Porter v. Ewing
Illinois Supreme Court
This was a petition for dower, by plaintiff in error against defendant in error. The evidence shows that Wm. H. Brown and Wm. Porter, plaintiff’s husband, entered into a verbal agreement that Brown was to furnish $1,000, and Porter was to trade with it, and to have one-half of the profits made by his speculations in loaning it, or in buying and selling, and trading generally.
Read the full summary
This was a petition for dower, by plaintiff in error against defendant in error. The evidence shows that Wm. H. Brown and Wm. Porter, plaintiff’s husband, entered into a verbal agreement that Brown was to furnish $1,000, and Porter was to trade with it, and to have one-half of the profits made by his speculations in loaning it, or in buying and selling, and trading generally. That the land in controversy was bought by Porter with a portion of this money, and the title taken in Brown’s name; that afterwards, Porter sold one undivided quarter to one March, who sold to E. W. and G. W. Ewing, and…
1Opinion of the Court
Catón, C. J.
With the view we take of this case, it must be determined by the construction of the contract between Brown and Porter. That contract rested entirely in parol. By it Brown was to place one thousand dollars in the hands of Porter, who was to operate with it as he saw proper, taking titles to property purchased or choses in action obtained for or with it, in the name of Brown, and for his skill, care and trouble in the business, was to have, as his compensation, one-half of the profits derived from the operations with the thousand dollars. This is the substance of the contract, as…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Tink v. WalkerIllinois Supreme Court · 1893