Mettler v. Warner

156 Ill. App. 31, 1910 Ill. App. LEXIS 349
CourtAppellate Court of Illinois
DecidedMay 28, 1910
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 156 Ill. App. 31 (Mettler v. Warner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mettler v. Warner, 156 Ill. App. 31, 1910 Ill. App. LEXIS 349 (Ill. Ct. App. 1910).

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Baume

delivered the opinion of the court.

The bill in this case alleges that from 1902, until about December 21, 1905, the defendant, Eleanor M. Magill, and one John Warner, deceased, as co-partners, conducted a general banking business in the city of Clinton, under the firm name of John Warner & Company, with a paid up capital of $50,000, of which John Warner contributed five-sixths and Eleanor M. Magill, one-sixth; that said firm succeeded to an established banking business which had theretofore been. conducted for more than forty years by a series of firms, of all of which firms the said John Warner was an active member; that for many years prior to the death of said John Warner the defendant, Vespasian Warner, had acted as the legal adviser of John Warner and of the firm of John Warner & Company; that for at least fifteen years last past the said Vespasian Warner had been the sole personal and confidential counsel and adviser of the defendant, Eleanor M. Magill, and held a general power of attorney authorizing Mm to transact her business as her attorney in fact; that said Eleanor M. Ma-gill is about seventy years of age, of frail physique and without extended business experience, and has never taken any active share in the conduct of the firm business, but is under the control and domination of Vespasian Warner to such an extent -as to deprive her of capability of independent action concerning business matters; that on December 21,1905, John Warner died, leaving his last will and testament which was admitted to probate in the county court of DeWitt county at the January term 1906, of which will the defendant, Vespasian Warner, qualified as executor, and has since acted as such, and said estate is still unsettled; that by the terms of the said will the complainants, Minnie Warner Mettler and Arabella Warner Bell, axe entitled each to one-fourth of the personal property of which John Warner, their father,, died possessed, after payment of debts, and of the widow’s claims; that as beneficiaries under the will complainants occupy toward Vespasian Warner, as executor, the position of cestuis que htistents and that he is made by law trustee in behalf of complainants; that as such trustee it is and always has been his duty to refrain from dealing in his own interest with all or any assets of the estate of John Warner, deceased, or from obtaining personal advantage from dealing with said assets, including the interest of the estate in the banking firm of John Warner & Company; that said Eleanor M. Magill is likewise by law a trustee of the assets of said firm for the benefit of the estate of John Warner, her deceased co-partner, and is, as such surviving partner, required to so conduct the affairs of said firm and deal with its assets as fully to protect the interest therein of the estate of John WTarner, deceased, in which complainants are interested; that in order to carry into execution the fraudulent and corrupt scheme devised by him to secure, without fair compensation and without the consent of complainants, the ownership of the interest of said John Warner in said bank, Vespasian Warner caused Eleanor M. Magill, as surviving partner, to file an inventory of the partnership property in the county court of DeWitt county, and procure the appointment as appraisers of the property, of the defendant Lewis, at the time cashier of the bank, Fred H. Magill, a nephew of Eleanor M. Magill, and Fred I. Cline, at the time a clerk in the employment of the bank; that complainants are informed and believe that without the knowledge of Eleanor M. Magill, and without the knowledge of any person interested in the estate of John Warner, Vespasian Warner on or about April 10, 1906, pretended to sell the interest belonging to John Warner, deceased, in the business affairs of the banking firm to the defendant Eleanor M. Magill, at a price fixed by Vespasian Warner on his own motion and responsibility, without conference with any other persons, which price was far below the actual value of said assets and property, to wit: for the sum of $81,193.60; that the fair cash value of the interest belonging to John Warner, deceased, in said assets and property, was at least $100,000 over all liabilities; that in said pretended sale Vespasian Warner acted as attorney for Eleanor M. Magill, who, as surviving partner, then controlled the property as trustee for the estate of John Warner, her deceased partner; that said defendant Magill, individually, and nominally for her own benefit, but in fact for Vespasian Warner, purchased the interest in the trust property belonging to the estate of John Warner, deceased, of which she was by law trustee; that said proceedings were taken by said Vespasian Warner, without the* knowledge or concurrence of Eleanor M. Magill, and that she was thereafter compelled by Vespasian Warner to give her consent thereto; that Vespasian Warner then pretended to act as executor of the estate of John Warner, deceased, for the fraudulent and improper purpose of lending to said pretended sale, made in fact to himself, the appearance of receiving the approval of the estate of John Warner, deceased, and of its beneficiaries, though no actual or genuine sale of said assets or business or interest therein was in fact made, nor was any actual settlement of the partnership made, either on April 10, 1906, or at any time since December 21, 1905, nor was any payment made on April 10, 1906, or since December 21, 1905, by the defendant Magill, personally or through Vespasian Warner as her attorney in fact as buyer, to Vespasian Warner or any other person as seller of said property; that said simulated and colorable transaction in fact existed only in the writing of sundry book entries made or caused to be made by Vespasian Warner, in order to manufacture evidence to establish and bolster up said irregular and illegal attempt to transfer title to said assets cr some interest therein; and said transaction occurred without the transfer in fact of any cash or valuable thing from any person as buyer to any person as seller of said assets or property or interest therein; that after the making of said pretended sals and before taking steps to secure by concealment and imposition a colorable approval of said transaction by the County Court of DeWitt county, Vespasian Warner reported to Eleanor M. Magill said illegal and void pretense of sale of said property, required her consent thereto and persuaded and induced her to consent that defendant, Vespasian Warner, should become a partner in the banking business with her, and further persuaded and induced her to agree that John Q. Lewis, cashier of said bank, in consideration of his assistance rendered Vespasian Warner in consummating and concealing said fraudulent scheme, should likewise become a partner in said banking firm, and that said Eleanor M.

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

Related

Huddleston v. Henderson
181 Ill. App. 176 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1913)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
156 Ill. App. 31, 1910 Ill. App. LEXIS 349, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mettler-v-warner-illappct-1910.