Oard v. Oard

Citations

• 59 Ill. 46

Syllabus

<p>1. Rescission of contract—-for withholding the consideration. A father, upwards of seventy years of age, induced by the promise of his son to support him and his almost equally aged wife, in comfort during the remainder of their lives, conveyed his farm to his son’s wife, and transferred to his son all his personal property. The son took possession of the farm, and by his continued unkind ness and ill treatment, in little upwards of a year compelled his parents to leave and take refuge with another child. Upon bill filed by the father to rescind the contract, it was held, if the rescission of the contract in cases of such character, could not be referred to any other head of equity jurisdiction, it would be proper to presume that it was made in the first instance with a fraudulent intent.</p> <p>2. And in this case, no accident, or misfortune, or unforeseen event of any kind having prevented the son from executing his agreement, and the record disclosing no provocation of any sort, nor any attempt at justification, the inference was regarded as unavoidable, that the son procured the deed from his father with intent to treat him in the manner lie did.</p> <p>3. Decree in favor of the “defenda?iis,” when all core not entitled. Where a grantor of land sought by bill in chancery to rescind the deed, making his grantees, and also a tenant in possession, parties defendant, and a decree was rendered setting aside the convc)nnce, but directing that the complainant pay to the “defendants” a certain sum for improvements: Held, as all the defendants would, by the terms of the decree, be entitled to participate in the sum so directed to be paid, when the tenant was not entitled to any part of it, the decree was, to that extent, erroneous.</p>