Scidmore v. Hill

Appellate Court of Illinois

Scidmore v. Hill

189 Ill. App. 592

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedNovember 25, 1914

DocketGen. No. 19,125

StatusPublished

This text of 189 Ill. App. 592 (Scidmore v. Hill) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Scidmore v. Hill, 189 Ill. App. 592 (Ill. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Duncan

. delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Vendor and purchaser, § 242*—when earnest money may he forfeited. Where a seller of real estate did not waive the provisions of a contract requiring objections to the title to be made within ten days after the abstract was furnished, he was entitled to recover the earnest money which the contract provided should be forfeited as liquidated damages, even though building' restrictions existed which were material defects in the title. 3. Vendor and purchaser, § 103*—when provision of contract not waived. A seller of real estate does not waive provisions of a contract requiring notice of objections to the title to be made within a certain time, even though it appears that the buyer previously objected to such title because of certain building restrictions and a third party, at whose office the contract was to be completed, agreed to have such restrictions removed, where there was no evidence that such third party was the agent of the seller, or authorized to make the promise.

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

Mr. Justice Duncan

. delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Vendor and purchaser, § 242*—when earnest money may he forfeited. Where a seller of real estate did not waive the provisions of a contract requiring objections to the title to be made within ten days after the abstract was furnished, he was entitled to recover the earnest money which the contract provided should be forfeited as liquidated damages, even though building' restrictions existed which were material defects in the title. 3. Vendor and purchaser, § 103*—when provision of contract not waived. A seller of real estate does not waive provisions of a contract requiring notice of objections to the title to be made within a certain time, even though it appears that the buyer previously objected to such title because of certain building restrictions and a third party, at whose office the contract was to be completed, agreed to have such restrictions removed, where there was no evidence that such third party was the agent of the seller, or authorized to make the promise.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 Ill. App. 592, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scidmore-v-hill-illappct-1914.