Opening A Big Estate

Petition Filed for Reopening Luther James' Estate.

SHEEHY WANYS HIS BOND

A Somewhat Novel Situation Confronts Him.

What Comes of Assigning a Bond and Mortgage to Secure a Note and Not Paying the Note When It Becomes Due.

A petition has been filed in the probate court asking for the reopening of the Luther James estate and Mr. James L. Babcock, the legatee of the estate, has been cited to appear in that court Dec. 3, to show why this should not be done. This petition was made by Patrick Sheehy, of Northfield, through his attorney, M. J. Cavanaugh, and is for the appointment of an administrator de bonis non for the purpose of reassigning to him a bond for $2,750 assigned to Luther James, Oct. 22, 1879.

The transaction out of which grows this petition, for the reopening of the valuable James estate, which had been regarded as finally settled, may be stated in a few words, although it takes a search through many legal documents to arrive at a full knowledge of the facts. On Nov. 22, '78, Edward Cahill and his wife Catherine, of Northfield, gave to Patrick Sheehy a bond for $2,750, secured by a mortgage on 50 acres of land on section 3, of Northfield. This bond was payable in installments of $100 for 14 years and the balance to be paid on Nov. 22, 1894. On Oct. 22, 1879, Sheehey gave Luther James a note for $1,400 payable in 3 years at 8 per cent interest, which he secured by an assignment of the Cahill bond and mortgage to Mr. James. The interest on this note was paid to Jan. 1, '86, and then Mr. Sheehey ceased the payment of interest. On Jan. 26, 1889, James L. Babcock, Lewis M. James and Thomas S. Sears, executors for the estate of Luther James, filed a bill to foreclose the Cahill mortgage to realize on the Sheehey hote which was long past due.

It seems that Cahill had not met the annual payments of $100 on his bond and mortgage to Sheehey, though paying the interest up to 1883 and Circuit Court Commissioner Patrick McKernan found that there was on Dec. 10, '89, due on the Cahill mortgage $1,000 on the principal and $1,324.25 interest and that there was $1,750 of the principal not yet due. He also found that there was due James on the Sheehey note $1,400 principal and $441.74 interest. Neither Cahill or Sheehey appeared to defend the foreclosure suit and the property was sold to the executors of the James estate for $1,978.85, which paid the Sheehey note in full and all costs, but left nothing over. This ended the transaction for the time being and the executors supposed for all time. They afterwards sold the property to Mrs. Cahill on a land contract. The executors took no further action relating to this bond and mortgage and closed up the James estate, turning the property over to Mr. Babcock.

And now comes the kink, which it seems makes necessary the reopening of the James estate to straighten out. At the time the James estate foreclosed the mortgage there was $1,750 not yet due on the bond given by Cahill to Sheehey. As the foreclosure did not realize enough money to settle the amount due from Cahill to Sheehey let alone the $1,750 not due, there was left at least the $1,750 due Sheehey at the expiration of the 14 years. The mortgage was satisfied but not the bond. But Sheehey is not in position to sue Cahill for this money as he assigned this bond to James, and the executors of the James estate did not reassign it after settling in dull their claim against Sheehey; although there was a provision in the assignment to James which, providing for the payment of the $1,400 note, says "and when said payment is made the same is to be reassigned back to Patrick Sheehey."

In other words Sheehey now says the James estate has its money but he hasn't his, and he is trying to find out if he cannot reopen the James estate so that he may be able to collect $1,750 and interest from Mr. Cahill.

The legal points involved are not met with in every day practices.