plate control over said apartment and over all of the property and affairs of his mother, as well as over all of the property devised by the will of his father to other devisees; that said John P. Considine continued to exercise such control over his mother and over her property and affairs until the time of her death; that, owing to her enfeebled condition of mind and body, which had continued for more than five years prior to her death, and also on account of her advanced age and her lack of education and business experience, said John P. Considine was able to and he did persuade, induce or compel his said mother to execute any legal documents that he might desire for his own advantage, well knowing that she could not read the same, and that she could not, in the slightest degree, comprehend the legal effect thereof.

Your crators further represent that said John P. Considine, one of the defendants hereinafter named, taking advantage of his influence with and control over his said mother, on account of her enfeebled condition of mind and body, and by reason of the other conditions herein specified, and on or about the 15th day of January, 1921, induced, persuaded or compelled his said mother, Catherine Considine, to affix or to attempt to affix her mark to a certain promissory note for the sum of $11,000.00, payable to the order of herself, due three years after date, with interest at the rate of seven per cent. per annum, payable semi-annually; that by the same means, said John P. Considine also induced his said mother to affix or attempt to affix her endorsement upon

-7-

said alleged note; that, in order to secure the payment of said alleged note, said John P. Considine also induced, persuaded or compelled his said mother to affix or to attempt to affix her mark to an alleged trust deed, which trust deed purports to convey to William J. Rathje, as trustee, of said City of Chicago, the "following described Real Estate, with the improvements thereon and the rents, issues and profits thereof, and all lifting and plumbing apparatus and all other fixtures now or that may hereafter attach to said premises, and everything appurtenant thereto, situated in the County of Cook in the State of Illinois, to-wit:"

The South Half of Lot Number Six (6) in Block Number One (1) in Duncan's Addition to Chicago, otherwise known as Number Thirty (#50) South Halsted Street.

Your orators further represent that, at the end of said alleged trust deed in what purports to be the mark of said Catherine Considine, which mark appears to have been witnessed by said John P. Considine and by one Henry Nelson; that said trust deed contains an alleged acknowledgment, certified to by said Henry Nelson as a notary public, on the 17th day of January, 1921; that said trust deed was filed for record on the 18th day of January, 1921, as Document No. 7,040,686, and was recorded in the recorder's Office of said Cook County in Book 16, 689 of Records, at Page 133, all of which will more fully and at length appear in and by a copy of said trust deed attached to the original bill of complaint herein as "Exhibit B", and made a part hereof by reference, your orators hereby offering to produce said trust deed, or a duly certified copy thereof, on the trial thereof.

Your orators further represent that, at the time of the purported execution of said alleged note and of said alleged trust deed, the said Catherine Considine, owing to her enfeebled condition of mind body, and by reason of the other conditions herein set forth, was wholly unable to realize, to understand and to comprehend the legal effect of her act in attempting to execute said note and said trust deed; that, by reason thereof,

-8-

said alleged note and trust deed were not and are not the note and trust deed of said Catherine Considine, because of her want of mental capacity and ability to realize and to understand the purport and nature of her attempted act therein. And your orators further state that, at the time of the execution of said note and of said trust deed and for many months prior thereto, said Catherine Considine was wholly under the care and control of her said son, John P. Considine, as herein set forth; that, by reason thereof, said John P. Considine had and did exercise an undue influence over his said mother, and he did thereby cause her to execute said alleged note and trust deed by the exercise of such undue influence. Your orators further state, upon information and belief, and they so allege the fact to be, that at the time of the execution of said alleged note and trust deed, said Catherine Considine was not in need of any money for any purposes of her own, neither did she receive the proceeds of said loan, or any part thereof, for her own use and benefit, either directly or indirectly, as your orators verily believe, but on the contrary thereof, said John P. Considine appropriated the whole of the net proceeds arising from said loan, except certain expenses connected therewith and the amount required to discharge an existing loan on said property, which may have been about $4,000.00.

Your orators further represent that said John P. Considine, taking still further advantage of his undue influence with and his control over his said mother, and of her enfeebled condition of mind and body, as above set forth, and on or about the 25th day of June, 1921, did induce, persuade or compel his said mother to affix her mark to a certain alleged quit-claim deed, wherein, and for a specified consideration of One Dollar and other good and valuable consideration and love and affection, he caused her to attempt to convey to him, said John P. Considine, the following described real estate, to-wit:

50 S. Halsted Street, Chicago, Illinois, further described as the South Half (½) of Lot Six (6) in Block One (1) of Dun- can's Addition to Chicago, Illinois, Section Seventeen (17), Town- ship Thirty-nine (39) North, Range Fourteen (14), East of the

-9-

Third Principal Meridian, situated in the County of Cook in the State of Illinois.

Your orators further represent that, at the conclusion of said alleged quit-claim deed is what purports to be the mark of said Catherine Considine, which mark appears to have been witnessed by one S. A. Kidd; that said quit-claim deed contains a pretended acknowledgment, certified to by Marshall Solberg as a Notary Public, on the 25th day of June, 1921; that said quit-claim deed was filed in the recorder's office of said Cook County on the 1st day of July, 1921, as Document No. 7, 192-107, and was recorded in Book 17, 073 of Records, at Page 81, all of which will more fully and at length appear in and by a copy thereof attached to the original bill herein as amended, as "Exhibit C", the same being made a part hereof by reference, your orators hereby offering to produce said quit-claim deed, or a duly certified copy thereof, on the hearing hereof.

Your orators further represent that said John P. Considine, again taking advantage of his undue influence with and of his control over his said mother, and of her enfeebled condition of mind and body, as herein set forth, and on or about said 25th day of June, 1921, did also induce, pursuade or compel said Catherine Considine to affix her mark to a certain other alleged quit-claim deed, wherein, and for a specified consideration of One Dollar and other good and valuable consideration and love and affection, she attempted to convey to said John P. Considine all interest in the following described Real Estate, to-wit:

1248 1252-4-6 S. Racine Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, further described as the North Twenty-five (25) Feet and the South Seventy-four (74) Feet of each of Lots Ninety-three (93), Ninety-four (94), Ninety-five (95) and Ninety-six (96) in Block One (L) in Simpson and Green's Addition to Chicago. ALSO Lot Twenty-three (23) in Block Seven (7) in Waller's Subdivision of the North-west Quarter of the North-east Quarter of Section Twenty (20), Township Thirty-nine (39) North, Range Fourteen (14), East of the Third Principal Meridian, situated in the County of Cook in the State of Illinois.

Your orators further represent that, at the end of said alleged quit-claim deed is what purports to be the mark of said Catherine Considine, which mark appears to have been witnessed by said S. A. Kidd; that said quit-claim deed contains an ac-

-10-

knowledgment, certified to by said Marshall Solberg as a Notary Public, on said 25th day of June, 1921; that said quit-claim deed was filed for record on the 1st day of July, 1921, as Document No. 7,192,106, and was recorded in the Recorder's Office of said Cook County in Book 17,073 of Records, at Page 80, all of which will more fully and at length appear in and by a copy of said quit-claim deed attached to the original bill of complaint herein as amended, as "Exhibit D", the same being made a part hereof by reference, your orators hereby offering to produce said quit-claim deed, or a duly certified copy thereof, on the hearing hereof.

Your orators further represent that said John P. Considine, again taking a further advantage of his undue influence with and his control over his said mother, and of her enfeebled condition of mind and body, and of the other conditions herein set forth, and on or about said 25th day of June, 1921, did induce, pursue, or compel his mother, said Catherine Considine, to affix her mark to a certain other alleged quit-claim deed, wherein, and for a specified consideration of One Dollar and other good and valuable consideration and love and affection, she attempted to convey to said John P. Considine, all interest in the following described Real Estate, to-wit:

1404 Blue Island Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, in Sampson and Green's Addition to Chicago, further described as Lot Three (3) in Hitzman's Subdivision of the North part of Haldeman's One and One-Half (1½) Acres in Block Nine (9) in the North-west Quarter (N.W.) of Section Twenty (20), Township Thirty-nine (39) North, Range Fourteen (14), East of the Third Principal Meridian, situated in the County of Cook in the State of Illinois.

Your orators further represent that, at the conclusion of said alleged quit-claim deed in what purports to be the mark of said Catherine Considine, which mark appears to have also been witnessed by said S. A. Kidd; that said quit-claim deed contains an acknowledgment, certified to by said Marshall Solberg as a Notary Public, on said 25th day of June, 1921; that said quit-claim deed was filed for record on said 1st day of July, 1921, as Document No. 7,192,105, and was recorded in the Recorder's Office of said Cook County in Book 17,073 of Records, at

-11-

Page 80, all of which will more fully and at length appear in
and by a copy of said quit-claim deed attached to the original
bill of complaint herein as amended, as "Exhibit E", the same be-
ing made a part hereof by reference, your orators hereby offer-
ing to produce said quit-claim deed, or a duly certified copy
thereof, on the hearing hereof.

Your orators further represent that in and by said quit-
claim deed from said Catherine Considine to said John P. Con-
sidine, and above referred to as "Exhibit D" of the original
bill herein, is set forth a description of the real estate de-
vised to said Mary E. Harney under the will of her late father,
Michael J. Considine, and in which said Catherine Considine had
no interest whatever.

Your orators further represent that in and by said several
quit-claim deeds from said Catherine Considine to said John P.
Considine, and above referred to as "Exhibit C", "Exhibit D" and
"Exhibit E", of the original bill of complaint herein as amended,
is described all of the real estate received by said Catherine
Considine under the will of her late husband, and which had not
been previously disposed of, so that, after such attempted con-
veyances to said John P. Considine, said Catherine Considine had
no real estate standing in her name of record.

