E. 198; Gar Creek Drainage District v. Wag-, longing to William Gleim, is 29.20 feet, and ner, 256 Ill. 338, 100 N. E. 190. The south water course crossing these lands starts at the western line of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of section 28, belonging to Adam Gleim, with an elevation of 27.7 feet above the surface of the ground at the Frost lateral. It extends in an easterly direction across that tract, and thence across the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter and the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of section 28, belonging to William Gleim. It has a fall of 6 feet in crossing the land of Adam Gleim and a fall of about 12 feet in crossing the lands of William Gleim, the elevation of this water course at the east line of the land of William Gleim, where the tile ditch ends, being 9% feet above the surface of the ground at the Frost lateral. The proof shows that the water from this tile ditch empties upon the surface of the ground, and then, following the natural slope of the ground in a slight depression, flows in an easterly direction across the Aschenbrenner land to the Frost lateral. The proof also shows that this tile ditch was constructed before the drainage district was organized, and there is a total lack of evidence to show that any artificial ditch extends from the outlet of this tile ditch to the Frost lateral. The elevations of the lands of appellants above the surface of the ground at the Frost lateral, as above given, are taken from surveys made by two civil engineers, both of whom testified on behalf of the appellants, and neither their testimony nor the correctness of their survey is contradicted by any reliable evidence offered by appellee. It appears from these surveys and from the testimony of the engineers that the natural water courses above mentioned extend through the lowest portions of the appellants' lands. Those lands are rolling, as is apparent from the following elevations taken from the plat of one of the surveyors, the ground on the bank of the Frost lateral being taken as the datum: The highest elevation on the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of section 28, belonging to Adam Gleim, is 48.97 feet, and the lowest elevation is 35.14 feet; the highest elevation on the east half of the southwest quarter of section 28, belonging to Adam Gleim, is 51.62 feet, and the lowest elevation is 19.91 feet, the latter elevation being at the point where the south water course crosses the line between that land and the land of William Gleim on the east; the highest elevation on the west half of the southeast quarter of section 28, belonging to William Gleim, is 44.69 feet, and the lowest elevation is 13.79 feet, the latter elevation being at the point where the south water course crosses the line between that land and the east half of the same quarter section; the highest elevation on the east half of the southeast quarter of section 28, be the lowest elevation is 6.83 feet, the latter elevation being at the bottom of the channel in the north water course at the point where it crosses the line between this tract and the Frost 40 on the east. These elevations clearly show that the lands of appellants are not in any way dependent upon any ditch or drain of the district for drainage, and that in a state of nature the water therefrom must necessarily flow down and upon the Aschenbrenner lands, and, as hereinbefore pointed out, if the owners of the Aschenbrenner lands find it necessary to cut ditches connecting with the ditches and drains of the district in order to relieve their lands of the water thus cast upon them, such connection by the owners of the Aschenbrenner lands will not justify a finding that appellants have, within the meaning of the statute, connected their lands with the ditches and drains of the district. The following language used in People v. Barber, 265 Ill. 316, 106 N. E. 798, is appropriate here: "The evidence shows that the lands included in the drainage district as originally formed, have been, servient to the lands of the relators, so far as drainage is concerned, are, and always and that the relators have done nothing further than to collect the surface waters upon their respective tracts of land and by means of tile drains and open ditches conduct them, in the natural course of drainage, into natural water courses which either directly or indirectly have as their outlet the ditches of the district. Such acts on the part of landowners outside a drainditches of the district within the meaning of the age district do not constitute connecting with the statute. In order to establish that a tract of land lying outside a drainage district has been contrict it is not sufficient to merely show that the nected by the owner with the ditches of the diswaters from that tract ultimately pass into and through the district ditches, but it must further appear that an artificial ditch has been the district ditch or into some ditch which has constructed leading from that land directly into been theretofore artificially connected with the drainage ditch." The evidence here fails to show any such connection between the lands of appellants which are sought to be annexed to the district and any drain or ditch of the district. The judgment of the county court is reversed, and the cause is remanded to that court, with directions to dismiss the complaint as to appellants' lands. Reversed and remanded, with directions. (273 Ill. 79) CURTIS v. DONNELLY et al. (No. 10207.) (Supreme Court of Illinois. April 20, 1916.) 