Ludeke v. Sutherland

Citations

• 87 Ill. 481

Syllabus

<p>1. Parol evidence—to contradict written agreement. The general rule is well established that antecedent or contemporaneous parol agreements or declarations can not be received to contradict or vary the terms of a valid written agreement; but this does not forbid the contradiction of mere recitals as to the consideration of a deed by parol, where the party is not on other principles estopped to deny such recitals.</p> <p>2. This rule does not prohibit the establishment by parol of an agreement for the sale of land, although a deed and notes may have been executed in part performance of such parol agreement. In such case the parol agreement remains in full force, and may be proved by parol, unless the proof varies or modifies the terms and legal effect of the writings.</p> <p>3. Where a tract of land was sold as containing 140 acres, at a given sum per acre, and a deed made conveying the same, and the purchaser gave his note, secured by deed of trust, for the unpaid price, it being verbally agreed, before the execution of the writings, that if the land, on a survey, should contain more than 140 acres, the purchaser should pay for such excess, and if it fell short the seller should pay for the deficit at the same price per acre for which the land was sold, it was held, that a recovery could be had for any excess in the number of acres in the land, and that parol evidence of the contract was admissible.</p>