Your orators, the children of said Michael J. Considine, and
the grandchildren of said Catherine Considine further represent
that they always maintained the most friendly relations with
their grandmother, said Catherine Considine, and she always dis-
played towards them the most friendly spirit; that she had a
kindly feeling towards your orators as shown by the will of
said Catherine Considine, in which she attempted to devise to
your orators certain of the real estate above deeded to said
John P. Considine, after the attempted execution of said will.

Your orators further charge the fact to be that, were it not
for the control and undue influence of said John P. Considine
over his said mother in her weak and enfeebled condition of
mind and body, and by reason of the other conditions herein set
forth, she would not have executed the several deeds hereinabove

-12-

referred to and thus deprive your orators and her other heirs
of all rights in the estate which she received under the will
of her late husband.

Your orators, therefore, respectfully pray that the alleged
note for $11,000.00, bearing the mark and the endorsement by her
mark, of said Catherine Considine, and hereinabove referred to,
may be found not to be the note of the said Catherine Consi-
dine, and may this court order and decree that said note
be surrendered and cancelled for want of consideration, and for
the further reason that said Catherine Considine was incapable,
mentally, to execute the same at the time of the date thereof;
and your orators further pray that the alleged trust deed which
purports to have been given to secure the said note, and herein-
above referred to, may be declared by this court not to be the
trust deed of said Catherine Considine, and may this court order
and decree that said trust deed be surrendered for release and
cancellation by the trustee therein named, who is made a party
defendant herein; that, in the event that said trustee neglects
or refuses to so surrender said trust deed and duly release the
same, then may this court appoint some suitable and proper per-
son to execute a release of said trust deed, such release, when
so executed and delivered, to have the same force and effect as
though the same had been formally executed by the trustee there-
in named.

Your orators further respectfully pray that the several
alleged quit-claim deeds, purporting to have been executed by
said Catherine Considine to said John P. Considine, and herein-
above referred to as "Exhibit C," "Exhibit D" and "Exhibit E",
each of which is made a part of the original bill of complaint
herein as amended, may be set aside and held for naught as to
the interests of your orators in the real estate in said res-
pective deeds described, and hereinabove set forth; and when
the interests of your orators in said real estate have been
fully determined by this court, may the said John P. Considine
and Agnes Considine, his wife, and who is made a party defendant
herein, be ordered and decreed by this court to convey to your

-15-

orators, as heirs at law of said Catherine Considine, deceased, by a good and sufficient deed of conveyance, such interest in the above described real estate, if any, that this court may determine your orators are entitled to; that, in the event of the failure, neglect or refusal of said John P. Considine and Agnes Considine, his wife, to execute such deed, if directed so to do by this court, then and in such case may this court appoint some suitable and proper person to make such deed, which deed, when so executed and delivered, shall have the same force and effect as though the same had been formally executed and delivered by said John P. Considine and his said wife.

Forasmuch, therefore, as your orators are without remedy in the premises, except in a court of equity, and to the end that said John P. Considine, personally and as executor of the last will and testament of Catherine Considine, deceased, Agnes Considine, William J. Cathie, personally and as trustee, James H. Harney, Lawrence A. Harney and Herbert E. Redding, personally and as executors of the last will and testament of Mary E. Harney, deceased, Irene Redding, Michael J. Harney, Marie Swanson, Lawrence Swanson, De Lane Harney, Bernice Harney, William Harney, a minor, and Marshall I. Considine, a minor, all of whom are made parties defendant to this cross-bill, may be required to make full and direct answer to the same, but not under oath, their answers under oath being hereby expressly waived; and may this court appoint some suitable and proper person to be guardian ad litem for said minor, William Harney and Marshall I. Considine; and may this court order and decree that the above mentioned note for the sum of $11,000.00, bearing date on or about the 15th day of January, 1921, which note purports to have been executed by said Catherine Considine, by her mark, and by her endorsed in the same manner, be surrendered and cancelled, for want of consideration, and for the further reason that the same is not the note of said Catherine Considine; and may this court further order and decree that the alleged trust deed hereinabove referred to, which bears date on or about the 15th day of January, 1921, and which purports to have been given to secure the payment of the

-14-

said note hereinabove referred to, may be declared by this court
to be null and void and not the trust deed of said Catherine
Considine; and may this court order and decree that said trust
deed be surrendered for release and cancellation, and may the
trustee therein named be ordered and directed to execute a good
and sufficient release of the same; that, in the event that
said trustee neglects or refuses to execute such release, then
may this court appoint some suitable and proper person to exe-
cute the same, such release, when so executed and delivered to
have the same force and effect as though it had been formally
executed by the trustee named in said trust deed; and may this
court further order and decree that the several quit-claim
deeds purported to have been executed by the said Catherine
Considine to said John P. Considine, and hereinabove referred to
as "Exhibit C," "Exhibit D" and "Exhibit E," in the original bill
of complaint as amended, and which are made a part of this cross-
bill by reference, be set aside and held for naught as to the
respective interests of your creditors, as the same may appear on
the hearing hereof, and may said several quit-claim deeds be
held by this court not to be the quit-claim deeds of said Cath-
erine Considine; and may the said John P. Considine and Agnes
Considine, his wife, be ordered and decreed by this court to con-
vey to your creditors, as heirs at law of said Catherine Consi-
dine, deceased, and by a good and sufficient deed or deeds, the
respective interests of your creditors, as the same may be determ-
ined by this court; that, in the event of the failure, neglect or
refusal of said John P. Considine and Agnes Considine, his wife,
to make such deed or deeds, if they are so ordered and decreed
so to do by this court, then and in that case may this court
appoint some suitable and proper person to make such deed or
deeds to your creditors, as their interests may appear, which deed
or deeds, when so executed and delivered, to have the same force
and effect as though the same had been formally executed and
delivered by the said John P. Considine and Agnes Considine, his
wife. And may your creditors have such other and further relief

STATE OF ILLINOIS,
County of Cook,

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY.
Of the April Term, 1923.

JAMES H. HARNBY, et al.,
vs.
JOHN P. CONSIDINE, et al.

ORIGINAL BILL.

CATHERINE McALLISTER, et al.,
vs.
JAMES H. HARNBY, et al.

No. B. 82, 449.

CROSS-BILL.

To GEORGE W. WILBUR, Solicitor for Original Complainants;

To MARSHALL SOLBERG, Solicitor for John P. Considine,
and

To GUSTAV E. HERRIY, Solicitor for William J. Rethke.

You are hereby notified that on Friday the 27th day of April, 1923, at the opening of court in the forenoon, we shall, before the Honorable HUGO M. FRIEND, Judge of said Court, ask that a rule be entered requiring all defendants to said cross-bill to plead, answer or demur to the same within a short day to be fixed by the court.

At the same time we will ask that a guardian *ad litem* be appointed for the minor defendants, William Harney and Marshall I. Considine.

CHICAGO, April 24th, 1923.

Solicitors for Cross-Complainants.

RECEIVED a copy of above notice this

day of April,

1923.

STATE OF ILLINOIS,
County of Cook,
} ss.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY.
Of the April term, 1923.

JAMES H. HARNEY, et al.,
vs.
JOHN P. CONSIDINE, et al.

ORIGINAL BILL.

CATHERINE McALLISTER, et al.,
vs.
JAMES H. HARNEY, et al.

No. 82, 450.

CROSS-BILL.

To CHARLES L. PARTIETT, HERBERT W. BECKER, CHARLES F. CRIMES and ISIDORE GOODMAN, Solicitors for Michael Zapert:

Your are hereby notified that on Friday the 27th day of April, 1923, at the opening of court in the forenoon, we shall, before the Honorable HOGO M. FRIEND, Judge of said Court, ask that a rule be entered requiring all defendants to said cross-bill, to plead answer or demur to the same, within a short day to be fixed by the Court.

At the same time we will ask that a guardian _ad litem_ be appointed for the minor defendants, William Harney and Marshall I. Considine.

CHICAGO, April 24th, 1923.

RECEIVED a copy of above notice this
1923.

day of April,

STATE OF ILLINOIS, )
 } ss.
 County of Cook, )

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY.
Of the August Term, 1923.

JAMES H. HARNEY, et al.,
vs.
JOHN P. CONSIDINE, et al.
CATHERINE McALLISTER, et al.,
vs.
JAMES H. HARNEY, et al.

ORIGINAL BILL.

No. B. 82,449.

CROSS-BILL.

The Answers of William Harney, a minor, and Marshall I.
Considine, a minor, and infants under the age of
twenty-one years, by William R. Peacock, their
guardian ad litem, to the bill of complaint of
James H. Harney, et al., and the cross-bill of com-
plaint of Catherine McAllister, et al:

These defendants, answering by their guardian ad litem, say
that they are infants, this defendant, William Harney, of the age
of y ears, or thereabouts, and this defendant, Marshall I.
Considine of the age of years, or thereabout, and they
therefore submit their rights and interests in the matters in
question in said original bill and in said cross-bill in this
cause, to the tender consideration and protection of this hon-
orable court, and they pray for strict proof of the matters al-
leged in said original bill of complaint and in said cross-
bill of complaint.

WILLIAM HARNEY,
MARSHALL I. CONSIDINE

By

Their guardian ad litem.

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF COCK COUNTY.

Of the October Term, 1923.

JAMES H. HARNEY, et al., ) ) IN CHANCERY.
vs. ) ) No. 385,403.
JOHN P. CONSIDINE, et al. ) )

NOW comes George W. Wilbur, solicitor for said complainants, and suggests to the Court the death of said James H. Harney, and moves the Court that said suit as to said deceased do abate.

