Court Opinion

ID: 6896475
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-23 21:50:19.09688+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:06:01.108533
License: Public Domain

Per Curiam.
The question whether G. T. Donner had declared a forfeiture and cancellation of the contract must be decisive of this appeal. It is contended that the deed from Donner to Perry was a forfeiture of said contract. If it be admitted that this conveyance was another and different sale of the property from that agreed to be made to the defendant Corbin, then it would be a forfeiture of his contract: Chrisman v. Miller, 21 Ill. 227. Mr. Perry testifies that he bought the lots for his own use and benefit, and that there was no agreement entered into whereby he should hold the title for Mr. Corbin. He also testified that he was willing to convey the property to the plaintiff upon the repayment of his money. Mr. Corbin’s testimony, in the main, corroborates that of Mr. Perry, but he says that he supposed he could secure the lots by paying Mr. Perry his money. Mr. Donner testified that when he was negotiating with Mr. Perry for the sale of these lots, he told him that if they made a contract he wanted him to stand between him and Mr. Gray, and that Mr. Perry agreed to see that he got into no trouble about the matter. The record shows that when Mr. Perry paid the money and took the deed, Mr. Donner made the following entry in his books: “Eighteen hundred and ninety-one, November fourteenth. Walter Corbin by J. L. Perry (twelve) eight hundred and seventy-two dollars and twenty cents.” It also shows that Mr. Corbin has been living on this property without paying any rent, and that Mr. Perry is now living with him, and that they are on friendly terms, while Mr. Gray and his wife are not very friendly to Mr. Perry. From a careful examination of the record, we conclude that there had *6been no forfeiture or cancellation of the contract, that the conveyance .to Mr. Perry was for the use of Mr. Corbin, and hence the decree is affirmed.