{ "id": 5192413, "name": "G. R. Tilton, Administrator, etc., v. Gustavus Pearson", "name_abbreviation": "Tilton v. Pearson", "decision_date": "1896-11-21", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "372", "last_page": "374", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "67 Ill. App. 372" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "101 Ill. 459", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "58 Ill 239", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5236151 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/58/0239-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 291, "char_count": 4629, "ocr_confidence": 0.494, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.138363859351185e-08, "percentile": 0.4713390626248866 }, "sha256": "835e23bd5cd42c439a7a14511854aa0c4dd4406a29289c05e59ac581680ba8fe", "simhash": "1:b64f4f64b440a748", "word_count": 795 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:00:34.097112+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "G. R. Tilton, Administrator, etc., v. Gustavus Pearson." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Boggs\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nAppellant, as administrator of the estate of Joseph Smith, deceased, by virtue of a decree rendered by the County Court of Vermilion County authorizing him to sell real estate which belonged to the deceased to pay claims against the estate, offered such real estate at public sale.\nAppellee was the highest bidder therefor, and the property was struck off to him. He refused to comply with his bid and accept a deed for the premises.\nThe administrator resold the property, and brought assumpsit to recover the difference between the amount bid by the appellee, and that obtained at the second sale.\nThe Circuit Court held it was essential to the right to recover such difference that the bidder be first cited to appear before the court which rendered the decree, and there \u2022 given opportunity to show cause for refusing to complete the purchase, and that an order be entered by such court directing a second sale to be made at the risk of such bidder.\nSuch seems to be the rule applicable to purchases of real estate sold by virtue of decrees rendered in courts in chancery. Hill v. Hill, 58 Ill 239; Thrift v. Fritz, 101 Ill. 459.\nThe decree in. the case at bar was rendered in the County Court of Vermilion County sitting in probate, upon the application under the statute of the appellant administrator for a decree to sell lands to pay debts allowed against the estate.\nThe statute provides the practice in such proceedings shall be the same as in chancery. Sec. 101, Chap. 3, E. S.\nIt did not appear from the declaration such preliminary steps had been taken, and for that reason the court sustained a demurrer and dismissed the action.\nWe think the declaration was insufficient. It averred the decree authorized the appellant to sell lots 10 to 21 inclusive, in the village of Myersville, and part of the west half of the northwest quarter of section nineteen, township 21, range 11, containing seventy-two acres in Vermilion county, etc.\nThe particular seventy-two acres to be sold could not be identified by the description in the decree; and the decree was therefore insufficient to divest the heirs of the deceased of title thereto. A bidder at a -judicial sale bids for the title of the decree or judgment defendant. If he discovers, before complying with the bid, the decree or judgment is inadequate to transfer such title, he may decline to complete the purchase. 12 Arner. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 229.\nEven if a court of chancery would, upon notice to the-heirs, correct the decree upon the application of a purchaser who had complied with the terms of sale, received his deed and entered into possession of the property in good faith, as to which we express no opinion, yet a bidder would hav\u00e9 the right to decline to complete the purchase and accept a deed for the property.\nThe declaration alleged that at the request of appellee the appellant caused the seventy-two acres to be surveyed, and that he tendered a deed describing it by metes and bounds, according to the description thereof. The survey added nothing to the legal effect of the decree as against the parties to whom the title to the land descended upon the \u25a0 death of appellant\u2019s intestate.\nThe administration in the matter of an application for a decree to sell lands of his intestate occupies a position adverse to the parties who inherit the title to the land sought to be sold, and has no power to divest them of title except to the ext\u00e9nt he may do so by executing the decree as granted by the court.\nThe judgment is affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Boggs" } ], "attorneys": [ "Lawrence & Lawrence, attorneys for the appellant.", "W. J. Calhoun and H. M. Steely, attorneys for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "G. R. Tilton, Administrator, etc., v. Gustavus Pearson.\n1. Judicial Sales\u2014When a Bidder May Decline to Complete his Purchase.\u2014A bidder at a judicial sale bids for the title of the decree or judgment defendant; and if, before complying with his bid, he discovers that the decree or judgment is inadequate to transfer such title, he may decline to complete the purchase.\n2. Real Estate\u2014Insufficient Description.\u2014A description of real estate in a decree of sale, as \u201c Part of the west half of the northwest quarter of section nineteen, township twenty-one, range eleven, containing seventy-two acres,'in Vermilion county,\u201d etc., can not be identified, and is therefore insufficient.\nAssumpsit, for damages for failing to take premises on a bid at a judicial sale. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Vermilion County; the Hon. Ferdinand Bookwalter, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the May term, 1896.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed November 21, 1896.\nLawrence & Lawrence, attorneys for the appellant.\nW. J. Calhoun and H. M. Steely, attorneys for appellee." }, "file_name": "0372-01", "first_page_order": 370, "last_page_order": 372 }