Skip to main content

Full text of "Illinois Appellate Court Unpublished Opinions: first series"

See other formats 




; 
— 
Xi 
CNP Rete 
A 


— 


ue 


y 
By 


NY 
ttn 
9 
aes 














Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2010 with funding from 
CARLI: Consortium of Academic and Research Libraries in Illinois 


http://www.archive.org/details/illinoisappellat18 2illi 





— 


k — 







0 — R. Seinen. 
aa as oy 18097. — LAD 


ee 





— — hated Laney, thes 


 SICHOLAS J. MANN, ox 
pr oe ERROR TO 


VS. WURICIPAL COURT 


_ HBRRY BROEN, et al., 7 ouroaao. Pees 
Plaintiffs in #rror. } lane nA 4) — ⏑—— 
——— ta Ar Vi J Jd & nA 4, iis SAAD oe 


MR, JUSTICN FITCH DELIVERED THE OPINION OF PRE COURT. 


x 1 82 I.A. 1 4 


Defendant in error brought suit against plaintiffs in 
SQ errer in the *micipal court for $2,000, alleged to be due hin 
\S upon a breach of « cupersedeas bona. The copy of the bond ate 
iN tached to the statement of claim recites that whereas, by a de- 


3 
‘ 


aN eres entered in the Supericr Court in October, 1907, Thomas and 
, : Elizabeth Brown were ordered to pay “certain Judgments cf lay 
{ — and also sums of money found by said decree to be due", and aaid 
i) & Browns appealed to the Appellate Court, where the decree was af- 
: =. firmed and judgment rendered against them for costs, from which 
FetglR they svcd cut a srit of errer from the Supreme Court 
and the same was made a ‘supereedens, “iow, therefore, if said 
> Thomas Groen and Elizabeth Brown shall duly prosecute their said 


ae 
⸗ Te att # 


‘writ of error with effect, and moreover, pay the amounts so de-~- 
ereed to be paid by them as aforesaid « » 2 in ease the said de- ' 
eres shell be affirmed in said Supreme Court, then the above obli- 
gation tc be yoid", etc. The plaintiff's verified statement of 

x " glaim alleges that the supreme Court affirmed the decree mentioned 
= gm the supersedeas bond in December, 1909; that the judgments 

‘” wentioned in the supersedeas bond and in the decree were two juds- 
R— ageinat Thomas Brown, one in favor of Nicholas J, Mann, for 


$799.50 and costa, from which $35 was remitted, and the other in 





favor of Jacob Huber for $2650 and costs, from which $25 was re- 
mitted; that Jacob Huber died and the Judgwent in his favor was 


assigned by the Sree EDC ReO ta. will and testament to 


te) 

























oe 3... 19BS.....sereer 








+. Mirexgionta A —— — —* 
ys >» = oe Se 
— * rs 
‘THUD para 





* 
— 
STD De ws ar AN “ah De Sie 9 nee 


oS SAWS ts xn > — * ey — * >: : — — = 
ie * BOTKESD ied “we OSes 


F J — Jentage dion 


vfs ase setoeb edi? ster — — sé 
Woldy cows y2ieoe 102 wert sontenn torohnen tremabot & | 
x} Prod ones: ods soft x71 Ie Jin 8 $00 bem gate a 
fine tt sorotersts won” wonpbaetaqia & oka sew ona! 8 
bien aledt etucosctg ¥inh fiads cout ddedaebe bass wor 
=e 08 etewoms off yar rovoston Sm ,seothe dite some 2 to #1 
, mtb bien edd cere at ¢ © & Slowewohe ao watt ea Slog odo 
otilo svete of? eed ,Iu00 pmetae Blan a bette ad tae emt 
Yo .*Btov od”09 & ot 
eee oe. penyerte $100 emongud edd dete 2 
' Lagesegiat 22 jects vrt ysstenaed at Bmod sot 
abut owt ones set05d — 3 bow ‘tetod ve agie “site it be 
WOR 4MMKY .L exiosict® To Foxe’ nk ome wore —— 
Gt weitto ody bax — cea Sil nee = 
729 ca Say foto mov vadmon ne OCHRE AAR ee ana : 
ase Sone ai ct Sresmsibitty $12 im Deb ee 


of “es, bas Mee ORM, asain - 


* 
4 





~ 





a 


Wicholas J. Harm; that Thomas Brown iz entitled to a credit of 
$1200 upon said juigments "by reason of said amount having been 
included in s decree of forecicsure sale", but that defendants 
are entitled to no other credits thereon and that there is now 
due upon said judgments "the saws ef, to-wit: 42227", together with 
interest at five per cent. per armum from November 8, 1997, Plain- 
tiffs in error, who were the sureties on the supersedeas bond, were 
served with summons and entered their written appearance in the 
#unicipal Court and at the same time filed a written demand for a 
trial by jury. An affidavit of merits was elec filed, which, on 
motion, was atricken from the files. A second, third, fourth and 
fifth affidavit of merits were filed and each in succession waz 
stricken from the files. After the last of these affidavite was 
stricken a default was entered for want of an affidavit of merits, 
and thersupon the court, without calling « jury, entered «an order 
finding that “there is due to the plaintiff the sum of money shown 
in said affidavit of claim to be due", and assessing plaintiff's 
damages at the sum of $2000, and thereupon entered judgment upon 
the finding ageinet plaintiffe in error for that amount. 

After examining the several affidavits which were thus 
stricken from the files, we think there was no error in that 
respect in the action of the trial court. Ail of the affidavits 
are ambiguous and evasive. Plaintiffs in error evidently hed 
ample opportumity to specify by a proper affidevit of merits the 
"nature of their defense", but failed to do so, although it would 
appear from the briefs of their counss1 filed in this court that 
they may save had «2 meritorious defense to some part, if not ail, 
of the pieintiff's claim. For a failure to state the nature of 
such defense we think a default was properly entered against them. 
But the default of a defendant for failure to file s sufficient 
affidavit of merits does not admit the amount of pleintiffts danages. 


4 
F 


* 



























to dhe 2 of beishime wl quot wauct? dad rst «Lo 
meed grivurt tayoms bisa 2o nosset ys" atreopeat Shay “ 
ednabaeteh saddd gud ,"ekos — 2 a 
wor ef eros stasis ia perce). of Shae Laas BS SET 
, Gide sedienc? ."TS88) ts iv-of .30 wm —N— — 
enka ~TORL 18 Tedemvo!! ot MUNA Teg «tne tog OVER 
“eter yinod excheeteque odd so uetsome od otew oie ot a 
edt at enrstaeqqa vessiae tlortt herwgre Brie erommags 8 
2 ae? Howineb megstw 2 bet emis ane ote tn seme dru: 
ad ylott® .belt? cafe sav astqom to sivabite sh ene 
nie Hines? tekett phetonse A .20ft off cox nelotnse ee ¥ 
fou moheceoeus mf foay Se beti? eter stinem Bo F. . 
ti Nentte Steibeie ne ve iene tt ali nich 
“ebro me beretns Semt % yatifas Jods tw hie oid — 
— yoda Io mn odd THhiwtals att of ob at- . 
— yalsesase ben ,"evh ef oo nigko to Sivanky 
mogu jnomint beretae noqveteds Sas . 90085 Ye owe eng 
etresoms Jerlt rot toTHS at ove ivetste duntaga 3 
ant? ores coltw efivabitts Laveves sad gmtatmete v¶ 
Sarid ol woTTe 0: caw epedt dated ew geet? ott — 
adivabiVie of? To [fA mitoses Katee Sis Yo hotdew ames 
bad elinehive serve al tartate -evisave brv 
edt editor Yo JtveblYta qweo7 a ed YEtoege of yt P10 
biwow sf cuwoddie yoo ob of bellet tot ,euauted thede 
dats Succ ette at feltt leunves itaty to atefhe end * * 
A⸗ Son tt sft ose oF Caneteb euolsas Poe 5 birt: evade 
Yo Otten oft orate oF omliad 6 TON “ mtato 7 
siaiile Silt tivities eatin time i eal dee ot 
‘dnefolttwe es eit? of OW iat Wi Inahneteh » to tieieb 
— ct. —— —— Fes 


3+ 


Plaff v. Pacific Express Co,, 251 ill. 243, 247. ven after a 
default is entered for want of a plea or affidavit of merits, 

@ defendant has the right to cross-examine the plaintiff's wit- 
nesses as to the amount of damages sustained, to introduce evid- 
ence in his own behalf as te damages, to ask for instructions upon 
that question, and to preserve his righta for review by a bill 

of exceptions. Plaff v. Pacific Exprese Co. supra; Cairo & S.L.h. 
Go. vs Holbrook, 72 111. 419; American Hail Crder Co. v. Marah, 
116 Ill. App. 248. 

Section 30 of the Municipal Court Act provides thet ali 
casss of the first and fourth classes "shail be tried by the court 
without a jury unless the plaintiff, ut the time he commences his 
suit, or the defendant, at the time he enters his appearance, 
shall file with the clerk a demarxi in writing of « trial by jury, 
which demand, however, may be withdrawn by the party filing the 
same at any time before the trial". As above stated, the defend- 
ants filed with their appearance « written demand for a jury trisl, 
andi the recerd does not show that said demand was withdrawn at 
any time. After judgment, the defendants moved to vacate the 
judgment upon the ground “that the court erred in failure to sub- 
mit the isanea in thie cause to a jury". With this motion they 
filea@ an affidavit setting up in substance thet the plaintiff 
hed received from certain property belonging to Thomas Sroewn the 
gum of $4459.75 aa rent, and that said property wae foreclesed 
and sold for $4400, which sums agsregate more then the total amount 
due upon said judgments. ‘The motion to vacate was overruled, 
however, and upon this writ of error the principal error assigned 
is thet the court erred in failing to “submit the issues to e 
jury". 

Section 59 of the Practice Act provides that “upon de- 
fault + *« # either party may have the damages assessed by 2 jury". 


















; 

! - 

: ————————⏑—⏑ ————— 

-diw 0—— snail 

é -bive equbotiel of ,bariesaus eeqemeb to shvome off | of “i 

— 

— Elie & yd wetwor Tot adeyix ald ovrosenq of Bae ¢ tte 

inde 8 orden «alana escape gat « 

P se wy BD aBESS LEAS eigpiwons regs .£EE ae: * 

tt $bH2 codtvortq 206A Srwod Inqgioioa ed Yo OF _ 

suse 689° YS bolts ev Late” esseald sidwot fe : . 

j ald gepaermor oc ovis orf} $n sTtisatai¢ ont softer gut °F 
vodnoinegas tht sedis Ot ent? ond Ja dasbeteb etd a 

—— thine 

-Bheteb 94) sSotate evods' 4A “ole old voted onteee 3 

hy 


' 

















lett? eull nm it bamwed nessa 2 secossegge theds agte Bek 
de “wombitts eae Saree Bieo sad$ vote Jon see BF one 
efi etacat oJ boven éSnubereteb oft ,Serasyhot <i 

<dis Of orwltcl Gl hette Muse od’ darid* bnoow oe 
yet molten elds asiv . “git #« of couse oidd mt a 
Ttisntale edd thd} comsdacius nt qi gutsses | 

St stovk seme? oF zatatmfed yreqoig. atedseo cork 
“PemOloew? cae ereqong Bisa jog? Bae gdned as . 
tnuome Latot eit nav? evtem o¢agemggs eum dolidw ,00ng 
~heLuwrevs aew edooay cd aoltom edt cechemgbot Bt 
hamgitea tore leqionit¢ ert seve to — ——— 
‘@ OF nemoot ens Sindee” 63 gat Ca⁊ at: 


4 


In Pinkel v. Domestic Sewing Machine Co., @9 Ill. 277, the 
court said of this section of the statute: "These words are 
imperative and are not open te construction. The defendant is 
entitled by law to have his damages assessed by a jury. ‘Yhen he 
demanded it, it was error te deny it". There is no provision in 
the Municipal Court Act which, either in terms or in effect, is 
at all similar to Seotion 5¢ of the Practice Act, unless Section 
SO above quoted can be held te have an equivalent effect. 

Section 29 of the Zumicipal Court Act provides that the 
judges of that court shall have power to adépt "in addition te 
er in lisu cf the previsions herein sontained preacribing the 
practics in said Yunicipal Court, or of ary portion or portions 
of said provisions, such rules regulating the practice in said 
sourt as they may deem necessary or expedient for the proper ad- 
ministration cf justice therein: Provided, however, that no such 
rule or rules so adopted shall be inconsistent with those express- 
ly previded for by this Act". Im pursuance of this seation, the 
Sunicipsi Court has sdopted a number eof rules. Eule 14 provides 
that "in all cases of the first cless instituted in this court 
on and after April 1, 1919, the pleadings shall be the same as in 
eases of the fourth class", itmle 17 provides that "in first and 
fourth class cases for the recovery of money only the defendant 
shall file sn effidsvit sworm to by himself, his agent or attorney, 
stating that he verily believes the deferdant has a good defense 
to said suit upen the merits te the whole or a portion cf the 
plaintiff's demand, and specifying the nature cf such defense, 
whether by way of denial or by “ay of confession or avoidence in 
euch a warner as to reasonably inform ths plaintiff of the defense 
which will be interposed «t the trial. «2s # If the defendant 
fails te file an affidavit of merits such as is required by the 
rules of this sccurt, the plaintiff shell be entitled to default and 





ta 


edt ATW EK OY geQ 
exe ebvow onedy" setutate oid 10 sotszoe etdt Ie om: 
el teabooted eft .nottowiisnce oF neqo sor ona 
ed net? rust 2 yo boeceans osgenmh atd ered of ™ 
ah notetvong of af oxediT — — 
—* eine ab a sowet mh todtte atin tein. f0h, framed. £4 
— eseim: fo eoitver’ edd Yo af soLIOOE O81 
|. sf0@tte. daeLovtupe ne evad 09: OLod.e8 mae. 
oe dailt- gabtvomy 20s Sued. Lagbebailt: ott Se 6 
et rotsifbs at” sq@ba od t)ewoqg evant Lads : 
nts rssironeng oꝗagag stared notatrong at ae⸗- 
ecipttrog to molgtog ye to te .oaeo Leqkesmni Diep 
bias at eniteatg od gtidaimer ae ſaca tome yan , “4 
“is oqo ot 10? Ap toone m0 tounega mab Tam yada 
Howe on add .yovosad .dehtvexs c:atoseds. eetsnnh. 20 mak " 
α tly sredndedoont od Liate Seggete am 9Otiey | 
oid .Meftces etsy to eonayetme ml ."S0a etdd yl aod be ie 
nedtverd 26 svi .eelirs to seem « betqobe eat susoo Ling * 
suse sii? mt bedutiveat easlo sett? estt Io seve, £6 
mt ex oman ods o¢ ILnels anaihwelg oft OGL .f Lingh wed 
bane soul? at" tats sebtvorwg i olet ."senlo mmc? ed 
trabesteb oft yfmo yecor to yrevooes ert 10% senso goad 
— —— stieumid ed of srrowe trabtarea a⸗ — 
seemed aue to ewan eff gatyttogqs ⸗ Atanta 
mk dtoys ‘co molmeetevs Yo yar wW 1 Latash 2e.yaw, 
— NG Qe Yikiateiqg edd motel yidanosaes ot a8, 
Meh em? ti « o + debs? ald fo Besoqretnt et Lf = 
—— — 



























“f= 


judgment upon the plaintiff's affidavit of claim on fils in said 
cause, Or upon such further evidence as the court may require. 

* ss Where the defendant files an appearance either with or 
without a demand for a jury trial, and fails to file with it 

at that time, or at such further time as the court may allow, 

an affidavit of merits, cr where the defendant's affidavit of 
merite is stricken from the files for insuffisiensy, the court 
may then and there enter Judgment as in ones of default for the 
plaintiff upon the plaintiff's affidavit of claim in said cause, 
or such further evidence as ths court =sy require". 

By Rule 23 of the “umicipal Court, the judges of that 
court formally adepted, by number, certain sections of the Prac- 
tice Act as applicable to proceedings in that court. cection 
59 oF the Practice Act was not among the sections s0 adopted, 
but in lieu thereof, Rule 17 ebeve quoted was adopted. The 
authority to adept such a rule is expressly given by Section 20 
of the Hunicipal court Act, provided ths rule se adopted is a 
rule "regulating the practios in said court", and provided the 
rule so adopted be not inconsistent with the provisions of the 
act itseif. ‘The oniy provision of the Ast with which Rule 17 
can be claimed to be in conflict is the provisicn in Section 50 
preserving to the parties the right of trial by jury, if demand- 
ead in apt time in writing. ‘The question then naturally arises: 
Is that pert of a judicial proceeding in which the damages are 
assessed, after default, in any proper sense, a “trial”? The 
words “trial” ard "jury trial" have been most frequertly con< 
strued in discussing the constitutional prevision that “the 
right ef trial by jury, as heretofore enjcyed, shall remain in- 
violate". in George v» the People, 187 111. 447, this provision 
was construed to mean "the right of trial by jury as it existed 
at common lew". Blackstone says that at common lax, upon default 




























az 


btee wif 622 to risic 26 Wtvablvte « 
ceitinet an Vin wits Sans AA i 
wo dite qedste coronseygs ma nett srisbavtie’ « — 
$2 atte efit od offeY ede tated vast 2 Sof Baa ob 
eee eee ee 
Qo siventYia w! Jnabaetet ot wrecy 16 atten Yo I 
Gaede we .yorto tot ftent 107 bella ett nowt | te 
cat sot aii 1 Saab ak oa Hla dite ind 
sSeume Dise at wtais to sivabr Te otininialg od9'6 





dastt 20 eoxdut odd yoo 
—— Oat Yo anottoon sindveo yrsdmum yo Bedqebs Ul 
molsioo. iss sais cs etsy ean 
— ae pheodmagtott cnt =e ” 


Pe 


# GE Bedqobe oe eLuvt af$ bobiwou . 
edt Sebfvorg ina \ "Paseo bias af —— aa⸗ 
— — — — tancont sot of ; , 
Si Oui Metdw 4¢fe go oY to motetvor; ylno ear wk 
Ge’ ciftens int inotatvOsy odd dt ‘Soitince We we Sl eee 
— 22 .eurt ee feted to sugla sit} Gereteg Sat" 
resale yllewian sort) colseenp ott vantsiaw at ks Va 
SH aonb off volte mt antbesoor Lebotbut a ies ce 
ety "Leta" ® .eamos “oqong yhe AL ,tiewted sts ybe 
“00 Yisreupett aor eed ovad *Lebsd a 
| — larotausiano > 


aotekwomg eid? Wop .£fi ver .sigoet sift ¥ 63 —* Be: 
Sedates SMe cot ws tatas oe atv ee —— 





ae 


of « defendant for want of a plea, an interlocutory judsment 

wae entered “that the plaintiff ought to recover his damages 
(indefinitely)" and that thereupen a writ of inquiry te assess 
damages was iseved. fhis writ was directed to the sheriff, and 
commanied him te summon a jury to assess damages. Im the ezecu}- 
tion of the writ the sheriff sat as judse ard tried before the 
jury summoned by him, the question “what demagea the plaintiff 
hath realiy sustained®". (Cooley's Blackstone Book III, p. 587.) 
The sase authority siso says thet “when damages are to be recover- 
ed, a jury mist be called in to assess them, unisss the defendant, 
te save charges, will confess the whole damages laid in the de- 
Claraticn". #r. Tidd, however, disagrees with this lest state- 
ment. in his work on Practice (Srd Kd., Yol. 1, pB. 870) that 
author, after describing at length the same common lew practice 
of assessing damages upon default as cutiined in Blackstone's 
Commentaries, adds the following explanation cr qualification: 
"in general a writ of inquiry is awarded; but thie is a mere in- 
quest of office to inform the conscience of the court, who, if 
they please, nay thonselves assess the danaces with the assent 
of the plaintiff, or direct them to bs assessed by the proper 
officer", in Vanlandingham v. Fellows, et al., 1 deam, 253, our 
Supreme Court repeated almost verbatim the qualification stated 
in Tidd's Prectice, and said that "from this view of the scomzen 
law, relative to writs of inquiry, it follows that it is not nese 
essary te executes the writ im Court, unless expreasly ao directed 
by the Court, nor in term tine, nor at the Court House. It, 

like other writs, may be executed at any place within the shor~ 
iff's bailivick". The Vanlandingham case, supra, was followed 

in this respect ss late as 1999, im Phoenix Insurance Oo. v. 
Hedrick, 178 Ill. 312, where it was said, {p.217}: “Assessment 
of damage is in no sense « trial. It is more in the nature of a 


ea Te "Fs 


SS 


*⸗ 


























— — Lo 
— ot te ate oe SS 


ra 3. 


ansear of yitupmt to dive « moquoreds gad? bee 


aay: oe 


oxo ¢YPtsarin ei? of Dosoweth caw sium aft — 
uoexo et? a1 negamah saeene Of yal # some of 
a? eroted dotsd Ran abut om S00 Titaedle ods JP of 


— ee F 


Mtn ould aegasad fastv" motieaup edt etd yd 
— MA dood enoa⸗aosia «*yelovd) — 


ass Beas 5s 

— 25 of ov segameb aesix” tad) sya cals yWhrodsus 
— sit acoxw quad nacuns of st bektan ed dem wath 
sab eit at Dial sagem sleds es cooks Site x 


ni Grae 
~etase foal ta⸗ asin egotTRen tb ctevewod bbe em " so 
fasts {09% of ef «fOY _ohi B88) colseeri mo ttow of ~ 
velioong val aemoe ocse et dignal 4a yahdtuoeee x08 edt 


ctenesetoais mt bent itu an tiueteb aagu segans® | 7 


teoieae ltt Laup = rol deneiqzue gaiwoliot sd? Esp uot 


sit open e ai ald? sus phebtewa of — 30 she 
a cee «7070 td Jo gonwtoome ocd ewat oF 90 


— 


Teqotq edt yo bensenss od of —— — af 


be St 


10 —F moe — aslo ge seme iot taut imedawy at 
botase nottaolttioup — attadiev tsonis hedaeqes pom “ 
momen eid to woly eicd novt® — bles bas ssotsoar4 af 

—oon for at st tacts swolfot $1 evtivent to otiee o3 evise 


— 218 
betoenth ov yiesetqxe soelnw fed ok jim echt esvoexe © 
* a. 


afi .oawol fuso0 eff da tom ~omté ed ak or — 
oande of? mbsittw as⸗atg oe tn hedvpexe ed Yon — 
bewortio? PH AGO .OR2O necigat bra iney eft —— 

— —— xineodts mk ,0?8f ae egal aa 
dnorenoaca™ ¢(Tre.0) bles vow. at orecter — ue 


8 3 Swan oda st eton at . at etn 5 geen om 8 





7 


Te 


especial proceeding. Under the early common law in this State 
the sheriff was authorized te execute the «rit of inquiry any- 
where im the County, and the proceeding need not be in Court at 
all", 

in Ross v. Irving, i4 fll. 171, it was said: “Trial by 
jury is only required om issues of fact in civil and criminal 
Gases in courts of justics, which is not umderatood to embrace 
a more — — of damages, or value, made out of court". 

In Hopkins v. Ladd, 55 111. 178, an agtion of debt was 
brought on @ replovin bond. The defendant demurred te the declar- 
ation, ami on its being overruled, slected te stand by hie dee 
murrer.e Tho court gave judgment for the amount of the penalty 
of the bond, and proceeded to assess the damages without a jury 
ever the objection of defendant, whe dewanded a trial by jury. 
0m appeal, the defendant contended that under the Prastics Act 
then in force, whish contained a previsicon similar te that in 
Section i9 ef the present Practice Ast, he was entitled to a jury 
trial upon the aesessment of damagea, notwithstanding bis default. 
it appeared, however, that by a special act of the legislatures 
applicable to ths particular court im which the cage was tried, 
that court was suthoriged to assess darwages without a jury in 
all cases of default; and the court held that the special act 
controlled instead of the general Practice Act. The court said: 
“This is a mere matter of practice, none will deny, and being a0, 
the assessment of damages could be made by the court without a 
jury. The ides that a party has a constitutional right to have e 
trial by jury is not controverted. ers wag no trial, in any 
pense of that term. ‘The defendant has declined putting his case 
om trial by abiding the judgsent on the demurrer. The inquiry 
afterwards involved no consideration cf any right of the defend- 
ant. His position was fixed by the judgment on the demurrer; no 


-% 





















— > 
— 
es Fee 3 Ps 


wt * * es, 


—— ee ee 


CES =” — CMC 
, — 


ed fatar® ——————— 
caat⸗aae bow Livte at ao⸗a to eousel mo 
sesso 03 bootunokm Zon ut dolds yeossust, Ye efus 
— th dup shat gaiinr:% —⏑ —⏑— 
"gov deb te S9bFGR me 4281 WSL OF gbbad ov Pe: 
wiech of3 oo beruse gnetesteb ef? .bnod atveiger 2 ap | 
=ob att yd inate of hosoete Wetimeve gated abt a0 dew 
Wianog oct ko seurome fd zy? sroagiat, oveg, wae 
. Et 6 aUoHidIW eegomnh OG sunens Of BokeneonE Ans | 
t eet W Lolsd o Lebgared ocx ytusbnoteb to 20 aol lao a 
$or eotdenr! ott tohn Satis bebrednoe —— 74 
at durl$ od afinte woletvorg o besttasnoo ote oor? ne 
UHL w of Delstine saw oc .s0a eodsonrt — 
—— gatbraseds twdos — ee 
voumelalges ed Yo tos katoogs a ys dad ytereced 4 
eiet con cans wit talte at soo tkeettieg wt Be o 
— 


fon lalooqe eds gadt bie ‘sraroo ots Bru tt iusteb we 
bd 


» 


* 








thine Pwroo otf .s0A ootaoa⁊⁊ Lesesteg oi Yo bootent elie 
e068 guled bas ,yred Litw-enon .eoltos:rq to 10d tac: ores B ee 
S@ suotsix sxwoe ond ye obactec biseo segensb 10 

@ ovad of fini Lancliudizemee 3 A42 & saa ant ofr 


yee ah. lows 93 2ee ore ¥ .bedsevotinos Jom si ys 


oma etd antes uq Bonticeh eat Suebeoted edt sted & 


moat 
Ps 

° 
wan ee 


—— — — 


—— a⁊ ws V solsevebiance dar boviowst 
ore ε et ed Dent eae nol tein Sit oe 


‘ 


2 a — 1J J 


9— 
—— 


Ge 


issue of fact vas prosented". 

Under these decisions of our Supreme Court, it must 
be held that whether tho damages shall be asseesed by the 
court, or by a jury, after a default has been entered for 
want of a plea or affidavit of morits, is a matter of prac- 
tice only; that im either case, there ia no "trial" in the 
sense in which those words are used in Section 30 of the “wmi- 
cipal Court Act; that therefore the filing of «a written de- 
mand for a jury trial as provided in that section, does net re- 
quire that court to call a jury to assess demagos after default 
where it has adopted a rule to the contrary; and that tne court 
aid not err in following ite own rule of practice in this res- 
pect instead of Section 59 of the Practice Act. 

The Judement of the Humicipal Gourt will be affirmed. 


APFIREEDs 


ER. JUSTICE GRIDLEY diasenting:s Under the facts of 
this cass, I am of the opinion thet the plaintiffs in error 
were entitied to have the damages assessed by a jury, and 
that the judgment should be reversed ard the cause remanded. 


er ae 


| 








— 














—— —— 
ond yd bonuouse od Mists togarsd | — die 
wot hevedae seed sad Siuctoh s xeste gout # yd a 
Saas ame ema 
csi tne at 
=beitt cite 0 Ot culteen at tow — } 
cob mdiiew 2% yotht eds owresedy idee” 
— i 
Stosted tests copecud sedean oF yet « Eta © 
Smee et tard bas tenis ots 00 Shit & Heli dl 
nies ast at coldeong 10 ofire ms ast grtvortel At 
* —B0000 
oh 





DiRT A aed ch te SS 


to Kéoet otf sob ee 
— — —— past 

han pemt 2 yf Soencnes toyaned ond ovad of bef. 
—— —— = csv: 


* Cm aetsets 
. — aS 
~  sptilew, ob A 8 


—— 


a m, 1913, No. Pp , 
ween Tso? = 19212 J — 
QA — AOU RANAYU, 





a te ee 


{ TH CITY oF cuIcaco, 
P Defendant’ in Error, 
ERROR TO MUNICIPAT. COUR? 


OF CHICAGO, 
f Nh ‘ 
NAL ne art 


f) 


Rk LAY LY ay aan * ce U 


JOSEPH BIEL, 
Plaintiff in Brror, ‘ 


ci, avaN ok Con 
) 


) 
) 
) 
vs. ) 
) 
) 
' 


i i 


y) 1 Cruner 
YR. PRESIDING JUSTICE BAKER 
~ DELIVERED THE OPINION "I ak 7 1: A. 2 
6 


¥v 


The bill ef exceptions has J a from the 
record in this case. Two of the three assignments of error 
relate to matters shown only by the bill of exceptions, and in 
the absence of such a bill cannot be considered. The other 
assignment, that the Court erred in overruling the metion in 
arrest of judgment, is not argued in the brief for plaintiff 
in error and is therefore waived, 

The judement is affirmed. 

APPIRUED. 


Tee? 


<s _— 


— 
J 







Pc AN 
MOVIN | { + TIA ew 
4 . 

K Votan rs 


es 


Hh 






















J “gat | 
3 pees edt aor? neioiats J RE Wars & 
| “oxso Yo aonoseatans oonst 06? 20 on — 
at ms .aotivoone Yo Litd ost ys vino mwods avers 
a werite oft sherebingon of seanan Litd a 4 owe te 
hi noddor ox¢ gmiiuctove at hoxxe f1v0d emt dadd | 
Tiintele TY Yeti es? mt beovyre ton et imamate Ye 
OOS Sars — OT) oes — * a * 
———— sneempsl off, 


ga ay. teat, ea he H9" 


p —* 44- peas 4 cobpa tert * * 
—* 





largm Term, 19135, No. — *— 
ey 7 ——— 


x CUAL 3 LA, J a Lar a A —J / 
3 - 18054 ‘ Marrs ¥ ( ? vw * 
AAAS RASLAY qr 
‘ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE r 18 2 1 A 3 
OF ILLINOIS, ) ® a 
Defendant in Errer, ) 
) ERROR TO MUNICIPAL COURT 


VB. 


CHARLIE YOUNG ) p 
Plaintiff in Error. } Maclay Hour, Cry ae def * 


Lad AAPM 19 ac he py V — f 


7 PLL ae a 


i toumert, ~ i 


YR, JUSTICE BROWN DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT, 


OF CHICAGO. 


The plaintiff in errer, Tharlie Young, was convicted 
by a jury in the Municipal Court ef Chicago of the offense 
charged in an information filed against him in said Court, 
under the Act in relation to Pandering approved June 1, 1905, 
ae amended by an Act approved Tune 12, 1909. The information 
alleged that he wilfully and wrongfully procured one Nellie 
DeRitus, a female person, to become an inmate of a house of 
prostitution then and there located at Wo, 608 Federal street 
in the city ef Chicago, Cook County, Illinois; 

Also that by fraud and artifice he procured the said 
DeRitus te become an inmate of said house of i11 fame; 

Algo that he then and there procured the said DeRitus 
to enter a place where prestitution is encouraged and allowed 
within this State, to-wit, said house at number 608 Federal 
atreet; 

Alao that he precured the said DeRitus to come into 
q the State for the purpose of prostitution from the State of 
=~ Vichigan sand practice prostitution at said house. 

Motion te arrest judgement was overruled and Young 
was sentenced to confinement in the Nouse of Correction for six 
months and to pay a fine of 2500. This writ of errer was sued 
eut to reverse the judgment, on the ¢round that the information 


S does net set forth an offense. 


~~ 














des - i Q -oH ,2L2f ,areT 
re... ; 
\ : ' — 
Eyes A we “h 4 AIIRAC No) ao" P 7 
a (ae 
; POG we . Pe 





| @Arser | 
{ mova at 
-CDADERO CO 
ee RAngred’ paw dats en a 9 
42 a Ll Auf : bm we tech — 


* Spires wach 


— — 


















botguynee cm, — sieve Seen ne et 
— — magia to syed" 
yoo ban at mtd — 73 

gh omar bowonres patcebnus of 


aoi ranaoten og 808, St ont | 






tes ot é eorex? | —* — 

xia ——— —— - +. Ay ef — oe * F J 
iatant cot yetqued Hood 4! led 

bias ont borvootg oat, sortiata Bie buert wt: ‘test oath: —— 

— som ‘Lh Yo onvow bhay to otemmh Ae omobed J — 


aut ifiet bles ex? botuoota exedd bes asdt of tadt wean 4 —— 
bewolia bas bexetwoons af mektatisteotyg etestw eoelg a a | of aM 
Laishet 80d —J— ta oaven Siaes pihweoe otede, bf “a t a4 

adap a, fi . ce a a 


Se J 
ovnt emoo of authfed Sine oft beywoorq od darth ota” 4 i gy J 
To ofad2 ont mort moliottteortq te edoqiwe eM tot o: — — 

| -9au0n bles du wetted reec eottostd | ome 4 ignite 
gnveY bns beLuateve ear tasmabut, — E oF octet 
xin “0% KoLJces re) To eave eft mt snomont indo ot ⸗ 
bows enw xoRte Yo iw auerode Yo att 4 vsq of bas alltaom J 
notea toedat of% tact v oft me, tnembut ed? petovet ot due! 


.eemeTto as dito? tee Jon acob . 


4 


Uses 





— — — — 


—— 
—— -_ 
2. 


The argument of counsel is that the procurement to 
become an inmate of a house of prostitution, in order to be a 
statutory offense, must be accompanied by promises, threats, 
violence, or by seme device cr scheme or by fraud er artifice 
or by duresea of person or gcods or by abuse of some position 
ef confidence or authority, 

Careful analysis of the statute dees not bear this 
out. Omitting alternative clauses, the atatute in queation 
reads: 

"Any persen who shall precure a female inmate for a 
house of prostitution =m x or shall preeure a place as 
inmate in ao house of prostitution for a female person ® x 
shall be guilty of pandering." 

We think that under thie provision of the statute, 
the information is sufficient in alleging that the defendant 
procured the said DeRitus to become an inmate of a house of 
prostitution. If, however, there is sufficient difference 
between the allegation that one has presured a females inmate 
for a houre of prostitution or a place as inmate in a house 
of prostitution for a female person, and an allegution that one 
has procured a female person to become an inmate of a house of 
prestitution + to render this information bad on a motion to 
quash, which we doubt, we do not think it cam be taken advantage 
of on & motion for arrest of judement. 

There can be no question that the defeniant knew with 
reasonable certainty with what effense under the statute he 
was charged by the terms of the information, He chose not to 
question its sufficiency, but pleaded net guilty te it. 

But even if this were not so, the information is suf} 
ficient under an alternative clause in the statute, It ia a 
provision of the statute "that x x = any person whe shall by 


fraud or artifice x =m proeure any femele person to become 


* 08) Imemesuoord edd Jad? at E * 





3— 
—— 





yet 
Yad 


























" g od of tebte mt toktudtIaorg to — 
—D aoe de aa ud betasquooos od sour 
eoltitas 10 busst wd sd emedos 10 ootwe. 
mottinog omoa Yo couda yo TOiabety XO SCURRY 
sid? seed tam aso ——— oa⸗ to eee 
welieoup nt etubata odd aes rh tans! 


MM MoateG Claws? 2 Xo? meliudivecty % 
sada —* E——— 


pe 


$6 shied 2 Yo odemit Ma bireoed oe 


ooeoꝛoraur tneot thon at ued? jxeverod (Rts 
sai! ofamet & Deviate ail bots X 
oewerd 4 st ptetal 6 Soaty s ae ronne 
ono tat? woltenSira he oe soaked 6 Lomek oo 
to ¢avod @ To btamml aA emooed 6¢ aoeteq 
of mottom a we Bail wo (eho th? ebae —— 
Oneinavbe neiat od mao St Mabit ten ch ew yedweb 4 | 
.tieombot Yo tuerts o 24 me 
Aéiw werk toalaeteh ed? tack? moltseup on ed mao "eo a J 
ef efudeis off rebar serette fartw deley 
of fon scone ON ,pottamieteF ef% to anre? en? wate 
.3t of ViLtop tem bebaotq sud’ ——— 
-Tue al nolttentotwt off Oe 20m Stew aide 22) move 7 | a 
® ai ¢l ,etuteate odd ml eaualo evl Jante? ia 
‘yd [Lowy ec momreq yne Rx” @adé*Letutatey | some 
omaoed 03 aoe rog sianet bape Seip nM oDlttiee to b | 


jou ave 


an inmate of a house of i111 fame x x x shall be guilty of 
pandering." 

In the information it is charged that defendant by 
fraud and artifice procured Nellie DeRitus, o female person, 
to become an inmate of a house of 111 fame. 

Counsel argue that when the statute creating an of- 
fense uses gencric terms, the pleader must set up facts 20 

that the court can see that the defeniant committed an offense, 
and that the statement that the defendant committed an offense 
by fraud and artifice is merely a legal conclusion of the 
Pleader and charges no crime, With this we do not agree, The 
informant was not obliged to plead avidence, We followed the 
words of the statute, If, hewever, by virtue of their ceneral 
character the defendant wished for further enlichtenment as 

to what he was charged with, he should have asked for a bill 
of particulars, 

The evidence is not preserved in the record, and we 
must presume that it was sufficient to justify the allegations, 

The judgement of the Yunicipal Court of Chicage is 
affirmed, 

AYFIRMED. 
























ree ot Siete a & a ———— 


ad gee > Se cunrenen: 


“i tnanuvteb dat? hoyredo et tk mettorsetat | we id * 
Thiet TA. 
Aba ⁊o ont 2 yautkiied oti rot bowooxg 4 


Pern F jak ee 


| 


casi i vhet THIS. sawed’ o a te ot 
lapis cl, ti Mal es 


2 
ee atoct ou foe tou wabserg ost yomuvt | 
— as dedtimaws ¢aninetod odd tart? ten 
conte aa stlotenst badtawtis ent cade * 


— ——————————— —5 


* 


tote sat Ye nn sare sotmoon at a 
Lid 0 3% tan ev Sant of At ana 


* 


— 
sinoltanetia ad? y2ivasl, o⸗ Jnetolttce ame tt taKd expmon 
at onaokdd Yo txwe0 Ingiolestt est Yo tnomibut oh! 

. ce a ee 

HYAITIA V — —— txt echt Oren — 


an 


4 e ay Bhs Sola 
— 


- ky "ENS nk Sree 
eae 

» f*odit> prow? es J 

i —J— 
Lute video wintedaee —⏑— 


19 PRS 
mvc wis <6 tegtede ty 


i pee 3 pres fT A atl. — 


évmaworr “Ne wees em 





‘¢ ae < 
poe ad have tebe RAE, — 
* — it* vtveate S82  tempkelveng 





oe ee ee ee et 


~ 














ee r,) 
eh Term, 1915, We 


' Ch VW. — ar — Ow) mad a a Mf perv aK 
13 = 18754 R ie es *4 V 
\LAWVAAR, rer fy Livi AA 4} | tans AY y 
va, “ 


x 


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) 
ILLINOIS, ) 
Defendant in Error, 
ERROR TO MUNICIPAL COURT 

) 

) 

ik 


Vie 
OF CHICAGO. 
WI CHART. SCARLET, 7 — a VA — 
Plaintiff in Brror. aaah PQA WL, “yr 
As fe aan of Hh cont AAAS VAAAUY a: a Le. 
— tT Nt ALS 
uA We Lyne i) 2 oe 

— — — i slag 


Y 
YR. JUSTICE SMITH DELIVERED THE OPINTON OF THE COURT. 


1821.4. 4 


The plaintiff in error was prosecuted on an informa- 


I 


tion charging him with an aesavult with a dendly weapon with in- 
tent to inflict upon Blsie Gearlet a bodily injury, without 
provocation and “showing an abandoned and malignant heart in the 
said Wichael Scarlet." On a trial before the court, without a 
jury, he was found suilty and sentenced to thirty days in the 
Heuce of Correction “at labor" and to pay a fine of cone hundred 
dollars and the coats, etc. 

The counsel for plaintiff in error contend that penal 
statutes being strictly construed, the sentence of the Court 
that the plaintiff be confined in the House of Correction "at 
laber"” is unauthorized as inflicting 4 "punishment not contem- 
plated by the criminal code, i. @. confinement ‘at labor'." 

The punishment provided by the statute, Section 25, 
Chapter 38, Hurd's Rev. Stat. 1911, for said offense is "a fine 
*not exceeding $1000 nor less than $25 or imprisonment in the 
"county jail for a period not exceoding one year, or both, in 
“the discretion of the court." Sec. 448 is in part as follows: 

“Any person convicted, in 4 court of this ftate having 
“jurisdiction, of any crime or misdemeanor, the punishment of 


‘which is confinement in the county jail, may be sentenced by the 















" 

Cw tT des 

(. ) ; * OW tet 

\ ; ] a 
a i hap, sy * Lo a no HN met, 


— ‘ ee . pee OPE & ured. a 2 
ye RR Sa V 
ison wos | Bie. ea ’ 


eet. a oe tT 


— : — neg a 


_— -_ — 


3⸗ oad 3 





“Ute Fae wet 2 * 
—— uedade Uibath o atin ¢ a 
fia Oe — woe aah ees 
—EC (Tul Uther 2 terenot ie woqu tot 


— ohne? 


p Pike — cant Wan Ts 
sft mt fumed trent ian baw boactnede * no —— 
& sHedtiw (diver ant exoted Salat fs a Perey 


ed? nt ayeb yittdt of beometuse bas ytitun bavor vor od Ut 


4. Gi . eS “eT « : 
boatinu, Sipe To emit » ya¢q ot one *xodal ta" nottoerxed to 


OO" Pee vg” q 

ote ——— ed? bas me é 
faneq tad? bmetnes torte gt ——— — ———— ‘at ) 
fred sit to eoretmen ef? ,bouttenco Uitotuts nated 
da" geitoerroD te eawol oft mi boni tnoo —RXR odd ta 
“moines ten tsomtelmuq" « yattotfint aa bextted¢usay at *+ sf 
*.'todal te' tmemenitneo .e .t :hoo Lentmito ed? yd : 


8S mottoe? .otutata ont Vd bobivoxq tnomlainuq off 








—— 


* 


Ont? #* si canstio bise tot eI fOL .te3% .vek abuse St — ie 
ond? mt Satbhmn.o# t xem! 70 @86 nad? aael i889 ooorg anibseoxe 
ai ,ftod to ,1a9e% ono arbhoenxe fom Sbolisq o t6t Lttat uw 
— 1 4 ni st Ga 1908 *.¢xw0p ont to nettonsats ene" 
Serivard otase atid? Yo 7u0e 6 ak ,betolvacs seateq ynA* 
te Fre mite desi ond ¢«Tonsomebaim to omito yas te Motiothativt® 
oat Yt bsouednes ec vam ,ftat viawoo ont ni tnomont treo al dokdw® 





“court in which such conviction is had, to labor for the bene— 
"fit of the county, during the term of such imprisonment, in 

“the workhouse, house of correction, or other place provided 

"for that purpose by the county or city authorities." It also 
appears by the said judgment that an agreement under Sections 8 
and 9 of Chapter 67 of said statutes exists between the County 

ef Cook and the City ef Chicago providing for the custody of such 
persons as may be committed te the said house of correction. 


The judgment is affirmed. 
a 


AFFIRMEB, 














. — OT Senadeitosinn ete x0 Inde oat sneer | 
S anottose sobas suemestys Be tant 4 —* 
ared ole soented odetae vetutate bias Ye 9 
wm 28 Woteno oa ter geautaomm emnots® Ye WHO on ban 4 
_—- sftgttpanx0® Te sawed bise edd 0° dude iameD od Yam om 8 
rs “a a ae aie is | bewUtTIs at sremgiet vet 


; > 
+ 
—* — — 


+4 rita 9 —— — * — ——— ‘on? 


J 444 ‘ 











eae aes ht oe — — winedy § 


——— 
te ae * J 1* nee I? Miey Sok fiw? wen 
ves 


* * lo ote ed at 











’ , invited 


jn fSoiuse x rial eS — 
1J late edt 

bextcodimes ef * ene 

\¢ bode 
_2E sete 

ne! Soesee ~ 

1 Zhe} ytas 


> eOlP —— eat 


* — —— 


ei 
"9 , kot dota tee R 4) 


— 


ym, 1911. NO. 
ABE E, FRIEDMAN, 
Defendant in Error, 
Error to 
“tal Superior Court, 


Cook County. 
JOSEPH SHUFLITOWSKI, 
Plaintiff in Error. 


1 8 Pa I.A. 5 


MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE McSURELY 
DELIVERED TEE OPINION 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 Friedman by 
reason of an alleged aesault upon him by Shuflitoweki, hereinafter 
called defendant. 

Ae the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded 
for a new trial, it is not neceasary to enter into any extended 
statement of the facts involved. Defendant was engaged in busi- 
ness on 12th 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- 
flendant 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 catch 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 ae an expert medical witness, a hypo- 


thetical question containing the supposition that the defendant 
1 ay 


~ oo tor 
,irued rofrequs nme es 


: an - 
tHF ana ba. 


gap 8 — 


— 


fendi a 



















008 * to? tnemgbu, s wetver of torze to ttaw e at iat 
-10q 201 fottos a8 at tdewotiliud® soategs apmbe ttt xd 
aca aanbots oT] bentatsvs need eved o¢ boatsato actat th 
— ptdewos tS tude vd att noqu tiveees bepelie as to | a 
.taebasteb— 4 { 


—— of? bre beereves ed teum dmomphit edt oA 


— ——— 


be bas xs yxa otal tedme of ytsemscen ton et tt <fabst won 6 70d 
~taud ai begsgad saw inebaoied .beviovnt asost ed? Yo te i , . to 
=e moitesug mt yab edd sogqw bns ooaotad ai .deortge ddSf ao 
~elet 6 40 gay eft revo Btitaltela ed? dtiw yerevoténoo 6 ofak & 
~noo q@iede A ean dreiT .esentsud to soelg e'tdetineteb odd ats od 
roasoraa⸗ edt sav owt eft Yo dotdwiot as ysomtises edd at ° ii ; 
sew at. agai terto gmomA .yssaq dogs Yo toubads od?! of as —9 
ob ait ted? eosoocsin etd bas .asmbelrt ,tittaletq ot yd a a 
S, ak Hetoht yiectt bas Wisntetq edt tourts bas deqqate taabm —* 
.beqotave! etared » dotdw mor? ators edt Yo obte tdytt ott 
* .oliered eid? et bemtefo yistalt to most — 
ede te bted otso med? exom bib od sant ootaeb tasbaeted — * eM) 
atelq edé betolt ed sox? eetaeb — ° bas Cd ot to ‘yavoy. 9 * 
—— 


i>. 
ca 4 









[top 4 betes aisntaty yoniteo? oAt 20 — star ae 
fA .eeeathe Lhstbte Peqxh ie a ——— no gatytivest aot 
| ae pine 20b ane tedd —— one ase — 1 eee 


pe ee 


97 


— 


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 the 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. G. Re R. Co. v. 
Smith, 208 Ill. 608. In City of Chicago v. Didier, 227 I11. 571, 
the rule is stated to be: "Where there is a conflict in the evi- 
dence as to whether the plaintiff was injured in the manner claim- 
ed, it is not competent for witnesses to give their opinions on 
that subject." 

In the case at bar the question as to whether or not 
defendant had kicked plaintiff was sharply disputed, and there- 
fore the question put to the medical witness was clearly improper 
as invading the province of the jury. 

We are also inclined to hold that the criticisms of some 
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 the evidence” that the as- 
eault by the defendant was done in necessary self defense, etc., 
is erroneous. The jury are not required in a civil case to be 
"satisfied" from all the evidence, Kelley v. Malhoit, 115 Ili. 
App. 23; Graves v. Colwell, 90 Ill. 613. The inetruction 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. 

























seitutat gottiveex ditw .@totg edt at Ytiiatealq edt —— 
as notteeup edt bebufonco bas Mintel vs o — berntieod 
motttbwoo edt ton to toddedw setatgo as NOX . 
 moel bediueer YWtsntslq ods Yo aoktenimexe woy nob 
tant bavorg ed? ao of betoetdo esw motteeup sidT . — 
fold ⸗ yd beouborg saw to bentafquoo wutat "edd ton’ 10 ' tod; 
-t¢aed of agoné tw eit 401 ¢om hue eakmeted of yrut ont 0? 
-teq asw agentiw odd bas belwzxove saw coltoestdo edt sud 10% 
- dowe yrutat as dott bodfweer oved biwoo tf #adt* yea of 3 
; _ .. *,bediroseb eyed . 
pad — dour of moitoetde as to Rallytzevo oat 
-¥ .09 fA A 9.1 notre eldierever od of bled Lennon 
«£38. .££1 VS, ~robbéG «y ogsotdd Yo yti0 aT. .808, IIT 808 9 
~ive edt mi tolitnoo 5 st exreds ered¥" * begaas et elu 
-mielo xoacem oft st berutat sew idaislg edt redtedw of ont 
Momotniqgo tledi eviz ot aeeeantiw r01 taeteqnmoo toa. et ¢ 

* + gots. tn 
tonto tedéedw of ss aoitseyp ed? rad ts osao edt. at — 
sexed? bos ,betuqetb.ylarede egw tIttatela desoks bed sasha 
“eqortqmi yluselo sew senatiw [soi ben edt os tug colfeeup | oft 8 


mon to amefoitixo od? tadt blod of bentlont J 98 = 4 ety. E 

_ Pentt edT .nedet [lex exe t1v00 edt yd sovig. anotiourteak, eh 
“tedt sextupes doidw ,Ittntelq to deeupor odd te aevta nob tounsenk 
~0n edt Jed? "sonsbtve edd [fs mati bettetten sd, saum®, rut edt — 
«ote ,eemetob Ifee yrsececen al enob caw snebneteb edt. xd. £3 
_,  @d o¢ esao Livio s at bettuper fon exe ysl edT .avoe of 2 Ae 
> <todisl .y yelfeX .eonebive odd [fe mox? "hettetiger if 
@ew soltovrient off .8f5 .ffT 0@ .ffewlod .v severO (28 aga 





“ oa⸗ Sais Aatldntae of taabneteh gatrtypet at auoeaoaa o tedémyt = 
— OF mid ta taps⁊ to hastent wreeagoen BBW senoted ‘Mee to foe i) 


ie. 


a WV cosxet. ee 





R=» | 


= 


pa, 


Boyer, 67 Ill. 132. 

The second instruction is open to the criticism 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 Ill. App. 106. 

For the reasons above indicated the judgment will be 


reversed and the cause remanded. 


REVERSED AND REMANDED. 





























Pinca funn 42 ¥e yaeee ‘ics scgh sa vl 
Bik oi⸗me edt of meqo ab | * 

Bet net inn ' 22 sepameb Ts [qmexe, 

ko ae Reem Bee noo, #008 
f 0k saat 8 gor reon oy aoenebah 
, am tite deren but odd bodeot bat svoda ⸗aoaaen edt 
i atl AS Ae — — 
— ras we net! ce See. ade tw 


ae eee — e w⸗ of : 
rf , ead ee web —— 
—— 


hat CP jae J + 4 TRO 5 in⸗ arro —— 





ety dev’ pecan ae ««r 
wie. 2 7s + ’ ‘ 3 sas J 
bien th eRe: ; wu 5 emanate th 
Lies Hea — es —— se enna me J 
— 
* hee Page 
‘i Ries * De “4 ae 
sinks tas ee 
BX eid» at? ) oe awe: ct es ot — 
9 ——— 
At Ny , poet Soeradeed 


cat . te v J oy i ae) 5824 
⸗ —3 
“a 


fj 4 x ss * am weet 


aa 4 wSs 1 Fa : 
“4 : ‘ 
GT , * vf a > ‘yet 


4 J ——— Midis! te —— 
* Co ae — — — ever M AR Ve } “J + 
0S ay Pyle 


. pie Dawe? ‘i 4 


i 





Betoker Term, 1911, No. 


157 = 17686. 


LEOPOLD BRODOWICZ, 
Appellee, APPEAL FROM 
vs. CIRCUIT COURT 
DOMINIK GIACZAS, ) COOK COUNTY. 
Appellant, ) 


\ 182 Tea 10 


MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE McSURELY 
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 


This is an appeal from an order of the trial court deny- 
ing a motion to vacate a judgment. In October, Leopold Brodowicoz, 
hereinafter called plaintiff, filed a prascipe in the Circuit 
Court of Cook County, returnable to the December term, 1910, and 
the defendant was served with summons November 1, 1910. In Decem- 
ber the plaintiff filed his declaration, with an affidavit showing 
the nature of his demand and the amount due. On January ll, 1911, 
the defendant filed his general appearance, and with it a document 
which in the abstract before us is described as an affidavit of 
merits, without giving us any information as to its contents. 

On February llth, which would be within the January term 
of the Circuit Court, without notice to the defendant, the plain- 
tiff, by his attorneys, came into court and asked for a judgment 
on the ground that the affidavit of merits filed by the defendant 
was insufficient under the statute. The court so held and entered 
judgment against the defendant. On March 21, 1911, which was dur- 
ing a term of court following the term at which the judgment was 
F entered, the defendant's attorney filed an affidavit stating that 
he had received no notice of the motion of February 11th, and filed 
a motion to ast aside and vacate the judgment heretofore entered, 
on the ground that under the rules of the Circuit Court the court 
had no power to strike said affidavit of merits from the files 


and to enter judgment by default against the defendant. After 










; ca ton en ro ns a 
Botwobort bode. etedos00 rl «Scam but 2 odavay ot sot ac 

_ thse ens nt eqtowe1q * bell? taatatq battec * 6: 

baa <OLer rte 3 rodmeoed odd oF old grt et J —— 
Aoood Nert of ———— Srrommse ad tw bovres ean 8 a 
gatwore aivabiTte ne Atte sot sana Loob w hit boLet nten 
eff@I .f1 errant nO end grou ont ove brewed aid 708 on 
daemsoob # te d3tw bres eons wegae — atet betty — be: 
to divebit% aa 36 Bedizoeed el eo enoted tosnteds ety ay 
sadsodnos ett of es rotéamiotal yor ay aaivig sorts 

mre t Ura G end bch bw od bilsow dotw d⸗ ersiradon * 


-tlela oft ,tnabmeteb odd of cotton tuodtinw ysmod ‘stuod ¢ 
















deseary busi, & 7 bedas Snw Inwoo ofal omno xotro⸗a⸗ cf 
Snabaeteh oft yd beLlt esicom ‘to tivebltta ea⸗ sarit rewong @ 
bertesne hits bled oe woo em? .esviatea eit “ebay notoꝛ rtd 
tub anw coldw .ffeL .f2 dow 1 etnebreteb ects santans ¢ em 
66w smoruhul edt cotdw ga miet edg grtwolfot Nuoso 
sass wittesa tivabirts as belLit yertosis a trebaeteb enerd A : 
bettt Mee .Asit ——— — to moltom ocd⸗ to cotton om sovtooertsbed ad 
sbettetre oxo iosorect Saomghut etd oaoav baa ebtas tea of motsom # 
—— * diss 00 tivotto ecft to o o. acl⸗ roden⸗ pro bowers ott mo 
aef{lt ads mort adivom to stvablrta bisa oxtase od 2950 on Sad 


BBP 
atesTA Brabois arts fontage ‘tfusted vd nem hut rede Bh Be 


ny * 


—— 
a aie eta nates 


22 


hearing, the court denied the defendant's said motion to set aside 
and vacate the judgment, from which ruling by the court the defend- 
ant, by his counsel, prayed an appeal, which is now before us. 

Counsel for appellant have 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 is the 
ruling of the trial court denying the motion to vacate, 

The grounds for said motion were, in substarce, that the 
court was not informed as to Rule 45 of the Circuit Court, 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 having veen served on the defend- 
ant, although his appearance was on file, the court wrongfully and 
in violation of such rule entered a judgment. 

The question before us, therefore, is, had the trial 
court the right to vacate a judgment after the term at which it 
had been entered had passed, because the court had entered the 
judgment in ignorance of said Rule 15 of the Circuit Court of 
Cook County? 

This court had occasion recently to consider this identi- 
cal question in Cramer v. Illinois Commercial Men's Association, 
No. 17499. We there held that an error of this kind is an error 
of law and not an error of fact, and that therefore the court had 
no power to set aside a judgment after term. The reasoning and 
cases supporting this conclusion may be found in the opinion filed 
in that case. 

From this it follows that if the court had no power to 
correct an error of law after the term had expired in which the 
error was committed, and the error in this case being an error of 
law, the ruling of the trial court denying the motion to vacate 


the judgment was correct, and it will be affirmed. 
AFFIRMED. 


Ok 























-S- — “ 


ebfes ten of raon bies «' dmebmeteb old beined. dune. 

ebieted oft s1w0o ed yd anilut sohdw mov? ,tmomgbut ate oer 
au sored wom ef cdoldw .leeqqs as beyoug eenuoo at iy 

S84 6 ottew PS tt a8 bevgta eved tmalleqas x0% £ pease 00. 

Yo Weltgorq ent gntbulont .btocet extsee ects wotvet © fe. 

~sutte eit to solemeceorqqeein e@ mott eoutas aldt dud 78 

ens at tnrozetg ta noidstebtanes wo 102 tedden yLao 

nad Sik Heke a ee Fs 

edd dadt .cornetadsa mi ,or1]|en aotion bisa 0% — i 

“ goittw ,Saus00 JiuowtoO en? to 6H efui ot 8s bomroins . jon ag 


sokson Jvorstu ebom ebro to bised ed Iitw moktom om ta it 
Tei oh ade 


Red ead yiteq dove Yo sommnseqqe eit merty yPt0q ed 00% 
Uimeteb edd mo fevies meed anivad eolgon dove on Sas | Be 


* Baoan — dwoo efd ,efft mo saw ooaeree ie uli 


Anon but a bevedwe efit dowe to 

Satas ed bad ,ot ,e%o0tereds .ey ex0ted notseeup « ie at 
“$8 dotrtw ge otod ont 105%8 taemgbhul, 4 edsoav os anea 
eng betesine bar guwoo edd eausoed ,.boesag bai beredae | 


> gaol dilueifd efg to Sf eluh bise to eonsroms at inte | 


7s) 


ty fi 
— 
accodl sidt xebtamoo of yLémeve: molesooo bat sau09 aldr —A 


+ 


Md Si 
ove 


ph — 


etelialoossa s'meM Iaiotemmod sfomtIifI .v —J ot not’ ! 4 
— 4 1 i 


sorTre mc efi batd asic? to 10Tte na sors Sloat ovedd ow 46 SY 0! 
2* F 
ο eld utoteteris sade bas fost 29 TOTTe Ma Som * 


hia uerlrronsaet efT .orred aedte srompbut « ebtas tee ot 


7 
Re, é 


Belti nointgo acl st bmuyot ed yan aotevfomeo elds antsroqge 8 
4 —— 
room es 


63 tewoq of bact sau0eo ofd Tt sands ewolLot zi aids ‘mort oy: 


+o ween, 

@ft dotrlw at beriqxe bed aves eid teste wal to torte ma Joer100— rs 
$4 go Baek 

%o voTte sx noted geass sidd at torre ents Dra «beds tmmoo aaw oT1e 


= AF Hts 
sseosyv es nottom end antysreb dasoo Labst end ‘to aniiut edd wel 


-housitte ed {ftw st bue gtoeri0o eaw Jmomgbut edt j 
-CSMALGIA | 


ees ei 


CORNELIUS WIERSEMA, 


Defendant in Error, ERROR TO 


va. MUNICIPAL COURT 


| ) 
LOCKWOOD & STRICKLAND COe, } OF CHICAGO. 


@ corporation, 
: Plaintiff in Error. Q 
LS24.4. tet 


MRe PRESIDING JUSTICE MoSURELY 
DELIVERED THE OPINICN OF THE COURT. 


Cornelius “iersema, hereinafter called plaintiff, re- 
covered a judgment for $500 as damages for personal injuries re- 
ceived by him while in the employ of the Lockwood & Strickland Cos, 
a@ corporation, the defendant, and wo are asked to reverse this 
judgment. 

The defendant owns and operates a factory in which are 
many woed-working machines. At the time of the accident the 
plaintiff was engaged in carrying boards to a man operating a 
planer. in front of the planer are two revolving shafts, each 
about four or five fost long, about 16 inches above the floor, 
and also about 15 inches apart. On the ends of the ahafts are 
pulleys from which belts run to the planer. Setween these shafts 
was a wooden horse about three feet long art 3 1/2 feet high. on 
top of thic horse was a wooden roller, across which long boards 
were pushed inte the planer. However, when short boards were 
being planed, as they would not reach from the planer to this 
roller, the operator would stand between it and the planer and 


’ would receive the short boards from the helper, who would hand 


them to him across the roller. At the time of the accident the 
plaintiff was one ef these helpers and was ergaged in carrying 
short boards to the operator, On one of these trips he carried 
his bundle of boards up to the roller, ami testifies that there- 


















a i ee a ra 1 4“ * Fae 
ay at. * —J — 
—— 
om, 
\ Ey 
“ d teleas 2a 
or nOnKS . “ores at 
TAHUOD GASTOIMIM 1 Rey oe og CMM 
sORADTEO FO | 
. ter ah WakenbadRs%: 


if + 4.4.) RN a 


~ YaRSUROM AOTC ae RARER RA: 
nh wae 


(ee fies ae ps 
met (Tisntely hefiae Tos tantored camonqeny tt * a 


gt setts! Lanvereq wt vonansd as OO) 10? 
e100 baste: 2 boowtoct wt 2 yokque on? at oktde mist 


# — ae pee 


* 


— 





™ ed exsev0s of boion ers os baw qdnabetotod 

a Pe: it Jaks Sa 
E Li . te tr 

J ers dolfts nt cross 4 cotwrego bra ee 


— —— ea. 
‘gi trobiooe on? to wuts ond $A »sontdoam 


: le ee < ines ees * 
done e⸗aas guivioven ond ew tomatg ot? 20 heel a ak a 
; e100LT ontt evods eoriant Of suods yyn0L feet evi? 10 am 
| ote @itade odd Yo sbro ett no .orece eostont Of hueda 4 
‘ estate ceeds eowset -tomaiq eds of aut atled dotsdu —— 
silyl 400% Gi € bas yok sok wordt suede cated 

Shused gaol doldw esows ,.iefior eboow @ soe vores 
q etew ebised sorte mere crevewolt tonal ects ota | ae 
* C500 at tomelq ay nowt fonat ‘ton bivow yeds os 
bne ~ermiq oft ono ‘St sented raga biuow — ———— odd — 


+ "op RO aa 

pst Stuow ade yreqiens ots sort abreod dros ont ¢ ovteggt Bi 

eR were OF ok 
Ons, srehtoos ety te omk? offs 3A colton od weonos whet 08 


hat. peg >: 
atoms nt Desugae sew ban eroqied evel? YO emp say 
L) SCS gai Dg 
belrieo Gi eqit) ened to eno m0 tosertogs oly 98 abroad i 
— ED, Coes * 
<o704d tard Boriicwed Daw — ois of wi J Ye eLbeusd Let 
. & edi ei Rak Beek Sie ae, sami 


Date 
- Sth. aT, 16a: Wee te 5 
J 4 — fd 1, —— Ae a) edn 
- i. 2 » 
% 


‘ 
rh. tad 





na on a = ae | a 


Le 


upon he handed it over the roller and shafting to the operator, 
and that to do this he had to bend over the shafting and roller. 
Apparently after the operator had recsived the bundle of boarda, 
and ae the plaintiff was turning to leave, his right trouser 
leg was Caught by something scomnected with the shaft or pulley, 
and he was thrown dom, Hie statement of the accident ia that 
"there was something that caught me like one of them shafts and 
it wes a screw or something like that that caught me behind and 
throwed me down om the second shaft.” He also saya that the 
right legs of his trousers and overalls were torm. There was 
testimony on behalf of the defendant that plaintiff had stepped 
upon one of the hangers which supported the shafta from the 
floor, and then feil over. 

The jury returned cpecial findings to the effect that 
the plaintiff did not kmow at and before the time of the acci~ 
dent that the pulleys or shafts of the machine in question were 
mot guarded; alse that he was in the exercise of ordinary cre 
for his own safety at and imediately before the time of the ac- 
cident, and alse that the risk ef being injured while doing the 
work which he was doing at the time of the accident was not so 
imminent that a man of ordinary prudence would not have inourred 
the rizk or hazard of doing such work, 

the deferdant did not in ite motion for a new trial, or 
otherwiso, move that these special findings be se: aside, and 
there is no assignment of error in that regard. Therefore the 
deferdant is boumd by the same. City of Aurora v. Kockabpand, 
149 Ill. 39093 Penns Coal Co, v. Kelly, 154 Ill, 9; mmpire 
Machinery Go. v. Brady, 164 Ill. 88; Voigt v. Anglo-American 
Prove COs, 194 Ll]. Apps 4233 Pe Cs Ge & Ste Le Rye GOe Ve 
Bovard, 121 Ill. App. 49; Tato ve MGs Pace Rye COs, 197 Tlle App. 
106, These special findings of the jury settled the questions 
touching the sonduct of the plaintiff, 














4 ‘say raf 
7+ 2 
o PRORL — 


·2 


⁊oe oTHETO cid of ymbrRadn tee elton et ove ot Debra ‘ed. a 
motion tna sattretn edt eve tree os bid leben ub 00eui 
eehsaod To eldrud ect? Bovteoot bart tosereqo vas ww9%s 
soaword fitatr att ,eveol of cuutrmud cow Yittntely ¢ 
exeiity “to Pade ect ty betoemmen: nadettemen Ms artgan 
foflt wt Snebioos eff Yo taemdesa elt mob mont es 
fe Deticied om Sriniep Salt said otf arhiiforse 10 wor08 
ene tert ayer onia sii —— —— 
saw ovostl sto crew elioweve ane eqauoys sid To. 
Hoqqete bad Ytsntalq dest? puabweb odd Ye Marie’ ao 
a Sete ——— ae Pee 
even: Saar aon 
tu aerꝛo edt of epatintt Latoegs dorus⸗i yal « 
inom odd to omtd ond etoted dew da voml som BLD rts 
view sotinoup mt ectdoan ott 20 o/tade To syeLing ef? ta 
eran grantire Yo eatorexe edt at anw ont fads cule t 
~om of? to oats erff evo'ted yletathemt bra sa wetse Awe 
act yalod elie — eee tele ont? tens conte ore 
on 20% dev Smebtovs ad 30 ontd eit ta gulod wow One 
Bertisoss 2 vad ton bivew eomehirrg Yietine 20 mam # todd 6 
tow dove gmteb to Premed 10 3 seein 
~ ,tatt? wer » wt colton ast ml tom Dib srabrweb ext 
bua .ohten Yea od agatial? Letosqe ever? tat? evor pore 
ont oroteronY sitage sot? nf tore to dieammtevs on ate . 
ehreeds!o0n sv stows ‘to vo⁊d some elt ys Kemet ob | 
oitges 70 .fil 801 ,yfied .¥ .0D Laod sanmed reer 1 die 
amotrent~otyns .v Bato pA ELT par yybent sw soo ‘rrenhiteait * 
oF 00D +A ol e380 w oO OO 6T «28SD LQGA o£EI sor 008 wot 
oOGA gAEL WEE 00 wet .0nt WOH oY oder YOR aqqA .tfT 188g avon 
ataiieoup of So ftten yret. off to agettnlt Eatooge coved . 
Mtaataa ort Yo fewbroo edd gabdoves 


















ea” 


& 
<a 
23 Lae 


‘2 wy, 
a 


ra Ye 


aSe 


There is a sharp controversy as to the negligence of 
the deferdant, and we are free to confess that whether or not 
plaintiff's trousers were caught by a set screw or cther pro- 
jection from the shaft or pulley io nct entirely clear, 

In addition to the allegation that said pulleye and 
shafts had bolts projecting therefrom, plaintiff alco alleged 
that these shafts, belts and pulleys were unprotected, in vio- 
lation of the eity ordinence, In support of this allegation 
the city crdinance was introduced in evidence, end ia as fol- 
lows: 

"674, Gafety of Employes, Provision for: 
Wise ere — 
gearing, elevators and every other portion of machinery 
those enployes therein, while in tho discharge of thelr 
@uties, shall be as fur as possible so covered or guard- 
ed as to make them reasonably safe and to prevent injury 
to such employes." 

Defendant's counsel asserts that this ordinance is 
invalid for the reason, as claimed, that the City of Chicago 
had no power to pass it. We sre referred to no decisions on 
this point. We are of the opinion, however, that the power to 
pass such an ordinance is within the inherent police powers 
delegated to a mmicipality. “The safety of life, limb, and 
property being one of the prime objects of municipal incorpo- 
ration, all appropriate regulations tending to promote this 
object are within the police power delegated to a mmicipality.* 
28 Cy¢. 705, No question is raised as to the reasonableness 
of the ordinance, and we must held it tc be a walid exercise of 
the police power of the municipality. 

We have some doubt as to whether or not the question 
of the validity of this ordinance is properly before ua. 
"If appellant desired to raise the question of the validity of 
the ordinance on the ground that it was in violation either of 


























262 


— 
tor; 10 toddoue teil ssetnoo of oot? ote ow Ann .tanbnwte 
— NE — 
wwoin Yewiine son ak yobiom wo Sasi, aad ied 

bas axelivg biee tact dotiagedia ono of 2 
kenelie onto Tiddatalg gnowteweds sattoatorg 
-olv nk <mtootorgw show ayehivg faa ested 
nottagetia alts to droqque at ~eonaakino veto oft § 
stato ob han sepuntitve ab sneemonsalsoe bd 


» ae 


soletvety to 


— da 
— — 
25 oF feu stan 
Ad cbaertivooftd ‘suto edcecen, Leaiwoe ettnaben eels 
*legnotsd. "to 420 esta wid Hod ghembite om. emo Ott 
fo umotatood on of bevtetes ets ov 4th aaag oF som 
OF rowoq edt Fats yrovawed ynolatgo of Yo ote.eW * fod | 
“exawog epdtog dnwreuink od uidttw ot eonanthap.ns foil 
bus <Uekl ~eRsl to yfotae edr*. es bhagtezears s :h 
-oqioort Lagtolowm Yo atoetde entig ens to one. te — 
sit? ofomong of autioeds enotielumet etaliqosgqe te 
*,ytleqtetrum a od betegeleh reweq eolfog edd middta 
ano ceo te ptouses adi of ne hesion st moltueip of 209. 
te coltotexs Silev « ed of #4 Died. deca 9. an. PA 
e(tllaqtotrum eff lo sewog'4 a 
mobinaup ed? Jom to secserw of 22 Jdvob ance evad oF... ae UE 
_ <a evotted wlreqowg of conantite atc? to ytibliiav ott 30 
to YAP fov o3 Io aehiveup off ontat of dentteed Jneileggs 22" 
to wadtde soldalety wt sow St Jad? bravery ort? no comankhra.edd 


<n @8323 wathiowe?: 


ow 


yee 


hee 

— 
Re ag 

PON — ** 


as é Lie. 
, et a ie ae 


42 
a statute or the constitution, he should have embodied that 
question in a written proposition to be hel@ as the law and 
preserved an exception to the rulirg." ‘The People v. Harrison 
2235 Ill. 540 (545), 

The contention that even if the ordinance was walid, 
the plaintiff, lmowing of the conditions surrounmiing the place, 
therefore assumed the risk, is anawered completely by the case 
of Streeter v. Western Wheeled Soraper Co., 254 111. 244, which 
was followed in O'Donnell v. Riter-Gonley “fg. Go., 172 Ill. App. 
601. In these cases it is held that an employe dees not by work- 
ing on an unguarded machine, with knowledge that it is unguarded, 
ageume the risk of injury from the master's failure to comply with 
an ordinance or statute requiring such machine to be suitably 
guarded. 

It is argued thet the plaintiff tried the case on the 
theory of a specific negligent order, and that the court inetruc- 
ted the jury on this theory. We do not so understand it. ‘The 
plaintiff's statement of claim is not based on any such theory, 
ard the jury was instructed that the plaintiff could not recover 
unless the negligence charged therein was proved. 

fhe instructions complained of undertook to instruct as 
te the duty of the master to furnish a reasonably safe place to 
work, and as te the assumption of risk the references to the ore 
ders of the foreman are serely incidental. Taken asa a whele, we 
do not find reversible error in the instructions. 

Por the reasons above indicated the judgment will be 
affirmed, 

APPIRMED. 

















be wal 068 wo BRAM 06 0f solsteogong megsine a « * 
monies «v efqoo! ocx a iia: ore 
| | hs, GE, 
— sit 30, sien. Sect, Paine 8 
sooaly elt gntbrurowsua amotdtomoe ect? to yetwomt 42 
— ——— 
deity dbs Ati OOS 4100 Toquee SeLeodN srozaeN ov 
“GGA oLLT SEL 4.00 QM xoterot ·noaaa o¥ — 
eros ou da fad at #2 senso sued f 
ehotravam: at St Sass ogboLworm dthy — pebrreugre, Mi 
atin ~iieon os wuithat styetsan ott weet utah 20 Aete¢ — 
vcoa⸗ tiun of of ation dou yikttupet esusase ⁊o eons 


ian 





co =e ae | 
ri 2 oh Fe | 


7 


~orttent gmoe oft sais ime ,yrebIe Inogligon omicege a a 
ontT -22 boacenetess 08 dom ob oH «toed! elit 0 Te, 
evaved? fom yas mo beasd son af atale 20. semmepate 087 
‘weveces ton biveo Ntaatatq ens sad} besovisent say wh 

sbevory vay ntoveds beyrerio eommytinen elt axe 

Ba Soursant of Aoossebaus Yo bontaLgeoo enotsourtent ofl 
8 —— 

* i pe PN le 

Ow gefortw 2 eo aeu⸗⁊ -fasehtont ylorca ora cemyso% et? 1 

soroisorigent edit ak torre olsieveves bake J ont ¢ 
ef Site snemghert ont? Sedaothak evods anoeses edt xo% | 


— 


he « 


* 
S 


4 


coy Lage 3 eo oe ee a 
re — ** = - 7 


* 


OR AT — 


an 





October Term, 1911, No. 


245 - 17779. 


JOSEPH PEOGHIA, 
leo, 


APPEAL FROM 





VO. 


INTERMATIONAL HARVESTER COM} 
PANY, &@ corporation, 
Appellant. 


SUPERIOR COURT 


I>". 





ay, 1, ,00OK COUNTY. 


' ey is i LA, - onan Unn 


Mh PRESIDING JUSTICE WeSURED 89 FA 19 


" DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT, 


This is an appeal from a judgment against the Interna~ 
tional Harvester Company, hereinafter called defendant, in a 
suit brought by Joseph Pecchia, hereinafter called plaintiff, to 
recovor damages for personal injuries received by him while in 
the employ of the defendant. He was injured by having his left 
hand and arm caught between a belt and a revolving shaft or pulley, 
The regular omployment of the plaintiff wae exe an operator 
on a grinding machine in « large room filled with machinery. ‘These 
machines were run by power tranemitted from a large main shaft. 
These moving machines, shafts, pulleys and belte were in plain sight. 
Plaintiff had worked for five years in thie room and at the game 
machine, Upon the morning of the accident in question, when the 
machine was first started, the belt from the min shaft and pulley 
running to the machine broke. ‘this belt ran from a pulley on the 
- main shaft opposite the machine, and was about twenty feet long 
"doubled up", six inohes wide, ani a quarter of an inch thick. 
Plaintiff eays he informed the foreman that the belt was 
broken and asked that a man be sent to fix it, but was ordered to 
go back and fix the belt himself; that he told the foreman he did 
not know how to fix it, and the foreman then said, "if you don't 
know how to fix it co home"; that the foreman then handed the plain- 
tiff a rope ard said “here, fix that belt", at the sare time shewing 






















@r AIS 
; TSOGD hE YO RONWTS Ave ceasORNRN 
narrtoa on gontage smembut © som Lovqga am ab unt 

@ at «inabavteb DoLian rosteatowd yyuqmeD —E 
Qt Misatola boLte0 ves tentewd <atsioves dyweot yt I 
at ofttn mid yd borteoot ostwtat Lanooreq Tot — 
Stok eld gnivad ys Somat caw of strane ede to ge 
evotiut io #arle yahvEoves « has shed » meouted sitquao wis 
otoreqe 0 0 caw WEutelG odd TO Meeokue salugeT oat 
eee? . .yteriionn ddtw befft moos one! « ab entdonm gut 
ade mtun ogtat 8 sow begyinennns twee YS mrt oneH | 
edigte ately at oxox osfeg brs ↄxotaa .oenea. ,vontrioan 3 ' 
ones ort $0 has moot afdd nt eracy evtt 10? bettow bed | 
ed wert ynotsaeup nt snebtooa e3 Yo grbrom orf mequ 
woLlug fas Made mtam of? mov? sled ois yboduate sort caw’ 
edd me yollug » mort set Sod oid? sostord onion od 69 | 
— saat gested pe 
wfotiid vient me Yo aedtoUp 2 baa yoblw seiont xto .*@l b 
asm tied ecty tec? minoto? oct? DoertoImt of vyss Yhdatalt 
OF beteiio caw fud dt alt oF Srwe ed nowt # Sect deten bite | | 
bLh orf mec? ert? HLos of Sarit +Rloamtet Sled orf xt? bus Yoad Me 
f'nob ioe ER” |bkee ao? memowo? ond bao qdf alt of wort woud: a 
entolg etd bebradt aot? canenot otf terit (Mono 09 $8 ait of weet Wore: 
potowuto owls ne — 
ead oe 


9J 


% 


» ss 


yarn 


— 


sag 






wm awe 


the plaintiff how to tie the rope around the broken ends of the 
belt. The plaintiff raised a ladder and lesned it against the 
rumning shaft, tied the rope around the belt while standing on 

the floor, and then climbed the ladder, taking the rope and belt 
with him. Arriving at the top of the ladder and standinc some 
sixteen feet from the floor, he tivd the free end of the rope to 
the top of the ladder to support the weight of the belt aa it was 
suspended across the apace betwoon the main shaft and the sounter~ 
aheft «et the machine. He placed one end over the main shaft and 
the other end under the shaft, bringing the two ends together be- 
tween his body and the shaft. He then proceeded to fasten the 
two ends together by inserting the hooke used for that purpose, 
and when he had gotten four of the hooks in, the rope suddenly 
broke at a point midway betwoon whore 1t wae tied to the ladder 
and where it was tied around the belt; that thie allowed the belt 
to fall dow ageinst the shaft, dragging his hand, which was in- 
side the belt, with it; that the belt then wrapped and twieted 
around the shaft, taking his arm with it. 

We have reached the con¢lusion that the plaintiff, in 
uniertaking to repair and replace the broker belt, assumed the 
risk of the injury from such work. It makes no difference that 
he was ordered from his regular employment into the more dangerous 
worke Use Re Ile & Pe Rye GCOg Ve Kinnare, 190 Ill. 93 Coneolidated 
Goal Co, of St. Louls v. Haermi, 146 I11. 814; Republic Iron & 
Steel Co, ve Lee, 227 [1l. 248, If plaintiff knew the danger of 
Placing belts on revelving shafts or pulleya, or from his experi- 
ence or by the exercise of his senses should have known, he will 
be held to have asaumed the risk. tie had worked at thie machine 
for five yoarsa, The rapidly turning shafts, pulleys anid belts 
were all arcumd him, and he had repeatedly repaired and replaced 
broken belts and pulleys. ‘The dangere were apparent and under- 


4 


~a- 






















elt YO abeo weitond orld Dawote tqou ott ef? OF word 
ont testape St homel faa tebbal o boston vaaniota : 
to yrtinete oltdn thet oe bcxots eget od Bets 
fed tem ogor etd anita yrebbad vid vecatin siedd bee 9 
ence nakbnege bua whhes et 0 qd ot 48 prebetetn 
of eqor sad To fe cent odd Boks ect qroolt edd mos? ot 
can a8 ee Shed ott Yo dayton ene droga of whet att te 
sete ott tan sii tis Sat tinted esa ——— 
bas #tade nto off yews bee eno Nepal 6 .enttivan 
ν cnt SID MAREN. alte. 0 ene NE 
| fd medunt oF reboooerg most of 2 tatte oft baa yhod — 
| ehebbun oqus ents ich soloadt oct 20 0% smees0R Sect oct implied 
aebbsl ald of fekd caw $4 otede meouted youble gnkeg a 4B 
SLod ond bewolla ols? tact yShed edt bmote bete naw Ot 
mnt nao dotdn phmot ets satagetd .ftade edt sontage ewob. sie 
hageted tas hequern aes ted edt ars $k délw qtled: 9 ot 
038 dgiw ose ale anited .ftade ede ; 
mt .titsnialg ed? serif moleulonos of? pedosey avact· ⸗ 
edd bomyena ,dled metond oct eoaiqes Sa. theqot. od: wi b 
dad? comete®tlb on aedam ¢1 .Wi0w dove sovt quwtnk 
auerepash orer od otet smengolgne tole ats mort 4 
bedabt Lounoo t@ »fLE OGL qotAMTlA o¥ 26D oth oS BO ok oh ay 
B MO1l olidugeh phd .Lil GbL qitmoeal .v etuel .£e 20, 
20 Warab etd wens BentalG YW BS sL11 Vas good ov .0d Com 
~itegre eit wovt to .oyelivg vo afters auiviover mo etfed * 7 
Litw od worm eve Divore ecemen ald to eslotexe' edt 10 con 
ontdoas skis to Boxow bed eli .iaty od bommes oved of Blod.ee 
SSiod bee nyohing yas iadn yates? ekbhqer et? .eiwey oyiget 
heoalget tw Korlecet YLbedneqes had et baw gut bauow Leen 
~tebes bre trees ie otee eregnad of sayelivg bua ated meaéed 


ty, 


J 





4 


ateod by him, Neither did the forenan's statement that the plain- 
tiff should "fix the belt or go home” relieve him of the aseumption 
of the risk of such dangers, Sressed Steel Car Go. v. Herath, 207 
Ill. S76. 

“che true rule im this regard is, that the servant as- 
a pa 
Se ment tas ce 
heve asgumed the risks and te have waived all claims inet 
the master for derages in conse of personal vinjury rast tine 
— ant This — Harvesting Machine Co. v. 

in thic view of the oase, it was orror fer the court to 
give the third instruetion at the request ef the plaintifr, te the 
effect that it wan a question of fact to be determined by the jury 
"whether or not the plaintiff aseumed the risk." kven aos an in- 
struction upon the assumption of risk it ie misleading, as not 
teushing upon the plaintiff's kmeowledge of the dangers, and it does 
not convey any idea to the jury as to what ie meant by the sasump<- 
tion of riek. The jury could well have concluded that it was ime 
wnaterial whether or not the plaintiff wae familiar with the dangers 
amit risks, 

We aleo think that the defendant was entitied te have the 
jury instructed as it requested, to the effect that where s servant 
is orderdd by his maater to engage temporarily in some other work 
more hazardous than bia regular work, the servant saaumes the risk 
of injury from the more hazarious employrwnt if the oxtra hazerd and 
Ganger ere open and obvieus ari may be observed and known by him in 
the exercise of ordinary care ari prudence. 

The only negligence of the defendant, if thers was any, 
was in furnishing the plaintiff with a rope of insufficient strength 
for the purpose of repairing the belt. Upon thie point there was a 
sharp conflict in the evidenos, The foreman denies that he gave 


plaintiff any rope. ‘there iso also the evidence of witnesses that 


the accident occurred after the belt had been repaired, and that 


hb 





















emiaiq oct Jans Jnomestateo a! ageewl od) bib teds het 


moktqmuses ot Yo mid evetion “em og to ted ers xtt* Bhar 
"0a ,idaNeH .v «0D 400 nets beanes) .ni9e_meb dow Iw sg ' 


ait? HES, F 





—— eae xh 
att! of sr 
a aes — 


ia Ee aS Be ————— * 


ond aat ony YW sooupot end se cotcowstent pohteveliiel 
Wt off us Sonimioted od of fot To stoliuemp oman 2t 
“ith me. 9s rove . aeta od? eowmes Tttetale ed? son 20 Sal 
fea ao qyrtdaelein ot 3f vals 2 colsqoumne eft moqu.canl 
Beoh Jt dum yeteymad ori? to opbedvoml a Fitemiale edt, nog. 
“armas oft xa Imoem 22 sac of ↄ· yrul, oft Oo aat ym’ 
“mt nox 22 tart pobulones eved Liew bivoo yut ek «tebe 
wionmeh add tw aekiina? ean lintels oss fom to secksedw, 


Byes 


fe eo 
—5 X 
Se 


ond! ovat of belétine waw susbemted odd Jads ind? oole of 
Jueves s erreste pacts JOeTIO ers Of gheTooupet 32 8a hesowapoms, 
Miow tedte gear at qLitateqaed spagre of 105 Ram ein yd ο— 
Safe vit cernase gravaes wl? htop aelanet eli maid oe 
Dre ronal atixe ow Th Jnormolqre aveliaged etos eds OTT c ae 
a mia qo owed ine bevaeedo od yan hea oupbrdo baa moqo et. ten J 
soorebIG bi otao yIANtine to eotoione elite 

wee, few ered 2h »tenboeted edd to semegiinen yLno —— 
Adgnetsea roto Nauer? Yo eqon a Agiv Tiktntalg ots yeetsie how ee J 
a ane enemy Intog ofttd oq tod of getataget Io exoquug od. TR 
even of Jad? aelceb nexrero? oc eoormhive eis mL sollinop qusde. 
Sads. agooertsie BW sonvoitve edd chiv of etedh saeqor ene TtLsnlalq 





dads fbos ,betksqea need het tied edd teodTs beawooo tnebfoos end 


othe 


the occasion of the mishap was the slipping of plaintiff's hand hee 
tween the belt and the pulley while he was in the act of putting 
the belt om the pulley. Plaintiff's original declaration alleged 
that his hani was caught between the pulley and the belt, 

It would serve no useful purpose te analyze in detail 
the clroumstances of the accident in the attempt to arrive at a 
conclusion as to whether the plaintiffiversion of it 46 ccrrest, 
or the statements made by other eye-witnesses, Ae there must be 
another trial we refrain from any comment upon this branch of the 
Gase. The jury might heave arrived at a conclusion adverse te the 
Glaim of the plaintiff om this point, and yet, in view of the 
failure of the court properly to instruct the jury upon the ase 
eumption of rick, be misled into returnine the verdict it did, on 
the grour! that there was no assumption cf risk by the plaintiff, 
In this scomiition of the record we cannot permit euch a verdict 
to stand. 

The judgment wlll therefore be reversed and the cause 
remanded. 


REVERSED AND REMANDED. 


\ 
~ ⸗ 
“ae 



















-od mmwst of Mlitsteiq % yxtquite odd eew qoteke alt to 
getiiug to foe offs mt caw ot oitdw yoiing ens ban ¢ 
«tied odd brim yolisg ed? ssewsed sre aaw 

Stated ni enylana of enoqug Lukens on 
‘gta eeltw of squetes odd ak saeblooe od 0 
doorws ni It 0 molwrevirebembaly act wedénts of 8 — 
ed Sum etedd oa sovevens teeove wise yt oan —ñ— 
—— — — 
eds af vatevbs noinuionos as bevivvia ovadt setgim qust 
wis Yo welv mh gtsy bem goahog oft mo Thhdniaiqc 
SP ifRh 08 felines wt yabereten cont — 
sTUsatela od Ys sett Yo soteqruEA on naw ems dadlt 
* @0thmew «2 dowo tlerweq sgonuae en brovet of ⁊ shee 


—X 


pire | 


eanman ais bun besyeves od swede tet? (itv snengbut 


: “Y 


are wee 

















3 

POcwwver verm, vit, No. 

| — — mu er cs = 
— 


i pol 
wv 


F 


aL 
AAA 


JOHN CARLSON, — 
ox Apel lant, APPEAL FROM 
vB. CIRCUIT COURT . 
PATRICK &. HOGAN, be COOK COUNTY. 
. Appellee. ) Meets 


— 


oe) Veoh: og 


7 MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE McSURELY 
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 


This is an action in assumpsit for the breach of a 


a contract of agistment of a horse, originally berum before a 
Ry 


we 


justice of the peace at Lyons, in Gook county, Illinois, where 
there was a trial and a judgment 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, hereinefter called defendant, appeals to this 
court. 


— 23 


The plaintiff pastured his horse in the defendant's 
pasture field, for which plaintiff was to pay §2 per month. Af- 


—— 


ter some days, the horse disappeared and was never found, and 
this suit is brought to recover the value of the horse, 


Defendant's counsel concedes that the court correctly 


Pa all 


instructed the jury as to the law, that is, that the defendant 
was bound to use only ordinary care. Whether he did so depend- 
ed upon the condition of the fence surrounding the pasture, and 
this question of fact was decided by the jury against the defend- 


q ant. The verdict is claimed to be contrary to the preponderance 
5 of the evidence. The plaintiff testified to the effect that 

there was practically no fence around that pasture. The defend- 
ant and two other witnesses testified to the contrary. fhis court 
— 


should, without hesitation, set aside a verdict manifestly against 


wt —— 
i 

5 

+ 

: 

* 












— 

—ο 

* —8 i BY . ae —3 ẽ 

Sass. IF, s weeny Sees — A + D> > pf - in se 
<“ 


\ 
‘ 


MORY JAZTA etmaileqgA | 
— F 
TRUOD TIVOAIO 5 ie «4% ; 
— x000 — 





Dade es 


[go .A.1 88 2 ‘ee | z: 4 


. ee a ean a ee 
; s to dosetd sit tot tieqmvess mt notios om af 
£ orored sumed _Lientyixe yeated o to smende lye 


ever (stontifl .ydmsoo Food mt .enoyl 42 eoweq etd To 
.ago8 LE Sobtdst qt 00S} to2 saseydot 2 Sas Lets 2 es 
dives tiwottO ads ot imeqgs noqu .Titsnisiq beliao 
tev s af gnitiees .gurt ye Istut 2 saw onssit 
-shut dotdw most ,2af$ mt Trtintsiq edd s0% 
aids of elaeqqa ysosineteh bellso t9estentorted .woeltad 


e*srnsboneteb edd nik seated afd betseaq Tilintalq edt 
“TA .dimom toq S$ yeq o¢f saw Titsntetq doldw act .blelt 
bose .bewrol veven saw bus betsseqqee ib carton eft ,ayab 
-sexed et to eulsy edd tevooe: oF seiguoud ef , a 
eltoetios J«woo ets Jarig sebeonoo leanvoo e' dnaebneTted the <a 
Suabaeteh oft sad? ,at tadt ywal es of as cut oilt we 
-beeqeh ow bib of rented! .ets> yuanlifro yimo esy of be 
ies ,ourteaq eds grime rie comet eft to molsiinoo es 
 mbneteb o63 tontags yuu oft yd Debtood asw soe to noténeup 
sonatehroge tg oft of yinadmoo ed of bemtalo st tetburev efff 
#eds Sootte ond of boltidass Titemteta eff .eonshtve ott 
~bhreteb eit .etutesa sai? bevote comet on yLleotioasq saw 
tiwoo eldP \visrdnon edt of Solthtaet meaeendin secdso ows bes ime 
testags Yiteetiner toltbrev 2a ebtes tee ————⸗ suorcd tw ebivodta — 


— 


3 
Veen * anne 
is ie 
5 
Pare 
s 


> . 


ver 


ae 
- 


-2- 


the weight of the evidence, but the preponderance is not necess- 
arily om the side of the greater number of witnesses, Other 
proper elements 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 
disturb this conclusion. 

It is argued that the verdict for $125 is excessive. In 
the first trial plaintiff recovered $200. We cannot say that 
our judgment as to the value of the horse is better than that of 
the jurors who heard and saw the witnesses in the case, 

The judgment will therefore be affirmed, 


AFFIRMED. 


ae ES ak (Os 
4 7 hs - —* 


“Be 


















J — fon e1 coneretngeng ot 2a ,sonmbive ott 20 2 
—9— * ul ais ow 


secito eonsonsie 0 sedmuct tossosy ocd 20 ebte edd x 
Se mre a i — 
viut edd bentfont yidudorq ,ton evan ow dodo ina 
ae edt afaiay owt mI veoed odt 20 ebte a’ athéntalg 


et bentiont ton ona ow Dam yYthintelg ads 10% weed 


ae een ye tM ee es ae = 
gadd yes sonmao ow . 008% 


Pe yee uy 


—— i eee 


eee : Saga ages fact 


4 * | sego odd mt voncendtu ond wae beta dueedt oct w 
sbewtitts od exoroweris Lite 





Mey ae Fo & 


* 


oo °, Mana — wit moet) @ «te ca ..6ee 


- 


. wort ‘hah: wiht 0% Aone 


* 


ae » Flaweret afoe tue nae 


J ¥ a ; : “7 RA : itete 


4? 
- ~~ « 
‘ . 
> 
7 
, 
' 
X 
—— _ 
¢ 
. 
‘ 
ater a [ 
* 24 
— * 
** . 
: 
_ . 
R. ae ate 





X 


Ty 


394 - 17932 






THE AMERICAN TRUST & SAVINGS BANK, 
now known as CONTINENTAL AND COM- 
MERCIAL TRUST AND SAVINGS BANK, 
Trustee in Bankruptcy of the es- 
tate of CHARLES J. FELT, Bankrupt, 


29 R 
WS fs Los 22 


1 


Appellee, Appeal from 
Municipal Court 
vs. of Chicago. 
WILLIAM J. ELLIS and ALBERT ELLIS, CK bint JA OO 
co-partners trading as WILLIAM 


y j : 4 * 
DAhAA-try & Vp. —— 


J. ELLIS’ & COMPANY, 


LU (, 
Hl ee 8 


Appellants. 


H — J 
Pfs PA AAMOG ; 


MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE McSURELY 
DELIVERED THF OPINION OF TH COURT. 

This is an appeal from a judgment for $800 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 Fllis, 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- 
ruptey Act of 1898, which is as follows: 

"If a bankrupt shall have * * * made a transfer of any 
of his 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. 
















> > Dh ot x dn «0 
* — 
* 
Ser eT ARR 
SSrots ny — sal ab) 
es = 
dene fe 
* 





Araaun TARAIA SIME so MAT, 
MAIIITW @s 3 t * — 


4 


noqs bersins 008} ro} tremgbyt © mor? Iesqqs ae et atdT — 
me0- odd to —— edt yd tdguotd tive a at yrut 2s to sot ov ‘er 
<Ttitatelq belleo refieaiered .tquiiasd ,sist .U adiredd ro' 
rettentored .etentzaq-oo ,elifk srodlA ona .U mel lle aba 

ot bemtalo yireqotq to sulev ed? revooer of ,etnsbnoteb 
Sohnt stasineteb edd o2 ¢fet yo yLlutwefau berrelensts need evad 
ed? teterq o¢ yWered? gaibmeint ,yotquirinsd etd of tolag lets 
-Brosibeto 19d%0 oF ef 

~insG ed? to d-08 nolttoes rsbau beonemmoo é¢aw sive edT tne 
tawoflot es eit dotdw ,8@8L to sod voor 

yns' to tetenett 5 ebem * * * eved {fate tqurdiasd « II" 24 


od? Yo xo ,reTecerd ot Yo omts ofg ts . tt bas .¥tteqotq sid to See 
guibrooe: wel yd tl. .cetensré edt Yo gatredsizet 10 | eet iS 
9 


sig 


ary 


ediémom ty0t midéiw gnted has ,betiupet al tosred atte el3ser 10 fu 
; foereds yoif{tt edt ret%s 10 yosquitasd at motti3eq edt eroted 8 = 
bag tnoyloent ed tquidasd sd .molisoltbutis eit eroted bas =|) - 

feos: moeteq odj bas someteteig s es otsteqgo modi tetenet? 
,Mketedd gaitos tneye eld zo ydeted?t besitened ed of repti 


= 


rf > 
= 


‘Ine edd ted? evoetiod of eeaveo eldanoeser eved aed? [lade ‘ 






he 


biov od [fade i! ,eonetetetq so doette blirow retenet? dove to 2 
F ‘euigy sti to ysxr9eqotq edt tevooer yem od bus estauxt odd? yd a 
| ",dostsq douse a 
' OF yYdtTegotd «'i[sT Yo retansrt od? ted? bedeiuqtte at ¢1 

“org yotqurtansd oft of tottq edgénom tuot aidtiw eaw e¢nsbaeteb edt 


diego 008,[% rot #t blos atasbaeted edd tait bas .gatbeeo 


ou —— — 


a 


"4 


— 


It is claimed by 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 amcunt of $600, 
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 unlawful pref- 
erence are admitted by the stipulation. 

The ruling of the court touching the check for $95 pay- 
able to the Moneyweight Scale Co. was not reversible error. The 
testimony that this check was paid was not disputed, and the evi- 
dence of the check iteelf 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. 





: ) 5 * Re i i E 
ce ‘ cy 35 
5 7” , 
24 
5 OE. 


P ated ai setudxit oft ted¢ etuabaeteh odt yd bomtslo at oe 
| slot stadt bas ,stentisq edt to eno ot to weds of pega: 
- bomtsfo asw it baad redso eds a0. -omge td 20 caw edd om 
008 20 snuoms oft oF F107 0 exosibero vaon ered odd por 


abs odd + dibs bauod yrut edT —E edd to — 
















halen moktsoup oda ysut odd of beddimdue cele ese eredT: «it 
4 esw eometetetq A emptor, of oausd —— at ete hte é 
Hi tea ih ot tle? mort ‘ydreqong erode edt lo retemert edt yd 
,esuso eldamosset dove ssw eredd bebulonoo ym 
nett gnidouos bettimduvea eonebive ete: — eayoutb oT 
tasénoo ers s¥ .motntqo ald?d baedxe ylebas biuow J ⁊0 
Clan epee ew eomebtve edt to coltvatebienoo s mot? tad? 
Ath, -beltigeut toa sew yxut edt Yo aotesfomon edt sedi. 
store fytwainy as to yrevooer edt of Iatiaeeas etnomele 1 X 
Molssiugqtie odt ys bettimbs ors: 919 
“ “ae @@$ 10% Avedo odd gatdouot tru00 edt to gatiuz eff «= — : 
* edT .xonte eidiexeyer ton.sew .00 efa08 tdgtewyonol edd od @ 
tye edt bas <betuqath tom esw bisq saw oodo eidé todd ynombd 
-ovists{umyo yferom od biyow Yfeedt toedo edd 204 P 
4. to enoivoursaat edt at torre Isitastadve on esw etedT bay a 
anol Yidanotosnonay stew yed? dguodiia ,yrut edd o¢ — 
Yo ddgiow edt Jenisge gnied tom ywt ed? Yo ¢oibrev edT J 
ate eit moqu torte efdierever on anled- ered? bas 5 aa 


oa 


-beomtitis ed {fie teompout edt * 


—— _ — 


* 


—— rt 


4 


* 






Re... oo — 


* * 


—A ebepn ts 


* . ih 
; ke -TIMALTTTA ; J it2 A* “st 
a . : | i 
3 vie ie? 4 oup! we 
ae es sz ; 2 
& 4 
+ aos 3 J Ss 
i VY 





October Term, 1911, No. 


420 - 17959 Name V 
— k RAAAKA 


1 8 2 1 Aa 93 


THE TITLE GUARANTY & SURETY CO., 
a corporation, 





Appellee, 
Appeal from 

vs. Municipal Court 

. of Chicago. 

V. J. TURNES ) ae a 47 yn st + / 
Appellant. MIMI » JAA, Joby vi 
7 } /) ⸗ 

8 aay L mA. CoA A J * 
eT 0¥ 24 aw 

fot 


MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE McSURELY 
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 
This is an appeal from a judgment obtained by The Title 
Guaranty & Surety Co., hereinafter called plaintiff, against W. J. 
Turnes, 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 as 
"W. J. Turnes Co.," a pretended corporation. This section 18 is 
as 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 
June 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 same date. In this application it is stated that 
W. J. Turnes Co., the applicant, is an Illinois corporation, or- 
ganized in March, 1898; that Wm. J. Turnes is its president, and 


one Frank Paschen its secretary, and the application is signed 


. i — 
9* 
Ag 


J 
a) ae 
A 7 
ot 7 
—* ok 
me 


a 















4 | 
J * om ttet ‘en ‘xadot00 
* 2% F “3 D Prey a0 Go} MET), x : 0 ficty > eaerl. . 
: —F F Dood ed all oté o0 Be: — 
— ai 
“Bs: A. 188 —V— 
x⁊ — J— 
el Lega r= drent ys er, rt M 
Ree w) ae = P : j av ¢ anit? - 
.ogsol . 
$062 3 TE \ c — SA Aaraur ob Vv 4 
PLE SOR SEM 0 c ; ‘eae . tas lleqgAé 
: 6 ‘ 
y a9 —R ¥ x Ra oO sk aes 4 . j a. 3 7 
; way 7 dX : d . ‘ * 
coe eS eae e ae oc Yet stone 





soasent “od? Yd pentstdo memeui 8 moT? [eeqqs as et eta? 
“shy yMotomtags \MWidatels beliso reftestexed ,.00 yterws & ym * 
—— o ¢ius 6.mt ,tagbasteb beliso tedtsateted, .@ 
Qedudeto stoaliil .S& retqgedo .81 sotteee 1epaw tagbae ted, J 
BR apeniasd yatob olidw mid yd ebem setititdstl bas stdeb mt 
et SI mobtoes aidT .moltazogroo. — 09 eeatuT at 1 


aor He mote —* -. »tewolfo 
od aot emg 10 ed 334 Pas 
— eS 238 & sere to * asa 
ue nen fot sasegs e. be ao 
— eqroo foue 3 35 eeu 58 — AE bd 
: o w. patylqmoo juodsiw .no tsrogroo o etd oth 
* — edt at emsn foots tis sroted .f8E ay enote 


yods asda ,dttes ** —A mt bedtsoedue 9d Iiade apt eR o a 


. sit bns 101 ofdsti yilateves baa [f vs 
_ too dous to emsa edt ai besosté nop bas ,mods yd ebem e mol te 
J— "Hol aroqro⸗ bobneterg %O M0 As 


J ;ewolfo? es ets tive odd od sett gatwty etos2 saiT pee 
-n00-# ‘odnl.beredae $emoxevod eoist® bedtnt edt \ader oa" a 

aol sour senoo edd tot ".00 semruT .& .¥" belfBo-o8 ody WPEW : ro 
gaivig 100 sentuT odd ,saetbal ,elfogsasibal te sevod — 10, 
—— futdtist edt rot .¥teotwe os Tilintealq edd ditw ,Snod a 
-ntelq o¢ ebam ssw aol teot{qqs .baod aldi aisido of .dtow FF i 
ted? betate ef tt aottsotiqgs eids al ,o¢sb omee odt an vue 4 


X 


“10 ,Mottaroqtoo elomt({l as et ,éasotiqgs ed? ..0d soaruT on ‘ Be . Gs 
«bag .tnebtecsq ett at con? .G oa tads weest aoasu ak beste 

— — 
aa bengte et moltsoiiqgs edi bns — ett nodose 
ae ; 


* 


-2= 


"W. J. Turnes Co., by Wm. J. Turnes, Pres.," 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 successors and assigns to 
indemnify the said The Title Guaranty & Trust Company, of Scranton, 
Penna., against all loss, 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 "¥, J, Turnes Co., by Wm. J. Turnes, Pres.," in the hand- 
writing of the defendant. The name "Title Guaranty & Trust Company, 
of Seranton, 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 arose between 
Turnes and a sub-contractor named Moore, and material men, which 
culminated in a suit upon the bond above described in the United 
States Circuit Court for the District of Indiana, in which the 
plaintiff, the V. J. Turnes Co. and Moore were defendants. The 
testimony shows that the defendant Turnes 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- 






















guitinwboed edd ai ",,a0T7 ,sontuT .b .m¥ yd ,.00 soatuT .% sf 
exe tnsoilqqs sd? moissoiiggs etd lo s1sq eh -tusbae ted 
"00 aoaxuT «1 .W'edd ydoredw *,yatnmobel 0, saemperzA" m8) d X 
smut bea Zaog odt no ommtuony ntetteo Bitatetg edt “yeq of be 
| o⸗ engises bas aaossooous sti ,tfeedi batd ydeted seob oe ‘ 
«todaste® Yo .yasquod seuzT $ yinszaud ofsiT eT hee odtyy2tamebat 
) neeneqxe bas segtado ,segemah ,etaoo .eeol [f[e tantsgs ..8 
tat toeigea 10 t{usleb ,efon eff io ys Moz? gotiluees ,revedas 
Yam ,-saneT ,sodneto2 * xasaaod deur? &: germgag® els it 
Yue to baod bise hetuoexe gatved avi to moesex yd tvomt xo ais 
esiwedll esw —— to dmemootgA" BtAaT ty tanmed te cot tonal . 
 « =bited ed¢ ai ",.90929% .esareT .L oF yo 4.00 epnzeTt .b vb 
xancn0d, teunt & sastoud eLstT* ems oat »teebasted edd t9 
 -‘YdnetewD eftiT* ot begnedo yitneupesdve saw ",.snmeT «a 
| —XRX .tiue etdd at axasqas ¢t 26 ",Yaeqmod, ytom 
sous eon edd rod toatimeo etd déiw bebesoorg aed nomnwT ” J if ia 
seowied saors soliivoilitbh ylineupesdu2 .eavod brevg edd a 
! RS snry Aetenden. dan, pounels. hemap, sedeesfoae tus. Mi Sae, | 
hatte: od¢ at bedizoseb evods. baod edt nogs ¢typ s at bes 
skit doddw ab yemetbal to sotrsetd edt x02 sxu00 Stuorkd 2 
| gf sedneben2eb exew wxcoM bas .09 eonsuT .% .F odd ).228 
edd of ss benzoint esw esentwT tnabaoleb od? sad? oas xn 
saw snemgbut ,fetrd edd ts cauoo at befneeenqe7 os" bas oh —J 
daniage oes mom [aitetam odd to zovat alt tive eldt at bete . —3— 
ane no ytere es aiezted Widatelq edd bas .09 aoatsT ob tab é 
to muster odt bas ,tmempbut eid¢ go boveal ssw not sucexd — igi 
aw of dotses Jnegil(lh ret te ted? toerte eit of et tiadersh — — 
-qQotg. yas 10 pdolrdeth efd at .o0 seatwT .t .W odd bat? of efdéams —* 
| -mo0 yterue edt noquenedt sever ot dotdw ao yasqmoo biee * wre * 
taemubul edd au bey fovat ednuomse old biaq \ittered Viutaistg ume 


| 


ot 


4 bvktiage 
| -eeTgA" edt aoqu tigers esw tive émeaora oss xodlapzedt 


-evenogxs brs etaoo uoo x0 nvoa⸗ roi do Ae, bes " 
} Len eat of oye ae a) 


age 


ment of Indemnity" against "W. J. Turnes Co., a Corporation," to 
recover these amounts. In answer to interrogatories filed it was 
disclosed that there was no such corporation in existence. There- 
upon the declaration was amended and the action changed to a suit 
against Wm. J. Turmes as an officer of a pretended corporation, 
and therefore liable for its debts and liabilities made by him, 
under section 18, chapter 32, 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; (2) that there was no such corporation; and (3) that 
the debt or liability was contracted by the defendant acting as 
such officer in the name of the corporation. Loverin v. McoLaugh- 
lin, 161 Ill. 417; Kent v. Clark & Co., 181 Ill. 337; Edwards v. 
Armour Packing Co., 190 111. 487. 

From the above statement of facte, in connection with 
these decisions, it manifestly 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 judgment 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 him. Thie 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 ite being surety upon the 
bond, and therefore under the terms of the agreement of indemnity 
it was entitled to be reimbursed. 

We are not impressed with the argument based upon the 
agreement of indemnity dated June 326th, 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, " 


| : } 


| 


-é- 
























of © mol’stoqrod 6 ,.00 sears .t ww" ¢éatage “¢Ptamobit 6 
thw th boft? eotsoseportetat of rowane at |. Btawoms — . 
~ex0d? “.eonezeixs at nokteroqroo dows ot sew ‘eredd ted bos 

‘tide » of begnsito mottos edt dae bebaems dow aot Jats lben 6: 
(Noltstoyroo bebwetetg 9 6 tesftto as 6s sent i 

9 (Rita ys enh seLstttderr bas s2deb tt rot otcett oxd% 
| Vl "Raton! Fea evens (88 ta tqado rein 
— lanarbeb ots bab Stutste ond Yo noTtetebredes 2 coat” 
(4) (evorq @¢ bottuper BW Hb eatetg todd teofo ot 42 , 

“200 bebfetet”d wit 20 teolYIo ns as beter bed —* 
Asae (8) bas jaotteroquoo Soue on asw ovedd tadt (8) ; 
‘ttt tnsbadten edt Yd détodziaco sew yi ttdett 2d J 

Sdgiadeu wv atreved snot tetoqys ‘edt Yo omsa odd at teottt 

id sneeieel EET f8t 400 x —* (Eh HHH 

‘Jttr def ,.08 sade 

Ag EWinettoonmos xt (8fost Yo tomeiste evods edd mort ** © 
lg gomeny std £6 sed excoqgs Yiteertnsn dt —— 

as vorq erew ttatata el? 107 eso 2 tuo odsm of 'Y 68 

ed? mt suemgbut ett tout miefo edd of saesee tonnso —— sas 

-0eteq fasbreteh oft tacteze need eved teum Avod ‘sedad2 be. 

-bitdsif ‘bas atdeb” yrotuiste oft tadt bise ed eo dt woul’ 

edt -tneagbut edt aoqu dive s ton st otdT mid of viqae — 
 gatyaq ai befititent eaw Ttiinisl® ted somebtve yletom al — 
edd aoau ytetus zatod sti to moeset yd évo bleq tt uons odd tuo 4 
Vie 10 tremeerga ed? Yo eoret odt tebay orotered? bas sbnod 1% 


-beerudmier ed of bef¢itas as w — — 
J —J 


* 


a 


4, 


ent mocus beasd trempgre edt délw boseerqnt ton ors oF 
XS" “witow wut yatnietnoo (AtOS onde beded ytamebat Yo tnomoetye 
beteb ot brod ed) slidw " paod biee De@uoexe sntvad edt ‘to qoakex. 
 fodw emty ettréy? » of axoter yitselo egeugasl eld? .dé¥s ‘emt 

bise betyoexe" gutvad to noeset xd went atadeus Ysa vere odd 
4 * ot aes of He 


The claim that the judgment in the United States Court 
against the ¥. J. Turnes Co. is res judicata, and that the oor- 
poration is liable, and not Turnes individually, ie met by the 
decision in Loverin v. McLaughlin, supra. Furthermore it is evi- 
dent that the question was neither raised nor in issve in the 
United States Court. As indicated above, this is not a suit 
on a judgment, and a transcript of the judgment of the United 
States Court was properly admitted for a collateral purpose only. 
Phillips v. Webater, 85 111. 146; Turner v. Hause, 199 Ill. 464. 

The claim that Lovell while working to bring about a 
settlement of the differences between Turnes and Meore and material 
men was acting as the agent of the plaintiff, is not supported by 
the evidence. Even if this evidence were relevant, it eppears 
that Lovell was acting partially for Turnes, by whom he was paid 
for his services, and also for Moore, who promised to pay him for 
his services. 

Concluding as we 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. 





>) oo 
+ i ‘ 
. * 
* 
















uod setetS betial ait ai trompbyt odt tadé¢ atato odT, 1) 
Lovtoo eit tect bas padopboyt gor ei .00 soaswT .b Wied? teakay 
ode YS dom st .ylloubivibal seateT ton bas ,ofdat! atmo 
sive ol st etomrediayt .gaqre ,olidgusJoM .v abtevod at 

ed? ot eveet at toa beeic« reddign asw noiseoup edt , 

_ thue stom st sidt ,ovoda betsolont oA = Axuod sed 

betta odd Yo taemybut edt to satevenatd 9 dae. .f 
A ovocnua Latytntion 2 x0% beta tebe: ytuegran, e9e,tpue® 8 D 
“bt [fT OGL ,ooua .v canmeT ,60f »L{l 38 yaegedeW oy « 
jo tods gatrd of grttiow.eftdw Llevod stadt A 4 
ualr· tan baw 9190M bee aparuT neewsed eeonetetith edt to a 
Xd bedtogque fom ot ,IWtinielg edd to snags ods — 
3önys fton orem sonedive eidt 32 mova. : 
— bkaq tae od mode yd .eentuT x0? YListizeq gatios sew [levod 
+ mid yeq o¢ bos taoaq odw .etool 1907 oals bas ,esctyrea e st 
| Sy tw ina tS sapol vxec 
steven tate? to gatbntt edt tadé ,ob on as seatone og 
“<tgaibeeoorg adt at roxte pidtexeves om gated exedé tie 
BaF SE Se peccest | * » bear itts. ed. Alin, te 
ete eM a Feo 


: J ee * 
—J is 


—— aig — 
vat —— 










ac? af J vw} 
¢ AgNf ’ . — « 
Aes V sta » sree i a 
‘ 4 — —* 
yeas vote ot air 
v7 r Ba rag. 
; Cs ‘ : pat 
id aes af 
c ) eleie ns de j 
| * — —— 
wed —J J8 "an ute 4 4a a Bi 
49 
‘ 3 : : , — — * * 
is — 


ett 0 AyAROR * ns 
nied EIT * 


2h t a jet past 


‘ten VS wietewe tas J er: 





October Term, 1911, No. ae | ‘ 
421 * 17980, FAM * — Der fi FRNA a, 7 iy 
¢ 7 LEA ( U 
WILLIAM Ey HATTERMAN, ) 
Appellant, i APPEAL FROM 
VGe BUPERIOR COURT 


WARY Le TIEHAN, et 233 Ort ** me 
Seeks — b- 


lees, AMA, & J} Bont, te wy, Ly 
ae, A vee the a7] ⸗ 
ee. . 
UR. PRHSIDING JUSTICE MoSURELY 
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT, 
‘» 
; — E 
This is a oreditor's bill filed by William ©. Hattef? 


against Nary L. Tieman ard others, seeking to set aside certain 
conveyances alleged to be frauduliont in thet they were made withe 
out any valuable consideration, The matter was referred to 4 mas- 
ter in chanosry, whe heard evidence and reported his findings and 
conclusion, His conclusion was that the evidence did not aupport 
the allegations in the bill. he cause was heard by the chancellor, 
who overruled the objections and exceptions to the mster'ts report, 
if any were filed, and entered an order diemissing the bill fer want 
of equity, from which order Hattorman has appenied to this court. 
The appellees have moved this court to diemiss the appeal 

or affirm the judgment for the reason thet the abetract does not set 
forth any objections or exceptions filed against the master's re~ 
port, either before the master or in the court below. Upon search- 
ing the abstract we fail to find any objections or exceptions to 
the master's report, although we may reaconably infer from the final 
order in the case that such were filed.s However, ae we are not ine 

. formed as to “hat these objections and exceptions were, wo are une 
able to pase upon the correctness of the order of the chancellor 
overruling the same, 

It is alse urged thet the evidence has not been preserved 

_ by a certificate of the chancellor. We do not understand this to 

be necessary in a chancery oase where there is a report of a master 




























| 
| ny 
. ya! — 
Be» Pas c .of ,£f@L ,orteT 1sdosa0 

oy 
| * 
a ck ce’ oh —— Fred a 
| a BMY 2 i ome — oh en one 

—* RUOO aoraaaua pen »—— 

F — RO MRC ees wae eT 
ves WIO> 24 al » 
Tr ; ‘i Vanes now og) heqep ghd oe 


bandh Eah tae cE ny 8 inital ede emcee: ai 4 
she Javed ake wo WOTHTAO wer ¢ 


283 — XX — —— 
Wi Soir Litd etsodtbeto « at abfh y, 


ahedeo ebtus ton ot geitaoos genedso bre samelT ot ¥ 
sen. sn — — — 
eat 4 of beTIetes sax tosJan ety .aolsagedlerms 
bee apatont? obi Sedteqet bus eomeblye Dimert ode | 

| Stoqque fom bb cormbive edd sudt naw motestonoo OL, 90k 
. etolleonade eid yd bused naw pauwo edt -LLid ort) mi anol, 
eStoqget a tessa eis of amolsqeone bw astolsoetdo et bel 
-tmae oO? LLid os grteeies!> t9bxo aa betegme bus ,helit 





oo ston ebd3 of holacqga esti aamiotiah reiro dolity coWk of 
taeqas odd oatsoth of swoo etsd Levon ovat seokienga ef 
feu dom eeoh soouteda off Jad? noenor oc? 10% snemghut edd um⸗ * 
— o'tedeam odd tenlege bellt enoltqeoxe 10 anobtooctdo ve af “0 
=fertace oyu swoled smo eid mt 16 tedeam ect eroted sedate gh 

SP Seeteeeen: oh ⸗o »—— GGG 
— 
-at fon ots ew aa _«teveworl DoLit oxow dowe gaat oano edt af 9 
emmy en@ ow \or)ew amotsqooxo fue amotsootdo coeds Jadu of ea & J 

sekieorade ond Yo teb1e etd to eeentoeTi00 end roqu oully of Ofte 


* 


-omen ests : a 
hovranotg mo! fon nad eomebive edd fads begw onle ef $I — 


of ald? bered rco Decuu fom Ob o¥ .»toliennacdo ed? to efaokiisreo 8 vcd 
aatnsey » 20 Itoqer 8 ak orbs? erode oawe YreONAdo © mt yteoseoen Od 


ee ‘al 





— —— 


ie 


im chancery. The master's report is « part of the record, "Ho 
b111 of exceptions in a chancery eause is either necessary or proper, 
unless it be to preserve oral evidence introduced upon the hearing, 
under the statute allowing that to be done.” Ferris v. McClure, 
40 Ill. 90. See also Ohman v. Obman, 235 111. 422. 

Yor the failure to include the objections ani exceptions 
to the master's report in the abstract of record, the decree must 
be affirmed. However, we may add that we have given consideration 
to the merits of the cause, and are of the opinion that the order 
dismissing the bill was in accordance with equity. | 


AFPIRMEDs 











in 


= - 


ou" .irrdpe1 ot to dtaq s ef Sr0qo™ 
| gteqozg to Tiseseven toisie St seas yreonado o 
cumbaned eit oqu hesubostnt eemmbtve Laz eviceesq OF ¢ 
erwL0EN ev etter “yonob od of sald yxtworse 
| —R “10 206 grist «mato cate 08 
suum ao roob of? Aaooox to soauteds add mt Images 6! 
—— —e ——— — — 
— — —2* 


eA ALLIIE : — we at —A 


— ea on ped nme emi. eh 












iets, «Jf . Lt iy; ’ yrs y Bo PO tts a 4 ext sa » 
4 > oa7 : eee — 
‘ > sy. 7 ey a 7-4 £ 
34 HS x * 
——— J 1 “4 
ao — 
2 
F — — 
r* — ¢ - 
~ 4* 
J * 
peg 
a's 
“ , 
ote 
a 





October Term, 1911. No, Co a DY ROA RAT 5 SR 
462 - 18002 i ee 





i ih 
MARGERETE HENGEN, ) 
Appellee, 
Appeal from 
vs. Circuit Court 
8 Cook County. 
GUSTAVE B. HENGEN, a \ baa wttre te. (0 YNornmiks 
Appellant. ig 2 od ae = 
C tw of Ahelh. —* 
—— —— C 


MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE McSURELY 
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE ſogr oT. Le 95 
oD 


OO ae 


This is an appeal from an order * the chancellor in the 
Circuit Court, allowing temporary alimony of $150 per month and 
$200 solicitor's fees. 


A) Counsel for the husband, appellant here, argue that the 
a charge of adultery made by him in hie answer against the wife, if 
% proved, is a bar to any alimony. The most obvious answer is that 
Ss 80 far as this recoriis concerned the charge is not proved, The 
F time for the determination of this isaue is upon the trial on the 
—4 merita; we cannot undertake to settle this controversy now. Cooper 
. vy. Cooper, 185 Ill. 163. The prestmption is that the wife is en- 
N titled to alimony. Harding v. Harding, 144 111, 588. She, having 
8 


⸗ 


apparently brought her suit in good faith, is entitled to temporary 
alimony and solicitor's fees. 

It ia difficult, if not impossible, from the conflicting 
Claims herein to ascertain the truth about the financial ability 
of the husband, The wife alleges by affidavit that he is rated at 
about $800,000, carries $100,000 of life insurance, and owns a 
large amount of property consisting of real estate and stocks in 
railroad and other properties; also that she herself is without 
any income for her support. The husband admits the ownership of 
considerable property, but claime that most of it produces no in- 
cone, It seems improbable that one could have such large invest- 


ments without being in receipt cf an ample income. We cannot say 


¢ 





ea prod i 4 . 
* — by e ; 1— 
J a ———— ——— ae Ve ¢yrriert, 62 iia, Ae Se 


* 


: 
- 


TeqooD «Won yetevortnoo aldt sfttes of eistrebay tonmso ew 


\ 
ES 
- ae 























by Me ,ol .L1@L .m1e2 sedoseo.. 
8 * 


* 
ay Re Png ple, 448 — 
a a ae 


— 


‘ £ it : 
,osllegga | nig oF oe ae 





. 
BLP AES ; 
aes 8* he  % * 
' ‘ * 


PURSES 


Ae ont Ti eis 


0 2 Sets Bick 
GSA. P< i 
edt at tolf{eonsdo edt Yq tTebro me mot Lesage ae et etal hy 
bas Aaaon toq O8f} to ynonifs rxaxoqned yaiwolis #100 # 
,age? s'xostotfoa | 
ed? tedd ouyrs .ered tnslfoqqs ,hoadaud odt tot feunueD “the . 
tk .etiw edd tenings rewane ald at mid yd ebsm yreriuba to prs 
dadd at towans evolve teom odT .ydomtia yaa of red 2 ot (beverG 
od? .bevorq tom at opisdo edt bonveonoo ef brooet etdd as at 2 
ony ao [atts odé nog ef oveat eidd Yo goltésaianreteb sd 1 





“80 82 @liw odd Sadi St moltqmbserg odT ESL . LT ast ,0qo0d Sy 
Gatved ode 682 .1CT 280 .gatbaet .v gatbreR synomtis of betdl 
Yrsxoqmed of belstiae ct .dé¢tn? boog at tive ted tdgvord yee 
-80eT e'totloiloe bas 

ghivoiftaos edt mort .,efdiesoqmt fon ti .t{wotttib si sf ' 
YFilide ([etonsntt elt suods déuwrt oct atsdie0ss oF atoted * 
de bear et od ascla sivebitts yd asgelis otiw edt .oaodteud ost Ye 
& GiWo bne \sonsrvaci SILL Yo 000,00L% seitree ,000,0068§ suodal 

at atoote bas etatse fser Yo gatteienoo ydreqorq to < ents. 


tuoddiw @k tfoared ode stadt oslse jeoltireqorg tedvo bas beorth ve 
to qidesemwo eit ottebs bosdewd edf .troqque ted 10% swooat J — 
al oa avouvbotqg di to ¢nom Jods amielo iud yytaeqotg sidatebieaoo we 
-t0eval egtal dove evad bivos eno fads ofdadorgmt emeeos ¢1 =. em00 / 
yee fonnsy oW .omooct efqua as to tqiepes ak gated suodd tw * a 


? y JA Ps ft, vee we 


— 
that the amounts alhiowed are so excessive, from what is before us, 
ae to warrant the interference of the Appellate Court upon the 
ground that the discretion reposed in the Circuit Court has been 
abused. 
The decree for alimony pendente lite and solicitor's 
fees will be affirmed, 





AFFIRMED. 





















A s0qu snu00 stat teqah odd 20 eonexetrotat ’ 
| aed nad tnu0d ———— 


es Pre 
c 4% 


ay — itden ! 
rs 4 


“etroetotios | on 908 — 
} a : —* 


* 
* 


on y , ‘ e 
Ne — VAAL SA 
hil yee, oe TTS Bast ti 
~ 6 o Mi j 
he. « : ? 


elt ai patter opady et wore: Der nett. 


A 


Vi 


ak ¥ 
ia bee Wiser toa VAlF *% eee ⸗ pee? oa, t ie ‘ Tels 4 
+ ” ’ Tt 5* nett: 4 
ee BR Bye oy. iF Bag » ete eco wet Tene 

—— 2 
“a a2 yttw texte ' - oan qwactvie 38g 
4 1% 







[ a 4 4 —8 ay by 

Spar. 48 sean,r "3 ye od Na a ue 
ant |. (BROT PO. 4 ay ol ipweee asd 24 
eats wee Ladi * itasiesered ode ate 
sBaey vase pier O° etalrebew Pedtey oF 
4 , paren) ——— * 
An (atte — —— oh ⏑⏑— —— » @6£°4 Saf «364 

grivew : el , al lots seraelin ov 
pars of Sel riive tod sagiodd Yea 


* on —Xa vie be 


bb —* by or x Ps t 4 ; ~ 4 . 7 a 
‘ mei oll AlLopeentn oF eieted 


ia Fae : ty J stie ad shit Senil od) 
a ai ro »? [> seltso .000 Ooee Suet 
ie. at evau? ‘ : Bz > VFTeROW TO sve — 
‘23% ; : f ? ct [s. 7% y Boe uaa sk 


iy 3 senator : t ~egqua ced GoOL-se morta — 
ee 

mene | PAT A mit : seth Sw ogtveqerg idgxe branes 
ben : bs Maes? 
Raa ?ernd ofxe, MH, P poh - eae Buse of retort eases ¢ nO 4 
pe : ———— 


& 
io ta ities oF a gan ao te oghepey as gpatad ined bs orang U4 


cat —* ih 





1918 4 —f 5 








287 - 18327. OT ee ap at eae 
same i j r 
\ “A oS ⸗ — 
O. F. BROWDER, PUM ZORMAACK, Hy, 
Appellee, ) | ite 
) APPEAL FROM / 
V8. 
CIRCUIT COURT 
THE NORTHWESTERN GAS LIGHT »; ) 
AND COKE COMPANY, Y) 4, /) -s@00K COUNTY. 
Appellant. ) MNArA Wiener and Y 
Ve La 4 | 
9 * 


F 4 ; 
A * LC CL BF — 


DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. i 
>» @ s) 
Lo Ach. 26 


O. F. Browder, hereinafter called plaintiff, recovered 
a judgment against the Northwestern Gas Light and Coke Company, 
hereinafter called the defendant, in a suit for damages for per- 
sonal injuries. The defendant has appealed to this court. 

The accident occurred as follows: One Nelson, a servant 
of the defendant, went to the residence of plaintiff (the first 
floor apartment) to stop a leak of gas at the meter, which 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 kitch- 
en.» After repairing the leak Nelson went to the apartment on the 
second floor to connect a gas stove, leaving this basement door 
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 injuries 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 


a 

























3 9 9 On SLOE pee oe 
⸗ Si air .' i * => we ih me i» * J 
— ð ey a . 
s pals\ “AS Area 5 — — JF- — 
Lae meek a ; 7 — oe 
a ee oe ¶ ia 


rarer O° 
Ro nace 2 


oYTMUOO HOOD, «. © of be 
a ~ W mal leqg. A Y Aa 
eS { » ak) Vip — i: pe * d ma ; * 4% seu aD siT a 
a 4 ar, ey 


é — eax Ye aif rtm 
Fi ee a QOLTSUL OMIGI2aa9 .AM J 


€ Yo WOINIGO am GAMAVIUEG 
i ag aiger” 4 
—8 berevo0et <Ttttmtalq beLllac sed tentorted — 4 0 
ui eyaaqmod exo Sas srigid esd creseewrsi0N ods sentage Jem 
~teq 10% seyansh 10% Jive « mt ,Insbaeteb edd beLlso xe 7 
«too ald? ot belseqqs eat tnabneted eit veolwut ad 
dnevies s ,moaler ex0 rawolio® 62 beriyo90 saebloos edt 
gert?t edt) Ttltintsiq to eonebieet ens o¢ tnow Sabre teb 
sow doldw ,1esem edd ts eay to dwel a qote of (3 
100b © beats: eff inomeasd ect doset 3 .ctemo asad etd — 
eidl .ysewttatea s yd bebreoseb bas «itorios ta eit to ‘wool? af 
Ao⸗ta eit ot 100b ebletuo ort mort aeromt VI so Bf tuods 


~ ; dy 
<9 J— 
“ —— Ppt ey 

oev" 2684 
Sirisreels wae Pra? 
THOIL Gad WHIT 


Ar 


eddy ro Jnomdisqs oft of taew moeleN deel edt antitaeqe1 106th mm 
1005 inomeeed sidt nitveel ,evote eag 2 soenssoo of s00ft 0* 


ald tot soon ta omoct gutwmtet ,Tthtatsli .meqo mood hd is 
osnt ffer baa heqqets bus r00b medosti orlt davon beredae e 


eto hontsiqmoo selwhimt ect yatvieoe: .t00b énemeead ——— on 
i hat y 
— 





J 


Aoo ond yilteus, o¢ Jmototitue el snemetsia tetrad ecto T 
8B Smeg Linon eew ,davies eff dauotis .Jnsbreteb end stati molt 


—9 to ytitug esw Wlintatg saris beugrs al 3I oe 
ew .100Lt eft mt to0ob meqo ent evieedo of gntiite’ mi conegt igen 
tooqaet athit mt toubmoo aft seadt rWei to tedJem 8 8s .yee8 someo ; 
. eaaq oc yw efit tot ylustivoeq sew 1 -oonegiinen of besmuoms 
| acs tac aew yab edd celts oomebive edt ¢f stoted bao yw ont — 


== 


and sunny; that the interior of the kitchen was dark, on account 
of window shades and the foliage of surrounding trees, while 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 home 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 opén 
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 jury 
in this respeét was not justified. 

The first instruction criticised does not convey the mean- 
ing claimed for it by defendant's counsel. The words "negligence, 
if any," as used therein simply mean that the court would not have 
the jury infer that the court assumed the defendant guilty of neg- 
ligencee 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 the instruc- 
tion that "The plaintiff had a right topresume that the defendant 
would use ordinary 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 
duty 42s to relieve him from the obligation of exercising ordin- 


ary care for his owm safety. Schlauder vs. Chicago & Southern 

























Tee bie oo 
~Q- 2 ¥ 
4 


SAG “f - 


Smscoon mo .tisb eaw - sptiod bal efit to toltesnt * adit iv 2 


edit oftriw. ,scent gerd bauoras to eget lot ortd na vebadis » 
‘to eomelkreqxe ont midjtw ef s1 -beeoLo etow oseteds 
-nmue Sigiad at exert eyordw sayned v SES * 
atoetdo rooath ot ofdany. yLinenoques-of mane auab 0 4 
dmomezed otis gateiom sad omod sel Tridatelg redw 
semod emso ext oriw moqo ever ssw st wyse of tas ,becolo ad 
ba yw edit of bodtindue eaw Yrotsgortetat Letoeqs | 
méqo caw motineup mt xoob etd exit Jord dont ocd — 
~uig Yidenoaser 2 08 Jnornqqs bus avotvde ego eae a 
Wit edd otds of "tous ysalite 20 eatorexe end al 


"0K" — 

flo tetw axerido bra esonedemupnto evods edd iis * wely af a c 
rut ont to moisuLonoo arft Sanit yee stoned ow -seomobtve a 4 
-beltiseut Jom esaw —— 


Tae 
“neem asit weve tom avob bealtotsino no td ound ant soutt 


_eouta Linen" abtow eT .feanvoo s' taabnetob Ww $2 20% > 
: %o wool Be 
evant son bLuew *t-u109 off tanit Asom yiquie steredé beay Bs. 

‘ods Gee : 
-~nen to vs ituy Snebreteb efi bemusesa Suoo ent sects —* Re’ 


-figes y{so orld sais wore yliselo euokéeerst ent reds © 

; co 

orf at ben tacio sadé aaw y1evooet s ed biuoo oteds # 
. mh * 


—J 


ap 










’ ae 


-owttenit ait Asataga ébhem intog ert at e070 etom as overt | 
tashroteh efd Jatt esueerot tdgit a bad atfmtasa ont" Ja : 
mottaesp mt toob qext efit to ea aft al eso qismtbro | 


a 


$d 
70" . 
— 


— ba 


$asbaoteh os Jars omueetg ot trig it «2 overt bivow ttidntale ents = 


“be 
b LJ * 







molsibeoo smae oft mt ẽt eveel baz toob gaad ent mwob se 
 omo sett wel edt tom at 1. ".at dauo⁊ tobae ⁊ob edd * . 
—— ob binow everito tarid — edd soqu vleLoe eter 


Bayh 


maul 


~kbvo gxtetorexe Io mottagtide end mort msi evetion of 8 ais 


> 


mrodtyon * onsotdd .sav robius ſclos +yiotae * 10 J— —* 
wa — 





ase 


Traction Co., 253 Ill, 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, we do not believe the jury could have 
been misled. Whatever might be our opinion on this instruction 
in another case involving different circumstances 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. We do not understand it to be the law that the negli- 
gence, if any, of Mrs. Browder could be imputed to the plaintiff 
s0 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 injury, and even if the physician who examined him 
for the purpose of testifying did base his opinion partly upon 
subjective symptoms, we 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 baedd upon subjective symptoms. 











Mere 


—9 


=< 





















dade —— 
ete ont of cevin etottoutient toto Yrtnar Ste to Welly 
fwo eth rot Wttetelq edt yA evso YRANEDtO "to Faaw 
@vad Bilgoo yw oft evetied tom ob ow ,ytevooe,T & wad 
pottourtent etdd mo mointqo wo of digim revetam . 
qanokfout#ent fas eeonsdamuorto SnoteTIth astvioval eeao- 
eb? Yo gutvig edd seat plod of caso add mt hometont! 
as pital cal ccsiaadima ae daha 
-mt greftot®twe to egntiimt bas evtemer tegotqmi bees 
sottersblenoo Listeiao mevig oval ow ,Laatevet s Leqmoo of 


a Pr 


,oteterit gaossa evty Jonneo bne yokelo es 
molsamuss edd moqy bedsotherq af stneminrs eidsyebtenoo hse 
Atata efit to ettw eft ytefwort sont Jad sooqge bivode 1h | 
stoob eft antveol tot moelet dviw eidlanoqeet ylsrtot 
“edt tot YItItdstl ye ‘to bevetior ed Siuow tnsbacte’ & 
a2igen off tat wal ont ef of tt bradetebay ton Ob ow . 
Trltntele od ot betugqmt ed Sivoo sebwortl .ett to yaw ⁊ ' 
-ive on ef ered? storrerdwt dre ,dnebreteb eft eveltier ; 
amicityrss bel tebword sei ¢end wore of ynthaet btoo81 erid 
.8Go toob oft ymtvool Adit 
el tolbiev eft to tnvoms wid taft ebam ef soem te on” . 
Bevteoe1 Tttisatelg sadd betreh ed of cree8 tom Heob si - 
mit berimexe onw matoteyiq oft TL meve bee .ywtat ofd 
noqy yidseq motetqo cfd exed Sth gntytitaes to enoqug’ 
beoriai eaw tnehreteb eft stadt ces Jom of Sw ,amodsgurye e¥t: 
dueq oldatebienco s fans brooer ed? moet ateeqqs omnia SI —9— — 
-bulont .iuroo od y tuo medoiste esw yrorthiosy ‘seond lw * “to 
eMOlalgo solilw yyeqeliqn bart Ntactt atq edt Sed? moltntgqo ata — 
-smotqaga evitostdve nog betad saw ,bomtalo ‘esw dt 


4 


Holding as we do, that the verdict of the jury was fully 
justified by the evidence before it, and finding no reversible 
error upon the trial, the judgment will be affirmed, 


AFFIRMED. 




























pict EL, 8 BO. AOR; SE, tadd 
_, Eddarover on gutinti, ime 22 PE aes 
ie wit sbemitits of (ite Jnemsbat . 
an e⸗ e ne⸗ 
* isi aade teh aaa 
geno so r eh s 4 — Pa RON yo rae eee tan 4 
wns *4 if “ete Git op See 
1 aged eae 


X ' ‘ 
t - - 
%5 aut + apts 
es? : 
</1 , «Ff - 

é i 4 44 

⸗ 9* 
4 
i ie 


f 7 ‘ i 
Hy - ie ity .eha a 
dia : , a) eret Leet 
“ocot ‘wit 


’ a d he J of sid 


fo ‘ 
r 
> , 
eh 
* 
’ LA 
* bore ‘ 
# ~ 
1J ert £ 


an wae \. wate .bot 


—  e 


March Term, 1912. No “yr — 
1942, No. ce |) VL Kr . Oe 3 
$22 a7 18,3 Be bs é g wa: Kr. AQAL AA YUL, OLA. ae by & Ve ' 
} fi 
\ ( yaKi la . D ; \ 
{ wh Bt 27 O AAA Lares » tf. tb 
JOHN REGAN, ts SET LOVE, FO: CREEL 0 


/ 
L f | 
h f 


Appellant, 
VBe 


MUNICIPAL COURT 
THE EXCELSIOR PRINTING 


APPEAL FROM 
GO., (a Corporation) 4 J | OF CHICAGO. 
~narhex Ff, MEL 


Appellee, 
a feprhhet, , 
MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE McSURELY 
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 


f 1 O ms be 2 7 


Appellee has 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 is a first class case from the Municipal Court. 
A bill of exceptions should be tendered to the judge in such 
@ 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, may 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 was 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 alse 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. 


4 AFFIRMED. 
















V — 
ms 5 4 
‘he f 
~* —* A ak rx : — a\ 5 ey * 
F 
noe aA Ae ve — eee Fe 
| MOH TANTUA 
rauod JAIIOTHUM 
—— 
Yo at 7. ee 


co Ehd ath tell ea deel ab Saath wet 
tart coseet otf TOT .broDeT odé nog? ceolodtte ed and 
yd beblvowg omit orfs mbitiw egint edt of ' pat 


sued Legtoiaun ext? movt eaao evalo sottt a ot obit 
sows mt epbut, ect of betebmed od biwode enotdqeoxe to LJ 
10 tofh1o fant? ed? to yrtme edd tosis eyab Yate atdeh 
<itu0o edt cs testweredt omts tensiwt dove middtw 10 
ewolle yam ,2yeb yixts douse middtw totereds ebsm moltsaoll 
yinle oY .LLOr .@ tedotoO mo bevedne sew mtoted 
WA LLC 48 tedmeped mo betigxe esutate edt yd bew 
borate sew tf tad¢ swore enotiqeoxe to {Ltd enlt to moh 
<ILOL .SL tedmeoed bell? bas LLOL «ft tedmeoed mo 
-bowoile od exotetsit ¢anm oxtate of 
eg ,brooet wal mommoo offv at avoTrie on gnted eterdiT 
gp heartktte ed teum 
be{tt biooer to sontteds eft tadt ,Dbs oels scyim ev 
tot bebiverg Jedd madd tellame ogy mi besatiq et | 
ly gon Hivoo etototedts bes ,seluil dusoO otelLeqqaA Yo er efum — 1* 
i .Stu0d ett yd betebianoo 
-bomittts od {ftw ¢rommbut ed? 


F 





«TEMATY TA 





March Term, 1912, No. Pade evn ten. e (x — 
334 = 10374, : ca il 


Py | 
CLARENCE A. G. KUIPERS, ) 
Appellee, APPEAL FROM 
vs. } SUPERIOR COURT 
MATH. THOME, Y )/7/ ~ ¢ COOK county, 
Appellant. V AM ‘Soekn  « ay Kd 
(oy HK — 


a r all 
/ ff 
3 * 


MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE McSURELY 


DELIVERED THE OPINION OF T COW f 
oe L.Av28 


Clarence A. G. Kuipers, appellee, while a minor, met 
Math. Thome, appellant, and after negotiations entered into a 
business agreement with him. Thome was engaged in the manufac- 
ture and sale of toilet preparations and kindred articles. Ap- 
pellee paid him $1,000 for a half interest in the business, 
Afterwards, becoming dissatisfied with the business, appellee 
filed this bill, by Annie E. Kuipers, 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 
return of the §1,000 invested by him. 

The matter was referred to a master in chancery who, 
after hearing witnesses and arguments, reported finding that ap- 
pellee was entitled to the relief prayed for. Upon this finding 
@ decree of court 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 court. 

The position of the appellee is that, being an infant 
and having advanced money upon a contract voidable because of 
his infancy, he is entitled to repudiate it and recover moneys 
edvanced by him. This position seems to be fully supported by 
the decision in Wuller v» Chuse Grocery Co., 241 Ills 598. A 


reading of this decision shows that it meets almost every point 


* — 


\' 


W * * 
—— vs 
- ; on t 
& SOY 
TAULUD aoraaue 


om eYTHUOO 4 de 38 re : ‘ 
dS Ay res ce o KAY 


















xarausou BOTTEUL ourcaaaga .wi 
BS .A.] OU ges ee ae | 


“ © “Pea jwortm 4 Otte poolteqas yexeqtet 5° oA — 
4 Od! Deredne snotssisozem tosis bas ,tuafleggs en 
~omtuntam ocd mt boyagne sow omod? .atd sidtw Inomoorae et 
cag .eelotsius botbxit hrs anottersqetg seLbos ‘to * 
sesemloud odd mt seotesat tat 2 10% odorat 
eeliongs eeontaus ot adn beltetieselh gnimooed ,afr 
 gaiverg ebnolTi txen dtd ,ereqish .a elma We wiltd ¢ atu⸗ 
~o1 od imaileggs bra auld meewsed odmt bevedme Pe 61 

A Deetoed od ed sass bas ,blov bes lium bersloeb ed f 
wuld yd beseovat 000,19 ais 2 

|. ortw Yreonarlo at qeseam & of 202 sew tos som — a 
<q tars gutbat? hedtoge: ,eJnemugia bas seacons tw gate 
zatbatt alis mocU to? beyetg telfer ode os beLstine * 
~shrremmooe eft dilw vonsbtooos mt bevte tre asw smw0O woe 





a, 
ae 


‘tevo0e% os boliiiae saw selleggse sass bas ,todeam one 
| | saat ioqqe esetceh aids mot’ 0009f9, To mya ord snus Ltogae a 
.Ju100 atdt oJ belseqqa & 


tne’ as gnted ,tadt ef ooileqqa odd to mots ieog oct⁊ * * 
YW eupsoed eldablov sooutnoo a moqu yenon beonavbs gatvad ; 
rh 
eyenom ievoce: basa Ji osatinugeo1 of beliiiae si eri eVoustah | at a 


— 


a 


yt Settogguve ylivt ed of enteee mols teog ent? smid yd & * 
Aas 
A ,800 -dil [dB ,..00 YTODOTD cesmiD ov TOLL mi aoleloeb eft . 

tmiog yteve Seouls oseom Jt Sacdt eworls mofeloeb aid? to ankbset — 





-2- 


made by appellant against the decree. 

It is asserted by counsel for appellant that the issue 
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 conm- 
Plainant, and that Math. Thome, the defendant therein, knew of 
such infancy. ‘fhe averments concerning fraud and misrepresenta- 
tion were not necessary to entitle complainant to the relief 
sought. 

We find nothing to support the claim that the appellee's 
mother was the real party in interest. He may have received the 
money from his mother and afterwards returned it to her, but the 
evidence clearly shows that it was his own enterprise, 

As to the point that the minor has not shown restitution, 
the master found to the contrary, ard the evidence amply supports 
this finding. 

There is no force in the point that appellee is estopped 
to rescind the partnership egreement because 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 law and the facts, it will be affirmed. 

| AFFIRMED. 





rr 

















Qe +. S102) — 
A 


seeped edd tantags Inslleqgs yd « 
event edd tsdt tmeiieqqs vol Leanmvoo yd bedacesa at ar * 
ton ob ow sud — — ei — — 
eosoloskh {itd edt to Inevieq A caso ond od of aicld be 
amoo edd to yora%at ent cow Lite eff Yo olead ext? & F 
Yo werd Lororla atis heis ꝛo. edd omoctꝝ .d⸗aau sods bre 9M 
— .% 
otior ext of Inatialquoo elstine of yraBeeDert gon 
— — bi 
— janis miato ocla daoqgue ot antigen bat » 
ong. Deyteoet evad yar oli .deetodmt nt. yong, ———— 
ont dud yted of Jt derwiex uprawiedte fe toddom eld mow 
-setrqietce owo ald sew Jl Jad awode yLuiselo | ° 
otaus taas a cwode Jon sad tonia edd said sntog exit of « sal 
efroqqim yigna eowebive ont ie qytandimoo odd of SewoR, woes 
beqqotae at eelloqga dads tntog edt at e072, on. a ong 4, 
ett afd belseorme on eousced toomeenya gidanend1eq ext batons 
at beita rodesm etl »toarémoo ext gottam 3o ems. od’. $a Yom 
sleelieqas 20 egbetwomt baci yemody ytnslleqqe ord sacld oft 
ow neve ya at hus ,Jomwmoo eds goidem to emis eft ta * 
& Of voaad eno Io sommongl sad? yJluoedsue on of box on 
antion. %o emt? oft ta yl4aq redto edd to yonstnt ed to ¢ 
eotaliuqes of Jdgia a'tnetat efi to eatoyexe edd of —— p a 
eonabiooos at ef eeroeb od Jatt .oh ew sa yaivelties® a 
-homrttta ed Litw st ,etost oft bas wal edt doke 
oe GBWALAGA Rie : . 


aaa 


March fern, 1918, Mas Y 6 


VAL mw F Lu ry oor 
341 - 16381. yh ae ca" 
fps GA. , 
JOHN MOCARKEN, 
Appellee, APPEAL PROM 
va. CLIRQUIT COURT 
ad ISAAC RADZINSEI, ot al. on / » GOOK COUNTY. 

On appeal of WILMER A. RAD= ma ea Cs Ree 
ZINSkI, Admr. st. A. Issac) SAA NOY nnd 
Radgineki, deceased. oe a eee Fe | 

= x 7 — he ep —— 
y wee oT ie 


URe PRESIDING JUSTICE MeoSURELY 
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE 18 


I.A. 29 


This is an appeal from a judgment for 95,000 in 
a suit to recover demages for personal injuries received 
by MoCarren (hereinafter called plaintiff), caused by a part 
of e derrick or hoisting orare falling upon him, while he waa 
engaged as a worker upom a building in process of erection be- 
longing to A, Isaac Radzinski (heveinegter called defendant). 


Pending the Sieposition or this eauseupon appeal Ae 


* 


Isaac Radzinski died, and hie death being suggested, an order / 
was entered substituting the mame of Wilmer A, Radginski, ad- \ 
ministrator of his estate, as the appellant herein. 
The declaration was filed Auguat Sl, 1910, art summons 
served upon the defendant returnable to the October term. Fail- 


ing to file an appearance the defendant was defaulted on Noyem- 
ber 14, 1210. Sometime thereafter a motion was made by the de- 
fendant to set aside thie default. the abstract doea not dis- 
>. glose when this motion was made, but counsel for plaintiff atates 
* thet it was made after this term of court had passed, and this 
| geoems to be confirmed by the record. This motion was denied and 
by agreemont the cause submitted to the court for the assessment 
of dawages, which wore assessed at 95,000 and judgment entered 
s upon the finding, from which judgment the defendant, Radzinski, 
has taken this appeal. 





- er OE ne 
* . q > a * 
—2 a > ‘ 
+) | ee 





















he} ~ ‘ 
~ nae ieee - 
rry K ‘ \ 
: . i> > S 
: X V 
— ee 
TAUOO TIVORLO * 


SS mists 


q _ eYPMUOD. HOOD Wp. * eo a 
a? REE Ke * asun oA “ J— 
— oA ofall tb 
; eh 5 chant eat —sbenneced fit 

“ 3 + WR ss —* 
HTN . * ee naam 
YAUAOOM TOLVEUL NTC ReaD oi ds 


ae8T WO HOLMES SRY Cieiviuad - 


.. or oon oe 
es nes.) 
merieoer ente.tut Lenonteg 167 eepanab Ta¥OD 7 

drag a Ye beguse 4(2Atsntalg beline ostantoved) | 

ow et oftits gate woqu satiie2 onane yrtsutod 10. . 
“200 mottoew Yo sseoony at patbltud o soy weihOE 
sl dnabmeted defieo toftantored) Meatsba deeel oA oy 

z “ot Lengge noqu ein ati Yo sotsteoqets edt patbaeg 
| TabIo mo .deswezgua gated ddbob abt bo ydekb tt : 
Fa sn st aon 
/ smieted Snaiieqqa eit an ,etasee aid to : 
, — few Orr <6 tums BOLEY vow motsetbsbeD ext | 
@fist wrod tedoso0 ort of eliarrmset Iaabrotob ox ay bor 
“nevoH ho Levivuteb ov Sneimoteb eA? aoneraeqee na off Of! 
“eb wl Ys opas cow wolgom & wsrooreds entsonot OCG 48s 
~eth tor aeoh soanseda ety -Sioeteb otets eblas soe of | 
—— tartata *0* feunwoo sud eabset naw aolsom elrtt rode 
e2ig bow ybvwong bat Swoe Yo wed elsif woste oban ame St $a 
bre belmeb oat sotton alt? +b woot od¢ yo beet ltrroo * - 
Jmersaeesd or? 10? Swe add Of dosEiadt eove80 oA! smemserge 


bowie sopeshut few 00099 ta beaseecs etew solute — J 


et 


J 


8 
We 


A 


—— 

The declaration is based upon the statute entitled 
"an Aot providing for the protection ard safety of persons in 
and about the construction, repairing, alteration or removal of 
buildings, bridges, viaducts and other structures, and to provide 
for the enforcement thereof," in force July 1, 1907, Hurd's State 
utes, 1912, page 1llz4. it is argued by ths defendart that this 
act was not designed to apply to an owner of property, oxcept 


when he is in charge of the building. The opinion in Claffy Ve 


Ghicage Dock Cos, 249 Ill. 210, is said so to hold. On the other 
hand, counsel for plaintiff cites the Claffy case as authority for 


the claim that both the cwner and contractor are liable under the 
atatute irrespective of the question of the control of the build- 
inge Without diseuseing what was said in the Cleffy case on this 
point, it is sufficient to say thet we find in that case «a clear 
expression of opinicn that if the owner never parted with the con- 
trol and supervision of the building te any contractor, the owner 
ia liable. Turning, therefore, to the declaration to ascertain 
what allegation of fact appears touching this point, we find no- 
thing which, even by inference, could be construed as an allegation 
that the owner hed parted with the control and supervision of the 
building. We do find, however, an affirmative allegation wholly 
inconsistent with such inference, to-wit: the allegation that 
the defendant “erected and constructed for use in the erection 
of the houss or building « « «+ a certain derrick in such a manner, 
so that the same was not erected and conetructed in a safe, ouit- 
able and propor manner" . Goneidering thie allegation to be admite 
ted by the failure of the defendant to appear, this branch of the 
case clearly comes within the principle announced in the Cleffy 
case, where the court found that the owner was in control of 
the building. 

It is very earnestly urged that the declaration wets up 
conclusions only and not facta and that, therefore, the default 


7 eee 
* 

























«g~ 
betsites etutate ert moqu besad ef mottanaloeh ent: 
ai off Ww? gatbivory 4 
ao Levene 1 notferséleagetetaqer .neliewmmens edt.2 
ebtvoxd of hae .counowise vedio tne ssoubaly yeogbind: 
-tas8 ota .°OOL of Lvl eorot at ".loetedd smumenwoy 
Ghd tod sSnadeortod 6d ys Domate ok $1 ULL opag 
dqeexe (etroqotg ‘to ‘eawo ae of yigqs of bemateeb 
¥ Yiaso mt noletgo et? sRethitud er? 20 optwde at 
geridn eit nO .diait of Ge Blas af <OLG «LEI OP 4.09 
wt yiitoddue ea eno Yel erie avtio Ttttmtelg wi £ 
“bitud ag to Lorswos one % molsooup etd Yo ovh 
abi? mo oun yIQesy et? at Sloe aay sare gartoowoats 
1elp 2 onn® god at oui ev tacts yoo Of smotolYae a. 
=n00 ssid ristw beding yeveN temo ed? Yt cadd mosniqo 29 «10. 
—— etd ytosowUmeS Yaw OF nALLhus edi? 20 moknlrvoqum BM 
atatreosa of nolsataloeb ef? of ,e voReued? yaniowT 
-om Bul? ow gfrloq alt? guisiawos wieeqqe sost to. 
naltegetio an om beuitemee od Divoo ,ousstetat yd seve it 
or Yo motstyreque bre Jottmen odd dile betueq hed seme. ed 
{ilodw molgagelia evisowsitis ma ytevenod ghalh obo oem 
fodt motdagesio vid :3tw-od qoonene ind stows debe 3 
sotteere ef at evy sot bogouitenoo has betaete* | 
— 3 dave ak Lormeb ataieo » « © » setpttind 10 enw pe 
~tiup ,etae o at hesouttenoo Daw begoete gon enw omoo eid 
etinba 9d 0d matdayetin eldd yabwebkemed  .“xormmer steqorg, bs 
odd 0 scwurné aiid ytacqne 08 Paleo’ ost Ro emiktat aa x ; 
A ond nt heonuonsw eiqhoning oxte tkdstn-vowce ~sanako- J 
REA IE [ 
E ott 
—————— recs 


Sistateh of? ero lowed? <font ‘bes efont som hewn yi ‘anotersLonoo 


oe 





A 





pi 


~Se 


admits nothing. There is no doubt that a defavit admits only 
what 1s properly alleged. The declaration follows almost yer- 
vetim the language of the statute in that it alleges substan- 
tially a duty to construct the contrivance im question in a 
safe, suitable and proper mammer and to be ao crected a « « 80 
as to give proper and adequate protection to the plaintiff who 
was employed thereon or passing under or by the same, ard in 
such a manner ae to prevent the falling of any material to be 
used or disposed thereon, arxi further that the defendant failed 
to comply with the provisions of said statute, but erected the 
hoist or crane in such a manner ac not to give propor protection 
to the plaintiff who was then ani there omployed or enzared 
thereon or passing under or by the same, and further that by 
reason of this failure the derrick suddenly and without warning 
feli away from the contrivance or device known as a horse to 
which it was then and there etteched, and that by reason thereof 
the horse struck the plaintiff and injured him. ‘hile it is 
true that the declarstion might hove made more clear the details 
of the construction of the derrick, with epecial reference to 
the manner of attaching the derrick to the horse, and that in 
thie respect the declaration could easily have been made more 
particular by an amendment, it does not necessarily follow that, 
as it stands, it does not state a good cause of action. 
the language of the supreme Court in Buck v. Citizens’ 
Goal Mining Cos, 254 Ill. 196-201, 18 applicable here: 
“The declaration is not a model pleading, but the 
Statenont of a good cause of action, Siving its Language 
able basia for saying it aid mot stato any cause of action, 
Sions of the mature and grounie of the de=ord against it, 
who voluntarily submite to a default vagy Bag 


& 
mite t the demand against him is just and that he 
no defense. (Lucas v. Spencer, 27 ill. 15.) That the 


‘ 
ft 





— 7 


 gnterrew fuodétw fae yiswhbue fobtreh e4% wusite® alt’ 


ee en ee —[ 





















— on? J 
Vino aftate flueed a sais séob on ol ened? a 
roy soomls awollet motdersioob ott -begetle ¢ a 

| “suatedia woxsttn ot godt at cdusade odo % oymtynal © 

9 o NE molseoup <t eoaavinsnoo et teuresency OF ¢t | 
oe » & & besoete 06 of of baw semnem teqoug bane © 
nt teh yemen etd ys to tole grtessq 10 meoteds 

od Of tatvosee yro 0 phtLian edt tmeweny'8t ae 


i _ - 


orf Leasoowe Jud yosudade Dos YW emototverq ede dote 
notseetorg wor evty of fou em tommm & dove at ec 
Ud Sorts awedet din arms odd Ys tO tohms patewng” 


Of catad » oa meomt eolveh to eommyhedoo end moTt 
Woeteds moxset yd Jads lop ehedoatéa eve? ‘bax mots 
at $2 eltdw «mid Sowtat dma Thlentalg et? Mousse 


‘08 oonertetes Letooqs Atin vlobrteb 93 To mobseundande ' 
jth tad ber .catod etd of otrieh ot? yutdostte to “ronmitih 
eran sham moed evad yfLtuse bises nolseteloob erls 
sled WoLlot YLitassooon Som agob £2. ysrombnenia ma ‘ys i 
snolses 20 cama hooR # Stade sos seob st ,ebnare SEMEE 
Somos t$20 .v fous «2 snlOo eeIQUE orld To enmuymel edt “Hl! — 
rove @Ldeoriqgs ab 4f0840L .{LI DBO 4,00 patnbengs — 
Ont gud atnas la Lobos 2 tom ef wi temalood exty® * 
— — 

adl yaivih .etson to comm booq ⸗ te tnamesata © 


om at oto? ,oDm90 fa bos goinaen 
A 0. exo tre odnte gon DLb $i ystyae ulved 


Phy Wer ThE ET Lap te 
aS a 


eit Sart? * of 


ad 








aie 


declaration would have been obnexious to demurrer if 

one had been interposed would not necessarily justify 
reversal of a judgment rendered by default. (Alton 
illuminating Co. v. Foulde, 190 ill. 347,) A default judge 
ment w reed where the declaration states no cause 
of action, but a defective statement of a good cause of 
action is cured by verdict. Plaintiff in error having sub- 
mitted to a judgment by default, is not in a position to 
ask the benefit of technical refinement in construing the 
language of the declaration for the purpose of enabling 

it to escape the legal consequences of its own neglect." 

We are also of the opinion that the omission cf any 
allegation in the declaration of due care on the part of the 
Plaintiff is unimportant. Carterville Coul Coe ve Abbott, 1¢1 
Ill, 495, in the case of Brown v. Siegel Cooper & Gos, 191 Ill. 
226, the Carterville Coal Go. case wae distinguished in that 
the statute involved in the Varterville case itself creates a 
liability for any injury to poreons occasioned by any willful 
viclation of it, or wilful failure to comply with ite provisions, 
the court saying, page 235i: 

"vor any willful injury, the lack of ordinary care 
or contributary nogligence on the part of the one injured 
is no defence, 

Referring then to the statute before us, ve find a 
similar provision creating a liability cocasioned by any willful 
violation of this act. The declaration alleges that the defend- 
ant #illfully violated this statute, and therefore, we conclude 
that the decision in the Carterville Goal Uo. case ia controlling 
upon this point. 

We cannot agree with the claim that the evidence shows 
that a settlement was meade by the plaintiff with other defend- 
antee The plaintiff testified that he made no settloment. As 


wae eaid subatantially im C. & As Rye CO. ve Averill, #24 Tll. 





$14, when there are two or more tort fessorse, a covenant mot to 
gue one does not release the other tort feasors. In Wallner v. 
Consolidated Traction Co., 24% Ill. 148, the money received by 
the plaintiff was in settlement for the injuries; that is not 


— A — — — 





| 



















Ye. 20, aoteeime od’. saxtd aotnign edd 29 onta.or, 
tS 10 ting odd mo. gw cub to wodsenained. actz 
£81 s,A309SA «vv 209 inod siitvaesual .dmadaoguiou ao. 
sLGK £06, 0392 8 09009, Sopo2s ov anOxe 20 9000, ocd i, , 
darts mh Doriatugnttnth sew eva .0 Ipod eiltyiesaed 

& aeteo% iced! esse eiitvresaay ect at bevlovnt 
GuRitte (ne sneered of Cwubot yas FOR } 
———— — — 


x os 7 * 
~ ee b om ad * 


@ Stl ow ,0u ewhed atujase edt of mets antieten .. 
istiity yoo yO henoteapee Esiitdels » pritseorw moletvorg 
ebusteb ond tacit seqelia soltetaloeh eff .foa akst %0 a0 
Chulonco ov soto lered? dao ,osusate ald? redaloty [Ltt ane 

gulifortoe «k eane 209 Laeo sittyqotie) edt nt mtotoeh | 3 ans . 
wintog ats sage 

sworn eeneblve ud? Jads mtalp add Atiw eoxge Jone su. = 
wbavie tedto itty Tittmtalg edt yd ebum saw Imemwlssou.a ; 
24 .dmomeitven oa obam et tad? hettlseed YthIntata ett 
efi 02: sSi2tovA .¥ 200 s¥f oh 2 oD At Yhtaltnedadiin Bian 
GH don Ineomvoo © .etoaaeT 416% oom xo owt ond ores more QAES 
E⸗ 1 .eaomge? S109 adeiao acl? eeseter Jor seod smo ome 


vd bovthoon yenol ety obs {TT ADR 4229 goktoury hosabtloamoy 
gow 6k Ak pishawtet Sts TOD Sommels foo wt sow Trtdatalq — 


me 


At >i 


) ohoers 
e ah, 
= 


‘7 





B⸗ 


the situation here. 

Other points presented by defendant have been duly 
considered, but wo are not moved thereby to conclude that the 
judgoent should be reversed, 

Finding no ground for reversing the Judgment herein 
it will be affirmed. 


APPIRUED s 


- 






> 


‘ ees a) age * Sap 22 — 
visth aged ova. —* — —* ve 
—— — ’ * | oe 











— i 

Ws ss ah Se < 
yer et ere iid ah, eds Sey ne ahs 
cow a are — 

— ae 
Bact Me 58 fest os é 
“SSeS — —— — 
28 eS taal — 

* i Cae — -" 


; — iy gt 
— en 3 7 


— 


* “i TR Ripa 
hy “ohh, * Wtautele oid 





March Term, 1918, No. 7 4. *8. ad. 





367 - 18410. Ay vy F ° 
NH / — La 
fa, : : —— 
It AAR ey — 
MAGGIE ROBINSON, * GS? he AAA 
Appellee, APPEAL FROM 
VB. CIRCUIT COURT 
CHICAGO CITY RAILWAY / — COOK COUNTY, 
COMPANY, CA AAA A Dhaw~ Lee J 
Appellant. oy iy 


WAk AW) MMs. tb ata 


MR» PRESIDING JUSTICE MeSURELY 
DELIVERED TH OPINION OF THE COURT. 


1821.A. 33 


This is an appeal from a judgment of $1,500 recovered 
by appellee, hereinafter called plaintiff, on account of per- 
sonal injuries received by her while a passenger on one of ap- 
pellant's (defendant's) cars, 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, 
and while she, in the exercise of due care, was attempting to 
alight therefrom, the defeniant caused said car to be suddenly 
started, thereby throwing off plaintiff and injuring her. 

Defendant contends there is no evidence legally tend- 
ing to show the negligence alleged. We cannot so conclude, 
Plaintiff, although guilty of many minor inaccuracies, testified 
in substance that as the car was standing and 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 is further contended that the verdict is manifestly 
against the weight of the evidence, We have weighed the evidence 
touching the occurrence, and have reached the conclusion that 
the jury was justified in finding that the greater weight of 
the evidence was with the plaintiff. 








. ; . —— 7 
eas —E bia 


3a ; 4 * hath. RX — madi : ry "2 Aes — 


i » 



















\\- ce, 
. * 


YIEAUGOM MOLTEUL ontatcaaa 0 
woo am 40 wrarao aut counav tig ae 


EE AISI ; 


— 
herevoce: 008, f% J trenmbst ⸗ wort Loeqge.se ‘2 ober 
meq Yo Imvooos Ho ,IUteislg Holic sed tentered 
-q6 TO emo mo tonmeasagq s oltiw ted yd beviecet 
-iigiia eLtdw Lfer eda riotcw amv? yeteo (e' deumbeeteb) 

eOnsoldd at ,gatoetta ofate2 bus ated ta 10 
‘et beqqose Inebroteb ssid senitarlo nottarsloeb efT v 3 
qetootte died bua esate to molsooasetmt edd ta ts0 bs . 
Of nafiqmedstes sav ,otso uh to oatotexe off at ,ora chew & 
Vinebbus ed of 120 biae beavso sustnoteb et ymorioveds dy 
-xod gutsctat bus Titintelq Ye gatwowlt yderedts , eo! 
-fhored yilagel econebive on of etentt abnosaoo dna bee ted A 


Lee 
4 


«@bulomoo os Jormso oW .beneLfs soneniizen edd wore 
Deltisees ,woloatwooant sontm ynam to ytitue dayortia . | 
$60 oft mt caw ote Soa gnthnade caw i200 odd ee Sats eonased * 

«qu Detiste x80 od Cod et gas a wloubroo erlt atiigtle % 
«10 boptaiquoo sefusiat oft gaivieoe: ie? ede . 
— ef toltivrev oft tacts behmesmoo tedidurt et ¢1 


bald on 


ai 


sonebive eit boctateu ovat ow ,somehive eit to seintew orft F 
aa⸗ ao teutoco edd betoaer ovat bra’ yeomeriuoce ertt gabriou J , 
to Scoyiew ro aoua oft sari? _yetortt mt belttiaut eaw ona eit 


sTilintalg et datu asw eonebive odd . 


onQu 


Complaint is made of the refusal of the triel court to 
give instruction No. 2 tendered by the defendant, and of the 
court's modification of defendant's instruction No, 21. The 
two instructions are similar in principle, and it is obvious 
that the trial court simply combined them by inserting “instruo- 
tion No. 21 an clement contained in defendant's instruction No. 2; 
therefore, giving instruction No. 21 as modified was practically 
the same as giving both Nos. 2 and 21 tendered by defendant. De- 
fendant will not be heard to assert as error the giving of an 
instruction it had requested. 

Finding as we do, that the verdict was proper, and there 
being no error committed on the trial, the judgment will be 
affirmed. 


AFFIRMED. 






















ot duwoo fsttd ott to Leuwtet oft to obam et 
ott 20 dae .Sanbmened ot Ys deteomed 8 +0K 
ed? £0 .Om aotdoundant o! dunacReb 20 motsaeribon — 
auolvdo ot $2 tne yeighowtng wt teltmts one “— 
— —— Tien Ait sone bontdnoe ylqmte sao afi 
1.0m sottouztent oe gnabeetoh th beatatnoo —— — 
xXCCatoteoa rg saw beitihon sa [2 ,of aoa dared actꝭ gntvia 4 
(0G .dmabroted yd Doreband [8 fa & «20 dod gatvis 00 6 
Seer Ses re 
eorie tne yteqouq Baw JoLotev exit ted .ob Owe 
| - €6 Shkwctrompbut edd .Laitt ent no bedtime: 


eOUNALWBA rie 





a 


Wareh Term, 1912, No. F 
S80 = 18425, / 


PREDERICK BAUSMAN, Trustee in 
tey of the ALASKA SHELT- } | 
ING COMPANY, APPRAL/ PROM 
Appelles, 
| IRCVIT COURT 
VBe 
GOOK COUNTY 
JOHH As MEAD, et Gle, on appeal } 
of OARL B. HINSMAN, 
. Appellant. 


( ] 8 2 J 35 

STATEMENT OF PACTS. This is an appeal from a judgment 
against Carl 8. liinaman in an aotion of debt on a penal bond 
given by John A. Head as principal, and Carl 5, Hinsman as surety, 
to Prederick Bausman as trustee in bankruptoy of the Alaska 
Smelting Company, in connection with the sale of a smelter be- 
longing to the said bankrupt, made in pursuance of an order of 
the United States District Court for the Western District of 
Washington, in the matter of said Alaska Smelting Company, bank- 
rupt, No. 3547, 

The smelter, which was the only property of the bankrupt, 
was incumbered by a mortgage given to seoure a bond isaue of 
$500,000, At or about the time the Smelter Company was a4 fudged 
bankrupt, which was in October, 1907, Bausman, the trustee in 
bankruptcy, and a Mr, Gould, the attorney for Mead, who was the 
ower of a large part of said bord issue, and a Mr. Blanc, repre~ 
genting a creditor who had advanced about $50,000 to the bankrupt, 
mot in New York City, and the statement was them mads that the 
trust deed given to secure said bonds wae invalid and that the 
bonds were invalid, and that thie creditor represented by Mr. 
Blanc would insist upon proceedings being instituted to have said 
trust deed and bonds adjudged vold. A short time thereafter could 
met Bausman in Seattle, Washington, and the trustee stated that he 
could not continue carrying the smelter, and that he would insist 


RX 


















a o 
er 2 2A all 
SS a 

3 ae —* 

— 4sla: te 


of ,SL@L .mreF 
SoReal ~ 





ANGER APOE S208 SHEAR 
deod fameg 8 8 teh Io sotice as af uamenti 8 / 
ettotum 26 mommakt .6 Sted bun kagtontag 20 welt «A a 
. asieetn og Yo yotqwrined at eegeued as —«⸗ 
~od ttieee # to olse eds Mitte xottoenme at. 
te <ebto ne Yo comaueng al eden .sqrvined hiee edd 
Qo JohiselG oieseet og tor, Sud sotsseta sesasE 
ined «Yyaqeod gatilou aslealA bles Yo rotten ond mk 9 
+ THEE . A 
et@ruines eiig 20 Yreqorq Vino od? wow Motte yrosions of . 
te euset bres o emmes of mowky omaatios 8 Yd betes * 
hentuthe new yeaqmod resLes: eg ent? edt suode 1 sa 
mt eedous? oct ymemaued .YORL ,todoto0 at saw dotde 
ect saw ony book te? yortetta eit ghived .th 4 bua «yo 
“orge7, somali , wi 2 how qemek bnod ies To seq egtel @ 
siguniniad ed of 000,085 suede Soonevbs bed ory tostbew @ 3 
edd Judd ebam madd cow snometess odd dan .ystd t10k we g : 
dt Jai? be DeLevat aaw ehwod bisa ewoee of meyiy Beeb : 
+t Yt Dodemnesqes toslbeto elas gods baw .diLownt oxew 
Mites ova! of Sotustaent gated uyetbovoorg — 
biue) Ts awred? ooty Stole A Dov beghutba shred dns. dead, wor 
ont tas bedose oosauw aly mn qmogqatieot yelseeos mi aameues fom, 
ct Sade snieReNNR nuehteD: tom NONI 


— —— 
* 
J 


22 


upon being givon authority to sell it; that 4f Mead chose to bid 
upon the property, he woul: consent to an order that hie bends 
be allowed at 33«1/3% of their face value as part of the purchase 
price, upon the asaumption that said bende were valid, provided 
Mead would give an indemnity bond in the eum of $20,000, which it 
was thought would be sufficient to meet the claim of $50,900 held 
by Mx. Blanc's olient; so that if the proceeding tc sot aside the 
trust deed should be inotituted and prevail, such orediter would 
be equal cr superior in rank to Head, and said indemmity bond 
should be held for the common benefit of every logal creditor of 
the bankrupt. 

Upon that statement and upon the entry of an order pro- 
viding for the sale of the smelter, Gould stated that he would 
etivise the giving of the bond conditioned to meet the claim of 
any lawful creditor, if that creditor should prove his equality 
or priority to Mead's claim. Accordingly an order of sale of said 
property was entered on March 21, 1902, directing the sale of the 
property, providing that the bidder whose bid should be aceepted 
should pay all of the remainder of hic bid above $4,000 either 
in cash or in mortgage bonds at 331/54 of their face value, and 
that if the sucocesaful bidder should tender such mortgage bonds 
in payment of the balance of the bid, in lieu of cash, and his 
bid should be accepted, he should furnish security for the paymont 
of creditors in the eum of $20,090. 

On April 7, 1908, the bid of Mead for said property of 
987,009, payable $4,000 in cash and the balance by the surrender 
of mortgage bonds of the face value of $245,009, wae acceptod, aaid 
bonds being received as part of said purchase price on the basis 
of 53-1/3% of their face valuo, or §81,900, ‘The penal bor in the 
sum of $20,000, ee agreed upon, was executed and approved by the 
court, and a conveyance was thereupon made by the trustee to Mead 


of the said property, free and clear of aaid $300,900 mortgage 
bonda 


* 





=t- 




















bid oF onodo hoot th Jad? y#h flew of yth 
anced 224 taste Tape ma ot snmssicn ‘atwew Wl j . q) 
costoug oct? 20 dog as ogay Woe? “thot? to RE\IWCE ge den | 
bebkyor: <bilov wren chro! bloc feds moltqumes ect mogy gem 
Gt debt .000.08) Yo mm ast? at dnod yotenonat na evky Stamm 
bled 000,08) 2o mato old tear od Inetotttua ed biuow 
Git} Pbtes ton of Anbbodoorg orld Tt sacdd on témetio a’ onal 
— sottier® Move \Lhoverg bas beperttort es pivot 1 
peed BPiintodat ntas brs hast! or init nt cotssque “4 — 
O—— 
—— 
ee a ααα re J 
bide df fod? pedade Bison \xosLemw edt to’ & ton ene et 
y'cdbbd' eb Wah) ieeiatied * 
“qiifaawe old ever biueds welser salle 4 — ——— — 
Dise to ofan to tebro me UlgrtisooeA § .mlalo oe bactt dz 
oft 26 efam ett antioortn — —7 
bedyonos Oo biveds Did secre tehhid ot? Sade gAbpbvotq’ 
etdte HOLME oveds BLé wll to tebrtamey sed to ft eh 
bat youley vost thet? % he\r-ee te absod egeadaam AE 40" 
Wheres onagsror fous tebted Htvore TLBEG Lrtesenbinn’ aes 
gilt Bie qefaan to wetl at (Did oft 20 com tdt eft 40" 28 
ee ee ee ee ee 
+000,08¢ To ate arly mt ar to 
“to esteqotg Kine Tor bbol! Yd AE bald Leoer — ua ts 
sobmerxim oft yo oStialed ot) Und dewe' wt OOO, Rg eldayad 4c a 
Bie .Herqoods new .009,¢8GS Yo Kutar eont at? 10 ehnod we 
dialing Hn oa ⏑ ⏑,⏑ — 
od? cit Tinatf Laiteq ort .000,fSt We youlin Gout ‘thet? TESS ; 
ont yd boveraqh ow Beseboss abw eiamt Booiye we 000 (te) Sole 
heel! os eager) saw yd ohum moquversr? saw sereyevtoo o fee (MOD 
OROAs TOT 000,00%) bins Yo “Wwelo Kee Cott ,YdTeqoTG Bias od? to 
| -abaod 





Seo 


The bond in question mms to Frederick Baueman, acs trus- 
‘tee in bankruptcy of the Alaska Smelter Company, and after recite 
ing the order authorizing the sale of the omelter, ac aforesaid, 
and the bid of Nead and the acceptance thereof, concludes with 
the condition that <- 

"If the above bounden Mead shall pay, or cause to be 
paid, to any persons, firms or corporations that are now or 
hereafter shall become legal creditors of the bankrupt, Alaska 
Smelt Jompany, whatever rata gum may be ad judged to be 
due to out of the of the sale of the bankrupt's 
emeiter, to the same extent and with the same punctuality that 
the same would have been paid as a dividend te them or other~ 
wise by the order of the court, out of the fund in court, had 
the purchase price been paid in cash, instead of in mortage 
bonds (provided, however, that all persons who may hereafter 
seek t¢ avail themselves, or cause the Tructes to avail him- 
self om their behalf, of any liability in their favor or thet 
of the Trustee by reason of this obligation, shall cause to 
be instituted in cause nurber 5547 the question of any equality 
or priority upon their part over or with the mortgage bonds 
aforosaid as craditora of the bankrupt, om or before the 2let 
_ January, 1900 }s this obligation shall be null and void; 
otherwise to remain full forse and effect," 

The breach of said obligation assigned 1m the declaration 
4e that one Hamilton Yorden was a person who was a legal creditor 
of the said bankrupt, amd that he cauesd to be instituted in cause 
No. 3547 the question of equality end priority om hie party over 
or with the mortgage bonds in said writing mentioned, as = creditor 
ef said bankrupt, arvi thet theresfter, on January 3, 1910, it was 
determined and adjudged that he was the owner and holder of seven 
coupon bonds of the same series as that mentioned in said writing 
and secured by the same mortgage; that om January 20, 190°, orden 
filed his petition, together with his proof of debt on said bonds, 
seeking to avail himself, and seeing to cause the trustee to avail 
himself on behalf of said Borden, of the liability in favor of taid 
Borden by reason of said writing cbligatory, and instituted in said 
cause the question of equality om the part of said Sorden with the 
$243,000 mortgage bonds surrendered by said Mead to the trustee 


aforesaid, and that a copy of said order duly certified by the 





— 
* 











sbtanerole 2 yredLeme ony to ose eft antattedsus tebid oil 
a nie: 49 be iG ~ Saad — . 


* 












aes, 


tetibete inyel « sey one nonteq 8 sam cobiel modiimall or J 
onus il hesudtioct ed of beoimo ot sort hao ,Iqrolned blew 
ovo @tx0q elt mo yiwolsg bs YstLeupe Yo mLleup ond THEA 
aosihem 2 ca ghonotémn gatitw blae at abrod esagitem ed? dphw se 
wom fh QOLUS 4S YUeunal co ,teslesrent Jatt dee gtqrrined ti * 
myvoa te vehfed ime qorwo edd saw ot Jad? Daybulba bap voces 
gmision Dian al Demoliaem tads er selton oman ext? 20 
ONES QQOGL .Ou yrtantet mo sorts o⸗aaa⸗·ota expe ef? xg DotpeS, 
wahaod bias mo seh Yo toot abt ditw masgonor wrolétgog sit Be 
Liava of eegers? of/ oauap of aatase· baa vtoeute iteva 93 x * 
a Yo oWeT mt yttiidalt on? Yo quehtos tes to Shaded ng 
bien wk beduttawt bam yyswdantide yrttiqn ote to conser. xd, ae 


ois dtiw mefme btan to Jueq ed oO ytRLampe Yo mostagup ond oeua⸗ 5 
; : m 4 cial i ae —A 


i a 





7 2* 


—— 
4 


ooraua⸗ edt OF Lat dhee yt beeherevrae aimed Sas TG NOR EDaD | 
ods yd beltizmo yur sehto Mise 26 yqeo e@ Sadd tow ._bhi 





Béen wil ko 


when 


olerk of eaid court waa sent by mail by eaid clerk to said trustee 
and to the attorney for Jolm A. Mead, and to \iesd persornmlly, and 
to said Carl =, Himaman, and that it wos by said court on Jarmary 
Sy 1910, dotermined that Borden was a creditor of said bankrupt 
in the sum evidenced by seven coupon bonds of $1,000 euch, dated 
October 1, 1905, with interest at six per cent, per anmum, and 
Waa, as such creditor, of the same rank aa seid Mead, and that eaid 
Borden was ontitied to receive his pro ruta share of the purchase 
price of said property to the same extent and with the sane puncte 
uality as if said purchase price of $87,000 had teen paid in oash, 
and that said Borden has not reesived his pro rata share of said 
purchase price of esid property, or any portion thereof, or any 
other sum or sums, as dividends, or otherwise, in said cause. 

The same averwents are made with respect to William J. 
Selleck, with a like firding that he was the owner ard holder of 
ten coupon bonds cf $1,900 each, amd that he also was entitled to 
receive his pro rats share of the purchase price of aaid property, 
and that he had not received auch share. 

The action is in the mame of Saueman, as trustee, for 
the sole benefit cf Sorden and Selleck, none of the other bonde 
holdere and no unsecured creditora appesring to claim any righte 
under eaid bond, 

The defendant Hinsman only wae served, who filed pleas 
to the doclaretion, setting up, first, that prior to the commence~- 
ment of thie suit the estate of said bankrupt wae settled and 
Plaintiff discharged as such trustee. This plea was denied by 
plaintiff by replication, and issue was joined thereon. A second 
plea averred that ssid Borden and Selleck were not at the time 
said bond was exeouted, and did not thereafter at any time prior 
to the commencement of this suit becomes legal creditors of said 
bankrupt, and issue wae joined on this plea. 











ob 


















cotmret tan of Avole bho 6 shes QS sme cqn irene bie Te 
fea «tilaroe tag bseh @) dan ghost oA mies WT all 
Viel mo duos bive vd gue Sk Jett des aommckh, 
‘fqevingd bias to wiklete 4 emu nobied Jans 
hetab ,rivse 000—if to chrod moquon mevee yd. 
Grim youmene teoq .tneo “tog ate to duptodmh ety 
— ——— 
onastowig ori? do erate tux guy aft svtooen os b 
tong owas oitl Asinw baw Jcotne oma ectt oF x 
toga nt blaz wed S66 00.) to solve eaartomny bas 2 
hikes %0 oxoite afaa gu tft hoviveet tom wad cpirtot dl 
* hatreds mottiod yao to etereqowg bhae Yo 
' Venueo bisa st yobhwredto 1a \abnobivib os .enue 9 
ab aMtLSty of toeqnen cstv obem exe eimemiova onan 0 
Qo sehlod bmw vem od enw od darts gubbnkt ofth 2 dtih 
OF Bolsidne biw onLe otf Sait} bao “tone 060.f§ to ebnod a 
— — alt 
.⁊aria Move bevtever tom hac « 

sb esate wi aleudes — 
abaod tocde ed? to omon ydooflen faa sofrot td sMenettie 
Giiely ens belo od anhredq¢s erodibew termes on | 
eS shtted 

"Wand Béct® cide \powies ‘caw yitic meunsilil’ ddabewteh Glee 
-eomennoo af) of tolty sarth ptoult (qu yalisen \woltsoustot 
hus belsece sau Seurnined Bhas Yo odases edd dion uldd % 

td beleeb conn sof ofc? .eodarzd dove a6 boytedoels Titian 
“irodes A .dOwxes? Bemtot eaw onvel bas \notseokiqot WwW én 
owls eff Se Soc ciew foolfes baw motto bles sacs | 
wolaq ctdqes Be <cesaveedd del ait: had Retdedne ule Gael ae? 
Bieo % etodiberw Layet Stiobed dite Ghas Yo Icemooneninnn Sie ee 
\ eotiq attd mo fentol saw onnet Sem .dquelmed 


ed J 
he oe een 





cy, b-3 
e.. v 


8 


The evidence introduced by the plaintiff consieted of an 
exemplified copy of the bom sued on, and exemplified sopies of 
two orders of the United States pDietrict Court of Washington in re 
Alaska Smelting Company, bankrupt, entered upon the petitions of 
said Borden and Selleck, respectively, purporting to find that 
eaid Gorden and Selleck were holders and owners, one of seven and 
the other of ten bonds of $1,000 each of said bankrupt, part of 
the aforesaid total iseue of $500,000. said orders, after reciting 
the sale to Yead and the transfer to him of the property of the 
benkrupt, further found that said Borden ari Selleck have been 
creditors of the bankrupt and are entitled to receive their pro 
rate share of the purchase price of said property to the same ex- 
tent and with the same punctuality as if said purchace price of 
$87,000 had been paid wholly in cash, instead of $91,900 thereof 
having, been paid in mortsage bonds, 

Neither Nead nor Hineaman appeared or took any part in 
the proceeding in which these orders were entered. 

The introduction of said exemplified copies of these 
orders was objected to by the defendant iiinaman, on the ground 
that they were not binding upor him as he woe not a party to the 
proceeding in which they were entered, and also for the reason that 
the court had no jurisdiction over the subject-matter at the time 
seid orders were entered, which was wore than a year after the ad- 
judication in bankruptcy, and that said ordere were not legal 
proof that said Borden and Selleck were creditors of said bankrupt. 

At the conclusion of the evidence the defendant submitted 
to the court certain propositions of law, which were refused, and 
thereupon the court entered a finding for the plaintiff againat 
the defendant for debt in the aum of $20,000, damages in the sum 
Of §5,825.95, oaid debt to be discharged upon the payment of donq 


B&ZOBe 





ee 























fin %o Degeiance Vitdatalq dd yd Seoubewseh eoaahive ent \o Mh 
Yo gelqoe LOLRLiqnexe pas «AO bow haod oxtd Bo. WIEO 
ot gt sogyatine Yo aw od Jofdedd epsesa beste, os 
add Te yoteqety ect? to mid OF WRenets ocd Smo 
Og 
“x0 oma old OF ysnOgesq Dies To soltg esatiotwg. eds to 
⁊0 epitg eantloqwg hiee 2! as yttlevdousy ome os cst be 
oor 000 ,f9¢ Lo Ractest loge mt eLiode ateq d 00 
sadaod eacstzom mt blag med J 

’ _ SE greg van food 0 Foteeqan manesdit Tom back eME2OH v= 
eeeds to setqoo poltitqnene blew Ye sokdeubouak oft , 
| BaOER OF GO ytamANbK tanbroeb ot ys Of detaetdo as 
“eclt OF ydtsq © tom exw of 09 ahi soqy gutinkd tom etew. 
Sartd soenes off OX cole bre yhetedne oxen vortd dott at 
ould orl? J@ testar-sooldus ef? t98evo molsolbelmut on bad 
~ba od Tedta ame @ Gadd oroM BeH dotdy yboredne eveN erenS Bhs 
. Sayed tom otou wvebw biao saad dae .eoiqrvined ms 
JqwTined hiae Io wIostheww exew Soglive beg oobiet tes Jedd Rog 
Pesshruc Inehaphod ett aonedtve wid 20 smeuvLonce add JA. in 
bse ghoruste: o10w olde 8a YO emo tdkeoqorg slots ¢u0d. 
featage TatIninig add 19% yrhLont? a hewwsae. duce ol sega re 
curt al? Mh cegamad — 
— 


a 


- j , f he a { oP fo 
2 — & Y ae & —— say ; wy pre. LL tA 7 
/ LY 
Lay 
| Aa & 
—* A A Ye wn Ow nA AALLR War dae WAU tne Sle A 
* yr ORALEKs « 
oi oe 


UR, PRERIDING JUSTICE MeZURELY 
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THR COURT, 


Gonceding, for the purposes of this opinion only, that 
the plaintiff is entitled to recover on the bond in question, in 
the form in which this suit was brought, it i» manifest that no 
such judgment as was rendered herein could properly be entered, 

- The bond wae for the peymont to legal creditors of “whatever pro 

rata sum may bo adjudged to be due to them." Clearly the rate 

of the dividend to be distributed among creditors wokld depend 

at least upon the anocunt of proved claims and the amount of assets 
to be distributed, and the rate of distribution should be fixed by 
@ proper adjudication in the bankruptcy courte Go far aa appears 
from the record before us, no rate of dictribution was so adjudi- 
cated. Therefore, there was no basia for the Judgment entered 
herein. for this reason the judgment must be reversed and the 
cause remanded. 

A special plea and replication put in iesue the capatity 
of Bauaman, as trustee, to bring thia action, the defendant aver- 
ring that Bausman had been discharged as trustee prior to the com- 
mencement of this suit. Plaintiff in his replication denies this. 
Upon the trial when the defendant undertook to prove his avernent 
of the dischurge of Baueman, he found himself without proper evi- 
dence of the same, The record shows a considerable colloquy be- 
tween court and counsel touching the production in court of a core 
tified copy of the alleged discharge, In the brief and argument 
before us counsel for the defendant claims that it wae admitted 
by the plaintiff, for the purposes of the trial, that plaintiff 
was discharged as trustee before the sommencement of this suit, 
and upon this presumption strongly argue that therefore he has 
no right to maintain this action a» such trustee. Counsel for 
plaintiff in their argusent, while joining issue ae te the law 
on this point, do not concede that the discharge, 29 claimed, is 

























cen babte ont whe 
A» os is Japs * > AS £ Ag Ae abov 


eee orkiae at cae 
‘Yous — min 6 rt eh 
dt \nobdueup at teod oll no revooe oF Dordtine ut Yrdatal 
on tate Soattnon ot st diijnont saw Vive otitt otal * 
sBortetno od yfroqotq Dives moter berebnet vow ad dnt 
“iq ‘hvisnin” to oxostboND’ ag 6d Sneellt Orth maT atl ; 
oda odd ylrwold “media GY Gut o¢ 03 Sembitbe od via J 
basqeb Biwow s1ottheto proms Deduutweth od oF t —E 
ina eutate Devore Yo Favors ett nog We 
oe See eS ———— ral 
euseqys a0 tat ob” sue vedureinm! ory nt Rotasett 
atiuiis! oe sau so!tutiagetD Ye ose oh «oii Oxo ted bt 
bomsim Jonaabut sid aw aaa ow wad onde | 
ord few boerover od sriabigbast - one 


ratoegeo edd ‘ouaut’ nt sug —— brs pete ———— 3 bite 
“tove ana dero do b ort —R — antad og swosnumnt Ba gh 
nave silt 02 “oiit oovwimd aw Bojiraion ewok tid itl te : 
seid) aotneb nolisdtiqoy eft HE titsntera .¥tde Uh F i 
énameve eld evotg of foostebar Imabmsted outs shit “Bi ont’ 
saa 2% S46 dag cdl ia 
<od yupolion efdetebtenos so eworle fiover erty enna Sts 4 
“ton # RO fwo0o al moltiouhotq etd gatdtove? Loamuoo Bne SquON' 
smomigta bro ‘tefad eit mI .egtatoeth benetfe ofS to yoo : 
hesdinde esw 32 Jorit omtalo trmbreted og 0% Leamuoo oil erotes 
Ve⸗atate ded Lalas ont Yo vowornig wilt wor —TItImtAlg ody 
«flim atid 20 snemeectenme etd eTOTed eesact? oa bexteoots sie 
vat ot ercte ers Sods ougts Yinrotse mOliqmmetq aids soqu tas 
“ot loemod ,vedevts dome ca Sokfos als rtadntan of sight on 
wal oft of am ccuet grietot efitw .Smenugt tere wt Ytdntaly 


ef ,boutalo we ges iarlonth off Sasbtiebeomeo gon ob ,sxtog effi fo 





—** 


admitted, but rather question the fact of the discharge, and claim 
that in any event the date of the discharge was never produced. 

We do not find in the abstract of record any admiesion by plain- 
tiff, as claimed by deferdant's counsel, The statement by the 
court that he would require the plaintiff to admit certain things 
“for the purposes of the trial," carmot te held to be an admiseaion 
by the plaintiff upon this point. Furthermore, an examination of 
the statement made by the court fails to show that it contains 
anything as to the time or date of the alleged discharge of Baus 
man, oo that there appears nothing evidentially or by admission 
proving the claim that Bauoman was discharged as trustee prior 

to the commencement of the suit. ‘%e must therefore decline to 
pass upon the mere academic queation presented, 

In the event of ancther trial, the questions may again 
arise touching the admissibility and effect of parol testimony 
concerning the sircumstances of the giving of the bond. What 
should be the ruling of the court thereon will depend entirely 
upon the particular matter before it at that time, sc that no 
good purpose would be served in commenting upon the parcl testi-e 
mony now before us. 

vor the reason first atove indicated the judgment will 
be reversed ard the cause remanded. 


REVERSED AND REMARDEDs 


—⸗ 

















mnie tee ö OPES tae a 
-beaunorg ven vaw ayuadoath edd to ofad eds scove 


o 
? Ho Rag. 7 . 


-atel¢ ti motnatube yan buocey to soespede ete —3 
ott yd sromedate oft -Lowsuoo e* smabmteh yd 


oti 
aciketwoo #1 dad? wore 08 eLtet Sumo edd od oben samen 
> & 1 


Se Sere ee eae 


is 

— PP gatties euseuen 9 —* 
1 

Jeet ante — 7 

es ay! 

— sy yen ga aera eftivs old 20 —— 


bosnenery mo iseeup obmebsoa ore ott 


* enter iw ‘ 
ataza You snotseausp ets yaa aalaoa⸗ ‘to wre — 


yronisess Leung ‘to soevte bas veikidinatome edt eee 

« > SOR 
sactii ote, Of 39 / 
| Uoutine dxogeb LLby avers? Poo ed Yo gnkivr onld wt 


td ee | 
on fads on gomts fact ta 3t ewied rodtox taluediuag 0 
“bined fonaq edt moqu aa aaaanoo at devise ed biuoR osoqth 
payer 


Lite jnougbut off hoseotiat evods Jatl? aosset ortt 10% i fee, 


oCGHIMAMZR CHA CHOU 





Ber Term, 1911, wo. ay Y, — * 
I VAALA Qn (i 
62 = 17560. | drw Vi. 
? 
— 


a PRA t £ aH. 

( SCHWARZSCHILD & SULZBERGER ie 
COMPANY y ERROR FO 

Plaintiff in Erro 

MUNICIPAL COURT 
) 
) 
) 


VG. 
MORREIG SHAPING, cy * oF —— 
Defendant in Errer. Yo ORAL ne ee ee 


BR. JUSTIGE FITCH DELIVERED TKS OPINION OF THE TA. 


Plaintiff in error brought a a We ai action” A..40 
tort in the Mumicipal court, elleging in its statemsrt of claim 
that the defersiant, for the purpose of inducing the plaintirr 
te sell him gooda on credit, falsely represented that he was 
solvent and worth ebout $8000 in real ari personal property, 
that plaintiff relied om these statements and scld and delivered 
to the defendant gocds of the values of £247.98. Defendant filed 
an affidavit of merits to the whole claim, denying indebtedness 
to the plaintiff and denying that he had made any untrue repre- 
sentations, asserting that “any cleine of whatscever nature which 
the plaintiff had against the defendant were adjudicated in the 
case between the same parties hereto in the Municipal Court, Fo. 
162447", and that plaintiff “waived any tort he ray have hed by 
reason of the institution of a suit in contract, being the one 
heretofors above referred to”. Plaintiff interposed a moticn to 
strike the affidavit of morits from the files, which wae overruled 
uper the ground that the portions of the affidavit above quoted 
censatituted a good defense te the present action. Later the de- 
fendant's attornsy moved to dismiss the suit “on the ground thet 
the plaintiff had waived ite right to brirg an action of tort by 
bringing an acticn on the contract, aa shown by defendant's effie 
davit of merits”. The bill of excepticns states that “no evidence 
er testimony was introduced on either of said motions", but that 








Od feb $8 dacs stasis teint iat 2 
— ne} as 
| -PEttalg ots adtoubat 16 shequey o4% tot dnebaste 
‘gee S4 dactd bedmoneryer ylcarsY .dEbet0 no abooy il 
eedoqorq Larosteq bets Laer mt 008g duode détow bk 
betovifed Sas Sice tna ediemedate sautd ao betier TH: 
— —— — 
edd af betesthuths oton jasbes'teh et? tentage bad ¥ 
“OW ———— 
Cn ds eee aa 
‘enn od gniéu “Joatince nt sive o 40 dolbudisesl $4 
of maton » hecoqrednt ritintals . "st Eerretet evota ote 
belirrieve sew dot welt? eft mort ottrom Yo stvabitte edt Sah 
betoup ovode thysbitte eft Io wacti10q edd sad? bavow, elt Me 
“ob oft total soltoe teeaetq ont? of cbaeted booy a 2 
sed Srwoxm edt ao” tivo oft sekmeth of hewom ysetotia et dns 
tro! 20 soliton me antes oF Matt O88 bertaw ned Tattnall of 
~itte Dircbastedh vo owode ea ptoetioes ert ao mobsoe na gatenls . 
earnebive G” Jadt setase anottqeoxe to SLE ett ."edtuen to tivab 
sas jot ."snmttor Blam to teitie no Seoubowtnt enw ynoakises’ 4a 


haga " 


—— 
‘ar 

















“26 


"for the purpose ef argument it appeared that a previous judgment 
wee hed on an action on the contract in the Mumicipal Court of 
Chicago, case #182447, in which these same parties were also 
perties plaintiff and defendant®. Upon this showing or admission 
the court granted the motion ef defendant's attorneys and dis- 
missed the suit “on the ground that the plaintiff by bringing an 
action on the comtract, waived ite right of action in tort*. This 
writ of errecr was sued cut to reverse that judement. 

it will be noted that the reason given by the trial court 
for granting the motion to dlamiss is substantially the sare as 
the reascn given for denying the motion to strike the affidavit of 
merits from the files, Pilsintiff in error has assigned as srrer 
nothing but the rulings of the court upon theese twee motions, 

Ae the ellezed "previous judesent" was not offered in 
evidence, nor cthervise made a part of the record in this case, 
we have no means of knowing what the former judgement was, except 
that stmehow, without any evidence, "it appeared for the purpose 
of argument", that in a prior action "on the contract” between 
the seme parties a jixigmert of some sort "waa had", Whether the 
judgment was rendered on the merits or otherwise is a matter of 
conjecture. Yor aught that appears in this record, the allesed 
former judgment may have been 4 volumtary non-suit, or 2 dis- 
missal upon technical or jurisdictional grounds, or because it 
was prematurely brought. if the statements contained in the bili 
of exceptions as to what happened in the trial court be considered 
as equivalent to a statement that the plaintiff for the purpose 
of argument admitted everything contained in the defendant's 
affidavit or plea of a former adjudication to be true, end that 
upon the basis of that admiasion, the court sustained the plea 
and granted the motion te diasiss, the ruling was clearly wrong, - 
because the defendant's plea of former adjudication is manifestly 





















— ~ fa 
to sod Lactolewt ed mt soarisee ed? mo aoiins ae a0 
osls ovew seteteg emse eased doldte at — — 
aotemimis to yrtwose aids soqU .“$nebroted bas Thttmbs 
ton steam ienhartnn Winn a lag 
ne grbgnted ed Yitinialy odd sacit pewory oct ao® Shue 
ott: ."tumd af motges % defats ost dovtew .tomnteen sith tp 
adeacgiut Sect sereves of sue deus eae totrme 
fraiwe Laid add wl nowy reece add decd Reson od Lt A iy 
Be gone off viketinadadue ct salnat> od molson od? patengm: 
go svehivin eds state of Avttor odd antyneb ta seta is 
sore o6 Demmtons aul serge me Wbinkeld .seLlt edt ag 
(sSaolsom ect anadt Gequ Jawon odd To saniiog edd sud g 
at beweTto fon sow “erombut Meusiwera” VepeLEe O89 OA goss 
onngurg org Tot betseqgs 2t* yoomebive yne suodsis 268. sadt, 
meewtod “Soeninos edt ao” soltos toleq « at sant. ¢ 
edt tesijert! .“hetl sew" groe exe to tnompbul s nee 
Qo wedden » af ontwrerise x alien odd mo Letebnet ose, rmmmie 
hegein ets girocet stad ak wiseqqe tard Sigua 10% 6 
“alb 2 © gtivarson yastouloy a aeed eved yer $ fut =e 
$2 anusoed 10 ,ehwor Lawoliosbetust 10. iastndoes segs Sepaie 
Eitd gdy mt bertataop admemtate ods 21 .stquows UeuoneNy gem 
botehienon of duvce Letad edd ok bemeqqed tudy of aa a 
eaequg off YoU Bitinialg ons Sadt Juemedase 4 od_4 Lip: oh 
iineinoted od nt hontatnos amitsqreve bestinhe. dnediares % — 
dais bow yours of 03 notsanthulhe sow? @ Io slg zo sivas ie 
ania od Ieatatosm ¢um0 ocid qnaleeitnbe:tedd 20 sinad edt coge, 
wae YoreoLe aes urtivs off queiaath of aotios edt Lagaemy, doa, 
visecetinam at mottep that ba resxot te agg e*tunhew hes esis osuaoed 


| es 


ra 


_=—— oo 


> 7 


wee 5 





Se 


too vague and uncertain to show, even prima facie, that the al- 
legea former Judgment is a bar to the present action, If it 
could be ascwned, without proof, that the former judsment was a 
judgment on the merits, the ples or affidavit of merits is even 
then, insufficient as a plea in bar, for it does not state thet 
the former judgment was satisfied, It has frequently been held 
that the mere recovery, *ithout satisfaction, of a judgment on « 
contract is mo ber to on action for deceit practiced in inducing 
the plaintiff to make the contract. Standard Sewing uachine Sos 
Ve Owings, 149 HN. Ce 503; Wanzer v. DeBaun, 1 Hele Smith, 2615 
Morgan v. Skidmore, 5 Abb. N.0. 92; Black v. Miller, 75 “ich. 
$25; Union Gent. Life ing. Go. v. Sehidler, 150 ind. 214; Horton 
Ve Huxley, 13 Gray 285, 290; Whittier v. Collins, 15 RH. I. 90. 
The rule that after verdict and judgment it will be presumed that 

was made of facts defesctively stated in the pleadings scamnot 
be spplied in this case, for the reason that the bill of exceptions 
affirmatively states thet no evidence of any kind was introduced, 
and the only admission of record is as above stated. 

the theory upon which the court evidently acted in hold- 

ing that “the plaintiff by bringing an action on the contract 
waived ite right of action in tort® was evidently the theory 
that there had been an election of remedies by the plaintiff. The 
doctrine of slection of remedies, however, only applies where the 
remedies are inconsistent. If co-sexistent remedies are consist- 
ent with each other, the Plaintiff "may adopt all or select sny 
one which he thinks best mited to the end sceught, and only the 
satisfaction of the claim in one case constitutes a ber in the 
other". Bradner Smith & Go. v. Zilliaws, 176 Ill. 420, 427. The 
rezedy by action in tert for fraud and deceit in the purchase of 
goods is not inconsistent with the remedy by action on the con- 
trect for the purchase price cr vaiue of the goods bought, for both 


— 
— 








-8- 
























⏑—— — 
are .nolsed Snonene oft os ted a dt sHomitut 40 
@ abt Scormbet <eaeet one dans ‘lia testa tad 
move wt abtros ‘to SvanET xo lite et? od toe et i & 
Said a3a2e Son Bob $f 45% prod At betq 5 os rte fo PY 
fect Meed yLsrewper? eed $1 — vow Senet 
6 no Smosh = 16 geotsostebise suot$ty yysewste | 
sriouind at Bebliermy 22Gb 208 notsoe ne Of dol OH EE & 
200 gettsibeat yatver Basbaase sfowrgee a3 exter of * u⸗nt 
ISR qiitiee G62 1 — be eee 
efoty OF stekits wv dsodt x8 0. deh € women 
soswt 1218 .bud O8f ,xethiros wv 200 spat S32 .SneD A i 
208 .t ot TE gomb tion .¥ xo ttt tdy oth "jie Gull aS 
Sat$ Beevong ed Lftu Jf Imomiut bee sotbrer wets day 6. 
Socmso agntheoly ed? HI beteta yLsvtsoeteb avec? to eban ws 
SS aS a ae Eee 
— ——— ym 
sir Nixie be Yad wae i era 
—— — ——— ⸗ 
— — 
ott eTitintai¢ ety yd eolbomet to noltsoelo ns ribed bait on 7 
ont orerty eeiigqs xno ytovewed .wolbenet to Httocte 3 bak 
~teltsoo ets vetbemes Smodalze-co YT .snedétencont ots SeEBeN 
wns toofee 16 Iie gobs Yan” TEtaisly ony teddo Was 
— ———— 
edd mi sos 8 eefudtienod 9586 ono af atats 8A¥ a⸗ 
i om? Sb cas” £fr evr yous Sttie wv so inser asanent “2 
l Ye oeaifowny oi) At — at 
— vot — 


‘ 








—— 


acticns procesd upon the theory of an affirmance of the contract 
by the plaintiff. iIn Brumbach v. Flower, 20 Ill. App. 219, it 
was held that a defrauded vendor, by bringing assumpsit to re- 
cover the price of goods obtained through purchase by fraudulent 
moans, was not precluded from dismissing the aesumpsit suit and 
thereafter maintaining ease for deseit in inducing the vendee to 
make the contract of sales. The Supreme Court affirmed this doce 
trine in the same case upon appeal from a lester trial. Flower v. 
Brumbach, 151 Ill. 54%. In Anderson v- Chisago Trust & Savings 
Bank, 195 Ill. 341, the court said of the two decisions in the — 
Brumbach caso, that the offest cf those decisions was te hold 
*that aseumpeit for purchase price anid case for deceit in inducing 
the sale ars not baeed upon conflicting positions, as neither 

is in diesaffirwanes of the contract". it is true thet in the 
Appellate Gourt opinion in the Srumbach case, supra, ur. Justice 
UGAllister said thet "if the action in assumpsit had gone to jJudg~ 
ment it would probably have been « bar to the action for the 
fraud"; but that statement was not necessary to the decision in 
that case, and in so far as it may seem to suggest any general 
rule as tc slection of remedies, or estoppel by judgment without 
satisfaction, it is opposed tc the rule armounced later by the 
Supreme Court in the case of Sradner Smith & Co. ve Williams, supra. 
“orecver, in this case it is evidert that the trial court held 
that regardless of the kind or character cf judrement rendered in 
the pricr action, the mere fact that a pricr suit was begum on the 
contract constituted an election and was, alone, a sufficiert bar 
to am action for the tort. In Garrett v. Farwell Co., 199 Ill. 
436, the court said, (p.441): “The institution of ea suit will not 
be helé such a decisive act as to constitute a waiver of rights 
which would be inconsistent with the maintenance of such suit (1) 
if the court in which the first action was brought had no jurisdice 



























Gogsince ⸗ 20 comnmittie me Oo yes ad? g — 
42 4258 «goa ERI OS namely .v goodmergs i —5 
—— — —— —— 
20 ooky 
ng Stue staquumns ed patsatemld movi bebulooag ac 
of eater pata of faced wi oc satadaman 
onb abst orate swod emwngue ott Res to sont 
<7 saw 5% inttd wodal » sort Lacque anqu cuse onan od? 
SOGIRS 2 22K SQRRiMD ~~ meapaiED ot «000 ~S1T £86 
ot wt ecolatoeh Gut ed Yo bles fume ond fh Lf. 
blog of ewe eaotatpob exoct? Yo toeYte add sadt * 
— at tfopeb co case tne eotay enadorug 302 te —_ 
rodton 2 yanoidteog Sntseliinse mogu beaad fox ome 
odd at said Giti St 2 ."FoatIn0 ent? 20 oe el 
eotvan iM qungue yeu doniears: od? st motatgs two0 ¢ 
~ahut, of nog dart Steqrusea at aolies edt 22" sods bro 
enld wi sotton oft of and 2 need evart yidadong f 
"mk molatoed ei? of yrssscven fou now soemtate Sah: Gell 
ee a ee 
tuodsis dmemzit yi Leqqotue 70 yeotbemer To moloele ot 
omg yi sete! beomuonme elwx oft of hesoggo st 3f o. 
Zip ,omolliiv «v .o0 6 ẽes qemhes to eezo ott mt sac0d ¢ 
Siert Suse felad adi tad? Inobive et 3f eceo ali’ alk 
at hereiee: tromabat to tesoetatio to Batt es to 
eS ——— 
aad geofottiue s ,ceois .eaw tas solseoole ma bestus liane " 
~f£1 C0f 4.00 Llowie! +7 Sdoyaal aI sf103 ec? to? soldat 
doa Site #fue 2 to sofsusteamk enr" 2(1£0>.q) sblae dusoo ond , BE 
esinit ne nevhos © etostienme of a8 Joa ovtelock = doum Died ef 
(1) stam Mosse Yo qqcarotnten oad. Ste Setatement of hime Anke 
wetbetwt om soc sword saw cotton SeakD eet cokite at suvon oid 22 





ar 
ip 
1 hee 


— 


io? 


ie 


tion to try the cause; (2) if the cause of acticn is premature- 
iy brought and is defeated for that reason; (3) if the suitor 
has in hie first action mistaken hia remedy and is defeated on 
that ground; or (4), if an action is commenced in ignorance of 
material facta shich proffer ar alternative romedy, the knowledge 
of which is eesentiol te an intelligent choice of procedure". 
The affidavit of merits does not negative a single ome of the 
four exceptions tims stated. Hence, sven if it could be conceded 
that the remedies ars inconsistent, the affidavit of merits does 
not state facts enough to show an election cf remedics,. 

For the reacons indicated, the judgment of the *micipal 
Gourt will be reversed and the cause remanded. 


REVERSED AND REMANDED. 
















~etotameig ef olsen to entinn edd TE (a> | 
sodies ott It (8) — ac 02 pone ot 
nO dedseteb af tre ybemor sid 
Sb bdditdigh — — 
endeivors act yybewor eviseniotis m toTtow 
Sehearnss ef Bios Ji Ti cove ,oomli .botato welt 
ceob atiror te Sivahttse ae taedezonoont am okbenot « 

«eotieaer to soltcefe ao wore oF dywone ssoat | 
Leqtotren’ ert to sreeeiat ot .betesthat uneseet ed? 16H 


it eee RS) ot 
a ee GS 


eGRGUARSA CRA Gai vad 


ares Seal 


PSS 


— 
>. 
2 S 
, - 4 
AP 7 24 Rad 
3 2s nth J * 


ey a 4 —* V GQ - _- a wea 4 
jt 7 


114 = 17637. — — 
TY tere. a. K a ‘A. a — 
4. , $ 3— —— i, — —— ⸗ —* wy 
GEORGH R. REYP, —— — 
Defendant in Errpr, BRROR {0 er 
VS. MURICIPAL COURT 
PORREST J, ALVIN, Oy , OF CHICAGO 
Plaintitf in YT OX. f ) Ay Ry Rel ary AA Ce vi — ole * te ae 


; 


Ades ££ si71 AY “/ A 


MRe JUSTICE FITOH DELIVERED THE OPINION a Pay: GOURT. 


