Doggett v. Brown
Illinois Supreme Court
The declaration contains only the common counts in assumpsit. The action is for work, labor and materials. The work was done under the following contract: “ Articles of Agreement, made this twentieth day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and fifty-eight, between William E. Doggett, etc., of the first part, and John E. Brown, of the second part: Witnesseth, that if the party of the second part shall first make the payments and perform the…
Read the full summary
The declaration contains only the common counts in assumpsit. The action is for work, labor and materials. The work was done under the following contract: “ Articles of Agreement, made this twentieth day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and fifty-eight, between William E. Doggett, etc., of the first part, and John E. Brown, of the second part: Witnesseth, that if the party of the second part shall first make the payments and perform the covenants hereinafter mentioned on his part to be made and performed, the said party of the first part duly covenants and…
1Opinion of the CourtBreesb, J.
It is very clear, the appellee was not in a position to rescind the contract on his part, and bring his action for the work and labor done under it. He should have demanded a deed for -the lot of ground; non constat, but the appellants would have made him a deed for the work he had done. Had they failed to give him work, and refused to give a deed on demand made, the appellee could have rescinded the contract, and recovered for the work done. In Selby v. Hutchinson, 4 Gilm. 333, this court held that “ in order to justify an abandonment of a contract, and of the proper remedy growing out of…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Weintz v. HafnerIllinois Supreme Court · 1875
- Wilhelm v. FimpleSupreme Court of Iowa · 1870
- Glenn v. PriceAppellate Court of Illinois · 1949