Hilton v. Crooker

47 N.W. 3, 30 Neb. 707, 1890 Neb. LEXIS 162
CourtNebraska Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 11, 1890
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 47 N.W. 3 (Hilton v. Crooker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hilton v. Crooker, 47 N.W. 3, 30 Neb. 707, 1890 Neb. LEXIS 162 (Neb. 1890).

Opinion

Maxwkll, J.

This action is brought to obtain the following relief:

"And upon final hearing of this case, the plaintiffs may be granted the following relief, to-wit: That the agreement aforesaid between plaintiffs and defendants Crooker and Gregory may be declared a personal and binding agreement, as before stated, between all the parties thereto, and the obligations and deeds made under it not assignable or transferable, but a breach of the same, and that the breach as stated herein may be so declared, as also the neglect and abandonment of the prosecution of the suits by them, and failure of consideration for both deeds and agreement, and that the agreeement and deeds made by plaintiffs under it may be declared conditional, inoperative, null, and void, also the deed made to McMurtry may be so declared and decreed, and a decree entered accordingly, or if the above relief is not granted, that the deeds made to Crooker and also the deed made by him to McMurtry may be so reformed as to correct the mistake or error in including therein the whole of the south half of section 11, town 9 north, range 6 east, and that the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of said section 11, town 9 north, .range 6 east, and undivided one-third of south half northwest quarter of section 14, and southeast quarter of northeast quarter of section 15, both in town 10, range 6, may be excluded from said deeds as included by mistake, and the title declared to be in each of the plaintiffs as to the first tract, each holding an undivided one-third of said land, and a decree made accord[709]*709ingly, and such other and different relief as equity may require, and judgment rendered against defendants in favor of plaintiffs for costs of suit.”

On the trial of the cause the court found the issues in favor of the defendants and dismissed the action.

The following agreement and conveyances are set forth in the record. “Exhibit A” is as follows:

“Agreement made this 10th day of January, A-. D. 1885 between Jabez C. Crooker, of the first part, John S. Gregory, attorney, of the second part, and George H. Hilton, James F. Hilton, and Joseph B. Hilton, of the third part, as follows: That for and in consideration of certain deeds of conveyance to be executed by James F. Hilton, Joseph B. Hilton, Alice Ducharme, Nora M. Lincoln, Augusta Hilton, and George H. Hilton, and delivered unto Jabez C. Crooker, within twenty days from the date hereof, the said Jabez C. Crooker agrees to advance the necessary money required in the prosecution of the suits hereinafter mentioned, and furnish good and satisfactory bond and security for costs, and said Jabez C. Crooker will pay the required attorney fees to the party of the second part, in addition to the purchase price paid and stipulated in said deeds.

“In consideration whereof the party of the second part agree to accept said party of the first part in payment of all his fees and perquisites; and further agrees to and with the party of the third part that he will carry on to a final determination, both in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Nebraska and in the supreme court of the United States, if the same shall become necessary in the actions of the said parties of the third part, or each, or any of them for the purpose of recovering title and possession to the lands in the said deed described, and quieting the title thereto unto the said party of the third part in all respects, except for tax liens (it being understood that all parties hereto shall be severally liable for [710]*710the tax or tax liens therefor in proportion to their several interests in said lands), and said party of the second part shall have and take full and entire control and management of said causes, and shall give his full and careful attention personally thereunto, until the final determination of said causes, and without any other or further consideration than that hereinbefore stated.

“In case of the death, sickness, or inability of the party of the second part at any time during the progress of the proceedings brought and carried on as herein mentioned, so that he shall be unable to personally attend at the courts in said cause or causes when at all times the same shall be necessary, then and in that case said party of the first part agrees to employ a competent and sufficient satisfactory attorney as his substitute, and in his stead, and shall be at the expense of payment of such services. It is further mutually agreed that the consideration for which this contract is made is the deeds herein mentioned conveying said land to said Jabez C. Crooker in the proportion stated in said deeds, which are hereby taken and receipted as the full payment for the fulfillment of this contract upon their part. It is mutually agreed that no compromise of the controversies in question shall be made, except upon the agreement of all the parties in interest herein.

“If the costs paid and advanced by the party of the first part shall be recovered from the defendants in said actions, said party of the first part shall be entitled to recover the amount he may have advanced. And if a compromise is made on all or any of the property herein conveyed before the decree of the courts therein upon the merits of the case, then and in that case the party of the first part agrees to accept one-sixth of the land or of the sum obtained in such compromise which shall be taken and accepted as his share of the proceeds thereof upon deed executed to the proper one. Also that the said attorneys are to prosecute the suits with all necessary dispatch and no unnecessary delay.

[711]*711“In witness whereof, the parties to this agreement set their hands this day above written.

“John S. Gregory.

“J. C. Crooker.”

Exhibit D is as follows:

“To J. S. Gregory and J. C. Crooker, attorneys for J. F. and J. B. Hilton in their ease against J. E. Jones et al., in circuit court United States, district Nebraska : I am authorized by the above complainants to give you notice that they hereby require you to proceed to have the record made in the above case, and have the appeal granted in their said cause, now nearly two months ago, to be duly filed in the supreme court United States, without any further or unnecessary delay, as you are bound to do by written agreement, so that said case may be docketed in said supreme court by the rules, in order that the case may be ready for hearing at the next term of said court, if agreed to, or as soon thereafter as possible.

“Lincoln, Neb., 9 August, 1887.

“ J. F. and J. B. Hilton,

“By G. H. Hilton.”

“Exhibit C” is as follows:

“ Know all men by these presents, that James F. Hilton and Joseph B. Hilton, of Cook county, Illinois, for and in consideration of one dollar in hand paid by Jabez C. Crooker, and the further consideration of an agreement made and executed by Jabez C. Crooker and John S. Gregory, bearing date the 10th day of January, 1885, they do hereby sell and convey and quitclaim unto Jabez C. Crooker, of Lincoln, Nebraska, and to his heirs and assigns, forever, the following described real estate, to-wit:

The undivided £ part, title, and interest in and to the S. £ of N. W. £ of sec. 14 and S. E. £ of N. E. £ of sec. 15, all in town 10, range 6 and S. £ sec. 2, and S. £ of sec. 11, and W. £ of N. E. £ sec. 11, and S. W. £ of N. W. £ and N. W. £ of S. W. £ sec. 14, and N. E. £ of S. E.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Peterson v. Hynes
371 N.W.2d 664 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1985)
Mount, Gdn. v. Schulte
1943 OK 298 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1943)
Valparaiso State Bank v. Schwartz
138 N.W. 757 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1912)
Beall v. Martin
67 N.W. 433 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1896)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
47 N.W. 3, 30 Neb. 707, 1890 Neb. LEXIS 162, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hilton-v-crooker-neb-1890.