Roddin v. Shurley
Roddin v. Shurley
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the Court:
The positions assumed by appellants are not tenable.
1. The deferred payment, giving possession on the first day of December, 1871, and assignment of the lease, by the. terms of the agreement, were to be concurrent acts, consequently, the title to no portion of the property passed until these acts were performed. Frost v. Woodruff, 54 Ill. 157, and cases there cited.
2. The claim of appellees is not limited to the amount of the difference between the value of the fixtures, fifteen hundred dollars, and the sum they paid, two thousand dollars. The reason is very apparent. The contract for the lease and fixtures was entire, and not contemplated by the parties there would be a separation. The fixtures without the leasehold were of no use to appellees. The contract was for both, and appellants agreed to deliver both, on or before the first day of December, 1871. The fixtures were attached to the lease and building, to be used by appellees when they should acquire possession.
3. The damages are not excessive, as appellees have recovered only the money they paid appellants, together with legal interest thereon.
The judgment must be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Eugene V. Roddin v. Edwin R. P. Shurley
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Sale—when the title passes as between the parties. Where a contract was made for the sale of personal property and the assignment of a lease for the building in which the fixtures were, and the delivery of possession of the leased property and fixtures, and the payment of the balance of the consideration, were made concurrent acts: Held, that the title to no portion of the property would pass until these acts were performed. 2. Contract—sale—measure of damages. Where the plaintiff bargained for the assignment of a certain lease interest, and the purchase of the personal property connected with the leasehold premises, and paid §2000, and the defendants neglected to deliver possession at the time they had agreed to, and it appeared that the personal property was only of the value of §1500: Held, that the plaintiffs, in a suit to recover damages for breach of the contract, were not limited to the difference between the value of the personal property and the money paid, as the contract for the lease and the fixtures was entire. 3. Where the damages recovered by the plaintiffs for the non-delivery of personal property purchased and neglect to transfer a lease according to contract, was only the sum paid by them on the contract, with legal interest thereon: He\\d, that the damages were not excessive.