= pA ka ae: | 


Plaintiff in error, the defendant 2 a * in attach- 
ment in the itunicipal court, has sued out this writ of error to 
reverse a judgment for §75 entered against him after a trial upon 
the merits, He contends in this court that “the proceeding is 
honeyoombed with errors", and points out (1) that the affidavit 
wae not sworn to, because the jurat was not signed by the clerk, 
(2) that the attachment bond is conditioned for the payment of 
all costs and damages that may be awarded against the defendant, 
(5) that the writ is dated January 15, 1911, and made returnable 
"January 19th next", (which counsel sey means January, 1912), (4) 
that the service by publication ie insufficient, (5) that the amend- 
ed affidavit states no ground for attachment, and (6) that "the 
evidence fails to establish any ground for attachment", 

There wae no personal service on the defendant, but the 
record shows that after the period of publication had expired, 
the "parties" came into court, and on motion of the defendant, 
the plaintiff was ordered to file a statement of claim within five 
_ days, This was general appearance, Defendant thereby waived ali 

- Objection to the proceas by which he was brought into court. Bald- 
win v. MoClelland, 15% 111. 48, The record also shows that no 
motion was made to quash the attachment until after the court had 
heard all the evidence and announced its findings, and apparently 
the only ground then urged for the motion was the alleged insuf- 
ficiency of the evidence to support the attachment. Defects of the 













~ominmetg ef mises to exian edt Th (2) fouus 2, 
ꝛo⸗ tae of? It (€) —— “ee anal «Ml 
mo hetseteb at few ybowor elt nededute coldoe soak? eb 
20 comeromst sf Seonommos af notices ae tt 4(*) to ¢iaua 
-"wsuheacig to eolets dregtifesnt ns of | 
Bebednise es bfuos tk T2 neve bene sbotate 
— atkrer: te tivahkYte exis ytasdetenoont om at 
‘ ciabatan te takipiele tiv welt “at: Mies 
trees nit chotnetiat enews eit 
—— —— — 


hk — ‘see 

2 a artis @ — 

ee 

kyr ee, SM A 
* 


Pe 


— 
=r — 


— 


— 
— 


114 = 17637. Ts ne ee Oe 


“4 } \. i Os : 4 F ‘= oe t 
Pee Rete ness Re ae Rem 

GRORGZ R. NEP, } [EE HS LAA Y 

Defendant in Errpr, BRROR -{'¢ : 

Va. WURICIPAL COURT 
FORREST J, ALVIN, WH), , 2, OF satoago, 
Plaintiff in Reror, ao & Fei wh. Cera” AA CR Sober ole fi MAA he 
Mid LAAA Vv, — 


MR. JUSTICE FITCH DELIVERED THE OPINION _ ie COURT. 


821.4. 


Plaintiff in error, the defendant J a yey in attach- 
ment in the ifunicipal court, has sued cut this writ of error to 
reverse a judgment for §75 entered against him after a trial upon 
the merits, He contends in thie court that “the proceeding is 
honeyoonbed with errors", and peinte out (1) that the affidavit 
waa not sworn to, because the jurat was not signed by the clerk, 
(2) that the attachment bond is conditioned for the payment of 
all costs end damages that may be awarded against the defendant, 
(5) that the writ is dated January 15, 1911, and made returnable 
"January 19th next", (which counsel say means January, 1918), (4) 
that the service by publication is insufficient, (5) that the amend- 
ed affidavit states no ground for attachment, and (6) that "the 
evidence fails to establish any ground for attachment", 

There wae no personal service om the defendant, but the 
record shows that after the period of publication had expired, 
the "parties" came into court, ani on motion of the defendant, 
the plaintiff was ordered to file a statement of claim within five 
days, This was & general appearance, Defendant thereby waived all 


. objection to the process by which he was brought into court. Bald- 


win v. NeClelland, 152 111. 48, The record also shows that no 
motion was made to quash the attachment until after the court had 
hearaé all the evidence and announced its findings, and apparently 
the only ground then urged for the motion was the alleged insuf- 
ficiency of the evidence to support the attachment. Defects of the 















—————— 
— 
virile oft ys bomts fon eaw Zumt, ott cousced .od mows’ 
chro tS 
wihabseteh ord sentone tebrewa ef yar said aeyamed baw ads 
eitarnitor ebam bre .{fOL «Si Yxaunst bedab at sine “sant 
(>) «(ALOE «Txaumet eaase ywo Loumuco doldn) ¢"¢xon der yaag 
~baoma ort? 4acd (*) ,$notolYumu ef aofieotidu ys eolvis edt 
edo" tat (0) Sno ydcomivadga to% dowory on eetste Shyshite 
"tremtoadia qoX bavoT ys dadidedve of allat —* 
————00——— 
sbetiqes bet notdeotidua to bolieg odd teste sats ee 
<Stabaeted et? to moktom mo hue yayoo ofmt emen * 
evi? miittw citale % dnometate # eL29 of betebto saw TREE | 
fifa boview yerett Jasbcoted .eonetaeqqe Letoren « aaw eld? of 
chisG .txvoe otnt dnyuord caw sit dotdy yd eeoporq odd of mobsout 
on torts eworle ovis frrooes ef? Ad LIT SAE ghowlsetoos ¥ 
Dac gtyoo et? tesvle Ltirw sromioatia eff dasup of obonm sav ttom 
<Linerwqye bre yogatbnt? eft boomers ha eomeblve eds Lie eed 
~tunt Segoita od? saw sotsom edd so? Deyn medt bavowy yino ede 
orld to efoeted .tmemiontta ent dtoqqum of eomebtve eit to yonetott! 





P 
+ FEA 
te 





«Ze 


kind here relied on, except the last of those above stated, are 
mere irregularities, and objections thereto come tco late when 
first made in the Appellate Court, Iroquois Furnace Co. v. 
Wilkin, 161 111, S82; Foley v. Boyer, 153 Ill. App. 613. 

As to the alleged defect in the original affidavit it 
may be said that a jurat is not a necessary part of an affidavit 
in attachment, when followed by the ismuance of a writ, for in 
such case it will be presumed that the affidevit was in fact sworn 
to, though not so certified by a jurat. Kruse v. Wilson, 79 111, 
233} Gox v. Storms 170 Ill. 442, 448; Biokerdike v. Allen, 157 
Ill. 95, 107. 

While the evidence as to the alleged concealment of the 
defendant so that service of process could net be had upon him 
is not very convincing, still it is not disputed, ani, unexplained, 
tended to prove, we think, such s concealment av the atatute oon- 

templates. Cooley v. Jones, 25 Ill. 565, 

| The judgment will be affirmed. 


APFIRMED. 























————— 
saa: s#'w00 adattogsA edt nt 
8E0 «4Gh fh SOL queyos «x yates 1888 Stk 
s‘auatan taatin oo hae 
: Stvabitte mm to sig 
4 at coi «hwo to sommuant ott | bewef tor 
cra go0% ot wow diveblYte od’ dad bomumenq of 
fil OF .SOMLLY ov om «tarwah © YS belakiqoo: 
—— — a AGDD νν. LTO! 
— 
AEA Et RA OE NY DN 
vdontaiquens boa pbeduqeld gon at th Litte 
~090 eduitese id 26 tmeniagonne « stove yintcd en qoreny Of 
ee ee 
oo» -phome2Ye od Lita 









8G ape 
eGEMALTA » o °c oe e 


; 
es 
by & iat 
a. 


Pay 
‘ 
ast 





1 

— 
ea 
) 


a at gous Let 





a F rant ae ‘ p f ; 4 
Yetober term, 1911, No. i VALAA Oar hk SS. bl OW gy ‘ad 






B42 « 17 97766 ‘oa Chay un .) g ” On| ee Can ch ows wr OL, 6 
f a >t ¥ ¢ 

AAS Ly £ W Rey 

LEONARD SHADBURNE, GO {) 
Appellee, APPEAL FROM Y — 
Pre deck ( Brew 
vas OIROUIT COURT fe ca aay 
Ae SBARBARO, GOOR cou, 
Appellant. wn & Bure an aA Na — a OL & 
WA hy } 2 ee av Re k. 


WU f 9— 


MR, JUSTICE FITCH DELIVERED THE oPINZON OF THE COURT. 


162 14. oO 


This wae a bill for dieaclution of partnership and 
for an seoounting. in hia anawer to the bill, the defendant 
(plaintiff in error) denied the partnership and oleimed that 
complainant was merely employed by him ae his manager and sales 
Man. under an agreement that complainant should reselve for his 
services one-half the net profits arising from the sale of auto- 
mobiles. The cause was referred to o master, who heard the evid- 
once and found that the agreement between the parties oontem- 
plated an equal division of profits and losses; that some busi- 
ness was done under the agreement, but disagreements scon arose, 
whereupon defendant tock possession of ail the partnership prope 
erty, consisting of automobiles, automobile aupplies, furniture, 
fixtures, ste., removed the sane and refused to account to the 
complainants; and that the amount due to the complainant from the 
Geferdant is $5720.45, Objections and exceptions were filed and 
overruled, and a decree was entered in accordance with the mane 
ter's report. ‘the defendant appeais. 
It is urged that the objections to the master's report 

_@hould have been sustained, beonuaes, it ic sald, the master did 
not itemize the amounts found to be due. There is no merit in 
the contention, The report states in itemized form, the sub~- 
stantial clements which entered irto the computation of the 
amount found to be due by the master, This itemized statement 
leaves no doubt as to «hat was included in the total. We do not 





y 


think it was neoossary for the master to give the detaile of the 





























+OH ,I[ fer wat todo; 





ue 5 { ? tod omnes 
* * —9— ag os 
—J Fees ee yeas Moa daz. seoiiegga 
7 ¥ 
* * sar a mel xf, 


ne ATT *—* i ee PF pao 
SARS *: ae bem) 


— wn cen rta Mt 


Be sok —õ— 


piensa cata an rede * 
tad bamtade dae ghienecrsag ost Sedna (ove a 
~neiae Bra aogense uti on ald ys Leyolgme Yiewem va - 
outa Yo else ed 907% sntotts ed tr0wg tout oc lad· ocio 
SEtryo odd brand oy yteduen 4 Of Derselet een enuen ¢ 
_ stadace evtiag odd movies dransemme ett tact | 
=tend omoe dacs teoewer bao ef tog Yo aoto ired Laupe ag 
180% NOOe adrenoetyAGld Sud qioomoetBs ey seb 
—— —— mat CR ase 
eid 0% tose of deauter tna ecwe exit Devenet 4s0He « 1 
ed? mor? Sramtatqmos etd of cub sruoma exit saxlt bes ' 
brn BeLl? etew anotiqsoxs dre aniotfoetdo BD, 00088 at 
vac: odd itn eomabsoove xt beredan exw cerned @ bas 
eLeeggo Suabatereb ett — 

sroqet otredeam er of enottoet do bad sacs boy wh #1 
Bib toSoam ais yhtew at ft somsaoed stenlegaun mood ovadt 5 
fit ¢ivem on of etect seu 96 of toads udmvoms edit —— 
~dua ori? ꝰꝰ— sao isaege00 : 
ent¢ 2o noltesuqmoe ed? ofnt bersdns sh Sete edcaneto uate 
scomesase Doxlmott afd? stednam od? yt oud od of bewor vy 
fon ob ow sfatod ott at bebulont saw sow of 0a suo on woveek 
ent to eLlnsed ai4 oviy of toteam odd ao) Yreueveen baw dl anid 


X 


+ ay 


. @ ap ee 





“se 


several items, ‘The details are shom, however, in the exhibits 
attached to the master's report. 

It ia next urged that 1t was error to enter a decree 
against the defendant without first settling the partnership 
affairs, It appears that at the beginning of this suit an in- 
junction was issued, restraining the defendant from collecting 
and disposing of the partnership assets, During the progress 
of the case, however, thio injunction was disasolwad upon the de— 
fendant's filing a bord to seoure the payment of any amount which 
might be found due the complainant, amd thereupon the defendant 
was loft in posseasion of all the assets, and preaumably has since 
ecllected the accounts and paid the bills of the partnership. At 
any rate, hoe did not claim or offer to show that euch was not the 
facty under such circumstances, it was not error for the court 
te find the amount due and owing to the complainant from the de} 
fendant on the basis of that presumption. 

The remaining errors asaigned may all be included in 
one, namely: that the master's report and the deores are cone 
trary to the evidence, The complainant testified unequivocally 
that a partnership was formed, and produced a number of witnesses 
who teatified that the defendant was introduced to them by tho 
complainent as his partner. The defendant, on the other hand, 
denied that any partnership agreement was made, and testified 
that the arrangement betwoen them was that the complainant should 
give his services and receive one-half the profits of the business, 
without being in any manner liable for the lesses., The defendant 
did not deny, however, that he was held out to others as a parte 
ner, nor did he deny that he received from the complainant, after 
the agreement wae made, cash and credits amounting to several 
thousand dollars, which were ueed in the business, After a care- 


























c.et bee 


— ah TE * 
i Pei 


sence was at coop dtl oe ¢ainein oS 
sdviqes otaodeon etd of atl 
senooh & inde of orto now 42 Saale Dog — bat 
qhterentisg etd yalisveu fou!) duoddiw sabewtOs off oe 
a 8 a te ee 
C ů—— 
<i se ene en, Ad a 
dotew Irwoms yee Io snomyag od ervoEN 93 huod w 
trabem te! os9 coqueted fos ,dmeolalgnos eit} oud bet 
ovate aed yidecumeng tame yadoana edt Lie te otenoeecq a 
ta aGideroniiag edd Ye slits edd bing bre etayoone ett. * 
O84 20909. ttt etn, oF waa. me afi, hn. A 
dum ect 26% t9T2® Jon usw Jf ,ehonetenuotte deus 1 
nb oct mort Inoctelqnes eft of gatwo tee oh sewome ¢@ 
i _enoliqumeng dad 20 stand edt ms 
— — — 
“M99 gris eotoeh od has Jnoget s'sedmun oft aaa⸗· 
Viiasoviupeny boltttees feaclalques edt seanebive on 
seosead!y 20 radmumt a Seaubowy dna ,beetot vw qldetenttcg i 
arlt yd mwit of bagukoyent ase snobroteb og sade : 
chad yecdto eft mo gtasheetebh ofl ,.nentiag ald a . va 
Soltismes rw i 
bicosia Innntalemos ocd $¢arkd aay mods seevted ——— 
wononinad ect Io ae acriq ots Yawn evleses bas eegtyren 
fmahqoreb oft  snoegol ens to? ofcalt wmnman ye mk ante & 
“ting 2 08 wvedido ot duo Did caw Ml tals qnevevod «yom ton AM 
wefte .Inen'alqnas eff aoꝝa Sevieoen of gadt yrod of DLb tom of — 
Iawavos of gnisnvoma attoere hen dase gohan sow snemeerse ett 
“e1aD © UOSTA kaontaud edt at heay oxen dole guuedlob Sameuods — 





. > La 
oF See 82 Boe 


*282 


ful review of the evidence, we are satiafied that the conclu- 
gions of the master and the chancellor were correst. 
the decree cf the Circuit Court will be affirmed. 


APPIWUED. 









ee ee 






ro Aa — me evden Pe Raney roniortece, HAS mg 







“Oe giad Te . * Te eae \ J— oi Te the — eg, 
te tie Keres joa tue J RM Shy Whar Wear ee ee A Pe 
Piha fal he pete iy ie, Rt Arar net Akiet Soetity, eed 


eo Sie _aiibasige 


¥) 














oP... CO EQ Hae. od NA oi it OR Biot. eee when — J 
oh Be Jec — tats HR). * ere ay wy. wo —— —— a 


bv gther 25 yt a - She ae pe og BAS ate F Fas (CAT —* os 


home tye * 


ae eet Fis: 1 







ghee reas 


hap g A NOt! BORER LY Doms Sy tet 


; } we 
i 


in ' — afi f * waTs —— 
F i ‘ : ; of 


- 2 
yuat we! IE De pts ei Toy Bee 








gil. No» 9 Wet 


Ee 4 wee 
a FM OLA, 






F october germ, + * pak ei ge —— Mactrars 
* QAA CR AAg 4 ‘oa 7 7) } —J 
q VA a abate f wo 68 RA. A ff —* t j 
$89 - 17926, | | * 
— 
JOHN G, SKIPLE Sr km # 
j Appellant, APPEAL FROM Franck WY L. fox and 
Va. CIRCVIT COURT A. ii — teh g A — 
JOHNSON CHAIR COMPANY, a coon county. Za fd, os 
corporat ion, a 1 x : — *Pprthers, 
x PRELAEC, O 
J I sd 2 I.A. 6 6 
oS BR, JUSTICE FITCH DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 


This io an appesl from a judgment entered upon a 
directed verdict for the defendant in a personal injury 
aotion. The plaintiff (appellant) is a carpenter and had 
been employed as auch by the defendant (appellee) for sany 
years, For several daya prior to his injury, he, with other 
garpentera, was engaged in constructing four large doors interide 
ed to be used at the north and south ends of the defendant's 
ary-kiln, a brick building 54 feet wide and 150 feet in length. 
Each of the doore was nine feet wide, twelve feet high, and 
three inches thick, weighing about 1000 pounds, They were 
constructed in defendant's shipping room, 200 or 300 feet 
away from the dry-kiln. Then they were ready to be hung, 
one Vinge, the carpenter in charge of the work, told the 
plaintiff and the othera there at work to "come along and 
garry the doors from the shipping room". In response to 
shia aummone aix or eight of the sen, including Vinge and 
the plaintiff, lifted the doors and carried them to the dry- 
kiln, Te of the doore were thus carried to the south end 
of the building and the other two to the north end, where 
they wore placed outaide of the building, leaning againet the 
briok wall. The ground around the building was uneven and 
atrewn with the debris that usually surrounda a brick building 


in course of construction. In setting down the last of the 






a7 oan ae — pel v ) * 


Son —R ey * * wh 















— ake 


90 A.I881 Isis one. ee 


(T8009 AYP YO HORATO ANT GARIVEAAG HORTT WOTRAUE « 


nea botedss trowgturt » abet Leoaae ax ot Lat 
4 vuitat Lanoarag * mk foabnoter od? tot ———— 
| “pat bas satanqtes 2 et (gust leace) iantata oor 
yaaa to? (settoags) fasbacted oat qd dew on OY J 
aedto ashi oi erent ‘eta ot ‘wolxq aynb tar⸗re⸗ wt 
~bhotit #160 egzat’ a0? gattouitencn nt bogeys enw 4 i 
et iaakcoten ed? Yo ahne dtuos hae ddxon ed? 2 bom 7 
edt gaol xt 206% ORL bine abiw soot 28 gareitud xoled « att 
bas ight toot ovier? ,ebiw tee} enka ecm ‘e100b out 9 to 
exer yadt  @taweg aco tuods sahdg tow “plone 2 2 oe 
hon? oor 1 O08 moor srtyqide o" aobao do⸗b mt bev 
eau ed of yYbeos stew rod? aoa sak thaeab — ro 
‘edt blot A⁊o ands to ———— at s0tn0q780 oat ‘ atv ao 

bas giole enon" of now te oxedt arate od? fan 112 * 
of Sandqees at “enon gatqqide nul? west atoob vat y 
bae agald gattulomt yrnm oct to Pry te ao xis woman 
“Y¥th edt of mort belaise bas atooh edd bearts “Mitatata | 
bae dtwoe edt of boszeae eudt atm axot oat Yo ovT 1— 
oredy .hae diton ent of owe xsdto edt * antoss 

edt teatags actasel cantoitud eae we ober beoaiq exe 
bar neveny eow ‘sabbttud odt bare bewo sy ou? thon r tone 7 
gaibliud soba » ebayer —— tant etaded eat atte —— 


a te 


ad ‘to ‘tent edt nwob gattten at -90 tteurtaa09 * ꝛuoe mt 





Be 
four doore, the workmen placed it in euch a position that it 
projected three or four feet over, or in front of, the open 
ing left for the doora in the north wall, A strong wind was 
blowing from the south, and asa the plaintiff turned away to 
go after hia tools, the door toppled over to the north, 
striking him on the head and back, and causing serious ine 
juries, | 

The declaration has three counta, The firat alleges 
that defendant neglected to use reasonable care to provide 
the plaintiff with a safe place te work, by permitting the 
ground to be "Billy and rough and covered with rubbieah and 
debris", whereby the door "slipped, moved and fell" upon the 
plaintiff. Taere ia no evidence whatever to the effeot that 
the deor fell because of thia condition of the ground, nor 
is that a legitimate inference from the evidence, The only 
reasonable inference from the evidence is that the door was 
blown down by the wind, or that the vorkuwen wore carglees in 
aetting it down, or both. 

The second count alleges that defendant negligently 
exposed the plaintiff£ to "extraordinary hazard” in permitting 
the door opening in the south wall of the dry kiln te remain 
open and witheut doors, whereby "the wind blew through said 
dry kiln from the south end to the north end and a strong 
draft was created" shich “blew upon said door the plaintiff 
was working om and moved it and blew it ower and it fell upon 
the plaintiff", There is ewidence tending to aurprort this 
allegation, but there is no averment in this count, nor is 
there any evidence in the record, that the plaintiff did not 
have full knowledge ef 4211 the facts regarding this alleged 
"unsafe condition of the premises", nor is there any averment 
or proof that he did not fully understand and appreciate the 
danger arising therefron. Some proof of that sort aas nege 


eagary to entitle the plaintiff to recover under the second 





eet As 2 


*- 


-~&- 
11 sau) soLsinome davp at #4 boule ameter 08? cetood i 
anaqo od? 130 trout nt mo: «xav9 gHoR rut 10 pewdt 
esr bain goofs A — dixon om? at axeab ont 102 
#9 Yawn Demme WWleatoly wdt we ite .HOWOR 























art ewotios gatsweo bas “— eee 
. « ye G 
coat tons o6T «=. BenHOO BOTT sad ao ttenecoeb at 
shiver, ef e100 Sidanbonet ory ot hetowlyen 
edt galetioreq yd tion ot seata ere⸗⸗ dene u 
— 
edt mow *{iot ———— 
sane toorte eit OF nevetady sonehive on of exeut 9 tht 
—* sono tg ‘enit to no tt thase eras te — envoed 5 
vino edt seonebive ods moxt eocareini otemitigel sa. 
asn 1006 od? tou? wt ednobive ed? wort — — 
al eas touas e109" neadtor oat tedd 10 10 ,betw —— a 
sdtod xo yamOb aah 
vitnogil3on nas bas ier twat aogelix soo baocee eat * 
an tas tearoq at "biesed vis touus aexs· oe rretatoia io b 
ates of alta ye od? % Slew aiwoo sit at gatance | 
btas dquo? weld botw edt" ydexsdu: e#100b suet iw . 
gnoxte » dae bas dtion ode oF bas Kitvos sae aoxi a 
Thiintalq od? took bier soa wold" divide — ven | 
aoqy {ist th bare tevo ¢i weld ban tt bovom baa ne 
aldt @soqqwe ot gnibae? oonthive &! eredTt — 
vt wit ,tavoo sid? oi teemevs on eb Onerit turd —X 
ton bth Wrltndale oat tant noo⸗r eat ad voussive ws 8 
beyelin etd? gadbugges e@ost oat Ls. to aaoaiwonk tut © 
tadanov⸗ YO Ovedt ef Tem .*Soeinorg od? to woitbbaao —J * 
edt etehoorqqys Die bastereteus vilut toa bbb od dade . , ena 20 3 
“bon sow toa tait to Yooug — — —— 


T 3 . 
bacoes aif r9hmy r9vooex OF yutaiate « ed? ‘eidtene Ey iT ee. 


a 
« 


re 


——~ 


eh ee ee ee eee se ee 





q 
} 


ee SCO. 


The third count, as anended upon the trial, slleges 





that defendant's foreman (1) negligently ordered the plaintiff 
"to place aaid door in a manner that wae not reusonably asfe, 
in that the foundation upom which said door was placed wae 
rough and uneven"; and (3) negligently "failed to brace or 
support said door in orger to held it im position and prevent 
it from falling while the plaintiff was in the performance of 
hia duty and work in said place"; and (3) thet plaintiff 
was inexperienced in hanging euch large doors, and that defene 
dant "did not inetruet or warn the plaintiff of the danger 
incident to the hanging of said door or preeautionary method 
negevssary to prevent said door from falling woon the gplaintiff£.*® 
Wheat we have said ahove aa to the lack of evidence 
to sustain the firat count applies with equal force to the 
firet charge of negligence specified in thie count, Aa to 
the second charge of negligence specified in thie count, if 
it was neceassry to brace or support the door to hold it in 
place after the plaintiff and the other workman had placed 
it against the wall in the manner above etated, that fact was 
manifestly quite as apparent to the plaintiff as it was to 
the foreman who wae working with him at the time, and where 
that is true, the rigk of injury ie aseuned by continuing at 
work without compisint, It ie not the law in thio State 
that an employee assumes only such risks aa cannet be obviated 
by the adoption of precautionary seasures by the master, "The 
true rule in this regard is, thet the servant aesumea not only 
the ordinary rieke incident to hia employment, but also all 
dangers which arg obvious and apparent" (MgCormick Machine Go. 
WV. Zakzewaki, 220 111., 52%, 530); and while thie rule is 
suepended (or its application denied) where a negligent, 


=@s 
tet ter aus — — 
ot (ter es Dw LF 

‘Wogelio ,{vtad od? sor bebaéhe ab — 
eontota ods dorocro vienestigen ( c) aous o⁊ oaa 
{Gee Yldsionses foam ay tek? tovkom o mt sob bise’ 
Sys b8GeTe wow MOOD Nites Hotdw nog ao ttabaioY wil 
S ↄoare of BoLtat® yltaostiyen (8) sae {*seveny naw 
teevedy bus moltioog aE ¢f Blom oF tebxe — 
to Wowhuxo tye vMt Ut ver Areaals ent eLtdw g 0% 

Pilendste saat (oe) Gite  ¢*woetG Whee — 
— wyTet debe yatyend ai 104k 
“qeynad oy to Watwtety silt wen x6 touddent tom | 
houten yrnmoityeossy 1 rob Stew to yattyasit ete oft 
*",T2iftthelq of% woke gakffet most ros bine toveny OF yi 
vonwDive Yo Hot wilt oF os ovodtA bine ovid OW Sule ® | alt 
$13 Ot wor10? Lavpe d¥te nan fits Ween We 1 | 
Of BA =, tnd OR? HE Dettioeye wowexitgor Yo’ 
ti ,tavoo ath? al deltiooqe sonsyhigea Yo eptads | 
| Oo en ee dar ving wine or — 
heools bid aswitor ‘tecto out bea Tientale odd Ye?’ 

exw foak tact ,betate ovode tetemm aur at flaw ond Fei 
OF 4 Wisataiq wilt oF fiviaqgs ea et iup vt 
Ii oteiw bas .emit off te ath Atte Saltiow oew ose 
te gatunltvaco yd deans at ydir~nt te dsix on? | 
} orate wldt mi wit bat ton SE FT | Vantekends a⸗ te Hew 
| besetvdo ed senmin ae eXely due Ylao seaynes oeyoiqne . * : 
I ed?” .xotenn ent yd eorvecem rane ltRoety To ao rscona ; — J 
yino ton semwes tnavree ef? out 13t Paper etd? mt ele: — n Be: Y 
fie owls tud ,tnomyolqae fd OF tmenton f eiiete erent — 
190 ontircl dotarobow) "enexnyce Bn exoivde Bye ain Ca 
| et efird etd? oftdw bae g(O8® (Ra”\. rr oe ddewoatad Sy 


‘ — * 8 orditw eter ‘stent tits att xo) “ bebaeqaive 
) > OE Slee aan a eee 































—— 


— 
peremptory command ia given by the master to do work which ia 
attended with eome danger of which the servant is not fully 
eogniszant, and the servant relies upon the master's order a 
an assurance that he may safely perform the taak (Republic 
Iron Co, vw. Lee, 827 Tll., 246, 258), yet if the servant has 
full and complete knowledge of the danger, or if the danger 
ia @9 apparent to any one of ordinary intelligence that the 
gervant ia not misled by the negligent order of the master, 
the general rule of assumed risk applies, and not the excep 
tion. E R, Co & 203 Tile, 493, Repub 
lic Iron Co. v. Lee, supra; HE, J. & FE. Ry, Co. ve. Myora, 

S26 Tll., 358; MoCormick Machine Co, vy, Zakzewski, supra. 

In such cases, the employes "cannot assume a fact against 
his own knowledge, and assume that a defect open to hie che 
servation does not exiat." Armour vy. Braze@au, 191 Til., 117. 
"If defeots are obvicus and open te the observation of every 
person of ordinary intelligence, and the evidence shows that 
employee has had full opportunities for auch ebservation, it 
ie aufficient te charge him with knowledge." L. FE. & %. R. 
R. CO. v. Wilson, 199 Tll,, 89, 97. "I@ the danger is such 
that a pereon of ordinary intelligence would know what would 
‘naturally: follow from the defective condition, and he has 
knowledge of the defective condition, knowledge of euch cone 
dition carries knowledge of the danger and the risk ie 
agoumed,® EF, J. & Fo Re R. CO. ve Nyers, supers. Here the 
alleged unsafe or defective conditions under which the plaine 
tiff was working and the danger arising therefrom were pere 
fectly obvious to every person of ordinary intelligence, and 
the evidence shows, without controveray, that the plaintiff 
had full opportunity to eee and to know auch conditionea and 
the attendant danger, With such knowledge, or oppertunities 
for knowledge, he could not have been misled by the were 


directions of the foreman to "help carry the doors from the 


the 


















Rtn died 
ek dokde 410m Ob 09 setnan, ait.we nemby pt. mn : 


viivt tom md taeeise a2 dokdr 20 angen ompe ds 
B® tobi e'aetnen oud? ao au atten inavres one i 
aAlulauaei Ann? of? muptavd ylokae yon os tat 
Sh Ppevuse wit th toy (822, BOS guilt 18S 
vopnnb oat TE 10 qxoyasd #49 Xo eyhedwond. 
oat, asas ooneatlfetat yrankbhw Yo. ono yas oe 
__ stetenn odt Yo xcobx9 tregtigon aie — 
apne: 048 Pan, — FPR AI 
duced asee afi l O06, Aaee 
een ea ee ae we smu tt 
vas dhnmende® 02.09 onidonl dotmnedee 888 
(teakege topt # omens tounao" enol que edt 4ae 
“do eid OF aeqo tooteh o stadt emuvnnn daa | 0g he ly 
oThh ge fll (OL gupmiers .y auomgh * tetas ren aoab 
Yreve. to moitavicads ed? of aeqe bat avo ivdp on ef 
ont ted avede eonebive edd bas eeonas tiletmg rns 
tk ,ngitavasedo douse x01 seltiautroqqgs List had — 
Gel bordel "“sadelwaat datiw ahi aua aao ot twek pt wns i 
dove ei topand ot QI® «30 «86 oLt7 O85, upeket a 
bisow Jaiw wond biuew vaneetlinént vieathso to sone # 
asd Of dre yiOLstbnoo evétoeloh oi? gotd woise® 3 b tbe 


ahd 4 
, “~ 
Ls 


v4 


7090 dove to egbelwoud Ao te bao eviigelkes aa? * 
ei Aet⁊ ode bua vegcad edt Yo egbelvond oviréo 
ed? ooh Aaaua AKON Al n0D ofl eh AM abad My 
-aialq edt dolite tobe nme te ibnoo ovitnerer T Olesen | 
“Teq orew soxtered? patalrte teyash ed? has antizow gem 
baa soonegiflotnt yrenthro Yo mooted yrove oF scot ote 9 
Nie⸗atala suit fadt ,ysievostaoo tuodtiw gevodn eomehive ode ; 
baw enoktionoo Joup word of baw aos of ytinutsoaye Lint bad 
aot? knuti0140 10 ,epbeLwond dave Athe steered 3 bes 


oxen ai! Yd beletm avo eved fom dkueo ox 
edt mort @to0h edt yx160 qtea" @? gagotot ef? Yo enoticerib 








- 5« 

shipping room*, and to place them against the brick wall, 

Bor did the plaintiff attempt to prove that he waa not fully 
aware of auch conditiona and danger, or that he wae in any 
manner mialed by the order of the foreman, Without such proof 
the plaintiff failed to establish a prime facie case of 
liability under the second charge of the third count. 

As to the last oharge in that count, no recovery 
eould be had on therfactea'ahown, for the reanon that there 
wae no duty resting upon the cefeniant to warn the plaintiff 
of dangera which were obvious (C, & A, Ry. Co. v, Boll, 309 
Tll., 25, 31), nor was the defendant required to instruct 
the plaintiff, an experienced carpenter, aa to what "preeau- 
tionary method", if any, was “necessary to prevent said door 
from falling upon the plaintiff", 

Ye are of the opinion that the court did not err 
in giving the peremptory inatruction, end the judgment will 
therefore be affirmed. 

AFFIRMED, 





a Sr ee 
: | 





ete 
‘sitow totse ode tanhags ante onlay et fine 
vilut eur eae en-tiae — 
© Yaw mt waw bt SoM 2 yrognad how agers tnd dove’ 
‘() # te esee aaaaa Malas 8 dotidnzne oF Det 
«%2n00 DELAY Od? Yo eRTANo hmene Oct vena 
“EReVOOHs OM tnd tai? ot ORHdo tHok ont OF BAG 
Witatale eh anme oF tusmnater oir aw Saltewn 
-vapetg” taity of vs yretaccies bedadtzenne me 
Se oe ee re — 
‘18 ?on bib guesishn eameniaiie ode vero ok * 
— Yi: 
ne —B ao 
Sh ee OR f ay J 

















Bin 





i7z at ha F efla ode * 
— Sherer — D — zo? 


a° of -paeO MR » Ye aeeeegen he 


=o 





————— 


ince Lok ee Se . . 
gotober Ters, Mite @ ow 
A avn), Cf, 6 arty ¢ 






ee ou B. — ¢ | 
409 - 17947, — ‘ee ce) 
; ORAALA ay 
Ly 
CHARLES n. KAPPES | "hb 2 
Appellee, APPEAR FROM “oJ ary A. 


VB. 


AMERICAN LINSERD COMPANY, a) 
corporation, 


WR. JUSTICE FITCH DELIVERED THE ic OF THE COURT, 


Appellee, a real estate broker,— 8. 8.2 isthe 6 8 
the Municipal Court to recover commissions for selling certain 
real estate, He recovered a judgment of $1,250, after a 
trial by jury. Hin atory of the transaction was act denied 
by appellant, except in one particular, vie: « telephone 
conversation with appellant's manager confirming the authority 
of one Pfitsch to conduct nezotiationa on ite behalf. This 
conversation was denied by the manager, who testified, however, 
that after learning from appellee that the latter had a prose 
pective purchaser for appellant's real estate, and suspecting 
that the purchaser wae a railroad company, he hired Pfitech, 

a detective friend of hia, to "find out who the customer was"; 
that Pfitsoh "amoked them out® and "found the cuatomer"; that 
he then “omployed Pfitsch to negotiate the sale"; and that 
when he (the witnesa) signed the contract of sale to the 
purchaser thue "found", Pfiteoh and appellee were both present. 
Thie was appellant's only witness, and upon this evidence, we 
do not eee how a different verdict could weil have been renderd, 
Upon thie state of facta, the alleged error in refueing to 
atrike out appellee's teatimony as to a conversation with 
Pfitech, which wae admitted upon the promise of counsel to 
show Pfitach's authority, wae immaterial. 

The verdict and judgment are so clearly right that 


we oannot avoid the conclusion that thie appeal was prosecuted 


IGIPAL COURT BA nat, 
OF CHICAGO _αα 

Nghe. OC. ite 9 0! 

Appellant. ¢ i — on Oa 


Mm 
v, 


cae 


‘ | ee 




















e 
—R 


Bes a 


a 





Aa > 4 —5 — — —* wort 
Ms 2 SON IAT 
2 +>. ss aiie ' 


— mae adi} 
Wee oe oh BS Paz 
| AAT 10. ROERTIO str on em — 
‘etatce Leet a | 

ctateso gakiion vot amoleeimaoo revousT of t1v0d 
# tote 988,19 Yo toomphal o Betevover oH, 
| Saostgetes p ratv yxotvbtiread no Wi tqeone y 
Vtiwodius edt gatwritsoo tegenas o*tnellegqe Atte ¢ 
slat — Readod eft co anott se¥onew toubmoe oF MoNtLTT OF 
etevowed ,boltitees ofw ,xepenem edt yd bethbh aew so 
“#029 2 had Bettal odt ted? eolloqys mox? gntazbol 209% 
galtooqeiue bas ,atetee Laer e'taalleqqs wt toeedowg . 
efoerttt? bexrta of ,Yasqmoo beotliat # sew te8sdoteq 
("ser teaoteyo ed? Odw dyo hait® of eid to baettt evi 
ten? {*s0eaetsve odt bawot* baa “tuo and? bexome"* dost 
fant bane j*olee edt Ofaitogzens of doetitt beyolame® 
edt of elae to fosttmoo ed? beagle (aneatiw od?) od 
-tueaetqg diod erew osifeqqe base doasitdT ,"bawol" eudé £ 
Ow ,e@onsbive eld’ moqy dna ,eeentiv yino e'faalleqqa ome ond? 
/exebaes sevd ovad lew bites taibisv fasteTItb # wos soa ob 
of gatautex at rote bogeila ad? ,atont to etete eid? oq 
d¢iw aoltaarevace 6 of ae yaoulieo? a eolloggs tu® Bx ate 





oft Leatwoo to eslaoxry sit aoquy bett?labsa saw doltdw ,doa?t 1 

-isktesennd new ,ethioddve e'doatitt wode ¥ 

tadt tagit qelrnelo of ors taemgbvt bas fothrev sdT sat 
betuoono1y saw [eoyqa std? tan? aolanienoe ed? blove gonnse ow 


~ 2» 
for delay. The judgwent will therefore be affirmed, with 
statutory damages of one hundred doliars, The motion to tax 
the cost of additional abstract will be denied, however, as 


we think it was unnecessary, 


APFIRGED WITH DAKAGES, 






Days ene — 


— adie Dahir e ta ver ie —e— 
i CA° RRS och oe OY Ane — WR pet { 
ties) 2 ew pee |) 
ORS: Mae aie eRe ae 4 : et te Bete ae 

















pho 44d 9 i ee pee eee 


xo 2 Pee ee 


, 
G 


z: hf o th ia Pate Oe See 
* 


4— 








atl 


4 

s 

~~ 
nl 


ee ee oun wR ee Be a wee —— 


ag 










rch HY Se ee ut of (0 eer) petaeeee” 


‘on Zotadotag 
* J ise 94 * e eis 29 bore hat “Vv 


— “fun wad? bedows*® 


* J : ? a (sh 2 WOE Sen 
—W we etetn gin? 
. . yokes , . tenilecan — — 
te ” wad 
yf é % HI wePerare fs dolne — 


— 
* 1A * yrehsodaue a; 99 199 


i al . We > hry T 
s t * ‘ au . ‘oO? * 
oa 4 ; : —R Sti ova FO 
\F ~ 
A 
j ’ 
ih] 








“October Term, 1911. No. 


ãA— ⸗ 


446 ~ 17986, 4 






WALTER MILLS, 
Appellee, APPEAL 


VB. SUPERZOR COURT, 
EDWIN S, MASON, OOK COUNTY. 


Appellant. 
1821.A. 69 


STATEKENT. On May 6, 1907, appellant, being then 
the owner of a ninety-nine year leagehold and aixestory build- 
ing on Monroe street, Chicago, executed hia eleven promissory 
notes, aggregating $10,000, payable to his own order and ene 
dorsed by him, and to secure the payment of the sane, executed 
his truet deed, conveying to Gustav Tilke, as trustee, the 
jeasehold and building, together with the bollers, engines, 
elevators, hesting apparatus, and other machinery and fixe 
tures therein, The first and second notes were for $250 and 
$750 reapectively, due in one year, and the others were for 
$1,000 each, cue one in each year, after the first, for ten 
years, Appellee becane the owner, by purchases, of ull but 
the first note, which waa owned by Villiem L. Wallen. On 
Waroh 17, 1908, appellee filed hia verified bill in equity 
setting up his ownership of the notes, and alleging that for 
monthe appellant had allowed the building to remain vacant, 
that it was producing no income and was subject to a rent 
charge cf $6,000 a year and the taxea and assesaments, that 
the machinery in the building was firmly attashed to the aame 
and a neceasgary part thereof, had cost $4,000 and was worth 
not lease than $3,000, that appellant, with the assistance of 
The Power Equipment Company and Phe Merchants Transfer Company, 
wae engaged in tearing out the machinery and equipment and 
removing the same, whereby the security for the peysent of 


appellee's notes was being wasted, and that on that aceount, 





r fl 






















« z ok 
i beep we tet out —— oe Oe } 


WMW 


@d .ALSSE — 
med? a tad .tastiogia .SORT 3 ve ao ruxucraxrs 
Vroesiaory aovo ſo atd botvoaxd yogaoid? yteotte earned 
“19 brs TebrO owo whi ot eldiysy (600.0 | 
boruoono omer ↄaFe e⸗aoat⸗a edt ↄtuoo⸗ OF tte ala we 
edt yoofoust oo yeXLt! vatev® bt gatyavdoo (hesb ; 
qaniigie .erellod oft ddte pastoyo? ,gnteiivd baw & 
baa G2A$-20% exe” Seton bioobe bad texét 4AT ai 
wot Sew axeito od? ima gtAsy ond ai ood y¥leve 
fiet wt ,textt oft sotte stacy doce nt eno sub 
tude ile to woondotin yd .renKo sd? odwond walteqa@a 
MO = smOLLs¥ 4d mwhtise yd donee waw dotde ,oton Bi 
yrivpe af Lild bettixver atd Sell selleqge ,BO@L 4 
10? fait gebgelin vas yweton edt to qidatoneo 42d gy 
~teosy mtames of yaliitud ent bowolie bed dani leqqs 
taex # Of toatdwe eaw bus omooal oa ga toubor; saw Ps 
tadt ,atcouacenes ban sexat ed? saa ta8¢ #8 000,08 Yo | se 
sue oif of bedostts ylaxit aow gatdlivd edt al yreaidosm: 
Atiow ate bas 000,94 teoo Bad ,oetedt Pisy — a 
Yo eonstetana edt Atiw ytaolloqqu fodt ,OOO,Ee aad? geet * 
cYns aD setensu? etaedore% eAF bas Ynsqaod taemeivp4 Tew 
bas taeaqivpe bas yitaldoaa oat sivo gutiueer at — 7 
Yo snomyay Od? vol ytiwose at yoersie yemee out satvoues 
nauvo ooa Melt ao tedd baw — antes | enw aeton a*eotlogya 


Apee O29, 0") 


Z| 


hy 


i 


— a —— 


—__~ 


— 


2 

appellee had elected to declare the whole amount of the ine 
debtedness immediately due and payable. It was also alleged 
that the first note had been paid and that the property was 
acant aeourity for the payment of complainant's notes, The 
bill prayed for an injunction, s receiver, an accounting and 
a @ale of the mortgaged premises, if the amount found due 
should not be paid within a short day, After notice to the 
defendants, an injunction was insued restraining the defend- 
ante from removing any of the xachinery or fixtures, until 
the further order of the court, A motion te disaselve the 
injunction was made and overruled, The cefendanta then 
anerered the bill, admitting the allegations regarding the 
execution of the notes and trust deed, but denying appellee's 
ownership thereof, and that the first note had been paid, 

and denying thet they *have torn out of said building any 
boilers, enginee, or other machinery, apparatus and equipment 
of said building, except two Corlise engines and their cone 
nections which were net used," and which had been wold. The 


aneawer alao denied that waste was being committed, and denied 


the right of appellee to deciare the whole debt due. On April 


27, 1908, appellant filed hia crosaebill, sverring thet in 

Se tember, 1907, Guetav Pilke, who then owned al] but the Tiret 
of the notes secured by the truest deed, offered to sell the 
game for $4,700, «hich offer wae aoce;ted by appellant, whe 
procured «a certified check for that amount and offered to 
endorse it to Wilke; but that on ®ilke’s requeat, the matter 
went over to give him *an opportunity to seoure the said notes 
and truest deed from hia attorney", and later Wilke informed 
appellant that his attorney had eold the notes for $6,000 te 
appellee, The croes bill charged that the sale by the attor~ 
ney was not a bena fide sale, but waa collusive and fraudulent 
and prayed that it be 90 decreed, and the notes be delivered 


to appellant on payment of $4,700, A general and special 





, a 


~&«- 

mel odt Yo tavome efode ott exetond'ot Setedls 
bepetie oxle sew *2 8 ,efdayeq bee euh yletetbecald | 
ae⸗ yitoqowq ed? tad? baw biaq need bad eton text? 94 
ec? moron o'Pnanketinos Ye tmemyng sdé 4O¥ er tevoee ft 
ban gaitavooor m2 <tov 19087 s xo 1 bau tat a6 22 
sud bavor Hmwoie off YE yeoetanry bogestzol odd 
pi? OF Oolton tO7TA 86 .yab trode s» aidtiw btaq ed 
~bastoh edt guintertest beyent saw gottonutal aa» 
Litas ,aexuteit 1 grenidess edt to Yas galtvomet 
od? evivestd of mohtom A. .taupo. ed? to seb10 sedhe 
aed? Stnehapted on? _.kesytrove bap ebsa exw sohtem 
edt gadbtages enoltegsiie elt gatttinbe gLiid od? Sem 
e*eelloggs yalynsh ted: ,dseb fewtt hoe. eaten. 6a% to 
_ eblag need bed ston fext? sat sact bas la 
yan gatuLkud bias lo #9 mao? suai". vod? tags, 
taoaqiups ban suteseqge ,Ytealdoas fedfo to conga 
000 tied? baa eentgne eellxoD ow? tqoone . Udl dus bbe 
r  .kOn m90d bad dotdy baa *.doaw —* 
beineh base ebes t keuno 9 aaied aaw ofeer Mai?. bosaed onta ⁊ re 
fivqA a0 nub #dob elodw ed? azeloeh of selieqys. 20° : 
ai teat gatrrove .Lild-av010 oid belit saalteqae ¢ 
tatkt ont tod Llp beawo asdt ody ,otli™ Vatoud ,TOCs 
edt. iiee ct betetto yhoob tows? edt yd bemuves: eotoa 
ode ytagileqys Yi Petje0ce owe aetto dotds. 1009.8, 2088 
@? betetlo bas tavoma tad? 20%. doedo. boltissioo a! 
tettem eds ,feouper a'odli® ao tad? sud jedls¥ of. 22 is 
cotee biased? e109 of ytinstieqqo asꝰ ald evig of. <2v0 tom 
bomap tus ox. 29 (total baw _"you19tts etd gost, besb E *7 
Of 000.3% 10% epton edt blow bad yontotts. eld tadt tae 9— 
—“10tte od? Q¢ ofee edt tad? begisedo iid evox. odT — ——— —* 

taolubweg? bao ovieulico ean tud ,elee gbhli sgog a. £98: PERM = 

betavilel od saton od? base ,heeneeb.os. ed. a. fed bexerg.oy 


iatoeqe boa Lerenesg A . 007,08 te ¢ueayaq co gaallogaa 


al 






















ea) 


peas: 


~3« 
demurrer was sustained to thie cross bill, und appellant filed 
an amended oross bill setting up the same alleged facts in 
more detail and offering to pay $4,700 fer said notes. A 
demurrer wae sustained to the —. which was there= 
upon dismissed for want of equity. 

On June 5, 1968, appellee obtained leave to file 
and filed an “amended and supplemental bill," in which, after 
reciting the filing of the original bill and the subsequent 
proosedings, and a provision in the trust deed requiring ten 
days written notice of default to be mailed to appellant before 
the whole amount should be declared due and payable, it was 
alleged that the first two notes had become due on May 5, 1908, 
that the first had been paid but the second had not been paid, 
nor had any interest on appelise'a netes been paid, that on 
May 11, 1908, appellee mailed a written notice of such default 
to appeliant as provided by the trust deed, and on Nay 33, 1908, 
appellee declared the whole amount due and payable. The 
Supplemental bill prayed for an aceounting and decree for the 
payment of the whole amount of appellee's notes, and a aale 
of the property, unlesea the amount found due be paid within 
a time to be fixed by the court, and the defendante be fore=- 
closed if the property sold be not redeemed according to law. 
To the supplemental bill, the defendantea filed an answer ade 


mitting the service upon appellant of the notice of default, 


and peither adwitting nor denying the other averments thereof. 
After, the erose bill bad been diamissed, however, the defend- 
ante obtained leave to file and filed an amendment to their 
answer, in which they inserted, slmost verbatim, the same 
allegationa of an alleged sale of the notea by Wilke to ap- 
pellant for $4,700, 09 were Contained in the amended cross bill, 


and charged that the purchase of the notes from Wilke by ap= 


pellee wae not 2 bona fide sale. 





-s.- em 
Polit sasilorqe baw shldd onore Ofd2 9%, bonseteus saw F; 
at ston? begelia use eg? qw aatises Lite anore D 
A s@ndon. dias 79%. ODT eH8. vad. OF: aRbEORRA, bee. | a 
warod? saw dokdw ,ilid,bobnens on! of deateteue, oa. 
go Spe: _ ettigpe Yo daa mp7, vere 

sit? of nis peat etdo — Aoac ot, AO 9 
tatio  ioldv mt %.liid letasaeiqaue Sas bebaege®, 
Paeupoedes oA? bas Litd Lantgixe ed? to. 
aes golrinper hevS Sous! of? ai goletverq & 
o10ted tasileqga of pubten oc of thyatod to egiten ne 

saw th ~oldeyeq dao owb begalged ad blyody #1 

s806L 42 ym ao 1b @mmosd Had carta ont sont? one 
sbieq need ten had bnooon ait. dug, béeg. nen, Lad, Pest? 

no tel? .hieq anand: anton #! veitequs ao daeroea· we 
tivated dove te sottan aettian @ baliag eed forge, ~AQCs, 
ORL LB YOX Go kan ghowd Sours, ode YS beblwong ee taal 
ad? —_ .idayag ane oub grwoms SLodw odd | 

od? 70% woxs9b bas, padtawe ope ors WO), boxer Lids 
Siow 8 bas geeton #'eeliegqa to savome elodw ods, 20, & 
Bidtiw bing od oul Davot #aome ed? eentnus « 
<9? 40 atushaoted ode das yo edt Yd bent? od | ‘ 
eel ot yaivrooos, bemoeiet tom ed blow yiaeqorg edt 
«ba ineens 29 boll? ataabaoted edt Lid. Lascomelquup 4 
etivateh Yo setsen ed? 2 tngdleqge segue solvzee | 
looters @fnemieve ted?o odf antyash toa gris? habe + 
~baeteh edt ,teverod ,beantuatd aged fet Lild seor0- ' 

thot? of tneabaste ne boll? tad offi 6¢ evaet bentadte 
oun ont «mitadsoy teomls betzoantyon! Aolaw n 
~78 of eff it yd toten sat ‘yo Craw bepotte me to anoles 
«ifid @nots Sebneme edt at ——— o —XR dor at ‘bi a 
“18 4S WALLY QoxY soto bad Ry” ————— 
~ etae 960 anode ‘ton tin Wotteg ff 


*,@% ‚————— ute 


























ey) p 


f 
r 


“ 


-4 = 

The cause was referred to a master, who heard the 
evidence fully, and reported the aawe, with his findings there- 
on, and recommended the entry of a decree according to the 
prayer of the original and supplemental billea. Kxoeeptiona 
were filed to his report and overruled, and a decree was 
entered accordingly, from which the defendants prayed and were 
allowed an appeal "jointly and severally", on filing a bond 
of $1,500. The defendant Mason alone filed such a bond. 

| Upon the filing of the transaript of the record in 

thie court, a motion was made, the decision upon which was 
reserved to the hearing, to etrike from the record the asaigne 
ment of errore and dismiea the appeal, upon the grounds that 
the agaignuent of errors purperte to be made by all the cefene 
dante instead of by Wagon alone, and further that the record 
shows that Kason has parted with all hie interest in the morte 
gaged property, and therefore has no interest in the reault 
of thie apreal. 

The errora assiened are eufficientiy stated in the 


opinion tae lng this — 


theca Krag * ager eth — Gathacr yt. Onx ifm ap prther, 


UR, JUSTICE FITCH DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 


The motion to dismiss the appeal must be denied, 
It is true that Mason ia the only defendant who has appealed, 
and therefore the other defendants cannot assign errors, as 
appelianta, upon the record, nor can Mason aesign errors in 
their behalf (Norria v,. Downing, 196 I1]., 91), but the ae 
Signwent of errors, purporting to be made by all, ia mode 
"Jointly and severally", While euch an assignment is unavaill- 
ing aa to those who have not appealed, it may nevertheless be 
properly treated aAs a separate assignment of errors by Lason 
slone. Rorris v. Downing, supra; Gross v. Streyzoweki, 
184 111. App., 300. Aa to the point mada that the record 


shows that Mason hea sold the premises, anid therefore haa no 


a¢- J 
——— 
—— 
6d? Of nothwdobe ebxebb "nh Yo Yuin ‘iat Gebanane een 
f sdoteeoxR .witle Ledieintqadd ona taaia ias oth 16 
ri ; tow soxoub o has yhodwateve’ ban’ txodes \ A of 5 
erow tne beyeay stistcwtes ad? Hotty wext — 
nod dattte nO \*eLfeseves cae rentote caaee 
.daoe & done DOLLY sxoLé mova tuennetes eat “LOONGl 
} at basodr edt to tylxoemsrt oat to yattiy dat mae 1/7 
~~ | dew ienav dog aditwieed od? ebie eee nobtea ‘sy 
angles» aut bHbet oft soxt. stixte of .gAdaaia ‘od 
fod? obmiory i? modu .Lenaye odd Sotantd Bad 
“adTeb od¢ Ife yd eran ad of eteoqmg tortie ‘tod 
Rivest odf Yad? xoHtist bud ,onols dowan yd Yo! 
<tiom dt Ai teeredal ob Ifa afte Beding ead ad 
ttaied set at tnadstin —* ——— t19qo74 8 
| ‘ , wa: eT — * 
eat at Setete — — sve » Dona teas aroTt8 oat 



















<trivon aRT 19 —2 set CARRS wont, 











— 9 


—— —X tawgys odd oehueth of ao tton oat oe 
Otheedae Bad ody Punddsted Ylo ade WF mow FaNy Wi 
| as ~STOTLe agtaes foNMED atnehwsteh tte edt" 
i at exoTTe ne tees Age ad om ybacont MM? bay 





| mts ot tad ((£@ ge ihl OCT \Qagerot .v eteean Rraded 5 it ue 
shan of .{i6 YO shen ed of gaitroquug yerOwESto gneeit 

. ~liavany ef thong teen me dtoue OLka | 6 MELLereves baa wid 

} od eeeledtxoven you *t ,beiesgee tom sund osw erod? were t 

4 ooesd vo Crowe 10 tneenyinee eteraqp@te os a 


li dAowony iat6 jes ee — — — — — A 
it biooes edt fait ebea tntoe ei OF RD DOE Qhagh LENORE 


| t 

i} On Goi oxotaradt bee eedtionq edt Dise Rat monet Fhatd Coie 
I} ’ 
—9 ¥ 


* 


~ 5S = 
further rizht to continue the litigation, it appears that he 
parted with hie interest pendente lite, und as hie grantees 





were not made defendants in his ateud, he continues aa the 
only party repreaenting their interest, and aa such, he haa 
a right to apreal. Moore vy. Jenks, 175 Tll., 157. 

It is urged that the original bill wae ineufficient 
because no notice of any default or breach of covenant was 
mailed to Magen, aa required by the trust deed, before the 
auit wae begun, and that the failure to give such netice ten 
days prior to the filing of the 111 was not cured by giving 
such a notice later and thon filing a supplemental bili setting 
up that fact. In Killer v. Sook, 135 Tll., 190, it is said 
(p. 205): "The rule, as we understand it, ia well etated by 
Chancellor Walworth in Gandler v. Petit, 1 Paige's Gn. 168, 
and is, in eubetance, that if an original bill ia whelly de- 
fective, and there is no ground for proceeding under it, it 
ean not be sustained by filing a supplemental bill, founded 
upon mattere which have subrequentiy token place; but that if 
the original bill is aufficient for one kind of relief, and 
facte afterwards secur which entitie the complainant te other 
and more extensive relief, he may have auch relief by setting 
out the new watter in a supplemental bi]1." The original 
billin this case set up facte whioh, if true, certainly ene 
titled the compleinant to at least one kind of relief, vias 
an injunction to restrain waste, Sililiame v. Chicago Exhibi- 
tion Co., 1608 Tli., 19. The mnater found, from the evidence, 
that the removal of the Corliss engines and shafting cenati- 
tuted waste, snd in view of the undisputed evidence as to the 
condition of the Premises at the time of such removal, we think 
the master wae justified in coming to that conclusion. But 
even if thie evidence were not sufficient, in iteelf, te ahow 
that waste had already been committed, it wae sufficient te 


show that an injunetion te restrain further removale of the 





- 


od ta? avsoqge —e Aꝓp ganmii nQ2-aaau 0 tea 
oe⸗taars eld ea Ono’ PRL Atass teerernt etd ; 
edt e6 aguattcod OM ,beote eht'at atentiethb: 
ned ot .down op bam ,daeeetat « 
© GRR: 4 LOOT gates se eimey' - sialic 
tnetotttvent esw Tihs Lamigteo wit saat depao eh eTci h 
sew taswevon Yo donna wo tfisntoh ene to esttem oc 
oft exotad bowed seurth ott yd bottupet an pnonelt ¢ . ot 
ke? eolton Kobe ovine? etmfint ott dnt dam amped oom d 
gnivég xd Bead too haw LLtd edt Yo yee Me wt OF 
gatdion Litd Cedienelqove @ gatift sect bow setal- 
bise et tt ,O©L ,. £01 S61 hood. se wesley al. 
WW berate (low ot ,et bnaterehnw ow am ,elot OAT 
SOE , KO oop tet L gtitet .v sebbaad m2 dgcowl om 
“ob yilods of (Ltd Lantg xo ne Dt tart .eomatedue 
th aot whoo amttencom 16? Savor on et ory has ov 
bebnvot , {itd Latneseltqae « gaklit yt beatstaue ed $60 n : 
tt tate tad Yoorla aadit yitenwpendye eved dotdw eret , 
‘pete «torfor te bald eno sot @netelytwe as thtd Lents i 
todto oF Sabntalqaoo eit eftitne dotdw teyod spre 
——* “a Yetler dots vad yan ed , Telfer ovtanotae 
Lomtyiwo ent °° {itd Latnemiguue © ob settee won 
une Yetattoy yeutt Th ydetde etost qr tee once eftdt 
fatv ,Yotfor Yo heli eno fenel ty of Snaniotqume. adh 
~Ld Mix3 ongint 69 6v anebhite . tear mbantaet ot motte 
cOnshive eat moTT ,MaWSt than og? OL go hfT BAL 
~ttenoo gaitiede tne eanrtgne eebito® edt to davomay — wie 
ad? of es @onshive betuqelsas edt to wetv wh ine eto beth 
dntd! aw qisvoasy dom to emh? edt te aeetaerg edt to — 
tut © pmo teuloaes att of grtwed: mi beLtitent cer setenm add 
wode of 4tLseth at .iaetel? we gon stow eonebive eid? The 
of tnetolVivnw asw th .bottinene. geod (yheenls bed steamed | 
oft To 6Lavome: tedtas? Aivtteer of motroay tat mn fad? armate 























rl 








- 6 = 

game nature (and consequent undoubted waste) was necessary, 
The bill was not, therefore, "wholly inaufficient®, nor was 
the proof ineufficient to sustain the bill as a bill to ree 
gtrain waete; and being “sufficient for one king of relief", 
it was aleo sufficient, under the rule above quoted, a® a 
foundation for the supplemental bill which #et up the addie 
tional subsequent fuct of notice of default in the payment 

of interest and of the principal of one of the notes. The 
game considerations are aleo a sufficient anewer to the further 
goutention, that the original bill wae ineufficient because 
the owner of note nuwher one wae not made a party, though this 
pointuoes not seem to have been made in the court below, and 
is therefore not properly before this court. 

It ia also contended that by the terns of the trust 
deed appellee, alone, did not have the right to declare the 
whole amount due and payable, but that the option to de #a, 
given by the trust deed, must be exereised by all the holders 
of notes, It appears from the evidence that note number 
one, for #250, was originally owned by the defendant Wallen, 
but after the supplemental bill wae filed it was sold by hin 
to a church aseociation which held a second mortgage on the 
property. Thies second mortgage wae apparently paid later by 
the owners of the equity of redemption, but whether note number 
one waa delivered to such owners ae a part of that transaction 
seens to be left in doubt by the evidence. The master found 
that thie note was paid and surrendered, and as neither Wallen 
ner the church association objected or excerpted to that finding, 
nor appealed from the decree, appellant ia not in a position 
fo question it. Aside from that fact, however, we do not think 
the language of the trust deed gan fairly be construed aa 
Claimed by appellant's coungel. The option clause reade as 
follows: “If default be made in the payment of said promissory 


notes, or either or any of the same,*****or in case of waste, 





—— 


ss 

+(isesc0e0 es (olsen nerdsonas thoupeance Lae) 

met Ot Litd © ee Shic od? atuteus 0% tambett tapal 

s*heilet 10 bald eno 12 #netolttuw" gased bas god 

_wtbet edt qu toe doldw [Lid Latacusiqaue of? xo? 

- taumyeg edt ai tlusted to eottos Yo ton} em 

aaf eaten edt Yo eno to deqtoaieq edt to how 

tadtugt edt Of susan taelottiue s opie erm emp) ) 

Aidt Aguods Yiws_ 2 Obag Gon sen Sno redaEM Sfom to x 

bes .wolod troc ect ai thaw asad @ved Of tees tom 

} -tuo9 elit soled Ylredonq ton” 

tout one —— ant NE todd bebastage Qala eb th. 
od? oraloo® of sigs et vad ftom bth, qeaoka: 

298 OL OF AOLtgo Oe togt tu ,eldayeq bas euh 

eenblod og? Lhe ανν . of. tome «ben, RRA HHe. | 

Ledmve On JoAl SOnehL¥YG oss mor? ereeqge 21... 

aol lak Janbasted ed? yd Senn ‘tiienigise saw 

atd yd Bion ew th DOLLY aor LLt¢ — — 

Ott mp egagtsom bacoee o bien doldw mgiteteoees do 

Vi wwitai bieq Ylinorsqus See Syngtion Sa909R OLAT.....» 

tedmua eten twectedw ud ,solitquehet to Ytupe edt: 

noltoasgers tedt Yo tusq © es eseqwo dowe Of hoteviled 

bovot teteam ofT 8 .eonebive add Yd Mduob at sel: bas 
elie’ yedttea es bas ,berebnerige bas bisg saw efon. of ae 



















- 


a 


<3albail tedt of betqsoxe 10 hetoetde asotteisovta domwdo = — 
Mois teeoqg 2 at ten at @taalisaqqs ,seToeh on? on 
Antd? ton Ob.” yieveWON #oR? ted? word Obiwh sth moreeenwah 
be bevttenco od YLvts! nso -beeh text od? Yo epagganhodt 
& @haer seuslo nottqo ed? .lernwoe ettnelleqge qd bembato 
Yroselmord bise to ¢asaysq ed? at oben ed thysted 31%) sevehiot 
«etacy to osa0 ni 1O***** une 043 Yo yne 0 zedtie 19 .eeven 


~ P= 

seeeethon and in euch case, the whole of said principal sum 
and interest secured by said promissory notes, shall thereupon, 
at the option ef the legal holder or holders thereof, become 
immediately due and payable®, ste. If thie were the only clause 
in the trust deed or notee designating the pereone whe could 
exercise the option thue given, there wight be eome force in 
the contention of appellant's counsel. By another clause of 
the trust desd, however, it is provided that a written notice 
of any default ssall be given to appellant, stating the pare 
ticulare thereof, which notice shall be signed by the trustee, 
Or his auco@easor, or the owners of the notes, “or any or either 
of them", and shall be mailed to appellant "ten days prior to 
the tine when*****the pergon or persone owning or holding said 
notes, or any ong of the sane, shall deglare the indebtedness 
secured by thie truest deed wholly due and payable ag hersin 
provided". By thie oluuse, referring, ae it does, directly 
to the option clause, the parties themselves have recognized 
the right of the holder of any one of the note@, as well as 
the right of a11 such holders, under the option clause of 
the trust deed, te “declare® the indebtedness secured thereby 
“wholly due and payable®, In cur opinion, the parties ine 
tered by thie clause, to authorize the holder of any note 
which wae not paid at maturity to give appellant notice of 
such default with the partioulara thereof, and if the note 
were not paid within ten days thereafter, to declare the whole 
indebtedness at onee due and payable. 

It i1@ aleo urged that the court erred in dismisaing 
the appéliant's oroas-bill and in coverruling hia exceptions 
to the master’s finding that no eale of notes numbered 2 to 
41 inclusive had been made to appellant prior te the purchase 
ef the aawe by appellee, The only purpose of the crosa-bill 


was to entablieh the alleged axle of the notea to appellant, 





— 
we Isqloniy: bane to efodw oi? yeneo Howe at 
wowerett [Lede .seton Yagentansy Hise yd Dexwoen te 
ommoad ,toereds exehlod 10 ehfod Ingel wit Yo notsqs’ 
eavels (ino edt ore» white tI | ore ,*sldsyeq bee eub 
at e010) sudo Od tiaim oxed? neviy aude aoleqo od? - 
10 Bauelo rotons ve  \Leeavod e*tastLegas, to nOLeaeRe 
eoffon mettiqw © ted? Sebivory ef +2 yttvewod ¢ 
“tay Oat gattate taal lene of movin We finde FL 
vsathut? edt Yd beng te ed (fete sotton dokiv (to 
M9 s0ltty Syed not" toaiinqas of beftam ed ffadte Dae 
Dies gadilod x9 aghang sepexss x0 Anes Bile +***stie 
swenbotdent? od? eeatoed Liagn gues of? Ie nao yee 
ateaes ef eiduyed one awd yLiode boob Jews? ett 
th genom ¢t es .golatetes ,onmelo ebay ya > 
aa [ier an .aeton oi? ‘to eno yas to tebfod edt to ¢ 
fo Sageke noffgo ‘edt vebms .eTedsen dove Iie Yo 
Uiersd? betsser eonhetdeisti od? “orslosb" oF ,besb 
nt wettrmeg oft (ao ttiqe aw. nT .*etdayey ‘ban SO 
eton yas lo teblod oft estiodtue of ,eedelo ehut © 
‘So Goiton tnwlleqre vig of yYelavdésm te Shag | 
ofon wif Ti bee ,Yooted? erefwotireq od? dtiw of | 
elore eft sraloeb of yte¢lacted? oven wet aidtty bieq 
cae -eidsyed bee evbh eono tH ars: 
gaterine:h at bexte trv00 edt tad? begets oofe OF OT oem 
anoltqooxe sid yatluatove af base [i id-suoto’ Steet teats Ont 
of & betedsun wéton t6 elae on tad? gaihatt otretans edt Ot iS 
esedoiwg off of TOltq taalleqys of sbew asded ban” — 
{iid-eaois edt to seoqrusy viao eft ,enlieded yo enne ent Yo. 
«fausilLoqua of seton ad? to slew begelia ont debldatce oF saw 


e 1; ) 2) . a. e TS 1028 034 




















— 








~ B8« 

and whether the court ruled correctly or otherwise in diamiase 
ing the oroa@bill is immaterial, because the same facte alleged 
in the ¢roae bill were afterwards set up in the anawer of 
appellant, and a full hearing wae given him upon the iseue 
thus raised, If appellant was in fact the equitable owner 
of the notes, inatead of appellees, that fact could be shown 
as a defense and without any eroese-bill, The testimony aa 
to what occurred at the time of the offer of $4,700 and the 
alleged seceptance of such offer, wae conflicting, and after 
reading the evidence, we are unable to say that the master's 
finding in that respect is net fully supperted by the prepone 
derance of the evidence, But if the facts were all ae claimed 
by appelian® they would not amount +o an acecrd and satia~ 
faction, but would show nothing more than a mere verbal execu 
tory agreement, without any consideration whatever, to accept 
half of the face value cf the notes from the maker thereof, 
Ye think there was ne error in the rulings of the court upen 
these points, 

The deores ef the Superior Court will be affirmed. 


AFPIRERD. 





* 


ao a? * a. 2 “= se, J x — 
— 
* ' 4 ys Ary ry z 7 
C 
4 


J Fins 
aa 
— 
-vetndth at Oetwredto 10 Yivoorwe sso mg 
begets afoot omns vith seouibend <talbeee | 
"Ye sededa ear eb qr — — seme 
© guniet Od? aoqu mia nevis baw gabthod ELT "bis" 
‘weitro elds? tupy od? tout nt saw emelteqye 5 
vos od bluoo row tadt poolioqgqe te bastend , 
an Ynoatteod oa? E ene suode te 
od? nae OOT.2E 20 atte Silt to wate wT’ to 'be 
ToPle baw gatderlinoe sew .reTYO dowd t6- 
a*a92e0n wat end? Gee oF olgany ore aw 
 atoqethy edt yd bettoq we Uti? tom WE doureos 

botiketé @s (fe over efoat ed? tt sam “\ebnebtve” 

apa a nea — presen 
tqddon ot yxavetadw avtsereblenco — 
Ae Aan 9d? mot bOF0R Oat YO en OF 
—“ —E— — ws at — ryan 


eccsn yen ⏑—⏑—⏑—⏑»«⏑— —⏑ —[[ at ———— 


ey @* bead v x 


















.aaxnrria 


7 (ho Wee 


— Te 
ae Sew ae 
ay: ay 


«4 


X var ae 


sia ty Pmse * : ote @ hs: 


a 


woh te — 2*9 “av bya? 
wil Sees -o@ adee ete ts 
sys oe & Fs? Ne {fos Tae’ as oe 

*4 


J 
ee 

‘ 

JF 






> October term, 1941, No» oy m 

—— - * \ x / a a gi 
yi e HA d) : (R Way Grn a T+ ar fe 
" : f } i we 


v 5 : 
<aiiaaaam A Nate, for affrthant : Yehn Q 






“LA fp * 
Y¥ AAMAK 4. Oe, T) — U 
EWIL SCHARDEL, MEK Sa. 
Appellee, APPEAL PROM oj a 
} 
va. CIROUIT COURT, ‘ } ard Maroy 
GHIGAGO RAILWAYS COMPANY, Bro cer OO9t COUNTY, aa ee 
' re 4 re hy ne. ¢ * om of fans 
Appellant . on she 4 fa, fd w) + Bt ik ar dt 
’ ant, 9 ben Vik, L. 


J 
WR. JUSTICE FITCH DELIVERED THE win wre wean — 


for dawagea for personal injuriee auatained by him while cross- 


In 


Appelice recovered a judgment against appellant 


ing Lake street at the intereegtion of Leavitt street, Chicago, 
about seven o'clock in the evening of May 24, 1910. It is 
sonceded by appellant's counsel that if appeliant is liable 
for suoh injuries upon the facte shown, the amount of the 
recovery (#1,500) iw reasonable, It is also practically 
conceded that the evidence showa negligence on the pert of 
appellant's motormen, It ia insisted, however, that the evie 
dence slao shows that the plaintiff (appellee) was guilty of 
centributory negligence, and that the trial court erred in 
oertain rulinge during the examination of witnesses and in 
giving the third inatruction on behalf of the plaintiff. 

The declaration alleges, in aubstance, that the 
defendant negligently operated one of its street care at such 
a "high, dangerous and uniawful"® rate of speed, without ringe 
ing a bell or sounding a gong, as to run into the plaintiff 
at a public croasing and injure him seriously without any 
fault on his part. 

Appellant operates a double-track electric street 
car line on Lake street. Lake street is a business street, 
running east and weet, and is Gighty feet wide, with a roade 
way approximately forty-eight feet in width from curb to aurb. 
There ie an elevated railwny in the same street, The columne 


aupporting the elevated #etructure are located in the roadway, 


pokes — 


— 





~ on eALOL  aorrsk redo 
y * ae eas * * 


Le 

— — D——— 4%, 
% ¥ 

a0 ae 

— ——— * * pty. 
ate — 














— Peg 4 
—— — 
— 


— 3 


st sad —— ey — 


Howes . 


— 
ee al 7 " 8* * oe “4 


‘i Par oN F 



















ts eran by heed roe t% 
J ah ae le —— * Im 
anak ioyge * —E——— rear 
enone oitdw oti yt beatartue seit) fabverty! 90% ad uel 
ORHOIGD ,PooTHA FITAeT ‘te Rott oserotnh ont te teorte: of 
eee ocel 6 yall to gitar —— 9 
—* bt o⸗nattogaa Ye rant Kmsne « bi 
od to temo wd? yawode never — —2** 
“yifeolegen Offs et IT — eidondecor et (00R,ER) 
‘Yo 710y bide Wo Cone~tI seh woe eonsbive sat test Bit 
-1ro 9d tout \reverod: yberwtent #1 9T  snamroroue! taal 
to ytitug enw (eoiieqga) Yitatela od? tod? avode Obs 
at borte tayoo Lelet odd fad? bas wondghtgad Yrodw 
ai dae season? ty. 20 Me ifenimexs ed? aa taub ezatlus, 
ettitaisiq ott to Misded 00 molttowztent bridt odd B 
' ed? fads ,eonatedue al ,eogerle aottarnloeh odT 
doe ta e280 feorts #¢2 to eno heteteqo yitaoaiigen + | 
agnit tuedtie ,beeqe Yo stor “Luimala ban eyorsgneb dat 
Tittalalq od? otal aut of 8A ,Rmog s ga tbavoe 10 vt A on 
toa tyodtiw ylevoliee ald ous tat bas gakeaoxo olf is : — 


* 
* 








——— oid ao. 

-tavtta olttoele dostt<siduoh « pedaneds taatteqaa ™. . 
eteette egeninud 4 @L tourde odad . — edad ao pa tn 
~baoi a ddiw ,obtw test qigte st baa. isan. bas tena aot 
.duwe 9% dso wort d?biw dt tos} ¢ayto-ytrot yletaatxarqye yay 

? enauloo efT ,deante ORR od? at Yaw (hax botsvela 20 ot -exod? 
sYewbaeot edt at hetaool ers sautowite betsvele ed? aaitrorwe | aa 


224 
adjoining the curbetones, The north rail of defendant's 
north track ia sixteen feet south of the north curbsatone, and 
the "guage" of the tracke ia four feet, eight and one-half 
inches, Leavitt street rune north and @outh, and ia approxi- 
mately sixty-six feet in width, with a roadway of thirty-eight 
feet.  Hoyne avenue crossea Lake atreet about 600 feet east 
of Leavitt. 

About seven o'clock on the evening mentioned, the 
plaintiff, whose place of business was on the north side of 
Lake atreet, east of Leavitt, left hie shop to go home, It 
was twilight, but the street was well lighted by the lights 
from the shop windows and electric street lampa. He wabked 
west on the nerth sidewalk on Lake etreet to the east sidewalk 
on Leavitt street and there turned south acrosa Lake atreet. 
He testified that as he stepped down from the curbetone to 
the roadway and walked past a Geclumn of the "elevated" at thet 
point, he looked to the east and saw a street car "coming up 
from Hoyne avenue” on the north track; that"it appeared te 
be near Hoyne Avenue"; that "when I seen the car wae far 
enough down, I went acrosa up to the north track"; that at 
that point, he looked again and gaw the aar about 100 feet 
away; thet "then I atepped over the track, and before I got 
over the track, I looked again end saw the car was up to me 
and I quick stepped off the track®,. He was hit by the south- 
weat corner of the car and threen to the ground. The power 
wae shut off and the brakes set when the plaintiff wae hit, 
but the car went over 100 feet further before it stopped, at 
& point at least fifty feet beyond Leavitt street. 

The motorman teatified that he first gaw the plaine 
tiff shen the latter was "a foot or a foot and a half" north 
of the north rail; thet the oar was then 100 or 150 feet east 


of the crossing and was “bowling along pretty good" at a 





hd. ates — 









eae 
 steasbaghas Yo Sten Mtsen oot eenoredure 
tae ehocutise dixon wat to dtvog Foot neotnie of dong 
Tind=wno Lae sages wot e) @iomst ed? Yo — 
Ino1ys 81 bas fvoR baw st—R GrurT soente te vee | 
hag tons ria to gawbnot ¢ deity —V —V — onto | 
tone fost 0G8 twody feoxts and nonnoxe aumove 


ke a 


: ¥ 

















+ ea 
ete, 


*. 


H — MLSE sit we oo. 3 
oil? bom finn gakaoeo edt a0 —— never — 


to obte Mtton ei? 60 waw aenatnnd Ye #oele ebode 41 * 
OT onon oy @* qos wha erot ,etivaed to tee’ 
‘Stag tt sad yo Betdy ht Chow enw soonte ond tude 
okie of seqaal teerte etttoete tae ewohate’ ao $i 
Aowehte tao ont oF torts oXal ao kowebte Maen | ats 
fotrte eed Meorus dtvoe beater oxeat hae Poonte’ dey 
oF wnotestue Oil uoxt aro bodyate $d ob tanh. HORIRM 
tedt te *betavele* ‘ody Yo anuion & tenq bedtow bab t 
W YRinoo" Tee FooRIa w wee baw teas ont of DOHOOE' 
‘of beneeqqs o2@ tnt idoert Aton one ao *ovaove 
isY enw tne edt moon T aod teas — 
te tans {teers diuon edt of qu esoxes tow T 
test OOf twode 2420 oat wee bas ntanes bodeot od J 
tos 3 exwted bee Aoau⸗ ede rovõo baqaste I nent™ ted 
Om Ot GY ae¥ THO Ont wee bate lags bexoot T ydonte at 
<dtwor oct ed 22 naw OR Moet? wi Yee beqtete oly Eh 
wevoq eat ©. bavetg Bat of Hwosd? hos Feo eas * Onto! oR 
tia cow mu⸗at⸗ ta oa? aedw Poe —8R one have Ne 

ta yhaqqote tt ete ted todtawt toot ool 2eve taow TAD ¢ ‘ ua 
teonts Ptivesd Boved tos? wAtiY genet 2 "tatog a 
-alsiq of? wae teri? od sede bottisees naaroron iT tk 2A 


+ tenget 
dition *Yiad o baw 250% 20 F00% a” Gow wwisel aa? note SEF 


* 


86 font O8L 10 OOL Aedt aow tao wnt can itiey ation ey td 
® te "booy etter saote — ose hers setovane ot 8 


— J 


29 
— J—— 


hi 


J 


» 3 = 
"five-point" speed, or about ten or eleven miles an hour; 
that the plaintiff "glanced up and hesitated, then he started 
acrose"; that when the plaintiff reached the firet rail, the 
oar waa 65 feet from him; that he wae then walking st the 
rate of "from three te four wiles an hour"; that the witnesd 
rang hie bell and “hollered”, but did not shut off the power, 
nor set the air-brake, until the oar waa about fifteen feet 
from the plaintiff, The motorman aleo testified that when 
hie car was going at the rate of ten or eleven miles an hour, 
"4¢ would take about 75 feet to atop". 
Two witnesses, who were standing on the corner of 
Lake and Leavitt atreets, corroborate the plaintiff in all 
essential partioularée. One of them eatimated the rate of 
epeed the car was going at 30 miles an hour and the other at 
35 miles an hour. Txo passengera, who were standing near the 
motorman on the front platform, testified that they saw the 
plaintiff walking scuth on the crossing when the car wae at 
least 100 feet from him and one of them said thet the motore 
man was talking to a friend on the platform and did nothing 
to check the speed of the car until juat before the collision 
ovourred. All these witnesses teatified that they heard no 
bell or gong. On the other hand, two other passengera, who 
were also on the front platform, testified that their atten= 
tion wae oslled to the plaintiff'a position by the sudden 
ringing of the gong and the shout of the motorman. One of 
these witnesses anid thet the plaintiff waa then 23 feet in 
front of the oar, and the other said he was forty feet away. 
Both of these witneseen testified that at that time the pisin-e 
tiff wae walking slowly southwerd in the center of the street 
intersection, with his head down, The motorman, also, tute 
tified, on hie direct examination, that the plaintiff was 
walking "on a slant®, southweat, near the center of the croste 


ing, but on crose-examination he said that the plaintiff was 





“= 2 
| gtwod as softs mevels x0 ast tv9ds 10 gboege * 
bettete od Hedt inter sod sae w beonais* ‘Wivalota 6M 
oat .ilex soatt ‘ed? bedowex Ytivatelq ed? nedw todd 
edt te aatat av· asa · ‘eaw od tadt ald 2052 fost oot 838 ; 
enontie oat toad “{twod a2 e0Lte win? oF eoutt aott* 4 
29807, eat Yio tude tot bth ad <"berslioa* ‘nai hod ui 
tout meedth? duode eaw x80 odd Lidny oderd=sie ‘as 6 
fede ted? Sertieret oefn aanzctem oAT inatata 
0a fe sole mavacs 20 ant Yo oink sae de gatos aoe 
; *K —8 oe dont 8 feds otah 
Yo ténw00 ody ao yatbaste e108 oam _yatedontin oft” 
tis wt Yastatel oat staxadorw00 satoonte ivan hi 
“Ye otex od? betadztse wedt Yo O00 ° venaiwenrteg th 
te dedte- eat an ru d 18 vette 08 te anlox * —* 
odd +900 satbaste e19W odw (eregneecay own -evonhas oa 
adit woe yedt tna? boltiteet ero ttalg ‘tnoxt edt - 
te aa tao edt wow gateboto edt ao dtuoe ‘gabiier ¥ ton 
~xobou oi? tadt bine weds Yo ono baw mid mort $01 26 
yariton bib baa mio tsaig oat ao a 6 oe pabated "oy 
no tetiies ode ex0led tout Llinw 180 edt’ to toage ode «8 
on based yous fault bettitess eeneentiv send? Tid ae 
Odw .etegaveeeq radio off baad reito od? ad -3H03 0 
—asdie xled? tod? belkttieet warotzalq taoxt ade 20° oe. , 
rebbire ed? yd aottieoq e'ttiintelg edt of hetise enw fi 
to @n0 .mewtetom edt to tuode ont bas 303 ent Yo" 
at toot €8 aodd eon Iitalelq edt sont brow soonontiw | 
yews toot ytict eax ed Dias roto ed? bas ‘¢%ao edt 
~atala odd emt? fodt te $ad? bettivect sonar? tw odedd a6" r 
feorte edt to tetaeo edt at Beawituoe — In tat au ee’ / 
pe? cools ,mamzofou eAT eno b baod wid a⸗ tw ———— 
saw tteatala edt edt ‘so — — — fourths eid 0 —E 
“n8010 of 10 tetaes edt z80n steowdsuos a*tanle's — vnt at av 


geaw tttentalq edt tacit bine ea noi tetineke-oceee wo bed" et 






















i? 


ae * 


who 
walking about ten feet weet of the east wide of Leavitt atreet — 
which would be within the linea of the east sidewalk on Leavitt 
atreet, if auch lines were produced acroes Lake atreet., Phen 
the plaintiff was picked up, he was lying on the south track, 
near (probably eaat of) the center line of Leavitt street, 

The evidence also ahove, without contradiction, 
that the etreet car which hit the plaintiff wae seven feet 
and @ix inchea wide "over all", The guage of the track being 
four feet, eight and one-half inches, the "overhang" of the 
ear to the north and south of the track was therefore one foot, 
four and three-quartera inches, and the diatance in a direct 
line from a point a foot and # half north of the north rail 
to the aouth edge of a car standing on the north track, would 
be seven feet, aeven and one-fourth inches, The clear pre~ 
 ponderance of the evidence ia to the effect that while the 
plaintiff, walking at the rate of three or four miles an hour, 
was croseing this apace of leas than eight feet, the atrest 
car went a distance of at leaat one hundred feet. At three 
miles an hour, a man walke 4,4 feet per naecond, or eight feet 
in leas than two seconde. A car moving 100 feet in two 
seconds ie traveling at the rate of 34 milea an hour. Even 
if the plaintiff walked due south-weet "on a slant", the dine 
tance covered by him vould not be over twelve feet, ani on 
that assumption, if he walked at the rate of three miles an 
hour, the car must have been moving at the rate of over 
twenty-two milea an hour, From these simple computations, 
which any intelligent juror could make, it ia manifest that 
the motorman'sa eatimate of the rate of speed at which he waa 
traveling ia altogether too low, and ia wholly inconsiatent 
with the rest of hie testinony, with thie exeeption, his 
evidence corroborates that of the plaintiff in most reapects, 
and leaves little room to doubt that the negligent, not to 


say reckless, operation of the atreet car was an efficient 





~ feo1ts tivael to ohte ton9 edt. to. teaw toot not. 


_.2t- 





















ttivea! qo. Mavsbiv teee ad? To egats od? abatin ed bi | 
meat  -toonte ↄad aagton bocachona ore ooaat. dows Xt 4 * 
viowas atuas edt mo galyl caw od. .av hꝛao⸗a One itnighg 
<tporty *tivaed 3 aati setae 9], (20 teen, vidadera 
so ttokbsrtace twodtin anode ante enasdive OAT. o, 
tuot moven eon las⸗ala ou? $i dokty mao tonnte ogg 
uated Avert sdt to qa⸗vg oT .*Lke teyo" abt, x 
efOol ono exotetad?. ene Anatt 24% fo dtyoe. bas. rs 
tooxth al oongiekd ad? dag ,seduat euptnarereesgt t 
{ier dotea edt to dttoa Mai spn t00% 6 , 
biugn ,doext dt 19a od? ap. gabbeste, x00 @ 29, 
oat oLtan tad? Leet edt OF #1, gonebive oa ⁊ꝛ n 
<1U9d HH BOLig Iwo 70 ovaad do ater Add ta gabtlow «IRE 
teoute ed? ,teok tdate godt eel to sonqy aid? gates 
eexat £4. .fnet, perbhaud sag tases 29,9 gang? 
taet t4ylo x ghaooen 194 #99t &.? edfow game eed 6 
Bet Mh 993 0OL gatvos zap 4. .ebagoee. ove — 
axea ., 10d as eolka dt Y0.0%st edt tn gatlovext · ah 
“wih od? 4*tmalp & a9" teqw-dtyge pub bedLow ⁊xctataa 
MO poe 200% pusent cove od toa Bivow ald vq ꝓo⸗ 
aq evlis gods to eter off te dedlaw od 2. wagliqus a 
Tavo 29 e147 dt t* anlyos aaaa aNd. aaua 280. · | 
esnaitetuqagg elquie egedt aoxt. .ayed am eetia . 
ted? teeRions ef 2 .otem bloge som) famptiterat yas 
wow od dokde te beoge YW eter ed? to etauktes.s' la 
taotetencont yilody of bas ..moleot updtogotie ot 3a 
eit Ad tetaadxo elds aa ur .ynoahtnet ata to $097 Otte fe 
| e8TQeQSeR tom St Tiitaiels eat te tad? apterodoz10g eogR bie | 
as fom yinayligen edt ads, sdvmh OF. egos, Of97 tl aevanh .OGe 
inetoltio ae naw aao toaa⸗a ↄa d aiꝛaaiaas.ee⸗i aqu ae 





— Bo 
cauas of the accident, if not the sole cause. 

There ig no count in the declaration, hovever, 
which charges any wanton or willful misconduct or intentional 


neglect of duty on the part of the defendant's servants. 


Henee, the question of the contributory negligence of the 


plaintiff still remains, ¥ V. Coal Co. v, Moran, 
@10 I1l., 2. 
In Chicago City Ry. Co, v. Sandusky, 19% Ill., 400, 


a cable car collided at a atreet oroasing with a junk wagon 
in which the plaintiff was riding, and it appeared from the 
evidence that veforefattempted te drive across the tracks, 
he "looked down the street to the south and saw the car which 
was approaching the croseing from thet direetion". He testified 
that the car was then, as he thought, a distance of about oné~ 
half block from the crossing. It was contended that upon 
this evidence it muat be held, ae a matter of law, that tne 
plaintiff was guilty of a failure to observe ordinary care for 
his own safety. As to thie centention, the court said: "Ate 
tempting to cross the track of a street railway ahead of a 
moving car is not necessarily to be imputed as contributory 
negligence, It may or may not be prudent, depending upen 
the proximbty of the car and the speed with which it ia moving. 
Whether, in the particular instance, reasonable care was exer- 
Gised in going upon the track is usually a question for the 
jury, unier proper inetructions.*****The evidence in the present 
Oase was not such as to justify the court in decluring s@ @ 
matter of law, the appellee did not act with reasonable oare 
fer his own safety." 

The same conclusion was reached in Chicago Union 
Tract Ce. Boobs B17 Ill., 404, where the driver of 
a heavy truck, loaded with flour, turned hie team across the 
etreet car tracke in the middle of a block ahead of an ap= 


proaching electric car and a collision followed. There the 





— 
J 


















ois” —— 

-encso af6e ⸗ ton tH (dmebloos bi 

{WOVSCOS AOR MATAL99h oat AT tee OH at oxedt 
Lenoitantal 1 tevbmocets totLite 10 morass tna eogis 
-eianvand OT taahaston ous Yo Fred Od? no Youd 6 O 

sn? Yo —* ———— od? to aoltneup ei 
—— 
te" 3 

008 (LEE OBL —— 
Moga davt 6 dtie yatenord footte a te Debullos 180 





add moxt beneeqye ‘tt Bae .gdkbts eae Tripmrela oad” , 
‘\edbor? of? eoros evict ot netquesteQSented sand debe 
dolie 180 9A? wae bao Atwon odt of teette oat avon seabed 
hetthtect of ."neitosih tatt mort gatweote a 
~aito txode to sonatati a .tdyeod? af ge .aed? eaw t30 
‘dOqu ted Bobnetmos asw FT  .gaterove odd! movd- 
“oe tedt qwol to t9etten & es (hiad o¢ Mom dt © 
Rove YesuLhto erreRde OF owlter » Io wiley eee HD 
+8A ibis twos od? yeolraetnos eat of eA .eheTaN 
@ 8 bhone Yowl tax teands a to dowst off enote 60 | 
Tiwoted ii noo ar het argert od of eilxeenmoen ton ef. 7 
Asqu aqlinegqeb ,tachwrq of toe yoa.20 yom OT g ‘ 
sgntvow af #k dobéw Atte beoye od? bne ted edt to ye ae 
“AMkS HON BIO OLdendeseT ,oCoMstant telOhiteq ed? al , 
add OY notsenup 2 Ylawas ot Aawrt Od? moqe yaroy at’ bh to 
freeexg off at voneblve afT***** ago ttourtent r0qorq. sobiabsi it 
& 8 gnirs(aen wt ttu9o S44 Yitteut 09 e@ dowe ton oat vie 
eta0 eldanoeacs dete toi ton bb eohleqqe ef% ywal Yo J 
. qberde ove pte 
2o4n7 .0psgtad at bertoses atw nolevlosco shan ef? A 
to Tevt1b) eff Sede Ob ,.L1T FIR — wv 09 mekeenee te 
of? eeotoe aset aid bensie “ytwo lt Ate bedaol Aoure E — 
qn hh % beads Yoold o Yo ofbbtu ade unt) afoot saelbeeede 
edd ered? .dowollot aoletiios « bes tan ottteele patdosorg 









f 


(Macs 


hive 
v: 





— ae 
Ht = —— — 
+ . — 


~ § = 


gourt said (p, 407): "He (the driver) said thet he knew the 


ear would have to stop or slow down or it would probably 


strike hie wagon, and that the car could slack up just as 


weli as he could with a team, and he thought the motorman could 
stop the car when the car was right close toe the wagon. That 
testimony would justify the conclusion that appellee knew, 
when he drove upon the track, that a collision would be in- 
evitable in the ordinary operation of the car, unless the 
motorman ef appellant should prevent the collision by his care 
and diligence. But appellee also teatified that when he turned 
his team to crose the track the car was about one hunired feet 
east of Whipple etreet, that said street was about two hundred 
feet east of him, and that he thought he had time to get across 
the track. He waa bound to exercise a rexsonuble judgment in 
view of all the circumstances, and the court, in peasing on 
the motion, was required to consider a1] the evidence, includ-— 
ing the distance of the car from the wagon, the rate of apeed 
and all the circumstances. We cannot say that in so consider- 
ing it, the evidence necéanmarily led to but one conclusion, 
but we think that the guestion xhether, under all the circum 
atances, sppélise believed, upon rsasonable grounds, thet he 
had tine to get agrose the track before the gar would reach 
him, was properito be eubmitted to the jury.” (Italics ours.) 
We think the facte of this case vring it within the 





reasoning and conclusion of the canes above cited. It cannot 
be held, az a matter of law, that the plaintiff waa necessarily 
guilty of a want of due Gare merely beeause he attempted to 
cross the defendant's tracks with knowledge that a car was 
approaching repidiy. Thether 1% was prudent for him to de so 
depends upon the dietance he had to go, the apparent proximity 
of the car, the apparent apeed with which it waa moving at the 
time and other like circumstancea, In deciding to make the 


attempt, he wae bound only to exercise a reasonable judgment, 





wie eae 
okt wend of todd bine (xeviad sas) ane) — — 
videdory bivew #t 1 mob wofle xo qeae 69 oval b 
os tot ow dvete dito tao oat tat? ben ynoger e. 
bineo cemmotom ed% tiguott of nme — atennened | 
tad? © saogawsd et ecote tdgtt asm. tho edt aeiw 200! © 
word pLheqae teat a mio ont yRttewt bioow 
-ni od otiow motetiion & ted? ,Nouxt sdf woqw ovorb: bif 
ad!’ eto ia .1ed sat To soxterege uno tiaebed? al ©. 
vad wid Yd solehifoy edt tnever: bivods sonthoqus a 
bemw? 4 moiin thd? Bereeted? onto velkeqie tues ii 
Saot bvrknid om trddh ow kno ont taunt Bt eeowd Od @ 
beebawk od tote saw seonte bhee gaat ytoonde t 
asoxb 3h2' 0% ait bag ad tiawous 26 tom? bop ¥ 
Gt tieqist altnnoeses 4 seierexs of based ase elt. 5, 
— stiee ens the .opeiiboniveiths tnel iil 
<biihon't yoonmbive eid Lin whbenoo of hextupet baw | 
beege to efit ed? .aoRew edd wort Yeo bu? to @omidel 
-rebttnoe de Hi Tadd re sonnad oF — 
eto Leskono © ono IWS OF bot YLinudessen soaebive & ae 
~gugulo gf? {le 190m «redtedw ap ltaeup ad? sade: 8 
24 test eobayow sidonersty mew bevodhed eelfoaae 
‘desen bivoe seo ga) outed east ait aeonbe tan ot) sail 
{.exwo eotfetl)  ".yxut sag a? Devt igsye ad of (pen01g 
od? wiieiw $2 gntad seao stds Yo orcad ete Manag ow ot! 
toumse $1 Betis vote aeeno. at Yo no feulondd bas’ gatas 
Yitvseseown kaw TIIethhq- ode tede \wol % ToreOw 2) ea I 
ot botquette ed savenbe YLoree ewe out 2° Maer es YW 
ev 180 & tad? @gbelwoad Atiw etoes! & sabireteb oat vo 
oe Of Gt mt aot fnebirty wow OF vHdtede — 
Uiinixory tnwtesye edd, 3 ot bat ot eoneteih edt oa abiege> 
ott te guivow ear ¢t debe utie-teegn tnereqas od? yahoo ete Yo 
eit stem Ot gutbico® Al swociadhaietts ottt rouse bine wake 
(Ieeambet eldavoaner & @elotoxe of Yao bnvod axw wit dimerts 























fans 






— 





- T= 
in view of all the circumstances; and if, as he testified, 
he believed he had ample time to crose the tracks ahead of 
the oar in safety, it was a question of fact for the jury 
whether, under the circumstances shown, he had reasonable 
grounds for that belief, The jury having found in his favor 
on that question, and ita finding having been approved by the 
trial judge, we are not authorized to set aside the verdict 
and reverse the judgment, unlesa we are prepared to say, after 
a due examination of the evidence, that the verdict is clearly 
contrary to the weight of the evidence. Thia we are unable 
to do. When the plaintiff first saw the car coming, it ape 
peared to be nearly « block away. Fe had leas than twenty 
fest to go in order to cross the track, The car scemed to 
be "far enough down", wo he went on, Just before he stepped 
on the track he looked again. The car was 100 feet away. 


He hesitated, but concluded there wan time to orose in safety.” 


Ye can see nothing unreasonable in that conclusion. Thile 

he could see that the oar was coming along very faat, it 

would be unreasonable, in our opinion, to expect him to deduce 
from thet fact, at hia peril, that the car wae moving at the 
unusual speed of 100 feet in two seconda, and that the motor- 
wan would make no effort whatever to check this most extracor- 
dinary epeed in approaching a public crossing in a business 
atreet. Thile it is undoubtedly true that the plaintiff had 
no right to rely solely upon the presumption that the motorman 
would perform his legal duty to exercise due care in the oper- 
ation of his street car at auch a time and place, yet that pre-e 
@umtion exiats as a matter of law and ie entitled to due 
weight in determining the question ef contributory ner¢ligence,. 
"Anticipation of negligence in others is not a duty which the 


law imposes.* Schlanuder v, Chicago & So. Traction Co., 253 
Tll., 154, 159. The reasoning of the court in Chigago City 


Ry. Co. v. Otis, 192 I1l., S14, and in Chicago General Ry. Co. 


— 
— 
,. 


-T- 
Oo ALitnnt Of ↄe Bt haw — 
to havde atonat pdt Sore OF oui? ofama bed od bovetted 
caut od? 9% F002 Yo aoktoony ⸗ oon tt wteree at x 
oidusceRer ben oa aod wooantamyorty edt zehau 4%! 
rov⸗ed wid at beget geived — OAT toiled Sad? wor 
mt Ww e roaaa · aged aatras gathatt ot. han gate: 
sorbet ods ebies ae. or bealtodtus ton os ow eg 
teria wan ef boxaqesa one ov woian ypaveatut ed? sega 
yirselo et toboiev ont teas _soaneaee od? to miteats 
okdany 918 oF ata? _spanegive ad? to tdnter ode of 
m~qe tt s§aiaon reg edt meq sertk Niaaiota ef? ⸗ 4 
Waaw? a⸗us ened Dest ot _ stars Aooid # Usees, of 93 
ag ft M⸗ wen. ont sAnart REF — — ae Todt ak 09 · 
beqaeta ad 91000 bast 188 faa #4 On «taRO re 
sans t90? 00L war xad edt atad⸗ bedont od Aoont seat. 
- Poesorge a2 29020, oF oats oon orn? betulanee tua hotatas 
Ohfat am tqulonce Belden Sat ee 
__ MH atest yrev anole gmtnoo se ra9 ed? tadt 
coutes of mid toeqxe of ef Lato We ak ,ehda 0% a 8 | . 
oa % aaiven cay sae a0? fant iting O08 Pa — 
“10 fon oad todd bas baw qwdaooee on? a⸗ test 904 te 
“zane Ee thom ehas Anedo 92 aovetede trotte on — 
eeenioud s ak galseore otiduq a antdonorays an * 
bad titiaiela ed? sand euit Uber duadas ak tt — 



























a 


Asarotom oct tadt aoltquuenrq edt aogu vielon ylox of a 
~r9qo odt at oxao euh gatotexe oF xaus Lapel abd wrott 
org ied? tey oats ban aata 4 dowe 14 1289 toate ala te 
ov> of Deltitas et baa wal Xo tad tam ↄ aaatxo gat 
ooaoa tAabu vaosudtaaauo Yo molteoup oat ao tataaoaod at 


od? doldw ytub a ton ak eredto nt eonaglizan we W 
Bas ..g0 goltoes? .08 Bonanis .y aabualdo® ".0gnoget wal 
Tid) SAapesy 11 #00 ed? Ye aamonges. AT GBS AOS ouhhh 
20 si Lesened opsotd? mt Oae qMB yL{T S24 qtt0 .v 500 oA 





~ 8 « 
Vo Carroll, 91 Ill, App., 386, Zapplied toe somewhat similar 
facts, is aleo applicable to the facts of thin case, 

We do not think the court erred in refusing to pere 
mit defendant's counsel, on Groga-#xamination of the witnese 
whe had given hie opinion that the car was going at the rate 
of 35 miles an hour, to ask such queetions aa; "You think it 
not unusual for cara to run 35 or 40 miles om Lake atreet in 
Chicago?" and "hat ia your opinion ae to the apeed of care 
on other streete?® The witness was not testifying ae an 
expert, and even if he were, the sareastic and belligerent 
tene of the questions justified the ruling of the court. Nor 
wae it error to permit the plaintiff to teatify that he heard 
neo gong or bell. While perhace the failure of the motorman 
te ring a bell as a warning to the plaintiff might not be an 
independent ground for recovery, yet the fact that plaintiff 
heard no bell rung had a bearing upen the question whether the , 
plaintiff wae exercising due care for hie own safety. Ae to 
the conversation between the motorman and one of the paseengers 
Rome time before the accident, we do not attach any serious 
importance to the alleged error, if any there was, The fact 
that the car wae going very fast being clearly shown, it sould 
make no difference whether the motorman said he “would hustle 
up" to keep cn appointment, or not. 

The plaintiff'a third instruction defines the words 
“ordinary care" to mean "that degree of care which a rearonably 
prudent or cautious peraon would take to avoid injury under 
iike circumeatances"., It ia objected that thia construction 
ageumes that a reasonably prudent pereon might find hineelf 
in the position the plaintiff wae in at the time of the injury, 
and the case of N, $. 8 R. Re Co. v. Sosaar, 2035 T1l., 608, 
ia eited in support of this view. The instruction in ques- 


tion in that care, however, was not the same as the one given 


























rel tae —B me An ttt 2’ of 
oeno atat Yo atodt Sit’ ot etdwabtans sary re 
-20 Of gntevter al berxe tawoo edt aide’ oea! bes —— 
asantiv od? to aobtaakuaxteneor ae ,Lonawoo 
ofat eit ¢e galop tox 200 vat Yass eis itll 
SY datas wat jas sacltesdp dooe ise of yasdd na 
ak teerte Sial ao aettw Od To Bf aux of e200 SOY 
| e180 te boegs aM? of ee sotalee soy ef Faaw® bas 
"qa os ydtytites? 300 sab Seendty out sfebbexte 
“Pietog tiled bas olteiéran aa? joxow $4 24 nove b 
108 auton oft 40 gabtue on? botrident eno tteoup oat 
BYASM od todd YLl9eet oF Wrtdatety eat Aeaon of a 
meoreton’ edd Yo owl tet ade aysdreq oitde hele Sail 
‘as od tea tigi Yetentely ed? of gataray & os Tied a: 
VWilointy tadt Fost ond Soy yyxdveded ot bavoey $a 
“ea? todtoite ao lveoup vat nob getrecd & Wed gaut Ifod' oi 
of A = .ybeker awe etd x0t ered oud gntelorexs one Hal 
etegneeesg ad? to eno bac aawxc tom edt Moawted ao tts ax : 
aio ixo8 toa doatts tom ob on ,tneniook —“ nai 
ee ea yas tf tobi boports oat ot 
biiioee t2 awode titesto gaied test que gatos ean 
olteud dbiwor® ef bias gaat0tom edt t0dtede soaererih & on 
tom sO \tmentatoggs ae qbes 
ebtow vd? waalted woltourtent bud? eterivatata eat A 
Yidenonnet s doldw exe0 to eo1geb tad?” apnea of eta ran. 
tTebny yartal blove of stat bivow money evottuae x0 ae 
aottowxtenod etdt tadt bedoetdd at # | Navonateavorlo ‘et — 
tieemid batt tdylm nosteq theberg Udenoreer ‘ yea? wom oe 
cYustat Gat to enh) edt ts ad wow TYivalelg od? aoitieoq seo a 
«802 ,.LfT GOs cgeeeod wv 290 LH LA We 0 Wy to sone od? Bae 
~seup mt nottesrtert ea? .wetv eta? Yo dxoqque ad betto a2 
sovty end et s2 oazo - toh saw —*8 yoeso telt wi on? 
. <TAL2 seg Oe 





» 


¢ 








- 9 « 
in this case. There the worde “under like circumst»neea" 
were followed by the phrase “and in the eame situation", theree 
by limiting the queation of due care to the conduct of the 
plaintiff at the time of the injury, "regardless of his cone 
duet in placing himself in a place of danger", with the 
latter phrase omitted, the words "under like circumstances*® 
are not limited to the precise moment of the collision, but 
embrace #11 the clroumstances relating to the accident. But 
if it were open :tocthe objection stated, the defendant ia net 
in a position to complain, for several of ite own inatructiona 
limit the queation of due osre to the conduct of the pisintiff 
"at the time and place in question", See Commonwealth Dleg- 
trio Go, v. Rose, #14 Ili., 545; United Breweries Co. vy. 
O'Donnell, 321 Ill., 334, 


Finding no reversible error among those discussed 


in the briefe of counsel, the judgment will be affirmed, 


AYFIRVED, 


Mre Presiding Justice McSurely dissents. 




















“eonnstoaverte etth rebaw® abrow od? etedt | 
<ored? ,"a0itautie emee od? ot bus” sestdy odd, yo denol. 0 
out Yo. tousaos ed? of oxs0 aud Yo my tdooup aity pate be 
aso eid lo esekbamer" wasted edt YO outt edt , 
eid ati . s®z0gmed to eneiq. « nk Yoentd actooty ad 
"eooast avery O1Ls rebar ahxer edt «bet 
tud  sclethion ed? te taecon onioor od? of 
tii teebiinws edt 08 — 8— — 
e⸗oö tasbapteb of? yhotate aot 
enoivourdent awo att atin lian 
BWttatekg ad? to —ö— n gndbbanen:2 
ee — — e“aotteaup ak costa bas 
ieee ee 2008 qelll OES qgagh 
REE ge LT 188 %% 
beseuoet> evodd gnowa rorxe eidtexever on gatbalt 
hie sodbeaattine od {Ltn Sinempowt sdt ,foangoo-20 
, ol eek el! eal Gee Ge peas obese bow 
-CMUATTVA 


im : Aa | ta hegre ved no cde 





| 


La 
hie 
>. 

’ 


— 


ZW. 


snk alt" wxa' ted 
-adrreaath yfewaol — gai bteerd WM 
vu ee 


enki Ti Ba 0 vat Bad 





ri ‘ DRAFTS aztorle 


ted 


\ | Tage — — — 
> all omer 


i 


pane 





. —— eee 





arcl Te er 2 7 —— KAT T l M NAL AY \ YW ‘ 
ee - insee. — * — 
a / — AA ‘ * 

FRED C. RIGHMIRE, 4 

Defendant in Erroy, } ERROR TO 

VSe ) MUBRICIPAL COURT 

GEORGE A, NEEVE f L 2 , OF CHICAGO. 

Plaintirr 4 Vy Chartered. MeN tyr 

F om Ps di ar a os cx — — Lf yy 


WR, JUSTICE FITCH DELIVERED THE OPIBIOK OF THE COURT. 
Defendant in error recovered a judgment against plain- 

tiff in error for $400, in an action of the fourth class, 
brought in the Hunicipal Court of Chicago. The plaintiff's 
ataterent of claim is for money due upor three promissory notes 
signed by plaintiff in error. fhe first two of such notes are 
dated “Chicago, October 19, 1910", are payable to the order of 
¥eCarty & Russell, at 145 bearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois, 
and are endorsed by them in blank. fhe third note is dated 
"“oreces, Ind., Hay 7, 1916", is payable to the order of plain- 
tiff in errer at the First National Bank in Chicago, ami is en- 
dorsed by plaintiff in error in blank. The aummons issued by 
the Municipal Court commands the bailiff of that court to summon 


the defendant "if he shall be found in the first district of the 





Gity of Chicago to appear before the Municipal Court", etsc., and 
the returm of the bailiff shows personal service by delivering «4 
copy to the defendant, “with a praecipe and statement of clain 
ard affidavit attached thereto, and at the same time informing 
him of the contents thereof in the city of Chicago". ‘the defend- 
ant entered a general eppearenee and demard for a jury trial, and 
_ filed an affidavit of merits, which, as amended, atates that is 
defense is that all the notes were executed without consideration, 
{ that the first two nctes were assigned to the plaintiff after 
the maturity thereof, and that the third note was executed and 
delivered to the plaintiff by the defendant. When the case was 


| 
: 



























‘ 
i ny . See OK SlCr ays on 
if i, * a J 4 ad c ‘eS, Fe ae Wee. ee t t 7 Mors 
— —* - 3 
* J 2 —* — _ 7 
Pots — ARO it Sia * ee ORAS acs eet? 2966. RAB end 


se! ae a ee + Sed ae 





70D — 


‘ve * 8 ses et toTt 
PORNE BESS Soma saadeue = ots Ww. 


J —— — ca * 


———— — 
— odt 20 soldoa aa at <00 Piss 22 
⸗art⸗ntacq oft | ——— 
w qroselmong sexds coq our yenom wr of a 
‘ere aadon soue 2o ons sett ect, store at | 
1¢ obs oid of oidayor ome "040! 2 0F90 ,oRan 
sslontLti coxaoldo soos modwses arf 2a Ltoasut 
_ Detab at Sor trict oft Anald at met Yo Saenohee wt 
~ttalq to «eho edt of oldayeg at ."0L0L 4° yak bau 408 
~«0 et Ine .ogedtsd n2 inst LamottoR aeata edt to: 
ys Deveat snomiua eT stoald at rowse at TABSatal y 
fomase of ume tacdd 20 Tiiited eri? ebugmmao dtu0d Laqh 
odd 20 dotasotbh seat? od mt bauo? od Slade ot LE". as 
hese ,.03¢ Ptav0d iaqtolomi edt e1oted laeqqs of 0 
4 gnitevtteb qs cotviee Lanoeweq sue VAited edd 20. srmaben 
stale Yo Jwomedasa dia eqtoeeny s déin” ginabuoteb elf @ 
| arttorro'te: t ont? eqen ents’ 2e bas ,osereds boeco⸗aa ⸗ 
| -baeteb ett "opeokdd Io yto adj at Toeredd admomon, edi 3 
| tre yiaitd yuil # 707 Puumub how sonataeqqa Lexeg & Bs 
| atc sant’ aotada wbebsens GB vito bibs sstizem to Z 
i teoltevebliesoe Suoridiw betyeexe eter soso ss dis taas Pe 
| pnitte:Aotsatate — “ 
9 bom Dedsoeme sow ofom butts eld todd den owes —fbmudem odd 
| ese c8s0 ord mod — — tt: 16 Seana 








a 


_ reached for trial, the defendart made a motion for a contin- 





nance, and in support of his motion, filed twe affidavits, The 
first was signed by a physician, who deposed that about two 
months prior to the trial, he had performed 4 surgical operation 
upon the defendant, "that said Neeves is not able to appear in 
court because of the said physical condition of said Neeves", 

and that “he verily believes the said Neeves will not be able 

te appear in court for the trial of this suit for at least thirty 
days hereafter". ‘The second affidavit is by the attorney of the 
defendant, who states that defendant “has besn sericusly ill for 
some length of time", that two months before the trial he had a 
surgical operation, ani that the affiant wae informed by the sure 
geen that defendant would be fully recovered and able to be about 
in threes or four weeks after the operation, but that complications 
ensued, which “delayed and prevented the full and serly recovery 
of said deferdant*, that defendant "will be ready and willing 

te proceed with the trial cf said avit as socom as his physical 
cordition will permit, and affiant says that he fully expects 
said deferiant will be able to appear in court and preceed with 
the trial in rot to exceed thirty daye"; that the presence cf 
the defendant is necessary because he is a material witness in 
his cwn behalf; that he expects to show by the defendant that 
the third note wae executed ami delivered “sclely for the re- 
lease and satisfaction" of sundry unfounded claims for mechanic's 
liens, which, affiant states, were clowia wpom the title te de- 
fendant’s property; that the presence of defendant ia aleo nec- 
essary for the purpose of aiding in the examination and cross- 
examination of witnesses and te explein certain letters and con- 
versations which the affiant saye the plaintiff will introduce; 
and that “because of his physical condition, defendant is unable 
te appear in court", The record thon shows that “the court, 





















— 


Racal « ot 
-alimoo # tot molsom s ebham snsbaeteb ext ——— 
ott sedtvebtits ot beEtt ~rolven ek to sroqgae 
ows tuocde fads Senoqed one etatotatia 2 ys 
tottoreqo Lestg me w temrotteq bal ed fat edt ot + 
at saeq7s of elds tow at asveell Glee saris” vtnabee 
e"acveo% biae to motsthmoo Iseteyiq bles edd %o 98 o 
olds ed som Lftw aeveok bien edd seveliod yiitow 
‘ydaidd Snnek serot cies aids Ye Labat ext? 40% 
olf Ye yormiodse eff yd ut JivebfYis froses ont 
@ bast ot Iphad esd exo%ed etitnom oud Jadd ,"omtt wo 
-we ed yd beergotel ssw tasiTis ens tends ete , | 
tuoda ed o¢ cfds ine Denovoces yin od bivow 4 
ene igephiqnos suit tud yagitereqo one yodte ateow aver 
watifiw tema ybuot od [itw" snuabroted sacid , 
isoleyig cic ee mooa ee Situs Dies to Ietad os Ht 
agooque YLint ed gerd syse Sreltie bie .sierreg 10 
ittw heenony fae s1g0o xt t#0qqe Of efda ed Itw snabre’ 
Yo eonenety off fats ;"evab ysristt heedxe o¢ ton al 
at neontiv Letiesam o sf of eaunoed yiesveoer st drat 
tat? dnebewtob edt yd wode of esoeque of Sadd “Y% 
-o1 cfd 20% ylefos* herevifed bra besuooxs sav vi 
An 2’olaatoes 10% omislo bebo yubave to *nottomtettsa” ; 
| -eh 93 off!5 odd noqu shuolo etew ,¢edade énaltia .donde 2 
-oer oels ct sashasteb to eanéuenq ons farts tTySTeqosg i 
-ap0% bes colsamimaxe oft xf yetibhs “to Soong Girls OR | J— 
109 bs awwitel miasi0ee mieiqze oF bre semverdtw to motdanbaiiie” 
reombotdnt Litw Yittalela ed? wyee sel Tte eit dotdy ero tesetee” 
eda e2 ¢nabmoteh »tobetbnoo Lseteydy sit to sevesed™ Sats bal” 
attuoo ef?" sons awoda mots brooet af -."Pyoo al ss8qgs oe” 


-% 











3 


upon consideration of said motion and upon the fact that thie 
Caues has been upon the trial call on February 13, 14, 15, 16, 
19 and 20th, and called for trial several times during this tine 
and postponed upon the motion ef the defendant, whose scunsel 
promised that he sould obtain the deposition of the defendant, 
* ¢ # and on the further ground that the cause had been expressly 
continued from February 20th to February 23rd on motion of deft., 
who stated by counsel that he would be ready for trial on the 
25rd", denied the motion for a contirmance. No letters from, or 
conversationa with, the defendant, were introduced. 

it is first urged that the sourt erred in denying the 
motion for a continuanse. In suppert of this contention counsel 
cite the case of Sotmell v. Rothbath, 71 111. 83. The only point 
Gecided in that case was that the court properly denied a motion 
fer continuance, on facts similar to the case before us. It was 
there held that affidavits which do not show that the presence 
of a defendant at the trial is necessary and which do not state 
thet the defendant is sick at the time of the application for scon- 
timuance, are insufficient. The same is true in this case. ‘he 
statements in the affidavite that the defendant sas “umable to 
attend the triel” ars the mere conclusions of the deponents,. Nei- 
ther of the affidavits shows any necessity for the presence of 
the defendant at the trial. ‘he matters which if. is said the de- 
fendant, if present, «ould testify to, woulda not be material, if 
true. We are of the opinion that there was no error in denying 
the motion for a continuance. 

It is next urged that the “Yunicipal Court of Chicago 
is a local inferior court, that no presumptions are to be indulged 
in favor of its jurisdiction and that the record does not show 
that the umicipal Court had jurisdiction. ife think the contention 
is without merit. Jurisdiction is the power to hear ari determine 





— 




















ete? tei? Jost add coq fun solgom bize Yo a 
oi «22 ght Rl weeewiet oo flap fait? ems: 
echd ldd qrbtup woukd Kewoyee Loti? wo betta tem 
RPA — — — 
eitsbaetes ete Io nektinogeb ons matic “— 
αα Hood bad neue exit suit POND reWue tt 
+-S26b to mottos me b3TS quurniel of dt0S yeow | 
at me: — xonen of Shsno od suet hemmeee. % 
TO mors exegeel OM~ NATE IO 2 A: OI OA 
ee 
ond gstymd at bevie foe odd dautd 
fearon moltmesaey eit? to dueqque ah 
dntog vine eff .25 £11 £9 eitadiiiog ov 
ast@on 2 hetmeh yiteqety sauce ef sade. ; 
eum ot mg ended evee it 03 wefints ateatt m0 < 
etads ton ab dolde bus yasescoon oi isivt eds ta 
20 Ww? cotinnhiqge ede Yo emty eft Ja dole ah 
ant? .enne ahi? at eust at emee od? «dao tel Tivenk ote 4 
@$ efdenc* ssw toakneteb eid Jant aftvebltte eds at a 
~ tok setnesrab od) to enctasieces evem edd ove “shad os a 
26 eqreneng: 4dd:-tet ylensoun qus encds a¢henbiThe 
-ef off Sine ef 4% totde westten eft siete ent te. 
Tt ,fetuesan of Jon bison pot YAttest bivow «éacsesg 2b gia 
Re a ee ee 


svonauntsaee £ 30% = 


genic? Yo sued — oct dans bonny axem et gz 
bem ight ud of et4 anotiquvesig of Inde .tacso sobre ttt: 

wos Jen seob broses etd dart sun cphtotbulndest Tel : 
Estetecs edd takis of saottobpebiyt ad sawed Legkotews ects stadt 
enivrteseh ire teed of yesog etfs at nobtoiielawwt «titer syodsiu ef 


— we 


& cause. Section 2 of the Kunicipsi Court Act gives the Muni- 
cipal Court jurisdiction, aa cases of the fourth class, of *all 
civil actions, quasi criminal actions excepted, for the racovery 
of money only, whem the amount claimed by the plaintiff, exclu- 
sive of costs, does not exceed One Thousand Dollars”. Section 
4 of the Act divides the city of Chicago into five districts, 
the firat of shich embraces the central business portion of the 
city. Section 29 provides that cases of the fourth class, mention- 

ed in section 2 of the Act, shall be brought and prosecuted in 
the district in which the defendant resides or is fours. The 
bailiff's return shows that the defendant was found in the firet 
district of Chicago. He entered a general appearance and filed an 
affidavit of merits, in noither of which did he object te the 
Jurisdiction of the court, Jurisdiction of ths subject watter 
is expresely conferred by statute, and jurisdiction of the person 
cannot be denied sfter a general appezrance has been entered and 
a plea to the merits has been filed. An affidavit of merits in 
the Mumicipal Ceurt answers the same purpoze in thia respect, 
as @ plea te the merita in the Gircuit Court. Furthermore, as 
all the notes sued upon were expressly made paysble in the city 
of Ghicago, the cause of action arose or accrued within thet city, 
and that fact appears of record. 

finding no reversible error in the record, the judgment 

of the wuni¢ipal Court will be affirmed. 


AYPINMED, 





















-tnwtt od cows SoA JOD Teqdotmutt ots to 8 « 
tin® to wweaic dimwot dd to uoman se .nok pet 
— 
ulead ,Y22éetai¢ eff yo Bemtato somoms odd 
—— B— 
——— 
tt 10 sotdog senciteut ‘Taniitne oft seterntie Hotsty 
<cottnom ,cealo d4ust oni Fo ‘neesy Jadd sobivor 
at beducenote bas sigue! af (Lads sok edd Yo Rt 
oct -trwot ef 10 Gebteor Jnansteb ont dette ak’ 
Serf? odd itt Brot caw tnwneteb ed} gadd ewods bes 
———— 
SUE oF JS0etdo on BED dolce Yo qenston af yertrés S 
xotten jootdes ed? to notvetbelun .squ0o WHY 20 

notreq eit Yo mOLsolbetawl bese yetudata qo borwe'teio 
bu boredms soos an wonurtssage Laveary 1 nedte beta @ 
it sfliow 20 sivebtvts mA belt? mood wart 69 tice 
eJoogne? efd¢ mf saoqmg oman edd exewens dod Laqtolim 
ytio edt mt eldayaq eben yLesevqns etew moqu bend do 
vette sa mtdtte Seutooe 10 enous motion 36 Slee ey 
| <<" ptocet Yo Winegge & 
Soremghet orld .ftece1 odd af tome efdiereved an axles 
-bewitTts ed Iftw 


— 


eGR RATIMA 





3 


Weareh fern, 


8 
* 






$01 - 18341. nor AV ame Ger ny 
; — wis — 9 f f 
LA>ACLAA. ia Aidity 9 * 
F. W. NORWOOD and Q. Y. HAMILfoN, ‘ I} * 
doing business under firm n of 
LUMBER SHIPPERS STORAGE & COBMIS= ERROR TO 


SION 00., 
MUNICIPAL COURT 


) OF CHICAGO. 


— 
8 TA A gia AANA — 
MAREMONT, WOLPSON con COMPANY, wey naar 
a Corporation, —— A CA 7 
09 er i? A C4 4 F — = if — 
——— Darr J ): CHa, fj 


MR. JUSTICE FITCH DELIVERED TH® OPINION OF THE COURT. 


|S2T.A. 78 
Ez OO: * 33 


= 


Defendants in error are in the lumber business, and 
plaintiff in error is a wagon manufacturer. One Jox, a lumber 
broker, told Hamilton that plaintiff in error “wanted two wagon 
leads of first and second hickory". Hamilton understood this 
as an order from plaintiff in error, and sent two 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 unloaded 
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 "common", an inferior grade of 
lumber. ‘fhree days later Hamiiton 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. # # + We would be pleased to have 
you report on these two loads as early as possible, and if satis~- 
factory, we will adjust the matter with you direct. Mr. Jox was 
merely selling on a commission". The invoice which was enclosed 
with this letter was for 4653 feet of "1 &2 Hickory @ $55, 
$255.92". Plaintiff in error replied to this letter as follows: 
























“a — SCE tue detent 
Bo ma Bus) bvaewhe ; tꝛeet ~ 108 
na Cm. Seg : 
. ) > ea J Sass 
=e. ~ - a ‘ ' 
‘TRUOD sso rH _ { etomml af 
ee * > J Po , 
Sons “oh fe. * * ame 
tm D hae capebcloanie 8 
= 19 


ale pare 5 at >a rao \ jer nt 
kK iva) aun —— ee * — * 


hie ; * * 


BT LA: TERT" — —— 
————— “sodmsf odd nf ete s0twe at 
tedmul # .xol end stewddsturen roger # af Torts 
nome o#9 Dedmaw" qow1o ut YHdotetq seds aodLimsH ‘BEod 
aidlot ativ torts — 
. Sand to Istod & bentesnoo antogew end sA03” 
bra “Setifet" totre mi titéntala to busy eid at — odd 
ja? efodols off Yo foad ert mo betom Bas tedmrl ‘edd 
bita sett" to test @YTl “aebto boog af bevisoer* need Bi 
to oberg totretnt ms ,"nommoo” to sost este bis *yrodelee 
at Tti¢etafq edd of ofotw mOttimsH redal aYAb o oo * 
ebeol mogaw ows Tot eotoval woy esbLone ew" rewoflot ‘ 
sit «© # & .x0l .aH mort teBto mo oy 6s ‘beggite ‘ oxo ts 
ot toetdue ssw bas etevots two ao mitt Woy od peftid aaw 4 
eved ot beaselg od bluow oW & « = .Jeeites 10 — 


Bx. 


« 





* 


~elsse tt Sms ,eidtasog es yi1ee es abaol ows eased? mo ; 
eaw xol .1M 6 .doetib woy dilw tedsam end seutbe ifitw ow, 
besogome saw doldw eolovat ent . “no teatnmas 2 0 antiies 
,883 8 yrowolH oa r* Yo dest 626b tor sow rodsoL até 1 
sawolfot es tettel eaidt ot — sorre ai Tttintald coe 





es ee 


Daw 


"We never bought two wagon loads of hickory from you, although 

we made a similar purchase from Mr. Jox. # * = We cannot pay 
for this lumber both to you and to Mr. Jox,. 22 # Moreover, = % * 
our tally is altogether different from 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 ir. Jox. * « = We shall be pleased to pay you for this 
lumber in accordance with our order and tally sheet provided 

you will give us a written order from ir, Jox to that effect". 

In response to this letter defendants in error offered +6 accept 
$195 in full "to avoid any trouble or litigation", and saying fur- 
ther, "if this is satisfactory mail us your check. If not, we 
will cail on you for our lumber". To this offer plaintiff in 
error replied that “the total amount of our purchase from ir, 

Jox is only $154.25, as the common was bought at $50 and the lst 
& 2ds at $50. Our tally made up by Mr. Jox and our tally man 
shows 1170 ft. ist & 2ds and 2525 ft. common. We suggest that 
you obtain legal right to amount due Wr. 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 defendantsin error for $278.81, and from 
a judgment entered thereon, piaintiff in error has sued out this 
writ of error. 

It is undoubtedly the law, as contended by counsel for 
defendants in error, that one who accepts goods that have been 
ordered and appropriates them to his own use, cannot defeat an 
action for the 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 


iG “TS 


8 ne — 
3 






















dasofitie soy aortk ytovoid to 2: heer ot 4 
yoq donmso OW 2 e+ .xol 1 a é wet ol 
se © ,tevooTON # # # — — 
i Yn Soh A Se es “L, 
ef evtud Gites suoy yredmmt abdd x02 sremyng. of b 
qednsri eis 20% r9hx0 mods taw sidty comms tom bev 
ekdd 10% voy ysq of benssiq od Llade of ase xo 
bebtyorq seotin yLied bre xebio wo aatu oonat ꝛoeo⸗ 
L*Goovie-gaud od x0l sai sow aebro mesdiaw a au ovly 
pea ree Ee eee ee 
~wit anityes brs .“Woldspfdtt to efduort yne biovs oF* FT. 
ow . jon 2 ioode “Woy ww Ltn Yrososte tia ab ete 
nk Y2i¥atste verto ead or + “edit * 
— nor? Sealoug ty0 to Shion Tadot extg* a 7 
tat otf ins 083 28 Jequod vaw osmoo oily aa 68.0% 
win (kad We as xot ai wd a i VED HO 
dads Jeeagus ew wsommoo .¢% 3808 ime Oba A Sar 
mot CimeH Ws 3 ee eae Ore 
tacit dud Sonut ests to eruston @ booaaited aed & 
tout bivoo ti yttilmtalo .s2 oabdet of bei pred 
& Yiut & SIIEd IeBat o MO ssowoctot thee eit 
moxt bas ,f8.8°8§ sor OTL mtatnsBowteb rot Berek J 
efits @uo beye ear rorre ai ‘thgitate .froeredd berrésere 3s 


es 
one 


nd 


be 


— gee ee 
es 
—— 


tot Learssoo yd bebiwedroo sa wet’ ettt qtbesdivcbinn bt 9 yar 
need eve tact ebooy atqvoos odw ent ‘sent here at 3; ben 
ms se0teb fommao .¢ey nwo ald oF wodd sosarraorqas & 4 
atebg ede Jans bewowg Odd mo Ylonon Gofte seidbinny eit 
et eorte ,betebro molsqitoseb 10 ‘Wel ieup’ tonite ee 2 
os xoiifte ef ,yJierxew 2 10 comveds oft mt 280d Moire i 
aidsiw mordd trite of 10 berevi feb weit ‘aboog eit ⸗aedos 0 





— 


& reasonable time. American Theatre Co. v. Siegel, 221 111. 

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 same 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 lumber 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 facts 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 specification of quantity 
was “two wagon loads", and it is also clear from the evidence that 
there was no agreement in adyance as to the price. It is true 
that two wagon loads were delivered, but there is no evidence that 
the quantity invoiced was ever delivered to plaintiff in error. 
The burden 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, defendants 

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 appare 
ently credible evidence of those who measured the lumber 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 




















— ———— —— 
go yttieup ent Saeco abdd ol «bereh10 seed ined ound'l a 
— Ban Ds So * 





Host ,bovtove satval —— taanosa⸗ a sbdghe | enue ® 
ewroxotd ‘to sbsol ows odd omy nwo att ot bedelnqorggs | 
— dat wd Sas Somme of Sas Le borden 
ow yelds #08 .betebt0 nolsgiteseh 19 vi hiaup soaxe | * 
betiqge od neo bedate ovods eLirr oft dotdw 09 snosxe 
edd bald of as oa Betiqqs ed Jonnao 31 .ovso eitit Yo 8 
et $I senteg af ao wo yiltinin —— 
Witnaup 20 woltaotttosge Yao odd tacts conehive ed 
tadt eonebtve efi mort tele sla at $i baa ,Wabsol f ~ 
eurt et $1 Jottg e809 an senavda at Ines ot 
tadd eonebive on at ered? sud sWerevtlos erew ebaot’ nc # 4 
torre mi Tiidntelg of beteviieb seve ase beotoval ¥% 3 
-o1 8 yd cron of sore cit sinatewteb ed oo a a 
sedmul to ytlameup eft sads ritod ceomablve ons Yo ¢ 
at Yttdalely edd of betovtfeb Jost mi saw solovial ocd 
seoxtem efi saw beatado eo tig eit garit wode of oats & 
ainabaeteh ,xoimiqe wo sl .betevifeb oe tedmyl ont | to 
eft seis toorl .teowg to nebusd elds atetame Jor bib * 
~basteb to busy end Je enogew odnt bekeok cas bootovat 
-t2qqs baa — eid tevo ots tebaoge rq donneao ——S— * * 
$f as redmul ert) boweses ode escort to conshive eldibers uw 
torte mt iauoata Yo Busy ests at anogev eff mor? mex 
dead seitste eP>rq of antbned tevedanw eonsbive on eaw evs 
etax edd va oan oP Aa 
te eulsy ono al aa ae 


gt +) 


va 


* 


— 


a 
a — 
_—" er =P) - 


— 
the lumber delivered. For these reasons, we think the 
erred in overruling the motion for a new trial. 

It was admitted, however, by the plaintiff in error, 
that it gave an order to Jox for the purchase of two wagon 
leads of first and second hickory at #50 per thousend feet, and 
that it actually received 3697 feet of hickory. Applying the 
rule above stated as to quality, it is clear that upon the ad- 
missions of plaintiff in errer the defendants in error were en- 
titled to be paid for at least 3697 feet at $50 per thousand 
feet, or $184.85. As these figures appear from the record, 
the error of the trial court in refusing to grant a new trial 
can be cured by a roemittitur, if defendants in error choose to 
cure it in that way. 

If, therefore, defendants in error, within ten days, 
shall file herein a remittitur of $93.96, the judgment for the 
remainder, viz: $184.85, will be affirmed; otherwise, the 
Judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded for a new 


trial. 


AFFIRMED ON REMITTITUR. 











Boy 
rove at wittatsg od ys yrevexod \bosdinbe sow 
— — — — OP oe 
ero ,te0% aeouoaa 10g Of as yrovold duaeea bee daz 

edd gaty fqqa sCeodedt Yo Jest Teas fevieves: 


—v a 


ee es aes SA 
-H8 ere sorte at ednebneted ed? torte mt tlint. 
baaavods tog Of $4 $007 VODE Jonot $a aT toe od © 
— odd mov? ts0qce semugtt ceed? ——— np 2 
Kates sox dnexg of suioiftex at tayo Latst ed? 20. 
— —— narrate: tapers — — 
— 7 
“ amyab oad abst —— 
ects qo toemdut ocd 
sest aty 9 

















J 













ert es kwrrogrto boratxre ed ftw as.ꝛatq 









— 


1 
— ie Se 
: 


> 
a 1464419 0 a 
Merch Term, Lyla, NO. “ty os wae ot, ie = / 
; JamretA, lOwuyrmneea -~< 


— RR bln tA 
329 - 18360, ; A hoy : hi f W 
; By ee fi AA 1a fe Yannis rv 
DUQUESNE SECURITY/ COMPANY, chica } 
*. ERROR TO 
Def ts in irror, 
MUNICIPAL COURT 
eal 
OF CHICAGO. 
IBAAC ie H ENS, if ff i v/ : 
Plaintiff in grror, } (Aik & Chant fa defen dat 


tty deed ae 4 9 | A. 63 
82 


MR. JUSTICE PITCH DELIVERED THE — OF THE COURT. 


A judgment by confession was rendered in the Municipal 
Gourt in 1910 against plaintiff in error for $355, in favor of 
John Mulholland, upon two judgment notes, dated in 1°95, due one 
day after date and payable te the crder of John Mulholland, with 
interost, These notes were never indorsed. On motion of plain- 
tiff in error the judgment was opered.and leave given to make de« 
fense, the judgment to stand as security. Plaintiff in error 
filed an affidavit of merits setting up that he had paid the notes 
in full in August, 1905, to the manager of ‘Mulholland, who had 
promised to mail him the cancelled notes but failed to do so, 
The affidavit of merits further states on informetion and belief 
that after the payment of the notes Mulholland went inte bank- 
ruptey and a trustee was elected, and “affiant charges that the 
said notes are not now the property of the plaintiff herein". 
Thereupon, on motion of the plaintiff, leave was granted to amend 
all records, papers and proceedings by changing the name of the 
plaintiff (#ulholland) to "J. F. Neliendry, 7. Re Jackson and James 
Ee Taylor, asscclated together in a limited co-partnership, and 
doing business under the firm name of Duquesne Security Co., 
Ltd." Apparently all parties treated this order granting leave 
to amend as an amendment in fact, and no new or amended statement 
of claim or affidavit of merits was filed, but all ordere entered 
thereafter are entitled in the name of the new plaintiffs as above 
atated. A jury trial was had, resulting in a verdict against the 





somal bee cowfoatl .A .t «yabroliod «i .b* of (baalfLod fini) 


3 = * 
aw a rE\ J rot ~~» DIS We 
F 5 aa’, We ae * et 
OT sonia 
eOUVADTHD BO 











» seo ey, ey —— 4 Axi > 


Preece 


 «TRUOD SHY GO BOLMIGO BUT GEMNVEING HUTEE. 


— mete! 
* ——— ‘eee mb Saroataty sentage © 
ono aut «200 nt Beteb ,cedon 
nai se a 
web wien of wevts eves ban beaoge nex snemjtuh ol 
mantata — so bande od | ——— 
waton ct? bkaq het ed sadd qu yrizies ughzom 3 thy er * 
———— 
0a ob of beLtat sud veton beltoonse edd mit Ltam 09} 
“Yelled bag nolgamrotnt mo sesede todsqwt attcen 20 thvabstt 
— week dnwe:nestadies weton o6t 40 
ort? tat? segiado tnaltts® bua ,bedoele naw vetoes 3 bas © 
 "nkowed Titietole ef to Yeweqorq odd worm fom ox 
hbaems of betnetTy sew oveot ,.Tttinialq eff to molvom mo 


ert? to oman eft gntanady yd eyatheeoong has oteqaq .abte 















fee pqlsotendaag-o9 betimi{ «2 ai tedéenod hodgatooenas 
| Vv mutt ect totem soeatend 
eveel yaisawrm, 70b a0 alas boo no a⸗ aebotag — 
fronotase opreaw v0 WOR On bs «Zou? AL dnembnens an en Dame 6 
hetetme erobyo Ile sri vokt cam agitom 20 Jtvabitia xe mtake 2 
sano casne sciet aoa a 
etd tantaga Sothsey a at yatiiunen ybart cow Latat cut A sdetade 


rt 


y yee 


BS 


io *7 wr 


ole 


| pisintiffs, which was set aside and @ new trial granted. on 


_ the second trial before a jury 4 verdict was returned against the 


defendant and assessing the pleintiffs' damages at “262. Judgment 


was entered upon this verdict and this writ of error was sued out 
te reverse that judsmert. 

Upen the trial, apparently to meet the defense of sant 
of title in the plaintiffs the plaintiffs introduced (1) the deposi- 
tion of a witness who teatified thet in 1904 Mulholland did business 
under the name of "FP. 8. Griffin, prime trustees for Internationsl 
Finance & Development Co.", and that the plaintiffs then purchased 
ail the asasts of Hulholland from said Griffin for $590, among 
which assets were the two notes in question; {2) a bill of sale 
from said "'. W. Griffin, prime trustee", etc., to the Duquesne 
Security Co. Lid. of "all negetiabls instruments, papers and ac- 
counts mow on the books of first party hereto"; and (3) the deposi- 
tion of a witness who testified that these notes were “on the books” 
of Griffin, trustee, at the time of such purchaze, All this evid- 
ence was admitted over the objections of the defendart, and at the 
Glose of plaintiffs" evidence, defendant's sounss!] moved to ine 
struct the jury to find the iasues for the defendant on the ground 
that no proof of title in the plaintiffs had been shown. Thia mo- 
tior was renewed at the close of 411 the evidence. 8ceth motions 
were overruled, and it ia now sonmtended that the court erred in re- 
fusing to instruct the jury to find for the defendant, as thus re- 
quested. 

Under section 62 of the Practice Act, (which has been 
adopted by Rule 25 of the Sunmicipal Court az as ruie 6f practice 
in that court) the burden cof proof to show a valid assignment of 
the notes wes upon the plaintiffs, in view of the fact that the de- 
fendant, by his affidavit of merits, had denied umdier oath the 
title of the plaintiffs to the notes in question, ‘The law is weil 
settled that, urder the statute in force at the time theas trensace 





* 


—— 
— 



























— CRESS ~ 08g 

oO .dosmon Lattd momo kos obtes tee naw dolte · 
etd tartan toouiter aun goatee © ent a emoned, Lattt 
deter bal α aapanad ten Msatale ot satecwens tne 


-beogeh edd {1} deouborsek wItsatela add Mittatady ↄu⸗ 20 
neontard dtd Suakfodivk 80CL mt duit betttoaed ote, iy 
ee es ee 
— Si nlite pe wel aed Lnst 
oben to LEM » (3) — at asdon ond eat onee 


2* 
— ects of ,.090 ."eedeind emiag = ae 


* 
— bre stead — se @ dats ogen Liat to 

~taoged edd (2) bein B ;*oloxed ytaeq deat 20 sxood « 
"etood edd so* oxow eeton exes darts bortizees ody smend. 
~btve ats Lt (alley aia" chs ta gee 
ort 3m Som —E Deb eit to enoitoetdo exis tro sees ete a 
~at od Bevo (eeagoo a dnahneted esorebive Meese. 
Dewyot, of3 m0 thabreteb eld t02 aevsal ord bart os emt. a 
~om six? .qworte “eed bed Mi⸗atala ecti mt ei3t? to Yoo * 


vay 


sootdow di6a .ednebbve odd Lte * evole end $a devon « 
“ev ht ser dMvoo add dail pébaedmod won ot HF few 4 X 
-oT aud as sdeotviob ea so halt 09 Yue ot dourduaheod 


nit . 


mood ead do fwy {eek doidoeri end to aa poltooe wobeid 
eoltosig 20 vigg 8 6A SWOU Laqto toustt ede to 28 — 

26 Irorury tees bailey so node of Yootg to mobi ets (soll s 
“eh of? S4d3 Font sis to wely at taatala acid mages sow cota a 
ont 4986 tebaw belnaei bad sed bien to divebiYt eld vw | 

Ifew sl war ‘dar tolsseup ak —X edd of eYSiintelg vcd : ea 


: eee 
-osttiats o8ets sary ond 24 OTTO! al efiutede ols coliver Sacks belites 


< 
y 


“te 


tions took place, a promissory note could not be assigned so as 
to vest the legal title in the assignee by a separate instrument, 
but that it could only be done by indorsement on the note itself, 
Packer v. Roberts, 140 Ill. 671; Jacques vs Ballard, 111 Ill. App. 
567, Treuting the order granting leave to amend aa an amendment 
in fact of the original narr, upon which judgment by confession 
was entered, there is no averment in the narr. as thus amended 
that the notes were sasigned to the plaintiffa, and if there had 
been an averment that they were #0 assigned by a aeparate instrue 
ment, as the proof showed, the declaration would not have shown 
any right of action in the plaintiffe. Keelor v. Gampbell, 24 I11, 
287. the practice followed in this case was ao very loose that 
it ealle for a repetition of the languace of the Supreme Court in 
Walter Cabinet Co, v. Russell, 250 11]. 416, at page 420, viz: 
"the object of the rules requiring statements of claim and of set- 
off is to inform the parties of the nature of the respective claims, 
and while the formalities of pleading have been abolished by stat- 
ute, it is still the law in the Municipal Court, as in other eourts, 
that s party is limited in his evidence to the claim he has made; 
that he carmot make one claim in his statement and recover upon 
proof of another without amendment", 

It is, however, insisted by counsel for defendant in 
error that, at the beginning of the trial, plaintiffs' counsel 
stated to the jury that the only issue made by the affidavit of 
merits was payment, and that defendant's counsel, in the presence 
of the jury, acquiesced in that statement, It may be thet if 
counsel for the plaintiffs had relied upon thia admission of coun-— 
sel for defendant as a waiver of all defense save payment, and 
had rested the plaintiffs' case upon the prima facie evidence of 
the notes, the defendant would not now be in a position to assign 
any error based upon a failure of the plaintiffs to prove title to 





ote 




























es 08 borgines of Jon bide eson Yrowetmorq # ,odatq 
einemritent oteraqes 2 Yd eomtons ond mk ofs2t Lagel ¢ 
stleadt oto et mo snembenobal Ys etoh oF Vino Diyos 3t 4 
«Gus oSEl CIT gbral ioe ov SS 
dnenhrone cs a9 bueme of evect guttnety rebvo ond ; 
motsaeteoo yd fremiut dotdw soqu .rien Lanta ino 
boirese want os stan oft mi trecveve on ek oredd 4S 
Sec oredtd 21 bee pertivatsle offf of dergtens exer 
— efaunqee & Ye Berigtend Ov evew iyeds sacs 9 
reoosin ovens Jor Siuow moktwmiioeb od bewode 2 
«SLT D8 gilodqmsp .v © Sila <iirinbibing Wid ik mites | 
Sasi 9ucos Yupy O8 saw S0c0 ality al bonoLfor eolioorg 
mi $500 emorges ord tO égauncal os to notsisoqer 2 
extv .02b egeq da .81d .LLI O88 .ffoeaud .v .0d # 
-tva to bas atele Yo adremesate pntttupe selus odt 20 seehde 
camtale evijooques oni Yo endan od to vottiaq eit) exotah del 
~tade yo beialiods ceed eved antheely to eottitans? ods Ohide 
cad1yos tedto mt es .dru0d ieqtolaml ont m= wal ets Ihktu or” 
teban earl ed miafo eff? of eonebive ald at begimtr of 
‘goqu ‘vevocet Sas Jnemedsate old at atato eno oitan Yomnad eff 
-"treahaens guotytw verison } ‘toe 

at inebewtob 10% Lencisoo ys Setetant .tevevod ,at Liesl . 3 
Losrasoo "etrtentalg eisias eff to anteniged ef?’ te 

to stvebitts etd ‘ya cham onih etie eid slab Week wtyeh 
eoneeetg of? at .leensoo e'3nabsesteh sedis bia ,dmomyaq 
tL todd od yout $1 .Smomedage Saclg at beoasltipon yerut ene 
-myoo to moleetmba etdd soqs betIog bad eTtientelq eft qr f * 
‘bea ydronysq even osneteh Ifa to revised a — * 
20 eorebhive otoat amiag eds sti sil ihtaby sar: sagas 
Mtlosa o3 solttaoq s mt od wom dom bivow Snabreteh ett .cedon GHP 
os ols evorg of etttintelq ed? Yo emis? 2 foqt heesd torts ye 





se 





⸗ 





1 
: 
j 


the notes, But counsel for the plaintiffe did not see Pit to 


— 


accept and act upen that admission or statement of opposing 


counsel. Instead of relying upon that statement, they undertook 
‘to prove the title of the plaintiffs, and failed, when the of- 
‘fered evidence of title was objected to, and when counsel for the 


defendant made their motion to inatruct the jury te find for the 
Gefendant upon the ground that no title in the plaintiffs had 


been proved, this was sufficient notice to plaintiffs' counsel, 


upon the trial, that the want of title to the notes, as well ag 
paymont, would be relied on aw a defense. Under these circum- 
stances, wo do not think the plaintiffs can well claim that they 
were deceived or misled by the oral statements of deferdant's 
counsel into a belief that the defense of want of title was waived. 
Other errors are assigned and discussed, but as these 
will probably be obviated upon a new trial, it will be unnecessary 
to decide them. We think the court erred in refusing to give the 
peremptory instruction, and for that error the judgement will be 


reversed and the cause remwandsd. 


REVERSED AND REMANDED. 













of $49 cee om DED wttitatele eft st Lechwow sat Ys 
, dd s07 date ot ywt edd soussant oF motion 
fat ttt eh Me nt OL52S on gact Dever 
 gieamuoo ‘aPttintalq of eotvon Inotortine new 

ao Liew sa ysesom fd of @f4td 26 Inae Od Paci? 
-boviaw saw ef$t) Yo icaw to cenereb oft Inds Ttekled « 
 eaeds a5 Sud ,dossvonih bus Beaglean ens 
‘Ytassosmy o¢ Iitw 3h hata wort @ mogy botatvde od + 

edd evty of gntevtet nt borto tude ofd Kntdd on i 
od iite Suearsfat els vor saris tot bea ecotsounent mm 


a ms a rer & re 
. 32 , ~~ Ate es Re 

















Ful 












t\ 


| OD \ ge 
March 936% Lote We ing ack —* —E awn an’, 


as * * 
j Yb Kerrakeck ey ‘hime ak pth an 
at = : 


V 





) | 

; PPBAL FROM 
; SUPSRIO“ COURT 
-poeliant. 9 TV. pare hoG oO Papell 
18214. 0% 


MR VUETICE FITCH DELIVERED THE OPIRIGN or THe CouRY. 


LAY 
* 





Appellant complains of a verdict ond judgment render- 
aa against him in o dog-biting case, is counsel maintain that 
' @he verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence, that 
two of the instruetions wore erroneous, and thet the court 
erred in permitting the declaration to be taken inte the jury 
Peon. | ; 
Appellant sdwlitted that he owned several dogn, one 
of which, a large yollow “mixed ©t. bernard," he kept in nis 
butcher's shop at sight as a wateh dog. Appellee testified 
4% wos this dog taat bit ner while ane was peaceably walicing 
along ® sidewalk on « public street, and sovers) other wit- 
—* testified to tie men-biting disposition ef the dag, 
aml te admissions by appellant that he knew "the deg was bad,” 
but kept him nevertneless, and permitted him to run ot large 
upon the streete ueuinsled. Appellant's defence was thet he 
hed sold that particular deg a month before, but that the dog 
ome back on the day of the atcident. There are clreustences 
waieh discredit thie defense. If the jury belleved theplainte 
Aff'’s witnesses, it wee justified in finding the dseues in her 
“favor, ond we see no good reason for disturbing theiy verdict. 
the second instruction Gireeted a verdict for the 


Ry ee ty 


—X A Ard UN rat * 


—— sh 












Auatiws SaPiteatoby oy whee eae pine Ew ae 
E— 2 ——— modes 
—— —E ONT OF 
ott ofnt nenind Od OF mobilen 


3 = Ka Sie. ,ipween een tS 













axe teaghine Pus — 
One Ftged Mecovoe Herwe of Peril Bees ied’ Sreit, 
qb ex! ——— —— wLTOY by 
” pettitaod valiegqa * * an dele 
quan eteenaey. toe ook otide. et Ai a J 
thw adio LexbveR bus .seouks olidue « ne 
290P 6:9 to molSlacqealh gabsidenam oxl9 of 
"bad sar yod orld” vert ef tale Jomk£ogqn yw 
opel ta lurt of sisi beddterog brn qaseLordrovon mbt d 
od tect saw ecnolod s' smallogga bolaxium atoords ¢ 
ahd edt. 600d tat etatiet Aten 0 teh eis Ae 
seoneteeuorle 018 ered .daebhoes edt Yo yah ont no xoad g xa | 
atutsiqeds bovoliod yu wid 11 -ommeteb abet ib tes * 
ot mh wovend ord gatholt of Deltdtan, aor 22 ,socesndle r % 
tolbvey slond yoldwdeld «02 foaxet Boog on oon oF ba grove: 
eg act Soliuev 2 bodeotld nolfomesanl brooes oT ; 


—* #8 


_ ft 










EE —— 


 ‘pelag guarded or securely musalea”, ond that the plointirr 


was injured thereby, “in manner and form us set out in 

3 PpaRintifi's declaration, ox any count thereof." The third 
 @ount of the declayation st up a city ordinance requiring 

/ dees $0 be tmceled and charged a violation thereof, but upon 
the failure of the plaintii? to prove the ordinance, the 


Court inttructed the jury to find the defondant not guilty 

ap to that cout. it is first objected thet neltiher of the 
peniining counts overt, as a ground for recovery, that defun- 
dant failed to guerd or securely music the dog. The setond 
count ailegen that defendant suffered the dog “to run at large 
Witneut taking Gus and proper care to seeure the sane." 
Teshuically, perhaps, tuis clause, standing slone, would immly 
& failure to tis up the dog. Sut It mast be road «ith ites 
Gontext, The consequence alleged is the biting of the plaint- 
iff, and certainly one way to" secure” the dog so ae to pre- 
vent him fron biting, was to summle him, It is next objected 
that the words "or any count theseet” permitted a rocevery 
under the dliminated third count. it is not to bo supposed 
that ony intelligent jury would understand from the use of 
these words alone, thet the pleintiff could recover on proof 
of fects alleged only in the third count, when by another in- 
etrustion they were specifiesiiy directed to find the defen- 


























- go teak 
a⸗· —E — 


⸗ tld eomebtre act mont novodied walt a 22 

sits of becedampas ae» wawt ox aise eg5var 2 
: at, 

duortbe® mgiak 4m mar of At Bot stmog Laciwon 


bat A 
Tdgndose oid sack Dise ehebeane 0 botru 
at foo daw as ote saan at ea 


Piistd wil " .oouwrs tao yee 
——— deni 








e oe. eRe, HA % * Py blag itd 4 F oS eae le 
oss dud . . | | sun 
act? sineeda 12 or ph ei tot the A 9 — — 

es soci ost — ot out %0 


» Biya ag. he —— 


— — 
baeesn ac? gob ot) ekamgn Youre “ro drumny D | 
— 
Seems vstt eueen Of oxem sagony bros wu. 
âæAAA————— 
Sth tdde Seen ed domme dd sed gob ond qe obs» 
~taleig wid Io yrddld orld ad begedta corps poamoo: Oe «SOONG 
— Of 88 OM gob aif “eo woes "ot Yor emo, ULt panes 


boseotdo @xen ah 21) .mkd Ohara 08 gow ygakeid. co} ane — 


Tee¥eso, 8 besdlssoq “Lootend saybe you ao" eouew ta — 
o⸗ooqauo ed of Sou ol 31 Aασ beled dodendatio ou 
© oom afd mov) Dnetoiedew Divew gem saapliLoras . 
Yoorg ao isvogss Blvee IWsakelq ons dass yenole : 
eal qalfons yd aeciy gdauoo irda se — ase 
MNed oct hati of voreenh Lideesttaege exer add nelsounte! 


we he aso 














Salad 


5 


Gent not gulity os to that count. (i. 6. 5. Be A. Co, v. 
Bugkhey, 200 Lill. 260, 262.) 

The sevond instruction is furtuer objected to, upon 
the ground that it ignores the defense of contributery negil- 
| Chicago & lton o. i. Co. vs Xughugi, 197 Lil, 304, 
At was hola that"dt te undoubtedly the rule in this state trat 
if the party aay, iam beon guilty of heedlessly placing hime 
aolf in the way of a viclous dog with knowledge of ite prepensi- 
—— or hae brought the injury upon himself by his own con- 
duct, on his feu has proximtely contributed to his injury, 
auen facts will constitute a good defense. This defense, howe 
| ever, Geponds upon knowledge, acd it in only after sctice that 
| the public ars required te ba on thelr guard to avoid injury." 
| If there were any evidence tending to prove much a defense in 
«this case, the objection would be a good one, But the only 
 @vidence in the record resembling « defense of this character 
is the evidence of one Chale, « teanster who lived" next door’ 
to mppellant. He testifled thet betecen three and four o' 
closk on a dey not specified, ho was driving his team past 
the place where plaintiff was injured, and saw a lady,who leok~ 
ed like tw plaintiff, kiek a yellow deg and then fell down; 
that he did nob know whose dog it wes, and thet tne dog did 
not ettack or bite the worn, but ran away. Ye think the court 
did not err in ignoring the alleged defense, under there cir- 


cumstances. 
thile the fifth inetructionyg relating te the measure 


of Gamagen, is mkwerdly oxpressed, we do not think it is oven 
to the criticinm made by appellant's counsel. Assuming it 








= ~ 
















eee eer ke 
ü——— 
—————— 


> 
“ 
ors 





« * * 


—* 
ode LED ver or 0 
tadid ogude oki uk ews oid y wage ui am 
-banoqaug aft 20 opstvorl “atv 30d mutoty 
“x09 favo. wet — mer unt gare 


«vMlul als 3 Sosudiutaoe Ydedemtnow, scart 4. is 
wort yéanetteb ater -osusiad roy 2 odubigecce Libr a ou 
sal chins enegan 0b tenn gaan 
Xindet biove os Iumy tent wo el oo Bextupes 
at eenled 6 dome oveig of guiimet seneblve yo 
ylno elf tee .0n@ Bong 2 od Diuew-nateootde 
towered atid Yo ceneIed © yatidwonet bapges ent 
“10ah $X0N"HOYL! crit wOtemeed © ,aLAtd ene 20: 
‘8 wel bw sei? asowdod Sekt botttésed. ou —— 
stay meos ais gutvich sew of «hetvlesqe Jos yah 2 oe Be Hi 
~door citwy wat 9 waa bao yoouubih sav VRivndele oredy opeiquede 
{mwah [Let nord das gob veLiog # debt y2itsakede ect elie 
DLd gob eed foi ban 4eny. th god. ocoew weal) son. bib edad 


sapod of antes OF ghee aot 166 qaamew — — 
slo coald sobs youw2tebd begekis ans gniwagl of vd son, BED 


wureem Ocif of anlaatorx — EE — osit orate 


4 9. 


moqo ai Anteia Son ob oF denser: se Ubuowin al ‘ccguab 06 
$2 golewas .Loanwos a! ina Liorge yt obem mulolsine ott of 


i 
J 
* 


4 





to be true, an stated by counnel, that “there are many ine 
juries vhich result directly from an secident of this kind 


for which damages say not be allowed by the jury,” still 
there wae no evidence of any injurious resuite of that dhare 
. acter, and the inatruction, in two distinet phrases, specifi~ 

@ally limits the jury to the consideration of suth injuries 
and resulting damages on wore show by the evidence. 

It ie finally urged that it wan “bad practice" to 
permit the declaration to go to the jury room. Counsel odmit, 
however, that in Kanghett Vv. Heom, 219 lll. 546, such © orace 
tice wan held not to constitute reversible grror. hile the 
practice in question should be aveided as much ag possibie, 
yot it not infrequently happens thet counrel prepare and sub« 
mit instructions so framed ap to be meaningless to the jury 
wnless they heave the declaration before them. That wae true 
in this case, md therefore the court did not err in follow+ 
ing practice which could net well be evoided under the ¢ir- 
cumstances. 

The judewunt will be affirmed, 


APF IRMED. 















i 

| ] 
; | 

} * 


“sul Yoo oun enorie” feild gheomwen yi sosede ae 
bold Sh). Sopwsooe oo cme yLieouth seme ae 
11109 “egal ait ys Dowels oS om wom eagamed ckeh 
~1aih tact % atlvco suedwbal qe te _ 
ABA SACLE ARTA NS SE AN ER a8 





8 Hem .QbS 51 OSS gameiy wv oi 
 gGidkanog Ss dou ac hebhowa ot 
“Yah ect OF aaoigndocem of of as Searx) ca 
~ste ont vole: beptove od Liew dog 


boar i2te o@ diiv dopagenl ect 


— TA 


aa 30 








1 — 

m 1912 No . @ 7 
7 March Term, ae oY tenn ( J — 
2ab ~ 18,592. AS gi P 

/ / om 
OTTO G. LOGAR,; eae 
poell —— 

4 OG, — f Y, y 2 Auth vu 

APPEAL FRG 0 ats + 
vs. 


Se 







GEORGE W. JACKBON, 
: GOok couNTY. 


1821.4. 99 


WR. JUSTICES PITCH DELIVERED Bis GriNlon OF THG COURT. 


— —— — — 


on 
eo 
* 


in October, 1909, appellee, an experienced structur- 
al iron worker, was in the ompley of appellant, who was on+ 
gaged in constructing « bridge on the "Mayfair cut-off" of the 
Ghieago & Northwestern railway. The reilroad runs east and 
weet end before appellant begen ite bridge work, twe concrete 
abutments had been erected sbout sixty feet apart and one 
tundred feet in length from north to south. Yhe slide facing 
the center of the bridge, in each of theses obutments, was pare 
pendicular from the base to about seven feet from the top, 
where there was o lodge or offset upon waich the ends of the 
bridge girders were to rest. At the back and st both ender, 
the abutments were constructed in the form of huge steps. The 
excavations made te reteive the abutments head not been back~ 
filled, and on the sant aide of tne east abutment a planks, or 
two lid stross, afforded the worknen means of ascese from the 
“shore” to the abutment. 
dust before the aceldent, a trenty-seven ton cirder 
head been Lifted by » derriek te & position immediately above 
the ledges above deseribed ond was hanging in chains between 


surmrior counr “/A4CCce 


Yt 















OW SlCr myer tor 
* ea. ac⸗ 


4 —R 

5 i * proce JG! J ——— 
N 
* J — ee 





eRe sites # taaronn 1 * 





Go AT Ser * 


Sy “ee 4 
+FRIOO GMT YO HOTAESD 3 — 


i 
Oe Ps OE Ree 2 OR me 


sete enn ein sn at 
nee Men cde sSentiones Te yothemieet a 
edt 20 “Vertue ubsrym 
er To chee ene sibtrw oq SeeTho xO opel 4: 
eabao ded $0 bas dood en? 44 .saet of onew 
off .oqose equi to mw? e6f a2 betertsance over 
-dond mood tou basi etoemtide ens ovleee: of eben 
%6 ,«tinaiqg © énemtude $000 ori? to able dase oft a0 hae 
ord mex aceoes to anson mecver oi) SebyeThe Ba019s 
nainky 20d moveu=yinoud 2 gSnebiooe ort owed fame e 
ovoda Yistntberat woktiseg of Xelreb « yi Sor ttt weed dail ¥ 
noodtod ania ok gnigna aor ban Becieaees ovods aeghel oat 








~2= 






the two abutments. .ppelilee assisted in placing the cast end 
in its proper position on the ledge, ond was then told by the 
foreman to "run acrons there and help that man to set the other 
base." Appelles Glinbed upon the girder, . and ran over upon it 
to the top of the weet abutment. ‘Thon, in order to get down to 
the level of the ledge upon which the girder was to be set, he 
ran to the nerg$h ond of the abutment and jumped down the steps. 
A Smell piece of planks from whieh o large nail wan protruding, 
_ Wee lying loose upon the second step, and appellee jumped upon 
the neil and sustained o painful injury. He testified thet it 
wos u cleor, bright day; that {f he had Locked before he jumped, 
né would have seen the all; ond thet such pleces of wood and 
mails wore sometines used for seeffolds in doing the kind of 
work An viieh he wan then engaged. Ho slse testified that he 
Gia not kmow how the piece of plank came to be there, nor how 
Jeng it head been thers. There is mo evidente in the record 
bearing upon those quentionse. Appellee recovered a judgment 


for $700. 
We are unable to nee any theory of liability wpen 


whith this judgment een be custeined on the facts shown. 

While it is unquestionably truc thet it wars appellant's duty 

to use ordinary care to furnish the appellees with o reasonably 

safe place in whieh to work, yot, in erder to recover for an 
Alleged neglect of that duty, it was incumbent upen the ap- 

pellee to shor not only that s defect or donger existed in 

the place furnished but also thet appellant hed notice, or 
imowledge thereof, or ought to have had, and thet appellee aia 

not know it, nor heave equal means with appellent of knowing it. | 



















| <<’ suet 


bere aa⸗ oii —— 
ai? WW shod wacid aw bon yoghed 
| soido ocg gua ef aan Sart qhon one event rum” of name 
4 nequ save net bas . cuted, och woqe **8* 
3 ammh 209 of tehso nh yo? .srenputle gaew ‘to goo 
ac! yt0e 9d of nev snbaly oat dake sew egpek ont 1 
aqeta ott awe domneet, imo acetate ont We Bens senor | ‘ 
ssubbwntowy aay Len oguad © seksi cont qleaty te esekq 
nOGh boom SoLigege ime .qeda Inevie ord vOKm 
$4 Gand dekRLesot ou cpusbet Sigiey 2 bonfasaye baw 
bue Boow 26 sogede coun gerd bas ¢ Then 
7° botd pee gukes al hisi2eses sot 
os 42d Heliiaaet cule Oh siagagne sem? sew ent 
was “ros sores ed of oued Manlg te ooekg acd sod 1 
saeaghnl a Low?oows eellems .nmolsoenp 





— anes 
woe ystildeais ve (ued? us 490 of oldomw ous on 
29ay Qwr 4.5 


saweris 24802 o1'3 me bentodaus oc neo demabut abd 


“ 
wud atdnattogss aow 91 tot oud eLdewoktecnpau at at 
Of). 2aeeRu 
Vdanéane @ sity ookteqge oi daswu' of ons yuankine nas 
aera | — & 4 
ma 40% 1VE90" of “elie nk «Soy qihiow OF sinkiiw mt ovale @ 


jets & 


"8 Gt soqu —— aau 44 eyes sacid no fonigen 
nt Sotatxo —— ‘10 _footen 7 desi vise 7 a — 
70 yootes Lox! amatiocce dail cade td bacatown waale ath 

bib oolfencs duit ban ghadt ova of Mique = steered? egbelwort 


$2 gntwormt to tuatteqge iby eunen Leth rad win ott wat $m 





* 


4 
Se ge sg OP ee 


216 11. $27; . Galloway v. 
Gea ie J, & Py By. Cong 234 IL]. 474.) Appelles's coumpsel 
insists that the evidence of appelice to the effect that he 
gow the foreman use the same steppe in the same manner ot Least 





‘five times prior to the accident is sufficient to cuarge ap- 
pellant with knowledge of tie presence ef the piece of board 
with tae upturned nail and the Gangor of leaving it upon the 
atepe. Sut there is no @videnee that the board wae there at 
those times. For aught thet appeure from the evidence, it 
may have been throw: there, or dropped by some fellow vworlenan 
a moment or two before the accident heppensd. Acnse, irres~ 
pective of any quection of contributory enatignes @a the part 
ef appelice, in falling to look before he jumped, and irrea- 

) pective of all question as to viethex appellee did not have 

“equal opportunities with appellant te see and te mor the 
danger, the proof wheliy falls to show thet appellant had, or 
ought to have bad any knowledge or notice of the defect which 
cuused the injury. 

Purtnermore, ve think the principle wiich applier te 
injuries remiiting from temporary changes during the progress 
of the construction or demolition of buildings, is applicable 
te the fects of this case, and timt the court erred in re~ 
fusing an inetruction embodying that principle, offered wy 
appellant. in (gle bres. (0. v. Manton, 140 Lil. App. 527, 
it wee oid by Nr. Justices rown, of this district, that “it 
cannot be the law that when the building is im pregess of con- 
struction an employing ewer or contractor, under the ceneral 








i af. 4 Sie 


-v Yowns fap) it LCE OLS ymenmtoese ov 
isemop s*eediogy: (OU Lit 
be fecit so01W did OF exttongn 2 amanive is daa 
Sunel ts coun oftea ott wh 
with ogee of Imes rere a2 —*——— 
< baned Yo — Rey Clr ae 
* ete nome eF gekvsel to sageey one 
da eins: abw Brood ost? Sout conedtve on a2 o 
Pra BF at CONSRLIgo YNeduiiNdres Yo nokasoup | 
avert Sou Dib wwlieqge caigedy of ss -apkoeoup Lin 
O79 Worl of bee ont of Ina Souq. 
10 bed famiieogss gang were of ahimi Yilody sow . 
Aoi fected ald ‘te othden vo oghattomt Yue hed stad 









6) 













oY wept A 


of nothqgs daduw aigisntra out datsd o” yontanaciurt 


eae 


cnemeng oid tnd sennee! eunened sO yuttlueeT 8 
sidaotiqgs wl .agnkbtind Yo wol2ilonm wo m 3 
“ir ok bovao fruno ant us mu youu als v0 ator | 
YS Howe » ekgdonder tacit gabvpodne aebserstest ae | halal 
s SRB .qqA LEX OM gambaals « ¥ Bde Mia ot — alow F 


Se. 
ok” snes rtolutalo sing 20 mwond eodmawt vt bhew gee | J 
0 30 aesoong HL ah gaLAGivd oo ance dant vat ait od dense 


i va hele: w 


Letene3 ocle sedan qwecqnannne * Tet eat ae at 


etl Wen FOR - 


ot 








\ doctrine of hia obligation to furnish his employes a sate place 
4 $0 work, is Liable for injuries to one of them coumed by his 
stepping dm brond daylight ono nat ar spike protruding from 
| material either discarded or te be used, which is lying about." 
In @aeh Gnse, the risk of injury fren such temporary confitions 
Of danger is in sost cares one of the ordinory end umual risks 
| ineddent te the omployment woieh is ascwesd by the contract of 
employment. So far an the evidente shows, tict wear true in 
«thin case, ond the instruction should have been given. 

| For the reasons stated, the judgment will be reversed 
and the exuse remanded, 


REVERSED ARD GEMANDER. 






















wacat 2 Ry ees ee oh, ea 

j ACERS BRA. GERBER oo Op oe 

3 F 
ei eee Geotk af werd e Ese ah 
feet Pell BAL Sel owes coltwte we ao Sad ied 
eg ahs + ES Git CS Seek Deore abe ee 
pas Rete oe Pay we oe eo phi Baer 
Rit Motes } GY atléws ae o tteert qe eee 
yaad 


>» = — ba? RLSM > eit } al ew a pat 


J 


ways — osx peel a 
7 . 


ra 
“ wissen Ly dicot: at and don esr wee 


, 5 * See +E La Fey pia ar ie al ty) a as 
reo? end a3 ‘y hee ou lSerrdurt 


wan af," 3 CR: hatte nab J— 
be ee . iA 7? oe Fe ip tiader's ou a Dhow 





l th ,4eRN des Rae Halt wat ae ee 
+ r& 


8 Oy SHOR rota lide Mel 





a 
— 


flareh Term, 1912, ifo. Paik: Mam 3. 







a S79 = 18,424. Bie —— and UY. & En 4 
: J 4" 4 — 7 i 
Dus * a- — tf ant | herp 
‘Gam WElis A. 14 Va dounecl, 
| Appellee. } 
) AP? BAL FRG 
v8. ; 


GikCuiT COURT 
GHICAGO CITY BAILEAY COMPARY, : 
Appellant. F ras 


—— 


MR. JUOTICH PATCH DSLIVEKMD THs OPTRion OF THE COURT. 


1821.A.109 


Appellee recovered o judgment aghinst appellant for 


OR COURS 5 


* — —— a ⸗ pny” 
‘- 


$2,009 for personel injuries sustained in a street car sceident. 


4S we have renched the contlusion that the judgment must be ree 


— yersed on account of errors in the instructions, only a brie 


outline of the facts will be stated. appellant operates a 
double-track street car line on Wabash Avenue. Appellee is the 
driver of «© mall wagon and just before the accident was driving 


gest acroes Wabash Avenue at the intersection of Peck Court. 


Gefore reaching the tracker appellee saw a street car approach- 
ing from the south on the cast treck. It was 10:50 o'clock at 
night. The street was well lighted and there wav nothing to 
obstruct his view of the appronching car. lie testified that 
when he first sew the cor, it war approximately 500 feet away 
from hin; that just befere his horse stepped over the west rail 
of the eset track he looked again and saw that the car war only 
60 or 70 feet from him, whereupon he “whipped up" fis horse. 

At the same moment the motorman endesvored to stop the ear, tut 
woe unable to do ee in time te prevent a collieion. The car 
struck the hind wheel of the mail wagon and appellee war thrown 
to the ground. Whethor the motorman was to blame for the eee 


cident, and whether appellee eae exercising due care, were clone 





| 


\ 




















} * D have potendt 6) x Sacer YF oH ,SrOL (mre? me 


promt (4 Me na wh * UL 


A nt, —8 — — a 


r8 Hey . ⁊ 
* Me {Lage ye orpasrd¢ twtial. Ww wee GD of 


rye 






B Beseteqe Iaalloaqa — — AE 


gnkvinh aew toabives ec? ected Saul dno nogew Llan 2% ntbieed 


— 


-drutoS f90% Yo moLieosuedal oft to oundva Meade’ esoxae Mt 
~danowge 109 Joes 9 wae cellonga adowd end a oon 
do A06L0"o O81OL ase #1 — eat ‘tian ott wi ubeen odds 
Of yrirites saw etedd Sac bodrigtt Liow ow sooute oft 
tesid Lobtisees of 199 grisiomerags eid Io woly old | x 
qows S602 008 yYlotaukxorge sew $2 4190 ond wan taht @ im 
Lien deer eid seve boqqeds sexod old excted Sant tend om , * 
vino sow tut wee bn adage bested et Xow taed Sal 39 
veanod alii “ay deqalite* ot hoqwevede «als mast tout OF 0 08 i 
fini gto exit Goda of Lovovnehne xaeriefem 9% Smomom omen ond J 
“60 oft wotaLtioe » trovons of volt at on ob ot afd _ 
nveuid acw eoffoqaa bas mogew Liam dnd Yo Leede dais esd 3 * 
“08 odd 10% dnald of caw atwrodon off wodtodt — 


a) ey 
esols e104 10108 oth yntetovexe ee sallenge soi'sery be 


ye 
Wee ss 








0 om 


questions of fect under the evidence, snd it was therefore ine 
portent thet the instructions should be accurate. 

The eighteenth instruction given to the jury on 
behalf of appellee stated that if tie jury believed from the 
evidence that the motorman either saw, or by keeping a vigilant 
wateh Gould have seen the horse and wagon moving toward and 
eerese the tracks ond in danger of injury, ond thet if tne 
motorman sould then heve everted the collision “by etopping 
esid car within the shortest tice and space possible under the 
Gireumetances,” but neglected to do so, then, if the jury fur- 
ther believed from the evidence that the plaintiff oxercised 
omiinery cere in driving toward und across the tracks, the 
verdict chouli be for the plaintiff. 

the trentisth incstrucion stated in substance, that, 
&f the jury bolleved from the evidence that the motorman did 
net use ordinary care to obverve the pomition of the piaintiff, 
and that if he had exercised euch care "he could have seon the 
wagon in tine to have stopped hia ear or slackened ite speed eo 
as to have oevelded injury to the plaintiff,” and that the 
plaintiff was injured "on account of such negieet,” the jury 
ghould find a verdict for the sisintiff. Both of these tin~ 
steuctions, in ou evinion, are erroneous. In effect, the 
eigntoents instruction told the jury thet the lay required the 
motorman, of soon af he gaw or could have seon that the piainte 
Aff wae crossing ahead of hie car, to stop his car “in the 
shortest possible time and space" in order to avert « collision. 


The trontieth instruction, in effect, states the same slleged 




















oad ovororedd caw 32 deo soonebive of tine tout 10 
— sebiweDA Od Dive anottordent end saris” dal 
oo eit Sd? oF Hovey iy BA iat 
oxf mort Sevesiod quel oid G2 verte DesAeR im 
deatighy 2 snbuens or 4h*{tili Anneke aervcen ett 
5 sty et ema sn space ae 
ott, gAROND OAR cROTIG Ine Inet andviee np 
naa⸗aa⸗alg oct aen et Boe 
Loud geanatedue of Betage nolvwitast stekiaent oat 
RNs 2, 8, SPN. Sa Sle 
Naatala Ort Wo aoio ieo· Orit ↄrnoauo OF ↄreo 
2c noes overt biuv 4a" oxay coim hoolovoxe bast ont 2 4 
08 beoqs ag! denedoats x0 un alii beqgeds ovad of ents 
aid Sac dam “githinielg ond of yuwinl Leblove 
ent ade *y#oelgen som 0 snueoes mo" Sorat aoe 12 
oni ened? to tod niaalaia od wr dodinoy 9 belt | 


1 


eid nt" 00 ast cote of quae 22d Yo uecte 
Siaitloo 9 trove of aetw0 nt Yebene hin omt® gkdteneg 


“wie O19 of 


gow ones ons — — at “emottouessat ‘dgehsnows ott 


bow g#osblo 








-3~ 


principle in s different form. Seither inetruction ie an 
accurate statement of the legal rule applicable to the facts 

of this case, it was the duty of the coterman only to oxere 
eise ordinary core under the clreumatances to svoid the colli- 
fion, snd not the utmost poselule diligence, whieh is clearly 
implied by these instructions. It is true thot by another ine» 
struction (ihe twenty-sixth) the jury vere told that the defen 
dant was not required to exercise the hichest degree of eare, 
wut only such care oc a perfon of ordinary prudence would ex~ 
ercise under like cireumstences; but as both the eighteenth and 
twentieth directed = verdict if the jury found the facts to be 
ae therein stated, the error could not be cured by other in~ 
structions. Moreever teking all three of these instructions 
together, the jury rould be apt to conclude that the fnllure 

of the motorman to stop his cer in the shortest possible tine 
and @peace, or hic fallure to do any other act which was 
*possltle" under the circumstances, wor, neceteerily and as a 
mattor of law, a faliure to exercive the care which a reasonably 
prudent person would exercine under like cirewnetances. 

Both the eighteenth ond twentiets inetructions are 
open to the further objection that they ssmume that a particu. 
lar act or omission, on the part of the motorman, would cone 
stitute negligence, “Inetructions asmuming the existence of 
any mterial fact have always been condemmed." I. C. Nn. Rh. Co, 
Vv. Johnson, 221 112. 42. 

The error in giving these instructions was increased 


by the rofusal of the court to cive defendant's inetruction 



















J gh Thee ee ee Oss “yareak Z , ar 19 * 
—— 15 —— tf are ea.’ —— kh | Ven ae 
<5 ; ⸗ —— 
i . re. peer! ite 
i.) Sets ance 
— 9 Wie 5 ak ier 7 a hg 
4 More aes, a ae eee / 
1 ¢ JJ 
ie ae ee ve at 
Aah: 5 ; 
x ba eS i seo <4 ‘ 
? é at “Fa 
¥ J * 
M 
oe 4 4 


** 
as OL aplsourgant sordhe% .atOt InoreTtd « at 
tore of Une mamecen ont Ye YAud ois aan sh .one0 abe 
lites ait biova of soonatenwerte acd sebaw | 
 Yhusede al coldy ,oomgalith elddugog saomeu eri 
wat wsiona w dang ost a Ji .cooltowtend 
i — —— 
7 biwor sonekaric yxoutine We comes 4 96 en00 ce 
ban Aacooanato edd Adod aa sud 

od gf @49e2 ont Sued yawl orld — — a 
nah secde yd Dome es ton Dives sev ec? 
acolsouitoni eed To eordt die julie’ rovoesoM .amo§ 

CWLICR Oct $asi2 adukenge of dns od Oiwor want ont yes 
ond eiddameg taesweie ond al 189 224 qote of qummsom ode 
aaw datde 39a “ecto yaa Ob of swiled ald 10, 
8 82 bND Yilieaaousn yBew yeoonesamuaile wi) tobam | 
Udancases 2 “olde euae ait solowxe of @wiled 6 «wel % 
-eonsdamvordo oil robs oalovexe digow mon1eq andi 
O24 anodsorigent ddelssos dan Atmeekgia ond sted ine tobe 
-woltueq a sod eowsane yoid dard nolsseido soddw ond o8 J 
~709 bivow ynamwsom ors lo sag en no «mohesian xo } sal 
to conesaixe — giimace anoljorneai" oonegligen : | 
222.25 322 aL "-bonmehuco need ayaule oval toak, eared 
boaserss! 208 anoltfowsgend oneds galvig al seve whR foo 
noifowisass a Mabaoleh erty of Sue ets to Loan ods YS 





wl —— 








4 


mumber 6. It correctly stated the rule applicable to the 
@efendent's theory that the plaintiff drove in the way of 

the car so suddenly that the motorman had no such notice of 
danger as to give him an opsertunity to avoid the gollision 

by the exercise of ordinary care and skill. There was evidence 
tending te support tic theory, and the principle therein stated 
was not covered by any other inctruction. It was error to 


refuse it. 
For the reasons given, the judgment of the Circuit 


Court will be reversed ond the cause remanded for s new trial, 


REVERAMD AND AEMANDED. 






és ie 30 euRte treed %. 2c — * of jidapet. 


By sys shane ete ma oes ames 
— me ot} a wes 73," cn = ge ——— 


* wi @) B29) 2s Oomek z5 oe Li. 4 oe dh pers b 


~\ <GROUAMEA CRA ausacr 8° Geer one phosoda 


wwe. ogg) tao b> teeuldt Lie 2a? tor0eoe 














ti meee of fea od Dhnee Qreath ede 


mi aiiiiogen aig ade 









PY $88 (Sete Yor O© ©)! owile«) oid ee 


Bd 4 YAS? @GRRRY gAor queotcdzaveris wl? vrebow 

















ieecaos #»* elie e600 aif esierens of @ewitet a ate 4 * 
PODADE RNP NLR HEA Wut 939% 68 Diget Boers 
‘ae arvbtimrident séepierss ws iween'gin wit sling 
s Putt ehuaeu Ye mf apisan, ds — — 
® fit uur*⁊ JQ oe etidetiah soi 
<td. ser hous RG £7 O71 ERGs arin) 2 ae 


(AME ALS NGS Syar ata Sony 


y 
’ 
‘ 
* 


oS -Adi LES ys 


4 . ey i Ls fate weds eit Foe Z tovie pet 





- rch — 1912, No. YG) oe Ow 5 oe PE Sra dey, diy 
4 582 = 109427. , apperth ant duced Levy 0 


1840 EAEEING al.» 


ApPoeLLeess APPBAL FROM 


SUPSRLIOR COURT 


, COOK COUNTY. 
£8 ed, 0G — rN ee 


) 6 ol AVA aq Ps A Trota tres 
2 


fn apprtlera, 


18208114 


MR. JUETICR FITCH DRLIVARSD Ti OPINICH OF Tis Co 


ho 





Appellee, isase clatkin, having recovered a judgnent 
agsinet Morris L, Goldberg, filed his pLLl in the Superior Court 
against ooid Goldberg and the appellant, Jacob L0vy,s ia which 
it wap alleged that Goldberg had conveyed a1) his property te 
Levy for the purpeoe of defrauding creditors. Tho bLLL sought 
to have the real eatete fo eonveyed subjected to the lien of 
Zintkin's judgment. Goldberg ond Levy anewered, admitting the 
recovery of the judgnent, but denying that the Gonveyonce was 
meade for the purcose of defrauding creditors. Replications 
were filed to the onawers, after which appellee, Ludwig Koepke, 
filed an intervening petition, setting up the recovery of & 
judgment in his favor aginst Goldberg and, asking that the 
property conveyed be sito subjected to toe payment of his judg- 
ment. The answers of Levy and Goldberg to tho original bili 
were by stipulation ordered to stand ab answers to the inter 
vening petition. After an extended trial before the sourt, 

& decree was entered finding that the deed from Goldberg to 
Levy wes onde in bad faith ond without consideration; that 
Goldberg was in equity the real owner of the premises conveyed 




















me ak A +h 9 as OSES —F .of ,SLet —24 
De oe rood 5 SAS , ; 9 


eS wes 
— — 


ue bee" — W⸗ — — — le be 
—8* + Oh ay Pat 7 — a os Me ee 


joo neu ann dryers 8 ee 
¢ beat —X a use sah ; 








wort aanTagt 
we 
papers mia fan 


— tt ol eae 
Aphin od qo. dows) etualingns ort baa guodbseo 
of eusqasg Bl La hexeveno bar yusdbled tad 
aciguoe Liid elf .asothbero gaddueties Io eanqum edt a 
20 muLl exit 04 bosoeidue beyovaes on otasae Laos add gm | 
Sov ConnYorNGS ard sacs guiyned sud gdnomgonl od Bo 

ane lteekiqe! .esegtherd galbueried to danqmg eid | 

—elgeod glvbui ,oelleqga dolar weie yarowans eng Of 5 

— 
wid $419 guisine dae guedbiod sauhege sovat ald ot ‘3 
~ahul ais 20 @nemyaq ed of Dedseidua cals od Aoyornos .y — 
tAi Landyine end of guedbied sno you Ye ayowane oct fae * 
~a9sni ond of cxowane ae busts of Revel meddetecss 9 





tac? icolsorepance suesitse-dae — 
boyovsos autlowrg end to 10mm eax ovlt yaiupe at aaw guedhdad 








se 


— 


by Adm to Levy; ond thet the property wos subject to the 2460 
of appellee's judgments. fron thin decree Jasob Levy hos pom 
fected an’Sp-,to thie court. ‘hile he lms assigned a number 


«Of alheged errors, the oue error discusped in the brief is 


that the decree is coutrury to the evidence, or, ln other 


Words, tet the fraud alleged in the DLL of complaint and 
intervening petition warn sot established iy tie evidence. 

in view of the gaxvneot argument and extended pre- 
sentation of tie facte submitted by counsel far apeliant, 
am of the meagre recly thereto by appelices’ counsel, wo hove 
found it necessary to curefuily aift and otudy ail of the ovie 
dears contained in the record. After sueh oxemination, we 
fing it very Giffiewlt to dotomino, with my degrea of core 
telnty, wiethor the transection in question wan « bosn fide 
transaction, or otiwivise, Although Goldberg Plied an anawer, 
ap abeve stated, denying tlw slleged tod faith of the convey~ 
anes to Levy, yet during the trial, ke, for some couson, dine 
sharged the counsel he bad orlginally employed and took the 
stend af « witness against oppeliant. ie story 1 Binks find« 
ive hieself very much in debt ond unabie to coy bie debte as 
they matured, he toplied to appellant, who ie Lis sonein=low, 
and whe ie s lewyor, for advice and assintence; toot apocliant 
prepared, sii Goldberg wd hie wife executed, ® quitelals deed 
of 611 bie reel extate and aii sis personal property to upped 
ionts, with the understanding that appellant would take charge 
of all hie property and efisire, collect bie oubstonding 
eeGounte, settic with the ereditert, snd wien matters were 
























he Lee 


a ' Vide Gl baal abe 3 
—— 
— 


ols et of saakdye cue Yrueqen ont sacig ine tyro! 
“Woy Gort Wes deen sented abud mort a 
wodeaa: .smOR atte 
if PRE — — 
“aide ms yo ~eanUbira wip of | 
bps gutalated Yo Litt ode a, Sugesso oow’ auld 4 
Leones Te oo Bi hmnutidus2e gon see — — 5 
“re; bebaodie baw Qnoenyes Jaweune out Yo wos ai 

| panakivesn “e% Lommiss wi doasandie ial 
wees on pIonumn *aeakltcen Qh eBerett lawn ¢ 
atvo od Ye Ltn wate sue fla yiuvhowe © 
(oy qaelechtamne deme sods owner und ah 
wid Yo sotjen Yin site yartoneseb of eemITL — 
AN mand 9 tov itetenieiny x2 nothomanses’ ons aunseah | 
etowens: bol!) giodble’d Aguods. .oeberaive — 2 wa 
~wrnee of Ie APL bes byyello ons yahyeD .hebee W ; odo 
nbult g@otlg Of Yoke of \damiieces Sentoge eeeneiw is 2 be | 
84 a¢300 BL yor oF efdeaw oes dfeh «i cote quoy thommbh gaa 
wolentanow thr af ore qdmatiogqs 09 Debinge ot 08 a 
tanklorc® Sore (eo Sutses we ootrhe so? Hower @ ab 6 v0 baw . 
b6eb atoloediuy 2 gbotusese o1ly ali! beer groebKOD bess — 
nieces 69 qhegest Lamowtoy Sti Iie - * 
bine Suattogee tact yebinavantte ene Hehe ya 
yudscteive al So0Ffoe gilettn dae ysusqow alt Lis Ge 


— 





* 


> aks 


5 
. AP" es oat 
“ o> 


we Athy 


“Se 


straightened out, to “give back" tho property. There sre 
mony circumetances connected with the transaction, as sown 


by the evidence, tonding to euppert Goldberg's version of the 


matter. 
On the other hand Goldberg's general reputation for 


truth and veracity was ameniled by several witnonser, end 
appellant denied timt he ever made any such agreement, or that 
he understood the matter in the seme light am Goldberg and his 
wife. Kile version was timt ho purchesed a11 the property out- 
right, in good faith and for a weluable consideration. There 
are circumstances in the record waich tend to supsert appel- 
lent in this theory, but there are also circumstances tending 
to dincredit and cast doubt upon it. The alleged considers~ 
tion for the transfor war the immediate payment of some small 
bills, amounting to 4200, the cancellation of « ciaim by the 
son-in-law againnt the father-inwlew for attorney's feesa, and 
the subsequent payment of claims held by Morris & Co. and 
A\pmour £ Co. agninet Goldberg, whith appellant tertified wore 
se urgent that special provision had to be mde to moet them, 
in order to provent the errest of Goldberg upon o charge of 
obtaining credit by means of faloe ctatemente. Apreliant 
proved that these conpiderstions wore in fact paid, but Gold- 
berg tostified that no part of the money thus paid was nape 
pellant's money, but war monoy thot belonged to Goldberg ond 
Canc to appellant by reason of the position he oceupiod on the 
ostensible owner of the property ond business of Goldberg. 

in thin state of the recerd ve mint, in the nature 


of things, be guided very largely by the determination of the 





ow owed? .Ytaeqou; ens “Mond 
ONG 8 ~oessenanand acd 
@sg Yo nolavev eyrodbiow swoqaum 92 guinene 



















— 9 Pia teil sivensse : 
«ot aottngwcer —X “atypodates saat Tide O08 a0 


tiie Po ad a — ae Dt eb Ceres 
bee ,acuwentiv Sonoved oi botiaaae aan qieexey a 


tos we ytroaoerye coun wo shen Tove ui Yai balned 4 


3 144 AS bo. ial 
als ba guodbio® ax gight eaea vit at ** 
14 BE dey a 4 mt te ue ti —* 
sto yecew wu) Lis goanitouny os # ow 6 ry 
Cte ay” hy mn 


oct wi alate » Yo aozentieonse act 4008} oF 
ae ae | 


ins snout o* yesrn 20 102 wadendesosida ond Serer J— 


yt te 
Dna 10° 4 atmo Ws ble! sntade to dmemysy 
& $44 . eet 
wer bottlsees — roten qgnadBo tantage ted 


omar? $906 of ohax ei oa jens intense —* 

Ye ogieio » aw guédaied to doors —* ——— od 

incliegg’ -atnemedete oelst Ye anson * — os 

“biod gud »biag toe t oi over eno Leauebhenee osaut tat 

“qn oe ble sud yonon ‘exe ‘to pusq on Sasd yeh ye. 

BAe Wredhieo od begsoted 2otd yonon sav dud ¢yenon 1h 
eee 


asi? ae Bolquese on nots taoq oc to wa⸗e⸗ — — ‘$nallonqe of 


CW: wi Per —J 
.gr0wbLoo © sevniangd dns wawio7 ong re tenvo “ast 
nisi Ge Qe 
oissen off al — ow fr.090 oie to esos anes al 
<<) gions 
oi? 2o ———— orig we “ogres rev “hebing, od gagnidt 10 


Ps eee wy 


ms 


—...«9 


aps J 
9 4 
a 00— — 

* : 








4 





⁊X 


chancellor, who say and hoard the witnesses. It is impossible 
for us, rouding, as ve must, from the typewritten pager of the 
record, to know hor these wltuesses appeared to him upon the 

stand, ond wit what apparent candor and frankness they testi- 


| 
, 
7 
; 
| 


fied, One fact stands out prominently and without serious dis- 
pute, namely, that se a result of the transactions in question 
ell the property of Goldberg, after ois undoubted insolvency, 
passed from his control into the control of appellant for a 
nominal consideration which could easily neve been paid, as 
Geldverg says it was, out of the property treneferred. The 
appellant's theory that such «1 conveyance wan mode simply te 
Save te good name of Goldberg is cantradicted Wy the fact 
that the settlement mde with Morrie é@ Co. was not made for 
several months after tne property was transferred, 

V@ Cannot shy tat the Pindinge of the chancellor 
are manifestly contrary to the evidence, and therefore the 
decree will be affirmed. 


AYP LARD. 





“Scenes tees «eis itt ee ae 


naib evolves avoddie ban Udmaiaoty Bes aeste soa . 
‘ Peis RO «Ce Eiger 


cobtweny ak onoktoonas:3 eit to stuaen @ a0 tai 






























— 






, eee ssa lye: WR «Foi Hob | 
—— dotduobay ais 167 te ggsedbled to 
YI * 4 HED, a ge: —X tie gee 6 a te — 
* 2 — *0 b aid osnt Loutnoo ald 
PPS. Gin nd oe 5 ie fox’ een wth ter 


J ——— seu 5 we hae ‘4a boty 
* Ost Ye hue aan At 
jue Pues wor AE Oke jt 

of Yhomle shes ser osmnyornee « soue dass y 3 rua 
“ Ste) Sed .yeeed? Ae 

sock ois wi Bevatboudues 02 grodbico 2e oan 2** 
ni > sin ate I So ag WAL 8 
Wi eben tun new .00 4 aivioi <éiw chan Û 
Oe eae » + chloro Oe ie ote 
iborwiannd oov yuecess ont seste eutnen 

nw 

wetieeasse at Yo agntinti wit said yan omman on | 
I : a — ho 

od ewtorecs bos ,venabive wid of yiordnge 








ger 


ia 


‘ae , —J —* * — 
bomiittea ed tile 
Ped Fey CMe - oe Si 
aoe Fa 
« TMF LEGA 
: any 
© - 
“cig gay 
badtijeal By 
tigi 
id « Yate s* 
cf mieliergs OR 
— 1 7? ‘ s Les i t 
\ —J a. 


Ai a 


Wwe bebiay od jepiad 20 4 


wre ee — 


Cc 37 ; yobs ; 
48 = 17566. j y : 
* 


REID; MURDOCH & COs, a Corpor= 


, ) 
ation, f ) 
Defendant in grror, ERROK 70 
VS« } MUNICIPAL COURT 
SOMERSET CANNING COMPANY ) OF CHICAGO 
Corporation, : _ ° 


Pinintt in Error. 
4 182I1.A.112 


STATEMENT, Thie is am action by the buyer against the 

seller for damages for the non-delivery of 5,500 dozen cans 
of tomatoes, being 2750 "cases". iteid, “urdoch & Ceo., a cor- 
poration, of Chicago, Illinois, (hereinafter called plaintitr) 
was the buyer, and Somerset Camning Company, a corporation, 
(hereinsfter called defendant) which ccorducted a canning fact- 
ory at Still Pond, Maryland, was the seller. Ths contract of 
sale was cancelled by the defendant, and the delivery of the 
tomatoes refused, solely on the ground of the failurs, se defend- 
ant claimed, of plaintiff to send shipping directions prorrtly. 
Plaintiff claimed damages cf 7 1/2 cents per dozen cans, cr a 
total amount of $412.55. The case was tried before the court 
without a jury, resulting in a finding ard Judzment egainst de- 
fondant for said amount, which judgment it is seught by this 
writ to reverse. 

fhe facts are substantially as follows: Im July, 1915; 
defendant had appointed Smith, Rouse & Webster Go., (hereinafter 
called the smith co.) of Bel Air, Maryland, a euburd of Balti- 
more, liaryland, as its factors, with power to control the sale 
of its “entire pack of camned goods". A. #. Kidwell was 4 scanned 
goods broker at Baitimors, and the form Brown Merchandise Eroker- 
age Co. (hersinefter called Brown) was also a canned goods broker 
at Pittsburgh, Pa. Om August S4, 1910, Kidwell received a tele- 
gram from Brown ordering, on behalf of plaintiff, five car loads 






















8SI188 J — 2 Oo 
ede dentage royud edt ys aoltes ae at ol 
— Ok Spe *2** ont ag. 

— “\soltesoqioc 2 \yequod gminsd Seetemo® Bue 
foe aatras (tanita bia 
‘Jo WSeTsMe AAT seeL les ects sew yheu 

wnon ne ,emrthet ot To bowers eds mo ylefow, es ane 

- aettquony omottoetiD gatgateie base of Titénteiq to, _heaé 
8% «onas copo®.ceq edmoo a\i — segsuab Bemtalo 98 
Stem ed etoted belt? ean osae efT .05.8196 To 

ates meen, ms cone» ot 2a 
sits y¢ Sdgoce et 2f snomytet doittw ,savomp bles 2 
1Of@E exivt ot rewokfot as yiletinngedue esa esos? edt — 

wedtanterert) ..oo aetedet A eauek «citine bedntoque bad saab 

~t}ie8 to Gude s fesiytel «tka fod to (.00 Meiea ond Be a 

sdas ett Lorinod of sewoq Atte .o1osoat ash on gheaaiesan « 08 

bormiss # saw LiewblS of .A ."aboog dommes Yo song estine™ 1 

~tedowl entiradorey mwowl mot ed bas ,otomisiat Ja ! 

aeftomd aboos borne # cote sae (wens Seftae westentoes) «00 Om 
~ofes 5 bevtooot LiowbE® .OLOL qhS sau nO 204 2 te 
pbsef s29 cyt? Niuala Yo Laos mo gnbvebro mNeRe SO me 


<< 


sz 


h 
5 


De 


ef “Moon Srand” tomatoes, ‘This order Kidwell telephoned to 





Smith Co., and that company tentatively accepted it on behalf 

of deferdant. On August 25th, Smith Go, wrote Kidwell confirm 

_ ing telephone conversation and the sale to plaintiff, for account 
_ Of defendant, of “3000 gases « = tomatoes, prompt shipment, ¢7 1/2 
cents, less 1 1/2 por cent., f.0.b. factory”, and further saying, 
"Please let us have shipping directions promptly. As scon as 

we get your letter, we will pass contracts". On the same day 
Kidwell signed and mailed to Smith Co. a “sales ticket", setting 
forth a sale to plaintiff for account of Smith Co. of 5000 cases 
of said tomatoes, at "67 1/2cents dozen". Terms “2 per cont., 
less 1 1/2 Balto. rate freight", and saying as to shipment, "Hola 
for instructions". Hidwell, also, on the seme day, signed and 
musiled to Brown another “sales ticket", evidencing the same sale, 
but it was not an exact duplicate of the one mailed to Smith Co.; 





it set forth a sale to plaintiff for account of defendant ef 3000 
gases of said tomatoes, at "47 1/2 sents dozen”, with the addition- 
al words “like samples, Cans tc be absolutely bricht and ciean 
and cases new and neatly stencilied", ani mentioned the terms aa 
"less 1 1/2 10 dsys Balto. rate freight", but said noethinc as te 
shipment. *idwell, a witness for defendant, deposed that sales 
ef this character were usually consummated by issuing duplicate 
sales tickets, one to the seller ard one to the buysr, that in 
this case he sent the original to the Smith Co. ami a duplicate 

te Brown, and that the words “Held for instructions", contained in 
the original sent to Seith Go., meant in the trade thst the rout- 
ing and destination of the shipment would be furnished by the 
buyer before the seller might ship. ‘hen this last mentioned 
gales ticket was received by Brown, he in turn sent it to plain- 
tiff, and when it was received by plaintiff it bore an ondorse- 
ment in lead pencil on its face, “This was changed to read 5 cars; 




















a 
; RUT - = 


of benorigeles Liewbtx velvso abft .seotamod “bnew a 
— mo 42 dedquons Yevidained yaaquoo taitd Daw 4 
-wittnoo Liowbht edomm 00 dstas qA32S sasrquh 90 
drusceea TOT i⸗ntata of ofan ea tna notseerewee « 
X vo qiueanide somung yecosenod = » seuao 9008" YO 
— soddust bas .*¢1osan? +0. cote oq SES 8 
2a moos eh -"lsgmoiq emciseeith xatagide evar 
web swe o19 20 6, "“etoetdmoo epagq Ilia oe 
iE gage gh ha 
—— — — 
Biok* ,iaemgide of se antvee bua 4" 
«oias emma ot anicacbive ."doxtols solze®. 
t.00 Adime ot bettas ome edt te otseliquh sosze ap. 
Q0CE To snsiaeIod Yo smuoae Bt Wisatelg of slew 
-nolsithe oid dale ."nenob efrep S\y Te" se qneotmmod ft 
awoie bus tigied yletuionde ed of ens. .nefquee eftt™e 
us amyed edi bonotinea ban ,"0eitteaege Utsor bxe.rent. enead 
of 90 gpidion bias Jud "Sigler? etat .offsd evab.of ele Be 
nelas dad? besoqeh etasbmeeb 102 acondiv as 2 adenoma 
eisotiquh antueset yd betanummoo yLisuay eros —E— @ rf 
ah ocd .xoysd edd of ano.boe sefkes eft 02-000 sofas 
etsoliquh s bye .00 ddine ont of Lentgize ond 2q00 ext 
mi beniadaoo ."anoktowttent 20% bLoH" ebrow eds sacs faa 
~suer edt ted? ebets odd m2 dmsem ,.00 dtinG os énee Ls 
edd yd hedeiowt ed bivow tnemqtde eid to noltdeatteés has 
homotinea jest aids mete .qise drigte sekiee ext | | 
~atelq 02 $f Joos ous mt od ovens Yd -howteost cov sedots olan 
~earobme ae eted $i. Ytitaisiq ys hoviepet ens 21 cottw Daw gBBld 
«8190 2 heer oF beynatio ane otstt” ~epsdedt ao itoneq beek mk, snom 


v 


eae 


; 


F 
* 





a5e 


550 Gases each", underneath which was the stamped simsnature "Tom 
Brown Mdse Bro'ge Cos, P.” On August 2Sth, also, Brown wrote id- 
‘well, acknowledging receipt of “contract” for 80°00 cases of toma~ 
‘toes ecld to plaintiff and saying, “These peeple went five mini- 
‘mun Gara, 550 cases each, so kindly change this order to read this 
Way. ‘This is a total of 2750 cases. + % We hope te be able to 
send you shipping instructions on these goods in the next day or 
two, as soon az we receive them from the buyer. «= These ship- 
ments do not go to Chicage, so hold until you receive shipping in- 
structions", Kidwell testified that he received this Letter on 
August 2th, thet he immediately commmicated the contents thereof 
to Smith Co., and that no objections thereto were raised by that 
company. On August 25th, also, Brom wrote defendant, at st422 
Ponds, Hd., advising defermiant of the sale on its account to plain- 
tiff of five cars of tomatoes, 550 cases each, 5500 dozen at 47 1/2 


cents, "to be shipped by + Terms days accept- 











ance or 1 1/2 off for cash in ten daye, + = With Balto. rate of 
freight. ‘juaranteed to scompiy sith the Hations1 pure foed law. 
Six monthat guarantee against sW@lls and leake. Hold for shipping 
instructions". Upon the receipt by Smith Co. of the original "sales 
ticket” executed by Kidwell om August 25th, the Smith Co., on 
August 25th, executed in triplicate copies its sales ticket, or 
contract, dated August 26th, sending one copy to “idwell for plaine 
tiff and ancther copy to defendant at Still Pond, “d., and retain- 
ing ons copy. This sales ticket or sontract menticns the sale to 
plaintiff? for account of defendant of S000 cases of the tomatoes 

at the price above mentioned, “terms cash less 1 1/8% in 16 days; 
delivered £.0.b. Still Pond, "d.3; # # to be shipped promptly as 
per instructions later. Swells guarentead for six months from date 
of invoice, «2 Goods guaranteed to comply with National pure 
food law. During season, seller's option of time. «<= it is une 





le 























<biY ego1w rreot owls giSBe FouBUA nO "VE ,.00 0g oe Sal 
-omod 26 cova 9008 102 “Soexsnoo” to seteoet gntgbe! 
of Gide of of eqod oR @ + ,vommp OEVE Io Ladot 
20 yah fxon eff mt whooy ceed no enoltowrant yet 
-qire eusit “+ « — dae 
Tn eret ear trey — “ 
ita et ies — — 
{ltée te panabseted esow mot owls : 
-nfteiq of fmsocos off sc ofan eff to dmabaeteb 9 
Gf Te ga mexob oes — —— 
-iqepoe ayeb Amor «. ait 04 
to ofe1 .offe dsiw + « — — 
etal foot ewer Lacoivar etfs d2tw <Lqmoo of Be rest 
paigatds sot Sieh .afsel bas affewe sentages eodnetaiy 
cofsa™ fantyive edd Io sod Meine yd Sqfeoet ers moqu . Sa 
wo ,.00 dfin® eg cides geonua no LlowSte yt Be 
20 ,tevolt sofee eft seiqoe staohtgits mt beducexs yaeed We 
-ntal¢ to? Ifeebty of yqoo end aniiace ,f70S Fagea Soded —— 
-atetor bes ,.bU <ino? ££t¢2 ta suebewteb of Yq0o"4 
of elas ef anolinem Joaxdaeo 10 Sedoft? aslae efdT 
Beotnmot eri to cease OOO IO Jnabaeteb Yo demcces 
rateb Gr at Bo\r £ evel aso emted” .honolsnem evedn 
an Ultquor, bequtds od oF + + fob gheot LEED awe 
sieh mor. edgcom zie tot beettetany elfows cotal enoisewiseabitieng 
e1tG Lewottet city yiqnob o¢ -beesitetem shoot’ ¢ 6° sseteviti to 
—m at $i eo ond to noteqo a*aehiee .ddeses guid jeed fest 


we 


eS 


+) 
— 





t= 


derstood that ‘season’ in thie contract moans the time of the 
! pecking and the time required after the cloes of the packing 

for the prompt labelling of the goods". ‘The scopy of this sales 
ticket or contract forwarded to Kidwell by Smith Oc. was in 
turn forwarded by Hidwell to Grow. On August 27th, Brown wrote 
plaintiff confirming the purchase by plaintiff from deferdant of 
"five cara, 559 cases each" of the tomatoes, and saying, "We are 
enclosing sales ticret tc cover this sale, «= Kinmily sive us 
shipping instructions on this sale as scon as possibie, as our 
packer is anxious tc start to move a car or two ef theses goute", 
This letter was received ty plaintiff on Zenday, August 2th, 
On Auguet SOth, plaintiff? wrote to defendant, at Still Pond, “d., 
giving it full shipping directions for the 2756 oases of ths to- 
matoos, requesting that the invoices and bills of lading be sent 
to plaintiff promptiy. Yhese shipping instructions were evident- 
ly received by defendant on or prior to September end, for on 
that date the manager of deferdant, “r. Cliver, wrote the Smith 
Gee, “I return Reid, turdech & Co.'s shipping instructions. Those 
gceods were scold for immediate shipment. i wired you ami wrote you 
amd Gelled gou up over the phone. Seing unable to get shipping 
instructions, I have cancelled the order”, immediately follewing 
the execution in triplicate of the sales ticket or contract by 
the Smith Go. om August 26th, the Smith ce., who were in constant 
gommmication with defendant by telephone, made frequmt demands by 
telophone om Kidwell for izmediste shipping directions, and, as 
those directions were not recelyed, the Smith cc., om Ssptember 
let, wrote Kidwell that the “Reid <urdoch contract had been can- 
colled” and further saying, "Se have telephoned you every day for 
instructions and told you Tuesday (vig: August 20th) we could not 
hold the goods end had camcelled the sale", It thus appears that 
on the same day that plaintiff mailei defendant shipping instruc- 


— 


















adit to oxtt ef% emnem tomainwe efit a *apeses' sadd 
gattes¢ efit Yo cecls els redtse deslvpet amks 
celas cidd to yqoo off .“shoog eft to yttifedsd 
} mi sae .00 dttea qc SlewbrN of hebwewret 4 
| etors cso yhSTS SBA MO .owONE OF LlowbEN ye 
Qo Inshroteh wort Tharisl¢ YC seat ot 
es evta efhnlt « « .olep eidd rover of tatote 
mo moos pa ofae alvit mo 
.*shoos veils Yo owt 16 ten & even of duade oF 
dS Suugek _ysberot wo Wiintaiq w bevEooer saw ¢ 
sD gine Litt: 3a srateReb os store Tténtabg s0e 
-03 oft Yo seene OFT8 ecff so? enofape tlh 
étten of yalhel So skiid ine eeofownl sag sasts 
-nObive etey anottomiven! sniqgkin enedtT .¢liquevg ‘Yt 
“<0 “Wet Qe qcodwetqee of tol te ao saabeo ten 
‘eine ads otow ytevtio oti pdueaneteb to tepandirsl 
esott ,actotsomtien! antqgidte s'.oo 4 doefnurm ,biet 
| gritqeits ten of eidamy ported sectody ext? “evo qu wog Bel 
4] aniwoffot yfetaftbemst ."vebre of Sefiesses 6vat 1 y 
i qt dontitor TO goxels colss odd Yo efeptiaiat at sok, 
| Seadence wi stew of 4.00 dtink eff ace teugek oo sed 2 
i yd siemweh freupef eben ,oruiqeled yd Insheteb dite mv. 2 — 
en’ tan stcotsoottb axtoutite gtathomst wot Eiewb? 9 enailtee® 
qodueses2 70 4.00 dtim= od? yhevtnces Som etew ‘soos, 

~1e9 sed bai Jost3e00 doofrss Stet” edd gat Llowbis odes: 
| 10% Yab Yreve soy henoriqefe? svat of* .antyeon “eieart ban Mbegeo® 
sor atuos ex (dss souguA ratv) yabeouT wey Sioe Bus anothi 
Sart emoqqe aut? $1 sels oA! eetmaan hatte noon Bh 


— — — 6 — 











— 


tions, the defendant, by its factor, smith Go., cancelled the 


Gules On September lst the five cars of tomatoes were resold 
te Seeman Srothersa, of New York City, at the same price as 
contracted to be sold to plaintiff. on September Srd, Sroen 
wrote plaintiff that the sale had been cancelled “on account of 
failure to receive shipping instructicns", This letter was re~ 
ccived by piaintiff on Kornday, September Sth, and on that day they 
replied to Brown, expressing "astonishment" ard saying that on 
August 20th it hed written defendant giving “complete instructions 
for prompt shipxent"*, and on september Sth plaintiff wrote suith 
COs, Stating that shipping instructions had been sent on August 
30th and requesting the Smith Co, to see that the order for the 
tesatoca was filled. To this isitteor Smith Co. replied om Septem- 
ber 10th, saying thet under the facts as cutiined in slaintiffts 
letter “the paskors might reasonably be expected to make delivery", 
ami stating the reasons which actuated them in cancelling the sale, 
Piaintiff received this letter om Monday, September leth, and ine 
mediately replied by telegram saying, “packer must fulifil son- 
tract and deliver goods or must pay our loge in replacing goods. 
We have resold the gosde « = and ouztowers are pressing us", 
Smith & Go. replied om the same day by wire that the gaie cf the 
tematees was “for immediate shipment®, ani the sale had been can- 
eelled because of failure to sem shipping directions promptiy, 
and that this was “final™®, On September 15th plaintiff wired de- 
fendant st Still Pond, saying, “#e gave proz=pt shipping directicns 
amd you must fullfil contract or pay our loss in replacing.” Plain- 
tiff commenced the present suit om Cotobker 4, 1010. 

ie S, Stearns, manager for thirty years of the carned 
goods department of plaintiff, testified on behalf of plaintirr, 
without objection teing made by defeniant, that under the customs 
and usages cf the ganned goods trade the terms “to be shipped 























ott belieonae ,.0) diine ~wsos? eff Wi .taes 
biowet otew eeodamod 29 s1es owl? edd Jal tedme 
om eolty omse ocd Ja gytlO Mek wok to oredsoml A 
HON bts seduesqes a9 .Tiitntelg of bios ef 3 | 20 
To imoges a0" betionnas aved bat else ost sats 72 
wer esx todsel ald? .“anclsounteat yniqgide ovt 
yest? yeb Iait mo due —ith sodmetget .yabeol a. 
im dat? aniyoe Sas “tnegdlatnotes” —— ae 
are isounsant eseiqnmoo” gutyty snabasleb cossiaw bad 3t 
ding stone T2italalg 19a wedsedge. oo bas ,"toonghin squamme 
Saugus m $nas aced bad esotsovitent gctqutia sada. a ie 
22, wg edie edd ters ces 03 90 Atlan wild pe 
mot qed mo belige: .o0 diiem sesseL sind OF . ——— 
a*'YUsnlelg al beniicve ee ofos? of? tebe gads yntyes gee 
oTyeartiod ofan 9% Reteoyue a6 Lidenouagy siqin AGRON il "3 | 
sola od gutiiveonse al mont detautoa Mold ecosaes old gah ote & 
wat Boe qidat <odsesqou .ysbrot mo qetteL sit? beyteowe a * 
~rioo I2tiist Janm toipeg” qgtiyss moezgefes ——— ae eke 
seboog aniosiget st esol mo Yegq Jam to shoog — 
-"eu gniseeng ota etemosaue bus « » eboos edi vad 0 
ext? So ofa etd Jedd oxtu yd yah oman erit ao batiges 00 Be 
~mo aed bed cles edd bos ,"snongire efsthemt x0?" nom seal 
eeldquers enottoetth galgaide bree of sults to cameo be 
~ob Deute tti¢ntalg deel tedmetqet a0 .“Laqkt* saw olds, 
aseigoetih aniqride gq-o1g erag ev” atxas <heeS £6298 4 : 
e~mtelt ",urtosiges at sacl iw: 12g <0 Jootioon {2livs jemm., ‘ : 
eOLCt of tadetoo no tive daveenq ext? aa os > Wht 
berao ef Yo crane Webs ww? ogra AmB WE AE al 
*Yitintslg to Yeded mo hetiitaed «Tthintela Io tm <i . 
enofsup ed sebms surtd einabmeteb yo obas gator nolscel de : 
bogitila es of” eerred eft) efand beam barren exit. 20 1 oR: 


Oh * 
fis, 





_ — — — 
. SS oe 


“> 


=ie 















promptly” mean thet the goods are to be shipped by the seller 
"within 10 or 15 days from the date of the order to ship; that 
where a contract provides for the "prompt* shipment of goods 
_ that are to be held for shipping instructions, such instructions, 
under the usage of said trade, should be given by the buyer within 
10 or 15 days. Charles & Newton, employed by plaintiff for many 
years, also testified on behalf of plaintiff, without objection, 
te the sane effect. 

