Larmon v. Jordan
Citations
- 56 Ill. 204
Syllabus
<p>1. Contbacts—proportion to sell—of its withdrawal and acceptance A written proposition for the sale of land, without consideration, and not under seal, wherein the time of acceptance is limited, may be withdrawn by the party making it at any time before acceptance; who would not be bound by an acceptance not within the time limited, unless he assented in his turn.</p> <p>3. And where no time is limited the law fixes a reasonable time, to be determined by the circumstances of the case. Then the inquiry as to a reasonable time resolves itself into an inquiry as to what time it is rational to suppose the parties contemplated; and the law will decide this to be that time which as rational men they ought to have understood each other to have had in mind. The proposition, to be binding, must be accepted within such reasonable time.</p> <p>3. If the party making the offer revokes the same at any time before its acceptance, and deals with the property in a manner inconsistent with a willingness to continue the offer, then the presumption that the aggregatio mentimn necessary to a contract occurred, does not arise.</p> <p>4. When the time is limited, by the offer, during which it is to continue, then, if without any previous revocation the offer is accepted, the presumption of a meeting of minds would be conclusive, simply because the offer is presumed to have been renewed during every moment of the time limited, which signifies the assent of the vendor, and the acceptance that of the vendee.</p> <p>5. So, if no time be limited, the offer, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, will be presumed to have been continued every moment during a reasonable time and no longer; and, if there is no acceptance within a reasonable time, there can be no presumption of a meeting of minds, because there can be none of a continuance of the offer to the time of acceptance.</p> <p>6. Cloud upon title — what constitutes. Where a written proposition for the sale of lands, without consid
Judges: McAllister
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
16 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Simpson & Harper v. Sanders & JenkinsSupreme Court of Georgia· 1908-02-26· cited 43×
- Joffrion v. GumbelSupreme Court of Louisiana· 1909-03-29· cited 37×
- Leadbetter v. PriceOregon Supreme Court· 1921-11-29· cited 31×
- Hanly v. WattersonWest Virginia Supreme Court· 1894-03-31· cited 30×
- Corbett v. CronkhiteIllinois Supreme Court· 1909-02-19· cited 17×
- Johnson v. Whitney Metal Tool Co.Appellate Court of Illinois· 1951-02-12· cited 16×
- Ellis's Admr. v. DurkeeSupreme Court of Vermont· 1906-11-26· cited 15×
- Monson v. KillIllinois Supreme Court· 1898-01-19· cited 14×
- Brooks v. Trustee Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1913-12-12· cited 7×
- Clark v. PottsIllinois Supreme Court· 1912-06-21· cited 7×
- Estate Stove Co. v. KenneyAppellate Court of Illinois· 1924-10-04· cited 7×
- Schields v. HorbachNebraska Supreme Court· 1890-10-07· cited 5×
- Union National Bank of Chicago v. MillerSupreme Court of North Carolina· 1890-02-05· cited 3×
- School Directors v. TrefethrenAppellate Court of Illinois· 1882-02-24· cited 3×
- Globe Brewing Co. v. SimonAppellate Court of Illinois· 1907-04-04· cited 3×
- Seymour v. HowardAppellate Court of Illinois· 1894-02-01
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.