{ "id": 3123156, "name": "James M. Brown v. H. M. Ridenhower et al.", "name_abbreviation": "Brown v. Ridenhower", "decision_date": "1895-11-22", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "239", "last_page": "243", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "161 Ill. 239" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "138 Ill. 268", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5444702 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/138/0268-01" ] }, { "cite": "32 Ill. 340", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "26 Ill. 9", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5244408 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/26/0009-01" ] }, { "cite": "69 Ill. 133", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2633396 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "190" } ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/69/0133-01" ] }, { "cite": "43 Ill. 327", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5266606 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/43/0327-01" ] }, { "cite": "90 Ill. 444", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2754056 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/90/0444-01" ] }, { "cite": "34 Ill. App. 418", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5000520 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/34/0418-01" ] }, { "cite": "105 Ill. 326", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2788919 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/105/0326-01" ] }, { "cite": "2 Iowa, 161", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Iowa", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "15 Ill. 444", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 436646 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/15/0444-01" ] }, { "cite": "8 How. 496", "category": "reporters:scotus_early", "reporter": "How.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "15 Ill. 178", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 436661 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/15/0178-01" ] }, { "cite": "8 How. 546", "category": "reporters:scotus_early", "reporter": "How.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "135 Ill. 55", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2986258 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/135/0055-01" ] }, { "cite": "151 Ill. 369", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5469912 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/151/0369-01" ] }, { "cite": "105 Ill. 326", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2788919 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/105/0326-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 517, "char_count": 9354, "ocr_confidence": 0.606, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.808564612878805e-08, "percentile": 0.3015735666442329 }, "sha256": "72faf9e0f664153fb9a7e73daa00795e85146779ab3cd290a2938ac6b19e59ef", "simhash": "1:d25554df024b8870", "word_count": 1653 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:04:20.856437+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "James M. Brown v. H. M. Ridenhower et al." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Magruder\ndelivered the opinion of the-court:\nThis is a bill filed by the appellees against the appellant to set aside two quit-claim deeds, executed in January, 1892, by the heirs-at-law and legal representatives-of one James M. Finney to the appellant, conveying to-appellant a quarter section of land in Johnson county,. which said quit-claim deeds are alleged in the bill to be clouds upon the title of appellees to said land. The bill alleges, that appellees were in possession of the land at the time the bill was filed. The answer denies, that they were in possession; and there is some conflict in the testimony upon the subject. If, however, it be admitted that the complainants below had such possession of the premises as authorized them to file a bill to remove a cloud, yet we are of the opinion that the relief prayed for can not be granted for the reasons hereinafter stated.\nIn 1858 James M. Finney, being the owner of the land, executed a mortgage thereon to one Misenheimer to secure the payment of $127.50. In 1863 Misenheimer filed a bill to foreclose the mortgage and obtained a decree of foreclosure and sale, under which the premises were sold by one Graham, appointed a special commissioner for that purpose by the decree, and were purchased by the said Misenheimer for $238.03, he being the highest and best bidder at the sale. The sale took place on September 5, 1863, and a certificate of purchase, dated as of that day, was issued to Misenheimer. The special commissioner made a report of the sale on March 16, 1864. Finney died intestate on March 8, 1866, without having redeemed the premises from the sale.\nNo master\u2019s or commissioner\u2019s deed was ever issued to Misenheimer, the purchaser, or to any of his grantees. He conveyed the premises by deed to one Holshouser on April 16, 1866; and appellees hold under Holshouser by a regular series of conveyances beginning with him. Appellees have established no title by possession under the twenty years\u2019 limitation law, nor any title by seven years\u2019 possession and payment of taxes under claim and color of title made in good faith, or by payment of taxes upon the land, while vacant and unoccupied, under such claim and color of title. The only interest in the land, which they set up, is derived from Misenheimer, the purchaser at the foreclosure sale, who never received any deed from the officer making the sale, nor ever had any other evidence of title except the certificate of sale.\nSection 30 of chapter 77 of the Revised Statutes, being the \u201cact in regard to judgments and decrees,\u201d etc., provides that, \u201cwhen the premises mentioned in any such certificate shall not be redeemed in pursuance of law, the legal holder of such certificate shall be entitled to a deed therefor at any time within five years from the expiration of the time of redemption. The deed shall be executed by the sheriff, master in chancery or other officer who made such sale, or by his successor in office, or by some person specially appointed by the court for the purpose. If the time of redemption shall have elapsed before the taking effect of this act, a deed may be given within two years from the time this act shall take effect, (July 1, 1872). When such deed is not taken within the time limited by this act, the certificate of purchase shall be null and void,\u201d etc. (2 Starr & Cur. Stat. p. 1403). In the case at bar, the time of redemption expired on December 5, 1864, before the act of 1872 took effect. The deed should have been taken out by the first day of July, 1874, but, as has already been stated, it was never taken out, neither within five years from the expiration of the time of redemption, nor within two years from the time the act of 1872 took effect. Hence, the certificate of purchase, issued to Misenheimer, became null and void after July 1, 1874.