzimer & Smith, Floyd J. Tilton and John B. Hayes, for defendants in error; Lisle W. Menzimer, of counsel." }, "file_name": "0371-01", "first_page_order": 399, "last_page_order": 401 }