Hall v. Jarvis

Citations

• 65 Ill. 302

Syllabus

<p>1. Rescission on contract—not for fraudulent representations unless relied on. Where the complainant sought to rescind a contract for the exchange of lands which had been executed on his part, on the ground that the defendant had falsely and fraudulently represented that he had a perfect title to the lands he exchanged, and it appeared that the complainant took a bond from the defendant, secured by mortgage on the land cpnveyed by the complainant, conditioned that the defendant should furnish a complete abstract within sixty days, showing a perfect title to the land he had given in exchange: Reid, where the bill was filed before the expiration of the sixty days, in the absence of proof that complainant relied on the representations, that the fair inference was that he relied upon the bond and mortgage, and not upon the representations, and that he was not entitled to the relief sought, as there was no default at the time in failing to perform the conditions of the bond.</p> <p>2. Same—burden of proof. Where a party seeks in equity to rescind his contract on the ground that it was induced by fraudulent representations, the burden of proof is upon him to establish the fraud by showing the representations and their falsity.</p> <p>3. Government grant—patent not necessary to. The United States, or a State, may transfer its lands by a special act of legislation without the issue of a patent. So, where, by special act of Congress, land was granted to the State of Iowa, and the Governor selected the same under the grant, it was held that a good title might be acquired without the issue of a patent, unless the act required one to be issued preliminary to the vesting of the title.</p>