University Of Chicago v. Dater

270 N.W. 175 (1936)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Negotiations were commenced to secure a loan in the sum of $75,000 on a piece of property in Chicago. George R. Dater (D) and John R. Price (D) of Benton Harbor, Michigan were the owners. P agreed to make the loan if it could be assured that the title was good. A trust deed and promissory notes were drawn up with George R. Dater (D) and Nellie E. Dater (D), his wife, and John R. Price (D) and Clara A. Price (D), his wife, as parties of the first part and the Chicago Title & Trust Company, as trustee and as party of the second part. The notes were payable in the city of Chicago and at such place as the legal holder might appoint. The trust mortgage and notes were sent by mail to the Benton Harbor State Bank for the signature of the parties involved. The papers were signed in Benton Harbor, Michigan, and mailed to P's agent in the city of Chicago where the trust deed was placed on record. The loan was eventually made and the money paid over by check made payable to Mr. and Mrs. Dater and Mr. and Mrs. Price and cashed in Chicago, Illinois. Under the law of Illinois, a married woman is as free to contract as a man, while in Michigan a married woman has not the legal capacity to bind herself or her separate estate by signing these notes. John R. Price (D) died and it is conceded that Mrs. Price (D) became the actual and record owner of at least one-half of the property after the death of her husband. Four years later, foreclosure proceedings were commenced on the property and the property purchased at chancery sale. Suit was filed in Michigan before the foreclosure suit was completed in Chicago. Judgment was rendered in favor of P against George R. Dater (D) in the amount of $15,536.32 and from which no appeal has been taken. On the same date, judgment was entered in favor of Clara Price (D) of no cause for action. P appealed. P contends that the contract was an Illinois contract; that the signing of the notes in Michigan was not the final act in the making of the contract, but rather a preliminary step, the delivery of the note being conditional upon Ds' producing a satisfactory title. The approval of the title in Illinois was the last act necessary to make a legal delivery.