Case ID: ill-app_189/html/0291-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Baker", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

George W. Ripley and Augusta Hultman, Defendants in Error, v. Cross S. Farming Company and C. A. Philips, Plaintiffs in Error.
    Gen. No. 19,705.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Henry C. Beitler, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1913.
    Reversed with judgment here.
    Opinion filed October 13, 1914.
    Rehearing denied October 27, 1914.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by George W. Ripley and Augusta Hultman against Cross S. Farming Company, a corporation, and C. A. Philips to recover three hundred and sixty dollars paid on a contract for the conveyance of land and alleged to be due the plaintiffs for failure of defendants to comply with their oral agreement to improve the land.
    The facts showed that the defendant Farming Company delivered to plaintiffs, in pursuance of previous verbal negotiations between the parties conducted for said Farming Company by C. A. Philips, a deed conveying to them eighteen acres of land in Texas at the price of one thousand and eighty dollars, three hundred and sixty dollars of which was paid in cash and three notes for two hundred and forty dollars each given for the remainder of the purchase price by the plaintiffs, payable to the Farming Company or order. The testimony of the plaintiffs was to the effect that the buyers of the lands in the section expected to sink a well for irrigation purposes at their own expense; that each purchaser was to pay in advance towards the expense of sinking such well four dollars per acre on the land bought by him, and the remainder of the expense was to be paid by the purchasers pro rata. Plaintiffs advanced to Philips seventy-two dollars, and took from him a receipt for said sum, “to apply on the well to be drilled on Sec. 95 Cross S. Ranch, bal. of said well and outfit to be paid when well is completed.” This receipt was given at the same time the deed was delivered. The deed recited the terms of the purchaser, acknowledged the receipt of three hundred and sixty dollars in money and three vendor’s lien notes for two hundred and forty dollars each, and contained a general covenant of warranty. Philips returned to the plaintiffs the seventy-two dollars given to him by them to pay towards the cost of sinking a well.
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Set-off and recoupment, § 14
      
      —right to set off individual demands against joint demands. A note made payable to the order of one or two joint defendants, and not indorsed, cannot be set off in a suit by plaintiffs on a demand against the defendants jointly.
    2. Vendor and purchaser, § 25
      
      —when verbal agreements merged in deed. Verbal negotiations or agreements relating to the purchase' of land, held not to become- a contract until the deed was delivered and the consideration furnished.
    3. Vendor and purchaser, § 25
      
      —when oral contract not enforceable. An oral promise to improve land conveyed, made by the grantors to the grantee at the same time and for the same consideration as the deed, where such deed contains general covenants of warranty, will not support an action.
    
      Defendants sought to recover under their claim of set-off the amount due on a note of plaintiffs for two hundred and forty dollars due at the time the suit was brought. To reverse a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, defendants prosecute a writ of error.
    Frederick A. Brown and William R. T. Ewen, Jr., for plaintiffs in error; Raymond S. Pruitt, of counsel.
    Chilton P. Wilson, for defendants in error.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same tonic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Baker

delivered the opinion of the court.

4. Evidence, § 345 —when parol evidence of prior verbal agreements inadmissible. Where a deed constitutes the contract for the purchase of land, parol evidence of an antecedent or contemporaneous verbal agreement by the grantors to improve the land by digging an irrigation well thereon is not admissible.