Allen v. Webb
| Decision Date | 30 September 1872 |
| Citation | 64 Ill. 342,1872 WL 8323 |
| Parties | JOHN B. ALLENv.MALVINA A. WEBB et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Knox county; the Hon. ARTHUR A. SMITH, Judge, presiding.
Messrs. HANNAMAN & KRETZINGER, for the appellant.
Messrs. CRAIG & HARVEY, for the appellees.
This was a bill in equity, brought May 23, 1871, by Malvina A. Webb and Luke, her husband, against John B. Allen, the father of Malvina, to enforce the specific execution of a parol contract to convey lands.
The bill alleges that March 1, 1859, Allen was seized in fee simple of a certain tract, describing it, and supposed to contain about 95 acres; that he then agreed with complainants that if they would build a house upon the premises, fence the same, put into cultivation all of it that was tillable, and reside upon the same, he would, upon compliance on their part, convey to said Malvina all the tillable land upon said premises, by a good and sufficient deed of conveyance; alleges acceptance of the offer, entry upon the land in the same month, building a house, fencing and putting the land into cultivation, under the agreement, and residing thereon. The defendant, by his answer, denies the making of any agreement to convey, but sets up an agreement that they might improve and occupy, taking his timber, etc., to make the improvements, and have the use of the premises free of any charge.
Issue was taken upon the answer by replication, the cause heard upon pleadings and proofs, and a decree entered for specific performance.
The defendant brings the record to this court by appeal, and, upon errors assigned, urges that the decree was erroneous, on the ground that no contract sufficiently definite and certain to be capable of specific performance in equity was satisfactorily established by the evidence.
It is the established doctrine of this court that before a court of equity will enforce the specific performance of a contract not in writing, it must clearly appear that a contract of sale was made, and its terms must be clearly proved. Hartwell v. Black, 48 Ill. 301.
When we consider the nature of the jurisdiction to be exercised; that by the manner of its exercise the defendant is exposed to all the dangers and the very frauds which the Statute of Frauds and Perjuries was meant to guard against, and that it is not the province of the court to supply any thing wherein the contract, as made, is lacking, the reason of the rule requiring that a contract of sale be clearly established and its terms definitely shown by satisfactory evidence, is very apparent.
The plaintiff Malvina A. Webb, is the daughter of defendant, and testifies that the defendant promised that if they would go upon the land, build a house upon it, improve and fence the land, he would give her all the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bohanan v. Bohanan
...83 Ill. 267. To enforce a verbal agreement to convey land, the proof must be clear and strong: Bailey v. Edmunds, 64 Ill. 125; Allen v. Webb, 64 Ill. 342; Hartwell v. Black, 48 Ill. 301; Gosse v. Jones, 73 Ill. 508. A purchaser must have done everything on his part before he can ask a court......
-
Anderson v. Shockley
...in writing between the parties, and no such part performance as takes the case out of the statute. Hager v. Hager, 71 Mo. 610; Allen v. Webb, 64 Ill. 342. The most that can be said of this case is the fact that plaintiff intended at some future time on certain conditions to give the land to......
-
Long v. Long
...Fleischman v. Moore, 79 Ill. 539;Brink v. Steadman, 70 Ill. 241;Ralls v. Ralls, 82 Ill. 243;Bowman v. Cunningham, 78 Ill. 48;Allen v. Webb, 64 Ill. 342;Hartwell v. Black, 48 Ill. 301;Simmons v. Hill, 4 Har. & McH. 252; S. C. 1 Amer. Dec. 398; Hazelton v. Putnam, 3 Pin. 107;Aday v. Echols, 1......
-
Hargreaves v. Burton
... ... The ... following authorities cited by appellant are to the same ... effect; Beall et al. v. Clark, 71 Ga. 818; ... Allen v. Webb, [59 Utah 584] 64 Ill. 342; ... Rogers Locomotive & Mach. Works v. Helm, ... 154 U.S. Appx. 610, 14 S.Ct. 1177, 22 L.Ed. 562; ... Pike v ... ...