· 9/27/1882

Whitesides v. Taylor

Citations

105 Ill. 496
1883 Ill. LEXIS 113

Syllabus

1. Rescission of contract—setting aside sale procured by misrepresentation. A party selling his interest in premises supposed he was selling to a person interested in the same, but in fact conveyed to another party, who held the legal title for the entire property in trust for himself and the other two: Held, that this misapprehension on the part of the grantor afforded no reason for setting aside the conveyance, as it could not have prejudiced his rights,—but if it were otherwise, the fact that he conveyed to the trustee was enough to put him on inquiry, if material to know with which party he was dealing. 2. Fraud—suppressio veri—confidential relation. One occupying a confidential relation to the owner of an interest in land as his trustee, in dealing with such owner for a purchase of his interest is not bound to disclose to him the sale of a half interest in the property previously made -by such trustee, when the deed evidencing such sale has been recorded, and such owner, before that time, had learned of such sale by the trustee, and filed a bill to set it aside. 3. Same—when duty to disclose facts ceases. After the filing of a bill by a cestui que trust against the trustee and others to avoid a sale made by the trustee, placing the parties in direct antagonism in any dealings thereafter between them for the purchase of the interest of the cestui que trust by the trustee, if the former desires further information from the latter respecting the property and its condition, it is as much the duty of the party desiring the information to make inquiry of the trustee, as it is his duty to give information. 4. Same—when party is responsible for representations of another. The purchaser of an interest in land will not be held responsible for the representations of a mere go-between, not strictly the agent of either party, made to the vendor to induce the sale, and communicating to each matters coming from the other, especially when the representa

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

stating that omission of instruction that vehicle must be taken without owner's consent was not prejudicial to defendant where undisputed evidence established that stolen vehicle had been taken without owner's consent
stating that omission of instruction that vehicle must be taken without owner's consent was not prejudicial to defendant where undisputed evidence established that stolen vehicle had been taken without owner's consent
stating that omission of instruction that vehicle must be taken without owner's consent was not prejudicial to defendant where undisputed evidence established that stolen vehicle had been taken without owner's consent
stating that omission of instruction that vehicle must be taken without owner's consent was not prejudicial to defendant where undisputed evidence established that stolen vehicle had been taken without owner's consent

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Dickey

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.