As te the uswal and customary manner of a purchaser 
giving shipping instructions, Stearns and Newton testified that 
it was not usual in the carmmed scods trade to sive shipping in- 
structions by wire, but by maii. &. flarry Webster, secretary of 
Smith Go. ard a witness for deferdant, deposed that the usual 
way waa for the purchaser to mail written shipping instructions, 
but that it was not unusual to receive them by wire or telephone, 
2 PE L denbers eT Mee Neer, fr F fe — I] wars WAY, 


5) 8 Wehnars — defen d aa aams LAA — I 


« JUSTICE © (GRIDLEY DELIVERED THE GPIBION GF THE COURT. 
It is contended by counsel for defendant that the Iudg- 


ment should be reversed because it dees not appear from the 
evidence thet eny definite contract was made between the parties, 


| 


or that there was the neceasary “meeting of the minds". We are 
ef the contrary opinicn. Ye think that under ell the evidence 
the defendent, through ite factor, Smith Ge., made a contract 
with the plaintiff, through its breker, to sell 4t five cars of 
$80 seses gach of canned tomatoes, of the grads mentioned, or a 
total of 2750 cases or 5500 dozen cans, at e7 1/2 cente per 
dosen cens, less « cash discount, 7.0.5. at deferndant*s factory, 
to be shipped promptiy by the defendant after plaintiff had 
given instructions where te ship the goods. Fe are further of 
the opinion that the contract as made did not contemplate that 





ast 















aofise sit yo beqatdes ed of ous oheog edt sary neem | 


taxi? Gite of wehte edt YW ovat oft movt eysb Of to: 
eboon te smomette "dquoxg™ edit s02 subivosy soon 





aiitiw toys eds yd wevin od bivods ,ebetd blew to 
Yen rot Tiheteig yd beyotque .moduat .5 wefeedd 
ee — —— ———— 
—— 
emt getacctels svin of ehatd ehoog Semmes edd nt 
0 quaderese .tesedoW erm .2& .fkem yi tod ye 












p< ’ . 3 q ig J > * 
— * * * * 
* on Ry | *% ke ‘ — 9 — - 
SOA won —3 SOP Dyke nt hy a vAS eh be aA 6 
So Ni. NURAA We \, Ke RXo 


«THUCG SUT SO Aoxurao a Giweviuad Ff 


— etd ———— — arty ae 
ord mon? xeeqgga fon segh #2 ecugoed egsques of & 2 
eeoliig ait mented eboe cay sostinno esiniteb ys . 
ann oF Tebatn ect? 0 aatseen" yiseseved ect saw eredd ; 
eomebive at? Lie sofa: gait tubs om smo bettae 
— * B ebam ⸗ déina tases edt gyros A bre 
* amo evi? 3t [fee of ,redord att Aguoruts — 
# tO ,benolsren ehets odds to ee ootemos Senrap ws 2628 0 
seq ofmas s\r v8 Js 2A resob 9083 “0 sveag 0orache * 
eyrofoe? at inabasteh fa oS ,04% mscouth Hea 2 caeh 
bet Yitintalq 19 S%e trabaotteb ‘edd ye “Usguow pegged 
to edit ems oF .ho0g ed? qite of evade 


— * 


“4ais\ etatqsetso0 fon Ltt ohis om deantae edd tact moknige et 


2 
i 


<3 lhe 


0) 








oT om 


immediate shipping directions should be given by plaintiff or 
that an immediate shipment of the goods should be made by de- 
fendant im accordance therewith, And we think that, under all 
the facts in evidence, the defendant was net justified in can- 
celling the sale through its factor Smith Co., on the date that 
the evidence shows it was cancelled, solely because of the fact 
that shipping instructions had not then been received from the 
plaintiff, which, as testified by the witness Dallam, president 
of Smith Coe, was “the only reason" for such cancellation. 

It is also contended by counsel for defendant that the 
fudement sheuld be reversed because it appears from the evidence 
that the piaintiff had notice of defendant's cancellation of 
the sale in abundant time to have procured the same goods else- 
ghere ir the market at the price contracted for, before the mar~ 
ket price had advanced, and that the plaintiff was bound to use 
ell reasonable efforta to prevent or minimize loss. it appears 
from the evidence that the market price of the soode in questicn 
was the same as the contract price, namely 67 1/2 cents per dozen 
Cans, from Auguat 28th to September Sth; that from September 5th 
te 8th the price was 70 cents; that on September @th and 19th 
it wae 72 1/2 cents; and that from September 10th to 17th it 
was 75 cents por dezen cans, It further appears from the evid- 
ence that the first advices which plaintiff received tkat the 
sale had been cancelled by defendant was on Monday, September 
Sth, in a letter from Srown, dated Saturday, September Sra, and 
cancelled for the reason (as stated in the letter) of a "failure 
to receive shipping instructions", and thet this information 
eame as & surprise to plaintiff, because on August 50th it had 
premptiy forwarded shipping instructions to the defendant. Ye 
are of the opinion that at this date the plaintiff was justified 
in thinking that a mistake had beer made ani that the sale would 





ome 












10 Tiisataiq YS mewlg od eiuore emottoetth 
web yd ebam ed Disorie aboon odd 10 
fads edad edd mo 4.00 diina qotos't att 
fuebleotq «mailed aventin ett yd belTitaed 
aid Jadt tnsbeeteb Ww Leauwes yf hehcosxos 
~ium oid owed pw Lesearime voir oft sa 
ees of bruod esw Yttsnisie af? tad? tee ybeomevba 
emequs SI .sacl exintats to snoverq of aii s * 
Zs 
mes0b seq atneo s\s TO Ylemac ~eeltg foaxdneo eit os antl & 
Age mdmosqoe mort fads 492 aodmedqos of ASCE tuuyUA MOTE 4 | 
HtOL bas ste vedmetqee mo saris resneo Ov exw colng ott i 
$2 ASCE Of AIOE tOdmesqeG moTt add ban regmeo s\t et 
-bive eff mort siangqe tesitut st sacso nosed og atmo 8 
edit Seid bevieoet Yiitniel cold= seolvba Jetit odd tas? @ 


tI noe. 


‘todwesqe’ ,~abrot mo esw tneboeteh yd bolleonas mead a 
bre bis tedmesqed ,.yaiwise hetsb ywort wort sorte wt * 
emits?” 5 to (uetiel eit at bedase oe) moeeet vit t0% | 
rolsamro%rt ⸗ gait bus ,“anolttoutient antqqitie ’ 
had 22 ds0e JomguA mo eounoed (Titsntelg of ectigme 8 as 
ow ,Jnebteteb ofS of exoistouisent andeqiria botnewre? vi iq < 
bolilieul sew Tiitataiq ont etab site Ja sads nolmiqo exit 10 


biuow ose edi Jet haw eben weed bed edadebs 2 sand yabietet 












te 


yet be consummted, emi that, in view of the subsequent corres- 
| pondsnes had between plaintiff and the Smith Go., plaintiff was 
‘further justified in believing that defendant would yet deliver 
the goods, up to the tine when, om September sth, it recelyod 
‘the "final" word fron amith Go, that the gale hed been cancelled. 
At this date the market price of the goods at the place of delivery 
was 75 cents per dozen cans, or 7 1/2 cents ever the contrast price. 
Other pointe are elaborately srgued by scownsel for defend- 
ant and replied to by coumee] for plaintiff, but we de not deem 
it necessary to discuss them. Guffice it to aay that after care- 
ful consideration we are of the opinion that the finding and jJuds- 
ment are amply supported by tho evidences and by the law, and that 
substantial justice hes been done. the judenent ie therefore af- 
firmed. 


APPIREED. 


Mr. Justice Fitch dissents. 





— — 


















saw Yisntolq ,.05 diiee wt tes 

“Bewleoot 32 yarns — ——————— 
—E——— seed Del ofan ots tukd .00 

ywsviieb Yo eval sf Ja aboog ois YW 
solve Ggurrincd etd yovo edmeo B\s ¥ qo .emEO 
~hreteh tot Leareme yd bets ylotetodsie 

mosh fon ob ow dud Y¥btintel tot Leenwon ge 

“te —— — — ovr ,eneb neot 

— ore 5 ne ey a o +8 BPs 


— — — —— 


— Se? —— ——— 


—.... eolteut 


J wo teeter 


—— 
Pe at PSG 4 


* 
ro 
-* 
< ~~ r' 
e< 
fs 
* 
⸗ 


— a; — 


as ' “ware hee wal * | p 
ahh: com Le oh 4 cortt qe SG 


; ae 48 i Curtin —— ‘ 
; 4 * a } 7; * X htt iff 
85 = 17615. eS Ci. &. Cakk, 'o 5 
Sie } Céyéan an? 
| a) 
STABLEY CIECIERSKI, 
Defendant — ERROR TO 
! VSe HUBIQIPAL COURT 
MARTIN HERMANSEKI, z ; or CHICAGO. 
Plaintiff n Error, A As CRs fre aranck Ler of 





\ Attest — 


yw MBe gustton Gaibusr DELIVERED THE — 82 8 sf " 13 8 


Stanley Clecierski, plaintiff below, commenced a tort 
action in the Nunicipal court of Chicago against Martin Hermane 
ski, defendant below, to recover damases suetained by reason of 
being bit om the fore-arm by a large dog, owned by defendant. It 
was charged that defendant wrongfully and negligently permitted 
the dog to run at large, unmuzzled, in ard about defendant's 
premises, and that the defendant mew, or should have know, that 
the dog was vicious. ‘The case was tried before a jury who, by 
their verdict, found the defendant suilty and essessed plaintiff's 
damages at the sum of £75, and the trial court entered judement on 
| the verdict. The defendant in error did not file an appearance in 
| this sourt. 

it appears from the evidence that defendant was engazed 
in the saloon business at No. S854 Superior averme, Chicazo; 
that about 14 feet south of the south side of the saloor building 
there were railread traczs; that the open space between was used 
aS a passage-way and that the saloon had a side door cr entrance 
facing said open space and tracks; that the defendant usually 
kept the dog chained in the yard in the rear of the saloon in the 
day time, although he sometimes allowed the dog to be "locas in 
the saloon"*, and that durins the night he had the dec in the 
saloon as a watch-dog; that on the afternoon of December 1, 1915, 
plaintiff, who lived about eicht doors north of defendant's saloon 
and in the same blosk, left hie home, in company with one Sraiin- 


1 gre 5 hS of ee 
* 8 SPS a e- 
{ * w ~ 
LS * P 
) _¥ 
¥ * = 23 
2 ama > 


eA AGLHO. HO ner eh 
+s oe Pye 
pares ~~ on aie eT 


Sh, ae mas ee 

Ease hal SRK ss i iit ra dt ve 
Pe ao exept — “ 

— 
—— Sectage egsatsD 0. Ûα Logo teast ot 
IRSA. CLONE AOU SPR ET NE: 
$1, .tnabooted qi beawe Bob ontel a vd = 
besthewseq yltnogiigas base yisigcom: 
a ———— 
—— * 
US ,odw yuh 2 c10ted betas eau caao ont ssuototy ® 
ot Tiisatela beseesse baa ytitug Inebsoteb edd beso? otaa 
oe tiie stills hae mate tte a ma ta 
mk eonewseqgs mo eit ton BED worse at saehewteb oft | 

















fOssoldd Aounora Toltequi: BABE .on se esomtend — 
antbitvd moolae edd to ebie situos st Yo dives seat of swede 
heey esw meewied soage seqo es sanit — Aeneas 
eoneriae 1 toob ebte o bad noolae ed fect dns | 
vifeves Inabreteb ot Jedd exoer fre eoage nego btae gabe 
eri? mi mooles efi to tet oct at Daey ond af bomtade gob ork 
mt esool" ed of nob ong hewolle eoulsemoe ed dguodéin 

odd mt gob et? bact of dcigin eft naka feds bas « 


ie 
ao 


- = 29 B 


OLOL ef ‘rodmeved 20 neonyeste et ao sacs racb-dodew 2 om & | 
mocan a! Snabneteb to désca oxeeh Sevkt ole 40k bake 


« oe 
~ntiey© eno ddtw yuqmoo nt yenod wht #eL gXvold emee edd ni bas 





afin 


ski, and while they were walking east in said open space slong 
the side of the saloon and near said side entrance, the un- 
muzzled dog, without provocation, jumped on plaintiff and bit 
him on the fore-arm, - making a hole in the sweater, which plain- 
tiff wore, and four marks on his arm, causing the arm te bleed, 
Plaintiff testified that the wound "began to swell right away" 
and he immediately consulted a physician; that the physician 
dressed his arm every day for fourteen days; that as a result 
of the “bite* he was unable to work during that pericd and lost 
his wages of 32. per day, and that his doctor's bill was $14, 
Plaintiff further testified that he had known the dog for a long 
tims, had seen it rum after, but not bite, other persons, and 
that it had chased plaintiff on one occasion ebout one year pre- 
vious. John Majxowski, a witness for plaintiff, testified that 
the dog “jumped on people*; that it jumped at him once and grab- 
bed him by the arm, ard that he saw it run after other men. on 
the trial plaintiff introduced, without objection, an ordinance 
of the City of Chicago, in force st the time in questicn, to the 
effect that it was umlawful for the owner of a dog to permit it 
to run at larce on any street, alley or cther publics place, *un- 
less such dog shall be securely suzzled so ag to effectually pre- 
yent it from biting any perzon or animal", and providing for a 
fine in case of viclation of the ordinance. Plaintiff alse in- 
troduced, over objection of defendant, a certified sopy cof the 
records of the ZXumicipal Court of Chicago, showins the assesament 
of fine against Martin Hermanski, (the defendant in the present 
action) in a sase brought against him for violation of said ordi- 
nance, in which case the plsintiff herein waS. Prosscuting witness. 
The defendant and hia son testified that defendant had owned the 
dog about three years, that it was "a good, quiet dog and a good 
watch-dog*. Several witnesses for deferdant testified that they 



























-S- 
eee Gti «= ae. 


grote soaqe meqo biee af ssse gxitian evem yods ofid= ine 
$id One Vitsntele mo deqewt yroliscoverg tuodste .20b O98 
-staig delve yrodeqwe edt mt efed # gation - oe a 
-Se0ff of ave edd gateuso ots ate 90 efron uot ban 46 
5 em See On of See oe PS —— 
Amea 2 we secs — — 
ssl hp tates tom pou Soe. shave a 
J eed fii a? resoob wid Sant * 2 meg «88 0 | 
rok » To? gob ear swore hed esi tort betttveed bertivees ana % 
fee gamoerteg todso yothé Som dud qaedte murs 32. me 


nor wey 900 fuods sotusees one no Mtdatatg boned bs 
be | 


daft beNilsee? .Tiléniaiq ⁊oꝛ enentiu ↄ sttawedtan 


—— 
~derg bua como al ta berut ot sects — — 
emo woes werito este swt $f wow ont Sentt ine gare ont y ia 
somantbto ns .motsostdo Suodsis ybvoubownt Ittntelq Lek 
eX? of quolteeup af ont? od? 32 sow? ot ,ops0%s0 20 p 
‘$2 theweq of gob s to teewo ost 10t Letusions aaw St dactd 
—* — ol cdi⸗xq ꝛa⸗o 10 yells eisetse ws a0 onset 4 i * 
~o7g Ulfgutvetie 09 22 00 Sela: yLouoes od Llate 30B . — 
@ 702 anthivong bee o"Leniee 26 sete yn galsid SONS — 
-at onlo Ytitntal4 eomsntine edt to noktaloty 20 ease t 
edt 0 yqoo — » ,inabavteb 2e moltootde seve « be 


Sneomeseess of3 anieods ⸗oitad to suo Leqtetmm ed? 39 ¢ 
tmeeetg off ni Insbreteb erit) — tianeorted atssau sontage « 


8 


~ibto bias Yo motseloty tol cit joatage sigue eseo » at (nok! 
22rd iw ani suoseorg. baw mieted Tilsniel¢ eds sezo tho hetw a ° 
ets bemeo hed snabweteb Jedd bervtsess mon etd tae smabawteb od 
boog 2 baa zod teiup PTF trie eae eee oe Le 
yeds fads beltiiees Instaeteh 10% avowensiw Leveven . 


=e 


"never saw the dog bite or attempt to bite anybody", and two 
witnesses testified that they had seen the dog loose many times 
in amd around the saloon and unmuzzled. 

RG Eh a eat 

and oxen, is not liable for any injury committed by then 

te the person or personal property of ancther, umless it 

can be ahown that he previously hed notice of the aninmalts 

mischievous propensity, or that the injury was attribute 

able to some other neglect on his part, it being, in zen- 

eral, necessary, in an action for an injury committed by 

ve Vanatte, fe 111, ias-s}+ Ow the Setenter”. (Heresy 

it is ursed that 8viaense does not support the verdict 

and judgment, in that the scienter was not sufficiently proved, 
fo this we cammot agree. "The scienter may be established by 
attendant circumetonces, without the nececsity in ell cases of 
proving pricr cases of injury". (2 Am. & Eng. Snecyc. Law - 2nd 
Ede-p. 349; Chicago, etc. H. Go. ve. Kuckkuck, 9° [1l. App. 252, 
257, aff'd. 197 111. 804.) ‘The testimony disclosed that the dog 
was used as a watch<dog to suard the saloon presises in the night 
time; that in the day time the dog was usually chained in the 
yard, but that frequentiy the defendant allowed it to rum at larrce, 
unmugzied, in viclation of the ¢ity ordinance. fe think that it 
was @ question for the jury whether, under all the facts and cir~ 
cumatances in evidence, the deferiant had notice of the deg'ts 
"mischievous propensity", or that plaintiff's injury was attribut- 
able to defendant's neglect, (Kightlinger v. Egan, 75 ill. 141-2; 
Goode v. Harting 57 Yd. 806; Hahnke v. Friederich, 1°0 ". Ys 2u4, 


227), and we are not disposed to disturb the verdict. ‘There was 
mo evidence thet the plsirtiff wantonly irritated and aggravated 
the dog. (Hareau v. Yanatta, supra.) And ne point is made that 
the verdict is excessive. 

and we do not think that the trial sccourt committed pre- 
judicial error, as conterded by counsel, in admitting in evidence 









oka 


ons bre ."ybodye etld oF tqmesde To Sdid god etd wat 
— — — —— 


Jonbwer aut ‘reggie Jos ce wommatrtbast berw ab & 5 
seven itpate apiapian Om, Seett at, | ‘be 
YS bedntidnges ot vem soap toe erit* — 
to seesp fie at ytiveanon exit twatste ; 
Bos - wad -oYord ged # oA 3) — 22 seea0 70898 
OE ATA ALT OF sinuiitogs oBI9 sogotso 
gob extf tad? heooioeth yromtscot ent (£08 offi Ver, pe 
Sdgin ede st seatoetg noise ort bamm of soinaosor a en hee 
eds at bontaie yilevew sau 30h ent emt? yab edt me * 
— tin tae Gh Sf bewolis trabeoted oft ylsmeupert tadd. 
#£ tats ints? of ,eocmentirto ysi0 edt to molsafoty at 
tte fine etos? edd Lie vel: .zedtede ywt odd. to? aotteegp 
a' gob ec? to eolsen Sad Inahreteb edd? .pomeblve at ae 
~fudiiutte esw puter «'titiateiq Sesht 7% _“¢?tameqorg | 
tS-fPf .if] — ¥ tonattsrgtn) .sooigen B? Irusbere 
PSS 2X 2" OM ,dotigbetsy »v oapuiak — bx 90, acter 


sew ated? Jorbiey ed? dmsetb of benogetd Jon sie ow | 














bessveigaa bas bedegiail yiaosaar Wilinielg edt sacs 


tad? cham af tntow om be (-engue -attana’ .¥ .. A 
-oviueeoxe ef sore ett 


~oTg hejilmrocs savoe Inind erft sasit Antdt gon ob op bak — 
sormhive at yuisiinds mt Aaacaoo yc hehmedmon 24 ovao catocavut 





— ⸗ 


the record of the Municipal Court shozing that defendant had 
been fined under the city ordinance, upon complaint of the 


plaintiff, for permitting a dog to rum at large uneuzzled, The 
judgment is affirmed. 


APPTRE ED. 


Pte 
4 “ 14 * pte > e “~ 
wR LEA 4⸗4444 * 84 a ee 
—ñ i—⸗ — oo ⸗ ed . ioe 


















Sic sii War es ald SO We 
sett to Smtetynioe nogu yeomantiie yate’ ort webei — 
et? ,beinsumy ental — — 


jax: | ae gree Trae us 
= Porm 
eer> EY Sets teas Coes nt ote a —5 pave 
$i cect 22 gone “&e YPeeien 
+ iuvire Lior fact ———— cd 


migxisg 208 — ⸗ ob — 
— BE ——— — eke 2 3 —— nr 
ae bey? in eae ate = > 2s 2a tmisge be of. 29 ‘ 
te at ae — — uit grease one Ae) 
; =. 


— 


va ; Pa 
asia Prt. 

totheor 43 Peomgee fo eaten —— tema ok 
— — Bibs — eins ro 17 OF " 
re ROR 4 Eee Fs oe ae = *— — — » Pet Se 


tl . eT y — — 
20 ra. m@aezy Fee : Ses SF EDU, Fe +P" 










4 


ee 8— eta te “nae | 


Ob ed? Sactlf bhoscies ¢ vowrttent «fe f » OG of tt vet 
MG nh eeetisris cooice off eye of — i 
; —— en fens aS eS eth tt . 

Peo tie 2 hee 282). G2 (Leeaieget th rat i 
S24 ats. a stPAaAniviw “zit oct De roltefaty ag — 


— 
+ 









: 44 * nt ae — om ee. ⸗ 2 * 
oS fete —⏑—⏑O astZ L448 GOL . soins "gu? oe “oi 


— 


α 
— A a 6 v ¥ 


eee ȴ SSEAR (POR oe a 


Pa x4Sp 


ng (PIN » 3 tee. ot SGA Lay 


~vieverae ef Poise 


« se, 
> t— — * ry ut 4 ~ — See 4 
X tox s SH? Soe: ob op ee ert 





ERROR TO 
MUNICIPAL COURT 


) x 7 ¢ ih REE yaa 


1 8 82 a oA y 14 


STATEYENRT. Defendant in error, hereinafter called plain- 
tiff, brought an action of the fourth claes in the Muricipal 
Gourt of Chicaso against plaintiffs in error, hersinafter cali- 





ed defendants, to recover for certain monies advanced and for 
commissions claimed to be due him, as a licensed real estate 
broker, for presenting a purchaser for certain real estate, cxned 
by the deferdants and which they desired to sell, ich pure 
chager was ready, willing and able to make the purchase end en- 
tered into a writter sonmtract with the defendants so to do. “The 
transfer of the property to the purchaser was not consummated. 
The case was tried before the court without a jury, resulting 

in a finding in favor of plaintiff for $152.60, upon which jude- 
ment was entered against the deferdants. 

The material facts are: in September, 1910, the defend- 
ante listed the preperty with the piairtiff for sale. It con= 
sisted of one lot on Flcurncy strest, in the city of Chicaso, 
improved with a twoestory brick building, having 3 bay window 
om one side. Plaintiff presented to the deferdants cne John 
Gorboy as 4 probable purchaser, In the prelisinary negotiations 
it appeared that defendants would sell for 35,690 in cash, but 
that Corboy had only about $2,100 in ready morey, and it was 
arranged that paiaintiff should ebtain a loam on the premises, 
in order that the deferdants at the time of the transfer might 
receive the entire purchase price in cash, On September c4th, 


& written contract was signed by Corboy and both defendants, in 


| hy eh “ ere 





























~ttale beliao tedtentoted .toTrs at Inabaeted 
_ Laqbofouwt ert mt eeele diict edt to actwoa as 
-Ifso toftentewed ,torr at cPiiéntal, Jeniage 
0% ban beotavba eelmom aladiteD tl tevooet of 
Séasee inet beemenlt s as att eub od of bentale as 
bene yetasee Inet nisiieo 102 tweatowg s gatécosesg TO! 
<q inti , {fee of betiseb yedt dolte tas ce 
“m0 bes esadomwe ort ofam of olda bus gntilty ,ybser a 
ed? .0b o3 o8 etrisbceteb odd dtiw soattncs aessiaw & ©: 
sbetemwenco fon exw teeedfotsiy and of ¥stoqotg end | 
gxisivest .rut 2 tworldiw fusoo efs etoted bela? 
shut detcw mequ .00.28f§ 102 Tibintal¢ Yo tove?t at 
ectasbroteh eds sanfege 
“wmbe1etebh ofs .OL0L ,tedmedgeS mI sets atost Iatvetan & 
“moo JI .efse rot Yilieialq orf? adiw yiroqo1 ef? 
e0gsoidd Io yslo ois at ,Joende yormsolt mo sol eno ' = 
wohtiu yad » antvart ,anthited ioind yrotecond a Adie vom 
mfot eno afnabeteh sit of betmeastq Tilintel® - 4 , 
anolsalsonen ytantintlesg edt el .t0catomg oldadomy 0 a6 ' ⸗ 
dud Asao ct 002_3§ sot Ilex bluow adnahesteb Jerks 
sew $f fete ,yerom yheet mi 00L,8§ swode yino Sart ta 
esesine ig es a0 msol s atatdo biveds Yiltatady saris begs 
diate vetanet? onfd to ont’ ett 3s einabow ted ods Sadd t 
eMSD2 Tedmesqos mo toast soley tnkitinaiy aise ‘ieee 
mt .adnabroteb tod ona yodted YS Bemis saw soastnce mesdiaw a 


uo 
. 4 
all 


a 


=Qe 


which Corboy agreed to purchase the property at the price of 
$5,300, and the deferdants agreed to sell the same and to con= 
vey to Corboy "a good and morchantable title therete by general 
warrenty deed", ‘the contract further provided, inter alia, 

that the agreement was “subject to R. %. ‘adeaux & Co, securing 
® loan of $3500 on said premises for five years at 5 1/2% in- 
terest at time cf passing deed"; that the "purchaser has paid 
$109 as earnest money, to be applied om such purchase shen cone 
Gummated, and agrees to pay within 5 days after the titie has 
been examined anid found good, or accepted by him « = the further 
sum of $5500, » s provided a good and sufficient ceneral warranty 
deed, conveying to said purchaser a good and merchantable title 
of record, ehall then be ready for delivery": that a "complete 
merchantable abstract of title, cr merchantable copy, brought 
down te the date herecf, shall be furnished by the verdor"; 

that the “purchaser, or hia attorney, « + shall within 60 days 
after receiving such abstract deliver to the vendor or hic agent 
# # a note or momorardium in writing, « « specifying in detail the 
ebjections te the title, if any"; that "in case material defects 
be found in said title, and so reported, then if such defects be 
not cured within 4060 days after such notice thereof, this contract 
shall, at the purchaser's opticr beceme mell and wold, and said 
earnest money shail be returned"; that “shoulc said purchaser 
fail to perform this contract promptly on hie part, « 5 the 
earnest money = + shall, at the option of the vendor, be retained 
by the vendor as liquidated damages"; that “saii earnest money 
shall be held by He. 7%. Hedesux & Co, for the mutual benefit of 
the parties concerned"; thet “it shall be the duty of R. %. 
Badeaux & Co., in case said earnest money be retained ac herein 
provided, te apply the same, firat, to the payment of any expenses 
ineurred for the verdor ty his agent in ssid matter, end, sesond, 





























—— 

2 

ve cot on woaeqeng et suatinay ot beorga vodaeo 
~n0p of brs eéme ect Lee of Seems eimabew eb ext bi 
———— — 
sain sodgd ~battvorg wedsur some of". "beeb 
sAAGERE 200 4 sneha 4° wi OF eootdem™ vom din 
wat Ys\{ © du exaoy ord? tot cvainong Aton ao ooaEs 2 
 ‘pheg set aoearioteg" edt sods "beet seiacag Mo aati 
«100 mecw seadetuy down mo betreqa od OF yYerom Si | 
nett oft29 og wedte syed a mEste yaq Of aeerge be 
reddust o@f 2 « whi yd Dedqooos te Boog bio? bus héttian 
@3elqnoo” 8 saris — so eae aaa * 
dtigsetd .yqoo eldetnadetes xo yolshd % — — — — eldale 
¢™robnev até et bedebrre? od Ifeta Sleotsd 5ge8 
@zab 00 midste fads © © ytors0sse eid 26 , 
treage whit to aobney oct 0% wvited somede dove yeitvis 
ed? Lladed at satetiocga & = .gntéiaw nt aBesromes 10°6 
asosted Lafuetam osad nt® sats f*yms Tt .eL529 Odd 0d 
oS atoeteb dowa It ned? gbedwoqet oo bie yorehy Bites wl | 
foatttoe ett ,Yoéred? eotton dove teste eyed 00 mitete”t 
AE: ARES Ee 
rosatomm Siua Divods" dad ¢ "Romito oo Ltsdy ¥ 
ots c « .dteq eid wo ylSquong foetimos ait? eo it 
bentssos od yroftwy ets to motiqo eds ta .iiade « « ⸗ : $808 
yertom feortee bise™ Saris rTeegonab tesabtuplt es tober af 
Yo dienes Lactum ed? to? .00 £ xusobedt 40 at yo Biat 6 
<A Yo Youd ads od Khate FE% dais Y*bedwwodes 
atorert og hostages of youom fvomine bite Gand tf 40d 2 3 - 
Beaneqze Yte to Seatac os oF (JHEET ponaw orle Yleqe oF Bobs 


eitmooe .fns pyeFdam Hise rt fos he ner cts oa 
Q * » PRBES, 


ay 


ED 


an 
eh. — 


Are 


Se 


to the payment to vendors' broker of a commission of 2 1/a¥ 
on the seliing price herein mentioned, fer his services in procur- 
ing thie contract". 

At the time said oontract wae signed the defendants rae- 
quested pleintiff to have the abstract of title brought down to 
date, amd plaintiff paid the Chicase Title 4 Trust Co. the sum 
of $12.60 for the eontimation, the attorney of Corboy examined 
sald abstract, Plaintiff obtained the promises of « first mortgage 
loan for $4000 from Greenebaum 4 Gons, and Gorboy and plaintirr 
arranged with another purty for a secon! mortgarce of $500, so 
that defendants might get the purchase price in gash at time of 
passing the deed. Greenebaum 4&4 Sons, however, rejuired a guaranty 
policy before making their loan, ard an application for such a 
polisy waa made by plaintiff to said Ghieago Title £ Trust do. 
That compeny, efter examination of the abstract of title, declined 
te gumrantee the title becauge it was found that the bay window 
on the side of the building on said premises extended over on the 
aijoining lot about 3 inches, Subsequently a meeting wao held at 
the office of Corboy's attorney, at which August Rohrer, hie aon, 
plaintiff, Corboy, ami Corboy'sa attorney were present, and the 
question of the encroachment of said bay window, which was the 
only objection raised te the title, was discusesd. Because of 
this encreachzent, Corboy's attorney advised Corboy not to take 
the property, but, according to said attorney's testimony, "Corboy 
was willing end able to close the deal, and offered to take the 
property if they (defendants) would protect him against any suit 
brought on account of the enorcachment of the bay window, Hoe 
would accept a guaranty policy, or a deed from the owner of the 
3 inches, or he (Corboy) would defend himself if Mr. Aohrer woujd 
pay the expenses of procuring the loan and the guaranty policy. 
These items amounted to about $75, “ir. Kohrer refused to pay 








«, “fan 


* 
ee ee *2 — 


Res § 2 aotentenoe 2 20 wetwe! Lee a a 
weer ai seotviee sid tT — stem sat Dabs 
-07 — ents Renata am ow towatnoo bine ont | sd Tea 

of mand tiigsend e229 0 Soondadn wd ovad of Yiksnd ‘t 
— —— oo Rt ee 
bentmame yooueo Yo yesrtotta ett 




















— —* 





* tere ‘ean 


’ 


vie 


wudniesg, ae votre —* — & — — es Se 

| 08 40089 20 easadog haogee 4 aot ysueq Tasos a: 
to ent? se dane nt volnq csaciotug ond doy sigte ¢ ai 
— § bestopen etevewosd gone 6 — 
8 dows 0% motsaotiqqa ma bas ‘qtmol ated — 
Pr?) tear? & efai7T og ahd Stas os Atanu ⸗ata — = 
reat loeb 124822 2 soardads edt 0 MolJecimexe xefa aw cma 
wo bes tu Yad eid daria Seo vew $f oausoed eL$23 od3 
eid m8 ovo Sobreixe sevtmong Disa mo yakbEtud ea? 10 
go bied anw gatsoou 4 tisroupeedua sseriont 8 suede sor 3 
eftoe alr —E teugua dolcdyu 3a eVOrrtos 28 e* yaste0 2 
ets fee * oron yertossa 8 yodt00 bre godo9 | 
ec? saw dotte woindn vod hise 29 sammteorwe tt Sai 
2o oauaooe ebosevoelh acw .oteid awit of boelat 
otat of Jon yodtov healvbs yerrtodse a! yod100 ) 
yodzo0* ewronttacs s*yortofsea bles of anitbt0es etud “ 
ons etas OF LoteTio hus glaeb etd esol of olds fata | 
time yore tentexs wkd soosotq bLssow (eSnuebreteb) rori⸗ be 
el swobaiw yad ect 10 saendioaorone et 20, #msce0u ag Site 


— 4 


ei? ⁊0 tomo edd mort boob s 10 etollog Airs we§ 2? 
bivow serionk RU tLeemtd brated bLiow ( yod100) ed * — 
sYollog Yer, ect? oraz nok ois uBMO7g 0 concogne a, — § 


Ysq OF beewtet rexlol oT ~ST§ suede of — —D—— 


» 


ge 


ie 


these oxpenses, but stated that he would, in order to slose 
the deal, take the mortgage for $5500 hinself", 

On October lst, plaintiff caused the said ecomtract 
between defendants and Gorboy to be filed for record in the 
recorder's office ef Cook County, at Corboy's request, ard sub- 
sequently plaintiff paid the Chicago Title © Trust Co. for work 
done by it on plaintiff's application for ssid guaranty policy 
and for recording fees advanced ty it the sum of $127.95, and 
plaintiff also paid a surveyor the sum of 415 for surveying said 
premisss, Plaintiff testified that August Rohrer authorized him 
to incur this survey expense, but Rohrer denied this, Subseguent- 
ly plaintiff, «et Corbey's request, returned to him the 4106, 
earnest money, which had been deposited with plaintiff in secord- 
ance with the contract. Plaintiff clained at the trial thet he 
was entitled to $140 as coumissions, which is 2 1/8% om the pur- 
chase price of $5,606, and to the said disbursements made by hin 
for continuaticn of abatract, for work done om application for 
gueranty policy and recording fees, and for survey. The court 
allowed plaintiff commissions cf $140 ani 612.40 for disburse- 
ment for continuance of abstract. 

It further appeared from the evidence that the oxuner 
of the adjoining lot, on whose premices the bay window eneroached, 
lived in Melienry, Illircis, ani that on November <th, plaintiff 
suggested to August Kohrer that he go and see her. fNohrer re- 
plied that plaintiff bad better co, and asked plaintiff what 
the expense would be, to which plaintiff replied, "j25 for my 
time and expenses", Hohrer said he would talk with his ean, 

On the evening of the same day, Rohrer and his son called on 
plaintiff at the latter's office, and, after some conversation, 
the following inetrument was signed by plaintiff but was not 
signed by the defendants or either of then: 





i. 























ecole of ebro at ghivos od dad? dedate tut qnenneqne © 
-*efvonts 008%{ wt euandran edt etad 9 
— biaa 042 bese Viidohaiq <tefe seueve m0 
efg at ietenet io? bella ed of yedxob das —R 
a a eat er ae area 
fron 10? .00 dau? © o692T ogaoldd old Steg Whentadg 
yotior ytrexaim Sisa yo? soliaptiqgn o*thtsatedy mo ob 
bre .20.91¢ Yo ame add If y beonevbs west eed 
Stow prityewawe tot AES to om ed? toyovews a biag | 
mts bestocttue tenon seuquh sects Settbdeed TiLsntals | 
nguoupeedis® ols betnob tema Jud yoensqee yorews alse 
 (O0nf ant abet oF border .teeupet ef yodaes to 7 | 
airienon at Viitutela dete bedteeqeb med hat dette nos 4 
otf bemt Lebed of$ tn vootate Ttiaterd Jownsnoe add 
Se Sree — of, 


—— * 


— 


i ened 


ne | - 


«- eg 


et solFectiqgs no enob tow x0? ae — put 
favoo ett ce Sie ae as a ga 
~owuidels 10% 98.859 baa big 20 snoteatmmos hale 
> eed | .d0meds 0 conauatsnse epee oc 
‘team eft Gadi somobive eds sow beiweqe seddart # fe nbn 
betsaovaé CObnbh vad ad dels 
VUhtstale sd redwevott no Sad? has yatonthtr ypeatoll abs 
“net dewiod sted dads semtod séumua od Bee 
suite Tisttatg Setis bra yop Tedded Bad Yidntalg dad 
em tot Gag" gbotiqos Ttidnlela dotde of .ed Afuow baamee 
.208 elit Mibw fled bivow ad bies walol .*esmmeque bam 
on hbiias abd’ ald nb Wedd Ae dh de Se 
eoltsewtewn0n emoa teste . bia ,oolTle ategsar ond 30 — 
fod cen Ataatata We Beate bw dnvoritent lbwsi 


—— — ye Beets 
ee enter. gaps 


4 
7 ‘ore ' 
J Sohne | 

pr 





Ghicare, Bove 45 116. 


"R. Ge Gadeaux, 
‘ Chicago, Illinois. 


Sentlemen:- 
I hereby agree to pay you $125 in fvll 

for your services for securing me 4 sale of my 

property, No. 3947 Flourney Ste, to one J. Corboy, 

and for securing a waiver of claim te the threa 

(3) inches extending over on lot next east of above 
ges. CGoneumaation of sale to be within 10 

days of above date. 


@itnessed: Accepted, 
AULe Rohrer, Jr. Re G Badeaux & GOes 
By Re %. Badeaux." 
auguat Kohrer testified: “We talked about the queeticen 

ef the vay window ercronching. “sdeaux wanted $25 extra in addi- 
tion to $100 as sommigsion, and he said that for $a he would 
get a release or waiver to the 5 inches. I agresd to this amd the 
agreesent was put in writing. ss Badeaux has never obtained «2 





release or waiver to the © inches." August Rohrer, Jr. testificd: 
*; sdvised father to pay the extra $25. =» s i asked edeaux te 
put it in writing, at first he hesitated, but finally he wrote 
out the agreement on one of bis on letter heads and signed it. 
I witnessed his signature". Plaintiff further testified that on 
the following morning, November Sth, Auguat Rohrer called at his 
office and “asked =e what I was going to de. I gaid I was going 
te HeHenry as soon as they gave me the money to go. He then said: 
tyou need not got.” Auguat Rohrer denied that this conversstion 
ever occurred or thet he at any tine told plaintiff mot to ge to 
read A UrierG — eh — Fy pans AANAYU: 
Linden, darth a. Aer, 
BR. JUSTICE GRIDLEL DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 
counsel * Plaintiff contends that plaintiff is entitied 
te $140 commissions by virtue of the written contract of gepterber 
24, 1910, which was signed by Corboy and by beth defondante, and 
ghich fixed plaintiff's commissions ae the vendors’ broker st 2 1/2 








eOLOL «® -VOR yogawiiD © 
















—S—— * 
he sae R 
—————— — 
b gk ↄꝛoxs 8c} befuaw xusebat ñ— webite th ; 
_ fess ert SR2 To Bad dtse ot bea .molsetmmeo aa. 
ontt fee att? of hoeme I .vodont 2 edd of aoview 20 esgefey 
a hentetds weve sad xusebad * — 
rholstieed «x n seupsa “.norioat © ort ot J 

—0——— ae ————— 
eeorv ed qlianhh sud .hetetioed ef ⸗rata fa. 
-th bowsie tas shoed te¢sel mo std 20 en M9 | w—i— gi 
mo Jatt betttsned eter Titsatess ."ewlenpin sid Deeee 
otc $2 Dellae stomloh trygwA hte sedmoyoR getter 
gules saw i blew ft 106 siti, on 3.een ae 
tbise meds on ets. 90 Sepeen: alt: 00 nilt gull iota — 
— rw ws —— 
Of oy Of fou Ttitntel¢ blot emtt ys gx ot samt to 
Pet ee tid chins js 0H ws 


ah. now ney » 


\ Pred ; 
-TaYOO "RT 80 NOT at GHsAVIIC YeUNIAD WOT 


hn 
Ke 3 
* i cud * 
bolttice ef Neecntote ted? ateroaccoo —E * — * 
teduesqes te soatimoe medtics edt to euttty yt exotesbmne OB aa 


brs yadnabaetod Mod yd faa yore qs dengte aay dotdw sored ye 


a\i & 3e tetou aa SE — ee 
2 Seas Gea 


re 
‘ 


Ga 


per cent, on the selling price of $5,600, and argues that plain- 
tiff produced a purchaser, who was ready, willing and able to 
complete the purchase as proposed and who entered inte a binding 
contrast #0 to do, ard that the fact that the transfer was not 
consummated because cf the encroachment of the bay window ef the 
building on defendants’ property over the adjoining lot, without 
fault of plaintiff, should not deprive plaintiff of said cormissions, 
Under the facts in evidence in this case we are of the opinion that 
plaintiff ia entitled to recover the sum of $140 as commissiona~ 
and the further sum of $12.60 for money paid by plaintiff at do-~ 
fendents' request for the continuance of the abstract, and that 
the finding and judgment of the trial court should not be disturbed. 
"the duty of « broker, who ia employed to sell 

real estate, is to find and produce to the vendor a pur- 

chaser, whe is ready, willing and able to complete the 

purchase as proposed, This he must do before he le en- 

titled to any commissions. * » If the principal accepts 

the purchaser thus presented, either upon the terme pre- 

viously ged or modified terme. then agreed upon, 

and a id sontract ic entered into between them, the 

commission is esrned. In such case, the breker had earned 

his someiseion although the male is never actually complet- 

ed, if the failure of the purchaser to complete the sale re- 


gulte from the inability of the vendor te maxe a cool title, 
and without fault on the part of the broker." (Filson v. 


TTHh. apps Bose 565; fox ve Ryans’ 20TH Bol, BOBS 
Counsel for defendants in hie brief seemingly igneres the 

contract of September 24th, and relies upon the instrumert of 
November 4th, which he celle a “writter: contract” betwoen the parties. 
He argues that by thie instrument pleintiff wae entitled to only 
$128, when and after plaintiff had actually conewrmated a sale of 
the premises and had secured a waiver of claim to the 3 inehes of 
land, over which the bay window enorcached, from the adjoining 
owner, that neither of these things had been acconplished, and thet, 
therefore, plaintiff has no claim, This instrument ia net sisned by 
Auguet Rohrer, On the face of the inetrument itself he does not 
appear to have agreed to anything. Furthermore, it does not appear 
that plaintiff received any consideration at the time, or that any- 



























—— 


~ahaiq std courts ons {000408 Mo eobeg pation ed a « 
of ofde Due putiite gyhaet aaw ode. vtesadomn a 

— 9 obm bexedro ty haw Seeoqom se candor ¢ 
fon eased wt duit 060 Wat sath Oe ob 0 
— —ß— — 962 0:9 
sorts iw “qf0L galatot he es? seve. yetogor, * 
sevtotesinmace bias to Ytténtale ——— 
tai? motsiqo odd deo ete Gw cose abd nt conebtye i 
—weliiiln sa with X02 an de. conan 0s Selita GM * 
~ob.be Vitdatass Vd Dtaq Koren APT OByELS Yo, sem yoxt ran 
dantd bre gtoanteda edi to somaumtsmon ert? ww te 
— — 2 


— 


“ 





Tis 


D 
tx 


v ‘ee c\ 


Re 
‘4 
wh 


DSerzae batt tovemd eff .orpe dow mI .Decrise el. 
-tes a ra vovex ef olSe ert bo at 
2* etelgquee co! pesto oci⸗ To 

— elas ot “whey ons ‘I ya titeant 


* — —5 —5 Ee — ee 


eds novongt yLgr trees sap mde ct ascmbro ted Pe 

2e suomutient es noqu seller hue .déhu tedemdqes tos 
etotiiag off3 meewted “3oattnoe sestiaur® a2 alles od dold ett . 
vine of beltisico ean Tilimialq tnourssent alts yd rast, : 

to elae o besammurenoo yilavgon bal Tilintala qs%e bre TOs 

20 weciont & eft ot mutefo to — & betwoes Ded bop aoe oo 1 
axtutot ia ad? word ,hellonoisce woicty yad ate dofdw ‘, 

iad? Dan «pedationvens coed bad egntds enadt ⁊o xodtlen sadd * 3— 
TS hongte Jor of vnenvaetant eff? ealalo.om eas Wléatalg . J rete 
dom sooh ef Ifeast Jvomrutend eds to epee? nO er0Tio Jeugu 


toeqga som agoh Jf ,oucersetgaui. »yorhsdityna of boesye oad oF acegas⸗ 
~yna tatt to ,nld ets 3a nobsetehiuceo yus bevieoor Ptienialiq send 





7 


thing wae done under the instrument. We do not think that this 
inetrument altered or changed the righte of the parties under 
the contract of September 24th. 

Nor do we think that there iso any merit in the contention 
of defendantat counsel that plaintiff was guilty of a breach of 
trust or violation of duty in returning the earnest money to Sor 
boy. | 

The judgment of the Municipel Court is affirmed. 


AYPIRMEDs 
























— 
ats? v⸗ala tote? Jon ob 96 .Sremrgunk ord whew onod 
ohms wotirag eid 0 edints ont begnario 10 
molsnegmoo odd mk Sixem yre af orwad tacld Merk? ow ob 
Yo dosed # to ytiluy sew Tilinhal sedd 
-100 oF yenom Seemtas ect acimustet at ysub 
ples ae te Shise * wetrget gon PRE 
vee shoartitta ef two00 Laqdotmunal edt to 
foi ix ests “awoket 14 — 


+ ’ 
Vee 


- an * 24 wd = 4 ; X a “ha we 3B 


Is 4 
* 


Le oo * rg & —⏑⏑⏑ wa ze 


saa : * try > git ee] 


7 ty 40 4th ey ; 

WY ot eet ef 42 43h ime 

‘ oe Lae Be ry ' keene GE GOR * 
7 \ v4 

ve! . Pek oF Oo vee 4 por Se 
. tat 0 : é A? ow > i * — ys pa 
. , : : — » & 4 f ret jes 
ae we Y 1 DALE - 
guy POS —F 
* eee 3 
—* 3— 
i os ow ee 12°38 law 
Ev > i) ol he eee 

. "hn . * . PS 
a . «6S Te 
= uj. tiew® freseae 

* * - vet | r 

¢ . > ss © e . 


Tay, Lf ost, 


* 
as th 
mdectes not lowe 
= 
, 4 ‘ 


24 
2 


a? 


“gue wieoos Tiitmiaiq gags 


R29 = 173733. 





ROSARIO PORTIER, 
ERROR TO 
SUPERIOR COURT 
COOK COUNTY. 
“: © F J 
3 0 pi eee 1 1 5 


. JUSTICE GRIDLEY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF TH COURT. 


Rosario fortier, plaintiff belew, brought suit in the 
Superior court of Cook county againet The Yestern Foundry Com 
pany, & corporation, defondant below, charging in his declara- 
tion that, while he was working for the defendent az a carpenter 
on a acaffold about 12 feet in height, the defendant negligently 
caused or permitted certain wires hanging near where plaintiff 
was at work to become charged with an electric current unknown to 
plaintiff, whereby plaintiff, coming in contact with said wires, 
received a dhosk and fell and was severely injured, There was 
also a count charging the defendant with negligence in failing to 
warn plaintiff of the danger. The case was tried before a jury 
whe found the defendant not guilty, upon which finding judgement 
was entered, to reverse which plaintiff prosecutes this writ of 
error. 

At the time of the accident, February 2, 1906, the de~- 
fendant was having constructed an additional foundry building for 
its own use, and the building was nearly completed. Kohler Bro- 
thers aa independent contractors were engaged in installing elec~ 
tric motors to be used for power and were running and attaching 
the necessary wires. Some of these motors wers placed on shelves 
or platforms attached to the walla of the building some distance 
from the ground, Plaintiff and another carpenter were employed by 
defendant in sonstructing and attaching one of these shelves to 
the west wall. In order to do this they had erected, by means of 








OT ama 


oF OR ieee 
TAHYOO NOLANTWE 
a) p 00 7 4 


.Yrmuoo 7000 Soro Gr w foyer * 33 * 
— RTRs ee 


-TU00 AHT YO eoreren aE — 

















ot? mt five tyson \woted Titéiteiq er 
~a00 Yulia menteor edt entage imine A000 Yo du0e 
~oralseb eld mt gutywacto ywoled énebaoted —R2 
aedneqise 2 08 srabseted ocd To? yettiow saw on oLtiw 
ismoytinen Inabmetod sit .sdytod mt soot aI diode BL 
Tiisnialg etede seed gatgrad sotky alates beds tereq 
ot mworminy corm ofttoele ma Atiw beg enooed of x10" 
vhoute Dine ditty soasmvo at yatmoo .Vittmtala ydersce eth 
of nitiite? mt eonoghigon ddiw tnabwo'teh of gutaiato tne 
Ywh # ected belit sew euas on? ~.cognab edd 0 a? 
Irombut antbatr dotdw noqu «xsiliy som snabasteb ext pau 
Qo tinw elds seduovacrg Yisntalg dolite sotevor oF ode 


-P 


¢. 


~ob eff (ROC .& YiawTdot .Jneblood OAd to omtd odd “a * 
10% grlbilud yxbmvot Lamolsibbe ma besoutience gnivad saw A 
“O18 weldod .betelqmoo _itsen saw grtbliud ed? dna seas 
obit gnttsabicih nih — 
geidoasia bre pric: eiew bus t3ewoq tot hoels od oF — 
eevieda so beoalg e1ew etosom ened Yo omoe sole iongooen + 
eonatetb omos gnthitud edt Yo effew odd of bedosdie omtotialg Fo 
%d beyolque etew tedneqieo tedtons bua Wttinkslt .beworg odd mort 
0% eoviora essed? to eto gattoatta hes yetvourtence at tnabrotes 
to ameem yo ybotoets bed yets atti? ob of tebtd aT ofiae 2600 ott” 


* 


ae 
a 


pani th 


neo 


wooden horses and a number of planks, a scaffcld along said wall 
about iz feet high. Kohler Grothers had run and attached wires, 
which were later to carry the current tc the motor to be placed 

on said shelf, along the roof cf the building, and at the time of 
the accident these wires, which were new and insulated, were hang- 
ing loossly from the roof, near the east edge of said scaffold, with 
their ends a short distance from the floor, Plaintiff's version 

of the marmer in which the accident happened wes that, while in a 
partly kmeeling position om said sesffold, "I held with my left 
hand on the brick wall, steadying the 2x4. The nails were stuck 

in it. I hauled off with my right hend and struck the nail. uy 
hammer came in contact with the wires. Ii felt the wires on my 
face, and I got a shock. fhe wires came to my face by catching in 
my hammer. «=: After I got the shock I didn't know nothings". 
Plaintiff further testified: "I saw the wires in the neighborhood 
ef where I was working. There were 5 wires, somewheres near the 
center of the scaffold. = «= iI did not pay any attention to the 
wires or make any effort tc avoid them”. Kcbert 3. Murphy, she was 
plaintiff's co-worker on the scaffeld at the time, testified that 
plaintiff "raised the hammer to drive the nail, and as he did so, 
he fell. #2 He did not bring the blow dom upon the nail. = # 
Hie was iocoking towards the nail. <«: The wires sight have been 

6 or 5 inches to the right of him. « + He Pell on his left shoulder 
amd the side of his head onto the maple floor. « » when we com- 
menced building the seaffold we saw the wires hanging down; we 

adic not put thes out of our way but just let them hang where they 
were". Or. Bessette, plaintiff's physician, attended him shortly 
after the accident and while he was lying on the floor of the found- 
ry. lie testified: "I made an 6xsmination of him at that time; 
found evidences of concussion of the brain. « = i remember findirg 
ons mark on his forehead, about the center. «4 I would describe 
































wie — =. Sh 


Siew blew geole BioYtecs « — 
qovrts hedeotés hem pan, pat cendbta hile Oa a 
—— —— 
to emkd oct? $a bas yauttited on? to toot edt pmol 
word oro" <hntaiuent tna was ov0e Aoiity yeotle Goal 
ote {DioYIsos Dts Yo eae fase edd wor ,ROOt eid | oe 
molterey a!9ttdmtait .100lt edd move coke 
a ot eLtin qtett wow Deneggat Sawbtoca of} Molde mi 
soak ym sidin bie 1" .hforzeon Stee. mo. antsteng 
-* — aimee aed | 
|B 80 wethy ond get 2 sents ost ate somtaoo at. 
mt ystdoten xd eon ym of oman cert ent .doode, » 203 
s"gatdion nom 2'abLb 1 apode exit toy I acaa & s 
Boortiaddyivon off at seite odd wae 1”. sbolReipeg.: a aig 
7 ———— —— — D 
odit of dotinetéa yas deg Jon SEB 1. © © -biotiaes ¢ 
saw, one .Uiquut ii dredox sted blova of Jxovte. yao. 07 
dads betnizne sents od $6, bigiteoe oid m0 mettow-90, 0% 
990 Dib edz bow «Liem edd. ovish ——— 
8 ella eff meq mwob woid od yntud som bEb of *® el 
need ved sgi~ eetiv est? « @ . chion od? ebzawod. of 
sebivorts J29L eid om Livt ei... # als 20. Jdgty exit oF. 
“299 ew medi © © +0617 eLgws os otno heed utd to b. 
ow (sub seared owt ads eae et BfotRgon ont BathEt B 
vet? erode amar medt fol Just gud yew avo to duo mods tug 4 
yiszode sid bebaetse .aetoteuiq etiilinielg yotsesees a o Me 
~bewot ect Io wolt edd ao gatyt sew od eftdy — 
enta aed aa ctd 20 colsantnaxe mo ebom i" rhetstiood of 
gildall aedmemez lt «© » stent ast 20 soluasence 10 seomebine beet 
edtzoneb Divow I ¢ » ssedome.ods tyods ghandoro? « 






——9 


ns 


aps 
* 
page 





~ 


it ae an abrasion. « # I contirmed te observe it. A crust forn- 


| ed on it. It was very slight, just an abrasion. I think it laste 


ed seven or eicht days". 
At the trial, the principal controverted question of fact 


was whethor or not there was an electrical current in the wire or 


wires, with which plaintiff came in contact, at the time of the 
accident. By the great preponderance of the eviderme it was shown 
that they were not charged with electricity, ani, in our opinion, 
the jury were fully warranted in finding the defendant not guilty 
of negligence. 

The only point argued by counsel for plaintiff is that the 
trial court erred in the exclusion of certain evidence. Alphonse 
Pournler, a witness for plaintiff, testified that "I saw plaintirr 
the sans evening after the accident; he was at home im bed; «= « 

I observed a sear over his right eye". The witness was then asked 
te describe the scar and tell whet it looked like, and he answered, 
"It looked like a burn". Defendant's attorney moved that the answer 
be stricken from the record, and the court seid, “Strike it out. 

Let him tell how it locked". and the witness again answered, "It 
leoked to me as if struck by something, and it was red all around 

it like a burn™. On motion the words “like a burn" were stricken 
out. The sister of plaintiff, Delilah Pelatier, teatified that 

she “saw him the next day after the accident; «+ there was « 

red mark on the right side of his forehead; I1 saw his left hand, 
and there was scales on the ends of his fingers, like a burn, shiny". 
The words "like a burn, shiny" were stricken out. The witness 
further testified that “the mark on the forehead was very red, 
bright red. = 2 it looked like a burn*. ‘The words "it looked 
like a burn" were stricken cut. 

While we are of the opinion that the trial sourt should 
have allowed the testimony of beth zitneases, that the scar or 
mark on the right side of plaintiffrts forehead "looked like a burt" , 


— —— 
— a re 


| 
| 
} 
+ 








— eG thed at suod ts saw of — end weite satnove: 


«"urd 2 eftf betool* beedet? a’ Vitiatale to ehte Sciata etd mo tran 























-mto? douto A -St evtendo of beumtsaoe I ae — 
«teal $i antde 1 wolnenis na suit ySigtic yoy eeu $1 


Fae 


— ge ee a 


— 
no ealy oxi) at Suorwo Leotstoele ne cou evedd don 


— obt? £5 


Pate nie Coa 
nwotts saw St emeblve edd to eonseebacqeny sooxp ft 


ae 


_gaotatqo wo at ,bne e¥ttobrteole igiw begrado son = 


© 2s 


tein Jon dontwob oa yatta? at besmeruey vib = 


* 


— 


» Sue ti 


oaks" <i hati se Tans ws ban ea gl ec 
eanorg Li etonchive aintese to asletions ef? ES Sewen: 
Wittmlelg wa 1* sad) bottseos ‘itsntelq wor asentin & ¢ 


boas nedt asw seendiw oct "exe sqit sit tovo as08 2 | 
shetowans ect brn SEE Eexool $2 tate Lied tne so0e edd | 
sewers odd gast3 boyom yertossa 2’ jnabastod "ond 0 otht 
.tie $2 eatase™ sbioe Pwo edd ne qtno0eT od! mor? me 
$I° ,Setewens atage onendiw oft bak .*bexooL $2 wort (ot te 
pry treeless pore god 2 bes 
tievotata e1ew “wud s eXtl” aitow en? sotsom 20 “wud 2 ofbt ; 
sactd bottitees .r3ttaled deitieg — to astets — — 
2 caw odd » » fuebtoos et! ests vob axen oni aaa ed 
ebsart Hot ate was phaeret02 ett to ebte Sigit edd no 
— yertud 2 elt yutegat? ald Yo abue od co eolnoe asx ont 
eeondiw edt? +s netotude stow “yntiie ym « oftt™ af 
Dex YrOV eae davrloTOT ocd mb staan old" Saad borrtseeg 
betool $!* absow off . "crus a ottf bedool 31 © « 
tuo mesotite erew "rnd # 
biworis susmo Lattd ed ee... 
te Hos ens Jats ,soasendin ases Yo ymomksees odd Sewolls 


©) Re! oro 


< 
¥ 
‘ 


4 


to stand, and should have allowed the testimony of the last named 
witness, that the scales at the ends of the fingers of plaintiff's 
left hand were “like a burn, shiny”, also to stand, (1 Wharton on 
Bvidencse, secs. 510, 511; 2 Best on ividence, sec. 517; Carter 
v- Carter, 152 Ill. 454; James v. State, 194 Ala. 20; Gommon- 
wealth v. Sturtivant, 117 Mass. 122) yet we do not think that, 
under the evidence in this cass, the judement sheuld be reversed 
and the cause remanded for a new trial because of the court's rul- 
ings in these particulars. in our opinion no other verdict should 
heve beon remicred than the one rendered, even if the court had 
allowed the portions of the testimony cf the two witnesses, which 
were stricken, to remain in the record, 

And in cur opinion the court did not sommit prejudicial 
error, 4s contended by counsel, in refusing to allow the witness, 
Dr. #essette, to ansver certain questions asked of him relative to 
plaintiff's ability to hear. 

The judgment isa affirmed. 


APFIRHED. 











‘bens Jeet ois to ynonttwsd off bewolle evarl hive Sma _be 
'ritintaty Ww eweyalt esld To obme eit da nelene ons tas? 
go nodted¥ £) ,baade od cele ,"yutte yun @ ettl* esem fe 
azed780 FTES 208 geomebivi no d008 RULES <OIR toes 6 
mitommo2 708 BSA 20S sosate «¥ nome ner LET OL 
stadt intdd son ob ow toy (SkL sone SEE qtuavts —8 
— —— 
- Let 8'dms00 odd to exuaced Lett? «on 2 162 bobramet saue 
bivotea Sotiriey tego om mointqe we nl .etmdiaoliieq 
bert d1uoo edd Tt neve ,berebmet enc ons macit 
Molin ywocsns be out of To yomtdass dé To anotireg « 
; — & 
| queentie dé wolis of gatenter mt «Leones ys 










 ¢CRUAITIA 








! ober Term, 1911, No. 
— 
MARY LUEKES, ) 
Defendant Error’, ERROR 70 
| — MURICIPAL COURT 
* OF GHICAGO. 
| * in error. 


\ 1821.M.116 
WR, JUSTIONGRIDLEY DELIVERED THR OPINION OF THE COURT. 


On September 14, 1911, in am acticn of forcible detainer, 
sefondant in error cbtained a judgnent in the amicipal Court of 
Chicago that ahe have and resever of and from plaintiff in error 
the possession of certain premises, and that a writ ef restitution 
issue therefor, Plaintiff in error secks by this writ te reverse 
that judgment. 

{ Rule 12 ef the Rulee of Praetice of thie Court in part 
provides: “in all cases a party bringing a cause ints this ccurt 
shail furnish a complete abstract or abridgesert of the record. 

*@ The abstract must be sufficient te fully present every error 
+a? exception relied upon*, The abetract of record filed in this 

3 Sourt by plaintiff in errcr does net comply with the mule. It is 

_ merely an index of the transeript of the recerd. it is less thar 
one printed page in length, including the errors assigned. Lack 

ef compliance with said rule would befsufficient reason for affirm- 
ing the judgment. (orthy v. Bush, 174 111. App. £18.) 

| Sut we have nevertheless examined the transcript of the 

' record filed in this Court. we de not find therein any bill of ex~- 
| septions, staterwent of facte, or stenographic report of the proceed- 
3 ings at the trial. The transcript discloses that plaintiffs commenced 
hor action on Septexber 7, 1911. As appears from the statement of 
Sleim, she united with her claim for possession of the premises a 
claim for rent “from Aug. Sth to sept. Sth, and from Sept. sth te 
O6te Sth, 1911, at the rate of $20 per month". hia shes could do by 
virtue of paragraph third of section 48 of the funicipal Court Act. 


On September 12th the deferdant entered his appearance, ami on september 





| 
| nedinasqes 0 ts yeonsnsegye abt bevedne dnatmvteh ex dak wedimdges 7 


9 


Orr LQgpex 


Deomoamoo Wiltinlalg Jai? seaolsslt tqtrpeneas oct ofatat ons ty 





ook , Lier axeT xod 




















t - 
ae 


——— 


“TOS sai v ean me cr 


wey het aie . eae eed. oh — 
wuatated ————— * mottos ae th £5 «Of 7 gee 
Yo Jum? Laglotnu:: ot nt saseg bul 2 beatagdo - on 
woe al Tilintelg <ov kag 2e sovooeE fas 4 > 
— 0 42cn 2 act, fam, «roster tata n : 
— — — — J 
— 
——— —— 
———— ——— ——— F— 
-trpves wit to tmeneghitde 20 tomrteds egelqene 8 
TOT Trove smosotg YLLw? of sooiekyive ed sem 4 F da 
etd nb belt trocet to sootduds oft s*aoqu better | J 
— soles edt dite yiquoo tom sesh towre mt dotad 7 
mad? aset ai 31 inooet edd Yo sqttowneas of? Yo zebak a 
fosd abdermises sore eff antbulont ,dtgeel at oxeq 
-wxiPis tl Monser Smetotiumzed Aivow elux bias détw tiga 
| (828 eqtA ffl BUI qfeud ov yilaee) ote 2 bas - 
ort Yo sqtuoauett ods bentzexe scolersroved ovat ow Su 
~x0 Yo fiitd ys mletedd Ieft Jom ob oF -fured abit mt : 
-beesorg eit Yo Jxoqet slsigetaonaze * eesoat * sveustase 


2 


> ¥ 


ATs 
— 


to dremetase od} mov? exsequa eA «fier F todmodges > tae⸗e 
2 eoutueng ed? to maleesanog tw? niafo tod dite bestas edfe 9 
of 82 .Sgou mort bas 92 tqo% Of #3 sua mox?" dues TOR. 
uw ob Sivoo ate sid? — seq 08} 20 edt edt do 4Sf0r gift —— 
— 


aye 
— 


— 


14th the following proceedings were had and entersd ef record, 
viz: "the defendant tenders to the plaintiff in open court the 
sum of 245, which sum is refused. Thereupon, on sotion of rlain- 
tiff, it is ordered by the court that this suit be and it hereby 
is dismissed cut of this Covrt only sc far az respecte plaintiff's 
Claim for damaces herein, but is retained in all scther respects 
for further proceedings herein, Thereupon this cause comes on in 
reguler course for trial before the court without a jury, and the 
court, after hearing the evidence ard the arguments of counsel, « « 
finds the defendant guiity ef unlasfully withholding from the plaire 
tiff the possession of the premises » « ard that the risht te the 
possessicn cof said premises is in the plaintiff. «+= It is con 
sidered by the court that the plaintiff have judgment herein on 
the finding herein and that the plaintiff have end recover of and 
from the defendant possession of the premises, + + and that a writ 
of restitution issue therefor". 

it is assigned for error thet the court erred “in allow- 
ing plaintiff to amend claim after the close of plaintiff's case 
when full termier was made by defendant". If plaintiff emerded her 
Claim after the slose of her case, she had «a right te de so, ({Sec. 


4% Wumicipal court Act.) With no bill of exceptions, statement of 


facts, or sterographisc report of the preceedings in the trarscript, 
we carmct tell what kind cf written notice, if any, wae served on 
defendant, whether a thirty days’ notice tc terminate a tenancy by 
the month, or a five days’ nctice after rent is due, or a ten dayst 
notice to quit, or other notice. We must aceume that the evidence 
introduced was sufficient to warrant the ccurt in finding that the 
defendant was unlawfully withholding from the plaintiff the posses- 
gicn of the premises and that plaintiff had the risht to posseasion, 
and in entering the judgment. For aught that appears to the com- 
trary plaintiff's right to possessicr had become fixed befare the 





— — 


a 






























erates Yo howdap fem dak SEY SERS er 
ed? t1soo meqo mt TUdntale ef 02 axohaed snabaw'teb 
-cialq to mottos no qnoquetedr showtiet af mam doltw » 
ydered 2! ius od Shum eins tant daoedtt ys hereireal 
Atala edoogset ba tat of ylno #1060 olds to suo Be 
asocqeet ‘terge ifa oi heniave: at iud grtewsd sepa 
si mo aea0o enuse aids moquevedi ee ae is 
edd ona yrwt © suodittw uso ont owoted Lattd Tt 7 
> qfoarwoo To sdaammre od? tas somebive od? gatised + | 
sataig odd moet puibsitis — 
eri? of ddyit edt fads ban © © eoulmerq edd to motvesesog 
— ef 21 = 6 Miténiaig edt at Gt woetueny tos Yo ote 
mo abores' smewbul overt Yattntaig ef sald twos edt WS Bet 
bas Yo tovooss fun eved THkImtele add dexlt ben mbowed ; atbakt 
dina 9 Jed dns ¢ © yoamtnery od to eotesoenag snabaotab 
~wolls ak* here Suop ots tact Tore 107 borg tous oe: 
sone eat weite uinke imene of: Mane 
xed debxrons Trtsatsla TI — vs eben aon webme? & 
+063) os ob od dtiytz 2 bart ofa yeano ted 20 ecole edd 
20 jnemsasa »snottqeoxe to Litd on d3tv (.d0a S200 
e*qtvearats 6117 at — ond Yo droqer obdqersonese ag 
oo Derren sow ,yre tt ,coltex metSivw Yo bake sate Lied 
es yeantot 2 ofentores 03 cotsom "aysb Yirid « tedtede inal 
— nod 2 x0 youd of Swot sos2e sotson teyab ovit 2 90 aif 
cone bive odd Sodt emmes tuum oF -sokson waddo to «tiup of ¢ 
ed? dads sothalt al doo od? dnetias of InclolYiue eae £ 
— at Y2iiatalq ed? cov? anthiodddty qLivtweles vee —E 
moteeeencg of dein ta od? bast Tiisntalg sad$ bow ooaineng edd 26 sole 
200 eff of eieeqge fans Sriguse ToT — wf? patoge ak hs 
odd ented bexlt euoced bart mtenesscg of tints e*Fiténtaly 


es 


* 


F * 


taj 4 


— 
a 
a 
* 
~ 
* 
es 


> sO lt wg 





— 


tender of $43 was made in open court, which right would be un- 
affected by reason of the tender and the refusal thereof. (Brown- 
ell v. Welch, 91 Ill. 523; Chadwick v. Parker, 44 Ill. 326; 
Leary v- Pattison, 66 Iii. 203; Thiry v. Edson, 129 Ill. App. 1283 





Strauss v. Formaciari, 147 Ill. App. 18; Schumann Piano Co. v. 
Mark, 208 Ill. 282, 288.) 
The judgment is affirmed. 


AFFIRMED. 





== 













anu od Bivow srigis fold ,siw0s meqo mt 
TOSS .fLT 95 ,zedeet ov NotebstS yess ws 

(OSS sqqA «L1T CSE ysoR VELT 
—— — — —— — — — — — as 


a Pea, cet Bs — 


vxa 

eee lls es yt Seen 
‘f «ft BR wemiteecs —X —E 
ee te Jee aig e 
pag 


— ont oe wilt doth Rew ake 


us aueenag Sekai 


> 
~ 12> 
* ¢ as 
. * 
7 —E 
— 
1 
t * 
i? 
7 J 
ae 4 
* - * 
4 
> a 


‘ Appe 


BERNARD WeQuILLEN,/ et al + 
ees, ) APPEAL FROM 






OIRGUIT COURT 
COOK COUNTY. 


1821.4.133 


MR. JUSTICH GRIDLEY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF TRE COURT. 


NE, 
Appellant. ) 


This is an appeal from a judgment of $960 rendered in 
the Circuit Court of Cook County in favor of Bernard Meguillen 
and others, plaintiffs below, against Matteo Mazzone, defendant. 
The suit was for the recovery of money claimed to be due as rent 
for certain improved premises in the city of Chicago occupied by 
defendant. The case was tried before a jury who returned a vere 
dict assessing plaintiffs’ damages in the sum of $960, 

The action was originally in debt, Plaintiffs’ amended 


@eclaration consisted of seven counts, to which declaration the 





defendant pleaded the general issue and several special pleas. 

‘ Demurrers to the special pleas were sustained, On December 24, 

\ 1910, the defendant, by leave of court, filed a lengthy "additional" 
: plea, consisting of ten pages, to all seven counts of said declara- 
tion, ‘oc this plea plaintiffs filed a general and special demurrer, 
assigning twenty-three causes of special demurrer, The court sus- 
tained the demurrer to this plea, to which ruling the defendant 
excepted and elected to stand by his plea, At the trial the plain- 
tiffa relied upon the firet and seventh counts of said declaration, 
having either dismissed or withdraw the other counts, and the case 
was tried on said counts and defendant's plea of the general issue 
thereto, The verdict was rendered July 12, 1911, and the defond- 
ant, by his attorney, imseciately moved for a new trial, which 
motion wae set for hearing on July 15th, On the day set the de- 
fondant filed a written motion for a new trial, setting forth 
















-oM ,ff@E .mie? redof. 
— —— sVEOTL = CCS 


Fy gut M TART Lae ths | % 
| eYTHUOO 4000 ue 
se — ——— 
CEE pion sav ae “a 


“\Pauod EAT WO MOTMIdo MNT GARVIUNG YRIOTHO 

eet tte a2 — 

— moe ey 
meLLiupolt frant0d Yo ove? at ysmuryO tooo to suu0d ¢ t 

— yenossaii cetsal sextape qwoled othisntalg 4 
snot as oub et of bemtalo yenom Yo yxevooer edt 10% | wo 
we bekqyvone ogdoldd to ytto edd mt aes tao⁊g bevorqnt tad 
~187 # Semwster ory yu 2 o1o%ed bela? sau como ont oft 

(898 Lo mw old ak Sopemad *wrttIntetg “= 
_Debmome ‘avttentati stdyb at yifantgtve sew mottos ef 
ed molsarsioeb doldw of ,atnweo moves to bedatanoo amok 
resis Letooge Leteven bra oust Laxaog oft bohoety 9 

+08 ‘tedmap00 10 shortages eee aseig Latooge ef Of 
“Ianotsibbs” yrisgnel 2 beLtt ydmwoo Yo evael yd riuabawre @ 
e#taloebd bias to simoo neves Ila of ysegeq mot to . ** 
(WeTumed Letooqs boa Latoneg # belt? eYtisntale selq abdt “a 
“ate swoop od — Letooge To voauss conid=yinous gmbey 
$mabmeted edd yative dotiw of yaelg ett of reTumeb of Beet 
~ntelq eft Lelut edt #4 .a0fq ate yd deiass of bedpete baa —* 
etoliataleed bias to agrusoo Atsevee baa ↄenta odd coq bebton a 
ease of) Bre guéruioo tego eld mwethddiw 10 beastowth redthe nev 
aweok Laremenz edd 20 aelq ctinatreteh dns ataoo hive 90, beled 
~bretod ont hoe «fLOL i ULUL horebae sew solbsey ott” odpueds” 
doicw Aat wen a 10% bovom ‘iosatooant eVorrtossa ald ve or 

“9b edt toa yab eds m0 i825 YLwl mo gatueed 102 toa enw aotsom 


— 
aa ⁊o geitiee la⁊c wen a tot notsem sodsiw s best? — 
ei ak RT 





ald 


ala 


various grounds, On the same day the plaintiffs filed a written 
motion for leave to amend said first ond seventh counts of their 
“declaration, by changing the form of action from debt to ascumpsit, 
and changing some of the allegations of said ceunte to conform to 
the change in the action and to conform to the proofs. on the 

| same day + July 15th - a hearing was had on both motions, and the 
court entered an order giving leave to plaintiffs to change the 
form of action from debt to aaeumpsit and to file amendments to 





said counts "nunc pro tuns as of July 1gth, 1911", and to amend 
the praecipe and summons and Cchenge the ed damnum, and further 
ordered that the "plea of general issue filed by the defendant, 
with notice of special defense, shall stand as the plea to the 
amended declaration filed mune pro tune ae of July l2th, 1911". 
And thereupon defendant's motion for a new trial was argued and 
denied, and defendant's otion in arrest of judgment was aleo de- 
nied, and thereupon the judgment appealed from was entered. 

The facte are substantially as follows: On May 1, 1906, 
& written lease of the premises was executed by Mary Cassidy, as 
lessor, and by defendant, as lessee, for the term from May 1, 1906 
to April %O, 1909, toe be ocoupied for a saloon and dwellings. ‘The 
lessee covenanted to pay as rent the sum of #80 per month in ad- 
vance on the first day of each and every month during said term, 
it being admitted, however, that said lessee had paid the sum of 
$160 ae eecurity on the last two months of the lease; that the 
lessee had received the premises in good order and repsir and would 
keep the same in good repair at his own expense, and would not por- 
mit any alterations to be made except by the written consent of 
the lessor. It was agreed that the covenants should be binding 
upon and inure to the respective heirs, exeouters, administrators 
ang assigns of the parties. ‘The defendant took possession of the 
premises under the lease, and at the expiration of the term con- 


; 
| 















7 * 
Zt WQus 


“Re THONE = OORT 


odetew § SOL22 wTRLIMtAin odt Yab onaR OMY a0 sabe OH 
ne ee ee ee 
adtaqnines of deb not aaktoe Yo wre? et gatanadd vd y 
og mnoRume ‘od edsuge bias 20 wnolvagesio ss 26 onde 3a 
oat oo . dnl kee ot ts ann ta 
«ft one yunekton dtod mo bat saw pated 2 = Meat | 
— od evihintals at vost sritvin seine iy toe 
of aduominens «61 of tna #Huqnuesa 0° Sob sort a0 | 
rr pln hb. — 
—— 





eʒuaae one ‘ 











J a we 0 tawollor es Uleltnadadim ots —— 
awbtewad Tiak vd beduexe esx avadnory —— 
Beet at aN wort exes end adh eeousel oa X — —— 
od .egntifewb bas nooles a ‘02 betquece ed of .00et 4 
nbs mt slanon ‘oq 00 Yo swe odd mor an yaq of bod ‘nce 
dred kon saivish diaon erove ta dose Yo vad. built od ee 
to mun el? bleq bad eoaeot bias ‘dasts — Doss tbe 
ett gat? :easet edt To ettdsem ond feat oi oo 'ytrwown 
Siuow baa ttoqet bea xobr0 Boog nt ediuorg etd hevteoot bade 
-teq gon biuow dus ,.cenoqxe Ha ard te alaqor pooy wt ouns oi ot 
to Yhoando modttaw edt ye tqouxe eben od of rotted ig coe 
grthutd ed bivoda astiaovos ort sos beat3a naw $1 e 
erosortte lttnba LeTOIUOeKe coahout evttoequor ots of ord I — 
eis to ro kensenog food srebawted ects — souksneq ont to —** 
-100 med odd te anotsertaxe ents 4 ‘bna 4 ond —EXE —— 


pony, art 
oy Be 










é 4 
Fat 


WET ake 
7 


ote ow 


val 
J 


2 






tinued to hold over, and was in possession at the time of the 
commencement of thie action, February 11, 1910. Mary Casaidy, 
lessor, died in Hay 1908; Margaret Thomas, her only heir at law, 
died in November 1908; Andrew Mo@uire, the only heir at law of 
Margaret Thomas, died testate in December 1908, devising his es- 
tate to his widow and to the plaintiffs herein, who were his only 
F heire at law; and on May 31, 1909, said widow sold and conveyed 
to plaintiffs all her right, title and interest in the estate de- 
vised from said Andrew MeGuire, including the premises in question, 
The defendant paid the rent reserved in the lease up to and in- 
Cluding the monthly installment due for the month of November 1908, 
His last payment was made to said Margaret Thomas in November 1908, 
just prior to her death, John A, Stagg, an attorney. at Chicago, 
obtained powers of attorney from the plaintiffs to collect the 
rents, and during the months of April and Jume, 1909, called on 
_ defendant and demanded payment of the rent then due, and that he 
surrender possession, but defendant refused. Another conversation 
was had in December, 1909, at which another demand for rent was 
made, but defendant again refused to pay, At this time there was 
some talk as to repairs on the premises, Piaintiffs claimed at 
the trial that there was due for rent the sum of $960 - being 
fourteen months at $89 per month, or 31120, less the advance pay- 
ment of $160, mentioned in tho lease. 

It further appeared that on May 27, 1901, a mortgage on 
said premises had been executed te the Connecticut Mutual Life 
Insurance Company, as mortgagee, to secure a debt of $4800, due 

five years after said date, with interest at 5% per anmmum; that 
said mortgage had been extended for a period of two years, to-wit, 
until May 27, 1908; that on January 11, 1909, the note and mort- 
gage was assigned to the defendant; that on February 8, 1909, the 
defendant, by reason of the default in the payment of the principal 


— 


























ert? to ent oxi ga nolnseesog at aan bus steve dior o@ | ot 
btas ad ual 0808 et Teatro, enotien — 


ee 


yok to hed yee oll Panett Porsyta xO00r at ad | —R 





“te wal ta thod vine eng eothsoox wertbra ‘yee adm : 
* aid yutatvod oet todneoed at ofaduas betd secod? $0 
‘eis atel orow odw nte-seri atitentata eat at —— 4 
beyevsice ax bioe wobly bles eoer £8 you m0 bow ch { 3a 
~0b ogadue odd nt teowsnt bas oiste vdrighs tod Lie — ‘ 
snokveoup at weetaorg sf yuthutont — words btoe ae 

~at bra 08 qu besos oid nk bovreses dues sit? Slag sn ri 
— Eee 8 ee ae 
,o0e! ‘eduevol at aoaod? texsgra Stee of obia caw demy aq dea: 
— ta Ayenrosia no agate «A riot sitaeb 0d bee 


J + meee oe Bd 


edd foeLfoo of etrisntalg od mov? yermosga 20 


Ew 


cea) np 4) e 

a0 bekise oat .emvt bes Livgh to edénem edt? * 
aid * a SAR TD 

ot |eub med? tnet eds Yo smeayaq betaaned baa denbm 


meters 
notsonrevso0 wodgona -hoavter Insbreteb sud ctoleaganeg 
Ste 


AON trios settedimaneb rodsons dotaw te <@0@L Todmeo0d 
ean ole? emt? aids $4 — of beater alage tnabaereb & 
8 ee 

te bemtsio attitaLals .sealmerg ef? no orkeqet oF om Las es n 


F ay 
Te be: * 


antes - 0063 Yo mum edi tne 102 oud enw ovens batt i ef 


wticca Fl 


oot — exis aael 008516 10 —2 10g 08g de adigaom * o 
are s we y 

seneel oft mt bemoitaea s00L¢ * mi 

m0 eyagtioa 2 £00k CS YAM 0 Gand bowwoggs rostewh $t “a 


ors. tanom duolioomnod ols oF oguoexo neod Sari contneng ro 


er , 


cub .OOdM to ddob « owoea of .Cogagd 10m af “tataqeso0 oT ae 

a). oo? 
sacks {mma 19g Ra Jo Suetedat dvty oad dtaa teste « ovit. 
sigs RE” 

cilwwod ,eusey owt to bokteq # 10% be beodn0 meed hast ‘bias 


' — —— 
* bra eooen ort e@O0L off wrsural ato sass peOeL 1¥8 bh 


ont ,808L ,A yreudet mo sasd pinoheotes exis oe bong tava — 


—— 
laqhontiq ee Yo dmemyoy ot at Jiusteb et 20 moRGeT YS 4 — 
My "Regal Pig: 


4 


sum due, and the interest due on November 27, 1908, filed his 
bill in equity to foreclose said mortgage, making John ¥F, Devine, 
as administrator of the estate of Mary Cassidy, deceased, and as 
administrator of the estate of Margaret Thomas, decensed, and 
others, parties defendant thereto; that on June 22, 190°, a de~ 


oy a ee * 


Gree of sale was entered, and that on Auguet 12, 1909, a maeter 
in chancery sold the premises to the defendant and executed and 
_@elivered to him a certificate of sale, 
it ie@ contended that the court erred in sustaining the 
| general and epecial demurrer of plaintiffs to the “additional" 
piea of defendant, filed December g4, 1910. We deem it unnecessary 
to discuss the lengthy argumonts of the respective counsel in this 
particular, Guffice it to say that we are of the opinion that the 
demurrer was properly sustained, 

It is also contended that the sourt erred in refusing to 
adit certain evidence. At the trial the defendant sought to 
introduce a certified copy of said master's certificate of sale of 
August 12, 1909 to defendant, for the purpose of showing that de- 
fendant was in possession of said premises om said date, and there- 
after, under and by virtue of said certificate of sale, and there- 
fore was not accountable for the rent reserved under the lease 
after said date. the court refused to allow the instrument to be 
introduced, and we think that this ruling was correct. A tenant 
in possession is oatopped from denying the title of his landlord, 
and he must currender up the posgeagsion before he can asseil that 
title or set up titie in himself. (Sexton v. Carley, 147 Ill. 269, 
2723; Doty Vv» Burdick, 85 Ill. 473, 477; Constant v. Barrett, 34 
Ne ¥. Supp. 193.) ‘The defendant in this case did not ani would not 
eurrenier possession under the lease. Furthermore, the fact that 
defendant had received said certificate of sale did not entitle 


him to the possession of the premises, or to the rents, issues or 


\ 


— dna eta baa wo ventmerg bao Ye motesoaueg at 





~ 


~ 





















a Sa Aan ben Ot 
eid bell? 48002 aderon ao oud teewent ents a3 bas 


ao JGR 


— WA mdot wihtep yexag?on Dts! enekeenet of “ie 
ea Dns «honaeoed rvbteaso ini! Ye ovadee oft *o roee 


: be (07 
— —— te odatee od exo pat 
+s Pa ‘ Vl ed 
“Gb 2 «CORE 488 emt no Sand toseoneds Reyes 


“mosoam @ .00er — tums m0 tarts ona ybonetve saw as 


Prt 


Oe i ee etn ar 
oo ; gate ti Krk a 


"ed ntatece mt bowie sv0o ont dad bebaognoo, at 


— an’ 


“Miata £8 tht” ens oF Miaatata Yo werumeb faleeqa i b 
; Pte *0 
vaseiopenns #f mood oF oi et —— 


—F we OR * 
‘ald? mk iaecuoe ovtdoeqeer wit 20 atmonunyaa widget od | 
“tite: A 


meade hens orp tpl — 


Declare eiroqor | 17 
af yatewtex mt bore emo edi fans vobmegmon ose a eG. 
| ft Sigquon’ dnabeteb odd Labtd ont? 2A  seomeb robve ata 18 

to elae to otaolttsseo o redeem bias %6 ydoo bortneree 3 uh 


~ob tat? yatworis do esoqmm ef wT ysaadmweb of GOCE Rt te 


= 


‘1 
oo 
awe 


—* 
—E — — seias to etsolttiieo bine bias to oudity xd bas 2 = 
easel vds tebe beviese: ae7 ort 10% eidsdmoooe son | 


ed of dromertast oct wolle of bouytet gauoo ext pega: 
tmanot A sdowrioo saw ankiss abcid aacla acateis ow One 
srtoLbeel uti Yo fst ott yatyneb wort beqqosse at mote 
Sans {looses mao od et0'tod ro Laaasaog ond qu⸗ sostorEse =u 
e008 .fft VOX syoLawod *V modxe8) .tioamid mi esstt qu tos 0 off i 


a aitotzsd *v Snasemoo Av) .ovw ffi 88 — — .v woe 


gom biwow brea son bib esno elsit at trabasted ott ( Bar qe —J 
sans tout acta toerrrocta ara eesacl od? yebemy un heeesees —— 


eltiine fed bib eLas to esanttterses bise hevloves ber anelem vod 


786 


%0 aomat zasco⁊ ont of to ,coaimetg et to cotesesnog ads of —XX 


"oe 


, 






“fm 


profits thereof, during the period of redemption. (Davis v. Dale, 


150 Ill, 239; Schaeppi ve Bartholomae, 217 Ill. 105.) ‘The defend- 


ant also sought to show the cost of certuin repairs, which he 
Glaimed to have made on the premises subsequent to August 12, 1909, 


and aleo claimed were necessary to preserve the property, for the 


purpose of charging said cost ageinsat the rent sued for, but this 
evidence was not admitted. We think that this ruling wae also cor~ 


rect, especially in view of the previsions of the lease that the 
éefendant would keep the premises in good repair at his own expense 
and would not permit any alterations to be made exeept by the writ- 
ten consent of the lessor, No such consent by plaintiffs to the 
making of any repairs or alterations was shown, 

Gomplaint is also made that the court refused to give to 
the jury certain instructions offered by the defendant. Under the 
facte in evidence in thia case we do not think that the refusal 
te give these instructione constituted prejudicial error. 

The judgment is affirmed. 


APFIRVPD. 















| s0lad .V atvad) .Hofsquotet 20 bolieq oid patayd «owned? m 
anot oft (9808 .t TES cauaes oy Aa⸗edes J— 
_ ot dole g@tteqes. gierteo 20 saoe edd word; ; 
008K gf feugA 9% JamupeDdim agatmerc od mo gba ovat Of. 
| ods 10% ,xItoqotg enlt oxyaoaena OF yrensenom eroR be 
_ AMA, Sad 4109, Dou, teed deatone Bene. Bten aptatedee gp 
~100 opie sum gnlivt ꝛa tari Ante? en «begdinbs tom Say 
ets sad? eonel odd to snoletyorg, oft 20, wety at 
comegxi mmo pict te theqen Do0g, nt eestaeng ett go 
~itnu ods. datons shar — ee 
dd, of eTiitnlalg yo sneamoo dove of .toemet od? 
snwore aau enottosetia to a i 
silat — 
edt robe) iiahoaas ott i teeny alate i tots = 
Aneutps edt sad? antds som o> ox weap a2id mt vorebive & 
stowre 
ebeatitia af tremybut 


ota 


<Ornttua  ” 





oH he 


4t3 rk eal ; 





m 
a 
a 
x 





October Term, 1911. No. 


441 - 17981. j 4 — ) 

WV Oke s_A 

; a 
JOHN DADIE, administrator of 4 
the estate of THOMAS M. SMITH, 
deceased, APPEAL FROM 

Appellee, 
SUPERIOR COURT 
VSe 
COOK COUNTY. 





—ñNi 


CITY OF GHICAGO, et al., 
ive Appellants. ) 


\, 4 182 kes ale A. 1 3 4 
STATEMENT. This is an action on the case commenced in 
the Superior court of Cook county by John Dadio, administrator 
of the estate of Thomas Smith, deceased, to recover damages be- 
cause of the death of Smith, occasioned by his falling from a 


, wagon which he was driving along Elston averme in the city of 


Chicago. ‘he action wae originally brought against the City of 
Chicago, Chicago Consolidated Traction Company and Chicago Ratl- 
ways Compeny, defendants, Subsequently the Chicago Bleotric 
Transit Company was made an additional party defendant, and sub. 
sequently the suit was discontinued as to the Chisago Rallwoye 
Gompany. ‘The case was tried before a jury, and on vareh 19, 1900, 
they returned a verdict finding the defendant, Gity of Chicago, 
guilty, and assessing plaintiff's damages at $10,000, and finding 
the defendants, Chicago Conselidated fraction Company and Chi cago 
Slestric Transit Company, not guilty. The plaintiff immediately 
entered his motion for a new trial as to the defendants, Chicago 
Gonaclidated Traction Company and Chicago Electric Transit Som- 
pany, and the City of Chicago alec entered ites motion for a new 
trial, on July 14, 1909, the sourt, by order entered of record, 
sustained plaintiff's motion and awarded him « new trial, and 
also sustained the motion of the City of Chicago and awarded it 
a new trial. On the same day the plaintiff entered his motion 
to ect aside and vacate the order granting a new trial in said 
osuse and the court ordered that said motion be continued for 
hearing and final disposition. On March 7, 1910, by agreemont 








-OH ,Lf0L  mret rodos oo 


ye | isert = 1b 


rt 




















wosts anata © 
— — 


ner ESE 


rk booronnao eoao edd no mottos me at htt 
aotardutsinba — —— 
—— ‘eogamab wevone: of ,bonscosd ‘tetas emmodt Yo | 
— “p wont gnttiet atd yd sanotosves yitind Yo diaeb oc 
no yito odd af eumeva motel’ nota yaitvinh eow ed 
Me YPtO ont santage Ictguord tants 10 caw motson 
tuan ogeokss bra ynaqnod nolvoart —X 
BSbaooota ogaotdd oid yitmeupeaduc ———— 
~dya tas yiawicoted yitaq Lecotsthbe ma oben saw ymaqnod 
— oysotd edd of va Soumitnooetd aaw Sion | 
Of (Of dora mo bas yrtwt 2 ototed bel aw — * 
eoasoltdd to ysl0 qémmbawted ens ———— —————— & X 
antintt bro ,000,089 da segemad e*Tiléinialq yuleaeouss —* 
ogeolidd baa ymaqmed cro too⸗⁊ betablicamod agaoaiu· * 
vLetethoumt Trlintalq ett .ytiluy tom ,yneqned #ienatT 
onaoldd ,yatnehreted eds of sa Lala? wer s tot moléom eld 
-mo0 dlanasT olitoel® onaoiit® has yneqmod molsoat? 
von #2 t02 molgom asi bovesem cela ogmokdd to 4220 ond 
ebtooet to botesme sebre yd .Ppvoo of? ,OOCL ght Yiu nO 
Srp ,falnd wea s mir! befrisws hus cot#om ef MiLealeiq 
dL Sobiswe Ore ogsoidid to y4iO orld to molfom end herlagens 6 
moltom eld hereine Rilsntealy oft yob oman ed nO .Lahad- 
Biles at iaiat won 5 aniinata whto eft etapay bus ebtae $06 Oo 
10% bouert atoo ed nolsom bies sade bewino gay0e edd baw eause” 
Snomeeras YI ,OLeL .V kote! mo ~ soksheogeth Lant? bas gabtcedt’ 


my 





wie 





of the parties made in open court, it wae ordered that the cause 
be passed to be taken up on five daye' notice, On June 24, 1912, 
after notice and on motion of plaintiff, 1t wae ordered that all 
 papore and proceedings in said cause be and are amended by discon- 
timuing as to defendants, Chicago Jonsolidated Traction Company and 
Chicago flectric Transit Company; and it was further ordered that 

| plaintiff's motion, entered July 14, 1909, to set aside and vacate 
| the order granting the City of Chicago a new trial, be sustained, 

| oni said order wae set aside and vacated, and the City of Chicago 





te Ei 


excepted; and thereupon the City of Chicago entered ite motion in 
arrest of judgment, which motion was also denied and exceptions 
entere@. Yhereupon the court entered judgment in the sum of $10,900 
on said verdict, "“alao the further sum of $1128, being the interest 
* # from the time of the rendering of the verdict herein to date, 
being the sum total of $11,125, together with costs", The City of 
Chicage excepted to the entry of this Judgment and subsequently 
perfected ite appeal te thie court. 

the original deolaration, filed April 2d, 1908, consisted 
ef one count, and averred that the defendants, City of Chicago and 
Chicago Consolidated Traction Company, "negligently permitted a 
certain hole to be and remain in Zleton avenue, and on the west 
side thereof and near the crossing of said Hleton averue with Are 
mitage avenue and close to the scuth-easterly bound track of the 
Chicage Consolidated fraction Company, of which facts the defend- 
ante had notice"; andi further averred that on March 7, 17998, plain- 
tiff's intestate in his life time was driving a team attached to a 
wagon in a south-sasterly direction upon and along said Elston 
avenue, near the interseotion of that avenue with Arnmitasce averue, 
end thet, while he wae a0 driving, and while in the exercise of 
due care for his own safety, and by reason of the negligence of 
the defendants, one of the wheels of said wagon unavoidably went 






















} r LUG eIoOy 


a= Lert = — * 


eats ond tad? borotd ro saw St «foe meqe ah eben Be. 
! tet qe ont ao seotion *wyab 8 mo Gu melas 6d 
{fe tad? honetrre vaw #h <Yutiataty to aolsom mo bas 
-nocetbiyd Sebsema ove bas of sxese bhae at egatdsecorg 
ina yragnod motteatT bedabtfoamed oxeoist) yadmabacteb of a 
dads bexebro worldist caw 32 bas pyaqmod StecatT 
ofaoay Si ebtes toe of 008k «bt Liu betedae notion ’ 
phonkegoua oS qletit wom @ oneotdo to yee edt me 
oneotdD eo eho edt da yhogedev ban ebtes tov com % 2* 
— Yo ¥220 ent6 eoquenasis — 
amotsqeoxe hoe betneb cols ane soitom dotite eg 
ooo.ote 20 eum edd at Invent detesae smo ed aoqvensdt 
Jooreint odd gated eal to ewe sectsw eft cela" .sobbue 
e94ab of atored tolbrev eft to gutsebroy ect? to omit 
to ysld eft ."efa0n doiw teddegod e82igII$ Yo Lntot. 
 Wdneupesdue bre snemybut ets to yxdae at o8 
stop elds of Laoqge att 2 
bedwhomco yfOGL ght LhtaA boLkt ,notsexloed Lantsino., 
bra ogacldd Yo Ysto ,esmaberoted od Jats bevieve bas, 
# besiiozeq yitnsgiigen" ,ysaqnod solsoaxt 
Seew on? so des ,outtevea noseala at alanuon baa od 08 of 
“th tv eumeve nodeia bee to yatecoyw et? gage bas 
eit to dows? hayod (Liedese«tiuos edd ef ox0fo baa 
-bowteb otis sfoat eldw to yyoaqnoO molseaxT bet 
~thalq g8OCL .¥ dots ao tel? hetxeve ted3wt bae 2 *eotior 
4 of hecioatta moet « gitvieh saw oaks e2tl otf mf e¢edootat stIRee 
NOveis Bian pols bas moqu. mobsoesth Viretese-risu0s a mt mg * 
eoiteve OrasiorrA to 0 [ — vo 
Yo eatorene ont at eftiin bas wantytnd oo eam od atti qdath fem 
20 oomatinon od to mocnet ¥S Smet yetetas seo old tot otee Od 
$row yldahioveat moxew Sten. Ww efeede.edg to om «Birabrs ted “onts | 





34 


into said hole, thereby causing him to be thrown from sald wagon, 
ami permanently injuring bim, from which injuries he shortly there- 
after died. On February 10, 1909, plaintiff, by leave of court, 


‘filed an additional count, im which he everred that all fowr of 


the defendants "negligently permitted said Histon avenue, ani on 
the wost side thereof, and at and neor the crossing of said Elston 
avenue with said Armitage avenue, and the crossing at and near the 
south-sasterly bound track of the defendants, and within « space 
ef 16 fect in the middle of said street, to be and remain out of 
repair, unsafe ard dangerous, and permitted certnin holes to be 
and remain in said Elston avenue and at the place aforesaid, all 
of which faste defendants had notice, or by the exercise of reason- 
able care should have had notice", and further averred that, while 
plaintiff's intestate was driving as aforesaid and was in the 
exercioe of due care for his own safety, one of the wheels of the 
wagon unavoidably “went into seid hel@" thereby esusing him to be 
throw from said wagon, etc. To the original and miditional eounte 
the City of Chicago filed « plea of the gonerel Lame. 

Gone of the facts adduced from the testimony of the var~ 
ious witnesses at the trial are as follows: Elston evenus rune 
in a northwesterly and southeasterly direction. Armitage avenue 
runs east and west and orcsses Histon avenue at an oblique angie. 
The Chicago Consolidated Traction Company operated a street car 
line, with double tracks, on Klaton avenue, South bound sare ran 
on the weet track and north bound cars om the east track, Histon 
avenue was paved with wooden bloeks, About 180 feet north of the 
north line of Armitage averno, there is a curve in Eleton aveme, 
the street at that point turning more towards the northwest, and 
there is a corresponding curve in the street car tracks. On the 
southwest corner of the two streets was located Poshlier's saloon, 
and south of this building was Poehler's grocery store, and on the 





~~ 




















iogen bias wort wouds ed oo mid gatutian ydetedit .oLort 
-orers yilsode of setiutat dottw mort gets gatiwhat 
atwsoo to evsol yd {Wikditale «Wel .Ol PuuTiel ao 
20 uot Lia sadd horseve oft doteiy Gt «tew00 . . 
MO Des ,bitove models blew betdlerwg yLanogligen” 
mosesR Hkow ‘to getavow ocd gags hoe 39 Ada qI0e% 
edd ta0n bra te grteaot — — oped iernh. baw. 
conga 2 nin¢iw daa ,atnabewheh edd to Soard Sreod you 
to so ntamer Daa od of ytoorte Stas 2o osdhtn elt Abs * 
od of neLor mtasseo betiiozeq bua ,auowegnab bug @ 
<noaaes to oatorexs od ys To yeotton had adnabroteh atoe? Mk 
sid nt now bow Aissercte ee gniviah san etagoesak afM 
od of mit wtteuse wove! “plod bias odnt ame" videblowameat 
admseo Lanoltthba hrs Lantyta ed of 40t@ chogew bine — 
00002 Levormy oid 20 aelg a DOLL? opsotdd oe 20-6 
~wy oft ta ymomtdses e3 mort beoubbs esoat od? to emo 
amvx ourtevea mogeLs sawoliot ea ota Lalas ont te 
oumreva egedioriA .moltoestS yluetasedsuon bra * 
ein eupiido ma sa ourtoye moseLi epesoto bag Joow baw, : 
1d foo1te @ Hegeseqo yraqnod mottoay? bosedtLoumo0, ope 
ey ora braved M3voR ,.euneve mogels mo ,asoont elduoh mes | 
motels ,%oatt sSeee edt mo oreo haved dégon hes down? suqueme 
et to Métom too? OBL sued ,mfoold mebeow aeiv dove san,enme 
<esteve soseli mt erwe « ef evo? ,oomeve epetiaté to. : 
bow yteowisron ed strwwod o1om anieust tutog ged Ja, soorte ae, 
ods xD ,.etoand 120 soonte ods mt evawe petbaoquensoo 2 ah. eedi, 
tooLae a sefcdo4 hosacol eaw sfeetse owt edt to temmop doomievom) 
edd mo bre ,orote YroooTg a’ xeldeod saw natdt usd aids To dime dee 


Res ae, 









40 


northwest sorner of the streets Grawe's saloon was situated, 
Thomas M, Smith, plaintiff's intestate, was a driver, omployed 
by We Je Moxley Co., butterine manufacturers, for about tem years. 
On “arch 7, 1908, at about 6 o'clock in the evening he wae driving 
a8 four-mule team, hitched te a large ewpty wagon, southward in 
Bilston avenues, near Armitage avenue, the wagon wheels "tracking" 
in the south bound car tracks on the weat side of Elston avenue. 


The wagon weighed about two tons; the wheels were equipped with 


 four-inch steel tires; the box rested right on the agles without 


any springs under it, and the driver's seat wac a spring seat about 
6 1/2 feet from the grounds Plaintiff's intestate wae the only per- 
gon on the wagon and he was seated in the high spring seat. Ue 
either fell, or was throw, from the wagon to the ground on Ziston 
avenue, immedistely south of the south line of Armitage avernud, 

and almost instantly killed. The team continued to go southward 
on Elston avenue and was atopped some distance away and brought 
back, Only one oyo witness to the accident testified at the trial, 
although several witnesses testified to clroumstances immediately 
following. ‘The deceased was 43 years of age, married, and left 
him surviving a widow and six children, the oldest being 15 years 
and the youngest 7 yoars of age. 

The eye witness referred to was Mapyy Secker, one ef plain- 
tifr's witnesses. She testified that she had been to Poehler's 
grocery store and, as that store was closed, she came out of the 
front door of Poehler's saloon on Histon avenue; that when she 
first came out of the door she saw the mules "coming up, going 
towards dom tow"; that they were north of her at that time, 
coming, towards armitage averme; that the wagon was running on the 
ear tracks; that the driver “was sitting on tho sent, I saw him. 
He had the lines in his hands. He had gone past arsitase avenue. 

I was in front of the saloon door. He was still on the seat. # 


— 






















-dotauste saw melee sens steers ext? to 
J beyolque qtovith 4 sav sedaseedal a Pilintal¢ ol 
-2tRet Wot Mods Tor yeT8USo LUMEN eniTessus 
attvith auu ert gatneve ed¢ mi xoolote & Juode Se yS0er yt! 
at Bisudivos qmogaw ytqne oytel a oF ‘hettotid , 
“attfoot" cloeds mogay edd youmeva ogadiets ist gene 
 souneve motel® tq abte teow eds ao eloatd iso bmed di 8 
athw beg¢tuye er afew wtf remot ows suede | 
fuodtte as taa et no diytt Bofeot xod ent phonts | 
tuods se00 yuiiqa 2 caw foou a sevinh edt few gtt 
eH .teee gttinqe dain es at besoun saw ed Bem 
moseli mo Bavorg edt of nogaw ods mort .awoult «ow 
esutrove egadinrta Yo ent Mtvou erie To davow 
Mamauos 02 of heunttnoe mead att 20 LDE -y: 
trigwon! fe yows onnatals emos heqgata caw Sra 
elebts edt a bettisust Inebhoon etd of unonsiw eye ono o⸗ 
¢lesatheent neonasanuorto of beltivaes soncentiw Letevee a 
Sol Brus .defriam ,e4s lo wtaey EA sew Seancoeb sit 4 ite 
wtdey Af grted Pueblo wit .mexblide xte Bas wobtw # r* 

, ras mFS no e094 to sisey 7 
~TEAlg Yo ONG \TeLOel YYEX now of Levtetoy wwendtw eye” 
a’ refdteot oF mood fatl orin tate Soktttoos exta 
ect to suo omae erfe ybowole omw emote salt es pine 
eis cactw Sate eureva noteli mo woolhe &'spideot "xo 
attoy at gutmon” eefem etd wae ee toob exis Yo ouo 
comnts Soci? se tort Yo Asvon otew yorts saute ———e —* 
edd mo antorem caw nogew oft Sans yenneys eyed tort J— 
Ate se I 4008 writ mo gatstio wow" aovied acts sats pulley 
seumeva elat orog fact on sebum wit mt wontt etemien 
© doen ors Ho Liive caw eH "00D moeLae wit to Snort at eswlZ | 


4 
a) 


ye 


* 





ate 


The miles were walking ~ trotting like”; that "Just before he 
fell he was turning to the left (1.¢e, to the gast) on to the next 
oar track”; that there was a osr coming up behind him; that the 
left front wheel of the wagon went down into 2 hole, and “he went 
head first out of the wagon, « s I saw him when he fell. He 
fell right under the wagon, He laid right in the middle of the 
car tracks"; that "I had seen the hole there Before that, I 





cannot say how long before, I don't mow how deep it was, The 
hole was muddy. The hole waa right in front of Poehler’s saloon 
door, «+ The hole was inside the car track by the rail, »# « 
I did not go over to where ths hole was at any time"; that after 
the deceased fell "I just stood still", and some nen "picked him 
up and put him on the sidewelk and he just lived one minute"; 
that the approaching street car did not strike the wagon, 

Patrick J, Stack, a witness for plaintiff, testified that 
he was coming out of the side door on Elston averue, of Waive's 
gaiocon, which saloon was on the northwest corner of Elston and 
Armitage avenues, and which door wae about 20 feet north of the 
south end of anid ealoon, and he saw a wagon coming along with 
four mules at a slow trot; that whem he first eaw the wagon it 
was “just a little bit north of Armitage avenue; that he didn't 
eee the driver on the seat; thet ac he (Stack) sot on the south 
side of Armitage averue he saw a man lyirg in the middle of the 
street, about "5 or 6 feet south of Armitage avenue", called for 
assistance and brought the man over ard laid him on the sidewalk; 
that he"iidn't aee the acoldent"; that the point where he saw the 
man lying in the street was “about 70 feet south" of where he first 
saw the miles; that there was an electric light at the corner of 
Armitage and Zleton avenues; that he “locked at the place of the 
accident on the next day", and that it was "in the samo condition 
the next day as it was before", In response to the question as to 


\ 
1 
14 

1} 





ace 




















ed ovotec soul” Jad ;“edtl gaidsots - galiiow opp, 
dxom ecii of mo (Jape oct of oO). S30L off of ganic 
eit tard mic beidcied qu gecteroo 160 & eae ered? sods 3° 
snow ed” dea ,olod o osmt mvob smew sogew oft 2o Leese 
eH .ffe% orf nede aid wasn I « © . .ogey ocia Yo suo 

_ § stadt enoted ores efor ait moe Set i" sadd.. ¢ 

: OE, gnaw tt goed wor, wom ¢! amb... : 
moolae e'ieideol to smort af diye sew efod edt. e 
oo skier ede yd doeit sap edt ebhant eaw efoc ett. «4 
sic bodotq™ mom enran. dra ¢"{itte boose saint, 1% | 
joo Modudm ono bevht tout ed. bra aLewebte edt mo mbit 4 
afevlaW to ,tumers megatk no. 00h abla eft to. su0. 
bra total. te wemrtoo Saowltron ets so sew soolaa slo be 
ocd %o Aton took 08 fuode aay toh Moldy hae ,seuneva, egatits 
titty grote gntmoc nogew # nam oct bas qnooian btag-to bab gite 

. #2 sogew oc? wan teat? ef gece fad? ;to1t wole. a tn m 
(Mmbtd orf aacia yeumeve egetiorta to ddton sid oftstL a, 
dtyon oct ao tog (Aoaas) ect as sats too ed mo aovta 
oft to olbbim oft m£ gutyl mem @ wae ed eunevea oped lersa 
70% helleo ,"eueevs ogeatiota Yo cgyor testa. 10 3° suede, 
tiLoweble edd mo mid Slat bea teve man edt Jeiguond. baa, 
of? wae, ect ererin galog eit dads ⁊ "Srebloos. ed? coe, tiabletad 
saxt? orf exody.to “déuee Jeet OF Juoda" sen tootsie edt 
Yo somo oft ta stall otatoole ma saw esos sadt.. produ. J— 
od3 29 pont ont $9 bexooL” est sacs yeeumeva, modela. tee, 
moltifroo onee oft mi* saw J! said hae ¢ yah sxon edt 10. gmebipebe: 
0? ga moltvenp edd 03 eamogees al ,"enoted ame JL aa yab Smon edth: 


ea) 





Sy eae 


* 
“what that condition was, the witness replied: "There was a hole, 
I should judge about 100 feet, maybe a little over, 160 feat for all 
I know, north of armitage avenue, 6 or 7 or mayb’ 10 inches deep, 
maybe 4 feet long, maybe 3 feet wide. ‘There was nothing in the 
hole but mud and slush, It was full of water, and to my knowledge 
had beon there five or six weeke before the day of the accident. If 
“have noticed other wagons going down the hole", The witness further 
testified that he didn't see the wagon on which plaintiff's intestate 
was riding go into this hole, that plaintiff's witnesses, “edabe, 
Dadie and Griffis, wore there the next day after the accident, that 
he pointed out the hole to “oGabe, that Dadie and Griffis messured 
it, that he told Griffis that the man was picked up about 6 or 6 
feet south of Armitage avenue, that he did not tell Griffis or any- 
body that the man wus picked up at the hole north of Armitage avenue, 





that “the hole that we went over to see the next day wae right at the 
curve of the car tracks", that the hole was "right siongeide the 
track, » # to the west of the wost rail of the track", that that 
hole wae "the only hole I noticed there’, and that up and down Elston 
averue, “all the ways along", the pavement was "reugh but no holea*, 
The attorney for the City of Chicage moved that the testimony of the 
witness, Stack, "acs to hole 100 to 160 feet north of Armitage averue 
* » be stricken cut as being a description of a place differing from 
the place where an eye witness aw the accident and there is no con~ 
nection between them", but the court denied the motion and an excep- 
tion was taken, 

John Dadle, plaintiff ard secretary ami genera) manager of 
the W. J, Moxley Co., testified on direct examination that he did 
not know of his own knowledge where the acoident ceourred, but that 
in company with the witnesses, MoCabe and Griffis, he wont "to the 
point where the accident ocourred. He waa then asked by the court 
where that was, and he replied, over objection, “about 100 feet north 








* 





















,olond & exw otedt?" shetiqes avendiv ert naw moltibaoo das 

{fs tot foo? OBL vtevS OL2s2L @ otfyan stows NOL suoda eghut ® 
¢T90b vocfom? OF édyam To ¥ 1 8 youmeve egadimrsA To 
ont mt aridgon caw evett y»ebkw soot & edyam .gmol 2 
eghelwon yur of fina yrotew to Liv? sew 2% ytleste one 
I sdrebtove exit ‘to yab eff o10Red eteew ata 10 
qorigr seondty off "east edd mwob aitoy anogaw verte 
‘eieteotat o'PrLIntale Avice mo mogsw oft oop gubkb oot gi | 
boteeem otis baw ekbed saris yedavou of eLod et tuo Deg 
8 wo & hose qu Doxtedg vow cum eguteds alYtiw . 
“ye 16 BTID Lied gon bid et sad younuve epadiota 2 
vounevs epation. 20 sion efort wi? 28 qu Deiohy sum mom eds 
ods ta ditytx new yab sxem orf 966 of ovo trow.en Jastd wLod | 
Ad obtnyrola sy21" caw ofod ott Jad «YotoaTd a0 edt % 
tacts Sadt , "lowest odd Yo Lkat Soow etd TO Joqu oils OF ay 
cotelh mwob bre qv tedd kets 4 *eteds Seotion I elox yiso ontt tom 
"eolodt on sud dyvot" aes dInemevag ett ."g0cle eyaw ord LLe% , 
ons to yromitoey ef? gadt bevom opanlmd to ytd ons tod | 
omteva syatterss “to ridin Joe% OBL of OOL oLod oF an® gd 
movt gatteTith vealq # Io notigitoueb a gated as tuo 7 
“00 on wt coved? bro Iebiona edt wae sasatie exe ne oTedde of 
“qeoxe ria bas coltom eid Hekaeb fispe ef? sod _ "meds 


ee 


Lae: 


— 


.ox⸗ ames 

20 Topanon Leyenog bus yiatetoer iw Yilintalg eolbeg mioe pnd 
Ath od tat? moltentnaxe Soetth mo beltisaes 44o¥ ono le alt dg 
tat? dad ,he'rio0o txebtoos edt erode ogbedwont.tmwo abd: 
eit of gnew orf ,alTRirO brs edado' yseunentiw edd rete qui90 


tives edt yd bezse ctorld saw oi sDeewoe sentone 46: ogedie tates 
dérom see OOf suode® rsotdoetde reve sbebiqo ed hus ynaw fact) exedy 


,. a 


alfa 






of Armitage avenue, north on Zlaton avenue", A motion to strike 
Out this answer was denied, the court saying, "the place he locate 
ed may stand", to which ruling counsel for the City excepted, The 
‘Witness then stated "we examined the hole in the street", He was 
then asked, over objection, te deseribe that hole, ani replied, "Z 
Seman a hole in the street about 4 feet long, about 14 inches deep, 
varying in width from about 1 to 3 feet, right at the edge of the 
west track. It was filled with water", The witness further tes- 
| tified that this hole "was about 149 feet north of Armitage avenue 
in Elston avonue", that "he did not see any other", that "we looked 
up and down the street from that point, » + prebably tor a block 
or so”, that at that point the etreet car tracks curved, and there 
wae"a bend in the atreet, and thie was just at the south end of 
the bend", Plaintiff's witness Griffis, who accompanied Dadie to 
Elston evenue on the morning after the accident, testified that "we 
went out end measured the hole where they claimed an accident had 
happened", and that the hele was about 160 feet north of the place 
“where the gentleman showed us he was picked up", His testimony as 
to the size of the hele was similar to Dadie's testimony. Plaintiff's 
witness NeCake, who also accompanisd Dadie to Hleton avenue, was 
also allowed to describe the hole, which he said was "about 140 or 
140 feet north of Armitaze avenue on Eleton avenue on the west side 
ef the cor track and 180 feet from the south ourbstone of armitage 
avenue", Pisintiff's witness, Kdward Poehler, was also allowed to 
describe the hole, which he loested as being at "the curve” of the 
atreete Plaintiff's witness, Arthur Poehler, who was the son of 
Edward Poehler and whe worke< for his father in the latter's saloon 
and grocery store at the time of the accident, was also allowed te 
describe the hole, which he said wae "from 150 to 200 feet north 
from Armitage averme", and which "was en the west side of the south 
bound track, right alongside the rail", and where the tracks curve, 


| aa ymouttteed efi“. eu aoia Shw Od au Beweds nanoiinds 
| eo trbintars swroutsess efeotbed of talinte waw efod orld 0" : 
——  gaw pouttova moteth 0% ofbad beinagmoobe bela dfw cod 

“Wo Gar “duode” asw biae od dole ,ofod add babeoce oF BewOk 





at 

























Gabtge 34 noida A”, "tuneve ROJeLe Re AMba jeunews 
agacol 0@ eoniq etd" (antes “siuod oft eboineb ean rewans ai 
of? .bedqsoxe ysld ed? tot feamudo yn! fut Wordw og” Mbande 

asd of ,*Joowss od at efor dd bontdaxe ow" pedade & 
{* \pekfqor nme yolod tadd edttoeen OF \aotfoetde devo" 
faeeb bored? br suede (nmol $082 6 dudda Joouds S49 ak" 

——— — —— 

‘Sgb¥ ahaa bbine te dike’: Sabine Wind ανα 
ctitiovs ‘endsimii ‘to rdtom Sent dar duoda saw" olod BF 

hotoot se dads ,*veddo yas obs fom bib ot Jatt 2% 
Yee td a aoe Yidaddag 6's Gated dads edn HEE" 
wreds bre ‘ybewmse exoard aac Joords edd dnloq suds’ H8 gi 
"go ‘be d3uee off Sa deut dow atas hs e dooud “bad a 
“OP ebfiad Belnsqmoves lle .olttind sbendiw erdiishhi 

ow" $add bebtheaes ,snebldos edt teste yrtmtom eit no 6 

had tnebloos me bemtalo yodd oredw ofod dtd betueseh Bal 
sont ofid Yo sibaod soe Oar Sisode ide Gie a 


oble saew oct? a5 ‘ounews nddeld de suneva enatiorzA to Ada 
OgetioraA to onodedaud dtvoe of} moat Jost bal fina wesad” 
of Sewofls cols saw yreldect Stawha jneontiw es Vikediald” | 
ari? %o “evuso end" ge yeited as bedacol of dotdw yeted eld 
Yo tos ort saw ow reltecd wwisuA ,coondin of Ptbbarele  %, 
moolse ataesiel off at vorldet elt Yo? dodsow ote bal 40 ings 
of bowollas cule eaw qdrtebtocs etd Yo entd oct te rode Ya0d 
Ativan Ses? O02 oF ONL mort" etw btad of dotdw ered” 
fgvos ott to ebis goew ed? mo eew* deity tak S*eueve —E 
yovrs exloetd ets ovvécie Dera ,"Lkot oAd Obtagmota fight” (xbdes Herod 


— 


«Be 






and which had been there "from five to six weeks", He furthor 
| testified on croess-examinetion that he "picked the deceased up and 
| put him on the sidewalk", thet the point where he picked him up 
wae "in the centre of the two tracts, about 65 feet south of Are 
mitege avenue”, He was asred to state, if he knew, what was the 
_@ondition of HKletor avenue, with reference to the west side of that 
street being smooth or rough and with reference to there being 
| holes in the pavement, from about 25 er 30 feet south of Armitage 
avenue and thence north about 100 or 150 feet, and he replied that 
~—6©"4t was'nt amootn nor it wasn't eo rough either", and that there 
were no holes in thet part of the street, 26 far ae he could judge. 
Plaintiff's witness, fred Grawe, the proprietor of the saloon on 
the northwest corner of the two streets, testified that he was in 
his saloon, waiting om a customer, the witness Stack, and he “saw 
Moxley*s big wagon with four mules going by", that “when the wagon 
got to the opposite (seuth) side of Armitage avenue I asen an object 
under the wagon and this object was thie man, Smith", and that he 
aid not go over to the place. He also was allowed to testify aa 
to the condition and size of the hole north of Armitage averme. He 
further testified that he was familiar with the condition of Elston 
avenue for about 100 feet north of Amzitage avenuc, arc that "slong 
the rail it was rough, but fairly well, except one hold about 120 
or 125 feet back from the corner", 

At the conclusion of plaintiff's evidence the attorney 
for the City of Chicago, renewed hia sotion, several times previous- 
ly made, to exclude all evidence as to “the condition of the hole 
nobth of Armitaze avenues, because there has been no commection made", 
stating that the only eye witness, Nias Becker, had described just 
the place where the accident happensd, south of Armitage averno, 
and that "all the desoription of a hole north of Armitage has no- 
thing to do with it, and they have not cormected it up",s, The aourt 


: 
; 
f 





—J outwova egatiora Yo singe otoct oid to oetn Beg m0 * 


he 





















modtw% of »"aleet xis. od, evi? mort” oud : 
bre qu bosasoeb oft boxtntq" od atid aottaninane-saow & 
| (0 mis Dptate of exact, $00g, — 
wth Yo 8u99 $002 BL suoda ynrowad ONd esit do oxtmO” x 
orf? naw Jody ,woret of 22 qpteta of betas sak Oh 6 
ia %o ebie saew oid of eonoretet ditw .ounews modelit 
_ Bidet ened of comenotet Atte bre syuon so dgoone % 
epadinsh: Yo duos, $002 08 10.8 ote woe yoramerag 
add dotiqon off bas 4d02 O01 0, dot soda dtton womodty hie 
 @tertt fait baa aftr he Aanos ono menw, #2 sort : | 
soghut biuoo esl oe tei O0 ,foonse ot te sung Sarid me 2 
m0 sogine 03, Yo osokacon 948 <oMeRD beet mao, * 
Ad wow. of fait LOMEINes. getoosts ows ots So weMtOD ; a 
Uae” ort true logge event ti ont .zomoteun 2 no. prtataw 4 
“pam eth, mocte™ acts evi, artow volun “wot atte molew 2 
foekdo na. eu I eumewn oysdtortA ty able (sduow) eth * 
ted ha gion ys aut vor soho htt nampa 
 MANTeed Of bowolls anv ote of s0ealy eit of vO 9 


moveli to motstiroo ent dtiw wtiina? saw of Jedd bottite 
yaole" sats bun ,oumeva ogatiord to diton seo% OO . 
at Woda Brad son ga⸗rne Aon Etat tad aiaion BOR $8 <a 
. "recrion ad3 mort soud Soi 
——9 ad? oono dtvs a ttismiadg 39 ste hes Logon ee ae 
qeuntvenq agats Lasevea ynoliow ald hewores soqnotsto a aad 
efor eft 20 mols thdoo’ ois” of wa onebtve Lis atysloxn o9 
“aban sottoenmon on reed gad arocqa OUUADOT ggumeNA eyed te 
gewt beditoned hari —XR Gali gasondia eyo zine end ’ : 
outers onedteth 2 dduos .banaqged anebtoas —— 
mon cad ono⸗ craa Yo A o9d,a.%o imetdghroaed ud, LiA™ paste 
$s eT .au 4 Ledoommo som mya Test Oma It ade ob 08 ʒua⸗ 


eh 





Ce ES SS ee 


wel om 


said, “I think it would be a question whether or not it was the 
game hole, ard the motion will be overruled", to which ruling an 
exception was taken, 

The court waa asked to instruot the jury to find the City 
of Chicago not guilty, but the motion was refused. Several wite 
nesses for the City testified as to the condition of Klseton avenue. 
Albert Grown testified that immediately after the acoident he 
atopped the miles and brought the toam back to the corner of the 
two streets, where a crowd had gathered; that on the day of the 
accident and prior thereto he knew the condition of the west side 
of Elston avenue noar Armitage avenue, and that outside of the 
track from about 6 inches up from the rail it was "a little rough", 
but right alongside of the rail there were 3 or 4 places where there 
were holes, “like as if a wagon had dropped off the rail and made 
a rut there”; that there were several such places “right opposite 
Armitage on Kiston*, James Burke, ward superintendent, testified 
that the west side of Histon avenue, from 25 fest south of Armitage 
ayerme to a point 200 feet north of Armitage, "waa rough", but that 
between the curb and within six incheea of the street car track there 
were no holes; that close to the track there were some depreasions, 
but that he did not know how long these had existed. 


WRe JUSTICE GRIDLEY DELIVERED THER OPINION OF THE COURT. 


Inasmuch as we have reached the conclusion, after @ care« 
ful examination cf the record, that the judgment in this case 
should be reversed and the cause remanded for a new triel, we 
deem it unnecessary to discuss many of the points argued by coun- 
sel. 

The main contention of counsel for the City is, that the 
trial court committed error, prejudicial to the Gity, in admitting 
ever objection, and in refusing to strike out, the testimony of 





| 


— — 


oc 





















sid wow $f Jon 10 rerltetn Aoisvoup a od ditow 
aa gtlinv: dobtw of q"belirsseve od Lite motsom- ont t 
{ILO Ons Halt oF yrwl ods Sounzent of Deter sau swoo om 
«tiv Leven sbeavtet eaw noltoa eds sud esi | 
eoumteva motel to molttones eld of vs betthivws yslo’ 
‘pds ‘to yed ocd mo sods phexedteg Hot wows # orerte 
ebte Joew elt to coltlincs edt wernt of oteteds 102s 
c“igvon eL2ati s* ecu $2 Stow ot wott qu redont 0 duada wee 
ered? etere cpoaly > 40 6 e107 oreds Sher exe to é 
eat ban Ltex eds Yte beqqoth bad nogsw e tt ea emts® 
otiwoq¢e frigtt” avoslq dove Leyevea erew overt tads 4" 
‘bolittacd yinehqoiniteque Hiaw gots somol , “tosele. 
ogatlotA Le ddude seek GR mort yemmeva aoseks to ebia . 
dant dud _"tyuot caw" .epasierta Yo Miron see? COR smtoq se 
eteit tows? 180 Joutde edt Yo nedont ule otdéiw bos éwe 
satakaworqed enon oIeN BiB) Koo? off oF onole dadt jaekod oF 
'botutse hort seeds anol wad wort som BRD 





—*8 
es 


Shine 


vera ae — 


eTHVOO BHT WO rsgo AKT GawiViad rarne 


<9'1a0 & 10dte gro Leu Loevoo ons Deoceses eva ew ‘oa — 
onan etd? at soomptut exit Cadd gbavoe7 odd Yo m0 
ow ,isisd wen 2 tot bebnamet caune ent heres bosreve7 od B 


-roo yd Bem efntoq edt to (tani aauoe hb ot qinsvecernts ans 


od? Jarid .el yttO ed? 1? Leamoo to nokénesnoo alan edt 


2: tome 
Milssinds mr Xeto ade OF Laloltiuterq ,w088te bes J inmoo $00 Lats 


to yrromttees eds .tuo etiaée od wrieste: al ire totsootdo 10v0 


se Nat 


we DO oe 


Plaintiff's witnesses, regarding the hole in Hlston avenue, 

which was about 150 feet north of the north line of Armitage 
avenue and still further away from the place where the only eye 
witness to the accident testified that the accident occurred, In 
the light of all the evidence in this case we agree with the con- 
tention. While in some cases proof of the general condition of a 
atreet or sidewalk near the place where the accident ocourred is 
admissible as tending to establish notices to the Gity, (Zaylor- 
ville ve Stafford, 196 Ill, 288, 290; City of Kigin v. Nofs, 200 
Ill. 252; Same 212 Ill. 20, 24 ) still notice to the City “or 
one partioular defect which eaused an injury cannot be established 
by proof of notice of another particular defect which im in no way 
related to the former and did not contribute to the injury". 

(28 Gyo. 1400), In our opinion, under the evidence, the hole 
about 180 feet north of Armitage averue, which was desorlbed by 
eaid witnesses, in no way contributed to the injury of plaintiff's 
intestate, and in allowing to remain in the record the testimony 
of said witnesses, as to size of that hole and the length of time 
it had been there, the court erred. 

And we do not think that the evidence sufficiently proved 
that the City had notice of the exiatonce of the hole, if any, 
south of Armitage avenue, concerning which plaintiff's witnesa, 
Miss Becker, testified, or of the dangerous condition, if it was 
dangerous, of Elston avenue, immediately south of Armiteaze avenue. 
(City of Chicage v. Murphy, 84 112. cad Boender v. City of Harvey, 
261 121. 226). | 

the judement is reversed ard the cause remanded. 


REVERSED AND REMASDED. 

















| 
t 

—* 

— — — 

\ 

— yeuitteve soteld ab efor eds guihuaget 

| egatiot to ents denon ett? 20 Aiton toe? O2f suds 


i at ,bewmooo suebinos odd tat? PerthIeed gobtees ots -OF Ol 
Ro mote tbmce Lirremey eds Yo toon evano emoa unt of! 
stohyet) yeeld eft of eottom retidatae of gxthnos 
008.820" ev IAIN Yo Yok “YOUR seas LEI wOL 
Ro" ¥ILO ect? OF Galton Likte (oe qos KIT ere’ 
bedalidateae ed Sonneo yusist se Deeueo dettin soe 
Yaw on mi ot doldte soeteb waivoliteq wWd30R8 to 
aMytwtat edd of e¢udiatnos ton bib bas 
ele tit yeomoBive oct rebay ,sotmtyo wo al 4 
4d Deditosed sew dotcw ,eueve enetions %o Afton 
e'ttisatal, to ywtal orld of Setudingscs yr on at 
ytomkteos edt bioow: ocd nt nhawet of gulwolfe al: 
omt? % dtpmel ont boe ele tas? Yo ents of of , 
9 e¥na %2 .olori od? to eomesalxo oft to sobton hat Yolo 
ie eaeonsin ef Ptisateld dotdw arctrrreonoo eSuroves OnosiortA 
eow tt th gtolsibos ayoxepgnad ef? to to ,boltisnaos 
seumevs onatiorta Io dtvon yLetaiboumt ,euneve soseli to 
|| Xowusl! 20 ys" wv aebmeod 1G «LEI 98 curtqmm «¥ onaoksty * 2 
. (888 


ry we — * i 
sbebranot oauad off fis beatevet at Srenmhut <= a 


J 
Sy) 
ied 


7 ye 





eTAOIAMUA GVA GNRARVAT 
et: | 
* ae J E 

» Labs? 


4 ; 4. se70 





October Term, 1911, No. 


486 - 18,005, 








HATTIE Me ’ 
Appelles, 
APPEAL FROM 
SUPERIOR GOURT 
* 
Appellant. GOOK COUNTY. 


18 8 2 1A, 1 36 


MR. JUSTICE GRIDLEY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 


This is an appeal from a judgment for $2,500, rendered 
in the Superior court of Gook county on July ly 191ly in favor 
of appellee, hereinafter called plaintiff, and against appellant, 
hereinafter called defendant, in an action for damages for per- 
sonel injuries, The suit was originally brought against defend- 
ant and the Chicago Railways Company, hereinafter called the Ccon- 
pany. In the first count of her declaration plaintiff averred 
that on April 21, 1999, she was at and near the intersection of 
Clark and Wellington etreetsa in the city of Chicago, and, for 
the purpose of becoming a passenger, she signalled one of the 
Company's south bound street cars on Clark street to stop; that 
she was in the exercise of ordinary care for her own safety; that 
the Company so negligently managed and propelled said street car 
im a southerly direction along and over said Clark street, and 
the defendant so negligently managed and drove a horse and wagon, 
owned by him, in a southerly direction over said atreet, at the 
place aforesaid, that, by reason of the negligence of the defend- 
ant and the Company, a collision occurred between said wagon and 
said car; that as a result thereof the "wagon was knocked, forced 
and throwmm toward the curb and sidewalk of said Clark street", 
and upon the place where plaintiff was standing, and thereby a 
collision ccourred between plaintiff and said horse and wagon, 
whereby plaintiff sustained severe and permanent injuries. The 
second count charged that, as a result of the collision between 





















' 0H ,LLeL .wreT rodoted 





ser. A. — —— 
CHE gat At wet he 
bones, 00888, 22. deni, m0, Seon. 
Movat mh LEAL of, sth, oo ysmne 4090 30 + 
— tenlage ie <EsoLale boLia0 sesMantores, 4 
~teq tot neganab 0% solfoa mm mt gtaabaeteb bo 
chroted tantegs tdavow yLientaizo eae dive ef? - 
~m00 edit Deliao sestantenad .ynaquod ayenital opesteD, « 
hewseva Yitintalg moltoraloed td to sruoo text? of Yo 
——— —— *⸗ nt 
10% _ fra pousoldd to ysko ots af asootsea mogamt / 
ott to ont helfengte ecie | — — 2a» 
terit ~qoia of Jootta tall ao aise Jeetsa baad duo 
tarts ö———— 
780 teowte hiss belleqosy dua bopanan yLidwegiiner op 1 
wrogaw bra eemorl & evorb bre boganr yisaegtizen os tre 
oi ta ,teo1se bise sve 
nbaetob on? to cocegdlaen ad? Yo soncen. uC. «fads, 
bre cogew bias amended beriso90 mois! Lfoe a «naga edd, Ba 
Beo10t qbexoomt asw copan® ocia Yoorerit Siunet # oo sastt 
«*deerte ateal0 Dies 20 dlaweble has dive edd Drewod, 
@ yetels bre ,yriinads saw Tiistntalq evedw eoalq oad mo 
ontw bee eetot blag bus Wisdntelq aeewsed Bewns006 | | 
oft selmi! Inenacrieg baa erevee bontateve Yriselalq ydewedte 
meowsed molelifos eid to Sivnet # as ,Jats beg iadn trues ‘tewoes: 


7 
PR 


Met. 


5 * 


“26 






the horse and wagon and the atreet car, "the direction in which 

. said horse and wagon was then and there moving was suddenly chang- 
ed and diverted from the rosd bed of Clark street toward the curb 
and sidewalk of Clark street", and upon the place where plaintirr 
was standing, and thereby a collision occurred between plaintirr 
“and gaid horse and wagon, etc. To this declaration the defendant 
‘filed & plea of the general issue, ani the Company filed a like 
‘plea, together with a special plea denying omership or control, 
at the time and place, of the street railway or car, Shortly be- 
fore the trial, on motion of plaintiff, 1t was ordered that all 
papers and proceedings be and are amended by discontinuing as to 
the Chicago Railways Company, and the case went to trial before a 
jury with John Hetzel as sole defendant. 

At the trial 14 witnesses, including plaintiff, testified 
in her behalf, and 6 witnesses, including the driver of the wagon, 
testified for the defendant. Photographs, plats, certain writings, 
OtCs, wore aleo introduced in evidence, the testimony wae quite 
conflicting. Plaintiff, e woman about 40 years of age, testified 
that on the evening of April 21, 1909, about six o'clock, she left 
her place of employment and wont to the south-west corner of Clark 
and Wellington streets for the purpose of boarding a south bound 
street oar on Clark street; that she agaw a car coming and signalled 
it to stop and it began slacking up; that she aleo saw a "Carson, 
Pirie, Scott" wagon soming south which stopped; that then she mw 
another wagon (defendant's wagon) back of the street car and “the 
horse was rumning very fast" and she turned to go back onto the 
sidewalk and was struck.on the sidewalk; that as a reault she 
was confined to her bed for about five weeks and suffered much pain, 
mostly in her back, and was permanently injured, The driver of the 
*“Careon, Pirie, Soot” wagon testified that he was driving south 
on Clark street; that the street car passed him about the north 


Ye 
: 
J 
i) 























r yodorse@ 
ROR AL « abe 
aotita at notseerth oaa «tae deorss edd bas nogen Sas 9 on ot 
~gtacio yinebbyue aau anivom eters bss nedd saw mogew bas 
duso odd buawod sootde txel0 Yo bed Deo ect? mort bed 
Tiisntalq evets eoalq ocd noqs bas o“pagute rireret nem 
tentalg avowled bewwooe matatiion a ysereds hrs 
faabtwred etd wotsaualoeh ati? of ote ymoyaw bas oe 
ex2t'e belt? ynagmed edi hms yeuunt Lonenes odd 20 
eownee 10 gidatenwo antyned acig Latoeqe a 
~od yLtions 4190 to Yauiter soonse exis to 
Lhe dant betebio saw 22 ¢TBléntaig Yw molton’ 
of aa nulumtsnoosth yo bokroms ete due oS 
2 enoted Lalid of new eae eds baw « 
hettteeod ¢Yiiéntale aattuiont yoosvensiuos Lett? edd 4 ry 
eogen off To teviah odd gntbulont ysossensiw © bas «tiated 
segrltion mladiee ,etalq .oiqargosodt .éaaboeted ets 9 
Ostup aw Yomdswee of! soommdtve al beoubottal 
heltisess .0ge to ateey Od soda menow 4 g%hhintalt 
Stel ode piooloto xin dyoda 420ek —f8 LingA to gutneve 
teal % terry Jaewetiiuoe etd oF imew bes sowcyolqus 
bouod Aauca # yatirwed to escqusq edt 10? steotic 
Seilangtea hue achaoe seo @ ae or Sart ptootse ate) no! 
109%HO" #8 wan ocala ete dad? qu anitosie maged sf bus 
wm aig cots fads pheqqete dolde cijwoe gximoe nogart vom 
eit” howe imo geoute edit to dead (nozaw s'ianhroted) cogew! aria 
eid o8o toxd o3 of berud efe bon “ost yew galnurt ese 
eo Sivnet 4 ca Sacks ptlewehle edi mo.quite sou Daa: jens 
etioq dove heweYive dae steew evtt fede 0? bed wt et 00 Rew 
edt %o tevinh ect — — 
ciouon gntvinh eae of Said bo Litned sogaew. "st00R yolk? ener” 
Advort eft? Juodea ald beseeg tao Jootte end takd .phootte steak 


oe 





ae 


side of Wellington street, and went on and stopped at the fur} 
ther crossing; that he saw two ladies standing in position to 
board the car, between the car tracke and the sidewalk; that 
defendant's wagon, "going » pretty good gait", came from the 
north; that the two ladies ran back towards the sidewalk and were 
knooked down on the sidewalk; that he saw the "horse trample on 
one of the ladies”, whether on the breast or back he could not 
Say, and that he, the driver of the "Carson, Pirie, scott" wagon, 
"pulled out onte Wellingten atreet, facing southwest from Clark 
street", The theory of the plaintiff wan that the oar was stand- 
ing still or slowly moving, with its rear end just south of the 
south line of Wellington atreet; that the driver of defendant's 
wagon had been following the car, the wagon moving south wholly 
or partly in the south bound track; that after the car had about 
atopped at the crossing the horse and wagon kept om rapidly mov- 
ing and turned out from the track behind the car, and in some 
mamner the left hind wheel of the wagon collided with the rear 
atep of the oar, causing the wagon te tilt and the horse to swing 
to the west and to rum upon the eidewalk, striking plaintiff, 
There was evidénee to support this theory, The theory of the de- 
fendant, ao principally supported by the testimony of the driver 
of the wagon, was that the horse and wagon were being driven 
south in Clark street just west of the car tracks; that when 
Wellington street was reached the "Carson, Pirie, Scott” wagon 
was opposite defendant's wagon and to the west of it, which pre- 
vented defendant's wagon from moving more to the west; that a 
south bound osr approached the wagon from the rear at such a high 
rate of speed as indicated that it would not stop at the cross- 
ing on the south side of Wellington street; that in passing 

the wagon the front end of the rear atep of the car (which step 
projected seversl inches beyond the wect side of the car) caught 





ste 






















unt og 22 bequods bas mo diner dua toons 
of migteog ni gathoege eethal ons ese sc Socdt ignites 
ocd nowt nud 4 "tlog hooy ters & gatog™ «Hoga ald 
mo eLqmens oayod” ert wen ef fads jdieweble ects mo 200 y 
ads Yo ciduos tout ba tees ads si¢ty yynivou yiuole a0 & 
a’ srsbe teh Torudwiad oft gard noen⸗s sodgntilew 0 @ 
 tao1 of? dohe bebiilos nogaw erg to leew ontd Stet 
puiwe o2 soted exis feta $423 OF mogew erie grutanso qt50 | 
eTitsrtalg gristizée yfLonebte ortd moqu mars ot bow M atin 
wop ori to yroeds ea? .yuceds oil? dxouqie of eombbive same 
tovitb off ‘to yaomtsesd of yd hedroqqua 1 edness 
stecte godt yerlowss tmd ods to snow seut geotde . ab 
moR4w "93008 eSitl{ ,moetal” ed’ besienet aeu Jeet] 
“org riotdw ti to daew eit of Dae gogee et éashbested . 
© tad? :geew ort of etom gitivom nox? nogaP at grabaote . peanoy 
Mid « duce te tee7 et) mox? sogaw edd bedosoag¢s tan r 
~eoor odd Ja qote Som bivow $2 gadd Sesaotbat ea beode % 
guieeaq nt sade — —a— — vi 
qote dofste) ‘iso old Yo Code TaeT edd 20 One daOy? 4? MoReN-edy 
sumo ("we edd 20 obte deon.cdd snoyed medont Leteven Detoetony 


: a 


use. 


—R 


ee 





Oe on 


we 


the left rear wheel of the wagon, and threw the horse and wagon 
toward the ourb and sidewalk and upon plaintiff. The driver of 
defendant's horse and wagon testified that he was moving south 
on the woot side of Clark atreet, "about three feet from the 
street car track, perhaps a little more"; thot as he was cross- 
ing Wellington street the "Carson, Pirie, Scott" wagon was almost 
Opposite hims thet the street oar passed him "almost on the 
erossing, just « couple of feet away, and it was going almost 
full speed", and went "fifty or sixty feet from the corner before 
4t stopped"; that as the car went by him "the women were stand- 
ing on the crossing and I signalled for therm to step back, and 
when I seen they didn't go I atopped end the hird step on the 
right aide of the car struck the left rear wheel of my wagon, 

and the wagon and horae wae knocked up on to the sidewalk from 
the jar, amd against one of the women, «+ « When I pieked the 
lady up she was lying on the sidewalk and the horse wae over 
her", 

After careful consideration wo ere of the opinion that 
the verdict is amply eupported by the evidence. Counsel for 
defendant do not urge that the damages awarded sre excessive, 

The only points argued are that the court erred in giving one 
instruction offered by plaintiff, in refusing to sive two instruc- 
tions offered by defendant, ani in certain rulings on evidence, 

We do not think that the giving of inatruction No. 6 
offered by plaintiff constitutes error, Practically the aame ine 
struction has been approved in the cases of North Chicage Street 


Re OO. Vs Kaspers, 186 Il], 246-50, and Same v. Wellnor, 206 Ill. 
2724 


Nor do we think that, umier the evidence in thia case, 
that the court erred in refusing to give instructions mumbered 
4 ani @ offered by defendant. (Purington Brick Co, Ve Eokmany 





ape 

















Pepe si Shh 
wopau bas orod odd wordt Ana qfonaw oft? 9 Leede ano 


ro toviah oT i a a 
tion grtvow new off dant Sobtined cmzaw bea ourort a su 
edd mo¥t seo% odnutt Suoda* \dooute stunkd 10 obte 96 ow ot 
<an0% eaw of oo tals — oktsti  aqatiog tomas 
feonle daw mgaw "$1008 volaks — wt Se0rze m0 path 
“Gls ncataY atid boetng tao toonte et sd — 
— — —————— ae 
—— (aN"SEK WA Och SRW Joos 
sbanbe exow iomow ontd™ wit yf Snow “a0 edt oa ertt 1B : 
na ytond qos of ved wo? boftarste I ban galone id 
edd m0 gota butt odt tna beqqote I on H¢abth youd m 
iogaw yn to foedw qa0t Hol éd3 Mowrge sao rtd Yo 6 4 
—— 
o#d Bexbte T morte ee ‘dau oak 0 euk boniaaa Aare 


wove cow sertolt ecé tes ‘Lovebhe ext? ao yetet eae o 
yaitt te 


—I 


tant motatqo est to eta ow molzetebtero Lutewe 1: 
Tor Loumed yoomebtve eid yd bosioque ‘elena es | 
 sevloacoxe 7s bebewa segamab od? Sarts ons ‘ben 0 on ie 
eno grtviy at bore g1w0e orld tartt ona bowtie egntog wi 

-ormant ows ort, of grtevter nt Tilsnbela xd ——— 

——— 

& on rioltoutgant Yo privity eld sade aabstd Son = ae ice. 
«it omen ertd vitae lsoart etorre sedis Lsanos Yatenbasg J 
geeAc A⸗oetco dion dino %O aouan orld mt dovoraus med nari py one | 


Be . 


offI 008 _,tomliew .v emsa Brin —— offi nat swregeen ¢ 


—* 


— 


eOneo aft mt comebive ord tehew e anbid ow ob "10m th. — 


Deortodmiunrs enottourtant ovis ot — nk beste — — ar 
Ohta ee pews ~ atl 


— ov 100 dolz8 sosuntusd) strabrered ys boveTto & 





25 


102 Ills Apps 1853 North Chicago Eleotrio Re Co. ve Peusor, 


190 ill, 673 Chicago West Division Ry. Qos ve. Bert, 69 Ill. 
$88.) Furthermore, we think that the jury were fully and suf. 





ficiently instructed as to the law applicable to tho ease by 
other given instructions, 

It appeared that about a year before the trial the 
plaintiff signed and sealed an instrument, dated July 6, 1910, 
(which was introduced in evidence) whereby, in consideration of 
$200 paid to her by the Reesivers of the Chicago Railways Com- 
pany, she covenanted and agreed that she would "not at any time 
‘bring, or cause to be brought any action at law against said Re- 
ecivers or the said Company, for or on account of a certain ace 
cident which occurred on or about April 2l, 1909, at or near the 
intersection of Wellington and Clark streete",. Counsel for dee 
fendant claimed at the trial that the defendant was not bound 
by the particular wording of the above covenant not to sue, ard 
that the defendant had the right to show, if he could, that the 
actual agreement and understanding between plaintiff and the 
Railways Company was that, in consideration of the $200, she 
Was to abandon and releavge all her clains against the Rallways 
Company. ‘To this end, when plaintiff was being cross-examined 
as a witness several questions were asked her relative to said 
payment of $200, some of which the trial court allowed her to 
answere Two questions, however, she was not sllowed to anewer 
and the claim te made that these rulings constitute error. She 
was asked if she "didn't settle with the railway company", to 
which she replied, ""o, I didn't settle. I got some money but 
I didn't settle. I got $200. «+ # I made no settlement", The 
following then osourreds 

ye bea 
railroad company, dia yout * 
Ae I don't know, 


b- 


— «¥ 209 »i oiadoeks oagpidy giro pSOL eqqA «fh 
ii ASE OO g$t04 +09 aTS GosesylG Ja0¥ gpootdo ¢VO« 
~rye bee yLivt erow wut ond sade vats ow / 
— tenses | 
i i Seis ' sanotsounsorst ' 3 
| da tek ban dri aooe ieeaacald / 3 
eCLCE 98 ULUb botab .Inommasent ae delseo tun 
to molterebiewojmt gyderete (eomodive ml be | 
amg eyewhtas oasobtd od Yo erovtenen etd yt tes 
ould yae.J8. fon" bivow ede dacs hoorgs hee hodnel » 
~of bien tontoge val 28 noiton xm Jchyuond od of omsmo a 
~0e miagieo 5 te Jnvouce mo xo tk yymaqmed bias odd 
odd geen TO Ja .20Gk .iB Liwa tuoda 10 me bewnD0 
“eb 710% Loenued ,"eteotte sell due aotgatllew %o 
fewiod ton ane érmbuoted es? sant tated ecl9 ta benkeko - 
brie ,ee of fom gnaneveoo ovoda afd to qatbtow | a 
ott sacle chives ec TE yworle od siniy ott back snabroteb a 
ord bee Wisakelg aoented grtknosereiny baw snomeerye 
erie 008% ofS Yo moktarebtonen mb «iedd amw yegmod eget 
eyauttes odd sentage amtelo rod Lis esaster bas mobaede 
benimexe-cuo1m gnied saw Ttivnisle code gine aldd oT. : vax 
bias of evisalet rod beias evow anohjowsp Leteves ake i 
of ted bewolia sno Laisd esit doisw to embe 008) 20 trr0n 
q9wens 03 bewolle toa sew era yievewod .svolseeup owt towar . 
eta store stustvenco agahiua onasit fads ohen of mtale end 
od 4"ynaqnoo youller ed? doh elgson J abtb" ers 32 b 
oud yoruom emoa ton Lk . eeldtom s*abih 1 101" .boklgon equ Mok 
ody ,."Ineweliten om ebam I o = .008$ fon I .olsdee 3* b. 
— ye 


— wus avad Jor bio ute 


sword 2*nob i oA 























“yy o 


6 


> 








20 
Qe Ic there anything about that transaction 
with the railroad cempany that you don't want to tell? 
Ae NO, there is nothing, 


Qe Didn't you sign a release, or some ar, to 
the railroad company? ; = 


Ae I @id not sign any release. I signed a er 
at the time i got the $200. ; ——— 


Qe At the time you signed that paper and got the 
$200, didn't you understand that you had ne further 
Glaim against the railroad company? 


li, Johnacne I object to thet as having been an- 
awered, (Objection sustained and exception). ~ ~~ 


Qe Didn't wr. Johnson tell you that you had no 
further claim against the railroad company? (Cbjected 
to; sustained ard exception). 


Qe That $200 you got was on account of this ac~ 
cident was it not? 


Ae In regards to it." 

We do not think that the court erred in sustaining the 
Objections to the two questions above mentioned, It is of these 
rulings that counsel complain, The record shows that the court 
allowed counsel a large latitude in questioning the witness as 
regards the transaction with the railroad company. and we cannot 
say that under the evidence a release to the railroad company or 
an accord and satisfaction with it was proved. One of the insatruc- 
tions offered by the defendant, and given, told the jury thet if 
they should find from the evidence that both the railroad company 
and defendant were at fault im causing the accident, ard that af- 
ter the beginning of the suit the plaintiff received 6200 from the 
railroad company, and that the said sum was given the plaintiff by 
the railroad company and accepted by her in full satisfaction and 
—— of all claims by her against the railroad company, then 
their verdict must be not guilty. The question, therefore, whe- 
ther or not the $200 received by plaintirr was received by her in 
satisfaction of all claims against the raliroad company for the 




















4 want 8 bgt “ne on 


ort? 303 baw baw * deus eae «Tala sad — 


— — —— ‘ef decide x pote 4 —8* 


 -~ea- abd? te teuocee ac aaw- doy sor Oa tae Ao * 


*.92 09 obuaget oI GA 
“odd guiatadau at berwe sve odd tadd anddd Jon eb OW 


1 Pm « 


ened’ 20 af $1 -bowotenen eves eaoizacup ow 0 of ii 
&a — ots gatao seeup nt ond toes cout a — X > 
Sons ow 7 — R baorl tor ‘esis dig bw nok a * e on 
%0 wraqimoo beotitar odd 03 essoier « eomeblve eit 
<owtsent odd to enO .beverg naw dk déiw notsoatetias fas 
Qt sed} ust edd blot ynovly bua dnabavtes odd Yo t 8 
i Wequee Deorilus edi dod sant eonwbtve odd mort batt tuociu 
4 saris bos gtaebloos eis golevee at isa ya ore nates 
ots mort 008) boviecer 2ttialalg edt slum eld to 
ud Yitictale edd sevis asw mue Ghee edd Sadd bee ——— 1 rt 
brs nolfoatatien £0 mk sed yd desqoooa bra yRaqmoo Bo the 
mectt 4 {magnon beorlter ot tontags ved yd eatato Lis 20% — 
~erly .eto'lereris eto. coup oft «ytiiug don ed Joma ) ‘Se tadg 
ct ted yd bevieoor ouv Titéntatg wf beytscet O0n sd don * 


ws Ss Sas tnd bl —— 


ec 





‘ul 








wh 


injuries sustained was submitted to the jury, and we think under 


7 
f 
s 
; 
| 


the evidence properly 80, (city of Chicago ve Saboook, 145 Ill. 


“858-863 Jonke v. Zurr, 54 111, 450) and it is evident from their 
‘Verdict that they did not think thet the money was received in 
“such satisfaction, and we are not disposed to disturb the verdict, 
| "Where there are a number of tort feasorsa, the party 
injured may, at his election, sue one, or several, or all; and 
where the suit 19 against one or some of the wrong doers, but not 
against all, the person or persons sued have ne right to complain, 
And £0, also, where there is 4 suit against several tort feasora, 
the diesmiasel of the suit against one does not bar the action 
againet the others", (City of Chigaco v. Baboock, supra.) And 
while it is the law that "s release to one of several joint tort 
feasora is a release to all, and an accord and satisfaction with 
ene of them is s bar to an action against the others"; (City of 
Chicago, #. Babcock, supra; Haliner ve chicago Traction Gow 245 
Tll. 148) it is also the law that "the legal effect of a covenant 


not to sue is not the same as that of & release. A covenant not 


te sue a sole tort foasor is, to avoid circuity of action, consider 


oa in law a discharge, and a bar to an action against such tort 
feasor, ut the rule is otherwise where there are two or more tort 
feasors, and the covenant is with one of ther net to ave him. In 
such case the covenant does not cperate as a releave of elther the 
covenantee or the other tort feasors, but the former must resort 
to hie suit for breach of the covenant, and the latter oan not 
invoke the covenant ac a bar to the action ageinst them", (City of 
Chicago v._Baboook, supra; West Chicago St. Rs Soe v. Piper, 165 
Ill, 326<27). 

* wna we do not think in the other rulings of the trial court 
on evidence, complained of by counsel, that prejudicial error was 
committed. The Judgment #111 accordingly be affirmed. 

APPIRMEDs 











- 9 























tole anid? ew das oKInt 218 06: DOOR ROR 
LEI BOE qloondad wv oneots® Re xslp) yoo vfreqorg & 
sods sort amabive at 2 to (0nd «tt 68 eat oy sek a 
mt hovtooes sew youom edd said intdd tom BEB yods dads, 
stothwy odd daugeth of beaogeth gon ois ow bua ysohtost 
verag edt — thdetls ec 
hits flo 1o..Leseven to yead aus ,nobtosle 
Son duxi gwcend gues ost te tubh 4S’ die telitigh WN 
stance od Sight on ovat beim eaoeneg xb 'sdbneG Odd » 
evsousst duod levevee Jenmtage tive » ol otecld etecdty a 
beh (g80Km «ilnoedas wv gysotdy 29 4880) ,"onedto ott 
#202 fukot Levevee to ene of caaeles a” Sait) wet ons OF 
dst notdeotettes baa brooos nb bnia’ Ets OF obbeter m ab 
30 atts) r*eredto ofd tantaje olson nas OF — ot oc 
AD 4.09 noltoets onsotdy wv renttey jangul wooedas Wit 
énateveo 2 ‘to Joetie Lagel of7" said wal — 
dom tnaneves A .caseler a To adi on eane bay sons 
~tohtemon _nelion to qiivetts Biova 6} yet conse? stot ofe i 
trod coum Yantage nolsoa a OY sas & bin Voy zattoeth a Wl 
$102 etom ‘to ows ets oteit oteriw oe Mrrertdd of eri tep dy 
HI aid eum OF Son mod W atte AFIW of Fharievoo eas i 
ofS aefitie to eseefot » ad otateqo Jon 890 — ‘ao TBH 
Stoee: Sei toerrol odd dud ,etoeaet FoF aeMso = a —* 
dom nao tediol os bow gtrastveo off td coasted Tor ¥. fe beet 
Zo yst0) , “mors serkege nolttoe end of and 2 ha — — 
eof ,togtd wv * — ide’ a 


— 


+ 7 


ie: 5 — 


* 
dusoo L[aitd oft to ennitivut werlse off AE ankdd don Ob ow Sa 8 
saw torto Latolbutenq tads «Lenawee vd % berielgros . 
sbeseitts od” yigdtinoosd LM Yneaybirt’ batt” —— 

—R TIA 





SS Se ee ae —— 





EREOR TO 
MUNICIPAL GOURT 
OF CHICAGG.s 


1821.A.1495 


MR. JUSTICE GRIDLEY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 


et — —ñ— — 


Plaintiff in error, defendant below, a cerporation 
with principal office «at Vinegar Send, Alabama, seeke by this 
writ of error to reverse a judgment for #280, rendered againat 
it in the Mmicipsl Court ef Chicage in favor of defendant in 
error, plaintiff below. The acticn was one of the fourth class 
amd was tried before the scourt without ea jury. Plaintiff was a 
salesman cf lumber on commiacion, with office in Chiearso, I1lli- 
nois, and brourht suit to recover commissions elaimed te be due 


‘him from defendart, arising from the sale ami delivery of cer- 


tain lueber to the Bahamas Timber Company, of Ammtilis, cuba. 

the testimony of the various witnesses is very conflict- 
ing om material points, but the facts, as we glean them from the 
record, are subatantially as fclloes: in September, 1910, Willis 
Re. Gilbert, agent in Chicazge for the Bshamas Co., sent to varicus 
parties, for the purpose of obtaining bids, duplicate copies of a 
schedule of abont 440,900 feet of lumber, "long leaf yelicw pine, 
square edge", of vuricus sizes, which luxber that company de- 


. gired to purchases. One of these copies was sent to the plaintiff. 
Om September 14th, the plaintiff enclosed the schedule in 4 letter 


addressed to defendant at Vinegar Send, Alabama, saying: "Please 
neme your lowest prices on attached Guban echedule, F.0.5. vessel- 
side. Kindly state quickest time you can make complete shipment*. 
On September 16th, the defendant, by N. &. Turner, president of 


— 


ht 
: 
7 


— 


























— 
—2 
— CIOL ao? gong 
«808,85 = 5 
. ae 
= +. 
A « act , a Zt Pelee 
. J * 
BA —— 11 
iyam ie + Faw Ve 


J 
— vi . * * 
Lm, % rr cad 


- 


<0DsD1g0 40 


CAL.ALSS 


— ——— ok 
——— — — 

sfops .enadslA hoot sapenty 22 opto. 
daahage Letehro1 ,08%} 102 smeembul, © epteWeT Of. 107 
at duabreteb 20 stove st ogepkt) Yo ⸗Avod Le 
ssalo d31w0% oe to ene now mottos edt, —“ 
TLL] onset af eoltto dstw .aotasimmoo me tedml, 
cub ed of Seattais anotaalomos tevoees of dium 4 . 
wae 20. vmvtiad im 0708 
ends) ,oLitérea To .yuqued sedmtT sasadas ed3 of 
~toliines yrev el seasoutiu suolwey ods 20 yromiseed 
odd moti meds moots ew se ,ejoei edt sud ꝓ⸗atea 
BLLits .Of0f ,redmesqee ml tmuoLiot on vLitetinasedue © “us 
auoltay of dctee ..09 seaeriaf edd got ege0ld) ml Jnege .ote 
8 %0 selqoo.etectiquh yebkd guintasde to sarqung ext a0, 
contg voliey Inet gaol" .redmul to see% 000,00) suode 
mob ymaqguco Jedd redmul dole qeente avolwey 20 9% 
e32lintalq eds of Jnoe caw eeiqeo ceed Io end * 
coset 0 sk efubocies od Benoione *ARInaLg ef¥ ith. 9 
sosela" -egriyse .amadsiA — regent’ #2 saabneted a “besa 
~feapevy .f.0.4 — maid becoasta mo asakes sews woe e 
-"drengits efelqnoe oten moo voy ents soodeimp efese yibotA 4 = 
29 Ineblocrg qReCwe 4-3 gh YS ginahasieh od? FOL nodmodges m0” 





Phe 


aQe 


defendant, replied by letter acknowledging receist of the sched- 
ule and saying: “We will give you prices on this schedule by 
next mail end we hope to be fevored with your order”. on the 
same day the defendant, by Turner, president, again wrote plain- 
tiff: “Since writing you this A.M. we are able to quote you on 
your schedule of about 440 u. ft. a price of $16 free alongside 
vessel at M. & 0. Docks, Yobile Ala. «+ The price we have named 
you is a very close one, «2 The quality of the lumber iz square 
edge and sound, such as is exported to Cuba and other West India 
islands", Shortly efter writing these letters Turner cane to 
Chicago and first met plaintiff either eat the Great Northern Hotel 
or at plaintiff's office. ‘furner was introduced te plaintirr by 
aman mamed J. hs Jolce. Plaintiff testified that he told Turner 
that he desired to get a bid on said schedule, that he would ar~ 
range for a meeting between Turner and the party wanting the lum- 
ber, that he was handling the matter on e commission basis of 
50 cents a thousand aril would want the bid to insiude his scom- 
mission, and that Turner replied that that would be satisfactory 
and thet he would so arrange it. Joice, who was present at this 
eonvergation, corroborated plaintiff as to what was said resaerding 
Plaintiff's coumission. Turner denied that at this conversation, 
or at any cther tims, he agreed to pay plaintiff any commission. 
On the following day plaintiff, Turner and Gilbert met at cil- 
bert's offices, where « second conversation was had. Plaintirr 
testified thet he introduced dilbert as the representative of 
the Bahamas Company to ‘Turner; that the schedule was again show- 
ed Turners; that Gilbert stated to Turner the quslity of luxber 





which his company wanted; that Turner replied that the defendant 
made a “specialty of that kind of stock" and “wanted orders for 
it"; that Turner quoted to Gilbert s price on the lumber, and 
then left, saying he desired to send a wire to hie mill aml thet 





— 


=~ 






80S, 8£ « 
-tedoe ‘sat 20 sateows geipbeswomine sadsel ws betiger of 
‘qd elubedos atsts no neotyg spy erty tite ot” » — ow: 
eit 50 ."4eb1O woy dtiw hovovat ed oF eqod o# ‘ Pa 
— — — a 
beuet ovad ow coftg ofl «© -@4A efidod qsteod 0 
exaupe ef stedeurl eid to yiieup edt « « weno s0oto 
atbal Scew wectdo be adud of Bedsoque at an dows , 
oe soe tsp oh 
Lagull meai non faqs ef as wwsitte i⸗aatata som 407 
v TREIealg of Deouboint sax soir? .00fte shift 
woctiur biod od darts Beltisesd Yitdatalt sole «A ot 3! 
wus bivor et Jas etubedon bise mo bts a Seg of bettueh & 
mit ett gritnew ydueq ott bao termwT meewted gatsoos J 
20 efoad noteetnoge ¢ 0 vos%an on? yattined cow od di 
amo eft ofttfont a2 bid etd tuew Sidow Gus Se my 
“yuesostatsas ed bivow tons sedd botiges rer? sadd bow 
ald? 3s éreeetq saw ofa ,ootot — — 
gatbaajest biaa sav forte of oa Vilsutale | 
emotteetevnos elds ta todd beled tercws? i 
— — 
«LEO fa tom Puedif® brie weal eat yd 3 ae 
Titinielt but! ese aottsarevmce Bncoes a eteda <e. _ 
9o evitadneserqo: es se SrodIlo | . — 
~worle rilaze eaw olithedon edd sats ⸗ — 
rodeo te yEtiaup et Werucn of badate dnedts dade ” 
dnatreeteb odd Sarit befiqot tectwT Jatt pbedmew ys Sort | 
202 atebro bedmew” baa “foose Yo babi feild 20 ystalooqu® a eben 
fun gredmuil edt m0 eotiq 2 dsedit0 of besoup vert sade 2NOR 


yn Set | 


dot? tua Lite abd of exte & tues of Bexlech od putyas .dt0k madd 



















— 





-S— 


he would call on plaintiff later in the day, but that Turner 


aia not thereafter call om pisaintiff. Turner testified that 
the defendant had been selling lumber to the Bahamas Co. for 
several years; that when he went over to Silbert's office with 
Plaintiff he had never before met dilbert and that at that con- 
yorsation he learned for the first time that it was the Bahamas 
Go, that wanted the lumber mentioned in the schedule; that he 
thereupon told plaintiff and Gilbert that he could net then take 
the order for the reason thet probably the Sahamas Co. had asked 
the defendant direct to figure on the same schedule, and that be- 
fore doing so he desired to telegraph his mill and ascertain if 
deferdant had received the same schedule direst ard acted upon 
it. Turner says that he sent such a telegram,. but it does not 
appear whet reply, if any, was received by him. Turnerte testi- 
mony is corroborated by that of Gilbert to the extent that at 
this cenversation Turner first learmed that it was the Bahamas 
Go. that wanted the lumber mentioned in the schedule, and that 
Turmer would go no further in the matter umtil he hed telegraphed 
his sill. Gilbert further testified that he had no further deai- 
ings with plaintiff and aid not again see Turner, but that eub- 
sequent to this conversation the Bahamas Go. reseived “the lumber 
mentioned in that schedule” from the defendant. Turner, while 
denying that the defendant had shipped tc the Bahamas Co. the 
lumber “zenticned in the schedule®, admitted that subseqrent to 
the conversation the defendart shipped te the Bahamas Co. "yellow 
pine lumber « + 305,000 feet or so”. 

On September 23rd, plaintiff srote defendant at Vinerar 
Bend, Alabama, expressing regret that he did not see Turner 
again before the latter left Chicago and saying that if defend- 
ant secured the order he would expect defendant to "protect" 
him on his commission, ard that he "had figured 25 cents each way 








ORE mtsdteoue haw Ihe cfs Remmge led oF Routed ex Go 






















⸗⸗ 


See tats och ccab tte it “tte Wake 
ded? heftiteed semeT Vnatate se fee nos taorent: $i 
qo% .0D comactetl ef? of vedestE gritiice head bat se 
Mate eottto et sid ILS of ero Frew on mori Saris 
ed taf refvherios ont at bewotsrec tedewl ont be 
~ed fad? Ba  elubedse onsen edt mo ows! 69 toorth gm 


noen Seen bes Soetth elvbedos ets eft hovfeoot 
"font oct St sd Maongelfed a doe time of daitt oye +e 
-téses TH yet 
“34 Said Sretxo eid OF SrOdL ES Yo sats ye 
vito 
——— rt 
bedcomates hert et [tira setter edd mi redoutt on oy hive 
<Ined ‘sectdat on Bact oct Sod? Heltisoed recitwt secre 
~dore tut td errant con miaga' gon bth bis etgtaly 
edmut off* hevteoot .cD cameriet et? motsowtevnos afte < 
“elite yrocte? .snbosteb oft sort “eluberiow tadt mt — 
ed? 100 enmmitad ents of Seqitte bad snabneted dd suds 
of tnerresdir fart Bedsits (Tofnbedos ord at bono hined™ ‘ad 
wolley® .00 assterist end of Seqqite Mrebctoted os | 
= -“oc 10 teet 000.008 & 6 
Taxenty as Inabewreh edotw Yiintsig .bies tedmesqen AO” * 





Li 


Se 


som? coe Son Sth set tails senaés sitboicotqns yamadatsl | oe 
~hveted ‘tt forid urtyee hue ogeoid Stef westal odt ti 
esestent* of sikbhaes sedigel Stusd ta'sineh emi tntilien aie 
yaw rlome adres 28 Sorught bact* ef sedd bon .rotaelunes eid ao wid 


oe 


om this bill which would amount te 50 sents per thousand’. on 
September 26th deferdant, by Turner, president, replied that it 
would not allow plaintiff any commission, giving as a reason that 
"this order case directly from Cuba to us and was closed the same 
way", but further saying, "se fool that in the future if you get 
any business through ur. Gilbert, we will be very willing to allow 
you & comission cf 25 cents". 

The witness Joice, whe was present at the first conver- 
sation between Turner and plaintiff in Chicago, further testified 
that about 60 days thereafter he met Turner in Mobile, Alabama, 
and “asked hic where his Hobile office was, and he said "I haven't 
got any‘; and I said, *You told ur, Srooka you had a Nobile office'; 
he said, ‘Well, I did that to skin his on his commission’." Turner 
denied making any such statement. 

The trial court in its firdling ssseased plaintiff's 
damages at the sun of $229, which is in effest allowing plaintirr 
& commission of 50 cents per one thousand feet of lumbsr on 440,000 
feet, which is the nusber of fest that furner in his letter of 
September 15th said was contained in the achedule forwarded to de- 
fendart by pleintiff, and we are not disposed to disturb that 
finding. we carmet agree with the contentions of counsel for defend- 
ant that the finding ard judgment are contrary to the evidense ard 
eontrary to the law, 

It is aleo urged that plaintiff failed to prove his claim 
as alieced in hic statement of claim. While it may be trus that 
the cause of action as proved was not accurately set forth in 
Plaintiff's statement of claim, we dc not think that the defendant 
was prejudiced thereby or that for that resson the judgment should 
be reversed. (licDowell v. Sharp, 157 i11. App. 1°95.) 

The judgment of the dunicipal Court is affirmed. 

APPIRMEDs 


— — —— 


| 





‘amped, 1° bles od tne ↄe enttte efitel aft epemy ae 
t*eoltto eiidok 2 bert soy aoeats «it bio? wox" ,blee I fe 
— ·— 


— -hneed 107. Leenwos te eadéceines ent déty eoxge foonse © 





= 


i ."breaword t0q etmeo Of ot domome Siow | Ld 
at fad? betigns ctrebinesg — 
tect nooset a ea antvig ,soleelamme wm Witetelq 
tog soy 2 omudut edd mf dads fo02 ow" gpttyen aedtu 
wolle of yaliftw yrev ed [ite eu ,daediio .wii dymowds a 

2 "etme es 10 2 
eo vroo toate odd Sa —“ orm ootol @ 
eenadela yolidow of — — =: 
























bi e°72tntaty begesecn antbal aft af sume i elt 
Titintelg yatwolis seette at at doldw ,09a$ to mue.s 


Yo tesiol eld ml xecasi Jed? soot Yo vedrum one of ttt 
sb 0% bebyewrot efuberina edd at bentetaoo eas bles Agel g 
sods Puteth 9% hesoqelh gon ene ow bas .Mtinialg wy * 


i 7 


bra eonebiye eid of yretisoo oss Frempbut dre guthat? ett 
aisio eid eyowg of belts? Yikintels sade —B 
a⸗ curt od yor Jf oLtdt toaceo to acee⸗aao oft at b 
nk dirot soa yLesamoos son aas beyoagies apltes 20.4 
srabreted eid sass ants goa ob. ow, wwtale to snewesage | — 
biveds snemgbyl ond mosses aecit ⁊oa sods ro xceꝛea⸗ — 
(.30L saga off \ ‘ 

sbewriite st tuod Lagiotnsds ed to srompbut egy 

eGELNI1 VGA t Led* of tak fe .-of sete) eh ari | 


ses 


lt 


7 


287 = 18307. 
SADIE HANNAN, ) 
éppellse, } APPEAL FROM 
V8. } SUPERIOR couRT 
FREDERICK ¥. x } COOK COUNTY... 


\ : 1821.A.146 


‘MR, JUSTICE GRIDLEY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT, 


Sadie Harman, plaintiff below, broucht suit in the 
Supericr Gourt of Cook County againet Frederick §. Dreckman, 
defendant belos, tc recover the sum of $140 and interest. ‘the 
Gase was tried before the court sithout a jury, resulting in 
& finding and judgment for 37140 in favor of plaintiff, which 
judguent defersiant by this appeal seeks to reverse. 

it appears from the evidence that the parties to this 
suit are sister ami brother; that defendant was the adminis- 
trator of the estate of Garah Dreckman, deceased, mother of said 
parties and of Ollie Yoollett, sister, and of Henry Dreckean and 
Charlies Dreckwan, brothers of said parties; that in Uny, 1919, 
the deferdant wrote to his brothers and sisters that he wae 
anxious to make distribution cr te sell certain mortgases in 
his hands as such adrinistrator and suggesting a meeting of 411 
the heirs of Sarah Dreckman, decesesd, and that said mortgaces 
might be distributed "as they are and by some of us paying seach 
other the difference in sash"; that in June, 1910, all of said 
heirs met ami agreed upon a distribution of the mortrages among 
thenselvea, and defendant then wrote out a memorandum of the agree= 
ment, and the mortgages were subsequently distributed by the de- 
fendant, as administrator, ir accordance therewith, A portion 
ef said memorandus wae: “has. takes £1009 mertgaze, pays $146 
to Sadie and $30 to Ollie. Cliie takes $700 mortrage, gete $20 
from Chas, and $120 from Fred. Sadie takes 3760 mortgage, gets 

























ii 
|! 
i * at Snag 
| sTOESL = TOR 
7 ald 
| —X — —— 
i — some aaa ge 
i! — 

ier 


i SLI AIS Sr a et 
t —— 
A ct thu aiqoss yoked Wisntaly  ethee ! 
_ qtemipex® . Foltebert sontige Ysm9 Le0d to ** 
— sdnereet ona OPE Yo swe oct seaONT Od wold Si 
at grtsLimet .ymt @ duodsie twee es oxted bob © 
— ae 
1,  wewgewer oF etlees Laseqe aber ys ' 
aids of volsiag ext Jods sorebtve eit ott 
~ulsiabs o3 sow Ivabeoteb tad$ yrectond tna tesahe ORs 
Atos 2 tector .beesdoed guamfoest Aetod to ofatee ect 26! 
ina eomipeyd Yue 10 baw qtedets ~sJelLOow @2fL0 Yo 
<O00E geo at fads yeatineg bles Yo ereldowd _nhinioed 
cow of fait ewotats ine erodSond ald of dene smabhe 
ak aeyogdtom ateiieo ite of 10 moltudieseth ota 09 Gem 
fle to grtsoem e ymigseggne ans todettetatabe dows oe ahem 
coyags tom bine sorld kas gbossened quamioend dameé Yo 
foae guiyeq eu to emoe yd bas ots yeods ea” bedtinsety — 
ꝛas Yo Lin yOLCE gomst ni dats ¢%lano at eomowwthth odd ‘aed : 
grors sogsydton 6c) to cottudtaseth a megs beers ton Jom iebied 
~sete eft to subaatomer @ jue eto te red? ted bra ¢ 
<ob od? yd bedudingalh yistnevpeedus o1ew eenagdiom edd 
mORSIOg A sfitivereds eonabtooves af _totwisainiabe ws 
Obit axoq goxagsros GO0L§ sede? .aaty? . raw 
— — tigen 
agen egagdzom OOT} wedes elbsz .beTi mor? 055$ fue eed most, 








Le 


$140 from Chas." Charles Dreskman at thie time was a helpless 
invalid, afflicted with locomotor ataxia and wae in the care of 
plaintiff at her home, and, according to the testimony of piain- 
tiff and Ollie Woollett, it was verbally agreed between defendant, 
Charles Dreckman, plaintiff and Ollie, thet Charles should give 
the $1000 mortgage to defendant for the purpose of having defend- 
ant sell the same, that out of the proseeds defendant promised 
to pay plaintiff the aum of $140 and pay Gliie the sum of $20, 
and that the mortgase was delivered to deferdant with that under- 
sterding. The defendant admitted that the mortgase was delivered 
to him for the purpose of making a sale therecf, that Charles 
agreed to allow defendant 10 per cent. of the face of the mortcace, 
or ¢100, for negotiating the sale, and that he sold the mortgase 
in September, 1910, about three monthe after its delivery to hin. 
it further appears that shortiy after the meeting ef the heirs 
Charles was taken to a hospital, where he rewained about two 
months and then was brought beck tc plaintiff's house, where he 
Gied in Gotober, 1910, and deferdant sas appointed advinistrator 
of his estate. Defendant testified that at the time the $1000 
mortgage was delivered to him he agreed to pay plaintiff and 
Ollie $140 and $20 respectively, out of the net proceeds realized 
frou the sale of the sortgace, only if Cherles “should happen to 
aie" befors the sortease was scld; that after he had received 
the money realized from the sale he psid various billa of the 
hospital and other bills egeinst Charles, and turned over the 

net balance to Charles, personally, before hic death, and that 

it wae arranged thet Charlies should pay plaintiff and Clilise. 

This testimony ef the defendant is not supported. Piaintifr 
testified that ehe never received any part of the $140 coming 

to her out of the procseds of the sale of said mortease from 
anyone, and it appears from the testimeny of the defendant that 























| 
| =i * pede fey ; 
Wt onal 
| eoiqied 2 cow ont! elit Jo somtoona eetradt *,ead0 mov OM 
| Yo owso ertt at exw Sue otzeds todemecct athe bedotita bbb 
ti ~ataiq 20 wronttecd ed? 02 gntimmens ghan <enoc sed dat — 
‘i winsbooteb neonses beome \ilediev ese 31 —* 
ovis bivers eeiretd dad? yetilO bas Yitsntelq 
| trot gatvadt Io exoqug ecld set Jnshwwted of egandrom O 
abacoony wit Jam Sat soe a & 
0S) to mvs ortj etfld yeq bus Obf¢ Yo mus etd ¥ ate 
nail baad Gin AE PRES CSRS 
berevtieh sav ogagsson et? dad bottiubs Inabworteh eat 
eckssiid sadd 
yeuantion edt Yo sont odd Yo sdmes req Of Jnabasted wollte 
Diag mf Beis te yotan eit gattattegen wot 
wild 0 qHoviTOb et sods adinos cont duodts \OFOH 
exlod of2 Yo ynksoon afd todd yisverta Sorts Hreoqga 
ost ‘Seals’ sititanes it Vaal eddies W tat 
ed stods outed e”Ttisnlely OF ead Siijuioed saw mbcd 
dotertuinichs Seiatoqys sav Saabacteb Bis Ofer eaeD 
GOOLE ons oaks odd Sa dad? bolitivcs Snabnoted” Joli 
bas Yitintalg Yeq 09 beowws af mit of bevoviieb eau 6 
bextisot ebvooortg ton ott to duo yyLovidecqoet O82 ba ¢ —* 
of meqyat bivoda® eefrad) 2i ino yepapiuon edd Yo ofee We oon 
hevtese: het od gests fadd ;hfon caw egaystom ot) ore 
edd ‘to elitd auclasy bleq ed efea edt wort bet leon Ye 
ets revo berrnss fees .ooltat) Jentags. eliid vedio ina £ . 
fad tow _ci3aeb abt etoted iifanowreg «eo stad oF Or tod ~ 
e@tflo ban TYifialofy yeq Siucde ecfuall Sadd —X 
TLbinials ssbibigi te ix vadeabil a e gee 
griime O8f2 ectd to ttaq yma devious: roves ore datY pebtiveds — 
mort oasitto: bles to ofae edd te Sbeecong ott 26 S60 were 
tact énphoo'ted eft Yo yromtiae2 ed mort ewseqqe 32 Sia) yon yre 





— 
: < 





f 
1 
’ 


“ 
. 








Kw 


he paid Ollie the $20 scoring to her out of said preesede, and 
it further appears from the testimony of plaintiff and Cllie, 
thet after the death of Charles, the defendant {at a meeting 
at which deferdant, Ollie, plaintiff, and plaintiff's attorney 
were present) wee asked when he intended to pay plaintiff the 
$140, and he replied thet "he didn't have it just then, but 
would send a check for it the following week". 

fwo points are argued by counsel for defendant. They 
contend (1) thet plaintiff did not prove her case by a prepond- 
erence of the evidenes, and (2) that the promise sued on is a 
special promise to anewer for the debt of ancther, is not in 
writing and is, therefers, within the statute of frauds. e 
are of the opinion that the finding and Judgment are fully sup- 
ported by ths evidence, and that the verbal egreement ef the 
deferdant, to sell the 21000 mortzage and out of the procesds 
to pay $140 to plaintiff and $20 te Ollie, wae in the nature of 
an original undertaking and not within the etatute of frauds. 
(Gilson v. Beyans, 58 Ill. 232, 2343 Prather v. Vineyard, 9 
Zll. 40, 483 Walden v. farm, 58 Ili. 40; Sughle v. Homtelius, 
149 Ili. App. 416, 420.) The jJndgment of the superior Court is, 
accordingly, affirmed. 

APPTRMED. 





















_ baw cabesoorg dias to suo tod of yatson O88 et 
_ q@bEL0 Bra YtIataly to yombsees exif sort & 
_ gatsoen © $0) smmhneted ott — — edt a 
v⸗wes⸗ ntant⸗aia ime at⸗acu⸗ca .oi tto netan⸗ 
edd Mhtentalg dea 02 tona⸗ aan od modu deses now 


ued gmat S00 $2 ove SabtD as” det oRigen ee 
Rianne fp > 


— ote — 


yet ne NS Oe a 
<bemgerg 2 ys suso sed ovory fom bib Tatsntalq sedt (£).1 
—— — 
_ Bt fen at eraditone Ye asen ec x02 sewone of entnom 
—— — —— dat. > 
| — — — 
ebeecory ed? v {fos oF 4 
20 euutan odd mt asr .olif0 of OS? ba Yhitatata of o⸗ 
scfueyt to edsstage odd nidthe tos ben gnbtadvebes. 
© qbnaueaty ov qedtons 1028 4822 offT 02 senswed 
souilosap: wv ofteus 10> £1 00 xeEA oY ehkel 46-4 
eal dus0o solsequa eds te Smomgbut efT (02> qAf® -a0A 


* 





Pr 4 


oORMAITEA 


March Term, 1912, No. 


JOSEPH J. GREALISH, 
' Appellee, 
j APPEAL FROM 
VSe | 
SUPERIGR COURT 
SYKES STEEL hoowrne 
COMPANY, a Corporation, 
; Appellant. 


COOK COUNTY. 


1821.A.159 


MR. JUSTICE GRIDLEY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 


This is an action te recover damages for personal 
injuries sustained by Joseph J. Grealish, plaintiff below, 
while in the employ of Sykes Steel Rocfing Company, e cor- 
poration, defendant below, occasioned by his falling from a 
ledge, projecting from the side of a building, about twenty- 
five feet above the ground. The jury returned a verdict in 
favor of plaintiff for $2250, upon ehich the judgment was en- 
tered which this appesl seeks to reverse. 

The decleration originally consisted of two counts, 
but thes ccurt instructed the jury that there could be no re- 
covery under the second count of the declaration. The gist 
ef the first count was that plaintiff was an employee of the 
deferdant, and was injured because he attempted to obey en order 
of a “foreman whese orders am directions it was hia duty to 
obey, and who was not a fellow-servant of the plaintiff", and 
thet “owing to his immaturity of age ard his inexperience he 
did not appreciate the danger incident to the act" which said 
foreman had ordered him to do, ami that said foreman "knew or 
should have known” that it was dangerous for plaintiff to do 
the act which he was directed to do, which act was in the line 
of his duties as such emmloyee of the defendant. Two witnesses 
testified on behalf of the plaintiff, viz: the plaintiff and 
the physician who attended him after the accident. The defend- 
ant introduced no evidence except three photographs of the 



























-OH ,SICl mse? Moral ; 


" 9 > foe t 4 Se 
“¢ YTHUOD xoOD & ane 





exT “RISBE stig 


+ TAUOD ANT YO MOIMIGO WAT canarcaas waauao BOT * 


Lance19q ot —— — ‘molten tise ai 
 —~woled ‘Ytitnlelq .dekisew® .. dqeoot yd ben 
“10d. 8 «yMaqmod gtiicet Leese estya 
 g mort gakLiat eict ys Bénotenseoo ywoled 
-ysnowds Suods .grtiitud ¢ to ebte ete mor? ya 
“on eon toot sat th 1 nese’ oomgenenit 
— — — » 
oooo sotiewsLo ott 
ot on ad bigod etedd Said yuit eds budowtsent —* 
gelg ed? snoltetefoch eft Yo tnoe badosst” 
83 to — tine {hl stany nase weeps ' 
Tebio ma yedo oF bedqmesss oct vevsed Dewi Saw Bie « 
os ytub sid eaw Jf enottoe tb bas evehte 6obde cin 
a"Yttintelq offs to mevtes-wolist 2 fon ase octa De 2 
end eonolteqzent efd ives oye to ysitdamet eld of 9 
bios dole "Sos edd of taebtont regaab edd esatoerqqe go 
10 werd" cemeiol bia dary dam .oh of mid betebio bed a 
ob of Ttlinialq 10 evotegmsd asu 22 ded “wort evadd re 2 
enti edd at saw too dotdw ob of bedoeuth ese ed dokde 
asesonsiw owl .Jnsboasteb offs to seyolque doves as a * 
bas Yinisiq edd rsiv .YUsatelg ef? to Aacios so belstiase 
~ieeteb oil .fcebloona es testa aie bobresta ode natoleydg edt 
= VV 0 


eee 


=~ 


building and place of the accident. At the conclusion of 
plaintiff's case, the defendant asked the court for a direct- 
ed verdict in its favor, which motion was denied. This motion 
was renewed at the close of all the evidence and was also de- 
nied. 

The accident cccurred on the afternoon of December 13, 
1906. Plaintiff was then about eighteen years and six months 
old. The following facts appear from the testimony of the 
plaintiff, to-wit: Plaintiff had attended grammer school until 
he was thirteen years of age, he having then reached the third 
grade. At the age of fourteen he went to work for the American 
Can Compeny, working for about five weeks putting covers on 
cans with his hands and working at the process of ciling tin. 
Then for about two years he worked for another employer “tak- 
ing mouldings away” from a moulding machine, which wae operated 
by means of coge, a fiy wheel, etc. Thereafter he worked fav 
& leather manufacturing company for six months, working alone 
en a “chopping block", and using a die and maul. Thereafter he 
worked for ancther can company, putting covera cn cans and feed- 
ing a can-making machine driven by a belt. Im September, 1996, 
over three months prior to the accident, he started to work 
for the defendant and continued so to work until the day of the 
accidents The superintendent of defendant ongaged plaintiff 
as a sheet metal worker's helper, and instructed him to obey 
any of the mechanics for whom he might work as a helper, These 
mechanics worked on rain spouts, fire proof windows, cornices, 
etc., and much of plaintiff's work toot him “right up on the 
edges of the roofs". on the day of the accident, and for about 
two weeks prior thereto,pleintiff was working on the oak Park 
Hospital building. He had been told to act as 4 helper to one 
Leipsinger, » mechanic, ard to do whatever the latter ordered 






—— — — 


= —— — — 


— — 










sin Sah oe nc 


~beet fis onwd Go #xevoo fatdtig — — 


- enf¥ Yo‘ yeb eit Lhonw vow 09°SS 


escort stoqlod s se tow Siylm oct more rOt 






















~g- «58,51 ~ TG 


to moletionoe eft JA sdnebioos eid 20" po. 
secuss's st Sa ⏑ ⏑ —— 
nottom sifT Beirne eaw ao taoe: dotrty crore oak a 
—— — ————— * 


Pa. 4 
— Se 


of Teneo”, 30 ——i 
“eff to qromtteet etd GHP theqqe ——— 
£iseos — — — 
Sibdy oft bedoser ned? gntver tif yeaa to's 


Ao etevoo amitsuq dteew evi? sobs 40% x: fe 
si Gilli inter arcane ae 
— — — as 
D2 béitow od ———— urs a 28390 “90 efte 
‘etitle yabteoe [antnod xe cat Gratiito’ Se Jostein 1 

od “t8dtsers:i7 stun baa oth & geited bnw {OO tu nti 


<S00r yredmesqea AI” Jdied & yd nevixd ontitoas 3 
trow oF bestute ot etre bloos etd of tofaq & 


PYitintalq beyagne Inabreteh 6 dre bnesafreqsue ear’ 
yeodo of mid Sesouitent fae ,teqfert e*xettow casei Hi 





eeeotriog ,swobtts oor etlt ,ofvoqe mist no Bebtow dé 
“erlt mo qu $f4ta" mid dd0e t10w of P2RIatale 3" 
$uoda 0% Baw etreftocs edt to ysb od HO . “erode “Sas! 
iT 120 ext no" gute acu TEESRRRE COON SEES 
eo of teqfer = se tos of BLos nbod bat ok sank 
herebro estar eft sevesars ob OF beta ,olmarioem — 


ihe 


him to do. ‘They were engaged in putting up rain spcuts and sky 
lights and"flashing'a copper roof, and plaintiff attended to 
the irons and handed the tools to Leipsinger when the latter 
asked for them. A little after four o'clock on the day of the 
accident they had finished the copper roof on said building, 
and Leipsinger then decided ta connect up a rain spout, which 
ran up and down the north side of the building, about three 
fest from the east end» To get to this spout, Leipsinger step- 
‘ped out of « secord story window, from ten to twenty feet from 
the spout, and upon a ledge whieh ran around the buildins abcut 
twenty-five feet above the ground. ‘This ledge was about fourteen 
inches wide and “slanted a little bit about two inches from the 
brick and ther went straight. It was level for about twelve 
inches” and wide enough to walk upon. Plaintiff followed Leip- 
singer out upon the ledce, because there were nogpenings in the 
wall of the building which would permit him to hand the tools 
tc Leipsinger from the ineide. ‘There were "ro windows or any- 
thing of that sort" to hold on to when one was on the ledce, 

amd plaintiff testified thet he knew that when walking alons the 
ledge he had to be very careful not to fall off. Leipsinger 
went up on a swingins seaffold, built for just ome man, and 
started to work about eight or ten feet above plaintiff's head 
and about fifteen fest above the ledge. Leipsingsr, while on 
thie scaffold, pulled himself up and down by means of a “lead” 
rope which hung down past the ledge. Plaintiff had carried a 
fire pot, used to heat sOlderins irons with, cut upon the ledge, 
and Leipsinger teld him to “go upstairs and get the rope and 
hoist these irons up". Plaintiff got the rope, went out upon 
the ledze and was goings to tis the rope to the "lead" Lins when 
Leipsinger said "No, it takes too long that way: throw it up; 
we will get the job done quicker; we have only got fifteen minutes 








vie hae siuoqe alat qu yatiduq. ok boysgne exow yedT 46 
0% bebsotss Ittinteiq bas ,2oot teqqoo a ‘yatdealt" baa & 
qossel oxi sory sogntagted of soos edt bebaed. dae envy 

axtg 20 gab exif ao doolo’o mot teste eLtsht A ments, 2* 
<qutbftus bles mo toot teqqoo ond Deriatnk? bed cords 
doldw .dvoqe ater a qu toenmoo G3 Sebtoeb aedd te; 
gomls Juoda ,antbiiud edt to ebte dtapm ent swod_! 

-qose regriegio! ysvoge sits of fog ct +Daw sage. —— 

HOTT Loe? Plmews OF Hd MOTT wwoknin yTosa Sxgees. 
suode satbiiud edt brow set dotdw egbel a soge baa. 
eri? mor? weston! oud suods sid ofdkf » heduala" baa ¢ 

eviews Jvoda tot [evel saw 41 .tdgtente drow medd 

-ghed bewollot aacitata .soqy Llsw of Agyome obtw ¶ 

ons at egnineqion stew ered? eousned seabel end mnogu. 

afood eri tant of min stmrog Biuow dolvy gathitind eae 

“te to swobrtw on" exew erect? sebtan! eff sort tog 

‘cain Sita aon oat te — 
ong grole gnttiaw meriw dads word of Jadd bettttees Y2t 
segniaqied «Tio {fa% od tom intetso yrev ed of hat 
baa ism eno taut to% #itud dlo Aaos yatantve a mo 

beorl s'Titinisiq evode see? mes Tw acato suods A1ow of 4 

m0 efitw .teurtegtel .egbet edt evods tee? seostlt 

“beet” a to ensen ¥d cwob bus qu tMeentd beLluq “tea 

& belwiso be Titintelt ,ogbel eft Jaaq mwob gout Molde s 

veabel es moqu suo yfidte anort gnivebion saed of beau sto 
bets eqot ofd Jon ins eitetequ og" of mid Diot veyntaqted 
toqu tuo Jnew-,eqox eft ton Btisntala ."qu enott —* 
mortw ontf uoſꝰ eft of eqor ot eft Of ato sew bas. ; 
iqu 32 would yew Saris amol cof netet 22 .ou" bleo tegatagted, 
sedunia meottlt tox yimo eva ew ;tedotesp. ermob dot ocia Sox ILtn ow, 























ae 


te de it in". Plaintiff thereupon coiled the rope, and with 
his left hand threw it up towards Leipsinger, but the latter 
did mot catch it. Plaintiff then again coiled the rops and 
again threw it up with the left hand, using no more force 
than when he threw it the first time, and plaintiff testified 
that the second time he threw the rope, “I was bearing up 
against the side of the bullding, with my risht hand, eo I 
could hold myself on the ledge and keep from falling off the 
ledge". hile throwing the rope the second time, plaintiff 
"“overbalanced and fell" te the ground below ard suffered the 
injuries complained of. 

Counsel for defendant contends that the judgment should 
be Foviwecd, ti} plaintire assumed the risk, and (2) was guilty 
of contributory negligence in failing to make use of the "*lead* 
line which hung near him in order to steady himself when he 
threw the rope, and (3) the court erred in giving the one in- 
struction offered by the plaintiff and in modifying one of 
the instructions offersd by deferdant. 

Under the facts of this case, *e are of the cpinion 
that plaintiff is not entitled to recover, on the ground that 
he assumed the risk of the danger and the injuries received by 
him. Ge do not think that plaintiff was misled by the order of 
Leipsinger, or that he did not appreciate the danger incident 
te the throwing of the rope while ir the position he was. 

In Republic Iron & Stecl Go. ve Lee, 227 411. 246, 

258, it is seid: “An exception te the doctrine of assumed 
risk exists «here a servant is ordered by his master to do 
certain work which is attended with danger cf which he is not 
fully cognizant, and he relies upon the order to do the work 
a6 an assurance that he may safely perform the task, «© = « 


It is only where the servant hae been misled by the order of 


| 
t 








~ab= 























Agiw bee yoqor eng boLtoo soqueteds Titsatela . 
aettal edd tud ~wwantegios eirtewer qu sf oe 
bow eqot orig holtes mage meds Tisatolt ett 
gout com on gakew (hth Stel fd atte qué | 
botetteod ·lantale bas yout sour? ett 42 worsted | 
au gntised eae. 2 yoqor edd werd en omts 0008 Of 
Ton qhiart She ys Mdtw ygabbitad edd to opto | 
ent? Yio gat alar mov? quod bas opbos oid ao Teeye f fe 
Titdatelq yomts haooes odd oqer orf? gutwouls effete 


2* 
Ay 


tog 4 


o-yae . 
4 
TR » 

tS —* 


- Piuode semmpiet ems Jad? abeotaos auabne'tes 162 feombep 


 eBusoed  — 
ysiten sew (2) Dee . telly oft benueea Witsntale (c * 


"hee" edd to eem dan of gntitat at 
ocd aocte YLoamlif ybaote of tefs0 ai ata asen 
Stk! ome ofS aaivin nt howe stwoo odd (2) Ba 4 
| te enogatyRtbon ak tae taeateny: eth: wd 
etnabneteb yd beteTto. 

disuse ee 
Sautt Bator, elf mo yr8wooe of befsitms tom et % 
v¢ heviooer sefistrt et bes xegmeb ed to xalt orp 
to tebto ott yd beletn caw Yhtintale tend Antdt ton ob « i * 
drebtont tegnab ott ofatoertqqn Jom BLb ed: sarit 50) weeemegh 
wesw off motstoog ott mt ofBitw eqor-Uit 20 gn At © 

— LLL VRS y00d »v. 400 Loose #apst obiduger nt © Wyoe 
bomsees 6 enbtoob ed of nokdqeoxe ak" :btee eb 

ob of 1egsam oft yo bototro ef dnavuen’ es stertx egelze 
gon et off totite to Tosnnh dttw Lehmeste et totde son 
#00k: 0210-08" 08 entree: est? mtg: nelitone 8t-Sem« seeategnec eae 
eo vised od? miotreg yletes yam or tots sonewens nee 
to tebto sid yd belalm need sari Snavtes ofy execs ylao ab zI 


— 


* 


Ae Aq 


5 


the waster that the exception exists”, 

in Elgin J. & Ee Rye Co. v. Meyers, 226 411. 358, 
S66, it la said: “Where the servant knows of a defect, or 
what the danger is, he cannot be said to rely upon the assur- 
ance that the danger does not exist. It is only where the 
servant has been misled by the assurance of the master, or 
some one standing in the master's place, that he can excuse 
himself from the assumption of risk on the ground that he 
has been assured by the master that there is no danger in 
the use of the appliance or piece of machinery which he knows, 
as a matter of fact, is defective and the use thereof attended 
with danger". As was said in the case of Calloway v. Chicago 
Re I, & Po Ry. Co.Z84 Ill, 474, 481: “Ye do not thirk there 
is any evidence in this record that indicates any incapacity 
of the appellees, by reason of ignorance, immaturity or inex~ 
perience, to fully understand and fully appreciate the danger 
to which he was exposed”, And as wes said in Kresmar v. Omaha 
Packing Co., 155 ill. App. 358, 243: “The plaintiff had passed 
beyond the stage of thoughtless chiidhocd and sas net entitled 
to special care by the defendant, as his employer, on account 
of hia age. Whatever danger thers waz in his employment wae 
not hidden but was open and obvious, He was of sufficient 
age and discretion to understand ard appreciste the risk to 
which he was exposed, and must be held to have assumed the 
ordinary hazards and perile of his employment”. 

The judgment of the Superior Court is reversed with 
a finding of facts to be incerporated in the judgment of this 


case. 


REVERSED WITH FINDING OF FACTS. 


cn 


wt atte sotto a at 

2088 o£tt OSE seASON oV OO 24 2k Sol 
sare pny eye te 
~nmpaedt nogu xten of bias ed sonnso ef at 
‘wc? enecy yloo ef #1 vein ae 
so eteseom ody Yo vonmmans edd ys boLete mved a 
earoxe nso ort dans ,soalg e*apseam oa⸗ mt aatte 
od, sacdt, hewety oct me. Saks Yo coltquess sits 

At sogmab om a oxedid test? rodoem ont? ae 
anon oct sptiin yxorctrioem Yo gp0tg to eonstiqga ed 20 
hofenttn Teewds con oft Sen evisteted ef feet De 
PRAGA -¥ yonolind Yo easo sit mt bine sow eA 
erent inhds jon of oe" t£Od goth Shi — 
vatoegadet gas asaootteit aacit Proves atts at oe 
~xent 10 ydsiviusdanrt wonntengl To moqaet ¥d pol Lor 
sora ett sentnerne tet ee EPPS, YT 
stem «7 aameen! sf bee saw aa baa ."hosoqre sau 
boenay bart Titsatelg eff” OPS .808 «gga xca. eas 
belgie son say bas boodbitde seeksdtyuod? 20 epee « id 
Snucoca no ,teyotque aid es ,suabctoleb eft yd eee 
vow srenyolqne att at osw erodd reynsh tevetarh 
tneltoftYive to sav et — baer 
of tabr od? etetoergqe bra bnsserehay of noltevoeth bn 
etd benwees ever ot bied ed foun baa . beeogre sew on * 
-"tnemyofqne eff to sitive bas ehrased yten 

tin beetover st fuod refrequa edd to Jneaybut edt — 
ald? 20 sremphut, ett nt besatoqscont ed of steq? te 























1 


i 
} 
4 


J 


—A 


ry < 





eSTOAY TO DEIGHIS HEIW GkoCeevaw 








~~ 


Finding of facts: We find, as ultimate facts in 
this case, that appellee knew of and appreciated the danger 
inourred by him in throwing the rope mentioned in the proofs, 
while standing on the ledge of the building, and that he assum 
ed the risk of such danger and of the injuries sustained by him, 


1 
ites 4 SEE ed 


x eos 4a a & 


Erg 





‘March Term, 1912, 


$15 - 18355. 


PRANK TRENKHORST/ MPGe COe, 


ERROR TO 
MUNICIPAL COURT 


OF CHICAGO, 


OT 60 
: s 2 A el A. 16 
HR. JUSTICE GRIDLEY DELIVERED THE OPINIO on OF THE COURT. 





—X 


John Peter, defendant below, seeks by this writ to re- 
go & judgment against him for 5627.99, rendered in the 
Municipal court of Chicage, upon the verdict of a jury, in an 
action of the fourth class commenced by Frank Trenkhorst fg. 
COs, & corporation, plaintiff below, for damages for allered 
breach of contract, 

It appears from the evidence that Frank Trenkhorst, 
president of plaintiff company, had several conversations in 
the fall of 1909 with defendant relative to a “corrugated iron 
job" on the buildings of the Corn Products Co., at Argo, Illinois. 
Trenkhorst told defendant that his company was intending to bid 
on the job and asked defendant "for a price on Wo. 18 and Ne. 
20 corrugated iron". A day or two afterwards, according to the 
testimony of Trenkhorst, the deferdant told Trenkhorst that "he 
would put on No. 18 corrugated iron for $10 a square, and le, 
20 for §9.50 a square"; that at this time ?frenkhcerst did not 
tell defendant how many "squares" there were in the job or ex- 
hibit any plans or specifications, but said that he would send 
defendant bluse prints as scon as he got them from the Carn Pro- 
“ @uets co., and that nothing was said as to when the work was to 

be completed and when payments were to be made. According to 
the testimony of the defendant, when he (defendant) quoted the 
above price, it was “only estimating", and that he told Trenk- 
horst that he had "gct to have some plans”. on October Sth, 








eOPAGIND “IO 


OdE.AIS8r 


Sach ial meals eke Cliente thaliall 



























— of Stam eidd yo aslson woled Insbaeteb yxoteT miol 
od at bevehmer .20.c0h TO? aid Jantige sromgbat 
nt .ytst « to fotbrev edd soqu ,opactf to sayoo- 

«Bt! dovorbieet? cst yd beonemmoe eealo Ad1wo? 

beyeiis 101 cogannb Tot ywoled Titintelg .wotsem_ ee 
sterodinetT amet Jadt conebive eid mov? etscqge @ 

at uatbtacetate desiree bet qneques. Viteutsts Wi 
reorut podagerie" @ 03 evisalor Inabroted dite eOer 
setontiil ,ogth #@ ..00 afoubor wt00 ard Yo egntbiiud dd in 
bid 64 gabboednt cow yreqnoo aft tady $nabuerteb blot sam 
.O% boa Of 20% mo eolag s 102" Soabasteb heden bas 
eri? of gntbrooce yebuswiette owt to yab A "Hom bosagi 
et” Sadd JoxochinetT DLos tnebested eff .setorhinesT to y ; 
.om bee getaupe 2 Off 102 sott betagursos Sf ,oH mo 
gon BLD tevorisiretT omits ati? fa dade ;"e1sups 3 08. 
— to dot edd af exew eted? “sotaups” yen word 
fre bivox ot Sac Blan dust ,enotseortoege 0 anaie Gill 
-o1! @ ho aly motl serie Som off ac moce ea esniag avid 
ot saw dow ets mew oF ea blae saw gridjon Sant hie 
ot githroooA eben ed of etow etmouyaq sotiw bus 0 
edt besoup (4nahersteb) ef nodw .dasbmeteb eft to y ~tieot | : 
sett Biot ec tats bee ,*gtttamivae yino* saw 32 poe 
38 tedose0 mo "omalq emoe eved od toy” baci od Sail? se¥od 


ae 
Bo. 





* 


—28 
* 





ee J— 


=aQe 


plaintiff wrote defendant as follows: "You can enterour order 
for about 540 squares of No. 20 sorrugated galvanized iron, 

to be put on buildinge at argo, illinois, for the amount of 
$2.50 per square, less §200 after the job iz completed. You 
might proceed with thie work at your earliest convenience”, on 
October 15th, plaintiff sent defendant the blue prints by ao 
messenger boy. On October 16th, defendant wrote plaintiff to 
the effect that he (defendant) had been out to Argo, illinois, 
with one of hic beat »echanica, and that he found that he could 
not handle “that job" or that "kind of work", Defendant testi- 
fied that, in one of the conversations with frenkhorst before 
he saw the blue prints, Trenkhorst told him that "it was a cne- 
story building and the iron and slates riveted", and that, after 
he had received the blue prints and had made the trip to Argo, 
he found that things were “entirely different", and that “there 
wae a big elevator, about six stories high, and everything had 
to be put on by hand on a scaffold", Fourteen days after plain- 
tiff had received defendant's letter of October 15th, refusing 
to handls the job, to-wit: on October 20th, plaintiff wrete de- 
fendent as follows; "We will be obliged to leok for anct her 
contractor to do the corrugated iron work which vou contracted 
for, and will hold you responsible for the difference in the 
price", Defendant did not reply to this letter and had no fur- 
ther conversations with any representative of the plaintiff. 
Trenkhorst testified that after inquiring of the Sykes Roofing 
Co. and of the agFarlane Roofing Co., he arranged with the 
former company, on November lst, te do the work arid that that 
company “completed the job" in April, 1910; that there were 
871 1/2 squares in all of the buildings; that the price charged 
by the Sykes Uo. was $10.22 1/17 per square, which amounted to 
the total sum of $8,907.84; that he paid this sum to the Sykes 


ria) "some inevrioo seotinse wey 8 tow abd t 





~ 




















St wane aaa 
Os ~ abe 
xobio Wo-wsne aso YOY" teNOLie® ae snabewred edo: ate 
stort besinsvlag betayrrtoe 08 .oh To sezeupe Os 
%o teven⸗ eft wt .toatcai cegrr so epathl ld go timmy 
wor «beseiqnen of dol oft sete voRh seek * — 


—— ———— 

od Witdatala stow Inabmeted tht veaco⸗vñ yoo * 
ont LE yaa of Ju0 goed bad (seu daouod/ as 
— ad $aA hay? ct Jada. oo aodnatonn fend pls 
-itoed smehew'ted ., "txow to bata” dadd xo “dot, * 
——— Let, ORE, SOR A 
worm snow 28" Jads nti blot sexorbinen? yatnlag 9 
setts .tadt faa ."berovin cetele Sue owl odd tae g 
soRTA Of Ghtd acid obaw bad bre egniig euld edd | 
ereds" galt bee Moneneth Uertien) oxen santas sade & 
bart gakityreve ome «fytd eettose xio syoda .toteve. 
-ntalq tedte yeh moedmo% .“dLotteoe 2 ao dred yd. 
aitieoter tal sedede0 Yo wstes o* snabaeted deve 
~ob efor Tisalelg aos tedoso0 mo sSiw-08 ,dol edt of 
medone tot foo of beptive ed LLtw ew sewellor ¢ | 
hetostsnoo voy dokria {x0w mont Degapurrog ext ob of, 
‘end mt eometeTtih eds 10% eldteroqeer yoy died Lilw 
~ust on ber bre tessel als of yiget ton bid. taehreted at 
+Ittdntelq ed? to eviJednesetqey ys Milw onoliowne 
grtttoom wextye oct to gebttupmt rodts add bolitsees 4 
odd ddtw hegeiawia ef ..00 gattood snaltstoalt ed? to J 
tant tat? bie toon ond ob of ytet sedmevol mo exnaqneo + be. 
tow ener Sect Ofer gLitqa mt "dot ont ——— ss 1. 
begretio eotte end darts jeantbtiud edd to tte nt sensupe SMe £58. 
od betomous dotdw ,otaupe i9q SE\L as.doca aow .00 eoxtyh od xd 
BOxYe est OF muse etit hiag of todd ~oR,.TOR,S) to mum Lates edd. 


ha 4 
\ 


Wik 


or 
Ye 


nia t 


r ee 


uSe 


Co.; that at the price quoted by defendant of $0.50 a square 

the total amount would be 48279.25, and that the difference waa 

the sum cf $427.99. ‘Trenkhorst wes unable to testify that this 
price of $10.22 1/17 per square waa the reasonable and fair 

market price, and no other witness testified that it was. At 

the trial the attorney for defendant objected to the witness, 
Trenkhorst, testifying as to the amount which the plaintiff had 
actually paid to the Sykes Jo, and to the difference between this 
sum and the acid sum of $8279.25, as not tending to show the proper 
moasure of damages, but the objection wes overruled by the trial 





court. 

We are of the opinion that the verdict and judgement ren- 
dered in this case ars contrary to the law and the evidence, 
and that the judgment should be reversed and the cavae remanded 
for a new trial. Passing the question as to whether or not the 
evidence sufficiently shows that there was a definite contract 
made between the partics, as to which we express no opinion, but 
assuming that there was a contract and a bresch thereof by the 
defendant, plaintiff's damages were not properly proven, (Sertram 
v. Bergquist, 153 ill. App. 43, 45.) Furthermore, in plaintiff's 
letter of October Sth, the order is for "about 540 squares", and, 
as is evident from the testimony and the amount of the verdict * 
and judgment, the court must have considered that the defendant 
could be properly chargeable on the aald difference in the price 
per square on 871 1/2 aquares, which, in our opinion, under the 
evidence in this record, cannot be sustained. 


REVERSED AND REMANDED. 





















f sa — *8 

* sae <- 

5 “% * — ? 7 
te ST ROR Ys 


eemije a 06 0h Wo “anabneteh yt Deve Welt ead te 

sow sonore? th Git tare fete y%a.0cR8} ef Biuow sm 
lt Sait R1IWEd GP p } ew CorortinetT .ee. Susp % 
‘the? bine ‘ef? pow etaupe t0q T\E 
ta utes oe dled: wit ateeneies Me nee ek Ml 
ewhertin ett of besoetdo Sxebreteb to? yerrrodstas 
soqory oc? wore of yathasd soft on .2everane Yo nile otue wate" 
— —⏑— —— 


ee ’ 






wis * ed 


— 
— 
— 
bebsoret onims ef bor hoetevet ed biveds tnsenedt ota" 
ert tor 10 Tergenw of om matsecwr of ynfeawt stot weit 
tonawinoo edtnitet » nsw ened? sadt swore | 
ted  noteiqe om esengxe ov fobtw ot os ,aotrrmy off 
otf? Ye Yowtert Hower « das teerinob © ew erect gaitd § 
MMIISe) « stevoM yTreqdsg toh Crew cegcmd e Yrtintala ¢ 
s'Titintelé at ,oromentwt (8D .ob .qqh .xx ear .2 
brie, "SemOpH OS tuoca” To? of rebto eff \ci0A tedotoo 
© sotbrev ont WO suvoms edd few yrodhtesd 4H) mor? 
Snabrwteh etd forié Sereblence eval teu Mao os . 4 
soli oft ml eoneneTtth bhes ert mo eldseytito ULrqoty 
od Tebry oletqe two mE gtoltiw yeetayps als ive ho 


ORCI CWA, GHERIVER } J 


Cu. wld. — 


a 
ree Lador az 


| 
| 





Narch Term, 
335 * 182375. 





THE QUALITY CAR COMPANY, 
APPEAL FROM 
Appellee, 
MUNICIPAL COURT 


OF CHICAGO. 


1821.A.1°¢5 


WRe JUSTICE GRIDLEY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE GOURT. 


Je Sof CORKILL, 
Appellant. 


