Chicago Dock Co. v. Kinzie
Citations
- 49 Ill. 289
Syllabus
<p>1. Dower—release of—may be made—to a purchaser from, the owner of the fee. In a proceeding, by the widow of K, against 0, for an assignment of dower in certain premises, the proof showed that K, her husband, conveyed the property to J, but that, by this deed, there was no relinquishment of dower. SubsequcrAiy, J conveyed the premises to H, who gave his notes for the purchase price, secured by a deed of trust upon the premises. H made this purchase, and took a conveyance in his own name, under a verbal agreement with 0, that 0 should make the first three payments, and that if H made the last payment, he should have one-fourth of the property, and if 0 made all the payments, he was to take the whole. 0 entered into possession of the premises and made all the payments. When 0 had paid one-half of the purchase price, K and wife conveyed the premises to him, by which deed petitioner released her right of dower in the same, and afterwards 0 and H conveyed the property to 0. K died about eight years after this latter conveyance. Held, that 0, at the time of the execution to him of the deed by K and the petitioner, held such an interest in the premises as enabled him to become the releasee of the dower right, and that such deed operated to bar petitioner’s right to recover dower in the premises.</p> <p>2. Statute of frauds—parol contract for the purchase of lands—as between, the parties—equity will enforce—unless the statute is pleaded. That, by the verbal agreement between, 0 and H, an express trust was created, which, had 0 filed his bill against H to have executed, a court of equity would have enforced, unless H had interposed the statute of frauds as a defense.</p> <p>8. Same—statute can not be pleaded by strangers to the contract. That petitioner, being,a stranger to this agreement, can not object, that because it was not in writing it is, therefore, void under the statute of frauds. This statutory defense is personal, and can not be made by persons who are neither
Judges: Walker
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
12 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. SettegastTexas Supreme Court· 1891-01-16· cited 63×
- Dixon v. DukeIndiana Supreme Court· 1882-11-15· cited 52×
- Rickards v. CunninghamNebraska Supreme Court· 1880-07-15· cited 13×
- Cosand v. BunkerSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1891-10-20· cited 9×
- Marie v. GarrisonThe Superior Court of New York City· 1883-11-15· cited 9×
- Mott v. FergusonSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1904-05-20· cited 8×
- Hallberg v. BrosseauAppellate Court of Illinois· 1896-06-01· cited 7×
- George J. Cooke Co. v. KaiserAppellate Court of Illinois· 1911-10-04· cited 5×
- A. R. Beck Lumber Co. v. RuppIllinois Supreme Court· 1900-12-20· cited 4×
- Freed v. YoungAppellate Court of Illinois· 1974-07-15· cited 3×
- Grundies v. KelsoAppellate Court of Illinois· 1891-07-23· cited 1×
- Mutual Mill Ins. v. GordonAppellate Court of Illinois· 1886-11-24
Cites
4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.