Lovingston v. Short

Citations

• 77 Ill. 587

Syllabus

<p>1. Rescission of contract—-for defect in title, where the purchaser is not disturbed. Where a purchaser of land by warranty deed knows, at the time of liis purchase, that the title is suspicious, and has the same examined, and takes a conveyance, relying upon the covenants of warranty, he will not be allowed to rescind the purchase, where he has not been disturbed in his possession, and nothing appears to show that he will be.</p> <p>3. Same—must be in toto. A party can not rescind an entire contract in part, retaining that which is valuable to him and compelling the other party to take back that which may prove to be of no advantage, in the absence of any fraud practiced upon him. If he rescinds it at all, he must do so in toto.</p> <p>3. Where a party applied to purchase one of two tracts of land, which the owner refused to sell unless he would take both, and the purchaser, knowing that the title to the other tract had been questioned, bousrht both, taking a warranty deed as to the estate sold, and afterwards, without having ever been disturbed in his possession, filed his bill to rescind the sale as to the latter and least valuable tract: Held, that his bill was properly dismissed, there being no claim the warranty was not good.</p>