Opinion of the Court. So far as we can see, and nothing appearing to the contrary, we will presume the sale was conducted fairly and impartially, as it was made by the person selected, and upon whom appellee originally conferred the power. This case is entirely unlike one in which the person selling becomes the purchaser. In this, the previous cases in this court are entirely distinguishable from the one under consideration. Nor can we infer from the facts disclosed in this record that there was an unlawful scheme or combination between Dempster and Kedzie to fraudulently or illegally cut off the rights of appellee. Dempster had, six months before the sale, notified him that he must sell his property unless the interest should be paid, and appellee answered he had no money and did not know when he would have. It was but natural that Dempster, who was himself pressed for money, should be importunate and desirous of collecting his claim, and it is no indication of fraud that he should, after waiting such a length of time, expose the property to sale, and become its purchaser. In this there seems to be nothing out of the usual course of business. When we consider that the property was also under another mortgage, for which it was liable to the amount of over $5000, we can not, from the evidence in the record, say that the property was sold at a sacrifice. Hence no fraud can be inferred from the price bid, and for which the conveyance was made. It is, however, said that the whole indebtedness was declared to be due because of the non-payment of interest, when appellee may have supposed it was paid. It is true that he transferred to Dempster a suspended claim on a banker in Cincinnati for some $700, but nothing was realized on it in October, 1869, or until after this bill was filed, and from which Dempster or his representatives never received anything. Appellee could not be supposed to have believed that any portion of this claim was paid, as he shows himself, by his letters, to have known that the banker was insolvent. He had no right to believe that money could be collected on such Opinion of the Court. a claim. Again, he admits in his letters of January, 1862, months after he transferred this claim to Dempster, that the interest was due. The transfer was made at his request, and he did not propose it as a payment, nor did Dempster accept it as such. It could only have been intended by the parties as collateral security, to be applied as it should be collected, if in time to be available, towards discharging the accruing interest on Dempster's claim. From the whole case, we have no hesitation in believing that appellee, after writing, in January, 1862, that he had no money, and did not know when he would have, abandoned all hope of preserving the property, and expected it to be sold, and had ceased to struggle to redeem it. He seems, from that time forward, to have abandoned it to its fate. He did not look after or pay any taxes on it. He paid no attention to renting it, or otherwise looking after or caring for the property. He paid neither interest nor principal on the debt, and all this, too, for almost seven years. To our minds it is manifest that he felt that he was insolvent, and that it was useless to struggle to save this property, and had abandoned it; otherwise he would assuredly have given it some of his attention during that long period. In fact, we can not suppose that application would ever have been made to redeem, had it not been for the accidental fact that the park was located in the immediate vicinity of this land, thus giving it an unexpected value to a vast extent. Again, even if appellee had, at the beginning, equities entitling him to redeem, he has lost them by sleeping upon his rights. His delay has been too great to be heard to avoid a sale, even had it been irregular, as there was no fraud in making the sale. A party, under such circumstances, must act with some degree of promptness, or show an equitable excuse for his delay. He was not lulled into security by anything Dempster did or said. On the contrary, Dempster was importunate for his money, and finally notified him that he must sell to make his interest. All of this appellee let pass Opinion of the Court. without paying, and virtually consented that the sale should be made. There was certainly such laches as would have prevented a redemption, even had there been irregularities in conducting the sale. Nor do we see that there is the hardship supposed. Appellee never paid. on the entire purchase, as much as $3000. He only held the legal title, still owing for the land, which, when sold, was worth less than $7000, and less than the amount then due on the purchase. Owing to the deranged condition of the country and the currency at the time, there was but little demand for lands of this character, and hence appellee could not dispose of it for a price that would pay the debt. This sale was made subject to the Turney mortgage, which amounted to near the value of the land at the time the sale was made. Again, Kedzie, at first, and Dempster after he purchased the notes and mortgages, held the superior natural equity in the land. It was the unpaid purchase money, and it was a