Standard v. Standard

• Decision Date: 23 October 1906
• Parties: STANDARD et al. v. STANDARD.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

223 Ill. 255

79 N.E. 92

STANDARD et al.

v.STANDARD.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 23, 1906.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Union County; W. W. Duncan, Judge.

Suit by Guy Standard and others, by Laura Standard, as next friend, against William J. Standard. From a decree dismissing the bill for want of equity, complainants appeal. Affirmed.

W. W. Clemens and James Lingle, for appellants.

D. W. Karraker, for appellee.

HAND, J.

This is a bill in chancery filed by the appellants, by their next friend, against the appellee, in the circuit court of Union county, to enforce the specific performance of an alleged parol contract or promise for the conveyance of land from a father to a son in case the son would live upon the land and improve the same. The allegations of the bill are that William J. Standard, the father of Warren Standard and the grandfather of the appellants, was the owner of 200 acres of land in Union county, upon which he and his wife, Elizabeth J. Standard, resided as their home; that their son, Warren Standard, made his home with his parents, he being their only child; that said Warren Standard, in the year 1890 and when he was 24 years of age, married the mother of the appellants; that said Warren Standard died intestate in the year 1898, leaving Guy Standard, Lester Standard, and Warren Standard, the appellants, his children and sole heirs at law, and Laura Standard, his widow, by whom the appellants, they being minors, sue as their next friend; that upon the marriage of Warren Standard he and his wife, Laura, went to the home of said William J. Standard and wife to live, where they continued to reside until the death of Warren Standard; that within a week or two following the marriage of Warren Standard a cyclone visited the farm in question, laying waste its chief improvements, namely, the houses, barns, outbuildings, fences, orchards, etc., whereupon said appellee and his wife requested of Warren Standard, and Laura, his wife, that they live on the farm with them permanently, and that they assist them in restoring said improvements, and that in case they complied with said request said William J. Standard and wife promised that said farm should be the property of Warren Standard; that said Warren Standard and wife accepted said proposition and remained with William J. Standard and wife upon said farm and contributed labor and means to restore said improvements, yet the said William J. Standard during the lifetime of Warren Standard, and subsequent thereto, had failed and refused to comply with said promise by conveying said farm to Warren Standard or the appellants; that Elizabeth J. Standard died January 31, 1903, and the appellee subsequently married Lucretia Standard, who has departed this life since the commencement of this suit. William J. Standard filed an answer to the bill, denying that he ever promised to give or to convey said farm to Warren Standard, or that Warren Standard had any interest in said farm during his lifetime, or that the appellants had any interest therein subsequent to the death of their father, Warren Standard, and pleaded the statute of frauds. A replication was filed and a trial was had in open court upon depositions and oral and documentary evidence, and a decree was entered dismissing said bill for want of equity, and an appeal has been proseucted to this court by the complainants.

It is clear the decree of the circuit court is correct, unless the evidence found in the record is such as to take the case out of the operation of the statute of frauds. In order that a parol contract or promise to convey lands may be specifically enforced by a court of equity where the statute of frauds is pleaded, the complainant must establish: First, the contract or promise to convey by clear and unequivocal evidence; second, that the contract or promise to convey has been acted upon by the vendee or promisee by taking possession of the land under the terms of the contract or promise to convey; and, third, that the party claiming the benefit of the parol contract or promise to convey has made valuable and permanent improvements, with his own funds, upon the land, relying upon the contract or promise to convey, with the knowledge of the vendor or promisor. In Worth v. Worth, 84 Ill. 442, on page 443, it was said: ‘The authorities all agree that a parol contract to convey will not be decreed in a court of equity, unless it appears to be certain and definite in its terms and established by evidence free from doubt or suspicion.’ And in Clark v. Clark, 122 Ill. 388, on page 391, 13 N. E. 553, on page 554: ‘The specific performance of a parol contract for the sale of land will not be enforced by a court of equity, unless in addition to the other requisites hereinafter named such contract is established, by competent proofs, to be clear, definite, and unequivocal in its terms.’ And in Geer v. Goudy, 174 Ill. 514, on page 521, 51 N. E. 623, on page 625: ‘In order to take a case out of the operation of the statute of frauds, a parol contract or oral promise to convey land should be clear and certain in its terms, and should be established by testimony of an undoubted character, which is clear, definite, and unequivocal.’ In this case no witness was called who was present when the alleged promise to convey was made, and the lips of Warren Standard, the father...