1. STIPULATIONS 14(4)-BOUNDARIES-EF FECT. In ejectment, where it is stipulated that the plaintiff is the owner of lot 4 and the defendants are the owners of lot 3, that the parties derived their respective lots from a common source, and that the only question in dispute is the boundary line between lots 3 and 4, the issue is what part of plaintiff's lot, if any, defendants have in their possession. [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Stipulations, Cent. Dig. § 27; Dec. Dig. ~14(4).] For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes 2. BOUNDARIES 37(3) — EVIDENCE CIENCY. In ejectment, where under a stipulation the only issue was the correct location of the boundary between two lots, evidence held insufficient to justify a finding for the defendants. SUFFI-1 at the request of William Aird, in April, 1866, by S. Frazier, county surveyor. The addition contains nine blocks and four extra lots on the west side thereof, designated as lots A, B, C, and D. The south line of the addition is marked "Sec. Line & Northern Boundary of Original Plat of Odin." The [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Boundaries, Cent. Dig. 88 186-191; Dec. Dig. 37(3).] 3. BOUNDARIES 35(3)-EVIDENCE-TESTI-east line of the addition is parallel with and MONY OF SURVEYOR. In ejectment, where the boundary alone was in dispute, it was error to exclude the testimony of the defendant's surveyor as to whether or not he attempted to run out an old survey; or any part thereof, and whether he measured any other lines across the property in question, and how far he measured on the line he did measure. [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Boundaries, Cent. Dig. §§ 157-159; Dec. Dig. 35(3).] Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion County; A. M. Rose, Judge. Action by George Curtis against Mary Jane Donnelly and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded. Kagy & Vandervort, of Salem, for appellant. Charles H. Holt and William G. Wilson, both of Salem, and William D. Farthing, of East St. Louis, for appellees. 20 feet west of the east line of section 11, which section line is traced on the plat and a stone shown thereon at the southeast corner of section 11. A stone is also marked on the quarter-mile line at the southwest corner of the addition. There are stones marked on the plat at the four corners of each of blocks 5 and 8, and also at the southwest and northwest corners of block 2. The north and south lines of the addition are parallel, the former being 1,297 feet long and the latter 1,318.5 feet, not including the 20 feet between the addition and the section line on the east. There are two streets, each 66 feet wide, running east and west across said addition, and they are crossed at right angles by three other streets of the same width running north and south. Therefore block 3 in the northeast corner of the addition is 344 feet long on the north line and 3472 feet on the south line, and block 1 in the southeast corner of the addition is 383 feet long on its south line, and lot A in the northwest corner of the addition is 55 feet wide on its north line, and the south line of lot D in the southwest corblock 3 and its surroundings, so far as matener of the addition is 371⁄2 feet long. Said rial to this case, as appears in said record, is shown by the following plat: DUNCAN, J. Appellant sued appellees in ejectment in the circuit court of Marion county to recover the possession of lot 4, in block 3, of William Aird's addition to the village of Odin. Appellees are owners of lot 3 in the same block, and it lies immediate ly east of and adjoining said lot 4. The plea of not guilty is the only plea filed by appellees, but it was stipulated by the parties to the suit that appellant is the owner of lot 4 described in the declaration and that appellees are the owners of said lot 3, that the par- BLOCK ties to this suit derived their titles to their respective lots from a common source, John F. Sugg, of Odin, and that the only question in dispute is the boundary line between said lots 4 and 3. Trial by jury was waived, and the court, after hearing the evidence and the arguments, found the issues for the appellees and rendered judgment against the appellant. BLOCK 5 [1] Appellant contends the east boundary P. W. Warner, county surveyor of Marion of his lot is east of the extended line of a county, testified as a witness for appellant certain fence lately built by appellees, 91⁄2 that on May 1, 1912, he made and recorded feet at the south end and 19% feet at the for appellant and others a survey of said north end of his lot. Appellees claim that block 3, and the record of his plat and sursaid fence is on the dividing line, and that the vey was introduced in evidence, and his plat line of the fence extended is the dividing as to block 3 is in all respects similar to the line between said lots. Under the stipula-plat above shown. He testified that he dug tions of the parties the real question in issue is: What part of appellant's lot, if any, have appellees in their possession? Murphy v. Riemenschneider, 104 Ill. 520. Appellant introduced in evidence the original plat of said addition, the record of which shows that it covers the south 742 feet of the S. E. 4 of the S. E. 4 of section 11, town 2 N., range 1 E. of the third principal meridian, in Marion county, and that it was surveyed, into the earth and found the original corner stone at the northwest corner of lot 10 in block 2, which is 66 feet south of the southwest corner of block 3; that from that stone he surveyed west 66 feet to a point which he located as the northeast corner of block 5 in said addition; that from that point he