{
  "id": 2701266,
  "name": "Michael Doyle et al. v. Catharine M. Kelly et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Doyle v. Kelly",
  "decision_date": "1874-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "574",
  "last_page": "576",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "75 Ill. 574"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 241,
    "char_count": 4391,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.479,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.578976669218343e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4493607542370231
    },
    "sha256": "3392a008007a905241a9918e1be862c2cb251aea356fd91ff90df6cd971c6a68",
    "simhash": "1:a7c687e77e3a08eb",
    "word_count": 778
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:18:05.325327+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Michael Doyle et al. v. Catharine M. Kelly et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Craig\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThis was a bill in equity, exhibited by Catharine M. Kelly and Mary Jane Briggs, in the Superior Court of Cook county, against appellants, to set aside a certain judgment, certificate of sale and sheriff\u2019s deed, on the ground that they were void and a cloud upon the title to certain real estate owned by appellees.\nAppellants answered the bill, and also filed a cross-bill, which was answered; replications having been filed, the cause was heard upon proof taken by each of the parties, and the court rendered a decree in favor of appellees, as prayed in the bill.\nIt appears, from the testimony, that appellee Catharine M. Kelly, in the spring of 1869, acquired certain real estate in Chicago, and obtained a deed for the property; that in the month of May, 1870, she and her husband, John J. Kelly, executed a judgment note for $450, payable to appellants. At the time the note was given, appellants were sureties for John J. Kelly on an administrator\u2019s bond, and in the event Kelly should fail to account for the assets in his hands, they would be liable for about $450, and Kelly gave appellants this note, his wife signing with him as his surety, to indemnify them against loss as. sureties on the bond.\nOn the 13th of July, 1870, Kelly died, and on the day of his death, appellants caused to be entered in the recorder\u2019s court in Chicago, a judgment against Kelly and his wife upon the judgment note, for the amount of the note, and costs.\nUpon this judgment an execution was issued, and the real estate of appellee Catharine M. Kelly sold, a certificate of sale filed, and, subsequently, a sheriff\u2019s deed executed and delivered to appellants.\nAppellee Kelly subsequently sold the property to Mary J. Briggs. This judgment and sale having been discovered upon the record, a portion of the purchase money was held back, and the two joined in this bill to remove the judgment, sale and deed as a cloud upon the title to the property.\nAt the time appellee executed the judgment note with her husband, she was under the disability of coverture, and while she might lawfully bind herself in a contract in relation to her own separate property, the law conferred no power upon her to become security for her husband upon a debt or. liability he might see proper to incur. As to appellee Kelly, the judgment note was void, the judgment rendered upon it a nullity, and the sale of her land upon the judgment did not divest her of title, or transfer any title to appellants.\nThe judgment, certificate of sale, and sheriffs deed, standing upon the record, were a cloud upon the title of appellee\u2019s property, which a court of equity might properly remove by decree.\nAt the time Catharine M. Kelly acquired the property, it does not appear, from the record, that her husband was indebted to appellants, nor does it appear that he was insolvent, or indebted in any amount whatever; and hence it is unnecessary to inquire whether she purchased the property with her own separate money, or whether she. derived it from her husband.\nWe have carefully examined the evidence in the record, and regard it ample upon which to base the decree.\nThe decree of the Superior Court will be affirmed.\nDecree affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Craig"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. Thomas Shirley, for the appellants.",
      "Mr. William T. Butler, for the appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Michael Doyle et al. v. Catharine M. Kelly et al.\n1. Married woman \u2014power to execute promissory note. While, according to the laws in force in 1870, a married woman might lawfully bind herself in a contract in relation to her separate property, yet the laws then in force conferred no power upon her to become a surety for her husband upon a debt or liability he might see fit to incur, and a promissory note given by her and her husband for a liability he had incurred, was held void as to the wife.\n2. Same\u2014judgment and sale on note given by wife, void. Where a married woman, in 1870, executed a judgment note as security tor her husband, upon which judgment was entered, and her land was sold under execution issued thereon, and sheriff\u2019s deed executed to the purchaser therefor, it was held, on bill filed by the wife and her grantee, to set aside the judgment, sale and sheriff\u2019s deed, that the same were void, and properly set aside as a cloud upon the title.\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Joseph E. Gary, Judge, presiding.\nMr. Thomas Shirley, for the appellants.\nMr. William T. Butler, for the appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0574-01",
  "first_page_order": 574,
  "last_page_order": 576
}