{
  "id": 4974868,
  "name": "J. Meyers, Appellee, v. Mollie Dorfman et al.; Sam Nerenberg, Appellant, v. Mollie Dorfman et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Meyers v. Dorfman",
  "decision_date": "1944-04-03",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 42,921",
  "first_page": "120",
  "last_page": "129",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "322 Ill. App. 120"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "307 Ill. App. 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        3182932
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/307/0001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "364 Ill. 491",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2587187
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/364/0491-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 673,
    "char_count": 16731,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.51,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.1546451163755107
    },
    "sha256": "a07d1ab1502dfe13de341b95d972ab47e7e769f39e8a683a457263d2cfec0f18",
    "simhash": "1:c13bbbb534730cbf",
    "word_count": 2950
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:14:26.272017+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. Meyers, Appellee, v. Mollie Dorfman et al. Sam Nerenberg, Appellant, v. Mollie Dorfman et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice O\u2019Connor\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nDecember 2, 1940, J. Meyers filed his complaint in . chancery to foreclose the lien of a trust deed given to secure an indebtedness of $11,000, evidenced by a mortgage note on which $8,250 principal and interest were due and unpaid. He made Mollie Dorfman, one of the mortgagors, and others including Sam Nerenberg, who it was alleged was the owner of a second mortgage on the premises, defendants.. Nerenberg filed a cross-complaint in which he alleged that the indebtedness, secured by the trust deed, which Meyers sought to have foreclosed, was paid by the mortgagor, Mollie Dorfman while she held title to the property and therefore it ceased to be a lien on the premises. He prayed foreclosure and that he be given a first lien on the premises and that if Meyers was entitled to any claim or lien it should be decreed to be subordinate and inferior to the lien of his trust deed.\nAfter the issues were made up the cause was referred to a master in chancery to take the evidence and make up his report with recqmmendations.\nPrior to the commencement of the hearing before the master the deposition of plaintiff Meyers was taken January 31,1941, before a notary public and the deposition of the defendant Mollie Dorfman was likewise taken before a notary public July 9, 1941. Bach of these witnesses was called by the defendant and cross-complainant Sam Nerenberg as adverse witnesses. Their testimony was written up and, by agreement, .was submitted to the master for his consideration in connection with the other evidence heard by him. The master made up Ms report wMch was filed July 22, 1943, in which he found there was due plaintiff, Meyers, $13,283.67, for which he had a first lien on the premises. The Master further found that the defendant and cross-complainant, Sam Nerenberg, had a valid lien on the premises for $6,565.09, wMch was subject and inferior to the lien of Meyers. Nerenberg appeals \u2014 Mollie Dorfman has not appeared in this court.\nNerenberg filed four objections to the master\u2019s report, three were sustained and the fourth overruled. The chancellor approved the master\u2019s report, a decree was entered in accordance with the findings and recommendations of the master, and Nerenberg appeals.\nThe record discloses that Mollie Dorfman and Sam Nerenberg are sister and brother; that September 23, 1929', Mollie Dorfman and her husband Joe, executed their trust deed conveying the property in suit to the West side Trust & Savings Bank, as trustee, to secure the payment of $7,000, which was a part of the purchase money. The indebtedness was payable in installments as evidenced by 47 notes executed by Mollie and her husband, , the last of wMch was due August 23, 1933. They bore interest at 6 per cent per annum, payable monthly.\nJanuary 15, 1931, Mollie and her husband conveyed the premises by another trust deed to the West Side Trust & Savings Bank, to secure an indebtedness of $11,000, which was evidenced by their note of that date, due two years after date, with interest at 6 per cent per annum, payable semi-annually. January 30,. 