This 1@ an appeal from a judgment of the imicipal 
Gourt of Chicago for $2000, in favor of The Quality car Com- 
pany, a corporation, plaintiff below, and against J. J. cor~ 
kill, defendant below, in an action of the first class. The 
case was tried before the court without a jury, and was com- 
menced by the filing of an affidavit, etc., for an attachment, 
but subsequently the defendant entered into a recognizance in 
open court and the attachment was dissolved. 
Plaintiff's claim was for money due upon the following 
note, to-wit: 
$2000, Jane 20, 1911. 
3 months after date I promise to pay to 
the order of Premier Motor fg. Co. wo 
Thousand and no/100 Dollars at 2829 “ichigan 
AVG@es Chicago. 
Value received, with interest at the rate of 
6 1/2 per cent per annum, 
Je Js Corvkill, 
The following endorsements appoered on the back of 
the note: 


Premier Motor Mfg. Go. 
By W. H. Stalnaker, 


Pay to the order of 
Continental and Vcrmercial National Sank 
of Vhicago, 
é41l Prior Endorsements ‘uaranteed, 
The Quality Car Company. 


The defendant, in his original affidavit of merits, 
admitted the execution of’ the note, and stated that he delivered 












* ot, STE 
a —— +. —— oF 
evr ATreer — | 


APIO HE XO, AOIAEND. aT ae —— 


—20— batt @ Bort Ls 
AA 
Avate Bas yvofed Yrtentate ¢ 
et halt SAGE att Se tina’ ah a V 
<0 onw dhe . rant « duedtty seep | 
cittontisadt ms rot Od .civablTte wa ter 
— Sdraxiryovet 6 osm? Soret  Imobnetel 
*  SpewLoheke caw e— ond bea & 
— gs ther ilk — 
pe a’ | o rgey” cath 
—“ J run 


nant —— cake tee 


to eter one sa seonetnt Mite: Fr ay es 
, Atta · vv 4% at Ee DPS eC ae 


%o food off mo Demasqqs adneceeyobee 
















.00 .QT! tosOh cekmertT | ~ 
ii) etedantadé 42 HW YS. 


‘ine M —9 54 ~* 
7 


⁊o tebto edz oF yed a0 =" 
Ynaé Lartoliat Latorermmo’ Brin Letrmenksnod © 


} — oe 
| — po * Sia ae 
| eUlagme 190 ¥dileup ory 
i] castiom to tivebitts Lentgta ald at <inehawhed edt — 
betevileh on salt beotate Baa ,oton ef) to molsucexe ens beste 


wll 


the same to the plaintiff at the lattor's request, that said 
execution ard delivery was wholly without consideration and 
solely for the accommodation of the plaintiff, that the note 

was delivered by the plaintiff to the Premier Co., and that 

at the time of the endorsement and delivery of the note by the 
Premier Co, to the plaintiff, the plaintiff was not a purchaser 
for value and well knew that the note was without ccnsideration, 
The trial of the case was originally commenced on June 9, 1911, 
at which time the plaintiff, to maintain the issues on ite part, 
offered the note in evidence, and no objection to its introduc- 
tion was made by defendant, ari plaintiff rested ite case. The 
defendant thereupon oolled Ww &, Stalnaker, general manager of 
plaintiff, se a witness under section 25 of the Municipal Court 
Act, and, after he Was examined at some length, the ettorney for 
defendant asked leave that time be given defendant to prepare 
and file an amended affidavit of merits, which motion was granted 
and the further trial of the case was continued, On August 17th 
the amended affidavit was filed in which the defendant again 
steted that the note wae executed by the defendant and delivered 
to the plaintiff at the latter's request, and that the execution 
and delivery was wholly without consideration and solely for 
plaintiff's accommodation, but stated that the note was never 
delivered by the plaintiff to the Premier Co., and was never 
endorsed by the Premier Co, to the plaintiff. The trial of the 
Case was resumed on oetober Bp 1911. 

It appeared fron the evidence that the Premisr Co., a 
corporation, manufactured automobiles at Indianapolis, Indiana; 
that this company was represented in Chicago by the plaintiff 
company, which was a separate corporation and engaged principal- 
ly in selling the automobiles manufactured by the Premier Co.; 
that H,. ©, Smith was the president of the Premier Cc,; that 


i 
























"Hes * 
baw tacts — tes oat te tite Mo 
bra notteteblence Suodste yLtody vay yrovlleb bia None 
ofon off Sadd yYIbdsolgq eds To aolseboamooos ond tu 
duit tne ..00 twhmews oct of I2IEntald edt yd $3) 

eri vd eson edt Yo ynovileh bre siéeeatotine old 20 Omkd § 
qevattoty 4 for saw Ttltnbalq one — wll: 0) ie 
snolseveblerot tuodtiw ecw edan eft tact? wort Lew br 
Atot 1° mutt me foonewmas ytiantgive aay onse eit to 
<f19q 292 mo noun! ot ctadetom of 5 sn 
or ee ene ae 
ort Pa ee ON SO 
Te epbtetiase 0X 1 SOSNG 4 
Sone, JEM i. % ne SARS eS 

wi yrioste ot yitget ome ta vik gl ve 

—— rt 
hegrarsy eaw otsow dobre sodizem to tivabeyha ‘Babrans & 

ASE taamucd m0 sbeuntionoo aaw eaep eff Yo Latad sn 
riage tnohes ied eit dotsiw at Delt? saw sivebitte | 

eit Se Soterteh 28.6 Pane, nee 

molsuoone etd Jad? bee seekers atsodtel edt ta 
not yfeloe bra noldatebtanve suodtte ybtode ae + t0¥. 
| woven ans efor wit tat betate= tise jie blitedtilieda 4a® 

’ 

| 


— 





ei Het 
7 * 


“ever mew bre 4.00 molcens ect of Wtiatele ond yd Romie 
ett Yo Lata? on .Yttimbalq odd of .00 telmerd odd yd Sanaeie 
Atet qS Todesod mo Domumet ay 0 ⸗ 

& ..00 ieloerd off Jedd eoriebtve edd mot? bornoqu⸗ #1 — 
tarelbe! ,etloqenethal ta sefidomotua beudostunen | qn 
tantala eds yd ogeotdd mf beswosenqes son yneqmoo Saute 
-Laqtonizg degayre fue moltatoqroo eswreyet « oem Moldy — 
1.00 “Telererd erty ¢S bemsoutucwm setidonoria ett Yattive af ee 


Setld 3.00 totword oft “to drebicedq ef9 eaw Pind” 50 waa | 


pro: 





Et — — 






~ 


W. & Stalnaker was the general manager of the plaintiff in 


charge of ita business in Chicago, but was not an officer of 


the Premier Co.; that defendant was the owner of a "1910" four 


cylinder Premier automobile and that in December, 1910, defend- 
ant and Stalnaker had a conversation as to the deferdant purchas~ 


ing a new six cylinder Premier car of plaintiff, the price Sstal- 


naker would charge for euch a car, and how defendant's old car 


should be disposed of. ‘the testimony of defendant and “talnaker 
as to what was said at this conversation in quite conflicting. 


The defendant says that the conversation wae to the effect that 


plaintiff would sell to defendant a new car for about $5100, and 


plaintiff would take defendant's old car in trade at the sum of 
about $2600, and defendant pay plaintiff the differonce in cash, 
Stalnaker says that he told defendant that the price of the new 
car waa $5500, that he would not take defendantts old car in trade 
at the price suggested by defendant, viz: #2500, but that he would 
sell defendant the new car for $4150, the defendant to dispose of 
his old car himself, Whatever the conversation was, on December 
8, 1910, plaintiff, by Stalnaker, “Gen. Ker.", wrote defendant in 
part as follows: “Confirming our conversation of to-day, we will 
furnish you one of our six cylinder Clubman cars «= « for the sum 
of $5500, f.0.b. Indianapolis; «#« + we are to allow you on the 
purchase price cf this car the sum of $550, as a cormission to you 
on account of your disposing of your present 1910 Premier car. In 
other words, you are to pay us 05150. * * We are to have the six 
cylinder car ready for delivery es scon sfter January ist as poss- 
ible"®, This letter was received by defendant. Asc to what saubse- 
quentiy occurred between the parties, the testimony of Stalnaker 
and defendant is also very conflicting. Stalnaker testifies that 
a few daye thereafter defendant called and said "I got your letter, 
and it is all right. Go ahead and order the car", ard that Stal- 








poe <8 






















Ate” = 
m2 Ttisntalq eds Yo teganam Larrones ond an8, 

to yoottto me Jon aan out opaokdt | nt agenteud » 
myo? *OL91" 8 20 teMwo et) Gaw Jrabrwreh tacts . {100.1 
~breted .Ofei ,10dmeoed at dads brn elidomisim wx 
~cadormid Inmbaw ted eds Od o@ moktanzavnen # Dat, woAg 
~i9te eolrq eit Adtant⸗atq Io aap telmest, —* 
a0 Dio a’ Snmbneted wos baw yteo asun 0% | 
sovanias’. Drie Jombero tab to Wioatsees, edt sto 
«grtioLftnoe edtup of natiestevnoe elit ta bos 2 
fart sootie edd oF oan got ave nonoe od? fact, ayaa, 2 
bus ,0018t tuode 10% 240 vem 8 Inaboereb of Lee, bf 
ne nue ott 20 fend mt 20 Do s!snabaeted eras biuos 
fines sti pono? th odd Vittntetg yaq, seabew Pep * 

von oud ‘Yo eolaq odd dads jnsbastes ‘blo 3 
ehard nt x0 bio a! Inahwteb oxag Joc blow ent tadt ¢ a 
biwow et tacts dud 400884 ra ty — — 
Qo ewoquld of susbaoteb edd onteh 10? tao wes edd, dashaw’ 
rodnoovd mo von motsaestevnoo org tevesadn — 
mt dnebooted stow .".73M +0)" ytorentede YS «Esa iq. <8 
fitw ow sYab-od Yo colseerevne9 Wo griterilinoo” . sews 
cuts arid 402 © ¢ eno mand) aebatiyo xte Wwe 20, 90. 
ody mm woy wolla of e186 ow 4 4- tatLesemnthah sdseiie 
uox OF molasinnco & as ,095$ Yo me odd aao wld to. — 4 
MI .tao yeokwosd OFGL Inesetqg wwWoy to antsoqath soy . 20 , 
xia orld evad of ors OW ff OER) au Yad OF era LOY, «BhnOM FR 
“enoq es sel yisuriel tos te noCe wa Yrovilob 10% ybeer t20 
-oedue tatw of si 6 .dmabneteb xe bevieoces saw — Ott 
tedatlasa to ynomtseos eda api sueg ba reowsod pods yf p on 
fads aoltisued i1evtanlase Au⸗ oi Liao rev ocala el — 
etessel TOK goa I” Bisse bua belise Snabreieb soSworedt aye 
~fase tantt base «"sa0 of? tebi0 bow Duesia OP .trigit Lia et sh boa 


ate 


naker ordered it of the Premier Go.; that after the car had 
arrived defendant again called and said that he had not yet dis- 
posed of his old car and that he would be obliged to pay for the 
_ “new car partly in notes; that after several conversations it 


was agroed that defendant would pay $650 in cash, give a thirty 





day note for $500, and a 3 monthe' note for $2000, and that the 
notes should be made payable to the Premier Uo., inasmuch as the 
) Premier Co. had charged the plaintiff with the wholesale price 
of said car and Stainsker thought he could turn over the notes 
to the Premier Co. in part payment of plaintiff's indebtedness 
to the Premier Co. for said car; that, accordingly, on January 
20, 1911, the deferdant gave a check for $650 and personally wrote 
out the notes in plaintiff's office and signed them, and the new 
car was delivered to defendant ard a written memorandum of the 
sale, or invoice, was mailed to defendant. According to the de- 
fendant's version the agreement was entirely different. DOefend- 
ant testified that shortly after the receipt of plaintiff's let- 
ter of December Sth, defendant called and said that the written 
proposition was entirely at variance with the talk previously 
hed; that after several conversations Stalnaker finally agreed 
that he would take the old car in*trade at the price of $2890 
and would be able to sell the same before the notes became due, 
and that defendant signed the notes with the understanding that 
the notes were merely accommodation notes, pending the sale by 
plaintiff of the old Car, and were te be sent te the Prenler Uo. 
and not to be placed in any Chicago bank. Stalnaker, on the con- 
trary, testified that absolutely nothing was ever said to him by 
defendant about the notes being accommodation notes, or that he 
(Stalnaker) at any time said that he would take the defendant's 
old car in trade for any such sum. Although the letter of Jan- 
uary 20, 1911, mailed to defendant ard being a written memoran- 


esomm yilanoereg San O80; 19 foode © ovay suuboe TOD 





-- 





e. Yoded 


bart wo of teste dacs {400 ‘eolwrt orld 20 O8 
~uth Joy Sort het of donlt Hew Dew betino mtege 


edt 20% yaq of beghito of Siuoe-ont sac? frie ano Bio 


—5—— 
enot ase ·e vnoe Levever ‘reste sass raogon mt yom * 


— 
orl? fads baw .000R) tot efor — ¢ = fmm 0008 
ed sa doumnant 1109 rotons oii) of Ldwyoq obam od Bik 
coteq oleneiodw edt tn T2tetaly ocd Heyuede bad to 
———— se OC 
evenbesdebat et Tttintaic te saemyey Sag sh 


rma mo yylgatbroo0os tors —— 


re 8 
ott ies 




























mee ee 


Str 


— 
von eit bap ymedt boris sem eofYto eros ton 
od Yo mubeatomer mettidw a new SambiiTed oF | 
eb eid. 09 ymtbro004 .duebew ted 0s betian ear: 3 
— drow ULerline ox sromeerye od notmey & 
nto a'tttontely Yo dqteoet ont tests eirnode, dont bel 
netshen oti daft lew San deLivo saehmoeb 90 re 

qlevotverq Alas odd detw eonattey te ciontsne aaw 
boetma Yilentt w3tanlede enois aeteynoo Lanevec sofa 
goast to eoitq ed? te obdatd- ak ‘tao blo ents ota? 5 two 
0d Omsoed andor oi? OTe Ted ones ons Lies of of od 
tend yrthnnsetobey ord ddtw eeton add bomate inabneted 
yd else off antherweq asoct mols sbomsocos eleva one os 
200 telwerl off of tr@e od of otew Boe tao bLo ont ton 
moo el? wo ~yetlaniege® 8 «dned onso key Ys af Seoaiq oo ons 
yi mid of bise seve oew paidton vLesulonds Sacty borats x os 
ot fai? <0 ,sedom wolsebomuosos grited sezon ott tuoda a baeeteb 
st dagbrereo ort? oad Divow oc! sade btae ents yma de (rotantata) 
el % testeL end dgyorsiA sme owe ae ⁊o⁊ obant ‘nt 70-0 


i ?k tee. 7 
-tatomen stetsi¢w « ynted bus inabaeteb of be liom iter 08 vias 


7 
4 


— 
Par. 





: * 


dum of the sale of the oar, appears to have reached ite destina- 
tion, defendant made no objection to the terms thereof. He says 
in excuse of this thet he does not recollect having seen this 
paper until after the present suit was commenced, when he went 
through certain files and found it, and that his secretary mist 
have recéived the letter ard filed it away without showing it to 
him, This paper was a memorandum or invoice to the effect that 
plaintiff had “sold” to defendant a “Premier, 1911, Ulubman" car 
at the net price of $3150, and that there had been received "on 
the above account” a check for $650, a thirty day note for $590 
and a ninety day note for S000, 

Stalnaker testified that the day following the sale and 
delivery of the new car to the defendant, he telephoned H. o. 
Smith, president of Premier Co., at indianapolis, informed him 
that plaintiff had delivered the car to deferdant and had taken 
the two notes, and that plaintiff would send aaid notes to the 
Premier Co. in payment of that much of plaintiff's indebtedness 
to the Premier Co. on said car; that thereupon Smith replied: 
"Don't send the notes to us. We want the money. You hold the 
notes and collect them"; that Stalnaker then said that he had 
had the notes made payable to the Premier Co,; that Gmith re- 
plied that he “did'nt care anything about that", and further 
said: “You go ahead and collect them, and hold them until they 
are due and deposit them in the bank for collection and send us 
all the proceeds", Stalnaker further testified that about the 
time the notes respectively fell due he endorsed them "Premier 
Motor Mfge Cos, by We EH. Stalnaker", and deposited them with the 
bank for collection, ami that the $2000 note, from the time of 
its execution until it wis ao deposited in the bank, was contin- 
uously in the possession of plaintiff. 


= 























| -aniieah aff bedones evel of staeqqs ,te0 eft Yo Olea. 
syen 8 .Tosted? carted ef? of nolte sd do on ehar sasbactebng 
if tro oA gadis yboomoImED auw Bikm Jwmaota oid ote LPM: 
foun yiasenoos sin Jedd bea Jt brut bus eeLk% x. X 
od St smtwortm duoddiw Yaws a2 Hest? are weddek edé bovd 
$acit Joe¥te eds oF eolovst 1 aubaatomec # eee soqeq ith 
too “MamiglO gf fl ,relwort" 5 tanhneted of “bloa* bat WR 
mo” Revkeowt nved dart etedd ast? bra .OUL8) tect — 
0088 rot efen yoh yeuttit o ~OORe to? toads 2 “tmyooes x 
008% von ever yah Senha 
ban 6feu end yatwoLio® yab ais tad pettitees sedanlase ; 
yO .% bhewsiqeLed od ytnahrw'teb edt of t20 wen eft eres 
mid Dervotat ~mhingacatinl to 4.09 rebnewa Yo tmebl 
toned Bact brow dusheotel of tao aft Devevtied. 
Sided vedorn Stee Drew Divow Yatistale sad Dem 
seonbetdubtt e'ttiinielg to Mowe tact ‘to sreayeq mt 
rhelite: cd#iu® moqroteds fade? piso bisa ao «00 — 
ott biod wor <Yousm en? graw e% 20 09 segom edt .bneey 
had ed tact bloo nokt wekuriets tadd ¢"wedd d00Lloo cus 
' son doine gad 1,09 telneTl ed of ofdayoq obam soton. 
| medioust Ben ("tests Suede — — esd on BEDE 
cere Ete wots dLort ban yume? soolios hes Seode on- 
ay feteg fra cottookies tot zrad ed? mt mod? shaoqed-. 
ott duoda tats DerUtsees “osttut wedanlase §4 
~olewrt" mat? beatobew of ovb LLet yLevidoeques vodor. 
ons dhtw matt Desingqeh haw « “retarless od yd §s00 am 
26 date ods eds sede bee ynetivetice waked 
1 -1ijmeo exw ginad @fg of bedtsoqes ex eow 2 Lhénw aolsupeze ai 
T -Ttivataly to notesesesoq edd at yfete. 





€ 


+i 





« : f wae — 
i) ‘ X 


abe 


After the $500 note had matured and had been deposited 
for collection with the bank and defendant had beer notified by 
the bank, defendant wrote Stalnaker as follows: "Dear Stalnaker: 
i only got in tom at 1:50 and received notice from the bank of 
note due. This escaped me as I thought it was 3 months. as I 
enclose ck, for $200 and a new note for $800, which I hope will 
be acceptable to you. Pls, mail old note to me at the club", 
Plaintiff accepted the check and the new note. The new note was 
dated Feby. 2%, 1911, was made payable to the order of the Promier 
CO., was deposited in the bank for collection by plairtiff bear- 
ing the same endorsements as the $500 note, and was paid by de- 
fendant shortly after maturity, hen the @2000 note matured it 
was not paid and plaintiff commenced this action. 

it is first contended by counsel for defendant that the 
finding end judgment of the trial court is erroneous because the 
evidence clearly established that the note sued on was an accommo- 
dation note and was without consideration. Without further dis- 
cussion of the testimony, and particularly the portions thoreof 
especially relied upon by counsel, suffice it to say that after 
careful examination of the voluminous record we are of the opine 
ion that the finding and judgment are sufficiently supported by 
the evidence. ‘he introduction of the note in evidence, without 
objection, made a prima facie case for the plaintiff, and the 





burden of proving that the note waa without consideration and 

was a mere accommodation note rested upon the defendant, (MeoKeand 
v. Feinberg, 145 lil. App. 274, 277; Molioken v. Safford, 197 
Ille 840; ‘Stacker ve Hewitt, 1 Seam, 207) and we cannot say that 
the defendant clearly established his exes; In fact, we think 
that the preponderance of the evidence is against defendant's 


contention. 





Sa 



























—— Hees 40h: 48 took 
rredenlete 1206" rewolot om yadaciase esotw-dnabee 
40 ined aS mo eckson hawtooes bun 082t.de amoe n 
Ie saxddnom 8 eam tt triguiqdt 1 ae em Deqaoae, 
Lidw egos x sindsiw ,0089 wt efonwor # baw 0OSp t02 
Qew e90n. on et odor wos writ See toedn este J 
—————— d 
~ted Whintalg YW wisoos6oo 20% Had wd at hose ob 
~ob xd hts sew ins odor 0039 exif ne admenewrobae om 
at hesstan odo OO0G$ en! ces” sytinuten ete _Lesode 
.70iJ0e efdd beanormne Yktwtalg ae beg 
edt & dads tnabreteh wt Laanuee ys bebaegavo sort? 
ed evuaosd aucemotse ef Sawog Lalit edd 208 
csnaten tine tiem nen cy ie iene 
neh Tedsw soddln .golsereblesop — oa 
waite dun? yas of 22 eottive .losnwoc ye apgu det 
Atao eff 2o oT ev fyoDet swontmyLoy edt to motdantm 
Td Sotroqque yiswolottIuwe exe dawmpbut dun aatbatt edt sat 
Suortiw ,eorebive mi eson 92 20 Bptsoubossnt * * —X 
arit few A⸗atala odd 102 ceo otper aming « cham of nok 
bas soliatoblasce Jwodtiv sew ese erié sadd gatvorg 2 ' 
_haweot) ,énabpeteh ens soqu patnex atom apts abommeogs 6° 
POL ~bwO 79S «x MeMOLNON ; VTS oD Qh ofKl BOL 
dads yan Jonnas e% One (TOR mek L stitwel ev sedossa' 
dnbtd ow sont, it Senay aad DetiaLidadne yinaele 4 Ry. 
a’ orn he teh tontage al eomehive ets “to pe 


| pa | 


 .onat 


. 





oe 





| It is next urged that a delivery of a note to the payee 

) is necessary to its validity, end that, inasmich as the note in 

_ Question never passed into the actual possession of the Premier 
Go,, no delivery to the payee wes shown, We do not think that 
there is any merit in the contention. A delivery of a note to a 
- thira person as agent of the payee, and by which the maker loses 
| control of the note, is a sufficient delivery. (Shaw ve Camp, 
“180 Ill. 425, 429.) "It 1s not indispensable to the delivery of 
& promissory note that it should pasa into the personal possession 
of the payee. If delivery ia mads to another, for the payee, 
without condition, his acceptance of it may be presumed, and the 
delivery of it will be complete". (Gordon v. Adama, 127 Ill. 228, 
226.) The defendant in both his original and amended affidavit 
of merits admitted that he delivered the note to the plaintirf, 
Under the facta of this case, we think that the defendant siened 
and delivered the note with the intention of thereby paying in 
part for the new car which he had purchased from the plaintiff, 
but thet, at Stalnaker's request and for the reesons atated by 
Stalnaker, the Premier Co, was named as payee in the note. The 
legal ‘titie tc the note was then either in the Premier Co. or the 
plaintiff, and it was subsequently endorsed by the Premier Co,., 
per Stalnaker, over to the plaintiff. 

But counsel further contend that the note was not in 
fact endorsed by the Premier Co, to the plaintiff, and plaintiff? 
never acquired title to the note and the right to sue thereon, 
for the reason that there is no evidence showing Stalnaker's 
authority to endorse the note on behalf of the Premier Co. over 
to plaintiff. We think that the testimony of Stalnaker as to the 
directions he received from Smith, president of the Premisr Co., 
over the telephone, sufficiently shows, under the facta of this 
case, Stalnaker's authority to endorse said note so as to enable 


— —— — — 
— = 
— 
3* 
J 

















of eden #40 vaoviteb stand Boga dxon el 
cio Tai al 
4ébnort otf to mokasoneed Leudoa ets oat beaded “rover 
tard told? fon ob av sea Goreng et oF erore rt 
2 00. baeel bs WS yrevittes aS est “eds bel Fete 
covot tian ed dot ys ts Yee wd Yo taege ox ne 
squad -vivaite) eroviteb tote Prive 's al! odor ed 
46 Yieveteb dd of etdeawoqetint ton ab $1" * (.tad ys 
teltsnoencg fanowreg act oft Sai uboas + Pinel» 
Wt ceual edb nok ncttonh Ub Cban UY qhovites St “team 
edd bw sboawav'eg od yea Jt Yo sonasqesea sid .woidtbn 
eeOe It] tar 6 gobo) ."stelqnoo od Ettw 9 * 
—EE o,,—,,—,—eo—— mt wearaes J 
M⸗narata eit? of eten ott berevifop st todd . oy 
bogie Seabed oft tatd dnteit ow onae ang —— tt 
mt ankyaq yderold t moltnetat ef? ttin eson ward 2ST 
ePttintela oft wort besadousy dari orf cole 130 wort oat t ou 
td bogute enooser oni rot baa soeuper ot rosantate de — is 
orf? sodor od mt ooyaq se beman eaw +00 robwort off 
eff 40 .of Tolmer? efd mt reddte mond naw stom eft ‘of * rt 
e000 tetwerd eft yo hestobao Us noupeadirs caw st bee ‘ —— 
— — 
mi gon saw ofon ea2 fad? baednos onset Teerusoo ig 
Yritrlal bea .Yttimtalq ond of .00 telmert ond yd dex dost 
ymooteds oue of srigit ods bra ofom eff of ofdtt — 
—— ytwortn vonoblve on et erertd tarts moasen ott 
stevo .09 relmetd eff to Tlarted mo evor ort eoronte ot ete 
edd of an tedanfiat&@ to ‘yromtsues ets Sante antis oF — E——— 


as, 
+00 ‘tofoert aft to fnobleetq .idime mort bevioces od arte 























Of Seid 
sit? Yo atest oft tobww ,awore yléne tol tive — E odd 


eldane of ea oe oton bias eatohwe of ¥ehtoniue o'qodanLese — 





2 





plaintiff to sue thereon in its own name» Section 19 of the 
"Negotiable Instrument Law" of 1°07 provides: “The signature 
| of any party way be made by a duly authorized agent. No partie- 
| ular form of appointment is necessary for this purpose; and 
| the authority of the agent may be established as in other cases 
of agency". in Fountain v. Bookstaver, 141 111. 461, 460, it 
| is said: “authority to an agent to execute or indorse a nego- 
tiable instrument may be given by parol, and no particular form 
of words is necessary for that purpose", 
For the reasons indicated the judgment of the Municipal 
Court is affirmed. 


APPID MED. 





ie 












edt To OM aoktoes -omsm avo edt at no 
 Sudayts oft” speblvow TOCL to "wad | 
~oidrag OF dame bestrorisue Ylub # YS ebem od. yan, v 
bee = powoqiug atid ‘wt yusenooen ot Inemtatogys, Bo, 
meneo telgo mt ee Dedehidsgue ad yar froze odd to y 
“aE Wh EDD oSEE ID sciamadedees «¥ aketoey At 
~ogen a enzobnt xo stuoexe of Jmmge me oF ¥Sira 
mio? reluelineg on hme «Lorag yt aevta oc vam $ 
oe eee oo eOMOMERE dads Or x 2 
tte heat tt Stent san 


: ae vv imsoa niet 


Uae 


use Agoel 


Lod 
‘aw J A oy ts of end ‘ore 
¢ “rh fitind® ,eeae 


J 











March Term, 1 


$43 - 12383. 
MARY COLLI ) 
APPEAL FROM 
VB. ) GIRGUIT COURT 
GHIGAGO erer GOOK COUNTY, 
GOHPANY, \, 





1821.4.176 


MR» JUSTICE GRIDLEY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF {HN COURT. 


Thia is an appeal from a judgnent of the Circuit Court 
of Gook County, rendered upon the verdict of a jury, in favor 
of Mary Collins, plaintiff below, and against Chicago City Rail- 
way Company, defendant below, for ©2000, as damages for injuries 
sustained by plaintiff while attempting to board one of defend- 
ant's electric street cars at the intersection of 26th street 
and Wentworth avenue, in the city of Chicago. 

Wentworth avenue runs in a nerth and aouth direction 
and is intersected at right argles by 24th street. At the tine 
of the accident, which occurred on November 20, 1909, between 
§ and 10 o'clock in the evening, the defendant had double track 
lines of street railway in both streets. North-bound cars in 
Wentworth avenue ran on the east track and southbound cars on 
the westtrack, #ast-bound cars in 26th street ran on the south 
track and west-bound cars on the north track, Plaintiff was an 
unmarried woman, about 61 years of age, and had been employed at 
Mercy Hospital, in charge of the pantry, for about four years, 

Plaintiff's declaration consisted of three counts. The 
first count alleged, in substance, that on said date she was a 
passenger on one of defendant's street cars moving north on 
Wentworth avenue; that when said car arrived at 26th street 
she alighted for the purpose of becoming a passenger on another 


one of defendant's cars “then moving" east over defendant's 26th 








oe TTAUOO ROOD 


oy ALT sar — 
—————— 1 


ised Shucdto et# %0 fiveghut a aovt fnequs as 
coven at emt = 2 Satay il ms Sai 
atish @oHS oxdetd® samba haw .woled! Yi ‘ 
eottutnt to? seyensh of ,0008) tol ywoled snabmetes 
stab tail hind +t sisal lens Tanai 
toorte iitn2 Yo wottoestedal edd J wuao Soonde obtood 
— fommote 20 yete onit mt youmeve dé-nowdi 
motsoetth dice bas dtvor s xt amr eomeva a. | 
omks #19 tA .doorde d#ee yt eelye Siighs de bi 
mowed .000f .82 tedmevoK mo berwone dotiw .tnebtoo: 
foard efduoh bast sashreteh of aatmeve ett at s00Lo%o OF 
ut oteo bewodeiif1O% saseonte ddod mt yowlter seerte Yo | 
— — — 
Huon etd mo owt Joorde Misha mt ease bmyodasenk wtoay Ja 
ta eee Tikinltalt .aoasd Aron edd mO woo bruod=seow 
$2 boyolque mood hat Ine yege Yo erwey £8 Suoda .namow 
setaey Wot tuods wt ,ytimaq of)? Yo ogiato mt . lad 
of? .atnyoo semtt to betatenao noftorstoeb ef ¥ttentalt 
& caw ee otah bhan mo tani? ,constedue at ebogella $us00 | 
mo rid-tom yntvom exeo toorte et inabasteb Yo eno m0 
teemtn ten te bovitie tao biee mectw tac jounewa sda 
wodtona Mo Tegronneag « antmooed 10 osoqnmy et 10 bestia f 


idea s'$rehereieh tevo teae “*yatvor torts Bias —EXE — 
“ds hcl 


‘ onstgut “a 





















"ie t * 


— 4 





+ r 


al 


aa 





» tal, 





-3- 


street tracks; that said other car then came to a stop at or 
near the intersection of said streete for the purpose of re- 
ceiving and discharging passengers; that plaintiff, while in 
the exercise of due care, eto., then and there attempted to 
board said other car, and, while so doing, the defendant, by 
its servants and agents, "so carelessly, negligently and inprop-~ 
erly managed and opsrated said car that » « said car was jolted, 
jerked and moved suddenly forward”, whereby plaintiff was thrown 
with great force “against the parts of said car and off of said 
oar and down on the street there", and was severely and perma- 
nently injured, ete. The second count alleged, in substance, 
that plaintiff alighted from the Wentworth avenues car at the 
intersection of said atreste, for the purpose of then becoming 
® passenger on another car of defendant's “then standing” on 
defendant's said tracks on 25th street at or near sald inter} 
section of said streets; that plaintiff then and there approach- 
ed said cther car for the purpose of becoming a passenger there- 
on, all of which wac well rnown to the servants and agente of 
defendant in charge of asid other sar; that when plaintiff 
reached said car and was attempting to board the same, and was 
in the exercise of due care, etc., said servants and agents 

in charge of said ear “negligently and improperly started said 
car forward before the plaintiff had reasorable time to get 
safely on said car", whereby plaintiff was thrown with great 
force against the parte of said car and off of said car and 
down on the street, and was severely and permanently injured, 
etc, The gist of the third count was that, while plaintiff was 
attempting to board the car which was standing on said 26th 
street tracks, the defendant, by its servants and agents, "so 
wilfully, wantonly, recklessly and wrongfully” moved and operat- 
ed said car that the same wes caused to be suddenly jolted and 


jerked, whereby plaintiff was thrown, stc, 





ad so? a6 
24 Cova 




















~ue . ' Lo 
Py And i ~ 


C4 


4 


— — eto 
wet to cocqrun cuttin tiliihete' bilan Whhhdnalpreea 
od oitdw ~Yitintelg Jed¢ jeteymvonng yatgrtarioe th: bia rt 
of hosqnessa orectd bra med? ..ode ,otss' wih Ye Sale 
qs «trabreted ody ated ob ofiitw haw Yrne ebrtso 
-corgat bea _Ltmoytinen ,yLeseietas on” .adnoga Bris 
pbosiot oO) seo Bian « « fadd te bien besereqo be 2 
— cow YRtivtele yseredy .*iar0? yinebbus beyor, bie 
bie to Tie fina “we bhas Yo sduaq ext? sentega® oe 
ã os yLerwven sow brie «enact Joonte edd ao 
veoratodia mt yheyelis sauoD Setooee act 4080 « 
ot! 20 tao oes HAtoMaMOr ett mont Hedrigtte 
acim sat 0 enero. ait 2 — 
so “gatbrsta cots" e'tnabreted 26 rao teddons mo ‘tome 
~roint Ditoe sen so tn deonts 28s mo aloent Soe on i 
atipsoraqe etait? ben ted? Tiigetelg say teteotse biaw 20 1 
~oted? topmoonag » animeoed to esoqmg oft tot s00 orl 
To edmogs ine ainavies ↄcia 09 muomi iow som do:cu i 
Tilsnitela code tadt te rwitdo bis ô me 





o tril TEM 





— 





now Dim ,omen eit Debod of antiquedia seu bas ao bh a f 

etmens bua aggayipe Bion ,.0f0 .otao eub To onbow xo ont’ 
| bine betisse yLooqotqm! das titmegtigon” 109 bhes to | wt 
| | geog of emis efdandeaet bari Titéntalq ont h⸗ 
| ssern (éiw avowl? sew Yiléntale ydertedw "a0 bios 0 


1 bon 130 Disa Yo Yo bua 10 dlae to asta of? tankane sg 
Sewiat ylinenamrteq bra yleteven saw fate ,teots ont : 
naw Yilintale elistw ,teds saw $miyoo babts esis to gata get aie ¢ 
10S hlan mo gatboade eow otdw tap ott trsod of | ¥ 


Lae ~ | 


234 yess 4J 
oa" eS Ire ge bus etnavies ast yd 1 tpbrnteb og valoant 9 Se * 


| ~sa'teqo bas beyom “yLlistynotw hus elaveltoet Vinognew Le 
Ii ben besfot yfaebhye ed of Deauao ase come ond fai? tao Shae’ Be 


ote .nwomts saw tiLintelq yderedw ,bettet | 
4 









ae 


On the trial, at the conclusion of plaintiff's caae, 
the attorney for deferiant by three several motions requested 
the court to instruct the jury to find the defendant not guilty 
under each of said three counts, and at the conclusion of all 
the evidonoe these motions were renewed+ Tho court, however, 
denied a11 of the motions. Counsel for deferdant here contend 
that there was no evidence tending to sustain the charge con- 
tained in the third count of “wilful and wanton misconduct", 
amd that the court's refusel to instruct the jury to find the 
defendant not guilty under that count constitutes prejudicial 
error. In our opinion, the first and second counts each stated 
@ good ogause of action, which counts there was evidence tending 
to support. While the court might properly have given the in- 
struction asked as to the third count, the refusal so to do, 
there being sufficient evidence to support ancther good count 
of the declaration, is not ground for reversal. (Chicago etc. 
Goal Co. ve Horan, 210 Til. 9, 133; foster v. Shepherd, 164 Ill. 
Apps 199, 2013 Scott ve Parlin co., 245 Ill. 460, 462; Colesar 
v. Star Coal Cc,, 255 Ill, 532, 849.) 

Plaintiff's testimony was to the effect that on the 
evening of the accident, after visiting at a friend's home 
south of 26th street and west of Wentworth avenue, she boarded 
@ Wentworth avenue car going north, paid her fare and received 
a transfer, and alighted from the car at 26th street at the 
drug store on the southeast corner of Wentworth evernue; that 
then she crossed Wentworth avenue to take a car east-bound on 
26th atreet; that the oar came along and she “waited until it 
stood still"; that the front end of the car stopped "a little 
piece” from the west crosswalk of Wentworth avenue and she ate 
tempted to get on the hind end of the car; that the conductor 
wan standing inside about the middle, with “the lines in his 


wie 




















aeeeo at Tilimtatg %o apteulonoe eit de vhates acts, 90, | 
besaoupet anotson Loxoves seals yd sneimeteb 0% yor 
{ia % crotamionoo edd J bra ,adiuoo cout) bhaa to, 
courage en mod UaigpmE SRL te®. e tnuoo 
ond bast o⸗ youl add Jourisent o⸗ Levcea a! wos, ect 
 datotbuberg esus tam gauoo sacs xobmu ye Listy, somd 
«ob of of iveutet ose .toon btldd eft Of 2a. — 
gpd2 gueotde) .lastever toi dmoxy Jom, et ..mlsotale 
of£I DOL ,Bzocgeds -v esed) 10L o@.LL1,0L8, .aet0n, 
Mae LOS 48d Obs ALE POS 9209 Size] + ¥, £2903... 
— (O88. x taa a — 
ost mo add ee%te acts of ase yrontines wt 

ood Bt hrelst 9 Ja anta ta ty rods .snebtess..edd,,: 
befrisod erie .ovreva diiroedmey 20 tsew bas sootta Ad 
bevioge: bis etat ted biaq ,icen yoloy 140 euncva 
edd ta teomgsa dee ia ta0 aclt_ mort Sodmtylia bres 
feds yeuneva ditowsmeW Yo xesrtoa taaodsuoe eds m0 
mo brwod-se40 tao 4 odat of oumeve détowsreW bessoun. 
a2 Ittnu: betlaw” oria Sue gnols omen tao,ed) Jatt ite 
Legit 2” beqqose tw. eft to bao tmost edt dads. 4' 
} -je effe bw suneva ridtowjnee to ALawesouga saow ed sox}. : | 
| rosoubros eng Jods pawo act? 20 fre bad etd no son.0% detarae 
| etd at wemtl edt” détw .eLobin eft tuode ebtunt gatiuase. eam 





D1 








— ——— 


ate 





hand + + his hand on the bell"; that she put her right foot 
on the first step, took hold of the car with her left hand 


; 


when "he gave the car a jerk and it just turned me arcund and 


and “held the iron", and was stepping up with hor other foot 


# # the corner of the car atruck me and threw mo facing south 
and east, or east"; that "the car gave such a jump it started 
me and I jerked right around and es [ came down I felt the hip 
getting hit on the end of the gar, and it threw me with the car 
east, and I laid there until the conductor came ard picked me up"; 
that the conductor stood her up ageinst the car, and the motor- 
man came, and when the latter heard her say thet she lived at 
“ercy Hospital, he put her into the car and she rode as far as 
the hespital, which was located on the corner of 26th street and 
Prairie avenue; that she was carried to the hospital building 
and then taken to the operating room, where splints were put on 
her left arm and left hip; that both her arm and hip were frac- 
tured, and that she suffered severe and permanent injuries, 
William Lewis, plaintiff's witness, a colored man, and 
at the time of the trial employed as a Pullman car porter, tes-= 
tified to the effect that on the evening of the accident he was 
employed as « waiter in the saloon and restaurant situated on 
the southwest corner cf the intersestion of the two etreets; 
that he was standing just outside of the saloon and in front of 
the doorway, which ia "like a cut-off or the corner that you can 
geo in from both streets" ; that he first saw plaintiff standing 
on the other side of the street near the drug store; that ahe 
eressed over to the west side of Wentworth avenue, “right in 
front of me", and stopped near the corner; that "pretty soon 
the street car came up and she walked on right by me, down to 
the side of the 26th street car «= + and got on at the far end, 
and as she was getting up the bell rang ani the car started off 





abe 






















s00% tr t+ vom Quq wcn Sard ¢*Lfed ett m0 Brot 
pera Prek vor thw we etd to HLort HOS" \qdte 

| $002 Tedio tem tte qu Rrhqgete caw Bis ,“AOTE off? & of 
hee bewots ca Semrmd fevt FE ons fret 2 a0 ent on 
bitiate 92 Gant # dowe Svay tad oct * Sadd’“y "Ride 40°F 
qid er? diet XY ooh omad I es bes beets’ Sitgie ‘Dew 
auo Of? Atty ot weelt wt tna yoo ett to Bae 6ad- 
—Todem orld Fre ytao eft tamime ou tell bé0s6 109 
da bovil ode fodt Yse west Deiet wetont ots > 
hes Je@the M482 to sertoe od oo betooot caw cttw tad 
“pat? otew ghd be mee tot Atos Jads pqkd Mel be 
Sis ynaw Devefoo 2 yaeembte a Ytivatald yatwel 
<ced y10d10q “wo momLivd « 0a beyolone Lares ene 

eaw od Serebtoon 6S to arctwove ers ao tad sdotte” 
mo begautia tnomedeet bes moles ert nt tefhaw 3° 
jaded ond Odd 2 aotdbcenednt ens°6 4emNee 

to Snort mt bow moolae oft to eblasve faut Grbbaate a 
cao Oy Satis woertoo orld wo Yte-duo « et f® ef dotiie’ yy 
grifvate Yittatelq wee sox of soils 7 *eseensa AIT o 
ors factd yotOde gourd ef? twee seorte 689 to ebte ei 
mt Stylin” ,eonevs citowsrtet to eblie teow orfd of aot 
moon ysserq" felt terion eff anen Seqrose bre ¢ Sen 5 er ¥ 

od ttwob ,om yd Sigt: mo botiew ond! Bas qu omao ao Fi ut | 
Lino’ ute? eth h th ah’ Beall" Wale obbide* ben adie ata 
Yto Hoftaze ie od dus geet Lted ald qu antévo, esw eit Gh Me 





5 


and the lady fell from the car"; that when he heard the bell 
ring the lady “was about on the bottom step of the sar", and 
the conductor "wae standing near the center of the car, inside"; 
that the car had stopped before plaintiff attempted to board it; 
that when the cor first stopped "the front of it was near on the 
street like, the cross line, + « the head of the car was right on 
the cross-walk"; that “the ledy fell just before she got to the 
street, the rear end of the car got to the street"; that the 
car made « second atop, “san where neur the other side of the 
croge line”; that when it stopped “the condustor runs down and 
grabe this lady over her arm and pulle her up and pute her on 
the car, he and another man"; and that the witness when he saw 
plaintiff fall did not leave the place where he was standing and 
run to her assistance because the accident "kind of excited® 
him, and he “could not get his mind together", and when he did 
the conductor wae there, and because he was a colored man and 
ahe was a white lady. 

The testimony of some of the defendant's witnesses is 
in irreconcilable conflict on certain material points with that 
of plaintiff and Lewie, Samuel Fagan, the conductor of the car, 
testified that when his car reached Wentworth avenue he was atand< 
ing on the back platform; that he saw plaintiff etending at the 
corner as the car came to a atop; that plaintiff"grabbed at the 
handle with the right hand and « » made a step, then she fell"; 
that the car had not moved; that he tried to help her on the 
car but "she vould not let me come near"; that she was right 
at the step on the ground; that "I hollered, and the motorman 
came and helped me, « = He was trying to put her on the car; 
she refused; + + we put her on the car; # * the motorman 
lifted her up"; that she was on the ground before being picked 
up about 4 minutes; that the ear stopped altogether about 7 or © 


it ad 


—22 reag ORF ME 
amy, 9820. 9978 — IP ES 
tTontent <ts9 eff to zosmeo ods Toor nathnase. saw : 
a er drsod of hogqmosts —————— u 
odd 50 wert sw tt 20 snow? edd” boqgode sent? Tap, ocd sede 
f m0 digit sew tao eft to basd elt » « centl asong odd 
on af foqode oweted seul ott Pent ..A 
ou⸗ said "tong ex of fog tap odd Yo bao aeen a⸗ 
aiid Yo ehte resid odd tage rain cave" «gots. 
bre seo} eine Yoseuinee ang" beatote 4 cece act. 
mo ted stuq bon qr tet afing dae wie ted weve ¥ 
wae, of cody aaondin ots sadd Se "men sedgena & 
bas gathaate aon ec exer opaiq edd aysel fon DEB Lt 
"bestoxe to batt" snobioos ond oamesed eonateta 
bth 0 medix ona «Moreno atm wld 499 20m Miuwoo* 
beta mam berofoo # saw en enumeed hae .eved? sew | 23 O61 

on toe Oak Ohta 


em ts 


at ceswony te ptinenmoten ons Te enor te vnovtaaoe eft... mae 

sorts i bw esatoq istrodam ntedtoo 10 spifimop © onooe 
— founsa — tata 
sands an St ean feaune. pen alae b 
ets ta gnthrsse Yt get. ate wen eet Farts teriottalg xond oe 
od? te hedderg" Tit stale Sedd yqote a OF omao 280 offs 
t"ILe% one reds — 8 oben © © fre bead, gigts oct date 
ots ro resi afer of bets? of sade ~bevon tom bai 180 edt 
Sriptt caw esta todd "2208 omoo om teL gon biuow * Pd, a0 


4 q 
Soros ett bre .deweLtod I" gat phmyony octg mo 7 


it 





















“ig 





4 
|} Arao oct mo nort tug of yntyas eam of 9m pogtort + 


’ 9* 


memrosom ot « © tawo eld no todd tug ow 22. — beauten ede, 
| betot anted ovoted fnuo7y add mo waw erie tag i"qy ted, Dogtee 


) & to v suods tesifegot ls beqqota *0 eds tests jvosunin & 
Bebe 





Be 


minutes; amd that it made but the one stop at Wentworth averue, 
Thomas Srennan, the motorman of the oar, teatified that when 

he first saw plaintiff she was aitting on the street about two 
feet from the rear end of the car and south of it; fthat"t asked 
her to get on the cars; she told me to leave her alone; I said 

I would have to oall the wagon: when I said that she aaid to put 


her on the car; I took her by the arm and she got up": that from 


the time the car stopped to the time he put her on the car about 

6 minutes had elapsed; that the car "made only one stop" at 
Wentworth avenue: that when the car reached the howpital he "car~ 
ried her bodily inte the hospital and helped her on a wheel chair", 
Williem Gunkel, a passenger on the oar, testified that asa the 

Gar approsched Wentworth ayenue he was sitting on the south side 
of the car locking out of the window; that he saw her on the 
atreet before the car stopped at seth and Ventworth avenue; that 
he aid’see her fall, but learned that she had fallen when the 
motorman and conductor brought her in; and that he did not re- 
member how many stops the car made there that night, Thee other 
passengers in the oar testified to the effect that but one stop 
of the car was made at 26th street and Yentworth avenue. Two of 
defendant's witnesses testified to the effevet that they noticed 
the odor of liquor upon the breath of plaintiff thet evening. 
Plaintiff, however, teatified that she had not been drinking any 
intoxicating liquor thet evenin«, in which she was corroborated 
by the testimony of the friend at whose home she visited just 
before starting on the Wentworth averme car, and by the teatimony 
of Sister Wery Relen, in charge of the emergency department of 
Mercy Hospital, to the effect that she saw and was near plaintiff, 
after she was brought hore tec the hoapital, in the emergency hall 
and at the emergency entrance; that plaintiff waa not under the 
influence of liquor and that there was no oder of it on her breath. 



























-eimove ditousnet $9 goss em eid hunt han ot SaHld tna” 4 
nedw Suid bolttiees puso edd to masobea odd gate 
ows tuodes Soente odd x0 gntatte onw oda Viténbata * on. 

bons rast Hi nied aie ea aa 
btwa X yenole ted eveol of om Siod ote puso odd no 

fuq oF btae ode durit Bhan 1 mode — ilas'Se 
mont turk — sop ede inte man etd yd odd 00d 1 oa 

suode 190 wii ao ted ⸗ eild orld Of bequodu “B06 
da “qade ono yino obaa® se oda Jada” theaqats be 

~12e" oni Endtqeor edd Desfowen 0 etd aostw dads rr 
ataclo Leeds no ‘tert bonted itt Corkqnad ont Bint YEE 
1d 96 said GeirLso0s vm edd mo sepmenag a he 
ebto Kgv0e edd mo gikdthe caw od ouneve cdtoNdnet 
6d 0 tek wae ent tastd iis a aa 
ouak younove idmwdoxot bre dese to bequede “wo end ete 
ost morte oui bast ene saste boerusas Suet «tat wade 
~o1 ton Bib of Sait daa pnt tod Scigutond tosowbeoo & 
vertto owaciT sittin ‘bailh weal ein tas ade abe eta 

Tose emo Jud ford JSveTIe etd oF HotrtIeed a9 od ak w 

te owl .ouneves ddnowenet bea Seo1e ised da eka aan * 

beoison yar? sats Joo%le ads oF dotttsues cccnent iy ef 
sptinove, dads Yildataiq Yo t2eetd ond Mmoqs touphs to 

ws gainiwb.aeos Jon baci ee Sats Borthvaes erovewod 41 

betatodories. cew erfe dotcte m2 yanhneve sorts rosy hE » hc 
drut dodtaty orto enor oucriu ta bask? ect 30 yroakinsd « x 

vroetoso⸗ ott yd Boe geo oureva dsrowderew ed m9 sxtinate ¢ 
to sronreqed yornwgteme eft Yo optacio mt woLelt vrei * to 
eTiténtalg wsem saw Sue wee ere sald SoeVte afd of efatiqnok y ie 

Lia: yore; 7em0 ond nt ,Lattquod ett od erort Sriguotd one sca 

ed? tebrus ton naw Yittataly sods foonsrine youeytoue edd $a bike 

disord wast mo 3t to s0bo on sew eyed Surly bus wouptt Yo eoneuting 


- 


.? 


5 





wel 





It is undisputed that plaintiff was severely injured, 

and counsel for defendant de not argue that the verdict is ex- 

| cessive. 

| The main contention relied on by counsel for a reversal 

ie that the verdict is againat the manifest weight of the evide 
ence, The evidence is very conflicting on the question whether 
the defendant was guilty of the negligence charged in the first 
and second counts of the declaration, ani the gase ig one pe- 
culiarly within the province of the jury. They saw ani heard 
the various witnesses and cbhserved their conduct and demeanor 
while on the witness-stand., We cannot say that their verdict 
is manifestly against the weight of the evidence, and that the 
judgment should be reversed for that reason, 

It is next urged that the trial court erred in refus- 
ing to admit proper evidence, The conductor of the car, Magan, 
after testifying that the car had stopped at the intersection 
of the two streets about 7 or 6 minutes, was asked why it was 
that the car stayed there so long, ani he replied "because she 
refused to get on", on motion of the attorney for plaintiff 
the answer waa stricken. Assuming that this was a statement of 
fact and not an expression of an opinion or conclusion, the court 
committed no error prejudicial to the defendant, because the 
witness just shortly before had testified that the motorman was 
trying to put her on the oar and "she refused", And subsequent- 
ly in the trial, when the moterman wae on the stand, he testi-+- 
fied that he asked her to get on the car and that "she toid 
me to leave her Alone”, Nor do #6 think that it was prejudicial 
error for the court to refuse to allow the witness, Rowan, to 
answer the particular question put to hin, ae argued by counsel. 

It is further urged that the court erred in refusing 
to give to the jury five certain instructions offered by the 





News. 


ports ortw notdeet eis mo grkiet iiss cer at 


Smsoo ort ywoluulonoe to motntyo nw to molasesqee ns 


ie 


aa. 


sor ta i i acl * 
a CE ee r 
X mrt ee ew : iy PRiwecde te - wid 
sinnstinit wi vale aici e 
* ect a acter Se GA Heys SNES a 



















we 


Soak? od? ett boxtao oomogtigen oft Yw Ltn 
~oq oo w2 suse ei) beth ynolsutelo’b ety to on 
inwct bin nae yoat EE edt to eothvony ee 
<orwemeb hrs soubtoy itedd bevwads haw seonentiw & 
tolbuer sheds Jads Yes Sonnao oF sbeewde~avendiw et 
rtd Jedd tech yodmohivd ai w diijtew ea centage! 400 
vewtot mt bowie Jwoe Isiud ete sutlt begets Seon 0 OE 
ings” ym elt % osoub«oo elt .eomebive weqorg FEHB 
wotiooetmiak att te beqyote Dak ww ocd sat grt 
aww ¢2 ytw bodes sew .eoduntm 640 T tu0de’ 
ate omsmood” hellqot ot bes pmol on erent Deyate + 
Tilimlely to't yortosse ods to-nolsom a0 4 “ao Fog 
to tuoms¢ute a caw eltd Saad grtmisod .nedohese baw owe 


¥ 
peste «| 


a 


el? eavsced .Jnabmeteh ont of Leteliuterq tow 
Gew fanrrotom off fod belt tIeed bad ose%ed yLetode 
~ineupendim beA ."besu'tet eda* bad ano erfd mo ted SHY 
-igset of ybuste of? no saw masrrodon ocld modw (lated 4 
Dfot ore salt kes rap Off nO Foy OF OM Beten OM had 
falotbuterq eaw th saris antdd ow ob a0M s"omosss it oypst ‘6d 
OF ,mowoeH .suentia eit wolla Of eutfiot oF ston etd 40% 4 
sfeemvon yd botmise wa aati od Suq moiseauy ialwotsraq ott | 
grterier ni horie suou oat sens feyurtedewn of gt 6) be 
ed? yo LeteTto emolsoustant mtatieo evlt wmt odd of owky oF 


— * 


we 


\¥ 7a 
44 


elle 


defendant. ‘he court gave @ instructions offered by the plain- 
tiff, and 24 instructions offered by the defendante After 
examination of ail the giver instructions, we are of the opin- 
ion that the jury were fully inetructed, and that no error, 
prejudicial to the defendant, was committed by the refusal. to 
give the instructions mentioned, We think they were sufficient- 
| ly covered by the other inetructions. 

| he judgment of the Girowit Court is affirmed. 





APPIRMED. 


\e 

















welaig ald vo bewwgie, enotjournsent & ori 
WtTA, sdawboyteh ods yd howeRte aa 
~o2u9 oo te ox qakgoundent sorty at 2 
| gHOTHO OF N86 Pro whedeunteat 
— — —— 
—— — —— 
_pemahtouveagh tedde. od9, 
— — 


* = | * wae ys ; pe J ai wan't 


9* +, 


sentinel 
* in, eS ——— x 
Lace anes A PEeBR CF. 7 


— ee ——— Co i 
— 


—* nt . Wet Th aitise camo pra 


24 ————[ — 


J 


a? 
oe ® 


wis imma oH 
— ⸗ O8 ea, 
coh peer 5 ie” ein: 
ee bate rr ‘ eeto2tee meee 

i * ger duet xy oor gee na oie i 
7— z tT: detiee or ye 


5 cw 
é o-> atte 


(wh Sod) diay 


d ; £ * r Bs 
* 33 “% Siag tas $ 
—X —— 
——— a aa 
ä fs, * 
⸗ as ie , J 





2 ates # 
. 










230 = 17567 


THOMAS FOULKES, 


) 
Defendant fin Error, ) 
) ERROR TO CIRCUIT COURT OF 
VBe ) 
) COOK COUNTY. 
FRANCIS VM. STEW. ) 
Plainti ) 


Dy 
f in lrror. 1R9OT.A. 1983 


In an action of assumpsit brought by FPoukkes against 
Steward, in the Circuit Court, plaintiff had judement December 
23, 1909, against defendant for $2247 damages, and defendant 
appealed, In June, 1910, on the stipulation of the parties, 
an order wan entered in this Court disamiseing the appeal and 
one in the Circuit Court vacating the judement and dismissing 
the suit. Thereupon George A. Purant moved in the Cireuit Court 
that the order vacating the judgment, iendening the suit be vae 
cated on the ground that before the same was entered Poulkes 
had assigned the judgment te him. The motion was resisted by 
Foulkes, who testified that the writing produced by Durant pur- 
porting te be an assignment of the judgment was not executed 
by him, but that his purported signature thereto was a forgery. 
The Court found thet the assignment was executed by Poulkes and 
set aside the order vaceting the judgment and dismissing the 
suit. On appeal that order was affirmed by this Court and leave 
given Durant to defend in the name of Poulkes the writ of error 
which Steward had sued out to reverse the judement of December 
23, 1909, and he has filed his brief and argument accordingly. 

The action is in form assumpsit. The declaration con- 
sists of a apecial count and the common counts. The special 
count alleges in substance that defendant, béfore and on the 


27th day of August, 1901, was a physician in Chicago, who em- 





— WE), OF AoA 
rer" Tee T * 


es, * 0 Jat 



















* hue seer ; 9 * 


tantane aenisnet yi btapibiee ‘Anqounen 20 * — ri 
rederooed —E — —— HNued ttuerto out Py b 
snabaored ‘dns tomeomb Sessa xb tne bates santars 
een ise * so laatus toa oat 10 4,028 oma, at be 2 
bee Lavane ada ‘gmtam boned ares, ‘ards: mt bosetao: ‘enw @ 
— hint taeormbut- oxy naeasar fryer —— 
Wod uoxin ant nd dover ree | enz00? mequerwd? 5 
aN of ite “ont gasnednath, tromytiit oft pattacay bro 
aoxivot, portee new omg ont ohored tone paworty 
WW Hetatoer aan soliton ‘on? mia of Smvatybut eas | 
tq IMBTUT YS oouboE wn dies oxt? tara —— * 
betuooxe jon eaw. smomgheat eit to trecungtaen’ i a od N 
-¥xegtot a saw ovetedt etesengin betteqieq ala sade td 
dae sex fuct <i badcoexe naw Jnvmnsioas ons sand - bauer : a 0 
on? goleatonth hoa tmompbst, ont gritscay rebx0 ont | bes 
Gvasl bra tryed aids x6 bemtt tq saw ‘sebre toct⸗e Lavqas 20 ’ 
torre to sine oft godfueT to. —R dao vo of — aay: 2 
rodmeoed do inomabut, ant earsvox of tue bows had brewer 
eVigathroooe taemuy ie bra Yehud etd bortt eat on ne a of be 
“209, nolgaisloeb, aut? theqnuase moꝛ at al ‘nozdos oft én 
inineqe, ofT ae auoo wommoo eae ban gnis90 Aatuods e te es ’ 
ent mo baa etoted taabasted toxd wonatedun mt aogeste | — 
~mo ow oaaotad at aatoteyig # wew “f0eL ,7euQuh to eb ane 





— 


ployed agents and employes to meet incoming trains and induce 
strangers to go to his office; that on said day one of such 
arents accented plaintiff on his arrival in Chicage from the 
State of Iowa and, by falsely representing that the defendant 
was an eminent eye apecialist and would examine his ¢yes free 

ef charge, induced plaintiff to go to the office of defendant; 
that defendant falsely and fraudulently represented to plain- 
tiff that he was suffering from a complication ef diseases and 
that his optic rerve was se diseased that he would soon lose 
his eyesight unless he had immediate treatment, and that de- 
fendant offered to effect a permanent cure ef his syesight and 
the complication ef diseases far the aum of $800; that plaintiff 
believed the said reprenentations to be true, relied implicitly 
thereon and paid defendant $400 for the pretended treaiment of 
the alleged ailments; that the representations made by defend- 
ant were false and defendant knew they were falee, and that they 
were made for the purpese of defrauding plaintiff; that defend- 
ant was mot an eye specialist; that plaintiff was in good health 
and hig eyes in geod condition, with the exception of the weak- 
nese incident to a man of his age. It is also alleged in this 
count that in the seurse of said pratended treatment, defendant, 
for the purpose ef rebbing plaintiff of a further sum of MOREY, 
took plaintiff te a certain place on South Clark street for a 
Turkish bath, and while plaintiff was taking said bath defendant 
took from the pockets of plaintiff the further sum of $150, which 
defendant kept and cenverted to his own use. Theat defendant 
thereby became liable te pay to elaintiff the said sums of MOney, 
amounting to $1,500, which defendant undertook and promised to 


pay. The sd damnum was afterwards inersased to $2500, 



































soubnt bas antast yatmoont seem of —— — ext 
owe Yo ono yah bise so fast jootrro ate ot 6a 0} at03 
ons mov? ‘eneotay mt lavitwe elf mo uani⸗ta bopeopenye 
tnabmeteb of! fadt gal tuvaotqey xles lst ve bra 
“Bett as xo uta enimaxs biuow bas taffstoeca exe te 
j tnahnetes to. enttte edt o⸗ og ot WiImtaty beoubne 
~atalg ot bodonotqer uLsmeLubuet? bas fos tat ne 
⏑ ter aha ag 
uot” moos Divow of tad Seasonth oe aay S¥ter onege a 
<98' Gat ‘boa , tomteoxs statbonnt bad ox eaetau Sify 
ban Yigrvors ahd te owe ¢ronamiog & footie of boverte de 
Yraewierg dney (0088 Ye iva bad te eeeavald Yo site 
—— —— Do⏑o— — ere io 
I maentiag a⸗ besmotera eae zed “oot tnebweteb: * 
pre wt abstr end) Se¢nogernet ent Jase ‘intnoatia be 4 
vert twet bee vente’ oxew ond word tnabnoveb bas ‘eater 
-bnotek Sued ;Ytidntarg gatbuertod to oscgxia ‘odd “wi | 
ds food hoog mi new TUL iate rg dad? itatthtoogs exe me as ae : * 
sigew ext to Rolsqonxe ott thw motel broo booy nt soxs we si 
ald? rs hogette coals at st 4 one ald 10 nem a at snobboe re 
THD AOD tnemiaet? bobresore bise Te eaTvoD end ai ted 
Yonder to nwe THI wwt ‘fo Nieatata ‘gaiddor to enone | 
"'g 20T toorte out qseo8 me dsafq nintres a of —X * 
abas dod Atad bias gatas sow Wii tntale ‘eLisw ‘bas’ (ae se 
dotde OFS to awe redo omg Laatata Ye Aora ‘oad wnt 
thabneted toa? 30% awd cia of Boz te¥R0O hae tqot thasn fal 
Yemen to-anve bias ef? ttitalars ef wee oF oltart mies e 
68 Ssetmory bae Aoosto bay Jaade9%0b HoLaw (2008, £9 of As 
00888 oF douse ton! abtewrote wae ke . 


— 





eae 
* Tae 


4 ‘Val ») ATS 


* 


Cae ae 


WR. PRESIDING JUSTICE BAKER 
DELIVERED THE OPINIOW OF THE COURT. 


We shall not attempt to state the evidence in detail. 
The recovery resis mainly on the testimony of the plaintiff and 
that testimony is seo improbeble in many respects, so self 
contradictory and so opposed te the teetimony of other witness- 
es, that we think that the judgment should be reversed, and will 
only state out reseons for such cenclusion. 

The only ground on which Durant can defend the judg- 
ment is, that Foulkes assigned the judgment to him before he 
stipulated that the appeal should be dismissed in this Court and 
the judgement of the Circuit Court vacated by that Court. To 
maintsin this pesition he was compelled to prove over the deni- 
al under oath of Foulkes, that the assignment preduced by him 
was executed by Foulkes. 

At the trial of the cause Foulkes testified substan- 
tially as alleged in the special count sas to how he came to 
eo to Steward's office August 27, 1901; that it was there agreed 
that he should pey Steward for trea:ment $800; that he paid him 
$450 in currency and at his request signed three papers, without 
readine them or having them read to him, which Steward said were 
prominseory notes. He produced but one paper which he claimed 
was then signed, and that was a cheek fer $450, The testimony 
for the defendant was that the agreement was that Foulkes should 
pay $450, and for that sum he gave his check, That he paid no 
currency and signed no papers other than the check, YFoulkes 
further testified that fifteen months afterwards he saw at his 
bank in Danbury, Iowa, the papers that he signed August 27; 
that they were, "a cheek for $550, a sight draft for $210, 
and afterwards a note taken up there for $150", He produced the 






















RENAE SOLTSUL OUTCIREAT see é 
Rae wT 99 YORKER me cUMITTEAE —— 


——— tqmodea Fon Leaite’ wil 

hte Ti tate ta pdt Yo Yori tee? sad no — * 
oa ‘atoedae ven nf” — PS EEL a 
canendiv teddies Yo uedi teed edt 02 beaoage — | 
tte bas shattered Sd biwede soemout ote sand antes pis 
——— ——————— 
“abut, oft Sueded mao ‘gratunt ito bite ao, Sailoty Ueno eit bi, 
Od owed tt OF rnemmbdt Od B toon abtiaot tail 
bn Wed ante ‘ni Beastoa:s of Stuods Lasqqe eat ‘saad ® 
Gt etme teat yo Betoosy ¢w0d dtuocty ‘sad t6's 
-Pa08 wad av evotg ot — caw OM wortticg eke él 
mid t beoutior dnomgtans edd Sade waettaet 16 ate 

— Lactivet wh 
okt Dertitess eexreet eavas odd Y6 tat odd —7 
4 o⸗ somo of vod of ea Sanion feltovae wt “de Wastin} oa a 
poorns ‘@ten? sow #2 tadd ;fOCL ,VS fewawA eoltto a tbs 
wit blag ed tats (0088 trom actt tot btewes? wee dtvede | th 
tvodtiw — petd?. bengts faoupet oid te bas one 2 
wetew bine Htawedn Hotde etd of baer modt satved x0 mode 


= Sle 


Bemisfo ed dottw teqnq sae tud Beouborq et .acton eds te 
Umomitees off ORES to% Yipes 3 aw fads ban pbengie * ts a 
Bivona acxfuct tat? eaw tnomeerga od? tad? oaw snabine' 2 ft ; 
on blag ef tat? .xooro ata oven ot ive tad rot be ef x 
aOXiveY .xoero ont nade tedto ateqeg: on “Sonata Nes’ * 
oka # wae of chtawtedts 23mm noestLT sons bertivese wa 
i¥s Pacrgya benala ost tons aroqag ents sor eww wi He 
{OL8$ sor stexb — a oert xo? toedy at orew one ¢ 
- @€% Beouhorq of "08 L8 tot ered? qa coda! eten s abtswietts * 











oP a 


— r 
i eae 


check but not the draft or note. We afterwards testified that 
the note was sent te a bunk at Danbury for collection in Feb- 
ruary, 1904, and introduced a letter from Ellen G, Roberts, 
dated March 6, 1904, notifying him that she had sent to the 
bank for collection hin note for $150, dated August 4, 1905, 
payable te the order of TF. M. Steward. We think that the evi- 
dence fails to show that Poulkes ever gave Eteward a sight draft 
for $216, but does show that July 2, 1902, he gave him a check 
for #210, and further shewa that the only note for $150 he 
ever gave Steward wes given August 4, 1903, and that therefore 
his testimony as to the making of a sight draft for $210 and a 
note for $150 August 27, 1901, and that he saw said draft and 
nete at hie bank fifteen months Later was not true. 

A portion of the recovery was for $150 alleged to 
have been stolen from plaintiff at a turkish bath house on the 
evening of August 27, 1901. This claim reats on the teatimony 
of Foulkes ulome, He testified that when — at Steward's 
office the first time he was told to return at 7 P. ¥.; that he 
did s¢ and went in a cah with Steward and Wises Roberts to the 
bath house, where hs wae given a bath and the 4150 taken from 
hia trousers. Opposed to this teatimony was the denial of 
Steward and Vines Roberts that they say him in the evering of 
Avurust oF er that either ever went with him to = bath house, and 
the testimony of Abraham &, Beamish that Steward was at his 
house from 6 to 9:49 P. MW. ef the day in queation; that he then 
paid Steward, whe was his family physician, $27.00 for medical 
service and was given a receint, which ke produced, and the 
testinony of Thomas Reanish, which corroborated the teatimony of 
his father, Abraham 5. Reamish., The Reamishes are horse shoers, 


each having his own shop, and no fact or circumstance is shown 





fax — # duawes? — some eesti tant won 8) : 


Se 




















Gadd boltisect shtaswesta. se ..yeten to thged edt ton ty ¥ : 
-det at mapiteetios tot yavdaad de dned a od foes saw 8 
— .9 HeLIS Mor ww8tes » bequborimt 7* > 
edt of tnoe hod J— sane mak peat Rt Ds 
1208 1 teen besar 0248 tot ston aid aottoott 
~ive ods ‘fads aAntele oF buaene 0X — 


iat oe 


Sooo # mtx gray od PORE sh face wade anoh tu8 0 
MW +? Dh oF ie 


‘Od ORIG, 29% ton Aao adt tard oroa · watt Sal 
=o 6 @ ; 


oxotaredt, aa? ban doe oP Fauna one be rene 
iw fh 
fbr OISP wer 424% tate, Yo yatiam ont of al 


bas Seah biaa, waa on sex one LORE * — aa 
—— ott ton gas ‘metas axityom moernn? sant a 
os bowers ote ‘tot naw vrevooet eas 0 not aroq A. 
ond no sesod fited sett 9 te Vittatala mon? metoda | 
wom sass ont no argent mielo aka? . - L095, * tawguh > 
atbramere te gaw od node sant bertivaee of . emote 
od sade —* J ta nurtot ‘ot BL? sae ost omts taut,» 
ott of atredoN anl® base buswet? assy dao a ab —5 
sort, soxat OUL ond be died a nevis saw on erode 8 
te fateeb ent asw ‘aomtiaes wide of hewogqo 
te gaineve ef? at min wea vost tattd —R rey 7 ou 
bre ,onuort find a of mid date tnew 1970 aedthe tad? 0 a 
aid ta aaw biawesd® tac? drineet 2 medaxdh Yo ent : 
neds ed dud? jnottacwp ai yb ‘out to oi 08:@ ot 3 mort, 
inglbem vot OO.VSS ,matotaysq bee ant ney ontw —— 
‘ene hea ,heouhorg of dokdw ttapen 4a govts atl dao 9LvaoS 
to ynomtzeaost eft betaxodorion doldaw Ha tras aanos? * * * 


— sexed ots gede imme on? a ao 8 nated ——— 
mwode vi sonstasworte 10 tost os bane coo nwo abt * 


brewer ita 


vo 






* pati 


affecting their credibility. The verdict for the plaintiff as 
to this claim is, in cur opinion, clearly against the evidence 
and the trial Court ehould, for that reason, have granted a new 
trial. 

Another part of the recovery was for $500 paid by 
Foulkes by check to the order of 1. J, Walters, treasurer, dated 
August 26, 19043. Poulkes testified that August 27, 1901, 
Steward gave him a written guaranty te cure him or refund the 
money; that he was net in Chicuge between August 27, 1901, and 
August 24, 1905; that August 7, 1903, he wrote Steward, de- 
nouncing him as a awindler; stating among other things: "You 
got @ cheek for $350, a wight draft for $210, and {450 in eur- 
rency when I was at your office, and you atele $190 out of my 
pecket when I was at the bath heuse"; thet in answer Steward 
wrote him that if he would send him or to the People's Drug 
Store all their correspondence and the contract or agreement, 
he would refund the money paid him; that he afterwards wrote 
Steward that he would be at the Atlantic Hotel, Chicago, at ten 
e'oleck August 24; that he met Steward ai the iotel and gave 
him his letters and guaranty, and Sieward said thay would ge to 
the bank and get the money; that they went out on the etreet and 
@ man told him he had the smalipox; that Steward eaid the man 
W468 @ health officer and he weuld have to go with him; that 
the man took him to the Leonard Institute in the Auditerium 
Building; that a man there teld kim he had smallpox and would 
have to go to the Detention Hespital for six weeks, but he 
would cure him in five or six days for $500, and thereupon he 
gave a check to Walters for that sum, ag before ateted. The 
only evidenoe tending to connect Steward with the Leonard In- 
stitute was copies of lettsrs made by Foulkes and his testimony 
that Steward, Auguet 27, 1901, said that he owned the Leannmrd 








Ge 
























ea ttientaiq ef? 10? folhbiev eT Wbtidibero thent yatto n 
Conehtve eff tantane Viteefo attio awe at at’ mato 8 
wen 2 hoteery vved —— ps fatx? 
4 smi Hat “2 ited Bae PORE 
seen. sls it-wtn Sines toh rec lela 
betab ,Rewaser?” ;exe9L6¥ .t .ii To tebt0 edt of usenet at 
" ghORE {TR PauBWA Fads BELtI¢est goxtuct’ LkORL , 
ald béwrtos to mH OLD of Uthat ROE Oe “ 
bas LOE {8 Ieaguh adawdort egeottd at ton aaw of tant 
~ab) ,bupwets efor om ,CORL .~ salad saxty feOer | ” 
HOY" ragnktt wostvo amome yatieta jx0 Loma s aa mee y 
THO RE ORNS Ome, ,0f89 282 steed Sdyto a ORES tor Mas 
iro duo OSE ofeds voy bas (ottto 10% da Raw Tm 
brewos? towane at todd ;*eavort ated and do eaw I ae 
aor wt ateeost ate of to mba bien Biwow — —* 


Doin’ 
—* 


Ma 


ee 


efor ebrewtetts od dad? mtd bkaq yomom we — 
net da oe sſon obmeftA edd tu o¢ bigow od tend te 1a 
eva Die [ofoll ett Ja Huawert vom ot fadd (ds wate 


ef ey Bkwow Yet? died Brewed bna ,ysnaxevy bad wieder Sha 


bua t58ive one wo tuc thew ved! sett jxonom odd Jey Baw | 
nom #42 bind biweess tade jxoqliame edd ber om mid bier o 
tend? Gut asiw oy of sved bivow of bas teoltto dé Leon — 
mistrevldist eft mt edustiwnl besmoed ox? of ath Xoo? m 
bisow bus xeqifame bad of min bfet eredd mom @ tant jy cy = 
wot tut ,akwow xta rot Laviqacl motdneded eft ‘oe — a 


ef noquotes? bas ,OOUG tot wysd xte xo evlt mt mid 0 we 

eft .botedn otoled es pve tad? tol giedfeY of Aowdo 9 _ an 

“a Drbvoot ed? Aviw biawedR sownmen oF pRibnod conebive ie 3 
unentInes etd bao sexfuet ys bam atettel Yo aetqod saw odutiie 


Hunneet off bemwo ed Jatt blae ,fO@L ,TS Pavan ,brewes8 tant 


Inetitute, and that he then saw Walters im Steward's office, 

and that Steward then gave him a printed slip bearing the name 
of the Leonard Institute,Leonard president and Walters treasurer, 
Neither the guaranty nor any originals of the letters above re- 
ferred to were produced by Foulkes, but he produced what he tes- 
tified were copies of the guaranty and of his lettere to Steward 
and of Steward's letters to him, and on his statement that the 
originals of Steward's letters were returned te him August 26, 
1904, the copies were admitted in evidence. Steward testified 
that he did not give Foulkes any cuaranty ner write or racsive 
the letters mentioned by Foulkes in his testimony. “es think the 
clear prependerance cf the evidence is that Foulkes was in OChi- 
cago several times between August 27, 1901, and August 26, 1903; 
that he was in Steward's office July 28, 1902, was then operated 
en for hemorrhcids by Dr. ©. 8. Steward and gave I. MM. Staward 
a check for $210; that he was aguin in Steward's office Auguaet 
4, 1904, and then gave him the note for $150 referred te in the 
letter of Hlilen @. Roberts intreduced in evidence by Poulkes; 
that he was in the People's Drug Stere August 5, 1903, and then 
handed the proprietor, Moraba, a preseription of Dr. Steward of 
that date. 

The copies which Poulkes testified he made of Stew~ 
ard's letters to him and of his lctters to Steward are of Little 
value as evidence tending to corrcborate his testimeny, for the 
enly evidence tending to show that suck ecepies are copies of 
original letters is the testimeny of Foulkes. He also intro- 
duced in evidence a letter purporting to be a letter from Stew- 
ard to Salem Baker, Hampton, Iowa, dated August 27, 1907, which, 
if genuine, was well calculated te prejudice the jury against 


Steward, He testified that the letter was signed by Steward; 























eH itibers there itor | 
» getimer tana till sided 
oman od? qubweed gkie bestiag © ld. ovey node beawese! 
sTo1vese%s axodie® bas Aobie:it daonoeũ.v ·u sent ⸗waren of 
—* evoda aredtel wds ——— 
898 of Caw Beoudosy om ud Bed lveT yd beouborq eTbw! 
buewes2. oF st9%90£ wid to. bas ynarwsy eft te eotqon 
edt tect tremeseta aid na baa ymid- od erestoL a 
«28 sangud mig of Sermset orew aredees e 
bolthteet Duswov2 .eonebivs at betsinbs orew —* 
evteses to ediuw x08 Wasts9s Uns aeiivct setg ton 
ort? sink? oF .Ymonitasd elt mt aexinot ys bomottiom 3 
“240 Rt wow gOx{uoT sat? at sonedive ext Ye sonmeobnoqedg: 
{LORE 4B tauyur baa , LO@L (°S feoneh moewded oem? Le ved 
besaze¢o weds maw ,S0RL ,OS <Lue eorrre ag btaweda a aoe ot 
basiwede M.S ovey bas vraWere 8 40 vad eC ebLose : 
sauqwh volttto afhvewere ol aiage saw sf dace (ores xe Aosso 
‘eit ai of Hert tet OULS 10% ofoa edt aid sveq noms baw’ «! ‘ 0 it 
;eewLuet yi torebive si boowborént edredod .0 n6LeK * 
mom? baw ,COCL .o feuguh exo8S gu #telqoot eds ar eae aes ’ 
Yo bisvst? .1C Yo moliqitoaesy & ,adatou , tovelte one 


ea 


+ see 


_ 





at 


iter) 
vy 


-woi0 to obum ox boltiiaes eetivel doldw aehqog oft f ‘ 
eL27iL To ous hiawels of exeseel ald to bas mid 08 ‘etester: 
edt Trot yynomtiwet elA etatodeti09 of Qathned ‘eonebive oa | . 
Yo dolqon eww aeldoo Mous*Jont woke oF yatbaes sonshivé v c 
-omint outa of ,eextfvoT Yo yroutiecs odd Gh erettel® 
-wet® matY Yottel » ed 08 gaiisoquig ‘eorsar 4 ——a 
donate SORL ,TS taunwk betad ,ewot ea qneh reste oten er Sed 
\@enlene ytut oni eolbulexg ot botetaetso £lew aaw <omtutog th | 
phuawole Yd Hongin sow telieL esd tans bolthoess eh° | shiewoss 


that it wae handed to him at Denbury by a man whose neme he 
could not remember and whose place of residence was unknown to 
him, Against this testimony was the testimony of defendant 
Steward, of 0. 8. Steward, his brother, ef Mias Roberte and of 
Warshall D. Hwell, an expert in handwriting, that the letter 
was not signed by Steward. We think this evidence shows that 
the letter was not signed by Steward, and therefore doez not 
tena to prove plaintiff's case. 

Again, it is to be noticed that while plaintiff in 
his special count alleged the payment of $450 in currency, the 
giving of a check for $350, of a sight draft for $210 and 
the stealing of $150, he made no mention of the givine of a 
check for $500. We think that the evidence shows that while at 
the Leonard Institute Poulkes guve a power of attcrney to Leon- 
ard, its president, authorizing Leonard te act for Foulkes "In 
an Sllered conspiracy or blackmailing scheme of Lodavine Miller 
and Dr. F. M. Steward x a2 by which I pay money to said 
Lodavine Miller and said Steward." Ye think the finding as to 
the #500 paid by plaintiff to Yalters, treasurer, is against the 
clear preponderance of the evidence, and for that reason alec a 
new trial should have been eranted, 

The Court gave for the plaintiff the following in- 
struction: 

"The court instructs the jury that the credibility of 
the witnesses is a question exclusively fur the jury. And 
the law is that here a number of witnesses testify directly 
oppesite to each other, the jury are not bound te regard 
the weicht of the evidence as evenly balanced merely because 
of numbers. ‘The jury have a right to determine from the 
appearance of the witnesses on the stand, their manner of 
testifying, their apparent candor and fairness, their ap- 
parent intelligence, or luck of intelligence, and from a}l 
the other surrounding circumstances apparent on the trial, 


determine which witnesses are the more worthy of credit, and 
to give them credit accordingly." 


| 


| 
| 
i, 




























te. 
2 amen seat na Mets —— 
— —— 
v⸗aeꝛa Yo ꝓaot⸗a⸗⸗ ons pRAe, nent te oe | 


* ape BizedoH as tu Yo vrestond | ae — 


tun “faa 
yp Settet ede sodt spate twomaad wk. J Bt — 
——— gonebive Add wd Anis ow iol vvr· —5 


OSs TH ee 868 
, — bengta tom tes. 
ORT EET ENT BOB Me 
stage a Tthtalelg — 


Oo Li ahiter <orurbis ante Dpettee ————————————— 
* —A——— sans boot ton ed of et $2 5 
<5 i eee wel enti lala 
— 0 S932, INS bogetia tmu09 — 
Pan ot 
og 20% Heth tyts 2 To 0288 rot soods # 4 


wt yond tt ike Phe 
i" to paivin okt Yo notsmom on oben of ORL 20 gute i 

4 Ae thd "ine er 

dl — tat? awors sonshiye ‘elt snd ‘eY .008 


«pe ay Sey aT bs 


_, moet oF wenmeate, ze maMOT * oven — seu ia 
he eeu lsot Wer. oe byenees anisixodtus csnepteer | 

It reg 
| MERRY ontymber 9 sian {oe pai tiawioe id 0 “oosiqenos 


bles. o2 venom vag iT dott xt nee — ae 
i as ꝓthanꝛ oat aad, oF e ofrtgwe38 Dhac bre —— 
Ent ol at atemsenett, ame tat of Mumery w 2* 

n 2 moeaet tunds zot bas sonebive, oat to “sonarehmoas 


* "y ofey ; * * 

——— need ovad rr 

‘a Si i 

=a qaiwoflo? odd Ytitatalq oa⸗ * ⸗v. buyer Aunt a 


> steel Pu 
pa ‘wehthatbess edt tan? ytt, end — ‘eee oat? 
-Uist ont rot Yleviawloxe motéaeup 2 at asanemt tw.» 
Ulsoerth ylitees seesentin to isdmun » otedw tadt at wal 
bisger of bavod Jon ots yaw oft yredd@ Bose ot, oe 
“sages xfetom beonalad yineve es conebive end res infaieow 
itoT? emtatetob of Hatt e oven yawt ed? yore 
Ye tonnem tied? ,bnete ef? mo seonsendiw ef? to eons 
-qs tledy ,agedtiat bus tobneo tne eqqe thedd 4 —— 
fe mozt Sus ,ooneniffetnt to You 10 ,sonmentl io tne 
,isitt edd no Inewaqqe svonetemuorto wedso | * 
bus ,jtbero to ysidtow etom edt etm asesentiv soaidwe entorrste® —12 
. YLaeibicese tibeno mentt evita. od! 


ads tic? 





hTERT ST hme 9h 


o RR SORE 


"The texts by which the direct testimony of witnesses 
should be weighed by the jury are given by one of the most 
philosophical of writers upon the law of avidence, as follows; 
'The credit due the testimony of witnesses depends upon, first, 
their honesty; secondly, their ability; thirdly, their numbers 
and the consistency of their testimony; fourthly, the conformi- 
ty of their testimony with exrerience; and fifthiy, the coinci- 
deace of their testimony with collateral cireumetances,'*" 

1 Starkie 544, 

The instruction in questien omits the important ele-~ 
ment of the number of witnesser, the consistency of their 
testimony, ite conformity with experience and its coincidence 
with collateral circumstances. In Lyons v. Kyergon, 242 111. 
409, where, as in this case, plaintiff's case rested larrely on 
hts own testimony, and more witnesses testified for defendant 
than for himself, it was said of an instruction given for the 
Plaintiff: 

"Tt advised the jury that the preconderance in a case 

‘is not alone determined by the number of witnesses', and 
then follows an enumeration of the matters oroprr to be 
considered by the jury, omitting, however, the number of 
witnesses tastifring for and against. « % H In view of 
the fact that the appellee's case resied very largely 

upon his own testimony and that more witnesses teetified 
for appellant than for himself, this instruction might have 
misled the jury on thie point," 

The judement of the Tireuit Court is reveraed and 
the cause remanded, 


REVERSED AN) REMANDED, 





a | i *» 
he 


2. 



















esuzedite To URomitaet toorth oft sina +e" iaitt ear ay 
‘dnom odd to se0 w movin ote yt — ot . 
tavotfot ta’, eonohtve tonal eff? ‘nogd datdiaw to £ | 
trcitpl ates — — — — dtenwtin te "laaldiit eas eah DE 
— rhowt yytbutmd jefifide «hed? \vihsodee (ytsom 
etatotmos sd? yxisierwot jurestttacd “ttedt — * 
stontes ‘ade pertsti? baw jsonstrerxe —— 


*' .peomadomuexto — * 


——— —— 
~ole fantroeat sas idened? aetteoi at —J—— a 

| qhexit Yo one%s tenes off \aonaeastw Yo “een ott + 
\. somebtomtes ext han ooneitegee dite {rtmretavs an x 
‘efhI SAS qaoszeyd .7 anoyt an ‘.adonatdadiosto Lared 
no Xfeyiel bednet easy a'rtigntate (eaes andl wt da —* 


eo ds 


taahnetab to Lofttssot sonevnttw otom Bas jvmomidens 
ings so nevi neracirront na Yo bie nat HH! Rise ot 
uk nt yom yen SK, ef om wom, telawelll, Mg 


«he 
Gua wnt commintnvvety ens tant Vit ond Healyba ia 
bas ,'seasonitw te tedewn edt  pendamppah * * 
2 ot taqeve svedfzm off to — ay eae ot modt 
to usdmwm od ,tevewor spat shan 5 Vs bt * J 
te — 5 — —— 
Ylogtel yrev beicet se20 2'eo qa ede 

— aesnentiw eto — .! ent Fash * 2. 

ova — *—— 8 feamt aad? 
* ———— ait? ao yrut edt Befetm 


» bra beateves at peas Stuart eX? to — eat * 
REMANE HA — ease-eene vel * 


J * 
oy @a (te 


ak br 


or! ou che 2x4 124 8 bts, 
ger) . < om .oegelg 
— therm aadkt  OwERy at. a 





4182 17957, 







JOHY S$, WOODR ’ 
Appellant, 
APPEAT, FROM SUPERIOR COURT 
VB. 
OF COOK COUNTY. 


1821.A. 217 


cat sce BAKER DBLIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 


WARY JORDAN £t al., 
Apprellece,. 


This is an appeal by VYoodruff, the complainant in a 
bill to ferecicse a trust deed in the nature of a mortgage made 
by appellee Mery Jordan, from a decree dismissing the bill for 
want of equity on the ground that the notessecured by the mort- 
gere were given for usury. The mortrage was made Vareh 14, 
1907, by Yre. Jordan te secure her twelve notes of that date, 
payable to her own order and by her endorsed, ecleven thereof for 
$50 each, payable at different times during the eleven months 
after their date, and one for $1801.50, payable one year after 
date, all with interest from date at seven per cent. The loan 
was obtained by Yrs. Jordan through Flack & Co., and her con- 
tention is that the notes civen by her were for the most part 
for usury in previous loans obtained by her through Flack & Co. 
She borrowed in March, 1995, 4650 from Sidney Bloss and paid 
part of the netes given for the loan to Plack & Co. She bor- 
rowed from or through Flack & Co. $4350 Way 2%, 1905, and made 
her twelve other notes, eleven for $25 each and one for $427.50. 
March 19, 1906, after she had paid said eleven notes last men- 
tioned and interest at seven per cent. on her note for £427.50 
for one year, she borrowed a further sum of $450 from or through 
Plack & Co, and gave her twelve other notes, eleven for £50 
gach and one for $1450, with interest at seven per cent. Be- 


fore March 16, 1907, she psid said eleven notes for £50 each 


te 



















* 
hick 


ste siiet rr je Be 
yeetr ~ Gre 





- ais ot eat 


— N , 


— 
ee 1008 * — iad Pet Be 
\ “q — J——— 

‘ vig 4. 1 Ser 2 sei porate 


a al paanid tess edt eYhrrbest ww —E ae 
ebam spaniiom # to sites edt nt b oob .deuxd a euolae 
aot Cit of} gnisatmats oexoeb = sox? —— 
-tx0m ad} ud — edt saat bracts oi no x ee: “ ° 
a feu’ elke caw ogays1om oA? ever “sot 0 : it 
Stab tndd to scion orteu⸗ aef exusba of oF saat 
‘ cot Yoore8Ht3 neve fo .bex ohne rod Vd bua mbt Pay ‘aed 
adt$rrom novels ext natrun “eons snoretths “Ys —a 
tots oy ono taava⸗ —* rosra we smo bra — — 
macl efT ines 108¢ neve te stad mont teete tnt Atte 
qnobesed bas 1-99 A dost tozoora⸗ msibxot. antl WS be | 
f19q, doom oat 10% ie ted Ww movin. aeton. odd des 
00 & xoal¥ Mpuo2dd ned yd bentetde snbol “aot yose st 
i bhaq. bee aeolt xenbi? wot Ozae ver — J— 7 * 
— ene .09 % foslT of amot edt x0% mevin seton ‘oat wn ’ 
qh obsm baa .2O0f |&5 yaw O8F8 .0D & Yoatt Ayudrit? 3 yo mort pe — 
-O@,.VSEG tot emo baa ose FS§ xo? mevere —E a 
| -nem dasl esien covers bias biec bad efe tette doer 2 
| OF.SSeS rot eton aed mo .tneo x8q nevea ta toexedat bar 


“= 
r 





fyvotms to mot? O2ES To mus tedsrut a powort0t orfe may one 
O88 rot oevefo aston resto ovrows “meri even ane * J 
aaa 

—9f #80 I9¢ moves ta testedat asks cOCRLS tot ene bas tose 


| 
| — 8 


Adas O28 tot eeton covers bien biog efe ,TOer ,of fou | 4 


and then gave the notes and trust deed to secure the sane in 
question in this proceeding. She testified that she then hor- 
rowed $400 of Plack & Co.; that she received the cheek of com- 
plainant Woodruff for $2351.50; that she endorsed the check and 
returned the money to the cashier of Flack & Co., who gave her 
her note for 31450 and #400 in currency, and that she owed one 
year's interest on the note for $1450. The note for 51450 given 
March 19, 1906, was on March 19, 1907, owned by Etta Crey, a 
customer or client of Flack & Co. 

The case turns on the point, were the note and mort- 
gage given Vareh 17, 1907, given for a new loan by Woodruff 
to Mrs. Jordan or in part for the amount due Etta Grey on a form- 
er loan. If the latter, then there is evidence tending to .show 
that the transaction was usurious. The case is not one where 
a person deposits money with a mortgage broker to loan for him. 
Woodruff made his check for $2351.50 to the order of Mary Jor- 
dan and she endersed the check and received the proceeds. There 
is no evidence tending to show that Woodruff had sny knowledge 
of the previous transactions with Flack & Co. or Blogs. We 
think thet Flack & Co. were not the general agents cf Woodruff, 
but that their relations to him were these of brokerge engaged in 
loaning money and that they were entitled te receive a comnis~ 
sion from Mrs. Jordan without rendering the transaction usuri- 
ous. This was the conclusion reached by the Master and stated 
by him in his original report. 

The Court of its own motion ordered that the cause be 
rereferred to the Mester with directions to make a supplemental 
report on the evidence already offered showing a statement of 
each loan made by Mary Jordan in debit and credit form, and te 


report the amount received by her and the amount paid by her on 


— — — — 
— — —— —— 


—— 








“9 


Ce 















nt ome off o1u9ee of bseb sawas bus seton Sit 
~sod msdt eda Jagd boititee? ef@ .gntbossoxg’ 
-mos to foedo eft beyteset ens fast {40D & 
bas wood edd beatchne ene sant iOR TRESS TOR? 
tet veg ode ,.0D & doeff to sefdeso oft of yonom 
sno bewo offs fedd bas — S004: SR 
movin OFASE YO eton eff .0@6L8 tot eton edt no 2 
_ #& Wtew ad0E Ut homeo , TOE Cf Soma ae sem ,200F WE 
100 # Xoast to tnetto % 
“cofem tna. o00 08 ons gtatog od mo emus sane ont 
_ Viwsboo¥ vd saci ver a tot sovls eSOQr “Vi cot 


$a ¢S tages 
~miet @ #0 yet afte sub tmwome edt 10% txnq mt ro at 


= pide: ee 


works, 03. geibnes sonebive at stedt neds totter ont 
etedw eno ton ai as⸗ao eff .awolwey saw 


¥ He 


~ > ie was 


rf) fm 


an ib: ou 
















tot a? Ss, 
wmtst tot seot of sexed enenisom # ditty yanom ath » HO 


g% YM to ebro ed oF OR. £RESS 70% dosdo eid = 
rat he 
stad? .abeesong edd Hevicoe:t bus Aos ao ond beatobae 


sghetwondt yas bad TierthooW sans woda o⸗ gaibnes eoneh ty 


backs 
oF .euctt xo .02  doelt Aiiw anoisoaansts . fi 

ad 

,TiwxbooW to atnegs faxeneg end Jon sis7 299 a oat 3 ~ 
ai hoyegn® axexXo7d to evodt o1sw nts os anoiteLe: xheds 4 ba 


-gimmoo # evieoet oF beliitne ot0w vers sacs bos venon itn 


set? , * 


wttsew aoljosenestd edt guitebost tuodiiw asbhxot ett m oke 

betaia bus tojesi ext yd bedoset notauloneo ed? saw ot so 
oT oat 

- droge fentyizo eid mt ont X J 

fa a ae . 

7 SR 

Ladgooe Lugs & siamw of unmolloe1ib addin tote. a. ed? os ex 

reo ba 

to Joemeisia 2 gniwoda berstto —— somes tvs ost | no —* 
— 


od bas ,mtot dibets brs tideb at aebtot yal yd shen nsel dose 


‘sf #528 


no mec yd blaq snsome ec) bnew tom Ww bevieoox sevoms ont tx10qet 


Pte" avTey 






ed eaveo eft Jedd betebto roltson avo ast te sxu100 oat 






ine 


= 
Ay 


ee 


account of all of said loans. The Master by his original re- 
port in effect found and reported that the Woodruff notes and 
mortgage were given for a new loan and not in whole or in part 
for the balance due on previous loans, The order rereferring 
the cause did not sustain the excevtionse of Mre. Jordan to the 
report on the ground that the Master found that Flack & Co. 
acted as lenn brokere in the transactions between complainant 
and Yrs. Jordan; and dic not find that the complainant VYoodruff 


was chargeable with knowledge of the usurious interest reccived 


by Plack & Co, from Mre. Jordan, or sustain any of the exceptions 


to the Master's report, but merely ordered the Master to atate 
the amount received and paid by “re, Jerdan on acccunt of all 
of the leans made by her. We coneur in the conclusions and 
recommendations stated by the Master in his original report, 
and the decree will be reversed with directions ta enter a de- 
eree overruling the exceptions of Mrs. Jordan to the criginsl 
report of the Master and entering a decree in accordance with 
the recommendations of the orircinal report. 

REVERSED AND REMANDED 

WITH DIRECTIONS. 


_ -gmottgeoxs od? to yes atadoun to — — 





* 





vs 













“oz fanigito aid wf tefee¥ ed? -eneot hiss to {fs to % 
bas acton Piurboot ox sadt sedxoqet bb bauol doth ‘ak 
frag ci <0 wteay nt Yon bel eiek wend ¥ bi tel 
gotrzstete: tebtc se .eneof avelvery ao sub somake 
site of Manet alld veibke' bar Webbe Sa AE be 

.09 # XoolT tad? bavot retest off? taX? bawory as” 
Inecisignco asewied amolvoneonts of nt etedord 1 ee 
PiexbooY tnamiatgwon of% ted? batt ton Bid baw jae 
beviooer deststnt avetztes of? Yo sqhofwont dttw wide 





Tt 


edste of t0sanl eft betehto “Ferom sud , Hoget 2 
Iie to snuone to mabs0t — — 
fine andlenfono> oft mt tdonds o¥ . xed vit ol 
(booed raatnseoba tat ni xotesil itt" es Soate ab anal 
elitinanidhelamenisantanin’” ipitbedinedcie20 
baminito oft of mabsst 1.2 GF cinct tasks oft yer a : 
ditiy eshabreods at coreeh @ gaiveice tna redeitt 2) 403 
stuoqet Lanintto edd Yo — 

caeaaa TEA GURAEVER ras 
aotroaaac HTIY 


— 







F 


fy 


“429 - 17969 


i 


= 
é 


ANKA GROSSYANN , 






) 
Appelles, ) 
; APPEAT. FROM CIRCUIT COURT 
VB. 
) OF COOK COUNTY. 
OSSHANN, ) 
; Appellant. ) 


1821.A. 218 


This was @ bill in chancery by appellee against ap- 
pellant for separate maintenance. The answer put in issue the 
material averments of the bill, The ca:se was referred to a 
Master to inauire and revert as to the vaine of defendant's es- 
tate and what would be reasonable to allow complainant for her 
support, The Master took testimony as required by the order of 
reference only and tock no testimony in support of the allega- 
tions of the bill as to the conduct of defendant towards com- 
Plainant cr to show that she was entitled tc a decree for sup- 
port and maintenance. The transeript of the record contains 
no evidence other than that taken by the Master. The decree 
directs the defendant to pay to complainant five dollars per 
week for her support. It is assigned for error that there is no 


evidence to austain the cecree. 


wR. PRESIDING JUSTICE BAKSR 
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 


It is a general rule that in chancery a party in whose 


favor a decree is rendered, to sustain it on sppsal, must in 


some way preserve the evidence or the decree must find the srecific | 


facts preved on the hearing. This rule applies to a dec ree for 
separate maintenance. Eerg v. Berg, 223 I11. 209, No presump- 


tion will be entertained that evidence sufficient to sustain the 





ie 
4A 
4 
— 
ag * 
Set! 
— 
— 
é Vs 
a@ 4 Ps 
are. 
—* 








A 
were = & 
St plow i <f <“@3ne% off erect Afas te (fe aa 
— bay Tae 
etek 














‘ ; LYTMuo? —* — — 


BIS A188r tact 
sdf 2083 bauoty out J 
— ett et errvord ener & 
"sae tantags sottoce Germꝛ. et {itd » aa i 
nd Nidal ir "te hha ide ast, GS 
aba Dierrbte® ie hiss Tae ”™ EEE” we “ss ve 
“a8 a'inshastob to ouley ef? of sa droves Ban 97 a t 
8H YT Inantafqmod wotle 0d efdanoasey od biuow b 
to Web16 ef? vd Beriupe ea Yromt deed’ Loos 25 — 
waysifs ex? to Hrooque al qromtteot om ood bna ufo Bons 
-md9 BbYbwot tnahosteb Yo towhros 6H? ot —— 
“que tot cerseb « od berttine aaw ene Fe#? wode of 2 re 
enieinos btope: edd to t¢izoenexd efT —— 
eerpeb eat . resent oad td noted dans naitd 40nd woabbhy 
xq atelfoh evtt jnantafqmoo of yeq of tnsbneteb ond 
om al e1ed? ted? torte to? bengizes ai #1 .dtocqua xed 











pr 


. Setoeb ed? niztaua of 


ALMAG SOITSUL OMICICaAT . ty 
-THUOD ZHT TO MOIMIGO ANT CHAAVI IE 


Cnodw al «iisq¢ # Yteonads at tat? eLut Lateneqg 2 at 31 
ni teum Aaoqas me #! mistava of ,betebme7 at setoshs 
@liliceqe ed! bnit taum estoeb ef} 10 sonebive of? syiseetq Yeu , 
Tot set ooh 2 of astiqgs efot ati? .gaktsed ef? mo bevotq vn 
quer OF .00S .fff ESS ,gtem# .v pret .sonenetnian e2ainqee ’ 
oft atateve o2 tneltotttwe eoashive tants bentatietre ed {fte nokd 





decree, net appearing in the record, was heard, and if the evi- 
dence is not preperly preserved the decree will he reversed on 
appeal. Berg v¥. Berg, supra. The deeree finds that: "The 
allegations of the bill of complaint are true as therein 
stated." Such a finding is but a soneclusion, and is not suffi- 
ecient, under the decisions of the Supreme Court, to suprly the 
place of a certificate of evidence, Torsell v. #iffert, 207 
Ill. 622, The complainant hag failed to preserve the evidence 
on which the decree is tased, and for that reason the decree 
must be reversed, 


REVERSED AED REMANDED. 





Li ie 4 es cee ehtooe: edd mt 
no boaxever of [fiw cexaeh ext Bernsen x 
oat” :dartt atait coveob oa? .exqua 


Shomer of GP llicch use } te aaokis 
~itival 20a 21 bne ynatevtonoo » sod ot yatonit S we, 
edt wiaqua ot wod emerqu? edt Yo snotetoed ond m 
-—« FOS gsteIWWA .v Lleato® commenies, a 
 gondbtve st} s¥tecetg of bette? eat tnsnter = 
— — Hits in wi Shed Ot 


Jawan cea fess 
* 
‘ rte 5 : 4 ia 
















’ 


axe or 





* 
Py 
A 


+S? 


” 


a" iy 4 
ter - veo 
ecc@biws 22° @% ' tg van 
‘ 4° 5 * 
sarees ot « bevewes 
* war scm ng J wi ee vis 


6 Opatasvetne ed hie 


499 - 18029, (2 iva BY) 


BERT Ey MANVILLE, 
Appellee, 


— ee ee 










THE KINGeRICHARDSON CO, 
Appells 


CONSOLIDATED WITH 
420 * 18030, 


ROBERT BE. TROSPER, JK 
APP 


1821.4. 294 


APPEAL FROM 
CIRGULT COURT 

60, COOK COUNTY, 

VBe 


THE KING-RICHARDSON CO 
AP§ 


— — 


401 asosa.— 
CHARLES 5, gp} 


\ V8! 


THE KINGSRIGHARDSON CO., 
Appellant. 


These oases present the same questions, Hach appellee 
filed his bill in equity against The King-Richardson Company, 
a decree was entered in his favor and from such decrees defend- 
ant appealed, The defendant company was engaged in selling 
books by subscription, It employed each of the complainants as 
@ department manager, the territory in which it scold books was 
divided between them and to each was given the exclusive right 
to sell for the company in the territory agsigned to him. #ach 
of the complainants had a written contract with defendant, by 
the terms of which his employment began January 1, 1908 and 
ended December 31, 1910. The complainants employed field managers 
who employed convassers to #11 the books, The men employed by 
the department managers were required to give security to cover 
money adyanoed and merchandise shipped to them. The entire 





(stegenam b£eLY heyoique ednantalquoo oft (.OLOL 4ff rodmesed 















ess * 306 


5 . 
. & = »} 2) —— — x —* 


—F * — 






* * 9) aru 1 Ta J > 3 J 
‘ ay eo aS 

— a 

, . “ae 
ROE ATSOL Pie seinen 


eT dem 


&-usce ah ope 92 ¢ AE 
— — 5*7 7: 
«¥THUOD HOOO . 
Nae > z 
i r? 7.) yen * 54 444 ay * rect Og Oe 
Sr LAs a's we a gt e¥ 
sO 
s 


eelfleqge donk — — onatt cts teammate | 
yqnaqun monbuntioli-gntt ot tentegs yhpe at tite a 
—bewted nee1aeh cove mort bee tove? efi mt berosme saw e or 
patiice ak donegne sew yuoquas Inabrolad oct . boca ite 
es efnantaiqnos erit to dose beyoiqae #1 sroltqiroedsea is | x 
eaw atood bloa 32 cdotdw at ytosiviwd ont ytoganes ¢ — r 
trigit ovievfoxe edt aevts aaw done of tins wadt mented & 
doali «mic of bongtane erosivted oiit nt yaugnes iid 0%, 
ut gtmsiroteh félw oa r acroo medtiaw 2 hat adnantelqnoe.e 
bea S00L 4I Visunal maged Joenyolque oti dotstw to . 


et Beyolque reat eu? .aiood edd Liew 62 cueseveoe beyolame : 8 * 
‘oveo of Ysimooe avin of botiupet efow mtoganam srrentisqeb-etd. 


extine ef? med? of beqqitte eetinaronvem Bue Seonsvha Yenon 





2 


expense of the business wae borne by the three department mana- 
gers in the proportion that the total net sales of each for the 
year bore to the total sales of all. The defendant wae paid 

by Trosper and Manville thirty-nine per cent. and by Ely forty- 
two per cent. of the retail price of the books sold. wach of 
the complainants received as an advance $150 per month, Dbefend- 
ant agreed to furnish to each department manager by October 25 
of each year e statement showing accounts to October 1 and there~- 
after by the 25th of each month statements showing accounts up 
to the ist of the month until all the business of the fiscal year 
was closed, The contract provided that in stating the account 
for the year each manager should be charged with his salary, all 
advances to him for personal expenses and all salaries, allow- 
ances, otc., paid to employees in the sales department of his 
department, with the salaries of stenographers and other office 
assistants engaged in his department, with all supplies, postace, 
ete., used in the conduct of the business of his department and 
with that proportion of the total expense of the CGhicazo office, 
including rent and the suditing and shipping department as hia 
total net eales for the year bore to the total net sales of all 
the departments of the Chicago office. The contract also provided 
that a department manager should be entitied to any excess of his 
reseipts and credits over the charges against him and that the 
amount of such excess should be immediately due and payable to 
him, ‘the complainants hai been employed as department managers 
in 1907 under contracts similar in their provisions to the con- 
tract of 1908, 9 and 10. They were discharged »y defendant July 
16, 1910 and filed the billa in these gases July 29, 1910 pray- 
ing for an accounting by defendant asc to the business done in 
1907, & and 9, The decree in the Ely caso gives complainant a 
decree for $1054.53 for moneys collected by defendant belonging 


bebivow cele goatines ek sotto ogaelid ad? tq 
als So eneome wis od Dbeliione ed Divorce wagedan: 






























— 


, OR os 
~anmmn gremfusqeb eowl! edd yd ened cow avenieud edd to our 


ods ot Mose te seine fom Lagos ett tart moksuoqong as al 
btaq sow tnadswreb exit rie Yo veloe Leted add of 
~xe02 UW Dre cece wa omen oat an am 
20 Howe «bio exlood ant I eebay {tose eds Yo 
~roted .Admom ty 08L$ oonavhs aa on bovleDes ag 


Bs wedoseo Ye seganan Emenotaqeh dose of datou of 


‘se 
wy TEN 


sigan wth yntinte ah skh nendnony’ —— ext 
Ein yyuaten sic ditu beptado ef Biwarte wepanam Ange: 
~wolfs ,asinelse Lis 51m genceqte Lauoe oq one . 
Bic to snersoqed celes oxfs at eeeyotqne of : 
—— — nadinias 
sogasoog —— ciromdiaga wid at Beyagae 
bee Inenrueqe? sit to anectams ett t0 soubnoo ede At 
veel epecido ecft 10 cansqne fated edt 20 motimqone s 
aid 29 daomdieqeh antgqide bua ante tiee ete das. 
{La 10 soles Jes Ladot ony of orod tecy adé Tot aelse tent 


cal 


ott dat? fae mit tontoga eeynacde eft rove aftheto fete 
of eldayaq bus sub yiedatbouct ed bivorim aecaxe cove: 
avogatan grendisqeb as Seyolqme meed hat esranlelquos. 
«too ett of esoletvong vied mt asiiala asoayinos sebry 
vint spmieteh us Degustomth etex yest .0f bas @ ~800L T8NEey 
“Very OLCL 40h YAU eoveo ceeds mt afitd of9 helt? nnsiOLet GOD 
mt onOb saontaud ett oF no snahaweteb xd gutsmooss mt f 
2 toagtealgmoo sevin evao “La odd af eommed ort» 40 bow vane 
ariysaled srahneteh yd hesoeLios wyernnm sof 86,00£9 sokmesteeR> 


é Yasar 





5 


to complainant, decrees that defendant deliver to him thirteen 
promissory notes amounting to $469.64 and assign to him over 

200 accounts amounting to more than $10,000; that in the Man« 
ville case gives complainant a desree for 9781.25, orders one 
note to be delivered to him and nearly 200 accoumts to be asalened 
to him, and that in the frosper case gives complainant e deeree 
for $1276.10, orders 34 notes to be delivered and 280 accounts to 
be assigned to him, fhe complainants hed prior to their discharge 
organized a corporation called the #. &, Richardson Company to 
engage in the same business as defendant compary was engaged in. 


NR. PRESIDING JUSTICE BAKER 
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 


The rule was laid dew by Lord Redesdale in O'termer vy. 
Spaight, 11 Schoales and Lefroy in 1604, that 1t is a sufficient 
ground for jurisdiction in equity that the accounts are too com- 
plicated to be taken at law. In Foley v. Hill, 2H. Le Canes 
26, the rule is clearly recognized that the chancery cpurts will 
take seccunts when complicated independently of all other equities. 
See also, Femno v. Hoffman, 116 Fed. Rep. 49 and eases there cited. 
Where a salary is to be paid te an employee in proportion to the 
profits of his employer the question whether the employee may 
maintain a bill for an accounting depends on the circumstances 
whether the accounts are of « too somplicated nature to be gone 
into by a jury. #8uel v. Sela, & Ill. App. 116; Harrington v. 
Churchward, 6 Jure Ne Se B75; B. CO. Sth . We Re BORZs Hargrave 
v. Conroy, 4 GO. BE. Groen 281; Alpaugh v. Wood, 45 . J, Eq. 

153, In Channon v. Steward, 10% Ill. S41, an employee was to 
bo paid a certain sum and one-half the net profits of a branch 
of the employer's business, and it was held he could maintain ea 





* ~ 


t= 




















Lewes oss —* * 
seedaidd mist od sortieb nabrotteb — 


— — — 
gevo att of matees baa Baan of asthiraoma * A 
. S43 we 
eu ortd mt sade 100040f8 cots “enon of 


, 
| emo mTebto ar. tovt 10% Dᷣ — 


ov-.ect F 
hem · res od 02 ofenosas 008 yitwem tne abd ot boy 


corseb 2 tnantaiqnoe veviy poet “roqaor? edd at taitd 

of agnyooea 082 brea nerev! feb od 08 voton 02 wreb0 ,Ohy8 
: abects — ‘ive * ednentatquoo elt « > 2 2* 

“of ——— yi eat bottan » 


ont bopegnw caw Yuaquoo sanbroRed ax enantesd once « 


THIS Fete 





7 4* ite bs 


enue vorrens enreii «et | 

“s7000 am Wo AGTNIGG aT Oe — ite 

soy coigne 94 beds ~~ 

noo" it ekabaabes Sno W wed hintaan Of. 
dretorigwe & of St dadd .08L mt yorred bre wetgotos f 
mao God O18 asmoOeS evid Salt qStupe at motdotbe * 
eea·d oi sl a Aan av yotot sl swal $e modes: 06:08 

Lie aswume yawonasio odd — 
»colttups teddo Lia to yLsmebcmqobut bedastiqnos. mete» 
sbetho ered? essa bas GD .qei .bel Lf yAenTION sv: 
edt os moisanqom at eeyoique me_of blag od of ab yuekan 4 
Yor eeyolqre ons wcddedw moltveup esis toyolqme ald, ' 
peanatenverio eds mm abreqeb axituesos na tot Lite uu 
oars od of erudor begastiqnoo eed A 20 ox edmmopoe, ortt, afi 

+v modgnivasl TOLL «qa £41 @ eles wv Loui. oymt, aye etn 
Overy TAH 7808 of eV oh MB 4048 (OTe 6f aM eelew, 
spl 4% 4.1 SD ,DOOW wv ciguaqiA 4LBE ceOTD 4h — 

of saw oeyoleme me . SOL girtewose <¥ sonnet) a2, J ’ 
dpaand # to esitorg gem eld Iacono ben ewe mtadto, # 2 Pe 
— — — 


bah 


whe 


bill for an accounting although he was not a partner, 

it is clear from the nature and extent of defendant's 
business that an account taken under the provisions of the oon- 
tract with complainants respecting their compensstion for three 
years would be complicated, intricate and a wholly unfit matter 
for investigation by a jury. 

That the defendant was indebted to somplainantea in the 
amount of the deeress for moneys collected after it received all 
that it was entitled to for the booke sold in 1907, 8 and 9 is 
not dieputed; nor is it disputed that the defendant had no 
pecuniary interest in the promissory notes ordered to be delivered 
or the accounts ordered to be assigned to complainants. Appellant's 
contention is that under the contract the notes and accounts be-~ 
longed to it and complainants had no right to either but only 
to the money due on the same when collected by defendant and 
further, that if the notes were to be delivered to complainante, 
as provided in the decree, they should be endorsed “without re- 
course" which was the only endorsement the complainants were under 
any circumstances ontitled to, Appellant insists that it had an 
interest in the notes, accounts and correspondenes beyond their 
mere money value; that an important part of ite avoeta and busi- 
nees consisted of the good will and ite relations with ite field 
managers and convyassers; that with the possession of the notes 
and accounts complainants would be in a position to compel de- 
fendant's canvaesers to do business with them rather than with 
appellant and thereby would be enabled to seriously injure the 
business of appellent, We concur in the contention of appellant 
that urder the provisions of its eontract with complainants 1t 
had the right to retain the notes and accounts ae its own and 
collect the same, and that the only right the complainants had 


in such notes or accounts was the right to the money due thereon 





5 ad 




























ss teonstuaq @ tom Baw om mywodtle gulsmimoos. aa oe Ltd 
I et smaleoteb Yo sansee bes eTua Of? MOTI t69L0 B81. 0y 

9 “TOR, AAR 20 ROORAITOWE AAPOR ν SND A AER RE on 

ml cord? xaX soLsanmequoo rkecis galioeqnes sinantalquco «. 

| astiem titay Yiledy @ bas esapinint »dernotiques ed 2 

—4 F Sige ee a) 4.50 ol . 
i | ain nballeh Ata 

Sia beviovey 31 rette botoelice ayenon 10% esoreeh ea 

ab @ bmw 8 .800L at blog eXood wid 10s 0d dosthine a 

.. 08 bak Iushreted ont todd bomuqath 2h eh tom .; bode 
— od of betebio aeson ytoselsotg ods at seoresat | 

oftmaliegys .adcaxteiqnod 09 hengteas od of bexeitg sirw om 

ed atmonsa drum atten ed? toesimoo writ sehen tard et mt 

tine vane oY Sai ox hn admantoiqnon dan BF “4 

hie dnabneted yt betooiton mectw ones edd mo ub \ — 
codnantatquoe of hoxoviieb e€ ed otew vedon odd td dart ; 
“et twottte® bewrsine of aise edd yoonbeb iit edb 

ꝓ ener etnanlalgion edf taeneetobae vino wd soe | 

rs bad ot tadd adeten? tnatfoqas | od belsisme a 

ttesi? Droyed earahnoquertoe bun atssooos (nodes 5* 

= ten bis atesss ett to dtaq snadtoqnt ve tadg jeuter § 

blett att ddiw ancttaler att bas Tiiw body edd to bedate 

seston edd ‘Io nolesesnoq os délw Jade jeteseavnoo ne 

~0b Lequoe oF moliteog a al ed Bivow etrantalaneo 8 

div madd teddax meds déiw asenteud ob of ewan 

ed? owtat yLevolwe of heiga:te ed Biuow vdowents ‘feo cu | 

| dnalleqqs to motsnesnoo oct emt’ auoned OW stnattoqge % worth 

i} St atnantalqnos détw toavaos. oath. 20. anctatvory dg sébru de 

} bra sed 03 8s ssmunoea dna qodon ait tater 08 Sdn Ol 

i bast einante! quoo od? acat⁊ ytto end Jor? bee poume odd & 

| moetedt eub yerom edd of drigit edd usw eényosen to eédon dove 


+f 


by —* 


4 





Si. 
—9 


—— 


when collected and it follows, that in our opinion, the court 
should not have ordered the defendant to turn over the notes and 
accounts to complainants. Sut we do not think that the decrees 
should be reversed because of the direction that defendant turn 
over such notes and accounts to complainants. The pericd for 
which defendant was required to account ended four years ago and - 
defendant has, by virtue of the appeals, retuined possession of 
the motes and accounts. We cannot see how defendant oan be pre- 
judiced by now turning over the notes and accounts to complainants. 

August 13, 1910 the complainants moved for an interlocu- 
tory order that defendant turn over to them the notes and accounts 
in question and the motion was referred to a master to take and 
report preofa with his conclusions and recommendations. Pursuant 
to this order proofs were taken in one case to be read in each 
case. January 17, 1911 a general order of reference to the same 
master was made in each case and the parties stipulated that the 
proofs taken on the reference should stand as proofs under such 
general order of reference and they were so considered by the 
master and reported by him as the proofs in the case, The court 
adjudged the costs againat defendant and allowed the master in 
each case $1283.33. We do not think that the court erred in includ~ 
ing in the master's costs the cost of taking proofs under the 
reference on the motion, 

We think that the deores should have provided that the 
notes should be endorsed “without recourse" before delivered to 
the comploinants, 

The decree in each case will be modified by inserting 
therein after the words: “that the defendant deliver to the 
complainant all the notes set forth in the master's report" the 
words, “which notes shall be endorsed ‘without resourse' by the 























— 


aauoo ont wtolndiqe tuo Ht Sadt lawolbot ¥1 2 | 
see war St tne att tated ot bab oa 
—— — — —⏑— 
me 62 age ae ae , 
— —— ——— cad 


— big 


si ns ee FTN obt6 
Bee Oxley Of Todeem 2 OF Horie'tet aaw nokion od hex 
dmavensl anoksahuemmooe baw eroteufeace aint détw 
Hone at heer of of oman oto At aBled eter Sood x0 | 
oman odd Of eemexe'ter Yo Teltwo Lexnmog s L10r (wt ¢ sist . 
edd #00 desatughts eotsunq oils —— — 
Hove Yebras ateotg a0 buade bivotia esnere'te: edd mo 1 
coh on cath a ll | 
Suto sett onso odd at etoog ont on win Yd o * aed 
Ait ‘tedesm ont! bowotts bio tusSneted Sunkaga ‘efnoe etd Bell 
fufonk al Borie Stoo od tadd amitd ton ob ow 8s. Here oo 
edd sebeis stoorw antdas to te05 edd ataow s'x0dsan 6 F 
{fl tom ods a0, of 

eid tad hebtvorg evar Hvore oorpeb edt Sad intdd oy 
63 heteviled exoted "setvooss suoddiv® bearobmo od bfin 
getstoant yd belithom ‘od ILtw eeno owe mt outed 

| esd OF vovtled saedreteh oft “todd talriow ocd vodta ihe 
eng “Sqoae1 a’ toseam od? mi ddtot gee eegon oxi? fla 
ed? yt Yeenooes suodthe Sewxobme of LLete ebgon doldw® 


welhne 
defendant", and as modified the decree in each case will be 


effirned. 


DECREE IN BACH CABE MODIFIED 
AND AS MODIFIED AFFIRMED, 


(¢ 
























bre aator el dave “woke be Somntiveiteat act bewbite’ ¢ q 

eenden bid ddd delttd Sen db a ix: —— ow 
‘ ‘ 8 Can ) we 
Atnanlalea "es es siege. the 
Se Oh Smee “uot Aedes drusode by —E 


* — ————— ‘Beatasén salecgta off Re cba wd 
OR ee as Snanetes wax ash — WS vibes 


et) 






tot Seliod ee; 


| 


( 

f 
i 

Ay 

4 

Fe 
1% 


ee 
* 


oer ka Levies oF efneoass baw Sviodw aae ‘rave * sale 
“poo lo sat to 102 bevtw cdRaxtalhaee be drei one 
C0066 ben ossen art? met OF “eed rid $20 dere teb 
————— ———— new nokia act’ bh 
Musa |, SND Te ahvreete So ere Lentecind ahet per 


Rene al teed 6 92 cons eae Ok thitas ie Doin | 


- wore ro ; av See > i a DeTeRn, & rr ee vt ia 


OY S662 Seteluoliiu ae 


ta 


, * 
« =f} i 


A272 — CT et | 


— ⸗ * *4 —3* 
Cw Whi ahem us vanes — cope aufy me | 


fe"! Se het | 
’ . — 
‘F Ate Gre 


DO Of See Yenty’ tow oir ins 39, 
— 


aPtHS Utd —— wae yd roa 
y! wien cial @ ¢ Tt *ꝛ 
—— — — E— ‘adnae 
PeSts Pee ats docls  Yx?d: 


4 
— 


————— of BR ‘ 
eis sna eure tae | 


ow Té sacy aff dines oteae val 
(toltom walt 10, "a 
Migth asheeh eal ell” J— a 


ae ie ree WIOS ?t w wort? a bene TAG — 4 a ; 


alert ~ Sees . Og Lith RPP E> Th a me —— 9— 


Cw ? 47" bo & » 
—X whe — 
ye °8e: £07 ni APees 


vom antert aff gia) 
wt SvO02Ie” hewibeeds é¢ there —8 —— 


ag oh 


— 


« 
% * 








ber Term, 1O4), No, 
18 = 17423 







£ 


ABNRY SMITH, : 
ERROR TO DHE MUNICIPAT, COURT 


Defendant . 





¥Se. ; 
oF CHISAGO. 


a 


1821.4. 227 


) 
) 
) 
} 
) 
} 
) 


R. JUSTICE REOYN DELIVERED THE CPIFIOR OF THE COURT. 


This writ of error has been sued out to reverse ao 
judgement of the Vunicipal Court in favor of the defendant in error 
here, the plaintiff below, Henry Smith, againet the plaintiff in 
error here and defendant below, Henry H. Roberts. The judement 
de for $512.34 and ecests. Its basis was the following promissory 
note: 


"Chicago, June 41, 1910. 
$500.00. Two months after dste I promise to pay to the 
order of Henry Smith Five Hundred and no/100 Nellsers at 120 
Franklin Street. 

Value reesived. 
With interest at 6 per cent. per annem. 
E. q. Roberts." 


The execviicn of the note is admitted by the defend- 
ant. It was siven for @ sufficient consideration, thus expressed 
in a contemporanecus arreement executed between the plaintiff and 
defendant: 


*"Thie indenture made this 21 day of June, 1919, be- 
tween H. A. Hoberts = = x and Henry Smith x = = #it- 
nesseth: 

Whereas said varties have for some time pant carrisd 
on the buciness of publishing » = x under the previsions 

of Articles of Vartnership heretofore entered into x x” x 
and whereas it has been agreed by and between said parties 
to dissolve said partnership » = x now this Indenture 
Witreseeth: that in pursuance of said agreement in this 
behalf the said parties dco hereby declare that the partner- 
ship between them shall be considered as determined and 
stand dissolved as and from this date; and that in pursu- 
ance of ehid agreement and in consideration of the prenises 
and of the sum of Fifteen Hundred Dellars new psid oy 

paid party of the first part to the party ef the second 
part, said party of the second part dess hereby assign 




















rs g re I s * 


se teye7 of tue beva need aad tore Yo tle 8 

xorxe «rk tasboeteb edt Yo covet nt tawo? faqtoinutf edt % 
ai Ytlintalg off tomtess ,ttin® yak. “wofed Yu | 
tresirt, ent as rsdn ~H yIneH voted tnabneteb brs A 
Lroveimortg gmtwolLot edt saw atead ett sheen bra eon ae 


OLE £8 ent jonas tan ; Mies 
esi? oe timous I stebh sestse anfinon Co 
OSf te eiwmif $6 on bas berhmutt overt ote fe to 4 


-toe1d8 mt ‘ 

.bevisoes eursv 
Ie 1¢ ~tneo tq 3 ta satesnk § 
*,adredol oF «8 


~bnereb ont Ww bes tinbs et ston edt to nok suoexe ont 
——— sane not tarebtaneo as totraua not nevis aa 
bre ⸗at⸗ota ott noowsed bab ueend snomeorss + evoansse 


-sd ,O1QL ,eomul, To yah £8 sid? sham — —E 
~tiw 2 m8 s3tna vꝛnon bas «x = = oinvedoH ——— 

4 7 

heltria. sang omits emes 10% eves aoitiuwee biae agotod® m 
enelalvo ty eft s9bey = * = ynidatideg to aaentoud ont a 

xx 2 oint betetr® erototeyed qidexendte! to sefobetA 

seitisg biee neewied brs yd Ssetge meed eed st aeetedte By 
etwinehbal etd? worn ne x qtinrentisg blew oviossth 
aidt nt snemeetys bisa Yo sonsustwq at fend rAtean 
“tending ef) ted? eislesh ydeted ob ssitwa bles edt tiaded | 
20 bentorroseh aw horehtance sd {late mest asewted gtda ~ 
-veteq mi sadt bow jedeh atstt arte ——————— bas 


@eaimetq oda to notte tsbtames nt bas —- ‘eonma | —— 
ud bleq won etaliloc od? Yo boa - 
hnoosa sit to viaueq sft of | — Atraq; biea’ os Bia 
‘oe apleea yYde1sed seoh tree bnoose toe hee, tar Fae ; 


and transfer unto the party of the first part, hie cxecu- 
tors, administrators and assigns sli the part or share and 
interest whatsoever of him in end to all and sinruler the 
premises and property heretofcre mentioned, including the 
gole right te continue the business, publishing ssid lists, 
all eredits,contracts, assets, effects end good will of 
paid partnership, to held all of the said premises unts 
the said party of the firet part, hig executors, adminis- 
traters and assigns absolovtely and forever, slso exssifi- 
c&lly including contract of 5. ©. Atkins & So. of Indiana- 
polis for $1000.00 for space in Reberts Herdware Vist, also 
Champion Tool Works contract for ons year (two pages) in 
American Machinery Bulletin, alse Fern Machine Tool “orks 
Co. contract for 5 menths,? 


There are other reeitele and provisions in this con- 
tract of dissolution, but the foregoing is 411 that it is necee- 
sary to quote. 

The £500.00 note was part of the $1590.60 consideration 
mentioned, the remainder having been paid in cash. 

The defence made to the suit en this note was and is 
"that the consideration for said note has fuiled in that the 
plaintiff hes not turned cover to or delivered to the defendant", 
the Atkins & Ce. contract and the Champion Tool Yorks contract, 
and a claim én set-off thus eet forth: 


"Tris defendant further states that by reason of the 
failure of said plaintiff to deliver said centracts for ad- 
vertising as agreed in said written contract x x x he has 
lost tke prefit from said advertising contracts, and that 
he has been otherwise damaced, whereby said pleintiff is 
now indebted to this defendent as follows: 

T.e@se sustained by reason of the failure to deliver 
the Atkins contract (35% on the $1000.00 contract} $3550.00. 

Loss sustained by reason of the failure to 
deliver the Champion Teol Works contract,...-.eee. 205,06 
Totel amount Of SObHOTT. . GIIGs0Us 





This defence seems to us based on a confusion between 
"a contract" aid the. written memorandum or evidence of a con- 
tract. We should be unable te see any failure ef consideration 
for this note,even if the contention of the defendant that the 
written evidences or memoranda of the twe contracts mentioned 
were wrongfully or neglectfully withheld from him by the pisin- 


tiff,were borne out by the evidence, 








a 
7 







































. ? 
of R180) einen 
— ———— 
-cooxe ata ,f1s¢ saxty od0. te ROtEy tit aan weieeta | 4 
bee evdse to g sf? Ife argtece bao lairds ,exos | 
edé tfuyoie ban Ife of bas gkomtt to tevenesacdw tqotedek 
on? anibulont ,benolinem gx0tode red bee SE. 


— 


. Siam wats tldagq yenomiowd edd eunitnes of sitytt 
to [ftw boon Saw aloelto ,stenaa ,2: —X 
ofny asa tera a biea et? Yo Lia Biot of ,qidetentusa 5 
-ginimbe ,atoivoexe ald ,éteq Jetit sd? Io — 
-ltioesge osle , T9¥ST0l bre Yofoed2 anyieas br 


R 


ales to .0D d@ epiasA .D .4 Yo soarincs at 
onls aetna: foe mi soaqa tot 00.0005§ tot 
nt (segeq ows) se9y Sito tot Soatsm00 eit0oW Look # 


toY foof enisoaM mxoX oale ,olteiLintl ytenidoa¥ * 
. 0o € tot soatinon 

; eT Se eee Wai 72 Ba Ser 

-1909 obs? at — — baz esettoes tentio sta rest pe: 


“se00n mi OL fan? Lin af gutogetor sdt-tud qunttutondts + | 
~ . — J —— — ———— 
weksershtence 00.00¢£8 add Ye Jug gew s30m 00,008 of? wit 
tase mi bag ceed gntwd rebniewt eft 

ok-tiam, age eben aide a9 tise ent of ebar soneteb wit) 
ed3 sans ai belie? sed eton bias OT soiseteblance 

o" ¢aabine toh wae os poweviteb to od ‘seve besuust ton ce 
j#oaxsnas aizc¥ foot aolqmasd offs peta tastéa09 one ‘0 * A 
taitze? — —— 


aetrertat 7 
edd te roasex yd dude actate toddiut tnabaxstsh aldtT* 
-ba tot atowettmoo blaa tevifeb of ttiintaiq bliss to- ew. 
aad eff « 2 = Sostinen natjiauw bise ot bee tage ee getat 
gadt baw ,atoatines gnieitievbs bise mort sitoiq ed? 
al Ytitsatalq bise ydoterdw ,bepemed eaiwisnito nesd asd | R 
tawoflot aa inabmeteb atd? of betdedalt aia 
uevilebd of emsliest - aie de o mopans yo bon ta aaua as o ~ o> 
.00.028$ (Jon12H00 00.000L6 edd mo BRE) fomtinoo antvsA eft ~ 
os siviiat efi Yo rosas1t yd beniastave seed 9" i“ 
00, oO ee eee eee , tos tsneD axi10F. foo? nolqmesdt) ord tevil y * 
—F— —— -+-Tio-sea te tnwomm fato' — 
“iP saad 

osu tod noteitnco a 0 bead an of amoos sone teh atkT sya * * 

tae nate US an 

a0) 8% eonebive, to swhasro-en moss tw * bien’ “ton oo oF 
teats il? to. See 
notvanshienov To srviieT tnx oon * wien wens hiaone — st — 


one dort tnabreteb ent * noitestnoo eat uM nove,o¢on wtad x0 ae 
tated” sin 
bonoisnem astoatsnop ons oss r0 ebnetoren 10 wecnsb tye 1 otsin Te 


here 
oulitinty one w ats store aconaat· tun vo tʒa 20 ULLvAgnom om 


_seostobh vaveds pir ome» “oneed oume IRE 


—X 


—8 








The five hundred doller note was given as part of the 
consideration for Smith's interest in the partnership of Roberts 
& Smith, and the very mernorandus of contract between Reberte & 
Smith preduced in evidence by hoberts shown the transfer end 
conveyance te him of that interest, specifically including 
Gmith's interest in the Atkins Company and Champion Company 
contracts. This consideration hes not feiled, Smith has no 
longer any interest in the business or in any of the contracts 
made in the course of it or for ite benefit. The bueinses and 
the contracts all belone to Eoberts. 

It might well be that if Smith interfered with the 
realization by Roberts on those contracts, if he prevented in 
any manner the delivery to Roberts er tis use of evidence of 
them, written or otherwise, or even if he merely neglected te 
carry out a promise he made collateral to the contract of disso- 
lution and sonveyancs, to obtain and dsliver to Roberts the 
written evidence or memoranda of the particular advertising 
contracts mentioned, there weuld be a set-off available to 
Roberts of the damages caused by euch wrongdoing or defsult on 
the part of Smith. 

Rut the burden of proving such a@ seteoff would be on 
Roberts entirely. Te receive its benefit, he must establish the 
existence cf the written instruments the non-delivery of which 
is complained cf, the undertskine cf GSsith te deliver them or 
to secure the delivery of them to tim, the default in that under- 
taking, and the resultant damares, 

The evidence in thie case fsils entirely te sstablish 
any such series of exséntial factors to the set-ceff claimed, 
This is our conclusion after a careful consideration of all 
the evidences received hy the Court below. It would be useless 


to discuss it in detail. “We agree with the riew of it evidently 





EX 









ods to t10q an covty ane efon tafiah hethaud opt. AAT ine 
afesdos Yo chserem wa ous mk vretntnatddie® 202 nottame 
—“ RE 























~ 


on and N2tem belter ton — winnie 
stoatinoo ef% to yne ot to eatasa ———— 
bae weaned sud ont |= tioned ast wt to #t to warwoo ed a 


one atu botetrednt sims tt fads * {few tdgie 4 
at bedneverq od ⁊tx etoaténes enon 0  atindat x ws 
to sonsh ies to cay eff to atredot of “yrovi ib edt 


> ae 


* bevoe!gen yfetem of Dt neve 10 eaiwredso or ‘nose 
-oeelb te — edt of Lotet]lfoo ebam od “oalmoxq. 8 ‘ee 


‘ J rs 


ont atiedoH of teviteb boz siatdo of done ye vn09 
anietirevbe ce{woitieq orf? ‘to abnetomer to sone hve a 


of efdeliave Yto-tea a sé biwow oxedt ibenottnom 3 
no ‘uated ‘to ) Batobynete fous ~F beavas seneseh ‘oda ‘ 
7 arid * 

ulen 0, 


a4 


mo ed bigow Yrostes s “Howe ‘anbworg ro nebavd: ed? — — Sic 7 













edt deifdetes seur od ,#iteasd asi — oF — —— 
soitw to yxevi feb-men oc ‘eenemgusenh: sess ont to 


ia? at — ⸗ 


ee 


10 mond? revifed ot Ad tot to ouiteiueban oat * 


reobeu⸗ tead3 ot tfLusteb eft ,midt of most? to Urevi feb vontd I 
3 tees) 2 

.2enemeb onat inet ‘ont bas <3 

ot 







et idasae of yiertine allet 2829 alc * conebive oat 
t *f att sy 
-bemtalo Tto~see ent of etotost fabintene to est ff “me is 
o> ive gee 
Ife to noltarsbLance core ao 8 asi notasfonos a0 at — 


two He 


ulineblve zt to weiv ert tie —— — fiadeb at nt 3t — 





oaæa o Coau od — 1 —— fied ond x boviooet PY 


taken by the Judce cf the Municipal Seurt,who tried the cause 
without a jury. He must be assumed to have held effective only 
that part of it properly admiseible. 

But whether thet objected to by the defendant is 
taken into account or rejected, the result,te our mind,ia the 
same. | 

The judgment of the Municipal Court is affirmed. 


APYIRVUED, 





\¢ 

































otf Po dom? ae aerty ape eon eeie® vortaud, opt a6t- 


» ‘ene ons betxs our. xbed tegtntmet at ts abit ‘nM 
Line ertsoeve Bios svar oF Bomba of Seka 


Bip : ee, ae 





Sat so cs va afd «wn 


at snabneteb oats oF Devoetde’ tai 0 
ond at, bate avo oF, 
om aud fright wbett® 3 


| beet ta ab gu0d raertonmitt eas to tremaburt itt 


ocean sat. . #39 Sean ett net 1 22 To setvee 


wé 


wei d 


ne tot — — —— 


— at amoled Ein 
edt gtiv Powsticta? AtinS Si ted? o¢ * tthe a, 


st DotarYria s4 tt ,eto — 2 wnads no — — 
Be ee fi <b stredoh o€ xce ods * 


&¢ Se7ee'>* fever” ox | eve Te etat — — 
math te er o 2a) o% tesetetiac shew ad waties Tq J 


> eet a 2 3 (so. See alet40 OF eoa⸗ vaoa 
at a 
Shieitxvevhs % si¢ueq ef? Yo abdetors “per 7a soambive 


at 
é &«. 


HSLuce etpdy voenatzaomt 


si, 


~log@ ?fac‘Ieh Tro yoickuwexs -4eue ~“f Peeve pegeash oda, 
— atte 


ac 64 viwow TIce#ec couse waiver; Yeo wheat eas — A 
one dal: inges @ane 6d ,@S¥eoed af ovbeses et — 
dald~ lo previ leb-won om ateeretéed? oetdise on? Bes 
eg erileh et A2ie® vo wetdecetebod ed® . ts peated ⸗ 

ber tfueteb ed? , mit .of set to ae r — 


— tne tiene oat 


, 


a8 
—— 
< 


wirdasue of » afiet exec att? of opnpebiee — 
* hee » *ooeuten of 2-0 cxetost L[akianesaa Te ⸗ i 


; > ye 
ReisatTm sco Late rao & S882 — 8* My =| 


— ol 
toile ; ~~reted 18d 6 yt bert oat eonebhbive « 
— 22 
tisnel ; votw ed? cite cet—ee oF .Jiineed mt tt 


130 - 17654 





Herm, 1911, Ne. f 


CARMELO UNINA, 
Defendant in Brror, 








BRRROR TC MUNICIPAL COURT 
Vi. 
OF CHICAGO. 


1821.A. 236 


A. D2. MORELAND COMPAHY, 
Plaintiff? in Err 


et ee Set — —— 


~ 


UR, JUSTICE? DETIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT, 


This is a writ of error sued out to reverse a judgment 
ef the Municipal Court of Chicago for $699.00 against the plain- 
tiff in error, the H. D. Moreland Company, in favor of the de- 
fendant in error, the plaintiff below, Carmelo Unina. 

The defendant company is a building contractor, It 
was on and before Hay 10, 1910, erecting a three story flat 
building of brick on Rokeby street in Chicags. The plaintiff 
Umina wae empleyed as a laborer on this job on the day wenkimeee 
| and had been for three weeks at least preceding that day, His 
work coneristed of ereeline barrews filled with mortar for the 
use of the mesons from the ground inte the building te a hoist 
therein, The rumray over which the barrows were wheeled was a 
short single plank fourteen inches wide running from the mortar 
box on the cround te a wooden horse of some kind nearer the 
building, and another single plank of the same width and twenty- 
five feet long, running from the heree up to the sill of the 
door of the first floor ef the building shout nine feet above 


y the ground. This methed of having the mortar broucht into 
4 buildings in process of construction is a customary and usual 
a ene, and the runvay was of the usual censtruction and width 


for the purpose. 


| On May 10, after the plaintiff had been working an 
3 hour or so, his feot slipped on the running plank near the 
| 


door sill, the wheelbarrow tipped over and he fell to the 


— — — —— 


| 

























,ANINU OGDIRAD 
bates rp csp 


* an ⸗ * 2 
— YS on tiggwil? fh 








THYOD JATIONMUY OT AOHAE ( 
.ODADIND TO 


ses tiser | 


-Pavoo aut to KOTREGD aI cHARIEBE 


dnomghul, a Owtsvet oF tuo bess tos to fia et alkane + 
-ttleiq ent Pattegs 00,0088 to? ogaokd® to #xuod feqtot, — — 
sb sd¥ to rove? at — buster CH of? ,tor%e 
anion’ oferriad evofod Wiitatata ext. torre a 

#I .tofoat3neo gnibiind s at qaqmoo: tnabneted ‘oft 
teft yxote sotis a anitoe:. — ot weit exoted dau fi 
Tisnisle ott -ogaot my nf teotts Weston me torr to | 
Denoi) rem Yah and wo dot aidt no tetodal es as beofame 9 
atl ah sucte antheow1q teasl te axeosw sextt tot ned b 

edt tot strom Stty BoLttt eworred yatfoode te bodntanoe + 
talod 2 of githiius off otmt bnvorg ont mort enosam ox? to 


& ame bofestw orev ewoursd ext Aotdw revo vow oft be 
isdrom ef? mort amtenet ebie assont nest1s0t ansfq otsate. # 
on? xre1e0n batt eaoe to cated neboow # of bnuoT ont mo — 
“Waewt bus dtbiw omy ett to Anatq fants sedtons bas atsca 
of? to [ffs ent oF a carton on? mort —— patrol tost @ ** 
ovode toot onta tuods yathiiud eft to yoolt taxtt ody to 0b 
O¢ri thauertd tattom eft antvad to boittom etaT ont 
fauau baa —— a eal nottouttanos to eseoorg at 
ftbiw bns nottowrdenes fauas ett to saw vars ens | 
veo 
ma anidtow moed bad hintele ont tetta (OL wel 80" oD — 

edd isen ansfy gaint edt mo — toot ait «oe x0 weir 

ed? of [fet of bua ze¥0 ie worind fees ont ithe roo 


74 


. 622 


—2 





J— 


ma 








ground and was injured. ‘The extent of his injuries is in dis- 
pute, but it is immeaterial in the view we take of the case. 

He sued the defendant company for damages, allecing 
in his "Statement of Claim" that it was liable "for nerligence 
= % % © in not furnishing him with a safe pluce to work and safe 
appliances with which to work", in that the runway was "tov nser- 
row and too steep and partivy ecvered with mertar" and for nerli- 
genee through the viclation of what the staterent very inarti- 
ficially describes as "fection 79, chapter 45, page 1047, HWurd's 
Statutes, (1904), by which is evidently meant the Act of the 
Legisisture of Illinéis hereinafter quoted, approved June 3, 
1907, entitled "An Act providing for the protection and safety 
of persens in and about the construction, repairing, alteration 
or removal of buildings, bridges, yiaducts and other etructures 
and to provide for the enforcement thereof," JRL RBSIE-SITT. 

The cause was tried in the Municipal Court vy 2a Judge 
sitting without a jury. He found for the claintiff and assessed 
his damages at $600.00, To reverse the judgement founded on this 
finding this writ of error, ss before noted, has been obtained, 
It is clear that no liability exists under the comron law duty 
of the defendant te supply the plaintiff « safe place in, and 
safe appliances with, which te work, for ever if its negligence 
could be predicated from the charseter of the runway or from 
the fresh mortar which plaintiff maintains was frequently drop- 
ping on it from the trowel work cf the bricklayers above (which 
propesition, however, we do not hold), there can be no doubt 
that whatever risk of danger there was in working under the sim- 
ple and apparent conditions which existed was assumed by the 
plaintiff, whe had been lene employed under them in the crdinary 
Gischarge of hie duties. This is practically conceded by the 


plaintiff's counsel, who puts his ultimate contention squarely 


— —— — 





== — 


= — — — — — 
— — > — 


‘i 5 — 
— DAR * .tooreds tnomeorotns edd 10% ob ~ o⸗ 



































i oe eo ae La? dy c 
~ r. . —* te ¢ r* > 
, € —— ey * * * 
> _ : _ 
* 


\e 


* — 
— 2——— OEL- " 


“ 


rr 


of Lies rae 8 


-ARIU —— 
| a. Pimbro tad 
#th nt of eotavtnt sta — 


-sa20 ed? to vist ow woly | et tetsesoamt 4* 
patgelis ssegerah 102 ~ ooteb wa bows ms 
eonephtyen 102" ataahs “paw st todd emtetd to 
otse bos X10w of eoele elas = Atie okt gerk ia 
“tan Os" sau zewnes ott Fads A (Minow of Hake #900 8 


~tinen Tot bra "rss 1om aiiw betevoo y{iieq bas R 

Preeti Wee st 42? Sea. irae Teta So fixe se aa Ps. 

~traent —* saonssata ent tedw ta motisfoty ! 

ne te Penieus OO,Co4E to” agente? Te. Sumad fae 

a tbat sTaoL s3s¢q St 22 <@T aotaooar as aedia 
tages” Se fete® .C .2 od? 

ons to toa ont —— deena 

fort~meS <eofed TrttnialLe —— rss nt 

et enut —— —— toitanioted alenifil to i 

; pieaqginan sethficl ¢ ef yreqmoeusfaaiie ion og? "am 

Worse bre aotaoe⸗ oxa ond ‘tot — SoA mA" bolsisae- 

+ ¥ Awe? a wha : — aveted Sour ‘o 

aolas ⁊xo fe — — ——— —* suede bas at T 

; "dete nw ciud té Be 

eowsourts t9dg0 brs stoubaty — —— to 


< 


sou’? tot seed Balam 
ogbut a w auoo faqto taut ons m2 borss eon eauno eft Ba, $4 
‘eo bedeloeos stan 
boaasaas bre tsetse eat t0% — * ave é suottiw 3 
vragen py 
aids no — ———— odd pero vet of 09.0008 * 
aS TI? Fo "pwn a 
-boniacde need aad ebodon ertoted | ay torte to tix ate? 3 
Shic adconkt neesiseY adnate — 
Veh wat soumoo ont — adatxo Wiitdetl on ted ta0lo 
Ur a od? vo x 
bas mt eanlq otas 8 Tiintsta oma tam, ot tnabnetoh 
aad o fecn brn See 
conoat tRon ett Ti move 20% itor ot fotse adits —* 
— foe 
mort ‘to —— eds te tetot09 ons non _ bosaotbora pd bd 
ent z + fect? s o ; 
~qorrb “linoupert cew antatoien ——— ** tae daett 8 
s & 
doldw) svoda arevefioted edt to Stow. fewor! ends nth tt a0 
mtaencs Fe aeseco 7g ST —5* 
euot on ed nao exes «(blo fon ob ko « Tevswod 


va°"r2a7 * 


outs sf2 sebnw guiitow al saw exes — to Oe 
ods vd bsmuees ase boseixe fo kw aaote iba os —— bus 8 


qtanibxo edd at most — do xo cen⸗ pee = be bed wer titans — 
* ° ¥ 


od? yd bebe tat? 3 [3 2 .ae2 
>: ono X oerq — — — 


ulezaupa noltnesnoo osamis iu —J cinq od« ,feanvoo a'ttidnie 


on the viclation of the statute above cited. The material part 
of that statute reads thua: 

"Be it enacted: x x x That all seaffolds, hoists, 
cranes, stays, ladders, supports, or other mechanical con- 
trivances, erected or constructed by any person, firms or 
cerperation, in this State for the use in the erecticn, re- 
pairing, alteration, removal or painting ef any house, 
building, bridcee, viaivet or other structure, shall be 
erected and cenetructed in a safe, stiitable and proper man- 
ner, and shall be se erected and constructed, pisced and 
operated as to cive vroper and adequate sretection tc the 
life and limb ef any person or persons employed or angeged 
therseon, or pascing under er by the same, and in such man- 
mer as tc prevent the falling cf any material that may be 
used or depssited thereon," 

If the accident to the plaintiff resulted from a vic- 
lation by the defendant of this statute, it is true, as main- 
tained by him, that the doctrine ef the Assumption of Risk dees 
not apply. 

Spring Valley Coal Company v. Patting, 210 111. 
542; 

Streeter v. Western Wheeled Scraper, 254 111. 
2446 

The questions, therefore, for decision by the Court 
below and by us are whether there was a violation of the statute 
in this case end whether the accident resulted therefrom. 

The plaintiff contends (a) that the runway on which he 
was working was a "“ecaffold"® ané was not "constructed in a safe, 
suiteble and proper manner" nor ec constructed "as te cive prop- 
er and adequats vrotection to the life and Limb of any vereon 
employed or engaged thereon", (b) that if not a seaffeld the 
runvay was at least a “mechanical centrivance"® and failed of 
meeting the same requirements of the Statute. This failure to 
meet the requirements cf the statute it is argued is shown by 
the insufficient width of the runway, and the fact that it was 


not protected above from the dreopeings of fresh mortar from the 


— — —— — 


y 
t 
’ 


. boyenns 10 Soyorane enoatey to — 
we ott tm 





if 


























tus lalxesem oft .Betto evods etatste a0 30 att 
yetzloed ,ebloYtees fla saat” ——— 


— nn aAo sca bye ‘to 
go wiht \ceuted “ine 5— bs 
8% — od? at vau an 10% otes2 —* a it 4, 
, wot yte Te gat inte “10 | rem 
7 ifate ,emtfoutia rite x0 touhaby 29 

«sam ‘“eqote bas ofdatiue ,etea es af Bed 
baa bvon 9 hetowttanos brs betoers vty 
eiedteds utaiigend Sie toqots Sule oF = 


-nem four at Saw (ome ont xd ‘ro 
od ym fant —— ts %o wa? fiat 


Saar j Le 

colv # woz? bedfumer IWtIiniste vit oF Hrobtode oat n 
wien aa jet ut $f —E— ra⸗ to tasbretes —X 
oooh Ant Yo moFigmmed ext Yo wnttfoob ott teks int 


ay 





— —— one’ a ae 
ty * sae sive * oe i. . 
,LET B2S ypreqeTe® befeod! metas’ iv retorts ——— 
aha ORS EM 


stutste edd Yo notseLoty:s asw erst? cedterv orm Bir we 

-morretest bso ivaet Inobtoos ent Tortorte tite — 

od dotdw mo — abnétnoo ontata eet ob od —* a * 

,otee a mt betowttsoo"® ton abe base "blotted" 2 aw , , , 

-qory @vin of ea” BetouTtanods o¢ tom, rena Teqotq baa Bf tt = 

moateq yrs To dmtt baw ottT odd ot ot motsoetory statipoba te 

oft DLoTtace w fom Mt tets (dc) ,*ndsteR? don⸗e vn⸗ 70 5 ram 

to bsflat he *oonevixéioo fa>tnarto om a theef se 4 

‘od ete list ais?  etutete sd? to atromertupet oman” — = 
VS fworta ef Deegts wk tt otutada of 20° etronoctapet ott! 286i 
“eaw $f 3843 tout ont baw ,yeunirr ot” ‘to Hibiw snotortiaant oad 


odd mort tadtom deett to enabonerb: 6A wort? | oe tong de 
sis ate e $e, Len wrt s  2idniok 





trowel work going on on the walls above it. The fresh mortar 
dropred con it, it is maintained, caused the plaintiff's foot te 
slip and brought about the accident. 

Ye assume that the Court below agreed with these con- 
tentions, but we are unable to do so, Ye deo not think that any 
proper definition of “scaffold® can be made to include such a 
"running plank*® as the ene in question. We doubt much if the 
running plank should be considered a "mechanical contrivance, 
If it was neither one nor the other, the statute did not avely 
to it. 

But even if, by the liberal construction of the stat- 
ute for which the plaintiff contends, and on acccunt of the fact 
that by the phrasing of the Act, “"seaffolds", “cranss", "stays", 
"Ladders" and "supports" are 211 aprarentiy placed under the 
generic term of "mechanical contrivances® (although we should 
hesitate independently so to denominate dome of them), we treat 
the runway as “a mechanical contrivance", we can not hold that 
for either of the reasons which the plaintiff assigns, or for 
any cther, it was not "erected and constructed in a safe, 
suitable and preper manner® or was not "so erected and con= 
structed, placed and operated as te cive proper and adequate 
protection to the life or limb of any person or persons employed 
or engaged thereon.* 

It may be true, as the plaintiff testified, that if 
the runway had been made of three planks plsecsd side by cide, 
he would not have fallen, especially if the arrangement had in- 
cluded the fastening together of the planks, A wider platform 
of many planks would have been ctill sefer. It may be true that 
a canopy or roof erected over the runway might have prevented the 
accident by preventing any mortar from falling on the plank, 


althouch that the plaintiff's feet slipped on fresh mortar is 


























tas 3 LO feett ont ot —— —— 
of too? a'ttitetata ‘ewe — | bomtatntom at —— 
tnebtoos ‘odd toda tiyvoxd 

on100 enets “ote booms wofed ted 98d. tant om — 
ume. todd ants ton ob 8 400 ob.od sidenu 93a oF 


Le re r oe* te 
# Hous ebusoet, 08 shom.od na0.* , 
oat YE foun sdu0h om .moiteeup. at. oa od? en! 


* .sonsvixtnoe faninadoont ——— 
tious ton bib efuteta oft ,r0it0 ont om 9 1 cert: — 
A⸗ ww te 

etate dt “Yo fetedts edt ot reat ake 
Poet oft Yo Jav>000 ro brs abmodmen Neniata ete He 
“san ; Snonase® ,°obiotinve® .tol od? te patente. 
ont Toba beosig y{fnetaqqs {fe om irate -.o-tf bas * 
—— — ew “@_wodt ta) “aecnsvizinoe teotnadoon® to weet 
daoxt ow , (med? to omok etentmonsh of of Utnebnecenak ¶ 
tad? bfot ton ano ow oonevittmon faotnedoon s 88 


eee. 


Pray 
7 


') 
1 
ep 2 


wet 
‘tot x0 cermtons Witntele ext aota anoasox “ext Yo * 


* cake 
ig? = 


~otse 8 nt besouttancs See bezoore® ton ‘eae SE 
“100 bras betoere os" fom saw xo *tennse xeqo1q Bas © 
etsupeba bra ** evin ot as betereqe baa beoste r 
bexofqre aneeroa ‘to ) soared une %o dmti 19 ents ‘ods ot * — 
a ostedd be 
Yh dad ,boltisacd? Ytintalq end ‘es sia ‘ed yam 1 
~ebiea vd ebta beosfa einsiq cons +6 ‘ebom need bet Your oa ‘ee 


ae « 
4% 


4 


ont bar fneom gna edt tt tiiatosgas welts? ovad * bf * 
wricttala tebiw A einalq ont 20 roritenod aninetact © ‘bebuto 
fant eux? ed yar $I «.tetes Lites need overt bivow avna fe vane te ; 
ef? betnevexq ovad @ryio vernut oft z8¥0 befoe1s toot * ——— 
Acia ſq on: mo patifet moxt x20" tne nat snoveta xf ‘dmobtoos 1 


+ Saat ye 
ak tedx0m moxt mo herein toot errttontars ott ‘test? Aquodd te 


rather a conjecture than a proven fact. A completely covered 
broad inclined plane with side walls would have been still 
more protected from the accident cf any foreign substance upon 
it. Put neither a wide platferm nor a covered flocr was, in 
our opinion, required by the statute under discussion, It was 
not absolute safety (which is rarely if ever obtainable in con- 
struction work), nor wae it employeea insurance that this stat- 
ute wae expected te secure, but that amount of protection fer 
employees and others working or passing about a building in 
construction as is consistent with the practicable carrying on 
of the work. In construing the phrases "constructed in a safe, 
suitable and proper manner" and "so constructed an to give proper 
and adequate protection", equal weight must be civen to the 
words “suitehle® and “proper® as to "safe" and “adequate.” We 
de not feel at liberty to hold unsuitable and improper a method 
of supplying mortar te bricklayers which is shown to have heen 
the ordinary and customary one for a great number cf years, and 
which had never before resulted in an accident in the experience 
of a builder of twenty-one years etanding. 

The judgment of the Municipal Court will be reversed 
with a finding of facte. 

REVERSED, 


: 
; 












berr0o yLetelques A «fast nevorg # nadt etutontnos. a 
[fide weed evad biwow altew ebte stim enefq. bom! fon 
moqu Sonasadya matexc? yas Yo snehtocs eit moxd bors p! 
-n00 Mi eldaniatso wove th {ots wh doidw) xseres eos 
-tate p49 sed3 constuank apeyolqme $2 9s% 0m... (bro ' 
‘to? moktoetorg to iniems teadd tud .oroee ot hosaeqxe s 
mh qnibitus # tuode gntasaq 10 ymtiter atedio bas a 
mo yotyrxso efdsottoa1q edt Attw tnotetenos at aa mote 
(2a 8 ttt hesouttance" aeaemiq of? ynivttence al 
toqetq eviy of as betowttanos o3" bas “tennam t9qo7q | 
—' ot meyiyn ed taum Sdgiew Lsupe ,"moli 
oF “.ateupehs" tne “staa" of en *teqgoTg" bas 
bodtem a isqo1qmi bre eftesivuanu bio o3 ysisdll ota: 
mised oved of moda at dotde erevlioli of iadt0m gabe ing 
bre yelasy To 1sdewn Jeeta s tot eno YIomesase bee ye | 
eoneltecxe of? nt tnebtocea as at betivas1 eicted seven 
saniinate ersey sno-viner? to 
boetever od {ihw fred faqlotaut oft to dnemmbut emf a; 


A 
— 












. » \eatost te 
-TEAREVER ee ‘> mtr xy obat oae 
" 208 
Z Cre 
£ ¢ Shoat ae 
> Cu* 
¢* . 
4 
| Sonar ot — 
⁊ Bel> — F 
‘ee 
eo ‘verd td tach eoe ‘ 


— Lo SP on tay tat? +-poddTe 


2243 = 17757 
erm, 19117 No? 


ELLEN REAGAY, 
Appellant, 







APPEAL FROW THE CIRCUIT 
ve. 


RLIZABRTH MOOLEY, 
(now Elizabeth Nerris 


a ag 


UR. JUSTICR BROWN DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THUR couURT. 


COURT OF COOK COUNTY. 


et al., 


— —— — — — 


— OL — — 


182T.A. 250 


This cause comes to us on an amended bill of complaint 
filed Octcher 14, 1903, as amended on July 14, 1904, the answer 
by certain adult defendants to said amended bill as amended, 
filed March 5, 1906, admitting all the allegations of ssid bill 
and asking the game relief asked by the complainant, the answer 
of certain minor defendants by a guardian ad litem, submitting 
their righte to the Court, the answer of the principal defendant, 
Bligabeth Morris, sued as Wligabeth Hooley, denying the material 
@llegations of said bill and setting up the Statute of Frauds 
in an affirmative defence to the same, the Report of a Master in 
Chancery to whom said cause was referred (with the evidence 
taken by him), recommending that the bill be dismissed for want 
of equity, the objections te the said report, afterwards ordered 
by the Court to stand as exceptions thereto, the decree of the 
Court confirming the Master's Report and di@miesing the bill 
for want of equity, and an appeal frem said deeree te this Court 
by the complainant, whese assignments of error umount practical- 
ly merely to the complaint that the decision of the Court below 
should heve been in her favor instead cf ageinet her. 

The decree itself states material paris ef the nature 


and histery of the cause succinctly and ve quote from it: 





























TIVQIO. ANT MOAT, JARMTU-(. ..,. 
. »¥2KU03 400). TO TAVOD v° Pt Lose \p re ce * 
—— 7 bt 


08S hI SB Cram 


diet Dio» tomes pt — * * it 


- 8000 AT T0_NOTIS0, 7 CAREER, HONE 


gata fqmoo to rhs bebasme nw no ae alae 
— owans oa% ,PORL ,dE eiut mo hebheak’ aa (ROE Car ¥e 
— an ita  bebnerse bise’ 0 ain i 
Iftd piesa to anottagotie of? Ira guti treba” doer .t 
—— of? df sevas Yitee vine 6 : 
gaits tetas ~mesit be nalbaiyy a «dt ainsbnoted tomtm nl * 
etnahaeteh Yeqionivy ef? Yo towane of? ,d2u09 Uae oo't tats ¥ 
tatresam odd antyureb «Xo LooH — a bea’ ate 
‘gbust? to eiutet® off qu ‘gniftea bas bas Ifthe bisa 1 

ni tetea¥ & Yo FxoqeR odd \omaa odd of SoneTSD OV. 
Sonsbive ot dil) beristet eaw sales —— 

tnaw 10% besatmeth of Cid ed? Fatt gnthneme: 
bershio abuewiesta ,Froqet bine exf 0d anotfostdo “alt X 
ed? Yo eetoeh ef? ,osexert? anotiqeoxe eh inate oF vod ef 5 
CLid oft gotastmots bas txoqek a'zosaeY ext? — J— 
#1wo0D att? of eetoeh bias mort feeqqe nz bas etups Yo x0? 
-[sotios1q invome 10o1rs Yo atnemrpgicas voa ocn -tnantafquos | a a 





* mead uli» ee” 

* —S — 

ite Saad —* 
ae 


* 











7 


— 
. = 


— aa 
woled t1v09 eft To molntoeb edd tad? tntafqmon odd 03 yLetem Y 
— 


t* 


— —XRX centage to hastont tovet t09d at need oved 


eusden edd To aszsq Iatzesem sojate tieesl setoeb ext ® — J 
:¢i most efoup ow bre ylionloous. eauas ed? te ‘erotatd b 
) oes e “ie am sil * 
— Be, 
alae 


"The Court finds: that on or about June 4, 1395, one 
Ellen Reagan filed her certain bill of complaint herein to 
have a certain warranty deed decisred a cenveyance in 
trust, which said deed was made on the 12th day of Vay, 
1896, by Yary Whouley, conveying to Elizabeth F. Hooley 
(Here follows a detailed description of Lot 78 in “Lombard's 
Division of Block 50 in 19-39-14 in Chicago), which said 
deed wag duly recorded in the Recorder's cffice x = on the 
12th day of May, 1896.2 = x 

That the said Elizabeth F. Hooley has since the re- 
ceiving and recordine of said deed been married and is now 
Blizabeth F. Morris, the defendant herein. That issues 
were framed upon the said bill between the said Ellen Hea- 
@an and the said Hlizabeth 7. Morrie and others, that the 
eause was thereafter referred to Master in Chancery John 
Hummer to take testimony and report the seme, together 
with his conclusions of law and fact, and that said Yaster 
thereafter reported to this ‘curt the evidence so taken, 
together with his conclusions cf law and fact, which said 
report of the said Master recommended that a decree be 
entered dismissing said bill for want ef equity. 

That exceptions were filed by complainant = x « to 
said report, but that ne order was entered thereupon. 

fhat thereafter an amended bill was filed herein by 
the said Ellen Reagan and cthers, alleging the decd afore- 
seid was given by the said Mary “houley to the said Bliza- 
beth F. Hooley, now Elisabeth F. Morris, as a mortrare.*® 


It would seem to appear frem an "aprendix" to the 
printed brief and argument presented to us by the counsel for 
appellant, that the filing cf this amended bill was sugeested in 
July, 1903, by a Chancellor in the Cireuit Court, who, efter 
hearing an argument on the exceptions te Master Hummerts Report 
on the original bill, made some cbservations on the evidence 
but refused to make any order except "Leave given to complainant 
te file an amended bill." 

As appellees' counsel preperly encugh point out, how- 
ever, we can find no such matter in the transcript of the record 
before us, and it is entirely immaterial in the present conten- 
tion in any view, . 

After the amended bill was filed (October 14, 1903) 
and itself amended (July 14, 1904), it was answered by various 
defendants as above set forth, and on June 10, 1905, the cause 
was again referred to a Master, this time to Master Cooper, to 


take testimony and report the same with his findings and conclu- 


sions, 


) 








id 


veetr - ea 






eno ,SCGL ,> emul svods to ao tad} sabnt? 
od nteted tats iquo> to {Lid wiatxeo ton 
mi @omayevnoo « > gpg a 


eva" to aaSf no sham saw 
wioot .f dfedsalfi of gnixyorneo 
a'buedmo.7 ni 8Y to. To — boli« 
bise doicw ,(onsoid? mi d[-Bé-O£ at 234 
sd? 90% & sOltto e?tehr0907 edt at Bebrooest 
a za desſct oxak te 
-et on@ sedate asd yefoo! .F dtedaat f bise = 97 
won @i hua belize seed beeb hise to anibiroess baa 
eoveut tott .atoid inedasteb si? ,ettz0M .T 

-se4 not iS bina of2 Heowied Ifid bkee eft 
edd jati ,.utedio bha cirt0o@ .T diedssi{E bias end 
suieol yteemad? oi tedaeaM of hettetet irsttaecisd? esw 
‘ont fyoqget bus yromivaes oad of 


ent orgs 
teten¥ biasg + Re ton? bes wal to — —— 
(feted op — od? txwot wis © ; 
olae Soisdw ,joa? bas wal To te ale . ahr a diie A— 
—— 2 tar? 5 —— — 
' e¥S2epe to taee tot Liitd bise rise aaae ts 
od x 8 = dnextslgron YS beltt swew adotiqesxs —— 
-moqueteds beteoine eaw tebio on aa sud — 
uf mieted belt? ase fli¢ beboems m= YeSIsereds stad? 
~e10ts Seeh odt gnigolie ,ax9edse baa 
— Biew oAd Of Yolwod? a Siaz | mevig usv 
*.sqagitom s ce ,eiztoM .¥ diodasti= won ,yelooH . — 
‘irs * 
od? of "“xibgeqee* ca mott ꝛ⸗ag⸗ o⸗ meee bisow a1 

























tie jen 
tot feanwes edd yd aw of besasees¢ tusmuy te bne read ↄ 


ai boteeanws caw {itd bebners alidi to palit ont — ——— 

tefts , onw , $990 tiwoxid enfd ok sof Leonedd a ww ht oF 

st0qeH a' Tommi ⁊oa au ot anoisqeoxe ods ro aoaunr⸗ no : 

sonshive id me anoitavieado emos eben ithe ge 

inantaiqnos of mevig svasJ* tqeoxe Tobte ome ecam 8 | ) 
eke bebrema ne 

: oot 

-wod ,tuo tntoq dayore vitegotq feanues eertteac⸗ eA — eR | 
Brose: sit? to sqitoanatt odd at 203 dam dows on batt mao | * 


“netnoo tnose1q edt ot {ett9teumt clorksae at #2 bam yaa ‘ ou eroted 7 
*⸗ —8 ye at wees | 

(f0@L , AL “tedo200) berit caw {ftd bebnems edt x09 
avoizey Yd botewsns saw tk (20er * viet) bebooms ate⸗aat bas 
seuso edt DORE eOL onwt mo bas nitro? ⸗es oxroda as einabneteb 


o⸗ ~teqooD rtetasM of emit eid? ,reieat we of berrerez atone ssw 






-“wfomoo bas aanitbnl? aid jiw emma edd? Stover bas owt sass sist 
' anole 


The complainant then effered in evidence the svidence 
which had been taken and reduced to writing before Master Hummer 
at the former reference. The following stipulation relating 
thereto was entered ints between counsel and placed on reccrd: 

"It is hereby stipulated between counsel for complain- 

ant and counsel for Elizabeth Morris that no objections #111 
be made te the testimony offered for the reason that it 

Was net taken before Master Cooper, but was taken before 
Vaster Hummer, and no objection will be made because it 

Was taken under other issues than those under which we are 
now proceeding, excerting counsel fer Zlizabeth Morris re- 
serves tho richt to argue that that testimony must be in- 
terpreted in the light ef ite having been taken under a 
bill to declare a trust." 

The decree finds that on May 12, 1896, Mary Yhouley 
was unmarried; thet she died June 24, 1896; that she conveyed by 
Warranty deed the premises befcre deseribed to Elizabeth F. 
Hooley, now Werris, subject to a certain incumbrance on them 
owned by said Nocley; that the warranty deed provided that the 
said inewubrance should be paid by said Hooley; that she is still 
the owner of said incumbrance and is willins and consents of 
record to have a decree entered herein directing that said in- 
cumbrance be surrendered and cancelled and declared null and 
void and cf ne force and effect; that the said warranty deed was 
given for a good and valuable consideration, namely, money due 
to the grantee and future support for the grantor; that it 
was not made in trust cr as a morteasze or security of any kind, 
but was a conveyance in fee simple, and that the title te said 
premises was forever thereafter to remain in and be the property 
of said Hocley, now Morris. 

The decree makes an order about coste and contains 
these further ordering clauses: 

“It is therefcre ordered and decreed: that the said 
Flizabeth ¥. Worris is now the owner in fee simple absolute 
of said premises above described in said warranty deed, by 
virtue ef the said conveyance. 

It is further erdered and decresd: that the eriginal 


bill herein filed, the amended bill and sll amendments 
thereto be dismissed for want of equity." 


— eS en 


1 
} 
| 








@ouebive ef3 eonshive al. bewerte mond oat iss * — 

— —2 proted aatiine os — bn edad mood bad take 
asitefex notsefuciia aniweksot ont “ssonezetor sonnet aka - 

:b1000% me boewle bus feansoo ‘geovied. otmt | boxodne naw of - 


“ask —— er 
-nialgmoo tot [seasoo —— detsluqtta <éozed et arf 


at? 2t#0D 




















file *536 on sed? alzza¥ déedsetlA 10% feenges bas — 
ti ted? nogset odd tot beretio yworiiee? ont of bom . 
excited seth ee iad ,teqoo) tetes¥ etoted acted ton 5* ars 
$i Qnucood eg {ite & pottostds eo bne setae 
om. a8 Se ps oe sensi nad ‘ 
-ot eizt0¥ eames auiineexe ——— 
vai od Saum tedd tadd sunis o⸗ be e⸗æd⸗ F 
@ sohats — att te jdyii ed? at * 
 Setawtd a eraloeb ef Pak ack 
— 


yolved? yuo ,2C8L SL ao tend abnit estos 2B: oh osname 

“d beyermos eda tad? ,3@8L ,aS enw both ona fade ate rriar 

A Htsdesili of bedizeeeh wxoted sealmeng. ond boos ars ru J ; 

med? no sonsudewont sizise a od: toetdua abr wom oo | 

ond tect Dobivoag boob cinavram end acd yxoLool btae vw? ome : cs 

{f{tsa at ona jadi jxelooll bisa eW blag of bivoria — — 

Yo asaesnoo bas aeilliw at bone sorcsidmont bias To — 9— — 

“at Dine ted? gaisoeith niered bewisne sexsh & vent 02 Seam 
boo lium beisissh bra boilensac has betebnaeatwe od 

asw heeb yiaatwer bias. eft tedt jtoette hme soto? on te tm awn 

ouh yenom ,vlonwn ,nolsaetehbiance efdauleay bre. boag # 

#i tad? ,10%saxy ef? tot Srocque etytuth bee eedaaty : 

ehbuid wie to ytizueee to epandtom & ae to seat? ab ober tou aw 

bles of oftis og Jad? One .efqmte se? mi. sonayernones con, tate 

‘tirsqorzq edd od. bna.nl.nltewer of xe ttectent- tevezot caw socio 


-eitto% won, ee 


anieasnroo boa aseoo tuods tebte:ns eetem cot99h edt 
sesavelo yritebso — 


—E——— — 


ww ,boeb yinertew Diese gt bedi 2— eveda senimetq biss.to. swt 
sonsyevnon blea edd to ewitiv ; 


fatale as, Pecan ABs Sea EE EEE, aay“ 


*.utiups to inew tot becatmib ef od seoke 















—9* 


eu 








The first of these decretal orders is manifestly out of 
place in a technical sense, for there is ne croer-bill asking 
affirmative relief on the part of the defendant,and the dismissal 
of the original and amended bille leaves the Court witheut ju- 
rigdiction to make any order on the subject matter outside of 
the ordinary orders about costes. 

Rut in view of the findings of the decree, which are 
proper ac the basis ef dismiesel, and which would have by them- 
selves the same effect as establishing res adjudicata in subse- 
quent litigation, this technical errer is hardly worth atten- 
tion. 

Phe real question at issue is whether the Court erred 
in sustaining the Yaster’s Report te the effect that the war- 
ranty deed was not given as a mortgage and in consequence dis- 
missing the amended bill for want of equity. We think it did 
not. Consideration cf the evidence convinces usa that the Yaster 
was right in his findings of fact that the consideration for the 
making of said warranty deed was the satisfaction of the umount 
ef money which Very Whoulsy owed Elizabeth Hooley and also the 
adyancement of other sume cf money by Elizabeth Hooley for the 
care and keering of Vary Whouley, and the undertaking of said 
Bligabeth Wooley to keep said Mary *houley while she lived and 
pay her living expenses, and that the deed was the free act of 
Vary Whouley to the ssid ends, end was not given ae security or 
in trust for any purpose. If the Waster was thus right in his 
conclusions of fact, his conclusion of law that the bill should 
be dismissed for want of equity manifestly follows. 

The centention of the complainant is that the warranty 
deed in question vas meant by Yary Yhouley only to secure said 


Blizabeth Hooley for such advances as the said Hocley had made 


oa, Vil dete oe = * 
a — * 
—— 
— aap * y 
— 
— 











— im 44? — — ey 28 e⸗ 
* tuo vise? imam a stebte. fajetoeb seedt to 
er +g, pees ans 

aaives {Lid-ss0%9 on at ezeds = —— Sotadooo 
⸗ "toh ?t “TertaeE. 
{eae imatd ott baa , ine eaeꝛo⸗ — te sueq ont mo teller ovt 
i. | eee Pat sSeci herp sey nev. my 


-wt swodt iv Puw0d og? sovsed alitd — 


































d— imei Se - J— vf ai b> ig J— 
to sotaduo nossan Joo tdun estn0. sobx0 “ye: salecr of 
: co Weer: wed O82 09 — * * 
iad eyes — — 


——— —————— 

om okite (902998 ome v0 epee eens soe 
— orn Biwow dott bow cfaaeion th: To — 
-sedue ai aisolbutte gen yatiattdisun on Sostto ome eft | 
-netia iiow (ibwd at 19rge faolnioe?t 

‘ : , ‘ sever & : — 
Serre tiu0 ots r)8dtede et ouael to nottuoup: Leo est.” 
tev fF fetd dovite eM oF srOGeH otaetee ont gal 
“a2 sorespeanoo nt boa eyrpiren s ep nevig fon aan 
bib ¢f aimhad oF .Xsivpe Yo Inew TOY ULEE 
todas ef? ted? as geomiwroo sonsbtve offs to | 
ox? so sotteteblenoo eff sad) font to eyaibalt eid mb dtyhnme 
$titoms 08d Yo notsoststsaa ot9-eaw boob (inet btaw docgel 
‘odd cafe bas yofood Stodeal ld beso yolvorl¥ yrsM dotdn 
edd Tot Yolo! AdedsstIt ys (enon Yo amus xeddo to on 
bias to ytldatusbau of7 bas yyeiuor yt to : 
bus bevil ode oline yetuodY rau btew gee of xeteon 
"Yo foa eert edd saw boeb of? tec? fine \,soensqxe 
‘fo YIFti0en af aovin ton sew bre padre btae ont 
aid ni iagit eudd ew teteeM edt IE \eaoqmg (ie tot tents 
binode S614 of) Sek? wat Yo Motselonco wit ;fonTTo anotaul 
-awolfot <ftast tase yttupe to snaw to? 

Cierte ont tant as dnantalemes “ers 26 


— 


bisa etwoes oF elas yolvode ease — 


» #97 ENSe Biv 


mie a att btso ed) ee atonevbe Sova aoa yefool Atedantsa 
? ; —— ‘> be ton th oF sr sede X 


and should make to or for said “houley and with the purpose (to 
quote from the bill) that the “described real estate and the 
proceeds thereof after the payments of s11 the ‘amounts se 
advanced to said Vary Whouley = # might be divided smonge the 
heirs at law of said Mary *houley", of whom the complainant, 
Ellen Reagan, is one, alll the deferdants, including Elizabeth 
Hooley, are the others. The complainant alleged in her amended 
bill that the property in question var worth $5000 and that the 
defendant, Elizabeth Nooley, had collected $1000 for rent from 
the premises since June 12, 1996, and that after the payment of 
all the advances, which it was alleged Hlizabeth Hooley said 
amount to $1400, and on an account of the rents received, 
there will remain a large cum as the equity, to-wit: Three 
Thousand Dollare, of which the cratrix is entitled to her legal 
share*, 

Somervhat inconsistentiy, further allegations of the 
bill assert that slthoucgh Elizabeth Hooley has acknowledeed that 
she holds the said real estate in trust for heirs at law of Vary 
Whouley, she has on demand refused to account for rent receipts 
from it "or to pay the oratrix her shure of the said property, 
but on the contrary now declares that the said property is ab- 
sOlutely and legally hers and that she intends te withhold from 
your oratrix any and all share in the said equity in fraud of 
the rights ef the orator." 

The prayer of the bill is that Nlizabeth Hooley, now 
Morris, answer and account, and that the Court 

"set aride the said sllered warranty deed and declure the 
sams a mortgace to secure the advance of said defendant 
(Elizabeth Hooley) to said Vary “Yhouley, and thet the ssid 
Bligabeth Hooley be required to either foreclose the same 
er that the said property may be sold under erder cf this 
fourt, and that the said defendant after having accounted 
for the rents received and produced proof of the advances 
made by her on behalf cf said “ary Yhouley, be required 

to pay over the balance of the proceeds of said sale arig- 


ing out of the sale of said preperty to the heirs at law 
of Mary Yhouley"; 





















of) eacqiwq edd Atiw bas yeluod® bias tot to of Siam 
ed? baa edaseo Laot boditoseb* edd Your (tia odd nom 0 
on esnuome: ett Ile to titneniges odd "Salts toered? a 

end ynome bebtvib od _— xm yeluod yrow Biss oF 4 
eInsmralamon edd morte to ,*yetver® yxa¥ bias v6 eat Yo! on 

— yatbwfont ,atnabseteb ef? dus (eno ei ,nepal ee 
bebneaw 18d ni begel Ls — odT * to ont 64s : J 
ens dads bas ler | dtrow naw nolteeup at Se 4 — * 
mort tne 10% ovore hetoel foo bod v9 L0OH sdodeat it 3 


to tnseneaq od reste ten? bne oer Sf omit conta : 8 * 


— 





~bevisoes simet edd to Imuoooa as mo bre pe ot | 
pers? itiw-ot ,ytiupe edd ‘as owe eyiet 8 nkamoy — 
fags! ted of felstine at xtttato oft totde’ ‘to ete ff0t i 
“ee Keely Set auw & ; 

J 

ond to anottenetis zedsist  Ulinete tancont —— * 
sand begbefwonkss ‘aed ye Too! déedast lx Awods ia jadd —E— 
sts to wal te atisd ‘tot taurt ai esates “Ysex bias ‘odd blo a 
edqiooo dne1 tot snuooos of beavtex baamsb mo ‘pad e sie % “4 


Ut teqor9 bles edt to eteds t0d xitjeto0 Vas wa of ‘zo® J 


Be] ‘odd 


As ai YI rsqotg bias ond jads ‘sersfoeb wor Vistsi00 
mort “bfoddtiw of abnetnt eda tad? bas “pied wisget ‘tad 3 
to buses? at va bisa ont nt evade fils ‘ba oa vs x ae , 
*,toda1o oat Yo | add 

won ,.yelool fijedast {x jadi et {rid edt to toyed ot 
10d off tans hns ,tnvooon brs ‘Yewscs ain 


ond ete loeb bas besh vinerta4 bene fis bine ont oe 













Tashbneteh bliaa Yo sonavha ess. og, gaaeng: 98 —** 
bias ond dart bua ,ysivod¥ Yie! Size © of vero ——— 
aid? to tebt0o tebsew Silos ed yen 5 
betnuocss goivadt tetta tnabacoteh bias ent 

betluepet ed ,yoiuod? yush — 2 — 
—alzs ofae bias to ebesoo1q and to “a tal ee 

wal te atied ed? of Wisgo1g bias. te oleae eft to fuo i 


omes #22 pnofoetot Zerntie et bertupet 
seonavhasa eft to Tootd caer brn Ct ———— 
;*reivont yak 


and for such further equitable relief as the Court may deen 
proper. The complainant inserted by amendment in the amended 
bill this clause: 

"Complainant hereby offers to do equity and hereby 

tenders to the said defendant Bligabeth Hooley any and 
all amounts which may be due to her upen an accounting 
for the moneys advanced or leaned ty her to said vary 
Whouvey, deceased." 

As defendant's counsel suggest, the bill is rather ene 
for foreclosure than one for redemption, which is the form in 
which a bill te declare an absolute conveyance a morteasage is 
generally and naturally cast. 

But we have iencred technical questions of form in 
passing on the matter, A consideration of the evidence taken 
4s a whole convinces us, as we have indicated, that it does net 
bear out the allegations of the bill. The evidence tending 
most strongly to supsort the compleinant's case is the testimony 
concerning deciarations of the defendant subsequent to the con- 
veyance andthe letters of her attorney after the matter was in 
controversy. 

The letters of Hr. Young, the attorney, seem far from 
conclusive and are not sufficient to base the complainsnt's claim 
on. A femily quarrel with its accompanying bitterness might 
well and commendably be brourht to a close by the efforts of 
well diepoesed lawyers throuch the shandonment of legs! rights 
which litigation might only establish, 

As for the alleged declarations of the defendant, Lin- 
dauer vs. Cummings, $7 I11., 195, stater fairly the rule which 
should govern their consideration, The testimony concerning 
them should be treated with great caution. And an the Supreme 
Court of Illinois, speaking throurch Wr, Justice NYand,said in 


Rankin vs, Rarkin, 261 Ill., 132, "Before a deed absolute in form 




























>’ slam 5 





moeh yam 210d oft aa Yotier efdadtupe x 
: — Lia aay “a 

bebrow cd) ok tmenbrome w bedieant taanteLqroo es? 
e ae tetas 
2 ~~ 

« . 54a 

— 1J 

oor dsavearia 

aiiiau-oos se gequ ted of owh ed yeu dolde adnvoms 
Visk bisee of ted yd beorsci te boousvbp eyenom ont. 


" beazooeh , yetuo. 
ts erentso * ome a% 
ero tontat at inte edt eonaa —— e'inabaeteb eA oe 
mings: @2 Sy elm A ants: rat a 
mi wtot ed? et ote sotsqmebst 103 ere ont —* * 


—— fy, tice 
at agenstom » oanayswnes otuioada ne exe Loeb at “1k s 
ociea eon lea 
staan Viewtan bas ‘fla 


peer 2vc0e 


ai moet To asotsaoup —— —— sved ow sat 


one? eonehive ont to ao l Satoh tao A x03 40m ont ae 
. een ffte # 
Zor aoob 7i ted) ,botaocthnt evan ow 2A al seontvnes | ie 


gribaet somebive efT .{fid oft Yo anotteqelin ont so 


Yoomitees ont et Seso e'faemtsfamoo edt srooque ot “I; 
32 fo? s2zec 

-m00 eff of tnoupsadwe tnabastebh ef? to aoiaaꝛo tso 

Ws Scere . 

at gow tsitem oft tests yer1t0otte asd To azessoL ‘ent baa 


ort — 


° sw 
he alll 
mort ist meee — eds sarsso¥ a to atestef ofT | BP 
, Ze ya 2 
miefo ettnantaiqmoo ent ound et suetotttua ton ous bas 8v¥. 
+s oa7 


?ainim evorntessid yniynaqmoossa sti asin foriaup tet | te 

To aftotte ed? vd eaclfo a of — ed — —— 
atrigiia Leyel Yo snemmobasda end dnuorntt sreywe [ bonoaaih: ’ 
-Ainifdetes yino ⸗aa⸗æ molsenitit. ‘ te 

-nit ,ineboeteb ef? to anoitataloeb bosetis odd x0? aA y 
doide eiut edd yftlst setata , 201 —A ve eneiom) iy: 
painteonocs ystmisass edT .notsatebianos sted 
smerqu2 ef? oa Det aotasao — tte beseerd of biwoda. 
gi Sina, bask selttaut * — paitocge — sir to 


arot nt etuLonds bowed 3 exorea? StL faces 19s sntsastt .a 


o7 
3 


ery 





ket ; iae : * 28 
— “aif To 


can be declared to be a mortgare, the proof showing the fact 
must be clear, satisfactory and convincing.® We do not think 
it so in this cage, and the decree of the Girenit Court is 
modified by striking out the words: 
"It is therefore ordered and deersed that the said 
Bligabeth FP. Worris in now the ewner in fee simple absolute 
of said preriaes above described in said warranty deed by 
virtue of the said conveyence", 
and as s0 modified is affirmed. 


DECRES WODIFIED AND APFIR¥ED, 





eine Eat 


J et eee 


* Aniae ton ob oF 'Pugehont WIDe — 
ek ttwoD tiwort? ed? Yo setosb oft bua (mm tite 


| — — ane bender 
> rT gt a nn bise At Dedizesed svodh. sonianet 
Pr oon⸗avovnoo bias ed? to 
4 iow gn rmoee> e'ingahasted 24 


ii _ pemmtan ah Seunsne et eal 
i ta? ere erveel 
bag RTA. ek caTETGON ARRON 


—3 <7 giefevd2 pa oxen Look o? — 


ro 






























~~ 


t ioe « ram <[iprnten ire 


imu) Seronst eved ee fel. 3 


J ig 
% —2 
F poet » me eet 2 areotencs * -.2etiwe vd? ROG 
Hoke 7 . : van ° 
— ijt 
= “at om Sa , oe 2een7 Theo » 
e i> i 


te ott? to anwobsagelic« est? | r 


* 


‘open oaas ef Figs 
- i ae 
* ü edt Yo eactéatafon® 


J io We 


, ‘ a 
; ' , cot To qiodtel ef? DAA ge 
a } ee 
io > 
4 3 
| ‘ ; . ssotie off ,yaneY .7% Te eveteet att | 


ssad ef 2eetoftiue fon om ioe 


| as ‘ P ‘ ’ ‘ ; ee 233i stis {eataep ing 


i) * o¢ —E 

is “egece! evereelt bow 

_intidatee tine 2dghe ⸗ 
. ⸗ — q28 Segeltta eff 267 aA 

a tnda , POL p-fEE A? qeaciee ey 

te ssitasd of? ysettetebienso. sem = a 

— 6) 4 taerg S2ly betewr? of niiede ’ 


ny orth geskteeqe , etenkist * 
mad - * — —— 





ex Term, 1911, No, 


368 = 17904 







J. 5. SHERYAN, doing 
business as “. ©. SHERMAN 
VACHINS AX? [KOR VORKS, 
Apoellee, 
APPEAT. FROM THE CITY CouRT 


OF CHICAGO HRISSTS. 


1821.4. 291 


— — — — — — — — — — 


UR. JUSTICR BROVH DETAVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT, 


This is an appeal from a judement of the City Court 
of Thicage Heirhts. The judement which was entered May 24, 1911, 
was for $450. It is in favor ef W. S. Sherman, the plaintiff 
below and appeliese in this Court, and against the Hennicott 
Water Softener Co,, a corporation, which was defendant below 
and is arpellant here, 

®. S. Sherman, the appellant, was a resident of and 
doing business in Oklahoma. The buciness was done under the name 
of the ©. ©. Sherman Machine and Iron Werks. In Aucust, 1909, 
he furnished and srected a steel smoke stack in Yukon, Oklahoma, 
as a pert of an outfit of a mill plent which the Kennicott 
Water Softener Co., # corporation manufacturing and erecting 
steam hoilere and like machinery, wae there installing. 

The suit in which the jiudement here in question was 
obtained was brought in February, 1916, for compensation fer 
the stack and accesscries and its erection. 

The amount cf the judement was, it is contended by 
Sherman, the agreed contract price of £500,060 increased by a 
charge (which does not seem to be disputed) of four dollars 
for some extra material and diminished by an allowance of 
$20 which is made for varicue small matters. 


The defendant, the Kennicott Company, adreits that it 


are F 
- Ve 
— 
— 





wavoD YY" HET woe Tasco, © 
-SPROTEE OBADIND XO. 


yee a.re3p © 





















cwieyemens DL 
boom tta at. Sek thors ot oa v“ 


a ce ars eps Al ea 


swwoD YFIO of? to Iremmort s moTt Leouqe ne af eld? - 
SECL gS YOM botetne aaw doitw tromybot-onT .addgtelt-og 
Ttitniele of% ,nerred? .2 .H to xovet ot al #1 
ttootome’ eft tanieya baa ,21w00 ett at seffeqgs bas 
woled taabastebd aev doide ,mottetoqiTos a 4.@9 1 
baz to tnebtast « eat ,tnetieqge si? .namiedd 12.8 a | 
susr odd tebnu onoh aaw eaenieud stT .smorsff0 mt ur 
COL pPeenuA BT .e¥te® motl bas entdosM memreds 2 ne s 
Smo lt ,moteY mi Aoasa onlome Leste « betoets bua hers: 
diontome® omit doldw ¢nslq Lite # to sitive me to 9 
 «gnitoetes Baa grttetostunam noltasoqtoo # good ¥ +. 
-aaiifeteant ont ase ,yrenideum ettl bre etefted mes 
ese cotieaowp mi eted tremabut eft nNotde at shoe edt... ™ 
tot molsaensqmos tot ,OLCL ,vuewiudeol nt tdygwotd enw at 
. eftottoete aft base aeltoxaesos bua Aoeta™ 

yd hebretmon at sf ,aaw tnemabsl of? to tnvoma ont - nee 
& vd beenetoat 09,00%§ to eottq toestnen boerne one 
Stailoh wot to (betuqeth ed of moss fon aeob dotde) 9 
to sonsvolfile ne yd boratnintd bas [attetam extze emon ) 
.atetiam [lane sgottey tot sham et cotdw Os 
st dad? atinbs .yaeqmoD stootnnex eft ,¢nabnetod odT © 


& 


owes Sherman $436, but maintains that this ies the extent of 
its liebility, it contends that the eentrect price was four, 
not five, hundred dollars, and cluims.deductions from that 
contract price, the nature of which de not appear. 

The facts seem very clear from the corresrondence. A 
proposition was made in writing te the Kennicott Company on June 
24, 1909, by "The 3. S. Sherman Yachine & Iron Yorks" to deliver 
and erect the stack for $400, and it was immediately accepted by 
the Kenricott Company throurh ite representative ani acsnt, #ho 
seems to have transacted all thse business relating to this matter, 
one G. ¥, Honus. 4 is contended by Sherman that this offer was 
made conditionally by a resresentative in his absence, and re- 
quired his ratification to make it binding on him. There is no 
competent evidence of this. The statewent, so far as this record 
goes, is based on his subsequent self-serving reciteis in the 
correspendence introduced. It is moreover apparently dependent 
on the positicn that a prier uneaccepted offer of Sherman's was 
for the manufacture of the stack only, and did not include its 
delivery and erection,<-a position which in inconsistent with 
the letter intreduced in evidence makine said prior effer. Thies 
condition of thines explains the dinpute between the parties whick 
led te this litisation, but it is therein immaterial, because 
before any werk was done under the offer thus made and accepted, 
the offer was repudiated by Sherman and the renudiation was uc@- 
quieaced in by the Kennicoett Cs, throuch its agent, Ponus. A 
new contract wae made, under which the work was done, 

The controversy in this cause turns entirely on Letters 
and telegrams of the 4. ©. Sherman Machine & Iron Yorks to Ro- 
nus of Iuly 1 and July 3, 1999, in which it says positively that 
it will not manufacture, deliver and erect the stack for less 


than $500,009, and on Fonus’ answer thersto by wire, as follows: 


+e 


























to tnecxe ed? st etd? tad’ embetter tud tt 3 a 
-twot aaw eoltqg fostinco edt. tnd? sbperaee at 5 a3 943 
$ard mot? anottoubed. amisto — arbi ton 6 — 
oñ ob — to an oat seat 
a A cedhehasqserzes ed? moxt sae fo eaee | 
onet fie semaqnen #ooknsy etd of yatttrs —* 
taint sab of “axxeT nox! & atten mariert2 at 
wW hetqoone Useelton oa Jf bee 003% to? donde 8 
... 
—— — bevonanex? vad 0 
⸗⸗⸗ tO TO atde dak nomrem® ut bedmeteon,et t1. . 
-or bas eoonseda abd st ovitetneseiyet aw 
‘Qn of ered? .aitd mo gotbaid It exam 08. wotdnoitiex mtb 
bidost sift an wt 08 ,ineresesa off ..etdt to soneblys.# 
edd ni elatioer gniviee-tiea Ineupsedue sin. m0. 
tephnensh whinewqes xevoetom ai 31 ,beoubottnt . 
sew e'newi se to ae do betqeesens twoliq #, ded? no / 
| Rt Sbakomt For Sth bmw .ximo Aosta odd Yo etuspstunam i, 
| dtix tnetatcnoont eat doidw moitiaog #-_noitoe:ss base e vt 
cif? .xetto totaq béae anisdem sonebive nt beouboxsat wath 
dott eeittaq odd neewsed stuqnibh edt anialcxe epaidt, to 
cavaced ,{mitetanm mieteds al 32 id emotoagh gt Bas ¢ 
ebetqesos bas cham asd? setlo etd sobnu epob saw tow <8 , 
-os ¢24 molialhbuqet eff bre nacreda yd betalbuges san : 
A .2unof ,trens aff davouts 209 2fooinned odd, vxd nt 
.onebh anw Ytow ef? doldw tabs , bam san deer2n00 — 





ce os ne 


er 


— 


| @1edtad no yloulsne exw seveo aid? mi yatevetéaoo eat ee 
-of o¢ st1e¥ notl 4 entdoe’ nerrtsd® .~3 «i of? Yo anerge, 

fads uforitiog wen th dotte mt ~QOCh~§ viet bast xfut, tos 
waef Tol foeta ed? soe1e bee tetifed ,ormisostunss Jon poste 
tewolie? ea ,etiw vd ofeted? sewane PE Re PONE 00,0088 — 


"Chicage, 1I11., July 8, 1999. 
A. &. Sherman Iron Yorks, 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. 

Yours received. You -finish the stack quickly as 
vossible. I be at Youkon Monday. 
G. ¥. Fontis.* 

The defendant, the Kennicott Cerpany, places its de- 
fence on the position that Benus was withcut authority to sive 
thie order to Sherman to proceed, 

Konue, the Kenricott Company meintains, had no power 
to make any contract in its behalf, and Sherman no justification 
in dealing with him as having it. 

But this contention cannot be sustrminsad. All of the 
correependence introduced (and this correspondence is practically 
all the evidence) negatives it, Bonus managed for the Kennicett 
Company 211 the business relating to the work and the offers of 
the Sherman Iron Yorks were all made to him (under different 
styles), the one of June 24, 1999, naming #400, included. This 
was addressed, indeed, in writing to the Xennicett Ce., but it 
was evidently handed te Honus, =ho wrote an acceptance of it on 
the spot. There is no hint in any of the letters of the Xenni- 
cott Company,after the claim of Sherman was made for $454, that 
Bonus did not have power to act for it. The implicaticnae sre 
@ll to the contrary. The metter had te be referred to him for 
repert and settlement. The contract of 1907 ctating, ac betveen 
themselves, the relations of Renus and the Kennicott Company, 
is not evidence that Ronus had not the sautherity which he as- 
sumed, We himself dees not take any such pesition. ¥riting to 
his principal, the Kennicctt Compeny, he merely saye: *If I 
wire@ them te co at the work, my intentionsvere not but to pay 
the centract vrrice," 

it makes no difference what hie intentions were. We 


received an ultimatum from the Sherman Iron Yorke and, probably 


4 



































eH 8 Yin wnt ———— too 5 =e 
. ait eaters 4 
an <fietup Aoete ods sabes : tl 


= * -omet »¥ Pg eee Sem —— 
2 aeents. «Nagano? steptepen 282 .. taboszep ar 
eviy of eittotzua suedsiw aee — sad? be Boia 
ꝛeeva on bad ,actetnian geo ype ont —— 
aolass lMa⸗ut on namtem? bee , ised att at aos neoo va x 
‘sn ath amie an nt ote am 
— tp {fA .bertetevn o¢ sonrso _fotimesnen. lng —* a 
wlaokieess si somebrogeertoo etd? ber) eouborta 
Stooinne® ed? tot beganam evrok ,sh ——— 
to wxetto edi bra Atow ef? of qaivefet aasntend acca 
sremettid aebrc) mid of sham [fe aaov sito¥ norl | 
aig® .Deaulont ,00%% anton. «PCL .es saw 20, ↄae oi. ale 
at dud ,.09 ttoptens® sft of gatvizw ot ,beobnt ,beee 
ao #f to sonat 70998" ne etote och ,sunok of hebnart ipebly 
winged oft to atevtet ed? to ype at said on at — & 
.2528 tot ebam see mamied? to misfo oft tests, un 
eta anotinosqat edt ,.2t tot tps, of tewoq svat sor babs 












tot mid of betretot od of bad zsijem oat .(usttae9 on 6 of 
meovied aa ,gattats ORL te foaxtnoo oft ~ineme ities bh | 
eUpegmed siootanss sft fae augog to, anolieter + ont 39 of 
-se on Soldw ysixcodiue edt ton bad aurot sad, conshive to 

of anirttW smotttsog fous vas — ton soot MMeamta oe * 
LU" soe A⸗x⸗e os ,ynsqao? ttootnnex ond — 


RW 


‘eq of tud gon ater appAine? ay Wr .ttor on? 3a 93 of me 4 iy 

‘ . 2 1 at roartane ot 

ev eter — aid tartw sonxer?ip on asda aI ¶ inh 

Nidadoty ne aXtoW mot! samiedt a —W ons aks As som Bi 


thinking that the inmediate circumstances compelled it, ac- 
quiesced in it fer the Kennicott Company. Ths work was done 
under the contrect thus made, 

The judcment of the City Court of Chicago Heights 
is affirsed, 


AVYIRVED, 











— * 

~oz ,3i belfeqmoo aecnutanworke ets: dorm ent tad?’ . 
ono mew Iaor ooT senhquad taes taaon 4dr’ 307 22 of; boas 
sebac aud? tositines edt 
sityie® onasia? to fred THT edd to fnereBet oft 


’ # ged? aeisiang 
2 


* —8 2 ae | ok 
. Auarxvxa at ; — 


ate (tii ot Jaaxfooo sae 


—en tee 


tigar c@ wid fdtle 
2 =e 





? > wl? Pat 


hw: 


—* 


BD of 
2 iwart 
2 ™ nies 
> , 
4 
i 
« 
1 
* 
* 
ve * 


F 


⸗ 


ex 


387 - 17924 







HARRY P. O' DELL, 
Appelles, 
APPSAI, FROM THE COUNTY COURT 
OF COOK COUNTY. 


a corporation, 


— — —— — — — 


Appellght. 


182A. 292 


“UR. JUSTICE BROYY DELIVERED THE OPINION OP THE COURT. 


Harry B. O'Dell, the appelleg having as plaintiff in 
the court below obtained a judgement for 3400,00 arainst the 
American Bex Fall Company, the defendant belew, that Company 
hes appealed te this court. . 

The jud¢ement was rendered on the werdict of a jury, 
te which evidence showing the following atate of things had been 
submitted, The defendant corporation was in 1910 a manufacturer 
and vender of box ball alleys, 4 variation of the bowling alley, 
emaller and less expensive, and with pins which are worked by a 
lever from the cther end of the allsy. It had a selling arent 
named Arndt, who negotiated a sale of several of these alleys to 
the plaintiff, who was or then became an operater or propristor 
of a bowling resort. The plaintiff,finding the alleys satisfac- 
tery and popular with the public, teld Arndt that he would do 
his best to get customers fer him, The nature ef the arrange- 
ment, if there was any arrangement, concerning compensation 
for exertions of this kind by O'Dell, is in dis»wute. O'Dell 
contends that it amounted to a contract, made by Arndt as the 
general and authorised agent of the defendant in that behalf, to 
pay him, O'Deli, twenty dollars per alley for each purchaser re- 
ferred by him to Arndt. He further contended in the court be- 
low that there were thirty alleys seld by Arndt through such in- 


troductions of ouapymers, and that he was tMBrefore entitled to 


» 

























on , LECE gate? | 


⸗ert = TBE 


4 





aco .a YAMA 94 
TAVOD YTEUOD ANT MONT TABTTA SES — 


«¥T#U0D WOOD To 


Ses AIS 8T 


— 
-THUO3 ENT TO WOIKIGO AST GAARVIIET woaa HOITAUt . 
é , a 


— ae 


oft temtann 00.008¢ rot tmemmbet s bentaido wofed xo 
Usgno) tants ,wofed tnehreted ed? ,ynagqro? {Let xod na 

; ttmsoo ald? of | 12 “ 

ett » to sothisev sad ss Devenpuen- tune Uaidinhiait ott Nee 
aeed bed eaniAxs to etaie aniwolfot eft naiwore eonshive 
tetutostunem s OLCL wi eaw motis10710o Inabieteb OAT 
«veils gaifwod ed? to meoiiatisy « ,aysifa fifed xodg ‘to of 
& YW Bewtow ei Aoicw enic Atiw bane ,eviadeqxe sect wi 


fit Yitiniale ae ynived pelfeqqa oft ylfeC'O .€ yrieH 


* 


dnena aniifes 2 band #1 .yelis edd Yo bue tedda ond — 
we 

os ayelie sacd? te feteves, to efsa es beiesisogen ofw ,2ba7 

" Fe = 7» 


+ 
van 


Toteimorg. 10 tofeteqe na smaoed sedi to saw ofw tt 
-ostelies aysiis ef? anibatt,Ytitnialg eft .#tonex antl 
ob bivow of tad? thmtA bLod ,ol{duq ext dtiw zafuqoq bos x 
-ennetis ed? to etuten of? mid 10% atomotaso ten of 
folissnsemoo yainisonen ,Jnemeygratia yne saw Tend TL _ om 
tfed'O .etuceth mt ef ,{fed'o vd batt afd? to onotsr0xe, ‘ 

ef? as thaiA yd ebem ,vo2tineo 2 of bssinvoms tt tant 

ot , tiated tad) mt tnsdasted eft to énegs beattorttua Sne 
“oT teeato1uq tomo tot yeli{s 1eq exs{lob ysnews ,ffot'O ,atd 
eod d1woo ef! si bébaetros t9Ati8? oH tbo of aid wi aise? 
ent fovea Aauo⁊a* #bavA yd bLoa aysila yYsrid? ezew eter? tadd wot 


of bersizne etojorMhs saw of tant bas <atecmudauo to anoitoubors 


. 


$600.00 from the defendant company. The jury gave him $300.00. 
On what basie they made the computation is somewhat difficult 
te see, 

But the primary snd controlling question in the case 
is not the amount due to the plaintiff, but whether the defend- 
ant company is liable for it, That some negotiation concerning 
the introduction of customers took place between Arndt and the 
Plaintiff, and that some promise, exorers or implied, was made 
by Arndt before the introductions took place, seems reasonably 
certain, although the testimony ef Arndt by itself micht leave 
even this in deubt. He aprarentiy refers such promise as he 
admits making to a time subsequent to the sales. O'Dell, however, 
says that on August 26, 1910, when he, O'Dell, made to Arndt a 
payment on account ef the first alleys purchased by him, under 
circumstances to be hereinafter mentioned, Arndt told him that for 
any customers O'Dell referred to him (Arndt), he (O'Dell) sheuld 
receive twenty dollars per alley scold. Hrs. O'Dell, the wife 
ef the plaintiff, whe testified without objection by the defend- 
ant, alse swore that Arndt said at this conversation that fer any 
customers that O'Dell would refer te Arndt there weuld be €20,00 
per alley in it fer tim, Arndt's version of this conversation, 
although he wuts it at a different date, seems to be: “He 
(O'Dell) says to we, ‘Is there any commizsion?' I says, *Well, 
I evess the Company is psying ten per cent. commission or about 
$20.00," 

On crcess-examination Arndt testified that in September, 
1916, in Chiecage, he told O'Dell that when the last payment on 
the mortgage on the alleys O'Dell had bought fell due, there 
would be an allowance made to him for hie services in cetting 
customers for the Compeny, And thai in November, 1910, at 


Indianavolis he (Arndt) told ©'Dell that he (Arndt) would allow 

























evt 


. oo.oes mid evan vist od? vynagno> 41 ‘end. 


(ee 


@IvolTttb sarwomos ab usb¥ataqney sar eban vodt stead 

: * TYO" YAS Ing S97 

earo oft at motiacup at itoxtnen Bi tant Urentrq edt. tom 
cbreteh ond qexsedw. tus NVtast⸗ta of ot eub — ont 
— moliaisopen emoe tadT .3t 10> ofa⸗atc at 


_ 
Jt 
<< 


— 


ens bas, —— — 225 soos aimee Je aot 
eho saw ,hetiqnt x0 aaetcxe J— omoa ont e 
tltanoesot emeea ,o0efq Aoot anottouborint odd etoted rh 
evael Intmim Yleast yt ShatA TO yoo! see? edt tywort te ats 
eit us Oo imotq Hole ateteT Uinsteqqe Ol 1 sévOb HE 
~tevewod ,ffe@'O .eolfsa eft of tneupeedus emt? a of 
& thrtA of obam ,{feT'O Led mer [OLA OS vawnuahe 2. 
webne mtd ed beeatotwg acelis text? ont 26° | 
nO? tact att Blod thexA ,benotsnem tos tantered o¢ of 
DSivorla (£fett0) ad ,(tortA) mis oF berteten Lreato 
otie 889 ,.[fed'O .bfoe yells 19¢ euerred: chaeee © 
-breteh ont vd noitootdo tuotdiw Beitliaes ofw , tt 
Ws TOY Jedd molseartowNOD eld? ta biea thatA santo 
00.08§ Of Biuow zed ShmtA oF TETET Hisow Tlea"O sand” 
totiseatevnoe alts te motetev a'thntA .mid cor tt at x 
enY ꝛod oF ameee ,oteb sSueteTTih s se Ft Stir en 
.{fe®* ,syee I 'taotasimmoo yas ote ds al" om of Byes. 
dued@ to motaatmmoo .tnd0 16q med aniyeq af yunqmo? edt: 


Peri >. " oe te anotex 


— 


,todmesqe® mt tadt bottiieo? sha7A noltantesxe-sadrs AO 80°! 
mo snomysq Saal ons wow sand [lec'O Blot of ,oQMotAD a 
stem? ,eub [fot édqued bed IfeG*O a¥ella oft. no egenttom edt) 
— gnisives at seotvtea aid 10? aid of ebem sombwolfs ha ed BIBOW , 
te ,OLCL ,Tedmovoll mi Jedd HHA” Lemeqmod SAS 101 etomesewd, 

Worle hiwow (shatA) ed dadd [red’oO Biot (9bwtA) of at Locanaksnt 


a 


* 





him (O'Del1) a certain amount out of his (Arndt's) own commis- 
sion for the little work he had dene for him, but that O'Dell did 
not accept thie effer and nething had been paid him. 

This testimony, which is all there is concerning the 
nature of the premise made, is ty itself manifestly insufficient 
to prove any liability arainet the defendant Company. The au- 
thority of an agent cannot be estsblished by the words or decla- 
raticns of the agent. Moreover the statesents sworn to are ail 
consistent with their being, sae defendant maintains they were, 
undertakings of Arndt fer kimself and not for the Company. 

Evidence of actual authority to Arndt to make any stipu- 
lation for the Company for commissiens te be paid to a third persan 
making sales, is lacking. On the contrary, both the assistant 
manager of the defendant company and Arndt testified that 
Arnédt's employment was confined to soliciting orders and submit- 
ting them te the company, and receiving advance payments on them, 
and thet his own compensation was purely on & commission basis 
eof a certain amount for each allsy sold, 

But the plaintiff, to establish the prepesition that 
Arndt, whatever his actual authority or the want of it between 
himself and the Company, was se held out by the defendant as a 
general agent of the company or as a special agent with the 
power to bind it in this alleged contract, that it is net at 
liberty to repudiate it, relies on four contentions: (a) That 
as the evidence shows that Arndt was taking orders in “hicago 
for the Company and filling them, it micht be properly assumed 
by the plaintiff that he was a general selling agent, with power 
to appoint sub-agents for the company, or assistants for himself, 
at the exvense of the company. (bh) That the evidence shows that 


by letter to Mr. O'Dell, signed by the Treasurer,and by tele- 





















 weimmoo owo fatsbatA) atd to t00 Inwdme nines 2° (EL 
bib Ifet'O tay dud jmic tot snob bad oA Prow sTdtre ont | 
omit bieq seed bed ynifien baa tetto ald? 

eit? yricreomog af ered? [ie &F Molise jynorhwest eet 
dnototYweet Ultectinam heath ud et , eben ea tierq ent tol 
wind oT .eneqnod gnshnsted oft santana YehTiGeRt e — 
~sfoeh 10 abtow of? yt berntidetas ed tonnes tmegr 
{fe sie of iiowe sinemstase arff tewoeto .tneye eft ¥ 

| {Stew vets entsinian tnabee tes ee ,_rted xtetsy nth 
 Wyneginn® of 18% fon bea Treen tor Phra Yo! 
-uqide ye oxne of Frit OF <I hroMtiw Taree to Sotontive = 
moste¢ htt! » of Hiad ed of anoteetemion 10T vneqvod Sit teF 
dnstetens SH? dod .wietines sath nO - ant toot #t neta! 3 
BOetE Feed Fdeck brim Yneqhod” InebaSen SHS ol 
~fimdue brn exebto gnittetfoe of benftitod saw sae | 
(mbit? no ‘winseesq oonavhs gntvicost bait neque eae oP: 
teed notes tenes # mo — ee re 
«bfow xsfts toss wT | 

= —— ‘odd datfistes of (Ytttntetq emt Gu 
*ndewhed ‘$id Yasw off 10 \Ftroteae “‘fautos din 
8 08 tnshasted off yi tod bied oe-aaw ,ynsamo? eff 

ots dite tndye Lstooge s “as ‘to ynsymids ‘ext ‘TO 

da ‘fon ut tt tadd ,fowttadd Hegefta aitaf nr +2 Bard 

gant (a) tamottnetnon wot'no astiet (st etaliuqdt oF 
onecia? mi etebro yniva? on jbmtA tad? ewode sonst 
homens “fteqorq od Sdale #t .modd gatf eh? bas yisamD 
Tewsd Atte ,fasys qaiffen Lateneg 4 av orf sate eben Oi 
,tieants to? afmetataas to ,Yneqmos “eHF “20% etdege-ane tatexellak 
sat? awode eohetive oft sad? (d) .xhadwos Ste °t6santegte edt te 


-efes ud ‘padjaetbaaet? ent —— ⁊v of “sedteroys 
‘ioe Crteet) ad a2 SeeenaRPAZe, 





phonic communication to Mrs. O'Dell in August, 1910, through 

the Assistant Yanager, the Company asserted that Arndt was the 
Company's general agent and represemtative. (c) That it shows 
that in Noverber, 1910, after the transactions for which compen=- 
sation is claimed by the plaintiff, the Treasurer of the Company 
admitted to the plaintiff that Arndt was the "general revresen- 
tative" or “general agent" of the Company in Thicago. (d) That 
it shows that on September 23, 1910, the defendant company, by 
@ letter te one Hughes about a commission promised him by Arndt, 
recognized the sutherity of Arndt to contract for commissions 
from the Wormpany te his assistsents er sub-acents. 