And the Court being fully advised in the premises,

It is hereby ordered that said suit, as to said James H. Harney, deceased, do abate.

Said solicitor for said complainants represents to the Court that William Harney and Marshall Considine, defendants in said cause, are minors and under the age of twenty-one years, and he moves the Court to appoint some suitable and proper person to act as guardian ad litem for said minors, being advised that William R. Peacock is a suitable and proper person to act as such guardian ad litem.

It is hereby ordered that said William R. Peacock be and he is hereby appointed guardian ad litem for said William Harney and Marshall Considine, minors.

ENTER:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF COOK COUNTY.

Of the October term, 1923.

LAWRENCE H. HARNEY, et al., ) VS. ) JOHN P. CONSIDINE, et al. ) IN CHANCERY. ) No. 385,408.

THE JOINT AND SEVERAL ANSWER of Catherine McAllister, Walter McAllister, Michael J. Considine, Margaret E. Considine, John P. Considine, (2nd) and Mary E. Considine, defendants, to the bill of complaint of Lawrence H. Harney, et al.; complainants:

These defendants, for answer to said bill of complaint, admit that all of the material allegations therein contained are true, as they verily believe. And now having fully answered said bill of complaint, these defendants pray that they may be granted the same relief prayed for in said bill of complaint, and to the same intent and effect as though they had filed a cross-bill herein asking for such relief, and for such other relief as equity may require and to the Court may seem just and proper.

CATHERINE McALLISTER
WALTER McALLISTER
MICHAEL J. CONSIDINE
MARGARET E. CONSIDINE
JOHN P. CONSIDINE (2nd)
MARY E. CONSIDINE

By Their Solicitors.

Solicitors and of Counsel
for said defendants.

STATE OF ILLINOIS
COUNTY OF COOK

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY
Of the May Term, 1923.

JAMES H. HARNEY, et al.
vs
JOHN P. CONSIDINE, et al.

ORIGINAL BILL

No. B.82450

CATHERINE McALLISTER, et al.
vs
JAMES H. HARNEY, et al

CROSS BILL

On motion of MARSHALL SOLBERG, solicitor for
defendants, John P. Considine and Agnes Considine,
IT IS ORDERED:

That the answer to the complainants bill of
complaint heretofore filed herein by said John P.
Considine and Agnes Considine stand as answer to the
cross bill of Catherine McAllister, Walter McAllister,
Michael J. Considine, Margaret E. Considine, John P.
Considine (2nd) and Mary H. Considine.

Enter: Judge.

January 5, 1923.

CITY EDITOR,

Daily News, 15 N. Wells Street.

Dear Sir:

In the issue of your paper of January 2, 1923, in a report of a suit filed in the Superior Court for the purpose of setting aside the will of Catherine Considine, and under the heading "Seek to Avoid $100,000," is the following:

"The bill charges conspiracy on the part of John P. Considine, 1947 West Van Buren street, and Marshall Solberg, an attorney, to defraud and plaintiffs of their share in the estate. On her death bed, the bill states, her hand was guided by Attorney Solberg in signing the will, which favored her son to the exclusion of the other heirs."

The foregoing quotation is erroneous in so far as it charges conspiracy against Mr. Solberg, and also in the statement that Mrs. Considine was on her death bed. She did not die until nearly two years after the will was made. In justice to Mr. Solberg, I think you should make a correction in the items above referred to. The bill does not charge Mr. Solberg with any unprofessional act.

Yours truly,

December 22, 1923.

Dear Mr. Redding:

I have been rather expecting a call from some
of you for some time. We have had two talks with John and Sol-
berg at the latter's office. Mr. Toolan and myself took the
part of the children (?). The first time we went over the
situation generally, and the last time we went more into details.
Solberg said they would pay $18,000.00, which is $9,000.00 on
a side. Mr. Toolan and myself had not shown any very determine-
attitude up to this time. At the next meeting things may be
different. We think that, rather than to proceed with the suits,
the offer will be raised to $25,000.00 for both sets of heirs,
in fact, Mr. Toolan and myself had determined to insist upon
this amount. This would be better for us than a long drawn-out
law suit for suits. Let me see some of you. With best wishes
of the season, I am

Mr. H. F. Redding,
715 Washington Bould.,
Oak Park,

Yours very truly,

Form 12

HARNEY, et al.,

vs.

CONSIDINE, et al.

CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY

Chancery

No. B. 82,449.

May

Term, 1923.

On motion of GEORGE W. WILBUR, Solicitor for

original complainants, all parties in interest being represented,

It is hereby ordered that William R. Peacock be and he is hereby appointed guardian ad litem for William Harney and Marshall I. Considine, minor defendants in said cause; and on motion of said solicitor, it is hereby ordered that said original bill and said cross-bill be, and the same are hereby referred to William a Master in Chancery of this Court, to take proofs and to report his findings thereon at an early date.

CHANCERY SUMMONS—Circuit Court

Form 25

STATE OF ILLINOIS,
COUNTY OF COOK

The People of the State of Illinois,
To the Sheriff of said County, GREETING:

WE COMMAND THAT YOU SUMMON
WILLIAM HARNEY, a minor, and JOHN P. CONSIDINE, as Executive
of the Last Will and Testament of Catherine Considine, deceased,
impleaded with John P. Considine, et al.

if they shall be found in your County, personally to be and appear before the Circuit Court of Cook County, on the first day of the term thereof, to be held at the Court House, in the City of Chicago, in said Cook County, on the third Monday of April, A. D. 1925,

to answer unto JAMES H. HARNEY, et al.

in their certain Bill of Complaint as amended,
filed in said Court, on the Chancery side thereof.

And have you then and there this writ, with an endorsement thereon
in what manner you shall have executed the same.

Witness, AUGUST W. MILLER, Clerk of our said Court, and the
Seal thereof, at Chicago, in said County, this thirtieth
day of March, A. D. 1925.

Clerk.

COPY

Form 12 297

HARNEY, et al.,
vs.

CONSIDINE, et al.

CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY
Chancery BILL and CROSS-BILL

No. B. 82,450. September Term, A. D. 1923.

XXXXXXXX NOW comes George W. Wilbur, Solicitor for
On motion of complainants in the original bill and for certain defendants in the
cross-bill, and suggests to the Court the death of James H. Harney,
one of the complainants and a defendant in the cross-bill, and moves
the Court that said suits abate as to said James H. Harney; and
the Court being fully advised,

It is hereby ordered that said original bill and said cross-bill
do abate as to said James H. Harney, deceased.

CHANCERY SUMMONS—Superior Court of Cook County.

Form 19

STATE OF ILLINOIS,
COUNTY OF COOK.
} ss.

WE COMMAND THAT, YOU SUMMON
JOHN P. CONSIDINE, Personally and as Executor of the Last Will and
Testament of Catherine Considine, Deceased, AGNES CONSIDINE, WILLIAM
HARNEY, a minor, MARY CONSIDINE, JOHN CONSIDINE, MICHAEL CONSIDINE,
CATHERINE McALISTER, MARSHALL CONSIDINE, a minor, and MARGARET
CONSIDINE,

if they shall be found in your County, personally to be and appear before the Superior Court of Cook County, on the first day of the term thereof, to be held at the Court House, in Chicago, in said County, on the first Monday of February, A. D. 1923, to answer unto JAMES H. HARNEY, LAWRENCE A. HARNEY and HERBERT E. REDDING, as Executors, etc., and LAWRENCE A. HARNEY, IRENE REDDING, MICHAEL J. HARNEY, CATHERINE HARNEY, JAMES A. HARNEY, MARIE SWANSON, DeLANE HARNEY and BERNICE HARNEY,
in their certain Bill of Complaint
filed in said Court on the Chancery side thereof.

And have you then and there this Writ, with an endorsement thereon in
what manner you shall have executed the same.

Witness, SAMUEL E. ERICKSON, Clerk of our said Court, and the Seal
thereof, at Chicago, aforesaid, this Second day of
January, A. D. 1923.

SAMUEL E. ERICKSON, Clerk.

(SEAL)

COPY

Form 25

WE COMMAND THAT YOU SUMMON

WILLIAM HARNEY, a minor, and JOHN P. CONSIDINE, as Executor of
the Last Will and Testament of Catherine Considine, deceased,
impleaded with John P. Considine, et al.,

if they shall be found in your County, personally to be and appear before the Circuit Court of Cook County, on the first day of the term thereof, to be held at the Court House, in the City of Chicago, in said Cook County, on the third Monday of April, A. D. 1923,

to answer unto JAMES H. HARNEY, et al.,

Witness, AUGUST W. MILLER, Clerk of our said Court, and the
Seal thereof, at Chicago, in said County, this Thirtieth
day of March, A. D. 1923.

Clerk.

March 1, 1924.

Dear Mr. Solberg:

Mr. Toolen told me a few days ago that he had had a talk with you in regard to a settlement of the Harvey-Considine cases, and he further said that all parties opposed to your client, would take $50,000.00 in full settlement, which means that all matters would be adjusted without any further antagonistic action in the courts. I fully ratify the proposition made to you by Mr. Toolen, and am certain that my clients will accept such an offer.

I feel that Mr. Considine can well afford to make this kind of a settlement, for the reason that, without the deeds which his mother attempted to execute to him and the will, he would be held to an undivided one-third of all property.

If the settlement is made along above lines, we will want $10,000.00 in cash and real estate, at a fair value, for the remainder.

I think the clients of Mr. Toolen and myself might accept the Holsted street property in full settlement. I trust I may be heard from you very soon in writing in regard to above, and I trust you will express yourself freely. If we cannot come to a settlement then, of course, the only recourse will be in a final termination of all pending litigation, and at as early a date as possible. I am

Yours very truly,

Mr. Marshall Solberg,
76 W. Monroe Street,
Chicago.

