1 Wtf-^yi H'
1 u
<-^ r
^'4117.
Digitized by the Internet Arciiive
in 2010 with funding from
CARLI: Consortium of Academic and Research Libraries in Illinois
http://www.archive.org/details/illinoisappellat182illi
.£a2r....C.03il....oMuoe
y
JSar5l? ^em, 1912, No. '-/- TJ^Xo^ a-wo R. ^^ f*^-v^ ^/,' '
~ 73 - 180©7.
f
f f'.. i-^xAl^/l^ -t-^-v 'Ovt^crr
nimoLAS J, ^Ai??:, )
D«f»ndant in Srror, ) ERHOR TO
)
▼»• ) MUNICIPAL oomrv
Plaintiffs in i;:rror, ) '^'^^(^-^-^ J-^- >iy>yxa^-,^^ <k>^ J^ (S^^CZo
"' ij
Defondant in error broui^t suit against plaintiffe in
, ' 9TTOT in the Municipal Court fcr $S#000, allag^ to bo due hi»
si upon & breach of a supairaodeas bond, 'ill© copy of th© bcmd at-
tached to the stateisent of claiim reoitea that whereaa, by a de-
ores entared in the iauperior Court in Ootober, 19f)7, n^^njas and
Elizabeth Bro^^n were ordered to pay "certain judgisants ©f l«f
■ and alao suras of laoney found by aaid decree to be due** and said
_^, Browrs appealed to the Appellate Court, where tha decree was af-
fiin3ed and J^idgicient rendered againat than for costs, froia which
, judgii^!^ they sued out a arrit of error fisjE the aiprerse Oourt
> and the aajme was aade a supersedeas, "iJow, therefore, if aaid
Thosaa Broim a^rd Sliaabeth Hrcsn shall duly prosecute their said
^- writ of error ffith effect, an<l moreover, pay the amounts ao de-
creed to be paid by thera as aforeaald « • • in caso the aaid de-
on» shall be affirsied in said Supreme Court, then the above obli-
gation to be void*, etc. The plaintiff's verified ataten^nt of
claim allegoa tliat the Juprerae Court affirrsed the decree irsontiORod
in the supersedeaa bond in Deoesber, 1909; that the Jtidgmente
aentioned in the supersedeaa bond and in the decree were two Judg-
taents against Thc^ae Srown, one in favor of Sioholas J, Mann, for
^7:^9. 50 and ooeta, fros which %Zf> was resitted, and the other in
favor of Jacob Huber for ^2650 and cost a, frota which |25 waa re-
Kitted; that Jadob Huber died and the 3udf!;Tr.ont in his favor waa
assigned by thar executrix of htB^-iaat will and teatanent to
...5'n .
WUN0....11EC.3....1963 -t
2WS*i
:A*a«lS»
•CT*WJJJ
Vn^i
-8-
Hicholas J, iiannj that Thonaa Brovsm ia •ntltleil to a credit of
1X200 upon oald jvKlgrac^nta "by rettson of aaid aaount harinfi: hemi
inoluded in a docrea of foreoloaur^ salo*, but that defendants
aare entitled to no other credits thereon araJ that there is now
dtt0 upon said Judi?73enta 'the auR of, to-*ltt #2227", tof^ether with
interest &t five j>er oent« per ar^nura fros TTovereber S, 1^97', Plain-
tlffa in error, who were the suretiee on the supersedeas bond, wore
aerved with suTaraona and entered their written appearance in the
Municipal Court and at the aarte tiae filed a written dep^ard for a
trial by Jury. An affidavit of nuirita was aloo file<l, w* ich, on
laotion, was atrlclren ftroa ths files, A second, thirt^i, fcaarth and
fifth affidavit of serits »ere filed and each in successlcai was
atriclcen fros the files* After the iaat of thesio affidavits wa«
stz>laken a default waa entered for want of an affidavit of aerita,
and thereupon the court, without oallinj* a jury, entered an order
finding that "there la due to t>>e pialritiff the aura of ooney ahossm
in oaid affidavit of olaiK to be due*, and aeseasing plaintiff's
damages at the sum of .>2000, and thereupon entered jiKlgiaent v^pen
the finding againat plaintiffs in error for that axKnmt*
After exaBainlng the several affidavits which were thus
atriclsen froas the filea, w© toink there was no error in that
respect In the action of the trial court. Ail of the affidavits
are asabiguous and evasive* Plaintiffs in error evidently had
aBple opiKjrtmiity to specify by a proper affidavit of snsrits the
•nature of tJieir defense*, but faileii to do so, although it would
appear from the bx*iefa of their counsel filed in thia coiirt that
they say lyive had a neritorious defense tc aon«» part, if not all,
of the plaintiff's olaiss. For a failure to state the nature of
•uft^i deferae we think a default was properly entere>d against them.
But the default of a defendant for failure tc file a Hufficient
affidavit of merits does not adsait the araoxint of plaintiff's da^-^iages,
*0 .■»ih«^T< U ^~
fcllPO^
'iblMT ate;
•L «)tf«
Jrlw ^QO 8»«|} Cliin:
-s-
Plaff V. P&olfto 'iCxpreaa Co, a 251 ill, 243, 247. 'dv&n after a
dofault ia entered for want of a plea or affidavit of merits,
a dofondant haa the right to oross-exanine tho plaintiff »3 wit-
noases a.^ to tho aisois^.t of dacJa/::;es sustained, to introduoe cvid-
snoo in his o*?7 bohalf as to darmges, to a^k for inatructions upon
that ;p«stlon» aural to proaerv© hia rli^ta tar poviow b; a bill
of exceptions. Plaff ▼. Pacific Express Co, aupi'a; o&ii^ A S«L,K»
(go... V, Holbrookj 72 111. 4i9; AaarioMn Mail order Co. v. Marah ^^
118 111. App. 248.
Sseticm so of tho iimiolpal Coiirt Act providea that all
ea8«e of the first and fourth oXassea "ahall b© tried by the ocurt
without a Jury unless tho plaintiff, at tho tine }>& oott^onoes his
suit* or tlio defendant, at the tiise he enters his appearance,
shall filo with tJie olarK a deoand in writing of a trtal by jxiry,
which deaand, however, may be wiUidravn by the party filing the
sasse at any time before Uio trial". As above stated, the defend-
ants filod with their appearance a written deaand for a Jury trial,
9XiA the record does not show that said dor-jand was wltMravm at
any ti^e. After Jwi^ent, the defer»lanta tifoved to vacate the
Judsni^rtt upon the ground "that tho court erred in failure to sub-
mit the iasuea in this oauso to a jury". With this stotion they
filed an affidavit setting up in substance that the plaintiff
had reoeivod froa certain property belonging to ThOE&s aroisn the
sua Of ^44S3.75 as retit, &n& that said property was foreclosed
and sold for #4400, which suae aggregate aore than the total atnctmt
due upon said Judgnenta, The motion to vacate was overruled,
however, and upon thia writ of error the principal error assigned
is that the oourt erred in failing to "subrait the issues to a
juary*.
Seoticm 59 of the Practice Act provides that "upon de-
fault « # • either paz>ty isay have the daaagea assessed by a Jury* .
•jf^wad* •'
■pq:
•OOM ^
■ ■ a
*b ma
aifln
>^K!l« mmta ikfUbi «0OM>t vol m'on hoM
o to Ibtv Bird SKK}ff bnm «neve«aif
tan ^^*l«^ «MCtl« « < ?
-4-
^'^ ^^"^Q^ ^» O ofi^eatio sewing !aohlne go, ^ ^ ^ e^ 111, 277, the
eourt said of this seoticsn of the statute: "Thes© words aro
Iraporativ© arad are not open to construction, rh« defendant ia
entitled by law to hav© Ms dausjages asaeassd 'by a Jtirj. When i»
denandod it, it was bvtot tc deny It". ?here ia no provision in
the Kimiclpal Court Aot ^feioh, either in terrjs or in effect, ie
at all sifflilar to Seotion S^ of the Practice Aot, unless section
30 above quoted can be held to have an equivalent effect,
aeetion 20 of the Stmloipal Court Aot x«*ovldea that the
Ji^ges of that court shall have power to ad€>pt "in addition to
or In lieu cf the provisions herein contained preaoribing the
practice in said '/imioipal Court, or of any pcs'tion or portions
of said provisions, mxch malea regul^atlng tha practice in said
eourt as they ssay deesa necessary or expedient for the proper ad-
EJlnistration of justice thsrein: Provided^ , howeyor , that no mseh.
rule or miles ae adopted shall bo Inoonai stent with those express*
ly provided for by this Act*, In ptirmianco of this eeotlon, the
ktimicipal Uourt has adopted a nunber of rules* Bulo 14 providee
that "in all oaaea of the firat class instituted in thia court
on arui after April 1, 1010, the pleadings al'iall be the »am9 as in
oaase of the fourth class*, imle 17 provide* that "In first «md
fourth cla-m casea for the recovery of raoney only the defendant
cOmll file an affidavit ewom to by hiraaelf , his agent or attorney,
stating that he vorlly believea th« defendant has a good defense
to said auit upon the rgerits to the whole or a portion of the
plaintiff's denjand, and specifying the nature of ouch dof^ise,
whether by wty of denial or by «a7 of oonfeseicn or avoidance in
oAich a aarnsr as to reaaonably infom the plaintiff of the defense
which will b@ irterpoaed at the trial. * ^ ^ If the defendant
faila to file an affidavit of sprite Buch as is re<|ulred by the
rulea of this court, the plaintiff shall be entitled to default and
% *
V*.
•lit ott^ot^ i*qtvtmA ^iiS 10
.■tfXxn 1o tBomm a it^iquftc aaff .
.11 -' ; r./" t4<fi U9btvifai ^ € aajuXo <Uv : »
&- "I « ftAil '■:▼ Oil ^Altl B^li
.^ olotiv «rU 04 »4 ' noqti ;
exU jiai\*tlc»qs ftow ^Siama9b
ii%9k 1» x^y
9ttUi tn '09mtn. oji a« a- toi.*a
oArfw
fiotm tt4X<i'i« 10 :? :is OA #1/' o.)
jtidgaent poxi th^ pialntifr»a affidavit of alalia on flld in aald
oau39« or upon si-ich furUior svidenoe as the oourt say require,
* » iQwr» tho ddfondsjit t'lloc an appeu>anoe oither with or
without a deaand for a jury trial, and fails to file ^th it
at tl"iat timet or at svich further tin© as tho oourt Eiaj allow,
an affidavit of aerits, or »h«re the defOTid«wit*3 afflda-ylt of
Qdrito ia stricken frosa tljo filois for inoiiffioionoy, the court
nay then asid there ent«>r Judf5S5 nt as in oase of default for the
plaintiff upon the plaintiff 'a affidavit of elaisa in a«id oause,
or auch further evidence as the court ^ay require* .
By iml's 2;i of the ivtuRlcipal Oourt, th© judgea of tl^at
court forisally adopted, by number, certain sections of the Prac-
tice Act as applicable to proceodinga in that oourt. .eetion
69 of the Practice Act was not aaarsg the seoticms so adopted,
but in lieu thereof, Hule 17 above quotoa was adopted. The
authority to adept auab. & rule la esg^essly given by section no
of the iiaiicipal Court Act, provided the rule so adopted is a
rule "ref-ulating the practice in said court", and provided the
rule so adopted be not inoonaistent sfith the provisione of the
ftot itsolf. The only provisicai or the at witli Brtiloh fJule 17
can be olalsaed to be in conflict is tli© provision in aection 50
pre^ez'vlng to the parties the right of trial by jury, if den»nd-
ed in apt time in writing* The que^ition then naturally ariaesj
l8 that part of a judicial proceeding in which the da^sa^ea are
aeeessed, after default, in any propor sense « a "trial"? The
isrords "trial" and "jury trial* have been most frequently con-
strued in diucusaing the cents titutiornil prevision that "tho
rlgiit of trial by jury, as hsretctore enjoyed, shall r^aain in-
violate", in Georgs v. The People , 167 ill. 447, this provieion
was construed to aean "the rigiit of trial by jury as it existed
at coRason law" . lilaokstone says that at coarsen las, upon default
-6-
M
«wt;
nti* -To
r.-T'
^9. •dJ
•rno o.-
?iBfcrrt*f
II
of a defendant for vftnt of a plea, an interlocutory Judf^wit
vaa entered "that the plaintiff ought to recover his daTsaf^s
(indefinitely)* and that thereupon a writ of Irqulry to aeeesa
dais&gea iroe isaued. This writ was directed to the sheriff, and
OoamKDd9d hi^n tc sulSB^3n a Jury to asaeaa dan^agea. In the exeou-
tion of the writ the sheriff aat as 3ud*r,e and tried before the
Jiiry suisiacned by Mm, the ciueation *wh»t daiaagea the plaintiff
hath really suatained*, (Cooley's Ulaokstoj>e Bodk III, p. 5iB7.)
The aAim authority alao ataya that "afhwi d&niagea are to be recovar-
ed, a Jury aust be oalled lis to asaees tfeera, unlese the deferdant,
tc sa^e charges, will oonfes^s the idiole damages laid In the de-
olaratiCTj". 'dr» Tldd, however, disagrees with thia l«.Bt state-
ment. In his work on Practice {Srd Bd,, vol, 1, p, f^'70) that
author, after describing at length the aapje oowason law practice
of aa see sing das%gee upon default as outlined 1r Blaclretor»©*a
CoEsmentariea, adda the followicg ejcplanation or qualifioatlont
•in son^rBl a writ of inquiry is awarded? bgit thia is a taere in-
{ meat of office to infons the oo nacieK oe of the oourt, who, if
they please, m^ theisaelveo aasees ^ the daaaie;ea ^Ith the aae ent
of the pla-intirf , or direot the® to bo asaesaed by the proper
officer"* In Vanl aHndingliaa_ v « Fellowe^^ et a l^ , l Scais, 233, our
Supresse Court repeated alnoet verbatla the ^fuallfl cation stated
in Tidd*s Practice, and said that *fr<^ thia view of* the ooaaon
Iav» relative to writs of inquiry, it follows that it is not nec-
•MHury to execute the writ in Ocurt, unless expressly ao directs
by the Court, nor in terts tine, nor at the Court House. It,
like othar writs, rntij bo exec^xied at any place within tha ohor-
Iff's bftlllslclt*. Thp Va^^^^. ^.'^'^, oaae, supi-a, was followed
in this reepeot aa late aa 18<?9» In l^ toertix TmBcra nca ao> v,
Hedriclr, 178 111, 212, where it was said, (p,317)t "Ajccrjmont
of dftsage la in no aenae a trial* It la siore in the natixr^ of »
•»>
«*U ittfU' b*^
iiitml c.4*^<
Jlifmat
r*tii it'
;«0 «K) J«UUM v^
u^i<!nK o4 »vi«»^
-7-
epeoiai prooecKilng, andlor th« <»arly ooiBBJon laar In thia ;;t&t«
th9 aherlff saa authorized to exmoMtQ th« »rit or Inquiry any-
trher« In ti3« Coixnty, and tJie prcosading need not bo In (Jourt at
all".
ir: fioas. V, Irving, 14 ill. 171, It was aaidj *Trlal by
jury is only rei'-ired on laouesa ol fact in civil and oriisliml
ea.38s in coiirta of justice, which is not undaratood to @Tsbraoe
tk Bore aaadsmnent of dassagse, or value, issade out cr court* •
In IlcpMnrs v. Ladd, 3c> ill. 17S, an action of debt waa
brought on & replovin bond. The dofsndant ds^airrad to the daolar-
ation, and on ita being overruled, aleotod to stand by hXa do-
jBurrer, Tho oourt gay® judgnont for the aisount at th« penalty
of the bond, and proodedad to aaaess th<? daaagea without a ^txry
ovor the obj action of defandant, who dessanded a trial by jury,
cn appeal, the deftjRdarst oont©nd«d t)mt urKlar the Praotice ".ot
than in force, whioh contained a provision similar to th:it in
Seotlon 59 of tha piraasnt Practice Aat, he was entitled to & jury
trial upon the aaacaajr-ont of dajaagaa, notwlthataadlng hia default*
It appoarad, taosei^mr, that by a spaoial aot of the legislature*
applicable to the pai*tlauliir court iis which tho case waa tri-^d,
that court waa u.uthorized to asaoas daniages without a jury in
all oases of default; a*^d the oourt held that the apeolal tvot
controlled instead of the general Praotlae Act. T]j@ court saids
•fhis ia a aere tnatter of practice, none will deny, aRd being so,
the asaeasisant of dariagea could q-o 'sade by the court without a
jury. The Idea that a party has a oonatitutional rigjit to have a
trial by jury ia not controverted, Ilore gas ro trial, Ig any
eenae of that term. Ih© defendant haa declined putting hits oaea
on trial by abiding tbe jud^pisent on the detairrer. The inqiiiry
afterwards involved no consideration of any right of thts defend-
ant* Hio position waa fixed by the jx^igsent on ths dersurrerj no
-rs^
irf. ©t^ftpcr" IneT
fee etfse^ei
lo^ ^l "TT-^'t
cf.T r^
-6-
Icetse of fact xm& preiiwTted".
Under thee© deoisicnas of oisr ouprwso Gtairt, it ^uat
h9 hslA tb&t whether tho d&isagea ah&lX be asaoottod by th9
ocurt, or by a Jiiry* after a defsoilt ti»a he&a entered for
iiasnt of a plea or affidavit of nterita, is a matter of praC"
tie© onlyj that In either ease, tiiere le no *trl«Q* in the
sense in vhioh those «ords are used in Seation 50 of the vixnl*
olpal Court Act; that therefore the filin/5 of a writton de-
sand for a Jury trial as provided in that oection, does not re-
quire that ootirt to oall b jury to aaseaa diwssigoa aftai* default
?eiere It han adopted a nils to ths oontraryj arxi that the oourt
did not orr in following its o^n rule of practice in tiiis res-
pect InatOs^^ of Seotion 59 of tho VrskCtloc A3t*
The 3iid.r^rient of the ifimlelpal aourt «ill be afflraed,
AFFIRMED,
MR, JOCTICI QiUDLET diaaentingi Under the facta of
^ile caeo* I aa of the opinion that the plaintiffs in error
were entitled to have the da^^agea asse&sed by a jtiry, and
thtit the judgment should be revez'sod and th© cause remanded.
■Jin ■jE'jo» ■"'■., ' aane«
THK !":iTY 0? CHICAOO,
Defendant In Error,
T8,
JOSEPH BIIL,
Plaintiff in Srror,
ERROR TO ITUMiriPAL COURT
. , 0? CHICAOO.
m* PRBSI-^IWG TU?TICB BAJCER
DBT.IViaiBD THB OPIKIOS OF IlKS CQUi
The bill ©f excesitiona hae been stricken from the
3 2 i.A. 2
record in Ihie case. Two of the three asaignTjientB of error
relate to mattere shown only "by the bill of exoetaionB, ^nd ia
the absence of siich a lilll nanr.ot be considered. The other
assignment, that the Court erred In overruliBg the rr.otion in
arreet ©f jufigment, ie not argued in the brief for plaintiff
In error and le therefore mlTed,
The judgment lo affirmed.
A?FIE«SI>.
TT.
oTI ,5ieX ^ansT rfoiizi
.be .ot»K9ii# ti bar
larch' Terr:. 1013, Uo . in
3 - 18054 l\ ' IN
2, ^^yr ^(c^yJ^^
THE PKOPLH 0? TTIE STATE ) 1 ^ 9 T A ^ I
OF ILLINOIS,
Defendant in Error,
V8.
CHAHLIK YOUNn,
Plaintiff in Error.
2BJi0h TO MUHICIPAL COURT
OF CHICAGO*
TflR. JtJfnTICa PROVH DKT,IV]«RE?") THE OPIIIION 0? THE COURT.
The plaintiff in error, Charlie foung, was oonTicted
"by a jury in the Municipal Court of Chicago of thi? offense
charged in an Information filed against him in (said Court,
under the Act in relation to Pandering apt>roTed June 1, 1908,
ae amjjnded "by an Act apr^roTed June 12, 1909. The inforr^iation
alleged that ho wilfully and wrongfully procured one Nellie
DeRitue, a femals person, to become an inmate of a house of
proBtitutien then and there located at Ho. 608 federal etreet
in the city of Chicasro, Cook County, Illinois;
Also that by fraud and artifice he procured the said
DeRitUB to become am inriiate of said house of ill fQi.^M\
Also that he then ^^^ there procured the said ^eRitus
to enter a place T^h^^re prostitution Ib encouraged and alloved
within thia State, to-wlt, eai ^ houBO at number 608 Federal
street;
Also that he procured the said PeRitus to come into
the ntata for the purpose of proatitvitioa from the Ctato of
Michigan and practice prostitution at said house.
Votion to arreat juctpwent was crerruled and Young
waa sentenced to confinement in the House of Correction for six
roonths and to ps.y a fine of i/'iOO. This T/rit of error was sued
out to reverse the judpment, on the g:round that the infornatioii
doea not set forth an offense.
\
8 .A.I g
, 'io^-
tmwo
( .loiiX.
o SHT TO V0IKI90 :-i>' w?rjK.' '{;r:T^ut .IW
bettxaffo
. , ' ' , •- 1 - •
.;iiT .OOv'0 t# »«lt * Vq •> ton* «rf#«0«
The arp:ument of oounael i& t>;at the procurenent to
booome an Inmate of a houne of prostitution, in order to be a
statutory offense, muot be accompanied by pi*fini8ea, threate,
ylolence, or by Eccse derlco or scheTne or by fraviiJ or artlfloe
or by dxireusa of pereon or f-ccda or by almae of nomm po pi Lion
of confidersce or authority,
Cai'oful analycio of the statute does not boar thin
out. Ornltting altarnative claur.eB, the atatuto in queiBtion
reads:
"Any pereoB »ho ahall procure a fenalo Ircnate for a
house of prostitution « x * or ahall prccure r place ae
inmate in a house of prostitution fwr a fenale p«r8on jt x
eball "be prullty of pandering."
fe think that under thic pro-rielon of tha ataoute,
tha information iK BUfficient in alleging that the def entrant
procured the said T^ePitiia to bacctne an inniate of a house of
prostitviticn. If, however, there is sufficient difference
bstwoen the allegation that one hae procured a fcr:ala inmate
for a houue of prostitution or a place ae insiute in a houae
of prostitution for a fenalfi pereon, and an allegation that one
hae procured a feinals person to become an inmate of a houB© of
prostitution - to render thljs inforraatlon bad on a motion to
quatsh, which we doubt, ^f® do net think it can be taken adyantage
of on a motion for arrest of Jud^Tment,
There can be no question that the defeniant /cneir with
reasonable certainty i»ith what offense under the statute he
was charged by the terms of the Infonsation. V.q chose not to
question its aufficiency, but pleaded not f;uilty to it.
But even If this were not so, the information is auf-
flclent under an alternative clause in the statute. It is a
provision of the statute "that x « ji any person who Hhull by
fraud or artifice k h x procure any ferale person to beco»e
roi f Jii f i«otq ^« H'-iiQ- 3IHO
> _.. . , 10 •/tfrfoa T> 3r>!Yeb ? . sontl
«4( •;>.
M W t:'
'1 94 ilMiiia
t^^a btM9^n^i.itmxtm
otf !• •ftiroif id
. ^ ^^(fijot , (to
jvtttiui lol twicers « at
ft T»r^ "• #«!(• d#lw t^wlAliao •I'Satiof
.imtSMmo^ift 9ilf t» MTzai 9Ai Xtf Mlti*:^
Oil b»ft««J<| #iitf (t9a»^o^l2v< o^J^ >o
^ axvm 9iMt \i. maw ««C
:Al9 •▼li«iTt»#r« IM ««Jb«o tr
taq X*"- Jifi* •*uiA:?» til* t» not'
un Inmate of a hiouse of ill faase » jt k ahall be guilty of
pandering."
In the infcrsration it la oharped that defendant "by
fruud and artifice prooured Hollia T>eRitu8, a f«nale person,
to becone an inrata of a house of ill fane.
Councel argue that when the statute croatinr an of-
fense uees g«n<5ric ter^^ia, the pleader must set up facts ao
that the court can ae« that tho dofa.n ant corau'.itted an offense,
and that the stateiaent that the defendant committed an offense
by fraud and artifice is merely * lej^al conolueion of the
pleader *in-5 charpoB no oriiae. '^ith this vfo do not agroo. The
Informant was not obliged to plead ayidence, II© followsd the
vords of tha etjvtute. If, hetrover, by rlrtas of t>:«ir crflnoral
character the defsndant wlrihed for further enliff:htonment as
to what he vf&ti charf!;ed vrith, h« should haTS asked for a hill
of particularB,
The avidence in not prfsserred in the record, and we
must preourae that it was nufflciont to juistlfy the allegations.
The judrment of the S/iuniolpal Court of nhicafro is
affirmed.
le x^x > ' Jiijotf « le •iMoat oa
■■■ .X. «
■■"^
THE PEOPLE or THS PTATS 0? )
ILLINOIS, J
Defendant In Krror. ) ^^^^ ^^ ^^.i^ipaL COURT
^"* ) OF CHICAGO.
■ ^ 3 .
D(B. JUSTIOIS MTH DKTJVERirD THB ^WJ^^V^^^'
Ths plaintiff in '^rror wao prosecuted on an informa-
tion charging him with an asBaiat -^ith a deadly 'veapon ^ith in-
tent to inflict upon m«ie Scarlet a bodily injury, without
proYooatlon and ««ho-r.i«g an al^andoned and malignant hoart in the
said Vichael Scarlet." On a trial before the court, v^ithout a
Jury, he waa fcv.nd ruilty and sentenced to thirty days in the
Houi'fl of correction -at labor- and to pay a fine of on« hundred
dollars and the coete, etc. ^^^ «i., //•'>'
The couneol for plaintiff in error contend that penal
Blatutos being strictly construed, the sentence of the Hourt
that the plaintiff^bo confined in the House of Correction -at
labor- ia unauthorized ae inflicting a -punishment not conterr-
plated by the criminal code, i. e. conf iner^.ent 'at labor '.-
The punishment provided by the statute, Section 2^/,
Chapter '.8, Kurd's Rev. Stat. 1911. for said offense is -a fine
-not exceeding $1000 nor less than ^25 or iwprisonmsnt in the
-county Jail for a period not exceeding one ysar, or both, in
-the discretion of the court.- Bee. 448 is in part as follows:
■Any person convicted, in a court of this rtato having
•Jurisdiction, of any crime or nisdemeaaor, the punishraent of
-which is confinement in the county Jail, may be sentenced by the
\
l-cVbl - >.C
ca« tiT
.T>IUC- ..; .
. 1^ .A.I
-*» '« no b
S b99H9ttf
2 .r-Ai;Oia
.■x'i-2 Jiriinnt .501
^Iq tjfiTT
arlf< ^
f-na
rmH
■•*'***'*^ ai«». ,# .1 ,»i,oo iMMltUio Bit xrf b»*«Xa
,<fS notic ^<f bofclTo-xq lijecrftinuq .rfT
-ttf»e vif^ to UBtfiomlb Bit'
>Bt9lmoo ao«i»q x«A"
viijn ,Xli»t ^intfoo •/(# nl ifftirstflX^oo al ifaltfw"
"court in which such conriction is had, to labor for the bene-
■flt of the county, during the term of euch imprisonment, in
"tho workhouoo, houna of correction, or other place proyided
■for that purpose by the county or city HUthorlties. " It also
appears by the said judgmont that an sqeireement under Sections 8
and 9 of Chapter 6? of said statutes exists between the County
of Cook and the City of Chicago prorldlag for the custody of orich
persona as may be comntitted to Ik's said house of correction.
The judgment is affirmed. ^
icl jirrtsmnoa tir faT»/ Sift >«n " ;,'00 ajCl !• til*
o,» jjt: 'i:*t9 t« \tMUQO qAS \.<S •a«q'X0i| imilt lot*
jj lo \b<)#«i/o »d* itt »^ ' t»*f)irtr lo \tkO •ttf bam j|«#0 !•
%
■C-uer Toi'n-, IQ^il- '•"■
39 - 17533
ABE E, FRIEDMAN, )
Defendant in Error, )
Error to
V8, 5 Superior Court,
JOSEPH SHUFLITOWSKI,
Plaintiff in Error.
Cook County.
3 2 I.A. 5
MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE McSURELY
DELIVERED THE OPIKION OF THE COURT.
This is a writ of error to review a judgment for $500
obtained by Friedman against Shuflitowski in an action for per-
sonal injuries claimed to have been sustained by Friedmein by
reason of an alleged assault upon him by Shuflitowski, hereinafter
oalled defendant.
As the judgment must be reversed and the oause remanded
for a new trial, it is not necessary to enter into any extended
statement of the facte involved. Defendant was engaged in busi-
ness on 13th street, in Chicago, and upon the day in question en-
tered into a controversy with the plaintiff over the use of a tele-
phone in the defendant's place of business. There was a sharp con-
flict in the testimony as to which of the two was the aggressor,
and as to the conduct of each party. Among other things it was
claimed by the plaintiff, Friedman, and his witnesses that the de-
llendant slapped and struck the plaintiff and finally kicked him
on the right side of the groin, from which a hernia developed.
The chief item of injury claimed is this hernia.
Defendant denies that he did more than oatch hold of the
young man's hand, and particularly denies that he kicked the plain-
tiff.
In this condition of the testimony plaintiff asked a doc-
tor, testifying on his behalf as an expert medical witness, a hypo-
thetical question containing the supposition that the defendant
\
scaTx - es
oi iMuI (
( 4^011; lit. WIl.-i;':3lV
>tv
?. '.A.^
,x.«>,--, , * r<».,.'- ...f „> ' «^,,, T.rgdgn bdjelXji nB lo noasBT
.#a/if)ael©L "=•'■'-0
«!• » nt* xnn oi^L iv^at oj> ^BMootii ion ml it ^lMlri wen b lol
• > sd^te sjiw ;trBbnol»(I .bevlovnl a^oal od.^ ^o ^ntrndta^i
n: "1 . j loqtr triM «9|Boii{0 nl t^«ei/t iliSI no atdiX
aaeniautf I0 ftoaXq aWiUbnalsb ndi al •aodq
uj^t^onjja d..- «tt ^o doidir 0* ea x'JOBi/aa* od* aJt #©111
■ ^«r-idi — _^ ^.. — A .'{^VBq floae lo ioubaoo ad# o^ ba iaaj
^f^na^aitm aid baB ^aBobBliY ^Ill^alBXq ad# yd baaiBXo
fltrrl^ bfu m^nlBXq adt ioirx^a bna baqqBXa ^OBbo*!!
. daoTeve ' • :mf*.-f b doli^"* •^r.'r'i 4flloij ad* ^o eblB id^tr e'i ^o
...iirzod p. — .^ ;>ealAXo \yaiat \o moil HI do
>'od doJp'^ n. .i? rco« bibr ad iMt aalaab ioBbaelad
j/u B b93(ae i^i4"nlBX<j ^nomli^ ^Mrl i .. ax
rd M jaaaatlw iBolbcai viaqx' :: ^t^^ti-zi ^.:.r
\ inBi»«ft*tob ©dJ itBxll ftttl.'i»co;fL' ' &rf^ 9 -'IrilfiiffOQ aolioauo ri!oi^9ilJ
-2-
had kicked the plaintiff in the groin, with resulting injuries
as testified to by plaintiff, and concluded the question as
follows: "Have you an opinion whether or not the condition
you found on your examination of tha plaintiff resulted from
such a kick?" This question was objected to on the ground that
whether or not the injury complained of was produced by a kick
was for the Jury to determine and not for the witness to testi-
fy to, but the objection was overruled and the witness was per-
mitted to say "that it could have resulted from an injury such
as you have described."
The overruling of an objection to such a question has
been repeatedly held to be reversible error. I. C. R. R. Co. v.
Smith, 308 111. 608. In City of Chicago v. Didier, 287 111. 571,
the rule is stated to be: "Where there is a conflict in the evi-
dence ae to whether the plaintiff was injured in the manner claim-
ed, it is not competent for witnesses to give their opinionron
that subject."
In the case at bar the question as to whether or not
defendant had kicked plaintiff was sharply disputed, ar.d there-
fore the question put to the medical witness was clearly improper
as invading the province of the Jury.
Ws are also inclined to hold that the oriticisras of 9on»
of the instructions given by the court are well taken. The first
instruction given at the request of plaintiff, which requires that
the Jury "must be satisfied from all tha evidence" that the as-
sault by the defendant was done in neoegsary self doferise, etc.,
is erroneous. The Jury are not required in a civil case to be
"satisfied" from all the ovidenca. Kelley v. Malhoit, 115 111.
App. 23; Graves v. Colwell, 90 111. 613. The instruction was
further erroneous in requiring defendant to establish that the
act of self defense was necessary, instead of requiring him to show
that such act reasonably appeared to be necessary. Paxton v.
-s-
•M noUs9up 9dt l)©f>u£o.ioo i>n« ^llt^ni«Iq xd oi imlMfBo: ««
aoiUbaoQ pA) ton lo 7»«1^9dw ctolniqo ciB uox »veH* lawoffol
aotl Jbft^Mwoei T:li*rt2Blq •!!-' ^o aolfaaimrnxo luoy ao bntrol uox
:(oii « x«f beowbotq 'Tbw to baniafqaoo T'fi't"^ *dt toa 10 "xedlddw
-l^se^ oi atMl#l77 od- ~>n Lne •alono^st o# Y^uf; odJ^ tol aaw
>i*q liBV »«»a^iw 9il^ iHiB b9Luzi070 aair nol^ostdo &i^.t iud ^ot \\
dot/a Y'xwtrr^ ruB ifotl to^XuaoT ()y6il bluoo it SBdt^ X«« 0* ba*#lm
".bddiioaob oved trot >ii
'-, ."t rol.t-!'»tro ': .lor-; OJ ftOX;^Cdta';> n« lo t^llXVTiaTO »dT
• 0Ti9 aXuia^evoi ad o5 bled xlfce/Beqei noeJ
ORUOidO to T*iO ril .80a .XII 80S ^d^taS
- A eted;t axodW^ '.ad o* ba^a^a Bt elui 9df
'mtulo X9aam3 oAi at bnTsj^at Btm Uiialaiq ad/ lad/adw - ^■■
aocnctntqao tio'A' vtz oi ttasan^tw lol ifaaifeq-TJOo /on al /I ^ibt
"./oetdua iadt
Jon 'TO Ti>d#adv ol aa aoi/aaup 9i<t xAd /a oa«o odt al
-et^nii i Tttt ^bali/qelb flqrr«da eaw "Jlit/alijlq beiol^ bad /net
-vqoiqeni xliaalo ajaw aaexi/lv laolba.'n f>dt 0/ /uq aoi/aeup '-tLli avQl
• Y^wt ^'^ ^o fofljtvoiq ed/ 8''^'^^^*^"* •*
sno" Ttc «9«etri//'S'r> ad/ /Ad/ bXod 0/ b^atlont obIb aifl aW
.Xaw eiB /iii/oo ad/ y<^ jrarlj anoi/oirx/anl adi lo
./ BBrUjp^-i ffoidw ttlJt/nialq lo /aeupei erf/ /« flavlj nol/oi/i/»ni
-0 QonaMva ftds Hb men") banai/aa ad iwW ^(jul ad/
, .•: vu ^t>H': Ilea TTUBaoaoen ni snob a«w /t\«b«elab ed/ y** /Ij^aa
rto o.' e';:- 'fv»f5 « tit baiii/pav /on a«c« ^lut •^T .auoanovtt al
.III ai^ aXXeS .oonabjtvft od/ IXa mo^l ■ballaUas"
iieir /^'^i/o-'n/arrf ©»(T .Sf^ .XXT 06 ^XlawXoO .v aavsrcO ;€K .qqA
'slai;. saiilupei al awoenoiaa tad/iul
^/ani »Yitc»»«»©9'! »»«» aanolab IIbb ^o /ob
• V'^xflnaooen ©d 0/ - oaaea /ob doua /b/^;
-3-
Boyer, 67 111. 132.
The second inatruction is open to the oritioism that
it instructed the jury to award exemplary damages if malice had
been shown, without conditioning this upon defendant's being
found guilty. Anderson v. Moore, 108 111. App. 106.
For the reasons above indicated the judgment will be
reversed and the cause remanded.
REVERSED AHD REMANDED.
-e-
.85i . ■ svoa
iMiU mmloiiiio 9Ai ot atqo b1 noiioutiBat bnoosa 9XiT
j^aL fb aoqfs •Idi salaoliibnoo iuoAilm ^ovodia at9cf
.dux .7qA .lit OOX t«TOcM .T aoticftbaA .^^ItifB bauol
so" fllw ^ftemjibi; •♦♦•olbnl atodjn anosAti: ed^ lol
.i>«l>na£a»i naumo BAt baa jbeaiSYBi
Dctc^uer tera, 1911. Ho.
157 - 17686.
/
LEOPOLD BHODOWICZ, )
Appellee, ) APPEAL PROM
i
1 82 I.A. 10
vo. ) CIRCUIT COURT
)
DOMINIK GIACZA3, ) COOK COUNTY.
Appellant, )
I'Ji, PRESIDING JUoTICE MoSURELY
DELIVERED THt: OPINION OF THE COURT.
This 1b an ajjpeal fron an order of the trial coi,irt deny-
ing a notion to vacate a iudgraent. In Ootobor, Leopold 3rodo?;io2,
hereinafter called plaintiff, filed a pra0cipe in tho Circuit
Court of Cook County, returnable tc tho December term, 1910, sjid
the defendant wao served with euraracna TToveriber 1, 1010. In Decem-
ber the plaintiff filed hlo declaration, vrlth an affidavit shov/ing
the nati.ire of hia demand and the amount due. On January 11, 1911,
the defendant filed his general appearance, and -.vith it a doounent
which in the abstract before tiC is described as an affidavit of
merits, without givin£^ us any information ae to its contents.
On Febmiary 11th, which woul;l be .vitMn the January term
of the Circuit Court, without notice to tho defendant, the plain-
tiff, by hie ettornoyn, came into court and asked for a .judgment
on the ground thct the affidavit of merits filed by tho defendant
was insufficient under the statute. The coiirt so held and entered
Judgment againct the defendant, on iStiarch 21, 1911, vihioh was dur-
ing a term of court followirig the twna at which the judgment was
entered, the defendant's attorney filed an affidavit stating that
ho had received no notice of the motion of February 11th, and filed
a motion tc set aside and vacate the judgment herotcfore ertered,
on the ground that under the miles of the Circuit Court the court
hr.d no pov/er to strike said affidavit of merits fr-om the filer,
and to enter judgment by default against the defendant. After
, 5;o
4 • .
\
?c^I
">(!
1 1 aqofA
3Jno cos aoil Loaqq** ;
uo-:- xotsanq *■ 'jo-i-
JOv
;,adlnoa«f) bI oir etolecf Joan^e'T
.*iJa*»;fjnoo tJ^ J«molf' :'/ sxtirla i«oii«A„ ^dJltt>ai
•ii^ od M;jow itiFiil. ^AilL t'XAWT
't O.J ftol^on iuoAitu ^i'v^oZi iliu
. Hi
I-.^'tuJi^.' ..iiuiiiiu tH 'S»im^ iamlttlVtxsynl «jbw
■i JifTlWOlXot Ituoo ■"■'■
tSom 9dS la dclion on b»vtB09i
'oig erT^ no
-2-
iiearlng, the coiort deniod the defendant's aaid motion to cat aside
and vacate the judgment, from v/hlcn ruling by the oourt the defend-
ant, by his counsel, prayed an appeal, which is now before us.
Counsel for appellant liave argued as if this were a writ
of error to review the entire record, including the propriety of
the judgment; but this arises from a misapprehension of the situa-
tion. The only matter for our consideration at present io the
ruling of the trial court denying the motion to vacaiie.
The grounds for said motion were, in substance, that the
court was not informed as to Rule 15 of the Circuit Oourt, which
provides that no motion will be heard or order made without notice
to the opposite party, when the appearance of such party has been
entered, and that no such notice liaving been served on the defend-
ant, although his appearance was on file, the court wrongfully and
in violation of sucli rule entered a judgment.
The question before us, therefore, is, had the trial
court the right to vacate a judgment after the term at .vhich it
had been entered had passed, beoauBe the court had entered the
judgment in ignorance of said Rule 15 of the Circuit Oourt of
Cook Countyt
This court had occasion recently to consider this identi-
cal question in Cramer v. Illinois Ooramercial Men's Association,
No. 17499. We there held that an error of this kind is an error
of law and not an error of faqt, and that therefore the oourt had
no power to set aside a judgment after tenn. The reasoning and
cases supporting this conclusion may be foiind in the opinion filed
in that case.
From this it follo.va that if the court had no power to
correct an error of lav/ after the tern had expired in which the
error was committed, and the error in this case being an error of
law, the rilling of the trial court denyirfr, the motion to vacate
the Judgment waa correct, and it will be affirmed,
AFFIRMED.
sMe£ ice o<* rtoi3om btuB u ' .ttistr.elel) exiJ hoi'^eb i-UJOO otU ,3,
.'.tr fitotBd won ei rioJUfw ,IfiQ<iqj3 na Jbe^joiq ,Xeem/oc oi.l x^ x^^*-
lov, alrfi 11 'J« b^uyiA •WBd iiutXI&qqA lol XeenuoO
Kjoiq art* ."•r'/tH/XQrii ,iyioo«n enlJn© oAi vtv9i - . le lo
•«tf^£a Qtii 10 noXr.ff&r 11 Ji uoil e«eXiJS aXxU JurJ ;Jae«s^t 0^^
e^i^ bX ^noaeiq ^^i nolian^btanoo iik) nol tei^Am '\i:Xao orlT .noX^
.♦♦^«oav oJ noXJon 3ffJ ,'vxiXYr^*b Jtuoo i«X«x^ eiW lo snXXirt
•rii iis,' t»cfaa rtX ,aiew rroXiot tol bXhuto'IS arfT
rfolrirr ,fTffo^ ^^^r'^^XO Olio' lo 9£ oXt/H oi aa bttanotai ioa a«« ^itroo
9oXio: letno 10 Jboc&eil atf XIlw nol^on on J 1
ni»«(f mjni vSiJtq douB lo eortJS's«aqqja 9dS nerlw ^^iiaq
.\0 l!)evnea neao anXv«xl eoXion xioua on iAcU bns (Xtaialna
w iiuoo adi ,aXil rto aew aontfi^aqiiii aXrl <l?,rrodiX« ,Jrta
.Jn'^rc jeneine eXxn fiotre . r.
laXti srf;t bati ^ol ^ eiolaiarli ,BiJ anolatf noXieaup eifT
ii i^c ' Jla insfflsbut a ai^oav o.^ Stii, j'isjoo
afli f)«n8;tRa Jlxarf inuoo aili a^tUAoatf «X)aaeaq l>4d £>a'xdine naacf bAXf
ii lo 81 aXuH I>Xaa lo aoJuiongX nX inaa^tr f
<5X slff^ rteXiXenoo oJ xX^naoa^ noXaaooo b&d iiuo'.) etri'i
'jiObbA a*naM XAXoienMoO aXonXXXI ,y naounC
••.(..11CJ r:. I /.' 'lotna ffta ^affi Ma*{ anad^ a« .i?Q*kV
fjijif i-^.^->r, -. Mii baa ,ioal Ip lOTie n. .,vl lo
lat arfT .unei leiljj ., c on
feoXn BuXono- /iliioqr.
• et<ao JartJ ni
j(t &«d ^itioo arfi li iaitl e7,oXXol ;rX Blcii motH
t»rf>* ftAri cna^ ar(i lao >'wa na ^oaiioo
■J
.:. «.bai.tXinmoo Mnr loiaa
&Snot,v ^nl^a9t tiuoo lAlni edJ lo yrXXu*! aidi «waX
.ft . riillji Bcf IXlw JX i>n« ,^061^00 Qfiw inaias^i^t »^'J
October Term, 1911^ Bo^
2 IS - 17744.
/
Dafendant in lirror, ) fiRROK TO
)
va, ) JWNICIP/di COURT
LOOKWOOD A STRIOiaAND CO., > OF CJflCAOO.
a oorpopation, j
Plaintiff In Krror. ) ^
182I.A. 11
HR, m&olDim JUoTlGE HOSUKELT
DSLIVljaiED T'TE OPINIO'? OF THE COURT.
Oomeliua /ioroerm, horolnofter oalled plaintiff, re-
covered a Judgraont for ^600 as dasia^e for pers^onal injuries re-
oeivod by hire while in tho essploy of th» Lockwood & Strickland Oo, ,
& corporation, tho defendant, and ao or© aakod to roveree thia
JudSBMmt.
The doferdant owns and operateo a factory In i^ioh are
many wood-»orking machines. At the tipse of the accident th©
plaintiff was engaged in carrying boarda to a man operating a
planer. In fxvant of tho planer arii two rovolving shafts, each
ahout four or five feet long, about lo inches above th© floor,
and also about IB inohoa apart. On the onda of the shafts are
pulleys froP3 irttioh belts run to th© planer. Botwoen these ahafto
was a wooden horoa about three feet long and 5 1/2 feet hl^. On
top of thio horse wac a wooden roller, across which lon^ iT'Oardo
were pushed into the planer. iSowover, vhen short boards were
being planed, u.n they would not reach fron the planer to this
V roller, the operator would stand between it and the planer and
"^ ^ would receive the short boards from the helper, wJio would hand
thew to him acroc^s th© roller. At the tin© of th© accident tho
plaintiff was one of theao helpera and was ergaged in carrying
short boards to th© operator. On one of these trips he carried
his bundle of boards up to the roller, and testifies that there-
k
r r
i.c
I
V
iij : .
tnts,
-2-
upon ho handad It over tho rollor and shafting to tha operator,
ftnd that to do thla he had to bend over the ahftftlnf, and roXlor*
Apparontly af^er tho operator had rooelvod th© bundio of boarda,
and aa th© plaintiff was tumlnf- to lo&ve, his right tr-ouser
leg was oau.^lit by aomethin,': oorjneoted with the eluift or pulley*
and he wae throim down* Hia statortont of the aooldent I0 that
•there waa sopiethinj^ that oausht rae like one of then shafte and
it »aa a screw or aorsethin^ like that that oaught me behind and
throwed m& down on the aeooTKl shaft •" He also say a that the
rlp"vht legs of hie trousers ard overalls wore torr. There was
teotinony on behalf of tho deferxiant that plaintiff had stopped
upon one of tho hangera which supported the ahafta froa the
floor, and then fell over.
The ^ury returned opeoial flndinga to tho effoot that
the plaintiff did not know at and before the tine of the aoci-
dent tlmt the pulleya or ahafta of the raaohine in question wore
not guarded; alao that he waa In the exercise of ordinary oare
for hie own safety at arKi izmaediately before the tiae of th© ao-
oldont, and alao that the risk of beir^, injurod while doinj; the
work which ho was doing at the tii^e of th» aocldent waa not ao
laaalnent that a san of ordinary prudence would not have incurred
the riak or hazard of doing auoh work.
Tho deferdant did not in Ita Eotion for a new trial, or
oUierwiso» niove that theae speolal flr^ingu be aet aside, and
there la no aasi^rsaent of error In that regard. Therefore tho
defendant is bound by the amrie. City of Aurora v, Kockabrand,
14© 111. S99t Penn. Goal 00. v. Kelly, im 111. fi; liSaplr©
Machinery Uo. v. Brady, 104 ill. »Sj Voigi v. /^r-glo-^^taerioan
PrK>v. Co., 104 ill. ivpp. 42Zi P. 0. vJ. « St. L. Ry. (Jo. V.
Borard, 121 111. App. 49 j Tate v. Ho. Puo. Ky. vio., 1^7 111. App.
106. Theae apeolal flndlrga of th© Jury aettled the queatlona
touching the ocrtduot of the plaintiff.
;* ^.-ttnrffp f:r
•*fef©04l
■'J •or»f
r'f"~>*^9*:-
-rr^
•rf^ lo #«<lm»e oiU yttJ^i/e^
There la a aharp oontrovaroy aa to the negligence of
the cleferidant, and wo are free to oonfea;* that larhether or not
plaintiff's trouaero were caught by a sot screw or other pro-
jection froza the shaft or pulley io not entirely clear.
In addition to the allegation that aald pulleye and
ahafte had bolte projeotinf, therefror, pl&lntlff also alleged
that these ahaftsa belts and pulleys were unprotected. In vio-
lation of the city ortUnanoo. In support of thle allagation
the city ordlnanoe wxa introduced in evidenoOf and is as fol-
lows s
"674, Safety of 'jinployes. Provision for:
In every factcry, isorkshcp or other place ^^ etruo-
turet where raaohinory is er^ployed, th« belting, shafting,
gearing, elevatora and every otixer portion of rtKichin?>ry
when ao located as to ondanger the live a and liffibe of
those eraploy^d therein, while in the dl a charge of their
duties, ah^iil b© aa far as poaalblo so covered or ^mr^"
ed as to Ka^r© thes roasonft-bly aafe and to prevent injixry
to ouch ©TEployea.*
Defendant's councel assorts that thla ordinance is
invalid for the reaaon, txa claljcaed, that the ;::ity of Chicago
had no power to paea lt# we are referred to no deciaione on
this point. ■'»© are of the opinion, however, that the power to
pass such an ordinance is within the inherent police powers
delegated to a raunicipality. *Th» safoty of life, lirsb, and
property beings one of the prlrae objecta of municipal incosrpo-
ratlon, all appropriate regulatlonc tending to proraote this
object are within the police power delegated to a inunlolpality.*
28 Cyo. 705» Ho quos^tion ia raised aa to the reaacnableness
of the ordinance, and we mxat hold It tc be a valid exercise of
the police power of the nainiolpality.
We have eone doubt aa to v/hether or not the question
of the validity of this ordinance is properly before us,
"If appclltint desired to raise the question of the validity of
the oruinanoe on the ground that it was In violation either of
•I
«"l«<»Wt
aiii
•oix*ni
«I
lafvol
lo t.»
a Btatuto or the oonetitutionf he should have embodied that
question in a wrlttem proposition to be held ae the law and
preaorved an exception to the rulirj;," The People v, Harrioon
£25 111. 540 (n^r>).
The oontention that even if the ordinance wao ralld,
the plaintiff, knowing of the condltiona otirrountiinf; the place,
therefore aaaursed the riak, la anawerecl co?apletoly by the oaee
of Utreeter v, western \Vhe«led tjoraper Co., 254 111. £44, w^Jlch
w^a followed in O'Donnell v. Rlter-oonley -fc. Oo,, 17S ill. App,
601. In theae oasoa It is held that an etaploye doea not by f»>rk-
ing on an unguairdod aaohino, »lth knowiodfce that it is unjruardad,
aeoune the risk of injury fron the master* a failure to cosily with
an ordinance or statute requirin,c such maoMne to be auitably
guarded.
It i« argued that the plaintiff tried the oaae on the
theojry of a specific nef^ligont order, and tlmt the oourt iwatxnjo-
ted the jury on this theory, we do not so understarod it. The
plaintiff ♦& statement of olalra 1« not based on any such theory,
and the jury was inotz*iioted that the plaintiff oould not recover
unless tlxe negligence oharged therein waa proved.
The inetruotiona coc^lalned of undertook to instruct as
to the duty of the laaater to furnlah a reaaonably safe place to
work, and aa to the aeauraption of rlaJr the roforenoeo to the or-
ders of the foreman are merely incidental. Taken aa a .ifhole, we
do not find reveralblo en*or in the inotructlons.
Por the reaaona above inilioated the judgraent will be
affirmed.
. rr •
•iwferr o no yii
^:.»'<% ' •*«» (£«•.' .a »Oiv>
ftU no •ojte aitf bsl*f# 'ij mtii jx'{,i t
«t'io«)^' ;iwi« ^(u .to ^ftjid Jon ttt or-
mm Sin^- 'iotnimii k-
^ « csMsnol or;j to mivL
October Term, 191^- ^^"* ^'' , ^«W-^l<^ '1. . OaxVco^, o^/trv-
246 - 17779, ■ ' ' -^ G- ' ^^^'^'^^^^^^ r^
JOSEPH Pi^OOJlIA, )
AppdllOOy )
X»TJ£imATIC*S/dL HAI^VKiiTI?K COM-
PANY, a ooiTporationt
APPJh.AL f'-ROM
' i y-<5 .v~vv
^82I.A. 19
Mil. PBEUXDIRO JU^riOE tJoGUR
1, f-»^ ^
DaLivKfiS) ms, opitnou of the oourt.
Thi« la on appeal fxvjsn a Jisij^raont against the Interna-
tional H&rvoQtor Oompjmy, hereinafter oitllea dafondant, in a
cult brought by Joseph Poochia, h«roinaft©r oallod plaintiff, to
reoovor dajnagea for personal injuria o r©c©lv«3d by hiro idiile in
th« ©nploy of the defendant. Hb waa injured by havlnjp; his left
hand and ana oaught between a belt and a revolving ahaft or pulley.
rh© regular ocaployKont of the plairtiff waa o.b an operator
on a grinding micblno in a li«»f^© roost filled ndth raaehlnery, iTaeee
Rftohinea wers run by po»er transmitted frora a larj^e saaln shaft.
These sjoving naohinoa, ehafta, pulleys and belts wer« in plain aight.
Plaintiff had worked for five year9 in thie rooa and at the aasje
Emohine, Uj^m the sjomlnj? of the aooident in quest ion, wTien the
oaohine waa first started, the belt frots the mxin rahaft and pulley
running to the euioliino broke. Thla belt ran from a pulley on the
laain ahaft oppoaite the aaohine, end waa about twenty feet long
•doubled up", alx inohee wide, and a quarter of an inch thlolr..
Plaintiff aaye he infonaed the foreoan that the belt was
bx^kon and aaJced that a ©an be oont to fix it, but waa ordered to
go back and fix the belt hiwaelf ; that he told the foromaan h© did
not know how to fix it, and the foreir»an tJven said, "if you don't
know how to fix it 5^0 horae" j that th^; f oreiitan then handed the plain-
tiff a rope arsd aaid "hero, fix thtit belt", at the ea-e tlrae olMPVlng
ill
.«v
o;
odJ To xolqew •*!#
•••ft no
•ttU'« Mil "••fVn « ' tMT »>«■
"* enp '
9d$ tic / Tmn
DIP»I *0* .fotfa »r" o«4ff «#«»t at :^ju1m ntmn
: ma lo i^i , - , "fpi t
a«« ;ri«tf •/<* j/-y<i niwM*^; fmnotnt
OS be*wMv' ' too 0ti .u .<rrd
oi Ml $Miit t^l^mmM il9d tti sn bn£ kosd •§
(•■ a»f<f nmm ^m l ^rii iwM «il art •# wed woml «oa
•irUIf tt$ b^bnMi omnK/^ (XU Jar t mtt p$ vod voffif
9iiiw«Bte ''^tli « •qon • Ttl4
-8-
tho plaintiff ho« to tie the rope around the broken ©itda oT the
volt. The plaintiff ralaod a ladder and loaned It againat Uie
runnlnc ahaft» tied the rope around the bolt t»hlle etandlng on
thfj floor, ttn<l then ollsabei %im ladder, taking the rope and belt
with hlra, Arrlvir^ at the top of the ladder and standlri/'- BOf^
sixteen feet fron the floor, he tlod tho free end of the rope to
the top of the ladder to support the weight of the belt as It wae
euepended aorooa th© apaoe betweon the muln ahaft arKl tho ooupter-
ahftft at the aaohine* He placed one enti over the> sain ehaft and
the other end under the shaft, brinRln^ the t^>;c enda together be-
tween his body and the shaft, [io then proceedea to fasten the
two enda together by inaertlng the hooka used for that pijrpoee,
and when ho had i^otten four of the hooka in, the rt:>pe suddenly
broke at a point midway betisoen id!v&ro It waa tl«d to the ladder
and where It was tied around the belt? that thle allowed the belt
to fall dosn agalnot the shaft, dragging his liand, whloh was In-
aide the belt, with it; that the belt then wx^pped and tvieted
around the shaft, taking his am with it*
we have reaohed tho coneluaion that the plaintiff, in
undertaklnif to repair and replace the broken belt, aasunsed the
risk of Uie injury from euoh **crk* It laakee fto differerce that
he waa ordered froa hla regular employiraont into the noro dangerous
work, G, H. !• ■% P, Ky» Co, ▼• Klnnaro, 190 111, Sj Coneolldatod
Ooal CO, of St, Louie y« Haerjii, 146 111, ei4; Kepublio Iron &
Steel 00, V. Lee, i227 111, E4<J» If plaintiff knew the danger of
placing bolta on revolving Eihafte or pulleya, or frojs his B-xperi-"
«Roe or by the exeroiee of hla eonaee should have known, h.& will
be held to have aeauiaed the risk. He had worked at thie raaohino
for five yoar»« The rapidly tuminf: shafts, piilloya and belts
were all arcm^d hins, &ixl he hatl repeatedly repaired and repiac«Kl
broken belts and pulleys, Iho dangere were appKrent and uander-
-ft-
no yillB*..
iAa fwo^axm ^
u'<ta tMt
•d
irrmn
i
t« rUffa
M ^M bna ttetf •iif tmmii
.1 ttrfcMi^ «dc*i to •«t/<yt r»tfiaA b«d #it nMte tea
qgivtv m»iiJ ^Itttf Mil Sadi iil d#i^ r cM*
»3l t^tv tarxM el' xjKla edl teuo>M
OJlXq*9 *i«U
#X mtyom amm ma^ x^ira vis lo Mmtn
tR« live
.o? X«»0
ui ^mi ^ x«»#B
ioren M •iX«tf )inlo«Kr
*t»»ii»n hMrf Mi law ««Xfl Ai«i»«i XX4 •«•«
■tood by hlcj, Tfolthor did tho f«r«i!a«n*a at*t<«norit that the plalrj*
tiff should "fix the b«lt or go hora©" rwllov© blm of th<3 aaausKptlon
of tho riair of «uoh dangers^ *r«ased Stool Oar Co, v, Uonkth, 207
111, e.70,
•Th« true nil© in thlo regarti Is, th«it th« sermnt aa-
sxmiKs not only th© ordinary rleka Inoldent to hla ©mployT3«nt,
but ftlao all rlangisr^ which »ro obvlcoia *md apparent, ©aid If ho
voluntaJTily ©r.t©rs Into or cor^tlrme© in th« a«rvio«» lmorfli\p;,
or h&vlne th® ss©«ma of knowirg. Its datig^ra, h& i& do&mi^d to
have asoiarjQvl th© ris)^© aiKl to hi*v@ waived all clalras aj^alnst
the tnaater for darafj©© In oaa© of p©rao?mi Injury r©ma ting
froa oueh danger©.* MoComiok ;:^iarv©Qtlng -caohlri© Co, v»
Zftkaewa^i, j.>£0 111* 5Sg#
IR thla vl0w of th« oas3o, it was error for th© oourt to
give th© third iwatruotlon at th© roqu©0t 0f th© plaintiff, to th»
•ffoct that St wa» a q«o«tiorj of faot to b© d©t©rB5in©d by th© Jury
•whether or not th© plalrtlff a»»uK5«d th© rl»lt*" Ey@n as an In-
8trt;oti&fi upon tho aasuraptlon of rlaV it in raialoading, ao not
totiohlrii; upon the plaintiff 'Ji lanowledj^e of th© dangara, and it do©©
not convey any ld©a to the Jury aa to what 1» raoont by th© asaiiinp-
ti<m of rlaJt* Th© Jury oould »®11 have concluded that It wa© Ira-
material whether or not tho plaintiff waa fanlllar with tha danger©
arKt risks*
W« al«w> think that tli© def^andmit w&o ©utitled to hav© ti%9
ivory Inatruated as It roqiiaeted, to ©t© ©ffeot tJjat «h©r© a siorvant
Is ordered by hi© a&ator to ^n^ago tarjporarlly In oorao other work
trtor© hazordou© thtm hi a regular work, th«f s^jrvjint asatiraea the risk
of Injtiiry fr<»n th© raora haaardoua ©i^>loyrwnt if too ©xtra haaard and
i^ane,9r aro op&n oikJ obvlouo and rwty b© oba©rved at%d knowin by hiia In
th© ox©roi9o of or^ilnary ofiir© and pmdtmco,
Tho only n©^lig©no© of th« d©f<mdant, if U:5©r© wa« arsy,
tma In fumlahlns th© plaintiff with a roi>© of inauff^ciont strMngth
for th© purpoa© of repairing the b©lt» Upon Uiia point th»r« wa© a
•harp oonfllot in th© ©videnoo* fho foreraan detiien that h© gav©
plaintiff any rop©» Thor© i» also th© ©vld«nco of wltr5©a«eo tlmt
the accident occurred after the belt had "been repaired, and that
i'i«
unJH
•«M«n
i»i« •IV
^•Mdc
*^^ i;jooo ;tnefil oofl erfJ
th« oooaalors of the minhap was tiie allppirsi? of plaintiff *« hand be-
tv<»<m the b«lt arui tho pulloy »hllo h© wftn Ifi tho act of putting
the b«lt Oh th© pulley. Plaintiff's ori/r,lnftl deoliiratlor alleged
that hl» hand was caiight b«twee»i the pulley and th© belt*
It would 8©rv« r.o ua«i>ful purposo tc onalyxo In detail
th« olrouKsatanoes of tho acoident In tho attorspt to arrive at a
oonoluaicn aa to whather the plaint if fsvar«i on of It 1« ccrr»ot,
or tho atatemonta niado by other oyo-wltrseseos, Aa tJwre saust bo
anothor trial wo rofraln from any oomia^nt upon thl» branch of tho
oaoo« Th© Jury roight havo arrlvod at a ooRoluolor? advoro© to the
clain of tho plaintiff on this point, and yet, in view of tho
fallur© of tho oourt prt>p«rly to inotnxot th» Sxsxy upon tho a»*
auraption of rivik, bo slalod into rot'.ir«lntt the verdict it did, o«i
tho groiKi ;' that th»ro was no aaauRtptlon cf rlak by tho plaintiff.
In this condition of the rooord wo oannot parsait o'loh a vordiot
to fit&nd.
Tho Judgjnant Bfill thoroforo bo rov«rao<i and tho oauao
roKandod.
AND nh2^Amm>*
ft»;^«IL» not^«*r. {JUq 9tU no #lfttf Mit
* «UMl#OfM
•In lo iwili^M
^ rrxM inmmm •« Ik- i lo Molilbnoo oi
•taiojQ oi
529-17,865. ■ ^ctcter v-^, ^^ll. 1^-
JOHH CARLSON, ) i) I I / '
Appellant, ) APPEAL FROM
__„ " I CIRCUIT COURT
PATRICK E. HOGAN, i^ COOK COUNTY,
vtf Appellee. ) ;■,,. ^^/,___. ^.
rs2rA.2i
LY ^^ -».
IIR. PRBSIDINCr JUSTICE MeSUREL'
DELIVERED THS OPINION OF THE COURT.
\
This is an action in assiimpsit for the breach of a
^ contract of agistraent of a horae, originally begun before a
r
justice of the peace at Lyons, in Cook county, Illlnoia, «^ere
there was a trial and a Judgraent for |200 for Patrick /•;, Hogan,
hereinafter called plaintiff. Upon appeal to the Circuit court
of Cook county, there was a trial by jury, resulting in a ver-
dict and judgment for the plaintiff for $125, from which Judg-
ment John Carlson, hereinafter called defendant, appeals to this
\ court.
The plaintiff pastured his horse in the defendant's
pasture field, for which plaintiff was to pay |2 per raonth. Af-
ter aone days, the horse disappeared and wan never found, sund
3
^ this suit is brought to recover the value of the horse,
A Defendant's counsel concedes that the court correctly
6. instructed the jury as to the law, that is, that the defendant
was bound to use only ordirtaa*y care. Whether he did so depend-
ed upon the condition of the fence surrounding the past'ore, and
this question of fact was decided by the jury against the defend-
ant. The verdict is claimed to be contrajry to the preponderance
of the evidence. The plaintiff testified to the effect thcvt
there was practically no fence around that pasture. Tho defend-
ant and two other witnesses testified to the contrary. This court
should, without hesitation, set aside a verdict manifestly against
IS.^i
ISDSOQ
.oil .li.«.J- jflii-jj.' ;i»uujc
»8M«Tf • til
-J
.uj!.o m»o^
t tfS0XX»qqA
.tt«
A lo rlCMMnd 9:li «>) 11: fil iiol#o<s »i mt bL'/.
«<ug|oH »'\ iloJrtij^ tot 0OSc>; tot iiwjftitt « l^a« LiiX'Ti a ««« •:ro(l^
•*ins2>nal*Jb ^xii ni •«iOfI mlti b0nuSmMq ¥tl^nl«Iq Mft
•difMM <i»q 8| x^ oi «^KV IttialeLq iloldw nol «l>Xell •Vftaa .
bn* ^ftovol ^N»v«fl amr Arus b^rtmB^mmlb ••nod •di (•XAb mkw no^
••cnod A/fJ lo mslmt wii i«too«i oi if(;^iond •! ilua •Idl
XX^ O T T oo ^luoo orfi iMta ••^•ortoo X*«aiioo m^^nmbnmltmQ
itmba»t»b •Ai ia/U ««i i^Ai ,««£ ^Ai oi •• rv^ ^di Jmiotnimni
-Irtoq^b oa Bll> vd lor' .9aB9 x*u^-t^i'V> x-t^io Msu oi Lmiotf •■•
ftrta ,«m/l«Bq 9Ai ^loctutrwua ednvl •rU lo aolilbnoo 9Ai noqu Jbo
•tet«^aJb ofU ifsni£s« rxut e'il ^ tfbt^^b mtn lo«l lo nolis^x/p s.lAi
9onm^ tq oxl# oi xurtiaot) md o3 l>«al«Xo si ^•tb^or cift .In..
!!• Oif# ol belli #«»^ llilrrl«Xq odT .•on«MT« •ilS lo
'l^iidleb -ruJ-«««r ijMf4 btajotB oo.iol on xLluotiojnn tun •'nAi
inoo ecf ill;ta«J- •••••alXw •w.'Uo ovi bna ioa
-2-
the weight of the ovidenoo, but thd preponderance Is not neoees-
arlly on the oide of the greater number of wltneaaeo. other
proper elernsnts which the Jury had the opportunity to observe
and consider and which we have not, probably inclined the Jury
towards the plaintiff's side of the case. In two trials the
finding has been for the plaintiff, and we are not inclined to
distiarb this conoluaion.
It is arguad that the verdict for |125 Is exoeeaive. In
the first trial plaintiff recovered ^200. We cannot say that
our Judfiment as to the value of the horse la better than tlmt of
the Jurors who heard and saw the witnesses In the case*
Tl-ie Judgment will therefore be affinaed,
AFFIRKED.
•cU mUXti dvt ■"
o4 bwilc
,^i- ».»,.
t lo •JblB a'lll^alalq vrU afrxsvoJ
• ^ > ..:. ,.rii i^<i n*«cf mad yiltexil
nl ••▼Jt«ot>vx«> o.
lo .
t-. ►'f'^ o arf «/,>-.
Octo-ber lerin, ISH- ^°'
sy
(J
394 - 17933 " ^^ ^^
THE AMERICAN TRUST & SAVINGS BANK,
now known as CONTINENTAL AND COM- ^ itn e^ -w m >.^ -^
MERCIAL TRUST AND SAVINGS BANK, I )o 2 I A O 9.
Trustee in Bankruptcy of the ee- ^)^ ^ j-«ia« ^^
tate of CHARLES J. FELT, Bankrupt,
Appellee, ) Appeal from
Municipal Court
va. ^^ . of Chicago.
WILLIAM J. ELLIS and ALBERT ELLIS, "^S ^'^'■' -< j >f^^cv.,c^^
oc-partnere trading as WILLIAM ) i'j/J^j^ ... v/ / -^
J. ELLIS & company; AxX^^^ .^ /PM^ w ,',,^
Appellants. ) .x^^^tJLj 0{ajU.U.
MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE MoSURELY
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF TH^ COURT.
This is an appeal from a judgment for 1800 entered upon
the verdict of a jury in a suit brought by the trustee of the es-
tate of Charles J. Felt, bankrupt, hereinafter called plaintiff,
against William J. and Albert Ellis, co-partners, hereinafter
called defendants, to recover the value of property claimed to
have been transferred unlawfully by Felt to the defendants imme-
diately prior to his bankruptcy, intending thereby to prefer the
defendants to other creditors.
The suit was commenced under section 60-b of the Bank-
ruptcy Act of 1898, which is as follows:
"If a bankrupt shall have * * ♦ made a transfer of any
of hie property, and if, at the time of the transfer, or of the
recording or registering of the transfer, if by law recording
or registering thereof is required, and being within four months
before the petition in bankruptcy or after the filing thereof
and before the adjudication, the bankrupt be insolvent and the
transfer then operate as a preference and the person receiving
it or to be benefited thereby or his agent acting therein,
shall then have reasonable cause to believe that the enforcement
of such transfer would effect a preference, it shall be voidable
by the trustee and he may recover the property or its value from
such person. "
It is stipulated that the transfer of Felt's property to
the defendants was within four months prior to the bankruptcy pro-
ceeding, and that the defendants sold it for $1,300 cash.
ss
i '
,T.m W'l
.at
sc^: - i'^s
MAIJJIV a£ £
'.tneXIsqqA
Y,r-T'i'3'-,M 'm^'^'TT. r.'.:Trr7R7ff<T .fni
33rff^viJ3a
iftixs OOP' ..,^.„^ . .. . ... • , .i« 82 8ldT
_ -.. lo «•*»!.-. ■_-.- itrfgwoid tltia « £t2 x^u\ a lo ^oi inv ©di
iflfj-^d ,aT«aiieq>oo ««iXn in*dlA unit .t» ouiilX^V #«nla2«
^ttaqoiof ^o 9u£bv art* tevooai "i ^aiOBibnoleb toXIso
adJ ta^arj o^ vd»78.*i s.Tibfi«i.il .\aiquiinB<i aid o^ loiiq xisisit
.3io/Xl>«TO lail^o oJ a^nALndlat
-in«e ndi \o d>08 niM&sa la^ni/ baoaanaoo a«w ^tif« vdT
-tfwoXXol an Ai doldv «8C8X lo itk vo^qtrt
';^' 'afTaiJ A •L«:t^ « * • evad XXad- ■"^jT^ifi.'f 6 TI*
rjc . ^d
" .rtorxaq Uoua
i Y^ftoqcncq ^ ' I <>'? ?o lolanBt^ od^ Iftdi b«^flXtfqi;f« al #1
iq ):D*qi;i^a«d OiiJ c^ tolTq ad*no« Tuolt rtldftr a«« aJiuibaa>«t> ed^
.daao 008^X9 io\ tl bXoa a^oAbaalat 9di iait bas ^laibaec
-s-
It is claimed ty the defendants that the fixtures in Felt's
store belonged to them or to one of the partners, and that Felt
was allowed the use of the same. On the other hand it was claimed
that the defendants were creditors of Felt to the amount of fSOO,
the purchase price of the fixtures. The jury found with the latter
claim.
There was also submitted to the jury the question whether
the defendants had reasonable cause to believe a preference was
intended by the transfer of the store property from Felt to them,
and the jury concluded there was such reasonable cause.
To discuss in detail the evidence submitted touching these
questions of fact would unduly extend this opinion. We are content
to say that from a consideration of the evidence we see no reason
to hold that the conclusion of the jury was not justified. All
the other elements essential to the recovery of an unlaT/ful pref-
erence are admitted by the stipulation.
The ruling of the court touching the check for 195 pay-
able to the Moneyweight Scale Co. was not reversible error. The
testimony that this check wan paid was not disputed, and the evi-
dence of the check itself would be merely cumulative.
There was no substantial error in the instructions of
the court to the jury, although they were unconscionably long.
The verdict of the jury not being against the weight of
the evidence and there being no reversible error upon the trial,
the judgment will be affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
-s-
^TeT iadi baa «si»n^i«q 9iii "^o eno oj to aod^ oi bm^aoiod ttain
i.: li:.. To ajiw it bnad it^Aio Bdi rrO .•aui« 9Ai lo eau td^ i>evorr£ aiiTr
, OOSf lo tnuooB &di oi iLe"^ "^o aio^Jtiittto »tc9w 9/aBbrr«l«b
tetf^iil oiIJ d^i* brtiio'^ •v'/i; 9 'T .b&'luJxIJ o.li lo soil ^ 38B4lji:;':r Bdi
eer soaeToTiaaq /^ •vstXsd o;> eaL'j. :- o.':^eno8fl©5: iiaA Bia»t)c^l9t> edJ
. *Iet aoTl t*Tt"QO'«^ Btoit ; isloaet^ ©lU xd bofane^ni
.©BUfio ©XUjsnoaaei rlaua asw 9i;e/(J b«l>uXonoo Y^u^ axIJ bae
BBBii: inliiouoi bBiilmduB aorrDt^vt Bdt IttsiBb at BBvtuftb oT
iasinoo bib sW .noiniqo i»,^x9 \lubeuj bfuow ^osl lo anoi^aai/p
noajidi oa aea ew eoaaLl^e erl^ lo rtol^aTat)ianoo « noil tadi x^b oi
XXA .u»jtll^eu^ .foil Bfiw Y^u^ dil^ lo aoiauXoaoo Bdi tadi bLod oi
i^tiq li/lvBXnu ni, lo yriavosei adit oi iBliaBBBB a^naaeXa ledJo Bdi
.aoLiMluqtiB Bdi yof ta^^ltii>s bib BonBiB
xnri ae| aol ;(Dado edi jnldouo^ iiuoo t<(# lo galXirx adT
edT .TOTxa aXcfieievai ion ibw .oO alaoS ^dslewxaaoM ad^ o^ BldB
:v9 Bdi '..\h ^bBtuqBtb ioa a«v blBq bmw jotdo aid/ ^sd^ \ttoaliBBt
.BvliBLuaaio yXaiOffl ad bXirow lXaa;tjt 4o«do Bdi Jo BtnBb
lo sfloi^omJaai ad^ al tone iBtiaaiBduB on as* MtdT
.^noX \ldanolo6aooau aiaw iftJl^ djuod^X* ^x^^t »^^ o* *iwoo ad#
"o idjisw ad^ iBnia^B ^nied ioa \rul Bdi lo iolbiBr adT
,l»lii hdi rtoqu lOTia aXtflaiavaT oa jnlod tiad^ baB aonafalva Bdi
.Manilla ad IX^w ^nemsJbv.^
Octoter Term, 1911. Ho.
430 - 17959 if \xK.^^jt/^ HAA'ic^^>^ ^
THE TITLE GUARANTY & flUBETY CO.,
a corporation.
Appellee,
182I.A. 23
Appeal from
vs. ) Municipal Court
of Chicago.
W. J. TURNES, V/ )/;/,_// A -T^ A /
Appellant, ) ^'^^'^i.j \JX>tA-^ ^J^-/Vb^vx/^
(^ •^/VOz.w^ OxW -^ a//
MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE McSURELY
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
This ie an appeal from a judgment obtained by The Title
Guaranty & Surety Co., hereinafter called plaintiff, against W. J.
TurneB, hereinafter called defendant, in a suit claiming liability
of the defendant under section 18, chapter 32, Illinois statutes,
for debts and liabilities made by him while doing business ao
"W, J. Turnes Co.," a pretended corporation. This section 18 is
ae follows:
"If any person or persons being, or pretending to be,
an officer or agent, or board of directors, of any stock cor-
poration, or pretended stock corporation, shall assume to ex-
ercise corporate powers, or use the name of any such corpora-
tion, or pretended corporation, without complying with the
provisions of this act, before all stock named in the articles
of incorporation shall be subscribed in good faith, then they
shall be jointly and severally liable for all debts and lia-
bilities made by them, and contracted in the name of such cor-
poration, or pretended corporation."
The facts giving rise to the suit are as follows: On
Jiine 26, 1905, the United States Government entered into a con-
tract with the so-called "W. J. Turnes Co." for the construction
of a guard house at Indianapolis, Indiana, the Turnes Co. giving
a bond, with the plaintiff as surety, for the faithful performance
of the work. To obtain this bond, application was made to plain-
tiff on the came date. In this application it io stated that
W. J. Turnes Co., the applicant, ie an Illinois corporation, or-
ganized in March, 1898; that Wra. J. Turnes is its president, and
one Frank Paschen its secretary, and the application is signed
\
. ^.l£IXeqqA
U 0Miai33fl<I .JTM
.THDOC Sill -'iC liCIia^O 3HT aSRSVIJ^a
iLtdsti gnlffllslo ^lue £ itl ^:tn«£>a9^dJ^ belXao TellBaloiad «aantuT
i&4uisir> Btoallil tSS td.tqadp ^61 noi^oae ie|)nt; toabnelab 9il^ lo
aa aaaniaud srtiob olldw mifl yd eban aaiJiUtdaiX <>na sJ-cleb to)
«1 81 noii-oae fsidT .notiar' r9n<\B "i.oO aaaiuT .^ fW*
:awoXXol aa
^9d oi naibnajoia to ^^al»6 snoaiaq lo aosiaq xaB ^I"
-too jIc - - ■■ - . - . -^- r _ . - ., ^. . ^Q i^oi'^"'
"^a oJ TO ,nc
noo i
■ ■ ?.. ,ic -
■-> ad x:
^rcoo doas ^o amaa tAi nl bna ^madJ yd aba i^ aai^itid
. juniyqioo bebna^otq io ^nol^Taioq
w» o-ii: * --' -all sa^vln aJoB^l arfT
-IV ji^ j; uwtix ijaia^aa >> :v:Li' T-jv.;iy H»Ja^3 ba^lntf a<l^ ^dOQX ^oo 9u.
-"vi ♦' -^--loo erfrf to! ".oO aemuT 7 '^•" baX Xao-o a aiT* :I^iv JouiJ
,,ij.wi^ ,^a aeitttfT axirf ^aoalbnl ^t . ..i .^uaijlbnl ^a aai/ori brai/* ' '^
lUBiiiioliaq Xuld^lal ad^ lol ^x^^^^* 8' lli^aiaXq eai n;ff« ^tA^^u a
' ' '^q o^ abam aaw aol;faolXqqa «bnod Midi aiBido oT .iiow adt lo
J^Bdi ba^aJe ei il nol^aoHqqa aidi nl .aial) amao ed^ no '^'^ ' '
-10 ^flolJ^flioqioo alcfTifll (u at »*ftaolXqqfi edJ ^.oO aocrxirT .v. .
boB (^naJLiiasTq Bit al aeniuT .L .mW iBdi ;898X idoiaM ni bastn/i^
bangia ei rtol^BoiXqqa i*-'.:^ b;\B ^X1Bi910BB bS^ -.^h-.o.^'t j r.-.^T •/,.-.
•a-
"W. J. Turnea Co., by Wm. J. Turnee, Free,," in the handwriting
of the defendant. As part of this application the applicant exe-
cuted an "Agreement of Indemnity," whereby the"W, J. Turnes Co."
agreed to pay the plaintiff certain premiums on the bond, and fur-
ther "it does hereby bind iteelf, its auoceBeore and assigns to
indemnify the said The Title Guaranty & Trust Company, of Soranton,
Penna., against all lose, costs, damages, charges and expenses
whatever, resulting from any of its acts, default or neglect that
said The Title Guaranty & Trust Company, of Scranton, Penna., may
sustain or incur by reason of its having executed said bond or any
continuation thereof." This "Agreement of Indemnity" was likewise
signed "W, J, Turnes Co., by Wm. J. Turnes, Pres.," in the hand-
writing of the defendant. The name "Title Guaranty & Trust Coaipany,
of Soranton, Penna.," was subsequently changed to "Title Guaranty
& Surety Company," as it appears in this suit.
Turnes then proceeded with his contract for the construc-
tion of the guard house. Subsequently difficulties aroste between
Turnes and a sub-contractor named Moore, and material men, which
culminated in -x suit upon the bend above described in the United
States Circuit Court for the District of Indiana, in which the
plaintiff, the W. J, Turnes Co. and Moore were defendants. The
testimony shows that the defendant Turnee was informed as to the
suit and was represented in court at the trial. Judgment was
rendered in this suit in favor of the material men and against
the W. J, Turnes Co. and the plaintiff herein as surety on the
bond. Execution was issued on this judgment, and the return of
the marshall is to the effect that after diligent search he was
unable to find the W. J. Turnes Co. in his district, or any prop-
erty of said company on which to levy. Thereupon the Surety Com-
pany, plaintiff herein, paid the amounts involved in the judgment
and also other amounts for court costs and expenses.
Thereafter the present suit was brought upon the "Agree-
-s-
-9x» irnaoilqqa erf J noi^aoiXgq* •id^ 1o ;rieq sA .#n«fca»l»i) arl^ lo
?.tfl txiB ^bttod stii no Bauiae^q alttt9o l"ii;tnl«Xq arf* T«<J o^ beeTl«
ot •naieaa Lab atoeaaoouB eii ^llar^l Lnld ^^daaaif aaob ^1* ftil^
(no^ruiaC lo ,xn^4oo0 ^atrxT J> YinBiauO alllT adT ^laa aii4 x'^^^'no^al
Aoaaa^ixa ba/a aagiAdo ^aajJBtaat ^e^aoo t«80l fla taniaja ^ .aont?
•■sdJ JoeXaon lo iLuBle'u ^BiOB Bit i > yna mon'^ gni^Xoaei ^TaT8^a4f
:ato ,.«an9T ^no;»n«To8 lt> ^vr. iJnatfiO© eX;llT adT biaa
i« 10 tmod blaa ba^fuoaxe gnlvBri: aoafiei y^^ rmonl 10 ai«^(Mf«
.lr©3<2X cflir 'xilaesdbal ^o ^TiiaaoQ^^A" airfT " /loaisd^ aotiBuaitnoo
-basd 9dt at \.sti^ ^eaatuT .\ .nf x^*' t*-^'-^ aaftiiuT .1 . ' " taojia
«Yaaqii(aO tBinl i> xinAttiuO tlitT* 9»»a oa7 .^ix^baala^ add 19 jaiilTV
\inziBuCi a£.tiT* ot baj|n£<ic xX^naupaadua bbw "^.Bflno*? ^no^fnAioS I9
.d'ije Btdi at aTnaqqa it ae %xKi»«ls'O0 xiniuB *
:(/T.'0aoo adi xo\ ^oai^neo aid d^^w bei>e»eotq nad^ aaati/T
i:3d«iad aaoxa aaXi^Xi/oilliL xXi^naupaadi/r: .aaijod incAug ad4^ )o aoti
sLtoXdw «a«« Xsixe^Bffl bne ^aYOoU bamau lO^OBi^aoo-dua £ brcB aaaaaT
bBstaH j£Li at i>adiioea(j aroda bnod dd^ noqu ^ivr -JnnimLuo
tdt doL cxBttnT lo fotziBta 9di tol ;rai/oO JiuoilO aelB^9
ftw mooli boB .09 aaniuT .L .W e. JrriBlq
6il. bannolixl aaw aaniuT ^nBUial»l> pAi tadf Bwoda \noMi#oir
BBV in^mxii'u'i .LAtxi adJ Ifi ^<xiiOo at ba^noaarqaT sbw bna itu»
ianlB^B briB a^m XBlta^acB adJ lo totbI nX iXua aid^ al baiabaai
auJ rto Y^oi^a sb aiaa»d HifaiaXq a oO aaniuT :it
oaaisgbiit al:l ao bouEai as* noX^uoaxjT .baod
•jsw ai( doTBtm JnaaiXZI) la^lB ^Tfid^ ^oalla 9iii oi al XXBdaisfii ad^t
-'i-vi ; x^fi • iani odi hati oi eXdBfli/
-,.'rj vJeiaB ad* noqi/aiariT .xval 0^ doldw ao xn*cp"<50 bXaa to xtiB
^namjtbjut 9di nt ftdvXovai eJauosm oiii blaq ^fliaaad lli^alaXq ^xaaq
.saarraq>^9 hriB a^aoo ituoc ^ao«B vad4>:
-eatsA" ad^ noqu td^tond onr la^laaiadT
-3-
ment of Indemnity" agalnet "W. J. Turnee Co., a Corporation," to
recover these amounte. In answer to interrogatories filed it was
disclosed that there waa no eucb corporation in existence. There-
upon the declaration ^?as amended and the action changed to a suit
against Wm. J. Turnee at3 an offioer of a pretended corporation,
and therefore liable for its debts and liabilities made by him,
under section 18, chapter 33, above set forth.
From a consideration of the statute and the decisions
thereon, it is clear that plaintiff was required to prove, (1)
that the defendant had acted as an officer of the pretended cor-
poration; (3) that there was no suoh corporation; and (3) that
the debt or liability v^ar. contracted by the defendant acting as
suoh officer in the name of the corporation. Loverin v. McLaugh-
lin, 161 111. 417; Kent v. Clark & Co., 181 111. 337; Edwards v.
Armour Packing Co., 190 111. 467.
From the above statement of facts, in connection with
these decisions, it Kanifestly appears that all the elements neces-
sary to make out a case for the plaintiff were proven.
We cannot assent to the claim that the judgnient in the
United States Court must have been against the defendant person-
ally before it can be said that the statutory "debts and liabili-
ties" apply to hire. ThiP is not a euit upon the judgment. The
judgment is merely evidence that plaintiff was justified in paying
out the amounts it paid out by reason of its being surety upon the
bond, and therefore under the terms of the agreement of indemnity
it was entitled to be reimbursed.
We are nob impressed with the argument based upon the
agreement of indemnity dated June 36th, containing the words "by
reason of its having executed said bond," while the bond is dated
June 27th. This language clearly refers to a future time when
the surety may sustain loss by reason of having "executed said
bond, "
kn\: i^ bell? aoiio^fiiOTte ^ai 6i t^- .tiauomB •■til^ i6v6o*$
-^ :.._-... 9AS bnB b%btiBaM RAW ool ^jHfiXoel) »di ao^u
..•_.„ J. i ovocffi ^65 TetqjBrfo ^81 noHi-'TB ff^hnu
•noJisiosb 9ill 0:1* erfuJe^Q arf* To rtof i^-^f ' inrtoo b ir-.o-r"
(I) .ovcwq oJ T?siJtupeT ?-f - "^^ } JniuX^ . ... 1&9I0 si .. ^.:-;!iT9ff'i
-•TOO fo5brteJ^e'tq t»:ii ^o to _ . .jd b»*OB barf #(iBbnel»b sd. ....-
J'flflJ^ (S) brtB i^aotienoq^oo Aoub on. bbv et»rf# SbA^ (K) ;aol^«i6q
-=»/! ^'tl^ot ;rnebii»lQb erl^ ^fd be^OirtJfltoo obw ^ikLtdBit id idib lif
;, ")JoM .V ."!l'f'w-.i .noiii-roqioo ftil/ lo ««Bfl fid* al i»olllo ilOUr
.V r;M. ,r.XI 181 . . )0 I iiBrO .V ^rT«»5l i^U .III IBi , .. ,
.V8f .XXI OeX t.oO anliOBT ic/oarrA
d.flw aoltoBfiLio.:- zl ^a^ofil ^o Jix©ef«»;fB*B erocfB 9iii moTl
.09ft •insnifiXft erf* XIb *Bil* rx£t»qqB X-C^^^^^'tsffl *i ^Bnotiloeb assdi
.rtevoiq •tew ^^ltat»lq sdt to') 9bbo e iuo 9](Bffl o* YTii
-fioBieq it\, vg a»«d »TBd ^Bt/ai truoO ••*Bi8 beJlnU
-iXidBiX l;.ir> ittd^b^ X'^oiuiais ad* *Bd* blaa ed .tbo *i eiolea ^XXa
edT .^nanabut ^ri^ no^ ^ii'a a ^on al aldT .mid o.t X'tqqB''aal#
3niY*q «^ i)9nj.t9w(; sbv '^'''{trrJBXq *Bdi aorrebiva Y^aTsm si *namjbJrt
.J no^i; Y^'^T'-'^ ?n^3J - i.>BB«i x«f *wo blBq il oJauomB 9d* *tfO
K^in :j Jo affta* ad* labau eiolaiad* bns ^baod
.benadaiaT ad oJ beX*i*a8 rbv *i
ad* .' ,:'XTC Pff* rfi'iir baaaaiqmi *ori ata aW
^fcf" hLz :. bt*Bb x*^nfflabal 10 *nefl)e9iSB
ba*isb al bnod u .te ba*uoexa jnlrad 8*1 lo noaaai
c\of\vi 80(1* »ti;*L , -^XtBelo ajBUjaBX aidT .d;fVS srorT,
blB8 ba*uoex9" jutv/sd !■•> nooBdi \d aaoX nlB*ava ybjs x*aia
" . bnod
The claim that the judgment in the United states Court
against the W. J. Turnos Co. is res ;1udiGata . ard that the cor-
poration io liable., ar.J net Turnes individually, ie wet by the
decision in Loverin v. McLaughlin, suprs^ . Furthermore it is evi-
dent that the question was neither ralpe-l nor in iesue in the
United States Court. Ab indicated above., this is not a suit
on a judgment, unu a transcript of the judgment of the United
StateB Court was properly admitted for a collateral purpose only.
Phillips V. Webster, 85 111. 146; Turner v. Hauae, 199 111. 464.
The c'Jainj that Lcvell while working to brinf? about a
settlement of the differences between Turnes and Mcore and material
men was acting as the agent of the plaintiff, is not supported by
the evidence. Even if this evidence were relevant, it appears
that Lovell was acting partially for Turnes, by whom he was paid
for hie servitoee, and alco for Moore, who promised to pay him for
his services.
Concluding as .ve do, that the finding of the trial court
was right, and there being no reversible error in the proceedings,
the judgment will be affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
«T0inT3rfJi»^ 'JiaZS. t«jlIrfSi^sJoM ♦v iiJtisvoJ at aolsiodb
Hub fi Ton e! gi Iv' ^ito^A bttB^ Htso^ 9»ia,iB bo*l«rU
.*• . ■ :"" :" ^-►^ire' . ^b ^ata^ . ■• RqtiXXlrll
saAtqqB ii i/niiveC©T etew soaeiiTe «id4^ li nava .aoAsblvo fll#
rol mid Y«q o^ bsstmoi^ orlw ^©looB lol o«Ia bny ^•©ottvioa tlrf lol
jtuoo LbIi^ erfi ^o jfllbrfil Bdi fa.ii ^ob tw •« jnJtbtrXoaoO
^•Snibesooiq %Af al oTcfjtBievsi on snlad aiarfj b.tB iJiIbXt M"
.benrxilla ad XX iw tf-pmsbi/t •''♦
(
Octo'ber Term, 1911. Ho. Oaf vi j ^ ' 7\ -^ /
4S1 - 17980. ^ ^''-'^^ <^ >^ ^ . ^ <K<^.^_^ j^^
Appellant, ) APPEAL FROM
OUPElUOt; CIOUH
MARY L. TliOlAl
ji, et ai,, cij\ /v -*^'_ -^ COOK oouwr;.
2 I*A. 24
MR. PR|i:i*IDI!lCJ JUStICK MOSUKHLY
DELlVli3?lS) THE OPIIIIOK OF THS OOHHT.
1 3
Tblo Is a or«iltor*8 bill filed by' wlUJ
against 'lary L« Tl«cmn aM othero^ aooking to oot aside certain
ocnvoyanoo3 alleged to bo fraudulent in that they «ero ©adc with-
out ViX\^ valiiablo oon»ideration« The rmttor waa referred to a inae-
ter in chancery^ who he«uE*d evldenoe aixl reported hie fitidinso aM
oonolualon* His oonolusion was that the evldenoe did not mipport
the alleigatione in the bill* ihm oauae was heard by the ohanoellort
who ovemiled the otojeotiono er.d except iorsa tc the raaeter'o report,
if any were filed, and entered an order dlsKiieeing the bill for vaat
of equity, frora «^ioh order Kattertsan h&» appealed to thia court.
The appelleee have isovod this ooixrt to dlesnlee ttuss appeal
or affirss the Judgraent for the reason that the abstract doea not aet
forUi any object lone or exooptiona filed against th« master's re-
port, either before the aaster or in the oourt below. Upon eearoh-
irif^ the abatract are fall to fir»i any objeotiono or earooptiona to
the aaater'e report, although w© raay reasonably infer froa the final
order In tiie case thfit euch were filed* However, aa we are not In-
formed ae to what tJieae objectlona end except 1 one &'»re, wo are xm-
able to paee upon the oorrectneea of the order of the ohanoellor
overruling the eaiae*
It itt also urged that the evidence has not been preserved
by a certificate of the chanoellcr. '^"e do not understand thifi to
be neoeaaary In a chancery oaso where there ie a report of a aaetef
;
nJwi
XJLld e'loiii^no « ft
wttiv ybtiB. tnmm ^sftl 4«fU ai ^n« ;r ,Tfli ©rf oi ^•aaXX* ••onattrnM
bem ayiiixTtl nl/i XM^toq^n tea »wwiMt# i>'iMrt «(tK «ir»oa«^ nl iMi
#•• #9n cua^ 4o«%tad:« siii jaiU no«Mn •d^ ncn ^tum^Jk/i tU tnmm to
'^ni :ri-x •*«• •• mm «i»v«voH •MIXl rx#w iIocmi tadt —ao mU 01 «nAto
^mf Old Ml ^tnMv MM>lii{»axo tea aooi^oatifo aaailt iaite o# «a baariol
•wlXoartada «U to loft^n ocf^ ^ •••rtl&orrioe odi noqu aail^ oj •Ida
•««aa aiU ^-liXtmavo
£;<rr < aarf aQnaftira a<tt iadi X>«9<ui oaXa •! ^X
>fl 06 aw 4i1o acti to a#aoril^ae a ^
^To^an a r a^Mrti <»ona(fo a nl v iaa aoo aa a<f
In ohanoery. The iaa;iter»»r. report la a p&rt of the rocortJ, "No
bill of ©xooptlon© In a chancery oaua© Is either neodeaary or proper*
tml ©88 it b« to pr90«rvo oral «vld«9fioo Introduced upon tli© hearing,
under the statute allowing that to be done," Ferrla v, l-IcCliir©,
40 111. 90. See alBO ohnan v. ohma^, S3S 111. 622,
For the failure to inolude the objections agiA excoptioRo
tc the castor* a report In the abstract of record, the decree tsuat
be offirraed. However, *« sfiiay add that we have given oontsl deration
to the morita of the oa,u0e, arsd aore of the opinion that the order
dianloalrs/j the bill waa in aooordrmco ^ith equity.
fwillifl tea •»" ii«^ •^ "WS
.( '/trr^vt rr .fit iift# » 1» V W0!? .fjMniYt* Atf
.^j III mm XIM «xl^ 7^"!t«»lisal»
Octooer Term, ISll. Ho, ^ g . ^. l^.^, ^^X,^^ ,/^
462 - 18003 ' / . /
MARGERETE HENGEH, )
Appellee, )
4 Appeal from
Circuit Court,
. Cook County.
n
MR. PREGIDING JUHTICE MoSURELY
v^^^ DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE .COURT .^ T /I OK
This is an appeal frons an order of the chancellor in th«
Circuit Court, allowing temporary alimony of $150 per month and
$300 solicitor *e fees.
m
\ Cciii:ael for xhe husband, appellant here^ ars;ue that the
r| charge of adultery made by him ir hie answer against the wife, if
A proved, is a bar to any alimony. The most obvious anev7er ia that
^^ 80 far as this record is concerned the charge is not proved. The
time for the determination of this issue is upon the trial on the
' merits; we cannot undertake to settle thif? controversy now. Cooper
^ V. Cooper, 1S5 111. 1S3. The presteption is that the wife ie en-
S^ titled to alimony. Harding v. Harding, 144 111. 588. She, having
^ apparently brought her suit in good faith, is entitled to teffipcrary
\ alimony and solicitor 'a fees.
It ia difficult; if not impossible, from the conflicting
claiiiie herein to ascertain tl.e truth about the financial ability
of the husband. The wife alleges by affidavit that he ie rated at
about |800,000, carries .$100,000 of life insurance, and ovms a
large atuount of property coneiBting of real estate and stocks in
railroad and other properties; also that she herself io without
any inooKe for her support. The husband admits the ownership of
considerable property, but olaics that most of it produces no in-
'* com«. It seems improbable that one could have such large invest-
ments without being in receipt cf an ample income. We cannot say
,0l£ .IXSX ,ffiiaX -xtKioio
sooar - 68»
>di at ioXX6or(«xlo
"T .AM
briB xf;^iioa idq
V;flOAj2Xa ytantoqBMii s&iwo/iB ^fiuo. rfiuoilO
.•»«1 a'lolloiXos OOSf
fix *a»XX«5qfl ^cn. i^ lol XsB.iugO
:. «»1;lw ftdii i«nlAaj» 79wanr al>1 nl aid x^ 9b&si Xf»7X:ibn lo ssiado
iT ,h»¥OT:q ion »i •giaxlo f»(l* i)0fl700rtoo aiteooda et:ij jo ibI oe
ii iufJ •! noliqatrseiq tilT .£3X .XXI d8£ fiaqooC .
aiutvsu iniMaH ,v ^liliiBH .YnoAiXjs o^ ttXli^
TcxjqmJ 0^ tmliiimi ^t ^tlitu'\ boo^ at. Hub i»4 .* xUiSXMqqB
• aoel ft* toi lot torn true Y^omiXs
oot^ «aXtfiaaoq<Bi ioa \i ^ litre :: I
\'U inntl eill ^uotfB illtncl •At ula^aoa^ oi alaiaJ ajaiaXo
ie beji: iadi ilvali^la xd ^B^^lta »tiii ail? .oaadTaiitf
al 3M . e^B^aa laaf \^tfiaq<nq lo i:woaid\*?^iMl
'i-Xaa-iSu
. -e-xafiwo '>al ^o*
-ui M.i -•.ifi/.o. .. uiaaoo
-loavnl ostbX ilooo &/firI blxrot* ana $Bnl aXc i^» ^I ^Booo
'cu^i . jiini&u df .emoar.! »Iq«B aa lo ^qxaoai nl jalad luoitllv a#Aaa
-2-
that the amounts allowed are eo excessive, from what ie before U8,
afi to warrant the Interferenoe of the Appellate Court upon the
ground that the discretion reposed in the Circuit Court has been
abused.
The decree for aliraony pendente lite and solicitor 'a
fees will be affirmed,
AFFIRMED,
-g-
need tBri lai/--'^ ^' — -"' '•■ '- l)9«oq©T '^♦'•'soalt edJ iedf bru/oii
191-^
i-<Ul
267-18327. '^'likjJX « -.-. t \ " T w '^ "^'^
0. F. BROWDER,
Appellee,
) APPEAL PROM
i
VB. \
\ I 5 CIRCUIT COURT
THE H0RTHIVE3TERN GAS LIGHT \J )
AND COKE C0I5PANY, ^) r?J' /!> O^OOK COUWTY.
Appellant. ' ) ^^..-^.X (A. l^-a ,-/ ^^^ ^-^ / %,kr^
MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE McSURELY
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
r'
RELY
IE COURT.
182I.A. 26
0, F. Browder, hereinafter called plaintiff, recovered
a judgment against the Northwestern Gas Light and Coke Company,
hereinafter called the defendant. In a suit for darnages for per-
^ sonal injuries. The defendant has appealed to this court.
4 The accident occurred as follows: One Nelson, a servant
Of the defendant, went to the residence of plaintiff (the first
t\
' floor apartfflent) to stop a leak of gas at the meter, v;hi(di was
\ located in the basement. To reach the basement he raised a door
in the floor of the kitchen, and descended by a stairway. This
\\ door was about 16 or 17 inches from the outside door to the Vritoh-
^^ en. After repairing the leak Nelson went to the apartment on the
^ second floor to connect a gas stove, leaving this basement door
t^
in the kitchen open. Plaintiff, returning home at noon for his
dinner, entered through the kitchen door and stepped and fell into
the open basement door, receiving the injiaries complained of.
This brief statement is sufficient to justify the con-
clusion that the defendant, through its servant, was negligent as
charged.
It is argued that plaintiff was guilty of contributory
negligence in failing to observe the open door in the floor. We
cannot say, as a matter of law, that his conduct in this respect
amounted to negligence. It was peculiarly for the jury to pass
upon. The jury had before it the evidence that the day was bright
p IIP
■JIT
. . .^HT MO if< vLina
0;^ cii.i ii t> 1
-Teq 10^ rjeya-'.e.b lol Hum a mt « JfU3f>n»l»j:> •rii £>eII«o isi
. Jtuoo alrii o^ beXaeqqis eari ^nahnelei) erlT .aeini/trxx ijcno .
jriiiv'/f « «rroeXen orrO ravfoXXol sa beviuooo inebloon oriT
.ttni") «ri:f) lllirtlaXq 'it- oorcabuuvi eri^ o-J in«w t^rtaibnalaJb axlJ *lo
w fioXfi« (le^an ari^ :t3 e«j^ lo ^aeX « qo;te oi (ineainaqa looXl
fasXisi ad Jnonraamj otii doaei oT .inaaaead axli nX J!)al£OoX
. '^Bv/nlAia a ^d babrraoaai) hrta ,lta(lo^t3l arl^ lo lOoXl a/li Hi
' o^ toob efcte.t * faott aartynX ?X no 9X ^uoda a«w tool
an^aqa arii OJ jaew noeXaH ^aX arfi aniiXaqai la^lA
loob d^rmaaaad aXrfi 3i"^«**-C ^©vo^a 1M3 a ioan: lOoXl bncoaa
aid n&l aooK iM aeorf gnXirxuiai ,llli«XaX<i .ncvTo neno^TXjf an
' " " 1 £>eqqa;ra i«a iooJ!> itefloiXsI arf^ dsuoirfl teaaJrta ^iea::lh
. ^o o-!fTii.Iqnoo QeXiiftni ertJ aaXvleoan tioof) .tnarneaad rteqo wU
- 00 orii x'^Xiai/t o^ iaaloXllua eX jnacia^ta^a laXnd «itfT
: ' r^aii ««w ,irrariaa aii rlj^uoirii ,^rtajyra^»X> arfi ^«r(i rcoiauXo
©•' »ior." * '^ tooi) «aqo arii aviecdo o^ ^nXXXal ni bOTJ^aj :
■ro=7qa©T ooij&noo airi iatii ,«aX lo leiJaa a aa »xfia ionnijo
aRjf''; ' • .r.-^ ,. r^. » r,,. .., ♦-, .eorraaXXgan oi Jbe^rtuoma
'"^'"^ -tolad X>ari v^J^t ®rfT •«oqt/
-2-
and sunny; that tho Interior of the kitchen wao dark, on account
of window shades and the foliage of surrounding trees, v/hile the
other doors thereto were closed. It is within the experience of
all that one stepping from out of doors, where there is bright sun-
light, into a dark room is temporarily unable to discern objects
distinctly. When plaintiff left homo that morning the basement
door was closed, and he says it was never open when he came home.
A special interrogatory was submitted to the jury as
follows: "Was the fact that the trap door in question was opto
a fact which was open, obvious and apparent to a reasonably pru-
dent person, in the exercise of ordinary care?" To this the jury
answered, "No."
In view of all the above circumstances and others which
appear in evidence, we cannot say that the conclusion of the Jtiry
in this respedt was not justified.
The first instruction criticised does not convey the mean-
ing claimed for it by defendajit*s counsel. The words "negligence,
if any," as used therein simply mean that the court would not have
the jiiry infer that the court assumed the defendant guilty of neg-
ligence. Other instructions clearly show that the only negli-
gence for which there could be a recovery was that charged in the
declaration.
There is more force in the point made against tlie instruc-
tion that "The plaintiff had a right to presume that the defendant
would use ordinajTy care in the use of the trap door in question
♦ •» ♦ the plaintiff would have a right to presume that the defendant
would close down the trap door and leave it in the same condition
in which the defendant found it." It is not the law that one
can rely solely upon the presumption that others would do their
so
duty ;^s to relieve him from the obligation of exercising ordin-
ary care for his own safety. Sohlauder vs. Chicago & Southern
-3-
wl^ ,a6o*iJ jvxirfix/oiiuB lo 9^1 lol Mf# l»u mnbrnd* iiobmiw lo
• . aortelterpte 9K* «TlK;tlv. :olo aiew oienefli eioob imUo
-rujr. J^flgl ; - ,oioo6 "io Jxio norrt sniqqe.ta eito JaiJ^ XX£
aJoetc^o ineoQl^ oi oLdanu %ltnaioci!tt9 3 mi. aK>o<s tiAb b oJnl ,i4s^I
^Heraeejad erW ^^nltnoa ^«(i^ »«oxl ^a«I 'itiintalq nmtOI ,\Uoalimlb
.»aorf eoTAO erl aerfv aoqo le^ren a«w il w%Mm art Leu ,f)e6oIo a«w lool)
oAqo &x.>i/ nol^aeup rri toob qani 9cii iariJ iojal mtU aaW" lawoXIol
-xrxq ^Xcfanoafit 'aolvdo tndqo a«« ilolxte io«l »
Xtui tiS alxli oT "TviAO lEiiiOltno lo •aJboieza arlJ^ nt ^aoaia^ i«*i>
t^eievaiia
ffolrfw aiarlio btiA a9oa&i&muf>ito •voda adJ IXa lo walT «1
-; ; onoo itdi inrii \»b ionoMC aw ^aorreMvo nl i^aqqa
.I>eiliJe(/t ion eaw ifreqaem allfl ni
-njserr; -ni \evffOO ;ton aooX) iDealolii*xo uolJoun^anl ieiil adT
<ooi»9?jXXsafl" aJ:}<xow ariT .leartuoo e'^nabnaloi) x<^ >^i "^ol beats.
pvsri ion : Xuov. Muioo ?r{i i/ifW naam i(Xqnia aiaiadl i>aBU aa •,\
- en lo %iXlu^ ;trusJbnelai> arU JbamiraaA inuoo arli iadi lalal Y'^^l ^^
-iZ-.ii' Ifio erlJ iarfJ vorla xltjimlo BnoiiomiBal larlio •aoaasXX
9tii nt basnarlo iAif^ ajnr yiovooan ^ etf i^Xiroo eiaifi ffoXxlv lol aoaa^
.aoliaiaXoo'
arfi immtB^a 4bBm inioq arii ai aotol aioa al artaxf;
'■1 'J Jarfi aiBuaarqoi Jxtsirt a bed llXJnXaXq aflT" iadi aoli
uolJ-reup nt 'Toob qaii tii ':■ di ml a-xao x'lBatbio aou fcXuo..
tnatrrel: 'ariJ smueeiq oJ iii^tt a av«fl JbXi/ow lli*nii» < <t m
.38 aitJ <vaaX bna looX) qaii arii owoL oaoXo bXuow
iatiS «aX axi^r ion al il *.iX bnuol Inabrtelah arii xloldw ni
Xuow ananio iari4 uol^qmuaaiq erfJ rroqi; xXaXoa \i9-^t noo
uioiaxd lo noliasiXd )il mlrl aralXai oi a^ ^ixjJb
sxsoXriO .av iai>ii«XrfOcJ .x^^l^t rr lol eiao xiit
-3-
Traction Co., 253 111. 154. But this instruction hardly goes that
far, and in view of the many other instructions given to the ef-
fect that any want of ordinary care by the plaintiff for his own
safety would bar a recovery, w© do not believe the jury could have
been misled. Whatever might be our opinion on this instruction
in another case involving different circumstanoea and instructions,
we are not inclined In this case to hold that the giving of this
instruction was reversible error.
It is argued at considerable length that the trial court
made erroneous and improper remarks and rulings of sufficient im-
portance to compel a reversal. We have given careful consideration
to this claim, and cannot give assent thereto.
Considerable argument is predicated upon the assumption
that if it should appear that Mrs. Browder, the wife of the plain-
tiff, was jointly responsible with Nelson for leaving the door
open, the defendant would be relieved of any liability for its
negligence. V/e do not understand it to be the lav/ that the negli-
gence. If any, of l.'rs, Browder could be imputed to the plaintiff
so as to relieve the defendant, and furthermore there is no evi-
dence in the record tending to show that Mrs. Browder had anything
to do with leaving the door open.
No argument is made that the amount of the verdict is
excessive. It does not seem to be denied that plaintiff received
considerable injxiry, and even if the physician who examined him
for the purpose of testifying did base hiy opinion partly upon
subjective symptoms, wo do not see that the defendant was harmed
thereby.
It also appears from the record that a considerable part
of this witness' testimony was stricken out by the court. Includ-
ing his opinion that the plaintiff had epilepsy, which opinion,
it was claimed, was baodd upon subjective symptoms.
-8-
iadf 8^an xJ^^'J*** nolioirxiaal atdi fuH .J^ai .III 5d3 ,.oO notiom^-
nol^fuu-K^orr' -tol-r^^o tt/o 9^ M^lm f^ve^iirft; .l>el»i0 "teed
at(i3 Jc nLoA oi eaao sAcli nl ftecxJtlorri *on ••!« «w
.loiift el<flfi*x©r»i B«w nolioiniani
.t-^' J ifiri^t xi^^nel ©Icfaneblenoo && beu^na at il
iirs "50 e^tLm bn^ t .i'xjscie't laqoaqni brta .i 'owtoiie «l>affi
riol#«n«l>ierroo Ix/iertao iwrlg 3v«i{ eW ,lAa'X9V9«i « Itcpnoo o^ •otta&ioq
nc . J3 ».ii Hoqu feBdAofbotq nt 5nenin)n« 0lcf£taf)l8noO
-rttalq ©rti to ©Ihr erf-t ,i»ljv;ortG .silri iasii i£oqq» BXjjoile ^^ "il iaiiS
. loh ef(^ snlv«oI nol aoeXeU rf^lw eItflartoq8»«i Tfl^rL i^
#*f# ^a.^v* war ©ric^ atf o;J St biXMi^iabms ioa ot . rno^llaeft
9;ttfqiTtl ad hlifoo T*»f>ro«tf{ •••SM lo ,^aa 'il «aonas
'tor-^trf&nifi br . . . afa orfcT dvalXen oS mm om
.noqc tooi • rfitw 06 oi
nvt^oe' .i>vieaaoxa
off» ftaJtolavlq .losiaijianoo
^Iqo aJM •««</ "^o -HOqiiiq wW^ io1
."'•-fertarf^
^•x^q oIcf«^( ^BxU b'Tooan orf rqa oai.
-fioXoffl jiio tmlotma eavr 5i 'aap
trtolfriqc Ltq^ barf "ttXinlaXq arfj^ *Arfi ttotni'io Bid. ;^t
.ztaoSqaafB tyJtio^idtm rroqi; b^ctarl aaw ,i)emlaX& e«w it
-4-
Holding as we do, that the verdict of the jury was fully
Justified by the evidenoe before it, and finding no reversible
error upon the trial, the judgment will be affirmed,
APFIRJiED.
322 - - 18,36^2. TT M^^^ >?-. ^Xen^c^^^ o^ J^ %U.^
JOHN REGAN,
Appellant,
1/
appeal prom
{^nicip/j:. court
▼8*
THE ]2XGELoI0R PRINTINa
00., (a Corporation) ^ ^ . OF O^IOAQO,
Appellae. ) ^AiiA^t^ (f >>- .'f,.^ ,. - ,/ ^
MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE MoSUREL?
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
1^2I.A. 27
Appellee haa moved in this cause that the bill of
exceptions be stricken from the record, for the reason that
it was not tendered to the judge within the time provided by
statute.
This ia a first class case from the Municipal Court,
A bill of exceptions should be tendered to the judge in such
a case within sixty days after the entry of the final order or
judgment, or within such further time thereafter as the court,
upon application made therefor within such sixty days, nay allow.
The judgment herein was entered on October 9, 1911. The sixty
days allowed by the statute expired on December 8, 1911. An
inspection of the bill of exceptions shows that it waa signed
by the judge on December 11, 1911 and filed December 12, 1911.
The order to strike must therefore be allowed.
There being no errors in the common law record, the
judgment must be affirmed.
We might also add, that the abstract of record filed
by appellant is printed in type smaller than that provided for
in Rule 19 of Appellate Court Rules, and therefore could not
be considered by this court.
The judgment will be affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
.s^s,8x - • see
,'^ta;
\o ji .0 elcii tit boyo' -^oi.'sqqA
yd i:>e*!:ivc^q ^mi^ »ff:? tiM^iTf ^7^tiJl ftcl^ 0.I L«tc«ACBBi Jon 8«w ^i
•iru/co l£qJ:oi;sxA: etii mo*xt •&410 bo«Io ^tancll c
TO idAno iMntt miii lo -^i^rre »xi;t i9iTLs tix»L \AmtK ntciiJm •««• jb
.woIIj T*n «'^~-^ v.t"fs Aosju lUdStK toteied;} efxxMB xtoiiaoHqq* aoqj.;
^B QMv ^1 iAtU awoiCa anoi^qeoxe lo XXld otli lo aoi^oaqsni
. iMfiiweaa AalJtl &rt« Xiei ^xx 'Mtffiiaoaa cio agAut ail^ y<'
,iwvoIX« ad ano'tsiajl^ c^auc atCii^e o;f leJEno axlT
X .loavoo e/!^ nt ato'Vtn oa aniacf a^erlT
•JbavrxlllA acf *s«m ^fifstrrnSut
X}«Ii'^ bnoooi lo iCAOiacfa axil ;fAcI;f ^bim oel.^ J I^ia el7
'xo'i JbaJblvoiq ijuii njuit •vaXlAac aCT^ ^ l)ti,tn.t'xq at *rtAXXcqq» ^o
iQ:i IbXtroo aieleiaif^ fna ^aaXx/H t'lstoo a^aXXcqqA lo 01 eliifl al
•4^1000 BJtrf^t Yd" f>a-tai>i anoo ad
.foamiin^ft ad XX±ir inecsgbtft ariT
■. (A
i'arch Term, Isjo jj ^ Ti^'W^te-T^ S (2X ^.i:L C^ /-^
334 - 18374. ■ H,C^^y^.^^ ^,^^.
-f^-Avti a.-^vt ^
V
CLARENCE A. a, KUIPERo, )
Appellee, ) APPEAL PROM
▼8« ) SUPERIOR COURT
MATH. THOME, W'O/f^'i- ^ COOK COUNTY.
Appellant. ) J^^ -<aA ^0-^0. .1 ^ / / ..
MR. PREi3IDIKG JUSTICE McSURELy
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THi| GOUR^ T A O Q
Clarence A. r. Kuipers, appellee, while a minor, met
Math, Thome, appellant, and after negotiations entered into a
buaineso agreement with him, Thome was engaged in the manufac-
ture ana oale of toilet preparations and kindred articles. Ap-
pellee paid him ^1,000 for a half interest in the busineaa.
Afterwards, becorainf^ dissatisfied with the business, appellee
filed thlt3 bill, by Annie £. Kuipero, his next friend, praying
that the contract entered into between him and appellant be re-
scinded and be declared null and void, and that he be decreed a
returr. of the 4l»000 invested by hin.
The matter was referred to a master in otiancery who,
after hearing witnesses and arguments, reported finding that ap-
pellee wa3 entitled to the relief prayed for. Upon this finding
a decree of coxort was entered in accordance with the recommenda-
tions of the master, and that appellee was entitled to recover
from appellant the sum of ^1,000. From this decree appellant
has appealed to this coiirt.
The position of the appellee ie that, being an infant
and having advanced money upon a contract voidable because of
his infancy, he is entitled to repudiate it and recover nioneys
advanced by him. This position seems to be fully supported by
the decision in V/uller v. Chuae Grocery Jo,, £41 111. 398. A
reading of thia decision shows that it meets almost every point
V
ttOflU J
.lac . y-
8S' .
ueIol^*LB Jbettr
tirwXXeqqA ••<n
7Aq9iq JoXloi 'to al«c
•q ©olXr
i)»Xll
oo eriw
•oiXxi ^(^ &oje«r«i C "VJS91
,orl« ^1 al SAW 194^001 odT
. lol l)e\«*ni uoXXeq
•f^eiEiaoodn e/lf tiJi* aonnbiooots nt b^fino bah Jrojoo lo ••rroob «
orii 10 BUOli
inaXXeqqia oenoel; nlrii moT-i .OC . ^XX«qq« snoil
.J'ttioo alxl^ oJ l>eX«eqq« mmC
fnjiliil i'ii ^X«d ,!«; ;q« «rU te nol^lsoq c:
^voooi • >•! 0# MX^i^flf 'li
»oq aiilT .«Xr
loXXtfW nX noXalooJb •lU
^nXoq x'X' JmtMn 41 4tKiJ a*orim ttolmlo9b aXxU lo anXlMoi
-2-
made by appellant against the decree.
It Id assorted by counsel for appellant that the Isaue
raised by the pleadings was fraud and not infancy, but we do not
understand this to be the case. A perusal of the bill discloses
clearly that the basis of the bill was the infancy of the com-
plainant, and that Math. Thome, the defendant therein, knev; of
such infancy. The averments concerning fraud and misreprosonta-
tlon wore not necessary to entitle complainant to the relief
souglht*
We find nothing to support the claim that the appellee's
mother was the real party in interest. He may havo received the
money from his mother and afterwardti returned it to her, but the
evidence clearly shows tJiat it was hla own enterprise ,
As to the point that the minor has not shown restitution,
the master found to the contrary, and the evidence amply supports
this finding.
There is no force in the point that appellee la estopped
to rescind the partnership agreement becauoe he concealed his in-
fancy at the time of making the contract. The master finds, in
effect, that the appellant, Thome, had knowledge of appellee's
infancy at the time of making the contract, and in any event we
are referred to no authority that ignorance of one party to a
contract of the infancy of the other party at the time of making
it is a bar to the exercise of the infant's right to repudiate.
Believing as we do, that the decree is in accordance
with the lav* and the facta, it will be affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
i Jrwi... ''1 leanuoo ^
-mo ed^ to x^n*^^ *<^" i wf^ ierli xl*^*^'
'M^nBB9tqtit *^r? ianis buanl emrtara .oruilni xtoim
In £ lot ofi^ aoan Ion siev nolo
\*e(iLL9qqa wU ijuli bUaIi tall tW
e/i^ 3ud «ieri o;^ ^1 x>«nrxjji.re^ /tc £rr« 'x^iUom aid .'aotl x^^^-'
.da/TqnWrw iivo aid a«« ^2 i- 3 x-Ct^*^o eon«X}lr«
"foi^ixil^a^a r.>«orle ;ton sAd locila BdJ isii;^ inxoq %tU OJ \
t-Toqqim x-^^Ibi^ eoiteliiva ad»^ .'.zui «X'^'x^^
' r 'V eellaqcra Jarii irtloq adi nl aoi.
ftXaaoftoo ad aouaoed ->xi qidaocen^ieq edi IxUoaeT oJ
It ,tiail'jl loJa^im edl »Soai4iv^0 ^tiJ Afiiiam lo aoii t ';,ona1
• ♦a»II»Ktqij -^ ^^qq» tii isdi ,#oalle
irrava \nu :. , >o««i,Jiiov <Mi^ :o eali t»dJ .^i? x^w^**^
''to lo aocMOorisX ^adJ xJ 4.'igii,lua oa o^ heTxalei art.
;^filA*w» "io v^aniJ «fi3 iM x^****; ladJo odi to XARalni adi lo 3osfxinoo
• 9i x't B^SttMlai w' lo*x«zo ad^ oJ liad
aoooiv ivaiMt ai, al aaioal) ad.) JadJ ,a>. ^ ^Ki-^voiXaa
"ila ^ Illw 41 «aio*>' oiiJ dlJtw
March 5!erni, 1l'12, Ifo." ^ A ?
^^-^^''^^- 'V^^--f. '^
JOJIH MOCAKKEK, I
Appellee, ) APPHAL PROM
)
▼»• ) CIROUIT COURT
A. ISAAC RA0/J[»3KI, dt al* uj "^ / CK)OK COUKTY.
Cn appoal of WlUlrJi A. R<U>» ' ) >cLc^,f- C ^' , i\^ i
ZIN13KI, Admr, Eat. A. loaao ) S' \ j^ ' '^^^^'-'-J^ a^^wcr^ — .
Rodslnskly deooaaod. )J.<1). nj^uyi^Cd.^ ^ (j
Wkm PRKiSlDINO JUSTICE MCiiUHSLY
DKLIVBRJSD THg OPINICS OF TllK QOUET. ^ _
182I.A. 29
lliis Is an appoal from a Jud^aont for t^5»00f) in
^ a ault to reoovor dfumgoa for pergonal inJurleB reoolv«d
\
' by Hocarron (hereinafter oallod plaintiff), oau^ed by a part
^ of a derrick or hoisting orarte falliiif; ujhjr hlra, while he waa
engap;e<l ao a worker upon a buildirvs in prcoeae of ©reotlon be-
^ longing to A. laaao Hadzinski (heroiimftar called defendant).
Pending the diapcaitlon of thio oauae upon appeal a. ^^--^
^- Isaac Kadzinaki died, and hie death being augfioeted, an order
'a
C* waa entered eubatituting the name of Wilmer A. Hadzlnaki, ad-
^ miniatrator of his estate, aa the appal leunt herein, \
The declaration wasj filed Au^at 31, 1??10, and aunreona
served upon the defendant retiimjible to the October tona. Fail-
ing to file an appearance the defendant waa defaulted on Noven-
ber 1*:?, I^IO. jorietlne thereafter a caotion was made by the de-
fendant to Qot aside thla default. The abstract doea not dia-
oloae #hen thia ootlcn wao tsade, but oouniel for plaintiff states
that It was raade after thia torw of court Imd paaaed, and this
aeer.a to be oonfirrood by the record* Thia rrTotlor. wae denied and
by agreeiaont the oauae submitted to the court for the aaaooanent
of danagea, which wore aseeaeed at ^5,000 and Jtidgpient entered
upon tho findlnis, frora which Jurtsnert Uie deferdert, l-^adzlnaki,
haa taken thio appeal.
N.
.A
■ :>
vm*^ f,. '.»'.
u/'. Ii«-i«»
-I.
■jlJiiiiilto!
•tfta
■aiifrd*^
• X.-
i iwla^ «r'
Tho declaration ie baaml upon the statute entitled
•at. Aot providing for the protection ar,d aafoty of peraone in
and about tho confltniotion, repairing, altar&tlon or ro'rioval of
buiiaingo, bridgeai^ vladuota and other struoturea, artd to provide
for tho ©nforoetaent thereof," In foroe July 1, IVK)"?, Hurdle stat-
utes, 1912, page lli;4. It Is argued by th© defer.dart that thla
act waa not designed to apply to an owner of prop<jrty, except
when he le in char;;e of the building. The opinion in Claffy v.
Ghloaao Dock Co,, 249 ill, 210, la aald »o to hold. On Uw other
hand, oounael for plaintiff oitea the Olaffy mi&e a« authority for
the claim that both the owner and contractor are liable under tho
statute Irrespective of the question of the control of tho build-
ing, v^lthout dl»cn»©lng wimt was oald in the Claffy ^ case on thlo
point, it ie ftisffloient to say th&t we find in that oaso a clear
expression of opinion that if the owner never parted with th<!> con-
trol and etq>ervl8ion of tho building to <a*iy contractor, the owner
la liable. Turning, therefor*^, to the declaration to ascertain
what ailegaticm of fact appears touohinK this point, »© find no-
thing which, even by lnferf>noo, could be construed aa an allegatitin
that the owner had parted with the control ar.d nuptjrvislon of the
building. Me do find, however, an afflrssialve allegation wholly
inoonolBtont with ouch inference, to-witt the allegation that
the defendant "erected and const tJCtod for use in the erection
of the houao or building <» ^; » a certain derrlolt in auch a nax^nor,
Qo that the mmo waa not erected &nd constructed in a aal'e, suit-
able and proper Euwrner*, CJonaiderinf^ this allegation to be admit-
ted by the failure of the defendant to appear, tJiis brunch of the
case clearly ooaoc within the principle announced in the claffy
case, where tho court found that the owner was in coittrol of
the building*
It la very eamesitly urged th«tt the declaration eete up
conducionB only ai'td not facta and that, therefore, the default
mi mmo^n -^^
lo U99m n f
Tfj"!
. .... — : .1 aUS4nMl—b in
- »— J91H «U itit Bfli^^v<'^ *•* «*•
At*;fi iiYiiflu«&fR)*in* M&l mil
:; om.^ff* si •! Ml IIMtV
... jAntfiM teiA <f«nwo diti iis -Iml^ mU
'^e fK^ rrt 9!w te^ belou iie«>o bam b^xronc* ttmtml%§lb 19^
adnito nothing. There la no doubt that a default adrelts only
iftxat l» properly alXsisod. The declaration rolloafs almost v«r-
Vatla the lanj^uago of the statute In that it alleges eubstan-
tially a duty to construct the contrivance In question in a
•afe« eult&hle and prop'^r rmrmtfr and to be no or&oted » » « so
aa to give proper and adequate protection to the plaintiff who
vas ersployed thereon or paeoing under or by the aajse, and in
auch a nannt>r a« to prevent the falling!; of any raaterl&l to be
uaed or diapoeed Uiereon, arxi further that the defendant failed
to GOrsply with the provl alone of said statutti, but erected th@
hoist or crane in auch a laanner as not to give proper protection
to the plaintiff who vo.a then awl there employed or orsf^g^A
thereon or paaeing under or by tho sa^e, ana further that by
reason of this failure the derrick suddenly and without warning
fell away froiR the contrivance or device known as a horse to
whl-Jh it was then and there sttaohedj and that by reason ther-aof
the horse struck the plaintiff and Injured hlis. Vvhile it la
true that the declaration tsight have ©ade B»ro clear the details
of the coriBtructlwi of the derrick, wit* apecial reference to
the Banner of attaching the derrick to th® horee« and that In
this respect the declaration could easily havo been rsade more
partlculcir by an amendKiontt it doea not necessarily follow thi'.t»
ae it etendsy it does not state a good oauae of action*
xiio language of the Jupreme Court in Bncik v. Citiaens *
goal Mining Oo,t 254 111, 19B-'801, la applicable heret
"The declaration is not a riiodel pleading, b\:t th©
nost that can be said of it is, that It is a defective
stateEJsant of a good oaueer of action, 'Iving its ls.nguaf?e
Its ordinary neanlng ar»a sii^nlficanco, there is no reaaon-
abl*' l>a»ia fcr saying It did not atat« any cause of action,
or tliat plaintiff in error was not advised by its allega-
tions of the nature ar.d grounis of the detr^ard ej^alnat it,
A party aho voluntarily oubwlta to a default Ir.plledly ad-
mits that the dermrd against hlTr, Is Just and that he hac
BO defense. ( Lucas v. .vpenoer , 27 111* 15» ) "hat the
•amimdim mmr^^ttm #1 imiU mi €tv4»^m •dt to «yt$x»,nmi h
ret tec* t^mm bAS x^ ^e 'wImii yilMM^ *s* n >t t » d» Jbttx^'^T**^ "«v
v
t>«Xt«t ^luUyfm'Mt oUt /«U T«Htnw^ firm «fl»*n*i i heeo., —
•fit te#o«ir» iffd ^uiii.irjn ' ^ > te Mwtohfgrm <ifl i!#l« v' '^^ «^i
»-«w -iffc^ fw<»^ «>irad tlii»A« bXwM noli«x«Xd** Md i»*C!
'^■■■• « ^oa •Ml) 11 ««itMiteMil» IM ttf «»
-4-
deolaration would hav© boon obnojtloua to donurror If
one litul b«on intoryoc&d would not nooaoaarlly Jmtlfy
reversal of a judgrjont ronderod by doftiult, (Alton
Xlluminutlrg Oo. v. youlde, 1^,0 ill. 5 .7. ) A aifiult Judg-
Hont will bo rovoraodinoro the doolars-tlon states no cause
cf action, but a dofectlve 3tat»r?«tnt of a good osugo of
action Is oured by vardlot. Plaintiff In orror havinr eub-
niittod Ic a JiKigia&nt by default, lu not in a position to
aak the boneflt or technical rofinopjent In oonatruins the
la»iguttg« of Van dtjciuratlcn for the purpci:>© of enabling
It to eooape the legal oonaequoroes of lt« Oivn neglect."
We are alao of the opinion tliat th© cmiaeion cf any
allejjation in the decl*:iratlon of due care on the part of the
plaintiff le unimportant. OartervllXg Gottl Co. ^ v. AWK>ttt 181
111. 495, In the caae of 8ro^ v# v:;ie;^qrl Joop ar ^ Jo », 191 111.
3S£6, the O&rtervilla Ooal ao» _ o aae wa© dlatingulohcd in that
the statute involved in the <Jartervllle oaoe Itaelf creates a
liability for any Injiary to poroona ooo«.aloned by any willful
violation of it, or wilful failure to ooisply with ita provieions«
the court saying, page Z^&i
•For any willful injury, the lack of ordinary care
or cortributury nQgiigenoe on tho part or tlie onfe injured
li^ no defonao."
Koferring th9« to th«i statute before ue, «© find a
similar provision oroAtln^ a liability oooasioned by any willful
violation of thla act. The declaration alXegee that tha def<md-
ant »lllfully violated thla statute, and thereforo, '^& conclude
tliat the declaion in the aarterville Goal Oo« caae ia oontrollirg
iiii.wtw ■Mian— > mt m ■■!— mmmo— >w»» t «^« 'm,m' ^^
upon tliia point.
we cannot agree with the claln^ that the evidence b1k>ws
that a settlorjont waa laado by the plaintiff with othor dof and-
ante. The plaintiff teotlfied that he raade no aettlorjent. As
wa eaid aubatar.tlally in C. A A. Ry. Co. v. Avorill, 2m 111.
6ia, when there aro two or raor© tort feaaora, a oovanant not to
sue one does not release the other tort feasors. In v/gllner v.
Gonaolidat ed I'raotion Co.p 245 111. 14f5, the money received by
the plaintiff was in aettlemont for the injurieoj tJmt is not
•J>1^'
• ■ <
/U ttf •Ami m < A iact;
t* one ,«xa
Mli
the aituatlon hero.
Othor points prettftnted by defentent hav« been duly
ocna d&F&d, but nc are not naoved thereby to oonolude that the
Judgrritmt ahould be roveraed.
Finding no grourd for reversing the judgment herein
it will be affirtned.
AFFIHilHD.
•ill StilU Bt
.ooMd notiMixitu tU
■^ Ji
March Ter.., 19l2, ^6. "^^ >^. g. 5?^^^.^^ ^.^^^ ^_ ^ ^^
307 - 18410.
MAGGIE ROBINSON,
Appellee, ) APPEAL PROM
vs. ) CIRCUIT COURT
CHICAGO OITY RAILWAY ) -^ OOOK COUNTY.
COMPANY. ! ^^^-'-^'^^ ai<,,vi^^,^y/ ,^
Appellant. i>^^ _ y^ ,^^ ,r^ y/^:,-
i'ffi. PRESIDING JUSTICE MoSURELY
Dia.IVE'RED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
J., O ^ JL » i~l « fji ^J
This la an appeal from a Judginent of |;i,500 recovered
by appellee, hereinafter called plaintiff, on aocoimt of per-
sonal injuries received by her while a passenger on one of ap-
pellant's (defendant's) oars, from which she fell while alight-
ing therefrom at 49th and State streets, in Chicago,
The declaration charges that defendant stopped its
northbound car at the Intersection of State and 49th streets,
ajid while she, in the exercise of due care, was attempting to
alight therefrom, the defendant caused said car to be suddenly
started, thereby throwing off plaintiff and injuring her.
Defendant contends there is no evidence legally tend-
ing to 3ho.. the negligence alleged. Wo cannot so conclude.
Plaintiff, although guilty of many minor inaccuracies, testified
In substance that as the oar war. standing urd she was in the act
of alighting, the conductor rang the bell, the car started up,
and she fell, receiving the injuries complained of.
It ia fxjrther contended that the verdict is manifestly
against the welrht of the evidence, V/e have '.weighed the evidence
touching the occurrence, and have reached the conclusion that
the jury was justified in finding that the greater weigJit of
the evidence was vyith the plaintiff.
rns
3
jHuoooji ffo ,HiinlaX<I iJ©Xl«o 'xe^'X«n.f •a^d ,eeXI*qq« \
70 ©no no •To:v»o«8aq ;?. eXlrlw lorf ycf i>evl*ooi B«liyt,
-;)l3lx* eXXdw XX»1 sde rloXrfw nont*! ,«aPo (•MfiBbrielob) 8*ifi«XXe<
•OBAoXifi) ni «ei<»»^ie 9iiBi£ baa (f^9^ ^« notle
a.ti^ Leqqoia irnfi&<-ra^l} ^«iU •e3rtiuic> noi;tAtiuXo«6 •rfl
.."lieert^v fi^Gi» Jbrui oi^^B lo fcr. ,tiTX <»dj ^a ttto tmuodti&nom
oi ^ISqmeiiM •«« fttOAO •Uti te •Btoi»x« n^-ll nl ,9cto •XXffv bfu
X^ 'X' oi 140 Mae b«at/AO ^amSnotwb •tiS ^mnliBi^di iri^XXii
^tx.' r^eX 9on6f>27« on oX eiexfi aitno
• •hiflortoo oo ^ronruBO uW .beseXta •one- rLi^ ..ofia Qi snX
.•j«X1iJa0j ,t««io«naro«ni ^a'tXB x<uhb lo x^J^-^ ^iX« «)lXiitX«X'.
«« wfB I>rui yiitlMAis .AW 'x«o odi «M ;»adc) eofiA^atfus nX
,4ii i.t»^iJ4iE i.'iO »rti «XX«<f •fli a**" TDOiot/bnoo Mil «snXlr(sXXB lo
."^o t-^fttuXqwoo ReintxtftJ: wti snXvl90«n ,XXel ode Xkub
\rXlfi«lXciaai cX ' oxfi ;t«r(i /i^hneinoo neil)'^
eortefcXr© -vli h? arl eW ••OM»i>XT» rlj tunla^A
^«rf^ fTo" <*ril X)«(loa«v •▼#rf fcrw ,eortei iuooo ©rii 8flXrtouo4
•t ooneMve Mil
•8-
Coaiplalnt la made of the refusal of the trial court to
give Instruotlon No, 2 tendered by the defendant, and of the
court's modification of defendant's instruction No. 21. The
two instruct ions are similar in principle, and It, is obvious
that the trial court siiirply combined them by inserting ^Instruc-
tion No. 21 an element contained in defendant's Instruction No. 2;
therefore, giving; instruction No. 21 as modified was practically
the sace as giving both Nos. 2 and 21 tendered by defendant. De-
fendant will not bo beard to assort as error the giving of an
instruction it had requested.
Finding as ao do, tlmt the verdict vma proper, and there
up
being no error coramitted ,on the trial, the judgment will be
affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
j'l*t mU 1« •bam b1 iatMLqi\o'j
ftM^i s .OK aotiomimnt mrt^
i^b 10 MOtiaotllbotn e*tttj'^^
D«fllAJnCH> ilMNMX« lU 18 •Ol flOi.
.on IIi« fmmtmml
o^ iniioo
U
eri>^
•<1'
au'^
— . /,.''ji .'
3«oM fT
xix
tn^
.alt4 e. . TOTi* Oct j^«d
.HS^rcih ferffl, 1912, ITo.
S80 - 18485.
C;^;-'^^^.^)
FRIffiEEICK BAU3JSAN, Truat©* In ) C^
fIftOUIT UOUPT
IKO U0}..u»A]7Y, J Ai^PKhh/mOU
) / cx>OK ooimry.
Bankruptcy of the ALASKA iM^hT* )
AppoXlee^
JOHN A* lOEAOt <>t> al«t on Appeal
of OARL B# KIKS}^1I, J
AppGllollt* )
a82I.A. 35
dTAtaSBl? OF KAOXS* Thie Ifl ftn appoal from a Judgisent
against iiarX B» lilnanan in an aotlon of debt on a penal bond
given by John A* Head as principal, and Carl 9. HinoBsan aa surety,
to Frederick Bausnan ae truotee in bankrtiptoy of the Alaelca
Sraelting Gosspany, in oormeotion with the sale of a oEsolter be-
longing to the aaid bankrupt, naide in purauano© of an order of
the Unit ad atatea District oourt for the western District of
Waohir4»ton, in the raattor of oaid Alaska Snelting Gospany, bank-
rupt, No* 5&47,
The smelter, whloh was the only property of tiie bcmkrupt,
•*aa inouraborod by a laortgage given to eeoure a bond isau© of
|300,000, At or about the tin© the oiaelter GOBspany was adjudged
bankrupt, which waa in October, 1907^ Baua-mn, the trustee in
bankruptcy, and a lir* Gould, tlie attorney for «©ad, who wae the
o^mer of a largo part of said borid issue, and a ilTm Blanc, repre-
eentin^ a creditor who had advanced about f 50, 000 to the banl<rupt,
ctot in Hew York Oity, and the ^tuXermnt waa then isada that the
trust deed given to eeoure aaid bonds wan invalid and tliat the
bonda were invalid, and thnt this creditor represented by ixr*
Slano viould ineiot upon proceedings being IrsatStuted to have oald
trust deed jwnl bondB adjudgod void* A ahort tirae tliereafter nould
net Bauomem in Seattle, Washington, and the trustee ntated thti.t he
oould not continue oarryinfs the asMilter, and that he ygovHd insist
\
cTI ,SI«I ,Rna? lio'idi
•Q&MI * Oit
•ST
"^''' •- ■ "!J{ ^li?^
«l««XA C'i^ 'to ^co^gnrcanad til ••IstrvJ mm MMMMMft ^cZitilMrKl »#
::%r.9 m to else tdi fUtv noliocoROO «tX t V—q i iO (lU^XsaB
into fM to ♦oatintu «1 •&HB ^ttprrUmH fil«a eili oJ awtaaol
•^tiwd ( tag aMaU btjf !• -vol^aM •!» ju ^tf
?l fcrt^4Sm 9tU ilMcio taw »vnlii||il|»rf
.'-a ,Mie«l iMOtf I>i4i« to 4%it% oirMl « 'xo 100100
% ivodm ftQo wo f to o bod offo la^l&ow «• tsJUTn^
Ul ^AUiJ *»iMtfl 4Bt^ tiOO llMMOtotO 0<U AflO ffil^ iOOT «Ott 111 4N0I
too 1^ «« olwod Moo ontfiooo oS no^Jta I>**^ ^otni
•9itmm%*tti^'i ^i^^fl^•^o rll Ano «^Xofi(i onrov atood
U b^iiJ*. ^biairu U.W ^c« ,no^x7i;tOAV «oXitoo ^^
-a-
upon b0lng slvon authority to aoll lt| that If ?!«ad cho»o to bid
upon tho property, he would consent to an order that hio bonda
he allowed at S3-l/s^ of thalr fao© value as part of the purohaae
price, upon tho aaaustption that eaid bonda were valid, provided
Mead would qIyg an Indermlty bond in the mm of ^20,000, which it
vas thou/^ht would be auffieient to meet tho olaia of #50,000 held
by Mr. Blm)c*!3 ollentj so that if the proceeding to oot aside the
truat deed sltould bo inotltuted and prevail, such oredltcr would
be eqtiol or ouperlor in ra«k to ^tead, wid eaid indownlty bond
should be held for the ocsmon benefit of every legal creditor of
the bankrupt •
Up€fn that atateraent «md upon the entry of an order pro
vlding for Uie ealti of the aoeltor, C?ouid atated th«t he would
advise the giving of the bond oonditioned to laoot the olalra of
any laarful creditor, If that creditor td^Kmld prove hla equality
or priority to ilead^a olalra. Accordlrgly an order of aalo of oald
property wsaa entered on March 21, 1908, direotlnf; the aale of the
property, providing that tho bidder ^vhoee bid altould be acoepted
should pay all of the resalnder of his bid above ;|a,000 elthor
in oaah or in mortgage bonde at SS-l/sj^ ct their face value, and
that if the auocesaful bidder should tender such saortgage bonds
is paynent of the balc^noe of the bid, in lieu of cash, and his
bid should be accepted, ho should furnish security for the paysaent
of credltora in tl-ie mm of ;|E0,O0O,
On April 7, 1908, the bid of Mead for said property of
f87,000, payable ;^,000 in oaah and the balance by the WLirronder
of Kort/^age bonds of the face value of |245,000, was accepted, eaid
bonds bein^ received aa part of said piiTChaae price on th© basis
of '55$-l/S)^ of their face value, or $81,000, The penal borwl in the
o\m of $20,000, as agreed upon, was executed and approved by the
ooirrt, and a conveyance waj> thereupon inade T^ the trustee to ?!;ead
of the said property, free and olear of said $300,000 nortgos*
bonds.
♦^-Hfc*
cLr.
mm Mfw -fAOal at tivls •
flaibttm
t#« lO •£«i !• ti>
ft«
'OUQ «l«
rfiiA
tto^tttnm Xi/^*X ^rui
.t ^^h»olt«r to
turn %i^«»fftnq
*:v(^ Hfr"
-vwr
'Mil
flOrf •:;
' iir%«**oo;~>
■xiS
itf
td
le mm Mf
lo
:^-j..'
to
rod
to mm
(iTVJOO
tfJitqoTq Mas wfl !•
Th« bond In tiueatlon runa to Fraderlolt Bau«9an« no trus<-
•tee In borkruptoy of tho Alatika asieltor corapany, anfl after recit-
ing the orddr authorizing th« salo of the oneltert as aforeoMd^
and the bid of uoad ai^ the aooeptance thereof* ooncludee with
the oortditlon that -
"If the above bounden ilead ahall pay, or oause to be
puld» to any peroona, firms or oorporatlone that are no*? or
I'lereafter ahall beooige legal creditors of the lianVrupt» Al&aka
ijmelting aoaipany, whatever p rr> ra ta suic ray be acljudf:ed to be
due to then out of the prooeeds of tha oale of tho bankrupt's
omeltarji to the sar.e exttmt and v^lth tho oar^e punctxiallty that
tho same would have been paid as a dividend to them or other*
wise by th^ order or the cowrt, out of tho fujKl Ir. court, had
the purchase prioe been paid in oaah^ Ineteadl of In nortFiiai^
bonds {provldedi, }io»evor, that all perr.oRi? who nay harsafter
aitek to avail thenselvea, or oauae the 'l*ruatea to avfill him-
self on their bohalf, of awy liability in their favor or tbs-t
of the 'rruotee by reason of thle obligation, i^all oauoe to
be iffiitltuted in oauio naiJbor .'?'17 the queotlor of any equality
or priority upot-j their part over or cslth the iBortgage bonds
aforesaid as creditors of tlv:i banlcrupt, on or bofor© the 21et
day of January, 19W)» this obllgatior ahall be null and voidj
otherwise to r«rmir. Ir full forae artd effect."
TJ^e breach of said obligation assigned In the deolaratlon
la that one HaTsllton Bordeart was a person 'srtio was a legal creditor
of the oald bankrupt, and that he oaueed to b© Inetituted In oause
Xo» S547 tho tjuestlon of equality and priority on hie part« over
or with the isortgage bonde In said writing?: raontloned, as a {Mredltor
of aald banlsmpt, and that thereafter, on January S, 1910, It was
detex*Trdned and adjudged thfit he was the Oimcr end holder of seven
ooupon bonds of the eaiae series as that taentloned in aald writing
and secured by the eairw mortgage j that cm Jantiary 20, lior*, 'cordon
filed his petition, together with his proof of debt on said bonda,
eeeklng to avail hltaoelf, ar,d aee>ring to oause the trustee to avail
hlaseelf on behalf of said !:!orden, of the liability In favor of told
Borden by reason of eald writing obligatory, and Inetituted In aald
oause tiie question of equality on the paart of said 3<»'den with the
$£43t000 Mortgage bonds eurrendered by said Mead to the trustee
Aforesaid, and that a copy of aaid order duly certified by the
-.turn ■ -a Oif b ofi ai mmim tmti. -..j ..* ^.^v. ....
-•r to««t«<i •onaiYiMM •<!» £n0 NmM lo bhS arfi ta»
• ifaHi not ' f 'vn<w) n rt
-TM^AnM Mil ^ ijio tamt^ - , L
•».>i^
f ^•■..rr ^rif>v,- «- • )• A f*
n 9t%s at i 'tal.^M^,
no»tmq M turn ain ■■*
Hi I ttf •# bm»m» Ml i«itt tea «iqM^in«9 i
M»\ Ji\ arm jtl iaOJ itft^toUwi :
'^ '?b MUM •<!} lo aftnod flOfooo
(••In:
in
•n'O -■ O:^/*'
-4-
olerl: of »i(iid court w&a aont by !;^».1X by 9&ld olerk to aald truotee
and to th« attorney for Joim A, K^ad, t*rwl to :i«ad p«raonHliy, and
to said Carl ?• Hinmaarif and that it van by aaiii oourt on January
S, 1910, dotomlnud that l^Jorden was a or«dltox of aaid bankrupt
In the euo ovldonoed by eoven acupon boiTda of §1,000 each, dated
October If 1003, with int&roat at six per 04mt« per anmim, and
vaa, as suoh creditor, of the sanie rank u-a aald Head, and that eaid
i^ordem waa entitled to receive hl^j pro rata .t ^harfe of the purc^&im
price of said property to the aar^e isxtent send with the sane punct-
uality as W aald piirohaae price of t^67,000 had been paid in cash,
and that waid Borden haa not received hla pro rata ah&r« of ©aid
purehaae priae of eaid property, or any portion thereof, or any
other mm or auns, a« divid<md3, or other^l&e, in said cvuee*
•The aarae aver-i^enta are made with reapect to .villia«j J.
Selleck, wll^i a like firdlng that he waa Ui9 owner ar^ holder of
ten coupon bondti of |1,000 each, ^rsi that tie also vaa entitled to
receive hia pro ratcj> share of the purohtise price of aald property,
and that he had not rec«jivdd such ahare.
Ihe action is in tlia nase of vl^auacian, aa true toe, for
the sole benefit of Borden and uelleclc, none ot the other bond-
holdera and no unsectxred creditors appearing to claim any rif^ta
\mder eaid bond.
The defendant Hinenan only was aerved, who filed pleae
to the daclart:.tion, setting up, firat, that prior to the ooraraaaoe-
Eient of thia euit the estate of aaid bonk^rupt wa» aettled nxid
plaintiff di8char£;ed aa auoh trustee* Thia plea wae dmiied by
plaintiff by replioution, and iaaue was Joined thereon* A aeoond
plea averred that aald Borden and aellecik were not at the tin»
aaid bond waa executed, and did not thereafter at any tisie prior
to the oonnjonoexnent of thia euit becora© legal creditora of aaid
bankrupt, and Isaue v&a Joined on thiu plea.
teiAKi ,r(a«» 0©C,i. VTir^o ryav»& Ttf J ^ «Xn i flhwi «»»
ro T
tt^f^v^^^i
■jvi ton mmd rtc^fno' jsiO tmm
>-«7 fWfi '.
. ntnhXail
Th® ovidenoe introduoad by the plaintiff oonttioted of an
oxompllflofj oopy of th« laond au«d on, and «X0rplifi©a oopl©« of
two orders of the ihnltod :^>tatee Dlstrlot Court of Wxoliinp^ton In re
Alaska Smelting Ooiaiyany, ban';.rajpt, ©ntorod upcn the petitions of
©aid Borden and seXl«ok» reapeotlvely* piATporting to tin! that
said Isordon and selleolc were holdor» arwl owners, one of seven and
the other of ten bondo of ^l,000 each of said bankrupt, part of
the aforeeald total Ismie of |300,000« Said ordero, after reoltlng
the sale to Mead and the trtmst^r to hii» of the prop«rty of the
bankrupt, furthar found that aald i^orden ard tielleck have been
creditors of the bankrupt and ar© entitled to receive their pro
rata ahar© of the purohaoe prloe of said property to the aaise ex-
tent and sirith the sane punctuality aa if eald purohaae prloe of
<^87,000 hod been paid wholly in cash, inetead of ^81,000 thereof
having been paid in nort^^ge bonde.
Seithar Mead nor Hinaraan appeared or toofe any part in
the pi*ooeodlng in which Uies© orders were entered*
•fhe introduction of said exemplified copies of these
orders waa objected to by the defendant iiinsnsan, on the ground
that they '.*ere not binding upon hl» as he wao not a party to the
proceeding in which tliey were entered, and aiac for the reason that
the court had no Jurisdiotlon over th© subjeot-mattor at the time
said orders were entered, which was laore th^u a year after the ad-
judication In bankrtiptoy, and that ©aid orders were not legal
px»oof that said Borden and ^ielieok were creditors of «aid banl-rrupt.
At the conclusion of the evidence the defendant nubnitted
to the court certain propooitlons of law, which sere refused, and
thereupon tljo court entered a finding for the plaintiff against
the defendant for debt In the sura of |aO,000, dacjagea in the mm
of $6,626.85, oald debt to be dieoharfied upon the paynent of dam-
ages*
•^,, ^ysvTi bfto'i ^$ lo tfOO 5«-'" Iq«ox«
•^^«n«ntf ckU draft lMW»)i o# •XM.Cidi
le *r .>«Mq «i««* mU ciJiw tew $mi
to ^9 fc# c jNMTl «*i«]4^ ,tl X «9 o*^ Jb«d 000«T6|
• to-i'<r.'i» ^i^ft «*s*I>'10 ♦a«di X 9rL2/i«»oo^ e.il
H! oaodJ 10 «»iqoo tel^lXanMt* AIm to aolimtb(rtial ori
bktuo^\ oftjr no ^!tm * X^ •# teia«t<Io uav n«Mo
■' ^oijsq « JMf OJTO •!( ( oqv ^pUlonM Soa o<to<« tt<it 4mkI#
i«fU . jr«o#n(; vioM \:»iij dol^tv nl ahII^qoh'Iu
•cii ,;ij»ct»ioot<lua ofti two aoIJol5oi*xtft oa t«d ^m;.
•10U MM doiito «^on»j!«(i o^otr oioftto bJism
Lo& AriA nojifvos M«« 4«i<* toomq
In*
i^«0}!i«
/ -^
V (Ct^t<^ i}^V-\>4.. a.-v^i>k„ wA.<!MXe-^ <^A^(3C<5..xr>;:^ -^^-vv Ou^JuX^
iOR. PltESIDIJJO JUSTICE MeHtXRKLT
DELIVKR^ THE OPIKIOK OF THE OOURT,
Conceding* for the purpooea of thl?» opinion onlyi^ that
th© plaintiff is «ntltlo I to recover on the bond in iiio»tlor, in
the form in which thio suit »aa brought* it la raanifest that no
auoh judenent as was ronciored horoln could properly be entered.
The bond wae for the puysont to legal creditor a of "whatever | )ro
rata B\m nay be adjudged to be due to them," Olearly the rat©
of the dividend to be distributed arsong creditors woAld depend
at lea»t upon the anount of proved olaliao and the aoount of aasete
to be diatributed, anri the rat© of dlatribution should be fixed by
a propor adjudication in the ban'ruptoy court* so far aa appears
from the record before uo, no rate of distribution wia ao adjudi*
oated. rhereforen there was no baaia for th© judjps mt entered
herein* i'or thla reaaon th© Judgraont miat be reveroed and tlie
oauae recanded.
A 'special plea and replication put in leaue the capacity
of Dauarian, ae truistae, to bring thia aotior.f tho defendant aver-
ring that Bauanjan had been discharged as trut^toe prior to the cora-
nenoement of thia auit* Plaintiff In hia replication denies thia*
Upon the trial when the defendant undertook to prove hie aver-'.ent
of tho diaohurge of /lauacian, he found biraaelf without proper evi-
denoe of the aane* The record ahows a considerable colloqtiy be-
tween court tw?d coima©! touching the production in ootirt of a cer-
tified copy of the allej^ed dioohargo. In the brief and arguwant
before ua counsel for the defendant oiairaa that it wae admitted
by the plaintiff, for th© purpoaoo of the trial, that plaintiff
waa dlacharged aa truatee before the* oofflR«r>oerj«nt of this suit,
ar«l upon this premuoption strongly argue that therefore he haa
no right to xaaintain thio action a^^ such truatee* counsel for
plaintiff in their arsunwmt, while joining issue ae to the law
on thio pcint, do not concede that the diaoharf.e, aa olalrnad, is
xoxi^ub MSiZBam. •>
. - .. » *«»
<-« ^4t«*Af<
-iTo anqoi^ . ._ -.. , ^f^
••d "ll/poXXoO •X<lirt»fc-f»i')t^.!. .. aw.ir^^ frt.. ^. _,. ^ ^^
'to» « In ituoo fll Oft.' -uoi X*«mi»o fint #«iifoo it»t«i
#fr--aj^-iii bna ^»tvi ^ _ _ » ._ '.>«lb t>«7)«XXA Mil !• tqoo b^nii
c.AV ^f iaitt Qail<.rcj JntrdlAb wit 1M^ X««m/oo su «tot«(
•T* a« i' : tb mm
lo .^i:ani«^ utit i«oqu tea
" '* t;»0 9 atrft iT^aln'^': f^i stft'qJtf on
. ■ ■ Iq
ttd'iittod, but rather queatlon th« faot of tho diaohoTf^e, artd olala
tliaX In any ov»nt the dat* of Uie diBohorfje wao never produced,
we do not find In the abotract of reoord any adraleolon by plain-
tiff, *i8 olair!<ed by defendant** counsel . The ataterjont by the
court that he would require the plaintiff to adialt certain thln^B
"for the piirpcses of the trial," cannot be hold to be an adml salon
by the plaintiff upon thla point. Furthermore, an examiniitlon of
the Btateraent taado by tho court falls to ahoi* t^iat it contains
anything as to th«j tloe or date of the alleged discharge of Sauo-
mmn, ao that there appear© nothing evidentially or by adwisoion
proving the olaits that Bauanan «aa diaolmrged a^ trustee prior
to the oo«B3anoor?or,t of the isuit« T<e auot therefore decline to
paea upon the mere aeadomio queation preaented*
In the evint of s^otht^r trial, tlie queatlone isay a^ln
ariee touching!; the adniaeibility and off&ot of parol teatltaony
concerning tlio oircu33«tanc©8 of the giving of the boM» ?*hat
should be tlie ruling of the coiurt thereon will depend entirely
upon the particulfir setter before it &,t that ti^e, eo that no
good purpose would be served in corajnentlni;; upon the parol testi-
mony now before us.
