Kaufman v. Cook

• Decision Date: 15 May 1885
• Citation: 114 Ill. 11,28 N.E. 378
• Parties: KAUFMAN v. COOK.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

114 Ill. 11

28 N.E. 378

KAUFMAN

v.COOK.¹

Supreme Court of Illinois.

May 15, 1885.

Appeal from circuit court, Mercer county; JOHN J. GLENN, Judge.

Action by Jane Kaufman against Thomas Cook for specific performance of a parol gift of real estate. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

J. C. Pepper, for appellant.

Bassett & Wharton, for appellee.

MULKEY, J.

This was a bill in chancery filed by Jane Kaufman in the circuit court of Mercer county against Thomas Cook, the appellee, to compel the latter to convey certain real estate in pursuance of an alleged parol gift. The subject of the controversy is known to and designated by the witnesses as the ‘Atcheson Property.’ The bill charges, in substance, that appellee, who is the uncle of appellant, and without children, being displeased with the treatment the latter had received from the Stonier family, who were related to appellee by marriage, told her he would ‘give her a home;’ that he would, for the time being, rent for her the Atcheson property, which was shortly afterwards to be sold, and if he could buy it when offered for sale he would deed it to her for a home for herself and children; that he accordingly did rent the property, subject to sale, and left a bid of $800 for it; that he got the property at his bid of $800, and obtained the title thereto; that he put the complainant in possession of the property, with the agreement that it should be hers and her children's forever, if he got the title; that she went into possession of said property, under the said promise and agreement, in April, 1882, and made lasting and valuable improvements on the same, under said agreement and promise; that she had the inside of the house altered at an expense of from $25 to $30, built a stable at an expense of from $30 to $50, built and repaired fences at an expense of from $15 to $20, put a porch at the north end of the house, and made other lasting and valuable improvements thereon, and has resided on the property since April, 1882; that the defendant refuses to complete his gift by deed, and is trying to get possession of the property, and oust her therefrom. The court, upon the hearing, rendered a decree dismissing the bill, and the present appeal is from that decree.

In the view we take of the case, it is not important to discuss the evidence in detail, or the claim that there is a variance between it and the allegations of the bill. It may be stated, in general terms, that we are of opinion that when the testimony is considered as an entirety, in the light of the relations of the parties and of all the surrounding circumstances, about which there is no controversy, it substantially sustains the...