We are unable to agree with any one ef these conten=- 
tions. The assumption mentioned in (as) can net vreperly be mede. 
A selling agent on commission #ho tak«s orders and submits them 
te his principal has no implied authority te constitute other 
persons agents of the company, certainly none te secure assist- 
ants for himself in selling, and to add the comeissions of such 
a@sGistents te his own commissions and tc the selling +xpense 
falling on the company. If hs chooses ic make arrangements for 
selling through others, it must be at hie own expense. The let- 
ter and conversation which form the basis of (b) wer ¢ clearly 
Limited in their assertions to the authority of Arndt to receive 
the advance payment of ©180 on the alleys hourcht by him. To say,in 
answer to a Letter inquiring concerning the payment of money, 
whether a given person ie, duty authorized agent to receive it, 
that the persen is "311 right in every respect" and that the 
money may be turned over to him in instruments mede payable te 
the principal,is certainly not te hold out that given person as 
pessessing all the porere ef the principal; nor, when the subject 
spoken of was merely the payment of the money,ie eubstantially 


the same statement, even with the addition that the person was 


i z a) 
i J 
4 » iy 
©) — 
























+ gvotts ,OLCL ,fevquA al £190" JeiM-of motdsotnunmos ‘othe 
| |) ent ase IbatA tacts betteses ynequod ont ~tegeas¥ fasts! 
awode tt tad? (9) .ovitesdseestes: Bus tusye Latent 
eneqmes doidw tet enottesenstd edt tetta ,OLCL yredusvor | 
Umaqwtod ‘edd Yo teTvasext odd ,Tttmislq edt YE bomisio dP AOR 
-rsmete: [atemey” off age Sheet fadd Trtintel¢ ods oF on: 
soc? ()) .ommold a2 yemqmo? edo Yo “snes Letereg® to Sey 
VS  eieguoo snahasten edt ,OL0L (CS sdmssqed mo tate 
,@betA xd mics beeltrotq softer tmmoo @ Ivods serigivl eno o ts 
ancteatumoe tot foatineo oF MbaTA To YSi tots ont) 
.cinepe-dee to einetoteas atd of yneqmey odd 
emeinen ened? to eno yas dtiw setae ot sidenu sus 8 oY Be if 
bum eo Uftegotg ton aso (2) at bonottoom nolsqmmmen oth” i on 
mett ettedssd tro wtobxe anied-ofw notes imnen do taeye ‘paki 
‘senvo stutitenos oF ¥Pttottas betfamt on ead f ata 
“fe ieae Stwose of snom Untattes ,yneqroo edt to wsasye — 
douse Yo enotostemoo sat bbs of das ,nriffoe at Tieumtd 107 
eeneqxe aniffee edi of be anolaairmos nwo ait of 
10T cinseeqieTes eden of seseods sf TI .ynegndéo ef? no 
-fef eo? v.eeweqxs mo sid a2 od tum 3b ,ateddo & 
Ultsefo * teow (¢) to alsad sAf wre? doltw moltastswnee 
Svisoet of fhrzA to ¥titorttua of? of anotitedan tied? ‘at 
ai,yse oT .mid vd tifqsod eystis ext mo O8L8 To Somyed Sone 
eYerort To treme ef? ymierisores naltidpnt te3eef es “ot ‘ 
ft eviene: of tnene bexitoriua eta at noats¢ nevig a ; 
“end tad? Bae “tosqaet exsve at: frigitt {fe* et — — 
od eideveq sham efasmeciant mt ait of teve bends od yar 
@4 wont0d aevlg tad? Sue bled of ton Linlatiee ot, laqtontsg © 
teetdue off codw , ton jisqtonizg odd Yo ate0g edt ——— — — 
Ullstinssadve at yonom off To saemesq odd fers eat Yo nedogs — 
aaw rosieq of? tad? motethbs oa? détwy neve ,tnomesats Smee ott 


the principal's representative and that anything he said or did 
would be satisfactory, any more conclusive on the point indicat- 
ed. All such expressions must in reasen be referred to the 
subject of the conversation. 

A slightly more plausible ground for argument can per- 
haps be found in favor of the contention (c), that in November, 
1910, Yr. Hoke, the treasurer ef the cempany, admitted that in 
the preceding menthe Arndt hed been the general rerresentative 
of the company in Chicagc. But the argument is not sound. For 
in the first place, O'Dell (who is the only witness tc this con- 
versation and is contradicted by Arndt, who was present at the 
interview) did not testify that Hoke told him that Arndt had 
been a general agent of the Cempany in August, Septexber and Oc- 
teber, but that he was (that is, at the time of the conversa- 
tion) “a general arent" or "a reneral representativetin Chica- 
go. But when the testimony is further analyzed a stronger 
reason aprcars for not heldinge it confirmatory of the prising 
tiff's contention. It rather seems to be adverse to it than 
otherwise, FPor,like the werds used in the telephenic conversa- 
tion in Aucust, the lancuage must be referred te the matter 
under discusgicen. O'Dell's testimony is: 

"I told Yr. Heke I wanted te knew something about 

this commission, and he told me thet Arndt was their gen- 
eral representative in Chicage an: that I would have to do 
business with him." * — 

Arndt's testimony cencerning this conversation was: 

"Yr. Hoke done all the talking; he stated positively 

that I had no authority or anybedy else to pay commissicns 
unless he verified it himself in weiting*; and "I asked 
O'Dell what was the trouble; he says he wanted tc know 
where ke was goinre to get off with reference te the commis- 
sions on the alleys that he sold. I asked him how many 

and he said thirty. I ssid: ‘'That is news te me. I nev~ 
er seen any thirty that you sold.' Wr. Felecomb (the vice 
president of the company) said, ‘Hr. Arndt has no authority 


to make any ccormission basis with anybody.' Yr. O'Dell 
said, 'I don't know anythine about thatt,* 
























bth to Skis od aalttyne tarts baw ovttatvonowes & 
-tsothat datoq ef3 wo svlevFonos eTem yns —— 
eft of bertstet ee ee : 
er ee 

-T9q mao twemiata TOY bmuory ofdtvdtery: ote citdatte A an) 
(Todo vor eT 0 aotswescioe 1 95 “oH ti — 
nt ted? besstmbs (ptnegqmos ont Yo aeideeeey’ off youOH 
evi Jsineeercot Laverne, of) need bait thew afSaor 
20% .bavos tom at temas oft tut  voghotao nt & 
-n00 aint od saomiiw elmo end ef stir) L1o0*0' ,easte ted oe 
odd te Inesotq sew ow: er ba’ ea hetethsrthoo’ et Shah * 
bec theta tett mbt boos oo teed Yrtiact ton ‘bts’ (wo 
750 bie TePMetTee yuh mI enadHen ——— 
waateH0s Bhd Yo omits on? te yet tn4t) sat ot tnd” 
enotnn niMovitainesorgo {atdte9 BY 10!" dHe5e taxon 
 T8Qnotte * bostinha ceetret ot vivort ta8t orft not 
entero ont te ‘eros te SE Qmiaror tom tor — 
madd $f of eatévbe og ‘ot meee “rorter #T nob tabdn0d "Ss 

au 19 "N09 olmonqe led edt nt bers abtow oft s¥tf,xoT . * r 
<ed¥om ont of bert]eted 84 F4um Saeugnef SHtt”, —EXRX —X 
I———— — E —— 
ee ———— 
— svat —— I tacts boa open ts — 


— — — — — — 


~ 
ca 


e 1 * 
* ee 4 
—2 a 


4 


whe 
ee 4 
7 ae 


* 


\* 


bs . 
a4 : 
Se F A 
a 
SS wa” “Wy iy A 2 
i a "5 a) 
* it — as 
—— 
ee res : 


‘Whi a 
- => 


3 hs 
oI 
Tie 


vi 
é 


7 
re 
* 


ae 
h ee 3 
- = —* 
E = nd ft 


3 

—* 9 

on. By Pion TA 

Le & 
2* 
€ 

es 
¥ 


4 
1 


re au aotoaeao wre aks pateasones ae a’ —* 


Yee Ad via = 


vUlsrvitisog Rotate: ox yamiiies en? ‘Lia’ ‘mob ef 
eno lastorwo ‘yq- of o9fe “ebodyns 10 aebiedtad a on utes ‘sang? 


Devas I* bas ——— mi MAsantea Jf bet? 
wort of betnaw ot eyes of jeldwort oft Aan Bi Tae 
-ainmoo eft of eonstoleat Aiiw Tte te_ oF 
oo¢nat wor win betes I .pfoe off — Pte ies 
“vou I .@m of awen al pags’ bl t7 bise of 
wsoly eft) dmoofol sa plore udy —* nas bata or nafs — 
itotive om eaeant tbhatA —B * 
⏑ — —, 







Sg oo 
. beh suoda > —— A PPR: nts 


Sennected with the effer of Arndt,unaccepted,tc pay 
“something"® out of his own compengzation, it seems quite probsble 
that the languare which O'Dell testifies to as used by Yr. Hoke, 
if it was actually used, was meant te apoly to the question, 
which was quite evidently then mocted and has continued alive 
until the present time, of whether it was the company or was 
Arndt who was the debtor of O'Dell. At all ewents, properly 
construed it was certainly no sdmission that Arndt had authority 
to bind the Company to make the paymente claimed, but rather 
@ repudiatien of that propesition, 

As te (4), the letter te Hughes from the assistant 
manager of the company should never, in our opinion, hawe been 
admitted in evidence. It is incompetent, therefore, to prove 
anything. But giving it the full ferce of compstent evidence, 
it dees not prove anything material. Cf course there may heave 
been special authcrity to Arndt to deal with Hughes, or any 
other third pereen, in a way in rhich he had no euthority to 
deal with OfDell, and the Company, mereover, hsd a rieht te 
ratify an unauthcrized trancaction of Arndt in one case and not 
in ancther. “e think, assuming as we mest, thet the jury found 
thet all the contentions of the plaintiff as to what actually 
was eaid or done were justified where the evidence was contradic- 
tory, there yet remains in the case no evidence that O'Dell 
had authority to bind the defendant company te pay commissicns 
to O'Dell on the alleys sold to customers introduced by him te 
Arndt, mor even that in fact he atiemrted to de se, ner thet 
O'Dell had @ right to presume that Arndt had such authority or 
even was attempting te exercise it. Therefore we rust reverse 
this judrement., Whatever claim O'Dell has ig againet Arndt alone. 

The judgement of the Coonty Court is reversed. 


FEVERSED. 





























ee _Spbedqeooens, sbnth > to tetto * atiw betoennod aa 
coe me? gs ‘tos * — 
——— ** ** el not teamoqnoe neo aid to * 7 
* ———— 
oon .* Ww Boow an F —⸗“ {fee'o ) dokite if 
‘ ‘>4er 6 rei am iy a ‘sore Save cr 
no Mimeup edt? of ¥iege of tnecm —* boss ‘fautos 
4 
evils heantinoo asd bra Setogn next ———— —— 
ey * ft eaite "A il 
gw to yneqnod eff new tt tod¢ede to — * 
—* 46 
Urseorg .o⸗taov fie tA -£feato Yo roddeb ext ' 
wt get 4 ie 
Witods na had * *· mozaoimbs on Untatze0 saw 
redtes tod ꝓAer⸗ plan. oad exam “od ynaqnad 
, wets eRe tof eonno lap 
snolttacqorg ‘badd 0 — 
4, ve ¥se a ogee 2 C £34" 
inetaiaae oxi mo — 08 wetter ot BY 08 a * 
need ovat “ypolmiqo 10 ot to ¥0R ‘orwell 3 te qe 
evox. of _qeroteteds .Inegeqeoon! ‘a $1 — 
(Sonsbtws Ineteqmoo, lo sexe? fhe? edt dt anivis. es 


eved Yr eat! ea 109 bad) {alte tem an tfthens "ete tia 
— 


ws to Beortaur tbe ineb od — ot trod {ato 


- 
, 


43 : A: * 
ot Ui t0ssua om bas of sokite at wr a at ptoezog | rhe 


oF fyi ° * — weaad oft baa reno 
ton Bas caso eno at wora * not aoeona a⸗ — 
Tae avs 3 
bro? vist ons tes eden ow as jatmmas fee 
7. 
vlfnutoa tate ot ae Ntoat⸗aca oat to — 


—⏑ 
ethewnce anv eonebive ont * bortizout, see eno 10 


£fom"o dauts endehive om onep edt ok sataner 404 ont? 
: — a 
anocleeimaon yaq o} ynsqmoo tnabreteb edd - 4 ot % tonsus 


— te Seed 


oF mid YS beovbotial esemotesa 28 pion ayatin st 0 
tant ‘ton ~0e ch-ot: botynst4s of Soa? nt taitt — 8 


tixnk ve br ] 


to Ut — fowa bad JbacA dad omue “agit 0 > 
“se of ssTttco'r rents 
vatovet tous ow orator? a sctoweae af gnbtqnod ia 
-omols sbaA gontens at aed ——— ——— —53— 


————— x i ws 
boa aovoꝛ at. e100 we od edt. to Sneha at ; 


at quater a 
“qaamavas ‘seda anieétveR ay oh J 


y 
=: 





477 - 18017 






IDA KHUDSON as Guardianof 
CHARLES BURNETT KNUDSO 


minor, 

Appefiant 
F APPEAT, PROM SUPERIOR COURT 
VB. 


WACKER & BIRK BREWING AFD 
MWALTING CO,, a corpofation, 
Agpellee, 


OF COOK COUNTY. 


1821.4. 296 


— —— ee Seat ee Sal — — 


YR. JUSTICE BROWN DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 


Thie ia an appeal from a judement of nil capiat and 
for costs in the Superior Court of Cesk County againat the 
Plaintiff. The cause tried before a jury, which found a 
verdict fer the defendant, on which the judement aforessid was 
rendered, 

The cauge was one in which the plaintiff, Ida Knudson, 
as guardian of the estate of Charles Burnett Knudson, sved the 
defendant corporation, the Wacker & Birk Breving & Walting Con- 
pany, for damages to the sxid miner for an accident hapoening to 
him through the allered fault and negligence of the defendant. 
At the time of the accident the minor was ten years 
eld, 

The accident is described in a bill of particulars 
furnished by the plaintiff in connection with the declaration 


first filed, as follows: 


"The accident set forth in the varicus counts of the 
geclaration occurred te the said Charles Burnett Knudson, 
therein named, on or about the 22nd day of July, 21905, in 
the City of Chicago and State of Illinois, while the said 
Charles Burnett Knudson was riding wpen a certain train of 
street railway cars then and there operated along and upon 
certain tracks in and upon a certain street of the City of 
Chicago known as Milwaukee Avenue, said cars being propelled 
by means of a cable and commonly known as cable cars. The 
said train of cars upon whith the esid Charles Burnett 
Knudson was riding was going in a northwesterly direction, 










* * ——— Fe 
io 1000 0 oe | 


aes AES BL” 





‘Sa aan 


oped 


noc ail 
.TavOo SHY fo woruTdo “st = oma cron oO 





sen ont ¢igtetee wm 

























bas getgao tin Yo —— 
——— trod totsequa off mt o 

a brevet donde xmt & etoted beixt saw — ott 7% — 
aan ineorele Snombst ost soktw mo. <fanbantes * wt — 
J A 

— abt ———— od doléy at omo saw savso vr” 3 
ett bsce ,norbuck Stent? sefrai? To otates’ od? Yo fi : — 
“sod anitisM 3 yabwexk Aid & rexos¥ of? — 
oS gainecqad Snebiboa na x02 tontm bisa edd of sepaemmb 
-Inabnoteh odd to sbnvaifzen bus $fuat punetia ‘cat 4 


an + 
stsoy ae? aae ‘sont ter ost teobtooa-eda to" oul “* eg 
ect? ow seh we J 


ewfvocisaaq to {fld a at bediroasd at sneo toe — 
as tas iatov ent —— molsoenmen ak Tiisaiaig ont ad he 


—* Aettor as vai 


oft Yo ae avotey vet ut — — ———— 
rust sad? bites 0 
el Hee et Sal 


diss ond of ~sfoniifl to fats — 

to ntex? no me's gequ antbit 

foqu bua gnoias B72q9 

8 Ato 3 cg cae eae Se 
beffeqor1q yaiod seta. —XR vA ous crane . 

ett .s1a0 efdéo 2s awock vir 


dten wh aeliwdd Biase eff? a> actus mnogu eis to miex) 
Moltoortlh y(reteowdszon a ai qnton saw. gntbix eaw pa mm 


~ fmaty 


and at the time of the accident had reached a point north- 
west from and near to the intersection of vilwaukee avenue 
and a certain cther street of the City of Thicaro known 
as North Avenue. 

The team and wagon mentioned in the declaration, and 
managed and contrelled by the defendant, was standing on 
the northeast side ef the street railway tracks at a peint 
three hundred (400) feet more or less northwest from the 
said intersection cf North Avenue and Milwaukee Avenue, 
and was headed southeast. The sai’ team and sagon was 
standing se near to the atreet railway track that the said 
Charles Burnett Knudson riding on said train of care as 
aforesaid unaveidably came in contact with some part ef the 
paid wagon or harness and w as knocked off from said car 
thereby and hie left leg was run over by said cars, as set 
forth in the declaration.* 


Thereafter by leave of Seourt an additional esunt was 
filed te the declaration, which charged that the defendant neg- 
lirently “allowed one of its tems of horses or mules attached 
te one of its wagons to remsin in the street, standing unat- 
tended, without securely fastening said horses or mules to pre- 
vent them from drawing or backing said wagon from coing or moving 
near tc or upen the tracks", and that the gaid team did draw or 
back the wagon acuainset the car on which Knudson was riding, se 
that he was knocked eff and injured. 

In this count of the declaration the plaintiff pleads 
an ordinance of the City of Chicage enacting that: 

"No person shall leave any horse er other animal at- 
tached to any carriage, wagen, cart, sisigh, sled, or other 
vehicle in any public way of this city, without securely 
fastening such horse or other animal, under a penalty for 
each offenre of not less than twe dollara nor more than 
ten dollars." 

The defendant pleaded the general issue of not guilty 
to the declaration and the issues were submitted te a jury, 
which found a verdict for the defendant, 

A especial finding vas requested of them in answer te 
the question: 

"Did the defendant's team and wagon in question remain 

stationary while the train of cars on which the plaintiff 


was ridine passed the said team and wagon at the time of 
the accident?* 





\ 





















gen oa ,2t2o bias yd tTevo nut ean 30 eid 
— 


ase Sngco {enoi sina ne tawod te ovaes Md ‘xed teoredT i —— 
a. * 
—— Inabnstoo ond tad? beytado yor ‘enonsate fob eds oe 


F X 


DodouhIe goLu= to aenTOd to ames att to ono! bowel — 
—E — od? nt atamex of aitopay ab 
-s1q of aefum 10 aestod Bias yetnetest yletwoee tort! b 
antvor 20 aaion mort mogew bisa gnitoad to —— 
<6 Wath bEh mos bisa off tad? bas "akon? edt noqu to ' 
—⸗ ras mosbunk cotdw mo ta0 edd Jartege — 
absolq Yittsisly ot% sottexefosk s Yo Inuon abd al oi “3 eb 
ttedd gatfoane onsoin? Yo yttO end Yo. — 
2 


-te Ienitns tedie 1% seated (ne eveol {Lode nonteq our J 
som3jo to ,bele ,dgieia ,J1a0 ,mogew ,oysitiso yaa of. ) a 
Yfouree sgodtie win ald? to-ywew off{deq yu nt elo —— ne 
102 yYiancg a2 tebaw ,famine tedio to seated dove 
madd e10m 00 ateiiob ows mad? anol fon to eanetto > EL 
—— — 
Viltuy son Yo sunet Lazonog ont bobeotq Inabne'res ed? — 
«/ 

Xauta of bo⸗⸗ ladus etew aeunat edi bre molten foeb id 
th wh Syl 


ma 
otnsbagteb ont 0% Soibueyv. 8 bao? s 
ge —J 
— sowane mt meft to besaoupoet eaw A —— ° 


aps, — 
a 


«er 
rer 


7 


aiemet notsasup ot nogew bre — — 
Wriiniala odd Nolsw mo axe> to minx? est : 
to weit off Ja qoyaw brs mie) bine: et? D 





ae A FoR 
J “ad - — aa = ‘ 


Each juror anewered thin question by writing "yes" or 
*no® and signing his name, Zleven jurors answered the question 
see et BEe oe, Be sveccieht thls sbectal finaids was fot re- 
quired to be corrected.” The condition of the record seems to 
show there was no “special finding". To make it a special 
finding of the jury it rust have been, like the general verdict, 
unanimous. The question was submitted to the jury over the 
objection and exception of the plaintiff. The failure to answer 
it unanimously could not be successfully urged as a reason for 
reversal of judgment. As a matter of fact it is net se urged, 
although the motion fer a new trial noted anong the reasons 
given, that "The special finding returned by the jury is yoid® 
Although the submission of the interrogatory is assigned for 
error, the alleged errer is not insisted on. We do not think 
it, even if error, ground for reversal. Its submiesion could 
not, in our opinion, injure the plaintiff or bring about any 
miscarriage of justice. It may #@!1 be deubted, however, 
whether it was an ultimate and controlling question in the case, 

The alleged errors which are insisted on are the ad- 
mission of impreper evidence in behalf of the defendant, the 
conduct of defendant's counsel in submitting to the plaintiff's 
witnesses impreper questions, although objections te the same 
were egustained,and errecr in the giving and refusal ef instruc- 
tiens, 

Ye do not think the plaintiff has established on any 
of these matters a case justifying a reversal of this judgement. 

Se far as bhe given instructions are concerned we are 
forced to the conclusion that if there were technical errer in 
them in any particular (hich we do not decide), it would not 
be available to the plaintiff in the absence of any exce>tions 


te the giving of them preserved in the record, Plaintiff, in 


—— — 






— — ws 
of asa buses: od? to not tino ont “ — * 
feiscgn @ tt xed ot S*yitbarY cotoegee ‘ —— 
,fothisy ar roa ont exti wiroed ‘even Sein uF ae 
oHt revo Cut of? oF ‘beg? theton eae 3! * isis 
reese of emiteY oft .Ptiintale edt to i 
t0? nocest # pa Deg Yi Lrtugeqene od 30m buco x 
sbeaty Ss fon at a ton? Yo mesiag @ aA — 
aoaae⁊ end gnome beton. Said wen. 2 tot noi * cons o 4 
“blow af ytyi eft yi bentudst gatbatt fotos — 

_ 0% beratens at UIotagotresal ed te notes tmton oi 
intdd son ob oF ·ao detatent son at tose pony it 
bios nolaotmdve efl .{faaitevex tot havoty gtetre. Me 
we tueda gaits to Ntaatatg ods extat qnotaiqe am we 
(Tovewod ~hesduoh ed Ilex yam a1 seotenut 10 99 : ak 

-oae0 ed? mt motteeup gni{fortno fae’ stantiiv me aaw tt o 
-be ent or no hotstant si dolde etorze beget te ont. 

_ odd ,tnabreteh of? Yo taded nt sonebive ESaeꝛaat to mol 
a*Otisdatore ext of galtstiodve at Teansoo — —7— 
omea of) v ,onottacdp —— 
-outéent to faawtet baa gratrta eft mt tort baa ‘A 







we? 34 














—5 

















Se 


5 ~ 
> & 1 


yume m6 berfatidatae aad Ytitntal eds datd? ono ode et | 
-trommbut atd? to f[se1t9evet a2 gatytizavt sea0 «2 atettem: ons 
ots ow déinre0M00 o@ anoktoutssnt noviy odd aa wT 08 
ai zo1te faoctnsoe? erow stedi ti tan? aotaulones sft. oF 
fom bivow St ,(ebteeb fon ob ew Matte) sefuoltuag. 
enoli-eoxe ys to soheeds eft alt TUS o Lr: EE OR: of eftuttows od 


— ens 
ak ,tttaler¢ brooe odd mt bevresetg med? to ynivip edt. ot 





connection with a contention to be hereinafter noticed, concern- 
ing an emeniment of the Praectics Act which went into force 
on July 1, 1911, speaks of the “saving of exceptions" es a 
"relic of barbariem." This is rather un extreme view. ven if 
it be conceded that the difference between "an exception® and 
"an objection" is not so great as to make insistence on accurate 
phrasing expedient to preserve the benefit of the latter in an 
appeal or writ of error, it is certainly desirable, unless the 
action of a reviewing court is te be in every case in essence 
a trial de novo a@ @ matter of right, not only that the trial 
Judge shall have pointed out both during the progress of the 
trial and on a motion for a new trial, the vcarticilar matters 
in which he is held te have gone wrong, so that he may, if he 
choosé, correct them; but also that the reviewing court shail 
be confined in ite examination to the points which were thus 
raised in the court below. Otherwise its work will be much and 
injudiciously increased, We see no controlling reason why the 
giving of instructions (although it is held that the objection 
or exception may be noted at any time before judement) should be 
exémpt from this rule. At all events, it has been uniformly 
heretofors held by the Supreme Court that it ia not, 

Bruen ve. The Pecple, 206 I11., 417, p. 425. 

In the Bruen case, as in ethers, the Court having 
said that an assignment of error ealling in question the in- 
structions could not be considered for want of exceptions, hes, 
apparently for the greater satisfaction of the parties, express~ 
ed itself as in accerd with the said instructions. This is 
very different from reversing in such a case because not in ae~ 
cord with the instructions. 

But the plaintiff contends that by the Act to amend 
Section 81 of the Practice Act of 1907,, which went into force on 


— Ka, % 6/1 € ) 





















~navoneo ~beotign xeftenlexed of of mold nee a ih ottoo . 
Wiowet’ sae Hilde SALAS sek chbnense belt te buteha vn 
6 ea *anottyooxe to yntvsa® ‘eu 5b: cing her 
Ti novi .wolv smotixe os seiitat af atet *imk 
bre "“nokiqnoxs ae® meowded eometeTiib ef? ¢ 
stazunon mo eonetatsal. eign o⸗ ae taety 08 | 
ne atk westel ed? Y6 eitened: od? svxeaetq oF & 
odd aeciny edertoos ‘Cinkssieo at oe rong" 6 
monesee ni esco yteve at ed of at gee , 
| kalat oft todd vine gon q2tatt to xefvan's es Yom af 
eat Yo aaexgorg of2 gnirub dtod tuo beintog ev ‘rena 
Byes igm welvoitiag odd «Salts wou 6 rr wolted % a - 
og 2h e takh om — enoy vu OF | re 
bette Molwolvet wit teed) onta tue rst? | 
. gweld ov. Hoste edntog ext of. noftnctesxe off it } 
baw, dover od. L6te ator eal gn twrert9o | ‘wwetes: tase 
OHd ye n0se0%, gabfLesiacs om sea ef .boabetont - zcobst 
moisostde ert sedd blot at Fh tyuons ie) anotssurdens 40H 
od bivoda (trombut ereted: emit yuna ta betol' 6s Yam Hed: 4 
wierotinw mood aad 22 Sdnove Lia 3k | eLe aked. 
dom ef 28 todd dxued smotqua edt wats 
e2Sh wg ¢ TEP og LIE 80S gefeset od? .ev mevtt 
guived dus0d ef? ,ateddo ot es (sano asett eaF at” 


a : 


“at of2 mottasup nl gniffss torte Yo Jaemngiees aa F bis 
2nd ,ATOLIQMox Yo tnsy oT berehtenos ed ton bivod anokss | 20 . 
-nee1gxe ,teitusq edd to Tol Jostaliae t6saeTy edd tot & 
aiatd? .ancitavttant bine ofS WFiw Broode — 

-o# at Jon Saxeoed vaao s -tfova st gitatevet mott > f ES 
Aanolsowetent — — 

buena of sok odt yo tant ebnernoo’ trhemtety ene awe 
0 go10t oft ¢now dotdw eine ‘te eottonss od? to 18 mottes® 


Mot # DA pS 


we! 
B 


Ae 
a 
i= 
c 


4 


July 1, 1911, which was the day the judement in the case at bar 
was entered, the necessity of any exception to the instructions 
complained of was abrogated, 

The opening paragraph of the fection in question be- 
fore amendment read: 


"If during the pregress of any trial in any civil or 
criminal cause cither party shall allege an exception to 
the opinion of the court and reduce the same to writing, it 
ehall be the duty of the judee to allow asid exception and 
sign the same and the said exeerpticn shall thereupon be- 
come a part of the record in such cause. 


The same provisien is retained as an alternative in the 
amended section, but is preceded by this enactment: 


"If, during the progress of any trial in any civil 
or criminal cause, either oarty shail subsiit te the court 
matter for a ruling thereon, ana the court shall rule 


& 

RG to the party submitting the sane, such ruling 
Shall be deemed a eat tar of review in any court te which 
the same cause may be thereafter taken upen appeal or by 
writ ef error without formal exception thereto and after 
judement at any time during the term of the court at which 
judement wae entered or within such time thereafter ae shall 
during such term be fixed by the court any party desiring 
to prosecute a writ of error or apreal from any such judg~ 
ment may submit to the court a stenograchie revert of the 
trial contsining the evidence and the rulings of the court 
upon #11 or any of the questions submitted to and ruled 
upon by the judge thereof, and he shall examine the same, 
and if correct officially certify te the correctness of 
such report ani the same shall thereupen be filed in said 
court and become a part of the reecerd in said cause, and 
all matters and things contained in auch stenegraphic re- 
port shall become as effectually a part ef the record as 
if duly certified in a fer~val bill or bills cf exeertions, 
OR if during the prorress* - (the follows the provision 
— above with which Section 81 before the amendment be- 
gan. 


We think that nothing mere is necessary te show the 
fallacy of plaintiff's contention as to the effect of this 
statute than te call attention to the scrds in the améndwent 
which we have italicized. Besides the reremptcry instructions, 
however, one cther instruction tendered by the pluintiff was 
refused, and the complaint that it was errer to refuse it may 
stand on a different basis than that made of the giving of in- 


structions requested by the defendant. Without passing on the 






























sad te sano odd at Scomabst es? yah odd ey fotdw it 
ancisoutieant eft of noliqeoxe yne to yiaesoen ont, ‘ 
, belejotda sae Yo via 
-od mOlseoup ml noifre® eff —— — — re 


10 ry ae 9 vie ot * wie To “pct a ‘ 
Qeoxe lade yi1sq 1% 9 
oi pet 5 fo o? ‘me Zz peer en wh abs Mrs 


baa ype ame sea) Hina mot Sceoae ot egbut teat te —— 


* + 8suao — at bz0087. SF. 10 — 

exis at — Me Bs bentaget el mola tvorg * ea 

__ dtmemtoane aida xe. bebooota si 4 —— 
ete Big it: fais3 — wie goat usb —*— 


— 4 vet — — 


— at woud ‘xettwores? of tem * 
oe? 2 polsveoxs fsertot rl gg te tort . 
doidw ts we odoned’ 0 mret et? gnitwh exif yne ts 
Linde 2a aettaeten? omit? dows nidiiw to bexesjne asw 3a 
gnitiseh yeusq ve f00 ext vi bextt of are? fovea 9 
BWSR ms mort facqgs to torts to sit a esuosco: 
Srovet off-atygoneta « Mttroo ef? ot Findus ym 
diseo off? to egntivt edd dae eonedtve oft —— Ne 
bots: bue of bettionfve anctiasiup ed? or ce 
eerss od} ouimexe Linn off bre ,Toered? sahat 
To ezentoettoo ody oF YTLP reo LI Istor ty 
Bias ni bofit ed noquetents [fare omas of? bra 
bes ,oeU#> bias mY brooer ef? to S1req & 
9% obdcmzgome tn fous ni. bentajnoo agnid? bua —* om 
ea biocer off Yo Piet & YflevioeTYs ee emoosd | 
,anmeliovoxe to affid to [ftd fens? a at peltitzoo vish 
molaivorg sf? ewoflot off) — "neergotd sah yrtuub YE. 
-od Inembasme. oft s1oted £6 mokioe® dotde Atte evoda, movi 


— 













ed? worry oF viweesben al stom gnitiion ext aotde or OO © — 
aint to foette etd of as wolInetnos ‘se ttiinlerq 0 vonndian : 
tronpebms off Ht abtow eft of nok inette Lfad oF a⸗d⸗ oe 
~aamotioutiant Yrotqmetsd eft aehbleog .bontot fast evad ige tlotite 
‘gs¥ Ttlintefa sdt YE berehbrey metsoutter? tonto Ono frovowont 
yam ti esutet of t0oTxe saw 32 sadd Interqmes ed? bas tention 
“nf ‘Yo amivig ext to sian Jedd nett alesd — EX no basse 
ent mo wrteway 's Jsotsiv .Inahreteb os YW beteouper ancitourts 





ee 


question whether the Act going into foree on the day the judgement 
was rendered aoplied to this case and the refusal cf the in- 
struction on June 6, we shall therefore consider said instruc- 
tion, although no exception was reserved to its refusal. It is 
as follows: 

"The Court instructs the jury that if you believe 

from the evidence that the said Charles Furnett Knudson re- 
eaived the injuries cemplained ef while he was in the exer- 
cise of ordinary care for hie own safety, then the ques- 
tien ag te whether or not he had paid his fare or intended 
to pay his fare upon the street car on which he was riding 
at the time ef the accident, if you believe he was riding 
upon such strest cer at the time, is immaterial." 

In considering this proffered instruction a reference 
te the evidence becomes necessary. That evidence tends to show 
that Enudson, a boy between ten and eleven years ef arc, was 
"flipping" a car, as that term is generally understood, when 
the accident happened. ‘ithout intending te pay their fare, 
and with the purpose ef riding a very shortt distance, he and 
& companion @& little older, had jumped upon the running board 
of a car in moticn and were undoubtedly exvecting to leave it 
While in moticn. They were, as we think the evidence concern= 
ing their actions tended to show, doing this in a epirit of fun 
and mischief. hy otherwise did the boy make "a long nose" at 
the conductor? Se dangerous had this custom anong boys become 
that the City Council of Chicago had prior to this time passed 
the following ordinange, which was introduced in evidence by 
the defendant over the objection of the plaintiff: 

®"No miner under the are of eighteen years shall 

clizb, jump upen, or cling to er in any way attiech himself 
or herself to any horse, cable, electric or other street 
car, or any railroad locomotive or car of any kind while 
the same is in motion, under a penalty of not lese than 
twe dollars nor more than ten dellare for each offense.* 

The purpose of this ordinance was to diseccurage, and, 

as far &8 possible, te prevent a practice which was prevalent 


among children, not among persons of yeare and discretion, and 
























dnoegbut oad yah off ae" SdT0T OFat yntoy 29h odd YOR 

-tit ‘e4F Yo fdodtet odd Bas de> atds bs BSE rqaa 
~owtsoot Btas reblanc. oeteteted? Llacde we out fo | oii 

al $1 .feautex ott of bevioess as¥ H6LFqeoKs On ‘Myvontte 


Lae angie 


« 


m7 


Svetied vox tt feds tert ol eit ase — oc : — 


aou b sient eeLiad? eomebiys odd mm 

“We adh tow te ae | 5 co oe 

gaiti«x saw ed soidr Bo Iso pk 

_ Batbts abe of aveliod voy Th, — 
———— at emis —* 


conexotet 8 sotdourtent ‘bersttotq eins —— — 
wats of shro? sonsbive tadT — somonad edmebiye 
| — one Yo tase movers Bon net meewted, —— 
neste ootarehay Yflereaey at sued todd aa 789 0.83 
8082 ted? Yeq of gnibrotnt fuodtt¥ benonged 4 F * 
bra ‘ot ,onmatats S#todn yx0v # yatbia Yo enogmug 6: * 
Based tacia if? mogu beaut bad .radla —— ae 
if evmer os ittioeqxe vibes duobay e1sy bab — 
—D — — — E — — edt aniad ow aa «Stem vod? pk 
mt Ye sttkas # mt atts gatob , sore of bebuod” a tak 28 5 
ta — prot #™ exam vod oft bib _paterodto xa at 
emoped syot ynoma motnup aldd batt auotonmab of — — 
beassq enti et? of xoixa bar onsoian to ffoaved — ne 
we sonehive at boowhotsnt Bae okie Omnanthie aabrotter F 
araaſa ed? Yo gottontdo sft seve, Jnabast + ; 
areas wus nt nc ue Galton ae ‘a ‘ —* a . * 
— — 3 
—E yan ee ———— 
, baa ~, oye tvode th of anv sora thto stat to ‘cnodmwq eft” — 
snefLevory eae doltd« eotsoete a iam⸗⸗ gS ae oda 
bre ,nottesipalh bas exsey to © anoateq yrome ! jon — ðJJ 


LD oe 


~~ 
* 








J 
we do not think that a bey of ordinary intelligence over ten 


years of age, going te school and living in Chicago, could be 
considered unaffected by it, cr that his viclation of it ceuld 
be preperly ignored with reference to the question whether he 
Was in the exercise of due care for his own safety. Therefore, 
we think the ordinance was sroperly admitted and that the in- 
struction suggested would have been misleading even if net er- 
reneous, It misht easily have been understood by the jury te 
mean that in the opinion of the Court "flipping the car" was 
neither in itself nor as so violation of the ordinance evidence 
of negligence, unless connected with some conduct more than 
usually reckless, even from the point of view of the youth who 
*flip*. Thies view, it is needless to say, would not be the core 
rect one. We de not think the trial Judge erred in refusing to 
five the tendered instruction. 

The rulings on evidence ecmplained of by appellant 
are the admission over plaintiff's objection of certain matters. 
it is seid that the defendant was erreneously permitted to oreve 
by the court rererter the questions end answers made by some of 
the plaintiff's witnesses at a previous trial, or rather mis- 
trial, of the esse. The anewers were admitted on the theory, 
still insisted on by the appellee, that they were inconsistent 
with the testixony of the witnenses at the present trial, and 
that these witnesses did not admit unequivocally that they had 
made them. The appellant disputes thie position, Ye do not 
see how the error can have been harmful in this case,if it was 
error. If tke testimeny at the former trial was variant and 
ite existence is not admitted by the witnesses, it vas proper 
that it should be shown at the present trial. If the testimony 
was identical, or its giving was admitted, the errer in allow- 


ing it to be read could not have influenced or prejudiced the 



























\ 
99) T98ve somenlifesmt yrenthro to vod # tastt antdd 2 


od brace ,oywotdd mt amtytl bas Loodon of gntoy eae 
Sigeo ti Yo molttaloty oid tad? te tt ut weerw : 
Od tetiede noijaeup edt of sometetes ditw Hetongs » 
~OTotetsdT .ytstae nwo eff tot sta0 sub to setotexe 
* eon: ted? bas beddinbs yfteqgotg aan — 
“36 fon ‘ZL move aathoolate seed ovadt S480" bedeons 
of vast edt uw booderebas seed avad uu-· 
— “a0 ‘ont gatqat ets #102 es | +. to solnigo sat a 
‘sonobive sonen thro ont * nottafoty 2 as ena 
| “nas? 10m Sosbaoo emo — bedoonnes ‘postaw, 
— — ond 20 wolv te taloq ers ‘mort nove nove” —— 
-109 ots of Jon — yee et ‘sectbeen 2 at nn ywetv's 
03 saieuter ni bern eat istat oft Yate? don” — 
snot toutiant B bere: 
“Snel foegs Ww to bontateuce sonebive 0 — i” 
8702 $000 ntasxes * nottostde ‘at thbdnkary eve reve 


evorq od betdtereg ‘Usuosnerz0 aew dnsbreteb edt ine 
0 omon yd bux stevens bue anol taoup odd Sotigse @ 


+e ail * 


44-8 


aor 


~ale site: to i⸗i·⸗ ‘auolverq a jn eeasondte 
eUroed? edd mo boidinbs orev erovens sat .da00 3 

— tetsnoant sre woud tacts sei foqgs ont bone J 
baa — dneaexq est te aeagent ie ‘ond %% tae 
hat yott tact Uffasoviupeny timba tod bib seassaviw & 
gon ob oF .motitsod aisd weduqatb “tne t toga⸗ ie , 
eaw yt 2 yous aid? at Lu torad mood svad nao 20718, edt eos 
bus tustiny sw Esha! “toms? edt te “qrom tas “am w * * 
asqo1q ane Ji aeseeniiw edt xd ‘beddinba ton st* ————— i 
Woriines ef? YI .fe'xt tneaoxy odd Ja awoda o¢ bivode a — 
~wolla at toTr ed’, ,bettinbs eae gnivty ati to — 
ef? beotbytexq xo boonsuS tat eved ‘ton himoo — od oF 





solar , 


es 


| 


jury that we can see, unless in favor of and not against the 
witnesses! trustworthiness. It was not therefore in any event 
fetal or reversible error. 

The admission of testimony of Weston as to measurements 
taken in the street does not seem to us erroneous, and we have 
already expressed cur opinion on the admissibility of the 
"flipping" ordinance. 

Nor do we think that there wae error in the adrission 
of the proceedings in the Probsete Court leading up to the cove- 
nant not to sue various traction companies, made by the plain- 
tiff and her husband (the father of her ward), om the payment of 
£4000 by the Feceiver of the Shieago Union Traction Company, 
for causing the injury to her ward. As threwing light upen the 
actual agreement of the parties and its effect upon the claim 
for further compensation from the defendant for eausing the same 
injuries, we think it was competent. The following rule, queted 
by appellee from Greenleaf on Evidence, 16th ed., Vol, 1, Sec. 
297, is amply sustained by authority. The rule under considera- 
tion (that ic, the rule that the written evidence of a contract 
may not be varied or contradicted by parcl) 

“ie applied only between the parties to the instrument, 

as they alone are to blame if the writing contains what 
was not intended or omits that which it should heve con- 
tained. It cannot affect third persons, whe, if it were 
etherwise, wicht be prejudiced by things recited in the 
writings contrary to the truth, through the ignorance, 
carelessness or fraud of the parties, and who therefore 
ought not to be precluded from proving the truth, however 
eontradictory to the written statements of others." : 

The records were introduced te throw licht on the 
question whether it was the intention of the parties te make «@ 
full settlement and release cf the fraction Company by the pay- 
ment of the 24000. That question, because of the effect of such 


@ release of one tort feasor on the rights of a sedefendant, 


was material, It ig insisted, however, that all the record 































ext jamtega tom baa to “rove? at eoo tas·.oea mao ew ads : 
iagve yas at eroteted? fom saw si — — * 
— ee 


2% 





5 het tata ae 


adn owe tegen my ab — te — to. motestshe oa? 
syed er bas ,gvoemorte av of meta Jon asob seonia | 
edt to _siLidtaatmbe edi ao aotatao auo beagonge 
motantnns of? mhrovae ea exe? 2ad2 xnkdt on oh 10 
~evon edd of qu guisaes aanod ededoxt eft mt anathor 
At⸗ia vad ↄbaa yentoaqmon nations? evotrsy aye ⸗ ttm 
Yo snemyac ont qo ,(buew cos 2 aonaan emt) Baademt or F Z 
,Wanemed noltest? otal oges te ona to. — * 
edd moqs C zertro ⸗ aA Drew ted 9: xtatal od gataum 
misfo eft moay toette att baa aviszag oft Yo 2 * 
omes off yticuen Tet tnabereteb ed? moxt — a | 3 
betoup , efet ymiwoliot ent .tnetequeo saw at ania ome a 
— ,f ,foV abe goes eqnebivee 10 as iaoo⁊d mor? § it * 
~arebienco tebay efey edt .\siiedsue vw bontatare ue : 
donzin0o s to eonebive ness ize en sons eLex eas ah te 
(fous uw bosothartaoo 10 betray 9 ds 
storia, ot aca cere a 


-100 eved biwots #1 dotdw sand ashes — x0 2* fom aa * ibe 
etew ti tl ,odw janceteq Butad JootTts sounes 7 ; 


edd at betios: ennidd yd beotbuletq © a a 
~Sonetorgi edt davotds piiwet i“ —— 

Stetered? odw bas ,seltasq ef? to bustt ar hay na 

uevewod ~atwt? oft fvoty mort bebufset¢ “oe? * 

*.arets6 to einomotasa sestiaw of} of crotetbaxtaen,,, =< ) 

eft no IMati wort? of beowborsat e1ew ahteost oxT — 

& elem of actixeq oft Yo notinetnt efi saw $f z0dsede gotiecup 

~ysq eft yo ynaqmod motsos<T of? To cenelet bas dnomefiios Liat 

fovea Yo soette efi To sauaced ,nottasup JeAT 00086 ed? To trem 

,inabneteboo # to ettniz etd mo toaset trot ono Ze, opantet 4. 


brose off Ife tadt ,revexod ,betetent st $7 ptabiesen eae 


"Red >’ 4 


—" 
* 





could be held to show was the statement of a guardian thai 
could not bind the miner. If this is to be considered «a valid 
argument, althoug> the suit at bar is brought by the guardian, 
it may be noted that in no sense could the sdmiesion of these 
records, if it were sn error, be considered reversibly prejudi- 
eial, in view of the cniy given instruction on the subject, 
which wag merely: 

“If the jury believe that the negligence cf the etreet 
railway company, if any, in any way contributed to the ac- 
cident, then they must apply the amount shown by the evi- 
dence to have been received by the plaintiff from it in 
reduction of the amount, if any, which the plaintiff would 
otherwise have been entitled to recover." 

This was an accurate statement of the lsw, if the 
eovenant not to sue the traction company were given only the 
force attributed tc it by aprellant. 

Ye do not think the other objections to the rulings 
ef the Court or to proceedings in the course of the trial merit 
detailed discussion. The real question after all, and the one 
which we believed the jury considered, was whether the defendant 
Company was guilty of negligence causing the accident to Knud- 
son while he was in the exercise of that care required of him. 
Careful consider ation of ths evidence does not make us think 
that the decision of this question in favor of the defendant was 
unwarranted. 

The judgment of the Supericr Court is affirmed, 

AFPFIRYED,. 





b ihe 
ee ee —— 

‘ ‘ 
L we. * J 
—⸗ . 8 Let 
p — 





























——— 
biiav » berebianes ef od eb-etds αα 
— of? wd Siyuow st ted te stus-wdh Myuotete: gf 
eeerd to aoteeimhs ott bison sansa on mi tadt-bedon « 
stole Yidlexever bereblamos e¢ ,xo7ts ne view te 

Jowtdue os so eotdovatent avin vine od3 20 wate : 
« BSF : 


sosiia ont 2 sonenisgon wit dads eves og rat oft AP 
-08 


eae tat ibenae tami ail Bs | 
Ar⸗ ent eee iam som > ee 
mt 31 ie mrgge ns Beare dls x yprcon ee 


bivow Ttsinisl dotte puns tt oad —* 

— of befthine need evad & ] 

; ? S sotet of?) bom@ecd cat ee 
ont tt quel ond to inemesate “edawoos oa asw et —— 


7e06 

SF tie oe Se 9— 
ott sone ww 3t of {t 

oe enna ond of gbottesthe —8* ony Aait fea 0b oF ae 

| Sixen fain ons To sati0o ent nt gp ey ha i 


emo on? bas otis rotte aot tasup tas Bw ) ; 

see ely (eee 

tnabnoten and <eddertw ase ,bevebtence wet om beveli« 
~ 4 av ME 

“bund of icebtoos ond pateuse sont igen ‘to ‘ci 


emint to beriupet ems tedt Yo os torexs wad oe sae — 
— 
Aalte⸗ ex sian som aeob sonehive edd To molds —E 


asw tnebaster sft to tovet ai noi sweup alse Ye motatoed : md 
ss 25 

ads TEI A 
sbemttts st — — en? 7 —— — 9— 
——————— 


CATETA — of ed fee owe mmm 
F Ae - ‘7 9 s$5 TITBD ce 


? 
to aseetes ie, SS 
te 
.eue ‘ Ose oct? {3 (ae. At: 
* 4) 
Geaage@e? 2% eno to Ceeol Oh By | 
_2 eSy tea? 22 #7 latwilng 472 


~~ oe 


ys 


2oim, +9 





10141 


283 - 17818 






PAUL MATT and CHARLES MATT; ) 
minors, by CHARLES MATT, ) 
their Guardian, ) 
Defendants in Errgr, ) 
) ERROR TO THE MUNICIPAL COURT 
VB. ) 
) OP CHICAGO. 
JACOB th 
Plainti in Erfor. 
X 1821.4. 312 


YR. JUSTICE S¥ITH DELIVERED THE OPINION GF TH# COURT. 


An action of the fourth class was brought in the Mu- 
nicipal Court of “hicage by Pavl “att and Charles Yatt, minors, 
by their guardian, against Jacoh Matt to recover $500 cluimed 
to be due them from the defendant. On a hearing before the 
Mourt, without a jury, the Court found for the plaintiffs and 
entered a judrement on the finding for $500 against the defend- 
ant, te reverse which he eved out this writ of error. 

It is sdmitted that the defendant reeeived $509 of 
the plaintiffs' money and has not paid same. Ye first invekes 
the Statute of Limitations. The plsintiffs are minors and under 
the Statute cf Limitations, Chapter 5%, Section 21, the plea is 
not gocd, It is next claimed by the defendant that he arreed 
with the guardian, Charles Vatt, in November, 19°93, that he 
would pay said sum when he collected certain mertcaces, and said 
agreement was a condition precedent, and there being no proof 
that he had made said collections, the suit was premature, At 
the time in question the sum of §500 was due and ering from the 
defendant te the plaintiffs and it was the duty of the defendant 


to pay same and of the guardian to collect same, and the said 
arrangement between the guardian and the defendant, brothers, 


wae net binding on the wards, the plaintiffs here, Sut even if 


it were, the agreement was not a condition precedent, It only 


2 RP VapcR Tera. 5 Ren pete of: 
ad 5 ( TTAM 3 


HiMaoe OF 23 Bi Gt 































TABOO Mato TH aut OF sos 
LODADTHD *€0 


wet Dae tegen Gee 


she Pears» as auth —J——— 


ove * 


ore. AA SBP ee — at 


retdage 








— 
8 
ee. 


rib — 
**22 
| camo sur ch vores. a eaten m tren 


7 — , soe Teeg kth eo? . 
AF o: Pi, Peewee. OFF. Te werty ~4 
<a ead 7 a ——— H3twoet edt Yo fos. ; 


qetonts , 368" esLiad? bee d3a¥ {[uel.yd> 
bombele SO%$ tovoceT of t3n¥ doost . fentaipe ynetbrasm 5 
od? sroted antzeer! # 10  .dnabneteb eff moth oe we J 
bas eTiitatel@q eft tot Hruvet sxv0d) ett gewhs awe 
shneteb en? famtngn 0082 rot gatbett eft me 
storre to dive al? tuo bewe of fiotde. 

Yo C026 Bevieoet fcabrsted edt tadt bore teie ob HE on: 
ovovnl tattt ef emer bisg son eat bee yorom st tiv: * 
sebms bre etonte ow etitintele en?  .anoléetiall to P 
ak gofq eft ,1S mottve? 25 swetqadd ,unotsasinls Bo, 
beens ef Jedd tumbreted eff yo hemialo tue eb 3D 
of teitt ,g0@L ,redmevel at .2368 eelftadd ,ae 


bias brs ,eenhn3 10m nissteo bevosffloo oH mode eam) bar wo bf 


_— 


* 


++ = 


Toorg om gnted oteds bas ,Jnebeoerq moliibnos 8 esw 
tA «=. etutemetq eaw dive off ,anotsoelfoo biaa ebam bad — 
eit mort anivo ban sab saw OO2$ Yo mua off notiaeup at e 
... of SN 


bliee ef? bose ,omee oe os of nalbtang si? to baa accas we — 


~etediow? ,inabneteh odd bas nelbhbtewy ont noowled 2 ™ 
ti meve fut eter sTttintel¢ off ,abtaw oft mo gathatd ton — 
Endo 21 .dnobesetq motsihnos # Jon enw tnomeetya edd ,orew FE 4 


‘al 

aq 

a 
ret 





eee — — 


gave the defendant a reasonable time to make the said collec- 
tions and psy the amount due the plaintiffa. Resenberg v. 
Lewis ¥fe. Co., 171 Ill. App. 454. We regard the time from Ro~ 
vember, 1903, to June, 1910, very far from being a reasonable 
time. 

The right of the plaintiffs to recever jointly is not 
assigned as error, and therefore we do net consider samc. 

The judgement is affirmed, 


AFPIRNED, 








\ 




























seffoo bise oft eden od emt? of 
Lv gredneaot — oat oud 
_ a ST kd Ot benges FE VO 
— ee — 


J 
* 


nnot adrvoon os eMrzomtarg ost Yo 


-omea tebienos tom ob ow etoteted? bas , 
sbemrttts al sromut 9€t F 
CITT — ey PT ‘ > “= he¥, ey — ase 


; 


- ae 


ui GY at euats —E ott * paren sara 
Bin aclu bree tie fens ig Pye etsy Be 
Seat Mit weseowt oS ope eest . Sethe — ite 
a ae a ee ee 
e ade x Peet oF ipods — 
a Mr ab: 4 syd het? age - oe ea ee 
ek 220⸗ os ee eee . 
ee - ‘ — * ae faye foe 1S Res at a 
» bbe ; on he oo Sec ae tenes tetas r 
it rove ertistase ly ony ‘ anbb2ettehe te es 
al nearoe®? . 48 safendt caoltentiali ee 
* — ———— 
— —— 
fpy * an" as pied — 


ra 
. 


— proittinace so -sa ot 
ee 


* 


9 


3,40 enn tad 


. é(? votiaenp at 


(sib Ree f 


" sophvate a2) avested 
sniete +éf yaniaw wt? oo gute, geet 
aes cigihnes o dow Hee teehee — 





peber Term, 1911. y, 


2623-17797 







WARGARET WARD, 
Pleintiff Error, 
ERROR TO CIRCUIT 


COURT, COOK COUNTY. 


ve. 


THE NORTE AMFRICAN ACSIDENT INSUR- 


1821.4. 317 


WE, PRESIDING JUSTICE F. A. SMITE 
DELIVERED TEE OPINION OF TEE COURT, 
Margaret Werd, plaintiff in error, hersinsfter termed 
plaintiff, brought en action of ae@umpeit agrinst defendant in 
error, hereinafter termed defendant, upon eae policy of secident 


insurance. The defendant interposed a general demurrer to the 





@eclaration, which demurrer the court evetained, The plaintiff, 
@lected to stand by her declaration and the court adjudged costs 
ageinet her. 

The declaration coneleted of ona count, and avere that 
on March 19, 1908, the defendant iesved to H, F. Yard, for veliue 
received end in conaideration of the warrenties and statenrents 
made in an application bearing an even number therewith, a poiicy 
of accident insurance which is set ovt in the decisration, and 


thereby agreed to pay to the beneficiary named in auch application 


< the eum of #1000 in gawee of the death of the insured within thirty 
4 days from the date of wich injuries aa are sentioned in clauses 
ik 1 and 8 of the policy. Clause 1 provides that the policy covere 
J injuries received while actuslly riding es a passenger in s place 


qq reguiarly provided for the transportation of passengere within @ 
surface or elevated railroad cer, steamboat, automobile, omnibus, 
; cab, or other public conveyance provided by @ common carrier for 


paesenger service only; and clause ® provides thet the policy 








i‘ 
Pica 

oe — ¥ 
J * 


Pa —* 
1S td — 
* 2 


—— 
ou crer mie ae 
See a etre tel Sage 


J Biers “ae et 

















“ae 


etesets Ot aoa 
.YTEUOD FOOD .TAVOD 


ere ATSB8t °— 


JF se" Whaat ET sea 

hemrte? tetleaniortsd torre ai TWiktaltelq .b1a¥ sexep7eu 
at Mnehaeled tentage tleamvess Yo aottos as tdgvomd , : 
tnebtoos Ye yolloq » acqu .¢mabmeteb bomte? tet tentered 
edt of tetimeb Leteney # bevoquetat tasbasteb edt. 
(Titentela efT  bentateaws twoo ed? tetrymeb dotde work 
atacoe begiwtbe J1woo ed? dae aoltarsfoeb ted yd BSaate of 
oted 

dad? eteve bane .tayoo eno to betulanoo soltartaloeb sdT 
evisy 103 ,bta® .T .B of Bevest Saadasted sd? .800L et 
esaouetate bas eottnsiis® ef? to gotterebieaoce at bas | 
yoilog 4 ,dviweted? 1edmun seve ag gaixsed aclisaoliqqs as at 
bua ,foltarteloed edt at tuo fee wl dotde soneswent taebio 
Golteotiqge dove ot bemen ytaloltened ed? of Yeq of beotpe ¥ 
YItid? midsie berwent edt Yo dtseb ed? Yo seso at COOL Yo awe 
secualo at hecoltines eta sa eelrotat dows to etab edt mort | 
SteVoo yotfoq edt tadd eebtvorg £ eewelD .yollLog ed? Yo — fos a 
eoaiq 2 ni tepmesesq s e2 galbtt yllLautoe elide bevieoes ·Navtat J 
& aidiiw axegnesesy to aoltstroqena1t edt? 10% bebivorg Virelugow . 
eudiamo ,elidomotus  teodanete .t00 beotller betarvele yo soatxu 4 
102 stelitso aommoo « yd bebivozq eoneyeraoo of iduq sviito to .dao 
yollog edt tadt sebivetg & eevalo base yin sotvies tegacesey 


7 





wae 


covers injuries received while riding as a passenger in any paes-— 
enger elevator in a place regularly provided for the sole use of 
passengers, The policyet out in the declaration makes other 
provisions for death indemnity which are not pertinent to the con 
sideration of the cause, It also provides specifically that the 
insurances created by the policy does not coverlan employe of 9 com 
mon carrier while on duty, excepting employes only hose duties 
call them solely in the office and awey from the tracks, train, 
yerd, roundhouse and rerair shop; and that the policy shall be 
velid and apply only to persons who are regular recorded subscribvers 
in good atunding to the two publications mentioned in the policy, 
amd shall not,in any event, exceed the term of one year from the 
date vritten on the application attached. 

The declaration further sets forth @n soplication made 
to the Judge Company, Publishers, for eighteen months’ evbscription 
to "Judre", and in thie applicetion the name and occunsticn of the 
insured appears, but in evch application there is no reference what- 
ever to the defendant. 

The declaration then avere that the insured came to hia 
death in Chicago, Illinois, by falling from the platform of a paas- 
enger cosoh attazchsd to a train, upon which platform he wae nece 
eessrily riding in the performance of his duty as a avitchman, and 
received the injuries which caused hie death within thirty days from 
the date of the sccitent and solely and independently of all other 
causes; that the platform uron which the insured was riding was a 
part of a certein car shich was a public conveyance provided by a 
common carrier for passenger service only within the meaning of the 
policy; that the policy wae in full force and effect on the day the 
insured received the accidental bodily injuries described, and on 
the date of his death by reason of the payment of the subscription 
to "Judge® as in the application was provided; that on Mey 14, 1909, 


the said insured, H. F. Tard, made application for chsnge of benefice: 





wt J 
-f- 




















0029 Yn2 at ToyMeseaq 8 “/ kaw bevieoes selwtalt ate 
To esa efoe edt tot bebtvony yiaslugex ooelq « at wotavere a we 
xedto eextm aoliatefoeb et at sud teeyotiog sat 
soo edt of taentixeq fon exe dotdw ytiamebat diaed ro? 4 
edd tadd qilsotttosgs sebfvorq omta ti “.aume bay 0 ont, 
<a00 s 0 syolyme mamevoo #6 esob yotlog Ot ys hetsets | 
- aektub esodw ylae seyolqus gattyeoxe” ctu ne eftdw x 
wert? ,edoatt edt mort qsws bas -softte ed mt yelon ae 
© 96 tists yottog-ed? tadd ban jaode stever baa esvodtavon <W : 
stedtroedue bebicoet 1sfuget ers odw emostey of yimo yiqge baa | 7 
<Yotloq od? at bonolsaen eaelsast iduq ows” ‘edtos gatbnete t * 
ed? most 128 eno Yo mites edt —— — ue at.goa ad | be 
shen Robtsotiqus ae d?101 ‘etes redtiw? nobiersloeh edt: 1 iidake 
aotighroddwe ‘ydtndm meetdgte 102 .etedetidut -.ynsqmo? epbub ed 
edt ‘to aol teqsso haa eaen ef? notseohiqze aids al brs , Soph 
 =ted® Wowereter om af ered? mottact(qqs dove mt sud | etseqas a 
| tnebasied ed ze 
| eld of emeo betwent edt todt exeva ned? nolsarseloeb ed? ‘sala 
<egeq 2° To wrolttalq od? mot? yabli2t <djshoatitl yogesidd at ine 
“O60 sew od wiotfald dolde aogu \alat 4 of ‘Dedosti«e d 200 a0% 
| ns) (mandotive os es ytub ald to eomamzotreg edd at gaibit: 
 motd eyed ystid? atdtte ddeeh etd besges doide sebtapat ed? 
(— weddo“LLe I -ylsnebaeqedat bas yfelos tas tashtooa eds Yo eteb 4 ) 
& Gow gatbbt esw hetwant edt dokdw noqy wottala ed? tads ~ , ra 
8 ¥d beblivor, somsyevaoo olfduq 4 esw fotde ts9 ales teo ate ed 


% 


edt te yainasm edt aidtiw yliao solvsea tegnesesq tot tetrss0 | 
eds yah edt ao toetie bas eotet {feteah ear yobleq ed?) tad? gyetied 
GO bas .hedirowsed estintal ylibod Latmebtose ‘edt bevieos: sexsetit 
aoltqitoedus ed? to taenyey edt Yo masaet yd dteed etd to wtab ete 
.QUGE AE yeM ao tedd (debtvo1q ene moldsodiqes ed? nt sa Segbsutier — 
|| }imktemed Yo egaeto wo? aotsadt tage ebsm bast. T .H bora bias ‘sift 





ssived ease” 
tothe kK tae 


4 
ae 


-3- 


Giary in the policy to Margaret “Yard, the plaintiff, and the ap- 
plication above mentioned, which was prepared by an arent of the 
defendant, ie set forth; and thet in pursuance of an arrangement 
between the defendant and the Judre Company the policy of ineur- 
ance was obtained and kept in force bseauee of the payment by H, 

F. ward of the aubscription money for the publication; and that tbe 
dutise of Yard se s» svitchman required him to bs upen and about the 
trains and pletforms, of which fact the defendant company and its 
agent dealing with the eaid F. F. “ard in connection with the said 
policy of inaurance hed knowledge; and it further avere that when 
Ward beceme a policy holder in the company it waa contemplated 

by both defendant and said Yard that he would be exposed to thes 
dangere incident to his occupation. 

By the averments of the declaration it appears that the 
policy set out in the declaration wae not in fores at the time of 
the alleged injuries. The policy beara date March 19, 1906, and 
@xpired one year from that date ea provided therein. The averment 
that the policy wes in force at the time of the accident and at the 
time of the death of F. 7. Yard ia a mere conclusion of the pleader. 
The facts set out in the declaration do not juatify the conclusion. 
The terms of subscription to "Judge" wae seventy-sicht weels, which 
would make the term sxpire in eighteen monthe from March 19, 1908, 
or sometime during the month of September, 1905, The death of 
the insured occurred on the 7th day of December, 1909,- neariy 
twenty-one months from the date of the policy. Wo fact ie averred 
in any of the allegations of the declaration which would juetify the 
court in drawine the inference that the policy was in force at the 
time of the injuries or of the death of the inavred. The averment, 
that on May 14, 1900, Yard made apolication for and did changes the 
beneficiary of the policy to Wargaret Yard, the plaintiff, if proved, 
does not give grounds for the inference that the policy waa in 

force, The application set out in the declaration hes no policy 
number corresponding with the policy sued on and eet forth in the 


declaration, and ie not indorsed by the defendant or ite agent. 








t 
ees 





















ie edd tas dalaly ott ..hrat vorameil 98 Roloy ot ah sate 
e149 Lo daons ae yd bereqerg a6 dotdy .denotines evods motte 
icomegastta me to seneuexsy Ht Sedt dae 4ddyo% 2e@ of 
tment 20 xoꝛtoa ed yraqesd enhul edt. dag tmehasien a c. 
+H yd taemyag ed? to seusoad sgl at tqad bas dents! do eamym 
edt Jat dan gaol teotidug edd tot, vemos moktgtroedye od? Yohaame 
edt twoda dae aoqu ed of aid Rexkupes cendosive ⸗ 98 dy 
stk bas yaagacs taahasted edd tos? deity to .sevo%telg baa 
biog edt Atte aot ooaaoo mb bra¥ .% .i dian oft Athy gots 
sede. tad? eteve tedswwt sf dae gegheiuond pag eoaq uaa: 
_ betwtgmotsoe aa tt ynequog edt al seblod yotlog.« emeped ie 
od? gS besogxe ed Sluow ed tad? bie? bias bas sashaele 
. » {ete htaqueve afd of tnebs 
edt sads — 44 aoitaraloah ed? to atmentevas edd xa 
Yeemit edt te eorel Bt tom ea aoiteraloed ed? at tuo 
baa 08k «GL dove etab ateed yoileq sAT. eSeolulat : 
_ MMemreve edt ,ahetad? bebivor 94 etab tad? waz ney. 00 
ed? te one suebtoos sit Lo emts edd 28 eoret at .eaw yotfog | 
stebselg 24% Io acteuloaoo oxem.¢ af bis¥,.%,.4.%e deeod eft ¥ 
eMOlaulonog 243 .ytitewl, fom ob soltereloeb edt al tuo toe eto y 
doidw .eseen tdyle-ysavves asm. “endul" of soitqiaoedve tom x9¢ vai 
ORL. Cf doze mort adisom aeeidgie ai esigxe cist edd, 4 
_ le ⸗as eAT . ,ROCL ,.tedretae? Yo _d2nom oa? (palqwh, 
eltaen -,0OCL ,tedmsceT lo yak dS edt ao beriyaoo dezut 
berteve ol toat of ..yoilog ed? io etab ed? aan? sdicom en 
4% yiiteut blucw doliw acitazalosh ed to saoitageile edt OL 
edt 2@.90702 ot ser yotloa ett tadé.eonereteld ed? galvesb, ———— 
«,?tenreve ed? .betuemt ed? Jo diaeb.edt Yo 10, eet aial —* 
eds ennedo bib baa 162 aoliaocllige- ebham bis® ,200L. wf yeu. go Jad? 
| hevertq WU ,iltalteala ont. , bis? tetagsaé.o2 yoliog edz, Io ¥taloltiensd 
ai sew yollog ed? tedt sogexeint ede rt sdavom evip ton aeob 
Yollog om ead nottazaloeh edt at tuo tee. noksaot( que eAT .Ȣe0TG? 
ed? al dii1o% See das ao beus yolloq ef? Adie galteogeetioo tedmun 
.dmeos eft to faabaeteh edd vd beesofat gon ef tee .achéasaiesb 


2 = 7 


Roe 








* 


~4— 


It ie urged in behalf of the plaintiff that while it 
was possible for the defendant to iasue a policy containing 
proper limitationa and restrictions and proper agreements between 
the parties to insure BF. F. Ward against accident *bhile actusily 
riding as @ passenger in a public conveyance provided by a common 
carrier for passenger service only, it did not do ao, “ith thie 
contention we cannot agree. The plein lanzuage and terme used in 
the policy, we think, contsin limitations end restrictions, with 
reference to the riekea assumed by the defendant in the policy is- 
sued, The ingurance was effective while the insured waa riding 
&8 & passenger in a plece provided for the transportation of 
paasencers within » conveyance provided by e common carrier, but 
it did not aover the case set out in the declaration where tie de- 
cessed wae elleged to be discharging the duties of a evitchman sad 
was riding upon the platform of s conveyance in the discharge of 
euch duties. 

The declaration seeka to impoea & liability upon defend. 
ant by the mera fact, as averred, thet the arent who took the ap-= ; 
plication knew Yard was an employe of a common carriscr. This 
averment doge not change the terms of the policy or raise a lia- 
bility wkich is provided againet by the vary terma of the polloy. 
The authorities cited by the piaiatiff are not applicable te the 
facte averred in the declaration. The Cirouit Court properiy sus- 
tained a demurrer to the declaration, The judgment ie affirmed. 


AP FIRMED. 


ae 


























| @P ethdw Seay Vittmtare ‘ode to saa nd 
I gntalainoo rot toa & evect of ‘tnabacted odd ‘tot ofdts 
aseried siuencersa xsqo7y bas enottotriee? baw ‘enol? 
ulteutoe offde tueblooce ee our wf ddveat of ot 
a <— Debivorg somayevmes obiduq ’ obiduq s at xegmeeseq « : es 
“eid? ati¥ ‘Joe ob tom bib #! , * — epaeweng wt i 
| at Beex awed bas epaugael alsiq ed? nee tenaa0 owt ok 
d¢iw.enoltolttee: bas enolist iat! atasaoo lala? ‘ow “oll 
ef Yoltoq sad a! daabuoted od? yd bonuses benmnes efets bis 
“patbis saw bewent edt eLldw evttoetic eaw — — 
- Ye mektedxocenexd ex} 10Y bebivorg eosty » at te | 
tud (telt1a0 mommce s yd bebivoxq eonnyevaos ® 7 sili ao 
<sb eit exede notterafoeb old at’ due Yee sexe add sev00 
| Kaa ie tandodive s Yo esltub ed9 gnigisdesib ed of ‘bogetta 
bed — edt = soasyerace P * — od? noqu 3 


sf, a? bee 
08 


Al g 





(-Omed <b mows ystitdeatl # eeoqmt of efeos aolttsxetosb od? | one 4 ie 
* ed? foot onw tnena edt ted? berrevs ea oat * 


rae 


sid? .2elt1s0 nommon a Yo eyolqne ne esw daer vend 
walt 3 ests to yolfoq edt to amie? end egnedo ton * 
Xcoq edt to amiss eter ert wd Jentese bebive1q at ho 
edd OF sdediiage ton exe PYdatetg sad yd betto eolst 
“eve ¥lteqe1q tiw0od ttworld ed? .achtetafoed edt ak +t * 
-bemtitte et tnemzbut eff .moliatelosb — of sertiimeb 1 ‘be 
UMAT TVA : Fey 
iver «tne 
wied oc} Joe “2. 
bh BAe — 
' to urepehienel: 


* 7A 
"4 a“ . bes ¥ — aso8 c 





. 4 9 702 
sedaga 


soit? foo ‘ol es .aetéestaloed 


40 QO 


ber Term, 


S77HLFL1S 
JOHN ¥; FEAGLFSTON, et al., 






ANNA BURRELL GOODYKOONTZ, Adg@ 
Estate of CHARLES H, GOODY¢ 


| 1 82 T.ALS18 


certain lots described in the bill. 










Aprellgsa, 
F APPEAL FROM SUPERIOR 


ve, 
COURT, COOK COUNTY. 


— 


Ne. 


WEPRESIDING JUSTICE ¥. A. SSITE 
NVYLIVERED TRF OPINION OF THE COURT. 3 


i 


Appelleas, John ™, Eagileston, Thomas F. Kelly and’ 


S. Romberg, filed their amended bill of complaint in the 


Superior Court of Cook County, praying thet a certain written ine 


etrurent be set acide and removed ae a cloud upon their title to 


) 


The bill avere thet on September 28, 1909, they were 


the owners and in posseasion of certain lots (dseacribing them), 
and on January 20, 1906, one of appelleee, Fagiaston, executed & 
written agreement, « copy of which is attached to the bill of com 


plaint, in words and figures ae followre: 


"This agresment made thie 20th day of Jenuary, 4. 0. 
1906, between John Fagleston, party of the first part, sna 
Charlee H. Goodykoontz, party of the secend part, witneeseths 
Theat said firet party in coneideration of the services af the 
seid second party in negotietion of an exchanze of property, 

I constitute eaid second perty my exclusive agent for the 
sale of (here follows Geaeription of property), for the sum 
of Eleven Thousand Dollare (411,000) net, to me, said second 
party to have all thet he msy obtein in excees of $11,000 as 
compensation for services in said exchange. 

"In case sale of said property ie not effected by 
May firat, 1906, an? I io not elect to extend this option to 
October lst, 1906, I hereby agree to pay said seeond party for 
the surrender and eanceliation of this agresment the eum of 
Six Hundred tvraenty-five Dollars (8625.09), 

"Said firet party agrees thet he will convey thie 
property in case of sale to whomscever the second party may 
direct and failure or refusal on the part of said first party 
to carry out any or #11 of the provisions of this egreement 
makes him liable to said eecond party for the sum of $1250.90. 


(Signed) John 7. Fagleston. (Sea2.) 

























ae eacliteul od 
ae se Aoraadaoaa ft 
o7qh 


siwwici ot eolteml 







t OLETUR WORT TANGA 


———— 
are. A, —— 


a. a ime ra 
xeon ee | eorrayn ‘aterm, 9 “| — aa 
eS) Sy eROOD RHP TO KOTRTSO: TET i Ie — E 
* bitte y bea ‘w aidtie ’ opt . F 
(tae ter 7 snaodt sotesigat * dol <enelteqaA ae hia 


_ 968, 92 Yetatqnoo Yo Litd bebmens uteds boil? cpr0da08 * 


* ape ter ates 1e0 s dada garyerg —R 4009 to fund 16h 
tee * wt 
or afths «Leds aoqa Swole « a8 —— bas etna tee ce emu 
. , eel 
) ‘a itd ed? at bedtroeb —J had 


‘ 
e108 eds 68085. 8S rodastqe? fo dads ‘eters tu⸗ od? 


* 


a am ett. “tt fe * 
Aeea⸗ gatdixoeeb) pret ats?ss0 to noheaseccd at bas at — ; 
Taw: ae.” iy ol 
a betuvexe note ga’ sel teqqe to oqo 1008 08 yrsugal Ao. 


(AES 


“moo. 20 Lid ai? of tedontya et dolde % r900 ® — 
‘evel io? 23 sexmgtt bas abrow at ‘ 


: “” é “¢ 4 
re | A —— * ab 208 eid? eben sacnseune ears. 
bas .318q gettt ene to wad Woteelges adol averted 
titeeeentin ,tteq haodse en? to ytr18q — ol eelzs 
ed? Yo seolvres edt-to moliatebianoo x 2 bias. 
sU2teqoTq to enradoxe ae Yo nolteltiogen al oe ox tual bia 
1 edt Yo? ta eviewloxs ym yttsq bacoes bite sturitenoo 7 
vg eds tot .(ytzeqotg Yo molighzoesb ewolffot exed) to s ote 
baooes disse on ot .ten (000, f£%) ezafled bnaswodT mevel® 
g@ QO0O.Sf% to eeeoxe at atetdo yer od sedt [la eved of yiaag — 
-Spaedoxe hiee al eeotvtee 102- aol?senequoo 
ud Detoetie ton ef ysteqotg biae to elue seso al® 4 
ot Aotego sidt baetxe of toele son ob I baw ,800L cortl ae ; 
tot y2aaq beoowee bles yaq of eerge yderted I 2081 tel 20 te ol 
te awe edd Snemes etd? to nottelleonso bas xebsextus ed? | 
"Yoo 2504) atel([od erlt-yfaers Sezhavh 
akd⸗ yevaoo {{itw ed ted? seerge ¥YSaeq Fertd Biaz*® ‘a 
yom ytueq haocoes ed? teveocemod+ of size Yo seso al. bat Fosude “at 
Yiteq ftextl blas to t2eq of? go Iegutet 16 ee 
—8*8* ald? Yo enolelverq ed? Ye Ife to yaa —— 
.00.088f% to aus eft rol ysreq baoves Biss oF 2 a cesan “2° 


(.f008)  .woteefgad .¥ mdot (henste) 





Be 


“we, the undereigned, beine equally and jointly interest. 
ed in the sbove described property, do hereby consent to the 
extension of the within option as herein set forth, until 
Oetober ist, 1906. 

Dated May 1, 1905, 


(Signed) John F. Eegleston. — 
Thomae F. FEeily.*® Seal, 


The bill avers that op October 1, 1905, appellant, 
Charles H, Goodykoontz, requested Fagisston to again extend the 
above agreement which Fagleston refueed to do; that Goodykeonta 
pretends thet eid Fegleston hae not carried out the provisions» 
of said egreement and thet the same isa in full force and effect; 
but that the terms of the agreement heve in 211 respects been 
complied with and the same hus become mull and void. 

The bill further avers that on September 27, 1503, 
EFaegleston and Kelly entered into s written agreement with one 
Peter &, Romberg for the sale of = portion of said property, and | 
that on September 2°, 1909, Boodykoontz placed on reoord in the | 
Recorder's office of Ceok County, Illinois, the said contract 
between Eaglseton and himasif and the extension executed by 
Eagleaton and Kelly, and that therevpon Ponberg refuesd to accept 
title on account of the record of the instrument. 

It i@ then alleged thet svbsequently a conveyance of 4 
portion of said property wae made to Ronberg, but thet Ronberg has 
retained $1250 to secure himself againet all cleimsa that Goody- 
koontz may have, and that the compiainants are willing te bring 
inte court #1250 and aleo any other amount thet Goodykoontz may 
Ccleim on account of suid inetrument, 

The bill avers thet at the time of the filing of the 
bill ta compleinantsa «cre in possession and in the actual uee 
and occupancy of ali the premises and that the record of the agree~ 
ment is a cloud upon the complainante' titie and tends to depreciate 
the value thereof «nd ought to be set agide and diglivered up to be 
cancelied, 


Charies E. Goodykoonts filed « weneral demurrer on 



























-teoresnt Itatot Bue ylleupe od edt — — 
——— 3 —— wt te at b a 
teow ,fd10% tee ater? — tek rs * 


me 


(fh cgeepetpet ota — — 


“rT 
<dndifecqa .b0er \f sedote0 go tadt steve *— J 
ont patedxe alage of noveslyai betseuper .stac - ey 
— tet (ob of besbted nosesfgat dotde , 
‘gmotetvory edt tuo beliteo ton ead aotesipel biee tad? 
itoetie bax sore? {fst at 
need stoeqens fle at evad taemeetge eff Yo amset edt 
ohiov dae Sims sudned ead enae odd dus S208; 
dy We ‘xedmetqe? no fads ateve xedday¥ Likd ‘ed? oA ut 
One A92% faescorys aettiaw » cdat beredas yLfe¥ bas ‘baw 5 2 | 
sna yereqor Bite Ye aotst04 » Yo vise eat tod redo 
edi ax biocer Ho best stavokyboo™ GOUT At redmosge 
tomttace Siae edt yaLontilt \etawed food Yo sath ie ebror 
Ww betuvexs notedetxe eft ban Yeamtd bas ao⸗rotg ·a 198 
— oF Beewter prednot soqueredd tags bas Att r poe 
peat -iovnurtant edt Yo brooes dt Yo acooba ‘8 
e Yo eoneyevaco a yltneupeedve ted? begeila weds ‘et ra a 
sed gredaof ted? tud .ziedaof of ebem saw x2 teqo34 biee to 
=_boo0 tedt ambblo [Le tentese tleentd s1uoeee of canst. 
gubsd of galiitw ore etnantetqmoo ed? Indt bas ,oved. van 3 
{4m sicoo#yhood tect tawoma tedto yaa oalea bas OC8G58 + 00 9% 
| Jussurdent bise to tauocos > abet 

edt to gatit? edd lo omti sd? de todd asove tiie et ee “ 
eer Leutoa edd al dae solesesson al exer etaaciaig . 4 ; 
“0792 O19 Yo brooes edt ted? bas eosimexq on) [le to yoaaqueee rae 
—elatoetqed of chaet bab efet⸗e ‘etaanlalqmoo ed? aeqn tweio # of vee an 
ed of qu Beseyilfe® has eblea teen od of *— * ·was eater oat rf 


_ .bekfeonse 


M0 tertumed [etesey « beh? ———— -Seeftei0 8 A ogek 


Se 


April 3, 1911, to the foregoing amended bill, On April 19, 191i, 
a dacres wag entered, overruling the demurrer of Goodykoontz, ree 
citing the elsetion of the defendant to stand upon his demurrer, 
decreeing that as to the defendant complainants’ amended bill of 
complaint be teken as confessed, and, finding the facta alleged 
in the bill to be true, decreed thet ths vritten inatrument be sat 
aegide, dscliered hull and void os arainet the complainants as a 
cloud upon the title ef the complainants, and ordered that Goody- 
koontz igliver up the instrument to be canoelled ani pay the 
goats of the suit. 

From the deores thie appeal is prosecuted, It ia con- 
tended on behalf of appellant, (1) that the inetrument set out in 
the amended bill ig not a cloud upon the titie; (7) that a bili 
will not lie to remove aa a cloud an inetrurent which does not 
purpert to give some interaat in the land; and (3) the deeres 
of the court below is srrongous in thst it purporta to adjudicate 
matters that wers not properly befora the court, 

A cloud upon title is defined to be a semblance of 
title, valid on ita face, to show the invalidity of which it is 
neceasary to resort to extrinsic svicence, It is an eaoumbranse 
apparently valid, but actually invalid, Feed et al. v. Tyler et 
al,, 56 Ill. 288. Ae deciarsd in Roby v. South Park Conmissioners, 
815 Ill. #209, at page 205: "A cloud on title is an ocutatanding 
claim or sneumbrance, which, if velid, would affeot or impair the 
tities of the owner sn¢@ which appears on ite face to have that 
effect, but which can be shown by extrinsic evidence to be in- 
velid." In Allott v. American Strawboard Co., 4237 11i. 535, the cout 
esid, "Such clouds upon title sa may be removed by courte ef squity 
are inetruments or proceedings im writing which appear upon the 
records and thereby cast doubt woon the validity of the reeord 
tities." 

An @eXamination of the instrument in queeticr,in the 


light of these definitions of cloud on title, showa that it is 


{ 
xs | a abe 


























AfGL Of Elagh a0 S424 bedaome gatogetet eff of Li@L .€ £ 
#3 ,etBooXybood to goraomeb. 243. patlvxievo stevens per 
— 
<teTtwmet eid sequ Basis ot tnehasteb. edt Yo notioele «. eit Be 
—(Y LLid bebewms Tesmantalquon tanhnsted edd of es tad yak 
$05 pd. tnomurtemt wedsinr sd? tad9 beetoch, euxt od ot Litd wf 
MWood fads boxsino hos jetnantalqmos edt to ef9tt. eft 2 
dt, RRQ bas belleagao ed. ot Jnomurtent edt qu qj revises 
toe Ce ; af of geese es 2402 & 9 thee. 
“too ef a1 | —— —————— 
ai tuo $02 Inomuntent od¢ sade. (1) .tmaieage %o 2eded ae hel 
(itd © ted (S) jef2ks oft aoqu ducto stom al Litd bebas 
ih ton egab dotdy ineavatent ae tuele # a4 syoner oF aft. 
Whi .eenokb062 (2). rae sda odd 62 2eoresnt poe ovis of #3 
siantbutbe of etroqung 7! tant at avoenoree of soled cr 
F -trvoe edt esoted ylueqasq for etoew , 2 J 
⁊ eamaidues,« od of bentieh ef offt? nog Duele Ase « 4 
po Bh th, dobdw Yo yeti Laval od? wode of .eoe% ett go bile ” 
eocexdawone me ef $I .eomepive otealxixe of ¢s0se1 of Y 8 
J@ t8LyT..¥ fe te bee . .bilevat ylleutos tud ..Bilev ¥ ae 
ceretokesianod Are dtuo® .v ydoA ai beraivoeb eA .B8E .1LT 
pribastesuo aa et eftid mo hucio A" 20S egeg ve 008» 
eds siegul to foelta biuow ,Otiev tL viotde .eonaidauone 20 8 
Judi evedt of ort ati ao ataeqge dolde bore senwo ed? 7% : 
-—al ed of sonsbive ofenizixe xd avode sd aso datde tud 4 
\tweo edt .8@ .if1 TEE ,.09 bisedwats2 maoltemA .¥ t2@LLA al ., 
YUlups 3o stiweo xd bevomex od yam sa efiit moqw — 
edt moqu 1290q74 doldy gattizy af eyaibesooty so stasmustagh, 
» b1c0et ed? Yo ytibilay edt mnogu sdueb seso ydeteds A 
D—— — 
eas at aolieeup at trewuxtent od? Yo mottaginaxe BA 5 of gage 
el st tadt ewoda .ofttt ao hwolo to ancisiaties esed? to gel 


ie 


Leta, 





— 


@ mere contract to pay money, and gave to Goodykoontz, the appid= 
lant, no interest whatever in the land iteelf. The inetrument 

only bound Eagisston to pay money under the facts set out in the 
contract. It contuing no covenant to make #8 conveysnce of the land 
such 28 would require a court of equity, @t the inetance of Goody- 
koontz, to compel « conveyance, It, therefore, doses not create an 
interest or titie to the iamdi, but is & mere agreement to pey money 
under certain coniitione., MacNoneld v. Dexter, 204 111, 617; 

Irwin v. Powell, 188 I11. 107. If sppsilant had produced @ cure 
chéeser ready, willing end able to buy the property in queetion 
upon the stipulated terms, ond the complainants hed rafused to 
convey, Goodykoontz's only claim would be for money,- either for 
£1250 or the difference between $11,900 snd the price et which hia 
purchaeer wae ready, *illing and sble to buy. Ths contract ap= 
pears on ite face to be » gomplets contract, and if will be cone 
clusively preeumed to contain #1] the obligstione of the parties, 
Telluride Power Co. v. Crane Co., 708 Til. 218. The righte of 
Gootykoontz are meseured by the terms of the contract which gives 
him, in the event of default of the other parties, not » right to 
enforce tie contract in any manner ageinet the land, but a ciaim for 
money damages only. 

The more fact averred in the bil] thet Geodykoontz pre- 
tended thet the provisions of the contract had not been carried 
out and that it was in full force and effect doses not of itself 
meke the inatrument « cloud. Perkar v, Shannon, 141 Til. 452. 

The mere recording of the instrument dose not of ite 
self make it a chotd upon title. Wickerson et #1, v. Loud @t al., 
115 Mass, 94, In ths last cited case the court said, "In order to 
induce a court of chencery to order *® writing to be cancelled or 
aurrendsred, as constituting a cloud upom title, it must at least 
bs an instrument which woon its fece is, or with the eid of ex- 
trinsic facts may be, some evidence of « right adweree to pleine 


tiff's," The inatrument, therefore, is not such an inetrument 68 


Ct. 
abe &*- 




















— wld ,x2n00tybood! OF Sag Haw Yeo Cae oat 
ede at $u0 teu shout oo? Tehay Yeaow yay oF movedTgs% bawod 
 bnel eff To @omayevnoo @ wham of taaaevoo of eateriveo tT’ 
=(D06O Yo eometent #43 te ,ystupe Yo" FiH0d « ethipet dT 
ee taco tom von yeroored? (tT Levanyermoe & Léqnoo 
|“ Yesow HRY OF MteheeT_e ere B wt Ju dual ed oF OPT! 
ere LT bee (terre LY Df kaotoat Leadrtthaoo a 
ti s beowhorg bad Inalieqqe t1°" TOL VLiT ses it 
Mottreup at YPreqorq ed? yud oF olde hus patitéw ,ybes 
" 0& Beavtet bed etnsntalomen ote baw weet batatinttn 
sot tedtto =\yeuew rot éd biuoe tafe ylao ets 
eid dotde @m bottq edt base OOO IIS moowted comets TIL b” 
qe f0etTHOD FAT Yd OF olde Due QaLIliw Yyheot oe rdeRd 
atoo 8d [itw th bee (souttnoe efelqwae ved oF eos? art! mS 
\eekstag od? Yo snolraptido oft [Le atetnes OF deawe 
to etigiz edT .8f8 fff BOR ..0D enatd .7 00 
seviy Mold® font?mod edt to ames od? yd betvasee ote 89 soa ‘ 
| OF tdgizt » ton ,sett19q TeATG edd Yo #ivateb to taove eta 
| got atare’s: sue bowl eds — ——— ——— 
Cine eegies 
<61q HIMDOXYDOOD Peds (hid ods At Ddtrevs POR? otom edt ORF 
betriso seed tom bad foatdm00 eft to snolelvotg eds ac 
Lfbett to tom aeob toetie bas eotod Clu? at eee $2 Pats’ 
-82) .£f1 £8L (momaed® ,e tedtet J buolo « saenutteal of 
“tito tox Geod Inesutient edt Ia galbrooss stom eAdT 
<sf@ te Buod .v ,fe #9 moevedole§ .eliie soqe béoto « ti ee 
09 tebao al® Blas sawoo ed? eba0 Hesto teal ef 2 al- 190 hari 
<0 beileonso eS of tatshaw & teb10° OF YTOONedS Yo F4wOO se ObUREE 
tessl te teom tt .elttt moqe bwole # GAdtvettenoo a berenaer se i 
“x0 to bis edt dtiv 10 ,sf oat eff aoqu doide tnemuttenl mee 
-tlel¢ of eatevbe tégi1 * to come hive saos .6¢ Yee stoot oleala 





82 sheastIaNt ae dove tom at ,etoteted? (smemettent edT =“ erteee 


conatitutes « cloud upon the title, ond the mere recording thereof 
doea not of itasif make it « clovd upon the title. The mere fact 
thet Ronberg thought the inetrument in question wse 5 cloud and 
refused to carry out æ contract of perched for that reason, does 
not make the contract a cloud and is wholly immaterial upon the 
question presented. The bill dose not present a cate for the inter- 
ference of « court of equity, for a court 11] not set in motion 
its povere and machinery to do @ ureleas thing, end will not set 
aeide sea &« clowd that which is not a cloud. 

The deoree Lis erronsoua «ni is revereed onc the cauae 
{eo remanded with directions to diemies the bili, 


REVERSED ANT REMANDED 
“ITH DIRECTIONS. 


rae * 


\ 




















Yostede gutdroves exam edt fae ,elttd edt moqu buols ⸗ 
tou onan oa? ofthe edt aoqe tm.» #2. ant 20 
_ bas but 4 86¥ mattenup at taenurvent edt tdguodt sxe 
_ aeob Aoaaex iad? wot eaadomws 10 te2VA0© 4 tHo xa⁊xao⁊ 
_- edd Bogs Lattorenmt vilodm et bas huolo « toszéno 4 
~tetad at yl emeo s tmeenrg’ tom eeob {Ltd AT totes 
Ao toa aL tes tom (lly tame 4 207 ,ystupe Yo 2 
tonto ifkn Jems gala? evniens pod of exaatdoan | 

* ee sot ooo te, aoe sb dotdy gay by 
eases eis bars, Denteves st one sygeaorte eh eatosh oat , 
bits edt getmedd of oe 

— A. stele eho ovdted 


wan deiw 2 Sif , 1282 severed cote te TTL we 





Cree AE geet or efits ” palizée ot eae 
« 


wrt ew we 7? ” ‘ * eta! ite @ od. eek 
sav itey »* | “>t y eye ¢ stvtvace of VOR GO TE 
* le ‘ : P 2 acu~t .v¥ .od seed" 
= 
eaete is oan 4 ers? sit yo Geqteete wae af 


oY ‘tty des ‘ : 445% wtet té tadte- wb 


st atel: 3 hui ‘ti oo tsfeet yvnaA nt isagfads ede 


eiad ee} . 


7 r MPAas ? 
7 ty 4— 
ez SOR 
- ay OS4EG 
7 


ws my af 4 — 
a64n dAiiae ‘huyvasaal ee 7 
ite oy. ot Geo B22 whan See 


(tae. feat ote 
; ; We 
/ so ek ae  * 


af —RR& 





4135-17951 ⸗ 


MARY FLIZABETH MeCANN et al., 
ON Bpoenl of MARY SLIZAPRETH 
MCCANN, 







Apreliants 
va. 
COURT, COOK COUNTY. 


THE LADIES OF THE MACCAREZS OF 


) 
} APPYAL FROM CIRCUIT 
TRE FORLD, 


1821.A.319 


WR, PREEIDING JUPTICe FF. A. S¥ITH 
DELIVEFED TRE OPINION OF TEE COURT. 

The original b4111 of exceptions in this cevee vas 
filed in the Cirewit Court of Cook Courty on duly 5, 1912. On 
April 3, 1912, that court, on motion of the defendant, apreliee, 
signed snd filed an amended end suprlerental bill of exceptiona, 
and entered on order with appropriate findings thet it be filed 
Buns pro tunc sa 6f July 5, 1911. A transcript of the amended 
ani supplemental bill of exceptions esa filed by leave of court 
in thie cause in thia court 4pril 27, 1917. On June 17, 19135, & 
motion w2a made by appellants and taken bg the court to etrike 
the euorlenmental traneserint from the record. Upon due cone 

sideration of the evidence tsken and the findince of the court 
an the motion to amend and correct the bill of exceptions, the 
motion to atrike te denied. 

Thie setion wae broutht by the plaintif’s, appellants, 
as beneficiaries under a benefit certificate iseued by the Ladies 
of the Macoabeee of the Yorld, a Michigan eorporation, to one 
Delia ¥eCann, for the sum of £1,000. In the appliestion of Nella 
MeCann for menbership, meds September 8, 1902, ehe etated thet 
she wae born Msy 18, 1°83, and thet she was forty-nine years of 
age on her lest preceding birthday. 

The defense set up in theplesdings end on the trial 


wae thet Delia MeCann wae more then fifty yesra of age on her last 


— 



















— “ * 
————— 






> 


‘ te is 4 ¥ ray 
HPSTARTAR yaar 30 1 
* — * 2 ae ATara⸗ F 
“ PIVORTO woey aaraa⸗ | ne? 05 Se | 
— OGD rauo⸗ 4.220 <2 oats 7 2 


C7e ATStt.. 





AiR de — ee 3 * 


on ea ued ie nt amoitqeons to rene fLantgtto edt * 

ad. i Ler 48 Vel me x⸗auon foo? to #0? tuoatd oa 
eet ieage aabaetot ed? Yo aottom ao .Psu00 tnas con 
anodsanoxe FO [itd Latnemefaque has debaams ms bert? beet 
belt? ed st tact eanthat? etetigérage dtie xebto ms be 
beboees ef? to totroenet? A  .LfOr .2 xcaut to ae ai 
tauoo to everest s belt? ate emotiqwoxe Yo (lid Leta oot 
e £68k Et oooh nO .ctat .88 Ktzqk treo ettt ot seues “ 3 


J 


elite of trmoe ed? gd meted hae ednelleqqe Xd sham — 10. 
“a09 cub gogU) .htoce: a? mor? tqh toanaxd Latnome li u 
tagoo eft to epnthntt edt baw nedet sonehive ed? te not fae 
eds .eholiqeoxe to [iid ent towers har —— of rotten ed. 
ebeineh st oAL tte oF 

setaslionis yertintatg ad? yd tdguord ane Rete! oiat 4 3 
erlbe.l ea? ud bewnet efeotiitzes tltened x tebaw setratottei 
eno of .motiarvoqtcs megidotM a ,bitoF edt Yo eeedao at J 
stile to cottaokiqge eft al .000.£2 te aus ed? zo? Aaedou co 
reds bedets ede ,800f .9 redue ted. eber ,qidetednen ro%gane0oe 
Yo, aT#ey enin-yr30? oae ode tedt bas. eat sf vew axog war edp 
sVebdsatd yatheorig teal ted 8 ) ae 

fatad ad? ao hae egatheelqed? at — ton cumeteb eat 





— — 
taal-ted ao ene Yo eteey yetit aad? e2cn eee ana dou abtet ted? saw 





a: 


birthdsy orior to her joining the defendant order, that she wae 
born several yeare prior to May 1°, 1853; thet the defendant 
order was a Michigan corporation, and that the lewe of Michigan 
provided thet the corporstors of © fraternal benefit eociety 
shall file with the Commissioner of Insurance for the atate of 
Michigan a declaration contsining, awong other things, the name 
of the society, the piace of doing business, the limit sa@ to the 
age of applicants for beneficiary membership whiok shall not 
exceed fifty-five yesre; thet the defendant filed its erticiea 
of aasociation April 6, 1897, and afterwards arsnded the came 

on July17, 1901, and filed the amended articles January %, 1999, 
with the Commissioner of Insurance for the state of Michigan; 
ang that the amended articles of agacocistion, among other things, 
provided thet the objecte and purpeass of the corporation shall 
be to promote the beet interests and ceneral welfare of the order 
of Maceabees, * * * and to provide life benefita and disability 
benefits to those of eound bedily health between eighteen and 
fifty years of age. 

The defendant having plesded that the silleged con- 
tract of ineurance was ultra vires, filed, prior to the trial of the 
cause, 2 plea of tender, setting forth that by reeson of the said 
Delia MeCenn having bean more than fifty years of age when she 
became a member snd was, therefore, paet the age limit provided 
for in the organic lawa Sf the defendent order, the defendant was 
without power or lewftul authority to ieeue a life benefit certifi-~ 
cate or insurance contract to Delia WeCann, and the alleged con- 
tract of ineurance, uvon shich the plaintiffs seek to recover, "ae 
and is void and of no effect, The defeniant tendered with the 
plea the amount of $163.25, which wae the total amount received 
by the defendent as dues and assesements from Delia WoCann during 
her lifetime, ami also tendered the amount of $14 for coats ex- 
pended by the plaintiffe in the proceedinze up to the time when 


the dafendant brought the amount of tender into court. Toe this 





edt to (atts of? of rolte .beltY .pesty astiv eew codéaseat 


— 

























eat ofe ade rebrro faehneteh edt gtinte{ rd of — ‘at 
fanbadted of todd QUaAL (AL YoM of ‘tolhsq exmey Leteves 
aaghdort Yo ewal odt 249 Bow (not! sveqteo aeghdolt-s eae 
eiehooe titemed [arveter? © So pmberoqx09 eae ‘ted 
Yo Sfaka of? 10% somnituanl Te readleatamod eft detw ett 1 
one of? .spatd? redto prome — — 7 
od? of @a Simtt ex? lnwemteud geton to aves ‘sas (yseten 
Som Won Lhede dotde qidersdran xsi Weed tot etnactl Yo 
* weistt<s wot helt? trabneteh ed? tad peresy evdtaystlt , 
omen ofS debsiere chiewviette bee (SSL .8 (ieqA aol oves 
20CL .° Cre! weleliae Debmeme edd OLLI Baw ,£00L SLY 
itagidet¥ to erete ed3 tot soweseeal Yo teaobestemed 61 
\BRNLUS Teldo BoOwS \motie¥oonss to eefoltis tebnean edt ta 
{fine nedteroq106 of Yo atsoqtey bas sfoetde edt sadd Be 
wehad 6dt to stctLew Larenes Sa eieeredit deed edt efor 
Mitlidwetd five est tened stIl ebtvo1 of bas * © © 6 rd 
fan atetdnte neswted dtieed ytted thus to esodd of WEE 
ope to 7 
-s0b begetis edt tad? bebselq gatvad tnetadted edT 
bine @dt Yo mowees co Yett dito? gutstee .rebned Yo aelg . o ss 
ede aed® sys YS eteey ¥STET aad? ex0m need natved | 
bebl vor dimtl ene eft tenq ,etoteteds .eer baa xednem se 
baw teedNe TSE ed? ,robtc tastmeted sd? Whewal otasgto edd 
“Liidass thiened stil » sesi of ¥yttrodies futeal 10 1ev0q ¢ 
—f00 bhegelie edt fae ,maeTOM eliet of tomténco sonaetuent 10 @2 J 
acw ,7eVODeT oF eee ntetag edt dolde aoqs sonarus nt Yo to J 
od; Mi~ hewshaet saetasted edt .soetle om Yo bas biovgel Bae - 
bevieco: tavows [atot edd ese delde .d8.e8f% to Jnvoma edd odd 
peliS ane oW elieT wot? etaeoseoses baw sevb ec tasbaeteb “edd ee 
—e efe0d rl 65% Yo tayons ede betebas? cele tae vombsetil red 
ned« emit ed? of qu semtbeecorg ody at ese Lely ede (os behave 
aidy of .Fav0o ofnt tebaet Yo sauoes edt “tdpuord tnabaeted ea? 


nado afiel tats 6a 





ajo 


plee of tender no replication or any other pleadinge whatever 
were filed by the plaintiffs, The plese of gensral iseue wae with- 
drawn by the defendant prior to the trial. 

The only issue of fact on the triel of the cause was 
whether Delia ¥VeCann, ot the time she made her application for 
membership in the defendant order, wae more or less than fifty 

yeare of ace. This wae the lesaue tendered by the pleadings and 
to which the evidence wae directed. Upon thie heevue the burden 
of proof “as upon the defendant. To sustain ite defense, the 
a@efenieant introduced depositions of sn older brother and an older 
ister of the deceased, » certificete ef baptiem of the deceased, 
and the census repord taken pursuant to the lawa of Great Britain 
and Ireland on March 30, 1851, ani cther proof tending to show 
thet Delia MoCann was baptized May 50, 1846, and that on March 
30, 1851, she was five years old. 

against the evidence ao introduced by defendant, the 
plaintiffs offered no proof except the statenent made by the dee 
eogeaed Delia MeCenn in her application, thet she wae born Vay 14, 
1853, if that can be coneidered proof in the case upon that 
queetion of fect, 

At the clowe of the evidence, the court, on motion, dé- 
yeoted a verdiot in favor of plaintiffa to the extent of the amount 
tendered by the defendant,- 163.35 and fl4 coete. 

It is contended on behelf of appeliantea that the 
question of age wae one of fact for the jury sani that the truth 
or falsity of the seevred's etatement «s to her sre and the ques- 
tion of the identity of the saseured with the pereon named in the 
record of baptiam, etc., was for the jury, and thst, therefore, 
the court erred in directing a verdict upon the proof contained 
in the record, 

There the evidence presente a controversy of fact on 
the material questions involved, appellant's contention is un- 


doubtedly sound, but in thie oee¢ the proof presented by appsiiece 


















tevelode ognideeld 1ed%0 yas 10 sotteotiges on thes to selq . 
~-djiv ear euset {evegep to sei edT ,ettivniely edd yd . . ae 
env e⸗vas at? Yo Lett ed? ao toed Yo eusst “iso edt 9» bxK 

aol aettnottqas ved eben ede emis edt 3a ,ane0Ow 
WILT aeds seel 70 e1om Sar ,tebto snabneleb-eds, wt 
nas apaihaels edd yd Devebwed ousel of? ean eld 
webaud edd ovemt otds goql = .batoorth saw eonedive Ae 
ed) .esanteh ett atatewe. of «iasbneteh ef? naqu eam Roe 
reblo me fae teddotd xebLo me Yo amottteoqeb heeubortat smal 
.beaavoth edt Yo mattged to eteoltiozeo # ,beeaeced aft \' 
aleziai doei to aval edt? of tasverwq aede? S1oget 
_wode of guibnet toorq isd%0 baa .[88L Of doze oo. 
AoseM ge ged? bos ,Ba8f OS Ya bestiqed var amnt 
bio eteey evil ear 

od? .tnabneleb yd beowhorset ce somebive ad? sJeatag,.. 09 
woh edt WG sham tneversis sd? iqeexe toorg o@ berettc ot : 
<8i ya" ated eae ede tad? .molisol{que ted at anaOOM | be a 
tad? maqy esa edt at toor heteblagea ed aso tads ue ze F 


OT tee 
4 a's J 


<6 notlom mo ,.ftuoo ef? .soaehive edt to evolo eff $A. . 
innome ede Yo Inetxe edt of eTiaiely Io trove? at tothrov« Be 


| ,etmo0 MED bee 88.8852 = snadaered add — 
ed? tad? eimalieqgs Yo Vesded am dbebmetaon at sl. J 

diux? edd tad? has yxut od? s0% fost to emo esw 094 20 aol 
~aeup od? tne og4 ted of @e snemesets a'heqwees edt RIE 
a nt becad noate; add Atte demas edt Yo \sheaebt eft Jo mORe 
sevoteteds todd hae ,ytet edt? tol ean ,.0%9 .welsaed te bieses fy 
beai@iaoe Yoorq ed? sequ tolbtey « gatteoesth al bewte t1moo edt J 

ao Soest Ie yarevottmeo @ etnewerq gomebive edt e1ed®... 0) 1). ih 

iu of aodinetmon e'taalleqqe ,bevievat enctteeup Lelteten edt 

selleqqs yd Lefdecexq loom edt gee0 elas al tud ..bayoe yShesduob 





— 


on the questione of are and identity of the assured wae uncontra- 
dicted by sprellante, The mere statement in the application of 

the age of Delia NeCann ese not evidence of the fact stated. The 
application, the benefit certificate and the by-laws of the asso- 
Giation, eo far as legal, constituted the contract between Delia 
MeCenn and appellee. Covenant Mutwal Life Aegan, v. Kentner, 4368 
Ill. 431; Royal Arcanum v. Coverdale, @3 Ill. App. 375; A. 0. U. ¥. 
v. Jeese, 50 Ill. App. 101. By the terme of the certificate, the 
etatement of the deceased in her application that she wae born May 
18, 1853, was 2 strict warranty ae distingcuished from a mere rep-~ 
resentation. A substantial breach of thie warranty +iljl defeat 
the policy unlees the defense wag waived by the defendant, 

Our sxemination and study of the evidence in the case 
leads us to the conclusion that the evidence given at the trial, 
with all inferences that the jury could justifiably draw from it, 
wags 26 ineufficient to suppert a verdict for plaintiffs that the 
court *xa not bound to submit the caee to the jury. The evidence 
shove very cleagly that Mrs. MeCann was over fifty yeare of age 
when ehe made her application and waa admitted to the defendant 
order. The evidence shows, indeed, that she wae over fifty-five 
years of age, the limit fixed by the atatutes of Michigan. 

A contract of insurance by a society which is outeide 
of the object of ita creation as defined hy the lawea of ite ore 
ganization, and, therefore, beyond the powers conferred upon it by 
the setste, is wholly void and of no legal effect. Steele v. 
Fraternal Tribunes, 215 Til. 190, Yhen the contract is beyond 
the porer conferred upon it by existing lara, neither the cor- 
poration nor the other party to the contract ean, by acting upon 
it or by aesenting to it, be estopped to show thet it waa pro- 
hibited by those lisawea, Comverse v. Emerson & Company, 242 111, 
619. The defendant order was powerless to inevure ¥re, MeCann at 
her age at the time she presented her application, and the contract 


of insurance was, therefore, void ab initio. 

























-#1snodny ase betuses eft to ee ee 
“Yo mobseot lage ed? at taesetats oxen’ edT .6t . ‘ » 
od? .Besase Jou? oA Yo SONSDEWe 260 ebwingAnOM KETC Rocegeee 
moses od? Yo owel-yd edd das oteokMO100 Ti teMed edt \nolde 
allel aterted tanitmoo edt betutisesoo .fagel e& tad oe, 
a8f \sextoed .v .neeA etid facto teeanevod .sellequp 
.© 18 0 LA Gee Legh . LT SO yededuev0Dd Lv aumeotA Layon 3 
edt .efeoltities ed? to enzes ed? YM .10L .aqA .LLT 08) nee 
yal @tod cor offs tady gotveotiqgs ved mt besaeorb edt lov thee , 
aqeTt oten & mot? bedelunatterb ee yine'rsew fobtte 2 gay X 
— J 
.as dis oh sdt vi heviaw ssw eemsteh edt seclaw york walt 
oeao eit mt eomebive edt Yo ybute bax molzantaaxe TO (eet Gee 
labat edt da newt eomsbive siz tadt aolevsonoe ett of) 
.tk got? werh yldetittes, bisoo yet edr tect peometetal, fe 
eft tad% etttintely tot toltbaev # Froqque of Saetol ) 
somehtve ed? Vetut sat of seve odd tladve of Saued Yom 
e968 Yo etesy yITP? Tevo car aawdoW .ot teds yleaslo 
Jaabreteh o4% oF bhettinde esr bas sottaeotiqqe wed ebam 
evit-y?lil revo sew ede ted? .beebdal ,evode souchive 
Lieghdol Yo weiutete ed? yt bextt thmbt edt .eys Yo exeet 
‘ehtatdo ei doluw ytetooe « yd somexuwent to Jootsnes A ® | 2 
te e7i io ens ela yd Semi Ieh o# notsaere otf Yo fost do waht 4 
Yd #2 Pequ betretaco erewon eds bacyed exotereds tne wmoktantany 
WV efsot? .toette Lepel on to bas blow yblodn wt: etetevedt 
bwoyed et sontéines edt aed ,OCf . ff] 81S .serudix? Lerma 
=t0o sd? iedtten .owel gaiseize yo 32 nequ berretnoo texogandd } 
soqyr gnives yt as Toetimoo eds of yoisq tedto edd tom goksateg E 
~orq aew sf ted? veda of beqgotes ef /.ot of galtasees yd ote Gt J 
-{£I ahg Fangeand & soet]ses® .v serewMoD .owsi eaedtoyd besiddd 
ta ncn9OM ,otf erweat of seetiievoe Sew Tebto faabteled edT .GL0 
soeriioo eit bon ywotteoflaes ted beteveew, sde emt? ed? te ‘oye oted 
-Qiligt dg Dhov ,e1cte1sd? san oomstaenh to 


Sk 


4 


‘ 
ta 
% ‘ 


~5— 


There was no error in tha instruction of the court. 


The judgment is affirmed. 
AFFIRWED, 





La 
4 
J 





— + SORHORe <P Be eaÑe e ze vu 





t® 234s od (wags O63 wf cageetst) otes sdB iets 


_ st tuo9, eat Re PARP PERICR, 90.28, PR. OE, 268, OE, 

eoese ny —— Pager ie, pt J f 
” gxpes _ ft tor +40 Ooo eee _ taeda mad cet ‘ 
Hh fteatarl © Mate 644 com’ Aeneess wae {equa 
° 8 kw bt be ae — ° wesewth Leyged, & 
-_— se@enst st ey s Po RGG*. «tee gee 08> ye 
(0b BROS Nee oth, Lk we need tage obs ok bee ree dd 
ose nc’ ae ereeteen g0telele-ene 
S4nPeh 24% Phvicere Che Se Beraed id }¢etedve & 
4 ‘tes oft | MPD tet peeled ed? genkam 






4 





+ 


— 
— 






no 

































Sy os 
um” Se 


w# 
5 


RP eg ies 
— 


1 










=e 


ae 


reat 
5 
bs 
2 

* 

é 


ss 


—1 


ene o> Gh wunetteyn #4 (Mire Les Het eptioaewe -a0. 
Aart· ‘eae Je setts codesiee env tadt actewSoqon -edbied 
: watt facet eet vi Ski otewl biioce TUN, #62 fete eengetelad 
‘ ey PAR SIMS take go. onl heer we dnegee. OF eae to! 32 | 
— Tere ec? TI, 288 Of e850 o8e. ileum of —— — 


* 
F . eye [sc « tee -+?*2? 7376 «2° Jaws¥ ow tea? Vises lor 


wil 


i Seb eATaN 253 «2 Betilhete ge Rad col jacliqan ted ebaé 


ears? veo eat ede Sed) . bende: seeds enasbied 


ae — En — —⏑ of Parl? bint fond 7 

je: one 
_—. * 

A— — Teteees © 1S enmeweng?. le *·caa s 

: ; 

a “wp s x: WHS YO Dots eb. 44 SOlTAowb) els) tenes 

* 

~~ 4 * 

> > | aa 79a. 4 ote } * 1 

* or 48 ve Storm becyod (etelegeds. Ade ek 


+ 
— . ae eve — 2 2 rjioe yilede ah *. 


* 
— Piha C= tam 04 $@) . fh BEG cowemdteP st 
i E igre . qeftvetrs oo 2 agar beensteceds 
| 5 ———⸗⸗ X iho et) of regz r ⸗re⸗ 
ec ; te cerqeter of 4a¢ Of gat >uegen? 
—* ‘o>. é . “7 Bos : ¥ sexsevro> eral septivede 


, (7 SEO 29k Cees Gy. SeetreyoqueReleebee) (ankas tet edt. ie 
} Seerinas ett wor Ges oliwee 224 te0ae@ers ode dau⸗ Ime 


iia: 4 42 Dho% ,Ote te orcs > _ SPR. 





7 4 
BRS i“ 





Mer Term> 10777 - 


™m 
24 tt, No, 


447 - 17987 






CHARLES FURRRBOETEF, 
Appellee, 
; APPEAL FROM SUPERIOR 
vs. \ 
P 
RITTENHOUSE & EMEREE 
AppelLlaxfit. 


COURT, COOK COUNTY. 


1821.4. 321 


WR. PRESIDING JUSTICE F. A. SMITE 
BELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 


—J — — — 


The plaintiff below, appellee, recovered a judgment 
in the Superior Court of Cook County for damages resulting from 
an injury received by him Janvary 2, 1909, sgainat defendant, 
appellant. Appellee was driving a two-horee team exet on 
Augueta street in Chicago, ahout 400 feet weet of Elaton avenue. 

A horse orned by defendant, with e harneas upon him and « piece of 
@hain dragging behind him, ran into the team which ¢laintiff ras 
driving, and plaintiff was thrown off hie wagon and a wheel of the 
wagon ran over his leg, causing the injuries sued for, 

On the trial, plaintiff dismissed ae to the first, 
second and third counts of the original declisration, but after- 
wards the second count vas reinstated. - 

The second count everred that on January 2, 1908, the 
defendant conducted and oresrated a lumber ysrd on the east side 
of Eigton avenue near the intereeotion of Augusta street; that 
the yard was enclosed by a high board fence, to shich access was 

“mad by meane of a gatewsy equipped with 4 wooden gate, and that 

| the defendant was then possessed of end uaing « certsin hores in 
the yard, and it wae the duty of defendant to keap the horeé de- 
ecurely fastened or guarded so that the horse right not escape from 
the yard upon said streets; but that the defentant negligently 


permitted the gateway to remain open and unguarded, and thereby 





+ ROTATII® MVOMY IARTISA 
.YTHUOD ¥OOD .TAVOO 


ISé .A1S8r 


| A adrrovi OMTOTARRT . AW. 
THOCO TAT NO ROTEIGO GAT Q3ASVIIGC 















tasmgbut # berevooes ,seifeqqs \woted Titsatslq edt |e 
ott gaitivees eepems 102 ytaved f009 Yo t1ved tolsequa 
inahaeted teniage ,QO0L So yreumal mid yd bevieoes 
a0 tase maest eetod-or? s gaiviad ear eelleqgA © 4 
-Outevse gotelT Yo te@w test OOS tuods .ogsotdd at te ta, 
lo soetg # baa ald Mouy seemred « dztw ,Jnsbnerted yd Bemwes 
es¥ Blidaleiy doldw mee? ed? ofmi aet mid batded. x a 38 b 
ed? to leede « bra negew aid Tio nwords sew Tissaials X 
-T0% bews eetrwtat edt aaievso .gel sid ovo 94 , 20 
tert? edt of @& hesetmath Wiiateiq (Lalit edt oO” ish es 
-tetts tud ,aottexrsloeh Lamigizo edt to stavoo brtdt — 


Pa NE - 
-~bessventet sae invoo baooes of ; 
Ree 


—* 


odd .@0Gf x2aunal ao sade berzeve tauoo bacoee ed? 
ebie tease edt ao bray tedawl # beterego baa betoubaoo — b 


tadd (Jeexte asteuguA to moisocectestal ed? 1200 Sune 


ea” ees008 dolde of ,somel busod dgld a yd besolone sew Bb 


itd 


tad3 bas ,eteg asboow 2s dtiw beqglhupe ysweteg 2 to . 
ai eared alatteo « galsw bee Yo beeseenog aedt saw ¢ ‘ : | 
-96 serod ed? qeex of tashbneteb to ytubh edz saw 3f baa  baay odes 

mot? eqsose fom tdgim se10d edt ted? oe bebirawg 10 benetes? yfeust’ 
yLsaegiinen sashmeteh edt tad? tud jateette bise aoqu bisy ons 


ydered? baie ,bebieungay das mego miswes of yawetag odd hetiinazeq 


= 
‘the horse escaped from the control of the defendant, ran out of the 
yard, through the gateray, into the street, and into the team of 


horass which plaintiff waa driving, causing him to be thrown to 


———_— — 


the ground end injured. 


An additional count of the declaration, filed December 
15, 1910, avera thet the plaintiff, on Jenuary 2, 190°, was 
‘eanted in @ wagon atteched to a team of horses, and driving slong 
‘Auguste etreet, and a horse owned or in use by the defendant was 
unattended and runnirs away on anid etreet, and ran with creat 
force against the team driven by rlaintiff, causing the team to 
become frightened and unmanageable, and caveing the plaintiff te 
be thrown off the wagon upon the ground, which resulted in the 
injuries complained of. The general iasue and e special plea 
were filed to the original decisration and to the additional 
count. 

There ie aubstantilally no controversy in the evidence 
offered on ths trial, It shore thet the defendant wee engerved in 
the lumber business end hed @ yerd loested on the enet side of 
Eleton avenue, which runs nearly north end south, anc that Avguats 
street runs east and weet but does not extend east of Fleton avenue, 
The lumber yard of the defendant ie so situated that if Avguata 
street vere extended east of Flaton avenue, it vould run through 
the yard. Access to the lumber yard from Eleton avenue ie 
through @ gateway or driveray to a main thoroughfare which rune 
east through the lumber yard for about 409 fest. Immediately 
south of the lumber yard is & coal ysrd into which a switchtrack 
from the Northveetern Reilway runs, and extends north into the 
lumber yard of the defendant om the aast aide thereof. In the 
lumber yard there are passage-rxye designated by the witnesses 
as alleys, which run north end south, connected with the rain 
thoroughfare or driveway ,and along these slleys sre piles of 
lumber, 


On the day of the sccident in question, defendant's 






















ed? to tuo set ,snsbaeteb eff to Loxsaoo edt mor? beqesose 

Yo meet edd ofmt hrs .seentts ed? Ofal ,yereteg ed? — 

of avoxd? ed of mid guteweo .anivith eaw tieatelg dot 

rutat ka⸗ 

xedmeced BELL? molterafest ed? Yo taugo Lenolshbbs aA 

war 20CL 8 yreutsl mo .Ytatela edd sods et wa: 

paols gnivizh fae ,esetoOd to mast «6 —J—— oe 

* eae Suadasteh oft Ye emv ni sto heave eetod # bas ,i » stek 

seer dtie aet bee ,teette bies ao years orianws bas 

ot ose? edd Bei kauao Vibtalals — 5 edt 

ot Mitatelq edt anteusc hae ol davgenanns ‘tae bene sia 

edd mi betdiuest dotde (bmuow, edt soqy mogaw edt To | m aah 
seiq (foteeqe « bee sueel Lateneg eAT  . Yo ben . 

faneitihte ed? of Bae noltena{oeb lantgirze edt od 7 


+) ny Le = 


se rome © * 
a 


* —2— 


nts 


ekleqga 

eonehive eit at (e1evertnon on _¥l(aitmeteadua of eted? > +! 
al Sessegie sae tretmeteh eds ted? avode oI feta 
“a oSts Seee ed? no betavol frsy @ hed base erent 

Stevgua tect dae .diygos bas dtroa yizsen enet aioli , 

auneve mojefd to tees Saetxe tom seob tud teew bax tase. 

atewgud M tedd deteutie of eb Inadneteh ed? to busy 

dguotdt nut bivow th .eumsva notel® lo seee bebtetze 

at guneva aosel® mort Srey redewl edd of asecoA nes 


% ht aah 
ph 
a a 
reas 


hire 


eau dotd= er atdayotcds atem * of yaveviah 10 ysewesag a. * 
viet sibemu! -feet OO tuode 10% bray sedmul edt. 
Agatidotive » dotde ofat Srey Leoo 2 ef bray tedmwl ed: 

edt ofai Atron ehastxe toe enw ‘yaelieh axveteewt?10r » 
edi of ,Yoo1ed? ebis teae ed? ao tnabmeted eft To a⸗x 
esseentiv edt dé betangteeh syaw-egeaesae2y7 ots o10d? Drey « 

atam eit dtiv hetoennoo .ftvoes hae diton aua doldw 
te aseliq ets eyelle seed? ga0le bee, wowev bab 10 ft 

Put ,ateette Sia wee 


a'tnabaeteh .aoltseup of tnebtoos ed? te yebved? Quy fo 


je 


employes were sngeg¢ed in piling limber in cr near alley No. 6, 
about thirty feet north of the east and west thoroughfare, The 
pile of lumber wae, at that time, shout twenty-five feet high. 
The mode of piling the lumber wee by placing # pulley on top of 
the pile of lumber, another pulley et the bottom of the pile, 
or about two feet from the fround, end « pair of tonge wae ate 
tached to s light chain and passed up from the tonre to the pul- 
ley on the top of the lumber pile and dorn ané around the puliey 
at the foot of the pile, and then ettached to the whiffle-tres 
to which the horee, which ran away, wes herneessed. The tonre 
would be attached to a piece of lumber by men upon the ground and 
the horses would pull the lumber to the top of the pile where 
there were tro men who took it off the tonrs. The horse would be 
backed up, the tongs vould descend to the ground, reedy to be ate 
tached to another piece of lumber. At the time of the accident, 
the horse in question was being led by Sebastian Smith by « 
strap about three feet long, attached to the bridle bit on the 
horec, At that time Seheotian Smith was a young men eighteen 
years old and reighed 135 pounde, The place where the lumber was 
being piled was close to the ewitch-track on which vers standing 
some cars, and while defendant's servante were thus engaged, a 
svitch-enzine backed some cara ints the yard or against the cars 
standing upon the track in the yard of defendant, end caured 4 
great noise, and at the care time the engine blew off steam, which 
frightened the horse and he commenced to run avay. Smith heid on 
to the horse as long a8 he could and wae thrown to the ground, the 
horse broke eway from hin and, breaking the chain to which he was 
attached, ran up the main thoroughfare and out throvgh the gate 
and acrose Eleton avenue and up Augusta atreet, and aga inat plain- 
tiff's team, 

The plaintiff waa the only witness in his own behalf, 
except a medical expert who testified in the case. The plaintiff 


teatified that on the date in question he waa driving a team of 


— ü——⏑ ——————— 





* 
























— S .o8 yelis teem to a2 sedan gai liq wh begegne: 
ed? ere Ydgiiornd? Sens dae tae edt Yo Atrom ¢eebi¢ tat 
“dtd took ort taytnews tucks ould Padte (enw wedmute Me ⸗ 
Yo qot ae yelliuq © zaboaſfa yd ane tedeul eddogabitg bow. 
929 ef) Yo sottod edt ta yetluq wdtoas \wedmul to oft 
-fe eaeF epaod to xtLeg 2 baw (oevorm sdf sot? teek a ) 
<iq edt of snmot ett son? ait Desa bas mhador sdghiow og | 
(viheg ‘Sao Sheen tue dene han of te wodentiedts tn qopiedil 
oevtae (titty od9 of bedombts aod bas ,eltq edt 20 
egaot of? JBeseentad ear .yers aot dotdw yeaxomis 
bas brudxy elt RoqW mew qo todmyl 20 eostq-e os be 
— eihe 849 2o qed eft of sedmulieds Chua biuewive’ 
od bigOw gered SP aqmod eit Yo ob dood! ode nom one wim 
ta 0d 6} ¢hiet .Sanety ede of temoned: Sate egnet eft aint 
.imebtooes edt Yo amtt edt tA .redmul to eoekqg sedtona 
& Ud dtte® cattondet ys bel gated sew mobteeyp at 
vitae tld efdiet edt of bedoetrs .gael eel send? 
aésetinin mem -cqeoy & ear A201 88 aonisesde® emit: 
oer ceding f ot etert= sont edT .eheung dei hergter b 
Sntbnsts eret Aolidr oo dosrt-iiosg ive e112 02 esolo 8am 
a (Degegae cunt evew etmavies «'smenneled eltde bre, 
ereo en? tenfage 16 Stay edt otal eu ence heiosd 
e booraca bee .deehere teh To bury eft al soant ed? nogw | bbe 
doide .asste To refd emigee eft ent? ever ed? ae banw; | 
mo bled d¢ie® .yora set of Beomenmoe ed bane setod edd 
edt {fmyot, et of mronit ec foe Divoo ed ee gaol es en zom | 
ear ed dotide at —*— eddy gniteexrd . tne wid aot) yore edotd 
etap eds dyeyovds tuo Bre sistoiguor)ed? niem ont ay nat 
-atelq tealeoe bre .teerte ateuguA qu bae euseve cotel® 
| ee Te 
«tieded ato std at eeentiw yinc eit sar Vuemtete ed? - 20 — * 
Viltatale ef? .eeoco oct mt Hettiteet odw t2eqxe Laotbem 5 sqneRbw! 
losses © QALVIxh vawied aoltemup ah -w2a> ett ao tedt bettie? 


| 
i 


ade 


horess attached to % waren on which was part of a load of aand, 

and was about to drive under the Northresatern railway tracks on 
Auguete etreet going east, ani while he waa driving on the south 
side, or right-hand side, of the etreet, he eae & runeaway hores 
coming toward him; that the horee ran into hie team whieh caused 
them to jump aside and the plaintiff was thrown off the wagon, and, 
after being drageed « distence, the team got away from him and hie 
leg wae crushed by the front wheel of the wagon; that the horse rae 
Unattended and running very fest, gaining more speed as he ran; 
that the horse had o harness on and was drargine a long chain. This 
ie the subatance of all the testimony on the queetion of Lisbility 
introduced by the plaintiff, Wo avidence whaterer was offered by 
the plaintiff of what occurred in the lumber yard when the horse 
became frightened and broke away from control. 

The teatimony on behalf of the defendant ehored the 
facta above stated as to the work beinre done by the horge and the 
manner in which the horse was ueed,and that he #ae in akaree of 
Sebaatian Smith sho wae leading him, and the menner in which the 
horag troke away. The testimony shoves that Smith tried to held 
the horee and clung to him and waa dragged by him eome distance, 
when Smith waa ——— the horee broke avay from him; that the 
horse hed been used ih the lumber yard for a number of yeare «nd 
wae &@ quiet gentie horee and hed never run avray before, The evi- 
dence of the defendant showvs that thers *«s¢ no negligence on khe 
part of cefendant's employes, «ni it is uncontradicted. Wo one 
employed by the defendant wae cerelese or negligent. There is 
no averment in the decleretion that the horee wae a run-away hore 
or ever manifasted any disposition to run away; noy is there any 
everment thet the defendant hed any knowledge that the horee would 
run awsy, The evidence on the part of the pleintiff diecloses no 
fect or circumatance which would put the defendant upon notice 


that the horse would become frightened and run away. Ye think 


ve 


2 
























— 


~iy. Ah, — — — se Dad ihe 


~boes to bao! a te yeh ae saw party a0 ore... AE 0A 
no adonxt yaxitex aiptaowdtsoM ede rebay evixb of 10d Bi 


Adyos #43 no gutvizh sew od oftde bas .teae gaton ⸗0 ese si 
Seton yenemour # van ol .teento edd Yo .ebte baad-sdgtz 10 48 
beeuvo dotdw mast eld otat oer setod edt seas ima b r) 
bag ;gopen ed9 The avonde vew ndaiaiq ed? dae obten — 
eid bae ahd mot? yews tog meet odd eonestech s begged an 
es setod edt ted? jmoger ed? Yo Leedy tnox? ods x yTO, 
viet ed Be. beege etom patateg e⸗? Y2ev pptanen, bas 
sid? .atedo amet a gnigpetb. saw da⸗ go seentad © — 
Utiitdeke te sot seorr sd? ao ymonttent eft Ih 20. eonese 
X¢ DemetIo eae invetade somebive of Thisatala edt xo » 
eetod ott sede bray xedmul edt at henmmeo tate to * 
-Lortmoo motl yams edord hae eae? J 
ed? osvoa caascta dsd ef3 Yo ileded Ao Woalsaes edt 
edt hae sanod edt (i emob aaled Ator sdf of ma betage Yor 
Yo egtzedo at caw ed tadt ban, besy eaw sarod add Aoksw al 191 —— 
ea⸗ aetas at aaaaan edt dae aid gatbeel sam ode dite 
Biod of boiat ditah ted? awodsa yaomitess edT -Yors stor | en J 
seonafath suns abd rf Ragpanh om hen sid of gaute, bee 9g ‘edd 
ed) Jed? jatd aoxt yere siozd sated ed? banners ser Ashe J 
bap avety to 1edmun 4 xe? Atay r8dmul ad? dt beew need bed 


ot one ‘ 
ine 


sive edt -6toled yors. agt steven bad dae satod eitaes selup 
edaino sonegiigen on sew erV)eds tad? erode saghael eb eas. 


sa9 Of .betoihertmoonw gi ti bar ,seyolqne 8 Saabaeted, . 


Sf e70d4T .teentinen to sealetso ear snpige deb od? xo be Olgas J 
eetod Yers-tur ¢ Sa" eexod eds sad) aoktarsloeh * ai ta ae om A 


yme eied? ef won ,yere aut Of solsiaogeth yas belestl . tte 7 * 
' - ° ~ ‘ * 
bivow setod ed? fait egbelwoad yne bad sashasteb ed? ted? saquyeve 


‘ 


on sea loath Witetely ed? Yo s14q eat a0 eonehive aT (4ee OT 
eoiton aogu taahaeleb edt tuq bluow doltde sonatemuorto te, sea? 


inti? ef .Yaws nut tas bemetdgts? emoved bivow eared edt tad? 





the defendant's evidence necatives beyond a1] question of fact any 
negligence in the manacement of the horse, and, teking the evidence 
altogether, ne ground of lisbility ie shown, Steudlie v. Rentchler, 
64 Ill. 161; Swafford v. Rosenbloom, 107 Ill, App. 578, Kemmond v. 
Xelton, 4% Ill. Ape. 186. 

The case presented by the evidence ia quite similar 
to that of Caspere v, Anglo-American Provision Co., 159 Ill. App. 
$73, 

The verdict of the jury wae not justified by the evi- 
dence. The plaintiff was not entitied to recover, and the court 
should have go instructed the jury. The judgment is reversed, 


REVERED. 







F ail tout jo aotteeup [is gmoyed aovisapes sonsblve: — * 
eonenive ad? gatdar ,bma ,eex0d ed? to ragnozagen. ott at g0¢ * 
E »—— -% ofbuget .avode at Wetlidetl. to base ty om Be. 
AY Bwomma (87E .Gak fT OL ,moohdaopot 1, Dughiges i oe 1 
905.000) of KT, * 

— ew Lup at ooas oꝛ ve edz ce _detneee td. ae6o. edt mg 
— al ,.09 aota: vox⸗ aaol comhno Sank 1¥ e7eqe 99. 
‘mest ef? xa 9 dogo, J 


Are off yd bebiisaul son son qt eds * 1oLBTey Re bag 


nuoo ett bao .tevoves of betthime tom aoe — 


beateves at Jaompou, adv  .¥asl ⸗a⸗ betourtent: P2354 J 
-ATRAATV IS —_— 9 








a 























Laie oc vd eo 
to e 

= 
a 

ae here thy 2 £Be 


‘oar iouwt? #ef4T 





Mel * 
a J 
7 , or 
jolie ge" ‘ 
* 
ia! neee 
* oF 
4 ly 
tore $4078 e 


. ea 
imasio ‘* STG 
X 


1 a 
~ sp » 
7 el x 
a: 


‘ ~~ 
} va dex⸗ ya er 
— J 

'aee seve 


si * 
les ie eae sve 
em 


42 de 










>? 


1 

. 2 « 
oa 
Bh 





dit hea 


Boag spear timupapenteni — 
| tone? ante? . sani foe setod ef — 


october Jerm, 1911, No: 









488 = 18028 


JOBEPH STUCHBY, 
Appellee, 
APPEAL FROM SUPERIOR 


COURT, COOK COUNTY. 


1821.4. 337 


CHICAGO CITYFPAILYAY COMPANY, 


ApPelient. 


MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE F. A. SMITH 
PELIVERED THF OPINION OF TFE COUFT. 
On November 18, 1909, the defendant in this action, 

appellant, was opereting a double track etreet railway upon 
Aghiand avenus, a north and south public hi¢hway in the city of 
Chicago, Ashland avenue crosses « stream or branch of the Chicago 
river about four blocks south of Twenty-secend etreet. At this 
point there ie e bridge about the level of Ashland aveme, and 
defeniant's tracks were laid upon the bridge, which provided a 
wagon roadway upon each side of the tracke. When in a norms] condi-~ 
tion there was no elevation or obstruction between the tracks on 
the bridge, but for a fer days before amiat the time of the accident 
here involved, the west side of the bridge was out of use, and & 
fence or barrisr eae piaced along the bridge betwesn the street-car 
tracks. This barrier wee 3} to 4 feet high, and was from eight to 
ten inches from the side of a street-car aa it passed over the 

» Cast, or north-bound, track. Ae 2 result of thie condition of the 
bridge,defendanit's south-bound cars ran over to the east track on 2@ 
"“grase-hopper" ewiteh placed immediately north of the bridge. A 
similer awitch was placed at the south end of the Dridge to enable 
the south-bound cars to return to the weet track after croseing the 


bridge. 





me 
ee 
* 
’ 
a te 
ft? 






















+7) Reerny eat ef gohan 
oe Mey . on 
+ tect Se : 

at tn, 
AQTA¥GUS WORE JANGSA — B—— 
xruvoo OOD xauoo J hi in te. 
cvasauo 4 J 
FES . 1881 ——— 
asl os 


i 


Ae} 


\aotton stds at tazhreted ed? \9CRL Sf tedaevot sO 
moqu yarllex teexte tows? elduob s yattarege eow . 

Yo ytto edt at yaedald olf{diq diuoe bac discon & ,eun | 
Ogs0idd ets Yo domeid 10 meezte s seaeot> euneve batted 
atdd tA .teetts Saooes-ytner? Yo dtuoe atoolfd 190% 1190 
bat .ouaeve badfdeA to Level edt suods epbixd # af zed 
S bebivetq dotdw ,eghtid edt asqu bial eter efontt e' tae 
-thmeo fenton s ai ced¥ .eidoet? edt to ebfe dose aoqu⸗ 0 
ao gloat? off neexted doltourtede 10 moktavele os eee x c 
snebioos ed? to eats eft Sahna etotet eyed wet 2 tot dud , . 





@ bas .eeu to tyo sew enditd ed? to ebls teow od? deve * 
te0-te2etie eff aeexrted ephizd ef? gnofea beoalq ser solzsad 10 
Of? fdigte mott aew bac deta sect & of $f eew tetriad eldT 

eat tevo beees: 21 oe ta0-#e0Tle & Yo ehie ed? moi? so ‘ 
ed? Yo aoltitues etd? to Mlweet 2 eA 86 .d0ax? .Savod-diten 10 af * 
© m0 A9ett tone out of reve max ise bauodedtyoe @' snabactéD, 6 | 

A ,egblrac sit to diton yletetbommt beoelq dosive "“19qq 8. 
eldene of epitad ed? Yo bar divoe edd 22 beosiq saw dotive * rth 
edd gnisaoro 16/24 doats teow ed? of atwiet of ats0 haved-dtuos 4 


The plsintiff, appellee, in going home from hie work, 
boarded an Archer avenue cer, paid hie fare and received a transfer 
ticket entitling him to passage on the Arhland avenue jine. At 
the junction of the lines st Teenty-second street, plaintiff left 
the Archer avenue car and boarded ea south-bound Ashiand avenue car 
which was greatly crowded with paesencers. It was 2 closed car 
with a platform at each end, The east side of the platform was 
closed and paesengere were received and discharged from the west 
side, Plaintiff eucceeded in getting om the etep® of the front 
platform. There was another paesenger on the step at the time 
and several passengers were on the atep of the rear platform, Plaine 
tiff rode on the step with ons foot on the platform until the car 
reached the ewiteh at the bridge. While riding in thie position, 
the conductor accepted hie transfer. 

when the car reathed the switch, it wae found thet a 
one-horse express wagon wae stalled at the north end of the switch, 
the west wheels of the wagon having dropped off the track into a 
hole made by the removal of the pavement of the street. The car 
stood a short time, the motorman waiting to ese if the ar iver sould 
get the wagon clesr of the track, but aa he was apparently unable 
to do so, the motorman requested the passengers to cet off snd aa- 
sist in moving the wagon out of the way. In reaponse to the motor- 
man's invitation, several passengers, including the plaintiff, got 
off the front step and platform and went forward and lifted the 
wheele of ths wagon out of the hole, and the track was cleared. 

As soon se the wagon ves clear of the track the motor- 
man started the car forward. Bome of the passengers succeeded in 
getting on the car befors it atarted, but othere, including plain- 
tiff, dia not succeed in getting on until the car was in motion, 
Plaintiff was the leat one to get on the car and did not succeed 
until it wae within twenty or trenty-five feet of the bridge. There 
as — man then etanding at the south end of the step and 
pisintiff climbed on the step north of him and held on with both 


hande, his right hand grasping the handhold on the forward end of 








ae 




















Stor etd mott emod gatog af ,eelleqds .2tatalg oft bes ees . 

toteaers « bovieoe: bas erat ald blaq .1e0 sumeve todotA as 
cA «.omnL eumevs Daeldok edd mo epeseay ot abd gatisiiae se 

tel Tiktatala ,deette bnooee-yiaer? 22 sents eat to molt cu | 

tae quneve DaaldsA baued-divoo « nqpesed bas 280 comers. 

tao beeolo = ear I —— dtiw bebwoto —— sll 

‘pew wactteh4 eft Yo ebta tess edt bre fose ts arbi a ag 
fee edd moxt Begtadoetd bne bevieost exer —— J— 

trex? at) Yo Vaned ed? ao at⸗ dos al bebescous auiaai J 

eat? edt fa qete eft ao 1e_desass 1edtons sae er0edT 4 
Ataſa = .mtotselg T4088 e413 to ote edt ae e108 pregsoness | 
aad ed? ER0dy wxettela edt ae Foo’ enc délv qete ould no 

Agkiheom sid? at gutbix ells agbtxd ed? te dottve od F 

selene? etd betgeoos sot 

S Pudd tmwot ver th dodiwe edt bedSner x50. edt, aode —J— 

dodiws ed? Yo bne dtron ot te deilase sar aogar eanmyat 90% . 

@ otat door? ed? Bo deaqoth patved aoger edd Yo alee . 

10 od? taexte od? Yo Saemevay eft to Lavomex eft xd, 
bivoo sevtch od? Yt ove of gattion asmzotom edt ents aoa· 

eldang eltneraqgs aar od an tud loatt edd to xs0L9 : 


‘se 


~s& bas Yo ten of ategmeseeq edt betseupet acto ton edt , 
-soten ef) of semogeet al yet ed? to tuo aona⸗ ed? gat : 


> wu 


edt hettli bua brerio2 tae hae mtottala bas qete tact? 4 


tog ,¥Uitatala od? yaibsloat .stenaessag Leteves ,noltat 


vbetaclo enw dont? ed? Daa .sfod ad? Yo tue hoger ed? 26 | 
-toton ed? doatt eft to t6elo gs¥® aoget ed? 24 noe eA. 
nt Sebvooom ategnesesg oft Yo emo3 =. btewtol 169 aa⸗ berate a 
~ebeiq guthuloat .atedte tud .betrsete st o102ed tao eds 2% 3 mite 

motion ah eae teo ed? Litas oo gatdieg at beeosus toa Bib 


es 4 


beeoowe toa bit baa 190 edt ao Jeg 0f sao teal oe oar mm +5 et 
etedT. .egbtad sd! Yo tee? evilt-ysase? 20 ytaews ands te oo he 
bas qete off to hme dtuoe ett ta gathacts ned? nam redsons alt 
dtod dtiw mo bled has mtd to dtrtom qete ed? mo bedutio YitsatkiG 
Se. bes beanvet att ae — eid .oleea 


23 
— 


ran — he 
the platform and hia left hend grasping the handheld on the body of *Bas 
It wae dark or nearly eo at the time, and plaintiff 


did not ees the fence or know of ite presence, so he teatified, 

and wae not warned by the motorman or by any one elee of ite 

presence. Plaintif? was atruck by the north end of the fence and 
thrown to the ground and injered. 

The declaration consisted of three oririnal counts smd 
an atditional court, The court instructed the jury that no recovery 
could be had under the first count, and the case waa submitted on the 
remaining cotints. The second original count cherged neglirence in 
failing to warn plaintiff of the presence of the fence, The third 
original count charged neglizence in permitting the car to he eo 
overcrowded that it was necessary for plaintif? to ride on the 
eter, and in consequence he vss etruck by the fence, The additional 
count charged nerligence in starting the car before plaintiff had 
time to board it and get into a safe cosition, and that in gones- 
quence he was standing on the step ani wae atruck by the fence. 

Ypon the queetion whether or not the verdict for the 
plaintiff ie justified by the evidence, *e are of the opinion, after 
&n examination of the evidence and a study of the argumente of 
counsel, that the conclusion of the jury on the questione of neglie 
gence of the dafendant and contributory negligence of the plaintiff 
ought not to te disturbed. The evidence tends to show that the de- 
fendant's duty, through ite servante in charge of the car to do all 
thet humen care, vigilance and foresight could reasonably do in view 
of the character and mode of conveysnce employed, and coneistently 
with the practical operttion of ite road to esfely carry the plaintiff 
aS & passenger, wae not done. The defendant wae neglicent in pere 
mitting the overcrowded condition of the car. Swraoska v. Chicago 
City Ry. Co., 150 Il]. App. 599, It accepted plaintiff as a pass- 
enger while he was on the step of the car, Thereby he was invited 
to ride in that place and there was an implied assurance that if 
wae a aafe and suitable place to occupy, and that he would be carried 


eufely, Rorer on Reilrogsds, (1884) pp. 110344; Clark v. F..A. RR. * 





vr 


- ld eae 0, en 
* 
Pal 3 
J 
f 
X 























Nana eee. 
au⸗au⸗ta bos ,omts ef? te, oe ylueeg. to, fab, one, 41 a8 —* 
-bettisees ed ce .epmemetg ett Yo tons xo — 

esi to enle ego yas oof 2m s⸗o e⸗ WW hearer 

bas some? sf? Yo hoe dfPtom oft ed toursa, — * 

_ sbetulat das Dauomp, edd o 

Bite stauoo Lentntzo cows to Betelsnoco moltazeloed edt. sai * 
YIevooss of ted? yas edt Sevowtdams cauoo dT . stnyoo Lamoks 
od? Go bettindys ese send ed? dae ,dauo0 test? oa⸗ rebay bed « 
as. potent Sage heyteds tayoo Lastgiza baoose edT . 184000 ag 
bxidd edt § .eonet edt Yo eonspenq edt Yo, Ytateta — 

os od o? 360 edt aet ootae at conepiizen beusedo, tar 

_. ot ao eb£x of Viteatale so? yrsesece|n. ner 2h. pads, bi a : 

q fesottiobe od? .eomet ett yo dowrts ea¥ od eopeupesso?.. 65 id 


J 


bi 


bed 22igatelq tote! 190 edt gnteeete at sonegtipen 
_atenor at tadt baw aoltiaor eae © otal Jeg bag, #4. 

eons ent ys fourte che >on qede ed? no gatbaate san 9 od, 

ed) tot totbaev aft tox 1 tedtedw. nolteeap edd nogw J 
stevie «totatio ed? to etm oy. eonshive ec? 4d ——— 
te eieenggts edt to ybute # tne ponebive ed? Yo not 
~tigna Yo anotteeup ef? ao (sul ett Yo moleulomon, edd. tate, 
MilsHisly ect to eonend igen vret yd? auso tae ‘tashaeted odd 
ed? fod? woe cf ebre? eomehive et? sbeduwtelh od ; of 
{Le ob of seo ed? Yo egreds af ataevies aff dpyotd? ti. 68 
weiv at ob yldscoeset hives siglseto? bas eonelighy ,e1e9. 
vitmetetanoo bas sbeyolgne eonsermoo To ebom, bas crea 
Ttitmielo ed? yrieo ylelee of beot ati to aotterede feot 0013.98 
ae gt taegifgen sey tesbayted eiT end fom esr ovageo⸗ | *5 
ogsctdd .¥ eiscam® .xA0 edt to noltkdaos hebroroxeva, * 
“888% 4 00 tisetela betqecoa tI 008 .qgA .ffT O8f 9109 68 
betiva: saw ed ydetedT 18° ed? Io gets edt mo sav od thie 

tl add socerwees belignt aa ear exeds Sas soals 9089 a 

beiziso ef biwor od tadt bas .¥quono of sbalg oldetive das etag., 


@ 8 .A..3 wy suetd joacdsy en ae 


ate + 


Co., 36 HN. Y. 135; Walter v. C. DP. A&M. R. Co., 3% Ia. 35. The 
evidence thet defedent geve no warning of the proximity of the fence 
to ite tracke is uncontroverted. That it did not place the fence 
there ie immaterial, for it had notice thet the fence *aa there. 
South Side £1. R. FR. Co. v, Meevig, 314 Il], 463. Under the evie 
dence defenient was negligent and lieble for a failure to warn 
plaintiff. 

It was a queation for the jury whether the plaintiff 
wae guilty of contributory negligence or not in riding upon the 
step; (Alton L. & T. Co. v. Oller, 217 111. 15), or in failing to 
discover the fence which struck him, Gfmaoeska v. C. C. Ry. Co., 
Supra; ¥. °C. St. Ry. Co. v. Marke, 187 Tl], 15; I. T. R. Co, v. 
Thompson, 210 id, 226, Upon the evidence shown in the record, e 
cannot find that the verdict was not warranted. 

The court admitted evidence tending to show that the 
oar wae crowded at the time it was stopped by the wagon at the 
switch. Under the charges of the declaration this evidence was 
materiel, The fect that the oar was crowded when atopped by the 
wagon tended to show ite condition at the time of the accicent. The 
evidence aleo had a bearing upon the question whether the motorman 
should not have anticipated reasonably that there were passengers 
riding on the satep of the car ag it appresched the fence who should 
be warned of the presence of the fence. Aprpellan} was not prejudiced 
by thie evidence, The erowded condition of the oar was an undis- 
puted fact in the case. Appellant iteelf offered evidence of ite 
crowded condition. 

Error is assigned upon the giving of the eighth in- 
etruction because it refers to “the negligence of the defendsnt, as 
charged in the deolsration," instead of embodying the facts consti- 
tuting auch negligence. 

It ig trve that the practice of this referring to the 
aecleration in inetructions hes been criticised ani disapproved, 


but the giving of such an instruction @oea not constitute reversible 


— — a — — — ~~ —— ei Bae — 


adi 
abe 


























‘2 reid site ioe 
sat St aI ce i) oh A} 4 «4 0 7 meter asel .¥ ae 


eonei eft Yo ytiatxomg ed? Yo gatazer on eveg sastfered sade oo 
gomet eit eoaelq fon bLb 3! Stadt -bes Te vousnooay als a — 


—F 

eroa⸗ ae" eonel pdt ted? gotten had #2 20? ofa? xesemal @ 
vive etf reba 8 £0 .ifT fe given .¥ .0D, 1A AT 8 Z 
azer of etwitst « yo? aldell das magi igen sav tat “ 

4 — ~<8™Miioo Awa 


—— ads ‘aedtone Yxwt. nF 102 coltenap 4 eam 9T 
vat nogy gathix al ton x9 voaaybinen a chats = fey 

o# goiita? at x fat tit tre 900 .¥ 199 PB « ak. 
«09 «09.9 10 4¥ SXsomme mtd dowxte desde oe 

-¥ 000 MT oT G@f CLT SRL .exta oy 09 4A dB 

er ybrsvet ¢ ed? at awode somebive oft goqU ,988 .bL oF P 
| , hetaevten ton sar “totbrey ods tedt | 

ead Sartt woe, ot anibrtes somehl ve beteimbs auoo PFS... 
od? ts aoysr edt yd baygote oun 32 pals oat AA, ony 
aw eomebive att moltareloab eit Yo nop tedo. ead reba 
edt 4d Beqqote aede bebroro eae xeo edt tad? fost oar 
i€ ed? .3nehioos ead 19 emi? oat te notttbaes art rode of 


ey 


Mearotoe edt vediede Holteeuy edt aoqe gatiaed s bed cole ] 
stepseves: etew ated? Jed? yidanonee: beteqiotias evad 2 |b, 
biveds ode some? edt Bedorotqqe tt * x⁊ao eft to aese ads | 
& Seolfuteng ton can gamifeqqgsA .eomn) ed? to seseseng ed? Yo bea 
~eipar a2 oar tao ed? Yo soksibacs hebwore edT vevnebtve shad 
asi to sonehive beralte esti ImalleqgA .eesp ed? at sos 7 
. ait ibaoo 
wai didpie ef? to natvig eff noqu bemgiese st 107%% 
se .imahnmetsh sii Yo somegtigen sit" of etelet tf eousoed most; 
-liamon @foat sft gatybedme Yo dbeefent * goliareloed od? ai beget 
seonegiigen stove, 
eas OF gaivipies abd? Yo ool ⸗oaaa oA? Pett ews? af $1 abs, 08 


‘’ 
| * bovotagseth daa dearoltizo need eed enottourtens ab - 
— — eiutiteace son eect Rolsourts est an douse asivig * 


~Se 


error. Sub. F. R. Co. v. Balkwill, 195 111. 835; Krieger v. A. 
BEB, 4 0. R. RR. %., 242 16, 844-549, 

It ie urged that at the request of plaintiff the coust 
submitted instruction 11 erroneously because the only averments in 
the declerstion aa to plaintiff's injuriee and dearages are in the 
first count of the original dgoleretion which waa inetructed out 
of the case. The inetruction wag not erroneoue on that ground. 
Shaughnessy v. Holt, #36 112. 488; Con, ©. Co. v. Schneider, 163 
Tli. 393. 

The court did not err in modifying the twelfth in- 
struction, The court pave, at the request of appellant, at least 
eight other instructions on the question of contributory neglicence 
which fully covered every phase of that question in thia case. 

Appellant wae not harmed by the action of the court in 
striking out the word "ordinary" ind subatituting the word "*due*® in 
the sixteenth instruction submitted by apoellant. Pilsintif? did not 
cesses to be o passenger or loss his rights se 2 passenger by leaving 
the car 4b the motorman's request to help in removing the wagon 
ffom the tracks so that the car might proceed. St. Ry. Co. v. 
Bolton, 43 Ohio Stete, 224, 

We cannot esy that the award of £3,500 is so grossly 
excessive as to juetify this court in setting aside the verdict on 
the ground thet it was manifeatly the reeult of passion and pre- 
judice. 

Finding no reversible error in the reeord,the judgment 
is affirmed, 

AFFIRNED, 





4 


te 
4 onda 
A .% cogetae (202 .f81 22k  flbetiel .v .09..f Ft 6u8 R . 
| “Obachne hE GHA 5.00 FG LO 
‘Ghuoe ed? Tattabelg to Seoupet silt te todd Bogea of #1” 
at etnestevs ylao edt eowsoed ylavoenorte ff Bot 
edt of 940 cagerat Soe aotautat eo Tiisatele of a2 a0 
tuo betourdeat des dotde mobrateloes Leatglro off to 
.bauory tadt ne svoomorie tem ecw aoltoarteal eat .06a8 

EBL .rehteato® .¥ 09 .9 «nod {2A .L1T BES ten .¥ 6 


S cum gt 


















Py 


4 
hl 
1 


ast 49¢Lort edt gatydinon at tre ron bth Puen edt | 

tuset te ~tmetieeqe 16 teauget off fe .eveg t1n00" a 
eonertigen yrotudtitmon to aoktesup od? a0 ecot rod ttent 41 
son aiat at motiserp stadt 26 eeada yteve bereveo’ 
ai ytveo 849 Yo dotdos of yd bemned tom asw tnalteqga | 
at *ousb* buow oud gaktodiveadin hae “yrealbro® brow edt tun 2 
ton bib Ytheatal< .inalfeags yd betstndys mottourteat dea 9 
guivec! qf tegueteng s es stdgis etd enol to tepgmeceng © Oa) 
ogee edd gatvones at Glod of deeuper e*aamictom add aa 
»¥ .00 yA 2h .besootd ddgtm sao edt? tans os etdart’ bi 
dae eret8 obdO ER | 
ylasory oo ef 008,29 to brews edt tedt yes Sonhad ow” : 
ao dothrev edt ebhes yaities at Ixwoo afd? Yittest or ao sah 
— — ha doteesq Yo tivest ed? yLieetiaan eaw th badd B or 


taemgaut odd bioees ed? at torre efatarever on gatbaly |” 


.TZRAIFTA 


68 woth Fee 


aan 


edt 


tohi@anioesh 


: hase 
tac t9 iscva to pokvia O62, hn0 


35 = 18466 


BENJAMIN SCHFARTZ, j 
Pisintiff in Errgr, 
— FRROR TO MUWICIPAL 


) 
J 
COURT OF CHICAGO. 
) 





a BREVING ASSOCIA}=} 
TION, 8 corporation, 
Defen 


1821.4. 338 


WR. PRESIPING JUSTICE F. A, SMITE 
PELIVFRED TPE OPINION OF TFF COURT. 

Plaintiff in error brought these actions ageinst de- 
fendant ia exror in the Municipal Court of Chicago for rent for 
three months, July, August and September, 1911, for premises at 
Indiana Harbor, state of Indiana, Theee actions were consolidated 
in the trial court by an order of court entered Recember 2°, 1911. 
The consolidated cause tos heard before the court without a jury. 

The court found the feaues sgainat the defendant in error and ene 
tered judgment on the finting for $10.85. The plaintiff below, 
Plaintiff in error here, seeka by thie writ ef error to reverse the 

judgment below, 

The actions were based upon ae lease which the plaintiff 
Claimed had been renewed after ite expiration. The lease provided 
for a renewal at the option of defendant in error and the claim for 
@ reneval under the option is based upon the giving of a chack by 
defendant in error for. the month of June, 1911, and retaining) pos- 

“ geeeion after the lease expired. As to the payment of the June rent, 
defendant in error shored that the check therefor was iesued and seat 
to the plaintiff in error by mistake; and, ee to the retaining pos- 
session, it showed that by arrangement with plaintiff in error's 

* agent certain saloon fixtures were left in the premiges temporarily. 

The court struck out the evidence offered to show that the drawing 


and mailing of the check for the June rent was due to o mistake. 





\ 


























Fs bet heeigt. 10K R.A 
. on 
Rhee MM eee — ee ee - 
9 ee tend: eal BR 
_- 
"ar satan 


iieth? ob Ba -gtds 
a any 


BBE. —1 1 8 9 i 4F1eke.t 7 


Stead. abt — 

2109 Lat nit arin 2 “ 4 

=eb fiakope ‘gholiee eased? ‘ddguos tosxe at eenatand 3 
‘tot tae ‘rot ogeotad Ye saved foqtotmal ods al xors 4 
4a weoineta tot [40 jsedaesae® bas Feuguh , eta 
 betsbtfoanos exe —— esed? .anaibal to 920se- J 
Arot 8 xeduoned bexetie too Yo tebso ma ‘3 — a 
veut 4 tuod? tw ‘tiwoo edt exoted breed age ‘guues —R 
“ne bre torte at tnabaoted en tehloge eoveet od? ft — 
.Poled YWidataly ed?  .88.CL4 rol pathadd edz ao snompbal 


4 Pit] 
ed? setevet of torre to tite eidd xd edocs ered per 


G26 ob BER, 


’ ° . 

— J — F tii J ites — 
Titelely ef? doldae eseel « nog beaad etew eaolios eat J 
dedtrorq eesel edt mokiertqze afl ‘weds bowertet seed ba 
tol mialo edt bas torte at Iaahaeled Yo moligo ed? ta 





F 


yd doedo a to guivig ed? aoqw beaed at aotb ed} reday 
204 °natatetes hae ~ff@l .eawt to a⸗ecoa ef3 20% rotze of fi 
,faer env ed? to taomyeq ef? of cA .bexiaqxe esael ed? tetia oles 
wace tae bevest eaw rolezed? voeds ed? ted hewods szo170 at tas . 


ore 

ib aS? 

— es 
a: 


~eoq gilaietex off of es .dae jedetain yd rote al BMitialalg 
e'sorte at Mealatqa dtiv taemegnatss qd ⸗—⸗a⸗ hewode s2 | wots 
sYiluexoqme? apeltnerta ed? ai ftel et)P eomusxtt sooles alsetieo tape 
gaineth end stadt woda of betetto eoaebive ea? 2u0 douzse #100 eat 
-oiesatn « of ub enw faez onuvl e4% tol xvedo ed? to ga lian bow 


~ Bee 


The first ana second findings of fact requested by plaintiff in error 
were refueced by the court. The first finding held that defendant 

in error remained in possession of the premisea after the expira- 
tion of the lease, The evidence does not avetnin this findine, and 
the court did not err in refusing it. 

The wecond finding of fect held that the cheok received 
by plaintiff in error was a payment of the Jume, 1911, rent of the 
Premises, and tht the claim of dafendant in error that the cheek 
wae pent by mistake wae not “ell founded. The court upon the 
avidsnce did not err in refusing to hold the finding as tendered. 

In our opinion the court correctly refused to hold as 
& matter of law thet the facts proven in evidence conetituted a ree 
newal of the lease for one yeer after the expiration of the written 
lease. 

The fourth holding of law was refused that when a ienancy 
at will is created by the partiss, such tenancy can only be terminated 
by the tenant upon reasonable notice in writing of the tenant's 
election ao to do, ant that there was no notice given. This 
proposition of lave was not involved in the caee and the court properly 
refused to hold it, 

No grog errors are filed. The record contains no error 
of which plaintiff in error can complain. The judement is affatrmed, 


APPIRMED, 













worse of Btitalele yd beteoupet tost Yo enet batt tacces pas text 
tnehaeted ted? bled anibatt tert? edf .#1s0o ed? yd 





-erlqee of% vette eentaetq od? to cotareeseg al beatanet — 
bre rgatoaty etd? atoteuwe fon evod eonedive ef? .eeeel 
-ti gatewio: ol t1e ton bis | 

devisesy fosdo ait ted? died foe? to patoot? haooes edt...” 
ed? Yo daer fL@k . eset off Yo taemgeq « aan 19388 ar’ 
fondo. 042 tad? rose at taabasted Yo uate vede onae- haw 
eds neqe Stoo eff § =«.bobawot iter ten caw etstela ud 
bexsbnet ea gakbet? ef? bled ot gntevtet at sxe ton bib 
as bfod ot hweuter ylfoerzoo taco 4% aolatgd wo at ‘i 4 
“ot « betutttenoo soavbtvs at nevoty etost ett tedé wal 4 
Hetiive edt Yo modtertgxe edt rotte teoy ene so? vesel edt F 


~_ 











J— 
Sal 


ay 





, te? #@ cede tedt — gaw wel to gathlod — oft 
|) Detentoreas ed Und aon Yoneset dose .eelixeg ed? yd betaeto sf) 


oe at 





a'taenet odd Yo guirtor at egtton eidaaossey aoqs 

eldT <merig eoi/og on, eos ozed? tadt nae ,od. oF oo ot 

|) elseuorq tuen- add ta0 omno edd mf beviovet roa sav vel to aee 
th dLod ons 

torte on caleinoo brooet siT .belit ete etowrs esoto OM. J 

sbowzdTis 1 toernbut ef? .otalaaos Bao soxwe at Weds iq 

TAMA TTA 3 







uf? 


= eas 







4 
phi 
— 


ai — bas 


a 
‘v0 bag | 
eam 


to wae —— 












Mer Term, 1912. Ne. 


. 


; 
—* 


5i - 18888 


FPROP TO MUNICIPAL 
COURT OF CHICAGO. 


Asintiff in Error, 1 8 2 toe, 3 39 


\ 
FOX RIVER DISTILL 
&@ corporation, 





MPR. PPRESIDING JUSTICE F, A. SMITH 
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. . 


a. 
By this writ of error it is sought to. reverse @ 


judgment for £517.85, recovered by defendant in error in ea fourth 


class case upon a promissory nots, dated October 10, 1910, made 
by plaintiff in error, paysbie to the erder of Harry P. Teufei, far 
#500, nine months after dete, with interest at aix per cent. per 
annum, and endorsed by Tevfel to defendant in error. 

The etutement of claim avers that defendant in error 


is the bona fide holder of the note, and deseribes it in hase vyerba 





with the excertion of « memorandum oppesring on the back thereof 
and below al] other endorsements as follore: °FW111 pay &e goon ae 
our claim of $717,153 in satisfactorily settled by Mr. Teufel. Fox 
River Distilling Company, Cherles Ledowsky, Pree't.*® 

Defendant in error rested hie case upon the receipt 
in evidence of the note, and no evidence whatever as offered by 
plaintiff in error in defense ts the action. Kotions for a directed 
Verdict sere thereupon made by both parties and the trial judge 
granted thet of the defendant in error. 

The argument of counsel] for plaintiff in error is 
predicated upon the assumption that the memorandum endorsed on the 
note wes made at the time the waker executed the note. Thie pre- 


sumption, *¢ think, is not to be indulged in, It may reasonably 


te inferred from the aprarent repugnancy of the memorandum ani its 
a" 
























soreg G2 het eos ty 

+3 POOL ag) 

‘ . 
—B 


— —* 





JATIONNGY Of aogaa 
LOOROTHO FO TaUeD 


7. «Far ote 


ae 


fh See om oa 


— _ aie reer a 
—— 


~~ 


. scien dha dileeisat tt tome to At yl 
tte mh aoxse at sowbreteb ¢d —— 28.8188 102 
ebsm ,OLCL .Mbmedavom header yeton, tronebaors « aoa 
————“ RG 5 
teq ,0neo 19q axle 26 saexetal, aviv tas teeta adsnOm,s 
30738 ak snadaeled oF SolneT yd bewsadae dD i 
30710 ai Jnabaeteh tadd at0eve whale. to seonedets, esi? wold 
agxev goad gt ¢t eedisoseh dae .efon vd? Yo teblod: ehhh s 
loeieds dons ei? mo gabtweqge eubastones 2 30 aotanerne gi 7 
ef Meus ax 4 Lik?" tevoilol o& atgemeeitobae tedeo. ikem 
sol abo we? . yd befitoe ylivotostebtas ef CL,T1% to * 
a a Xrobad eolredd —X— gait. e. c 
tqieoes ed? soaw seao etd beteet totte al sashaeted 
YS heretio ger revesade eonebive on bas ,efon ode Yo eve 
betoe1lS © tT emoltoM .mottos edt of eeneteb ai toTZe oi 1 
egbhyt (aitt edt bas setixeq dzod yd ebam aoqueted? esqp * 
-xotte al tastes hed edt, to sade my | 
ai soste af Yitatala “ze? (eanwoo to Imomugis eat eee * 
ed? a0 bheexebas auteetomem eff ted? aoltqawess ed? * 
-om eld? .ofos ed? hetvoexe tedan odd omk? eds 28 wn 
qidanceset yor #1 at begiubal eg ot toa at aids ev.» 


ANY 
att hee saubnmetoses afdf Yo faertescce od? aoc? 


ae 


location upon thdback of the instrument, below 211 other endoree- 
menta, that it wao written subsequently to the making of the note 
by the maker, and, indeed, subsequent to ite acquisition by Astry, 
defendant in error,and at a time when pleintiff in error may have 
had momentary seceas to the document — ita being presented for 
payment through the colleetion department of a bank. It ia true 
that there ie no evidences in the record ae to the time of the make 
ing of the notation in question. In the absence of euch evidsnos, 
the presumption is that the memorandum referred to wae not snioreed 
on the note at the tims the makeur executed the note. 

In Bay v. Shrader, 50 Viae, 3°86, « similar question 
Was presented, and it was held that im the absence of direct testi- 
mony worde written on the back of « note are no part of the body 
thereof prims facie, but are presumed to have been mede after the 
note "ag axecuted, and that the teet of the materiality of such 
memorandum or sndéreement on the back of an instrument is the time, 
intent and — of it. If made at the time of the execution of 3 
the inetrument, it way be part and parcel of it and may control the 
obiigation in some important partiouier, and Parsons on Billa and 
Notes, Vol. ¢, page 544, is cited as authority. *¥e think the pre- 
Sumption above stated muet be held to apply to the nete aved oan in 
thie case, and that in the aheence of any testimony upon the subject, 
the notation endorsed upon the back of the note ia not a part thereof, 
Assuming, hovever, for the sake of argument, that the aseumption of 
counsel for plaintiff in error may be indulged in, that the notation 
on the back of the note wae made at the time of the execution of the 
note, we sre of the opinion that it does not destroy ite negotiancility 
or throw upon the defendant in srror the burden of establishing conm- 
plisnce with what ia exid to be a condition precedent contained in 
the memorandum. Tha meaning ani effect of the document was 4& queé- 
tion of iaw for the consideration of the trial judge, ana he was 
eflled upen to follow the well-established rules in reference to 


eonetruction of written contracts. He warm bound to aecertain the 


1) “ytiltdatropen efi youteeb ton seob si tadt aot atao ons ‘tos 





\ 


C 
-S- 



























-eetobne tedto [le wailed ee ed? Yo Aoadedd sow a : 
ston edt to gatden edt oF —— as tau saw a 48% 
sUTtaA yd mOLfiatupon et! Cd Imeupeedue ,beebal .bas .t ; vt 
oved yeu totye al MLintele sede oul? s ta bas, rose at ; 
Tot betaeeerg mled set pow dneavoct odd ‘oe senooe | a 
oust et #E .dined © Yo suonsaaqed notsealios edt i 

is ad? Yo out? ed? of as bro0e7 oat ab one aa 
; yennebive dows Yo sbneeda odd al “ot teoup ‘at ‘qettated 4 
boetobae toa ean of bettetex mubastomen ef? tad? ef neat: : 
,etoa od? hedyoexe oon ed? aes! edt te 210 

soiteeup seh tate. 9: .88t anni G8 (reberae seen at a 
aaron Foorth to eoneada edt al Ped? dled ese a2 bas 


“vied aa? Yo tung on x8 bvot « Bo Lend oid! no aasbiaw 
2 ee: 


— Fe 


ead aegis abew need evait o8 benveexq, om “hed La 
iooe * ttlatteres eas vigor ar eat — fae bot exe 
vont? ‘elt ot dabaursdent ns ‘te food eas 4 to! inemeas eae +0 : 
i %o nol tucexs odd Yo emt? ed? tx ebaw 31 se" Ter be: 
ed? fo1jace yan bee tt Yo Leet, hee —E es ten F 
bas ef{t8 no anceret baw ,telvolixaq tans roqat enoe , ot * 
-874 ed? vnabde oF .ysizodiun as bette st bee ened « mf 
at ao bews efom ed? of ylqce of bled ed teum botats — & 


* 
em 





,tookdee ed? moa ynomttes? yar to ecmecda eds at sad co 8880. 


“rr 7 


-Yostsd? ¢x0q » ton ef etonm edt to dond ont noqu bestobse nokt — on 
Yo aotiqmuess edt ted? .ineaupta Yo etae edt xo? stereo am ' " 
motiaion edt ted? .ai beniubat od yen 10118 ai —D— pei eaaug 
ode to neltuoexe ed? to eat? edt * ebsm aaw oton ods * * ont 


ye, Es 


~moo ghidsiidates Yo asbawd ed? sorte al inabneted eds aogd 01 
at bealsiaco faehocerg aoltibace a ed od bine et sede dthe =i 
-seup 2 aew taemgooh edd Te toette bas pata som ad? snubansoaee eg e 
faw ed Dae ,ephot ra⸗ ed? Yo aottarebtenon ods x02 ‘esi to ay 2 


58 — 
of goteteter al selon bedat idatev-tien eds ‘volte? of HOU 


— 


iS 


‘ 
J. 


oud aietisoen of based wav of -sstoaxtase netitxr % * 4849.9 





— —— 


= 


intention of the parties from 2 consideration of the whole in- 
strument, end if the note sontained ambiguous cords or vorde of 
doubtful meaning, he was bound to censtrue them most strongly 
against the maker of the note. If the plaintiff in error used, 
over ite omn signature, language of Gonbtful meaning, it cannot 
complain shen a conetruction is made favorable to the other party 
whe ig not presumed to have chosen the expression of doubtful 
meaning, The court wae bound to construe the instrument ac a 
whole and to give effect, if possible, to ail the words and language 
used, discarding none, eo thet if it could be prevented, no clause, 
sentence or word shovld be euperfluous, void or insignificant. 
McCarty v. Howell, 24 I11. 343. 

In the McCarty case a promilesory note was offered in 
evidence by the plaintiff, therein providing for payment “four months 
after date or as goon ag I ehall be sble to collect a certain note 
againet Abram Devise of Chicago," and the defenee wae made on the 
theory that the payment of the note was contingent upon the payment 
of the Davie note to the maker. The court, after diseuseing the 
rules applicable to the construction of contracts, held thst in order 
to give effect to the worda “four monthe after date,” if wae neces- 
gary to give to the note the following mesning: "Four womthe after 
date, I promise to pay, etc.,but if A. Navies of Chicago pays his 
note to me before that time, I villi pay it them, but #t 91] evente, 
I will pay it four months from ite date," The WoCarty case hae 
been referred to with approval by the Supreme Court in ister cas¢s, 
among them McClenethan v. Pavia, 243 111, #7. If, therefore, the 
aesumption contended for by plaintiff in error, that the notation 
endorsed on the note in question ia a part of the contract, the true 
construction thereof would be that nine monthe after date plaintiff 
in error promises to pay Kerry Teufel #500 and interest, but if 


pleintiff in error’s claim of $717.12 egainat Tevfel ie sstisfactori- 


ly settled by hiw before that time then it will psy the note then, 


but at all events, it #411 pay the note in nine months from date. 








4 


-t- 

























-ai efodw edd Yo aot tereklengo * nox) welting etd Yo at a 
to ebtey to shtor avougtdna beatetios ston edt tf had 
ylgnette Yeon wed? suxsumoo of bavod wae ed y | 
\beeu sovve dt VFaterq odd YT .efod od¥ to" awikaw 4J— 
 youne FE gated Luttdaat te sxavanat 0 ttamyte Wwe 
{i184 sedto edd 09 efderows wba ot nottawtrenco ed 
futeduob Yo nolasexqxe od? nevode evad of t i 
‘@ es teomurdaat od? outteacs of bewod ear — — 
·zeuraat bad abtow df ffs oF cefdtenog tt ‘toeTte evi | 
—R on .bedievend ed Biuoo f2 tH Fed od \éndd gaibas 
ti vitigteat — blow" Twoutttequa ef pivots five » 
nap’ SOS ee Sete ie Stren "5 
| ——— ‘stom os taag e680 yiasdey eit at” ; —J— 
— ———————— — — .— 
esau aꝛa⸗ reo s toel foo oy vida 0 Sfaiae 7 T ee moos sa ee * 
ead m0 ‘sbam adv ears Ted edt tala “oynutdd YS ved 
tuenyed sdf noqu tnegni suds eae ston edt to ‘Saeayed oat F 
ert galuevouth refte , dtuca od?” .1etea odt of ‘a3 ‘of 

sebt0 nl fad? Bied .etontfioe Yo aeltoursenod eit of eidaott 
-ge0ed gov Bt * otabh redte virdton wet" sbrow odd ot 06 
reste edtmom zg0%" ryatmeen gaivolfot odd atom edf of 
etd ey24 ogeotid Yo gived .A tt hid‘. die 89 of oat — 
\eimeve fie te tad (mods “Yt yoq fife T .ewtt ⸗aa exored ei 
ead e880 yfueod od? *.e7eb att ndazt edtnom tol PF % tw 
.99646 ie%ef at fid0D enstqu? ede Yd Laevorgia tte oF berte ted 
O82 ,et0Thient ou .08 .£fT C88 (efved .~ ahnvaneldow 19% 
sottaton edt tad? .sorte at Witalela yd rot bednotaon 7 
euvt? ef?  Soettmo0 ed? Yo ftaq a et molteeup al ston of? no t ‘iad 


$ 
a 


Tilgaialg eieb tefle edfaom enta tadt ad bidor Yoo ted? aol ; 
1 tud {saexetat bane OOet Letuel yee? Yeq of estlactq Yorxe | J 
-LtotoOsleltea af [elueT fentans ct. Aya Yo alata eo’ torts at Yilsmbalg | 
eas eton ed? yeq {flv tt medd @aks Fads Sroted atd xd betties YI 


“WOtsk mort eddmom ents ai éfon edd yod Tite a2 aeve fia 3 ad 





poy 


Any other construction would do violence to the absolute promies of 
Payment appearing on the face of the instrument and would be in dige 
regard of 211 weli-eetahblished rules of conetruction, 


The introduction of the note made « prima facte case 





for defendunt in error. The presumption of law obtains that the 
holder ecquired the note for a valuable considerstion before 
meturity and without notice. Ciene v. Chidester, 85 Ill. 523; 860. 
77, Chap. 96, Hurd'a R. S., page 1589, It ie no anewer to this 
po@ition to easy that the notation on the back of the note was a 
notice to Astry of an equity existing in fevor of plaintiff in error 
aa against Teufel, Such & notice tould be entirely immaterial with- 
out proof by the plaintiff in error of the claim slleged in the 
affidevit of isfenee to exiet ae against Teufel. Ae above etuted, 
no evidence «hatsoever proving or tending to prove any euch clsim, 
waa edduced, 

Gn the sbeence of any denial of the execution of the 
note or of the signature of the payee, the execution snd the as- 
signment vere sdmitted. Refendent in error was not required to 
prove the maker's or payee'e signatures in the absences ef 3 veri- 
fied pleading denying execution or ageignment, “alker v, Krebeum, 
87 T11. 258; Sec, 52 Chap. 110, Hurd'e R. &., 1908, page 1701. The 
trial court properly direoted a verdict for defendant in error, and 
the judgment is affirmed. 

AFFIRMED, 





\ 


obe 























te estmeta etulosda eds os sonefoty of bivor * ie: 
VIE PELZIES F 


oth mi ed Shape bas dmoaw? oak out Do | yeah as vey mo palvaegge @ 


sol touxdenco to ootes hodetigatee-{fer ila 
Tut 398 od ,bALE stu 


e300 eine? extza « otaa eton eda * aektaunorent ed? | P 


ad? seas eatns do wai te nets wunerg Oe —— a ina 
oꝛe⸗ nottarehteaco elseaser * ⁊o ⁊ eron edd 7! 

oe8 it a8 —D * eel rotten twodt in Ba 

stdt of renee on * J oKot — ,.8 afl — J— 

© ear ston edt to toad edt ao sottaton eas peat. 74 
i639 al Wilde telg Yo tovelt at gaisvebae — “> a 
adie Let rosennt ¢iexttas ed diver gotten 8 Mout ferwet . 
edt at bege tie mielo edt to ‘sorte at mꝛepte« cea | 


sberepe ovode aA tower tantoge “6 “tatne of seneter to 


"oye 
——— SA Bt 


| Aeis foun or evora " Rataes 3 10 -aatvorg tevecesade. 


ims 





: ap te w 

edt to a0ltuoexe edt to falaed uae to voneeds vas af 
: te — 
2* oAt bar nottucexe sd? yam edt © rut sage edt to 


wie 3 * 
od betkupey iom sew tots at a⸗ das ted ——— J 


-ltwev s Yo eoneeds sit al sets angle ⸗eox⸗⁊ 10 * —— 
mu ederX -v tedis® - Snoamgiocs 10 noltyooxs gatya sh nh 
oat J epeq eost * A oe’ bus OLf gad id 008. isan. 
bas ,towrse at snsbaeteb t0o% tolbrev & besoerth segorg be ! 


-beertite et tn 
J 


o TEVAT TIA 








peed? a iron . 9 
a 

— os lieing bg 

; , 1 t oft Va voktten sts 
Filgh a) oc neyithe ae ee 










’ 
J Term, ES 6 Rig 
88 = 18533 
LOUI£ ROSENFELD, 
/ Defendant in Erfor, 
ERROR TO MUNICIPAL 


COURT OF CHICAGO. 


1821.A.341 


ve. 
NATHAN POWFRARTZ a 
POMERANTZ, 

Plaintiffe An Frror. 





MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE F. A. SMITH 
DELIVERED TPE OPINION OF THF COURT. 

Louie Rosenfeld, defendant in error, brought an action 
in the Municipal Court of Chicago against the plaintiffs in error 
to recover for wages sarned by defendent in error, hereinefter 
Called plaintiff, while in the employ of plaintiffs in error, here- 
inafter celled defendants, The warea consiat of *18 due for one 
week ending December 22, 1911, and the balsnce are for overtime 
between August 14, 1911, and the laet mentioned date, 

The ceuses was tried before the court without a jury. 
The court found the ieguee for the plaintiff and against the de- 
feniants, and seseesed the plaintiff's damages at the aum of #153, 
and judgment was entered upon the finding. 

a The record shows what ie called a "stetement of facte® 


Bigned by the trial judge. The certificate to the statement is 


"that the foregoing is s correct statement of the facts eppearing 
on the trial of the foreroing cause, and of 911 questione of law 
involved in said cause, ant the decision of the court upon said 
questions of law.” An exarination of the docurent showe that it 
is a statement of the evidence offered in the osse on direct and 
cross—exemination of the witnesses. It is, therefore, not such a 
statement of facts as is contemplated by the Municipal? Court Act. 
It is & statement of the evidence. The record ehows that no propo- 


sitione of law or findings of fact rere presented to the judge, be- 


— oe — = heaped —A J — 9 — 


be 


—— 
ier 
gi? 
* 
re 





— 
— a =n 
1; “Cle 
a aoe 

* 


9 34 — Louda e249 oF Oust a 


ote ss E7 





















8 evan ⸗ 1 


—— gin = Tone 
wie F 


rpg. — 


res of 


— at SENG RA * 


4) “wef #2 


* a4 ————— sted aa 
Torte at ettitatalg edt tentega ogeotdd Yo auod caats de 
_ WePIamexed .aoꝛao nt taebaored ys dente segar to? 2 
ered ,roTre at ettitatela to yolque edt at ettaw . thtaks 
970. 102,0ub, 9£% 20 talence eeen edT  .etashae debi bé 
. eat rye. tot e716 eonalad odd baa ,ifOL 68 — 
efat deaotinem teat edt bao Acoc of dan 
stmt a, dwodd tw auoo e4? stoted hetst oa seus oat 
~9b ed? tentege dae VWitalale edt tot seupel oat. — 
<88L3 to gue edt te eegamed e'Ttisatele edt. berseass ots . "i 
vankbat? edd gequ bexetze ese taompbut 


; 


"atoat to taemetate” a belfeo st taie arods bro0et edt 


af’ themoetete o4% of efsoltitzss oT -egbut tela? ont 
— ars 


galtacqis efost edd Yo Pmemetate toet1too 9 et gatogeo? te 


PRBS: 


pr. 


wel to exolteeuvp [fe to bas ,@euso oalopetot ed? to fetid ‘ = c } 


bias aoqy tives edt Yo aolstoeb ed? has eaves Dies alt 

ti ¢sA? ewode ?aomsoob od? to mottaninaxe mA) 6*.wel Yowpnol eo | 
baa soeiib ao eeso edt at beretto eonebive od? Yo taenmetase X 

& dove tom .etoleteds ⸗I .eeseentiev ed? to aobtanias 070 
SoA 3109 Cfaqlotau® edt yd Setalqnedados af 24 stost Yo tmenetate 
-OGo7q om Sot arode biooet ofT .oonebive ed? lo taemetatea a of r 
-0d .eghut et? of betaveerq ote? fo2% Yo agaibatt 10 wel Yo eaonste a 
‘ Ms oa | hid 


- au 


fore whom the cause wae tried, prior to the hearing of argumente upon 
the questions of fact, the findings of the court and the entry of 
judgment; but that after the entry of judement and after the writ 

of error had been eued out in this case, counsel for defendante 
submitted to the court certain propositions of lar to be held ae the 
law of the case and certain findinere of fect. These propositions of 
law and findings of feet the tris] court refuasd to allow to be filed 
for the reason that they were not submitted until after the judgment 
had been entered. In this the court did not err. The findinge of 
fact and propositions of law should have been submitted before the 
finding of the court was made, 

There are, therefore, no questions of lay preagnted in 
the record for review, The only question that may be said to be 
presented, if the so-called "statement of facts" is to be treated 
Sa a part of the record, is the question whether the finding of the 
court and judgement is againet the manifest weight of the evidence. 
Upon a review of the evidence and the arguments of counsel, we are 
of the Opinion that the judgment is aupported by the evidsnce, and 
that subatantial justice has been done. The judgment is affirmed. 

APFIRMED, 


























— to gatzeed edt of robe bolas ——— 
Yo ereas ot? bas f1uoo edt Yo epathat? edt ,to82 Yo is . 
thaw od? tetta bas *eomphot Yo exdas oa⸗ tele tad? dud. | 
stasbhuereh 202% Leones. 98840 etat at tuo bews ase nae 10 
ea⸗ we Died e408 wal te snottteogory atstreo remo dit of | 
“Yo anottvteoqotg esed? tos? Yo eamibat stasteo y8.00 8 
| betttyed of wolta oF deauter Pruoe tata · bad eat — * boat’ 
saveargbut odd tette (hia bedeindue ton exer yet sade 
to wpmtbat? eT sax» tom bLd trwoo ed? eld? al —— 
| GE bedase0rq wel Yo adotseeup on ——* — ein = 

| 66-8 Btad od You tod? nottesap Yine edt .wetver“a62'S 
bestest! ef of ef “etoct to tnemetate" belind-dé' ods "9 — 
SH¢ Yo gathatt off r]8dtede aotteaup off of ,br00ex edd Y i 
eonebive edt Yo tigler teoriaan od? tontéga at saomgbot Bal 
ete 6% ,feanwoo to etmeamgse edt baw eonebhve od? to" : 
bas .eonebtve sdt yo hetroqque ef snemgbut edd tod? 
bematits al maerzeot eat seach need ead eotteut fats 
Cw eA | | +} 84, Soa 





es) 


* 


¢ —X 
oe of 2. 


p (ase 
J—— 
<i * 
* * at . 
70 Saori 


—J 
Pw) ti 









m Heim, 2914 +82 
§} - 17113 








EUGENE BRENNER, 
Aprelle@, 


va. 


CITY OF CHICAGO, 


APPRAL PROM SUPTRIOR 
COURT, COOK COUNTY. 


1821.A.348 


WR, JUSTICE BARHES OFLIVERFED THE OPINION OF TRF COURT. 


Appellee, Brenner, while driving to collect receptacies 
for a brewing company, waa injured by falling from his wagon into 
a@ hole in the street pavement. He was driving eastward on the 
south street railway track intending to go down an alley to the rear 
of the saloon which wae on the southwest corner of said street 
and alley. As he turned out of the track to the eouth in front 
of the saloon, one of the wheels went into s hole just outside 
of the granite blocks lining the south rail. He fell from the 
wagon and was kicked by one of hia miles. The etreet between the 
tracks and the curb was paved with cedar blocks, except there was 
& line of granite blocke next to the car rail. 

There was considerable conflict in the evidence ae to 
the exact condition of the street, but the evidence tended very 
strongly to show that many of the cedar blocks were out, leaving 
several conspicuous holea in the paverent both in front of the 
anloon and between the alley and the street railway tracks; that 
they had been there for eeveral monthe, and that it wae difficult 
for one driving into the alley to avoid them, 

1. But because of appellee's knowledge of euch condi- 
tions it is urged thet he wae guilty of contributory negligence. 

He testified that he intended to drive into the alley, and said, 
"I looked and turned out and picked out the beet epoct, the safest 
spot, and at the sare time I heard the sound of e car bell behind 


me, eo I threw my head around and looked backwarde and noticed 



















200. et 


nesag eal 


i 4 
fost te scold + 


wraraus wos oy ; 
.YTHUOD 1009 .TAI09 


BRE ATS8F 





—E — 8 oo gatvish eftdy .tenaeta jeorteagurwent & 

otat aoyew eld moxt gatitet xd berutat eee .yasques gat ad 

| © edt mo baawtens yatvich oun od .tesaoveq vente eds a 

i tset @d? of elisa ae nvod op of gaibaetal doatt yarlis: ! 

(——-teemte Btee 1 Yenroo teowssuod dt a6 eam doLde 
tort mi dévoe edt of toad od Yo tye beau? ed'ek 
ebietvo tout ‘efod # ofat ‘saew efdede od? 26 eno”; 
“edt mow fle? of iftat dios edt gatat{ exooftd et. 

* a⸗vi ⸗a soorte edt —E ald to eno yd bedotd pe 
ase etets tqeoxe jetverd tebeo dtiv feweq ese dxvo odd 
. flat iso ed? of txen edoold reer 204 

of os eomebhtve edt al tollInoo sidetebtanco saw etedT 
YIev Hetast sonehive edt tud ,teette ed? to mol#ibace 20. xe 
palvaet i090 e197 etoold tabeo ed? to ynen tad? wode oF vise 


a. 
sce 


siwoliiid eaw ti tadt base oddaom [ateves tot ered? aeed bad 


ed3 to taort at dtod tasmeveq ed? at eelod evouolgenoo 
wads ,etoass yawliat teerse edt bas yotle edt asewsed bast 


-med? blove ot yells ed? ofat gatviqb ea 
Abaoo dowe Io egbelvont e'eelleqqs lo seveoed aud 4 sd . 
-0ontegiigen ytosudi«ztaoo Yo ysllup eaw od tad? begtw ei st 
.bise bas ,yotla edt otal evizh of bebassat od tad⸗e bettites? a 
teetes ed? .toge teed edt tuo besota bas tuo * bas —— 
dat ass ifed ts0 # to dasos ed? breed I ents | ‘nas edt te bas stow i 


beolton bas ebtaviowd betool boa dauor⸗ Dest ym words I oe — 
sag gli ee 


age 


that there was a car just pessed me. # * * Then I straightened up, 
turned sround again and pulled out of the track, my “gon went 

into ea hole and I fell right off." Several cases are cited to 
gupport the contention thet where a hole ig easily visible or one 
knows of it, it iv negligence for him to drive or walk into it. 

But it wae not negligence per se for sppelles to use the etreet 
because he hed notice of its defective condition, (City of Mattoon 
v. Faller, 217 Il]. #272; Wallace v. City of Farmington, 231 id. 
232). One witness familiar with the location testified that the 
holes could not be avoided except by driving on the track, They 
were in the way of appellee's destination, and juet «2 he wae sesk 
ing the "safeet spot’, ac he anid, his attention wae diverted by a 
car bell which he took for thet of a car approaching behind him 
and to which he would be bound to give the right of way. In order 
to look back, the construction of the wagon-hood required him to 
lean forward ani look along ite sides or atand up. There was some 
controversy ss to which he did, While an attempt waa mede to ine 
peach him end hie helper on the matter, both teetified that he kept 
hie seat and leaned forward. 

While after examining the entire evidence, we recognize 
that it presents a close question ef fact ae to appellee's exercise 
of due care for his own eafety, ve think thet where, as in this 
case, the evidence tende to show thet the atreet wae full of holes 
at a point where a party had oocaeion and lawful right to use it, 
end that he drove into one of them «hile looking for the enfest 
place and at the same time exercising care to avoid another trouble 
incident to treet travel, it prevents s pure question of fact upon 
which the finding of the jury should not be disturbed. The nege 
ligence of the city wee apparent, but we cannot eay that as to 
appellee's exercise of ordinary care the verdict waa manifestly 
against the weight of the evidence. 


2, The notice given by appellee to the city under 


ue esiagoost ew sonedtve: extine edt satataaxe ette othaw 






























—* ath, 

.Qu benetdgitets#e I aed¥ * * ’ om — pee a9 4 vrs one * 
⸗a⸗orn aager ym Ao⸗aꝛ⸗a ed? Yo sup — bae : J 
of beslo ete aeeep faraves ; "20 fata “tfed I * od 

ene 10 eidtete ltese: et efod « oredy tads aottaernes | ai J 
-th otal slew to avt xd of ald * vonegt laea at “nh ak ee 


teste edd ee of polfeqqs 103 22. a soneatiges | tom ¢ 
gootsaM to tld) .motsiface evitosted sti to ‘gotten | bad « bu 


_ «bt (ES woggmtenet tovngshd «r-eoshia, get ii TOS ee 


edz tads beltitistees noktacol ods dtiw tatiimat seeasiw ‘a 
oe ved? Sout? oa? ao gaivixb ‘Wd —— ad ton ie btwo 
oes ese oa es tout bas sottantaeed ———— ia J 
ww betrevib eae noltnests etd bia ‘of ‘Ss aoe pd a ' 
“aid bat ded patdosorqas ** — 
—*— ai war Yo tdgiz ed? ovta o bavog ‘86 bhwor 04 fo de 
of ma bert uper beod~nogaw ods to aottouryeace ‘ed? dood 


-eacr aay 7 of bas — 

ence ear ‘ered? au haate 10 i⸗ = ‘foo 1e¥t 

22004 * a? tine: pa 

* of * en transite as stay bbb od doldw eo? ss * or 
* Betots ary 


18 Bt 
tqed od tad? bettiseet dtod 7939.00 Co a⸗ Teated eid * of 7 
brew ꝛoꝛ dea⸗ast as ies@ 


- 


Ph 
t 


esloisxe — ‘selieq ge }Y os toat to not seeup ssofe a pe i? 
5 +s zon 3 © a 


eid? al on erage tedt Ankdd 9° vista awe at 10% exeo gb to 
i 4 :. i 
selod to try eew teotte edt tad? wods of onaed ‘ eoaebive ° rs! Y 


«tt enw of tdgis tutwet haa moleaooo bed (sisq @ “e1ede tabel 42 ts 
teeiae eff rot gatiool olka med? to sao Stal aveue ed 3 — bas 
eldyott tedfone btove of es9 ontetorexe out? enea "edt ta basi : 
mnoquy to“ t to aolteeup etuq a esnewerg * — ——— 


7 hy 


-gen ed? sbediuteld ed ton biuode vu eat Yo patbat —* 


of ea ted? yas donna ow tod . tnexoqqs * vite ede ‘to 

: bel 444 . 
ylteolliaam eax tolbzsv edt #189 ca⸗at buo ro eatotexe s'eelleqqa 
Be oe 19004 z* 


|< ssomebtve Xx * raster ead F 







3 tJ 
“webay yslo ed? of vol legge A aevin eh oT 8. | 

¢ ue re «ord? I os pio 
es. 








23 


the statuts etatee that the accident occurred "on or about the 

Sra day of December, 1908," It is contended that the use of the 
words "on or about " does not meet the mandatory requirement of the 
atatute to give the exact date. While, in view of the statutory 
requirement, the words "or about" have no efficacy, their use did 
not change the fact that the notice specified that the accident 
ecourred on the correct date. In thet reepect it met the purpose 
of the stetute, especially in the absence of any showing that the 
gity was misled thereby. Moticees with the same phraseology, given 
under similar statutes, have been held a sufficient compliance with 
them. (Comstock v. Village of Sehuylerville, 139 N. Y. App. Div. 
378; Stedman v. city of Rome, 95 N. Y. Sup. Ct. (88 Fun) 279; @on- 
nor v, Salt Leke City, 2 Utah, 24°.) 

3, It is algo urged that the notice ie indefinite aa 
to place. It designates the street on which end the two neareat 
intersecting streets between which the accident occurred, and de- 
soribes the nature of the defect ceusing it. There would be no 
aifficulty in finding therefrom atch a condition aa is described 
if exiating, end again it meeta the purpose of the etatute which 
ie not designed to embarrass the olsintiff in eseerting hia rights, 
but to enable the city to locate the alleged point of danger and 
make timely investigation of the fects, Verioue decisions in 
other jurisdictions to the same effect other than some above cited, 
construing like notices under saimiler etatutes, might be referred 
to, but *e think it unnecessary, 

4. Complaint ie aleo made that an inetruotion which 
properly etates what would constitute constructive notice of an 
uneafs condition aesumes controverted facte of the cuse to be 
proven. The same objection to the same Porm of inetruction wae 
held untenable in Graham v. City of Rockford, 238 Til. 214; 

5, The amount of the verdict wae #10,000, It is 


urged that 1t wae exceesivs. The injuriee were permanent and 
severe, attended by pains and slwaye will be. There wae a Come 





C 
-é- 


























edi tuode 1 ac” betmooe taehioos ed? tad? setets esul my . 

ed? Yo ees od? gedd bebnetnoo bt HY | *.800T \aedmeded 10 Yad 

ais lo taemexhupet y10tsboen off? tees ton seo” " Yyods xo & " 

(iotutsts ed? Yo wety al .efkd® .e¢sb toske: odd vig o 
bib sew thedt ,yoooltte am eved *¥uode 10" abzow” oat 
taebloos ed? tad? beltioegs soiton sd? todd soe% edd 
esogituq eff ton tt toeqeer tadt af .eteb ‘Yoeirseo edtn0" be 
od? tad? gutwods yas Yo eonveds aft at yitardeqns’ —* ‘0 
nevis .vgoldoestdy ease e¢? (atw aeoliot .ydeved? belath 
Astw eonstiqnoe sastotitus 2 bled ased evad <dotutate + 
20 .aqk .Y 1M REL peltivrelyuiior Y UBRALTLY' Lv lool 
“HOD {29S (out OA) .40 .qu® .¥ .W 8@ lomo 26 yet LW abab 
— (S08 Madu 08 yet —— oy 

ea "tiered at eobion edd teas begiu offs BL oY We 
“teotata ott edt bas Moldw ao teerte edt — 
,Derwo0c snebloos aft dolde nebeted atedava’ gat 
on of blwow e1ed? 2h aatewec tosteb edd Yo exwhan end 
bedixesed st sa soltthnoo s dob moxtered? galbart at ytte 
dotdw etutete edt Yo esogiwa ef} steom 2) atege bas .palvedae s 
.eSdgis eid guittesaa at Ttitniala edd —E ot beagteed | f : 

bas xegaab to tniog begelte edt etsoot of die eft stdune of 
at emoletoeh evolis¥ .atoat eft to aottagtiveeval xt 
cbetlo evods emoe aed¢ redto tostte anae edd of amottotbal x 
betzetet ed tists .setuiate — wbhau seotton etlI ga he 
— tee seocnay ot dias ow * 
doldw softouxtent ne ted? sham ote st tnkelquod...b> — ae 
“na Yo colton evitowztenco etutitenoo biuow Jade setate 
80 of oeas bit Yo bhoat beFabvoxtaod seetione, ahi nd >. 
eaW Mottavetent Yo m10% emee edd of motsoatdo emae ea? “eevee : 
wOIS .f1T BER .bioOTHOOH Yo’ YeLD .¥ madacd at eidaaasiiu Bit 

et 31 .0CO0 ,OL% sae tolbasw ef? Yo Sauomes ofT .2 —* 


baa Saenemieq 9 ro setzutat eff .evibesoxe oar tt tad? bopew . 
Snoo e set oved? 00 [itv eyarhe Dew ectieg YS debaerts .steves 


<r 
7 — — 
9 —4 
> j ae 


y - 4 


ae 


pound conninuted fracture of the tibia of the left leg, leaving a 
roughened condition caueed by spiculee sticking cut from the 
fracture, the ankle was ankylowed;, the foot was edematous, into 
which the blood settled at times; the muscular tissue of the 

back of the ieg had esloughed off and the scar tissue had so con- 
tracted it that it was impossible to get the heel to the floor; 
the scar on the heel extended up the leg about four inches and in- 
volved all the tissues in that part so that they were immovable; 
the leg was two inches shorter than the other and two inches 
emaller around the calf; appellee was laid up about eight months, 
at first using crutches, and stili weing a cane to set about. 

Ee waa also hurt in the groin, probably by 2 kick of one of his 
mules, and had a perforation through the leg which neceseitated 
long treatment, and gangrene was develored. hile the verdict 
Was large, it ie diffieult to esy that under such circumstances 

4% was excessive, Welither lew nor precedent has fixed any 
a@tancard for such matters other than what may be deemed reason- 
able compensation . Ae vgadid in Village of Yilmette v. Brachie, 
110 Ill. App. 356, - court of review seldom sete aside the finding 
of a jury on the sole ground that it is excessive unlesa the amount 
is eo great ae to shock ite sense of right. Y%e cannot say thet it 
does in this caas, 

%. Objections were made to certain hypothetical ques- 
tions put to medical experts, and error is assigned to the over~ 
ruling of such objections. They assumed several facte with refer- 
ence to the injuriea snd health of appellee and concluded with 
the question whether the vitnees had an opinion ae to whether the 
physical conditions described sere caused by the accident, for ine 
stance, gangrene, the sloughing of the tisaves, the stiffening of 
the ankis, the shortening of the leg, all matters of expert know- 
ledge. The answer was in the affirmative and that they were dus 
to the accident. 


The mann«r of the accident wes not questioned, The de- 


s 


= — ee s ~ bet 
: ™~, 9 —4 
*8 


_ vas re J 
c" so sia —* i 
* J—— 























§ Baivecl gel sel ef? to aldtY edd Yo eidtows? Heieainsod Bas 
edi worl tuo gatdtot te “estvolqe yd beewec aol #thace | 
otal (evodensbe war fod? edd (hegolyine ear ofits eft 
odd Yo eueel? téluewun edt “jeoutt te befetes hoolkd 
=d00 os Bet evests teoe on? Bas Pio bedguole bed gei off 
(Tool? edd of Teed edt fey ot efdtesognt saw It ‘sans »⸗ 
-af bite eedont “wot teoda gel ‘ed? qu bebaerxe ‘feed si a0 10 | 

{oldavonal sie yedd Fodt ow Fxg sadd Bl souaErt odd’ 
eodont owt hind wedto edt dnd? s¢tode werent ded “saw og 
\ (edsnom taghe Yeods qo Diet eaw selfeque (isa0 64d ‘Rdecia lm 
.tuoda Sep Of enso 2 Ratay Lifts Dae pesdotute 'y 
“etd Yo eae to wold 2 yo yidedorq .wbote edt GE Yad 
| betetieesoed doldw gel edt igdo1st motterotieq * bad (bad we 
folbiev S4¢ S184 .BeroLeved cow eaergaay tio fnemtaend gee 
Seudttenusste dou tehay Sect yao of #IGOEYMN wl IF oF 
° que Bexdl ead ¢asheoenq ton wal -tedsien © sev 
atoseot bemesh of ya sade wed? t]8dte 6193 Jom 
.Sidostd .v eifentl® Yo ens fiV nf bhas OA ~ .-aolsaen eto⸗ 
grlonlt edt ebies ates mobLee weivet Yo tx1g0s -« (680 .egA iff 
tauvons sdf eseiay evisesoxe ol £2 344% bavdtg fos edf ao 
SL tec? yes tonnes @¥ tint Yo semen ett toode of es t26 
| - 0. oem etdy 

-eup Laoliedtoqyd miet1eo of sdem eter emoisoel, do .8 
=t@¥o edf of beaplieee ef tote baa .etieqxe Laotbem of | 
~tele1 dgiw-efost [etevee bemyese yedt .enot¥oe( de dede “To — 
detr bebwlowoo baz sefieage to dtlaed Bas selhivtat edt of seas : 
ed¢ tedvede of ee dolniae as Sad eaentiv eff z)8edtedw aolzeeup J 

—al sot ifnebioos edt yd besueo e187 pedttossbh enctsibaoo 

lo aalaettite edd .esuentt eft To paldgdells eff (oneronag yore ae 





-vond #t9qxe To eretiam Ife (gel odd Yo palastrods edd elias eat * 
esb eter ved? gadd Sree evidaeriYis «df al @2¥ tevode edT .egbel 
, : — ‘ett oF 


eteves 


} 

| 
1k 

* sar .Bbenoiteeup fod saw fnoblebs edt * ténn ee eat 


-5- 


fense was directed mainly to the condition of the street and the 
Claim of contributory negligence. On cross-examination of ap- 
pellee's experts, unsvecessful effort was made to show that some 
of the conditions referred to in the questions might heve 
resulted from a previous attack of eciatica and othere from drink- 
ing habits. But there was no claim by appellee that such aa might 
have some relation to the latter were other than transient, or 
proof by appellant that the conditions inquired of hed relation to 
any other cause than the undisputed accident. In view of these 
facts the case seems to be one within the class recognized by the 
Supreme Court where @ question in that form may be properly answered 
by an expert. (City of Chicaro v. Didier, 227 111. 571; Chicago 
Traction Co. v. Roberts, 229 id. 491, People v. Hagenow, 256 id. 
514; Fuhry e. Chicago City Ry. Co., 239 id. 548.9 

7, The further contention that there wae no proof 
that the street in question waa a public thoroughfare need not be 
considered at length. There wae no formal proof of the fact, But 
it plainly appeared from all the evitence that it was a city street 
and muet have been accepted ss such, It wes paved and used by 
pedestriange and for traffic and etreet care, and wags patrolled by 
city officers. Its existence se a etreet was not questioned at the 
trial, ahe entire defenee procesding upon the theory that it wee 
such, and it was ao referred to. If it was not inferentialiy ad- 


mitted to be such, the proof was prims fscie sufficient to show it. 





We find no reversible error and the judgment will be 
affirmed. 
AFFIRMED. 


















ed? bae teette edt Yo moltthaco emt or ylabam 
-~§4 lo aottestuaxe-seors 10 .eomegliged _rosedbetaoe: 
emos tat? wode of sham eee SroMe Lutvesoousay | } 
eved tdgim ecelteeup edt al of boxsete 
~dntib 20%% asedto bas eobtetos to soasse avotverq « 20 
tigim ex dove Jad% selleqqe yd misfo on ew exed? tua’ 
80 <faehenast aedd reddo e198" sereel od) of motielet om 
of aolssier bed to bextupsi x 
oced? Yo weiv al «tuebtoos besuethou ed? cad? 
«f Bestagooss eecto edi aldste emo ed of emees geo oni 
—E yLreqota ed yan mtot tad? gh cobtequp * evedy tim 
ageckdd 4h%@..£f1 TES ,zetbit .¥ qgsotdd to y2td) «. xe 
st O88 <womegel .¥ efz009 [98 .dL 288 yatsedom .v\.00 all 
6 ee ANBDS WOL-OES.,.09- yh ⁊⸗id ogeoldd. sereadety 
oorg on sav exsdd ted? nolicetaoe r98dtwwtiedT .v 
ed ton been .e1etdguotods ebfduq # eae aoiseeup ab 
tu. fost edt to Yoomq fawso? om sew 18d? sddgmel ge ib 
tees Yio a sev th dads sometive ef? [6a mot? besasqqe 
Vo beay dae bevay eov 31 sdove a2 betqgeoas aged .cved . 
«od DelLotteq ase bag ,a1t90 Seatte Hae ofttats rod Sas» 
_ edt te benoliesup tom saw teerts « ea sonetetxe ail ie —* 9* 
esw $k tadt yroeds sd¢ anoqu galbeeco7q sone ted exking ona: re i — 
wba Yisaltnerelt ton ssw tt 31.0? hettete1 oF eaw ff bas =i 
sti wode of tnvioltive eto) amizg eew toomwg ed? ,dowe ed of B 
od [ile Snemghst edd baa tome sidistever om bait oF). 













od 
+ i. 
mi) 
* 
* tee aor 
we m4 
‘ i 


ae 


«UUMATYTA 


ber Ta, 
* term, 911. No i 


8252-17786 








WARY Sass, — 
Pisintiff im Errer, 


ERROR TO CIRCUIT 
COURT, COOK COUNTY. 


ve. 


CHICAGO CITY RAILFA Ley, 
gnt in Error. 


: V/ 1821.A. 364 


WR. JUSTICE BARNES PELIVERED TEE OPINION OF TEE COURT. 


Piaintiff in error, Mary 8aes, brought euit againet 
defendant in error to recover damages for a pereonal injury 21- 
leged to have been received while she was boarding one of de- 
fendant'e care. It was charged that there wae negligence in 
causing the car to be suddenly started or violently jerked with- 
out warning to her while she was on ite platform and about to 
enter it. The verdict wae for defendant. 
Compisint is made of the instructions, Number 
twenty-two, given at defendant's request, included the following: 
"The lay recognizes that a street car, euch as is in- 
volved in this case, cannot in ite very nature, be started 
without causing some sudden motion and jerking thereof, 
Such motion or jerking which is practice lly ineeperabie 
and. reasonably to be expected from thie mode of travei, are 
sesumed by @ passenger st his or her own risk ea a part of 
hia or her contrast of carriage," 
The motorman, teetifying in behalf of defendant, seid, 
"If you start a car elow, it never jerks." Yet the instruction 
. ‘Xmproperly told the jury that the fact was otherwise, They had 
the right to consider such evidence in determining whether or not 
there wae any negligence in opusing the car to be jerked, if they 
believed it was. But the inetruction practically told them to 
disregard auch evidence ae not true. 
But whatever may have been the fact, ve cannot concur 


in the spplication of the doctrine of sesumed riek to the relation- 


ship of carrier and paesenger. The questions for the jury were 





— ghlas —— to Weded af gaiytites? yaagsotom eaT... , bettie 


— — 
9 


\ 














raw bovetierelSth kamal 


- J 
— wegen vel edb aweoo free 


Dae RTS ay 


Pato THE Mo WoTutso ar aaneviiae Srunid OT or 
sar 20 Bees * * 


9. 
in eralat innoptny 2 102 segansh wMVoDeS of OTe mh tam 
at soaspjilgen any exed? tad? begsedo eee 71 8249, 


-ugie dbedvet gitmeloiv to betaste ylnoabbus ed of sao edd @ | | ‘5 
ot tuodn dee mrottela att ao eaw oda elldw med od % 
stashaeteb 16% aaw toLbiev ott 8k mt 


edu ,anotdowrtens wit Yo shaw ot tatelamed. \ cialis a 
rpatwetfot edt hebulomt ,teeupey o'faahneted (6 morte —— 
-al ai a6 gee Meng feaetie 2 


dads seniagoos . adt* 
Dettate ed .etuien ytevr ett “a teunas .0620 aids mL beviov 


fee | 
toered? gatdret solion aehhve emee gateuao 4 * iw 
efdmusqeent ¢il ——— at doidw ap 10 * 


via yleverd Ye stom aids mor) deroeqxe sd oF Yidasoases bam (open 
—* tuaq © es date avo xed to eid te 10gmeseag & yd benvess it. 
SESLUTAD lo Paertave tod 10 abd) vide 


noLtourtant edt ¢eY °.eadnet xeven 2h .wole 190 \# stats sot — —— 
bad yedT .wetwxedzo ane foe ent tad? yxut ed? Blot r — 
tom 10 19diedw gmtuiatedeb al eonehive dove tebleace of tight edd 
yeu? B22 .bediet, ed of seo ed? gateveo at eonegiipen yas sae exedd 
o? med? blot yLlaotioastg aoltowstani ed? tui = .eaw th bevelled — 
-ourt ton as eonebive dows fisgesetd J 

wonico tounss er .toat ed? need evad yom teveteds tua ede 
-Hoktelet edt of delt demueea Yo entxtood edg Yo aobtectiqgs edt ms 
etew ytul ed? to? ameltseeup eat , .tegae seen bas seituso Yo qhde 


ne 


whether defendant waa negligent as slleged, and whether plaintiff 
exercised ordinary care to avoid injury. “hether defendant was 
negligent wse to be determined by application of the familier ruie 
of care due from & common carrier to a paesencer. The defendant 
Could not be relieved from failure to exercise such oxre on the 
theory of neonuption of riek by plaintiff. 8o far ae plaintiff 
wae concerned, it wae merely a question whether ehe exercised 
ordinary care for her own safety. If the jury believed that 
plaintiff was injured from starting or moving the car With 2 sud- 
den jerk, then, in view of the motorman's testimony, they should 
have been left free to determine from ali the evidence whether it 
Was a negligent act. The inatruction ant only encroached upon 
the province of the jury in finding an important fact, tut minimized 
itseffeot by telling the jury that the passenger assumed the risk 
of it. It had a tendency to divert the minds of the jury from 
consideration of the questions of negligence and due care by in- 
properly dirscting coneideration of whether the jerk waa of euch 
& character that the passenger assumed the risk of it. 

Complaint ie aleo made of inatructions relating to 
contributory negligence, There wae no evidence of anything 
pleintiff did or neglected to do that tended to show eoatrivetory 
negligence, Yet several inetructiona carried a etrong intimation 
to the jury that it was one of the controverted facta of the case. 
They were properly told by number thirteen that the burden of 
proof rested upon the plaintiff to show, ae alleged in her deciara- 
tion, that at the time of and before the happening of the accident 
she was exercising ordinary care for her own safety. From her 
circumstantial account of the accident, due care on her part could 
be inferred without express proof thereof, There wae no evidence 
that she did not exercise ordinary cars. It was wholly unnescesasapgy 
therefore to repeat the some doctrine in another form in instruction 


fifteen, by telling the jury that if plaintiff did not prove the 





























“*Yilsalele sedtede hae .bepello oe taegtipen saw tasbaeted - , 
| gy tnabaeteh tedtet® .yxutat blove oF exe vramrbxo & 
 efer tetiins? edt Yo soktacllaua Vd Sentwreted s¢ of oew ae ‘s 
taghaeteh ed? .repneeseg aot rel sto soumos & mont cub of 
edt mo sxs0 dows estotexe of eruitat moxt beveliex ed #0 
Ps es 182 08 .%tivataly yd dety Bo ‘mokeqnases 
‘Heslorexs 640 TAtede motreeup a yleres oew 22 , 108 
sad? Develled xaut ed? 2X .xsetae mmo tod 10% era, aa 
-bue © €itW tad ed? galvom 10 gatizste sort berwtat sew Ite 
Bidcdw 'yoidt™, nomi fees ‘e'anatoton ods Yo woly AY rods (t40 
32 ‘defeitw domobive ‘e4f [14 KodT wnbetsten of ootY fist seed" 
i ac{e bedosotone ylao dont nokfodttent ‘wit “leew ‘tndyi 
' ~—Cbestniate syd (Pont rast voqit ae pnibal? wf ¢ivt ont Yo won 
| AGES “Gilt Betivews regneveod off Teds yrol od akileF Yd tooTESe 

soft Yrt edt to abate odd trovth of Yonetas? “6 bad If TRY 
<ut YS oreo aud bre eonegifsen Yo enotiadup edd Yo not | 
dows Yo eaw daet oft xedteme Yo motvatesteanoo gattoerth 
th YO deft edt Bemdwed teyneausd oft tad? 
J*— —— — Yo ‘shad bete wt tikasqno 
if pattie eats We sonedtve of exw etedt .comegt 9 
qrotidt<2a00 woité of Debtor fads OP SF hotoetgen 08D 
acttamtsat gnore « betrise enct téwrtedt: Ieteves teY leone 
.8@80 edt to Stost betievortsed edt Yo emo eaw tf fedt yx0t 
“toe webiwd edt fad? meotatie redeem Yo blot yYfxeqotd ox 
-s1sfoeb ted at Begetia a¢ words of Yitretal edt coqu Beteot 
tdeblove ody 16 gatavqqsd ett er6Yed tas to eat¥ edt ta dade f 
ted mort = «.ytetee nwo ted tot erado Ytadt bro galetotexe ew * 

) dtuss fteq zed ao orev eh .sredidde ‘vie Ye sivocos ‘TH ¥d 

| eomebive om eaw exed? , toeredd “toord sesudte Suod?iw — 
| ———— — — Yilodw caw $1 dao Ytastito edforexe fom bid ete wat 
ar nt oroY tentore Wt enttised Wane Wnt teeqeT ot eroteted? 