1 or the reason firot above indicated tho Judgaient «ill
be reversed and the cauae regarded.
RS^rKiS!® AMD KEMAfmSD.
« 9^^m^mmlb tU to •4Mb • ^ xbui ni iMtli
^tm trtc i4*<U ftfU :ii ball JOC •* •!
lo ni^CTl^iq •di \tf
fflASks x«n -' '(#▼• •dl r:
t««oc rrmi to io«ll« te«i %#iXlrfi«a:flite ttiU ^itlii 14
',tmnl4rL» liifqttb XX X« ao«ioiU tv. orUi
OR jACil o« ,«eai SA.M $M ii nolM} XrtXuoli'Mq .1 noqv
^■nOO Ol AVT-MB od Ai
. 4? 100
>4
.cTfOTtAv^n c^A (Bnmrm?
;r Xtiij, 1911. Ho, CJ/ y/ \ r. ■ rb ^
62 - 17560. '^ / ^-UXa. ciy^ [/{. /jr*vi^^^ ^.^^
rlaiiitiff in i-a^:^?
▼a
aOPJtIS SHAPIHO, ^
KKHOR TO
MUHIGIPAL OOcjRT
^ OE^ CHICAGO,
Aft a,.-//.
Defendant In .'•Jrror. ) • '^ '^'p-p^ ^^^c^^-xcj^ < Vv'
MB* JUSTICE FlTOli DEi.IViiIRED TKS OPISiOS OF TSE COURT,
l82IvA. 40
Plaintiff in error broi:?,ht & fourTB olasl aotll^, in ^
tort In the Municipal Jowrt, allegir^ ir its statexnt^rt of olaia
that the dsrendant, fta* the purpoae of indticing tlw plaintiff
to cell hits goods or or«>dit, falsely reprsser.ted tl^t ho was
©olvont and worth about t'S^OG in real arai peraonal property,
that plaintiff relied on the»« etateiaents and acid and delivered
to the def©t^6.r:t goods of the t&Ius of |247,88, Def€3T?dant filed
on affidavit of cjerita to the whole claizs, denyin/r Indebtedness
to the plaintiff and denying that he had made any imtrae repre-
sentations, aeaertlng tliat "Mjy clsl-sr. of whatsoever naturf- tjfel<^
the pl&lrtiff had against the defsndar.t were £i4ji3di©ated In the
c&ec between the "sa'^© parties hereto in tlw ^'.anicipsj; oourt, Ko,
ie£447*, and that plaintiff "salved any tort h© taay have had by
reason of the institution of a suit in contract, toeSn?; the one
hex^tcfors above referred to". Plaintiff interposott a i?K>t'cn to
atriko ths affidavit of saorlts frojs the filea, which '»an overruled
upon the ground that tli© portlone of the affidavit above quoted
constitutod a i;ood defense to the present action. Later the de-
fendant's attorney moved tc di^Kdas the suit "on th@ ground that
the plaintiff Imd waived Ite right to bring an aotlcn of tort by
bringlnf, an act ion en the contraot, as shown by defendant'- affi-
davit of nerite". i'hej bill of exoeptlcne states that "no evidence
or teotisMsny was introduced on either of said notions", but that
r
.0.
.! ^3 J
• •"JIT,
t-ioi feu ;
•for the purpos's of argUBont it appearoi that a previous jud^ont
was bad on an aotlon on th© contract In the i^-tunicipal Court of
ChloagOy oa3« #l&&447t In nAiioh tbese san^e parties were alao
parties plaintiff and defendant*. 0pon this shoving or adasl salon
til© court stsjn%Q^ the aotion of defendant *e attorneys and dla-
<siseed the auit *<m the grcur^ that the plaintiff by larlnging an
action on the contraotf »alr@d its ri#it of acstion In tort*» This
writ of error was sued out to rer&rse that Jud^-jsent.
It will bo noted that the reaaon given by th© trial court
for granting the aaotlon to dle^das is Sfobatantially the s&r'^e as
the reason given for den^'trig t^ie action to strike the affidavit of
serita firon the files. Plaintiff in error hae assigned &n e«Tor
r^ thing but the rulinga of the court upon these two nsctiona.
Aa the alleged "previous judg^ant" waa not offered in
evidence* nor otherwise made a part of t>ie record in this case*
«e Imve no means of knowing what the forr?er jiMi^nent was, except
that atetehowy wlthcnit any evidence, *lt appeared for the ^irpoee
of arg^istmt*» that in a prior action •on tlse contract" bot^'o^i
the saEje parties a jiidijEsent of mcm& aort "was Jmd". Whether the
J\^,g;!3ent vac rendered <m the merits or otherwise is a isattor of
conjecture* For au^t that appe^ura in this record, the alleged
forser Ji^gsent nay ha^vo been a voluntary non-suit, or a die-
xsiaaal upon technical or jurladictional grounds, or beeauae it
araa pr^saturely brou^t. If the atateisente contained in t^e bill
of except iona aa to liiat happened in U» trial court be c<»isidered
ae eqpiivalwit to a staterr^ent that th© plaintiff for the purpose
of argucumt adndltted everything contained in the defor^ant'e
affidavit or plea of a fornter adji^lcatioas to be true, and that
upon the baeia of that adrsiaslon, th':^ coujrt sustalruKi the plMk
and gr^itiKl the aotic^ to dia?3ls«, the ruling imr> clearly wr^sng,
becauae the defendant*e plea of forKi«r adjudiOHtion le sasnifeatly
^ i«M Ml# lit JftTTilktqO Mil no flOi^D.^ IM OO ftOli MS
«.h!!te to srslwMhi aiiS^ aoqO ^ ^iurt iw l t ft bo* ttUtOM^ i q
iw^fti It *>mo ^vtntq * i>«@i»XX« •£!# t^
^ijo aiil4 est intooca ^iJ to Joa^ « ^tev •«i«<a»(Uo nan «»c
.^MTled "#i: jfti no* nol#o« ■SQ^>q M dl ^t 19
^^haA AMr" tfftM UKM to IfKWafyyt » ft»L>*lA4 MLM «di
•HKXi} « TO ^Jti^aonoia ^^iA^tmJi»yv a omiT cvMi v** ^OMii
•cU mqv
«aam tX' mU iMk^aiiT^ ton
too vague and vmoortaln to ahow> even pritaa, facle^ that the al-
Isged foraor Jud^^iont Is a bar to the presort action. If It
oould be aseuisadf without proof » that the tormnr jxtAi^mit «raa a
Judgment on the oerlts, the plea or affidavit of aorits la oven
then, inaufficlent as a plea in bar, for it does not atat© that
the fonaer Jud^im^it waij aatis^ied* It has ftpoquerstly boon hold
that the -sore reooyory, without satiafs^otion, of a j^Jdgn^lt ai a
oontraot ia no bar to on aotior. for deceit praotiood In ii^Uioing
the plaiRtiff to »ake Uio oo?5traGt. StandaM iimlng, Machine Co»
v» G.?inF>a» 140 H. C» 50?j atoiaer v. Oeliaim, 1 s^Bm osith, S61j
aor.-<m V. 3kid?aore> S Abb» H.O, sa? Blao]^ v. Miller, 75 loh.
S23} Union Qant, Life Ino, Oo. v. 3ohidlgr« 130 Ir^. 214j Horton
V. iiuxley, 12 aray 2SS, 290; Vtrnttier v. Gollins, is ii« i. 90.
th@ rule that after verdict and judgisont it will be precmraed that
tff'O^ was sade of facte defactlTely atat@d in the pleadinga oanr^t
b© appllM in this case, for the jreason that the bill of exceptions
aff irrsatlvely states that no evidence of any kind «as intirodiKjed,
and the only adiaisalon of record is aa above statM.
l*he theory xjpon which the court evidently acted in hold-
ing that *WiQ plaintiff by bringing an actica« on the contract
waived its right of action in tort* wac evidently the theory
that there had been an olooti<^ of reraodlea by the plaintiff* 'Zho
doctrine of elect leas of renodles, however, orily applies where the
reraedios are inconslatent. If co-existont reiaedlea arc ccsislst-
ent with ea<^ other, tlw plaintiff "rmy adopt all or soloot sity
one ^Ich he thinks best milted to tiie erKi sought, and cmly the
eatisfaotion of the claln; In one case oonatitutes a bar In the
other*. Qradner ^nit^ & go. v. Williaisa, 17?? 111. 430, 427. ^le
retsody by action in tort for ftraud and doeoit In the purchase of
goods Is not Inconsistent with the reisedy by action on ths ocm*
tract for the porchaee price or value of the ^ooda bou^t^ for both
ii T
vf csff c! 5
-t^
. "!r» .iiiT . f«
* ' r trrtttt 7.
Ttii
to'-«fn
aotic.tia prooood upon tho theory of an afrimanoo of tfeo oon tract
b7 the plaintiff. In l^rursbaoh v. Flower, 20 111, App. 215, it
waa hold that a defr^idod v<»idor» by brlncir^ aasur^&it to ro-
oorer the price of gooda obtained through purohase by frauiliJl<mt
msana, was not preoludod fros5 dianicsin^ the asstmpsit suit and
thereaftor a«intalninf^ o&:i^o for d&eolt In inducing the vendeo to
awlre the ccamtraot of said* Th® 'nxxpnimo Court affir?*«5d tMs doo*
trisae in the satne (>aiie upon apper^l froa a later tri*il. Flower ▼•
iirunbach, 131 Ill» 54?5, Ir Ander:;on v. GhiOf>go ^gt x ;3avinge
aankj l«5 111. 341» tho oourt said of th@ tc^o deoleiona in the
Brtnabcoh oas6, that the «>ff©et of thos* deolslcna «ss to bold
•that &8si2^>«lt for purchase price and easo for deceit in inducing
th« Bale are not ^©ed upcan conflicting poaitlons, aa neither
is in disaffir^,ano© of the oonti^ct*. It Is true tlsit In th©
Appellate Oourt opinicm in the j>ns3bach case, sii ^ra t Mr, Justice
aoAllistor said that "if the actiejs in asaun^slt had ^ne to Judg-
vsmit it would probably have been & bar to tho aotior for the
fraud"; but that 3tateK6>nt w&a i^t neeesaary to the deolslon in
that oaou, and in so far as it K«iy seess to suggest any general
rule an tc election of rosedlea, or efttoppel by judgment srlthout
aatiefaction, it ie opposed to tho znile annotasced later by the
aupresse Court In the oase of Sradner :>raith ^ Go. v. William, aupra,
moreover, in this oa^e it is evident that the trial court held
that regardless of the MiA or character cf jud/ptont rendered in
the prior acticn, the yser© faot that a prior pult wae begim on the
contract constituted an eloction sral ^ae, alone, a sufficient bar
to ar action for the tort. In varrett v» i'-an?ell Co., 199 111.
436, the court eaid, (p.44l)s "The insititution of a miit will not
bo held such a decisive act as to oonstituto a waiver of rights
«hioh iKJUld be inctmsistent with the xaaintenance of msch suit (l)
if the court in which the fii»at action was brought had no Jurisdic-
1 MLbSJ
i»««f •ran jr
1' -vfqo^ne lot
otii >«o€mfOtma elm wi^ 94 aNioqr. «rro liiaslsi^aB
ro 9o«o vdJ at 4*xijc0 twwiyjC
iOMBnitild no to. 'ACll
Titit^ 9as tiohim al ivioe •.'14 11
tion to try th© o&uso; (2) if the eausd of action is prenature-
ly brought and ia dofo&ted for tfaat r«aaon; (3) if the suitor
has in his first aotion ssistaken Ma rdisody and i£> defeatod on
that gz*ou7Ki; or {4), if an acticm ia ctGtsmenwtd in ignorance of
aaterial facta »hioh proffar an alternative roaedjr^ tho fcnowiedge
of which ia ©aoor.tial to an int©llig®nt choice of prooeduro*.
Tho affidavit Of raerita do#a not negatitr© a single one of the
four exceptions ttsas stated, lience^ dvon if it cculd bo oonoodad
that tha rerediaa ,ar« inconsistent, the affidavit of ajerita does
not state facta onoug^i to ahow an alaction of roiaedioa,
||^or the reauona indicated, the Judgsant of tha municipal
Oouzrt will bo r©v«x»aed and tho oaud£» roBandad.
( :
Tl A^
tHM* •! dtlitv to
or a^JhsMi le 4lv«ht1f1« •rtr
Ift<
l<OfOO
114 - 17637,
luwJ',..
Defendant In Errpr, ) tamQH tO
va. \! ) MUNICIPAL COURT
i^RREST J. ALVIN, '^j 1 „ OF JHIOAaO.
Plaintiff In Error, ) ^o ^^^< ^.. a.nu f*v oUd^^nd^t^
t»« JUGTIOK FITCK DKLIVERED THE OPIHIOM OF THE COURT.
182 I.A. 41
Plftintiff In error, the defendant In a suit in attaoh*
wmt in the fiunloipai oourt, has sued out this writ of error to
rovorae a Judgment for t75 ©ntered agalnat hlra after a trial upon
the merits. He contends in tMa oourt that "the proceeding le
honeycombed with errors*, and polnte out (1) that the affidavit
vas not sworn to, becauae the Jurat was not signed toy the clerk,
(2) that the attachraent bond la conditioned for the paynent of
all costs and damagea th^it rsay be awarded against th e defend an t,
(S) that the writ la dated January IS, 1911, and made rettimable
"January l»th next", (which counsel aay raeana January, 1918 ), (4)
that the aervioe by publication la inauffloient, (5) that the amend-
ed affidavit states no (^ound for attachiaent, and (6) that "the
evidence fails to establish any ground for attachment" *
There was no pexn}(mal aervioe on the defendant, but tlun
record shows that after the period of publication had expired,
the "parties" cane into court, and on stotlon of the defendant,
the plaintiff was ordejred to file a etateraent of clalra within five
days* T^xis was a general appearance. Defendant thereby waived all
objection to the process by »rhlch he was brought into court. Bald*
win V. ;:oQlQlland, 152 111. 42. The record also shows that no
raotion was aade to quash the attaohnont until after the court had
heard all the evidence and annoimoed its findingo, arKi apparently
the only ground then ursod for the raotion wao the alleged insuf*
fioienoy of the evidence to support the attaohinont. Defects of the
return tti "^^ •*' ''^ 4.-v«.v;>.i^ ^X
»0..
114 - 17637, , ^ ' n rf "^ ^-^ ■ -A,^
) ERROR to
) iiUMIClPAL COUKT
i'X>RREST J. ALVIH, ^) ~\ „ OF UHIOAOO.
Plaintiff In iilPTor, ) ^« ^^y<-< r.. a^n c^ /*V ^e>t Z.,^
MR* JU^TIOK FITOH DIjI^IVEKSD THE OPINIOM OP TBS OOURT*
182I.A. 41
Plaintiff in orror, the defendant la a BtJlt in attaoh-
Eant in the ilunloipal ootJtrt, has eued out this writ of VivroT to
r«verae a Judgment for #75 entered against hlra after a trial upon
the raerita. He contends in thla oourt that "the proceeding ie
honeyoorabed with errors*, and point« out (l) that the affidavit
was not sworn to, becauao the Jurat was not »lgned by the clerk,
(2) that the attachment bond is conditioned for the payaent of
all costs and daiBages theit laay be awarded againot the defendant ,
(5) that the writ la dated January 13, 1911, and mad© returnable
■January l»th next*, (which counsel oay meana January, 1918 ), (4)
that the service by publication ie inauffloient, (8) that the amend-
ed affidavit states no ground for attaohraent, and (6) that "the
evidence fails to establish any ground for attachment" »
There wao no pereortal service on the defendant, but the
record shcwa that after the period of publication had expired,
the * parti ee" cane into court, and on motion of Uie defendant,
the plaintiff was ordei»ed to file a etate?^ent of claisi within five
days. This was a general appearance. OefendiUfit thereby waived all
objection to the process by which he was brought into court. Bald*
win V. troQlellamd, 152 111. 42^ The record alao shows that no
motion waa saade to quash the attaohnont until after the court had
heard all the evidence and annotmced its findingo, and apparently
the only ground then ijurged for the motion was the alleged inauf-
fioienoy of the evidence to support the attachment. Defects of the
.v8ori - wx
SbruttmA d/li ^«/i4 (i) #uo a#«le«. turn «*««OTS« d»l« lM4iN9ti0or(
io ifMsnr*^ <1 bmiiiiUlttni»0 mi bm4 imamMmaUM tU $adi (8)
(<' j^ «r>«unuil scMMi \m^ Immmn^ iloiite) «*^«n itf«X t^Moasl"
•il^* ^axS^ (») hnm ^^ttMoJAm^^M *iol Anuo^ en maimSa itwrnhlVkM b%
. *# w » Mrf> a t i J <iol tnuria tfui daiXtfais* at aiun atrnmbttm
9ti9 t'.ffS ,#njUkwl«ft Mti no ••1t7(«« X^aDa«M^ on ami •fOt
tSftmbat/^l «eti to rfOi^o« m brw «,Mjioo oioi oaoo "coXi'ioq* of(^
•vit nixl^tv; ::tAl« '>o irT(Knst«#o « ftXn o4 boi o» lo ooo llllrtiaXq or..
XX« J^OTlov 'fda/^ttii irmtyno^iti'j. .oeiumotiqo IrsoMQi « omt oliiT ••^oft
-feXdS .S'v/oti oSni Jv^Btfowf »«« oil do i^ t^ •oooo«ff o<lJ 04 m>i.^nottfe
on UtU ooodo ooXn Mooon tn ,it> •III SAf >/bcmXIoXOpt .r rU«
Aotf ^«^o OC0 ft*U XlJno Jiniftioiio otU i1oom|> o^ oAon kav noUoa
'<£«firsoti|« tno ^fisalbnXt til tooMvonrta fino ooaoMvo •ds Urn boood
-tuool 6o«oiXo oftt sow noJUotf odi rol bos'U na^ liowo^ X^oo uSi
OfW to ftioototit «iooHloot^o aiU ttoqutm qJ ooM»AJhro odl to x^cMlolt
-8-
kind her® railed on, except the l&at of thoae above stated, are
mere IrreguIaritleOf end objections thereto oonte too late when
first made In the Appellate Court* Xroquole rtimaoe Co. v.
Wilkin , 181 111, 50SJ Foley v, Boyer, 153 111. App. fli3,
Ao to the all®g©d defect in the original affidavit It
n»y be e&id that a Jurat i» not a neoeseary part of an affidavit
In attaohraert, «han followed by the laeru&nce of a writ, for In
»uoh case it will be preauned that the affidavit waa in fact emsrrn
to, though not so certified by a Jurat* Krua^ v. >Vllaon, 79 111*
23r'>| Cox V. storn, 170 111. 44a, 448 j Blofcerdlke v. Allen, IB?
111. 95, 107,
While the evidsnoe as to the alleged conoeal^^ent of the
defendant so that service of proceae could not b« had upon hia
is not very convlnolng, still It is not disputed, and, unexplained,
tended to prove, we think, such a oonoealisent aa tli« statute con-
teraplates, Cooley v. Jones , 25 111, 565,
li^i© Juidi^t>nt will be afflnaed*
AFFIE^EO.
txl tot xiiiit e Ic 99Tvsttsul •rti y<' tunollot awtn tirHMHlo«it« ai
^<w>l/A »» wf Hwi lt l g |6*» «UM •IXI ovi jf^^»#9 .* mr* t*^«a
•ff^ ^^ tt(f« dJ »• eof»Alv« edJ •XldB
•dM *Xil ^ %*SBli •▼ t»Jt»aP •a*iAX . ^0
)ctol.er Term, 1911. No. ~-fj ^J^^^^ ^.^, ^^ \ . ^ ^vn.,vv vK o-^kjJXa.y^'
C ' ^^ . ) / / ^
LBX)NARD 3}IAi3HURJ5K, "^ I h
▼«• ) I OIROUIT OOURT ^ wx vv. v
A« aBARBAiiOf )» , OOOK COUHTY; ' ' -^
Appellant. ) /3>'T^-iv->v -:f ii^t.-^-ru a. w rA iX'^^vvcLcd^^, ^
MR. JaSTIOE FITOK Dt^a^IVIOiED THB OPIMIOK OF THE OOURT.
152I.A. 54
Till a was a bill for dlaoolution of partnership and
for txn aoootmting. In his ana«r»r to the bill, the d«fondant
(plaintiff In «rror) danled th# partnership and ol&lmed that
ooraplainant uraa merely employed by him aa hi a ssanager and «&le0->
man under an agroeniont that complainant should reoelve for hla
eervloes one-half the net profits arlsin,-- frora tJie aale of auto-
mobiles, n^c Ottuae waa referred to u maater, who heard the evid-
ence and found that th© agre«T?tent between the parties oontom-
plated an equal division of profits and loisaes; that some busi-
ness was done under the agroonient, but disagreement a soon arcste,
whereupon defendant took poaeeaaion of ail the partnaraliip prop-
erty, conoisting of ujitonobilea, autc^Siobile supplies, furniture,
fixtures, etc., reisoved the sarse and refused to acoount to the
oomplalnantj and that the amount due to the ooraplainant froto tlm
defeMant is #3720.43. Qbjeotiona and exoeotions were filed and
overruled, and a deoree wa» an tared in aooordanoe with th© nas-
ter's report. The defendant appeals.
It is urged that Vao objections to the isaster'a report
should have been austained, booauaoy it is said, the mioter did
not itemize the aasiounta found to be due. I'hero is no sierit in
ttie oontontlon* The report stateo in Iteiaized forw, the sub-
stantial olefirtmta wliioh entered into the computation of the
aesount found to be due by the master. This Itsraiaed statement
leaves no doubt u.^ to <;hat waa included in the total. V7e do not
thln& it was nooossary for the isaster to give the detail a of the
OSJ
.av
:^c;
: ■■■ 1
iq)
,'iMa
^••oiw moos MimwniMlA Jod «4::» -^^-xivA ^^iiJ oo^iou •aol» (Mw asta
«MUt TTcrd trutftiaX^pBoo •r >b 4«himui i»c^ SMU M* itntwftiXQBM
-£ A«X^ •i*w (inolieraoxa lrv« moi^oot^ •a»«08V8| ut tntAntVA
nl lit •« on al oii "' . ^ o : " * .'uoim ©i ' ' ■ t .f tv.
^•dUm 9iii «09Ol l»9?;£a9r(^ Ji " .TOlJffOJOdO odl
•fCl lo nolio#uc|Nro» ei^j '^;rmfl»X» XAl^nai*
loer Ob •« *lMioS ayfU ru^ £)cU; " aavooX
"f^ lo aXI«^ob Oili aWt. ' ; uKi?»«n sjtw ji TMtdt
-2-
••▼eral Itema* The details ara ahown^ howevort in the exliibita
attaohdd to tho ra&8tor*8 roport»
It la next urged tlmt it wa» error to enter a deoro®
apainet the defendant without first aettling the partneralilp
affairs. It appeare that at the beginning of thla euit an in-
junction was iaauedf reetrainlng the defendant froa eolleoting
and diopooing of the partnerehip asaeta. Dtirlng the progreaa
of the oase* howevert thie Injunotion was diaoolved upon the de-
fendant's fllins a bond to seour© the paysaent of any amount w3il6h
might be found due the ooraplainant, and thereupon the def ««ruiant
wae left in posoeealon of all the aaeete^ an^l preeucsably has ainoo
Golleotod the aoooLinta arKl paid the bllle of the partnorslilp. At
any rate« he did not olaia or offer to ahow that auch wao not the
fact I undor euch oirounotances, It waa not wptot for the oourt
to find the asiount due and o^ing to the oocplainant frosa the de-
fendant on the baeia of that preeus^tion,
'rhe re?nainlng erxNjre aaaigned niay all be included In
onOf namely t that the ma&ter'a report and the deore® are con-
trary to the evidanoe. The oonplalnant teotlfiad unequivooally
that a piirtnorshlp waa fomjsedt and produeed a nuraber of wltnesaea
who testified that the defendant wao Introdv^oed to the© by «ie
ooitiplalrant ae his partner* Bie defei-jdantj on tho other hand>
denied that any partnership agj'^seraemt wae i3iade» anl teotlfled
that the arrangement between thera waa that the oor.plalnmtt should
give hie aervloea and reoeive one-half the profits of the buuirieaa,
without being in any tmnner liable for the lossea* The defendant
did net deny» however* that he waa held out to others aa a part-
ner, nor did he deny that h© reoelved from the ooraplalnant, after
the agreeraent was wade, oaah and credits aaountlng tc sovearal
thousai^ dollare, wfiioh were uaed in the buaineae* After a care-
( • « «vod aMao •<Ii to
ip
m-:lAC. ".•'I I' J f:/-.j?* ."r.\^
»>-▼
f.irrt fc.-j; • .1 - /*• 'y
MiKirSB im)rriafcs?;:i .-. j :^« , .iKi ^arf*
ful rovlQW of th« «(Vl<ianoot wo are eatiafiod ttmt the conolu-
alono of Ujo ntaat^r and thtr ol^Uitioollor woro corroct.
nx« ddor&e of tho Circuit Ooiirt wiXl b« aTflrraed.
,a.:«^rFH/i
389 - 179J56, / \J ' '
V«. I CIRCUIT COURT ,^^'/^' ^-Mid-^.j;C^-^K.
J0HN«50IJ CH/IB COMPART, a ) COOK CCUKTY. /^ ^-d.jji'f'^j,
corporation, ) // y*;/*-^-e-'-«'^,
*— ^ 1S2I.A. 66
MR, JUSTICE FITCH r?XIVj:RFn THK CPII5I0M CF THi: COURT.
This l3 an appeal from a Judgaant entered Ufon a
dlrflCJtod vardlct Tot tha isfonctant In a personal injury
aotlon. The plaintiff (appBllant) j s ,i carronter and had
be«a easployad as s^oh by the defenctant (appellee) for &any
years. For several cl;iy!^ prior to hla lajirry, hn, -Itia othRr
carpentera, wa» enguKed In ocnatructlng four large door* Intend-
ed tc b« used 9t thfs north nni south ends of the ciofendemt'B
iry-klln, a brick bulling 54 fset .Hde ^nd 150 feet in length.
S^ch of the ciooro wag nln» feet wlie, tw«lV3 fo«t hij^h, and
^■hT^& Ircheo thiok, wri^hln.^ nbout 1000 pound* , They -sftr©
(jcn itructod in dofendant'o ahlpping room, 300 or 300 ffiet
airay froa ^.Up. dry-kiln, "^hon thoy w«re r«ady to bo hung,
ona Vlnga, thi? CHrrentor In o':\nr:g& of tha ^ork, tola the
plaintiff ativi tha oth^fra there at 9»ork to "oowe along and
ortfry th-s doers from the ohipplng rooa". In r«»npon«« to
this auaittoniii «lx or oiiiiit of the -nan. Including Vlng« .^tnU
'h*? plivlntiff, lifted tha ioora and csirr'ad th«a to th* >'ry-
kiln, T )C of tho loorB otxira thU5« carried to tho .loiith end
of the building and th« other 'two to the north end, rhcre
they wore plisoed outside of tna bnlldlng, leaning 4ng,ain?«t tha
brlok x;^!. The ground armind the building waa unaven an:i
atrewn *lth tha debris that uBually nurrounda a brlok building
In oourae of oon«truotlon. In se+tlng down the; last of the
^vr 1.
, »♦•
»bh
/.n». •:>
. •fcoiw
do«X
.aXtil-T
- 2 -
four aovr«»» t.iie A-«rkJE«n f/iucad it. in niiQh a poflitioi'i t,iK<.t it
pro;) ec ted ihr«« or four fivet ovrt, or ia Iront of, ti;e or«5n~
ing left for tiie doora in trie north wall. A atrong wind waa
blowing froit the south, anU a3 the plaintiff turned avvny to
go after hia toola, the door toppled over to th<j north,
striking hijfi on the head esnu b^uik, and causing »criou« in-
jur i e a .
The deol«*ration has tiirea counts. The firot allege©
that aefendant naiU'^otecJ to uaa reanon'-^ble Ci-uyQ to frovid*
ths plaintiff '*ith « s5c»fei place to -ffork, by peradtting the
ground to lie "^tlly ana rough nnd ocvered with rub'oiah and
aobris*, whereby the door •0lippe<i» aoved and fell" upon the
plaintiff, Taere is no evideac© whsteviir to th« «ffaot that
tha door fell because of this condition of Xh& ground, nor
la that a legltiKate inferfincw fro»i r.he 07ia«»if:oe, Tiw only
reaeonuble infcre;;ce froK the «fviaojice ia that ^he ioor )fi&B
blown down by the vstrui, or that th^ •iforksi.en ware o«iral©«s in
netting It domj, or both.
The aeooftd count Ailsgea that defwrsdant negligently
oxpoftsd the plaintiff to "©xtraordlnary hasard" in permitting
the door opening in the *outh ^sall f the ary kiln to i-muain
opRn anri without door^, iM;er6by "the '^-ind ble-s through aaid
dry kiln frots the «»cuth ©nd to the north end and a atrong
draft ^as» crfated* a-hich "blew ui on tmid door the plaintiff
mb9 working on and Rovcd it and blew it over And it fell upon
the plaintiff. There la evid«nc« tending to auf rort thia
ciilegation, but there ie no averBsant in thia ocunt, nor is
there any evidence in the record, that th<* pl.';ilntiff did not
have f\ill knowledge of 3II the facts regarding t/iia alleged
■unaafe condition of the preciiaea", nor iB there any averaent
or proof thiit he ciid rxt fully underatar.d and &rprec.late the
danger arioing therefroiu, Soae proof of that sort w-fa neo-
eeaary to entitle the pisdntiff to recover under um second
-a*»'4»i
vlifi
•1
• ijiVOi i
, :. 1^.
.. f. S
$t»xfn
.A>4 %i.ij
.1 t9dJ ^■^"^'» •'^
• 3 «
count. l^onty^op.Qry Coal Oo, v, fV^rrlriKar. ?!lfi I.U,, 3r7i
Oa noway V, C. R. I. A F, Ry. Co ». ruU til., 474,
Th<e third camt, ^i« iu<,iffr.cl«d upon the tri^il, alleges
that defendant'* foreRfan (1) noaiif'®ntly craered the plaintiff
"to plnoe aald door In a mi-.-nn©r that ma« net reawonfi^bly i^sfe,
In thftt th« fouifuHation upon *nich «;aiia aoor m-^a placed v,'v«
rough anct uri^^ven"; i\nd (n) n<»2.1ig©ntXy "f tailed to brace or
aupport »aid deer in or.*er to hold it in pv7'-4tlon and jf.irev«nts
it froK falling ■'hila th^' plaintiff wsie in tha perforaianc« of
hl«> v.Uity and work in ^nid pl-^oe"; and (3) thst plaintiff
waa inoKj ori«no»d in hanging such large dooro, and that drfen-
aant "did not inntruot or warn th© plaintiff of th«« danger
inalient to the hanging of s»aid door or precautionary a*©tjtod
neoewaary to rrcjvcnt said door from falling upon the rl^intiff .*
What »« have a^ld atoov® a» to th« lack of evidence
to suatain the firat ommt appliea >ivith squaX force to the
firet oharg© of negligeno© 8p«oifi«d in thia count. As to
the aecsond charge of n»gli(jence apeoifiewi in thi«! coimt, if
it was nfioet^fjsry to bretoe or mirport the door to hold it in
place aftor the pl?»intiff frml tho othtr workwan h£*,d placed
It «gftin»t thfi Will in the K?-.nn«r above stated, that foot wa»
ni*nife»tly quite as stpp^rent to the plaintiff i^s it v«a« to
the for«Kian who w^r working with hiK at the tira, and whsre
that l9 true, th«8 ri»k of injury is »?58vufced by coittinuing at
work without eosapi?iint. It is not the ifi«? in this Btate
that an eistifloyQC a«ta\uiae(» only such rinVs a*i csnnot be obvittted
by the adoption of fruiaautionAry j^swasuree by the icaater, "The
true rule in thin r«^;e.rd is», tiiat the servant a»R\iit©B not only
the crdilnary ri^ka incident to hi« ecfloyiKent, but alsio all
dangers whioh ara obvioua anct a^xarent" ( MqCors; ;| Lol^, Mschj^ne C$> .
V, gakaegftkl. SSO lU,, 52S, 530); ana while thif? rule ie
auspanded (or ita application denied) where a negligent.
P^K
^ .T .W .0 .T rm^lfmSl
il
<ii;l .:^i. ialA-
t, Ctt^t-
ini aincl
- 4 -
perojaptoty coKSUind ia given by n\& »ijfi»t,er to do work which la
ixttendetl with eoa« danger of which the aervartt i« not. fwlly
cognisant, ;uicl the nervant relies upon *he Kuat^r'a orcier »«
an asiiuranoe that he tt«y safely pftrforej the taak ( Republic
Iron Co« v« Log. P.n? 111., 246, ^38), yet if the mTv^i^ut haa
full »nd cofoplato knowXedge of the danger, or If the aanger
i« «0 apprtr«nt to nxiy one of ordlmixy lnte!iiif,wnoe that the
servant i -^ not Killed by th«!j n€|ligent ora<?r of the jR»«ter,
the general rule of assuvned fink applies, «»ci not the. exoep-
tion. 0. 3ii ?;. I. B. H. , Co. v. Heerey. '^03 lU., 492^ Repub-
lic Iron Co « V, I.^e . ourra; K« J. &>'' , . Hy, Co, v. Mycra,
fl:36 111., 358j i'cCcrtclok r'-:ohinK Co. v. ?akzgwa)>:l, nurra .
In «uch oaaew, tho erriyjloyee "Ci^nnot a^jsime a fact .Sfraj.AHt
hl» own knowledg'.e, i-nd H?,mm& that & dcfeot open to hi? ob-
aervatlcn ''ioe« not *xl'^t," ^ytfeour v.« Br'^-'.taau . It'Jl I.ii., il7,
"If defects are obviou« an<i open to the ob»«rvation of wvery
rerson of or^Mnary intnUlrence, and the evidence ehows laut the
eKjloyee hae had full opfortunltlea for «uoh obs*ervati on, it
Is auffioient tc charge hla. ^^ith knowledge." L. F. A -'•» F< .
R. CO. V. ^'ili^cn. 19?J in., 89, 97, "If the rtonger la «uRh
that a paraon of orriintiry intftlligftftoe would know s^r.at would
naturally, foilo'^ fro® the aefeotive condition, .'Anci h«J has
knowie:ie'»e of the at-vf active conctitioa, kno-^ieage of «uch oon-
dition oarrlee knowledge of the danger anil the riak i»
aeeuKSd," K. J. & 1, H. R. Co. v. liv(xxB, surra . Here the
allesocl unsafe or tefeotive oovditlone \mJffr which the plala-
Mff W3S» 'working and the clanger ■vri'iing therwfroHi were per-
fectly obviouQ to every r«r=?on of orain-iry in+'elligence, and
thft evidenoe eho^ui, .vi*-.hout oontrovisray, that tiie plaintiff
had full opportunity to -f-aG hnd to know euoh ccnditione and
the attendant itanger, "^ith such knov^leuge, or orportunitiea
for knowledge, he coulil not iiave been Kieled by th«« B;«re
dl recti one of the foreBs.«n to "help oarjry the icors from the
••irtif
'^.'f i«<aA4A<<
a.
- o -
9hlr-plng rooa*, anti to |:laco th^iis ninirMt the brick wisJl.
Nor did th« plaintiff atteiapt to firove thiit he w&» not fully
av-'ara of siuch condition« and danger^ or that he was in nny
uianr.er mialed by tht ordftr of the foreJKau. "'fitliout a^aoh proof
th« plaintiff failed tc eistablish a rrltaa f&cle o&s«i of
liability unuer tho second charge of the third count,
An to the iaf»t oaivrge In thiit oount, no recovery
could ba had on tJa«' f»ot»' .iihown, for the r»»(ion that thee©
waa no duty resting uyon th«t deffindtir4t to w»m the plaintiff
of dangsra ^vhioh «ere obvimw ( C. & A. Ry, Co« v. Bell. 309
111,, 2,'>, 31), nor -waa the d«famUTit required to instn-ct
the plaintiff, an exr«ri©nc«d c&rpentar, an to yvhat "precau-
tionary R«thod*, if any, was "nftce^'^ary to jravent said dooir
t'vom fulling upon the F^^f^intiff*,
W* are of th« opinion that th«> uourt ciii not «>rr
in giving the rv?rer.ptory InatrwctiOR, and th« judgaent will
th@reforo h@ affiremd.
AFFIRMED,
\Ai.i* ; ;-/.
ilXJW -.11 -iMli
lO'" .- ..- f.. ^..^ t»ftnMi
October Teri, IJ-^i' ^ ) tU<^ ..^ ,-?
4C9 - 17947,
CT-WRLE8 R. KAFPES, ) / S^ / x^
ArreiUft, J ^^pfa/ from ^' A ^.^^-^ (^ ^ ,^^
t
a^k.!f>.
v« . j -^ i^ICIP^I. COURT - <S . Xx-t^^:,
AMERICAN LISSSED COVFANY, a)
corporation,
Apf-ellant,
WR. JUSTICE FITCH rELIVKREr TH?: CPISICK OF THE COURT,
1 8 2 I A 68
Appellee, a real estate broker, "uedTt^ A anf Irr ^
the Municipal Court to recover coeaRisslona for selling certain
real estiite, Ke recovered a judgment of 111,260, after a
trial by jxiry, HiR atory of the transaction was not deiiiecl
by appellant, except in one F&rticular, vis:: a telephone
oonvereation with arrell«i^t;'" taanager oonfiriKing th« authority
of one Pfitech to conduct negotiationa on ite behalf, Tjrjia
convoreation waw denied by the manager, who teatifieci, however,
that after learning frba appellee that the letter had a proe-
peotive purohaeer for aprellant*e real eetate, ami suepectlng
that the purohaoer va» a railroaa ooapany, he hired Pfiteoh,
a detective friend of his, to "find out «ho the ouetOKer wae";
that Pfiteoh "amolkecl theui out" and "foimci tho ouatO{Bor''i that
he then "employed ffitsch to negotiate the sale"; and that
when he (the witneaa) eigned the contract of atUe to the
purchaeer thue "found*, Pfitaoh and appellee were both preecnt,
Thie was appellant* a only witneee, and ujon thlis evidence, we
do not eee how a different v«rdict could weU isfivc been renderel.
Ur^on this etate of facte, the alleged error in refuelng to
strike out appellee's testiKony ae to a oonvereation with
Pfitech, which waa a^lmitted upon the pronsiae of oouneel to
show Pfitech'a aijthority, wao iroe»aterial«
The verdict and judraient are »o clearly ri^ht that
we cannot evold the oonclueion th«t thie appeal wae jroaecuted
.x2I
no
SB
ii^'j2
" n^tJir? •no lo
-=> •oil : aj*lj» tcM
.uinAlMiAi ni?" vrtii iX«« * " tb « »otf ••• >pii p..
-. 2 «
for d«ltty. The ^udgteent will th«refor« be affinted, with
fstatutory datuaget of one hundred doXIara. The notion to tax
the ooat of additional abstract wl.*l bf; aenied» however, as
we think it vraa unneoeaR&ry.
OctoDer Term, l^i^- '^^°^
446 - 17386. / X^
T^ALTFR MILLS,
Appellant.
TVmf S, KA30», ) VjfOOK COTJUTY.
182I.A. 69
STATB:j:ST. On May 6, 190?, aipellant, beiag Uitsn
the ownfry of a ninaty-nine year i«aseiioid und i^lx-.nory build-
ing on Kcnrofi f'tre-et, Shioago, ftx^cutcd hlR eleven |rOBii««ory
not«e, aggregating ^10,0C0, payable *o his? o-an or..if-r an.! en-
dorsed by hiRi, and to s?ecuxe tne r:ayaent of tlio 5JaK«, cxeouted
his truat clt^ed, cnnvftylng tc Gusjtav "?"ilk8, a« tiw^.te^, t,h«
ieaaeiiold an4 builuir.g, tOjsether s%lt.l-i the boilera, «j!|;;lne»,
elevfetcrs, inei-.tin^i ^FParatus, ixna other atfeohinory and fix-
tures tl-K^rein. The flrf.t and aeccrid note© werss for $7i'dO and
$750 rfliareotiyely, ciuo in one year, anct tiifi oth«re were lor
ll,COO each, clue one in eaoh y«ftr, after txhe first, for t«n
years, Afpellee t^ecaiue the owner, by r-virchaae, of uli but
the f4r«t note, v?};lch *a8 o'^ned by '^IZliaa L, ^'.illen. On
Kuroh 17, 190B, ufrellee filed hifi verified bill in equity
wtting up hi>-% cx^nerahlp of tha not<ii8, «md an0j?.ing th*^«t for
months «pp«21ant had sliowecl this building to reaain vaoant,
that it wae rroduoing no ir.GOii-© and vAn subject to a r«nt
charge cf |6,000 & year anct the texea ansil assasarcente, that
the irachinery in the building w33 firsily attached to the ««»«
and a necoasary part thex«50f, had cc»t ?6,000 i^nci wae worth
not lean than ?/3,000, thftt urrell»nt, Aith the asaiatance of
The Power EquipKient Coavfuny and The Mcrchantw Transfer Coim- any,
wa« Gng:i|re£i in tearing out tho raachinery and eqviipjRent and
removing the aae;©, .vher«hy th« sacurity fox the ptayiEent of
at fells© *sf notes was being wasted, and th&t on that «cocunt.
G 8 ./
iv- T-:i»fci
t«ii^
lAqqA »
., mA* tit x^^Midoam ttH
1.; »'ji
t
Vi
\_
, tnx/o c
fMAS I:.
mdr
v. .V. •:
• 3 •
Arp®ll«« ^&<^ elected to d«cl»jr« the wfaola aitmAnt of t,b« in-
aebtcdneesi ipaedlately diia and payable. It !»«» alBO alleged
that the first note h?u1 boon paid and that the I'TOx^ex^y was
•Oftnt Hooiirlty for the psyjr«nt of ooBiplsln*nt*« notea. The
bill prayed for «n injunction, sv receiver, an accfiunting and
a esile cf th« mortgaged preKinee, if th« amount found due
ahould not be paid «fithln a «?hort day. After notice to the
defendants, an injunction was ii^oued reatralning the def end-
ante froK r««uOvlng any of the jr.riahin«ry or fixtures, tmtil
the further order of t.hft court, A OiOtion to dissolve th«
Injunction -sae Katie and overruled. The liCfendante then
aneTrered *he bill, adttittlng the allegatione regarding ths
execution cf the notee and trutt deed, but denying arT«-'J«5e»s
oimerehip thereof, *ik1 that tl.a first note h-¥.d been rciid,
and denying th2*t they •have torn out of i<iuid builulng i^^ny
boiiere, enginea, or ot^ier jRachinory, Rfparatue and equljMsent
cf sflics builc'-ing, excert two Corlisa en^inee end th*!ir oon-
neotione which werr^ not u«e(l," ani ^hioh had been eold. The
answer alao denied th^it w^ate wh«s being coRscsitted, and aenied
the richt of ©yT-«3 1ee to decAure thp whole ';i«bt due. On April
27, 1908, appellant filed hi« croaa-bill, nvtirring th-^t in
Be tecsber, 150?, Out^tav l^ilke, rho then o^med all but tue first
of thfi iiotee secured by the trijst deed, offered to sell the
e«r«e for |4,700, "y-'hlch offer vraa aoce: ted by aprel^ant, v-^ho
procured a certified oheok for th.-.t air,ount eind offered to
endoree it to Wilke; but thst on Wi Ike's requewt, the »..itter
went over to give hlrc •an orpo^ftunity to secure the »aid notes
and trust deed froic hi». attorney", anJ X:ster Wilke informed
arpellant that hie attorney had »old the r.ctea for |6,C;00 to
appellee. The croee biJl charged that the «ale by the ^tttor-
l ney wa« not a l ^ona f|(lc sale, but wae colixisivo and fraudulent
1 and prayed th^it it be ©o decreed, and the notee be d*'liv«red
to ftppeilant on paywent of $4,700, A general and sj eoiai
-r.i ;,
otii: •
-i,(i :•)-. <*.
• t -
t tfti bMd f ill Atf^ #«^
iv aptstMrn^mt am ^9Snmbn*\§b
;frf»x^
XI-fA flT
>t/^'
rf ?«4
' !:^ tins lo
>.
X«lo«(|« tea X««Mie
:>0T,»| 10 iamm
- 3 -
dcKurrer w&s* 3us?tuiln«d to thin orO'.tn bill, und apjj©liafst flied
an a»«inded crowd blil 'getting up the a/iijue alleged facta in
Korft iietaiX and offering to p.^y t74>700 for aftid notes* , A
cross
cleBiUrr»r «?«« f»u»tained to the «K«nde(lA^ill» which wa^t thf.re-
uron rtl<SRil«Re<t for want of equity.
On June 5, l')08, apptfli«e obt;.:.J.n«d leave to file
and filed an "asi^smled unci auppleBsental bill," in «hich, after
reciting th?» filing of the original bill nnd th«f «ubaequent
proceedings, and a ivrovlslon in the. truat ciewd requiring ten
aay« written notice of default to be mailed to appellant before
the whole aaaount «houia be declared due and payable, it wua
alleged that the firat two notee had foecoB.e due on t'ay 5, 1908,
that the firet hadi been paid but the second hs^d not bti^n paid,
nor had any interest on appellee's not«e» b©«n paid, thut on
U&y 11, 1908, appellee fe?/.lled a .vrlttc^n notice of suca d«*fsiult
to appellant ae p^rovided by the truift deed, and on Kuy ,32, 1908,
ai.p«;iiee aeciured the whole «ir.ount due .=*nd payable. Tht;
euj'plefcental bill prayed for an accounting and decree for the
payaent of th«? "?hcle ?,*eii0imt of apfellee'e note*, ana a sale
of the prop?,rty, unleas the afijc^ont found due be pj^ld within
a tlice to be fixed by tho oourt, and the defendants be for«^-
cloaed if the property sold be not redeeaied according to l'>.^u
To the eurpl®»«ntal bill, the defendantR fil<»d an aniswer j;d-.
fitting the aerrvice upon appelitint of the notice of defrsult,
^"^^ neither admitting nor denying the other aver&ente thereof.
Jkfter^ the croee bill hitd been dlf5Bil??Bed, ho-s-ever, the defend-
iLtttm Obtained leave to file snd filed &.n siaendiv.ent to th«ir
anewer, in '^hich thry inserted, slKoet verb^ititc . the oame
allcgatione cf »>n all??e.ed 3al« of the rotee by '^llke to -ip-.
reliant for ^4,700, »«? were cont&ined in the amended cross bill,
and charged th-ut the rujrohaec of the notes frcus nike by ap-
pellee Tree not s bona f lie eale.
|6<> ,&••<}
J.lJl^K
itf
no
tfi irfJ
. 4 *
The* oau!s» wa« rftferred to a Ba«ter, who heard t.ho
cvlCifinoe fuily, suvi rerortnd t.h« aate, «;ith hi?? finiing» there-
on, and reo^-HMcamled ^hP «nt.ry of a .Secroa scoorilng to the
rrayer of thn orlf-im*! ArvA awipiefeental bll3a. Rxoertlonei
>rere filed to his report ana overruled, and a clacree wan
entered aocorctingly, froa «?hich th« aefenclanto prayed ana were
allowed an appeal "jointly aiKi aeverally", on filing a bond
of .§1#500, The defendant Mason alone filed nuoh a bond.
Upon the filing of the transcript of the reoord in
thle oo\JXt, a rcotlon mis i-c:i<ie, the diecielon upon ffhich was
reserved to tne hearing, to «trike fravr. the rftccrd the asaign-
ment of error* :'jnd ali^fjiiea the appeal* upon tha grounde that
the aealgmtent of errore purrorta to be o-ade by all the viefen-
dante inJ?tead of by Kason alone, and further th;jt the rsscord
ehowe that Kaeon hae parted v'4th all his intereat in the mort-
gaged property, Ami therefore has no intereet in ths result
of thle appei^l*
The errora a^elPined are sufficiently stated in the
1 - oplnicMi folloiJilng thle atatewent, , , _^ . ,
MR. JtmiCE FITCH DKLIVKRFD THE OPINION CF THF. COURT.
The Kotion to dlsjtiee the arr«^*3 rust be denied.
It Is true that k-iiS»on la the only defendant uho has aj-;T-ei«led,
iind therefore the other defendante o«nnot assign errors, iis
eppellanta, upon the record, nor can lUieon aseign errors in
their behalf ( Norrjg v. ro>na.n;u 196 111,, 91), but the ae«
elgnwent of errors, jnirporting to be jsaae by .^11, i& E>.;nie
"Jointly and eeverally", jThilc such an aflalgnttent in unavail-
ing aa to thoee who have not .ipj ealed, it Ciuy aj-iverthisiuea be
properly treated n^ a eeparate aaelgnment of error® by i^ii?»on
alone, Tforri?i v, no-viiin/^. £itl££i OrOHS v. BtTzyy.or:^ki,
134 111. App*! 300. A-i to tf^f joint B.ivde tnttt the record
«how» thfit Mw«on hfss sold the preiKiaee, and therefore tiasi no
,h42
Of V t I •1»1*
-Xl«yr..Tw
on toil Mc
,»«liilK»t:l BdS
' - 5 -
further rir^ht to cfofitlmift t.h« Llti£<atlon, It srp«»ar« th4;t h«
rarted wi*h hist intere^^t \t;nvtt;r:ta IJUfi., and an his grantpeft
wer« not saae {l«f«?ndarit,s in iiif^ ^i«ad, he continuesi an +h©
only rr.rty rQfraaentlng their lr5.^rtr«Ht,, rinci asj mioh, he; haa
a right to i'i.pr©?il, i::>ore v. J'-nks^ 1?^"^ T31., 157,
It is wrged tjiat tha crif;inal bill y^hn inf^uff ici«nt
baoaiine nc notice of nnj 'ifi fault or br«Kn«h of covom^nt «ae
ffiall«<3 to J:aacn, a« r«qutred by the truat d«ed, h«fore t/na
•ult wafs b«K^m, and thrit the failure to frivc such notice ten
clays prior tc tns filing of the bill wan not onrecl toy j-^iving
evich a no* ioe later strA fh&n filing a aur-pler.entiil bill Batting
ur that fact. In ia}ler v. Cook. 135 III., 190, it if; said
(p, ^-05) J *Th« rule, ;*«» we \irici«rsta!V.1 it, iw well at-atfid by
ChwnoeUcr ^nlviortti in Canaier v. Petit, 1 Paige *b Ch. 168,
and if?. In mjbiBt«.nc®, that if :%n ori;«;inal bill ia wholly u»-
feotive, and therei ii no prcnnd for proc*:eding iincver it, it
can not be «vmtalri«cl by filing a mirplej«-«ntal bill, founded
ujon n:itt«?rR ^hich hs^ve s\ib«?equ«5ntly t.:^J(f'n rli'ioej but th^^t if
the original bill i^* sufficient for or.f. i:ind of '•nlief, :%ivd
facts aftorwarda cccwr xhioh entitle the aoicf.lainAnt to other
and aorcf esetenalve relief, h« »iay have -^^uch relief by ^setting
out the new Kattar in u rju; i,,i«t»i«?ntal bill.* Trte ori^rinal
billin thifi oa?»«J »et up facta '"hioh, if tru«, cert-^sinly en-
titled th?? corsfleinftKt to ?it leasit cn« Mnd of rftli«f, vis?:
an injunotlon to restrain waste, •^illiy'.rn v. Chicago Fxhjbl-
tion Co ,, 188 111,, i^, Th« fj.rifirer foimd, frcnj tivt; evidenoe,
th.^t UiC roKOval of th© Oorll«» «jngin«8 Am ahafting cons?ti-
tuted \5ftRte, arsa in vi«w of ^he undiwriited «vid«nce ^& to the
coruiltlOR of the pronlRseis at tils' ti&e of i?uoh rcc.oval, vi>« think
the s:^x«tf;r wass jtJBt If led. in corflng to +i-,:;*t eonclxn^ion. But
even if this sviderice werR not sufficient, in itself, to «how
th--4t waste had -ilT^^yAy bftisn C';ciB>itte<i, it w«« sufficient to
f.how that an injxmction to rfffvtrsjin further re^'ovala :f the
Mr ' "* " .''" *- »>•*---
M^ / 1 no
•tt(.' •.*» «(
. tmtif "M
•tit iOftar R MOrfll
- 6 -
•ftffie natiar« (unci consequent unaoxibtesi TiaKte) waa n«oe««ary.
The bill "*as not, therefore, "wholly iivaufriolent", nor waa
thfi r-roof in?uffioient to «u«t,a4n the bill aB a bill t.o rs-
atrain waatej unci hesing "sufficient for on« Kind of relief",
it waa al«o aufflcient, unuer the rule :jbove quoted, an a
foundation for the Ruppletcs^n**! 5:5111 '^hich sat up th© a:\di~
tional subaequent fact of notice of iiefiiult in the royK^nt
of inter«»t and of the principal of one of <-h« notes. The
same oon«itt«?ration« vtre alao a -^^uff icirtnt unfr«wer to the further
oontention, thiit the orieinal bill wsb insufficient becaua*
the owner of note mmbar on© w»w not 4jacle a rarty, though this
pointjdioes not aeeia to h«ve b«©n mads in the court belo-«, and
is therefor© not rror«rly before this court.
It i'% also ooritfencled that by the terc.» of the truet
dead app«ll»e, alone, dia not have the right to declare the
whole amount due and payable, but th.^it the option to dc iJO,
given by the trust deed, wuiat be? ext^roiaed by ail th«j holder*
of notes. It cpi>eara froR the ©vicli&nee that note miaiber
one, for li^oO, vvaa originaliy owned by tha defanciant ^'■■•llen,
but after thi? aurpleaiental bill '•■»&« filed it was ?«oid by hiia
to a ohuroh asaooiation which held a aecond ffiortgage on the
property, Thi« second r.ortg»ge waa apparently paid later by
the owners of ths equity of redemption, but vshether note nu»ber
one waa delivered to such ownere a® a part of that trB.ns*aotion
eaeuia to be l«ft in doubt by the evidence. The &.Hti%tr found
that thi'? note wae paid and -wrrendered, and a« neither fallen
nor the ohuroh aaeociation objected or excepted to that finding,
nor appealed from the decree, avpellant ia not in ^ position
to queetion it. Aside frois that fact, however, «e do not think
the language of the trust deed can ffiirly be constru«?d .u«
claijced by appellant's couneel. The option ciausie rsade ae
followe: "If default be niade in thft reky»«nt of Bai<i proroisacry
notee, or either or any of the «a«fie,***»*or in oaae of w«*«te,
- 8 -
..:.„^._.-.. --.oil
\94ama •S^m \o lait^, ~^
Szi: • ■ ••> :)M 'a »1 _
,' ■• ; tmtnf til? . la
todnu- rj x'ltf, o •T«ave Mil
noli. , siQtm Q' ^ Vi'X«t) M« tAO
t»fl •• i>a» ^httm^ti . •«« •^on tidt $M$it
nolllMq « ai #on «l f«uiIi9q(T« ,«*«««b fttf? a^i:^ talus taii ion
ittiHf too •l>.«» ti8T«woA ,#»*1 >«i!^ a** -i^ ojrsj'
•« (IhCtrl »«fl«XO AOfi^ia A^T ,L¥>AOl^r.. •* f ix^ii^qstM X4 A«rSMi#
- 7 -
♦♦•••th«n and in nnch oaae, th« whole of said ryinolpeil pxm
and interest «fliC\ir®d by waid rroiBisBory notea, wiiall therttUi^on,
at the option of the Xegai hol<,i«r or holcitjra tiuxreof, btsooae
lKW«diiit0ly du« and po^yj^ble*, etc. If this i^ere th& only olause
in tii« trust deed or noto» ci«wigm<ting th« j-«trifton« who could
ex«roifl« the option thu« glv«n, tnwre isight b« »om« forc«» In
tho contention of arp«i3*int'a oounfitcl. By cnothRr ciauwe of
the truitit 'Jl»M, however, it J a provided that « written notioa
of any c5efault sst'.all be r.i-vfm to arF«Jl'^'»t, «tfiting the par-
ticulars thereof, w^iich notice ahsU be siK.ned by the tru^stee,
or hi?5 miooessor, or th« owners of the notes, "or any or either
of thea", »nd ahall be K*iil»d to afpollant "ton dayw rrior to
tiie tirte wii«n***** tt;.(? pi^rs^n or rt^rs^ona ov-ninf^ or jrsolainff. aajld
note8» or -my on a of th^> BJM^ -ir-'ll aeol'trf the indsbtednoaa
a<9curad by this Tuat deed vjhoily due gind payable aa. n£££ia
jyrovided". By thi« olauwe, referring, &f» it doo©, 'iirectly
to th«i oi^tion cl«uo«, the rftrtiea th^ejaelves have reccgniaed
tii& right of the holder of any on« of the not«a, a« well aa
the right of ail such holders, under thB option clause of
the truwt deed, to "deol.'sris'' the indfibtedneaB aeour^d thereby
■wholly due and payable*. In cmt orinlon, the partiew in-
terned by, this clauBo, to authorize the holder of ;;iny nott
which wae not paid at Kiaturity to give i«rpeHant notioe of
euoh default with the rartloul&ra thereof, ami if the note
w«r© not paid within ten day*? theroafter, to declare the '^'hoie
ind«bt«dne«B at once du« »nd payabl*.
It i« al^o urged thr^t th© court err«d in diajaisaing
the arpellant*a oroaa-bin an:l in overruling hi« except ioaa
to the t&a«t«r*a finding thMt no sale of note* nuKbarcfd ii to
11 inclusive had b«en e&ade to a;:rollant prior to the purchase
of the auKe hy appellee. Th« only purpose of fnei croaa-bill
waa to fcf!tabli»h the all aged mle of the* notea to arrcliimt.
. fiyi/W Tit .
^ r«q iMu ftufc t<*««ifei«iU
on to bmn'^ " I* >ii# «i
.!>■
\'-
• "".ia
rv*y
;ja
Tnitqi*
•4#
9i
* fi '"'
f-
f-?*-*
» J • T H k
>i IT r fr^^w*
•mzAtilUq 9ilf C .;;, .. •Vt«0X;;. . _*
and whether the court ruled correctly or otherwise in dlanlse*
ing the oroee-bill i» iokck^teri^l, bec%u!$e the mm^^ f<rTQt« lallegocil
in the oro«i» bill were afterward* wet ux; in t,h« anwwor of
aiipellant, «ftnd o full hearing wa» given hl» upon the ieauo
thxui ralo^d. If appellant k»u8 in fact Xm. equitable owner
of the notea, in«te«jd of lAppellee, ttx&t fact oculci be showm
ae e ciefenee tmii without auy croee-blll. Tne t«atiis.ony ae
to what ocourred &t the tlae of the offer of $4,700 arid the
alleged eooeftanoe of euoh offer* watu ocnflioting, &n(i ^fter
reading the evidenoe, »re ere finable to raay that the &aater»«
finding in th?it resreot ia not fully isur ported by the prepon-
deraiKje of th« evidence, Biit if the faote were all «« olaljsaed
by af pellaitl^i they T«ould not amount to a« accord and eatie-
factioni but would »how nothing saore than « »ere verbal exeoxi-
tory fegreriEent, without any consideration whatever, to aocept
half of the faoe value cl the notes froa the maker thereof.
We think there wsa no error in the rulings of the- court i^^on
theee })0intff.
The decree of the Surer! or Court will be af firmed.
- 8 -
T .x,*»<i.ii» audi
• n:it |n
480 . 18020. i. 7\a^^ ^.^ oj^U^^^^ \,ri^, (?.
Appellee, ) hfVtn FROM ^^
T». ) v/ CIRCUIT COTBT. ^ "^'^ ^^ i ^ <^r^^^
CHICAGO RAILWAYB COW/ NY, ) .^i - CO<?K COUKTY, (/ -^^ *-•
.J
MR, JOSmCE FITCH DELIVKRED THE 0?IKIC1U?^HIW-C0URT, .^^
Appullet recovered & judgment against appellant
for daiiciigea for pergonal injurlea aiiatalned by ftlm «hUe croea-
ing Lake tstreet at thte intereeotion of Leavitt atreet, Chicago,
about eeven o'clock in the evening of May 24, 1910. It is
conceded by appellant'e oouneel tiiit if r«jpeiiant i« liable
for such injurlee upon the f«ot« sho^n, the aoiount of the
r«oovery (tl,SOO) im rsationable. It is eilso rr^Ctically
conceded that the evidence ahowe negligence on the rart of
aipellant'e motorwyn. It i« insisted, however, ihc^i the evi-
dence alao nhowe that the rl'^^intiff Uiipcllee) wae guilty of
contributory negligence, and thnt the trial court erred in
otsrtciin rulinge during thcj examination of witneaees ■'-nci in
Iving the third inatruotion en behalf of the plaiintiff.
The declar^^tion ail«gea, in subatanoe, that the
defendant negligently opfirated on?i of it« street oars at tmoh
a "high, dangeroue and unlawful" rate of epeed, Aithout ring-
ing a bell or 90\mding a f,ong, aa to run into the plaintiff
t a pubHc cf oaaing cmd injure hirt: aeriouialy without any
friult on his part.
Appellant operates « double-tr»ck electric street-
car line on Lake «treet. Lnke «tr<»et la a buoineee street,
running eawt and weet, and is eirhty ffi«t wide, with a road-
way arproxlKately forty-eight feet in '^idth from curb to curb.
There le an elevated railiw-fiy in the Raaie street. Tue oolUKna
supporting the «slftVMted fst.ruoture are located in the roadway,
,i'..i
■^^kf(,iikn ac
<
. iit<tju» tf/i; iiiii.iuM A^alXyi «i«#s:
• tliJ ' no nottt>: ivx^i
fail ^uctdtlm t'«yoii»ii iiiu *n ■> j|»ii*>*iw.ii> ai
- 2 -
adjoining the ourbatonea, Tho north rail of defendant's
north traok in «ixt«en f«i:et nouth of the north ourbatone, and
the "guage" of the traok» la four fc-et, eight sind one->hQlf
lnohft». Leavltt ^itreet nai\» north and eouthi and is ai proxl-
Biatftly nixty-eix ft^et in width, with & roadwi^iy of thirty-eight
feet. Koyne avenue orct»3e« L;^i;e atreet ahout 600 feet east
of Leavltt.
About «even o'clock on the evening »entioned, the
plaintiff, 'i?ho«« pl«o« of buiulneee wae on the north wide of
Lake etr^et, east of Leavitt, left hie shop to go hoite. It
wee twilight, but the ^!tr©et waa «elX lighted by the liKhte
fron the ahop windows ana eleotrio «!»treet lampe. He w&iked
w««t on the north sidewalk on Lake street to the east aidewalk
on Leavltt street and there tiirned aovth across Lake street.
He testified tint a« he BterP«d do?m frees the o\irb«tone to
the roadway and waifeed |:a8t h coluan of the "elevated" i»t that
point, he looked to the ea»t «ind »&« a atreet oar "ooming up
froB Hoyne avenue" on the north track; thut"it »ppefc.reu to
be near Hoyne Av^jnue"; that "when I seen the car n»» f^r
enough dov^n, I vent lioroae up to tha north tri*ck"i that at
th/it point, he looked ag«ln anu ea^ the oar about 100 feet
awsyi th&t "then I !?ten>«<i over the track, and before I got
over tne trnek, I 1 coked agi^in and eaw the oar was uf to me
and I quick fsterped off the traok". Htft was hit by the south-
west corner of th«^ oar anc thrown to the i5round. The pO"wer
wae shut off !:md the brakee «et *hen the plaintiff wae hit,
but the c^t vent over 100 feet further before it atopjed, at
a point at least fifty feet beyond Leavitt street.
The iBOtorcan teatlfled thnt he firet saw the plain-
tiff «hen the latter wae "a foot or ?. foot und a hi^^lf" uorth
of the north rail; that the oar waa then 100 or 150 ft^et eaet
of the oroesing mttA wae "bowling along pretty good" at a
Una ,Sfv
on
:41B 4 (<:
* ##lYir
•nto;
W: tiKv:'
b«!(i*»
%Af AC
'IW.tSVAXt* ttf^
iMi par «»•«
ft
to?.
9 001 n
■lOfl M.' ■• • ■ aiOtl
qptf KM- ^«
t9q «
aniii«0-
- 3 «
"five-point • ficeed, or about tffn or eleven tailBtt an hoxiri
thitt the plaintiff "gli^notd up ana healtated, th«n he alerted
acre**"; that vthen the pXiilntlff reached tL*i first ruli, the
oar waa 65 fflet from hl»i thut h« «ae then walking at tte
rate of "froa three tc tour a.llea an hovtr"; th-'.t the wltncaa
x&ng hi« bell «.nd ••holi«r«d*, but did not ahut off the i o»er,
nor 9flt the air-brake, until the oar wa« .rbcut fiftaen f««st
from the plaintiffs Th« ptotorajan alao t««tifled th.?«t ■xhen
his oar wao going «it the rate of ten or eleven mile© v<n hour,
"it would take abo\it 75 feet tc «?top".
Two Tf?ltne««e8, *ho »erR ffit<sr.aing on th© ocrner of
Lake snd L«4vitt atre«ti», ccrrobcrata the rls^intiff in ^11
eft'ienti&l partioulsta. One of tneit ftatimated tne r«te of
speed the c»r was going »t no aiilea <;in h(Mt ana t.n«» otht^r at
35 ffiilea an hour. Tii*© j'awwengera, who were stiuxliing near the
ffiptoraan on the front plotforas, toatified that they saw the
plaintiff wsiking sleuth on the croaalng wh«a the car v?as» at
least 100 feet frOK. hia and one of thcw eaid th»t the aiotor-
tu&n wee talking to a friend on the platfora a.ntt dia nothing
to oheck the speed of tha car until just bc^fore th« coiiiaion
ooourred. All theee witne^aeft t«»tified thitt they heard no
bell or gong. On thff otnar h&nd, %90 other paaaengere, -^ho
■vere ixl?^o on the fr^^nt platfora, testified that their atten-
tion wa« ctalled to the pl5.intiff»a poaition by the ^u-Jden
ringing of the »[,ong cmd the shout of the motoruiiin. One, of
theae wltneosea aaid that the rl-iiwtiff «i^» th«n n3 f«et in
front of the oar, and the other r^siid he waft forty feet a'*<«y.
Both of tbeee witneeeee teatlfied that n% th^^t tiae the plain-
tiff wae walking alov<rly aouthwaei in the center of the etreet
interaeotioni with hi 3 h«fad cio^n. The aiotorman, aleo, tse-
tifled> on hie direct exajr;in5;tlon, that the rlain*iff .«5»8
walking "on a slant", eouthweat, near the center of the croae-
ing, but on croae-exeaiination he eaid thtit the plaintiff was
• s .
loti #••! aa •«« fi^^
■i«CXoa «.I*<f air!
,»46tff-ilr nit ^f;
t!"
imti t»df Ic sne feoA alrl aOi: >:
♦ trorfB i»ri.t ♦^.-fc s/i6s «-"
- ; i. iil> •»Dl* .9t •»«* off
ts-'T.tp ^ij* *»» Y!-fnr- --1.
- 4 -
walking about t^n fweli west of th« oast filde of Lenvl tt »tre«t -
whloh woulct be j^lthln thft line* of the 9fc.itt BidCA-ftlk on Leavitt
»tro«t, if ouch line* weri» rrociuced aoro«o kike ntrect. When
the plaintiff '»a« ploKecl ur, h« wsm lying on tiu* ficuth track,
near (probably eaat of) the; Qent«r line of Leavitt strwet.
Tne Kviaence alfio 3i»owe, without contradiction,
that the street oar which hit th« pl.*ifiitiff »(»« «even feet
una aix Inchea vside "ovfir all*. Th« puAgo of the trsick being
four ff^et, ftight and. on«-half inohea, the "ov«rhfing* of th®
car to the north and sscuth of th^ tr«ck waa thorofore on« foot,
four and thrc«->quart«ra inoh«fl, s^nd the ciiatance in a airsot
lin® fro« a point a foot i\nC » hy.lf north of the north rail
to th« aouth edg« of n car standing on the north track, vvould
bo aeven fo«t, «ev«n ami on<»-fourth Inch©©, Th« ol«&r jre-
ponderano® of the iividonce is* to the i?ffeot thnt whilR the
plaintiff, diking at thfi ruta of three or four jiiUeo an hour,
was crossing thla araca of len« than elRht feet, lh« «5trcset
oar want a disitance of nt least on? hundred fcRt. At three
mllftg an hour, » nsan walka 4,4 fftet per fleoond, or eight fpct
In lees than two «eoonti«, A car wovlng 100 fePt in two
«eoonda is traveling «t th« rfsite of 34 lailea «n hour, Kven
if the plaintiff wsilkod due aouth-weat "on s nilant*, the din-
tance covared by hia '^ould not be o-»er t'jfelve feet, ana on
that iiiAatiijjptlon, if h« wt'tlked at the rate of thrct- ft.iloc an
hour, thfi car mu«t have been taoving at the rate of ov«r
t«enty-two ?t.ileB on hour, Ttok thef??e BiBjrle comrutatlone,
^•hioh any Intelligent juror couki itiike, it ie rnr.nifeflt th .t
th« B0torra.an*e o^tiK/^te of thf rats of <9r^*}d --it ^hich h« x'Sfae
travf^llng in altogethwr too low, r.tnci is wholly incon«i«tfint
rlth th« rent of hi«» t«s»tiif.ony, ?lth thla exoeition, hi«
oviciftno© corroborates th:\f. of th« plaintiff in »c»t reafecta,
and loav«8 ll^tltis room to doubt th*it the naglijg;ent, not to
aay raokleaa, operation of th« atreet oak wa« an *rffioiant
tfi
tOi
%d:* MXiJ
i»0%i
x*0 *«H*
*!ll^
XM9 k
\t
>4
tlX*v«il •
■I'-^v; "•.. •»?.*•
«(>•« »■
iflti
- 5 -
oauae of th« Occident, If not *hf. solo oauae.
There is no count in the declaxettlon, however,
which ohsrgft* uny -Stanton or villful Kiaooniuct or Intentional
neglect of duty on the part of thr. d«>fendant»s eervanto,
Heno«, the qucation of the contributory negligence of the
plaintiff atlll rewalne. C. y. & V. Coj-I Co, v. I'oran .
210 111., 9.
In ChicafTO City Ry. Co. v. SamHistey. 3953 111., 400,
• c&ble car collided at a atre^'t or calling with a ^unlk wagon
m which the plaintiff wae rialng, ind it appearea frona the
he
evidence tht^t before^attewpted to drive acrose the trackw,
he "looked down th« street to the. ntouth sikJ «aw the car which
was approaching the croaBlng froa tlM cSlrnction*. He teatifieci
thftt the oar was then, a a he thGUi;ht . a lilotance of i^bout one-
half block froK the ororssing. Tt wao contcntied th-t uf.on
this eviaence it xsust be heltl, aa a matter of law, thit the
plaintiff afftfl guilty of a failure to observe ordinary cure for
hie own eafety. Ass to thle contention, thft court aaidt *At~
tenaptlng to oro9S the tritick of a atreet n^ilvtixY tihead of a
coving car i» not nooerigaxlly to b« Iwrntod s^B contributory
negligence. It m»y or ictiy not b& jrucient, depending upon
the proxiitity of the oar and the s^-eed with which it la itoving.
Wiiether, in the [urticular instance, reaaonable care wa« 6xer~
oieed in going upon the track iR \i9ua31y a aue^itlon for tii©
^ury, under proper lnetrx«5tlona.*****The evicienoe In th« pr^^ent
o&ee wae not auoh as to Jut^tify the court in cteoii»rlng ae a
oaatter of la'v, the appellee Uid not act nit.h rea«onMble o&re
for hie o^n aufety,*
The aaa;e o-. nolusion vr;af} ra^i^ohod in Chicago Union
Traction Co. v. J.»0' baon. ri7 111., 404, wijere the arivftr of
a heavy truck, loaded with flovir, turnoci hie teast across the
0treRt car tracka in the i!.ld^,'jle of a block ahead of an ap-
proaching electric car and o coUiBlon folloiifed. There the
( .< ii 0*^ i V WW ■• ' .i>W
• .,,,.-,■ ■>•■ .r^...-r- .' , • •*' ni#« "t^itfliftid
■ T 0X«
. -JiUtoJ -ft
. . iS^f d^tim 111
.•>«t ,. ,.. ^ xJ t*4# tsttttivt
. -^*l« VAO •<* **4*jl
i, . - iaivoa
-'1r»r: >.f* rti , IT
•^ .-{.f.M;..* nno aid t«t
^.:* V- . - t^m».i «
- 6 -
court »«ld (p. 407): •>!« (th« driver) said t.h..t he knew the
oar wo\ild have to star '^^' pilow aovn cr it rould prol^ft^ly
atrlkt hlR 'vMgon, and tli<xt the oax oould elaok up juat &«
'^«11 as he oould 'tith a team, and ho thought the Biotorit^^n oould
atop the car «vhen the oar wan right clo«« to th«» wagon. That
te^tlttony would justify th« oohclu«lon that appellee knew,
r<hen he irove upon the track, that a ooilleion wouia be in-
evitable in tho ordinary operation of the car, unle«9 the
BBOtorman of appellant nhould prevent tho c -liiaion by hiw care
d.nd diligence, r?ut arp<*ll»« ^ilso testified that vhen he turned
his tettiu to croae the track th« car ^aa about on« hxmJred feet
eaet of Whipple street, that said atreet wan about tvo hundred
feet cant of him, and that Ji£ thought he hud time to ^ot uoroae
the traok . He waa bound to ftx?:roise a reaaonsble juaga-ent in
view of all the olrcuibstancea, iina the coxixt, in p«9sjiir.g on
the uiOtion, •sun reciUired to considwr all ihft evidono®, includ-
ing the distance of the oar froK the wagon, th« rat© of speed
stnd all the cirouff;-*tanoee. '.''e cannot aay th<?t in 3o con«icier-
Ing it, the evidence nece^jRarily led to but one ooncdusion,
but ne^ think that thft '.^ueptlon yht^theri uiuier ?U1 <-fift clroum-
Qtanoea , appf-ll«e believed, ur on rsa'^oriable ^'•'-.rounaB, t h - 1 he
had t i iu& to fijet aoroafl •> ;»y: tjack before the Oc4r ■■>ov>ild reach
hJR, -run prorer to be ^ubn.i-ttnd to the jury ,** (Italics oura.)
We think the facts of thio cn.ae brin£ it .vithin the
reasoning aiid conclusion of the Cviaee iibove cited. It caniiOt
be held, act a matter of law, that tho plaintiff ;vaa neceasarily
guilty of a vtint of due oaxo f:<,erely beo5»U£?e iie dtteapted to
oroae the defeiKianfa tracks with knowledge thnt a car wais
approaching rapidly, "^heth^r it 'vae prudent for hitu to do ao
depends upon the distance he had to go, the arpr.rent rroxi&iity
of tiie car, the apparent sipecd vith which it v&» moving at the
time and other like oircu&st&ncea. In deoiding to a.ake the
Attenrt, he wae bound only to exeroiee a reaaonable ;)uagB.ent,
*.' fc hT\^^ ^ i .«#.
r r rt '(fc iili0i!i^r> n4 f>ft 1 t I'lWi
.^rn»i •^ri'^At to-
iuyL
' ci w r J V
ti» r^f
9**ft'*m.
- 7 •
in vi©w of all the oiroumetanccBi and If, as? h« tftBtified,
he believed he had awf-le time to oroae the track* ahead of
th« oar in safety, it mifn a qu«9ticn of fact for the Jury
vshether, under the circun.«tano«« shown, he had rfia^oruble
ground* for that belief. The jury h-iving foumi in hi a favor
on that queatlon, and it« finaing having been ?i}:prov«d by the
trial Judge, we are not authoriK®d to aet naide tne vc^rdict
and reverse the judgment, unl«»» we arc frepar^d to say, yfter
a due exaffdn:itlon of tho evidence, that the verdict 1^ ciesrly
contrary to the -^eif^ht of the ftviienoe. Tiii« v?e ore uni^hle
to do. "^hen the plaintiff first aaw th« car coming, it .<ip-
jr eared to be nearly % block away, Fe had l©a» than twenty
feet to go in order to oroaa th« track. The car Hc«n.ed to
be "far enough dov/n", «o he ^vent on, Jvii^t ^^fjfore he ;-?t8pp»d
on the track he looked again. The car wa« 100 fe«t away.
He haaitated, but concluded thf^ro -mn tin-K to oroae in s&foty,
We can see nothing unreasonable in th;.<t concluaion, ^hl le
he oould nee that the oar waa coraing along vf:ry fc^at, it
would be unreanonable, in our opinion, to oxjiect hiK to cieduoe
froK that fact, at hi a r?-J"il, that the car waft ir.ovine ^t the
unuaual spsed of 100 feet in two seoonda, s^na that ti.© n.otor-
jiian would isake no effort whatever to check tliia »io«t extraor-
dinary apeed in urproaohlng; « public croaaing in a buoineae
street. "S'hilR it in undoubtedly true tisat the plaintiff had
nc ri p;ht to rf;ly aoleiy upon the pr«f»unirtion that the ir.otormc*n
would ffirforjB hi ft legal duty to exercise due care in tha or«r-
ation of his .street cr«r at auch a tiwe ?!nd plr-.ae, yet thtt pre-
•uasf tion exiata as a K.att©r of law jind ia entitled to due
weight in detericining the quoation of contributory nofli^^ehoc,
"Anticipation of nariigence in othcrre in not a duty which the
law Imposea," f^ohlauder v, Chio ag o & So, Traction Co ., 253
111,, 154, 159, The tca-.. toning of tho court in ChiOcuro City
Ry. Co. V. Ctjg, 19^5 Til., 514, ond in Chic&.iT.o Cnnerr^l Hy, Co ,
^Ai If* \9 ••!▼ ai
*■
■mlfii
rijlifcr'
5n iffo
.■•
V ,oO .T>I
V. Carron . 91 111. App,, 356,^r|) lied to «o»«wl|«t «i»ilar
facta, in Hlao »fplicable to the facts of this oa»e,
We do not thluk th« court errod, In refusing to iffr-
Bslt defenclant'ft counsel, on cro««-«XAa.lnatiori of tius witnenB
who toad given hi a opinion th»t th« cut *»• going at the rate
of 35 teilet an hc\ir, to ask «uofa qu«wtionii an: "Yow think it
not iwuimial for oara to run «i3 or 40 pdies on thm atrt et In
Chicago?" and •••'^s*t if? your opinion i^s ^o thw «p©eci of curs
on other atrsets?" The witnesB vfi?* not testifying »» an
exrert, 7ind «ven if he w«ro, the ^arcaetio and b«21igerent
tone of the quRBtiona ^u^tified the ruling of the ocurt. IKor
wjif! it error to ;.erRiit the plaintiff to teatify thi>t he. heard
no gong or bell, '^hlie pferha?:* the failure of the Kotorni&n
to ring a bell a« a warning to ta& Fl^4ntiff sight not be an
independent ground for recovery, yut the fact that plaintiff
heard no bell rung had a bearing upon the question vfh«ther the
plaintiff waa exercising du© care for hiR o^m p^infy, Jka to
the convftreatlon botTfaen the i^ot orm&n and one of thR paBaengfjra
eojjitj tisae before the sooldent, »e do not sttach any s«riou©
iaiportitnoe to the «*lleg«d error, if any th<>re »&», The fact
that the o«*r wae ^oing very fast being clearly Hhct^n, it oould
m&ke no uiffereince whetncsr the attctorKan said hts ".vould huatie
up* to keep on appointBent, or not.
The plaintiff»a third instruction aefln^a the worde
"ordinary care" to K.«an "that degree of care which a reasonably
j-ri^ent or oautioua para on woiUd take to i^void in;Jury under
like oircu»«tance9". It is objected that thie construction
«8BUite» that a f«a<sonttbly prtiaent p^^rRon Big:ht find himeelf
in the poBition th« plaintiff i«a« in at the time of the injury,
and the oaae of K. C. B. H. R. Co. v« Co^aay, ;.'03 111,, 808,
la cited in aupport of this vJcw. The instruction in lUea-
tion in that oase, however, weB net tho sasf.e ae the ons ii;"iv©n
it
v^ll V».
/N ,. . * ,
' i«
...u ^tttt
o ...i nr " •
1 . «V %/K
. - -..•
.4; i ytU
-,»1«
(iu t. * •>> A
nVlfCtnAMtt > r,.r^« AAil»'fr.W Mrs.'-'
flOi.. .... . . : ,
- 9 -
In thin CEi««. Ther« thA «ords "under llk« ciroua«t''no.««*
w«r« followod by the FhJft;»« "sinci in the ««n.« aituation*, there-
by limiting the queBtion of due care to the conduct of the
pli*intlff at the tiae of the injury, "regardleee of hie con-
duct In placing hltsaelf in a i:luoe of danger*. yun the
latter phraee omitted, t.n^ v?orci«i "under like oircumHtaiioee"
are not lliaited to the preoiae Koaent of the colli«tion, but
eiBbraoe iiil the cirotiKotancee relating to the accident. But
if it were open to the ob;3ection ntated, the defendant le not
in a F03ition to ookc lain, for aevftral of ite own infitruotione
litait thft question of due o&re to the oonduot of the jl dntlff
■at the tliee and pl&ce In queation", f^ee Coi<:R.on».ealth I'le^ -
trio Oo« V . Roee. S14 111., 545; Ursited Bre^werifee Co. v .
0* Tonne II. 3:}1 111., 334.
Finding no reverHible error aeong thoee dieeueeed
In the brlefe of counacl, thft Judgment will be affiraed.
Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely dissents.
,ainoBci.b \,l£
882 - 16322, -- -V .-M V . -/ "^'^ (L-y- •
Defendant in Srr
va, / ^ IIUHIOIPAL COURT
(JiWR^xE A. NKEVE^, X )^' ^ Ot' CHICAGO.
Plaint^ JMS Error. )• Ci\cuK.U.<K i. »lc>U,t:f^ <-vy^
I,
HE. JUSiiCE FITCH D&I,IV.-^R£D THK OPISIOS m- TJ^E COURT
^ t^S. COURT.
Det&nd&rt In error rsoovered a judgment against plain-
tiff in arror for $400, in an action of the fourth olasa,
brought in the Mimiolpal court of ahissago. The plaintiff's
atater-ent of claim la for csoney iiue upon three proTaiaaory notes
signed by plaintiff in error. The first two of sijch notes are
dated "Ghioago, October 19, IvlO", are payable to th« order of
oCarty <% Kuaaell, at 145 Dearborn Street, Chica?^o, Illinois,
and are endorsed by th9i» In blank, fhe third note is dated
•Uoroooo, Ind,, May 7, 1010*, is payable to the order of plain-
tiff in error at the First Sational J^ank in Chicago, and is en-
dorsed by plaintiff in error in blank. The autanons issued by
the ^?unloipal Court consmands the bailiff of that court to miwmm
the defendant 'if he ahall be foiand in the first district of the
city of Chicago to appear before the Municipal Court", etc., ard
the return of the bailiff shows personal aervice by delivering a
copy to the defendant, **ith a praecipe and Btatentent of claim
and affidavit attached thereto, and at the sane tine inforraing
him of the contents tharaof in the city of Chicago* , The def mid-
ant entor^ a general appearance and des?ard for a jury trial, and
filed an affidavit of sserita, vshioh, as af3ende<l, atatoa that his
defense is that all the notes were executed wlthoiat consideration,
that the first two notes were asx^igned to the plaintiff after
the Bsaturity thereof, and that the third note was executed and
delivered to the plaintiff by tl» def errant, iilwn the ease vas
. cisjn
-« A inMoUx't A bon areola xon?-
i*l9 ftlfV ^0>.
til Wll .10T
maw* ol #*u»« tfi'.
' ^om• ai tlli
f
i
. .brui
:«Xtf nl mbAt V
jinlnviy^il •mii •«•« «U i« tea tOiv^iad^ 6«Kfo«li« llval>l¥la Ana
o&ntlab •tiT . *QSito trtO lo i^Jto o^^f nl loanocii ciina^'^oc! ckU lo «i/(
ftns , I«l«r^ ^nui * fol bLTUfswb ImaE aonrxaaqqa Xjntwsi a bavalna iaa
'Mis mttiM^a ^bmbtmmM aa «4olif« «ali
T9|}1 anoo iuoiiilv balMMOM arMv at.
nXq afld oJ i)an?|leaa c
•za a^v tKfon AntiiU wi.
K.o ertl cradl .Jnafenalab «.
la na telll
: ) Ua iacU ai at^oalaft
^ ianutl adi iarti
il*uiaffl o(t#
Imlq tU oJ iia'saTiXab
-2-
reaohed for trial, the defcmdant made a motion for a contin-
uance, and in support of hi a rsotlor., filed tso affidavits, Tho
first waa oigned by a phyaioian, who deposed that about t*o
jTionthss prior to the trial, he had performed a suriP;ioal operation
upon the defertdant, "that said Neeves la not able to appear In
court b'dcaxise of the aaid phyaioal condition of said Neevea*,
and that "he rorlly believea the said Hoavea will net be able
to appear in oourt for the trial of this suit for at least thirty
days hereafter". The seoor^ affidavit is by the attorney of Ui©
defendant, sfho states that defendant "has been serioualy ill for
aotne length of time", that t»o Esontha beforo tlm trial he had a
fsia'gioal operation, and that the affiant waa InforK^ by the sur-
geon that defendant would be fully recovered and able to bs about
In three or four sree^a after th© operation, but tJmt coinplloatlcna
ensued, which "delav^ed ai«i prevented the full and early recovery
of said defendsmt", that defendant "will be ready and willing
to proceed with the trial of said milt aa soon as hia phyaioal
condition will p^rrait, and affiant aaye that he fully expects
said defendant will be able to appear in court and proceed with
the trial in not to exceed thirty days" ; tlmt the presence of
the defendant is neoeasary because he is a Tsaterial witness in
his c«n behalf J that he expeota to show by tho defenditnt that
the third note wae executed send delivered "solely for the re-
lease and eatlsf action" of sundry unfounded olalraa fca* mechanic's
liens, nfhioh, affii^it atatee, were olouda upon the title to de-
fendant's property 5 that th© presdnco of defendant is alec nec-
essary for the purpose of aiding in the examination osid croes-
exarair^ticn of witneseee and tc explain certain letters and con-
veraationa which the affiant say a the plaintiff will introduce?
ivtiii that "becauaa of his phyoioal condition, defendant is unable
to appear in court". The record then shova that *the aoijrt.
&wt iitoiim 9aAi Maoqttft otfv .fMloistdq m x^ tMQila <tjt« ^vtll
wOiXni bum xhm^ m<i Lltw* ««wfeci«t«» $mti4 ^•tamtimfi0b^ htM ^
luotm\iiH «lci •« ffooa «« #tu» bi«« lo Xm^ Mfl ittiv b*»*onqr o^
M**<|K« ^XXm^ <Mi 4mU 6TMI «»«11t^« turn «J ( rfv TC^f^fbroo
il#2« fra^Aoif fcn« 4?wo» rtl *m»^*i o^ »ittfs mT XI (««
to •Qrt»»«^ •HI l«(i ;*eyAb t^^^ M»»ex« oi ton xtX .Ulhrt e^i
■t ht«0a#l« X«l<Mj|«i « •! «d — m e a d rx^e«»«#«r «1 #ft«i T*^«f> •'ii
ij«U i8«teM(^ft •<li t^ vo/lai ot sieocpn «f i«ili ylX«rfocf rrw el'
••V fttfi 'xol vXoXo»* ftmvllofe tec* fcoiiioex* •«« oion Uttmt wiS
a*oJtnw(o«« i«^ «ii«Io bmlttmaltms Ttmam to 'noliotnaiium bfui>MM«x
'•b 04 •^/ilJ mU nrafP •Umlo uram ,«A^i.»a #r»11tla ^ifeXrfv ,Wf»XX
.;1«30O fftaXqx* ol fana — — a »lw lo iniSanlmmxm
ttJtfat^^ •AS mygam in^fyriM «t^ ciDltfvr «r«ot^«*«c«r
J 9l IcuteKtvib •:i3X4^1fyioo XiMi^QY(<(7 al^i "H^ »«i»o*rf* tarti bfltt
^ttuoQ eiu* ««cii ««otfa AMU *«se«ii afn* -.*»«uee al laaqfi o#
-5-
upon oonsideratlor of aaid rnotloTi and upon t.hs fact that this
oauB© has bean upon the trial call on l^obruary 13, 14, 15, i6,
19 and 30th, and oallod for trial several tiraes disrlng thla tlzrso
and postponed upon the action ef the defendant, whoae ooimsel
pronisod that he *'ould obt41n the dapcsltlon of the defendant,
-» 3 » ard on the further ground that the cause had ho&n expressly
continued froia February 20th to February 23rd on rsotion of deft.,
who stated by counsel that he srould be ready for trial on the
23iHi*, denied the notion for a continuance, Jfc letters frocj, or
oonTersationa with, the defendant, isrere intr^uoed.
It ia firat urged tiiat the oourt &rrBd in defying the
notion for a continuance* In Kap|>ort of this contention counsel
cite the oaeo of ^ohnell v. Rot hbatfa , 71 111, 8S, ?he only point
decided in that oaa^ was that tie court properly denied a saotlon
for continuance, on facts similar to the case before us. It »as
there held that affidavits aMoli do not sho«f that the preaence
of a defendant at the trial ia neoeasary m^ whioli do not atate
that the defendant io sick at the tiss© of the application for con-
tinuance, are insufficient, ^ihn aaso ia true in this case. ?he
Btata!3carita in the affidavits that tlm def^mdant was ■unable to
attend the trial* ajr© the aere concluaione of the deponent a, Nei-
ther of the affidavits 8ho«s any neoeaaity for the presence of
the defendant at tho trial. The matters whi^ it ia aaid the de-
fendant, if present, sould testify to, would not be ssaterial, if
true, we art* of ths opinion t?tat thera was no error in denying
the aotlon for a continuance.
It is next lirged that the municipal Court of Chicago
Is a local inferior court, that no presusptlcais are to be iRdulge<l
in favor of ita Jurisdiction and that the record does not show
that the Municipal Ocurt h^ Jttriadiction. Sfe think the contention
i0 without aerit. Juriadiction Is the power to hear aru detuxr'J.TW
yX^»fi^M« iB»«rf bad M«fe» MM ^mil farcfOT^ ncdJ-u/t •cfJ i^
no b9SS. XTMn '<rrt 6t.
«»!<# tn XaIv^ ion TfeJMV otf IMOIMO ^ M«J{) Oft
T. . .. totSam adi iaoino* ,"lrtSS
.^.-•oijftvstfccl «no'v ■ " 1^ V ;uo
•id s»tY.iloft. Ctt li O W I'UIOC
XoomiOD noltao^cno aliO "to 4*»I5R^ . ■ftiionBttiwo « lol tt^lS^m
ififoq vr»o odT .«B .Hi xv . iTta^i B «r &fiii>it> 1* mmo 9iU oiio
n. b«tnoft tX^B»40ri« ^^MOO orU Jyul^ •ma aoAO 4«rt4 ^ te&ioo0
MM . tt^arieii •«4io wtt o4 iMfteto o^omTI^ efo «••«« tclt
•OfMotnRI OlU .^Mii KttdO t»R olr t
«l4kf«i ioff o» ti^tOm boB tfw» o» n »! X«I<<1 •cfi io 4n«fiH0^l> « ^
-4SOO 'e iM! odJ '%• ttuUnmfimh e
c . '. couMft Ada ^ieu* Lmiinumtil
it tSBOftpWtlft mU OI «#f»l«PO#«^
-to utok urnX n a m ^rttm %Ai mo *Ioii> &ii
\9l t^ioooooft TO* owodo •4'Avo^Jmo
of<U[ ons^ioM Mtt «X«1^ oiU 4o ^mtanrftofr otfv
iMo otf ioB hUMm ^ms rix^ooi nXMm ,«atoov4 il ^itmkmt'^
Z0110 o(T ?*«« o*wtft loil# aolai^ ajfl >o onui •« .oon.
,BC W» wM?Toe « fo*t fdlloa od«
3.Vi->JtclQ lo l*suoO X«qicitnzA' •■
bo^fiatei otf p4 ottf saoJUqmoovf ««r J.^i^ «4<«r oX « •;
siortu smt s#A|k btn > i oitt #oiU A«M rrol; '-o lovoH Oi
onl-rxe^oft Mio «iooii ol voooo oiiJ i«t 4i»od4lB oi
<-4~
a oau0O. Seotlon Z of the Mimlolpal Court Aot sivee the Muni-
cipal Court jurlsdlotion, aa oaaos of tho fourth olaaa, of "all
civil actions, quasi crirainal liotiona exoeptody for tho recovery
of soney only, wJen the amoxant claimed by Uk» plaintiff, exolu-
elve of coats, dooa not oxoeed One Thousa*5d Dollars". Section
4 of tho Act divides the city of Qhioago into five districts,
the flrat of rfhich eiabraoes the central Inisineaa pox* t ion of the
city* Section 2e provides that oaseu of the fotirth claae, sentiOTs-
ed in sooticm Z of the Act, shall be brought and prosecuted in
the district in which the defendant resides or ia found. The
bailiff's return shove that the defendant was found In the first
distrlot of Chicago. He entered a general appearance ard fllwd an
affidavit of merits, in neither of whioh did he object to the
juriadiction of the coijrt, Jurisdlotion of the subject aeatter
is expressly conferred by statute, and Jurisdiction of the person
cannot be denied after a general appearance haa been entered and
a plea to the merits 2aa been filed. An affidavit of iserlts in
the liiuniclpal Court anewera the same purpoae in this x^espect,
as a plea to the iserita in the oirouit Court, itirther'^ore, as
all the noteia aued upon were expresaly i^uie payable In the city
of Chicago, the cause of action arose or accrued within that city,
and that fact appears of record.
Firxiing no reversible error 1t> Ui© record, tho Judgiaent
of the unioipal Court will be affirmed.
AFPIiiMKD.
lis* !• ,»fcw*^ -.- adi "'^ i.w-»«i> ? .. .;■> vri-fTt^Iiiff i'lijoo I*qlo
^-v*^. .,^-j «<f4 -jarj «l«lf»Mic ^ liTl©
--'-''■*■•' ■ri:>r. ftrxjiertT *^ ^x^ _ . ,_- - -.—
»-«' . ^Jfe tit tfhtvib ^t«_
ertT •*r«.'oi^^ "J .i»b •dl d- fK« rj| iottimlb •iU
i-if-tivjr , .,ij to m>ti'oii>al*urt
,.^ .. cot bnti ,-.-; — J« t^f teT'MttiDo %lun9fvpcm ml
— « .ii^lVl tmmd aart aiXnofli tiU ei ««J[4 a
'^ 94io<rw9 "'^''^ Mi' •'mmmam #«mO I«qlolMilt mU
*^- ..* -i.--^.„^ ■.;;«■ X-f*<^<»^BVM •-»•* '^'^r' on ciU Xl£
..(•?.t r??rt^lw bMfX99S ^0 »t«">-t •« '«»■> f »»\i. ""'valdO "Xo
301 - 18341. (^<^ ''^^'^'^(^ A. -N^/^ .o^q^-Y- :^
^^^r> Av
B\ ./. NORWOOD and Q. Y. H/Jifll^ON, ' )
doing buaineas under firm nai^ of )
LaMBiTv SlilPPEito STORAGE 5: GoliaS- ) ERROR TO
SION CO., / )
Def endaito. in Error, ) MUNICIPAL COURT
\
)
▼B,
V^'
^ } "Z i . )J9'^*' ohioago.
IMRE-'.'ONT, WOL?-;JON ± COHEN/COf-TPANY, ) .q Q Vi - ' T>-f<,^,A.
a Corporation, \ / ) '->. ^-^- <^''-*- cct^...<. LAciyiJU^^
■v Plaintiff in Error. ) '^'^^oiU^^ <^t^J.a^^
\
MR. JUSTICE FITCH DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
182I.A. 78
Defendants in error are in the lumber business, and
plaintiff in error ia a wagon nanufacturer. One Jox, a lurr.ber
broker, told Hamilton tliat plaintiff in eri^or "wanted two wagon
loads of first and second hickory" . Haaiilton understood this
as an order from plaintiff in error, and sent twc wagon loads
to the place of business of plaintiff in error, with tickets
purporting to show that the wagons contained a total of 4653
feet of "first and second hickory". As the wagons were ijnloaded
one of the men in the yard of plaintiff in error "tallied" and
graded the lumber and noted on the back of the tickets that
there had been "received in good order" 1172 feet of "first and
second hickory" and 2525 feet of "couaaon", an inferior grade of
Iximber. Three days later Hamilton wrote to the plaintiff in
error as follows: "We enclose you invoice for two wagon loads
of hickory, shipped to you on order from Mr. Jox. •;:- « » This
lumber was billed to your firm on our tickets and was subject to
your acceptance or refusal. * » s We would be pleased to have
you report on these two loads as early as possible, and if satis-
factory, we will adjust the raatter with you direct. Mr. Jox was
merely selling on a coniinisaion" . The invoice which was enclosed
with this letter was for 4653 feet of "1 A2 Hickory @ |55,
$255.92". Plaintiff in error replied to this letter as follows:
( .T .p
'. -
uo -.
. r^^.pr
- r<^5
.'4
f r»f>
.lOTTii nl nii:?;
f> ^"^
.rt^i
rf' .itxo iii TllJfjiaiq i«riJ no^iioMH bLoi ,*x8iortd
J J 'IV <^ II- itoJiiau*H . "xnooloiri ixiooee Ixsa Is^D lo a£uioI
.-j'i'ji. * ♦«♦« jxiB ,noTx© frl TliiaiAlq btoYI isMo na mjt
B^(*to ..It' ' '*^-*ft»«Xq 10 esanlatM lo »ojBiq orlJ o^
' - i^cj •; :>•=-; J ,. 3 no a drcoBJBW »rii i«l;t voda \j4 ^ntinoqtuq
i •'jiroIiTu -•';>?. ErtOT^iJW oiii ok ."v^oafoM bnooea brus Senl:^ lo ^edl
bnjn "ballla;** ictio ni l'li;^it.tAXq lo Jyxjsx orf^ nl nwa a£i;t to %tM
iatiS BioAoli f^dS ^o Hotid off;} no h^ioa ba» lecfm;! erfi beb«*is
■*" lo ;teQ*^ "^ ' "tdMo Loog :il berlaoen* ae»d ted atodJ
iinttuLa ©rii o.^ ioc^IicaU noi*! a^Ab aartril .lacfoiiX
ej^ui no^jsw omi lot eoiov iJ: jjox ©aolona eW* ;awoIiol &a loTie
3* " -J .xoT. .iM ao«rt tofinto no xfo>[ o^ ijeqqJtria ,xtoXoId lo
7 JoQ'.Oija i>0W bna ci^-Aoli iiso no snll tuox o^ bBlllfi eaw todsBrl
av£d oJ beaiieXq ud bluow eW • • • .lAatHdi io eonA^q&ooa liiox
~8li£Q li bns «eIdieaoq a^t xXruto a£ aLAoX o»J eaadi no ^loqen isox
ar. .;)oeiib uo\ ditm naiiaa acI^ ^airt^* Xliw eW* ,Ynolo«l
bcc:o4o:^- t^w dolrlw aoioTal erJT .*aolaelmoo b no sniXXaa ^Xe^Mi
,35| ^ ifif'^-tH 2* " " ieal £Sf^ lol aisw loJJeX aldJ Atlw
roKoXXol BA loJ^JdX aliJJ IqeT lO'ne ni HlJn/- ' .".e.aSSf
-2-
"We never bought two wagon loads of hickory from you, although
we aaade a similar purchase from Mr, Jox. » * ^» v/e cannot pay
for this lumber both to you and to Mr, Jox. -r* » » Moreover, -» » *
our tally is altogether different froa yours, and even if you
were entitled to payment for this lumber, your tally^price is
incorrect and does not agree with written order for this lumber
given Mr. Jox. » « r. We shall be pleased to pay you for this
lumber in acoordanoe with our order and tally sheet provided
you will give us a written order from Mr. Jox to that effect" ,
In response to this letter defendants in error offered to accept
^'195 in full "to avoid any trouble or litigation", and saying fur-
ther, "if this is satisfactory nail ua your check. If not, we
will call on you for our lumber". To this offer plaintiff in
error replied that "tha total amount of our purchase from Mr,
Jox is only $134.25, as the common was bought at ^30 and the 1st
ci 2ds at $50. Our tally mswie up by Mr, Jox and our tally man
sho«s 1170 ft. Ist & 2d8 and 2525 ft. common. \^e suggest that
you obtain legal riglit to amount due Mr. Jox from us", Hamilton
testified that he then demanded a return of the lumber, but that
plaintiff in error refused to return it, claiming it could not
be identified. This suit followed. On a trial before a jury a
verdict was rendered for defendants in error for $278.81, and from
a Judgment entered thereon, plaintifi" in error has sued out this
writ of error.
It is undoubtedly the law, as contended by counsel for
defendants in error, tlaat one who accepts goods that have been
ordered and appropriates them to his own use, cannot defeat an
action for tlie purchase price merely on the ground that the goods
are not of the exact quality or description ordered, since his
remedy in such case, in the absence of a warranty, is either to
refuse to accept the goods when delivered or to return them within
XAq ionoeo eW
uov li aevo bi .
fceMvcnn
elouoiv.
>jXi4 Hi . ;.i*ij Tiro
law
ni 'i1i4iti
noiil' . au soil
■xiio 10' - ii«r
ioC« OiiJ B«i ,(^v . Isso ml x.o\
,i1 OVII avorfs
MOTtit : . . , 'lot rro'j*i& ni BJrfa^rr«»'i«i>i.' «;^i toe- oi^jiav
aiiio iuo d ^cnc«x« fli -e-wiJfMi snttuLvl m
.TO' -i-Tl
•tol learufoo x<f fcafaneiaoo ai:; li xlbetduobtxi^
naecf •r<Bif ierfJ aftoos aJq^ooa o ^ri
n£ iJseiaL iomiao ««exf n»o aJLfl oJ oa/lJ 8a^«2'xqonq<[A i»£ bai&frxu
etfl •f>fTla ^Jbotebio rtoliql'xoaal) io 15^1 i t^ia
o^ -xedilv ai ,^Jii«Ti«w a lo «om*stf« ori: towa fil ^^•''^•^
a reasonable time, Americem Theatre Go. v. i^iegel, ii21 111.
145. This rule applies when goods of a specified quality or
description have been ordered. In this case the quality or
description of the goods ordered was "first and second hickory" .
If plaintiff in error did not receive first and second hickory it
was not bound to accept the lumber delivered, but was required to
return the sane within a reasonable time. Having received, how-
ever, and appropriated to its own use the two loads of hickory,
it thereby waived all right to assert that the lunber delivered
was not of the exact quality or description ordered. But this, we
think, is the extent to which the rule above stated can be applied
to the facta of this case. It cannot be applied so as to bind the
plaintiff in error either as to quantity or as to price. It is
clear from the evidence that the only specif ioation of quantity
was "two wagon loads", and it is also clear from the evidence tlrnt
there was no agreement in advance as to the price. It is true
that two wagon loads were delivered, but there is no evidence that
the quantity invoiced was ever delivei*«d to plaintiff in error.
The biorden was on the defendants in error to show, by a pre-
ponderance of the evidence, both that the quantity of lumber
shown in the invoice was in fact delivered to the plaintiff in
error, and also to show that the price charged was the market
value of the lumber so delivered. In our opinion, defendjuits
in error did not sustain this burden of proof. Proof that the
quantity invoiced was loaded into wagons at the yard of defend-
ants in error cannot preponderate over the positive and appar-
ently credible evidence of those who measured the liimber as it
was taken from the wagons in the yard of plaintiff in error,
and there was no evidence whatever tending to prove either that
the plaintiff in error agreed to pay for the lumber at the rate
of |55 per thousand feet, or that such was the market value of
-5-
.III IS ;A .9mli 9LdMciQmM9t *
T- y^i^lsisp boHiooqa jojj (Wfi» collqq* ©Itrx ai.. I
i.aup erU 8a«o airfj il .i3©^©i>To fT<*#d ©v«rf rroliqlioael)
it XiOTiolri I* .on bib lo-vt^ :I
•/i»o©T srri -M •f<fArtoa/ie*x ii rtlnilw »tnu' -i
«X^03(ol<i 1<^ 8^ - vo &iL oi ooJ^finqonqqA t;
betlcmjn &<S 'V.o Le^£^ft »TOcf« > [;t xloMv o^ ^«;txo a.i . ; :ia^
o>ri;t ft«.?rf oo af- oa boHf'^** «rf JomiAo J^I .ea^o sixLJ lo r.ioM^ etH oi
.^etrtrr . Jlitui/p o^ sa nefUi* "xorxe nl lliitilAlq
©ir onflvhjB nl innm99i;^Ji c toxfi
iaictJ 9on« .iwrovlIwA eiew rbAOl no>v iaai
-oaq -i:f'».'?hrTtil»f) od^ no saw ambvjd ari
ledKujI Ic T'*l'*''««)^> »riS vtcrfi . , oxioijiTa odi 1eo ocTBtoLnoi:
rtl ^liJlaA o^io'vtfefi josl ni b«w ooiorhl t teoda
^texiam afU B«v iM^iA/i^ ^Ai iatii woda o^ oaXa boM «*x<nie
«*r»fct«»l«l) ,m>itTirjo tu .;.>»i*TlIei> oa lodstrC nrit to orjljsr
eii;t i^fli locrH .looic 'lio rwlnifrf eld^ al/i^aua J:. -.u nt
-bem^eb 'to M. v jni beluiol aav ^olovnl iSttwurg
-•Trr;r-xj boa vri^iaoq edl fro eimiebnoqeiq ionnao ion© nl aina
ledflo/I adi Iwxusa^a oda aaod^ lo ooaeMra elrflfrato xl^"^
^inTta rrl Iti^rJfrlq ^o 6^«t edi nl aaor/- or!cf moTl nalu^ aav
i&tiS fQititB ©<^Diq "ei«dw .! ••« rxad^ fuxs
9;tai etU i« tecfm/X ©riJ io* rrr.q oi teetBM ^ona al YllintaLq edi
lo auLav idiliam edi Bev> ,J-ael UruMuodl naq 3<^ lo
-4-
the lumber delivered. For these reasons, \{a think the
evved in overruling the Tnction for a new trial.
It waa adTTiittod, however, by the plaintiff in error,
that it gave an order to Jox for the purchase of two wagon
loads of first and second hickory at f50 por thousajnd fset, and
that it actually received 5697 feet of hickory. Applying the
rule above stated as to quality, it ia clear that upon the jui-
inisQions of plaintiff in error the defendants in error were en-
titled to be paid for at least ?>6S7 feet at |50 per thousand
feet, or ^184. R5. As these figures appear from the record,
the error of the trial court in refusing to grant a new trial
con be cured, by a remittitur, if defendants in error choose to
cure it in that way.
If, therefore, defendants in error, within ten days,
shall f1.1e herein a remittitur of |93,96, the Judgment for the
remainder, viz: f 184. 85, will be affirmed j otherwise, the
judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded for a new
trial.
AFFIRT4ED ON REMITTIi'UR,
I
■ -j^aia »vodfi •Iy*x
. z-s^liitno'^ xi bill Hade
wW ,»oxt(rtoilio jbenntillA «»? .-iobnljuno".
..rch Tern, 1-., ITo . i^ ^^_;^ fi^W^^ ^ ;^,_;6^
520-18380. • .(7/ --'/;/ ;V
DUQUE3NE 3fc;G'JKITY/ COMPANY, ) ^ -^^-^^-^ • »- Q
Ltd., / ) ERROR ?0
Dfifend^tB In iirrcr, )
) KOMIOIPAL COURT
<V. OF OHIOAGO.
ISAAC W. H^'JiCNS, r /'^/ 7 ^ /^>' A ,'.' / ., / _^
Plaintiff in Krror. ) CA«^A -^ Uta-'i.Yv^ /-v cUii^^da.,^
^^^1:8 2I.A. g8
XR« JUSTIOJi FITOH DKLIVERF4O THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
A judgnent by oonfttaaion waa rftiuiored In the iiunlclpal
court in 1910 agiilnat plaintiff Ir. error for |3S5, ir faror of
John Mulholland, upon two judgRwnt notes, dated In i; 05, due one
day after date and payable to the order of Johai Mulholland, with
Interect, Theae notes were rw^or indoraod. On motion of plain-
tiff in enror the Judgment iraa opsred and leave given to jnalQ de-
fense, the Judgment to stand as eeourity. Plaintiff in enror
filed an affidavit of moritD setting up that h« had paid the notes
in full In August, 1905, to the manager of 'ulhollarsd, who had
promised to isail hii;! tlie oanoelled notes but failed to do so.
The affidavit of merits further states on Infom&tlon and belief
that after the payrsent of the notes Mulholland went into bank-
ruptcy and a trustee was elected, and "s^fflarst charges that the
aaid notes are not now the property of the plaintiff herein".
Thereupon, on motion of the plaintiff, leave was fsranted to anend
all records, paper 3 and proceeding by changing the name of the
plaintiff (i^nilholland) to "J, ?. iJcIfendry, r. R, Jacl'son and Jarses
K. Taylor, ttoaooiated together in a United co-partner»hlp, and
doing business under the firm mc^t" of Duquesne Seciwity Jo.,
Ltd." Appajrently all parties treated this order granting leave
to amend aa an anendnient in fact, and no new or amended statement
of claim or affidavit of fflorita was filed, but all orders entered
thereafter ts-r© entitled In the name of the new plaint iff » as above
stated. A jury trial was had, resulting in a verdict against the
rftUOQ JMX9XMUI
,0^ : •■ ■' n:.>:
or Kunflx t \ ••WJ
/
•o« oh c3 fll9t isjd 9»$oa b^XIoooAO ed^ ialif XXak o^ teaXcioniq
^«XX*<f boM noXiMnolnl no ••i«Jo •X9i(i<ftil •iln*« lo iXra^lllA orfT
*j(n9(f o^jil Inow i»ruiIX«dJLiiil «<»Jon oAi lo JnNMnx«q mU "Xtfi^* i«ill
• *itXrMiI llX^nljtX^ otSi "to t»i > < | OT! < | Mfi won ioct eoa aoloa 61a«
IMMM o^ i>o^iiafqi mmm araoX «HX^IaXi| oKt lo noXioo no «noqiMncotfT
•(f4 !• mum tUt ^^'•t'vmMto t^ >?^wJ: f> »i o »f % tea »t»q«q ««bn;oeot Its
uf)r4iL ten ao«?(ojiTr . ^x'lbcttfh^ . " o4 {btmlLOilLir:) llXinXalq
,,ol yjtim^i MBMiyciQ to •omi wvil aiU 7»I)mf •••nlaud ^-tioh
iJTAoX 2inX4xtjrq^ 70l>i0 «1jU &o4^««ni;r ^ •l^taq IXa x-^^noi^tf^A ".MJ
inone^«}« b^btmrnm ;o wan on brrjs «^oai*t rii 4aa«Bte«<aa na aj» fcaaaia o#
tNMWina a^aMo XX« Ssifi «t«XXl acw a4i:*sfta lo ^trMbttlM ia flLt«Xi> lo
aroda a« mlAXSniMlq m^m •AS lit aiMS mHJ aX l^Xil4rre ai^ n»S\B%%ili
Bili imrt^ta iclMar a nt ^i^Xuaat «lMif( dmr Xal'Si x'xut A .ftaiaia
-3-
plalntiffa, which ima set aside and a n«w trial grant<Mi. On
the second trial before & jury a verdict waa ra turned against the
defar.darX and aaeeasing the plalnttTfa' danrnpes at ;2e2. Judgraant
waa entered upon this verdict and this writ cf error was sued out
to reverse that Judimsnt,
Upon the trial, apparently to ai©ot ttm defense of wtmt
or title in the plaintiff^ the plaintiffs introduced (l) the depoai-
tion of a witneea who testified tb&t in 1906 !JulhollaTa.i did buaineas
under the na»« of •?, w. Griffin, prisae trustee* for International
Finanoa k Dorelopnent Oo,", and that the plaintiffs then purchased
all Uio asseta of i^ilholland froa aaid <>riffin for %500, acrong
which asaats were the two notea in qpieationj (2) a bill of sale
frcD auid •; • ^. Griffin, prime trustee", etc., to the Duquesne
;:^ecurit7 Co, Ltd. of "all negotiable inatrusenta, papers aivl &o-
oounto now on th© booVra of first party hereto*^ and (3) the depoai-
tian of a witnesa who testified that the»e notes «ere "on thm books"
of Griffin, truatoe^ at the tifs® of auoh purchase. All this? evid-
ence was adnsltted o-^ar the objections of the defendant, am at the
close of plaintiffs* evidence, defendant 'a counaol Koved to in-
struct the Jury to find th© isauea for the doferxlant on tho f,round
that no proof of title in th« plaintiffa had been eho«n« This mo-
tion waa runewed at tlie cloae of all the evidence. iJoth rootiona
ware overruled, and it is now contended that the couirt erred in re-
fT-iaing to instruct the Jury to find for the defendant, as thua re-
quested.
Under eection 62 of the i'ractioe Act, (which haa been
adopted by Kule 23 of the fiuniolpal court an & rule of practice
in that court) the burden of proof to abow a valid asaignnent of
the notea w;is upon the plaintiffa, in view of the fact tixat the de-
fendant, by bis affidavit of aerita, had denied ui«ler oath the
title of the plaintiffs to the notes in quesstion. The law is well
settled thut, under the statute in lorce at the time theao tranaao-
Xsiii-q
•IJLMS
tiona took plaod, a promiaoory not© oould not b» asalgned «o as
to veat th« legal tltl« In thd aaaign*© by a separate Instrumert,
but that It oould only b* done by Indorsercent on th« note It sol f.
Packer ▼. Roberta, 140 111. 871 j JaccLUea v. Ballard, ill HI, App.
507, Tretitlni^ the order granting leave to anend aa an amendment
In fact of the orlpjinal narr* upon whloh Judgment by oonfeoaion
waa entered, there la no averment in the naxv. aa thUH a^-ondod
that the notes atere aaeigned to the plaintiffs, and If there had
been an averment thfit they were vio aealfmed by a aoparate Inatru-
ffitnty aa the proof ahowed, the deolciraticn would not have shovm
any right of action In the plaint if fa. Keelor v. Oaetpbell, 24 111,
287, Xhe pz*actice followed in this case wa(3 ao very loose that
it oallfl for a repetition of the language of the Supreme Ooiart In
Walter Cabinet Co, v, Kuaaell, 250 111. 416, at page 4E0, viast
"The object of the rules requiring statements of olain and of set-
off is to Inforsi the parties of the nature of the reapectlve olaitna,
and whil«i the forrmlities of pleadinj; have been abollaJjed by stat-
ute, it is otill the law in the J^unicipal uourt, aa in other courts,
that a party is limited in his evidence to the claim he has made;
that he cannot make one olaira in hio statement and recover upon
proof of another without ainendment*.
It is, hovTover, insisted by counsel for defandarst in
error that, at the beginning of the trial, plaintiffs' counsel
stated to the Jury that the only issue laade by the affidavit of
merits wae payaent, and that defendant's oounael, in the presence
cf the Jury, aoqulesoed in that statement. It nuiy be that If
counsel for the plaintiffs had relied upon this admission of coxm-
sel for d0fendant as a waiver of all defense save payment, and
had rested the plaintiffs' case upon th© yrim facie evidence of
the notea, the defendant would not now be in a position to assign
any error based upon a failure of the plaintiffs tc prove title to
. (Mil •^on Mfi m» itnamm'tobal -^4 •noft •tf tirtp J^Iuoe il .r<xdj i4»3
im rfwgji Oft •« 6w— o^ •▼••X B"^<"«9 *i«»t» «(U n vija«^ .tW:
b*i>fT« a hmtU u.s ••Htfir ufU tU Smtn»rm on •! nsdl «A«*i*^f» mm%-
-tn^errt •J««»q«« M '■ amu o* «w« t*'^ ^«^ ittMTMva cu «••'.
mkojla ov^sri ^on &Xak»v nolo ^vmwuim looiq adi »« «ta«:
• *^^ ** tii»tf<g«*0 •▼ n»X— a .»* i •<« nl noU^m lo #riBl«t fp^
*jtfli 9mooi T^ om mam ftAoo min^ al fmoUc/^ •oi^aavq •dl •?&:
Ml S'UtnZ •iWiqtffi Mfi to i|HU(,viAl Mfj 'to rtojtii^«q»«X A no'; aXijiO li
»«!▼ ,0S* «5pu' -> .lit 095 ^Xi»n .30 Mn
*#¥« lo bnm nl«Ie tiO ttJrrM»l«t« ^j^nli^at ««Xm orf^ lo t^^ltf^ Mn '
,afl(lA£o •▼lt^*7*>«^ •ctt lo Air/iAa tU lo •ell'Mq Oif^ finoliti o4 •! Ho
-i*l« xcf tmrlmLloc ^4ul jinli»«oX« lo ••l^iX4NRnol axl^ oXi/iK tcu
,8iiMo& ^ ;o ni •« v^tuos} lA^loXmi*)< ttU nt ««! mU XXX^» •! M «o^u
l^luMs 4«i: •<! fiX4iXo aiCi o4 oonojbtro a 1/1 nl boilniX •! T^taq • •'
RO'TU T^vocaT L<ta inoinaJa^^M .ilxi nl al^Xo one a^Caa ionnoo r^rf •«ffj
. VnaoAnaf^A iiMxtiln na/l/ona lo loom;
rti ifxaJ^ntlajb ir :i ba#«lanl ^Yaravorf ••! #1
Xaaraioo *alllJnl«X(r tlal'ij tfJ lo ^Icnlsttf «!# ti; ,^affi fOTsa
lo itvabltt^ ntU xfi mbma acmal xlrto a/fi ^^^'fi t'ort ^ut} o« ba^Aia
aonaaaiq ndi nt «Xa«fxiioo a'lnahoalaJk ^atU bna ,#aa«x«Q «av dilnwr
11 $mdt atf x«B ^X •Irmiaiaia istU at ^aoaali/fOJi irvt adl lo
-Ruoo lo nolaaloitA alf<# noipi balXo^ bMd aHlirrlaXq atfi «id1
bnm «in»<nxaq araa aanalab XX« lo tmvtmw m nm itubmlB^ toU Xaa
lo aanaftiva otoal aclnq adi noqu aaao *alli^nlaXq act! fta/aan Jb«rl
noiilaoq m si ao' won #Oii biuom Inaibnalat mAS «a#4oa adt
o4 mutj aronq oJ allllnLiXq mdi lo a«iXl«l a aoqv bmmmd lorrxm xn*
-4-
the not98. But counsel for the plaintiffs did not aoe fit to
accept and act ui^cr. that adislsoion or »tatam«>nt of oppoBlng
counsel. Instead of relying iJtpcn that afcatetJtent, thoy undertook
to prove the title of the plaintiffs, and failed, v.hen the of-
fered evidence of tltlo w&ts objected to, and when oounsol for the
defendant icade tholr siotion to Inatinjot the Jury to find for the
defer.dant upon the fjround that no title in the plaintiffs had
been proved, this waa ouffioiont notice to plaintiffs' oounaol,
upon the trial, thjit the want of title to t.'io notes, aa well as
payment, would be relied on aa a defenae. Under tho»© olroum-
stanoea, we do not think the plalntiffa can well claim thi-t they
were deceived or ralaled by the oral atatawenta of defardant'a
oounael Into a belief that th^* defs-^nsse of want of title wa waived.
Other errors are aeaigned and diiacuased, but aa these
will probably b© obviated upon a new trial, it will b© unnecessary
to decide then, We tlilnk the court erred in refuaing to give the
peremptory i na true t Ion, a*vl for that error the judgment will be
reversed and the cause reiaanded*
RKvgRissa) Ann mmAimm,
oJ #11 — i9m btk m'nkititmLq •riS ta'i Issmiee ^08 ••e^on #<li
^itoqtio 19 #tf«fla*4i*#« 10 enlmmtmtis tsiiS Pt<^<iu ion fens tq»ofta
.td Mli (!•/<« •i>»Xia'| bnM ««llilnl«Xq •<<« to tXiitf e ■* nvo^q oi
hMl H^ltfmt . ai •iStt on $*tis Muo^ Mf^ noqt irmbritt**
flMUfOv doJtiofl tfrtelemm r«« nttif \b*rotq rf9d
-ca/&<ild «««rt^ ie t^I> « Mt m» *»fX«Y «<f fiXiMV «irr«<wt^
X«<4 4«il<r max* Il«v juo 'i£q •tlS ifffMf ^w oft ok «ooen(i#B
• •imUbno^Kft lo MMiOiioi«#« Lav> tit xd J^oXslar *io tmvtefb oiov
.Borijrv ^« oXlXl lo ifttw lo «««wilc«A vfti .^ r,'^rtt Xoomroo
fiMiooMmv ^ IXJhr ii «l4il*fi worr « no^ Jb»^«lrtfo oef x^adonq 11 hi
•cU rrl^ oi jptiaalot nl bo^to -Muoo onf^ UnlciS t u otXoob oi
•tf XX1« ino«Hbut o^ Tonrro isfis 10I l> ^vin^snl v» ^S— » >^
0St9b:imi9t ••uao orfi bit« b— laroi
^^ja^r ell ^T G rm ,^ 1 S 1 2 , llo . '^' 'J\o^ a^( >^ W wx-i^ o.^<K'Jr r^^^h-
1821.A. 7
vppeXIant cuasaspXains of a Yerdlet and ^vi&&ma% r«a&»i>>
«d 9,(^nm% him in a SiOi^liltlna: «&e«. aX^ coun&<}X iimlntaln tliat
tlio vej(*dlot Id oont^^ajtr t<» t<H€» w«ls!^ of tiio QYl^b»nc&i that
tvo of the lnctru»tioi%8 ir<^r« orPonooiHSi tmd tii^i t^ie oo\irt
orrod in permitiinig tm dftolartitlon '.o b« tmiten into th« jury
Appellant indited timi )i« oimod £«v«&3!^'4i d9£:0« oiid
of Ts'^iichg a lar£« yollswr "ssi^od ; t. lQi*nard|* he kept in 'lis
trutcii^sr'e shop at ni^jnt as a vr&tch «i«^, AppelXo© tQstiri<*d
it vao tiiie 4og timt toit ii«»r vrhile eSfx© was? peaesolaiy waildng
aloii£j ^' elfcU>v/allt on a public etr^tt s^M 6«»voral ^tlier wit-
agrees t«i»tiridd to Xki% mkn-'hi\ii\ig diepottition of th«. dog>
ftwl to {td.';dsaioa0 toy app«ilant timt '^m knew "ths dOjg m^u liad,"
bat kopt Ulm n^vertholoss, 6t«d ij^rinittftd >ii;r to ruii at i&rg©
upon the BtreotP unrmaisldd. .■pooilaut's dci'^meo wa« tHat he
had ooid tVjflt partieuXar dog a ,','iontli aoforo, but %''o^% tho dog
«&mo l}aok on th« dsEiy of t>^ accidont. 7horo arc clrou^ststiiBces!
^riieh diocrodit tilii dofea«*j. If tli» jury boiiovfcd tlxopl;>.i;it«»
iff 8 witnoscce, It wag juetii'itd I2; flndiiie t'^i© issu©® in Jior
favor, and -rO ttoo no good rO<ti«on for disturbing thslr vei-dict.
The sooond inrt "uction dire«tod a wrdiet for tno
.oae«ai -
J. ^ ^*
,««JU«K.-
.BV
\
\
T4H. ^
a':'* Jr-.JJ.ON-
jrti
t/ un oi ruizi lr»iiJLMnt9 Ann ,a9«Xii/^'xe«/Mi mill #qmI lotf
.taJLA^o 1 io«a Off 9M •▼ Alui «qrer«l
sr^l nan fiMnMW a . iX> tioita«>:#affl AnoOM ajfT
-2-
plaiatiff if tiie jury b©llovoi; from t.^ei «vldaao« that derea-
aant k&pt a mtm^ dog witieh 'm ka^m v;a6 ftccuctOitidd to laitd
BSfxtikitid and lawwiii^y p<&rmltloa it to run at Xar^ "^Itiiout
)mXii$ gmr^BMi, or socUi-'Oly ieia&sil&4," > euoil that t^m plaintiff
moM li^jur^d tiiorols^f "in £a£uvm»j^ t^^t;! fotHSt tk& set out in
plaint iff* K dft8Xa>r^iiaiit or wiy <tounV ti'isroof.*' She third
«outit of ti%» fttielajE^tioii eet up a. cii> ox^naBca requiring
da£;& to )EM> «»ft&I«& and dlmi«£,«iii & vioXutlon la&r^Qf,. but uptm
the HaiXm^ of tlifi plaintiff to piov* Urn ordiBB.nee» t'^-e
eous't iar;tj.ii^t4»4 Urn Jury to fk^ t^')4 d^^fondso&t not ^Milty
ao to tii&t «outtt. it is fli'£^t objected timt neitVi^r af tiv«
i:<itaiainit)^ 60imt& &v&r6» i&e a grotmd for rdCOYoryt ti.:ai a«»i^&iil*
daat ffeiied to ^m-rA or c©oui*oiy isuxsio the do£, ^:ie socond
eoimt aHQQiit trdit cUsfcrttiant sufferod t;*© doe ''to run at lt^x»|ge
Vfitlxdat takififi «^ sarjtt proper oai*<> to f>^euro tixc sam«.*'
•feolfmiciyLly, iMStrhaptty this oiuujs«» staiiding aion©» would im^
& jtmiwit to ti« ui> tiie d9So i^ut it tsmt^t i»e :^M ^ith its
ttontoxt, The e<mBQq}Mtui& aij©f:od is th«j bitlj^e of im plaint-
iff t and corttiiiiiy oho k^ to** e^euu'e" tiw do^j bo ae to pro-
T»nt liijn frcKi bitiiic, WfiK to eawsuls 'ninu It is noy.t objootad
<^t ti't© words "or ix--i;f count tlieroof" por'nittod a vocovcry
ttoOor tiie elimiaat^ tiilrd count, it i& not to bo 8upr>oo«d
tl:»it cuny liit«ili£feiit jury wo-xld underst&M fro^ tiua Ufr,i} of
tli«£0 words aloae, that th« pl&intlff oould i*acover on p.roof
of facte aiie£(8id only in t3:i® t^iird count, rlien toy anotlior in*
etrufrtion tiw^jf ir«r@ Bp^oificelly di^'&etGc; to find U\i» dofen->
-«*>'.;->;, lE/iJ »8Jt»sl7t drtj .rwi^ y:
iit ar.^
•.lAlc:
dM^ 4«tA»ttf
istitdm^.
j..l:»iq
•>
'lx> iliuo^
.J 64 r2»«&
k
v'Lir»k> ; ol
^U^M
a i9S^fz^v<r
4W'
-3-
dant not guilty as to t tat cotuit. ( ; . c« ^» il, :;> Co, v.
iuekjUx, 200 111. 200 » 262.}
ttm eeoond Infitructiaii Is furtlisr objeetikL to« upcm
t.ii6 gvmxaei tlv^t It i^nctt-^s t.-Ms 4&tmm& ot con%vi.lnx%ory n&eXi"
03nco. In C'iXicti.f^ ^t -Xton ..« .,. Co. v» ,>>uctflUOkii 197 ill. 304f
it ^-^e; lieM that" it is uxidaal^tciidly tUa ruXo lu iiiis i:^tato il-iat
if the party injur«fi hne l>«jcn guilty q£ hoetdlofisly placing hlm-
i»«lf in tli« v«!^ of r. violoui} dO£j witli Isiowloafifc oi" it© pr^pensi-
tieo, or ij^e broui:it the injury u|!>on i-iimaoli" tar/ Ids owii eoit-
ductf or liie Tuult has proxit^aittfly cotiitriiaiated to his injury »
BiM^ ItkCte ^11 Cfixi8titut« a good dj&fonee. XUie dc^riKci&df ao^->
o\ori depcmdys upon }movl«i%Ot ^ii<i it 1b only £ift«2' aoti4S& Um-lk
the public j'lto requir-cd to ha on tlioir guard to avoid in4w*y»**
If tiwre wtis'O £my ovidjenco tendirijg to provo mioii a dofonsc in
trde caisoy tlxe o'ajoetion would Xm a good Oiie. liiut tlv& only
ovidonod in tho x^eeoi^d i^OKorabling & dofen&6 oX thie ohas'oot&r'
ie tho ovidenco of on® ciicUlu, a taarastor wluj livad"noxt door
to tippolltssiit* r.e to^tifiod timt bettfeen thr©«( and fouu* a*
clock o.v: a <^^ not opocifiedf ho vug driving lii© t©«m past
til© place vh«i*o i^iair^tiff «ras injured, urna. Boxi a lady»who look-
ed like t*-i«r plaijiitiff, kick & yollov? doe ^^^^^ tiion ft^ll dotmj
timt he did iiOt krjcwr ^hosc do£ it vmSf end timt t>;tt dog did
not attack or bite tJT« woia^ni uut ran &r«y. v e ti^in^ tli© eourt
did not orr in ignoring i'tvi alle^^od dHtean^f undor t^cfo cir-
cuit ot&nc«s«
T*hiXe tho fifth inct uctioni relating to the aoasuiro
of dWBRgoB, In anO-'^aii'd.ly exprecsod, «?« do not think it ie open
to tm ci'iticiem ttn4» Ijy app«llant'« eouneol. /.ssuming it
1c
iart oi 5 iZlsj^k
1 Jot i*i>*rov w
to bo tra0, ufi stated by emmMl* that • th«ro m»« aany In-
JurloB Khloh roeuXt dlrootly from aa ftecidont of t^vie kind
for wialch doiaage© jaaty not b« aliowod by tiie iary»" etiU
tiiere ime no evldonco of aiqr injurloxifi v&miltist of t^xat fi^mr*
aot^rn mid ti^ie i;y5tructlon« In t«o distinct piiraeoe* cp<»cifi»
oaXly llfflit^ tli« 4^itr3r to th0 eon&id«»r$^tion of euei^i Ixijurlei^
and rofiultit^ Cmmg,&e aa wor« sriown bj t^ie evldtine«*
It lE finally orgod tJiat It «»© **ljad practle©*' to
perralt t;*© dodsirfetlon to go to the jury room, counaol a^Kiltt
however » U\&t in haacliott v. -ifaagj 219 111. 546 1 «^t^ a prao-
ilee «9« hold not to oonstltute roverttlblo orror. whilo ti»
practiG«» in riuootion should bo avoldM ae muotv as po8aiblo»
yot It not inlToquonily happen© that eoua»ttl propsjr® and sub-
rait InctriBUSiioiis so fratnod aB to bo md&nlneXost: to tiio Jiwy
unle&£i ttiey have tiie doclaration bofoi^ thofs. that ^&e true
in tiiio e&s«i and thorofore tho court did riot ®w i« follow-
ing a. pmotloo which could not \sfOll be e^voidod under U\& cir-
cwn«}ta3»>0B.
Til® Jtidg^aimt will 1H» affir!iMs4«
vat na
03
... .J
Jtt'4 tt-'
^1
J4«uiCY«i uU 1JL»%- JUp iU.
A j(U
Mar ell
Term, 1912, No/ Oy •;> ^- Q r, '
OWs;; 0. LOGAH
vs.
\
•vV
t\pr5«lloe
PpeXltuit.
182 1.A. 9
IA« JUtTiCii ilTCM DELIVmiiD ffiiiS OPISICB OF THE COURf,
•1. iit»n tforlsGrt was in ih« omploy of appel^^^ty vho was en**
£itte«d in eonstrtietine a bridge on ti^d "Mfijr^C^r cutM^rr* of %^
Uhieago A lortlwosteim s*ailtra3r. fho y<aiXx*9QA rciRt» oast and
vost and beforo appoilont l>«£tin its Urltl^ trork» tir^ eoneroto
atoutmonte had \mmi oreotod alsotjrt nlx%^ foot a^^cirt and MMH
innidj^od feet In Xongth from noriis to oouth. Trie side f^^ding
t io oontor of %m torid^« 1a 9mAh. of tij^esc alR2t«sont!i» vaft pttr*
pendicular frc»n t^io liae© to ai»out r.ovoa foot fi*oea th© top,
vhoro tilore was a lodg^ «sap offool upoi-s wiilcii tiie onds of tho
bridt.0 el^toro wore to root. At tho bodk suid at bot^^ ondSf
iho abtttnontfi vero etmasiructod In tlie forvs of tou^ eteps* Zh*
•MairotionB nado to rooolve Uie alMtlMtats luj^a not booxt Ixiek*
rillod* and on th© oast ®itis of t?i6 oaifit atmtawmt a plank » or
two laid acroM* s^ffordod Uto vorteaim BMMme of asoooe frota t: .o
*'Bii0ro" to tho obutoont*
Jttot VAOforo tiio oooidMtt A t«enty««ovoii ton glrdor
iiod boon liftod by a dorrlck to u position Ifisaediatoly above
«>!• X%Ae^K above d«s««>ib«d and va« hangiag in ehaiioi betvosn
'•«« .^r^L .m-r3T doi^
•V
Jh«us teM mtn tmvtUm^ «tfr «v fl»ii«in<ii 4^
lulMd Mis Ad^ ai$mm 0$ apioa mm€k a$:3imJ^ aA ^90%
%iM tvtt alnttments. pp«IlM aeslat^ In plv'^teliig tao oust end
in it» propor poeiilon on tne X«»4£«f tma vae tiien toM by ti)«
rosrostaa %q ''mm actx^MBS ti^iere and iml^ that «mn to &et ti^o otiior
liei«o*" ApfpftXXeo ttXlaOMid a|K>n the girder) fmd ran ovor upon it
to ti^tt top of tjtw veet abutment* fii&tif tn order to set <!xmn to
the level of the l«d|^ upon vhleh the iAr^r^ vtuB to be eet* i^m
ran to tine novth onS. of HkO elHiliiMiitt and jumped 6mm the stei)«*
A msmlX jxlece al" 3»lsnk# frms *^-iiieii a l^a-c^ nail wtic protruding »
vee lyit^C loose ap<m U\e socoiid et@p» and appellee Jitssipea apon
tiw nail &ad eustAl»ed e iminHil Injtucy* '^e testified Uml it
WAS c* clear » tnrl<s^^t day; tlmt if ^w h&d loolscid before he JtMpedf
he votild Imve seen the aadl; and tk»t euc^ ^'leeea of wood tsM.
nails vor@ eometjbaoc ue«d for ecaffolde in doiri^ the kind of
vorlc in ^Jdch he was then e»^i£cid. lie »lso teetli'tod that he
did not knov lio« tite pleoe of plemk eaaie to ^ th«.*'et nor how
X0nB it had be«» tl:uskre. Shore ie no ei?idjstiee in th^ reeoi^^
beAriiiii: ttpon tlio^ c^ueetioctti. i ppellee reooirered a jud^^nt
for |700.
\*9 are tmixitle to aee imjt ttioor$r of liability ve&m
vhieh thie juda?»ent eem \}& {^ittetctiaed en the faets siiovn.
while it it wnqmnbtion&hly true that it «&e app«ll8At*fi duty
%m uee ordinary ©are to furtniwHi the appellee vi%h a ros^sonatly
•afe pli&co in whleh to work* yet» in order to reeover for an
allogod noeleot of tl^at ditty i it va& inmmh&nl upon the &.p^
peUoe to tihov riot orxly tlv^t ^ dei^et or danger exieted in
the plaee fumiehod but aleo ttrnt ^ppeUont had notice » or
kno«led£e theroof « or ougltfc to h&re hed» and the^t appellee did
not know it, nor have equal Means wl^ ftpi^llaiit of Jmewing it.
•d ,4M «u Pi Htm t9h^^ ^<^ff •ai*! «tl 't9 ImtAI «i#
.•(7»#« till M»i* iKiqMKi Atld UMBlIk 19 %tm JlH of Mfel
f4iaaAtt4 ^ ^' iOiW i wi tttUji;^ .aaoxjavu? tsont am
X '
mam 9tii imem iiwifiM I AMT ii vxiuft ^A.ii ic iMiIn« x«
t iiontgocvery vaal v9> v. naryiniz^v^ 218 ill. 527; Cax^loway v.
Q,M vU X» & ■♦ *^2f, v.o»« 834 111. 474. i ..ppoll©«'i^ coim©«l
Ifuileiai tiial tm ovi49iM»« of apv>Gll«« to the ofreet that iw
•aw tlie forHMsiin ub« tli« eftRid stops in tlm »um waxBmr at lesuit
rive tlBtttd ?,>rior to %iw &<aeidi&n% is sufficient to mxarisd up»
p«llaiit witli ka&irIod@ii <af t'^i* pr«s&>«»<» &£' V!i& pi«io6 of bo«.ird
with to© upti»*«@4 wall atid tiii® db&n^r of ieaving it upon ta-e
at<rp«. But ti;©i*o i« no avl<aon©<i that the board was there at
tsi««D tii'^e. For tm0.\t ^mt ap:)&Brt} 3h?om tiie 0Vi4«aiQO» it
iaKjr hsirct Immki ti^romi tlie^^t^y or dropped 1^ sixati f^llesn voxlisitaii
a iRSi»R3ent or tw& l>afor«i tu« &c«i<3y»at i'lap^^aoa. u<^»&&» Irres-
l>«etiir«) of any Quo£!ti«>n of <^Qntributcu*y nae^i^^m^^ tm Um part
df appctlio«» iji failitig to look bofor«» lie juiapod* and irrofi*
p««tiv© of till qatJiitiojf! ua to wiiethier appoiltg© did not l)&y&
equal an'.>ortUiiltiO£> f.liii. appelleat to im& si-al to knov; tii©
^iMk^m*0 tiift ^roof wholly fall© to ehow that appollaat haa» or
ou£ut to 'ri&v^i hsA tai^ ImmXM^^ or notioo of tSie Oofoot vrhieh
caused trvo injury.
i'UPthanBoro I ro thiiik Uio pHxmipXm «aleh fiip|»liee to
injuries romatii^ fpott tM^iar&ry #ittii^a clurine t^ prvgswet
of fs-to e<»i3ttniotion or <loiaolitlon of fcuiidiii^c, ie appliealilo
to tho facte of tiilE Ciise, i^na fcis&t fe-io court i^n^e^ in re-
fusing mi iii&ttnietion omlioajriiiig t^t i^istneiplo* offered t^
i^pfJOilRnt. ia .ellfc ,.rot>> vO. v. MgtnifC^^ 14C- lll» App. 00? »
it i»e eaid lay Ms'. Juistico ^ireife'nt of tsiie district t ttet '*it
cannot b© tlae law t)w*t % ioa tii© Ijulldinf, ic in protoes: of eon-
atruotion ftn mt^ioftn^ tinmor or eontrtictori under tn© gonoral
Imt 'fi>A <af » ^ t» ItMI-IHlt Mat lUMMVl Vr . Wiea
«crA «Q«lJ* «t )r ^ #f«Mki»0# Wimf MftH ••fsA
to »©rkt Ifi llaisle for InjurAet to one of t^i«m eausHad by hi*
«t«pi»l«i? in )»rotul dayXi£:ht oia a nail «r Sfik* protnidl«g tttm
B»Lterlal cither dl««iu%IM or t« te ttfi«d« *hl«h i» lyliif: sibout."
In «u6H tftiMlf th« risk ol* Irxjm'y frori taxth temporary (SondStloits
of &aiae«r i» In ;uo&t «ac«s 0a« of tlid axNUncirjf aj^ tami^ rltiloi
incident t0 th* «npXQ7!ae»t vhloh ie &«f«Mii»d by th6 eontraet ot
©■pioyraent. Co l^r a» the ovid©nft« ehowR, th.'..t mx& tn*« In
thl8 cftse* and th« in©ti*ucfcl0»i elAOuXd Iw^v^ bo©?. 4*1 v«n.
Fer the r©a«OKe i»i£-it04» tu^ ^ud^iont will b© r^wj
$m»§9 tftm • mm0imm Ua mitnai^ '^t iallmiWi'i nisi )•
. &,.r:ti/^o 9^ili 1... .iiitt ,i\. : ■
ftp .-'. '-.;.x4iO f;sMI99Ht# «(•«».
) CIRCUIT CCIJIT
CsilCAOC CITY tl/.imAY CCaiPAHY, ^~)
\ / Appellant. YJ J, ^, , />-GpOK COUIITY.
y
Oti
182I.A. 109
Appclleo ^n»cov«rGd a jililgMM»t a^ain&t apptllani for
^SfOOO for porGoncU. injurlae sustalno^ In a ntroet oar aoeldont.
At «« hftvfi re&oited the concluDion t^iat tne jud^nent mutst b« re*
versod on recount of orroiro lu th« inetnjetlonei only e Isrlof
outline of t- factr will b© istatod. appellant 0;5©rf toe a
^ aouble-traak stroei c&r line on Vi abash Avenue* > ppellee le the
^ drlvoi* oi" a fnall vagon and junt befox*© tiie oiecident wa» drivln£
east aero&e ^.abaah Avcmue at tlie intersection of ^'eok Court.
V
V,
Before reael\iri|; thA traolui aprp^lloe eav & street cti.r approueh-
V ln£ frofn tua eouth on the east track. It wae lCt30 o'cloek at
^\ tii^rJit. The £itreet wii» well lighted and ttwBK^ war nothing; to
obstruct hit view of the approachinf: oar. \i& testified that
vhen he flret eaw the ©art It m\t. approximjitely 300 foot away
\ from hlmt t^t just before \-A% hor^e eiepped ovor tiie west rail
'I of the e(i8t track \^ looked again and saw thai the oar wat only
60 or 70 feet from hii!D» vliereupon Vie "whipped up" tile horae.
At the same monent the siotoz^sin endeavored to ctop the cart "uut
WOP unf.blo to do BO in tirrti to prevent a colllelon. The car
struck the hir4. vHgcI of the mail wa^on and appellee wan thrown
to the ground. Vhethor tjie raotorman wat to blasie for %\\& ae»
cident* and vhettier ap^llee wae exercieinf due cur©, were eloee
inax-xmiH-
60 i .ii.iiitJA
^
y
V Wfll -^tAj ton^i jf»rrtl-8lrfi»oB i
.n/v^aw
«>)«« 1
»n li»riin*fhr «(bIiI «mki1 ImI Ot to Cd
•ill g»i« •< fl»noy»nim niiaritlopt 9<(4 Inmwa mmo oiK Ia
«M0 ftftl .nolalXIO* • Icro/t^q M •* •J
^onull tAW •^ZLoqq9 baa <I0S«« Xi«r )<«« to !••<<
quoBtloni; of f&ct undor tno evldmMM* und It \mc thoref<»*o ish*
portoni tlmt t}io 1 ; tsr. t rue t lone eiiouM be aocu2*tito*
The Ql£hto»nth Ina timet Ion givtn to tli« jury on
tt«half of fippeXle* etatod \Auk% if thu jurjr bell&vi^d froiri tiiO
ovluonco timi too motoT'Tiikn oltiwir b&«» or by kotping & vlgiXstnt
w£itOfi eoold Imvck 8««« i^t« horeo and va^-on movlti^ toward uM.
aviHWri th« traCiiB anc In sianger ot lrijuiy» and timt If tiitt
motOKrmn eould t i«*n iuv*^ tvarted t i© aolllftlon ^toy ctoppin^
BBia o&r viUiin tlut e^iortort tl e am^ apace ,'>o£^it)X« undcer tho
clroumctanooet"' ^ut n«£leotod to do »o» thAn» if t:i« jm*y fox**
tiMir l>ell(»V0d fron) tne evidonoo th&t th» plaintiff o^RoroifMNl
ordin&ry e&:>e in driving toward &nd (Mroer th« ir&filui* th«
vordlot s^Kiaid h» foa* the plaintiff*
ivm iv;6nti«th trirtrucion etntod in eubS!:tHnco» tUfit#
if tho Jury t)Oli«v&d free^ tlxe oiridemBe t at t^jo motor^^n did
not uc© oi'dinary oare to obrorv© the pottition of tli« plaintiff*
4md t^ia^t if h« tukd •xiirei6«d tmx^ix okx^o '*h« could have eoon the
«a£;on in tl'no to Imve rtoppod 'riift enr or claekoiwd its spiMid so
6tj5 to iiti^v^ avoided injuj^ to tij© plelntifft" nr-^ timt tue
plaiiitiff w«te Injurod "on account of fnich iMigl&ct*'' tix® Jury
fiihould fir-d 1^ \erdict for the pl&lntiff. Bota of Uiotse tn-
»ti*uction«t in :>var or^iniony a£*^ orronoou*. In offoct^ tn&
oi£:itomith Instruction told tlt« jury t^i«i th« lav r<uiuirod t;io
moiortaemt »e soon ftc ho eaw or could hav« eoon th&t tho pimint-
iff vco «:roe8in£ aiuM^ of hie cur» to »top Vtis ear **!» tho
&iiortofJt ,'>os6il»lo tlmo un& fii^moo'* iv ordor ic ov&rt & collision.
*iho tvdntieth inetructiORf in ofi'oct» &tater t ae eaiae all«c«A
-Ml •mlwt^Ai c»rr St V. .oafftdltv orti tvfiiw J»»t ^p **A«M(
U Tijj^ai nl Ami t:1«M# •iiJ ttli—
.>et^#«
ilUXM L
)1 mi ftXuwii #»lA*i*T
of(4 btU
^A« lllJnialqr
- ! iu.i iciii ao«d u?^ iajjoj nu ?x._
.nolalXXoo n #n«r« f
•3-
pr Inclplo in n different form, lieltaer Inets'tACtlon ie an
&ocur»te etatwient of the Ic/^r^^l rulB i-r^Aitahle to tiio facte
of t ilr efiBc, It vi»» t;.e duty of the rr.otornon only to oxoi*-
elce ordinary ct-rc und^3r tht. clrciKnctancee to r«voi(i the coill-
eion* and not the utmoct poeelwle dilifeneei r. tiI<jIi Ic eloarjly
Implied by thei.e Instructlone. It ir trnje t"m-t by linother in-
struotion (the tvronty-eixth) the jury verts told timt the defen-
dftnt wiB not required to exerclefe tho ilfriect d^tr^d of care,
but 01-J.y Buch crre pc a z^s'^'^i^ of ordia-rxry orxidenee would ex-
ereleo under like clreisnetanceej but qc both the eighteenth and
twentieth dlreeted a verdict if the Jury fourul the friete to be
Rft therein fstattid> the error eoiUd not be cured by other In-
6t:tictlon». Sdoreover taklne all tlu^ee of tu©»e Inetmctions
toeetherf t:.:i© jury ^-ouid hfSt apt to tonclade thfit tTus f&ll.ure
of tae motOi'faan to stop Hlf& Co.r in ttie e-,i.ttrt©f:t -.^ofsrible ti .ne
»nd epe.cet or hie fr. llux-e to ao sxr^y ot-iv^r net i^hlca wujj
"pocelble*' under the clrCumEtrinces» \iff.B, necoc8fi,riiy and as a
matter of law, a fallui*e to exercise tlMB eare wivlcii a roaeonably
prudent person would exercl»« under like clrcumEtancec.
both the elg-'iteenth an<i tventioth in^ttructions uro
open to the f urt: er objection thiftt tivey riisBurae t^^t a r5arti©u«
lar act or omleslon, on the part of t?io motor^tmn, would con-
etitute negileenee, ♦'Inetructlons aceurolng Uw e> ietenc© of
»0y sa&terl&l fact hfsve ©l^&ays been condemned," I, C. -u R, Co.
** Johnson, 221 111, 42.
The error In el-vlii£s these Instructions wtm Itie ya— d
by the roi'UBta of the court to give defendiint'e Inetmietlon
<^ J ml 990 x»J
«•'. ioi? M* Ml*
•>x» OliTQ? utirMijtrr i'^ ana« rf^tni -;:Xji» $Bt
#!<^ nil i«« ai«i ^t^% a4 nmrm^mm d^ii !•
•noa JbXiior ^ntf^teir- ;> #*MiQ i|«M foo •noioaiait* t.o i«a ^41
numlx&r 6. It correctly cttAted t ifl rul© apixLlcal*!© to t\&
defcnd»ni*f; t^teory tliat tho f<i&lntlfi' drov^ in Uic way oi"
the oar £.'0 suddonly that t^m itiotovmsun h&A no eutth notice ot
d&n£:er ae to elv« hir azi op piai^t unity to avoid ta« eolllBioa
^ tJifi exercise of ox-dinary car© aiui skill. Tli»z'« vks «vldeince
tondliis; t'-» cupi>ort tiiiL- theory » a«d thti |>jcluclpl«» thoritin stated
wus aot eovor®d by ttr,y otafsr liiLti-uction. It wiac ©rror to
rofueo It.
i or the roason© giv«n« tH© jud£R«nt of tiio Circuit
Court will l>e rovdredd and tlia eause rero&ndttd for & now tricUL.
»9m$Aif t«v o-i*<ff : htm §%— >.,j ^
**t«i« nU%9 t iTftIK til
.11
.Q.ro:':.v.-':c.- '««a 4ttjsR2(PII
jLarcb Term, 1912, ITo . <^i 7/1 aZtXw- (? 'Z r 6. (L<^ /Lirr
ISAAC .:L<\TKXIi4 ^ Al** )
\ / App«UMSt ) A? >a#j:« mow
vs. '^ ) sii'iirao.R count
I ^
182I.A. Ill
t londB u. Qolikhsive, rUod :iio Ull In tii« ;.^p«rt«w Court
^ it «a« »n©£^od tiiat Goldix^nB l»4 conv«y»4 mil iil» pipoi?ei?ty to
L.ovy ftir tii« i)iut»«»« of defrauding ©jpeditorc. Tiia bill ©ous^it
^ to hftw tli© r««a tt&t^te 80 eonv«y«a Bul»j«©t«d to t^\« li«ii of
'^ "lat kin's juderaent. Ooldb»r<s and t-tiry aaawwod. adjidttliii:^ ti»e
recovery of tve jud£R«jnt» init Odnyiiig tn^^t the coiiwyui^© wa«
made for tii« purpou© of defrttudlng eroditor©. Kepii^atlonB
fe«r« nidd to %iit» c«MBR«re# aftar wliioh appall©©* i.udwijg Kocplw*
^ rlliid art Intarvenittf; petition, aotti^iS WP tf»i» rij«ov<«y of a
juti^ent In hU f&wr a&alnet Coid»®rg asJd timldLn^ t>iat t'ri©
propo4*ty conveyed b« alM »al»4*»et«a to ta« pajf«»nt of **l« J«d«-
r.snt. IJic anewcre of L««»y ana coidbere to th« orifilnai toill
wox^ by stlimlatlon (»'d«rod to etand au anawcrfi to ti « Inter-
v«nlrc x>«tltlon. ^.ftor txii ^xtandud trial l>afoj-« Vi& ©ourt»
a daore* wae ontewd finding t^iat tw d»ad from GaWJa^re to
„ovy »a« oa4» in bad faith and wltiiout conclderatlonj tloxt
aoldtowpi WB in equity tha raal cnmor af Via iw«b18©b conveyod
HL-''
\\M.
.R.
mi
tciflMl Hid «/.
urn iBiMit.'^ «Mt»««'
.. ?