1931, Sam Nerenberg, the owner of the trust deed and notes, above mentioned, executed an agreement subordinating the lien of Ms trust deed to that of the trust deed given to secure the indebtedness of $11,000. The evidence further shows that 18 of the notes belonging to Sam Nerenberg, due monthly, aggregating $2,700, were paid, leaving notes 19 to 47, due and unpaid, amounting to $4,300. That $500 was paid on the $11,000 indebtedness leaving a balance due of $10,500. The note for $11,000 and trust deed securing its payment, were owned by the West Side Trust & Savings Bank.\nJanuary 15, 1933, the time of payment of the. $11,000 indebtedness which had been reduced to $10,500, was extended to January 15, 1936, and Mollie, her husband and her brother, Sam, executed an agreement extending the time of payment of $4,300, which was the balance on the $7,000 indebtedness, to August 17, 1941. The evidence further shows that January 25,1939, the improvements on the premises were destroyed by fire and shortly thereafter, Mollie Dorfman, the owner of the premises, collected $16,250 from various insurance companies for. the loss.\nCounsel for plaintiff Meyers contends that the evidence shows that on December 30, 1935, \u201cEtta Chitra, a friend of Mollie Dorfman, purchased the said first mortgage and note from the receiver of the West Side Trust & Savings Bank\u201d for $8,250. That \u201cEtta Chitra (Nerenberg\u2019s witness) used her own money and money borrowed from others to purchase this mortgage. When Etta Chitra wanted the return of the money, Mollie Dorfman pledged the first mortgage and note with another party, one Ethel Miller, as security for a loan. Upon the failure of Mollie Dorfman to pay Ethel Miller the said Ethel Miller sold the said first mortgage and note.\u201d That plaintiff, Meyers, bought it as a defaulted mortgage in a trade of various defaulted bonds and mortgages.\nOn the other side, counsel for Sam Nerenberg\u2019s position is that the evidence shows that the mortgagor, Mollie Dorfman, through her agent, Etta Chitra, bought the mortgage and note from the West Side Trust & Savings Bank for $8,250. That Chitra paid the money to the bank, received the trust deed and note and on the same day delivered them to Mollie. That Mollie, still being the owner of the premises, the lien of that trust deed was discharged and that the evidence further shows that the claim of Meyers as to how he became the owner of the note and trust deed was a sham and a fraud. We think this contention must be sustained.\nCounsel for Meyers contends that the \u201cCredibility of witnesses is a question for the master and the court to consider and pass upon and the findings of the master when approved by the court have the same binding force upon Appellate court as a jury verdict in law cases.\u201d We think this is a correct statement of the law and it has also been held by our Supreme court that where the master\u2019s findings have been approved by the chancellor we are not justified in disturbing the findings unless they are manifestly against the weight of the evidence. Pasedach v. Aww, 364 Ill. 491; Phillips v. W. G. N. Inc., 307 Ill. App. 1. And continuing counsel for plaintiff says: \u20186 The theory behind this rule is axiomatic in this State. The Trial Court heard and saw the witnesses alad can better evaluate their testimony,\u201d etc. But while the law is correctly stated by counsel it is not applicable to the facts in the case before us. The master did not hear and see all the witnesses. The two principal witnesses, plaintiff Meyers, and defendant Mollie Dorfman, who were called as adverse witnesses, testified before a notary public and by agreement the evidence was submitted to the master. He did not see these two witnesses and is in no better, position to judge the truth of their testimony than are we.\nMeyers' testified that he was in the real estate business and also was a security buyer; that he did not know Mollie Dorfman, had never see her and had not talked to her on the telephone; that he was the owner of the trust deed and note for $11,000; that \u201cThe note has been reduced to $8,250 and extended.\u201d That he had the extension agreement; that he purchased them in September, 1940; \u201cthe only thing I can tell you from whom I acquired the documents, is that my business is buying and selling bonds, real estate securities, and there was some fellow who come in, (I think it was some curbstone bond salesman) and he had a bunch of defaulted mortgages and we worked out some kind of a trade. I had some defaulted mortgages too.