Thayer v. Meeker

Citations

• 86 Ill. 470

Syllabus

<p>1. Forfeiture— of contract for sale of land. A court of equity will not permit a vendor of land to declare a forfeiture of tbe contract for a failure to make a payment on tbe day of its maturity, even though time is made of the essence of the contract, in violation of his agreement to give an extension of the time of payment, without first demanding payment. It is not necessary that the agreement to extend the time of payment should be founded upon a consideration in such a case.</p> <p>2. Agency—how shown. An agency may be shown by the testimony of the agent himself, and when a party in his bill alleges one to have been his agent, and adopts bis acts as such, this, with the evidence of the agent, will be sufficient proof.</p> <p>3. Tender—sufficiency of, when refused absolutely. When a tender of money due on the purchase of land is refused on the ground of an alleged declaration of a forfeiture of the contract, and not upon the ground that it was too small, on bill for specific performance by the purchaser, the party succeeding to the vendor’s rights will not be allowed to dispute the sufficiency of the tender.</p> <p>4. Same—when sufficient to slop payment of interest. In order to release from the payment of interest on money due, the debtor must prove a strict legal tender, as well the exact amount then due as that he has kept the tender good.</p>