The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

The editor of the NEWS has been asked so many times for the facts in this case,vthat he has taken pains to get a certified copy. of the decision of the Illinois Supreme Court, handed dOWu October 24th, 1898,1'rom which the matter in this article is taken. VOL IV. March lat, 1895. Robert G. Evans bargained with’Mrs. Julia M. Gerry for the Central Hotel property; that is, for lots 2 and 3, except the west 30 feet thereof, where Mr. Mohr’s barber shop stands, and all of lot 3, all in block 3, in exchange for his brick house, and lot 19, in block 75, down below 23215 Dickinson’ 3 home, on St Johns avenue, and a specified cash balance. The abstracts were furnished..aygi_Mrs. Gerry’s attorney found objections to or errors in the abstract and ’ deed ofl'ered by Mr. Evans, and while he was having the errors corrected, Mrs. Gerry ofi‘ered back to Mr. Evans the $10.00 earnest money he paid her when they made and signed the bargain or contract in writing. at the same time “ in- forming him that she did not intend to carry out her contract. as his title was not good." March 25th. 1895. Mr. Evans made a tender of a deed of his house and lot. and the Balance of the money due as specified in their written contract to Mrs. Gerry. which she refused to accept or carry out the contract. Soon after this refusal Mr. Evans brought a suit in our Lake County Circuit Court, Chancery ('63. rtment, to compel Mrs. Gerry to fulfil her part of their mutual contract. We may say here that oneof Mrs. Gerry's chief objections to Mr. Evans' ab- stract was that it mentioned his lot as lot 19. block 75 in theoity of Highâ€" Highland Park N eWS. * THE EVANS-GERRY SUIT. HIGHLAND PARK, ILL, NOVEMBER 25, 1898. ~ NO 26. land Park, instead of lot 19, block 75, Hawkins Addition, city of High- land Park. The Supreme Court denies the force of this objection an error which could be so easily cor- rected, saying “ there is no difficulty in determining from all the evidence what particular property the conâ€" tract refera to.” Then, farther on, this court says again, “There can be no doubt in this case the parties contracted with reference to the par- ticular‘property described in appelf lants’( that‘is,’Mr. Evans ) deed and the contract was not void by reason of any wrong description. 1 The court then goes on in some two or three printed pages of its opinion, giving examples and cite- tions of the law and other decisions, showing that such errors are not valid obiections. Since these could becorrected both parties must be held to their contract. Again the court says “ Appellee (Mrs. Gerry.) in her evidence in the trial court. (that is the Circuit Court in Waukegan ) dwelt upon the fact that appellant‘s ( that is Mr. Evan’s) property is not worth as much as he represented it to he, and that she relied upon his representations. This would not be a good defense. Mere matters of opinion, or expression of an opinion by the owner of property as to its value, standing alone, will notbe held to he a misrepresentation.” Elsewhere in this decision the court calls attention to the fact that Mrs. Gerry went onto this lot 19, block 75 and into the brick house thereon “went through and carefully examin- ed it all the day before the contract was entered into," and so knew ex- actly‘where it was and presumably what it was worth. Then, in conclusion, the Supreme Court says, “Taking the record as a whole, it appears the contract for the exchange of these properties was fairly entered into between these parties and was free and clear from any taint of fraud: > that appellant (Mr. Evans ) has complied with all the terms and conditions imposed by this contract upon him in respect to furnishing of a merchantable abstract of title to his property and in other reapects mentioned in the contract. There appears no sufficient legal reason why he should have been denied tne relief asked for in his bill for specific performance in this case.” Then the court concludes with this order “The decree of the Cir- cuit Court of Lake County dismis~ sing appellants (Mr. Evans ) bill is reversed and the cause remanded to that court, with directions to enter a decree granting the appellant, ( Mr. Evans) the relief asked for in his bill in conformity with the views herein expressed.” Reversed and Remanded. Rev. Mr. Babb. a Chicago student and also a southern young man, supplied the Baptist pulpit last Sun- day, and will do the name next Sun- day, we understand. We have entered at length into this matter for this reason; real es- tate transactions in this city very sel- dom reach our Supreme Court, and it is a matter of the highest impor- tance to every owner and dealer in real estate to know just what kind of transactions that court will or will niit apprOVe. We are therefore glad that one of our own cases has been carried up and a final decision secured so we may all know where we are at.