\n\u201cI did not know the name of the person from whom I acquired the mortgage and note. I might be able to find out. We made a trade and there was some cash involved too. I paid in simple currency; he wouldn\u2019t accept any checks; he wouldn\u2019t trust anyone, of course, we have records when we buy and sell for straight cash, but when it works out as a trade, I don\u2019t know just how it is handled. We keep no records when it is a trade. ... I gave certain defaulted bonds for this mortgage and note; I don\u2019t remember what they were. I doubt seriously whether my office would have any records of this transaction.\u201d He further testified that he did not remember at the time he purchased the mortgage and note whether he investigated the condition of the buildings himself or whether \u201cI just took his word for it. . . . My office file would not disclose any information regarding it.' . . . I don\u2019t remember whether I got a mortgage policy with the trust deed and notes. ... I did not receive fire insurance policies with the papers I purchased. I don\u2019t remember whether I knew at the time I purchased the mortgage and note that the improvements on the premises had been burned to the ground, but I knew it subsequently. ... I did not investigate, nor did anyone in' my office-investigate the financial responsibility of the makers of the trust deed and note before I made the purchase.\u201d\nMollie Dorfman, the defendant, called as an adverse witness on behalf of her brother, Sam, testified before a notary public that she had been in business but \u2018had to give it up. She \u201ccouldn\u2019t make it go.\u201d That she did not know the plaintiff, Meyers,- \u2014 never heard of him. That she did not pay the $11,000 mortgage on the property but Etta Chitra, who was a friend of hers, did. That Etta bought the mortgage for $8,250 and later \u201cshe gave it to me because I said I am going to get money from a lady friend. ... I gave the mortgage to a lady friend. In the beginning I paid Etta Chitra off little by little.\u201d That she could not remember the total amount she paid. She was then asked the name of the woman to whom she gave the note and trust deed and she asked: \u201cDo I have to tell you what woman\u201d? Her attorney then instructed her not to give the name. She further testified that she paid the unnamed woman little by little the loan the woman had made to her. She could not tell exactly how much she had paid. Thdt she did not remember when she turned over the mortgage and note to this unnamed woman. That Etta Chitra got the note and trust deed from the bank and gave it to the witness. That Etta Chitra told her she wanted her money because she was going to buy a building \u201cbut I didn\u2019t have the money. So I went out and borrowed it from this other woman,\u201d and gave it to Etta Chitra. That Etta Chitra did not give the witness the note and trust deed the day she bought it from the receiver of the bank but maybe two or three weeks afterwards. That she partially repaid the unnamed woman who loaned her the money; \u201cand she told me she is going to sell the mortgage, needs money and I was trying she should keep the mortgage alive.\u201d The woman said she was going to sell the mortgage and I said, \u201c \u2018Go ahead and do it.\u2019 I gave her once $500, and I gave her once $200. I think I got receipts. I paid her cash. I didn\u2019t have any checks. . . . It is not the truth that I received approximately $16,000, as the assured on certain fire insurance policies covered by the mortgage.\u201d That the unnamed woman sold the mortgage for $2800 or $2700. That the witness still owed her some more money on the mortgage. \u201cI don\u2019t know how much.\u201d That the witness still owned the property on which she and her husband gave the mortgage. Before the evidence heard by the master was closed it was stipulated that the unnamed woman, above mentioned, was Esther L. Miller. She was not called as a witness. Etta Chitra, called by defendant Nerenberg, before the master, testified that she had known Mrs. Dorfman for 25 years; was not related to her and they \u201cused to be good friends.\u201d That on December 30, 1935, she bought the mortgage and note for $8,250 from the receiver of the bank. That she paid by check, \u201cI bought it for Mollie Dorfman.\u201d And on the same day she went to Mrs. Dorfman\u2019s home and gave her the mortgage papers. \u201cI say, \u2018Mollie, here is the paper which you are struggling for.\u2019 \u201d That the note and trust deed \u201cwere paid for by money given by Mollie Dorfman and by money I borrowed. She paid back the money I loaned her up to the penny. . . . Mollie Dorfman and I are the best of friends. . . . She is one of the finest persons in the world. . . . The day I went to get the mortgage, Mollie Dorfman gave me the money in cash. I bought a check at.the Liberty Bank. ... I paid $1.40 for it,\u201d and'gave the check to the receiver and he gave her the mortgage. On cross-examination she testified that Mr. Sian, Mrs. Dorfman\u2019s lawyer, who apparently was at the bank, read the mortgage to her. That she did not know plaintiff Meyers, had never seen him. That in paying the mortgage she used $1,800 of her own money, borrowed $500 from Dr. Brodie, $300 from her mother-in-law and $500 from her friend, Mrs. Alec.