Bright v. Bright

41 Ill. 97
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedApril 15, 1866
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 41 Ill. 97 (Bright v. Bright) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bright v. Bright, 41 Ill. 97 (Ill. 1866).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Lawrence

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was a bill in chancery, brought by Alfred Bright, •against the co-heirs of his father, some of whom were infants, 'for the purpose of having vested in himself the legal title •of a tract of land, of which his father died seized. The bill alleges that the latter, in his life-time, made a parol promise to complainant to deed him the land, if complainant would take possession and improve it. A parol promise of this character would, undoubtedly, be enforced in a court of equity, if the •promisee, relying upon it, has entered and expended money. •It would substantially, in such event, be a promise resting upon a valuable consideration. But, as in the case of any other parol contract for the conveyance of land, before a court of equity will decree a conveyance, such a performance must be shown as will take the case out of the statute of frauds. In the record before us, we find no evidence that the complainant has ever made any improvements, or in any way incurred expenditure in consequence of such parol promise. It simply appears that he took possession. The bill alleges that he made permanent and valuable improvements, and being, in this most material respect, wholly unsustained by the evidence, the decree of the Circuit Court must be reversed and the cause remanded.

Decree reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Worden v. Worden
165 P. 501 (Washington Supreme Court, 1917)
Snow v. Snow
108 N.W. 295 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1906)
Wright v. Raftree
54 N.E. 998 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1899)
Lynch v. Coviglio
53 P. 983 (Utah Supreme Court, 1898)
Harman v. Harman
70 F. 894 (Seventh Circuit, 1895)
People's Pure Ice Co. v. Trumbull
70 F. 166 (Seventh Circuit, 1895)
Shovers v. Warrick
38 N.E. 792 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1894)
Anderson v. Scott
94 Mo. 637 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1888)
Irwin v. Dyke
1 N.E. 913 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1885)
Anderson v. Shockley
82 Mo. 250 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1884)
West v. Bundy
78 Mo. 407 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1883)
Story v. Black
5 Mont. 26 (Montana Supreme Court, 1883)
Seavey v. Drake
62 N.H. 393 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1882)
McDowell v. Lucas
97 Ill. 489 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1881)
Bohanan v. Bohanan
96 Ill. 591 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1880)
Bohanan v. Bohanan
3 Ill. App. 502 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1878)
Langston v. Bates
84 Ill. 524 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1877)
Murphy v. Stell
43 Tex. 123 (Texas Supreme Court, 1875)
Kurtz v. Hibner
55 Ill. 514 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1870)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
41 Ill. 97, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bright-v-bright-ill-1866.