¥ 
—T Tan 
i 





— . 


4 


Sd¥ evorg ton Eb Ttatate Te Vader Yay Wed grt tey Yo coeete 


J 
* i 
ay * ye eg! 


Lite 


ogee 


&@llegation by a preponderance of evidence, they muet find the de- 
fendant net guilty. We might not refer to the emphasie thus 

given to the negative of an uncontroverted fact if other instructions, 
repeating the principle end laying increased emphesie on the sub- 
ject, had not been given, 

Number eixteen ogain told the jury what osre and prue 
denoe one must exercises for hia own safety and that it must be pro» 
portionate to the danger if any surrounding the pergon at the time, 
ete., and added that if the jury find that "the plaintiff’, by the 
exercise of such degree of care on her part at the time in question, 
would have avoided or escaped the injury and that ehe failed to 
exercises such care as thue defined, then she cannot recover," and 
they should find the defendent not guilty. 

By instruction nurber seventeen, the attention of the 
jury wae again invited to the aubject of contributory neslicence 
@nd they wsre told that they could not compares the nesligence of the 
Plaintiff with thatof defendant, for if neslicent she could not re- 
cover and the defendant should be found not guilty. 

The numerous instructions on this subject must have led 
the jury to infer end believe that the court thought that contribu- 
tory negligence was « serious queation in the case, and, being told 
by the court that s car could not be etarted rithout causing some 
eudden motion or jerking and that a psesencer aseumed that risk, 
the jury was likely to loek beyond the evidence for some particuiar 
thing plaintiff neglected to do to protect herself from injury. 

In the absence of any circumetances or proof from which contributory 
negligence could be properly inferred, the repeated intimation of 
its importance wae unrerranted and prejudicial, 

Just complaint is alao made of numerous instructions 
given at the inetance of defendant, each of which, after stating 
that upon certain bypotheses plaintiff could not recover, unnec- 


@searily added the inevitable conclusion that the jury "ehould 


2t- 


- 



















 oudt abeadqne ed?.of telez toa tapi oF _ — | 
looulpnestoct. een t5gh nprmRpteenmn £0: 20.9>t0=90" 

) ~dap 247.00 sheedane. boope regs peiyes. bas. unigtegt og oct. gy a , 
seal morte aesd tom bad ata 

‘ideal — 
701g Od tou 3) sadt bas yseies aro eld 201 eatozexp pum @ | 
eal? edt. te goexey sit gattavorswe yas 3 * ont of gem 
O68.US ꝛt⸗atata eds? aaa⸗ bal? xaut ed? 32 todd bobby 


wokgesay, at exit oat. ¢s 4x93, x04 90,9209 0 compe). down, 20. : | 


| : 08, Debhe®, ode $049 bas vxuiah.ed?, begegse vo. hebleys, ey 
| bmp. .ꝛoxyeoꝛa sonneo ode gods ,bemkted sudt os, ero. ⸗ 
i “Xoihey toa tastacteh edt oaa 
i} ost 20 astanesen, 81 smootae7se — — 
eedt tgea XOPesLxIapP Io toeLdus 962 oF eevee 
/ e432 Yo sonegiizgen eds eregmoo toa bivoo xea⸗ tedt blot eter 
| 02 0m Biuve ede, Sasgtigen 2k 107 .snsdavreh So tait Atty % 
.. tibug tom, bawot ed biuods tnabaeteb edt ba 
j bel evsd souw toetdue. etd? ao smottouttent evoxemmm edt id 
<wdiztaos stadt tiguod? t1oo edt ted? ovetiod due sein of 
| “Phot pated .dae ,eeeo ed? mt aoltseup-svolzes * Bev soneg tigen, xxe 
emoe gnlevan tuoitin betrate ed ton Mao 190 « fads #1009, SEP 
 gMohx sad? Demyese se_meeeeg 4 jad? das gattaet x0 penton a ee 
talvolsiag emoe x02 eomedive edt heoyed fool of qLedAhl ear U 
+¥xobat mosd Yeered toetorg of ob of hetoslpen na⸗at ⸗ta gabe 
| Yteswdiasaoo dotdu moxi Yoorg ⁊o seonstamsoxto ye to sonesds edt al ; 
to, Aobtanitat beteages eit ,bezzetat ylaeqes”q ed bluoo somegi zea iy 
i sfstotbulexg fae betnatzsway saw eonsizoqmt ⸗ 4 
— uoꝛr oeiua to oↄban oaſta sf ⸗alalaao· tev nw 
atta⸗⸗ xetts, dotde Yo dose .taabasteh Yo sonstent ef? ta movie 
~ | PORAR .teVORST fom hives Itsalsig eeaedspard atatzee soaw §ads 
 Diuada® Yrwt ad% tad? motasfonos efdestvent edt bebbs xAblaa⸗a⸗ 


i 

-eb sd? batt tous qed? seomebive to sosemhaogesq 6, 
i) 

| 












4 











24 


find the defendant, Chicago City Railway Compseny, not guilty.” 
Twelve of the trenty-five instructions given at defendant's re- 
quest, ten of them with ons exception being the leet read, con- 
Cluded with this etereotyped expression, and vere apparently 
presented with studied effect of auch reiteration, In Nelson v. 
Chicago City Reilway Go,, 163 Ill, App. 98, we said of eimilar 
inetructions that "they were well calculated to impresa the jury 
with the thought that ths court wae against the plaintiff on the 
question of fact, and that they might readily be misled to believe 
that in the opinion of the court they should find for the defendant," 

The misleading and prejedieial character of the ine 
structions referred to require reversal of the judgment and re- 
manding of the cause for « new trial, 

REVERSED ANT REVANDED. 


be 









- Mgt itep tom \yasqmoD yaellah YtlO ogeordD 4 
| ~os e'iaatneteh ta aeviy sxoltoyrtent evt 
Hl poe too beet teal edt pated moltqeoxe eno driv medt 
-¥ moelol aI = .mottazetios dows Yo 7oelte) belhete dttw 
<5 thbteake 2o! teow ew 80! .qqA TET 20D (VO yawtes® yt 
aut Otte esbxqnt oF BegaTueteo thee oxew yout tadt enol 
982m Wabelg edt Teabags aw Pewee oft gant PeguedD 
—« MELLES OF Delete od YLibeet Maple yout tadt dom | 
“*tnnbueted: edt xd batt alwode yedt tues ody to aotatge | 
at ef? te segonredn Latokbutery bas gutbecteta eat” © 
20%, be Prempbut eds to feetevet Srkuper oF beTTeTeT 
|) (febe? wen @ od waxed e492 
Aaxranarun CHA CHOMTVER oe ee 
utteer wephastareoe Jo. foepeus 042 of Senewet mene 6m 














J— 


= 


edi to seiisedt.od¢ « ® dom bives. weds is @far Neß 
-8a.720 Dion + Saeed See ro? ,teehoete tantit thw J 


J3 sede 9 Scelese oa? 


. ty a : 2 ‘Ne | 
; 7 a fet i 
. 77 4 te Mtl ae t ! ’ 
al , = 
rasuc-euol ti caw eguegilye 


A⸗ 


* 4 aoe ~ seks ee : 
ker: . an ' « s02foe AQ 
tee ha? .e9 ' 


y ob ot fetet toes T2asubeielneee 


Ag 1 ers 2 
* 4 ° : vit . 4 
‘ 17 ‘ 


_2evene bees bp Parris titatase >O8 tiectn aietaee ROTM. 2g 
© veg. — eee ee Mee 








Ober Term, 1911, No: 





365 « 17902 
PETER J. KARE, ) 
gllee, 
APPFAL PROY SUPFRIOR 
ve. 
COURT, COOK COUNTY. 
V. MW. HOYT CONPANYZa corp., 
Appellant. 
| — 1364371 
y UR, JUSTICE PARNSS OELIVERED THE OPINION OF TET COURT. 


Apeellee recovered a judgment for #2850 for personal 
injuries sustained while in the employ of appellant, caused by 
the fall of « freight elevator which he was orerating. 

The declaration charged thet ap eliant furnished 
appeliee aidefective elevator to operate; that the pinion, a 
small cogwheel tranemitting the power to the drum, wae cracked 
and broke, and that a bar, part of the asfety device, waa bent 
and prevented the doge from working and etopping the car in its 


descent, 


It ia urged by appellant that the cefect in the pinion, 


if any, was latent, not discoverable by the ueval methods of in- 
epection, and that there was ineufficient proof that the bar was 
bent prior to the accident, 

The direct cause of the accident was more or less 4@ 
matter of speculation, but apparently wae the breaking of the 
pinion, The principal evidence upon which the charge of negii- 
gence reate ie the fact that the bar wae bent xe aforesaid, and 


“ the testimony of one witness that the pinion bore indication of 

an ola break or orack st the point of breakage. The elevator and 
ite varioue parte had frequently undergone the usuel tests of ine 
apection, periodically by city inepectore and daily by eppellant's 
engineer. The tests employed were those uausl and customary, Vity 


Wisusl and by striking the pinion with a hammer, called the "ham 
mer test » he fact thet the pinion worked in grease rendered 





olf ret rel 1 
2 fogs 


“ 




























——— 
eoll 

aoi araue WOME aagaaa· exe dao a 
s¥rvuo ‘3000 ePMIOND yh nm 


7 





tiasesiay as 


“pyrene. reer. 


$e tec eae tees ©. yum Bfee yer goede sade 


2 


arnuodo TAT WO, MOT HIG: BHT aaaavi ASS: SURAT 


2*50 ene .ee0 & ,pon®e 
ties 10 —— * 9 B — 
—A ——— + Sere pals 


=. fazes ec!) 6 WEE 
1d besuac basi feqas Yo yo ead nt es 








olidr boatateus 


ahs ifheel 


at #59 J $e ¢ ri Eee oie 
gai terero saw od 5* rotavets rages » 3 te" : 
gg bree Deh a oe ee he. um | 
—S Feat tos qe tad deprede sob taxatest ear. 


B motaiq ed? tad? —— ‘ot sotavels cvbtootenia — 

— ese auth ed? of tewog ei? gattstasass? Leedego 
as⸗ ea eolveb yietss ed? to I18g «tad a ted? bas , 2 

est at ‘mae ode gatqaote baw antdtow mox? ezob edt betas) 

a... 

Aotata at tooted edd sud? — yd beg st #I- a ae 

‘ ot * ebodiew (eves edt vd eldstevovelb ton ines al — 

eer ted edt dadd Yoong inetol Viweat eaw sted? tedd bat (aol 

a — SS 

_ 8 a eof 1 @10m saw tmedloos edt Yo eaueo toetth edt “a * 
edt to gatiestd ed? saw yléneraqge tud toh tal woes. ia J 

ALgon to eptedo of? doldw aoqu eonebive agt oat ⁊q od? 1 

baz ,bleestote s@-taed saw tad edt fads foxet edt ot efmer © 


to mofteothat exod motita ed? tet? seentie sao Yo yaouttest 


- 1 
—— 
“a 


hae totevele ef?  egedeesd Yo tntoq edt fa dosto w dnote 
-at to efee? Lave) eft eaopreday yl tneuper? bed ef tag evot«iv aff 

 -ettaalleqas yd ULted dre etotoeredt ytto Yd ylieotbelteq — 
J esiv .yremoteto bas Ceyeu suodt exe beyofque steet ed? .2 


~ted" ed? belleo ,1emmed « ddiw wotniq ed? griditte yd bas — 
Retebce: eesetg al bedtow aotnig od? todd tox? —— a at 


itt Ly 
+) mb aT 


—— oe 


Le 


neither entirely eatisfactory. There wae testimony, hovrever, 
that the parte were wiped for vieual inspection and that no other 
method than euch teats could * employed except by taking the. 
machinery apart. The elevator had been in service for about 


fifteen years. There was testimony that a crack or break might 
occur after several years from crystallization, but sleo that 


@® pinion might be expected to render eervice for even thirty or 
forty years. No defects had been discovered from the inepection, 
and not until a fer minutes before the accident, when appellant's 


engineer examined the elevator for the purpose of ascertaining the 
cause of ita jerking, did appellant have notice of anything de- 


fective about it. The engineer then inapeeted it, tightened some 
bolte and thought it wae all right, A trial wee made,and the 
next time it deacended it feli. Not until efter the aecident 
were the defects referred to found. Theat the bar wae bent prior 
to the accident wae not proven and the inference that it was bent 
by the accident is as reasonable ae that it was bent before. Nor 
in our opinion wae there a preponderance of evidence that the 
pinions bore traces of an old ersack or break, or, if ao, that it 
would have been detected by the ususl method of inspection; nor 
that the appellant was so negligent in ite inepectione that it 
became chargeable with notice of an 014 break, if it existed. 
While we are unable to say, 6 @ matter of lav, that appellant was 
not negligent, we are df the opinion thet the verdict vas ageinet 
the manifest weight of the evidence, 

But ee think there wae reversible error in the pro- 
ceedings. There wae much conflict in the evidence ae to the 
extent of the injury. Appellee euffered from a comminuted fracture 
of the knee-cap. One of his medical experts teatified that the 
result of the operation was a fibrous end net a bony union, A 
medical expert for appellant testified that in his judgment it was 
& bony union, but that it could not be determined positively. The 


opinion of each was based on physical examination, Three of the 


ay 
















,teverod ,ywomlsee? eer exz)edT -Vtarostelsss tient ame ’ 
wedvo om Jed? bas soltoeqdnt faveky tot beqke eer osu 3 
ade antigt yd sqeoxe bevoique od biven eieet dove nati be 
tvoda x0% eol vies at aved bed totevele 3* -7 1618, (ed; 


tipie ¥serd 10 font» 2 tad? wrqmt teas aay. 
ted? oafa tud .noltert{Leterrs now e1sey 


err aeve to eohyuee tehaex of betoeqze 
ioltoeqeat ef? mor? bexevoosth meed bd etosteh of .e1s0y 
⸗aat toag⸗ meme Jiehtoow eft eto ted wetter wot & L29M 
edt galaiat spore | ons sot wotavele edt Sectmaxe 
at eet ev eva ‘pant loaus cas | dat aael ett 1 
omce besetdyit we beteeqent neds reentoae oct “3h tuoda | 
edt bae.ebsa ose fakes a age tia enw et — —— 
tnebtoos edt ‘teste tliaw som “tte? iv bedaeseet * i 
robtg ined saw tad eds sed? . sbawe? 0: of dorietex stosteb ode 8 : 
taed oo ae tad sonsts tal eds bas asvoxg | Joa : eae “resto aA 
tot troted tned eaw 3! tad? en eidaaoanet ae 8 taebioos ↄ⁊ 
| eds ted? sonebive to —— s 2*2 caw gotatee % 
at ted? .oa tt .t0 ,Asetd to dpeto blo as Yo e⸗oex⸗ exod 
Toa soktoeqaat to hodtem Leveu add ⸗ besostes aeed oved , 
tt teadt —“ sgt mt tnegtigen oe —* ——— Bo ¥ 
-beteixe tf It .deetd blo aa Yo sotioa 492s ta⸗aena⸗a⸗⸗ —8 

oaw tnalloqqs tai? .wal to teviom & om , Yee ot eldenu 018 oF 
tanlepgs saw tolbrev ef? tad? motatqe edt i ox oF fe 
somebive ed? Yo tdglew tap tines OAT 4 

-o1q edt at torre efdieateves east eveds Anids er sufi ..... voney 
og of ae eonedive edt at toLltaoo doum saw ered? .apathesp 
ersJoa12 basunimmoo 4 moxd herteltes eelleqqA .ytuial ed? Le saetxe 
od? Jadt Deltiseet etreqxe [eothem ald Jo saO — .qao-send — 

A ,Gelau yaod « son tise avordt? « ear aolsateqo ed? Yo, fuses 
\ _ San 32 Snoumbul etd at tadt heliitees sasiieqqe 10% dueqxe Laothem 
/ edT .ulevitieod bentazeseh ed som hiwoo #! 2add Jud okay wiod s 
eit 10 sexd? .cottantaexe fuctuyiq-o beesd edw done “6 dékatdd ail 


* 


* 





: coo: — 


oge=e 


jurors, at the request of sppellee's counsel and againet appeliant's 
objection, “ere permitted to make euch an examination. They felt 
of and manipulated the knee-cap, manifestly to enable them to form 
an opinion for themselves and the other jurors. The evidence 
tended to show that the result of a fibrous union was more serious 
than that of a bony union, and that even an expert cannot tell whethe 
er it is one or the other. In view of such evidence, the conflict 
of the testimony as to the extent of the injury, end the uncer- 
tainty of the effect of permitting such examination by the jurors, 
we think it was reversible error to permit them to make auch ax- 
aminstion, It wes a subject for expert testimony and about which 
thoee called ee experte differed. Presumably the threes jurors 
were not experts in such matters, and whatever opinion they may 
have reached from their examination, whether improperly imparted te 
the others or not wae tantemount to admitting not only incompetent 
evidence, but teetimony without the privilege of croes-examination. 
The judgment met be reversed and the cause remanded. 


REVERSED AND REMANDED. 


5 
% 
¢ 

af 


\ 
* ta 




























| Ffet CENT not Yaatinae) Ma Mowe “exlanhoe 'Bevrhavey oie \auRs 
‘mio? oF sent eldane oF Yiseutkmen \asoavemd fd botetuqines 2 


-somebhve eat —— bad sare ee oe 
avot re e108 aaw a sokau eyordt? = ‘ Yo tLusex ‘odd taad@ 


tase [eacvee ray 


| A ca⸗ fie? tonuac · qx ae seve tours bas sobs — 
tot Ltaoo ed? , eenebhyo: dome | to welv af jee ed? 10 eno 8 





soeit wees bat rye oR « 


$33 at 2 — — mit 34 Saorne tt of 8 4 tl : 
stte oat gd sedtantnare doue gat7? tere — 5 


-xe dove exem of Bai Seg Udsesargsy 96% 
Solin tuods baw yaomtiee? treqte 102 toetduas egw tT 

aretui serdd edt yidenugext .beavTith ef teqxe os belt 

| aN NOME aokatgo rs vetade baw uxedten dove at ats 

oc betteqmt t. ae aaaaat teddedy .notianinexe ttedt wot? 

a⸗eoanooat Yino ten yabitiehs of ↄaueneaast oan ⸗ↄoa ʒo 8) 

not⸗aataaac·oaoꝛo Yo sgetiviza edt tyoddiw yaomiteed tud..09 

| i bedagmet eauac ed? bas bearever ed teon —— we 

J aauaa CMA acaaavaa Se ne Yo sepant et0d @ | 

‘ou Lauer od? vif befosteh ceed ova 

Hk of tneghines oe ese taal leque a “ 

to soften 49i« ol daey rede! “ 

= © = ov .taoghig a 2 


h¥erait » ipiew devil 


ae 

tulad te Ig sneeme 

YS: 

12s .j4o-pene, eaas 

sor we mam ade Of ; af 

: JeaelLleape. 10), segue, Lrokbem 
piace of tet Jud .solkig WHOS: 


: ? ‘ r 
Mints JOUR ty Elsen enw dpe as —— 


— 


Pe 
my TAs eee a 


425 = 17965 


! THE EMPLOYERS! LIAPILIPY AS- 
SURANCE CORPORATION, LEITFD, 
of Lendon, England, 








Appelies, 
APPFATL FROM MINICOPAL 
ve. 


\ KELLY<aTKINSON coysTRUCTION 
COMPANY, a \corpgration, 


y Appellant. 1 8 2 i oie 3 — 


COURT OF CHICAGO, 


MR, JUSTICE BARNEE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF TRE COURT, 


Thie is an appeel from e judgement for $38,365.56 for 
premiums and intereet thereon, cleimed by appellee under certain 
pelicies for casualty insurance, indemnifying appellent ezainst 
loss from certain liability to ite employes or the public. 

/ Appellant urgee (1) that the policies are chenper tous 
/ and void; (2) that all except two of them are ambiguous and without 
consideration se to premiuma not paid; (3) that ae to most of the 
| policies, appellee, by failure to object to pay-rolle furnished by 
| appellant in order to fix the premiums, ig by ite lack of diligence 
now estopped from objecting thereto; (4) that the statute of limi- 
\ tatione had run; and (5) that the court erred in taking the case 
N from the jury and directing a verdict for plaintif?. | te ghali 
briefiy consider the pointe in the order named. 
ae The olauses in 211 the policies, except two, 
y relied upon as illegal are as follows: 


q "If thereafter any suit is brought against the eesured 
—8 to enforce o claim for damages * * * the dorporaton will at 
its own cost defend against such proceeding in the name and on 
behalf of the assured, or settle the sare, udleas it ehall 
* ¢lect to pay to the aseured the indemnity,” etc. 
"The assured shall not ssttle any claim except at 
hia own cost; nor incur any expense, nor interfere in any 
negotiations for settlewent or in any legsl proceeding, without 
the consent of the corporation previously given in writing." 


4 Similsr clsuees in the other two policies vary elight- 
ly from such phraseology, but not materially es to the question 


involved. 





















z F > —— ———— 
J * i t ⸗ ; — nly 
ne. 4 , er r 
ir a — 
—W iret ied 
“et cisga Hes feebspeo o*es (late BW thiupet eile ts J 


wid oo Yel tute Ail —QB 
a YUL, J vorsut 
oe" rst ‘ A ee iLeqgaA ¥ an oa? a ‘ae ; 
JAPON WORT IATEGA wi hei ibs 
- : wis sata 64 4 


-OOKDTHO % Binal 





—* wor 
“eye M J ———— * 10 — 
NS aI r * ate. i oF en. ji food 
«4 DSTA EE RD, deve on Hevea * — ony. 





auos SE 40 HOKATSO TOT REVERE AEA OI 
— 


— Hit. tide . OO DEER es Te f Ly 

atetzeo sebay — ‘a ‘bomtate ‘ 4? te0 18: tar: me 
A. Zee Bohn bey ‘ | 

toakage tinal teqgs pat? sso ‘\sonatoaat reo: 


— F on tdu ‘edt 0 serotame aot ¢ ot uttidals mini ts. m 


tas 
euotreqnado sts r eatotiog » oat ‘ted? (1) sonny ta citezaa 
RRS rah a7 ea owls ga? 
duodstw bine suouptdan eu mods * Wæ {le tad? — 
ms LED ‘Tors yt tet 
‘edd Yo trom ot es ‘tadd (8) jbteq "ton enutmerg oft eye 


Lei bedafmrw't efloreyaq o¥ tostdo ot ewiled ud ,eelleqas , 
const ith to dowel ett yd ei emutmetg ed? xt of ted70 ag 
~tatl to etutate ods ted? (#) (\oteved? gnttoetdo mor? ; 
cane ed? yatdet at. dexte éivow odd salfd (8) Baw taux bed « 
fiede eo? M⸗alatq sot tolbuev s pattostth bas yrwit 
 ,bemen teb10 edt at etatog ed? -aebteneo 


,ows tqeoxe ,eeloilog ed? [f2 at seewasls edf 8 .f ’ 
tewollot es exe Lege{lt es aoqu bok: 


betvess edt Jentags tdgwotd ef thue yrs tet teeted? ti" — 
ta {{lw moltatogroo ed¢ * * * sepemeb sol mtalo 2 sototne 9 — 
ao brs oma sdt at guibesoorq dous tenloege baeted seoo mroypit 
{Lleade tl ceeiau .éenae eft pelitee to ,bewmees od? Yo IL ‘tial 
ove “.yetamebal edd bexrwese ed? of b= of toete 
ta Iqsoxg winlo yas elttee tom [lade bexuess ¢ Ds 
i) Via at esetietal rom ,seneqxe Yas tuont tom jfe0d mo ers ° sath 
‘ ' swodstw vatibeosom Legel yne at. to Saeneliiee to? aE oe 
".goitiazw of aevie ylevolveta mottatoqtos edt to ineonoo a 
ia “4 


stdgtia yxsv eeltotiog ows reddo 049 at evewetd teftat? Wee 98 


; * as 


22 


The epecifie contention is that these clauses take 
from the aesured control of ite own litigetion and the right to 


comprominaes or settle the some axcept at ita own ccet, which bringe 
the penalty of losing the benefite of ite contract end, therefore, 


are against public policy. 
Whether or not the opinion in Presden v. Prankfort 


Merine accident & Plate Gleesa Insurance Co., 119 8. *. Rep. 576, 
(Supreme Court of Missouri, 1909), in which thie question ie fully 
and ably discussed, be obiter dictum, a9 contended by appellant, 


th 
we think ite reasoning aound end hold thatainourer's liebliity 
under the policies gives an interest in the litigetion affecting 


it, which removas the provisions complained of from the epplication 
of the doctrine of champerty and maintenance, 
But it is urged that the interest ia acquired through 


the policy itself. Nevertheless, the priwary purpose of the 
policy is not litigation or an interest therein, but indemnity, 


which the law authorizes it to provide, The legality of casualty 
ineurance is not questioned, and a clause for the right of the 


inevrer to defend at its own cost againet « claim, for which other- 
Wise it might unjustly bs beld liable, is, “e# think, @ proper in» 
Cident thereto, We think thie view ia in hermony with the prevalie 
ing opinion on thia subject, which dieoloses a relaxsetion of the 
rigor of the common lay in the application of the doctrine to the 
developed forms of modern business of which casualty indemnity has 
so generally become a feature, 

2. The premium paid on issuance of the policies was 
based upon the ancunt of the pay-roll as estimated at the time of 
the application for inewrance, but the policies provided that if 
the pay-roll, during the period of insurence, should exceed or be 
isse than thet amount, » proportionate sum was to be paid by the 
aseured as additional premium or refunded to it, aa the case might 
be, except that a minimum premium was provided for. In accordance 
with their provisions, when adjustments were made a statement of 


what purported to be the totel wagea was submitted by the aseured 








—4 
if 
; 
























i 4 Via 
7? 4? >? =. 


ele? aceuselo seed! ted? at soitoetacd vt itoegs | edt 
of tdglt edt due moltegtttt avo att % Loxtmon’ bersees e 


kes 4 ' 


at ad dolde ,@s00 awo adt 28 tqeore tne ine ity . 
. @reteted? .dne toaxtaoo ask: to vit iened odd pateot 7 * w : : 
4 WOR TAGE Ln. syoitog obidus | 
— fi aoratae edt ton % aedie: 
PTE .qet .” .B BIE ,.09 ‘goa wool · ld apart A an ah, 
thio st, npdteeur plat dokaw nt ,(00@L ,inuoastM. Yo. — 09. om 
siaaflorge YS Debmotaco es autoth getide od sdesavonth 
LNPLILGoRE atiemsenTabats bros baw dawon grtaoeses eth J 
gnttostte debjagi¥il edt nt Yeotesa! ne sevig totoliog & tebay 
silushistiadealain beatasanoe enotetvors sit envoner Aoki Rt 
so. aptee oue co, sPOMemeRLan baa x2 teAmaito, Do 90 ie — 
— ——— at tammetat edt tat — — 


tg —— eget 
. Whanetat sud _s@ho sods —8R as * aer⸗aat⸗ac vom 


Sane CT fe, 


0 Laues0 te qtkfegel oat vebivore of an ext rods aa, res 4 
~~ J 
ea? to tapi ods ‘t0? eeuslo ⸗ * ———— Yon * 


“ret dol dw tot satate “ teatags taoo awa eit te paws od, 
watt reqo7q. = Meld? ox wt taatt bied ed teaiay 4) tdpte ne 
~iLovenq od? Atte ynomted at et wely. pida dntas oF ander * 


3 


Bris 
fe 


edd to siebtamides e aesotoatd donde stoetdue. a⸗ so nota “ ply £ 

gs, iN — 4 

edt of entttoob ed? ‘Yo nobtaotiqgs Prt) at wal aownoe 9st 2 ; =. 
ward qtinn bal (sioumso dobar 20 seentand —J to emro% vole Ae 


sowiast a eacoed vite — 


a 
uta OR hm 


sev selotfog ed} Yo sonauent ne bisa, meh me sg oft SB sons ati J— 
to emis edt ta betantise ae LLoryveq edt to tawome, oft aoqu —9— 
ves 

tr Fei¢’ vob voxy batbhcoq od? Vid boneuant’ od, noize dae * 
of 40 bebcxe Sfcdte “Poiana Yo bolxeg ede gatsub At⸗ea 
olf? Yo bibs ot Ot ehw mu eyanot} 704014 * ,thwons tad? aad? ooek 

. 6 See 
tihis ceko bay Ae 31 of bopantes, x0. “pistons xq Fagots pbs. Peeks: 3 


(62.08 soa 

@enAbidoos al. .203 bebi vow aor — quutain a #ad3 — * 
_.. Ye taemetete # cham orer asaenteut be sed amo tetwexg. oT 4 
ie + 


bersnes odd yd ded ¥iadue saw agar Por ont ed of —R cede 


oo je 


and it sither paid the additional premiums or reesived the ree 
bates they called for. The construction of the policies, ine 
sisted upon by erpellee, wae thus adopted by the assured, and it 
cannot now be heard to urge oe against ite own conduct, by which it 
recognized its obligation to pay additional premiums and accepted 
benefite in the form of rebates, the contention that the provisione 
of ths policies, upon which such couree of desling wae beeed, vere 
uncertain and ambiguous. The court will abide by the construction 
placed upon the contreot by the partiee. (Mueller v. Northwestern 
University, 195 111. 236; People v. Murphy, 119 id. 159; Burgess 
v. Badger, 124 id, 288.) 

4s to the guestion of consideration an? aileged am 
biguity sa to lisbility, when the pey-roll exceeded tre estimate, 
it 1@ enough to eay, that for the conelderation named in the poli- 
Ciesa the obligation to indemnify wanifeatly continued during the 
time the policies were in foree, and thet the estimated pay-roll 
Was not regarded as limiting it. 

3. Te find nothing inthe case that suppertes the 
doetrine of gutoppel. The pay-rolle submitted by the assured to 
appellee for the purpose of secertsining whether on additional 
premium should be paid or rebate made, purported to be correct and 
were accepted «8 such. The evidence disciceesa nothing until just 
before suit thet led eppelles to cuestion their accuracy or put it 
on inquiry. To be sure,it had the right, under the policies, to ex~ 
amine appellant's booke. It alao had the right to believe the as- 
aured was acting in good faith and to rely on whet purported to be 
truthful statements until it was put upon notice to the contrary. 
It would be 2 etrange dosctrins to hold « party guilty of lsaek of 
Giligence who does not aasume or suapect fraud where the nature 
of the bueinese reletion invites the confidence given, Appellee was 
not obligated to verify aprellant's reporta, which it contracted to 
furnish, merely because the policies gave the forwer the right to 


examine the latter's books, Not until a party is put upon notice 


{ 
- 



















~e1 edt Sovleses 10 amuimetg Lagotstbbhs, edd bieg-iedtte #2 
-nt ,eolotlog edt Yo aottourtenoo ed? ,103. beliao. xeddu 
ti dae ,beress sdf yd betqoda aud? ear .oetlequa 
+ ¢8 doidw yd ,toubnoo avo ett tantegs be egw of Steed od 
| -« batqeoos bas emutme1g Leaolti dbs Y9q,,02 GRObtegt ido ett: , 





snolsiverg sdt tad mottaetace edt ,eeteder Yo mot edt a 
e107 .deesd paw nallesh to vetwoD Hows dotdw moqu’ 
noiiowttenod ed? yd abide fitw tuyoo ed? sei a Sa 

r 19 Seeds 10% * xelfeu) .setdzex of? yo tosrtaoo eft tO 

ase wd * bE efr Daal -¥ wlqoet (088. fT Ber , + 
ec — are G3 

08 béegelie oma aoltaxebtanoo Yo solteeup eds of BA 
.etambies ed? bebssoxe [Lor-ysq odd mode, .yslitdatl, of | 
whoa ‘edd mt. bomen aoitexrobLenon edd vot tadt uaa Of 
_ edt gatzub deuntdiios YLseetionn vilawebal of aobsagiido ». 
— —— ed? ted? bas ,eoto? al exer sekorion es 
* <. sft gatstmst os be 103 
: eds e@togque Jed? eeao od’ ‘at gardson batt ” * 
eo? bewwees edt yd bor vhdue aflor=yaq eT -foqgotes v's 


3% Jinia-4 
Aemotitbbs as redder patararreoae Yo. eso7tUg | edt ror 


~ 











f _* bas toerteo ed of berroq1ug eben otader. me. bhaq od twos au 7 
'* geet Ihtau guidton seeoloeth eonehi ¥ edt .doue oa bes * t —— 
tk 2uq to xoa ruoos theds fottesun of eolfeyas bet stadt the a 
. “xe of ,eelollog edt tebay .tdgix ed¢ bed tl.exwe ed — — 


78 911 pyetied of tiga edt bed oot⸗ 11 .adood ot tmalieqge. 
ed on botaaatua sade no von of? Baa dean? boog at **5 ide | e 
eYtetinecoe edi, ot eotrer nou tua ae nn {lias esaemesate 3 
to doawl Yo ytltus yireq « biod ot eakitooh syaetiea s ot a 


~\aq CS 
⸗oAu sa ett @xede bust? toeqave to emvese tom eeob ‘ode —* 


ag 


sav selleqqA .oervlg someblinos ed? getival notteler secoateud. Looe 
of betosztaoco t2 dotde .etxogex e'taaileqge ylizev ot beseptise, 49a 


of tdglx odd, rem102 od? evag eetotiog. edt esusced eten aby? 
1 —2 

cotton asegu tug at. ytteq 6 Acau tony. -asoed sxe? tat eds 

| bed@te nyt iy " 





24 


and inquiry doea the aueution iadk of Giligence srise. Ye do not 
find thet appellee had any ocoweion to queetion the integrity of 
the atatements submitted by appellant until shortly before the 
suit was begun, 
4, It ia cluiwed thet as to the assured the cone 
tracts were not in writing and that therefore the atatute of iimi- 
tations pleaded appliee, The suit wae bréught within ten but not 
| within five years. The policies plainly indicate the parties there= 
to and their mutual chligationa, the terme and conditions thereof 
are plain, unequivocal end spparentiy fair, and the contract is 
complete in svery respect without the necessity of resorting to 
parol testimony. Although not signed by appeliant, it accepted the 
contract, assented to and aoted upon ita terme and conditions, and, 
therefors, is bound by it. Such & contract is deemed a written one 
within the meaning of the statute. (Amee ¥. Moir, 130 I11. 582; 
Pluab v. Campbell, 129 id, 101; Memory v. Niepert, Jol id. 625; 
Forthman v. Deters, 208 id. 159; Ullaperger v. Meyer, 217 id. 262.) 
5. For none of the crounide thue conazidered can the 
case be reveresed. But it ie plain that the court erred in direct- 
ing « verdict for plaintiff. Rezerdless of any motive that may 
have existed for the deatruction of most of appgliant's booka and 
papers pertaining to the matter, ami whether or not its officers 
made miareprasentationa with respeot thereto, the evidence ypon 
which appellee relied to determing the tetal amount of wares, where 
it was unable to produce better evidence thereof, consiated of 
teatimony of the witness Sierts, sopeliant's former bookkeeper, 28 
to his alleged recollectione as refreehed from private memoranda 
of the pay-rolls, purported to have beon made and kept by him, 
for his own information and convenience. Recardlees of whether or 
not he wss properly permitted to state his recollections by reading 
therefrom as he apparently did in wany instances, the queation at 
iseve was whether or not the total wages ae testified to by him 


were correct. Appellent's secretary, Wr. Fife, who submitted 


\ 


id 


{ 


a a 


=b- 


























2, 


ston Ob 8% ponte eomeghfth 6 de0th nol deeup ‘bat! G60" Calipal | 
Yo ysbrgstal sa% nolteeup oF welesooo yaa bad eottoqae’ 24 ; ob 
eds soles qlenede ‘sheaw aa⸗ttoaa · ed betelmdue sinemesate 
an ‘oll : rth 
oo eft botwses 4t oF ah ded? Pedbels at at Bb)! OP — 
—,,o, o,,,,,—————— al 4 
tou tud wet — — — bagudrd sav hue edt doktaqe. bebaeig 
sexed? setting of) efsothat ¢intate setettog sit” .4 
os isa⸗ eacts tbmoo bad amt? odd {anol degh ide ‘Lawton 
“ah towzadod off Bae pxte? Ulstereqqe bas Lavevtupeau 
of — to ytisseoen edd sucdsiw toegeex —*— 
edt — — (tasllequs yd beagle ton ‘dggods ta Asoaite | 
ns saat rthavo ‘bie ented ett noqu befos bas of Nedmecus *(t: ; a7 
one ettitw s bemsed oi Soatsa0e 2 dou? — a 
{See £51 OGL afew wv esis) .0dad8%0 dd Yo ‘galdeem Oni 
{882 1b LOL seoget .v yxomeM {f0L bi OSE secant 
(808 .bt TIS (xeye¥ .v tepreqel(0 pda oF ‘808 jexosed W's : 
ed aae borsbisnes sult sdavorxg edt Yo exon wot 2 
-toe1tb wi bet1e 100 odd Pads at⸗ta et 92 sud sbadiover 
vss tadd sviton ¥ne 1 —— M⸗alata 207 ? i 
baz ‘eA00d-e "Inst leads Yo Yoon To actiovrteel vfs tot 
ay eteol Tio et! fom 10 “weddedw bos , 162 se0 od? OF Satnia’ : 
{ | soggy soneblive ed? (Otetedt foeqaex doh ago} tetanve819 e ‘ : 





mt 
we, 2 





etedw lesser Yo savome ‘Sete? edd edtwreted ce BeEIer eel ley 
Yo bedeleaoo .Yoess4¥ ecnshiwe tettod coubowy of efdsiu leat 
' es .Teqeeddood tonto? a’ 2 dats oid yester® seoutiv edt Yo 
abasrowem etavizq mot? bedeertes aa eaoltoel (cost Degelld’ 
| <whd yd sqed Boe obama need evad of Bedioqivg — 
9 0 teddedy to seelbisneA .eomeiaevaoo bas nolfewiolal aro’ etd toh 
|  gntbaex vd anoltoelloost eld weeds of ‘betetorieq ylasqotg ‘exe —— ft 
$s motieeup off .seoratent nas wt bib ieaoxegis ed ti esc 
| mid ¥d oF Deltiveet as eensr [atof edt tou 7° rod AW cov aidal 
1)  pettindye ode etl . «i .Cisterces “e' fielloyak ge | 


-5- 


atatemente of the amounts of the pay-rollea to appellee by which 
the premiums were adjusted, testified that he made them out core 
rectly and that they were all reported to apoellee, The original 
documents as to many of them vers missing, benee the resort to 
secondary evidence. The ultimate facta for decision, therefore, 
on the evidence produced were whether the total wares called for 
by each policy were correctly reported, and what were their agrre- 
gate amounts. The resord oresents a conflict on thease matters,- 
the teetimony of Sierts tendine to show the exietence and amounts 
of pay-rolis never reported, and that of Fife, who made all pay-rollg 
to the effect that all were reported and correctiy. 

While it is true that Sierts' recolleations or memo- 
randa, ae the osse may be, conformed to such original pay-rolile and 
timebooks as vere produced by apreliee throuch a writ cf replevin 
and tended to gatablish the existence and correctness of pay-rclls 
that had not been regorted, yet as to whether there were any pay- 
rolle than those reported neither hie credibility nor that of Fife, 
nor the weight of their evidence vere queatione for the court on 
consideration of the motion to direct a verdict. The *¢ight and 
credibility of Sierts' testimony, after a crose-exanmination, tend- 
ing to disclose bias, interest end possibly ulterior motivee for 
keeping such memorands, hia ability to remember a lone array of 
figures inderendently thereof ae claimed by him on direct *xamina- 
tion, but which without consulting the memoranda he could not 
remember on cross-examination, and the credibility of Fife's tes- 
timony, which however open to sttack could hardly be eaid to cone 
tain inherent improbabilities, cresented yuestions for the jury 
to decide and not the sourt. 

It je not necesaary, et this late date, to cite deci- 
sions in support of thia conclusion, Put on the question alone 
ae to Siertat testimony bsweed upon hin memoranda reference may 
pertinently be made to the sbhle discussion of thie class of 


testimony in Diamond Glue Co. v. Sietzychowski, 237 112. 358, on 





. 








“ai Los=yaq {fe sbon ody .#tt% Yo tad? bas bet roqer roved sts 


a 


bane eflorayag fanigizo dows of hemo taco ed Yon — ed? er 


— 

























Molde yd eoileqqe of alfor-yaq ose 39 etnuoms edt to XRX 

ee eee Cae ⏑ — 

=109 — meds ebas od onde bad ihsees ‘hovautba exer emul : 3 
teeete: eollege¢es Saag 
Lantghro oat -s0iLeaqe oF bea 10983 ita exer Ned? sods bas 
of —— odd eoned — eter medi * wen of * 1 


ORS ‘#8 


ero tetedt Aot⸗e toeb tot etos? etentiie oat ssonebive x* 
tot dellae _Beger Lato? ade redone ores beoubora 


ipl 4 


sonebive 

af = o7Ta* 
17s xtow ete" Jade hme shatiogas Yi sos7T09 ero" yo J 
~.s10tten peed? no soil iaoo ® etnssesg beoves ont 00? 


ssavone bas eonetetze ods wode of gathaes otxete * waoats 


—* a 
-Vitoettos baa bot 10901 exer ile saa? fee 7 


- 


“oven to —— a⸗r⸗ ton? eut? et at osha <a ay i 
eon te ‘ , 


— 


aivelqe: Yo tire «2 dowords sealfecas yd beoubotg eter ae * 
efloteyaq Yo ssentne too bas eometeatue edt delidatae of 19. 


Fhe 


“aq Yas etew sted? tedtede ot ex Sey ,betioyet seed ton 


QUT Yo sat som ysECi ithe etd swdtiea betroqes saodt a 


mo t1H090 edd tol enoliaeup ste soneblive sheds Yo tiger ie 


. rag? —— 


base tigter aT -tolbiey « toe rth od. nettos edt Yo aolsan 
“hae? .notteninaxe-eaots © tet te ,tromssees terrele to cette 
tol sevitom tolretiv "Yldleeoq bhne tnoxetat eats geotoeth ¢ 4 
to Yate gaol e todmewss of yYIlitds eld , shaazogen dows 
wanimexe foe1tb wo mid yd dbemtalo aa loereds MCtaebnevebat 
fon bluoo ef abastogem edt gait i venco twos by doldw tud 


4 


aed a'ettT to ytilidtbeto ed? das olstaakmaxo-38079 xo —* 
* — — 
“aco of bise ef yihied Siuoo toasts of meqo tavewod dolde syaoute 3 


fom 
YI, ott tot saoltesup beineset: eels titdedosmat tne tedat 


Fume oft tom bae ** 


—Aoeb ett of .eteb efel aldd te ,yTasaeoen Jou et 31 


J— 


-§ tO? 
enole aolteeuwp edt ac tu = .noleulosoe alt? to tzoqqus at enoke 


(Su eonetete1 shn«torem std aoqu beard ysoul tees ‘gir0le of sa 
20 saglo sid} Yo notnavoath efde eft of ebem ot vitnents 193 


MO ,86€ {ft vee biarodouasatt “¥ * sul baomett at veeeteget 


wis 


page 347, The court there statez that a witness would be per- 
mitted? to make use of 4 memorandum made under certain circum 
stances "“previded the writing ie produced with an opportunity 
for croea-examination as to it so that the jury msy also draw 


their conclusion sae to the fact.” 





The judgment will be reversed and the causes remanded 


for a new trial. 
REVERSED AND REMANDED, 





4 


* 








-19q od bivor esectiw « tadd sotute oredd # woo eed ad J 


‘Lane?  Doreditn ores bey 
amo tte siatxeo tebay vtan e to eeu etan 

“o ptee yad? tac? 
Ytiausteqqe ae ithe psoutere at gation ed? bebt 


44 Ye 




















\ ate fan of 8A 
Mash gpa Mam ah dt dade on 28 08 00 wt | 
* 02 ems J 4% sonebtve 





aioe edz of a aobeu: 
3 sanw her sD 
— anno sis saa Bewxaver od ithe smemgbut off 


ha 
k tate ROD — *4 


— F * ‘ino th: Eene? ost at 
-TIOEAMET CHA GESATVIH 


« 


anitue? ateens te yao 
5 eefioeet tovan af 


itieoss otet Ife tad? ?ont 


Laer wart? 4 t efict 
ane v5 tae " e270 o02 Gig 
' 
e 
, ‘Ty eter af.¢@ 
» 4 ’ e 5 


sead Jom 

body : eee? 
* — — 
— Holset 


esvelitt te ree 


veial  patd vee 
= 1 , ene toder 908 
: ey 14 Paz 
ent de 
=? 
+f : 10 1 
efit oma tooap_dat 
‘ J — 
9 oo it © ob 
Bows 


ai —— 

‘ rear * ce sift af eae 9 

i ot ehen 60 ⸗ 

* 4 <6 pgpomel?d a2 Stand ser 8 


% 


October 4 
PStober Por, 40- 
= = Herm, A911, No 

———1 Sve 


A283} - 18308 








JENNIE FE, SMEETH, 
Appeliee, 


APPFAL FROW CIRCUIT 
ve. 


MICHAEL ZIMMER, Shgriff of 


Cook papal Appellant. | 1 8 2 — J = 7 4 


COURT, COOK COUNTY. 


KR, JUSTICE BARRES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF TEP COURT. 


Thig is an appeal from ® judgment in replevin. At 


plaintiff as to part of the property replevined ani for defendant 


i Pisintiff's request, the court instructed the jury to find for 
* 


* 


2 


“as to the remainder, and to as@esa plaintiff's damages at ons \ 
ina Leet r 


~ Sent, but the judgment aa entered failed to provide for the re- 


7 


* 





turn of property to defendant in accordance with the verdict. 
The property hed been levied on by defendant, 2s sheriff, under 
@n execution on a judgment againet plaintiff'a huebend, and the 
tain question on this avpeal is whether or not the property eo 
directed to be returned to plaintiff belonged to her or her hus- 
band. 

The evidence showed that part of it wae her property 
before marriage and part ef it wae acquired by her efter marriace 
with money that had been given to her by her husband before rendi- 

tion of the judgment under which the levy was made, and there were 
no ciroumetances tending to show any fraud or bring in question 
their good faith inthametranecetionsa,or proof that he wae ineolvent 
at the time thereof, On the contrary the evidence showed that 
the monsy was given to her when her hueband's income wae large, 


before he became involved, and under circumstances which mede her 


* + thon 

. ‘| j ‘] my ! 
* vel ae i 
“ie a 4 a de 
use st i¢@ 2x 3 — J 
ool SARE 





















-TAUOD THT TO MOTAIGC ERT TAATVIIIC SENAAD TOT 


| 4a .abvslger at trempbut * mort Caeqrs ae of etd? 
J ⁊o⁊ bat? of xaut edt betoustent #1w09 ed? ,deoupet 91 
tuekaeted 10> hae bemtvelqer y2reqorg ed? Yo P1eq oF a8 | 
eno t4 sepameb e'ttitatelq seeess of han ,tebalamex 

i gu wav ‘Wit ebivory of beftst betetne a2 taemgbut edt 

— Fetbrey ef? dttw somshroves at tanhaeteb of yw 

tehao .I%ltwie ee .¢eehweted yd ao belvel meed bad’ 
od? bas .Sacdeud e'Ytltatalq sanlegs tnemgbat # ao 
os Ytteqot? ed? tom to tedtede at Caeque etd? mo aot 


=oud sed 10 8d of benmofed Bittatsfq of hearer od of DETOUEE 
— 

Yi ⁊eqo i ter eaw tt Yo faeq fadt bewoda sonebhive sdT # J 
epehtiam tetta ted (d bettwpos sew tf Yo ¢xeq bas enot av STON 
-thaet eroled baadewd ted yd wd oF sevtg weed bed tad? a 
eter eted? hae .ebam eae yvef ed? doidw xusbav taemgbwt ef? 

notteeup al gaizd to buet? yn vode OF gaibae? seonas 
taevioent aa ed tad? Yootq ro. emoltossaes? ewbitat driest boo 
Sead? bevods sonebive eds yrartheo edt 20 8 .Yooted? ent? ry 
,eptel asw emoon! e'iaedswd 18s mede ted of cevtg esw Y 

ted eban dotdw seonstenyorte reba dns ,bevlovat — os 


J me 


ee 


title clear to the money and goode purchased with it. 

%e do not think the clerk'a misprision in his failure 
to writs up the judgment to ocnform to the verdict as to the 
property awarded to defendant should Gall for raverenl of the judg- 
ment»,for in that reepect it dsea not involve property here in con- 
troverey, 2nd may at any time be amended from the face of the 
| Fecora. 

It ie urged that the auit should have been dismissed 
because the replevin bond ran to the sheriff inetead of the coroner 
who served the writ, The giving of the bond wae not 6 condition 
precedent to the commencement of the suit, Its purpose vas to 
protact the officer aerving the vrit. Fe might have required 
& different bond, but the fact that he did not furnishes no ground 
for dismisasel of the suit. 

It 46 urged too that no dewand waa made for the return 
of the property before bringing the euit, Defendent wae edvised, 
voth by pleintiff and her huebend, at the time the levy wae mde 
that the property belonged to her and not to the execution debtor. 
It wae in her posession and her house, Defendant took possession 
of it with full notice of plaintiff's title, and no demand under 
such circumatances was necesesry, (Greenberg v, Atevene, 1° 114. 
608.) 

It is contended that it wae error to give a peremptory 
inetruction for the plaintiff because the question of eredibility 
of witnesees in the asas waa one sxolusively within the province 
of the jury, and that the court hed no right to take thet question 
from them, Thie is unquestionably true when it comes to directing 
er charging the jury thereon in 4» case requiring eubmission to the, 
ae held in Chicage Union Traction Co. v. O'Brien, 219 Il), 395, 
eited by apyeliant on thie proposition; but when the frots are 
uncontroverted snd there iso nothing in the evidence tending to 


impeach or contradict the testimony of witnesses in respect thereof 


i 


n 
aie 























tt Attn benatomny eboog bas ‘tetoa ait ot aavte a 

emwite? std at aotehagets ettreio eds ants ton ob oF — 

odd of as tokbrey edd 07 muotsco of tnemphut od?” ie 

pout ea? te Laeaevox tot {feo biuods tnabaoted.os 4% Pe 

1.9 cetera ree fs GHEE x 
4 


ecto cenl-ed¢ men? hohapas od ent? yua — 
w tris * 


ere 


vem 


— phic dedhinived sre aif tad ‘bepw et 21 J 
Tenoro eft Yo baetent Yirede oft of mat daod alvefqes — 
aottibace & tem var baod edt Yo saivty ed? =. thaw od? Be 
of eww saoquea att —.tiue ed? Yo Pmomeddemncs edt OF Hatem 
bestupes.ovad séptn of thay .e8t gatvaes, xepttio edt a 
bavoxy. om sedetats? ton dib.ed ted? 104% od? tud_,bagd Fey 
—— SEPP noes pettue edt, %0,. 2 
ureter 9d? x01 stan sav Laaaeh oo sedd oof dogww.ai sl. . 4 
.bealvbes ear tasbactet tive adz goigaisd etoted x⸗ez * 
eben use yves ed? gut? od? ta .daedeud red dae ⁊aaaas ⸗aca wae 
-totdeb aoltgooxe 9d3 of fos hae ted of begacled etseqots 
Bolagesseg s00f taghaeted  .eewod t9d bas aolegsesog ted 
tebau dsameh of fae ,elti# so! italaly Yo eption [Lyd “ate 
ELT SL8. ,enevet® .y grsdaess®) ,yte8s0000. sew seone 





: eon at 
7 Ds 





— 

Worgnerss 2 evlg of sorte ofv th, ted? Sehmesaon of 92 . — 
PLELGEDexD Yo nolteoup edt seuaged Weatela edt x02 actioumens 
soaivoty edt aldtivw yleviasinxe. ene. pew eseo edt at. a n | 
Mk FeOUD Fad? oↄAae oF tanta om bad tayo edt ted? das eel ede 
Bndtoesth of wemop +t avdw urd, yidenolieeupau st abst .. ompst, : 
Od? OF molectadue gritlupet esso.¢ ot sosred? xaud edd. patg: 
SOE , £21 BLS .metrS'O ,v.,0D actors? acta egestdd at, pied oe 

| 828 atoed edt aede tud jaotsseogoxg etd? ao reas lequs 4g beste 
| .- (0% Balbaet eosedlve edt at gatdton et. exedt. Saa, betrevetzaoony 
| _ Reetsds soeqeet at aeeeontiv Yo ymomitees edt tolbersa09 10 — 


ey) | ee 


a 
, 


Pa, 


no question of credibility arises, The question of fact here was, 
had plaintiff a valid title to ths property taken from her posses- 
gion under the writ cf execution, Thers was no competent evidence 
tending to establish the negative. The testimony supporting her 
titliw was positive and unqualified with no fact or circumstance 
tending to impeach it, and hence there wee nothing with reapect 
thereto for eubmiesion to the jury. 

The judgment will be affirmed without prejudice to the 
right of defendant to move for an amendment thereof so far as 
the record shows from the verdict thet it should have inclucec the 
return of certain property to him, 


AFFIRMED. 


— — ee 
— 
TF hb, ee 
Soa ty a 























, 1 ewe sted fost Yo aot teaup ed? eaatus Wiitdtbero Yo a * 
x ⸗⸗o 

* “senso ted nox? mada? yereqoug ef of effi? Oliv a ; 
ett’ oe. toa ob 8 
⸗ooauot tvo sasteqnoo on sa ered? snot rvoene Yo ti" at 
; : c ‘heey, eae 
peat roaauꝛ qaoal tee? oa? sevesagen detidatee 
Bey % sans © Pow Mae of az kad sate 
; tomes fost Aste ooiat tauras feupau bas evtti 
— cee : to 3 —* —BR oo Tea: : 
toogeos tetw hdton aw oxeds sored bets — 

* — ae F WêFWu ERg 


wt ‘7 vo $ ‘ 


- -erut edt 99 aobeetadue | 


ef j 
¢t y 
* i eobbul ott wodsiw Deowrh tie ed fitn. 8 ut ed? 
ar os x87 98 Yootads tnendaens aa To? _ovom 0? tnabasted 
ie — ———— 2 root abvelqet aff 


ed? debuloat ved — hi tedt soLbrev, ed? mot 


| RRP RA Sce ier eff G 


an — — tie | watt ot or o sa? OF 


— .Aaua TIA 
J 24 W⸗ ole 


— 
J 


9 
3i ©: dt 20642 ed? dot bees tage 
ae 
; 7 3 J s SOSA 
ner i ad eal 
Ce — P 7 aaa e wpe Ab OT 


| Ree + : . r Live ' nat fers Se «to ted ¢? — 
â— — —— aa 
vo pa eine . bat of tanya ct xsqo tg am 


osees ' te olsveeseg sed 


"e4a0 :* ol (> eghtan Ila) 6m 
¢ ® * 
J— —⸗ ro" seh ——— 


sean , tse L$ Seu thy 


: “200 TR? ‘ J —A 2 ae eft? fais b.eieor Be 1 


39-1 8475 









THOMAS PEDROF?, 
Defendant in frr 
ERROR TO MUNICIPAL 


( VS. 
COURT OF CHICAGO. 
TONY VASIL, STEVE fERRING 


and GEORGE NICKOLA, . 
in Frror. I8Z2LA. 37s 


Plaintiffs 
\ 


Lo 


MR. JUSTICNT BARNES NELIVEREN THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 


Suit in the court below was brought to recover "ages. 
In their affidavit of merits defendants claimed that piaintiff vse 
their partner by virtue of « contract, the subatence of which pur- 
ported to be seat forth therein, The principal error esesigned 
is that contrary to the law and evidence the court found the 
Plaintiff wae not & partner under said contract. The #e0-oal led 
statement of facts, which ia certified to as such snd likewiee 
@é@ containing ail the evidenos, does not contain said contract, 
and therefore the question ia not etrictly before us. But, 
assuming the one pleaded wea admitted in evidence, te think the 
court's conclusions om the *svidence certified to, were correct, 

The other errora assigned relate to the admission 
and exclusion of evidence, But the eo-called statement of facta 
and evidence contain nothing upon which they can be predicated. 
It does not appear therefrom what evidence, if any, was excluded, 
or what svidence, xs8xmnxxy admitted wae objected to, if any. 

~ The judgment ia affirmed. 
AFFIRMED. 
























eee owd font Yo aolfeecr ef? .eakire qeilidtieve 3 aos 
it; ee 


2 


~guaeaod red sort a⸗ ¢efreqete ef? — — bi Cease. 






‘wy SOR TeCONy %o Jiu on? 





seaehive tTastedcmio on eer eFe 


via egea eas anita ne 


pe 
» 
= 


suh7 sogaue yaoritae? gf 


 Ykeroruu or a 5 agiwv a | 
— — ‘to tives Soe }xOc? Seg 


“os 8 oA. F 88 — Peedi 


faenheans G3 IH 
eat Sshoiort 2 de +t fad? 2 


.TMICD ANT TO MOTHTIO AKT, — BAFTA, BA 


2 
5 a 
é 


-eepar 1evoosi of tdguoxd esw woled txyoo ed? at ttu® J 
eae Itisgialg ted? bemlelo atmabusteh atizem Yo sivabtY E 
-tuy doliw to sonstedua edt , foetianoe s Yo eutaly yd : 
bengises totze [aqloniuq eff .ateteds d?10l tes od « 
ods bayot t1woo eds somebive baa wel ed? oF | 
befiee-ce ed? .JoaxInoo dies rebaw temt12q 2 Jom saw 31 
ealweiil Dee dowe ef of betiitieo af deldw ,efos? To 
,foetinoe bias akeiqoo tom asob ,somebitve edz [le ) 
stoi we wrcled ylsotrts son ai noliesup edt ez0% 

ed? anid? of ,somebive ai bettimbsa eae bebselq emo aft 
.foeTr00 etow (ot bettitzeo eonebive edt mo emoleufomon a 
Soleelmbs edt of efsier benglesas etoTie redto edT | 
etoe? lo Inemesate befiao~ce edt suf .eonebive to aotewte 
-beiaolbetq ed aso yeds doldy aoqu galidton alstnoo eon 
.bebuloxe eaw .yas il ,eoaebive Jede motteteds taeqge fom 
Vis if .of betoet{do sew Detsiinhs yenmxktx .sonehi ve 
-bemitiie ef tuenghut sd? 1 

LOUMALTTA tt 4 






ber Tern, oie. No. 


4 LBS 74 








REFTO S¥®EFTO, 

Defendant in Error 
FPRNR TO VUNICTPAL 
vs. 
COURT OF CHICAGO. 
TONY VASIL, STEVE SEREBINOFF 
and GEORGE NICHOLA, 

Pleintiffs ingfrror. 


\ 


MR, JUSTICE BARNE® DELIVERED TRE OPINION OF TRE COURT. 


| 
) 


1821.4.3%6 





| The atate of the record snd cuestions ' yeaised in 
| this case are the same ae in Case No, 18473, im which our opinion 
hag this day been filed, ani for the seme reasons therein stated 
the judzment will be affirmed. 

AFPFIRYED, 








or 
— ee 


> 


se 


| ‘ga TorWtw or aoaar 
SOOkSTHD 80 Tatton 


eeearear’ 


:P4Y00 SAP TO HOTWTIO aar aaATVIUGG 
eapepeannetihadeiteunas was btoses 6HY To ernbe! et 
*HOLaLgO ceo MOEd® aE (CROAT Lot weed mt 68" omee & 
~Berkte mlered? erostes stan att Tot Sine , 
Demgi¢veas torte. Logloniaq od! lbemrttya eo (ite 
ac “oewarams oi? soeefhire baa 4 of? OF YEOt 


bel leceeca 24 ’. Soadia pbise tebas tealrTes © Sen war 
















gai J a& 03 beititses al dofdw ,~etos? Wo 
,faeitr: (Laixneo fom seeb ,sesebive adé@ {ia gris 
aid sey e10Ted vVidet«rte tom ei neliessp eat etek 


B42? data? oer sebive at BSestizndhs ser bebeosta ate eae 3 


<teevricoe e713" j elliitveo enr tte edd we anos sulonesd | 
lenin beaniet4 awese setiteo afT 


e27021 ingvas —X sty zo8 .cenmebivte 2o goled 
»Lesant bex (on? dolde pouw gaidvoe aleidoo vane 

wav 7% 4 @ou ive Jedw zxoxte1eds tas 1 on 

[qo war bedi labe VARS EEX oroht ¥ERE < 


bemglilie ef, desegtuy 447 


*-@ 





P] 


S7—I8496 





GEORGE M. YATTS, 
Defendant in Err 
ERAOR TO MUNICIPAL 


COURT OF CHICAGO. 


P82 1.4.3-77 


a 


< 
& 
* 
— — — 


PRABK 0, — 


WR, JUSTICE BARNES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT, 


Pisintiff sued for @ balances claimad to be due upon 
& contract attached to and made a part of his atatement of claim, 
@lileging that defendant had feiled and neglected to oarry out the 
game to his damage, ¢te. 

The contract recited that the plaintiff is the owner 
of so certificate of twenty shares of capital stock of a cartain 
Company, and of ite promissory note for $1000, and that the dee 
fendsnt agrees to purchases 22id note and stock of plaintiff for ae 
certain eum on or before a future dste, and that upon payment of 
such sum plaintiff’ agrees to 3811 snd tranafer to defendant all 
his intereet in and to ssid note ani stock. 

One of the defenges to the claim set up in the af- 
fidavit of merits waa that "the covensante of the contract sued on 
ae to cayment and delivery are mutual end dependent, and that no 
tender of eid note and stock or release hee ever been made by 
plaintiff to defendant.” 

There *Se no averment in the atatement of claim of 
any tender of asid stock and note, or of anything which exoused @ 
tender, This wes es¢entiel to the statement of a ldgal caves of 
aetion for breach of said contract, Put the court refuaed to 
strike plaintiff's etatement of claim from the files and granted 
his motion to strike the affidavit of merita from the filee, and 


thereupon assessed damagee to the amount claimed smi entered judg- 





Oe: SHEL pee 





« — whe 
<borsd at taabas 00 «a 
JASIOTeUY OT MOREE ae 


hed rere wa. Pagnageet * 
ooaorad v w x 























* ABET a 


eye AIS8L 


Ove i 


——— — —— 


A 


.THUO0 BHT FO WOTHISO FHT | 


noqu oub tea st Nantel s Woisled @ tek Bede 2 vedmeerd! 1 PaUk, 
eek 


,@ialo Yo jheaolate old to t12q 6 oben os & of bese, ts 

Wn “ae Gettaey Tata weet: reset oar 4 

J oat 2 Tia0 of beaee fea tae 4 beds —— 
ia }5 * ai} 1k @nee sob ta 


982 5 mae, 
betafa zie 4 a 


_- femwo edd af tiitately ods sad? bettoox tonzéage eat 

; ae 
atetico # to douse Latiqes to eerade qwaews te e7eol tia: 
=eb edt teds baa .QOOLS sol etom yroesimorg att to baa 


A 
Beast: 
# 202 Tittalalg o Aoote das efon biss esadowg of vee f 
to tmemysq moqu fadt baw .eteb exutut * e10led to no se iat 
Spee, = 


Ifa tnabactsb of tetemsxt bae [lee of esetge Yidsalelg ms { 


—— 
-A00%e hae ston bles of bas al recxeta te 


* 
Ne edt mi qu tea mlalo edt of esensteb odd to ead J 


mo boaus foarince ed? Yo staamevoo efi” teds sev etlaem io an 


0 ted? bne .iasbaeqeh bas lauium eta yreviled bas taomyag ¢ “3 — 

Ree) 7 ar 
vd cham ased teve aed eeaeelet to soote hae eton bias to ba pi 
‘ J— 
Lb 


" doedaeted of rine se: 
Yo atalo to faemeisaic ect at taemteve of ese atedT 


Br ve. 


9 = 
i: = ww 
| a> 


a ovawoxe doldw gaidtyma Yo io .efom baw foete biee lo xebmes 
lo eeyso MARE @ Yo snemetate od? of Letiavess saw eldT . 
ot beautez ¢xu00 edd tu4 8 =.doatiaoo bias Yo dosexd 10% aot : 
betmaty bee eelLkt ed? mort mlalo Yo tmeustave e'2ilsatalg edtate — 
bae ,ee(tt eM most etirom to tivebiite ed? edittea of aoꝛ aoa od a 
=gbut betetne tua Demtalo tnvome edd of sepemad beaseses aoquen 


) 


. + * 


“an 
F 
3 
* 


Pe —— 


3. 


ment as in case of default, 

The defense was & jeral one. It ia plain that the 
agreements to pay the money and transfer and daliver the stock 
snd note were mutual ann dependent. Neither party, without tender 
of performance, could demand performance ef the other, The law 
on this aubject is settied. (Rendereon ¥. Yheatoa, 40 Ill. App, 
538, affirmed in 159 G11. 561; Burnhaa v. Robsarts, 70 Ill. 19; 
Lester v. Jewett, 1i NW. ¥, 455; Manietee Lumber Co. v. Union Nat. 
Bank, 145 Iii. 490, Bank of Coluweia +. Hagner, 1 Peters 455; Dela- 
wave Trust Co. vw. Calm, 195 M. Y, 231, Cornett v. Best, 1c2 8. ¥, 
Rep. 3d.) 

While under a proper asatatement of claim the burden of 
proof would have been on plaintiff to show tender or fasts exe 
Cusing the game, defendent had a right to set up and prove the 
contrary in view of the denial of his motion and the rule on hin 
to file an affidavit of merits. 

For the error in striking the latter from the files, 
the judgment will bs reversed and the cause remanded, 


REVERSED AND REMANDED. 





















¢ 
=o 
ed? tedi alefq at #2 8 .eme # sew eeneted ed? . ei 
toote edt sevileb bane ret Yaaom ods ba Ss 7 


rebnes duodiiy .¥sxsq xedjiot ene Leutuw 618 
wal edt. ,reito edt to | | 
eh AKT * sotaed® wv ai $80 


FP LAT Reape + ance ae 
| tal cotaU .¥ .0D rodaul sedetasM (62d .Y , 


“Aina 122d opts 5, p FORD ny, LRGmEE OD, De Saat 568M X 
.8 SL ,feed .v stemt0D (LES .Y .H COL .mled .¥ 09 

1OGN wus: eter 3 Bi¢ etn+fes e Wt head ID ——— J 

“FO meting edt misfo Yo tasmetete reqomy @ sebav eLtde fo 
—As eF0et 10 xebMet wots oF mottæ wo aeed era 

ed? ever bas qu tee of tHgit a bed taebae te’ — 

‘eid mo elu: edd due sottom etd Yo Setned eit ae woty at y 

" , : etitee io ; 

esflt ed? worl tetvel edt gnivitte af 10119 ef Zot lo © 


yi. 


7. >| 


anauaa dna ctemevat 29) Soe © ores 
re — — J *X 3° e 
; 
7 6 tid 7 * ul 
bege toati der . ** wilson lo Oe 
: te ytevrileb Has — 
ts etou Slee to 19h 
— — 
* jeetineted of TEESE 
Ye atalo to tanner, al enteta Ou ® —X 
eroxse dolde gaidtyas ? efoa bad dx * Yo Poet 
USO wHht «2 Yo tnene se ? istioevee une gla? ; 


nutes #200 eff F lace ! dosew 20% aokios 
ova 

@ seltt ett ; ai io Peeeetsve @* Vibiataly ealate 
etl 1 mex? ¢ , tc tiwebhlite wi? -edivva of nossow eld 


‘Hbay Sete si ‘2 Bemtalo taveme #4? of ceyamad beeaeney —E 





a 
1] 
aa | 


1821.A.378 


353 - 17889 








MARY ROSOTSET, 
Appellse, 


APPEAL PRON CIROVIT 
VS. 


corm, cook county, 
JOSEPH PICHA, Sr., and 


JOSEPH PICHA, Jr., 


f Appellentaj 


WR. JUSTICE CLARK DELIVERED TRE OPINION OF THF COURT. 


fhie ig a suit brought by the eppellee, ae plain- 
tiff for damages on account of personal] injuries alleged to have 
been received by her while » tensnt of the defendants, by reason 
of their alleged negligence in permitting a sidewslk to become in 
bad condition. Ths suit was originally brought against Pilliam 
Picha and Joseph Pichs, Jr., his brother, and Frank Kreo, @ 
brother in lew, Subsequently it was diamieesd againet Prank 
Kreec, who hed died, and Joseph Pichs, Sr., father of William 
Picha and Joeeph Picha, Jr., wae made an additional party defend- 
ent. On the day of the trinl it was diemfese’ as sgninet William 
Picha, en4 © verdict rerdured by a jury in favor of the plaintiff 
against Joserk Picha, @r., smd Joceph Piche, Jr., 22 joint defend 
ente, upon which judgment wae rendered. 


A plea of general iseve was filed by the defendants, 


4 


and aleo a apeoial plea denying ownerehip of the prenmiees in ques- 
tion, and elso denying possession and control of the buil‘ing by 
any one or all of ths defendants. 

The decision of the case reats upon the question as to 
ownerehip end possession. 

The only testimony on behslf of the plaintiff eeema to 


have been her own, so far ag thie question 4a concerned, She tes- 





oe nat ‘nevetate ase “chee efid? 











— — 


~ 
* 


_ ae tae see Wig ie 
aa a 
























Phage ied — rt 


bre BLS B Bor oor ro & 





(ates ode Yay os 


fadsive 43245 tesiiek arteaeee? oag. 24n7ae 


tect « ie enccorss $te 
— APTA —— 
Pei .¢ 06 ¥#hae BK} ties af dene 
wt ry ator ~% Sacuted —9 rn 
‘ * 7 





‘ 449 4JJ Gx i Sasa md ia * 4* is J 
“> eae we e g£iGeuiay 
~ de Maro Vv - oh 


P8009 vn Mo HOKEENO AMT eennan WHhdD OTTO 





watery on ssottoaas * we — tus o of oiat 
at — Se eee Stee 


eva ot ‘bepette cottijal ‘faa 97 0 duwoo0s 20 J 
— Eta nuke ii 
“onsen wa ofnabaeter oa * tnenes a. eltde: . 


pte La Rec eer % peta ea 
“at emooed of itevebte € guistinteq at ‘eoneph igen a 
mn do 2 feebs 72 
æattut feontays —** YeLankgxo: — thee edt wo 
oe oem! tort bae credjord oid att Aone & dqee ol. 
» Shp dal ei (ite oe 


detent tealesa ‘beostacth ear tt yieneupeedy® wal 

o mshithy 3 to ‘aodtar . 78 .fdold dqesot bas ,delh had 
-bae teb giis¢ fanotsibba on eben ear , «st , dort dqench 
moti(t® tenters ee Deasloath eaw 22 Lalrt ed? Yo "Sb ed? ‘2 
Wi tatalg ed? Yo rove? at ywwt « yd Berbaet foibrev ¢ vn a 
-baeted tatot as oat Sdolt dqacot das ,.18 dots deseot. 
.terstaer sev trempbist: doldw + —— 

Ae⸗aabaeTed eft yd belt? caw event Lateneg to aeic A ) 
seup at ee tnerg edt to qiderenwe gatyned sefa [atoege 3 Desa ta 
i gateltud ede to fotimes bas goteseenoq gatynet cele fas’ 


-stashateteh eft to Ile 20 one} 
Ted 


un ee 
Of es aoliverp off aoyy tao ees eft Yo motetoed eAT \, eee 


oteeoas oq bes. atseseane 
ot emoeos Biitntals edt to Marte? no qoomtteos tiso eat 


GA 


So ae * * x 4 ; 
“eet ed®? henteonoo ef moftesur ali? es bi oe .Aro re a | 


ae! eae) Se See he rene ; > Ua ihe ats REP ae RR 0h 





tified that she knew Joseph Picna, Sr., Joveph Piehe, Jr., and 
"William Piche, Jr"; that Mrs, Picha ocolleeted the rent; that 
Pioha, Sr., received the last rent from her; thet she airways peid 
the rent to the “old Pichae"; that when anythine got out of order, 
Joseph Piche, the elder, fixed it, end that she had heard hin 
talking about selling the pronerty, There exe further teatimony 
tending to show that Joseph Piche, Sr., and his two sone, Joseph, 
dr., #nd Filliem had been seen around the premisee repairing the 
gidewslk, and thet of ancther witnesa thet Joesph Pichs, fr,, and 
Joseph, de... Slao had bean around "fixine up the sideeslk," 

The accident ie slieged to have occurred on Auguet 
14, 1906, The following facts were aryreed upon, but their sdmis- 
Bion in evidence objected to by defendants aa irreievent: that 
Joseph Pichs, Sr., sant hie wife cave a warranty deed to the premises 
to ®illiam Picha December 27, 1805, which waa recorded the sere day; 
that william Picha made a deed to Frank Kreo Muy 1°, 190% recorded 
Way 13, 1909, consideration ®8,009; thet Kree and wife gave a quite 
cleim deed of the croperty to Joeeph Pichs, Jr., November 8,19909, 
and that this deed waa recorded Noverbar 22, 1209, and bore the 
same coneideration. 

Over objection, the defendant Joseph Picha, Sr., tea- 
tified on ecrosa-examination that after one Juliana Sapingski haa 
been hurt, or claimed to be hurt, he transfsrrei his property to 
hie @on, ®illiam Pisha, who lived in thy house with him; that the 
seid William was then 20 or 71 yeare o14; that Frank Kree, to whom 
Billiam Picha wade the deed May 12, 1909, died about t#o yeare 
before the trial; that when he wae sbout to die he int his wife 
conveyed the property to Joseph Picha, Jr., who then transferred 
it to Krec's wife, It further appeara, 9 shove set forth, that 
the last traneaction was nearly three yeare after the date of this 
accident, 

After all the testimony had been introduced, a motion 
was made by the defendants thet a verdiet be directed in their 


favor because there wae no evidence that defendants were the 




























boa ,.% ,.adot! dqesct van sks dqesot reat ede gedt 
sed? {inet edy betoelfoo edotd .eW sads iat adore ss 5. 
he 
bide dYeeis ode att rad mp trey teal edd bevteoes ..28 , * 

Aobro Yo tuo ton enldiyas asde gaat 4" Lt bio* edt of 
mtd Steed bad ede sac? bae oe box! <teble ed7P ye 491 
ea , sel ioagA. 
taont tens sottae? gee ete? «” O79 d3 ‘gatilee ? , 
Hgeeol . genoa oF wid bas’,.12 , dot L tad?’ ye 4 

7 
‘eds paizkeqe: sseimetq edt detuo 18 

ne ¥ 
base ..2% ,adotd dqeeat todd eventiv xedvone Yo * ce 3 L 











oe . 

* aAfeweble edt qu antxit® Bevow recd bod 2 — 
oriaun so bes u990 pes of {fa et —— * edt : —T 
race THT x0 ero TRETTTIRG AAC BOTT 
ealmbs thed? tod .moqu — eter afost atro tten sft .B0% 
tad? itaaveletth an etrabmeteb xd 0? betoetdo osomedtye | — 
| beetners edt 09 Beeb yenerser e-even ettw etd tan, 2; ot 
— oguee ed? bebioset ser doldw (80@L SC -tedmeosd 
bebrese7, 20! «SL -GsM OTe: toatl ot beok eo eben adetd wert e 
-tiup « even elie fae eot® fad? (000,84 gobtersbiénoo eoet⁊ 
<20OL.& tedmevok ..1t pedet® dqeeok of yireqend ‘eft to 
" ed? ened hae | 2002-82 niedeetet shettwenteaw:tebh wide 
| ‘ne ,@ebtateRis 
| $889 et? padetd dqeeok trabseted sat .molsaetde tevOe) bow 
go tad ttemtoe? aoctlah ene vette tet not tentmexesesers — 

‘Oo? “iteqota al hertetenet? ed . dud ved ad Semleto vo a 
ed? 2adt gatd dti« sevod wd? mt bevht ode ,sdolt @abide®, - 
mod® of .nex¥ dnext tedt ible -etasy [8 co OS meade enw nahtLie je 
etaey oF? Tuode belh |. GO@L (GL iys¥ beab ed? eter “dott nat t 
stiv eld Sas ef eth of tuode sar od mede ted? ; fab? ent X 
bertetensi? neds odw ,.%b .sdold deeact of- yt 19eqorTq edt 
ded? .d?sot tee evods as ,stesqce «tedtam? tI enue o' cerkoet eh —9F ¥ 


* 
— 


mpd 


— ss. 


F 
te, — 





— a7) 


eidd to stab odt sede etasy seid? yfrsen new mebiosenert teal edt 
mobsorsn ' Ssovhbortal ndsed Hart Yaoni teet sft {ie testa | 
oo°crbed? nt hetoetibh ad sothrer 2 Sat? vinsbacied edd yd cohen come 


ee Ode ee ete Dee eee. ols nee eee 





a 


joint orners of the property, or that either of them had title at 
the time of the happening of the secidant, or thet they were in 
possession jointly or otherwise of the property, or in euch a 
manner ae to render them lieble, jointly or aeveraliy, for the 
accident in question, 

We think this motion should have been granted and a 
verdict dirseted, Neither at the close of the plaintiff's cage 
nos after the evidence of the defendants had bean received, was 
there proof of euch a character as would haves rendered the defend- 
ante jointly (or severally) liabls. The iesgel title te the 
property was in Frank Krec, and thia was evidently known to the 
plaintiff ,because Krec was joined originally as 2 defendant, Both 
Joseph Pichs, @r., ani his wife teatified that they ccllected the 
rents as agent for Krec. The mere collecting of rent by Picha vould 
net cf course render him liable aw owner, much isss vould it eae 
tablish liability of hia gon and himself ag joint owners or as 
joint poseesaors. 

The judgment must be revereed, 


REVERSED. 


» =.= i 
fay. 4 oe 


Ww 7 

4— 

J | 

a: @) 

i “he 
18 te 


















i ta bitte bed weds %6 dedate todd 46”, (PeeGexe de YE dade t 
i: al “Siow bis Nat 46" tavbied ‘ead Yo Gdtnecdiia dat Yo — 






(| bound e voaenn ede 26 “eatwredie a0 etoalot 
We — * sted * — — * basa éf a 
Hh a Gieed Gad ede i? ; Peres ; * 
i SS —R ‘need eved bluodd délfom dias ‘tetet ov | 
| Meru ter RRC RTE TO MMT 
| Saw” Wd vieded “deed ‘Bod ‘ésndBaddtes "Sky "6 —5 
cimets6 od boreines evad biucw se xefoatado A doue * 
—————— 
—————— sit st 

Ht “abe — a a2 ylisaigito pealot saw ex% | 

| | ed? betoettoo yodt jaa beritdees oat eid faa”? 


\"Bkwow aasid (ae $469 to Gaddootsés"oxéa oat” dee a0 a 
OO" Tae ad bruow seer dove’ (sonwo 88 efdert” —*— 
a) hh sxeawo — ee tieemtd bak noe —“ 

a 4 «tec et! eft 1900 a wo ttinve bishop gees 


hy 
MOLL. ©: rsé8¢ ; 
iz ete booaovon “ea ** ra bat” 

i] ef? etedits | . °o * — 
acra ravaa —— £0 
Hi es colrwredl 
hi : 

—4 aAL tere 

Wee xe é ; ze Pfs Oi lie &fer Sorts) Ge ; 
iad ; ¢ ee 
h : ‘ — — 
9 * * © * 

J 

F || 42? esti aoldig 


shie BACLT 


bat 


* 
gate ete aim) aloe 


4 
' ⸗ 
4 
ds cons MRS I 2043 &’ cos ee i 
a 
qitotn ect sebtoaetey seal obits 
1 i Aasaa oat 
—— sie, Bil 
J 
z © Pats stxabowter vse A. ome 


5 





—V— +2? aeeweahieca Bw «oo® #297647 of 











jober Term, 1911, No. 


1821.A.379 


37282-17908 


GEORGE A. BERGTOLD, 
Appellees, 

APPEAL FROM MUNICIPAL 

ve, 


, COURT OF CRICAGO. 
SIDNEY ¥. FORTHY, 


Appelignt. } 


WR. JUSTICE CLARK DELIVERED TEE OPINION OF THE CUURT. 


An admitted fact in this case is thet the aprsllee 
paid the sppellant prior to the beginning of thie evit,#3,534.24, 
for which amount the euit was broucht, upon a contract made orsliy, 
whereby the former wae to obtain from the latter the whele or a 
| part of the intereet which the lstter had in Iandés in Colorads, or 
| in eontracta for the purchsee of euch lands, The parties do not 

agree ac to the terme of thie contract, and se the court directed 
® Verdict in favor cf the aprellee me awe our decision entirely 
(aa it ie to be euppomed the WYunieipal Court did) upon the testimony 
of the appellant. 

It ig to be noted that appellant admite he received 
the sum in question, end he further edmite thst he disposed of 
his interest in the contracts hereinafter mentioned, to soreone 
other than appellee, snd thue put it out of his power to carry 
ovt hie contract with the arrelles. It is further to be obeerved 
that he insists that he eave the appellee notice that he proposed 
to make such esile. 

Counsel for appellent in the printed ercument makes 4 
reeite2 of what he olsime to heve been eprelient'!> testimony. 

This recital im not in entire eccord with the record, but ia to 


the following effect: Appellee bought sprellant's interest in 





Peay or ee 







( 


ale 





Sa eiyty ped aos! te te dete Fw 


—* — —— fee” iat 
ba 


ere 1 3 ‘gntudden dd To | 1b H 
oA, Sar. ie Biiveredte se clidiog ae 


ait «eat <aidroasa 
— — at yy 























202 ati tec cS <2 Geese J 


’ JATIONNM xom Jana 
* 8 b gh Va 


anag e*Tiivatalq. 4adf Yo eacic © eh 


* Bevlesces died Bet artétasiet bs ? 
MAwitTeS uit tetetne«< sevad Digeow 64 wiakrads ’ 
‘) © pitt’ an ¥ Worwrad’ sur Qanmvrdda Haado 90: 

ott 4% caoed Yliaghive saw €f49 Sno .eett she73 ah cae 

op @etLoaqa.edd tedt.et peo. ek? af toad, Dedtinba ah... 14; | 
PS.P5¢ SPithus etd? Yo gatentges ed? of aotaa — 

—** ot an toaxta9o = apy. ,tdsword aew stue eds, tayone, dof 

A190, skpde edd setter od? moxd.ntetde of gam nemso?, oft. 

to obazofod at sdael at bed xettes ott dobde tweretet od? } 

tom ob estttaq eff .sbaal dove to seadotyq od? xot. 8 ard 

. Betoetib tive0 edt as das ,soetIa90 efdt ꝛo anase⸗ edt ot 

{lortingygodetoed to gerd se eslleaqe ed? To trove? at 


<a 


i ae 


| Caont tees off aogu, (Dib t1y09 feqtotau¥ edt deacqquea ed of. 
* —E— 
bevieoo: ed atimbe tasfleqza fade Beton ed of et 1 aa 
Yo Seaoqs!th ef tad? etimbe sedvisvt of base ,soltaeup a us 
encenca of ,benolinem tettante1ed etoetéaoo ed? at. ¢ — 
YITeO' ‘oF tevoq atd lo Juo — eerng sudtd See ,sefieqgs aad⸗ 
beviesdo ed of tettiut af #1 .eeffeqqe ed? Atte toatiaco ota | 0 
Sssoqotq ed tant? sotton eelffeqqs edd eves of Stadt siatent ot ‘ nm 
oles dove¥etem of | 
& sedeam Snenuvets botntrq eff at taslleqqse wot Leeauod ia a 
-YRomtteet s'inelfeqqe aved evad of emiafo ed tadv to latipes a 
ot at tud .brooer ed? dttw biooos exttae at ton at Lathoes otat | 


at seetstat s*taolleqqe tigwod eelfeqga ttoette gatwollot ed? 


“~~ oe 


ale 


the latter's contracts vith the Union Pacific Land Company for the 
purchsee of 15,000 acrea of Colorado land, which contracts ap- 
peliee agreed to sesume; that appellant had paid on eald cone 
tracte #8,200, and that the difference between what the appel- 
lsat hed paid for the land and #2,50 per sere amounted to £8,600, 
making a total of about £17,000; that appellee wae to agesume ape 
pellant'e contracts with the Union Pecific Land Company; that the 
sum of $8,800, the erount which appellant hed invested in the land, 
Was to bs paid at ones, and that appellee at that time was to take 
over the Union Pacific Land Company contracts; that from September 
6, 1807, to May 35, 1908, appellant, as frequently as three or 
four times a week, spoke to appellee about the performance of the 
contract, ani received each time a definite promise of payment at 
wome epecified time; that before the appellant "resold the land he 
repeatedly notified the plaintiff that he wovld regeli it"; that 
the appellant "resold the land to Porter Thompson for $2.50 per 
acra, which wae a fair snd ressonsble price for land of that Guality 
and location." It je further stated in the argument that appellants 
testimony abows that the appellee had notice before making the cone 
tract that the principal reaeon why appelient seld the land was to 
get rid of the carrying chergee, coneisting of texee and interest 
which the appellant had to pay to the Union Pacific Land Company, 
or forfeit the lend and 61] previous payments; that after the con- 
tract wae meds, and while appellee wae in default, appellant repeat 
edly notified appellees that aprellant was paying these taxes and 
interest in order to hold the land for appellee, snd thet appeiiant 
notified aprellee that unless appellee performed his contract ap- 
pellant would sell the isnd in order to get rid of said taxsea and 


intereet; that the appellee knew how the aprellant held the iand, 


and knew the torme of the contracts by which appellant held it, and 


knew that unless the taxes and intereat were paid the lend and ail 


previoue paymente would be forfeited. 


* The contracts between appellant and the Land Company 


G 
oe 






















eid tot ynoqmod tant obttoat nokat edt dehwtoatinos #'x 
(6? J a2ostIace dotdw buat go Re igemnn betakt Seal 
—24 at toa ted? jemuess of 
i -foqqe edt tadw meerted aomesetthh ett ont: ben, A—— 
{ .008,84 ot besavone ere, aeg 08.84 —5 xo? bieg 
={@ omnes of oa eeteare tadt {coo v4" tuoda Yo Lstet 
edt ted? yyasqmeD bawt of Mest moka odd deze oraaeo a 
bal edt at deteewnt bed taeiievge dotdw favoms ed? 008 88 * 
— of ean omts Jadt — apni 
t9deesGe8 word sade josoantaos yaaqual Seal etties?, mo, 4 
260 eetds aa yLtmeuper? en ,tarllerqa ,900L .as yew of 
edd) 20 ConamtoT4eg oft tuOda vel Leggw of eioge Aven » somt 
J@ sgenyeg Lo getuorg esialteh s emt? dose beviooer baw Ft 
0d baal sdt Bioeer® taglieqge edt Stoted tad? jealt 
sadd j*¢t {leeer bivow ed teat Yivataly . 
s0q 02.8% tot gosqnod? zesao™ of bael ed DLoser® 3 
| YtiLeup teds Yo baal tot solxg oldanceset han 122) « eae 
| e8aallegrs fade tnemmgte edd at hesate reddtud et: FT. corey 
| too ed aataas ex0ted sokton bed eeifeqqs ed? tal? evods tne Lali 
| ot str baal oa bfoe saeTLoqqe yaw foeset! Leqtoatya alt tatd Somme 
my | seotesal baa sexs to gatietenco ,eegiedo galy ried ed)" to” t a 
| wregReo baad; oLIioed aotal edt of Yeq os bed taallequs odd doi 
Aoo eid testa tad? jetaemysq evoclvetq [fe bas baal edd #f | 
-Ieeqe1 taslleqqes ,tiveted at sew selleqqe efide daa , bam’ 
bae aexe? eeed? galysq ee¥ sealleqqes sadd eolleqqa bertid 
Saetieqggs Jed? bae .eeileqqe rot basl ed? Bied 6* vebt0 at 
“G8 tostinoo sid bemtolreq eelleqgs sselaw ted? eotieqqgs: pened 
bas sexe? bles Yo bit ten of tebt0]8 al bast ed? [fee dived saetted, 
baal oft BL64 thelleqqs edt wod Wonk gellegqe ed? fait (seetetak; 
bane 71 Bled tualleqes dotde Ud atoettace eds Yo omrées odd wend Bas, 
iie-bos beef ed? btaq etew teetesal has sexed of? evelau sans weak, 
-betietret ed Diver etasnyed ‘suolveng: 
YHagmo Hael odd Due sdallegqs averted stoatinco edT. i. 





Be quick 





— 





ane 


were not offered in evidence, snd while the apceliant testified 
that he gold the land on the 25th day of May, 1908, to Perter 
Thompson, there was no evidence that he ever had titie to the land, 
end it msy be presumed that what be meant to easy wae that he age 
signed the contracts with the Land Company. “hile the aesertion 

is mé@de by counsel that the appellant testified that appellee knew 
how appellant held the land and the terme of the contracta by 
which he held it, etc., the record does not quite bear out this 
etatement. At the close of his cross-etamination, the appellant 
testified that he did not recollect having shown appeliee hie con- 
tract with the Land Company, bet that he had shown him some of the 
contracts; that he may not heve shown him "that particular cone 
tract,” and thet he did not remember that he hed teatified to that 
effect the day before. Ee further testified that he toid Pergtold 
and Nye, in the latter's office, that he thought he sould seil the 
land; thet he did not say he would eell it but that "TI think I 

will eell it"; that upon thia Bergtold made no comment but Nye 
said, "When do we get our money?" and the appellant said he thought 
he coule fix that up; that he had reference to the entire tract and 
that appelie¢ demanded this $2,500 of him a number of times. 

We have refrained from giving the teatimony of the 
appellee as to his version of the contract, but essuming the tes- 
timony given by the appellant correctly recited the terme of this 
agreement, we are of the opinion that the eprellant has not shown 
aright to forfeit the contract. On the other hand, by hia edmitted 
acte, be had put it out of his power to fulfill the contract on 
hie part, and therefore the contract may be asid to have been re- 
ecinded by mutual congent, the appellee having elected go to treat 
it, sa he had the right to do, The law is too vel] established 
to require the citation of authorities in eupport of the propo~ 
gition that where a contract like the one in question has been 
rescinded by mutual consent, in the manner indicated, the vencee 


ian entitled to recover from the vendor moneye paid upon it. The 


¢ 


-f- 














“beltksees Fass tongs edd oL2dw bie ,somebtve at boner tO" soa! ony 

“ae rkOT OF WORT Yaw RO yAb'HAGE od? AO Rat edd ‘dlosremgE 
sbael O8t of est? bel reve of tent somedtve’ om ears me 
<08 80 Jott bw Yoo Ed Insvar OH Jail 3042 BemUbeTG, OF yak ORM 
‘notitecss edt eftde .yaeqmod badl eds dttwetoedaco edd Bel 
weit eeffedas tot cattiveet tmrellegqa oft dedt feenisoo” 
“4d etobrta6o ef) Lo emret eft bas’ heel’ oft bred twa lteyge 
"erty tuo thee ettup tom seob bode, odd (ote (21. bred’ od Pe } 
Notteaan VOY’ robbairhaleecbeete’ td Ww seeTe ote 00:7 ke 
Hdo wid eelieqga Awote gatved Yoolfooey tom’ bib ea Teifd’ bel 
043 Yo abe’ att bebite: bait’ ot reid” Sue"(yaetadd bends 4c 
“a0 wetuot ese 1243” att wwolin eves ton Yen of Todt | 
feds oF GettEtest bod of ted? redmemes For bth wif Teds 
blorgret blot Pf edt betttsney xeif¥svY ef .eroted yeh 
eft [iee luow ef tdyvondt ad tadt Yevt Yio ef resrel erty at) 
DP tetdd 1 tede sue 32 ETee Bivow ed you Yom bib oH 
TT "See red taemnoo on Sbim Dot gret eid? noyy tau y*sd 
"" Pitgvodt ef bise fa¥CTe cis eft baw *“Tyenow wo fey ev ob 
bee fow1s wit¥ns s1t of souers tex Hed ‘on sends poy Vaiir wt 
. -wemtt to tédmer @ wid to 008 SF eid? Debdsned oe i a 
edt To YwomE%ees eX? yartvig wor? Henler tet eved oF i f 


— + py 4 
wea * 


mo 











oe? 
ps 


by 
“eet et) gutmawes Sid (teextnod edd Yo moleter eld ‘oF es vefteays ; 
Au to Whites ‘ety pee roey YrseerteD eadtteqge ‘ey ( eves yom 


Z 
{> 


“R¥ons ton and saslledqs edt Fed? wotatqe edt te ere ov { 
bettimbs ati yd .baed tedtd SAt WO “. toetTIaGo “edd Velie? OF VigeewS 
wo foettnoo ends (Letfwt of rewog etd Ye tuo SF Fug bes osetia 

| 2 aved eved of Bide od yaut toarindd “edd etoToteds bas ee ae 
| | teext of on Betvele gatved seffedgqs edd (daeanoo fautum \d beba fe J 
bedet fassas (fer oot wt wal edt ° [of St ge sat bed oaeea gst 
~oqe1q edt Yo trogqua mt Welitrodta® Ye sofretio edt etkiper os 

né¢ed ead notteeyp ml eno eff etLl séerdaos « erede sade nODF te 

i eebaev edt .beteolbat tenanaw ed? gt \duesnoo feutem ys bet foeen 
‘ed? SF Mods bhad a¥enom H6baet WAY AORTA VO0eT ot Delrtoae at 


, 

4 
, 
a 





— 





ge 


trial court did mot err in inatructing a verdict for the plaintiff 


(appellee), and the judgment is affirmed. 
AFFIRMED. 


G 


a 


mi⸗ia eas at totbrév s gattourtent ak aié 
ereet oo wr ew .bewtitts et iy 2a 
— 9° apeatagyt Mere ot thts conten tvetaavene 


wil 8h ie St eae Ua OF Tiatese GA’ 7008 Ls Bieri ie ; 
oe? tinoss O8e eledr — E ay Ht 
— weflétae test ost 1Peer Piel lexge- cat Fede » 
2) eFi4edacd of% “Mo eared ef? has Saat ody O68" at 
“Stat pam hed #Btot Sen aged Btedse Snt°( ote* WAG 
Peolloods 42 pelteatadzectioto 814 16 osbT6 ef? phew 
Mid wit co -tegse avon gatved 100LTOuy tom bd ed. tome 
its Si Whda lA Asete hat ot 18d" dine YneyneO Dea 
cety SHPDS Poy gett? etd awota bbe dot ew Ob PAMD | e 
fabs OF berth reed tos ot Pitt seeeeaes SoRo DDT it ham 
Bi ratet Gied WA reds hetti rue? seWPALY ot” Leteted Yah? 4 
da ttea State 1 raoceas en dete [Ooty ee eeet ee ae 
Peta T* tet) da th RL Bisrow Oa Yen rhe eh wae | 
“eg vies riobe vet’ etdy Reg 1080"4 
PSY 4a Bias thieClo ce ody bel’ Mt ystew ave" bef ex ty wi 
Sie vberr? “Galore «> » shtxetes hod SH sede eC eRe 1J 
RAT Te oe oo NE Te O08 erie! bene SORES 

esr news uivieg we tT Reel 4 tee een ei Oe 4 
























F 
—* tap “ .biiicaeb ede On we iets be br eee 

* ; - ¢ 

| oe) i > 4 a ey tqutteqde ad? ya a ¥ 


Psy . 4 eto Phat acezing a 1 ere ee Bi 


Retiinbes a! Ti G49 GO Por tines ede “Rete oe i 
an’ (YT of ve¥ey ett Wo Pus OP Fle Bad 
~6x bed >: st yew soantacd ‘elt etoTs ands Gee iP ; 
Pr ov t cntved eelieods wd? “(Sadenco  Peview {i 4 st 

bedi sete ters: 9 wh ear edt? ° lemthPeeqe War tee 
J a? WA, ve tl aefi trod haw We aoreeree ett oR 

hao wi ond S€9 wall O8eeiicd = x 


C@ 


sebuevy oc? . he * toned ed? of’. druneed Seer wa 


a. 
by 





eat it ao i. #¢oe8a ohdew 647 Hott GNG00e7 of Baleizae — 





tober term, 1911, No, 


- 
* 


— 


— = 
$ 


5380-17817 







HAYES PUMP and PLANTER COMPARY, 
& corporation, 


APPEAL FROM WUWNICIPAL 
COURT OF CHICAGO. 


25 
& 

ra) 
~ 
oe 

@ 

~ 

— ———— 


Appellant. 


WR, JUSTICE CLARK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THF COURT. 


(g ake a aa ail * 
Suit ae brougkt by the plaintiff (appellee) against 
write, Le te . 
the defendant (appellant) for £4,251.7S, with interest, on account 
of a loesa by fire in Kanesae City, Miseouri, October 12, 1909. The 
basis of the claim, as appears from the etstement of claim, is that 
there ess an adjustment between the parties at thie amount, and 
suit was brought not upon the policy iteslf but upon the implied 
promises to pay, created, if at all, by the alleged settlement. 
The aftidavit of defense denies in form the promise to pay, and sets 
out that the liability of the d«fendent, if any, is for the sum 
of $3,763.65. 
Uttier the policy in question the insurer undertook to 
ineure, in an amount not excseding #15,000, the insured stock of 
agricultral implements, etec., located at any place within the 
limita of the United States, excerpt in planta rhere poole were 
manufactured by the ineured. 
The policy contains these provieions: 
"This company shall not be liable for more than 
#5,000 iff any one loge. 

®"In consideration of the reduced rate at which this 
policy ia written, it is expreasly etipulated and made & cone 
dition of this contract, that this company shall be liable for 
no greater proportion of any loses or damage then the amount 
hereby insured bears to ninety per cent. (90%) of the actual 
oash value of the property described herein at the time when 
such lose or damage shall osour, nor for more than the propor- 
tion which this policy bears to the total insurance thereon.” 


"Thie company shall not be liable beyond the actual 
eaeb value of the property at the time any loss or damage oce 


— V Mx: ute a itis oninget ans esa 
Mae ‘seen. Leh Np viele ag oa 
O88 ATSer “ 
— — 
JACIOTWING MO@Y JAREGA ial 
LOOANTHD FO PANN ) 
sorama to \ 
taal Leaqa 
















"Heme wer “ey veka Sit sunt Ree 


tuntegs (eelLeqas) ——— vd etuann — 


fayoove ao ,Joetetmt atinw Bt. £46. 8 z0% (snalleqas) 4 
ef? 200K ME wedotsO ,tawose2M .ytiD esenst at ext? uo 
teat 4 Æelo io tnemetote ett soxt sraeqas se vatato ear 

bna ,tauome stat ts seltreg edt neeried dnouteutbe oa 

bel igus edt nogy tud tleatt wollog eds coe toa —— 
tomes t00 begelle edt ys tia te * — 184 ot 

ete bee Xag of eatmorq eds nx0? at eeiaeb seneteb Yo at J 
we edt 0% ei .yas 2 Anaadeig te b edt dl Wi iident — 


* 


ct — — ———— eds notseeup as yonies oat 





— 


is to Igots beruent edt ,000 ane ——— ton “tawona as 2 
eds abd? eoals Led I betacol _arote .ataemasgat bard 

if eTer atoos er.adw —R at 1qeoKe setar? betiad ode Yo | the ee 

| _— ebetwest edt x bewute — 


hae, ‘ be 
J ——— sends eat asaoo yor log eaT jis a i? 
' nad? Som 10? eideil ed toa Ilsde yseqmoo efit" Ps 
i soo! ono yse Mi — 
eids doide te ete: heouhet ed? to aoktatebleaos al*® 
i000 & chem bre betaluqt?s yfaeexqxne ef $f ,meteiawr at yott a 
t0% eidall ed Lisde ynaqmoo aid? tedt ,soatiaoo ald? Yo a tt 4 
tryoms ett cod? ogamsh ro beet yas to notsocetq tet 80 
fagioe edt to (fO9°) .tmeo t]eq ytenta of e1tsed bewent (dezed 
asde eat? eft te ateved bediioseb ysxeqosq ed? Yo eatey deaore fe 
; “Ioqotd edt add erom 102 TOs *22 {Lede epamab to seol dose 2 
1 ",foesteds sonmetvent Saon eat Samer ‘aotaw sol? 1 
faus a edt haoyed eldal! ed | eidT* 
“00 epemah to esol yaw ent? ont tay ———— 


LW es Vie 


eure, and the loss or damage shall be ascertained or estimated 
according to such actual cash value, with proper deduction for 
depreciation, however caused, ant ghall in no event exceed 
what it would then cost the ineured to repair or replace the 
game with materiel of like kind and quality; said escertain- 
ment or eatimete shell be made by the ineured and thia com 
pany, or, if they differ, then by appraisers, ae hereinafter 
provided; and, the amount of loss or damage having been thus 
dsterminest, the sum for which thie company is liable pureuant 
to this policy shall be payable eixty days after due notice, 
ascertainment, estimate and satisfactory proof of the loss 
have been received by this company in accordance with the terme 
of this policy.’ ; a 

"This company shall not be liable under this policy 
for s greeter proportion of any lose on the described property, 
or for loss by and expense of removal from premises endanvered 
by fire, then the amount hereby inevred shall pear to the «hole 
inevrancse, whether valid or not, or by solvent or insolvent 
ineurera, covering such property, em? the extent of the appli- 
cation of the insurance under this policy or of the contribution 
to be made by thie company in case of loses, may be provided 
for by agreement or condition written hereon or attsched or ape 


, 


pended hereto," 


There is a further orovigion that no action shall be 


suetainable upon the policy unless brought within 1° yeeara next 
after the fire, 

The inevred hed in addition to this policy one with 
the London Lioyds, covering the seme property to the extent of 
€15,000, and under whieh the liability wee limited to #1,500 in 


any one fire, 


fhe defendant employed the Featern Adjustment and In- 


apection Company of Chicago to look after its intereata in the 
adjustment of the loss. It is the contention of the defendant 
that thie is an independent sdjuating concern; that ite business 
is to aecertain and eet forth in the form of an affidavit, com- 
eonly called @ proof of loga, the facta in regard to the origin 
of the fire, the ownership or intereret of the agaured in the 
property injured or deatroyed, the amount of the loss, anid the 
proportion thereof chargeable to seach policy, when there ie mare 
than one policy involved; but that it has no suthority to make 
contracts or pay losees or pasa upon the legal idability of the 
companies. 

The case wae tried before the court without a jury, 


and wpon a finding made judement vas entered for the full amount 





, 


po agent To a ed (iade epanab 
10 toudeb mess + ,evlsey 
besoxe fneve og nt [ede une esd eas 
oat goalqe1 2c Pe ie ot —5* 
-ntatisose Shee { 
amoo elitd bas bdnenial a -y bee . 
tefiesteted es ——— ee r 
euds avod gaived opgemet to aaol te 


sotton evb teste eysh 
7 aeei edd Yo toorq a AA be 
emses ef? dtiev ptr os Bi rf 3 


yoilog eid? sebay eidalil ed Jou £. 
.titege tq bediiseeb edt mo seol vas Yo ageey 
beternebae eealgenxqg mott Lavomer Yo 
elorde eff ct reed fede hetyent ydeved 
taevioeal to tnevios yd 1 Joa to b 
-hiqes ed? Yo dmetxe eft ** i 
aoitedizinopn ed? to 10 —— a2 

























a. parte Rod bles 2* v iat a 
od {inde Botton on aols iveta —— a J 
xen s1asy er midges tdgueid eeelnuw yotilog sheet ee 
“ext? od? 


ascutbe aa wat 
dat® emo yoltlog elds ot mots ivos at bad beswemt edT 


3 fever 


to tmetne ad? of XVRE⁊oao 14 omnes eds gairevoo — 
at 008,18 ot betimil sew yititdars ods dotde reba bas 


e ad — 


—* 


Ligaif eft. radd 
— baa dneateutba avetee® edt B m· daor ob ed? — 


oo? af eéaosetni eff resis. 4001 of — ‘wo — 
Sasbne led eas Io aoktasanos: “eds et X Bea a to soomseutbe 


—— — — * 
— wit tad in te0MOo potveutba aebaeas bat as 24 a 


ae [ax ‘tig 


“moo fhvabitts ae to are edt at ao. bse ban Akstze008 @ 
M@igizo edt of btaner al estos? edd beet Yo —* 2 ootlae 
ed? at bewess eft to teervetat x0 ua⸗s. oa “te 
ad? Dna .eaol ef? Yo tmwome edt  beyoutees 20 betutat cosa 
stom st oxed? mede .yotfoq dose of efdaepzndo — 
—— oF Yttrodtue. om ead $f dans tana jbevioval ‘potions 


J 49424 
eff So yahiidwtl fegel ede aoqw rast 0 —RX — 


ie | ct ydered a 
Pung eh. Yancy wad te — — * 
—— 1S 
tru§ @ Prost km ——* ens e710 490 bebat — geno! eas! ae noe Pe 
mes ek: ‘7s 


Sayonn. Liu? ot %? berets ane Sasephel ebae! stam gatbat? » soa bas 


-5- 


Slaiwed by the plaintiff. 
To the preofe of loss submitted by the plaintiff to 
the defendant, the following echedule was attesched: 
"SCHEDULE - STATEMENT OF LOSE, 
Statement of Lows 


Hayes Pump & Plenter Co. Xaneaaa City, Mo. 
Fire-October 12th, 1908, 
Value at Fanesa City based on 
assured's records verified 
by adjuster , ‘ . $7595.35 
Lees value of salvage as 


egreed in detail ‘ 1215,88 
Loge ‘ ‘611.69 


Sound values at all pointe 
aes determined by adjuster 
based on agsured's records, #27379.69 
Insurence required under © 
co-insurance clause . . #33551. 72 
Companies insure $20,000.00 and pay 5587.29 
Aseured cowinsures %3,551,72 and pay —ß 
6181.63 


Details on file in office of Featern Adjuatment 4 
Inspection Co,, Chicago,Tillinois. 
Yeatern Adjuetment & Inspection Comrany 
Oo. L. Thittemors, 
Adjuster. 


SCEEDULE OF INSURANCE AND APPORTIONMENT OF CLAIM. 








imt. of 
Pol.No, Expiration Neme of Co. pelicy Inevrsa Cisim. 








428602 ‘] 9 Afeurance Co, f1i5000. §& ~“Fa551. 

1736 of Aw.u.Y. 
. 4-16-10 *Lloyde Eng. _18000, _1500. 1275.53 
Totals - - 30000, ~6500 5547.69 


— policy covers ifentiosl property insured by Aasur- 
ance Company, but its lisbility 18 limited to #1500.00 in 
any one loss," 

The proofs of logs were oubmitted to the defendant 
within the eixty days required by the policy, end were retained by 
the defendant until after three months hed expired, when corres- 
poncence ¢neueg between the parties. In thie correeponience there 
is claimed by the defendant that a mistake was made by the ad- 
jueter in the division of the lose between the Lioyds Company 


and the defendant, and that the amount charceable to the defendant 


was erronsously placed at the figures set forth, because of the 









i | =~ 
i aꝛi⸗etata ods vs Reatsts 
i} ot tha eae ed — —— — ne | 
| ; rbeddadte sew efubedoe patter tod-edd ., 

\ Bae to paenarvapte ss tert res 

sss ‘Xo * —— te " 


OM GED wesmey 09 x9 ——— 





4 












ios 
— 
A 


SS — 
—— — — 


——— * 


ee wis 9 oon 


J aentauhba aretae® lo eotito wi eLtt ao eliated J 
-eloarlil .opscidd 209 mottoeqenT 
4 UrsqmoD nolttosqeal 2 imeadeut Da n1et80% — 
Hi getomestiar .t .o ‘shot Some 
if Tete aL PA 


— Ame et 
LWIATO “F PEEUMOTTROGTA MA FOMARUIET %O ‘idomane 



















J— mh : ; eRe ta we ay Ree — 4 
mtelD 8 eeiveanl yotfo>r .0D to smell aol taitgxd On, fod J 







, 
- ; 





~) Oh 
Oserl * 
— * 










".seol eno yas» Loti 
tshoetwh off of Sottindue exew.eeel Yeretoesq edt | 
Vo bemiazer oxo" Ane |. yorfeq e49 qd bexkupes. eyah Ytate odds 
893109 aedw .cotiqxe bed edéaom eord? cette [hina taedae ved | 
ested? “obeee ll vidt al ,settieq ed? aeeeted payene — 
she edz 4d shan ov ofetela @ sed? saahasted edd yd beatae 
Yisqaod shyoil ect neewsed smof ed? Yo aclelvisb acs ath sodas 
Jashaelel edd of eidegaiodo tayome edt teds bas ,faabneted edd Daw 
edt Yo eauaced ,it10% ton setwpht ett te ‘beoelg ylevoene11 ese 





o4— 


co-insurance clauge in the policy, to which reference has here- 
tofore been made, and it was asarrted that under the law the pro- 
portion of the loss to be cherged to the defaniant was properly 
$2,763.65, ae was ageerted by the deferdant in ite affidavit of 
defense, to which allusion has been made. 

After careful consideration of the casas we are of, the 
Opinion that the contention of the defendant im this reapect is 
sustained by the proof, 

The contentions of the defendant then are: first, 
that the Municipal Court wae without jurisdiction; second, that there 
¥as no nev covenant, @Xpresaa ar implied, to pay any sum on ace 
count of the lose and damage; third, that the claim is barred by 
the policy limitation of one year; and fourth, that the find- 
ing and judgment sre exceasive, 

The primary purrosae of the adjustment by the Ad- 
justment Company employed for that purpose evidently wae to fix 
the total amount of the lowes, The divieion between the two 
insurance companies wae 2 mere matter of exleculation, and the 
amount to be paid by each ss2 easily computable sfter the total 
amount of loae head been fixed by the adjuater. The queation 
ae to the effect of the co-inaurence cleuse in the policy hss 
not been discussed by the plaintiff in ite brief, and, ae here- 
tofore stated, we are of the opinion that the contention of tans 
defendant in respect to it is suetained. It would aprear from 
the record thet no tender “ae made by the defendant of the amount 
which it admitted was owing the plaintiff, but that on the other 
hand after bolding the proofs of losa for ninety days it offered 
to pay the amount upon new croofe of lose being furnished. No 
change waa required in reepect to the eseential festuresa of tha 
proofe of lose,having regard to what caused the firs, the emount 
of the total logs, eta., but merely a change of the figures in 
the percentage of the total loss which ths defendant would ve. 


called upon to pay and which the defendant admitted it should pay. 





-$- er 






















ao7ed ead eonereler dotdw of .ybhiog sith mh, memes 
org od9 wal oft tebm tedd Pesiweek cawPh haw .ebaln & 
— caw tushaeteh od? of Degrade ed oF cool ni tem 
‘to stwaeate est at Iondieteh PY betvosas eer ea .6 J 
aban aes end aotadti⸗ ‘dotaw ot 

edt Yo ota oF eas st? to noltsrebhenoo Sutera A * 


W 
a 


a is 4 

et tosqeet aid? at inabaeteb ats. —— Uk 9— 
PT ae aes: Se 

* 


toutt tere node dustierer edd. Yo ‘eaottastace aes 
‘oneite.  hmoode jautdelnobeut tuodtiw one sue. — 
-06 0 mus yoe Yad of — 2 Sead we exe —— 

( berted at alefo ett rade" T 
— 9 {dtxw0% Das iraey-n 


ry pees a — ** 
wae Tr ,oviseeoue e172 


-bA ef? yd seoureugns eds 20 plea * ee ee i ag 
xit cot asw yléaebive —E tont 10% peyote y ae 4 
ows tt avewied molaivis ed? .oeal “od? 1 tasena, tod 
silt bre stoitaivolay to r9ttem etem 2 sew @ 
fas03 ed? rete sidetuqnos ylieae gar ae ork —— 
— — — ed? .teteuthbes edd yo Bextt need bad se 
aad Yoifes eft at seuato sonszwant~oo ed# Yo footie. 
—— oe bae ,tekrd of? ah mo⸗at⸗t ed? w besevoels eed a 
“WHY 2S BSisnetado bas sede aotntio ed? to ote ow betas e ‘ 
MOTT theqqa Sivow t] ,bealedoue ef 8! oF SeeqeeTtaTY ' 
fiatoma 49 Yo tanbaeted ed? cd eben saw reget on.gedd.b 
Todo ods mo tat tuo (Tttetely edt galwooeew beste inde 
berets ti eyeb ytenin set eaol to stoorg sat gaiblod se 
of Peteinsst gated Geel Yo etoorg wea aoqm savomes edt. J J 
edt SO eoau⸗νν Lakinones odd oF tongeet at bethupes, ose, a fo 
sngoss edt ,e7t) od? deaweo tade of Brager palwed esol, lo» slog J 
Yo —— 
WW DitOw Inabowted es datdy sol Letod ed? to epatmeoreqed? 
«(oq Sivore tt betfinte Imedeeted ede dotdw bas Yaq of soqw bella 4 








* 


It is the clearly established lar that when an adjust- 
ment is fully completed in a cage like the present, and fully 
aereed to by both perties, a ner contrect arisee to pey the 
amount auresd Upon ae a result of the adjustment. Tlilinois Mutual 
Fire Ins, Co. v. Archdeacon et #1., ®f Ill, 336; Home Ineurance 4 
Banking Co. of Texue v, Myer, 93 I12. 271. 

The defendant in the brief saya: "If any promise to 
pay could be implied from the were fact of the adjustment in this 
case (“hich, however, we deny), it could eat the very most be no 
more than an implied promise to pay proper sum justly aprortionable 
to appellant's policy scsording to its terme and conditions, namely, 
$3,763.65. The finding and judement, if any, therefore, ehould 
not have been for wore than eaid eum of $2,763.65 and interest, 
end the finding and judgment, therefore, are exceesive,® 

It is admitted by the defendant that the total amount 
of the lose was properly secertained snd fixed by its orn ad~ 
juster, and that the proofs of loas were presared by ite adjueter 
and executed by the plaintiff, and thet the only error in the 
proofs was caused by a misconception of ite adjueter and the ine 
sured ae to the gpoertionable part to be paid by the defencant. 

Ye are of the cpinion thet an implied promise to pay 
the proper sum justly appertionable to the appellant's policy arosa, 
This aum fell due under the terme of the policy on Deceaber if, 
1910, The judgment wae rendered Auguat 24, 1931. In ovr opinion 
the judgment should have been for 72,998.55, If plaintiff within 
ten cays from the date of the filing of thie opinion shall enter 
& remittitur of 1,542.64 the judement of the Municipal Court 
will be affirmed for Seduced amount; otnervise the judement *1i11 
be ravereed and the cause remanded for further proesedinge in con- 
formity herewith, The costs of thie court #41) be equally divided 
dvetween the parties. 


APPIPVET ON REVITTITUR: OTEFRK 
wISF REYEPS?D ANP REMAND?T. 


























— 
| € ; : 
i ; t+ ; P : * rs *, 

| 

| PaCS pm ante te wat anda, sua. m n 52* 
| H _ Silat one .taemers edt edtt ego © at Hetetamgo x oh 
! F od? Yay of eoeize soartaco ee A .eettzeg $03 * 
(not ateatist ..tnvnveuthe wit Yo alaeen 4.08 nog ReoTas dam 


fi & eonetvenl emoll (888 [iT 44 orb 10 aa0eP MONTE AY 108 oR 
i ; ~ econ ofp geh¥8 S42, 68, .20vM..¥ waxet to .« 

} of seiworg xas i". :eyee teind edt at raghaeteb edt 
i eid? af tnemseutbs edt I font oxen edt —J Petiqar’ wa 
it oa 08 taoy. rey at 28, D6u0> #h (WORD, 9p. yxeveROM 
f pidemoitioqgn ylteul vus regosa xaq of Benes 


| 


J 
aE 


7 
~ oa 
% 


7 ‘Clones ~eaglathago dae esxs? ett oF yalbrogow Yo 
bivode, etotered? .xas 3b ,stemebyt ‘bow getoea, ar 
teezetal bas 30.585, 88 te mus wegen oe sins / 
*,@viaapoxs o18 ,etotetedt —* part 
tauong® {efot edt toi? taadbaated.edy xa het — —J 
tha, wep aau 6 dext?, bas peated z9088. —— * 
Tetoutbs 922 xd boxeqeaq exe” pot to sYoorg oa⸗ — 
ost ok gsoxte, ying, ed? sad? dap .ꝛꝛt eat ata ed? vd bere 
wal edt baa roteuibe att tg aottgeonooalm s ud a . 
-Soubaetch edd 1S bheg ed of g19a eldapatszoage. 0: 
i] tad of ealmorg Petlomt as teds potatge edt to a a mee 
1 | +98@0%a xollog at gasifoage weds of sidanots10q¢¢ xc⸗ovt me. qo: 
abd tedmeoed ao yotfeq of Io emest edt treba sub cco 
aotatao qo aI ,{6ef , 8 Jeuguh bezebaes saw tromphut 
Gidtiw WWsalela t2  .24,8¢,8% rot need aveg biuode, ae 
zetne Lleda golatqo etd? to gatlt? edt to eteb * mot? ax vad mi 
i Aauod Laghotaum edt Yo. tremphut oa⸗ she jth Yo ruthr ate A 
| | {ite tremphwt od? salwredto ytawome beoubed om banat 224 od f. ty 
“190 Hh egathgenctg sodt<v% 102 bebaamet esuns edt _ fae. ne X a 
| i beblvib vilaupe ad (ite txupo atdt Yo ateoo edt tine oo 


— | . Bewogl! fy 5 i rr, oe wabeaag dt, ae se i. 
\ aioe ee ot eee 
one, 9 ‘ ; b ol? ity i iw lt (eg. oF Goce Me hha 


4 
J 





A 
Kad XS 


ret Ph 


— 


1821.A. 387 


) FRROF TO MUNICIPAL 
COURT OF CHICAGO, 





WR. JUSTICE CLARK PELIVERED TEE OPINION OF TEE COURT. 


A telegram wae delivered to the defendant by the plain- 
tiff at Mt. Horeb, Yisconsin, on March 8, 1911, addreseed to a Dr. 
Patten at Chicago, and reading: "Forvard my mail including toror- 
rows mail, J. %. Goggin." The message as delivered to Dr. Pattsn 
was headed "Milwaukee, Yis." instead of "Mt. Horeb, "is." Damages 
alleged to heave been caused by thie wistake are cleimed. 

By a etipuletion of facte entered into before the trial 
judge it would appear thst the plaintiff had entered into e contract 
vith one Golden, under which the latter wae to audit certain books 
at Lumberton, New Mexico; that under the contract Coliden tas to 
write plaintiff before hie deperture from Colorade Springs to 
ascertain if anything had develoned which would make the trip un- 
necessary, The etipulation of facta rhich appears to have been 
entered into by the parties, part of shich is abstracted, and to @ 
part of *hieh our attention has been called by sn additionel ab- 
etract, contains the following: 

"That ehortly before March 8, 1911, Dr, Goggin 

(plaintiff) had received word from Lumberton, New Mexico, 
that it wae not necessary to send the auditor there, and that 
Dr.Goggin sae waiting to hear from Golden to ascertuin hie 
whereaboute, #¢ that he could 60 inform him. 

"That hed the telegram originsily sent on Morch 6, 

1911, from Mt. Horeb been correctly transmitted Dr. Geggin 
would have received the Gelden letter in time to prevent Gol- 
den's leaving for Lumberton, and had Golden received word be- 
fore his departure Gorgin would not have been lisbie for any 
expenses, 


"That by reeson of the error in tramemitting the tele- 
gram, Dr. Gorzgin was forced to pay Golden's expenses and eale 


hel os! [mee a a 4 Se ee 
- — — 

— st J 
— 





— et As ae 4 eee: By ‘eres’ snot set? 


$8e A. rest’ — 


fueq 4300 yd of ih 
; j et 
we 





















fot ‘at 


» ¢ 


JATIOINUM OT FOAAT 
-OOAPTHOD YO TaUOD 





- 


4 oh 4 — aki 
TRIOS, ie Wo “normrgo sat ——— Aaaa F 


“st ease wt —— 
10g OF bonboubbs .££0L .B dow ao atanovet® \dexon 
-r090% GUttwlomt fem ys breesoT® rpatbeer bas anti dh 

Hettet .x0 of Derevited va epessem si? | ".ntggod - ees te 
weqaunt "Lal \dexoh .30" Yo beeteat "lel \ebdiewliNe 

_ sbembalo era stavoto etds d bowuso seed evad 6; 


IE soactuse’ sheet bexetae Sint widarwte edt tomy — 
00d Gtavres dibve-ns vow tester ont dolie tebad (i 
od wav heblOD soexsmc ede tebaw sedi —— rodmul ta 
Gb apnttg? oberelod mort exudaayed Std etoled 322: cee) oo 
ais Gixt oft binm biwow dotde beqdteveb bad gatdtyms Yt ade: * : 
neod 6¥64 of Grosdqn doliy efoat to KOESETUQLES eat ”: ae J 
| i #02 baa’ \betoarteds of dotiiw Yo Feed aetstda edt Yo odat 
| ‘ada Laaoliibba na xo belfao need ead sottnetse 4d dolde 4 
|  pgntwottet ody —— 
aAtaro 120 fOr .8 dora stoted yitiode Sadt® | — 
| 





,oolxe® well .mofaedmud mx? brow Deviesat bed — 84 he 
— — totibse ed? Saeea oF “ot sat ton sar 
ela Siatteves of aehlod mort taed of slay eer ao « 
mid mrotat oe bluoco ed pads on —ã——— a 
{ , jnvet 
8 dote# we fees ylleatgizo matpelel edt bad sadT* cia 
aiggo) 1 bettimenats yltoe1rr0o need dezoH .3M mot? fl ..s.4 
~Lo® Jaeveig of emt af tettel meblod edt bevieoet evad Pye} 
_ wed Drow hevleoes seblod bed baa.,.cotredmw! sot gaivesl o'aeb 
“04 to? eideli aeed eved foa bivor algnod exutiseqeb eid e10% 
-eooneqe 





eu 


~oles ef? guttsineasr? al t0oxte ed? bo aoasex yd tedT* 
Ii; a6 bas seeneaxe e'aebled vac Of bente? eae Aienc® .<0 .eece 


mae 


ary inourred by reason of hie trip to Lumberton, which emount- 
ed to Ninety-two DPollare and ten cente ($92.10) in compliance 
with the terms of the contract between Gorin ani Golden here- 
tofore referred to." 
Thia would seem to be in form a practical sdmission 
by the defendant of the amount of demages to which the plaintiff 
was entitied. 
The case eee tried hefore the court and judgement «se 
rendered for plaintiff on a finding. 
Wo queation of law appeare to be raieed in the record. 
No objection wae mede to the introduction in evidence of the "etipu- 
lation of facts", for obvious reasons, Section 41 of the Practice 
TS ee 195 96 J 
act, chapter 110,\4ss to tendering propositione of lar to be passed 
upon, hee been made effective in the Nunicipal Court by rule ds 
adopted by that court. 
In the ease of Merrimac Peper Co. v. Tilinoie Trust 
& Savings Bank, 189 Till, 296, it wae suid: 
"No propositions of law were asked upon either side 
to be held by the trisi court, and, in accordance with the 
uniform holding of thig court, we muet again hold that no 
questions of lav are raised by thie record which we can re- 
view, If the pleintiff belor deeired to preserve the rulings 
ef the court in its epolication of the law to the facts of 
the case, formal propositions of lew should have been prepared 
and submitted, and the rulinge of the court thereon, if ade 
verses to the view of the plisintiff, could have heen excepted 
to, and such exception preserved, This wae not done, and the 
principal question sought to be raised by counsel is not there- 
fore before us,” 
thus following First Nations] Bank of Michigan City v. Haskell, 
124 Til. 587, and Worth*estern Benevolent and Mutual Aid Asen, v. 
Hall, 118 111.169. 
The judgment will be affirmed, 


AFFIRMED. 




























-tawome doldr ,sofi1e ot git? «la to aosses o's 
sonakiques mk (OL. oaaT oles ase fas eteffLot ae . 
-ered gepicd tan alygpod neersed toertaco 8 yee | he 


ii 2 
noleeinhs [aottoete # mie? at ed OF moos eae a 
Tiitaiela ed dolde of segeneb Yo favome taabacied ¢ 


* v 


env taempbut base ttu00 ef? eroled bets? 6 — iy 
-gatbat? « a0 —— 
-breoes edt al Sbeetet ed of etseqqa wel Yo aoltseyp of 


i 
HGLI9" 943 To saaebhye at aoktouborzal odtof ebam sar ao i 


@oltoasd edt to £8 motioe? .enceser exotvdo 102 ,"etos? 


* 


beaded ed oF fat Yo anottteaqora’ gat oF wey .O1f tetqad 
“eS efi — Caqtotay sit at evivoette etwa ab 


* 

teint ahombifl .v .00 tes Seaktaeu Yo iti Var ar 
hte ede #8 eed cer Opi" inee ‘Vga 

* ies | balan stew wel Yo RB rob gee rig § owe” af J 


mae Juan a E “twee ee a's wala masta 
— * sini ae —* sad Sahl ot 


wal to ⸗ 
ved Srsbag Sat cays 


bet 
Moated? tives ed? to 
ces eved Dives ele + rae — 4 — 


ed? fee ,encb tos sar eta? 
10d! fon at Leenuoc vw Guts wee of eee 





—— 
Aeda⸗an .v x⸗40 megtdolM to dash Cenotaan sealt gat 


+ CARA DLA feudo bar toelovened mxetgerdtick bas TBR LL » rn 


~ 
. a 


-bemittie ed [itv snemphut eff. ft 


bow ee 


J 


— — — — 
eviews iitalele) oe 
eee ~ +: pode 


? 
7% 
a 
= | an 
i304). * Sy daly 
fandeate Yun 


ng 


Te 
adi J 
tit. 
6as vi “7% val Siuon , 
{ at oer 
. 4 : eve : sid exc? 
2 8eregre 


ooees YO fadT* 
Y oy Ki me of 4 10 mF ee) 


















Z Appellees, 
ic. tere et al., FAL FROM CIRCUIT 
COURT, COOK COUNTY, 


‘ve, 


182 1.4.388 


In these cases separate appeals heve been taken 
fro. * deoree eatered in favor of the appellee, Hart, a⸗ come 
mt, in a quit brought by him against the appellants 

e), Jobn 0, and Carrie P, Schulte. 

te By the decree, after the recital of many findings, 
nil will hereinafter be referred to, it is deoreed that there 
; ry on November 21, 1911, to the complainant from the de 
Bente upon sn accounting the sum of §69,197,42, which sum ee 
| te e firet and prior lien upen certain lots mentioned, in 
* % of Chicago, eudject to . *5* truest deed given by 


as pert —* for the amount so found —— gat joot to the 
arent pre decroe prowides, eubetantielly. ip 





626... Fer SRS 


Oo" ae oR. oplleante > *@ Bevat al to xeiae’ 


4* 

















2 20.4% 


; 

——— 
yee — 
—— 


——— 


tH TIT W ROtv ice: ahr 


er 
—4 * 


avial deed ered ajay (os ⏑ —J 


re ‘py 
e¥nsiieque oft teuhe je che ye oigoded one a 


8Fisds% .. oCree) bee Ree eee 


Ld 
mye 


si) Bebrosh #E FL . 11s od te) Reskeaha © —9— 


—— — halgeos ete CF CEE 2 apdwevot 20" 
? gall agoooa m2 asau J 
, te +. te ab bel ae bam teaky, J 

Pier tb ‘a! ?0eides dyootad Yo se 


2 bop OOO. a hunt! ot alin dah 


eth hoe Lo Enpises: of)  tetta (eeteed 6a? ae 


wie 


* 


5 4* if ieee GZ ter 
J F nm Ase oe xe beet hag ‘ 
<0 ; ob Aaa? 4 —34 bondi ti 







if 
ry 


Me svelnw Sit“ wieo oc hebtbh ae beseeh aoe ‘wth 


eh ae 


satrvetal ctiv a . hecifig o ausaa ee, a 
| | (Sane) 


- J om © 


2 
593 
be Sold; that the master out of tHe proceeda of the sale 


n bie fees, Giesbureemente, eto., and y to the officers of 
t one-helf their costes, and out of th 





























emainder pay to the 
. * +; ‘the amount eo found due with intereet; that if euch 


aid Fenaina-z eball not be sufficient to pay said amount with 


* that he apply it to the extent which it may reach in 
ition thereof, oto.; that if the remainder shall be mere 

— he edeaa hold the surplus subject to the order 

Hh, tt. Then follews the weual order respecting the iewance 

— —" @eed of conveyance, oto., if the premises ehall not 

9— @ Tedeemed from sale within fifteen months after the date of the 

ee | , ete, The deoree by ite terms further ordere that the bill 

P ad | anenduonte thereto be disminsed as to John and Williem Pischozak, 

mio bat been made parties thereto, and also es to certain premises 

sor other than ‘the ones ordered to be sold, There isa 

r ‘Provision in the decree that from the Zlet Gay of November, 
i, and until the termination of the period of redemption, the 

shall collect the rents and profite of the premises 

to be sold, and account to the court for the same, without 


rejudice to the righte of either of the parties to apply for a re 


The exceptions of the complainant which had to do with 
@ findings of the master with Tespect to the property not ordered 


a @old, end the alleged rights againet the defendants Piechorek 
02 overruled, 


7 


_ The findings of fact in the decree, which are in most 
: — haestiea2 with the findings of the mester in his report, 
re to * effect thet early in July, 1906, the complainant ras 

; for & desirable inveetment, and wae introduced to the 

— ade: ech oun C, Schultz and Carrie FP, Schultz, his wife; that 
lafenden bueband Wes introduced to Hart as a real estate nan, 


ato Properties and the values thereof in the local uty 


— oe 





4. 
| gonsdowtS maliiit tue ade) of aa deontaetd oF Of ezed? wa 


a 


ee ee ee — 


rT a: ons “ye. —X —000 — —A * 


ceceeret Yo qed tah add woul tadf secoed, og at 


a“? 

i. 9 2e 
; 
ACE ; 

































to — act of yeq ⸗ ojaenea® —* 
ed? of Gag tehahempt ed? De * 
fogs F tac? (,ieetesat die 4 ot — yom 
dite imvoes Diee yaq of rannorsivele £ tout 
st Aveot Yam #2 dete thetze od? of a 
othe ou cimteseebataees odd DE ead) jae 
sebto »4¢ ot doetdue eofquse att Biot tlede a 
sotevesl ea? gritoaqger tebte lapec eat ewotto’ ai wr 
toa finds seeimeng et2 2h , 008 ceonayersos te —— 


exface cee? ttt ee ocae — 
⸗ exedco aecittet eater. att td pedeed oat 


yh 


: —18 
seainety aial ten of se 98.8 30% ,oferted? sali sag: bs — 


* — 


—— ——— aaa var meat t 


a 


eh? (foltqeetes to Bolsey sie — ae ue 


ae 

Mite eves aff 203. Ow ef? o¢ 2B reuse na xen s 4 ' 
V 

———— 


X 
= 1 abd 


‘ 
4 


eesiae2g.s/2 to s?PiYesg ban —s — ott tov kine 


— of hed Jol Or fkaahelquow at 29 pales Gee ees) * 
—⏑ 642 3s 17 
© atashoeted off Pealege efagit Bagesia, eer one 4B 

; ye: 


sm at axe tolce (dened cdf « toda Sp eipat tants Ad 


steeds bit ct sod@en eff Yo «nc (Sel O88. dee Lack 
giig 060 env 000! at ¢icas red? soaks oat a 


7 
1— 
~~ 


aa 


Eau it $sh sue bow .) somtearal. eidgtteek ee tot 

etti.s*ledo® . Peters > ime 2tiedos_.o aiee cee ba 
vo [eet 8 Ga 24M oP tar boreal ‘eae pn edaul ones: ef 
too red? @ulay-ea? Des ay peer PJ es det: ) i ks 






























ae — 594 

t te 63rd street and Ashlend avenue, dn the city of Chicago, 
at ) defendants, jusband and wife, were et that time carrying 
— ae real setate brokere and were engaged in buying 
ae: liing real eetate, renting and collecting rents, eto.; that 
: a tine of the introduetion the defendant Jobn 0, Schultz 
| to Hart a “mumber of pieces of property in the vicinity 
, and gave it as his opinion that they were very desirable 
mts; thet the eaic defendant gained the confidence of the 
to a very great degree, and that the complainant ap- 

7 Yo Dave placed implicit confidence in the said defendant snd 
La almost entirely on representations and statemente made by 
m i. the dealings which were had between then; that in a number of 
| y transaotions herein mentioned, consisting of the purchase of 
X by Haxt through John 6, Schultz, the latter represented the 

te is question ae being worth comeiderably more than their real 
rk value, and gave to Hart prices at which the said lets could 
purchased, which were much in excese of the actual prices placed 
nm then by their owners, yet represented to Hart that the prices 
Be ed 1 1 were very reasonable; that as a result of the representations 
é rt agreed to buy a musber of different lote at prices considerably 
abe their actuel value, eome of which lote were owned by the de 
fend John C, Sebultz, or the other defendant, bie wife, or . 

be th of them, at the tine,or had under cont#ect, and-some of which 
tt e defendent John ©, Sobultz knew were for sale at a much 
igure than that given to Hert; that when the different deale were 
the defendant John C. Schultz, acting Sor, the: par t aar oh ip 


debe C, Schults & Co., and also as the agent of said Hart, at- 
Hart the amount at 


lower 


tended to all of the details, receives from 
* aie Hert had agreed to purchase, and peid to the owners the sums 
ter were willing to settle for, in some cases taking the 
. o pepe? * or for the benefit of hie eaid firm, tb 
Sebultz & — bad their office in the 


— ⸗ 


balance 


at the 


* eae . 
* To 
dante, hn © 
mh 5 J 
_Lcg, iene 


Se ee ee eee ———— 


TPecels seotzg Lawtes ef) to sasene -4l dade ote do hte: om, 


SCOASS7S00G2 je" acy to *]owest 2 ba tact joldac ae aes: emer 4 


eee 
























,7ae RO bo yheib ede mt Jeemets Slat B bem: ca sae 
salxoies oahd tad? —“ 
vivct ah Depaete etee bose ote F ar 

‘ett e — 
silat .3 nde& — 20h 000 whe 
wiatolr ot? ab yeeegesd 36 — * — 
sivdevtaah yee oeaw yode a ait awd ora; 
ed 30 @0.nedd toe oS? Demtey ved cher ade Pas 
4 ath “Od Fait hoe ,eexpab sangy yey a * 
— ————— — 
(2 8549 §30eme ata bak God? Sadone tied 26 wientran ¢ 
Caan 8 ah Spt .ceot teewied Ast rpat 

20 Peedaude est to gattatecod’ -penottaas ath tqe 
otf Delmvpatgen vessel ocd .atlade® (Oo aot yest 8 ** 
[oe “ed? aga? orton a? con winked ‘31 , oe 


te 


a 


DLWOO OF7OL Klas off doide ta vooite Peed aT SYR tie ad 
ie 


eenltd ed? foc) # te 2 Sofaweerget 767 aie te a 


ST VELAGS) a0glig ta -sBE toend¥the te Sedma i Se eee J 


er: 

Pot Yl Se0re orem ate. tot ae -Yo-sete caine (authe *8 
tie ele .nabdateh teddo odd * 

* 25 S20) ass e a⸗ sebaw bad togtul * a4e ta —R 
— 9— 

— 

4 


A fa ofa eae etew woad st Tete pet fi 


siz: ecole aft ged Dent J wos corks * 
8) e 29% Welloa —⏑—— 3 —X ‘aah aR on 
w ote baa Belo ake Ff ot & bari ide , 09 4 patheee | 


arta.» ‘x48 @ £ Bevitecx ellaceme @ ty ti s 


whe meme ee themes Bee ft 


e 2; moe ‘ey 


raeat a208 St. cok aan Lcey 


a) 
, {ett Bhkee «ate aa 


$6 tL teoed ‘ge tot hg — E ano ah 
7 2 ry)? 


sf Yto sherds Bad - ad “hae fae ee ——— *8 


-4 
. 89% 

Bild ‘on the southeest corner of Ashland avenue and 63rd street, 
ba — wae called the *Schults Building", and known ae 

6 a avenue, situated upon lots ] to & in bleck one (1) 

a Drexel Park éubdivieion, and hereinaf spoken of ae "paroel 
Wo, a"; that by deed dated April 9, 1907, one Frederick Boldenweok 
. the same by quit-cleim deed to the defendant Carrie P, 


bults, and by quit-claim decd dated on the following day the 
















s ae wife joining in the deed, the deod reciting that she joined in 
| the conveyance for the purpose of releasing any and all right of 
Fe * and homestead, eto,; that the real ownership of said par 
Fe ek at the time of the transaction was in one or other, or both, 
el the Gefendante; that the defendants bad been married but a 

| 4 rt time, and bad been engaged in the real estate businese, the 
fondant husband attending to the outside work, and the defendant 


1 as busbend and wife or in their business relations; that 

a ry in the month of July, 1906, as the result of the conversation: 
cs etwee en the complainant and the defendant John C, chults, complain. 

ae ant agreed to purchase, end on the 23nd day of August, 1906, became 

the owner of lots 14 to 17, both inelusive, in block 4 in Daniol 

: —8* subdivision, and om the 10th day of duly, 1906, he agreed 


rr wn 


- => Aer: Cll 


24° wp to cotoqu cei Yeclened — * 


a 















* 


auS hee comeve, Bgeides *¢ , 
oge , *entbeiiet eiiades* eff bet 


ü at 2 of —— Dotactiag 


— 7 


plot dotandest age ,POCr ,@. Li" a bated 
sahonted ag¢ of Sash aha: —8R ot : 

nallet ead Bo | tak best aiatowt tip: t 
tendaetods oft OF feege? % oid, daxoveee” 
ted tioa : Apel eae ae: og at. 
; Dow yea gateapele. % peogirg tat oy a a 
videtorwo Laan off tant | .078 baeg te 


yo so one ah ear cod oarae⸗ ct sit “ne 
\ —ö 


>< % > 
ee : ‘ site Ser 
> 4 ia 
‘ ¥ Shi Blas 
’ 
. > ’ 
J 
Fs a ¢ 
7 
- 4 
* * 


t ot ta fox per 


te 


teé? gaa? 


—* 


Pig 


fan e2 @ 
: a. 
hratesgk 2a @ 
F — 2 noe adr ae 
oe dmectsiqued sae aah 
~ ees: 
Img OF 2 ae 
, es | 
‘of Te aes 
Sue g*s af 
b46 taals . 


iat gréceeie oF | 


% 


mi —J—— ae ot ‘ 


7 


ye 


2 :* 


| Pia pan arse wee os 
‘and the said Sohults ant wife of lots 


Mg ob 


4 
J 










Prey — 


— of the defendant Carrie P. 
ee  Qotober, 1906, the defondents conveyed the said lot to Hart 


oy warranty deed; th 
oe: } that said lote 13 to 


“olusive, were firet purchased by Hart, 


we . 
h : ers 


" This agreement, made on October 2, 2906, 


; " @rawn by A. G. 


e 


. $96 
Schults, and that on the 10th 


19 inclusive, were eituated 
th of 63rd etreet, on the 
‘ote 14 to 17, both im 
and efter their purchase 


‘the defendant John ©. Gobults eaid to said Bart Get ¥re. Sohultz 
i tee omnes of lot 14, and that lot 18 could be purchased at a 
low figure, snd if the gaia lote 13 to 18, both inolusive, could be 


— gontrolled jointly by both parties, it could be arranged eo that 
said lots 15 to 18 inolusive, 


13 and 14, and that they 
ook of buildings covering ei: 


on ‘Ashland aveme, @ short dietance sou 
side of Ashland sveme, that said 


ares = ™ ereotion of « >i 


oe seid lote; shat after negotiations with reference to said oon- 


— puildings, an agreement, was arrived at between the partie 


- qubstantially in accordance with the terme of a written agreement. 
after a recital of the 


_ ownership of the property end the desire 6f the parties to join ir 


- the erection of a bleck of buildings, in 
lund, erohitect, provides as follows: 


"whereas, 9814 ¥r, end re, Sobultz have agree? with 

paid Hart to to immediately deed to aid Hert said lot 13, owne 

py Mre, Sohults, by good and and sufficient warranty deed with 
art bes eed to ad 


acoordance with plans 


BED tee of title, and theeaid Mr. # 


ovogy' td money necessery to erect the foundation sod walls 
all of said lots and to place 


of 2 ssid block x buildings on 


—— it hae also been agreed between all the 
Percy — hereto * the sane and entire cost of the ereott: 
he etion of said Le short be paid ae follows, 
to-8it, ei see enirteenths @/1sthe) of the seme by said Fer 
and five thirteenth (s/13the) of the same * said wre, 
Schultz, —** the seid Hert ngrcee that upon bite to 
him by said Mre. Schultz of ive-thirteenths ( the) of 
all moneys which have eo furnished by bim to erect the 
foundation and walle of said building and pisces the seme 
under roof, and 218°, in a u —*39 the eum of thir 
two hundred ana fifty dollere | 3,260} (said eum of thirty- 
3, —*9 together with two 


two bundred and fifty ee 
#250 aiready paid, being the 4 


hundred and fifty gollere (¢ 
price between the enid Mrs. Schultz and eanid hart for the 
44 within thirty 


ohase aie of said lot 14), all to be pe 
of is completed, the said Bar 


AO abd dage of time when que To 
— 44 paeer of bullainge, re-c 






— 
- 
—3 
9 
4 > _§ e ‘tr, 
J {st > xt 
a M ea, 
fe ve bh 3 Pare 


YOR POtaATERh Sxgaty a ** 


AL etal Aice teilt ieustete bantaad. 


























Hew teoH btee of Shae uetanen o? aAot 
benade tae ed BS see! as ros Smad? ong |. #f ter to 
G0: Aeod Ol oF Bs eset dhee ode ob ade bw 


b ponee: Dives gi O22 req vide d td Bas 7 
é os “50 To temes off gc bMroite” — 
7 ates CL ete © #tie bes xt Leis, ens : 
oF | > dai g Yo weiteane oi ED tuk mitt 4 J 
* Giie enols eitopean tette sams p nee 
E00? eonted 24 bewieee bey Stoovetye ae Re (dgatht tid & 
em Titce «. % "Sie- et? atts Soae imo wa BL ¥E 
in aes ¢ st a rie eo £ a taser! fa >] tite Pag 
‘ce at A? 28 Stloeb 434 bas os = > — 
tf 199907 i oa? * 
2 * <> ,eyekt ty © stooie - Ye aottonts 
a [ = rola. .- four hy ea , Saad * * oom 
8 
—8 — — eae 20a8" |}, 
: reem lars —E Re! * x98 
we bes Boge vg Lagoe a 
M Biaewmily bas “asses Ww @: 
oo me eoea Yedom 
2 9 Breen Lod Se doolé 
~ +10@8 sehay peas. 
teed ola aed 3h) eehmeele 
ete Aas La sq - rr Gacy — a5 vast 
he BEALE Be — — 
fads Bt) Play, i? nf he Sg, “x 
. 4 rat bttcoerctas, weet 
‘ 4 | rh tau ar pe od? “wor met 4 


"44 -© Siloeds® sa ates vw 
| 'erwt ased we 40. 20 -ateoow - F 
“a Diese % iLaw bre «x ahi abane - 


f ais bus . 3008 tehewe ih 
“ reat s ub De Saud gmt = 
; g ¢ te bug bexrbaud owt Fi 

ce genet 402 LOD hme Seka al 


; cb= Slee en. spewied eohay 
Ww At ee GL Sika te aol Sy ve 


tee 
‘ SA 240@% Masia ao) Tey 


~6- 
| | ,- O0¢ 
to eaid Ure, Schulte aid lot 13 a@@ alec will deed to bes 
vn 3 — geid lot 14, wach deed for eaid —38 from said Hart to be 
i. oo cae BO to provide ae long se Me building shell remain 
end be oooupied for stores tnents, as now constructed, 
~ for the joint use of the belle ecageways and plasres 
and eteairwaye therein which are 2 ted om lots 14 and 16, it 
‘be the iat es hereto that said halle 


ention of all the per 


be for the free and common use of all eaid per tsee, 
, ten 


ts hereto, their heirs, executors, administrators, — — 
ants, and ell parties holding oF oooupying eaid pr soe 
under them or either of them, . 
*7¢ ie further agreed between all the parties hereto 
that eaid Hart ehall not 2* interest for the use of the 
to the time of the eaid buile 


money by him up 
—— a ie roof end that said John C. Sohultz shall 
* pet eaid Hart for his services im superin the 
. and ehall make no t 
gaid Hart for commissions on the purchase of s@ lete 14, 15 
16, 17 and 18, oT, OD the purchase of lots 31 and 33 in pies 
1 fn Drexel Park gubddivieion, the advancement of the money by 
and the sale of said let 
eed n ae totel remuner 


tz connected with the 





— * gaid Hart, e8 above provided for, 
» 9 them for the services of said Sebu 


ie ae, SROOtIER, of eaid buildings. 

or gery *It ie further agreed that the seid Mr, and Mrs. 

_  Gebults shell furnish to said Hert, wootiy. full statements 
in the erection of gaid building with 


J) 2:4 ef moneye 
4 are 3 duplicates all billie rendered oF peid for materiai, 
— or services on sald —— and also duplicates 
er 


’ 

of time books, showing the labor eon 60 as to keep eeaid 

Hart fully advised of the dispoei Sten and expenditures of 

money sdvanced by bim, and, that said vr, and Mre, Schultz, 

after the and vutlti svtnarveentae under root, i 

By, sb and advance five-thirteentns (5 13the) of all money 

ie er for the © etion of said bu ing, such neney® 

4 * e furnished ——— from time to 8 as the 
eg Se t-thirteenths (a/13the) 
















by 
cost of said bail ae 
oi PP, Schults, 
John C. Sobults, 
g 8. Hart." 


ce ' The decree further finde that the terme of said 

Beh “agreement were discussed and agreed Upon prior to October, 
1906, and that sence tine im duly or early in August of Shet oe 
» may pencil eketoh of it wae drawn by the seid compleinant and sub 
— matted to the defendants, which pencil eketoh was kept in their 

and then returned to Hart to be type 

agreement was finally executed, * eh 
in the winter « 


& * possession for some time 
— a eritten; that the written 
4 ‘ oy te time prior to the depagture of the complainant, 
J my 1906-1607, ee Fieriés; that the actual construction of 


i ing, hereinafter referred to as tie *part Building’, began our 
Rha wumner time and the work hed progreased to quite an extent 


the bul. 





wo 


Se see” ——3 


e@ 


4 
. 
: f 
* 4 
a r ae 
i dee i 
‘ » te 
4 * 
14 . q » 
F 
‘ i ‘en I Br 
Mt =o pnedeat 
3 8 
a » » — 
J vs Ni 
I 
o ~ - 
2 
— 





" od — ext! 
-08 S28R Sites Fae 


‘taben teanig 9 


td beonerds 


Side 


*« 
7. & o «a ye | 
— erads 
ee 
a Ve 
Sey 
2 { 
, me Oe 
als 
&..% 
e cry 
9 54 
& 10 604 
wet 
a ¥ 
L. 
4 
7. 
, a 
“aw 
4 
— 
4 
? 

































td | thereafter until the diets were a1] completed, 
. ¢ any — interruption; that at the time the written 
t wac @Xecuted it was intended, shown by the plans and 
eo: fications of the architect, to provide for the erection and 
wplet ion of a block of buildings, consisting ef etores on the 
floor, and flate and living apartmente on the second and 
hoa te that during the negotiations the parties endeavored 


— hare of the entire cost of the building, properly chargesbie to 
— different portions owned by the said defendants and the portico: 
4 a by the complainant, and arrived at the conclusion that it 
be fair to obarge 8/15the of the cost to Hart and 5/13ths 
the two defendante; that in arriving at this conclusion they 
ood a basis the plane and specifications as they existed when 
¢ agreement was entered into; that during the time Hart was ebss: 
:  Pleriaa the plane and specifications, without his being com 
lted, were changed eo ae to make al) the upper stories of the 

; an secondly ball and Masonic hall, with reception rooms, 
and at became necessery to change the interior construction 
w ¢ buliding to @ very great extent, and the cost of material 

. fom hae portion of the building situated on lots 13 and 
eased over what would heave been the cost had the 
au constructed om the originel plans; that said Hart 

mh | advieed ‘of ‘the chenges did not protest, but wees not euf~ 

40: lently well versed at the time to realize how muoh of a differ- 
$9 se an the cost might arise by reason of such Ghanges and alters- 
thon; that during the erection of the building there was also & 

a number of other alterations from the original plens, in both the 


Bits 
F 


1 and south por tions of the building, some of them being nec- 
y ) order * conn)? with the ordinances, and that these 

! fe used @ difference in the oost of the building and w 
1 EE SECO OO —— — — —— 





3 t+. Syma te Lig 
———— renal ge? —— — ih bash 

‘aE time compte! RARignt awite® : 
zie so Teiaternds od il — J— 


C2 ie wont ert tah 48 shee 










Prt’ a ican i es xe soenetoe 


» 2h, petty »at “siete sy acs  theved - Fa 
— 
wed au C Ree Ae eae cel waka 


‘ 


ea tie i —— 


J * 
a A 
— 
= 


pe. > |Lige See — 
4. @ae fS entyn tea | 

SoD pens 6 oceans: r 

iyi wiides Same wes 


a4 
>» + -. . 
“ . . ‘ 
‘ J a > is 





s 


—* 


#3 


jeg 


4 Mie 


4 
3 
pee 
oi 
uP 


— ee, 




















same running expenses thereon, and they f 
Hart ealid rents, or any portion thereof, that the said Jobn 
ae * 

x, — Schultz, ae superintendent, took entire charge of the erection of 
fe 


sured the labor therefor and had full and complete obarge ef the 


‘ 


— 


similar notes for twelve 


eh 


It was further found by the decree that after the ogm- 


“pletion of said Rert building, and up to denuary, 1908, said Jobn 


GC, Scbults and Carrie P, Sohults had charge of said building and 


eollected the rents, issues and profits : eaid building, anc paid 
rf, 
led to turn over to the 


aes building, and attended to the purchase of meterials and pro- 


and construction of said building; but contrary to 
“the terms of said agreonent, providing that ur, ant Ure, Schultz 
should furnish weekly full statements of moneys expended in the 
- areotion of waid building, with duplicates of a11 bills rendered 
"oF paid; and also duplicates {6f time books, showing the lever 
thereon; the said defendants failed to make euch statements or to 
wruon @uplicates of bills or time booke, during the progress of 
the construction of said building; that at various tines prior to 
me filing of the bill herein the said Hart requested ani demanded 
the paid A4efeniants comply with the terms of said contract, 
; reference to the eald statements, bille and payrolls; bat was 
pat off, trom tine to time, with different excuses msde by the said 
‘John C. Schulte, only a few general statements and accounts ef the 
_— progrese of the building being givens thet the said premises hereir 
pefore mentioned, situated on the corner of Ashland aveme and 63r¢ 
_ atrect, designated as *Paroel No.1," is encumbered by two trust 


"gees, executed by the eaid Carrie P,Gchults and John ©, Schulte, i 
* one to Hiram BE, Rose, trustes, to secure the promiseory notes of 


the said Carrie P, Schults and John ©. Sohults, for the sum of 
forty-five thousand dollare ($45,000), with intereet; the second 


trust deed to Arthur %. Underwood, truetec, being given to seoure, 
thousand five hundred dollare ($12,500), 


V3 


— 
Nice uly, bakes “hot a the said Carrie P. Schults had the record 





=. — 





a 


ras | : 








* X 34 
4 — 
* —* —— 
pee 
on Le? bad Cae Keke wit 10 


tet bles Ye eeids arte bea ‘ ee 


; : ¥ ie 
= 4 
Svorg .Peeusergs Staal ao 





« Tee 
. nam fo * F 
J . ss @7e av 
+> , 
7 14 SIN 
7 - som 
2 5 . © ve 
* - » % 
24 
a 
— eet a 
* . a 5 ae 4 


—— 24 
— N « 7 
. Re 
» es 


REEL a⸗ 


t nineteen (19), in bleck two (2), in Drexel Pork 


—@ubditision, being a subdivision of the meorth half of Seotion | 
Snineteen (19), Township thirty-eight (38) north, Range fourteen (14) 


| 


a eet of the Third Principal Meridian, sa§d premises being known as 
a Mo. 6335 Paulina etreet, im the City of Bricage, Cook County, 
2 ‘Illinois, and which premises will hereafter be designated as *Per- 


~ 
" 


— o@2 Bo. 2°; that by warranty deed dated Merch 12, 1908, the eaid 


‘ es 
; 


Carrie P. Schultz and Jobn ©, Sohuits, her husband, conveyed said 


* 
7*8 
ri ~ 


jenn Ho. 2 to Seite J. DeVries, subject to a mortgage to the Ash 
land Trust and Savings Bank, to secure payzent of twelve hundred ao} 
. (late ($1,200) and imterest; that the said premises known as "Parcel 
: fe. 2° are encumbered by « trust deed executed by eaid Carrie P, 
— and Jobn ¢, Scbults, to william B, MoCluer, trustee, to so- 
_ eure the promiseory notes of seid Carrie P, Schultz and John ¢, 
: ‘Sebultz, for the aggregate oum of one. thousand dollers (#1,000), one 
« mete being for two hundred dollare ($200), due in two years, and ont 
— note being for eight hundred dellare ($800), due in three yeare;ths’ 
te said Carrie P. Scbults wee aleo the owner of record of lot 
| : ., Sereatecn (17), 4m block seven (7), being a subdivieion of the sour 
4 | east quarters (1/4) of the southeast quarter (1/4) of Section eights 
| (a), fomnebip thirty-eight (38) north, Range fourteen (14), eaet 
oe of the Third Principle Meridian; aleo known ae 6242 Marehfield avez 






“ad, im tne City of Chicago, Cook County, Illinois; which last des 
4 oribed lot will hereafter be designated se "Parcel No, 3,° thet 

a Parcel Fo, 3 ie encumbered by a trust deed executed by Carrie 

an P, Schultz and John C, Schultz, her husband, to Charles A, Fakeley. 
3 a) ‘trustee, dated January 9, 1907, give® to secure the promissory 

ie notes of the eaid Carrie P,. and John C, Sohults, for the aggre 


gate eum of fifteen hundred dollere: ($2,800), due respeotiveiy 


- two hundred dollars ($200) im two yeare, three bunéred dollere 


48300) in three yeare, and one thousand dollars ($1,000) in five 


years after date, with interest; that by warranty deed, dated nae 


i i Sh said Parcel No.3 wae conveyed to Seite J. DeWriew,by 4 


1 





ee ee 


thy th acon? We, OOP ate ines ¢ = es 
viet Geet ads to — — * wey 

. * iwe cP soe. TREY tighe~ePat «i per 
alte 1S plbaities ee Bites ‘at Sh tou Leis ohh 
a OCD (dhe wee ® ye aa 


















Ac batengtiact bo teh RAe tea 2E2e’ weet esce a y J — 
* a 
? woh A Lea. —— Mets dear y 
ba 
¢ buvem ete et eee wh dud vd 


cave" 
WE ‘ 


bam 2° thet Se le oh 9) Gem boy 5 4 
v2 Ac +2 see a hed aye dret Sauk: is 
OA (CTR tee! ese bhae- 48a ead ieee ae tog 
vi SAL NAD Stee CO Be tees hepaagenre: & ye be chemin : 

BOOST! ,oeal UR BP rik (fie ee. Ae inte * ct boa 
occ de Se Cpelett. 2 eee bee Se J ———— 





at SOY etal Siete hee?’ ded te. cere » temeteeale ort, 
fie hat A tacy! ox¥ at (ones) oral fob, hey cana, ort oe ae 
BAP ieIa0T eet? w) and iene? w tlc * ip — ——— — 
fo). te Saeoes tn desedkin if 7 Os ive —— mesg ia : 
20 BOLESY ooh - 2 Bleek Le — — J wa: ' 
Serco” We (OLS orks Bac. J i & ‘ty ve 





rt = 


a: »- 


ar * iS) @ptake rom (ee: a . 
PhGMR ACY ORR o Oded osha me Fk a 
J baer gbloniist wy raee? gee Yosh te gris 

Vc ceceel” we Desetetesdcde ey tas cal 


pe sod x? tage shot bite 
nz mad emhee ee Meas Tes AP preci: + 
A ETD yehdodoh 60 ndot pant hee Bh sit 


| vE Fo: oem i OCA SE) ete l fas 2 





9 9 tree a + 7 tee 8 « + Pocaes 4 
5 ee" 
oD. Rea ok Bede es oe x aia om — 
& (lees aw ee atl ita vate ay * 
‘) a] — 


J ‘ive —* $fa2 boys wana — ‘ke 


ha Seana Naa 


Os aha 
Pe ad ei bees Mt > et a Paes el MS re 
: : a 





seid Oarrie P, Sohultc and John ©. Schults, her husband, thers 

& Teoitel in said deed that onsd eogrevanes WH RA Te 

yt to a mortgage to the Ashland Trust ‘ Savings Bank to secure 
payment of twelve hundred dollare ($4,200); that the said 
Carrie P. Sobuits s120 obtgined a deed one William &, Elidott 
to lot twenty-two (22), in block four (4), in seid Daniel Goodwin's 
gubaivision, which will hereinafter be #eferred to as “Paroel Ho. 

1) By? the sane doing conveyed to her by warranty deed dete d Augus’ 
eo, 1906, which wee filed for recerd January 15, 1907, the consid 
eration named in said deed being the eum of twenty-five hundred 4oa- 












; Aare (42,500), ant noid conveyance being subject to sn enousberance 


Edie’ thousand dollars ($2,000);that since the lest mentioned oo 


- -veyance the said trusty! dood has been foresiosed, that during the 
time when materiale ani labor were being furnished for the erection 
et aid block of buildings, on said lete thirteen (135) to Bighteen 


om both inolusive, & great meny alterations were made on the 
*parce) No.l, and alee om the 


2; that the budlding upo® 


wmaꝛaues and premises designated as 


building and premises known as Parcel No. 
Parcel No.3 wee partly destroyed by fire Gund 
and was reduilt — 


ane the time of the construction of eald building; thet « por | 


‘ . the premises Known as 
i. 3 the tine of construction of said Bart building, 


" teton of the labor and naterieis, paid for and purchased out of 
the funds furnished by aid ert wee used in waking said aitere~ 


‘tiene, and changes in Parcels Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and aome of ft Is 


‘the construction of & pudlding veing 
them, om Parcel Ho. By that ‘ap. to how. 


erected by the yang Solmlts, 


or Mre, Schults, oF both of 
much of said lebor and materiale was weed in the making of said 
Parcels Nos, 1, 2 and 4, and in the 


f . repairs and alterations on 
1 No. 5, 18 conflicting and 


construction of said puslding on Parce 


uneatisfactory, but in view of ail the evidence the gourt finds 


goat at the time wnen such alterstions, repaire and building wert 


y ‘peing pads and going on, end the purcnases of lots were being me 


by eaid John C. ond Carrie P. Schults, neither of them was finee: 


> 
¥ 


* 
7 


Phy. = 5 : 
; 





5 Alita, Se” alt he > J a — ae — 
eee, — a ja * H bn vital q bad ih Si * 5 4 
ah of ae hx . 
fost i 


~13- 
















fal y able to undertake and earry out eaid various deals and 

— — Awort the use of some of the funds of said Hart, 
ee the material and labor purchased and peid for out of hie gunde, 
Synae cone materials were taken from said/Behluts building and used 





a the ast weiddingd. arweh 
a ngs of the funde of Hart, and off Sehulte, and Ure, Sobults, | 

. gall of these ‘transactions, that it ie impracticable to : 

g them and tell just where they vent, or whose money really 
ater ‘Ante the particular alterations, repairs and buildings; 

nat : the aid John 0, Schultz, acting as the agent of ssid Bart,and 
von auting the onid firm of Schultz & Company, Siso ‘induoed the 
* | Hart to agree to purchase lote thirty-one (31) and thirty-two 
(39), 4n block one (1), Drexel Park, being a Subdivision of the 
“Gast half of the north helt of Section nineteen (19), Township 

| Madaty-oigns (36) north, Range fourteen (14), saat of the Third 


Principal Meridian; and also lots forty (40) and forty-one (42), 
north half 


< * 
— — Am dice two (2) in Hosmer & Fenn's Subdivision of the 


iar Jr 
Se ot the southwest quarter of Ssotion twenty (30), township thirty~ 


od eae (38) Berth, Range fourteen (14), east of the Third Prinoipal 
Nae ‘Meridian, ‘all im the City of Chicago, in said Cook County, Illinois 
ee ‘that in the purchase of #11 of the lots herein mentioned, as havin; 
2: " peen purchased through the aid Somults for said Hart, the waid 


‘aved® 24 






| “Hart placed absolute reliance on eid Sohultz « a1] moneys advance 


ay by ‘eaid Hart, for the purohese of said lots, were paid out 
or on hie order, eaid moneys by tha checke 
Res) 


tle and fr 


through eaid Sobults, 
of eaid Hart, being deposited by eaid Schultz, with the 


Eatate Satie and Truet Company, and with the Chicago Ti 
the payment for eaid lo 


8* > 


Company, for the purpose of being used is 
: that the eai4 Hart deposited with said coupany, oF Companies, OF 
—J asoount of the purchases of said lot thirtyeone (31), ninetocon 


$1,905), and on account of lot thirty~ 


are ($2,000); om account of lots fours 


| ‘hundred and five dollars ( 
See (38), two thousand doll 


— teen | Ga) + to seventeen (17), inclusive, block four (4), Dretei 2 


eae * 









-— ee 2 


⁊ 


~~ ——— 


ee — — 


Fie ius a? — 


— 


i. — 


J av % Gi ios i: sites ee 














=O GRY Fe — 


- 
- 


aut thee 
ikecet ee: Agu tree Bete bias a 


me. 4 eel tet te end FS a 2 — 
PE CoP ESI AY: aloe ein be ‘Gg ¢y Pris 


alot sad fexent .t% ) ae — 
(sees [eo Uied Gia ene te $i 
os) seatamed egeat ,seepa (Seb idee 
~) tet adel egig bee, jase: ny 
pin Brkbdid xx", & soviet eu ta 
Eos 2 * 7 “eas 


ae 9 —— me 


Zi .tea 3 7 
a i 7 
‘gg k ocr t6.0t 


E cui a tt ipie 2 

o Paes ex “rhonda I 

: , ‘eage- 4 wie 
bt ie — 

ef oad ——— ie tani Be bhae 

ribbed cence Mian Nay —— * 
rind te amie exis wt we 


“Laogel 
Baer. Rew ed 


> 


; 


ae sh 4658 ve ie 
fechooks cfsL5 wee siee ce | * 


- 





13 


ie ; * 9 
if — 
— twelve thousand six hundred and fifty doliare ($12,650); 


Pe - 98 aoeount ef lot eighteen (18), block four (4), Drexel Park, 


mty-four hundred dollare (#2,400); an@ on account of lots 

. (41) and fortyetwo (42), one ($1,000); that 
, 1% _of.the moneye so deposited on ace of lot thirtyeons (31), 
* thousand three hundred and thirty dollere ($2,330) wae paid 







84) was paid to Carrie P,gohultz, and ten hundred 
and sixteen cente ($1,043.26) to John C. Schultz; the 


— "08 account of lote fourteen (14) to seventeon fe, blook four 
Ds , in Goodwin's Subdivision, was paid out by cheok to one 
iseman, the onney of said lots; out of the twenty-four hundred 
Lies (99,400), #0 deposited on account of lot eighteen (18), 
J “one , Drexel Park, seven hundred and fifty dollare §750) 


bi paid te John 0, Schults, one hundred and fifty doliare ($150) 










the — of eaid lot, J, 3, MoGinty; out of the moneys deposited 
8 — of said lots forty(40) and fortywone (41), the owner 
onived nine hundred dollars ($900), a real eetate broker named 
Camp one hundred dollars (#100), and one Dan Omen, who seems 
ae “te ave had something to do with this sale, in connsetion with 
; the said Campbeli, fifty dollars ($50); that ae to lot thirty-one 
(32), · contract for ite purchase was made in the name of Carrie 
ie Sehults, a short time prior to the time when Hart deposited 
4 anid nineteen hundred and five dollare ($1,905), for tne purchase 


ie 
J— 


3 ' of eaid lot thirty-one (31), and a deposit of twenty dolisre 
oon (#.80) paid to the owner, Mr. Doyle; but the lot was turned cvrer 







‘ — ents out as above stated, The said Hart bad me, 


































that Mr. and Mrs. Schults, or either of thea, bad any 


in paid lot; that as to lot thirty-two (33), one Morkbam, 


2 piesa te eell the same to @ Mr. Being thet on May 2, 1906, 

t of Bain's interest fn lot ty-two (33) wes mads 

Finger, and that lot conveyed to said Winger; that on or about 

: 7 * 1906, Mre, Sclults purchased Wr. Bein's interest, under 

seid in let thirty-three (33) and ceposited fifty dollars 
20) 0 the coatract price, twenty-one hundred dollars ($2,109), 

won wewper her and Bain; that om Auguet 14th, Mrs. Schults 

— oheok for nine hundred ana six dollare and eighty-four 


« “(08 94) to Bain, on account of this purchase, and on 
od and fifty- 


eal Estate 






Augu . 18th ehe reosived the esid check for nine hundr 
dollare ant eighty-four cents (#956, 84) from said ® 
e and Trust: Company, September 6, 1906, ‘geid John ©, Schulte 

eaid check for ten the thousand and forty-turee dollars and 

B cente | (92,043,16)5 te that Mr. Sotults testified he used this 
and forty-three dollars and eixteen cents ($2,043.36) 
ne Hart building, not being able at that time to get a deed 

5 the owner of let thirty-three (33), and it appeare that when 
@ decd wae ready for delivery, the balance due not being forth- 
refused to deliver the deed and it is 


: the owner$s agents 
3 that Mr. Hart 


ae een bela awaiting the payment of said balance 
nes j never received anything for the money advanced by him to pur- 
iis “ghase « eaid lot thirty-two (52); that ae to lot eignteen — 1 block 
— on 9 (2), 42 tn Drexel Perk, the original owner was one MoGinty, * 

J — to duly 10, 1906, authorized a real estate agent, Mr. 

’ ‘to geil for fifteen hundred dollars ($2, 500); that a oom 
* entered into about duly 10th, in the name of Mire. 

sits, to purchase thie lot for seventeen hundred dollers— 

ee ‘ene hundred dollars (#100) being deposited, whien con! 
—— to Mre. Kramer; that in the final 





* ee Pe a fa ee 
é a Oe Nee Nea”) Teas © NE eae OM — data wit — Ope | 
Bee ta Nae RED Ly ‘ 5\) i ‘a 4 — — 4 —53 




























e4 and —— 
7 ), payabde to Mabie, on of this lot fs 
i. fon, was endoreed by hia and then Rioreed by Mr, Sohultz, 

petted in her account, and finally two cheoke of irs, ie 
ons for one bundr o4 and f4fty dollars ($250) and one for 
| red dollare ($600), were paid to a re, Kramer; that ur. 
— teotifies that he Teprevented Mrs. Kramer, who had the 
aot, and that seven hundred and fifty dollare (#750) was 
to her; that aid Hart hae received Gbeds of conveyance to 
* the lets so Agreed to be purchased by him, sxcept as to lot 
— (38), for which lot he hae never received any deed; that 
ne e are Ble0 some abstracts and title papers belonging to the 
wash ‘ im the possession of said Schulte and Company, or one 

Ht then, which he has been unable to obtain, 
— The deoree then makes findinge with reepect to trang 
3 sot we with one John Piechezak, the father of ure, Schulte and 
> 1; Oe of the defendants in this prooseding, which, in view 
of the recog, it 14 not necessary to state, 
: The decrees then Proceeds to find that the said John 
MOE repeatedly accured the said Hart that the title te anid 
it toon (13) was olear in Carrie P. Schultz, there being no 
rum prance thereoa, and that a guarantee policy of tities had been 
we | om said lot thirteen (13), but that the same had been mish 
* and that euch policy wae never delivered to said Hart. 
12 Ys fhe ‘eeid Hart caused en abstract of title to said lot 
on (13) to be made, at a cost of $73, and it was ascertained 
that | said lot thirteen (13), was encumbered by a truet deed dated 
Fer y 8, 1906, executed by Carrie P. Bchults and husband, to 
. on | ilies, trustee, and given to secure the note of enid Carrie 


— at six per sent per annum, payable eeni-anmue) Lys 


Re Sohultz, for the sum of #1, 000, due three yeare after | 


& 


| 


Bt ate shes * 14 lee ees .\) ooo t 





— 


eS 


— * 


eo, |e 


em Ww As 


4 


ver — eno 


jaets a Sand 44 pay ho! 


‘- 







— 


—V —— 24* Ca D het ¥ ee « * 
tne verted ashe Re ious & 


— Se Pegehea. ae a eal ot pet « vi 
ot beg entae samt: Baa i id hs ei 


sae oo ek <208E See oa xderu — v 


©? #nar° 


ac 
Oh, oa 
_. 1 
 2¢ 
’ 
ae 


ntaheieos erage, OS oes 






























ud ont et rackt ak gubeote: * 9 
aye 
5 2RF waste vase é ee % 


uant 298 4 3F biedhroatt —J 


x 
* 


—— sus 


e2905 Devieort sad teat blae 


eenar As 


gars (etd qe ReentoteG 22007 Spree cee te F 


— ead ed Ter selce ot” 
bce sinettede *iet 
ttegoe Bhan i coleniaeag —J 
eaderda ¢? plang, need —* eth 

) vig étaibeth eee At metaat — 
se Se 6— 
as ame of fan — tale “a 
one e@ of Soe aS bh eS 
» ship dee ae dee, aR ea cae 
at? 24 tar J ———2—— 


yo ee BOs One's 


sah hse pee (sth "9a 


Jats cig poet 


+ PR Bae 

’ veut Se 4, CE) Skee ci? Fee — 

4 oe Pips tpt —* ov 

eutods cquikemiéa: Pam —* . 
: ara 
oe , B09 ee Pelee sat t 
i i x ht 17 RbED — 

i > — — ——— 


—— — fee a" 


—— 


a tls — ta Bes wee 


















uae. tae terms of said agrecnent, bearing date Octeber 2, 1906; 

— ⸗ to their weeting the complaingmt, neither of the ds- 
pdants nor the firm of Schults & Co, was finaticlally able to 
oat the various real estate deale into which they entered 


Be: 
* own account; that thay derived some income from the rents 


. er - the Redes expenditures made by them; that the funds gesetven 
"fron Hart were used by the defendants, individually or ae members 
‘thse of Sohults 4 oo., indiseriminstely, in the construction 


a sce om the different portions of the building; that the funde ao 
: | oc 1 by Hart were mingled with the funds of the defendants or 
| iz said fire; that no proper accounte were kept hy thea, or if 


Y * the funds so advanced, and were ynable to furateh the 
| t with information such as would enable him to have sat- 
sfao ory accounts prepared; that for months prior to the filing 

Zz * be ill complainant wae endeavoring to get some sort of account 


* las bille or statements and receipts were produced and sub- 
e4 to an secountant connected with the complainant, it wae im 
; le to arrive at any accurate settlement of their accounts 3 


oe ate 
ii tts lg is ne eae 
4 ‘rae a) 4" Ped 


= 4 


~~ 
« 3 
‘ 
* 
z 
i” a33449 
1 
1. 





| 


— ⸗ 


—— 





i #1 7~ 

OR aes 

my ’ he wae unable himself to account for all of the money® which 
, had been advagced to him by enid Hartéend that in bie Gespere~ 
see he bad prepared eid pay rolle amd time books to aid him 
ai a? an his difficultics; thet during the progress of the hearing 
doetore⸗ the court the said defendants produced an imeenes number 


ef statements, bills and receipts, and also produced some bank 
produce 










Bi . dooke and chedks and etube of ghecks, but they failed to 


>) any accurate Books of account, and failed to produce @ large pum 


ef other bank booke, checks and stubs, claiming that they bad be: 


© § lest or destroyed; that it was impossible, 


ae, — 
pee eee WP ORY eatisfactory or sccurste detailed account as Between 


from the evidence, to 


9 A 84 the parties, from the bille produced by the defendant Schulte; 


fy) eee, Saat Mee. Sohults did not have pereonal knowledge of the esact 


— 
aq tuataon at any time and most of the srong doings of Mr. Sebult 


were done without her knowledge oF of least without a true sppr' 
— tion of what wes going om, ahe acting under his dictation, a6 @ 
aband, as she Fas, and having © 


bode 2 but being seacciated with ber be 

) — ed the aifferent funde of Mr. Hart and Mr, Schultz and hexeelf 
| : is f be ao intermingled, she must suffer the consequences and settie 
cer ees SECRES and differences with ber husbandt end partnexgthat © 


gata defendants, Joba 0, Sobults enc Carrie P. Schulte, axe 


[ . 

Wea oR trustees and the moneys advanced by the sei 
tt iw 6 & aguct fund, to be accounted for by eaid defendants, +9 th 
required to account, that Fart ab 


6 Hart should be — 


— same wanner a6 trustecs are 
F z ak be oredited with all moneys eo advenced by him, both on accew 
J——— v0d building and on account of purchase of lots, end the 
defendants be charged with the same, and given eredit Tor onl 


9* -_- . ms ee have been expended for the benefat of eaid Hart, usde 


238 % 

aee the terme of eaid agreement and in accordance with the under 

Bie tt » standing and agreements bed between the parties with refeten 
aor the purchase of said lots, eaid defendante, however, omy to 


entitied to & eredit for the moneye actuelly received bY the 
lots go purchased 


and for the Legitimate exzpd 






é 





, * 


— 


we 


- 


si igcten 





*2 bbe 


































i? te ’. ncaa or @ither of then, have ‘not pron 
ofent — eficenpe to show, shat the actual FS 
of @ Bart budleing was, and have etated that they —— 
* er evidence to’ produces that in absence of compet ee 
°, to ahow the actual aoet of said | ¢ building, on Se 
had fendent, Schultz, the véiet evidence ae to the — of — 
—— ds ie a in the detailed etatoment or — va 

by complainant as Exhibit No. 120; that the figures a 


ag hirteantte and eight-thirteenthe mentioned in said — 











aaa of eaid building, ‘mn are to be used in the nooun ting 
the parties, eight-thirteenthe (8/13the) of svob cost 


) charged to said complainant, Hart, and five-thirteenths 
be) to be ‘oharged to said defendants, John C. Schult and 


git * Sobultz, of bie or their respective portions, that 
pe waived his right to have seid premises constructed in 


4 * 

oor danc with the original plane and specifications, that in 
-et the amcunte to be charged to the defendant, Schultz, 
, ae -the Hart ovuilding 


re * and pntsl August 22, 1907, at which time enough money 
on advanced by tbe complainant, Hart, to the said John 


Lite, to pay for the building, the fracticns five 


athe are to be veed, charging the sere to the defendants, 


and sight-thirteenthe to the complainant, herein, a6 the. 


t thee obtained approzinetee “the total amount chergesble to 


ade se and aggregetee the entire coat of tne Hart building 


unas that the north portion of the building known Se the 


| building, containing halle, cost, when completed, 
which amount should 


ezolueive. 


f busier! profit, the eum of $31,962.49, 


ha: rged vo the defendants, Jobn ©. schultz ané Carrie P. Schulte 


containing the flate, coset, 


sue south por tion of the building, 
the sum of $53,190.07 


nleted, exolustvs of builders! — 


~~) ed tek eas — 

— Oo ee 

— > » 
- gt el 


> — ——— 


> ee et tk ke 


— 
bow 


Fy 





co ap Sen 


— 


— — 


| May ae 1907, when the Bart building bs under roof, the oom 
pis nine int bed advanoed to the defendant, ohn C. Schults, the eum 
a of $47,200 on account of said ee @ within thirty days 
2a May 1, 1907, under the terms of the agreement herein set 
the defendants, Jobn ©. Bobultz and Carrie P, Somuilte, were 



















$f repay 6/lsths of said sum to sai compleinant; that from May 1, 
3907, $o Auguet 28,1807, the complainant had advanced to the said 
»: ant John C.@@bults the tote) eum of $#4,200, which sum is 
ar in excess of the smount required to complete the Fart 

: that from August 30, 1907, to December 20, 1907, inolu- 


| * , the guaplainast advances more than $14,000, the exact 
@ being detailed with the cates of euch advancements to 


- voces 


| mate John C.6@Rmits, upon representations by him to the com 

Bent that the said cume were necessary to pay for lumber and 
ae lal in the eaid Hart building, that subd subsequently thereto, in 
—* ores te prevent mechanios' liens being filed againet said premives 


* to pay for materiel and luaber which went inte the said Hart 
so advanced 


_ the complainant advanced certein sums, and al 
gume of money to pay for necessary furniebinge for the halle 
ant the north portion of eaid Bart building, end for an sleotrio fe 
hie ⸗— wae in eaié halle, etc.; that the amount to be charged to the 

s 4 Setentante on account of their portion of the building 4s ¢31.982. 
_ that evidence wae taken before the master with reference to ali m 


Lane hereinbefore set forth. 


e The decree then recites the deduction to be made fro 


the ancunts allowed by the master, and sete forth the finel order 


r — ‘etated im thie opinion. 
The documents filed ae priefs 
They comeiat of printed argue 


by the eppellants co ® 


gee with Rule 1 of this court. 


into which axe injected th 
the conetruction placed wy 


nithe facta of the case, e views of of 


> upen tt the ——* savaneed that 





; 
> 
® 
5 
1% iu 
v 
1 Xe 4 
2 : & ; 
e — — 
— 
~ “a 
oF f ¢ Teiyecla exe, ee Bi4e —* 
4 : 
t ‘iy / m : . 14 = 14 re) od 
: ye ree Ce ke Ries: 
J 
* 


we Cie tes Be tat de — — 


* 
J— ————— Me 
. 44 
Pe AAR PR ae RS ee ae d20 Me 
— 
* eux 
Dam ip 
~ 
} wou. * orcs J 
osha 
4 toting P pt 





t 
— 
*F 
— 
+ 
— 
* 
* 
* 
“> 
A. 
— 


* 
Fe 
* 
+, 


i 
5 
— 
. 
SS 
iat 




























t * J jy ‘tne master 4 chaneslior is erroneous, The 
! counsel ié not las a by the citation of any ro 


04 as the case, Counsel for eppel be have filed « brief 
* | | akties impoved by law upon trust bs, and upon the 
saietion, once obtained, of, courte of ity to do complete 
ioe between the parties, aleo upon questions of evidence 

or attempted to be raieeé¢, in the case. No reply briefs 
se ‘fiied by the appellants. 

| After careful consideretion of a]1 the acetgnmente ot 





ip Ze0t pas —— vy the esormous record which has been filed, 
. * ve peaches the conclusion that no error bas been alleged by 


It is suggested by — for the apreliant Carrie 
4 at⸗ that the decree is erronsous in that it does not pro& 
q ) y that if the appellant pay her share ef the cost of the Bart 
the — apt shall convey to her lots thirteen and 
ete. WBe came point ie aleo made by counsel for , 
pliant John C, Sobults, Counsel for the appelise admit 


in a provision in the decree would have been proper, vut 


‘ om that by the terme of the 
gixty daye after the entry of 


deoree the payment of the amount 
the decree would necessarily 


we required a reconveyance to Mte. Sohults, When the cace is 
fore the Cirevit Court the decree, 18 this regard, may be 


sea, if mob 4 modification ie etili desired. 
appellee are based upen 
decree 


Crose-errore filed by the 


propositions: firet, that the court erred is rendering 


hd appellee texing hin with one-belf of 
rtain oredite or reductions wede in 


the coste; second, 


e court erred in ce 


items found tn the master’ 
| cae — seoree dion iesing the caus 


a findings; end third, that the 
2 ae to certain 


* 








. 









































@etate described. © wv O12 
: (With refeferce to the ** two items mentioned, 
bh bare tO do nore sont agatae ‘wath questions of fact, we 
| —— boen dons) the appedie 
: a reading of Nhe record 
been avoided if appellants 
Sleeriy ‘sattled principles 
no soceunting, and were ep- 
Is were confessedly *padded" 
appeltes; ttey neglected to produce the 
| “@ibduteemente, an? refused to produce the 


F — —A 959 HANG UE COVES An paynoat ‘ot 


lpi — iSelect SGN Gan OY am ticing.. watch ohpopt⸗ 
. — —— ue enresta 
nef the appellee, whe At the time the traneactions were 
oa me sare Te a sm. a, ts 

“ta 3865, for Loft i — 8 ali the costa, of tbe pro- 
‘ should tiave been taxed against the appellants, The de- 
ee» Biive ont afore be At — er gg Be... +4. tha payment, of cost 
: —— — sist oe imasrrotigna to the Sirevit, Court toe 
Bee ae Sere Oe of, SPAR 


PS ati be taxed to appellants. 


4 — erent of Pitan: wee ———— J— 


tae tee * — nctor ah OA ATG ei enue * 


Vr 





—* * 


ene te 6 he dite abe of She fefewitapte, 42 “h 105 vat 
yy sy be 
Phe teu * re a 4 re of O82 Setanet of the fel etiernte te ‘hy 
> aa P thy <#! 

— Met eer Ce thom. 44 tha AtisaS andi, Be. Yh 


WLS B county Saw iiss Dagt of Ogiwelee ts Me wie, — 
* Fae aS * By Kate ie Re a Ue ees RR I ee ee 
a — oy the met gabe Wo tare w One ek, A, ivcey, © ah hee 


MBLA 
ess. R— 
pe 2 ine — Gown ty athe say on oie tee 


a re “the * * —J. wif. weet Ve ee | ee 
* —*— 


Ty a ——— 


pe Roe date, free 4% agen goto. Wan Gah 


— a ere « 25, J or a) = 3 
* * SOR > Leet 
.= = — ee 
ee al 7, % ⸗ 
J 
£ Pay, nN 
* ac 
7 si 3 J 
J ‘ * 
“+ » 
ot J— 
J 
J a 
J 
— 
f 














ot ath ie nee: Ser SS te Lori i FG 


s} to punt Pepa PT eh ie oleae: — iy eh 
*s we fhcet A were as TARR pthes —— — 
— a See care need pred Liees Wied duet? 2 eee Ae thet 
Baie tedris’: BAgs Cepele Fea cory ee 300 aera: & ta | 
etn mig, gil i:ctestd ge les Oa A een eae grletevag: ® 
Fa: ag? yPhecaewee ocew db emeg SRP ee ee ae preeer an 
cS irs ert ® what Wed? (elie —— be 
Bl neetguy <r ae oS ee eee ou rote 2 cen 
es * ha wren t sevty Webs Ged satan od sda ge 

* iste poli (ot sd ep coher ta ee — 


y ugh eed ead eelted, — eri ovbalys # 





elas was - Sx Bpatig ths 200: tees? Jaeeyas teeke doarwd § ; 
pe ‘ 
‘ote * bial 7a Sec’ . niet 2° go. } Say Oe seo. Cage va? te 
#39 Yo oumey: ot 39 abaaey one — 

* onl 
eh ay * SS .ty wrt e :* Att, — ed? — S54 gt - i ny ay 

ae) . F * 
ab. sk eisailequs’<c! teftlega Senne aeed “eyed Boge & 


Sa 2 xs ⸗ eg |. £8. 2500 wee ewtite of es wojeneds coke 

tac. e iteak.s ‘se —XR —J edt 
| a 
| : ; pefarthat toeqgees veh wt a2 5 
. ; * 


craellegge of bezad ad jise@ : 


rs = 
| a 
. 
—* * + ante { 
.. 5 ; 
is ees 
* 7 aaa te rie Zz 


<= 


6718510 







LOUISA COUNTY SAVINGS RANK, jf 
a corp., Defendant in Erxor, 

© # RRROR TO KUNICIPAL 
vs. 


JOHN CLANEY and ¥. FP, DICKINSO, 
Phaintif—s ig Error, 


COURT OF CRICAGO, 


% 
4, 


\ 


3, 


MPF, JUSTICE CLARE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 


Suit wes brought by the plaintiff (d4efendamt in error) 
against the defendente (plaintiffs in error) upon 2 promissory 
note given by the defendante to "FF, A. Lacey, Cashier or order, 
at the Louiea County @avings Bank, Columbus Junction, Ia.," Nove 
ember 18, 1909, for #3, 900, There appeared on the note the @n- 
dorsement, "Pay Firet National Bank Chicago, 112. or order (21) 
prior reetrictive endorserents gusranteed) Apr. 5, 1°11, Louisa 
County Wetional Bank, Columbua Junction, Ia., F. F. Lacey, Cashier,*® 
and aleo an endorsement showing that #500 “as peid on the principal 
July 190, 1911. 

A statement of claim wag filed, to which wae atteched 
&@ copy of the note, ith endoragmants ee above set forth, An affi- 
davit of defense wae filed by one of the defendants, in which it 
wae stated that the nature of the defense of the defendante to the 
suit was "that it eppears thet the euit was instituted by the 
Louisa County Savinge Benk of Colurmbue Junction, Iowa, when a2 @ 
matter of fact ae shown by Exhibit A filed herein, that the note in 
suit was given by the defeniante herein to one E, A. Lacey, Cashier 
or order at the Louisa County Savings Benk of Columbus Junction, 


Iowa for the sum of $3000 with interest eat seven per cent (7%) 


per annum from date, and it further appears that Exhibit A ae to 


-ODAQTHD ao TAUOD 














rauoo BHT XO MOIHISO. aur — 9 Aso MOErS 
4 (sox26 at sanbaerod) item ate ods we saquord 3 aay — 
raoes aora 3 now (tots me stRbyatata) stnatae led § a⸗ 
A⸗ohao 10 — — “tea * “1 of emusnaeisn ot ya tn 
=von *, al nob ont —D As · a wpatye? aye? F 
18 edt eron ods “0 he raeqis exedt 000,28 101 wir 81 
Ske) e020 te {iI oa⸗aot ao ined taaot⸗ att tert cast “3 90 
ao tuod tat 2 err (beoanatacy atavmeerobae evi telat 
— steoe] A. | * — — —E “ne Sos 
| ceqtontsg od? a0 bing ase o0a8 stadt “gatworts tnemesxebae a3 3 
. — 
deadaraa ea aot an of deft? enw alalo Yo tnenstets Ware 
«ie aA As ⁊o⸗ tee erode ea efnymes tobas ajte qotes edt 


tt dokdw at ⸗aetas te edt to eno a fort? san came sb | 


tod 


ed? of einabse ten edt Yo eaneted og to ows an oat rade bed 
edt yd hotut tant naw thus ots saat ar⸗a a pao 


| Ros 


8 sa tedy ero! ol toast eudast oo Y Avo spalva tht 
at efon es3 tad? " glerxed bert A Aa aa ꝛ swore 


65) tne 1$q eves te — —— Atte coos * — —— 
La ate | ie. * ety — * SNE X 

Of es Mdxx⸗a tad? stecqee — tt bas tab wor? aunne be : 
— — 


the endorsements on esid note that the same was made payable to 
the First National Benk of Chicago, Illinois, by the Louies County 
National Pank of Columbue Junction, Iowa, ©. R. Lacey, Cashier." 

By permiesion of the court, am 2mendment to the state- 
ment of claim wae filed, but not esrorn to, striking out of the 
copy of the instrument sued on and attached to the statement of 
Glaim, all matter appearing under the heading "Fndoreements,”" and 
inserting in lieu thereof the following: ". ©. Lacey, Cashier, 
July 10th, 1911, paid om Prin, #500.00 f. R. Lacey, Cashier." 

The dsfendente were given by order of court three deya in which 

to file an affidavit of merits, Thereafter an motion of the de- 
fendants it wae ordered that the affidavit of merite filed to the 
original statement stand ae to the amended statement of claim here- 
in. Thereupon the court, on motion of the plaintiff, atruck the 
defenianta' affidavit of merits from the files, and made a finding 
upon which judgment was entered in favor of ths pleintiff and 
against the defendants in the sum of %2,943.46,. 

The record shows that o demand for a jury yas made by 
the defendants at the time of the filing of their appearance. In 
the "Statement of Facts" signed by the trisi judge the foregoing 
facts were recited, and the further fact that a witness testified 
that he had eslcoulated the amount of the principal and interest, 
and found the eum to be ae set forth in the finding; that the de- 
fendants declined to introduce any evidense; "that a correct ato te- 
ment of the facts found by the court i¢ ee foliows: let, that seid 
note as shown in the original statement of clisim wae executed by 
the defendants ond eandoreed se appears in the original statement 
of claim as amended; 2nd, thet the amount of principal ani interest 
unpaid on said note is Teenty-nine Fundred Forty-three and 26/100 
($2943.26) Pollare." The court further in the atatement csrtifies 
thet the queetionsof law involved are, let, whether the defendants 
were entitied to a jury triel; 2nd, whether the plaintiff wae the 


owner of esid promissory note end the person entitled to maintain 





























J —— 


3 — tS 
— 


gt eldeysq ed an saw oman eff tags eton dias — 

eauo) aaivel ode yd ,elentifl ,csaeld? to dned Lanoksak 3 

*,reidee> ,yoos! .2 .3 ,avol ,mottonul audmulod to faa 

aot pin, edt of ‘qmonbague a& .ftyoo edg to asolegimieg 8 

ef? Yo fuo gakvftte ot atovs You tud .bolti sar mbelo 2 

to taemetate edi of —— bas 8* beve:: sasmundent: — 

one " eteemsetohat" anibaed ode sebaw patzs0cqqs setdan tf 

<Tetdeed: «vooed ai .2° Gguneasigh 94 edt Yooreds, wont at 

* aekdesd woos! .& .3) O0.apati aie mor Bk tet , 

doidw at eyah eemdt t1u00 Yo rebto Ye sevig oxew ef 

-sb od? Yo motion am xsfleetedT .ettrtes Yo tivabtite ane 

ed? of Deft? ethzem, to thvsbtits edd tedt bexebso wow tts: : 
* miele to tnemesete bebueas ed? of 84 ——— 

eae dourde Aet dat ·ta eas to nokton mo #100 ed? 


Thge Ak — ue ., 
paltalt? ° eben neo xu eds nor? est ren * ——— 


al 


baw mealata edt 0 xovet al bexesne ose snomabut 


—* 2a 


12th 


—* 


eat: 


. Bb Ede aE to awe odd mi einetne ted wnt 
{ eben saw yxut @ . bnomeh # todd erode brooet ot? * Si 


ai" ae i " 
al eomataeycé sted? %o paket ed? to ont? edd tn nabs b 
— ola saeme 
gatogez02 edt epbul, faix edt ud bempte *etoet 20 ‘taeneds * 

fet i ay i 4 
‘belilsee? asentix « tedt tost rodd xy? ous bas vbetioes one 


Asa gq 


.teetetal one fagkont xq ed? Yo eauons ‘ede nebakuntne 
~ob edd tads jgnthatt ed? al dso? tee on od of aue edd ; 


« 


-@teta soettoo 2 fads” penmebdve we eoudorsat et bealloeb s 


ba ho 


biee fadt .sf  rereffet wa et fxuc0 edt ww bauo? etoat edt * 
oF) 


Yd betwoexe sav miaio to taemetots fentgt r0 ods ai goods os 

A Feet 

tnemetaia feniotxe edt? ot es1seqqEe 84 hesrobae base etashasd 

2° epee 

teetetat base [eqlonitq Yo tavome edd tad? .bn® jbebuews os atsio 

) Ls sof 
| QOOL\8R bus serdt-ys104F bezbauit esia~_ taunt al ston di⸗· capbhaqay 


gettiizeo tnemetotes edt at met Ee siyoo oT) * erat (oa (oe. — 6 
— gar. 
etanhaeteh edd tedted« ,tel .ere beviovat val rooms tesup edt sad? 


shh se. 
od? eaw ViLintaia ed? tedeedw .Sa8 A⸗ta⸗ — 4 of versione exer 


a 
‘ 


(ft. 267 —* 
ateaatan of balse bene moe19q ed? baa esos | ross tong ‘hae Yo teatro 
Oty oot sgaae Teg 


; 
J 
he Te ee 


ages 


aaid action thereon, And the decisions of the court upon said 
Questions were, ist, thet the defendants vers not entitied to a 
jury triai in said c#use, and, 2nd, that the plaintiff was the 
owner of the promissory note in the guit and the person entitled 
to maintain a suit thereon. 

The plaintiff being the legal holder of the note, the 
endorsements, indicating that the nots had been sent to Chicago for 
collection, should have been disregarded, «se they were by the triel 
court. 

The right of @ jury triel, the sare having been demand- 
ea by the defendants at the time of antering their appearance, seens 
to be 9 matter of some doubt in view of the Gecisicna. Ite denial 
has been held to be reversible error. Koch v. Pickingen, 152 Ill. 
App. 413; Eberhart v. Foster, 165 id, 175, ‘here, #@ in the present 
case, the court, under the evidence in the case, would have been 
obliged to direct the jury te find e verdict for the plaintiff, in 
exaot accord with the finding made by the court, the failure to call 
a jury has been held not to be reversible error, the ides being 
thet if the action wae erroneous the error was harmless. Second 
NWetional Bank of Saginaw v. Claney, 178 Til. App.427. The deci- 
sion last referred to is the latest of which “e have cognizance, 
end a8 a writ of certiorari wae denied by the Supreme Court, and 
the opinion thus made final, we desm it deciaiva of the point at 
issue. The judgment will be affirmed. 

AFFIRMED. 


é 
-t- 




















‘Blse mogs t1u0o edt to emoletoed edd baa ——— ste 

8 of Beltitas fon erew etnshaeted edt tady .fel eter 

edt wow WWiiatalq eid Fed? (dee {daw (weweo bias F 

beltiine noereg edt Sas sive edt ‘ot — ed? 

mivitte ef wee  noeted? ffte ws 

edt ,eton edt to tebfod fegel edt gated Itt¢dPely ‘ott © 

10% opeotdd oF Ynee aged bad eton edd ‘tede gatteottal let 

felis edt yd exer _ ae — xual ~~ ‘biuode a 

; Ott! wlio Ree. Srey 

bance eed Bilved emee od? [ett yrwt 2 Te tagiy oat 2ebat nt 
ances .sonetseqis thedt gutisdae Yo emtt ede + 9 

{stned of1 .emotetoed edt to wely mt s¢dvod esos to t | 

011 S8f \sonatdott .¥ dood Jsdrte eldtevevet —— 
saseesq ‘ed? nt es (ered ef bi BBL \xeteot .v a⸗uxsc 

α WOE eames 264 ak eineive ede tite, oy eit 

ei ,Yetedtisty ett 10% tormrer's Raly ve yup ede seeenD GEM 

{Lao ot eruiist edt .#tyoo edt yd ebim Smita? of? usiv 

| gated sebt edt rorre sfdterever of Of fom Died need aad 

‘ baooe8 .eeelmted saw 1011s ey euoenotie aew mottos edt UE $i 

-foeh edT © .TS2.qqyA .LfT BTL .yenatd Jv wectgea® Yo sned ts ror? 

.eomasingoo evad ex dotdw lo teeta! odd st of berreter ° 

bas .fivod smemqu® eft (dt betned saw ftstottze0 to tite 

te tatoq edt Yo evistoebh %: meeb ev fant? eben aud? o 

.bemtitte ed ffiw — war’ 


* BA) 
« em os 


—— 


. TIMAT TEA 


ri 
of be. tisae inten 


btae —— sewed. 


if 


a ee —eeE-,S,,srié‘—swrrmOw 
4 
4. 


145 * 
——— 


October Term, 1911, No? 


67 ~ 17586. 







THOMAS PISER ' 
Plaintiff in Error, 
ERROR TO 


ve. 
MUNICIPAL SCURT 
SEROTA and GANS, doing busi 
as SEROTA & GANS, AMERICAN BADGE OF CHICAGO. 


COMPANY, a corporation, FRANK 
SMITH, A. L. MENDELSON and/ MAX 


TET Wetnslinte 1 
ez er B 
qv 


enn 


UR. PRESIDING JUSTICE GRAVES 
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 


The following statement of fasts made by the 
attorney for plaintiff in error ia adopted by defendant in 


error: 


"This is an action in agsumpait upon the following 
promissory note: 


‘Chicago, Tillis. Aug. 18th 12904. 
Six months after date we promise to pay to the 
order Of A. Le MEndelgonescessenesesese es Gd00.00 
Five Hundred and no/id0 Dollars 
at 157 Fifth Ave, Chicago Tiles, 
Value received 6% interest per annum. 
SEROTA & GANS, ! 


(Above note atamped on face aa follows): 


'Protested for non-payment. Chicago, Tillis, 
February 14, 1905. 
MARTIN MUSSING, Notery Public.' 


and endorsed on back thereof as followe: 


‘Anerican Badge Co. 
Prank A, Smith, Pres, 
A. L. Mendelson. 

Max Gutkowsky.' 


"The court permitted the defendant, Frank A. Smith, the 
president of the defendant American Badge Company, a corpora- 
tion, to testify that «t the time of the making of the en— 
dorsements he had no intention and did not attempt to indorse 
the note as an individual. The note was never paid. 

"It wae not denied upon the hearing that the plaintiff 
Was B bene fide bolder for value of the instrument in question. 
Outside of the question of the admissibility of this particular 
part of the evidence, tho queations presented for review are 
purely propositions of law arising from matters arpearing on 
the face of the note iteelif. 

*It is practically admitted by the plaintiff that the 
indorsement of the defendante American Badge Co. and Frank A, 


















| — Tou ,rrer set | 
Sip? BUG Fives 002 Yo eee vey et? tang a ee ba ay 
Fy 


& ; 1J shay a 
es oe vesiiey — WPL apee 
a 


o Geleitee tos. e —: 24* — 





eit moasSh say eh 1LBe ——— tite. ne 
OT AROMAT J ‘ 
et est) pasa 
| — — 
F i -00K9THD wo ) ou morkant. am 
woLey oF se 268 oa ‘ 
HOR M 1881 — ea = 


«* 


obheeeh geek yileo. ORVARD SOTTAUL 0 att G3 i a 
. eTHUOD AHT TO KOIUI quaavi daa J 


hee sec 


btors , ebay h © $fode' c¥teetks Yo el 
— au? Ud oꝛ⸗s ator? Yo snomotate galuoi ten vr· 
Ri tnsaketeh ys betqoha af roOsze a) Ttdmtaly tot yout 
Snewexd etd “at es 8 i. see cir ; ut ¢ full Rae sa 


: . sic gle st wh hey le 
“agtrotto} pee oq P teqavese. at ** as ef abd? 













iiec 4400 SRL « 5* BILD posac —X sf? —— —* 
edt os ot saimorq ow ro? — pat pS) eee 
’ OO. eee eee ewe eee . moaLohne ot — Yor 


——28 0OfL\on 3 bavi | 


————— wanes % {deorodal $2 Bovieoes 
fae ees. amines Ges geose 03 So Sate 


|, dlexeller 98 e002 ao Requate ston evodA)...« fh. 


eALLI.,Ogaoldd. .¢nemyeq-aon — J 


', oilduT yrsron OAILEUM KITRAM ion aedt sokalte 
sewoliot ea tootedt doed mo besxo 


09 egbseG asoltemA’ 
esenT qt Lad oA Ansett og.) tum 
noe lobaell od oA { Se 
',ytewodsuD xau we 
odt ,dtim® .A Anes .tashaeted edt bettinweg tavoo edT® 
“B810G1I09 &# ,yreqmod epbhei neoltemA taabaoteb edt to ¢aebli@ 
-18 od? to gatisea ed? to eat? ade 26 tad? yiisee? 
Ssi0bni of tqmetta gon bth bas molinastch On bed ed 
ablaq toven saw etoan edT 8 .Laubivibal as es eto 
titntsla edt ted? ynizreed sd? aoqie beiaeh ton as⸗ PF 
eMolteaoup at tneauitent odt to eulav 1% a eos 
taiuoitiueg etd? to ytifidlealtahs ed? to noite 
| = weltvex 10% betaeee1q eaolteeup edt —— 
7 








mo gaitme ys atetfss most getelrts wal Yo emoltt ical 
etlessi eton od? : 
edt tadt Witataly ed? yd ‘pot habs vllsottosTg ef 
eA dnest dae .09 egbel aeolitomA etnebneteb ed? to % 


-Be 
Smith wae for accommodation enly. ‘“‘thile the plaintiff teati- 
fied that the makers of the note told him that the money was 
being raised for the purpose of paying part of it to the 
American Badge Company, #0 that at the time of the paying of 
the money by the plaintiff he had no notice of the character 
of the defendantea ae accommodation parties, the truth scema 
to be that they were in fact accommodation parties, and never 
received any part of that money. 

"The defendant Frank A. Smith was, at the time of the 
indorsenent of the note, and ever since then snd at the come 
mencement of this suit, the president and genoral manager of 
the American Badge Company, and the evidence Shows that 
Serota & Gans, the makers of the inatrument, went out of 
business shortly after the making of the note, and from the 
teatimony of the defendant, it seeme that they went into 
bankruptcy. At any rate it wae admitted that they were 
insolvent at all times since the making of the note, A 
number of propositions of law were presented to the court, 
some of which the court held as the law, and aqme of which it 
refused, These propositions of law fully present the quege 
tions involved in this cane for review," 

The suit was begun by the assignee of the original 
payee of the note against Serota & Gans, the sakers of the note, 
the American Badge Company, a corporation, and Frank A. Smith, 
as accommodation endorsers, A. L. Mendeleon, the payee and 
aesignor, and Max Gutkowaky, also as an endorser, The summons 
was served on the American Badge Company and Frank A. Smith, 
and they entered their appearance by attorney and filed their 
affidavit of merite under the rules of the Municipal Court, in 
which affidavit of merits they say that Smith did not endorse, 
or in any wey guarantee the note or promise to pay it or any 
part of it, and that the Badge Company did not endorse the 
note; that the alleged endorsement thereon in its name ia not 
its endorsement, and was not written by any one having authority 
8o to do, and that it never guaranteed or undertook or promised 
to pay the note. Neither of the other defendants were served 
with summons or appeared in the case. The case was tried 
by the court without s jury and resulted in a finding for the 
defendanta who were served and a judgment against the plsine 
tiff in bar of his right to recover and for conte. 

Plaintiff in errer has presented by his argument 


five propositions from which he insiets his right to recover 


















~itee? ttitmiel4 ea? ellah | .elno aol tabommotes 10% 


ecw Yenom ed? tent ald oat to ste 
Sas oe tt Yo Praq ales Siar ott 28 —— 


Yo ga ed? to emi? od? ds fad? os 
totosrade edt Yo setton on bad od Witalelq od? 3 


emoce diva? od? ,eel?taq abomngoos 
revent bar ,eet 1Fhoe — — Post mt 
en? Yo. emit oft, ta tar Ath 
~m00 off ta bas eonle 29 
oF ay eee ee Leon 
40 eonebive ed? bans 
to tuo tnow ,Pnemnztent 
eat aor? bas to 
/ > @ink taew yod? Sads endoe | 
@tew youd? tad? bosttinbds ‘et Yau 2 
A ,@ton ont to gatiam of? conte sont? tis at 


e?toe ed? of ass o x 3 to tieogorq to. 
ai fotde te pfs a * Pegs a ete oat —— 
“soup sif taosox14 vis —* Yo eaorti 
Raph Tot enao eld? at *. 


fantgtzo eon pubs et arta | 
e9t0n 647 to etedsn adt ,ensd & eto7198 feniayes efon oat Xe 
siting ,A dnext bas .moltaxoqioo « <taeqmod eybed 
bas eoyeq od? moe lenaat ot A (@xewxobis not. : 199 ¢ 
anommve off  .20e70hNe me a8 oele ,¢igvodtuO xs baw ¢ Om b 
vit LAB A dart bes Yaaqudd #3568 aaokysmA “eA? ‘no Seve 
tied? belt? baa yenvotts Yd sonaredqae tiedt Bexdind'y 
at gt1u00 Leqtotmu 84? to eelua od? tebey et ixom 10° sivebER 
e9eTobae ton bib at as tedt yee xoa⸗ etizen to ¢ivabltte oe 
yae to tl yaq of osimorg to ston eat (setneteuy Yaw vas a 
ed3 estobao tog bib ynaqmod, aghA o43 tadt boa Oe 
ton ef oman etl ai aooreds asasaao bas bogeils edt tase a 
Viisontus gaivad eno xas yd aettiiw fon sew bas — 
















doe tadag 10 dootrebay ro bestnathug seven 2 tat bas con't 
bevzee ero" stasdaeteb sedto edt to xodtiot’' ,eton edt x -f et 
bélut est 9065 od? | .eeac edt ot —E — endugue. dt 

edt 10% galbat? 6 at hetivedt bed yawt a tuoktiw “Fab ggodt te 
ewntalq eff t@nlaygs toomgbut 8 bos’ bovree ezew one — 

aa ,ef800 10} Don tevonos OF ¢dyla Btd-to tad ot bos ae 2 
⸗aoauna⸗ ald yd botaoeeig esd tosto at ‘WMrdatert — 


TaY9O9S OF Pale oꝛa otoꝛoaa oc adta⸗ Said — J——— evit ; 
iu —— 
a Cal 


34 
is shown, These five propositions briefly are 

1. That when a corporation haa power to issue negotia~ 
ble securities, a bona fide holder of auch an instrument 
bearing its signature has the right to presume thet the same 
was iseued with authority and ite irregular issuance consti-e 
tutes no defense. 

ae That negligence on the part of a holder of negotia- 
ble paper, in failing to ascertain whether the maker is liable 
thereon or not will not, in the absence of proof of bad faith, 
deprive him of the character of a bona fide holder. 

@. That the abreviation "Pres.", after the name "Frank 
A. Smith", was descriptio personae merely. 

4. That as there is no ambiguity in the wording of the 
endorsement extrinsic evidence is not admissible to show who 
Smith intended to bind when he endorsed the note, 

5. That a rereon “ho assumes to act ae an agent for 
another impliedly warrantea that he hae authority to eo act, 
and if in fact he had no such authority he is himself liable 
to one who deals with him in gocd faith. 

Aa to the first of these contentions, the evidences 
discloses that the American Badge Company waa a commercial 


corporation. Of such a corporation the Supreme Court in 


Wheeler v. Home Savings & State Bank, 195 Tll., 54, says: 


“Such a corporation haa no corperate power to become the 
mere eurety of another or pledge its property for the payment 
of the debt of ancther in which it has no interest er for 
which it is An no wise responsible and for mere accommodation.” 

d ; izing 






See aise : GO., 189 Ill, App., 
622; ; 139 U. ied ¥ 545 
and Ban. 


A corporation has no natural rights or capacities, 
Whatever right or power it has is gathered from ite charter, 
and persone desling with corporations heving limited powers 


derived from the law through ita charter, are chargeable with 





























ota Ylolmd eaokticogasq OVAL Oped ihre a 

-sitojoa eveet of rewoq aad. aolaoioareo — 

dnomitent ae dowa Yo ꝛebloa obs% god « bond bu | 

emae ont tadt emusorg Of tdgiz ont sed owtengis ed * ts 
— oonevant ralvgeua! ett tee réleodtua Ate abe | 


‘ ? ; ** 9 J 22 * 
~cltoygan to teblod 4 —* 4 — ao ———— 
oidak of 10am 06) aoa⸗on. ala⸗ roses oF — 
dt tet, bas te Yooxg to gon gods odt ab ‘yteq thre toa'2 
(5 gt Lod gbit gaed 2 Yo tetonyado 047,10 at 
daar ®asn odd 194s. ,",9579" aoltetverda. ond ‘teat cal . 
xX oꝛnou Aataenet asv — 

edt 26 gatbrow odd at yiivptdas on et ovedd @h 268T — 
odw mode of eldinainbe ton wf onsnixe oↄbos tatao 0 
.otan adt heerohas od dedw Batd ot bebe 

» ‘30% dnone as .04 bon OF soaumen oni noone: i. tad 
vias op of yerodtue wad ad Yad? etnerto — 
éldatl thenutd ef od ytitodtas dove on bed 6d tos? a 
“goad boog ak add ad iw Ohbeb es 

ednsbive odd s8a0t fresno, ened? to sextt edt ‘ot * 
Latoteanoo a ey ¢1Aqm0d Sybig neohremh edt tedt 

ak ¢x0d sue7que edt agiterogroo » dous.t0 


seyee <oe ,. LCI B6L gland ofe38 Benatve® ewok’. 
: - — Mt, 


“ips. ~~ 
% 


‘pein on. 





taenyeq edd sol ytte.otq ati @gbelq to sodfons va 
ery 
3 41 G&L —F —* 0 


edt. emo0ed of teWwOg Sfex0g209. ‘ob sad. —— ot ad 
30%, 10 taotetai on and ti dotdw oe t0d70n8 d 
* nolitshommooos otem 2ot bas eid senogs 
28 20 eel 55.5.7 namt ti oor): fe aass? festa 
"hel idee anal —— aa aut s1_oTeeh able anol Leuod ce 


3 


ree Ces meviaes 43 ¥ 
e#eitiosqeo so etdgiz femten on J —— A xh; —* 
«totrado etl, aort bored? ag at ost, at 190 x0 teats soyeeese 
erowog betiail anived snc itsxoq%09 athe patleob enoex04 baa. 


