Hewitt v. Clark

Citations

• 91 Ill. 605

Syllabus

<p>1. Notice — of unrecorded deed. Where a subsequent purchaser was informed by Ms grantor that he had made a prior deed to the same land, but the trade was broken off and the deed had not been delivered, and the purchaser and grantor then went to the recorder’s office and inquired if such prior deed had been left for record, and finding it had not, then went to a notary’s office and inquired to see the papers between the grantor and the prior grantee, and was shown what he took to be a deed, this was held conclusive notice to him of the prior unrecorded deed.</p> <p>2. Fraud—in procuring deed does not render it void. A deed for land, though procured by fraud, is not void, but voidable only. Until set aside by the action of the parties, or a decree in chancery, it will pass the legal title to the grantee.</p> <p>3Deed—delivery. Where a party acknowledges before a proper officer the execution and delivery of a deed made by him, and allows the officer to hand the same to the grantee without objection, this will amount to a delivery.</p> <p>4. Evidence—question assuming a fact. In an action of ejectment, where the question was whether a deed relied upon by one of the parties had ever been delivered, it was held to be error to allow a witness to be asked the question as to what agreement was made about the delivery of the deed,without first showing there was some agreement made on the subject.</p> <p>5. Same—mode of proving agreement by parol. The safe and proper way of proving an agreement by parol is, to require the witness to state what was said, if anything, by either of the parties in the presence of the other on the subject. If the witness can not give the words of the parties, he may state the substance of what was said, but he ought not to be allowed to substitute his inferences from what was said, or his understanding.</p>