Colvin v. Weedman
Citations
- 50 Ill. 311
Syllabus
<p>1. Contract of sale—as to the time of delivery. A contract of sale of a large number of cattle, which were being herded in different lots a considerable distance apart, provided that they should be delivered from one day named, to another, as, from the 1st to the 10th of the month, at the option of the purchaser: Held, that before the vendor could be put in default for not delivering the cattle, the purchaser should make his election of time for the delivery, and give the vendor reasonable notice thereof, so as to enable him to perform his part of the agreement.</p> <p>2. Or should the time for delivery be extended, by agreement of parties, so that the last day for the buyer’s option should be postponed, the like duty of giving notice would devolve upon the buyer.</p> <p>3. And where, at the instance of the buyer, the vendor consents that he may take a less number than was originally sold, the former expressly agreeing to give notice when he would receive the residue, such notice must be given before the vendor can be put in default for non-delivery.</p> <p>4. In this case the cattle sold were owned by several persons, two of whom were in charge of the different lots at different places; the buyer obtained the consent of one of the vendors, as the time for delivery was approaching, that he should take a small number then, agreeing to notify the vendor when he would be ready to take the residue. The buyer then went to another of the vendors who was in charge of one of the lots of the cattle, from which the buyer was to take the smaller number he then was to have, and concealing from him the fact of the change in the agreement, induced him to drive that lot to one of the several points named in the original agreement, at which the whole number sold were to have been delivered, and when there, the buyer refused to take them, alleging, in general terms, that they did not fill the contract: Held, that the buyer could not put the vendors in default in that mode ; he sh
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “Conceding that he was morally bound to execute a conveyance without a demand therefor[e], his failure so to do would not constitute a fraud. To so hold would be to abolish all distinction between fraud and breach of contract.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Breese
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.