‘Met {t ian 


At iw mig evexpne, | O18, aoraaa⸗ ath Ayuont wal, — —— 





~ 4 
knowledge of ite powers and limitations and can not be heard 
to deny auch knowledge where lack of power is urged ae a 
defense, for every one is presumed to know the law and no 

one is permitted to plead ignorance cf it as a means of evad- 


ing liability on his part, or of establishing «a liability on 


the part of othere to him, National Home Building Ase'n vy. 
The Home Savings Bank, 161 Til., 35, 


Appellant knew all about the circumetances under 
which the American Badge Company endorsed the note in question, 
He sestified thet it was on his advice and suggeation to Mr. 
Gans of the firm of Serota & Gans that the Badge Company were 
asked to endorse the note; that he told Gana "if you will 
get their endorsement, I will try to get you the money from a 
friend of mine", The note was brought to him by Gana after 
it was endorsed by the Badge Company and he did procure the 
money on it from one A. L. Mendelson. He knew the bueiness 
in which the American Badrce Company was engaged was a merecan- 
tile business, He «aw the endorsement of the Badge Conpany 
on the note placed there by its president over his signature 
age preewident,. The name of the Badge Company wae in form a 
corporate name. It was signed as corporate names are usually 
Signed by a person who designated himself as an officer of 
&@ gorporation, 80 signed, it wae prima facie the signature 
of a corporation. Fry vy. Tucker, 24 111., 191. The Badge 





Company wae, in fact, a corporation. He, therefore, before 
he became the owner of the note, and in fact before the note 
was negotiated to any one, had full notice of the fact that 
the American Badge Company waa a mereantié@e corporation; that 
it wae an accommodation endorser on the note, and that in law 
it could not bind itself ae an accommodation endorser. While 
one dealing with a corporation having authority to issue 
negotiable paper in due course of business may usually presume 


that euch paper apparently so iscl@d ALP utnors ty and 


—Metteeup at eton edt beatobne ynsqaoD s_yhed 
























tbe 
bused ed ton mao (bas emo ldagemss bas stoWoq Bet to poivond — 
6 08 hoy St reK0q 10 Kost oxo oghoswont sour | neb © e 

om dae wal ott mock OF heauee7y At ano yrtve TO-yeum 
-have te ansou # ee ti to senetongi beelq ot batt 
we wtilicall # gaidelidstee to x0 ,.¢unq etd ao yt. 
~t itech aan esol Lamnkta etd OF auoaee 
ebay seonatemorio odd tuods ile wend: 


+t ot foddeogyva bus eolvds ‘Bid nO ssw th tadh 
o1]er YReqmoD e308 sit tad? @nad & etots® to mxh? o: 
Iiiw woy ti" saad, blot» od) taat qeton ont 
A mort Younom oid voy tex ot Yrs Lf te T ytmomserohds + 
goth ane vd ahd of thgu0rd ‘enw 930m oT — 
ont exyoo1q bib od bas yrsquod’ egbed ont yd | 
ceentiwd edt wend eH ,aoeiebnol 4d sveno aoat $f acl 
-ddprems sev rbepeynd —— tea we 
caagao d oghas sdf Yo tromeArhas ott wer BH» 4 J— 
omsanyle aid t9vo ashbtadra etl yoveded?’ beosiq oven 4 
& wot at sew yosquod eghna oat to eman oat © · oaob iao⸗ 
vilsves 218 seman eter0Q700 o# betiyie: enw 3 omer O0e 
te seeltto as ee tiesuld betangised odw nosi9q. a 
orstengie edt gtoxst autzy enw té ybeagia oF 9 emols 
ejbeh ed? 18 4.LLT OS gxsdouT ov vat — 
oaao doci yototeted? ~eh aAao Lesaoqg co · #4 on⁊ ak — te 
et0% edt. exo ted tost nt bas eoton edt ‘to ‘oano ont —* 
fait —— ia bad. <oa0' ‘yaa ot “betat 
tad? jaoltaio {i090 ebttasdrom « saw — — — 
wal at sed? bas ,.ston ont no —— — tity adtese ¢ 
oftay stoerohre noltehommooe ma se tieett bard ton hfyoo 


ind 4, S9ROER 


eusel of ti itodtus gaived not te10q700 ® atte gatiseb ts 
acomwtad bas 
emuestq yYifiaveu yom onentand to gest aub at 1998q — 
ae ee 


bas vt tsoatub RPP Bellon oe visnorsqes te0qeg 





o So 
regularly, such presumption can not prevail to protect one 
whe buy@ paper having an endorsement which he knowa to be 
the accommodation endorsement of a corporation, and which he 
knows that corporation haa no suthority to make. 

The second proposition may be an accurate statement 
of the law, but in this case the question of negligence of 
the holder of the note is not involved, Plaintiff in error 
is cone luaively presumed to know that under the law defendant 
in error, the American Badge Company, could not legally become 
an accommedation endorser of negotiable paper. Even if one 
may be safe, although negligent, in dealing with negotiable 
paper without finding out whether it is properly issued, that 
rule oan not avail one who deals in such paper knowing it to 
have been iseued without authority. Knesing that the corpore 
ation could not bind itself or be bound as an accommodation 
endorser of negotiable paper, plaintiff in error can not be 
held to be an innocent purchaser of it, but must be held te 
have purchased it subject to all defenses urising from the 
lack of power of defendant in errer to become such endorser. 

The third proposition that the addition of the 
abbreviation "Pres." after the name Frank A. Smith is merely 
descriptio persone might have more force, if "Frank A. Smith, 
Pres," was all there wxe of the endorsement, but it ia not. 
(the name “American Badge Oo." precedes the worde "Frank A.) 
Smith, Pree.", so that the entire endorsement, on which it is 
sought to bind defendants in error, ig “American Brige Co., 
Frank A, Smith, Pres," Thie endorsement could receive but 
one construction by persone of average business experience. 

It needs no extrinsic evidence to show this endorsement to 

be that of the Americen Badge Co., placed there by its presi- 
dent. The omiesion of the word "by" or the Word "per", before 
the name of the president, is insignificant. The name of 


the corporation gould not have been written by the corporation 





















seo | 
eno footer, of Lieveng ton, mep aotiqnveeng, dove, 
9 Of anocia od Aotdw ¢mengercdse as, sadvad TemeG | 
od folds one .aolteroqi00 & Io tnempRIohpe 
agg he os 60 am OF Whrwdtw—.on. aad, mp 
treaevats eteivoos ae ed Yam aoltisogorq baoges eAT 
30, woneg tigen, 20 motteeup edt onno eldt md. tud 
⁊o aas ai Tiitcialt .bevioval ton ai atom « 
taahanieh web edt xshav tadt wond of beavesng ‘iortoukpe 
— emooed Xifagal son bivoo ,Yynsquod oho aaptzomA ed? _Mo 
eno 3 nevi .1eq9q efdaltoyen Yo ren70hae ap! tabomme 
_ eldaitonen Atie antiaed ab .tangiigen dawods le 
tedt ,bowast xlreqary et 9: wedtes tum padbany 
~1ORIO Odt tad? yoiwoad YI hvodtwa AuOMs Iw DouAel aoe, 
Moktebognocra 12 9% bued ef xo Risers bald tom, , 
3 Jon axp tons al Mitaialg .r¢qq olde! foyem to 
et bled ed teum tuc 4ti Yo stenadowwg tnesoand 
edt mort gnialzs seeneteh Ila of tootdua tt AO TAL aN 
4%9010bn9 sioue amoved 0 x0710 mt tashastes 2o eMOg ⸗ dost 
Sa⸗ Qo metthbhe eft test aotrtnoqoaa Haid? edT).,. an 
viorem ef dtima ,A Ansett oman edt 199 te *.8e7E" ac 
eitine .A Acart" tL ,eo101 eto eved tdgaim eggoaneg 9 
stom at th tud gtaemsasobue od tone axed? £ha 
(A daaxt" adtow ad? esdeoetq ".00 eghat aaotreaa· oaec 
ef ti dotdw no nauaos ao bau e2hias oA? tedt Of _* seers | ro — 
«009 eghed aaokiemA* e2 -10778 af etnabmeted bald. ts - 
tud evieost bivoo tneasetghds etaT..., %-ao2T APA oA lt 
-Sonelteqxe seeniaud egoxove to enoazeg Wd aol touz ten! i a 
Ot tnemseiehue elit wode Qf eoanbive oleataae on aboon at 
stapig a1 yd oredt degelg ..09 ogped avoktemA od? to; tad? gd 
e10led .%10q" bio edt zo "yo" brow edt to aotpasmo. — 
Ye owen OAT . Sonohtdagdant ok etaghiaerq edt toceman 










notistoqi0o od? yd-mettiaw meed aved, ton. bLuae. motte xqaao 


~~ bo 
iteelf. It muat have been written by sore natural pereon, 
Before it can be conatrued to be the signature of the corpor- 
ation it must have been affixed by some officer or agent of 
the corporation. In order that the signature of « corporae 
tion may have the insignia of genuineneas, it ie usual for 
the person who affixes if to add hia name, together with eome 
word or expression indicative of the capacity in which he acta 
in #0 doing. When thia is done by a duly authorised officer 
or agent, the aot is construed to be the act of the corporation, 
and not the personal act of the officer or agent, unless there 
is something in the writing signed or the signature itself to 
indicate a purpose on the part of such officer or agent to 
bind himeelf and net the corporation. Meecham on Avency, 
Sec. 432, In Draper v. Mass. Steam Heatin eo» & Allen 
(Mass.), 333, the signature "Massachusetts Steam Heating Cone 
pany, L. 8. Fuller, treasurer", was held to be the signature 
ef the corperation and not the personal signature of Fuller. 
In Reed vy. Fleming, 209 Ill., 390, a promissory note signed 
“William 8. Reed, Presa, Mt, Carmel Lgt. & Yater Co." wae held 
to be the signature of the corporation ani te create no obli- 
gation on the part of Reed personally. In that case the 
eeal of the corporation wae sliso affixed to the note which of 
itself imported a corporate act. 

The fourth point ie wejl taken. While under some 
circumstances extrinsic evidence is admissible to show who it 
was intended to bind by a signature (Frankiand v. Jobngon, 
147 T11., 520), in this case the intent to bind the corpora- 
tion and not Smith, ite president, personally is 0 manifest 
that no neceasity existed for such proof. The proof waa, 
therefore, improperly admitted. This error, however, was 
harmless, because the finding of the court that the signature 
was the oorporate signature of the Badge Company must have 


been the game, if the proof had not been offered, 
























4 
—D— —— 
— adr eG ot hewttenco Od in 
“Yo ta0ge 1 adoltr© shoe yd’ bextt ts" Abed” eid’ 
“s1OqI00 a TO “emstengte ed? Ged? redt0 RT Ai 
‘tot Lovely at ot · oaoatuaes to etngtent ait Ovbd v 
ous div tedtexo+ yeoman’ wtd bbs Ot Ft wox ithe Giiw 
oto od Kotde ft yttouqeo Oat to OvEthoLbat ‘no beeddq 
t90ltto bettrodtus Yivb » yd omoh et whY ⸗ tod” 
208 $a10qs00 add 6 F0 Sdd- 6d OF bouttenoe Bi Fee Ott GFRE 
| exodt Saetty ytaege to 26dEttO Sut to Fem Thiodseg SAFIN 
ot tied! etutangte edt 40 beagte gnittaw ead’ ai gail 
— Of tusge 16° T8CETIO dole to Hig SAF a6 ‘enoqury & 
—E no ‘shtooex ° Henne str pend aspen: ui 
200 sinttooH mere 071 oewrooae au · ap rerey ‘ead jai 
etdtaigte odt 4d oF died saw! (esotwboTd prOLEE LB ** 
etéilut to ewtengtea Lénosteq' ‘edt ton bas notte | * 
bengie eson ytoestaorg » os , {IT COS  aninot’ ne 
biod Gow %,00 toro¥ & tut LowtsO 4°, e0tT boot 18's co 
-2160°Od 692876 ‘oF tnadoltategtes’ 64s 16 eating tt o⸗ odt toe 
‘ed? onao tad? al  .yllanodaay beet to ‘tad “oat tay 
‘to fofdw efor edt of bexitts ovfh ent nottatogade t 
$08 Stetoq00 & —— t | 
omee tot oftdw .nodat flew at tatog aemuet sat” a⸗ be ; 
+E Odw wode oF eldtentuts et Conthive oletiaide eeddé: ato. i 
Hoeidot .v baoltnnst) eivtantgte & — — thi 
~sz0q100 oft bntd ot tnetnt edt oneo ela di <(Oae shri" . — 7 
taotinem of et yllanosteq ,#nebieery #tFt (dt tm® ton bra” 
Aau Toot ent .toorq dsue TOT bares’ etonnoen Wi tad 
aw ,tevewod 10119 Bla? § .berttuds Ylisqoxqut (Wxctetedy as 
eivtengin eft tait trud9 o4% to gatbatt od? @eueced ,eaelated ys 
ovad tea yarqmod e368 ad? to emtongte etaxdqioe Wit eaw 
.berotto deed fon asd Yooiy edt tt youse Ode ‘ndéd 


re ee 






4 





Ve 

The legal principle involved in the fifth contention 
ia not available to plaintiff in error in this case, The 
full and complete authority of Smith as president of the core 
poration ia admitted, That ia, it ie admitted that he waa 
the duly elected, qualified and acting president of the 
gorporation fully empowered to do and perform ail acts a 
president of that corporation could perform, and that ia all 
the authority he assumed to have. The proposition contended 
for relates to cases where the agent, ae such, has assumed 
authority he did not have, In the oaee at bar, the rights 
of the parties depend on the power of the corporation, not 
the authority of the agent. An agent duly authorized to act 
for the corporation in all things the corporation may lawfully 
ao, and who discloses for whom he ia acting, does not make 
himaelf personally liable by entering into a contract for the 
corporation which was ultra vires the corporation, when the 
person who attempts to enforce that contract knew at the tine 
it was made and at the time he becano financially interested 
in it that it wan a oontract the corporation could not lawfully 
make, 

Plaintiff in error having failed to prove by a pre} 
ponderance of the evidence that defendant in error, Smith, 
personally endorsed the note, and that the endorsement 
"American Badge Company, Frank A. Smith, Presa." was the 
authorized endorsement of that company, both of which e6n- 
dorsements are properly put in issue, the judgment of the 
Municipal Court is affirmed, 

JUDOMENT AFFIRMED, 





— 


aoltentane — Ray oA at doviovat olqtents: 3a Aas > eae 


_ eat * 9089 org at worse at “Rttntata of — 


—* ods » ‘taobteesz os sated 3 Nehaedeue eot u 
4 ae a 9 

* 4 t — bes ® ? 

— od ea # babs t a aa am. soporte taba —2— 0 | — 

edt to ‘tnobteoss aatteg da⸗ nu⸗ e⸗ ‘ub @ 

et OL eee pee 37 — * 

——— {(s o ren bas ob of box a tat 

* - £ax? —8 ouw 
“hs at sade bas ero tr0q Aup⸗ Snerres tadt 

**aun 


bobae?00 01 #80905 eit er⸗a of bomuena od: t4k: 
fed «Anus os xinoge ods fred aaneo of 


eth F 7 it d . it? ‘ 


bY esagit » eit sted te eso ed? al _ .ovad ton bib 
fon 40 ptexoqt00 ont * rerea ea? ae, ne bawqeb eels 798 8 


a» % 
of tame 


ton ot bostaodtus Nuh tno3y 1 ah ehaepe a6? —2 vn⸗ 


J—— no itax0q100 8 agaist {fe at motseroqr09 § 
oxen don s0d santton | ak ad sede 1 neeoloeth 


ont, —* ofat salsotas YS olde it we 


nas node soit eroq100 eds seus astly em — sonar molten 


oats ods ta wend tost2n00 aaa⸗ sor tne ot afqnptts Peon 


S- wie: 
Piao enn fatoaens® oasved oxi oak 
DBE E — * teat te a 7h 


Vitateng, oes bhioe metsereqsoe, ot toaxtaeo a = tit + 


9 
a 


























“ms 


aes 


ma 


: sate OF “fh p apie eit ’ 
01g & 5 Xd — a delist satyad xorte at Magadan eS 


a⸗e tae — aabao rod tadd soapbtve ons ‘to 99: 
— 04g eit teit bas_,aton ot yu 
, 2 ae 

edt saw eer qAit kat oA Anort a⸗wod 3h 
~aa dotde to tod Xn⸗asoo todd Yo ¢aomeeto bs * X 

at eat £ at 

r * — a — edi ria⸗wra oe sta ne 
sboarhtts at coe : 


.CAMAITTA THAMDTUL iis Veale 
bom tse Cae eee *) 10 


itu kau ¢) feWoden GH ee 
* Pade: ya) — 
‘oeueced aa tate 
Suiesy. —— 


Lng —— i Ne 
iets ea) te pec ae eS 
é 5 et 

Y se Aa * 





i 
| 


My FRIEDLANDER, 





171 = 17701. 


we 


) 
Plaintiff in Error, “ERROR TO 
vs, “MUNICIPAL COURT 
“I, Ve EDGERTON, OF CHICAGO, 


; Defendant in Error. 


MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE GRAVES 
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE CCURT. 


This case comes here by writ of error to the Munie 


cipal Court. The abstract of the record contains no sugges 


tion of any judgment in that court, and is in other respects 


informal and insufficient. All there is in this so-called 


abstract, except what is intended as an abstract of agrecd 


facts, is as follows: 


Praecipe and statement of claim, 
Summons, 
Appearance of defendant. 
Affidavit of morits of defendant. 
Bill of particulars for defendant and set-off, 
. 13. Statement of claim for defendant and plea of aet-off,. 

18 Amended statement of claim of the defendant on his 
plea of set-off. - 

21 Finding of the court on defendant's claim of set-off, 
setting damages at $35.72. 

83 Correct statement of all facts appearing on the trial 
of the above entitled cause, and all other procecdings in 
said cause, ani all the decisions of the court in said cause. 

24 Stipulation asa to agreed facts." 


OOMUG 


Pe ee eee ee ee ee ee ee ee 


"40 Finding of Hon. Oscar M. Torrison, Judge, that the 
Plaintiff in error is entitled to recover on his original 
Claim $506.93, and further finding that defendant is entitled 
to recover on his plea of set-off $542.65, being an excess of 
$35.78 over and above the amount found due plaintiff. 

Motion of new trial 
Overruling of the motion of new trial. 
Exceptions by the attorney for the plaintiff in error. 


Dated June 14th, 1911. ’ 
42 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." 


Besides failing to show any judgment, this abstract 


is little more than an index and is wholly insufficient. 





*?}r™ 


* 


whiny 4. eds of tostm.46 dew ud —X 2300 
83 Due: O8- coins tao b309e% ogne ao —— oom 


TATOO aEANEOLINGM. 1? oa ce, * — — evi 










’ - Se 4 te 
"Wal fice | Se Oe 
= 7, 


saat) QD. ROPE. . (tO KE ah theo —* 


* 


sODASTID FO ; a Ve gs ine 


avusges 


Gsif 


s-Oa- Side at at ereds) Ok veroscestunnt 



















etOxv4 of to, 
2 * Oo ah a 


Gay Ant ST Glqian 39 
sTREOD LAY TO ROLE Et. Caren 


4 
a a ) Pe a — 


oR, TAO Af Ob Atte .tr0m dads nae ee 


Pasite to. toarzada ap ag motcoded hy 5 1 
Lu “x 
ia A> oF 
isis Td PASAB SF», tn * eqic 
m 42 
—— 260 x0 608s — 
'coidaeted. je ey ica to — ——— 
4 ⁊Foœ ry 
‘Ba bra wisteh sot etedea le say, to! — 
Jue 25 ealy ine tcobaeteh aot —— ⏑— 
ws As ‘ to. mialo Yo daemetz7d bs 
«tito 
1 Toh oc $d? Yormiit 
st * td’ WOR 
aniis Sb @foct [le % ietort ha Pate a! 
ti [heeuoah aa tsm iinian — R * — — 
t ; , ena lelos TA — ha 
OBS SSAABS GP! p no 1 Sala oS" 
os ‘ eri ae ~t4ee¢er sare : ey 
i ? , 13800 4nOr Be bn cee 
rots; OF Salsivan el gorse Bee 
Put poly) totteoc hee Sep 
Sido BWoete® to sole Sid wo c2¥ 
120% tqu@wie’ allt atoGe hea: eae 
[util ren So Reeeea 
mcoivjom@ ci to nad Coys 70 J 
IL C9FIH Sil Pa Ohessas ; 
+ ‘ >t 4 are nuh | 
, € BD A { Betad «dats To 31 
uL to Yab di@i edt gecé¢iwsed festobeae 
*, dtulo to oigsltizzgeD) — 
24 J c wose a 





2884 
fee & GD a 2 — 


It has been many times held by the Appellate and 
Supreme courts of this state that the abstract must show 
everything on which error is assigned, in order to warrant 
the reversal of a judgment; that a court of review will not 
go to the record to find a reason for the reversal of a judg- 


mente Spain v. Thomas, 49 Ill. App., 249; Bishop v. Loewus, 


63 Ill. App., 351; Stony Island Hotel Co. v. Johnson, 57 Ill. 





App., 608; Johnson v. Bantock, 38 I1l., 111; Allen v. Henn, 
doy tits, 426; Dorn vy. Roea, 177 112., 225;  Traercer v. 
Mutual B. & L. Ason., 189 Il1., 314; City Flev. Ry. Co. ve 
Jones, 161 I1l., 47; Gibler v. City of Mattoon, 167 Tll., 18; 
WYallera v. Crane Elevator Co., 57 111. App., 283; Kelleher 
v. Tisdale, 23 Ill., 354. 

It goes without saying 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 settled that courts of review will 
go to the record to find reasons for affirming a judgment. 
Co. Empire Paper Co., 83 Ill. App., 440; 


Amudson Printin Ve 


City Elec. Ry. Co. v. Jones, 161 I1l., 47; Martin & Co. v. 
MeMurray, 74 Ill. Appe, 44. 





An examination of this record discloses not only 
a judgment for defendant in error for $35.72, but also that 
it ig in accord with the manifest rights of the parties, 


The judgment of the Municipal Court is, therefore, 


affirmed. 
JUDGMENT AFFIRVED. 


» << 


* > = 4 
soqGA et? yd Bied genie Yiaet seed — 
»BRae eum JOstisds si? tag? siete eid? Ye 


se Zis® OF tepts zl 


J 
?. 
oe 
te 
be 
’ 

4 
* 













“on3i8@6 ef torte dolde a0 5 


Po £9 solvet to Juvoo 5 onus i7aemgbyt 6 to 
~3 tz 20 fas 34y “iy to 


= aCege: o Balt of mrooes 4 


127 sk GodetS 85S ..dqk SET Cd emengs 


efit ft : L 03 fs%o8 faefat 10 75 
ate fo Doel: 
r crs r 1 


c 
se5 4.Ifl Yar <ES07E2% T9lGID iTS ALE) K 


aceessct =if8S .£Ef Te ..0D Sadevels 





A 
an 2. ae et 


$06. t1f 





* *ccf 3attss Soodtie escg F . 
pat its 6 ek: ‘cerweca eff ,@3elze cag £8 
cities *.836 64 , beaveety ad Elin 2 Josey hut & 
-5otsins eon snon dads 
: “Sicica ilew oola ai? 
i oo St Salt of bsooer 
. ; S985 etioss s¥ .c9 
‘ V 


i od i'it baoocs 


a 2? to #oongbet’ onf 





Pci 


(ber Term, 1911, No? 





228 = 17762. 
MARTIN GNATEK 
Plaintiff n Error, 
ERROR TO 
ve. 

SUPERIOR COURT, 
CHICAGO RAILSAYS COMPANY, 2 
eae a COOK COURTY, 


me in Error. 18 9 I A. 3 99 


BR. PRESIDING JUSTICE GRAVES 
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE CCURT. 

The declaration in this case charges thet shile the 
Piaintiff wae with all due care and caution Griving a team 
hitched to a wagon acroees the atreet car tracks of the 
defendant at the junction of Milwaukee svenue and Noble 
street, the defendant by ite eervantes sc carelessly, neglie 
gently and «rongfully managed, operated and controlled ite 
atreet car that through and by the negligence, carelesenesa 
and improper conduct of the defendant by its servants the 
Gar of the defendant etruck the wagon of the pisintiff and 
he was injured. The jury found the defendant not suilty. 

Te entitle plaintiff te recover he was Bound to 
prove not only that the defendant's servante were negligent 
and that he was injured, but also that Le was at and imsmediate- 
ly before the time of the injury in the exercise of due care 
for hie own safety, or, in other words, that he was not ine 
jured because of his own negligence. If either of these 


propositicne are not eetabliahed by a rreponderance of the 


- evidence, the verdict of the jury is risht. 


The plaintiff himeelf testified that before he 
started to cross the street he saw a street car arproaching 
the point where he was about te cross, and from 100 to 120 
feet away, moving "very faat*®*; that he whipped the horses 
with the lines and they went faster, but the car collided 


OT AORAT 
,TAVOD AOTATIUE 


eg AIS3! 
SS REET hn 


ed? olide ted? eaegredo savo eldt at aoltersloed — 
aos? © yatvizh aottveo bne oxn9 ou the dthw oan Ibe 
get to etoez? ta0 teurte ent ssor0n nogew 6 of be 
aidew bas euneve sedtuewl IM Yo agtfonut edt ta 7 
tigen Xfsaol ouao oF etnavaee oft yo taahaeteb ont 
até bellorsnon brs hatexeqo ,heyanem yl ivtgaoiw bas } 
awoagesloxso {donegtlpean od? ed bas ¶⸗ uo c⸗ tad? 100 § 
od? einovten ot! yf tawbested od to fovbnoo se — rt 
bas Ytitntelg edt to ager ost ovate tasbserted ed? 20 % 
+Viitvs ton tnebeeted od? Savot yawt edt ,beawtat on 
ot bawol esw of rev0;ex of Ytitntalq alifgitae of ae 
tnegilgon stew atnevree e'inwbneted edt tadt vino ton e : 
-otatbeant bie te sew oi tout cela tud ,bexstalt vow a ‘nat 8 
ets6 swbh to seiotexe edt ni yurtat edt to oul? edt eo os 



















-at ton sew od tedt ,abrow sedfo at .s0 ,¥veter awo etd om 4 
esed? to todtie TI ,vonegilgen awo eld to eeusced 
ed? to sonetebnogety © yd bedetidstee ton ora enolet 
— pbagts wt vurt edt Yo totbrev ont .sonsb. 
od o1oted tad? belliteet tleeatd ttitnisiq edt . 
gaidoeoiqys te0 teettes « wer od toette off? seoto of 
Off of COL wort bas yeeoro of tuods mw od otedw ¢afod's 
eee10d odt begitdw of tadt {*fant yrev* gatvom ,yewa test 3 


bebifloo x09 edt tud yxetest taew yodt bas apatt oat Hey 


== 


— 


= Ro 

with the wagon before it cleared the car track; that the 
wagon he wae driving was a heavy wagen loaded with over two 
tons of meat; that while his horses were walking faat he could 
stop them in 10 feet, and that he wae then 10 or 15 feet from 
the track, He did not atteapt to stop the team, but did 
attempt to hurry them across the track, Other witneases 
for plaintiff teatified that the car approached the place of 
collision "very fast". The various witnesses fer both sides 
Place the dietance the car waa from the point where the 
GOllision oceurred at the time plaintiff first started te 
creas the track varicualy from 50 or @0 feet to as high sa 
approximately 200 feet. Under that atate of faata it was 
for the jury to say whether the plaintiff was at and immediate 
lybefore the collisbon in the exerciae of due care ani caution 
for hia own eafety, or, in other words, whether he, in ate 
tempting to crosa the tracks when he did, acted as an ordi- 
narily prudent person would heave done under the same or 
Similar gircumetances. In the view we toke of the case, 
it would be useless to discuss the evidence tending to show 
the injury and the negligence of the defendant's servants 
in charge of the car. Suffice it to aay the faot of the 
collision and the injury to plaintiff is fully eetablished, 
and we think the evidence in the racord would be sufficient 
to aurport a finding that the servants of defendant in charge 
of the car were negligent. The vyerdiot of the jury was 
evidently based on 4 finding that the plaintiff was guilty 
of contributory negligence, and we think the evidence above 
referred to ie ample to support that verdict. 

Complaint ie made to the giving of the 15th, ith, 
2let, and 84th instructions, given for the defendant. 

The 15th instruction ia on the burden ef proof ana 


the preponderance of the evidence, It is a atock inatruotion 
























& 

— a 

edt tect jAdoatt tee edt bexsnto +f or0ted 4 . 

ow? tevo dtiv bebsol aogewr Yvaed gaivizh saw | on 8 
afuoo ed teat gatdlaw orev sensed ata olfde tedt Seal 

mort #eet Ef 20 Of. aed? saw ot tea? 5 ‘toot on at aoag 

bth Jus. meet edt qore oY tqmetts } mn bbb bod iver? 2 

sesepativ i9diO ·Ao⸗a⸗ on? eeo% 


ve «24 










ꝛo eoslq pat boad⸗ongus 189 oat’ teat ——— 8 7 
“eebte “ated 30% Sonnac? iw ewok war, OAT “test yrov" otek 
edt exedw tntoq edt wort raw Yao J— wa 
of Dotaste Sarit Wtvatelq omss odd, ta batiwoge 
se Aata se OF t90% 03 20 08 most x.auo taax sana? 
som 7b atoat to otate sad? reba aoo⁊ OO8 xcaae⸗ 
“SP aibonsh bas ta gow ITLALALG pdt ZedIodn Yee OF XEUR AM 
soksuas pag ozao auh to enloapae qa⸗ at nodeliios ons, 
“#8 GE 4PA xPdtOKN pebsON TOMIO AL 420 aXtSI mEp, 
jy 3® amen pdt xohay anob ovad bivon apazeg aa t 
ahaa adt to odet ow waty off al . -seonatamvorto tal , 
Woda of yatdast gonobive edt eavoath of seclony ad. ee 
atnavian ↄl aaadaaaoh adt to eansatizon edt baa. vautat — 
oAa⸗ Yo ton ad? yes of +1 soit? .180 ont Io Ap. 
_abedetidates Ylist ef iitatalq of yaulat edt daa os 
snetoltiwe ed bluox Broce. ad? ai sonebive edt. danas. . | 
egtedo ai thabpeled to atmavawn ont stadt grithatt o.2 w 
San yu, ad? to ftothiev aT staep tigen S19" TAO ‘ 
ytting gan Wiitalalg od? teat gnibalt #2 a0 bogad | 
evoda sonshive edt Agidt en bad .oonsattgon xiotud at, ? ’ 
stolbaew teat traquie of alav ao⸗ derx | x 
eMthl .d28L ef? to gutvig ad? of oham et Ajnigl yd | * ete) 

etaabasted edt 10% nevis senostoestea AMS dn atQdh 

baa Yoong Xo aobid edt ao wt moltowrtent drat AAT test: 
moltsoustant soote x at aI . ,gonebive ed? Xo sonerehaogenq ad? 


nae 


— 
frequentiy given and often approved. Tne inatruction is 
eriticised because of the use of the expression "Ketablished 
hia case*, the contention being that those wordea are not 
equivalent to "establishing the issues essential to the 
maintenanoe of the action®, — “eatablieh the material issuee", 
- or "prove the allegations of hia declaration", A like 
objection wae disposed of sdversely to that contention in 
| Weleon, 215 121., 436-443; and ¢, U. 
T. Co, v. Moe, 218 T1l., 9. 


Inetruction 18 told the jury, in effect, that if 





they believed from the evidences that the aele cause of the 
injury toe the plaintiff wae his own negligence in driving his 
team onto the track in front of the car, he could not recover, 
It i2 insieted that thie inatruction is erroneous, because it 
ignoree the question of necligence on the part of the servante 
of defendant, ae well as on the part of the plaintiff. This 
inetrustion is equivalent to saying, if the jury find that 

the servants of defendant were not negligent, the plaintiff? 
could not recover. 

Instruction fo. 21 relates to the effect of contri- 
butory negligence and announces the law te be that, if the 
plaintiff was injured “hile and because he wae not in the 
exereise of such care for his own safety as an ordinarily 
prudent and cautious peracon *ould exercise under the same 
circumstances, he could not recover. 

Instruction No, 24 relates to the duties and lias 
bilities of persone cenfronted by eudden and unexpected danger. 
All these inetructione state the law «ith aubstantial aceuracy 
and sre not aubject to the seversl criticioms made. 

Finding ne error in the record, the judgment of the 
Superior. Court ia affirmed, 


JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. 


F im uae Fhe. 35 


ota 
al aoltouttent ed? sbovorqqe notte baa novts ——— 
bodétidated® noleeodqxe ons to sou edt Yo Sauseed” 
fon etn Obt6 dood? Fait gatod nolsaetaos edt ,# 
edt of Lattaewes esvent odd yntdelidsdect OF 4 
Wdouset fatrsten odd deifdetes” ~ ,*nottes out %6 ebd 
‘GkIT A \ ."aotterdfoad etd YH enottazotte oat sven 
‘AE Gottness08 toat OF YLeoxevbs Yo becoqath onw mo 
MD tno (ere-wee ,.L07 Ste uoatou iy 08 ua Wis 
ape en its On SHOR NY PE ee ed iene 
ti tadt ,tootte ot .ywt ed? Biot BL to ttouraton © wutant’ * * 
6it to seuco alow od? odd eohebive od? wort bi 
etd gaivics nt oonegt(yoa awo etd sew PYLsaleta | * 
.x0vOOuR fot bluco od yteo bdt Yo Pnoxt al douse odd Bl 
#2 onWhoed ,evoonorte of mottoirtent hd? Sond bode. 
StnbViee Sd+ to troy edt Ho ebMontizon te mottwenp s 
eLAT .Btitniely edt Yo Seq odd ao oe Lhew ed ydane 
"ged? batt yawt od? Yt .yntyee of tuotavispe 82 ‘no + 
— edt .¢nogiigen ton or0ew * Yantaetee to etas 
— 
-litiod to foette off of eotater £9 .oW adi¥outéent © | 
edt tt ,fadt od of wel od? esonvonns bad ‘ponoy kyon 
oi? nt 900 Av of pounced ‘bas ‘oftaw bowtat naw , 
vl trantox0 ne ea yiotse gro ‘bid sot oteo foun ‘to 


ouse odt treba eelotexs bliow adated evot tien “Sas fi 
} - as 

























J<3 


eTevVCoet fon X od <9 
-sif bda aektub oat of wetelor O¢ Oe noltouxéenT 
togteh Aetoeqxent has aebbhue yd heincr¥nod anoeteq to wt 
yoewoos Lettaatedsn dfiw wal edt éfste sncitourteat eaed 
-®bam ame loliino Lezovee od? of Pootdwe ‘tod xa Bh 

ea? Yo fnomybut oat vb3p001 odd at gore on gntinlt 
‘bossa a ined * a 


140) 


to avast ehaggerg — 


Aruarra⸗ THRNOCUL 





361 - 17897, 







JAMES I, JULIAN, 








. 
1 O es 1A. A 00 
PRESIDING JUSTICE GRAVES 
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT, 


Appellee, 

4 APPEAL FROM 

5 ty, vB. 

| SUPERIOR COURT, 
* _ HEWRY PIERSON and CHARLES B. 

J PIERSON, ooox COUNTY. 
E prelian 


Appellants were partners in the business of deliver- 
ing newapapers to news dealers in different parte of the city. 
On March 38, 19809, one Richard Boynton, an employee of appel- 
lants in the capacity of a driver, was in the due course of 
their businese passing north on Fifth avenue with one of their 
~. >. delivery wagons, A short distance north of Washington street 
~ the rig he was driving collided with, knocked down and ran 
over appellee, injuring him. A trial in the Superior Court 
_ Fesulted in a verdict and judgment for appellee for $600. 

—* Appellants ask a reversal of this judgment, 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 question 
of the contributory negligence of appellee, and because the 
court erred in modifying, refusing and giving inetructions, 
and in rulingson the admission of evidence, 

A peremptory inatruction for the defendant ehould 
never be given where there is evidence in the record which, 

when considered by itself, fairly tends to establish the 

plaintiff's right to recover, 46 alleged in his declaration. 


ibby, Me 1 & v ok, 222 T11., 206. The substance 


of the charge made in the declaration is that appellanta, 


ta 


» through their servants, so negligently and carelessly drove 


and managed the horse and wagon that the same ran against and 




















ron ~yrer auet SSE 


ype de 
i x + a ‘ 


8 


~r9vLioh Yo seentend od? au erent 20g ouew sic ree 
-¥tte eds ro etreq taotorten at exelosh enon oF jen 
Aoaan te sevolqas as ,fotnyos bisdolh emo eno, coet om 
20. se1v00 ub nd? i saw qxeedzh » 20 veoaneo ag? 
thedt to, ano at be — — 
tearte aptantisar to dtzon soaaterh tapde A. ssa03an 
net bas aod bedpond fd bx hebiiioo —* eae 
⁊uod xotxequ® edt at Satat A «mba aa tautai soot 
0098 | z0% eelloqqa x02 tremgburt bas tolbzev s A, t —J— 
easnood ytnomghut sid? to Lasteve: s tes etanttoqth int J 
—R iX@Ling tom to selbrev # toortp ot boautex, ne 
ed? mo @onehive ad? to tAylow ent of Yratinoo at eo ttn — 


14 * 


ee 


aolitssuy eas ne baa etnallequs ‘to eonog tigen edt tou 
edt oaauaoad bas ,eelleqqa to ooneg tigen yrotud tate 
ssnoitoutsent gaivis bas gatestex saatytibom at berze 
soouehive to motenimbsa ed? soagativa @ | 
bivode taatneteb edt wp? mottovrtant yrorqmexeq A ry oF 
,iotde brocex edt at sonebtye ak oaaaa sede moves *, von 
ed? dedidstae of abast eintst «tioetl vd ere | 
smottsisloeh eid at hepgelle a6 gxevoost o8, figtt arr 
aonatedun ofT 808 «ffl SSR dood chee § 
eetnalieqye ted? at aoltsraloeb edt mt ebea — Ye ‘ 
ovorh yleaslortas bas yltaeyligea on ssenavees tient Aguso a 


bos fentese Get omen ous ted? pag bas ob rog edt bexeasm a . 


bcs: 


~ ie 


~ Be 

over appellee and injured him, while he was in the exercise 
of due care and caution for his safety. The testimony of 
appellee tended to show that, ae he wae attempting to cross 
Fifth avenue from weet to east, about 76 feet north of 
Washington street, and when he had crossed to within three or 
four feet of the east curb of the street, he was struck and 
knocked down by the rig of appellants aa it came from the 
direction of Yaehington atreet; that before he attempted to 
cross, he locked across and up and down the atreet and saw 
nothing to hinder hin from croseing in safety, and did not 
gee the rig that atruck him, until the instant before he waa 
knoeked down by it; ‘that it was not dark; and that there was 
no atreet car or wagon on the atreet between him and Yashington 
street. Matson, a policeman, at that time stationed at the 
oroseing of Fifth avenue and Washington atreet, testified 
that he saw the rig a8 it approached Washington atreet from 
the south, and ae it proceeded north therefrom; that it was 
going fast; ona trot and on a run, Other evidence in the 
record aleo tended to show that the horae wae being driven at 
an immoderate apeed. This evidence, taken by iteelf, tended 
to show due care on the part of appeliee and negligence on 
the part of the servant of appellants, and the peremptory 
instruction was properly denied. 

Whether the verdict ia contrary to the manifest 

weight of all the evidence is a more difficult question. 
Bome of the evidence offered by appellee, and above referred 
to, ie contradioted flatly. The driver for appellants, 
Boynton, teatified that the horee was not on a run, but was 
trotting, when appellee was struck, He slse testified thet 
appellee crossed the street in front of a car, and thet he 
did not see him until he was right in front of the horse. 
There are some significant etatexents made by this witness 


that tend to weaken hia evidence. He was asked on orosa @xe 


fa 


TP 
a eee a 


"8° - rss *2 
eetorexe odt at eow od fide mitt bewtal bes coreeeye ine 
to yuoutteet odT  .¥totne * or nottuse bas orao our Ht 
aeoto Of gnitquotse caw od on ated — 334 

to dtxom ‘test BF fuode ——i 

10 @o1d? atdtiw ot besaoto bed od. adte das * 
bas douxte saw ad ,toorts ed? Yo due eener eat to 

odd moat eao #2 We etaetteqte 30 ght oft wo amo v 

of betquetre oi! ewred o0 
wee bas toorte edt Awol baa w betes — —— J 
ron bib bas (eto ab gatseors ‘ett dhe “gebata’ ot 3 val 



























ads 


: Ger OF ean 
ean od exoted taoteat ‘oat ‘thon ead torrte ted? py * 
so see. S a pe a 
cow oxeéd taut bes (Arab ton esw tt fade tH 


) ae sae 00h 
aatyniieum bas mid noted rebate bd? ae ne Rogae 39 100 


ody te beaottste out? Yads to {asneot ton — aondant 
| “pol titess steonte ¶tʒa las v bas onnovs at : ari Ye * ga 
wort tooxte notyntien® beddaora7e * oe an oad 2 an a 
caw tt aad jaortoxent atroa de dod oo ra an bas tow 
edt? at ‘pebbive —X +m e ne ‘bas tow Py ao test J 
aev teb gnled caw ewtod ods tadt wore ot dooner oete & 5 
bebast ior? td votes ,eonebtve eLdT sboogs Ot peyton 
a6 eonsgilzen bre eelleqrs to t2sq ods a0 e280 * 
yuotqueteq od? baa atonal leqas to aorꝛo · edt 10 
- botnet vineqona cow gone 
teotinew odd of ytattooe bf tolhrev ode roiten ⸗ * 
Ano te asun $Luyoltttd xem & at sonebive odt fle +0" 
berietet evode bas ,selfleqqe yd botetto sonebive edt te 
ataslleqqe rot rovixb od? vital? betotnertie ane 
sew tud .nwx 6 no ton ow scuba uae ers —— 
ted? bortitees obfa of .sourte enw ool Ledqs nede “3 tt 
od tad? bas ,180 8 % snort nl Seerde BAY Bebaoto “eaite 
98701 Of? to thott at tdgix eaw od Attns ata ove —* 
esontiv e tit yd shan etrpinotete tnoort tay be one "ets" eto 


@x® #6010 m0 betes ean oh .eonsbive eid aedaow of ‘baed’ yay 


—⸗ 

amination: "You did not see Nr, Julian until he wae in front 
of the horse, Is that what you say?® and he replied, "Yes, 
Ieay I did not see him until he got near to the car." He 
further stated, "I grabbed my lines and held the horse at the 
time I first saw him. Nearly threw the horse down, I pulled 
him clear over on the aide toward the elevated rost and he 
nearly fell", He further stated, "When he got acrose, 

Clear across, just hesitated encugh so I could not stop*. 

From these statements, taken in connection with the undisputed 
facte that appellee orossed Fifth avenue from the weet to the 
eaat, and that the witnes# was driving the rig north on the 
east side of Fifth avenue, and that, notwithstanding the 
driver's frantic efforts to stop the horse after he "grabbed 
the lines", the rig went ten or fifteen feet past aprelice 
after knocking him down, the jury might well have believed 

the rig was going et a reckleasly inmoderate epeed;, that the 
driver did not have held of the lines until the instant before 
the collision and thst he saw arpelles in time, so that, if 

he had had hold of the lines, or had "grabbed" them sconer, 

he could have avoided the injury. Taking the statemente 

of the driver above referred to aa true, between the time 

the driver firet saw appellee, when he *zgot near to the car", 
until he had passed "clear over" to the east side of the street, 
where he was struck, he had traversed more than one-half of 
the width of the street, Whether under all the facta dis- 
closed by the evidence the acts of the driver were negligent, 
and whether appellee at and just before the time of the injury 
agted as an ordinsrily prudent and cautious man, would have 
acted under the same or similar circumstances, were questions 
for the jury and after a esreful consideration of all the 
evidence in the record, we are not prepared to say the finding 
of the jury on either of these questions was contrary to the 


weight of the evidence. 





2 ke~ 
taoat at sew od Litay gatlulh.«t.e88 ton bth sot", — 
.ooF" _.beliqes ed. bose Tyee voy tady Sid 02 |. .«9aand eat 
of ".ta0 edt Of xnen ton a fttou md aoe ton btb Tiel 
edd tp ge10d ost bled ban nant ym deddasy I" ¢botate, sent 
beliug I .fwobh eared edt werd? yfise% . «mid, 
94 bas tog betevels sit biswot ebie ed? 90.280 4 
9880702 tog ad aedt" ,batase rods? Of .. »! 
_ saote toa bigoo I os dguone bated teed taut 
beduqetoos oft Atiw so ttosangg at aeded .atapastate 
ed? of teow edt moxt ounevs ASTL4 heeaors ↄs ieaqs sedte 
ont no dézos gtx adt gatvind son amentin sd? tadd, dag» 
| ide, gakbaasedtiwton gtad? bas, gainers ar in ONE 
beddaxg" od rests eared adit qote of etiolts oftast? afxae 
ooffonre tuaq toot aeatt2? 10 np? daoy atx add "eee 
bevetlad eve [lew tigate xxut edt Anoh uid gob a 
adi fedt jbooge etsrohommt yiaeolsee: 2 te yalog nam 7 ana 
eroted saaten! adt Litaw.eenil edd to. blod evad tom ‘Dib 90 
LE atads 9 yout nt ooiionrs mas od fad? bas, aoteshtonm 
Aoasos meat “baddnxy" bad.co eats edt to blod bad baci 
ptaometatea edt gntteT .¥mloh edt beblove evad J Luo . J— 
sald sdf moowted ,ovts as 0% baxsetex evode zeviz | - x b 
s°160 od? OF. 180M 203" nd node .solloqaa mga; tenth 1evith | 
«tootte odt to ebia tase out of avvo ztoelo" hesgsq bad. e — 
om J 























er : 


to ILed-ego asd? aaoa beatever? bad od Aouata enw oat 
—otbh etoat edt Ife sebay zedzedt _.teenre, end, to dt 
" afoogiizen o2ow zeviab edt to atom eit sonebive edt) xd. 
vistat si? Yo emit od? exoked tout han to eetleaqe 2 / 
evad bivow, jnem auoltuno bas tmebure, — ** 
enolteoup s19ew poonatemotio teliaie 20. amen od, | be 
ad? fl— to mottasshianco Luter a cae de — — 
gatbatl say yen of bersgesa ton orm ow ghabpes ont ab ose 
edt of YrattAoo Baw, OnOttReup seeds, to nadtie co. yt edt 
teeta to tdpter 


~~ 4+ o ? 

Several instructiona aeked by appellants, referring 
te acts that contributed to the injury, were modified by the 
court by inserting before the word "contributed" the word 
“proximately®, It is insisted thst proximately is a technical 
word, and that it was error to insert it in an inetruction 
without defining it. Whether or not that isa true appellants 
Gan not complain of its use in thie case, because in an ine 
struction ssked by them, and given by the court ae asked, 
the term “approximately contributed® ia used, While in the 
abetract there may be a shade of difference in the terme, 
the International Dictionary gives each word as one of the 
definitions of the other, and as used in these inatructions, 
they are synonomous,. If the use of the term without a 
definition of it was error, it wae one anpnellants led the 
court into, and they eannot now comelsin that it followed 
their lead. 

One inetruction, as requested by sppellante, con- 
tained the expresston, "If the accident was caused either 
wholly or in part by want of reasenable care or attention to 
his aituation, on the part of the plaintiffr******8, The 
court modified it by erasing the words, “or attention to his 
situation”, This modification did not alter the meaning of 
the instruction to the detriment of appellants, snd was not 
error. ; 

An instruction dealing «ith the duty of the jury 
not to disregard the testimony of an unimpeached witness 
simply beaauee he was or had been in the employ of appellante 
wae refused, and appellants ineiat they were prejudiced, be- 
cause one Martin was a witneas for them and war not at the time 
ef the trial in their employ, and that no other inatruction 
specifigally related to 4 cage where a witnesa had been, but 
was no longer employed by a party. The distinetion sought 


to be made between this refused instruction and some that were 





* = * — 
aeννννν «νναοt αααν ES PRICMMROL EV EMSL: LATINO ois antag 
Oat LS deaꝛitoa oxew xxxaobtat et o⸗ botus tataoo tadsotne we 

brow 9d “betudiztace® bios 9d? oxohed aaltageck xovtauge 
Leotadess 9 at ylotemixorg tad beteieat at tI  o*ylotem 
»  MOttoustead as as 2 teaems Of. ⁊ꝛoaꝛo gat. th Psd? Desig 
etaglleqys suit ef tad? toa yo. sadtede, fi gaiatiod 
“at ae ab oous ood .asao sidt at eau ett to ntela 
cokes o0 41099 odt YS aevly ban .sod? Yd doteg.agd 
0At ah OLLSF —.begu od. "betudistaoo YLetemizerg 
eOaTet dF AL SOneTOIT!D To ebsde 4. ec Yams 
Od? 20.000 98 brow dose, oents X.aao⸗⸗: ost qauo ja 
—7 ened? af haey.ee Lge, Jeato edt to 
(pf todd ky axed ads 20,0nq) 9dk If)». sevoumaoaye 
aa? Deol atasllegqis smo esw.ti .105%9 sew ti to. | 
dew led $f tedt stalomee nec. tonaeo — — 





















ae” 


okt 


*4 


— x —⸗ BB———— a : 


19dth0 ROSYSD 95%. THebLQ0e,9d4, 21" .agkenorqKe pdt -dembat ke 
Of sottaests 10 e180 eldanosser 10. ¢gen Yo 420g Mtge. . 
eat... «"ee****ttiiaisiq edt to. caag add ao got? 
Sid.of motnetse 10" yebtow edt ggseazenyd if dodttbom : 
2 yatseoy od? wetLe fon bid ngiteottibom.sis? .Saoktautey 
100.89" * ero coaao 30 seamszéep, ode, of. soxteuntentiggt 
obi — 400% Re el 
J—— pdt ao xb. odf a de gaitesd sottousten} aren ae 
sy 89008 by bedowoimiay aw Yo, woulseos edt bysgetetd of.geg 
etnsileqge to, yolque od? at ased bed 10 asw of. eausesd, <a 7 
-0d ,beolbuterqg eaew,yedd talons. etaslieggs. bas .besutes. gay 
eais adt je soa aan. bag med? 10%, asontiw. 2 ee 
sostoursent reato oa _tadt base ,yofqwe. tied? ai Lets #0 re ) 
fud .Meed bad seomtin.e, exadr 20000 ot beteten- vétecttsopag j 
tayuon Moltonttad AT. . ..Atteq & YS, beygtqwe.sopges ooeey 
O19m Jel? OMOG, baw Holtouxtant beouter side, goon ted, Shaspag, gs 





~ § « 

given is too fine to be seen with the naked eye, even if the 
witnesa Martin had ever been in arrellante* empley. A search 
of the record, hovever, discloses no evidence that he ever was 
an employee of appellants, but does disclose sffirmatively 
that he wos, at the time of the cecurrences about which he 
testified, in the employ of the William J. Burne detective agen 
cy, which was not a party to the suit or shown to have been 
interested in any way in the result thereof. The complaint 
made to the refusal of thie instruction is, therefore, without 
foundation. 

When the policeman, Mataon, was on the stand ae 2a 
witness for appellee, he was asked to relate a conversation 
had with the driver, Boynton, soon after the accident, and 
while he was still at the place where it occurred, Avpellants 
objected on the ground that what the driver said after the 
occurrence was no part of the transaction. Thies objection 
the court sustained. Later, when Boynton was on the etand, 
appellants asked for and Boynton testified to part of the 
conversation in question. On cross examination he wee aaked 
for and told, without objection being made, more of the same 
conversation, snd, among other things, that ha had told the 
officer hs wae in o hurry. Later, the officer waa recailed 
and, over objection, was allowed to give his version of the 
conversation, This conversation was no part of the trangace- 
tion and did not purport to be, nor did it relate to it. It 
had reference solely to the desire of the driver to rroceed 
on his journey after the accident, and had no reference to the 
accident or how or why it occurred. It showld have been ex- 
cluded. The evident purpose in introducing it was to create 
the inference that the driver was driving fast, and that wae 
all the jury could have understood from it. While it was 
improperly admitted, there are two reasons why it could not 


have influenced the jury in determining the issues in the Caee. 






















y -t- 
eat tt move yoys ‘boxsa oa) Asiw aden oe sat Got et — 
aersoo A. YoLque ‘esnalfaqce at mod teve bed midteM aséadhe 
sow TOVO of t64% orebtve on esedLoa th ,teverod ‘Shaded & 


Uovitanr tite peolonth weob sud ,etislfeqqs “to 
od dotdy tote eoonstivede ed? to duff edt fn jesw 
~n9ge evttooted enw .& metfiir od? Yo yoldas od? wt belt 
need ovnd Of aWore to tive od? of yoreq @ fod wEw 
trisfraoo of? tooredt sfures edt HE ow yaa BE 
tutor? tw —J—— * ——— ota? Yo pet | 
; Chace 4 
8 0s baste ott no esw ynoUyat ont? 
cottserevnoo © otaler of beden saw od *— 
ban _iaebioos ot retts aooe .sotmyod |, tevExb eit? i 
strelivgyA .bermyooo tf orodw eoslq off ta If tte baw’ 
edt vette biee sevird edt tate tedd bavorg ott mi 
 gottoetde eadT .mottosennxt ed? Yo t1eq on esw 
 hitete eft no euw GotnyOH mode ,teted “bentnseie 
edt to freq of boltiteet notmvod baw rot boxes & 
hoses eew 4d motientnaxe eeoro 20 .aokteoup mt aot 
enet ot to oom ,eban gated noltoetdo tuoddiw (brod 
edt blot bai of Pits: \egatat xoMto Gadua das \aolds 
beltooet eaw tosltts odd .roted  .yrawd @ alt “saw edt o 
ed? to aoterev ata ovis of bewolle sew Pee —— 
Aesnar⸗ si? to ⸗A⸗q ON Saw ao aa covcrod etaT mo D VJV—E | 
tI “s2t Gt otalez PE HID ton od OF sx0 qT ‘goa bib bas none 


bses0t7 of tevtah ef? % otlmeb odd of yfelos eonetetes bad * 
od? 0¢ Soneroter on bad baa enohoos dis abean ronaii ay 
7 er 
-26 aeed evad biodde ¢f .berrttoed #2 yaw to Woda 26" 18: ¢ 7 


Ots9t0 of enw tt yrtoubétiat at osoqaig thobive éaT ypebute 
enw fst? bas feet gaivich exw zéviab edt ted? eoastetal ode 
Saw St ofdW 4th aout bootetebaw eved Blade tat od Ets 
toa bidoo tt ydw endeset oWd ora o10d) bottinbs YLisqorqat 
9680 of? nt eeueet odd gatabitredeb ak ysut off boomed! td! “évad 


—_ ee 





- 6 w» 

Firet, the driver had alresdy frankly testified without obe 
jection that he told the officer, after the accident had 
happened, that he was in a hurry, and, segond, the evidence, 
agide from any inference to be drawn from the fact that he 
was ina hurry after the accident wae Over, wae euch thet the 
jury must havefound that Boynton was Griving rapidly at and 
just before the time the accident occurred, 

Finding no reversible error in the recerd, the 
judgwent is affirmed, 

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED, 


oe. 

























"\sbhobive od? (baboon (one ——8 a afew 
od that YoY olf weet awbeeb +e 
— ‘\\xovo ssw ↄab do ont’ ae 
il’ eae ae Fa ate Hae 
"gad \bt0 001 — oldtereves of atti 
Suets is ~esOTviectt .o2 noltiowsen? ern? —— 


hw nats Si’ ao Bar gitowsaN havea riley aae a 


tp loeeternon w otelby of Seiten vew od (eeltouge . 

tay ,*tehints #9) tate’ HOtn une tawed — en? i 

gral (oe? bestetes th eee enetg aah od files vel 
— tT bher' Sew ien ah Sea Pet hel th 
mifemidce s:if #0 i?eeanet! off Yo Peeg- oF oun’ 
<eRete: 84s ‘no Gan no fn yoR asdw neta sdantadenn 
647 YO Prez Of betTidees soMiwoed how TF Bomes 

Socee Caw ea ao rsantwakt assay at so flatud at ** 


Pea? 2 @iem ,@boe Raled noltoetes fuedt iy i bf 


py Shot hud ted? agnlal? ternee qgoes  . has aol 
’ * 

belivess €aw seortts en? , tela «vite ¢ at caw ed 
oc7 Fa ad tetey sta eves 37 Da Ef 1<e »86 hy pete 4 


snees @ ‘ ins erereoe oti? . 0 EP 
Soh 6o etn fae ? : ~ ged'o? Oe6atws 754 BIB ote 

50 4 ' gee lad eaf To |etiaes sat oF yieioa oeT8sO : 

t fed ten deebiood diy deste Soneee 

, r . -#tarcocod Si-wie =o wee 8 

LA. ) Mirtal «) seoyied stebive dat * 

the Fal : oivary eee Be0ivh aeF Faas poteretnt | 
coat sontetehny erm OLoce ¢wt sia? a, 

—— 

‘de @nécagt-o€? ie tied? —— eet ae 


o grinieruisl at veel ec — GRE 


ao a —— —— ee en Se ee 





1911, Nes 






©October Tern, 


/ 393 - 17930. 


a 
if 





— 


JOHN F. ge administrator of fthe 


estate of JACO 


q 


APPEAL FROM 
SUPERIOR COURT, 
COOK COUNTY. 


1821.A.402 


VR. PRESIDING JUSTICE GRAVES 
DELIVERED THR OPINION OF THE COURT. 


corporation, % 
* Appellee. 


Appellant brought auit in the Superior Court of 
Cook County te recover from appellee damages for the death 
of appellant's intestate. The action was based upon the 
alleged negligence of appellee in maintaining a svinming tank 
or pool in Palmer Park, which ia a south aide park under the 
jurisdiction of appellee. A demurrer filed by appellee te 
the declaration waa eustained and judgment was entered against 
appellant in bar of his action, 

The question presented here for determination is 
whether appellee, The South Park Commissioners, as a corporate 
body, im liahle for negligence in connection with the adminia- 
tration of ite powers and duties, 

It is conceded by appellant that, if the case of 
Backer v. The West Chicago Purk Commissioners, 66 Il). Appe, 
507, was correctly decided, then the judgment in this case 

+ should be affirmed. In that case it was held that it was 
P the state acting through the Park Commissioners that maintained 


that the Pork 


the parka, boulevards 
Commissioners have no 
done, or who shall be 
mies or negligent the 


injury to individuals 


and pleasure grounds; 
yoiee in or control over what shail be 
employed to do it, and that however re— 
commissioners may be, 80 that damage or 


results, ne action can be maintained 


against the Park Commissioners as a corporate body therefor. 





— 
He 4 som ,£L0r mae tod: $90 
tO patel 

to fl | lewt veeeite She —— — 












acd? 257, Be wat bias a i ¥ 5 v⸗ * 


—— 


















—ED—— “icee 4% 
ee hn 

at  MORT SATTTA t — ae 
Xuoo AOTHAWB. ine Si? cyl ett | 


SODA. 1ser 
—— — 


10900 a — vo vorurao 
Yo #200 xo kaoaun od? at ttue *4guord —E— 
Atach edt 10% sogaued oottega⸗ wort ‘Tevo0et OF } 
ed? noqy beeed wav ncitos od? - .ecatectal stn al ied 
OR, AEP. ER Pk — * ong tL 
ed? tobay Ateq ehie dtvon « at dota A208 romiat sf I 
ot aelingae ys bolt? resume A .velferge to. * 

faatays baaod as — tammy Sas Sontoteve wow dtr 
wom J— mottos etd te: we ab 
ab fprteaimeres 302 osed betavoerg te oat 
— RK ,e10n0 Lee tanod ixetl dtwo8 veoitoaae 
~#iainbs odd dtiw aoitoennoo al eonegiigen 10% oldstl ⸗ 

Bolted ‘bas ⸗aswog ert he 
‘to . once add u nad a⸗t toa⸗ yd bobooaoo of — 
«GG .y ag 
onno eidt ak taempiul, od? noid ,bebtoeb yitoexz00 saw — 

sew tt tad? bled enw ah enco tadt at -beasitte SEM 
benietaian Saat a r ono tas immo tint edt uora⸗ sattes Fe: 
ine? edt todd jebawoxy otenola bas sbreveluod edtag 
od fiede teadw revo foraoo to at sotov On evad ezenolaets 

~@% tevewon tad? bas ati ob of beyotque ed Ilade ode 0 4% J ? 


8. 


— 
* 


10 egamey tadi of .od Yam Bzenotaaiawoo edt taepgtisen 70 eotm bi 
besiatalan ed mao mottos oa .etives: eLaubiytbat of yutal 
»TOletede? Yhod ese10q100 # ea atemolesitamoed Aia7 ed? tantage 


The court says: 


"The Yeat Chicago Purk Commissioners is a municipal 
corporation, having certain limited powers granted to it by 
the legislature, The members of the Bourd of West Chicage 
Park Coumiesioners are agents, by whom, in part, the people 
of the State carry on the government. Their functions are 
essentially political and concern the State at large, although 
they are te be discharged within the town of Peat Chicago,***** 
Wilcox v. The People, 90 11]. 186; Yeet Ghicago Park Coumise 
sioners v, McMullen, 134 Til. 170.8 


In Brandt v. eat Chicago Park Commissionera, 162 111, 


App., 371, the court, apeaking of the Park Commissioners, said: 


"Undoubtedly the appellee is a municipality of such 
limited powers and oreated in euch a way wa to render it ime 
mune from liability for damages resulting from the neglifence 


of its' officers." Citing Backer v. Yest Chicago Park Com 
missioners, supra. 


In People ex rel. v. Yeleah et 21., 96 Tll., 232, — 
the court saya: 





"That the Park Commissioners are a public corporation in 
whem ie veated certain governmental powere of a political 
character is settied by the previous decisions ef thie court.® 


In Wileox et al, v. People et al., 90 Tll., 186, 


the court says: 


"The members of the board cf Weet Chicago Park Commissioners 
are agents, by whom, in part, the people of the State carry on 
the government. Their functions are essentially political, 
and concern the etate at large, although they are te be dise 
charged within the Town of Yeat Chicago." 


Without elaborating on the reasoning of the court 


we conclude that the holding in Backer v. The Weet Chicago Park 





Commissioners, supra, is correct, and holds good in the case 
at ber, 
The judgsent of the Superior Court is, therefore, 
affirmed, 
Judgment Affirmed, 





~f-« OG , Ligh aes Yorois : 


ORT ~- we 






















- oe 6 el etancli 
0 aa⁊ 
0 tad tae® to : 


exe eaolvont tledt 
° seerognol ae, taut 20 od? a 


tame dAzeT semaine sagt 9 
Os. .eotivacs » 


— sal 


* —2—2 
~al i tobmet of es Yer 8 dows 
/ oa od? mock 2 


Fan 


"RES, LIT BC Lg to defot .v ,fen xe elgoed nl 

pth we ay 6 - @ 5 sa% ¥euie" : 
rayne 

; praia tO oO 88 Ge 


. Ss og 8 to aroroy f {atnomnzevey sie emg 


*,¢ru00 eid? enotetoeb esolvesqg ed? yd belttos 
ot £17 08 Gd tatoo We a a al Bis 
| Ah te Lows ¥ 
.omed af * — 
etenoltesianed AreT ogeoldd sae¥ te baaod ed?, lo, aradmen - 
AO Yt160 efnt@ odd Yo elqoeq od? ,#14q nt ao dw he et 30 
itilog Yiledtaeees ere aaoit 


om t 
seth od of ots —*— — —2———— ts spate dt te 
to awot a 


?iwoo edt to gainoeset oft so gnitsrodale tuodsi¥ 
Axst ons0tdd ta9% ed? .v zetont at ae edt tnd? oberlox 


mitpe 6? ae 
eeso odt at boog eblod bae ,toet100 o aaa rt) 


od = . 
. 


angaek 
Lo ag ot ⁊aoꝰ wolieque ad? to tanmgbat om 4 
4 F * 
1M Io — we f 
1% ae a 


taabeee 


-bemrtttaA tase but 


70 ~ 18094, 





JOSEPH STERH, 
Defendant in Error, 
ERROR TO 
VWBe 
KUNICIPAL COURT 
SAMUEL YELENSKY and MORRIS G 
cO=partners doing bubineas OF CHICAGO, 


oT NG 1821.4.417 
MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE GRAVES 
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

Plaintiffs in errer are partnera in the busineas of 
conducting a bathing establishwent in the City of Chicago. 
Tne office part cf the business if contucted by the partners 
personally. The office proper ia separated from the lobby 
or reception room by a partition, through which there is an 
epening in which is adjusted a metal screen or gate, at which 
opening the business between plaintiffs in error and their 
cuatomers is transacted. The office is equipped with a 
case of safety hoxes desisned to be used for storing articles 
of value belonging to patrons. Each safety box is equipped 
with a removable tin box into which it is intended such 
valuables will be placed, the tin box then returned to the 
safety box, which in turn is then locked and the key is de- 
livered to the bather whose valuables are se deposited, The 
keys to these boxes, that are recularly so used, are attached 
to elastic rings or bands designed to be slipped over the 
hand of the bather and to remain on his wrist all the time 
until returned to the office by him when he goes there to 
reclaim the articles deposited. These keys beur a number 
gorresponding to the number on the aafety box. Plaintiffs 
in error have other keya to these safety boxes which they keep 
in a sefe in the office, and to whioh no elastio ring is ate 


tached, These keys are aupposéd to be used only when the 


ad ~ ya — — 
* * APY 


* 
J 
od 
” 


ox 2 2 ae Biel at: 


‘ 
May BS 






reyea dl rT 
en ARS . ’ J 









atom@ ital ogneidd Poet. ad Te. * 


—V quae ad a at 


weiner. ete aseantaal 993 
wey Oct. RO 1% tat8 - 
3 22 —— 


rigud aa. 































to enenisud, ours æ⸗x⸗x xa ron, e i on 
we A 2470 Sta 4 
sapanpidd. to wid 04} a4 durudetidates gatas Ba 
s£PiD *, wxaol 3B 
sisnttey eat ye. ‘pasoubnoo® at “Weedleud edd ed to .t5eq 


vdok 947 wort * at MOR, eo02tto — 38 
ae et —X dotaw HMgwouds no2d 120g" wae a 
doidy $e ,.9t83 40 aoetOR (atem @ betewtbs at aia 
phoat wae: wOure ws —— — ——— ——— 
4 atte heqqinpe at ealtio edT .).betoseneet at 3 
eelotize gaitotea 10% beaw od. 08 ponaiseb seus : worse | 
beqaiupe ei nod ytotae float panties 09 salanoied oy 
_ dows bebaetad et th dotdy otal sod alt oldsvomex # deh 
- edt of benmites aad? -od at? ade hoosta — dou 
0b 02 yer eit toe Resool ned? ab ewt.at es 
od? .betteoqed oe e710 eeldaslay eaqdw aedtad ‘edt oF, be 
bedontts 91a gbeeu o8 Ylisivyes ets Sade, ot 1 
od? zevo beqgils ed of bong ieeh 374 aanhs outs —* 
emit of? [is feliw sig ao atougs ot bas — od? to Dy 
ot ezed? eso5 od nedr aad xd “ent tte oi ef + vannuren Th 
tedaun = red eyed eeotT betisoged selolsis, ode. ae 
eitisatel?  .xod yi tas edt ao 1edasa ‘out ot an toaoten, 
qood yodst dgidw wexod yYtotae seed? of ayod godsq eyed toate se 
“te af gait olteales on doidw ot hae ,soltto edt at otse 8b * 


edt sedw ylao beav ed Of bOaOgque o16 eyed GeodT. ehedogty 


J 





-~ Bw 

regular key is lost. The patron haa no ucceas to the safety 
boxes, and they are in the regular course of businesa unlocked 
only by those in charge of the office, and then only with the 
key presented by the customer on his return from his bath, 
Elsewhere in the establishment, dressing rooms ere mainteined, 
and in connection therewith, lockers are arsigned to bathers, 
into which they place their clothing. These lockers are 
equirped with locks, A pase key that will open all these 
lockers ia kept by an attendant. When the bather has finished 
his bath, he calle the attendant, who has the pase key, who 
then unlocks the locker. The customer then dresses, repairs 
to the office, turns in the key te his safety box, which is 
then unlocked by those in charge of the office, and the 
valuables there deposited are delivered to the customer, 

Defendant in error became, on the day in question, 
a patron of the bathing establishment of plaintiffs in error, 
He was accompanied by a friend by the name of Davis. Together 
they approached the office of plaintiffa in error ano through 
the opening in the partition procured and paid for two bath 
tickete from plaintiff in ¢rror, Samuel YWelensaky, ons of the 
partners sho was then in charge of the office, and who then 
informed defendant in error thet the firm would not be respone 
sible for any valuables lost, if the same were not left in 
the office fer safe keeping. A sign containing the words, 
"Check your valuables at office" was conspicuous on the 
partition above mentioned, Defendant in error signified his 
desire to leave hia valuables and money at the office as 
suggested. Welensky opened safety box No, ll, took there- 
from the tin box above mentioned and the valuables of both 
defendant in error end kis friend, Davis, were placed therein. 
The preponderance of the evidence tends to show that the 
money and property in question wse delivered to ®elensky to 


be put into the tin box and thet the money was counted by him 


— 


2 
* 


am 
ytetss ed! of ese00e on ead gotteq edT = .te0L et ved. sotaagy 
betoolay sesnlesd ⁊ *5* zeluger ott af exe yedt baw « 
oat dttw vino asd? bas adit to ed: %0 egredo at seth 
sted 014 goat, siwiex. eri no” Sete rare bud ey beta 24 Y 
sbentsiatem 94s. emgot *** i ase —* aft ti 4* 
8toted O2, beaglons exp. © + 
_ 91m etedook enocT ) -satdtoto. — pis 
“eeddt ifs $940 Lite tei? yoX ovsg A  .gdool “ee 
bedeinii sed — — 9a angi —— Bh xe. qed 88 
ode ,yod seeq ad? sed osw etasbaotts ed! alleo ‘od : 
putesss epenerd: roid’ asinot eivo" sth’ Hetodt ont? w: 
ot Holde .xdg yrotee ett oF Yow wits int witr 
"'pae bas (e0ftt6 od? YO syxade at Seode ee be 
“'sou0) aio edt OF dereviieh orm Settedysb’ erent" | 
vitoivecisp mi Yeb od! wo ounited xO ft! —D — 
ru enete Yo tome Ltaated yaar bal ot 
rodteyoT .eitved Yo dadix on? yo bata? # ye ber a 
dyvotts ban rxe ot etiitatoly to sottto ety t 
ited owt zor bray pak bexsoosd ho ee rerey Vi WE gs 
8k? Yo mo ,Ylondfor Levane .corve’ at! Yrhedboty mort” 
sed? Oita *8orTto bus Yo oyteito WE med? weW Ou ® ett 
noqees bd Hoh’ bivow WxtY bar tod? Sorte Ht! siennoTOH bem 
ht Pref Fox oraW otiby “buy YE , toot aeidaufay eae FOR WE 
sabiow of gitalathoo mete A * sgatqoot otaa roꝛ vs 
eid nO BYOWOLYeado enw *eoltto ts ev lial sv * 
eid Seltingte toxxe at feshagted baal txea oyods aa. 


ws gottto vd? Ys yeaow bie BOldbintdv’ etd” mnt one af 
bo sat 


F — x ¥ 


⁊ 
1 


4 ⸗ 
A ae Se + 
—— 
⸗ — a - 
a 
~ 


* 


ae 


sed? #009 ,Lt lou Kod Yates Banoqs Yeaeier” 
Ktod tg eefdavlev sd? bos benoltnem evdds xod avevin 
alert! beoslq w1ew ystved ,baelst eid bab torre at 
oN} soit wore oF Whabt Botrebt¥e ‘ba? to” —B 

of vYdensle® of borsvifeb saw notteovp ul etteqoTy ‘bie yoo 
atd Yd beliwoo vew youom ons Hae Sha Rod Wis HY o¢ar HAS 


a 
— 


= 
— 


* 
ae — Amery “ee ae r 


oe 























Se 


we 


= 3 « 
before it was deposited in the box, but this he denies. The 
tin box waa then returned to the safety deposit box, that 
box waa locked and a key purporting to be a key to it, which 
the preponderance of the evidence tends to show had no rubber 
ring attached, was delivered to defendant in error wno 
placed it in the pocket of his trousers, le then, toretner 
with his friend, Davie, repaired t» the dressing room, «here 
separate lockera were assigned to them, and into which they 
placed their clothing, the clothing of defendant in error 
containing, among other things, the key to the safety box. 
After they had comrieted tneir bath they repeired to the drese 
ing room and procured their lockers to be opened. Defendant 
in error then found that the key te the safety box in the 
office nad digarpeared from his ciothing while née was batiing. 
He, together with hia friend, Davis, then went to tie office 
und after some delay four taat the money and vaiuablea he 
had deposited in the safety box hud been removed tierefrom, 
taat the valuabies of the witness, Davis, still remained in 
it, and that there was a130 in it @ wailet containing a amall 
amount of woney, ani a wateh belonging to one Samuel FE. Lamont 
of the firm of Rose & Lamont, tailors, of Savanna, Tilinoia, 
*ho then had tne regular key to the box and was then taking 
his bath, While the teatimony of Lamont was not taken, anu 
nO explanation is made by the proof of how he came by the 
regular key to the safety box, or how his valuables came to 
be in that box, no one seems to nave had any suapicien that 
he had had anything to do with the disappearance of the money 
ang Waluables of defendant in error, While the parties to 
this auit and the witness, Davia, were still discuasing the 
loss, Lamont, having finished his bath, cawe to the office, 
produced the regular key to the safety box, ciaiwed and 
regsived his wallet and watch there deposited, and after 


leaving bis business card, giving his name and address, departed. 
































- w — 

SA? eeindh SAR TAY Gye 21" seo tela LAIN 
"°° $6is” (kod Piedad yretee SAF" or Bonita 54 "adAd eae 'xd J 
“Horlin (ak oF Yai “p88 69 gntoxb}ruq yOu fd babs 
— bn" bia Wake GY bbndd“eddedive’ Oa e belt 
oan teen ay sand") fore fob 8% Boxee ATbb den” nidods 
ebadeyee” indi 'bA'° 6b0kdbLY bea So Vedas GCA 
expde adda Qatbborbh oat’ U9 Beatodes — basisd 
= ‘dohaw Oba) bab noid 3) bariteses etew er0x: 
20276 ni Foebubton to ———— 

*8 —* od? of ‘Yeu ‘bad Vegatad ‘xeilte” jade a 
—obaxb 04°39" beri ejo4 “yead ‘whe sien stat bl 
tnbbadtod ° | *SBeaeqe “68 54 etbudel a1bat! petieo xq Eh 
i 3 ‘nod ‘e¥etae bat of Yor” "bls" $049 Baud | 
santdiad bow od SIkde gaidderte ard ne band of 
sSitto ous"or "tion aotd jaivad’ BROHa did AYEN Heudeged 
—J ———— —“ vals Borlfor nn shot” ot 


se 7-0"? 


“a benlenor “ttite .atvet pedbad iw’ "BAF to! ee reas? * 
{i kme 6 — héo setiew 6 $i a2 6éts" ry bend had 
tadiand .I feusse Sno 04 Baljnotdd dotaw & ban \yendh” io" 
Mitti anbvee P trotted — 8° Raok Yo wnt S 
"Rabied meat he bak kod bie’ 69" yal’ — 
bas AA Yon eon dnowed to ‘yabaltnot oat” efiar’” a 
ORF ye said bu WOH 26 Yooty o# Yd bbak OT ho ty ahe 

ot omso aoidauiav aii wod 10" txod eerie ar} yet ak. 
toad aototqerve une bed Pre ot onthe thd SH Tea’ a 
venom aa} to dorarseqqaelb oi? d¥W 6b 03 phiatyha bia yy. ; 
o} eeifscg okt olla® .t0716 ai dadbasteb 2 settee , 
oa? yateevoslb rites bxew .elvaa \esontiv of} Baa. — 
400i to $a} of eusd viitea' ota bodwdart §aiv ait , dhol 
‘bne beatsto gkod Wbiok oad’ od You Fecbyen” bas” 


— — abot keogeb eteit- ‘wovne ‘bas ee ae 


-botzaqeb paeerbhs bas ohn ata gaivis “bab abbr teud er Hiv att 





—— 2 

The uncontroverted evidence establishes beyond cone 
troversy that defendant in error left in the tin box in the 
aafety box $177 in cash, @ geld watch and chain and a cold 
locket with a diamond setting, and that the value of the 
personal property, exclusive of the cash, was spproximately 
$125. The preponderance of the evidence tends to show that 
a@efendant in error paid to plesintiffe in error 35 cents for 
the ure of the eafety box, excilueive of what was paid for the 
bath tickets, Suit was begun in the Municipal Court to ree 
cover fcr the money and property ieft in the esatety box by 
defendant in error, Uron the trial the jury found the issues 
for defendant in error and ansessed hie damaves at $306, A 
remittitur of $24 was filed by defendant in error and judgment 
was rendered for #282 and for costs. The cause comes here 
for review on “rit of error. 

The transaction, shown by this record, constitutes 
@ bailment of the money and valuables of defendant in error 
placed in the safety derosit box No. ll, When property is 
delivered into the hands of a hailee and can not be returned 
on demand, the law presumes negligence on the part of the bailee 
and imposee on him the burden either of showing that he has 
exerogised such care over it as was required by the character 
of the bailment, or of paying the owner the value thereof. 
NoCurrie v. Hines Lumber 0o., 178 I11. Apyp., 617; Bryan vy. 
C, & A. Ry. Go., 169 111. Apr., 141. If a bailee snows that 
property that is the subject of the bailment and which he is 
unsble to return has heen lost by some violence, theft or 
accident, the premisesion of its loss, throush hia negligence, 
is overcome, and before the bailor can recover of the bailsee 
the value of the same the burden is on him to prove that the 
loss wae due to the want of due care on the part of the bailee. 


& Ry. Co Kendall, 72 I11. App., 105, (and 


authorities there cited). 

























<a GAa@ 
eae hs 
= rat 9 a 
) fut DRT 
oy *y, F Die ae 
Sia 
’ * 
— ¥ mal 
- ed — 


8 * 
ye St ae 


~a00 baoyed sedetidates oea erine bo ro voꝛ ao das mn oot 4% * 
oat at zed ais eat at enot sexe al tasbaeteb bary + ex 


afta? oF aad 
aioe e bas atedo bas Aoter bios 8 sdeao at TTEQ 3 


os . odd 0 — 20 dd ted? bae eaatt?oe baronet’ an om 
— vies satxorags sow ,dnso ods * ovisutoxe J —— 
* tads wore oF sbuot sonebive edt * ma⸗ro daeaora baie: 


- “= » Tt 

* * ·aaeo 88 ꝛꝛꝛ⸗ at Tabet, ot bieq Mold + * i⸗ 

* t * 

| edt rot bteq cow teat ro eview oxe x00 veer a Ty 
91 of $109 taat otauu oar at auped 2 ad — 7 

Seat OS SHAG J ee fied i eae 

‘1 ww Rod ytotae od? at fet rene aora bas venom, ont - 
: a8 


; ‘eovert: ‘oat bawod vaut edt teins odd og rox7e * 
A “2086 te eozeash ald beeesene ban nh am a 
aong dut· baa worms a taabaorer ve bert? env #88 to 
exe nesoo eevno ont. s8t800 to? bas sect 10? 

- : 10118 to thaw. a0 


(eetutitencs sonooes etds * mwods 00 1 oneaens oat 


Les 
* 


9 


eee 


28 al tasbne ter to eeidaulav bas yeaoa adt to. 


ad? as bed fuse 


. at Wren aoan LL on x0d theoqed visten ad? at be 
bemwtor 9d ton aso bas eel tad 8 to ebaed edt goad, 
selied ent to as⸗ eit 10 eonesi {gon semueo7q wal eds be 
ead od tad? aatwodn te yeahs 38* ode ata ee . 
qstosisdo edt yd pear Eg ane es st zev0 9180 dows | 
_ etootedt sulav ed? aoauo oft gatyeq to 10 —* 
-Misevxh§ y8fo ..aaa .A. STL ,.90 ! 
fede ewour eolied # tT fer ee Th 41 esL ‘ 29 
st of doide bas taemliad edt to tootdue ed? ek sass | 
to tted?t ,seonelotv emos yd teal aeed sed muss 91 ot. 
«somegilsen eld dpsroy A? ,esol ett to sot? qaveer4 ed? at 
eefted ed? Io rev00e1 aso 1Olind edt er0ted bra » 
oa? tad? evorq of ald ne et aebtud odt emee oat X 
-ooltad ef? to tiaq edt ao oaac oud to tnew ot o⸗ oud, ahs 
ban) .8OL ,.qqd . LT 4° Vs 


ete ee 





«o § « 

There tim no pretense that plaintiffs in error vere 
prevented from returning the valuables because of any violence 
or accident. There ia no proof in this record as to what 
became of the valuables, or as to how or by whom the sane were 
removed from tho safety box, The proof does show that no one 
but plaintiffs in error personally had ec@eas to the safety 
boxes, There is no proof that the key te the safety box that 
was missed from the clothing of defendant in error was ever 
presented to the office of plnaintiffs in error, or that the 
valuables were obtained from plaintiffs in error by ite use. 
It follows that there is no proof that these valuables were 
renoved from the possession of plaintiffs in error by theft, 
Plinintiffs in error, having failed to overcome the presumption 
of negligence arising from the relation of bailor andi bailees, 
and the failure to return the proparty bailed on denand, wore 
liable for the value thereof, and the defendant in crror was 
entitled to the verdiot and judgment obtained, 

A motion for a new trial was made by plaintiffs in 
error on the ground of newly discovered evidence tending to 
impeach defendant in error in his testimony 2s fo where he 
obtained the money in queetion, A new trial wiil never be 
awarded for the sole purpose of impeaching 4 witness, even 
though that witness be a party, particularly where the testi- 


mony given by the witness relates to an immaterial matter, 


R. R. Go. v. FR dmr., 142 T11., 93; Bemi¢ v. Horner 
et _al., 195 T11., 347; v. Stewart, 





203 Tll., 323, 

the evidence that defendant in error placed the 
noney in the safety box being undisputed, it is wholly ime 
material to the determination of thia case whore he got it, 
and proof that he had falsely stated that fact, while it 
might tend to discredit him as 9 witnesa, would not defeat 


his right to recover, 





— 
- @T9W. conse ak etitintsly teas: senstenq om: site mit 
sonefoty yan to enunoed evidsutey. edt srbeutex moat bed 
tadw ots dmecwnmidt nt Yoaxg on eb ered :% abt 
e109" anps wilt mode xd 10. 8Od.of ae 10 ,eeldaulav edt te 8 
ono, Oa sauit wore aeob, 20034 on?» oxod Wernp, . 
Xtolee ont oF eneons, hed XiLenonr0¢ nose at et ikentag 
Stadt, Kod Yotae eat Of You ont) tant oo7g Or wh: VOLT 4 
ors SEM tOnZe Ni doabc@teb to gasdrole ort mor? 1 : 
96%, fort 19 .ioaao At BIL idalelg%0 sotto ont, ot::be 
-9e0 efi YC torte nt ettitaiela moxt hentetdo, ox wi 
e19W seldeulsv oepdt ted¢ toon om al orgdde? J —* 
\ttodt ee some si ettisntelg te caoteeersog mei 
aottquvees9 od? emoozsvo. of belie? gatved: ys08ee ml | 
weelisc baa wited Yo aott les end moat gotelre® 
ozor ,banwebh ne beliad ytteqoiq edt anetex of 
Gar 10%: Hf toebneteb oit hme «toe1942 eulev’ edt) 10% } 
. sbentatdo: soemybut bane tothrev edt ote 
ai @RRisdaielq yd ebeq ew Latat wea gs 20% nOttomeA ah. 
ot gatbres sonebive ber9sveorth ylwen to. bawo1g eds» 
od o1ed" oO? es ynonitee? etd at. sozze at taabnete. 



















ie 


rs 
— 


ed teven [itv {feiad wer A> snoitecrp al yenom eddy 
«Mave ,eeontiwd yalidoseqad to csequq efoe eft x20 
w~itens od} otedw. Ylselwoltisg gytzaq 6 Od eeogtiv dade 
eZetiam {eixetemms oe of #oteler —— oat Waas F 
A——. Ill GOL , o Ie ẽ 
— ——— td 
; BSR @ . 
ad? beosl¢ i779 al soebroeteb tadd wonebive edi? | taebk 
~ai vilodw ek oi ,betuqe hhry ynbed xod ytelar — 
«tl ton of otodw sean eld! to nottantareteh wit of | ie 
th olLintw ~tont teat betats yloel sd bed on todd roomy is a 
tnoteh ton hivow ,arantix 6 sa std thbsroeth 3? dae tip hd 


.( 2) Savo0e, Of tdgiy oht 





«6. 

Newly discovered evidence in order to reyuire the 
granting of a new trial must be of s conclusive character 
against the verdict returned. Vonroe v. Snow et al., 

431 Y21,, 126, 





Finding no error in the record, the judguent of 


be the Municipal Court must be affirmed. 


JUDGMENT AFFIRMED, 





ee Oe eee —— 


GEESE: ath? ara /· OAxve Aa ad gatends —8R —* 






























wee 


; — 8 — 5 
“eas ** 4 iar i. 
aka siitines » — 


4 &, sae ¢ b | 
t é 
oive Gre bavomdde 


— x8 — 


Tee" gs edd Of or bomm OS ee ty KS — 
ear BOE ELPIAR BT OF Lad Wat reeRe Soosg en ehetneaTi 
ee A NATTA, MOI po parol oa mont i 
wh 9690 GO yto1td a) OM set rdesty -apl Mies an) ed de 
eax · Eaa4 med bentetdo ome ee 
pit de PS ur ROM  Sntd choo we on eh orgid ot * * 
— 3 0 — — odds 


sreelend Fos live Wy ac! + See 22) weed gee lee’ wi 
ree feeb ms Sele! ett-qede add qtepier det 4 
WE toe. SL Breteetat a. 2 e848: (To ered? ORLAS ‘nA? “09 6 
sMirighin savepieg hae SO8REOV dite-08 

Gh OP thattla ed Gbsa cow Labe? #en-4:90% vo thea A Ri 
OF getticet eooebied bevoroued® ylees ‘to. Dauer1g 
a etee of 68 yr! teat cles! coeve @i reoiney 

ef “avec 2ily {nist ene 4 ow iieeep al vermecndien 
iret ,temel i= pits ap Is ecarter oho nbbs6 * 

i) 504 Vee Lisatewise s{tSae 2 Ot voentin oeae 


eetien Satrepeend os Of avo Tee uenetee ete M8, 


‘ss a —— — aD oY 82 oh Neh 

TUE A oh Pow, teks sade oe, Oe ee 
sean get * 
Lug — a) ati toca? seorehive ef? ¶ Hebhl 
en Gtec td ybeh ~ pete’ god yveltar ae 2 

o¥>, 30% ; it ‘ewh wt wWsI oe lwieder ag oF Sez 
's sunt S2.@? ee testo clesial-Ped od See Yes 

teets i / fon Loe lees en he ee ohh ae ihe 


- 45 sarayer — 


© 


March Term, 1912, No. 
143 = 18174, 





JANES THANAPOULOS, 
Plaintiff in Error, ERROR TO 
Ki V8, 


TON BOUKBCULOS,\ OF CHICAGO. 


— ——— 


‘WR. PRESIDING JUSTICE GRAVES 
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 


MUNICIPAL COURT 


This is an action of replevin tried in the Municipal 
Court without a jury. The property in question is a horse, 
wagon and harness, The finding and judgsent of the court 
was for the defendant, Plaintiff bases his right to recover 
on the theory thet he purchased the property of the defendant 
and is now the owner of it. No controverted questicns of 
law are presented for determination, We are asked to re~ 
verse the judgment for the sole reason that the finding and 
judgment of the court are wanifesatly against the weight of the 
evidence, There ia no question that the property originally 
belonged to the defendant, If it waa the property of plaine 
tiff at the time this suit wae begun, it became eo by purchase 
from the defendant, The evidence for the respective parties 
on this subject is flatiy conflicting. The witnesses for 
the respective parties were about equal in number. Whether 
or not the plaintiff maintained his claim by » preronderance 
of the 6vidence turned almost entirely on the question of the 
veracity of the witnesses for the reapective parties. The 
trial court had the advantage of seeing these several witnesses 
on the stand and of observing their manner while teatifying 
and their apparent candor and fairness, or the lack of it, 
and of judging therefrom which of them were entitied to the 
most credit. This if an advantage that can scaresly be 


overestimated and one of which this court is in the nature cf 










Om ,Sle@L .mrsT —— 


oereroon tb cog BE aah 


ueanee F a * 





od? sxivpas of zsebeo ⏑ü⏑——— 




















wloeteds svievliame eo %o of. tebe won “be 3a 


2 Sohn 2 ae rar at Y 

THIOD JATYOTKUM | 

tw LoKoths! 70 psoas 6 * 
pGh. — 7 | ae 


» J, ye 


a 


Leqtoidvl ont at bota⸗e mtvelqe: Yo Héitos as et erat 

eeerod & at nolteouvp at ytreqorq OAT «86. ymt 
tmwoo sdt to thorgbyt baa gatbatt edt 4a 
rovooor of tagtx sid sonnd ttitaislt ,tnabaeted 
tnabaeteb ed? to ytreqo7q ed? bos ado rug of ted? 
to eno tteoup botxsvoxtaoo OM «=o #2 Yo tORWO Od? | 

“81 Of bodes ea⸗ oF «6.foltaninreteb rot besnoserg 94. 
ban guibet?t edt tad? sossex ofoe adit 20% tnemgbyt odd oe 
edt to tigiew odd teniages yltestinam o1#8 Sivoo edt to 19mg 

vllanigizc yixeqo1q ed? tadt aolteoup on ak eredT 90 

-nialq to ysaeqorq edt sew ti TI etasbretebh edt of . 
onadoruq yd of ↄnsosc tf ,atged saw tlue etd? omit? sit to 2 
seltiag svitosqes1 edt 10% sonshive edT .tasbaeteh ed? mp 
107 seeeentin ofT sgattotliaoo vitelt ef toeldue etdt 
sedteq®  ,xedaun at Lawpe tuode exer esttz0q evitoeqee: off —* 
ooa robno aaage yd atalo eid bentstalaa Mitel elq eat oa : 
edt to mottseup ed? ao yleritse teomis benizwst sonebive odd 3 
eiT ,.eeitreq evittoeqre: edt 10? aserentiw edi to vee 
eeseaniiw L[arevee seait gniser toe egatnavbe ed? bed taw09 
galytitest olidw roanem tied? gatvieedo to base baste od? 1 o 
ett To Aoal edt 10 yeeeati st baw rohsK0 sneteqqe THeds Fi NM 
od? o/ beltitns atow mod? to doldw morteted? gnigtut to bas 
ed yYLeotsoe neo tert epetnevbs ag ef etdT .ttbex0 teom * 

to exvten edt at ei tivoo etd? dotdw to eno be betamtteerevo | 


* 


. Si 
mo oo 


things deprived. 

If the trial court had believed the teatimony 
offered for the plaintiff, there waa ample to surport a 
finding that he was the owner of the property in question, 
If he deemed the testimony of the defendant's witnesses as 
more, or even équaily, worthy of belief, he covid not hold 
that the plaintiff had maintained his case by @ preponderance 
of the evidence, In thie state of the record it would be a 
waste of time to discuss the evidence in detail, It is 
sufficient to say that after a cereful consideration of all 
the evidence we are unable to give any reason for holding 
that the finding of the court is contrary to the manifest 
weight of the sane, 

The judgment of the Municipal Court is, ticrefore, 
af firmed, | 

JUDGMENT AFFIRVED. 


— 


YWouttss? edt bevelled bad tauee tates odt 2* 


j- — 11 — dna 


& ed bluow #t brove1 enuf to odnte etd? aT 


rector thy 240888 9h eorebtee ne amvon?® 0? mgt? 
Be 2, coltsrabteroo Liteino # ratte Relay 
—* We ppeegs Lye ort, of pidge Ore om 
Naasg oat Of yxeatege At ⸗s eq? Yo Ankbas 


‘¢ adt Dbessrtotie oa MM ott 38 


‘dor toraw? et tayod —— 


J > wf 


* 


a. re 





28 


— [oR 


« 


bankadntsa mes marae 


minwateb yo? 


| CRUATTRA THaORETL 
Oese= olor 











«ok Stee * 
7 


eI} 5 


7 aes 


re 


ream ot 














ba’ nee 


i 
srengoul sof 


sc? 20° 
yitectlass ote 2ace8. ed? FO_8 ; 
wlieoup oa et stodct 4 
‘ foebaeteb ed? oF 
~A020¢ Qen.zive eid? eal? oil? a, 
3 tye oaT -fanhaeted | oF i 
7c0 witall ef #oetdre olde 
= sti tog ov |S 00q6@T ie 
. fetadee Ytitainla od? 4 
main bent? genebive | 
70? eeanentiw ed? Te v) Lome 
to enedaavhe ad? bad Pauee lang 
vesdo W bse baate ade s 
ieee Foeveqdads ie bag 
tiv sovtered? gnggtet 20 Bement 
© ef @LdT — 
side te » hatnalteezey9 - PTY’ i 





iS, 1 ee 
«)'* 4 ‘ 
tay fees 





Th 


OF; 


£ 


be 


ws 
Z 


AA PEC OF 


| 





_ “rm, 1911, No? 







88 # 17607, — 
1821.4. 425 
ERROR TO 
MUNICIPAL COURT 
OF CHICAGO. 


MARGARET NOACK 
Defendant in Err og, 


VS. 


RUDOLPH WOSSLICK, f 
Pianta tt, in Evror. 


- 


MR, JUSTICE BAUME DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 


Margaret Noack recovered a verdict and judgment 
against Rudolph Wosslick in the Municipal Court for $275 as 
damages for personal injuries alleged to have been occasioned 


by the negligence of the latter, who here prosecutes this 


<weit of error. 


On June 14, 1910, and for about eix monthe prior 
thereto the plaintiff in error operated and managed a 
resturant and summer garden at the northeast corner of 
Halsted and Addison streets in the City of Chicago. The 
premises had a frontage of 150 feet on Halated street on tne 
weet and of 175 feet on Addison street on the south. There 
was an "L® shaped building on the southweeat corner of the 
premises which had a frontage of 115 feet on Halsted street 
and 140 feet on Addison street, The portion of the building 
fronting on Haleted street had a depth of thirty feet, and 
the portion of the building fronting on Addison atreet had a 
depth of 40 feet, On the north aide of the portion of the 
building fronting on Addison atreet was a porch 8 feet in 
width extended to within 74 or 8 feet of the east end of the 
building. Extending from the easterly end of said porch to 
the easterly end of the building was a wooden platform in 
which there was a trapdoor which opened to the south against 


the wall of the building, and beneath the trapedoor was a 


Tn, Fie 
— 


9— 
* 


i. volts rreL oro | soit 


—E — —— — 































·roorc zB.’ A 
ttn S" tal us ted? a “ae vas) i 


Vain! fg ‘ 
au yer ? 


i) sor af fade pee 

— 
romivno? wit Bendah 

⁊ 

A hae 9 on, tel at va. as 

* vey 

OY tin: ar kt 1. dene eb Beddo me Yritninta ont 

«TAUOD cet 0 one taper aMUAG SOTTRUL 


a> 
ago 


Fidwh hhiep bat weeeth o¢ emit 

Pons ut ‘aa totbrey * borovooon ao⸗vn — hee 

fy — 2 wera ares me CF 

ee eves 10% tu09 ia olam edt at dotiesow f A 
etbtodt © why of stove 016 OF Soamene 
beno !asoo0 n00 vad or beget ta Sotutat, 5 ee 


oO ant —16 


eid? astuoosoaq ered odn ——— edt to n oa 8 
» Sane ? Li 


i4 % 4 1oah! 3} ; a! " 


‘min edtaom —8 — 10% bas eOl@L t oavt ad 
⸗ bogenem bas betsreqo wore at Witatela ont 1 

to 1es100 tesodtion od? ts nebreg tome bas én 

vaT .ogsokdd to yst0 od? at etoorte moekbdA bas Bei 
edt ao teette betalsl ao tant oar to egstnott a had @ 
ezedT .disoe off mo teense moaibbA wo feet GFL to i 
ed? to tontoo teewdtuon edt mo gniditud beqede *J* 
teorte beteLall ao test att to egstnort » bed dotdw see 
gatbiied eft to soltzoqg efT tonite soalibbA ao test et 
ban ,toot yeild? to dtqebh » had teorfe detelal ao 

8 bad seovrte aoathhA ao gaitaot? gntbiind ed? to nok?t0q. ‘ 
edt to nolsxroq ed? to shin doson od? a0 eosoꝛ OD tog rc 


* 


at toot s dozoqg a Baw texte aoekbbA no gatvaork gabe. 
edt to bas ten adt to teet 8 to 48 nldtiw of bebnetze di 
Oo? dozoq biae to bao ylrotees ed? wort gaibaetxa 8 gat { , 
at mrottsiq aoboow # ese gathliud edt to hae ylroFens ede 
tentsyje dtwoe ef? of bemeqo dotde toob—qai? 2 saw etedt dokdy 
8 saw 100h-qers ed? dteened bane «gatbliud edt to {lew edt 9* 


- Be 

atairway end a cellar about 5 feet in depth, There was an 
entrance to the premises upon each of the streets named, At 
the enat end of the open garden space wae a atage from which 
moving picturea were displayed and the remainder of the open 
garden apace was provided with chaira and tables for the 
agcommodation and use of the patrone, On the evening of 
June 14, 1910, defendant in error, in company with her huge 
band and three cr four other parties, went to the place of 
business of plaintiff in error, where all ccoupled seate at 
a table in the garden space not fur from the stage. Prior 
to the cocupanoy of the premises by plaintiff in error, when 
they were used for the same purpose, a woman's retiring room 
was located in the northeast corner of the building at or 
near the place where the platform ans trap-door above dea- 
eribed were located at the time in question, and defendant 

in error wae familiar with the former location of said room 
and with the meane of access thereto. At the time in ques- 
tion the woman's retiring room was lecated at the west enti of 
the porch above deacribed, where there were placed an appro 
priate sign and some eleotric lights. At about half past 

8 or 9 o'clock defendant in error had occasion to go to the 
women's retiring room, and assuming that it wae stiji located 
at the northeast corner of the building, she went to the plate 
form at the place indicated, The trapedoor wag then open 
and as defendant in error stepped from the ground to the plate 
form her foot went into the opening and she wae precipitated 
into the cellar and injured. hefendant in error testified 
that ehe had no knowledge that the women's retiring room. aac 
been removed to the west end of the porch, and as to this 

she is not contradicted, She further teetified that as ahe 
approached the platform she observed a light in the portion 
of the building at thet place which she thought wae visible 


rie > 46 — 


43 ee 
as Saw oxedT .dtqab at teet & tude — ome amt 
th demon etoorte adt to wove aoau weeimer edt 64 6c e * 
doldw mort ozete 2 oan vonqe 4s 
nego sdt Yo rebatamex ot tae be stats’ 
od 101 soldat bas extado a⸗t · mtv os 
td gaiaove edt a0 senotteq.ed? to sau ina fs oe 
-oud zed dtiw yaaqmoo al ,10t1e at tmabaeted ,OLeL 
Ye woslq edt Ot thew .selerag sedto two To mended, q 
te etaee betquoce [Le o1nde .xoT1e af Witaialg to t 
zoixt .ogede odt aout tet toa conde asbray Olt at Of 
avde sods al Bitdbsty Yd eadiaory eds Yo vonsiwoon 6 
woe SRL of nation a \eeoqiug eae eat 40d —* 
10 $s gntoftud odé to témtod teaediton odd al b 
“eb ovode r00b-qart dae moraata vat axedw 
fnataeteb bao .noltesup at ould e Bedavot s 
moot dtes Yo mottscel tomtot odd dtiv xeifime® eaw 
weep al ddif bad Ph. “Jdediead ‘eduocs “2d Oanen Ode” * 
to bas ‘toot ent tn botsool eaw moo% ‘gaiztter 8*aanowt Ay : 
“orgs aa beoslq etew oxedd otodw bed txoweb evods 1 10 
deeq tied fuods th edagal olxtools eae bas agile. 7 
odt of 03 of motesooe bad 16u16 ai Sastasreb Weototo 6 , 
betaco t tite son #h ted? gatmuars baw moor gaixites | 
int od} of tnow ‘ode qgaibtiud ‘odd Yo x9ax00 taneddzon Sat 
neqo aed? ear s0ob—qe1t eAT — betsothat ‘seal edt @ 
atelq edt of bawoty ont aort beqqets sortxe at tnabaeteb 
botetiqtoe:q eew ode bas gatnego ed? otat iow toot —4 
beltites? 10716 at tnabnetet sbowtat bas telldo dite 
bad moot gnitites e'nemow ed? ted? oghelwond | on ‘bad oda 
sid} of #2 Bae (dotoq odd Yo bad teow odd of — 
ode ts Fodd bettitesd tedtiw? od , botorbet#ao i 
mottioq bdt at sigil & bovieedo ode mtettalq od? 
eldisiv on Sdjuod? ede dotdw eoald Yad? ta —— 

























we 


> 


é 
PHA 


ite 


‘e's 


te 
Bogs ay: 


= 3 
through a transom over the door or through a window. As to 
the presence of a light in that portion of the building, the 
evidence is conflicting, but it is well astablianed by the 
evidence that there were no lighta at or near the eastern end 
of the garden espace, s@ the presence of lights there would 
hsve prevented 4 view of the moving pictures, The arranges 
ment of the poroh extending xeat from the platform is not 
definitely described, but some portion of that porch is 
referred to as having been used aa a summer bar, ‘*hether 
it was 90 used at the time in question does not appear, The 
cellar to which eccesa wae had by the trap-deoor was formerly 
used for storing beer barrels, but wae not then being used 
for anv purpore, The trapedoor wae not locked or otherwise 
securely faatened and was located where it wight be readily 
opened by any one moved by mischief or idke curiosity. The 
evidence given in behalf of plaintiff in error tends to show 
that the premises were frequently invaded by boys, and that 
plaintiff in error and others in Kie employ were oecupied 
much of the time in chasing boys out of the grounde and 
buildings; that plaintiff in error and others in his employ 
had frequent occasion to observe the portion of the premises 
where the platform and trapedoor were located, and that they 
did not open the trapdoor or observe that if wae open prior 
to the time defendant in error waa iniured, 

It i¢ insisted that the verdict is net surported by 
the evidence and is contrary to law, 

The atatue of defendant in error waa not that of a 
trespasser or a Licensee merely, but wae clearly thet of an 
invitee, as to whom plaintiff in error was bound to exercise 
reasonable care to make and keep the premisea in a reasonably 
gafe condition for her proper use of the same, while she was 


in the exercise of reseoneble care for her own aafety. 


2&- 
Of GA .mobntw & AQuoedt go 490% edt t9v0 moenagt a asonse 
ad? .gnibliud edt to mating tnd! of Angtt.o to sonenes 
Od? Yd badedidatee Llom at tt td .gattotitnos at, 
bee ayotese of? rs9M 10. $6 BtdRdL On STOR, OTOde 
diwew Sredt, at dn al 
“OansttA PAT, . -seautolg antwos aa⸗ to mety s . bry 
oa a: arasaia ↄq⸗ ꝛ da BRhbRAtRD. AoTER tae 
4 Abdnen 428%20 moktx0m emo, Aud, gdodironed hones 
Senso: »7Ad Sommye.s ao heen seed yalvad. os OF a— 
OdT ,zaeqq8 tom Boob notseour ak eatt odd 6 deou om mm 
tee? asn roph-qexd odt Yd bad sew eBnoos dokdwod wi 
bogu gated aed? ton sam tad. ¢hloxted good. 
ealmzedto mm heteol fon ear rwoobeqart oAT..4 
Viibeer ed tdgia th oredr bataool aay has peagiast 
Wode OF abaet sonx9 aL BItotelq Yo Waded at aevsa 
fadd dun ,oyod yd bebsval yiineupert ozow, seaimerd | 
boltquone srew yolqae eid at exsdte bas tome at % 
bas atauoag edt to avo ayod sateado at omtt, 
yolgms etd at arodto baa coaxo at ttitotela, tad? 4 
Reeiassy edt to aoltiog edt avivedo o⸗ molesooe sas 
yodt #edt ban ,betsool oxew soob-qat? haa stetrele, edéy, 218 
solitq soqo aan tl sad? eviesdo 19 toOMbeqert edt) mOgo, J— — 
.berutalt pow Tose ms tashaoleh omit eddewt 
XS betroqywe fom et tolbrey adt tadd, Badatent eh 4Tics oo BAM 
.wel @¢ vaettaoo: ef daa eovebtveceme 





















i ——— 


* 
ae 


& to ted? ton #aw rosse ai anadngted to susete oT 95! 48 


pr) 

&@ to ted? yiteolo sew sud ,yLerem.eesmeoll 6.70, — 
eaiotexe oF bayod eaw to129 mi Witateld aodr of ee, hate 
Vidanoeoet « at Goalwerq edt qood baw odam of 9229 ®. Pa 


een ode oltdy ,omse oft Io pay teqoxg, 20d 202 MoLtibaoovezes te vw 
sXeSloe swo 10d x0% erg0 eldeaoeper Yo setozexe edt. gs 


f tac 


“4 
The argument advanced by plaintiff in error in 
support of hie contention that there ie no aufficient proof 
of negligence wholly overlooks the failure of plaintiff in 
error to lock or otherwise securely fasten the trap-door 
or to provide a guard at the platform a» an essential slement, 
in view of the existing situation, in determining the question 
of negligence. The area oooupied by the garden espace proper 
to the weet and in front of the stake, wae comparatively 
omall, being about 67 x 110 feet, Most, if net all, of this 
Space wae ocoupied by chaire and tables. There vere no 
‘well defined paths or walka upon which the patron were exe 
pected to move about. The easterly portion of the space 
near the stage was not provided with artificial lights and 
was comparatively dark. The platform in which the trap-door 
was placed immediately adijoined the garden apace and was 
open and readily accesaible by persons on foot. Plaintiff 
in error and cthere employed by him had frequently chased 
away boys who had congregated at and upon the platform, 
In view of the entire situation, ae above stated, 
it can not be said as a matter of law thet the failure of 
plaintiff in error to lock or otherwise fasten the trap-door 
or to provide some barrier or guard arcund the platform did 
not constitute negligence, or, in other worda, did not amount 
to a failure on the part of plaintiff in error to exercise 
reasonable care to make and keep the premises reasonably safe 
for hia patrona, end we are not prepared to aay, a9 a matter 
of fact upon the evidence adduced, that plaintiff in errer was 
not guilty of negligence in that respect. As bearing upon 
the question whether or not defendant in error was in the 
exercise of reasonable care for her own safety, the fact that 
the women's retiring room was formerly located in the north~ 
east corner of the building, and the further fact that defen- 


dant in error relied upon her knowledge ef ite former location 


v- he 
al wrte at theatals we Roonewhy Smomuges: oa? © 05 WA 
toonq taetoltiwe On Bt orddt tad? aolenotnos ® 
ah Tiltntely to eruligt 2% edoolievo yYioaw 
sooneie (ettneess as ss wrettstq odt te beeyy eo 
solteeup ed? gniaiazsteb al ynolgautia gaiteixe edt, 
Yeqorq sorqes aobisg ed? yd beiqweco sete edT 2: 
ylovitetsquon sew ,egete sat to ¢nosd at ban 
aldt to glia Jom th yteoM ©. tee? OL6 x FO duode gat 
Om OxeW OLE? soldat bas extetio yd betquose 
_ "ke STOW gOTsaQ edt doldw soqu 
(e0e78 eff to noitxoq yltetase ont | 
baw etugtt Letottitrs dtiw bebtveiq ton 
soobeqert edt Moise at wsotseiq edT © . ited 
> @sw bes @oaqe nebiny ott bentoths 
ViilatalT toot ao anoereq Yo oldleseoon' ell beer 
beesdo ylinevpext bad aid ed beyolqme eroito ban 
_ ,tzottel: ed? mequ baa ta betagexgaco bad ofw X 
——— 
‘YovomwsLtet edt tad? wel Yo rettam & a8 Btee ied 
toob=-qst? od? netest eeivwisdte so dool of so7Te 
bik avottalq sit bawore biaw_g 10 seltied emon’ 
tauvogs toa bib ,ebiow z9edto at to qoomegiisen 
estotexe Of 10179 al Tiitatalg to tieqved? no lem! 
otee yidanerse:t seeimetg od! qood bane edam of Ots0. 























ietiam 6 as ,yse Of betaqgeTq ton eae ew bas yenozteq @: - ‘4 

bog ae 

sow corse al Ititatalq ded? ,beoubbe eonebive edd aoqu fost To 
soqu gatised aA = .fooqeed tad? af eonegiigon Yo ysling bear 


edt at ss” Tore mi tnabaeteb tonto sodéedw' not int Pin 

tedt tont off yytetse avo 164 20% Orso sldande ser to. sotonsne : 

<dtton edt mi beteool Yltewro? een toot seititot staonowage | 

“netsh tad? tost todtust odt ben), gadbiiud edt Yo teat Weme | + 
molvnool tea10t eft Yo epbelwond aed moqv betlex 102719 al ?aab 


~ Bo 
are not without significance. 

The gases principally relied upon by plaintiffin 
error are not in point. In Gowan v. Kirby, 180 Maos., 504, 
Bennett vy, Butterfield, 112 Mich,, 96, and Davie v. Ringolaki, 
143 Bo, App., 364, the plaintiffs were mere licensees, The 
evidence required the subminsion of the questione involved 
to a jury and we are not persuaded that the verdict was 
unwarranted, 

If the uncontradicted teatimony of defendant in 
error and her attending phygiaian is true, the damages are 
not so excessive ag to require a remittitur or a reversal of 
the judgment by a court of review, 

Upon hia direct examination defendant wae asked: 
"Thom did you see the next morning?® He replied: "It was 
& lawyer; her husband came with a lawyer and introduced him.” 
The following then appears in the record: 

"Opjection to anything the lawyer or husband might have 
gaid; objection sustained,” 

It is now insisted that the court improperly refused 
to permit plaintiff in error to testify to the converaation 
he then had with the hueband of plaintiff and the Jawyer whe 
accompanied him. The question sought to be raised is not 
properly preserved for review, Plaintiff in error waa not 
asked to state what waa then said, and it was not made to 
appear to the court that what waa then said, if anything, was 
relevant or competent. 

A consideration of the entire testimony of the wite 
nese, Ruseell, disoloees that plaintiff was not harmed by the 
action of the court in sustaining an objection to a question 
relative to the length of time which elapsed between the time 
the witness saw the trap door and the time he learned of the 


accident, 

























a= 
eae at Patedats we | snonap timate tuo iv fon one 
nbwitotata XS moqu betes yLioqtonizg sense adh. fy 
208 ,, 000M OBL .ydzth .v payed al  «@ntog at | 
ddelonash sy pived bas .06 qedoth Sil 
of? ,esevencoil e1em ereaw sttitaialq odd ,hOt | 
Gem Pokbuey edt tod? bebemxog ton esa 9m J x 
TRF U. Ree . O80 REP to see aes baa 
mk —— to ——————— Mag 
810 saganab odd oust et netoleydq satbastys xed has. 
30. feerev0s @ 20 WELT imeT & OXiupED Of eo: —8 
e ty 0088s  erelvet to tune # yd 
tHekse our —— —— —— aid ava 
— Be —— roywel a dtiw ouso banded tort 
shed. 6. Seo! sbeepet oct al. araeqge godt: 
eved Sigim haadevd 10 soywal edt yridtyaa ot. no it os te 
euch! *, beniataya m0 ttos| 
besytex yYLreqexqat fxuoo edt tadt betatent wom at ¢I neil 
aoiteereyave ed? of Ybitest of roTIe at Titatete teneg 
ede xoywet edt ban Tittntale to basdeud edt dddtw baw 
ton ef hontex ed.ot tdguor aottooup ont sabe bed 
ton sew tore mi Ltitaialt ,welves «ot bevieserq 
of sbew ton waw th bee gbtes modt saw tare etade of} 
Sow gnintyas tt _bise ned? saw fade ted? tao edt Ovi: 
+faesoqmoo, 10. 
~tin ed? to ynomiteet esit¢ne ed? to aoltsaredliesoq Aye font * 
od¢ yd Dbeared ton hay thitatalg tent aeeolormth .fleeauhi , » | 
nolseeup @ of aoktertse aa Balaisteve at ¢woo edt, Toso — 
eat? ont neerted beaqaie doide eats to dtgnel edt of — 9— a 
od? to benitsel of emi? on? bee s00b gaat on? was evont te od? ‘i 


r 


-6< 
Both of the parties to the suit are natural persons 
and both testified as witnesses, and the seqond inegtruetion 


tendered by plaintiff in errer was, therefore, properly refused. 


Kiick v. Boost, 145 Til. App., 411; (€. & BE. J. Rh. Re. Co. v. 
Burridge, 211 Tll., 8. 


The jury were charged that it wae the duty of plaine 
tiff in error to exercise ordinary care to preserve and keep 
his place in a reasonably eafe condition for his patrons and 
visitors. It 48 said that the duty imposed by law upon 
plaintiff in error in that reapect was limited to patrons of 
hie place and did not extend to visitors, If it be conceded 
that by the term "visitors" wae meant licensees merely, the 
change could not have harmed plaintiff in error, because, as 
heretofore held, defencgant in error wae an invitee and not a 
licensee, 

There ia no aubatantial error in the record and the 


judgment is affirmed. 


JUDGMENT AFFIRWED, 


SERN! AiG Greece 
» ⁊ i Rater. | 



























8 q 
ancerey Lowten oe thie edt of wottrkg eit “to HoH” °°" — 
ad tedur⸗e art broove edt brie ae eee ated 
— Senta aww Todd (bw torre wt isla t 
pte Vag ete a.v a 
ear ,2a0aneoit ese eree 2a lg Ve ttt . 
—ateld to Ytub oft aaw tY sake begrado otow yxut AT 
good Bite evabeur OF orto Kio khad owtorexe Ot Youre! 
baa Snoxtaq eld tot mottibnos else yidenoase: « HY 86m 
“goat Wat ys Boog? Youb buy vadt biae oF 9T! Vem 
Yo Bnortny of ber tntt anv sooqnds tadt AY Zorro Ht 4 
bebeonos e¢ #1 YT exostetv oF Badtks ton nib bah’ Bos 
od? .ylotem eoesneot! taaeu ahw “exottely” aed bay 
ex (oetindsd yrovxe at Ytivnthty bowrel evaif ton blue 
— ove trat — aor we —* ‘ bted 
Dat PPAR TSS ate oe ema 
edt bas b10007 or ares —*⸗ 
reyes Sct ORO — oe 


hagk wo bos bp 





% 


© oTAMAITIA TKAMOCUL 


ato adent woe bl €F 

of sontie mt tTalsnleiqgn eS 

. b Pbtetaie Yo baedeed smh athe beat 
fies: Piutree po lites ong zie babe 


a to8 woives vot bevensoup eal 


ow 424 avaze or; 3 
. , at? Of F 
e aof7 TO 
“« 5 ft. 
Lorri y sa 
* 
—— err * 
% 24 i? of —* —*—* J 
an Lt} 20) eee weonhdes 


ot ve 
- Pes blog - Je 
fe — 


i 4 
ie 
4 














pret erm, 1911, yo- 
4 * a AY . 


235 ~ 17768. 


1821.4. 429 


BRIDGET MeDONALDZ 
Appellee, 


APPEAL FROM 
va. 
SUPERIOR COURT, 
ETER X. MONINE et al., 
Refendants, GCOK COUNTY. 


ETER FE, MODINE 
————— Appellant. 


MR. JUSTICE BAUME DELIVERFD THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 


Bridget MeDonald brought her action in case in the 
Superior Court against P, E. Modine and Olney & Jerman Come 
pany, @ corporation, to recover damages for personal injuries, 

nd upon the trial before a jury there was a directed verdict 

' of not guilty in favor of the defendant corroration, The 

\ jury returned &® verdict againet the defendant, Modine, for 

\ (91,200, upon which verdiot a judgment wae entered, and Modine 


ve 


\ Proseoutes thie appeal to reverse such judgment. 


"i 
* 


The declaration, upen which the cause was submitted 
to the jury, contsina four counte. The first count charges 
that on July 26, 1909, the defendants posseseed and controlled 
a horse and wagon, which, by a servant under their joint cone 

| trol, were being driven south on State Street, at ite inter 

| section with Madison atreet in the City of Chicago, Tllinois; 

p that said intersection is one cf the most used and crowded 

~  Qroesinga, being situated in the shopring dietrict of the city; 

x that the atreets at the intersection were used by 200,000 
pedestrians, many divers vehicles, andi etreet care, each day; 

that while plaintiff was crossing State atreat at or near its 

x intersection with Madieon street, and exercieing ordinary caré, 

| defendants, by their servante, #0 carelesaly, negligently and 

\ wrongfully drove, managed and controlled a hereé and wagon, 


that they ran against and upon plaintiff, injuring her, ete. 




























ie nor : 


* 
Ce 
ey 
eS “wad 
- - i 
* — reer eset 39 ‘ 
faicton ove Pua ot eotheeey wah ¥ to" “eye rw * 
oe" ie — a) 
— on bolt rag 
ash hak SBr.. Bia wt — rs be 
me eS 7 aes iB By api OMe be Eby ue 
4 t * 
udat IARTTA *—— ‘cot 
watt * rash an ir Se ihe ‘elt? gper oe 
— a ok 
2 il a! ii acbevibaad ¥  toettoqah dette 





a CN sn, we és iy ve se * oe brea we? Fe F 


_ <u, 19 woraT® > mn AASV NSE MUTA, BO 


(OH? at obo at mottos’ xeit Pigwb ae bianottolt oe 
1009 nmol xontd bab” bwnsew — T dabhaga #1 
oohuitint enoexeg' 40% eegcurt aavooex of notin 
rorbaby bos ovzib b Gaw eon?” vw « “eroted Late? & 

dT »f0tte10q100 taabnoteb ed? to 10vat ak tas 
wet 8AtbOM thebnoteb b:1? tentags totbrov & be 
ea heu bas , beret a0 enw tremy but 8 totbrev EX 
faoaabut dove eerevez of Laoaa⸗ olde ee 


J * 


x 


ar 
bos shade ew eeuno od? doldw nog «09 1t ats Loeb oa? * $05 


9 


—— tauoo tartt otat —R 10? satetnoo cea | * 
belloxtaos bas boneensog etnabueted oat eoer —* lath ao ) 


—A 


09 tatot tied? tebaw tasviee 8 yd .doldw 10.5% bas @ tod 
-tetet ett ?s efonsse otate no-atvos novixh gittod onow be 
yetomtiit ,ogseidd to etd edt al toeente mon thell a⸗ he nok 
bebwors bas beew teou oft Yo ono ef no ttoseretnt bine 
irxeto ed? Yo tolrtets gniqgode edt al bet avtin gated oga | 
000,008 yd heay otew no ttooeretat od? te etoortea — tn 

{yeh dose ,e@120 teotts baa eololdey exevib yn ea senalated 
a@i teen 10 fo tootte ofaeh gatesoro saw rutatalg ol Rie 


2760 ‘Tasathro ‘gate torexe baa teotte non thew dt kw ao tt ove 


a * 
‘ 





bre et aos tigen stisseforso oa otaevro8 alodt xa verast poets: 
ory 
efogew bac set0d « beffortnos bas — yovorb — 
F 
— 


eofe ,10d galwint nieal⸗ata nage ban tentage ast yods 





«2 w 

The second count charges that while plaintiff waa 
endeavoring to bourd a street oar running on State street, 
which was storping for her to bourd, defendante failed to 
keep a lookout and failed to watch where the horse and wagon 
wae being driven; that a9 a reault thereof, they ran against 
plaintiff, injuring her, etc. 

The third count chargee that while plaintiff was 
 @ndeavoring to board a street car, on State atreet, which 
wae stopping for her, defendante netligentiy drove the horse 
ang wagon at « high rate of speed, injuring her, etc, 

The fourth count charges that defendant Modine was 
a teaming contractcr and ownmd numerous horses and wagons 
which he emplcyed in delivering gocda for various concerns 
under contract; that defendant, Ciney & Jerman Company, wae 
engaged in the wholesale drug business, and had contracted with 
defendant, Modine, for him to furnish it wagons and horses 
with drivere and d@liver its merchandise; that on the day 
in question, one of the wagone and herees proceeded south on 
State street at its inhersection with Kacison street, under 
the control of 4 servant, under the joint authority and aone 
trol of eaid defendants; that while pleintiff was endeavoring 
to board a atreet car on State atreet, which wae waiting for 
her, and while in the exercise of ordinary care for her safety, 
defendante BO careleasly, negligently and wrongfully drove, 
managed and controlied the horse and wagon that they ran 
against and upon her, injuring her, etc, 

It is inniated that appellee wae guilty of contrie 
butory negligence as a metter of law, 

At the time in question south bound street care 
running on State street stopred to receive and discharge parse 
engers at the intersection of Kadison etreet on both the north 
and aouth sides of aaid atrect, At about noon, on July 26, 


1902, appellee was waiting on the sidewalk cn the west eide 

























-&- 
sew Ttitatalg oltdw gad? segrado tayo baooee oat 
atootte ofa38 ao zutaaua 100 Seezte # bined oF yy 
(od pol kar Stambosteb ybraod of 19d 20% sntaqorte. oow 


aogew, bas eexod od? erode dotaw of bellat ert 
AMG 
tontage nex yods * eiyeas a as, @and? — jae. cep 


epee ston gatsutady 4 1. 

age, isa) oiq — ‘teat aagratio tayoo SERRE DRS 

. dotdw stoozts etes® ao 4x80 foerse ‘a bea og 0% 
se70d od? ovorb ylinopgilzen atashesteb —* 70} 
Lye ote yred aatautat ybeeqe to eter Agls c⸗ 
nay ↄgtox tustaeted tadd sepxeds tawoo a⸗ — ‘ . 


— — auoreawn ban wo. baa rennet 
sareeno9 avo hteyv rot ‘sb003 aataor tiet at bovolgne. ane. 08 
een .yregne0 aserol a veal? aataoro⸗ tedt jtoan: * 
athe bod oes %n00 bad bans ssonteud * ——————— 
— bas eaoaav th as taaun of mid 92 attou ,¢aabe * 

ab bat a0 teat jeetbnadozea atl * one rest. t 


m9 Aruoe —— non tod bas anogow edt to eno mone 
soba ,ytvoxrte aoo thau atin not ovatedat ott to tooxte 
“eo ban ytiirodtus talot ear reba aaavaos to 
gatzovasbae eaw ttitalelq oLhan saat istaabaote biee 


og,» ~ 


* * J 


— 


~ 
é 


tot gattiaw saw doldw toorte otate no aa ‘teense 8 20d 


¢¥feles t9d 10% e180 Ytanlbze. to o loroꝛo oat ‘st eLtan —* 
Aroahb ——— baa ylitaegligon seineslerse 8. 





asx yods ted? moyee bnew seated oft beliostaco 3 be 4 
.ove ted gaiqital ,zed no cms ; ban ta te 

-hitneo to wef hay aow eel loqqs tad? bateteat a or ie Gi. 
ewal Yo tetvtan 5 #8 sons tizen 


~~ 


ali 


#120 teorte haved dtvor no hteaup ak eait odt ta 4 ee . 


—e@0q sgitedoRtb bas evieoes: of baqqote torte esate no 





TT ie 4 


a⸗ aoa edt dtod no tents noatbad Yo mostovetetat edd te 930 
296 vit ao aoaa tuedse tA = 4toette hiee Yo sobte —— 
as 


Obie teew out ao Alewebie ed? no gattion ane | eaitoace 108 
ria? cil 


oa 
* 


. ae 
— 
— 


= 3 « 

of State street, a few feet south of Madison street for the 
purpose cf bearding a scuthbound car which *as then atanding 
at the corner north of Madison otreet, when it etopped at the 
south orocesing. The policeman eat the interasetion having 
given the signal for traffic to move north and south appellee 
left the sidewalk and went onto the atreet for the purpose 

of boarding the car which she saw approaching. When the 
car stopped at the south creasing, appellee observed that it 
was toc crowed to comfortably accomnedate more paraengere 
and decided to return to her former position on the sidewalk 
and wait for another car. Thile appellee was walking west 
on the street towards the sidewalk ohe »ae struok and injured 
by a horse and wagon which was being driven south on the west 
side of State atreet by one, Foucher, a servant in the employ 
of appellant. 

The evidence shore that the dircetion or course 
of the traffic upon the street was rerulated by signals given 
by a policeman etationed at the intersection of the two streets 
that when the street car wae atationary at the north crossing 
of the intersection appellant's horse and wagon had stopped a 
ehort distance in the rear or north of the car; that shen 
the signal wae given for traffic to proceed north and south 
on State atrest the street car and appellant's horse and wagon 
proceeded south across Madiacn atreet; that the atreet 
crossings at said intersection were then crowded with pedese 
triane; that when appellee decided not to board the street 
car and just before she etarted to return to the side-walk 
ehe looked up and down State atreet, but sar no horse and 
wagon or other vehicle approaching from the north; that when 
he had walked a distance of about &@ feet from a point sear 
the southbound car track toward the side-wslk ahe looked up 


and saw appellant's horse about & or 4 feet north of her; 


"0". 7 

od? rot #oorts mortba Yo Athoa Pet wet Hf ldodete erat “td 5 
gatbnate avdt esw dotitw xio Biudditioe » gatbiiod % 
edt te beqqots +f moliw .toerte noatball Yo dtrow ‘renid0's 
“ ghlived mottoontetat ett #2 Heanor tog bat” gatw 
selfogre dtvor tae atxOn evom oF ofttert sot Lange 
exoqmsy off 10% footte od? ofnd Saew hak ATowedte’ 

tt RAF bovroado Selleqys \anteadzd Atvow ex Fe 
 @2egHeRs eT Som StabomnoKDn YIdAtxo'tmod 62 
Alawebie oft nO mOttteoy voOMTOT r9A Of MIUPOt OF be 
“f8ow gniilew wav ootteqae OLhar’ Jeno —— 
bem{it the dourts wow ode vfeweblte ot ebrawot Foor! 
tae® ait ho H¥son nevith yited’anw Hotde aogew ban’ be 
yoryms eat at —B————— pinged ots 


FOG CL, “3 Leno ot ehh Be 






















* 


610d! to ndtHodtth oat ted kode odmoptve oat | 
seviy efangte vd botstoget waw tootds OHt Adqu oft ax 
gtoette owt SA? to noltoonternt off #2 benot+ats mawdol tod 
—— ont $9 yxanottite wae 80'soda20' old able PAM 
a beqqots bad noghe hoe oetod a'fnelleqqa wottos ‘ te 
abdw that tao 64? Yo aftdn 20 raed! ode AL Sonated Ki 
fitvoe han diton Besee7g Of oftter? dot Hevig°éew Lent 
AORSY bike ObtOd B'tne{loqqe hae tho teotrn odd seorde 
tootte ait tent jsootte moethall eeords Hthde” bsbes 
20)8q dtiw bobword meds orow Adtroveretat Biase se egak 
teorts ont bisod of tos bebtobh éoffeqqs Hew Fad¥ { | 
Afde-odte ont of wtutex oF betintea eda ero ted tout bas 4 ¥ 
bas estod on wae tud ,toette ete? awoh bab Ge betod * 
anode tadd jdsétom edt gort gatdosorqes sfotdev tonto ~ oa ' 
teen Sntog 2 mor? foot & tvods Yo Sonstath #2 bedLew * 
qu betool adn AlnW-ebia edd biawot ddexd ra bavodatude oat 


{You 6 doxcm “teot b xo 6 20044 Sexo ot Fadl logge WED ae? 
ee 06 ED 


= 


— 
that the horse wae being driven at a trot and appellee was 
atruck while attempting to avoid being injured, Appellee 
was not necesearily guilty of contributory negligence trou the 
side-walk to a point eaat of the south bound car track for the 
purpose of boarding the street car which Gustomarlly stopped 
at the south crossing. This she ascomplighed in ssfety,. 
The evidence does not disclose the precise location of appel- 
lant'a horse with reference to the etréeet intersection et the 
tine apreliee testified she looked up the street, and in view 
of the rapid git at which the horee was being driven, it 
may well be that the horse and wagon were then eo far north 
of the point where avpellee was struck that the crowd of 
pedestriane upon the street croesing obroured appellee's 
view of the approaching horse and wagon. The crowded cone 
dition of the street, the rate of apeed at which the horse 
was being driven, and the right of appellee te asaume, in 
the absence of knowledge to the contrary, that a person 
approaching the etreet crosaing and traveling upon the atreet, 
there in a vehicle would have the same under control, are 
all factors proper to be considered in determining whether 
or not appellee wae then and there in the exercine of due 
care for her own safety, tinder the evidence the quaeation 
wee not one of law, but of fuct, and we wre not propared to 
say that the finding of the jury upon that question is cone 
trary to the manifest weight ef the evidence, 

It clearly sppeara from the evidence that the sere 
vant of appellant was guilty of negligence. Re was driving 
upon the crowded street at a trot without keeping @ lookout, 
and did nof observe appellee until she had been struck by the 
horee, 

The objections to certain rulings of the court in 
admitting and excluding evidence are too trivial to merit 


discussion, 


~7t- 
baw solleqqa baa toxt 9 te nevits gated sey oma a tate 
. @alleaqA.. -detutat gated blave of gatiquatts iw 
ose Sidk aia tsaonsveetetinnany.20 s98t tas atbRNNEG! 
6? sani sheesh tenn anent stan edt, to tase tatoq a OF. 
eXteloe at bedailymeoce ede @taT  .gatesoto dtug 
~ioqgs to moltseal eaioerg edt aneloslb ton se0b ¢ 
od? te aelttoesretal seorte edt of sonezater dtin 
woiy at hae ,tevtts ad? qu bodool ede baltitess 
oft ywavith gated aw eatod od? doide te the / 
Atxog, 14) OF sect o10" moZAY has eRTOA Ad? tant od Khe 
-. 20 bwox9, 4d? ted? Aowgte now, soeLlogys oxede.ta * 
| steoliegqe boauoaao aateooxo Yeoxte edt seas eaght 
* — eat  ,mogaw bag cated gatdoworqggs 4 
enton ed? dotdw te beoge to stat odt etoorte ‘ast . 
— — eolleqys 20 ¢4ghx ed? bag _aovizd 
| Mont9Y 4 tadt .VIOTt G00 odt.of egbolmons to \ 
teorte oid aogu gatiovatt has gatesots toette edt gab 
ete ,foxtaco reba ewse odt ovat bluow eloltdev a.at : 
“aedtedw gniatmrsdes ai betebleaoo.ed of .s9q07q. oe 
oub to oelouexe edt of oted? bas sedt ean otters & 
sotteevp ed? Sonehive eit soba. ,.¥tetae avo. —XR A 
. Ot bataqexq ton Ore ow bag ,toat do sud woah teveedd a 
~100.08 aoitesuy eodt-noqu.yset ed? to. ygakbal?. ont t 
soonehive edt to tdgiow, toor tana, edt. aty yx 
-208 eit tod? sonehive od? aort azaeqqe Yixselo sf ache 
gaivizh eaw on -oonegilgen to ytliny. caw taalleqqs to | — 
etuodoot « galqeed tuodtiw tor? s te toorte hebnoxe od? gogy 
edt yd dourte sood bed ode Liiau eelleqqs Sarees b 




















a * 


zion Be ; 
al tiwoo edt Yo agattua atetze0 of snoltostdo edt... edd 7 ii 
thxea of Latvia? oe? exe eonebiye — bas, sotth tatle 


— 
sig BRE 


» B= 

It is said that the third inatruction given st the 
instance of appellee improcerly calle attention te the fact 
that any admissions made by appellant's witnesses might be taken 
as helpful to appellee's case, The instruction is wholely im 
personal in its phraseology and is not subject to the criticiem 
made, 

There is a Glieriecal omission in the fourth inetruce 
tion given at the request of appellee, but such omission did 
not make the inatruotion harmful te appellant. 

The fifth inetruction, given at the instance of 
appellee, is as followas 

*“Y¥¢ from the evidence in this ease and under the in- 
atructiona of the court, the jury ehell find the defendant 
guilty and that plaintiff hae sustained dumages, as charged 
in the declaration, then, te enable the jury to estimate the 
amount of damagee, it is not necessary that ony witness should 
have expressed an opinion as to the amount of such damage, but 
the jury themselves may make such entisate from the facta and 
circumstances in proof, and by considering them in connection 
with their knowledge, obeervation and experience in the 
ordinary affairs of life." 

It is urged that, ae the deciaration claimed damages 
because appellee was prevented by her injuries frem attending 
to her business and for chligations by reason of saxpenditures 
of money for medical care and attention, and there waa no 


proof in support of auch elements of damages, the instruction 


WAS erroneous and necessarily harmful to appellant. Appellees 


declaration, a9 abstracted by appellant, containe no reference 
to the elements constituting the damages claimed by appellee, 
and we are not disposed to esearch the record in an attempt to 
discover error upon which to predicate a reversal of the 
judgment, Laird v, Dickirson, 241 1212., 380, Furthermore, 
a subatantially like instruction was approved in Thompeon vy. 
Northern Hotel Co,, 258 Ili., 77. 

The damages awarded by the jury are ample, but we 
cannot eay they are «excesnive, 

There is no prejudicial error in the record and the 


judgment is affirmed. 
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. 





see 
edd te neviy noltourtant brid? ed? seat bine’ ak ¥T oP all 
toot edt of ndTtaet a alice ylroqoeqal! vdtTeaqe” ate 
neue? O' tage ebewenstW e*biiat Togas We bhee Seb newnane yaad 
-mt yislodw ®t notteuttent eff  .atso eeefleqqs ot! 
melottiao of? 0% toetdue ton e2 dhe ypoloseatiy ett ab? m 
mtaian at wedei Dore at seat Jaleeaoga *— 
-ourtent déawot ed? ni notesiag Saotreto a at 
“bib moteatao deve tud ,eo(teqye to teenpes sit 
oO teat teqae ot Lutarrait 90 tt own tine” 
0 eotstent eit ts” deepening sagt aer + 
OF oc an. sOuae Bit iewoftot aa ef” 
wt, see tp ——————— 12% 
begtudd es .29g — 
— cal er arte 
Sees Sane a ce 
—— Fas = i vad} rs 8* —E —2 


—XX (xen? 9 As a2 Mh: ot athe 
Rogaasb baateto nontexstoed, eit a8 vtad? beau et — 
antiaes?a att eetayta tod vd betneverg | Bow 23 
wert ——— to acenet yd eaottagildo 70% dns sope 
on saw oreds das ,noltnetts bas e180 Aggeres bow 1 10% vt 



























+ 


aoitouttent edt — R to a¢neuele dows to sroqque 

e' sollLogqa etaslloqqys of yazan Nitzeeseoon ae pecan 
eoneiste1 on eatatage staal fogs xe batoazteds as Aone 
eeolloqya ed bentete eegeush ed? yaltatizeqoa atromele 9: 


ot tquette oe at brooex od? dotese of besoqeth ton oaa ow : 
, d } he 
edt to Ieatever 2 eteotberq of Avidw noqu 70338 | 


soromtedtryT «=, OBE 4 ALT (65 «poentiotd .v betel _ .¢as | 


«¥ soegaodT st bevorqss sew aottoquatent eAll yileliqotadve 
wT ee ill 8ss ‘ J Rs ee 


ov tud ,elqms exo xaut od? Yd bohqane aaa aasp eT. van 
sovigeooxs ore xod⸗ — 


eit baa brooex en? ai sor1e Letokbuterq on @f orsdT 


an 


+20 te oO O@EB 


AeuearTeTt. «TTT. 





ber Term, 1911. No. 


B69 - 17804, 








FRANK’, RIEDER and EDITH K. 

RIEDER, | 
* ERROR TO 
SUPERTOR COURT, 


COOK COUNTY. 


‘Defendants in Prror, 


om: exec ve. 


a2 oat Witte <SERSON LA 
SBIVER: Se — ffs in Error. 


— —* ‘pS 210A. 430 


oo SSyploguaryer BAUME DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 


land 


This writ of error is prosecuted to reverse a decree 
6f the Supérigr Court reforming a warranty deed at the instance 
of defahdanta in error, Frank ®, and Edith K, Rieder, and 
enjoining the Prosdcution of @ sult at law instituted in the 
HOntsipsd Coirt by Plointifr in error, Levi B. White, against 
gaia aeferdants in @rror. , 
h9OS, The bili Of complaint filed July 22, 1910, alleges 
that GA Septemper 22, 1906, defendante in error were the 
ownére in fee simple of certain lands, therein deacribed, 
situeted in Juneau County, *ieconsin; that on or about 
September 1,°1916,*eaid White agreed to purchase said land from 
defendants ineerror ani fay them therefor $960 net to them, 
and ¢6 take dafa@ Yond aubidet to the lien or charge against 
the same of any and sll ineteallmentea or taxes or assessments 
#hich #hould bécome payable thereafter; ‘that aaid White 
fereonally inépected said land and was informed by defendant 
in“errér, Prank ¥) Rieder, of the taxes ant assessmento «hich 
nad, prior thereto, been levied upon and were a lien on gaid 
Yand amounting to about #600, payable in snnusl inetallments 
dtring a period of years thereafter; ‘that said White agreed 
te"astume and pay the said Gnetallmenta of taxes and assess 
dente then levied and a lien upon said land; that for the 


furrose of cartying out said verbal agreement a warranty deed 








“8< 
biee of bast blee galtanitew dae gatyevnce sete ti 
bas 10119 at atnahaoted yd betyoens oxox hood dotde i 
sinabaeteb of blew <hoquesndt ode setidy bias of betevl 
-tavo baa eisteta yd tad? Gnoqu — edt 30% 1J— 
rogoag 10 a⸗ ou OFLA¥ bien hae somx at etasba 
— ads. nat, asibehodchuae tive, sense | 
“atnomeggnes bas sexat bles od? of foetus shen eam ost 
bisa hewteoer bag oot nivzedt ontnasy od? todd. * 
jetnemessess bane eexst bise of toetdus sonmeyevnco bisa va 
Litaye9tton ao obhotaoaa on bad xonao ab J 
delist th toads botugexe aay boob Hise t0e#IK ax89y, Of: 
tot Ingmverge dive ad? Atty eoashigcce at bask ies yevag 
yas obam otis? bien fad? seitoa on bed. bas ,tovzed? efee 
‘ROT atnomlisteal bieqny of? te tavooos ao mott teateg 
As redmotqa® reste eldsya; ounoed dotde efcemepesen Ft 
|, Devieoes ved? aed .QOCL gi redot9d tupdn Ltda 
s0% 88.880 102 wld ys atelo o 20 slat, bien aoxt smeme’ 
tedugtqes of tnevpoadue aldsyeq eusoed dotdw xat,@: 
noqu.byett © ef misio blag Yo soltizeuas ont tad? _, 
so ted? jtoutau bas eldetivpent ef has tonte al, X 
auoꝰ LeqiotawW aae at tive tdgvard stiaW dies o oxe— ead 
“eves to dosed & 10t.alslo @ no 10329 ah etagbaoteb i 
aoxat bier to tayoooa no £8,880$ gatmisio ,beeb bine 
0. aoltvoegony sult tadt axs xa (itd od? . .etmomnes 
ted? o8 bemirotear ed beeb bies tans bos bodtotae ed +t 
biae to olse od? 10% taomeetge ed? Of a1¢tago Liede 
saw Qoneyevnoo hise tedt aktvoxqg dfada tt tadt om bag, 
Stnamscorex bas eoxat bise edt of toetdus betqeoos bas © — 
aoano .aolitvoexe at! of taaupesdus ouh omcosd of ie 
edt 22 atnahnateh ahem etew dontdosh .0 tuddth bas, iw 
edt to golfuoenorq ed? al etid¥ Yo sevitetnesexqes bas stage oe 
enclitagtiqe: baa eteweca settA  .#w0d Laqtoinul od? at tion : 


‘Ge gay 






















* So toe Sac ae 





~ So 
filed the cause was referred to a master to take the proofa 
and repert the same, together with his conclusiona, The 
waster filed hie report es directed and recommended that the 
relief prayed in the bill be granted, and that the bill be 
diamissed as to the defendants, Landen and Bachrach, After 
objectiona and exceptions to said report had been overruled 

the chancellor entered a decree in accordance with the 

findinge of the master, 

Tt is insisted by plaintiff in error that the 
evidence faile to show that any agreement waa entered into 
between defendants in error and White, relative to the 
eonveyance of the land, other and different than the one 
expreseed in the deed, 

Tne first formal negotiation between the parties 
relative to the sale of the land owned by defendanta in error 
cecurred in the eariy part of September, 1906, at the office 
of 8. A. Harrison in Chicago, It is uncentroverted that 
upon that oocasion defendant in error, Frank W, Rieder, 
priced the land to plaintiff in error at $7 an acre; that 
shortiy thereafter plaintiff in error went to Wisconsin and 
inspected the land ani upon his return offered Rieder $6 an 
sore, which offer was scoepted by Rieder; that Rieder peraon- 
ally drafted a short form warranty deed, which wan executed 
and delivered to plaintiff in error on September 38, 1906, 
who then paid to defendante in error the agreed consideration 
of $960; that the land was awamp cr marsh land embraced within 
the boundaries of a drainage district, which, in 1901 or 1902, 
had caused a drainage tax or assessment, payable in annual 
inotaliment@ during a period of 20 yeara, to be levied against 
the jands within ite boundaries; that subsequent te hia pure 
chase of the land plaintiff in error paid the inetallments 
for the yeare 1906, 1907 and 1968, as they became due and 
payable, and made no claim therefor against defendante in 
error until Osteber, 1909, 


-t-- 
eoorg edt ofet of rofeam we Of bexteIeT sor ane botlt 
aut 9 ,snotsuLonon atd. Avtw seftegod youse odd 
De. Rae bas betovaih’ ss, ¢10ge1 wid ‘be 
es ffid ont Pint has ,Setmntg of LORE att wh 
UTA | .doetdoas bas aobasl .stushbieteh edt of va 
beLuxtsve need bad troqer Hise of anoltyeoxe baw 
9 dd dotiw sonsbiobon at eptoah © bewetne TO 
feeb dies bse. fuclt witvorods. on! an peti eg fv 
gi tede TOE oP Patty YO bere tomt wt HEE te 
Odtt hovesne caw FavmONyD YR Fadt Kod OF WLRAY WOM 
8 fit OF oWRtalet OTA Rew torre ht 
eno SA? aad? tnereTtib ‘dae cede ybael out Yor 
its wt Lien tet eeltog Of bet geek Barrett, 
TOr1e At Bimodee ted YX benwo bael edt Yo ose edt oF 
‘eollto eft ge ,800L  ~radwetqs® to taaG Ylise ait 
adit, bePuavertaccay at ¢I | .ogantdd ab 
qtobelh .W daaxt ,t07r1s af snabneteb aolesovor 
‘tedt..qetoa ab %§ ts sout8 mi-tiivntsl®g of bast 
bee aivacoat® of tnew yox1e at ttitatel¢ ⁊ 
8 58 tebetf Detetio mivtes eid noqu baa baal, od? 

“NOISY THEN Fodd {rebOlh yd hotqooos enw wero Hol 
‘betuooxe enw dottw ,beeh ytnatrew a0 trode a 
WOEE ,RS r9edmetqeh ao r0tve at TPitmlelq of 
AOltaTsilancoe beerye ett yours al eftaakoeteb oF blag 
aldtiv beoardae baal dease vo qaawe enw bael ed? dade 
0CL wo L08L at ,dotdw ,Pofatarb eganterh & Ww: 
Caunne nt odayny ,Pxdenecees 10 xet oguntexd’ # 
semtaye betvel od of .stHeyY OF Io belied « aetrwh esnoatt 
~“tuq 8id of txsupsadye tadt enoktebawed af f -abiitiw ‘igh 
etnemiiatent eft blag roxse nt TYitalele Grol edt towns 4) 

bae sub smpced yout er .BOCL haa TOL .S0CL erasy ebsites 

al etnahasteb tantage toteted? aleio on ebam bas ,oldayaq 

e20@L ,tadeted Litany somze 

























; re: : . 


é te J 


-~ $+ 

Defendant in error, Frank V. Rieder, teatified that, 
upon the occasion in Harriaon's office, plaintiff in error 
asked him what he wanted for the land, and he told him he 
wanted $7 an acre net; that he told plaintiff in error how 
the land was situated, and that it was reclaimed marsh land 
in @ drainage district; that plaintiff in error wanted to 
know how near the drainage canal was and he drew & map whereon 
he indicated the location of the main drainage canal about 
80 rode east of the quarter section and of two lateral ditches 
across the cornera of the quarter section; thet he told 
plaintiff in error that the coset of the ditch was to be paid 
by an ansesament levied against the land, running for 50 yeare, 
and payable by the owner of the land in yearly installments; 
that in response to an inquiry by plaintiff in error as to 
how euch the annual inatallmenta amounted to he telid him he 
thought he had paid $43, the previous year, and that the next 
installment, which would be due in January, would probably be 
something like that amount and would have te be paid by 
plaintiff in error if he owned the land then; that pisintiff 
in errer waked for the tax receipts and he thought he gave 
them to him, Rieder further testified that he again saw 
plaintiff in error after the latter had inspected the land; 
that plaintiff in error then said that $7 an sere wae higher 
than he could buy aimilar land for in the same lecality; 
that he could buy similar land for $6 an acre and that was 
the price of land in that loeality; that plaintiff in error 
then offered him $6 an acre for the ijand and he accepted the 
offer; that he told plaintiff in error the land had cost 
him #5 an acre when he bourht it and he had paid the assess= 
nente for three or four years, #0 that would make the cost to 
him about §6 an acre, and he would be selling i+ for just 
about what he paid for it; that he wrote out the deed; that 


<4. 
cad? bol tisoe? ,rehelA 4h Angie yronwe ad tnshoeted o> ie a 
TOcIe at. A tarelg oldie #tnomtax al * 
od mid blot ed das »bmel out x02 batman edt in 
"od torte at Bittaielq plo? od sad? atom vxon an SP ¶ 
bast duzae deatelovs oan 4 todd baa .beomutis 
aooꝛ oca Gam & NOTH od bas eow Lanse Szanianh . 
su0d Leane egsatash atan ed? Yo solsaeood edt 
eodot th Lauatal owt to bas nalsove sot aaup of? 20 
hieq od of caw doth odt Yo teo0 ot tad? soTIO 
aereaox 08 wr gaianss ghasl edt soniags bokvel tt 
jeravaliageat Vixreoy at Saal ods to nanan 
of a9 w1N at I8ivatoly yd YrivaMd nA Of ooaoqNeT met 
td Ata Blot od OF LOtavoms StnomLiatent Lounne edt stoma 
tren ot todt ons yrK9y ewotvent add Sot bheq dad & 
od Ydadorq bisow ,.yxavnal at ouk ad bivow doksdm 
XG hea ed Of eved Divow hue tavoms tad? @Aks ; 
Ytitaiaiq tad? . janis bari aad benno en 2 TOM ats 
vag ef sdguode od ban etuteoor xet —— 
vae Ghages od ⸗⸗u⸗ bel tieees aodauun aeheth — -sattsh © 
—* edt bedooqonh bad aoacal oft ao⸗a da roar ak | | 
roy he Aow ais nA 9% sade. bles ned? acaao at rusntelg 
iWViieoot emes edt ot 30% onel saline we blue ; b 
aon tedt ons e208 as Of 10% baal aeliaio wd uo⸗ em. Md 
Zozte, at UiLtnielq tadt {yttinool tag? al dual Yo 7 
e113 betyeone ed pae bank ad? tot eros me 8} min Sazetio 
($R09 bed baal off aoaxe al Weakole plot od tasdy 
—Geonem at bieq had od has t2 tdguod Od pate. oee eR 
of #00 od? eden bisow tadt Of ,Aaesy avo? 2Q ood? TOR * 
taut wt ts gatlina od bivow od tae .esom an OF —n 
fast baoh edt go etot od tod? , got aot bing — 


¢ TACHLSG 






















pares 


ale 


(itow ponte 





» B= 
he wae unfamiliar with waking out legal forms, but was partie 
eular to get the description right; that the only explanation 
he could give for his failure to insert a provision in the 
deed requiring plaintiff in errer to aseume the payment of 
the balance of the drainage taxea wae that he forget all 
about it, 

Samuel A, Harrison, a lawyer and real estate broker, 
who appears te have as@isted in the negotiations, testified 
that upon the first cecasion, when the parties were in hie 
effice, Rieder axplained the location of the land and dre# 

& plat; that plisintiff in error inquired about the land and 
about the taxes ari Rieder told him the drainage tax was a 
yearly aprersment and amounted to about $42 the preceding 
year, but didn't know whether the taxes would be the aame in 
the future or not; that there was a bond iseue of $50,000, 
covering a certain number of acres, amounting to about one 
doliar an acre; that Rieder brought hie tax receipts and 
showed them to plaintiff in errerj that the land was fairly 
and reasonably worth $6 an acre subject to taxes, 

Pisintiff in error teatified that nothing waa said 
by Rieder about a drainage distriot or drainage assesanents; 
that Rieder gave him some tax receipts, but he had lost them; 
that he aaw what he aupposed wae a drainage ditch when he 
inspected the land; that he never promised to anaume the 
payment of any drainage assessments and did not learn of 
any such avsesanents until two years after the execution of 
the deed, 

The testimony of plaintiff in error is evasive and 
disingenuous and entitled to little weight. 

While the evidence fails to show that tie parties 
entered into sn agreewent, whereby in expreas words plaintiff 


in error assumed the payment of the subaequently accruing 





118 
le ie bd es Samay esas — 
motvinsiqxe ylao edt tel? ytdgts moldqtsowed odd Foy —* mo 

ed? ht abletvorq & #¥eunt OF wwiter ' via ‘oY ovis 
"Yo Viehiyay ov ‘sutdenk 89 xotxe af Yidatela gal 
— ASN AL Viki tad al a eT 
Siyieios: Warttoat> T2s4abal@ ted so — ———— 
qtoloid States [sor bas toywal & ,noelrzel teat 
botitiesd . ondttattopen oa? nt botelven ‘Owad of 
“dtd GY dive Usreteg Was cedw ad lededo Vert of 
worh bie bast off Yo notdnoo a tanta Hl 
Baw bist of¥ tuodse bettupal rorxe mt Yritarery seas 
'p taw ug ys tows ott Gta bry YesetW king Woke 
Parnwosty oft 889 Yuodi os bernvone bad Fromee 
af ‘oats ‘sat bd’ brvow wexer out Yéd¥oawwons PV ab 
{000,029 to ‘sivews ‘bau’ bod Oxi’ Yas YOR! a8" edu 
‘ene debe! of hat ¥ivods \eeros Yo rodmsd Hibéyeo a 
‘ban oyfoods xe¥ ld tdyuowd sebetn fedY “oto a 
vats? saw bast edt tad? ‘Feoxze al Whaat oy 
es "eexnt 04 doetdue eros as BF dtxow ye y 
bise eae gitivon fadt bettideod xorte ab Moa tet⸗ eas 
jataoascvens — x0 totzteth oganterd & tuoda 4 
jated? teol bad on dud etqteoos xad emoe ald Ov: — — 
64 node dotih ganiazh a asw Besoqiue od fede wae oa ek’ —— 
oii} sawes OF bectworg Yeven ou ad? haat odd bedoome J 
Yo most ton bih bas efmemecoess oyeniaxh yas Yo oa pe 
to molttyooxe edt 10%te eraey owe {tins — J * 


+ ae lt 2 
9— 


—— 
ton 


a 

























La 


bas evieave of torie at Yritntola to Ynoul¥esd ox? 

waglew offs2t OF betttine bas 6 it 

soltisy of? Yad? woe OF eftaY Sowedive odd ofan“ * °° °"™ a 
Widalslg sbhrow seoxrgxe at Ydetedw ,snemeotRe Hs ota! berotae 
gatvicos YLtnoupeadue edt YW sunayeq od? bomvecn toxse wh 






— 

drainage aosenoments, the evidence léaves no room for doubt 
that the land wan sold by defendants in error in the belief 
and with the understanding thet plaintiff in error would be 
reguired to pay the subsequently accruing drainage assesanenta, 
and that plaintiff in error had the like underatanding, and 
that when he sequired the land, he fully purposed to pay such 
drainage assesenents, The present ineistence of plaintiff 
in error to the contrary ie manifestly an afterthought. He 
paid such drainage assessments for three years vrithout come 
plaint or protest. He wae informed that the land had cost 
defendantsin error $5 an acre in the firat inetance and an 
additional $1 an acre for taxes and assesomenta, and that 
defendanta in error agreed to accept hie offer of 96 an acre 
in consideration of the fact that at that figure they would 
realize the cost of the land to them. 

Olearly, the deed as drafted does not express the 
actual agreenent between the parties, according to their 
mutual underatanding and intention, and ite failure to do 896 
is due, as atated by defendant in error, Frank ¥, Rieder, to 
his having forgotten to ineert a provision in the deed to the 
effect that the conveyance was made aubject to ail unpaid 
taxes and acneasments levied against the land. The omission 
of thie or a like provision from the deed was o mietake of 
fact, such ae will justify a court of equity in reforming 
the deed by inserting euch provision. Dinwiddie v. Self, 
145 Ill., 32960; Deiacher v. Frice, 148 Il1., 383; Purvines 
ve Harrison, 151 I11., 219. 


The decree is supported by evidence which is 





convinging ond ia affirmed, 


DECREE AFFIRMED, 





* 


ae 

-8- a 
| #6000, 20% moor on weyunt eonobive, ad? se2aouepyens Sead “J 
tolled ods at bert der Fe ak ot V nedeorer xx hice —7 bs geen * 

og bivow woxxe at Viktakels faut 30d —— 
— —s leer tne 


bas a edaaoaodax ↄart edt ded aoao at vapteuace daa ; 
dove yoq of besoqivg yliwt on gbmel edt betivpos ed ¢ 


_ %tbtatelg Yo eonetatent Gepeens ont 2 etaegnnonpes 
en gazcoaaonze ae — tga 9) vanstoge ed? 9 
“a9 tyods i” erpey onr4? 309. etgemenenne, spenterD Mi 

tooo Ped bowl ed? tei? bowxotal asm vit _ Peo 
As bao sonetent sextt ost at oxoe na 29. ror, at 
Bis eet O09 aprerreeeace age sexe? 207 expe ae $8. * i 
onng.90, 00 2°, BP*Dp. otf seeps. ee, Mperee. PRET SFIS 
bluow cou? orug it stadt te sade toot ed? to 
sited? of baal edt 0. 

ed? enoxqxs fon seod bet texd sa Deed ad? erry 
“alone of galbzooos eeeltteg oat aoouted — 

oe 8 or exits? ett bas ol taetat bes gn abel 
ot etobeifi o — “morte nt taabasted ¥d borate ™ 
edt of deed ont at ao lelvorg a trosni of 298409708, 
—— {fa of #09 {due oban aow eoceyevace oat tadt saad 
potnetme esT baat edt tentege betvet renaatneesa be 
to odateim a saw beeb ait sort noletvorq ont a * 

ga tuto tox ai Teispe ro @tivoo s yiiteut {Ll oa. doug 


Lief .v etbbinas] .aotelvorg dove anitresat vo bee a 
Aoatvauy j26E 4of6T OOS ,9gdst oy sedoesed 4088, ott ee 





























ats 
bi) 





SOE 


— 


cd 


CLG 4 SfI Lal LE es: ; 
ei dotdw gonebive yw botaogaus et eero9b oT ef J 


i ar 

<CIMALTYA aanoao ni —A 

vad . i Pe: 
na ma... * 
APO 


‘iy ay 
3” 


13 


pober Term, 1911, No. 


345 ~ 17881. 







THE WISCONSIN LIME & CEMENT COPDARY, 
Appelfee, APPEAL FROM 


VS. 


HERMAN C, LELIVET, ' 


COUNTY COURT, 
COOK COUNTY. 


1S2T.A. 436 


F MR. JUSTICE BAUME DELIVERED THE ——— OF THE COURT. 


Arfellant. 


From a judgment recovered by appellee againat 


if 


appellant, before a justice of the peace, appellant tock an 
appeal to the County Court, where a trial by jury resulted 
in a verdict and judgment against him for $175, to reverse 
which judgment he prosecutes thia further arpeal, 

Appellant, who wae a general building contractor, 
sublet a portion of the work en certain buildings to one 
Herman Stange, who purchased vertain material from appellee 
for use in said buildinga. Sometime after said materiales 
were furnished appellee applied to Stange for payment there- 
for, and Stange on or about May 83, 1910, gave to appellee a 
written order for $350 upon appellant. This order was never 
accepted by appellant in writing, but appellant paid $175 
thereon to appellee upon the receipt from appellee of a 
written waiver of a lien upon the buildings. In January, 
1911, appellee brought suit against Stange in the Municipal 

* Court to recover the amount claimed to be due after allowing 

. him credit for the $175 paid by appellant on said order. 

: When said suit in the Municipal Court wae reached for trial 

* further negotiations between the partiea resulted in appellee 
procuring from Stange a duplicate of the original order upon 


appellant which had been lost, and the dismissal by appelice 


tS ies 
aa 


of ite suit against Stange. pon the refusal thereafter of 
appellant to pay said claim this suit was inatituted against 
him by appellee. 
























« oe . * * 
om ,{[fe T 108d 

mehlve an? —ni F 
Ly oan * 


peetes wt bLe4, opr bee 


2 solbeaves on 
a V 


[methecdicy ait yar oa, 


oq TAUOD YRMUOD.. 7 aꝛ. SfeMiniele samc 
(oa¥TYVOD BOGe0 grog ei heh oe gp fe TAVINGd. | 
-tasll cr 
neh af a 88 al beard. Loy ¥ ait f TONG ABR UA “= 
J uß *—— 
.TAOD HHT YO worutTo “aut canav Tiaq MMVAR TOTTEUG 
gtim Gtaw 721 SF awas« ooh a ‘rg *e ba 


tentaga soiloqas Yd beteveoss Jnemg huts, mort * 
a toot taalleqas ,e0s0q edt to eottaut #,o70%ed) 
betivess yrmt yd Latat & e10dw, gtis9d xaauod ent 
9etevet oF ,@TLe rot wid tantage. taomubut dae t 
oo 4s ehmeqas todtiw? etd? eetyooso1g od ta J 
Aooat aoo gatbliud ſeranos s new odn taal boughs), / 
90 of egatblivd aistiee ao izew edt to meketed o a 
eelleqqe sort Leiretam giatiso bessdowa ode yogans® — 
ekstrotea, bise r9tts eutieomos  ,egatbiiud biea ohvesuug 
-S19dt tasnysq 10% egaste of bellqqe selleqqes: bede 
& el (oqqs Of oveg .OLPL 4ER YOM tu0ds, 10,60, 9gaRtB, 
ISV9n @aw 19D10 Bist ,tnalieqas noqu 088% 102. 29ebs0» ox ftw 
BYES bteq taslleqqs tud ygnittaw ai tnakleqqs yd) 
6 t0 ealleqge sort *qieeed edt noqu eolleqqs of 
—— al segathl hud ed$ a0cqu self « to xov 
LaqtotnuM off at egnet? tentage titue tdygord colt . 
gniwolis teste eyb ed of bemin(o tavoma edt zevODe7 Of (t: 0 ‘ 
⁊ohao bise ao tnalf{oqqs yd bieg ayia edt 103 ¢2bero! 
{[ntxt 10% bedoass saw #100 Leqtotaus odd oad 2 tue btse ae 
eelleqqs al betlueex setting edt noawied ean ktoannagn ant t 9 


ae 


ae 


i 


aoqu «8bto Lenigize sdf to eteotlqub s ogae?® mort gaisuoomg 6 
eolleqqs yd [aestmalth ed? hase ,teol aved bad doltdw tanileqqe 4 
to tettsei0ed? L[oevter edt aoqgd .egnat® tantags tive est to 
taniegs betutitent saw tiue aid? mlalo bise ysq of tasileqqs 
eoolleqqa yd ald — 


834 

The evidence fer eppellee tends to show and the 
jury were warranted in finding that upon the occasion when 
appellant paid $175 upon the original order, and when he 
secured from appellee a waiver of its lien, he promised to 
pay the balance of the order in sixty days, and thet in 
January following, when appellee procured 4 duplicate order 
from Stange and dismissed its eauit againet the latter, such 
action was taken upon the promise of appelient to pay the 
balance of the claim, 

The written order in evidence corresponds precisely 
with the definition of a bill of exchange, a9 stated in 

).KO17 65, 
Section 125 of the Negotiable Instruments hots put no recovery 
can be had thereon, because the same waa not accerted in 
writing and signed by appellant, as required by Section 131 
of said aot TASe ATL / 

Ignoring the order, however, ae the basia of a 
right of recovery, there is evidence which justified the 
jury in finding that a centrast of novation was entered into 
between the parties, whereby appellant became liable to pay 
to appellee’the amount in controversy. 

The record ie not free from error rejating particue 
larly to the liability of appellant upon the order in evidence, 
but ae the competent evidence in the record ia sufficient to 
support a recovery on the theory of a novation the judgment 
atanda for aubstantial justice within the established rules 
of law and will be affirmed, 

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. 


























-8 - : 
20k » i‘ “pe — 109) 
edt das wode of ehaet ovttoaa⸗ tot sonebive edT 


node aotesooo edt aoqu⸗ 4 zathat⁊ at 
od nedw bas Aabao Leatgixo odt moqu rttt 
ot bealaorg ad hone, oti to xeviow a oefleqas — 
A tent das sesh tt at xsb10 edt to eonsled 94 
xebao sfaotiqud s berir00 74, oot logas aba (galwott 
3* epoeapt « (ed? -gantegs tye att beeotmeih bra 
Sar yaq of taslivaas to eaimony of? soqu sednt 
smteio edt to eon 
viestoeay sbaoqeorids edreblve al aotas node raW "HR 
“al — —E——— 
— —— —— eftetiogek bdt 10 Be 
‘AY Betqeods Yon baw sane oid? eouiabisnoetedt 8 
tet motteet Ye eran pil on — —* 
e bat es provewod aßro edt gnfxonat ” 
"eit bottiteut doldw sonebive ef oxedt — 
otal bereine eew nottavon to testo b rade gatbat’ Wi 
“yer of Ofdstl ounood tnafteade ydor ow — 
 \yerevortioo af tayoms 
-woltidg gnttsler rorzme mort sett fou ef biooes SAT” 
~eomebive at zob10 odd noqu taslleque to ysitidekr ont 6 
ot gnotottiue et biooer sii¥ AL odnedtve shotreqmoo bas 
thomgbut od? acttevoa » to yused? eft no yrovodsr's 
solu bodelidetes off mtdtiw soltert Latteetedye Yor wl 


-bowtltis of fiw bas we ; 
. mH 
¥ {% 4 228 st9 ms ay" 


(as 


QSMATTTA THAMDAUT 


} 9 
pice & a 
aay * 


ite zen Begs wn Th 

mat saitneees 

i ; 

olde ¢aatieqqe ae 

na 6 thue aft te 
7 32 

1 of tralieags 


-oolleqas yd aid 


October Term, 1911. No: 


» 371 = 17907. 












MICHAEL GLIATTO : 
A PEAL FROM 


SUPERIOR COURT, 
QCOK COUNTY. 


ada 437 


prellee, 
ve. 


. WILLIAM POBRITZ et al. 
“Sy be Appeal of VILLIAK D 


of Christian Dobrits, Stieduhie.bidicin-squity ir the. nature. 
— — — — 
Vina-oneditore-bili-tn-the-Supertor-Gourt against Christian 


Debritz, *liliam Dobritz and Joseph EF. Saunrusk to set aside 
* * TLIO — SIR Mines ee Ee LO 
& conveyance of certain real estate from Christian Dobrits te 


AL Nobvritz as having been made te hinder, delay and 4er- 










fraud appellee in the collection of hia judgments. Upon 
the hearing before the chancellor a decree wae entered astting 
aside said conveyance ae azeinet appellee, subjecting the 
real estate to the lien of appellee's judgmenta, and arpointe 
ing a receiver to collect the rents of the premises and apply 
the same in payment of said judgments, Villiam Dobritz alone 
1 oa frow this decree, ren 
—— “It was etipulated upon the hearing that the defene 
dants, Christian Dobrit2 and Joeeph FE. Baumruck, were duly 
served and defaulted; that in the original suite in the 
Municipal Court by appellee againet Christian Dobritz judge 


ments were obtained by default; that Christian Dobrita who 


7 FoF 


owned the premises in question conveyed the eame by deed to 

hie son, William Pobritz, the anpellant, on September 14, 190%, 

one day pricr to the recovery by appellee of the first of 

@aid judgmenta; and that said judgments are wholly unsatisfied. 
The errors assigned upon the record are presented 


* to us in groge with an informality and brevity (however much 


























€2 
* Tou ,LL@L , mrt odode 
rity vines ini séfrhiae <t senebhive Gort 
— V not pe — patient tt botaewshy e108" +) 
xrauod norawewe = Revive’ a” bel laqegggnzd * 
— goon Pero ite de seared 
yen iiser DMG ys 
foie .eattel so s Shue = (2 Oem “ap bind 
ia h ak aT 10 MOTEITO, maT aagariaac 


rege Soars 
der ibere tnomy but edt 
ARETE YT Ie RE Ldn OE — 
nase edd’ oatan⸗ 298-6 (O° 
“gbies tee oF doduawed JT dqoedt —— 1 
of St h4dOd aabtetaid mort edatad [her mists60 0 — vei 
0b bfie yoten robald of obow aved ‘aatvad ene treo nail 
cogil .atroag byt eid to noltoel {oo oat at 90 ani 
guitien hevétns ‘new odtoeb a OL(eonkKS Orit — 
oii? sittootdue yeolfouen tentage se eonatevaed Blew OB, 
<dHi6 G6 bAL  dtnodybat @ ost éqae Yo ndtt od? OF Sdad 
Uldae bie woblmory #id to estes odt Fool l06 oF sev edeT 
enole sticdod walilin ,admedybet bier Yo Fremyeq cy 
Pciiy pAb yo ley speee ott See's _) 0b400B ORME HOTT fo 
anetsd #4? tout yakrisd od? noqe botalaqite ane #17 
yiud stew (sourmst .7 aqoeot une 89 tidod auttat rad 
od? ai ative Lantutvo ed? at todd (bet tvateb ‘has ” 
ayhut af trdod mabtetdd fentage ooflogqs "Yd P1000 “Lsq | 
Odw stixrdod naitelsd) tad? ;a¢iuasteb yd bénteddo 0 nc 
of bosb vd ease od? beyavnoe nolisenup at soe tmorq edt b 


by 


e208L ,df tedmetqe? ao ,taslloqase ont ⸗vaaces aatitie 00 = 
bre 
to text? od? to eelleqqa yd YIsvo0e1 od? ‘et soisq o> 


« Ve 
b i] 


ebetteltsenu yliodw e1s etnoapbyt biee ted? bas jetmeaghut X > sa 


le pap 
befneseiq ote birooe1 ed? aoqu bongleas etoz19 eT 


doum iovewod) ytivexd base —— aa it iw eeors ak ‘ Py 
ta 


\, (G45 


~ Bm 
brevity may be desirable) which afforda no assistance whatever 
in the consideration and determination of the errors assigned, 
and the decree might well be affirmed for that reason, we 
have, however, elected te consider the case upon its merita 
as presented in the record, 

It is clearly established by the evidence that the 
eonveyance in question wae mady for the axprese purpose and 
with a fraudulent intent on the part of both the grantor and 
the grantee to defeat the collection by appellee of hie judge 
ments aguinat Christian Dobritz. In this etate of the case 
it ia immaterial to determine whether or not aprellant paid 
hia father a valuable and adequate consideration for the pro- 
perty conveyed. 

"A transfer of property must not only be upon a 
good consideration, but it must also be bona fide. Even 
though the grantee or assignee pays a valuable, adequate and 
full consideration, yet if the grantor or aasignor sells for 
the purpose of defeating the claims of his creditors, and 
such grantee or ansignee knowingly asaists in effectuating 
such fraudulent intent, or even has notice thereof, he will 
be regarded as a participator in the fraud, for the law never 
2llows cne man to assist in cheating another."  Beidler v. 
Crane, 135 I1l., 923; ark are #15 Tll., 24, 


While the conveyance was subject to be set anide 





as to appellee, it was valid and binding as between the parties 
to it, and there was no error in setting aside the conveyance 
a8 to appellee alone, | Ward v. Enders, 39 I11., 519; Harmon 
v. Harmon, 63 Til., 512. 


It ia suggested here that the premisea conveyed 
constituted the homestead of the grantor, Christian Dobritz, 
and were exempt from exeoution, and that a conveyance of 
property which is so exempt can not be set aside as fraudulent 


at the instanee of a creditor. 


a 


























-B- — QREGL i, aise aeauei . 
tevetadw conatstees on ebrotta dotdw (eldoriaeh ed —— 


ebongleans ezor19 eft to moltantazeteb hae aol tarsbienoe od 


oF  smoeeor tad? sot boar tttn os Liew. — 
ofizea eft aoau oo⸗o of betoele Aovrovoc 


is a, — 
at gous forme | ane xd bodezidateo’ xti⸗ote 


’ 


Tei} ‘rbot: «2 
bas esoqiw4 enexqxe Sdt x0? obum son go teoup ss 


bie totse1g odd dtod Yo teq eat no snotut aolutusat 
“abut eid 0 oot toaa⸗ YS noltovlics ed? tavtep b 08 eotns: 


ence ot » otste ord 8 +38 badod _nabtatsdd ) ant 
“isa taaltoaae ton 10. ‘redg ode —“ ot tstretsumt 

& 202 ye Tiel Oil Cte P bea 

—— oat wot no t3ar0b10009 efeupebs bas eldaulav a 
' . ¢ 


daasts t ue Lasot math 





_ Ko 
$ 5 2 Fi 0% Te $444 5 antaee 


s nou * vino, toa tema xtr0q019 to mt nent bee 
—* ye ne ae 


sovi -QbIT sod © od oste fein $2 sud so 


bo C1 Oe 


t eld lov as inen 19 999 
bas etaupebe aus vea Cong — oft 


x0? ation — 29 rotnesg odd tt fey pmo tiare 


baa .exottbete atd to amtelo od? yattaeted to oroaus 4 


“gate sut certo at steless vignivons congtecs, 70 eras⁊ 
iiiw od Koorod⸗ eotton ead seve 10 70 q#netnl ta9 —— 
seven wal ed? 10% youart ed? mt wotaqtottzeq 8 es t be 
ȴzeibieg *. sedtons gatteedo at selves or nom 

| ofS 4. fLT ars zegtall_.¥ Anes jse ft 8 fe 
obies tee od of toetdua saw sonayevnco edt efiaw 
settzeq od? neexted as B tcc A bas bi lay say tt ,eottonae @ 


sonsyevnoo ons — galstee al szor7z0 on one ores * 


ie —— 


Gomzsh ele pati? gs Bacall ay bie +00 Li vot legge « 
SLB eo ffl 8 s: 


beyevaco — od? tad? araa beteeggue et 4 
ettixndod asiteizdd ,sotmety od? to buoteomod out beaut ite 


to eonsyevn0e 6 tad? baa .nottuoexe mor? tqmoxe — 
saelvbuart as obtas +29 od fon mao Iquoxe os 98 doldw 55 


» to? tbero Py to Prorat Hn edt ta 


“38 
eo 
"igs 


-3e 

This question does not aprear to have been raised in 
the court below, and the record does not disclose affirmatively 
the facts necessary to eusetain a claim that the property in 
question, when it waa conveyed, wae the homestead of the 
grantor. The question is not presented for our determination 
upon the record, | 


The decree is risht and ie affirmed, 


DECRER AFFIRMED, 


Soitézeqg od? aver? gn inaic lav aas 2k ,eeliogge 
; ' “A 


> Ri 

revetdsy Oovataiaes O8 eins TaaSamtae —— 
At desler sed ovad of taeqes 
Uevttantiis eeolosis tom eoob broset edt” 7 
cal yoisqorq Gt tind? ately 4 atsteds of yisncooea'e: 
ed? to baetromod edt ecw /deyovaoo sew! st \nbdW , 



































* 


noktaatatetop-ase x02 bataseerd ton et istteoup edt i 


bas PROTIWY Geetexs Gat se? SdeAe «on ROlineNg 
(oe Soe) 99) Bemelthe eb bee tag it et: 
~—ghut eid te oalleqqe ¥d nol toe lice nat aot. oe 
2e20..a0d? ry Sh aay | ag besod wagta sxd0 a 


By 


blag #heiierqs foa 40 teas ate oꝛier alge er tots) * 


ates tM 
—o2iq of? 20% Molisteblenvs Gianpehe bas —— — 
D4 2a Ca * 


hon 
eres es 






4 apqy o¢ yinn fon tame ytiegeiq te sotenent a 4 
Peete 
F 


sa0k Bhi} sagt of OFte “ome ¢4 Fad —— tems 
bos sthepete ,eldowiae a te COA ieee 49 MOrGAnty: att 
Riva wy 


vot effes songlees so soinery ed? YW fey. ~nehieneeee 
Jot Ais Oe 


& TZ 


Bae .eiotibets aid to satale ed? gaivasteb ee 


yRitautoelts ai aisiees ylanivons aeqglars. 2 OF a 
— 
Lite es . tence? oc t ead aeet  afaaral faelohe J 
ea) we gitar? Oc? el “022 to⸗ 17g 86 && babyy 
«Z 3el5ieG *, 2O0FOns aniteeds at twine of" anm nino. 


of F [tz Gi P< J is ¥ bai LEG eotll vEl. 


hon Pas tow -_ soasyernoe edt eflde 


rey con pit isioe sot??? @f aay eter? fae 


we LF 


gonzall’ et fi1 @G .epebn8 .v boot «©. aap le eeliegge 
--Sf0 gxhSl 80 pom 


5* it tad? eved Hateennuse Of FT 
—— 
(a J . foamed ed? pes * 
* eoaey [0-2 ol’ weoxc® wes) jeunes —3rWO 


igewt oa; . it 4 uo tomer¢ Of al dolde yescede 
Mee: 
‘thene & te ennstent off 





per £6rm, 1911 


J 
% 


a. 419 = 


452 - 17992, 






SOPHIA BERG, 
Arvpellee, 


APPEAL PROK 
CIROUIT COURT, 
COOK COUNTY. 
1821.4. 449 


YR. JUSTIC AUME DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 
Thia ia a suit by arpellee against appellant to 
recover damages for personal injuries, wherein a trial by 
jury in the Circuit Court resulted in « verdict and judgment 
against appellant for $1,000. The declaration charges that 
on March 14, 1910, appellant was using and operating an 
automobile and driving same along Madieon atreet near its 
intersection with California avenue in the City of Chicago; 
that appellee wan walking along and upon said Madison street 
and in the exercise of ordinary care for her own aafety; 
that appellant ec negligently and careleasly ran, operated 
and managed said automobile that by reason thereof said 
automobile ran against and violently etruck apreliee and 
she was thrown with great force and viclence to the etreet, 
and thereby injured, eto, 

Relative to the questions of fact involved it isa 
urged that a consideration of the evidence discloses that 
appellant wae not guilty of negligence; thet appellee was 
guilty of contributory negligence; and that the damages 
awarded by the jury are excessive. 

At about 6 o'clock on the evening of February 14, 
1910, appellant, accompanied by hie son, Charlee D. Fisher, 


his wife and Mies McNulty, were riding west on Yadison street 


in appellant's two seated automobile, which was being driven 


by appellant's son, *ho, with his father, occupied the front 


— Be NS 





gk Hetiart feed. even 22 deers 7S-e 


Ylaviltamys) te -Oh0 ANSI 5 Pee: ram OSes 
uomt uAetth 
wa 4 4103 3. aot. Sau 
<TAUOD ‘rrioats 
aa? . is — Ano hover 


at 88 Sas 


eTHIOD AHT TO WOTRTIO wa danwr ag me 
~ Rees? t3 bite SYA G2 82 esTtOae au A 


A 





















soottéqah 


oo yiseetoen «ee 
ev 


7, 


of fnolloqqs.teaiagssolfeqrs yd tive 2 et etdt 
yi faitt & mtorede .eolwtat Lanoereq 10% soyaanb 
taemgbut bas tolbtey 2 at betiuee1 t1w0d tivorld odd 
ted? sogtaio aottetslosb edT .000,f£8 20% taalfoqqe 4 
aa gaitexeqo bas gated eaw tnelloqqs .OLeL t * 
ett 1890 teerte soothed gnols omee gatviah hae of. 
jopsoldd to ytd edt at sunove ataro tt tad dttw motte 
#eorts moelbeM bine aoqu baa gnole gnitdlaw eaw sott 
ivtetee ‘mwO ted 10% exs0 Yisnthio to eelorsexe ods 
bostateqo ,mex yleselotso bas yLtnegt{yen oe taslle qn 
bise tostedt nonse: yd ted? eltdomotus bise ‘begs 
bra sellaqqes dovite yltasloty bas teatage net eft 0 
etootte edt of sonelotv ban 9070% tee1y Atiw awordt 
oro ,bewtat ydexedt 
ei tt beviovat toxt Yo encitesup ed? of avitaleh 
ted? aseoloeth eonobive edt Yo aoltateblenco # tad? 
saw selloqia tent joonregtinen to ytling tom eaw ta 
sensash oft ted? ban jeonegilsen yrotudiztacs Yo 
, -0vianeoxs o18 yt edt yd 
.bf yravidet to gnineve odt mo Aoolo'o 8 ¢uods tA 
«tedett .d solisdd aosa eid yd botanqmoonn .taslloqge 00 et 
foarte moetba¥ no teow gathia exow ,vtlutod eel Bae etiw 6. 


nevith gated een dotdw ,elidomotius betaor owt e'tanlloqqs # 





—J— 
3— F 
tnort ed? ha tauooo ,tedtet eld a⸗ de ,odw aos etensttoqia We nt 


a 
seat. As the automobile approached California avenue from 
the east, it was running in the north or wert bound street 
car track. The roadway on either side of the two street 
gar tracks there wae impassible for travel by reason of the 
accumulation of snow and ice. A weat bound atreet car 
which iemediately preceded the automohile was atepred at the 
intersection of California avenue by reason of a blockade of 
atreet oars ahead of it, one of which care was then dis- 
charging and receiving paosaengere at the usual eatorping place 
on the west line of California avenue. “hen the atreet 
car, which immediately preceded the automobile, stopped, 
the automobile wan turned to the left upon the scuth or 
6aatbound track, and eo proceeded wveat until it was stopped 
after appellee wan struck, Appellee alighted from the 
rear platform at the north side of the street car which had 
atopped at the xeat line of California avenue, and walked 
around the rear of said car and in front of the one immediate} 
ly behind it for the purpose of crossing Vadison atreet and 
proceeding south toe her hone, As appellee emerged from 
between the two street care and was creasing the south or 
enet bound car track, she was struck by appellant's automobile 
and suetained the injuries complained of, 

Witnesses on behalf of avpellee testified that aa 
the automobile approached the place where arpellee waa struck 
it wan running "fast", at an estimated apeed of 15 to 25 miles 
an hour, and thet ne horn or other signal of ita approach was 
sounded, while the oceccupants of the automobile testified that 
when it wae turned into the south or east bound car track 
its speed was redused to from four to six miles an hour and 
that the signal hern was blown continuously. Appellant and 
his son both testified that when they first saw appellee, as 


she emerged from between the two street care, she was fifteen 


os 

ort sumove sinx0%ilsd betosotaqe efidomotus he ee 
teoxte bavod teew 10 dtioc edt Rt gninnut wow $f ieee | . 
testte owt ent to ebte redtio no Yambpo. oar 
edt To aoeeot yd Lovett wor ofdteonqat saw ered? 
tao teette Saved teow A .eot wone 


beqqo?e say efiiomotys ed? 
a Sets 8 to nonne: Yd. eugove, sterR shed Yo. apt? 
~sth mod? asw exa0 dotdw to ono .tt to —— 
ooota antqaote Levey edt te axegceeeed ao ty dodoa bas Bn 
_toptte od? podt  .ovmova staro%ifed to entl see 
 sbeodwte ,elidomotiua. od? nobppens. xce at hemwl, 
4) 70 duos ed? moqy tel ed? of dentut. way pL tdomos 
boro, wen tt Lt%ne teen boboocaa op ban, Apart, 7 
_ dt govt betdatte eel tors _ .Xouxte ser eps toaga.s 
bad. aeta 200 teezte ed? 30, opis, d?zog. od? fp, map 
besten, pes, spunove elazo tied, 30. ont! tony, eat, FE, 
-staiboamt eno od? to toxt at box x89 bise to xs07 edt Dat 
bas teorte noetheM gatesors to ssoqiuq edt 10% #2 bat 

mo x? dega oao eoffeqae eA ,emod x0d, oF dtuos gatboos 
10 dtvoe oft gataso ao egw bow erso feet e owt od? mi ov? 
aftdomotue s'taelleqie yd Aoua⸗ o sew ode .aosat 189 
110 bontelqmos eetsutat edt bonte 

6s ted? beititest selieqye to Beaded ao asecent IF 
douse aw volloaie s19dw ooata edt bedosoraqe el idomotus. # 
eolim 88 o¢ Bf to doowe botanttee aa te .* test gatnnes say 
sax dosorqqs sti to langle wedto 190 azod on sed? bas., 
tad? bottiteot elidomotun sdf to staeqyooo.ed? elidn , 
doaxt reo bavod teev 10 dtvoe ed? ofnt beat, saw tha 
bas iwod ae eefin xin oe mot mort of beoubex oar. began, 
bas. tast toaaa Xeon? 2090, ago td saw azod Lengte odt | 
ae ,eefloqgs wae textt yod? aedw tndt boltiteot, dtod 08 : Pi # 
moostlt aaw ode ,s1s0 torte owt od? nogwted moxt, hegzemd ade 




















— 


~Be 
or twenty feet distant from the automobile, Appellant's 
son teetified that at a speed of four or five miles an hour 
the automobile could have been atopped within a distance of 
three or four feet, considering the condition of the street, 
and that while running at « speed of 15 or 40 miles an hour 
the automobile could have been atorped within a distance of 
10 to 15 feet. It ia uncontroverted that after appellee 
wag gtruck she became entangled beneath the forward portion 
of the automobile and was dragged a distance of from 10 to 12 
feet along the track before the automobile waa brought to a 
atop. The same witness also teatified that he observed the 
street car from which appellee alighted, aa it stood at the 
weet line of California avenue, and knew that paseengers were 
then alighting from asid car, 

In driving the sutomobile weet upon the east bound 
street car track the driver was violating the jaw of the road. 
If the exigencies of the situation required the automobile to 
be driven weat upon the east bound track, for the purpose of 
passing the bicckaded street cars, ordinary cure on the part 
of the driver demanded that he keep the sutomobile under 
control, #0 us to avoid injuring persone who might be croasing 

the atreet at the point where anpellee was atruck. We have 
no hesitancy in holding that, whether or not ths driver of 
the sutomobile sas guilty of negligence, as charged in the 
declaration, was, under the evidence, a queation of fact for 
the jury, and that their determination of that iesue isa amply 
supported by the evidence. Upon a conraideration of the 
testimony of Charles D. Fisher the jury were justified in 
concluding either that he was driving the automobile at a 
speed of approximately 20 or 25 milea an hour, or that he 
wae driving the same heedlesaly and @id*not see appellee until 
she was atruck. 


Appellee testified that, ae she went south between 


- €é — 

Bi taalloagA ... aLkdongtun, gt a022 Anatnkh Jas% eam te 
Uiod as sole avit 10 wor Yo boats ta tad? betrttaatinpe — 
Yo sonetalh a aldtinw heqqete meed vad bive 
vionats ait 20 goLtLings emt galxebtenoa .f49% mgr 
sod, Ae Aptian Q6 ze Of 2p peege, » 6A, BELAAET, OL iene 
Yo sonateth « atdti= bogota meed evan blue eLtdos 
ah tin zotte tadt betrevextaoony at 41. oe 
aottx0q baanaoꝛ edt d?sened boelansine — 

RL of OL mort to sonetath s beszath aew baa a. | 
—— s 
ont hoyreedo a tad? heltitoat oats saantin aman, eAT 
‘od? 29 boots 2 as .batdstin ↄoc taaa⸗ dotdn mox2 2 
oron arauaoea ai tad? ——— alaaotttad 20 9 
ht dere op #8 Dhan wo? andy thay 
based teas eat aogut teow alldomotua edt MAES, Rh ag ¢ 7 
hao pdt to wal edt anitaloty, aw aevizh edt soaxt wT 
oF elidomatus od⸗ hertuper nottartia edt 20. pes 
3, PERAAHS, OH, 702, ANAT? auas snap odd, mPa Seep mam 
tunq od? mo ↄoaas xa⸗aathao yoxs0 foostn bebsdoold odd am 
tebay elidomosue ont qeedt ed tad? hebnameh rev 
pataagze od sata odw apoexed aplauias, Diove oF AAs, OR, 
eved oY .doutte aan oolleqqe exady talog ed? te soe 
to seyizh edt ton 10 xpdtodw ,tadt gathiod ai yoratt 

edt at hegiado es .sonaat igen. 2p vtlivg enw ol bel 





















an” 


ye 
od 


1 


rot dost to nottesup a ,.pomebtve edt tebay ,aew _motia: 6 
Vigme ef suent fed? to noitantmsateh tlodt tads, bas hs 
odt to noltatehianoe g noqd  . ,eonebive edd xd beg: 
at bettivayt eter yrut ed? redet® .d selandd, toy 

__& te olfidomotus od? gaivish saw od tad? aedt ie gatde 
oA ted? zo tod ma selim G8 1o OS ylesamtxorqge Yo. bx 
{itay eolisqqe cee tom bth bas ylenolbosd emes oft gaiviab oor ; 


neewted dtvoe tnew ede oa ,tad? beltiteet eolleqgA 





4 

the two atreet cars, she glanced toward the east, but saw 
nothing approaching; that as she was about to cross an east 
bound etreet car track her attention wae more particularly 
directed in observing whether & car “was approaching on that 
track from the west; that prior to being struck by the 
automobile she had no notice cr knowledge that it was ape 
proaching from the east. Yhether or not the conduct of 
appellee, upon the occasion in question, and in view of the 
situation as it then and there exiated, constituted reasone 
able care for her safety, was a question of fact aa to which, 
upon this record, the verdict of the jury must be held te be 
conclusive. Counsel for appellant prese upon our attention 
the testimony of three or four witnesses to the effect, in 
substance, that appellee on several occasions in conversations 
relative to the coourrence in question aaid it was ae much 
her fault aa it wae Mr, Fisher's. Thies statement, if made 
by appellee, was the expression merely of her conclusion in 
ignorance of the conduct of the driver of the automobile. 
It was not the statement of a concrete fact inconsistent with 
the exercise of ordinary care for her own safety, True, 
appellee might have avoided the injury if before attampting 
to crose the east hound street car track she had exarciaed 
greater caution in looking to the east to observe whether a 
vehicle was approaching from that direction, but under the 
exiating facts, it oan net be ssid that in failing ao to do 
appellee was chargeable with a want of ordinary care. Under 
all the facts and circumstances appearing in the record we 
are not dieposed to attach to thie atatement a weight and 
importance *hich makes it conclusive against appellee upon 
that iesue. 

The evidence relating to the character and extent 


of appéliee's injuries is sharply conflicting. If the 


/ — 
Wb” ee 
as 
. wrt 
- > — a 


war sud tase sat brewot tela em foe ag 
$420, Re e870. OF auoda Maw ode ae, tod? » (gnidosorauM Bs 
) tizelwoltteg exon ene cottaetta 194 dosst x00 
z oa⸗ we Apurte gated 9% solsq tadt 4teor ent) 10 
1 WA Paw 41 tedt ppdolwond 1, eotton om bed om OLkd 

, 20 toubaoo edt ton ao s9dtedH . .teoo, od? mogh ge 
od? to wely at hos ,solteavp at mokepogo, od? goqu, 
( epaeet, Desuttienoe «betaine ened, bam, meds: $6, Mere 
doldy of as #082 to aolieeup # say .¥seten, 20d, 30%) 
04,08, pies ↄa asm vault, edt 0 solbiev edt .dbr909%, * 

aocao ts suo aoau aooaq ¢aAlloqas 703 ſocavod..ov 
oT Bt, g20e3%0 edt of Beseoatiw 270%, 70, 9rd?) ten 
saottserevaoo at anolesooo Letever.no apliogae tedt: 
 Aowa, ee. can th bias noiteevp at, soneriw90e ent OF w 
bem Yt qtoountato eléT 4! zodest 42M gem, th, enol 
at. aoieuloace zon. 29 ylowea solesezqxe edt R 

, seiidomotus edt to xevith edt to. toubdnoo edt de 
dtiw taeteianoont toat etetonoo 8) to tnemetata, edt ote 
cOuzT., «¥tetee avo 194,201, O180 yIAG thao to, eaten 
_ gattquedts oroted. t4 yautal od? bodtove,evad tigdm eokk 
. beetotexe bec ene Aoane 129 taoute bavod sese ena. 
8 Tedtodw evierds of tease edt of aataoo( ak ao tauae 





















9 


{2 


aah 


Odt xebau tug ,noltoaxth ted? sox? gatdosoaqgs eon ekotaan 
Ob Of Of Bniilat at teat diae od fon aso th, getoud) 
teohal .e1e0 yisaibyo to tasw s déiw eldsegiado asw elt . 
ow bices1 edt al gaixsogqa eeonstemuotlo baa .etes, 
bas sdytew s taemetate etd? of dostts ot bee ath, 

moqu sefleqae taniage evieulonoo ¢i eaten dolde e@ " 
taetxe hae tesoziado edt ot yaitslon eonebive, ont. | eer — 
edt tI .gnttotitmoo ylqzede st seliwvtal meelioggs fe 

aan 


— 

teatimony of appellee and of her attending and examining 
physicians is true, her injuries are severe and permanent, 
and the damages are not exceacsive, We would be unwarranted 
in saying that in eatimating the damages which appellee suse 
tained the jury were infiuenced by passion or prejudice, or 
that they failed to properly congider and weigh the evidence 
bearing upon that question. 

The court did not err in refusing to atrike out the 
testimony of appellee's witness, O. B. Jackman, relative to 
the automobile and the speed at which if was traveling. 
Jackman was employed as a clerk in a drug store located on 
the southwest corner of Madison street and California avenue, 
into which store appellee was carried after #he wae injured. 
He testified that ceincident with the cecasion in question 
he waa engaged in the store and saw an automobile coming from 
the eaat and running very fast on the south side of Madison 
street; that he did not leave the store; that he did not 
gee the automobile come to a stop, but saw it after it had 
stopped and saw the crowd gathered around it; that when he 
firet noticed the automobile he saw two persone in the front 
part of it. The witness was not able to identify the auto- 
mobile aa the one which belonged to appellant, but in view 
of a1] the facts and ciroumsatances in evidence, and the 
coincidence of time and place, it was fairly « question for 
the jury whether the automobile which he observed was the 
automobile in question. 

Appellant's objections to certain hypothetical 
questions propounded to a witness called by appellee ae a 
medical expert, and to the anawers of anid witness to said 
questions, are fully considered and determined in Shaughnessy 
Ve. Holt, 256 111., 485, and cases there cited. 


The thirteenth instruction tendered by appellant 


234 

Bitaiasks bas gatbaodia sed to bas sbfteqqe to” 
7 — bas eteves ore setiwtnt tod youd eh eae 
betaatrennu od bivew oF yen ‘sda? o» 
— Aokaw sogeush ‘ott’ pntdantdes al dad) yak 
10 cootsu tora 10 no teesq — —E odd b 
eonsbive od? dg tow bas ‘geblemoo vizeqorg of betta? yed 
Te FPRRO NE OM 2FRE, BRS CRETE snob seep tad} now 
ed? tuo eitrte ot —— at 0 ton 1 b t2y00 ea? 
of evitelos ynsmlost’.@ .0 —— to 
* — — 4 ok de te beoya odd’ ban an etidoms 
ry me beteoo! oxode Suc bat axelo s oa. "biyotas aa dl 
———* Inxotitad bas teerte moatbeM to zenzoo te 
sbomutat | wow one sotte botrxa0 mow dotfoyza oxots dobdw ¢ 
gottesup mt aotesooo od? Adiw tnobtontod: batt” portiies 
mort gatwoo elidomotue na was bas e10%e 94% at be 
nostbst Yo oble divoe edt ho tock’ yxov gainay2 —* ihe 
‘ton bib ed dadt jorote ont “oveot don bib ed’ shad | 9% 
bisd #2 Tod%a #1 won tus \qote a o% dnoo ofbdomotua” oa 
od nedn ted? j¢t bayoxs boxodtay bworo od? wse baa 
tnoxt oat nt anopxeq owt wae od olidomotua’ oat ‘boot toa f 






































firs 


tus ont vitinobl of olds ton oor ‘seontiw ont ” te 
wolv al tud stnalloqqe of begno lod dotdw ene ed? an yt 
ea) bas ~sonobive ni ssonatoauosto bus — oat” 

wot aolteevp s ylriat eaw tt .eoalq bas only Yo eon 
ods wow bevisado of dotdw Bf tKdomo tus od? todtedw 

: emolfroup al ork 

{sottodtoqyd mlatxeo 0? anoltoetde 8" danlleqqh mit ‘ 

g 08 eolleqys yd beltao neentiw # ot beburoqora emo tier 
bisa of seontin biam to exewens od? oF bas sfteqxo aot 
xeadaued at bontmroteb bas bereblence yl{yt sit ‘\enott oup 
| ,be¥fo ered? seoso bax ,86) ,. (tT eee gis 


eu 
tnalleqqa yd berebaet motfourtent dtasetrtat edt” 


y be 7 


oy Ws 
J 


~ 6 « 
Was too narrow in its scope with reference to the negligence 
charged in the declaration and was praperly refused, The 
subject matter of the insatruotion was eufficiently covered 
by other inatruotions given to the jury. 
There is no error in the record and the judgment 


ia affirmed, 
JUDGKHENT AFFIRMED, 





















woe aeiteass doles seme van ot neviy! anit 
“Paowpbut edt bas broows ons ne r0xxe of et 


- J ; ste te 
eoreBive pa? igier ime zeblewos vireqory of Belly 


? 
, 


<CEMATTIA THAMOIUT abt eno" toK8 ae 
ous * —— 6? guieriet al Te Pow B16 Pree eats % 


oF “ow foc ,womigat’ .4 .9 ~abens ie “*ositeggn to 


+gatlovars euw 2 dotde te bare ad? tes of! 
as —2 ——— 


singe’ — [oO ane towxde modded to” tensed 


? Spee 


wbberkat ‘bbe ote Foric belexvao ehe esti begaa prod . 
Woldeave wt aciencoo oat Ablw freblonldn baad Bete 
mart girlsro Atidomesua a whe hae esodk wat al bog 


Genibet to akin Btuse sitt fh beat yore gieadatet bat 


— 


— 
ud? event Joa BIS ba thal? % 
bao #2 40t2ta fk woe hid ,qots a O? Bebo at kdom > 

* $e 
ea neae fed? j;¢t Sav beoxed?sR brors oc? wae sal” 1 
‘ b 4 * ** 
ü al encei)e: o«f was off Slidomtus O03 BOOTIE 


apivk On? Titenebi OF Sldu fon far srenr2r oat a 3 


Seiv ni ted .tnolieaae of beynoted Astde ano ont} “a 
ee? ee At usceatzener ty beh se Oat wilt 


-:) a 
10% AC) ean av ‘> .eboa.d in e@2) to oored 






* J 
on? san DEVI > ye bs £GIMO 278 ? tmiteds 


fot feeun nh’ of 


faolteatory 6? pooltcetde e'tanl leeds ; 
. Joel 
ase 65li*arva ¥ Ra iSRD Bec % oF Detmrasor anid t ; 
’ PP ‘ " it Ds Ln 
etn of saoxtize Sika to #eeWann off OF Dee Sanqae gee 
Yoga ede rites ne bess) sao * V¥iler Ove Bnet 
- 7 
‘la ⏑—— wy te 82,8 <} 
; , cd 
; “9 4d. Sesebpeld no ltoyrfagsodtaeesi cide ear ⸗ 


—— ——— 


B. M. SHAFFNER, 
App 


475 - 18015. 








JENNIE SHAFFHER, 
Appell 


APPEAL FROM 
CIRCUIT COURT, 
COOK COUNTY. 
Le2i1.A. 450 


WR, JUSTICE RAUME PELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 


vs, 


isnt. 


This is an appeal by 8. M. Shaffner from an order 
of the Circuit Court committing him for contempt for his 
failure to pay to his former wife, Jonnie Shaffner, the ine 
etallmente of alimony for December, 1910, and January and 
February, 1911, as provided in the former decrees of the 
court. 

The decree of divorce was entered October 23, 1888, 
and a decree fixing the amount of alimony to be paid by appel- 
lant at $80 per month was entered October 29, 1888. On 
Maroh 30, 1905, a decree was entered declaring the alimony 
fixed by the former decree to have been paid to May 1, 1905, 
and fixing the alimony to be thereafter paid at $50 per month. 
On March 24, 1911, appellee filed her affidavit showing that 
appellant had failed to pay the installments of alimony as 
above atated, and thereupon appellent, in response to an order 
te show cause, ete., on March 29, 1911, filed hie sworn answer 
stating that he is without means or money to pay the aum due 
or any part thereof, and has been so unable since the sane 
aocerued and long before; that he intends paying the same ae 
soon as he gets money and verily believes he will be able to 
pay the eame within 30 or 40 days; that he hae no property 
exoept hia law library and household furniture, upon which 
there ig a chattel mortgage of 21,000; that he is heavily 
indebted and owes about $7,000, considerable of #hich is in 
judgments; that he owes $276 for office rent, about $400 for 


r™ 
⸗ 








~~ Fok ,LL0L «tot ees 

ifotw Oa! BP ddneteté=: Mw taped Br) wi @ostd | 
TO ee tr et ee Ce 

“feadbeb ¢li¢elot Ome Ga@tas* oo ‘an : 

Rr ee Oe We 


OaE, ATS8L 


<tanvO — — gamr raaa ava —J——— 


——— 




























— a6 en ‘qoattade M 8 yd —— a6 4 —9 
ta 79% tqmetnoo tot wid galttiaxco auoo cuoa 

“at odt ,t9atteds elanot ,etiv sour? ald of yeq one 
bas yreuael bas 90 ,xedmooeT 10% yaomtis to s 
add 9 ogtQed ꝛoaaoꝛ edt at debtvorg es gf SB. 

a ee oe * b> ous Tous 
s888L ,58 redo709 beret san eoxovld to eetoeh ade 
~Loqqye Yd bteq ed of xaoatta to tawoma ed? anatxat eer 
(WO . B88 .PS tedotn0 bozetae sew dtoom t0q 08t 
yoomiic ed? gnitsliosh besotne saw sex0eb 2 e208 f 108 a 
e20GL 4f ysl of bhaq meed ovad of eot0eh tom10 odt YC 
-dtnom toq O8$ ta bing 19fteeredt ed oF ynomtles edt " 
tadt gaiwode tivebditte tod Sellt eelleqgs ellGl oS. 
ee yaomtis to atgemifatent edt xeg oF belts? hed ¢ 
29bT0 as Of senoqear at etal loqqs aoquetedt bas sbetate s 
seowene atowe ald belt if@L .@G dorel mo ,,o0%@ ,esueo 4 
| sub mus odd ysq OF Yemoa tO eae Jvodtin Bt od ted? y 





ease od? gonte ofdanw o@ ated ead bane ,toered? es 1 a 


es ouse od? galyeg ebaetat of tadt jet0ted gaol bas 

of olde od {itv of soveiiod yLisev bas yeaom ste3 ed oa. 
"iteqorg on ead OA tad? jwyeh OF 10 O& aldtiw oma 
dotdw soqu ,emtlqiyt blodesvod baa yrerdtl wal ela F oR 
vitvaed e2 od tad? 4000,L9 Yo egagtsom Lettedo.s et et J 
at ef dotkw to eldexeplenco 1900, %8 tude sewo bas bersebat — 

20? OOD} twods aoa SolTIo sot OTSF sono ed tad? jetooggbus ; 


- 2 

rent of the flat he oceupiee, for which he paye a rental of 
$50 per month, and a house keeper 27 per week; that it costes 
him about $15 per week for groceries, mente, ete,; that his 
offices rent in $53.50 per month; that he is 63 yeare old and 
& lawyer and has hie son as vn partner equally interested in 
the business; that for the last eight monthe he and his eon 
have not averaged to exceed #75 per month in said law business; 
that for the month ef March, 1911, the receipts have been 
about $55; that for many years past he has kept no bocke of 
account in his business, because of the amall volume of said 
business; that out of the receipts he paya office ard living 
exyenses ari divides the aurplue, if any, with hie aon; that 
he hae been compelled to borrow and has borrowed money from 
friends and clienta during the last five and six monthea with 
which to pay living expenses, and which money ia still owing; 
that during the last @ix months he has not expended to excead 
$25 on himself for clothing and necessary wearing apparel. 

It is firat urged that the verified return of appele 
lant, which was alone considered by the chancellor, shows a 
complete inability to pay the alimony due, and that the rule 
to show cause should have been discharged. 

In Shaffner v. Shaffner, 318 T11., 49%, upon a 
showing more favorable to appeliant then in the case at bar, 
the court had the same question under consideration, and held 
that the order committing appellant for contempt wae properly 
entered, Since the decision upon the former appeal the allie 
mony has been reduced to $50 a month, and appellant appears 
to have been relieved from the neceseity, which then existed, 
of supporting hie subsequently acquired wife and atep daughter. 
Although living as a single man, he cecupies a flat at a 
rental of $50 a month, and employs a housekeeper, to whom he 
pays $7 a week. Since the hearing upon hie former appeal, 


appellant has voluntarily inourred an added incumbrance in 


\ 
⸗ 

- 

* 

J 14 4 d 

ert Rae eae 





bas bio cece at od tad? patoom 
fl beteetotat yl Laupe tontrsq 4 re n08 * 
aoe eld bas ed aftaom tdgis twat edy “x pone 
{eeonteud ‘wal’ Stan at Aton x04 20%. bevoxe, of Heyasovs. 2 
mood eved efqieoer oft Aiot .dote Yo dinom edt 
Yo siood on’ qe¥ sad od teay exeey Yak YOY tukt y 
bkae Yo baLov IThne Bx? to" — bates wii Hl 
satvit baw eoltto eyed od etytoosr oft Yo! dud salt © 
tad? {noe id dttw yyms It yewtyiwe ont eoblvih bad | 
sort yotom Deeort0d ead baa wordd of belteqhoo as 
ditiv adtnom xis bas evit test edt gatiwh etmelfo baa 
bOwOKO OF bobasyxo tou ead od eiftiom xte shat oat grt 
- .fetaqqs gatxeew Yrseeeoen bas yatitoro xT Yeemld ae @ 
<Logii’ 20 axiter boltrzov ott thas bogs’ ¥eurt er eT Oo" ” 
‘8 wwoith (roLfeonnite oft ys bexebtanoo snot ean’ — 
elvx edt feat bab sub yaombte eit yaq' OF yrtitdent’ 6 
¥ begredoeth heed owed blyode etvao : 
‘Ca hiogi (8e6 \ TET Sit \zetthate” .v seittaae at | 
(tad te oe80 edd nt nedt taallegaa oF otdsxover’ orom * 
bied bas ,noltarebtence ebay sotteovp sane oft’ bad Fab 
ylroqorg es” tquetnos ot taslleqqs galt iahoo tobio od 
-tfin edt [noqye temrot ad? moqy motetosd od? sonke |. 
Bisoqce thefleqqe bas ,dtaow « 080 oF beoubes nood ead 
~betaixe asd? dotdew (ytiestoes oft wort bevetfley need 
-tostgued gets bas etkw bexrtupoa yLtneupesdwé eta gatdroge 
o te tatt 2 eotgvdeo of .nam efjnte » es gatvit i; a) 
od mod OF ⁊odaa ia auod a ayoiqns ‘tne — e 02g —— 
Aabaae temo? ald nogs gaixecd ‘od? oonte “"doow's ee WE 
‘gt eoastdmsont bebbs na betiveal yt ivliv adtov’ ‘pod tual toqge 















‘ 


fin 


J— 


* 
4 be y 
4 Ve 


-3« 

the acquisition of a partner, with whom he divides the earnings 
in hia business, Appellant atates in his verified return that 
the receipts from his business have not averaged £75 per month, 
but he fails te state his earnings in his bueinesa, While 
appellant appears to keep no books of account, he may neverthe- 
less keep a mental ledger. 

The showing by appellee that appellant had failed 
to comply with the decree directing the payment of alimony 
afforded prima facie evidence of contempt, and the burden wae 
thereby cast upon appellant to shew that his failure in that 
regard was due entirely to his inability to pay. Shaffiner ve 
Shaffner, aupra. The showing made by appellant wae ineuffie 
cient to purge him of contempt. 

It ie next urged that as the original decree re- 
quiring the payment of alimony to appellee was entered in 
1888, any remedy for a failure to comply with such decree is 
barred by the twenty year etatute of limitations; that there 
ia no distinction in this reapect between judgments at law 
and decreea in equity; that both out-law in twenty years, une 
less revived within that period after rendition. 

Appellant entirely ignores the fact that the last 
decree in the case was entered in 1905, but if the decree of 
1905 be disregarded, it must still be held that the decree of 
1888, whereby appellant was required to pay alimony in monthly 
installments, is a ¢entinuing order, as to which the statute 
of limitations does not begin to run until the last inatallment 
becomes due. 

In Craig v. Craig, 163 I]l., 176, it was held that 
alimony decreed upon the dissclution of » marriage, if payable 
in installments, ia, unless otherwise specifically provided, 
an allowance for the suprort of the beneficiary during the 
joint lives of herself and her divorced husband. If the 


duty of support continues during the joint lives of the parties, 





eieq- 


- 


egatazan nd aphivtd ad andy qa iv \xontzng 9 20 godt ketupon 
sadt aau⸗asa beltixey nid sh gotare Pant ioaqh geauava a 
edtmom aay OVE hezatayn fon, prad anentnud Aid woz? arqte 2 
OCLAF .. .ppentens ald wt euahazae Bis af eta. 9P, ie 
— x· 
joe aia jin Hes staghel Cas aoa & ae 

; ‘becist, od — —* ooc d⸗aa⸗ wd aataoas oft dom 
vnomdin 20 anpaven edt RATAN SOP 

GaN aobaud edt dae .tqmetnoe to ernobive pies? æ 
tant mt gaslior ↄta tad? none of tnetiagas passin! 
LAOGRads ..Xoa of WeALdent ad of vgonaaa eu 
maangs, oar Anat soe Wt phen aniwede, 96,» 5 AR 
naa ive‘ ARP? DP PAE APR 

— wa tad? beam then at #% 

_ fit dexetae saw aelleqqs of yaomtla Yo snemyeq 8 

“ak poxosb dows dtin yiquos of exits? a rot homer v 
eredt tedt jenottatinti to stutate aaox — 
wal te ednesgoul moowted toeqear aldt nt notsonitalb 

“Ais Aaasx YInewt AL wal=tug dtod tad? yt lupe At. 
* sMoltibner tetta bolreq tad? aia⸗ia dove 

taal edt tedt toat dt sotomat ylerttne tnalleqqA 5 ‘ 

to aetoes edt ti tud ,800L mi hetetne enw sean ad? at 108 

Ze avxp0h ent tadt bled od Lhate fesm th  hebragerstb ‘ 
Yidtgom mk ymombia Yoq of Doxtupar son tralloqas vdexede if 
etutaie eff doldw of o4 ,.t#h29 gaiuatinos 4s et etooallasams 
taont{atent teal edt (iinw ava oF aiged ton aeob anoltat mu te 
oud 


4 ; ‘¢ > nt i o 


fad? bled aau tt .OTL gefkT 88 ala pv ptazd al 2 o J 
eldsyeq tL ,egsizisa 6 to moltuloselb ed? soqs beetoeh x , a 
ghbebivetq Yllaoltioege eelwredto aselay ,st ——— FY J 
ad? gaiwwb yietottened edt to ogausa ed? tot eonswokls ae 
edt TT  ,bretaad beotoyth 0d bas toeexed Xo wevel — 
seottre; edt Yo aevil tatol edt gntush eeunttaoe roguus TO xcut 

































ad 


wie 

it is clear that a decree providing for the payment of alimony 
in inatallments, as in the case at bar, cannot be affected by 
the statute of limitations, 

If the decree had provided for the payment of a 

as alimony, 

sum in gross,/a different question would be presented, 

The order is affirmed, 


ORDER AFFIRMED. 