ran a line north, and that on that line, 66 feet north of the northeast corner of block 5, he located the southeast corner of block 4, and For other cases see same topic and KEV-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes 295 ber of feet as shown by the original survey of said block that belonged to each lot owner, he found that the measurement corresponded very closely to the lines of lots 7, 6, 5, and 4, and the west line of lot 3 as claimed by appellees. This was the full extent of his survey, as he did not attempt to locate any lines or corners in said block and did not even measure the north side of the block, and, so far as this record shows, did not measure as far east as the section line. He gave at a point 150 feet north thereof, on said line, he located the northeast corner of block 4; that from said last corner he measured east to the section line above marked and found the distance to be 431 feet and 7 inches, or 17 inches more for that line than is shown by the original survey of Frazier; that he then ran a line from the southeast corner of block 4 as he had located it, east to said section line, and found a gain on that line of 12 inches over the showing made by Frazier in his survey; that he did not ap-as his reason for beginning 14 inches east portion the gain found by him to the lots of of the concrete walk in question that he unblock 3 but left it all on the east side of lot derstood that the walk was built 14 inches 1; that after locating the northwest and west of the east line of Green street. southwest corners of block 3 by measuring 66 feet east of the northeast and southeast testimony, including the man who constructed Other witnesses testified in rebuttal of his corners of block 4, he then proceeded to sur-the walk, that it was built 10 or 11 feet west vey and locate lots 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 as of the property line on the east side thereof shown in the above plat, and gave them the because some of the parties would not move same dimensions as are shown in the above their fences. plat, and that he established a line between and for appellant testified that, after the origOther witnesses for appellees said lots 3 and 4 in block 3, and drove iron inal addition was platted, dwelling houses pins on said line at the north and south lines were built on lots 3 and 4, and at a later period of said lot. He also testified that he could not find any of the original corner stones at pasture land for a number of years. were removed, when all of block 3 became the corners of block 5, or at the corners of accounts, perhaps, for the obliterating of most This any other of the blocks of the addition, but all of the lot lines and corners. that he did locate the stone at the southeast nesses for appellees attempt to give from Several witcorner of section 11, and traced the section memory the spots on which the houses were line north to the first quarter and half mile formerly built; but their evidence clearly corner, where he also found the original cor- shows that they could not accurately locate ner stones. He gave as his reason for leaving those spots, and they do not even claim acthe supposed gain all to the east of lot 1 un-curacy in the location thereof. apportioned that the apportionment thereof would necessarily place the east line of said lot 4 still further east, which would perhaps bring differences and difficulties, and that he could give every owner of the seven lots his proper amount of ground without such apportionment. The testimony of this witness clearly shows that appellees were in possession of a part of the east side of appellant's lot 4 of something near the same width as claimed by the appellant, as the testimony further shows that the line established by the surveyor as the east line of lot 4 is about 91⁄2 feet east of the fence built by appellees at the south end of the lot, and about 191⁄2 feet east of the fence at the north end of the lot, without taking any account of the unapportioned gain in this block left on the east side thereof. The witness is corroborated by his chainman, who assisted in carrying the chain, and by other witnesses, who witnessed the same, as to how the survey was made. that there was any location of the line be[2] The evidence of appellees fails to show tween said lots 4 and 3 by agreement, as claimed by them. therefore, that the testimony of the witnesses It is clearly apparent, for appellees is not sufficient to overcome other witnesses who testified for appellant, the testimony of the county surveyor and the they may be, and that the court erred in not no matter how truthful and conscientious finding the issues for appellant. tain objections to competent testimony, by [3] The court also erred in sustaining cerwhich he refused to allow the surveyor for appellees to testify as to whether or not he attempted to run out the old survey or any part thereof, and refused to permit him to testify if he measured any other lines across block 3, and how far he measured on the line he did measure. is clearly shown by the testimony of the From the testimony in this record, while it In rebuttal of the foregoing evidence, E. session of a part of said lot 4, it does not county surveyor that appellees are in posC. Toothacre, another surveyor, testified for satisfactorily show the exact amount of said appellees that he measured the south side lot they have in their possession. The origiof said block 3, on the south line thereof, be-nal plat does not show, by any statements of ginning 14 inches east of the east side of the the surveyor, the beginning point for tha: concrete walk