{
  "id": 5083014,
  "name": "Edward F. Angell and Isaac W. Higgs v. Nathan Jewett",
  "name_abbreviation": "Angell v. Jewett",
  "decision_date": "1895-05-16",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "596",
  "last_page": "598",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "58 Ill. App. 596"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 271,
    "char_count": 4061,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.503,
    "sha256": "1ccef698d65e551f61c9c4b981bbf9e4eb282e592c7c88070a65d75dce9eb6d5",
    "simhash": "1:a389099fe7e21063",
    "word_count": 704
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:52:30.003237+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Edward F. Angell and Isaac W. Higgs v. Nathan Jewett."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nAs to the first and third contentions of appellants it is suf- \u2022 ficient to say that the Circuit Court found the issues upon the facts for the complainant, and that with such finding we see no reason for interfering.\nAs to the second contention:\nThis is a proceeding in a court of equity, wherein absolute deeds may be shown to be mere mortgages, or may be shown, if not prevented by the statute of frauds, to have been given only in trust. The bill is not one to set aside deeds for a mere want of consideration.\nAs to the fourth contention, it is unquestionably the rule that a court of equity always aims by its decrees and orders to do equity; appellant was and is entitled to have all his equitable rights considered and respected in the decree. He who seeks equity must do equity.\nAppellee is indebted to appellants, and they insist that he should be required to pay this as a condition of a re-assignment of the patents. They state that there was no consideration for the assignment of the patents to them; they do not show that upon the strength of such assignments, or because thereof they have done or suffered anything; in other words appellants obtained these patents without consideration at the beginning and so hold now. We do not regard the mere facts that appellee was owing appellants when these assignments were made, and that such indebtedness is yet unpaid, as giving to them an equitable claim upon these patents, in the face of the undisputed fact that nothing has ever been given,.done, suffered or promised by appellants in consequence of the assignment, save the bare \u2022 placing of the assignments upon record.\nA trustee is not entitled to add to the trust that which neither the donor nor the cestui que trust directs or assents to; he can not insist upon holding property intrusted to him until indebtedness in no way connected with the trust is paid.\nWe do not deem it necessary to say anything concerning the proper method of enforcing obedience to the decree of the court below.\nThe decree of the Circuit Court is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Waterman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "G-eo. A. Dupuy, attorney for appellants.",
      "Myron H. Beach, attorney for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Edward F. Angell and Isaac W. Higgs v. Nathan Jewett.\n1. Equity Jurisdiction\u2014Deeds may be Shown to be Mortgages.\u2014 In a court of equity an absolute deed may be shown to be a mere mortgage, or if not prevented by the statute of frauds, may be shown to have been given only in trust. .\n2. Same\u2014General Powers.\u2014A court of equity always aims by its decrees and orders to do equity. He who seeks equity must do equity.\n3. Trustees\u2014Gan Not Add to the Trust.\u2014A trustee is not entitled to add to the trust that .which neither the donor nor the cestui que trust directs or assents to; he can not insist upon holding property intrusted to him, until indebtedness in no way connected with the trust is paid.\nBill to Compel a Reconveyance of Letters Patent.\u2014Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon.Richard S. Tuthill, Judge, presiding. Heard at the March term of this court, 1895.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed May 16, 1895.\nStatement of the Case.\nThis was a bill in chancery to compel the reconveyance of certain United States Letters Patent from the defendants to the complainant. On hearing, the prayer of the bill was allowed.\nFour defenses were interposed, viz:\n\u201c First. The complainant was without equity, because the patents were conveyed to defendants by him for the purpose of hindering and delaying one of his judgment creditors.\nSecond. An executed instrument under seal, which recites proper consideration, can not be impeached by showing want of consideration.\nThird. The complainant has no standing in court even on his own contention, that the patents were assigned in part execution of contract between the defendants and himself, because the evidence shows that such contract failed of consummation solely through the fault of the complainant.\nFourth. The court in any possible event should have decreed this reconveyance only on equitable terms.\u201d\nG-eo. A. Dupuy, attorney for appellants.\nMyron H. Beach, attorney for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0596-01",
  "first_page_order": 592,
  "last_page_order": 594
}