Case Name: E. Russell Hinckley v. Walter E. Lewis
Court: Illinois Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1867-09
Citations: 45 Ill. 327
Docket Number: 
Parties: E. Russell Hinckley v. Walter E. Lewis.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Reports
Volume: 45
Pages: 327–328

Head Matter:
E. Russell Hinckley v. Walter E. Lewis.
Trover—for money fraudulently taken. Where a party holding a contract for the conveyance of certain lands by warranty deed, tendered the purchase money to the vendor, who received it, and at the same time handed to the purchaser a paper, which upon inspection, proved to be only a quitclaim deed, unstamped and with no name inserted as grantee, whereupon the purchaser returned the deed and demanded back his money, which was refused, held, that this conduct on the part of the vendor was fraudulent, for which an action of trover would lie to recover back the money.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Ogle county; the Hon. William W. Heaton, Judge, presiding.
This was an action of trover brought in the court below, by the appellee against the appellant, to recover back a certain sum of money, alleged to have been fraudulently taken from him by appellant. The cause was tried before a jury, who found a verdict for the plaintiff for §1,746; whereupon, the plaintiff entered a remittitur as to $115, and judgment was rendered for that amount; to reverse which, the case is brought to this court by appeal. The further facts in the case are stated in the opinion.
Messrs. Gloves, Cook & Campbell, for the appellant.
Mr. James K. Edsall, for the appellee.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Lawrence
delivered the opinion of the Court:
There can be no doubt of the correctness of the verdict and judgment in this case. Lewis tendered the money to Hinckley for the purpose of procuring a deed of warranty, for which the contract called. Hinckley at once pocketed the money, at the same time handing to Lewis a deed. The latter, on examining it, found it was only a quitclaim deed, without a revenue stamp, and with no name inserted as grantee. He demanded back his money, which Hinckley refused to give to him, and Lewis then left the office, leaving the deed on the table. This transaction on the part of Hinckley was an unmitigated fraud, and a right of action at once accrued to Lewis to recover back the money.
It is objected that the judgment, even after the entry of the remifMtur was for too large a sum. The evidence, however, fully sustains the verdict, less the remittitur.
The judgment is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.