J
htm ytmdkim^ .4HMti«i •*«iilMU
•4^ Hi 41
of api;»iQU,ik«*8 4u^£jac»at&. Froia tiiis deere* «^a«ol» Jtvy imB t>i»x*«
taat iiie ^«r<(}@ is CK»^itniX7 to tlm evl4j»ii«o» ox** in otr^jir
^ordSf t:i:i&.i ii'Ui fmm^ tUa,«^(Ml iri titt M.U ut o««apjUiii.t and
iut&rvt^nifig t^iitlon mm m% mii^hlistiaixsk i^ %im avitlim^«
i'liA 1% Vi»«y Olfl'lftttit to Aft»toimliK»t «iti^ «*J^y dog***© 0f ©csr-
tii^intjri «li«t^r tlM» tr&n6t^«tlon in timitiUon vae a ^i^ ji'ide
tr£ua£&(;tl9n> dj:* o]^)sr»ie«* . liiio<U£ii Coldl>«j^£ iU,&& art rrnKs^^^^r*
«» a%&v% 8tal&4> d^narlns i^vt &lX«^«d imi Pxith of t:-,^ ooav^jr*
IHMHI to ^'S^t S^^t dtiri^'iC t^^ trial t ^-W* foi* do^i^ ir^u»QiX» dlsH>
ei»rs^' ti)& «<»yaf«»«l im imd orl^in&lXj enipl^jriMi asid t«K>k ihii
»t&n4 as {Si mitmum 9^Uv^% ap^>«XUyttt. i^lK »t0x9 ^^ Ui^%$ fl^-"*
lir^ Hl^rtsoif v«iy fliUBli lit Oftl^t ftod wmsHi^ to piti^ ble d$l>te as
tlwy QM^tured* :h« s^^'^iai^ to apr)eil«Mitt ir^io ie r.ie «on!*iQ«a.a^t
and vtio is » Xjmf^rt for «4vi«ft amd ii«sisttt»MI that apnel^^sstat
V»ripftr«fl» $^ GisldlMirg i&x\0^ tiita vife nocoeutckd* a Qult««itxlm ^mmk
of »U. bie em^l «r«t&to i&^ all ^il» pa^pnonol proportjr to (:ir>r>@l«*
Iftatf with t^)« uflA&amt&nfti^ t^t appallaat would t@k«» c^i&ucti'O
of all i'ii* p3*&t>crt;^ oad «ifi^ii(f»» eollwst i\i» outstsmdlr^
Mdoimte* »»ttle with ttte «r4idlt«x«t and i^eictn Baes^tto^^i^ m^v^
<>•
•f^-
■a •# t^MUHl4H»Mi ^
^9m0» •• ll*i<geii; xiizttt'Uig 3i. iin bM ^^m imn mJm Urn %•
Btral^ntenod out* to *£:lv« bsi^ek" iiio prQporty. IlMirt «r«
«Mqr 6lr«uHifi|;«ncee conneetod ^it'n tii« trttwuaoiieny as «xo«n
by tha ovld«ao«« t«naii4|; io support Ooldbsrg's Yereion of Uvu
■»tt«r.
On tie ot^ior \xkbA OoJUUiers'B g«tt«raX reputation for
truth und Tor&elty vsi!^ &s»&li«>d lay &«vorca irltnftiMMet ftn4
•P90ll&nt denied tm% im ev«r ma4M mxty ftutfi (Ms;r«(nMiit* or that
lie und9ret«€)d tio «fttt«r in th« mnm li^lit ae GoXdi^rg £&nd hie
vife* hie v«raio.n mm tlm% he purcHaisisKl all thd t>roi>orty out-
rlglit* in good fix it t and f%»r a voli»blt ecouildGr^tion. th)&r6
artt circuBstanoes in tiva record « iic>. t«ind to eup^^ort appol*
Vsn% in thif$ tiidoary* but t lei^ &V9 sMlBO cirouRiStances ttsodin^
to (3if>crodit >^nd cast doubt upon it. Tlie eOl^dd oonnidera*
ticK-i for t^ trtinBfor wae tli« imeswdi&to imyment of &oBm eaaJUL
bille^ a^^owitit)!; to ^ZOO^ %hb otmceiiation of tx ciai^ Xiy ttio
Bon-in-la* ftfcdtnit thB fatii©r-in»l«if for eatoi«ndy*e f««i!t v,tA
%m substtquent payment of eiftl«a8t hftld by ^>;orrifi & Lo. and
rmour i- Co, a^ainet Coidboret Wid03i apT^oiiant testified v^om
80 urgent tt'mt epoti&l provision \mA %o i.>o ntid<3 tc rioet t^io^t
In order to rxrovont tho arrost of GoMb«r£ up9a a ehar^o of
obt&inii^ credit by i&oftne of fsaoo etfttomento^ /p^il&nt
provod timt thtttto ooneidorations voro in f&ot piaid* but C«old-
bars teetifiod that no port of the nonoy thus p«iid vaei ap«
psil&nt*!: n-onsy* but vfts eK»noy thtt boiongod to aoidbor$ &aA
ca-Tic to &p?joiiajit by roason of tiio position no OMupied t c tm^
ostonsibie omn^x* of tsMs --roi^erty wva businost. of Goidborg.
la tiiis stfitte of t.nii i&co^tl >(« rmutt in tiiio n&tui^
of thin£», bo |;ttidsd v«ry iargoiy by %ti& doterrlnntion of tixo
mu
ncl i.o
. a^/MrJbiT«
.iff
f j ^*fp|f guo;:
Mo
U«<T
a»r. .f :3iJlaii4j:).jr>
•d# le aai4iKii^Aft>
Vwv fioMiia 4*<f «jan^<^ '^o
6hanoeilor» v.^vo »fnr aad 'ii«ai*d tt\« Yrltner^ts. it ie lm;>os8lbl<i
lor v»$ roudini:» as «• mxtit, froir: t>>o type^rltton pagoe of tU«
roeorA* to know 'ii^am tbma rltsie&ses appdared to hX& upon th»
•tana» and vltJt «tot aj>pe.r^nt e&tidor atid fx^nknoes they to&ti*
flod. Ono fact stands otit r>JraBiln«atJ.y and vltiioijt eorlous dis-
pute » nsiaoly* Hmt as a resiat of t)ib@ trnnsaetlotvs in questton
•Ol tfio tJToporty of Ooldbargi i4ft«»r alB undcuMod insolvency,
passod frora iiia eantrol into ikw control of appcxiaat fm^ a
nominal considoration whleii «i;>uXd ockSily iiavo Itoon p&idf as
OoXdlturi; says It wast out of tiuo proT»orty trwieierrod* Tiwi
appellant *E tnoory that sucui ev oonvoytmc© wub ff;adc eimpiy to
save t » good naais of Coldbore is cioiitr»^dlctod by t'lm fiAOt
that the cottlomont f®d« wit ; : OiTie & Co. mts net mtide fo»*
sevorul monttia after trie property w»« transferred*
v.© Cfirmot ©ay tliat tii© findinge of ttie ©lancoiior
are SMRniftfCtly contrary to tiio «>vluOjnee» and tiiereforo the
decree will l>o affinaed.
Mft %ti-^90te- '•***»—*- . ir" o-^ am »j|ift»Hi *»* '•• -^ ^
"■')
48 - 17566*
V y^Aj^. cUU>^^ )
Ri^^lDt MUBDOCH & 00. » 9. Corpor- / )
atlon» / )
Defendant In girror, ) ^8<^ TO
d
1
va. / J Ml/KIOIPAL C0U1<T
SCMER3KX CAHKISfJ (X^MPASY, f \ OF OHIGAOO.
Corporatient
PlalntlCf In Error, )
\X 182I.A. 112
STATEMiS^* This la an action by the buyer agslnat the
oeller for daimgea for the non-del iT#ry of 5#600 dos«n o%ns
of toisatoesy being 27S0 "oases", Heid, 'Jturdoch ^x Ce,» a oor-
por&tlon, of Ghlea^o, Illlnola» (l^srelnaftep ealled plaintiff)
«aa the ysM-^^v^ ar^ Sosjopset Canning Gcwapat^y, a oorporatton,
(hereinafter oalled d@fer.dant) whl^ eond'ooted a canning fact-
ory at vittil Pond» i&aryland, i^e the seller. The c(^tract of
sale »aa cancelled by tJw» defendant, and the delivery of the
tocusitoes refused, solely on the ^rouibl of the failux^, as defm>d-
ant claii^d, of plaintiff to eer^ ahlpping directions prossptly*
Plaintiff claimed daaages of 7 l/2 c«Rta per dosen oana, or a
total araoxmt of ^12«50, The oase was tried before the court
without a jury* resulting in a firKiing arsi JtMi^raent against de-
fondant for said aiaount, whicsh jiKl^ftent it is sou^t by this
arit to reverse.
The facta are substantial iy as follows; In July, 1910,
defendant had appointed Saith, Rmiae a Vsebater Co., (hereinafter
oallod th© sraith Go.) of ael Air, l^aryland, a suburb of Baltl-
nore, liaryland, as its factors, with pover to control the sale
of Its "entire pack of oannttd goods" . A. E. Kidsrell was a canned
gooda broker at Baltimore, and the 'iom Bro«n Merchandise Broker-
age Go, (noreinafter called 3z^wn) was aloo a canned p.oods broker
at Pittsburgh, Pa. On August 24# 10 10^ Kidwell reooived a tele-
gram froa arown ordering, on behalf of plaintiff, five? oar loa^s
iri • e»
I
:Cx; -■ 'J
SIX ♦^-.i^ i^
€:^st) ray --fsou mAi 101 ••9«nri^ itfl 'X»XI»«
•T :i . . ^BiMUiO* 09T8 gnJted ,«#oil«0Otf ^«
iTlfviBU #»>'i»iibC tail ^fxad adl ««•
t^q alooo to m^ammb tmitmtrt KilSniAl^i
-^ SuakM90 Stm m ^b ui tea j^nilicTll * at yiXiXaB^n «x^tft ^ iuotftlv
mtsts ttf Mboos •! ii $maqifmt dftixtv .Iopom Mm <w1 iiwilfl
« .' r ,v!rr Tl i»«o£Xol a« ^atfvi •«• tti«i«l •ifX
•fix^a to tfwtfkft a ^muaxvm •tia xm to (.00 fttia& oot aoXXm
teemao « «4Mi XX« .A . "•AooQi immemm to Jl»aq orUJno* a^l to
anlfiruuflorMV iivovf! ooY oif^ bem ^wnomtSlMh io iMtcrscf ateot
Vit9id mbooyt bormoo o ooXii msm (fWOVG itoXXiSO loltanle'tod} .oO nso
••X*^ A t)«iri9ooii XXoobtl , > iM%M no .o^ ^ngmttmSSt". *•
Bhmol nao oyi t ,ttl^lAXq to tlaclo<f no ,9nl*iolrfD toKnB mcnfi
of "Moon Brand" tomatoeo. This order r.ldweil telephoned to
smith Oo#, and that company tentatively accepted It on behalf
of doforKiant« On August a5thy Salth oo, wrote Kldvell oonflrns-
ini;; telephone aonversatlon ar^ the sale to plaintiff, for aoooimt
of defendant, of " 3000 oases -^ ^j toraatoss, prq i s ^ p;t ahipRont, fJ? l/2
oonts, lesB i 1/2 ^&r oont., f.o.b, factory", and further saying,
"Please let us have ahippir^ dl recti ona prcaaptly, As soon as
sre got yoisr letttsr, ^e ifill p&as oontraota". On the aaise day
KidwelX signed and saiiel to i^ith Jo. a "sales ticket", setting
forUi & sale to plaintiff for acoount of iiisl^ Oo« of 5000 cases
of said toraatoea, at "67 1/2 cents doaen". Tei^s "2 per oent*,
leas 1 l/g Balto. rate freight", and saying aa to shipment, '* :'tOld
for inatruotions* . . id-5f©il, alao, on the saae day, signed and
:®ailed to Brown another "sales ticket", evidencing the aatse sals,
but it was not soj eatsot duplicate of the ono nailed to Sadth Qo^ ;
it set forth a sal® to plaintiff for account of deforjdant of t5000
oases of said tocjatoes, at "67 l/a cents dosen" , slth the addition-
al words "like se^aples* Cans to be absolutely bright and clean
and oases ne^ and neatly stencilled", nxi& laient tossed U^e tenss as
"less 1 l/£ 10 days 3alto. rate freight", lait said nothing: as to
sfcipnont. ^idwell, a sltneas for defendant, detjossd that sales
of this oharaotor wore usually oonsxasssted by Isai^ing duplicate
sal 83 tickets, one to the seller and o«e t© Use buyer, Uiat in
this oaae he sent the orlf^inal to the Smith Co. and a duplicate
to Bz^osn, and that the words "Hold for instruct Ions" , contained in
the original sent to Snith Co,, iseant in tlie trade that the rout-
ing aai destination of the ahipraent would b© furnished by the
buyer before the seli^'r niight ship, When this last mentioned
aales ticket isaa received by iirown, he in turn sent it to plain-
tiff, and when it iras received by plaintiff it bore an ondorse-
sient in load pencil on its face, "This was changed to read 5 cars.
o4 b«n9dq»I»J ll—tly. ftyto aim ^B9oUm^ "torvB oooM* le
«8nifM iwflntft teM «*rio4«iA .^.o.t «.i:«io 'Mq S\£ X aMl ««iaM»
OA Rc .-flni anoilMriift wa«li(te wad au J«l •msmVl'
fab Muui a<ii i««i#fKA mmtq lii , a^4aX «iMO|t in^ 9m
MSi^ J2SI "^ 4«uooe« -}< -q o4 a..
««^i»a »*«* . %iM »ii aim«a\jJV&* 4» «•••«»: ♦« lo
/a^rlda of a« ^ix«a bo* , i aJ^n •o^ijrtl uV X
taa ftaoa^a «5(aft aiisaa mdi no ,«M:la ,£X JBSHSSI^
^•Um a«aa a«M ymisoafttv v»Jti aaXaa* ^sadtaoa — o ^ t »» ftaXtaa
r««0 4#iiK o4 *aXJUe am aitt ?« a«4MUi«i* 4o«a» oft *oa mv >t i«f
p008 ta loabrt /nuo«o« •sa'l ttl^nlMlq oS alea a itfioflt !•• ^1
4 »^ (^ ^oib •^fo " la «aaoJjHP»| blam t* — — >
att£> . :»« aMaO »a»/^nt« a^li" aA'Wi ia
JU4Wi4'!e« tea n "rtoXliona^a ^X^aac ttm »«n asaat Jos
i Xilaa $a(J ^'idtU^ •i4n .oiua. vuU> 01 8\x I aaal""
aAnalaJb v«l aaaotlv « ttfawfcl^ »iinilifi
e^ •=*4aaH«aa» tXiaow/ aiMV Ttf—iaria aixU to
ni fi^ a«U 94 ana Ima ti^llmm acM o^ ano «aloitol4 aalaa
•4aoXX<isxl> a bn aH^ o> Xaai»^ao acU iamm arf aaao alitt
nl banla4oi>o « *acioJt^ocrxi«nX lot LXoB* oftvav aiU JadJ taa ,1111 iwH oi
-4uoni adt ^adi oAartt ad# at .inaaa «,oe ii#lnft «# 4aao laotftl^o ad^
adi t^ tedalirait ad l>Xmw fifldi aiU to aoMaaX4a«i laia 30!
i^anolioaai im»l aXd^ oadW .fida Ad»lai 'jaJtoo adi atolad n a ^ i d
Tl«I<f o4 if 4aaa tni/i oi 0d «(saanHi td Aovytaaats aav la^Xi aaXaa
-aanoiioa na oood it ViUaiALq^ Xd i>avXaoon aa« .41 oadv tarn «3m
(Cuto {* iMBan oJ i»estnada aaa ,t*ooi a41 oo XXana^ fiioal fii.
-3-
5^ oases each", imdomeath whloh waa the atanpad ai i^ntitxire "rom
Brosm Udae aro'ge Co., ?," On Auguot seth, also, Brom wrote >:id-
well, acknoarl edging receipt of "contraot" for 30^0 casee of toraa-
toes acid to pl&intiff and saying, * ?h©B© p«opie weiit five nlni-
fflun ears, .'550 caaes each, no kindly change thie or^er to rtmd this
way. iliis is a total of 8760 ease 8, t» » '^© hope to b© able to
Bend you shipping instniotiona on these ixpOilQ in the noxt day or
two, as soon aa we receive theai fro» the buyer. » ^- Tlieae ship-
roenta do not go to CJhicago, so hold taitil ^ou reeeivo tjthipping in-
struotlona* . Kldwell testified that he reoeiYSl thia latter cm
August ^Sth, thiit he itaaedlately coi-:^ia*.icat©d the oontente thereof
to Sail^ Co., and that go objootiona tharato j ^re migo^ by that
oosapany. On August iii3th, al»o, 3ro.m wrot© dofendant, at still
Pond, Mm, fiBivisin^ defendant of the sal© on its account to plain-
tiff of five cars of tcasatoeo, 5S0 oases each, (5500 dozen at 67 l/z
cents, "to be oliippsd by » Tersss days accept-
ance or 1 1/2 off for caah in ten days* ^ '•^ <?lth Balto. rate of
freight. Juarantoed to oofflply with the "atiorts-l jmre food law,
Six taontha* f^uarsntes against sW§lld and leaks. Held for shipping
instruct ions'* , Upon the receipt by 3rai^ CJo, of the original "sales
ticket* executed by Kidwell on August 25th, the Salth Co,, cm
August 2 Jth, exocsat^d in triplloato copies Its aalea ticketp or
contrast, dated August 20th, sending one copy to Kldwell for plain-
tiff and another copy to defendant at Still Pond, '<?d,, and retain-
ing €aie copy, 7hia sales ticket or contract mentions yie sale to
plaintiff for account of defendant of '60 00 oasoa of the tomatoes
at the price aboT© aartloned, "tertaa cash lesj 1 1/2^- in 10 days;
delivered f.o.b. Still Pond, Ifd,; '^ » to be shipped promptly as
E2J1 instruct ions later, swells guaranteed for alx sTJorths front date
of invoice, 9 <» Qooda guaranteed to comply with national pure
food law. During season, ;jeller*s option of tiiae. » •? it is un-
-l:Trff: ©Til *tww elqo^q ommtf «■ fciw ■ ••©^
fr ,;rreirti i9*i^fe ©^^n* mro^fll ^omtn «i1^e^ 4Mr
•^^ inuooos all £K> «!«• •£(# 16 3tmb€teff^ 9U»t9tm «.MI
M fiM^ ootm ff^MM »»a«o <v^:^ «o«<»^jOT9# lo •■«•• a^ii "to YUi
•mytmh cwl oi Mmm «iq^ Yio t\l t ^s -iftiM
•s ©tfi , tfsurA no lloviftix x^ fco Jmoio ^iortoli
r aoloa uli o«. . iOli«Tim si fto^oooxo «iItM
ot oXoo f>tiS sfr ' aoXoo . K>e wio sni
H^oiMOO^ aiU "^ TAlKt»toA to 4r' Iq
«»•£ ffnoo Mirror* »Mnol«mMi ^^otfa «oiv« «<tf i«
Iff IS .^^..^.1 !>*<iMliAo»
•J xli «te^ boolfteTocA t f:I ono*^tr«Jogl iwj
•*itf'4 I :« tXqooo < ^VtORQ ' ^<^
.Mli l9 «olJ^ o^neiio^ ,1900000 s^ '"^ *^^^
darstood that 'seaaon* in thia oon tract asana the tira« of the
pac5rlng mid th« tisje rciquirod after tho olos^- of tba paekini;
for the pr<«2iit I&b^lllng of til© goods". Th© copy of this salas
ticket or contract fonmrded to Kldwall by Ssith Oc, was In
turn forward«*d by Kidwell t^ iJrovn-:. On A'lguet 27th, Brosm vroto
plaintiff oonfir^iing tho pixrchaad by plaintiff from defendant of
"fiT« oars, r:5ry oaaoa each* of t'r^ tosatoes, and saying, "^Se ar«
ericloalng saloa tic ©t to covor thia sale. ^ * Klnily ~lv© us
ahipplng inatructiona on this aal© gia gc<m a£ posaiblc, ao our
packer ia anxious to start to move a oar or t*o of thea^' goods**
Thia letter was reoolvod by plaintiff on Monday, Axiguat 2tJth.
on Au^^at 20th, plaintiff wroto to dofenciont , at still Pond, vd.,
giving it full ahippins directiona for the 2750 oaa© of tho to-
n^atooa, roquo^ting that the invoicos and billa of lading be a&nt
to plaintiff prosqptly. Those shipping instructions »»x»e ovldsnt-
ly x^ceivod by dofdr»iant on or prior to ^©pteateer 2r.d, for on
that dato th© sianager of defendant, 5-ir, Oliver, wrots the srsith
CJo., *i rotum Rftid, mrdoch ?« Co» »s shipping Instructions, Those
goods were sold fca* i^-asediat e shipiaent , I wired you arsi wrote you
a?!;d calldd you up over tho rshone. fcoing imabl© to get ©hipping
instructions, i h«ve oaRcalldd the order*. isjt?odiat©iy follows ng
the execution in triplicate of the a^xles ticket or contract by
ths Gsaith Oo, on Auguet E6th, tho Ssilth Oo., who woro in eonstaj^t
cocammlcation sith def€m«iant by toiophone, i!5«*d.© ftie quait deiaands by
toloplKme on Kidw^ll fta* i^odiato aMpping diroctions, an^i, as
thoco directions vare not recf^lved, th© ssiith Co., or ssptoraber
lat, wrote Kidwoll that th@ ''Roid ft*ijirdooh oontraat had bsen e8n«>
collad" and further saying, "we have tslei^voned fcm ev#ry day for
instructicms and tolrl you rti«3;iay (vlzs Ati^^xat SOth) »e coulti not
Jiold the goods exid had caraoell®d thg sale*. It thus appears that
on tho sazae day that plaintiff aailoi defsmant shipping? inotruo-
—1MB 9iM lo X4n» MS .Vieos tttf^ to »irjr.N<»I <^pBnB« wii lot
Hi ttM »oo (ttlsEe xd iiciifti « o3 bmtnmmtn 1— iJ i wj to ^«oi»
•Mrtv naoW ,((^TS IMIHM^ itO •nvmA Oi^ IlMrftl^ t^ B«iS«Mn<
•mn •■* «ys^«« <«• H»» '^*— ^ •t^<^ "to Ma«» MM* 0(?'. «II«M W¥\t*
$v at Ifl BlXM id* MoJvmrX wU #«lf 9iiJt8«qp»Y ^•oira
»»1M> tft nriiiBiiMi otf.
u'A m act Jb«'sl« I *j2BfS|i| Uililwwt ^0t Mm simw aftoos
:vxlcr«M« ^•R o^ TrfMMwr jpttloS ••cM*| mU Tvvo ^ cfof I^IXiW hne
Uftmtm tfi wtm ^Ok «.«o fltJaft «U «<t2ia8 t«i«0K oo ••(> rflfjge art^
mm «l«M ««not^o«-f±b asAwMi »^ail)ow«f lofl Xlsvfelx ad «Mi|»r«i
w i fc ii tU p .09 dShuB tAi ^^bmlhomr s^m wmm mt»it99Fgtb Modi
lol X4i» x^9Tm 9ot ^ .^ MMf oV* Offl^dM 'VlitfWt teu *teXIoo
ion bSaom mt (cuoc ieumtfl iclr) ftxtt^
iaOt ■"B ig< m» otttfl #1 jJ^elAO • ' 9«tM teri 6no obooa •^ ^^"^
••ocrcJ'anI ^nl^liio Sttmbet*^ iXq #aiii t*^ ««•• o*^ no
tiona, the defenaant, by its f&otor, iissith Co., canoollod the
Stole. On Gcpt^aber lat th« five cara of toiaatoea 8?©re resold
to Soeraayj Brothera^ of K©^ York City, at Ui« aaa© price a«
contracted to be sold to plaintiff. On September 3rd, Hro»n
vrotu plaintiff Utit the oal© had been ouroelled "on aoocunt of
failure to receive shipping instructicns* , This letter was re-
ceived by plaintiff on Morxlay, Septesbor Sth, and on that day they
replied to Sro«nt expreesing "agtoniehaa&nt* and saying tliat on
August 30th it had writterj defandant giving "oorspl^te Inatructlcns
for prompt shipirH»it*, and cm oeptessbtsr Stli plaintiff wTt>te aaith
Co., stating that ahippitig in0tjni«ti<ai8 had been eent en *\Aiguat
30th ar^ re^^ei^ting the i^ith Co, to aeo that the order fta* the
to@&toes was filled. To this letter Sssith Go. replied on uepte^-
ber 10th» eaiying that usader tSie faote fea. oiitXlnod in plaintiff *a
letter "the pa^^ers lai^^ reasonably be exjjected to Bm)«# delivery*,
and atating tJ^ reaaone shldb: aott2a.ted th^s Is oajr^elllng th« sale.
PialRtlff received thlis letter on Mi>Kday, ;ieptesber liith, ai^ in-
Rsediatoly replied }»y teiagrans sayir^g, '*p&okQT ^ist fulifil oc>n-
tract and deliver gooda or ssuat pay our loas in replacing f^joode,
f© have resold th© goc^s s -> and elastomers are preseini- us",
^sith Se Co* replied on the ssma® day by ^t& tlmt the sale of the
tos^toee was ^tor iiassediate shipmerrt*, a?^ the sale had be<m can-
celled beoaixsie of failtir© to s-sTsd ahippiiag directloaa pror^tly,
and that this was •final*, or- Sapteaiber ISth plaintiff wired de-
t&sidant at Still 'Potid, eaying, *Me ^t-e pro^t ahippirag directions
and you jaast fullfil contract or pay oxir Xo&a in replacing,^' Plain-
tlff cojanfflioed the present miit on October 6, 1910,
ii» E* Steams, nariajger for thirty yeara of the cannsKi
goods departrvjnt of plaintiff, teatifitjd on behalf of plaintiff,
without objectlcan being laado by defemlar.t, that under tlie cRistoss
and aeages of the eavmed goods tx^tde t^e t--^Trm "to be ohipped
J ....;.■.«><,
<-4(M»l<f»U f«0 1
-TOlJ
i>«^^irx.'
.t£ OTi
««r^pB» «||
■ jI -UJO Vi ^>^ *«■
'S Ur>c iauttowf teXX«*
aneJqc- i*x* »«* altU J«di tcui
X 1UO \aq, 'SO . ii
not. 11l jo )1i^
OOS
fi(Oi4&»ic(o ^UC.
iii>W4r,
-0-
promptly" s»an that the goodo are to bo shipped by the aeller
within 10 or 15 days from the date of the cnrder to ahip; that
vhera a eontraot provldoa for th« "prowpt* ehipEsont of goods
that are to be hold Tor siilpplng InatmotloRo, suoh inatruotlona,
under the iiaage of said trade» should bo given by the buyer within
10 or 15 days* Oharlea K# Ke»ton, ©mployod by plaintiff for iswuny
years, also testified on behalf of plaintiff, without objeotion,
to the sarae effect.
Ai8 to th« usual and ouatciaary siaraisr of a piirchasor
giving shipping ir.atructiono, iiteams and Newton testified that
it was not usual in the oanz^ed gooda trade to give shipping in-
atruotiona by sfire, but by mall. R. Harry Ssbater, secretary of
;ia!itii Go, arKl a sitneas for defendant, deposed that the usual
way waa for the ptir<diaoer to eiail written ahippinr, Instructlona,
but that it WS.3 not unusual to reooiv© th^a by sire or telephone^
to be ocnfinsed by lefcter^ / y , ' ^ ., -
A. JUaXlOE GRliSUIsi DKLIVERKD THE 0PIS105 OF mn OdiBT.
It is contended by counsel for defendant that the ^w^^-
laont 8h<micl be reversed bscause it does not appear from the
evidence that m'if definite contract ^as made between the parties,
or that thdre waa the neoeae&ry "eseeting of the siinds". We are
of tht; contrary opinion. Wo think that undsr ell the evidence
the defendant, through its factor, Ssilth Oo., ssade a contract
with the plaintiff, through ita broker, to sell it five cara of
5S0 oasas eaoh of ca»:a:ed totaatoes, of tho frade centioned, cr a
total of 2750 cases or 5500 dozen Oiina, at er 1/2 oente per
dosen cans, lesa a oaah discount, f.o.b. at defendant's factory,
to be ahipped proiaptly by tJie defendant after plaintiff Jmd
given instructions where to ahip the goods. We are further of
the opinion that the oontpaot as sjade did not oonteriplate that
n»n— tU x^ Iwfqtite «a oi «7m mi»vg mu #«U omb ■^Xiipvxq
• ;rc>«Vl« tarn ^tf^d#
i.'uiau edjT ^jadJ^ te»9c>«ib fol ii«»ii»ly a tea «o& rfllae
:o£n^«r ttlii rwllltv liaa oi «i»«JKl»nEnq tcU lot mm ^mr
odtieltti la 9-tl« ^ r LMommat S^a ttm St Jmd^ Siae
;»•• iiu'f*^.,^ ei
•I . I ., L— I t 'X
\.VJO [/<>
♦ ^
liRg^ late shipping directions ahcaila bo given by plalotiff or
that ar irr^ediate ehipnent of the ppoAa should bo aade by de-
fondart in aocordanc© therewith. And we think that, txnder all
th© facts in ovldenoe, the defendart was not justified in oan»
calling the aale throuir.h ita factor Siaith Co., on the date that
the evidenoe ahosra It was oanoelled, solely because of the fact
that ethlppinr^ Inatruotions had not then been received fi»c^ the
plaintiff, which, ae testified by the witnees Dallam, president
of Sasith Oo., waa "tho only reason" for such canoellstlcn.
It ie also contended by counsel for defendant that th©
Judspsent should b« reversed because It appears from the evidence
that the plaintiff had notice of defendant's cancellation of
the s&le is abundant ti!3e to have procured the aai3e gooda slae-
s-here in the market at the price contracted for, before th© jsar-
Vet price had advanced, arKi that the plaintiff waa bound to use
all reasonable offorta to prevent or ainlriiae loss. It appears
froT5 the evidence that the s^rket price of th© ^,ood3 in queation
jfas thri oarae ae the contract price, nanely 37 1/2 cents per dozen
cans, froa AU|?;aot 23th to Septeiaber 5th; that froia septesber 5th
to 8th tlia price was 70 cents? that on aepteinber 9th and lOth
it waif 72 l/S cents; and that froa ijeptersber 10 th to 17th it
was 75 cents psr dozen cans* It further appeara from the evid-
ence that the first advices which plaintiff received that the
sale had been cancelled by defendant was on iicnday, iieptej^er
5th, in 3 letter froa 3rov?n, dated Saturday, September 3rd, GJ}d
cancell^ for the jreaecai (ao stated in the letter) of a "failure
to receive shipping inotruoticns* , and that tljla infornatiran
caste as a curpriee to plaintiff, because <m August 30th it had
promptly forwarded shipping instructions to the defendant* We
are of the opinion that at this date the plaintiff was Justified
in thinking that a toistake had been isade and tlmt the sale Hrculd
-TW
IL» otmi ,^«U :lnlrU •• te. . «r»Mli ■■ Wfc ^ no t ni im^mfi
tMU MTU ftturi— <>t ii*«tf fiMtt 4aa bad mtmXSmrUmtl snt^ilrtai taitf
to fraUMlSmcmm m* ttrnttfrnfUt V> «o11or bmtt «Ulrrl»If ad* ^«l#
-^um 9dS_ wrmfitaa ,^d1 L t l — ' fluyii ••1^ sdl 1« J«tiMr ads* rrl #f«ir
««tf otf teoKi^ ajnr Yll4nl«lq atU teifl hsm ^btnambm tmd 90ttq i»4
wrum^n il mMmoi Mttsircls lo imnrarrq Ot$ a^'SoYle •Iif^i:^ ns»n n^
fi to •Ol'tq 1»#UM Mil lAitt •OnoJblTO Odt ■O'Xt
:>& tmq mtnao 8\X TB yXmhkx ««al*sq HMnlnoe oilt •« «■» (wU a«w
filOX Xna diQ •xmdan^q^i no lartl lolrmo f^ ajnr oel^ '>il^ rfie ol
11 dlTi oi f(. ':. noYl iiidl Jbcxa ;iiln»e s\l ^^ kmt Ji
•d^ ^f'Jli$ tmrt9oe smtttwbm i iAd^ eote
tixSaeSq^'^ «XBtrroK no mst friMtamtBt id b^lteoimo tmmd bad mlma
•XAfc^vfls£ Ml«l> «rf«a«8 oont T»iie(
tulta^* M to (v^«l ocll al kmtaS9 o«) itoMorr ad^ lot b^LLacnao
dl Am «"oaollocr
£kor . oet/oeod , : o
'j'V 'tofc •iV '5iiotnl»ai •:• tjotn
b<
tx rboB nvod ban tiUtSaim a ladl aatif
-a-
yot be corj9UssE3at«d., cm tJaa,t, la vio# of the aubseqvent oorr©«-
pondsnoe had batne&n pl&intirf arjd. th« Solth xJo«, plalntlfT was
furUier juatlfled In b©ll«vijTg that defendasit would yot deliver
the goods, up to th«j tiae wlien, on Soptamb^r i2th. It rftcoivod
the •final* aord fror iisith Oo, Ui&t the ©ale liad b«<m canoelled.
At this d&to th© »arkot prioe of tha j^ooda at the place of delivery
wfto 75 ceoita per dosen csma, or 7 l/a oents ovi^r the ooBtre^t price.
Other points are elaborately argued by ocmnsel for defemd-
art and replied to by ooisneol for plaintiff, but ae do not deeis
it necessary to diamine thenj. Lvtiffloe it to aay that after care-
ful ocnsld0r.it Ion are are ot the opini<»i that tfc© flndir,^ and Judg-
m^nt are a^ly supported by thd evidenoa a.n6. by tho las, and thitt
substantial justice baa been done. The judgment le therefore af«
finaed.
Mr. Justice Fitch dissents.
•H*^ Jflll l ^ ll «^ to «»tT hmmboc ^x
M» r»f ^'v^Afr fiae wm mm '^- j€ tmd tmrntmii
»9nM» SMAff ittff •Cm »(^ 9«A< rt ktam «1< . :»
imi*^f!'^*^ *to eo4il^ sifi i* mb»9% <^t%0m mAi •#«& •MA 4
nKse mU ndve •4t»o 2\j ^ ^i^ tiwia msoj^ n^q Mate aT «•■
iMftb Ion oh •* ^; -foe ftf •# . &lXq«<i 600 laa
-•%M 'TO^^A 4aH> X** V' ^' fir«tft (># T>JMM»»MI #1
^Brf Nw 1 •<!# tMtt TvMMMft ATI
£ «tfC4 t** <"* ^ .^rwi •«
■^if) rlOvt /''■ -"■ ^"*
•J oil, 1^0* ^ ^ > /in ^
.5 . X7C15.. -^ --^^^ (1. i. eC^, / f
STAHLlirr CIEOIEHSKI, / .
Defdndant In/ Error, j mm.^M TO
P^amtlff^n Error. ■) /U y^ ^^.^^ .^^ ^r-^^o^
\ / ''-'-^ .-C4xt^-0
iKxSRyi.
ME. JUSTICKvSRiDLKy DSLIVEHED rdS 0PI8I
Jo9iUi^4* 113
Stanley Cioel©r35r.l, plaintiff bolo», oocsrsdnoed a tort
action In th© l4vinioipaI uourt of Chicago agalnat ?:artin Hert^an-
sfel, defendant belos, to recover damai?;o3 sustained bj? reaaor? of
toelrg bit on tlx© fore-ars by a large dog, owned by defendant. It
was charged that defendant wrongfully and negligently permitted
the do,^ to rim at large, iinmazzled. In a?d^ about defendant's
promlsas, and that the defendant knew, or ahould hav© Imoan, that
the dog WS3 yiclouss. The case saa tried before a Jury ^ho, by
their rerdiot, found the defendant guilty and asaesaed plaintiff »a
daisages at the sum of |75, and the trial court entere 1 judi^ent on
the vsirdlct. The d<^fendant in error did not file e^ appearanoe In
this court.
It appears frO!K the evldoncts that defendant was engaf.ed
In the ealomi bualnesa at No. 8S56 superior Avenue, (Jhlcas^?
that about 14 feet south of the south side of the saloon building
there were railroad traoka; that the open apace between was used
as a passage-way and that the aaloon had a aide door or entrance
facing aald open spaoe and tracks; that the def aidant usually
feept the dog chained In the yard in the t^^sjc at the saloon 1*^ the
day time, although he aometlaes alloaod the dog to be "looo© In
the aaloon*, and that durln;r the night he had the dog in the
ealocm as a watch-dcg; that on the afternoon of Decejabor 1, ItlO,
plaintiff, who lived about eight doors north of defendant's aaloon
and In the ssuae block, left hl^ home. In aorapany with one Jralln-
•CfHTl - «.
8UOO .
I X ^A J a B X
.^SJB.'T^ttM rrliiA^: .r«ai:«i^ o &^ ai noiiCA
'o«A«rt ieuti eoiMHui^ rMTOotn oJ «aoXed #m
^«cli «fivo«tf •van bltfQd» ^i Samttmlttk imM #«dJ A^^ e^tq
fcf «eii« v^i't A cnolW ti^tiS msm wmo «CT ••sioIoIy e«« ^ob «''i
o imtii it^ btm %9V^ lo mm sdi <ie ■•a"— ft
c^O fKwe ^ M <M •111 ton bib ^urrm ml StutUmf^b «rf' imw acU
forvseiiiC «Mn»TA <ioi<x«<|xie Mdd .oft ia nmtmlmuit smclmn •f
ScaJbiicid nooljM •rii lo vibia filttoa mU te Jlttfoa i*a1 w i«eda iarii
ba«tf aav fx»av#atf ••aq* u^qtt ad J ladi t •«•««< teovila^ m-nm mrmiU
t€uni(w «H> *wab HUm a Aad ooalaa a<f4 SatU tm* ^av->a»aaaaq a aa
XtlBumv ioMbtmCfb mU iaiff f«toar<i bn» apafa 0*90 Maa anioAl
•lU nl nooXaa aiU ^ taan afii ni ^«aI mU ol ftantarta bo^ *<<' iqa^
rtl »aooI* atf o^ soft acU bavolla aaiii^a«>a ad daiiori^lji .aaii^ X^^
ad^ nl ?)oA mOJ bad arf ittsln adJ .viltuft iadi Ima «*frNoXaa ad.:f
< dsaoaU lo naocmaila adl rsa MOb->do4a« a aa rioolaa
r(o<»Xaa m*itu^>tn!Y»b lo dinon ontoob id^ia acioda bariX ad« «¥ti>nlfllq
Hgilia<«0 aoa d#iw ^naqaoo nl «anad ^ia ilaX «tf0oXd aoaa ad^^
akl, and vhllo they srers sralking aaat In aaid open spaoe along
Ui9 6id« or the s&Xoon and xt^e^ said aide entranoo^ the un->
sRUzzlsd dog, without provocation, 4u?2p©d on plaintiff ar^i bit
his cm the fore-arm, - making a hole in the swfiator, s»hlch plain-
tiff wore, and four ssarka on hia ara, causing the arra to bleed.
Plaintiff testified that the wound "began to swell right away"
and he is^sediately consulted & physician; that the physician
dreaaed hia arm every day for fovirteen daya? that as a reatalt
of the "bite* he »aa unable to work: during that pertc^ and lost
hia wages of |2. per day, arKi that hia doctor's bill waa ^^14»
Plaintiff further testified that he had known the do^ for a long
time, had aeen It nm after, but not bite, othor pisracna, aaid
that it had chased plaintiff on one ocoaslcn about on® year pre--
vloua, John yajkowgfei, a witness for plaintiff, testified that
the dog ■JUTcped on people* j ttiat it Juisap^ at hia onoe and jprab-
bed hiiB by the az^, and that he saw it run after oth«r men. on
the trial plaintiff introduced, without objection, an ordinance
of the City of Chioaf.o, in force at the time In question, to the
effect that it was unlawful for the owner of a dog to permit it
to run at lars^e on any atireet, alley or other publio plaoe, "un-
less suoh dog shall be securely muzzled so aa to effectually pre-
vent it frora biting any person or anitaal", and providing for a
fine in case of violation of the ordinance* i^laintiff also in-
troduced, over objection of defendant, a certified copy of the
records of the Municipal Court of Chicago, showing the assessrsent
a
of ^ fine iigainat Martin aersaanslrl, (the defend^mt In the present
action) in a case brought against hits for violation of said ordi-
the
nance, in which ooa© the plaintiff herein waa^proasoutin^ witness.
The defendant and his son testified that defendant had owned the
dog about three years, that it was "a good, quiet dog and a good
watch-dog'*. Scleral aritnesaea for defendant testified that they
SaolA —m^m n^^^ bimm ml immm ^ItUm •a«« XP^* ttltttm tne ^I4m
-on «di «MCMr«tfi» •bte btm% ^mma brut t»9lM9 vril lo •blk «f#
ittf ta» Ytl4rii«Xq no fc^qcut «n»l.l«eoT«^ iuocUlv «a«^ teXsJU*
.ni^ «•«« tU til dlaK « anltUw - ««tA-«ni~ rid
^ ram i>£;ri : r.(>x-xii«»i -joaji:/'! YtliotaX^
i..!. Aa Ban ii tmmm bmt^
-«*X<| *UteY «?•' -JtAlq I)— Brio fe«d ^X JdUJ
.»o<:tq olXtff>^ -•^'r*o «fo t«XXA «J»»^« ^pn tm mfitsl im mn ol
xH^tsSxnnX^ » bmtmmm ^tmjuitmm 9d tlsiim soft rfsr^ »;.«>
^- " - ' »~" to no»^«er — ... r «*.* ...-.-. ,
♦-....^•^^ ..r,* ..» ... c^^*^^ «ru»pf»ll ailn*» l«al«r — '^^^
,A»mnJtw yiliUCcxu rtq^B«w rtiwtJ^ii iliiai«' "- ' ^ ,*cr»*n
•rfJ iMmo ted StiMtf^Imb imAS Jb«jniiae in ir{« jru-;.>noiei; 9111
toos ' ''f S^^ ^alup «&oos a* •«« Jl J... |«i.'ui«t - - * ^iiotte fiob
"nevcr saw the dog bite or attdnpt to bite anybody", and t»o
vltnessea testified that they had seen the dog loose many tlaes
In and around the saloon and imauszled.
"The o«Tjer of dosieatic or othor arimals not
naturally inolined to ooct it isiaohief, as dogs, horses
and oxen. Is not liable for any Injiiry cosTrdtted by thea
to the person or peraonal property of another, unleaa It
can be 3hotm th:^.t ho previously had notice of the anlnal»B
sjisohietroue propenaity, or that the injury wst attribut-
able to eose other nef.lect on hla pfl.rt, it beini?:, in gen-
eral, nooeaoary, in an aoti^^n for an injury conf^lttsd by
3uoh anlisals, to allejTe and prove the eoieriter*. (Mareau
V. Vanatta, 's 111, 1S2-S).
It is urged thatj^evidanee does not support ths verdict
and jud^nenty in that the soient^r 9&s not auffloiently proved.
To this we cannot agree. The scienter may be established by
attendant oircunsatanoea, without the neoeaslty in all cases of
proving prior oases of injury*, (2 Aje, & Eng, tcnoyc. Law - 2nd
Sd.-p. 3^9; Chioago, eto, H. Co, v, Kuoltkruok, 9B 111, App, 252,
257, affM. 1^ ill, S04.) Th?? testimony diacloesd that the do?;
*as used as a watch-dog to guard the saloon premises In the night
tiset that in the day tls?© the dog was usually chained in the
yard, but that fr©qia#ntly the defendant allowed it to run at large,
im?mi22ied, in violation of ths Oity ordinance, We think that it
ir&s a (jueatlon for the Jury arhether, under all the facta aiai oir-
cuBjatances in evidence, the defendant had notice of the deg'e
"!nischiev<»as propensity*, or that plaintiff 'd Injury was attribut-
able to defendant's neglect, ( Kightlln^^er v, Egan, 75 111, 141-2?
^roode V. Martin, 57 :id, 606; Hahnke v, Friederich, l-JO H, ?♦ SJ34,
2k?7), and we ar» not disposed to disturb the verdict. There was
no evidence thn-t the plaintiff wantonly lirritated and aggravated
the dog, (-^areau v. Vanatta, supra, ) And no point la wsda that
the verdict is ezoesslve.
And we do not think that the trial court oorsraitted pre-
judicial error, aa contended by counsel, in admitting in evidence
»bmlmm»MKW fens noQlmm wil te0<yBi tea a
Jor mIjbbJ oft 1« t»«» . . .^
,<..*. to--! ».:;•: ^ -troa rJ- fs'^ .i:l«itflBR
\'., .'-nT 'i-j-trf-r-fci' &■ .... ■ • 'rr.tto o« elr ■
f .\-#bH
_ ^ ,. ci •*jRAbn»lat o^ eitfit
' tfm«4*i& oi ib«no?Rl.b ^orr VIA. e« bns •t^t^BS
' it-nt \StiQia»» I'i. -.->. v^t . . - L.lv» Off
••▼1«««0X* mi . ed^
•o . xmmrtuoo \d b^ir ,io*nt X«lollu>l
wi-
the reoortl of the J/tmiloipal Court sho??lng that defendant hsA
ba@n ftnod imdor ths city ordinano«» upon oosplalnt of the
plaintiff, for ponaittlnjg a dog to rvaa. at l«rgo urmxzzltKL, The
Jtidgment is afflrssed*
■■\ JmcLi/u^C\R^.J)jL^j&,^
161 - 17711. \_^ /»-^ ^^-i-vfe^^*, ><.w\MAr?i. ^
-^ -■' ■ ^ ^'- \ '
B. a» SADEAUX, tio l wj ^ »uo irH»»» ag ) ^ \
R. '. BADEAUX A @5, / )
DwPeadant In £avor, ) EHROR TO
▼4. I H.^ lOJJflCIPAL COnRT
AUaOS? ROSREH ar^d i*iilE RcmiEJi, s4 ^ V f? / '*- J OP CHICAGO.
Plap^iffa In E^ror. ) ^ • ^- ^^ ^^ ^-"^^ -.W-
^ l8 2lXll4
STATl^^l?* Defendant in ©rror, hereinafter oall©d plain-
tiff, bx*o«ght an action of the fourth ola^^a in the Murdsipal
Court of Chleaj^o against plaintiffs in error, heralnuftor call-
ed dofendants, to recover for certain esonlea advanced and for
ccjcss 133 ions claimed to be due hla, &a a lie^r^aed real estate
broicer* for presenting a jaaroiiaser for oertain renl estate, owned
by the defenda^ita and which they desired to sell, i^ich pur-
chaser sas ready, willing ar^ able to sake the purchase and en-
tered into a written contract with the def^jndants &c to do. The
transfer of th# prop rty to the pura^eer was not consusssted.
The case wis tried before the court without a Jury, resulting
in a findin^^ in favor of plaintiff for #162.60, upon whic^ iud^*
xaent was enters against the defendanto,
'Stm asterial facts ares In aepttmbsr, 1910, the defend-
ants listed the property with the plaintiff for sale, it con-
sisted of one lot on Flcurnoy stx^et, in tits city of Chicago,
itaprovod with a t»o-stcry brick buildin^;, having, a bay window
on one side. Plaintiff presented to the defendants one JoJan
Oorboy aa a probable purchaaer. In the pireliainary negotiations
it appeared that defendants would aell f<a* ^,S00 in caah, but
that Oorboy had only about #2,100 in ready money, and it wae
arranged that piaintiff should obtain a loan on the prerrlaes,
in order that the deferdants at the tlase of the tranofer sight
receive the «^tira purchase price in c«ah. On septesber i.:^th,
a written contract van signed by corboy and both defendants, in
•Iirci - 191
i
ll •ii.jL ;;^o i
v.
Laqtrt-HjU wU nl •aaXe dlnuod «fU ^ ?»i4o« fU ^ifaoond «11i4
ttfl tfom Ifmnmwbm wmtaom atsi^mo tot fyo o# n oi «e4rtAftcHKtob t»
«#«i«« £«n Att n tBli • mm ^tald mub td ol b«al«Xe wiolftalflBoo
-<«jq ifDMir •XI»« oi 6ovi«ttft x*<l^ itolite ftna m^nmbaafBt mOS x^
oi (M alnAtewl^b •ill dJlw lc«9lr»o« aWJlm a olnl lM«i»i
-SbL^t rtr-^rfv ncKTU «oa.2ei« -zc'l minlAl^ lo tov«l nl jinltBl% m al
. lnaAntrt«6 wU imntmiB tev»in* mm inte
~bneloi> ons ^OXd ^'letOKiJq^e nl i«Ta Wotfl l«ln«i«B «tfX
•or -^^iM t«l niJrtlalq «cii» jU1» x^^*<70^9 *^ ifSmtl eJxM
«Q3^oxi::v ^o T^lo oill nl «!••«#• tOfVion no iol •no lo 1}»4«1»
«ofinl« Y^ < :ifflT«rf «yi^lilltfrf t9t'at jyctSm-^mS m dftm Iwrnttumt
nrfoL mao m^ambtmtmb 9tU 9S bt t m mm t n V%lSnlsl*i ••M« wso no
aooliallosMt t'XAnialX«t« •(U OSL •n*a4Mis«if •lAMfOTf a •« ^odtOO
itfrf ^tlMMO m 00&«a# "Ml !£•« bluam •JmteMlAft «mU fiaoqr^ #1
o«v #1 taB tYv^'oa tftan nl C}0£«ft| J»od« tXne Atari td^noc 1«1#
••••in«^ •iU no fiaoX M nljOtfo ^iMoili YllioiaAq s»iU tesnmo
iifshi lotManl oili lo oeBlJ o/fl i« atRoAnolofc oxu Joiti ^«lw> nl
•/li^■u •ifMteo^^ot no «xlaoe nl •ol-^ ••aifto<sM| o^lln* oiil ovloovs
nl «o#noln<»lol^ tt»a4 bnm xotttoD id tec^io s«« sos%inoo nnSitrm m
-2-
whlch Gorboy agreed to pi^rohaae the property at the prloo of
$5t600t and the dofdndants agreed to sell the B&xxe and to con«>
vey to Corboy •» good and laoroimntable title tl:«r0tc by f^eneral
wurranty de^"# 111© contract further provided, later alia,^
that the a^roeTsej^t »as ■aubjeot to S« <% adeaux .^ ao» eecurlisg
& loan of ^5600 on a*iid pz^misos for five yBsr^ at 5 l/S^a in-
terest at time of passinr. deed" ; that the "purchaaor has paid
|100 aa earnest soney^ to be applied <a3 sim^ purehasd when oon-
eti^aated, and agreea to pay within 5 days after the title haa
been exasinsd and found ©DOd, or aoeepted by hiss & s tfce further
SUE} of |5500, -» d provided a good and si;ffioi#r;t general warranty
deed« oonveylr^ to aald purchaser a good and nserotmntable title
of record, ahall then be ready for delivery* ; that a "complete
ss^rohantablo abstz^aot of title, or aerohantabl© copy, brought
down to the date hereof, alcall h& fumiahed by the v^naor*?
that the "jMirohssor, or hia attorney, ■» * shall within 60 days
after receiving stioh abstraot deliver to the vendor or hia aj^^it
« » a note or rasraoranduK in writing, » ^ speoifyinf^ in detail the
objections to the title, if any*| that 'in oast© material defects
be fcimd in said title, and ao reported, Uien if suoh defects be
not curei sritl^iin 60 days after such noiioe thereof, this contract
shall, at the purchaser's opt i en beocrae null and void, and said
earners t rsoney sim l l be returned" ; that "sJunild said purchaser
fail to perfors this c<»itraot promptly on his part* «> » t^
earnest laoney <5 9 al^ll, at the option of tii@ y&mXoTp be retained
by the vwjdor as liquidated dantages"; that •sail eazmest Eoney
shall be hold by H« G* i?«deaux % Go» for *h© lautual bonefit of
the partieu ooncemed"; that "it shall be the duty of Fc. "«
Badeauz * Co,, ir? case said earnoi^t Koney be retained ae herein
provided, to apply the saise, first, to the payiaent of aj-sy expenses
incurred for the vendor by his agent in said setter, btA, second.
%• M9il^ mtit ^K x^tmmartq •sU M^dMOf ai ft a^ Ti M to#wO dftiilv
~me oi ftna •»• »d4 IIm o4 ff'^jyi a^eMferMltift mtU bit*
tilBq ami it»««itovi>f * wU 4«d# | *t>e«ft - t !« s&^'smi
-rmo a»c(« #«4itfrapt iloiai no tt. ; j^der.
.dia#i— tow kit* teoji « nniwifcm/t MiM e4 sk^; .t»vnoo «l>oefi
AifMile. .^ ftl* -44KU { *tn<i ' . (. :.'
ftiaa iMM «Mov b-ui XXun 9 mo 9i t rtaSS^n «** » ■ a ite'fcuq «ii
twrfeww^ fri«a Moods* #««U i "ftefr
V ja%(*« M««* iMU y*«^annift f>94ttlS>£uplX •« tobtrwr <
1u J.'^OflWd tmoiam mdf *fo^ stis«llif. XX«£la
actroii;:::© \rui lo JrfMi*^^ .
-3-
to th© paywant to v^tidoro ♦ broker o^ a oom»rilccion of 2 l/sf^
on tho oelXln/^ prloe horoln mentioned, for hia cervicen in procur-
ing this ocn tract*.
At Ui* tlPHi »Rlcl ocntrifcct wr» sl^Rjied th« defond«.nta r»-
quaatea plttlntlff to have th© abstreot of title broufjht dojm to
date, and plaintiff paid th© ChlojSbfio rltl© 'i lTu»t Co. th« «uffl
of 9l2,<30 for th« oontlmwtlorj, l'ht» attorney of Corboy «xawln«kl
Bald abBtraot. PlalRtiff obtained the promiai? of a first jncrtga^jo
loan for taooo froci <<r«enobauB & Bona, amd Corboy and plaintiff
aprttn^,«d with imother party for a e»o<»jd inortstag® of v500, eo
that dafendanta might got tha purohaa© prloe In oaah at tlra» of
paaalng th© dead. 'Jroonobaua & ^ona, howavar, ra ;uir»d a guaranty
polloy befora tmklrif, their loan, and an application for auoh a
X>olloy WR9 la&d© by plaintiff to oald Ohloa^,o tltla *. Trust Oo«
That oowptmy, after axaminatlcn of th© abatraot of title, daollnad
to gusrantae tha title baoausa it was fourv^ that the bay window
on tho aide of tha build in/f. on aald pramliiae axtandad over on the
adjoining; lot about 3 Inohaa, subaaquantly a osaatlng wao hold at
tha offloa of dorboy's attOTTioy, at whloh Auguat ifolirar, hie »on,
plaintiff, Corboy^ and Oorboy'a attorney woro praa®r^t> ar^ tha
quaotion of tho anoroaohmant of aald bay wirdow, vMoh n&a tha
only objactlor. raioad to th© tltla, waa dlaouaaod. aaoaiia© of
t' la ancroaolimant, Corboy* a attorney advloed corboy not to take
th© proporty, but, aoooralrg to aald attcrnoy'a tostliaony, *aorboy
was willing and able to oloce tha daal, and offered to ta*^e tha
property If they (defardanto) would protoot hlra agalnet any suit
brought on aooount of tlia anoroaohjnant of th© bay window, }?o
would aooapt a guaranty policy, or a doad froT the ownor of tha
3 Inohao, or ha (oorboy) would dafand hlmaalf If Wr, iiohrar woi4d
pay the expanaao of proourln?^ tho loan and th© jruaranty polloy,
Thaoe itana araountad to about ^75, Mr, Kohr«r raAisod to pay
no '(■.
3L
tn^unOi'
6'IGJ.
u.'-"^e>
??i/oa ,
'.AW
thei»o QxpQTiamip but stated that he »ouId, in order tc olose
the deal, ta.i:o the !aort|?ai5« for ^500 hisjoalf".
On October iilat, plali tiff caused the aaid contract
b«t9««n defendants and uorboy to he fil©d for record in th©
reoorder*s offio« of Qook Ooimty, at Ooi»boy*a raqucst, str.d sub-
ae^uently plaintiff paid the Ghioago Title a Trust Go, for woric
done by It on plaintiff's application for asid guaranty policy
aiid for recording fees advanced by It tho aim Off 017,05* and
plaintiff also paid a surveyor th© sua of |15 for surveying aaid
preE3ia©», Plaintiff testified that August Hoisrer authorised Ma
to incur this stirvey expense, but Rbhrsr denied thlo, isubsequent-
ly plalr.tif f» at Oorboy*3 requeat, retiimed to Iilra the |100»
earnest soney, whi<^ Jxad been deposited with plairttiff in aoocnl-
ance wlUi the contraot. Plaintiff clai'S-i at the trial tbet fee
was entitled to $140 as cos«ila«ic»'ia, '^iiioh is 2 l/2;^ or? tlie ptir-
olmee price of |5#fl00» a?ki to tli« said dlsburoessents ^ide "by hia
for contiruatlon of abatraot, for worl!: dors© on application for
guaranty policy aod recorciing fees, and for aiirvey, Tlie court
allowed plaintiff cotajaiealona of $140 arxi |i2,60 for disburse-
jsent for continuance of abstract*
It further appeared fross ths evidence that the c^mtr
of the adjoining lot, on whose prealses th& bay s?indow encroacheti,
lived In l?cH©nry, Illircis, ami that on ?Tov»ajl>er 4th, plaint IfjT
^Juggested to Auguet Rohrer thsit lie go ami &sm her# Hohrer re-
plied that plaintiff bad better ^, ard aa^ed plaintiff what
the expmist; scuid be, to which plaintiff replied, "Iss for i3f
tlr<e ar^ expenses", Kohroi* aail ho aeuld tallfe isrith his eon,
cm. the <#vening of the sasie day, Bohrer arai his son called on
plaintiff at the latter »s off ice, ant, aftsr noma converaatl on,
the followlnr, inetruraent waa al^sned by plaintiff but was not
eignod by the defendanta or either of theat
•solo oi iBjyio >» •ci i»iU J3#iaJ» iad «i
.•,a odl bear — ■ .■ 'r.
iftcnc 10' rtUntMlq \Ua9Ufi9m
' t xd ttob
ai<.'4MMa lot tea
Air . ^v«ui» fi j»X«9 o«i« Hi^ftLiXq
fill. w .t4«dO
^f.jjiI4oo© •sod
»3oani*iii ^ — nawillnoo rrol Iomi
:.ty aiU «o^ bvis«fq« iMU^Vfl ^ <
,:«('C4w^^;r^w iJk»;i wXi a»F3ln»^Voocf» no ,ioI Bnlfliot£« MfJ lo
♦ r'P'^fioM mi
4.;.^ ^»^ jlbJ iii#nt«i<i ijuu toiXq
•fK>« alif tflbr 311*1 bloom «f I>JLm 'ici, .iff^ao bar ftmtS
no foIlAO (KM aid tas T»arlofl «x^> ffSMi :3iuf lo anlfwr* mU oO
iot n/^r jiic *51J:v*ri2jBlq x^ ft*<Ul* ^ftt
Ohioago, Rov. 4, 1010.
Chloap;o> Illinois.
fjentleaent- .,,,,. , _ ..
I hereby «.gro# to pay you %l*it, in mii
for yoiir services for securing rs& a sale of jsy
proiwjrty, :io. 504*? Flounioy at,, to one J, Corboy»
and for aecurin/^ a salver cf clair to the thr©^?
(3) InoTies extsndlr^. ovar <hi lot next east of al)Ov«
premises. Jonaiuanatlcn of aal» to be within 10
daya of al^ovo date.
@i tneaaed t Aoo«pt0d >
Miguet Hobr«r t@3tifl»<l! *Wa t&lked &t>owt th« question
of the bay window ©noroticJilng. -ade&ux war.t«Ki |2f5 extra In aadl-
I tion to flfK) a« oot?®laslon, aM he said that for §25 h^ wotild
get a release or wsivor to the 3 inches. I agreed to this a*5d the
agreenetit wae put in writing. « « -Mdeaux has never obtained a
release or waiver to the 3 inohss." Aii^at Kohrer, Jr. testlfisdj
•I adviiiod father to pay the extra e25. ^ ^ I asSted Badoaiac to
pwt it in i^riting, at first he hesitated, but finally he wrote
out the agroenent on one of his o^. letter heads and sim^ it.
I wlta^eeed Ms signature". Plaintiff further testified that on
the following jsoming, November Sth. Au^st Rohrer called at Ma
office and "asked re what I was going, to do. I said I was .^oing
to ycHenry as socm ae they gave se the ssoney to go. m then said?
•YOU need not j^'.' Atigaat lohrer denied Umt thle oonvereation
ever occurred or that he at any f'-nB told plaintiff not to f.o to
r. '^'^^;^^;j=^^2jg-^ja^ SSUXYEKSD THE OPISIOK OF THE CGORT.
counsel for plaintiff contenda that plaintiff is entitled
to 1140 cor^saione by virtue of the irritten contract of Septer-ber
S4, 1910, *hlch iraa aigned by Corboy and by both defor^ante, and
which fixed plaintiff's ooKf^iaalona ae the ver«lora» brolcer at 2 l/2
XIii7 ni HrvtA I
,^i *•»'■'« WIS SB nOB
-^ ; » XiUM-' ^■'■'■♦wt* waifcf»** ^<^''
; ,..-•-.• •*?■-.. ,..— •., laBBO© ax- .. .* •
oJ -♦on fT ?-.♦'•?« Tar bloi «>■■ ' i rnx
•Ti
a\f a #« loicAtf *mt»hnm tli mm mtnimtitemom m^'msnim *ff«
^'SZ^
.suArt^ihr I
. >• ' -
- „.,. adi
:-• 1
',!M >0l'V»0
' ^tT. SCirt
J:*
. 'T '• '^
-s-
por cent, or tli© aalllrg prloo of ^^,^00, and arguea that plain-
tiff produo»d a purohaaer, who waa ready, v.'llllnr and able to
oo»pl«t« the purohaso ac proposed and who entered Into a binding
oontraot ao to do, and that the fact that the tranafer waa not
conaunBaatod beoauo© of the enorottoJL'nont of the bay window of the
building on defendanta* propwrty over the adjoining lot, without
fault of plaintiff, should not deprive plaintiff of said oorsaia^lons.
Under tho faote In evidence In this case w© are of the opinion ths-t
plaintiff la entitled to recover the mm of $140 as oonHniealontf'^^
and the further aum of |i2,60 for soney paid by plaintiff at "io-
fendanta* request for the continuance of the abstract, and that
the findlrg and Jud^inent of the trial court shouad not be disturbed.
"The duty of & broker, who la employed to sell
real aetata. It; to find rniA produce to the vendor a pur-
chaaer, ^ho la ready, willing; and nble to oonplete the
purohJiBft 4i,a proposed, rhla 3ie nust do before ht? in en-
titled to any ooramiaalona, » » If the principal accepts
the- purchaser thuii pr»i)0ntod, «ltht;r upon tho t&m& jt^o*
vloucly propoaod or upon modified terra*' then a^^Qed upon,
sxnd a valid contract ie ontored into b0V«7een the?n, the
ootaalaslon la aJj^mod, In euch case, the broker had earned
hia coawjiaaion alUiougli tho caie ia never actually cotaplet-
ed, if the failure of the purchaaer to conplote the aale re-
sults- frorn tho inability of tho vardor to rr;a>:e & £00^- title,
and without fault on tho part of the broker «* ( i^Jleon v.
"ason. lo8 ill* Z04, 302? ^^0, also, "oodrid/'c v, ilolladay,
ITTli. App, 8SS, 365? FOX V, Ryan, '^Wr^^^^01, 89^.)
Coimool for defendants in hla brief seemingly Ignorec the
oontraot of iiepterabfor *:4th, and x>ellen upon the inotruaert of
Hovessber 4th, «Ailch he calla a "written contract" between the partlea,
He ar^ea that by thla Inatruracnt plaintiff wao entitled to only
|1«25, when and after plaintiff had actually oongiyapated a aalo of
the prenlaea and had secured a walv»r of olslr to tho ? inohoa of
land, ovor which the bay -Window encroached, frcn the adjoining
owner, that neither of the»e thinga had been aocogpliehod, and that,
therefore, plaintiff haa no olair., TJila Inatrunant la net aijsjrjed by
Mx&i&t Kohrer. On tho f^oe of the Inotrumont itaelf he does not
appear to have agreed to anything. Furthermore, It doen not appear
that plaintiff received any conaideratlon at the time, or that any-
-^
^ ^{ . , -4 ^ Ml-tq BolXlM Mli fl» m^am net?
*r"^,"f©fl 10^
lo f«r *. ^-^.Nww ffmwoo tain -i
■0 •lift nt <5- ntr
:in«ft(ii^
^7-
thing wao done mid«r tho Inatruraent. ^9 do not thlnfe that thla
ln«tnw»nt altered or cJmnged the rl/7;htB of th« p»irtlo» under
the oontrtict of Joptorabor 24th.
llor do we think that there* lo any merit in the cent on ti on
of def endar.te ♦ aounael that pl&lntlff was jjullty of a bjreaoh of
trust or violation of duty In returning the eamoat money to Oor-
boy.
The JudgEient of the Municipal (;ourt lo afflrsnssd.
•T»
•id# iJMttS teHH Jwi ift flV >tii— I Mill id*
"ir, Ipil, ^0.
2ii0 - 17,7-13,
/
/ ) ERROli TO
Plalnti/f in i:rror, )
▼f
/ I SUPERIOR COURT
THE WKSTimK POUIfJ^Y OQM-
PAiN'Y, fc Coppe rat;t!bn:» ) COOK COUNTY.
i39f«bdant in Erx»or. )
/ 182I.A. 115
im» JUSTICE GRIULISY DlfiLIVIiREU THE OPINION OF THli COURT.
Roaario Fortior, plaintiff b«lcw, brought suit In the
Superior oourt of cook oounty against Th© W©«tom i'-oundry Com-
pany, a oorpori.tion, defendant b«low, oharging in hla declara-
tion that, »hile he «&s working for the defendant as a oarpenter
on a aoaffold about lii. feet in height, the defendant nef,ligently
oauood or peniitted oertain air^B hanging near where plaintiff
waa at work to become charged with an ©ieotrio current unknown to
plaintiff, whereby plaintiff, coining in oontaot with said wires,
reoetved a shook and fell and was severely injured. There waa
also ai ccomt ohargin/5 the defendant with negligence in falling to
warn plaintiff of the danger. The oaa© waa tided before a Jiiry
who found the defendant not guilty, upon which firiding Judgiaant
Wtt3 entered, to reverne whloli plaintiff prcaeouteB thle writ of
error.
At the time of the accident, February '<j, 1908, the de-
fendant waa having constructed an additionaa foundry building for
its own use, and the building was nearly ootnpleted. Kohler Bro-
thers aa independent oontractor© were engaged in inotalling elec-
tric motors to be used for power and were running; and attaching
the neoesoary wires, iione of these motora were placed on shelves
or platforao attached to the walls of the building some distance
from the ground. Plaintiff and another carpenter were oraployed by
defondant in constructing and attaching one of these eholvea to
the west wall. In order to do this they had erected, by means of
.«»T«TX - US
Gil
,T> TWO sHT ^ia;£3v^a^ia ui^ .-u .iOi.^uL .
~«rt«l5«ft tin nl 3iti)<t«irio ««eX»(l irutfimc^M} «aoli4'KKru>o « txn«q
i«^*TiM> « ■« #n«l>rtela^ oriJ "rol ^Mii^ftow s^v eil sll^iv ,i«iii aDl#
XllfrastX.^en 4r!ji6ml«ft «iU aJtfll^l«f( tU ^••1 81 ItrtKU MoHaM m no
Kt nworfMruf ;rn9TXi/o 9iTi»«£« nft At in iMarMXio MrtfoW Ai tfioir #« 04^
tt«« •*i«dl .Jbaoiitnl tX*t9TMi Miw Mm II»1 Aoji ?lcr>^ • l>*rl»e«<i
* ^nXXJUii nl ••ne;^iX||«n iUXv ift«ivt»)«|> «rli j^ntaiAdo inxtot m omlm
X'tui • •aoled' bt^lnS aaw ea^M •!!? •lAgnAj^ •<U ^o llXirtiiiXq rrunr
^MiBSfKit SRibnll ttotiim noqu ^x^ltufi Son ittabiflmb rndS bmioi Oftir
^ ■ * *-^ ~ ^'^ J ••^iioe«o*iq[ HtllnXaX^ itollfv eei^vtr- -^ * . '^r-'nlnt •««
wT.wu v>:^; «aoex ,c x'uamf*'^ ,im»bloo« <mU lo mU4 mSI tA
<iol anll>XXu(l x'l^^^i^') XiMol.fihA« nil iMN^airUBnoo anlvjuf •«« ^*~" r->
<>o^t8 •raXilo.l •b9S%lqmoo xX*t«Mi •«• yt^^XXiitf mU baa ,••</ i^^^ '•j .
•^•X« sntXXAlttni ai b»s«9n* •-xav anoioatlnoe liMta»q*£Mxl •« ar^di
ysixfo«4i« bn» j^lnmn inav Brui ie«oq loi^ l»»ttlf Mf o4 a'xoioa 9tti
••▼Xaif* cfo taoaXq •<xa« aioioa aaaiU lo mk>£ •••rhr vt»A«»eMi adi
•onw^aXt •moa gnlbXlud adi lo aXXaa arltf oi bmdf^M^i* ftanoliaXq no
"^•^ ^axoXqlI• •fn na^rtaqnao ta/l^ona ftfM 1114^RXaX'> •Arix/on3 a/l^ aonl
^i aeTXaffa aaadi lo aito j^aiiip^^f* ttnm yti^atnlanoo al inaAoeTtb
lo errrftrr vd" ^hm^Dtt-r-^ ?iuf v^-f.f « tHi r»h o.t ii«.ft-r.'j -»I ,XX^^ i99W BtiS
wooden horses and a muaber of planks, a soaffold along said will
about lii feet high. Kohlor Firothora had run and attaotied sires,
shich were later to carry the current to the Ejotor to be placed
on said slielf, along the roof cf the building, Mid at the tirae of
the aooldent theoe wires, which were new arwi inaulated, were hang-
ing loosely froBs the roof, near the east edge of said scaffold, with
their eruis a abort distanoe from the floor. Plaintiff »b versicafj
of the nanner in which the accident happen^id was that, while in a
partly kneeling position on said scaffold, *I held with mj left
hand on the teriok wall, steadying the a»4. The nails wsre stuck
in it. 1 haiiled off with my right hand an-i struck the nail. My
harder csuse in contact sfith the srirea. I felt tim wires on nsy
face, and 1 got a shock. T3ie a-lrea carae to ray face by catching in
my hanssaer . ^ » After I got the shook I dldn * t know nothing" .
Plaintiff further testified: "I saw th© wires in ths nei^m>orhood
cf where I waa working. There were 3 wires, so®«where.> near the
center of the soaffold. « » I did not pay any attention to tbe
wires or sake any effort to avoid thers*. R-bsrt a, Muirphy, stio was
plaintiff's co-worker on the soaffold at the tins, testified Wmt
plaintiff "raised tiie Jia^sr to drive the nail, and aa he did oo,
he fell. » « He did not bring the blow down upon tiia nail. » »
He «as looking towards Use riail. -s- * The wires sight have been
6 or o inches to the ri>5-it of hiro. » j lie fell on hia left 3ho\ilder
and the side of hia head onto the maple floor. <j ■> ivhen we coa-
Etenced building the soaffold we sa» the .jirer, hariging down; we
did not put thss out of our way but Just let thsia hang where t^ey
were". Dr. Bessette, plaintiff's physician, attended hira shortly
after the acoident and while he was lyiJig on the floor of the foimd-
ry» He tostifieds "1 isade an exsjalnation of him at that time;
foimd evidences of oonouaaior. of the brain. » « i remeK-bsr finding
on« uiark on his for^ead, about the center. 4^ * I would describe
«Mniv bwltnUiM bam sun tail u . Joel -a
booMLq etf oJ 'xoioa Mis i itmrum «<tt xn lolrtw
lo •alt '»: i« iMM ,. Jjrf oiU lo lo<« •d.' _ » -:>
•5nad ^13 i/ectl tea wwf •n(«v fioidv «a»ni* Misifi irrtobieOA orlJ
« ni •lii ^/fwowarf ^jtsfcJforB orfi rfotrir nl Tang*?..
. t ^l
adjil xii o^ «Hao mtftlv «dT .ircrla * .^07;
br^ , .
'tow •**
ton tilt' T-i08 "
»a* . ' •-'^ Moy
J- . :~: tuli * aOQ •fli no lOJiTC/V-
Tr.raaail
Jo« fclft 98 • « .1X0*5 t
ifUbft- . id )o 4d^l^ mU o4 ttt^
-rodl*: i" iTr-r orf^ Qino IkftMf u'rf I0 •:
bXoll*c
X« 'n T^rrfiff S944 l*X iw/L ^utf x-^^ '<cm lQ Ixio mmU ^uq ;roa bt
XltT-^rlJj " iaj4« «rtei9iax<iQ *=' ' ■" ,?t^-.*?j»e'? ,iu ."o-rew
^en erti no BalxX •«« •<! oil' .«
•<fl<u>e»l> bXuo. iuoda , aimt; »cfo
-3-
it as an abraaiors, 9 » I oortinued to obaerv© it. A onast fom-
«d on it. It waa very alight, juat an alnraaion. I thixdc it la«t-
ad &eymn or eight days'*.
At th« trial, the principal ccHntrovortod question of i&ot
was whether or not there was an elootrioal currant in the *lro or
»lr98, with which plaintiff oame In contact, at U>e tlr^ of th«
accident • By th© great preponderance of U» eridens e it was shown
that they were not charged with olootriolty, and, in our opinion,
the ivacj were fully warranted In finding the defendant not guilty
of negligence.
•Rie only jsoint argued by counsel for plaintiff is that the
trial court erre^l In the exclusion of certain evidence. Alphonae
Foumler> a sitness for plaintiff, teatlfied that "I saw plaintiff
the sanie evening after the accldwit; h© was at hoiae in bed; 'i* *
I observed a sear over his rigiit eye*. The witnesa was tlien asked
to describe th@ soar and tell what it looked like, and he answered,
"It looke<i like a bum*. Defendant's attorney sicv&d that the anssfPer
be strlclcen frcaa the record, arKi the court said, "Strike it out*
Let hia tell how it looked". And the witness again answered, "It
looked to Hie aa if struck by aoxse thing, sand it was red all around
it like a bum*. On jaotion the words "like a biirn" wore stricken
out. Tlie sister of plaintiff, Delilah Pelatier, teatified that
oho "(law his the next day after the accident; ^ » there was a
red mark <m the right side of hie forehead; I saw his left hand,
and there was scales on the ends of hia fingera, like a biim, ahiny".
The words "like a bum, shiny* were stricken out» The aritnesa
further teatified that "the ciark ion the forohead was very red,
bright red. -^ 9 It looked like a taim*. The words *it looked
like a bum* were stricken out.
?<hlle we are of the opinion that the trial court should
have allowed the teatlraony of both eitneasee, that the scar or
mark on the right side of plaintiff »3 forehead "loolred like a bum*t
«^««i .T . ^B^vfA ns Smut ,4dslic r^rr »«r
.**B1[«A lit '»ir»« b»
lo«*k " '^up tm&rm^tyrSnoo Imqtont-vi tU ^Imini mda
no 91; t irf»TUM> X«ol<ilo«X« n» •mi •tmiU lea 10 i^tUedr
•as to 9mU ti$ im «^o«lnoo nl mom tliinlAlq (feixlu rlilK ,r«rntv
^noifTtqo nuo fxl ^bnm «V'oim&*Ie tfilw tesiAd* #«« •nmm xmU Smtii
lilltQ ion ifuODiwlsb MlJ ,%iilMtil al tfStmvum x^J^*^ •*<•« TUft ^^^
••ormslX^MV lo
•anotfqjb'. ••orMMv* niA4<MO lo nolMfXax* «f4 nl J^«Yt« IvMW tmtrti
lltSnlMi^y 9M I* i«d4 b9tl±S90$ ^VtUntAlq •sol •••olXv « ,ielxn0Of«;
ttimnamatta td t>r ib«3fooX il imAm ll»S bttM lae* •dS •dtnommb oi
fmwm Mfi iMtU boron t*'*^-^^' s ' inB6r«il«<l ,*mad a •<lX b«iiCM»I
,:*ao it oUtxtil" ^bljm T-umo tU ijim «Jyioo«n tU ao^ rwioinla ad
, ^/9<i««>««i al«^ B««flil« edi BriA • *Jb«j(ooX 11 «rad X
iinuota XIa b^-i ujn St bnm t^fUriSmmom xd ifotnia ft as 99 9S JkMfoeX
ne-r'ol^a 9t»v "niutf a •!fXX* almni •di ciotSoa no ."mucf « e:fiX SI
Suits bot\lS90S ^^mlSmlmH tiMillma ^YttSnlMlq to <wl«X. .Itfo
:l!W&iooA •fiS 1^srB xBt Sicmi ttS aJtd v^a" ada
«lux«d I'iaX mltx m^tiH xtJitSmtol alll t 'd^Xn adi no tfn«m !>•%
• "Talrta «rrnid a a^iX t**'n8fl^ •^ ^ «tna #cui .isaa aa« t^-xtOS bam
aaanlXv adi »Suc na^laXvia •^•m *xnti^i: ^tnati t. oitr" afrtov arfr
«Xi0-x x^t^^ aaw Jb«adaTol adi a# ■i!%um •AS* SmsiS bt>ms—4 rWiniil
f>a<ooX St* •brum aifr ."ffvier a aiClX bmtool Si * 9 ,biti Stf^lrd
• Jim amilot%im antav "mud a ottl
ILiK Jjit^S «di SmIS noloiqo acU lo a%a a« aXlAi
t larfi «aa«banll» dio«f lo xnoallaai odl 6o«oXX« •rmd
T-nr^ <: ^:fxi i>aKooX* lMMd*wl «*Tlliai«Xq lo afila IdsXn •OS no i^tav
to stand, and should have aIlov«d the testij^ony of the laat naned
witn«B3, that the scales at the ersia of the flr.^ers of plaintiff's
left hand were "like a bum, ahiny" , also to stand, (1 uharton on
Sridenee, sees. 510, 511; 2 Best on ivldenoa, see. 517; Uarter
V. O&rt&T f 152 111. 434; Jane a y. state, 104 Ala. 20; 222S2HZ.
wealth V. Sturt l^uit, 117 lia»i. 1^) yet we do not think that,
under the evidence In this oase, the judf^aont should be reversed
and the oause rotaanded for a new trial because of t}m court's rul-
ings in theae particulars, in our opinion no oti^er verdict ^ould
have been rendered than the ono rendered, even if the court had
alloised the portions of the testimony of the two witneesea, «hich
were striclcon, to remain in tise record.
And in our opinion tJ\e court did not oorsait prejiKiioiai
error, aa contended by counsel, in refusing to allow the ^tness.
Dr. bessette, to anssjer certain questions asked of hira relative to
plaintiff's ability to hear.
The Jiidgnont is affirmed .
AFFIRHIiD.
Ml noinmOt X) ^ftoala oi o«Ia ,*iaii1» ^muA m «afiX* ••«•« bami tt»i
TfjT'MP |Ti3 .tw* ««aflwfejfil no i4i*8 a tXM «0£A ••o»« ••OOSblY
"Un •*fmso» tU to oaiMOotf lAtti «ron « ^wl Aiotwi— »t •muam orf-^ itrai
ilol^tv «ti«a««niiw o»i Mtt lo naia !#«»# od^ lo ma»ltno^ ocU bovoXI«
Jbrwoom •tf^ ml ahtmtrt oi «iM»7foJta^B aToir
Zmi^ibuivtq Jlncsoo jorr isib iruMO ti4 fiolnlQO lyM cUt bn4
^mmmtitm ocU vsULa oi aolMflon at «ioocia0O t^ ft>fint#iiao •« ,-xom
o^ oTii«X**z eJtcf lo tmitmM maoXSmmuf ntnin— tmnmm 04 ^•iimvtm •iQ
•"KMd oi v^lllda ft^nUalMlq
*biiartn\M mt Sttov^bui Mil
toiler ierm, 1911, Ho_.
S15 - 17880.
/
MARX LUJfKRT*, .
/
)
Bofondant p
1 Error,
)
liSSOR ':o
vs. /
1
MUSICIPAL OOORT
OF GJIICAOO.
\ / 18 2 I,A. 116
M» JUSridE- aHiai^y DMLlYmW '/«4S OPIHIQII €Jr TKK COURT.
On S«pte8a?«r 14, 10 li, in an acticn of foroJbl« dotainor,
defendajit in error oliiattied & jisii^ikmt iis tli© '^xmlclpal Court of
villi oago that, ahft h&f» arid reaover of «md trcm plaintiff in error
the posa©s3i<m of eort&ln premises, ar?<i that & «rit of restltutioB
isaua th^rdfor* Plaintiff in ©rror seeks by thin «rlt U> my&ra^
th??.t ^u<lga«Jt«
Kult> IS c^ the Rt!le« of Praetlce of thia coiart l*s t>art
provides? "Ib all ea^os a party Isgrlnglng a caune into this OmEct
ahail fii2nnl3h a Qomplete abstract or abriajserdent of th« r«esrd.
s •» Th© attract mint h& stjffieie^nt t© fully present «very error
SHd 03to«>pti<»5 r©li©d upon", -rhe abetr&at of roocrd filed ir tuis
Go^2rt by plaintiff in error do«s net ©oaply with th® ru2«. It Is
i^rely an index of the transoript of tii© record. It is less thsai
cno printed page in length, including the errora aosi^^ed. Lacfe
of oortpllanoe site said rule would bo*miffioiant rs&son for a*f£T®«
ir*g t^^o JudgBsni. ( tgorthy v, BusTtj 174 ill. App. 215.)
I»2t we have novortheleea oxatalised th« transcript of th©
record filed in this aourt. ¥/e do not find therein any bill of ex-
oeptioi-j3, «tater«rt of facta, or et^ncgr&phic report of th* proceed-
ir-gs at t^.e trial, The transcript discloses that plaintiff connenced
hor action oc tsepte'i^bsr 7, 1911, As appearsi from the t3tatBaer;t of
olair., she imlted »ith her elala for po0eefl0ion of the prerrisos a
clain for rent "fros Aug. 5tlx to Sept. 6th, and froa Sept, f'ti% to
cot. 5th, 1911, at the rate of $20 per HKmth*. t^-jIs .ths oould do by
virtue of paragraph third of section 4B of the Municipal court Act,
Or septaaber li^th the defondart sntored hia appearance, and or. ;:;eptember
.Oil ,Xit!X jcniai' lacf'
• •tc
otr .Aj s
0« OS
'8
. 'i^rx 9iiJ 'i*' -Xq 'OO #oa ••oo io-nu "^ *-^-'-'^
•HVSimi tuttn 4tnt9lYtis»io<! hL;jom elin bins tiiXm •ortailfBr' "^~
' : ,' .-r ■* ' -_ - : -.1 -w-
' :»liro-Ri Mti lo aol«»Mwoq IPO') Btl/>Xe nod tUiv brnttau •cU , ^^i
- ' Ida ^UBt m'Aitum loq Q^ <- ^^an mU w. «j.<. ^l ,..w ^ ,ii
..i^u ^^wv^x^ Xat2«imiH eiU 1» 8» lioileM lo IrrMi rfqanquwq le ist%l.
14th tho foliowinf; prooe^lnga wore haa and snterod of record,
vis: "the defendant tenders to the pi* ir tiff Ir op&n court tJhe
sun of ^3» which sxm ia refused. Thereupon, on r^otlon of piain-
tiff, it Ib order<»l by the court that thle «ult be and It hereby
is distniesed out of thia Jourt only ao far «is reapeote plaintiff »a
daija for dan^a^^ea herein, but is retained in all other respects
for further proceedins:© herein. Thereupon this ^luse ooweo on in
regular course for trial before the coAxrt withmit a jury, and the
court, after liearin^ the evidence ar^ the ar^isents of ooimsely •■ *
finds the defendant guilty &€ unlairfully withholding fros the plain-
tiff Uw possesoion of the ppeisisea » •n and that the ri/tht to the
posoesslon of said presses is in the plaintiff. » «^ It is o<m«
sldered hy the court that the plaintiff have Judgment herein cm
the finding iierein ar^ tliat the plaintiff have and recover of and
froja the def errant posseoaion of the preraiees, ^ » aJ5d that a writ
of restitution issue tJ^refor".
It Is aealgned for error that the ©ourt erred ^in allow*
ing plaintiff to smerti olai» after the close of plaintiff ♦s case
when full tesider was stade by defei^tmt*. If plaintiff amended her
claici after the close of hor case, she had a ri^ht to do so. (^ec.
46 Municipal Oourt Act.) with no bill of exceptions, atates^nt of
facts, or stenographic report of the proceedings in the transcript,
we cannot tell limt kind of written notice, if any, waa served on
defendant, «?tether a thirty days* notice tc terminate a tenancy by
the zaonth, or a five days* notice i^ter rent is due, or a ten days*
notice to quit, or other notice. W& must aasueie tlmt the si&derce
iRtXKxluo€Hi was ajff Icient to warrant the oourt in firaiing that tt*e
defendant was unlawfully withholding fron the plaintiff the possos-
sion of the premiaes Mid that plaintiff had the ri^t to possession,
and in entering tim Jv^gt^ont. For au^t that appearo to the con-
trary plaintiff*© right to posaession had beoose fixed befcre the
}t f bmr^^m bn» but fwi ■»gl H — tnq jsntwoLicft wii$
^clrt«d ^i -> ^<i itim alfU ^atU >«no» «f«i iptf A«w
•^•eqMY mOf urn •si taota^vn •! iiKf «iar*id l i a — i fi iHd kIaX^
Ki iM ••aa« MUM sMt tm nttm^ 9 ( ti •xtlv^arf «^16Moorq «MilJ<wl lol
j mienmusfi* .toifbtw tii sabXAcl -t*^l« t^<iiioo
•d# 9i tttit'T ttdi iacil i epxtiwiq edi lo rioXo6e«»ef >^
: neroo "^n iilennd yiJttnll «U
.DMM a'^msLtur ')Xo tiS T«lljr BLtsXe Jbottui o^ YilSntalQ r^'ii
irod 6»£nMUi 'nilrriaXq 11 »Utmtimt9b T^tf •&» m* imbtmi LLn rwrtv
1 ii bad •da ^•ajio nsd lo oeoXo a<fl <s*ll« si^Io
oxe te Xlitf on dj oA I'woc i ^
tn Mn»! .»ell«a ooiJlnw to batt imim XI*4 ioocsae •■
'■tab nmt s •so «eLfi> »t ^ntn •s»itii ••lion *mxmb vrtl m no ^aoc i
9900 bif vdi i«di WKJIN<« Jnsm •W ••olJon iumUo to ^itap <yf 901^0
-••vaoq acf^ ^liinlAlq «dl nonl yvlfclaAUi- ^Ifw a«v Jnxibtmiymt:
-3-
tonder of ;^3 was made in open coiuct, which right would be un-
affected by reaaon of the tender and the refusal thereof. ( Brown-
ell V. Welch, 91 111. 523; Ohadwiolg v. Parker, 44 111. 326j
Leary v. PatUaon , m ill. 203; Thiry v. Edaon, 129 111. App. 128;
Strcuias V. homaoiari , 147 111, App, 18; Schumann Piano Co, v.
Mark, 308 111. 2B2, 288.)
The judjc^aent is affirmed,
AFFIRMED.
Kf ^ff bliiov :tf1^ ^qo ai. €ttr
t'^ rroA-
iOcto'ber Term, 1911. Ko.
899 - 179S7.
BEKKARD 'MOQJILLKw/fi^t al«, )
Appelleoa, ) APPEAL FROM
Appellant. }
CIRCUIT COURT
OOOK COUNTY.
18 2I.A. 133
MR. JUSTICE ORIDLSY DFliIVERfiD THE OPINIOH OF THE COURT.
This la an appoaX from a Judgnent of $960 rendered in
the Circuit Court of oook County in favor of Bernard ^loQuillen
and other»t plaintiffs below, against Matteo Jfasxone, defendant.
The 8uit was for the recovery of »on,ey claimed to be d\te as rent
for certain improved preriaea in the city of Chicago occupied by
defendant. The case waa tried before & j\tt»y who returned a ver-
r| diet aBBeseins plaintifft^* damages in the aura of |960.
The action wae originally in debt. Plaintiffs* anended
^ declaration consisted of oeven counto, to which deolarntion the
defendajit pleaded the general issue and several special pleas.
Deiauirrero to the special pleas were eusstained. on Decenber 24»
1910, the defendant, by leave of cjourt, filed & le^igthy "additional"
plea, conaieting of ten pages, to all seven counts of said declara-
tion. To Uiia plea plaintiffs filed a general and apoolal demurrer,
assigning twenty-three causes of special demurrer. The court sus-
tained the doKairrer to this plea, to which ruling the defendant
excepted and elected to stand toy his plea. At the trial the plain-
tiffs relied upon the first and seventh counts of asld declaration,
iMlTing either disnlsaed or withdrawn the other counts, and the case
was tried on said countsi and defendant's plea of the general isoue
thereto. The verdict was rendered July 12, 1911, and the defend-
ant, toy his attorney, inaociiately -noved for a new trial, which
motion was set for hearing on July 15th. On the day »et the de-
fendant filed a written motion for a new trial, setting forth
I
1
.YTIIUO.
88 J .A.IS
, .^:iomjA
(ivXiJUipoU lrMm*<i to -lov^l nt Vauyo looo l« t'xuoo iliievlr
.ifulvMlvft t«nosa.Asi o«^l«M l«nl4its« %9^iff ntMirttAi-: ,«n*ifir-
.-{•rt ft« 9ub •<! oi fteaJLaXo t««o« lo j;%oro—% 9tU toU tm 4lum tdl
tcf b%X<f^60 a^^oidS) lo t^lo oiU tU ^•ntrs9vi bm t9t qfR t nlMtfO n&i
lo nwi ofti Hi oo>i—t> 'fitlilnlaXq an^oaooo^ i l
brntOAOM 'olliJrtlA' ^ ni x^XahIs^o «ow nolio« oitT
•ifi ml^irrsitloo& rtoitiv oi «o^nuoo noiroo lo ibolaloitoo ooliatiMlooib
••a«iq Lslooqs X«n#roo bttm ojjoai XavoiHa ofU toteolq #mMMloi>
«^a lodnoood no .tonljKiaiM o'xov a«oIq Xaloofa oiU o^ a*so*niiBO<
" Ltioti ibhz* \ti$'^%l A ^•XX1 «i*iuoo lo OYiMl v^ tlnaAnolot O-i
>4rMXooA I>1a« lo aJTrtuoo novo* II« o# ^ooa^iq ooi lo yiiiaianoo ««oX«
^•xonuDiofr Ia1oo<|8 hnm Urfam^ m bmlt\ ■tliintaXq m»l\ bUU ot .nol^
-«im iiiioo atfr .nonnxinaj^ X^iooqa 19 oooxiae omU^t^nov^ ialii^aa«
tnatiraloA adi anlXirr :f»lft« ol ««lXq alxfi o4 'xorxuaal) aiU bonlal
>ni«Xq odi £al<xi adi lA .AOXq alri ^<f bcsaia ol bo^4»aIa tea tolqooaca
,noiiiiiAXooi^ Maa lo a^twoo ninaroo taa i»xil afU nequ tel^oi alli>^
•a«o OfU tela t^^nioo lodlo a<U mnnMilv <io taaainaib ntUU ^ntrmd
•tfaai lamiM^ mdS lo aoXq a*lnafiaoloJ^ brtM a^iaioe lil«a « Aal-U aair
-ftnoloi^ orf^ ATM ,XX«X t&i xLfl ftofoftno'i a«v ^otfrtor orii *oinodi
rfoJUhr «X«i*x^ won a lol bOTOm xL»4ctL>t«at «x«rrxo^l« alrl xi «laa
3>ft ofU laa yiMb lii m? ^XuL no f^aJttMml lol iaa aaw noliof-
tUtol ^ttlS$— ^iMlti -nBa M *|ol loi^oat fsoi^^1w a baXil fnmtcM'i
▼arious grotmda. On the aamft day the plaintiffs filed a written
tsoticn for l«av« to amend said flrot and soT^nth oounta of tholr
declaration, by ohangljig the fonro of action from debt to aggtrnpalt,
and alianging aomo of tho allegations of aald oounta to oonform to
the change In th© action and to oonfom to the proofs, on tho
aaa© day - July 18 th « a hearing was had on both motion©, and the
court entered an order giving leave to plaintiffs to change the
form of action frora debt to aaaviiapelt and to fll« anendsients to
aald oounta " nunc pro tunc aa of July l£th, 1911", and to amend
the praeolpe and oummons and change the ad damniua, and further
ordered that the "plea of general Issue filed by the defendant,
with notice of apeolal defenao, shall atand aa the plea to the
amended d©clar»ation filed nunc p r o t unc ae of Jvily I2th^ 1911".
And thereupon defendant's motion for a new trial was argued and
denied, and defendant's otlon in orreat of Jutlgiaent way also de-
nied, and thereupon the 4ud;r:i^ent appealed froia was entered.
Ihe facto are aubatantlally as followst Cn ^iay 1, 1906,
a written lease of the prendaee waa executed by Mary Caaaldy, as
loeaor, and by defendant, a» lessee, for the terra from May 1, 1©06
to April SO, 1909, to be occupied for a saloon and dwelllnga. The
leeeee covenanted to pay &e rent th« auis of |B0 per month In ad-
vance on the flrat day of each and every month during said term.
It being admitted, however, that eald leasee had paid the sum of
•I 160 as security on the laat two months of tho lease; that the
lessee had received the prenlaes in good ordor and repair and would
keep the saioe In good repair at his own expena©, and would not per-
mit any alterations to b© aade except by the written consent of
the lessor. It waa agreed that the covenants ahould be binding
upon and Inure to the respective heirs, executors, adirjini strut ors
and assigns of tho parties. The defendant took poaoosslon of the
premises under ths lease, and at the expiration of the term con-
, ._ a;muo» '^J jvfta i>t«0 i«^l" ^ J •v^'jI TOl rtotSom
o^ wcv^tm- - m to M»i^jiSfIX« tU 1w •isoa ^^Jtsnarto bru>
ftd.' >:i| oi otttliwo ot teM ttoliom Mli fil tSBaffD & i
trrtisrc n;f «T4i«i Sftt^t? ni>JWO (W b*rc«ino Stuoo
^(ir / aim.'
.■•:f! he. • -J 9^tor-
: <0Xl0lt
rf^i tlM Iflh ,♦••*. .TOrc-^I
tlXIfVK'jb brt« aoolmm o lol £»«lqij»eo •</ . .
t- ■.■.,..,.., , ;
•■ ■ .r ■. i/
■I'-J f- ■
tinued to hold over, and was in poasesBlon at the tine of the
oonroenoenert of thlts action, February ii, lv)lo. Kary Gasaldy,
lOBsor, died In May 1908; Margaret l-hoaaa, h«r only heir at law,
diod in Iloveaber 1908; Andrew :^oaulr«, th© only heir at law of
Margaret rhojoae, died testate in aeoember 190B, devielng hia es-
tate to his widow and to the plaintiffs herein, who were his only
heirs at law? and on i«ay 31, 1909, said widow sold and oonveyed
to plaintiffs all her right, title and Interest In the estate de-
vised froia said Andrew Moaulre, including the proKiaes in question.
The defendtmt paid the rent reserved in the lease up to and in-
cluding the monthly installment due for the month of NovoBibor 1908.
ala last payment was jaade to said Margaret ^homaa In Movenber l^OO^
Juat prior to her death. Jota A. Stagg, an attorney at Chioago,
obtained powers of attorney froia the plaintiffs to oolleot the
rents, and during the nionths of April and Jxme . 1Q09, oslled on
defendant and deimrded paywent of the rent then due, and that he
surrender posseosion, but defendant refused. Another oonveraation
was had in Deoeiaber, 1909, at whioh another deraand for rent was
raade, but defendant again refused to pay. At this time there was
soxae talk aa to repairs on the preinlsea. Plaintiffs olaimed at
the trial that there was due for rent the sum of #9C0 - being
fourteen siontha at |eo per month, or |1120, leos the advance pay-
ment of |130, mentioned in the lease.
It further appeared that on May 27, 1901, a nortgage on
oaid premises had been executed to the Connecticut "utual Life
Insurance Company, as mortgagee, to secure a debt of |4800i due
five years after said date, with interest at 5^ per annum j that
said mortr,ag« Jia^ haen extended for a period of two years, to-wlt,
until May 27, 1908; that on January 11, 1909, the note and mort-
ii;age was aasigned to the defendant; that on February 8, 1909, the
defendant, by reason of the default in the payment of the principal
oiaa^fesoq rcl ajnr teu «f«TO liXori oi
VObtw I'.
L ' . . ■-
.1 6««lY
XXno aid anraw odv «rTX»*s«rI aYtl^rrlaXq o
^•'^oTnoo bOM bloe nobts:
.rtolJa^up fii •••Imenq •rf^
-rrl brt0 oi <|tf Obji^X •fU ni £>«Tt««v<« i»«
. '' :I tetfRfuvoK lo tiinom 9d,i lol Mib #f»iBXXi»^
■'di io«XXcr :J:^nl«X' x^trru>SiM lo «t»wc'
Tiilr Itfut Xl«qA lo MfJnoa ' -lub ttm ««^rt<n
Mi isi- ^aiih ii«iU Infti aili ^o ^f«»«x«q baianjn^o btxm ^tuUuxttJ^b
toXioni^vii^ ,b»ntfii&t in£jba«l«ib i. imbtmvwB
.Toi "i»\ yx t'nugmo0ii nl bjui •««
ii"^ JbattiAXo aHi^Ai ' aJtna'Sq eiU 00 a<il«q«<i oi •< >(X«i enoa
3n: ^o obia iwU inn <iol Mfib Siiv •^•Jti kaAi hii.
' 'f'>3 i»q 00| im adinoa uu-
M(i aX Jb^aoXinaa «or.
toc! A ,xc-'-:x »Tv. 'i- '■'•^» larfitul ^.i
«'Xia X/; rtiJdftrc! >i i)«ijjt4>*x« naotf £»^ aa«Xa»^
9' o JJAJb A oiuoatf 'wi «e9Sii9i<xoffl a« ^ttAqreoO aorta'suani
;;ui;a{M laq ]^3 ^.? ivaiaiai 4iJUr «aiaA /liaa laila ti'^ao\ aTlt
.:}ii'.Ov^ ««aB«t o»^ taq a 10I Mficmixa itaarf XumI foe
la ©Jon •/: ,xi t^^i^naT, no iadj jw
- TfU}&n«l»i» (*
»us3 duo, and tho Interest du« on Noveiaber S7, l90e, filed hla
bill In equity to foroolcae sBld nortgago, making John P, Devlne,
as adrainlstrator of the eet&to of Uary G&oaldy, deceaaed, and as
administrator of the estate of Margaret ThOBiaa, deceased, and
others, parties defendant thereto; t>mt on June 22, 1909, a de-
cree of aale waa entered, and that on Aiigust 12, 190©, a master
in ohanoory aold th© proraioea to the defendant and executed and
delivered to him a certificate of sale,
it la oontonded that the court erred In ouetaining the
general and opeclal denurror of ple.intiffs to the "addltion&l"
plea of defendar.t, filed Deoonbor ii4, 1910. We deem it vameoesaary
to dieousa ti^»e lengthy arsujacnte of the reapectlv© oouneel in this
particular, aiiffioe it to say tiiat we are of th© opinion that the
deraurrer "*a»3 properly euatained.
It Is aioo contended that the oourt erred in refuslns to
adalt certain evidenoe. At the trial the defendant sought to
introduce a. certified copy of said raa8ter*;i oertlflcato of sale of
August l2t 11'09 to defendfitfit, for the puirpose of aho-g?lns that de-
fendant wao in pouseasion of oaid promiaes on said date, and there-
*^*®^» ^ T f^^Qir; and b^^ virtue of jaid oertlfloate o f sale, and there-
fore was not accountable for tho rent reserved under the loa»e
after a&id dato» Tho court refused to allow the inatruraent to be
introduced, and wo think that this ruling was correct. A tenant
in posoecsion is eatopped frora denying the title of hia landlord,
and he zaust aurrondor \xg the poiaaeaaion before he oan aaaail that
title or oet up title in hlmaelf • ( Sexton v. Qarley» 14? 111. ii59,
272 1 Dot£^ V. Surdlok, 85 111. 473, 477 j ijon atant v. Barrett, Z4
w, y. supp. IGS.) The defendant in thla case did not and would not
surrender poaaession under tho lease* Purtherisor**, the fact that
defendant had received said certificate of aalo did not entitle
him to tho poaaeaaion of the preiDisea, or to the rents, iasuea or
,^>«»««oti- « '^3© o*^* *i"0 lO^aiiolJHSl&B -^c
jyjffl . ' Hn"»n'»ii ./:;• x./fT Jul:
~o!> . « ■ tniOKtslAl} m9lS%ttq .
tU 4n'%S fv ... :r/oliruMi
••nierCi jbfui «ei«& fti^v r«> •••iat^iq Jb^ {oJt»if**ooc rt ?fiT ^.tf;
-^3'i<Ml«t Jbn^i ,»!<• to »iaeilljrn»c Mas ^ nrr^r fr x .■ ■.]:■ ,
•8««X mU lebfoj tfVi^'^w-T .tien fOoo* Ic.t s4« •to".
^MoIAnaX aid lo •Xlltf Mii yit\n«Jb cr<rri b9<jqo^tic ^-.oecog ni
.« Afw #t>ff bib ••no elill ni .'
•Xilin6 »^ftf^ ^o «ijir, j^rtoovi tJMi J'm:fc.-r>"!^©b
-5-
profits thereof, during tho period of redemption. ( Davio v. Dale,
160 111* 225&J So tiaeppl v. Ijartholcmge, 217 111, 105.) The dofend-
BT.t aiao Boujsht to shovi. the ooat of certain r&p&ire, which ho
claimed to hav© made on the pr^raleesi eubeequer.t to August 12, 1909,
and also olaiaed were necessary to preaorva the property, for the
purpose of charging said coat agalnat the rent sued for, 1>ut this
evidence wao not admitted, we think that this ruling; was alao oor-
reot, especially in view of the proyiaione of the lease tiutt the
defendant »ould keep the preiclsea in good repair at his own expenae
and would not perralt any alterations to be ?nade except by tho writ-
ten consent of the leseor. No such consent by plaintiffs to the
making of any repairs or alterations was ahown.
Complaint la alao raade that the court refused to give to
thtj jury certain inotruotlona offered "bj tho defendant. Under the
facte in evidence in this casf* we do not think that the refusal
to give theoe instructions constituted prejudicial error.
The J\*ig!aent is affirmed.
«ti(i ^tftf a^oCk ix><» ^a*^ *d>^ i«al«S' > "xxic te osc
•£fi ijodi ••««X eiU to •noislTOtq aitJ lo wsIt nl tXX«i««v
inc-xi mro 9l({ i« 'ti^q^T bo<>t <i^ s««£ainq trfJ qe«3f biutm inmbmtiJ^b
-ii-nr Aitf x<f ^qtox* 9b«7 •<( oi afml<l«** q ion t tM
•lU 9^ Bim^lMlq x^ ^.neaaoe xlc^ :>•! «<U '^o Irwanoo a
noliaftlM 10 an:
Mf^ nmbnV ,inMttwli9ti ^dS \<S ton*" 2«l*i»0
I.eew'S^i e;l« •■fi.v* oa cC> o« v%»p •Xtii ffx .,.• al^
October Term, ISH. 'So.
t
441 - 179BU \A '
Jam D/iDIE, adsdnloirator of J
the eotato of THOM/^j ;-•':, isMITH* )
d^ooased, I ) APPEAL FROM
f Appolloo, )
'' 1
V84
SUMSEIOR OOURT
COOK COUttTY,
oxn OF aaiCAGo/ «t ax., )
'V 182I.A. 134
STATEISERT. Thla la an aotlon on the caB« ooiamenoed In
the superior court of Cook oounty by John Dadlo, adrainlstrator
of the eatate of Thoc»» smith, deooased, to recover daraageo be-
oauao of the death of Bmlth, oooaalored by his falling froa a
<vvr wagon which he waa driving along Elaton avenue in the olty of
^ Chloago, The aotlon waa originally brought against the olty of
^' ChloagOt Chicago Consolidated Traction ooaspany and Chloago Rall*
i way» Oonpany, defwsdants. Gubaequorstly the Chloago Elootrio
^ Traneit Coisspany wae amd© an additional party defendant, an«i aub-
'■ sequently the suit waa dl80ontlnu«d aa to the Jhlo^Ago Rallwaya
I ooapany* Tho oaae was tried before a jury, and on .^aroh 19, ISO©,
A they returned a verdict finding tJ\e defendant, Olty of Chloago,
r guilty, and atieeaoinis plaintiff's daraages at $10*000, and flnsJlng
v^ th© defendants, Chloar>o Consolidated Traction Company and Chloago
Eleotrio Transit company, not guilty. The plaintiff imedl&tely
entared hia motion for a new trial as to th« defendants, Chicago
consolidated Traotlon Oorapany and Ghioago Hlectrlo Transit aoia-
pany, and the Glty of Chloago also entered lt» Taction for a new
trial, cm July 14, 1909, th© court, by order entered of record,
sustained plaintiff's EOilon and awarded hlra a now trial, and
also suatainod the aotlon of the City of Ohloa^:o and awarded It
a new trial, on the oasm day the plaintiff entered his jaotlon
to set aside and vacate the ordor granting a now trial in said
cause and the ocurt ordered that said isoticn be oontinue<l for
hearing and final dlspoeition. On Xiarch 7, 1910, by agreeTsent
J
oil ,LLQi ,aneX lacfo^oO
•iarrx - i»*
t««^
81. AJ?
^« t*i« Oiti Oi •UTMV 13 BttOlM ^ttirt^i. — "*rfie, rtr^mr
"tkaA oj|i a Y^'WT^- - itomnoO ti^MOla ,..-.:.:..
os«ol^ tea XfwqfKOO nolS^Jtrr b^Smbllommoo «a«»lMD t«4xtAiyMl«l^ •rli
xX*i«tfi«Mai YliiniAlq •ctT .tmu^ ^on ^yiipaO ttMitrti: •Jht^sall
o:B4oi(lo ««lruit)iisl«a •if^ »i Ml JUiiit# «»fl « 101 ftoltas aid >t w # o »
HBOO ilarvtT oliloaXa aM^lftO bam iiianwoo noi^aa^ to^aklXosooO
v<Mi « noH; aoi#«v aii ftn«i«r» omlm oa«oJtfiD to VAO adt tea «tRMI
tbooert lo b«T»^n« ymtm t^ «#i|vo» •!!# «90«X «M t^tf^ no tX*!^
tfOi ^tMtii wvrr « nil! A*Anw«« tea nol^os 8*llilnX«Xq tefftalMi*
^1 btnmm fiiM lo t'iO aiU !• f»i4«« Mil ftafrlAAaMi o«Xa
noitom aixf ft*- .'.frtlaXq «Ii t«t anuui «ifl no .Xjiia^ wtt m
btm» at XaiiJ ' T«tB i»M« - *a«r bciM ^ttmm Hm o#
iHDCMtjia Ttl ,0l«| ,T tfHMM Mark btw Tintnatl
\
•2"»
Of th© partloa made in op«B ocairt, It vae ordered that tho cause
be paaaod to be tak«n up on five daya* notice. On June £J4, 15)11,
after notice and on rotlon of plaintiff. It was ordered that all
paporo and prooeedlnfje in aald oaui»d be and are amended by dlacon-
tinulng as to defendants, Chicago Oonaolldated Traction OomiMiny and
Chicago Electric Traralt Conpany; and it waa further ordered that
plaintiff's notion, or.tored July 14, 1909, to eet aside itnd vacate
the order granting the City of Chicago a now trial, be eustainod,
and eald order was set aside and vacated, ar-.d the City of Chloa/;o
•zoeptod; and thereupon the Oity of Chicago entered Ita motion in
arroet of judf^ent, which taotion was also denied and exoeptlone
entered* Thereupon the ooixrt entered judgment in the aura of 1 10, 000
on said verdict, "aloo the further &\m of |ll:ki9« being the interest
^* & froE Uie tine of th® rendering of the verdict herein to date,
being the eum total of |11,1S8, together with costs** rhe Oity of
Oliicago excepted to the entry of this judgment and mibaequertly
perfected ita appeal to this court*
The original declaration, filed April i>l, 190e, oonaisted
of one count, and averred that the defersittntB, Glty of Chloajfjo and
Chicago consolidated Tiraotion Company, "negligently permittikl a
certain hole to bo and remain in Sloton avenue, and on the west
side thereof and near the crossalng of aaid Elaton avenue with Ar-
nitage avenue and close to tlie south-easterly botind track of the
Chicago Consolidated Traction compary, of which facto the defend-
ants had notice"? and furtlier avexved that on Marcda 7, 1S08, plain-
tiff's intestate in hio life tiiw was driving a team attached to a
wagon in a 90uth-ea«t©rly direction upon and along said sleton
avenue, near the interaeotlon of that avenue with Amlta :e avenue,
and tJiat, while he wao so drivin^j, and «*iile in the exercise of
due care for his ovm safety, and by reason of tho negligence of
tho defendants, one of the wheels of said wagon Unavoidably wcKnt
%XX^ «^H WB/l 00 ••oltwi *»i|»ft wi. -i^ e<t o^ 6«(i»«^
iLa iiKli b9^t » in o OAW #i ,llliiiUiq ':. ,v no betA •olSon ten.
"ttoomlh X^ t»bett0nm ft* tniM tKS •kUAO btam tU «?^16»»oont? beu s^nr^i"
^3n«mo <iacf^*un •«• il io* t xf w two o iia-x)tT •lo^oeXX ot.
•iAMir Ann •£!•• #«• o^ ««0«f «*£ iXtft l>e rif>tiwa ••Vi
'io ^^i: .*»««oe lUtw *i«tft««»i %SftX«XI| to X«^M ivni mM «n!fr
t>n^ o?iiislri& lo t^lD ««lnatawt*6 titf^ i«iU ib«vi«T« bos ^4ttuo9 mm lo
#«tf« mU no Aim ^mumvM no4mlk oi itliwm An« W oi 0X04 rrlj^noo
•"XA (l$tw 9umrm tmimUi hMsm lo SAiiiso^w cil^ y>^ Ana %oo*ioc(l oM«
•df 10 <04rBl tetfotf tXTW x o m UMfto •<» •! ••oio ta* ««•▼• •aalloc
-tewtob •m otMit rt*idiv to ,x^^4MiinoC oollortT to#«AIXottnoo o^atlffO
'^IaX^ «90«i «v down oo #4kU i>#vi«v« v£(4i0l tea r"«oiioif Dad s^fi/
4 oi Jko/foAlta MOi o iMlvl^ Ml* Mil oliX Sid ni WaisoUa 8*tlX.r
noinX^j £>ii»». jtsoXa te« ao^u noXteorlij tX<vole«o-niuai 1^ ni aoi««
(•xmora OHAtlnrA diX« omova #m1# lo noiloonaini «c{i yon ««ubotx^^
lo ••ion««e «f» cfi oXlifii btm %^irt-ib ly msm orf aClitv «i«ni teu^
iMovaott oo&itv Moo lo alooiie ».. . uiixAtndlefi Mfi
Into said holo, thoroby oauolns Jiiw to b^ thrown frcia aald wagon,
avnd penaanently injuring hira* Iftm vhitih injur! so he ahortly there-
of tor died. On February 10, 11^00, plaintiff, by leave of oourt,
filed an additional count, in whidi he e-verred that all four of
the defondante "nogllKontly pernitted said Sleton avonue, and on
tlie west eide thereof, and at and near the orosatng of eaid glston
avenue with aaid Amituge avenue, and the orossinfj at and near the
oouth-easiterly bound track of the defondanta, and within a epaoe
of 16 feet in the ralddlo of eald street, to be n-rvH roinaln out of
repair, unaofe arid dangerouo, and pemitted oertcin hol es to be
an^i roisain in said Slaton avenue and at the plaoe aforesaid, all
of which facte defendant e had notice, or by the exercise of reaeim**
able care ehould luive had notice", and further averred that, while
plaintiff's Inteotate wac driving aa aforeaaid imd waa in the
•xeroiae of duo car© for hie ovm oafety, one of the wheela of the
wagon unavoidably "went Into aaid hol#" thereby causing hl»« to be
thrown from aaid wagon, etc. To the origi«ai «nd jidditlonal counts
the City of Ohloaso filed a plea of the general laatie.
soiae of the facte adduced froia the tentlRony of the var-
louo wltneeees at the trial are ae followat Els ton avenue runs
in a northweaterly and southeasterly direction. Arraltage avenue
nana east ana west and crosaee listen avenue at an oblique aitgle.
The Chicago Jonoolidated Traction oot^ipany operated a otroet car
line, with double tracko, on Elaton avenue, jiouth hownd cars v&n
on the wciit track and north bound ©are on the east traofe. Eloton
avenue waa paved v/lth wooden blocka. About 150 feet north of the
north line of Ansitage avenuo, there la a curve In Eleton avenue,
the atreet at that point turning more towards the northweat, ard
there ie a corresponding cwve in the street car tracke. On the
eouthweat comer of ttie two etreeta was located Poehler»» ealoon,
M»i south of thio building wae Poehler'e grocery store, and on the
-•^•r M •il ••I'xiital rtfikff^ «•«
«11UO£> lo •vaol \(i ,11- ia^lw
to iijel lU ^«iU lwTt«r# 911 4et4fcr cu ^^auot ImwUtttM om bmllt
m MM «»im»ir« o^aXa l>i4Mi U^naj^lifttKi* •Jn«fto»lou vxi:
6if^ •MM! tew i« jinXasote exu £«a ••!/»*▼« dAAJicnA bl»% f01» «fMMMi
••Aqa A nldiiw ftoa 4o«<ii tewotf xXn»^a«*-<<l4 os
!• #ifO nljtfWT 6rui « ^ •ft^ nl io«l ai •
mi o nlA^wie b«lii.'vi*q br ^3ftuf> Jyui #!•<. ^ -:
XX# «Mwi«^la 9oaX9 mU #« Aru ftum»T« notaXI Mmi oI t t\ m m \ n ...
^f(oa«««t to MrteVMC* »/f# t^ <xo «*o£Joxt &«cf tiruiteet*^ •4o«l Itoiillr te
•Xt^fir «i«a i:w49rji itfC#^EiA boa «"«oJt^on tmi tiwmi btuoelm ontto •Xite
Mfi lo aXaeffv mU !• mn s .^nio nM tol 9*uk> 4X16 to ••iMiM
aifl0M» £«nol411>6a fuui X«ni,^i to vrli ov .o^a «aBB«i Aliw <«>^ tmontit
.ej««i XJMemfl ai(^ lo «aXq a Xwltl OfiitolilO lo T#iO tcU
TV9T «»ri# IQ xcfoalJahi tU no*ll ft00ftA« «^0«1 9tU J» t:
Kttrx 9i/rfeT« noSi^Li idwoXIqI •« OIji XaIi^ •tU tA ttif;
•CSTSVA •jsAlla-xA ii«^a«0; ;« ^Xao4B«> rti
. L:%cm ouplXtfo cm i« oiirMra noiaXti avaaoio luia ^aov Lfi^ iim
-uio #A«>«i^ti A £x»^jita«ro
runr ctAc hnuod ((. . uvtaya rto^i> -n^ aXcfuot
no^XI •ia«r(i ^aao ocfi no arao bauod £i#ion totf Mo««i^ l^oa aitl m>
Ofl;; :<MT ^ael OfiX Atro<fA ««:<ooXtf ooJkmw (UIw ibOT^q ^w auHOva
««UBa(T« nopals tat onuo a aX ancart. ,A4isru lo aaU il^oa
« ,«aofKliion 9clS utrtamci a^MM gnXmjif -^fU Jm iaai/a »<tl
•<U ^ tMt ^aa^a •<(# ni avrp;* ^nitKToqnaYioo a cX inaitt:
tflOoXaa a*^aXda9*i baiaooX aav a^aan^a ovt 04^ lo iaav>o JaowfaTiraa
9<ti no bna ,aio4a trtaooi^ a*<xaX/toQKi mv ii^Uhltud mini to lUupa X«iii
northwest oorrAer of the stroate irawe's »*loon v&n altuat43d»
Thonao M, SMlth, plftlntlff •» intQatatSf was a driver, amployed
by "cV. Jm Hoxley Go,, buttorln© manuf aoturera , for aboxjt ton years.
On arch 7, 1906, at about S o •clock In the evening he wan drl-ving
& four-nulo team, hitched to a large etspty wagon, 0Oiith#ard in
Elston avenue, near Armltaf.e avenue, the wagon wheels *traoking*
in the eouth bovmd car traoko on the weat cide of F.lston avenue*
The wjigon wel,«;hed about two tonsj the wheel» were equipped with
foux^inoh eteel tireei the box reoted right on the asless without
any sprinco under it, and the driver's seat was a spring scat about
6 l/2 feet froa ttie ground. Plaintiff© intestate was the only per-
eon on the wagon and he was seat^ In the high eprlnf, seat. He
©Ither fell* or was thrcvim, frors the wagon to th© ground on Elaton
avenue, Iraisedlfltely south of the south line of Amlt&se avenue,
and alRjost Inetantly killed, Th© tears oontinuod to ,'^o coutM^ard
on i'J.eton avenue and wat) otopped sows dletanoe away and brou^t
baok. Only one eye wHnesa to the aooldent teotifl^d at the trial,
ai though aoverai wltnesaoa teotlfied to oirfmrsjjtancee Inwediately
following. The deooaaed was 4S ye&ra of age, carried, wid l«»ft
hiro surviving a widow and alK children, the oldest being IB yeara
and the youngest 7 yeara of agfe*
I'he eye witnesa referred to was Utijrf Beclrer, on® of plain-
tiff's witnoBiseo. 3he teatlflod th^it she had boon to i»oehler*a
grooory store and, as that ator« was oloaed, ahe oane out of the
front door of Poeiaor*8 saloon on Kleton avenue: that when ohe
flret oane out of the door aha saw the Rajlea "ootning up, going
towards do^, toim"; that they wem north of her fet that time,
oomlne towarda Araitage avenue j that the wagon was xninning on the
oar traokof that the driver •was* nttting on the Beat, I eaw hla.
He had the lines In hie handa. He had gon© paat Ar;2r.iM« avenue. .
I wae in front of the ealoon door. He was otUl on the seat. » »
,b9$sutJtm umi memlmm B*««irsD ■#••«/• ctU te %9U ' VJt fw^i:
tU J^Mwd^ffM «flP»Mr t#fB>« •TttX « •» itHiJlH «a«»l •hioh^Tatft n
dStw f^tqiupm ♦WW «JDv*f^ orf^ ?»no^ Mii 4gfMl« *#rt^.lw» JB ^irti «1
Itmd^^ mUm iU mo *t&iM ftoJtr«f xo<f lis t*t>%tt XMtfs fi..
.tiio4tt li iqa « oav I0M «'':»r^xl) mdi Dot «^Jt iftArfty «yti-¥l«> --n
>« 9Mi^« ^JUt tU at tuiijtn a«v %ti Mm rwi^im mt$ m ^
•0WMT« ^M^lMVA to •nil (Ui iStfm %loSntbt
Mavr'l^/oa Oft «t tmuUima^ mmm^ u r ^xtR^^afrl inomts »f»
•*'•(■ :ir^^.- •,,■>/« MMMtali^ ••oa ft«Qv. -. . «uiwv« no**/
■tt %as Sm : i ttmMo9m t^tii o,t 4 t^« •no ^isc
neat 'f inai^Xo tOt ^mibllifo xi« firu voMv .
•^lAXq lo frffo «t» :oc»f: x%0>i ujim od XwvMla^ »««Ri^ at* atfr
• ' '^^o«f M rt»*d tml •run IikU •a6««e
<>ff^ lo ^00 aaM o^ «A»«oI« mm ••KkIv JuhW •« tisi* mnaSm
•tit rmrllr #«rfi t«un«ir« ao^ais tn nooltm k*«wXrfM<r lo ttob fno^
rv'^toQ «4tr snXffioo* —bm aiU ikm •dn •xooft mI» to ^uo wmo tenr*
,«ml^ -Mrf 10 iU*»on anrnv ^lU ^«tCt |<^hv*^ n«oi> a*««it
6di ^o -vtfnron nan nos«w mC» iaKj fmmmjt 9/ti0^imk n^tmot Httht^
.♦tmara r n^ tutt tmti min tUt mmrtlt tit hMdmi
' •■ »rtj no xxit* mmn •n .-too* noofw otti to ^npit nt «J# i
ho mxleti were walking - trotting llJeo* ? «iat "Just before he
fell he aras tumlr.r to the loft (l,e. to the oagt ) on to the next
car track"; that thero waa a oa,r conlrjg up behind hira; that the
left frcnt wlieol of the migon went doism Into a holo, and "he went
head flrat out of tho wagon. » i;- I saw hln when he fell. lie
fell right binder tha wugon. He laid right in the nlddle of the
o&r tracks* J that "I had aeon the hoi© there Itefore that, I
cannot say ho^;? lon^; boforo, I don't Vnov how deep It was. The
hole was niuddv. The hole was pli^t In fr<mt of Poehler'a aaloon
door. » <* The hole vma inialde the car ti^ok by the rail. » »
I did not go over to wl-iere t?:a hole was at any time*; that after
the deceased fell •! just atood atilX*, and tjcw© rvon •pio^'od hltn
up and put hin on the aldo'^ralfc and ho ^iist lived on© minute";
that tlio approaching street car did not strike the dragon,
Patrlclr J, staov, a witness for plaintiff, tefjtlfied that
he wae ooralns out of the olde door on Hletor avenue, of ^aivo'a
saloon, which saloon ^aa on the northwest comer of Elston and
ArrJita^;© averru^^e, and wl^lch door was about SO feet north of the
aouth «*nd of aald ealoon, and he saw a ^xetfpn coinlr.p; alor^^ «rlth
four inuleo at a alow trot; that when Iw first saw the wa^^or. it
was "Just a little bit north of Arniitage avenue j that he didn't
oee tho driver on the aoat; that as he (Staofe) cot on the south
aide of Amitage avenue he saw a mun. lyl' f, it^ the middle of the
otroet, about "5 or feet south of Arrdtag® avenue", called for
aaai stance and brought ti\o -lar. over and laid hin on the aldewalk?
that heMldnH see the accident"; that th«' point ??here he saw the
nan lying in the atreet waf^ "about 22, ^^^t uouth" of yvh&re he first
aaw the rsuleo} that there was an electric llglit at tho comer of
ATOltafie and iCloton avonueaj that he "looked at thn plage of t he.
aotflaent on the next day"» and that It waa "In the sane condition
the next day as it was before". In reeponee to the quei'tion ae to
oH 9tot9it Soul* iACtI ;"«3CXX yU^^oui - yil^XJiw ea«v sftliai k17
lo^v na ^aloft a oiiftl rar*6 4(SMr ao%tm tfU ^ iMtfbr ^oo^ tyml
9a •1X*1 Vfl t«Ci« ..705«« Kli to ^tio
o.iJ lo •XiiJlUi tili At J •xto^MV «c(i ifttau ^(Islt i
•(C7 vaBV il q««£ wort . a i i f lil j^ v:f*Hp|H»
tw>tm^ :ooH lo icionA fU -' « •Xa-l •<!' ««(»»4U:acl
• >^ vX: ^ :AMq;^ iao mU flUg^ •«* •Xo(t •< »ob
"xor^j) .t/vf^ :''v'^/^ ,^rt# ^« jD«« ( oniadv d^ i»vo o^ ^on CUtt^ I
BJUt bo'tfolq* rr&'' mioii Itn^ ^"XIl^s hooJ* J i:/«aaoo«ft -
: *'t»iunlai ono Ad Ixw HlmmhiM 4Ktt fi» oXiC ^<iq Ann qu
.fioftoir w ll> ijbo lo«vtf« snlff««4M9q» •(U 4JKf#
btuk rtoScl . to rsDmcA ^MrarttnoM mU «• ••« i«ooX4mi itol^^'s laopJUui
IMU IBO jl^lOQ ^Odt Oe ^IX>d« ««f riOOA ifOjUfV Ul» ,••!»•«« •9«4JtMGA
rttiv BrroXi* urtinoo r»Q:^« m wmi oil Jbfui ^nooxa* btmm lo b(f^ dtttom
ft aei^^MW orU vmi IdiJtlt wi ooriir iAcf^ .-ion^ vroXa « iiii R9ltai ^' >l
i*nf>.tl> Off ^«rfi rMf(f«v« •s«il<nA to cUnoa #itf •liiJtX a ^ut* ««»
ittuoB •di ao Jo: : sa iaifi iIami mU •» i»rtrtb mi# am
•^ to xXfeblr: %tis ni ^"1:^1 naa « va« oil ounoYA •»siXapXA to 9tim
•sot bOlX^" ^TA •SArXmA to fUlWf l9At a 10 C* ii/OcTit «JOO«#A
I^XimeAlo <»d^ no r.JUK bt»l trtA i^ra rma ttt J4^ot<f tnm ^otus^oimmm
orf# vjio ticf oioffn #aXcq ftiU JaxU ; "IflAJbloA* oxfJ ••• J*abiii^tt(f ^Act>
tmntt ml wwAn to *(tJfifo« loot OV iuodA* «Air loonio tU nX nma
to T«moo otiS 4a ioJooXo «• »A« 9^MU iMU t«Ai. ■ .o
' 2SL fB£. *iooX* oi( iAifJ i»«<m»T« AoiaXi Ira •-
noliittooo feaiAs 4*dd a:. ' vi^ ^ctA t*V^ 4z9a oiU ^
oi VA noU^mtp otfi ^ .' ^.s . Vwtotf mm ii ma xmt ixoit Aiir
-0-
what that ocnditlon wao, tho witness ropllodj "There waa a hole,
i should Judge about 100 feet, mybe a llttl© ovsr, 160 feet for all
I ^^ov, north of Arr4tag9 av»nu», « or 7 or a«7bii 10 inohog deop,
B»ybo 4 feet long, r^ybo 3 feet wld«. There was riothlng In the
hole but rmjd and »lu«h. it was full of wator, and to wy Imosrled^e
had been there five or six weeks before the day of the aooldent. I
have noticed other wagons i^oini^ down the hole*. The witness further
testified that he dldnH ©oe the wagon on which plaintiff »q intestate
waa riding go Into thi» hole, that pltilntlff ♦» wltn^ssea, -oOabe,
Dadl© and Griff la, 8Sf<ar© there the next day after the aooident, that
he pointed out the hole to McCabe, that Dadl© and urlfflo raeasurod
it, that he told tiriffls that the man waa picked up about S or 6
feet south of Arrsitage avonue, that he did not tell Griffis or any-
body that the mm wats ploked up at ths hole north of Arrsitag© avenue,
that "the hole that we went over to see the next day was right at the
ourve of the oar traoko", that the hole waa "right alongside the
traok^ * # to the west of the west rail of the traok", that that
hole waa "the o n l y hole I noticed tJiero", and that up and down Elston
avernie, "all the ways along", the pavement waa "rough but no holee".
The attorney for the 01 ty of Chloago moved that the teetiraony of the
witness, staok, "ae to hole 100 to 160 feet north of Arrsitage avenue
>» ^ bo Btrloken out ae belnis a description : f a place differlnp; from
the place whoro an eye wltneso saw the accident and there Is no con*
neotion between tlien", but the court donied the sotlon and an exoep-
tloii was taken*
John Dadle, plaintiff and oeoretary and general manager of
the ?i, J* Moxley Co., teatifled on dlreot ex^^wsination that he did
not know of his own knowledge where the accident ooourrod, but that
in company with the wltnesjeea, MoOabe savH Griffis, he went "to the
point ffhoro the accident ooourred. He wae then asked by the court
whore that was, and he replied, over objection, "about 100 feet north
r.
.ta *wt ijrt oa;[ %-ti»TO •M^ll • •tfX^tt U— t SSL ^"^^ •»'*'t iiluwte
,q«9b miima ox tftft*" no T •<• » tMiMfiw «9a#Un^ to il#lW» «von<
Off J nt .vti'f*on ««« ntdT ••%<« ^••\ C •tf^JH «ll>»X ^••^ ^ ►c'T*
•;ai!«I«ofr< t* o^ l^fM «<s«tf«ir la liul mv «> *.'(ti/Xft tew bum Jircf •Xod
: jtol Mentlv •ilT .*»XQ<t ivW iivoft irUos ■nowwr trntUa t—lion •▼
•i«^a»iat a'^X^nlAXq ifolfte no no^Mv 9<1^ of ituU h9i\U—$
«'k: T'O * ,»»«»«fliXv •*rtJ(iflrf«Iv imtU ^toti utttC cint 03 a^^ -f
#«AI «lrieJ!>Z»«4 •(if •sttll<! x»b lacMi sHI •^(Mi^ •<!«• ^atr'lltf> hriM •ibmQ.
tev.mA«B nm^xo b(%» •Itea ««!&} ««ite;»if •# •S»d mt» iuo bm4nXoq ti
i<' '^ ivo^ qtf ft«aloi« msm am •di SmO^ mmtrxt bto4 «( imU ^t
<«tn« f Ii9i StKt bib ti SaAi ^mimtm •b*#1v%A %o <lim ^ovl
««iintT« f on •Xod «ii^ ^ji qp a&tbi^ •mr nm «iJ #«rii xte)tf
•(U t« id^l^ ««v ^iil) ix»M mU ••• o;r ttovo invw •« i«iU »XOfC •fU" iadi
3/1^ •blajyr. «w dioff trfi i«U «^tifMn^ tse mU ^ •rsue
/4tfU laiU «*3f&«^ vd^ to Xljrt 4«*» •rfJ to !»»■ oiU ot • • «Ahrsi
db tftw qv iadJ Ima « Vmfl te»licMx I tXod t^XlIP mW * 94^ •Xoif
."••xaKi on iutf dniien* mnt ^tM^Mq mU ,"a0oXA c^w •tii XXa* «Min«f«
^xU lo xnoaat»«^ vdi ^«fl Mroa oiiVWlfS) to t^iO Mil not toQTOJ^a •(17
oirt^TA oi^ia^X^^k lo rlinon ioot n»x o« OOX oXod o4 •«* «iOAM «aii«atflv
^o<fl ^|ftXi«ttil> oo«Xq « to rtoXJqinoMlb « 9atoc( ui luo notfo'ii* ^ i^ •
-^o% on oi onocU bct0 ^MoMeoA oct* ««• oooctfiw oto «• oiocl* ooaXq oift
-^OMBo MM bam ttol&om •d$ Aolnot l*ttioo «<4 #cftf «^BMiIi ti—m4%d aoi^e«n
to T t q ^t — X«noflos tea vvAionooo tnm IliJnULu ««X£M MML
tJb ad tmdS noUmnhuoB^ $09nlb o» t>%irki4mm4 «*04i toXxoK .^ «« mU
I9TI0OOO #ooMoo^ odi onortv •^boXvoffl OWO Aid T<( lOCf
od4 ovt* ^ni«v. art .aXttXno bnm o<l«OoM ««««Mrptlv 9^ fUl» ^wqm* cl
•oc od^ trf b^^MM ftofU »im •<] >AiiM>o it m^tm^ yrii ei>dii ^i |lfga
^•ot OQi imdm* t^Ml^ooitfo oavo «t>oiX9ei ad bam «m« .^ «
I
Of Arraltas© avenue, north on Elaton *vonue«. A motion to atrlJc©
out this anawer waa deniad, the court oaylng, "the pXaos he locat-
ed may otand"» to whioh njllng ooimsel for th» City excepted. The
witness then stated "we examined the hole in the street". He waa
then aaked* over objection, to desorlhe that hole, and ropXied, "I
found a hole in the etreet about 6 feet long, about 14 inches deup,
varying in width from about 1 to 3 feet, right at the edge of the
west track, it wan filled with water". The wltneee further tes-
tified that this hole "was about 140 feet north of Arraitage avenue
in Elstcn avenue", that "he did not aee any other", tlmt "we looked
up and dosi^. the street fror that point, ?» ^ probably for a bloolc
or so", that at th?.%t point the street oar tracks curved^ and there
wae*^ bend in the otreet, and this wa« just at th© eouth end of
the beJEid". Plaintiff's witneaa (Jrifflo, who aooojapanied Dadie :o
Elflton avenue on the morning after the accident, t«>®tified that •»•
went out and measured the Itole where they olal^sed an accident had
happened", and that the hole was about 180 feet north of the place
"where the gontleraan showed us he was picked up". His testimony as
to the size of tho hole wae siailar to Dadle'a testieaony. Plaintiff's
witness K^oCabe, who also aooorapanied Dadie to Elstton avenue, was
aleo allowed to deeoribe the hole, which he »aid was "about 1S0 or
140 feet north of Arcdtage avenue on Els ton avonue on the weat aide
of the oar track and 180 feet frore the south curbstone of /inaitage
avenue". Plalntli-f 'a .sitneaa, Jidward Poeiiler, was aleo allowed to
describe the hole, v^ioh ho located as being at "the curve" of tli©
street. Plaintiff's witness, Arthur Poehler, who was the aon of
Edward Poehler and who workec. tor his father in the latter 'a saloon
and grocery stor© at the tltae of the aocidentj, was also allowed to
describe the hole, which he said wue "froa 150 to aOO feet north
fron Arraitag© avenue", and which "was on the went side of tlie south
bound Xr&oi't right al<ms«5i<i» ^^'^ rail", and where the tracks curve.
*4.
•*J ^^ ^'V.
•ft? . '^* .~~ - ■
Off" h*i^oSn Tf./J ar
«i>j*>tf
f)5^dot
i "otfrtt
£^a 1»*^ >« oils ,
6«d inmhi^^m km hmclMl^ x*^^ Tfrtr, olofl «di b^nxMiiu
•oaX^ «iI<^ '^o lift')''' :tci«^ 081 #ti> vXeiC •ill >«/U Mai «*
n«w ^9imoT« noiaXS oi •l£«a b«lfui<petoeo£ f>7
*^
»?
»ff^
r ftr."
X« tmr' «*M.
^••«»14#X t
««rxjjQ
16
,ff^^.in
and «Fhich hud he&xx ther« "fa-orn five to six w*«k«"« H© Tarthor
tostirled on oro86--oxc.Tslne.tior. that ho "•picked the doceauod up and
put hl»a on the oldewalk", that tho point arh©ro ho picked hira up
wr.B "In tbo centre of the two tr«»o\a, about £5 feet south of Ar-
irita^j;© avenue* » He was aa^ed tc atate* If he knew, what waa the
condition of Kletor! avonue, with r&tar&noe to t' © »eat aide of that
street being anooth or rougJi »nd with ref drone© to there being
hole© In the pavement, frora about 2-'; or 30 feet south of Arraltage
avenue and thence north about 100 or 150 feet, and he replied that
"It wras'nt eaooth. nor it waanH ec rough either*, and that there
were no holes in th&t part of the atreet, ao far a© he could judge.
Plaintiff's witrestt, Fred Crawe, the proprietor of th© saloon on
the northwest comer of the two streets, teatifi©! tMt he wae in
his a&loon, waitlnif^ on a ouetorasr, the witney© 3ta<j5f, mnd he "ssaw
Moxley's bis wa^on with four wulea goin^, by**, that "when th« wagon
sot tc the oppoait© (south) elds* of Armltag« avenue I aeer. an object
under the wagon and this object was this msai, Sralth", and that he
did not go ovor to ths? place. He al«so waiij allowed to testify aa
to the condition and eizu of the hole n orth of Arpsltage avenue. He
further testified thstt he wi^a farjlliar v«ith the condition of Slaton
avenue for about 100 foet north of Arnitage avenue, and that "along
the rail it wae rough, but fairly vfcll, except one hold about ISO
or 32G feet back fron the comer*.
At the conclusion of jjlalntiff ♦» evidence th« attorney
for the Oity of Chicago, renewed his lotion, aeveral timee previous-
ly nade, to exclude all evidence as to "the condition of the hole
no^h of ArmitaRO avenue, because there has been no connection made",
stating that the only ey« wltneaa, lilac l?eclr»r, had described just
the place where the accident happened, aouth of Arraltage avenue,
and that "all the description of a hole north of /vrnltaco has no-
thing to do with it, and they have not conneoted It u-p** n The court
•i^dnult •11 ."•*••« kI« oi •vll BKw^» «»Mdi r»«d[ 5<.
brut qu 6oft«M>»6 trf* l»<Olq* ^ ^««»W ?• K#-^«»nrtft rio boi^*Jmmi
qv wlif ^•sCiiiq art •nw^w 4^
snl»tf tv^fU u fM i^om ^9 lUeooe j^nl^tf im&%i
•HAiiwx^ to /(f^t/CML J««^ oc •!• as ixratfA sotl ^drui/^vTAq "^t^^t nt m^loA
,»n^i Muoo ^ « iruMT iiUU Rl •«;
fw (. tor adi 4air«flif' bvx'i «iia»n
na;raXn to -: mX bM9
aaaJLa* SaA^ bm lo xUnon <}«ot 001 JtuotSa <i«t «( -
•■'&l7«» t*
eXoil tdl^ 1ft ' ' -^'I
c on ntftd «4ui •n«44 •fuijioftcf ««iaw^^ aj^ ^ liJ^oa
9(U
i-suoo Oiii. tt'-qti il iiti.
said, "I think it would b« a qpaostlon wh«th«r or not it wan thtt
same hola» arsd th® notion will b® ovomxlod", to whioh rullnj; bh
exc»7>tion wao taken*
The oourt waa aaked tc inatruot the jury to find the City
of Ohioago not guilty, b\it th« sjotion wa« refused. Several wlt-
neaees for the City testified ao to the oondltion of Elsston avenue.
Albert Srcwr. testified tJhuit Icsnediately after the accident ho
stopped the nulee and brought the team back to the corner of the
two streets, where a crowd had gathered; that on th© day of the
accident and prior thereto he knew the condition of the weat aide
of iilaton avenue nea r Armitage avonue> and tliat outaide of the
track froK! about ft inehea up frosij the rail it was "a little rough"*
but rlglit aiongalde of the rail there were 3 or 4 place© where theirs
were holeo, "like aa if a wagon had dropped off the rail and "lade
a rut there* J that there were several such places "right opposite
Anaitage on Klaton*. Jamea IJurlce, ward superintendent » testified
that the wes*t aide of Klston avenue, from 25 feet south of Armitage
avenue to & point SOO feet north of Arssltage, "was rough", but that
between the curb and within six inches of the street oar track there
were no holes; that close to th© tracJr there wore ©oine depreoflione»
but that he did not know how long theae had exieted.
jJK. JUSTICE matihEt DisLivimKi) Tim opikios of itiie oo\mi\
Irj&asiuch aa we have reached the conoluaion, after » care-
ful examination of th© record, that the judgffl<mt in this case
should be roveraed and the cauee resianded for a new trial, we
deem it unneoeoaary to diacuas laany of the points argued by coun-
iSOl.
Th© main contention of eounoel for the City is, that the
trial court oocaaitted error, pro Judicial to the City, in admitting
over objection, and in refuair^. to strike out, the teatlmony of
tii maw it Sftfc 19 rrafltadt. ^qp « vd himm li ^mtot I*'
CM nttiXxn dc ^'boLtntnivo •d XXlw noliMt •d^ An* t«Xatl
t^io •<<! tell «i Tu/t ^^ 4c.nJenxi jj JM3t«ji m» #nu«o aiCr
«'^J^» £«n»Y«i3 *teaul«^ aira ML|t«t mU JMtf c^iXlm #oa •>— idP Ic
• •<in»v« «Oi«ia to tmXitbtw^ niU ^ mm teXtliMtt \iiX^ tif lol ••■ • ■ r
Off SmiytooA tit imrta %LoJMJtt»miKt 4inU J»om^a«i iivo«i ^n«dlA
tiU to iMTxeo wli o^ 4o«tf aa*! atfi «laiio^ io* ••Xub mdi tm^f^ M M
9ti3 to ^a* •lis ft» J:«(U |fi«««tf#«8 <>^ t»9it9 M trivflv ««i«&
•fti* /B«« md^ to f*oJ:^l&ao» •<# •tint tMf •iratd^ lol^ teui ^w^bltmt
9liS to el^tB^iio latlt Nw ««Mi»va ojuitJvi* jgn ounoTA n-
«*i^«»s •I<}.7ll o* Mm $t li«i odi «9^ «tf Mdanl a 4ttodM «Mt Hm^
MOftf rt*Ai •f04BX7 > iw e onov o^nmU XXjti tU to •JM«aaoX« #ili*« Amu
otev boo XXn Mil tto tfqqoib bMi a»^ m « ti «>« otfiX* «ooXotf o^st
ol to oq u n iifft^x* aooAXq cfouo X«v«ro« oncov o^otfl #«rf# }*ni!(li iu^ 'c^
•^Miflwi t« dtsrM lo«t sm MM!! ««Mi»va noieXX to mblm «••« Mf# 4ait
ijuu iud «*(tiMM«i Odur" ,osa11«iu Id rfinon loot 006 inloq o ol omtvo
otodi :fo«^ tfto ^ooil« •ds to aodMil xXa eUOgtm Aao tfwo oifl (iOi«io<^
tacMlooofiqoD oacMi ot»« onotfi noorl otft ol oooXo locU ;aoXod
•Aoiojbw ftotf ooofU ipoX «Qd ooM toa htb od
^- ^ boustA V 4 w^j aauoe.^'- •■* -roaaooonm 11 m—b
• laa
.>:<l».ir • toa ,".*-•>? ^O 10TO
-10-
plaintiff's »ltn0fii»O8» regar-dlng the hol« In Elaton avenud,
whloh was about 150 foet north of the north line of Armltage
•▼anu© and still furthor away from tJio plao* whor« th© only ey©
vltneas to the aocidsnt toBtifiod tliat the aooldent occurr<»d« In
th© light of all th© ©vldarsoo in this oao© «,i© agr©o with tb® oon-
tontion. ^11© in sore© o&b&b proof of th© ^jonoral oondlt'on of a
3tr©©t or oiddwalk n»ar th© place wh©r© th© accident ooourrod la
adralaalbl© a» tandlrg to ©atablieh notic© to th© Oity, ( '■Taylor-
ville V* Stafford, 198 111* S68. S90j C ity of Elgin v* HofB^ 20G
111, 252| aam© 212 111. 20, 34 ) ©till notice to the Oity *of
one particular defeot which oausod ar? injury cannot b© oatabliah©d
by proof of notice of another particular d©f©ct whioh 1© in no way
related to th© forraer and did not contribute to th© injury*.
{2B Gyo» WOO), in our opinion, under th® ©vldonoe, the hoi©
about 150 f©©t north of Arraltae© av«>mi©, which wa» described by
caid wltn©»oea. In no way contributed to th© lnj\yy of plaititiff'a
inteetato, and In allowing to regain In the record the testimony
of ©aid witnesaee, ao to elae of tJiat hole and yi© length cT tiia©
it had been th»r©, the court erred.
And wo do not thinli that the evidence sufficiently proved
that th© City hod notice of the ©xiatence of the hole, if any,
south of Arraitage avenue, ooncamin^ which plaintiff 'a witness,
HioB Bocirer, teatifled, or of th© dangeroua condition, if It was
dangerous, of ElBton avenue, itmaediately south of Arrdtaf,© avenue.
( City of Ohioagp V. j-iurphy, 04 111. £24? Boender v. G|tx of Harvey,
251 111. U£8).
Th© Jud/aent ia rov©r©©d ard th© oaua© r©»>and©d.
RiSVERiSKD An)D REMAt€>ED.
««st»VA M^aXB ■! •iMl 9iU wmtbvm*^ ^m—mm^ta ••ViJttmhUUi
•aAlJtaMA lo Mil tfi<wfi ccf^ to tiHm !••) Oftl iiM>rfA ««v <f»itf*
jB to noiilAfiM Xjn«isiiji •(ft ^ t ^om •••«• «m« mX ^ »c$oUimt
to* x^xo •fi^ OS «^i«<vf ,C8 •III 81S mmttt %i:
b9(i»tL6uSmt 96 Sonns: '■ ttM t««iM» M%tttit i99lmh ^tMtm9Hitl9^
XMm It mt w^ ildJtctv io«lofc •mXnoli'MV rMlNaa to •olion t9 too^q t^
„ odl 04 o^vtflilfloo ioit ftib ttm *x«NDt«it 4uf^ e# bolalon
•I«l ftti4 «oon»&lTo 9d4 witetf ,noJbflhf9 imo cr .ot^ «)
x<i hmSt*t»m9t ••« iloiffv «««iMnM 9^m9itrtA t« 4#<io« loot 081 tuod*
n^ntintMlq to TVt^^i •f <^ Ao^i^irtfitoo v>* <»a "1 «aMiaon#t« Ste»
:oal4aoi acSI Ititoeoii odJ nl ciiJiMKi oi 9itl«olX« lU bns «o4«4B#4«f
«■!# ti di$imt tU boM oloif 4«ftl to oala oi •« ««o«««ai« btn% 1
»Aono imjoo •!<# «9^ofU nood A«ff i:
ftovttt^ tX^noiolttsio ooaobihr* odi 4«<14 <nl<fi ion oh ^w Imu
t^flA tl ««£Orf 4Mfl 'to OOflO^alxO Otis to Ml^OM £uill '^410 •.< r .^Jl/t'
,aaortiiv »*tllifllAXq dotdv sfflm&oinoo ,Min»va o^oiiirfA to ffit/c
QAw il ti «flollimoo ouo^ojinafr ocH to to ,5oitll»«4 «
•ounotM •x«iiflPXA to tt^uoM xX«4«Jtfr«Mii «oun»T« noiaXS to ^ouenoamft
t2I2^ ^♦'Sa .Hi ♦« jj^ fio)
• botfiAmyt oaxfoe oi14 Jbnji bovtoroi ■! ta^v , (
^ Octoljor Term, 1211. Bo.
466 - ie,006,
HATTIE M. BAL^tnf, )
J Appellee, )
V8,
APPB/iL FROM
JOHN HBrx;|!tEL« )
Appellant. ) COOK COUNTY,
182 I.A. 136
m* JUSTICE GRIDLEY OI-LIVERED TTIE OPINION OP OHE 00m?T.
Thia lo on appeal from a jiidf^ent for $2;,5O0> rendered
In the superior court of Cook ooiinty on July i, iiai, ir favor
of appellee, hereinafter oalled plaintiff, ard against appellant,
hereinafter oalled defendant. In an action for darriafses for per-
sonal injurleo. Tlie suit was originally brought against defeiid-
ant and the Uhioago Railwaye Ooapany, hereinafter oalled the Con-
pany« In the first ooimt of her declaration plaintiff averred
that on April 21, 1909, ahe was at and near the interseotlon of
Clark and Wellington otreeta In the olty of Chloai^, ktA, for
the purnsoae of beot»alng a pausenger, she signalled one of the
Coapany'e eouth bound street care on Olark etreet to stop; that
ahe waa In the exeroiao of ordinary oare for her own eafetyj that
tJi© Company so negligently nan&ged and propelled said street oar
in a southerly dlreotlon along and over aald Clark street, and
the def erxiant oo negligently jaanaged and drove a horse and wagon,
o\med by him. In a southerly direction over said street, at the
place aforesaid, that, by reason of the nej^ligenc© of the defend-
ant and the Company, a oolllslon ooourred betvreen said wagon and
said oar? that as a reoxilt thereof the •wagon was knooked, forced
and thrown toward the curb and oldewalk of said Olark street",
and upon the place where plaintiff was standing, and thereby a
oolllslon ooourred betiareen plaintiff and said hora© ard wagon,
whereby plaintiff oustalned severe and persaanent injuries. The
second count ohargod that, as a reault of the collision between
D8 I
.oH ,Xiex ^c!l1&'2 -iJdoJ.
•000«8X - 95^
•xovAt at . : xiiol^ oo ', ooO lo #*ii;io« 'soXteqas mU r.i
-l«tat*ft i«Ri«it« lilsiMrur xliMttl'^i'sa •«* iiim •<
-9oo %Ai hmllM» im^tMot^nrnd «%fMM|iav&i fttaifXiAa osMlnu em Jboa ^ahi
iarli tqoia «i i*»^« jCiaXO oo aiao inw%9% ban r>
^«if^ tX^alaa mr« i«c( lol avK^ x^oittma Ip •sZP'xtxo acU lU &«« •da
, o^n brvi eavect « •vo-iL &<ia ^a&MSMi x^^ta^X^Mi M lnolMAtttir mU
&x<a nosA» tlii» n»%v$td b*Ttt/ooo no^aillM 41 nVW^/noiJ dtfi Nw ^it»
ftaomol ,b«ii>0(ti M«r aoB««* erli lorx«/U iXxfsrs « mi #ai14 ?ia» &Ua
«*#»eai» ^talO Ma« lo tlnm^Xu bam tf^ro mU inaao^ flvoarli Jbria
« X^e^orti f>rai ,ifUbtai« miw lli^nlaXq onocfv ooaXq ait/ ootqv £na
,rTosAv bfta •a'lod bUm brtm YtUatmlq^ nao«9«tf Aovtuooo a»lalX£oa
orfT •aa^xK/tni inanaflnaq tea'rva'vac bonlataua Vtl&tttmlq tifiwili
naaw^atf rtotalXXoo a/lT lo iluan a aa ^^mQ b^vtmtb ifWO« £no»ar
th« horso and wagon antl the atr«ot oar, "the dlrootlon In which
said horci» und wagon was then arsd thero rsovlng waw auddonly olmng-
9d and diverted fror^ th« road bed of Clark atrwet toward the curb
and aidwwalk of Clark atroot", and upon the place where plaintiff
was standing, and tiiereby a colllelon ooourrod between plaintiff
and said horse arKl wagon, etc. To thla deolfur^atlon the defendant
fllod a plea of the general lasuo, and the CcMspany filed a like
plea, together with a special plea denying ownership or control,
at tiie time and place, of the otreet railway or oar, Shortly be-
fore the trial, on motion of plaintiff. It wa» ordered that all
papers and proceedlnge be and are arsendwl by dlacontlnuinf; aa to
the Chloago Rallwaya Company, and the oaae wert tc trial befoire a
Jury with John Hetssel as aole defendant*
At the trial 14 witneoaes, including plaintiff, testified
in her beiialf, and O wltneeoee, Includlnf^ the driver of the wagon,
testified for the defendant* Photographs, plats, certalr writings,
etc*, wer© also introduced in evidenoe* The teatlraony was o^ito
corj'llotlng* Plaintiff, a Miotmn about 40 yeara of as®» teatlfled
that on the evening of April 21, 1909, about aix o'oloek, a^he loft
her place of eraploytsent and went to the south-west aoraar of ClarJ:
and Wellington streeto for the ptu*po3e of boarding a aouth bound
street oar on <Jlark atreet; that ^9 aaw a oar consln^ and sl/^.alled
it to atop and It began eiaolring upj that 3i:j© also aaw a "Carson,
Plrle, soott" wagon coalrg aouth which otoppod? thiit tlien ahe aw
another wagon (defendfmt'a waj^cn) back of the street car and "the
horoe waa running very faot" and she turned to go back onto the
aidewalk and was etruck ot the aldewalk; that aa a reoiat she
waa confined to her bed for about five weeks and suffered T^ioh pain,
taoatly In her back, aind waa pf>rnanently injured. The driver of the
"Careon, Plrle, soott" wagon teatlfled that he was driving! aouth
on Clark atreet; that the street oar paased him al»out the north
tf»li*r III noJt^M^Jtft mU' «i«« #MtJMi mU iMU !»»«■ Ana oa«iotf at
^lAtMtfs M* sRivoa •tmtSi bnm tmU mm m^w boM •rwKt LIj
mU bum^ ^m^ru* ihuau le bm4 bM% «U aoYl 6M«»vlA tau l
rtl^kslq mrmim mpstq •cii noqtf tarn «*ltt«%?L io 3(XMiii0i Ai
YtUtOMln tm^wi^a bmu—o noiailXoo a itf«<iMli An* t»nHiffa« imnt
;rt«Jba»l*ft mU cnUa%m£»^t aiff^ oT voi* «xioi«v JMia •wod tiiM tr
«-«tf Yit*w<IB •tAO %o tmlisrt itim$m mOi to ^Maiq JMb «a# •4#'44i
IJU i#<li ktntto mm :ti «¥LUni4uU| te mliom cm «X4U^ «jI# •'t^l
>^ mm nphmXiammmkh j^ kmmm t u •!•««• atf •yti fc ^ n oii f iM» i*Miiiq
m m^^ftmi lmt^4 <»4 $mm mmmm mdi bam «tn«faDO m%mlimM onmlin mli
*4tmitm>^aik mlom an imu4mu uHmH tUtm fwt
iy liuia'>^ «l -^jntaXq .vtlAuXvai tiiOTtnt-hi #i X«l<i# Mi# tA
, :,ir£^i«ri «l«iiM ««4«i4 »>rttwHMtf »titiiwlil> «£i «il teiti4Mi*t
m4t¥p mmm '^aom^mm4 i^. »im«m61v» ol HlMftottBl okXa •imr «••#•
l»«niie»^ «•!• !• 9tMt 0» JW0<l4i amnm m •ttttr ;;riiioll!lMto
n«I mdm ti^oio'o xia iiio«i ««<K1 .JUI ItviA, le »Umn «!# m tMU
itmUXi !» ni^tnoif 4m»m^iuom mat 94 itmrn bam ^cmayBtym to imBu <nrf
Xwiotf iOyoo M aiilMood !• oo n » n oiil tot oioo«#o ■i<»iiI£op Mto
boXXorqilo Jkm »tl«oo «M0 « voo oi«k J«fli t#oo%#o triAXu ao «bo Joo^io
^no9^0« < v«» oalii oxte J«cU t^v BAl^fooio aoQOtf #1 teo qoM •# ^
«« oKte nod^ iMU thbmbim ^^xtm Atttmm yUaoo fiQ»ov *ii«#a «0>U<i
orf»* teo iM ioo«l« oitf to Aoocf (noioo o'tmrnoTit) iwaoir Toiffw
o<tt 0^/10 lootf oa o« Aofruf^ oiCa jboa Umm\ r»v »iliMn oav^oowil
Oilo iSumm^ M DM «or: ofiio oUt i«»»j(om«»« mw teo ffiooftti
,rrlAq doM9 Ao-iottua teM ojiooo orlt ^uorfo lot tootf «i9.'f mi bmnt^mmo
mdt to tovi*t6 Mfl •X>o«/tffl irtiwHMim a^ <»«tf nod nl tXJi
-{ivoB anlyltft mtm o4 #4wU teitJUoo^ iro; i,olmM
iU^ron ofli ;^tioifo aiii bmmomq «uo ioo^o oitf . t«onio nofp M>
-5*
Bide of Wolllngton street, and werst on and atoppod at tho fur-
ther orooair^j that h« o&v two ladioo standing In pooltion to
board th© oar, betwaon tho oar tr&cke apd thir tjldewalkj that
defendant •» wagon, "goini; a protty good gait", oano fron the
north; that tlie two ladles ran back towards the sldowallr and .vero
knocked down on the eidew&lk; that h© eav the "tiorB© trosjple on
one of the ladlee", lerhether on th© breaat or baok he oould not
say« and that he, the driver of the "Capaoii, Pirle, icott* mi^on,
"pulled out onto Wellington etreet, faoinR aouthweat frora Cljurl:
atroef*, Ihe theory of tiie plaintiff was that tho oar wsa© stand-
inif. tjtlll or olowly moving, with it a rear end juat aouth of ttui
south lino of Weilijtgton street; tliat the driver of defendant *b
wagon imd been follows ng the oar, tho wagon novlng south wholly
or partly in the uouth bound track; tlmt after the oar had about
stopped at the oroaalng the horee and wagon kept on rapidly nov-
lng and tiUTned out from the track behirsi tlie car, and In »otm
manner the left hind wheel of the wagon eolllded with tho rear
etep of the oar, oauoing the wagon to tilt and the horae to owing
to the west and to rtm upon the sidewalk, atriking plaintiff.
