Seyferth v. Groves & S.R.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 24 October 1905
• Citation: 217 Ill. 483,75 N.E. 522
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Parties: SEYFERTH v. GROVES & S. R. R. CO.

217 Ill. 483

75 N.E. 522

SEYFERTH

v.GROVES & S. R. R. CO.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 24, 1905.

Appeal from Appellate Court, Fourth District.

Bill by Andrew Seyferth against the Groves & Sand Ridge Railroad Company. Decree for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Herbert & Levy, for appellant.

W. W. Barr and R. J. Stephens (J. M. Dickinson, of counsel), for appellee.

RICKS, J.

The only question presented upon the record in this case is one of law, and is whether or not the written option set out in the opinion was binding upon appellant to the end of the time stated therein.

The Appellate Court, in stating and disposing of the case, made the following remarks, in which we concur and adopt the same as our views:

‘Andrew Seyferth, the appellant, filed a bill in the circuit court of Jackson county to enjoin the Groves & Sand Ridge Railroad Company, appellee, ‘from going upon or doing any act preparatory to or in construction of its railroad’ upon the land of complainant described in the bill. The defendant answered the bill, to which complainant filed replication. Upon hearing had before the court the finding was for the defendant, and a decree was entered dismissing the bill for want of equity and for costs, from which appellant appeals. On the 20th day of October, 1902, appellant, in consideration of $1.00, executed and delivered to the agent of appellee a written contract, under which, among other things, he granted unto the Groves & Sand Ridge Railroad Company the option to purchase the following described lands belonging to the undersigned (describing the land in controversy, being a strip for right of way), upon condition expressed ‘that if said railroad company shall, within four months from the date hereof, pay or tender to the undersigned * * * the further sum of $45 per acre, then the undersigned * * * agrees that he will make, execute, and deliver to the said railroad company a good and sufficient deed, with general warranty, conveying to the said railroad company a fee-simple title. * * * The undersigned hereby grant to the said railroad company, its contractors, subcontractors, and its and their agents, servants, and assigns, the right, upon the execution of this present instrument, to take immediate possession of the said strip of land and to construct a railroad upon the same, and for that purpose to enter in and upon said strip of land with all necessary men, horses, carts, and implements, laborers, and material required for the construction of said railroad, hereby releasing to the said railway company * * * all damages on account thereof; and said railroad company shall have the right * * * to remove the railroad track and superstructure therefrom in case the option herein provided for shall not be exercised: Provided, however, that if the railroad company shall not so pay or tender the said further sum within the period aforesaid all rights under this instrument shall cease and determine from and after the expiration of the period aforesaid.’ This instrument was signed by appellant and his wife, Emma Seyferth, and both acknowledged the same November 5, 1902, before a notary public, whose certificate is attached. The consideration, $1.00, recited in the contract, was not in fact paid; and for this reason appellant contends that the contract or option agreement is void and without effect. Nothing was said about the $1.00 consideration by either the appellant or the agent of appellee at the time the writing was drawn up...