Milnor v. Willard
| Decision Date | 30 April 1864 |
| Citation | 1864 WL 2964,34 Ill. 38 |
| Parties | THOMAS MILNORv.E. W. WILLARD et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from Superior Court of Chicago.
The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.
Blodgett & Winston, for appellant.
Mather Taft, for appellee.
This is a suit in equity to enforce the specific performance of a contract for the purchase of lot one in block two of Duncan's Addition to Chicago. On the 15th day of June, 1854, the defendants, Willard and Lind, made a written agreement with the trustees of the South Chicago German Church for the sale of the lot for the sum of four thousand dollars, payable four hundred dollars in cash, and the balance in five equal annual installments on the 19th day of June in each year, with interest annually in advance on all sums unpaid. The purchasers paid on the contract $1,542.59, and on the 12th day of June, 1855, assigned it to the complainant, who, after that time, paid thereon $2,673.96, leaving due thereon the last payment, falling due June 19, 1859, and the interest thereon.
The contract provides that the prompt performance of the payments and covenants, on the part of the purchasers should be a condition precedent to the sale, and that time should be of the essence of the condition. On the 1st of April, 1861, Lind conveyed his interest in the lot to Willard, as security for an indebtedness of the former to the latter. The other defendants claim under them. On the 6th day of October, 1861, Willard declared the contract forfeited, for the nonpayment of the residue of the purchase-money. On the 19th of April, 1863, the complainant tendered to Willard the sum due on the contract, with interest, and demanded a conveyance. The bill in the present case was filed May 2, 1863. The complainant seeks relief from the effect of a nonperformance of a condition precedent, and the only reason alleged for such relief is, that he was a poor man, and at that time unable to comply with his contract. The alleged excuse cannot be considered sufficient. If it were valid for a short period of time, it would be sufficient until it ceased to exist, and such excuses would postpone indefinitely the time when contracts are to be performed. In contracts relating to land, time is not considered as necessarily of their essence, but it may be made essential by an express stipulation of the parties, or it may be deemed so from the nature of the property or the purposes for which it was purchased, or from other circumstances specially surrounding the case. Time is made essential in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Butler v. Cortner
...Ill. 553; Martin v. Morgan, 87 Cal. 203, 22 Am. St. 240, 25 P. 350; Wilcoxson v. Stitt, 65 Cal. 596, 52 Am. Rep. 310, 4 P. 629; Milnor v. Willard, 34 Ill. 38; Kemp Humphreys, 13 Ill. 573; Smith v. Brown, 10 Ill. 309; Schumann v. Mark, 35 Minn. 379, 28 N.W. 927; Lipscomb v. Faqua, 103 Tex. 5......
-
Zempel v. Hughes
...The precise phraseology is not important. The intention of the parties as expressed by the agreement controls on this question. Milnor v. Willard, 34 Ill. 38;Smith v. Brown, 5 Gilman, 309. In equity time is not necessarily deemed of the essence of the contract; but, if it made so by the ter......
-
Robnett v. Miller
...v. Cowing, 21 Ill. 570;Murphy v. Lockwood, 21 Ill. 611;Dennis v. McCagg, 32 Ill. 429;Sanford v. Emory's Adm'r, 34 Ill. 468;Milnor v. Willard, 34 Ill. 38;Cunningham v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., 77 Ill. 178. A court of equity has no more right than a court of law to dispense with an expr......
-
Quinlan v. St. John
... ... (Skookum Oil Co. v. Thomas, supra; Cheney v. Libby, ... 134 U.S. 68; 10 S.Ct. 498; Milnor v. Willard, 34 ... Ill. 38.) 5. That the contract of sale does not provide in ... terms for a forfeiture of payments made is immaterial ... ( ... ...