There wae evid4noe to euppojrt txtia theory # Xhe theory of tiio de-
fendant, as prinolpally supported by the teutlraony of the driver
of the wagon, was that the horse and wagon were being driven
Bouth in Clark street Just we t of the oar traokej that when
Wellington etreet waa roaohed the "Uarecn, Pirie, Soott* wagon
was opposite defendant •» wagon and to the we«t of it, whloh pre-
vented defendant •« wagon frota moving raore to tho west; tlmt a
south bound oar approached tho wagon frora the rear at nioh a hl^
rate of apeed ae indicated that it would not otop at the oroas-
Ing on the oouth aide of Wellington street; that In paeolng
the wagon the front end of the rear atep of the car (wMch etop
projected aeveral Incheo beyond th© weet aide of tlie oar) oought
^v/l Mit iM ftof f ta toe i «#ft«^« oMinlXI^t
#^»« htt «X4nr»Mfl «<ii^ ■ fliw i it 4ftM sum Mitel o«# trfl 1«(U \cUnc
a» tlm— 1> ••«iod" Mtt VM an imd$ lAUm^idm 9di m m^k &•:'
Mr Muoo •<! <o«rf •»» ^ — r jil •<!# ns VMtHite «*tt«iteX •d^ lo
sduiXD flort ittMKttiiM sMlAct «ic««^« fe>^lfllXX*ir 9itm itm bm:.
-bimtm tMHv iM tdJ ^«d# m« «fcUni^A£<i uU to vioMii Mil •*^^.•
mU to <fto»« ^MPt i»ai tmmi mii Ottw «aniroa xX«oJ^" 10 XXli^
•'insMi'lii^ l0'r<x««Cit> tHi 4«iU t^««iu« itoinnJLXXiV to •ftiX n.
Xilodv diwoo aaJhraai mojimi •OS t'lmo iU iai«ollot aootf bmi r
^uocts bmd tarn wU Y«iit« ^^i rHoa^ teuotf d^wos srii oi xl^'i'i v>
-vtMB YlAiq«« flo Ki«4 nQ8«« hnm oiiiotf cfU sniimow <Ml# w« teqqo4«
OBoo fct tuM ttmi odi teJUteif tf4MMi# oiU nort iuo tmtrw^ bam MfU
•sMn • iv» <ut« tkoftixioo no^jm mU to loortw jnOiI #t«I odl ^nnnc
:/titi>f; oj oo^nrf 9tii ttm illi o# oosmt m6M jnfumt «ioo mU ^ r-
•1tti.tr Miq .v'-^iite «ja4HiofeJb« wH tmqf/ mn q4 tru^ ^ooo «:
:^ to vv<MKtt ocCX •Tvooitf aifli i'voqfuo o# tonfeb^TO mmw
t^tvltc 0tU to yimmltm&S otU ^ fto#«iWMi xlX<a9^*M'*m '>a*l
noTi*xb anJ9<f omra aoim turn oowMf «d^ i^«(U m» ^amov ocU to
oacfir todi ftt^Axunt too odi to #»•• Smsi #oovi« JvoJ.U nl if#iio:
OOSMT O^iOOtt ««^Sl<i ««}««|0* Mi» tarfOMTK MV 400«|#0 X«naiiiO«
*^ «il tu ;roov otu «r dim oosmi ••immtml»b o#ioom 00*
« 4AiU }««•«( oril oi o-Ms aiU^oa 80^ AHM* o'jgiiftailai M#m-
i%id o du0k i« 100-1 oitf aoft amaflo od^ Aodooo^qpl* "MO teuotf ditto
-•0010 od« iA qoio «ofi Jbltfov 11 Aotft ho»o»»Ml 00 teofi lo oio-
aaiMMq m «odi f «oo«r« fMjyclJ iiblm Attnm •Ai tn is.;
!«la doX.ftf) «uo mU to q9i« tool orfj W uro ^ooYI od# oo^oo od^
100 •Oi to oAio #Mv mU imototf oodnsl Xowvoa lio^oototq
"Hi—
the l©ft roar vstio©! of tho waa;on, and throw tho horoo and wa^cm
toimrd tho ourb and Bld#wallc aiid upon plaintiff, Tho driver cf
dafondant's horse and wagcn toetlflod tJmt ha wao moving aouth
on tho wont oldo of Olark atroet, "about throe foet from the
atroat oar track, porMpa a llttl» rsor©* | thtit o.a he was cross-
ing v/alllni^ton otreot the "Oaraon, Plrio, Soott" w&gcn was almost
oppoait© him J that th© atreet oar paaaed him "alraoot on th©
oroeelng, Junt a oouplo of foot away, aand it was going almost
full 9p«ed*, and w©nt "fifty or eixty f©©t frora the eomor before
it stopped* ; that &a tho car went by hlra *th© women were stitnd-
Ing on tho ox^aalng and I signalled for thor. to atep back, and
when I seen they didn't go I ©topped and the hind step on the
rifht aldo of th© oar ctruok th© left rear wheel of mf wagon,
and the wagon and horee wat9 knocked up on to the eldewallc from
the Jar, and against owe of tho wonen, » « %©n I plolfed the
lady up ahe was lying on the sldewallf and the horse was over
J'ler" .
After dareful oonalderatlcn we ore of the oplnlcjtt that
the verdlot 1» aaply eupportod by the evid«)noe. Counsel for
defendant do not ur^e that the darnagea awarded are exoeoaive,
Xho only points &rmf»d are that the court erred in glvlnf, one
Inatr-jotlon offered by plaintiff, In refusing to i?:lvo two inotnio-
tione offered by defendant, &n& in certain nilings on evidence*
We do not think tliat the giving of Inatruotion no» B
offered by plaintiff oonstitutea error* Practically tho aaine in-
atruotion hao been approved in th© oaaea of Korth Chicag o street
lis. ilSi. ^* ^'^opoya* IS^ ^^3L. 846-BO, and Same v. Wellnor, 2m 111,
S78-4,
Hor do wo think that, untier the evidence in tMa oa-?©,
that the court erred In refualn.^ to j?lve Irtatruoticna nuwberod
4 and 6 offered by defendant. ( Purlngton 3riok Co* v. Eotoan,
•ir: torb^ rtf'-'^ .•'''^«'-*rXq ft©*.
ItftA «tfOJMf '
. ' TO
. -^ , .__' Ht^nSh
1 ^o^CJ»<r^^*ti t b"!/^ ■'fithfic'tr. -ft rto vrrl
X»«fw fa^n .^o tr.t. <-'t.i I'A r,M« if1fii*t
stfihtn arij 04 Ao qu l*!f»orrf a<ir ••i: 'r hna
odff # 4» •ne.n rr^3 i«nt45« fvto ««xiit A^
•fmoff »/tt tiftA 't/ivtKAle ' tJ'vr «iav aAb ac r.bul
•no nrr^Jh: rrl hn^TTe irtuoe «• r-TX'. f;of.r.'i^. r^.. ^^H:
-oirKTafrf fTcT "' , mt
ie i lo •••«e ed^ nl fto-r trf n«r tc
.XXI ?ioe t o«<a AfUB «05«ft«>j2 . .__ _ ■._ _
i.t*:-
-5-
lOii 111* App* 183J north Qhiottgo Ixleotrlo R. uo. v« Pouaor,
190 ill. 07 J Chloftgo v»'9at Division Hy, Go»^ y . Bertf 3C? Ill#
888, > Fnrthomor©, wo think that the Jury were f*ully and auf-
floiently inatruotocl aa to th« law applicable to tho oaae l>y
other s^ven inatruotions*
It appdarod that about a year boforo tho trial the
plaintiff Bigp-ied and scaled an lr»atrut3ant» dated July 6» 1C*10>
(whioh wao introciuoed in evidenoe) whereby, in oo Bideratlon of
aoo i»aid to her by the iiteoeivers of the Ghloago Kallwaye Goa-
peaiy, aim oovenanted and agreed th&t she would "not at any tiiae
brings or cauae to bo Inrought any action at law against aald He-
oeivera or the aald Gorapany, for or on aooount of a oertain ao«
oldent whioh ooourrod on or about April Ql, isoo, at or roar the
interaection of v^ollington and Olark atreeta"* oounael for de-
fendant olai' ed at th® trial that the defendant was not botmd
by the particular wording of the above oovenant not to aue, arnl
that the defendajit had tho right to ahow^ If ho oould, that the
aotual agx*eondnt and understanding botvreen plaintiff and the
Kailwaya Company was that, in consideration of the |i(£00» she
was to abandon arKl releado all her olaiitis againat the Hallways
Ooxapany. To thia end, when plaintiff was being oross-oxaffilnod
as a witnea '. soToral queations were aored her relative to aaid
payment of ^i^^O, aono of whioh the trial court allowed her to
anawor* Two queatiors, h0'«?ev©r» ahe was not allowed to ans'^er
and the olaiia is made that theee rulinge constitute error* She
was aoked if she "didn't settle v/ith the railway oorapany", to
which ohe replied, "No, I didnH settle. I got ooiae ©oney but
I didn»t settle* I got $200. ^ » I nado no sottiement" . The
following, then occurred j
"Q. After you get the $iK)0 frora the jrailroad
coiapany, you did not have any other clalim against the
railr>oad oorai>any, did you?
A* i don't know.
>-»— w»q •« ^2. J.- &^^^o^ ocigpKD tUni^ KMI a^t^ .112 BOX
.111 «8 ><ni»<i *v . : ..^ fftitlgia iffil ta»»<rio t^ •iU wx
( . . ^ t-^^' £>9^Af> ,^rt9f3trxJ^sr't rt? ht^l0•m barn bt^ng^lm '''liiitJtMJji
)o a»iiBn%bi '•• oX ftMMftO^nX n^ur dolriv)
>(C!o exAffX-taH o^Aol/tO mU V « T»Ti»o*»i Mli ftf ivd ')J him ^^ -
•d$ ^w*o ie .1' «xa Xi^*i^ ^uoda io oo JMrrmooo iteiifv 4tmbJi»
•hM) aafl X»«flSMO «''«i#»«iii« ihiaXO trui 0»#a0iXX«sr le cfolioaaFmat
tauofS ion sji^r ^tuiteMteb ^M^ f.rif Ititi erii ts k0rXMlo AtMAaMt
JbruB «*tft ifMMSvvoe L Mi liUml&tMq Vfti ^^
•lU tea nXJrti/Xq a»#w^«tf a<iilMio^ani9teit; teM iiwwtt^a XmxNa
•da fOOal <mU ^ iiol^^riitManoo nX «i«di •4Ri %mspi>0 aniMrXXAfl
b«aXai«c#-otto<io BnX<^ ^m* Tti^niAlg nvrtv «dru» aXdi^ :> tx
tmmmnm o# A««oXX« ^on •«• vrte ^tirroirod »TtaX»— ay «■
.loTM ;?o» ftJiAtXffK MVfJ ^4UU •tmt 9i mtiiLif •tU tew
oi ,*\ruuiia9(i v^fwXJt«*i mU 4#1w el^ioa i*afcX»* ef% IX i^Mt«« mam
«fT •"^rra0*ll#«a orr aftMi I • » .OOSl #08 Z ••X^^*^
liiamoaa tmtii anXvoXXo'^
i}4&'xXlirx ^1.1 »{(>al OQ&I orU ^vji liOT la^lA •p"
•<(' ' ^j tBiaXo iMJ^o tiM •▼«<' 'OTf MA Hoi; «i{f»i«we
run frii^ «frM«M9 tmoFglUrt
m9otti i'noft ; ^A
-6-
Q, la thor® anythinr about that transaotlon
witli th« railroad company that you aon*t want to tellt
A* llo, thoro la nothing.
Q.* Didn't you aigp a rdldase^ or oot3« papor^ to
tJie railroad oonpany?
A, I did not clfpi any raloaa®* I al^ed a papor
at the tiia© i got the iBOO,
Q» At %h& tliao you alijned timt paper and got ttoo
|200» didn't you understand that you had r.o further
oiaira agalnisit the railroad oompanyt
Ur« Johnaon* 1 ol;3.teot to that aa havln jy l^^on an«»
oworod. {ObjoGtion suatained orsd excoption')."
Q,» Didn't :Jr» Jolmaon t<»H you that you had no
further olaiin against tlio railro«i<I company? ((.bjected
to; suBtainod a> d exooptlon).
Q. that §200 you |!;ot waa on acoount of this ao-
oldent was it not?
A, In regard© to It*"
Sfd do not think that the ooiirt ©rred In auatainlng tha
objections to t & two quastlor.a above m&ntlonod* It la of thaao
rulings tJmt oouna«i ooEsplain, I'ho record ©howsi that th© court
allowed counsel a large latitude In qu90tionlns th& witneaa aa
ragarda the trsnaaotlon with the railroad ooiDpany. And w« cannot
Miy th&t iXRdtr th« ovldenoa a reloaao to tha railroad company or
an aoooird and Batiafaotion with it waa proved, untj of tim inotruo-
tlona offered by tin© defendant, aM given, told the jury thiit if
they uhould fir^ frosi th© evidence tliat botl- Um railroad oorspar.y
and defendant were at fault in causing the accident, arid that af-
ter the beginning of th«» vuit the plaintiff received ^£00 from the
railroad ooaipany, and that the said mm waa given the plaintiff by
the railroad company and accepted by her in full satiafaotion and
dlachargo of all claitaa by her agalnet the railroad conpany, thetn
their verdict muat be not guilty. The q^eotion, therefor©, whe-
ther or not the :|200 received by plaintiff was rooolved by her in
oatlofactlon of all olaiaa agalnat the railroad conpany for the
•l9Qaq A bwtT: T^w» '^•-*« *^
oa bad wr ♦«'^* '
<-«Mi •isit lt» imio«»« «e mmi *«p i«)ii: <M>9^ t«#fT
■' bene J *ra::yt jo;
tbmtvtq R«w ii (Ifj ' U^m has Inoo^M aa
vis iKw iv^ >:U t< tin«tlo anoii
6r ' *:: vp .,,T!ao j3«<nXJt8t •dJ
••rfir ,c-*w »»i^.j »;:..! oop <»rfT '.v:*!'"""" '"" •<( J^;--;- -viLrifr,- itttcfi
injurloa suGtalnod wae outraltted to the jury, and w© thlnlt undor
the evldeno® properly 80» ( Olty of Chlo&KO ▼• Baboook. 14? IH,
558-631 Jonko v. dxay, 56 ill, 450) and it 1m evldont from tholr
v«rdiot tliat th©y did not think tlmt the monay waia reedlved In
•uoh satlsfekotlon, and we are not diapoaed to dlatiirb the verdict,
"Where thar« are a nuraber of tort feaaora, the party
Injured nay, at hia oleotlon, aue one, or several, or all; azld
whore the suit la against one or oojno of the vsrons doora, but not
ag&lnat all, tho poroon or peroona sued have no right to ooiaplain*
And so, also, where ther« la a ouit against several tort feasor©,
tho dlssilaaul of the oult agalnet one doea not bar tho action
agalnat tho othora" • ( qity of c;hlQej.i-o v, Qaboook, aupra, ) And
while it iu the iaw that "& releaee t;o one of aovorai joint tort
feaaora i» a release to all, and an aooord and aatlsifaotion if 1th
on© of th0£3 i'4 a bar to an aotlon a^lnat t)!© others" j ( c it y of
Qhloa^o^^ #, aalroook, arupra^ Wallner v. Chioaj^ o 'Traoti o n Go,, 24^.
111. 14i5) it i« filHo Ui& la.v that "the legal effect or a oovonant
not to ttue is not the aaise as that of a release* A oovanant not
to mie a sole tort feasor it?, to avoid oirouity of aotlon, oonoidor-»
ed In lax a dlaoharge, and a bar to an aotlon against mich tort
feaeor, ijut the mlo Is otherwise'* i*li©ro ther« f-re tvfo or taor© tort
feaeora, and the oovenant io with om» of ther; not to aue hiss. In
ouoh oaae th& ooveimnt dot»9 not operate ao a rolea*:© cf either thm
oovonante© or tho othor tort fiw^eors, but the fomor Kust roaox»t
to hla suit for breaoh of the covenant, and thts latter oan not
invoke the oovenant ae a bar to tho action af^alnst thers*. (Oi ty of
Chioago V. Baboook, aupra ? vyewt C Mcftg:o J t« K ,, c,°i. ^» Pipo r* !^ '^'^'
111, SS5-27),
And we do not think in the other rulin^rs of the trial ootirt
or. evidence, eoiaplaln^d of by counsel, that priajudiclal orror was
oosaaitted. The jiKlgiaent till accordingly bo offircsed,
Ai^-FUIMED*
-^
!jm «ti*uitftl
ii ltn»rt
ion •«•
fcr-
tlMU aofl in»&lT« «i ^1 tciM (00^ .III :4 ,YS£i
Mm ^ *u&
Jorc lurf »ir .^ o >
• «0« ftMA
#noi iolot X^'WTta to MM 9S MAtlrt «* 9Art;t w«:X eif «Xlif»
^1? ntolio«liili«a Ima tme^m it* trui «IXii ; i •T0««*1
•i lo c
-♦ •o;
as 1«
towje'
fi.
22 If,
(ft ol
m
sssati:
BdW lOVf Ltloi
•CBVill'il'lA
-ell
^54 - 18»S9S«
km B« 8BO0K3, / )
/jrx, a Oorpopatlon/ v OF CHICAGO*
Plaintlls' In Error, )
aUHIGIPAL COURT
182I.A. 145
MR. JOirriSH ;1HID1.EY DELI^/KHKi) THE OPIIIOH OF lllS COUBt,
Plaintiff In error, defeiidsnt below, a coriporaiior
with prlRclpal office &t Vinegar Bend, Alabasa, seet^s by tUis
writ of error to r«ver»« a Judgiaent for fESO, rendered against
it in the msrslcipal Court of Chioag© in tv9CT of defendaunt in
error, plaintiff below* 1%t© sotiofi was one of tJie fourtli class
and was tried before the oourt wltJKHjt a J^ry. Plaintiff was a
oadesfHO} of lusber on oo^araiselcm, with offio© in Chicago, Illi-
nois, and brourljt suit to recoror oosaRissions clalfeed to b© 6iX9
hira frors defer.-dar.t, arising frora the ®«&le srd delivery of cej>-
tain liBsber to ti^ Balmrme rinber Goispffimy, ©f Aimtiile, (?uba«
The toatiisony of the vajrimis witneseee is very oonfiiet-
ing c« B&terlal pointa* but the faoto» ae we glean thee frcm the
record^ are substantially as folloissz tn Septesaber, 1010, sillls
H« allbert, agesit in Chicago for the Bahas^e Co«, sent to variouss
parties for the ^srpoae of obtaining bide, duplicate copies of a
schedule of aboat 440,000 feet of Itesbsr, "long leaf yello« pine,
square edge", of viarioua aisea, which libber that oc^any de-
aired to purchase. One of these copies was sent to the plaintiff.
On September 14th, Uie plaintiff enclose the schedule in a letter
address^ to defendant at vtnogJM' BerKi, Alabasia, saying: "Ploaso
nar.e your loiwst prices <m attached >3uban sohedulet F.C.B. veasel-
side* KJLndly state ^ickest time you o&xx sake ccsplste shipr^nt*.
on oeptoisbdr 16tai, the def aidant, by N. E. rumer, preeident of
"to Sntson taqt^txMi
-....- - ,;iu>;*iij2^s>o no n»<J-
««aq »olX«x la»X ^csoX* ^i^dtaul '^u i»«l 000,0^ #tiD4a
-•ft TTUMT -' tCMfflHfX il&lxlv «••>!■ •xwi«i»ir Ir ti'i^o:,^
.- • ■'alq aiij oj jna» ••« -i 1© •no •••xiSiD-iyq ■>»
*iJjJsiX 41 nl ♦luftffaa mU Ac ^ _ . . ^
•i.A«X<7* tyiiv** ««BateXA ,£srn>a liiaooj ja jrmi rtoioi: : i
-r*^ac€ - - • ' -
d9f«ndant, replied by letter aoknosledging r«oolpt of the sohed*
ul© arai sayings *M9 will giv© you prices on this sohedia* by
next fsail ai^ we hope to be f averred with javet order". Ok the
same day tho defendart, by rumert pareaidtmt, again wrote plain-
tiff: •since Tsrlting you this A^U* we are able to quote you on
f<Axt sohedule of about 440 M. ft, a prloe of |16 free alcmgcide
vessel at u^ & 0» oocks^ aobll© Ala, « » The price we baire nar.ed
you Is a wwry oloa® one, » > The quality of the liaaber la square
edge and eoia^, »uoh as is exported to Ouba and other west India
iBlanda", shortly after writing these letters Turner cam© to
Chicago and first met plaintiff eStlier at the Great Korthem liotei
or at plaintiff 'a of floe, i^tmer was introduced to plaintiff by
a raan nassed J, n« Joica, Pl&lntlff testified that he told runi@r
that he desired to got a bid on aaid echedule* that he ~«culd ar-
range for a laeeting between Ttimer and the party wanting; the Xxm^
tMOPp that he was handling the setter on a ooTasission 1^©is of
50 o«t3ta a thouanuiKl arKl would want ti» bid to incitaie hi a eoe-
^iaaion^ arid that Tumor replied that that would be aatiafsotory
and timt he would 00 arrsmge it, Joioe» who waa |»re»ent at this
aonv©rsati<m, <»rr©borated plaintiff as to j»hat waa said regarding
plaintiff »B oossniosion. Turner denied that at this oonvereatlon»
or at any other tir:^]^ he agr®«d to pay plaintiff any co.?T3uls8lcn,
On the following day plaintiff, '£xxm&T and ullbart m@t at -11-
bert'a office, where a second conversaticfi was had. Plaintiff
testified that he introduced Gilbert as the repres^itatiwe of
the Bahasaa Cc^pany to rui^erf that the echedule was again show-
ed Turner; that Gilbert stated to Turner the quality of luiatoer
which hia CGBESpany wanted; that I'umer replied that the defendsnt
aade a "apeclaity of that kind of stock" and "wanted ordera for
it* J that Tusker quoted to Gilbert a price on the lumber, at^
then left, saying he deaircKi to &mid a wire to hie saill and that
no not %toap o4 sXifA tnm wm ^auA ttJM^ tio^ 'sfxiitm •«.
-£« blufjm 0d iaiU ^mlsOmdom hlmm ifo bt<f m i«a ol bnlttoft ad #4Uly
-<auX aifit -^itastm x^-urq wfi Ixia -raovoT CMMviad )|Rii»««i « nM) aaoirj
lo el /xiad •«« od imtU «^»c
««N» aid •AdlOffX oi bid arU inaa £>liiow iaia AnaaxfciiJ a aJoao Oc
u>io»\fkli»u ad ftluov iadl iadi imllqm% oaenuT iadi iirui «.ToXaaJb;
ml aa a iq ««« od* «av 1 asruma oa Miimi ad 4«til Immi
salMaso<K tkiaa ««« iacto •# - :ialq 6a^am»dovwe tnbliaaiMaooi
«xiailjnrwvnoo ald^ ^a liuli iiolxiaA 'saavfT •aolaataooa a^TtUoiAXc;
oe tn« Tli^nIcX«t x'*^ <^ » aa A,n a art «a«l# tadio v** ^ ^^
-UP la ^as tiodXi ' Uta •safruf? ,T; xmto VXvoXXol a«U <»
YilinJ^aXH •iMtci ^vrroa bnooas a a*iada «aa
lo •Tii'H.lsBaaanBqan adi aa liadXio ftoOi eMi iad# balliiaoi^
WBrti oia^ aaw aXitftadaa ad# i«d# |<iarru iKfooo ayadaa ad^
x^Omtt lo x^^Xaflt> adi lamuT oi baJa^a #9< il# i^ain rt T ^
itSB&nolab ad4 daiU balXqan laciviT 4«li :6ainav xnirjaMa aid liaidw
toIX •taftno Aalnav" Jkoa "iDo4a lo batt imiU lo T^^Ulaaqa* a aftar
Kia ^tadmrX adt no aolim; a iiadXlL o^ baioup necruiT iadJ ; *ii
i«dt tea XXXb aid ol avla a linaa o4 fiaxi^aa^ ad ^tlx»m ^t^^JL mdi
V
h© ;»ould call on plaintiff la tor in th© day, but that Tum«r
did not thereaftar <all on plairstiriP. Tom«MP teatifi^i tlmt
th« defendant had b««3 9«Hing liaab»r to the BahsKiaa Co. for
adveraX ysaro; that whan h© went over to Gilbert's office «lth
plaintiff he hsd r^isyer heforo xsot iilbert and that at that eon-
vereation I» le&med for the first tlae that it auq Use Bahaaae
Co* tt^t vented t^te lismbar i^mtioned in the BQ;hed^.ile; th&t im
thereupon told plaintiff a«d Gtlhert that he cculd not thaa taMm
the order for the reason that psrobabiy the Baharaaa Oo« had eaked
the defendant dii'eot to figure <m the ea^ne aohedule, arai that be-
fore doing so he dealred to telegraph his mill emd aaeertain if
defd7^«^t had reoelvad the Sii-'se schedule direct and acted upcm
it. Turner say* Uaat he »«nt snail a telegram, but it does not
si^ear what reply, if a«y, was reeelred by him. Ttamer*® testi-
mony is ccriNsborat^ by that of Gilbert to the detent that at
this cimversation turvmv first learned that It was tim 3al!»igaa
Oo. that Planted the lustoer Eienticmed in the eohedule, arxl that
Turner would go no further in the siatter until he had telagrat^ii^
his !sill* allbert further testified that he !md no furth€«» deal-
Inge with plaintiff Bsn^ did not agsln see 'ixuraer, but that sub-
seqitent to this co»ryersatlon %im Bafi^s^e Co* reo^ived "the lutsber
sientioned in that sohedula^ trorz the def«ridimt«r Turner, while
denyir^, that the def^iK!U&nt had shipped to the Baheuace Go. the
lustber "senticar.ed In the eehedul^, admitted that subsequent to
the conversation the defent^ant aS^pped to the Bah^iaa Cfo« "yellow
pine liBsber » » 300,000 feet or so".
On iieptetaber ii3rd, plaintiff srrote defendant at Vinegar
Bend, Alabama, expresntng regret that he did not see ?umer
again before the latter left CJhicaf^o ssrsd saying that if defend-
ant eecoared the order h© t?ould eaqpeot lefersi«uit to •parotect"
him on hie ooraBlasica-i, asrsl th&t he 'hmd figurwi 25 oente M^b way
^!' &msU Sad ^\mh •««# ^f «HIMJ: ^^' ^ no £i«o hpmm •r^
•it^o ^^.rtj jtt iflcll firm l*s»4liO J«i «n^«tf ^nnr*
maa^m^^^ won #1 iadl •ei^ iwnVt «cr lol bema*! ad liol^A^r t^ >
»:( jiM^ftflM odl at tmtm^Smm iiiil w tf wfl l)«#iiMr Jadt .
Ai^aa ftex . isMfiie - fdi noMMt*^ ikU io'i i%tr» tis
i90&« hem tZhK 9 hi ik(Mrtz' ***> m^
::< #f ^^ we Mf iiuS^ «\JM ■Jtein
mmrnm/inH «f(^ "mr tt ^mtii ttrto^i isn»fa»3 arfcU
toctTin 'tBSSmti mlt rU tmiSnOi on on Mucw 'le:.
•LMb «BMC^nn on Jiirl »-: i-^rW fceniJ»i*;> toiftvil i-l^cfi : •XTJN «»1'
-dim ^iiSt 9utf «*xiepfr«T <mi« nljQia ion bib bos ^ItlifrlaXq Ai
.rarfiaai^sb Mi^ aoA HliAwiov ^£iU at bmnotSnmn
•d* .oo •MMctee mU ot b*q<7iife bMf ifwfioBlb^b lit i
•# la»ur««rftm 1jm!1 h^SStfOm ^^Imbm^om tit nl b^rrolJnve*'
«oiX«x* •oO asnulM •{(t oJ bwf ^bentmb tU noI4 am ' i 9t »9^ iU
.*oa 10 Swtn O0O«0f)S • • t»dmttt mnlc^
)tULbmi\9b Wofv yilSntatq ,l>rf8S Y^AM^ifSit no
«z«(rxiiT 99m Sott blA mlf imiS S^ts"^ jifti^'t^tqm^ ^mmadAlA ^hate
•Jbrr»l»b ^1 «BfU SR^t^M boa OA^£fir> itvl i*ilA£ Ail* rMlAd ni«q|«
*^d»lo^* t>} h i mUi tf V fb io<M|ici» 6Xtfov «f{ t^no ^ds b9V»— ^m
XSV rlMM v^fwe !tS b»*iti3il bad* wf l«di bna ffOlsvlnKoo sid no mtti
-4-
on this bill which would cueooimt to 50 oents par tloouaand* • on
Sept«E^ber ^th defdndant^ by Lixm^r, preoidant, replied that it
would not allow platntlfT auiy ooriOTiawion, giving aa a roason Uiat
■this order oaJaa iiroctly frosi Cuba to urn and was oloaod the aaiao
way", but furtlior saying, "so fool that in th« ftituro IT ycu got
any businoa^ throu^ Mr* ailb«rt» *• will be vory willing to allow
you a oo2S3iaaion of 25 o«ita",
Tha tfitnaaa Joioa, who was proaont at tlie rirst ocmvar^
aation botwoan Turner and plaintiff In Chicago, further t^atifiod
that abcmt 30 days tlisreaftar ho sat Turner in iwbila, Alabaraa,
and "aakad hlis ahoro hia llobila offioa waa, and ho aaid •! havonH
got ajrxy*; and I said, ♦T^u told ilr, Brookn you had a iobila ofriea*;
he said, *«ell, I did that to akjjg his oai hii> ocffi^aal oeri*,** ramar
denied aoking any auoh atatati^it*
Iha trial court in ita flrjding aaaeasad plaintiff'a
daTsa^os at the sttm of #220, wJiioh ia in ©ffoot allowing plaintiff
a oossalsaion of *iO oents p^r ona thousasKi fo«t of luRbor or 440,000
foot, ahioh ia the nuabar ot foot that itimor in his letter of
September ISth aaid w»a oontainod in the aohedule forwarded to de-
fendant by plu-intlff, and w« are not disposed to disturb that
finding, STe oanr.ot agree with th© contentions of oouneel for d©f«id-
ant that the finding aM judgst^nt are contrary to the ^vidonoe aral
contrary to the lasi*
it ia aiao i*rsed that plaintiff failed to prove hia olalsi
&ti alle^d in hie atateissent of claira, iMls it rna.y be true that
the cauae of action as proved was ?iot aoourataly S4>t forto in
plaintiff *i3 atate'^nt of dais's, w© do not thit^ that the defendant
waa prejudiced thereby or that for thi^t reaaon U\& jud^ent ahould
b© reveraed* ( UcDogall v, 3ha.rp, 157 ill. App* 1^.5,)
The judgment of the Municipal Court i« affinsed.
.n2jnel»i> rue: f <lw » » ^»
•abM tU tmmol9 m« tea •» 9i m1«^ ~ *
molim £1» x'wv •<< Xlik «« , 'jicnAS m
*& 08 to OQisalaBOO a HOT
$* tm9mL V iiiofi ti I > eitkd* . Jd ft9tf««* te«
tMmiT tblMm 9d
B^ni' oioo laiiJ •HI
ytUatrntu j^t^ollB ifTt0 ^ ia am^^tmt
19 9»v ^Al to Tectum put Bt tStl -\
.^^^ tfx 0t« •¥ ina «!' >1
TOl Ift»mioe to aaoi^rmitnoo aiU ililw aen;^ loona^ af . t
ban •oftoLlT* mL^ o #«• Srtmy -m
iacl4 trU ad trr- Ji »IJL;{v o 'xo ^ > old oi fta,^ ^iLu k»
nl diiDOl ia« \lm4Jtfuc^m ion •«• tavc-? . aa ..Moa lo •••x'juo 4^
inaltfielaJb mtU ilmiq
.• :>% %A
Harch Term, 1212, tTo,
2S7 - 18507.
SADIE HANIJAH, / )
/ }
3UPERI0II COURT
- iOK ». D^KilAlJ, I COOK COUSTT. .
im. JUSTICE OaiDiLE? DELrvSKSD TSU CPIKIOS OP THE OOURT*
182I.A. 146
Sftdie Hainan, pl&intitt beX<»Zy ^«ro«?Tht emit In the
ouperlor Court of Cook Gmmty &fg&lnst if«d©rieJc W. l>reoki3an»
dofandunt b«flos, to reoovor th« atisj of i^U'^O i«Td lni$rd3t« Tho
oaad wao tridd Ixsfore th» oourt without & Jn-sry, romiltirsg in
a finding and Judgs^it for |140 In fa^or of plaintiff, whloh
jud^smt dt^ondant b;f this appea^l 99eks to ravorso*
It appears from the e^idenoe tliat tlm parties to this
suit are sister ar^l brother; that defendsynt wao Uie adssinis-
trator of the estate of iorah DreoJcsmn, deoeaaed» laother of said
parties aaid of Cllie woollett* siater, and of Hosiry i^eokman and
Charloo Ur99kmsaif brothers of oaid parties; that in llay, l'>10t
the def^^dant wrote to his brot^erB and sietere that he 9ae
anxicms to raake distribution or to sell certain nortfja^ea in
hie hsnda ae suoh adsdnistrator and sugge^^ting a laeetir^ of all
the heirs of Saz^h l^reokBim-;, deoea@M» ai3d that said rsortga^Ni
8>i|^t be dietributed *ae they are and by aorse of ue payUig oaOh
other the dlfforonoe in oaeh"; that in Jtsxe, 15 10* all of said
heira set wnd agreed upon a distribution of the sjortsages ancng
thesi8elTe% ar.d defendant then »rGte out a rnsraorandiaa of the a^ee-
oenty and the r^ortjgageB wore subaequently aiatributed by the de-
r«adant» ae administrator, in aeoordanoe therewitii, k portion
of said iiH^tarandusi waes "chaa. takee llOOO raorti^ge, paya $140
to Sadie and |^ to Ollie. Ollle takes f700 movtmE^t sota |20
frost Ohas* and tlSO frofs l-^ed« Sadie takes #700 }3ortgage» gets
d^l .A.IS'» r
taXq lo '»9t«% oft OMI iM itflMHu^^fl J^H' ao-
At*# )• 'JM<ywi ^bs$i09 M AfOMaGMrM UnaD ^ el^JM mas lo 'x:.Jaru
tea fimiOtiCT xitmH lo Isna «'S»ittte «#4*I£«oV ttltXO lo tas •eliiaq
iwiiie^^ft» bt«« ^«rtt ^o* <ii i — il tiiMiunn dnwe ^ oniwi «<i
-••TQA mU Io mfcm— 1111 • liM •^••nr nodi $tmtmn»h berm ^•yIsmmcU
0»I# «x«4 ««t4S#«oa 0001$ —tAi ^matvu* ',nmi mifae Mw a o Ma« 1»
0B| •^•a ««fMM^»i Mnf mvtMi •JttlO QSv fins wltett «i
•#«B ••S^aJTWi OOTt sMUi mlbmi: ^btet>i mortt Qsx| tea ••adO oovl
-8-
$140 iVcaa Ois^*** Charle«s oreokaan at thla tliae was a holpl»8B
IzrraXld, afTliotocl with Ioco6K>tor ataxia and wao in tha oars of
plaintiff at har hotEsa^ and» according to tba testlsiony of plain-
tiff and ullle wooll«tt» it vas ▼orbaliy agraad betae^n dafendant,
Charles Draok£3im» plaintiff anA Ollia, tlmt Charles should ^ve
the 41000 raortti^ag© to defendant for the purpooe of having defend-
ant aell the ease, that out of the proceeds defendant pronilaed
to pay plaintiff the mm o^ $140 and pay tJllie the mm of ;ao»
and that the nca^tgage w&js deliver^ to defendant »ith that under-
standing,* The defendant admitted that the mortga^ vaa delivered
to hi!B for the purpoae of oaking a sale thereof, %imt Oharlee
agi^ed to allow defendant 10 per oeiit* of the face of the iscartigajfet
or llOOy for negotiating %im smX^, and that he aold tJ^ akorigflige
in Septimbery IQIO* about tia*ee rdxmths after its delivery to hXm»
It further appears that shortly aft^^r the x^eting of Um he^r«
Charlea w&n tak&n to a hospital^ vhere he ressained a1:>out two
ssontha «ind then 9&^^ hrou^it back to plaintiff 'a hous@» ohere he
died in Qctobort l9Wt arKi def arrant «ra« appcinted adr^dniatrator
of his estate. Defendant tesstified that at the tii^e the #1000
nort^ge «aa delivered to hlzs he agreed to pay plaintiff tmd
Ollie $140 and $^0 reapeetivoly* out of the net pnioeede realized
fross tlie sale of the mortgage » <snly If Oharlee "sho\iid happen to
die" before t3->e s<^rt^S« *»« sold? that after he had received
tbe tnoney realized fro^ t!:^ aale he paid i^trious bills of the
I:H>apital and other billt! aijalnst iylmrlesp ani turned over the
net l^lance to C^&rlee, peracmally, before his deat^ saA that
it miB arr^m^:^ that Charloa should pay plaintiff and Ollie*
This testimony of the defendant is not eupported* Plaintiff
testified thtit she n&v&r received any part of the |140 o<»iBg
to her out of the prooeeda of the sale of aaid raortgage frow
axryone* wrsX, it appears froa tJse teatlraony of the defendant that
^o •xmo Mil «1 UNT £m loitMBooftX iirl« b*4olITU thlLmml
-oJalq ?o t'>o*>^^*^ ^' 'nocttm «Jkaa c«:rfor^ nod ^0 'i^ifntctti
^StSBhcV^9b fl9««J«tf Jb««n5A XXJUMh*v MRi ^1 ,
r>< vta (MX-MUfU 4adA ««iXXO bCM 'ini^filaiq «nMDU»«
A«Blei9n<i ir»£brT01to£ n.f>oo«cntT e;!^ vAA'm od# li
te«XXfl«ii «te«0(mi 4»r.
Ol iiM|q«cf bXwodo* ••XtMt:) rjRr tttfS sotl
h<^.f»s>en •^rf ^^ fitA 4«i. '« aM» «C!|A^, * *^
arf Arte i-'?^?q«ort
].:' "^ ^M f> iO o4 er. J©a
• 1 ftXiiadB evX-xfldl- liuf4 tec^ruytv «0v .t^
Tx -«»4T<M^y8 4«w «1 #(MJbm>'^Alk »rf4 "^o <?•«?«►#¥••-
■onl W!!^ :0 oXiM <x£4 !• iJ b f O P'» t Mt^ tO 4UO <l«cf ci
^di Infi; jd4 lo v>oal4««4 ««t; mrA vtBtt ^ a 41 .fina «»nOfcia
-5-
he paid 0111s th« |20 ooain^ to her otrt of oaid proc»«d9, arsd
it further eipp(mkra fron th© testltsony of plaintiff asO. olll»,
that after th© death of Gh&rles^ the d«f»rdar.t (at a aeeting
at vtt<Sr d9f»ndant, 0111»» plaintiff, ana plaintiff's attorjwy
ware present) waa askcKi vlien h« int«ndi^ to pay plaintiff tha
|140» and h© replied thut "he didn't Imv® it Just th&n^ Imt
«€fUiLd a«r!d a check for it the follo'^ing veek"«
fiw points aro argued by counsel fc«r defendant. They
oontend (l) that plaintiff did not pnsve her cast? by a prepotsd-
©rance of the eTid&noe» a?id <g) that th© prosalae sued on is a
special proiaise to s-ine^er for the debt of another, ia TM>t In
writing ar^ Is, therafcare, within the statute of fraDeie* We
are of th© opinion that the finding and Judgaont ars fully sup-
ported by tl^ evidence, and that th© "v^nrltMil agrees?®nt of Um
defendant^ to sell the SlDOO sortgage and out ot the proceeds
to pay 1140 to plaintiff and ^iO to Ollie, was in the nature of
an original undertaking axid not within the statute of frauds*
(Wileon v. Bevana, 58 111. 2SS» 2M| Prather t. 'i^inoyartlj 9
111, 40, 431 WaAden v» Karr. 38 111. 49? ; uehl© v. i:onteliu;ay
149 111. App. 41^^, 420*) Tbm jud^eztt of the superior o<mrt 1b»
aooor^inglyt afflicted.
brut ^ob^^ttovt btMn to iuo n9d oS ^ycissoe 08| wU •kilo bi^q •(!
i«Iq to XROcsilae^ ^li coil y M tq ^ * totUtift it
iMl/ tlUntmlq, X«<I oi ic^tntt^xa •« notm cojl«« ayev ( # 00 — -i q mv
iud ,n»fU latit <>^ «^«1 i*t%btb Ml" i»(tf tellqon od Ab^
• ''^••v galwoXXol <fc 1 ;Co*rfD Si brmm fttotw
^(•rfT •lftatm»')»b *iol l««miQ9 ^ ^t' ja eJ<ii<
--'beioqonq « ftf oo«o iwd •vovq Alq ij^U ( ^-r.c
« el no Mkjb •oloRnf sfU #mS# (•;) iMit , M<i t ft lTO mU to ooown
.i) •'IS ^ty*e^fivt ^ ^<f^ ^jiU r. ':
9(14 lo in««f»«r9A ImdtQV veil jmcu 2va odj ^ I) « jm>h
to MtfMn viU Etl nmn « rw Ttl^otAlq oJ OM^ x'? ^^
•Bfuamt l» iMsi^/vJv »di nliUiv joa tMm saKaino&r' jL;^ijb;Ho eni
«ai #«ioO To iw^tig 91U t» tnoai^Jbui or.
March Term, 1912, Ho.
307 - 10,547.
JOi^iam J. GRKALlSif, )
Appellee, )
) AI>Pfc:.U. FROM
▼a. / )
/ ) iiUPEKIOR COURT
SYXE^ oTiiKL |tOOFI?;0 )
COi^ANlf, a Ubrporation, ) COOK COUKfY.
/ Appellant. )
182I.A. 159
MS. JUSTICE aUIQLKi DSLIVEfiED TiiK OPIHIOK OF TliE COURT.
This Is an action to recover damai^es for personal
injuriea austained by Joueph J. Girealish, plaintiff below,
Trtiilo in the oraploy of Sy>.ea ;Jteel Roofing Gorapony, a cor-
pox^tion, defendajit below, occasioned by Ms falling frcia a
lod,";o, projecting fror;' the side of a bulldirig, about twenty-
five feet above the grotsnd. rhe Jury returned a verdict in
favor of plaintiff for i|;i250, upon »hioh the JiKi^ent wae en-
tered which this appeal aeelre to reverae.
The declaration orlf.inally oonaiatei of t.i0 counts,
but tile court instructed the jury that there could be no re-
covery under the aecond count of tl^ declaration* The gist
of the first count wao that plaintiff »aa an enployee of th*3
defendant, and «ao injured becauti^e he attenipted to obey an order
of a "foroiaan «hoae orders an^i directions It was his duty to
obey, and who was not a fellovv-ssrvant of thij plaintiff", and
that "ov/in^ to his iramaturity of age and his inexperience he
did not appreciate the danger incident to the act" which aaid
foreman had ordered hir; to do, anii that said forermn "knew or
should have knossn" that it was dangerous for plaintiff to do
the act which h© ivas directed to do, which act waa in the line
of hiiJ dutiea aa atioh enployee of the defendant. Two witnooaea
testified on beJialf of the plaintiff, viz: the plaintiff and
the phyaioian who attended hira after the accident. The def aid-
ant introduced no evidwioe except three photographs of the
O 9 r
oH
n
b i*9roo^rt
^« rts •! aiifx
i.'.Jaxra i.
t* tU tU 9llii
C iZfOTl
-f tnoftrwtt)
♦oaton
.If Solirxoy
S 8«W ©vod« ^iiii r
odi rfoifJ* nc
•ttinlMlq JO 1
.«8t«^»I oJ- c
>qq« BttUt fiotlte Mi^i
,QJ t lo t^Jnl
rjt •rt^
Aotf
.-^1 "to :^rutoi
ovoo
<LqH» nui B«w 11(i.tnifilq MmSit' i
' ^bxn IL,
J iMiqae^iJi erf eMMo^d i)«m«tfti - .^luiirf
o^ %^Lib Bid mem il •noiio«Tti» bttM mt^tr
' .' to
f>ru( «"lliinisXq oiU lo ^fssra*»->iioXXsl « ion mam odib Ac:.
lecj
•d •ono!'xeqxt>n2 mtd Ina «»j^ to xSttuJaaml tiff ^ yslvo* ^i- ^
Jbl«« (loiilv *io« ad;^ oJ Jftabioni lasttab acU a^iflioonqqa ion t^Jb
«> «Mnf* nanenol btjui ijuii boB ,ob •< aiiii twnalno I>ait riMM^c''
ofi OS lltSniMiq not auoTMyu&l) •«» J I imiU 'terocoC ar^d Mu
•otX efU nl ainr ^04» ffoldv «oL oJ i a4o*«li} ««• cd doiito io« •dJ
oaaaoflJItv o«T .4. MfJ lo ••toXqpw ffous «a ••IJTuA sitf Ic
tea tttiniAlm mU tciv «lli4nXaX« m i.isdatf oo tei ii«a4
-;)n»l«l) ad ciif twAoa^^A acta nslolt
acU lo iMiqatsoloiSq aavU 4qa«isa aonalxtT* on teex
building and plaoe of the accident. At the oonoltaaion of
plaintiff*B ca3e, the defendant asked tho court for a dlraot-
ed verUct in its favor, vrhich motion wiib denied* This rnotion
wae renoTsod at the close of all the evidence and wao al^jc de-
nied.
Tho accident occurred on the aftomoon of Dec^aber 13,
1906. Plaintiff was? then about oi|[^t««n ycfcars artd six months
old. The following facts appenr frora the teatijsony of the
plaintiff, to-vrit: Plaintiff had attmided grammar school until
he »a3 tMrteen years of age, he having then reached the third
grade. At the age of fourteen he went to work for tho /iiaerican
Can Conpany, working for about five ureelcs puttirjg covers on
cans with hia hands and worl^ing at the process of oiling tin,
Ihon for about two years he «orked for another eniployer "tak-
ir-g mouldings away" from a laouldin^. njachlne, which wai? operated
by aeana of cogs, & fly wheel, etc. Thereafter he worked fcr
a leathor HJanufaoturlng oo*apar,y f6r six isonthe, working alone
on a "chopping block", and laaing a die and laaul. Thereafter ho
vrorked for another oan corrspany, putting covers on cane and feed<
ing a can-aaking taaoJiino driven by a belt. In .ioptenber, 1906,
over three Konths prior to the accident, he started to work
for tho defendant and continued so to work until thtj^ day of the
accident* The superintendent of deftmdant trnga^ed plaintiff
aa a aheet metal worker's helper, arid instructed him to obey
any of the moohcxnice for whoni lie rni^t «ork aa a helper. Theae
mechanics »or)red on r^tin spouts, fir© proof ^indovro, cornices,
etc., and rauoh of plaintiff 'e. work tool- hin "right up on the
edges of the roofs", on the day of the accident, and for about
t«o v.eek3 prior thereto, plaintiff was working on the Oak Park
Hospital building. He had bo«i told to act as a helper to one
Leipsinger, ti mechstfilc, and to do whatever the latter oniered
nol^oar ml . rrn^ rSt rtf ft
f>»ftt:tfi J-
-iC*i* to-
Ttrt f 5 PfU3©« Yt^
or? -
Xetfo o3 T.Ll fioirtiBixl tea t^t^X^ff ••^efnr fir^^r: Jof».-fn n 'ar
•cerfT ,tBql9ti M mm shto* ^ftftlfl tt moda lo*)
^aeoirrxoo «avofMThr looiq m^ti «clcloqc nl«i no bottom or.
»r<.t ^ fro .1 *.i AooS ^10*. b*^tfffrfml'f 1o rforr ,.s}-
•no oJ rtaqlof^
fjcjeirto «Te#^aI atfi "rftvelMte oi ^ii»j
hlw to do. rhey were engaged in putting up rain epcuto and olry
li^jhts and"fladhin|f a ooppor roof, and plaintiff attended to
the irona and handed the tools to Leipainger when the latter
aekad for then, a little after four o'clock on the day of the
accident they had finished the copper roof en aald building,
said Leipainger tlion decided Ut connect up a rain spout, which
ran up and down the north aide of the building;, about three
feet frora the east end« rr get to this gpout, Leipainger step-
ped out of a second atory window, froK ten to twenty feet froia
the spout, and upc«n a ledge which ran around the buildinp' about
twenty-five feet above the ground. This ledge was about fourtewi
inches wide and "slanted a little bit about two inches froc3 the
brick and then wont straight. It wan level for about t«felve
inches* and wide enough to walk upon. Plaintiff followed Ir«lp-
stnger cut upon the ledre, because there wore no openings in the
wall of the building wlilch would per^Blt hira to hand the tools
to Leipainger fron the inside. There were *ro isrindowe or any-
thing of that sort* to hold on to when one waa on the led.^e,
and plaintiff teetified that he kne-? that w>i»n walking along the
led^e he had to be yrery careful not to fail off. Loipslnger
went up on a swlnginj: scaffold, built for Just on* m&n, a?Ki
started to work about eight or ten feet above plaintiff •a head
and about fifteen feet above the Isd/^e. Leipainger, while on
this aoaffold, pulled himself up and down by loesme of a *lefid"
ropo which hung down paot the ledge. Plaintiff had carried a
fire pot, used to heat Qolderlr^r irons rsith, out upon the led^e,
and Leipoingaar told hi?D to "go upstairs and i^et the rope and
hoi at theae irona up". Plaintiff got the rope, went out upon
the ledge and wan goin^r, to tie the rope to the "lead" line whon
Leipainger oaid "!?o, it takes too long that way: thrcis^ it upj
we will get the job done quicker; we }»ve only |tot fiftetm nlnutea
Xim tna. •iuo«i« niai <0i ani<liuii at JbosAyt* a^Mr t«>'
o^ b«i ^lAlq £ru «loort ^sqqoo « VilrteaXl'*ivia v^^aiX
■sellal Mli IT ■ alooi - >titi one
a.*!! looXo'o vwl fru mU4tl A .a«fU fttl b9tm»
«sniMlurf bl«« no loon tftioc tiS b»Amtnn bmd x^*^ iimbloe«
rfoiffv t^uoqa fli«i « qv ^oofinoo tii amdJ «i«inJtaql«J bam
rnvmH Su96m «aalt>IJtifd aJbie tliton odi rt«ol> licia qu ^0%
ooncl l9«l t^fMtil 94 n»4 aon bnooea « lo ioo Mq
luocfa ^nlbXlvtf edi trafooB rcBH do rrorru bna ^^tfoqc adtf
mU aorrt aerionl o«# lu •Itiil * hrta efrJhi a«do. i
•TXswi ;rtiotfA 10I If<y«X in»« tmtii btm Hatnrf
to«l i3««olL tn* mblm taa *l»iforfl
»(fi n' *qBon anov •te To;;ni«
mtoo4 ? Biff «lBV«f Mifov doldv yrlMltf^ wU iQ Xiju
"^ftim no cMrdtniv on* ^nav oiaitT .ot/ .'oqiaj ot
sf no mam mno tmttm oi no Mod oS *i"io« ^Mf# J9 91UU
•iff snola 8fci:(I«« m: tU bmtJUooi VUfaUiq U%0
•x«srtlBqi»j ,Vto 11 d XuI^iao VS9T 96 oi Jb«d od o?^!
bam «njn em ia^t "V^ Jllxid (i>Xoll4io« r^rrlantwa n» ^ ^obs
I n^dA i«ol mJ ■ ;> ;ruotfj t boiooM
no oXJ^dw ,T«sfTlaql*j : utiS e>< 11 iuotim bom
:woi> &na qu IXeaei \ROn BldJ
J] boJ^T': Bclf ^•4^1 nvol) ^outf doi^w aqvi
««M>*X ortf noqu 4sk> «dilR anon ' ^4 ol bmmu «ioq vxXl
rvw oqorr otU ioj? ixw rxiAJfaqu og*
noqw Svo if»« ,»qon r ^niaXS -vnl ommt^s laioi
nodk oail "iwoX* arc .'X^ O^ .<v tms Wfifml mdt
:cju Si wondJ ;xmw imA9 ytoX oo;r »♦
iurths ne«llXl iftj x^^no •ratf aw \imtibiup otsob dot mU 4e
-4-
to dc it In", Plaintiff theraupor. ooilsd the rops, and with
his left hand throw it up tow&rda Leipsinger, but the l&ttor
did not oatoh it. Plaintiff then again coiled tho rope and
again thirew it up with Use left hiind, usinj^ no nor« force
than Hhan ho threar it the firat tine, and plaintiff testified
that the eeoond tine he threw the rope, *X wa,a bearing up
againot the «id© of the btiilding, with ay ri ht hand, ao I
could hold nyself on the ledge and keep froas falling off the
ledge". vhile throwing the rope the aeoond tiise, plaintiff
*o verbal jtficed ancJ fell* to the groxmd below and ouffer<»d tho
injuries complained of.
Counsel for defendant oontt*nda tiiat the jtsdgnent ahould
because
bo reveroadj^d) plaintiff asauned the risk, and (2) wa« guilty
of contributory negligence in failing to raake use of the "lead"
line *?hioh hung near hlia in order to steady hlraaelf when he
thres the rope, eund (^) the court eiTed in giving the one in-
struction offered by the plaintiff and in modifying one of
the inistructior.e offerod by defendant.
Under tha facts of this ca«©, *« are of the opinion
that plaintiff is not entitled to recover, on the ground that
he assumed the rlslr of the danger and the injiiriee received by
hiia, ?/e do not think that plaintiff was misled by the order of
ijeipaingor, or that he did not appi^ciate the d^^nger incident
to the throwing of the rope while in the position he was.
^" RopV^l.^g Iron & oteel Oo. v. Lee, ^:y? HI. 24S,
868, it la said: "an exception to the doctrine of assumed
rlav exlsta v?here a aorvant la ordered by hi a isaster to do
certain v*ork ,?hloh is attended sfith d^u^g-^^ of «hich he la not
fully cognizant, imd he reliea upon the order tc do the isork
aa an aaauranoe that he may aafely perfors! the taak. <j :» »
It is only where the servant has been misled by the order of
lUJhi bam ••qOT Mtt ftolloo rto^m-ttU rtUntj tJt ^ •!
bm mqvt mat teXioe aU^u nmU .it dtb^am ioa lib
eo«K>'} atoa oit 911IM1 ,AdBid ^el •Mi Ulte qv ii «9V.
i}oi>i.ta»i ^ll^rtJbAlcr teui ««■!« i«nrk •tfl il m>vU •dm
qu TKnli 94 mm. : \ BtU wn<U •!( •mlt lw oo<« ;#it ^
•rfl ¥S# 8(rllX«) ■O'il 4«»il teft •3t«X
:q ^ttvii taoo«« Mii^ •qoa
•(tt b«««YlUB tx7ii volai bcBMnS Mft o^ *1X<»1 bm b«c
."^:> b«rcl«lqa»d ••l<Xr(r;i
XiXlaa ttifv (a) Am «*!« Mfi b^aim m M T {i)^,h #«n »y< ctf
"bf!^*^!" 9tU lo ••V •x'Ms o^ strtXfjl ol sr 1 ^no Jii tflnitioo r
»d OMfv TXvamlit tlu»e^« o^ ftno sU mid nufa smni dottta onf i
•^1 onro eiU ;staXiri:Ti nX h»m« i^tt«oo •di C^) tna ••qon •HI aei >
^ •fl<o ,jrr£i lliJoiAlq eifl x^ tomYto noXJaxnis
..i-^j:ibnol»b jP baiMYlo •noXJftiniant . 'J
'•t •di n«l
#jutf hatiortji iti no ,i6«oo«-z ol b^XiXlrr« ^on •! Hi
X<f h9wt—9-i mmtttfint mtU bum i^^fmh •sU lo tutu aiU b*er
to noMo •Hi t« <>«X»1r Bma r ■ iaifi 4rM^ ton ob sir .aXil
irf»61ortf im^ruUt mtU •laXo«tq<}A ^on hXb Mf #Arfi to ,iB»3|Ki»ql«J
.aa» •#! nol4X«oq mU rtl •XAta •^•t fSi 10 yilvonflt aill oj
t— J »T ♦oO ^
b«iuj»a« K> •nXi^oob •di oJ^ noliqoox* oS" tJ^iaa •! J' ,8^u
ICNi aX oif cfelrtv lo lo^yisii <1«X» X>»ta»^i« ml lisXcfii itn>«( ra«i*a»o
:<<iov BAi Ob oi teb'so oiU mmt^ ••lX«n Mf Atm «liSMlmB» uLUfi
.tmmi od^ Bnto^iaf xi^^^M T^i mI i«(f^ •cumwmma rw ••
Ho Tui-io 9di x*' iylmtm atfd mmA ^mmrtmm miH m -m t tm xlao mt tl
-5-
the aster that the oxoeption ejciats" ,
in algln J. 'a K» Hy > Co, v, li&y&ra, 22^ -^-ll. 3BR,
3<55, it l3 said: "Whero the aojrvant knows of a defect, or
what the danger ia, he oannot b« said to z^sly upon the aasiir-
anoe that the dar.ger does not ©xist. It ia only where the
servant has been ralalod by the asaxiranco of the imater, or
some on© standing in the master's place, that he can erousg
himself from the aseuaption of risk on the ground that he
has been aasured by the maater that there ia no dan/?:er in
the use of the applianoe or pieoe of jmichinery vrhit^ he knows,
as a Batter of faot, is defedtive ond the use thereof attended
wltii danger*. As s&s said in the ctmse of ;allo!»ay v. .:hioago
K. I. A ?, Ry. 0Q. $S4 111, 4*?4, 481: •«©«*© not thirk thara
ie any evidence in this record that indioateo any incapacity
of the appellee, by re * son of ignorance, iisciaturity or inex-
perience, to fully understtmd and fully appreciate the daaiger
to which he was exposed". And as waa said in Kresiaar v, onaha
Packing Co. , 155 111. App, 338, 343: "The plaintiff had passed
beyor^ the stage of thoughtleaa childhood and was not ohtltlod
to special cars by the defendant, as his employer, on account
of his age. whatever danger there wao in hie eroploynent was
not hidden but waa open and obvious. He was of sufficient
age and discretion to understand and appreciate the risk to
ahioh he Kfas exposed, and oust be held to have assuned the
ordinairy hazards and perils of his eraployaent" .
The judgment of the ;iupericr Coxart in reversed with
a finding of facts to be incoi^orated in the Judgment of this
ease.
REVHRSED WITH FIHDIH-I OF FACT3.
-fl-
••tit^^a n-.c Oft ioT! ' i9^«Mi adi al ^filtiiM^m ono mic
ni ^e^^oab on ai an^di ^«/tt la^Ciia act? \ -^©c^ ar
te£n»iiJi looniMCi s^u^r .ixU Xiuia avUto'laJE) si ^.rofll "-o lalJMi ii &.
o- ;>A .Maacnib dil<
-ccfefsi to \J- .1 to n'
l>«X^iirt9 ion •«« to* boootULOc ucax^ii^uxi} io o^jsSl mu xxs3x«
inuooo* no , 't>b •lU x^ *^^b^
'; Jin ax sii-^ 'taA i«v
intjisii'iaju lo •«« aH aeitcUYUo ixia fi»qo &«9 Jiitf noLLX
^ 9i«t«>«<xcf<T« Ixi« lifsaJanaiMB/ oi nolS»tP9tb bna 9^
oiU LdCiJasa v^*i lynm ^b»moqzo bmh ad d
.*ir»sV' ' '•* «ftnu»»ad x'tjuiltr:.
slil^ LeKTov;*-! oi iTtioL lOtivqj^ 9iU 10 in:
-6-
Ftnding of faotat We find, «8 ultiiaata JTacta In
thia case, that appellea know of and appreolftted th© danger
inourred by him In throwing the rope rsertioned In th© proofs,
while standing on the ledge of the biilldlng, and that he asaum-
ed the risk of euoh danger arul of the Injuries siuetalnod by him.
March Term, 1912, Ho,
516 - 18555. /
y
PR/JIK TRENEJfORST/ ?.?FG. 00., )
a Uorporatlcm, I )
Defendant in \\ttot, ) ERROR TO
^ )
vs. I ) MORICIPAL COURT
JOiiK PvfF.R, ) OF CHICAOO,
lalntiff in S3rror. )
18 2I.A. 160
UB» JUSTICE aiaDLKY DELIVERED THE OPXMIOH OP THE COURT.
John Peter, defendant below, seeks by this «rlt to re-
verse a judir.a&nt against Mia for ^(?i?7,99, rendered in the
Municipal court of Ohioagc, upon the verdict of a Jury, in an
action of the fourth class comnonced by Fr^ik Trenkhorst Mfg.
Co., a coinjoratlon, plaintiff belov., for damages for alleged
breach of contract.
It appears fro^ the evidence that Frank Tarenkhoret,
president of plaintiff cotspany, had several convorsationo in
the fall of 1909 vflth defendant relative to a "corrugated iron
Job" or. the buildings of the Com Products Co., at Argo, Illinois,
Trenkhorst told defendar.t that hi a ooTspary was intending to bid
on the job and asked defendant "for a price on No. IC sjnd No.
20 oornigatod iron", A day or two afterwards, acoordir^ to the
testimony of Trenkhorst, the def«»>d&nt told Trenkhorst tJutt "he
vould put on No, 18 corrugated iron for ;^10 a square, and rio,
20 for ^9*50 a square" J that at this tlT^e Trenkhorst did not
tall defendant how many "squares" there were in the job or ©x-
hibi% eaxy plans or specifications, but said tliat he would aerKl
defendant blue prints as soon as he got then frora the Corn ^^ro-
ducts Co., and that nothing was said as to »hen the work was to
be ooinpleted and when payments wore to bo nade. Accordir^ to
tlie teoti.nony of the defendant, wl.er he (defendant) quoted the
above price, it «.'aa "only estimating", and that he told irerA-
horst that ho had "get to have sone plans". On October Bth,
'015 ,S£GI ^nrrsT doieJl
fto^i • r.-ir utmtmb Ait- .o £X4l •*!
^forti' ,.p^ sidi/ixji^i if«0O «rti lo «3nll»Iiud odi no "dot
1 a«v X i4»qi!!06 «li1 ImU IfwinoloA Moi i«<KO(tfi«rxT
«o^ !•< V' •t^l'xq « lol* JrrjBiKiol^b te:te« bam dot •<<^ oo
•rt^ .-J . ^-.•»i«^lA owi io XMb A m^narU bmimstrrtoo <fc;
e"" ia.ii i< tT Mnt irt£lMtfl»l» Mil «MnradJCno^ lO V'O'ai**^^
^m ,etr>yf:r. . -i* -r- xJ J)«*Bajmoo 81 .oM no inq bloom
Ion ftl^ -■ r^oMipa H Od.«4 '*<i') 0^
-xe ID tfot tii rtl •ton •nod' ' x^i*" vo<< InaiMioloft XI»i
Irre* tXa«» ad iatf* hUm $mS ««aoXiAOlliooq« 10 onaXq tna tltfl^f
-o^ rt x>0 «U ma^Ck tmU io% mA %m aoom mm •4isl*iq ofltf ln4ifxi«l«J
o$ mam *um mtU n»di oJ mm btsm mmm ■yit:Uon fmtU tnm ^.ot mtmuL
03 9tlbtocmf* •mbmm md oi onvv •^n«on(«q noctw tea boioXqnee ocf
mtiS bmSoufi {^tiBbnm^mb) md norlw ,imiAn©'I^f- »ns lo ynorfiiso^ od^
- '-«»-r! blaJ Of? ?i5rf^ bna «*yci^«Ki#«« .©Jtiq ©rodx
M
plaintiff wrote defendant ae followu: "You can enter our order
for about 340 aquares of Mo. iJO oornigated galvanized iron,
to be put on buildinns at Argo, Illinola, for the airtount of
$9.50 per square, leos ^200 after the Job lu oompleted. You
might prooeed with thla work at your earliest convenience*. on
October 13th, plaintiff sent defendant the blue printa by a
nessoniser boy. On Ootober irth, defendant wrote plaintiff to
tho effect that he (defendant) hod taeem out to Argo, illlnolss,
with one of hla best echanica, and that he fotmtl thnt h« could
not handle "that job" or th&t "kind of work", Def aidant tentl-
fiod that, in one of the ccnverBationa with Trenkhorst before
he saw the blue printa, Trenkl^iorat told him that "It was a cne-
atory buildinc and the iron and alatea riveted", and that, after
he had received the blue printa an<i had made the trip to Argo,
he found that things were "entirely different", and that "there
waa a bif, elevator, about aix atories high, and everything had
to be put on by hand on a aoaffold". Fourteen daya after plain-
tiff had received defendant *e letter of October ir>th, refusing
to handle tho job, to-wlts on October 30th, plaintiff wrote de-
fendant as followas "\?e will be obli/^-ed to look for another
contractor to do tJ-se corrugated iron worlr iJhlGh you contracted
for, and will hold you reaponaible for the differ*>no9 in the
price", Defendant did not reply to thla letter and had no fur-
ther oonveraationo with any representative of the plaintiff,
Trer^horat teatifiod that after inquiring of the sykes Roofing
Co, and of tlie tJaoKarlEme Hoofing Co., he arranged with the
fonner conpany, on November lat, to do the work aiAd that that
company "ooiapleted the job" In Apjril, 1^10; thtit there were
871 \/z aquares in all of the build inj^sj that the price char^^ed
by the aykes Jo» was $10,22 l/l7 per aquaro, which asaounted to
the total sum of ^,907 .241 that he paid thla sun to the Gykes
I'jbio Tuo-r^iB* nam hot* c»«oXXol »'
ii^JtlkllxKf no itiqjitf o^
t ^fuM^
luU" tllH^
-I. •'4* •X2-.
•a/I on feed bfui i94S%l i«n Ion bi "xq
3 •vlJ«#n»««n4*^ X<^ ilflw onolifiSTeviAO t9Si
>- . . MMXtA'^AA^t tl4 lo X
i# «b o# ^i i! -i^iuovoK no «tn«q'
f,lttqA nX ' t>o^«j: oo
•^ a Miiq Off i«fU (ML. itm Xa^oJ *iU
Co. J that at the price quoted by defendant of '!j9.50 a square
the total amount would be $B2'?9,2^, and that the ilffer«*noe waa
tho aua cf f«a'?.9e. Trenkborst Wi?.« unable to toRtify that thla
price of $10.22 l/l7 per square una the reaeonnble and fair
aiarket prloe» and no other witnesa ttatlfied that it waa. At
the trial the attorney for defendant obJecte»l to the witneas,
TrenJchorst, testifying aa to the aiaount ?»hloh the plaintiff had
aotually pa l d^ to the Sykes Co, and to the dlff «r«noe between thla
Bucj and th© auid Buvn of ^8279,25, as not tending to ehow th« proper
jseaaure of dswnagea, but the pbjootlon was overruled by the trial
court,
ud are of the opinion that the ^rdict and judf^raont ren-
dered In thl» oaee ar« contrary to th© la* and th» evidence,
and that tho jud,«;raont should be re ve reed and the oauao renarded
for a new trial* Passlnj^ the question ao to whether or not the
evidence auffiolently showa that there wan a definite contract
made between the parties, &ci to arhloh we exprese no opinion, but
aeaunin/; that there was a contract and a breach thereof by the
def*?ndant, plaintiff's damoge^T were not properly proven. ( 3ertra B
^» Berg<iuiot , 153 111. App, 43, 45.) I'lirtherraore, In plaint Iff 'a
letter of October 6th, the order in for "about 540 aquaree*, and,
aa io evident fron Uie testimony and the arsount of the verdict •
and judf,aent, the court must have oonaidered ttet tho defendant
oould be prop«rly ohargeable on the aald difference In the price
per square on 871 l/2 aquareo, which, in our opinion, under the
evidence in this record, cannot t& euetained.
mmv •mru' J bim « . . />$ •<f bXuovr 3mmmM ialoi •rli
r><t «il# imw •■SAxipa n^q Tl\l £ ^ •oliq
^A '/••nitv n^rlie Of« brra ^ootiq $^ihmm
£(4»K " « •*()> oi lui nnlt'^iio** f iwlT
air Ai1# qkA' ftRA .oO aa^yo •rf^ ^o»
«M<n»*i torr u ?TU« i»l«« •ffJ teui km
10 o«M Mr
lao aifU nl boneoft
^f:: De aifd brut jMoTviron otf > ii:<ft hew
OiCi ■ '•rUsrffc 0^ y:ft -. tol
1^1 ^•••■rtncFj taq arfl rrooviotf obac
MNT OT^r?^ i/ul} rrrrlAMMA
•••! ,5> .<rc; •HOBHfi •♦
♦ ^el-hrrwv e-tt *lo Ifi txta "^ I mit swirt *ftc •«
T»i ': r •vurf loun ^m#^o oxtt tfraaisjbut bm
• rtf no ^UMwymrto xltt^itot^ »rf bli/oo
tiro nl «r(olr^u |i>rruxiro sV ^t^ f> tosijpttiof
.bonlA^ano etf ^orrrvo *: •onoftiro
"^'^ -"■-■ ■■- -lip jy
355 - 1Q376. ' " " ' '
-■arch Term iJQi ^
THE iJU/iLiTY C/^ CO!.{PAN?, )
a corporation,! ) APPdAL raOM
Appellee, )
) MUNICIPAL OOUIiT
OF CHIOAOO,
Appellant.
■^ Al _
18 2I.A. 175
•<fK. JUSnOK -^RIDLKY DELIVERED THE OPIWIOR OF 'illK COURT,
Thla la an appeal from a judgisent of the iftmiolpal
Court of Ohioago for |S000, In favor of the Quality Car Cora-
pany, a corporation, plaintiff below, and agalnat J. J, Cor-
kill, aoferdjint below, In an aoticm of the first olaaa. The
oaae waa tried before the court without a .lury, and was com-
menced by the filing of an affidavit, etc., for art attachment,
but aubaequantly the defendant entered into a reco^laanco in
open court and the attachraent wua dissolved.
Plaintiff's claim vrao for raoney due uison the following
note, to-wlt:
^2000, Jan, 20, 1911.
3 niontha after date 1 proptise to pay to
the order of Pronler :!otor I'fg. Co. Tno
Thousand and no/lOO Doilare at 2'S29 Michigan
Ave., Ohloafio.
Value reo^-ived, with Interesst at tli« rata of
6 l/£ per cent per annus,
J. J. corkill.
The following endorsenenta appeared en the back of
the notet
Pre«iler ifotor Mfg. Oo.
By W. .:. Stalnalrer.
Pay to the order of
Continental and >-'ornnercial National Bank
of ^hicaf!;o,
All Prior tindorsepionta guaranteed.
The Quality Gar Company.
The defendant, in his original affidavit of merits,
admitted the execution of the note, and stated that ho dolivored
^
■ HB n» mX aiitr
'^''••nK):
:«ion •ft^
-i2-
th« aare to the plaintiff at the latter 'a request, that aald
execution ar^ delivery wau wholly without oor^aideration and
solely for tJie aoooimwdatlon of the plaintiff, that the note
-»aB delivered by the plaintiff to the Preraler Co., and that
at the tloe of the endoreenont and delivery of the not© by the
Premier Oo, to the plaintiff, the plaintiff waa not a purchaser
for value and well lcne» that the note wan without ocna id oration.
The trial of the oase was originally coramenoed on June 9, 1911,
at which tlsae the plaintiff, to raaintaln the Iseuos on ito part,
offered the note in evidence, and no objection to Its intx^Jduo-
tion was raado by defendant, and plaintiff rested ite oaae. The
defendant thererupon called ff. a, Stalnakor, general rm^iager of
plaintiff, 7-a a witnesr? under section 53 of tJio iiunlclpal Court
Act, and, after he was examined at acme length, the attorney for
defendant aeked leave that time be giv^i deft*ndant to prepare
and file an anonded affidavit of merits, which motion was granted
and the further trial of the case wae continued. On AUfjuat 17th
the amended affidavit wa« filed In which the defendant again
stated that the note waa executed by the defendant and delivered
to the plaintiff at the lattor*a requeat, ard that the execixtion
and delivery was wholly without consideration and solely for
plaintiff 'a accoraniodation, but stated that the note was never
delivered by the plaintiff to the Prosslar Co., and was never
endorsed by the Premier Co, to the plaintiff. The trial of the
oase was resunied on October 2, 1911.
It appeared Tron the evidence that the PrecJier Oo., a
corporation, manufactured autotnoblles at Indlanapolia, Indiana;
that this corapany v»a.a repreaonted In Chlca.^r.o by the plaintiff
corapany, which was a aeparate corporation and engaged principal-
ly in eelllng the autoraoblleo m^^ufuctured by the Preoler Co. ;
that H. 0. wraith was the president of the Premier Oo.} that
btiM not^mi9bitirtoo Suodtim ^Llo^iv (mw ^ne▼lX•^
«soft 9iiS smiU « i(( tU le noi n to— > u ca efU foi x^«lo«
Mfi Y^ '«iTJtX«l» brxm itfmna'Vftnm tU to Mill tSt $•
t*c«<fe*iU9 « to l«Xq «rU •tllinialq •rll toicm*;
.r>oii«f».' * vr«fT]( XX«w C»M •ffXiiT nol
«./' .9 «d« onao mU lo X«J^xi «tfr
.,'1 X% tU muli iintdm iz
jio ell t^ ^■
to ^Btt--;
Lll JbOA
Ai WO (I4IW MUlO «ru !• X«im lOiUtLi ail^ Arui
•if>JJaX tit i» niifiiaXq oiU oi
oav <vt«irlX»b r.'/;
•servR iwjw <00mooo« a*llXirri«X4
tvro: nXJniaXq ofCi ^cf bonoTtXot
•rfi to X4iJt*i' < r-xiiniaXq OfU ol ••0 loXnotS •dt \cr teoiobrto
•IX OX «8 lodoloo no i>Mni«n •«« M^e
m ,«oO "tilMM vdl iwtt eortolriYO odi norft l>o^}»qq« i:
ltXini«iqr rrl tminnfi^tfivn •«» Yn«x«oo lliW l«il9
"iu^lwiXiq tes^sno brui nolljiio<i*xo« •ivi^ n« iloir! too
(•90 •wlvwnn %Ai x^ hmiaiomliutmm ■•Iltf oefo. ^X
iptcli j.oO •l«iMOlt«? otfl Tq Mtr M» rilt
W» E. iitalr.aker was th© general raanagor of the plaintiff in
chapg© of Ita business in ohloago, but waa not an officer of
the prerler Co.; that deforidart was the owner of a *19io* Tour
cylinder l^roraier autbraobile and that in Deceasber, IP 10, defend-
ant and L^talnaker had a oonversatlon aa to the defordant purchao-
ing a new aix cylinder i'renier oar of plaintiff, the price atal-
nakar would charge for auch a oar, and how defendant's old car
should be dlapoaod of, ih© teatln^ony of defendJint and talniiker
aa to what w&o said at thia oonvoraiition la quite oonflloting.
The defendant saya that the oonversatlon wao to the effect that
plaintiff would sell to defendant a new oar for about ^•r5lO0, and
plaintiff would take defendant's old car In trade at the mm of
about §£f>00, and defendant pay plaintiff the dlfferonoe in caah.
Stalnaker oaye that he told defendant that the price of the new
car waa jSSOO, that he would not taV© defendant's old oar in trad©
at the price suf^ostod by defendant, vizt |£;500, but that he would
8©11 defendant the new oar for ^3150, the defendant t. diiipoeo of
hi a old oar hinself , i^liateyor the conversation waa, on Ueoember
B, 1910, plaintiff, by ^italnalfer, * len, Mgr.", wrote defendant in
part as followai " Oonf irrdnf, our oonveraation of to-day, we will
furnish you one of our uix cylinder (ilubman cars -^ ^> for the aura
of |3f)00, f.o.b. Indianapolie; * * w© are to allow you on the
puz^ihaise price of thle oar the sun of $S50, as a conraiaalon to you
on account of y our disposing of your present I'wlO Prowler car. In
other words, you ar^3 to pay ua §3150. *> » W© are to have th© alx
cylinder oar ready for delivery aa ooori aftor January lat ao poss-
ible". This letter was received by defendant. At? to what subse-
quently occurred between the parties, tho teatiraony of Gtalnaker
and defendant is alao very conflicting. iJtalnaker testifies that
a few days thereafter defendant called and said "I RCt ycur letter,
and it ia all rl^t« Go ahead and order the car" , and that istal-
'3*
-^ '■ ^.^o wen " ' ^bft»lt* Ai9«
lu <.'<i«vik;o o:^^ *i^<voJ ~ . . Oficrxn .tilO JbXO fllrf
*« , . _ '.r ^ .. -# ^ - r f -aj* fcA^.> r_ i^r .» j^
./-'X Huix.H ' — - - n i Loqjuns ' ' -^ .'. .^ .' lo
«I . '*- — •- ' -'■ - " -10
<.>^^ !<..
-4-
nak«r ordored it of the Prenisr Uo.j that after tlie oar had
arrived defendart again called mrjd said that he had not yet dia-
poBod of his old car am that ho would be obliged to pay for the
new oar partly In notoaj that after eeveral oonversatlone It
was agreed that defendant would pay §«50 In oash, give a thirty
day no to for $500, and a 3 laontho* note for "2^2000, and that the
notes ahould be made payable to the Premier <Jo,, inasinuoh a© the
Premier Co. had cliarged the plaintiff with the wlioleealo price
of said car anil stalnaker thought he could turn over the notes
to the Preniar Co. in part payment of plaintiff's indebtedness
to the Premier Uo. for said oar; tJiat, accordingly, on January
20, 1911, the defendant gave a cbeok for ^650 and personally wrote
out the notea in plaintiff's office and eigned th^sj, and the new
oar was delivered to defendant and a written nenorandian of the
sale, or invoice, wao EicUled to defendant. According to the de-
fendant's veroion the aisreemont waa entirely different. Defend-
ant testified that ehortly after the receipt of plaintiff's let-
ter of Docoir.ber Bth, defendant called and said that the writtem
propoaition wua entirely at variance with the talk previously
had; that after several conversations stalnaker finally &fi;roed
that he would take the old oar in trade at the price of .52500
and would be able to eell the same before the notes beoarie due,
and that defendant signed the no tee with the understanding that
the notes were raerely aoooiraaodation noteo, pending the eale by
plaintiff of the old car, and were to be sfifint to the Prersler Co.
and not to be placed in any OliioafiO bank. Stalnakor, on the con-
trary, testified that absolutely nothing mia ever auid to him by
defendant about the notoa being aocownodation notes, or that he
(atalnaker) at any tine said that he would take the defendajit's
old oar in trade for any such euin. Although the letter of Jan-
uairy i30, 1911, mailed to defendant and being a written memoran-
bBf -wc 9<i trtr^c ijui. ft9frf9 wi4 1« #1 b9ftno •«#*«
-all? ivy "f^ "^f** f^» ^ rbcf^h b^fti-
^ 'fm -i«D Mo slrf Id f.-; ■
Mli ; . mbrnm md t.
sbcfttttth oJ bmlltm •jbw ,ftoJbov ,9i«a
oXdA 9d Mjjo« bfta
toliabommo90M xXon^n •nev fi«10fi Oif ?
fti»« Ina fiiM bl9 tifi to 'niJnlAlc
XfM at AmmXv otf oi io(t In.
ifmpcom sniocT moson »rts SuxxiM InAJbrntOt
•dt mtmi tLuo^ or! iadl blMi me t« (lA^MiiAia)
t»^#vX orU zf^uort: ?M tn* nol •&«t^ at !«• file
tw « anlotf boA D«I1«« «Xiei «0Q '
V-
f «i'
■oo
•AS
-6-
diMB of the sal© of Uie oar, ttppeara to havo roacheil its dostlna-
tlor., defendant raade no objection to th© toraa th«r»of« H© aeya
in excus© of thia that ho does not reoolloot having ae&n this
paper wntil aftor the pro»©nt auit waa oomnenoed, vrhan h© wont
thi*oug>i certain files and found it, and that his secretary Biust
have rooAivod tho letter ard filed It away without showing it to
him. ThiB pap«r was a neraorandum or invoice to the effect that
plaintiff had "sold" to defendant a "ProtRler, 1911, ClubEian" oar
at tie net price of ^^3150, and that there had been received "on
the abovo account •• a check for lijftfjO, a thirty day note for fftOO
and a ninety day note for |iiOOO,
iJtalnakc^r te»tlfl«Jd that the day following the oalo and
delivery of the new car to the defendant, he telephoned H. c,
Sinlth, president of Pr©raler Oo», at Indianapolis, infoxnaod him
that plaintiff had dollvered the oar to defendant and had taken
tho two notes, and that plaintiff wouid send said notes to the
Prealer Co. in payment of that mioh of plaintiff's indebtedness
to the Preraier Co. on aaid oar; that thereupon 3raith replied:
"Don't send the notes to us. \':e want the money. You liold the
notes and oolleot them" ; that IStalnaker then aaid that he had
had the notes niade payable to the Proraier Co. j that 3iaith re-
plied that he "did'nt oar© anything about that", and further
said: "You ^ ahead arKi collect them, and hold thoia until they
are due and deposit then in the bank for ooll action and send us
all tho px^oeods*. stalnakor further testified that about th«
tine the note« respectively fell due he endorsed thora "Preralor
Motor Mfg. Oo», by W, E, Stalnaker*, and deposited t^ieia witii the
bank for collection, anrl that tho '^2000 note, frow the time of
its execution until it was so deposited in the bank, wes contin-
uously in the possession of plaintiff.
J'l ,. .♦/ :«» ;»•••«< «CU f»il« ll^CW ^l*ff«-:
jQtpi ^at#<f o V kna ••lit nl«#i*0 itjMii'irt^
dn»t96 oi "blag" bml Vt.*
■■.;•> ■»• «a«ion <•
cUine lAxU |«oO lalnnH MM o4 •Umxaq •bmm ••ion ad^ bmA
T<ridg^vft bnn ^^SmU iuotf« amlriixn^ •na» lii*Alft* Mf i«ifi bftll<;
fu M/li Morf i:)»3 ,awrU lo«IiLo« Jbtti lM«tf« 08 «oT* ibiim
'£XM not#ooXioo tol -i^rsd •*!$ ak mmU #laoq«ft imja ooft oiMi
iiMirfA i«u 5oniiooi t^Aintn ttaUnlitin •"«l>ooo9nnr •d# XXj
:U lm««aoftno Mt M/li IX«1 yXovl^oo^or ooion oit# >mlU
•tfi fOi.. mivtl ^ .X .1 ftf ,«00 .alV ft#o?v'
) ' adi MO'"' a/!j ^Adi ino «noiio*IXoo 'wl jiaMf
-rri 'f 9Ai at teilc ^rjoOSO Oil
-6-
Aft8r the Jgoo no to ti&d laaturecl and had be«n depoeltod
for oollootlon with the hurik and defendant had bser notified by
tho bank, defendant wrote Stalnaker aa fcllowsi "Dtttxr stalnakeri
1 only j[^ot in towi at 1j:50 and received notice from the banl? of
note duo. This escaped lae aa 1 thought it was 3 months. » * I
onclooo ok, for l^kJOO and a new note for |v500, which I hope will
bo acceptable to you. Pis, mail old note to ra© at the club*.
Plaintiff accepted the check arei the new note, Tho new note was
dated I'eby, Jj?-, 1911, waii made payable to the order of the Premier
Co., wao deposited in tho bank for collection by plalrtlff bear-
ing the aane endorsenenta as the |600 note, and was paid by de-
fendant shortly after maturity, vv'hen the |2000 note matured it
waa not paid and plaintiff ooranenoed thie action.
It ia fir»t contended by counsel for defendant that the
finding and judgment of th-:^ trial court is errtjneous because the
evidence clearly eotabllehed that the note nued on war. an acoorrano-
dation note and was without consideration. Without further dis-
cuBsicn of the teatlnony, and purtloularly the portions thereof
especially relifd upon by oounaol, auffio© it to eay that after
careful exaraination of the voluminous reoorcl w© ari of the opin-
ion that the finding and Judgment m*& auffioitaitly eupportiid by
tho evidence. The introductiv:sn of the not<s? in evidence, ^?lthout
objection, ra&de & i^rJ Es a facie caoe for the plaintiff, and the
burden of proving that the note wae without oonsidoratlor an;l
wae a ner-^ aoooiruaodation note rested upon the defendant, ( ^'OKeand
v. Feinberc , K5 ill. '*pp. 5274, ar7? S^oidioken v. ..afford, 197
111. £40; ->taoker v. Hewitt, 1 ticaia. 807) and we cannot imy that
contention.
the defendant clearly e*»tabli9h©d his ccskkx In fact, we think
that the preponderance of the evidence is y^gainat defondant'e
contention.
>n <>*TifM>r« i>cui 0£tl Ji« mot nl lo;,
*9niM^j
:t3 xLina <i iruUxtt'
i-w bam . :^Ai>
cioeqae
^*Ct» V .xu
«noi^an<ln9i)
r
-.^«
It Is next ur^ed th&t a delivery of a note to the payee
Is neoeaeary to Its validity, and that, Inaamuoh aa the note In
qfueatlon never pasaod Into the actual poaseasion of the Preroier
Co., no delivery to the payee was ehown. We do not think that
there la any merit In the contention. A delivery of a note to a
third person as acont of the payee, and by Y^hloh the maker loaea
control of the note, la a mifriclent d«llv«ry# ( shaw v. Qarrrp,
160 111. 42.'), 420.) "It la not Indiapenaabl© to the delivery of
a proniosory note that It should paaa into the personal poaaeaalon
of the "pa-yee* If doliv.)ry io made to another, for the payee,
without condition, his accept anoo of It may be prefjurood, and the
delivery of it will he oonplete*. ( Gordon v, Adarsa, 127 111, 2SS»
i:;26.) The defendant In both hla original and awendert affidavit
of raerlta admitted that ho delivered the note to the plaintiff,
under the facto of thle case, w© think that the defendant signed
and delivered the note with th© intention of thereby paying In
part for th© n©» oar which he had purchased froia the plaintiff,
but thut, at ijtalnaker's requent and for the reasona stated by
Stalnaker, tho Premier Co, was nacied ae payee In the note. The
legal title to the note was then either In the Prersler "o. or the
plaintiff, and it was auboequently endorsed "by the Prerriler Co.,
per atalnaker, over to the plaintiff,
aut oounucl further contend that the note waa not in
fact er:dor«ed by the Premier Go, to the plaintiff, and plaintiff
never acquired title to tJve note t,r.d the right to sue thereon,
for the reason that there le no evidence showing utalnaker*s
authority to endorse the note on behalf of the Premier Co. over
to plaintiff. Yih think that the teatlEiony of Stalnaker an to th©
direotlona he received frora Smith, president of the Prejnior Oo.,
over the telephone, euffloiently shows, under the fact 3 of this
caae, 3talnaker'3 authority to endorse said note so as to enable
rxon r.: ' :
StnL
to
r orti
t^ ^'^nr..•f?^;• ir«ft or!i Tfi*^ ^Bq
."til I i«ia i»<r
ft *<5rT sflw fttfi -ft ftft' -^smxot) *
•■1
<\ \
plaintiff to Bue Uiereon in its own name* oectior IS of the
"Negotittbl© instruiaont Law" of 1907 provides: "The aignature
of any party raay bo made by a duly authorized agent. No partie-
ulyr form of appolntraent is neceasary for thle purpose | and
th© authority of th© ag nt reay he ©atablished ao in other oasea
of agency". In jj'ountain v. Books taver» 141 111. 461, 406, it
is aaid: "Authority to an agent to execute or indorss a nego-
tiable Inatnuaent may be givon by parol, and no particular form
of worcla la necessary for that piirpoae" .
For the reaoona Indicated the judgraent of the vunlclpal
Court ia affirmed.
AFFIiM£D.
Mum mfo mil tU oorufU mis o# IM^ntslq
ii««*0 T[«ilir» fr* •« br ,.» 9114 lo r ii
••cqiiff A onioivTi 3it n« oi X'
tb^e-'xlttB
llarch Tern, 1512,, Ho.
/
343 - 1:363, /
/
MARY COLLI lA, )
r !
va, I \ CIRCUIT COURT
OHIOAOO CKT RAILWAY ) OOOK COiniTY.
•^^*"'""'^- , 182I.A. 176
MH« JUSTIOh, GHIDLt*Y DELIVERED THE OPINION OF tHli COURT.
This ia an appoiil frons a Ji^gmefnt of tho clroult ooiart
of Cook County, rendered upon the verdlot of a jtiry, in favor
of Mary Oollina, plaintiff below, and against Ghioago Glty Rail-
way Oompany, defendant below, for fEOOO, aa damages for Injuries
sustained by plaintiff while attenptin^^ to board ono of defend-
ant's electric ©treat oara at tha interaootlon of l3(?th street
and Kentworth avenue, in the oity of OMoago.
Wentworth avonue runs in a north and south direction
and in interaeoted at right angles by 2'"tth street. At tho tine
of the aooldent, whidi ooourrod or. 'lovesibor 2C", 1909, between
9 and 10 o*olock in the evening, the defendant had double traok
lines of street railway in both streets* Korth-bound oars in
Wentwortii avenue ran on the east traclt and sotath-bound oars on
the westtraclc. Hlast-bound oara in kJCtth atreet ran on the aouth
track and weet-bound oars on th& north track. Plaintiff was an
unmarried woiaajn, about 'Si yearti of a^e, and had been employed at
Mercy Hospital, in oliarge of th-3 pantry, for about four yearsj.
Plaintiff's declaration consisted of tJireo counts. The
first count alleged, in substance, thut on said date she was a
pacsongor on one of deft>ndant*a street cars moving ncrth on
Wontworth avenuo; that when said oar arrived at asth cjtreot
she al lifted for the purpose of becorainf; a passenger on another
on© of defendant's oars *thon ffioving* east over dofondant*s 26th
HO
..♦-Jil»
wiii«Xq \€ bmnksimm
j««iUa oX*fioeI« a*^^*
a1 tM<n«V« /U'XQ«#fl*V tew
td •«»• tiitf oi f iU uv>«; tr.iM iMnl t*M •lU no vmr •tin&^m tiirtom^im't
AHio% tU no nan S^9%S9 KUNte tU uum fimfod«^««8 .^Mrcllaaw •di
fu mm VtlSntmi^ .ito«sl tf#*UMi adi c» «uio i>nuo(f-i«*v tea io^itJ
&» b9XOlqm» rmiS bMti hnM «•&« !• »tMf IS #libtf« «ffaao« iMhruMnu
•fiiBax luo^ itiflKfa lol «^iMf tifi )• «B'i«fo ni ^tMtlqmor
•ifl •airoMO •«-"-" '^ ''"*-? teiMo ifOt#«<iaXo«l> •*lllinta/'^
.'i Ait* Alia eiat .j. ri^ ««ena^a<&w nl ,J)«j|aXI« 4mJv>o 4mnlt
no di-KM anlToe o. »»o J9tn:*'- ^•.* — '—•♦-'■ >- - - ~- -r. .f.aq
«»/l#orui ih^
street tracka; that said other oar then oamo to a stop at or
near the Intoraectlon of a&ld atroete for th« purpose of i»o-
oeivlng and discharging passongera; that plaintiff, while In
the oxerolsa of due oaro, oto«, than ai^ there attenpted to
board said other oar, and» while ao dolnu, tlio defendant, by
Its servants and agents, "so carelessly, negligently and inprop-
erly managed and operated aaid oar that •» * said oar was jolted,
3«rfced and moved suddenly forward*, whereby plaintiff waa thrown
with great foiMJe ".igalnat the parts of said oar and off of said
oar and down on the street there", and was severely and perrm-
nently injured, etc. The second oo\mt aliep;ed, in substance,
that plaintiff alighted froc! the Wentworth avenue oar at the
intersection of said streets, for the purpose of then becoming
a passenger on another oar of dofwidant*8 "then standing* on
defendant's said traoJts on 2*?th street at or near said inter-
section of said streets; that plaintiff then anfi there approach-
ed said other oar for the purpose of becoming a passenger there-
on, all of which «ra0 well knojan to the oervonts and agents of
defendant in ohar^,e of said other car? that when plaintiff
reached said oar and was attc«aptin^ tc boani tho sane, and was
in the exercise of due oare, etc., said servants and agents
in charge of said oar "negligently and improperly started said
car forward before the plaintiff had reasonable tirse to got
safely on said car", whereby plaintiff was t^vrown with great
force against the parta of said car and off of said car and
down on the street, a«d was severely and permanently injured,
etc. The gist of the third count was that, while plaintiff was
atteraptlng to board the car which was standing on said 26th
street tracks, the defendant, by its aarvants and agents, "so
wilfully, wantonly, rookleaely and wrongfully* movent and operat-
ed said oar that the flame was caused to be suddenly Jolted and
Jerked, whereby plaintiff was thrown, otc.
^ < >j» 9tmdi brm imdi ••vie .oioo mHi ^ •!. ^ff^
'T«1^r•^ o?ft ('r*^<>b on ellifv (MOi ttao "iMio £>i4Mi fin^ocT
^Adlflffifc on" «ain0aa Ana •4R«n»« a^l
-r '^ YlfTShtos bvTOm bna Mtfwf
-r*T^Q ' ffwoft Aral ""MV
*'«*»?!** «f lol rt«o fASo bla% bm
:•« MM rfoldw 10 II« «n»
«>rfw ijKis |«i»c 1 !• •.TVttiD rri inateioloA
r»^ ^,« :^r^'^<^li« tMm t)t%m iao Mjm terioao^
. ^nm9 ^vb lo Miionoxo eiU ill
'«e blA« te og^jiiie nl
lOlOtf in««<Ml[ •MO
^•nMfw t^iAO X>iA« no ^Xot«o
ly'B 3 Ito ^%> Ana i x«f od# lMfi4i3i« ao^ol
SjI.V. ,
"■r>^ -*.♦ :
eif?«3\«
''■*1
blj>8 bO^A
iv^
9f<fiifi«iffi»#^ ^
,^
arift x^on^v^o n'nr tcu ,Jft»ni« ert^ no mob
Mtt 0«*i
^tJ3'k•qo boa tOTon "xXIiflsno'xv Xna
iVu b«iXot xXoabAua otf ol Aoauao
*o^e ^mrovU •
^ adi )o /at7 .o4e
trxootf SSa
•tt^#ft Mf# taafoami iea^o
Mao fldi jAffj oao Jbi'aa be
:^«Xq xdiiiitm «baifn»l
-3-
On tho trial, at tho conclusion of plaintiff •« case,
the attorney for dof «rti arjt by three aevoral motlona requftated
the couirt to Instruct tho Jury to find the defendant not guilty
under each of said three counts, and at the ©oncluslor. of all
ths ovldonoe these raotlons were renewed* Tho court, however,
dtorled all of the notions. Counsel for defendant here contend
that there wae no evidence tending to sustain th© charge con-
tained in the tlilrd count of "arilful and wanton ralsconduot*,
and that the court's refusal to inotniot the .Jury to find the
defendant not guilty under that count conatltxitee prejudicial
er»ror. In our oplnlor, the first ar^ second counts each stated
a good oauae of action, which counts there was evidence tending
to support. While the court alght properly have given the In-
otructior. atsKed as to the thirl count, the refusal so to do,
there being sufficient evidence to support another good count
of the declaration, is not fprexxnd for reversal. ( Ghioago etc.
Coal Co, V, Horan , 210 111. 9, y^j '''ester v. ;::hepherd» l'"4 111.
App. 190, 201; soott v» Pari in go., £4' 111. 4d0, 462; Coleemr
^- ^^^ Coal Co., 255 111. f ?2, 5'10.)
Plaintiff *8 testlraony was to the affect that on tho
evening of the accident, after visiting at a friend's home
south of aeth street and west of wentworth avewie, she boarded
a V7ertworth avenue car going north, paid her fare and received
a transfer, and alighted frora the oar at 26th street at the
drug store on the ooutiieact ooxner of Wentworth avenue; that
then she crossed V/entworth avenue to take a car east-bound on
28th street J that the oar came along and she "waited until it
stood still"; that the fz*ont eni of the oar stopped "a little
piece" fin)rj the west crosswalk of ?.'entworth avanue and she at-
tempted to i^et on the hind er^ of the car; that the conductor
was standing inside about the middle, with "the lines In his
X^litJfi Son
-noe
fi3 L
3 acli i4 teu «eU;tuoo t«« to >^o«» <i«6aM
•v« on oMm )
o imjoo tnitU tU at teatMt
imtou $jeJi4 tof>mj son it
too lm —4 ii i 09 iU no d*ioJa M^ifiift
fiM ^$nmbl9mM eiU .. ;.f»y(i
i^JlTMOcr fcto «o •« bam 499%im /fi; aos
no tftUOtfo^BA* 1VM> « oXi.
•14- boqqoia IM «fU.l0 UW i' i«|(l |*XXiJS 6904«
«1« 0rte ttA 9L 90»i^
to:tLthrtQ9 t/f4 -liio Wit "^ ftTM ioid mU no iiHI
-4-
hand t ^ hla hand on the bell"; that she put her rl(?ht foot
on the first step, took hold of the oar with her loft band
ard "held the iron", and wae otepping up with her other foot
wher> "ho ,^ave the oar a jerk and It juat turned ae around and
» t the ooxTier of the car struck ne and throj me faolng a uth
ani east* or oaat": that "the car gave «uch a Jurap It atartod
re and I jerked right aroimd and as I corao down I felt the hip
Retting hit on the end of the oar, and It threw me with the oar
©aot, and I laid there imtll the oonduotor oaia© and picked me up" j
that the conductor stood her up a^eilnot the car, arxl the laotor-
laan oame, and ^©n the latter heard her say th^'^t she lived at
veriy Hospital, he put her into the oar and ohe rode as far as
the hospital, which wee located on the corner of 26th street aM
Prairie avenue; that ahe was c&rrieA to the hospital building
and then taken to the operating room, where splints were put on
her left ar» and left hip; that both her ar« and hip were frac-
tured, and that siie suffered severe and permanent injuries ,
William Lewis, plaintiff's witness, a colored raan, ei-id
at the time of the trial employed aa a Pullman oar port-ir, tes-
tified to the effect that on the evening of the accident he waa
errployod as a waiter in the saloon and restaurant situated on
the southwest comer cf the Interaeotion of the tviro streets;
that he waa standing just outside of the* saloon and In front of
the dooinray, which la "like a cut-off on the comor that you can
go in fzMsm both streets" ; that he first saw plaintiff standing
on the other aide of the street near the drug store; that abe
crossed over to the weat aide of iVentworth avenue, "right in
front of roe", and stopped near the comer; that "pretty soon
the street oar oatae up and she walked on right by me, dcvh to
the side of the 125th street car v- <* and got on at tha far end,
and aa she was getting up the bell rang and the car started off
inii firxrr-
'H «f5
*9 W^
tt tfiWf
J -r
v«l»-*« hfl"^*
limf-^U
r«9 ffc^'
f*?Talt
«T«^
to« •rfv
««Me
-ff to •
and the lady foil from the oar* ; that wher. he heard the bell
ring the lady "was about on the bottom etsp of the oar", ard
the conductor "was standing near the c»nter of the car, innlde" j
tliat the oar had stopped before plaintiff attempted to board lt|
that when the oar first otopped "the front of it was near or th«
street like, the erose line, » *^ the head of the oar was rlf:ht on
the oroBO-walk" j that "tlie lady fell juat befcar© ohe got to th«
street, the rear end of the oar got to the otreet" • th-at the
car made a eeconri atop, "sqrj where near the other side of the
ci^sB line"? that when it stopped "the conductor nme down and
grabs this lady over her arm and pulle her up and pute her on
the ear, he and another man*; and that the witness ^en he saw
plaintiff fall did not leare the place where ho wao standing and
run to her asaiatance because the accident "kind or excited"
hira, and he "could not get his raind together**, arA wher. 5 e did
the oonduotor was there, and beoaua© he wa*? a colored raan and
she was a white lady.
The teratirnony of sorie of the defendant'e wltneaaes la
in irreconcilable conflict or certain material points with that
of plaintiff nnd Lewia, Sarauel Pafian, the conductor of the oar,
testified that when hlr, car reached Wentworth avenu© he was stand-
ing on the bad: platform? that he aaw plaintiff standing at the
comer as the oar cane to a otop? that plaintiff "grabbed at the
handle vrith the right hand and •> ^ rsade a step, than ohe fell"?
that the oar had not taoved; that he tried to help her on tlio
oar but "she would not let rae ooRte near"? that she was ri^t
at the step on the gjround; that "I hollered, and the motoman
oar^e and helped bs©. «» *> He was trying to put her on the car;
she rafused; * * we put her on the oar^ * » the motonman
1 if tod her up"; that she was on the ground before bolr.^? picked
up about 4 olnutea; that the oar 8toppo<l altogether about •? or fi
; it be^ iJto viU tfiiii
ID <yi» MM tc
oiotvtf ^vx^ Uwn \Pmt •(&" i4Hfi ; 'MXav^m
•^AO ArfJ "I Mil ,
l»n
•I''
>tf ••riA^VtltRC *X»f(
'Ml,i ,q«»^e « •tea Jonvt #riBii •r.
Miv nu 'tar ^on had «iii
j'njt^n •«o© •€' tinm 9t.
TuoTj ari^ no q
^ baqle
salmi tea J and that it nadie but th© on© otop at Viontworth averoi©,
ihomaa ^©nnan, tho isotorraan of tho oar, teatiflod that wher
he first aaw plaintiff ah© waa alt ting on th© straet about two
feet from tn© roar end of th© otir and south of it| thafl aakod
hor to got on th© oarj aJi© told ra» to leavo hor alert©; I aald
1 would have to oall tl\© wagon? when 1 viald that sh© ©aid to put
h©r on th© oar j I took hf?r by th© arm arsd alio got up" : thnt froc?
tho tlrae the oar stopped to th© tiia© ho put htjr on tho oar about
a xninuteo itaa. olapoedj that tho oar "siado only one stop* at
?/ontworth avenue; that when the car reaohod the hoapltal he "car-
ried her bodily ir:to the ho»pit?il ana helped her on a vrheel ohair*.
William Ounkei, a paaaeng«r on the* oar, teBtlfied ti^t at* the
Oiir approaohod Wentworth avenu© he was sitting on the eouth «ide
of th© car looking; out of the wliMow; that ho ©aw her on tJie
8tr©©t before th© o<ir stopped at 26 th aiid ft'ontworth avenue j that
he did^ao© her fall, but learned that ah© htwi fallen when th©
motonaan «Mid oonduotor brought her in? and that he did not re-
noraber how Many ©tops the oar nade there that night. The©© other
paoaongoro in the oar teatifiod to th© ©ffeot that but on© stop
of the car was made at ii6tii otreet and Vi^entrforth avenue. Two of
def Cendant * 8 wifcneaoes testified to tiie effect tJiat they noticed
the odor of liquor upon th© breath of plaintiff that evening.
Plaintiff, howev^ir, teatified that she had not he&n drinking any
intoxicating liquor timt ©venin-, in which sh© was corroborated
by the teatlrony of the friend at whose honw oho visited Juat
before stairting on the Wontwortli avenue oar, arid by the teatimony
of aiator !cary Helen, In charge of th© ©mergoncy department of
Horcy Hoapit^ilf to th© ©ffoct that oh© ba'h and was ntxtar plaintiff,
after ah© waa brought ho o to the hoapltal, in the ©oorgey^oy Tmll
and at the omergeroy entrance; that plaintiff waa not under the
influence of liquor and that there was no odor of it on her breath.
.Aifrr«>v« •no sfU Sittl *btm ^ ta^itndM
i 'O 5rtf ^ Arm ttt%^.
'T' 'j'ij rt*no..
A
-•a Ion ftffc '^ff 5Bf*f h^a ;rti ^Md srt'^r'orcf - i nwitt J Uiil
^^A ^ei^n ff^ts^ i« mbma saw lao Mtt zo
. . .': ? Jrtj
•*!
Xl4Kf T- *^^yjj-jjf „^j^ J5^ _.
-7-
It 1b undisputed that plaintiff waa a«vorely injured,
and oounaol for defendcint do not «jrgue that tho vordlct is ex-
cesBlvo*
Tho r?»in contention relied on by oounaol for a reversal
li^. that the verdict ia againat the aanlfoat weight of the evid-
ence. The evidence la very eonf lie ting on the queation rfhotliar
th© defendant watt guilty of the negligeno© ohiarised in tho firat
and eooond doun&o of the deol&rution, aind tho a&s0 is one pe-
culiarly within tho province of tiw jury. Tliey sa.v an I hoard
th© various witneaaea and observed Iheir oonduot and demeanor
while on the witnese-stand. We o&nnot eay tliat their verdict
la manifestly againat the weight of the evidence* and that tho
judgcaont should be rovsrsed for that reason.
It is next urged thiit the trial court erjrod in rofus-
inff to adrait proper evidence* rhe conductor of tho car, i-'asftn,
after testifyi'Vj that the oar had etoppiid at the intorseotion
of the two etroete about 7 or e Esinutes, was asked why it was
that the oar stayed there »o long, and he replied "because ehe
refuoed to get on*. On taotion of the attorney x'or plaintiff
th© answer woe strlcJbren. Aaauaing that tills was a statornent of
fact and not an exprosaion of an opinion or Gonoluaion, tho court
coB3mlttt*d no error prejudicial to tho defendant, bacauso the
witnesa Juet shortly before had teotlfied that the notoriajm waa
trying to put hor on the oar and "she refused*. And oubsequent-
ly in the trial, when the motoraan waa on tha stand, he testi-
fied that he aaked hor to get on tho car and that "ahe told
me to leave her alc^ie*. Nor do ao think that it was prejudicial
error for the court to refuse to allow the witnesa, ROvan, to
answer the particular question put to hia, &0 argued by counsel.
It 123 further urged that the court orrod in refuoing
to r.lvo to the Jury five certain instruct ions off^^red by the
"'■''^"Ml ion oh ^^■:'-h't'\^mt\ •tit'^ ^- . -.rn-
-fcly» v'-» ■*'-• >»'^v, ?i»,|^ J. „.,: . . . _„
I^KiJ. t- - .... 9d* itO fctllft? r^n.hlvh »i.
-fr»T .- :-v.A , . •_ a bfUl
trx •<!
• -^i-rri- "to lotfoirbftoo •ift .•ctv .^ . intJb* o*
t i« t)«^4e>#« bMi •««• WW wATi^ ^itii»»«« fn
Q-.n ^r ¥r^K .f;on«jB MMT «»#4iir1b e iro T ^uo .. -rsim o«i •Kl 1
■.il«Xq lo'i %^svto4i» lis lo noi^o* no «**iro ^93 •# ftMSi :.-
tnuoc wf . >• •«• noiciiq^ n^. * .•{ ta.^:.«iq«» n« Jon brw -i
iMw i«4s*rro.twr cfff iiid. -;.«>;» ii-. ■ Yi^tori* #•»( •••Aitv
^ ^t m u fOfx "boHu'ion odm* bam iui« tii no <imI iuq ^^ vttxU
~Xf—S Ml «AnB#8 AtfJ no omi nmno$om otii tm0m «X«i^ otU tU xl
f Xol Mb* l«fU Ana oao o.tJ ^^ t9? ^.'r <im( ft«jr«« od imii t«n
X«lr^hf*t«»aq u«« 11 i«tC# X. . MWiib toil nNlftX o« •r
««M ^ummako tifi voXi4 •i ewrw^r oi t^uoo iU n«l -rert*
»o« 1(4 JbMqrui «« «aiii oi tuq noi^^^up tmtuot^i^^ z--fi T9«fi{M
odi \0 b9Wto tmliouniottk iit«M«o •▼« tvst odi o# »t1
-8-
defGndant. i'h© court gave ii lnstr\iction» offered by the plain-
tiff, ftnd ^4 instructions offerod by tho d^fundunt. After
examination of ail tho given ir;»tructioxa», we are of tho opin-
ion that the jury were fully Inetruotod, and that no error,
prejudicial to the defendant, wao cocumltted by tho rofu^al to
give the inatructione rtentioned, ;Ve think thoy woro sufficient-
ly covered by the oth^r iaatruotlona.
The judgment of tho Oirouit i'ourt la afflriaod,
AFFIRMED,
»i«j
2i0 - 17567
\1^)*A
'^ 'i. i
' (^
THOMAS POULXSS, / )
VB,
) JKW1OH TO Cli^CUIT COURT OP
yPANCIS K. STKWAltD, )
Plainti/f in hrror. )
\
COOK COUNT i'.
182I.A. 193
In an action of aasumpeit fcroupht by Foukkea af^ainot
Steward, in the Circuit Court, plaintiff had jurlpraent Ddceribar
?5, 1909, atrainrt defendant for $224-7 dairmffea, tind defendant
appealed. I« June, 1910, on the stipulation of tho parties,
an order was entered in thia Court diimii«f<lnp: the app«al and
on» in thto Circuit Court vacating: the Judirment and dlsnissing
the Muit. Thoreupon George A. Durant tr^oved in the Circuit Court
and
that the order vacating the JudRinont dicaiieBlaiBr the auit he va-
catiGd on the f^tund that hefore the easie wae entered "PoulkQB
had asaigned the judgment to hm. The i?}Otion ?&s rQaiated hy
PoulkCB, ?rho testified that the writing produced by Durant pur-
porting to he an atsaignTJient of the judgment van not executed
hy him, hut that his purported airnatUBe thereto was. a for^rery.
The Court founrf tV!&.t the aiiaignment «raa executed by "Poulkes and
set aside the order vacating the judgment ant? diaTiieoinjr the
suit. On appeal that order waa affirmed hy this Court and leave
jpriven "Durant to dafenvi in the rmm*,: cf Foulkes tho writ of error
which ntevfard had sued out to reveree the judnrent of December
25 » l909f and he has filed his brief and arpuraent accordingly.
The action is in form aaeumpsit. The declaration con-
sistB of a jspeelal count and the conr^^^on countR. The special
count alleges in substance that defendant, before and on the
27th day of August, 1901, was a physician ia Chicago, who em-
\
I
, bnawBiTi
/a4lbii«'^ .ahtttif'
bft» iM'
Ii9^ -#t(in)|la8« iu l^d" J^ IB
• If/ lit •i* ^^ vtA*
^AaliKT f
>t •»•»♦
-a* Of(w ,o:|«olrf9 si JMl9ltv<9 * ••* • ^-fBu-yik "^o tuft rf^^
ployed amenta and s'nployaB to ^T.set inconing trains and incJuca
sfcranKoris t.o po to hio of flea; that on said day on© of Buoh
ai^ente aooontod plaintiff on his arrlYal in Chicago froa the
Stat« of Iowa and, "by falaely r« pro cent inp that th« defendant
wao an eminent aye Brc^cialiat and v^ould exaniae his «ye« free
of charge, Induced plaintiff to gc to the office of dafendamt;
that defendant falaely and fraudulently represented to plain-
tiff that he waa auf faring from u. complica* ion of dissasea and
that hi;3 optic • erre was so dieeaaad that he viiGuld soon lose
hi 8 eyeeight unleea ho had ifimediate traatment, and that de-
fendant offered t© effect a parinanQnt cure of hie ^yemight and
the complication ©f diaeagsaa fox- thet sun of C8oO; uhut plaintiff
■beliered the said repreaentatlonK to l-o true, rolled implicitly
tkereon nmd paid defendant |600 for the ittrotsnded trsa ment of
the alleged ailmentej that the repreaontationc Etads hy defend-
ant were falae and defendant itnaw they #«re falae, 'iad that they
were made for the purpoae of defrauding plaintiff; that defend-
ant was not an eye apeci&llst; that plaintiff was in good health
and his <ayea in fiood conilition, with the axoeption of the waak-
nene incident to a nistn of his age. It is also nll^ffsd in thia
count that in tha oourae of said protendisd tr«at,n!?nt, defendiint,
for the purpose of rthluinjv- plaintiff of a further euia of money,
took plaintiff to a certain place on J?out}'> Clark etroet far a
Turkiah feath, and while plaintiff waa taicin^ eald hath defendant
took from the pcckete of plaintiff the further mm of ll^O, *hich
defendant kept and conTerted to hi 3 oar uae. That defendant
therehy "became liable to pay to plaintiff the said sums of iconey,
amounting to il,500, which defendant undertook and promised to
pay. The ad danmum was afterwards increaaed to |2500.
•9Ubnl ham uniMii ^Imooai i«9*r oi ••ToXOV* ^'^^ B^rf^V 1>*ToXq
««tl •». . fliiwxa biirow haa imtlMlo^^jm •x»i -^ mm mmt
,inMbn9'rpt> to •otyy^ •M.i OS 09 •# m^vlAfq haoifhni ,9fX»K3 lo
-n ( ^tft»««fq«t \ltif*Ii/bv«Tt biu x-faaXal ^euibnalab #aift
feST!
tJ
9 A boo-'}
btT«ix*<r
tab bsu$ 9>nffy etffw Jn*
:Hnthi'i»-rtsb 1« aaoqTtfq ar »t«w
^alX«io*'"» ax* »»• *P''
1 actuo
r«al».Ta1f»& rft^^f ftb
dolri
uXAXq •Xix<
iiaUXc. ^<| a*i <
Aaitavnoo btu.
9iBao»<f vcfaiaif^
laaaiORJ: sbnav
CSLIVKRED TOE OPINIOM 0? IKS COURT.
We chall not attempt to rtat5» tY.e eviilencw in detail.
Tbo recovery rests miainly on the testimony of the plaintiff and
that t«Eti!r.ony ir. eo improbable in nany resp-sots, so salf
contradictory and bo opposed to the teetinon,/ of other witness-
es, ♦hat v9e thinlf that the Juf»rmant should be reversed, and will
only state out rsapono for suoh ccnciuslen.
The only gr' unci on isrhlch THtrant can defend the judfr-
went la, that Poulkea aatlj^ned the judinnant to hiw hafore he
Btlpul».ted that the apneal RhouTd be dlRTnissed in thie Court and
the judprnent of the Hirouit fJourt vacated by that Court. To
ralntw.in this paoitlon he was cojnpelled to prove over the deni-
al under oath of Ifoulkea, that the assignment produced by him
was exBCi't'sd by Poulkae.
At the trlsl of the oanse Foulkee testified svbtjtan-
tlally as ftll-^pred In the :}T>eci%il count ae tc how he cam« to
ro to Steward 'fl office Aupunt 27, 1901; that it wqb th«re agreed
that he should «ay Steward for trea ment f-BoO; that ho T>aid him
$45^0 in currenry and at his raquerst BJp-ned three papers, without
readlni? the'^i or hnvlnr them r«ad to him, which f!!te*?ard said were
proraiBoory notes. He produced but one paper which he claimed
was then signed, an-i that was a chec'< for 13^0, The teatiwony
for the defendant was that the acrresftient was that Foulkes should
pay $5^0, and for that sun he jravo his check. That he paid no
currency and signed no papers other than the check, ?oulkee
further testified th^-t fifteen months afterwards he saw at tela
bank In Danbury, Iowa, the papers that he signed August 27;
that they were, "a check for $550, a sight draft for $210,
and afterwards a note taken up there for i|il50'*. He produced the
It
} tm a:
T r k» fiM." ki
■ nh"» -
■iff bi
^. t' . • ; ; J ■.'
on blaq Btt f»tn .^ — ■'•> ti/> {j- - '>' - - — a**^
,OIS- '>j|lb Irf^.- _ ,
0I<1 b*0"' •■■^ ."^"''/^ To^ ••'^ ■ -a JU-rx^*1fi i^^ii bOA
check but. not the draft or rcte . TTe ufterwarda teBtificd that
the note wca iB«nt t« a Ti nk at Danhury ftr collection In Feh-
ruary, 1904, and introduced a letter from Sllen G. Boherta,
d&ted Uaxoh 6, 1904, notifyinr him that she had sent to the
"bank for collection htv, note for ^l^^O, dated August 4, 1^05,
pfijahle to the order of 7. k* Steward, f'e think that the evi-
dence fails to KhO'A' that "Poulkejs ever gave Ftewarfi a sipht draft
for fl'?0, hut does kHcv that July lii'J, 1902, he gave hlra a. check
for ?21C, and further ehOA-a l^ai the only note for :^'1'50 he
ever pave Rt«war(? waa Ei"p*n Aupiuet 4, 1903, and that therefore
his tOBtinony as to the makinc of a fiic:ht draft for IPIO and a
note for tlT*^ Au^u«t i?7, 1901, and that hs Raw aaid draft and
note at >. la bunk fifteen nionthu latsr frn.B not true.
A portion of the r'ljncvcry was for ^l^'O alleged to
huv? he-in Klolisn from plaintiff at a tv.rV.iah bath house on th^
evening of August P.}\ 1901. ThiP claiB rests en the testimony
of Poulkes alone. H« taerified that «.'hen he was at filteward'e
office ths first tirae he was t' Id to rsU:.rn nt 7 "P. -^ ; that he
did BO and went in u o.^b vjith Stawe^rd and Piws I'oh<?rtc to the
bath house, wher-s ha was ,p;ivsn a hf-^th and tho iU'i'O taken from
hi« troueers. Opfoued to this teatissony was tho do'^ial of
fiteward and ■''ifee P.ob€;rto that they {«a^ Yiim in the evening- of
Aurrupt ?7 or that either ever went with hln to % bL^th hcuise, and
the tectimony ©f Abrahem P. T^aarish that Rteward v?a3 at his
house from 6 to 9*?^ "P, l', of ths ('.ay in question; that he then
pai-i Steward, rho was hia fasilly physician, $27.00 for rr-ftdical
oervlce a.nfl tvaa p;iven a recely~t, ?»'hinh ha prodvced, and tha
teatiwon./ of Thomas T'ea^ieh, which corroborated the teatinony of
his father, Abrahatr« ??. Peajrish. The "ReainicheB arc horse ehoere,
each having *-i3 own ehop, and no fact or circuinetance is sshown.
t^Hi b»nU9»t » ^ •dt i9m tad 3loM*
!•
dtf
affecting thair cx*edlbllity. Th« Yerdict for the plaintiff as
to this claim is, if; our opinion, clearl.y &f,'alnst the svidance
and the trial Court ehculci, for that r-aaeon, hare fjr&'^tcd a new
trial.
Aa«th«r part of the recovery wa& for |:50C paid "by
Foulkes "by check to the order of '!. J, Wi*lt8rb, treasurer, dated
Augutst 26, 1903. Fotilkee teatifled that Aufuet 27, 19C1,
Steward gave hiw a written fcuaranty t© cure him or refund the
TRoney; that he vas not in Chicago "between August 27, 1901, and
Auprust 24, 1905J that Aupuet ?, l^O^i, ho wrote Cteward, de-
nouncing him ae a awindler; etating amonp: other tKiagjj: "Ycu
got A Chock for I350, a sight draft for C;21C, and ;:45C in cur-
rency when 1 was at your office, and you stole ^150 out of ny
poolcet when I was at the hath house"; that ir anarer rteward
wrote him that If he wculd gend hin or to "h-j Pwople's "Drug
Store all their oorrespondence and the rorttrao' or a^reenent,
he would refund the laoney vc.id him; tViat hu afterworJe ^rrote
Steward that he would be at the Atlan'oic Uotei, f'-ici^^^o, at tsn
c'clccic August 26; that ho met steward ax th«> .ctei and gave
him his letters and guaranty, and steward se<.id thay vould go to
the hank and gc the njonoy; that they went out en the street :5,nd
a man lold him h<5 hud the arnallpox; that Ste,var;;! said the mem
wag a health officer and hs ^ould lia.vs to (-0 ^^Ith hlr.; that
the laan took him to i-he Leonard Inetitute in the Auditorium
Building; that a ir>aa there told Kir. he had waallpox and rould
havo to go to the Detention Hoftpit&l for p,ix v^sekt, but he
would cure hitn in five or six da/n for ^500, and thereupon he
gave a check to 'faltarn for that sun, as "before ntated. Thft
only evidenne tondinir ia connect Steward with the Leonard In-
atituta was copios of letters raade hy T^oulkes and his t*;t5ti.r.ony
that Steward, Aug;U8t 27, 1901, ©aid that he owned the Leanard
»cf) .^vi »▼# ;• ,aoH rx/«rft #n«e9 tti^i ftrf^ itfw
liU'R .LOQ: ' n«Mrtfttf iM|ftAi^ n^ ^9n saw s/f ijtid ^xosmt
)i«i 9iri#«^« ;toX6«lw« j bm nXif T>nir)au«ii
%d ,«o jy iji a^w I n«jf« x^kbi
foo lisrfJ iX^ •TO#8
:.^*Cf T**QO •' "^ ^^
•Ai i» 9d l>Xff»« •' Itfrf^ r -xawvJS
i'il/ i'dS^ taa^uA :(ooXo*o
'!«« ftttfiHt^Q bnA ,x*^»'U^on hMM mtniint Blii mid
»aos ndi :>9% bnm Htuni Mi
l«6i3 ;^illf# iX«<fXXllMi •x(r ksri •tl aiil bl«9 OMB «
3Ti;i -. '.ti^jj^ ^iff kI •#Af#li«nI (>x«aoi loo^ mti aiU
ftXtfow bnn x«qj;rA)a« b4i:f ftif taiH bX*# nsifi ma' « Mr
til floquoi«i<j bM ,00>'^| n*^ HyfA «!■ TO vyX^ a1 Wltl ^IMO blU9¥
sriX ,boi:i:,n Aio^^tf •« ,nui #«rf# "Mt uXvUmV 9i sfovrfn ji s'v*^
-rI b-n^tfjtJ ftd. tawaJQ iovflfloo o:r ^Ribnti tonvblT* xX9#
\.nF(.ri .^.1^.' niti baa ■•yXuo'? t<f •!>«» BtvtJ^iX t* ■•Iqoe ■»» •iiill/«
i^«ji«i»J v/fi b«a«« tif i«/f# M«« , '^mA (J^iawojB #ii/ftf
ryiAwetS
trtwaiu:
t^tr.'
,:r---f,.^-
t<u-
ae
o.r
.>3| bXi^Or
bnc
!«•-
laBtitute, and thai ha than saw Y.^altsre in Stev^ttrd's office,
and that Steward thca gaye hiin a printed slip bearing the nfiune
of the Leonard Inctltute, Leonard preoident and "waiters treaourer,
N«ither the guaranty nor ttJi^ originals of th« letters aljcve re-
ferred to were produced by "Foulkee, tvt he produced v/hat ha tes-
tified were copies of the p-uaranty und of his lattere to S'^,ewaxd
and of Steward's letters to bim, and on hi© tstatsment that the
oripinnls of Steward* a letters were returned to him Aup'JEt 26,
1903, tho copies were admitted in evidence. Steward testified
that he did not fri>e Foulkee any .-'-uaranty ncr write or r&csir«
the letters mentioned by Foiilkes in hie t<>6tunony. ''c think the
clear preponderance cf the eviaencs it; t>;at ?Qulkt:s \vaa in Hhi-
cago several tiiries betveen August i^?, 19OI, and Aupuet 26, 1903;
that he whs in f^teward'u office July 23, 19C2 , wau *vheu operated
on for heoorrhoids by i>r. c. B. Ktevmrd and gars V, F. Gtaward
a check for $210 j thr^t he xau '^-um in Stwwai-d's offica Axiguat
4, 19f*5, and then gav? hin th« note for 4l^'0 refarytui tc in the
letter of Slien 0. P.oberta introduced in evidance Ly Foulkee;
that he v/ue in the Psopic'a Drug Diure August 5» 1903, and then
hunded the proprietor, Moraba, a prascripti'-'n of Dr. Stav.'ard of
that date.
the oopiaa *rhich ?oulkea ti'Stifiyd he mudc of r tow-
ard* s letters to hiin and of his lattara to Stsva^-d ary of little
value as evide- ce ten:rjin^T to corrcsborate hi a t'^sticiony, for the
only evidence tending to j^how tha' such c::pias uro copico of
oripinal letters is the teatlnony of ^ouliciB, Ho alec intro-
duced in evidence a latter purportiiag to ba a letter from i't't'^'-
ard to Salen Baker, itainpton, Iowa, datad Auf;uot 27, 1907, which,
if genuine, was well calculated tc prsju-iica the jury iirainst
Steward, He testified that th« letter was cignod by Stewai'dj
-•1
•▼erf«
ttf
-a* J
bTJtt'Z
•a*
,f*rf#
t9mm»tt*i
b9ttliit*i
' b%!:-
• ¥.
•d:
'I If
.^5 •
'^•TvaJi*'!^ »'i9ilM''i fc«i»i Jn9h*»«»i binnoeJ,« ^uil^tal ^'bMi«»J •;•
<AtMan tffl to ••Iqoo •«•• iliiTil
e< TA^ «•!(# toe ,(^X %>
»bju« ftif B»ltiJ^a0^ aft}(Xuo<: .ioXrfw ■•i^ao o/fl
»Xi/lX ' wniM^R o^ tir^^^eX ■Xrf ^o bM ivt4 •# •««#Hf '•*»««
, io.. ni;^;iA b»#«Jb ,«w«I ,a«^fnu.h ^x9*Mfi nttXJtH •# Sta
'inXtfTv^' Xf^l »• ^.•'xq »* b»#AXa»X4M» Ii»w a«« ,»icltfff«ii tl
that it wae handed to hlw at Btinbtiry hzr a nan who bo nan-e he
C'^u''<1 not roTnenher and •.■'^Of=ie plaoa of raaidenco was unlcnown to
him. Againat this t'sstimony ^^s th*? taatirjony of defendant
Steward, of 0. V., Steward, hiu brother, of l^iaa Roh^^rte and of
^Tarshall 0, Kwail, an sxr.ort In handwrltinpr, that tho letter
waa not sif^nsd by PtQward, ^'» think this svidenca sho^'c t^^at
the latter waa not Ble:n«d hy Ft«'ward, and therefore does not
tend to proTt plaintiffs casft.
Ai^^aln, it Ifs to hs ncticed that v-hil« plaintiff in
his special count alleged the payment of 14^0 in currency, the
giving of a check for $3!jO, cf a Eii?Tht draft for ••210 and
the etsalinp: of 41!J0, he nade no mention of the p;ivinn- of a
chaci: for $500. Fa think that tha evidsnce 5:'-!0wb that while at
the Leonard Institute '^oulkea pav-') a power of atlnrnaj tn "'';*on-
ardi, its president, authorising Leonard tc act for ?oulkea *Ia
an alleired ooneplraoy or hlackmailing schewa cf ■'',odavine Millar
and Dr. 7. h. Pteward m »t x hy -s-hich I pay noney to eald
Lodavine v^iHor and Kaid Stn^ard." *'« think the finding a.« to
th« ^^00 '^a.id hy nlaintiff to ^"altfirps, treaar-rer, ie aiPrainat the
clear prer?onderanca of th« fjvidenne, and fnr that reason alao a
n«w trial should haT»? heen /j'r anted.
The Court pare for the plaintiff the folloftinpt in-
struction:
■The court inetructB the Jury that the credihility of ■
the witnecBee it £ question exclutivsly Icr the jury. And
the law iF that -'here a nuRiher of witneBaea teeti^y dir'Sctly
opposite to each other, the Jury are net buuntl Ic i'cgard
the weljrht of the ♦jvidenoe aa evenly balanced merely becauae
of numhere. The .jury hare a rif^ht to detorr.iinti fron the
ap-eoarsflce of the Aitneissea on the atand, th«ir nann-^r of
testifying, tt^ir .apparent candor and fairness, t.icir ap-
•oar«tnt" intelT i/r^noe, or luck of Intcllinrence , &nri from ali.1
tht. ether tvaroundiniK circunistances aj. parent on the trial,
deterrnln*) which witnesses are tho more worthy of credit, and
to f^ivc them credit accordinf.-ly. "
ftd •men eti^^fv i^mi /
•i irw'oo:^
' b»t»n«tf Mw it imtd
i«9# alM^ #««iiB3A .atjC
'"li" «»3iJ
♦*>rt •««
■.iiw
ji^ienin
f»
« «aj..
:i-. -.'iwoXXal
tXirv'
t«e l»fti
n;»
rtirXjiXq
-fa IjiJt^i
\noit9tni9
*i<i no oosati;
&«• ,J1
N
■The teiite "by wVioh thft dirncl tea*.i)r.wnv- of wltn9«8ea
should be wei^hsrl 'by the Jury are fiven by one of thft ir.oat
phllOROphical of writ'sra upor» uhe law of cvi'-ence, as follo*^:
•The credit -^vn the taotimony of »?itneBK>e8 da- (JTis upon, first,
thslr honaoty; seocndly, th«ir cibility; thirdly, tr.sir runbera
and the oonsletency of their testimony; fourthly, th? conforwi-
ty of their tartiwony with sxrsrienoe; arid flft^^ly, tV«* ooincl-
d<inc9 of thair tsatiTaony ^ith collateral c i rcwT. stance a. • ••
1 Ktarirlft ^A4 ,
The inetrxinticr. in qieotion o-r-its the important el«-
cient of the nuE^ber of v/itnc8soe, the conplE-toncy of their
leBtitiony, ite conforrriity *'lth experience &.nd its colnci donee
T.ith collateral circusiatances, in Lytnt. ▼. KyorE-on, ?/•? 111.
409, "^hcrfi, ii8 in 1Mb (iase, plaintiffs case rivaled lJirr«ly on
h4a wn testimony, and i;iore AltnoaBee tostifiod for lirtfwndant
ohan for himnclf, it >'an nis-.i d of an laotrui'tion p.iYen for the
plaintiff:
"It adriaed the jnr/ that the prn ondsranne in a case
'la not alone d©t«rmined by the m-irabsr of jalnsssoa', und
then fol'iQ^rsi ayi enuri^ration of the ma.ttf'jra prcpEt; to be
conaidflred by the ,iury, onittinfr, however, tha nunber of
vri.z7\sz"sQ& t^atifyin? for ani afainat. * .*» « In view of
the fact that the appellee's cae« reuwd v<jry icirgely
upon hit 3-^n t'sst inony and that nor* vitn^seee teetified
for appellant than for hiwoelf , this instruction might have
mlnled the ,1ury -^n thii? r^lnt."
The .ludCTi'fsftt of t.h« '"llrcnit r^ourt is reversed ar?d
th^ cauoe remanded.
•••••n
" I .B«9a«ia
-BlC
a9Ji*&l0Rl«a a^tl
UtiMB X
:11X*nJt*Xq
; ^«;,, ., .^; J f»j •-cor
brail b««7*T*t ■! tttfoO tlimnlP trfl To fntmmbitl wd '
418 - 17957
join; ?.. Tooimufp,
Appellant,
▼ 8.
MAJiy JORT>A?r/;t al . ,
Appellee E
)
)
) APL^KAT. ?JRO¥ PITPSRIOR GOUHT
)
) 0? COOK *^cu!rrY.
)
182I.A. 217
PBESTDING
MR, JUSTICK BAKSR T^StIVERE-D THE OPINION 0? TH?! COURT.
A
Thic if! an aiitscal by Woodruff, the complainant in a
"hill to fcrecir.fe a trupt doed in tlie nature of a t^ortfa/s'e nade
"by appellee Ve^i-y Jordan, froir. a decree dit.riieiiing the Mil for
ft&nt of oqiuty on the ground that the notee secured hy the mort-
ff&p-e were ffiven for reury. The raortrape was raade Varch l6,
1907, hy ^''re. Jordan tc uecure her twelve notes of that date,
payahle tr> her own order and by her endorBCd, eleven thereof for
<*50 each, payahle at dlf-*'3rent ticee durinr the eleven monthe
after their dat«, &n<\ one for ''lPr>l.|^0, payahle one year after
date, all with interest from (""ate at seven per cent. The loan
was ohtained "by ^frp. Jorfian throTitrVi "Pi aclc >%. Co., and her con-
tention ia that the notps c^ven hy hor were for the moBt part
for usury in previous loans ohtained hy her throufth 'Flack A- Co.
nhe borrowed in ''■arch, 19^5 » -6^0 from Sidney "Rlose and paid
nart of the notee f^iven for the loan to Flack A Co. She bor-
rowed from or throiifrh Flaclc *, Co. IJ^O '^?iy 25, 19^5, and made
her tv/elve other notes, eleven for .t>25 each and one for ^-327 oO.
Harch 19, 1906, after she had paid said eleven notos last men-
tioned and interest at seven per cent, on her note for i-^27,'^0
for one year, nhe horro^/ed a further siiin of $3!>Ci frcm or through
PlacV 4 Co. and p;ave her twelve other notes, eleven for &50
each and one for 81450, i?.ith interest at seven per cert. Be-
fore Yarch 16, I9C7, she naid said eleven notep for h-^0 each
K^9'
,,"3flfl6qqA
YIS.AJSSI
1
. ,iC^ 10^ ^TO F<r»B rfnir?* rv *
""."'..* ■ >^ mi or Tf^r
ir^'^ rt««v«« r» .nt*)i'i'
•" - " t
" ■"■ •"*•'
. ; ■- *-fr>
■ •■* "t
,.i~--.:
'I -1 'I
, ..«.>-"»o«^
I^OT^ &BWO*r
«
^ .
~ « -
_ xli - '
^1
-i
nl
hnr brn'^lJ
•rwwi
lfOB»
and then gava the notes and trust dead ho s»3cur<2 the sa."ie in
queation in this proceeding. She testified that she then bor-
rowed #400 of Plack 4 Co,; that aha received th« chsc^f of com-
plainant '^^oodruff for ,<255l.5f^» that she endoiaed the check and
returned Lhe raoaQy to the cashier of yiack & Co . , who gave her
heiT' note for #1450 and ^400 in curr jncy, and thai she owed one
year's interest on the note for .*.1450. Tho note for vl^^O given
Warc>- 19, 190f., was on March 19, 1907, o'^ned hy Slta Cray, a
customer or client of Flack & Co,
The case turns on the point, v/sre the note and rcort-
gan;e o;iven is/'arch 17, 190?, given for a ne -/ loan "by Woodruff
to Frs. Jordan or in r?irt for the amount due Etta Orey on a form-
er loan. If the latter, then there 1b evidence tending: to show
that the tranBact. ion was usurious. The ease is ?iot one '^here
a person deposits money with a mortf^age broker to loan for him.
Woodruff made his check for if 2551.50 to the order of '-'ary Jor-
dan and she endorsed the check and received the proceeds. There
is no evidence tending to Bhow that Woodruff had any knowledge
of the previous transactions \'<'ith l?lack & Co. or Bloss. We
think that Flack & lOo. were not the f^enerul agents cf V^oodruff,
hut that their relations to hXBi were those of brokers enfraged in
loaning money and th^it they A'ore sntitled lu receive a oomnis-
sion from I'rs. Jordan without renrieriag the transaction usuri-
ous. This was the conclusion reached by the i'astcr and stated
by hinR in hia original report.
The Court of its own notion ordered thai the cause be
rereferred to the "■'' ster with directions to aiake a supplemental
report on the evidence alread.^ offered showing a statement of
each loan made by ?'ary Jcrdan in debit and credit fona, and to
report th^ amount received by her and the amount paid by her on
i>9b s%sn) bnm avion •Hi sTJin n»rii hoM
. i\lb9%^ox^ MlAi nl noli«»tfp
- :: .4 TCO«r? lO 00*1 btWOY
i*lri«/io 9Ai OS X9B0« tiU btffitfifY
9no b«w •lift f^aeiTvo nl QCsi bam O^Mi ic«^ ^ion sail
nfi" ;ro« tt^" ion tifi no ia»aftictl b*'UI9^
llwiboo* id asi '<* aaTi?< •S^a
Htm •ifwt
lai aoiv rax erfj -m
v; aoiioMoai rfi
X^ncflt ailaoqab noa^sq s
.>bMi ttuTkoeV
/^ieoei fejui :toe aaioibna aiCa ham amh
.{fi woda oJ snxbaai •ooobtfi tt mt
rf maolJtui»aM\J auoirsiq •dS to
. :'• >n ane ^ifaalT J«rfi iaiAi
ni ^> -ti^Aa aiailoitf I9 aaoif.^ ;TxoiiMi9'i limiiJ: -ad
-sumoo m 9rttf iBtli i»tii bam xanoar yiloaoX
iu aoiioaanati adi si^-^^*boa" < oab'xoi: .aiV aoH iioia
ruB Yois£': Kri^ xcf bsriDAar. noiaifloBNkO ajfi •«« alifT .airo
iifbio tfoJt.toar ovo
qun a 9JLJ»ar oi anoiio j^nrielett^
ja»mmiM3ii a ^niworfa baTSlto yjb» •i
a* j,«H' 3 bna iltfaJb al ojob'xo' ')«■ luioi M»»9
'atsamm Taif x^ bmyt»o*i fauo iX9%9\
account of .\ll of said los.n». Th^ ¥astar by hit original re-
port in effact f'vund and report sd that the Woodruff nctas and
moTteafre were R;iv«T foi a ne'w loan &nd not in .vhoie or in part
for the Tial9.ncft dii*. on rrevioxe loans. The order rer^ferring
the cause dil not ruptf-lr the except ione of vtb. Jordan to the
report on the ground that the li'aEter found that T'laok .*ic no.
acted as loan hrokerf! in the trareactione "betwoen cofTipl^^inant
and ^frs, Jcrdsn; ano did not fini that tho complainant Woodruff
wae chargeable vlth knowlod/re of tho UBurioun int-^ireat recoived
hy yiack * Co. from ^tb, Jordan, or mintaln nny of the oxoept.ions
to the T.'-aRter'n report, hut mcr'^ly ordered thfi 'jtstar to state
th'i yjacant received and paid hy >fre. Tordan on account of all
of the loans made hy her. ^'e concur in the conclusions and
reoorarnendatinns stated hy the 'iaBter in his original reoort,
and the decree will ho reversed *ith direct ^.ons to enter a de-
cree overrulinir; thR exceptions of '"'rs. Jordan to the criminal
report of the T-faster and '-entering a decree in accordance >¥iuh
the recowMsnd&ticnE of the oririnal report.
RSVSR?SD AST) RSf'ANDED
WITH DIRSCTIOKS.
sl-f T<f ^*f90^ *«fT .api*oI Mils ^« Cf* ^«» *frvrj>o«
of iw»»» raw vi^Ta^Tftar
al»ronOrf>
429 - 1796^
ANXA r»FOnf*AK¥ ,
; Appellee,
s.
Apr>8llant,
APPEAT TROU CIRCUIT COURT
OP COOK CODITTY.
182I.A. 218
This was a bill in chancery by anpellee £^i;ainct ap-
pellajit for separate rnainten?j.nce. The anisver put In ii;£;u.e the
naterial arftrTRents of the bill. The c& rs was r^.^orred to u
Maeter to inquire -.nd re ort as to the value of defendant's ee-
tat« and .vhat wo\ild he reasonaVle to allow corrplainant for her
support. The J'astar took teBtiroony as required by the order of
roffjrer;ce only and took no testimony in sup'ort of the allega-
tions of the bill as to the r^on-lijct of defendant tc':?arda com-
plainant or to short that ahe was entitled to a decree for sup-
port and maintenance. The trar.ecript of the record contains
no eridence othsr than that taken by the Haster. The decree
directo the defendant to pay to coTsplainant fiva dollars per
week for hsr support . It ih aaL'l,ctn9d for error that there is no
evidence to ruf tain the decree .
VB. T^RKSI^ITfn JUfTTICl E.4K::3R
DJT.IVJSBgD V.m OPINION OP THE COURT.
It 1" a general rule that in chancery a partj in .'hose
f ;Tor a decree is rendered, tr- sustain it on 'Jinp:;al, must in
some .vay preoerre the evidence or the decrea must find the specific
facts proved on the hoarinit. This rule applies to a dec res for
separata rjaintenance. ^^erg v. Berg, 225 HI. 209, "^ T'rss^onp-
tion "^ill ba entertained that evidence sufficient to sustain the
.-,!»',- -' IJn^ ^gQ^ J/^yr.
oAor>r « PS^
81S .A.ISSi
\
-•• «t « M^ /-I ^ « *v '^ r,
.^ i . ;. •ilxrpol ol xaimMJi
^L<(MttOu»^ ^ vvj blvov #«if» boa siat
-i-os It . ""^^eh ^o tj>"»-''^" '■'f arfi Jo 9R0li
-qoB io*t o»»nf?fi -f *»!«£; v.^.. — --.. J :to (hImatMlfi
•#7o*tt "''"^ .^-♦•^.cr ^_ ,,_.. iarf^ o«/fl i^jfJo •onffMT* on
^•q a-i . ^ '^ -A^alalQBK>o o^ j^q oi ^nabnalab aifi aioaalb
IBQUS lOIZStri CVICISXOT .ffif
.THUOO XHT TO lOIHWO HHt (DCIIVVT.Xia
0i ^atr? .la^q^is ao <1 ntsSacM ot (fceishrrvi lit •aiaeb it tOT«l
.ioeqa eriJ bnfl $9um aatoab aif^ no aonablTo •tit OTiseoTq Ta« aaoa
lot Ben: oat a i ,r adtlaqii ttut alifT .jBltaoK trfi no b»TOiq a#«0l
.qromeicT oTT .^S .III tSS ,aioff .» J^o?^ . •otuitf i n tmm ala-xaqaa
r-** rY>|iici}a Oi iffrt >i f^*^!/* #»♦>;.■-.* f v» -'aKi ben > A-tT-i-Q erf fCi-^ noli
({,«ore«, not appearing In th« record, s'as hear^, and if the eri-
der-cs is not rrop'->rly t»r«gerTed the .locreo vill "be retrersad on
aopettl. B'jrp r. Bar^:, supra . The doeres find a that: "The
aHegatlone c" th*j ntii of coraplnint are true as ther'^in
stated," nuc'i .* finding in but a conclr;j?ion, and i:^ not suffi-
cient, unrJer thft d^crfsioni,' of the f^upreme Court, to Kup'ly the
ylace of a certificate of ffvirlenne. Torssll ▼. f?:iffeTt> 20?
111. 621, Tho conjjlainHnt hac failed to ryr^^firra the svtdence
on rhicK tho d;ic.re« io Iteasod, and for that rnanon the -iecree
must ho rev<3ro8d.
•at" : i»J*s
-^IXMV^VfM. l4MI ,9«TO«i'
r>9^09t) mM beTnea^tn
9on9ttr
•»-XO*b Alii
am ^amimj
• MeiVT^t Pr/ ^SJOT^
469 - 18029.
(jh.^^.,,^A.)
BERT' K, MANVILLS, )
App»lle«, )
)
THE KINa-RICIIAHDSCfi 00,
Appell^t.
0OMSOLIDATI;.D WITH
430 - 180S0,
ROHiSRT E, TROSPER, JJ^,
Appflleo*
THE KIK«-RlCliARDSOrf CO.,
Apj^ellant ,
AKP
491 <r 18031.
\ / Appollee,
THE Klfm-BldHARDSON CO.,
j 182I.A. 224
AI'PEAL FROU
CIRCUIT COURT
OOOK COUKTY.
)
Appellant. )
These o&8«a present the sane qtioetlons. Kaoh appelleo
filed his bill in equity againat The Klng-Hiolmrdson (iorrp&nj,
a decree waa entered in his favor and frora atioh decree a defend-
ant appealed. The defendant company wae engaged in eelllng
books by subscription. It employed each of the complainants as
a department raanai^er, the territory in which It eold books was
divided between theni and to each was given the exclusive right
to sell for the company in the territory assigned to him. Each
of the coraplainants had a written contract with defendant, by
the terras of which hie employment began January 1, 1908 and
ended Deceraber 31, 1ft 10. The oorapialnants employed field jnanagero
w)io employed oonvassers to sell the books. The roen etaployed by
the department raanagero wore required to give security to cover
money advanced and tserchandise shipped to them. The entire
•« - y^^
J^ ^ t^ « ii • X
(
••XXoqq
-Arf»t*ib «•#:»•& xtotni ao«il bnm •vrft 9td nk btrmin^ mmw •m i m k a
;alXX«« oi ^•KA^nv vmr ^fuiqao^ ina^ntVtfc •tff «A«X«*t(I« <taa
!2^ «^fUMil«X<i«oe wU to ila«# b«toXqae 'T . ra^^qXitoftcftm xi osfootf
, trt oi Aenq^Xaaui vvolliHAi 9A$ ttl t^'i^I'OO •'^^ ' " '^^
\^' «.. ruBlK»lttl> ililv iMnJnoe n^iilrv m haft MA>Mii>..^i v«. r w xu
"' r «X ymwat njqi*^ insrixoXqirc -^"^ -'oi/tw lo «ne^ ttft
t«f MrxoX<|ar« mm 9ti7 •9t9od td^ XXmi u.- . ^.^voe* b^xoXqjiM oiHr
•J9TOO oi t^f»m»« avis o* ft*^* ^'^ ttn9^mmm ttrmnrt^q0l^ ^tU
-a-
expena© of the husineija wae borne by the throe departraent aana-
sere In the proportion that the total net aalea of eaoh for the
year boro to tJie total sales of all. The defendant waa paid
by Troeper and Jlanvlllo thirty-nine per oent. and by Ely forty-
two per oent, of the retail prloo of the books aold. isAoh of
the ooraplainanta reoel'ved as an advanoe ^150 per mcnth. Defend-
ant agreed to furnish to eaoh department sanager by Ootober 25
of eaoh year a otatenent showing aooounta to Ootober 1 and there-
after by the 25th of eaoh month atate^ri^ntQ showing aoooimts up
to the let of the month until all the buainess of the fisoal year
waa closed. The oontraot provided that In stating the account
for the year each manager ahould be charged with his salary* all
advances to hlra for personal expenses arui all salaries* allow-
anoee, etc* paid to employees In the sales department of his
department, with the salaries of stenographers and other office
asoistants engaged in his departmont* with all suppllea* postagiej
oto. ♦ used in the conduct of the buaineos of hla dopartraent and
with that proportion of the total expense of the Chioar;o offioo.
Including rent and the auditing, and shipping departrtent as his
total net saleo for the year bore to the total net sales of all
the departaonte of tt\» Chicago office, The oontraot aloo provided
that a department tmna^^er should be entitled to any excess of his
receipts and credits over the charges against hisa and that the
amount of such excess ahould be itmsediately due and payable to
him. The complainants had been esaployed as departnent rsanagers
in 1907 under contracts almilar in their provlaions to the con-
tract of 1908, 9 and 10. They wore discharged by defendant July
16, 1910 and filed th© bills in these cases July 29, 1910 pray-
ing for an accounting by defendant as to Uie busineQs dons in
1907, 9 arA 9, The decree in tlis Ely case jjivoc complainant a
decree for $10^4,35 for raoneya collected by defendant belonging
Mil vift fioiM ^o •♦lAt ;^«fi X^ei tdi l«ill CT»i»iO^[ o im mtls til st--
-:r- - .. . ij,: .,.., ,: -■ .-^.^.- r— .... ., >_,
-BT3-«... •' '■ r,f» A <lft«t ilO«« '^'•
,oTi^..rv«^ , -1 ri« miv ,^tMRinjMt4ib alfi iti te^A^o* A#n»#«iMyi
.^no,^ o-iAOlifO ocCt *}e »afT»qjc« £/<loi •eft ^ aali10<|or^[ imiltf dSlM
criicehH«4|aJb atO^id* iKw ffU^i^^om «rf4 tea ^n*^ ynllMiionl
XXa to •»X4Mi ^trt iWoi tts oi «n9tf •a«et «<t* n^lt mmlm smi Utfi
%rt.1i indS jUM ntif 4wrl«i« ••jcuulo ofU n^vo «^J(6»ie Ana ^^^ i— ot
.:)jr tXcTiiyAq ftnw Mib xi^Jil^MKii; Mt hitntim Mmaam tiotm ttt ^mphm
'•umanaii itm^iMtt^ %m A*toXq«* n*»tf i>«d •4t««aJt«X<(»Q0i #ifl' «aM
-.TOO eiU o^ ^ao iBJstcnq iltbt t%k muLtmlm mitumino^ *i«ftrw T0<7X irl
Oiwx «..v. xXiil Maao BmmU at alXltf mU iwXll tettieittC ^61
.i. itffOA »«i»ai«(ii< lit Oil •« ^RAlxtvtot t<l saXifiuoAfta no «4i% asi
« iAMii:«£<[i»oe oovdts 0000 tXI o44 ai oo-Miot orlT •« An* o «t«9i
-5-
to oonplainant, docrooa that defe^^dant deliver to hlia thirteen
promiaaory no toe Rraountlng to 0469.64 and aa«lgn to hltn over
200 accounts araountinjg; to wore than ^10,000? that in the Man-
vlllo oace clv«u coriplalnant a decree for ^Bl^zr^, ordero one
not© to bo delivered to him and nearly 200 aoooiinta to be eool^ed
to him, and that in the Troaper oaoe give© ooraplalnant a deoroe
for $1276,10, ordero 3a notoa to bo delivered and B50 aooounta to
to asoigned to hia, Tho ooiffplalnants had prior to their diacharge
organized a corporation called the V, S# Biohardaon oosjpary to
engage in tho eane business as defendant oompar y xr&n engaged in,
MR. PRESIDINO JUSTICE BAKM
DELIVERED THE OPIHIOK OF THE COURT.
The rule was laid dcwn by Lord Rodeadalo in C»Oonnor v.
Spai^ht, 11 iiohoaloa and Lefroy in 1804, tJiat It is a oufflclent
ground for juriadiotion in equity that the aoocunta ar& too oora-
pllcated to be takon at law. In Foley v. Hill, 2 H. L, Cases
£8, the rule Iq clearly reoojrnlzfjd that the chancery O0urta will
take accounts when oonplloated independently of all other equities.
300 also, I'enno v, iioffnan, 116 Fed, Rep. 49 and oases there cited.
Where a salary is to be paid to an eraployee in proportion to the
profit© of hi a onployer the que:ition whether the employee raay
maintain a bill for an aoooimtlng depends on the olrourastanoea
whether tho aooounto are of a too coinplioated nature to be gone
Into by a jury. 3uoX v« aela, E 111. App. 116; Harrington v.