LEVINSON, BECKER, SCHWARTZ & FRANK
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS

SALMON O. LEVINSON
BENJAMIN V. BECKER
ARTHUR L. SCHWARTZ
JEROME N. FRANK

MARSHALL SOLBERG
OLIN KIRKPATRICK

CABLE ADDRESS "LEBEC"
TELEPHONE CENTRAL 8130

SEVENTY-SIX WEST MONROE STREET
CHICAGO

March 14, 1924.

Geo. W. Wilbur, Esq.,
Attorney at Law,
Ashland Block,
Chicago, Illinois.

Dear Sir:

Since the receipt of your recent letter regarding the Considine matters, I have been so busy that I have not had a chance to discuss your offer with Mr. John P. Considine at any length. However, I have been in touch with him over the telephone several times, and wish to state that to all appearances your offer is such that he could not comply with it if he were to accept it. It would have been difficult for him to raise the $18,000 that was offered, and which we assumed your clients and Mr. Toolen's clients would accept.

Let me repeat that Mr. John P. Considine is the only one of the children of Michael Considine, deceased, who did not receive advance-ments to the extent of thousands and tens of thousands of dollars. His son, Michael, and his son-in-law, Mr. Harney, and his daughter, Mrs. Harney, all benefitted to the extent of many thousands of dollars. This should and will have to be considered in estimating a fair and equitable settlement.

It seems to me that the offer which you and Mr. Toolen have made on behalf of your clients is really exorbitant. You are taking your figures entirely and not allowing anything to Mr. John Considine. We could not come out much worse even after protracted litigation.

Will you not please take this up with your clients and with Mr. Toolen again to the end that

I hereby undertake to file the final account and report of the executors of the Mary E. Harney Estate, and get their discharge as soon as the same can be done under the law, and under the terms of her Will, and further I will agree to undertake to get a guardian appointed for William I. Harney, a minor heir of the Estate of the said Mary E. Harney and Catherine Considine and James J. Considine, deceased, and Susan Considine, deceased, and to effect a sale of his interest in the real estate owned by the said Susan Considine and the said James J. Considine, deceased, and get said sale confirmed and approved by the Probate Court, with reasonable speed.

I further agree that I will hold out of the proceeds of a note for $8750.00, given by John P. Considine and his wife, Agnes R. Considine, dated December 31st, 1926, payable to themselves, and by themselves indorsed in blank, which I have received of said John P. Considine and said Agnes R. Considine, one-ninth, being the share that the said William I. Harney will be entitled to upon the effectuation of the aforesaid sale and confirmation, and that I will pay the share of the said William I. Harney to the guardian of the said William I. Harney, whom I will undertake to have appointed with reasonable dispatch.

GEORGE W. WILBUR
ATTORNEY AT LAW
1501-4 ASHLAND BLOCK
CHICAGO
TEL. DEARBORN 2232

CHICAGO, October 3rd, 1924.

WE, the undersigned, as heirs at law of Mary E. Harney, deceased, and individually, hereby authorize, empower and direct George W. Wilbur, as our attorney, to settle all matters in dispute between John P. Considine and the undersigned, upon the payment by said Considine to said Wilbur of not less than the sum of Eleven Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($11,250.00 in cash. Upon the payment of such amount, said Wilbur is hereby authorized and directed to stipulate for the dismissal, without costs, of all suits now pending in which said John P. Considine and the undersigned are parties, either as complainants or as defendants. Said Wilbur, upon such payment, is further authorized and directed to withdraw all objections to the approval of the final account in the matter of the estate of James J. Considine, deceased, and to consent to the settlement of the estate Susan Considine, deceased, without delay, and to the settlement of the estate of Catherine Considine, deceased, without objection.

The undersigned hereby agree to sign any papers that may be necessary in order to bring about the settlement above set forth.

Upon the receipt from said John P. Considine of the amount above specified by said Wilbur, he, said Wilbur, shall, after deducting the amount of his fee heretofore agreed upon, divide the remainder thereof into nine equal amounts, paying one-ninth to each of said heirs, except as to William Harney who is a minor, for whom a guardian shall be appointed to receive his share.

I hereby agree to carry out the terms of the settlement above proposed.

CHICAGO, April 4th, 1924.

WE, the undersigned, heirs at law and devisees under the last will and testament of Mary E. Harney, deceased, hereby employ George W. Wilbur to act as our attorney in all matters affecting our rights in any money or property to which said Mary E. Harney would have been entitled had she survived. We hereby ratify and confirm all that said Wilbur has done under a verbal agreement with our late father, James H. Harney, deceased, in the commencement and prosecution of suits in the various courts of Cook County, Illinois, against John P. Considine et al., and we hereby authorize him, said Wilbur, to commence any other suits which, in his judgment, may be necessary and proper for the purpose of recovering any money and property which, otherwise, would have belonged to said Mary E. Harney, deceased.

WE hereby agree to pay to said George W. Wilbur, for all services rendered and to be rendered by him in any and all such suits, and for any settlement or settlements which he may make of any of such suits, with our approval, or which may be made, one-fifth of the net amount which may be recovered for the undersigned. Said Wilbur is to account to the undersigned for all money received by him from our late father, James H. Harney, for costs and other expenses in the matter of such suits, and for the disbursement thereof.

I hereby accept the above proposition, and agree to exercise my best judgment and to use my best efforts in bringing about a final settlement and adjustment of all such litigation, and with the least possible delay.

STATE OF ILLINOIS )
COUNTY OF COOK )

JAMES H. HARNEY, et al
vs.
JOHN P. CONSIDINE, et al

No. 385403

It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between
the parties to the above entitled cause through their respective
solicitors that said suit be dismissed without further costs.

Solicitor for Complainant

Solicitors for Defendant

Marshall Solley

THIS INDENTURE WITNESSETH, That MICHAEL J. HARNEY, a bach-
elor, of the City of Hollywood, County of Los Angeles and State
of California, formerly of the County of Cook and State of Ill-
inois, and one of the heirs at law of Mary E. Harney, late of
said County of Cook and now deceased, for and in consideration
of the sum of TEN DOLLARS ($10.00), and other good and valuable
considerations, CONVEYS and QUIT-CLAIMS to JOHN P. CONSIDINE, of
said County of Cook, all interest in the following described
Real Estate, to-wit:

The South one-half (½) of Lot Six (6) in Block One (1)
of Duncan's Addition to Chicago, Illinois, in Section Seventeen
(17), Township Thirty-nine (39) North, Range Fourteen (14), East
of the Third Principal Meridian, situated in the County of Cook
and State of Illinois, also known as 30 South Halsted Street, in
said City. ALSO

1404 Blue Island Avenue, in said City of Chicago, described
as in Sampson & Greene's Addition to Chicago; further des-
cribed as Lot Three (3) in Hitzman's Subdivision of the North
part of Haldeman's one and one-half (1½) Acres in Block Nine
(9) in the North-west Quarter (N.W.¼) of Section Twenty (20),
Township Thirty-nine (39) North, Range Fourteen (14), East of
the Third Principal Meridian, situated in the County of Cook
and State of Illinois. ALSO

1248 South Racine Avenue in said City of Chicago, and des-
cribed as the North Twenty-five (25) feet of each of Lots Nine-
ty-three (93), Ninety-four (94), Ninety-five (95) and Ninety-six
(96) in Block One (1) in Sampson and Greene's Addition to Chi-
cago, in the East half (E.½) of the North-west Quarter (N.W.¼)
of Section Twenty (20), Township Thirty-nine (39) North, Range
Fourteen (14), East of the Third Principal Meridian, in the Coun-
ty of Cook and State of Illinois. ALSO

1252 and 1254 South Racine Avenue, in said City of Chicago, and described as the North forty-nine (49) feet of the South seventy-four (74) feet of each of Lots Ninety-three (93), Ninety-four (94), Ninety-five (95) and Ninety-six (96) in Block One (1) in Sampson and Greene's Addition to Chicago, in the East half (E.½) of the North-west Quarter (N.W.¼) of Section Twenty Township Thirty-nine (39) North, Range Fourteen (14), East of the Third Principal Meridian, situated in the County of Cook and State of Illinois. ALSO

1262 Blue Island Avenue, in said City of Chicago, and des-
cribed as Lot Twenty-three (23) in Block Seven (7) in Waller's
Subdivision of the North-west Quarter (N.W.¼) of the North-
east Quarter (N.E.½) of Section Twenty (20), Township Thirty-
nine (39) North, Range Fourteen (14), East of the Third Princi-
pal Meridian, situated in the County of Cook and State of Ill-
inois.

Said grantor hereby releases all rights under and by vir-
tur of the Homestead Exemption Laws of the State of Illinois.

WITNESS the hand and seal of said Grantor this
day of November, 1924.

(SEAL)

TRUST DEED No. 16

Riddle & Wunderle Co., Stationers and Printers, Chicago.

CHICAGO, December 31st, 1924.

19

On or before Sixty (60) days

after date, for

WE

Promise to pay to the

Value Received,

Order of

OURSELVES

the sum of
EIGHT THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED and FIFTY and 00/100
Dollars,
at
The National Bank of Commerce, Chicago,
with Interest thereon
at the rate of Six per cent. per annum, payable after date. annually.

This Note is secured by a Trust Deed to
CHICAGO TITLE AND TRUST COMPANY,
Trustee, of even date herewith, on real estate in
Cook County, Illinois,
and is to bear interest at the rate of Six per cent. per annum after maturity.

No ONE.

Chicago, Ill

October, 29th, 1924.

Dear Mr. Wilbur:

Here are the names that I mentioned to you over the phone.

