Wilson v. McDowell

Citations

• 78 Ill. 514

Syllabus

<p>1. Conveyance—whether a security for the payment of money. Where a deed of trust has been foreclosed by a sale under its provisions, and the fee vested in the cestui que trust, a party purchasing from him afterwards can not be considered as having purchased the deed of trust to be held as security for the money expended in such purchase, although he may have made a verbal promise to the grantor that he would purchase the land and convey it to him upon repayment to him of all money expended.</p> <p>2. Nor can the purchaser, under such circumstances, be treated as the agent of the grantor in the deed of trust, in making such purchase, and as holding the title as a trustee.</p> <p>3. When a verbal contract is set up to overcome and defeat a deed, loose, indefinite and unsatisfactory evidence will never be sufficient; it must be clear and convincing in its character.</p> <p>4. Statute op Frauds. Land was sold under a deed of trust and conveyed to the purchaser, and by such purchaser conveyed to a third party. Afterwards, the grantor filed a bill against said third party seeking to redeem, alleging that he had, before purchasing, made a verbal agreement with the grantor in the deed of trust, that he would make such purchase and convey the land to the complainant upon certain terms stated in the bill: Held, that such an agreement, if made, was within the Statute of Frauds and Perjuries.</p>