Churchwanl, 9 Jttp. N. 3. 576 j 3. 0. Bth w. R, sosj Hargrav®
V. aonroy, 4 G. S. Green 281; Alpaiigh v. Wood, 45 v., J, Kq,
165, In Ohannon v. Steward, lOS 111, 541, an ewployoo was to
bo paid a certain auia and one-half the net profits of a branch
of the enployer's buoinoea, and it was held he could saaintain a
•no wn^i
VKJMifomlb lit : hiKf ainoCTlAXqieoo •ill •nJtd o^ JMtrr ^tf
>THKJ^»J :~
itmt^i'y
••oal .
f * f •4«iimo V —-"
..- A.^'rta*! Arwi ••X40;. . «--w-^i«i
or^^ ♦/irt;^ l^^^ttUiOUmn xX^^«X9 "' ^ ' -^'^ i9S
«b*^ie •ntwU «a»oo t«« «^ .q^H .M^l Mi vaseii:.^
•rf* oJ fT'if ■''«•»-' •»<' ftl ••xoXfin* rid^oi i>Xaq atf ^
•e«rai#«Mtf»ti« Mtt Oft iite»q«b ^ihnm^9M cut iral XXicT i^ alsHUsm
.7 n^iyvXTuia \t£l .qciA .XXI f'"* ,./^rr» u ^^ ^^g^^
o^ BJJW o»^oX(7v» n« ,XM .XII 501 , .-..V-.. ,. ....... ^ . :
rit&tund M '*.■• "oi<7 i9a •fCi IXjufci^no ten «si« alsitO'^ --^'^^ fiS
bill for an accounting although h© was not a partner.
it Is clear X'roa the iiatur« and extsnt of d«fendant»a
bu£tln«88 that an account taken undar the provl^lona of the oon-'
tmct '.rlth ooraplainanta respaotlng their oo»penoatlon for thrao
yoars wo^ad ba coc:plioatad» intricate and a wholly unfit inatter
for investigation by a juiry.
That the defetidant waa indebted to ootaplalnants in the
auaOTant of tha dacroaa for moneys oollaoted after it roo©iv©d all
that it waa ©ntitlad to for tha books add In 1007, H and 9 is
not diaputed; nor is it dlaputod that the dafanda-nt had no
pecuniary intoraat In tha proraiaaoi'y notea ordered to bo delivorod
or the aooounta ordorod to b© asal^ed to oomplainante. Appellant *a
contention is that under the contract tho notes &nd aooounto be-
loni!;ed to it and oomplainanta had no right to eithor but only
to the laonay due on the aame «hen collected by defendant and
further, that if %h& note* wore to bo delivered to cowplainanta,
as provided In the decree, they ahould be endoraed ".rlthout re-
course" which waa the <mly endorseroent the oossplalnanta were under
any clroumstanoea entitled to. Appellant insiata that it had an
interest in the notea, acccunte and correapondonee beyond their
more raoney value? tliat an important part of its aaaeteand buai-
neeo conaiated of the good will and Ita relation® with its field
nanagers and convasoera; that with th® poaaesalon of th« notes
and accounts ooaplainanta would be in a position to oo-npel de-
fondant's canvassoro to do buaineas with theia rather than with
appellant and thereby would be enabled to 8sriou»ly injur© the
buslneoa of tippellant. We ofsncur in the contention of appellant
that under the proviaiora of its contract with coBiplainanta it
had the riijiit to retain the notee emd aocounta ao Its own and
collect the oas>e, nxwi that the only riglit the compiainante had
in auoh notea or aocounta was the right to the raoney due thereon
. ^^^^eh 9 AS al bttJ
u rMV •tnmnl. X^no •/fi •«« <(•'
b^litStf mmpaut^Bam
tirMt ftfiox«<l ••CMAaoqa^TXoe ixte, 9insJ^oo* «aoioa erfl -
M9il «iX rl^Xv •noll«i»-s «li {km iilv M»os '
•••to t««««ooq 9tU ('. i t •'(••'Bi^rtoo tOM ia»s«
••& Xoqtaor .'lAlqaroo >)J[^nuoeoj> tela
#ruiiX*qq« to no' Oi-{^<t ,^4 r.
boM an Bli •« Biauoeo« tnm Anion mU /tt#ion tj idi
bMtl •loAfll. :n xXno ti*
no^rfdS oub >c*taei oiil ol Irfali •rCl •« •>oji to ••ion riou« ol
•6-
vKhen collaotod and it followe, that In our opinion, the oourt
should not have ordered the dofondant to turn over th« notes and
aocoiints to complainants. But wo do not think that the decree
should be reversed beoauoe of the direction that defendant turn
over auch notes and accounts to complainants* The period for
which defendant was required to account ended four years ago and
defendant has, by virtue of the appealfi, retained posaeoslon of
the notea and acoounte. U'^e cannot eee how defendant can b© pre-
judiced by now turning over the notes and aoooimts to ooraplainants.
August 15, 1910 the oomplalnante woved for an interlocu-
tory order that defondant turn over to them the notes and acoounto
in question and the isotion was referred to a raaeter to taire arai
report proofs with hie oonclualonsj and reooraraendatlona, inirsuant
to this order proofs were taken In one oaee to be read in each
case* January 17, 1911 a general order of reference to the saae
master waa made in each case and the parties stipulated that the
proofs taken on the reference should stajid a& piroofa under such
general order of reference and, they «r©re so considered by the
master and reported by hira as the proofs in the case. The oourt
adjudged the coste against defendant and allowed the raastor In
each case |183,33# We do not think that the oourt erred in includ-
ing in the raaster's ooate the cost of taking proofs under the
reference on the motion.
\Je think that the deoreo 8lK>uld have provided that the
notes should be endorsed "viithout recourse" before delivered to
the complninante*
The decree in each oaee will be ino<llfled by Inserting
therein after the worda: "that the defendant deliver to the
coraplair^nt all the notea set forth in the jsautor'e report" the
words, '♦which notes shall be endorsed 'without recourse* by the
btub tt«^ort ert^ fro tnui oi^ nfSno ovnrf ^n Mfj©l!«
•^•xotfib mU ^«(U <nlili ^on ob Mr iM ,m4ruuitMlqmot> xmi
fol bolfq JnMoluiqmor " rfot'e ffliro
^cf ruM) ift«Jbctel«t v/ori ••• ionrtMO eW ,8^ri -« f^tert «ti
«8;J.. !O0 o^ BimtoooM fyrs '»©.tor» -^rfi •x«to Jt
'•f B0W nt
ifefl© fit ffKfn 'jmstn <wto "► «?# >.t •^er sloonq i ."fi Oi
..'a B^l&nmti tit ba>; '.'..flu
rfoiiu ittnu alocnq rx« JEhm^h l)ixn>rf» f>9fiBtB\on BtU no miiiJ ulooi^
dt nl s^ocrr^ off,} a tBtmjm
"Hj .am
•rfi lo&rtL' »Tioo- ids «*«<»« e**f*^'^«n •rv ;il
oili imiS bBbtrxnq t« >Kii »«•!»«& %AS iacfi ifntrfl ow
t \«f fc«t^lNMP no rf««'0
•rfJ ' #«d^* tilBfiU
Bti. 'iBSBtm •«<^ nl ti**T^*» ##• enforr «»rt^ II« ♦*rartla.Cqnoo
•If* ^rt Jt/c , utow
defendant", and ass 5aodifl©<i th« deoroa In each oase will bo
affiiTOOd,
DKCKEE If? KACH CAai; MODIFIED
AND a:.; modified AFFIRMF.D,
•d lUn —M9 dM«
.'1
0. r Term, IDU. Itio ,
18 - 17425
?lain^€/f in dryov, )
JJRROH TO TilS l^U'-n^IPA". .-JOURT
01^ CHIC AG C.
IS 2 I. A. 227
•^7.. JU?1ICK TORO^N t>et.IV1P7:D THK CPII^IOF 0'=' TH3g CCTJRT.
Thie rrit o' «rrnr hue b«en ered out to revaris* a
ludrmeTjl of th^* "unlripal Court in farrr of the def sn'.ian"'. in i^vTOt
hfT9f t>!S Plaintiff "belo?^, Hsnry Ptilt^^, cigainft th^ plaintiff in
error here an;1 dsf»ndant belo'?', Henry H. Rot^rts. Th?; jucif^ttnt
ic- for -<;:5l.'^.55 ai^^ costs. It? ^acis wap the folTorinr promiioory
not*;:
"Chicajro, .June 51, 1910.
v500,00. Two r^onthe aft^r dat-i I pr:rnir::e to pay io the
order of Renry Sraith Tire •Ivm-Jred sri'-i no/lOQ ■nollars at 120
PranVlin f^trset.
Value recelTed.
"ith int'ireet .'^t 6 p';r cfivt . o^r £'.nrarn.
H. H. Robf^rta."
The erecvticn of th^ note is adritt»d by the defend-
a.nt . It E^ac firen fcr a. i-uffrcisnt conti-lerat ion, thut Rxpressed
in a contar.ip.iraneoue apre^m^nt exec;<ted between th« plaintiff and
defence ant:
•This indentiire inade this 21 da^ of June, 1910, be-
tween T-f, 11, Hob'jrte ^ ? .-h and "lenrj Enith x ?? k ^It-
nesseth;
'^T'loreas saia -.Ttjurties hara for sora*" time pant C8a*ri»:d
on th" burinssR of t'ubliehinf^ 3t k jf under the prcrinions
of Articles o^ "&rtn<?r8^'ir» heretofore •'•ntsred into x 3t x
and Trv.,rea8 it has been agreed bj and between said cartiea
to dincolre said partn'jrcAip n n Jt no* thiu Ir:dent-.re
'^itr'f.Gpeth' that in '.Pursuance of said aprreeirent in Lhic
b»h'alf the said oai'tieo dc hsrehy decl^iie that the f,:^rtner-
ship befveen ther. shall be ccnp.idered ae deterrjined and
st^>nd diarolTed as and from thir date; and that in m.rsu-
ence of s&ld arresrnent anci in ocnsideratlon of the prs-^isea
and of the uuri" of ^'ifteen hundred DollrU-B now puid by
oald party of the first part to the party of the second
part, oaid pai-tv of th:^ second r-art do^e hereby fcsoiffn .
.0
T :■"■
tfi
TSS .A.I§8{
BIT (D'
-*lw ,T « Jt ^ « K *
«e.
■•a
1 « » If >•
and transfer unto the p-Tty of the firet Dart, hie execu-
tors, adninifctratorss an<! arripne all tVie part or share and
interest whatroerer of Yin-, in e.nrl to all nnd ninrul: r the
pr*-: isss anu i'lop-ri-y hereto-ore irtonticned, including the
eole ri.vht tu coniinue the I.;i.ii;inea8, publii-Mnr said liets,
all cr adit Li, contract s» aseski., efleota htid jrood vill of
eaid p-ixtneiDhip, to hold all of th*^ aaici prPr.iirsB unto
the eaid purty of ths firet pjjrt, hie sxsc. j^ore, adb-.inie-
tratcrc and asrir'T^s al'soloutslj anO forever, alno ncsnifi-
cslly Ineludirig co'itrac^ of y. '^-. Aticms 5: Co, of Indiana-
polis for .>1000,00 fcr c;p»a.ce in Koberts Hardware "^.ict, also
Cha^-picn To'-'l -orts ccntrac; for oxia year (taro paf-ec) in
American ^-'achin^^ry Bulletin, also Kern Machine Tool orks
no, contract for 5 nnnt^n.*
There are cth«?r r'^cltcl? and rro'* iiiionr: in Ihi h con-
tract of dissolution, but the for'^going it all that it in necca-
eary to quote.
The -t-^oo.oo note v^ac pvrt of the ll^'GO.OO concideraticn
msntloned, thf re>T'?iinder h Tinr been paid in c&sh.
The defence mnde tc the suit on this note -vas and is
"that ths consideration for said nets his fi-il-ud in th:i.-u the
plaintiff hi.>-S not turned over to or d^lirered to the defendant",
the Atkins ^' Co. contract and tho ".h i-ripion Tool '"orke contract i
and a claim dn £:«t-off thu£> eet forth:
•♦Thic! defendar.t fi<rtver states '.h;.it by rtsauon of the
failure of said plaintiff to delirer uaid contracts for ad-
Terti£:ing ac a^resd in sai;^ written contract x n x hs has
loet thf3 profit frora liaid advertising contracts, und that
he hae been otherwise dar/'ared, sh«reby eaid plaintiff is
now indebted to thic defendant as follo?.s;
T.083 sustained "by r 'ason of the failure to dtJliver
the Atkins contract (55; on the £1000.00 contract) ^-550*00.
Ti~3s s'.istainv^d by reason of the failure to
deliver the Char.vion Tool Works contract, 200.00 _
Total aciount of s^t-off T',' 5 0.00. "
Thir, dcfCi'.otj s^i-'-mz to ua base'd on a coafusicn bijtus^an
"a contract" mid th'^ ?7riiten n-^roranduio or svider.ce of a con-
tract, '''e shovill bi unalls to see any failure of coniiideration
for this note,^vsn if th-^ ccnlf^nticn of the dsfcnciant that tht;
written evidences or 'r^ncranda cf the t.vo contract c rrjentionsd
were wrongfully or n>j.'lect fully « ithheld from hin; by the plain-
tiff, were borne out by the svidur.ce.
I. r
/ '
lAe •at 0tnu x^ttmrnrS has
jij«»T:,"i IF,
•j'f-X^
1/'
.noi^i^ilaatxb to iomiJ
, joa'i.-?ior fi-.r >.:,o
«
8 ^ f . i .' n f i.
.0(
, ^3*1-
Mr
noi/i»T» ' ' i.Tor
bri'f'.
•i e ■: . :
rf^ T9rll9b
The flT« huncired doltsT not« t/as piren as part c.f th«
coneideration for JJr'.ith'B interest in the parlnprtship of Tiobt-rtE
Ic Sriith, i-rid the yory sicnorondtiin of contract h«t' •■9n Bet -.-te &
Smith prcauced. in eviderice by lob^rtn e'^ovrr. t>j« trar.r.fer end
conT«yance tc him cf that int'jref.t, pr-cif ically irsclrdinp;
Jricith'e ir-terect in the Atlxins Conp&fty and ChuTrpion <^ornpa?iy
contraoti?. "hif corvfsiderat ion has not failed. Pnith has no
lonp'-r any intereet in fh« t'ueiricss or in ri.ny of th:? contracts
rftde in th* course of it or for itt h^pefit. Tha hufcin'see and
the contracts all b-^lonir to Kobirtc.
It r^ipht w*ll he thr-ii if P^ith int^rfar^d ivith the
resalization hy RobsrtB on thone contract 13, if h^i nrsY'^nt'^'d in
any nann^r the delirfsry to Roh*rts or hie uss of ^-jviisnce of
th»m, written or othen^lce , or 'iy.r. if hs '"erelj ncf*l«cted to
carry out a prc^-ics he n;>dft collatsral to ths contract of fJissSO-
lution and conreyance, to obtain and d«lirer to V.ohtrta the
■/fritten sridrincs or i^ieunroranda of the particular adrertising
contracts mentioned, there would he a tset-cff ayailablo to
RobertE of the danafcc caused h;- such wrongdoing or default on
th5 part of r^ith.
V\it the burden of rroving such a net-off f.-ould be en
Pobf^rtc entirely, 7o vc^^ive its bfjn'sfit, hs ifuut tjstablish the
existence of the n'ritten Instrurr.entB the noa-deliv«r;; of v.hich
is complained cf, the nni'^rtaklnr cf ar.ith to dslirer then or
to secure the f'.ellrery of then tc him, the default in that under-
taking:, and the resultant dan&rreB,
The evidence in this c-ise faile entirely to «etabiiah
anr such eerier cf essAntial factors tn thz set-off claiTJied,
Thin is our oonclijsion ^^ft^^r a carefi;! conp.ideration of all
the CTiience received by the '^ourt belo.?. It ^r-uld be utaeless
tn (JiKcuEs it in dr^tail. ■•''*• arree T.-ith the ric? of it evidently
/ \
bti
.xi
mdi
-\nthulTi>
-CriAqnra^
"■ htuk X
on aflif -**.
crf».
.b
aXf
sid«
bat tat^n
or*
inl
dii
n.i bi i
tM
^0 •t>n4ibl
«^.ol l«rz9bi«ao» altfT .alttaiJnoo
'i ««0aiaiftf tifj <7i ^aeT9#Bt xb» '79^oI
> ••woo aift Hi aftm
off o^ yieX^ XXa tioaiinoo aift
9<f lis
lir. mti^€o% x(f no i^B«lK«T
na
•9l.ti<nr ,«ejft
boa flJtA^tf , -' :>njBx»Tn nolitfl
^niflitT'"/faiP T' oon^blTa oalilT*
a^ ttidmllBrm 11©-' '»'^ a^wiiinaa
na ^Itfalab to yilo - i' -^ • /f baatf«o oa^awab »<« lo ,#^ia'fo«
.rtlinB lo ^Yaq eiU
•rfl dairtfaJat- ,;tilsaa<f a^i aTioa- .tXatJttna tlastfaff
daittn la xsaTiXab-oofl arf/ alnaauriiani aa^ilTv aif^ '^•) sorraiaXza
ir. PTOifl •nvlXeb oi rfliaS lo T^nHj^i ■ baotaXqnoo al
-IB alab • ■"«** »Tuo»a ol
.s-n;!"^' -at
■iilXrfaia!.' 3X1*1 ••*© al^.* ■■^"
.bfirtx-.io llo-»ac atoioal X«l'fl*ar. -'9 xnM
iaooo £0lo%ao « t irfT
aaalaau atf bXw ^''*
XLStif'blrt ©ir er« -'•IS* •• .liMieb
taken by the »Tu(2re of the ^'unicjrrtl '"lourtjWho tried the cause
wlthcut a jury, Ke ;aust be aeeumed to 1ia.T« h-ld eff<5ftiye only
that pai't of it prcpsrly adrieeilile.
But whether that objected tc b./ th« fi'sfendant Is
taken into account or rsjscted, ths r'seult.tc oisr '-nindjit^ tha
sa'»ie .
The jud{iT!S<^nt of the i.'unicipal '^ourt is affir^'^-d.
AFFIH!^¥D.
9i fnjBbr\9j9b 9." ifm $9ifi ir.:^i9ttm tu^l
SHS 9t,lRlrs ntO ot,itJ99i , 9?09t»T TtO #flU90CNR O-
-130 - 17654
Term, 1911, Ho^
"DefeTtdant in Srror, /?
▼ 8.
F. "D. ■MPRIP'.A'^B "O^TSANY, /
Plaintiff in Mrrgar,
HKBOR TO inJl^CIPAL CDUHT
OF CHICAGO.
182I.A. 236
IfR. 'Un7I05 T7rOT>?? BILIVERKT) TIIB OPITflOK OF T105 nom<T.
Thiii in a tstI* of eri*or aued out tr) rer^ree a judgment
ef the Jftmicipal Court of Chicago for |600,00 a^^ainst the plain-
tiff in error, Lh© H. B, Moreland Company, in faTor of the de-
fendant in error, th« plaintiff 'below, Carmslo Uraina.
The defendant company ir a ln;ildinir contractor. It
was on nrid before v:ay 10, 1010, "H'^ctinp: a thref; story flat
truilding of bricV on Fokeby street In Chicane, The plaintiff
Urcina war ewplryefi. an a laborer on thla Job on the day ?n-jntioned
and had been for three weeks at least preceding that -tay. Hie
irorlr conBltjted of v-heellnr barrov^s filled viV^ nortar for the
use of the wasons fropi! the crroun-i into the building tc a hoiet
therein, ?hc runway over which the barrows v^tq wheeled i^aa a
short sine-lo plank fourteen inches wide runninr from the mortsar
box on the pround to a ?roodsn horse of s'me kind nearer the
buildlne, and another sinrle plank of the same ??idth and t^entj-
fire feet lonf , running fron the horee up to the sll?. of the
door of the flrnt floor of the building about nine feet above
the ground. This Wf^thod of hBTinp: the nortar br^urht into
buildings In process of constrtJotion is a cur^tciyry and usual
one, and the rnn-^ay was of the unual conctri.ction and ■s'idth
for the purpose.
On Uoj 10, after the plaintiff had been working an
hour or so, hi^ foot clipped on the : untAing plarik near the
door sill, the wheelbarrow tipped over ar:d he fell to the
\.
88S ./-.1 281 i >
\
ntli t9 lovat ai .Traiqwon bB«/STo1f ,<I ,H etfi .tot-x* at Ttl#
.i'ljlwU oXcr-uiO yVoXsd' Ttltni«Xq •.-'i. ,i<«"t« ni #oabe«l
iamrinoo "smlbXiKi^ « at xfutqnoo tnubrt^sb ndf
J An yym^n «*tff^ a rmitof*-. ,OXf£ ,0X tB* t^olftrf baji no t«w
^"^ •^nt'*^ ni i99tt» X''9io« BO -ioitd !• gaiiifiJAf
10 ■xvio'I'aX « «« b9T^Xqn» •«« «niaU
ffi t)nlb*9«^<l #t«*r *« 9y«»s»w »9tiff t©^ ir*#<f bjiif boa
»rf.t Tol -TA/Tom ffllvr bf>rxt1 mvfo-x •:o bs^fllarroo :lT<nr
a«*t«w ©rf^ «ot^ nnlr'f'tn mhtw aiiifonl nea^ivol ^CneXq alinla itt9if9
9tfi ftm^n bat ■ i •atorf n«fjoow « a^ bnooTi ©rft oo xorf
-X*fT»wt biwi rf^btw -flBfr^ •!<# t» <n«Iq ot'unta latflana bfui ,7inlbltic;tf
arf^ lo xria 'it aatoff »rf# mtn!^ fKitnittrx ,V(oX *a»^ trrt
•rwSm SBBt aaln SaodB yitbXlutf a/f* ^« TcroXl ^aTll aif* ?fo noob
eirtl lifr^uettf i«ircon Mft i|alT«rf l^o borft(»ct aiHT .biruoii •ff#
XAimc; bfut TlEB«o#Rjio il ai n^tiotntmnoo lo aaasrrcq at asiiXbXl'Mf
Atbtn btiM nottotrtSBnoe Imamts 9t<& lo 8«w T^r*Trtrx arf;^ bfrjs ,eno
• •aoq^uq V(ft 7ol
ju ^jnliiow nea<f batf HiiniaXq arfl ta*^* ,01 t* *f f^^
BHi xaan sdiaXq jytlnnirc arfd oo baqqtXs .>'oo" . ^ -xo Tfforf
•ifi oi iral Mf baft taro baqqlt «oTiit<ffaa(fv aifl ,XX1b toob
ground and was injured. The extent of his injuries is in dis-
pute, but it IfB ir^r:at'?rial In the tI^w we take c'' the case,
■^e siied the defeniant co^p^ji for dar:apc8, allerring
in his ■Stat»5r!ent of Claim" that it wan lia"ble "for nerltfrcnce
3! 31 K « in not fnriiEhinjT hin "1th a eafe pl-.ce to worlc and eafe
appliances with -hich to rork", in thai the runtruy ^ as "too nar-
row and too steep and partlv crrered «ith rortar" and for ne^li-
gcnoe through the violation of t-hat the f;t».terf)nt yp.ry inarti-
fici&lly desr.ri'bes as T^ection 79, chapter 4h^ page 1047, 'lurd'a
Statutes, (190H), by hich ic sridRntly p^^jant the Act of the
Logialature of Illindis hjreinaftiar quoted, ap-roved June 3,
1907, entitled "An Act prtvidinf for the protection an! fjxToxj
of persons in ?md ahout tho ''onutruction, repairing, alteration
or retroT&l of ''.tuildiniPia, hridr'SB, ?ia',h.ctB ani other ;-'tructureB
anc! to provide for the enforce^Ront thereof." ^. X<^. ^^^■^'^'^"^-^^'^
?hf^ c»uro was tried in the ■^''..mi cipal Court hy a Judge
sittlnr ?'itho\it a jury, Ti-" found for t'rs olaintiff and acneeficd
his damasrcB at .n6;-0,00. To rereree the judgment founded on ihis
finding thie vrit of error, --.s hsfore not 'd, has teer, ohtained.
It in clear that no liability e^ietn under the cornmon la**- inty
of the defendant to supply tho plrdntiff u safe plo.ca in, and
safe appliances tvlth, Y'hich tc vvork, for arev if iti: no^"* ipence
could he prodicntad from the ohar ctyr of th'^ "vriw&j or frcra
the frosh mortar =vhich plaintiff maintaino i^ho frequr^ntly drop-
ping on it fro?r! the trowel ^ork of the hrlcklsA'-erB ahove (which
pi'oposilion, howarer, ve do not hold), th'^rc can hc» no flou"bt
that t/hatorer risk of vlangor thars was in -^-^r^'inf? under tho ©ins-
pie and apcaront conditicnK ^vhich existed wac ass'araed hy the
plaintiff, who had heen Icnr; esaplojed under them in the ordinary
diochrxripe of hit; dutl«n. This in rractically conceded by tho
plaintiff's coi;ni:fil, .vho pute hiij ultiiuitc contention n^uai'ely
-attb at 9l B^ixulrl sirf lo Msix* erfT ,b9iulnt saw bam baaoxj^
"?/ ■fii) lol -leb 94^' b*UM f
el«r •( iw oJ oo Ic? »!«» « d' '^xrlifBtfiirT #«o nl ii s x «
-•MP ^c • 999ttMltqq»
V ♦*'^'* 1©' ■.iilid*
il bbJSOibb l^ »d
dol Lid 9ii. ^fiiq
sr^J- >'f b»muam» asm ft? ;qji isiu; ulq
X%>r COlgau; -dJ i>£ii d.l» ,mJfll«X4
on the ▼iolytion of the statute a^bore cited. The saaterial part
of that statute reads thus:
•?e it enacted: k * s* Thai all scaffolds, hoitts,
cranes, ntayp, ladders, suprorts, or othtir r-^schanical con-
trlYaMcee, erect.od cr oonptructed by any nsrson, firrr. or
ccr^rrat ion, in this State for the use in tho -jracticin, re-
pftlrinr, alteration, re^roval or pa.intinf of any house,
■bvildinr:» tridf-e, Tia.'i-ct or oth!*r strv:cture, Ehall ho
erectod and conrtruct«d in a Bafe, £5i.itable and pr' par ritin-
ner, an1 chall he to if>recT,ed and ccnrtrupt'^Hl, n-inced a-nd
op«ratad at to fix^ rronor and adequate protection tn the
life and linb cf !*ry pe^'^on or pnrr^r'.nR es^ployed. or ann'T-d
thsrs-'sn, or paftcln*^ under or by the EOfne, and in fiuch man-
ner aa tc "vrevont the f a1 1 inir cf anj •n-.i.tcrial thnt may ho
ured cr dep'^fitfsd therocn."
If the a'^ciden.t to the Plaintiff rwanlted froir a Tio-
latlon hy the defendant of this E'ature, it ii. true, as main-
tained by hin, th')t the dooirini of the AsRurrnptlon of P.icsk dooa
not aprlj.
Sprinr Valley Hoal '^ompany r. Patting, <?10 111.
Stroetor t. Weetern wheeled Scraper, 254 111.
244 ,
The qufistionc, theref'^re, for decision by the Tourt
below and by us are whether there was a violation of the Sitatute
in this raae !?.n-! frhother the aocldent resulted therefrcm.
The pT?ilntiff contende (a.) thfit the runray on which he
was worVinr i^ac a "•■CHff old" am' was not "constructed ir. n. tafe,
suitable and proper r^Junner" , nor re conf;tr:(Cted "as to i^-ive : rop-
er and adequate protection to the life and limb of any person
employed or enff^/red thereon", (h) +*-,«■*• if not a scaffold th«
run-ay was at leact a "Tr!«chanical rontrirance" and fniled of
me^tinp the i;affie requirenentr of the f::t»,tuto. This failuro to
meet the reqvurerients of the statute it in ju'rued is ehov.n by
tho: inEufficiont vvidth of th«? runray, ?and the fact th^it it vras
not protected a^ove fror, the dropoin^s of fresh cjortar from the
^ If .» •
••olb 3lj»l« to ' ^ bmnlMJ
•^uija<a Bd^ :u aoiimtotr • »jbm 9ftit rmtftB
•rf rioiriw oo x^wnin (») abrr^tnoo "t'^t^ntxi
,aY. i>f»loiJl*artoo» ton a«»« '?f!« "ftf ^«w Vfi'''"r'''^ »*^
n» to <tatX ftn* TolJd**- *i £»«*a na
•M# fciottiioa a ^an "^i .•no»'r«ff* h«:v ^tofqn*
la balliil bnm •eonaTi-x«iv*o J ..
J »ttfriiit clifT .a^v^^tl!) affi '\o tinaota-tiupon t»MMA feri^ %iiilt>»m
^ n^ r^at atf^ iaa«
av. . . ,
erf* mo-xt Tw^T -*o<<« i»a*o*
trow«l v/ork pninf on on the salln abore it. Th-; frea^n riortar
dropped on it, it in waintainad, caused the plaintiff' fi foot to
alip and "broufrht about the accident ,
Ve asaniaa that ths Court "b^loi? airreed with these con-
tentions, "but we ars unabl" tn io 00. "e do not think f^at any
proper definition of "ecaffold" can be ms.de to include pnch a
"running plank" as ths on? in question, ^« doubt much if the
running plank ehould be considered a "ri.echani?ia,l contrirance, ••
If it p'&B neither en-; nor the cthsr, the ftatute did not apply
to it.
Put Qrerx if, Yv the liberal cont-truction o^ the stat-
ute for which the plaintiff contends, ^n^^ on ace nnt of the f; ct
that "by the phraF.inp of the Act, ■scaf foUe", "cranes", «stayp»,
"laddern* and "supportE" ar?? all apparently placed un-3er the
generic tRrm of "Piechanical contrivances* (although i»e should
hesitate inder>end6ntly to to denmin^.ta ^ome of them) , ve i.reat
the runway as "a nechanlcal contrirance*, ne. can not hold that
for either of the reasons ■■hic^ th* plaintiff anrip-ns, or for
amy cth-ar, it was not "arectsd and conritructed tn «. sa-^c,
suitable and proper manner* or war* not "rso f?rect«d an'^ con-
structed, placed and operated as to rire prrper and adequate
protection to the life or lir^b of any person or persons employed
or engJiged thsreon.*
It way be trua, *b the r?.uintiff t^sstified, that if
the runway had baen in-.de of three planks plHCfsd nide by ride,
he vfculd not have fallen, ■•2B:)^cialIj if the arranj^erient had in-
cluded the faf-tenine top-ether cf the planks,- A fiiieT platform
of many planke -should hare been rtill csfer. It -^lay be tru?i that
a canopy or roof erected over t^e runtvay ^l(?ht have prevented the
•ccl'^ent by proTentinfr any '".or tar from falling on the rilank,
although that the plaintiff's foot, slipped on fi-^rsh mortar is
xbJ-t- •'Tj*n 9if* »tt »rr<ft? It f lav •ifl no no snl^** <t<v- ffi-ror*
. nlmfnlmm at tt i[>
?tit ,»*.
1 ntm to 'tmntum '>fie 9l<SMttui
b«'
/ :;;. j . •• '*«9rrt re
-» irotfoeto^q
■ .ffoete;
'?*(f fcsff t'
10
^S
ia
rathsr a onjactiire than a ryr'^r'sn fact. A ccniplet'^ly covered
broad inClnod plane with si-^e wa?.l8 would ^ave "been still
acre pr"tect''^d fro-n the annidsnt cf any f^rcij^n Bub?tance upon
it. P^it n':^ith8r a "ride tilatforw nor a "OTer«d floor was, in
our oninlon, requirod "bjr the statute under dipci-Rsion. It was
not ats'-'lute saffity (which i«. rarely If ever otttainahlQ in con-
otructxon v;ork), nor »ae it enpToya-sa tn8ur«unce that thip etat-
ute wae exv'sntad to sGcurg, ri;' that awount of pro toot inn for
employees and others wcrtrinp or paseing ahout a huiliinjc in
construction ae it consistent with the practicahle carrying on
of the work. In conetrx;ing the phrases "ronetructed in. a safe,
niiltahla ;*nd proper manner" r;.n(.\ "bo conftriicted ao to rire pr-per
and adequate protection", equal *sicht munt he riven to the
words "auitahle" and "proper" as to "cafe" and "adequatri, " We
do not feel at lih-^rty to hold unsuitahl^.' and i'npror-'^r a T^ethod
of supplying sortar to "brir^'-larars f?hich If sho'^^n to hare been
the ordinary and cuetow^iry ono for a great nunher of y^ars, cmd
which had never before resulted in an a'^cident in th^ exTeriance
cf a builder of tR-snty-one y^ars ntandlng.
The judgment of the r^unicipal Court vill be r??v9rsed
ifith a flniing of fficts.
lltim rr*«<f •▼»ff bX««»« aXX^w mbtM ifll« •n«fA b4istront b»oitf
ni ,«4iir f»jn bmfiro'^ m ion aiX9\iA[q tAiv « t»ri*l!?n lor
-noo tii mldMtfimitff* ««y» ti xX<»'M'v '^^ :<o2(fw) \#»1»« «laXo«(te i4Ni
•AiM« ^irfi i«r(;r •ofMTtnial •••TO-i^^"* ^^ v'** "xoa < ('tow nol^oi/i/a
. •> T^aixixmo 9l'ia9lSomiri »^S ifllv SnoSntnnoo al as aoll9ini«aoo
v»^M8 » ttl b«i9uitono9* ••••o/fq »i41 ^niinisno9 al .liow •rfi lo
q •irin «)t nji b»<^f>irtiano9 oa" biui ""xaniMfa inqoaq bna BidMitun,
»T ". i»,t«4if «!>««• bo* ■*'>*«■ •t»qo'»q" b£ui ••»X(i»4ii/n" sbtQW
bo; (Kjoiqwl bn , iiwnii bXorf oi x^'*»tfll 4« J«n»^ ^•n «J^
bc» ,8tfi*> .^1 »no xinsM^Mra biM ^'i
oonsii* rxe « ft« ai b«#Xve»T »'Xdt»tf 9«T*n b«f< ifolcte
.jinibntfia auivx •na-^^a«(r> to -ttabXlmf m ta
baaivreT •<( XXIw #iCtfo9 I/BqlninuW erfi !• .^nens^i/l 8i(T
.jl94t !• yiJtbfilt « x(ii«
223 - l77i;7
cm', .191 IT Ho?
Arrellant, /
/
(now }.'liaab«th 'fcrrisU et al . ,
Appel][ee8. /
I i
\ /
APPSAL FROM THE CIHCUIT
COOTT OP COOK COUNTY.
182I.A. 250
Wi. JUSTICH. BROWH Dm,IV15RED THH OPIiaOIT 0? TKB COURT,
Thic cause coraeo to ur on an swended Mil of complaint
filed Octcter 14, 1903, aa anended on July 14, 1904, the answer
by certain adult defenlan-s to said asiended bill as aniended,
filed Varch 3, 1906, admlttimi? all the allegations of said bill
and aeking the aassa ralief aairad by the complainant, the answex.
of certain minor defendants by a guardiaw ad litem, Eubnittiag
their richtn to the Court, the answer of the principal defendant,
Kliaaboth Morris, sued ae iaiaabeth Hooley, danyinf^ the watsrial
allegations of eaid bill and setting up tht? Ptatuts of Prauds
In an affir^atire defence t.n the s&cne, the Report of a -nat'jr in
Chancery to vhcm said cause was referred {«ith the eTilence
taken by hlsa) , recoamendin^ that the bill be diamiEaed for want
of equity, the object ionu to ths eaid report, afterwards ordered
"by the Court to stand ae exceotionR thereto, the decree of the
Court confir^-ing the v^gter^s rsport and didwieainj' the bill
for want of equity, and an appeal from said decree to this Court
"by the complainant, whose aesignments of error ^nount practical-
ly asrely to the complaint that the deoir^ion of ths Court below
should haye been In her favor inijtead of againet her.
The decree itself states material parts of the nature
and history of the cause succinctly and we quote froia it:
CcTT Txier >-
TZU9HI0 SIT KOirr JA^<i<U (
( .<T
.YIKUOO 1000 W THDor (
H'f
v..
nrr to H0i^i<!0 SHI (nuonnjza vvorb j- .
ic»«>n0 •!!» ,^n ,^X ^Itn: ao l^#bo»<ii ka ,(0^1 ,M t«tf^>^»0 *«rn
,Jb»ba»«« mm L£td hmbamem htsn ot z'nmhnnlfh SlabM nts^ifo ttf
lltd btM9 to Baoifun»tU m^i tU :^tSHi^M ,doeX ^t i*-^^"- MXtl
xmnsttM orfi ,SwtntaI':imoQ 9^9 %€ bwimM Idllttt •amm 9ifJ i«\.ja bos
Sei^iirrtfija ,m»iJ:X A« nBlbmiu^ « X' a^oftbovlftb ttmlm ni-oii^o to
L«ii:*i«iv vrfi y;i ^ ^. ,X»X^"' ''*-'f««lxa m» baifti ,- JotfjislXI
-K; .. r-r -^^ ti0^<13 »xf^ H- ^» --*•• bam XXlcf blA« 1o «noi^iti«xr«
^o *ioff?*l aifi ^erva •"'♦ -♦ »'»r9teb »VI?«-^lt\B na nl
-.. ^...,» G.-f- fiJi*) b^nalai •»» sai/iia Ll^a at ■ v-itortarP
«wAW lot baaataoi lb •il' rxi<f tift iiixfi -Mt'^nanvooat ,... . H.<f nail«^
baiaMo •Jb'zamalta fftoqat htmt tuSf of aaoltoattfo ojrf/ ,xiltfpo to
•ffl to ootoab oifi (OioiaifJ anol^aaojta Mi bcut* of fiao'!) Bdi xd
llt€ arfi yilaalMfrib boa ^^(Ta? a'-xaiaaHf arfi salmttaoo ^itfoD
#1^0? alifl ai aatoab biaa arort faaqqa n* boa ,xfttfpo to #as« ft
-Xasl^aaiq ionoata loiia ta Btn^rsvgl^mtk aaeifw ^^aaniaXgaroo ajff xtf
^orf»rf ^Tirn'N «{fi )o aolaloob offl taff# #RlaX<Tnoe atfi ai \XaYaai xX
•«»rf iaai«i0 to b«a^anl lOTat laif nl naatf ftVii-^ bri/oifa
^-..i. . «jf^ ^o a^Taq Xaiiaitta aalaia tXaail aaioab ax2.
'^ woit a^'*^'" *■ bna xX^^'''^'^"^ •■«'■«'> ^'^i "^^o vioicl-f hna
■The Court finds: that on or about June 4, lci9St o^^®
Rllen P.eagan filed her certain till of conplaint herein to
have a certain warranty deed declared a conveyance in
truet, which said deed was raade on the 12th day of ^ay,
1896, by ''axy 7?houley, conveying to Elizabeth 7, liooley
(Here follots a detailed description of Lot 78 in r.oiaheird'B
Divicion of Block 50 in 19-39-1'* in Chicago), which said
d«ed wae duly recorded in the Fecorder's cffice x » on the
12th da^y of ''ay, 1896 . ?• » Jt
That the said Klixal^eth l''. Hocley har since the re-
ceiving and recordinr cf said deed been rrsurried and is now
Slisaboth T. ?^orris, th« defendant herein. That icsues
were frmred upon the caid bill betireen the said Sllen Rtfa-
fran and the said Elizabeth ?, Morrie and others, that the
caune was thereafter rRferred to Maater in Chanc^ury John
HuTOner to tako teetinony and report the 8Rr':e, together
with hie conrli3r«ion8 of law and fact, and that aaiJ ^^aeter
thereafter reported to this ^ourt the evidence so taken,
together with hin conclauione of law and fact, shieh said
report of the said ''/rister recoranended that a decree be
entered diowlreing: eaif? bill for --ant of equity.
That exceptions vrere filed by conplainant h » st to
esUld report, but th=%t no order was entered thereupon.
That thereafter an ainended bill /as filed h^^roin by
the said I^llen iia;?.f;an and others, alleging the de^-d afore-
said wae given by the said Har/ "houlay to the auid x^lisa-
beth ?. Hooley, now Elisabeth P. Morris, as a rnortrap^e."
It »ould aeoT'; to ^vpear freas an "appendix" to the
printed brief and argusieat presented to us by the counsel for
appellant, that the filing of this amended bill was sugrested in
July, 1903, by a Chancellor in the Hireuit Court, who, after
hearing an arguwent on the exceptions to Master Hurorjer'a Report
on the original bill, nade eo»n« observations on the evidence
but refused to aiaks any order except "T.eav« given to oomplainant
to file an amended bill,"
As appellees* couneel properly enough point out, how-
ever, we can find no such matter in the transcript of the record
before us, and it is entirely im-tiatsrial in the present conten-
tion in any view.
After the amended bill was filed (October 14, 1903)
and itself anended (July 14, 1904), it was answered by various
defendants as above set forth, and on June 10, I908, the cause
was ap;aln referred to a Vr^ster, thig tiiae to »*anter CJocper, to
teike testimony and report the same >'ith his findings and conclu-
sions.
•A XO HO iiuoO
fmil99 M •Tail
jr
99
a:
• . . l</
9ift n;t •xlb0e i-^e* r« uro' liso* il
ai b9i&«'^'^^'^ SAW liiiif b»l>a*nt» sir ^lLLI tttSi i^di «iiMXl0qqA
,ltiia? SluoxiO vifi •! S«IX*oruBrf!> « ttf •(Oi'X « XX^t
iToq»JI •*T«8aBfH -X9i««l oi an*i^q»ox« »rfi^ no Insflu/^'W ■• ^oi^bttif
•on^blTtt eifi no maoiimrfmdo •aoa •&•■ ,XIltf XjtniiilKa aifi so
r;an iclq. ''r»sx» Tab^o xtt» •iUtm mi b*au1t9^ imd
-wof{ (itfo ^niof jf^ifoo* xXTa^oiq Xaanuoo *8s«XI»qq« sA
lito«fuiTl 9di at fifma rioua on bniJ hmo a« ,rEaT9
-naJnoo ^noaaiq axfl oi Xalia^JiaiMl xXaiiJ^na al il &a« ,av rtolatf^
.valT xn' fi' noli
,M T»<o^oO) ikaXn a«w XXltf babnaan a^^ la^tA
acfoiiiiT x<f baiewana aaw il ,(>0^X «^X xX«t) ka*aa«» \l»mtt hoM
aauso ad;t t^^X »0X eotfX no bna ,i(l<xol ^aa aTotfa bm alojdltnaTab
oi ,«aq9or TataaV of 9ml t alifi ,rcaiaatf a oi batialaic alB?Mt •««
-uTonoo biu< a^lbnll aiif i<il« anva aifi i-To<7ai baa xKo«li«al 9-i»i
.anoia
The ccsplalnKTit then offered In evidence che svidence
which had "been taken and reduced to voritinf: before fiaoisr Hummer
at the former reference. The following Btlpulatlon relating
thereto vi'ao entered Into "bct-i^een counsel, and placed on record:
"It is here^by etipulated hetvesn councel for c^rnplain-
ant and coun^'el for Hllzaheth ^^orris tb-ft no object iono ■^111
be ■^■■■dB to the tssti'nQny offered for the reason that it
was net taJccn bcfcrs -'aster 'hooper, hut %as taken before
Vaatsr Huramer, and no objection •«ill he nade becauBe it
was ta'k^n undsr other iEsuee than those under which we are
now proceeding, excerpting counsel for Elizabeth ycrrts re-
8srT«3 the rijrht to ar^ae that thfjt toeti^nony nust be in-
terpreted in the lirht cf its havincr been taVen under a
bill to declare a trust."
The decree finds that en ¥ay 12, 1S96, Ifary ^ouley
vas XJniESjrried; that she died J'^ne 26, Ic^Si that she convaysd by
warranty deed the prenises hefcre described to i^Iizabfith «*.
Hoolcy, noff ^^crris, siibject tc a certain inoiwnbrance on them
o^tnned by said Horsey; that the warranty deed provided that the
said incuiuhrance should be paid oy said Hooley; that eh-r; is still
the c^mer of said incui;ibrance and is willing and coneenta of
record to have a decree entered herein directing that said in-
cumbrance bo surrendered and caf^oelled and declared null and
▼old and of no force and effect; that the eaid ^mrranty deed was
given fcr a ?ood ani valuable consideration, namely, isoney due
to the grantee and future support for the grartor; that it
was not '^ade in trust or aa a ^ort,«Tai?:e or Be (purity of any kind,
but waa a conveyance in fee simple, and that the title to said
preiniees was forever thereafter to rer:ain In and be the property
of said Hooley, no* ?^orris.
The decree n.-tkes an order ahout costs and contains
these further ordering clauses:
•It if! therefors ordered and decreed ; that the said
BlizabetS* Y7 ¥orriB in no^ the ov^nor in fee rsinpls abeolute
of said proriiees ab-ve described in eaid warranty deed, by
virtue of the eaid conveyance.
It in ft>rther ordered an d decread : that the orii^inal
bill heroTn filed, the .ir ended bill and all ancndirenta
thereto be .lidir-i seed for want of equity."
f»lBBi.'fi -ift-JnjiH trir,y't:1 -... .. - J^lifjl &•:!•# ©•«rf ;-. ■.. . olifV
;H1 . - _ .. ; ^... .Xiol •!« .*> ^.- -.y^" ^*--r«> 4^t »•
:b^OO»a » u-irwiXn bn«> I««K0OP 0«DTi«tf -- .- . .... ^-i otWT-f**
-nx
X«r bsxevROs »/le '«ib en- ;fcaiTiCii2 .l; aa«
.~ ri^9d«xl ' •••la»«f 0i1i l»99b Vf»-ruiw
9Hi i«if^ b»l>x-' <ii X.Ja«i-tT«w Mi4 iAxfi jxoXv)}] i>i«i x^ b»avo
li ^Xo«ili bi«« %ii blnq wS bltMttu tonii^cfin/sal i^laa
.i»«Aao brad ^XXXiw «i ham •ooMtiiaamai tlmm ^ lonrro erf<
-ni fii/i s JisH^ y«x;f9e'v/^ ni«i»if fesisJne ••iit>«l» « 9i»i( o^ bxotmm
a«v be»i> xiojK'xiuBi' bi«ft, vdi^ M<I^ i^o«tl» lm« vonol on ^o t^fl• Mot
•vb ^•noav t\l»mme fttotSmfblmnoti 9lffmulmr tnmbmom » ^cfT m^y^
^hniiL Xfim ta xiixtt9— to •luisi'xoir « •« no i%iti9 mk ■!— r ^oa •««
bl4w oi .9l4Jt$ 94i ^Mdf bmm ,#Xqirac e»l si •efl«x*T«oo « •«»#•#
X^'X'qo'xq •xfi 9tf brui nl fil«0»t •# vvilstitifif ncveiol ««if umaimexq
.■IrxoV «ea ,x»XoeH bl«a !•
ael4i?rToo baa aiaos $tit4m xsbie lui anifea ••totb •i(T
:«9«u4iXo iiTii«lbie ««ifits) •«*ift
bl«« f.. * : be»T3i>b Jjna b9'i9bio aiplriert'
• iul OS d;' esl al fonno erf"^ •■< jn aX al-tio' ijisXXZ
itf (basifr x-n^ii«« bJt«a «1 &a<f^T&a«L •rorfa ••ai«a:K« bi«« lo
.aonj8X»TnoD tlrn '^'ft lo auiilT
XjuxI?)! I :ia ^•«a>>«o 2* i 21
•J.M "Eabnaas tflJ ,i TaiaM XXltf
*.xJiu]»a lo in«« «>1 baaaiiMAb etf a^aTadi
The tiTci of these decratal orJere is raanlfestl;/ oiit of
place in a technical senee, for there is no croen-blll nskring
Rff irr;ativo relief on the part of the clef andant, and the 'Urriscal
of the origiinal and a?r.ended bille leaves the Court without Ju-
rl^dir^tlr.n to rake any order or the nubject raattor outoide of
the ordinary orders ahoiit costs,
?.'it in Tie-^ of the fintlinfjs of the decrue, r.hich are
proper ac the "baair. ef ilsripr.al, and s-bieh -ffould have by theja-
j?5lv9£ th3 same effect an eetablishing rea adjudloata in BUbee-
quent litig--ition, this technical error is horll/ sorth atten-
tion.
The real question at isnuo is whether the Court erred
in sustaining ths Vaet^r's I:eport to tha effect that the war-
ranty de;d -an not pi von ai> a Kortga^e ani in consequence riis-
H-.lsi^inp tho amended bill for uant cf equity. We think it did
not. Consideraticn cf the evidence ccnvincfeo ua that the "aster
was rlpiht in his findings of fact that the consideration for the
jralrinr of said warranty deed »&s the Bati&factlon of the aroount
of iBoney which VhX^j ^licvloy ored Elisabeth Hooley and also the
adTancement of other eume of soney by Zlizabath Ho'.'ley for the
care and keering of Vary ^ouley, and the undertaking of said
TJliaabeth ^Tooley to Tt-^V £ai<i Mary Shouley irhlle she lived and
pay her living expenses, and that the deed was the free act of
■»^ary Whouley to the said ends, and was not given as security or
in trust for any purpose. If the ^^aster '^^as thus rif^rht in his
conclusions of fact, his conclusion of law that tho bill should
be dismissed for -^ant of equity raanifestly follows.
The contention of the conplainiint is that the 7<-arranty
deed in question "^aa nijant by "ary ""houley only to sscure said
Kliaabeth Hooley for ouch advances at* the aaid Tlooley had aade
"r ariT
» ■:■!■> ^ .
-nib «»r< :u B«Tl3 toff a«t; ft^ab i|MHn[
bit .ro£vr to'T ;iitf fcabntiBi oiU snjbrata
•ffi lol nol;f«'M&i«fioi> •<{« S»Mi ^9»\ to m^tUbnn •id at icfiiv t^w
•d^ omlM beta Y^fooH jf^»*f»xl£3 i)*wo x.oIiJ<uIW xiaM dold* T«ao» to
iJ lot t»io«H dioctosiXH xd X^nos to amtni ^ad^o lo in»mmoaMWtm
h£«(i to ytiiijirsabni/ »di baa ,x»luMfV xiaU to aal<Te9>r btm oioo
f^oa D9V1X ada •Ilff« xvluotpi xtalf ftlsa foof ot xo^oof' d#<»dtaiill
;o toit aatt offi a«w baab aifi i»iii bnm ^m^mmqmt ^trtt -rcod XOV
10 x-^Trroaa •« naris toa aow boa ,aj^ffa bl«« odt oi xoXcrodV TBiV
aid al itfy^ix aud^ ajav laiaaW •di \t .oaarurv xn« ^rot fmtni ol
bJ if adi fmtfS wax to ooiavl »fio» aid ,ta«t to aaoiauXoaoo
.awoXXot xrtootinjtti x ^ >««» tot boaattaai* •4
hioa aiti-oaa oi tXno Yaftfo beob
abiif T'ioH btM odi a« »^. ' .• oH d^arf««iX5l
and should make to or for nald ^houley and ?(ith the purv»CGQ (to
quote froTT! the bill) that the "deBcrlbed real aetata and the
proceedo thereof after the payment b of fill the amounts so
advanced to said Vary whouley x x night be divided tjmonp; the
heirs at law of said Mary ^ouloy", of >-hon the ccnplainant ,
Kllen r^eap:an, ie one, and the def«rdanta, including Slizabeth
Hooley, are the ot,h«r8. The cor^plainant alltsged in her ariended
bill that the property in question ?faR worth t^OOO and that the
defendant, Kllzabeth '-Tool^y, had collected $1000 for rent from
the prewiaes since .Ttjns i;?, I896, and tv&t after the payment of
all the advances, which it was alleged Elizabeth -looley said
amount to 4l600, nnd an an ace unt of the rsnts received,
"th^re will r^-rain a l.trp'? cujtj ae the equity, to-wit: Three
Thousand I>ollare, of vshich the oratrlx is ar-.titled to her leg;al
shar«".
SoBsewhat Inconsintently, further allegations of the
bill aesart that although Kllz&beth Hooley has acknowledged that
she holds the said rsal eetate in trust for hairs at law of Vary
^liouley, she has on deinand refused to account for rent roceipts
from it "or to pay the oratrix her shure of the eaid property,
but on the contrary no* cieclaree that the said property is ab-
solutely and legally hers and that she intends to withhold from
your oratrix any and all share in the said equity in fraud of
the rijyhte of the orator,*
The T-rayer of the bill is that Hlizabeth Hooley, now
Vorris, answer and account, and that the Hourt
■set aside the er.iri alleped ??arranty deed and declare the
830^9 a ■noTtffHtre to secure the advance of said defendant
(Bllzaheth Hooley) to said ''ory '^houley, anrt that the said
Klizab'Jth Hooley be required to either f oracle se tho came
or th?it the said property nay be sold under order of this
'^ourt , and that the said defendant after huvln^: accc unted
for the rents received nni produced proof of the advances
Ftade by her on behalf of said "ary ""houley, be required
to .ay over the balance of the proceeds of said eaie ai-ie-
Ing' out cf the sale of said rr'ipsrty to the heirs at law
of ^ary ^Tiouley";
6-*.' »»n« 5#«t»f» IXi'^t fr^rfttoaeft* r ''iff •di nat^ •Jou)
.■'J«*^«iX'' 'J!WJ»« fir
i>»lMT©.':ttJ t«rf Ttt t3?n«'^rr> *fr*n>3!r<rr>9 -^ ^'^ .5t«-' «ib ,'^idov:
p-" (fi IXlrf
.^«*iX)l b»5e>XJ« SAW ii ffDlifV ,'«»nrtr»Tt}« trf^f ffii
«
XimV to «»i '<9^ bi«a •Ki afclorf erft
•J97J«/J>»(> won XtMlSttO^ -ri
lo :...>./. „ ^:?f ■;- ■! : ~*iis Xlji btim Xftm xtr)
wo;. ,
iTu ; , irtoV
)
;»TOi ^o
and for such further equltalale relief as the riourt Tnay degm
proper. The coTnplainant inserted by amendment in the mvended
bill thiD clausa:
"Complfiin&nt hereby offers tc do eqtiity and hereby
tenders to i;h* saia defendnnt l^li«ab«th Hoolay any and
all amounts .hich n:ay be due to her upon an ttcc untinR
for the laoneya adynnced or leaned by her to said Vary
WhouX'ey, deccaced."
Ac defendant 'c r.oTins»el fiugtreet, the bill ie rather one
for foreclosure than one for redemption, which ir the foirs in
vhich a bill to declare an abeolute conveyance a mnrtfape Is
generally and naturally cant.
But we hare l«?ncred technical quaotions of fom in
paaoinfr on the njatter, K c^mal deration of th»3 «3iTideace taken
ae a .vhols conrlnces us, as 8?« ha^'e Indicated, that it doon net
hear out the allep'atlons of the bill. The eTid«ncc tending
most fitronf^ly to support th« complstlnart • h caee in the tot-.tlmony
concerning declaratlnnB of the defendant feubf-eqi^nt to the con-
veyance and the letters of hf>r attorney after the matter was in
controTerey,
The letters of V.r, Yonns;, this attorney, se??!?! far from
conclusive and arfi not sufficient to base the complainant's claia
on. A family qu&rrel with ite accompanying bitterness might
well and coramendably be brought to a close by the cffor+E of
well diepoeed lawyers throuirh the aVandoniaent of lepf.l rip-hts
which litlpation might only eatahliBh,
An for the allep^ed declarations of the defendant, Lin-
dauer vs, CiHnninfrs, ^'7 111., 19'?, states fairly the rule t^hich
should f^ovem their coneideratlon. The testimony concerning
them should he treated ^ith great caution. And ar the ?upre»e
Court of IllinoiB, speaking thr-iunh ■*^r, Justice *)iand,8ald in
Rankin ve. Rankin, 26l 111., 132, "P-sfore a de^d Hh^olute in form
'.•aualo
llmiutma hmm \JLL»fu*%
ti<»liM't9btumr>n *)fim •Hi no jiatasiK
■*onivno9 sXoifw m »m
^aii:i^3 »s>ji0tjiT'i* »/(7 .XXld drf^ la «aoiJ«^*Xri( 0ri^ ^uo im96
iaoiiMtBloBb :^la^*oaoo
Biotl iwl mar. tiA stfi ,s'^uoY .xtf la aimiial arfT
* tn«nt«X(fia<>d t>f(J 9a«<f oi ln»/9^11aa >oa 9Ta bo* aTlau
i^i^lm aaantaJ. rioooa r - XatiA^p xXltaal A
'^te 9di oXo a o4 irf'^iju-zj atf \X(faJbn»flS03 ^aa XXav
*" )o in -f^ aifi (f'^tfo'ufi avax*)*! ftaa oqaih iXaw
• rtelXcfiiiaa xine iit^Xm uolSBT^tHl xfolifw
-nXJ ,)0»bnal«b affi la aaoilstaioab ba^aXIa aiii irol aA
f'slal a«iaia , .anfllaMBi^ .ay laujib
74n;n-t«orio» \aoatIJaai arfT .oei.otiaMsaoo liaHl crtaTtp bXtfOfte
^aeiii rf#l« baiaat^ acT fcXoorfa mbOS
niirjiAqa ,aianlXXI ^'i ^iveO
SZQl :a @d;. * ' ..III X^ ,nli(ii«ll ••▼ nltfn^iZ
can he dec1ar«d to be a nortpare, the pr<>of ohosing the fact
!KU:jt be clear, aat,i8f actcrj urd convlrcin/r. " "'e do not think
it so In this nueo . and the decree of the Circuit Court le
modified "by a^.rikinp: out the worda:
"It is therefor© ordered and decreed that tho aaid
KliEahoth F. Morrie in no¥,< i.hf> owner in fee rir.ple abeolute
of Eald prcriacfi above described in uaid .warranty deed "by
virtue of the aai'i convey knee",
and uB 30 modllieri ia affirrred.
rigCBE3g l^DIPISm AND AFFIRVKD.
•i lm*i> f^sioffb mtii ham ^nmrnn mittf ni oa Jr
.ho-Trt^'^.'^ on ou nM bim
-rm," lyil. Sol
»;6a - 17904
turinesti &« ^^. P. THiSF'-'AF
Apoellof?,
TS.
V
)
)
f fApTjells.]^;. )
OF -^HICAaO HlinHlK.
182I.A. 291
VR. JU. TICl BHO'm DST.IVWRID THKl OPINIOKT OF TMS COUFT.
This ip an appeal l^ror^ a j\^dfm-^nt of th* City Court
of ?^hicaf;o Helrhts. The j- = c!rTner.t whirh '•s&b ent'^red ^'ay 24, 1911»
was for $aB0, It in in favor of ff, S. Eherwan, tha pl'^intlff
"below and appellse in this "ourt, &nd a^rdnr^t ths K^jnnicntt
^'ater Softener To,, a corpC'rat ton, vhtch ?-•?&« defendant "bslow
and ir. ?>ipT;©.llant here.
fi. n. Kherran, the in pell ant , was a resiiclent of ajid
doinr 'btieinsEB in dclahona. The "buElnoss was dona un'ier the name
of the ''. f. rher-'-an Vaccine and Iron '-'or"s!. Tn Au^'uet, 1909,
he •''urniEhed an-^ rected a rteel pmoke ntack in Y'ljkon, Ok:le.hciaa,
as a psrt of an outfit of a -^lill plant ■'^hioh the Kennicott
"^ater ?!oftenfir Co., s. roro'^raticr. ^anvfaotvring and erectinp"
cti^fwi "hci]>?re snfi like riachin^ry, was there inr-t**TlAnr.
The iiuit in r'hich th?; .■ii-dfrment h*>re in qvieetion f/as
obtained ??as brourht in TchrusTy ^ 191f''i for rcnpensation for
the stack ^.r.d acresBoriee and its srention.
Th'S anount cf the ,^iidr'T;:int was, it ir nonter..:'<?d by
Sherman, the -•.{rreod f^onti-act price of ^5>oo,f>0 innreased by a
charge (.^hich doas not aserr to he di&jiuted) cf four dollars
for some extra r'aterial and di'finished "by an allowance of
"■^ §20 which is !*ade i'cr T«u;icue s">all waitora.
The defendant, the Kennicott Comp.'=ny, adrite that it
\
(
iH^ .A.rssr
7 XO Mr AC WrOttB I
■■a lo znnDin9-i .~ .~
'T. r!-;i-a" ,n<v-ii;T nx :ir>«j". •>5io'^'5; i«src jS h%i99X^ bfU ^3.faI^!■tL■"^ • -'
' n»toat -- ■^ ^ mottq iomxfifo ht»9rz\r tr-j ,ap
".x- ^ *^ -^sii/qctJl) •<! oi ■••• ion B»oh r'oldfv) 9^
ij*»o 1 ^ b«ifa InlntA ta* I* ' " aiix* kbo« td :
. i i» j J«» XI«ir» sr • - T.'x 9s«m si rfolrtir '"'
c^ee Sherrnaji $336, but maintainR that thi? it ths extent of
its liability. It conteride thai tha en tract, price was four,
not fiTO, hundred dollart;, and cluima deductions Trotn that
contract r)rioe, fhi» nature of yhirh do not appear.
The fr..rt& EQ^T. Tery rlesur frorr, Vn^: ccrre8'rr.de'"ce. A
rroperi t.icn vras 'rade in ritinr t'^ tVe '-^ennlcott roi-nany on .Tune
?4- 19!^*^, "by "Th*^ 'T, p., Pher^'ian '-'aching •*■: Iron ''or^a* t-;> deliver
ar>d erect th^ •'.tanJr for $aoo, and it '^as i'T5"<c<^.1at'*l,/ acc<?pt9d by
th'i Ken'^icott C<.v"iP?iny thmm?^. it? re'nr^p'^ntHtiTe an-l ■\f'-nt, -Bho
seors to har^r transacted all the bu^in^ss r-^l-Jiinp to tbln matter,
one G. f. Tonus. It in nontsn.ied by Pher-^an th'*t tv:in offer ^pas
made conditionally "by a raoresentativs in hip absence, &.n*l ra-
qutred hia ratification to raice it binding on him. Tb'^re is ao
competent evidence of t>-:is. The ^tatetnont, so f.-ir ac-. thin fjcord
goes, is based on hies ciibeequ nt eelf-sorring recitals; in the
correa; cndance introduced. It is moreoyev apparently dependent
on the poeition that s. r-rior unaccepted off^r of Shei*^r;an'3 «a8
for the m&nufactvrs of the stacV enly, and did not include ite
delivery and erection, -a position 'J.hich in incorir^i stent ^iith
the letter introduced in evidence nfiklms: said prior cffer. Thie
condition of thin,rG ex^'^^inr. the dinriite bet-^e-^n the r)artieE i/hiclr
I'-^d tc thia li' Ira'-.ion, but It is therein inraterial, b<2ca\iBe
before any ifrVk ithlb done under tho offer thUR rr.ade and accerted,
the off IT was ranuctiatf^d by f>.'?r'*;an smd the r^jpudiation r^aB ac-
quiesced in by ih^:? Kennicott nn, throuj^h its H.^ent, T'onue. A
ncs contract wan rande, unaer >•■• Ich the r^ork was don'^,
T'h'i controversy in thi? cause turns entirely on letters
and telegrar;; of the H. Z. Fherr.an >'aohine -^ Iron '"orkc to T'c-
nus of July 1 and July 5, 19^9, i« ""h.ich it na;7S pOKi':iv«ly that
it 'rfill not manufacture, dellvsr and erect the Btack for less
than $500,00, and on "^onus* a-nny^^r thereto by i^lre, ac follows:
1?
!]• i X . i^^ - J ■
««« •ol'i<t J'ymtiaoo
t . ■ J J
.«.&< r,».. .r^
,-13 J J*jc: rti 'J
- T'^- I>
•lft$m^r
U»'.
•ii« ,x
' V «f4J . 1^*
J • ■» . .. ~ i » >
■ '" yji til fce»o«»lor
--" - • 'inoo •/♦"*
;ev
'>••». ""i hr:
ni (f*
•Chicago, IIT., July 8, 19-^9.
?. r., ^Iierr&n Iron "orka,
OlrlahoEa City, C-klahorna.
Yours recf?Jved. You . fininh th^ st-tolc qiiinkly as
posslbls. I 1)'^ ti% Yiniy.on 'Monday,
0, y, ronuc,"
The defend&'it, Iha ICer.nleott CoiT'pany, plr.cea its de-
fgnce en the ycaitioxi that T'cnut- rfae Ts'ilhcut authoritv to ."i"''®
thit order to FTh'^T'^an to proceed,
T^onufi, the K'enr.icott "o^npany '•^ain'-ainc, had no power
to woke Tinj contract in itn he^-alf , and Sher^^an no jrifctif ication
in daalin/:! v^ith hir as h-^rinf* It,
But thin contention cannot h-« rtMrjtRin'jd. All of the
corrserondence introiticed fand this cGrr«Grcndonce is practically
all the cri:!«nce) nef-atives it. ?onu3 cianai^ed for the Kennicott
i'^or"pany all the bitsinssn re\a*lnf^ to ths T'ork n,n.t the cf-^'ere of
the Bherr?an Iron ''V;rkB v^ere all rifide tr- ^:iri (un-^er di ''f ersnt
ntyl^s), the one of June. ?4, i^"^'".', nac^lng ?-4.C0, incluaed. This
Tis.c adviressed, inde?;d, in ^ritint? to t;h3 ^-''^nnlcctt '"c, but it
was *'viientljr h.';,nd»d to ?oru!3, "ho t^r-:?t9 an accer^tance cf it on
th-^ spot. Ther-a is no hint in any of the lf?ttf5re of tho ^-'nni-
cott Company, after the clain of f^h-sr-^an ■s.ar: rr^ade for ^p4?^4, that
Fonus did not hare jwrBv to :-.ct f'^r it. Th?. implicate ^ns are
all to the contrary. The r.^tter had to b'* referr-jd tc hin for
r«.'ort jind settle-^p-nt . The contract of 19r7 rtatinfr, rc hetv-een
thensselTes, the rf^l^tioRs cf Prnup an»? the Kennicott HoDpanj,
in not sTic^erce that "^cnue hud not the aAithcrity which he fts-
sun»d, '''e ^5-s«lf df^^E not take vny r-uch pcrlticn. Writing to
his nrincipal, the '^•^nnicctt rostpeny, he r.srcly sajr: "If I
Ti?ir9d thenn to f'o at the ift'crk, ny ir.tentionswerc not hut to pay
the contract price,"
It r>ri)reB no difference rv-at hie intentions K-ere. !re
recoired an trltir-iritur. frcn the Fh^mr-an Iron '^'orke and, pr'>ba.bly
•TKV' 01 C>1
itt'<
-m tUmn of
(▼f ,be*hnt ,br
'i»« 5n.
f ■^. T'
. ' *t»» ant
thinking that tho ini-^^ecUate circum-tanoeB ccr.pcillyd it, ac-
quiesced in it for ths K'lnnicott Honpanj, ?ho work- '-aB done
undsr the conlr^'Ct. thun rrade.
The juckTT.ent of t^o City Conrt of '"'hira^n n.^ifhte
is affirr^sd.
387 - 17924
HABRY ?. 0«DKTX, / )
Appellee, / )
) AP'^'iAT YRO¥ THX nOU^PY COURT
/ ) or COOK COUNTY.
AWroiCAH BOX PATX CO'^AHY,/ )
» corporation, / )
/ 182I.A. 292
MR. JUSTICS BROWH D3SLIV1B18I) TH3 OPIXIOS OF TICS COURT.
Harry B* O'Bell, the appelle^ h^rlnp as plaintiff In
the court bolor obtained a judpnent. for $300.00 against the
American Box r'^ll Co'^pan.y, the defendant ■belc^, that f^mpany
haa appealed to thii? court.
The jU'irci^-Pt *ae rendered on the Terdict of a .1>>ry,
to which erlnence ahov'inr the followinr etata of thinp'e had been
submitted. Tbo defendant corporation was in 1910 a K\anufaou..rer
and render of "box ball alleys, a rsiriaiion of the bcwlinr a"" ley,
amaller and less expcnKiTe, and »a th pins Khicr aj-e ?vorked by a
ISTfir from tho other end o' the allsj. It had a cellinr apent
namd Arndt, ^ho nep-otlated a sale- of ser'^ral of th';ee alleyi; to
th-^ plaintiff, ^^o wae or then became an operator or pronrletor
of a horlinr rencrt. The plaintiff , finding the alleys Eatlefac-
tory and popular with the public, trld Arndt that hs so Id do
his best to get custo!aer» for him, Th«; nature of the ?irr'inre-
raent. If there was any arranpement, concerninf: conoansation
for exertions of thi;^ kind br O'Bell, is in dis ute. O'Dell
contends that it arnountod to a contract, mnde by Arndt ae the
general and auf-oriaed afrent of tVe defendarst in that b»v-Alf, to
pay bin, O'Dell, twenty dollars per alley for each purchaser re-
ferred by him to Rrndt . He fv-.-f^Qv contenirBd in the court bo-
low that there were thirty allfjys sold by A ndt t^rour*i such in-
t' eductions of cuatomers, an(? t»^at, he ?^aE tnSrefore entitled to
>se^i
2GSi.A.I28I
y
.THUOn Hit ?0 tOiri^O IHT OMTTUKr WOSH iniTBOl .fOI
-. - viiXwf*'^ '^ • ' w .^..ioav « «flx»XiC« iX«<f *"j ^ lobnar bam
a x«f b«ilto,« ^ — -f.»" -'♦»' •-- ,-riiirt*qx» aaaX b<M tsXXsm
♦ r.?^. -.„ ' f^- , ,: ^i .v'^^-» bn» 'MKi«| mdi amiTt yvtsX
^ li- -• r«i9Tea )o efiin x ^ vJji /io^en oifv ,#ftircA ft»nsia
lo^eiiqoiq. 4%/ a.^'«^'X»qo cw •ojiovtf fl«/fi to •«« o.-fv ,lli^nUXq <>ffl
Ob bX o« ad i«ifJ ^brrxA bloJ ,r>ll!:fu«T •i*i ifJXw TAXuqocf Ba« xto*
-••""^'tiJ trfJ lo •Tu^^'ft sffT ,mir* lo^ ufaoitvo t»% 0i ^aatf alif
^X»a'0 .*iw 8lb nl lit ,IXea»C Trf bn« atrfJ lo anoltiax* idl
..-/J .^ ♦»«-i» -'^ afiAai ii^oAitnos « oS bsiairaoi St imdi atnatnos
, .^.^ ^> .u inabfT«l«b arfi lo #ne^ b*«l*rer'tui! 5n« Itftan*!
' >-t Y^aAKonoq rfo«9 Yol x»XX« iHt mtMllob tinewl ,XX»(I*0 ,nM x«q
•■9<f itvoo aif' nl b^a«#noo laxfinul •!{ .Ibnil o^ flitff \tS b»ni«l
-ni rfotn }<iii/oir(J^ 4ba-'k T<f Moa «t*XX« V^^^ 9T9m •xmHi imdi waX
') .
#600,00 fron the defendant ronpanjr. The jury ffave him |;500,00,
On what bai3in the/ made tho cor-putation ie s^^rne^/hat difficult
to ree «
Biit the priT-.fiTj ar.si controlling' question in ths raee
ie not the ?«r'unt duf. to f.h*J plaintiff, "but v?hfjt*-er th-a defsrd-
ant company is liahl'? for it. T*"at tome nef^otiation cnr\rerninfT
the introduction of ciirtoners ioo:< rlaoe "between ATnf;t and the
plaintiff, and that some promise, qx- reer or ir.plisd, was nade
by Amdt before the Introductione took p3?^ce, ee^^^mo rearonahly
certain, although the tSEtiTnon.v of Arndt by itself mirht leaye
eTsn thin in doubt, Ve ap:>arently refers nuch proni re as he
admitB making to a time subsequent to the sales, O'Bfll, hoKsrsr,
cayr. that on Aurust 26, 1910, -^.-hsn he, 0'"Dell, v^nde to Arndt a
puyraent on account of the first allays purchased by hl-^, under
circuREt rtnces to be hereinafter nsnticned, Arndt tcld hira that fo
any ci.stcrer6 OV!>ell referred to him (Arnnt), he (0*"Dell) nhculd
receive twenty dollars per allsj eold. J^s, O'Beli, ths ^Ife
cf the r>lainti'"f, whc teetified without objection by the defor;d-
ant, also s>«ore that Arndt said at thisi conyersaticn that for any
cuBtosers that 0*I>ell would refer to Arnd: ther« would be $20,00
p«r alley in It for hiss, Arndt ♦b version of thist converBation,
althou<rh he ^utr it at a '^i'^-f^orent date, searr^s to be: "He
(O'tiell) says to n^e, 'Is thore any cori'-.irsion"' I tayp., ♦^Vell,
I pojess the '^owpany is paying ten per cent. oo!rr*.xi=sion or about
f20.00».«»
On oroGS-exar. ination Arndt testified that in Syptenber,
1910, in Chicapn, he told O'Dell that when the last payment on
the sortgags on the alleys C'Bell had bought fell iui, there
would be an allowance mad-:? to hir; f*)r hie services in ratting
cuatoRters fcr the Oompeny. And thai in 'overiber, 191", at
Indian?ir-oiis y^e (Arndt) told n'Ball that he (Arndt) would allow
. alii 0Wi3 XTut •((T .Tf/utqiao'y Sa»ba^\nb •tfi norJ 00»nod|
-f -.^Bh •(<; l^linl^lq erfi p# •!»* ifnir«H arf^ Son ak
•wm9T iit'^tm ^l9Btt xf MftiA le xno-irtiapi ftfli r<j|0ttif^te ,nJ:«^i»9
rri iff)tn 87»^9? X^lfr9t«fTqA •& .itfiMb ffl alr<t rrer*
.S9l«« 9rf^ o^ in»up»atft7s mbII « o# ^nlMiBa atlnEM
»!>«« ,IX0<r*O .eif rrft<ftr ^or^I t^ iau^uiA a* l«rf^' 3ti*a
xeLnu , bma»t*9tuq tt^i^tlM im%l^ aif/ lo inuoooa no #n(>an(«q
.01 l«ffi arfii bloJ tfcRiA ,»«nol^nMr tai^ni^T^/r atf oi B9oimittmttt»
biuoiia (Xleff'O) aif ,{ShntA) adtrf o# b»i«al*t IX*0*0 arcorRoiaa* \fti
"(4 tllaa*'^ .bl«« X9XIM naq aialloh xlna«# •▼iaoat
-rr.t-ivt dif* Trf ooi^?5-t<Jo Ju«f#l« ftal^liaal ortw ,l'M4ni«f« an* To
XPM 10^ iMif} noi:^«a-z»Tnoo si/fa im blBm ^bfrtA iMUS a^ova e«X« ,Jiai
00.0S4 •If fclJrow 9X9 rri ibtitA ot Ta'tftt ftX»«w IXaC'O ^Jiifi avMraiatfo
,RoJt}«aY»YnAo alf*J To noiatav a'lbmift .slrf v«T #1 el x*H* "x*^
aK* :a<r 0$ •««•« ,»i«ft ^nait*l>ih « tm tt alir •(( i^uroif^XiB
,fXaV* ,a\a8 I '^aotaalmMa x<u> oTAffi al* ,#« o^ ax** (IXad'O)
jucxfm to nolaaX'Tomf) .inao i»t R*^ 7»nlx«q 9t t***qmer) Ml aaain X
■••OO.Ofil
,10'lrtaJqtR nl IjjII baitlJjtfi; IfecoA noiJiinlrjBxa-aaorro ir^
no tttficnijiq ia«X a«li oaifK inHi XXaC'O Moi «rf ,«)it*«ir*v^ ai «ei^X
»»ffJ ,f»i;b iXaT bmdt 19(1*0 iic*fXM a« «♦ •1|»'9*'»o« "rf*
>iniJia^ nl aeolT^va aif! 10T ralrf o# ai)«« aoiaiirorXii lu acf §Xirrw
Ml ,0191 ,T9A«»voV ai imtii bHk " arft toT a«*<fM»^atrd
wojX« *I/r** t#k»^y *tt i»t(t Xla<r»0 bio ^) arf atX»<r«(Mii»nI
him (C»Dell) a certain !«*tount nut of his (Arndt'o) Oftn conmi&-
Eion for the little work he had rlone for him; hut that O'Dell did
not accept thie offer and nothing hud heen paid him,
Thi5 testlTTory, T?hich ie all there is concerninr the
nature of the pr^T-ive rrride, is hy itS'Jlf manifestly insufficient
to prore nnj liahility airainet the defendant Company. Th'? au»
thority of an rjpent cannot he esta'blif5hed "bj the rords or docla-
raticns of the ap-ont, ^foreorsr the state.oenta evcrn to sure all
consictent with their heinp;, ae defendant maintains they were,
uniertakinf F of Arnit fcr himself j^^nd not ''or the Cinpanv',
Evidence of actual aut'-'rrlt.v to Arndt to nalce any stipu-
lation for the Co"panv for oon'-ilKEions to be raid to a third person
makinf eales, is leicking. On the contrary, hcth th*? aer>i&tant
manager of the defenciant company and Arndt t'istified that
.Ar.'!'1t'E ersployment was confined to soliciting orders and aubrit-
ting thoin to the company, and recsiTing adrance payments on thetn,
and that hi& 07'n compensation was purely on a cccarJlsnion basis
of a certain aiaount for each alley sold,
But the plaintiff, to establij-h the propr.aition that
Arndt, tfhatsrer his actual authority or tht) «arit of it batween
himself and the CoHipamy, wae oo held out by th« defendant as a
general agent of the company or as a special agent T.ith the
power to bind It in this alleged contract, that it ie not at
liberty to repudiate it, relies on four contentions; (a) That
as the eridence shows that Arndt 'as takinft orders in 'hicago
for the <1ompany and filling- thaci, it mirht be properly assumed
by the plaintiff that he -^/as a /general selling agent, with vo^eT
to appoint sub-agents for the company, or assistants for hi*nsalf,
at th« expense of the company, (h) That the eridence shows that
by lettor to ?/r, O'Doll, sifrned by the Treasurer, and by tele-
l.ih ifC*^ fntSt tud jmlff lo^ •aoh teif ttrf ittm ^ttUt •!«# ^ol n«l«
,^iii bl»n tfd hatf ^IrfiMi boM T*llo ai/fi ^<r*9aa #Mi
6 ' aonoQ al aiad^ IX» al ifolit* ,xn<xffl^aat alifT
-^ft**!! an lrAn<f aif# ^o ati/ian
ojiloaf) to abTOT Bfft i[tf fcaiftirtfataa atf ^orrnao trra^r na Irr x^ri-atft
tlM •tM o? 'aia 9tft tarnatoW .^na^ #f!^ >a aA4»ii*t
,•19- niiiJrlj= s^aft ar ' itaff* rfJttr taeislanoa
iijoa lx> aoneblirtr
auaiec jf atf oj aoolsalffisofi loY rnaq-^O arf^ -Yo^ na^teX
ham atabte sai^iolfoa ot baal^on ajnr ^anntolqtaa i^•^»^'^1A
' '<jq saw noi^Mnraqmoo nva atxt iinSt Atom
• l>Ioa x'f* (f9^ t9^ ieruona fll«tta9 a lo
iaifi nol r^ <(aiXrfaiii9 oi ihttq aitt m«
a aa t9h •AH xf ***« iXerf oa^aav , T/'/^orwo? aiM boa IXaaialK
tna^ t»t9it^ a «at Ya xfuiqffl<)o aKt Ta fn9'sm Xa-rana^
:o> oan^noo ba^eXIa atif^ nl tl baitf a# '^ava^
trfT (a) :«{{■ i;i(&^{too -xuol no aaixat ,#1 atJitfrtrrra^ o# r^YaiflX
^santfT ni atafoao i^olifai a«w Jbn-iA. iarfi avarfa aanaftira a/f# aa
Aaoruaaa xXtaqotq «<f ^if'^ift Ji ,«t«ifi ^ffXtT bna x««a<Ti?Ton arf^ »ol
nawMf ifttw ,#aa:^ <viitXXaa Xatairas a saw aif SMHf YYilirtalf aifl t^
> atnit^ataa^ lo .^naqaioo art* io^ a#na^-tffM tn^aq*?/' a#
iaifi «*v>.-f« aortat/ra »ri* /arfT (tf) .x«a<?«"«^9 •i^* ^» aanaqxa ad« i«
-9l9i trf brta^taiimaa-TT aK;t x* feanala ,XXeC»n .i\! o* loitaX ttf
phonic eoramunlcation to Vts. 0»Ds11 in August, 1910, through
the Aesietant Manager, the Ccinpany asrerted that Arndt w&b the
Compfl«iy's general agent and r*rr^e«etatiTe. (c) That it shoare
that in KoTerhsr, 1910, aft^r the transactions for which conpen-
•atlon 1e claimed by the pi&lntiff, the Treasurer of the Campanjr
adnitted to the plaintiff t^at Arndt v^ac th* "general r- resen-
tatire" or •general ag'^nt" of the "onpan/ in '^^icago. (d) That
it shows that on Eepteiaher J>3, l^^l"^! th^ defendant ocr-panj, hjr
a latter tr one Hughee ahout a coranissioa promised hisa by Arndt,
reeofrnised the authority of Arnd-*; to contract for cop!- isr.iona
from the Bor^panj to his assslstsnts cr sub-a^^ents.
«fe are vinfibl- to afrree with any one of these conten-"
tions. The assurjption mentioned in (a) can not properly b*? !^..?de,
A sellin^r ag^nt on coisniecicn «ho taJcs ordore an;l sxjbT?iits th«iB
to his principal has no i'nplied authority to constitute other
persons agents of the eoTapany, certainly none to sectire aosiBt-
ants for hir-Eself in gelling, and tn add the conwisrions of such
asBistants to his own coTrvTiisEione and tc ths aellin^ ixptn.&9
falling on the corapany. If he cboosee to r.ake arrangements for
eellin/!? through others, it must b? at his oati expensa. The let-
ter and conTersation which form ths hacis of (b) ner e clearly
United in th^ir asnertienB to th"^ authority of Arndt to receiye
the advance payment of .'l80 on the alleys houf:ht by hisi. To Qay,in
ans»fer to a letter inquiring- ecn-^erninp the payn^nt of money,
a
whether a jjiren person ie duly authorized a^:ent to reoaire it,
A
that the psrson is "all rlrht in «Tery respect" and that the
money way b* turned orer to hiK in inRtrianentB Tnade payable to
the principal, is certainly not to hold out that glTen person &8
possessing all the powers of the principal; nor, whsn the subject
spoken of iras merely the payment of ths money, is substantially
the same sta'. eisient, CTsn vith th? addition that the person t^as
• rii. ,*rnr 9tiJ "to itfiasj^vT Mlt ,T>l^ntjiIq •tit T^ bMuUtXo af froli^a
Xtf (V-dfcqreeo lfW^ff9t^ / ,^ 1M<ftMiq«8 CO #Jii<#'«««cto '«!
,lbciEA xt' '^ aotv^tMRwo • iaiyiM aeffm/F ano -v' i9i$^ m
•no t Its l'«moe lal J9«^#r >mA lo x^iYo.^^wa »fft baatttsooa^
.2/n«H4>-(f0a to minT$'\tnmm alii c# ^na^pMV »rfi aoil
effo XT ^aitaa oi "tdmnu arua a^
bsfialiOMB aolt^ianiaaa eifT .acolt
an»ifi^ aJ^ ii^Tmoo so in^^a nail.''
•# X' ^ <>n •^'^ Xa<rl9Cl^ airf c'
-~ irsaa aT »«<>ii xlwia*T* too »rf* la a^nr^:^ acroaiso
ifa<m lo aooiaaii<v(09 aff^ bfta sa ■! lXf)ai«lif tot a^itf
•arreqxa :vilXXaa Sifi a<l bna aooieainota) am* aiif a# aiosiaiaas
■^ar^ <;iji9( n» aaaaaifa ajf \t .xoafmoo aif> no :^1XX^'^
^(pca vio aiff t« 9<f taiiar jjt ,aYsif>« ^tnlXXv*
Xivi^la 9 '»« (tf) la ataatf aift wrt9> tfoittw aolim»'i9m<»o htm r9'
aviaoaT oS fbniA 1 ^fus avfi aJ 8«aX#ta«a« tl^ift ai ball'^t
ai.xas oT ..-y * fia OSl^. to laoKV>^ aarta"»!»a arfr
^yaroff ' too ^nl-zlapnl TaitaX m at tatwana
i aTlanen 94 tm^jm toaaxToni'aa 'XXvb al aitmfsf itaTli) a Tarf^sffW
»if> tficfl Ana "^aaqaav Xt rxa* at ooais? aif/ ia/f*
<«^aq aAiaar ai«aaarxla«i ni nrtK •i nava bairxoi a*^ '%«i<* T»fiMi
a' «o«n©<i «9^1"s tarft *aa bX#»f ♦* *•« xXrrlatfaa a tic ai»*
aaHua aif/ <rail«r .ton Ua^laniiq arfi la aia^sioq aif* ILn s»Xoaaaaa^
xXXal#nai«tfva al,x«««M '^f^ "l* ^r»<»in«^ »rf< X^M? a nailoqa
MMw Boa-xaq »/fl ^aifl notitbbm UU dit* nart ,laaa»^Ai« aaoaa atf
the principal's reprece;^t.atiTe and that anyt^inp he said or did
would be satipfactory, anj -■oro conelusiTe on the point indif^at-
ed. All such expr'SBslonB ir^unt in reason "be referred tc the
subject of the ocrrrereation.
A aliphtlj more plausible ground for arfiruJHsnt can per-
haps be found in fuTor of the conterftion (c), tha': in ''or ember ,
191c, Vr. Hoke, the treasurer of the ccripajiy, adr.it ted that in
the preceding nonthe Arndt had baen the general repreBentatiTe
of the cojnpanjr in ^hic&po, "Put the argv;raant is not cound. Per
in ths first pl;i.ce, O'Dell ( !f.ho is the onljr witness to thio cjn-
Tersation and i? contradicted "by Arndt, *ho war present at the
intsrrictr) did not testify t^at H' ke told hira that Arndt had
been a sreneral agent o^* the rtrripany in August, Bspte'-bsr and Oc-
tober , but that he t^as (thrit in, at the ti.-^^c of the conrersa-
tion) "a general apenf* or "a rencral repreoentatiTe?* in 'Chica-
go, But when the tentinonv it- further analy:?ed a sircnger
reason appears for not holding it conf irwatcry of the plain-
tiff's contention. It rather sesrc to be adverse tc it than
otherwise. For, like the T-'orde used in the telephonic conrersa-
tion in August, the language must be referred to the ^siattsr
under dlscuselon. O'Dell's toKtir^ony ir:
"I told ^'r, Hoke I wanted to know BomethinR abo t
thin Gonnis&iCfn, said h<3 told lae that Arndt ^ras their iren-
eral reprosentutiTC in Chicago nnd that I rould hare to do
business y.ith hie. "
Arndt *s teBti-^^ony concerning this conY?2rsaticn pas:
^¥r, ''okQ done all the talking-; he etated p^^Uively
that I had no authority or anybody elr,e to pay coraT.lsHxonB
unlesB he verified it hir:f,elf in writinp"; and "I asked
0*Dell what v as the trouble; he eayp he .vant'd tc know
where he was fmin^' *o pet off •'^Ith reference to the comrjis-
Eions on the alleyp th'stt he sold. I a&ked hira how irutny
ani h? saif^ thirt.T, I paid: 'That, it newn to tg. T ner-
er seen any thirty that you cold.' Vr, rolcor.b (the rice
president of th«i conpany) said, 'Vr, Arndt haa no authority
to TTsake any cc^^'-iifislon bapin with anybody.' ■■:r. O'Dell
8ald| 'I don't know anythint^ aboiit that',"
e.-(* .J be-T'w^*^ e<f rro«««Y nt fmam BfTOt«s»tcnt» rfoim riA .1:9
,T»- ' d/noo 9i!y lo TVMI III bfli/ol •tf af|«/f
9^1 imJ' ^ liiT^neii sff:) nftvtf ikMf ibfTOI •fftnoe wlbvostq 9ttt
-a. 3 «!.'<* 9i —miii"* xtno erfl ai oitw) ixe(l»0 ,»oj»rq i«Tl"v s'<i al
"tiToo ^1 "^nlh/orf ?on tol aii:
ta
x«a»o ,-«
Connected vit^ thg of^er of Aj-ndt ,unHCC9ptedl,to pay
"sojnetvinp" out of hir; o> n conpeneation, it seeme ii^iite proba'ble
that ths lanri-iare rViich O'Dell t^jstifies to as ueed b/ ^^r, ?Tr,ve,
if it ?ra8 anti'ally ucsd, was n a'»t to np^lr to the queistlon,
whlc'r was quite eTldently then rnocted an-* hfic continued alive
until th^ presert tirne, of «?hsther it i^as the co-^prs.ny or was
Arndt who ^-as the debtor of 0»D'^11, At all events, pronorly
oonetruod it. was certainly no ■^'.dmineion that Arn-it had a.Tithority
to "bind the "opp&ny to m.VsC^ ths paymsnte filai'^od, V-ut rather
a repudiation of that pr(.pGsitJon,
As tc (d), the letter to H- ghes frorr; the assiptsmt
iBan«arer of the ccnipHnj should neT-;r, in our opinion, have been
adS'itted in eridence. It is inoonpstent , therefore, to prove
anything. 'P'.it firirxp- it the full fcrce of competent evidonce,
it doss not prfrve anything matsrlal, Cf course thsre trray have
been special aut'-^'-rity to Arrdt to deal with TTup-hes, or any
other third parnrn, in a ^ay in T;hich he had no aut^oritr to
deal Tith 0*I>oll, and the Onuipany, rsoreover, h':.d a rJrht to
ratify an unauthorized traneaction of Arndt in one case and not
in another, '"e think, asnunlnff as we itaist, that the jury found
that all the ccntentionE of the plainti'^'f an to what actually
waa eaid or done were justified inhere the evidence wae contradic-
tory, there yet rer^aine in the c^^ee no evidence that O'Dell
had authority to bind the defendant oonpany tc pay coranissicnB
to O'Dell or. the alleys oold to customers introdiiced by him to
Arndt, nor even that in fact he attemtttod to do no, nor that
O'Dell had a right to prf'EUKe ihat Arndt had r.uch authority or
even vae a^ tempt inr to exercise it. Therefore ne rust r'^vei'ue
this JudrTsent, Wh&tever claim O'Dell hac ie af^inst Arndt alone.
The judpn^nt of the Co nty Court is reversed,
ESViSRSlSD.
"»ji'^Trr »rf+ Tiir.:^
i hooi
bns-
<
ttnl t:w r a<i»o oi J!»Xoa si^XXii ^lU no fXftd^O o#
477 - 16017
IDA KKUDSOK aa Guardian fof
CHARI^S BUIillKTT -CNUDSOl^
minor,
Appeflant,
▼«•
••fAriKSR ie BIRK BRI^^ISrf AFD
VAT.TIUr- CO., a corpo/ation,
A/pellee,
APWikJ. mOV. SUPSRIOE COURT
OP COOK COUNT f.
182I.A. 296
MB. JUSTICE BROWH DlLlVgRlR) THM OPIUIOH OP THE COURT.
ThlB is an appeal from a judpiaent of nil capiat and
for costs In the Superior Court of Cook County at^ainat the
plaintiff. The cauea i?ae tried "befors a jury, ^•hich found a
Tsrdict f'-^r the doferidant, on which th« jvdrraent afores&id was
rendered.
The cRuee waa one In which the plaintiff, Ida '^nurtson,
as guardian of the eatate of Charles Burnett Kaudcon, aued the
defendant corporation, the "backer & Birk Bre-^inp- & Malting Goia*
pany, for darafes to the said minor for an accident happenlnp: to
him through the allQf:ed fault and negligence of the defendant.
At the tlrr^.G of the accident the n^inor .as ten years
old.
The accident is deecrihed in a hill of particulars
furnished hy the plaintiff in connection with the declaratjon
first filed, as follo-^rs:
"The accident aat forth in the T>4riouB counts of the
declaration occurred to the said Charles Burnett Knudeon,
therein named, on or about the 22nd day of July, 1901?', in
the City of Chicago and State of Illinois, v-hile the c-aid
Charles liurnstt Knudcnn was ridinf: upon a certain train of
street railway care then rtr d there cperat*jd along and upon
certain tracks in and upon a certain street of the City of
Chicago known as ?f'ilv/aukee Avenue, said care hoinp; propelled
"by Keana of a cabla and cocusonly known as cable cars. The
said train of cars upon *hlbh the eaid Charles Burrett
Knudson was riding was Foin.c: in a northwesterly -iiroction.
3'iJt.
"Cl'':' - ^V^
,xonim
^rwnm TmjH 4 it
airfT
jinai
I SAU 9tiumo •
^vdiio
b
■Oi' .
and at the time of th« arcld«nt had reached a point north-
wast from and n>?ar to the intereectlon of r.'llwaukee avenue
and a certain other street of the ?ity of Hhlcaf:© knovm
as iTorth Avenue.
Tha tca«i nnd fcai^on mentinned in the declaration, and
Bjana^Ted Rnd controlled by the defendant, waa standing on
tho northt544.et eide of the street railway tracks ?'.t a point
three hundred (joo) feet n'.oro or lees northwest fron the
eaid intoreection of North Arenue ts.no 'jl^'aukee Ave'^ue,
and .'^ac headed Houtheast. Tho cai ' t"an and agcn was
ot^in'^^inft so near to the atreet i-ailv/ay track that the e?iid
rharlGB "Burrsett Knudeon ridinr on eaid train of cars aa
afcreaald unavoidably came in contact with Rome part of the
said wa^na or harneae and w as knocked off fron? oaid car
thereby and hie left loi? ifae run over "bj said csire, ac set
forth in the declaration,"
Thereof ter by leave of r?curt an additiO''al e^uwt wae
filed to the declaration, which char^^d that the defendant neff-
llrantly "Allowed one of its 1.?ians of horaee or ?:!i.leB attached
to one of its sfagcne to rer?ain in the r=treat, atandinp unat-
tended, TTlthout securely fasteninj? said horses or nrulee to pre-
vent theia from drawing or hacking said wap!on from froinf-r or moving
near to or upon the tracks", etnd that the said team did 4raw or
back the itragon againsl the car on ^hich Knudson was ridinff, so
that he a^as knocked off and injured.
In this count of the declaration the plaintiff pleads
an ordinance of the Citv of '^hlcafo enact inf- that:
"Ko parson shall leave any horse or other aniwal at-
tached to any carriage, wajfron, cart, slsiph, sled, or oih-sr
▼chicle in any public s^&y of thin city, -vithout eec-ursly
fastening such horse or other arinal, under a penalty for
each offense of not less than two dollars nor rr^ore than
ten dollars, "
The defendant pleaded the general iscue of not guilty
to the declaration and the icraes wore &ubrtitted to a jury,
?^hich found a verdict for the defendant.
A special findlnir *as requested of theirj in amET^er to
the question:
•Did the defendant 'b toa?« and «agon in question raicain
station-try while the train of cars on v»hich the plaintiff
was ridini? puBced th3 ef^.i^i team nnd wa/ron at the tine of
the accident?"
ftiE
•J^»Iq 1^
•ina
e*a70rf "^o sit" -^fTO b»99lljfj,I
3%o.i i»i; -^^^tiit xl»n«9»« JoortilT ,fc•^^»i
-'« bi&« tnisCojitf 10 HBtwAife motT =mi(t ia«T
^k>m ttdt iMdi bn» «*a:<OJi^i eifi no^» '< so
->ijAiMi ini/oo •txti aX
■ -•yTw*^ •»'
:not.tB»»|> •*>
2ach juror ancwered thir question by writing "yeB" or
•no* an<^ Viifrninr, ^ia n«me, Sl«ven ,1«rors ans'sered the question
"yea'* and one "no", flounssT for appalTee^in thoir arp- Kimt
cay, ■Owinp; to an cvercip;"ht t'ie ooecial finding k&b not re-
quired to be correr* od. " The condition of the rscord seems to
show fiere *aB no "epecial finding". To ^alco it a nuecial
finding of the jury it ^"ut;t hnvs been, lika the (general ▼ftrdir.t,
unanimous. The quo Bt Ion hab RUb^itted to the jury ovor tVie
objection and exception of the plaioti-^f , Ths failure to aneT-Qr
it unanlmouply coxJld not bo 8«ccescf«illy ur^^ed as a reason for
reversal of judiE;is«nt, As a matter of fact it is not so urged,
although the rotion for a new trial notod a^iong the r--aBcnB
given, that "The special fin^Iing^ returned by the jury ic void"
Although the subr.lasion of the intsrrop-atcry is asslfnod for
error, the alleged error la not insisted on. ^'^ do not think
it, even if error, /rround for reversal. Its eubwission could
not, in our opinion, injure the plaintiff or bring about any
ffllecarriage of juntloe. It nay sell be doubted, ho -ever,
whether it -^aa an ultimate and controlling question in the cise,
The alleged errors .^hich are insiettsd on are the ad-
isisaion of Improper evidence in behalf of the defendant, the
conduct of defendant's counsel in eubn^itting to the plaintiff's
i?ltneBses inprrpar qusctiono, alth-ug^h objections tc the aarae
were sustained, and error in the f!;iving and refusal of Inetruc-
tlone.
We do not think the plaintiff has aetablished on any
of these Ejatters a case justifying a rsveroal of thle jiidfmient.
So far as fche given instructions are concerned we are
forced to the conclusion that if there w-sre technical error in
them in any particular (rhich we do not decide), it *ould not
be available to the plaintiff in ths absence of any ejtcs tions
to the giving of them preserved in the rscord. Plaintiff, in
- -A. .. . ..jo»ttfo
Vntrf ., .. oHj* •r'^
. _ _ . . XO AO"!^** f f * «rfT
._ - -^M^aaoo •%» muokiiuniBUl ■•▼la aifi •« i*) oC
ior. .'j.irfh 7 eb ow ffairlw) tAltfoi^oacr tn« nl «»tf^
•AOi. - _- »rft nl ttl#iti«Xt orfJ :'J ertf«XI««« •rf
connection with h contention to "be hereinafter noticed, concern-
inff an as?on went of t>>« Practico Act -hich r-ent into force
on July 1, 19H I speakf of the "saving of exceptions" &b a
•relic of hiiTbariem. " This is mthar an axtrerae vie*. Kvon if
it "be conceded that the difference hetiresn "an exception" find
■an objection" ic not eo creat riB tc nia;/:*? insistence on anourate
phraoing expedient to preserve the benefit of the lattor in an
appeal or '>rrit of error, it le certainly desira'ole, unlssa the
action of a reviewing court in to he in every caoe in ei>,i'ence
a trial de novc as a siatter of rip;ht, not only that the trial
Judge shall have pointed out "both dvirinp: the pro^rreaa of the
trial and en a motion for a new trial, the r-artlcilar matters
in which he ir. held to have <?one •*rcng', ro that he nay, if ho
choose, correct the®; hut also that the reviewing court shall
be confined in ite exaraination to the points ■s'hich -^fUT^. thus
raie«d in the covirt below. Otherwise ite ^ork win ha auch and
Injudiciottsly increased. We eee no oontr-lling reason why the
p-ivln/r of instructions (althoufth it is held that the objection
or exception inay he noted at any tiae before judgment) should 'be
exempt fro» this rule. At all evsnts, it haa been uniformly
heretofore held by the fjupreRie Court that it is not,
Bruen vb. The People, 206 111., 417, P. 42^.
In the "Rruen case, as In others, the ^our t having
said that an aseio-nasent of error eallin«i^ in qUfjBtion the in-
structions could not be considered for runt of excertiona, haa,
apparently for the greater satiafactlon of the parties, expresa-
«d itself as in a-ccord <*ith the eaid instructions. This is
very different frons reversing in such a caae because not in ac-
cord «ith the instructions.
But the plaintiff contends that by the Act to acsnd
Soction 81 of the Practice Act of 1?07,. which »«nt into fo ce on
^J%6L.%%lfy
'- ^ - . .. , ,. . .*ii4jHt M CV -)•».'
tr ftr^J nnf- .>T. ^.f :.-r U'o bc^fll
*<f
.'■i^ hie .-., _: . : .. .. .laiv.;^
j^«i . . — ,__affio ni _.. , _ _ ,-. — .;^
-tri Mfi llOlitliilp lli yilllJIO toi ^n .♦,rBra-'*3f.»i»ji cui i«rff bl*«
^Ki^
July 1, 1911 1 which vac the day the Judment in the caoe nt "bar
was entered, the necesnity of nny exception to the inatrurtions
complainfl'l of ^»o abropated.
The opanlnK para«?rarh of ths csclion in question "bo-
fore arori'inent raad:
"If durin?:: the prccTees of any trial In any cWll or
criTT.inal enuse either party ahall allege an exception to
the opinion of the court and reduce the s/ine to writing, it
shall he the duty of the judge to allov? Raid exception and
Bign the j:t»ne and the naitl exception shall thereupon he-
Cf»Tae a part of the record In Euoh cause.
Tho BH«e proviaicn is ratained as un alternative in th«
amended saction, hi>t io preceded "hy^ this enactnerit:
*If, during the progreee of any trial in any civil
or crjrtinal causs, either p.-irty shall g^iil^riit tc t he covrt
ixny i?iatt»?r for a ruling- thereon , :xi'.d the c-urT shall rule
adversely to the party ' 5ub"/!^ttinp: t he kjc^o , such ruling
shall be de«r-3d a niattsr of review in any court to v^hich
thQ sajrs cauee iraj "bti tharsitfter takf^^n uron app'is,l or hy
writ cf error without fomal exceTtion thereto and after
ju<?f-Taent at any tiwe durxnp the ters! of the court at which
.jiudnnent ^ae entered or within such lima thereafter as Bhall
during Euch term be fixed hy the court any party flfc-eiring
to proeecxite a writ of error or aripeal fron any auch judg-
ment nay suhnit to the court a «itenop:ra hie re-cirt cf the
trial cont->inlnp; the evidence an*! the rulings of the court
upon all or any of the ',iucf,ti<>n8 8"ul>nitted t" and ruled
upon hy the judpe thereof, and he shall exa?iinc the sa?>e,
and if correct officially certify tc the correctnecs of
!3uch report ein '. the aawe shall thereupon be filed in eaid
court and become a part of tha record in raid cause, fxnd
all mattars and thinitrs contained in fft>ch stenogra hie re-
port shall becone as effectually a part of the record as
if duly cortifiod in a ferial hill or hillB of exce ticns,
OR if durlnf tha prepress* - (the follows the provieion
"^v^v. above ?fith ^hich Section Bl before the araend^nsnt be-
gan. )
''e think that nothing more is necessary to ahor; the
fallacy cf plaintiffs contention as tc the effect of this
etatute than to call attention to the -crds in the anend'-ent
which we have italicized. Bosideo the oeram: t'-ry inrtructlons,
however, one other instruction tendered by tha pl^ii^tiff was
refused, and ths coriplaint t?:ci'» it was error to refuBC it r-.ay
etand on a diff?«rent basis than tbut Kade of tho giving of in-
Btructiona requected by the defendant. Without passing on the
^o wnj n^ r.'r^-^^ou^ whj Y,mji s.^j ««- rnx.-rw ^iiv
#T
ni aiJ"! -! 11.
1 Jnsonibxjt
Ax««:> (>•' lUUtS #dv«xi.
questiOB whether the Act going into force on t>!<^ day the Judgrs'mt
was rendered applied to this case and the refusal of th*^ in-
atruction on June 6, *e ahall therefore consider said instruc-
tion, although no exception vae. reserved to its rafuBal. It ie
ae followo:
"The ^ourt inftruote the Hx^ry that if you "beliftve
fro?T» the «vj -ience tbat the said Charles P'urnett Knudann re-
ceived the injuri«?s cowplained of ^/hile he -^aa in Lhe sxer-
cies of ordinary care for hie o«n safety, t^en the ques-
tion aa to jyhather or not he had paia hie fare or iriUenied
to T>'Ay hie fare upon the street car on ''rhich he ^?as riding
at the tine of the accident, if you heli'^ve h« was riding
upon nuch strer-Jt car at the t.ir>',e, 1 1? isarr;&t*?rial, *
In consider! nfT this proffered inetrurtlon a reference
to the eridence "becoKseE necessary. That erldence te*ids to ehow
that Knudson, a hoy hfitween ten and eleven years of arc, .s-aB
■flipping:* a car, as that terr: if grener&lly understood, '>'hen
the accident happened, 'f'ithout intendinr to pay their f-^ve^
SLXid vith the purpose of ridinfr a very phortt distance, yia and
a companion a little cider, had Jwrrped upon th<2 running "board
of a car in notion and were undoulstedly exi'ectinr to leatr*;: it
*hile in T^oticn, they ?rere, as w« think the evidence concern-
ing their actionB tended to show, doing thl6 in a fi;irit of fun
and minchief . ''^'hy otherwise did the boy ryiaire "a Icn^ nose" at
the conductor? Go dangerous had t^iB custom fcnong hoyn hocome
that the City Council of Chicafiro had prior to thiy iir«e passed
the follos-ing ordinance, 7,-hich vvas introduced in evidence "by
the defendant over th3 obj'?"tion of the plaintiff:
■"•fo minor under the a,r9 of eiiphteen years shall
clis:b, Jinrp upon, or clinp to or in any vay attach himself
or h'-»raelf to any ^-^orse, crjVl", *»lwctric or other ='treet
car, or any railroad locopfotive or car of any kind 7-'hHe
the aone is in motion, under a t^-^n-tlty of not 1«se than
t^c dollars nor more than ten dollars for each offense,"
The purpose of this ordinance was to dieeourage, and,
as far as poselble, to prevent a practice *hich v?a8 prevalent
among children, not atnong persons of yftart and diccretion, and
-rTT
7* b»TW
brui
.13 «
fcmL'^ottiTl 8/-
l9r.
tr
•llo ji»- iob o»,J
,bn<
-,
-:7 ■•W :'
kr
ik boa axe
.0 9aom*
we do not t^iinJc t>!&t a t-cy of nrdinary int«llipf?no© o-ver ten
y^are of ige, ^oing tc achocl and living In Cbicago, could be
considered unaffected "by it, or that his violation of it could
be properly itrriored with reference to the question whether he
was in the exerrioe of di><s cure for his o^n safety. Therefore,
we think the ordinance vs.q properly adr:itted ^nd fh'j-t the in-
Btruction BUggeeted should hare "been raialfeading even if not er-
roneous. It mip-ht easily have been understood by the jury to
mean that in the opinion of the "onrt "f lipping t^« car" '..'ae
neither in itgeTf nor ac a vl-ilation of the ordinnnce evidence
of neKli(?ence, unless ccnnectod *lt'- some conduct mor« than
usually reckless, oven from the point of view of the youth who
■flip". Thle view, it Ik needless to eay , wr.ul'^ not be the cor-
r'jci one, "^'e dc not thinlc the trial Judp'e erred in rafusinp- to
ftlve ths tendered instruction.
The rulings on evidence c isplained of by apoollant
are the adiriisfjion over plaintiff's objection of certain rnattorB.
It is s&id that the defendant ^&s erreneouEly p'srmitted to prove
by the cn\:rt rcroiter the qu'sstic-ns ^nd an^were r:Hde by rsoRie of
the plaintiff's -^-Itnesnee at a. rsreviouc trial, or rather -^ie-
trial, of the caee . The <4ntwers ?ere admitcsd on the theory,
still insisted on by the appellee, that they were inoonsristont
with the tsstifony of the ^itneeees at the oi^esent trial, and
that thoee witneecee did not aduiit unequivocally thu.t they had
made ther>. The appsllfint disputes thie poeition, ^e do not
eee hov the error can have been harmful in this case, if it ?fa«
error. If the teetiwony ni th'=^ fonder trial *aK variant and
Itc existence is not adsritted by the witnessee, it *a6 {^roper
that it gbould be ehown at the present tr al . If the teetiaony
was l<lentical, or ito pivinp was admitted, the error in allow-
ing It to bo refikd could not have Influenced or pro.judiced the
»tf '- TiMotiSO at -301 ftS t^tii la 3X<if(
»•» 't a»itm
IX lis
Ai»ii ^A/fi Isdi ^Jji90Viup»nu iimhA Jon .iL «i»a8t»a^'>( aaorf^ isdi
So'- -f* ••iuqal' -"fT .-*«♦<* •&•!>
1 '; ~ •"'
i':ir;o., j«>>~ .; 1 .oDJiadaJi^ .'3r:»i«lxo all
ffffteiiaaJ : bl0orfa it titi
jury that vre can B«e, unlcse in favor of >%3id not against the
witnesses' tru«t*'orthln©8£>. It wae not therefore in nny @T9nt
fatal or revereibXc error.
The «d:!r4e8ion of teetimony of V/eston fts to neaaurementa
taken in the street does not eesm to ub erroneous, and we have
already exnrcesed our opinion on the atoieelhility of the
"flipping" ordinance,
ITor do we think that there wae em. r in the adsrlaeion
of the proceedings in the Prch&te (Tourt leading up to the cove-
nant not to sue varices traction ocmpaniea, jn&de hy the plain-
tiff and her hushawid (the father <if her vraird) , on the payment of
^4000 hy the 'Receiver of the ^Thlcago Union Traction Conpany,
for causing t"-e injury '.c her ^'ard . As throwing lirhi uoon the
actual agreement of the t>?irti98 and its effact upon the claira
for further oompsnsation fror! the defendant for oauslnf the same
injuries, *e tnink it x&a co?r.petent. The follo*in(?: rule, quoted
by appellee from Oreenleaf on Uvidenoe, loth ed., Vol, 1, Sec.
297, is amply sustained hy aiitbority. Tho rule under considera-
tion (that is, the rule that tha -written evidence of a contract
aay not he varied or contradicted "by parol)
"is applied only between the parti«e to the lnstru.t?ent ,
as they alcne ara to blap:e if the ^rrlting contains ^hat
was not intended or o^rxits that shich it thould have con-
tained. It cannot affect third persrms, vhc, if it vrere
othervvise, ^icrht "be pre.iudiced by things recited in the
writings contrary to the truth, through the ignorance,
carelessness or fraud of the parties, and who therefore
oufht not to he precluded frow proving the truth, ho*ever
contradictory to the written etaterrents of others,"
The records ?ere intrcduned to thro-*' llrht on the
question whether it is-ass the intftntlon of the psrties to r^ake a
full settlement and release of the fraction Oompany hy the pay-
ment of the ^4000. That question, hecause of the effect of such
a release of one tort feaaor on the riir*ita of & codefendant,
was material. It Is insisted, however, that all the record
loA SAW il .aa«oi(li:io«^«tfi^ '«*aa»nlt«
'.-4 brr^j ^Ht'.::'fr.n-it9 »u -, ioa ••Ol) t99liM 9dS r.l naiLM.i
/^. .i« •A* aia
coulcl 138 held to show -was the statewont of a j^uardian that
could not bind th« ?iiner. If thie la to be considered a valid
srgiaaent, althoiM?> the ?uit at har ie hrought "by the guurdian,
It ma/ be noted that in no senes could the admission of theea
records, if it yicrs an errcr, be crnBidered revereihly prejudi-
cial, in view of the only gtiyen instruction on the subj^act,
%hich w&e sicrely:
"If tho ,1ury "belieye thai the noglifence of the street
rftil"pay ooiap.-.ny, if an> , in ixny "*ay contrib'^ted to the ac-
cident, then they murt apply the antount tshovfn by the evi-
dence to hav« been received by the pl;*intiff from it in
reduction of the Hrroiint , if any, vrhic*- the plaintiff would
otherwise have been entitled to recover."
This was an accurate etateraent of the law, if the
covenant not to c-ue the traction ccnpany vsre givoa only the
force attributed to it by appensunt.
^''e do not think the other objectAonR to the rulings
of the Court or to proce^-dine^® in the courae of the trial merit
detailed disciiEsion. Th*j real question after all, and the one
which we believed the jury conEidored, wac whether the; defendtrnt
Company was piuilty of n«;giip:ence caueing the accident to Kmid-
son while he .\as in the exercise of that care ratiuired of him.
Careful consjlder alion of thts evidence does not Tnake ue think
that the deci&ion of ihit- question in favor of the defendant was
ttnwarra;nted.
The judi5:inent of the Superior Court is affirwed,
APFIRyJSD.
iiitii cusii-LM.v )6 itntm$m*m «i# mam ,wmti9 »t bXotf 9<s btmn
i.lfxv ^ k>37s . stf o^ tti cltfl II ^ipovla vflt hal<S i9a Mtfoe
'lb^,f9tti tXtftateTeT bvavblan 9 vtf .'soit* its ^tvm Jk ^ .sA^cri»#i
, ^-y^lduR ftrfi no ndllouti^nni tfrlik vino s/fi *Vo wwlf , lo
:cX-'!- -*-■* "Tali**
■ ■ # ' tJ ."
bj
©low xnj»f. iRMtfro9
•Tviiod ew ilol-r-
JMi ■•0 tBiaO
r Term/ 1911, J^Q.
285 - 17^15
PAUL MAT? and n^{ AISLES vfATT,
minors, "by r-ARLKE vatT,
their Pruardian,
Defendants in Krri
r»*
JACOB ¥ATf iv
Plaintiff in Sr/or.
HRJ>OR TO T.^3 ¥UKI"IT'AT, COyPT
OP CKICAGO.
182I.A. 312
VB, JUFTICH PVITH DET.IVER2D THH OT>I>:iCI? 07 TH2 COUfiT .
An action of the fourth class '^as "broui^ht in tha Mu-
nicipal rourt of "hicfif!;':' "by "^aal ''att an-t 'Tharl-^e Vatt , rrmora,
by thoir j?uardian, arainst Jacob ^'att to r-^-over f't^OO cljiimed
to "be due th-^m froia the def«ndant. On a hearing "bafore the
Hourt, ^'itV.out a jury, the Co«rt found for the plaintiffs ^jad
entered a Juirmant on the finding for $500 a^ftinst the- '!efsn:l-
ant, to reverBe *'hioh hy Eued out thie vTit of ftrror.
It is udi^iltted t>-!it the def«ndant received $;5'"'^ of
the plaintiffs' money and has not paid ssKie, 'Te flrot inv^keg
the Statute of r.iiaitationa. The plaintiffs are wlnors and under
the EtAtute of Liwitatlono, Ch-'apter Bj, Section 21, tho ploa is
not good. It le next claimed by the defendant that ho apreed
with the p:uardian, Charlea Vatt, in Movernber, 19''5, that ho
■would pay said sun when ha collectsd certain jnortf^sir/eo, ana said
ttf^reeraent was a condition precedent, anrt there buin^ no proof
that ha had made eai.i collacticns, the suit waa prer^ature . At
th« tinje in question the sum of $50^ v?as dvn an^. o inr from the
defendant to the plaintiffs an^ it ^as the dutj of thi' dofyndant
to pHj sarce and of the ffuarfJian to collect aarae, and the said
arranger.ant b'att-'ecn the ,t;'j;..rdian And tho defenclant, brothors,
wae not bindini^ on the ^arde, the plaintiffs here, f'ut aven if
it were, the agreement was not a condition precedent. It only
9f9Tl - C8£
fcTX?: nl aJr
£
X o •ii-
^S8r
r*-- T^rAt
rt9Y«» MCy tant«V* Oc
«« . i^msv i>l«q 30a e«tt iM» x*<ra* '^^
. rfi n«l^o*8 ,(8 fitiMtiO ^nac ListlaX ■:j»t% 9tLi
's» Mf fBtli }fuit<r»l*l> •rfJ v.<f l»«r .coos ion
0/ . '.»rfr!HITOT
jjtiia bn>> , n alMifo J»»«o«X i Mm am fe^<*' ;. luor
^00^9 «• ^X«tf •'x»(fi baa ^in•b^o•1^ tntiUui^o m mmm ^neTTvoi^s
Boatq Siiv ill) '(• •h»a hMtf •i'
•111 aoi^ uni^'O boa •«» ••» 00^# to aua sHi noliaotfp ai mk'
iraA»n»^ofc orfl lo x^ub arfi a«« *1 i»r arlu.slab
bXr- t/i fcriJ ,'irjE53 isaXXoo oi tuklbtsu^ ^iii 1*» L.^i» aatiM xj!<; oi
, ;;n«bnelfiJ> »di btw aMtbiawg orfi naowiarf .*»erovim»
IX n^ra ^ws .o-ioK •WXlnle ' '" ,•*«* aifi no iaital<i ioa o#«r
XXno JI .Inabadatq BOl^lbrt'n « ion oaw i&omooTiA oHt .•^•«'
gave the defendant a reasonable lifao to make tha eaid col lec-
tions and pn-y th« arioynt due th". plaintiff u. Rosenberg ▼.
T.^wis "^fj^. '^o., 171 III, Ap'-). 'I-?*, '-e re/r:ai-.il the time froa !?c-
veraber, 1905, to .Tuna, 191''i very f^tr froK baing a reasonable
time.
The rif-l^t of th« pi aintiff a to r«ccver Jointly is not
aBBigned an error, and therefore we do not coneider asi^sc.
The jud^rment in afrixT.ed,
AFFIRVKD.
■uc- .'■; iJ«n
iCoe
■'sr Term,- 1911, i^o,
363-17797
MAFCARfT WAFT),
Plaintiff 1^ KTTQTf
v«,
THE NOFTF A«TFICA%' ACjfl'^FNT TlPUP-
AKCJT COMPASIh, a corfjfrsvt ion,
'^efend^t in Error,
FF.r'OF T'^ CIPCUIT
rOLTT, COOK COUKTY.
182 I.A. 317
vr. PFFf^iriNC jurTifF f. a. fvith
PFM^PFP TK? OPINION '^f TFT r-tTPT,
KargiLrat ^fer<1, plaintiff in »xror, hs'sinsfter termed
plaintiff, brought ■^v. action of Heftuitpelt apf^'inst defendant in
•rror, fcereinaf t&r t«r».ed defendant, upon » policy of jscoident
ineursnce. The iefenlant interpoBCd e gsnersl isreurrsr to the
d«clsration, *fcich d^niurrer U« court m.ietain«d. T> e tlalntlff ,
electsd to «tantJ by her <S«cl*srAtion »nd the court adjudged ooats
»S»ln«t ter.
Tbe declaration con«i«ted of on« oount, and &vsra that
on March 19, 190P, th« def«rdant iesued to B. ?. ^ard, for v#.iu«
raceived ond in conaid«ration of tbe warranties j;n,i at-tsffsnte
made in &n «.{;.;• licat ion Peering %n rivor. numbr^r thwre^ ith, a policy
of aoci;6nt inauranoe ^fhioh in »«t '>ut in th* declaration, and
thereby agreed to i ay to th- tenafiolary narcsd in auch application
tbe eufls of flOOO in oaea of tLe d#ath of %h% ir»MT>id «itMn thirty
d&ye from th*? date of evch injuries aa f.rs »=^entloa«l in claueee
1 and 2 of the policy. Clause 1 provides thst the policy covers
injuries received while *otu»lly rtdinjj ae a paeeenger in o. place
regularly provided for the traneportation of paeaengera #itiiin a
eurfftce or elevated railroad oar, eteaBsboat, automoVile, oanlbue,
cab, or oth«r public oonveysnce provided by a ooirnnr, o».rri«r for
raeeenger aervice only; end cl&uee ••: j^rovidae tl pt the policy
V •■ . -.:ic*'\
TIUOTTO OT *D^?n
TI8 .A.I28I
( ,«OTlX ^ 111 t
( .lotvl at iirbfeaalsO^
' I•^ i«ai«^« M«<;aitf»«s lo aolto« ojI ^d^iroYd ^llliaialq
•ifl ci t9fittmi»t lMt9ix»yj m b*»oqi«^fil la«t)a«^el^ tiff ,toa»tu*at
i«d^ •iftVA boM ^iauoo mio lo £«#«l«aoo aotfMtMt9*b ^41
ffvX«T lol «bt«w ,\ ,1 o# b«(Mti #a«bn*1*b Bdt «80«X «•! dox^V ao
ba« «aoll«<s«Io«b •dl ai . . •ooM'unal #a»tioo« lo
aolfoitqqm dous si be««a t'ui^oilaatd *di o# t^ <>'' ftvvts^ xdtTvd^
yfxldt atd#l» bvYinnl tdl !• d#««t «dl !• taAO al OOOXt lo »/■ •iiJ
•••uiiXo ml h9ttotiti9m 9XM %u mmtralnl do^m lo 9tmb •dt soil m.iit
avtToo x9lXo^ tdt Smdi ••blTtt^; X ••traXO .tolXoq odt lo 8 ;.
o«iq 9 nl t*'9iio«t*q « •« )ail>M tXX<iu>o« vXld* tfvttooi •«riau(nl
• atdilw ftiosnostflq lo aoi}.«i7oq«n«i# od^ vol boblvot^ ^xoXv)* i
,tiidlff«o ttXIdooiotua «l«od«iioto «ioo b«e«Xloi bo#«T«X« ^o ooioliub
Tol Tottt«o aoaaoo' 4 td bobive«q fo««t*^"<^'^ air^;j«(. tf^# «• «doo
•2.
covers injurlos r^sotiv^d ""hila riding: aa a paasenger in any pae9>
enger elevator in r place reg*ular3y provided for the sole uee of
pasesngers. The policy/eet out in the daclarfttion Rinkee ether
provisions for death inieanlty which are not p»irtinent to the cod-
aideration of tl<s oauee. It Sileo providse epeclfiosny that the
insurance created by the policy does not oovcr/Hn erofloye of « com-
raon carrier whil« on ixxtj, excepting employes only «hose .luties
cull th6»; solely in the office ani awRy from the tracks, tr^in,
yard, roundhouse unri re; cir »h0t.; and th!?t the policy ahsill be
valid itnd apply only to persons who are regular recorded subscribers
in good st^inding to the two publications n^entioned in the policy,
aftd shttil not, in any even), exceed the tarm of one yea.r from ths
date "written on the application ettached.
The declaration further sets forth an spplicatlcn mads
to the Julge Coftiany, Publishers, for eighteen rr.onthe' sTbacriptlon
to "JudTe", and in this sppllestion the narr.e and occurstlcn of the
insured :-xppe«rB, but \n «»uoh application there la no reference what-
ever to the defendant.
The declaration then av^ra that the insured carr.e to hie
death in Chic»3;o, Illinyis, by falling from the platforn;. of a psas-
eng«r coach attRohfld tc a train, upon *hlch rlatform he wae nec-
essjarily riUlnff in th^ f trformance of his duty a? a «witohi»'an, and
r-ioeived the injuries which caused his detUh. within thirty laye fro»
th<5 dBte of the accii^^nt anl solely »nd independently of »11 other
causes; lh.>.t the platform upon which the insured »ras* riding was a
part of 5i certain car -^hich wa? & puMlo conveyance rrovlded by a
common carrier for passenger service only within th-^- meaninj^ of the
policy; that the policy 'vae in full force and effect on the day the
Insured received the acoiiental bodily injuries described, and on
the date of his death b^ reason of the payicent of tl s aubsori; tion
to *Jud,;2e" aa in th« ?*, plication was provided; thit on " y K* 19Q9,
the said insured, K. F. "J^ard, made application for ci--^ag« of osnefi*^
to ••0 •Io« tii tol t«X)lToici -x^tMlu^x •e«Xq 4 al tofMrmim iti<i*
t»4to ••iiM aoli4iJiIo»t mtit al Sue ivivolXoq arfT .•^•smtwK
wioo •(!# of #a*atlY>q toa mim ilol^ xfittmmbat dtmmb lot saoisiTotq
•di #«4t t£X*olllo«4« ••blvoiq o»f« ^I .tsJMO ecii^ to aoi^4ii«Ai|^
'dioo « )o tt^Xl** a^nroo )oa ••oh to'^oq tit x^ &*t«*70 •oa/iTuoai
a^iitft MOd* t^AO ••'^oXqa* so^'^dd>^9 «t^^ 00 •Xldv isiiTMO aoa
, i^7i ^miomii mdf moit f«ir« bcui •oltto mtUh tti yX»Xo« mmdt Itmo
t<l XX«i« t^^toq i# bc« iimdm ilmi%% hmm MuodbAtroi «b«4rc
ui'im<Hi9%4is% tmtxommi laXiTRvi •!« odw mammfi o> x^* fXq(|« baa httiht
«<9lXoq mdt al tz-acisa^^ taotti^oiZdmi o«^ •<il of aAltfi«l« boos ^^
tdi «0tt t«tt ^•»DX* «ta*^* T"' <iX«fo« XX«ite tttm
.t«iio«J/f aoif «3tXqq« odf no atf f lT« mtmb
mbmm aottnoiitan a* dttol ^imn i^.i^tirt aoitf«T«Xo«b orfT
a<}li<il" ' jaifem nvoid^t* TOl ««i«d«lX(fa*! ^xnmqmmO m^buX* odf of
•df lo aoif«^;r:}9o bam ^mma mtti nolf«oll'7|0 mlftS al bttm ^^fffJMb^ Ot
-l«d« «nn9TB')6i Oft •! •Tstft ttolijtr.ll-j tM Aotm at twS taYii»(|<3ii AMMHtt
.fa«b««l»b ftiff of xtfV*
»««o b«iimffl trff faif •!«▼« oodf aolf«n*Xo»b •ifT
" I 4 to ««olf«£q •.If aotl 9<ilXX«t x^ ^•ioallil «o3«old0 nt dtmli
-3911 •«» •< viotfaXt '(«id«r aoqtf «al«if « o# botfoaffa doaoo
«7i*<idofl«« a •• tfv* a^^ ^o •otTMi-MtT*) odf al talblt tXl^
lutt »t^ x$ttdf aldttm 4f«ot) sld b««9«a doldv mmltalal md$ b«Tl*oeT
xmiiio llM td t^fQ*tM»ctobal baa ^Imlom bam fa9^iooa adf to mSmb sdf
a aatr yiibiT aair bmrumal adf i9ldir naqjv a^otf^Xa md$ fad J iaaaxiao
a t' babivoiq aasaxsTOoo aX£d«i| a aav doidv tao alaf itoo a to f^aq
•df la yiXaaaa adf dtdfia tXao •olrsta T«s«aa«aq tot lalTvao ao«aao
•df ^mb mdt ao faatic bam •oiot lLa\ at aav x*tX^ adf f 4d^ ,«tbXXaQ
ao boa ,b«dlio»ab ••liot'i^ Xi^J^bod Imiumblom* ^dt bmwlm—t b^wiwat
nolfiltmadummdt la tuvafa^ adf ta ooaaat i;tf Jf aab aid te mrimb adf
«i>£^ X«* 0o f*<(f ;b»blvoiq aaa aolfaolXqv;* adf al mm Hsbali* «i^
olory in the i^olioy to W-vrgsrat '"'"■Td^ fro plaintiff, and the ap-
plication '?bove nrentioned, Thlo^ ■v&n f^rHfUTed by ^n arent of the
dftfsndant, in sat forth; »n<5 that in c-ureuf^noe of fi.n arranc:9J?i«ir.t
fc»t»e«(n the 4«f«nd»nt »ni the Jul,?© Co«f>&riy the policy of Ijiaur-
ance wae obtained »nd kept in foroa bsoaUBe of the pe^yment by H.
?, ward of tfc« subsoription jron«y for the publlciatinn; and th&t tbe
dutise of ^arcl ss & •"-"itclman required hiw to bs upon an^l aV)out the
tralUB »n<i platforms, of ■«)". ich f5«ot ths defsmdant oOKfeny and itts
agent <ie».llng witl. th« »Rifi. F. F. ^'ard in connection with the •aid
policy of inaur&nc-? ^ad knowl9'^sre; and it furtKsr %rer« thst nh^n
^arcJ tecpifie « policy holder in the compftny it was cnntemplatsd
by both defflndant and eaid "^^rd that he wo^ild be ®xfo««d to ths
dangers lnoid«nt to hie ocour^.tlon.
By the sverrrienta of th« declAration it &j pear« that the
rolioy set out ^n the declaration ^r«8 not in forct", at the tiwe of
the alleged InjurieB. Ths policy b-aar* d?3t8 Maroh 19, IPOP, and
expired onfs ya-*r froin thsit djjte '^m providftd thersin. Tbr? svefmant
th&t the policy wsa in force at the tijre of tbe »ocioent ami at the
t inse of tr.<? death of P. '^. ■'9;4rd is a mere conclusion :>f ths ple&der.
The fjActa set out in thg deolitration do not justify tr.e ccnclueion.
Ths t«»rr{*:^ of mjibecrlption *n "Judvrs" -^3.% aevsnty-fslfrht v^a' s, which
would niiik& thtt term expire In «i;rtt^yn montl.e froff; Maroh IS, 1908,
or aometime during th-; month of F^ptewher, 190'-, The death of
the inaured cocurrsd on the 7th day of D8oemb»»r, 1009,- nearly
twenty-one i?5oaths from the date of the policy. So f\*ct le averred
in any of the anegatlona of the declaration -?rioh •?.juld justify the
court in drswlnjr the inference IhAt +he policy ■^a.« in force at ths
time of the injuries or of the deuth of the insured. Th* werrr.ent,
that on Vay 14, 1^0", *H.r 1 wede apt Heat ion for snd did chanv^a the
bsneficiftry of the policy to 'dttr^ice^t "^ard, the plaintiff, if proved,
does not jive «^rounde for the inference that the policy w^a in
force. The s'pllcwtlon «et out In the declaration h.?s no joHcy
number oorreepondln^ with the policy sued on snd. set forth in the
deolaratir^wi, ^ni ie not indoreed by the iefendant or it» agent.
f.otio^ •d^ Y^ / ham i'-
9dt 09 '
ir^ Rcl^Jiv -U
•^^^ 30 X>«U» ^ ctnOO HVdBXMt
A t^l to ia4i«i«l«t •«(# fd bMvolMil ioa al fca« ^acU»'Ukl—b
•.4«
It i« urged in behalf of Xht pl«Utiff that shile it
WoL8 po8i!rlbl« for the defendant to iaaue w. policy containing
prop'fr llmlt»tlon» sni rsttriationt sni rrop*?r wgresmente b^t^fsan
the pariids to insure V., f, ^-rd Agf».inat aocii«nt ^hlla aotu«31y
riiiOAj <*• a paeaenger In a public coRV«yhnc« provldsd by a comirrion
carrier for paaaenger «ervlc« only, it dl-^ not do •o. "'ith thie
contention •« cannot *gree. The j, is^in langvia?:* gnri tsijrrtis uaed in
the policy, -f? tbinl, cont^iin iiwitatione »nd raetrict ione.witii
reference to the rieke assumed by the defendant \n th» policy is-
sued. The ineur^nc^ '^st® sffeotiv® while the Ineureci w&a riding
»• a pa-eeen^er in a pi&ce provided for the trsne; ort«%tion of
paeeeasers arithin ji conveyance provided by !^ oomrr.on oarriar, tut
it did not oovar the esse eet out in th« declrAration -vhera ti s de-
ceased wae alleged to bvi dieohsirging th« duties of ,i e-itchtr^n and
was riding upon t' e plBtforsi of a conveyance in tV.a iiech^Arge of
eucb iutiee.
The deelarativ-)n aeek^ to impoee » liability upon d-.fend*
ant by th« rr.era fact, hn averred, thst the fi^ent v»h> took the ap-
plication kne-s "Pgrd wrsj sm ejrt'loye of ?5 coirtton ceiTri»r, Thi8
aver;tent doee not ohanre th« tarase of the policy or raias » iiA-
bllity «fcit:h ia provided a^Alnat by t>.e very ts-rma of the policy.
The authoritiee oittjd by thg plaintiff s,r« nv-»t «; !.iioable to the
fi»ot» averred in the declaration. The Circuit Court propgriy aua-
tained a dereurrsr to the declHrstion. The judgmisnt is affi-'/rad,
AfFIPMFn.
,1 » •'♦ *^*.,(» •.,, f ^ .--r,. f -N»»- ,^ .♦ «» t,^ f„« -*,^ - »♦ - »'^n Joa t>lb ft
uOc'^-'viA ^> J C4nsy«i A««^ .
11 W 3 Tl\' 1^
1 r ^ ^. _
V ■ 1 > k 1 k . ■ •
b«M%'
; «is i m
j\i eyyi'
I-
^^^^ -^^^., ISU. ,„.
377-17613
JOHN T^. KAGL^STOW, 'Jt al., | )
Apr«llfse, )
VI ) APPEia FROM PUFfFlOR
'■ / I ) C'^int-T, COOK COUNTY.
/ ANTiA BUPPF;LL GOODYKOOjrTZ, Adfx. , )
/ Kytate of nHAPl.E«=! H. aOOnT-f )
KOONTZ, dfece*8«d, /
I' Appellant,
. 1 182I.A.318
'...^'
rJTLIVIRED THF OPIlflON OF TITF COURT.
Appelleae, John 7^. F«tjr?.«8tcn, Thoroas F. Kelly and'
Pater p. ■ onb^sTg, filftd their &.ir,9nAed bil?. of comrl&int in the
Superior Court of Cook <"'ounty, praying; th«~t » certain ^written in~
etrxurent be aet a«l-^a »ndl resftovad r© a clouf? upon th«sir title to
certain lota described in tha bill, |
The bill aver© tktt on Pept9«;ber afi, 1903, thf^y were
the cnerw wni In p09««i»«lon of oerti^ln lots (deacrlbinj- their.),
and on January 20, IVX, ore of ?.pFelle«c, Faijileetor, wxeciitei a
T«?rltt«r! »gr<&<fa!«tnt, «l copy of "hlch ie rttachfeS to the bill of oom-
plalnt. In votd» sund flg:vreft «.b tollo-^ti:
"Thift agire'aai'Pnt ir?3i;ie tMs SOth day of Jssr.uary, A, T.
1906, bet^esn John Fi-jglf5i9ton, party of t> i? firat part, sni
Charles K. Goodykooni-, party of th;? ««ccn'^ part, vsUnsasath:
That issid fir«t party in ooni»idarAt ion of tJ:© services oJ th'^
Siiid eecoRi wrty in n«<?otl-:!tion of sr «xcb»n:?:e of rrciperty,
I conetltute i^iid aeoond psrly !*\y sxclusi^s ag;«nt for the
•ei"* of (herri foilo'*^ diaecrlrtion of -rropertyT, for ths auw
of Fievan Thouaani Dollarie (Hi, ODD) net, to rre, 8«l:l eecond
party to hai^e all thst ha may obtain in -xoee? of ^11,0*^0 as
ooiiipeneatlon for acrvioee in "Sfri.l exch;nr;-e,
•In osLise swle of sail property i9 not •ffectsd by
¥dy first, 1906, ani I 1o not «l9ct to extend this option to
Ootobfjr l8t, 1:'C6, T h-arsby -i^rtii to pay sttil second party f.?r
thi surrender iuid canoeJ iation of tMe ftffrae«;«nt the aurr of
Plx Hundred t* anty-f l^-s rolltrs (*6?5.00).
"Said firet party agrees th;- 1 he i^lll convey ihia
property in case of :r?l« tc -whomsoever the- 8«con.:1 party .ray
direct and failure or r-sfueal on th«» psrt of said first party
to carry out any or sll of t> ■? j'rovl ions '>f tMs r-i-^rr^sffsnt
mekea hire liable tc yaid eecond ps.rty for the subs rf §1350.00.
(Fiijned) John '^. Ffts^"-'*^*^"*
(Seal. )
.•'
^» I' * rT'r.- «^^y/T/» r.
■V6
• ^)0^
loatb
> jiol«««««
iJ
|t
»T>T
«»
toi^jrrc
; aiajtii jlla idXjt
v.4.it&sj .aoj«$Xs4'i ." aaoi» (i^Misxa;
7
-3-
*'''©, the undfirBi-^ned, heinrr equally and jointly intsrest
ei in t)^9. above l^acriirad prop*rty> i;? hnrsXy conf)9nX to the
extflniion -f the flrithln option as harein net forth, until
October Ist, 1'.k:6,
rested May 1, 190B,
(Bli^ns'd) John T, Kagleeton. (5?e»3.)
Tfcomae F, Fally." (Feal.)
Tne bill ;ivftr5» that oj^ Octobsr 1, 1^06, »pv-«ll«nt,
Chi.jri«« H. Goodykoont^, rsqueatedl K&gl^aton to again extend the
above *rr<?'"^ft-'«int wMci Fa.glg»ton rwfusad to do; th«t Goodykoontat
pjret«nd« th5»t ©aid Fegleston has not cfcrriad out the pro^ieiona
of «aid ajrftemsnt ani that the «a<r!« ia in full fores and effeoti
but thj't the tarjpu of the agreefflftnt hsRVs in all rasreot* b««n
compli&ci with fr.nd the esse hris become null an-i void.
Th-s bill furtbsr evsrs thst on S«pt«Eb«r '■'•?, 1': 0^,
I'agleaton and telly entersd into « written f^grs^ffsnt *ith one
Peter ?. Ponberg for th« salfs of r portion of sai:l prop«rty, i>nd
that on Peptsmber £f, 190?}, Boodykoontx plsuced on rsoord in tfc«
Rsoorder'e office of Cook County, Illln ie, the «uid oontraot
between Kafjl^Bton and himself sni the sxteneion «x9cut«<i by
Eagleaton and f^lly, and tl»at tht?reupon Ponberg rftfueed to accept
title on account of the record of ths instriiff.ent.
It ia then alleged thi>t s^'beequently a conveyance of a
portion of asid property wae iR»de to Ronberg, but th-t Ronhftr^ h&a
retained tlJ?50 to eeoure Mi»»elf against 3II cIj iwai that Ooody-
koontz rcay h*.ve, Jtnd thpt the oompiaio*nt« are 'rilling to bring
into court fl^50 and aieo any olh'j:r amount that Oondykoonta »*y
cl^.im on account of ^«id iristruftarit.
The till avsrs th:: t «t ths tiwe of the fliine of the
bill tiA aoffipl<»in4nt« - -:re In poaseeelon an-! in tha actual uee
and occupancy of &1 1 the prsrlee© and that tha r.^cord of tha agree-
asnt la »■ cloul upon the oorepla Inanta' title »n.1 tends to deprecieita
the value thareof and ought to be set aeld« end ialivered up to be
osnoelled.
Chef r lea H. Ooodykoont? filed m sensral dewurrer on
.«•
6Ti»tnf 7r?,iijf fna vfr^ifrft **nl' ' .■ -^n - t-stt^Ai ■ ' r^'* .a""*
t}-t*^X9 fflati t fio Jttls*"? to»J« <. ; . 1'"'
nio/-. r loo t>tJtii«o #eB t^tf ao^«»i^^ ^ fibnt^t^
(7 .isawlMT
{ 'f C flft
fPYtVflO^ _ ^. —.„ : ';•-
.-trrrio-i
fl*lcf 6
J xxid
i n«»"t man I. i i J::::.:
-0-
April 3, iSil, to the for«f?oing amended bill. On Airii 19, 1911,
a .1-»cra3 f«« entersd, ov«rrulinc; ths .i«ffurr<sr of Goo'fyVoontz, re-
citing the eUotion of th« dafendant to atani upon hie iarrurrsr,
daoredin? that :^a to th« daf.^ninnt oojcplalnant*' amanifid bill of
cor»plaiat b8 t«);en wa oonfs««edi anl, fin.iing th« fKot« alleged
In the bill to Vo tru», (1«ore?»d th?t tha "written in«trujfl«nt, bs eat
a9ia:e, laclared hull ani voM s*9 APr»it5»t the ooapl5iinant9 u» a
cloud upon tha titl*? of th« complainants, and ordered that Ooody-
koontz -tail'/or up tbe ln8tniTr;fjnt to ba csnoallad and pay tha
oosts of the suit.
From ths d9or9« tMa appeal i*! prosecuted. It ia con-
tsndscJ on 'O'Sh'^lT of sppaTlant, (l) that th« inetru»i«jU set out in
the ajRended teill le not a cloud upon the ttt.l«i (?) that ». bill
••ill not lie to roaove aa a cloud an inetrufr*nt 'fhich doi»8 not
purport to ^iv« sorrs Intsrast In th« land; 'tn.1 (o) the d':.Qrs9«
of tb« oou^t Daia* i!3 srr-jneou© in tJifst it purr.orta to adjudica.ta
aatt».i.a xriat ^er'^i not prori^rly b«for»? the court,
A aloud u|.on title is; defined to be « p^eirblRnce of
title, r&lid on itg faca, to <aho^ th« invalidity of ^-nich it ie
naoeac&ry *-o reaort to extrineio evi-J.ncs, It is c»n ancu/jUrrsnoe
eippftrently ViJii:i, but actually invalid. P«ed et J*i. v, Tyler isi
»i., 56 111. 2S8, Ae dsoiarsd in Rofcy v. routh ParX CoH;B;i»eion«ra,
315 111. ^200, Jit pa^e 1*02: "A cloud on title ie sn outstanding
claim or «ncu«brs.nce, which, if vglid, T^ould affsot -^r ifrpsiir the
title of the o^wner snd "srMch appears on it© f=;iC8 to lave that
effect, but "»hich can be sho'wn by «xtrineic evidance to b« in-
valid." In Allott V. Ar?!?.rioar.. ^^tra^boari Co., S27 Hi. Sfi, the cout
e».id, "Such cloude upon titl? sa rray ha raaoved by aourta cf djuity
ftre instruiy!snt» or prcce«din?^« In rritinsr wtiioh afps^r uron th^
records anu thereby c««t doubt u.on the vsiility of th«? vicoxd
tltAS."
An MXiii.»,'i»j?stl in of th<? ir3»t,j'UNj«rt in (iU4etiox^,in tLa
ll^t of tftsae .Jeftnitions ot cloud on title, gho^a that it ie
»di x*4 ^Ai« ttt.
oi
*rff rr©q[M ^yoft• ^ lor twLa^m* 9di
•r>ff» fT« ■
1 <1««l tifr
'{*f *0'
tr^r-si Vf..ifJc
jmfX
■!tal«
'5 .£11
oIXA al *.6^i.tir
u iri«r« oontr^^ot to pay Rion«y, hH'iA gjr!v« ta Goodyi'oontx, th« upp&A-
iant, no interest whs-tevftr io thu i?^n',i Itself. The inatv^JiKent
only V.ound Ea£;ls8ton to pay rsonsy undsr the fwcts set out iu the
contvwot. It con; K ifis no covftusnt to wak© » oonv»y, no© <f the l:-»nd
«uch UB would va^ulrfi s court of eiixilty, »t tlis inetancts of Ooody-
koontz, to cottiol k cooveyt ncs. It, th«r«forfr, dotjs not crrf!*t« uii
intaretst or titl» to thd lan<i, r;ut is ** lust .i ■.•gr«'imr.j;t to pay a.onsy
undar cjsrt**in coniiticue, tecrons Id <?. r«xt«r, ^'i4 111. bi?;
Irv^in V. Powell, "i^P 111. 107. If ^ppsUhnt ta^d produced » -ur-
cliftoer ri«»iiy, wiilinsr *od »hln to iuy the property in ^iuestion
upon ti>M dtlpul*tedi tsrm«, s rci tl^e oomplainant© ttKl r ■ffu^^d to
convey, Gaodykoontz'a crj'iy clfijtc woulc) t© for «roney,- either for
11260 or tl.e "iif f -srenoa bet'^een ?il,0;^0 -^nd the price at -which hi.*
purohaeer 'J«m ready, '^lliirfr :iind sble to buy. Thfi o->ntr^;«ot «p-.
pears on its fsice to b* e jojaplttt-* corstrant, and it ^-ifil] be oon-
clu8ivei.y pre«uiTi.«d to cont-»in fell th* ol? ligations of t»i*; i.t^rtlfjs.
Teiiuride Pc=^«r Co. v. Cfane Co., P08 111. ??ie. Th* righta of
Goodykijontz 4?r« wehsur^d by t):« ternss of the oontrv«ct which Klv*a
hiff;, in th9 ?fvent of default of the othsr p&rtlfig, not s riojht to
eni'oroe the contr&ct in wny manner agalnet the lend, but s. ciaiBi for
socey datc&g^s only.
■ Tiie ascre fi^'ct averred in the bill thai Oocdykoontz pre-
tended th<:t ths p'"C)Vi«ions of the oontrect hici not bfl^^n cerried
out tno th,s,t it 'Tfts in full force and effect does not of itself
K»ke the ia«tru/r;snt ii cloud. Psrk«r v. Shannon, 1?;1 111. 45H.
The mere r^ioording of t)i© in^trurr.^At :joaa not of it-
self «.*ke it a cloiid upon title. Nioksreon «t si, w, loud *t jI.,
115 W.S63. -.'4. In th3 l?i«t cit^sa c«.b9 th« court Bvi.i, "In ordsr to
in<iuce a court of ;;h;'nasry to ordsr '^ ^rltln-r to b« canoellad or
aurrftiEn*:ired, *s oonetit* t in?: % clovrl upon title, it mxf&r t-^t lesst
ts m instruftent which upon its fsoe is, or •Ith ths =ili of ex-
trinsic f <ota ff-»y De, soma evldyacc of a right adv-ree to plain-
tiff •«.• Th« in9tru»r,ent, thersfors, i« not eucn *n instrus-ent aa
if at iniT .tre«tl bn 'ol on »tnvf
vnr",D !i iltJMi O/ *r Ofl Mil- -t)
.'0:T 0/ • .' , ' ^
.»^cf?''^^oo il4tT»t>
-•' «<*J lff«XX»qq 1
'.rJp'. . ox t'l'^^ct-xq tdi t^ «♦ ^^tf" *«• >*» ;ti««do
'■■■■•.. • - • : ■ ^ . .^•^vn.v.
S \*AA'^ .tu f-.i • .f«»*.T?-f ..n-TftT^l" «-(* to OaCCi
#I»l1-
!•«# fli-
«,; inn 6«tf lo^ttlfl. .. . saolsivQiq «d/ l«d# t«£)0*i
sft #0«%lt htf •0t6l CXtfl nl •«•> JX }«dl i>04 taO
- _ . vair-TOOtl #!•• ■
» r r • rr> . — - -
- , ^oqii ^«•Xo i^ ,-^ -'ll»«do
' I . T # » n .
_r,^
oonotitutes a cSowi upon tKa titlg, -nd th* rrcrtf rsccriixig th«r©of
does not. of Atii«lf nisk^ It s clouvi uj'On th-e; lin-^. T'ns mer« f«ol
thst Ponb'T-]; thought tie iretrurent in quaiticn «'S!e . clcnd and
rfjr\,a«:i t > Ci.rry out rv contrrxt of purchs sa fox MiS* t reafjon, do««
not tr.nrts th- contrtct » cloud an'? is wholly irr-Rteri:-! v*pcn th«
ftueutlon pres^ntsd. The bill doea nU pre»?«nt a C3«e for xhn inter-
ference of ~ cocrt of equity, fnr :t covert -'ill noi' ■^•■st in motion
its power* t-ad r.r>c:hlri!!s:r> io -.ic * tjffsl**»-i» thing, irnd rlll not cet
».eid&' *.» i- sloud that -^hich i« not ** cloud.
The .l?oree Is «r^v>r,^^oua v n';' Ifs reverss'; v.nd th« OMXiau
iB reR»na<<3 with cJir-'Ctlona to :i i.otries' tfn; bill.
^'TTH DIHFCTIONF.
''^ ^^^^. 19U, ^o:
MARY FM/ABFTK VcCANK «t »1. ,
on s-pr*"! o^ »«APY TII^A'^^T^.
McCANN,
vtj.
THE ^OPLD, / )
) A?PT='AT, FPOM CIRCUIT
)
COUHT, COOK COUNTY.
182I.A. 319
»'p . i'>!\TririKn ,ttftic^ f. a. tvitk
rsxivi^rr tri: opiuion of* the coupt.
Th« criminal 1)111 nf f?xc«pt.ioyiR in tY.\«i o«we« ?'sa
fil«rd In th« Clroifit Court of Cook Courty on July b, 1911. On
April 3, 191??, t^s^t. ci'iurt, on n^otlon of the d«f6ni«knt, ftppell««,
©Iffiiwd .'n.i fll^d '*n f»Tnffnde<i ^^nd m.ip:-'lerr»rt.r. 1 bill oC -xceitlong,
an-:^ enter«i ;fn ord«r Titb a: prorr l*it« *i:v.?ln.T9 th?.t it b« filed
Rvnc pro tunc «a Af July 5, !«]]. A trr/nscrl'ot of t.hjj ^^fi-flnded
anrt guppl9!S*;ntal bill of «xo.-?.'li;>n«! »*n fil^»rt b> I'^^-^ff of court
in thl? c:s»,uee i". thlo c^jurt April '»'-^ 393". 'V. Jun? 17, 1913, a
motion w<s ifad* by spr«ii»nt« ^tH'^ taVen b|t tha coiirt to Rtrike
the <5npr=i^rss«^ntal tranecrl;;t fi'cjr, th«* rscor4. Upon lu'^ con-
al^Sar'stion of th*? s^liance t.-'kan 'inl th^. finviin'-e of the court
on thfj motion to «,r.<«ind int correct tbr bill of exnaptiona, th^
motion to sitrlke t*^ l*nl«d,
Tbl« -ictlOR »;»n V,-!r.>\i^>.t by the pls^intlfs, ftrpsl 1*-Rts,
•>9 h«n'?f lcl»rli»o uniir .^- b-^nafit aartlf iR^t- ls"?u»ci by the I.'^difte
of thfl K%oof^beffie of thf '*'orl4, m Mlchiftan coroorrttion, to one
Telia WoCsnn, for tb^ gum of ^1,00:\ In the 'ip? lio^.tlon of Pslia
VoCsnn for rrsn-.t-^rshlp, T?i^ .<^«pt«B)b*»r P, 190?, sh^ etatecS the.t
shfl ^aw born M'=>y 1=, IPbJ, r?r.i th^t efce *«i*3 forty-nirrs y^-^ra of
^J^ on h-ir 1*1 «»t pr-o«11n? birth'^^.y.
Th« dftfene?! set uf in ths»p3e 3 dinars «n.-i on tLe trial
Vft» thst rali« MoCann ^ss tr.ore tht^n fifty yenrs of t^^^a o» bar laat
eie.A.i r
br
Vi ::^'»avti3a
IT
-s-
C'irthd&y prior to her joining the defendant ordor; thnt. she «a«
born «9V«r%l y-jara prior to Miy 1», 1853; thnt the cI«f«ndlRnt
order was » Michigan oorpor&tion, auvi th^^t tl»*f la-^e of Vichigftn
provided th^t th^ corporators of • frRtffrnaT h«n*?fit. aootsty
shall fil« -^itfa ti* CofTwisRioiwr of Irj?u.rnnc« for thtj atute of
Jfiotiigsin H dfjclarstion oontvlninj-*;, ajtrono: other thins:«, th'^ n-^rs
of th'^ oocitsty, lYfi slau« of doln.'- bU8in«H«, ths limit ag to the
age of «.^f.llcgi.r!t9 fc^r ^«nffficisry itwmbersship 'Jhiaij el' ■ U. not
9xo««ri t"ifty-flv« ymr&i ti*.''t tlj« leefandant fil«d ito i5rtio]«a
of aa«oci:ition Ai:'rii 8, 18P7, 5*»a aftsfraris sr^wn^-iei tliS earr©
on July 17, 1901, and filed tli« a»'«ndea articles J-imiury '•, 190^2,
with the CoRifrlaaionsr of Insur^inoe for the state of Michigan;
and thvt tb« :^m«tnded articles of aeaoci •'t ion, s.-ronfT oti.i?r things,
provided thi»t the objects und v.urroaes of iha coroorixtion ei-all
b» to i remote the b««t interests an'i ganerjiJ '^elf-rirs of the order
of WaocabeeB, • • ♦ an^^ to r-rovivle life b®R'*fitis r^nd disability
t;.*;ii«fit8 to those of eounl boNllly health Vi«st*fls« eig-hteen and
fifty yfeir* of age.
The d«fen:i;^rit havinr plea-d«d that the &n<!'p:*»,d con-
tr»ot of inaurrioos '^as u3 tru Tires , fiXad, prior to the trial of the
oiUise, a ;..lest of tender, aettlne; forth th»t "oy rei'son of the said
Delif^ McCunn havia^- be^n mor- th'«n fifty y«?>T» of sp-e i^hen she
■beo'=»m'S a wewber ?.n^i •*««, th^rftforo, past the *i?5« liait provided
for In the or;pinic l*«r« of the defendant order, the defendant *»«
without po««r or laiwful ftuthority to iesue 3 life benefit certifi-
cate or ineurano* oontraot to fs^lia KcCann, and the alleged con-
tract of insuranoe, u^on «hioh the plaintiffs eeek to racovssr, ^a«
end is void end of no effect. The defen-*:'«t tendered '^itii the
pies, the fiwount of ^165. 25, -'^Muh w**e the tots^l SRimrvt ri^ceived
by the defendent jS duee and »eaeH»»!r«nto fron. Hal is WoCann during
her lifetime, -iDd slso t«n^i«red tr.e aaount of flA for noeta ex-
panded by the ri'iintlffe in th» proceedinrs up to th-? tirre ^hen
the dafendant br^upcht the '^wount of tender into court. To this
<■ ttr<**
I
'Vlj ^ l/UU J t ^
> K <► «■ » • •
-I • K^^u F-i
-s*
plest of t«naer no replication or any other jlsadln^e •whatever
war* tilnii by tht ; ]Bintiff8» Th« plea of g^nari^l Iseue ^^a witn-
dra.'i'n ty ths a9f«n<iant prior t'" ths trial.