Laurence A. Harney married to Mrs. Emma Harney, formerly Emma Johnson.

Irene C. Harney, wife of Herbert E. Redding

Michael J. Harney - bachelor

Catherine F. Harney - spinster

Marie C. Harney, wife of Lawrence J. Swanson

James A. Harney - batchelor

Delane J. Harney - spinster

Berenice S. Harney - spinster

William J. Harney - minor

The children of Mrs. May Considine are as follows:

Michael Considine, married to Margaret Bruin

Catherine Considine wife of Walter P. McAllister

Margaret Considine wife of James B. Galligan

John Considine - bachelor

Marshall Considine -

Mary Considine - spinster.

We do not know any of the middle names or initials of these people.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, )
County of Los Angeles, ) ss.

I, a
Notary Public in and for said County in the State aforesaid,
DO HEREBY CERTIFY, That MICHAEL J. HARNEY, a bachelor, who is
personally known to me to be the same person whose name is
subscribed to the foregoing instrument, appeared before me this
day in person, and acknowledged that he signed, sealed and deliv-
ered the said Instrument as his free act and deed, for the uses
and purposes therein set forth, including the release and waiver
of the right of homestead.

GIVEN under my hand and Notarial Seal, this
day of November, A. D. 1924.

NOTARY PUBLIC.

My Commission Expires

December 1, 1924.

My Dear Mr. Solberg:

Your letter of the 26th ult. and a previous
one in regard to the settlement of Mr. John P. Considine with
the Harney heirs both received, and I have delayed replying on
account of a deed and other papers which were sent to Michael
Harney in California, and which were not received until today.

I have written authority signed by all of the Harney heirs
authorizing me to settle all matters between John P. Considine
and themselves for $11,250.00. The heirs have now executed the
deeds you called for and all have signed appearances for the
settlement of the estates of Catherine Considine, Susan Considine
and James J. Considine. The attorneys for the respective par-
ties are to sign all stipulations that may be necessary to
finally dispose of all pending law suits.

I am to settle the Susan estate and obtain the discharge
of the administrator.

As William Harney is a minor, his share of the amount to be
paid is to be deposited with some disinterested party until a
guardian is appointed and his 45th interest in the Susan and
James J. property can be sold under order of court. Your client
is to pay all costs in the Susan estate, including the amount
already paid, and also the costs of the William guardianship mat-
ter, growing out of the sale.

Upon the delivery of all of the papers required by you, as
above designated, which of course includes the papers from the
Considine heirs, we will be prepared to receive the above amount,
with the exception of the share which will belong to William,
the minor. Trusting the above will meet with your approval,
I am

April 3, 1924.

Dear Mr. Harney:

Inclosed is form of agreement such as was
agreed upon with your father. I trust you will be able to get
both signed, one to be kept by you and one to be given to me.
You might write to your brother as to the agreement and get his
sanction to it by letter. I hope to see you very soon on the
matter of the conduct of the suits. I had a short talk with
Mr. Solberg the other day. He does not seem inclined to in-
crease his offer of $18,000.00 in full. In order to bring a
head to the matter we may have to start action in the suits.
This will require placing cases on the trial call. One is be-
fore a master, and this can be taken up at any time. In the
estate of James J. Considine we will have to get that before
Judge Horney, and that it now a very slow court.

If you will all authorize me to make a settlement for
$25,000.00, I will put it up to Mr. Solberg as a final offer, and
this may bring results. I am

Yours very truly,

THIS INDENTURE WITNESSeth, That the Grantors, JOHN P. CON-

SIDINE and AGNES B. CONSIDINE, his wife, of the City of Chicago, in the County of Cook and State of Illinois, for and in consideration of the sum of SEVENTY-ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($17,000.00), in hand paid, CONVEY AND WARRANT to CHICAGO TITLE AND TRUST COMPANY, a corporation, doing business in said City of Chicago, the following described Real Estate, to-wit:

The South One-Half (S.H.) of Lot Six (6) in Block One (1) of Duncan's Addition to Chicago, Illinois, in Section Seventeen (17), Township Thirty-nine (39) North, Range Fourteen (14), East of the Third Principal Meridian, situated in the County of Cook and State of Illinois, also known as Number 30 South Malated Street, Chicago; ALSO

Number 1404 Blue Island Avenue, described as in Sampson and Greene's Addition to Chicago, and further described as Lot Three (3) in Hitzman's Subdivision of the North Part of Maldeman's One and One-half (1½) Acres in Block Nine (9), in the North-west Quarter (N.W.) of Section Twenty (20), Township Thirty-nine (39) North, Range Fourteen (14), East of the Third Principal Meridian, situated in the County of Cook and state of Illinois; ALSO

Lot Twenty-three (23) in Block Seven (7) in Waller's Subdivision of the North-west Quarter (N.W.) of the North-east Quarter (N.E.) of Section Twenty (20), Township Thirty-nine (39) North, Range Fourteen (14), East of the Third Principal Meridian, situated in the County of Cook and State of Illinois, also known as Number 1262 Blue Island Avenue, Chicago.

The Grantors hereby release and waive all rights under and by virtue of the Homestead Exemption Law of the state of Illinois, and all right to retain possession of said premises after default in payment or a breach of any of the covenants or agreements herein contained, IN TRUST, nevertheless, for the following purposes:

WHEREAS, The said John P. Considine and Agnes B. Considine, Grantors herein, are justly indebted, upon their two Promissory Notes, bearing even date herewith, payable to the order of them-selves, and by them duly endorsed, each of said notes being for the sum of Eighty Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($8,750.00), due on or before sixty (60) days' after date, with interest and the rate of six per cent. per annum, after date, said notes being due and payable at The National Bank of Commerce, Chicago.

NOW, if default be made in the payment of the said two Promissory Notes, or any part thereof, or the interest thereon, or any part thereof, at the time and in the manner above spec- ified for the payment thereof, or in case of waste or non-pay- ment of taxes or assessments on said real estate, or of a breach of any of the covenants or agreements herein contained, then and in such case the whole of said principal sum and interest, se- cured by the said two promissory notes, shall thereupon, at the option of the legal holder or holders thereof, become immediate- ly due and payable; and on the application of the legal holder or holders of said promissory notes, or either of them, it shall be lawful for the said Grantee, or its successor in trust, to enter into and upon and take possession of the premises hereby granted, or any part thereof, and to collect and receive all rents, issues and profits thereof; and in its own name, or oth- erwise, to file a bill or billa in any court having jurisdic- tion thereof against the said parties of the first part, their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, to obtain a decree for the sale and conveyance of the whole or any part of said premises herein specified, by said party of the second part, as

THIS IS A JUNIOR RECOCERNANCE LENS, IS GIVEN SUBJECT TO ALL EXISTING LINES AND APPURTAGES, AGAINST THE REAL ESTATE BEING DESCRIBED.

CHICAGO, July 22, 1925.

$857.92

RECEIVED from George W. Wilbur the sum of EIGHT HUNDRED THIRTY-SEVEN and 93/100 DOLLARS in full settlement of all matters relating to the estate of Catherine Considine, deceased, and in full settlement of all claims against John P. Considine, said amount being the portion due the undersigned on the note of said John P. Considine for $8,750.00.

LAW OFFICES

SOLBERG, HUMMELAND & WINSLOW

MARSHALL SOLBERG
ANDREW HUMMELAND
FRANK T. WINSLOW
ALBERT J. W. APPELL
VAN CLEMENT WINANS

10 SOUTH LASALLE STREET

TELEPHONES: FRANKLIN | 0765
| 0766

CHICAGO Jan. 5, 1925

George W. Wilbur, Esq.,
Attorney at Law,
Ashland Block,
Chicago, Ill.

My dear Mr. Wilbur:

Enclosed please find receipts, which cause your clients and those of Mr. Toolen to sign, as indicated by the property described therein, respectively. You have a copy of the Will in your files, and it will be easy enough for you to ascertain who is to sign the respective receipts. Some of the articles may have been mislaid or lost, on account of the long time intervening since the death of Mrs. Considine, and consequently, we may be obliged to take advantage of the understanding between you and me, that in such cases, the appraised value of the legacies missing will be paid to the legatee.

I tried to get you on the phone this morning, to tell you that John P. Considine informs me that the Susan property covers lots 95 and 96, as well as 93 and 94, so it would seem that my description was correct, and yours wrong. Please check this very carefully, to the end that there may be no mistake that will give us any trouble later.

I lost the two notes, or have mislaid them in some way or other, so please prepare two more and send them on to me.

MS-W

GEORGE W. WILBUR

CHICAGO, July 22, 1925.

$837.93

RECEIVED from George W. Wilbur the sum of EIGHT HUNDRED THIRTY-SEVEN and 93/100 DOLLARS, in full settlement of all matters relating to the estate of Catherine Considine, deceased, and in full settlement of all claims against John P. Considine, said amount being the portion due the undersigned on the note of said John P. Considine for $8,750.00.

GEORGE W. WILBUR

CHICAGO, July 22, 1925.

$837.93

RECEIVED from George W. Wilbur the sum of EIGHT HUNDRED THIRTY-SEVEN and 93/100 dollars in full settlement of all matters relating to the estate of Catherine Considine, deceased, and in full settlement of all claims against John P. Considine, said amount being the portion due the undersigned on the note of said John P. Considine for $8,750.00.

CHICAGO, July 22, 1925.

$837.37

CHICAGO, July 22, 1925.

$837.57

CHICAGO, July 22, 1925.

