Gray v. Meek

CourtSupreme Court of Illinois
Writing for the CourtCARTER
Citation199 Ill. 136,64 N.E. 1020
Decision Date25 October 1902
PartiesGRAY v. MEEK.

199 Ill. 136
64 N.E. 1020

GRAY
v.
MEEK.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 25, 1902.


Error to appellate court, First district.

Action by S. M. Meek against Adolph Gray. Judgment for plaintiff was affirmed by the appellate court (101 Ill. App. 463), and defendant brings error. Affirmed.


[199 Ill. 138]

[64 N.E. 1021]

J. F. Hess and J. W. Byam, for plaintiff in error.

Meek, Meek, Cochrane & Munsell, for defendant in error.


[199 Ill. 136]This suit was brought in the circuit court of Cook county by S. M. Meek, defendant in error, against Adolph Gray, plaintiff in error, on a certain written contract and supplemental contract between the parties. The original contract of October 25, 1890, provided: That Gray was to act as the agent of Meek in selling about 80 lots that Meek owned in a certain subdivision. That Gray was to [199 Ill. 137]have the exclusive right of selling these lots for one year, and no longer, at prices averaging $130.50 per lot for all inside lots, and $175 for corner lots and lots fronting on Milwaukee avenue; the first payment to be not less than $5 down, and monthly payments to be not less than $2.50; all deferred payments to draw 6 per cent. interest per annum. That Meek agreed to convey the lots when paid for according to the agreement. That, of the cash paid in on the contracts of sale, one-half should go to Meek, and one-half to Gray, as his commission, less 10 per cent. on such half (the 10 per cent. to be kept back until final settlement), and all amounts over and above the stipulated prices for the lots realized on the sales should go to Gray in full payment for his services in making such sales. That, in case any lots remained unsold at the end of the year, Gray was to buy such remaining lots, and Meek to sell them to him, at the above prices, and to allow the 10 per cnet. kept back to apply on the purchase price of the lots so remaining, and Gray to pay the balance on the same terms and at the same prices as provided on sales to others. After the expiration of the year provided in this contract, a supplemental contract was made by the parties in April, 1892, which did not abate any of the terms of the original contract, but extended the time to complete the sale of the lots to November 1, 1892; and it was stipulated that Gray was still bound to take and pay for the lots then unsold, as provided in the original contract. It was further agreed that Gray was to pay taxes after 1891, and 6 per cent. interest per annum on all lots unsold after October 25, 1891, which taxes and interest were to be rebated to him if collected from other purchasers. It was also agreed that two cash...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • Portner v. Tanner, 1060
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • July 17, 1923
    ...ed. 823; Eastern Oregon Land Co. v. Moody, 198 F. 7; Paine v. Brown, 37 N.Y. 228; Bartlesville Oil Co. v. Hill, 121 P. 208; Grays v. Meek, 64 N.E. 1020; (Ill.); Sheeren v. Moses, 84 Ill. 448; Morris v. Sliter, 1 Denio, 59; Harrington v. Higgins, 17 Wendell, 376; Meriden Co. v. Zingsen, 48 N......
  • Tolbird v. Howard, Gen. No. 10934
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • December 2, 1968
    ...he must perfect his title within a reasonable time.' (Emphasis supplied). The foregoing is consistent with the holding in Gray v. Meek, 199 Ill. 136, 139, 64 N.E. 1020, which is that where no time for delivery of a deed is fixed in an installment contract, it need not be ready until the las......
  • Virginia Mining Co. v. Haeder
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • May 12, 1919
    ...a deed from the respondents, as provided for in their contract. (Brentnall v. Marshall, 10 Kan. App. 488, 63 P. 93; Gray v. Meek, 199 Ill. 136, 64 N.E. 1020.) James A. Wayne and H. E. Worstell, for Respondents. The contract is essentially the same (eliminating the leasing provisions) as the......
  • Slimmer v. Martin
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • April 29, 1919
    ...contracts, may be maintained independently of any equitable considerations governing the remedy of specific performance. See Gray v. Meek, 199 Ill. 136, 64 N. E. 1020; 39 Cyc. supra; 36 Cyc. 565. We are convinced that both the better reason and the weight of authority support the propositio......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • Portner v. Tanner, 1060
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • July 17, 1923
    ...ed. 823; Eastern Oregon Land Co. v. Moody, 198 F. 7; Paine v. Brown, 37 N.Y. 228; Bartlesville Oil Co. v. Hill, 121 P. 208; Grays v. Meek, 64 N.E. 1020; (Ill.); Sheeren v. Moses, 84 Ill. 448; Morris v. Sliter, 1 Denio, 59; Harrington v. Higgins, 17 Wendell, 376; Meriden Co. v. Zingsen, 48 N......
  • Tolbird v. Howard, Gen. No. 10934
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • December 2, 1968
    ...he must perfect his title within a reasonable time.' (Emphasis supplied). The foregoing is consistent with the holding in Gray v. Meek, 199 Ill. 136, 139, 64 N.E. 1020, which is that where no time for delivery of a deed is fixed in an installment contract, it need not be ready until the las......
  • Virginia Mining Co. v. Haeder
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • May 12, 1919
    ...a deed from the respondents, as provided for in their contract. (Brentnall v. Marshall, 10 Kan. App. 488, 63 P. 93; Gray v. Meek, 199 Ill. 136, 64 N.E. 1020.) James A. Wayne and H. E. Worstell, for Respondents. The contract is essentially the same (eliminating the leasing provisions) as the......
  • Slimmer v. Martin
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • April 29, 1919
    ...contracts, may be maintained independently of any equitable considerations governing the remedy of specific performance. See Gray v. Meek, 199 Ill. 136, 64 N. E. 1020; 39 Cyc. supra; 36 Cyc. 565. We are convinced that both the better reason and the weight of authority support the propositio......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT