Pearsons v. Lee
| Decision Date | 31 December 1835 |
| Citation | 2 Ill. 193,1 Scam. 193,1835 WL 2170 |
| Parties | HIRAM PEARSONS, appellant,v.NELSON LEE, appellee. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
THIS was an action of assumpsit commenced in the Cook Circuit Court, by the appellant against the appellee, upon an agreement in writing signed by the appellee only.
The cause was decided at the October term, 1835, by the Hon. Stephen T. Logan, and a judgment for costs rendered for the appellee.
A. COWLES and G. SPRING, for the appellant.
E. PECK, for the appellee, contended:
1. That the declaration shows no sufficient consideration.
2. That the declaration disclosed a contract all on one side, in contravention of the common law; and of the laws of the United States, regulating the sale of public lands.
3. That the agreement is against good policy, and contra bonos mores.
This was an action of trespass on the case on promises.
The declaration is on a special agreement in writing not under seal, and is described to have been entered into between the plaintiff and defendant for the purchase, sale and conveyance of a certain quarter section of land; and it also avers that the defendant, for the consideration of two hundred dollars, to be paid by the plaintiff, engaged to attend the sale of the public lands at the town of Chicago, at a certain day named, and bid off the said quarter section, provided it could be purchased for a sum not exceeding eight dollars per acre, and to request the Register of the Land Office at said place to grant a certificate to said plaintiff in his name, on the payment of the purchase money by the plaintiff to the register; or if, on such payment, the certificate was issued to defendant, then he engaged to execute a good and sufficient warranty deed for said land. The breach assigned is that although the plaintiff was ready on his part to pay the two hundred dollars, and although the land sold for less than eight dollars per acre at such sale, yet the defendant did not and would not purchase said land, nor had he requested the register to make the certificate to said plaintiff; nor would he execute a good and sufficient warranty deed for the same land, or of any part thereof to the plaintiff, according to the tenor and effect of said agreement, although often requested, etc. To this declaration a general demurrer was interposed, and the Circuit Court adjudged the declaration bad. To the declaration is annexed a copy...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Plew v. Bd.
-
Brooks v. the President
...must be denied. The transcript has become a part of the records of this Court, and can not be withdrawn. Motion denied. Variances: Pearsons v. Lee, 2 Ill. 193; Felt v. Williams, 2 Ill. 206; Leidig v. Rawson, 2 Ill. 272; Hull v. Blaisdell et al., 2 Ill. 332; Peyton et al. v. Tappan, 2 Ill. 3......
- Seward v. Wilson
-
Brannan v. Strauss
...Even under the strict and technical common law practice such an objection could not be made for the first time in thi?? court. Pearson v. Lee, 1 Scam. 193; Barnes v. Barber, 1 Gilm. 401. It is next objected that the judgment below was too large, in that no deduction was made on account of c......