$837.93

LAW OFFICES

SOLBERG, HUMMELAND & WINSLOW

10 SOUTH LASALLE STREET

TELEPHONES: FRANKLIN

(0765)
(0766)

CHICAGO Feb. 4, 1925

George W. Wilbur, Esq.,
Attorney at Law,
Ashland Block,
Chicago, Illinois

My dear Mr. Wilbur:

This is to advise you that the costs in the Susan Considine estate were not paid in full. There was a balance of $8.25, which I paid today.

I hope that you will send me the deed from the Mrs. Harney executors in the next day or so, for, as explained to you over the telephone, Mr. Considine may need to have this deed on record, in order to effect a deal within a short time. If this deal is effected, it will aid him in making prompt payment of the note which your clients hold against him, so their self-interests should impel them to get this deed executed and in my hands at once.

MS-W

April 29, 1925.

Mr. Marshall Solberg,

10 South La Salle Street, Chicago.

Dear Sir:

Your client, Mr. John P. Conidine is wholly ignoring his obligations to my clients. The note is long past due, and I have been awaiting your report that a loan would be procured. I now understand that it is but slight chance of obtaining it under the plan you stated to me.

My clients and myself are through granting any further deal lays. Unless you can give me satisfactory assurances, before the 5th of May, 1925, that the amount due on the note will be paid before the 10th of May, 1925, I will start an action at law upon the note on the 13th of May, 1925, and will put the same in judgment with the least possible delay. I feel confident that the amount of an execution can be promptly realized.

The above will be subject to no delay for any reason, and the course indicated will be carried out, unless all conditions stated are complied with by your client in every particular. I am

Yours very truly,

LAW OFFICES

SOLBERG, HUMMELAND & WINSLOW

IO SOUTH LASALLE STREET

CHICAGO

January 28, 1925.

George W. Wilbur, Esq.,
Attorney at Law,
Ashland Block,
Chicago.

Dear Mr. Wilbur:

I was surprised this afternoon to find that you did not have the Guardian ad Litem, George F. Mulligan, approve the final account and report in the Susan Considine Estate. Please have him do so the first thing in the morning. The judge approved the account and report with the exception of that one matter.

As to the Bonding Company, I got in touch with Mr. Gaulter and he sent a representative of the U.S.F. & G. Co. over to the court to see me. This representative said that they could find no record of a charge or a credit in this estate. I offered to pay the amount of the bond, but he could not give me a bill and would not give me a receipt. This situation was explained to the judge, and he said, well, it was their lookout, and therefore that item was eliminated from the final account and report. Under the circumstances, I do not feel that I should be called upon to pay the premium on the bond.

I got a no-tax letter for you in the Susan Considine estate also. The way these things have been dragging along certainly has not been due to any fault on my part, and I was getting pretty tired of it, so I stuck to the matter until I accomplished the foregoing, although it was a quarter after five before I got out of the Probate Court.

MS-B

 SS.:
} 

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT,

JAMES H. HARNEY,
ET AL

vs.

JOHN P. CONSIDINE,
ET AL

 No. 385403
} 

The joint and several answer of John P. Considine
and Agnes Considine to the bill of complaint of James H.
Harney, et al, complainants.

These defendants, now and all the time hereafter, sav-
ing and reserving unto themselves all benefit and advan-
tage of exception which can or may be had or taken to the
many errors, uncertainties and other imperfections in the
said bill contained, for answer thereunto, or to so much
and such parts as these defendants are advised it is or
are material or necessary for them to make answer, answer-
ing say:

The defendant, Agnes Considine, states that she
is the wife of the defendant, John P. Considine. These
defendants admit that Catherine Considine departed this
life on January 13th, 1922, leaving her surviving Mary E.
Harney, her daughter, John P. Considine, her son, and other
persons mentioned in the complainant's bill of complaint,
and that Mary E. Harney departed this life, testate, on or
about July 26th, 1922, leaving her surviving as her heirs
at law and devisees, the persons mentioned in complainant's
bill of complaint and that the will of said Mery E. Harney
was admitted to probate in the Probate Court as alleged in
the complainant's bill of complaint for aught these defen-
dants know to the contrary.

-3-

or prior thereto and state that she was capable of making
a just and proper distribution of her estate. Your defen-
dant, John P. Considine, denies that he used any arts and
fraudulent practices or resorted to falsehood and misrep-
resentation in order to induce the said Catherine Considine
to execute her said will and testament and denies that the
said Catherine Considine was in effect wholly under his
control and improper restraint and undue influence, and
denies that any false and fraudulent practice and misrep-
resentations were made in this connection.

These defendants further answering, admit that
said Catherine Considine was residing at 5668 W. Washington
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois, at the time of the execution
of her said Will and Testament and admit that she resided
there with her son, James J. Considine, for several years
prior to his death which occurred on or about April 3rd,
1919. And these defendants further answering, state that
after the death of the said James J. Considine, and upon
the urgent solicitation and request of said Catherine
Considine, these defendants moved into the home of his
mother and took up their residence with her and at her
earnest solicitation and request looked after and cared
for her tenderly and properly as a good and dutiful son
and daughter should have done, under the circumstances.

And these defendants deny that the said Catherine Considine
was required to do the work of a servant and deny that she
did do said work, but state that she was always properly
cared for and looked after by these defendants. But these
defendants further state that the said Catherine Considine
was of an active and energetic disposition and that she
was in good health until her last illness; that she found

-4-

it necessary to be up and about and accordingly was up and
around her said home daily during the time that she lived
there with these defendants. And these defendants allowed
said Catherine Considine to have her will in this respect,
as in all others. And said Catherine Considine was allowed
to freely control and manage her personal affairs and her
property just as she saw fit and at all times during the
period in question lived in comfort and had suitable care
and proper food and clothing.

These defendants further answering state that it
is true that Marshall Solberg has been the attorney for
the defendant, John P. Considine, in a number of matters
and had been prior to the execution of the Last Will and
Testament of said Catherine Considine and that Dr. Albert
H. Carter had been the family physician of these defendants
but had also attended said Catherine Considine, and for ten
years prior to her death was her physician at all times
when she needed or required the services of a doctor. These
defendants further state that the said Catherine Considine
of he own free will requested the said Marshall Solberg to
be brought to her home for the purpose of preparing her will
and the said Marshall Solberg in that connection instructed
the defendant, John P. Considine, to arrange a time that
would be convenient for the said Catherine Considine and to
have witnesses ready so that the said will might be properly
acknowledged. That the said Albert H. Carter and his mother-
in-law were accordingly called to the residence of the said
Catherine Considine for that purpose. And these defendants
further state that they were not present when the said Last
Will and Testament was executed and did not in any way
directly or indirectly urge the said Catherine Considine to
make and execute the same, nor did they influence her con-

-5-

cerning any of the provisions therein, except those for the
benefit of said Mary E. Harney, and the said children of
said Mary E. Harney, and said Michael Considine, deceased.
And the said John P. Considine notwithstanding his Mother's
oft-repeated wish that he take her whole estate, requested
her to make certain provisions for the other heirs of the
said Catherine Considine. These defendants, further state
that the said Marshall Solberg called on the said Catherine
Considine a day or so prior to the actual execution of the
said Will in order to find out about her wishes in that
connection and that after the said Marshall Solberg learned
from the said Catherine Considine what disposition she
wanted to make of her estate that they were embodied in
said Last Will and Testament by him and presented to the
said Catherine Considine for signature and that before it
was signed and witnessed, as aforesaid, each and every part
of said Will was carefully, deliberately and distinctly
read to the said Catherine Considine and approved by her
in the presence of the said witnesses.

These defendants further answering, state that the
said Marshall Solberg guided the hand of the said Catherine
Considine when she placed her signature or mark at the end
of said Will and that this was done at the request of the
said Catherine Considine and that the letters, "C.C." were
placed upon each page in the same way and the said Catherine
Considine did understand entirely and comprehend fully the
contents, purport and meaning of her said Last Will and
Testament, and the result that would follow upon her execu-
tion thereof and the probate thereof upon her death.

Your defendant, John P. Considine, states that the
property and assets of his Mother, said Catherine Considine,
for a number of years prior to her death and for about seven

State of Illinois, ) as only approved therein on or about the 27th day
County of Cook. ) ss.

In the CIRCUIT COURT of COOK COUNTY.

MARY E. HARNEY

vs.

No. B-83450.

JOHN P. CONSIDINE, ET AL.

The separate answer of Michael Espert, one of the defendants to the bill of complaint of the above named complainant.

This defendant now and at all times hereafter, saving and reserving unto himself all and all manner of benefit of exception which can or may be had or taken to the many errors, uncertainties and other imperfections in said bill of complaint contained, for answer thereunto or unto so much and such parts thereof as this defendant is advised it is material or necessary for him to make answer unto, answering says:

(1) This defendant admits that in and by the last will and testament of Michael J. Considine, deceased, Catharine Considine, his widow, was made residuary legatee; that under and by virtue of such provision in said will said Catharine Considine was devised the following described real estate, to-wit:

East one-third (1/3) of West one-half (1/2) of Lot Seven (7), being also described as the East Twenty-four and eight-twelfths (24 8/12) feet of the West Seventy-four and eight-twelfths (74 8/12) feet of Lot Seven (7), in Block Twenty-five (25), Original Town of Chicago in Section Nine (9), Township Thirty-nine (39) North, Range Fourteen (14) East of the 3rd Principal Meridian;

that said will was duly admitted to probate; that the estate of said Michael J. Considine, deceased, was fully administered and that a final

report and account was duly approved therein on or about the 27th day
of April, 1909.

