Taylor v. Merrill
Citations
- 55 Ill. 52
Syllabus
<p>1. Allegations and proofs must correspond. In a suit to compel the specific performance of a contract, the complainant can not obtain relief upon a contract different from that set out in his bill.</p> <p>2. Agent—parol authority to sell land. It is not doubted that parol authority to an agent is sufficient to enable him to bind his principal by a contract in writing for the sale of land; but such authority must be clear and explicit.</p> <p>3. Agent—must act within his authority. If a party authorizes an agent to make a certain contract for him, it does not follow that the agent may make another and different contract and yet bind the principal; and especially is this true where the party with whom the agent contracts knows the extent of the agent’s authority.</p> <p>4 Statute of frauds—when not necessary to he pleaded. Where a bill for specific performance sets out a contract in writing as the alleged ground of relief sought, it is not necessary the'defendant should plead the statute of frauds in anticipation of an attempt on the part of the complainant to prove a parol contract for the sale of land. It is time enough to plead that statute when it is alleged the defendant has made a contract which is within its purview.</p> <p>5. Specific performance—unreasonable delay. All contracts for the sale of lands, where time is not of the essence thereof, must be performed or rescinded within a reasonable time, and if there has been any unreasonable delay that can not be explained consistently with good faith, equity will always hesitate to enforce a specific performance.</p> <p>6. So where a party claiming to have purchased a tract of land, sought to compel a conveyance thereof, it appeared the alleged contract was made April 14, 1868, and by its terms a large part of the purchase money was to be paid at that time. When the vendor, in the latter part of that month, tendered a deed and demanded payment, the purchaser insisted upon conditions not embraced in the contrac
Judges: Scott
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
15 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Cowan v. CurranIllinois Supreme Court· 1905-10-24· cited 36×
- Philpot v. TaylorIllinois Supreme Court· 1874-09-15· cited 32×
- Harris v. FrankCalifornia Supreme Court· 1889-11-23· cited 17×
- Kimball v. TookeIllinois Supreme Court· 1873-09-15· cited 15×
- Goodrich v. RogersWashington Supreme Court· 1913-09-02· cited 14×
- Durant v. RogersIllinois Supreme Court· 1873-09-15· cited 12×
- East St. Louis Connecting Railway Co. v. City of East St. LouisIllinois Supreme Court· 1899-10-16· cited 7×
- Proudfoot v. WightmanIllinois Supreme Court· 1875-09-15· cited 6×
- Iglehart v. VailIllinois Supreme Court· 1874-09-15· cited 5×
- Sutton v. MillerIllinois Supreme Court· 1906-02-21· cited 3×
- Ditto v. HardingIllinois Supreme Court· 1874-09-15· cited 2×
- Cohen v. FriedmanIllinois Supreme Court· 1913-06-18· cited 2×
- East St. Louis Connecting Railway Co. v. City of East St. LouisAppellate Court of Illinois· 1899-03-10· cited 1×
- Adams & Westlake Co. v. WestlakeAppellate Court of Illinois· 1901-01-15· cited 1×
- Rogan v. ArnoldAppellate Court of Illinois· 1907-07-01
Cites
1 case in this archive is cited by this case.
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.