Perkins v. Hadsell
| Decision Date | 31 January 1869 |
| Parties | WILLIAM PERKINSv.BARBARY HADSELL. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
WRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of Mason county; the Hon. CHARLES TURNER, Judge, presiding.
The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion.
Mr. W. W. PERKINS, for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. LYMAN LACEY, for the defendant in error.
In 1860, plaintiff in error gave the following instrument to Robert M. Stout:
“These presents witness between William Perkins, of Cincinnati, O., and Robert M. Stout of Clarksburg, Indiana, that the said Perkins now extends to the said Stout the privilege of selecting from his lands in Mason county, Illinois, of the following nos: An 80 acre lot for a home for himself and family, W. 1/2 of S. W. 1/4, 24; W. 1/2, N. W. 1/4, 25; N. E. 1/4 of 26; S. E. 1/4, 15; T. 1, N. R., 6 W.
Should he, the said Stout, take either one of the 80's first described, he is to pay to the said Perkins seven hundred and twenty dollars for the same within the period of ten years, with 6 per cent. interest. Should he prefer taking his eighty out of one of the quarters last described, he is to have the same for six hundred and eighty-five dollars, with 10 per cent. interest till paid, he paying the annual tax on the eighty selected, with the privilege of taking none, no eighty, when this article is to be of no force; but if the said Stout make his selection as aforesaid, within six months, and go on to improve the same and pay for it according to this article, then said Perkins is to make out and deliver to him a good deed for the eighty selected. This 7th day of September, 1860.
WM. PERKINS.
It is understood that Mr. Stout is to be charged no rent, should he leave the 80 after tilling it for a time.
W. PERKINS,
ROB'T M. STOUT.”
The present bill was filed against Perkins by Barbary Hadsell, as assignee of Stout, for a specific performance, and as no answer was filed, the only question is, whether the bill shows upon its face a case justifying the decree for a conveyance. The bill alleges that Stout, on the 1st of March, 1860, with the consent of Perkins, made his selection of an eighty acre tract at $720, which was then its full value; that he broke the land and made valuable improvements thereon; that in September, 1861, for a valuable consideration, he assigned the contract to one Case, who afterwards assigned to defendant in error, and that she has since been in possession, made valuable improvements, and put said land in a high state of cultivation. The bill further avers, that Stout, Case, and defendant in error have paid all the taxes on said land, and that defendant in error on the 29th of June, 1867, tendered to plaintiff in error the full amount due on said land, to wit: $1,016. A default was taken against the plaintiff in error, and the court, on the allegations of the bill, rendered a decree for a conveyance.
It is insisted, by the plaintiff in error, that the instrument above set forth, is not binding on him, for want of mutuality, or, in other words, that there is no consideration. There is no doubt but that Perkins, at any time before Stout accepted his proposition by selecting, entering upon and commencing to improve the land, might have withdrawn his offer. Up to that time there was indeed no consideration. But this he did not do. He allowed his offer to remain open until Stout had accepted it by doing all that he was required to do by its terms. It was then too late for Perkins to recede. He insists, however, that Stout, even by entering on the land, incurred no obligation which he, Perkins, could enforce. This may be the true construction of the instrument, but the answer is, that Stout and his assignees did not choose to avail themselves of this privilege, but performed all that was required of them by the terms of the instrument in order to entitle them to the land. After they have performed all the conditions, by making valuable improvements, paying the taxes, and tendering the price of the land within the appointed time, it would surely be inequitable to permit the plaintiff in error to refuse compliance with his promise, on the ground that they were not bound by contract to do these things. They may not have been bound to do them, but they, nevertheless, have done them, induced thereto by the unrevoked promise of the plaintiff in error. If the owner of a piece of land executes a written instrument by which he promises to convey the land to another, if the latter will erect a house worth five thousand dollars upon it within one year, and pay to the owner a certain price for the land within two years, and such person erects the house within the appointed time, without...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carter Oil Co. v. Owen
...recede from the contract. Such contracts have frequently been upheld and enforced in this state. Estes v. Furlong, 59 Ill. 298; Perkins v. Hadsell, 50 Ill. 216; Hayes v. O'Brien, 149 Ill. 403, 37 N.E. 73, 23 L.R.A. 555; Guyer v. Warren, 175 Ill. 328, 51 N. E. 580. While the power of revocat......
-
Bohanan v. Bohanan
...Evans, 6 Gray, 26. Promise to deed if grantee will improve, when condition is complied with, will compel specific performance: Perkins v. Hadsell, 50 Ill. 216. Time is not of the essence of the contract, unless expressly so stipulated: Snyder v. Spaulding, 57 Ill. 480; Dasel v. Jordan, 104 ......
-
Newman v. Mercantile Trust Company
...v. Railroad, 21 Ill. 533; Gardiner v. Corson, 15 Mass. 500; Dalrymple v. Lauman, 23 Md. 376; Harding v. Gibbs, 125 Ill. 85; Perkins v. Hadsell, 50 Ill. 216. (8) defendant, the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company, could not buy or hold shares of stock of the Wiggins Ferry Company.......
-
Ullsperger v. Meyer
... ... To like effect are Farwell v. Lowther, 18 Ill. 252;Perkins v. Hadsell, 50 Ill. 216; Estes v. Furlong, supra; Spangler v. Danforth, 65 Ill. 152;Gradle v. Warner, 140 Ill. 123, 29 N. E. 1118;Memory v. Niepert, ... ...