(2) This defendant, further answering, says that he has no information, knowledge or belief, except as he is informed in and by the bill of complaint herein, as to whether after the settlement of the estate of said Michael J. Considine, James J. Considine was residing with his mother; or as to whether he assumed complete control over and management of all of the real and personal property left by his father, including the real estate disposed of by his will; or as to whether he continued to control and manage said property until the time of his death in April, 1919; or as to whether immediately after the death of the said James J. Considine, John P. Considine took possession of and control and management of said property, and continued so to do down to the time of the conveyance hereinafter described, with the exception of certain real estate devised to the complainant under the will of her father, said Michael J. Considine; or as to whether said James J. Considine at the time of his death was residing with his mother in an apartment building known as No. 5668 Washington Boulevard, City of Chicago; or as to whether immediately after the death of his brother, said John P. Considine and his wife, Agnes, moved into the home of his mother; or as to whether said John P. Considine immediately assumed control of said apartment, and of all the property of his mother, as well as the remainder of the property devised by the will of his father to other devisees; or as to whether said John P. Considine continued to exercise control over his mother's property and affairs during all of the time he resided with her and until the time of her death; and therefore as to all these matters this defendant neither admits nor denies the same, but calls for strict proof thereof upon the hearing of this cause.

(3) This defendant, further answering, alleges and avers that
on or about November 26, 1920 he acquired title to the real estate

-2-

January 1, 1920 to November 18, 1920 pro-rated on the basis of the
1919 general taxes on said premises; (7) the balance of said sum of
$10,000, amounting to $4,049.60, was paid to Catharine Considine by
check of Koester and Zander drawn upon the Merchants Loan and Trust
Company, dated December 3, 1920, payable to the order of Mrs. Catharine
Considine; that thereafter said check last described was endorsed by
Mrs. Catharine Considine and by John P. Considine and payment thereof
made through the National Bank of the Republic of Chicago, Illinois,
with which it was deposited.

(4) This defendant, further answering, says that he purchased
said real estate and paid full value therefor, as aforesaid, in good
faith without any notice or knowledge, actual or constructive, that the
said Catharine Considine, at the time she executed said warranty deed
to this defendant, was over eighty years old, as is alleged in the bill
of complaint herein, or that she was in an enfeebled condition of mind
and body, and could neither read nor write, or that said John P.
Considine had or exercised any control or influence over his mother,
said Catharine Considine, with respect to the conveyance of the premises
in question, and having no information, knowledge or belief as to these
matters except as he is informed with respect thereto in and by the bill
of complaint herein, this defendant neither admits nor denies the same,
but calls for strict proof thereof upon the hearing of this cause.

(5) This defendant, further answering, denies that said John
P. Considine exercised any undue influence and control over his mother,
said Catharine Considine with respect to the sale to this defendant
of the premises in question, and denies that said John P. Considine was
able to and did induce, persuade or compel his mother to make such
disposition of her property as he might direct; denies that at the time
of the execution of said warranty deed said Catharine Considine was
wholly unable to realize or to understand and comprehend her act; denies

-4-

that said warranty deed is not and was not the deed of said Catharine Considine, because of her alleged want of mental capacity and ability to realize and to understand the purport and nature of her act; denies that said warranty deed is not the deed of said Catharine Considine, but to the contrary alleges and avers that said Catharine Considine at the time she executed said warranty deed fully understood and comprehended the nature of her act and that she put her mark upon said deed in the presence of witnesses and acknowledged that she so signed, sealed and delivered said deed as her free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes therein set forth.

(6) Further answering, this defendant denies that said Catharine Considine did not receive the consideration paid for said deed, as hereinabove set forth, or any portion thereof, for her own use and benefit, either directly or indirectly; denies that John P. Considine appropriated to his own use and benefit the net amount received from the sale of said real estate, and denies that the said property was worth $15,000 at the time of said sale and that the consideration paid by this defendant was grossly inadequate.

(7) This defendant, further answering, says that as to all other material allegations in said bill of complaint contained, not hereinbefore specifically answered, admitted or denied, this defendant has no knowledge of, or information concerning the same, except as he is informed in and by said bill of complaint, and therefore this defendant neither admits nor denies the same but calls for strict proof thereof upon the hearing of this cause.

(8) This defendant, further answering, denies that the said complainant is entitled to the relief or any part thereof in said bill of complaint demanded, and prays the same advantage of

-5-

GUSTAV E. BEERLY
612 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE HLDG.

COPY

MARY E. HARNEY
-vs-

Gen. No. B-82449

JOHN P. CONSIDINE, et al

ANSWER OF WILLIAM J. BATH, individually and as Trustee, to the Bill of Complaint of MARY E. HARNEY, Complainant:

This defendant, now and at all times hereafter, saving and reserving unto himself any and all manner of ad-vantage and exception which can or may be had or taken to the many manifold insufficiencies in said Bill contained, for answer unto, or to so much or such parts thereof as he is advised it is material to make answer unto, answering says:

This defendant further answering admits that in and by the Last Will and Testament of Michael J. Considine, deceased, Catherine Considine, his widow, was made residuary legatee and was devised certain real estate, among others, as follows.

The South One Half of Lot Six (6), Block One (1) of Duncan's Addition to Chicago, Section Seventeen (17), Township Thirty Nine (39) North, Range Fourteen (14) East of the Third Principal Meridian, in the City of Chicago, County of Cook and State of Illinois. Said lot is also known as No. 30 South Halsted Street.

This defendant further answering avers that on or about the 15th day of January, 1921, the said Catherine Considine did make, execute and deliver her certain promissory note for

-1-

Eleven Thousand Dollars ($11,000), payable to the order of herself, due three years after date with interest at 7% per annum, payable semi-annually, which said note was duly endorsed and delivered; that in order to secure the payment of said note, the said Catherine Considine did execute and deliver her certain Trust Deed conveying to William J. Rathje of the City of Chicago, the real estate hereinbefore described, together with all improvements thereon, and the rents, issues and profits thereof, and all lifting, heating and plumbing apparatus, and all other fixtures now or that may be hereafter attached to said premises and everything appurtenant thereto; that said Trust Deed was duly acknowledged by the said Catherine Considine on the 17th day of January, 1921 before Henry Nelson, a Notary Public in and for the County of Cook and State of Illinois, and that on the 18th day of January, 1921, said Trust Deed was filed for record in the Recorder's Office of Cook County in the State of Illinois, as Document No. 7040686, and recorded in Book 1669 of Records, at Page 133.

This defendant further answering states that at the time of the making of the aforesaid loan the said Catherine Considine was in need of money in that a certain first mortgage upon the premises hereinbefore described was about to mature, and that desiring to take up said loan and to use the surplus for other purposes, the said Catherine Considine applied to the Mid-City Trust & Savings Bank for the loan of said money, and that the principal of said note, to-wit, the sum of Eleven Thousand Dollars ($11,000), was paid unto the said Catherine Considine on or about the 5th day of February, 1921; that the proceeds of said loan were used by the said Catherine Considine for the following purposes, namely:

-2-

Commission on said loan $275.00
Paid for release fee 3.00
Paid to First Wisconsin National Bank to take up encumbrance held by it 5586.16
Revenue stamps 2.68
Chicago Title & Trust Company Guarantee Policy 122.18
Insurance premiums 49.50
Check to Catherine Considine 4961.48
$11,000.00

This defendant further answering states that at the time of the execution of the aforesaid note and Trust Deed the said Catherine Considine was fully capable of making, executing and delivering the said note and Trust Deed, and did in fact know, understand and comprehend the purport of said note and Trust Deed, and the purpose for which she was making the same, and that she intended that the said note should be secured by a valid first lien upon the real estate hereinbefore described, and that neither this defendant or any one acting on behalf of the Mid-City Trust & Savings Bank, in the slightest manner or degree took advantage of the said Catherine Considine, and that the said transaction is bona fide, based upon a valid and adequate consideration, and was entered into by the parties thereto knowingly and understandingly, and is a valid, legal and existing obligation, and the Trust Deed securing said note is a first and prior lien upon the premises aforesaid.

AND this defendant further answering denies all and singular the matters and things averred, charged, stated and set forth in the complainant's Bill of Complaint, which are not herein specifically answered or denied and leaves the complainant to strict proof thereof.

-3-

MARSHALL SOLBERG

STATE OF ILLINOIS,
COUNTY OF COOK,

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT

vs.
No. 371213
JOHN P. CONSIDINE

ANSWER

The answer of John P. Considine, defendant, to
the bill of complaint of Mary E. Harney, complainant.

1. This defendant, now and all times hereafter,
saving and reserving unto himself all benefit and advantage
of exception which can or may be had or taken to the many
errors, uncertainties and other imperfections in the said
bill contained, for answer thereunto, or to so much and
such parts thereof as this defendant is advised is or are
material or necessary for him to make answer unto, answering
says:

2. This defendant admits that the complainant, Mary E. Harney, is the owner of the legal title to the premises described in her bill of complaint, and derived

of her father, Michael J. Considine, who departed this
life testate on or about September 11, 1905; but states
that this defendant has a beneficial interest in the same
by reason of divers large sums of money expended by this
defendant in and about said premises in keeping them in
repair, paying taxes and water rates, insurance, repairs,

4. This defendant, further answering, admits that he was duly appointed and qualified as administrator of the estate of James Considine on or about April 11, 1919, and that said estate is still pending in the Probate Court of this County.

that he has assumed and held control over the said real estate of the complainant without the permission or consent of the complainant, and denies that he has appropriated to his own use all of the rents, issues and profits arising therefrom, but states that there have been no profits arising therefrom; that the rents and receipts from the said real estate have been insufficient to pay the necessary expenses attached thereto without including the labor of this defendant and his employes in and about said premises in collecting said rents and administering said real estate; and this defendant prays that upon the accounting herein prayed for, to which he consents, he will be allowed reasonable compensation for his services rendered to the complainant in this connection, and the services of his agents and servants in the same connection; and this defendant denies that complainant has often demanded of him that he surrender the possession and control over said real estate to her, but states that recently demands have been made indirectly; but that through the services of this defendant, the property is more than sufficient to pay the upkeep of the said premises, and this defendant ought to be and prays for the right to be allowed to continue to administer said property, so that he may be reimbursed for the deficiency in said rents heretofore existing.