Th« only iss'ia of f??ct on lh«? trii^l of th.« oauae ■^ysa
whether r»ll*i VcC^mnn, at th« t. irria nhtu ms.d« her arplic^tlon for
ase«t4r«hip in th« dafan'lant -vrdor, 'wr® worw or leoa th^n fifty
y«are of «?:«. This *S9 th« iqaue t«n{J«r«d by Its rlfisidlacye and
to '^bich thtj 9*li»nce vas ilreotftd. Upon thla tiS9ve th«? burdan
of proof was upon the dafand&nt. To eust'-in Ite itffsnae, tivs
defeftmnt Introduotdi d«po»itlon8 of "^n older brotri-sr an! 6n olci<!ir
aietar of th* d«c»RB«d, a o«rtiflcet« of l:apti»Hr; cf th«! dftceaaed,
and th-s cenaue repord tftken purauant to th» ^jiwg of Or«fit Britain
and IrelRnd on March 30, 1P51, and other proof tsniin,? to ehov
that r-sllr. MoC:<nn «as baftized Vay ":0, 1P46, and that on Hftrch
30, 1851, aha "^a five y^cnTn old.
• gainst th* «rvld«nce lao Introiuced by d«f«ndiint, the
plaintiffc offerad no proof except th« atat^r-ent isad^t by tfca dss-
oeaaad Dalli* MoCann in her aj-'plioation, Uu t sh« ^s.8 born v:«ty 18,
1653, if th tt 08 b» oon©idar«d proof in th« casa upon that
quaation of fact.
At th« close of Ih*! «vi<i;no5, thft court, on motion, dA-
raotad a verdict in fsvcr of i 1 Hint iff s to the extent of tha amount
tendffirad by ths ■lefaniant,- f 163. 35 ;»nd fl4 coeta.
It 1« oontfndad on b-thslf of sppella-nta that th«
queation of age w&b one of fact for th« jury and th^^t th» truth
or falsity of the Raatire^'s statement ^s to hffir ©,ct« and th« qu«8-
tion of th« id'^ntity of the &aaurad with th« ytiTSon nansed in the
record of baptiaff-, etc., wae for tha jtjry, .anci tbr^t, ther*;fore,
the court erred in directing^ « verdict upon tha proof contained
in tha record.
'''here the evidsnce preaenta a oontroreray of fact on
the ff.&terial ^ueations involved, appellant's contention la un-
doubtedly aound, but in this oeaa the proof praaented by av-paliea
^ ««m#oliil!;i mA$ x4 tmi,i\ fum
. .%ixi •/if ot toliq IsaJtatl*]^ >iU v^ ««*«£
.1^ «o tost 1m> •i^osl xi0O *^T
'vu; s^^ii &«•!:; 64^ xdi IHtt9l»^t •a»«i •rfi »«« mlAT .•^^ .
f^ )• miiokst9o<\9t Ntttt^itMi iamt»9\»t
:^ :<t< r^4i «X4«I «<>€ doutN no ^i«X»xI te«
atf tssit^Ad MW 004 OoM «iX«a #«4U
.Mo 9XtfX •Wt awr *'U . I',-.;' .oc
- :. .^ ;ajt^90i£ . (li oaAOoH «iX»CI tMUitt«
'ir tn^tx* Mtt o4 •llii«[i«I^ !• Tov«l aX ioit-xnv « t. ^i
•Mij :.AJ uiamlL^qnM \o lX«Ai4 qo b«te»taoo at iX
■ atJ 94$ $4iii tan fwi ad* tal $ms% lo aao aaa a^^ 1c .. ..^^.^
^wyp «4t ig^m a^A vad a^ a.^ #aa«a#«ia aifeaivaaa adt to t^XaXaV «a
ui ^a««a aaa«>i 'k'l^ 411* l>a'xuaaa «dt 1o \IXiaabl adt ^o aal#
y-^t9tif ^iJidi fiOM vXttft *di tol aaa ^.ota ««ai4qact )• b-xoaas
^,, . ^.,.„> ,^ aaq» tolhtav a nnlioff**' "' '"if Stuoo •Ai
j«l la t«it»voi^noo a alnaaa'sq aoaatXv* S'lt aiad^
-tiu mi a^ia%tti^o a*iaaXXaqqa ^ftaviovnX aaallaaMp . .. .^. ....
on th* qutetloce of ^*».9 rsn;i ld»Rtlty of the asourad wri? uncontr»-
dloted b> up-ftlisnte. Th«? rrare statot.ent, in the aji^lication of
the age of PaHa VcCflnn wae not •vidence of the f ..ct Btuted, Ths
application, th* benefit a^rtifloete *>ni tfc« by-laws of tii© asoa-
oiation, so far a» lej^al, constituted th* contract retwe<»n Deiii*.
IfcCenn and ajj^^^p^llee. Covenant Vutvnl Lif« Aaan. v. Kfsntrar, J.B8
111. 4ol, Royal Arcanunr' y. Coverdale, 93 111. Apr. 57i; A. 0. U. W,
▼ . Jeeee, 50 111. Acp. IQl, By th« terrre of the osrtifloate, the
•tfttement of the isne^sed in h«r epplication that she ^aa torn Mey
18, 1853, 1*518 « «triot warranty 9.% dietiniruiaK.ed froir a. irere rep-
resentation. A eubatantisl br«aoh of this warrsnty "«rill defeat
the policy unleee the iefenee ws^e -^alired by the :lefeniBnt,
Our examination ^nd study of the svicl^^nce in the ofc*ae
lead© U3 to the concluaion that the evidence g-iven at th« trial,
with all inferer.cee that th« jury could juetifiahly dr«^ fror it,
eaa eo inauffioient to sujijort p verdict for plsintiffa that the
court -^iis not bound to aubwit the oaee to th© jury. The evidence
•hcwe v-ry cleatly thai Ure. MoCann "^aa over fifty yft'irsa of age
when ahe made her epr.lioation ".nd •«»« adp<ittcd tv^ t^e defendant
order. Ths evidence sho'^e, indead, th4^t she *ae over fifty-five
yeare of 'u>«* ^'j* Hisit fixed by the statutea of Miohig-an.
A oontroct of Insurance by :^ society whlci' ims Qiutside
of the object of itH creation as defined by th« ia*a of its or-
ganisation, and, therefore, beyond th« i>o«er6 conferred upon it oy
the state, is wholly void end of no Ispy^l «ffeqt, Ftsele v.
Fraternal Tribunce, 215 111. 190. ^en the contrnct is beyond
th» po«er conferred upon it by existing 1q*s, neith«r ths cor-
poration nor the oth<!*r party to t) e contract ean, by soting upon
it or by aasentlKf to it, h« sstopped to nhow that it wao pro-
hibited by those la^e. Converas v. Fmeroon * '^omphny, 242 111.
619. The defendant order ^^js ro^erlees to insure Ut», MoCann at
her age at the tlire she presented h«r nf.}.lic?.t ion, ynd the oontraot
of ineurance t?».«, therefore, ■a'old £b initio .
.^«»)«i• loul ftiS^ on •«• ■■•Oelf Allvd to •!« •di
-<>*•* * • ^-^ »-- -w .^IH*T»« »m«»^ •*! «aoii«oiIqqA
dlCa^ i.t- ««t/tl»ttaoo J«;9»I •« ^^il ot «aol9ai«
.... »4i ta .-^- . -,- .*ii Of «Mft»L .IT
-^^yimm •«« •Be«l»t •((# •••£ii« votToe Mrii
0ir«fcJtT* •<U t«df aol«ui«t(o9 •(!; . ^.j aluosi
.^iv-i, - <w "^ ,„ ., ...w ^tffi6<» ov bMfflMr >on •«« Imoe
' oi* isdi ^b%%bai ««wod« toMblT* adT .t«I»«o
ri lo aw*! f»d:t Xd hiMiloJb •• llv>i^41»TO ■#! lo J...^... ^.:. .-
• »^----*-oa av^^ofi •di teex«<< »«tot»»«<f* ,B«« ,fioi#««la«s
'■?'»- • — «ff "Uc ' fov fXCodt* aX ^%tAt% %Ai
r^ ,o«t ...i sJie ^asai/tfit? i^nTAiMt
.tioc. ... tMoo •(!/ o^ t^t«4 t^io vdi Tca «oliii«iq
• ■-'.f ••ff* ol 6«T<VotM ad t*^ «f ^l^n^aas t^ io 11
"^' • - - -» .V aaivvKoO .awaX aaodi t<* hmti4lA
.« i: Mm .^3^ o.«w,^ ...« •»«I^*^K(i<T "MPl Y«fr90 /fi«Ml«lat> adT .610
'''•)fX4|<i« Md lia#iK»M«4 tda a«lt ad# f* •«« 'Wd
>»..^«iia .•> .. <* I,.
-S-
Thare wss no ^rror In th* inatruotlon of thsr court,
The judgment. i« affirB^-sd.
APFIBVFD.
-a-
noliomt
"9k
*er Term; loli; ^:'n]
447 - 179r<7
CHARLES FUFPEOETFF, ,
Appellee^ /
▼ a.
FTTTFKHOU
Aprellailt.
APPEAI, FPOM PrPFRIOR
C^UFT, COO? COUNTY.
182I.A. 321
m. PrFM'^Wi JUSTICE F. A. SBITK
Dt^LIVERED THE Ox^INIONf OF THE COUFT.
Tha pls.intiff ^elo*, appsUee, racovered a judrtteifit
in the Superior Court of Cook County for ria-iRagea rftsuitinj- froa:
an Injury racaivsd by iirn Jinvnry ?, 19(j9, af^alnat iefend^nt,
appeii^nt. Appellee we? ctr luring a t'^o-horss t«enr, enat on
Augusta 8tre9t in ChioR|fO, about 400 feet wset of "fvlflton avenue.
A horee owned by defendant, with a hariieee upon hire and a jiiece of
ohiiin drag3:in3 behln^l hiw, ran into th« team ^^hich . Iciintif f was
driving, anl rif^intiff *-,i9 thrown off" hie ^-.i-^on and a -^heel of the
»agon rj-;n over hie leg, o«uoln<?: the injuries sued for.
On the trlii], (Plaintiff diamiesec! P.e to tha first,
asoond sni third counts of the* orijinal deolfirp.tlon, Init after-
wards tti« second cc^unt *a8 ireinstatsci.. .
The second count sverred that on Jfinunry i', 1909, the
iefendant conducted and operated a lur.b»»r ysr'? on the ea.v.t aide
of H'iaton avenue near the intsreeotion of Au.-^ueta strest; that
the yard was enolosad by a high boai-.i fence, to fhich accssji «as
harJ hy ireana of a a;:ate»sy equipped vrith s wfooden gate, ami that
the defendant »&» then poeeeseea of snd v.ein-,^ « cert^iR hores in
the yard, and it -^aa the duty of defendant to keep the hores ae-
cxirely fnstened or j^nrded so th'U the horee rif;:ht not eecif* frorr,
the yard upon said streetsi *ut that the defentsnt negligently
permitted the gateway to reasain open and unguarded, and thereby
.r'»'«ijr>r^ KOno ,T<rj^O
128 .A.issr
KHQVL - ^:
XHT TO w<Mwiqo SOT rrunnrij'.'r'
tfo fmn9 m»9S pmToA-^^: z T^atrtib •«« ••XX^qqA .la^Xi*^^
.•iifl*Vi> aoicXV lo ^stw |#«) 00> iifod« ^o^lAoidO ni lt»tl« a^ti/svA
«»o«lq « biui oXd dociy •••atAd m rf/iw «#a«£)n*ltii x<^ btn«o ••VMf A
8S« llilaitfX doldv s«*i td^ o/ai a«i ««iXd tatdBd sal^jAtb «iMl^
•d;r ^o X*«d« « t)ft« n«i«» aid ^\o ttm^rdi •«* lli>al«I^ ta« (fofVtfVi^
.to) ft»iMi ••liutai ftdi 3iilau«o «3»X aid itvo nat
«i«itl tdt orM i>«««lti«lJt> lliiai«Xq ^tMlii 9dt aO
-i»tlA lud ^ttot9ttim£o9b iMai^lto 9(11 !• alauoe titdt has
.^b9J4i&^at9-y •««■ Ifluoo baooat wds afciarti^
»d9 «0C8X «£ t^'t"')'^^ no l«di taiiavit #«upo toooaa adT
abia t«a* tdt no hi«x ladiai/X a balaiacjo Ana ib«lovtaoa #aAiMial»-
^•di i/aaiia alaLrr^i lo aoiloaaiaial adl i«aa aunava nolaXI li>
a«v «aaoo« doi- .^aaal biaod rt^ld « x^ baaoloaa aav Jbi«x *^^
ladj i>a« «ala9 «atoov « rtllw t>aqqiupa x«**'*1l ' ^o aa^aai tf*^ <>**-
aX aa^od alaliao a ;||Xiiai/ tiita Ho Aaaaaaaoq aadi •«« la«baalab mU
-»a aaiod adj qatjl ttt tambn^^tb \o \tub 9d3 aav ii bau ,1>iax •'^
noil sq^ioaa loa Id^in aaiod adl ladl oa bai>i«juj; to £»aaai'aal x^^^tu-
xXJaaslXB«fl Itiataalab adl i»di iu4 ia/aaila bXaa ooqu biMX Mil
Xdaiodf Ma ^babiAvist/ tea saqo mk»n>*t ot ff'^^iar^ adl ftitmi^q
¥
— ji—
the horse 9«oapedi froK the control o^ the isfsniant, ran out of ti'e
yard, through th« gate-^ay. Into th« strsst, ;:^r.:1 Into tt« tonrr of
feorffi^i:a rrhioh fiainilff wa.^ driving, oaustnjr biw to h« thrown to
the groun^i «nd injured.
An additional oount of tha 1«cl«ration, filad Deosmber
15, 1'?10, avere thet th's : lalntif f, on J-^nuary 2, 190'.-, ifao
63&t«d in :i '^agon attached to » tesm of horoea, an'l driving a-long
Auguets Btr«et, sni a horse owned or in use by tl.s defendant was
unattended and runnir-^ a.'»ay on aaid street, ;;5n^ ran ■'ith ^rsat
forc« P.g"jln6t the team driven by rlair.tlff, oaA:(?in!r the tear? to
baoOBBe frightened nni. unwRnaffePh le, snd c»\iein;r the plaintiff to
be thrown off the *agon upon the gTf^vmd, which restJlted in the
injuries oomplainsd of. The ^-ener®..! ia«\j« »nd n sreoial plea
■'f^re filed to the original dfeclaratlon and to the a.-ii!tiona2
count.
There is svitst^nt IsiI.t y no Gontrovflr^y in -the '^virjence
offered on ths tri».l. It ©hc-if© th'-t tb* defendant f&.^z engaged in
thi^ luwb«r buelnese erd h«td « ysri located on th? e-et alii;, of
Fleton avenue, «rhich rune n'is.rly north »nd acuth, ^nc^ thst Aurusta
street rvnt? east ■'.n'? "»'?8t but doee not extend "S-sst of >?letcn sv^ruis.
Th« Xuffib«r yari of the defendant ie bo situated that if P.v.vjnXa.
street "crs extended east of FU:!ton avenue, it "'ovili run through
the yerd. Acoeae to the lumber y^rr. froR' Elelon nv^nu© if:
through d 'gateway or drlve^Ky to -^ jrslr thorout'^hfs re rhich rune
east thr-ugh the lumber yard for about 400 feet. I'^-msdisteiy
south of the lumber yp-rd le a coal y'^rd into ""liich a s"''itohtrsck.
from the North-^eetern P^^il^^^y rune, «r.-? eTt-snds north into the
lumber yard of the defendant on the eft<^t «ide thereof. In the
lu.T-ber yard there are ; a8«jage-'w»»y8 desi?:n8ted b^ the -witnesses
ae Silleys, -^hich run north eni eouth, connected "rith the -ain
thoroughfare or drlve-^-y ,and slonr- these alleys ?.re piles of
lumber.
On tha day of tha Gccident in queetlon, defendant 'e
fc.r :< stto n»i ^inutif^mb w^f ^e Xoiiooo 9dt aoYl b»q«e«* ••tod tn
)• •••# •dl o/al tea «l»«it» •(!> otttl «x«**^^ v^^ itl^cuil «ti«
0^ n*Q%iS •d of filcl T^akmumo ^yattftxh saw llltal«Iq doMw smioI
.tjtwtfli tea ^alM>tt ^
ibdm9Q»a b^lty ,n' jdf to faimo lmtol$tbt» ak
;o9T5 d*l ^t»»?t* ♦ * 1 no T*** ^'^Innwi bfl« b^ba^ituiu
lAi '•R* nQi5*t^X3«t Canislto a<it o^ b#liV*iAw
r h^«,r,« ii^ii tfl«tn«^»Jb •tli Indt ■«oiU >I .X«iii sd^ no AMW^lc
'. t»«» «d9 no 59}«oor bic9x * 6*^ ^o« caoniti/d ladaiifi •Ai
«tK Afl ^litfo* Ma Attoa x^iaaa aotir <t»iiiw «aimaT« ao^all
jtunaTa Aoiafl lo !•«« te«#x« ton taot ^vd iaav boM taaa •■»« ^vaiJs
a^if9ff4 H #t(U Jftalavtla o« si Snmtn%t9b aril lo -^xax ^adtavS^ adT
d^^uvitii aut bittom St ^•im»vm notalf lo ^•4ia bmbifSx* ata* fmxfm
^t •uttiVK aoitll moil brmx ladffvX adl ot aaaooA .i>iaY ad
tain rfoltfiv ifialdiRuo-Tc.d rrlaa a o^ Ya*aTti{> lo xawala^ a tfflMi.i.^
t£9JaibajR'«I .^es^ u.» icroda lo) biAx latfattfX bdt dt^avrutf 4
Jloa-cldottwa « tkoid'^ oial htM\ Xaoo a ai Mat TactovX adt te -HT
adt otai Afttm 9ba9ix^ ttm ^mnux Y'«-Ci't^ aialaavdtioK a<U ao^
•dt ol .toaiadt abla toaa adi no Inateatab ad# ta
aa*aan}i« adi frf l>a>ao9laab ata«-«9«aa«'7 arc mfdi
iitan e.it dtla fitt— fldn ^liStmm ba» diroa twr Aotdm ^ataX/a a
^o aa£i<i ava ataCXa •••ftf 'Aoofa bfla,y9<raTft^r to atja)
a*taafeaal«ft ^aoltaaifp ol tnablooa adi la x^ adt nO
loK a<U aun'
^•xate la^Mffl
► 3-
empioyas w©r« en»:*ped in pilinc Ivmttr in or near «ilfcy No. 6,
&tout thirty ffe-et. north of tbu ^^tti -r^. vj-at thorougtfsre. The
pils cT lumber »?», jst th-' t time, ntcut twenly-flvs f*ft ligh.
Tie R.oita of i.iiiji£,' t^.e lurber -".'pb ty rljicing ? pulley on top cf
the pils of 3ufTt-r, imoth^r pulley tt ths bottor of Ifeft ril«,
or 'dtout two ftift froR^ tixt p:round, '-nd «?= polr of ton^-B ■'mo °%-
tsohed lo r, lif^Lt cL>fs.ln ar.fi t-sBj-s^d uf fror the tonrs to tf:ft pul-
ley on the top of the lumber pi3e and r'orn fn." arour?:' the pulley
at the foot of th*> ril«, a-nd then attechmJ to tb'* -^hiff le-tres
to v^hich thg hore*^ which ron a»rB}' , wrs h&rrjcaeed. The tonfje
would, be attached to » t iece oT l\,rlt:r ty »r-«n upon the .prcunrt and
tha horeft woulvl. pull the IViSiher to x}ie top cf t)io pile -here
there "yare t^'o sen iwh". tooJ^ It off the tonfe. The horas ^ould b*
b.'iCksd up, tht* tong;8 ^oul4 descend to the ground, rep'-^y to bs at-
ttiohad to another piece of lurcber. At th& time r)f the accident,
the horse in question was bsing led by ?!eb«r.tlar. Pwith by a
atrap p.oout thre© feet lon0, fUtach^d to the bri^lis bit on th«
horsiy. At that tifre Sebaoti'in ^Wiith nsLn a younv; »&n eighteen
y'^ara old and ■'•ffighisd 135 po^ania. Th« placa •^h^rn t\>^ 3uEb'.'r «&»
being pil-ad «aB :?ioaa to tho e^itch-tr?ck on which -^arif r-tyndin^
8ome oaris, anJ while Isf endant 'is aer'^ante %^r% thus snga,;j«j, a
awitch-engina backed some cTira int'^ the yard or ajralnst ths cars
standing upon th3 tra-^V in tha yf}.rd of defendant, pnd cauged «.
grasjt nols-jw, and ot tha ■aws tirre th«s en^^in* bl-?-* off atsajr, rhioh
fr i?;diten«}d the horsis and h?t oo«fsen<3«d, to run a'»ay, Psiith h«ld on
to the horse ''H long aijj h« ooxild an''^ *j>ffl thr^i^n to the rTfound; the
hors« brok;* n.-^-.iy frorr him 'ind, brfflakln?^ the chain to -which he wao
attached, ran up the rr.-'.in tfcoroughf^^re »r.d out through the .<;i;ftte
and acrc8« Klaton avenue »nd up Auftuata »tr»et, ind 'tif^ainat plain-
tiffs tda».
The plaintiff wag the only 'sitnese in his o)»n behalf,
except a wedical e.xpert -^ho testified In the C'se. Ths pls^lntiff
testified that on the 'j«ft« in question h*! *a<3 driving a teaw of
•: A A
•', • d>«M ^««;linrt to vXiq •dJ
-i«t 9t4t aoit) t»»l ov# 4iiQdM no
■xM nl«io lilBlX • o$ tmdim mi
,^rit >(t«i ,»Iifi Slit H ^»el «<# t«
^o •e*t>r • «^ b»(Coi«'#» stf felaru-
•uq bit" • a tod •:! :
^•o #t 4o»t 3d^ a»- -^ '^ •
.'.f'd<!H/l To voolq t^dioAii o# It^doaS
. . s«« «el^*Mp «i ••io4 taj
^^MMl t»«l ••^(4^ #UO^ ^A!9t«<
Trt f'Tf/rT »^ '^tfft trnuw MKNi l»»il»«tf #«ijne-i<r»**»«
■Af ml Jfr ••rt edf roqi/
if f>rl ^ « Ski on liuitQ
o 9A btiM %m\oA. Mil l>»n*lil^il
^£{n>o td •« 8fto£ -«• Miiroif 9111 oi
tMV •< a ,ha« aid aOTl %mi» •ioid •«ioii
•#^ f -modi nine sitl qu n**' «i)»do«##«
oai«£q l« , t^frtM «l»oguA qu ha« »<»•▼« aclwXI taoio« tmm
«lX«d«<f (nro sttf mt ••tpnit* t^no •dl ■«» ^IXloX^Xq ^dr
-4.
hora^a sttsohed to « w^-frn on "^hich vRg part of a load rjf «p.nd,
und was about to iriv« nnler the Nnrthwaotarrs railway tr^ucke on
i^uimetn str««it cicoiRf «af5t, '^n i ?'rhll<ei ha W5»« driving on ths Bouth
aide, .jr ri^ht-hsnd aid*, of tbs etr«?t, h« «?.'-• '?. ruxj-a^'say hcriB*
coming to-swrd him; that ths horg* v^n Into his t'«i?i?r. rhich ciiuaed
tfaem to Jump asid** «n'? the r'lnlnt Iff *m© thco'on fjff th* wa^on and,
lifter being dr*g«?ad ^. dlgt'Tice, the teaw :frot .nwsy *'rorji hlir' and hia
lag "»© orushftd by th* front rh9«.l of th*5 ^t^r^on; tint th« boras v-^a
unattended w.nd rvintilnq; vary f{>»t, i^.lninin; mors speed i*9 he rf:'ni
that tli*j i)or«e h--.d o harneo? on B»d wara rtr'str^inr;' a long- ohf^ln. Thla
le the 8ub»tanc9 of nil the testinsony on th«-' fjueetlon of liability
introauced bv the pl«intiff. 1*0 •svidftnc* whRt«T«*r -^Bn offered by
th« plaintiff of whfet ocmirr«<i in the Ixxmtfir yrd ■I'hen the horas
becaines frightened and bro)^« s'^ay frun' control.
The teatiB^ony on b«h«lf of ths deffjndant ehoTf«d ths
facta jit, ov(s stated as to the >'orV heinr done by th-? hnrae ant! ths
canndsr in ^hioh ths hors* »«.« uaed^and thst he *ap in ohf-r*?-® of
Tebaatian Fwlth "ho ^^n le'^dlnf? his"., innd ths r^nr^r in -"hlch the
hor«« trokg a^ay. The teetiesony shcTs that Pmith triad to hoiS
ths horae nnd clung to hir ©ni ws» dra?!;p*ed by him aottt di^t'^'nce,
down
when S«,ith -^ati thrown ^!••.n4 the horee broke a'^ay frois hiir; that th«
horos hi'l been used ito tb« luither ysrd for a. nuff.h«r of year© • nd
»•'» a quiet gentle horee r:«n'"i h»d nev«r run '-.way b«fore. Th •■; ■gvi-
dsnce of the d«f«niant ahowa th«t th«*.r's »> vg no n«»gligenc€ on the
p«trt of ciefendant'8 esYrloyee, ^nd it la uncontradioted. No one
employed by th« d«fend»nt was cfjr«*j«Be jr negligent. Ther^ is
no averirent in the daolsretion that the horse '»«^«? % n!n~a*ay hcrse
or «v».r manifsated any diafoaition to run 9/K»y; nor ta there any
averment th'^^t the defendant ha.1 any knowledge that the horee would
run away. The evidence on ths f..«rt of th? vl'-'lntiff dtisoi osea no
f«ot or oircumetSLnce '/iich would put the d^^fsniant upon notice
thst the horae would becoKc frightened and run away, '^e think
•4-
ToM 9aj "'.Bcau *▼/ J 'J :1k »«* Bon
••lod
•♦♦▼ ;|alnau bn»/>*n
^ no 999Dt»A K fc«r. .' ♦».l^ iJiil"
'U^ninI b9oucoitai
•0 ^Mf )
lo
n X ToaMm
,*oa«7«
•i(il no &or
ei ■ ■ • '
Oi nit Hi / CO toaativf atfT .t'w oin
toirofl MOdu in»t%auml
Ihc Clef anoint 'a >i!ViU«no« riecativea loyonrl all qusBlAon of" fact any
ja«gliS^eno« in tS.e ffianag-«p.??nt of the i.orssa, rnj, t^Mnrj the evirienco
altogether, no tjroun;! of liability Is vjbown. Tteudle v. Rentoi; let,
64 lil. Ibl; S'^ftfforc: v. r;o»?;RhlooB, 10'' 111. Ap]f. 5^8; F.timft.onc5 ^.
M«lton, 4: 111. /.{P. 1B6.
Tlift? Cr'uo oreB^nteU b> tj.e »vidrtXi<J« it.' ".uit« yiwilHi
to that of CiA«;p«jiB V, j-vnt;Io-Apr..'::rioaji Provision Cc, 15'-' II K A^p.
573.
The v«rcilcL of Iha j^ry wae not ju£tlfi«ti bj tht evi-
d«nce. 'Ihr. plf-'-iKiiff way not entitled t'^ r«c,o'Ter, and the court
ahouli i:,-jvo »«j liiBtn^cted the ^i:ry. Thfe judgment is rcverseci.
-d-
ototer lerm, ISI^a I°I
488 - l«02e
JODFPH PTUCr
Appellee,
i
i
CHICAGO ^ITX/PAlf*AY rOWPA^Y, )
\ / App«llfeTit. )
APPTn.. FROM PDFFRIOP
COUPT, COOK COUNTY.
182I.A. 33?
MR. PPFPiniNO JU«='TTCE ?. A. FMITH
TFLI^FPFT THT OPINION OF TFT rOT,fPT.
On Movember 1ft, 190n, the {l»r(«fndant in thla sction,
appellant, 'wae operatln«'r a. double track street rallw»y upon
Ashland avenue, a north and. south ptbllc Mp^h'vs.y in thj city of
Chicago. Aehland avenue crosaes r? stream or branct: of the Chicago
rlvsr about four blooke south of T-senty-second etrs^t. At tMe
point there is a bridge about tij« lavel ^"^f Achlard 3v«nue, hnd
defenlRnt'a tracka ■■^•er'? laid upon th« ^rli3:s, ^rhich provided a
wagon roadway upon each side of tha tracks, ^hen in a nornj?! condi-
tion there »aa no elevation or obstruction between the tracks on
the bridge, but for » few days before eniat tf.« time of the accident
b«re involvsi, the weet side of tJie bridf^e waa ox;t of uae, <<.nd a
fence or harrlsr -e^s placed along the, bridge between the etreet-c&r
tr'r.cks. Thia barrier wa» 3^ to 4 feet M^-h, an-! was froic eight to
ten inches fro« the eide of & atreat-car ae it j aesed over the
east, r^r north-fcound, treck. As a result of thle condition of the
bridge, defendant 'a south-bound cars ran over to the east track on s
"grasB-hopper" sviioh pieced immediately north of the bridge. A
siasil&r awitch w^e placed at the eouth *ni of the bridge to enable
the eouth-bound c&rs to return to the weet track aft^rr crossing the
bridge.
\
\
ii*
il">
"* " o
iuaxa;: j^.oio #««•*« baiildai •oi«ol "^
aa^u Z)X«I tTt* %i9MiS i»*iEu
.i 9Ai lo tfelt il(Mi» aoqir Y««l)«ot aopvr
i:^iii«<f 10 tacrvl
o: ' :a': i- ;,.* ^, CAW lelixtd tldT .ailesif^
9Ai %b' ijs9-l*«v-r« « lo •!)!• tdt •oil ••doai aoi
' -> aoili Xc/««T a tA .ioaii «baiiDtf->((^ior: '?«•
'( 4o»il >•«• »vo a«v f%iio NBtfod*d#tfO« •' Jn«ba«ltl «:*5£:lttf
A .osM? titoa x'*^«^t»«*< booaXq doilwt 'loqqoif-tor;^
•Xdono o# 9%t-ii^ ftd# lo bo» ditio« %Ai $m A«o«Xq •«* do#l«« trntimik
-3>
Tfea plj^lntiff, sppellae, In ffoing hoace from hit work,
boarded an Aroher avsnue car, i:eid hla fare and r«oeived a trnnsfar
ticket entitling him to paaeage on the Arhlann avanue line. At
the junction of tr.e linee at T-"enty-9econd etreet, jlelntlff 3aft
the Archer avenue oar anS boartle:! » eouth-bouni Ashland avenue car
which wae greatly crowded with paeeenpiQre. It '^aa t- closed car
rrlth a j^latform at e&c) end. The etst eld* of the plf;tforB. wae
closed and raeaengere •'•ere received »nd dieoharged froaj the weet
side. Plaintiff eucceeded in getting «n the fetep of the front
platform. There *»« another r^'SSftngar on the ater at the tiff.e
and several taseengars w^r® on the step of the rear platform. Plttin-
tiff rode on the step vltb on? foot on the platforni until the car
reached th« sritoh at the bridge, while riding in thie position,
the conductor accepted his tranofer,
^'hen the oar reached t)i« s-*itoh, it wxs founi th»t a
one-horee expreea ivagon "?$o etalled at the north end of the s^itoh,
the T»eet wheels of the wa^on havin?? dropped off the track into a
hole made by the removal of the pavement of the etreet. Tha car
stood a short time, the wotorwan waiting to ess if the driver could
get the Tiagon clear of the track, hut ae he wa® apparently unable
to do 80, the jEotorman request «d the t;.as»en;;ters to -'©t off and ae-
eist in fnovln^ the waggon out of tfe way. In reeponse to the irotor-
man'B Invitation, several passengers, including the plaintiff, got
off the front step and platforn-: hh-I "«nt for-srard and lifted the
^heele of the ^-agon out of the hole, and tr.e tracV was cleared.
Ae Boon ©s t^e wag^on 'vae clear of the track the motor-
can started the car for'ward. Pome of the paseengere succeeded in
getting on the car befor*} it started, hut othwre, inolulln-r plain-
tiff, did not succeed in gettlnnr on until the car vaa in motion.
Plaintiff wa« t).e l?set one to g<?t on the csr ani did not succeed
until it »ae within twenty or t'^enty-flve feet of the bridge. There
«9s another man ther, etanilnj at t^e south end of the otep and
plaintiff olimbed on the stej north nf Mm and held on vith both
hands, hig rif?ht tsnd «rasplnrt the handhold on the for-^ard end of
( •»«% MO. mi .M «*i^ltat«Cq t<fr
■ bvotO xi^**'^^ o** doiiiv
?tt ffe t'?** Tiftsn^tsAq {««•▼•• tarn
'•It nil no pbo^ Wf^
'■e l*rGm*.i
itn» fro T-al^tf^ at ftteac •* Jrn
■1 fftn tit tvtP.
'-Att^
-3-
the
01/
tilt platform and Iila Iuft Ji»nil gf^tping th« hftHiholl on tts body of/>cw
It W&8 dark or nearly »o at t^;e tlrra, »nd pialntiff
did not ee« the f«nott or kno» of its praeence, no he teatified,
ani if».9 not warned by the irotortr^an or by any onu «la« of its
pT«3«nc8. Plaintiff was s«)truok by th» north «nd of th© fence and
thrown to th« jj^ound an':1 injured.
The declaration ooRsl»ted of three ori?:ln»l oounte *tA
an additional court. Tl.« ccurt inotrwcted th« jury that no recovery
could be had under ttie firet count, and the caee wjia submit ted on the
rsn-ainin^* counts. The second original count chprgod negligence in
failing to ^arn plaintiff of the preeence of the fence. The third
original count charted ne^rli^encs in permit ting the car to be so
ov9rorn«?d«i th?--t it was neceeeary for rlftlntiff to ride on the
step, and in consequence he ^ss strwolt by th* fence. The additional
count charged neF:ll(?:er?oe in starting the o&r before plaintiff hsd
tiise to bo?ii"d it nnd q^t into a safe v^oeltion, and ti.'-»t in oonse-
qusnoe he was standing on the step an! we 3 «truok by the fence.
Upon ths queetion whether or not th* vardiot for tr.e
plaintiff is justified by the ^vii^nce, '^e are of the opinion, after
an exaffiinati".n of tfce eviienoe and s etudy of tfce argurcente of
counsel, thtit the ooncluaion of the jury on the queetlone of negli-
^anoe of the d^afendant and contributory neylig-enoe of t^s riaintiff
ought not to "te disturbed. T^e evidence tends tri ehow th?it tte de-
fendant •*< duty, through ite sexvante in charge of the car to do all
th*t huir.an care, viiyllrince snd foreeigrht coul<^ r^aaeonably do in view
of tfce obaract«?r anri »ode of conveyance employed, and conelstentiy
»ith the practical operation of ite road to 8^fe3y csrry the pl^aintiff
aa a paeeenger, wae not done. TJ;© defendant »&e nesrligant in j'«r-
Kitting the overcrowded condition of the csr. Siraoska v. Chicago
City Ry. Co., 250 111. App. 50^. It accepted plaintiff »s a pasa-
eno;er ^ihlle he n»a.a on tf;e etep of tYf. car. Thereby hs '^j-e inviteJ
to rioiB in that tJsce and there w^e sn iaplied assurance ti.r..t it
'tae R asife «rd suitable piece to occupy, and t^at he is'ould l»e carried
evfely, Forer on He ilroade, (18R4) pr. U&3-4i Clark v. F..A. H •
bf-
t*in«Q tc<
#ff«< >1*l ntA-hnd'mrttf^
>20 .j^iita«t« »i
TOiai/IOAOO
'ni^nit. [molfOM
^•■!
.VXalit)
.4.
Co., 56 K. Y. 135i Walter v. C. r. * M. P. Co., ST I'l. 33. The
evidence th&t defedant gyve no rfarning of the proxiniity of t^ e fence
to its tracke la uncontrov^rled. That it <3ir{ not flace the fence
there iw Immatsrlftl, for it h'*c5 notice th'?t th« fence ^ab there.
Pouth Side Fl. R. P. Co. v. Neevlg, ?K HI. 463. Under tte svi-
d.;noe defenris-nt wee negligent *nd lisble for a f5>-ilur8 to w»rn
plaintiff.
It wa^ a question for the jury whether the pieintiff
wae guilty ot contributory negligrence or not in ri.1ing upon the
step; (Alton L. «■ T. Co. w. Oiler, £17 HI. 15), or in felling to
dleqover the fence which etrvck him. Frr.aoe>a v. C. '^ . Ry. Co.,
supra ; -P. ^. Pt. By. Go. v, V-^rks, la?' in. 15; I. T, B. Co, v.
ThoiTiFson, 310 la. 3?-K. Upon the evidence eho^n in the record, -"^e
osnnot find that the verdict was not Tyarrsnted,
The orurt ftdmlttsvi ivil^nce tencJlng to ehov th»t t^e
oar wRa crowded nt the tiR* it was stopped by the ^agon at the
switch. Under tre ohsrees of t}je decl-^ration tri« avideno© ^aa
rcateriftl. Ths f:-ot that the oar '^a.^ crowded ■when atorped by tie
ffftgon tended tc sho-? its condition at the tire of the aoci^e»nt. The
evidence alu j had a ^ee-ring upon the qu-«tetlon wrsthar the wotorwan
ahov;ld not have anticljated reaconably that there leerQ j aasen^-rerB
riding on the step of th<i car ae it appro'jched the fence '^ho ah-^uld
be warned of the presence of th« fence. Apf «llan> '^a^ n«^ prejudiced
by thie evidence. The crowded condition of the c%t 'sras an undis-
puted fact in the caee. An«li«nt iteslf offered evidence of itw
crowded condition.
Error is aaeigned upon the giving of the eighth in-
struction because It refers to "the negligence of the d-fendant, ae
charged in the declaration," instead of embodying the fncta conati-
tutlng such ne^li^nce.
It is true thpt the : ractice of thtte referring to tne
dec38ration in instructions h^s been criticised ond Uaapproved,
but the giving of such an Inetruotlon toes not constitute reversible
•^aatibtv
iitiii%>
"10
- aird^ lo »oi.t04i
Oit ^••X0Itllr
.•0.
-5-
error. Rub. F. H* Co, v. Bal>f^ill, 1^5 IH. 835; Ifrlogrsr v. A.
F. * C. R. P. ^o., 24;? id. 8'14-549.
It 1« ur5«<l 4fcet »t the r«qu««t of rl*intiff the coutt
subjrltte-l instniotlon 11 erronaously because the only nverrferts In
the decl5Jrs.tlon aa to pleintiff*© In^urJee mn^l laiaoree are in the
firot count of the origin®! atolsTttion wjjloh "^a inetruot«d out
of the case. Tf;« inetruotlon "iss not erroncoue on that {ground,
Shaujhneeay ▼. Bolt, 33S 111. 4P£; Con. C. Co. ▼. 3chn«ivl«r, 163
111. 3^-3.
The ourt dlrj not ery in modifying t! e twelfth In-
struct icn. Th« court. r«vft, jit the r^queet of appellant, at 3 east
ei,ijht otr.ar instruct lone on th« question of contributory n9.5ll:::ence
7»hioh fully oov«rei ev'sry phnse of th?t 'jueetion in thifa oaee.
Appellant «»?» not h^arjsedl by the aotlon of the court in
etriltlng out the -/rotd "oriiniry" -^-ni subetltutlng the word •lue" la
the slxtasnth inotruotlon ^ubffiitted by nppgllAnt. Plaintiff did not
odstee to bs 9 pasaens^er or loss hie ris^hts .na « passenger by Isavins?
th(? car Ai tJie UROtorman*© requaet to help in r^woving the *ag;on
from the traoke so th t the oar «ight proceed, f^t. Py. Co. v.
Bolton, ii Ohio Bt"t»,^a4.
We cannot eay th^t the award of f3,500 le eo jjrosely
sxceeslvo ne to justify thie court in eetting aal^o the verdict on
the ground that it was rr.anifestly thg result of paeeion anri pre-
ju-iioe.
Finfllns: no raver alble error in th« record, this judgment
is effirar>«d.
Hu^mnc^ .".otfomt^al At^
ronlatio •iff t# tauo-
.£9C .X£I
-i«o» iifT .adiJointt
tf«etfP »df so •AOttOittltAi -i»(tl-.
?««(<Q fttVd b«T»t
; * - • a
0000 •*
35 - 16466
BFMJAyi!? FCHTAPTZ, / )
Plaintiff in Krr^r, )
/ ) ^RROF TO MUNICIPAL
J. ,f ) COUPT OF rHICAOO.
TIOK, s oorporation.
AimiURFP.-BUrCH BFr'^INS AFEOCIAy )
ref-j
jnpant ia/Trror. )
182I.A. 338
miVi^PFD TPE OPINIO?? OF TFF COUPT.
PiaintilT in error brought tbe»8 actiono agalnet ds-
feedttnt ia error in th« Municipal Court of Chicago for rent for
three month», July, AUj^uat anct Faptemfccsr, 1911, for premioBtt at
Indiana Harbor, state of Indiana, Theae actione ?7sre consolidated
in tUe triail court by un ordar of oourt «nt«red Dscemtor 2?, 1911.
Tfc« coneoiidatdd oauae "^us h«artJ before the coui^t without a jury.
The oourt found the t^aues a^ainat th'? defendant in srror and en-
tered juis*R«nt on the fintia?^ for tlO.flR. The flaintlff belo-^,
plaintiff in error here, aeeVa b> tr.ia "trit of «rror to reveres the
judgment below.
The uotione were based upon e l-sase '^Mch the j laintiff
ulh.i»«d hud been renewed after it© explretion. Th** Isaae provided
for a rtBCval at the option of defendant in error and the claim for
a renewal under tfts option ia ^aeed upon the ffivin^t o^ * check by
defendant in error for the lEonth of June, 191 J, and retaining ^pos-
■ etBEion ift'^;r the lease expired. A» to the payment of the June rant,
defendant in error ehowed thnt the ohecV thsrafor ipaa issued an-l eelit
to the plaintiff in error by ftietake; and, e to the retsininp^ poa-
seoaion, it ehoved that by arrans:««ent with plaintiff in error's
'' agent certain saloon flxtursa »er« isfi in th* rrer^taee temporarily.
The oourt atrucK out the evidence otfered to 8ho?» th';t the drawing
and Railing of the check for the June rent *ae &\x9 to h niatake.
o;:ii - n
( iA
( II
888 ./
\1t$aUi
ii
it
.'f»i«d WiimLmx
't
!}a« 10- 'ti«pa«li' ilqo • ' ' «»m7r « to)
.Ifaoa •di iM>% T«T a»ttft
.A .b«tlqxs M^^I til noiasM
•-•v^t saiai*^*' 3M«}«ia t^ torn «l ttl#ai«X« •(U c
^t'lofw ml Miiakmiti dti» ^iiMiv^niit h»«ed« it \aotm9—
,9iMt»t ifdo 0d> lo aalXiMi bam
Th9 first ari eftcondl flndin*?* of f»ct r©nue«t«d by r lalntlff In error
'sere r«ifu?9<! ty tt» court, Th« first finding belfi that c1«fencJ!^nt
in error rfjrc&lned In roaeo.^fsion of the pr^'iflwee -vfter the *;xplra-
tion of tfc« 3e^^ee. Th» evidenG« doe« not wptsiin this fln'lins;, and
the cntjrt did not «srr In rafuolng It.
The eeconi flr.iing: of fact r.sld that t^e chook received
by plaintiff in error was a psymsnt of M-tn June, 1911, rfanl of tL©
preiEisse, and th't the clalw of d9fend?»nt in arror that tJ e cheok
wae aent by vlotake was not '^^eH fot.inded. The court upon ths
ivld«noe did not ©rt in refusing to hold the ^indlng a» tandcrad.
In our Opinion the coiurt corrsotly rafussd to hold as
a matter of law th".t th^ facta proven in 8vil«nc«» oonetltuted a r*-
n?,wal of t.»:^« l«a«« for one year after the expiration of t^e •'fritisn
lea89.
The fourth boldlngf of law '.fn-a rsfrseed that ^hen » vanancrjr
at will io oreatad by the partiss, sijch ttnanoy cnn only T.'« terrinatad
t>y th« tenant upon r-^seonR-tle notice ia 'writing of the tenant's
■plfsotion 80 to do, '5B'i thRt there '*=« no nonce i^i-^en. Thia
propoaltlon of Ir*-^ was not lnvol7^«d in the cane =5nd the court proparly
r«fu8«d to hold it.
Ho oroso errors are filed. The record oontaiuB no srror
of wr.ich plaintiff in error can coreplain. The jridfyrnent le affirmed,
AFFIPVn).
^ k J iiOH iW t il
■.^<t.„,^ >COO«« 0C4I ^*
.. ».., Bit X^ it'
;^ lun 4111 C<» i-oitl X>f
^r too Mb •ootbH*
^ iie • ■\^ a/.
)-ber Term, 1912- >^o-
51 « 18i88
0. J. AfTRY, / )
Tsfsnlfnt in Frror, )
/ j FPROP TO SJUNICIPAL
^ FOX FIVFT? PIPTIU.I,?7a /o¥PA?ry,
tt corporation.
ilntiff in Frror»
COCPT or CKIC^QO.
182I.A.339
VP. P^'g^I^II^a JTOTIOr F. A. SlflTF
DELIVERir THE OPr>JION OF THK COUP.T.
By tbia writ of error it la sought to r^^srs? ©
judgieent for #617.85, r©coyer«dl by .1«fenciant in arror in a fourth
cla«« csa« upon a promiaaory not*, d'^tei October 10, i^lC, ws'.de
by plaintiff in error, pay^bJe to tJiC ordtjr cf Herry P. Tsuf^si, fox
tSOO, nine Bsonths after nlate, with inter«8t at alx per cant. p«r
annum, and endorsed by Twjfel to ;l«f«nfi»nt in arror,
Th«s 4tatejT.ftnt t:f clsim avers th»t dlsfendant in error
i« the bona f i4e holdar of th« note, and ie8crib«« it A£ ^f^^c V'grtii
*ith th« «xc«ption of ?* iteR.orandum t>ppe»^ring on the bi^ok thereof
»nd tetio« all other «n(Sor8«fl;«nt9 as folio-*©: "'"'ill y^ay h© aeon »s
our olaiiE of .*717.13 i« ««i.tl«f}votorlly settled by «r. Tsufel. Fcx
Rivisr Distilling Company, ri<«rle» l«dowa»?y, rr«s«M. •
Defenlant in error r««t«il hits case upon tt« raceipt
in evidence of the note, and no evidence 'whs'.ti»V'»r •^aa offered by
plaintiff in error in dlefense to ti « f.ctir>n. Wot lone t 't a directed
verdict w«r« th-reupon ir.ade by both p^rtisa and tr.*? trial judge
g:ra.atecl tii&t of the defendant in error.
The ar!5\iB3»nt of couneel for plaintiff In error le
predicated upon the wsauji^f tlon if;^t the memorandim endorsee? on the
note ^»s made at the time the n-aker tixecuted the note. This pre-
euBtptlon, ffis tliin)i, is nnt to be indulgad in. It ftsy reasonably
be inferred frons the &; arent r «•,«;; nancy of the metr-oranduBr. «n: Ite
B<i*
ee
O aX
Trnj*^ .K .
iff ba« «•##« » nftAltft :T
rT >
location upon tfe«|taok of tl » Instruirant, b^lo-w all oth^r ondort*'-
■•nts, that It was written »ub»«cjuently to th« risking; of the not©
by the nv.k«r, and, ind««<l, nubeaqusrit to its acquisition by Aetry,
l«fen?snt in *rr->r,and at a, tiers when pleintlff in arror tray have
had rcorentRty aooees to tl'a ddoutent u on Ita b«in^ preeented for
payment through the colleotlon ilepartwent of » hank. It is true
that there is no evidence in t)ie racori; a« to the time of the aaJr-
ing of the notation in ,;u«etlon. In the $.he«noe of euoh evl^lssnoe,
the preeumptlon is thstt the roeiRoranclun< rsfsrred to «».» not andoreed
on the note at the time the waker execute;^ the note.
In Bay t, Shrtder, 50 Viae, 3?6, rs airtll^r qu-sietlon
wee preeenteci, ssr.A It «»» hel'i that In the absence of ilr©ct tusti-
aony worie written on ihe back of -^ note «rft no psrt of th» body
thereof ^ ^rlm^ ftci* ^ but are preeumedi to have been macle sf tsr the
note s-sie executei, «i»fi tfcut the teet of the pstsrlsillty of such
jre»or«iniiu!«r or 3A.1brft«««nt on the b?jck cf nn ln«5tn;jrent ia the tJr?:6,
Intent aipd pur oae of it. I'" nade At the ti«e of the execution of
the Inetruweat, it rt^y be r-s^rt and parcel of it and «r»y control the
ofciigation in eorce iwfortant pRrtioular, anl Parsons on Bills and
Kot«a, Vol, 2, pag^e 544, la cited 'tis authority. *e think the pre-
aunption above etatel iBuet he heli to apply to the note «uad on in
this caee, and that In the absence of &ny testimony upon the aubjact,
the notation endorsed upon the back of the note i& not » part Thereof.
Assuming, however, for the sake of rirfURsnt, tbi^t the aeetiwption of
coun8«l for ; Iftlntiff in error way be indulged In, that the notation
on the bftok of the note was made at the time of the execution of the
note, »e ere of the opinion th«t it does not destroy Its negotiability
or thro* upon tbs defendant in error the burden of setabliahlng core-
pllance with what la as Id to be « condition precedent contained In
the meaicrandup;. Tiis meaning &n<l effect of the document w»s * ques-
tion of \&'*' for the oonalders-tion of ths trial Jnige, sni he wae
celled upon to follow* the well-established niles in r farenoe to
oonstruotion of "rltten contracts. He 'was bound to j«30«rtaln the
r
.s.
' IKS • m . : f ^H
t^^^O « '^ .
-3-
intention of the p«rtl8« trow a oonsidarirtion of the whole in-
3trviiB«nt, f nri if tha not© oontained ftKbiguowa xords or ^orda of
doubtful jraaning, hs ws.6 bounrt to oonatrus theor wost «troTigly
acainet tb« malrer of the note. If ths plr'lntlff in arror viaad,
ovdr its own ai^^natur©, l&ngiaPfre of doi3btf\jl wesninf, it cunnot
complain wh«n a construotion ia n^aie favorabla to the oth'isr party
»ho i© not preau8t«d to h^v© chiosen the expression of doubtful
iteaning. Tha c^urt i»fi0 bctinC. to construe the inBtrvsir.ent sb a
whol« 'And to i?iv« effect, if poeeible, to nil tbss worda and language
ueed, diaoHrding none, bo thst if it could be prevento.'l, no o3auae,
sentence or word ehoulc! be euperfluous, void or ineignif ioant,
McCarty v. Ho*ell, ^.4 111. 343.
In the ycCarty c«48« a projEiseory note *aa offered in
evidence Dy the plaintiff, therein providing for paywent "four month*
after 'Jate or ss eoon as I eLall te 'j.tl« to collect a cartsin note
aj^ainet Abran; D-via of CbiaBgc," ^ind the d^fanee -sfce rr.a'.1e on the
theory thnt the paytrent of the note *ae oontin/^ent upon the vaywent
of tr.a Dsvie note to th« n-.ker. The c^urt , after dlsoueeing the
rvilee applicable to the oonietruction of contrricte, heii thrt in order
to ijive effect to the vordn Tour tronthe fifter late," it tvs© neces-
sary to f^lve to the note the following- ip.«??ning: "Four Rsontha after
date, I promise to pssy, etc., but if A. Dsvls of Chic9.go p^ye his
note to Bse before that ti/^e, I '?ili pey It thea, hut yt 5*13 events,
I will p'iiy it four months frorr Ite ■i;ite.* The VoCt»rty cwee has
been referred to «lth arrrovsl by ihi«j ^upreire Court in lister oasse,
among theff. WcClenfithan v. r-=!Vis<, ^AZ 111. P7 , IT, ther fore, the
oeaunrption contended for by pJaintiff in error, that the notation
endorsed on the note in rjuestlon Is a part of the contract, the true
construction thereof ■woul'l be tl^t nine rr-ontha after date plaintiff
in error promisee to pay H^-rry Teufel fSOO nn^ interest; but if
plaintiff in error's c3al« of $717, U en;sinBt T«ufel ie f.-^tief-i.ctori-
ly settled by hiK before that tine then it *iil pf?.y xtn note thex:,
but St ell events, it i^ill jey the note in cine monthe fron; vl«ite.
uiJbnoo i^i t-iiuo^
<i>lstt»\ ' ^•»M«.u .''. tor.
^toi»#a*v
'•mmouu <.' 'ol* •£''<
;M
xl siiir
.4-
Any other conatruotlon ifouldl dlo violence to thffl abfolute prorr.l»s of
payfrant »> j«arinjr on the fao« of th« inatruKsnt M\d Tfoul.-l b« in :j1b-
rsg^rci of ?ill weli-«3tBbllab«<1 nilea of oonetruction.
Tha introdMot-ioR of the note »a-1e a |)rlnr.c< fBCia casa
for d -fendHnt in srror. Tlid presuR.Ftion of la-v obtfina that the
bolddr acquired th;s not* for « ralu*ible ooti«ifier&.tion before
«i.tturity ^nd »itl:^out noilc«. Ciene v. ChiJestr^r, S5 111. 5«3i Sec.
77, Chap. 96, Kurd 'a R. :"., ;.»t'8 15^?. It is n'-> answer to this
position to 8?^y that the notation on the back of the note was n
notica to Aatry of »» eqxiity exist Iniy In favor of plaintiff in error
a a a^iiinet Teufel. Such 9 notice «ould be snti.r^ly ir«ir!3tsr ial 'with-
out proof b> the olj^intiff in error of lbs olf^im «lleg«d in the
affidavit of i«f«n«f«» to exiet gse a|;:.'jin»t Teufe]. A© sibove. etyted,
no evldance «b«».teoev«r proving or tifCviinc- to prove sny eiich els in,
■*aa e-ddxioed,
9n tlj€ ribeenc? of any d«nlal <?f the execution of the
note or of the signature of th« i ayee, th« execution and tie ae-
eignireLt s-sre eifritted. D'sf'sndent in error -fts not requirsd to
prove tha fr.e.ker's or payee's cig;nsiture« in tb« abaenca of s veri-
fied plewding iSftnying execution or aeeignw^ent. talker v. Krst^iur;,
67 111, 35Si fee. 52 Chaf.. 110, Hxird'e Ft. P., l':»09, pa^e i7.;l. Th«
trial court properly directed a v-srdict for def enci'snt in error, and
the judgment is affirmed.
d* tdi t>t 9'^nt^cl^ '5^ Mifor fi«i I ^^-J^fttifiQ T?rf?f» iffsA
fit
/T^V«IT?A
i^
■-r Term, 1912, tto."'
89 - 18533
. nef«nd-:nt In Sr/or,
▼a.
NATF.*?f POMFP/kHT? and HAPP
i:ppoh to vnsiciPAL
COOTT OF CHIOAOO.
""iT"""" ' 182 I. A. 341
\.
MP» PPTBIDIHG JUPTIC? F. A. miW
VKll^TPTD rVT OPIKIOW OF tVT C^IJPT.
Loul« Foe«nf0ld, ^1efen3ant In error, brought an ©ction
in tb« Municipal Court of Ct.ic»(jo against the pl»intiff8 in error
to recover for "fagec «ftrnei by defendisnt in error, rser^inafter
called plaintiff, while in tie mtaploy of rl^intifft in error, here-
inafter celled def ent'iftnta. The «a«r«a ooneiat of PlH Aue for one
week ending Peceafcer JfJ, 1913, and t?!© balrnce srs for ov-trtiKe
between Augvsst 14, 1911, and the l»«t wentioned date.
The cauafl waa tried before the oourt ffithotit a jury.
Th« oourt found the ieauee for the plaintiff und against the de-
fendante, s^nn saseeaei the pl»iBtiff«a d&inagfte at the suic of f?l£3,
and judgment w5se entered upon the finling.
The record eho*e *hst ie called a "«tet«ro«nt of facte"
signed by th«! trlRl juiin;*. Th© certifiojsite to the atatement ia
■thftt the foregoing ia » correct statement of the facte srpearing
on the tria.1 of the for<sf?;oin5' cauee, and of ell queationa of Isw
involved in aaid cause, snrS th* decision of the court upon a*id
queationa of law.» An exarrination of the docufent ahowe that it
is a etaterent of the evi^^nce offered in the esse on direct and
croea-exaffiination of the aritneaaee. It ie, therefore, not auch a
atatet^ent of facta «s ie conte«p luted by the ?funicipal Court Act,
It ie a atsteiTflnt of the evidence. The record aho«a th^Jt no propo-
aitiona of la-r or finding's of f&ot irere presented to the judge, be-
\
"ym-*-^ '^r\rt n t ■ f
n'^ 1 • T n«>i
I J^ 8. A. IS . -\«y-
X
t.io "lol fiut 8Lf 10 Jtlir :'»^l«al
•mtf -7 ^Ibfl* ittft
.t^aJb Dtaol.f
■itb %if i^ntMt* ^'^ *^^J ^^^ vol ••mti >/oo 9(Sf
> ou/i •<!} Ij mm^amMt •*lliifll«l •••••« ba« «at(ub«*l
-i 004|cr l^ti»?rT» •»« ^ntivjbtft ^'
lo«t lo #«t««t«tt* a b*XX«a •! }ii<t« •«•(!• Moo»t tdT
■ l>tt«m»»«lt M#_i9l ft«ollit't«e odT .« Yd t*ail«
9^041 odl lo ttfm%fBS% toviioo a oi fslostiol oil tMfi*
c lo naoitotvp Xr« lo too ,o«ooo BSlcpaiol »!it lo Xolft o4# ao
ton acqtf tti/09 oilt lo aoitloofe od/ too «oo««o Mot ml ftoTXoiml
iuAt ovedo tao»0oob od# lo aoltoa£«n«x9 oA *.woI >o oooltooirp
boA 1 otoo o<t# fll boiollo oooobtTO od# lo tao«o^o#o a oi
juo ^on ,«7ol»T0tft ,( aotttallv odi lo col#«alAexo«otoio
lolflOV Odl X^ boioXOMOMOO Ol OO OtOOl to ^SOffOlOlO
->oqoi<i r. ' (irodo bTooa^ odT .ooaoblv» %A9 lo la»ao>o#o o tl #X
43bt/^ oil o^ 5olotooiq otoo #ool lo o^albnil lo voX lo oaollXo
-2.
fore whons the oaue*j was trle.l, rrlor to the haarlng of Rirg;uirent» upon
tne questions of fact, the findings of tb« court and ths antry of
judgment; but that ftft^r tr e entry of jud[(5»«nt snd aftsr the writ
of error h»A fceen stjed out in ttile case, counsel for iefenlsnts
aubrclttei to tfte court osrtsln propositions of 1»^ to fee bsl^i as the
law of the cass anA ctrtalc f Indine-s of f?!ct, Tbese propositions of
la* and findings of feet the tri>*] court refij««d to allocs to be filed
for the reason that they "»«re not subritt^d until after the judgment
had been entered. In this the court did not err. The findings of
f$iot and propositione of law should ham been submitted before the
finlins of the court "^aa «rft!».
There iRre, therefore, no (questions of la-* presented in
the record for rsTiew. The only question thf^t may be said to be
presented, if the so-oalled "statement of facts* is to be treated
aa a part of the record, I© the --lusstion whether the finding of the
court and judgment is against the ssanifest 'height of the evidence.
Upon a review? of the evidenos and the arguments of counefsl, rn are
of the opinion that the judgnssnt ie supported by the evidence, and
that substantial justice has been dons. The judgment is affirffied.
AFFIPMFD.
i.
: itiBB tit iMUi iTtfoe •tfl lo t^iiilAAll 0(fi «le«l lo •aoltstap ttfl
iltv Mif <M^)« bam tmwm^ul lo tt'fl* •41 vtilii #«ill Juci i#A«fq|ttf4
h*Xll »ef o# »of£« of b<i»v)tT ttuot> ttii •SalJtxiil Aoa w«X
^^ u^ c k; . i Llioii Wl#ladA» ton tv«v t*^ ^'^^ ao«««Y t4# tol
>•> a^ialbflll tiiT .T-r* ton tl6 5toco r.'ft 9tAS al ,b9T9$a9 ■•#<} Mtf
.«>bA» nAf iiuoo tdi lo yiltail
ak b9itt9%(t'tq ftMt lo uiolltfti/p on ,»io^97'%fft .ttfl ii*<fr
td of ttfift t€ xmm tudi ttClSmfTTT ?^" Tiv»i tol { .
boJ ai *olo«t lo .«: ••£Xso->o« OiU ti «bo#CM»sa
•111 lo ^filfcail 9ii to4#od« aoita» < f ,?>tooo« •dt 1o tl«q « M
.«on-*MTo tilt )o #(1;gi««' /••liaAs till !».' hL laOAsbvC .f uOv
•i« •• ^Xoaniroo 1o •taofitosia tdi bMm ooaoblvt Offl lo wtlvt? p noQ^
ta« «ooa«biT« Bdi y<i b«iie.<ai/t «i #«o«sbtft •dt ttdt aoiai. i
,bOftil^l« ml tn%m^tul trfT .MOb A»«uf tmd oollotft t%titiMi%6u9. imdt
5l - 17113
EUGENE BBENN?:P, / )
A{v«Jlef* )
f.
CITY OF CHICADO, / )
Appafisnt. )
A fSAI, rPO^t RTIP^IOP.
i
) COURT, COOK COUNTY.
18 2I.A. 348
m. JUPTIOE BAWlJFF '^FLrfEPFD TFF OPINION OF TFF COUPT.
Appellee, Brenn'^r, «rhil« driving to ooil«ct receptacles
for a brewing; cowreny, was Injured by falling frotr hi?? Jn»gon into
a hole in the etreet pavdwjnt. Ks «a*8 driving eastward on the
% aoutb street railway track intending to go cio?n sn al Uy to the rear
"N.. of the aaloon which w»e on ttie eouthweet corner of said street
and alley. Aa he turnod out of the track to the south In front
of the ealoon, one -f the -/huels want Into b hole juet outaids
!* of the granite fclocke lining the south rail. Be fell from the
Tcagon anri wsts kicked by one of hi* wulee. The street between the
tracke and the curb was pa»ed with cedar blocke, except there was
a line cf granite blocke next to the cax rail.
There wse considerable conflict in ths eviitnce as to
the axaot condition of the street, but the evidence tended very
etrong'ly to show that rcany of the cedar blocks were out, leaving
several conepicuous holee in the pavecrnt both ir, front of the
aaloon and between the alley and the etrest railway tracka; that
they hftd been th'sre for eevaral monthe, and that it was difficult
for one driving into the alley to avoid their.
1, But heoauae of appellee's knowledge of euch condi-
tiona it is urged that he wee guiUy of contributory negligesnce.
Ke teatified that he intended to drlva into the alley, and eaid,
■I looked and turned out and picked out the beet ajot, the aafeat
spot, and at the ea^e tiire I h'3&rd the eouni of p c^r hell behind
f»e, eo I threw rcy bead around and looksd bsokwarde and noticed
ffoi «nr .Ik?
S^i» .ii.ISd
.ou. . IX £ :
.ev
-9ti9 bt~^ «AToo /•swi(iii»« mdt uo SAW rfol.'fw aooX«« •d^ to
^.t MTl rrt^ ftR ,LtMr if^tfoa tdt salAlI s^oold •tlaMt^ ndi Ic
^*«t«(f ^••t>t tuit .••Ion »ld le •«o xd fetioii Mw fta« ao:|«''
.XIat %B9 •([$ oi ^&«a •ieoX<^ 9ilaMr% \o Mil «
o^ •« 9'j^«f.iv9 a^/ al totllfloo tldtiatltnoo •«« at^dT
ti*v t#t«al •ofl»t)iT« adt liKf ^^aaii* 9dt le sollibaoo ioMc* t.it
;aXT««X titfo vtav •iooXd i«b*o tHt to X^^Mi #«dt vOiU o^ xXsaoi^a
A (it lo iaoil al d#«4 la«««v«q td^ al ••Xo4 ttfOirolqtAOo X«t«t«»
. i9Mri x^^'Xl'" *^--Ti« •i(l ba« t*XX« •dt a^^mi^<i ta» aooXa*
.'.•dl ftlevA 04 t*XI« •d$ •#«! yalTlut
••- •«-^« «v, ^^,..«»AOfltf •'••XX»qq« lo ssbao*^ ^ •" .1
.•on«3iXf«a x^oiudlrfuao le t'CXuB •<* ^^ .."^^ "X jX
,bX«« ba« «ttcr« mSi otat •rl" ■ * '-' ;i ft«Xli#«». «.
.a«la« 9di «/oq« laa-f •di 1*90 j-o ^^ biu 6«iooX I*
bald9d H9d ts9 m \o hoxroit <--'* ^- . biif 4c bam «4«qa
b»ol#off fcn« tM/"'- -' •^-' — "-'* ^ (^ »•«
-2-
that thsr* vras a car Juat 3:»»8«.1 me. # • ♦ '''hen I 8traigb.ten«d ujp,
turnad !iroun:i again and pulZefi out oJf the track, my ■ gpn went
into a bole and I f«ll right off." Federal. o?<«ea a^n oited to
support the cont«ntloti that where a hole is easily vi-sitle or one
kno«8 of it, it ie nsglifl^-^nce for biir to drive or ws3k into it.
But it was not negligence per «e for f^ppelise to use the etraet
baoause he bed notice of its iefectiv* oonlitlon. (City of Vsttoon
▼ . Fal-ler, 217 lU. ?.?;, Wsll&ce v. City of F%rminiyton, 2Zi id.
332). Ors witneee fawiliwr with the location tsetified thst ths
holee couli not bft aToided except by driving on the track. T) sy
■were in the way of arpellee'e destination, an(l jviet s he *a8 eeeJ«.
Ing the "saf eit spotr^as he said, hig attention ws-a divgrtsd ty »
car bell which he took for thet of a car approaching behind hiaa
and to which he -^ould be bound to give the right of way. In order
to look back, the construction of the wagon-hood required hia? to
lean forward and look along its sides or stand up. There was some
controversy k-s to which be did. 'Pbile an nttempt -^as rcale to i»-
peach hiiK and bis helper on the w&tter, both t^^stifled that he kept
hie se^t and leaned forward,
^lle sfter examininp: the ertire evidence, «e recognize
that it presents » close question of fact as to err«159«*s exercise
of due care for hie o'rn safety, -^e think tlist '^here, hb in this
case, the evidence tenis to «Jjo-»f th^t th*! street *as full of holes
at a point -^here a party had ocoflieion snd ]'j(«rful risrht to uae it,
and that he drove into one of them -^J ile lookin?. for the safest
Flaoe and at the ^afce Xirrn exercising oars to avoid another trouble
incident to street travel, it presents & p\)T9 question of f»ot upon
which the finding of the :;ury ebould not h*s disturbed. The nag-
llgenoe of tlie city wae rrjarent, bvt ^'^ ci»-nnot say that aa to
api-«ll»«'8 exeroiae of ordinnry cure the v-rdiot «?;.« manifestly
against the '^eigJit of the evidence.
2, The notice srivsn by appellee to the city under
ia*« 09^ ':fO toadtr; baa al«aii (tame :.-2u}
'^li £X*1 I bOM •lod • o#«i
•no la ticfitalY fXl«4i» «i •Xod a •<iadv ^edl aoi^avlcoo to
.il olal ilX«« TO •▼lib r>t «lif TOl «oa»>9l£3*a »' - lo fwoai
i 2JL Tt]*^ toat^lXSta ^ocr saw ii tuS
iOiiXfcfloo vTi^oa^vt •#! lo •oX^oa tad • ! «aaao«tf
v-ao«XXaff i^Tf *'i .▼
: d^l* talXlaal •••a«lw aaO
: oxa ttblora a^ toa tXuoo ••Xo^
.oi^Miiiaab a'aaCX ^nw e.u oi aia^
• . «lb aji> -Jia aii ,bXaa ad aa ."Voqa iaalaa" ad^ yii
v. to) tf«oi 9d doiilv XX«tf %mo
tri 1 0.1} •rt'^ o; tairotf ac^ bXoDv ad do a»
Hios-a«r adl Ic aoXloui^aaoo td^ «do«ci dooX .0/
aoa mM'f -aolm doeX boa t'xaviol AaoX
^Idi' .txr lerooicoo
10 laqX' t>a4
.hia' af sl^
aslfl^cosi 8C ,aon©' ire sitJTs • xa xafta aXld^
aol^aauf aaeXo • a^naaaii tt tMAi
a ,<#t1aa <r»c
'»aiu ao
^laeoo bad xtxe t»
•Xduoil Tadlooa bXova oi 9\mo ^^ulaXexoxa 9mt$ ana*
<ltf #oal !• flollaairp aiuq « ainaaaiq iX ^Xavai e>bXMiX
-:. .baditfiolb atf lo« KXuoda xivC ' .libnll a^i'
««• lomias <ite e
taalXoMi aa« loXbi^T ad: isnibto lo ••t'ixmxm . i«
.9on '«0ia^
labau xtt9 y- aXraqq« x^ a9^'.-^: ociioff 9dT
ti:@ etstuts et'tee thnt the aool4«nt occurr«:J •on or about the
3rd 4&y of D«C9mb«r, IftOa." It i« oontenrtai that tha usa of the
^orda "on or about " ioea not irwet th» mandatory requir^ffent of tije
• tatute to give t!:© exact 1»tK. v^hile, in via* of the statutory
rtquirement, tbd ^orls "or liboist* hu^rj no tffloaoy, their use iid
not ohangs the fact that the notioft apecifltsd th!»t the acclcJant
occurred on the oorreot lata. In thfit r-^fapsct it mst thg purjoiie
of th« at'^tute, espftcif^lly in the abeenoa of any ahowing that the
oitjr ^as mieled th^rsby. Notice* with th^ aaLr.e phraseology, p;ivan
under aimilar t^tatutea, h&'-« baan h«ld s. sufficient oorccliance with
them. (Comatoofc v. Village of ScliuylervlV.U, 139 N. Y. Ai.f. . Div.
578; Steirran v. city .>f RoH,e, 95 N, Y. Sup. Ct. (FB Fun) r.VS; Con-
nor V. Salt Uk& City, 2P Utsh, ?AP.)
Z, It io ?il«o v-irged that th« notice i& indefinite aa
to place. It d«Bl3;n»t9B the atrsat on *hich f^nd the tvo n«ar©ct
intersecting streets between "«?hioh the accident occurred, and de-
scribee the rature of the defect Of using it. Th«;re 'f juld be no
difficulty in findin?^ tharefrows stiich » condition ae is deecribed
if exiatingf, »nd a^ain it raaete the purpose of the statute «'hich
id not designed to embarrags the r^laintlff in aseerting his rights,
but to enable the city to locate the alleged loint of desnger and
make timely investigation of the f&ots. V riowe decisiona in
other jurisdictions to the same effect othar th.m soma above cited,
oonetruing like notices under siirilsr etatutee, jcight be referred
to, but -^H think it unnecessary,
4, Coatpltint is also aads thist An instruction -^hioh
properly states wh&t would constitute oonstrwctive notice of an
unsafe condition asaunr.ea controverted f.'rctB of th<e cv-se to be
proven. The sarae objection to the sarre forrt'. of inetsuction was
held untenable in Orahair v. City of pockford, 31iR 111. 214^
5. The amount of the v^rliot wa.? ^10, 0. 0. It ie
urged th».t it was exceesiv!?. T? e injuriee were permanent ^nd
severe, attended by .raine and i-lvaye rHi ba, Th«rs -"bs a com-
a. ; ;ris ^^lJp•T Xioimbfis 3»M» *Or lUOtfJI J*
ttotut«}« •d# ^o »»!▼ Ill ,»Ilf(W .•y«! j(<# •▼Is o^ •iit^it^
^9u 'ti9 '••ct *fuo<fs 10* abvow 9di «la»a»-:.
3« •<f# fmAt b*t'^to9^9 •eilofi »dt tmd$ >o«l •di •fa«:lo ion
ytf^ i9m 11 lor .t^sb le*Weo •dt ao i>*Y«iMMt^
^•▼Is «t3«£^^*«i^Q •<«' '^v ••oi tfoM .x:/»it»di b«Ial« ajv t'io
-noO . . . ^ 3 >v. - ' v,tt-> .V If. ?{
• .j«
9tnl •! *(>t ^'^« •(!
:•.&;: ^ .*olAfi ao i*«il>< lAAaltst II .»0x.
n« ,he ;r>eMf>oa aifi dold* a^tmi^d •t*t«^« sniio«««^^*l
^niai/«o io«l^b •di to ••I0t«'r •^l ve^flTOo
doidw o^tfi tuXJ tltbrn 11 al43« l>ii« ^■gali»tx9 11
^•Idsii Bid saliie««« nt WtSatMln sdl •«4<xijk}im ol jboo^la^t loA •!
: i9;^«b >o i«ioq bo^ftXIt •di el«ocI ot x^lo ttfi •r«f8fre ot #llrf
.>! aaoioiaoJb 9uoli'^ .nto«1 aoll«ali«»viii j ttism
«fc0llo oTOffa eAc* /slto ••«• oKJ ol oaoltoltBliirt vtif'o
^•i-u^e lai ^s^itflsl* TaXldla ^mtau ■•olloft oiiX sftltrx^vOttO
dol<f^ rotS^utinai um tmdS •Jt' tniaXqa*.
ftoltrfi •▼ilo»il«aoo •tt/tllaaoo fcluo* l«d« ••#•!• tXieiO^q
»d^ to lis ■ irVoiiaoD K»a[tf»«A aolilltaoo •laaaif
BMm atlinbeitnt tc AV^t •net %d$ oi aol^e»Cdo mui* tdT .aevotq
ifX*^ . 1 lo x*l' .♦ .■n«^«iO ftl ftCdaaalou bl^d
Id b^Ufitm «•!•▼••
.4.
pound coarjlnuted frHotura of the tlbis* of the left leg, leaving a
roughcnei condition c»\i»«d by •pioulM.e utioklng out from the
fracture^ the ankle v^'i stakyioee'i.; tlis foot -^aa saeff.atou», into
whicL the biood settled »t tln.ee; th« jruaouisr tiasue of the
back of th*5 leg; bad eloughed off ?n.^ the eoar tiasue had eo con-
traot<$d it th?<t it wi^sa iwpoeaible to get tlse hs«l to the floor;
the ecar oo the hft*l extencied up the leg about four inchea snci in-
▼olred all the tissue© In that part so thst they ••«re ircROvablei
the l*g wft9 two inches whorter th«n the oth«r ani two inches
•m&ller around the calf; appalleo -"sis laid up »bout eirrht montJie,
at first vising crutchee, aniS still uelng a cane to -":st about,
Et wae also hurt in the groin, probably hy 9. kick of ona of hie
JBulee, an-5 h?jd a perforation t.lrou'^h the leg which rieceseitstecl
lonjy treatment, an«1 gangrene *'?afj develorad. ''^hile ths v«rdict
W&8 Inrge, it i>a difficult to s'^^y that under isuch ciraumstanoee
It wae ttxceeeive. Helth^r law nor precedent has fixed any
ataaiard for auoh rowttere oth«r th«n what may bs ae^iined re:n<»on-
able oompenaation , Aa said in Village of ^ilwette v. 8r»ohls,
110 111. App, 255, <: court of revie^sr eeidowi e^ts i^sid*.* the finding
of a juiy on the bo1« ground th?*t it ie exceaeive coleaa the amount
ie 80 great »« to shook ita aenaft of rieifht. *e cannot aay thet il
does in thle caea.
t5. Objeotiona Ti-ere r.ale to certain hypothetical qusa-
tloQS put to msdloal experta, *nd error is c^eeigned tn t)e over-
ruling of such objections, Timj aasureed aevjr*! facts with refer-
ence to the injuries and health of appellee and concluded with
the lueetlon Twhethsr the ■"'itneas had an opinion se to i»hethar the
physical conditions described ^vere caused by the accident; for in-
stance, gangrene, ti-s aloushlnsr of the tiaauee, the stiffening of
the ankle, the shortening i.^f ths leg, all matters of expert know-
ledge. The 'jnsirar ^ao in thi af/irmatlve and that th^y .^ere due
to the accident.
The reann-r of the accident w- q not questioned. The de-
.ntyfidT W^f i\m£ *(f^ lo Midi* •df lo wtu^mt\ bmiaaiaaQo bamtn^
«oYl ttn 'ittiit^tfm •«Ctf9iq« x^ b««»*o moifibaoo bwie^itox
c *~t ,9Uaf»mttf9 r«w $90^ tilt ihs«olt^fKj'#4» •£ia« tdf l^tutMMtJ
,9li«To«i«i •1IM* f» (i xri ••cra«X^ •<<# Hm 5*tIot
(^a/TtcTi ovjT ^fl« 9MAto 9(if tTOff* ##if»iil 0«^ #4* 2«X vdl
. tcro^it qu ht» .'-'.. 4' r ;li«» Vfl^ f>ittfOt4i teXXAU
• lii to 9Af) ^C 4 :>i • . torr 9rft mi iti/A OB LM BMm •■
b«^«tlB«»o«a Apt A* !7»r f ^^Teo (« t)*d ba* ^9^ltM
fxilbfr tnii 9iid^ rrnx^RM tneoldsv^ yMX
xa« fcsxl) •Mil (^fl»b90*ini tv>.! i*dti»9 <«vl»«*ox« tfJMr fl
i •dt •ltl«« •#•• MObXM ■•iv«t >o ttdoo >? «da€ .qqA .XXI OH
r.R u!^t 8t«I«tf •vi«««»s« •! #1 $«d# MaM>T8 •<<>• •<<^ oc ifitft « lo
:)<lftii» •« .t(f?»ii[ lo •Mtm •»! iood* 0/ •« l«»ia OS #*
.p^wv ntdS Ui ••06
-^ ■ -^otSB:ifoqxd nlmir99 oJ sf>«A ettw taoi /»«to'
-t*Tr: / bofl^XAoo •! loitt ba» «aittqxo X^oitoii o^ .^i/« oaoi^
oTslti As I* •ttia\ £si«To« I^Mu/«o« t*dT .ofloi^oeC*^^ ''^^f* ^^^ ytliin
ttw bofroloaoo 1mi« »»X£oq'i« lo dttM^d ham ooXiafX od^ ( r taa*
•>1f T^<f}^t#t of •• aolni-^o a« h#d ••»nii« od^ i^i/tdv aol^otur td^
.(toMooii t.it x^ b9ftjii:^ t^^-? bftcflioatb onoliXtnco X^uxaxdq
lo :)aiR0)1ift' £ulJ .r-rDf/* '.:£* «-l5 ^en9isn«a »tri.. *?
-wooi ^toqx* od9 •df «»XdO'
•06 •!•« x*At imdi : ''i.^jtoiTitlo 9d# «1 tjnr -tAvaaii •df .tfibol
-ot •dT .A«aoll««i/p .^00 c « •dT
.5»
feuss -^as dlr8Ct«d mainly to the condition of th ^ street ani the
oiai« of oonlributory negligence. On cro««-«x&ii!l nation of ap-
pellee's sjxpsrtw, unsuoceseful *?ffort w;«a ir.^tde to aho-'} that eorce
of ths oonditiona refarred to in thw jueationa rei^bt have
raaultad froa a previo^js attack of eoiatics tino' others froa drink-
ing faabita. But thera *o.® nc gl^Jim by appellee th*t such ua might
b»v« 90K<e relation to thw l«tt«r wera other than trenaient, or
proof by apjiallant that the oonditioca inquire;? of hed relation to
any othsr qhuss th&n the undia uted accldant. In visw of thsae
facta the caae aee-iie to be od« within the (jlaas racognizsi by tbs
Suprawse Court where a question in that form may Is properly anavered
t> an -sxpert. (City of Chioacro xr. nidiar, 2S7 111. 571; Chicago
Traction Co. v. Roberta, 22'' id. 4«1, Paopla ▼. Bsrjeno», ^'26 il.
514; Fuhry ». Cbioaso City Ry, Co., 32^ id. 54?:. ^
7, The further contsr-tion that there <?«« no proof
that the atreet in question »aa a public thoroughfare need not be
oonaiderad s^t length. There w&e no forffal pro^f >':;f the fact. But
it pl&inly appearal froR aU th« fe-^l^enc* that it ^^as » city street
and »uet hav* b^en a-oce, tel .na euch. It «s a r&ve.l and ueed by
pedeatriane and for traffic acd atrsst csre, and vaa patrolled by
city officers. Its exiatenoe £.s a etrsst ^rs not -.usetloned at the
trial, 4h© entire defeaae proo«»eding upon th»s theory thfct it wt^a
suoh, and it was oo referred to. If it 'PSis not inferentially i>d~
Biitted to be auch, the proof was prima fHi^cie aufficlent to aho^A- it.
We find no ravsraible error eni the juigwent I'ill bs
affirmed.
AFFIRMFD.
(
-<kM )• «el}MilaiMC«<-»»oi9 nO .•oarslifiMi xtoia^itiuoo >o miMio
•aot fdi «Ml» 0$ 0b«ai •«• t-ro)!* Xo'tvittootfBat/ ,tt«»qx9 •*t»ii*q
•v«4 tif^riai scrol^«*u, wAi al oi b9t««l«Y •aoilitaoo mdi le
-iaixi aoTl ■)•<<; (tol^Alot lo Jo«l^4i •i/oiv»iq • •oil l>*iXif««-'
#d«!« §« ilo»« iMtlt •»II»'4q« t<^ «!•£• oo mam 9fAi tiA .tildBii ^fli
0} itoiiaXti b«it Ito friupal maoiilbaoo •dt tmdi taBiimqqs x4 \oovi
•sedi lo «*lv fli .la»b|oo« lMii(r;«lto« »tf# oa^i ••tfao %Bdio xa^
. ;ldO iXta ,XII TRg ,-?»lfci«T .V Q)«oi40 lo tliO) .tiA^^-SA (tf
.bi dl'< ,«r6«934a .T tXiOff«? ,'■•♦ .M ^'38 ««^<x#dof! .v .oO iioi*0«iT
1:i>eT<4 oa sjv tYtdl iail fliciixte>ao« iBitxtiJ tdT .T
^i/a ,ioM\ mSi Ic trotq i;«»jiYot cm •«« •imIT .if^^iii*! >• b9fblmaoo
td bmnu bA» bmrM'i •«* II «dfttm •« ttl't*oa« •••d .9T«.1 l«tMi bam
i^i hntiQtimq 84W Xmm ««i«a i«9«tt 6a« vilt^W t«\ J^na •ftaitlMiftiq
wii i« ^cnoilcaw^ sou •«« ivai^s • a^ aaa«#aixa all .Mitoilte t'-^o
•■•» it iA.1t x'xoadi aifl noqu ^/ilbaaoo-sq aanalai) aiilaa adA ^Xaili
-iu xXXaltnaialai foa *£« tX SI .oi btnataf «• ••• it bam ^dott^
.a voda OS fa9t9t\'\tm mtos\ aalia a^w too«q adi ,d04Mi ad ol bmlitm
»^ Xiiw iaaff3' at aitl baa loiia aXdiaiavav «i ball aW
.jb«atllY«
^^'- ^^nn, 1921^ Ho.
/
CHICAQO CITY FAILVAT CO¥P/
rlfsadajnt In Errsr.
F-PPOR TO f?IRCUIT
COURT, COOK COUNTY.
182I.A. 364
WR. JU?^TICE BABUSB PILIVFRSD THF OPIKION OF TH? COURT.
Plaintiff in «rror, Mary Saea, brought suit {i^«iR«t
d«f«»l«nt in ttrror to r«cf>T9r iareagea fox a p«r»onal Injury a3-
lagtd to h».v« baen r«o«iv«d wbil« »h9 wae boarding one of ii«-
f«ndl&.nt«e care. It «&« chargtsd thj^t thera wae negligence in
oauting the «Rr to ^:>e aniJdenly «t&rt«d or violently 3«rkea with-
out T»»rning to h<ar while she w&e on it« platfora and about to
enter it. The vsrdict ■^fi.s for defendr-snt,
Coiaplfcint is wa;i« of the iBstructionn. Number
t»^enty-two, given at dsfendant'e requaat, included the following:
"The l9^ r«oo^?nni^«e that a street car, «uch ita is in-
volved in this c:^ee, cs.nnot in ita vsry nature, te startad
without oauaing •<>«« eud.-len ttotion c-ini jerkini^ thereof.
Such motion or jerkina: which is prs.ctici?illy in««pe;rable
and- rsa«onably to b« «xp8ct«d frow thia ir.ode of travel, are
aaauaed by a paeaengsr et hi® or hsr o-*r. risk sa a p».rt of
hie or h«r oontrstctof oRrrisfe."
The tttotorsr&n, testifying in behalf of defendant, eeid,
"If you etart a car elo«, it n«v«r jerks." Yet the instruction
Ittjsroperly told the jury tb»t the f-^ct wa© otherwiao. Thsy had
the right to consider euch evidence in determining iwh«ther or not
there waa any negligence in oauaing the oar to be jerked. If they
believed it waa. But the inetruotion praotioally told them to
dlare^^strsl auch evidence *» not true.
But whhtev«r tcay have be«n the fact, •»« csuinot concur
In the ajjplicstion of the doctrine of aaeumed rieV- to the r«iatioa-
•hlp of carrier and fe.aaenjs-'jr. The questions for the jury 'sere
. 'f"^y7J0'^ ^0'
f^as.A.1
WlZl'i
-if f^i^tthi A vi) ••f«>i»h ii»vc&«i oJ ivTta fill ^ai^^i
iMtl turn fi9 «>ti(« &«Vi»0»1l U9^<S •««< ^ ;^;,^
/otfji An no a«« mIh «ittf« ;niatJ(» tA^^
9\mh «9t Mwr foiM*v i^ur .si \
noitouiimal •Ai #» ;, ^lya it «iroi« t40 « n«t» act ^Z*
X»4l \t ^b9ifl %4 o$ z»9 •41 %al9U9o at •oa*tlX9*fl toa •«■ •laiii
ol ■o4# bX»# tXX«ol#o4iq aollofrsloni Mil lot .•«« it tovollotf
.•cm loa •« toxisMTo ^tfo ftt«io«tiA
l^OflOO l0a/U9 •« ^;ro«t till AOOtf OTAtf fAM vvrtlMd* lnC
-aol^«I»t odl ol tmt-i bmummm lo Miifivoi^ »<(« ^o aoil«elXq(|4 «ll jU
•ootr xitft otfl lol aaoilootfp odT .yo^»o««i ^MM ««lt««o !• qiite
.s?-
whether ci«fen.iant «»• iMigligent a« jilleged, »nS vhather plslRtlff
«x«rola«i ordinary c»r«si to jivoicl injury. *heth«r dufendant was
neglljflnt wssb to b* dtfttrsninsd by appiiofttlon of the f&aslliar rvii©
of c»xe du« from » aomrron carrier to ». p»a8en<rrer. The ;1«»f«n,1ar»t
could not l;e» r«li»v«d iron failure to exercise such o»re on tba
theory of 5i«a\iRption of rieV by jla.intiff. So far »« plaintiff
wan concern»d, it w«e meroly a o.u9»tlon whethstr ehe exercisevi
ordinary oiar« for b^jr o^n safety. If th« jury b«lleved that
plaintiff was injur«d from atartlng or movinsr th* car With 5 bUh!-
(l«n j«rk, tb«a, in vie* of the wotorrr&n'a teetlroony, they lehoulcJ
have t'>3en l»ft fr«« to i,l«t«rrolne froiB all th« evidence wh«thsr it
WAS a n«afii3:«3St act. The inotructlon not only enoroaoh^ci upon
the province of th© jury in findinRr an important f»50t, tuxt mini.Tlzed
lta«ff©ot by telling the Jury th';4t th« paeatenger ©se-uffisct the rlek
of It. It h»d « tendency to d.iv.*rt ths min^» of the jury froa
conaiaeriitlon of tb« v'«u«etlone of negligftnoe and due o«re by im-
properly directing consideration of *hather the jerk waa of auoh
a character that the paseensjer a««u«edl the risk of it.
Oo»pl«?int la -ileo ma^t* of inetruotiona relating to
contributory negligeno*. Thftro w^^s no svi-Je^JCis of anything
plaintiff did or nwi^lecteS to do thRt tended to ehow contributory
oegllgsnoe. Yet aeversii Inetruotiona cwrrled a strong Intlaatlon
to the jury that it was one of the controverted fecta of the case.
They -sfere properly told by number thirteen that the burden of
proof reated upon the plaintiff to ehow, »e alleged In her declara-
tion^ thKt at the tlj^e of and before the haprenlng of the ftcoldent
ahe wa» exeroielag ordinary oars for her o«»n safety. Fro» her
olroujEet^ntlal account of the accident, due oare on her p«.xt could
be Inferred -without oxprase proof thereof. There '^^to no evidence
that ahe did not exerolee ordinary oars. It waa wholly unneoeeeayy
therefore to repeat the aaane doo trine In another form In Inetruotlon
fifteen, by telling the jury that If plaintiff did not prove the
-$-
titflitiXi tftdttdm Urn «b*9*IIfl •• fm%%Hfit •*« fmMbawypb fa
•inv Sntn9'\%t fdfiVf ,xrulmi bterM of •xm* '^tMmtbxo t»«l0Ytx#
•Xut tmtltxjal i.tl to aoH«oiX4<]« T<f b«ai«Tt#«t «cf o# ••« ^nsslXsM
Dl^nliXq ui t«1 •$ .ttttni Ifqmtfm lo t?
'«d} tsvsiri^;; ^^ut 6.1^ .Y.»ttM ff«0 «*tf lOl •ISO X^MBitl
1 drf* lo wotT nt ^fitdi »<itt !^^
71 z^dtmdm eonaMT* »'<> ri« «dt1 unlmfttt cS »?»!tl f^^f a«t«i
ao^ir fc«do«oto«t* v v. -> .»:>« nol^oi/ttcc!! »ffT ',''..• '^
•Oil t»i^ •*<> i" ?T»Tlft 0# XOrt«i^''
"ltd x^ »t«o ti^ tea •ontv^lX^Mi td pftcliifii/o arf^ to aQttMtwbli ^ -:
/loL's ^o SAv tfM^ Orft ittftotf* to ftf^l noo v-rlfiiftitb X-t'**''''^
.tt to <»fT ^.r* t««t(|lt flkHq ».; •.:*J£>«lt,
.-fiT»«OC
■zoii. , a/ol«i:i
acllMiitai yiotj, . jjadllo-f sY .•onojllitfl
.fa<:> «df to t^ovt bv/ivTot^aeo ta -i::o ••« #1 fMtif jia^ %dt ci
10 nbtud •df t0dt cv«^nlrf# ndmm ^d blot x^tttio'tq •i«'^ ys.-iT
-4ialo»5 lad al fi«t»xra •« «trotl« 0/ Ytl/alaXq ftff^ a*qi/ b*^t
ftt9tlo9» udt to yttavqqaif 9dt •lotttf tc:a to •nl^ oil i^"
ttd m>i^ .X'ttM awo lotf lot •*r«o t^^n!^•to ^aimtonx^^/;^ erft
htmmbtr9 oa OSW •lOrlT .Tt001»4* t% t'T nattq^t t»lTII^'
tV««»«OtflAtf X^iodw cjfir tt .(iYAO f ••107»x» /0« M> #»!• t.«:f^
aotf^mtwnt at atot toUtoajt tfi •nlT^ooi «!.£:< Vrf? t9sa«^ #r# #irotf
-3-
»lltgatio» by a pr«po»4w8no« of «vid!!>nc«, they iru«t fin<S the d«-
3f«iidftnt not guilty, W« »l|E-ht not r«f«r to the emphaBlt thue
given to the n«gfttlv« of sn wnoontroy«5rte<J fsot if oth»r Inetrvjctionil^
r«p«fttins the principle sni layin^y inor«afted ©nfiphaais on the sub-
J*ot, had no*, b^en ^Iven,
SuTRber «l«t««n »g:aln told th« jury «rh»t o&ra and pru*
d«iiO0 one fRust «x«rci»« for his o-sn aaf«ty and that it rm.B% fcs pro-
portionate to th« dss-nger if eny 8urrcun!:5inj th# i:;«rson at tha tima,
• to., s.nci addQl that if th« jury find that "th^ j;.lalr5tif f , by ths
ttxerciee of euch <3egT»e of csre on h»r part at the ti»e in qu«9tion,
would have avoided or sacEpe^ the injury pnti that eh© fail ad to
•xeroiea euch csr« sm thus lefintd, then ©he o^mnot rscovfir,* and
they sbciil:! finii ths ci«f«nd*nt not aruilty.
By instruction number 8«svsnt«en, the attention of the
Jury «».• ag'&in invited to the eubjeot of contributory ns3-li?:«nc«
»Bd they ■**!« toll that they could not oofepars the negligenoe of the
plftintlff with that of ilefeniant, for if ne^-li^nt aha could not re-
cover and tha dlef andftnt ehouli be found not wilty.
Th«» numeroue Instructlone on this mibject muet h>sve ltd
the jury to lnf«fr snd beli«ve thst the court thoug'ht that contribu-
tory negligence wa« « eerioue aueetion in the oaee, and, h«ing toldi
by the court that a c».t couH not b» 8tsrtf»cl without oaueinf: sok«
•udden notion or jerkingf ani' that k. paesenij^er aeeuKedl thfet rials «
the jury wa« likely to look beyond the evidence for eome particular
thing plaintiff neglectetl to do to protect b^ra^lf from injury.
In the ah«eno« o? ^ny clrouwisti^ncaa cr proof frow which contributory
negligence could he prop«jrly infsrred^ the repeated intiw^tion of
ite iaportsnce -wae unwarranted ?snri pr«judloi%l.
Just coa!::^laint i« sleo made of nuiB«rou8 inetructlona
given «t the inet^^noe of 1*f«ndsnt, each of -^1 ioh, aft«T statin??
that upon certain hypotheeee pl«ilntiff could not reoovnr, unneo-
•eearlly addel the inevitshle ooncluaion thi«.t the jury "ehould
• /a. CU4 ti4o Tttriv YT«rC Ml^ Moi alJi?9iA n99SMt» ^p^miA
•rtJ <■< ^f^.l* Til tiiit •■; ,.v;v
£r{« •«<i»iropc >fc BMift •« •IMP 4LMr« ttioitx*
.ytllff -^1*5 tdl boil i.Iuoift t*4J
•>•! >oa bluoo •dt #a*«tlf»a )t to) r&cii Atlw Wtfa-
.Xflt 4l>atl»b 9dt tCt.: 70VOO
bti tT«4 f9um fo»^(*tf •tdf no tuol^ootlvni Buormmua atfT
Mo) B'^*^ %^^^ ^•*f'0 9df ai tHitf90uQ sitoif* * ««« •natt^ti^fa xioi
• *C9 T^CifU^O iUOAttft bt>tit fMA$ itJOQ 9tii x-:i
XJiXuol^Tiiq AKOt tol •oa^biTe ^dl bn . U •«* ^L'^t *(i^
"Ctmnmv ^iftvooax /oa blvoo tmaiaict a»-
<^4^
find th« defendant, Chlcftfo City Pgillway Cowp^^ny, not j>:uilty.*
Twelve of the tw«nty-flv« Iratructlone $iT«n at 'l«fenipnt'f8 r«-
queet, t«n of thaw »rith on« exception being the laet raa5, con-
cluded with thl3 atercotyped expression, and vers apparently
preaentect 'with etiiiie'J effsct of such reiteration. In Usfison v.
Chio«.a;o City R-silw&y Co., 1$5 111. Anp. 9S, w© esid of alwilar
inetruotions tisat "they *«r« v-^ii c&lculated to ItspresB tLe ^ury
with the thought that tl.e oourt wae againet tte plaintiff on the
question of fjict, and thst they Rl?;;ht readily be mlslei tc believe
that in the opinion of the covrt thsy should find for the d-jfsndant.*
The ml«learting and prejudicieil charaoti^r of the in-
etruotions referred to rejuilre mr^rnn,! o* th^t jvfl.^«*{nt ^.n.i re-
scandln^ of the ciu^^e for o new tri«il.
PfWFSFP AMr BFMASDSD.
.i^a«lr^ »a^ to' :ifOd9 t*<(^ tt»oc »il^ \o "dt eii
; VO) •«9»» •At to ^IflitaMI
boter Term, 1911. Uo."
365 - 17t01
Afii allee.
?'. «. HOYT C
a Corp. ,
ppellant.
) A"P?AT FPOV f^UPn^IOP
182I.A. 371
MP. JUPTIGE PAPr?^ rFLIVFPEP THF npjyi'^N 0? TT'F COUPT,
Apraliee rscovarsd a jud^ent for ^"850 for pareonal
injuriee isuatained -^hll* in thft employ of apr«jl i^i"'^* cauaed by
ths fall of *' rrsl[^';ht el abator «Mch he was opsrating.
The daolarAtion char^jed th='t &y. sMfent furniahed
appalled a iijfsotlva ©levator to operate; that ths ,' inion, a
em«ll cogwheel traneiaitting the power to the drum, w&e cracked
and ^xoke, and th«t a bar, part of the aafety device, 'tae bent
and prevented tr.tt doge fro» trorklng and stopping the cur in it©
descent.
It ia urged by aprellar.t t);at th» !efect in the i-inion,
if any, waa latent, not dlsooi^ers'ble by the -uei^al niiethod« of in-
spection, ftnd that there w^e insufficient proof that the bar was
bent prior to the accidt^nt.
The direct cause of the acci'ent was acre :ir leae &
natter of epeculation, but Apparently was the bresking of the
pinion. The principal et^idenoe \;pon which the charge of nerii-
gence reata is the f^ct th.-^t the bar wse bent se aforeeaid, and
the teatittony of ont» wltneee that the t inion bore indication of
an old break or orack &'. tho point of breakage. Tha elevator &nd
its v?-rioue parte had frequently undsrgons the nei^el tests of in-
spection, periodicaUy hy city ins'sotore 5»nd daily by appellant's
engineer. The teste employed were those u;au&l and cuetomary, vrxz^
aiaual and by etriking the pinion with a hnmrGer, called the "ham-
mer teet^^ ^j,^ j^^^ ^.^^^ ^^^ pinion irorked in greaae rendered
¥04ff
'.on ,Li^^ t'"'*! "^^^"^
.jwAir
.FV
IT8.A.IS8r
'qpwt •AS Rl ^■■■- eaxiu^n.
'•^ I ■ - ■ : -
nc^ ttWt r»r.> , i /> ♦ . ;^ t « -rr.'^*.'^^ SO)) MOh ^^* K*. ♦ f. ^ v ., ^q bfl4
-. • >. I ,
tMumu •At xtf «I<fAt»voo«lb iofl t^ati^X •«« ^x'^' t2
•>lXs«n Ic 9di (foii« noqcr oonvtlTo lAqlonlKi tdT .aolnlq
bnjt ,Me«»aolA •> tflttf ••» tiltf ti^ tAdi #o«l •(!# tl t^ati •on«i
^ 70l>«oibal tto*^ ttoihM vd^ >«<t^ Mtattv •no Vo taoalls*^ odi
f« tctsrttp e.-fT .•9«i«f>Tcr to till oq arft jm it^sio to jU»t# 6X0 mm
\t \o 9i»%j Inuttf otfi •aos'XstMtr x^^'i^tTC''^ ^'^-'^ ofT*:-: euoltaT •#!
«.«!▼ tX'iMMolaito to* Xjuau ••odt •!•« b>xoX<iiMi •#••} tdT .-KiBttt-ytB
>di«ci* off^ b«ir«o ,i»«ti{d < t(#l« flrvlalq •'i^ salilt^a \d ba» tstntt
b»fbtt§-L ••4«T9 ai b%ixow aolaiq Mlt >9<l» loal orff •,*••■'
neither entir-^ly eatisfuctory. There was t««tiRony, however,
that the parte were wiped for viev.ai inspection and tJ.wt no other
aethod than euch teats could te employed except by takino; th»
Kachinsry apart. The elev&tor bad been in aervlue for fibout
fifteen yRara. There was teetlwory that a crack or brefk frii3:ht
occur after several y-ftra from oryetoll iz»t ion, but slao thst
a pinion mi^ht be expected to render eervioe for svsn thirty or
forty yenre. Ho lefeote had been discovered froir, the inarection,
and not until t fe*- iBlnutes before the accident, "fben appellant*©
engineer exanntned the slev^tor for the puruowe of aec^rtaininr the
oauee of its jerking, did appellfint ha^e notice of anything de-
fective ahoiit it. The en^inaer then inHpscter? it, tijrhtened eome
bolts and thought it v&a ?>11 rigl t. A trial «f&ft !?:ad8,r»nd ths
next titre It descended it fell. Not until after the ttcoident
were the defects referred to found. Th^; the tax -y-aa l:ent prior
to thfe a-ocirtent wae not proven and the inf-srsnce thi^t it ^sia Lent
by the accident is as reaeonftbie a« thst It was f.gnt before. Nor
m our opinion was ther« a preponderscce of evi,l«r,oe th.it tin
pinions bore trscee of ^n old crssck or fcrswk, or, if so, thtit it
would have teen detected by ths usual methor?. of inspection; nor
that the aprellant was bo negligent in its inepections tJ.at. it
became chargeable ^ith notice of ?.n old break, if it existed,
While ''« are unable to say, sa a irtatt«r of la^, that v%prel?.ant wae
not negligent, «9 are dff the opinion thst the verdict •»»» &p;sin8t
the manifeet ^algl t of thss -vidrtnoe.
But -se think th«!re 'vae reversible error In the; pro-
ceedinge. There was puoh conflict in the evi^eroe ss to the
extent of the injxtry. Appe]l»e suffered frofr* a oocnjrlmited fracture
of the knee-c&p. One of hio inedical 9xp*rts teatified t^.3t the
result of th?; operation ^■^e a fibrous and not » bony imion, A
flsedioal expert for appellant testified thst in his judpuient it was
a bony union, but ti nt it could not te .letsriRiried positively. The
opinion of «ao}. was based on phyaioal exarr.in^ tion. Three of tue
•s.
•<i# ::<<i:i.T ^cf ^qaos» b»toXqa« e. MiA>o n^**^ Aom naifi to.tj**
trf^lai i—jiS Yo ofoato B liiHt X''^<»'*^<^**^ •''* tTfdT .•149Y -'-'^'}'^''
9'^r.^. . rrt«Mo9« ti<t •lothtf %t^$antm «•)* • Xltou ^off bets
^«d la«xr»i.qji bib «3ai<x«t •tt lo ••tM .
MI09 ^t#e*q«fll nvil^ xvtnlso* *<<T J(. 9V.'
)•• •(!# Tst^c XU b«ba«ds*b ^1 •all SKta
.#xol« <At 9M •Id«ao««»i 8£ tl Sa»btoo* 9di x4
• ^s i*i\: . v» \o toa«Ttbaoq»vq s •fdi •«« aolalqc -xijo ai
r)9Td 10 <9«Y0 bXo a« lo ••o«Tl •locf •aolaiq
loa ;aoilo«qaflt Jr bo A f 9m LBimu 9(1$ x^ btioaiab at»tf avad bX-(io»
it 9aoli09:i9al 9ft nt $n9f^lL'g9a oa a«« #a«XI*iq« adt ^«d/
.ba^aixt ^Xo aa 1o ^ol^oa /f^l« •Xdna^xado taaoa.^
a«v ^ciallaqq>- i4/^a« « a« ^t^Mi o^ aXd«nu aiA •» tlXdv
Jiuila:9« a«« loibtav an loinlqo •»■<< B» aia a« «laaslXs«a ^oa
.tonrMva sw taaliflMi ai^i
-oiq ad^ al lotia aXdlai^va-x a.a't ataiU :lnld.i ar ^uS
a IJ o^ aa aoaablva acU d iolXlxtoo d04iii a«« a-radT ^aao
ito^oail Laicmi/iwoo « noil batallum aaXX»qqA .vaty^a^ adi If ^aa^xa
^dl iAAl b»L\tt99S aixcqxa Xaoibaa aid lo aaO .qjo-aaai tdl lo
A .cioinu fAOd a ioa ,ba« muordiX A •«* ooiiA-x^qo f>d^ \o iXx/aai
•«a ti ^nftiosbtft aiil ai >a41 iMili^aal la io\ tiaqxa iMOtbmm
adT .tXavJtiiaoq banloiiaiab 9d foa Mvoo #i if>iiS iiftf «aoiau xaod a
• It lo aaidT .aoiliaai<M&« XJWiaix>^H flo ^»«ad •«« dojia lo aoiciiqo
-^-
jurors, at th* request of ejpellee'is oouneel and agalnat appeliant^a
objsotion, wsre parmitted to make auoh »r, exeir.in6tlon. They felt
of iiiti .T.acipulatod the kree-cap, ti-anlfeetly to anable their to fora
as opinion for theirsolvsB and th« other jurore. The evidence
tended to show th«t tha result of k fibrous union «&« rtors serious
than that of a bony union, and tl nt even «n expert cannot tell wheth*
er it is one or tb* otlier. Ir vie«i of euc^ evidence, the conflict
of the testimony 3e to the s/tent of the injury, and the uncer-
tainty of the affeot of psmtlt^inj: such exaroination bj. the jurors,
•e think it was reversitle error to permit thenr to wjike such «x-
aaination. It *aB a subject for expert teatimony anl about which
those called «<6 experts differed. Presuftably the three jiirors
»rere not expsrtB in such reattera, and whatever opinion tl;ey way
have reache<S froir; their ftxauii nation, whether iicrropsrly iirparted to
the others or not w&e t&ntaaount to alwittin^ not only irco.T.petent
STirJence, but testimony without the privilege of oroBe-'Ssxanjination.
The judgment must be revsrsed and the cause rswanded.
PFVERgfD AND RESfANDID.
^f ^
{cf aoit«alM«x» .ic
, ••t:U tilt \i^%iiu%ti~Sx .(^vitillit t^TAqx* 09 JbtXX40 ttodi
o^ ^•M«<|Bi tXtsqotiai T»((i«ifv «aol|4ivIai«x9 \i%M noil t*(io«ti tTsii
^Of)/'^ jus^osi '{lao joa BKlitlatii c^ ^oiicas^n«^ •«« too to •.i»dlo tdl
.bslMA.aa'l ••U40 tdi tfl« btiidYfx ttf l«jm tCftH^btf^ ftdT
CIV A aYSinTifl
435 - 17965
PUrAHCK CORPORATION, L^aTFP,
of London, Fn,;?:lanc,
Appellee,
COWPANY, a
?FLLY-ATKIKaOM COF^TBITCTION
oorpyrat ion.
Appellant.
APPFAI. rp.OV MT'!?iraPAL
COUPT OF CPIf?AOO.
182I.A. 372
MP. JUSTICE BARKfE DVLIVITRKD TL'F OPINION OF THE COURT.
Thit it »B aipeal frorr f jurt^irent for f38,565.36 for
premiums and Interest thereon, clfilBecJ b, BpFel3e«s under oertsin
policiee for c«tsu«lty ineurance, Indsepnif ylng apF«l Iftnt against
loBs from certain liability to ite gwployes or ihtt pwl.lic.
Apjeilant urges (l) that th* policise sr* ohampertouo
end void; (?) thsi all except two of thenr arft ambiguoufi sn'-l ivithout
consideration n^e tc pretricRa not paid; (3) thfit «8 to B.oet of the
policies, 3.if»lls«, by failure to object to pay-rolls furniehed by
appellant in orier to fix the prerciua.e, is ty its lack of diligence
now eBtoppad frow objecting th^jreto; (4) that the stiitute of lirr.i-
tatlone h.i rur^; ani (5) that tFe court srred in tfiking the Gbce
froBi the jury &n;,l direotinsr u v«rdiot for plaintiff. ' "^e eh'*li
briefly consider the points in the order nsirtied.
1. The olauees in all th« rolioiss, except two,
rflllej upon se illegal are so folio^s:
"If th'?reaft»5r any suit ia hroufrht yp:ain»t the asGursd
to enforce a olaiir for damages * * • the oorporstion ^i'Jl at
its own coat d fsni against such prooeedinp; in the name ^no. on
behalf of the a»euris.r5, or settl* thr^ aa.-^s, ualeas it ahall
elect to jay to the aesurei the indemnity, " etc.
"Thi aastirti.,! aball not ssttle *ny oi:T.im sx-^apt at
his own 0O8t; nor inour !9ny exnenee, nor interfere in any
niZ<^ti^Moni3 for aattlenant or in a.vy legsl crocriedin,:j, without
the consent of the corporation i)ri»viou8ly jriven in writing.*
riwilsr clsueea in th- othsr t-j'o policies ^ary siiR:ht-
ly frow such phrs-a^ology, but not msterially -ia to the question
inYolvt»d,
:E^
( -8A \lM ■
: \
.•▼
.OCA-;
ST8.A.lS3i
I
iOilX kA'i^/i
V
'•> J'iT to VIOIJJIHO
* - .;q[t»x« if -1
eocMvlXli) to 4e«I t^l .anulAtiq »((1 xlt o^ i«biO Hi #a«XC*qA^
.llitalalq to) toit>i»T A 24Slto»tXJb ba« t^urt t^^ «otl
^owt iq«ox8 ^atiolXoq •tit LlM ai 99%uMio adT .X
tvwoXXol •« &tM X«l«IXi •« aoqu fc»IXti
^ftiu«a« •di imnlJnM idtntoxd aX tXua xn« ntt^Aaiaci.* tX*
ao to 4 eoi ui (fouk .to
I X * "1 " . < ' \ri IX : . - :
: I of iOS '. ^
fM J , ;■; i J ; ' ;' J ', .r .1 > " "
xnji > ft «s8(Ti»'iYa yn oo nwo atrt
i t/o ' * ' - . ■ ' ■ ■ * ■
-idjXXa t'*' aaXolXoq owl i^dlo adi nX aaaivaXb xaXlaX"^
noXiaaa;> ndf o* as tCXaXta^aa *o« iutl ^tBolo%BMiA<i (fova moil x^
.bavXovaX
)
The epeclfio uontsntion in t) ut tLese olaucee tak«
from the aeaux«d control of ito own litigRtion and the right to
oomproffio?! or iis«t+J« t)"» ??■ fr.« fiyceipt at Ita o^^n ccet, -wblch bring*
th« panalty of lOBing; the benefits of ite oontrect hnd, thfsrafore,
•ra arj* inet public policy.
^hsth^r or not th« opinion in Brflfsden v. F^^nkfort
U&rino Aool4«nt * Pl»te Olasa Insun^nce Co., 119 ??. '*'. Hep. 576,
(SuprftfTft Court of Miasouri, l^^cn), in ^hioh this ruastlon i« fully
and Rbly dl9cu»««d, be pbitftr die tuns . »'» cont*n(1«d ty arre^'int,
the
we think ita r9«aoning «ound ^nd hold thatAinourer •« lii^tiiity
under th« polioiea gives an int«reet in the liticr-ftion affecting
it, »J:.ic> rejpovae the provieiona cowplalnfid of froni thjs application
of th« lootrine of ohsiiBperty t»nd }!r'«iinten«nce.
But it is urged th»t the interest is aci:ui^ed through
the policy Itaelf. MeTsrtheleras, the prip>*ry purpose of th«!
policy is n.<t litig;?itior; or an interoat thsrsin^ but inderrnity,
which the l«w author izea it to provide. The legality of c«i.dualty
ineurince i© not f4ue6tioned, an.i a clause for the right of the
insurer to defend at its own cost ftgainet h claim, for which other-
wise it wight uujuetly bs held, liable, i^, '•« think, a proper in-
oident thereto, '^e think thia view is in hsruiony with tie prev^uii-.
ing: opinion on thia subject, which dieoloees a relaxation of the
rigor of the ccrrmon la'? in the appllostion of thft doctrine to the
developed forite of modern bueineas of *'hioh o«.«u»lty indeipnity has
so generclly beoone ». feature.
S, The premium paid on issusmce of tie policieia vae
based upon the amount of the pay-roll »s eetin-ftted at the tifre of
the application for ineursmce, but tie polioiea provided th««t if
the ray-roll, during the period of in««urance, whould ex eed or be
leas than thst amount, a proportionate suk was to be paid by the
assured as additionul premiuw* or refunded to it, t?« the caae might
be, except thet r asinlmim i.ren^lu^ wae rrovided for. In accordlErioe
with thsir provisions, when adjuatnente were made a statenrent of
what purported to be the total wague was submitted by the assured
\ »i '1 •■• .". i i
,0 a^t t«i to i»di»^T^
e2 tO^lM
-.i;
•X
I ^ «j^ tM# to to997i«40» •«« <«««S'v X«#o} sMt vd o* iMi;rvoqivq #«<^»
)
-3-
nnd it either paid the acldiltiona.3 premiums or r«c8ive<1 th*» rs-
tatco thsy called tor. The oonatruotion of the rollcles. In-
oleted upon by arpellee* "a« t.hun adopted by the a&eursd, and it
o&nnot no-v bs hasxd to urpe ae af-rpirat its own conduct, by «vhicb It
recognl/«4 its obligation to pay adflitional prsrrlxjwe «nd accented
benefits in the forw of rabatee^ the contertion ^hat the provlelone
of tha policies^ upon f} ich euch oouree of dsoling was biased, ^era
uncertain »And «?.ffibi£;uoua. The court -^ill abide by the construct ion
piaotd upoxi the contr&ot by the parties. (Vueller v. Northwestern
lliiiversity, ll^o 111. ^36; Feoilw v. Kurphy, 119 id. 159; F^urgesa
V. Bedger, 1?4 id. r^P. )
As to the iUttation of coneirieration sn? alleged a<r>-
bi^ulty "8 to lisfcility when the ps-y-rnll exceadad the eetitrate,
it is enough to eay, thAt for ths oonslderftt ion nH.K-.K<.\ in tie poii-
cieii the obligation to indemnify tr-anifeatly continued during tne
iittiS the i;olioie8 ysra in fores, and th&t the eetisiited ^.ay-roll
wae not rejnrcied ag liff-ltinj- it.
3. "^e find nothing in &« oaae that au, ports the
doatrine cf sutoppei. The pay-rollf eubsiitted by th'^ assured to
appellee for the purroiee of "eoertJ&inlng whether an adlditionsl
preisiuD'/ ahould ha paid or rebate mefi*, purr.ortsi to bs correct ani
w«re accepted f. e sjuch. The avi'i'irioe diecioaee nothing \intil Juat
before euit th^.t lej appellea to nuestion thsir acouraoy or put it
on Inquiry. To b« «ure,it h "i the ri^bt, under the policies, to ex-
amine ar'*8liant*s booke. It aiao hftd the right to believe tie as-
sured w&« acting in good faith and to rely on wl at purrortgd to be
truthful atatements uctlJ it ^hs put upon notice to the oontr«iry.
It >ould be a etrani^e doctrine to hold a party 5;ullty of lack of
diligsnce who does not aasums cr snapact fraud ^hsre the ris^ture
of the buelneas relstion invitss the confidence sriven. flprelle® *aa
not obligated to verify appal lant's reporta, which it aontrficte-t to
furniah, werely becMuae the polloiea gave the formsr the ri^ht to
exa-mino tie latter 'a hooka. Not until a n^rty i« put upon notice
!ifH9O0a ban smuIv^ . i/lfibs x*4 ol ;aoll«slId* «^i. t»<ia9oa9i
- ■•• .i vk; -x.i .Jen aacolofr
'^f ^iaq ad* tatey %fAi.. _-- .*; ao
-•A i ii Availad o* ^djJt ?t^i r-rf oal , .^ anlaa
tOfV JO J d f» r. •. iti» rifJoA nil* fc^i^Jk
aptfaais ^oa aac.
•'- aaioliu-,
)
-4-
Of
and inquiry does tha {uaetio.iAlsaK of dllissnce "rieife. "*'« do not
find that appellee h-i anjf oco^eion to 'luettlon ths intai^rlty of
tLe »tat3ment8 yub»nitt9d by appfsllant until shortly before the
suit "^as be^n,
4. It ie clAimed thi-t 4»a to thes aaftureid tha con-
tracts «8rs not In rritin?: ancJ thst tharafor® tie atatuta of ii.ti-
t&tiona plsaded apflis*. 11,6 auit ?i&e trAught within ten biit not
within five ye^rs. The polioi«a plainly indicate th« purtiee there-
to aiid thslr jtutuAl cbiig<»tioiiai ihs t«rn« jini conditicna thereof
&ra iltiir!, unsqulvooal jsnri apparently fair, and the contr&ct in
coftplste in -svery resject without the neoeaaity of reeortin?- to
parol t*i3tifr;ony, Altiiougl-i not aiprn^ii by arpsH^int, it acuepted the
contract, ssssntecS to ani ^.otad upon Ita l.-rsra ?^fii conditions, snd,
therefor^, is Dounil b^ it. p-uch & oontrsot ie d«atff.a a /written one
witbin thtt n-.eaning of the sitatute, (AiRtee v. Moir, 130 111. 5fi2;
Pluffib V. Cattpball, 1"9 id. 101; MeiRory v. Niftp«rt, ]^1 id. 6i;Z;
Forthrcan v. Datara, ^^05 id. i&fi Ulleperp-sr v. ^^ey^r, 'U'^ id. ' tK\ )
5. For none of the jr*^^^''® thus considsred osn the
case fc*-. r«v«r«6d. But it i« plain that the c.^urt erred iu tiireot-
ing a vsrdiot for plaintiff. Fe^^^rdless of ?ny rtotivr, th-it Biay
hJt-.ve exiatyd for the ieatruction of most of spoeliant 's Ivoc-ke ^imi
papers pertaining: to th« r?*att«r, and whether or not it^^ offiosrs
naGki iRiaraprdaentRtlona with r»ap«ot thereto, the evi,i«nce vpo"
^hich appellee relied to detartt.tne tts t- tal amount of ^Hraa, ^here
it "ffaa unafcJs to produce better evidence thereof, conaiatad of
testimony of the witness '^isrts, appellant's forirer bnokkesper, "»
to his alleged recollections ss rsfreeh^d from j..rivate merr.oranda
of th<i pfcy-i'olJ$, purport«d to have b0«in ubaic? and kept by hirr.,
for his o?/n infoxwstion and convsniftoce. Pe-&rdleee of Thsther or
not he p.iS prop-rly perrrittsd to sti>te his recollections by reading
therefrors as he s.jparentiy din in .any inetancss, t)ie .luestion at
IsKue *a.j whether or not the totsi T;arr9« an testified to by him
ijere correct. Appellant's secretary, Mr. Fife, who aubiriitted
-f-
■ft: • * '
^•.- n.^« ^ .^ i#»).»^».
, <-. > r. * ^.- i.^ .orv ri » r ^ •> n/^x > 4 » ^ « r .
'. r> , fl X r; . » / i. '.^ ;
. t.^ IS/ MltA
u " » i. r J 4 »' iw J kHj '
otnSfL
ro«qa»^
Jilt**):*' 1 Hkj • 'i 0niul1njr ;.tt.
iv 1. afii*3<; - I',' ««
aitt«a«i t<' «a^#D^
/ p 7 r c H p T n * I «. u . v »■ I i k <>; 3*3
-»-
atatewi^ntu of th-^ amo\ant8 of the pey-rolla to arp«ll6« by wJ.ich
the prerlufTiH -rere adjufttcd, t-^Rtif i«ci tJ;';t. he wad© thera out oor-
rect.ly and tnit they were all reporters to «ij":o«il«8i. Ths original
docurr-ents ae to nsany :f thsrr. ^srss w.lKsinf, hpnc?? tie reaort to
•fioondary evidence. The ultim-jts fact;? for decision, thwrefore,
on t!.€ evidence produGel Tsre -^hetJer th.« tote] "^fp^es oall«d f^.T
by finer, policy srsrs correctly reported, and wj ?,t were thsir ag'-rsj-
gate a»r,ount8. TIr reoord presents a ccrflict on these ff^tters,-
the teetircony of Pierto tentilnp: to show the ©xieteno^ ^nd arfounta
of ray-rolls nevT rsforteil, ^nd thnt of Fife, who !ru69 all pay-roll •
to the effsot that all w-er^i report arj and corr«ctiy.
Wl'alls it la true tbs t f-ierta' r«co llaotion© or irerro-
randa, -s t?e cne way le, conforrred to such original pay-roI]a snd
timebooke as were produced by sppsllfte tr'-owcrh a "^rit cf r^-ri^^ii^
and tended to sat'siblish the sxiatenos and correctn«ss of pay-roll «
that had not b^een rsuorted, yet -is tr; wh«ther ther<» -i^ere a.ny t'tty-
rolls than thosft repofte** nolthf?r hie credibnity nr>r that of Fife,
nor the -weight of their eviience werw ■■ueBtione for tj.e ooui-t on
ooneid«ration oS tha wotion to dlr^^ct a v^.r.1.ict. Th«» -^sigl.t .^nd
credibility of f^ierts' teatirrony, ffftsr -i oroee-exmriniition, tend-
ing- to disclose biKo, int^;re«t pnd poeaibly u3t<?rior motives for
keeping auch nr;Sit.oran'i'i, hi^^ .ability to reffien?V.er '» Ion-" array of
figiirea inderandsntly t'r.3r«of wd olalir.^d by bir on direct -xamina-
tior, but wbioh without consul tinpr the tT(e«ror.*-n*i?i he could not
remembsr on cr08s-©xajT!in'i.tlon, and th« crftdltllity of Flf*'--; 1*8-
tlwony, i^hich ho'Sfivsr opan to fettaok could hsrdly he e&id to con-
tain inh>?r«nt itt.prot»..til iti«a, .-'rftesntftd lu-atlons" for tre ^ury
to ascide and no"^ ths cn\irt.
It 1? not n«»c«s».«ary, «• thip ls*«? i^^*!**, to cite dici-
eior.s ir. suiTOrt of tf in oor.clus^ion, ^^-t on the '-^v-ation alone
es to Sisrta' tsstiaony b- »ed upon bin mf^wor^nda r^fersnos cay
pertinently b« mo-ds to the ?:b?9 discvisslon of thie class of
taatiffony in Ciansoni CSlua Co. v. '^ietzyaho'^eki, '■'27 111. .338, on
i'inuom: mfn9m<
iioI«lo«b ie\ atoal nSnmlSSu is-iT .•enaJbive {^.ataoo—
loott •dt
'<«q tA« sie
Horn mdt lo AOiiAif^blaaoo
■ 2" -t
at :galq»»i
>-,ni •••sjuT^ll
«x«-«a
i n*qo ■TftTsvo.'
, o«ll
rial
t I . y 7il«l»»r
-5-
pagfc L/47. Tl.e court fihere sstHt-ae. that a ■^llr.eas 'o-uld be .r-er-
mitte-' to rrs-kfe use of *• nitirrcri-niuw: naie uTKi'sr cert'iin cirnuK-
etancea "provirlefi tf.? ■sTltinj; ie rroiucsd with an opportunity
Jfor oToea-exawination 3e to it so t.'^sit t?.e jury it-a.y ^llao dra-^-
thsir conolijclon sa .to Um f .^at. "
Tre judgft-snt "ili be ravsraad ai,*j tJ:8 cnuee r«f'sn;'iefl
for a ns^ trial.
HE\'FHSED AMD PEMAKDEr.
— - ,.t ^ ;t
;?B3s - 18308
JtmU V, PMFETH, / )
MICHAfl Zim^.^^ Sh/riff of
Cook County, \ /'
Appellant.
APP'-Al FROV CIPCUIT
COtJFT, COOK COUNTY.
182 I.A. 3 74
Thi« is an »rpe8^^ froa «t judgment In rerlevin. At
pl&lntiff 8 request, the court instructed ths jury to finil for
plaintiff ©a to part of the proparty replevinftcl an-i fcr iafeni-nt
li"'" &a to th9 r«!raind»r, and to :%«««»» plv%intiff'» dftusao;** a.t one
.^ ctnt, but the judgment aa entered ft^iled to rrovicle for ths re-
's-,
turn of property t5 defendant in accordance -^ith the veriict.
Tbe property had tt»«n levied on fo> defendant, as sheriff, under
an execution on 6% julf^w-ant againet plvH.intif f 'e husb-'^nd, and the
rr.»ln queetion on thia appeal la whether or not tht property eo
directed to b« return«d to plaintiff b«flong«5d to her or bar hus-
band.
The evidence ehowed that r^'^rt of U m.^ iier rroperty
before maurriage and part cf it ??&« acquired by her ?.ft«r rjarrlarre
with money thftt hsd been ^jiven to h«r by hsr hu8> ani before rendi-
tion of t^» judgment under wliicb the levy -^aa p-Rd*, and there were
no ciroumatancee tendin^r to aho^ wny ''rsud or brin?: in 'jueaticn
their g.^od faith intfcaaee trftnea.ction«,or proof that h« w»9 inaolvent
at the tlff;e thereof. On th* contrary the e-ridenGC eho-wed that
the Konsy was given to h^r rrh^n h*»T huetsi^'a income wi;® lsrj;e,
fcsfore h« h^CHma involved, Ani unler olrour-.et«<noee whlol; ir?«de her
.TTlfTjr- tr
i
.•V
^TS .A.I So.: ' •^•"•""*
I
s. . \
>.«■& t*m/alaX(| •••••« 0^ tea «t»talMi«i tdt <' «
-)T «{19 tot •biTotq oi taXtftl ^tv^nt ■« iattr^tul 9iif tud «#a '
fbaa ^^^!ty''« ■ 1 BO fevivtX a»«tf b«if t^Ytqov] ttft
«^^ tt. q l«AXa8« la*«9birt « ao aotiuo%x^ «<.
:• t'tvqoY? •df iwm fp TtAl*(<« «1 £MKiq« vldl ffo frrlt«»ap AlMi
-•tf4 t»it 16 tMl ot bf^oXttf m#a^£q e# b«aTtf#t > ttJottlb
Xi-.T'. -. : fd 9Mm ft Ic ti b«««4ii »«a*Mv« t4T
^' injti i(/tl« t9c( Y<f btvltfpOiS ••* ft )o #«aq ba« ts^iixM ttolttf
-£*^i^t ttTO^ttf ba«<ltc/ff Ttff x^ vf ^^ OfTts n«*i bMl l«4^ x*ao« dfl^
it tarn ,tb«i •<«• tv»t »4i doitfw ivbatr /aMnibvt tJl^ lo aoif
aol#«*i/r ai saMtf tc f^:f*t^ tf *0'(* ot -^atl^^t ••oa4^aillrOTt0 en
tn»T£o«aX tiiiv 0d i»dl Y ,«nolioa»a«t^ MiidiMi d^lal bo'i tiarf'
J \il bfvoiis •onttlT* •df x^mritoo •dt eO .^o«t»tft %iftf •dt 9^
^fi%iMt ainr wmttfl %*baftil9U(i fd a«rf» ltd of a«Tti b£w vsaoa! *vft
titis ci«iir to th« Kioney e.nd g'xjcie i/urohv^eed «ith it.
■^6 i'? not think the cl«rk»»j Ki«irrl»ion in hie faiiurs
to writ* up ths ludgcient to oonforjh to thi^ verdict as to the
property aTvarded to .Isfendsnt should Oi»ll for r«v«rs.».l of tlie jjudg-
»©nt*for In tiii-.t rjai:.»ct it doe« not ItitoIvis property h*re in con-
trovsrey, «.nd may «t arxy tlm® he awended fron the face of the
'reGox'u,
It is urs«d that the suit ahmili hav« be©n disftiiss'sa
becwJ'vi34; th« rtiplsvia bond! ran t"? tbe ahsriff inatewd of +hs ooror,©r
■»ht> fi**rvi9d the writ. The g-iving c-f the bnnd. w^jb not f- condition
precaasnt to the oowffseno^isent of the ©uit. Its purpose* ■^aa to
protsct the officer saervins; th« i^rlt. Ka reifrht have r«c,ulr*d
& ilffsr«nt bond, but th« f?.ct that ht did not f>srrl3h«8 no ground
far ':lisn;is8?>.X of th« j'juit.
It its ur^ed ton that no dsman-rt ^aa rrede fc;r the return
of the pro|:«rty before bringing the evit. rflfsnrt-^nt «&i adrlfflsa,
both by rlfeiBtlff stnd hsr hv'ah*.ni., Bt ths tire the levy ta® Ksde
that the prof'^rts belonged to htjr %n& not to th« ©xecutioB debtor.
It w?8 in h«r pOi6««ssion %ii(l h«r house. Defftndftnt took xooseeeioc
of it *-lth full notice of plAlKt Iff 'f.; title, via no A?in-An<i under
such circut3'..4ttit:nce8 '^nt i^ecsssB-sry. (Gr^enbdr^ v, stsvene, "O." Hi.
606. )
It U <ionte,m^96 thnt it w??,e error tn ;S:lve b. i;sreB':ctory
Instruotion fer th« j.lt.intiff beoauas the luoatlon of orfldihiUty
of ^ItnaeBea in the csa® was one •sxclual'^'sly ''Ithin the province
of tho jury, m-1 thst lh« court h.-d no right to taka thfit cuestion
frow them. This is unquestionably tru« rh-ir. it co«a«8 to dlrsoting
or oh^rglns th® jury th-^r^on in n c^^js rsquirinT eubsr-i Vision to the^p,
as h«lv1 in Chicago Union Tr.-'Ctlsn Co. v. 0'Bri*n, ?.1P 111. 3X,
oited by aprsH^jRt on thl« r.ropositloa; but -^han th© f'^o-ts are
uncoatroTsrtdd ^ad th<^^9 Ic nothing In tha «vi1^no« tsndinij to
impeach or contradict tha tsstirr.oisy of wltne«s9« in r««ptot th«r«3f
•11/U
"^bui •.".) t« Xis«s«v«
kttuoTj oa 99i9iaizitl ton
: ■ .' ■ T
CIOl«t«(
'30xe 9
v»a»v»^B ,T
•111 S0^rx«» Moillv 9idS ^M^oi ,
,ttU% 9 99ia9il.
ltd tt%9'}
-xo lo aoiiii**.
'atfXoxt. sac ititv ^^
al
IW 9U1)
C'O uollAMiT metaV
l99i*{i7 to«^tt at ■•••Mil* lo ^«o«l#«t^ 9d/ tottF.t$at>9 to dmMoqmt
-*3»
no question of cradibllity ariaee. The cueation of fact hers was,
had plaintiff a valid title to tha property taken frow her poasea-
aion undsr the irit cf execution. There A-i e no coaii stent evidence
tending to eetablieh the nog:&tiv8. The teBtlmony supporting her
titlv wae positive and unqualified with no fBCt or circuiT«stsnce
tending to ispeach it, sr*d hence there ^re nothing vith reapect
thereto for eubrristiion tc the j^^ry.
The judgment will be sf firmed without prejudice tc th«
right of defendant tc rove for en an-.endp.ent thereof ec fsr rs
the r*^cord ahows from the verdict the+ it ehculd have included the
return cf certain property to hiw.
AFFIPifED.
son ' on 8JW «TaJT .aoiijjs's i- Jit - if-'fenu ool»
14 aiaiino lo aiu^si
3n-ie-'.73
P^f^naant in ^r
( va.
and GFOHO^'NinKOLA,
) KRROF TO MUNICIPAL
COmrT OF CHICAGO.
182 I.A. 3 75
V^ . .r'^^TTi^" T^;^p'(jrc' r'TT.i'i.nsT^^Kn WT oPTKToy if thf C0"RT,
Pult in the wourt b«lQ-^' wi)o i-rouirht to r«covar '^atres.
In tbolr afl'lriavit of m«Tlt8 defenianta cl^Uire'j that plRiiitiff ««»e
their partner t:y virtu*? of n contract, tr.^ 3Ubots=:nce of -^n iah pur-
port«a to b^j oat forth therein. The prinoipu.1 arrcr &««igned
le tiiAt contrary to the .la* «ndi ©"riHacs the court I'ound tt.e
plaintiff wse not a partner under said cnntract. The eo-caj lad
Btat'isrr.'snt of fftcte, ^^hich is oertifls'i tn as auch -sn-i ?.ikewiee
a6 oontalning an tha «vi'1"»no;, do^a not contain oairl oont,roct,
and thergfore thfj '■,u«etion ia not etrictly brtfore ue, but,
asQuwing the on« pi«»aci«d *^a ulmittfld in ftviasnoti, •'*?: think the
oovrt*^ conclusions :>n the »vid(jno« certified to, "^er? correct.
Th« cth"?r ©rroris »o.i}l!^n«d relate to the s^miaalon
and exclusion of e^idencs. Put tha ao-caliefi 3t*it9ff>Bnt of fs^cta
and ©viianctt contain nothiny* ui or ^hich thsy can he predicated.
It does wot appear thferefrnw «hat aviioac?, i^" v^ny, 'vh* excluded,
or what ijvid»ace, xiXxjiRjt^ jittittrtd *f9i5 objectod t:>, if any.
V TiiS j-uigtjient ia afflraisd.
AFFT^MFD.
''^Hf
JO- ( \
I
S7 8.A.IS8I
.^v^MP' airvcu id^uoTd 8«w »oX»d tavou 9A3 ai ituB
-luq dol i^ lo »oa»J»du« Oiit « to«iJ<ioo « lo •u3xLy \^ imtkt*i»c{ rl^sii
»At bauo\ lii/oo vd} •oa«tiiT-* tma, ««X tdl c^ ^f 'Xlcroc J«di *i
ttiw«jfix M« ;iou« H« oi l>»ilXl««9 ai Joldv ^%ft>m'\ lo ^ae«»t4iia
, 'o«YJnoo tlJi« alAicroo ^os ••o^ «»oa»blT« sdl If "^ciLniBiaov .
^lufl .ttf dicldd xX^oli^a lea •! nol^«»t/r tdl •lolffitdt Ni«
:j )<nXdl %m ^aoflttlT* ol tal^imt« c«« t»b««Xq mto ad^ 3al«ua««
. 'ovTtoo •i9« ^o^ {>«illiT«o •Ofl»blv» •d^ no aiioisuXdaoo a*^vcioo
:ol0Bl«t« a.U o;r aMIai bea^iasB •lorsa tailie adT
aiocl lo iaa«a;tAi« baXX^o-ca •di SuH .eoaabiv* lo aciauXoxa baa
9i«oXt}otq »4 atito X9<i^ doid* aoqu jald^oa a^a^ooo aonablva btiM
«babi/Iox» aAv tX"^' "^^ ^eoasMTa Jad« noilaiadi i' ( soob tl
.-^^rtjs 11 ,0/ ba^oatdo mmw ftilmta ^^nmx.tt^ ^•namtl^ l^v oo
.beiiYl 11a al iaa«isttrt adT
iober Term, 1912.
JTo
4^184 74
HEFTO ST'EFTO,
Dei-endant in Kxrc-r.
v&.
and 0V0F?G?r NirwniA,
PiBlRtiifi ili/FrTOI-.
irpq/^p TO >'TiKIOTrAL
CnUPT OF CTICAGO.
18 2 I.A. 3 76
MH. .jb^-ilCft bAHHlS DELIVERED TfcK OPilflOK (F TKE COVrT.
The et-:te of the recorri 'ind '•;iaft8tion.9 ralssd in
this ci'-ae srs ths «wr-,e ds? in Trj?© No. iP,472, in -»-*-: iji. our opinion
hs8 this aay b»ien fllssr^, Ann f.^r the e8rr:« rft&^or.B U'."relr HU-ie-ii
the jua^m^nt "wiil b^ affirr!59<1.
.on .siei .p-i=ii "i^^^^
r ^satAi ^^AA 9Bcl9»nup bflff Moo^Y •rft Id '•l'4^« •err
Toialq^o too idlrt* *f ',C1PMII' .of m»a9 mk «« •••• iilf? 9i& e$u&^%HA
fjas$ nt%tmAf tnemt^^'T i»i««b ^»d t*^ aldl'tAd
.b»srrt1>« »(J IIIw ♦nem-rcrt ail*
-:!,; 1912; iro,;
57-1S49U
V.
FRAMK 0. PALCK
P
is^ntiff i/^rroT, )
OnUFT OF CKTCAGO.
182I.A. 377
^B. JUPTICF EAPNf^r r-FLITFPFn THF OPIWIOM nF TK1? COUFT.
^iHitttiff sued for a bal5ijit:« clairrid to ba due upon
a contract attaohe'3 to and Jtade a LU-rt of Lit> «tatea=.snt of clelrr,,
Kllftginf^ thrt :l?jfQaviant ha.i failed aaa ^32"^*°*^-=^ ^'-^ oarrv out the
a&it.« to his da-'-vai^ii?, stc.
Thts; coatraot recitad tnat ths plciiitlf f is ths o-^nsr
of a cartiriaaiia of t-3aty aharaa of o-ipit&i atoc!^ of a. c;;(rtaio
company, -Mid of ita pr'^miauor^ note 'or ^lOi'O^ ^t,i.l ti^at the de-
fendant ajjreea to x^viircha«e saia no's and stock of plcslntiff for a
oartain «uni on or beforsJ ■* future iate, un?. ti.at uri^ni .oaymtjat of
such auto plaintiff a^jrasa to •^nlx un\ trnnaf«r to iefen^iant all
his Interaet in and to s«ld not® '*n": atock.
One of the defenseu to th« olsi?'. eet up in t)je af-
fidavit of Mi«rit8 was thai "tl;^ oovsn^iata of Xl.ti contract sued on
a© to i^-ayftsnt and delivery are mutual and .?opend*nt, and thut no
tender of said nots* 'xtii'. stock or reI«Hae iis-;; ©vsr bsen /»i%idi by
ple-iiitiff to iefsnoli^rjt."
There 'v-^e no avarRsnt in ti^a at5*t«»r!nt of claitc of
any tsndsr of eeii stock end not-a, or }t snytbing; which excused a
tender. Tbia »'e3 siaentisl to the ststftieent of a is^gasi oav ae of
action for breach of oaid contract. Fut the court rsfuaad to
strike plaintiff 'a bttLten.%rjt of claim froR> the fiiea aK.i granted
his ifcotion to strike the affidavit of xttrita froa the fiioe, and
thereupon asisieBsed da-maiTee to the amount claiired ~nd entered judg-
'<^7 (
( \ ,«TTAW
JAIIOIFUW Of ffoq<T3i
( \ / .:{0JA3 . yiSihi
ii ^ol l^t^al^X 'a iiif.m •bmAo^u^ of ttvi^^ iatlM^^
lo Inext^'Sv; aor^ii JdJ Lom ^s:^it, a-za^ul « tTOl^tf to ao «ua aXs^i«o
.4oota hoc tlofi biaa oi ba» ai ^aaia^oi aid
-la 9Ai ai qa /aa mlMlo 9di o# etaoalat) a4l )o aaO
CO baua ^aaiiaoo ai/ lo a^a4navoD ati* M4/ a«w aliitu \o ^Ivatll
oa tMdi bnn ^^atdbaaqat JMU Xa^iiM aia xfrti^b bOA fatrnxsq ol %s
X<t ttttm atad tavt aad aaaolai to ifoo^a i>ait a/oa Mac lo labaa^
".iatfiiaalaL oJ llllnlAXq
lo i«l«Io lo ta(*«6}^ja atll ol iaaaiera oa %lk aiCilT
ji ^^auoxa doia* jnidtxnfl 1 ,s^o« ta« iocta Moa lo labna^ ^OA
lo UMO i9ili B lo ^najir.'.^a «>.ij oi Xaiinaaan « tw aidT .lataal
^tflei imoo arfi >aTJaoo tiaa lo 4aaattf lol ooi^aa
l2dJn^TS ^•^•« a»Xil s^l^ x^ aU^o lo Sa»JK»isfa a'lli^aiaXq aiiita
fcua ,«*Xll -(^ inoil riiiaa lo SlrtbiWs 9di aMii^a oi xioiio« aid
-S^ut btiflia* i I La«/ 'Xo invosa adi et aa^AMUb baaataaa aoqmfdS
•a.
a?eijt as in case of dafault,
Ian def<stn«3 was a J-sgal one. It ia plalx, that tha
8grae.7i«ftts to pay the v>on»y andl tranafer r^na dalWtr the etock
and note -^et^ mutu&l ann depend^^nt. Seit.h«r j-t-rty, ^sltbout tander
of perforicincfi, ooul i Isfiiariw p«rforn!5.nc« of the otii«r, Tiis la-s;
on this eubject i« settiod. (Kenderaon v. TVxiHtoa, 40 111. App,
636, Atiirrred iu li9 (Sll, bbli Burni^ac. v, Roberts, 70 131. IG;
Leet&r v. Ja^att, li N. Y, 45^; Majoitflae Lxiwbisr Co. v. Unlja Net.
Bank, 24.. IIa. 4?:0; Eaul! of Coiui«ci^- v. liagncr, I i'itirt! 4:>5; Pola-
«ar8 Tru«st Co. if. Cai«, iSD ft, Y. -i:Jli Coraett v. fijst, iw^^ 8. ?'.
Kep • wo . /
Whils uiidsr a ri"^P'*-^ st-ite?rsttt of claim tha "ourclan of
proof «ouli iiHT3 been on plaintiff to oho-*- tinSax or fiots sx-
cusins tha aame, d:if9n1«,nt iiai a .ri;~ht to «iet up r.n;1 i.rovH ths
oontrsry in vi«w of t"n® -Isnial of ki.« Kotioa anr. the rule on hitc-
to file an affidavit uf .eerita.
ji'or tne error in stritcin^ ths latt^sr tros; the; fi3«6,
tha judgment «ill te revareea aind the csu«e reir.anded.
.s.
tiluMt^t lo ••mv ttl •M ia»m
i9oS» •dl i«TiXsf> hntk flmtutit bam XMioa sif^ t*9 «' •laeri^ii;;^^
i«x>n»^ ^i- t»dJi*B .iaeta»q»b rfi« latfruti •!•« 990a bat
'i»<}o4 .V JMdati/S tio6 .ill) »>i^i »i 4)ft.«imA ^BLd
• ■'■! vi ^ .> , • ^ - »to«a
cl/f (TO »ltft wiii bn* «oi«o« £«Xa«»fi sdl Ic «»lv al ^'x^'x^aoo
^•ent 9dJ >lv»«il #di ^l«iv^a at i^tf •A9 to*i
.i>«ba«««T »$iiMO •di bam tmmtermi »d ILim 9am^: tmi adi
.'^- Iff A CTMinrvf^
auox» (10iU«- ^itl^XAA
363 - 17839
182I.A.378
Appellee,
JOSFPR PICHA, Sr., 4ad
JOf^KPH PirpA, Jr.,
^ As\pellanti
KR. JDPTICF CLARK PELIVERKP THF OPI?fI0S OF THF COURT.
this ie n ault >-.Toi3p:ht by the appellee, ae plain-
tiff, for igiHigea on account of pergonal Injxjriaa alleged to hsive
t©«n racelv«d by her whUa r T^ns.nl o'!^ thfe isfRnderits, by rsason
of th^lr aller«4 nejllgenoe In psrfnittln^^ a 8ldQ»'^IV to b?coire in
bad condition. Th« suit '^2.9 origlnalSy bTou^bt e-jrainsl T'lllism
Plchs &ni1 Joseph PichE^ Jr., Lis brother, •'sni FrsnV Kreo, a
brother in 1^-w, PubseQuently it --aa diairiaeed ojainst Frank
Krec, who h-i ^i*d, and Jo;?erh Plchn, Pr., ff\th'?r cf ^'illiarr.
Plch53 •i-^n':!. J'?reph Plcha, Jr., -^ae rr.pd'j ?!r. additional party ;isfsnd~
»nt. Or thg ^~y of the trira it tv&a ileTsleac.?: ac &:;::ainot William
Pioha, F.ri'^ T- '.'orrtlct r9n-5 ts^ by a j^ry in fr-ivor of th« plaintiff
sgainet Joa«»rh Plcha, f'r., '^ri Jor^efh ^io^^=, Jr., "s jolr* .-*xef end-
ante, upon irhl^b ju<1.g»isnt w».e renaere*.
A ^'Isa cf reneral Isie^-a woe filecJ by He dsfsniant*,
and aleo !=i gpeolel tlsa denying o-'^nerwhlp of the prer.ieeo in -juss-
tion, 5n4 !sl90 denyin? poaaeigelon and control of tl » tuil -ing by
uny one or -^11 of ths 5?f5n:taBt«.
The dscision o* the oy.99 rcets u on ths ;.]U/?»tlon aa to
ovn^rgLlp sriHi possecisicn.
The r>nly t;s«tlmony -^r >:t»h?>lf of the 3?intiff aeoma to
haT« b9"9n her O'^n, »o f'^.r na this -rtiestlon la conoarnsii. ?!h9 t-aa-
S88TX - ed£
I \
( ,%ia9li.myik
.THOCO 1IHT fO R0IW-I10 IfTT aSff7VIJ>a XSAJO 101131'
.18 ^artoi? rf-r*^.oL fcn« »5»i ,&yTX
««lit«tn«ltft t.il i(dr bttXIt 0Mr ttftml lA^tff*;^ ^0 AoXrr A
aot9«««»oq $aixn*f c9Cr Ste* ^sol)
tlft«d ih'i>.t ah« Vn©«r Jr>9*ph PIchk, ^^. , Joseph rloh», Jr., anrf
"^il'li-'n Plchf?, Jr"; tr.4it lira, Picha oollect.«d "th« rent; that
Pioh« , ^T., r«?c*fiv«d Ihft la>?t r^nl Trow hsr; t>rt ehft always reii.1
the rent to th-* "oLl ?lchas"i thst ifh'»ri ranythlnr rrot out of ordsr,
J08«ph Piche, the el:3t»r, fix«,1 it, oni t'nat sh'i Lna h««rd hln<
lalkln;^ atoui swl3 1n^ tl-a proo-rty. Theirs >Ni:? furtl-sr tsjatiwony
tendtnT to •ho* that J<:^»sph Picih*^, ?r., and hin t'^'O son«^ Jo8«rth,
BldewBlk, '^.Rfl thpt of ancthwr i^Jtr^^s thpt Joe«ph Picha, J^r., onfJ
Joseph, Jr., 'ilao b^.r^ c'>'5't arouni "flxlnp- up th-* Sfid^^nl)?."
Tb? •*ccii'»nt If ill<sTi»1 X'^ tm'Tft occtirrsi -in Au'njpt
14, 1906. The foHo'ting faots 's-ftrft avrs^^l ttponi/ ^'^'^- their y,:^rri8-
sion in 'svl'iancs objeotarl to by itsfr^riRrt « ;*p iT.r«?*9v-;int: that
Joseph Picn.v., Br., -^n-'"- his ^Ife '^bv* >* 'r^rrBnty dnei t? the prtjtriaaa
to ^llliaiT, Pioha D'^c^awb-nr '??, 3Pv?r', which >fa3 recr^riffd t^?) ^^'f^e d^y;
that '^ijllaur Picha ry^ai*? -j dea-ii to Frank K^i?c ^uy 1^, l?0'^,r«cord9d
Way 13, 1909, conBidaration ^8,000; l>^?t ?r'3C 'Ti "J^lfe «!:ftv» a iuit~
ol^itr ;i'=!flid of t^a rron^rty to Joii«rh Pi'ib*', Jr., Nov^jjaibsr 9,190':',
anil that this ie^sri n>xs r^coordea Ifovem'b'^T ?.'5, 1?0'-, nrvi ^^^r!? ths
aa.T.9 coasliar&tion.
Ov<»r objection, th< lefanilnnt Jos^jpii Pioh?*, ^>r., tsa-
tifi*;j on cros3-9x^*inTt loss th"*.*; "-ft.^r 'y^^i- J(.;l Irma r^arinsVi h.ri
b«en hurl, or cV-*lrE«!d to be h-urt, h* tr'?.nsf srrel Mb proj^^rty to
"ale «:>n, '»'lllis?E Plr^ho., 'S'ho llv-^i in th^ hr>us«) -^.Ith hl-ri that tha
3;;M William was th-sr. •?0 or ^i y^sriis oli; *;■:' 't Franlc K'^vT, tT ^hora
Willl'AiTi Pich=-i ?»"ii«» th4 Isel \!'»y 1'-, I'v;/^, li^-i about t'*o years
before tr*> trla!l; that ^han he ''ea '^b'jut to ?ie h'? nn-? M'-t "^ife
oouvey^d the prop?.rty to Joa-sph Plch?., Jr., she th?o trHn^ferred
it tc Xrac's '^ifa. T' further '-^cpv^arfl, «s? ?.b^^vp set forth, that
the la^t tranesct ion '^5" nearly thr*^-? y?>^.r.» after the iate of this
accid!5nt.
After all the t^aticr.ony hsd b'9'5r intrdvceri, a rrot ion
»*• atde by the dafendarts thst a verilct h^ iir.^ctei in their
favor bsottune thsra »a« no evidence that iafandanta -fare the
•«!. fl^f •«•«#(« 1t»dT ,*Iow«bl»
,, !<fl/dir ,«0«t »Tf t!»d»»Of«(! adoU ••nil
9iif tito^f ^ 3«ir 6»«h slrlv* JadJ
.ncl/jitefisfloe
rod* ftt »o»"iir inBT^ iff*.- a»d* ajnT BuaiiitV >!«•
tllv «>ld ^flB vd •Jtf .«! ^ < a*<1» /«d7 iCaiTl tdl #Totatf
b«it«l«fr*r* ---«♦ '"^- ,.fl, ««doi^ dq«aol ^i- x^'f^T^'^^ **♦ •»¥-▼(?<•«
iJ ^df" .•1Uf«^^<T« t«dtti(
ai.iJ 3o aJjBf GdJ xatls fr««»t ••"i?<'t Xf'**P «** rrelJoaanftiJ *e«f •d^
-r»rti nead fiMit fnomlSnnt * t*llA
joint oxnere of the proierty, or that dith-sr of then, hsvl title at
th« tico of t^.« iiii.pi:.^iiing of ths accidrtnt^ or tl.at ti,sy J^^^re in
p08»e«ii3ion jointly or othsrwisa of th*s property, or in euch a
manrisr sa to rsnd-r then, liable, jointly or sdvaraliy, for the
aooideut in q^u^etion.
We think tliio itotion should havg b«en grantsd and a
•erdiat dirsctei, Jfeither at th« closa of ths p'lair.tiff 'd oase
no» after tha dviieno«» of the itifettdante had fc^sn reoaivea, "?vi3
there proof of euch a u^israotsx eia virould h?iV« rwr4';sreJ the dsfend-
anta jointly (or StivariHy) liable. Tha i«gTsl titls to the
property •»»« in 7r«.nk Kr«c, f-n^' tKia was evidently knon^n to tie
plttlntif f ,beoauss ^reo «&« joined origiaally as f<. d*f«ndaiit. Both
Joseph Pichs., Bz,, o.ni hie aiiei iaatifiad that th®y collected, ths
rsatft as atjent for Krec. The trera ooliectiug of rent by PicJia would
net cT courae rencinr hist liatis ss o-:vnjsr, much IsBia ■?'ovild it era-
t&bliah liubiiity of hia son and himasif a* joint oi^ners or ah
joint poeiteeaore.
Th6 julgKiezit ff-u^jt Ls re^sread,
BKVFHSED.
-c-
b«^A«i) 'a«t^ •TAtf tXoodi cioiioM ciiij iaxd^ ev
,j,«Tlto«i aft«tf bolt aioAtatlat Adi le •oattlre •di i«tlj «oft
- .< >^i btat&a*! 9V4d Mvow •« itloJiiJiilo « dotft lo,lci-i- i^iHi
d^oa .4aa6aat«t a •< tXX*a^8^'Xo t«alo( aa« -&u£sscf«lliia£ji»Iq
ad* ba^^-T--^ »r->» >»rf* bailiiaal *all* ai*i ..- ».i8 »*ioil diaioV
Mi/o« adol . .^ ^ui^oalldo atilfli adT .?^.>~^ m^ i... : ; . :i^n»T
-a»! 1' ... j^aaX deiMi^Yaavo aa •idt.il n.... ...~
.aiovaai .-^
^
bolDer Term, 1911, ITa.'
GEORGE A. BEJ^GTOLD,
Appellee,
V9,
PIPKEY ?.'. ^OF.THY,
182I.A.379
APilsiAL 1^01? MUNICIPAL
COURT OF CHICAGO .
MF. JU^TICg CLARK DELIVEHKD THI OPINION OF IHE CVJRT.
