Skip to main content
· 5/18/1880

Peck v. Arehart

Citations

  • 95 Ill. 113
  • 1880 Ill. LEXIS 155

Syllabus

<p>. 1. Mistake — sufficiency of proof. Where a purchaser of land seeks to reform his deed, as against a subsequent purchaser for a valuable consideration, on the ground of mistake as to the interest intended to be conveyed, and notice to the subsequent purchaser, he must establish the facts relied on for relief with clearness and certainty.</p> <p>2. Purchaser with notice—token protected. A purchaser of land from a prior bona fide holder who acquired the legal title, as shown by the records, for a valuable consideration, without notice of any outstanding equity, will be protected against such equity, even though he himself had notice thereof.</p>

Judges: Scholfield

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.