Monsen v. Stevens

Citations

• 56 Ill. 335

Syllabus

<p>1. Forcible detainee—by whom the action may be brought. Under the act of 1861, extending the remedy by forcible detainer to all cases between vendor and vendee, where the latter has obtained the possession of land under a contract, and before obtaining a deed, fails or refuses to comply with the contract, the grantee or alienee of the vendor, being “ entitled to the possession,” may maintain the action.</p> <p>2. Vendor and purchaser—want of title in the former. Where a vendor of land agreed to convey upon the making of certain deferred payments, the fact that in the mean time, prior to the full payment of the purchase money, the vendor had no title, and so declared, would not constitute a violation of the contract on his part, because he had until the time he agreed to convey in which to acquire the title.</p> <p>3. So where a party who had sold land, afterward conveyed the same to a third person, and the latter brought an action of forcible detainer against the original vendee, he having gone into possession under his contract, and made default in payment, it is not competent for the defendant in such action to prove that his vendor had, at a time prior to that at which he had agreed to convey, declared his inability to make a conveyance as to a part of the premises.</p> <p>4. Same — effect of a judgment in forcible detainer, on the rights of the vendee. It is not necessary that a vendor of land should declare a forfeiture of the contract in order to the maintenance of an action of forcible detainer against the vendee, he having failed to comply with his contract; nor would a judgment in such action, against the vendee, enforce a forfeiture or work a rescission of the contract, but the vendee might still have a specific performance if equity was in his favor.</p>