An adiBlttsd fvct Ir thlu esse la th«t th« appellee
paid the appellant prior to tli« fceginniDf^ of tMa Ku,it,fr'.,bS4.S4,
for wbioli ■amount the suit ■^ae brought, up^n .i contract ir&le or-^liy,
wh«rety the foruer «^&® to o^t?ln trot the latter th© 7?ho3ff or ^
part of the ititere«t which the 1-^tter h:a(t in 1^^r,'*H in fol-rado, or
In contracts for the ixrct^tie cf msch l^.n:*^., Th'? nartlea 'lo not
a-gre« rp to t>e tcrne of t ■ I'j ccrtr^ct, and nf, the cr*urt ■ilrscie:;
a tsrdict In f^vor of the i^roellpe r« >>si»^e oxir .iflcleirn antirtly
(i.3 it ir to la eupioeed the Vunicirsl Pcv.rt did) v^p^r t>e teetiir.ony
of th«? Rff..'?! j&nt.
It, Is tc hs ccte-l thst arpellsnt Hf^rrite he recsiverJ
the our. in qusetior, end h?" fitithftr sdrits that h-* disroceri of
f.is intoreet ir the contrjtcts r.er firnftsr trertioned, to eca-eone
f.ther than spyense, erf thus rvt It ovt of ) is i r^er to corry
out hie contxsct -rith the sj-pftltf^e. It U fijrtJer Ic he oteerved
tlft he irssistB iL?.;t h« r-i^ve the r'ppsll'^'' not ire th.'-t he proivO«3d
to upaJta stich seie.
Coimeel fnr arrsHrnt In the printed erc^umsnt maket a
rsoitcl of v'hfit he olsiir^ t? hevs hf?r. grpe^lpot'' tec-rtltJ-ony,
Thla rsclt&l ir? not in «ntir« scc^rd with th*' rsccrd^ hut ifj to
the foIlo»in<j wffect: Appellee bought aprell::r2t'p irtsraet in
GT8.A.IS8I
\
. « V
■AMH
••X£»<T4« fd^ ifttiS el ••40 •141 sl iP»J bti$tmh§ c'.
.^S.W^^CfilAa^ •Ml "Jo vcitirntT9j »di oi toliq Sm. )ii M«a
I «ot>iiio(c9 tti i^harl Hi b«A lf#l i ^•itfttsl fKi) '%f> $%4^
iott o^ nstfttq ^nf .itnaX d»a^ ^o •••loT^q •tl* ^f 1 ilcsilaoo at
!:9lo•Ti^ Jit/do e^dl as ^« ^iOMjia^o 94iS 14 ••^•1
^cX^ttJis. fl."»2^^f»•^ -luo •••^ ftw ••II^?T':t<* •dt Jo Tov 't nf JoffcTST •
^ao.nili ■ f*)lh ftJoT r«ilt>lfftfV ©ir ^•<lc■^'JJ* . ; /
.^disfri.na •41 lo
^•vl•9•l id •ti'v^v ta4Xrtq'{4 t»(fl (^ftloa •<f o# •! i
lo fi^Aoisift od SM4t Bftmba nsrlltvl 94 6(i« «aoll«^up nl sua e>i-
4no^iioa ol «b«rtoll(T^« t^.tl«al9i«i1 •taitt^sott •£!< ii l««i«lal •l<i
i'l-xtfo 01 wwoq fid lo I'jo II It/:^ •t/tif ^(f• tOofl^qqfl a^^ i ? -ftlto
b«vi9atfo %<S oi Yvilttfl •! II .••CX^ii« wAi iti^r lo«tlao-
bsto toirr ftfl Sf.di i^iina m^tTed'T* ^ii 9vr<l Off l«Jt «JBla<ii od 1^41
..o^.."n f ;;'ni.;Tj bslntiq ^!<1 al laBrieTJ* lol I^3ii»oO
.xaoilio^l • ' l«xl r*<icr# iiottf rfMd ol onilaCo •d Isd^* lo LMitQoj
01 •! Itftf ^btooot 941 41l« hioooA •Titflia si lofl •! X^lloot ttiHT
nl intt^nfal m* failT^ink f <T>ar>:f a^rf^'raA I5b»lle "jnl-fdrCol adl
tha 2atter*» oontraots rlth the HnloB Pacific I-hh'? Compnry for the
p\jroha9« of 15,000 acrsa of Colorado Ifinri, which contrRcta ap-
pslle* ■i^reft'l to aeetime; that aprellf^nt hrsd pwli on said con-
tracte ^6,800, snci th'^t the dlfforeaoe b«*twf?ei:i w}i»t tfcs appel-
lant b-'d i;'iid fcr the I'jnd and <^.*?.50 psr acre aasouatedl to fS.dOO,
saklni^ 3 total of about f 17, 000; that appall au i?-^- 1& to assume ap-
pellant '» contr'^cts •with its Union Paolfic Lund Coaspj^ny; ttn>t the
■UK of ?8,800, tne asrount which aprsli'-int hod invdisterl in tie iand,
wag to b'.' paid at ones, an.1 ttet appellee at that tiffe v&s to take
over tr.e Union Pacific I.-Winjl CoKpany contractsi the-t frora Pepteafaer
6, 1907, t . 73y 25, l'^09, apjsll'snt, as frf^quantly n.^ three or
four tiir.ee a »?e«k, epoke to apjpellee about the perf orsancs of the
contract, ani recel-^fid each ti^e ?- I'Ssfinite proEi»e of pssymaut at
eome epeoified tin-e; that c^for^ the api^llaat "resold th<^ ism? jae
repeateaiy notifierJ the rlairstifr tr.-'t he voulvi. reei&ll it"; th',;t
the api.;ei lant "resolii the land io Portcir Thompeon for f.c.bO per
acre, «hich ws.e a f 3 ir and reasonable prio« for land of that quality
an<l location." It it further ©tsted in the srsuff.ent that appellante
teatiwony eboTFS that the appellee had notices tsfore making the con-
tract th&t t?.e principal reaeon wby appellant sold ths land wub to
get rid of th»f o&rryiag cbargee, consisting of tisxes ani inieretsi
whicb the arpeliant hnd to pay to the Union Psiciflc Li-nd CoafRny,
or forfeit ths land and sll previous payR'ents; that after ths con-
tract w'jtf imA" , ana while atppeJlee was in di»fault, appellant ref^jat-
edly notified appellee th^-it appellant 'ras paying th«ae taxea i^.nd
Intereat in order to hold the land for appellee, snd th>«t (ippellaat
notified apfellee th»t unlese appellee perforrrsd hiss conti-?5ct ap-
pelient 9»'>uld eell the 1 ind in crd«r to '^et rid of said tsxaa una
Interest; ths't the appell'e J(ns»' ho* the aprellnnt hahi th« land,
^nd ltnn» th« t^rme of the contracts by "«'hich appen«.nt held it, and
knew thHt unless th« taxes and intereat -^ers peld ths land ^nd all
previoue payn,«nt8 would be forfeited.
The oontracta between appeliant i^nd the Land CoBi'sny
tot Yn«>^«o^ ^A^J oili«[«^ uoia^ •dS dti^ ^OMiinoo •'iniiaC ^mM
•^03 kiB3 a. ... -. — : ^amim%» of fcttTgii ••litf
»00»,8S 0/ tttiaiuomM »*r«»« •"»'- o?.c:1 f-t*. hN»X tiiv . . .. ..
-q« ••aRau >? ail* »* : » -. » it IjnodA lo Xsl'Ot i; ^fliias
uj; s-'H} »v- ^<i ri/ In > * ri (#iw t^omiaoo •*}tt«IX*q
9« . jam 9mlf iatit im 9»li9q<ta tmdi b«« ^voae 1« tlcq vd o) •••
94 haft .i) Mo*0T* tn<r.«».|q4 ^^f ttol»d l»dl i««l# b«Xlio*q« »ao«
^ u. . ,. ;i««iiT i ;i iHAi "i^inUki^ •d* btltl^te t^^^^^^^i
^tllAirr^ ^Ad^ %e bmi»l lol •i»l«q •ld4Mi(Mi««i fnui tlal n •«« doid» «tici«
•9a«il*qq« tiuff iftMuiSTt tdt ci htMiB Tfditut »l tl *.aol/eooX tmm
-aoe *dt 9iiii4Hi •lotad •oi}«c b»d ••l£*q<i« •d^ »«0 awod* t"<MU'**'
n> siftw bfi|«| ttU bLom tatill9qqM Yd* lto«««t I«qiMiiYq cd* iAdi #o«y#
^••i»^al tttB ••xsi to yiJtlsltnoo ^ao^gisdo aaiiTiM> •Ai to t>li /it
«\(«»^«»0 t)A«J.eitlo«4 ffoitO •.{# of T«q 9# fe«d *««I(*q:i« vd* doidv
-^oo 9dt tollA i«d* iotaoKt«Q atfcivtitq (!• teji M«r tit #ielYol !•
-i«eiioi lajiXloqq« ^9lu»\»b nt om MXXoq<i> tXld* Ma ««bMr ••» *o««#
^fl4 atxa^ •••di ««itM ••* fmMil9^qM ««d# ••Ifoqqa fttill#6a TXi>*
satif^qm lad* bst .toXXoqqa lot tmrnl td* W«tf «# toMo ml ffiui
-qa loaniaao aid baxitotiaq aaXXaqqa aatXau fndf aafxa ^ .> wt<*s
aa aaxat bl«a to bit fz o* latio ut ba«X ad* (taa t«» - .»^*«»^
,taax adf Mtd ^aaXXaqqa ad* «od «aaii aaXXaqqa ^dt lad* i>atialal
baa «il.firajd taaXXaqqa dold* ftf a^oatlaoa aidi to aat#* adl «a«i ftaa
ir* t.-« hffcf -H« hfa. «-,«• taatftal tuM aaxa* adt aaaXnii *aHt wa«i(
.!>•*< atiat ad MM^ altiiaat*^ auolvavq
la. .'«)'' bn.5.T f.. i ,, -,-.e»jad afoaiiaoo adT-
-3-
w«rf not ofr^rsd la evidsiice, snJ wLiie the ap. ellant teatlfled
Ifcut he «oli ths "lancJ on the SLth d&y of May, l^O*, to Portsr
Tbompaon, th;r« waa ro avidsnce thst ha s'^rer h:.ci titi* to the i^inl,
&aci it aay l;e i:re«Ufrsd that what ^j« meant t,-^ ssy wae Xt.^i J>s »9«
signed ti-iC contrsotit) with ths I lio^i CofKt.«ny. ^"bilft th^ apisertion
ie Bade ty covmeel th'^t the npi.tjlJant teatifisd t.Lr.t apj..ei3»« knew
fco«r ac.j 9lJant heL'J the J^nti and tLe terfrs ; >." the cor.triii.';ta by
whioh h<s f>eld it, etc., the rfeoor-l loes not '(ults hear out this
Bt&leR:2nt, At tl.e close of his crv-i»ee->e*R«ni nation, the fipTSllunt
te«tifieci th'it he dii not rscolitict hi»vin^ ahown s.pp«sliee hie con-
tract -^ith ths Land Comi^ny, but tliut be h&ci »hc;*n hlr? aoiT>? of th«
oontracte; th£t he m^y not htc'r ehovn hlw. " t.h- t particular con-
tract," an.1 th!;t h« did not r*Hf«Ks'bi9T that he hr-c! t«etifiert t.T that
effect the day before. Ke fx^rther testified th^^t fa toid Pergto^d
and Nye, in tl.t* lattsr's ofi'ics, thut he. thou'jht he /'ouJci sail the
land; tr^at he rjir. net ftay h;9 ■•-cui'l ct*12 it but ihr-t "I think 1
will sell it*i th?t upon thia B«:rg:toi<l ssaci* no ooRa'snt but Nya
«a.id, "Whtjsn do •"s get our Konsy?" ;.^nd the appellant afeid he thoujjht
fee coulc fix th»t up; that he had rsferenoe to t)a «ntir« treict und
that appends sienvinfled this *2,500 of hirr ft number of times.
Ws h.xv<=5 refjfainsd froir giving thr? tsatiwony of tl»«
api ellee r^s to hia vsreion cf tfie contract, but iiBBurrinj ^^^ tes-
timony given bj the appsrllant correctiy recitfad ths tarre of this
agreeirent, ■■>& are of the opinion thst the aprellant has not snown
a right to forfeit tiie contrsot. On th« othsr h^r.vd, by hid aiaittsd
acts, f.«g had put it out vf his power to fulfill th® contract on
fel« p^rt, 3nd therefore thw contract mfty be a^id to have bfeen re-
ecindea ty fr.utu'il conaent, th'H appellate h?vin>:?: elected so to tr«f-t
it, h& he h-sd the right tc do. Ths 1«* is too ■"■$12 estabU^hed
to require thf» citation of •uithorltisB in support of the propo-
aition th-^t ^here ^ contract like ths ons in lueetinn haas b-sen
reecinded by mutual consent, ia the m:jnn«r indicated, the vendee
Is entitlcid to r-soover from ths vendor xon^.ya paid u^ on it. Ihe
c
,ia.' ^ ^■■^' tr» M Miv *i«((t ^aotqaotlT
nc>i}t»u'i» 941 •Xlif^ .t>*')>oO l>a<' i rk.7 Ktiv t#o«i^aco t.iJ tsa^ift
-inr»* tif"^ '-- '•--' --"♦ ' ''r'l tffACifr )i« «»A
njiur JUS ••oh He 9 -I ' ^ii b£%A ftii 4ol4Nr
-.1 ;>i . 4<;.£tqq« awodt ^ai^itd te»iroo»t toe fcib •A f&ii b%l\lt%t:
- •" * ' ^ n*orf« t- ' ' * '■ ^ - - ^.0 i>o«J ©dj dil-r #0431
-.'!->j -Ti- !..f ?i fi«rj tfr.lj '' -Jiri rrw-,;r. - •'-^.i jnn x«« otf Ikdt l«Jo«t}aoC>
f..1:r -t v^nit - 4 94 tirtft «i»<lai»'nfr'x ton Mb vtf r«d* ' " , r: i '
-it t«rft >: r* 'Tv/fal ♦df irt ,«x* '*«
Ilttt Myo» • i : •'-> Toff bib vd *b;ij i^fldi
^ ' ':i»a fci iJ Hoqu fMii' "'' ri»
f :: ' J-» -' i "T^^nors xuo icy O-^ or n;? i " ^oita
' »rf isdl (ttHt^aat mil ttiiKH^ wti
aw • AJQ ^^f mttit 5<ibfr»M»b »»fl» n
"19 7 en/ ^.Alinu««n jtro »T?njnr-j ".otntvr mid MjliaiqA
' " ■* * "■)9t x^^o^iT' '' jn«?r£»qi|« : *' .,1'., ••:j
7 B'o »ajai '* ' erolfflqo Vft" " ^ jti«Ti9-T',.
sili x^ »b««rt "t'vt -^f'Ttnoo 9fi/ /x«tio1 o# idjJi a
:' 191*'^ I r ■ " ♦ifo II #irj i«d tJ \«#o«
rtnco 9;tJ •TO^Pt»if I'.
'H\ aruttui-' r,i doo •(!# iiiir lOKtlsoo « •tedw 7^dl noltle.
^ fd# ffi ,^ff»»««o likirfiM X<t MMll9»»^
. r ac ii/ txii., atanc^ tof>«pv«4t «lO»t t*Voo»T ol btlStftt^ a'
trial court did not err in ir.iat meting a. Vvjrdict for the plaintiff
(apf«li.se), and ti.e ju-lgHveivt is afflrrted.
A7fIRMKD,
.btml'tls at ;.t««9hu^ a.U taa ^(»
J,°'" -^^™. -"li, flo:
380-l»ei7
HAYFS PU¥? an'! PIAffTF^ COJfPAf^Y,
a corporation.
\
Appellant. )
182I.A. 3 80
APPEAL FPOIif. Vimiri?AL
COURT OF CHTr-AOO,
«R. JUSTICF CI.AHK miVERFP Tk? OPINION OF THF COUPT.
ferott^t by tfc« p^MjjitXlt (appellee) against
tbe 4o f endajit (appellant) for t4,25}..?«, -witn intaraet, on account
of s loaa by fire In ranges Oity, Jlieaouri, Onobar 13, XS)09. The
bvisia of the olairr, ^-n ap?«ara frow th« etstement of claia, is tliat
there ■»- a an adjuetrrent l^et'*«en the parties at this areount, and
suit «&e brought not upon tfc* policy ite^lf but upon th« implied
proiciae to ray, created, if %t all, by th4e alleged eettlsffert.
The sftiiavlt of d-.fenee ienias in form tha oroBfie© to ra-y* »nd aate
out that the liability of He l^fsnrtant, if any, is f-r the axxm
of tS, 763. 05. J
Uftrier the policy in q\jeetion the insurer undertook to
insure, in an »B.ount not exceeding 115,000, the JneureJ atocV of
agricultral implBrt^.enta, etc., located at any place «*ithin the
lisiite of the United States, exo'^pt in plants There sr-^oiD ^srn
!sanufaotured by the 1- eured.
The policy oontalne th»ee provisions:
"Thie coBtpany shall not be liable for wore than
f5,000 ill any one loaa.
"In conslieration of the red\jcei rat« at vhich tfcia
policy 1* written, it ia expreoely etlriilfttel «ni ^,"1^'^ a con-
dition of this contract, t>.at thi« oorajany ©hall b-s liable for
no greater pro;:ortion of any loss or 1arca2« tb-in the amount
herecy insured h^r^rs to ninety p^r c^nt. {*^Cf ) of the actual
o»ah value of the property d«eoribed herein at the time when
suuh i08« t dawG^e shall o:;.;ur, nor for rrore than the propor-
tion -which this policy fcaare to tie tiotail irisuranca th*?i'eon.''
"Thie company shall not b« liable beyonl the actual
cash vfslue of the property at the ti^e any lo9« or dama^je oc-
C ^' O I ^
lors
Tl9fI-08C
( JIAIS hn-f ^'.Hin 93YAH
^A 7HT
^vd ,i^tiu««iit «iii^ «JMn«J 1';: '/.! ««oX < lO
<^06 ^« «\(«4 0^ ••laov.t sa; yoicl al »Bid«t Mnftl^b lo #iT«Mtl« •liT
' f
^•mimi?. fStmU •dt lo •timtl
.^'^1;^ : 9i;r^0JlluiUMl
a»(ii fitom lo) %ld»tl ni foa XXiidt xfl'Q*^'^ alrfT"
.•eor »no t<i* A^ 000, fit
IX .♦ t ianoo oI»
<M \c aolilt
-! TSt-fT^ OB
.(
. -O
15 1.1 J ClOl;1W aolS
IT"
1
^a.
c\ir8, ani tha looo or d?ur.ag« aftall bs aacrfrtalnel or «Bti»at6Ci
ftOOordiriT; to ZMCh actual oRsh ^alue, ^^Ith prcr«x' vlsluotion for
dapraoiatlon, Ly^evsr n®>je©d, aal er.:'!! in no f^-^ent exceed
whftt It would tfcen coot tt-s Inwured to repair or .replace tne
same with materi?! of like kind nn-? qi.ality; a»lA Eaosrlain-
mftnt -jr (»eti»»9te ah. 11 t« trinip by t.^e iiuiurel nnd ttla com-
pany, or. If tNey differ, then by appraiaerti, ?»s hereinafter
provided; ^ni, the sfcount of loa© or d».Ka5» fra-vin,* be<Jn thue
dstsrmlnei, the aum for *f ich thle cowr'^Jiy i« li^fcle purauant
to this rolioy ehsill t9 paysible elxty days at'ter du© notice,
a80'^rtalnjT'«nt, «58tiH3»t8 an-?, sutiefactory proof of th® looe
have be»n recelvwd by tf;i« comvKny in accordance with the terms
of tills policy.
"Thia covphtiy sba-l I not be liable under thle rolicy
for 5 jr-fi'itsr proportion of uny loss on ths degcribed rrorsrty,
or Sotlo^^^ by "-nd expsnee of ref?iov5tl fross rrtimieea ©nisn^-ered
by riris, ihsn the H»ount hereby Insured ehsll b*?!Jr to th« */hol«
lr,8urono», '*heth-"'r volirl or not, or by eoivent or Ir.eolvfjr.t
in«v:reru, cov'irln:; 9'uch prop-^rty, ">nd th® ©xtent of ti*e sppll-
catlon of th« Ina\ir8.nc8 unler trie policy or of the contribution
to be ffiHds by thie eoa5r»»ny In ces of loss, may b«s pro^ldsd
for by r*gr96r«;ent or condition vcrltten h«r«on or attached or ap-
pended h^freto."
There Is a furthfsr provision that no action stsil be
Buetaln&bls upon the policy unleiss brought within 3^ ye^rs next
after the fir®.
Ths insured had in addition t--^ this? ) olioy or« -sith
th« London Lloyda, covering tb® a??-^* ;.ror«rty to the extent of
#15,00C, *nd under -^hich tbe llttbllity «».« lie^lted to ^1,500 in
any one fire.
The def«ndftnt eaploy^d thft "^^Btern j^d^lustrc^nt ana la-
apection Coac^any of Cbica^to to lo.-»k aft«r its intereata in the
adjuatment of the Ivse. It is the oontsjitlon of tha dyf«ndant
that tbla Is sn Ind fpsndsnt adjustia? oonoern; D-fit ite b^jaineaa
Iq to a£30'^>.rt6ln Hr.d mai forth In the forrr ?•/ &n affidavit, cor/-
uroniy called a proof of lo^s, tl:e facts In r«5?^rd to the origin
of the i*ir«, th« o-»rner8hir or intsrflst of the a«3\ired In the
property Injured or destroyed, the amount of thw loss, «nl the
proportion thereof oh'^rsfaable to each policy, -fhen thare is »ore
than on« policy Involvod; but t rt it has no authority to rcake
contr&otB or pay ioaaeis or }:.s.rj ui on tha l««c©l llsblllty of the
cowpanlee.
The case 'vae trl^jd b'»for« tl.s oourt without a jury,
and uron a flndlnsr made judyraent •'^his sctsred f>r the full awount
At
-H
■ :««
Lit oi
one
..- .i'x ;^ac YflA
-»»
cXaiBS'i bv the rlulntiff.
To the prcofe of ."1 0015 aubrr.itt'gd by th« plaintiff to
th» defaini%r.t, the following achsdulw w&9 attached:
Ftatensent of fot^s
Hayes Puffp * Plsnter Co. y.nn&'^B City, Vo.
Fire-Octcter I'^th, HjO??.
Value Ht ?'i?nes« City basted on
assured •» recorde v^rlfisd
by ftdjuetar . . . f 7^95. 35
Lee 8 VTilue of sslva^« as
egreed la dstail . . 13.13. 66
Logs . 1?B1'**1.69
BouncS valua at all point 6
He determined by aajustsr
tuo*!d on a«»ur«dt'3 r«oorl9,f3'!'^7??,S9
Ineursnoe rs luired un-ler 80^
CO- insurance cl'?.u»e . .J?o3551.73
CoKosniea injure f?.0,000,00 ^:.n.i pay 15537.39
Aasured co-ineuraa 3,551.72 and pay 654.40
Detail* on file in ofsioa of Waatsrn A;3 juatasnt 4
Inepection Co., Chicfj^o, Illinois.
'^''eetftrn Adjuetment * Inspection To^csny
C. L. ■^'hitteipore.
Adjuster.
PCKEDUlir or IKFUP.AMCF A!fr ^PPOPTI^IfVFMT -^F CLAIM.
i^irt. nf
Pol. So. Expiration Jfons of Co. policy Ine^irse Clsiir.
4^-6*P? ll-.?>3-00 A~;-ur^ry;® CoT flSO^.;. ?5000. r4? 51.76
f Iip.M.Y.
17560 4-16-10 ♦Lloy^l.B Fnar. IS OOP. 1500 . 3^?7&.5S
Tot:^le -■■ - f3C0CC. S500 DS?7.r-'S
*Thi8"i.olicy' coders irlBntic?-! property insured by Assur-
»nce CoBj.^'.ny, but its li&biUty is liPited to #1500.00 in
any one lo«a."
Th« J roof » of lo<s« 'vsT^ subffiittsa to tbe d-fendant
within lli<6 eixty laye r«M'.,-ir«d bj tba policy, und ser* ratsjinsi by
the defendant until aftsr thrs^ month* h-r.d exrlred, wh»n corree-
pondsnoe rtrjcue^ between tbe parties. In this correepondisaoe there
Is claifrect by the d-sfendpnt thnt a ftletake >»aa tr.aie by the an-
jueter in the division of the lo«8 between the Moyds Comr •riy
and thw d^feniant, and th'tt the srsotint ch--ir'reable to the defenlant
w&e erroneously placed at the figures oet forth, because of the
•»*fT.-. ».r- mfil :f*. h «>•»..(
^d.
.^0 » . oO an
3r-6C-^ OocVl
« rr B
>aen oirft t«9tii ikimii tnefm^^%b 9tA$
Yn««i«o!> •Jb'( , c.i_ 4,»oi •<!* tc flotnivife trtJ alAv«>«i^
iv^lat trU o<t ».: i^«« 1 Kn tnLK»ai« •11 li-di fcaa ^#airtwi«l»t> od> Mia
co-iasuretnce cl-^uas in tha policy, to *'hioh reference hna y>sre~
totors bean frai<s, aai it '^as ftisajBrtiji that. tind«r the l^'o the pro-
portion of t{i« 3o3J3 to b« ohar:;;jacI to the dsfsndant wns properly
§2,763,65, ««s tiraa t^seerted by th? rlefardant in its affidavit of;
iefense, to -"rioh allusion ha-s b>:»«n pi»f^fl.
Aft-ir oareful considsratl^m of th"^ naaft •»« ar'« c^f tr:e
opinion tf.at ths ci3nt«.-!ti-5a of the v1efenc3&nt ia tJ'>iB respect is
Buatain«(S by the proof.
The Gonttntion® of the d?if(3nda«it then are: first,
ihat ihs Municipal Court -^a© without Jitiri«dictloni second, tJ'j?- 1 ti:«r«
f!\8 no nn'" covenant, ©xpres® no: iwplierj, to pay sny &\xrr on ac-
count of th« lo©« and ilar^^i^e; third, that the olslm is \>arrad ty
ths policy lifpit^tion of on<s ycjar; nnd ifouxth, tltot the find-
ing an3 jU't{rTrent are excess ive.
The prirsiry pi^rfOBs of the arljutftwient fcy the AH"
jU3t0;ent Com:, any smcloyed for that purfoa^i evid^jnfly *-sa to fix
the total amount -.t t\ & loKe, Th« divieion letsf«en th« two
inaurf^^nce oorcuaniee ^ae ^ *er« (luitler ':.f calculation, «mi tha
ar.ount to ba pai^jl by each srsi® easily cornutsV;!© wftwr th« tca.^l
tiff'ount of loae h«-.1 baen flx«d by th« sdjwster. The qusstion
ae to th« effect of th« co-inaurftnoe clt^usft in the policy bae
not fcr^sn dieciiseeci by thw plaintiff in Ita r:risf, and, a<? hsr«-
tofors stiitsdl, ??« are Df ths orinion that the contention of th'Si
defen'i.'*nt in rsspsct to it i« sugtainsdl. It -^"ould appfSitr frors
the record thst no tender *'ai8 !«i;1e by th<«t defendant of th« affioijnt
-shioh it aiRiittsdi *hs o^ing the ; i?iintiff, t\)t ti5at on the other
hanrJ lifter bolding the jproofs Df lo«a for ninsty days it of f^raid.
to p?iy tha Bftount upon na-ir croofa of i^ss "rein-'T furnishad. No
chances Ts&e r«qulr«d in rasj «ct to the aassntial fsfifursa of th«
proofe of lo«8,h-:Vin:'j ragsrdE to ?:"h9t oauead ths fir^, the sfsount
of tL« total loea, etc., but si«r9ly a chan^je of th« figures in
the peroentag« >f th« total los© ^fhioh th* dsfftnlant would Ire
call 3d. upon to pay and »hich the ri$f«ndant adscittad it aboaild pay.
u»q«»Y aid/ ■! uolalqo
. ' ■ •
,- .'TO «tf« »"•■ WA'^ ?.t f ..; OO •«»
. «.*„ s. ' nil 3flt
.. Jnvo«« X«#ol Aifi
... .,.. ^ ,.. ....^»,. ... .. ., ..ic.o«i %At
^ittimtmlti •At lairo ••* ^$ii»bm si doitfv
I .THit . , 9, vy»fitrT •»<«) »Nol lo sSoov^ ttfU 3Cl*X«d ttllA MMd
.b»rt»i: 1.;* :5flls,; ««cX ^O slOOYQ «•« aoqiT tCUCMM *^ ♦ "*« •#
jHi/? Tit* td: ,: •'ii h**/f.. ,1 ftT«srr •^l^Bd^»»oL .. ^--.
»'*-i> ' -. : i-intn* /<nf ,,o*t «MOi Xu/o* •<U Ic
liTihni''?*r «di .-f n K * '.i.-\* vac , j nc^ ii r»».T4io
-5-
It iA the cl«srlji «»tftbli«»h«d la^v thst '«»hen an ad.lust-
tt.ttit ia fully oowpletad in a ocee li)«Hi the creeent, ^mi fully
fec/r£«d to by fcoth partlse, a «*?;•• contract i&rle«?e to x)Sty th«
aiTiOunt 3ijrr«9d upon a« « rceult of t^« adJuttwHnt, Illinoia WuIwaI
Fire Ina. Co. y. ArchcJeiscoR At «.i., er ni. 236; Kow* Inevrsuiice lA
Bankinj Co. of Texue v. ¥yer, 93 III. S71.
The liefendsmt in th« brief Buyfs: "If any prorrisR to
p&y coxilct bs iffiplled frosn tfc* t;«rc fssct of the 4*:t justtrent in this
case (-sfraoi., however, «« d«ay). It could Ht tha very wost be no
icore tii9«n an Imj li«ed pronjias to pcy jropar sun- justly »prortlonabl«
to apF8li»nt'« policy f-cjording to Its terws -inrt conUtions, naffieiy,
f>Z,7^2,.6b. Ih^ finoir?r «*■»«» ^ttdpsent, if any, tl-erefore, ebovjlc!
not hsve b«»n for frcr«? than e^id eiip-; of ?'?,763.6D ftCil interest,
and the f Intiing anc jurl.^:«nt, th^refcr-sf, sre ftXoeeclv«.»
It io srJsritted ^y th<% d-^fendeist th-r^.t th« total sirrount
of thff loae was? prop*?r7y 8 »c«r twined Bnd fixed by its own ndl-
just#r, anr! that the i^irortfs of Iors ^'ere preparftd! by ite adjuiJter
anfS executed by the plaintiff, imd th-'^t the only err >r in the
proofs '^a-^ c<^.u8«d by a r;leconception of ite .•s.fljuater &n-1 thts in-
sured -ira to th@ 9iPi>ortion8.bl© fa.rt to Is {fti-l by the cjyf <»n<5»int.
'^^e '.re of the opinion th?*.t an iirr Had proB-le* tc i:5iy
the proper «u«r> Justly %rt ortlonafcl« to th® aprei Isnt 'a policy aros*.
Thl9 jjujf fell 4ue unxier th« tfivn^B of the rolloy »'ri Dctiftfr.bar 13,
1910. Th3 judj!^«r.t ff&B rendered A-u^uat "'Jj Iv'll. In our opinion
the jud^snt should hsve been for fJ^,9?^B.55. If plaintiff within
ten dsyfl frop the dnto of tb« filing- of thl« opinicn nl'xll tnisr
u re?»EitT.itur of ?1,543,64 t,h«i Jud?*wer^t of th** Municipal Court
the
1*111 he ftffirraed f or^re<-!ucei swount; otier'f le<^ the julJTfre?"-t ^ill
ts r^'vsree'J ani the couise rerands-i for further prooeedinf^e in cor,"
formity herewith. The o.>3t« of thif? cinrrt "^il") be equ'slly niiviied
tet^een the p«rtiee.
imu(,tt . ju i)a»i\,. Sai/QmM
^d aol tq»tMio»«l
••iaoiQ tftlla«i n ;iotniv7o tdl to av:
•if
♦ t •dJ fi id?
aLAtlv
/c telle J- y,^
^"j 1912. J7o;
8-16585
./
nsP%n;<.ant in Frror,
l,-^
/.
18 2I.A. 387
i / Plaintiff in Error, )
EKROF TO MUNICIPAL
rOUI?T or CHirAOO.
VR. JUFTIC£ CLAFK PFLIVFRFr ThE OPIRIOS OF THF COUPT.
A t^l«grajf wan d[eliv«r».l to th«5 ^ftf^nlant by the fluin-
. tiff at Vt. forcb, '^'ieconolr,, on V.^rol: 8, 1911, a1dre8i«rt to a Dr.
Patten at Cbioftgo, and r©©dln<y: ••Fo.r'"3rd jj*y »»il incluilng toror-
row» wail. J. ^. Goggin." The Bsaifiage as deliv«red to Pr. Patthii
WA« hoe^ied "Milwaukee, ^i»." in^teac* of "Vn. Horeb, '^iia," r&ir.»?j8«
allsgod to faave bean ca-uead ty thia rnietnke f^re cl«ii»9d.
Py a etlpulntion of facta sntsred into before tht? trial
judge it would appear tfc-^t the plaintiff hpd entered iato a contract
^ith one Golden, undtr rhioh th« latter »se to ?»uait o«rtBin biioka
at Lyjcfcerton, l^eiM Mexico; that unler ti e ejoatraci Golcien -^««-a to
^rite plaintiff before hie departure fro» Coloradlo .^prin^e to
ascertain if anything had developed which would weks the trip un-
neoeasa.ry. The etipulation of f-note Trhich sippeare to iisv?* been
entered into by the partiee, part of fhich Is abstracted, snC. to a
part of *lUoh our attention h&e b?en cslled b> ;»n additional ab-
stract, oontaine the following:
"That shortly Lefore J?arc) fl, 1911, Tr. Oo^gin
(plHintiff) hf* 1 receive j word frotr Luir.b«rion, N?^ Vgxico,
thivt it -vae not nsoeeaary to atnd t}.# •a»jditor there, ssn.i that
Pr.aojTrrin ^-jp Kaitinj to h«fer froar CJol-Jen to «isovrt'.!in hie
whereabout e, so thfith** oould eo icforo! him.
•That hssi the tele«!r»'«B' ori'tlnsny asnt on Mrrch 8,
Iftll, from Vt. Poret been cjorrectly trsneritted Dr. Ocggin
would have received th* Golden letttr in tire to j revent Ool-
ien'e leaving for Lusrberton, an^l had Ciollen r-5ceiv?i'-5 *orcl be-
fore his departure Oo-iiin wouli not h«v« been liJible for any
ex. enees,
"That by rasson of tj.a tsrror in traaeirittlcg the tele-
grew. Dr. Go-^i^-in ws,a forced tc pay Gol'an's expeneee and eai-
T8 8. A.I 281
a^. -r-«.
^tOTTl
nr 3HT TfTRIVIJl':
•ir^.ut .flu
^^•d »•*
JOAitn^
•JEk 9lA Blio
-flu ulti
4 hitto* a •^bui
4/ ;
«9^ hM <rftl<I#t»* ^i ai«itfttM
« o* hum ^b9ftmii»'i» 9t f?f ctrrl b«Tt»^
»8 doi*W ope ♦r'^t tXlMlslT
ril5 H*rt J«fff»
j.«.f»l> lid viol
t<dT'
•8.
ary incurred by reason of nl^ trip to Luwberton, *hioh eeount^
9fi to Ninety-two rollHre '^n-^ teia cante (f9?.10) in aonr.pllance
^itli thf tero58 of tKe contract bet-wen Go jfrin ■•nl Gol1«n harfl-
tofore ref«rr«d to."
This would 89«rr. to b« in fort; a rHOtic«l alrr.lRsion
by ILe lefenciant of the amount of dr^r^w^'^e t: wnlch the plnintiff
waa entitled.
The case ^-ns tried to«fo^s tl.e court en<l judc^jTKjnt 'tos
rendered for pl»,intiff on a finding.
J?o question of lew ajpeare to he raieat in th« record.
Ho objection ""iis HSiide to tb« introduction in sviienc* of U.<? "atiru-
latlon of f-^ict«", for obvioua rdaftcns. Faction 61 of it.n Pisotica
act, cbaptsr IIC, ,6.8 to tand^rinc; proposit ione of l'^*' to be j-saaed
upon, h a b^fln ffi&cie affsctive in ttt feXmlaipal Court by rul3 k;u
6'4opted by tb-vt oyurt.
In th« cjaae of Msrrlmac ??pfir Co. v. liiinoie Truat
4 Bavlnsa Bank, 139 111. 396, it -^^a ^Hi6.x
"No propoai tio:n of la^ wst« :>eked upon eith-ir aide
to be hel'i by the tris^] court, and, in f.coordl?^n'?a ^itt. the
uniform fcoldinr^ of IhiK oourt, ^a rruet aj'.'^in bold tt.hX no
•luaationa of lH.t ssr". rais»»;l by tMs r-jcord :vhlch ^e can re-
view. If the p]f^iotiff fcelo-^ deeired to ptaasrve the rulin^ca
of the oourt lo itg fpcli^f^tion of t? e lat to the facta of
the cag'i, formaJ propoeitlocs of 1©" ahould b!ive been prepared
ani Bubrrlttaf., anl th?» rviin';B of the oourt th-?reon, if art-
vera« to tbs vie* of the ;lsiT?tiff, coul'? have been excepted
to, «n,1 euch excartion pre»er^«»d. Tbi?? -^r^s not clone, nni the
princical queation 80Uj?:i;t tc be rmiaed by counsel is not there-
fore before ue,*
tbua follo-wini^ First Nation*.! Bank of Mlchl^.an City v. HaekeH,
1^4 111. 587, and JFortb^eatarn Benevolent ^nd Mutual Aid Assn. v.
B'ilX, IIP 111.169.
Th« judgment win be affirmed,
APTIFMEt!.
T.iot at ftd o# ■•»• biuo" 9t£t
.Balhflll < 00 mtal«X4 vol tai^ta^
' h«»l«i •'J o^ tiA^qv)* ««X to moli99up el
»ao«ttTi» ftx aoiioatciiai 9ii- ta 9«v cciiotttfo el
nititthi ^ii'iMdc .
ifi»« lo tr
.1 l^Bauoi,
.edx.Xi . ri
^ ^-415
ELI 8. KiRT.
vs
:0H1I C. SCHoi, >LfPrAL FROM Clf.CUIT
n appeal of
John C. Pch,. . , ) COIT'^,
Apptllant.
182I.A. 388
ELI E. Y.kh.-:,
JC. u .:. SCEXTLTI* •% al..
On appeal of
Oarrle P, -->-^ + <'
llant.
IF . rjsTici CLAM vmrmtt tw ommoi of tin
In thoaa oaaoa aopaxato appaala bar* bee^ .i^tu.
Ix^m a daorao aataxad 1& faror of tha appalla«« Bart, aa oa»»-
plalaant, ic a tult brought by kla agalnit tha appallasta
; lef anda&t • } « John C, and Carria F. Sohultg.
By tha dacraa« after tha raaiial of aany tiding*,
vhloh will haralnaftar ba rafarrad to, it !• deoread that thara
was dua on lloTa»bar 21, 1911, to tha oom>lalnaAt froa th« da^
raadacta upon axi aooountla^ tha mam cf |69,19T,43, wtial^ avr moI
dua la a flrat aad pri6r llan \;poa cariala loti aanti.^
tha olty of Chioafo, aubjtot to » -^^ ^ r truat iaa4 c-lx
tha daferdajita for the eua cf t<. ^ c<»r->.ir.
a^aeneate^ that the legal tltlt
ant 4b part eacuflty for t.h# a«cuat ec :
\.-_ .*e* ifcreeeid. decrof trovidea, aube
the fc;- ■. ":-T#j ', 'i T: r i " i ; , • .at uJlletP
«•-
:r«il... fc. .old; that U« na.t.r (mt of t*« proct.d. of tb. .al,
r.taln hi. fo„, di.bur.o«.at. , .to,, aad ,*, to th. offle.r. of
oooTt oa..halX th.lT co.f, «d oux .t th.-^T.«aln4ex pay to th.
ocplalnant th. a«,imt .o found du. with lit«..t; that If .uoh
•Ud XM.aliul.r .hali not t. .uff lolont to pay .aid a.oui»t with
lat«..t, that h. «ppl, u U th. tft.nt whloh It wy rcc
-tLfaotloa th.rK»f, .to,; that if th. r.aalad.r .hall t. »ox.
than .ufficLnt t. .hall hold th. wplu. .uhj.ot to th. oxd.r
of court. Th.a follow, th. u.ual ordor r..p.otltc tl. i.„uaBc,
of a aa.t.r'. d..d of ooi»T.yai«., .to.. If th. pro.!... .tall net
b. r.4.M« fTo. .ale within f If t..n .onth. aftor th. dat. of th.
••!•, otc. Th. d.or.. by it. t.r*. fuxth.r ordar. that th. bill
a«l «i.i»teaBt. th.r.to t. dl..u..d a. to J.kn and tlin.. Pl.ohota,
wha bad b..n m^ paxtl.. th.r.to, and al.o .. to oortaln proml...
de.crlbod othex than th. on., orderod to b. .0: ora l.a
fuxth.r proTl.lon in th. d.or.. that fro. th. 3i.t day of Io^«i*.r,
1»U, and until th. toralnation of th. pmiod of r^lai^jtlon, th.
co.DUl.ant .hall ooUoot th. rent, and profit, of tfc. pro.l...
oxd.ra4 to fc. .old, and aoo<mnt to th. oourt for th. ..«., without
pr.j.dio. to th. right, of .Ithor of th. parti., to apply for a t^
c.iTMr within .aid pariod,
Thf oxoaptioM of th. oo«pUiM.t which had to do with
^ flndlne. cf th. M.t.r with r.ipaot to th. prop.rty not oxd.r.d
to t. «>id, uid th. allagod right, afain.t th. defawlant. yi.ohotak ,
w.r. ow.rml.d.
th. fi.dia«a of fact i. th. door.., which art In M.t
r..p..t. id.nti.al with th. flmdinc. of th. .a.t.r in hU r.part,j"
ax. to th. .ff.ot that .arly in Jaiy, 1906. th. co«plalrant .a.
king for ft do.irabl. in^o.ta.nt, and wa. Int:
.ttdant., John c. Sohulti and Carrl. f. Bohultt, hia wif., that
• d^f.ndant hu.fcand wa. iatroducod to Hayt a. a r.al e-t^t. .an,
-' - inform.d a. to prop.rti.. ? Talueo
^htnliliili
r <'!
4
adj»o«at tc eard .tr.et aad A.hlABd •▼•»!•, In t>i» city of CbloM:«;
that th« 4.f«n«Uat«, ^w«b*»4 Md *lf«, w«r« at that tl»a oarrylag
OB a buila«« a« raal 9«tat» brckert aad ««^ •■fagad In buying
and Millng raal ©atat*, renting aad colltotlne r«nt», etci that
at iha tlaa of the Introduotlon tho dafan4ant John C. Sohults
ahavad to H<ixt a awber af plaoat of proparty'la tha Tlolnity
••ntionad, aad gar. It as hla aplnlon that th.y wara rory da.lrabl.
laTaataent.i that tht aald dafandant galaad tha ooaf idaaaa of th«
ooaplalaant to a Taxy graat dagr.a, aad that tha oonplalaaat a|^
paart to hara plaaad l^Uolt aoaf Idanoa la tht aald dofandant and
z.Ilad al«aat tntlraly on rapxa.antatlona aad atataMata aade by
hi. im tht daallngt -hloh wara kad batwoan tba«i that In a mmb« of
. a tranaaotlona harala aantlanad, oonal.tlag af tha purohaaa of
oti by Hast thraagh John 0. iolmlti, tha Uttax rapxtaant.d tha
.oti la ciu..tloa aa balag worth oamaldaxafcly .ore than thaix raal
MLTkat Talua, and gaT. tc Bart prloaa at whloh tha aald lat. coul.'
ba purohaaad, whloh waxa -uoh in axoaa. of tht aotaal pricta plaoad
upon tht. by thglr owaart, yat rtprt.anfd to Hart that tht prlo.a
wui.4 wara Ttry raaaoaa)»lai that aa a rtm.lt of tht rtprtttntatlona
Hart agroad to buy a aaaDat of dlffartr.t lot. at prlca. oontldarab:
aboTt thalr actual Talua. ao.a of wtloh lat. wtra awnad i :•-
faadant John C. Sohulti. ar tht otbar daftndant, hit wift, ex
both of tha., at tha tl...or had aadar oo.t..ct, aadtoat of whloh
tha dtf«»daat John C, Bobult. know wara for tale at a «»ch lower
flgux. than that glwan tc Hart; that whan tht dlff«:wnt dtalt ..r»j
clottd tha dtftndaat Jo^u: C. Sohult,, aotlrg lor th. partn,r«h.i
a| JoLx . Sohult. & CO.. and alao at tha agtnt of .aid Hart,
ttndad to all of tha ..tall., r.c.lwtd frc Hart tha amount at ^
'.fcloh Hart had a^rt.d to purchaat, and paid to tht cwnett tht •««
tbty wtrt willing to t.ttl. for. In to., caat. taking tht balanot
for hit own b.n.f --'" -' ^'' ^"' '^^"' ''^' M
r.ad thtlr off ^^B
-c
-i*..iag on th« acvtbvttt corner of Ashlmd »»rnv.r &&d 63r<l arr-^
vbioh bvlIdlBS im« o*ll«d th« *8oliults Bvildlnf*, aad known n*
6800 Afthl&nd aT«BU*« sltuattd iipon l«t« i to B in blook one (1)
la Drtxol Park •ubdlvltlea, uid b«roicaft«r •pokan of a« "purool
lo.l*; that by daod dat«d April •« 1907« ont rr«d«rlck Boldaavaok
ooarayod tho aawa by qult-olala d«el to tb« dafaadaat Carrla P,
•obultt, aad by qalWclala d««d datad on tl^a follovlcg day tbo
dafoBdant baabaad ooaT«jt4 bis lataratt to tht dtfendaut bis wife
bit wlfa jolaiag la tba dead« tbe dsod reciting that aho jolnad i^
tbt ooawayaaoa for tha purpoea of relaaalag any and all right cf
dawar and honcetaad, eto.i that tba raal owner ablp of eald par-
cel at tLt tiae of the traaaaotiaa wae la one or otber, or botb,
of tbe defesdaata^ that the defeadaata bad bean aarrled but a
abort tlae« and bad been aagaged In the real estate biielneee, the
defendant buabaad attendlag to tbe ootelda work» and the defendant
wife chiefly to tbe Inside or office work; that the defendant wlf«,
with reference to a large aaabex of the traaaaotloaa berein ra-
t%rT%d to, relied upon tbe defaadant ber huabaad, and to a great
extent did wbat abe wae directed by bia to do until wltbla a abort
tlae of tbe fillag of tbe bill berela, wbea ahe baaaae avepieious
of bia witb reference to eeae of their fiaaaelal traaaaotloae aad
iatereete; that tbelr relatione thereupon beoax^« strained ^"^ ^
were unabla to get along togetber aaioably, either la thel
latione ae buabaad and wife or la their bueineee relatione; .
early la tba aontb of Jttlj« 1906« ae tbe reaolt of the conrerwc...
between tba coaplainaat and tbe dafandaat John C, Cohults, coapl^ ■
ant agreed to purohaae« aad oa tbe SSad day of Auguat^ 1906« b«>?fi
ty« owner of lota 14 to 17. both iaalualwe, la block 4 i- "^o
.oodwin*a oubdiTlaloa, and oa the lOtb day of July, 1&
to purobaae aad beoaae the owner of lot 16 in eajd blc
— 1^- to entrrirg Ir*- ♦'- agreenent hereinafter fcer*^"-
^■» .»'^ '' "' •" Ja lue Ri»ple to - ' ' ' Ui said Mocf
1
Ci
c.
,r e,tot.r. «o., th. *.f.M«" c— V.4 »*. "" !•» »» "";
., -xran., *.^; »-« »" ^-' ' ^» '•"'^''•^- "" "t"'
.. *.t W aT.».. . -»t dUW^. .out. Of «rd .tx..t. on t..
.„, .id. of A.^und .««.; »".» «'" i«^' ^^ *' "• '•*^- '""
, .f l.t 13 .»d that lot 1« oo«l<l »>• I»»ot...<l .t •
■•• th. owMr of lot w. •»•
.«! If tb. «»<! lot. W to 18, bott i.o:«l»., oonlS *•
...^„n.. iouti, ., ..tt P«tu.. » .«aa .. -"^'Y'*^
« ..«/« i«t« 16 to 18 InoluBlTe.
tt. ..id H«t .h.«W b. th. ..n.r of «l* lot.
^ th. «i4 .ohult. aM .if. Of lot. U -4 !♦. «* »"» "^
.^ ,01. M. U «. «.0tun »f a .!..» of buUdiM- —'i'^
.f ..U lot.. a*t .ft« «^tUtl.» .m x.f.»»c. to «1. 00^-
...,i.... bun.*.,.. «. ^.«»V.« «'-- - — •" »^ -"^
^....ntUll, U .oco,.-o. .!«. t.. t.~ Of . «"- -7;
« ta#Vi after & T»oital OX *"•
This iurx««!B»«Bt* ••»• on uoww»* « ^ «. *-
\1„I, cf t.. ..P..t, an. t.. .0.1.. ^ - -»;;;;•-
... ...tio. of . .1.0. Of -i"!.... - «-*-«• •"■ • " I
<^.« t, A. 0. U.-, «."»•«*. P'-'^" " ""'•" ,., „^
..14 H«t to IMO"."^ 1 -,,ff'ol.nt »«ri.. -, ^ '
J, ir.. »«l»lt». XT P'5*'.:fi»ra ir B«t ha. a«..<l to .w
fr.:.f«rorof-i:n-.i.*o."^5%r..id i.t. »<» » pi.
^^ .-ssijur ^. ^ .-, '.;r.:fu^r.rTtf.:«3;j
"'- .tall 5. F* ".•^/::irr
P«xtl«« bereto 1
and oo«pl«ti<»^ '
to-«lt. ttgbt-t
and flT«-*tirtei.. -
?'" fini iber. web roof l« -^■*« '^
tf.« taM ty "aid "'^
.tx») «^
,., tVUDR of t^
i auA of
♦ r. will
<t
to b«
: lor '
their
juu*»a, dXiii. ail
i.. of to. buu •?* j"?»f
Me» hereto i: «it ■■-^i-; ■■-
.« of all »al<i paxtlee
-tratore, eealgn*. tf
,lng eaid pre»l«e«
that .ald^Hnit .n.U .ot ojarj. ^te^jt for ;
;^*^ 'fISiS'SixJTMcf aiS thtt'ilM John C.
not charge •*^*/'''^,^°!^/:li Ihall •*ke no cLarg*' -
•r.otlcn of eald ^^Hf^^ jf the imrOaee of .eld 1;
•aid Bart for oo«i«l«»iJJ» ^^;f^* J*;; ^ote 31 and 3^ j-
ie, 17 ^ 18, tr. 2,*^!,S^^tJ"J;ai:%.ent of the mc:
i U Drexel fa»k •^^^^iJjtS'flr t^ the .ale cf eald
iald Hart, a. •^STJ^^rJ^'^S/i^'aSeed upon a« total r.
erection of •.IJ *^^J;^^ ,j,^, ,1,. ,ald ^-
t^V^:T^^^]f- - -i^ -le. a..llcate.
labor, or "J^^^^?* ?^,"ti* ^o^ '^ *• ^' ^""^ *-
of tine tooo*^!' •^^the diiroiltlon and e^per
Hart full! ^il^:!*.?* ^Jl- * ?* «^i' ^^- ^^'^ ^
after the aUd Imlldlag b/- ,) ^f ^u .oney
furiii.h ard advance '^^•:iv;f''iaic3 buiidlc*, euoh »OBeye
r.culre^ for the ccpletlon cf jaij^^ ^^^^ ^^^1'^^.)
to h« ;, elght-thlrteenlhe (8/l5the)
John C, Sohulta,
1, B. Hart."
n. decree further f l»d. that the terme of eal
a^e-nt eere diae^.e^ and agr.ad upon prior to Octoh,
1906. a«d that .0.. tl- in J^T or early in iu«u.t of that ,
a pencil .^.^ of it .a. dra«. by the eald oo^lai.ant aM
.Uted to the deferda^te, which pencil ...tcb -a. ..pt i. t
poeaeeei- f :r .oae tl.e and then r.t«ned to Hart to be t,i
„,.^., .. writta. .«x.e..nt wa. f ir-H, executed *
tl.. prior to the depa.t.r. of th. oo«.Xal«.nt, in th. -int
1.0^1.07, to ncrida; that the a.i.U oo^tx..tion cf the
^ ^^ tn aa t e "Bart Bwlldlng*. be^
lR«, hereinafter referred iv ae t.e uar
•^ -i-^r *Ai- ma* t^ «oxl b*<l progreeeed tc
an ei
e
o
rn
aad ooatlBtt*4 t^«r«*ft«r uatll the bulKlngs ««r« all oo«pl«t*d«
wltbOQt ftay Bftterl&l iBitrniptlomi tbat at the tl«e the vxlttea
COB tract was axeouted It laa iatasded, *.• ahovB ty the plaaa and
apeolf loatione of the axohiteet« %• provide for tte ereotloa and
coiapletlon of a blook of buildlnga, •oaelatlBf of etoree on the
fixet floor, and flate and llTinf apArtaente on the ee^oad and
third floorer that during the Mgotiationa the paxtiee endaa^ored
to aaeertain, .ae aaarly ae poeeibIt« vhat would be the proportioia'
ehaxe of the entire ooat of the baildlat* properly ohATgeahle to
the different portloae otmed by the aeiid daXendJinte and the port
ovaed by the ooaplaiaant, and arrived at the oonolceion that it
would be fair to olMrge t/lithe of the oeet te Saxt and 5/13th«
to the tvo defendante^ that in arrlTiag at thia oonolueic
ueed aa a baele the plana and epeolf ioatione aa ttay axiated mhti.
the agreeaMnt wae eaterad intoj that during the tiae Baxt «ae abaa!
in Florida the plana and apee If ioatione, without hie being oo»>
aulted, were ohangad ao ae to aake all the upper etcriee of the
building an aaeeably hall and Vaaonic hall, with reoeption rooat^.
eto., and it beoaae naeaeeary to ohaage the interior eonatruatiaft
of the building to a Tory great extant, and the ooet of aaterlal^l
and labor in the portion of the buildiag aituated aa lota 13 and
14 wae awch iaareaaad OT«r wtat would hare baen the ooet had the
building been oonetruotad oa tha origlaal plaaa; that aaid Bart
when adTieed of the bhaagee did not pre teat, but wae not euf-
fiolently well Teread at tte tlae to re*liae how auoh of a diff^
enoe In the ooet ai|^t ariee by raaaoa of mtAh iKiagaa and altai
tionai that during the eraation of the building tiMra wae alao
BUiiber of other alteratioca fr^n the origixial plane, 1t> >oth
north find aouth portiosa . .uilding, aoae of ^'^f
eesary if order to oaaply with the ordinanaes, ar' .ee«
alteratione oaueed a difference in tti% ooat ilding
f^
.».
It ««• fuxtkM fo»«i bj the d«er«t tbat afttr tli« o«b
pl«tlen of •aid lart lmlldl»c# Mwl M> to Jaxraar?. 1*08, aald Jokn
!=?C, Sohultt and Oarxla P. Mhults kad charft of oald buildl«c ^^
ooXlootod tho ront.. isMOs and profit. ^ aald teulldin«, a»d paid
the ruaalac ospanaoa tb«roo», and thoy fall ad to turn OT«r
•aid Hart oaid ronto, or any portion tHoroof* that ta« aald Joti.
0. Sohultf, a« ■uporlat»nd»nt, took •ntlr« oha»g« o* tti« trootion
•aid bulldlB«. anl att«tkd«d to tht fiurahaa* of aat«rlal« ax*l pro-
oar*d tlio labox th«r«for and Had fall and oa^plata aHaxffO of tha
Mp»riat«nd«no« a»l oonatruotlon of oald buildlMi ^^t contrary to
th« t#ia» of aald agrooMnt, proTldlBf that »• tad Ira. 8okulti
•iMald furnl^ii w«okly full ttatoiiant* of aonaya orpandad la tht
•rooti»a of aald toalldlng. with dupllcatoa of all bill. raal«r*l
or paldi and alao daplloato* <>t tiaa books, •bowing tha labor
tborooni tha oald d«ftndant« fallad to aaka oucb atntaaanta or to
furnlab duplUato* of blUa ox tlaa booki. during th» profraaa of
tb« oonatruotlon of aald bttlldlag; tb^t at Tarloua tlaoa prior to
tbo f illnf of tbo bin haraln tha aald H«xt r.<iuaatad and dMiandad
that tba aald dofanlaat. ooaply »itb tho t«r«. of aald oontraot,
with rof aranoa to tha aald atatoaanta, bllla and payroll*; bat 9%m
jmt off, fro. tlJa. to tl««.*lth dlffor.nt •aooao. aada by tha aaU
John C. Sohaltt, only a ffw gonaral atataaant. and aooounta of tha
progroa* of tho building bolng glTon* that tho .aid praala^a b.r.
haforo aontlonad. altuatod on th. ooraar of A.hUad arenaa and 6
itr.at, daalgnM»d a. •Paroal lo.X.- !■ auouabTol by two truat
4.ad., .xaoutad by th. aald Carrl. P.fohalt. and John r, 8chult«.
OM to Blxa. H, Roaa. truat.a. to aaoura th. proala.cry notaa oj
tha aald Oarrla P. 8ohuXta and John C. iahultt, • «« ^j^f
forty.f Ua thmiaand dollara (I^^OOO). with lat.ra.ti th. aocoM
tru.t daad to /Ixthur 1. Undarwood, traat.., b.lng glT.n to ..<
• Ullar not.a for taal^a thouaaad fWa hondrad dolla«« (t
with intar.at;«^t th. ,*ii carrla ?• t ad tha raoord
Vv
e^
-l^
<«ub4lTl»ioa, b«lng a •atodivi«ic i acrt:.
alMttsA (19), Towntl Ip thi' *
4»,t or iaolpal Mwrldi. c:i«e* ^^^'^•''S »»""" -"
Ho. 6336 F«»ila» •%*—%, l» ^« 0^*1^ o^ |tic*go. Cook County,
lUlaoU, aad «hioh prraltot will horoaXt«r b« dotlgn»t»d as
ool lo. a»; tn!»t by varraatf d«e4 dated «»ror. " th« ai
OorrU iti an oliult*, too* tu^"«iia, .ivty-
Hxool Uo. » to ftoltt .'. :»?: e*, •ubjoot to k BOrtg««« *
lan^ V'u-t I'.-.A BKwimgn Bank, to •toura pajraaBt of twtl^t •-
lar. (tl.200; and iBtofoati ^^a aald proalM* kaown aa •Pare
Ko. 3- are enottiAorod ty a true: aoed asoootod by a^^^ ^ '"- ^
Sot^ttltt and John C. Schulta, to eillla* B. MoCluor, -. u-v.
cuxa the pro«laooxy aotea of aald Carr' r ?ohiilt« an^ ^'
Bobult the agcragata evm of one t.i^.u.*al dollari
BOto beifti Xor two hundrad dollara (1300), due i- ♦'
note being for elfftt hunlrel dollare (MOO), du« .^
the eald Carrie r. Po: -Its waa alao the owner of »ev«*
..etraatoeu (1?), U hXook aorer -\. -Us: a eubdlTitio. - -
.fts^ l««ftar (1/4) of th* •outzies.c't qu^— ^ O of teotlon olg/
..•tip thlrty-elfht (38) north, Vau, . ourte.r 'i:^ ^i^«*^
ird Priaclplo Meatldiaa; alao toown ae "5343 Ma^
.a eity of Ckloa«o, cook County. IlUaoUi whlc^ l^at de*-
oribed iot will hereaftar ¥• laalgnated aa •Paxoal ■•. -.' *-^
Ptfoel Ko. 3 le oncuaberod ty a truet daod exaoutod toy CarrK
P. tohulta arid John C. iohults, hor hu.baad. ^- ^: -rlee R.WI
tmetee, dated January 9, 1907. giwa* to aac... - .xo-laaory
note. :f the aald Carrie P. and John C. Sohv-', ^- »^>- ^—
gate aua. of fifteen hundred dollare (|1,B0C/, — -
two handled dolU»« (|aOO) in two yeara. thraa hun'lr.
r|, rt, yaare, sni one tboueaBd ^ '■ '" ^^'" -
♦ereat; that Iv r . *■ ' ^
4
e
IX
\h0 Bt.\^ :
JflBg *■ r 40 lie
-xd John ". Sohult. ,
CO
^ 4«iiUMi- Iiu«t IL 8fcTlag« Bank t
^^, ,^,,.: nirtd dolUrt (f|,aOO)i that -
Carrlt P. Jclmlt. alto obuiaad a daed t^^ oaa WlUi«^
to lot tw«**y-1»c. IB bloc
•ubllYLloa, whloh will hartlaaXtax t. feferr*! to ^
5/ the .a«.a bal«g •e«ro7*A tc Mr by •4rra«n daad ;... i.
aa« 190e, whlob waa fll*
araUozx aaaad U aald deaa u.ia^ U« ra. .r t-ju^i-^-
lar. (13,500), .nt aald ooii..ya»oa flag ..bi-t to *«. ..«»tarar.aa
of one tr.ouaaa* doUaxa (tl,000)itbat .IM* tLo l..t ne--" - -'-
til- .baa aat.r:- i^^^ ••" ^•^»« f^»rlll•^i•d f -
of .aid Uook of buiidiags, oa .aid l^t. thlrt.f" '
(18). boti: molualTa, a graat many altaraUou. ^s. .»-«
^.ullllH •»<» jw-'i*** daaignat.d aa •?«oal - V
buUdiag aad pra«la«« J^aown «. Paxc.l Ho, 2, .^
tha prtvita. lt»own aa 'areal Ro.3 wa. partV
•.ta ti.. cf ooaatrwtU. of aald Eart Inilldl :»e.
lag tU tl«. of tba ooaatruotlon of -all brulldii^-i, ^--
:.a labor aad aatarlala, ' ' axoba.t
rslsbad by aaid Hart »^c .as - i^ rr^Jtiog a-v
t; , -.d ohaAgaa •^^ ■«'^
tb. ooaatruutlta of a b^Udlng bti:-,. ^rewv
or Mr.. 8obult^. ' '^••' on ParC
.uob of .itld labor ^xi«^l» •" «••* ^
ref* . .. aad alttratiaea oa Paroal. K
comatruotlan of tald bulldiag oa Fara..
c
*Llft_
elk. 5 to ttnA»rtAk« *ad carry out wld raxlou. d«*l« a
traaaMtioM wltliwit th« ^xM• of •<»• c -lalt of •*14 Kuxl,
: tb» Mt«ri*I aad labor purobawd and paid for cut of hla t»'
gfhat •<»• •at.rial. w«r# taktn fro. taldj^Bohlutt building *
m tha H«t bulldini, " »•• -^^ *" ^"^•"-
•Ittfling . uttd. of Hart, aadait 6«kalt«, *wl Mr., eohu'
darlag all of ta».« traiiaaatloa., that it. U Upraotioabl.
•aparata thaa and t.U j«»t w...r. tfc.y .tat. cr whoa, aon.y rt^.^y
•at«r«d lata tb« paitUular altaratltaa. r.paU. and touUdlage,
that th# aald John C. SotaUt., aotlig a. th. agaat of aald Hart,i«l
rtpraaaatiac *»»• •*^<* '^"' •* Sahulta & Oaapaaj, al.o laMMd tb«
•aid Hart to agroa to purohaaa lota thlrty-on. (Jl) and thirty-tw
(M), la blook oaa (1). Dr.xal Park, bolag a IttbdlTl.lon of t:..
•a«t half of tka aorth half of Motion nlaataon (19). Town.hlp
tbirti-olght (»S) aortb, Raago fourttoa (14), tatt of thoUird
FrlBolpal Morldiaai aad al.o loto forty (40) aad forty-one ' V
i. blook two («) la loaaar k foaa'. tubdlTl.loa of tho norti. na.x
Of Ubwat qaart.r of flaotloa twoatf f»0), townahlp tblrtyj
•Ight (38) «k.rth, Raaga fourta.a (14), oa.t cf tha Third frlnaij
Maridian, all In th. nty of Chicago, U .aid Cook Coanty, UU
that la tho parakaao of all of th. lot. har.ln aantlonad. a. ha^
baaa purokaaod throagh tha .aid Bahult. for .aid Hart, th. .ar"
■art plaoad abaolut. r.llaao. oa .aid Bakultt - all aonay.
by aald Bart, for th. paroha.a of .aid lot., w.r. paid out
tteough MLid eol«ilt., or on hi. oxd.r, aald aon.y. ty tha oh.ok,
of .aid Hart, b.ing d.po.itad by .aid Bohult., with th. laal
I.tat. lAtl. and Tru.t Coa«>aay. and wlt^ -.loago Tltla
0«w»»ny. for th. parpo.. of b.lag uaad in t:;. payi-nt for
that th. .aid Hart dapo.ltad with oaid ao.«>aay, or oo^paaiai
a^ooar.t .f U. puroha... of .aid lot tbirty-oa. (31), nln*t
tuadrad and fir. lcllar« («1.905)i and oa aooount of lor
aou.aBi5
•ev.ataan
'I
Lia^
-13.
Park^ tw«iT« Uo«Mkad tlx ]mndr«d »al fifty dollar* ($12,660);
e» aooouAt of lot 0lgbt««& (18)« block fffur (4)« Dr«x«l Park,
1 t««at/-f omr h\uidr«<i dollars (|3«iOO); aal oa aooount of lots
fort^-oao (41) anl fortywtwo (43), om tfto^aaaad (|l«00O)i that
;>. r'.tlM aonoys ao dapoolt«d oa aoooiuiA of lot thlrtywono (31)^
oaa tkoaoaad tliroo huadrtd and thirty dollart (|l,330) waa paid
to tlM ovaor, and fWo bunlrod and ooToaty-f It* dollart (|575) to
tho aald John C. Sohulti; oa aooooat of tho dapoalt aado oa said
lot thirty-tvo {i»), niao huairod flfty^oU dollar* and eighty-.
four otnta (HM,84) «a« paid to Carrla p^fohnlta, and toa bandrod
fortj^thr^ Uxtoon ooato (|l,043.I9) to John C. Sohultx; tho
twolTo tho«aand tlx hundrod and fifty dollar* (fid, 650) dopocit,
am aooovAt of lota fourtoan (14j to oaTcatooa (XT), blook four
(4), la Ocodvla** tubdlvlaioa, was paid o«t by ohaok to on*
Oaioaaan, the owner cf aald lote; out of the twoaty-four hundred
dollare (|3«400), eo depoelted on aooo«ji^ of lot eighteea (18),
lot one (1), Drexfl Park, eerea huadrad and fifty dollare ITM)
wa« pali to JoLz. :. 8ohitlta« oae haxidrod and fifty dollare (|15C}
to oae J. c. li«Clum« and fifteea handrod dollars (|l,500), to
the owaer of aald let, J, B. MoOiatyj ant of the aoaeye deposiiod
OA aoocuat of said late forty (40) and forty-'Oas (41), the owner
reoeiwed alas hajidrsd dollars (|900), a taal sstate broker aajsad
Oaatpboll, aae bwndrod dollart (ilOO)« aad «bs Daa Owen, who seea*
to hare had eottothiag to do with thie sale, in ooaaeatloa with
tha oaid Campbell, fifty dollare (160); that ae to lot thirty^ne
(31), a ooatraot for Ite purohaee wae Ba:2e in the nane of Carrie
?, eahalts, a short tiae prior to tha time whea Hart depoeitsl
eald alneteea hundred aad f iwo dollare (|1,905), for toa puroaaee
of eaid lot tnirtywone (31), and a depoelt of twenty dollare
(I to) r-*''^i *o the owner, Mr. Doyle; tout the lot wae turned ei
to Ha/ 3 final »Jr-^.:.r, and the aoneye depesitod by hla for
ite purcb*^-* "'I-*' - '■ «.bor» «t.«tal. the eail Hart had
Vl
e>
<?^
-14-
♦ ,.- u^ -■' "--. •-•--.It* it.ea, had Any
3), ont Hi'rkJiaE,
1 r* t « r e a '. A ti 6 .
. t»o ',3») »' ^*^
:ontrao-.* • - •«»• to a Mr. a i'^y »-
an ASsl.^'Msat of ?a!n»a later«-t In lot t^rty*tw:
to Wlngtr, £J- ' 't coirf«'/«d to aaid ting«ri tha^
luniat 4. l^C' , Fohulti purcLat»d Mr. Bain's Intertat, under
thlrty-thrae (33) and copo.ltad fifty dollars
itraot . twanty-one hundred dollars (#8, 100),
^ ,. riwesn her aad Balli th*t on August 14th, Mrs. Bc^
^;,., sok for nias iiundrsd ana six dollars and slgftty-four
cent. 11906.84) to Pain, on acoowt of this purcbas*,
August l»th she recalT.l t. e said chsc, hundred
glK .iollira ?.rut slghty-fow cents (1986.6'. " -
T4ti> . capany, 8sptt«bsr 6/1906, said Joh
T.otivad said ohsok for tsn th<«sa«d and forty.ttrec dollar
sixteen cents (|l,043.16)i ^ ^etlflr
t.« hundred and forty-t^re, i^Uar. «nd sixteen oent. (fl,043.16)
, ,,^, time to ge* ^ deed
In tbe HsJt ».uildlae.
fro. tns o.ner of lot *.-.lrty. three (33), and It appear, that wn.a
t,. ,,,. ... re. ell... alanoe due not telng forth-
-^fusei to Itllver the deed and It Is
^^^y^ _ the par-ent of eald balanosi that Vr. Hart
has l..er .-*i»ed anything 'or t^e ..n.y adranosd by hi. to pur.
ohase sal^ .-- -thirty. two ' , -^e^*"
... . V 1. ^r*x*l Park, the original oimer was one McOlat
:C, l"?0o, eutborlsad a real estate age:
T- . hundred dollars (tl^SOO); that a
into atout July IC'
u..... •-. Purehas. this lot for seTenteon hundred dollars
,.:...^), ons hundr,,i dollars (flOO) beln« d.poslted, whlcr
' . ..1 lat,r as.i -:*! to Wrs. Kra-eri tnat In the f.-al
tr&
C<
6
(»a.«K>), ab^r, ..ation.cl, «d U. .aid «« w»t dl.txlbv
- ^b... four.., taat u. ,414 o^.ok for -r.a hundred and fiff
•»r. (1760), payable to Ifr. Sohult.. on aotcur. j, ^t
, tran^aotlon, wa. andoraad by hi. a»d than Jb.ora.d by «r.. Sobult
«d d^o.lfd la h.r aooount, and finally two ob.ok. of itra.
Sohult., on. for on. imn^rad and fifty dollar. f|i50) and on. for
.U b.ndr.d dollar. (|600), ..r. paid to a Ur.. Kr^.r, that «r.
«otaau t..Ufl.d that h. r.pr....t.d «r.. icra-ar, who h.
ontrmox, and that ..ran huadrtd and fifty dollar. (|?S0) wa.
paid to h.ri that .aid Hart ha. r.ceW.d 4M. of ooar.yana. to
M f th. lot. .0 a«r..d to b. puroba..d by hln, .xo.pt a. t
thlrty.two (33). for which lot ho ^ n.^., ,^^^ ^^^ ,.,,
th.r. ar. al.o .oim ab.trmot. an^ p^„, b.lonel««
•Ud H^t, la th. pc.Mlom of «tu Scault. nnd Co«paay, or on.
of tv.« .V ,^h h. ha. b..n «Babl. to obtain.
tho door., tb.n ankoo finding. ^ an»-
action. - oa. John ?l.ch..*k, th. fath« . scn«it« and
for.*r., _ of th. df fondant. In thl. proo..dlng, whl
of tv. ,., ,,^ j^ ^^ ^^^ n.oo..ary to .tato.
Th. d.or.. than proo..d« to find that th. mi
^poot.dly aaaurol th. Mid Hart that th. tltl. to Mid
"') »a. olMT In Carrls f, Sohultt, th.r. b.la^ no
. - .urr»«n, and that a guarant.e policy
obtalnad oa said v ■ irtean (13). , ^,„ ,
laid , '-■•■ '-at muQi, f^olloy wa. n.vcr si«llv«.
:b .al.l • ' ^au.el an ab.traet of tltl« to »
^ » to te ta.a9, at a oo.t of f?3, and It wa. aa&
"•^ . thlrt.aa (Ij), wa« .nouab.r.d by a trvi.t de.J
.-..jruarv - >- ^^ ^^^ 3otoul%t and Im.bai
•iB-- .y:.D, iruite.. and gi ,ejur. • -
'••i '^'..^n 'T. So^ulti, " ^ fl 00
.:i!i'. 9 w. -t«mt it •:
Srf 1 ♦■.
&
il.
-IS-
lt>(>']
that ittld C»rrl« P. 8ohulti and u.e =h1 -. . :. .
«it/-- of tbta, bATt paid or offtrtci t ra,. •.-. »ald Hai ., -_,:
>3^a50« b«lx^ tb« balaaoa dus upom eald lot fourtoon (14)«
^Dder tut tors* of tall aKrteaost^ b«arlm- ^.att Oetobor 3, 1906^
■■Cthat pxior to tn«lr taootlig Xf ooiplai _ , nelthtr of tho d<>-
fondanti box tho f Ira of Schults & Co. va« f Icanolally abls to
oarry out tho Tarlcut roaX tatatt doalo Into whleh thoy ontorod
on tnoir own aoooust; that tliay dorltrod ooas Inooao froa xhm rmr.tH
of tho Sohults balldiac^ ^«^ ^^^^ thaao woro loaoffloloat ,
eorer tr.e largo oxponditv^oo aado by thoa; that tbo fuada rocoivod
froa Hart v«re uaod by tho defocdaato. Individually or ao aoabort
of th« flra oT Sohaltt A Co., Indloarlalnately. ia tht oo&atruotlon
of tho oald Rart building^ and la aaklag altoratlODo« ciiango* and
rapalxa on ttt dlfforont portioaa of the building; that tho fud^ )
adTaaoad by Hart vara alnglod with tho fvado of tho dofonlar
tholr oald flra^ that no proper aoootinte wore kept hy thea,
rjoh aocounte were kept, thoy have beaa dootroyed or oonooal-
the d«fondaBte failed tc aako proper etateaonto ohowim* w!:«t ha:
boon done vlth the fande eo adTancod, aad vore vnabi?
ooaplalnaat with laforaatloa axMh aa would enable Mrc t; hare eat-:
lefaotory acoouate prepared; that for aoatfio prior * filing
of the hill oaaplalnant wae ondaaTorlng to got eoae tort of aooounl
or et&r.eaent and to axrire at eoae oottloaeut; that althougt a
nujBbex jf bllle or etatenanta and reoeipti were produced and
mittod to an aooaaatant conaootod with tho ooffplalnaat^ it wae 1*-^
ractlcable to arrive -*' f^^v aooorato aettlerent of their aooounti
..:.] .Ilffereneee; that ^-.•-^- *- -^ ^"^•'« flllag of ti « ^-^lll of cjotrl.^lr.t^
— - '" . « -*t waa laforaed . ._ . i'^9 eald — -.
*.:..., ^ ;.-. oauetd to te prepared f-r ;-?«, padded pay roll ,
.toa '^•Tlaa faXee tl*"* ^'' <*> r.r«;i»r.* -r««cor,l vii;. iiil
' eTlder- . - — : ~ -- ---
1. » o;.. .f^a-n* » ' ■ " •'■-rt; and aft-r tf.,.
■;he Bald '-ohvli.. ■= » .:-.■. 4 -,i t-^sed --'^/'"^
«ei
uMbl* himmtit to aootunt f r
toll
jn»T» 'bio*
la
-r ;iig
>ar.t
1, dl«loultle.i t£»t 4att»g th. |togT*>* o»
X,tcr. th. court to. «14 Mt,ni»»U v,0*">*^ "
.t .«»«..».. »»". »°* ""«'•• •»* ''- '""'"*
book. »«l oaook. •»« •<■■ »'-•«*•• *"'•
o; ott.r b«i book.. oh.ok. and .tat., ol.Ul^ tka"-
le.t .r a..noy.4i to»t » n. tii»o,.lbl.. fro.
„*. >;, any MLtlfaotor, or .»•«»». d.t.H.4 aoco.
«. ^xx». fro- tb. blU. pr.<«».«l *» "■• "'"*■'
«at «r.. Sobult. .id no-, .a,, P««n.l »«.-^.*«» -';" -•-
Ut^atlon at an, U.. aM «.t o: „ *0»^. ^^ «■ ^«^
.„. ^n. ,itn«- .« .n,.X..S. or at l.a.t ,Ub«t a tn,-
tic. of What wa. r.l«« »«. •" •o*^ "»*" ■ , ■
...... ...oout.i .Itb h« tv,band. a. •" •"• '^ ""''^^
- < itt and htr***-
,d t« dlXf."»» 'uM. of «r. Hart and > •«« «>
♦ «tff*T th« con»*V>«»«*" *^^ ••
t,- T.T,»a. and dlffar.. :»« "»■'■ l'" *""
.all d.r..«Un... John 0. ..bult. «- Caxrl- ^U.. -
tnatoa* and th. iionoy. adTanoot
a. a «..» ru.*- »» *• -«•""* '" "" "" *""'"■
.^ .an«. a. txu.t... ar. r«iulr.d to acc«,.
t. oradltad wltt aU .on.,. " ad»anwd b>
.aid b»ll«»n. and .. aooount of puroh... of i.t
r».d »1 'a»., and gl'«" «»'—
dafandanti 't*"- "'
KS. a. ha»» l'..B .xper-
ti . -..r... o: .aid a«x..«n» and In ao..ra»c. ..
.^ an- agr.«.nt. b^ t.t,.« tM P"*".. .*«• -<
, ..' lota taid 4«f«J»4iait«. bowe ^
- aonayt ••^^'^
*■
c
.0«t of ta.
jfkft6\ *i
,qM, LA'--
ji:;iiaa a
xeniico?'- i«
\i$^
eel.-*. • '
'. Btro<luo*d i-i wo»pl*ll*nt
irt««mita and tig'
T.«nt tT«re iBtv&ded to at^
l^ikctl**, ei£:
to bt ohAXgad to aaid co«ti«.ii.*.it, i:i_rt, *m rw -
(6/13ttf) ' txgtd to •*!:? def«nd«.at§,
Cartlft ?. -■-- '^^ r»»p«otiv.-
• . . t waive "SLve »*ld prcr.i**^
ACOord*no« wltr tU« origiE*! i^1«jo« and apf ' " "
uxiTic^ at tb« iiacuata ajped
froa tl«e t tiwf:, *^^« **>'
profrtaae .
had baar. tdtw^ioaC
■. Sohulta, to V- ^
tbiytaanthn are -.
: . . . • th«a ob%*4B«'i Aj>pri>*liaitee tLC
. xrty anA aggr9?at»a tha aati^
&• built, t-^^.it tba nortfc portir
aildtng, oontalning i
buUdto*' pro:
t
\^-,
X£«* '-
l«ftBd«att,
.e.ir«ti% t»d *kd¥«a;
aeftadA^a
^ of t*^
127.4
Mboufit r0;}UiTadL
b«ll3
•t frc« >v(^.
in* .aid John c:.i«H»l%», ui.cn rei rtt.nUtlct. by hU tc i.
plAinant that th» »*!! ««»• *•'• mo««»«^"
«at.rUl m th« «Li .ut^qu.:.
crc.ai -. px*^»ni »'
Mad to pay tr »**
lull 4 co«>X*ln*nt alva-uc ^b *wk»* '
ot: .r .a., of . ^••••^^ fuxall^ll^.
f ox u p ft ; I. « '^
<Ul«i:^d«j;t* o& 40c;c
that eTldt-ct w ^aX^n 1^*^«>'^« "• ■*•'•' "'''" '*^*''
ttf:-« : ^r«llib«foyt- itt fort.h.
c
ir M -> " >v I*» UDCa \T'.
' \x^ i m\i. *■ .
:^AidM:^tloB of all tb« at*'
«rror flic. -, .- . ^»4 » car.ful ccr.iil^r^l
the fact* - • ^'--ir.Bftd bv the eaor»ou» r«oord
«6 h4V« X. o£ thtt no •rror fcn« be^n aDte** *>/
apptlUntr r«T«r»*
tntered.
.--« * -tali oocrty t-.
: ::■" 1 for the >rp«U«e
haT« I.
AZ^
In OT
Condi' .
0«*di&g*
or*e will
§
4i.
67-«.:o /l 8 2 1. A. 3 89
lOUlSf^ COUNTY SAVING?? BANK, / )
a Corp., Dsfendant in Frxpr, )
) ■SIPROP TO WNiriPAT.
V9. / )
V. T^ICKlNPo/
JOHN CLAKFY &nd w.
Pi^fcintiffe 1# Frror. )
OOUPT OF CKI'^AOO.
»P. JUFTICIT cr.APK nrLITKRFD THE ^PTNIOK '^F TH*' C^HPT.
Suit ws^ brouf^ht by the plsintiff fiafend^tnt in error)
against thts <ief«n.l«int8 (plsintif fe in error) upon a proBiieaory
note given by t^« disfetuiants to "F, A. L&csy, Cashier or crJler,
at the Louia* County ?'>vixj^6 Bnnk, Colvur-bus Junoti'^n, lu.," Ncnr-
•fflb«r 18, IOC, for f3,0C'!O. The -a &i;r«*i**>^ <'" ^i^® "•^** ^^-^^ *"•
dorsemfint, "Pay Firwt National Bank Chicago, lU. or ordar (y.li
prior reetrictive «ndorBew«Rt8 !^.wr&nt^9d) Apr. b, l'*'!!, Louisit
County Nf.tion»2 Ps^nk, Colun^bua Junction, U,, ?. P. Iscey, C.-^shier,"
ana alao ^m endor«e»:«nt «howinf Ihet *i>00 •*ae paid on Xt « prinoipal
July 10, 1911.
A et&t^jr-nt of olains wa© fil«»f1, to -^hioh *a« ftttachsci
a copy of the note, vritL enrior««»ii!flnte eti e.bov»i eet forth. An affi-
davit of 4ef«n»« was filsd bv one of the isfendanie, in *hicL it
*a« •tftt«d that t^i« naturs of tho dafen^fs of th9 dor«n>l9nte to the
suit was "thftt it ^ipe^-srs thit the cuit wag institutsd by tls
Louiaa County P&vlnge D^^nk of Columbus Junction, lo^-a, when Hi* a
BMsttsr of faot >»e *5ho^n by Exhibit ^. fil«d hsreln, that tie note in
auit waa given by th« defen^cnta herein to on# T. A. Lacsy, C:..;hitfr
or ordsr «t Iha Loviaa County f^svinp-e E«nk of Coluwbua Junction,
low* for th« auBi of t^O.-O *ith int'^reet at 9«v4n f.er c«nt (7^')
par annuw froiB data, and it further aipeara that Exhibit A a« to
G88.A.IS8l\ 0X.9X-T*
( ,^Aa ^OHIVA'? YT«000 A8IUQJ
( • ^ "
(
ei\ ; on
«t>iu l?9«ln«-xA(r^ •ta%a»mioham tTl#fti-(.^««i Yoliq
.ii^ Ci/L
: :o 814/ JBp r.»y»^« tjiw
JOJ
(jiiouuX.
•2-
ths •ndorseR-enl e on «'viJ note 'hut the aain« »»• »aie payable to
tbe Fiiat National E-^nk of r-hlca.ro, lUinolB, by t! « Loulaa County
National Pank of f^oXumtu« Junction^ Io-^&, E. r:. L*.c«y, Cashier."
By psrmlssior of ths court, aa ^irsridttent to the atste-
asent of clislflr' wne filad, bxit not s'orn to, atriklnr out of the
copy of th-? instrument ausd on nni attached to tha etateirent of
olaiiR, all wiattar a;pe&rin<? under th« heaiinp; "Fndoreejrenta," snrt
inserting: in lieu thereof t);e follO'»ing: "?. -. Lacey, Hahisr,
July 1 th, 1911, F'?l'i on ?rlr. #500.00 ?*. F. . Locey, C?.3hieT."
The defendente y-ivi p;iv«n by ordnr of court three flsye in v»hich
to file sn affllavit of n?erita. Th*reaft9r on motion of the de-
fen<lant8 it T^iS orrJer-jd that the affilavit cf merits filed to the
originnl etsstem'jnt etand aq tc the amended atwtssfr-nt of clnia here-
in. Thereupon tha court, on jrotion of th« pl^^tlntiff, atruok the
dafemsnta' affidnvit of r!:srit>3 from th-s filee, *»ni made a fin'^ing
Upon whioh juar^rrent -r-'Ufi antsred ia fa^or of iha plaintiff and
a^ainet th-a defendants in the sum of ^Z ,'HAl,Aii.
Th€ rsoord aho-^s that *?. d«?rian,i f:)T » jur> "J^ae msde by
the defentinnte at ths \.im» of the filin-r^ of their •*;. r »8renci8. In
the "StRterr-jnt of F^cts* ei-irnel by th^ rri&i jud^e the foregoing
facta were rtscited, ftnJ tbs furtt'tir fjcl tfs^t b '»itr.sed t-istified
that he had calculated the atrount of th^ prinoifal and intereot,
and foumi the suit to ts aa a«t forth in the finding; that ths de-
fendants declined to introiuce any evi4irt.0fi "that a correct st-^te-
»»nt of th« facta foual by the oourt i« y^ fol'zosa; Ist, thnt weid
note ».« ahown in the ari-rin?! at^tsirent of cisiir. fee executed ty
the defendants f>nd «ndore'»d -^a appears in the oriffinstl st^tatvent
of cleiir. as «T«5nd8d; n^i, th«t the amount of priaclcal snd Intareet
unpaid on 8>vid note i« T'»'»nty-nin« Funirert ?'orty-three and liS/lOO
(1^943,36) roliara." Th'? rr^urt further in th« ataterr.ent certifiua
thst the queetlonaof la-*- involved arsj, lat, ■^). ether ths defendants
Tgre entitled to s- jury triol; '.'nd, *hethsr ths (■•l?>intif f waa the
o*nsr of said jroKissory note ?*nd the rarson entitled to maintain
^ •:d«t«<; *t#« mam %mM^ ..9Af " ;«• no mftt9m9%Xf>ta9 ttdU
lo ia««»tjilc Ad^ ol b^dOMi TO baus fa««iuirl«cix o X(|<^^
;5?t1»o:Io^ ••ft ^©••"'•ff* »•!)
noqutiadT .(li
.^"♦^it 'ttni!
bam \yiSai Tr"!!^ hI ftti*;
■rli t-;-' • rxt itto* J«a ''^ s^ ot kr/s a
rauol *■/
<o t>*itfo«x- frnt^lTo mAf at ftwor
t«»"Te*; ■ y , hefcnnra a«
Tto tni" 5i?t nt "r*rJttt/'' : . .
-^-.
said »ctlon th«r9on. And the aecislons of the court upon «ald
queitlone *«re, i»t, ti;?. t the iefenlainta 'vers not entitled to a
Jury trial in eaidi obtuse, and, 2nd, tK.»t ths plaintiff wss the
Qfrner of the rroaisaory not© in th« »uit anr! the person entitled
to nftlntnin h auit tber^on.
The plaintiff bein,^ tb« l«gwl holder of th« note, the
endoreamentis, indicating that the nots had bseii aent to Chicago for
collection, should have hit&n dlsreg«trd«d, a-^a^ Xtisy ■''era by tb«i trial
court.
The right of t jury trial, ths ^stra having been deaand-
«d by the defendants itt tiie tiff;® of anterinj their arpe&ranoe, ee»K8
to be 3 Khtter of yon.-s dot.ct in vie"- of tbs deoleicna. It« 'isnial
hue besii beld to be revereibl* error. Koch v. ricklneon, 15^: 111.
App. 43 5; rbt;rLf*.rt v. 'Foater, IQb id. l'?5. "^here, £8 in tbe present
case, the court, vncier tie e^i.iftnce In th*- cape, would b'^irs hsen
obliged to direct ths 'jury tc find b. verdict for the kIk Intif f , in
exsiot acoord >-iti. tLe finding made by the court, the failure to call
a jury b«»a been held not to be reversible error, tha idea being
thst if the motion ^'?a erroneoua tra «rror waa berinless. Pecond
Kational lihtxk of Ffcgina»r v. Claney, l?*^ 111. App. 427. The deci-
• ion lM«t referred to ia the :iateet of wbioh ?e have cognizance,
and -^8 fa 'frit of oortiorstri re.3 ienled b> tbs Puprstr.e Court, and
the opinion thus irade final, «*e dee?^! it deciaiva of tl.s point i. t
laeue. The judgwant will le affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
c
hl9m nQ:iu fiaoo mdi 1o aooialoaft sdi f^nA .ao»-r9AS aoti9» M««
•il# ••« ITl^nlAfq •Af tBAt «h&8 «ba« ^mvjio bk»9 ut iMt^f ftai
b9iiiitt6 aomim^ *idS ^^h Slum B.^f 'at alod t^O««lsoT| ad# lo i»fivo
.aotivd/ /lift « alalalic'Ot
^^t:sn ^toauiMtKiqa tit.il ^Jtttfa* lo t«lf •dl #• aiDAtrtlab ad/ xi t*
ila»t All .tAoistovb adt lo ««lv is'l fduob esoa lo ikt^Mi s i^ ^
.111 sax »doftci!i;)!'T ^ 4^0^ .lont •Xdl»i»v«i 1 *'f 6t bl«rf nsftl VtM
insaav; sdJ nt .^ . ,^^1 .fci 881 »T»ttc .(r^dS , . . iqA
'■:.ff nrrrop»» 4««i»o ••It al »oa»»blv» ».<. '■■so sitl ^ttao
^ . - ,if ^ol *olbis»y Ji bat\ ot yi.j. i. _. _- : i»SXI<lo
ir;ja <>i ••xu£l«l 9dt ^^tuco edi fi ttJiai ss^^^^ •<<' <f^^*^ bioo9« toax«
:it»i a*hi tdt «iottt sldltivrti »d 0/ /oa blad n«»d •mA X'^^l '
baoo«8 .•••In-xcd •«« ioti« «dt •uotaoTt* anv aoito* 0dt It /«d/
•'ioal!) «dT .T3».f1<]A .in ftvr «x»aiirI3 .▼ ««alS«8 lo ](a«a lAaollal
«oofl4siaaoo sv«d •« doldW lo /••1«I «d^ cl o# ba^itlat tu*l ■Olt
ij u^i ^n n :t irt Avtufn^h ii stab aw ^laoll aba« aud> noiniio ttfl
.i5a<tTl^^« •• ' r f >r t.?i»«T.h,j»; t.iT .at^aai
^1
October Term, 1911, No:
67 - 17586.
THOMAS PI3ER,
Pluintiff in Error,
V9,
SEROTA and OAKS, dolni; hu^Ui/iHH
at SEROTA A r?AN?>, AlfXRTCAN lArGl'
COMPAKT, a corporation, THmK
8MITH, A, L. MEHDFLBON »nd/KAX
GUTK0W3KY, , /
Defsndffipta in/Eirror.
ERROP TO
KITKTCIPAL COURT
OF CHICAGO.
1821. A. 390
MR. PRE0IDIKO JUSTICE OFAVFS
BELIVKRKD THK OPIJSION CT THF C^nHT.
The following stats&iont of faota mide by the
attorney for plaintiff in error ia aaopted by defendant In
«rroir:
*Thi9 la an action In ap-susepsit uj on the following
proaisaory note;
'Chicago, Ills. Aug, ISth 1904.
Six Ronths iifter d©t© we prooiiBe to pay to the
order of A. L. M«n<{f5a9on ISOO.OO
Five Hiuidred ancl no/lCO dollars
at 157 Fifth Ave. Chloaeo ISJis.
Value r«ceivod B% interest ver anniim,
f'FROTA * aii|^r>,'
(Above note ^taBsped on face &a follows):
•Protected for ncn-piiy»ient, Ciiicaixo, IHa.
Februiiry H, 1S05.
UAmn MU:?3IR0, Notary Public.'
and endorsed on baok thereof as follows:
'Aiis^rican 3j*dg8 Co.
Frank A. 3&it.h, Pres,
A, L. Mencielfjon,
Max Gutko^aJcy. '
"The ooiirt rerfr.itted the defendant, Frank A. Sieith, the
prceident of the defendant Ar.erioan Badge CoovDany, a corpora-
tion, to testify that t the tiir.e of the Backing of the en-
doresKente he had no intention 3.nd did not attempt to in.lorse
the note a^ an individual. The note waci never pnid.
"It .'.a© net yonlRd lifon the hearing that the plaintiff
■*a.e a bona fide holder for v&lue of the in:-7truBient in question.
Outfflide of the question of the ndmiasibility of thia rartioiilsr
part of th'i evidence, tho queationa s resented for review are
purely j:ropoaition« of law arlfjxnfj, froee a.iittera a: i earing on
the face of the note itaelf.
"It is fraotically adjr.itted by the plaintiff that tne
indoreeuient of the aefendants At^erican Badge Co. t^nd Frank A.
'.oTI .i:3i ^oiiaT -xec
\
'\-f r _ t»n
\
(\ .KJBIH '
-r.zt-ti?
7
oe- ^^^*'
.Tfl! -iO KOIV
..tori ii*";. .^.
a«Yl»D'
:(ewa/XQt •• •Ml ao Aaq««t« •ion frodA)
X T^AUidft^
:»»olio'^ «<: ^oeifidl 4o«d no Z>«»xobn« teJi
.of) •sfc«8 n^oltMoA*
.no(iIatn*K •J .4
'•X^vvoiI^uO xaM
•'is£ ,K in
■^*
- s -
Smith waa for aooorernodat ion only, '•'fhile t.fte plaintiff tftsti-
fiod that the R-nkera of tne note told him tnat the Eonoy was
being raised for the rurpoBc of flaying part of it to the
Au^erican B.-.dge Coiuiany, ao Ihat at the tiBi© cf the }.ayin£ of
the Boney by thft plaintiff he htid no notice of the oharaoter
of the cief{5nci»nt8 as ucoor-ffiotlation partiea, the. truth Huema
to be thht they nern in fact aocorj^iOUatton r«rtiea, and never
received any part of that R.on<jy»
"The defendant Frank A. StBith ^as, at the time of the
indoroeiiient of the note, ana ev«r fJinoe then cind at the oon*-
nenoeiBent of this suit, the irefsident and .'general H;&mt.g;er of
the A»erican HactF.e Corapany, i'^nd the evidence 9hO'«a that
Serota & Gana, tiiS uiikers of the inatruaent, went out of
buoineas shortly ufter the bUiking of the note, and froih the
testimony of the defendant, it «e«tsa that they sent into
bankruptcy. At any r^te it was admitted that tht^y ««;re
in»oivent at all timee since the waking of the note, A
n\imber cf propositions of law vtere jreeented to the court,
acme of Ahich the court held as the law, and soBse of which it
refused. Tne^e rrorositlone of law fully freeent the qviee-
tlone involved in thlst case for rftvie\«,"
The auit w«» begun by the arsffllgnee of the oriifinnl
payee of the note against Serota * Gane, the KSikere of the note,
the American Badge Cowpany, a corporation, and Frank A, Saith,
a« siooor&modation endorsers. A, L. Mendelaon, the fuyee and
aeeignor, and ?^ax Outkov^aky, alBO as an endorser* Tj^e guijiinons
was eerved on the Ameriofen Badge Coftrnny and Frsmk A, Sjiith,
and they entered their appearance by attorney and filed tueir
affidavit of nierite und*?r th« rulee of ti,e Municipal Court, in
which affidavit of merite they say that Smith did not enuorae,
or in any w^y guarantee the note or rroaiiae to p&y it or :jny
)i,art of it, and that the Badge Company did not enaor?»e the
note; that the alleged endoreeacent thereon in ita naiee ia not
its ©ndoraemeat, and wae not written by any one having authority
■o to do, and that it nsver guaranteed or undertook or } rowieed
to rsy the note. Neither of fim other defendants were served
with s^iK'RionB or appeared in the ca^e. The case wa?t tried
by the court vjithout a jury Jmd resulted in a finding for the
dafendante who s^ere served and a i\idgrv.ent a?:aij)3t the plain-
tiff in biir of hie right to rcoover nno for coota.
Plaintiff in error h&e presented by hia argument
five propositions froK which he inais^te his rif.ht to recover
r
Jbomoiooo* 10^ HAW ASlaB
tb\-
ROiit
at
7i .
♦ X a i V -■'
oAoa
(aii}iKf
•ill ••loiMio to
ton 9k MUA 011 nt ooa
XtlnoASum tttivMA Mso xnA xtf n«cflit« tOA t^
t»«iai t30^i«b(W TO 2>»»1:
.'.(( nmptx*^-
HvmbtWn
10
-)»«iobflo ati
Ob
%•'
fdaif •k'^
- 3 -
is •hown. These fiv« propOv^jitiona briefly ar«
X. That, 1^'tifln a oorporvition i:ia« power to it^eue neectia-
ble Bocuritiea, a bona flcle holder of fiuch an inatru»ent
bearing ita signature has the right to rresjuae that the same
was l8«ued with avithority and its irregular l?f3uance ccnatl-
tutes no defense,
2. That negligence on the rnj-t of a holder of netct la-
bia paper, in falling to aRcertaln whether the maker Ir liable
thereon or not will not. In the absence of proof of bad faith,
deprive hlas of tho ci.ar&cter of a bon» fide holaer.
9. That the abrcvlatlon "Prea.", after the m-itbe "Frank
A* Sftlth", was ueHorirtlo rer^ona ecLerely,
4, That as there le no utsbi fruity in the wording of the
endoraeaient extrinsic evlcienoe in not air.liVRlble to (?hov» <^ho
Smith Intencied to bind when he endorsed the note,
5. That a rereon vaho aasimes to act a» an fi^ent for
another iRipliadly warrants that he has authority to so act,
and if In fact he hfid no such authority he la hin;?»elf liable
to one who deals «*lth hla in good faith.
As to the first of thene contentions, tne eviaence
discloses that the Awerlcsin Bf.dge Cooirany w&s a coKimerclal
corporation. Qf such a corporation the Supreme Court in
Wheeler v. Hotce Havings & Htate Bunk« 188 111., 34, says:
"Such a corporation has no corporate power to beooae the
mere surety of another or pledge its rroierty for the payment
of the ciebt of another in which it has no interest or for
which it ia In no fti^c rKsponaible and for ir.ere accOKG.odcition."
See alRo Sohneiaer v. Ci>lc-ino Vulc.uni?inR Co .. 159 lU. App.,
63.? i Central Trana. Co. v. PuIlR^an P. C.To ., 139 U. S., :i^i
and National Hoao BXd;^ Ang'rt v. ThelTome aavinRa Bank. 181
111., 155.
A corporation has no natural rights or capacities,
Whatever right or poorer it has is jrathered froci itR or.arter,
and persons dealing «ith ccrpor«tlons having llKited powers
derived from the law through ita charter, are chargeable with
c
.tftf.iAtat on ■•#u;
,,«„ v„ w^ x^ltOi^ifA Bed 9tiL SM^ •♦(Tfr~'~ »rb«llqsi .. ..w.i,
Liiioi . ■.., ... .^* X'f^qooO &.,.-■..- ..,,w..^. ^...- .«.. i-^vlwti^
nl ^v/oO Mivvtiu^ 9^^ OQitsTOii'xco • •ilOtf Ji ^ .ooi j^moqfioo
tasav .: : ■.< id! V" ,_ i^ . . . Ji wjj
. "7 j] ; . riX hi ^»
A .Xil . M8
, ,.8 .u :.^.sa
«*fX/X0sq»O «0 t:^ loc \
xii iir aXtfsa;^ ,
knowledge of Ita po^^ers oivx liadtsstiona ana can not bo heard
to deny auoh knowiedg© mhare lack of poser ia urged a& a
defense, for every one ia prft!!^UK«d to koow +ho law and no
one i» permitted to pload ignorance of it ri^ a a»©i.inf» of evad~
Ing liability on his r.nrt, or of «at,abll^hing a liability on
the r^Tt of others to him. National Hogie FJulldinK Asa'n v .
The HoKO 3avinKB Bank . 181 111., 35.
Appelliint knew ail about the circxueatanoes under
whloh the American Badge CoBipany endorsed the note in question.
He testified that it was on hia advice and aui^gestion to Mr,
Oans of the firm of Serota & Onne that the Bridge Company ^©re
asked to endorse the note; tnat he told Gs^ne "if you T,ill
get their endoreeKent, I will try to jet you tne »;oney from a
friend of tnine". The note wan brcvj^itit to hiir. by Gana after
it was» endoreod by the D';idg.e Cosapany and he did procure the
coney on it from one A. L, Mendelaon, H« knew the buaineas
in which the Aiaerloan Bridge Coapany was engiif;ed was a s-ercan-
tile bueineas. He &w the endoraettient of the Badge Company
on the note pl^^oed tuere by ita freaident over hi^^ Jiignature
as preijident. T110 nap« of the Badge Company waa in form a
corporate najse. It wes signed as oorrorate nAESS are uBuaily
signed by a peraon who designated hisoaelf aa an officer of
a corporation, So signed, it was rrlma facie the nign&ture
of a corporation. Fry v. Tucker. 34 111., lai. The Badne
Company was, in fact, a cors orjition. ha, t.hHrefcre, before
he becaue the owner of the r.-ote, and in ffict before the note
was negotiated to any one, had full no' ice of tn« fact that
the Anicrican Badge Coapany van a KC;rcanti4e corporation; that
it was an aoooremodatlon endorser on the note, and th'^t in law
it could not bind itself aa an acccmaodation endorser, '^lile
one dealing with a corporation hoving authority to i ^«ue
negotiable paper in due course of bus»inefle Kay uminily presume
that such paper apparently so issuea/'.iT.n ^utiiCrity a^nd
on te« «i«X mU «!OKi o^ Ambt- — ----^t* lOt ,«Mi8lwfc
-A«Te lo n/utMi « •« #i to aoRffUv-.i^rs i>joL>i.i^ wJ i>tt##i9ra»r( si mi*
. V rt'»»A ani&X^ue •e»H l»aii-.:- .alii ot a«ft4>o lo #isq Ml'
iitiit««<;i) Al •.rem vii-t Jb»«-zoiJnft xa*<1'*0 s^ ■• . ..^&/a*a4 ..- ..^
•yU ai ftoi#t»ajM^a to* •olvJb* tia no •mm tl tBd* b«X1tit««* «K
^"^^ yn«|BO0 tsbi06 vHi liiiil m^- ^n a ctoxwB lo mil ftd^ )• aacO
• **r, iiox tl" »n»0 Wot «? ^^/^^ ^^^ ••aoOnt oi 6»i«B
A «Ct1' t94IO« 9iii ttOX ^«S ,JaftMMI10bffil ilMl^ t^s
;:a4».iiw.tf0 Mt^ ««ai UK ,nominbnf>yi .« .^ .ao aot; .. ... t— ^^a
-a#m*j( « •■« fe^llH;)!!* a«w XMlaoO ^strl osoltMiA »ilt itttd* M
TAAqMoa ^b^aS •'tl to »ft0«»»MiMl» •K# »B^ AH ^ .•••irltiitf •(!>
eitfloAB'* »^<l 'x'vo #n»bl«»7<3 «#i ttf »a«<li 6«osXq •ten mU «o
• aiel at taw ta«<|«oO astnA Ml:^ to ••«» •<!? •tntfolt^aiq •«
YlCei/oir 9%m •oauM tl^ro^voo •• bonj!iia oAv 91 .MiAiT o9o«eq[i09
lo lotlllooa •• lioaaitf lw»onii»oi> odv riQtisq a t' tMt^*
M-I^r -T ,:■■[ ..m t~ .i.^JnrT .Y y^"^ .nai: . to
aJ. :iiro#tf Olf
r^l !!• ff.f.t •:(»■ ."fi,-! "H.t fi6 t n tt t o T)f. ft itc^.f Ate amo90B n#»JW fit*
bmii<^
^tf»9t o» yX trill
- 5 -
regul<'irly» «uoh freyiiittFtion o^n not prevail t:o rrotect one
vfho buys paper having an encloraejsent shich ha kno'/sa \o be
the aoooaKOdation endoraerifint of a corrorMticn, nnd -.vhioh he
knows that oorporaticn haa no autiiority to strike.
The aeoond pJ'Oposition a:ty be an aoc\3rate at.itsir.ftnt
of thG law, but in this caao ^he question of ucgligeuoe of
the holder of the note is not. involved. Plaintiff in error
ie ooncluaively pre^ucieci to know that uncier the law dofutiUant
In error, the American R^clge Coinpany, could not It^gc, }ly become
an accoBittOclation emtor«»er of negotiable paper, Evtsn if one
»ay be anfe, althoixgh negligent, in afeallng with ntigotiable
paper without flnaing out whether it ia j.ro!«rly i ^aued, that
rule oan not avail onr* who de:i3 3 in aucn i".«pHr knowing it to
hdVH bettn if-Bued vjithout authority. Knowing that the corpor-
fetion could not bind itself or bt- bo>,uid a<« an acoonfiiOiiation
endoraer of negotiable paper, plaintiff in error can not be
held to be an innooont ptirchaaer of it, but rf;\ist be held to
have rurchas»«ci it- subject to all lefennea '.irifllng fron* the
lack of pov/er of defendant in error ^o beooce auch emlor^er.
The third propoi'vition that ti\«. addition of the
abrevlatlon "Free." after the naite Frank A, SRith in zue. ely
deacrlptlo perwonAi^ laight h&ve more force, if "Fruiik A. ?«.ith,
Fres,*' was all there vm^ of the enaoreeB-ent, but it ia not,
[The naioe "AB,ericf!n Brrtre Co," precede* the rordft Trunk A,)
SiKith, PreB,", so that the entire enciorscRent, on ?!hich it lo
80U£ht to bind defendente in error, i& "American BDdge Co.,
Frank A, Sitith, FrRa,* This endorwertent could receive but
one construction by i t^rRons of average buaineaa experience.
It needs no extrinnic evicU.nce to show thi* endorfieir.ent to
be that of the Ac,«.rictm Badge Co., plf.ced there by ita ^ real-
dent. The OKiusion cf the word "by" or the ^ord "per", before
the naae of the ir&sii<ien%, ia inftignlf leant. T;.ft uiMue of
the corporation oould not have be,en written by tie corporation
1011* ai i.- ...-.V.,..,. ^.; ai -»-»"" ••"■♦ "^-^ i« f'-"^ 5it^
^Ottiinalftb W9j; •iU ««bmi tcn& iroo4 o# i) »., <,.w... ^.. t^
9tto It nr.v': ,.. i dXdaUcaHA 1© l#«i -;--=• np i t AiX>CMMf>0« ;|vi
«»)tliB.„-^.„ , ..-. .. ij. 1 i^__ ADJJkS
Mf ^OA nKo Tc^iY* ai ItliA «'. .c:i4A to i»«iolvif
oi" Alttil ad iBum iud ^^i '^^^ -an^fiQ^, ; ..pooAAi a« •<< o/ i)l<^
$ud •M ... iti«i;i
- 6 -
iteelf. It must ft<*ve been ^ritt.«r. by nojiie ni<tural rereon»
Before It oan be construeci to be the oignature of the o or r or-
ation it Rrtist have b««n affixed by «oae officer or ^gen% of
the corporation, Tn order tnut tne aigneture of u o or j ora-
tion itay have tha in<!igni{i of gemiinenewn, It ia iiaual for
the rerflon vrho afflxesj it to add hia r,ac;e, together with siome
word or expression indicntive of the oapaoity in which he acta
in 90 doing. i^'^hen this i« cion© by a duly authorised officer
or agent, the act is confltrued to be the act cf the corporation,
and not the personal act of the officer or Regent, unlesa there
la gowiB thing in the writing signed or tne signature i toe if to
indicate a ptirpoae on the part of {?uoh officer or >.ir.fint to
bind hitteelf eind not the corporation. J'eechaR on Anency,
Sec, 43i?. In llrarer v. Kasa, gtearo Hcutlng Co .. 5 Ailen
(IJaae.), 335, the? eifrrt/vture "ifasaachviaetta Ste»a; He>iting Coca-
pany, L. S, Fuiier, treaavurer", rnxs held to b«j the signature
of the corporation and act the p«?r8onal aif,nyture of Fv;ii©r.
In Reed v. Fle%infi. 209 II i., 390, a i:roB-i;4Sory not© ai&ned
"WilliaB. S, Reed, Trea. k't. C;-.rffif:l Lgt, & Water Co." ^vae held
to be thK ??ignature of the corforation and to create no obli~
gat ion on the p»rt of Reed ri^rsonally. In that case the
seal of the oorpcration was al=50 af-^ixed to the note which of
itaelf iE-ported 5 corjorate act.
The fourth point i:^ mijl taken. I'rivilo under nome
oiroufcistancee 9xtrinp>io eviacnoe ia adaisr^iblo to show v?ho it
w«« Intended to bind by a signature ( Fraivkland v» Johnaon,
147 111,, S^'JO), in thir) case the intent to bind tho corj-ora-
tion and not f?Kith, itn ; re-^i.ient, personally ir^ po Bianifeat
that no nece^s3ity exis?ted for Jiuch proof, Thtt proof wsto,
therefore, improperly adtRittod. Thia error, however, wae
hitriBleee, beoHua© the finding cf thfc court ti^at the flignature
wao the oorpor&te ai?:,n<4ture of the Badge Company auet have
been the aarce, if tne proof had not been offered.
QS iJftt/lJJi.so, Od
■9j<» 70 inpx-';'^ ?«w' 'fj i;»xm« nii»tf vrail ?tiuai ;Ji aoiia
^3 on
jr.".- -■ ' . -
'i'ftr.,,ii«» j.,<«-
•luti&.islll 9d# «d or tioii VAW ,*t«lufi
• itXIut to eii/tsn^ln XflAO«i- -""•* ton
-l^cfo on stAno o* br.r — *-'
i.> doidw •♦--
fi««M}
' "08 .AnJtaiOi^ . ^ r ai
.' aeiXXiW*
9m:z
it Ow
... T . ! ^ , r t
• 11/ ♦*:/!% In • ■ ♦fi"^'
' "t! «not^i^((t
...oixf (•••XaxAd
'MTtoo •!!* •mr
-. 7 •
The legai j:rincirl« involved in i.nt; fifth contention
ia not available to pl'^. vnllff in «rrcr in tiiia oaae. The
full and oomi lete authority of Smith aa rreaident of thw cor-
poration ia admitted. That ia, it i® adaittod ti.ist he waa
the duly elected, arjalified tmd acting rreoident of the
corporation fuHy ©cjpowered to do and r«;rfcr» aU act« a
preeident of that corpotation could perforw, smd that ia ail
the authority he a?!f?u?»ed to have. Ti;a rropositicn contended
for relates to caa»« i/here the agent, as ;?uch, haa aseumed
authority he did not have. In tiiR oaae wt o-at, the rif^hte
of the rartlee ciej^end on the pover of the corr oration, not
the authority of <he agent. An '^gent duly authorized to act
for the corporation in all thinge the corporation amy iHwfully
do, and who diecloaee for wham he in acting, does not cnke
hiaiaelf pereonally liable by entering into a contract for the
corporation which w«j8 ultra virea the corroration, when the
person who atteajts to enforce tnat contract knew at the tinje
it wae »ade and at the ticio he beoarae financially interested
in it t.'sat it svaa i* contract the corporation could not lawfully
nake.
Plaintiff in error h-iving failed to prove by a rre-
ponderanoe of the evidence that defendant in error. Smith,
poreonally endorsed the note, and th«t the endoraeKent
"AB-ierican Badge CoKrany, Frank A. Seiith, Pres." ?,'aa the
authorised endorsement cf thot ooHipany, both of which en-
doraeitents are prororly fut in i^me, tha judgment of the
Municipal Court is i^ffirced,
JUPOVFNT AFFIRMED.
-cri
t»t
oroMMr
bamtnr.-^
ton
^nolfp.
#0i
XX£t'
a iwlf^-
•4.^
{>
Mi
be>
MJTtOTIOO
>M Ml »flSi
.1 TtOTt-
.•Ami
•07
f^tjtiortttie
taob
i8lM
171 - 17701.
M. FRIEDLANDER,
Plaintiff in Error,
I. V. EDGERTON,
, Defendant in Error.
.ERROR TO .
WUHICIPAL COURT
OF CHICAGO.
m. PRESIDING JUSTICE GRAVES
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
This case cokcs here by writ of error to the Muni-
cipal Court. The abstract of the record contains no nugges-
tion of any judgaent in that court, and is in other roapecta
informal and insufficient. All there is in this so-called
abstract, except what ia intended as an abstract of agreed
facts, ia as followa:
and ntateaent of claim,
e of defendant.
of luOrita of defendant.
articulnrs for defendant and ect-off,
of claim for defendant and plea of oet-off.
tateKont of claim of the defendant on his
f the court on defendant's claim of r,et-off,
tatement of all facts appear ing on the trial
led cause, and all ether procesdings in
1 the decisions of the court in naid cause,
on as to agreed facts,"
i^ * ■^ ii *** m ****** it *********** ****
"40 Finding of Hon, Oscar K. Torriaon, Judge, thyt the
plaintiff in error i^ entitled to recover on his original
claim $506,93, and lurthor finding thc-t defendant is entitled
to recover on his plea of set-off ^543,65, being an excess of
$35,73 over and above the amount found due plaintiff.
Ijction of nevT trial
Overruling of the motion of new trial.
Exceptions by the attorney for the plaintiff in error.
Dated June 14th, ISll,
48 Writ of error dated 17th day of June, 1911, filed in
-the Municipal Court on the 19th day of June, 1911.
43 Certificate of clerk,"
•«3
Praecipe
5
Suiuiions ,
6
Appearanc
8
Affidavit
9
Bill of p
; 13
Statement
18
Arricnded s
plea of
set-off.
'^1
Finding o
sotting
damages at
23
Correct 3
Of the above entit
said cause, and al
' 34
Stipulati
Besides failing to show any judgment, this abstract
is little more than an index and ia vrholly insufficient.
It has been Kany tirrea held by the Appellate and
Supreme courts of this state that the abotract niur.t ahow
everything on which error ia aooigned, in order to warrant
the reversal of a judgicent; that a court of review v:iii not
go to the record to find a reaaon for the reverse;! of a judg-
ment, Spain V. Thorr.aa. 49 111, App,, 249; BinhOD v. Loe?Tun,
63 111. App,, 351; Ftony lolond Hotel v^o. v. John^ion . 57 111.
App., 608; Johnson v. Bantock^ 38 111., Ill; Allen v. Henn,
197 111., 486; Porn v. Robr, 177 111., CDS; Trae^erjr.
Mutual B. & L. Annn .. 189 111., 314; City vicv. Ry. Co. v .
Jones . IGl 111., 47; Gibler v. City of r.-ttcon. 167 111,, 18;
l^allera v. Crano Elevator Co .. 57 111. App., n83; Kelleher
V. Tiedale. 23 111., 354.
It goes without Baying that a judgment can not be
reversed until one exists. The abstract in this case failing
to show a judgment, it will be presumed, as against plaintiff
in error, that none was entered.
It is also well nettled that courts of review Vvill
go to the record to find reasono for affirming a judgraent.
Amudeon Printing. Co. v. Eir.rire Paper Co .. 83 111, App., 440; ;
City Elec. Ry. Co. v. Jones. 161 111., 47; l^artin & Co-, v ,
MclTurray . 74 111. App., 44,
An examination of this record discloses not only
a judgment for defendant in error for §35.72, but also that
it ia in accord with the rcanifc-jt rights of the parties.
The judgment of the Municipal Court is, therefore,
affirmed,
JUDGMENT AFFIRKED.
- Term, 1911. iTo":
228 - 17763.
Plaintiff In Error,
va.
CEICAGO RAIL-^AXS QOUT^y, a
corpor&ticn,
refepdant^in Frror.
ERROR TO
SUPERIOR COURT,
COOK CrUKTT.
V 182 I. A. 3 92
KB. PRFrJriKG JUSTICE GRAVES
Di:M7ERXD THE vOPIKICR OF THt. CCURT.
Tb« declaration in this ca^ie ch^<.rgeB that while the
plaintiff wae with all due care and caution .vriving & teas
hitched to n wagon aornee tho strrrt car trackR of ^he
defendant at the junction of Vilwaukee avenue sind Jioble
street, the defendant by ita aftrvarts «?c cfirele^Tply, negli.
I gently and wrongfully Kinaged, orerated and controllsd its
atreet car th«t thrctigh an.l by the negligence, curele?>eneee
and isproper conduct of th« defersdant by its nervanta the
car of the defendant struck the wagon of the pleintiff and
he wae injured. The jury fcund the defendant not fuilty.
To entitle plaintiff to recover he *a0 Uound to
prove not only that tho defendant's -«ervante were negligent
and that he was injured, but aleo that ;.e was at and i&E.ediat(
ly before the tiiso of the injury in the exfiroiae of aue care
for his own safety, or, in other *.'0rd8, th.^t he sae not in-
y^ jured because of hla own negligence. If either cf these
propoaiticne are not established by a trftponjerance of the
evidence, tne verdict of the jury ia ri^ht.
The plaintiff hiweelf teBtified th-t before he
Btarted to croee the atreet he aaw a 8tre**t car a^rroaching
the point ▼hero he was about to cro»«, sind frc« 100 to 10
feet away, Kovlng •very faat"; that he whi? red thr horaee
with the line* and they want faoter, but the csr collided
• saTTx . mtz
SG8 .A.
OT flOH«1
.TTKUOO 1000
T O 9 r
I .utavo nvnioi
,§▼
<nioo
T ooAor"
self o£i ••atiulo •Dito •lA^ nl nolfrt«Xo«l> •<iT
nnlvlv/j aoi^t/«o but 9- XX« dtlm •«» tlllnltfltr
..it iouifM /n«bn«l«b •Hi !• S«o
Li ntflfttii of
'..no ton •▼01-r
->«(« ♦ffrt ^h^nyfr.^ »•«» »ri #aiff ha*
,10 ttttlM mro Alii YoY
n fiwo airf \o ••UflOAd X>«i-i^
/ ^il«lXtf«#t» ton •JM »tto If tmonot i
»it wotrnd f.'Af ftltfw* tXsMld m^iflX? •liT
8nJtrt<>«oi(7T« VBO #<*«itf« • irsii wd tntiifm •Mi aaoYO ot bm^fm^m
li 001 (aot^ bnM ^••o^e ©* tu • ad tiadv #nl
•••lod vdt fc«'7ild« 9(i {*f»»y v^ttv* SnlTOa «t«v #••!
iMctP.oo lAO 9d.t tud ^fiBL * taa MMlI adl Aiiw
-al twt ttm
- ?. -
with the wagon before it cleared th« oar trackj that the
wagon he wHSi* driving was p haavy wagon londtd trith ov«r t^iio
tons of Keati tiu*t y/hile bis horaee ^.ere walking faat, h« could
atop thea in 10 fset, and that he waii th«5n 10 or 15 f«et from
th« track. He did net attoajt to stop ^-lic tei.ns, but clid
a^tftifcT.t to hurry t.h«tt aerobe the track. Other wltne«i«ee
fr;r plaintiff te«tifi«Kl th&t the car apFroaohed the pii«o« of
colllaiirm "very faet". The VMrioua x'itjiefi^eo i'or both wlciee
place tf.ft diPtanca th« car s^is fro» th« point where thes
oolliBion occurred q.% the tinse f luintiff fir^^t BtBrted to
croaa th« trBok v;.»riouflly froa 50 or 80 f^net to uj? hij^h i*«
aj j.roxiBiately SOO feet. Under thsit ??tate of facta it waa
for thft jury to Bay «riether the pl^Untiff was at ar+d ip;B.ediate-
lybefcre thR colliafcon in thse exs^rclae of cai© car© ana caution
for hifi OKfi QMf«ty, or, in other ^orda, whether ho, in at-
teKpting to cross the tr&cka »fh«?n he did, ?ieted as an ordi-
narily prucient porson woul'J n^ve clone under th« eo&e or
aimilar oirouttffltanofto. In ttm vi«iw ■*-© take of th« 04»te,
it «ouki be uselenn to dlacuiBfl the evirienoe tendin}- to nnon
the injury r^ncl the noglig«no« of the defendant 'b aervantu
in Charge of the oar. Suffice it to nay the faot of the
coilialon and th« injury to plaintiff in fu} ly establiBhed,
and 5se think the ssvlcJence in th« rscord »ould be euffioient
to auiport u finding that the aervrtnta of defendant in aiiargo
of the oar wore negligent. Trie V'^rdiot of i'he jury waa
evidently baaed on a finding that the pl&intiff *aa guilty
of contributory negligence, itnd ve think the evi lence above
referred to Ib ample to ^mpport that verdict.
Coarlalnt l» aiade to the giving of the 15th, IBth,
21st, and £4th i ns true ti one, given for the defendant.
The 13th instruct ion in on the burets n of proof and
th6 preponderance of the evidence. It is a «tock inatruotlon
bi ' q©** V too bli
-Wfl
4010 oi tn
''Xiro^r n
>4i aai: iiaaXaiu/ fttf i)/
^«t oi ^i •oilli/8 ,iMO Bdf lo as*:
tt\0t
•t!MUlO
Xlili»3
> 00 bt
tvod« aonaMTa •AS to'
««oa»aiXa»n xio^iftfXi
. *c;
•^ex tiU 1» :
.oO
;avXl ,
D(.
ioJtlQUAt««i:
.Aonablvt tdi lo ooaaTRbAoqi
,t«xs
)
« 3 -
frequently given ixna often approved, Tne in«trtiction 1«
criticised beoauae of tho ui»e of the expression "Kfttfeblishod
hia caafi", th« ocntcntlon being that tho«e wordu are not
equivalent to *®^t.;ibli!?>hing tho i3®ue« ejssiential to the
Ewintenanoe of the action", - •eat^bllfih the sistorial iflauee",
- or "prove the a negation* of hia ilecylaratlcn", A like
objection wao rii»po«©ci of wdvoreely to th.xt contention in
Chi 9a go City Ryy ^ Co. v . Selaon. ai5 III., 430-443; and C. l^ .
T. Co, V. ^>» . 318 III., 9,
InRtmctlon 18 told the Jury, in effect, th.-it if
they believed froa the evi<lenoe that the *>30le cr4U«e of tiie
injury to the plaintiff misi his( own n«f;igenoe in .'riving his
t«aK onto the track in fr':nt of th© car, he cculd not rftoover.
It is iii-^Btod that thlB inirst ruction io «rron©ouB, because it
ignores the question of ncgligenoft on the j.art of t.hr; atsrvante
of defendant, «« vsell i\n on the lesr* of the j-.laintiff. This
Inotruoticn in equivalent to raying, if the jiixy find that
the servants of defendant were not negligent, the plaintiff
could not recover,
Inatruction No. 21 r«»lntcsB to the effect of contri-
butory neffligersoe oni anncunoee the la«- to be that, if the
plaintiff *&0 injured while an.) bf^cauee he '«a« not in the
exaroie© of Ruoh oarG for hit? o^n safety aa sn ordinarily
prudent «nd cantiotis peraon would exerci^^e under the saise
oirouKStancee, he could not recover.
InatniCtion No, PA relates to the duties ^na lia-
billtiea of persona confronted by eudden and unexpected danger.
All the£»e Instructlone etate the law v^lth mibetantial accuracy
and fire not aubjeot to the aeve^ral criticifiBjj* m^cte.
Finding no error in the record, the Judgment of the
Superior Court Ih afflrsied.
JIJDGMENT AFFIRMED.
lt> ' A il — ■ i> ,/ i< :7Jl ' • :,>
Jon "•» " ■ • •''
,^Mtf«#l I;:. ... .^ , "frolic
•ill A .■iioM"'«r .., . !♦«
•rfi lO 9*»); , i-->.-i«t' ?i/'
> •' >'( X <ita
• In snlvln it ttC-.-- _i.: . i.L .... •>"'^ "♦
,1f>v . 'i.r r^ "S ' . > ^o f'T 'T^ n f in
• . L.c t^^t •tf# 11 tl'l^Y-
-ll^.--
»/t^ . ^ _ _. ^.* -rjj.j • ••
ml' ott wrt. n
lolisqu^
. ...iMITIA Tt
361 - 17397,
JAMES I, JULIAN,
Appellee,
APPEAL FROM
SUPERIOR COURT,
HENRY PIER30N and CHJ»RLF: ~
PIFRSOH, / ) COOK COUNTY,
^n
V XT' 182I.A.400
f ^ Vr, PBFf^IDINO JU3TICK GRAVES
DELIVERED THK OPISIOS C? THE COURT.
Appellants were partners In the buwlnesa of deliver-
ing newspapers to news dealero in different parte of the oity.
On Maroh S3, 1909, one RloMrd Bcynton, an eKrloyBe of ari>«5l-
lantfl in the Cttpacity of a driver, was in the due oourae of
thfjir buniness passing north on Fifth avenue with one of their
!^. delivery wagons. A short distance north of Washington street
f\
k the rig he was driving collided with, knocked down and ran
over arrellee, injuring hlK, A trial in the Biiporior Court
^ resulted in a verdict and Jiuigaent for appellee for §600.
Appellants ask a reversal of this judgrtient, because
the court refused to direct a verdict of not guilty; because
the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence on the
question of the negligence of appellants and on the .vxestion
of the contributory negligence of appellee, and because the
court erred in rsodifying, refusing ^nd giving instructions,
and in rulingson the adnsission of evidence,
A pereicptory insstrviotion for the defendant should
I never be jjiven where there in evidence In tne record which,
when considered by itself, fairly tends to eatsblish tne
plaintiff •« right tc recover, ho alleged in his declaration.
Libby. Mc Neil & Lihby v. Cook . 2?.p. 111., 306. The substance
of the c^iarge aade in the deolarstion is ti^tit appellants,
through their servantra, no negligently and carelessly drove
and BAnaged the horse and wagon that ths; same ran against and
^
nofn JAS'
00' i^cl
\
]"
.TesTt - L'-c
■JfUHO tea ■OBfT"»Tq rmiKir
, n*.'f«if lr,ink
SaVAft.
«4^1v iMMIXOt
R io1 fa»' .:i,to%9w m at tiotium*^
•iio<*ai«:9«J& alii
OOfi-
•voib ^XaaaioTa^ ecu T^#n
»aavor
- 2 -
over appellee and injured hiia, while he nun in the exerci»e
of d\i» care and caution for his safety. The testisiony of
afpellee tomied to fjhcv* that, an he wa<5 attempting to croas
Fifth avenue froic isest to «a«t, abcut 7ft feet north of
Washington atroet, and when he had croaaed to within three or
four feet of the east curb of the street, he was striiok and
knocked down by the rig of appellante e» it cajte froa the
direction of ?8tahington atreetj that before he atteevrted to
crofis, ho locVed acroee and up anrt down the? street atui aa'w
nothing to hinder hiR. fro© crcfflf?ing in s?afety, and did not
»ee the rig that etrvok hli», until the inatant before he wae
knoarked down by it; thfit it wms not dark; and that th«re was
no atroot oar or v»agon on the street between hi«> and Washington
8tr^-et. MatflOn, a policeman, at that tiise stationed at the
oro'steing of Fifth avenue land Waahington street, tfi??ttfied
that he enw the rig %a it aprroaohed Washington street frous
the Bouth, and a© it rrooewded north tn«refro«ij that it wa»
going fast J on a trot and on a run. Othf^r evidence in the
record also tended to ahow th«t the hor»« was b«ing driven at
an iitmoderate S'scd, Tt^if* evidence, taken by itself, tended
to show due otire on the j-art cf Mj:penee find negligence on
the part of the eervant of apreXlante, and the peresiptory
instruction was jrccerly denied.
Whether the verdict is coi^trary to the Eianifeat
weight of all the evidence ia n Riore difficult quastion,
Socie of the evidence offered by af.peHee, and isbove referred
to, is coritradloted flatly. The driver for arpellants,
Boyntcn, testified that tne hor»e wfiw »;ot on a /.un, but vtns
trotting, when appellee -^a® struck. He also te!3tified that
appellee crossed tha street in front of a oar, and tht^t ite
did not aee hi® until he was right in front of the horee.
T..ere are eonse significant etatea^ente icade by this witneea
that tend to weaken Ydn evicience. He was a.gked on cvons. ex-
to xoo«|:^t*# •!<? •Y'ftt** •I'l lot netiuto baa saso tM/l> ^
• §010 of jr>*'^'-^«- ' ->• ^'^ "" ^fBtif iNMUi •! fr«fttr«# MlX^^iili
r-. 4^>trtt (Tttf^lw o^ b*ii«oi9 bed »ii. ii^ft* teJ ,t*»itts mttrtlit#Kf
ja » -< ^'< ,la»Tt« tfii to tfnro #aAa ^tit to ^aat loet
ariJ «ott t^. - .- «" »rf,i*rr!v >i "!>> ]|ii »tf^ Yd /twob baifoomt
o^ tetq«a#^« a;{ •«':.-. ,. MtiialABgt lo fiol^eavMi
pram ". i ^r ^i\-:tf F' p ■Ari .t ftwQff bfla <V' '-'f'' Vf^'-r'Jt* Fr'Wvin/ A|f .aflOtO
I lAiar
Sfllft^di
,-f H*!*
r t%'i
a;;'.
Oil.
bdi
v.c f I.
lii hiin ea
•nol^aaup tlaol
baiiatn-i dv6<^^ httm ,a«l£aq :
^9itciv rot lavlifi rtif
■av ti/ef
aaofttl
AW nr>' • ' *
. ttttii ail ift
♦frnonirrJi ao^a ata ttiith^
amination; "You did not aee Ur, Julian until h* woe in front
of the horse. Xsj that v?hat you sayt* and he replied, "Yes,
laay I dii not eee hire until he ?^ot nsfir to thfi cmr," He
further atflted, "I grabbed wy lin^a and held the horee jit the
tiite I first bsw hire. Nearly threw the horse down. I pulled
hln clear over on the aide to'^ard the elevated r-Ofit and he
nearly fell*. He further atatei, "Wnen ne AOt acrcna,
clear aoroee, just hesitated enough no 1 could net fltop".
FrOK thene statewents, thhan in corinection vith the urjdiaputed
faote that aj^pel^ee orcsaed Fifth avenue frorc the west to the
east, and that th« wit,ne«s was driving ths rig north on the
eaat side of Fifth avenue, f?nd that, rot'.«.lth3tanding the
Jriver*3 frentio efforts to stop ths horse after he "grabbed
the lines", the rig went ten cr fifteen f«et i;a8t ai.pel5«e
after knocking hirr; down, the jury Kight »e31 ,iave believed
the rig was going at a reckleesiy irrffioderate epjcd; that the
driver did not have held of the lines until the inetant before
the collinion and thfst he bs*- ai-peiiee in time, ao that, if
he had had hold of the lines, or had •grabbed" fntm sooner,
he could have avoided the injury. Tfiklnp the srstaterrente
of the driver above referred to aa true, between the time
the driver firet saw appellee, '^then he "got near to +he oar*,
until he hed passed "clear over" to tha east aide of the street,
where ne waa atruck, he had travareed Oiore than one-half of
the width of the street. Whether under all the facte ;ii«-
olosed by thf; evidence the Rcts of the driver were negligent,
and whether appeDee at and ju(?t before the ti»e of the injury
aoted as an ordinarily r>nident nnd cautious man ^fould have
scted under the BfimG or fjirdlar oiro\iaistance«^ ii?rfre questions
for the jury rmd a'ter a onreful consideration of all the
evidence in the record, we are not prft'jaired to say tnfi finding
of the jury on elthar of the?ie quest iono was contrary to the
weight of the evidence.
tooit at •«« 9d Ilfnv nfllf/T. .-r'f rrs tor Mb «oT" ;itoi;tAaia«
oH •.lAo «xli o> ".. iimt.mJtii — t©a . -el
b9Liu% I »Jnob tc^ ^xd^ jXtsttt •aiiii vca t«iA I tmt^
Jl>»^u7eltnu 94^ iitiv «oll09ano9 at n^it^i ^i- ^i^
dii? r>"t t?3* «£lt BKJit duflaT/t Mil'' htt^-itr- oa^
•iol»4 ^ftjsit«»r* nrit £^tmr«*niX e4^ lo bXort 9rnri i^ htb r9ift%to
It tSt>A) It ••U«<n* <w«« ft o<t*
,'X9rioofl asi-) ;ij" hr.rf ro^^n^aU txi* lo tylQA bAA bAd w(
V rn BiLi ;|ali aiitS^sd^ b«tiOY« #tb4 bLuoo t.t!:
,•': ifltii to^' ttil a»d« «»«XX9<T^A wipii. #«ari i9Trttti nAf
tt6»i^ win ^a«» ed^ oi "i»to «iia bAd «d li^'C'
-ff(i XI« s»tcuf - .fmxiM til le dltin ad^
^9'- i»¥ttb adl lo «^o« 9413 »dfl9tlv» 9di Td l>9ii«£o
9?iiii vaaa 9uctfuno ban ttfbtn<t tXluntJUmp. s« ft* b»#ttd
tnoi' IT ^•onaj^ftu/niio laUbain lO •auHi ftd^ Y9lMvi Afrtai
-• not*«Tnftmiioo Xtflamio a »9#ljt b<ii. ^dl*
axil! .^q t90 triM 9W «tnpe91 Ml» Xli «0fl9ht1f'4
6 \^d HAW siiotiiivvp vvAd^ lo T«u4^1« no tVJt ad^ 1N»
.*Ofiat>|ya «d4 lo #dBi«v
- 4 - f
SeverJil Inatruotiona afiked by appenant©, referring
to acts thiit cosrtributed to the injury, were aiodlfied by the
court by Inserting before the '^ord "contributed* the word
"proximately*. It ia Insisted tivit proxlRiately in a tsohnioal
word, find th-U it »«« error tc in>>ert it in nn inatruotion
without defining it. Whether or not th*t \q true appellant*
can not complain o^ its) une in this OiS'^e, bocsu«e in '\n in-
struction a«ked by theit, ^ind tj.ivsin by the ooiirt a*? aH)od,
tne term *afproxiB.&tely ooritributed* i« u(?ed. While in the
abstract tn^re may be ?i. snade of n'-ffercnce in the terius,
the International Dictionary gives each ',vord ae one of th«
definitions of tae othor, an;( as used in the'^e ins-riiotiona,
they ^re synonomoua. If the uno of the term without a
definition of it was error, it wae one appellsnte led the
coTirt into, and they cannot no-:^? gokj' iflln th^it It followed
their l@«;td.
One instruction, nn reques^ted by fspp«?llant9, con-
tained the exrrej'.stfcn, "If tho a oldent waa oau«5ed either
wholly or in yrrt by ror-t of rfjascnable cate or H'tention to
his (Situation, on the part of the plaintiff*******. The
court modified it by erasing the words, *or attention to nia
situation*. This rcodifioation did not alter the Keaning of
tne instruction to the d«triKent of arrcllant?!, ?!ind was not
error.
An instruction dealing ,'ith the, duty of the jury
not to diereg'ird the testiitony of nn uniRpeaohed witness
einsply beoauae he waa or had been in the employ of appelisnte
was refused, ind appellants InBii^t they were prejudiced, be-
oau.ee one V'artin T^a^ e wltnei^R for there nnd swbp not at tho time
of the tri'^l in their eBsploy, and that no other in^struotion
0f ecif ioally related tc a ca^^e v.hftre ^ -^itneaB had been, but
vraa no longer ereployed by a riirty. The distinction nought
to be irsde between thia refuBed inptructicn ^nd ^oite th.-^t ^ere
, ^ .
(io.f;»ot'7 *Ti«»*ftl o# upttf* iif ill ta« ,bito»
aim iiniciil»fe #
xoiqq«*
,«ooi.v 99 9 At Ml to tr 9ib
-iMvoiXolt 1^ l6i(# nit * b«« ^ . .^P
«*l!too ,aii. \4 tii9t%9U9%x so ^aoi^oui/eal foO
!• fn' 3iX« ton J>ii> oQl^afitZboa a^MT .*aoilAirt4«
/Oil 6 ,ataaXX»qqi# )# t99miii9b tfi
TIU^ il««b 09lt9Uit9Ul OA
• ••ai^w : toi/ a» j$x»lb Qt if§
utrrftiiv x^Xqjia ad^ al aa&. o •«* #4 f«a«o«d YXqa|f
ooitutMq •«efr,t*4l I«i«|i4 P^«4XXa«qa ban t^«^ "^f
mU4 adi . ««4^ lol aatfl^^w a aijir nttnM aoo aev^j^
•eltotfi^fal tafi odi hfl«i ,voX'3a* t- "(^
#ild «aa*C tMl at tiadr ea^r lai xXi i'|
•tan noj* ool^otfic^aal ^'. 7^
- 5 -
given is too fine to be fioen with th?? naked aye, even if the
witnesa Mnrtin had ever fceen in ar r.tUantn' Kiv.rlcy, A search
cf the irecord, ho-^-ever, .Uytolcges nc evi -ie.noe ihoX hf3 ever "was
an ewployee of appellants, but riccf? di'^cloeo ?iff irrr.ativejly
tiv-t he wee, at the time o.f thti ocourrenccu about which he
testified, in th« erc^ loy of the- ''^illlait J. Burns detective agen-
cy, shich was net a r«5rty to *he nuit or Phown to hr\vo been
intftro-i^teci in iiny way in the re-^ult thereof. Tne coKrlaint
made to the refusal of this in-''truction i '-^, thnrrfcre, /without
foundation.
Wiien the policeiean, K^itBon, -n-af? on the -stand sr a
witness for appellee, he wae asked to i-elrite a coiiversation
had with the driver, Boynton, 3con after the accident, arKi
while he was sjtill at the plftce ivhere it occurred. Atpeilants
objected en the ground that xhot the driver aaia yft«r the
occurrence wag nc part of the transaction, Thiff objection
the court sustained. L'^ter, when Boynton wae on the otand,
appellants staked for and Boynton tes^tified to jart of the
conversation In queeticn. On cvo^n examinntion he wus asked
for and told, I'fithout objection being aede, n.cre of the saite
conversation, and, among other things, thsit hfl hrsd told the
officer he wg:^ in 9 hurry, L";ter, the officer w?iS rooii.Ued
and, over Objection, v^'ae adiowed to give hi^ v<-:r5aion of the
conversation. This convereatioii was no f^rt of the trfinaao-
tion and did not r^rj ort to be, nor .lid it relnte to it. It
had reference solely to the ciesire of the /:river to - roceed
on hif? journey after the accident, ^nd hud nc reference to the
acciUent or hci^ or w^hy it occurred. It '*h"\Jd hhve >.een ex-
cluded. The evident purr owe in introducing it was to crewte
tiift iaferonce that tha csriver i^un iiriving fast, and tnat A-as
all the jury could have underetood froro it. *hiie it mia
iiKproperly admitted, there are two roafiojia Ahy it could not
have influenced the jury in deter mi ning tne ia.«?ue8 ir. tne caae.
- « -
» -f «. Kr,(f/-.>
:-. .^0 Bjgm ^txovfi'M ,ajtaeoiXoq til^ netfW
c Jiis tnt'tB aoo9 ,flOtfiTo8 «Tfnrlib bAS '♦ >« "> ^
»i .bwiivooo tx aisriv HD-inr nrfit fa ICift ■•* ... ^
:« bin isTitb BAt i bnnoTS vit' RO b«r^t4i
iio//o«t<^o cidT .aoi^fafttnstf Mf# t« tisq od ttv toatTtto^Mb
,JMl«ft •d.t no •«« ooffTTOlt rr«:1v «t*fnJ «btrrf <>^A're fiiroo vilf
•dt lo ticT 0* b«Jtlt«»f no-^ V J7 hnb tol L '^fnullBqiiB
bftimM t«w Ad not$Katmmic% tao^o ... ..loifaftirp nl aelfflatbTUdo
•sea •rt^ to rxo« ,tb»n BRi«<f rtolfo»t«fo tv^^-f^f^ ,bIof bnf "i«*»
9df bXo* bad »d tad# ,t8nH* t'^n-!*© ^noa.- -f'>H,-.o-
bbXC«e«t •«« itelllto 9df ,i.. _ .yiind . .
tdf lo ooltvflv aid btis ot towQXlA ■•« «rioifo«ttfd «...,
. - - - - * — J.:iB aolt
bneootT oJ T«Tii ^^ .If Of t^oXo> 0©nai«>l»i biit
•df Of §on«i^Th:T 1 • fciiff f.t*; ^funttons ruH ^»f1p tdntif , no
-xo nsn ,>;»tii/oo i lO fflOMOM
•ffiftio 3t 9SV Si snioaMtfAi nl odO'ittfq fnoblvo OdT .r^stuiXo
•fi' lA «fo«l lerlvXTb tiv isvlib Adt fadf •oat- ydf
•Afi ^i 9Xifi»\ ,ft ao^l boot«iohna ivrtrt tfirro Yit;t «df itXi
foa bXxroo tk x^^ •nom»9t o«f ••!« eio.. aicTnl
.OOAO ttd/ nl sMiAOi 0df saXA^*t»^*i'> ffl Titvt ••^.^ boonoulln^
- 6 -
First, the driver tad aAcesdy frankly testified without ob-
jection tr.at hti told the officer, after the accident nad
happened, th«t he waa in a luury, and, eeoond, the evidence,
aside froit any inference to hu drawn froir. the foot th::t ne
was in a hurry «fter the accident wa© over, maa auch th:;t the
Jury roust havefound that Bcynton r^as driving rapidly at find
juet before the ti»e the accident occurred.
Finding no reversible error in the record, the
judgirent i«i afflrreed,
JTJDGKFNT AFTim'KD,
- o —
-<fe fuocitt* bcillintl xJ^^'S'^^ Ti^aiXc bBd itvlxD till , ' - iT
.hwYicrooo inn A* •alt •dt aTOtad ^irt
rnti TJiaMOdUl.
v.wiio'ber Term, 1911, "EoZ
393 - 17930.
JOHN F. DEVINE, adttdniatrator ol/the
e«tate of JACOB ADKLliAM, ctoocsas^,
AYJ:iilmni, ) APPEAL FROK
v«. / ) aUPF.RIOR CCURT,
RE
or p oration*
/
THE SOUTH PARE OOmiBnomJfB, a ) CCOK CCUHTY,
Appeu... ) 1 8 2 I .A. 4 2
MR. PRF'^THNO ,W^1CK OMW^
DELIVFREP THE OPIKICN OF WE COURT,
Appellant brought «?ui t In the flurerlor Court of
Cook County to recover froR appelJee claB:ageft for the aeath
of arpellant*9 Inteatato. The action waa based upon the
alleged negligenoe of appellee in maintaining a BwiudSiing tank
or pool in Palreer Park, which is a south aide park under the
juriadiction of af pellee. A deaurrer filed by appellee to
the deolRrtttix>n waa 8uat<*ined m\d judgement ^ms entered af.ainat
appellant in bar of hia action.
The question presented here for determination i«
whether appellee. The ?5outh Tut\. CoiK»lft^i oners, as a corforate
body, is liable for negligenoe in connection with the udt-inie-
tration of ite powers and dutioe.
It ie conceded by appellant thcit, if the caee of
Backer v » Th e To^it Ohioago T,: Tk Cotr.Bdisaioncr8. 66 111. App,,
507, was correctly decided, then the judgaent in this oaae
should be affirc;cd. In thiit case it was held that it was
the et.ate acting through the ^-xrk C0BiEiRffion*>r8 that Kaintained
the p'-i'fJ'a* boulevards 3iv5 plenaure ground* j that the Pr.rk
OoriRienioners have no voice in or control over what shall be
done, or who shall be emplcyod to do it, and that however re<-
cioa or neeii5«*J>^' ''i'** coumiefiiioners KBy be, no that aauiage or
injury to individx^jile results, nc action can be caintained
Against the Pi'.rk ConaBiisaioners aft a corfcrate body therefor.
.0S8TC - :,-^t
.1 WHO!
.TTWUOO j^ :^^
SOJ^.A.ISS
lu f:
to iii/oO 10 ii lid ^nAiXtqqA
•j. .-;■;■
its? •!!# iMdi 19' 9 iibiitvt£uc<f ctit
•ff lL«ilii taitv Vi.' TO fli tolov on tvr/i saoanlaiilaaoO
b«fli«tfl/i»at Ad nuo no
^tf v^jii (I7*fiol«fi«io0 trmf 9tif f^atA^B
fii9 court says;
"The ^'est Chicago Turk CoKml^aiomjrs i^ a mmiciral
corporation, having certain limited rowers granted to it by
the legielii+ure. ^he i^eiabera of *h& Board' of Test Chioai];©
Park Coiui?.i;^nionar« ure L,gentJ?, by ^'hoit, in i-cirt, the peoi ie
of the Btatc carry on the governE«nt. Th*.iir luncticna are
eBAftntiaJiy r-olitioal and concern the 3t:vte ,':t lurge, although
they are to bs aiacharged ivithin thfi town oi: '/^ai^t Chicago, **♦♦•
Wilcox V. Tne Feoplfe, 90 111. 186; "^^est Chica}^o Park Cot.xc.i8-
aionera v. JlcKullen, 134 lU, 170."
In Brgindt , v, Wea t Chicaii:.o P-nxk CoKitei^;aiom:ra . 162 111,
App,, 371, the cotirt, npcaifing of the Park. Cori.aiPrtionera, eala;
■Undoubtflidly the apreHeft is ® nsuniolrality of avioh
liciitecl po«?arf5 and created In sxich a way vn to render it irn-
B.une from liability for dasio^en resulting, from th© negli/;^ence
cf its' orflcere," Citing HriCVer v. f^ent ChlcaRO Park Coiq-
tcl »aionera, ^U£ra.
In Fftorle e?. rel, v . ^al c?h et ^1 .. 06 III., ^33, '
the court 8ay»:
■That the Pitrk Coi^ml^jnionera are a {-.ubllo corporation in
■«hOK ia vaated certain ffcvcrnpientftl powers of a ivolitlcal
character in aettled by the rravictis ciecialons of thlfi ccurt."
In Wilcox Ft aX. v. Ff^orlg et al .. 90 111,, 166,
the court says:
•The Ken-ibera of the board of T/e^it Chicago Park Co&;n:;i««iiionera
are r.genta, by ^'hots., in part, tho people of the St^te carry on
the government. Th«4r functionB are esRentlany f.olitiojtl,
and concern *h<? fitate at large, b3 though they are to be aie-
charged within the Town of ^oi^t Chicago."
Without ftlfiborating en the reasoning of the court
vie conclude that the holding in Backer v. The '^'eg t ChicuRO Purk
Co);ri:i n si on STB. 8urra . 1-3 ccrect, and holds good in the caae
at bar.
The ^udgsr.ent of the =?uj>erior Co\irt ia, therefore,
affirrted.
Judpjent Affirmed.
fXB» tVtOO tff
X ■ 190
•
.1X1 sax »ii. . >Y f^^?§ nl
-r^ • Til
•on oWB
" fV %&4 0.>ri ji to
Ji
lij^iffo bef«dv ei add*
/li/oo sd:^ to Bfllnoae*' SAi^«-
^ "tl aalhXoil 34t -'r.L'l-irTOO •»
st:«^ jfiJ ;ii iscj •tied b;;c ,to«it700 •! . R^quu ^'
70 - 13094.
Dofendant In Krvor.
vs . /
/
ERROR TO
vwaciTM CCrPT
co-par tnera ciginf ^)ui8ine<i8 a4 ) OF CHICAGO,
^ Piant/J^fa /n Error,
Oi
2I.A. 417
KR. t'HK'-'^iniNG JU?^'fICF apAWS
DELIVERED TK£ OPI^^ICK OF THF CCIIHT.
Plaint i7*fs in error are partners in the tufiJ.neaB of
oonducting a bsthing e^tatalishKient in t^e City o! Ciiicago,
Tne office f 'irt cf tha business ia ccnaucted by tir.e rnrtner*
jrersonelly. Th« office proF«r '« ae- arated froa the lobby
or reception room by a partition, throri^h ^hicn there ifi an
opening in ^;iicn iB adjusted a Hiatal ©creftn or gate, at shich
operting the bu^inesfl betw'^en plaintiffs in srror and tneir
customers is trayj«iaotecl. The office i?? oQuirpect >?ith a
oaae of safety fecxea der5i-:n«d to he? u«8d for storing i'irtioloe
of value belonging to patrons. Each safety box in equipped
with A reiaovable tin box into v?hich it i^ intended nioh
valuables ^ill be placed, Uie tin box thon rettrrned to the
safety box, '4hich in turn i;^ ':/i5n locked and ^:m K«y in ■:;©-
livered 'o the bather *hci?e va.'iuablef? 'jre no ■iero-5li«d. The
keys to titese boxes, ^hat ate rerularly so used, are attjiched
to elaetic rings or bands ciesirned to be elirped over +he
hand of the b-ither ana to rea;nin on hi^j wriet all the ticse
until returned to the office by ni» -uen he ,'0e8 th«re to
reclaim the artiolea deposited, The<?ft keys b&ur a nxic-ber
oorresponaing to the nujr.ber en the :-3Rf«ty box. Plaintiffs
in error n;ive other keyis to theee ??afety boxee v^t^nioh th<;y keep
in a «afe in the office, and to which no sla^tio rinf, is at-
tached. Theaie keys are euppoBtd to be used only %h^.n the
.Mv3X - OT
»• ■ ■ .
, ' -^Cf MOOT motfci9o»i «o
fl«iii» ^e «*^fi3 TO aofnoa tmf^m a fo«^Hu^£>« ml dt>l:i^ ni ^aiotq^.
7/%ii» lynti lOTit Hi •lli.^rfftlfT a»Aw^fKf ii««nf«tfrf sill fa^Ao^.
^qqitfpt al aai^ .b«^Ofitn«Yi •! ataNslviii*
••Xpl^vis aniio^s 10) b««tf •<< 01 b9tr^ kf^^b n^rod y^«)«« to MJM
iMq^iiipa al xod f#9)«« 4oa:H .am aXacf »t'(aT ^
doun b^tmtini tti fl liold* olfli xoc< nlf altfavo.
ftt^ oi i»i^Tif<»ftT n«tfLt nod nii fiMt .hf^ofX/r m^ hiw aoIdairXwF
-••^ ai \ baiooX na>^ ,xod T^tlaa
odT ttmiiM , 3-ia 9aC«fiM'^ d axU o.^ i:>aiaril
barfo4i#^a •«« ^bmmf •• Y-^ «ff«»*Qd aftaii^ o.t atM
ladflua a iguO ayai a<> .Ijaiiaociai) aaloitiA adl oi
qaatf Y»'t iloidw aaxod i(im\m» aaa41 «# aiait VMl^q avc
^loidM o.t |)fl« .aoillo a4} al alaa M,:§X
•Ai nadw x^oo b»»u act o^ iiaaoqiua ma a^arf aaailT •baUoal
^
- 3 «
regular key ia l0 3t. Tne patron haa no ucceaa to the safety
boxes, anct thsy are in tjie regular ocuroe of business unlocked
only by tiiOrj,-; in aiiarge of tha office, and th«n only with the
key prti»snte:i by the oustOEer on his ruturn front his bi-^th,
El8»..7hore in tne e8tabHahj;.erit, rirfj^jaing; roonis are ((.tiXi.Xoin&d,
ntsd in connection tiifcre^ith, lockfers oire ar^lgnea to bj^tiiera,
into *'hich -.hey rlf^ioe t^.elr oiotliing, TjiCae lookers are
equlrped with lockra, A lana key that vslH open all rhefie
lookers i« kept by -in attendant, Ytwn the b^itner imn finished
iiia bath, hij calle the attendant, who has th« rasa key, who
tiien unlocks the locVer. Th-? cu?tcrcier -hnn ilre-5se8, r«';!airs
to the office, tui-n<3 in the key to his safety box, which is
t2icn unlocked by thorn in or.axge of the office, and th©
valuables t-ntire deposited are uslivored to the ouetoBier,
Dfefei.Aiant ia tu-rur becHK.e, or: the ciiiy in question,
a rai'JJ'on of thfc bathing s-iatabliBhiaent of piaintiffa in error,
K« wft8 acooiflj>ani©d by (t friend by th«5 nuKift of La vis. Together
they aM-vroiiOhed the office cf plrantlfffl in error ano '■nro\igh
the opening in thft I'-'irtition i rooured and xtnid for two onth
tlcketB froia j-lointiff in error, B;itt:uel Telensky, one of the
I artnera «ho ^/h« men in charge of the office, nrul -.vho then
inforiGed defonaant in orror t:;..t th6 firaa ^ouia not be re^^ron-
aible for any valuables loat, if <he aaae were not left in
the office for nafe keering. A oign coiitaining the v^ords,
"Check yovir Vvj?iur*bles at office* was conspicuous on the
fartiifcion above cientioned, Pefendant in error fii (unified his
desire to leave hi^i v-iiuebleo end EiCney nt the office as
BUjsgeoted, Welensky . xene^i safety box No. 11, took therp-
fro» the tin box cA-.ove f-pntioned und the Amlutibleo of both
defendant in error t^nd his friend, ravifi, v.-ere placed therein.
