¶1dissent, on the ground, that the payment of the $250 by the purchaser, and the delivery of the deed by the vendor, were mutual and concurrent acts, to be performed at the same time, and that, therefore, the vendor could not put the purchaser in default without showing the preparation and offer of such deed as was required by the contract, or that he was legally discharged from performing his covenant so to do, by some act of the purchaser. There was no attempt to show such performance or any excuse. In our view, without such performance or excuse the vendor was not in a position to put the purchaser in default, within the meaning of the contract, and if not, his declaration of forfeiture was wrongful, and he would not be entitled to retain the money paid.
68 Ill. 362
Bryson v. Crawford
Decided September 15, 1873
Illinois Supreme Court · decided 1873-09-15
<p>Writ of Error to the Circuit Court of Whiteside county; the Hon. William W. Heaton, Judge,presiding.</p>
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1873-09-15
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently May 1949
10 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →