Heckard v. Sayre
| Citation | 34 Ill. 142,1864 WL 2973 |
| Parties | NATHANIEL HECKARDv.EDWARD SAYRE. |
| Decision Date | 30 April 1864 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Illinois |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
ERROR to Circuit Court of Peoria County.
The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.
McCulloch & Taggart, for plaintiff in error.
W. C. Goudy, for defendant in error.
This is a suit in equity to enforce the specific performance of a contract for the sale of a tract of land in Fulton county.
On the 18th day of September, 1855, the plaintiff in error bargained with the defendant in error to sell him the land for the sum of $900. One hundred and five 89-100 dollars were then paid, and two notes were given for the residue; one for $494.11 payable on or before October 25, 1857, and the other for $300, payable on or before September 1, 1858.
The contract between the parties provided that the above notes should be paid at maturity; that the time stipulated for their payment should be regarded as of the essence of the contract; and that the nonpayment of either of the notes, when they should become due should be considered as an avoidance of the vendor's obligation, and as an absolute forfeiture of all payments previously made. The note maturing first was paid at maturity, and a tender of the amount due upon the other note was made on the 7th day of September, 1858, six days after it fell due.
The bill alleges a waiver by the vendor of the prompt performance of the agreement; and sets up as an excuse for the vendee's neglect to make the last payment at the time required, that he was engaged in the discharge of his official duties as clerk of the circuit court of Fulton county.
There is no evidence of any waiver by the vendor of the stipulation in regard to time, and we think the excuse alleged is entirely insufficient. The term of the court at which the defendant in error was required to attend commenced on the 6th day of July, 1858, and he might have employed some one to transact his business with the plaintiff in error, if it was not convenient to attend to it in person. Such an excuse, if allowed, would exempt the clerks of many courts in this state from ever discharging their obligations.
From the allegations of the bill, it appears that the complainant did not have the money to make the last payment at the time it became due; and stipulations like the one in the contract under consideration would be of little value if they were to be enforced only in cases where parties making them had the money with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. Mississippi Farms Co.
...8 N.J. Eq. 520; Webster v. Bosanquet, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 1019; Phelps v. I. C. R. R. Co., 63 Ill. 468; Stow v. Russell, 36 Ill. 18; Heckard v. Sayre, 34 Ill. 142; Steele v. Biggs, 22 Ill. Chrisman v. Miller, 21 Ill. 227; Ewing v. Crouse, 6 Ind. 312; Foot v. Bush, 100 Iowa 522, 69 N.W. 874; Ca......
-
Realty Securities Corp. v. Johnson
...Prince v. Griffin, 27 Iowa, 514; Glock v. Howard & Wilson Colony Co., 123 Cal. 1, 55 P. 713, 43 L. R. A. 199, 69 Am. St. Rep. 17; Heckard v. Sayre, 34 Ill. 142; 39 Cyc. 1376, 1382; 38 Cyc. 1367, 1369; Isom v. Johnson, 205 Ala. 157, 87 So. 543. It is clearly manifest, therefore, that time wa......
-
Cobb v. Willrett
...Turn Verein Eiche v. Kionka, 255 Ill. 392, 99 N. E. 684,43 L. R. A. (N. S.) 44;Skeen v. Patterson, 180 Ill. 289, 54 N. E. 196;Heckard v. Sayre, 34 Ill. 142. In contracts like the one before us, the undertakings of the vendor and vendee are generally construed to be dependent unless a contra......
-
Skeen v. Patterson
...is the duty of courts to give effect to existing contracts, and not to make new ones for parties. Stow v. Russell, 36 Ill. 18. In Heckard v. Sayre, 34 Ill. 142, we said (page 150): ‘A court of equity has no more right than a court of law to dispense with an express stipulation of parties in......