Razor v. Razor
Citations
- 142 Ill. 375
- 31 N.E. 678
Syllabus
<p>1. Deed — reversionary clause construed. A conveyance of land contained this provision : “It is agreed by and between the grantor and grantee, that the said Gertrude Gibbs (grantor) shall marry and shall live as the lawful wife of the said F. B., (grantor,) and when she shall cease to live as his wife the property herein described shall revert to the grantor, or to the heirs of his body:” Held, that such stipulation could not bear the construction that the property should revert to the grantor upon the wife committing adultery.</p> <p>2. Contract — sufficient consideration. After the conveyance of property by a man to his intended wife, and after their marriage, he executed to the wife an agreement, that in consideration of her signing a deed to the same property then executed he would invest the proceeds of such sale in a house in B., and have the same deeded to her: Held, that it was not necessary that the wife should be the ownel* of the property sold, absolutely, in order that her signing of the deed should constitute a sufficient consideration for the agreement to re, invest the proceeds in her name.</p> <p>3. Evidence' — parol, to explain written contract; Where an agreement in writing is expressed in short and incomplete terms, parol evil dence is admissible to explain that which is per se unintelligible, such explanation not being inconsistent with the written terms.</p> <p>4. Practice in the Supreme Court — errors should he specifically-pointed out. A general objection to the ruling of the trial court in giving and refusing instructions, without pointing out any specific error, will not be considered on appeal or er-ror. It is not the duty of a court of review to search out errors in the record upon which to base its judgment.</p> <p>5. Same — error will not always reverse. In an action by a wife against her husband upon his agreement that in consideration of her uniting with him in a deed of their homestead he would invest the proceeds in other property
Judges: Wilkin
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
6 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Duggan v. RyanIllinois Supreme Court· 1904-06-23· cited 8×
- Jacksonville & St. Louis Railway Co. v. WilhiteIllinois Supreme Court· 1904-04-20· cited 6×
- Sample v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy RailroadIllinois Supreme Court· 1908-04-23· cited 5×
- Bay State Milling Co. v. BarthAppellate Court of Illinois· 1907-08-06· cited 3×
- Craig v. Chicago Coach & Carriage Co.Appellate Court of Illinois· 1912-10-03· cited 2×
- Kortylak v. Johnston City Building & Loan Ass'nAppellate Court of Illinois· 1935-01-04
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.