{
  "id": 2623232,
  "name": "Chester Northrop v. Albert B. Boone",
  "name_abbreviation": "Northrop v. Boone",
  "decision_date": "1872-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "368",
  "last_page": "369",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "66 Ill. 368"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 209,
    "char_count": 3351,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.563,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1864852031698943e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5903653070121077
    },
    "sha256": "c51e4a67234976a2a5cfc8401af250016e2ef97648d8735108867d99cce5868d",
    "simhash": "1:195186647c92f62a",
    "word_count": 594
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:46:41.963849+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Chester Northrop v. Albert B. Boone."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Thornton\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThe objections urged by appellant we will notice seriatim as they are made in the argument:\nFirst\u2014The bill does not aver that defendant owned the land, or could convey it.\nThe bill alleges that he was in possession, and the evidence shows that he had a good title to the land. After decree, and upon such proof, the objection is not well taken.\nSecond\u2014There is no description of the land, so as to know the county in which it is located.\nThe venue of the bill is laid in a certain county, and the allegation that the land is situate \u201cin said county,\u201d refers to it, and is sufficient.\nThird\u2014It is impossible to ascertain from the bill which is the half acre and which is the quarter acre.\nThe bill only seeks specific performance as to the tract described by metes and bounds, containing eighty-six rods, and for that the decree was rendered. This tract was surveyed in the presence of both parties, and is clearly the one intended to be granted.\nThe statute of frauds has no application to the facts.\nThe land was partly purchased, and $10 paid, and partly given in consideration of the erection and operation of a blacksmith shop. It was only worth $25 per acre. As the result of the negotiation between the parties, possession was taken, and improvements were made of the value of $300 to $500.\nThe proof was sufficient to take the case out of the statute \u00faf frauds, and it would have been inequitable not to .have decreed specific performance of the agreement.\nThe evidence is somewhat conflicting, but the preponderance is decidedly in favor of the complainant.\nThe decree must be affirmed.\nDecree affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Thornton"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. James H. Slavin, for the appellant.",
      "Mr. Frank Crosby, for the appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Chester Northrop v. Albert B. Boone.\n1. Specific pebfobma\u00edtce\u2014sufficiency of bill to stipport decree. It was objected, on appeal, to a bill for specific performance, that it did not aver that the defendant owned the land or could convey it; also, that the bill did not describe the land as situate in any county. The bill alleged that defendant was in possession of the land, and the proof showed ownership. The venue of the bill was laid in the proper county, and alleged that the land was situate \u201cin said county:\u201d Held,, that the objections were not well taken.\n2. Same\u2014deseription of land in bill. Where a bill for specific performance only sought for specific performance as to a tract described by metes and bounds, and for that the decree was rendered; and it appeared it was surveyed in 'the presence of both parties, and was clearly the tract intended to be sold under a verbal contract, it was held there was no error.\n3. Statute of FBAUDS-T-zo/te will take a verbal contract to convey land, out of the statute. Where, under a parol contract, land was partly purchased, and \u00a710 paid down, and partly given in consideration of the erection of a blacksmith shop, the land not being worth over \u00a725, and, as the result of the negotiation, possession was taken by the complainant, and improvements made by him on the land to the value of \u00a7300 to \u00a7500: Held, that these facts were sufficient to take the case out of the operation of the statute of frauds, on bill in equity seeking a specific performance.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of McHenry county; the Hon. Theodore D. Murphy, Judge, presiding.\nMr. James H. Slavin, for the appellant.\nMr. Frank Crosby, for the appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0368-01",
  "first_page_order": 368,
  "last_page_order": 369
}