Crabtree v. Welles
Illinois Supreme Court
APPEAL EROH WASHINGTON. Welles and his wife had verbally contracted with Crabtree to sell him a piece of land for one hundred and fifty dollars; fifty dollars was paid at the time of the bargain, and Crabtree was to have a deed when he should pay the other one hundred dollars.' Crabtree tendered the remaining one hundred dollars, but Welles refused to make the conveyance.
Read the full summary
APPEAL EROH WASHINGTON. Welles and his wife had verbally contracted with Crabtree to sell him a piece of land for one hundred and fifty dollars; fifty dollars was paid at the time of the bargain, and Crabtree was to have a deed when he should pay the other one hundred dollars.' Crabtree tendered the remaining one hundred dollars, but Welles refused to make the conveyance. But prior to the tender of the one hundred dollars, Welles sued Crabtree before a justice ^of the peace for a debt due him from Crabtree, when the latter, attémpted to set off against the claim the fifty dollars advanced for…
1Opinion of the Court
Catón, C. J.
The law is, that one who advances money in part payment of a parol purchase of 'land, cannot recover it back, till he has offered to fulfill the parol agreement, and the other party has repudiated it by refusing to perform.
If he repudiates it himself, without the default of the other, party, he must lose what he has paid. Such parol agreement is not absolutely void, but is only voidable, and is binding on both parties, and may be enforced either in a court of law or equity, unless the statute of frauds be interposed, to relieve the party from his obligations under it. If a party…
2Cited by16 opinions
- Wisconsin v. TorinusSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1881
- Day v. WilsonIndiana Supreme Court · 1882
- Schechinger v. GaultSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1913
- Merrin v. LewisIllinois Supreme Court · 1878
- Automotive Material Co. v. American Standard Metal Products Corp.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1924
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.