Sapp v. Phelps
Citations
- 92 Ill. 588
Syllabus
<p>1. Evidence—to show mistake in written contract. The evidence to show a mistake in a written contract and justify its correction must be clear, strong and satisfactory.</p> <p>2. Contract—construed as to who shall pay for land for a street. Where an agreement is made between A of the one part and B and C of the other, that A is to buy at public sale a tract of land lying west of the premises owned by him, and that B and C are to extend a street north and south through such tract at their exclusive expense, and that A is to retain all of the tract west of his premises to such street, and B and C to take the balance, each paying in proportion to his or their part thereof, A will not be required to pay for any part of the land covered by the extension of the street, but only for the land retained by him to the street.</p> <p>3. Costs—discretionary in chancery. In chancery it is discretionary with the court as to who shall pay tlxe costs, and a party uniting as complainant and being willing to execute a contract as really made, and as insisted by his co-complainants, is properly exempted from the payment of costs.</p> <p>4. Party—in chancery. The fact that a necessary party to a bill in chancery is made a complainant when he might properly have been made a defendant, presents no obstacle to a proper adjudication of the rights of the parties.</p> <p>5. Chancery—hill — whether multifarious. Where, at a sale of land, A, under a contract with B and C, purchases the same for himself, and also as the agent for B and C, each to take distinct parts thereof, in which contract there is a mistake in drafting the same, a bill by the vendors to specifically enforce the contract of sale, and to reform the mistake in the contract made between the purchaser and those interested with him in the purchase, is not subject to the objection of being multifarious. In such a case the subject of both contracts and the parties thereto are not improperly embraced in one bill.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- collecting cases for the proposition that a court has authority to appoint a special prosecutor, where the regular one was disqualified
- collecting cases for the proposition that a court has authority to appoint a special prosecutor, where the regular one was disqualified
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Sheldon
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.