claim higher and more just than that of appellee, who had not paid it, and could not hold the land until he did. The evidence fails to show that the relation of agent between Kedzie and appellee existed to such an extent as to have prevented him from making the sale. Appellee had only requested him to look after the property and collect the rents, which he did gratuitously until he sold the notes to Dempster, when he informed appellee of the fact, and notified him that his connection with the property then ceased. Kedzie swears he was not authorized to sell the property otherwise than by the deed of trust, but only to receive and report offers to appellee for his acceptance or rejection. As the witness says, this required no authority or agency. Those acts could have been performed by any one who might choose. When the mortgages were given, and the transaction was closed, and the request made to look after the land and collect the rents for the present, the parties could not have intended that such action on the part of Kedzie would prevent 69 624 33a 73 Syllabus. him from legally executing the power to sell under the mortgages. Nor did any such consequences flow from those acts. After a careful review of the evidence in the case, we have no hesitation in saying appellee has entirely failed to make a case requiring the sale to be set aside, and that he be let in to redeem. The court, therefore, erred in rendering the decree it did, and it must be reversed and the bill dismissed. Decree reversed. Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE BREESE: I do not concur in this opinion. 1. MARRIED WOMAN-power to purchase real estate. It was held, in Carpenter v. Mitchell, 54 Ill. 126, that the power given to married women to acquire property by descent, devise, "or otherwise," was sufficiently broad to embrace an acquisition by purchase, and that, when she exer cised the power by purchasing real estate, it was under the same terms and conditions as if done by one under no disability, so far as to make the contract binding upon and render her separate estate liable in equity to discharge the indebtedness thus incurred. In Cookson v. Toole, 59 I¡l. 515, this case was so far modified as to hold her liable at law as well as in equity, upon contracts made within her capacity under the statute. 2. SAME statutes relating to, liberally construed. It has been the settled policy of this court to give a liberal construction to the acts of 1861 and 1869, relating to married women and their separate property, and to enforce their several provisions according to the plain and obvious meaning of the language used, to effectuate the legislative intent. 3. SAME-right to contract necessary to the full exercise of powers given. The right to contract is indispensable to the acquisition of earnings and to the unrestricted possession, control and enjoyment of property. 4. SAME-right to engage in business and contract debts. Under the acts of 1861 and 1869, no reason is perceived why a married woman may not, Statement of the case. at least with the consent of her husband, earn money in trade as well as by manual labor, or carry on the business of a grocery store, contract debts for goods to be used in trade, as well as for animals and farming implements, or for lands and farm labor. 5. So, where a married woman, by her husband's consent, engaged in the business of buying and retailing groceries in conjunction with another, who was a silent or secret partner, her husband acting as clerk for the firm, and the wife purchased goods in her own name, to be used in the business, and there was no pretense that the husband purchased the same, or that they were bought for his use, it was held, in an action against the wife for the price, that she was liable the same as a feme sole, and that it was not necessary to have made her husband a defendant with her, he not being liable for her contracts. 6. SAME-husband's acts as agent do not impair her rights. It has been repeatedly held by this court, that the husband may act as the agent of his wife in the control and management of her separate property, and that when he so acts in good faith, and is not permitted thereby to defraud others, it in nowise impairs her right to her property, or to its increase or profits. 7. INTEREST-on account, when admitted to be due. Where a debtor, on presentation of his account, admits its correctness, and promises to pay the same, this will render it liquidated, and it will draw interest thereafter at the rate of six per cent per annum. 8. JUDGMENT-in excess of sum indorsed on justice's summons. Where a judgment is rendered on appeal for a greater sum than that indorsed on the justice's summons, if the excess is made up of interest accruing after the date of the summons, there will be no error. APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. HENRY BOOTH, Judge, presiding. This was an action commenced before a justice of the peace, by Franklin McVeagh and Wayne McVeagh against Harriet M. Haight, upon an account for goods sold, amounting to $124.78. The opinion of the court presents the essential facts. Mr. DANIEL F. BUCKLEY, for the appellant. Mr. ALFRED BARTOW, for the appellees. 40-69TH ILL. |