The prej onderanoe of tnc evi;;er!ce ttnca t,o «h0ff that the
coney and property in quoetion was delivered ^o ^ejenaky to
be jut into the tin box and that the a.onf!y woe counted by hir.
art:' .. - ^^ - -. .-- - -. ..- .. .^
T»ll*
fl«ii
I r .. * ..
w. i.*^j.
,:i'ri.-v
^ ni 5;;...
• •Id c i9*<lO*
• ;fO>1ft n ■
- 3 •
before it ,*vt»a der-oaited in t-ns box, but this he aeniee. The
tin box wae tijen returned to the safety cleroait box, tr^it
box '!j:x^ locked and a J<ey ru^cror+in?; to be. a k«y to it, y.'hich
thtj prspOHvierance of ti.e evi^t«r!oe tends to «how aad no rubber
ring "ittached, whb delivered to defendant in error auo
r-laced it in the fco><«t of i.io troun«re. He then, tC/'«taer
with hir* friand, r-iviH, repaired t th& dre-.'einc room, -nere
geiarate iookera were a:ii3lj?ned to tneiu, anu into which they
plaoed tiiciir clothing, the clothing of defendant in error
containing, at'Ont! otJi^r tningB, tnn key to ttie B?iJ'ety box.
After they had cotnr ieted <neir bath they rejoired to the dreaa-
Ing rooio an.: | rocured tneir lookisra t© be opened. Delf-.;.dant
in tjiror then found that the key to tiie eufety box in tr.e
olTice hud vilBiiipettrea frow. uia olotning -hilo a« wa.-? baiiiing,
;{e, togetaer -itii nia frlejid, Davis, tncm Aen' to t»i<> cffioe
J fid after ^Oii.w delay /'oan.i t,..;4t tiir tuoney and vaiuablOf* ua
uad deposited i/i tht; safety box hijd bfian removed ' iuirftfroui,
tiist the valuables of tiie witAr-r»)^, Va-iXH, sii.li x-^KKciined in
it, <jnd tiiat Xnei-& . ae .)l.?o in it a vi^llai ocr taining a j^wall
.■•jjicunt cf riioney, .in,, a watoii bt^ i on • • .In 5 to one .^iiRsuel E, Laaicnt
of thi; firic of *io«8 A Laitr<oiit, t;iiior9, of 3av<^r;r.a, lilinoiB,
■>ho tijon had t, no re^'.ul.ir key to ^iie box an'.I v^-aa tiien tyking
hi'^ bath. "^hllo 'ijt; testiiuony wf Litwont ■«;!« not taken, tjn;.;
no exf ianai.:ion in r.i'<de by th«-; jTOof of hovf he ca.rie by the
rcfc-ulr^r key to the safety box, -r how lia vrwluablee cuii.e to
be in th.»t box, no on^i 8^:i>ii.a to na^e hud any sj-.^^j. icion tf.:it
he haci h.id /iny'ning to do ft'ith the dia^i pearanoe of the n^oney
and vfjiUfibles of aefendunt in error, Tnile the parties to
tnia a-.Jit and the witness, Da /is, ware ''^till dincusging the
lo«9. Lament, haviuir finii-ihed his b-uth, ociH-e to ih(> ofTJce,
praluoed tue rep.ular key to 'die «diety box, cliniiiiCd t-^nd
received nis /^nllet v;nd watch tu&ve aopO;:;itod, and aftar
iGiivin^ .i9 bustiiesfl oard, givir.c hiB naiSiC and addreae, departed.
A'.
>SAi
.no-
X«»
i*S"
i»v mii
,b9SlA:iUh ,88t)'^. & ta:
-*iO BCQ-XeLfC BiJL £f!lV;3l
- 4 -
The uncontrovertod ftvlclence eatHhliahes beycncl cori-
troversy th;:it defendant in error l«ft in t;.e tin box in the
>3af8ty box 0177 in cush, a r.cid vvatch •>ua Gh':iin and a f'olA
locket with a iiarconci ne'. tir.g, ;jnd that the vslue of the
jeraorial pror«?rty, exobisive of the ca<^iih, was nrprorinately
tl35. The p.ceronder^nce of the evidence tencle to «hO'^ that
defendant in error r-iid to rl-in^i.Cf^ in error ^5 cento for
tne \xBe of the safety box, exo'vuuve of vhiiit was j-;ciid for the;
bath tloKftta, Suit wae begun in *rx' Viinioipal Co\irt to re-
oovor for the rconey nnd rrcrfsrty left in thp. ^n'^'ety box by
defendant in error^ Uron 'ha trial thfl Jury found ti.e i:?9ue8
for defendant in «rror ind a■r^«e<^©ed bin dnn.i<''e'? -jt t:i06, A
reroittitur of l34 wag filed by defendant in error s'ind judgment
wfts rendered for f.-iS^ and for cofits. Tne cause cojtsB here
for revie-3? on -^rit of error.
Tfifi trar.i'iaction, ^ho^n by thiB reoord, constitutes
« bailment of the, lucn&y and vnluabies of deferuiant in error
placed in t-he aafety dc-ror,it box !\o, 11. '^linn rrcjerty is
delivered into the h?:inds of a bailee and oan not be returned
on demand, the law rre«UH;e« negligence on the var* of the bailee
and iKponee on hire '^he burden ei*^ii??r o^ shon'ing that he has
exerolned '^uoh c-'-xre over it a<? wae required by '.he oliBracter
of the bailment, or of ravinsr the (~v;nor th«? v. lue thereof.
K'oCurrie v. Hinee Lumb^if Co .. 176 111. An p., HI?; Bryan v .
C. & A. Ry. Co . . 169 111. Apr., 181. If a b.ilee ^.i.c^-n that
prorerty that in tlit^ .-jubjeot of thn , •ulrnent .".nd >hinh he is
un'iMe to leturn hae been Ic^t by ■■^otr^e violence, ^heft or
ttcoident, the rre'euiEr''''i'5n of ite Iorb, throu'h his ne?liffence,
Ir ovtjrooffie, fjnd before the bailor con recover of the bi'ilee
the value of the ^a^e the burden \^ on hiia to rrcve that the
lose "fjafs Jue to the want of d\ie o?2re or. *he r!'»rt of tiie b;iilee.
C R. I. ^ P. Ry. Co. v. Kenaall. 72 111, App., ICS, (nnd
autnorities there cited).
c
- * .
•ulav - . _:^„ i. M dtlm $9iwi
.»Of.d;,?v. -i.TftT <^ ['nn in -f ji/iT .r^f^
. toil* T»fc
i>:i* - tiw #«^ - -- , .:rf Y.*»"f. ,_. adt
V /?• i.i.f T.'i'f 'TftVOS
ehL' 1 • ■ .' , ; til
A I'f.tib Hi Aoi: • :__i5_ i9l
•1»*1 fl*3O0 •tifi '":♦ lOt t#-; 0^
(TO VtlTSl lOl
ion ■•XdAuXav ixi* y^^i- .M»«Xifta( •
• 1 T^iaiOil ii»dW .XX .0)7 xotf ^Jtno-rab yttls* td^ ni D»a«Xq
br 9(5 ton mo zr.R •<> a wdi 9tut t>»T»TiX«^
•». >r),-<i-ir n aMMttiq «sX vd^ ,baAai»b ••
*' ;ixfcf ffd} ■!(( OO ••no^l bft«
i» ' Ttf bazturoi »F.Tt 90 ^1 -xeiro •^•o dtx/a bsaiontx*
,109i«.i* *ir - * '?.:^tv-'.i lo to »#llWiXlid •At !•
tari.t P-rn.iP BRf i.XI 9dX . . 00 .yH , k A .0
Hi .1:^ >0 to»(<fll« MAS •! .t^,^'' Y*'« T3T?
«»o.. >ilq|flva> i^nabioos
.8»Xi V «II%X
bfl«) »fiOX ,.q 4 .V .oC .vH .<? A >I .fi .,0
- 5 -
T.'.sre id no pretentae th:iX pliiin^iff -■! in error wore
rr«ventcd frow returning ^he valuables becmifse o" any violence
or .'ioci'.lnn-'-, , Ti.-.ere 1?,) no f.roof in Uii'^ reoord as to »!fhnt
became of the v>;luriblea, or na to :io-«' or by •'thoixi ^h- 93.^.0 '«erc
removed .froni ':.ho tiaftsty bov:, 7h<i proof dooft i'^ho** thn^ no one
but pl.'iintiffs in error pornon.-.ily ha:l oooeaa to the safety
boxes. There in no proof tnat the k«y tc the nfi-<5ty box that
*a9 nlssfrid from +he olo + hing f deferuiarit In error n-^n ever
presentee! to the offica of pl';:lnti.ff .1 in error, or that the
valuables •^:ere obtained froff. plfjin* iffs in error by its use.
It ro.llo'*3 thiit tnere i.=! no ^roof that tne^-je va;'nar>.10!^ vere
removed froa ths ro!?^esni-)n oT plfiir:tiffs in error by tiioft.
Pl.ni'it 1 ^f f5 in 'irrcr, having f.tiled to ovivroorce *he rrtv-3utr.pt ion
of aeglifreuoe arising froa Uie reliction of bUlor /.n i b ^ilcida,
and the failure tc return faa prop'irty bailed -m asr».:ind, ■.•ifor>i
liable for the^ 7;:i1ue tnarreof, sn.i tr*6 iefandar.t In ?rrror 3/a»
entitled to the v-^^rdiot :ind ju;ii;,t'.ent obt:.infid,
A notion for a nfi^ *rial was wade by pi--. intiffa in
error on tha ground of ns'/ly di-^covored evidence tending to
impeach defonijint in error in hi i +«-.?timony a^ to v/here he
obtained the money in dusetion, A na-^ ^rial ■••in -;ev«r be
.■iWv^rded for 'he -jole purpose of impeaching a -^-itneas, evftn
though that vfitne^js be !\ party, r ■.jrticularly wnerc the te-nti-
reony given by the v^itnegs r'llato!? to ■i.n ipjisaterial rcatter,
W« C. R. R. Co« V. RoBfi, Admr ., 14'" 111., 9; Beuii ^ v. Horner
et r»l .. 185 Til., 347j 0. & E. I. R. R. Co. v. .^^.^.'/art .
303 in., ■:?3,
The '^-.'idenoe th:it defendant in error pl-iced the
n.oney in the ???.fety box 'i'ftln;'^ \mdl=ipute<i, it ia wholly ia-
ffi'iterlal to th« detorKln'ition of tiiia aanQ where he -xt it,
and proof th:.t he h-id f'ti^eiy rj + ri + ed ^hit fuct, •.hil« it
right tend to difjcredtt hin: aq s wltnfti^fl, --vould not :iefeat
hi 3 rig,!it to recover.
ai'jr a«; .Oiijr \c; __ , ' _w i: o»cf
.*Tn.:t ••.' -ic- _ . . .. .. .icl»«*r«oq -. ' ^-^ . __/
mii , -- t!:aooi»»o ot hfc'iel anlTCfi «tOTte iti ti^"»|irl»Xf
■a<^ ). ic!abr9'(*t ».!} Lua ^lotifta^ vvicv Mli lol •Id«lX
ni AlliininXq v<f «buw aev Xnii^* vas s sot aot$om A
_.!ibno# •on^Mve btitvooAiL ^l^vc^n )o hufoii tif^ no Mtt*
8d •ifit'*'^ o.^ re Tnnr/tns^ ^fji a/ t«3«* at #^l^t^•t•l> ilosuqai
1^1 IMS
^ *•«> •Xii.t to noi:tnPiat9ft) fUdl oi Iftimf Mi
Aj1*» ,:»or> .♦ril't br^r^r yianiflt feed erf fr.t* tcoTTi fcin<
i«ot»(j ior VIA will ;fn>«»ion//, c
.19V9091 id
- 6 -
Ne«ly di^covereci evidence in orciKt to require the
granting of s nev 'riwl mxint be of n ccncluaive ohorHCter
.■:.g»in»t the verdict returned, Vonyoe v. 3n o\-?et al .«
131 111., 136.
Fin.iing no error in ri;f; rs^oord, rhfi judgn.ent of
the yuniciftil Court truot be affirr.ied.
JUDO'^KKT AFFTRK'ED.
- a -
A r/4»'.'.';
March Term, 1912, Uo.'
143 - l»a74.
/
. /
laintiff in Error,
J AWES Tlb\NAPOULO.S
\ V9. /
TOM BOfJVBCULCf^,. /
\Defer4afit in Error,
\ijv
F-^ROR TO
KUNICI?;.L CC'^RT
or CHICAGO.
182I.A. 424
Str. PRii' piping ju?!Tice graves
DKLIVFRED THE OPIfaOK CF THE C0UH7.
This iff an action of replevin tri^fl in the Kunioipal
Court without a jury. The irojftrty in question is a hcrge,
wagon nnd h.-irneas. The flrAUng and juufr.'.ent of *he. court
waa for the defrtnciJint, riain^ if +■ ba.iRB niP ripht to recover
on the theory ■'li-?t he * urohafjad the froy erty of the defendant
and is now the owner of it, Tvo oontrcvartecl questicriB of
law are presented for leterrr-ination, "*e are a^^kei to re-
verse the ju;.1trffier.t for the eole r«s.«:on +h?it the fin.Ur.g and
judgment of the court are s.Kinifently against the sei^Utt of the
evidence. Tiiere i^ nc ciu^Btivon th.-it the {■fOP^J^ty ori.nrally
belonged to the ciefenciant. If it was +he yrofsrty of rkii"-
tiff at the tiuue *:hi3 niit wus t>e.;ran, it bec'uoe so by puronaae
from the defendant, The evidence foj; nie re'^-reotive ■ -irtiys
on this subject if? flatly conflicting, Tne 'Ai^T.'-.Bsee for
tne re-Trect'..ve r- >,rtiea ^^-ere a'oout et.ual in nurtb^r, wiik-! her
or net the pl.ilatiff anintained ni-? claim by :; pr^ij onderance
of tne evinerice ^-urned alitcnt entirely on the (iuostion of the
v(;rricity oT ths v^itneasefj for tne ro:?) .active r.-irtie©. The
trial noiart und tne advantage of s^eeitig taese several .'vitnesBee
on +hf; stand ana of obi^erving their R.ann«r v-r.ile tt?-?tifying
and their rif parent candor ruia fairness, or ■'•he Inok of it,
and of judging ti-erefroir: ;hioh of than; ■xare en*itled to the
aost credit, Tiiis i» an advantage th-it can .scarcely be
ovcregtitrated -ind one of «7hich this cciirt i'f in 'hi) nature of
Tfi -JV
,1 vt.: .^ t \
,107
oi; ,siGi ,
,^OJUO'»Ai-iA 'T SaMAL
'TJOa MOT
XAqiolftkHf til^ at b»tU alvalqti lo tfSi^M T
(••lOA s Ri nolt8a;rp ai t^^^^Q V^T 'YiJiL • fuodttm ttMOlit
^•tii l)Ul ban sfllfanli •dT ••■•nmif bas aoM*
t«voo»i oS tAiit aid ■••JKf tlti^nialT .^naiDnelab 9At i
:^n/ ^liK^lotq mAf tmrnaiiorun 9A f»A^ X'XO
Vo BaQtfm9is9 bmtfroiSnoQ oV i«ff»c> nti^ won tl /Uw
-•1 .noi.tAni«v»t«t> vol tetfn»»*-
l>nii anihnl^ £of) »(1# lel tnaaatirt t^Af Mi«r
•d^ lo .tti.iaw nAf falHT^e xifmutlafna (iiji #ixioo •Af \o ^aaajtat
XlXnni'iio yJ^K^qoii 9Af fr.nf nol^asup on ti aiaxlT .aonablv*
-nlaXq to x^'x^'io^l *^* •** -^^ "^^ •^fl«bn»t*t 9AS of 6«tnoIttf
o«snoiuq xd o« 9gutt>9(i *t ,mi.'i)»c' •«« Siut^ 9tAf 9atf 9Af Sa Hi'
•9/ Tio9:j99i 9Af lOl •Ofl0btT« 9dT »faBbn9\9b 9A1 aoil
10 *) •ecaanliw »dT ,9nltDiIlnoo ti^^^n nl ^o«tdxr« ald^ ao
iftd.^ft. • daun at iMJkfp9 fuoiUs •!§» t»i^T4)q[ •▼/^ooqaoi ait^
{d aislo riii b9niniali)M WiSaU.lq ett* ^oa lo
•d^ lo noi^naup ad# oo xL9iiStt9 ^ao«I« baniu:^ aonabiva ad^ lo
adT •aait-xAq aTMoaiita-i 6d.t lot asaaanilir ad- o y^1o«i v
aaaaaaiiw Xaiavaa aaaaj^ inlaait lo ajA^navba ad# bud tnuoo Lati '
snlYlltaal alldw i: ^ nd^ jalriaado lo bna bnata adt no
xoaI adi to taaaniUl baa lebnao tnaiaqqa ift\) t>aa
9tif o) baXt/*n9 ai^f aM*d.t lo doidv ■otlaiailt :^tttzbiJl lo bau
9d TlftOiBoa baio #aoa
lo aru* "woo otdf doltfa lo nno bna ba9amlf99rLv
- 2 -
thingo deprived.
If the tri.sl oourt had believed the tent iitiony
offered for the plaintiff, ti.ere waa aaple <-.o '■surrport a
finding Ui?it he '-^as tiu; o^ner of the t J^ofsrty in quoi^tion.
If he deep'ed "tie testimony of * he defendant 'fs vitrvoiarjfes as
mere, or even eqvislly, -vorthy of belief, he cox, id not hold
that the plt:intiff had niointalned hif? o?«se by a preronder?inoe
of <he evidence. In 'hiR ratate r.f tuc rfcocra it vouJci be a
waste of time to a\r.o\xH» the eviwenoe In detail. It is
sufficient to any that after a cj?r*-. ^ul ooriUfJcration of all
the evl;;ence ♦.e nre unible to jive iiny re&i=ion for holiiing
that thfi finrting of the ocurt in ocri*rr*ry to the r.anife^jt
veiRht of thfj sane,
Tne ^ucifiiuent of the K^jniciiai Court i3, tiicref oz-e;,
itf firuied,
JUDGKKKT ?r FIRMED,
■ *SnMba9Liitij *i4.' ^o xnomtt»9^
t 96 biuitif $i inoo»% maJ i • ttit^stt Hid/ nl .•onaisiv* tiii \o
9(aii lo •^•««
• baaiil'ttf
Pcto
/
^»er Term, 1911, Ho:
88 * 17607.
MAROARFT NOACK,
Defen<iant in Krro
V9,
nUnCLPH WOSSLICK,
Plaintiff in Iifror.
182I.A. 4 25
KHROa TO
MUNICIPAL COURT
OF CHICAGO.
^X
yn. Ju??Tici: baumk delivfred the opinion of the court.
Margaret Noaok reooverea a v«raict ^tiCi juUga.ent
agftlntit Rutiolph Wonallck in the Munioipal Covirt for $275 a«
daisagea for r«r8onal injui-i©« alleged to have Vjeen occasioned
by the negligf5noe of the latter, who hnre rroaeoutea thia
writ of error.
On June 14, 1910, and for about oix montha rrior
thereto the plaintiff in error operated and Kanag;ed a
r«s8tiirant and auwKer garden «t ti.e northeawt oorner of
Halsted and Addiaon streets in Uip City of Chicago. The
prwRiaee h»d a frontage of 130 feet on Hc^lated street en the
weet and of 175 feet on Addiaon sitre^t on th'r? fsouth. There
was an "L* shaped building on thf; aouthwoKt corner of the
preoiieee whioh had a frontage of 115 ft?et on Haleted ©treat
and 140 feet on A<Jdl?!on street. The portion of the building
fronting on Kalated atroet had a depth of thirty feet, and
the portion of the building fronting on Acidison etr»et \\>a^1 a
depth of 40 feet. On the r.ortb eide of the portion of the
building fronting on Addiaon street wa« a porch 8 fcot in
«.i<lth extended to within 7| or 8 feet of the ea<9t end of the
building. Extending froiE the easterly end of eaid porch to
the easterly end of the building wbs a wooden platform in
■*'hioh there waa a trap^-door which opened to the eouth againat
the wall of +.he building, una beneath the trar-ctoor wae a
\
.VOSn ft B8
OT ROflga
TflUOO JATI0IHI7M i \ .sv
• OOAOIRO to ( ,X0IJ88(nr
.T«iTOO inr to noiirno iiht aainvijaa svnun :fOTTaoi, .a*'
•« eT&l YOl iiifoO X«qi»lntfV Mit til iloiXaseW jtaXotL^ tnalESJB
bMBOi««ooo aMtf •Ytd ojr bfta«i:i« ••iwtaX X«ao«i
•id# «ttuo«»oiqr tted oilw ,i«5.f«X til^ to tonssXI^tn ad^ :
• loiuj \o i i : ■
:o« xi« ,OXtX «M Miv^ rrT
it4T •os«oJtdO lo yiiO (idi III •^••it« noalJDJbA ba» b9i»LM
»di no ^o9t^A b9tml»H no tuol OCX to •t«taoTt « bad ■•■i«ftiq
•lAdT .dii/op 9AS no fn»Tifn nonlbLk oo f%9\ CVX to tail #••»
9(if \o lanioo #»»wdiuoa ad* no jnibXiutf t>(iq«d« *J* a« •am
t99iim fflnH no iftvl SXX lo taft^noil « bad doldw •••laaiq
jnXbXitfd vdt lo noi^Toq ttlT •^••i^a noaitbA no ##•) 0#X bB«
bAx> ,l»a) t'tldi To iiqob • Iwd #««il« boioXaR ao inUaott
« b«d ^•titto soalbnA 00 9fli#i<^5T gnlbXliid odt to ool^toq od^
•di lo aol^toq ed^ lo ot. 9Af nO •#••! 0> to diqoJb
al ^oot 6 doYoq « •«« fo»i#i ooaXbbA no t^iinoit ^alblUf^
•dS to bna $•»• 9Ai to #o«t 8 10 (T alAflw 0$ bmbtffjf Mktw
Q* doioq bla» to bno tXiotaaa od^ aoit anlbnotxX .anlbXIU^
at flTOt.t«Xq n»boow • mMw snlbXliM odt to batt tXiof»ao edl
laniesA d:»uo« od^ 0^ Mffoqo doldw loob^qxiit « •mw oiodl doidv
a aaw loob-qAtt odt dtaouod Iiaa tSn't^flt'd tdl to XXmt adl
stairway aivi a cellar about 5 ffi«t in daptiu There was an
entranoe to the prsKlaea upon eiRCh of the street* naaiftd. At
the eaat end of the open gardon »5 aoe wa*» e. «t»g« frons which
Bjovins rio^u'9^ mure cli«Flay«(i and the rejiMilnder of the op«n
garden «p«ic« w»i? provided ^ith ohsUra and tables for the
aooocijsodation ena use of the padrone. On the evening of
June 14, 1910, defendant in error, in company sith j.er hvia-
band an;.! three or fotir other pssrtiee, went to the place of
bU8inc88 of plaintiff in error, '«h*^re rtll occupied seats at
a table in the garden epaoe not far froc the «tage. Prior
to the occupanoy of the preRi«e» by plaintiff in error, v%hen
they were used for the saae piirpofle, a »OK«n'fi retiring rooa
was located in the northeest corner of the builcJing at or
near the place whfjre the platform and trap— door above des-
cribed were located at the tirse in quewtion, and defendant
in error wae frmiHar with the fori^er location of psaid roo®
and *lth the aejins of a.cc?ea8 thf!r«to. At the tiice in quea-
tion the ??OE.an*a retiring room «aa located at the v^est enct of
the p>oroh above deecribed, where thers were placed an appro-
priate sign and aoae eleotric iighta. At about half past
6 or 9 o'clock defendant in error had oooaaion to ro t,o the
woaien'e retiring roo», una aweuming that it -imiii ■ntill itwated
at the northeast corner of the bullriing, rahe went to Uw pleit-
fora at th« place indicated. The trap-door wae then open
and ae defendant in error atcrped froiE the ground *.o the plat-
form her foot «ent into the opening and ahc was precipitated
into the cellar ciml injured. Defendant in error testified
that ehe had no knowledge that the wOKcn'e retiring room nad
been reri^oved to the vent end of the rorch, .«nd as to triie
ehe la not contradicted. She further testified th&t && 3he
approached the pl«tforK ahe obnerved a li?,ht in the portion
of the building at tiiat place which ahe thought «ft8 visible
nc HAW •<x«ilT ,dt^9b nt t*fi^ c fifr^dm filtto M han jmnlBf
tK •b««Mi •^•tT^a M# lo dOi}« now •••istiq •if 9^ •OAA^tM
■.9l6Ai bam vvlAdo dtiw b^frlroiq «»4w •oAai nttbrAf
"tmA fd dSim fOAqaoo ni ^loti* at tfUteel«t) «OXtI %^l •««(
>- «oaXq •dt ot ♦«•• ««*i#i'' ^ ;'»4 Jki*d
ro»ft 6«t<7frrj .lOiie ai li: J^iiAiici 10 stsniatftf
^ji jio-il liJi 708 <-' 1 ^dt a I •Idwf M
av . ■ -f •••!«: ^^
to ^» ^niiiHu<i 9dJ ig isnioo Jnaod.^ton oas at ba^aooX «««
-••i • .iiortw •oeCq Mi WMf
fan: ,noifc- -li^ 9il? .^£ ffBOOl »i3^ b»«fito
■0O1 " lOJiio^ ad.* ' •WW tc-
-aatfp at qaH ai; .o#ai9il:» aeaso£ to anisss adi dll . :.ne
lo bna #aafr ad# fa tol£ool ••» aooi fr a*a««oif aii'
•Otqr^s na taoali > ^^ ,bedl7&ria£) aroda doto ^ na?
#aaq \L&d iucdn *k .nia.iix olrior>L9 aaroa bp dtalif
•dt ot 03 ot noiaaooo t>ad loiia ait tnabaalr " is A
■ ' ■• " C'i^ i- ■ , nooi sniUJOT, n'najN9«r
TOO taatdtion ' "^
. 97yoiwii aoaX<| edt #» p-xaT
-tio ni tnatealal) ad bnjs
ii.T otnf ioot ltd oioY
-ja;
•
..' aV
UOOD-'l
-^Bil a .
Aaia*icixo9-i
i
• -ItnBf
lO-ll
t» ni Ti'i
- - -
't ' -
^1 a»na
tt i.
■♦■- -
>;;r; [■
noi^ 1
aXdi*«(v "
■ f^ ; :
;:;;.'<; >■ »,
^ ^ 4 A .« > i
rni ' J i. ij J
- twaw ad* -* ■ " -n nftO^
. '■■■ ''oifcfe'j 'iiv .-• ovj.i ai adi
•*ila doldw aoaXcf '~ ' xbXlud arft 14
- 3 -
through a transjoio ovfr the door or through a ■finioft, Aa to
the preBenoe of a light in that portion of the buildirtg, the
evid©nc« i« conflloting, but it is we.l liiwtablished by tho
evidence that th«re Tv«re no lighta nt or near the eastern end
of the garden Brace, ai the pr«s»eno« of Ughte there would
have prevented a view of the moving pioturee. The arrange^
Kent of the porch extending «e8t froas the platform is not
definitely described, but nom^t portion of that porch ia
referred to aa hs-swing bsen u«»«d ae a 8u«.i';er bar. Whether
it wa» no u«ed at the tinse in question aoe® not appear. The
oellar to which acceae miB hod by the tr^p-door wa^ for«.«srly
U8©d for storing beer barrele, but was not then being uned
for any purpofje, Thfj trap-door ^nn not locked or otherwiee
securely fastened Eind waa looiited wii«re it teight be readily
opened by any one moved by miaohief or idle aurioeity. The
evidence given in behalf of plaintiff in error tesnae to show
that the prtRisee ^«i;r© frequently invaaed by bcye, v.na th&t
plaintiff in error 3nd others in aiB arorloy were occupied
much of the tiase in chasing boys* ovit of the grounae and
buildingej that plaintiff in error and others in hiB emi-loy
had freqtient occasion to observe the portion of the preKi^ea
where the plrttforro and trap-door were located, jand that they
did not open the trap-dcor or observe that it wae open jrrior
to the tl»© defendant in orror ■^ain iniured.
It i® in<9ii?ted that th« verdict i*? net su- ported by
the evi-.sonc© and in contrary tc liivv»
The jjtatud of defenawnt in error m-i« not that of a
treepaeser or a llceneee Eserely, but ^v^s clearly thit of an
invitee, aia to whoea plaintiff in error was bound to extrcise
reaeonable oitre to Kake and keep the jrcmi^en in a reas^onably
eafe condition for her proptr uac of th« «ame, while ehe waa
in the exeroiee of reasonable core for b«r own aafety.
• ^ ' • -^i" • a^uj fat intro moHii»%S t, . ■1A3
or.9 nto^oM tt> SA«fl M :^ >xi tit** •i«4i tA<l# 0Or.a)jlT«
bXuo — - -^ "♦dalX to •vitvJT- wrf^ •• «»oaqM iMjbx«a ad> )»
• 1 Jtoio4| inA^ lo aoi#*iori oao* #utf a^otfiioooJ^ xli^9laitMh
^osUndf ^xAdi rmumva oa ttmm u—H gnivKd «« otf JMiYtoi«t
•tiT .lAsqqii ;ron soot floi#»9iip Ai o«i^ od' M J^oov p« aiwit
yi^ ' ««w «oob-qai^ t^' Y<( -bMi ••« ooeooji Aoltim o# i*XXM
io<f amtii .tor ««« >0(f (iiXoitfld %••< sal-xoio, nol !>•#«
Tc: 5«4oioX foa mMM v>Qb»<i»ii a4T .ftfto^tifq ya^ MA
.x:«'Ao^/4i*>^0 OiX>i 10 tOi40«iJI t¥ teYO« 000 YAA fltf tMlOW
' 'i.*:ntf.t 10X19 ni WiSBJuiiq \m IXmUkI mI oovJtj •oa»l>JUr#
'. ««Yo4 Td J^»uAVAl tX^nftupoit ^%9%9MiaMzq •At icga
^.>iquo90 t«o« xoXqao nidi a I oxoiito ta£ toxxo at \tiiatsl%
■jn» •Uutox^ 9tii lo tuo %X0€ SAi'iMfD ni omX^ 9tU lo 4omi
vv/x^»^ oi4 ni oittti^o (MM 10310 at lli/xiifiXq ^aii iojnXbXXo^
■•i»i«3iq 9<U to doilxoq 041 •fxo«<^o ot ooXvoooo laoixpftii t«4
XOii^ iftdt btiA ,^o#«ooX otov soob-a«x^ timm m%o\$iit% •tli oi*4»
r~'- -^ — *i *--* -»'— "^ --^ ■xoot'-qofi 9ttUt m*q» ton bi*
'-'*-•«•▼ oo^ • • fjulalfoi oi *^
■ -»X <»•• x*'«'aoo •! ibOAi v^4^<f»
A to •'^^ iv/M .'^ ^^ ji. 4 4» MA. taotaolol^ lo ■«;#•#• ^AT
f.^ >: * ^A Mr«r,{o OOV iU<i ,t^*1^»<" OVOAOOiX O 10 fOOOOqOM#
••' ...,.d toil «>TYO nX llllnlcXq ao4w o# oo tO^^iviJ
tXc _. ~ .li no*/ '•'•'' ^ ' ^^ qoojf bflM itiMm ot 9%M9 oX<laao«OMr
•CO ode olldw ,9a«a „.. .. ooy fi»^'^^-> -d lol floXlit«ioo ol#9
- 4 -
The argvisient adVvinced by pl:.intiff in error in
0UM>ort of hi© contention that there in no ^uffioient proof
of negligence wholly ov«rlook« the failure of rlslntlff in
error to lock or otherwiae s^acnrely fa(?t«?n the trap-Kiocr
or to provide iv K^i-nrd at tho rlsitfori» a- an eB;-?eintial element,
in view of thft existing ftituation, in determining the queatlon
of negligence. The nrea oocuj led by thft ^jsraen apace proror
to the west ?ind in front of this stage, woa coiupurativoly
ansall, being abcmt 67 x 110 feet, Mcmt, il not ail, of this
apace wae oooupled by chaire «t5xi tables, Tiiere v;ere no
well defined ra'"'h8 or walks njon which tne rf't^ron were ex-
pected to Kove about. The eaeterly portion of th^ ei«ce
near the gtage ^ao not provided with artificial li|?;hta and
wee cottparntively dark. The » latf cr» in which the trap-door
waa placed iK.ftediat©ly adjoined tha garden Apace Bin was
open ami residily acoe^islble by pe;r9on8 on foot, Pi-iintiff
In error Jtnd others employed by him had freqviently ohaaed
•way boys who had con?,r6gated at and «pon the platform.
In view of the entire situation, ac above stated,
it can not be said a« a tr:a'-ter of 5aw that the failure of
plaintiff in error to lock or otherwise fasten the trap-door
or to provide Roixie barrier or gw-«rd around the plt'itform did
not oonetitute negligence, or, in other words, did not aaount
to a failure on the yixxt of plaintiff in orror to exercise
reaeonable oare to Biake and keep the premifles reasonably aafe
for hie patrons, and we r>re not prepared to aj^y, as a raitter
of fact upon the evidence adduced, that plaintiff in error wae
not guilty of negligence in that reapect. As bearing upon
the quoetlon whether or not defendant in error was in the
cxercine of reaoioneble care for her O'^.n ^safety, the fact that
the m-oRien'e retiring room wa--? forB;erly located in the north-
east corner of the building;, Jr*ncl the ftsrther fact that aefen-
d&nt in error relied upon her knowledge cf its for&er location
^aAtollttfn oil •! AtMit ifAdt iu>i>a»ino9 mtii lo ^loniia
fii iti.tfil«X<r "t^ •Xtfli«t ' Xinvo tXtodw •CMi»BiXSMi te
nx .'Cft ioa II «9tMll .iMt OiX X ?• #UOdl!> a«ta4 «:.i.csf^
-xft •!•« «;i#«q Viit doiitw ao«i aiXa* to ail^Aq tealln^ XXav
•aAT< i«<i^ )o iioltioq YX<Mt«M »(1T •#0otfa •roar o# hniwtq
ban mitkTskl Xaloitttt* d^lw tobtvoiq tofi ««« t;[ta^« ttfl «»•«
.ixjt ' " .tool no ««o*«oq Ytf oXdldAOOOJi t^bufti bmm nofd
Jbo««no x^'^tvO'fptil b»d aXri t(f toxoXia* oxeilto bae totio tik
•ortol^^r ^^ ro«{u t>ir« i« botas^SAOo bdii odw a^oi fiott
,bi»t«i« avoon n > ^no^i^utt^ •«l^oa oifi to volv nX
to attfXlAt otff lout mml !• lottaa a aa l>iao •<f #on aae t^i
«ooi:>-qai;t 041 nataat oolvto^lto to 4ooX o» totto nl llitalaif
tit axol/olq nAi iMivoie tiAur:i 10 voltiatf ooca otlTOvq o#^il»
touoaMi #o« tit laibiow toii:ro al «to «ooaoilX8on o^ir^l^aoeo *•«
aaloiaxa o# xotxa ai m^olfiXq "^-^ "^^ aiii ao aiaXial • •#
•loo TXtfaooaooi; ooalsoiq o4l fj^oil a«*.w «««<d ol oiao oXtfaooaooi
lal.tAa e as ^\m% oS toiotioTq ton ova •• boa ^OMOtfaq %iA Mt
anw lotto Ai lllt«ia{q tortf ,toatftta ooftablva oiil noqu toat lo
«oqtf aitltaatf oA .tooqaoi iail^ nl oonaslXsen lo x^'iva^fv*
odt^ al aaw lotto mk inatnotob ton to t(»il'a<fit noltati^|> otf*
tmdt i9m\ aifl «t**tao «»o tad tot aiao aXdanOAOOt to oalotojMt
-4#Ton a4# irl to#aoo£ tX«ouitot nnvc *«ot aolvltot aioonow mH
-natab lodt toalt tadttiA a^t tiij. «iAlbXlirO ad^r to taatoi #o«#
nOkff\0(.}f. •»• 57«"* off "5.% rtM ! * f ■•rtfTil •ra^ IIOQt/ tO I X * "^ •f'^"*"''* " * * Tat
- 5 -
are not without signlfioancft.
Tn« osiseo principaJ^ly rnUec! uf on by plaint iff in
error are not in point. Iti Ctrrmn v. Kir by. 180 Ua«»a,, 604,
Bennett v« Bvitterf jeld. 113 Mch,, 96, and D:.vi?} v, RinRoIaki.
1*3 Io« App., 364, the plaintiff e w«re mere licHnaeers. The
evis;ience required the HUbBitision of th« qvieaticn» involved
to a jury nna w© are not pc'rmiaded thj\t the vordiot was
unwarrantfici.
If the uncontraciioteci toatis.ony of defendant in
error and har attending phy»ioian ia true, the claiiiagea are
not so exoeaaive fia to require a ressittitur or a reveraal of
the judgment by &■ court of review.
Upon hi« direct exaislnation clefwndiint ■^vaa asked:
"Whom dia you see the next jsorning?" He replied: "It wae
a lawyer; h^r huebnnd cftm* with a lavfy^r «nd introduoed him."
The following thsn ar pears in the record:
"Objection to anything the la^er or huBbysnd Klght hove
eaidj objection jjui^tained."
It in now inni Sited thfit the ocurt irsr roj?erly refused
to rerait pl-^inti^l* in error to testify to the oonv«raation
he then had »ith the husband of plaintiff and the lawyer who
acocKpanied him. The question sought to be raised iss not
properly preserved for review, Pltiintiff in error waw not
asked to atat© -shat waa then Ov^id, and it wae not ayade to
appear to the court thwt what «a« then aaid, if anything, -^as
relevant or cojspetent.
A consideration of the entire tesjtiKony of the wit-
ness, Russell, di«cl06e« that plaintiff «afl not har»ed by the
action of the eourt in miataining sn objection to a que,<<tion
relative to the len/jth of tirce which elapaed between tne tit'.e
the wltnoee saw the trap door «;nd the time he learned of the
accident.
wftoaaot'Uiitim ^uoOt tm ton •««
fkOa fduiui. Q&l .■/;>zt4 .y nMf*aQ al ,inioq at fa nit* X9V^
•ifP .«»9ttxt«oiX •1001 9-imw ttlijn:- i.4 ui..j ,MC «*<|q^ 'Ol &AX
■^ 9\tu6f9% OS •» fhrltAtc
" :t:^/oo a x*' ionjEijmf^ 9iii
'..■Bin ii^.oi' .V3'ai • !^'' :.»»o tai*tf«»d 7
£>*»ifiax \ii j'-ui'D -Silt J- on J Qs^niiifti irofl ni #1
ooi# Bix:^ o^ xtttBt OS toil ft nl tt tSalnlq itwifiq. oS
ton «1 btmlHx od oi ttl^uon aol#«*ifx> oilT .«jti( balajnoDOos
;ton «««r vom fil tlifniol^ ,w*i]r«« «o't bovttftq ti«*^OYq
r' »bMi ^oif oam St lm» «i>l*« amU omm SMim ofmH of boiBM
tiOH ^^ntaixn» It ffotoo oodt omm ladv Smxs txuoo •AS of rMoqqs^
tSttotoqiaoo 10 ftiMtolox
- Li' t««i-' ;u i^iiU'i; a-xi . > «rii 1/M%9i^llia00 k
•04 Y«l ^MSitll ion NAf lli^nlAiti • M,- •••0C0»|1/ «XXM0(lfi ««••«
noXiAAup • o^ aol^o^C^o nA iii4aiA^«u» fli #'xi#oo oitl Yo <fOi#«»
«ai^ ftn/ noow/iMf XwA^tii* lioiim omtS lo 4;r8n«X OAS oS ovI^aXoi
•ll* '- --: -' •'* '-■'♦ "--r- r- ' --"r ♦ WAA AAOa.tlw O^S
- 6 -
Both of the p^^rtics tc the ault are natural ffirwonn
and both testified, aa v^ittjesois©, sind tiui aeoond in«truotlon
tendered by pltilntlff in error mi«, therefore, properly refused*
Klick V. Hooflt. 145 in. Apr., 411; 0. & E. I. R. R. Co. v .
B\irrlcip:e. ::ll 111., 9.
The jury v^«re charged thstt It wa» the dtity of plain-
tiff In error to ex«jroi«e ordinary o«rc to preserve and keep
his fJaoe in a reasonably ©afe oondition ""or hi« patrona nnd
viflitora. It is «aicJ that tne rluty lE-r o«ed by law upon
plrtintiff In e-ror in th.^-t resfect wua lia^ited to patrons of
hl« plaoe ar.ci did not extend to visiitora. If it be oonooded
that by the term •visitor©* wae tm^nt lioenaeee Kswrftiy, the
change oould not have h&rsr.ed plaintiff in error, beoauae, aa
heretofore held, defendant in error was an invite© ^sjui not a
liceneee.
There 1^ no »iubatantii»l error in the record and the
judgment is affirmed.
JUDaMENT AFFIRMD.
• b -
. V ,cC- .W .fl .1 .3 A .0 iiU ,,qqA .1X1 d»i .#«ool .V <o|iy
q**i bnc •vt»»»TT[ •'"♦ »^«o '^ t«loi»>x» of toiTn at 1** ' •
Ui« •novtaq tiif to*^ aotflbnoo •!•• tXcfaaon'^
to •noitact o^ £>«^i/
b«b9oaoo 9tS a tl ,«iio9i(iiv o# bit»^x* ton
•dj ,Yi^*iMi •••anooiX in. "iTO^tialv*
■« «Mitf»oo(f «TOiT« 'V«ti( i^on hXuoo . : . .
F. 'erf oic
.e
•At ban Mo9i»7 ttiil ffi 1
, j>e - ;,
■'-^^' ^^11. uo:
235 - 17769.
BRimET MCDONALD?
182I.A. 429
' r
T8.
rT ^l Defcmciantfi,
sf PETER R. l?Ori>!E, j
^^ V ' Appellant , )
APPFAL FROM
StJPERIOR COITRT,
COOK COUNTY.
/
UR, JUSTICE BAiniE DELIVERFD TKF OPINION OF THF CCURT.
Bridget McDonald ferowjfljt her action in ca«e In the
"v I Superior Cotirt againat P. E. Moains snd Oln^y & Jordan Com-
i
\ pf>ny, ft corporation, to recover daKa£©B for perfional injuries,
\nd uron the trifil bcfors a jury thfire ^ma a dircoted verdict
i of not gxjilty in favor of the defendant corporation. Th«
jury returned a verdict again««t the ciefendant, Kovline, for
\/ fl,SOO, upon ?»hich verdict s judgsient vnis fn^tered, ftnd Kodine
V Fro»eout«» thl8 appeal to rfiv^^rae auch iudErcent.
The declaration, xii;cn wLich the oauB« wsss submitted
to the jury, contains four Cvjur.te. The first count charges
tnst on Ju:}y 536, 1909, tJ-x defendant® pot?f!eg«ed and contrciled
a horse and wagon, which, by a BKrvant uri>ier thoir joint con-
trol, were being driven «outh en ^tr^te Strfs^t, at, it« intor-
eection with Madin^on street in the City of Chicago, 11 11 nolo j
"^ tiiiit 03ld intersection iw on« cf the B,03t ufjed rma crowded
crosjainga, b«ing ffituatad in the shopping cUa^rict of the city;
that th« atreetR at the interaeotion vsfere used by .00,000
tedentriana, many divers vshicle®, ana etre«t care, each dayj
that »hlle pl&intiff w&a crossing Ptat« «itr««t at or near ito
intoraftction with Hadlscn otrfiet, and gxsrcleing ordinary care,
defendants, by their servant®, hq carel««»ly, nftgligsntly and
wrongfully :irove, tK«n«ged and controlled a horflc and waf;-on,
ti.at they r;«n ag=^in«t ami upon pl^'iintiff, injuring her, t;to.
1^
-."•oC snXO t
«atr
•Aw (It •«» #n««B'^t ■ #oiM*v ifolfl
i;o« Ktvitb Biii»(f Bit
tfr t noi^ottt-
iXtlO tn (HJOitto :
000,00V. ypS httv tTtv otilotti. ^V#t ti
,tt£oliitT t^tvl^ xnMi t*<itii#«ti .•
On ,t^««*JE*ii*
ac t«*ioj1 c ttXXO"
Tba Beccnd ccxinX onarges tn^t T<,'hile pl^-intiff was
endeavoring to bo«i.r{J a str^ et oar running on State street,
which ««'>a «ton ing for her to bo-Artl, def emlanta f&iled to
keep a lookout ami failed to .'Sfatch wn«re the hor««« and wHgon
wai being clrivenj that a«! ti r«3ult thereof, thoy run r.tguinet
plaintiff, inj\iring her, tjta.
The third count chargeB that while pi--'ir«taff wivs
endeavoring to bo^trcl n utrs^et car, on f5t:it«i i^trret, if^hich
wa9 RtOFring for h«r, defendant «s n«gll,^«ntly drove the horse
and. wagon fit *4 high rMt« of ftpfted, injuring her, etc.
The fouirth Go\mt <3harg«« thtit defendant Mo.iine wji3
a teaislng oontraotcr &nd onmd nvaiiBTOwB horaeiu and s-iigcna
whioh he eai loyed in delivering good® for v:rlou«? concerns
under contract j that iilwfenciant, Clney & Jerttan CcBjpany, was
engaged in the whole^salet '^rug bu»iines«», and hnd con*r<s(Cted with
defendant, Moitine, for him to furninh it v^-agcns and hcrseo
with driv«r« and deliver lt« »i«rchandiis«; th^^t on the day
in queatlon, one of the wagona an4 horsea r.,rooe«a«<:i aouth on
State street at itfs ini^eraectlon -filth Haciiaon fltreet, under
the control of a servant, unifsr thR joint jiuthority and oon-
trol cf ©aid deffendaritai tha»t "^hil« plaintiff ^.la enU^avorlng
to board a Eiitr««!t o&r on Stats street, which w&s waiting for
her, and while in the ^xeroia© of or^iinsry care for her ^ttfety,
defendftnte bo car«leaaly, nf!glig«ntly and *.Trongfuliy drove,
Kanaged and oontroJ.^eci thft hornR &in6 ^agon that they ran
againftt and upon her, injuring ^-^-tf ejtc.
It ia inslflted th^it appellee wae guilty of contri-
butory negligence as a .n-^stter of luw.
At thp tiB.e, In .|ii«s9tlcn south bound street oare
running on Stiite !9tr©et etoired to receive and discharge paee-
engere at the intttreeotion of Ksdiecn attreet or. both the north
and south oidee of eai:3. 8tre«■^t. At ubcut noon, on July i?6,
1909, appellee was trailing on the eidewalk en the went side
■' .10: ^iiio'.i RiW aoi^iw
■ixj Xi-^no^^^^"^' "*^ ' '■♦t tnx -'"
4I0 ii-nj.x. Ktftjvvik.. """toil bOB •flCi;«...-. ■ki.'' \0 ftftO ^ff" * '
IA>n iiWX
4 t» «A«^9 n
- 3 -
of State strfet, a few feet fsouth of >iacUfflon Btreot for the
purpose of boarding a jsovithbound car whioii ■man tlien igtMnding
at the corn«r north of Kadimon atrKCt, v^hen It etorred mt the
south oro«Aing, The policwman at the intersection ht^.vtng
given thQ signal for tr&ffio to move north an.i south fv|.>pellee
left the sidewalk and went onto tb.'s street for the ruri-oac
of boarcllng th« car fti.ich nhc, fsaw i-tvPrOBChing. I^hen the
car stopped at the Kouth creating, appellee observed that it
wee too oromied to coffif ort;;(bly fvcootMtiOdsta Bior© ra^eengers
and decided to raturn to he^r fcritser pof^ition on tha sidewalk
end welt for another car* J'liile appellee ;«i« walJting we^Jt
on the street to*arde ♦'he sidewalk ghe wcsr !?tntok and injured
by a horse and wagon which wan bein?^ 'irlven Kouth on fliQ 'A'eet
aide of Rtate «trf^et by one, Fouohar, a ^<"5rv&nt in the ett/loy
of appellant.
Tho evi'tenq© whowe that th€ uirection or course
of tiie tr«iffic upon the street waa re4?,ul«ited by aignale given
by a polioesan stationed at the intereection cf the two Rtreetf
that -shen the sitreet car x-r^w stationary at the north orcaaing
of the inteereection ajpeJlant'B horse anS 3t'ag:«n hsd atopred a
ehort v-ii stance in the rear or north of the car; that <^hen
the signal ^ae given for traffic to proceed .north and. t^outh
on State atreet the street car and afpell^int*a horse and wagon
prooeeded eouth acrose Madiaon s?treet; thatt the street
croeslnge at eaid intersection were th«n cripwded with reaee-
trianej that when appellee dec4ied net to bof^rd tht"; street
car and luat before she started to return tc the side-walk
ehe looked up ^nci io^n State street , but asiw no horee ond
•agon o.r other vehicle arproaching frow; the ncrthi Vnnt when
«h« had walked a diistance of Mbout a f«et froK a point lioar
the southbound car track toward the Ride-mulk whe looked up
and eaw appellant's horse about 3 or 4 feet north of ner;
^lbn«t*> no.: '
t0n»^« il^iio* bna listen evoM o^ oi11*'t^ tel i^nin tfrtt stN^
••OTiui ». (\^ oino *o»*r h sfclt •Att\9t
inlMXaw hbw ••IT- ,-»iio turt*
-•"^ ^ointR « 4i:&w9tiP ail* 9lnB9Qi iftn-
a»vij «X£ : »w ^•dtt» trit noiu oil". ^ K6
fts»i;f« Ow* Si1;f ^r> ncifocifitutnl 9df it ttnoit«* Y*^
sniff^oto xition iitl:^ }« rxsnoid^4ti it* fjte titile o^U nsxlir 9Adf
m fo«"; 1(0*11 bAd no taiOif ft^tnaXfe^qtA aoJttMatatnl
nt'^ laM vit' iti tonataib ^YOdt
t9f»t#t «lf \iii*kxi% aQUi^^Mii 86010A il^toot bsbo^ooiq
-••A;»<| dUlm b»b»;;io A»xlt S'lafr ikol^Qttivtnl bia« t« asniatbtb
#»«i^« %At M«otf ^#lblo•b i«F ;ffniiitt
3f|il«-«b'ia adi^ a.t rr-ii,'- s.ia sio^ici l«<u|; .•.
bni •«. ' truth hnn ^ baioc:! &4s
aodw tarti '
- 4 -
that the horae waa being drj.v^n ut a trot imcl arpwllae vraa
struck while sttewpting to livoid being: injured. Aj reilffe
in walking
w«« not neoenaarily guilty of contributory nepJigenoe/froir. the
side-walk to u point eapit of the «outh bcund oar traok for the
purpoae of bonrding th« ^triR«t car -'^hioh ouf!«toffiHrily stoijed
at the wouth croaaing. Tnia she f^';GOBBrlleh«d in piafety.
The evidence doew not ciiaoloaw the, rreciwfi location of arpel-
Xant'e horse .^'ith reference to the street lnt,erp.<3Ctlon at the
ti&e appelleft testified nhni Icokcid up the wtreat, ur.t: in view
of the rnpidj^it at which the horse wa« bcin[^ driven, it
may well be that thfi horse an-i uragcn fiCta then «o f:-ir north
of the point ^hj^re ar pel lee was etruok thf>t the crowd of
pedeatriana upon the street eroeoing obwcured appellee '8
view of the approaching hori*6> ar.rl -i^agor.. ThCi cro'«dsa con-
dition of the street, th^ rate of ?speed &t '^hich the ncrne
wae being driven, nnrt the right of nif<iill&^, to awfHiice, In
the absence of kno'^ledge to the contrary, tiic^t a peraon
arproaohing the street crosalng and traveling upon iha ^street
there in a vehicle would hove the asiae under control, j*re
all factors proper to be contiidered in determining whether
or not arpell^e w"9S then and ^htere in the exerolne of ciue
oare for her crn isiaf«ty. Under the «>vi«Tnoe the 4u««ticn
was not one of law, but of f&ct, iin<1 we ore r;Ot pro^ -irsJd to
say that thfj finding of the jiiry upon thfct .'.^xieation is con-
trary to the Bsanifeat weight of the evidence.
It clearly :':p!reRra froK the eviienoe th&t the ser-
vant cf appellant wae guilty of n^^ig/iirenoe. He waa driving
upon the crowded fjtreet at & tret without kfeping s lookout,
and did not observe appellee until she had been wtruck by the
horae.
The objJeotioHR to oertain rulings of tin. court in
fedoiitting and excluding evidence are too trivial to leerit
dieouesion*
- ♦^ -
•B^ jA baa <} .utm 9mv»a ^AS i»At
•>i noltntoX ••io»i<9 •iif M«Iosib ^QA ••oJ> •on#Jblir» tilT
: ^d •«» •«tQ4 «i . . >£< biq[«l udi to
d/i • (11 •»»» oos«v ten/; 3Hiy.: ^a ' jrf II»w yh'
■ , • ^:.'.'\- «•« ••:;" l04 •fi.t ':o
^lOft ^.liast^c I 1=^* r.."' '" --■•-.-
tnmu eo):- ' vvaiI bltiow tiolitav a al aiail'
^uii-iit9laft al i;»-i9;.xi»a99 atf ojT ia':iO?q •mlaa) XXa
isttxa »d# nit 91*' ' n«(ii ••? •aXXaqi* ton so
03 ii* ton .XJotaa mro i»<J «^t ti«o
r to fAO ^9fl •««
* ~ '- --'-- fufidttw t9Jf • S* t99%i$ Ifbrnoxo ta; now
*il». --"^ .ff r- ,^ ij;;^
. rn f ^ :<tfr»n H
- 5 -
It is aaid thJtt the third Inatruotlon given at. the
iRfttanoe of aiteil«e iBiprOfprly call® a^^tontion tc thn fact
that any adBiiasione »ade by ajpellant*a ftitne'-nea ciight be taken
as helpful to uppene«'»j ott«(5. Th« in«^iriiCtion ia s«iiiOlely lai~
pftraonal in its fhrafleology -ir.a is r.ct subject to ti.e oriticisa
There in a clf^rie&l ooii-r5©lon in thv; fourth iriatri^s-
tion given at thfi reqiie»t of 4vrT«2J.«*e, r>\it auch omi ■••!'! on viid
not aake the inwtrxiotion harwfui to w;.reJ.l ant.
The fifth ln«tn!Ctlon, slvan at thfc in'-st^tnce of
arpenee, in an foil owe:
"If froBi the evidence in this ca?»e and under the in-
etructicna of th« court, the; ;3ury nhfell find the defenctunt
guilty ana that r-l^-intiff hiia sni.itained ctuRagee, a?t charged
in the declaration, then, tc ensble ^Ke jury to eatlK^ate the
aKCunt of dhii'-Agee, it ia not necc:-!Rary tnr=t yny wi + neee an uld
h-ive expresi^sed tiv, oj-inicm cis to the fcvRiOiint of «uch aasage, but
the jury theit^sjeuvee may r«ike «xich t^ntifcate free; the fucta andi
circufhsitanoes in proof, iin.i by con fide ring then in ccr.-.eotion
%-ith their knos^lec'ge, ob^frvsticn and exrerienoe in the
ordimiry affaire of life."
It is urged th&t, as the declaration clrtin;eci uvunagea
because appellee «aa irevented by x*er inj^iries frou; attending
to her business and for obllEuticne by res«on of fij^rendlturre
of Koney for medical care ami intention, 'jiticL thare efae no
proof in 85Ui port of euah ulerente of darsagee, ti;.e irj'^truotion
WHH erroneous an4 m;oe««&rily haraful to v.jpfillant, Appellee 'i
deolarsticn, ae abtsjtracted by arpell^'nt, oontaine ao refereiioe
to the elements scn«itit\jtirif, the daB:?-gee olaiifted by arpellee,
and we are not ciispoeed to sjeuroh the record in :^n attempt to
diecover error upon '-hich to predicate a revere&l ci the
juctf'.itent. Lr^lrd v« Di ck irg^on. ,''41 131., 380. Fnrti-.firiBore,
a aubatantially like instruction '*rae ;;ipr roved in Thor&raon v .
ricrthern Hotel Co .. S56 lU., 77,
The daK.agea a'tarcied by the jury r..re ample, but w«
oar not say they are exoe^eive.
There ia no preluJloial error in the record i^nu the
judgn-ent ia affiriaed.
JUrOyENT AFFIRKED.
- « -
-■I t^<»^
a<i:r nj[ «on
':rtt lan
00
a*aal^
aor .
0* .t^aii^ttr n
. V aoffT-aottT
ft«>J?s-
..TO'^Tt-
BUoanoiTa nrr
31M ftw bna
!If.
[oter Terni; 1911, Fo7
869 - 17304,
FRAKK 1?. PIErKR and EPTTH K. ^^^
RIEDER, ^ . . , ,-/
^, refendanta In^jPrror,
EPRrR TO
^^tPKRTCR COURT,
fT^OK COUNTY. ^'
o^^r*-
LKVI B, 'nilTF, nKN^-ON I.AT^TTN 'snd
ARTHUR C, BiiCHRiCH, /'
\Plixlrvnff« m Error,
v-- -- 182 I. A. 430
KR. JUlTTICf BAUME TEMYKRED ?Kr OPIKION CF '^m. C^URT.
This ^rit of error Is rrop.ecuted ^o rftverae a decree
of tha Superior Court reTorKlng a w.irranty dfted nt, the instance
cf ^efsndanta in error, Fr?^nlc W. and Fdith K. Ricder, and
enjoining thfl rrosftcution of a ^ui t. at, law inRUtuted in the
KunlJiipftl Court by pirJ,ntiff in error, Levi B. '^hite, a/^rdnst
said defendnnt^ In ©rrnr.
The bin of ccBcrlair.t filed July 3r, 191C, -aieGfis
that on ■aeptf'ssbttr H.*^, lf^/06, defendants In error «ere the
owners In fee elmple of certain lands, therein d^^cribed,
sltusted in Jiineau Coiinty, wijiconalnj that on or about
aeftensber 1, 1C?10, sold White agreed to purchaf^e «aid U:nd frous
defendantfi In error and pay ther. therefor t?>60 n«t tc therc,
and to ts)f« «ald l:and aub^ect tc tha lien or chnr^.e ?eainft
the snrce of ^-.ny and .t11 In^it^'vllmenta or tr.xeR or -i^ReaajsontB
which should becoite rayable the rftaf tsr; tti-<t said T^hlte
rer«?onally insreoted oaid land and waa infcrrr.ed by defendant
in error, Fr:^nk W. Riedcr, cf t.he taxes and a-'fjeaMiOnts -Ahich
had, rrior thoreto, b(»ftr levied upon and werR a Hon on s^iid
Isnd aicovintinf^ to abont ^'^OO, r?iyftble in annur^l inf»tallrnenta
during? 3 rnrlod of yeara thereafter; th-it ^ald 'Tiite .-^groed
to a-iiunie and rny ^bs ??ald InotallKentn of taxes and NH'-^caa-
flsnta then levied and a Hen \iron aald land; that for the
rurrone of c^^rrying out «aid v*srbal a^reeaent a warranty deed
- c
bdM Toit* al MAftba^lti) ttf b«t9o*it« as* ib«»t 4oJtdv %99tm
alnotnetftfe o« ^ ' .^ 1« «0iiilV Mm ot b«itTl£tJft
-^•TO ta« fk^'rx 1 Y.u ^jio<]tf bt»«sa fltft •((# tout ai
laqoiq %• Sum ou •iUOl btuik laut to««» fli '*" 'ralat to ^Hila
•»noo •!<# ^«<1# woiia ojT bm9b bl»» ai t«.< ji^ <;« aav nol«lvf««
,a^a«<s»a*««a fc«A Mxa^ tlaa •dit oi to»l<du9 mbam 9Bm %oanxwf
tiad A•«k^•Q•s te# ioot mi9%%A$ ••ffi««) mAS ii^i iroiUi e# Mm*
;B^n««««s««« taa aaxat bist •# toat^u* aMiflX^vAOo ^^a* T<^ ba«I
f»»,.. -.»♦..., ,.-. ^jftaXwQoil o- ' ' -■'-- Tt «|4»baftlab #«4#
»*.«^..» v« ..... ^.,..;yax9 aaw b»w.. ..»;. •■.> - "f^^^ %*xA$ ttm4>t^
loT t~«>«'^^^ blaa Mil Aiiw ••flBi^odoa «i * .<!«• Y'^a^f 9l
1V b4m i-^'* •" " 'fl OR bi»4 iuBs 4l»ti«d» tXa« fill
■.....'(»''. tall* )#«..;.r... .-««aatf ifalilw alo«Maa«a«A to atxat
rt bavlaaat tadi oa^v ,80^' ' ^-^.x.^n 4..-^. f^^air «»Qti
lol C8.d<iA| to^ •i4 Y^ «laXc !»><• ^.x^b hwa^ Inaaatcta
tddsiilqaB oi tntvpaatftni altfft\'> « v. ..oad iltl^ nal aa«aiail[»:^
naqa ix/atl » tl hIaXo 6i«a ^o aeilita«« axil inAf ;dO«X ^M
oo !«/(} ilairtw te^ •Xtfativr'''' * ..»>-. •r'>ttt nl aloabnalO
ituoO XaqioXxitfil ^"^ •* *'"^ ♦^•w..v.. -. *^ ..i«a ,0X9X «*r. aaiilk
'^Toa ^0 doaaitf <. .^^. ^^^...^ r. oo totta tki alaabnalal) la^lajM
aaxal tXaa "Xq Ifuroc^ '^^ yn^oAe ;^aiBl«Xo ^baab blaa al #s«c
to «oi#^oaaattx £» .^ ' ^ '' '^•^'^ .alnasaaaaaf baa
^iifit oa ba«i< ^^-^ *<4 baab biaa . :>(aQ ad t|tf« bXaa
lo aXi»K .^t laaaaotsa ai.. .. .^9 XXaiia aa«a ail4
%tuts f>o"'^' VI , t,.:ft ♦nrt^ ai^flvoi^l LLmitt *' ♦^i*^* oa bat^ |baaX
alou . ;t>Xaa adl ol loa^d^.. „.J:;aoo« bnn abMi
ooanaS •ooili/oax- . oi laajupaadua avb aaooad lj ' '«7n,» Mal4f
aid afi •la»i;^^9tat abas aiaw 4oatilo»8 ,9 tutii i aoi^AJ
adi to aolluaaaotq aifl ol alXiV to aavita^^'r^D^iiat ba% alaaia
- 3 -
filed Uift ciiuee waa re; erred, to a ir.aRter to take the rrccffii
and r«rort tne 0i».B.e, together with hi» concluaione. The
Bia«t«r filed liiss report ae Jii rooted ard reoorcefiended thcvt the
relief prayed in thst bill be granted, nv.d tiK>t the bill be
dieiBi«8©d an to the defendante, Lnndon and Bwohracfa. After
objectione tini exoertSona to mxid report had been overruled
the chfincellor entered a decree in accordance with the
findinge of the Kaater.
It i3 Insisted by rl^-iritiff ir Rrror thiitt the
•▼idonoe fail*? to '^tic^ ti-iiit sny «f;rQ4moiit TKi\n eniteTed into
bet*?een iefei^dante in error had White, rs^lative to the
•onveyance of the land, oth«r and different than the one
expressed in the deed.
The firgt forBal negotiation betw«?en the r,.;;rtie9
relative tc ths »alo of that land o^ned by defendanta in error
occvirred in the «.:irly pB.rt of Bepteejber, 190S, at the office
of S, A, Harrison in Chioago, It i^ unoontroverted thot
upon that oooa^lon defendant in error, Yr'snk W, Wieder,
prloed the land to rlsantiff in arr-or at |7 an acre; tiu'.t
shortly thereafter rl'^intiff in eirror went to ?/is»consin i'*nd
inspected the land anC uyon hi a return offered Riecier $6 an
fiore, which offer •^^?i accepted by Rleder; th-st Hleder tssraon-
ally drafted a ehort foriR warranty deed, which ^'>^- executed
and delivered to ri^*iJ^v\ff in error on September S3, 1906,
«ho then raid to defendants in error th« agrf?ed coneiiJeration
of i960 J that the land was Rwa^p cr rterah land eiabraoed within
the boimdsriee of a drainage district, «fhich, in 1S?01 or 1900,
had caused a drainage tax or aseesnaent, payable in ::innu«l
inetallaente during a r^riod of T.0 ysare, to be levied iigainat
the 3andR 'within ite boundJJirieai th;st subaectuent tc hia pur-
chaae of the land plaintiff in error paid the iri«?tviillments
for ti'ie yeftre 1906, 1907 v-na 19C8, «s they beoaKe due and
payable, and Bade no claia thwrefor agt^inet defendunta in
error until Ootcber, 1.909*
•HOO-XII was •XaI 0} ZQWi:-: '. Of b*%^lH9i »«W m9!JM0 9(U ti%H\
ari* *»jflf TC\is ■ fT
.b*tt •!}> at to«ii«T^»
^r.AiT bftliayottnoencr «l ^X ••s^elAO ai floaltiaH »A .8 It
««di;«iH «V ilfl/iiH' «ioti» at fnMtU9\9t oolRsooo ;r«Ae a»«9
itiiii. itiOA nb T| ;^» novis fil tltl«l«Xq 01 JMiaX •<tf tooMif
l>ao «X»aoo«iir o^ in*w voi^o nt Wkftttulq x»t\M9t9iit xi^^o^
OB a9 ftititR bBfWo tnuini ciil iiocpf itaa te*X ftdi bo^ot^ w i H
^0Ji«i»q i;«b*iR fcdi (lobolR ytf bulqooeii ••# «o%to Aolitw ^ovci
b&ttxo(iX9 ntrn Aotttw «t«*fr Y^fiiilTs* «tet »io4« ^ bot^Atb fXM
«a06X tftft^MNttt'^W! no iot«o •! \lltmUl:{ q* tet«vlXofc M«
iiotfiivftbliinoo 5m»«9Ii Ofit Yovho hI ttiufcnotob ot b^Ai nvd^^Ml*
'r'^tv b«O0id«« ImaX tf«i[Mi TO ^imtnm mim bnml mHt iB&» |0«9^ H
I to iOtX Hi ,40litw ,>oMl«lb §8«nlr.9^ fi ^ BBiXiUUtVOfI o«#
-""frnA ffl oX<fj»Y'^<f ,#aO«o«»»o« to xo.t s^fsnlAit a boAuro bM
..><><. .^. dotvol otf ot ,tioi»Y 0^ Ho ftoii»q 4 ^attub mfv" ^»«t
^'^ cfj Q^ tAOtfpOOtfV* *iM(^ C*»it*A0«Otf •#1 ISiffllw V. : , »4l*
i«XXotoiit oat Mo<| wtvo nl TtX^nloi^ bnof 04» lo ••««•
tAO «rL oawoocr t^^tt ob «809X liflo tro^i .OOGX Aioot oa#'«lfl
nf iif .c' i»>^h ♦iifHi"! -iMt-. •. . * alelo on Aliofli tait «»XtfaT*4
.eopr -TflKo^oO Xl#mi «oi«o
- 4 -
Defend&nt in error, FrAnk W, Hl&aer, t.orstified thut,
upon the occanlon in Harrleion'B office, pluintiff in error
aeked hiai what he wanted for the Jana, /ino he told hio; he
wanted |7 an &ore net; that he tola plvAintiff in ttrror how
the land was sltMated* and that it «afi r«olaiised c.nr«h land
In a drainsgo cliiitrlcti that 5 l<»intlff in error vranted to
know hoir ne^t thts- Jr;,\i«ujie canal was una he -:re» a ^ap wuereon
he inaiofcted the location of the railn dralnega canal about
80 rod* «aat of the ^ufirter aeotion and of two iftter«l uitohea
aorosa the oorners of tho quurter eaction; th;<t he told
plaintiff in error that the ao«t of tho ditch waR to be fw^id
by an aaeeeaisent l«jvied ^gainat the land, running for :Xi years,
and payable by the ov^ner of the land in yearly installs.entai
that in r««pon«e to an inquiry by plaintiff in error hb to
how Riuoh th« annual in«talliseKta aisounted to he told hia he
thought he had paid f42, the previous year, and that ttie next
inatftlliaent, vshloh woulct be due in Januf.ry, would probably be
eowething like that asicamt and v?ould have to be raid by
plaintiff in error if he o'wned the land then; that r-l'-*in^'iff
in error aaked for the tax receirte ;.ind he thought he gi>v&
theot; to him, Rieder fvxrther testified tiuit he again saw
plaintiff in error afte^r the latter h&d innpected the lundj
tnat plaintiff in error then «sid trust t? an acre «ae hij;,her
than he could buy ei»il»r land for in the ,«&»*© iccaiityj
that he couiJ buy «)ittilv%r land for ^6 «an acre and th<^*t w&.8
the price of latid in thc^t locality; the^t plaintiff in error
then offered hi» §6 an acre for the land sma he accepted the
offer; th<jt he told plaintiff in error the 3and had cofst
bin |5 an acre ?!'hen he bcurht it ?:>nd he h«cl rai<i the asaewa-
BjentB for t, r.ree or four y^ara, no that would nsake the cost to
hin about tQ an acre, j^nd he '«ould be Rejling it for jvait
about what he paid for it; that he ^^rote out th« desid; that
turn- .» -. .^ .. , . .
4 m. J . f . , ..W xo
tJt^ .-.V- '.M ■ ---^ «J»0ltr»9sT rtr" .
^)l .> .. , . ,,.. «;soji.t fcnKl ddi NKmo •(! 11 soma ai > i ....vi.>.a.;
9V(};«t ^^ tn^uod^t ad. t:>nie •#qifto»i Jt»# vd^ ^sol teifs lOii* al
ao:it:v .......... .„---,. , ,.i jyiAi; t9 »•
~ 5 -
fc« wa« unfansillar rith staKlng out Jegal forr.a, but wan parti-
cular to jret the Lio^crirtion right; tJiwt the oniy explanation
he oould give for his? failure to iimort a rroviaion in 'he
deed requiring plaintiff in nrrct to iwisuae the loyu.ent of
the balance of the drainage taxea wt»,8 that he forget all
about it,
8a»u«l A. Hsrrison, a lawyer &n<:i real e!?t«te broker,
who appeRrn to hav© asa luted In thtj negotlatlona, tKatified
that upon thn ,fir.«t ocoasion, when the r-artlca were in his
office, aieder Kxrlalried the location of the li^nd and Jrew
a plat; thsit plaintiff in error inquired about the l^na and
fiibout the taxee s«na Rteder tcld hiss %h^ vlralnage tax. «^a« a
ye&rly an^ep.!5fg>ent und aiKcunted to eibout ff4,Z the j-.reoeuing
year, b\it didn't know wu-iither the taxes would be the sstiie in
the future or not; thf.t there «&«» » bond issue of |50,000,
covering a certain nunubar of acres, amounting to <.*bcut one
dollar an acre; that Rieder brought hie tax recelr-ts '^nd
ehoii?ed them to plaintiff in error; that the land we,© fi.irly
and reasonably worth fS an aore ftub^aot to ttixsR,
Plaintiff in «rror testified that nothing m<n eaid
by Rieder about a draln«ge diatrlot or drainage a^sje^amente;
that Rieder gave hin ooia© tax reoelpt^, but he had lor-t tnea;
that he aaw what he aurpoaed wa© a drainage ditch when he
Inepected the lajsd; that he never f.ro«i?»l8ed to jsnguife the
payment of inny drainage asaeBaKjenta «nci did not learn of
any »uch a««ea«Kentfi until two yaarfi after the execution of
the deed.
The t03tlE:ony of rl'<intlff in error if. evaaive and
dlsingenuoufl and entitled to little weijrnt.
While the evid**tioe fhlla to 8hoT> that ti,e jartlee
entered into &n agr<?eisent, whereby in expxeae ^crds finintiff
in error a--^8UiECd the fayrtent of the subse.iUentiy accruing
nots
- e -
imt\Ma •tm' •!
itiqtxo
••ttli
wnitj bnm b.
bn
• liiftR .A Xm;
I TOItTV
ai
.BBX
6i
4««
vrit »,
lo noituo«X9 d:
t*«*«IIS
.'f
ii:n*f wa«
11'
; ■Gild's
^aiu'i.v^K. xii,\'*iii'a>i(iusi i*iii \Q iatM>(&^ »^i
tat
- fi -
drainage a^fKnuuu&ntR, the. ©viaence .Ifti^ves no room for .joubt
Uist the land was boIcI by ctefendante in error in the belief
»nd with the und«r9tr»n<ilng that pl.'^iinttff in error would b«
required to h^Y ^'i* subsetiuantly isccruing drainage aj?«e9»»iente,
ftnd that plaintiff in ^rror hAd the like undftratandine, and
ttat irhcn he scqiiired the land, he fully purposed to pay euoh
drein»ge aeeesewente. The rresiont inpistonce of plaintiff
in error to the oor^rary in wanifoftly an afterthought. He
p»ld euoh rtralnnp.e afietusEciente for three years v^ithcut com-
plaint or iTOteat. He ^un inforoted that the 3$ind had cowt
defendants in error |5 an acre in tha first inBtanoe s^nd an
additional |X «*n acre for taxee and a^eei^sKentfl, and that
defendente in error fyimmA to »icoept hi«? offer of t6 an acre
in ooneideration of the fact thst ut that figure they would
realize the cost of the land to them.
Clearly, the d»«d »fi drafted doeo not exireee the
actual agreement between the psirtiee, accor.Ung to their
BUtual undfiretandlng and int«ntion, ssnd ite ftsiiuro to ao ao
1 8 due, ae etated by defendant in error, Frtink F, Rieder, to
hie having forgotten to insert a provis^ion in the deed to the
effect that the conveyance w^o B;iade subject to ail unfffid
texes and a eeB8B.6nte levied against the l?.nd. The ocii'-nion
of this or ft like rrovlelon froa the deed wae n tfiietftke of
fact, Ruch ae ^iU ^ui^tify « court of equity in reforff.ing
the deed by inserting ^uch provision, Dinwiddle v« Self,
14S 111,, 290j relaoher v. Price. 148 lU., 3B5; ^tirvinee
V, R:xrrleon. 151 111., niG.
The decree ia supported by evidence *hioh ie
convincing nd la affirmed.
PECRKE AFFIRKFD.
ijii y.in al 9fr •* saw
bOA i9nlta«^«-i<3Li.:u •411 •. - ^ .Mi
^..i^^i ,.- *- ,— ... . _i ^_ ._ _ -, . - " rijBif #t»» n3.^.Ti i^-jL,
* ~ " '■~.'. io inl .
:* >»»iii: ■-■■.■ ' ~ ' •Ka^ ' ■■•'
»)-..-_.. .. »
A0U9 iniJh-^ 4<
• wXE (•*.-. *»- * « »j^» • ^ ' ' ' • ' i - i f T
bolDer Term; 1911,' JJo"^
345 - 17881.
THF WISCONSIN LIKE 6t CEKINT CCpAHY,
Appelate,
vs.
HERKAN C. LELIVET,\
\ Ap/ellant,
APPEAL FROM
COUNTY COHRT,
CCOK COUNTY.
182I.A.436
KR. JTTSTICF. BAUKE TELIWRFr TOE OPINION OF THF. COtJBT.
From a judrp«ent recovered by arpellee againstt
appellant., >)«fore a justice of the peace, arrellant took an
appeal t,o the Co\int,y Court, where a trial by jury roaulted
In a verdict and j^jagaent agalnrst hiffi for tl75, to reverse
which judgment he prosjecutew thia fiirther avpeai.
Appellant, who was a general building contractor,
sublet a portion of the wor> on certain buildings to one
Heraan Stange, vsho purchased certain Bjat«';ri«l fxom apj-ftllee
for uae in said buildinga, BometiBe after said a.'3teri«l«»
were furnished appelXe© applied to Btange for payment t.hftre-
for, and String© on or about May ^>3, ISIO, gave to ayrellee a
written order for $330 upon appellant. Thia order was never
ttcoepted by appellant in writing, but ajiellant paid $17i3
thereon to appelli^e upon the r«oeirt froK appellee of a
written waiver of a lien upon the buildings. In J. nunry,
1911, appellee brought !?uit against Stane® In the Municipal
Coxirt to recover the j^iRount cisiirtjed to be due after alleging
hirr. credit for the tl75 paid by appellnnt on «aid order,
^hen Qaid ??uit in the Kunicsiral Court was rf;ached for trial
further nftgotiatione between the p'lrties resulted in appellee
procuring fro» Stange a duplicate of t.ne original order uj, on
appellant which had been lo^^t, and tne dinruisaul by app«llee
of its suit against Stanga. Upon the rs-^fuaal thereafter of
appellant to pay aoid olaiEi thi« rmit vsaa instituted agwinat
hla by appellee.
TcTlT ', irCI .misT 1
OBIW IRT
,TflaOO YTMu ./
08J^ ./\.IS
J^c^Xi/noi Y'Ult Ytf X«ii' B Si^Aw «tiifo9 fJ^mrAO flit ^t ^'t^tf
,nuooei...i w snitXiud Xei«n»9 s ••* odw «ia«XX*qq4
•no o^ usAibXiutf fli«^««o n« <so» •a.t "io mX#ioi ^ v </i.u».
••XX*q4« aoil X«ii*l«i alA9i90 bvtailowq oxiv ^•;ia«^8 *Mni^
«X»iY»;f AC. tiAt i*l^« •Aili9«oR .nialbXitftf ttBn at 99u Vf%
-^fAi tu^AXf^ ■"'" "-^-''ii Qi fllqqu ••XXtqq* iMdnlflur). titt
,<c'f5 r>. ^a«XXt^q[<ii« ^tftf «an^^Xs« ai #n«XX*qqs Yd t«>q»tM
.. .^ w. ..isqqa aoxl Sqtvtoni 9ii$ noqu •dXXtqqft o$ acfi^Ai
,tY4tfn<»L al ••tniliXhid tilt aoqu atiX « t« vtvl«« aa^lA^,
X,.<,r .r.,,u ^v4 "t aanftlS ttaXss« i tun fi^aorfi ooIXaqqa «XXftX^
Xjsiit lol i>»<lo«i»i ••« #TtfoO laqloiouM sdi ai iitfff t>itfi« nsili
••XX»qq« ni ba^Ii/Ati ••l^iuq afit ntawltcf taol^Al^oasn i«<1*«iit
noqv itbio XmIiItq tilt lo •^•oiXqut « •ia«^8 aoil zaituooiq
t«XXaqq« x^ XjiAKXsAlt •<!# tea «t«eX aaatf bad AotAw ^naXXaqqa
lo lellaait/i^ Xafmlai 9{ii aoqU .•Bna/8 taalaaa #Xu« •fl lo
^AnlijTifi b»i.'i.f Irtenf rj'.w ili/n nfif.t ainXo bias faq of ^nsXXoqqa
.asIlAOf i/i vtf aid
«. 3 -
The evidftnc« fcr fippellee tends to show anci the
jury were xarrantfflci in finctirif that upon th<» oocaaicn >vhen
appellant pciid $175 upon the original ord«r, und when he
eecured from arpellee a »«Kiver of its lien, he jroitiRed to
I>ay the belano© of the order in 8ixty dayn, and that in
Joinuary following, when appeilee rrocured &. aurlioate order
froBE Stange and diaiclftaod its auit againBt the latter, fluch
action mitt taken upon th« prowiiBe of appellant to pay the
balance of th© olalm.
The written order in evidence correaponde precifiiely
with th« definition of a biU of exchange, a© stated in
Section 125 of the ?4egotlable Instrurr.fmte Aot,"i^nir~no'Vec every
can be had thereon, b«cau8e the aame vfi^a not accef ted in
writing una signed by arr«21ant, tin required by Section 131
Ajl(^% nnni
of said aotiT"^
Ignoring the order, hc^tjver, ae the baais of a
right of recovery, there is evidence which justified the
jury in finding that a contract of riovation -^aB entt^red into
between the parties, wher*i4by appe/lfint bKcasie liiible to i ay
to appellee' the amount in controversy.
The record is not free frosi error r« la ting particu-
lirrly to the liability of appellant upon the order in evidence,
but as the competent evidence in the recora i>ii siiiff ioi«nt to
support a recovery on the theory of a novation the judgment
standa for substantial jufitioe within the established rulea
of law «nd ^ill be a^finted,
JUPOKFKT ArPTRMED.
- 8 •
•ill baB iro4« 9^ •ba9f ••IL^qqm io\ motfblr* •itT
ifAv oolsAOoo 9iiS ttoqfi $iAS ^nthnt\ al b9fnBxiMw •xtm xta^
9d tiBdm bnB «t«b«o / o nHf aoqu STlf blaq toaXlAqqi*
o^ b^nl ttviaw a t«XI»qq« aoil b9iutf
%ftJ:;io uiHOtlqub » btitaooiq, 9»XX»qqt nBrfw ,|aiirol£ot Tidun^L
(lotfn «ittti; ni«f« ttun •#! t«aela«ib l:n« t|nii#8 aoi^
drt^ yaq o# ;^4uiXi»<]q« lo •■itapiqr »rt^ aoqxi a«)t rtottom
.■IaXp •£!# lo ••a«X«4
tX»«iO' ftontbiv*
ni bo.tKvtr ^ ;(ox» >o Xiid • lo ttokfink'fb .iAf At Im
Xisvoom on~ni^,^oA •inwatn^arrl •X<fftl.tos»R sitt lo 8SX nol^t^i
al t>« ' ton MAr. 9tf lue
ICX aol#o»i& to bftili/p*! p> .'iltJTv
o.tal hmutno bet? nol.tH-/n.' 1o ^o^t^rroo a i^tti jn '• I T'W/t
V :X •««&•(! tn«X t*tt^^^'*>'-i »^^ .i»twl»tf
.Y*tr)Vv . iauoa& erf^t •feXX^qqH el
-iici «i inoost 9^
ot as li/d
»
.1 ' %v<atiJ %Ai AO xisvooai ^ :^Toqqtf■
•aii/1 b»a«i . "a 101 •tn»t9
. •<>' IXlw tTTN waX ^o
.1 "ff?rTTA "
October Term, 1911, ITo.'
b' 371 - 17907.
MICHAKL OLIATTO,
vn,
ni.LIAK rieRIT? et al.,
On Appeal of -^ILLIAK DORR
Appell
/
\
FKAL FROM
StiTlTRICR COURT,
GOOK COUNTY.
132I,A.437
MR. jb^ig^^lJUJ. DELIVERED THE OFINICK OF THE COURT.
TrrrrHiw^r-*******^^-^^^^"^-^^ ^-^^ judgKent creditor
of ChrlBtlan Dobrltz, ^4ri*«M*i*«.:43i^ia..;^
i»^v,-4i.>^4M>4i-t<>r» fr-^44-^4ft"*l»*-^-'^^ a ga i no t Chr 1 atian
Dobrlte, '!»llllai« Dobrita snd Joseph E. Bwuaruok to set ii«?ide
a conveyr4nce of certain real eet&t« frOBi Christian Dobrit?. to
WilliaB fiobrit?, an having be©n Ei«de to hin.ier, aeUsy and de-
fraud appeUee in the coUoction of i\in juag^enta. Upon
thft hearing before t.'.e ohanceilor a decree was entereJl setting
aside aaicl conveyance a« ap:.ein©t apr«noe, subjecting the
real estate to the lien of aprellee'a judgr(;8nt», and a point-
ing a receiver to collect the rente of the rr^Riwea and apply
the BaBJC in payment of s^aid juctgaentw, Wiliiaa Dobritz alone
appeals frOK ,thi8 decree, ._ „,.~ -^™- — -.. ...-, , ___,„. „
It was stipulated upon the hearing that the defen-
dant*, ChriJ^tian Dcbrita and Joeeph F. Bau»Jruok, were duly
aerved tmd defaulted; that in the crtginal «uit8 in the
Municipal Court by uppeliee against Chri^^tian Dobrit?, juug-
Hienta «fere obtained by def«u3,ti tnat Chrifltinn Dobritz who
owned the prftoiisee in qiientlcn conveyed the enEC by dned to
hiai ?on, Williaus T^obritz, the orpellant, on Septesbftr 14, 1909,
one dfiy prior to the recovery by appellee of the first of
said jiKlgKentoj and that said ^udgwentft are wholly unsatiafied.
The errors aaai^jned upon the record are presented
to us in groaa ?iith an informality and br«^vity (however much
.Ci-
.Toeri - in
MOfn J
i
T8* AA^bl
,.Is it)
■^.TTrnT. .
1 $ 91/9 9 I K fi f^J^I-lMn
TirtlWO ^O tor
.1 "to aol«Mi££c
•At MOlvd gflilP
: >tnlA9« »« •oasTOTfloe Mas
MOic s^iadoU flftlXXIV .MtR»ai9i!x/t bt»p
9tlt no'iir *•*■ ♦!
\iuD Stat fJtoiriAu • aiht
-, -:. a^Xidod ii«i7 ;>0 X»qioint!-
OHw «iitc(oa nsltui X<^ i>«fiis#<M •!•»
of b'> ' b*T«vnoD nattm9Ui> ni •ODla^^ici til.t
«^X T»tfci«tq»8 ao «ta«XI iii
y
,b9l\atSnrtiu t^ ^ ^nftASbc
40(01 Y*T»wod) t^XvA r^iXa^'i i^-^i" aaoi
•» ^ •»
brevity «>ay be da«irHble) which skffoirda nc a«««i3t,rrncfi K'hi^tever
lr< the ccn9ia«raticn unci determination of the errora aaglgned,
and the decree uiigh'; n-ell bft affirmed for ti.yt res. 3 on. To
hsve, ho^^ever, elected t.o ccnaidyr the oane upon its? H.erita
ae presented in thft record.
It is clearly e«t;;v^.;i9h«d by t.he evi.ier.ce th'j^t the
conveyance in question wan c-i-di' for the axprena r.urpoHe and
with a fravidulent intent on the r^rt of both the grantor and
the grantee to defeat ^he collection by .^jpfenee of hi;; judg-
Bsenta againat Christian Dobrlte, In thiis ?state f the case
it is irf.p.aterial to detor»inG whether or net apfeilant }';i\id
iiiri father a valuable and adequate oonffideration for the i.ro-
perty conveyed,
"A transfer of property B.uf'it not cnly be uj on a
good ccneiderstion, but it KU-'-t slso be bona fide , Kven
though thc! grantee or a^fii^nee V-*y^ a vK'iuable, adequate and
full ccn«ider«tion, y*?t if th^i e^rantor or ^asignor aeSla for
the purpoee of defeating th« clraBie of hi si creditore, ana
euch grantee or analgnee Knowingly &i33iftt« in effectuating
auch fraudulent intent, or <?ven has notice thf^reof, ue will
be regarded as a partiolrator in the fraud, for the la* never
all owe one eaan to asiRi«»t in cheating anotherr," Be idler v .
Crane. 135 111., 92-, Clfark v. H:..rrer, ^:15 111., ^H,
^hile thft conveyance w-uq smbjeot to be aat aaide
aa to aFpen«3e, it waa valid and binding sis b^t/een the jartles
to it, and t;ere was^ no error in setting asside the conveyimce
tie to arpellee alone. 5:>;rd v. ^ndera, 7i9 111,, 5l9j P.o rtcon
v, H.vraon. 63 111,, 51*?,
It ia suggeatod here t,j,at the f:r(^aii3e8 conveyed
conatltuted the hoaieatead of tm^ grantor. Christian Dobrltz,
and were exeaipt froa exao\!tlon, ^^nd that a conveyance of
property which i«» «o exempt can not be aet a»ide ae l^auduXent
at the instance of a creditor.
0'
tlMO^iMA •»)»- --* '- TOl^onitfvatvfe has mit»i9biT' - -^* al
,-•>♦'«»■> .-, r{ ♦
• or ♦-■- -
^Pa ;_ . - ><ll« o-^ <"
.'.it .. "5 «no.e .
ni. •df Sb
- 3 -
TtiiB que: ml en aoen not i^r:t:ft^x to have hof.n raised in
the ocurt below, unci thw record doc? not vii»oxcse uf firiir.ativftly
the taotn nece^-aary to eiuHain « olMiK th.4t the j/roperty in
queation, when it waa conveyfjd^ ir;.9 the hOBicfltead cf the
grantor. The qvienticn i"? not prf-^^'ntecl for our determination
upon th» record.
The ieoroe in ri?ht and i« r-.f firmed,
DKCHFE AFFIRl'FD.
tit JC»«i«T nana ov i n wn'j i, .lui > « -',• • iu
• btooirv crft fio^
?^^^»: 1011, iio:
452 - 1799:;«
F^OPHIA BKRG,
Arpeilee.
«!'
A
CHARLES n-3H^,
Amelia
CTRCniT CCITRT,
COCK CCUKTY.
VR. JimTICE^I^ADKF DELIVFRED THE OPINION CF TRF, C^TIRT.
182I.A. 449
%^
Thia la a ?mit ^y a: pellee 0Ealn««t arrf^^"'"* ^^
recover datmgea for f-erscnal inj^iries, ^netein a trif;l by
Jury in the Circuit Court resulted In a verdict and juaj^B-ent
against appellant for |1,000, The deoluration oharges that
on March 14, 1910, appeHant wae xielng and operating an
automobile and driving ea^e along Muai«on «tre«t near its
Interaeotion v«ith California avfmie in the City of Chicago;
that afpcllee waa walking along and upon said W;sdi?5on street
and in the fsx«rcisie of ordinary care for her ovm oafety;
that appellant s.- negligently stnd cfxrele«3ly ran, op«rated
and aanaged B&iti autOKObile that by reason thoreof etaid
autotaobile ran againat ?.nd violently srtruok appellee and
she wae throtsn with great force and violence to the. ntreot,
and thereby injured, etc.
Relative to the questions of fact involved it is
urged that n confjicierstion of tha evicienoe diaclcseB i;hat
Appellant wae not jtuilty of ne^Jigsncei that appellee waa
guilty of contributory ne^jligence; ana trivit the dai'.area
awarded by the Jury are excefiaive.
At vbcut 6 o'clock on the evening of Febru^iry 14,
1910, appellant, accoKprmied by hie son, Ci. ^rles D. Fi^-uier,
bin wife and Viae KcNulty, were riding ne^t on Vaciison t?ti*Bet
in appellant's two eeateci aTitoroobile, which was being ariven
by aipeUant'e son, ts-ho, with hi^ father, occupied the front
.liwb'^i - net
\ . 6V
.YT7 ( \ .HflHr^n E
.TflrnO TOT 10 H0IKI«70 ^THT a"i XMOhk
of tnBH9<n<t» tttalBH* ••£!•<!:« X^ Hub r, *t (.t/iT
\<i Xsit# « nl»'X'>.iff «aBiii/^nl X«no«i*q lOt ••aAsai: lOVOOVT
9at«ilo aolfmiAiomb •AT .000«£| tol ln«II»qi> 5«ai«|«
fl« laiifsunio ba« siUhur mm tnBlItciqa ,0X61 ,>X doiflM no
tifO to t^iO •il;^ al 9i;n»v« iiiAtollX«C dtiv rroi^osn^ft^Al
^e»itn iioalb£)l blM ooqu bns snolfi ani4X«ir mwH ••Ilaqt* f«ilf
;Yttl«« BMi Yftd lol ti«o TXAAlhio To oaioisx* fuit al Mi
b»t0i^io |n£i xXnavXaiAO has TX^nasHjan o« ^flBlIsqqft fmAf
btm9 \o9fiii noa«8i i^ fmtlf 9Hciomofut bis* beaAam 6n«
iouitu tX^a«XoiT baA tvajtHje nst •Itdomotua
^$9Bif •rt.t oJ^ •onsXoiv bA/} •090T /stiB il^Xw mrotiif baw tda
• ote ,b«ti/(;nt T<'*'X*il^ ta*
el fl bevXoTnl toxt \o ■nci:ft»0iip •il;f ot •trll«X«ff
tAilt ••■oIo«ib •onvblvt adt to ooltsiablartoo » t»A^ bosit;
■«» ••( •r^as]iXX;)9A \o T'Xli/| tOff ••« InjiXIoqqi
••30«ab atft .tail} ban iaonaailBMi TiolucflTtaoo to T^Ht^S
.erlnnaoxa 9ta ru/t ari^ yd babiavi
,^X x^t\ui<So'^ to anXaava 9At no iooXo*o 8 ^uotfa ^A
«ia<taXl .Q aaXt'.O ,aoa al4 T<f batnAiaoooA «#ii«XXaq9 «orfi
ta«ix*« noMlbHM no :faa« anlbli aia« «T^XuVoU aalir bna atXv ttil
nmrlito (nlarf ao» liolftv ,oXXtfoao#t/a bo^aaa omt a*}<uiXIt<iqs flif
tnott a/lt baiioooo ,tait/Ot air ^rf^ «aoa n'tnaXra
. 3 >
Beat, As the autootobile apFroaohed California avenue froa
the ea*>t, it w&a rimning in the north or iva^t bound fttrent
car track* The roadway on eitiier side c.f the two street
oar tracks tnerQ vas iarassihle for travel by reaf^on of th«
aoctUBulatlon of gnow and ice. A wftfit bound ?»tr«et car
which Isiffiediately preoeded the auto»o i3e -.a?? fitopred at the
lnt«r»©ction of California avenue by r«Rson of j-s blookad© of
street oars ahead of it, one of whioh car* wa« then dia-
Charf.ing i*nd receiving pasfja^ngera at the umial Btorfing place
on the weat line of California avenue, '"hem the atr««t
car, which ia-BMsdiiitely preceded the automobile, i55topped,
the autowobile wan turned to thra loft upon the «outh or
eaatbound track, and eo proceeded ■nent ur^til it waa s?tcpred
after appellee was struck, Arro3.3«e alighted fx-oni the
rear platfora at the north aide of th« etrfifft car which had
otopped 3t the vseat line of California avenue, end walked
around the rear of sjaid oar and in front of the one? i».Koaiat«-
ly behind it for the purpoae of croRsing i/.aciiaon street and
proceeding south to her hosse. As appellee eatwrged froa
between the t^'O strnet care ^n^ w^a orcswing the. aouth or
eaet bound car track, 9he was atruok by aj pe ' jMnt'a -'.utoroobile
and BUi»tained thf; injur ^e« ooosplained of,
Wltnesees en behalf of arpellee te^ssjtifled that aa
th« autOBsobile approached the place wh«re arpellee wae struck
It wan running "fast", at an eflti»tated «pfted of 15 to Z5 tiilea
an hour, and thr^t no horn or o'her signal of its approach was
Bounded, v?hile the occupants of the automobile te^^tified that
when it was turned into the ^■^r-uth or e«ot bound car track
its speed was re,1uoocl to froni four to six Kilee an hour oind
that the signal h^ rn wae blo»n ootttinuouHly. Appellant and
his Bon both testified that when they first ^a-.v appellee, as
she emerged froai between the two ntr^et c;-.rB, nhe was fifteen
• t •
moil •ua9r» MlnioMlmO l>«/to«OTqq« •litfotwtv* 9^ ■% .f«»i
^•oii« botfotf ^asw TO dj^ton •di nl j^nkanur aew tl ,#■«# ttlf
1«9I^0 0»# adi >^ rnmbMOt •ifP .iOr
ISO tmn%i9 Jboi/od ^aav A .aol tint* wonp "^.o noltalmauooM
•4t i0 be a<ao«tr« »if:f babaoore-r YX9^Qib*<B«i dtttti
\Q •JbeiooIJ /i lo aonnitt x4 9ua»vB ttaiQ^tlttO lo aoittOMifttfil
-•lb nadt a«« atao dolxfw lo •«• ,tl lo baada amo taatfa
aottXq inii^io^a lmu9u • ao^ivtapai b^B B^t^S^*^
Sifttt adt fls.r .,;.wv. i^{i oatl #••« §d4' 09
o^a ^•lidomoi" , %i*»4dlb»~-. ,t«9
la A^uoft 9(lt tK>VJ f^^i a4;t oJ ^anTU^ Raw 9i.i<S(iAQiU9 9dt
t 'flaw bobaao^iq oa bna «iosi:^ boirotf/fA*
dii.t i-n iXt 99i '^ warn Mil' •^-♦ti
bMd doidw T«o ^^.^iiia <
fcaiXow -ofnavB ai;iiullXi,0 lo Oii,
bnn ^aaita noeX;...:.: jj;;; o aaoqiuq o*x^ lu ! ii bnlda^f t^^
anil bajiaina aaXXa ,»aoii -xod ol dtuoa snlbaaooTV
I--) d:tuor ndf saiaaoio e#w nni4 oyao ^a»i.ta ow# ad^ aaav^ftf
aXid0flO^y£ f'tnaXXtqcia vtf iotntf e«w #da ,;fOf ^ f$$9
*to b«nl«£qaoo aafu/t^ "^^
a» tBdf bai s to tZ*da<f no a»«!Cdn;XK
]loi;n^a taw taXXp ^ 9hf tv ^ Itdowtofua 9di
aaXim £S oi 61 *to ta.. a rta t0 ^^ ims-l*' ^atnrui aaw tl
aaw do ^ ato.i on *Nii tan «ruiO|f lU
tarit boililfcs^ aXicfo«o.^^ii j.ii, is *-■ ■ -r» ad^ aXixf troa
ioait Tao boood * ^^ni baniut a^v ?^ norfw
iMi* 14/od aa •»! saw ba^
- 3 -
or twenty feet dinitant froB. the automobile, Apy-elifint's
son tesfttlfied that at « epeed of four or five mi lea an hour
the automobile coulci hav« been flitofped within a diatanoe of
three or four feet, oonsiderlng the condition of the atreet,
and that while running at & speect of 15 or ::^0 cileo an hour
the autOKObile could have boon stopped ^vithin n dintance of
10 to 15 feet. It ia uncontroverted that after an el lee
waa struck she beosiffie entangled beneath the forward jortion
of the autojssobile and w;« dragged a iUBt;inoe of from 10 to 13
feet along thfi traok before the autoasobllft 'mm brought to a
stop. Tne eaase witne?sti also tssatified ♦■hrit |,e observed the
etreet car frofiB whioh aprellee alighted, aa it stood at the
weat line of California avenue, and knew that jaKwengera were
then alighting fro»5 eaid car.
In driving the autOKObile west upon the eant bound
atrset car track the driver wae violating the law of the road.
If the exigencies of the situation required the automobile to
be driven we«t upon the east bound track, for the purpoi»e of
pafSBlng the blockaded etreet OHre, ordinary Giire on the fart
of the driver des^anded that he keep th« autoKoblie under
control, Ro as to uvoid injuring jer^ona who might be oroaaing
the atreet at the point where appellee was struck. We have
no hesitancy in holvllng that, whether or not the Jrlver of
the autOKOblle »as gvxllty of ricgligence, an charged in the
ieclfiration, wee, unaer the evidence, a question of fact for
the Jury, stnd that their detenr.i nation of that ifiaue i« aatply
aurported by the evidence. TJron a ooneidersiticn of the
teatiaiony of Ch.:rlea D, Fisher the Jury n'cro Justified in
concluding eiths^r thvst he waa driving the automobile at a
ejeed of arproxlzsately 20 or Sa rr.ileo :m\ hcrsr, or that he
was driving th© nmm heedlee«ly and did not aee arpeilee until
ahe waa etruok.
Appellee testified that, ae ohe went aouth between
lo ec ' A nlrt.ti "^ *■ Ast;^ ivwii oiuw. ttit^omoiuM mU
i..j^n (1M ••XIA 0^ 10 dX llO 4^n^w .. .i L. ^ni,iii\u-\ X3i.i.,) ^ but
lo BOttHfeib B nXti^^- ■- TO^n n»»d »▼«/( Muoo •Ilduwj ;' «rt#
•rt^ tevtttdc ».-..-»:^-, — *v j^^,,^ ^ . 'o*il
•44 r,^ 9fao XtMlJttlO «*x«o ^A^s^t b^bM^ooid •tit ^'"•"-'^
jiile»oto »tf fii^tm oriw •no«i*',i iixl-xi/tai » ^'^v.- «♦ o^ oa «£o«Jtli»»
>r, ^-...>,> ,4^ ^Q„ JO T..,.., .,... ,. ... ,1..^ — .. ..* i^iiast99d %m
..* .<^ai«rio »• «aon«iaHa*n lo ictXiw) •«» ^r ^-^^ ,o«,,- ^n^
')U«aX ti.4. .w ..v.* w..*.4iao.#»h liAA^ :rAii} ban «t^u/t Mf
9 nol#«ttf)i:«iioo B a^^U ••onetilira e/li tcf b»#ioqt|aft
:aalrtTb tAw 5.. .,.. '^^ ^i.!^^(ffooo©
9iA *^ ,-. aaXioi £»S no 08 tX*-'^''^'t'f>' - < -- -^ t-eaiia
.iOC/tin aa» ttila
- 4 -
the two sjtrc«t cars, nhe glsnoed to^xard the «a8t, but naw
nothing arr.-X"oaotiing; tnat ae 3he was; uhcut to orosa an east
bound atreot car track her attention wao uiore j i:rticui:.rly
directed in observing whether ^ oar v,afl iifproaching en that
track from the went; that prior to being struck by the
autOBBObile she had no notice or knowledge that it was ap-
proaching frOBs the «j»ot, "Whether or not the condiiCt of
appellee, upon ^-he ocoa»ion in question, iitnci in view of the
aituaiion as it then una thtire exi?it«d, ccn«t;it.uted rea^Kju-
abie ctar« for h«r safety, was a qx'.estion of f^ct H'^ t.c rahioh,
upon thiB record, the verdict of the jury n-uHt be h«la to be
ooncluaiye. Counsel for nppe"'' Utnt prena upon our attention
the teatimony of three or four witneaaes to the effe^ct, in
eubetance, th^st appellee on several oocaf^iona in conversations
relative to tne oco^urrence in qi)«?«tion ssaici it wan aa much
her fault aa it wae Ut, Fiaher'a, Ti>is statement, if m-.adti
by appellee, wus the expreaeion jterely of her conclusion in
ignorance of the conduct of the arlver of the avJitOKobile,
It -ffaa not the ottnteRent of a concrete friCt inconoiatent with
the exercise of ordinary care for her own safety. True,
appellee teight have avoided the in;5ury if before attsitpting
to oroae ths euflt bound street cur track she n;id exoroiaed
greater caution in looking to the eant to cb'^f.'rve whether a
vehicle waa approaching froK that direction, bvjt unusr the
existing facta, it can not bf? «i3id that in failing 3o to do
appellee wae chargeable with a jsant of or-iinary care. Unaer
all the faote and circuBsRtcincea apioaring in the. record we
are not diepceed to attach to thia ,^t.':te£j.ont o weif^ht and
ittportanoe vrhich aakee it conclusive againet appellee upon
that iRBue.
The evidence relating to the character and extent
of appeUee's injuriea i?5 aharply conflicting. If the
- > -
9Mk,4u^ «>■«» IHif bl««0^ b^Ofliii.^ Oil*- ,BX«0 fmo^im 0V# 9tii
tBn$ flo jnii *«w %•• « «*4#»il» inlvi**^ si JlM^o»ilt)
-q« «tt* i >■ • '^ »r>*on 00 J^A^ •«!«• eXlc
lo ^ot/tn^. — .~ .^•A» txii iMKl aiii..v,.w.^
ittif to w0iv ai baj» «aoiiii». ,. .;i rrr,'^ ft<l^ «9^ t^^^-^'QM
- 'Qft«iaT b^iUi IStiilOO »09iP i "f"- «•» A/. > ...,..' *l •*< nf> '( * r.iif i c
•rf Q* ^- - -.-. .^-^ ...f i9 $9ibimr M# ,i.T.-.n*n «» ...,^
«'^^f*"' ao MXift<|0« ierf# ,»or
c~^.. ™. , " .-'itrifil .»>! 9am ti •» #Xi
. ^40#vs ^t !• if?ltJ» 041 le tax/bnoQ •/!# )o 9ocstoaii
, — awo iffij sol oaBo ^Mflilmo to.ttioi-:- — -
j^attqxni^" ; v^i^j li xiv^fll 94t boMevn tvaii iiiaia #tXitqq*
b^ntoit »dt. iaMi/ T«o lii9ii« bnuod la«» t^i ••oto pi
Y»d.^a::;. .. o:ii .f ||atJ(ooX nt noXIWAO 9»l«oiis
0d^ i - - , .Otl |9J;itO0Otquj£ 8..* •Xolddv
Q^ 01 OS inXXlJl r. i(5 Ion a*0 ii ,c ^
lOtuiU .oafio ti- i^X« •lc(«0s'xuiio aaw esxiei,!*
0« baoosi 9iii al 3fli:a>*r>4i0 ooonjaltiOi/ci/o r.i.- eiv
bOB iii9i0w s lotAWli^tA utci) oi At ->i«
noiu aaCIaor- fnnln%f' \'lnulznoo t i. 9»Aiui Aoktlm eon
» '■
faai) -io.toAi«4o 9iif Qi anltrTsi ooavttv* oifT
SiJ^ . jnllotXlrtoo >tX i t oolic/tnl •'oolla.
- 5 -
teRtlmony of appellee find of her ottending and ex«Biining
phyaiclanfl in true, h*»r injuries are pnyere and pefrmanent,
and the dawiagfta ore not exce'^'aivfi, ^?c woxild be unw-Arrant«d
in Baying that in fiatiaatlng the .iaivvsreo which anellee aua-
tained the ^ury were influenced by raaslon or prejiidioe, or
that they failed to xroperly consider and, weigh the evidence
bearing upon that question.
The ocHirt cUd not err in refu!?ing to strike ovxt the
teatiwony of appellee*^ ^^fltn^aa, 0. B. JtookiEan, rs.ii.tlve to
the autoKiobil«J end the speed at whioh it w«s traveling.
Jackman was ©sployed aa a cifsrk in a arug f^tore Icoated on
the Bouthwost corner of Mariison rstreot and California avenue,
into which store arrellee was carried after ?ihfi waa injured.
He teatified that coincident with the oocaaion in ■.,u««tion
he fia» enge.ged in the store an-i saw etn automobile co»dng from
the ©aat einct rvmning very faest on the aouth «icie of I^'-Jdiwon
•treeti that he did not Ichve the. store; thftt he dia not
see the avitoroobile oosie to a Btop, but aaw it after It had
Btopped Hnct 8av5 the crowd gathered around it; that Ahen he
firfjt noticed th« automobile h^) ?>a%- t?fO rtirfsonB in the front
part of it. The witnefla -aa.^ not tible to identify the auto-
Koblle aj» the one which belonged to appeHant, but in view
of all the faotR ana ciroumfttancea in evidence, and the
coincidence of ticse find place, it W5*3 fsiirly & quefition for
the jury whether the autowobile shich he obsox-ved min the
autoaoblle in question.
Appellant's objections to certain hypothetical
questions propounded to a witneeo called by iirpel3ee ae a
icedloal expert, r.nd to the answers of aaid witncBS to said
qiieetlon*, wre fully considered and deterKined in Shaughnei^ay
V. Holt. B36 i::i., 485, and caocB ti.e.re cited.
The tnirtRenth inntriiCtion tendered by aipellant
^aial tlUfiiM in .>XX«qqa to xnoai^ati
-•u* ten Tl^Miitat nk ttas aniTsa •!
TO ,»oibot»^"i "»<* fiolt««i Yd baonfiuX'^ni ti^w ytiffc 9rf.t banifs^
aooafciTd ndf Iia^ lafclnnc *&i(i
9di fuo a. ' ^nl»u^ oo erlT
o ,nsAi(rj , > ,aaf»niitw a'aailw Yaooii#Ha#
,^ntL»vnxi SAW .ti iioirfw #a b99<i» ttdf tmm •itdomotum ail#
no bataooX ato.tn gmb » nl italo c aa bayoXiaa aa« naasCoat
,ai/fiavii alniotiXaO bna >^ lanioo taswdtuon adl
• baiu^ai asir ail' bnliino f*aw i*;»£X»>Tl'* aioif^ doiiiw old
iioi> t fioiaaooa aiit aR
oo^ liltfoao;^ ii^ Hi i»a^»^Ma aaa ad
i»ii^ flo 3njtrmi;i hna taaa atfi
ion bii;> ad i»f^J^ iAio^n firi.i av^t;?: .Pun bih :iaaita
tatla ft waa ;fiitf «<|o' j«oo aXlds>«ocf ■ $)aa
art nnii'^ tar. '
-^iun ©fit Yli.tn
war
Dja
■n
an 'H •<!*
X*ol;>ari^oqy ^o a'^.i
4 • batm/oqoii aoollaai/p
hlMu oi aaaaJiw bXji.a ;o aisakci. sijf o;» bMi ^.-^ Caolbaa
^p .c^r.oi^aaup
inaXXaiiis \d b9T»ta»s aottoutfunl iftaat/ixii' uar
- 6 -
was too narrow in its fjcore v»-it.h r«ference to thR negligence
charged In the cl©oiaratlon ana m^^ ; rorerJy refused, Tho
©ubject ffifttur of the inRtruoU.on «an «uf f icisntly covered
by other Infjtruotlona given to the jury.
There is no error in th*? rc^cord snd the. judgtii^nt
io affirmed.
JUrOMEKT AFFIRKED.
- 8 -
•«JT •t)Mi/>9Y Y^iO'TOi^ nfxm knt uoi if irl Iwa'^'flO
bmtHveo xlttintotyiM mam aolfotn^n.. its%
trT4NHBtt/t Allt I <9t tH^ Mtl tot tr
,lomil' \i itl
.onwnf A Tiano-TUi;,
'^
475 - 18015.
JENNIK SHAFFHKR,
vs.
B. M. SHAFyi?En,
V
APPEAL THOU
CIRC^^IT CCI'RT,
COOK COUNTY.
v/ 132I.A. 450
MR. JU*nCK BAUIIi: miVFRFD TRF OPINIOK 0? THE CCURT.
Thin ia an apr<»al ^y -• ^^» Shaffner froR an orj«r
of th© Circuit Court oOf.R.itting hia; for oonteBspt for hia
failure to pay to his fcra.er -^ife, J«nnie ?>haffner, the in-
atallKenti of aliwony for Pect-'mber, 1910, khcI Janimry s^nd
Febriiery, 1911, as provided in the for&er decreee of the
court*
The decree of clivorc* was ©ntamd Cotobftr ^3, 1888,
&nd a ^leoree fixing the aoiount of alia-ony to fee r-id by appel«
lant at t80 F«Jf EiOnth waa entered October 29, IBSS, Cn
March 30, 1905, a decree war- ant^rtd decli<rin£ the alimony
fixed by the fortner iccree tc have been raid to Kny 1, 3905,
and fixing tm alisiony to be thereafter paid et |50 i er n.onth.
On k'arch ^4, i£ll, appellee filed her j^fficlavit ahcwing tnat
appellant had failed to pay the installBentR of *sUB>oiiy as
above ^itnted, p-nd thereupon appelli-mt, in rejipon^e to an order
to 8ho« cause, etc., on ¥?:.rch r9, 1011, filed hi© siworn jinRwer
stating thrst he in without fl:,e!in« or tuonty to ray the «ius» due
or any r^^^rt thereof, and has Vften no unable since the sao-o
accrued and long before^; that h«5 intende raying the name aa
soon aa h« geta B.oney an.1 verily believes he -'jill be able to
r&y the eaae within 30 or 40 dayej that he hae no rroperty
except his law library and houaehold furniture, upon which
there is a ch^;ttel Biortgage of ^1,000; thf:t he is heavily
indebted and owes about 17,000, ccneiderable of which i« in
JudgKentaj that he owee t^76 for office rent, ubout g400 for
.ei08x - at*
yo F> J \ ■•'. Ilk \ , to 1 .1 • 1 1 4
,tHTnn fllTOfilO N ."ir
19X/19 flA aoii i«jaT '.♦.ii'^ ,i .« \n iKOii-i r.» Hi •141
•ill eaj ^ivatlftxIB •innot «*li' j-^-.i.,' i.x.t j ^ x' i
'»>■>/> »v
v^^t sflXisXott b«iAta« 9$m ••1Mb • iA09{ «0S ......
«^v>^^ ,i t*^ o^ ^i«9 '"••d •ir«d e^ ••TO»|b l*«iol Mil x<f '"'^^^
•4^iiQ«i %9q Oel #« bisq i^#ls^i#/i# •<f o^ ta9«il« •<<# 9iil>:
fr.At inlwo4t #lv*ftXl)« xarf 6*Xn ••XX^qqs «XX9X «»S 4w... .;;,
»• YAOaiX« lO •l8«lX£*«iiai »^* '- Oi b^lU^ ticA tttBii9qq»
r%bTCfam9$ ••noci»tT nt ,tnsXX# .,«h4 ^,, ^tmSMfv •?94ji
Yswaac mow alii iNiXil «XX9X «9U ..w.- ..^ ,.»v^ ^aai/so vodt Qt
•ub aw* »" ''* '« to •fl*- *">rtliw •! •d liMlJ 9<it#jB/s
•■a* •u^ ov:* ■ •• «•» ••»" »ifl« «^0»lt/l* ♦'•^■' -^^ ■''
•« ••r- "'* aolx^i «"^''<»-t«l •<! **"• ;«iol^<^ i«oi ---
'^* -- f" 94 ••VfiX*4 X*""" "iW Ytooa •!•! fed f
1 •d itULt iVY^^' '^'^ '^^ '^'^ n»/<4>« itni/a .
" » *' '• \0 :.., #i«d« t -.
- ,0OO,Vt ^- -"^"^^ f^'^« I^
- 3 .
rent of the flat he oocnpleB, for whloh ha r«ye a rental of
$50 per month, ami a house koepftr ?7 j er v»eek; thiit it coat»
him about 1^15 per ^<eiek for groceries, Kcrta, etc.; thrtt hit
office rent io '|53.50 rsr month; that he i^ 63 yeiira old and
a lawyer <incl hua hiP son aa ft- j artner equally interested in
the buRinefls; that for the l-ist eight jtonths he una his son
have not averaged to «xc«©d t75 per Eonth in eaici law buaineasj
that for the KOnth cf !v'{vroh, 1911, thtf reoeift® have been
about 155; that for Ktany years raat he Ima kept no bockes of
acooxmt In hl« buelnees, beoaxiae of the ojTiyll volume of «aid
b\isiine«o; that out of the receiT'te he raya office ard living
ex^ eneee ami divides tn& fiurplua, if any, */lth his aon; that
he haa been coscifelled to borrow and has borroweij H-cney from
frienda and clients during the last five and six B^cntha with
which to pay living expenaea, and which Eoney ia >tij.l ov'ing;
that during thfi laf»t aix ©ontha he haa not exrended to fixoeed
|25 on hiKself for clothing and neceasary wearing aprarel.
It ia firot urged th-at the verified retxirn of appel-
lant, »»hioh iiaa alone conaidered by the chjmcellor, shows? a
complete inability to puy th« iiliesony clue, and that the rule
to show cauae sthculd hftve been discharged,
Ir^ Sha ff ner v. Shaffner. 31B 111., 49B, upon a
ehowing roore fevorfcble to wfpeiiant thf^n in the case at bar,
the court had the sawie queetion under ocnaiderEsstion, and held
that the order corostittlng appellant for conteDspt waa properly
entered. since the declaion upon the forraer spp^al "the ali-
mony hae been reduced to fSO o month, and appellant appears
to have been relieved from the neoea«ity, which then existed,
of aupporting hit aubsecjuently acquired ^ife una step daughter.
Although living aa a single tf.en, he occxiploa a fiat at a
rental of tSO a month, c.nci eicplcya a housekeeper, to whoas ha
paya $7 a week. Since the hearing uj:on hi a former appeal,
appellant hus voluntarily incurred an a'ded incuKbrance in
to X«;fn»i • njn.1 arf iotii* ooo »/! #«Xt 414^ to tjuit
•taoe II liMlt i<t«v t»q r| i»q|t»i •»ud4 « brrs «dinflBi 1
bam Mo aiiiOY "i.CCf mi ta9t ooiltc
ao« oirl /v ^:>« idai* #i»<X tits' ivit ;a«f)alMMJ *iil
ia*9a2»i/(/ wj»X j;;lAa i^ ii«iii»iev£ ^en otbH
to otfootf on t^otf oad Ad #a«(T f
bin* to •■uX^ '^ oxf} lO OOUAoW «ft«#ni6i^d >'
SffJhrtX brtfl aoil^o ft,:6<;t od otTltoat »i(t lo^uc
aoat Y»m>a 2>*v'OYiotf •«<! t^a irotiod ot boXXf^qnoo nootf
4#Xw adtROjr xis Ima OTlt taaX ntif ^nixub a^nolXo bam a
ijfllwo XXIJ«! Hi ynno* ilolrir ixa JMilVXX t« '
btaooca o.^ b9tr >a xia toot OA'
•lot uto&a Uiii snIslitoXD TOt tXds«X4 a^ CCl
•Xaqfti' to ai^r-isi bmitiioir art'
^tfa «10XXaoflml0 arft yc2 l. anoX.> aa« ;1;
ei 'Uh Y«o«Hfe .,.:> i^^i oJ t^lXltfaflX aJ8;,j*oo
' ' ' -da aai/ao »■•■
*. fto-itf ,ae*- ».i:i •
>«ao atf» nX ntxl.* Jn*.l . ■ ald^i^vfil aioa i,.
tiv .ooitATattanca tafcoi/ nc^?^Ow'p aoat ttdf baif itiu
xX^o.j^t:;; aaw t ■ ■ !>, iali:^
"tin 9Af iKti-^ic -i nsXaloab exlJ so-
a o 06| 01 ftaot/hai nose: j:i:.i tnoji
,M?alx£; .;>•: ,'{:fircaci;r! aift aibt'^ barvatXaY naacT a
• lalif : >aa tX^naupaadi/a *' 10
i.TXvii a.,
ad fflo
nl ooaaidauonl baJjfa no baltuonl tX*"? ' '" t.m ,.l^^^e
the acquisition of a partner, with who» he dividea the earninga
in hi«» buainaae. Appellant Btatfts in hi.n verified returr. that
the reocipta froir. hia buain©fl8 have not hvavHued ^75 |*«r month,
but he faila to state hi'? earnings in hiR buaineRs. '"''hile
appellant ajpc&re to keep no books? of account, he may neverthe-
less keep a i&ental led^jer.
The showing by arp*^^®* ^•^^*^* appellant had failed
to coffii ly with the decree directing the payment of alinony
afforded t)Xim& fi.cie eviaence of contempt, anJ thes burden was
thereby caat upon s*pi.eilant to show that hia failure in that
regard was due entirely to hi« inability to pay. Siiaffner ? .
Shaffner* euy;rs . The ahowinc nsade by appe'^lant was insuffi-
cient t purge hi» of contf^ispt.
It i« next urged that ns the original decree re-
quiring the poyrcent of alisiony to yfrellee was entered in
1888, ony remedy for a failure to coKf ly with siuoh decree io
barred by the twenty ye«r statute of licaitations; that there
ia no distinction in this reaject between jucigKente &% law
and decrees in equity j that both out-law in twenty years, un-
less revived *ithin that reriod after rendition.
Appellant entirely ignores tha fact that the last
decree in the case w:sa entered in 1905, but if the decree of
1905 be diuregiirded, it inu^t etill be held that the decrwe of
188B, vuhereby appeli^-^fit was* required to pay rilireony in monthly
installments, ia a continuing order, ao to rhloh the statute
of limitations dees not begin to run until thcj lawt instailment
becomes due.
In CraiK v« Craig. 163 111., 170, it was held that
alimony decreed upon the dissolution of a a&rriage, if payable
in instsllaaents, Ir, unlesn othfl!r«i8« specifically provided,
an allowance for the surfoi't of the beneficiary during the
joint lives of herself and her divorced husband. If the
duty of 9U port continues during the joint lives of the r&rties.
t.-^rl* aX »A«*i
xi/pafi n..
1.'" i; i -■ »vr.;i hum;". tn» 'ii Bj^i^;
- qrt»i of r
I ■> wrf s>^ tt<n <n n f .'\ it I. An
• f . r» •. I
'«>** »* •'*■
ynoaiiXa ^o iammxt'
ni ntttSoaiimlb oa •!
.oolJibr-" -"*>• tolTiiH[ tad* aidiiir t»v '"••-' "»*?
\fk ^^ M ^ r%A '
tff«*"
vcr
•Ari.
,ttoi.^
^ ttd *., , .jJ;itJ»aei»jtb etf «OeX
li«->-i } r:. IT t-ii-^ tititfr'tiifl vd'.iTirf . ^8881
fll
10
nolfuioBc . f;iino»r yaoalXfi
;tlll Adt TOt •OnAwc
tab
- 4 -
it is clear tnat a d»cr«e j;roviding for the rayi;.«nt. of alieiony
in InatailK-ents, i>.B in the oase at bur, cannot be affected by
th«» statute of liwitfitiona.
If the cieorf/e had provided for the rayitent of a
as alimony,
eua in grosBj/a different cjxiefltion would be rreaented.
The order is affirmed,
ORPSR AFFIRMED.
" ^ "
Xnomilu to tnarnxsq sxl-t
Xd b9ir tonn«c
••loe.
,^.-x- 13 . * t:ai
tYnoaiiXjB as
^Tolrft a\,«soTj III mtf
bflfrt-r
476 - 18016.
JENIIK SHAFFKER,
t».
f pellee.
B. M. ^V.AT^THm,
'■/ Appellcint, 1 1
APPEAL FROM
OIRCITIT COURT,
COOK COimTY,
m, JIT^TTCI^ BAtmE CFLIVKRKD
J82I.A.451
ID TlirOPIHIOK OF THK C^URT.
Thle ifl «n appeal by B, W, Sh^ffnor froer. an order
of the Circuit, Court ooicBiltting him fcr oontoapt for hin
failure to pay to his? forni«r wif®, Jannle 3h«ffner, the
inatallRienta of alimony for March and April, 1911, as rrcvid«4
in the forsicr decreee of the oowrt.
The precise queotlcna here invoivea "ere conBiclered
and deterjsined in Shaffner v, Hhaffner. No, 18<j15, in which
caee the opinion of t.hioi court hae this day been filed, ..md
for the rea^one there atated the order of the Circuit Court
will be affirKed,
ORDER AFFIRMED.
1^
.8.
?♦
MOP-
.YT:
-^
«»*x:
'' ,;r'nmAmj aiirm
Km .v ••
tMOKM SOITRUi •«
•ill lol #qa9:tnoo to) alii initflaaoo $%uoO tliioiiO tiU Ite
•dt ^tsnllAiiS •inneli «t)lii tMreol •14 0# fmq o^ aitrf fr t
b«Mvo7-i «u ,I£9r •IlTfTA tfljs i<Oic»lC to\ tao«lX« to ttf'
.J ikii>.\ ^(l,t ito ■e*iosb Y««iol •Ai ni
bSYftti vnl ti«4 •noifufi •«l9*iq •<fT
tMXil aoa<< x'^ *-t4^ **^ tii/oe sidt )o xielnlqo 9d^ ••B9
57 - 13079.
182I.A. 451
CLATJDK B, DAVIo, ioing buBinena ^9 )
CI AnrE B. TAVI^ & COMPAirf, / )
Defendant inMxiOT^ } EPJ^OR TO
Vfl, / I CIRCUIT COURT,
KAX J. 3TRA1JCH and WJLHFLMISA J'TRAUCH, ) COOK COUNTY.
\ PliiintiffB in icr for. )
MR, JUSTIOF BAUk'2 VSKIIWRET, THIS OPINION OF THF COURT.
Tjiig H^rit of srror is rToaecuteci to reviow a
piirported record of certain rrooeedings In ♦he Circuit Co^irt,
wherein defendant in Rrror rt^covered a jud,^ent a:3.:iinst
plair.tlffs ir. eiMor for ^^208, which judPffient plairtiff^ in
error, -it a subsequent teriB of saia court, souitht unmiocess—
fully to hnve vacated and set aside.
Tne [urported abstract filed by i:lalntAff8 in error
ia a a:erc index of th« record and in wfiolly insufficient to
present the queetiona sought to be raised for our coii^iuera-
tion.
Furthermore, notwithetsndir.g there is no bill of
exeertioim la *he record, the record oontaina a bill of
f.artioulara, together with certain Kc-f ions ana affidavite,
which car. only be prorerly preeerved by & bill of exccftione.
Star Brevrery v, Fapnefe c rth. 172 III., r;47; llarten/'ela v .
Klein Co ,. 107 111. Apr,, 8S; Christie v. '^^' I ker, l.«6 111.
App,, 4^:4,
The judgBcnt if? affirmed,
JUDGMENT AFFTRJ'FD.
15^ .A.IS8I
\
no
.TTinioo r
.evoei - ve
.TH*. T-
• 8T
TTT. ,R«
. j {.; «; .• ; fi '
o .; UiB bxoxfi 9Ai lo xehni •!;
,aoJLt
lo I£ld on 8i oiftdi ^nibfls^ffdtlwton (•loaiad^iir^
lo Hid B anis^aoc Moo«t sdt ,bTOOot nAS al •aoit'^wtK*
««^lv«l>ill« ba* maoi^oa ntatj»o Aft* ^BAfmnot ««iBXaoiMiii
• •no 1:^100X8 lo Xlld ft Yd b«vi»«*aq t^'><*<|0'K(| *<f t^no flfto doldv
.III d«»X .iaA i r.« .V ftliPtTdO i8S ,.qqA .HI TOI . . oO nl»X3i
•>A> «.qqA
• bMinift si ^flMiabat *dT
90 - 18114,
^/182I.A. 452
KAPLE'^OOD COLLIERY COM-ASY, / ) ^
PliuntiXf in Krrpf, \ FRROH TO
vs.
OTTO r. SlgBINKAHJ,-, ^
Defe/ulant/ln Error.
SUPERIOR CCURT,
COOK GOUfJTY.
MR. JTT-^TICF EJiUyK PEIIVERET^ THF OPINION OF THK CCT?RT.
7hi8 «rlt of error la prosecuted to review the
raoord of certain rrooeedinga in the Suferior Co>;rt, v.i,orein
in an action of roplevin brought by pj^antiff in error against
defendant in error an aiteraative judgEsnt was rfr; isreci that
plaintiff in error roturn the rroperty ds'^cribed in t'ho A'rit
to defendant in error, fin.i in -lefs^.'ult of rsuoh return thnt
defendant in error lmvs ana -ecovrar fron; pi.sintiff in error
%2.'iQ anU ccriits of 8uit.
To the dsoJaration in the usu'i?^ 'lOt'Sk kiefejidant in
error i:l«i&ded, firat. son osrit» ^'tjecond, non dgtinct. taird^
property in snothftr, and jTcurtn, t-..;' t.iii i.roferty •^■aa va;-
livored to aefeniant in error to rerfortt certain v-ork uion the
aaees and furnissa certain u.atfcriaia, and tar-t defendant ia
error p^^i'^or.-r.ed ;=aid work ^-m. T'irriiBhed said Bitttsriaia, *^ht;reby
plaintiff in error "oecaiflse inds?btecl to him in ths -?ur& of ^HOO,
*,o fiecjure ^ne payment of -Yhich cie^eniant in error '«aa entitled
tc detain tn« !»aid rrof-rty,
Dfon the cv'-rriilinK of rrotiona interposed by plHiin-
tiff in error for a cc':tinuaace a jury ><ph^ itcranelled to try
tae c-iae, and suoh trial proceeded in tne abssnoe of piointiff
in arror and re^iulted in a ver.lict as follows:
■We, the jury, fird the issues for txie defendant an.1 fin:
the tiK-eunt diie^fross the plaintiff tia? s^us of T^-o Hundred and
Seventy Dollars and snaeaa the darages at the f?iiK of Two
Hundred and Seventy Do.H:^r9,*
Sg:^ .A.I 2 81
.MTfir - oe
■\r ( \ ,8V
M
iO aOOC; ( VIKAlfilSSir .1 9T70
aia-KSa'x ,^YrioO lolieiue »tlS at •iniijooooiq ais^eo to te»«««
^•ni«9« «on» ai llitjclaXq xtf tii^^uoid fUv»lqa<a lo iioi#o» jmka4
imti -tNiin^i.^n iiMr tnaashu^ •▼iJ«ax«;riB or kotil9 cl #iiiili01>t
iutui dC0« lo tLtm\»t gU bem ^aaxxu at foMhamleb «tf
»itu9 lo etftoo teii Olifi^
nl #n«l3aAlol; #<uil Jvi» ^biaix^fntt ai»#%oo A«i<'iiul iMia •«••
«00^ lo aum tit nl «iA oi t^tdntrl Mb»o*<f «oax» nl Dl^nieijl
-^ttiq x^ b99oqr9fai ^noltam lo ^ntUexT^ro 9ti$ tm^
\^^ ^i • •onminl^nDo « lol ioiy» ffl lilt
:flWo£lo^ •« ^olLiav a at b%iLuB9x boB sotica cC
tall r.nr .tnnl>ni«>«h odi tot mmumnl •Ht ftnll «tvrt sid ,«v"
bfu^ b«ihnuH cj * "Iq •dl mo"*! •!
OwT lo ■: sciaiifB DnA •?
- 3 -
Upon the luotion for a ne^ trial defendant in error
reeittod the dAieages for the detention of tun property i.o one
cent, und ♦.he action for a novv trial wf.?? then ove.rrultid and
juvigjLQRt entered aa fo.llo%-9:
■That the plaintiff ufika reliirn wi^niii ten days of the
jropcrty :j<;is^ecl by virtue (,f tnt; i^e^. evin «rit afoiee^aiU,
viz:*»***.?^n'.: that in default of auch return, iue de'enciant
f*.i,(i ;*!;u reaower fro»x tne plaiatiff the oub of ^370. 00 ^na
coats of 3uit, a;i4i thvt he have execution Ihftrefor,"
It is firat urged th-jt the Rioticn of pl«intifi in
error for a continuance w&» iuiironTrly J.eriisti, Thft reocrd
(liiiolojse:^ M..it in ou.port of tive wot ion /ij/i^t, ii,acie foi- a
continuance, 'fhioh j^ah denied Ir/ the coiirt, < ne afjiaavit
filed by plaintiff in error failed to coaforfe to the r«-
quirea^ents of the statute, una tnat en the following day
plaintiff in error again »30vcd for a coritinuaxioe u!;on th*-;
aafiio ground, and in support of such uiotion, r-tiich wart al«o
denied by ti.e court, plaint i^~f in error Ciied a ^ufr'icifcnt
affidavit, Tho inotion for « continuance first interroaed
aras profftrly deuied, and to hnve granted ^ut: second n:o^ion,
iijjaod upon the iiko ground, would nave been C'^uivalent to
inirroi-eriy rern.it tinr pliawtiff m error to tui.6nd its K:Olion
for a ccntinuance. Both aotionij .vere rro: criy -ionied,
Stockiey V. Gooawln. "^3 in,, 137; North as;? tern ^la A.^g'n
V. rrlitia. ini 111., 100.
It 15 next urj^ed that the inn^ruction givon to the
^ury as to the fons of verdict wao iitv roper. Tno vrorrifity
of *nc uction of the court In fivlnr^, thig inrstruction is not
trcrsrly rre^ierved fv-^r revie^t, bui if i^; ».ere ■»«? siiou'ld be
obliged lo hold that no harn: re-^uTited to plnintiff in error
by tha siving cf the in^struction. Tiie u.:G ntrovi^rted evidence
fully e?;tubli«he3 the facta averred in the fourth s sghhI plea
filed by defendant in error, ana the an??-^ ruction, "o. either
-»a »xi# c;f aiotooo oi b^liBl v^i^9 al t'Uialzlq x6 bmL±\
MU a»qii •onBuni j»iroa aijitjr T»i%a ni ltii»i«£q
, . -It (toua lo ;f'X0'^u;tta ni ixui ^baaou^ mmtm
iaaioi'X'ium m bmii'i toi's* ai ttiiairSq ^ttuoo Ptat t^ b^lattli
t9fioq%mtBi t9rl1 mtmaualtntjio « ao^ aol;rom rnlT .^iTAJailtM
.001 ti.
t^mliqoxq •AT ,i9rt9iT»t •«» ^aiinmr to mtol ad) o^ «« TULi,
ton 9i maitvurfai ntHf - ni ^u/oo itilt )o noi.^ou a4^ "^o
f.<i rfuo. ;i ftv T ,>feiva^ aol barTtaawiq tXvSQDftil
•ouvirivd baliavoT^c .noi.*oi/tt» i^dS x^
luii . .oi-'otn ' ^ - . ^
- 3 -
with the verlict Tnd jii;1gEent, nre clearly an-jl rroj-erly
referable tc said rleft.
There \n no ^n^nX -■Kent of error call ins in '.ii;estion
t,he .^ctlcn of the ocurt in. >■ -""ii;!* tinf; ihe o-iv^t to rrccsed
to trial •arlthout a rvXe on pl-tintiff in error to rerly ^c the
several ple39» ^i"'^ plaintiff in error i^^, therefore, nreolucled
frojE raising the p'^lnt,
A jiadgnent in ^he riltern-ative svas properly entered.
Janea v, Gilbert . 168 I.U., 6^7.
The judguent is Af^inind,
JUDO»f{tNT AFFIRVED.
- ' 9df Aflm
tiO li r.ni ^. ill ^il« i 1 r ^ iv ) : '"
bmbu
t. Oil */ — "."T-
«• .>^ n
.•£ ou«
.as'^fiiTiA wrtio-r.-L
1S4 - 18155,
182I.A.453
^ FERriNAN!) T, JAH03, / )
PlHintiff irtf Error, ) ERROR TO
KDfARD JCHANNING^nd A. ^.
hV Defei^antf" In Error.
WJNICIPAL CCTTRT
OF CHTCAOO.
KR. JUPTIOF. BAWK Dfai^/^:HED TrVt. OriKI'^^ OF TKJ 0CT5RT.
In a suit "orovight by plaintiff in error against
viefendaftts in error iri thR J'^unicipal Court ^;o recover ?3r;8,50,
alleged to bo due for legal services, a trial by jury resulted
in a verdict and iudgisient against defendants in error for
|3.50, admitted to be due, ana pi.-iintiff in error, bt-.ing
aggrieved by tde in<^«ff icienoy of «uch jr.d/'ment, rrosecuteo
tnis writ of error.
In June, 1909, defendant.® in error, -no were con-
ducting a laundry busines.^, as partners, and one, Hiibcrn,
were maae defendants in a suit iri^ti*,i;ted against then in the
Circuit Court by the Scnrivor Laundry Comrany to eajoin taeas
froHi employing and perrcitting said Hilborn to :=oiicit tue
bti3ins33 of said laundry coiarany, find pl-tiiitiff in error A-as
consulted and retriined by then; to defend ssid ~uit, Flaintiff
in error claims that the services renlered by him in sai.j ?!uit
rs reasonably worth the sim- of ^300, and iefendants in error
■jc not ccr.test the reasonable vnlije of f^noh siervicea, but
deny liability tLftrefor, In A;;rch, 1 ..'10, uefendant-i in error
«ere aade defendar:te in a suit instituted against theai in 'he
Hunioipal Court by one, Rio^arde, ana ilaintiff in error waa
retained by theit to defend eaici euit. For his Bervicos in
the Richards cafte pl-^intiff in error charged #25, and the
reasonableness of saivi charge is5 adK.itted, but aisbility
therefor in denied. From the decree entf^red aff.iinst thein
8o^.A.IS8I
.e?i8i - MSI
OT HO ■ .TOTiiVil Hi'
THtfOC J»^I0I51UM ■ .«v
.OntniHT 70 ( . :i*''o«IHI((AHOT, rT"ftr(t1T
f J^ IT •
i - / • ^
,Oe.fMvCf T«vcnsT o^ ^isfoO I«qioiaxfM an* nl Tout* nl •#nBbn«l#fc
t«^Xu(««)^ t A «fi»olvi9a XiiasI aol sub od o^ boj^iX*
ao> tons ni •#nfiba*l«b ^•nifiSA tn*a8^t ^« tolbtsir a al
8nl»d , 10119 <ti llltfllfiXq bns «Mfb sd o^ bnitimh^ «Oe..C|
• TOiie 1o *1t» ultl*
-no 9 01 »w Oftv ,iovi« Ri «#R«bn»l»b ,9061 ,enuL al
.aiodliH ,»nQ bflit ««T«itt^a'T •• «iiii«rri*0d x^^U"^ * gai^oflt
8d/ hi Md^ ttniBSA b«ttf»i#«a! tJtu* c ai t^nebnoleb absa nav
«»fti itiotaa oi \tL&^wt>^ j,ihRUBA i»vtTrio8 adt xd trwoO ^IvavlO
9ii^ ^toiXoa o^ aiodXlH blaa •%Riiiimi9^. bfla snltoXqaa ■»«%
aa» «>T*5f» n! ll*5nl«X<i bniii «xn><!<K>o Txbffwiil Maa lo ^aanlctrd
m^nlBX rn fciaa iMraltab o^ amdt Y<f tenlo^ai baa ba^Xmnoa
tiim Maa ai wlIA xd beidi^nai aaoiviaa adt it^Ai aaiaXo laiTa 11
TOiia nl a^nfibna^ab bnn ,0OC<i lo aiwa mAi Aiictit tXdanoaaat %t^m
$m6 ^aaoXviea doi/a to airXav aXdntroaaai adt laatnoo >oa ofc
1. t fi^nabaalab «OXex ,doa»lf al .lolaiad^ x^li'^^'^^^ T««i>
ad* flX aad^ i9tilB2* t^iutLittal fltm » at a^nabaatab absa rta*
a£« loiia fll tli^alalq boa ,Bi «aao j^ SruoO XJ^iolaoil
ni aaoiviaa aid lOt ,tkum blaa baa^ab of aadl t^ baola^^i
adl tMM «8St bat^iftdo toiTa nl 'ilUfatnlq aaso abiadolff %dif
t^iXidfti .yifimbm ml ajiado blaa lo aaanaXdnAoaaa>i
wmdS *antaja baia^na aaioab ad* aoilt ,bmltft »i 'xolaiadt
in the Circuit Conrt defendants in error r.rnyed an 'arTeal to
the Appellate Court, and thereafter pl.-nintiff in ftrrcr ''. :t th-
c.rew ui«? appearance in aai.i case for the ren jon that defendants
inerror had failed and refussed to pay for i^evyioa^ renjered
by hiK, Bihi for the like reav^on jinintiff in error witi;;;rew
hia appearance in tUo l^lcharda caf»e in the »'utdoip«il Court,
Defandanta ir error deny li'^tbili ty for the ^ervioea of j.iain-
tiff in error in tne injunction ossge uron the grcuml, a.^ Uiey
allege, tnat plaintiff in error jgreed to rerforE. Rail sftrvices
iirona contingent fee to be reHli/ed by hin. froR. the ooflit iainaxit
upon the injunation Dond fcr |500, Liability for tue aer-
vices of plaintiff in orror in the. RiGi.arda caae i^ denied
Ufon the grciinti that piiintiff in error r-i.'reod to r«naer all
necei^isary aer<fices in eaid caae lor ffio.
Upon the i»?9«ea of fact Involved, it is aufficient
to say that the evidence ia so closfiiy ccn-f'I ioting tiia*., if
no prejudicial error had intervened, we vnhovjid nave been coiu-
pelled to accept the verdict of U\e. ^nry as fir.al. The rocord,
however, disoloaes that after ths close ef ail tne evi.ience
and after the arf.uH;enta of ^ouneei, the trial cor.rt, 'oivfore
instructing the jury as to tJie Jaw of thf caae, vr^nd. to tne
jury the affidavit of jterita or ief enae filed in the oaae by
defendant in error Johanning, The affidavit of i^erits, as
drafted, eets out the defendants* v«.'r3ion of the c trovorsy
in detail, and the procedure adopted by the court in.r.roperly
enaphaaiKed it9 sirnific ince and waB calculcted to r rejudiciaJ ly
influence the jury to ^.ive uruiue «?ei;:ht to the s?'^orn ;?tnte-
fijente therein oontained. If 'he sworn BtatSEent of clsiB
filea by plaintiff in error hn^i a\ho been read to the jury
tnti effect of the action of t].ie c>urt in reading the afli-
uuvit of i&erita filed on b^ihalf cf aefendajits in ^rror cd^'ht
hhve been Kinin.i,-:ed,
o^ IiiaqqB a» trtctq loti* at •tamba»\9b triioO #itrt>ii9 »fl^ nt
ftrt»lMi»ii ••t>4VT#« tot ' bo^ulQ-x o-r^ofli
J9A^ mm ^tmunt^ mHS aoqu saiio aotSonulal mAf at v>i?a ai WIS
Inftni 3.li mi%\ mid xd b9*tl»»i 9d ai ••! ^n*aAi#noo Aooqpr
-x»8 •tis Tol xil^ltSMid .OOal lol boon aoiionulai 9di ao^v
jbsin >i. ai MfiP atTAJ^' ni YOiia aX tliSalmiq Jti ,999ijl
■X of baaa^e ooiia ai IliiaiBii iBAS uox/oo^ mdi aoquf
.c ^^HO blu* ai aaoiviaa x^aaeaoa*
tamtoilliiB mi mi ioel )o aauaai •Ai soqU
Ji «tait# sn^^oiltnoo t^O"o£9 oa oi aonahtva •4#<liii'^ Ys* ol
-MOO aaad avad bluoila av ^jbaaayia^ai tta/d loixa Xtiioiht/^aiq oo
,2>iooai aiiT .lAoit aa xtul •ds lo ^oio^car mI^ iqaooa of baUaq
•oaablva a^^ im to aaoXs a<i^ it/la Isili aaaoloall: ,-iaTavo4
tiolacf ,iitios Xal^ij: mtiS ,X»afuro9 to ainaav^ia aiii «a#la ytM
•Ai oi.ts*! «aaao a4i lo w*X a4i •tfs T^ifC 0^"* ^X'otn^tafl
X<1 aaao ad^ nl fLil aaaalat 30 ailoa* lo tt^9bi1\M •Ai jiui
aa ,s)ii<9ji lo iirsbilXB ar(T •initui/^ii.di loiia al tAAba^X^b
Xaiavoi^ .0 noi«it>v 'alaaoaatat oA) iuo Ai9» ,baila-sto
tXi9qoT:{«l t-u/99 •Ai xA tfiqoba aTubaaoiq mAf Maa «Xiaiab «i
Xl''*lolbui9i^ 9i ba^aXuoIao aav bna aoaAoXlinsla tli baaiaMlq**
-aiflta aiowa •<# e •ubau •^l^ 9i xzml •Ai aanauXlal
iaX^Ia lo liia«a^a'f ai .uanialaoo oXaTad^ a^aa«
t-xu4 a4i ai k^tm^^A oai lo-xia ai Wiiasi > , Y<f caXXl
fiai al iiuoo •AS to amiiom •Ai to io9XlA #4|
iA^lm TOi^a «i, a^oAboalaf lo \LmA9A 90 b9Lll •41%9m lo #ivaJi
• baklaXaiJi aaatf av«4
— 3 —
The objections \irged to the rulings of tre court
upon the ins'ructiona are iir.t«nable.
Ad the judgrsient »UBt be reversed for the rea:?on
above i(?iven, i^ in unnecessary tc coDsid^jr nnci deterrclne the
error aasij^ned uj on ♦he ration of the court in refu^^ing to
grant a nnw trial ur-cn the P:rcund of ne>?ly di -cov<^red evi.ienoe
The judgjr.ent is rev«r^e<l and the cau«e reir.-Tnded,
Jij.' fj93xu 8X10 i too ^do eJT
:} ooqa
no
• done;./ s a
,9PlfJV«>
March Term, 1912, Fo ,
129 - 18160,
HERMAN L, "^'OLFF, for thfi U30^ .
of Harnett 7ollo, / )
Defendant in^^rror^
182I.A.454
as E. M. CROBS'^ CO.,/
ERRO^ TO
m^NICIT'AL COURT
\, .? Oil i .>/( v/'v «
MR. JTJ^ICK BAUV2 DirLIWHED THK OPIIilON OV ?HF; COI.TmT.
Ernest K. Oro33, .toing business as I, ¥, Crc^^ & Go,,
proseoutes thi-?? ^^rit of error to review *-.he record of a r ro~
CRecling in the Mmiicipal Court, whore in ^-aero wai ri -ir.jing
and jude.ieent .3nain<?t hiir. In favor of defencii^nt in error
for §366, 93.
The BtateKent of clai» filed by defendant in error
iQ for daiia^es ocoaaioned by ^he f;r-ilure of plaintiff in error
to deliver 160 oasefi of eggs according to quality, as yet in-
^[.eotion ani sample, purcha^sd by aefena&nt in error Sr] teibber
14, ISIO. Tne affidavit of luerits ana clai» of set off
filed by rlai?it;iff in error states th^t deffindant in error
bcuitht of 'l-iintiff in error leo ca^ee of oggs for ^l,inB,,
and raid therefor on fiooc-unt %Ml,A2i th^t rl^Untiff in error
rrooured for defendant in error h 3oan of tBOO on :^aid s, -ra;
that defemmnt in error faiieci to « rr/ s?Jiii loan at m.-.turity
rind plnlntiff in error «as o'olised to ray the sanie ana to
c?ell sail e^gs on ycconnt of tlef s;.-Srjnt in error; thst plain-
tiff in error thereby =su!jtAined a losa of ^?,46.40 on the
trun'saction; th&t defencisnt in error s'jg 8l*»o indebted to
plaintiff in error in the siwa of tS ^or P other ca^ee of
ejrs purchagecl froa plaintiff in error.
It in unc on t reverted thr»t r.erctiationa between defen-
dant in error and one Killer, who was thft gci3es agent .of rl^i'i-
\
^SJ^.A.ISSI
u :in^ ifJ I
T-foT"
do'isM
,0aX81
• 8Si
•'•■'in
lo
f^rr- ' -r^tj c-:r
1.1 ^ ' i V. i r. VIM
fABbn^ttfi,
/>'\ » '^ 1 ■ T V/\
fc««*f; ; ».i
£; * iii»-zeil« ,Mi/oO lAqloinirM sd^ irl £
.s:e.88C| vol
re <S boXll «l»Xo Ito *a9M9ie^9 adT
1017 »iuXlnl aii^ yd twnoiaAOOO ••sbxi i> 'xol •!
-at 7»q 8<; ,x' .'i {aIMooimi a^g* '^o f>»«AO OdX iftviX«J» o^
lodjio^vioa oOTio ni fOAhciB^mL x4 b•omkit^1uq «»Iq(gu>« !:«« noiioaq*
llo ^fts lo alftXo i>n« a^iiAa lo ^XvsbillA »dT .0X91 «M
TO-xis «i #ABbn«l«l> intiS tfSnt* TOiia ni lli^niBXi ttf teXll
«.6nX«X| Ml •§!• lo ••••o OaX lona ni lllioinX^ lo tdtuod
ioi«t ni lli.t(iXKfq ^adl iE>.XM:t-#naoo9« oo tiol*i«tfi bir.i tos
««oBd hi«« no 006t lo anol n loiin al ^njiixrolot) lol boit/ooT'?
Xtiitf^iui^A a«oI Mad yaq oi balial lotio ml iat.ln9\o
Mun e.. oi bB^lltto 9cv i«tio ci lli^aift
-aiiii:i tiMif iioiio . #nifooo« no asa* i>i«« Xiae
9iii no Of.d^Sf lo aaoX t, t^ati^irup. y(<S9iBAS lotitt at lli^
o# ba^ci'
>ao laa/o & lol d| lo
.lO-JT? -.i Ttjf;;/iiiq »0-.
-neln nioi^at.^ :a^i9Tc
-niaXq lo^ ^aajta aaXaa »^ ««« di^ ««aXXiM aao ecs lonf ai #aab
tiff in error, '^hioh oop.nenoeci about f'er+.CKbftr 1?;, 1^10, oul-
Bilnated on Se-'teniber 14th in *h« rurohsa« by defendant in error
froK pl«ir?tiff in orror of IGO ca^ea of e^^,^ af '<^ cents per
dozen; that cert?»in caRss of epps then in thn B+ore of plain-
tiff in error ?ore in?5rected by ie^enciant in err r -jnd others
^c^in«5 for him and foiand to he freah ^ni of ;'ood grade. Wit-
ne9SA<9 called, on beivalf of •iefeniant in error testified that
the If^C ci^ftg o-r ep^^f} in qufl'^tion --tere than in ^ha ntore of
plairtiff in error ivn th'<t ''lllsr ?»'^id the ftK^n v^ere nW
-■•■rictly fre^h, -^hilf? ^itnsaaes c-illed, by yl ;in*iff in f^rror
te!?tified tn^t tnere vere then only 56 caie3 cf *he lot of
eg;7,3 in que^^tion in tno store in-! tjMt the reji-ainder of <he
lot ccn;^ii?3ting of loC caseo '*ere on *he saliinf' '"loor of the
warehouse operated by *^he Chioar:o Cold 3toran;e Warehouse Cooi-
psny; that the e^'.pB -hich sere inf^r^-^ted by ilefendnn^ in
error in the ^tore ^vere r^^rt of thf: afsree }ot vvidch was then
in the warehouse; that \ir on the aalf; of +he 160 c^^ca +o
defendant in errcr they were placed in 3olvi s5toras=;e in the
eaae warehOu«ie, a «?arehou3e receipt "?at? i s?5\jed the. re*" or and
a loan of SSCsO was procured by rl-i'^tiff in er^or r-r t^e uor
and benefit cf lefendant in error.
If all the eppB thst fcrc rnroh'^fjed by d&femiant
in error 'A>?re in tne i?*orft of rl.ii-:tiff in error 'it the time
cf the purchase, it ia oertiin th'^t the 1<?0 C3:5eB of frg*? ''hich
were tht^reafter t laced in tora^e by pi". in* iff in error ■''or the
account of lefendant in error ='«ire of a different lot and
i!]^erior quality, bcoHU^e it i^ cSfiiirly t^it-^blished by the
evidence that no eg^a -^ere rccelvftvi -^t the 'varehouse froa. the
store cf pl=tintiff \r\ --^rror iiiring ?ie tereber, I'JIC. The
CO!. trolling .'iunetion of frict ^n *he c??Be, therefore, ig ».'he-
ther or not ^'i'iler, ■ictir\g for r.l-.inti.ff in error, :9i;b.-'t i f\ited
other and different epfca for t.'iOBe ac-'ually rurchaBed by
defendant in error. ^hile the eviucnoe bearing ufon tni«»
- S '
T« , •♦«*« r - +- »r. ^ .., -*e,.^ /)Q£ 1^ voiitt ol tlitnleXq ■»«!
-. s. i. : «.. «... ,.« ^. .> ...-^^ !• •••AD «l0tT^e tsri^ iff»co6
-IIW ••hBis tiooB lo f>n«» MttBtl Mf ot txuro^ hnft aid lol ^al^s*
i«d* 2>9illt»9i lOTT^ nl #n«hn^l*l- •♦- '♦r.,..,^ ,- h^ffiio r— ---
lo CMt* mas mt ifil* •«•• |io/#9^;t^ .., r •-... ■..■ dsftto 0^' . *.. ;
fr.- -^^^ ..^^ ,rt.* blM «rfli? #>rfj tiTi* toi-jft nl J'iitiiiMlq
— 3-'!' f>fr»f^ '^■^■^lllO •d^ ^'^ '**^ .TW
,. . . .... ^tsm doin. r^
na/ff mgm dolilir toi •••• »ilt to #n«T •^•w •rote „:..
. S9««S OBL •d* lO •£»• Orit OC^ ■♦ox^"' iwni.orfa-rr.w 9-ff ftl
ftd* n? fttiftTO^a fcXoo n2 b«oeXq Brim x»d* x .':
' trMff^ t iRrv ,f ii»f>si ••uodsi)' ' 'o.i9T:-w rirrrr
•»!/ .;3a«jooiq ... .'.of •
••/ 3"i5» icoT)^ al
del '-J fi>; n~r ft.i' (•••doitfq mit \o
•iil* ^ct t ft ••IfrO'^rf .V.^K
v?so9*' m*-: ift so
b«*tr
> LlrlW .^coiT^ nl tnBbn*l»b
- 3 -
issue is closely cori.flioting, v^e Cfinnot say thjit the fl:,ding
of the trial co\irt wa?t unwarrantad. If the -^aBie cone Iupj ion
had been arrived at by a jury, «e could not say that the
verdict was u.anife.'tly i»rong.
It is in^'isted tnat tr*e court i»pior<*rly perniitted
tiie witness, Tobin, to inter- r«t the rercrt of v^n ias; eotion
of the eft.g9 in qimstion reade by nn emrloyee of ^he Chio«go
Butter and Egg Hofird. The Rvvlenoe was inc cape tent, but
harwlesa, baoauae an examination of the reicrt verified the
atatcR:«nt of the «itne$ 
Open Library