on the east side of Green street, which he treated as the southwest ever, shows reasonably certain that the beA careful study of the plat, howcorner of said block 3, and that from that ginning point of that survey was the stone point he measured east, and after allowing at the southeast corner of section 11. It to each lot owner of said seven lots the num- also shows that the reason for leaving the survey. odd-shaped lots on the east and west sides of the addition was to cause the north and south streets to cross the east and west streets at right angles, thereby making all the inner lots and blocks rectangles. There is one sentence written across the face of the plat which has much significance, to wit: "Stones are planted wholly in the streets and against the cor. stones and should never be dug up for fencing." means creditors of grantor, not of grantee, and 3. JUDGMENT 785(1)—JUDGMENT CREDITORS Prior judgment creditors of grantee do not have the rights of bona fide purchasers, but stand in the shoes of the grantee. Cent. Dig. §§ 1358, 1360, 1361, 1362; Dec. Dig. [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Judgment, Appeal from Superior Court, Cook County; Denis E. Sullivan, Judge. The size of the stones is not given, but it appears from said statement that be-785(1).] side every corner stone indicated on the plat there is also a stone "wholly within the street." This might account for the supposed gain in block 3 found by the county surveyor. To obtain an accurate survey of block 3, or the most accurate survey possible, would seem to require the surveyor to begin at the Action to set aside a deed by Edna Sparrow and others against Charles H. Wilcox and others. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendants Jennie E. Counselman and others appeal. Affirmed. Sheriff, Dent, Dobyns & Freeman, of Chicago, for appellants. Robert F. Kolb, of Chicago (Robert Humphrey and George Gillette, both of Chicago, of counsel), for appellees. corner stone at the southeast corner of section 11, and to trace the section line thence north to the north line of said addition, and from thence to trace a line along the north side of the addition to the northwest corner of block 3, and then, after tracing a line from said section corner to the southwest corner of block 1, to run a line to the north- CRAIG, J. Appellees, Edna Sparrow, west corner of block 3. Then, by measuring Dorothy Riemenschneider, and Viola Burke, from the northwest corner of block 2 on said prior to December 23, 1913, were the ownlast line east to the section line, and noting ers of a lot on North Paulina street, in the whether or not the said east line has the city of Chicago. They were desirous of sellproper length as shown by said original sur-ing this lot, and Chester H. Burke, husband vey, and also noting how said lines corre- of Viola Burke, entered into negotiations spond with the original corner of block 2 with John H. Garrett, who, it appears, ocfound by the county surveyor, a very accurate cupied the same offices with him, for a sale survey ought to be obtained. It may be pos- of the property. Through these negotiasible that the surveyor found the stone tions a sale of the property was made by ap"wholly within the street" there, instead of pellees to Garrett for the consideration of the true corner stone against which the orig- $7,500. Garrett executed three notes for $2,inal street marker stone was placed. The 500 each, payable in one year, in payment survey might otherwise be tested by measfor the property. He also transferred as uring from said corner stone across to the collateral security for the three notes above west side of the addition, and see how it mentioned two notes for $3,200 each, paycompares with other known corners and street able to himself, and signed by Gustave Gunand lot lines west thereof, if any of them are derson, and a mortgage executed by Gunderdefinitely known. son on 320 acres of land in Meagher county, Mont. Garrett also delivered to Burke an abstract of title to the Montana land covered by the Gunderson mortgage, showing Gunderson to be the owner thereof subject to the mortgage from Gunderson to Garrett, and a written statement sworn to by him as to his financial worth, in which statement he listed his assets at $226,850 and his liabilities at $15,000 for money borrowed. Burke thereupon delivered to Garrett a deed to the Paulina street property from the said 23, 1913, was acknowledged,December 29, owners, which deed was dated December 1913, and recorded the day following. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause remanded. Reversed and remanded. (272 I11. 632) SPARROW et al. v. WILCOX et al. (No. 10474.) (Supreme Court of Illinois. April 20, 1916.) 1. DEEDS 70(2)-RELIANCE ON REPRESENTATIONS-LACK OF FORESIGHT. One who has not exercised a very high degree of care or the best of judgment is not therefore barred from setting aside his deed for fraudulent representations on which he relied. [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Deeds, Cent. Dig. § 167; Dec. Dig. 70(2).] 