Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

148 Ill. 426

Williams v. Williams

Illinois Supreme Court

Decided January 16, 1894

Illinois Supreme Court · decided 1894-01-16

Writ of Error to the Circuit Court of Clay county; the Hon. C. C. Boggs, Judge, presiding. Plaintiff in error filed a bill in chancery in the circuit court of Clay county, seeking to set aside a deed made by him to defendants in error. By his original bill he averred the deed had been executed by him and placed on record, and there was no consideration for its execution, and it had never been delivered.

Relies on Kingsbury v. Burnside · Masterson v. Cheek · Reed v. Douthit

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1894-01-16

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently October 1921

4 state decisions

201894190019101920decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. Justice Phillips

¶1delivered the opinion of the Court:

¶2It is apparent from an examination of this record that the-only question of law arising is as to whether there was a delivery of the deed by plaintiff in error to the defendants in error. The evidence shows that after the execution of the deed he stated that the deed had been made and recorded, and the making and recording were the carrying 'out of a. previously expressed intention, and, from the evidence in this-record, the grantor knew the effect of the deed. By its terms he had reserved the control and use of the premises to himself during his natural life, and-by his declarations had encouraged the making of repairs and improvements thereon by the grantees, which was done by them. The deed was, from the-evidence, a voluntary conveyance, and the presumption of the delivery of a deed in a ease of a voluntary settlement is-stronger than in a case of bargain and sale. Masterson et al. v. Cheek et al. 23 Ill. 72; Bryan et al. v. Wash et ux. 2 Gilm. 557; Reed et al. v. Douthit et al. 62 Ill. 348; Rivard et al. v. Walker et al. 39 id. 413 ; Cline et al. v. Jones et al. 111 id. 563.

¶3If a grantor, with or without any previous arrangement with the grantee, executes a deed and has it recorded, and notifies-the grantee, who, by words or acts, accepts the conveyance, the delivery is sufficient, as the actual possession of the instrument-is not indispensable. (Kingsbury v. Burnside et al. 58 Ill. 310.) Here, the declaration of the intention to convey the land, the-execution of the deed, the recording of the same, the declaration of having made the deed, and the grantees entering on the land, repairing fences, clearing land and setting out fruit trees, are-all shown, and this is sufficient to show a delivery and acceptance of the deed" according to its terms. The title having been thus conveyed, could not be resumed by the grantor, and no-acts of the grantees show any reason for divesting them of title.

¶4It was not error to dismiss complainant’s bill, and the decree is affirmed.

¶5Decree affirmed.

/148/ill/426 · .json · Public domain