-3-

6. This defendant, further answering, denies that he has refused to account to the complainant for the rents, issues and profits, if any, arising from the real estate in question, but states that a correct and true itemized statement was furnished to the complainant a number of months ago, and that said statement was brought to and including November, 1921, and showed a loss to this defendant of, to wit: Seven Hundred Seventy and 07/100 Dollars ($770.07), in addition to which this defendant is entitled to compensation for looking after said property as aforesaid.

7. This defendant, further answering, states that he joins in the complainant's prayer for an accounting, and is now and has been at all times ready and willing to account for any sum or sums of money which he may have received from tenants or occupants of the aforesaid real estate, and asks that the complainant be required to account for any sum or sums of money which she may have received therefrom, or any benefits which she may have received therefrom, or which have accrued to her by reason of the handling of said real estate by this defendant, or by reason of his expenditure of money in relation thereto; and this defendant asks that a reference to a Master in Chancery be had at once for the purpose of ascertaining the complainant and this defendant are.

8. This defendant, further answering, denies that the complainant is entitled to any relief or any part thereof in the said bill of complaint demanded,

-4-

-4-

Your oratrix further represents that, under the terms of the will of said Michael J. Considine, deceased, his sons James Considine (afterwards known as James J. Considine), and John Considine (afterwards known as John P. Considine), were named as executors thereof without bonds; that, upon the filing of said will and a hearing thereon, said James J. Considine and said John P. Considine were duly appointed and qualified as such executors; that said estate was fully administered and a final report and account was duly approved therein on or about the 27th day of April, 1909, all of which will more fully and at length appear in and by a copy of said will hereto attached as "Exhibit A", and made a part hereof, your oratrix hereby offering to produce said will, or a duly certified copy thereof, together with the records and files of said probate Court, in the matter of said estate, or certified copies thereof, on the hearing hereof.

Your oratrix further represents that, after the settlement of the estate of said Michael J. Considine, as above set forth, said James J. Considine, who was residing with his mother, assumed complete control over and management of all of the real and personal property left by his late father, including the real estate disposed of by his will; that he continued to so control and manage said property until the time of his death, as above set forth; that, immediately thereafter, said John P. Considine took possession of and complete control over and management of all of said property, and he has continued so to do down to the present time, with a slight exception as to certain real estate which was devised to your oratrix under the will of her father; that said James J. Considine was residing with his mother in an apartment building known as Number 5668 Washington Boulevard, in said City of Chicago, at the time of his death; that, immediately after the death of his brother, said John P. Considine and his wife, Agnes, moved into the home of his mother above mentioned, and said John P. Considine immediately assumed control of said apartment, and of all of the prop-

-5-

erty of his mother, as well as the remainder of the property devised by the will of his father to other devisees; that said John P. Considine continued to exercise such control over his mother, her property and affairs during all of the time he resided with her, and until the time of her death, as above stated; that, during the time last referred to, said John P. Considine was able to induce, persuade or compel his mother to make such disposition of her property as he might direct, and to the complete exclusion of your oratrix and of certain of the other heirs at law of said Catherine Considine, and herein named; that, owing to her unfeebled condition of mind and body, which had continued for more than five years prior to her death, and also on account of her advanced age and of her lack of education, as above set forth, said John P. Considine was able to and he did so induce, persuade or compel her to execute any legal papers that he might desire for his own advantage, he well knowing that she could not read and that she could not comprehend the same in the slightest degree, or the legal effect of such documents; that said Catherine Considine never had any business experience, and she never was able to attend to any of her property affairs, after the death of her husband, who was an active business man, and during his career he accumulated property of upwards of the value of $150,000.00.

Your oratrix further represents that said John P. Considine, one of the defendants hereinafter named, taking advantage of his undue influence over and control of his said mother, by reason of her unfeebled condition of mind and body and of the other conditions above set forth, and on or about the 18th day of October, 1920, did induce, persuade or compel his said mother to affix her mark to a certain alleged warranty deed, wherein, for a specified consideration of Ten Dollars, she attempted to convey and warrant to one Michael Espart, of said City of Chicago, the following described real estate, to-wit:

The East Twenty-four and Eight-twelfths (24 8/12) Feet of the West Seventy-four and Eight-twelfths (74 8/12) Feet of Lot Seven (7) in Block Twenty-five (25) in Original Town of Chicago,

in Section Nine (9), Township Thirty-nine (39) North, Range Four-
teen (14), East of the Third Principal Meridian, situated in the
City of Chicago, in the County of Cook in the State of Illinois.

Your oratrix further represents that, at the end of said
alleged warranty deed is what purports to be the mark of said
Catherine Considine, which mark appears to have been witnessed
by one Frank S. Bates and said John P. Considine; that said
deed contains an alleged acknowledgment, certified to by said
Frank S. Bates as a Notary Public, on the 20th day of November,
1920; that it bears a cancelled revenue stamp in the sum of
$10.00; that said deed was filed for record in the Recorder's
Office of said Cook County on the 26th day of November, 1920, as
Document No. 7,003,099, and was recorded in Book 16,535 of Rec-
ords, at Page 97, all of which will more fully and at length ap-
pear in and by a copy of said deed hereto attached as "Exhibit
B," and made a part hereof, your oratrix hereby offering to pro-
duce said warranty deed, or a duly certified copy thereof, on the
hearing hereof.

Your oratrix further represents that said real estate
herein described, at the time of said alleged conveyance, was
owned by said Catherine Considine in fee simple, it being a por-
tion of the real estate devised to her by the will of her late
husband, Michael J. Considine, as above set forth.

Your oratrix further represents that, at the time of the
execution of said alleged warranty deed, said Catherine Consi-
dine, owing to her unfeebled condition of mind and body, and by
reason of the other conditions herein set forth, was wholly un-
able to realize or to understand and comprehend her act in at-
tempting to execute said deed; that, by reason thereof, said al-
leged warranty deed is not and was not the deed of said Cathe-
rine Considine, because of her want of mental capacity and abil-
ity to realize and to understand the purport and nature of her
action in so attempting to execute the same. And your oratrix
further states that said Catherine Considine, at the time of
the execution of said alleged deed, and for a long time prior
thereto, was wholly under the care and control of her said son,

-7-

John P. Considine, as herein set forth; that, by reason thereof, said John P. Considine had and did exercise an undue influence over his said mother, and he did thereby cause her to attempt to execute the alleged warranty deed, by reason thereof the alleged warranty deed is not the deed of said Catherine Considine. Your oratrix further states, upon information and belief, and she so alleges the fact to be, that, at the time of the attempted execution of said alleged warranty deed, said Catherine Considine was not in need of money for any purposes of her own, neither did she receive the consideration paid for said deed, or any portion thereof, for her own use and benefit, either directly or indirectly, as your oratrix verily believes, unless a part thereof may have been used to remove an incumbrance upon said real estate; and your oratrix further states that she verily believes that said John P. Considine appropriated to his own use and benefit the net amount which he received from the sale of said real estate, which may have been the sum of $10,000.00, less any amount that may have due upon an incumbrance thereon. And your oratrix further states, upon information and belief and she so charges the fact to be, that said real estate in said warranty deed described, at the time of the pretended sale thereof, was worth upwards of the sum of $15,000.00, and that the consideration which said John P. Considine apparently received therefor, was grossly inadequate.

Your oratrix, therefore, respectfully prays that the alleged warranty deed herein referred to and made between said Catherine Considine and said Michael Espert, may be set aside and held for naught as to the one-third interest of your oratrix therein; and may the said Michael Espert be ordered and decreed by this court to convey to your oratrix, as one of the heirs at law of said Catherine Considine, deceased, by a good and sufficient deed of conveyance, her said undivided one-third interest in and to said real estate; that, in the event of the failure, neglect or refusal of said Michael Espert to make such deed, if ordered and decreed so to do by this court, then and in that case may this

-9-

ered, be of the same tenor and effect as though the same had
been duly and formally executed and delivered by the said Mich-
ael Espert. In the event, however, that this court does not or-
der and decree the execution of such deed by said Michael Eg-
pert, in accordance with the prayer hereinof, then and in such case
may this court order and decree that the said John P. Considine
pay to your oratrix direct an undivided one-third of the net
consideration received by him under and by said conveyance, with
interest thereon from the time he received the same, provided
it appears to the court that he, said John P. Considine, did re-
ceive said consideration and that he did appropriate the net
amount thereof to his own use and benefit; or may the court
order and direct that the net amount so received by said John
P. Considine and which may belong to your oratrix, be held as a
trust fund in the hands of said John P. Considine, subject to the
order of this court, pending the final disposition of the issues
herein. And may your oratrix have such other and further re-
lief in the premises as equity may require and to the court
shall seem meet.

May it please the court to grant the writ of summons in
chancery, directed to the sheriff of said Cook County, command-
ing him that he summon the defendants, John P. Considine, Michael
Espert, Catherine McAllister, Walter McAllister, Michael J. Con-
sidine, Margaret N. Considine, John P. Considine, Marshall I. Con-
sidine and Mary H. Considine, to be and appear before the said
court on the first day of the next February term thereof, to be
held at the court house in the City of Chicago, in said county,
on the third Monday of February, 1922, then and there to answer
this bill, etc.

Complainant.

Solicitor and of Counsel
for Complainant.