Miller v. Craig
| Decision Date | 30 April 1864 |
| Citation | 1864 WL 3108,36 Ill. 109 |
| Parties | WILLIAM G. MILLERv.JAMES S. CRAIG. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from Circuit Court of McLean County.
Bill in equity filed by appellee against appellant, upon which a decree was rendered in the court below for the complainant.
The case is sufficiently stated by the court in their opinion.
W. P. Boyd and R. E. Williams, for appellant.
Wm. W. Orme, for appellee.
The scope and object of the bill filed in this cause was to set aside a deed conveying certain real estate, on the ground of misrepresentation by the grantee, and the mental incapacity of the grantor.
We have looked with the greatest care through the testimony in this record on these points, and have not been able to discover any fraud or imposition whatever, practiced upon the complainant. Nor will the evidence justify the conclusion that the complainant was too ignorant or too weak in his understanding to make valid contracts. On the contrary, the proof is full that he was a hale, hearty man, was in the constant habit of making his own trades and managing his own affairs, of dealing with the public at large with ordinary prudence and sagacity. No such weakness of mind or incapacity is shown as will warrant a court of equity to rescind an executed contract. In the case of Aiman v. Stout, 42 Penn. St., 114, it was held that mere mental weakness will not authorize a court of equity to set aside an executed contract, if such weakness does not amount to inability to comprehend the contract, and is unaccompanied by evidence of imposition or undue influence; and such is the tenor of all the authorities on this point.
This court said, in the case of Van Horn v. Keenan, 28 Ill., 448, where a party capable of taking care of his own interests makes a bad or losing bargain, the law will not assist him unless deceit has been practiced against which ordinary prudence could not protect him.
Now upon the question of fraudulent misrepresentation, imposition or deceit. Of these, there is really no testimony. The appellant, in endeavoring to effect a trade with appellee, used no more artifice than is usual and allowable when a party wishes to dispose of property, real or personal. He has a right to exalt the value of his own property to the highest point his antagonist's credulity may bear, and depreciate that of the opposing party. This is the daily practice, and no one has ever supposed that such boastful assertions, or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Strong v. Linington
...303, 306; Fulton v. Hood, 34 Penn. St. 365; Schermerhorn v. George, 13 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 315; Van Horn v. Keenan, 28 Ill. 445, 448; Miller v. Craig, 36 Ill. 109; Noetling v. Wright, 72 Ill. 390; Swannell v. Watson, 71 Ill. 456; Fagan v. Newson, 1 Dev. Law, 20; Farrar v. Alston, 1 Dev. Law, 6......
-
Campbell v. Campbell
...the capacity to make a deed of land, see Lindsey v. Lindsey, 50 Ill. 79;Wiley v. Ewalt, 66 Ill. 26;Willemin v. Dunn, 93 Ill. 511;Miller v. Craig, 36 Ill. 109. In Yoe v. McCord, supra, we said: ‘In 1 Redfield on Wills, 123, 124, the author states that ‘the result of the best considered cases......
-
Dickson v. Kempinsky
...incapable of comprehending the contract. 2 White and Tudor's Lead. Cas. in Eq. part 2, p. 1242; Graham v. Pancoast, 30 Pa. St. 89; Miller v. Craig, 36 Ill. 109; Lindsey v. Lindsey, 50 Ill. 79; Mann Betterly, 21 Vt. 326; Darnell v. Rowland, 30 Ind. 342; Nace v. Boyer, 30 Pa. St. 99. (4) In t......
-
Budlong v. Henry Cunningham.
... ... CHARLES WHEATON, for appellant; that matter of opinion alone will not make such a representation as furnishes ground for an action, cited Miller v. Craig, 36 Ill. 109; Cox v. Montgomery, 36 Ill. 396; Eames v. Morgan, 47 Ill. 260.The scienter must be proved: Hines v. Richter, 51 Ill. 299; ... ...