\nOn re-direct she testified that Mr. Sian, Mollie\u2019s lawyer, was at the bank the day before she bought the mortgage. \u201cI was short some money that day. I came the next morning myself and I said, \u2018here is the rest of the money,\u2019 then the receiver gave it to me.\u201d That she had known Mollie Dorfman and her brother, Sam Nerenberg, since they came to the United States.\nIt was then stipulated by the parties that if plaintiff, Meyers, were present he would testify that he was the owner and holder of the note and trust deed and the extension agreement on which there was a balance due of $10,500. That there was a default in the payment of taxes for the years 1931, 1938, 1939, 1940 and 1941 which totalled about $1,200 or $1,300. It was further stipulated that Sam Nerenberg was the owner and holder of the other trust deed and extension agreement, and that if plaintiff) Meyers, were cross-examined he would make the same answers as he made in the deposition taken January 31, 1941 and that \u201cJ.' Meyers would testify that the sum of $3,250 is the amount which is allocated to the cost of the mortgage and note; that the mortgage and note were acquired in exchange of first mortgage gold bonds. In addition to the exchange, some cash was paid.\u201d\nCounsel for plaintiff says that four objections on behalf of Nerenberg were made to the master\u2019s report, the first three of which were sustained and the fourth overruled. And he says' that the substance of the fourth objection was \u201cthat the acquisition of the first mortgage and note by Mollie Dorfman, merged this lien into the legal title.\u201d\nCounsel for Nerenberg says that \u201cPlaintiff\u2019s testimony as to the manner and circumstances surrounding plaintiff\u2019s claimed purchase of the note and trust deed raises a presumption against the acceptance of his testimony, and requires that on this issue his testimony be disregarded in its entirety. \u2019 \u2019 And that Mollie Dorfman\u2019s testimony considered in the light of plaintiff\u2019s testimony \u201cclearly indicates that a conspiracy existed between plaintiff and Mollie Dorfman.\u201d\nThe fourth objection to the master\u2019s report was that the master erred in concluding that there was no merit in the objection for the reason that Mollie Dorfman at all times manifested clearly an intention to keep the lien of the trust deed alive. We think it obvious that whether the master was right or wrong must be determined from a consideration of all the evidence. We hold the objection was sufficient.\nWe have above detailed at considerable length the testimony of two witnesses, Meyers and Mollie Dorfman, and think little credence should be given to what they said. Meyers claims to have purchased the note and trust deed from some curbstone bond salesman whose name he could not remember; it was in default\u2014 many years overdue and taxes were unpaid for years. Esther L. Miller, the unnamed woman, was not called as a witness. The buildings on the property had been totally destroyed by fire and the evidence shows that Mollie Dorfman, although she denied receiving the insurance, was paid $16,250 for the loss caused by the fire. As above stated, the master did not see or hear these two witnesses testify and of course the chancellor saw and heard none of them. In these circumstances we think that Sam Nerenberg should be given a first lien on the property.\nThe decree of the Superior court of Cook county is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to give Sam Nerenberg a first mortgage lien on the property.\nReversed and remanded with directions.\nNiemeyer and Matchett, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice O\u2019Connor"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Israel Dordek, of Chicago, for appellant.",
      "David M. Jacobson, of Chicago, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. Meyers, Appellee, v. Mollie Dorfman et al. Sam Nerenberg, Appellant, v. Mollie Dorfman et al.\nGen. No. 42,921.\nHeard in the first division of this court for the first district at the December term, 1943.\nOpinion filed April 3, 1944.\nIsrael Dordek, of Chicago, for appellant.\nDavid M. Jacobson, of Chicago, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0120-01",
  "first_page_order": 140,
  "last_page_order": 149
}