U.S. Supreme Court
Kerr v. South Park Commissioners, 117 U.S. 388 (1886)
Kerr v. South Park Commissioners
Argued January 21, 1886
Decided March 29, 1886
117 U.S. 388
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
The subject matter in controversy in this suit is disposed of by the decree rendered below and affirmed in the suit between the same parties ante 117 U. S. 379.
The case is stated in the opinion of the Court.
MR. JUSTICE MATTHEWS delivered the opinion of the Court.
The subject matter in litigation in this cause is embraced in the decree between the same parties just affirmed, which settles the whole controversy between them.
In the present suit, the bill of complaint was filed by the South Park commissioners, who, in pursuance of negotiations with Kerr, had advanced certain sums of money to enable the latter to protect his title to a part of the lands taken for the purposes of the park, and, as security for the same, took an assignment of certain encumbrances by way of mortgage or deed of trust upon the premises, but in fact intending that the money so advanced should be treated as a payment on account of the value of the lands of Kerr taken by them for public uses. Notwithstanding that, the present suit was pressed to a decree for the foreclosure of the lands covered by the deed of trust, and a strict foreclosure, in substance, was decreed, by directing that unless the representatives of Kerr repaid to the complainants the amount of their advances, the trustee holding the legal title to the premises in controversy should convey them to the complainants on payment of a further small sum of $3,454.17. The present appeal is from this decree. In the cause just disposed of, the same advances made by the South Park commissioners are allowed to them in the decree as credits on account of payment of the value of the whole chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
tract of 111 acres, which, of course, is inconsistent with the decree now complained of. That decree is accordingly
Reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings in conformity with equity and justice and not inconsistent with this opinion.