\nIn Ryhiner v. Frank, 105 Ill. 326, we held that, where, land was sold under an execution and the sheriff\u2019s deed was not taken out within the time limited by the statute, \u201cthe certificate of purchase, on which the deed was given, became null and void, and the deed is of no effect.\u201d In Seeberger v. Weinberg, 151 Ill. 369, commenting upon the case of Ryhiner v. Frank, supra, we said: \u201cThe certificate of purchase becomes void, so that a sheriff\u2019s deed subsequently issued thereon is a nullity, and passes no title.\u201d\nIn Peterson v. Emmerson, 135 Ill. 55, we held, that, after the limitation has run against the right to take out a deed, the certificate will become a nullity, and a court of equity cannot compel the making of a deed to the purchaser, or his assignee, by the officer whose duty it is to make deeds; that such action on the part of a court of equity would \u201cbe a virtual annulment of the mandate of the statute, and an infringement of vested legal rights.\u201d\nAgain, in Seeberger v. Weinberg, supra, we held, that the holder of a certificate of purchase, which has thus become functus officio and void under the statute, has no remedy against the heirs or representatives of the mortgagor when they retain their interest, and is not entitled to relief as against the grantees of the mortgagor; that he can assert no remedy upon the certificate, as that has become a nullity, and can enforce no remedy upon the original mortgage, as that remedy was exhausted by the foreclosure and sale; and we there said (p. 380): \u201cWhether the lapse of time is to be given the effect of extinguishing his right or of merely barring his remedy, he has no further title or interest in the premises described in the certificate, which either he or his grantee can enforce, either at law or in equity.\u201d\nIf the holder of such void certificate has no interest in the premises described therein which he or his grantee can enforce in equity, then neither Misenheimer, nor appellees as grantees from him, have any such interest as can be enforced by the bill in equity filed, in this case. In view of the decisions made by this court which are above referred to, we are of the opinion that the court below erred in granting the relief prayed for.\nAccordingly the decree of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause is remanded.\nReversed and remanded.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Magruder" } ], "attorneys": [ "Spann & Sheridan, for appellant:", "H. M. Ridenhower, pro se and for co-appellee:" ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "James M. Brown v. H. M. Ridenhower et al.\nFiled at Mt. Vernon November 22, 1895\nRehearing denied May 6, 1896.\nCloud\u2014bill to remove\u2014insufficient title in complainant. A title derived by mesne conveyances from one whose only right was a certificate of purchase at a foreclosure sale, on which no deed ever issued, and which, under the statute, had by lapse of time become null and void, will not authorize a decree setting aside, as clouds, deeds made by the heirs of the original owner and mortgagor.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Johnson county; the Hon. Oliver A. Harker, Judge, presiding.\nSpann & Sheridan, for appellant:\nThe sale of the master does not complete the title in a purchaser, but is only \u201cone step toward a purchaser\u2019s getting a title.\u201d Rorer on Judicial Sales, sec. 5; Williams v. Berry, 8 How. 546.\nMisenheimer was merely an \u201caccepted bidder,\u201d\u2014a preferred proposer,\u2014until confirmation of the sale by the court. The bargain was not completed, and could not have passed title until the conveyance was made and delivered and confirmed by the court. 2 Daniell\u2019s Ch. Pr. 1274; Rorer on Judicial Sales, (2d ed.) sec. 106; Rowling v. Bailey, 15 Ill. 178; Young v. Keogh, 11 id. 642; Williams v. Berry, 8 How. 496; Shelton v. Tiffin, 6 id. 163; Ayers v. Baumgarten, 15 Ill. 444; Renfro v. Pearce, 63 id. 125; Harshy v. Blackmarr, 2 Iowa, 161.\nWhen Misenheimer failed to take out a master\u2019s deed within the time prescribed by law, he had no interest in or title to the property. Rev. Stat. 1874, chap. 77, sec. 30; Ryhiner v. Frank, 105 Ill. 326; Peterson v. Emmerson, 135 id. 55.\nThe certificate of purchase became absolutely void after five years without taking out a deed. Trustees of Schools v. Love, 34 Ill. App. 418; Ryhiner v. Frank, 105 Ill. 326; Peterson v. Emmerson, 135 id. 55.\nH. M. Ridenhower, pro se and for co-appellee:\nTo maintain a bill of this character an equitable title is all that is necessary to support the allegations of ownership. Hemstreet v. Burdick, 90 Ill. 444; Glos v. Randolph, 138 id. 268; Barlow v. Standford, 82 id. 298.\nIn a sale under a decree in rem, the title of a purchaser at a master\u2019s sale becomes absolute when his right to a deed accrues, and the mortgagor\u2019s estate will be absolutely divested if he fails to redeem within the allotted, time. Stephens v. Insurance Co. 43 Ill. 327.\nIt has also been held that the right of redemption is-purely statutory, and that right must be exercised in the-manner required by the statute, otherwise it will be invalid. Durley v. Davis, 69 Ill. 133; Littler v. People, 43 id. 190.\nAgain, a mortgage is a deed with a condition attached, and upon condition broken, ejectment may be maintained and the mortgagor ousted of his possession by the mortgagee, (Carroll v. Ballance, 26 Ill. 9,) and after condition-broken, if the mortgagor is in possession the mortgagee-may consider the mortgagor as his tenant. Carroll v. Ballance, supra; Jackson v. Warren, 32 Ill. 340.\nIn equity it is not necessary to prove complainant\u2019s case with the same strictness as in an action of ejectment. Glos v. Randolph, 138 Ill. 268; Hemstreet v. Burdick, 90 id. 444; Rucker v. Dooley, 49 id. 378." }, "file_name": "0239-01", "first_page_order": 239, "last_page_order": 243 }