2. JUDGMENT ~785(1)—JUDGMENT CREDITORS OF PURCHASER-BONA FIDE PURCHASER. Conveyance Act (Hurd's Rev. St. 1913, c. 30) § 30, providing that all deeds shall take effect upon record as to creditors without notice, On May 22, 1913, appellants, Jennie E. Counselman, Charles L. Hutchinson, Seymour Morris, Edith Counselman, and Charles Counselman, had recovered a judgment against Garrett for $7,030.80 in the superior court of Cook county, upon which judgment an execution had been issued and returned For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes unsatisfied. On September 16, 1913, appel- report, finding that the conveyance from aplants obtained another judgment against pellees to Garrett was induced by fraud, Garrett in the municipal court of Chicago and that their deed to Garrett should be for $7,428.54. An involuntary petition in set aside, and also finding that Wilcox was bankruptcy had been filed in October, 1913, not a bona fide purchaser for value; that in the United States District Court, against the only consideration for the conveyance Garrett and one Bowers, as copartners, own- made by Garrett to Wilcox was a pre-existers of Rice Bros. Colossal Railroad Shows, ing debt; that the judgment liens of appeland an order was entered on November 3, lants should be set aside as far as said 1913, adjudicating such copartners bank-property was concerned; and that appelrupts. On September 23, 1914, an alias ex-lees should have the title to the property ecution was issued on the judgment of May 22, 1913, obtained by appellants, which execution was levied upon the premises in question, and a sale was made and a certificate of purchase issued to appellants October 20, 1914. Garrett had by his deed of April 3, 1914, conveyed the property in ques-lees to Garrett and the deed from Garrett to tion to Charles H. Wilcox. On July 20, 1914, appellees filed their bill of complaint against Charles II. Wilcox and others, including appellants, to set aside the deed made by appellees to Garrett and the deed from Garrett to Wilcox of the property in question on the ground of fraud and deceit and falsehoods and misrepresentations by Garrett as to his financial worth, setting up in said bill, among other things, that the notes and mortgages purporting to be signed by Gunderson were not his genuine notes and mortgages, and that the abstract of title to the land covered by the mortgage was not genuine, that the appellees had relied on the representations made by Garrett as to his financial worth, which representations were wholly false and untrue, and that the consideration for the deed of conveyance made by appellees had wholly failed. The bill further alleged that appellants and others claimed some interest in the premises as judgment creditors, and that such interest, if any, was subordinate to the interest of the appellees, and prayed for a cancellation of the deed from appellees to Garrett and of the deed from Garrett to Wilcox. The latter and the Central Trust Company, as trustee in bankruptcy, which was also made a party defendant, filed answers to the bill calling for strict proof. Appellants also filed their answer calling for strict proof as to the alleged misrepresentations and fraud of Garrett, and set up that the lien of their judgment against Garrett and the property in question was superior to the rights of the complainants. restored to them free from the liens of the judgments of appellants. Objections and exceptions were duly taken to the master's report, and were respectively overruled, and a decree was entered by the chancellor setting aside and canceling the deed of appel Wilcox, and restoring the fee title in the premises in controversy to appellees free from the lien of the judgments belonging to appellants. Appellants have appealed to this court from the decree, and have assigned numerous causes for error. Wilcox and the Central Trust Company, defendants to the bill, the latter a trustee in bankruptcy, have not joined in the appeal. Garrett did not answer, and was defaulted in the court below. The principal grounds urged by appellants for reversal are: (1) Appellees, upon their own showing as disclosed by the evidence in the record, are not entitled to set aside their deed to Garrett on the ground of misrepresentation and fraud; (2) appellants were judgment creditors of Garrett without notice, actual or constructive, of any claims of appellees, and their liens and the rights arising therefrom are superior to any alleged equities of appellees. [1] As to the first point, the master found that the transaction between Garrett and Burke was tainted with fraud on the part of Garrett; that the mortgage purporting to be executed by Gustave Gunderson and conveying the premises in Meagher county, Mont., securing the notes hereinbefore referred to, was never recorded in the office of the recorder of deeds of Meagher county; that from the circumstances surrounding the entire transaction it was a reasonable inference that no such person actually existed; that said notes purporting to be signed by Gunderson were forgeries and worthless; and that the abstract tendered with the notes and mortgage to Burke by Garrett was also a forgery and worthless. The master further found that at the time of the negotiations between Burke and Garrett a sworn Appellants, after a sale had been made on the levy under their alias execution issued on the judgment of May 22, 1913, as above set out, filed a cross-bill setting up the is-statement was made by Garrett and given to suance of the sheriff's certificate of sale and asking that the same be declared valid and a bar to further proceedings by complainants under the original bill. Issues were joined upon the bill and cross-bill, and the cause was referred to James V. O'Donnell, a master in chancery, who took the testimony of the respective parties and made his Burke, in and by which it was made to appear that Garrett was a man of great means and considerable financial responsibility, but it developed on the hearing that before this financial statement was rendered the firm with which Garrett was associated was adjudged a bankrupt in the bankruptcy court. The master found that said statement was |