— 


opninzes — 

Yo edt x0t 

abt. certo — wid gh 
J betoetts ed fonnso . pin J 

,ifsem 26q 860 fezotera dos 44 sod ood cree * x 1290" 


oliae 2 aa a * ft — * * 9, 4 wo! 


























s te 

otal a¥On. Bea ah PANO ———— ⁊ 
—ERRRRX ——— tao⁊ os ‘2 \,80073 

© os ————— a a 

betigt bot dasliowe tase pelleags YS Aa ORs Om 
Yomtio + —* = 049, z — * sete, x 
aan — ed} Lan ,fanotgaoe te, ⸗ aioad 
Sade al @aviial #24 260? veda os? tat Lone pO ey i" 
LMR. Nee ot Wtlidank etd oT ypatene, eum 
— sails 4. obese Ra trade aa? ‘ , a * 
— —DDOOO———— 
— Beieed Leatgiun o6f oa Pad? Sapte rae a ea 
Hi Rewatine ano calle of woartta to temmpaie me 4 
ei sees fave atic tiuwoo +? o 7 viewe x 4 
ocnad? PAde c~eacisesiail YW stutate, ape yews, on? of 
ak. ta otnoredy|, xeerted tomyeer ott as sokponte 2 
(eaeer Yioent aL wei~tap Apod Jay . eee ivpm MM * 
wteitnes tefts. daived tate. wire evar 7 
Sexi ede fe89 #02 one eoxewal vievitee tonal lenge | 
wegen oct 12 tye 800% al seaetde, eap eens on? m o 
te. BHwebS ot? 2 sted of [fhe fem Si) Ren TagenPRe | — 
ijgou ni. yaoi. tizsgoay wp dnad te ad hit 
Ps ui? seid ‘ senna yalopireoe & #2" .aeeeeee 
ai fs rf a | oem as tam foun £606 snpteset. 
- ou 

aTk gokit POL aRbage oe phase ae 


iveieserh ed? sega hectoel ,eam 


fz 
s 
= 
* 
4 


+ A 


ans: ai Home reife eealon «ml ,ornseliseenee 
4 barter! esi? fx1earvs vd? wt ann nrosig | 
{ bepress 1 te Flewwd 26 newts, Raa : 
ay. J eel 9 * taint mdf pn both roun £} 10,0 Pinqeun 20 J Le 
rie 


ant es 





* 


— 


5 —— 


476 - 18016, 







JENNIE SHAFFNER, 
‘ 
4 


ppellee, APPEAL FROM 
CIRCUIT COURT, 
COOK COUNTY, 


821A. 451 


Oo ° 
UR, JUSTICR BAUME DELIVERED 4 OPINION OF THE COURT. 


Appellant. 


This ie an appeal by B. M. Shaffner from an order 
of the Circuit Court committing him for contempt for hia 
failure to pay to his former wife, Jannie Shaffner, the 
inatallmente of alimony for March and April, 1911, as provided 
in the former decrees of the court, 

The precise questiona here involved vere considered 
and determined in Shaffner v. Shaffner, No. 18015, in which 
Gage the opinion of thie court has this day been filed, and 
for the reasone there atated the order of the Cirouit Court 
will be affirmed. 

ORDER AFFIRMED. 


ei 













ynowklé to tnaayer edd 20% pitkevs 19 ” gen 6 tant 8 
ef bavostio of fomiso Ted ts Stag ma? R — — 
f id! 


hap idae 7 


a te tioxen, SO AATIS — 
c YTRUOD aoo0 
; 7 in 


TBR ATS a enn DOAK HOITENE 


sebro as sox? tea} tade M Owe Samage an of otet 
etd ⁊0⁊ ¢qmetnoo sot mid gatt? tanoo Pad #2 
“edt cTOntinde otanel .etiw temx0? sid of eq oF 
bebivorq es lf@L .ftaqA hae doe 10% yaomtls to ao⸗ 
.f1uoo ↄa⸗ Yo aeetoeb xouro? ¢ 
betebisnoo stey bevfoval e1ed saciteeup eeloorq OnF 5: 
dotdw at L084 ol .zonstede vy zontieds at 
bae ,belit mood yesh eld? sad txyoo eld? to ao iu tao ig 
txuod tiuorld ed? Yo xebr0 edt betste oxreds enosaer | : 
— E 

aauntaa aaano 


57 = 12079. 


es 
Row ism 45] 
CLAUDE B. DAVIS, doing business 
CLAUDE B. DAVIS & CORPANY, 

Defendant = ERROR TO 

vs, ⸗ CIRCUIT COURT, 


BAX J. * and SILHELMTWA STRAUCH, COOK COUNTY. 
Plaintifte in Errer. ) 





\ 
% 
— 


MR. JUSTICE HAUME DELIVERED THE OPINION oF THR covet. 


This writ of error ia prosecuted to review a 
purported record of certain proceedings in the Circuit Court, 
wherein defendant in error recovered a judgment against 
plaintiffs in error for $208, which judgxent plaintiffs in 
error, at a subsequent term of aaid court, sought unsuccesse 
fully to have vacated and set aside, 

The purported abstract filed by plaintiffs in error 
is a mere index of the record and is wholly insufficient to 
present the questions aeught to be raised for our conszidera= 
tion. 

Furthermore, notwithatanding there is no biil of 
exceptions in the record, the record containa 2 bill of 
particulars, together with certain motions ana affidavitea, 
which can only be properly preserved by s bill of exceptions. 


Star Brewery v. Farnsworth, 172 Ill., 247; Hartenfela vy. 
} isin e> 107 Ill. App., 88; Christie v. faiker, 126 Iil. 








— APP. > 424 ° 
The judgment is affirmed. 


JUDGMENT AYFIRVED. 


“Ted AIS8r 


OT ROSAT 
TAOS TIVORID- iu 
eYT#UOD HOOD” nooazrarsa 


— # J— woa¢) -% 
fé a f ; —8* 
te J ” Ter wt 7er J TAR ar, Se 
.TAUO SAT YO ROINIG MNT GANRVEIGN & 8 TOITLUL « 


tehrto 7 tea 4 wv league as ot 2it 
a ‘wetvor ot ‘pesuoesorg et 20719 to stow eiaT 
biz 29 got ata te the Leso@ trmod theot hy 

,f1000 Stuer ‘edt ut egnibesoo1g aledze0 to bios: 
mitiedhi efarst.setiw reatet @hi OF Faq. OF, 

tention Ry gre s eee torte af 2 

—* A hea dove wot yoowlle To. 20m 
— etittntela troagiut dole 8088 10% 10120 af st} 
* “4? Jo saeqpes gees 
ssesooseny ‘tdguoe qf t00 bles * wre? Insupoedua 
— Amie Bt i rs ™ | 

-ebles * bas bet soev 
207° rege at ber 
are⸗ aa oritsateta * ‘bert soarteds  bedzoqiyg eat 
goo ald? Ye aglaigo 
ot tastolttusa! elfodw at ba baodoa eat to xebai 
fata ated? eobnaed ¢ 
—— tuo 10t bastar od ot $dgu0e — —— 





















to ffi on et ered? yathaatedtinton ,evomsedtust | 
to {[{id s entataooc hioce: edt baoos⁊ of? al eno 
eMtivebiite bas anottom atstie0 dtiw zedtegot , : 
eenoitqeoxs to [Lid « yd beviseeng elseqora od vino 160 ; 

-¥_ bleimetisi (TOG ,. Lit Stl owena gs’ etlie 
-f1I O81 godleW .v ottetrd) 488 ,.qqA «II TOL ..09 ais 
-bowittts st ¢aemgbut edT 


eTUMAITVIA THAMOCUL 


e ove 
is, oo 5 
» dates * 
tee We 


ann 





90 - 18114. 







MAPLEWOOD COLLIERY CONPARY, 


Plaintiff in Erref, ERROR TO 


WS. | SUPERIOR COURT, 
Defendant An Error. 


MA. JUSTICE BAUME DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT, 


Thies writ of error is prosecuted to review the 
record of certain proceedings in the Superior Court, wnerein 
in an action of replevin brought by plaintiff in error against 
defendant in error an aliteraative judgment wae rendered that 
Plaintiff in error return the rroperty described in the writ 
to defendant in orror, and in default of such return thet 
defendant in error heave and recover from plaintiff in error 
$270 and coats of suit. 

To the declaration in the usual form defendant in 
error pleaded, first, son cepit, second, non detinet, third, 
property in enother, and fourth, thet the property wae Gé-= 
livered to defendant in error to perform cértain work upon the 
same and furnish certain materials, and that defendant in 
error performed said work and furnished 3aid materials, hereby 
plaintiff in error became indebted to him in the sum of #400, 
to secure the payment of which defendant in error waa entitled 
to detain the said property. 

Upon the overruling of notions interposed by pisin- 
tiff in error for a continuance a jury was impaneiled to try 
the case, and such trial proceeded in tne absence of pleintiff 
in error and resulted in a verdict as follcws: 

"We, the jury, find the issues for the defendant and find 
the amount due from the plaintiff the sum of Two Hundred and 


Seventy Dollars and asaess the darages at the sum of Two 
Hundred and Seventy Deoliarsa.*® 


Sea 499) 
oy OT HORAN | 
. he PRUOO, noana aue . 


1) SYTHIIOD, BOOS 






+ HPR AS PALA IE 


— 


r 


—N pee 
* - 
2 




















.⁊ imo ANT NO WORMIGO ART aaaariasa IMOAE mee 
943 wetve: of betunssotg ef toaxe Lo fixe ener 
aierodw ytio0 solieqwe® edt at s3atheooors atstxeo 2 
— aox1e ab Bitataly ys siguord mivelgar 2 AOL: 
teid Perebcor sew tromphst evitsnre?ia ns 10Txe BL 
fixe ot nb beditoeeb ytregerq edd atutes torre at | 
ted? autor dowe to tivsteb mb tas groxrp abt 
sOrze oi: tti¢eisig aoxt revoces toe eved zorze at 
of Deeio:ttoenk ellos of ban teocet abhweni 
ab tnebaeted m102 Lave oft ni noktereloeh edt of + hs 
«buid? ,tontzeS gog .booses .tigee gon «teri? ,bebselq 
“8b sor yireqong ox? fadt. wigsuod bam _redions ai ¥ 
edt coq Axow alstiso axotroq of ao1re ab dasbasted of, 
ti tnabasteb staat bona .elaivetan aietaoo detazeh. oe 
dewein- griaitetam piss bedeloxuh ban, t10% haw boaxr0tseg 4 
.0098 to swe eft at wkd ot betdehal smeoed sor29 my 22 i 
boltitns fay corms Ai dnsbooteh doldx, te: tapaysp pdt, 
‘¥rteqorq bise edt, 
-atelq yd betoqretni enoltom to gni tuxxevo.ed? aoqgd 
y7d of bellensqmt exw yuwt # eoneynitace # sot 10290 at 


‘aa 


ay Y 
rk 
~ Be 


v we 
—J 


* 


Thivaleliq Yo eenesds ed? wt bebssce1q Leiz? douse -bas 20889. “ 
zewollot es totbirev #2 at besiueoer base sorts 


“ligt” 
balt bas tasbasteb ed? x0? —ñ— edt batt ett ed? ,or* 
bag -bethasH owT to ame ods ttitatelq sd? mor? evb savonscéd? 
orT to aye ed? ts soyenesh edt seeses bas eteliod ytasvel 
*.erel(od yfaevel bas betbavl 


m Ba 

Upon the wotion for a new trial defendant in error 
remitted the damages for the detention of the prorerty to one 
cent, and the motion for a new trial was then overruled and 
judgment entered as follows: 

"That the plaintiff make return within ten dayea of the 
property seized by virtue of the replevin writ aforesaid, 
vigs*****and thet in default of euch return, the defendant 
have and regover from the plaintiff the sum of $270.00 and 
costs of suit, and thst he have execution therefor." 

It is firat urged that the motion of plaintiff in 
error for a continuance waa improperly denied. The record 
diacloses that in support of the wotion first wade for a 
continuance, which waa denied by the court, the affidavit 
filed by plaintiff in error failed to conform to the ree 
quirements of the statute, and that on the following day 
plaintiff in error agsin moved for a continuancé uron the 
Same ground, and in support of such motion, hich waa alse 
denied by the court, plaintiff in error filed a suificient 
affidavit. The motion for a continuance first interposed 
was properly denied, and to have granted tne second motion, 
based upon the like ground, would have been equivalent to 
improperly permitting plaintiff in error to amend its motion 
for a continuance. Both motions were properly denied. 
Stockley vy. Goodwin, 73 Ill., 127; Horthwestern Aid Ass'n 
Ve. Primm, 124 Iil., 100. 

It is next urged that the instruction given to the 
jury as to the form of verdict was imrroper. The propriety 
of the action of the court in giving this instruction ia not 
properly preserved for review, but if it were we snould be 
obliged te hold that no harm resulted to plaintiff in error 
by the giving of the instruetion. The uncontroverted evidence 
fully establishes the facta averred in the fourth srecial plea 


filed by defendant in error, and the instruction, together 































os 
aorre al tashaotedb fata wen # 10t aoliom odd aoa 
32 * vꝛenoꝛa ed? “ol tnes ab edt 10% eopameb 6 ‘ °° 

(bra bokezxeve soar wor Loin! wor ——— aolttos + baw re 
ox . sie — gd 

aa Res 2603 Tus 
cal te eek — rts 
— 
asbao at 

bus 0O,OVS$ to muse odd Ytifaielq edg sort sevoues 
*,solered? ao tauooxs eve on todd — — — 


ENT rrr wo a aly wae 
ai titdsialg to aokton ed toa oar : 


lo ® 20% eben tandtd aolvom eit te ¢xoque at: pelt 
> ‘Yb gatwolfot ent ap eat bas ,etutate ed? to 
oi? acge eonsuaitnoo & 107% bevom alsge t98=10 
oie sew dotde qaottom dove to s1oqque at ine 
tasioitive »« beiti rw7te at Thitalelq g@imem 
 bexoqruetni teuit seaswaitnoo 4a x0 noivou edT -° .oivas 
nottom ett buoam of torre ai thivnialg gaittisnog yl 
— xitaqory exer Raoitom 4408 4 | 
BRBh biA mreteonstx0 {VSL goLLT 6S 
» OOL gelLly et 
ait o¢ nevig oeitoarrtent ent ted? bogur txon et ¢1 oxves 
Ytetxqorq siT . Teqoxqat asew soibrev to apd ed? < t 
ton ei moltornfenit sidt yeivis of tao ot Ro mol tos od? 20. 
e¢ Divorin ow etow ¢i Bi tod greives sod hevirosarq ¥ = 
_moure af Yisninig of hotiveex wurd om tad? Dbflod 
soueblve betasvotta om edt ~nodousteni asst? Ro: giv hg edt w 
selq {sicecs dtivot of? at berisvs tos? oat ont Sates, vito 4 
zettesot nol Fountect oat! bw qaoxte at fanbaetan ve 


Ceaans wane rL silod ylaqval . 
-etelleg yioevel hae bastace 


-3« 
with the verdict and judgment, are clearly and properly 
referadlie te said rlea. 

There is no assicnment of error calling in question 
the action of the court in permitting the cavee te rrocsed | 
to trial without a rvle on plaintiff in error to reply to the 
several pleas, and plaintiff in error is, therefore, precluded 
from raising the point. 

A judgment in the alternative wae croperly entered. 


Janes v, Silbert, 168 Til., 627. 


The judgment is affirned, 


JUDGMENT AFFIRVED, 


y + > — — pie. lea “— - — 





























tare een —— felx a" 7aT eoliow a? * 


α— —— 
bow Dela rLeve ana? aoe bets vor Be essing 


nolteesp at gaiifes setae, bes: 


— — 
benatovig: eno rosea? PESh nee 
*.wtewsd! aoltresrs ered 
Sivest eT): -beinet cman eat BOTS oe 4 
g 20T eboo rene? ao Lege mget th * Lone of 


‘Ly QUMRTTA THRUOTUEM Kh Seloeh Coe Solum | 
<39 @6-¢2>m10 $a9e of Reglakowosze at Qhatatel" 


—* 





rage 


weh etiebifet ed? ao. dad? Low ,otutetrred?) 207 
eis Goqe Ofceusi th25 & Yo lorem Sl ege: wane 
Cein eee Attias .soiton tere te tap pywe ad tee & 
taatcttivs « belli wre at Wiraiela’ gesbooress 
hbehogretat fetit sovesct inom « 20% nottom ed? 
gectioa tnopae adt berrasy or4c:9 > Snes, gbelpaby 
92 *neleriepe need er ac blovs boos, oth ans me 
a@.o2 vee at Yliesieiq: gaittiosag wi 
-befiet vireadtr aise Seodteos 4268 panama te 
BIB. PAS — iced aif eT ohmic 4 
-OOL <oibke oG8 

“ aa? wie tee? pas nen ot 22 

‘ @7 a? set Jothsev Yeo ane> adh of7 

(oe oh guldoesiend nit gebepy mi) QapneremhiRowegt fon" 
2 “4 2 uc waives. to b> bovtsoensg vis — 
Ylissiesilc of Option cued. om tad? ———— 

7 eotiursiasi- wit, Ie pkey by ext 4 

sO — sidan ax codelicatee WE 

, a>. Bi 

viord fountenh ait? het: amp eer ae sentsaton va 


(FF 


—orr— 


* 


ae ei ee 


— 


124 - 18155. 


1821.4. 453 


— — 





FERDINAND ¥, JAROS, 


Plaintiff injfError, ERROR TO 
Ve HUNICIPAL COURT 


EDWARD JOHANNING ‘gna A. OF cHTCAGO. 


= 


VERTZBERGER, f 
Dererigants in Error, 


HR. JUSTICE BAUME DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 


In a@ suit brought by plaintiff in error against 
defendants in error in the Municipal Court to recover #328,50, 
alleged to be due for legal services, a trial by jury resulted 
in a verdict and judgment againet defendante in error for 
23.50, admitted to be due, and plaintiff in error, being 
aggrieved by the insufficiency of such jwimment, prosecutes 
this writ of error, 

In June, 1909, defendants in error, “ho were cone 
ducting a laundry business, as partners, and one, Hilbern, 
were made defendants in a suit inatituted against them in the 
Cireuit Court by the Schriver Laundry Company to enjoin them 
from employing and permitting said Hilborn to solicit tne 
business of said laundry company, and plaintiff in error was 
conaulted and retained by them to defend aaid suit. Plaintiff 
in errsr claims that the services rendered by him in saia suit 
were reasonably worth the sum of $500, and defendants in error 
do not conteat the reasonable vaiue of such services, but 
deny liability therefor. In March, 1910, defendants in error 
were made defendants in 4 auit instituted against them in the 
Municipal Court by one, Richards, and plaintiff in error was 
retained by them to defend said auit. For his services in 
the Richards case plaintiff in error charged #25, and the 
reasonableness of said charge is admitted, but lisbility 


therefor is denied. From the decree entered against them 


va 7 





~ia- 







tneuphot bre sobre rer . 
erat 2) 


esis #16 
ech. A, Sst mate biee o2 39 
Se papain J suites — 
rauoo JATIOISUM, |; fdtels he 
s 5 sODADSTHD. TO. mk a +e 2 7% 
et0TTE at 
“Sivoo ‘at 10 wed aver, orraut 
— — ty Sot —E 
- tentage toT19 of BWtitniela vd sdgvord thue a 
208. BSE8 TavooeT ot ‘$2009 LeqtotasM edt ai rox at 
betivass wut 2 Isii? 8 yeeotvree Lagel 10% sub od ¢ +b 
xot 10419 at ednebaeteb teniage tnempbut bas J 
gnied ,rorxe af Ytltmielq bas .oub ad oF bettt 
eotuoseoig .taemnbyt dowe to yonototYtwant edt wt 


.Tom1e to * 
































— 2* 


=noo e1ow odw ,10T19 ai stesboeteb .20Cf .enut al 
eXT0dLiH ,eao bas ,ersntieq es ,eeenteud yibauel # gat 

edt nt medt+ tentnge beftuttiant tive « at etnsbreteb obsm 7 
ment atotne ot yasqmod yibawel revizde® edt yd t1v09 — von! 
edt ttoifoe of m10d[it bise anistttiaisg bae gatyo. “~~ 

Sew ToT1e mi Ytitnielq bas .yneqmoo yrbawel bias to 
ttitnielt tive bise bovteb of edt yd beatsto1 bas bet. 
tive biee at ald yd betsine: esotvies ed? tad? amislo 1077 
wor1e mi atnsbaetebh bas ,00f% to mua on? Atrow yldsacesst | 


* 


jud ,200tviee dowe to suiav el{dsnosse1 sd? seetn00 
torTr1s at atasbaeteb ,OL@L ,dorsl al 8 .10te ted? us — 
od? ai med? teniegs betutiten! tive « at etasbasted ebom . 
Sav toT19 of ttitatelq bas ,ebirsdolf .oa0 yd #109 [aato: a 
ai esoivise etd x10T etiue Diese baeteb of medt yd bent 
edt baa .2@S% benrsde szo1re ai Ytitatelq seso — 
XAIIatt tud .bettimbs at eprado bias Yo veoneidéavabit 

mod? fantsge bexetas setosh adt moze 8 -betneb ef sote tod? 


-3-= 

in the Circuit Court defendante in error prayed an appeal to 
the Appellate Court, and thereafter plaintiff in error withe 
drew his appearance in said case for the reason that defendants 
inerror had failed and refused to pay for services rendered 
by him, and for the like reason plaintiff in error withdrew 
hia appearance in the Richarda case in the Municipal Court. 
Defendants in error deny liability for the services of plain- 
tiff in error in the injunction case upon the ground, as they 
allege, that plaintiff in error agreed to perform asid services 
upona contingent fee to be realized by him from the complainant 
upon the injunction bond for $500. Liability for the ser- 
vices of piazintiff in error in the Richards cage ize denied 
upon the ground that pisintiff in error szreed to rencer all 
necessary services in said case for 335. 

Upon the issues of fact invoived, it is sufficient 
to say that the evidence is sc closely conflicting that, if 
no prejudicial error had intervened, we shouid have been com 
pelled to sccept the verdict of the jury as final. The record, 
however, discloses that after the close of ail the evidence 
and after the arguments of counsel, the trial court, befers 
inatructing the jury as to the law of the case, read to the 
jury the affidavit of serita or defense filed in the case by 
defendant in error Jchanning. The affidavit of merits, as 
drafted, sets out the defendants' version of the controversy 
in detail, and the procedure adopted by the court improperly 
emphasized its significance and was calculated to prejudiciaily 
influence the jury to give undue weight to the sworn state- 
wente therein contained. If the sworn statement of claim 
filed by plaintiff in error had alse been réad to the jury 
the effect of the action of the court in reading the affi- 
davit of merite filed on behalf of defendants in error might 


have been minimized. 





o⸗ . [aeqqs as beyetq TOIT a 


oy caltin toate Pent aot 
Wedenaarteb ‘teat aoene: * 20? 























-atsig esoivase edt 10 vasiadeit ) tae 
You? es ,bavo7y edt aoqu eano aoit — 
—— 3 sorte at Yitnielq tadd Qe 
Insntaiqaco edt mort ald. yo bortiaex, 907, 90% ¢nsgaisaoo ↄ⸗ 
(B98 Od) 102 Yilidatd .,008$ 102, baad noisony 1 
beigob sf 99s9 sbisiclf.edt. ai aoaao Gb, Titaislg, 20,9R8 
[La tebasz of beoaze t0119 af Biitaksiq. ted? it 
+88§. 192 capo dies ai seoive 
faetoitiue st th ,beviovni *ee% to sevesi, edt. sogl po. 015 
TE ytodt guttoiftnoo yLeeofo os st sonsbive, sdf tad? eee 
09 039d 9ved bluods.ow .benevzetat bed aocas {atotbute: 
baoosa od? ...faqit es xaut od? to toldzev, od? tqs008 ot bet 
eonebive od? [is to. ssolo edt. zezts ted? essolosib. 
s2ete¢ ,tiveo Ieirtt edt ,leenwoo to atneawaze od? & 
oa? 0 baer ,9980 ad% Yo wel.sdt of es yrul od? gai? 
XC 9880. 9d? nt boli? sencted 10 stirs to Ptvebitts 
. 88 «8titem to tivebiite edT. sgaiansdel torts ai 
Yerovotssoo sd? Yo agtexev ‘eiasbasteh od? tug stea 
vireqoijgat tivoeo edt yd betqobs exzuheoo1g adt baw of 
viletoibyterg 02 betsiuoiso easw bas soageltingie efi! S 
~stote miowe edt of tdgiow eubay evig.ot.yxut ed? 1 tat 
wlelo to taewatste arows.ed!.tl. ..beatsiaos sisted? 
¥1u( od? of bse1 a90ed osis bed torte ai Wiiiaiaiq ys) be 
“tite edt gaibss1 ai fisoo ed! to aoitos edt to toaite 7 
tdyla torte al etasbaeies to YLeded ao boli? etixea to #ivebd , 
boxiniacin goed evad 


so TF betaeh ol wiered? 


i“ 


“bal 


« 3 & 

The objections urged to the rulings of the court 
upon the instructions are untenable, 

Aa the judgment must be reversed for the reason 
above given, it ia unnecessary to consider and determine the 
error assigned upon the action of the court in refusing to 
grant a new trial upon the ground of newly discovered evidence. 


The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded. 


REVERSED AND REFANDED. 


a & = 





















—itiw tO2re pl Tikgsisig so a2 


eiimbastad Pad? aoekos oH? 1O7 yy al soaste 


beereves te 
— GS Sues Sa Wane Oe 
wespastn yoxse. fish?) ——— 
— ane oa oat al? ag Selece tor st 
— te sacivies —— waste 4a 


Tet as —* eat ao ⁊a eno soiftzoulal eaf al 
aanau CTA ana CARAS ore sours of Witabota $ 
inno lakgegs, sat agat ath yd, bor ttasea od 9? e8t.ge 

~aes 643 20% ytiiidatd ...Q088, 101, baad soit omy bak ag 
Deine) al oacy.ebsseso(h ed? ak tosze G2) — * 
fin Zaccaee Of be9nge.sesxs a! Mid~alalg ged? t 


oh B0TSS | 


+352, x02 cung tes al soni 

dagioltYoo «i <i.,.ievlannt tock 20 eouend, 
th gfad? gniiolitnos yisecfo oo ot sorehiye.ediy 
G9. a900 sved bigoda ow, benevze¢al bed sotze feloliy 
none: oat ...fanit eas yant.ed?t to. folbsvey,ed?_éqnepe * 
eoaetive od? iia ‘to eeole.ed?. cette ⸗ 
anoted_,fxwoo ialxt eat. ,leanvog, t0_atnenuste od2_ 
od? oc! bass ,enec.ed2 Yeo wei.sdt ef ee yxyt Baz , 
vd etao ed)? ad S61 il -eeaetet zo adisee,. ta.otyenitte 
RA. ,Stiven to Penbiite oc? sgelanedol pe jal 
SH4OT! 150. sa? bo soiezow ‘etasiastel ods ave _.6706 
eixsqorgzei tsgee s42 ef Detqoks_exabeoong, ad? baeigk 
bytoxq o2 ‘siveles eer bam sonegliiagic of2 baa 
eat © lee. adubag evig ot -gaut.ed? 

io tuswotete oeeee. at! tt -houietace slated? s 

at pad of be gem! eats bad saute gi Witdelake «@ of] 
sez ni trees es? ¶ — 

} tate oh olecakheetoo ⁊é ae belt ——— y 
-hoxhaigia ade 

oz weet 


eo :t—‘(‘ ‘i i‘ tO; 


March Term, 1912, No. 


129 - 158160. 









HERMAN L. YOLFF, for the use ⸗ 1 8 2 Pete 4 5 4 
ef Barnett Zollo, 

Defendant inférror, ERROR TO 

, MUNICIPAL COURT 


ERNEST ©, CROS usiness C¥ CHICAGO. 


as E. M. CROSS\A 


HR. JUSTICE BAUME DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 


Ernest M. Cross, doing business as E. K, Cross & Co., 
proseoutes thia writ of error to revies the record of a roe 
ceeding in the Municipal Court, wherein thers was a finding 
and judgment againet him in favor ef defendant in error 
for $366.92. 

The statement of claim filed by dsfendant in error 
ie for damages occasioned by tae failure of plaintiff in error 
to deliver 160 cases of eggs according to quality, a8 per ine 
spection and sample, purchased by defendant in error September 
14, 1910. The affidavit of merite and claim of set off 
filed by plaintiff in error states that defendant in error 
pought of rlsintiff in error 160 casee of eggs for #1,138., 
and paid therefor on account $341.42; that plaintiff in error 
procured for defendant in error a loan of $800 on aaid ef283 
that defendant in error failed to pay said loan at maturity 
and plaintiff in error “as obliged to pay the same and to 
ell said eggs on account of defendant in error; that plaine 
tiff in error thereby sustained a loss of $246.40 on the 
transaction; that defendant in error was also indebted to 
plaintiff in error in the sum of $6 for 2 other cases of 
eges purchased from plaintiff in error. 

It ia unceontroverted that negotiations between defen= 


—“ Pay 


dant in error and one Miller, who was the sales agent of plaine 





a er om ,SICL met ‘itt 
Susop of? Yo egAtiny ‘okwet teste —— —E 

* — * 

wih Sn try $5 OR ronan 

> TRUOD MATTIOIV“VM \ on 
_comebty SeODASTRO TO gion M4 Oreos — ay f " ROR: ¥ 


’ ; oa? * 
—* 


Bite 8 * 
a ae —* — a ae 

6 ome plas 
UD INT FO RRS x SET GRASVIING “MUA ROTeUL .At 
—4 

we a x 


«100 * 28070 — 2 es — —— #0079 aM teense ele 
017 4 to brooe1 od? wolvet of aoaao to shaw eld? ¢ X 
gatbat? a eee exoit atezede of m00 Loqtotaut odd 6 
“mors ak tasbasteb to xove? at wtd tentess 






















shoAtaiet Settee orl! hie 


* 


— 
— E — ‘beth? mtsfo ‘te tnenetete oat ny M 
sox10 at Mitaisia to exulis? edt yd beaotssos0 eegsmnb wt 

-at 194 86 Wt ot gatbro00s agge to seeso ot rv] 
reduo? aos 10119 at sasbaeten xd bessdorug eSlquse bas no 
| ‘Mo toa Yo melo bas etizom Yo tivabliie edT 4! 

⁊oꝛao at #nabasteb ted? setsts sor1ze al Irkeaisla YI 

6-B5L, {8 20% egge to seeeo 08f ze719 at Yitaiel[, to 
worre mk Witmiela stadt i8>. toet faco oos ao aoꝛoaod⸗ 

48339 bas no 008% Yo asol # 10119 al tanbroreb 20? | 
| — te asol blae yaq of beits? 10718 al — 

_ @% bas emse ot yer os begiido sar zo17@ al anit eae 

~alaiq fad? 4101⁊0 at taebasteb to #nyoo0s ao sage bios £ re 
out no On, 0058 Yo esol & beninteue ydersd?t ore at 22 
Oo? betdehai oele saw toqx9 ai tasbasted tans mote * 


Yo eoeso redto § 10% ae Yo mye edt at 70119 al vuisatetg 

T0219 ad ⸗atata wor? bee sdorig a 

—1steh asowted enol satsogen tad? bo aovoꝛ eaooas⸗ at #1 : se’ 
analy to. ta036 eelse odt caw oan —J o bas x0719 * tasb 


~~ Ze 

tiff in error, which commenced about Sertember 15, 1910, cule 
inated on Serctember 14th in the purchase by defendant in error 
from plaintiff in error of 160 cases of ergs at 23 cents per 
dozen; that certain cases of eges then in the store of plaine 
tiff in error sere insrected by defendant in error and others 
acting for him and found te be fresh «ni of sood grade. Fite 
nesses called on behalf of defendant in error testified that 
the 166 cases of egze in question were then in the stere of 
Plaintiff in error anid that Miller said the egsa were all 
strictly fresh, while witneeses called by plsintiff in error 
testified that there were then only 56 cases of the lot of 
eczs in question in the atore and thet the remainder of the 
lot consisting of 156 casern were on the selling floor of the 
warehouse operated by the Chicago Cold Storage Yarehouse Come 
pany; that the esse which were inarected by defendant in 
error in the store were part of the aame lot which waa then 
in the warehouse; that unon the sale of the 160 casee to 
defendant in error they were placed in celd storace in the 
Same warehouse, a warehcuse receipt was isened therefor and 
& loan of $800 was procured by plaintiff in error for the use 
and benefit of defendant in error. 

If all the eges that vere purchased by dsfendant 
in error were in the satore of plaintiff in error at the time 
of the purchase, it isa certain that the 180 cases of ergs which 
were thereafter rlaced in storaze by pliaintiff in error for the 
account of defendant in error were of a different lot and 
inferior quality, because it is clearly established by the 
evidence that no eggs were received at the warehouse from the 
atore of plaintiff in error during Se-tember, 1910. The 
controlling question of fact in the case, therefore, is whee 
ther or not Miller, acting for plaintiff in error, substituted 
other and different egss for those actually purchased by 


defendant in error. While the evidence besring uren this 





1— PALE | ayn? “7 
-f[yo ,Of°{L ,.Sf 1sdustqe® tuode beomemnos doidw ,.10739 at ttt d 
10179 ai tnahseteh yd eesdowwa ont of dths ——— ———— 


— Sa oot Yo aoaao at IWitatela 4 






















Aaela to! px0te (ads RE asd? eng2 20 seseo — — im 
etedto bas tour at Xe bot ponvat. oon sen a he 
“tit ,ebsag toon to bas od od bawio® bap md wks , 


fect bettteet zoT79 at — * 
to s1oth off at aed? exer potteonp at) 
{fe stow enae oft bine xefl(it fad? bas oat’ th 
xorre mt PitatetTa yt belles seseent ht elide qeer?. vf 
Yo fol od? to eoeso 82 yin neds ofte erect ted? | or 


ot sea3D .@ seeqcg. 
ee to sebntsnex of? tend the exabe oat at aot 


ed? to soot? sari roe cd? mb oxen auuab Oot Se nations 
—— aevedere® enaros® blood ‘osnonay edt ed seer 

‘Wt tanodeted wd betoorent oro" ‘adlae' © ange se oat tu 
GSAt Rew dotdw Yor suse vit Yo toy oe oro⸗e oA? at 


Pa esi. . all 
oF ‘esea0 Oar ent ‘to ofse ont aoau teat josuoderew 4 


iess va hd Ts 
edt at egat0te bLoo at beoslq orew ‘Xedt 10 t19 at n9% 
as oe SY — svi a 
bas rotor? bouest enw —— ——— —* — 


Me 


Pivedii 


10728 at tasbaeten 8 — 
vd : 


tnebaeteb vd besadoruy ore88 tndt e339 oat Ite ar 
emit ad? ts t0O179 at i⸗atota to e10te odd ak erew * 
dotdw syne to asenso O8f ed? tadt aint90 at tt ssedowa 
edt rot to1ve at Bitats ila yd onst0tn a beosia restnorad? « 
bas tol taerett th s to e1ew ** nt tasbneteb to 8 
eit yd bedelidsine yfieelo st tt seuroed ettlaup sol 
eit mort sevodeisy ed? te bevisoer ** e339 ‘on  tadt 8 — 
— -OfeL ,todmat ve® gatusb —— al tuttatsla % a: 
ofr ef ,otote red? , 9889 odt mt tost Yo nolfesup 5 J 
betutitedsve o⁊xo at WWitaltalq z0t aatt os * ton * a ; 
yd bessdowd ylisuton seortt 102 enne taoxett ib bas teddo 


eid? sot gatined sonebive edt ia⸗ — T0179 4 tasbaeteb 


on ro7Tte af Poe 


~ Ze 

issue is closely conflicting, we cannot say thet the finding 
of the trial court *as unwarrented. If the same conclusion 
had been arrived at by a jury, we could not say that the 
verdict was manifertly wrong. 
| It is insisted that the court improrerly permitted 
the witness, Tobin, to interrret the rerort of an inspection 
of the eggs in question made by an emplovee of the Chicago 
Butter and Egg Board, The evidence wae incomnetent, but 
harmless, because an examination of the report verified the 
statement of the witness asa to the reported result of suc 
inarection, 

While the testimony of Tobin, as to the identity 
of certain eggs exanined by him, was based upon hearsay, and 
should have seen excluded, the eggs referred to by him were 
identified by the witness, Zuckerman, and there is no counter- 
vailing evidence as to their identity. No harm resulted from 
the ruling. 

There is no prejudicial error in the record and the 
judgment is affirmed. 

JUDGHENT AFFIRMED, 





























~i- * 

— ,O1@I bi —— MAP beonssros Antdw «10278 al” 
| «BAkbolt odd tant yar soanso om .gattotltnaa yLesolo « 
Aolesfonoo eane adt 21 .ho⸗ naaa anciu ase trop ſata⸗ 
ceoig ME ARMA WAP, OO BEIPR OM ohh A. OE AP fer pae § 
etetto itu torte af teebnetes eanenn Viseotiogs gan 9 
~2 ——— 
soitoegsat na Yo txoqex omg, asagasaal of al 1 
Sanoiado ed? 20 9YOLORR. AR, XS hem MORIRDUP, Kh, 8230.» 
Jud .tnstgampont, eer sonshive ea? bꝛeot 33% 5 J 
_ edt bettizoy tz0qe7 9d? Yo mottenimexe ns, seusoed, .pael 
dove to tiuset betzoqet ed? o⸗ Pa, NRPREAR: PY BP 
ui? Yo 2ebe at $ ?ed? hae arote ea? ai aothas 
——— eds 3 98 es Mido? to, ynomiteot sit oLtim 
bas .xsexeed aoqu. bend. asx a vd, boatman, 9309, 50 
our aid ys of bewzete7 e526 edt ,bebuloxn asec at 
~Tetayoo on et axed? bas examzoxouS .weantin sat, Wd, 
mort betiveos asd of  .¥ttinebl atada o⸗. es soashive, 








od? beoslq etew yedt ttre OP ere 
ti: eis — silt 8 soz», Latothutesg, on ot Ox9GT, oo « 
? TOs% f $tetaiaiqg xe Som  sbemrt tte, eb 3 
LGIMAITUA TexMOGUL eons af ineteb Yo riven 
| Seeadored Pea? @Age oa? ite tT 
= or Tri? : to exote od? at oxen = 
er es) : ginteso of #2 yoeadomma 
enntets al beonts 10? twetedt ote 
socte at teebastet to * — 
semnoed re Aau⸗p — J 
{ne 
e530 on tad? sone ‘tive 
rouse at Yiitelata oem a 
wiltemmp aokti 2 
: fe , ve TR Zan Ie P| 
<come ¢ sare foerett:)- bra xs 


; a4? wiliat ~v71T9 al trabostet 


* 


Maroh Tarr O79 a < 
March Term, 1912, No. 


334 = 18973. 







“ILLIAM BUHS, 


1821.A.455 


Plaintiff? in ERROR TO 


va HUNICIPAL COURT 
VILLIAW B. AUSTEN, , OF CHICAGC, 
ie a | in Error, 


WR, JUSTICE BAUME DELIVERED THE OPINICN OF THE CCURT, 


In & suit brought in the Municipal Court by Filliam 
Buhs ageinet William B. Austin to recover certain renta col- 
lected by the latter, a trial by the court without a jury 
resulted in a finding and judgment against the pleintiff who 
rrosecutes this writ of error to reverse such judgment. 

The agreed statement of facta is as follows: That, 


on July 30, 1908, William Buhe and Mary Buhs, his wife, exe-= 


cuted their trust deed of certain premiaea to William B. Austin, 


as trustee to seoure the payment cf twelve notes, arzgreguting 
the sum of $235; that the exid Buhe and wife at the same 
time, and for the same consideration, aleo executed and 
delivered their certain inetrument assigning the rents of 
aid premises to said Austin; that there wae a prior encume 
brance on said premises in the aum of $1,200; that said Aus- 
tin afterwards took possession of seid premisea andi collected 
the rents thereof and used all of the same in payment of 
expenses connected therewith and in the payment of taxes, 
interest on the said prior encumbrance, @te.; that anid 
rremises became vacant and uneceupied during the laiter part 
of the year, 1908, and remained vacant and unoccupied until 
August 9, 1909; that said Austin used every reasonable 
effort to rent the same during said vacancy, but without 
avail; that aaid Austin, during the latter part of the year, 
1908, sna up to Auguat 9, 1909, was unable to find said Buhs 


Or his wife, although he made diligent inquiry for that pure 
























: naan eSfeL «o : ’ 


ase Leen 
—— ; 
a 





ee Wht rapes 
eOOAOTHOD Ww . 
bp? Shazag, sant f xt 
SRRRE a 8 REE "Ee CRRA Boll 


9RAnEdO ad? t> sopelane. re wh ghee iter dt) Re, 
SOLLLET YO. tayod Legtolau ast ad 2egord tue 
oo ajnor miotxeo, aovoooa Of. AiteuA oO me * a) 
MWh # funds” t1u09, O43, vd LoksFim, Ams ded) vu⸗ 
od⸗ TWisately od? fantegs saomgnul bre gnthatt eich 
_stavancet dows, sazeves 92 xosss: tos tixe opiate * 
— auod oꝛ as a Sfoad Yo. frometate, Betas O67, * 
“0x9, PLN hd eduG YIM, bas edu moALLAB. BOL 4OBN 
ALAA .T med Lt. sestacrg aietze0 20, deed oh 
Baltagergss .eoton evieyt Yo sneayrg ot, otvoee OF:¢ 
- ome ocd te @tiw bas edy@ bites sit ted? y8tS$, tore 
(bie betyooze opls .aottsrabieneo, omee, odt~s0% baw 
to etnor ent gningines tnomrrtant alstseo> be 
-asons 2Ostq" 8 Sewreted? tent jattevA bias ot see taoa 
~ouA bise tad? ,008,f% to mye otf ot eeetaerg bias J 
————— base seataerq bise to noleesasoq 4002 6 ’ 
to *nemysq ni smse ed?) to [ie boeuw baw toet0ed? e e118 
,8oxe? to tasaysq sd? at bas We tweteit bet oean00 
bina teat (4,0%8 ,Sonstdémvone Todig blae eff ao - on 
tisqg weltel ed? gniawh beiquoceny bas #raoav emsood e@ nt no 
Lites belquocons bas tnwonv bontemet bar ,B0CL ,zeey 
sidenorse: vrove heey attew’ bioe tedt zeoet .@ 
twordtin tud .yoneoav bine gatawh smée od? saer OF J 
cteey ed? to t1eq wOttel odt grturh ynitevA blew tact pieeee 
edvG bise bot? of eidsay eaw ,@O@L .€ teugvA Of qu has ,20eL 
“tsq teit wot ytivpnk tusgilth shaw of dgvodi{[s jetivy etarae 


~ 2e 
pose; that on November 30, 1908, one Samuel L. Weiser, who 
was then and for a gonsiderable time prior thereto, had been 
the owner of the unpaid portion of the said notes, secured 
by the aaid trust deed, filed hia bill to foreclose said 
trust deed; that such cause proceeded to a decree of aule 
entered May 16, 1909, and a sale of the premises in said 
decree mentioned was made on June 1], 1909, for the full 
amount found due by eaid decree, interest and costs and in 
full satisfaction thereof; that Semuel L. Weiser, the cone 
plainant in aaid suit, was the purchaser at such sale and 
received a certificate of sale, and thst thereafter and on 
September 13, 1910, a deed of said premises wes issued under 
said sale; thet said William Buhs was the owner of said 
equity of redemption; that sonetime about the middle of 

May, 1909, the said Tiliiam B. Auetin, made and contracted 
for repairs to the amount of $318 upon the building located 
on the premises described in said trust deed; that at the 
time such repaire were made the said premises were untenantable 
and were gradually becoming dilapidated; that each and all 
of the said repairs were neceseary to preserve said building 
and to put same in a tenantable condition; that eaid repairs 
were made and that seid Austin paid therefor the aum of 3316, 
$200 being paid June 30, 1909, and the balance in July, 19069, 
which amount was a fair and reasonable sum for the same; 

that said repairs were commenced about May 15, 1909, and 
gompleted about July 3, i909; that afterwarda and on August 
9, 1909, the said Auatin rented said building at a monthiy 
rent of $15, which waa a fair and reasonable rent therefor 
as then repaired by said Austin; that said Austin received 
rent from said premises during the period of redemption from 
said sale, from Auguat 9, 1909, to and including September ll, 
1910, a total gross rent of $195, out of which rental he was 


compelled and did pay real entate agent's commission amounting 


a5 Or % ~~ 7 os kee! 


‘€ 


i Bie 
odw ,rentoW .J Lowmeh eno .808! ,06 xedasvow ao 
seed bed yotered? ao laa emt idaxebtenco 2 202 Ses *35 

neds eA Sey' ont biaqaw ‘edt .2e 


ye sek al boos daue 
bise esclos10t of Lite a % ebeob 


Ce Tt ete rrity 


oLar to ooꝛ oob 6 of waar’ suse dows teat 
ThA 
bies soalmorq edt to pire» ona 4G 08E. 486 vat vam 
fiw? edt sot genet, ft eayl ao obama ssw boco ta 
ie) % ar Cet Rawke SOP Tay 
ma bas ‘aie00 * teorota! ¢99T986 bias yd oub *8 
009 Od¢ axeeto®. .J.LoumeS, t add — LI ogRet Ia 
bre efee dows. to, seeedo tq edt. een, «2iwe, bise-at: 4 
No bas TOP IwOTOAt Sods dno yolee Yo efoLXts 199) aber 
xebay bevsst con easiaert bise to, bos’ otot 4Sh.% , 
bisa 2o T9AKO edt. oon, erie aetlil¥. bise teat, jot 
ext Yo eLbbim odd syode emttemoe teds zao aaoter 20.) 
— das oben atoua . mnbl S89; diem) os? 4 
bes nook pathiivd eat aogu 8L68. to tavoms, of, 9% 
eddy te. ted? {boeb teyst. bise. at ‘bedtroeeb. eesti: 
oldetnsastay Siew sesimerg bias oft ebem orer ext ao 
Lis bap done tad? <besebiqesth yatmooed viLeubst3 0x9 
BathLind biee ovao⸗oaa Of xvaa oooa OTOW oatoↄgo DI — 
atieget higee tend? zaotaheroo eldatasast 8 at. 9888. twa J— “He: z 
ALE} 2o.mws. 9d? solOTddt hieq misewA diss. ted? bas obae 
eP0CL ,yiul at esonaled eit base ,.POel 108 cout bis¢q acted 
jones ed? 10% ava eldenossor bas alat s saw auoaa 





















= 


bhos 


P 


A 


sac ant 


ete 


z 


* ae 
ees ees 
co, ri 
= Pp 4 
— 
ae 





es 
(<2 


— 


Pre 
— 


—* 


baw ,@0@L .éL yet tyods beoneance s1e* Srieqer. phew ti 
saugwA go bake ebhyawaette gad? 48@00L),& ylub tuode. 
vidtoom # ta nniblind biee betnex aiteud bias ad? 42 | 
roleind? Aaoa eldencesss bak tats sew dotdw 268 Yo, fey 7 
bovieoes aitauvA diese tadt .jntteuh bhaw xd —— J 
mO1l aoltqusber to bolieq ed? zatauh o o tas aa bine wort tren 4 
eff sodmetqe® gaibuloat dbus of ,80@L 48: tough mort «sive bites 
caw od: Latner dotdw: to.du0 «ZGLE Yo Pnex evory Lasot es 0588 | 
gaivavons moisrinacs a! tnege etstae Laer Yeq bid baa peliequeg | 


ai 


-~ 3 
to $3.95, water taxes on said premises the sum of $13.12, and 
carpenter work and plumbing $92.01; tzat such payments were 
necessary in order to keep said premises rented ani in repair; 
toat the net amount received by said Austin aa rent of auid 
premises during said period of redemption was $157.62; that 
gaid Austin aloo paid during said pervied of redemption for 
interest due upon the first mortgage on. said rremises as 
follows: June 13, 1909, $36.00; July 6, 1909, $36.00; Jan. 
3, 1910, $36.00; July 8, 1910, $36.00. 

Tre inntrwwent whereby plaintiff in error assigned 
the rents of said premises to defendant in error slsao desige 
nated aeferndant in error the attorney in fact of plaintiff 
in error vith power "to collect 41] of said availe, rents, 
iaaues and profitea erieing or accruing at any time hereafter, 
and 711 now due or that may hereafter become due uncer each 
and all of the lessees or agreements, written or verbal, ex- 
jeting or to hereafter exist ase to gaid premizea*****and to 
rent, lease or Jet any portion of said premises to any party 
or parties within his discretion, hereby granting full power 
and authority to exercise all of the rights, privileges and 
powers herein granted at any an@ all times hereafter without 
notice to the grantors herein, their executors, administrators 
and assigne, snd further, with power to use and apply said 
avails, issuen and profits in the peyment of any indebtedness 
or liability of the ‘undersigned: to the said Austin or hia 
clients, due or to become due, or that may hereafter be con- 
tracted, anc alro to the payment of 21] expenses and the care 
ana management of said premises, inclucing taxee and anseeste 
mente, and the interest on incumbrance, as may in said attore 
ney's judgment be deemed proper and advisasble.® 

It is well settled that where et a foretlosure sale 
the mortgaged premises are sold for the full amount of the 


mortgage debt, intereat and costs the mortfage is thereby 







































= > 
-t- 
J Losaza® ege BOL <oR totlaevek ne Fad 
ban ats aig a ave edt. ave ueaa bine ao sexs? —E 
of Bed ea ztofaza eaki wi opehiehoo 2 16% bea Ae 
e16ew atacayeq dove fae 4fo. aaldavic. bas 4z07 
PerueER .aoton Sine ad? — edt te teay if 
jiieqot al bas —* — bise qes Yrbeee: 
bise eect > Siid ala — “heed —— ithe ars 
bias to tae ae attegh bias xc hbevieoes sayoua ten edt 
sine Io 6 OF dove ean? Ode ee 
tet? gS, TELE naw — Yo bolsog * 
pias ad nas ; 4 ben bs cae ds. 
at ap ifyaobes to boxer bles gatash ‘bina vA 
saul IK i aso ga « ot 
* e⸗ taern ioe ao “onan tron text oat ? 
ts ab bize ¥E By * 
— vty gseeteo? .d Lewnsh 


Voowoet ——— —— 


pi. * Siem. i 
beagives 0x16 at Nitatsta ydorod. —ES— 
&. — s—⸗⸗ bon, 2 
~aieob eels ⁊oaao at dasbastsb of analmexy 4 
: — ania bias. &. Off 
—— ‘to ‘test a — by rorxe at tie J 
J WW — tad? + ol »- 
aoꝛ ꝓtuor⸗ bioo to itp to ff09 of* rovoq * co 


— 6⁊ Oe ‘ne a? ~ or 
. 09 taoxod oui? vas te gakvxoos * aat⸗ia⸗ ad thong 
bed? ea ga ag > pe * 
dove ‘voon out owo od xstteoted van ‘teat 40 pub wom . 13 


* |e a? > y 
axe qladzoy x0 gattise .etaaaena3e 20 sonnel ott fl 


aid 


ito Hen | ; ; 

ot ‘bnas***¢a9s ta074 bine ot 8a "patxe cettabned Fy a * J— 

vena ae * sontaorg bias a 019209 “yas tet zo csanat 
o 

19004 ‘Liu aattnery ‘sorod «ott oz0n bb “Sha aldtiy en J 


palaqat + 

bas “eogeitvin —— od? to tte Deloxoxe 0? rx 0d: nf 
e ty¥g.¢@ 

B — ‘eomt? [Le 8 was te betnary a ake —J.— 


a fea Psicd 
sroterte tn ime — ——— ated? eatorod ex0t nary ont ‘ote 


1 god 
bine vitae has eau ot tewog “Ath ezodtuu® ba e. dang tee 
“ene —* 


evendetdonat yas Yo ‘tomes ont at ethoxy bas neural. é rs 


eid 1 “mbtauA bine at ot sbengite rebut” -ed? to ‘witida to | 
~n09 od tot teoted van Post to aus o oo ‘of 10 ‘tab. oan sab 
e120 od? ban aeensqxe ‘tis. to tneayeq ‘sat of gets ‘tne® cbt —— 
—R& has. noxat gatbutont ceowtaery t bias to Y eet * " 


ela: 


1% 
; —* 


a oa 

“102! 5 dt ae Ysa #4 eoonandmiont 0. teatetal od? hans 
7 

" eldanivba bos re7077 enon d * —* 

olae o1n0 0207 fn ts oxade toad hekteoe ttew’ i} -. ¥e 


tovy.a 5249 7 
edt to tasrome tty? ode x0? ites. baa —— — + 


~~: 


4 ⏑ Lage 


ysoreds at o3.03%20s ait? etaoo han teexeta! etdob agen 


— = 
satisfied and the owner of the equity of redemption is ene 
titled to the possession of the premisgre and to the rents and 
profits accruing therefrom during the period of redemption, 
Haigh v. Carroil, #09 Ill., 575; S3¢haeppi v. Bartholomae, 
@17 T11., 105. Piaintiff in error invokes tiis rule of law 
in support of his claim +o the rent in question and insiatea 
that, a8 a receiver, if one had been appointed by the court 
in the foreclosure proceeding, would have boen required to 
turn over to plaintiff in error the rent received during the 
period of redemption, the rent collected by defendant in 
error during such redemption period must be held to beiong 
to plaintiff in error. 

The powers conferred by plaintiff in error upon 
defendant in error by the instrument aesigning the rents 
and conetituting defendant in error the attorney in fact of 
plaintiff in error are not limited to be exercised with re- 
ference alone te the trust deed which was foreclosed, but 
are sufficiently broad in their scope to authorize defendant 
in error to apply the rents collected by him in the payment 
of expenses incurred in the care and management cf the premises, 
including taxes snd asséeaanents and for interest on the prior 
incumbrance,. That the rent coliescted by defendant in error 
wa8 80 applied by him isa not controverted, 

Furthermore, the action of assumpsit for money had 
and received is equitable in its nature and lies to recover 
money which in équity and ood conecience the cefendant cought 
tc refund. Supervisors v. Manny, 56 I1]., 160; Fay v. 
Slaughter, 194 I11., 157. 

It is admitted that but for the money expended by 
aefendant in error for necessary repaira on the premises in 
question, the premises would have been untenantable and no 


rent eould have been received therefor, and it would be 
























- i>. 

“adie 48 noTequeber ‘to Yeti — 
baw etaer oft of bho weaiaeiy ad? ‘t0 nO heestsog Si? —* met 
sao sqasber —* ont * Snoa aguaoan an 
wel to. eluy etd? eotovit dott. ve Amnnuta — aed: “a 
ete tent’ has no 2rseoup at dnvr Oddo? tuto eta to bs 4que 
$100 itt YC bothtoars nbs’ bo wad 41” (zoVT8b07 A BAG 
| Of bOTLupeT M80 eved bluow .3atheooory exuedfosz0?' bf 
edt glib bevieve: sas od? 201s wm ⸗auata Ba aa . —B8 
mt tnsbasteb yd betoelloo tact edly "nd itqaober * 
— Bisa ‘ed teum te iteg ao te quoho ⁊ dove gatz 
— tis ott Tog ai tts stol 
MOGe 10T19 Ai Piitatela yo derTeINdS erewog 4a", — 
‘piner od? galontdes Faemirrtent edt yo roxxs ot 
Yo Fos? at YorrFts ont ToTIG mt tuabadted yatttut bem 
~OT atiw bestoxsxe od of betta! fon ois ‘xdrxe ot tA : 
» td {Beno Toe10% eaw doidw beod Yauxy vd! bY ecole eOHey 
tabbneteb extxoutyn of eqdos ited? ot buord yltnele : 
Pneuyug OA! wt wid Yo betool loo einer ott lags oF TOsze 
,seninerg eff to Freweganem bas e1e0 ext nt “botwont E — 
 s08ty Sit NO teoretat 20% bre etaomesones bas vex?” shai a * 
xor1e nt tnsbre%eb x betoelioo snox odd ait loonosdawomk 
| vhotrevettacs ton #2 mht yt bestia ob’ ¢ | hae 
bed yenoa it tiequueer to aolton ot otomTodsaUT atta 
TSvO0St OF awl be stuten aff AY tees tobe’ al — 


~~ 


Ye 


tiguo tnabmeteb 64% sohetowncd nocs bad yetupe Ai Holak’y 


a2-tad) 008" eErT 6 — sv etgasvaniue ba tox o⸗ 

ret ett?t geddaiel 
UG bedogoonon ot 40% tud Yadt bettiabs et ‘}I sia ais 
at eeriner; oft no @tlayer yxdeesoan 40% s0¢20 A! ‘titastas” 
of bate eidstasnetay aesd evad bitloe ‘seetaorz; edt 3 : 


6d Bluow +f baw .rOYetsd? Bevidoss ased svad Bluos #a01 
, : F .2¢e6 — 





o BS « 
manifestly inequitable and contrary to good conscience to 
rermit plaintiff in error to realize a profit upon the exe 
renditurss by dofendant in error, whereby slone rent was 
receivavle, the recovery of which by plaintiff in error would 
result in 4 lose to defendent in error. 

There is no nerit in the ciaim of plaintiff in 


error and the judgement of the Wunicipal Court is affirmed, 


JONGVENT AFFIRYED, 






















ef Yo -@bee “la? — ———— — * 
soo Mh MUpotpla 20 mknlo pdt ot, Arq on, ora a 
— —— 


rrrx rnanr bivow «gathoeye rq ouneothi 
ott gidtvh bevieas: tases ea? torre a? vtenaatq "of 
8? Yadkiieteh vd natoafios faot wd? —— 
gaoted oe bie! et dour totes no tffuviies dbus ghhiu 
— a: —— wi —— 
eerrenta ye Dereethes exteay sit 
Crnet 89 givimtices Paauetiani ait yd —— a # ä 
Weert — ————— 
— ae hen fovex® ec er fen pak wer at verse 
SS Sowolyest sae voids Heeb Peyte wd? 63 dole) 
TERRRGTED Palvoatyve of aoe azled? at baer Ter Sits 
Faset eT 60) wl wii ve Setoel lou east ac? vings! 02" 0a 
seslae®; B02 Io tosnep adem GAS Gree Bd! Dn berursal eee 
OPER WRY Bo Jnorerat 454 ban dtawkns cote bate Gbxb2" ba : 
eit" &) @astcste Vi betealios’ gaat 6d) tadt . boa ihe 
she? aeeo isos ton 41 Bit boltgia oe 
bid Ftepmeéee DO wollen SAY .otgerediant J— 
hee stvene eFP AY ardes tute al coviook hy 
99ite 0 fe q7iap6 as doiat™ 
Si Sal (CO! ahi Oe gee sf sie ‘Bail Yo , 
Was Sots rset { 

Yd Oehoavre0 Yotow od? BOT ted Phar Beddlabes ve FT Hrs 
af @eelasy ts atiewsy, videutqonn TT notks oy — 
of Rix wisoincnetay ce ovdd Dine ont — 


4 
» - “Ay 
ic ‘) fore ,2e%tere(? Devieoes Heed wwed Biube foee™ we 


alae 


LILay) = 






259 ~ 18298. 


JOHN CALNOW, 


Plaintiff in Er ERROR TO 


VS. SUPERIOR COURT, 


NATIONAL KALLEABLE ASTI 


8 CONPARY, _ COOK COUNTY. 
Defendant i 


ae 1821.4.458 


MR, JUSTICE BAUWE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 


fo the amended declarstion in an action in case, 
filed by plaintiff in error in the Superior Court, the defen- 
dant in error interposed a general and apecial demurrer, which 
were sustained by the court, and plaintiff in error, having 
elected to abide his said declaration, judgment was rendered 
against him in bar of his action and for costa. 

The declaration in question contains five counts. 
The first count charges that on, toewit: April 22, 1907, 
defendant in error was peessessed of and using in and about 
its buainess a certain factory or workshop in the City of 
Chicago; that at the time and place aforesaid plaintiff in 
error waa a hired servant of defendant in error, exployed as 
a laborer, and as such servant waa ordered by defendant in 
error to work outside cf the scope of his employsent, upon 
certain work in which he wae wholly unskilled, and with a 
certain wrench which waa too small to put in a certain screw, 
and liable to slip off said screw and cause plaintiff in 
error to lose his balance and fall from an elevated scaffold 
upon which he was working, and which work required an assis- 
tant to enable plaintiff in error to perform said work with 
safety to himself and to prevent his losing his balance and 
falling from the scaffold, and was ordered by defendant in 
error to do the aforessid work, without warning him of the 


dangere arising from the insufficient tools and insufficient 



















“FO AT 0 ABNEID EF UNTO HONE AOE n at 


yt 
eese9 at notion as nt noi toxefoeb > bebaeas oat or 


~aeteb odt Avod rolreque edt ak wor at vnatata w 

dotdw Atea auus fateege bas tarsass bero raoral wor 

gaieais ato7ze at Tisatatg bas _at woo ont xd ‘beats 

hese !.a93 ear sasag tert oi taxnloeb bise eid obids of 1 

ssteon 10? bas motes ald to aed ah aid 

— avit Snietaoo ao tteoup at noltarslost eat ee 
_e80@L 488 Ltaqh if te=o8 Ao tad? eogrsdo tav09 ts 1 


Fe * 


e wD 
*? 9 
Ss 


fuods bas at guise bas to begnensog eeu 30719 aE 


— 
et 


to ytid edt alt qodedzow 10 vrot on? aletxeo 5 —8 
ai Witaisiq biseer10ts eoslq dae eat out te teat 10 a 
88 hexo que 707270 at tnebaoteb to tasviee bextd a 2% i 
at tnsbooteb Yd bezeb10 sew tnaviee dove as bas a | 
wom «fneayolque eld to eqooe oa? 10 ebietuo fxow of 3 
(8 dtiw bas ,belitdens viloa» ean od dotaw at Ax0¥ ‘ 
ewetor als?199 6 ok juq of [lamer 007 ean dotdw doaerw a tate 
at naantsta seve hae weroe biae No atte ot olde tt bas 
blottsoe botavere ae ‘gort {fat bas sonelad eld oro of * 
-siessn as bexiuper trom dot ‘bas qgndtrow asw od sold m 
dite drow bie® mr} Seen: ot 103719 at ‘TMitatelq ofdeae 7 
baa oonaled eld gnteol eld taevergq ot bas aoeaia o⸗ “gots 


- tones tl 
at taubaeteb yd betebio esw bas blorreoe odt nox? ati: ‘4 

ear @® 
ed? to wid gainisw tuosdtiw o8709., biossro%s edt ob ot Lede ol 

—— 


asto rusat bas sloot taetotttweant out sox guieize e1eygnab 


x 
- oOo = 


number of men, and without any instruction as to how to do 
the work with safety to himself, ail of which was known to 
defendant in error or could have been known by the exercise 
ef ordinary care, but the dangers of which were unknown to 
plaintiff in error; that at the time and place aforesaid 
defendant in error carelessly, negligently, wrongfully and 
improperly failed to use reasonable care to provide plaintiff 
in error with a reasonebly aafe place to work, in this, that 
it carelessly and negligently failed to warn plaintiff in 
error of the dangers attending said work as aforesaid, and by 
ceason of the carelessness and negligence of defendant in 
error as aforesaid, tne tool with which plaintiff in error 
was then and there working became detached from the said work 
whiie plaintiff in error, in the exercise of all due care and 
caution for his own eafety, was so, in ehedience to the orders 
of defendant in error asa aforesaid, thereby and by means of 
the premises plaintiff in error was précipitated with great 
force and violence dewn to and upon the floor, by means whereof 
Plaintiff in error was injured, etc. 

The second count is like the first, excert that it 
Ghargea that defendant in error carelessly and negligently 
failed to instruct plaintiff in error how to perform the said 
work with safety to himself, The third count is like the 
second, except that it charges thet defendant in error care} 
iezsly and negligently failed to provide pleintiff in error 
with tools which were reasonably sufficient and aafe for the 
work which he was then and there doing as aforesaid. The 
fourth sount is the same as the preceding counts, except that 
it charges that at the time and place aforesaid, defendant in 
error carelessly, négligently, wrongfully and improrerly failed 
to use reasonable care to provide plaintiff in error with a 


reasonably safe place to work, in this, that it esrelesaly and 


























-6 «- f 
* ie 
oh of wod of ea mols oi we tuodtiw bas .aem ro. 


oO? awond esw dolde to { stioonid of Wetse | 

os boroxs ed? yd awond aed ove biyoo 10 soTTSe ai 

ot awondnw-etex. — to exreganh od fwd -got8D ema ibso 
_bteser9ts eoslq bas oats odd ! 


bas ti⸗aeattaea·xe 
⁊- bern 
rivateba. ebivorq. ot exs0 eldsnossss. 


tant .sidt at gltow of soxiq stas yidsacessr is ddix« | 
al satel ater of better visgeai lyon bas 


b hebacas off OT 
ws ‘bas ebisasi01s as ts0% bis paibaes? s oe 
— 11—— az tiitalaic ‘ 

al dasbnotes to eonssifzon bas seonsesieiso ed? to me 
; es beeodistal 6 te 

xoxx0 ai ni⸗atoata dotdw aoin foo! od? 4 ao10ts 

2H as wd bealeset 

tiow biwe, pat gol p REN, onaned aniizon eteds bas a 

rid gobide 02. am 

bas e160 eub ils to setoxexe ous ai stosae ai ttitaielg 
si oL mig 

exebig sat et sonstbedo ai 08 ean sUelee awo aid z0t 4 

Sf nwoltoasaloah eat 

to easea Yd baw Wersds bia oꝛ⸗ es — ak sas fe 

aucy — 

tas a dti« bet st iqtoesq oe 10719 at wumista : 1q 
soxvu1e Ai Jee 

Tootsie sason ve er00L oat 34 ban of axob —— — ae 

. so 8 etal ; 

ot chorus * rors ot Ni⸗at 


fo ' Os 
ti tad? #q00xe cteat? odd ouit et tasoo hasan’. ont : 
; vioe berid 6 & 


vitnegilnen bas yleselexso rome at ‘tusbneten tudd-t 
ts * 
btse od? ato t199 ot wod qo11e ni Wiaieiq ——— — 


e7n ———— 

edt Outi el tawoo bridd anT <teemid o¢ Ytetee ast —* 

* J ——— 

“0150 10119 al tauchneteb dad? Sagtsdo tt tadt sae0xe 
at 


— at Lientslq shiverg of *14 Utasgtizen bas Wa 
ed? z0t stse bas sasiottwe Udenceses e1en ‘dotdw eLoo8 


} rh ORO 
oat -bines10%e as yatob wed? bas aed? edad od doin. 
ea Acide 


ted? +qeoxs etavoo gatheos2), oat Pr oase out ‘et a 
at tnabasteb ~bicess0%e eonlg bas oult eit te teat eepamdo at i 


bef{iat ylreqorqal bre yliutgaoim Uitaeg tigen ieselorso 77 4 
Iiie 
8 dtiw z0718 al tlitaiely ebivorq ot ex69 eidsnceso. eou_ot 
b oF Wise 
bas yleesisisa ti ted? getd? ak Aro⸗ ot “ere estes vidsnosse1 , 


rieita ——— 


Cau 






* 


-~ 3 = 
negligently failed to provide a sufficient number of men to 
assist and work sith plaintiff in error in performing tne 
said work as aforesaid. The fifth count is the same ae the 
former counts, except that it charges that at the time and 
place aforesaid defendant in error careéicasly, negligently, 
wrongfully and improperly failed to use reasonable care to 
provide plaintiff in error with a reasonably safe place to 
work, in thie, that it careleasiy and neglizentiv ordered 
plaintiff in error to work outside of the scope cf his en 
ployment, while he waa ao unskilled, uninstructed and une 
warned as aforesaid, 

It may be conceded-that, if the sufficiency of this 
declaration was first questioned after a verdict, it could 
rreperly be held to be sufficient, but a different rule is to 
be spplied when it is teated by a general and srecial de- 
murrer, and it is to be construed against the pleader. Sargent 
Co. v. Baublis, 215 Til., 428. 

The allegation in each count of the declaration that 
plaintiff in error was ordered to work cutside of thse scope 
of his employment upon certain work in which he was ancily 
unskilied and with a certain #rench which was toc smeil to 
put in a certain screw is defective and insufficient. The 
statement that plaintiff in error was ordered to work outside 
of his employment, unaccompanied by any atatement, as to the 
chareoter of the work he wae ordered to perform, is merely the 
cenclusion of the pleader,. The designation of the work and 
of the instrumentealities involved as "certsin" merely is tos 
vague and indefinite and the same may be said as to the ealle- 
gation resrecting the consequences following the use cf the 
instrumentalities in performing the work. The allegation 
that the work required an assistant to enable plaintiff in 


errer to perform the same with aafety is aleo the mere conclu 














— #te- 
ot wen To redsua taoloTttwe’ cs ebivozq ov —R 
oat gatmrorx6% at aoaas aE araoat ata Meee as··de 
oi? #8 One 64% ef Sayoo MITIT ec? -bkasexots aa 3 
bas omtt edt te dadd eogrado et 30a? Fy — 
cVidnogti ged yylassleis0 z0rT at 
Of 0180 eltanceser eu’ od holtar vit 
Of 00814 Stae 'yIéenoseer # atte oxotte Al ® 
bersbro ¥{tmeetiven bas yleselsies $2 seit .eta? wi 
—a2 eld to eqode od? to obissuo Brow oF rOPTe AR Tt 
any bas betourtectay Peet tee cow Si OLtiw’ , 
i Shetretsh to Sanesiigan ine °° °°°* | phaee10ts on 
sid? to yonetottiwe ad? ti .dad? beboonod ed yam UT oa 
bivoo #t .folbrov # Te%te benoiseenp: tert? ew aot er⸗ 
of ef Slur tayteITih 2 tus ytaetoltiwe oot bled ed — 
“web Lstoode bhe Tavency 8 yo beteee°er'9? node beAte 
2094783. 19ded1y OAT Pemiaye booTIeNoO Od OT et Ff baw |ae 
‘wa  PePOT eT foes Soe SYBSe QLLKT SIS" pentepagegs 
ted? noltate(oeb sa? Yo ¢ayod Hoss at aottagetie eat o° * 
eqoos oft Yo ebietuo A10#%?. bewebro ese tore al The | 
vlionw ee? ef Goldw ai Aro* aisti9eo noqy toeayolqus td 
o¢ [fsase oo} Sow dotie« Aonete Atotred & ative bhe bol 
OxT .tretetttwant bas ovtteeteh ef worse nbetreo%s A : 
ebletuo ssow Of berebro sew torre AL Wisaialg saat | 
ot of S68 ,tnSuetets yna Yd betnaqaOookAY etnomyoiqine . 
sdf ylorem at ,miotis9 0% betsbio Rew ed’ A260" ed? to 20: io 
bar dio" eft Yo aotdeagieeh AT .26bsOIq ef? 26 noted: o 0 * 
oot ef ylerem *aissi190" es bevlovni eeltileatnbartsent— — 
-sile sit ot ap blae ed Yan ombe ott SHE offal tebe bite’ 6 * 
‘ont to sew ent gntwollo? ssomsispeendo’ ons — 
———— i. 
ai TtiMAlalg elden® of tabtetabe ma Dertupen: sow ear saat ag 
<lonod 816m of? oss ef eootee Atte onse Od wt0t19g OF 20770 


J 


ae 












as. 


— 


~4- 
sion of the pieader. Aa bearing upon the question of aaaumed 
risk, the declaration fails to negative such knowledge of the 
danger a9 plaintiff in error might have acquired io the exere 
cise of ordinary diligence. 
For the reasons stated the dewmurrer to the declarae 
tion and to each count thereof was properly sustained and the 
judgment is affirmed. 


JUDGHENT A¥FIRKED. 





“Pa Pi OH — 
bo Buti Git 8 tod? “yegreneon seas ee — 
— mr 281.2) BIT eR % —— 
0 PR Ae HE oon, tay Yoeved? tn hoo iti 
OF Benid-stne Ylduno ress 4 MPO tort X 4 
ES) hes yYiwenfetau ¢f eons ener i 
~#e eld Yo sqode anf to ebistde “Haat Os uevie at 
“iw tin batod= teu bit  belthseas on eon wart ‘ 
; OM ph Hato ve 


’ 
; “4 . a4 


tic 35 “eine boil ine sft UF efnads bots ones od ga tte 9 


£ 


























Bisae'tl (2attses # welts “pans! aeug Peak? aan 

2°" ef- Site ‘Pees 3 & 48 ,? setofttst #6 we pied — 
oe fi ere — Rose? CE vi —* 
a Sd? ν tottthineo ed as eps}? 


886 \ [iT 2t8-ypenteeee 

“ 

TRAP on Sa? Jo Javee vad af ‘aodsagetla eA? DOE: 
S10 OF ie J aofeiue su os -Begebad Gar sos8d af J 


> tz 


tiitite ca® #4 AOldo fi ATOe ate? tOo aoqutoungeigas 


G? fiaan Go) Baw JdOlke Antode Alesteb oS ase Ode 
e cans 


oTH#etorttvant-faa oef2oerdb cf — nletvac # 


splwt d ct heehee Len —— tt1Pai ety rah? ‘ . 
La ea te P tha \d Gedae.asgedas . *nocrva fqae a 
ThOlen ai eto * ⸗ od? to — 

* i it Dee E act . reha dia ad’ naredl 4 


o) elerae Yotatyoo® We hed ol eotettesabagesedls 
4 ten 66 404 cakn ans ORE fai tenane ta“ 
3 Leol io?’ vsominpgente 9st gaelic, oes ee 
i? : : +2708 ai@~ecotes; ct ab hel Leta 


sldeant $5 tatdelass #& Bevbuped d060%P Se 
~ & 





—XR V @ re | c {ove tiv omee “Od? ate as 


290 - 18330, 






GEORGE C. JCHNSON, 
Defendant in Frror, ERROR TO 


V8. MUNICIPAL COURT 


JOHN FE, KURZENKNARBE> 
Plaint 


OF CHICAGO, 


1821.A.459 


WA, IVSTICE BAVWE DELIVERED THE OPINICN OF THE COURT, 


in Error, 


Defendant in error brought suit in the Municipal 
Court againet plaintiff in error to recover $130, being 20% 
gonmisrion on %@50, the price of a harp sold by the Rudelph 
Wurlitzer Co., a corporation, through plaintiff in error, its 
sales agent, to Viola G. Miiler, and for damages for breach 
of an implied warranty by plaintiff in error that he had 
authority on behalf of ssid corporation to contract for the 
payment of eaid 20% commission, A trial resulted in a find- 
ing and judgment against plaintiff in error for the smount 
eluimed, | 

In October, 1910, isa Miller, who was contemplating 
the purchase of a harp, mentioned the subject to defendant in 
error who suggested to her that he might be able to save her 
some money by securing &@ commission upon the sule, if ane 
would permit him to negotiate the transaction, and Miss Milier 
assented to such proposal, Defendant in error then opened 
négetiatione with plaintiff in error and such negotiations 
resulted in the purchase by Mies Miller of a harp from the 
Wurlitzer Co. for #300, with the privilege to the purchaser 
of thereafter exchanging the same for a new model harp at an 
increased price. Thereafter, upon the payment of an addi- 
tional #350, and the return of the harp first purchased, Miss 
Killer procured the gaid new model harp. The Wurlitzer COc, 
having disclaimed the suthority of plaintiff in error to cone 


tract for the payment of @ commission to defendant in error, 


\ 


















MLSE S © me iteeey Ge Cea 5 


jie S¥itages 


war nt an ao GA z° — 
TAIOD JATIOTHUM. 
ne | .00 ‘ on X 


eck UMTSOT’ 


sPANIOD AHP TO ROTHTAD THT OEEEA ARG si imi 


MAMTA POU + Shane 2 Teeth a4 
LeqiotawM edt at tive tdguord tpaae at tnobaeted _ 
ROS gated ,0Ess Tevooe7 of ToT a, gl rrtvatelq teat. a 
Aqiobuh ed? yd blow quad 2 to eokaq edt ,080$ ao a 
ati ꝛoꝛ 78 ai Ltitaielq dguords Aotaarogaoo s& 4099 
doseid xo #egemsb rot bas ytelitu .0 sfolv Ot be 
bed ef tad? some nt titvatelq yd ytasiiew bettas 
edt rot toattaon of noltszoq109 Dies to tladed ao 4 
cbnit 9 af bediueex Loti? A .aotestamoo ROG bisa ** 
tovoms, edt tot torre af Titaislq aatana snempbut | 


i 
- 


aA 4 


galteiquetnos eew om , tellin weld ,OL@L yxedotod al | é: - 


af taeboeted of toe(dun edt benolinem ,gqrad 3 AT. 
tod evas OF olde od sdgin od tad? t0od of heteeggue 

ede ti ,else oft moq aolselimmoo # galtavoes yd * 
TOLLiM eeiM baa gmolsonenait oft st attozea ot ald stareg 6 low 


benege nedt zomze at tmabaetel .lesogorq douse of — 
enoitsitoyen dows hone to1te al ttitatelq dthw snot? 2 


ae 
oat mort quad « to aeifiM sel yd seadomd sd? at bediusl 


teesiomwg edt of egetiviag od? atin ~OOES 10% .09 teatit 7— 
ne tS qied Lebon wen 6 10% ouse.ad? gaignsdoxe, 19? la0e7 | 
~iibe as to tnsaysq eft aoqu ,zertsoresdT  . .eottq & ur 
eel ,beradowd taxit qued od? to aiweex od? bas. (088s Caney, 3 
.-00 testifwy of?  .gisd Lehom wea bise oat beawoo7g reli 
“S09 Of torx19 ni Tiitaialy to ytisodtwe od? bemtalosib gatvad, 
eto119 af Sosbasteh of aokentanoo « to tasavaa edt sot toaxt : 


| plaintiff in error agreed to allow him a commission of 


a BR « 
the latter instituted this auit against plaintiff in error, 
as heretofore stated. 
Defendant in error testified unequivocally that 


20% 


on the selling price cf « Harp purchased by Misa Miller, and 


the evidence tende to show that the claim of defendant in 


error that such an agreement had been entered into with 
plaintiff in error, preauming to act for the ®urlitzer Co., 
wae the main inducement that prompted Miaa Miller to pure 
chase a harp from said company. Phile plaintiff in error 
denies thet he made any such agreement with defendant in 
error, or that the payment of any commission to defendant 

in error was contemplated, the facta and circumstances in 
evidence, together with the testimony of Wiss Niller, are 
corroboratede of the testimony of defendant in error, and the 
trial court waa not unwarranted in finding that the arreement 
for the payment of a commission to defendant in error was made 
by plaintiff in error as clained, and that plaintiff in error 
represented that he had authority to moke such agreement. 

Whether or not defendant in error wae preciuded from 
—— the commiasion in question upon the ground that he 
had acted in the capacity of a broker without having first 
obtained a broker's license, as required by the Vunicipai Code, 
does not appear to have been suggested in the trial court, and 
the question can not he raised for tne firet time in this 
court. 

To defeat a recovery claintiff in error invokes the 
rule that a broker may not recover a conmisasion where he has 
been aseretly acting for the buyer, while ostenaibly acting 
for the seller, This is 2 well eatabliahed and salutary 
rule, but it can have no application in the ease at bar, ver- 


gause the evidence tenda to show that defendant in error dise 





















a ad 
10179 nt Yritalsiq tentash tive eka? betwtes ; 
Rios —— 
todd Uitscoviupans deitetees ‘nor ak tabiceted -° He 
R06 2o.noleetmano s abd —* boo aa T01x8 at W u 
bas oct qx aM ys dos eadu quad \s —— 
— eran to apolo oet eile wodl OF otud⸗ — * 


tek 
SG © dd otad bexnta ased, pad, Snsonrnan an Aun 


409 testilauW edt x0t tos of gahumeesq .t0T718 — 
A OF TOELEM eet vexqnoty Hint sirens oubet A! 
“eotte ki Yientdty ertay © .ymadhion Wee mony Ye ® 
ORE vpana srot athw fredesty a MBbe "Yits oↄben of Ade 
) giidtns tele OY Ro teetancd yas 1 dunemyny ode ald HoMy 
"RY adoaotenivorfo tae sfoet sit bed dfqitetdeo daw We 
ste (rorlit salt 0 Yaomttost bat dP ss | 
od? bas pros mt tnebretel ‘to ynouwfteot ett to 
Vitemeszye oH? todd yntinit ot ‘petnerteery don wee 
obed wa sore at tustveYeb oF Adteetasoy to Fieutag SHS 
r017s ni ttttaielq tad? bas ,bemtslo as toTre al tts te 
" Feonsdxgs dove efen of Yttrodtts bed of fod? betneas 
sox? bébulovrg sew sorre nf fasbdstes sor wo redrenwrmt & 
of ted bawoty ond ‘nog noftaeup af ‘Wo les tiidd ed? gr 
ferit gafvad tiodftw xsf07d # to yt boeqed “eid nt 
{860d Léqiotau edt yd bettuper es _,seas0tl #'tedord S” 
bna ,(fttoo L[sitd ods nt beteeggue ased evad oF reeqqze You | 
“elat wt omit Pextt ent tot beetax od tow ‘ago “not ) + 


a? af eo? 





te 


di 


= a 


—— 


odd ssdovai toi1s Gt Tiitately yrevooss s tasted oT 8") hme 
Ge od eredw moteaimaod w I9vo061 som you TedoId so Fads . 
gattos yidtensteo efidw ,reyed edt rot gaitoe Yleetoer 
yistilee bos bedelfdetes (low os ef atdT “preflés oat dt 
=sd ,tod ¢* oso odt at noltsotlays on eved BoP! “tud “gotta on 


=6tb tote ai tnebastsS ted Wode of abaet ediebive ent essio 
{ 202 tone? ea 


“3 

closed the fact to pleintiff in error that the commission was 
to belong to Mias Willer, and thet pleaintiff in error consented 
te such arrangement for the purpose of effecting a sale of a 
new harp which had juet been rleced upon the market. The 
element of bad faith on the part of defendant in error war 
wholly leeking. 

Complaint is made of the refusal of the ocurt to 
péenit a stenograrher who had reported the teetimeny of 
defendant in error upon a forrer tris] to testify to the 
—— which defendant in error then gave of the trannaace 
tion in question end of his several conversations with plaine 
tiff in error, Counsel for plaintiff in error upon the cross 
examination of defendant in e¢rror southt to lay a foundation 
for the introduction of impeaching evidence, but in that 
connection the record discloses that the effort was directed 
to matter which was wholly inwaterial, and it does not appear 
that any impeachment of defendant in error was attermrted as 
to any meterial matter. Bhile the trial court gave a wrong 
reagon for ita ruling in excluding the proffered testimony, 
the ruling was right, because so far us the record showe 
such proffered teatimony related to immaterial matters, 

The record is free from prejudicial error and the 
judgment ia affirmed, 


JINGMENT AFFIRKNED,. 


al — 
— 























29 
cage _notentaane oft td xoxx9 AL Maatala of soar ↄ 
betaeesco torre mt Ttitatslq ted? bas — ond 0. Banos 9 
# Yo pian. datgoerao Io ↄroaava Bi. 392 ARPMABAAETA:t al 
ho ofosnan, od? ae» ol beoaly Mped, tout Aad. A , J 
nek PREPS SF stitial eh # His} * 
af treboy tut tO eric eft’ teak poder 6% ebat Pr esr. — 
©? {792° Pa? * APPEASE PRES. 88s EROS ag 
oo 1, MMPALIROS, 949. pepz0T Dad one, ꝓoqa⸗aaoaooꝛ i 
28? 9F MBE Pee. of, (oh st, Aexva ao MAT? BELG 
sesesest #F7.22, 8B: FI" eexete HH, Rips 
~akelg, diiy. snot saezpyeoo Larever.atd 3p, dg 
enone, 207, 0087 rorn9 a, I2FImbof, 03, 9904, 
aodppboue’. 9. 304.9% KAp~p, 29729. 92, so ohnerOn, 7 
ont of yd, seonebtye. gaidopegay 29; 
ohPteertd, sem, #70% 0. oat tad? mpeoi per, happes., of. Rate 
xzegae ton ap Ft das gLotzesoaat vilody caw doldy. gos⸗ 
ost, Peraaet ts, cay, 79779, of tagbasted 29 sapgpoegms. 
_BnOT & aren #2009, Aetrt pat ofidy  .tettem * 
eUomitest heratto1q edt anthyfexe at aeia dum ett, 
xoan broeen 9d? 9H tH on. peunond, «fasts — 
roat as Loixetoaal of bot ac o xaoai aaod oꝛoꝛgeaa 
| dt bas toxz9 fatokbutert mozt osxt.ef daoooa ad? 
4@! . mo ar Sifvpoy pbeazk tte ak @ 


-gSEMATYTA THIMOCUL local aeteainanle J val 


1, 
r iso ao) teeyp ae — ant 
ei we) ee 
sd 4 
i 
’ 'VOnI% Saetsh oT 
x teow o Tas? 
if wot 2citce viterce 4JJ 
— 
ei sigt otetise wiz ee 
, aa 
even cao Ft tue gee 


a 
‘orebive oof e 











209 6 17740. 

CHRIS SCH¥IDTZ, . 
Defendant ig Error, ERROR TO 
v3. 


ERNEST TOSETTI BREVT 
a gorporatis 


: NUNICIPAL COURT 
A CONPARNY, OF cHTCAGO, 


in Zrror. 182 IT.A. 469 


WR, JUSTICE DUNCAN DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE CCURT, 


Defendant in error, Chris Schwidtz, recovered a 
judgment of $375 as damages for injuries received by a kick 
from a vicious and dangerous horse known as "The Bitch", 
while employed by pleintiff in error aa @ driver, In his 
statement of claim it was charged that plaintiff in error's 
foreman ordered him to drive the horse to a certain wagon 
and assured him that it wae all right and not vicious or 
dangerous, well knowing, or in the exercise of ordinary care 
should have known, that the horse was vicious and dangeroue, 

It is contended here by the plaintiff in error, 
Ernest Tosetti Srewing Company, (1) that defendant in error 
failed to prove a case for the consideration of the jury, that 
he had full and complete knowledge of the danger of which he 
complained and was not misled by anv order or aseurance of 
safety by plaintiff in error, and, therefore, assumed the 
risk; (2) that the court erred in ita instructions in stating 
the law of the case and, therefore, should heve granted a new 
trial. 

Defendant in error testified that on the night before 
the injury he asked the barn bossa of plaintiff in error what 
horse he should drive next morning, and that the bose said, 
"Take the Bitch out"; thet defandant in error then said, 
"“aybe he make me trouble, maybe he kick in the single"; that 


the barn bose replied in « rough tone of voice, "He not do 


« en » Sel ae at 7 =. 


~ 





























« £ . > 
' rou ,LfeL mot 2 


. : X ar of obren 8 bop 
: . 7 * ed - 





$a .5 aD4 ii Tel vabale seds Seehof aad¥ af ar. 2a 
ro af a exit 4 Loa 30 4 
OF nox” ae tn 
i. steels ga wedety axed, Weal dad yor 
i000 IAATOTIO 3 "ier 


“9 a? 


“yopaotHo Wo * — E — “a soi | 
@dbAISEL foe, Za 
Jt, 0, OTRO A. ORREVETG. MAO, ROTTED 


8 berevooes ‘eet haste atadd xotze yak abide 
tobi Py Ye | bev tooo selina ot — 
= \idosad | od?* eo —— wine dice deal wats. 
aid at ‘\gevisb 6 ea s0x%8 nt utata xd wate 
 ptaorre at Veitniela Yad? Begrado eow vende ** 
nogew Blefteo eB of esol od? sviah of am. 
"ge suo toty fou batty x “EE8 oo — 
pail ‘yrsntbie Yo eetotexe edt at so .gatwond Ilew , 
orovand baa evotolv es eared od? — —— bi u 
OT ——— 
rorao at tnabaetebh todd (1) evan snivers —— 
sant wt edt to moltarebtence edt 10% @bso 8 evo" 5* 
ed dotdw to tegnsbh edt to egbetwond erelque bas thet b 
to eoaeiyess to 1eb10. yine ‘yd belLetm ton ‘eae ine bea ‘ 
odt bemyees ,s1otoredt ban caoꝛao at Veitatata ve we 
gattate at enottowrtent ett at beste tauoo odt tad? (8) 
wen s betnsig eved bluode ,o1tetedt ,bas ees ed? to * 
4 
eToted tdgin sd? ao tadt beititest worre at tnabasted 
tein torte at Tittalelq to eaod mrad sit hedes ed yrwtat « 
qhise esod edt ted? base ,yninzow txen eviah blyuode of ee 
»bics abdt soste mt trabneteh tadt ("two dotit ed? oxath # 7 
todt j%elgate od? at AotX od edyen «oiduort om elan of odyai: | 


ob ton eH" ~solov to eaot dguo1 « at betliqes asod mtsd,pAs; 


o 2 w= 
nothing. I got no other horae for you. This horse is all 
right. fake him out." He further testified that he knew 
of the horse kicking when he worked it double, but that it 
did not "kick very high, not over the traces"; that he had 
never worked it single before, but had worked it double and 
had noticed that when he put a blanket on it, or the harness, 
it would start to kiek, and knew that it was very nervous and 
would kick when any one touched it, and thet it would kick 
when the harness was being taken off, but that he never aaw 
or heard of the horse kicking any one before, The evidence 
thoroughly establishes the facts that the horee was a dangerous 
horse and liable to kick any one while using it, and that it 
had been owned and used at plaintiff in error's barn for thir~ 
teen yeara., The boss, Frank Hammerachwidt, teatified that 
he had worked for pisintiff in error twenty yeare, He admits 
that he told defendant in error to use the horse in queation 
the night before he was injured, but denies that defendant 
in error said anything to him about the horse kicking or that 
he made any suggestion of that kind. He also testified that 
defendant in error had driven the horse double and aingle 
before he was injured; that he, witness, never knew the horse 
to kick at all, and that he never heard any one refer to the 
horee as "the Biteh", and it waa not called "the Pitch" at the 
atable, This witness was contradicted by a number of witnesses, 
some of whom teatified for plaintiff in error. It wae, there- 
fore, a question for the jury whether or not the defendant in 
error fully and completely understood the danger and assumed 
the risk, or whether or not he was assured that the horse was 
reasonably safe for him to drive single after *he order by 
the boss to him to drive it, and his assurance that it was all 
right, It is not an unreasonable conclusion to draw that 4 


horse that is a kicker and danrerous when driven double, may 





4 “ver ia 
= 8% 2 wis % 


fis ei sexod eLaT OY tot 
woud od tad? beltitess aut 

$i tndd sud ,otdvee Pi be 10 of | 
bad od ait j#eeoeY edt ovo ton yAstd Yxev MOL" tom 
base eldiob #1 Bexrow bad thd: (exo? © nies bewaee 
0 abeperad! edt 2d, tt no te d ⸗vovn on — — i 
bas,eunvzes xzoj poy. f2. ted? rend bas, 4083 ’ oe 8: 
Hotd bivow tt tadt baw 4st bedouos ono ws mode sons 
wait ‘xbivem off shell salt Wiel tote? gatoe siw weenrid « 
soawbive edt Vaso tee BaD’ ea amttolt vexed vit? ei 
euotognab B Raw “pert ot Aat —2 ‘eit eonetiantes ¢ 
$8 todt baw tk ante efi" 90. yn Seta olarel 
~utht XY ated e'xorre mt tiititely te ‘bee ins oie 
tad? ‘We reeves? I dindorteamol Ata yonod edt” ea 
et inbo"eHt” — —E —— At Nmnrota sor 
—— a derod ont ov OF r0xTw mt trwbee 
Yabo 68 tai? wetnet tw "bewtet eaw od exbted’ #1 
ted 30" an txot⸗ pero edt tHode mid OF gerneea bike 3 
sad? Deititeet oefs off | Jomta Fade Yo —— 
elgnte bos efdyob sexo eff movErd bet roves Mt | 
sarc 9? wont teven weeonsiw ad tad? yberstat enw ei ex 
odt ot te'ter eno ye bucoi Toven od tedd Bae .fle te Xo. 4 
odt +6 “dot it Sd?* BHelled tom wow Ft Bne "dot te eis" X 
aoaasa⸗ tu ‘to reduyn s Yd Detotbertioo caw weontiw wht”) , 
“Sted? ,esw fl) =.aotte af Piiatils to? be ftites? inoldr A 
at tnebnetebh ed? toa ⁊0 tedtedwe yiut ed? tot a0 t#seup 8 
bemvess base 19gneb edt bootetebay Yletelquoo ins yList 
aaw verod oft ded? beweea rew od ton Yo todfede x6 yaePs 
‘yd xebto eft setts efgnte evinb of min tot stew —— 
[le ow tt tedt ‘eonsuteen etd bas (Ft ovtts St mid of deod ed? 
© tndt werd of noltevfoaoo ofdsdoesgtay Wie ton et or! Be? ae 
Ye ,8idvob novizh mode RuoTeNASD bad TeAobt swt ¢anyeewed 





ret | oa tee oe 


".tu0 mid - otdy ‘ 


— 
a tad “etd edt 






























al 


og 


ty vax 





* ry 


* <A 
——s.. as 


—— on 
be reasonably gentle and safe for driving when driven single, 
While driving for plaintiff in error was a part of defendant 
in error's general duties as its employee, yet, hia duty was 
not to drive this particular horse, The order to use the 
horse in queation, therefore, was a specific order to use a 
certain instrumentality in a aertesin way, and not a general 
order, leeving it discretionary to the defendant in error as 
to the precise way and manner in which the order should be 
carried out as contended by plaintiff in srror, Defendant 
in error had a right to assume, in the absence of knowledge 
to the contrary, that appellant would not order him to use a 
horse that was dangerous when used aa directed, and we do 

not think we would be warranted, under the evidence, in 
finding that the order to use the horee and the assurance of 
the plaintiff in error that it was all right, did not mia 
lead the defendant in error into believing that the horse was 


reasonably eafe when worked single. The cause was, therefore, 


properly aubmitted to the jury. The Manufacturer'a Fuel Co. 
v, *hite, 228 Ill., 187; Miller v. Kelley ©. Co., 145 111. 
App., 452. 

Defendant in ¢rror vas not required by iaw to dige 
obey his boas, or by obeving, to asmume the hazard of ohede 
ience, wnless the danger to which he was exposed wae so 


inminent that a man of ordinary prudence sould not have ine 


curred the risk, The PP. S. 9. Co. v. Herath, 207 T11., 576; 
Cy, Fe. I. & P. Ry. Co. v, Rathneau, 225 113., 278. 

The cause wuat be reversed, hovevem, for the giving 
of two instructions of similar import by the court to the 


jury, one of which reads thues 


"If you believe from all the evidence, that the plaintiff 
while in the employ of the defendant, was injured by reason of 
a danger that waa actually known to him or by the exercise of 
ordinary care in his employment as defendant conducted his 
busineas, or which the plaintiff ought to have known or by the 


ee 
































olante aov kab 901% salvia’ 102 @tse bas ef x 
naeho tob * — yn Bh ls Uda fa ‘ot 
sto 8 eaw a a 
hans Seto sede airt of 5 *855 


—E vve etd —8 ——— soit: 2 ARS 


, ae <€ 


ede ‘eau J tebro ‘oat —— ⁊ 
funds. Seve J ratwotties 8 Bre “oe 
2 osu of ‘xeb0 ‘oft tooge 6 naw eroterods we 


gh ao T40 “ 

fexenoy ⸗ ton bne even ateravo ant ear co. 
as & See 8A Rec as 

‘ee to1t9 at tnabaoten odt ot yxnaottexoeth $1 sel. 
of? weed, dae , £025 ae eats is 

od ‘bivods —— ‘od? otar at Tens nm boe yaw eetoer 


gr 


x 


haat 3 2 2 hea ce m7 30 ‘es tf Heax * $ i 
fasbneted 2088 6 “Matera yd behaetnoo ps8 — 
tevan od sade € tO aoda? Ealec sor ee a 68¢. 


wv preg to eoaceds ons at ouyere Of tiptr ¥, * 
‘ved eee wae za e ? 

4 ony 3 — xebr0 ton bioow elleqys ted? 
; wo: “28 @o70 i Fae? ane on? —— 2 

“ob * ba — es beau a Fepand 
° e ys ‘ty tea ar in ‘e > eer * per) ? > FE, * 

a somes ® sat x9 e118" 

*F* bive oat reba bern ase O8 pluoy * 
“Ye eonsru08 6 edt bas eerod ont onw of aodao aA 


SrVtace Sets 


ae don | bib hig tt it⸗ een at sade rorꝛo at 3 


sex eared edt —* Baivenlod ‘otat TOTTS al ¢ Sees ea, 
Ores aa 

et0tor00t — ‘pause od ofante betzow nedw © etse 

5 ti — od Cis ted" 


199 Levi s'xequtoutunak 9A7 —“ oat. of bod sindue | 


n is ; i?¥it2 
£41 Odf ..09 40 yoLlod ay aOLLIM j%8L LIT 088. 
F : ‘iy O84 et 63 At, om fF VOR DMS 


4 [f° gey it hac pOeTTS a2” 
-stb ot wel yd bestupes fon s8N TOTIS ak Snebasted d 
* {Bets ftal she Of 


— to bussed eit —8R of eaatyodo. vo 10 — et 


¥ * , 
~ 3 


O8 86n benogxs oan on dotan ot reynnh ods ese caw 


@ni eved ton biuew conshytg va⸗al bro Xo aas a tad * 


(ONE «LIT FOS tere v.09 49 48 .T od? state od? 


e878 ,.ff1 8&6 4 
gatvia edt 202 t@teveword ,boerever od teun eeune ia | — 
ei? of tayoo edt we troqmi teliate to engl? ouxt ead ond ‘ eh 


_ temas beer sot * — 


Ttitaieiaq od? ted? poomebtve edt [Le mort evelled woy 7°" 
to sosee: yd hertot esw ,tnabaetebh edt to yolqme edt at ef 
to eehorexe ed? yd 10 mid of geont -yilouten @ow todd + 
eid betovbaoo tnsbastsh as tasmyolqme eld at e180 yY1eqlbxo 
edt? yd 10 awond ovad od tdquo ‘Dibiatalq ad? do au 10” 


— 2 

exercise of ordinary care on his part might have known, a 
eufficient length of time before he was injured to avoid the 
injury by quitifig the service of the defendant, and he did 
not quit the service of the defendant, but plaintiff velune 
tarily continued in hie employ with the knowledge cf the 
danger resulting in the injury, then you must find the 
defendant net suilty, even though you may aise believe from 
the evidence that the defendant war negligent in ite duty toe 
ward the plaintiff, unleas you further find from the evidence 
that the horse in question was a vicious horse and thet the 
defendant knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care might have 
known it, and the plaintiff also knew of hin vicious dispori-e 
tion and that the defendant acting through ita foreman or 
vioe-principal ordered said plaintiff to drive ssic horse 
and assured him that the horse was not vicious, and that the 
plaintiff acting under auch order wis misled and drove seid 
horse und in 30 doing acted as an ordinarily prudent man would 
have acted under the sane or similar ciroumetancea,® 

The foregoing instruction does not accurately state 
the law, All of ita parte are not harmonious and consistent 
with each other. If an emplovee knows the danger of using 
an appliance and knows that he is at 411 times exposed to 
danger when using it, and knows the danger is inminent and 
that he will be injured if he uses the appliance, it is not 
perceivable how he could be misled by any order or assurance 
of his boss or employer. With such knowledge on his part an 
employee would not be acting with reasonable care and prudence 
if he emountered the danger, although ordered to do #0 by 
hie euperior, because he would do 60 knowing that he would be 
injured. Ghere the euployee knows the defect and knows the 
danger fully, no order from the master can change that know 
ledge, It ia only where the servant is misled by an order 
or assurance of the master or some one standing in the master's 
Place, that he can excuse himself from the assumption of the 
risk in using an appliance or instrumentality thet he knows 
to be defective and apprehends that the use thereof might be 
attended with danger. E, J. & FE. Ry. Co. v. Myers, 226 Ill.; 
358, 


It is true that a knowledge of the defects of an 


appliance and even some knowledge of the attendant danger, 


A 





















——— 7 


— etd ao 
“eas * vs of bow 


ae tt see Xs Pag? | ' 
i — forte 5 
naslov fe a th 
au? : ada Suz” ssaatgetet oat 32" th 
ed? by Ape megs teuya voy aod? Weise aA cee at te 
Pe evelfad oss yan voy dguo 
pe Sm oti at seegilsea caw tnabneted —8 tac s 
ive od? mort bot? vedtavt soy esetay ⁊ 
"ae teat bas eatod auyotoly 2 aaw not? ak 
eved tiyin etso yisanidr Yo setorexs ed? ? 
~leoyeib ayoioiv sid to wend oales ee ite ene oe 
20 Meaeto!T ett Agvowl? yoitos e ae 
ast0d bise evirh ot thitmles vad F spy Lac 1b 
ed? tnd? brs Sg oa! fon saw . 


bles evotb bas belatu —* dove. 7s tos 
bivow nom sasheng ie nw — 
Mpnoonstemsorto + — * — ods , Seba 


tw“ 
bd Pad * at 


otaty yf>tetirson tom wack —— aatoseso% vin 
tnetelahoo bas eyotnomred son o7i ru BFE Ye CLA | ~ he 
gatels to TeyReL et ewonk sevolywe we YT > ij xeddto 
© OY besoqxs Somtt LIS wT oH tail? HwoRd ‘bak 
bow thocinat ef togaeb oft abort the tt antl a 
toner He otk Lge ond eveir ox tt hew tak o@ £1; 
 edtetuess 1) THbxO Yas yo beletm od blyot oi Wor’ & 
ae teed ett no agbsfwonk dove ftr¥ ©, r9yoLqm’ co 08 
eonebisry bns exeo ofdsnoener’ ditiw gatton od: ton 
xd 98 ob o¢ bexebr0 dguodtis .1egaeb edt ins 4 i 
od bivor of ted? gatwond O8 ob blvOW bd oni~nDed Tore w seid 
odd eromi bas to0teb et ewont eeyotqne edt exeaY  Vberweee 
=wondk tadd egnndo aed t9%enn edt mort rOb1O on el iet 1 
Teb1o ms Ye befotn et teevree ad? erste vino eb #1 ® 
s'xotenn oft At gakbaste ono emer 10 twtesm ed? YO ventana 
edt to sol¢qmweas ott more tWeehlt esucke ceo of. Sadd_.! 


* * 


= 


awond Of toda Yo ietnomratent 10 sonetiqy® ms gates at Ae 
od Iihim Yooredt” ess! edt tone banenehays bre evitooted eo } 
eefLI 880 qexeyil SAL stegabh déiw Bb 





ak 
* wy ere a 


: . 20 7 ‘ “a4 a} at paw 
ity to Brovted —— — — oui? pi gT TO 4 


v7 i >Ee 


aregneb Insinestta sd? to ——— snoe neve bite eonbi faye 


will not neceasarily defeat a servant's right of recovery. 
If, however, the instrumentality is ao obviously and lumediate- 
ly dangerous that a man of conmon prudenca would refuse to 
use it, or if the servant knows that the instrumentality is 
80 presently and immediately dangerous that he cannot reason 
ably hope to use it without being injured, the master cannot 
be held liable for the reeulting injury, even in case of an 
order by him to use the instrumentality. A servant also has 
the right to assume, when ordered by his master to aoa 
particular work in a particular way that he will not be exe 
posed to unneceseary perile and to rest upon the implied 


aagurance that there ie ne danger, unlegsa he has knowledge 


to the contrary. Tilinoia Steel Co. v. Schymanoweki, 162 
Tll., 447; Anderaon Pressed B. So. v. Sabkowiak, 148 Til., 
5733; Barnett @ Record Co, v. Schlapka, 208 Tll,, 426; 
Gundiach v. Schott, 192 T11., 509. 


When the master makes a promise to repair or to 
remove a defect, or gives 3 command to encounter a danger, 
the doctrine of assumed riek is thereby removed from further 
consideration. The real queation then is one of contributory 
negligenoe on the part of the servant, and the extent of his 
knowledge of the danger is one of the elements thot determines 
the questions of contributory negligence, In case oF an 
order by the master where the servant obeys the order, the 
eervant #111 not be defeated in his suit for damages, if ine 
jured by reason of hia obeying the order, unlesa the danger 
was 80 great that an ordinarily prudent person would not have 
encountered the danger under the same or similar circumstances, 
or ag alao expressed, uniesa the danger was so iominent that 
amon of ordinary prudence would not have incurred the risk, 


which are questions for the jury upon proper inetructions. 


7 
















oSrovo per to faas7, — ——— * cit 
~stolbomit tne vevorvdo on eb yettetaomuatent pip rexvoevn a 
“ve ae LC PRE nt # htt abo rena 

* — — Fit hah Sac * 
cosas forse on Yon? Wuoregneh xlotebonat Bite YE 
ae Totean Sit | betitnt _ BntOg evourte Be * — 
ne Yo eeAo RE move yextet gniy fiber ott 20 oF 
ond Seite: shevedy AP’ ep RT eonbais seit: vat Oey OF mR 6: 


dey ot a0 som NAS aR 
-x9 od Pon Il iw ed tudt vow en fyo rere, ‘e aL 8108 
p ela Pdiee Feast elt SUSE — Lat 


egbefwood esd sd eeelay .tegneh on at ozecit is 
Sint Eve BIS LAD AT on '@ S7i1ky Bri 


Vy 


Peds, 
















© YBGe a LET 808 aa S98 av 499 brpoef & 
. rade Silat 202 A ser s2odot sy 
vat, 20 sieges of eeimorq * eeden ao⸗ aaa sas aod ; bei * 
ategash & rei myooNs of J o eg 20 — a 


_tedtast sort bevesos xdoa ↄas et tots banyers to. ot 


a 
ref D 9 
—J “ee 


Yiotudintnos to eno at aedt go tseeup {eer sfT smo ttens * 
F 
ets, to ¢netxe sit brs ptasva98, oat to, d18q sd? * oaenu oo ce 


, 


soninietebh ted? stnomele ad! to eno ef 193ns8b edt to siete 


ae 30 sean al  .pomegt igen yrotudtatnoo * ymoite nf 
edt Aohao sit axoso tnavies ed? etedw retenm od? vd 


“at ti —R rot tlue std at detested ed toa {ftw t ova a * 
tegasb edt seolnu .t9b70 edt aatyego eld * aos ab 


sved gon bilvow aos a as derag xttcaatbao ae tat tnony oe 2 
ssoonatemvorto roliaie 70 omsa ait xobaw aeza⸗t bero rtat ui 
eu⸗ tnentant on asm Teganh sdf eeofau .boncoraxe one 06 ay 
dels ont beraveat eved ton biurow sone iraq yisntbio to ana 8 

-enottoyttent rsqo1q soqu yYiwt edt 10% enoltaeup exe dotdw 


\ t ‘ so) «7? 


: ; ove ten 


“~@- 
C. & EF. I. R. R. Co. v. Heeray, 203 Ill., 492; I. 0. R. Re Co. 
v. Sporleder, 189 I11., 184; The P. 8. Car Co. v. Herath, 

307 Ill., 576; Wells & French Co, v. Kapagzyneki, 218 I1l., 
149; Springfield Botler Co. v. Parks, #282 Tll., 355. 


By the instructions given in this case the jury 
were likely to be led to the belief that no amount of knowe 
ledge of the danger on the part of the defendant in error, 
not even knowledge of the disrosition of the horse to kick 
in single, as well as in double, harness would defeat his 
recovery, ond was, therefore, inaccurate and misleading to 
the jury. 


The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded, 


REVERSED AND REMANDED, 




























»iavaceyz te Rly ly Soon taotet —— 

— fh aD ak. “482d 9 At £08 
"ti 990 26D ha. G2 408 aT 8 
— A AL : 

~ 986E o-Lil BRS «8% - 2 
———— — BAP IE 9 
Pond 20, JauoHn, on 2882, 2ebLed Ont Of bol od | 
"ones ak fauna ate 0 fam at 8 anne a 
Aold oF eatod. ad? to. anttiagassS edz, 

~ _ whe taaleb biuow seentad, q@lduod at en Liew 98 « 
of LaPLpPe At v te also EN cAI 

d oh 9esicu 4eOy * of @tonde fants 

— ne odd. bas where. He a 


f sSeseoagse .¥. — — — 


95 
— 


pee 


P ePO@ ge hif BOL aden 
as | a 
ae SY OF OE a4 qeseeu mal? — 
— eve 
. ~ 
— gue ser 9' >3 bnaenon savix x0 sosteb * 
rs mux: beve “xed? ef Desmweod to an tesa 
sole i 2 39 ei acd? sotteasep iast exT ool eae 1. 
7 * 


wo i 34 [xavier a3 i343 007 20 .OGt 
‘yee 


* ib ei? 
% i> eolis 
. : sfoam ed? vd 


: iliw 2a 
eet ya 


ahd 


ae ts the> ge fact teoty COUR 


N\Cae.. 
bag sejaab ad? £es07ome 


is 
axrgbuya waueetha0 To ae 

We es 

id) crt at +83 eno lfaeup ⸗ Aes ty 3 
rie J 


ononrase oale_ ae 


a 


ys: 


Seer Term, 1911, No, 


325 ~ 17861. 









In the matter of the eatate of J 8 * I.A. 4 82 
EMMA B, ARMSTRONG, deceased, 


On appeai cf 
CHARLES &. ROLAND, APPEAL FROM 
Appelignt, — 
CIRCUIT COURT, 
VS. 


COOK COURTY. 


SAMUEL G. GRONHOW, adminis fratcr 


WR, JUSTICE DUNCAN DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT, 


Thies was a proceeding begun in the Probate Court, 
January 10, 1911, unier Sections 81 and 82 of Chapter 3, 
JKC. ADS, 131 . 
Rev. stat Sita whieh it was oharged by the administrator of 
Emma B. Armetrong, deceased, thet Charles FE, Roeland, appellant, 
had in his possession personal property, moneys ana effects 
a8 the proceeds of the ssle of the Santa Barbara Hotel property, 
which wae owned by e#aid deceased in her life time, and that 
he refused to turn cover said proceeds to said administrator. 
The Probate Court ordered him t¢ pay the administrator the 
gum of $1,920, subject to all liene and claime that might be 
proved against the estate, holding that his claim for commise 
sion should be probated, and on appeal and trial before the 
Circuit Court that court allowed him $270 commiseion on the 
sale and found that he wrongfully withheld the eum of 31,850 
from said administrator, ani ordered that he pay said sum, 
and that the administrator hold the same eubject to ail liens 
and claime that might be proved in the Probate Court. 
On thie appeal it 16 first contended by appellant 
that the court erred in advanoing snd trying thie cause out 
% of its regular order, Under Sec. 21 of cur Practice pot, IHLNESS 
the trial court has the right to advance and try a cause out 
of ite regular order "for good and sufficient cause", and what 


is good and sufficient cause must be determined by that court. 






,om , pitt et 10d 


8 — eet ee A a-* * 


— —— 
























xravoo OOD 
Pure. nt 0). oad 
igi of ensod od) oth Rae - © 7 —— * 
— teeta. | #O Ry Leas eB ithe i at te it rr a6 hg 


tau SF 40, NOTHTRD. ar. @aRaV 130 worna ADUTEUT, "7 
«P00 eedors odd at muged antbovoony « aw atat * 
"YE xesqadd Yo £8 bas £8 enot Foot shal 

to wotetieiniabs ed? yd begzads saw ak 
qtmaftedqe ,baaloh 0 seliadd dads 
stootte bas eyenom ,Yireqorq Lanoeseq aotunenseg t | 
«¥iieqerg fetoH atadisd afaae oft Yo oleae od? to pen 
tad? bas ,eatt etti t9d at besseosh blae yd beavo eae de 
eTO?atteltoiabs bise Oo? ebssoo1g Sise t98VvO must or 5 
od? wiaxrtalaimds odd Yaq OF mtd bowebi t1v0d ote 
od tigim tedt emtalo bas smotf ifs ot tooldue ose ,t8 : * 
-siuaoo 1ot aielo eld tad? zathtod ,etateas edt tontays b 
edt etoteod Isix? dae ſaogera no baa ,betadoig od pivots & 
eit ao aoteetamon OTSE aid bowolls ‘favo tadt #1y0d tk 
028 ⁊o ave oi? bLodd? tw yitwtgaoiw ed ted? bavot baw 
eae bea yaq ed tad? betebrto baa wotexte tubs btea | * 
enoil {Le ot tos(due ones ont biod to?artetatmbs od? rede ba) i 
efxyod etado1T off at bevorqg ed Sdylm tad? eatslo : a \ 
tnaileqge yd bebnetsoo terlt a2 tt Laeqae eld? ad * a 
tuo eevao ald? gatyt? base gatonavba ni berte auoo oct⸗ res | ay ; 
SEU MKD fod eoitons] wo Yo [8 008 r8bnU — ,zebr0 xsiugot ett Yo F 
tuo eeuso © YI bas sonmevbs of tye edt esd t100 tala⸗ out 
tede base ,*vevse fneololtttuea bas boon 10%" r0bz0 roluyox etl arg 


i: 


- 


et1u00 tad? yd beniateteh ed taum seveo tactoltive bas boos «tf 


- 8B « 
The reviewing court will not interfere with the determination 
of the trial court in that particular unless there has been 
a clear abuee of that discretion, Spitzer v. Schlatt, 349 
Til., 416; 8 Co. ve. 197 ITll., 369, 

The court hed ample reasons shown it for the ade 
vaneing of the cause, 26 a showing was madé that the ostate 
would otherwise probably suffer a great loss by forced sales 
of property held by storage liens. Appellant also failed 
to show that he wae prejudiced by the advancement or that he 
would be any better prepared to try the cause ister, It is 
of no significance that one jwige heard the cause and failed 
to decide it, and that the cause was very soon thereafter 
again tried and decided by another judge of the court. Ape 
pellee was entitled to a speedy and final disposition of the 
Cause, 

There is no merit in the contention of aprellant 
that said Sece, 61 and ea\oniy pernit a “proceeding for the 
recovery of identical property", and thet appellee wae not 
entitled to a recovery of the proceeds of the gale of the 
hotel property. Appellant admite and testified under oath 
that the hotel property wae transferred to him by Fra. Arte 
atrong ehortiy before her death by bill of ssle for the sole 
purpose of selling the same and of paying her debts with the 
proceeds thereof. It wae not a conveyanee in fraud of credi- 
tora, but to better enable ner to pay her creditors, Arpele 
lant had no right in the property,by the conveyance, exoept 
to diecharge the trust imposed thereby and to retain hia proper 
charges therefor. He sold the property for $2,700, only paid 
a portion of the debts, and when questioned by the administra- 
tor about what he had done with the money, made conflicting 
statements regerding the same, and claimed to have paid out 


more than he had in fact paid, anti was not even proceeding to 


va 
























-&- (Sit "pee ! 
aoltantwxesed edt dtiw etetzetat ton Litw * watwoives @ 

(| W906 ond orsas weolaw taludttieq tad? ot twoo Latst of 4 : 

Cb tonldod .y sestig@  sdpitenonth gakt No-weuda moeu 

1000 yeh OL at o nofbete yet |, 

«ba edt 10% tt mode e 

otsfeo edt Aad eben enw ant a as eeusd eat 10 Si 

soles beorct yd seot — * — ——— gE: — 

bellel Geis *ustleqeh: anak ye bea we 

od tad? 10 toomoonavba edt YC beottwterq aew od’ teat 


ah ol ytoral oenso edt yt oF nieitetnnitaittlinnd. 
beliat bas eaveo ae bised eahert eno fad? eonsotti 


J———— ———— — bas ‘bie 5) 0 ybi oeb" 
<A Fase 9a? to oabut sed ions ‘ed bebioob Oa, “yt Ay 
* * — Lent we· ood beledeah' eas 


; GS OB, g BMS — Hac be 


‘ 





‘taot texts to ao £3099 109 oa ta Prem Oa et ‘oxent © 
* 10? gatboovorat s —— ‘bas fs — 
“tea baw ‘pelfeqqs tat on st uhreqoag ‘{soléaebi to. 
el? Yo sfoe od? to sbesco1y ous ‘we Txevo oes * be 
dino Tot beltifest dab et iaba ‘basttecta ‘Vytz07019q- 
— vont ve wid “o¢ borre tamer? sw vezeqora: Yesoll oat 7 a i 
“sloe od? 10% sise to fiid ed Atsed tod vroted Vile a 
od? dtiv etdéeb tod pahye? to bus emae edt pati lon ee 
<-tbero Yo bust? at — — aaw +I stoored s 
<[oqyA .e10¢i boxe 19d Yor Of xed oldsae’ Seine ot dud Qh 
tugoxs .eonayevaoo od? ——— od? nt fdylt © ‘vat 
1q01q cid mhetex of bas ydered?t beaoyal: ‘tout? “edd gerry 
biaq yino ,OOT~-8% tot yhxoqor edt blow oH , rolered? 03 
-sttelainbe edt yd benoltecup mode bas — A⸗ to A Pe ast 


as? 2 — 
gattokfiaoo ehéa .yenom od? dtiw omob bad od tedw tucda See 


> £3 


tuo biaq eved of bemtelo bas .omee add satbiogex "intel , 


ed? ta 
of —— neve fon sew bas — sont al bod od asd) e208 , . 
: shivarg erZ tp 


sa. bod él 


23 
pay the remainder of the debts he claimed he was to pay. After 
her death the proceeds of the aale of the property properly 
and legally »velonged to her estate und ner administrator was 
entitled to recover it under said statute, lese the amount 
paid by hiw on the debdtea of the deceased, Blair v. Sennott, 
134 I11., 78; Dinsmore v. Bressier, 144 122., Sil. 

Neither appellee nor appellant can be sustained in 
their objections te the court's allowance of a cowmiseion in 
the eum of #270. The evidence clearly establiehes the fact 
that there waa an-agrceement on the part of Nra. Armstrong to 
pay appeliant ten per cent. commission on the gale of the 
property, Appellant was entitied to retain his commission 
without being forced to probate his claim. The Circuit Court, 
therefore, #0 far as appellee and appellant were concerned, 
properly adjusted and settled appellant's oleim for commission 
in this suit, as well aa that of appellee. The oroas errors, 
therefore, are not sustained, He wae not, however, entitled 
to two comeiesions, as the court was warranted in finding from 
the evidence that he had agreed to take part of his commisaion 
in cash and part in note on the Peavy aale of the property and 
refused to abide hie agreement after the aalé was agreed on 
between him and kr. Peavy. 

The court properly held also that, as to other debts 
to be paid cut of the aale, the Probate Gourt aheould firat 
pasa on their validity, ete., and especially aa appeliant had 
not carried out hie agreement with the deceased in peying the 
debts out of the prosveede of the asle, The judgment and orders 
of the court are affirmed, 


AFFIRKED. 


—AJ hp est oh i 





* Beg 
’ yY 7? 


2 

TOfRA, .. «Kad, Of, Sam. ot APDIP: PROP ——— 
Vieqorg Wreqory edt SP SKAR, MA; 2M SPPORRAA, Oe HP 
Onn sotersesataba soe fos etatEe. 20K #, Pepe aL 
tavons, oat spot apiutapy. biap saben. dt smARe Hh 
coo tos ogAtB, oe AST #81, aleaaai vy promeaid . 48 
at aokeeiauso a 20 pomolte 0! aꝛuos et o⸗ enpttoal 
fosi ed? pededidatae xcaaoła oonoblyo sd7 .oyet 20 m 
of pooriemxA .exM 29 Pres edt so supmperde, aA, as, 
p OH 20, Aso od? 90. goseelamoD »fG09, 39%, BOF. ft 
phish, wld atetes of boltitas exw — — 
Auoꝰ tuortd ecT — .mislo aid etedoxg oF) be ; 
edoaxonnpe. oxen smeilsaus bus eellogge, em, xD}. 08 | 
aotectmnoo 10% mtalo e'tnnlleqas befttee bas betevtbs ¥ 
st0TTe Psozo ecT  ,oellogqe to tad? es Loy sp 
botal⸗as ,tevewod Aou sew. on “sHektetaus ton 8x8 4 
mort gotbalt si betaasier anv txv90 sd? as ,enolont 
oolseiamoo efi Yo drag ofyt Of bovrys bad od tadt_ 
bas y?x0901g ed? to oLee \weeT. edt oo ofon ot Prag. Dae 
ao beexys paw eles odt r9d¢39, tromerrge etd odie oF 
(tug o SVSOT, 9M, one kd a 

atdeb todto of ee ,tnd? oofs bled eliegory tzyoo dt. . 
text? biuods tiw00 etedor? od? eine eft to tuo bier 
bed tuslloqys 92 ylleiveges bun ,.ofe ,¥tlbtiey ted? no 
edt gatyeq ai beeseosb ott APH tromeesg9 etd tuo deluxe 
exebro bas saenybul, aT ,efon ett 20 abesoorq ed? to. tus 
-pboaritts ere, 22490, 7 

<CRMAITTA 0 — 304. bs 
da 10 Ky 
o? —— 
r rae | 


1% wa i? e198 



























bex Term, 1911, No] 












1821.A. 488 


APPEAL FROM 


NATIONAL STEAM HEATING COMPANY, 
a corporation, 

Appell 
Va. COUNTY SCURT, 


WILLIAM C. MOULTON, COOK COUNTY. 


Ap Pas d 


WR, JUSTICE D DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 


National Steam Heating Company recovered 4 verdict 
and judgment of $588.90 against illisam C, Noulton, appellant, 
ag balance due upon a written contract for the inatallation 
of a hot water heating apparatus at his reridence, 115 Belle- 
vue Place, Chicago. Appellee by the terms of the contract 
was to furnish all labor and materials, after using all material 
of appellant then on the job, and complete the work "ready for 
plaster" by September 22, 1910; and waa to be paid for the 
job ninety cents per hour for ateam fitters and aixty cents 
per hour for helpers, and the net cost price of all other 
materiale furniahed, plus ten per cent, 85% of which contract 
price was to be paid aa the work progressed, 

Appellant urges on this srpeal, (1) that the court 
erred in refusing to admit competent evidence to support his 
claim for set-off tending to show a damaged condition of the 
boiler originally installed on the rrenises and which was 
removed by appellant and returned to the party from whom it 
was purchased, The evidence 90 offered and rejected by the 
court was a letter from Richardson & Boynton, stating, in 
aubstance, that the boiler was received by them frow appellee 
in a dawaged and unsalable eondition. Tt is one of the most 
elementary rulea of evidence that hearsay evidence is not 
admissible in any law suit for any purpose, and particularly 


statements of third parties in their own interest, ana who are 


























ay Se Lom ,LLe£ ,miel & 


ite of either edt te rope AOE MF 3 





sa 


piat suf do. sbeigesy. edz A? oe hd 


MLRATA. +) xovennr oF be * 


eat of reer 
sce, gg MORN AARITN, 






e » Brn ——— —ñN hes nla. E > 
— —— om ae 
ees’ . de 
ei Beafiateve 'ad noe faelieage aon: 
hehe ro | 
suiei fe we Lne®e. egosvive ec? _ «ots te 


totorey. a _ bexevooex waned, Balteok meere, Lagok ipl og 
fast leage cot 00K 0 mertl in _tentoge 02,8688 Io. ta 
motte fetent edd, 19 FORTIS NOD Aattts w 2, tloqu sub © Ar 
pebtes Off ,eonebiaox ald fA; WParagge, PRARROA OP AR | 
Spaxtone sat Yo emzet eit ye eofleqqh » S°BROLAD. 98 
falzotan tie antew tetta ,elelirotom bas. * ie de kay: 2 of, 
wi Mhpen" Atow pat etatqmoo bre adot odd A. ay A tats 
eas 20% bisq \ ed of one bre — ASS. Todme? (ek x 
staep, Xixte, bes exert. msote 0% mod teg. BIO ¥ 
‘ano Ale 20 polsa, #000 #aq. 1 ban, poate. 30.34 
tosttnoo dolde to M8. XMgeo aog net eulg out taaut 
eat 0 PPNEFRIE PRLS BPA PII 
ieee ed? fed? (£) Aaoque aids ao ORTH taplioqas. 
id troqqye of eonobive ⸗aa⸗ oauoo timbs of gaiayter ak er: 
od? to noltibaos bagensh, 6 wode, os Aathoe? tor Ontos, x02 4 ; 
enn dotix ban seatnorg adt ao bottagaat, Nilenigizo & 4 
ti mode mort Yiteq oat ot beniyiex bas tnalleqqs yd eve 
oa? yd betoaler baw bexg2to os. gonebivea eat ,bassstorn % - 
Ht ,gntiete .notayod & monbiadolfi mort sefsel s apr a 
selfeqqe mort aoa) vd bevieoo:r ese zeltod oft sed? soonet agg : 
teom off to ono ai #1) = .moltibaoo eldalsenw bas ——— 
ton ef donsbtro yearned tad? sonebive to selyz vrstaeng te 
vlzslvolixung bane .eeoquvg yas 102 tive wal yas at oldteatahe aa 
ere Odw bos ,teoretak awo tied? af eeltteq. bitd? to staoustste 


* 


Pay 


—— 


- Be 

in no way authorized to bind the party by euch statements 
against whose interests the statements are made, The fact 
that appellant on cross examination of appellee testified that 
he had written to Richardson & Boynton to ascertain whether or 
not he covld get credit for the boiler returned, had no 
bearing upon the question of the admissibility of the letter 
he received in reply to auch inquiry. There was no evidence 
in the record tending to prove that appellee damaged the boiler, 
and there was no competent evidence tending to prove that it 
was in fact dauwaged, Therefore, there could be no recovery 
therefor in thia case, 

Certain inatructions given by the court on behalf 
of appellee are complained of by appellant. The ineatructions 
state correct propositions of law, The firet one complained 
of is an abatract proposition of law, and assumes es a fact 
that the delay of appellee was caused by appellant or tiose 
working for him not doing work which should necessarily be done 
before appellee could do his work, If it be conceded that 
there waa no evidence upon which to base the instruction, 
appellant wae in no way prejudiced thereby. Appellee proved 
hie right of recovery clearly and beyond question. Appellant's 
evidence did not prove or tend te prove any defense thereto 
whatever by way of ssteoff or recoupment or otherwise. His 
only proef amounted to « showing that he had the premises 
rented at $100 per month and had paid rent thereon since the 
early part of August, 1910, and that the job let to appoliee 
by the contract in question was not completed "ready for plase 
ter®, until about October Ist to 15th thereafter. The evie 
dence does not show that appellant was caused to pay any rent 
by reason of such delay, or that such delay necessarily iost 
him the use of the premises for any length of time whatever. 
Besides, appellant waived any right to complain of delay, or 


to complain that appellee did not complete the contract. The 



















etaemetets dove —E edd bai ot —— ii il 
fost odT sobam ors ataountage edd eteetetat osodw tanta 
2 Gade vedtiedere i mottantnexs sors ao Ynotteity 
10 sedtedw aistroors of ao vont 8 HosbrsdolA of nottian 
on bed , beater x0 oat tot ¢kborw tey, bluo ; 
retiet 04s to’ yttLidteetabs edt No pottecry ott now 3 m 
eonebive on eaw e19AT .Yxlupni dows ot yiqes at bowke 
aꝛot ieg. od? bezaash, aaiigaas Pad? avoxa ef, gatbaad. 
#i tadt ovorqg of gathnet sonebive taoteqmoo on sew 6 
Spiers on 8 otuos wx¥itt —— 
wande — —— — ————— 
amottocttent aur — ‘yd 0 beatsiquoo ors 8 
bentekqnos oto text edt .wel to sHolttevyoxy # 
font sen eemuben bad wal to nottinoqorg toattede 4 
eed? 10 taalloggs yd beeveo anv opfloqqs Yo yalsb si 
enoh ad Yiitsneeend bluods Aotdw Aor gatob ton wld wor aif 
ted? bebeonoo ed th TI © drow Rid Ob dLime wehiownya, 
dholtorrtent wit enad OF Molt cage wonebive on « 
bovorg eelloyyzA .Ydoered? beothutery yew on at sew ? 
a'snalleqgk  .aolteesp baoyed bie yLieefo yasvo087 to 9 
otwiodt onreleb yan evox of bast 10 svete tom Bhp. 
efi © ,entwredte x0 tremquoows TO Yto=tea Yo Yew vs revel 
soe taora. edt bed ed datit yatwode # oF besmuoms toort 
od? sone moetedt taet biaq bed bas dtaom teq oort te) 
esilsqqe ot tel dot oft Ted? baw ,OLOL , seugua to lee 
~enly tot Ybaer" betolquoy tom sor apitwaup at fosrtuce * 
-tvo ouf .tottewtedt AveL of tel xadotod tuods era 
taex xas Yaq of beswao few vantage ted? wore ton wook @ 
taol yitrasesoor yslob vous tad? to yynfob dove to — 
-tevesudw batt to dtgnel yas sot seatsaexg edt Yo ——n—— 
10 Xatod to mtafqmoo d+ et yuo bevinw thallenqs ,eebieea 
eit  ,tosxtado oft etefquo0 soa bib selloqqgs tad? atalqnos oO? 


-~8-. ries ,s19t Se 





o Bw 
undisputed evidence in the record is to the effect that appellees 
quit the job first in October, because appellant told him to 
do so, and that he quit it in November finally, because appele 
lant had not and would not pay it the 85% of the price for the 
completed work as he had agreed, and that sppellee could not 
get money enough on the job to carry it along; that the 85% 
amounted to $500.38 in October, 1910, no part of which waa 
paid until Setober 13th, when appellee paid $400, and never 
thereafter paid any more, and finally refused absolutely to 
do 80, and that weekly statements for the 65% of the finished 
work had been presented to appellant from the time the work 
started, Arpellee's evidence also shows without contradi¢ce 
tion that changes were made in the plans at the request of 
appellant, one of which was made Ootober lst by putting in a 
larger boiler, and that appellee wae necesearily delayed by 
other tradee working on the building. Appellant, therefore, 
recognized the contract ae in full force in October, anc made 
& payment thereon, and was then himself in default on payments. 
By refusing absolutely to pay money due on the contract ap- 
pellant repudiated his contract, and thet breach was never 
waived by eppeliee,. Provisions of the contraet requiring 
timely paysiente for work done, and requiring the work to be 
completed for plastering by a certain time, however, had been 
previously waived by both parties. Balt Fork Coal Co. vy. 
Eldridge Coal Co., 170 Til. App., 268, 

The other inetructions complsined of by appeilant 
are not subject to any of the criticisms urged by hin. It 
ia not deemed necessary to comment upon any further queetions 
raised by either party to this record, There is no reversi- 


ble error in this record and the judgment is affirmed, 


AFFIREED, 


velfoqqs tai? toerte bd¥ of Wi Dz>00x but Bt bonebIVE 


~~ 


mfoqqs sevsood \yrthatt edisvo nt th Vtup of sede 
oa? ¥O% vofry of? ‘to hes bd ¥2 nif YOK" Wruow bad! 


°°" Saw Botaw Yo Prk om Orer’ | x0edite0' at Be O08} OF 
*<""yeviont tiie’ 0089" bre bot logas’ Holly “Javed tebores Tie 


,etaetiyeq mo ¢iveteb at tisedid ned? saw Sas nosed? ¥ 






















of aid blot taalleqys eeuvkood” rotted WY Yertr Yor ol 


ton Biuoo vetisyge tnd?’ bal’ \Beorys Bell bit aa” 
Rael cits Your” {anole Fr Yixnd oF Golf od? do 


“oF Ylotufoeda bewter yflhki? bie (erom Yaw bldg 26 
bode tat? of? Yo Se8 edd Got ednoustate — 
Sow 9d¢ omit oft wort taslloqys ot votnoworg meee B 
cbitex}ndo tod) 1¥ ewode’ Gets sonsbive Wosttodit’ « 
te tnoupet ‘odd ¥e tut bd? at otisn wxbw wophad’ 90 
Bnd Pardsing wd Yor Yesor0d eben caw Wolde' Yo! oe” Wi 
yd beysfon UiErabesed sax dolloqys fad? bas , rath 
eotofered? .fnelleqqA .yatblivd of? wo gattxow ve! 
“pba bia ,zedo%o0 At e010 Lfut HE od Foarthoo sat 


<q fostzioo edt no oub yeaom Yeq oF Yletuioada 
' Yovon esw dosexd fad? bas \Foertnod eld bevalbir 
giitttupst toextaoe Bit to anoteivor? ~~ Veettoqys ¥ 
ed of d10w ot gatxiuper Bae .anod XxoW OT Utne 
feed bad ,isvewod ,omlt mlofxoo & yd guitetests rot 6 
-X_209 inod 4x0 fiyg .settxsq dsod vd Beviaw Ylewo 
80% y.qah {iT OFf "bo Tnod basen 
as⸗t tbqaa yd Yo beckulquds enctYourtedt tettfo war” ©" * 
#1 ould yd hegiv smalotfviuo ed? to Yas ot tostdue aie” 
enolisaup sedtast Yas aoqu tnemaoe oF “yiseeooont bomsed Y ig 
of 


-fexovex on ol oredT ‘,bxooes ati? of ytiaq todtte yeh 


“\pemzitis st er ah od? bas biooes eld? at ‘annie 
sn? 6} her way mre ah) 


«GIMAITIA . turk Leraqe eyes | 


‘wal alaiques 6? 


& 


re 


a, 


7 


ae ee 
J < 


_——_ 


SS 


a, 


vul ' 
ORs Sore) 
* ~ wads 

2 2 


469 - 18009, 






THE UNIVERSITY CLUB OF CHPUAGO, 
a corporation,  . APPEAL FROM 


MUNICIPAL COURT 
OF CHICAS. 


Appellant. 1 8 2 IA. 4 84 


MR, JUSTICE DUNCAN DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 


Vie 


FARL H. DEAKIN, 
4. ee 


Earl H. Deakin appeale from a judgment for $2,007.66 
in favor of The University Club of Chicage in a suit in age 
aumpait for a4 tense of rent due and interest under a lease 
of the south east corner store of appellee's club building, 
140 Michigan avenue, for a “jewelry snc art shop" for the 
term of one year from Kay 1, 1909. The lease was executed 
by appellee to appellant Wsroh 31, 1909, and provided for a 
rental of #5,000 for the term payable in monthly inatallments 
of $416,967. The twelfth clause of the iease provides 46 


follows: 


®Lessor hereby agrees during the term of thie leare not 
to rent any other store ingid University Club Building to 


any tenant Waking of the aale of Jsranese or 


Chinese goodie or pearls, 


On April 5, 1909, sppeiles executed a lease to % K. 


Sandberg of another stors in ites eaid building, 138 Kichigan 


avenue, for a "watoh maker and jewelry establishment and for 
neo other purpose", and for the same term aa that naned in 
the lease to appellant, and for a rental of $3,500 for the 
term. The twelfth provision in Sandberg'a lease srecifically 
provided as follows: 

"It is further distinctly understood and agreed by and 


between the parties hereto that at no time during the term of 
this lease will the lessee herein use the demised vremises 





















5 ret saaeael ; 





t+ ~OK s iLe: 
Dus ee Spenbrrs eee” re 


oye) ap bball ‘et aut 


aie of 


sag toed ers 


rm ones 


hgh —— agar ty 


PROD TT x6 wornte9 wir env dee rte 


¥Yiazy! peevtot Vix; —X roe Phe abe: 


99.900,08 x03 sasazbut, ⸗ wort, eLeegge tdeeG, fret 
wes af tive « at ogsoidd to duld ¥ttexeviau edT.t0 
easel © mebaw tovretat bas oud ta0x to wonated » x07 tek 
<Intbitwd dulo s'eelfeaqs Yo s1ote aoaxoo tess, dt J — 

_ sat 70% "aode tx0 bas xxtonot s 10% ouuova ang taciũ 

“ petuoexs een oasel oxT .@ORL .I ysM mort se0y emo. 6 
8 10% debtvora baa .CO8L «LE doreh taslfeqge.oF, 
sinowlLetent yLdtaom at eldeyaq met edt 10% 000,.a%)% 
es abt) eesel oda to seyelo sa edt. oF 


vineds sc! 


*R 


tod "bdo t 414 ⏑⏑—— * galas pean ——5 
ot gaibiind duld — te 2. 


“20 eaenetst to sise od? alge abit 2 : aan 


oX OW oF ‘onsol 5 betivoexe bet higak Weer a Eix7A’ ‘a0 — i 
aagidot SEL .gnlbiind bisa et at e10te tedtons to a J 
4 











10% bas tnomdelidetes yrfewet ine teiem dofew® « vO u 
af deasn Sad? #8 wet omen sdf to¥ bre "eeoqsiry ; * J 
4? oY dos a to fntaey Ao Dar, fnelfeqqe of oniet 6 
Ulfeoltionze orsel ogredbitel nt notetvorg M*tfews odT —A a 
sewolfo? on bebiy : | 
J — wate ¢€ 


bas Yd boowye hae hooterebay yltontteth xedéxut et sre °° 
to miot ed? galiybh ami? on te tad? otered seltisg od? ae 
eeelinet> beainsh edt eeu altered esesel edt [fiw sesel & 


— eo ton. va 


~ B= 
fow @ collateral loan or pawn shop, or make a esrecialty therein 
of the aale of pearla,” 

Appellant defended the suit before the lower court 
without @ jury upon the ground that he wae released from line 
bility by reason of appeliess having ieased the other store 
in the building to Sandberg who made a areeialty of the sale 
of pearle, and ealao filed a counter ecluim for damagea for the 
Said alleged violation of appellee's covenant. 

The evidence discloses that on April 23, 1909, appele 
lant wrote to C. G. Holden, manager of aprellee, in eubstance, 
that he wee informed that a jewelry store waa te be started 
in appellee's building two docre from him and that he had 
been ied to believe that the other perty was to deal exclusively 
in watches, andi asked that thie watter be placed before 
appeliee'a board to ascertain what could be Gone in the matter 
of cencelling one or the other of the two leases. Mr. Holden 
replied, in aubsatance, that he was informed by kr. Fischer, 
who for appellee leased appellant the property in queastion, 
that appellant knew very well Sandberg was "to handle watches, 
eto." and that Fisher had incorporated in Sandberg's lease 
that he "could not deal in pearle in any way, which wae agree+ 
able te you", About the firet part of June, after appellant 
hed entered into his stere in question, he aaw pesrle dise 
played in Sandberg's window at 136 Michigan avenue, and on 
the 10th of June saw an advertisement of Sandberg's in the 
Chicazo Tribune thet featured pearls. About June 15th appele 
lant had a telephone conversation with Kr. Bond, treasurer cf 
appellee, saying, ie suentanes, that he wae sick and wanted 
tO gO away, anc aaked Af appellee would eccert another tenant, 
& milliner, in his piace, Kr. Bond took tne matter up with 
appellee and wrote appellant June 18th thet the ®conmittee 
regret that you feel it necessary to wake any change, ******* 


They aré willing to aceept another tenant whose jine of 






















sore daito odd bebsot * os 4g We 
ols. odt rl a 8 ou⸗ Sete 
* — sap ge os be * 


or e'eelleqqs to no i¥elesy bey 


-toigtie (QOL .e8 {Craik ho! tad¥ wowu toes beionive it~” 


s2oastedue at voftoade, Yo xeyasne .AEdLo 0 0.98. 08 
Dodaate, ad, of nen, exoge, vasowat, 2 tad. Pomo.at . 
ona thd, A, Past, dna abd MOF%, PPOPD, ONF, ANRDI ANS Amy 

MOEN TEDDY —— SMR SM LOM, PPR 

PIR bopsia od x9PIam atay taf boxe 
ottma od? at eno od ↄloos tain akstxeous of —— 
aebloll 2X ,aeanei ont dt Xo redto ad? ao ono gatt imag 

_ ateabedT <A YS Donrotad, ean 9,1 2242) «wont Mat - 
mpi taaup at ytxoq019 edt taeltorqa poeasl gel toqqs aah 

eeodotew offned of eow grsdbos® (low yrev wand taslleae 

sesel a'yrodbne® at befaxoqioont bed s9edett ted? bas. 


date ‘Wate Aghitn, “Seat ng t, Wan "HE hin ae DARIO a 
taslléqdad Yeorrs .snst to freq terit 9d tuodh i dg 
~sib elieeq wee of ,nolsteaup nud etove eld otal sen 4 
“ao baa" suaevs nagidolt str ta wobdtwe'yxedbase at a 
odt at e'gredtbas® Yo sodmeattrevid ns wie Saul toe 
-feqas dtéf east todd “ Sattoeq beddPaes “nas — 
to toqesett ,baot .iM dtty aoftentévacs anodqetet 2° 
botnsw bis tote wow sa Fille \Looddtnada ‘dt "eetyse ® 
(daatet Yodtone ty9086 Bitow Sor tedfe YE nélee Bia" Yowe dg 
dtiw qu tetiem oat soot KHOR . 2H -ooaly @id at gen tite % 
eottianaoo® edt teat AtSL oawl Inallaras store cas egcieggs 
“Otis sendadd ne ‘ededl'of “ytanieged AE I4et lity “fant ates 


to enil saode taanest zredtonse tqo0os of galilin oxus yedT 


f 


“3a 
business i2 satisfactory to them, That of miiliner would not 
be satisfactory, as they feel it would not be a proper ocoue 
pancy for one of the club etores, eapecially the corner." 

Mr. John S. Goodwin, appellant's attorney, about June 24th, 
begen negotiations with appelles te have the lease canceled, 
informing it that the iease was made void by the leasing té 
Sandberg who was ea@lling pearls, and failing in this on June 
30, 1909, delivered by letter the keya to the store at 140 
Michigan avenue, and notified tie officiale of apvellee that 
appellant had terminated the lease because of said violation 
thereof by appellee, Novexber 15, 1909, appellant went into 
the etore in question under a new iease with a written agree} 
ment that the lease and his ccoupancy was to be without pre- 
judice to cither party to existing rights in question in 

this suit, and finished cut hie term named in the former lease, 
paying the same rental. The judgment is for the four and one- 
half months that the store was left vacant, and jor which tine 
the rent was not paid. 

Tt is inaisted by arpellant that the 14th clause of 
the lease sued on went to the whole of the consideration and 
wae a condition precedent to the right of the lessor to recover 
rent, that is, that the covenant to pay rent and said 12th 
Clause are dependent covenants; that the inserting of the 
Clause in Sandberg's lease forbidding him from making a 
spedialty cf the sale of pearle wae not the only duty imposed 
upon arpellee by the 12th clause of sppellant's lease, but it 
wae also aprpellee'e duty to enforce the prohibitory clause in 
Sandberg's lease sad Xe prevent him from waking a erpecialty 
of such sales. He #lao insieta that the remedy of aprellent 
for a breach of the said 1fth claune of the lease by a suit 
for damages wae not exclusive, but that eppellant hed the right, 


if he so elected, upon a breach of esaid clause, to surrender 























C 
~G-w'h « 
toa Bivow soniiiia to.gedT .aedt-ot A 
— to efep ea) Seo 
“000 Teqorq 8 Od tom bivow ¢t Leet yous en ,yxotoate. BY 


“ ra 


*, Metonzeo oft ylistooqes ,eorote dio ont. tooont x02 yon 
42S, Oru: tuOds yYorIOt?s: £' Saad loogs? yatwdoed* ,B nol 
ebeieonso Woaet: ‘edt eved of eolleqqs diiw enottei te 
(OG yaieowl edt Yd biov eden oaw eset onto tant 22 ytd — 
Pay) a0, Okdt nt gutiror ban? yetrseg gatlioe ase -odeo gz0@l 
Obl #3 S10%e Ont OF  eYOX>- Od? gested yo! DetEVZ Leb» et 
_ tadt cos loqga to eisiottio vdt. boehtzon>bas yeusors neat 
_ Boktnlodv.btea Yo seunved-eseal ods -botuataxe? bed saekh 
Or tnen taoklogge —@ORL Sl redusvol  seelioqas yd toe 
-99%30 MOttiaw s dtiw easel wea s t9bay motteeupent» o% 
Bq, tMOds 4" 9d Of Sev YonsquoCO sid /bas esol oodt 'thad 
ah noitesup at etdgix gatsetxs of ytuaq ted? ry 
.easeL, temsok 049 ai bomen w197 eifd too beds iat? bae 
ono. /bas 200 9dt-s0 eh taeaghut od? s<hatavacomse 
sai? doidw tot bas »¢¢ascav t tel saw oxote edt sade 
; -bieq toa sew tas 
to enwmlo dtGl od? ted? tanllequs yd betstant el fI oe 
one aolterehieaoa ed? to efodw ed? of taen ao bows ‘os 
Tevove1 Of rosMel ed? to tdgix ad? OF tnedeoerq Holt traoo ⸗ 7 
ASSL biam bas toot Yond OF temeveo edt todd (ot tard — 
sit to gnddreeat eft fant jstasaevoo tashbaeysb ems 
8 gilies goxt mid galbdidro! esas! a'ygruedins® at 
beeogal ¢trub _elno eat tom aaw alweey to slan edt Ro 
tk tue ,oneel a'taaliey 2 Yo savaloe AIR edt yd sofidy 
mh eouwlo yrotididory 9d? sorotire. .o? ytub a'esfleqqs oat 
vilalos ys 2 omtdem mot witt taevety of bas sens e* 
Saellogqe to. yheaet edt tad? atatunt oals off Jealae 7 
tive # Yd ensel off to emuslo Atal hive wat. — 
<idgti edt bed gasllequs tad? sud .govdeuloxe von sew aeyeush 26h ios 
tehnetius, of ,ofualo bee to donerd' es nog hetosle os Gaeth 
hveHoed gat*aad pioe at. ent (lane ou Ca 


ee 


— 

up posseesion of the premises within a reasonable time after 
discovery of the breach without any liability to appellee for 
rent. The court refused to held aa the law hie said proposi-e 
tions, and held for appelies as a mstter of law that the 12th 
Glause was an independent covenant for the violation of which 
arp@llant merely had hia right of astion for damaren, The 
court aleo held that all the cbhligations imposed upon appellee 
by that covenant were performed by it by incorporating in 
Sandberg's lease a provision that he should not make a arecial- 
ty of the aale of resris in hia premines. It is apparent 
from a reading of the twelfth clause of aprellant's lease 

that the covenant therein exrreased is not a derendent covee 
nant, that ia, a covenant the performance of which appeliee 
was required to prove before it could maintain its suit against 
appellee for rent. It is clearly an independent covenant 
which goes only to a part of the consideration, ani for a breach 
thereof apreliant in this suit only had a right to set-off or 
to recoup any damages the evidence might show he sustained 
thereby. The covenant was not expressly made a condition 
precedent to a right of recovery for rent. It did not go 

to the whole of the consideration. It is not even mentioned 
in the lease az a part of the expressed consideration to 
appellant for his covenante the firat of which is to pay the 
rent named, Tt simply appears an s mere atipuletion on tie 
part of arpellee, for the breach of which arrellant would have 
the uncoubted right of recouping hia damages, Such a covenant, 
however, cannot be made by appellant a weapon of defense to 

any extent without showing a breach thereof by appellee and 
consequent damages to himself, "In the cenatruction of 4 
particular provision the intention of the grantor governs, 

and where there is any doubt whether the intention of the 
grantor ie to create a covenant or a condition, the courts 


are inclined to construe it ae a covenant, and not 48 a 


oduct « 
| gette omit sldascese: 4° eerie cihupedie rr ues ss) 
102 eslloqqs of YsiLidell yas tuogtiw-dosesd od? too ysey 
~-teoqoxg bise sid wal oft sa biod of boewtes t1v09.edT. ) 
S264 edt tad? wel Yo. sattem # es eolteqqs 192 bhed, 
dotdw to soltsloty. sit sot scaneveo tasbreqebal: ne. 2 
eat . -e0gameb got. goltos Yo. a g etd bad yler0en 
eolieqqs noqe bescamt enottagildo ed? Lie tedt. 
ott galtesoqioonl yd Vvei beg10 tr07, o7eR, Pod 
— m eden: ton biuode ad tect notetvarn s osnol eee 
| taemaqqa ei tI +. seetaerq etd at .eftse to; eles 
ome attnet eggs 20 sewklo Aitiowt edt to gat 
-soveo ¢aehasceb 6 ton ef deeretaxe atored? ¢ 
seileqqs dotde Io eonamzotreq od? snsemevao se _at) ¢. 
tec liege tive ett aletniaw biueo ti s1r0%ed evo1q oF 
_ tapasvoo taebaeqebut an ylimeio ei th) :stnem 
dose1d e:- 107 bas ,aoltarobtenco edd. to tisq 8: oe yiao- 
“30 Meondee of tdgiz « bad ylao tive aint ah Iasil 
. bentateve of wode tdgia sonebive o:%, segennh: yas 
moktiibaen 8 shaw yleserqxs fon enw ¢nanevoo edt . « 
92 fom bid +1... ,tunext 10d Yxoveves to ¢daia w of “Fake 
baaoltnsa. neve tom eh tl ,nostarehienoo edt te) efodws 10 = nt 


oe 


08 Moltexobianoe besnerqxe edt Yo sreq:e of Senet meme 
ont yoy Of et dolce 20 Sextt edt etannevoo. eid. 10% — 
oid Mm motteluqits erem # 6a exaeqqe Ylamte 1.» of 

ever bivor tac{ieo ws noise to domend off 10% sel leqas 2or 
?asmeveo # dowB .eegameb eid gaiquooce: to #dpit perdvohn eet 
os Sane tot: 281 Rom ti —— 

bne eeileqae yo tooned? dose:d « satwode suesdtiw snot 

 @ 20 mobs owrterco ert al" “sNanuid oF sonsanb tmoapeenee ft 

g@N1eVOR WO¢aMe1R Ode to aolsnetat ——— m 

edt to aoitnetal eit teitedn tdveb. you af ered? esodw éep 
 atts0D am .moitibnoo * x) faanev0o @ efseto of of sotcang 
6 e8 fon bas ,tasnevoo 6 as 2: ewiateanoo of bentlont eze 


























5 
5 


. We 
ee 4 
* 
J 





condition." bens v » O13 Tll., 5233; Davis v. Wiley, 
& Tile, 233; » 303 Tii., 
317. 


Brown 





herve vag no eviction of appellant, ectual or con- 
atructive, 'The rule ie well settled that the srongful act 
of the landlord dces not debar him from a recovery of rent, 
unlees the tenant by euch aot hae been derrived in whole or 
in part of the possession, aither actually or conatructively, 
or the premieca rendered useieas,* Rubens ve, Nill, gurra, 
Op. 543; Barrett v. Boddie, 153 Till.» #79. A lesaee'ts 
obligation to vay rent does not decend wren his having actual 
possae2gion. Rau_v. Baker, 118 Tli. Appes 150; Seanlan v. 

ert 1$1 Ill. App., 533. 


* 


The covenant in gueation in the lease te sppeliant 
was not broken by appellee. By that covenant it simply 
agreed that during the term of appellant's iease it wouid not 
rent any store in appellee's building to any tenant making a 
apecialty of the sole of Japanese and Chinese zooda or pearls, 
and the worde, “making a specialty", were underacored in the 
lease, The only violation claimed by appellant ta the fact 
that Sandberg's firm sold pearls sfter moving {nto the atore 
at 128 Michigan avenus. There ig no evidence in the record 
that Sandrerg or his firm ever nade a specialty of the aule 
of pearls, before he leased the atore of appellee, or that 
apreliee knew that he or hia firm intended doing se, or that 
aprellee gonsented to hia doing ae, *hile cecupying his store 
as a tenant of appellee. Appellee in fact had him to cove 
nant specially thet he would net at any time during the term 
of hia lease make e srecialty of the sale of peerim, anc the 
lease further specified that it was leased for a Sewatoh maker 
and jewelry eatablishment and for no other purpose®, Appellee 


did not covenant that it would not permit any tenant to wake 


ro 
— —— ———————— 
—D BOL. — et Lek osantad a * 
opm itehee gba wil veato day. b hot endeaero e “a ce 
ee 20 Lustos ,tnelleqqs to aoitotve on sar . 
_ #ee fytgaonw ait tact belttee fier wt wii edt 
trex XO wrevecet s mor? attd theded fon Boob. 
Vievisoum'enos so yilestos Tedtte .nolarseroy 
gorge LLL av eonduh  "Venelene Sexnbasy 
-@tepenel A .OSh 4 LIT B8L elope py torres © 
ith aon tela To vocerso hen 56 SRB qua aI Lae 
 taclloume of .eanel odd at nolteorp Wh sonnevoo 
— Vaqme th tanasvoo tect yi. . .selleqqn yo 
on bigor th peel ef tosliogis to aret edt ghtwwb 
& Bhidnes Ioenedt yao oF gribliud ateelleqqe ml 
«8itseq to sboog eeentid base seeneqal to eee ont to 
edt at besocershay erew y"ytiniooge # gnideu" .ebiow. 
fost ag@ of tmelloqqs yd bemtelo sotteloty ylao eat § 
erste sdtvotal gatvem tette eltaeq bhloe mrt? ats 
biooe: ef. at eonebiveon si axedT > eumeve mephanne 
oles e493 to ytistoege a shaw 18ve artt ati so gt 
dant 20 ,oelloqqs to -e10te edt bSeesel sd exotad: § 
tad 10 .0@ gaiob bebastat axit eid 10 of tent wand est legge 
etots- eid gatyquooo elidw ,oa gato sid of betacenso — 
-evoo of ald bad tost at selleqqd, © ebtteqqa'tocenemserarele 
aret edt galash omédoyne taoton bigow ed. tad: —— 
odd dos. gelrosq t0 else ad? Yo. ¥thatosys fonedam-boseeregara Ae 
19%em doter".@ rot Seaeel aaw th ted? betdtioeqe sented eenege 
eelloqqA ."secqaug t9d%o an tO? baa tasadaiidstes yxlowst ener 
stem of tacnet yas tharsq tos bivoy th oted? tasneves: s60°RS 


OTA 






















~~ €« 
a specialty of the sale of pearle after the tenant entered 
under any lease covering appellant's term, or that it would 
eject any tenant so offending or cancel his lease, and, 
therefore, it ia of no consequence, as we view the matter, 
that Sandberg & Co. did sell vesrle or make 4 specialty thereof 
at 138 Michigan svenue during srrellant'sa term «t 140 Michigan 
avenue, Covenants reatraining the power of alienation, or 
in restraint of trade, will be construed strictly, and to 
the end that the restraint ehell not be extended bevond the 
expresa stipulation; and 111 doubte must, as a general rule, 
be resolved agsinet the restriction. The decided tendency 
of modern decisions by both chancery and law courta is not 
to imply covenants which might and ought to heve heen expreseed, 
if intended. Postal T. C. Co, v. The Yestern U. T. Co., 
155 112., 335; Lucente v. Pavis, 101 Md., 556; Kemp v. Bird, 
5 Chan, Div., (1877) 976 (Fng.); Sheete v. Sklden, 7 Wall., 
416; Livingston v. Stickles, 7 Hiil, #53; Apedin v. Austin, 
52 B., 671; Ficslid v. Mills, 33 M. Jd. Ley 854. 


Edgar Leon, general manager of W. K. Sandberg, doing 
business ae % K. Sandberg & Co., testified that before Kr, 
Sandberg moved into the premises at 138 Michigan avenue he 
had a watch maker's atand repairing watches and such in tne 
Columbus Memorial Building on the fourteenth floor, and that 
up to that time Mr. Sandberg had no experience as a general 
jeweler to his knowledge; that witness was with Sandberg 
frow May, 1909, until May, 1910, and that his stock consisted 
of jewelry of all kinds, and also gema, different sorts of 
stones, such as sapphires, emeralde, pearle and rubies, anc 
auch like; that most of the pearls and some of the jeweiry 
was on consignment, and that the rearls were oriental, fresh 
water and eced pesrls, and that at the etart they had about 


$10,000 worth of pearls, consisting of a few pearl neckisces 




















a : 
_chetetas tasa0t od? 208% sitneg 2 skaw-adt Yo YsLerosaeis 
_— « Sivow tt tadt 20 .aaet of toeliayps gatasvoo veash yas msbae 
eas y9nsof td Leoneo to garthne?to ov tnnnet yse Some 
Oy tet tem bat ety ow en wonoupoRnOD on to mt th ‘od 
Losteis Yiintoege » oden 10 alone, Lee bth .ad ew 
GOglHolM Obl to mess e*tnal logue gatwh euneve 
90 4aoltanetin to tevog odt gntatartest etnsasved © & set 
od ‘bite (yltotute Derttanoo ed [ite yebert Yo tutetealls 
.SLirt toronen ⸗ — siden Lie tes ino iaaluai t0, mt 
Yorebret bebtosh si? .nottotrtest edt tantnge beviow 
tom at Bo1NS0 WAL bis yxeoAndo dtod ‘yd snotetoed 
beessrxe a900 oved ot tigvo ‘ban Pasta dati etaanevos 
RD AD nrc eo eg iv 499 124 T feteot » bebaetin 
DIE sv god {B88 40M LOL etved sw etmeous 72884 — — 
‘Ge Set T —egebhae sy eteed® 4 (sank) OTe (T9BL) outa 
aise sv mibegaA {88 LLIN TS dottors : 
POET SE PES eb sess — obtay >t 
gaiob {yredbas® .4..W Yo zeysdem Letoaeg ~noed tagba 
@tM @toted tad? bettites? 4.69 A greddas® 40.8 ea 
“ed sunove aagtaotu BEL ta eseimerq ef otal bevon 
“pd? at dove bas eedoten gairteqe: basta e'1eden dots 
ted? dns ,tOeLT dtasstiuot sdt mo gathitu {stromet» 
Latonog a es Sonelteqxe On bad gredbas® .2H ome? | 
Rredbaskh Atiw eew eeentiw tai? joeybaliwoad eld of ⁊ 
betelianoo Aoote atd sed? baw yOLeL ye Lheaw g@OR@L 4 
10 etioe tnotetteb 1emey Offs bas yebart ifs to é 
bar ~@sider bra: eixoeoq .ebhleteas ,eetidgqqee es dove eonott BY 
Yrlere, edt to emoe tne altecq! 64? Yo taom terit> ons Ade | 
deort atas tao orew afiseq edt tant bea! »taoangtenoo no ott 
tyods baad yout srede oft ta tad? bas ,elteeq bee bes) tetew 
econisden I1a0q wots to gattatemoo ,alreeq to dtsow 000,058 


a4 


+ 
—~. 
yy 

* — 





~ Fw 
and some loose pearls, and that they sold about #1,500 worth 
of pearls during the time he was there, including a pearl 
necklaoe at $1,000. Mr. Sandberg testified that he began 
eceupying that store leased to him by appellee between Kay let 
and May 22, 1909, and that in the year and a half he had been 
there since that time he had sold $9,000 in pearle slone, 
that ie, pearl necklacea and loose pearls, and that his total 
sales for the year was about $18,000; that he had in his stock 
about $8,000 worth of pesrle at wholesale price, and from 
$12,000 to $14,000 of other jewelry, ten per gent of which 
had pearl sete in it. The testimony thst Mr. Sandberg had 
never engaged in tha sale of pearia prior to May 1, 1909, is 
uncontradicted. There is n¢ evidence in the record as to 
Ur, Sandberg's profite on the pearls he sold, or aa to what 
appellant's provite would have been on the game sales, or as 
to how much, if any, he was damaged by the sale of rearle by 
Sandberg. There is, therefore, no evidence whatever upon 
which to base any recovery by appellant woon his counter claim 
for damages, even supposing thet arpellee had breken ita said 
eovenant. 

We do not deem it important to discuss the other errors 
assigned by appellant, ae a considerstion thereof i¢ not material 
to the decision of the cage, Avrpeliant is bound by the terms 
of the lease, and parol testimony could not be received to 
modify or change the plain, unambiguous meaning thereof. While 
the holdings of the ecurt on propositions of law may be aaid 
to be not atrictly aceurats im every inatance, they sre sube 
stantially correct F ao far a8 they pertain to the merits 
of this oase. The court did not err in entering the judge 


ment in favor of appellee, and it is affirmed. 


AFWIRMED. 


} — — a. 2 Mag eee A ee 























=e 
Atzow 006.1% tuode blos yodt tah bon abana evook. mn bag 
 fxeeq © gatbulont ,or9ds sawed emit od? gatrubh elzes 
ass od od tedt HoLtienet yrochase..ah. ,0O—LE. on, ° 
tal Yok soowted. eolieqqe yd aid of beesel erote, tadt 
M00, bad, 06 3Lad & daw asan od? at Sed? baw, qCOCL. .GH. ve 
aoanota Bir09q at OOO.RE blow dad ed gmt? tudt, ↄ⸗ 
fatot efi todd bas ,elioeg ercol bas pepalioen Lxseq 4! 
foots a at bed. ed t868., 40004948. :uoca sm, sn0y, 942, 203 
_ MOR}, ne ghEbsa, aLenofod. 20, 9L8u09, 10. 4430% 000 te 
_ dotde 20 Jno, 19q.ant ,xALeWet Tete 10,000. AE of OOO, 
bad. axodbash, 2M tad? ymoatter? ouT opt at eton, fa 
si, ,80el qf yok of rolirq sfiseq to, elem ene at & 
pono @4, 08, bx9 097 942.02 egnebive,o, gL .e7067,. -hetDs 
fam. 0 24, Ms hloe: OG: elspa. At Mpegs tage e 
_ 88.29 A0Le6 vapy 95? ae Bond ved, blaon at tong: A" 9Be 
Wishes, ꝛ eſa ott, MA ROBPRED. OFM OL Gene T? 54 
202, FeNPHAdY opobiye oa yOTO ROTO, 90h 9806T 10 
mialo rstauoo aid soqu taafloqqe, VE, xx⸗ovopoa yas, 

bias stl nedtosd bed sellegia tadt gatsoqqua asvo. 
M os * bohtictedha el &predban® 2s 
e10xx9 xsd to edt saci ——— tt ao9b ton,ob.%. .. 
{stretsa.toa ef loareds notterebleaoo # a6 ytasiloqas Deny 
earot edt yd baved at Jasliowys osso edt. to molatoed od 
09 ,Dbeviooss ed. fom. bluoo Naomi teas, foxag bag ,9evel. 
oLlaw ,tovied? gatnseu evougidueny .niglg edt ssqado,10. 
bies.od yau wel to enoltttaogesg so fiyoo edt Yonapathse 
~dus 938 you! ,eouetent yrove ol etszgons. plese 2068 
_ Stitom ed? of alstieq yodt.ea 15t 98 ai toexz090 lotta 

“Bou, edt galzetae at ate tog bio tayoo ofT, ,esep edt 39° 
ebouzitte eft! bas, (eollogzs te everch tase ia 


Otay 


. er tree, booe hen teem 
CUVALTIA \ ah 


estis te gotsats ,sfusey Jo ator 000gORs 
ot 


(a 
—* 


Ny 


see 


8 
A 


yer fa F 


ae ah 

* mil 
oe J 
39 

— 32 

ee *. 

a) — 

at 

; 

—* 






MARY ROYLS, administratr£x of the 

estate of James J. Royld, cecesesd, 

prellee, APPEAL FROM 

va. SUPERIOR COURT, 


CCOK COUNTY. 
182I1.A.486 


BR. JUSTICE DUNCAN DELIVERED THE OPINION CF THE COURT. 


CHICAGO CITY F OMPANY, 
Appellant. 


Chicago City Railway Company appeals from a judg=- 
ment in favor of Kary Royls, administratrix, for #5,000, as 
damages to the widow and nex? of kin fer the death of James 
J. Royla. 

The single count declaration charges thet appeliant 
is the owner of a street railway in Chicago, known ae tue 
Cottage Grove Avenue line, and that on June 14, 1909, arpelle 
ant brought one of ite cars to 2 stop at the intersection of 
Cottage Grove avenue and 63rd street in order thet appellee's 
intestate might board it; that while the euic James Roylis 
sus @ pactenger upon the steps of said car in the act of 
mounting the seme, and in the exercise ef due care for nis 
own safety, appellant negligentiy, carelessly, wontonly and 
willfully started the said car with a violent jerk, and in 
a audden and rapid manner propelled the car forward and aft a 
high and dangerous rate of speed and negligently ana care- 
lesaly failed to give the said Janes Royls a aufficient time 
in which to aafely board said ear; and that in consequence 
of aaid misconduct, the aaid James Royls was then ana there 
thrown with great foree and violence off said car ani upon 
the ground end #0 severely injured that he thereafter, June 
18, 1909, died, leaving surviving him hie sicor, Mary Royle, 
and eight children. 





~~ eee a ee 
*~' — — * 







A 2—22——7— ——— 


oh * yal iol .~orat? scam) male. agit , RL ei 
a Mt i sans. Ss het, pyecigaA.. xh... ec — 


[ha AHOv sen oils “a sade > Dobsel. one te. dads ¥ 


gav. bast <@ hed 2 \e * og Bla : +! 
— =. : 8 


















F ao { — wost gage. . apett t gaiis Sd» tied 
fi ots “<tau00, POXRAIUE ¥ tat at hows. xood aney aS 
--YTHUG. N09. coe NNN. rT 


08 p: JA. ly Le 9 pus $e afxpey, hl I «SH * : 
So ite i tt le : 


aa, 398 baek nosheeer? oi'7 .f4 a2, ehom, 8 s 


— — ————— * yar liafl xaud ** 
as .000,8% xo axtutaxietatabs atyoR yxeM tc 
eoast, 30 dtash aul 70 sh, 20 fa ban, wo 
qi Sete nt F 

twats tsi) apaxeio apttgaaoeb soup algae of 
od? pe soa oanoꝛad at xentacꝛ torre — 
alleys: <208L «bl cay a0 ted? bas one: — 7 
to apisosersiai adt ts qgote 2 o? ax69 8 th — 
e*eetiequs tact 1r9bi0 at feeuta bees bas suaoves 
_ pion sean bisa af? af isin fast . eh banod tata 0 
to tos od? At 99 bias Yo agora pdt , 
eit 70% e1a9 ouh to asaiotexe sit at oom 
bas yinosnas exianolarso etitnegifzan | —— 
at bas tx0h mato ty 8 dii« sao phase ⸗a⸗ ——— — 
s ts bne brew10% aso od? bol leqord ronan Biqat . ee 
“8189 bas tines tigon bas beaqe a ahi auoxeans — a 
omit tastotYiue a alyol asa⸗at. bise ed? via ot betta 3 a 
gorespensoo af tadt das yise Agent da⸗ oo ————— — 

e19at dae aod? sew avon aoaot bisa. odt oudao ve ta 
noqys bus too btan Yto eonslotv bas sor0t teerg aahe 1 # Pe "i 


— 


A 


4 


‘enut eToP Yoox? od. tad? botwtat Yiereves o8 bas haves a 
eslyoH yis¥ wwoblew eld atd antvivswe gatveol ~betb e0et “St 
mexilido ‘tagte Baa 


=-=Be« 

Appellant first attacks the judgment upon the ground 
that it is not eaupported by the evidence. It is conceded 
by both parties to the judgment that appellant has two tracks 
in Cottage Grove avenue lying north and south; that ite cars 
going north run over the easterly track and those going south 
over the westeriy one, and that it also has a double track 
line crossing Cottage Grove svenne at A3rd atreet, and that 
there is in 68rd street at that crossing the elevated struce 
ture of the South Side Flevated Railway Company and one of 
ita stations; that at the time in question there was on 
the north east corner of ssid crossing « Greek fruit store, 
on the south cast corner, @ drug etore, on the north weet 
corner, Sneil's saloon, and on the south west corner, Kavae 
naugh's saicon. There vers only three witnesses that saw 
the accident, anc they a1] testified for appellee. Kayy 
Christian testified that she wae a trained nurse, and thet 
on June 14, 1969, at 11:40 or 11:45 P. K., she stopped on 
the north east corner of said crossing to wait for 6 west bound 
car to take her home, and saw a north bownd car stogred on 
the south eide cf G3rd etreet; that it crossed and stopped 
with its rear end ten or fifteen feet north of the north line 
of 63rd street and about three women got on the car; that 
then another soman came haatily from behind the car and the 
conductor held it, and Vr. Royle atepped back sand stood there 
with one foot on the step with his right hand on the perrpene 
dicular rod that separates the back of the car from the 
conducter's place; that the soman stepped on the car before 
Mr. Royle had a chance to get a second footing, and that the 
ecenductor then gave the signal to atart and the car lurched 
end threw Wr. Royle back and he fell striking his hesd on 
the rail back of the car, and that that sickened her and she 
ran over to the drug store; that nobody was on the platform 


excert the woman, the conductor and Nr. Royls when he wae 




























=< 
bavorg ed? noqu taoasbut odd eddstts text? aet toaaa 

bebesonco at #1 .eonebive ‘edd vd betioqwe tn 
eiostd ow? ead taslloqyun tedt sake odd of —— 
—XR ost sodt idtuoe bas dtz0n gat —— —* F 


duos aniog, eeods bus toast ¥ etas·⸗⸗ ovo “nit a: 
* otao⸗ — sets * — nade * — ⁊ 


bas ‘stoorts bata b hen 
-crrd8 Betevote odd gat sane 


to $00 bas ganged: veut tat betavelt 
as enw s104? molteoup at Gate! Sie te! Fads” 


«27040 $hort igen) s aateeoro bias bc ⸗ * 
9 yo oe) 


© Yoon dso 98? oo, .or0te gum » owe, tans, 
novo —— teow dtuoe od? 10 _bas FE gt atten i 
“wae tad? — ‘eoudd ino e1ee s1edT 199 .3 
veo” -sefleqas rot berti¢ess fis ved? bas " ion 
— ‘bas <oetae beataxt ⸗ sew ods tadt —— 
J ‘beagots ode ,.M 24 ae:ts x0 Ob:it #2 * * 
bawod teow x08 thew ot satscoto bias to zean00 3 ese di - 
__ 29 beqzote 260 bayod atx05 B wee, ‘bas nod ‘ad iat, o 
beq joe bas bosao ao ot todd jtoorts bxtd to. obfe : tus > * 
enti dtson add to d9 108 foot noettit 10 ast bao 2 180% an “4 
‘tedt i780 odd ‘0 * 18008 oona⸗ tude bon teoute | 
“edd bas 120 ods ‘batded mort Viktesd 9a89 ascor ted¢e re seg 
exedt boots bas dosd bequete afyoR . 2 tae tt ‘bred 3 Lot cuba a 
—— od? mo baad — etd atte qote oa? 80. too? — — 
ed — 180 od? 10 dosd edd —“ bot — 
— zs0 ent ao boqaets fom = ont teat jeoats etxor 1 
ods tant bas sgaktoo? baoose B 03, of ovneao — bed yor 
bedows ‘tso odt bas tiste ‘of fougie od? oves | nods 10 ; 
ao beed eld gatitate {fet od bas toed afyon ti wouts B 
ade bas sed bene doze tadt todt bas 9180 ed? to dosd th 
arottelq od? no aew vhoden ted? jerote yer oat ad —— 
ean sd code eiyon mt bas sotoubaon. edt cmon ad r 


J rf 4 
A 4A he 
2 4 . a 
4 * re 





= 3 
injured; that they brought him to the drug store and he 
locked to be knocked unconscious, and there was a large gash 
on the top of his head; that she did not detect the cdor 
of liquor, but she endeavored to give him some whiskey as a 
stimulant end spilled some of it there, and was endeavoring 
to stanch the flow of blood with antiseptic cotton and to 
bendage his head when Dr. Riliott came and took the case off 
her hands; that the very inetant the car started Royle fell 
to the ground and lay where he fell and that she thought he 
fell a little north of the elevated esters there, 

Mr. Chester, a traveling salesman and a Civil Yar 
veteran, testified that he had been visiting his sick comrade, 
Mr. Kimler, and that about 11:45 P. NM. he, with Kimler, was 
at that drug store to take the north bound car on 63rd street; 
that he saw Kr. Royle, whom he did not then know, coming 
across the street to take the car, and that he eatepred up 
on the atep and the car started and he fell and struck on 
his bead some way; that he did not notice particularly whether 
or not he wae intoxicated, but thought he was all right, and 
that he did not stagger any; that the accident harpened right 
in front of the drug satore on Cottage Grove avenue as it comes 
north and that he did not remember exactly, but it aarpened 
practically in front of the drug store, between it and Kava- 
nagh's saloon on the south west corner there. 

Mr. Kimler was too aick to zo to court and teatified 
by deposition that he and Mr. Chester were standing on the 
north east corner there and the car coming from the south 
stopped about - "they generally aim to stop about 50 feet 
nerth of S3rd street"; that Royle was trying to get on the 
car like a good many others, and when the car started up Royls* 
feet were on the foot~-board and his hands holding tne center 
guard, ami he was thrown backwards on the ravement and his 


head "bursated open"; thst he, after Royla had falien, saw 































Boer 2 se. ae Ee — Fete ret 5 *4 * 
fnsg opted» voy oxeas Sen anion tet cise at." ia 
| _ obo odd “tooten toa bbb ede 2 eT? Saget etd We pt 8 er +f 


> — se —— e108 ats asad ce satel go 3 —J 


aetravsebue oor bas yered? #1 20 ome bot itae tne tung 


* bas nottoo ettqeatiag at iw Seok re oft gets 


tte 9880 edt foot bas ease ua * 2 * ies: 
? — 
{Ler eyo ee⸗rere reo oat tne seat qxer ag? Sait ** 


omyi 7s df: gx ieeors” 

ad #a3u0d? 90 ode tad? * ao ed — yak Sas. W* 
srt ti AP AEs 

20 Livid 9 a 5 bas aaassine ‘qudLovext a? 8 cated oa 
shane e. ioke ‘etd gatttery need bad on — ——— 
elan a a⸗ tw sea — * — sans s Sade h aw 
itoezts pte no i189 ‘bastod 3x00 oat est — — 
_3aimoo rom aod? ton bb oa * yor ·au 

aw soriere od deat bas ¢t8o ods, edad of t Seezte ese 

"ao dousre bas ‘tit od bas botiste 40 od? baa ete 
tedtone ‘xsivottreq setton tou btb ond todd ko" ,omee seas 
bas asta [fs ssw od tdyuodt tud ehoteoixotal saw ed 4 i. 
ragke — taebtoos sit tedd eae, ‘raggese | tou bib dt 
seaoo at 6 comers evox® agettod * g20te auxh oat te 
peasy 106 st sud qtftoaxe redaenox ton bth 


“evan bas + as ov tad eo70ds aua h ont to at yet 
ch eS sees + 


4 4 


re * 


~ Pie 
As | 
¢ & 7 


ond ‘saa i 
Base —2* 


a | ores t98217100 teen dives oa? ao : —— 3! 
a? 4 
—— ‘bas too ot op of tole oot cow , ———— — 


ed? no galbnate orow xofeadd . i bas od fad? mottteoqal : wt * 

a⸗vos ext aor? grime Tso ods bas seas? ee teso atm 

Feet 08 tuods ere 8* ate yilewenes ode suods | mers of 

odd ao toy of gate fon eiyor todd iMtoorte bxee 0 it =. 
‘elyoR qu hetists 120 edt sede bee eez0dto xasa booy p oAtT La 

tesmeo ert gathiod ebasd ate beg brsod-200% edt ao —— 

oid bas tagusveq odt mo _abrwedoed mos? eae SS ee 

wee olin? bea e lyon 1972s won tedt Pea be beserud™ foe 1 








om * 
blood and Royle wae unconscious and went away in en ambulance; 
that he and Chester were in and out of the drug store tro or 
three times and were on the south east corner when the acci- 
dent happened and that that was where the accident happened; 
that there was great excitement there after the accident, and 
s@veral policemen were there and that one of them tcok his 
name as a witness, 

Mary Royle teatified that she wae the widow of the 
@eceased and thet she last saw her husband that night at 10 
o'clock, and that he had supper with his family at 6 o'clock; 
that he went out that night to get ten centa vorth of whiskey, 
and she next aaw him at the hospital, that he was a healthy, 
able-bodied man forty-eight years of age, rarely ever sick, 

a painter by trade, was generally employed at hia trade, and 
earned from fifty to fifty-seven dollara per week, and gave 
hia money te her for the surrort of sis family and education 
of hia eight children; that he had periodical sprees and 
would then be under the influence of liquor several deys or 
weeks, ami would then remain sober for a long time, sometimes 
for one, two cr three years. 

For appellant, the conductor, Otto Haes, testified 
that the car waa & pay-as-you-enter car and that it stopped 
on the south side of G3rd street and two passenrera got on 
there; that no pasreenger got on the car north of the street 
croseing, and nobody was standing there at the usnal place 
to get on the car, and that he sew no one there waating to 
get on the car and nobody wee on the back platform at any 
time after he crossed G3rd street; that he first saw Royle 
lying straight across the track, hia head east about fifty 
feet behind his car after it was about one hundred and twenty- 
five feet north of the north east corner. He admitted that 


he might have testified to the coroner that when he #ae about 
























PE on 


jeonsivdus ao at voms toes bs one i i 
10 o*d s104e eth od? to tad bos mi orev sedeod® han 6: 
ices eid made. senteo $ase:diuoe bat ho exes bab abet 
jbensqyed Snetloos ed? sidaw * ‘fed? Sead ‘tos ‘bs 

bds ,dnobioos od? 103%e exedd tasnedioxe Ysexs sew 071 
eta toot ‘neds Yo sho tad? ‘bee ered? srw nemeol tog. 

19 pias 6dF dood bre omps MOLLE .20. m8 —— 
edt te he ‘od? wow ‘oda ted? ae ‘etyor yxat 
Oi s6 Sayin Isd¢ basdewd | te see at ‘ode dead hme hb 
jtvelo'o 8 ts ‘Ulast ud Atte x09 — eh WES, 

,vodeide ‘Se. dtrow staso a9: —— Ydste Fads bs tuo tnow ef 

* euitlieed s enw Od ted tas ie: ——— odt “Se mtd wae : 
Aot⸗ revo qiess? 1958 Yo eisex sdgiowys4o% ‘nam re 
bas — ‘eid fs bovolqae ylisreneg sew (ober! Y 
bas «teow 394 exsftod mevee-ei31% oF — 
willie" bos YLtast etd Yo #soqise odd sot ‘Salt 
‘bas soorgs {sotbokres bed od dad? gueabside tiste"s 

10 eysh fstovee rouptt to soneuttal ‘edt debaw sd ae 
seatfoude coats — s x0% redow ‘sfanet aedé bisew ry 


7H 5 ide 





a 
" — 


| .e1B8y oeadt x0 
——— ro ott — E odd — ye 10% * 


J 
St. * 


boqqote ti ted ‘bas 4280 dei ne-woy-es~eeq 6 8a 160° 
mo t03 Sie3ne808q one base’ teorte bite ‘to * oa 
teerte on? to d#ion ts0 odd ao $03 toaneeesg om dads 3 
“soalq faveu edt $s @xads gatbante ew — —E 
ot gatthew ored+ ono on wes $c ted? bre — 
xa⸗s te wiottalq dosd edt m0 cow vhodon bas xs0 od? 
eiyof wee sextt ed tad? isdeake’ hake — — 
WIT twods deas bedd oid .dons) edt —E —E 
— bee horbatd emo suods eaw Ft xedte 180 efd baide | Be 
tad? petits of *,xeax09 tec5 ddaon Od} —— 
— ean of sie: jane zeno199 edt of “bertisees vad agta au 
("ato bate zoet sherds 


rie 





~ § = 
60 feet north of that north saat corner he locked back through 
the rear window and saw a ian lying direetiy across the track 
and that he did not remember «hether or not the car stopped 
on that corner that night. 

The motorman, James A. Parker, corroborates thse 
conductor by testifying thet he could see from one building 
line to the other when he crossed thet crossing, snd he sav 
no man or woman on the north side of 63rd atreet at the usual 
stopping place, and that he did not stop on the north side, 
and that when about 105 feet north of Sird street, he atopred 
his Gar on a @ignal from the conductor enki saw s man across 
the tracks 75 feet north of Gard street, lying head east; 
that the north side of the street was the regular atopring 
place for his car, and that he orobably did testify to the 
coroner that he did not remember whether or aot he starred 
that night on the north side of 63rd atrect, and that he did 
net then know whether or not he did 20. 

Harry Devinney: I was @ rassenger on the front end 
of the car when it waa crosaing that crossing, and had a zood 
view of the street; The car did not stop on the sorth side, 
and achody waa on the north side there when it crossed, and 
the emergency bell rang when the car was about 150 feet north 
of the atreet, 

Charles Carlson: I #aa on the enast side of Cottage 
Grove avenue seventy-five feet north of S3rd street and saw 
‘Royle lying on the track just scross the north cross walk with 
hie head east and about opposite me and about ten fect north 
of the slevated eteire. I testified before the coroner that 
Rovis iay about fifty feet north of S3rd street. 

John Voight, #ho knew Royle well, testified that he 
sav him about ten minutes before the accident north of 63rd 
street on the north weet corner leaning againet a post of the 


Slevated road, 




















—X 
Agua? Load betook st temo teem AtSng 3 At, AO TOD 3 
Aostt od? eadotos yiteorth aatxt ma a uas hae wobale 2667' J— 


_begioate «so 9dt, toa 16 teddedn — — 
= Bit — sep, — Anat attain te 
gatbGtud eno wort ose bluoo ot tad? gatytitast wd vote 
was of bar .yateeoto tnd? beeroto ef cote code od? Gey 
fauou edt, 36 teeztn bia Yo sbte, étson. edd: ap mamow “x0! 
seble dtxon 9d? ao gots ton bib od, todd bam ooata ꝑ 
hequote od ,teette LAkD Yo ae aoa test GOL suoda node tag 
eryoxos Ham p wae kre apoRpege edt poek, Lingle 4.9 Fy 
_ Giese bead agtel qtenxty bat To dfzog, #ioh ON ie 
“Baiquoga teLuzes ed? sex teexte, adt to ebie Atz00 ‘ 
edt of xtlteot Ath yidedere af tad? ten gas abd x6 
ferret ed ten 10 sedtede rodmones, Jon bib od t39, ii 
—— u baeo Yo obte A⸗roa edt no. i 
bas Bastge [ool — ——— — 
bas taoat aft no isgneeese 2 esr ⸗xdoc lyoc yrzeh,. 9 
boon 3 bed bas. .patevors tea? aateroxo som #h nedw ako ® 
eobie dtzor ed? ao qote tom bib ano. edT  gtecave pa? 
bane ,bersoro #1 aedw eared? sbie_dtzoR. ont 20, sew: ¢be 
dt1on feet. 08L tuods eam 189, edt sede asa Iipd ae 
* —— — 
agsttod to. sbte thee off a0 vow IT :ooalseD oo c a 
wce bos teette biéd to Atiom feo} svil-ytaeves auueve 
dtinw diew aeote dation Oct seozoe seul doett edt mo galyl R 
fitzog toot net tyods fee se stteoqqo. tyoda bas jase Saad . 
tad⸗ zea9100 ed? ezoted bettivest 1. suiste, peravess: ote 
»teemte bate to dizog toot yttit sJuods yal. 
D—— 
bilS to a⸗e ꝛon taebtooe edt s1oted eetuatin cot. tuods ai a voe 
edt to teoq « tetticge jatneel tento ——— —— 


*4 


om fw 

F. GC. Landon, who had a pop corn cart at the north 
weet corner, 2130 teatified for arpellant that Royle passed 
on the north aide of his cart and crossed over to the north 
eaeat corner of that croasing about five minutes before the 
accident. 

Police officers, O'Sullivan and Buttermer, who 
asziated in removing Royle te the drug store, testified that 
his body was “ound across the track with hia head on the 
east rail about 60 to 75 feet north ef Gard street on Cottage 
Grove avenue. About four officers, including O'Sullivan and 
Buttermer, testified that Royls was intoxicated at the time 
of his injury, and that a half pint bottle #as found in his 
goat pocket «ith about two inches of «hiskey in it, and that 
Kiss Christian stated to them after the accident that she did 
not sce it, or that she failed to anewer that she did see it 
when the officers were inquiring for persons who saw the 
accident. A number of other persons tastify that Reyle was 
intoxicated that afternoon and night, and that he waa in the 
habit cf becoming intoxicated. Other witnesses testified 
that Hoyle was usually sober and worked zt his trade and 
earned good wages, 

The evidence of Kias Chriatian and of Mra. Royls, 
if true, is ample proof to aurport the judgment under the 
charse of negligence, and Miss Christian's evidence is, as 
above shown, abundantiy corroborated in its main ¢essenticis. 
The precise spet upon which Royls was injured, or #here 6 
jay after he was injured, ia not of vital importance in this 
case, and the fact that Nise Christian waa contradicted by 
several of the witnesses as to just where the accident occurred 
does not afford much reason for discrediting her. It is 
morally certain from the evidence that Royle was injured not 
far from that north east corner, and the jury in cur judgment 


were warranted in ths belief from the evidence that she was 




















i= 

Atron eit 4 200 2709 Gog Os Oe othe tint | 
besssg alyoH sedt tasiLegyse 10% beltiseos cele 

Ati sat ot reve beseoto dae tise aid to ble a⸗ 

edit ssoted estunia ovtt twoda gatesoio tadt 5 


Bas 


Youses A nel, ., cero tom AT 
ali —* bas wav ilige'® — 
tad? beititeet ,axots gus ott of elyoh galvomes sats 
2d⸗ a0, baed ald ptin Aos72 ods apo7ps -hauo> sem, 
⸗ ao ooa⸗a⸗ bado to A⸗ aos test ax o⸗ 8 twos, £8 
oan aavilluerd gatoulani ,etepitio awvol sued .oune 
omit eat t8 betsoixotat sew alyoh tedt beititeo? 9x6 
eld ab haved gon ftt0d talg Yod # tad? bao o4 
tad} boa .tt ab yedaide to aadoal ont tuode 
ti 998. bib .ode tad? sowens of betta? ode Sadt 10. oft Om 
- oft mae ody enoszeq 10% yatatupat.szow a ag 
. paw-eLgoR sad? Ylitest snoeteq tadso, to, sedmsm A.» of 
P82. Gh nan pd tet bas .ꝰds da bas aoocraoc aa tude, 
_ beblisset esagontin ted?0 ,betaolxotal. gaimosed, 
_ baa bart. aid te, bedzon bas s9doe Yi Leuew eon, af 
ativofi ett to ban agitetzad eaik Io sonebiy® OT.» «« 
edt zebew Jnomphst oft ?z0quie a+ tooxrq ofqms, at, 
_0& _@t, soaebive e'nelielxdd eal. bas ,sonegilgzen Yo | 
-Bisttavsaze alen ati ai beterodos100 Yitaabauda aswods 9 
a6 e194» 10 ,beuu{at sew elyoh doldm soqu soge ¢ 
elit ai conatsoqul Letiv to ton ai ,bem tal ssw, * 
ye betolbarsaog een astas tand eelk tad? tost.ed?. bas 0mm 
betiwove tashioos, odd exedy tev, of as seapontiv, 92. to Leseyeg 
ei tl ,20d gattibezoeltb 10}, acsset, dowm brotts eae 
tom bewtal eew elyoh fed? sonehiye. odi.aox12 sistzeo ysieseg 
tnempou, auo at xaut od? bas «tenzee tego a⸗aoa ésdt.soskeeee 
een ode Jadt eomebive eft mort tetied ed? ai betasszs9-e5pn 


-~Te 
more nearly acgurate as to the precies apot where be waa ine 
jured than any ¢cther witness. She denied stating that night 
taat she did not see the accident, and there is abundant evie 
dence in the recerd that she was there «hen the accident 
oceurred, ani waa buey attending the deceased when the ine 
Guiries were made for parties hoe aar the accident, ler 
eredibility was certainly a question for the jury, and it 
was also a question for the jury to determine whether or not 
the defendant wes scullity, sa charged. That the verdict is 
not manifestly against the weight of the evidence is clear, 
and it needs no argument to suspert that conolusion after 
tne foresoing evidence is considered. The evidence as to 
the intoxication of the deceased is the strongest feature of 
the case in fayor of appellant in our judgment. Stiil, the 
verdict of the jury to the effeot that the deceaasd was in 
the exercise of reasonable care for his safety, and that he 
wag not injured by hie own contributory negligence, or because 
of his intoxication, is alse amply supported by the evidence. 
The position of apreliant that there is no evidence to suppert 
the averment that Royis died of the injuries he sustained 
there is sc untenable as to no® require serious consideration. 
Besidea the evidence already auoted the testimony of Dr. 
Chauvet was that he examined the wound on Royls' nead, and 
aise found him unconscious when he reached the hospital that 
night, and that he remained sc until he died, «ith his pulse 
quite weak and siow and his respiration quite ehallow. Ee 
alee stated that it =e hie opinion that he waa suffering from 
shock, due te injury, and that he died by reason of hie in- 
juries received. Notwithstanding the faet thet Dr. Springer 
testified that he found at the autopsy the heart of the dee 
ceased enlarged, very fatty, soft and flabby, hie liver very 
fatty, and that bis etomach showed chronic gastritis, or 


alcch¢lism, and further testified before the coroner that 


ae — 
—— a | oe 


2* 



















~ her « 
mit ssw 6d stede toqe svtoor4 wit ot — — 
tdgia tedt gnitase boineb of8  \eeotittw abate | 
-ive tashbauds si o19ed? hae .snebrocr Sit? oes ton 
trebloos ent Helv e1ed? ean one tant brobet si? 
-~ai od? asar beaessoel oft gaibastisa yaud saw bas 
ie «| VPnebloos edt wee ode Séheraq xt ebew e108 
ti Dae .yIUt Sd? 10? aoitenup o ylalstrep eke Y’ 
ton 10 tedtemw emtureteh of Tutt edt vO avtteoup's 
- gi toibiev of9 tecdT . .begredo en .ytlluy ea 
gebel> ef sonebive sit to taplow edt teateze 
oe eb eonebive oT ,berebience 82 senoblre- ¥ 
to e1utest teagaorte ois af beeseced oft to 
eds QLitee «© .tnempdst v0 al traliegqe 20° 
wt G8 beAssoeb Odt tact sostte eat OF Yt oA2.t0 
24 seis bos ,Ytetes sid x01 s1sp sidancssa1 Yo 
eaysoes TO ,oonegiisen yrotsdiataoo nwo alt yd 
.Soneblve edt ys hotzoqque ylqas osls et Hol 
t1roqqua of eoasbive on sl s1ed) send tuslisqge ⁊0 
bentstewa of eeliutni edt to beth efron tedd 
-1Oltsieshisaoo evolise exivpe: ton of es aldsnetay of 
i, fo -ynomitset of? betoup ybserls eonebive sat 
bne ,beod ‘alyoR no bavow edt bomtaaxe od teiit 
ted? Letiqeod ent bedtose: ed aeiw exotosnoonw alé’ 
optuq eld ativ beth od Ltinw oe benianet ed tarde -bas® 
oH § .wollhde etlop nobtariqee: etd bas wole has’ 
mort golaistium sew od tect sotaiqo eld eae #t Ped vg 
-at aif to noeser yd Bel on tax? haw ersutal of oub song 
zwegniage 1.40 tad? toet on? gulbnatedtietot — sboviecer eataat . ae 
-sb eff to tinea eft yaqotus ed?) te bavot od tak? | * 
dasr t8vil sia ,Yddalt dae Joe y_tset ysev .bopieine | boeees 
20 ,8i2iz2s8_ ofnoidd bowods dosmore eid Jone bas yetaek 
fet xem0400 ea? e10%ed betti tees tedddu? cae! qmetiodoens 





yp 


we J— 


+i * 
ns 


a 
Vu? phere a 


iJ 
a — 
SF ale nn te ee 


F 


ae 


ye * 
— 
iu 


= 











~ & - 

Royls died "from traumatism associated with aicoholism", and 
before the court that he died "from alcoholiam associated with 
traumatiem®, and thet his death waa ali caused by alccholien, 
the jury, nevertheless, ware fully warranted from all the evi-e 
deace in finding that the injuries Rovis received were the 
proximate cause of his death, and taat he Waa a reasonably 
healthy man earning good wages. 

It is urged that the court erred in permitting Dr. 
Chauvet and Dr. Adams to answer certain hypotheticsl questions 
asked them, in substance, thet it was their opinion that Roylat 
death resulted from the injuries in question received on the 
back of his head. It is argued that these hypothetical 
questiona were unnecessary and improper, desause Dr. Chauvet 
hsd personal knowledge of the nature and extent of Royls' 
injuries to enabie him tc testify from his own knowledge, 
and because the doctors were thus permitted to determine the 
controverted queation as to what caused the death, thereby 
usurping the »rovince of the jury. Aitncugh the question 
ae tO whether or not Royla died from the injuries so received 
wan for the jury to determine, yet, it w22 a proper question 
upon which to receive the expert evidence of physicians for 
the consideration of the jury. The jury were not bound by 
it necessarily and it did mt invade their srevince. It is 
unquestioned that he received the injuries. —D — — It 
is not usual to permit physiciane to state what caused an 
injury, or as to how it was caused, when that question is a 
controverted one, but ae to the effeet ef an injury upon the 
person receiving it, physicians mey legaliy teatify and in 
answer tc hypothetical questiona, We know of no réesson or 
authority for any physician's personal knowledge of the ex= 
tent of the injuries disqualifying him from doing 30. The 


Peo ve. ow, 236 I1l1., 514; Fuhry ve. The Chic. C. Ry. 


set- 

——nßrnnii—— 
Stiw betsioosrs aaifordoofs moxt* ‘Sekb-Wat Saud witiOO 
washfodsols yd bevwet fife adw uveeb ob siete t 
~ive od? {L5 mort betnerrew yfint orow -(unsfederoven 
sit exew bevisoor efvoh vetvutml wit tent gnétets a 
yideaceser & enw on — — 
V— — \ 
— — trvon alt ted? boyd wt wT 
‘elyoR fait notmlqo tisdt paw $2 ted? leomstedye 
| inoited$oqud esodt taf? bevgis e 
fevucd .x⁊g sevsoed .reqorqul bus yrseweosnay exsw 
"siyoR to dnesxs brs exuded odd Wo egbefeumh ©q 
Sd? ecimzsteb oF bets tan6q avid exuw wiotood Sit eouddee’ 
°) ‘Yiovews ~dveeb sit Doawes tenw oF v6 nolseeup 

_ SOF Weep ef? dquomtia Jyrvt ed? Yo sonivory edt ly 
no tfeeup 87070 B Ge FE (sey .sntwreden oy yy one He 
TOt Snetoteyd¢ to sorebive freqxe edd evieosy oF A 
YO Biieod Yor exer yrtvt of? . .yiwf edt YW aobterebile 
st 91 \Bontvoty lod? sheval’ Sew bab $2 baw YLIs 
51 + cia." sGolwitat ‘ect bevesuer ed dest 
ts Besuse t ade E enstoteydig tintey oF Layey 
Set aokteoup tat nedw henree sian th worl ot ee 40 ys ) 
edt nowy yu tat ae Yo Poste mit 02 wilted Jem Bene 
fi dan YLiteot Yilegel you snefofeyiq (ot Bnivicos * 
‘846 noesot on TO woud WW  saoltesvp Tuoltedsoqyd oF % 
<Ke od! Yo Sybelwons Lenoetog #* netoteydy yne wor 
QuT oe gaiod aovY ati yrtythiaupsts seetawtar ede rouked 
α ee one ‘onegsH wv _éTyo94 


X its “a6 g@eltiocoeks 





















=~ Ga 

Co., 238 Til., 548, City of Chicago v. Didier, #27 11l., 571; 
1. ©. Re Re CO. Veo Smith, 208 Tll., G08. 

It was diseretionary with the court to admit the 
expert evidence in rebuttal, although affirmative svidence 
in e¢stablishwent of appeliee’s case, Appélilsnt has waived 
any right to cleim that the hypothetical questions contained 
improper elements or lacked other elements that should have 
been included, by not making those precific objections. 
Riverton Coal Co, +. Shepherd, 207 Til., 95; ¢€, & E. I. 
Ra. RR. Co. 3. Waliacs, 202 Til., 129. The other objections 
that improper evidence in rebuttal wae scmitted are untenable 
and relate to nattero in evidence of little or no weight in 
seitling any question in the case. 

It wes not reversible error for the court to refuse 
to inatruct the jury that there was no evidence justifying a 
verdict based upon the charge of wiliful or wanten miscomluct 
on the part of appellant. The inetructiona given the jury 
were ail based wpon the charge of negligence aizply, and 
the jury were repeatedly inforsed by the instructions tnoat 
gontributory negligence of the deceased would bar arpelise's 
recovery. The count was double, charging negligence and 
wiliful or wanton miscomiuet, and wags subject to succeasful 
attack by special demurrer, but appeliant did sot choese to 
gO attack it. It is too late now after judgment to compiain 
of duplicity in the declaration. Shere there * ens 200d 
count or charge in the deciaration aupported by the evidence 
upon whieh the jury cvidently based their verdict, an erroneous 
denial of a motion to take from the jury other counts or charges 
not aupported by the evidence is not ground for a reversal 
cf the judgment. BSeott vy. Parlin & Orendorff Go., 345 Til., 
420. The evidence amply augperta the charge of negligence 


in the declaration, and there ie no variance, ani the jucgment 



























— e ALE FES, std nl a 4898 ad 
oer 99 B9P Aca BOG, of - 
— — dtiw xaeaca doꝛ otb sey · · 
. Sonphive evitamrt ite dguodtle «fet adoa at eee 
bovis esd tasiieqaA .eeac @'ssileqqs ꝛo tusadeti¢ 
beatsgsoo anoiimeup Looisedsouvd od? tedt alate of 2 
eyed pivods ted? etasmele zodto_ boost 210 Siaonels 
pbaottoetdo oftioeda eeods gultou — 
mb chair 
“M0 299%80 FPAI°.. 088, AP aetts SPB. 
—— 976, be? timds. seu, fassuges, a1. epagbive, spup) 
At Idytow on xo eLitil to sonebive al exettaa of 
e⸗eeo 0d. at tteoup x 
wasstes oF. tapos ost x0 rorxe sicietevor tom esw #24. 
⸗ BRixliteu, sanebive om eam Oren? fend Yuul en? 2 
 oubne op ta aoscer xo Lyiiitw. 10, egzedv, edt aoa, is 
Gb, os? nevis, eaoitpustea:, est ...sgellogge, 20, ¢; 
_ bas, «wiguie eonsgifse= to eaxeds, od} nog besad £ 
vy F082, Septiousiegt opt yd. bemzozat ‘Xibeteoqes e208, x ‘ 
e'eelforge 140 Sivor bepseoeb out, 20. poneatigen. xagtua 7 0) 
bap somegiigen gutgzsdo ,eldvob eow tnvoo ouT | ȴTevOpE 
tartenoogey of, (peldem, See, tas »2ouocpoats sotger. ze. 
ot eeods ton bib tnaiioggs ted ,retumed Istooge yd 4 
Gisigqngs 0? tavaziuh x9t2e, won e%6f.o9? #231. . «tt dp, 
boos ono si.exeat exede ,moitersfoed edy at yviol 
Soaebive edt yd botaogaen gol ters{osh of} st eaxedo, 10 ¢muae 
euogmozz9 ae ytoibrey ated! beeed yitnebivo xaut edt aotan goay 
eegisig 10 etauoy rodfto xaut ed? mort oist of cottos sto > 
Seexeves 4 aoꝛ Ravorg, fon of, poaghive edt xs. besonwe. tee 

— G6 4,09 Biscbyosl § cllseT..v t008 _,tmegphyl edt 29° 
poey! (an To ogande od) etyeqaue, Niame PO0eDLYe. 9h, .9GB> 
taemghy, ond has SO THY on st ered? bane Aoregae⸗oab adt.ee 


Bere 


— 
x 


- 10 - 


{se not exceasive. 


Binding no reversible errore in the record, the 


judgment is affirmed. 
JUDGMENT AFFIREED. 



















eonehive ovisens! Sia dewodtle erie: 
bar  QaUATT IA THIMOCUL > &éslileugcu Fo — 
u ; BOD amp ,4acug Latite ai24OqGNS ot J beard BLPAR OF. 
weed b * tact efoameis gait Seton 1 etgometo. 
eCGOi O60 21119094 Sand? gxitgu toa id; gboaw 

ah sechiad Ob. 
Msc ovigo todlo, #15 ePRL.eedstlh Wi coos 
Ceietan ecg, bac/ hess. new Jetiuds: of. eenebive IS4uS% 
hie a9 odf TRL SO vegoehive so. etettas gtred 
P8cO ot? af GOlseoup, Yaa 

mete 4 tio @. @: 7248 SBiciszeves. zon, esa dt. 
& yaiy t eon 18. Seat Jen? tae, she te 
beats 2 * + : iif 26<021859 SG? opus 
teleost ayvis a: vrsonad . ott -iaullogga To. # 
7h. 2 ¥s 4 eocaglia0 ’ 232540 o0) aoa dsoad 


tient od! yo. Sbemxocai. — 


f« 
+ 
— 


"Ooi! * ts in L@GaP ONE £07 io SogsRsi gor. ysO8E 
pilipen. yotasgeco ,eiduob ear tases ecT 
necuce Of ?pe(gdus.eas.tank ,Jocicoteia — 20, 


» odt 3 * I44990 —— Latoce 


ef 2222.98! 
ot ; POtto [Gee BOLT SAL ORS O87 BL. ORsRtG. Se. 
7 
ex's gti ¥ Slodt Bes viteoblvg yuh att, doko 
ut 01T. eta. of .npbiog 2,12 J 
is ~ = ‘ Fo 6Ga Shiv eat yc begao 
— — — — — 
soqguwe yige eenndlye, oct 


Ge Bu: ; rer « * - a 7 ‘ 2i 8°38 e % — * * 







102 ~ 18127. * 
1821.A.495 
GUST PERETES 
defendant in Ergor, ERRCR TO 
va. Re MUNICIPAL COURT 
JOHN TOKPARY end PET OF CHICAGO, 
Plaintif 


UR, JUSTICK DURCAN NELIVERERD THE OPINION OF THE COURT, 


On Getober 3, 1914, Gust Peretes had juignent by 
confeasion entered against John and Peter Tompary, pisintiffs 
in error, for $77.93, including mine dollars attorneyte fee, 
October 27, i911, plsintiffe in error filed ow motion to open 
up the judgment and for leave to defend the suit supported 
by affidsevit, in wubstance, that they ware iniebted to defene 
dant in error only in the eum of $13.84; that on December 17, 
1909, by mistake they gave him two notes for $65.00 each in 
payment of an account of $89.60; that afterwards they told 
him of the mistake and he agreed to ana stated a balance due 
him of $69.60, and gaid he would hola their aotes until said 
balanee wae paid, end would return one of thea toe thom when 
Lalf said balance was paid; that on Mareh 13, 1910, end 
afterwards, they mode paywente te him aggregating $59.76 
und received from him one of aaid notes; that they have 
aleo a set-off aguinst gaid balance for $16.00 for services 
rendered te him by Jaweo Tompary, % partner of piaintiffa in 
orrer, leaving a balance of 9153.84 due defendant in exsror, 
and that eaid note ia & partneraaip note. 

No briex ox argument has been filed by defandent 
in error, The debt due from a coOpartnership of two or turee 
uembern sued jointly can not be off-set by a debt cus from 


pieintirf? to one of euch firm. A separate demand can not 


obs +g 



















PAGO HF YO HOME HUNT GHANIAN HADHG OTT « 


xe —— — —XE #eud Atot X — ———— 
i⸗ataa xasauc rotet bas ndol teatege betetend 
.o0% s’ysnr0dte exeffob entn gotoulont ,0@.°98 rot oa 
asao OF Molton bolt? tovIe at eTittatadg ell@i Th 
betroquse tive edt baeteb of avael vot bas tnomgout 
“etek ot boftdebai erew yed? ged? ,oonetedue alt ,tiv 
«Tl tudmece! no tad? 488.5f% to awe ede wt Yno torx8 ab 
ai dose 00.88% tot aeton ows ald svagy you? otesein yd q . 
blot yous sbiewtetts tedt (00.08% to tayooos as 10 tmemes 
evwh oonalad « besate bus of beers of bus odstela ods oe ae 
bise Lhiny eeton shed? blod bluow ed bise bap ,08,cet 
aede med? of aed? to eno muntet bluow bua , blag saw | 
bas ,OL1Uf ,Gf dotell ao fade {blaq enw eonstad wise *t 
8¢.008 yaltagoryge wid OF Btawwyeq shan yen? ek * 

Ovad yed? ten? jeston bles Yo sus ald aost bevicosy J a 


' 
— 


a 


4% 


seotviee 10? O0.8L¢ 10t eonelad hive Sualage Wo-F00 5 oak 
mt ettitaialq to wentieqg 2 .yraqueT seust Yd ald of * 
10%20 Gh Inabsoted aun 26.18 YW ooasled w gatvesl OF! 
+9700 Gideteatssy 4 Of OFon Dice todd ‘ 
tasbnoted yd boll? neod ead tneayyte x0 Toiad of .  o 
OTs? 10 ond Yo qiieientisyoo 6 word sub Sdob oiT =. 20778 a 
mozt awh tdeb & yd tee~-tt0 ef fom aao yliniot bows eredasn 


+g 


ton aao baskeh ofereqen A .mxlt dowe Yo eae of Biistalelq 





« 2» 

be ect off agsinet a joint dewand for want of mutuality. 
Burgwin v. Bobeock, 11 ITll., 28; Lewon vy. Stevensen, 36 Tll., 
49. 

The affidavit, however, disclosed a coed defense 
aa to the other claim of set-off by pleintiffs in errer, and, 
therefore, the court erred in denying their motion. Moyses 
vw. Schendorf, 143 111. App., 393, 338 122., 234. 

The judgment in revereed end remended with uirsee 
tions to open up the judgment and te permit piointiffs in 
error to defend the suit. 


REVERSED AND REMANDED 
WITH DIRECTICHS. 





















a, a 


«dae vr0r8 » a erturatesa vd —8 tele ** 
——— — bere Paves wd? 


G88 geill BEG Ses — «ffl eas 


at he hs — * fae err. 
5 rH 2a ie s* “thee 


* 
t 


RTT sei ‘cua “a isvxenr? 


ote" 


“ama, CASAIVaA 


Ms.7Icea w 
ye y fi ’ 
; y rs 


RVI 


: Gor7 
120 288 
: 


ial 


it L 


si stittutaia pital — — 


? av 
2 * 
1— 
» ¥ 
50 
i y & 
1 
ath 
, / 


fen 


efi ated 


Bye 


iovze af «PiweR 


ei 


Saitoons aa to 


ce. Tv Te" ' , 


3 te 


it edeteia xfs 


Te ! e⸗ 
—A 
⁊* xanga E 


vim route a4 


Sota ed? 


* oo, 288 


“ta thea aow Ol 
80 Lae 
x») 
+o. 
;} @ig of 
J 6 ant 
eG : 
— of 
t¢ob al? 160780! 
2 Te 
vise’. t bewe ezacdaeg | 
to ono of VaR 


— 222 
7 — Pie ⸗ — ⸗— 
4) 7 LAACH LE WALK foe F gam 


Bo ——— 


398 - 18443, 


f 
EMMA M. BELL, ) 
Appellee, APPEAL FROM 
VS. , SUPERIOR COURT 
KOSSUTH H. BELL, i GOOK COUNTY. 
Appellants 
L/ fFR9 1 
19821.24. 496 
+ MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE MeSURELY 


DELIViRED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 


Emma M, Bell, hereinafter called complainant, filed her 
bill for divorce and asked for alimony. On October 31, 1911, 
upon her motion for temporary alimony, the chancellor centered 
an order that the defendant pay to her $250 per month for her 
support and maintenance until the further order of the court, 
the first payment to be made on October 30, 1911. 

By this appeal bo this court it is sought to have this 
order vacated and set aside. It is argued that there can be no 
order allowing alimony where the bill does not state a cause of 
action, and it is urged that the complainant does not by her 
bill specifically charge the defendant with having committed 
adultery. 

Without reciting the allegations of the bill, which it 
must be conceded is inartificially drawn, it is sufficient to 
say that in our opinion the bill does contain charges sufficient 
to justify the court in granting temporary alimony. While we do 
not discuss the propriety at that time of the amount allowed by 
the order of October 31, 1911, we do wish to be understood as not 
intending by this opinion to affect in any way any order of the 
chancellor entered subsequent to October 31, 1911, touching the 
matter of alimony. 

After this cause was taken under advisement the appellant, 


Kossuth H. Bell, departed this life, on July 12, 1913, and his 























rauod aorausue 
-yImU0D HOOD 


beh ALS 8S... 


xanauaon BOITaUL batareaaa ee 
4 nuoo AHT ao aointao DHT auaaya.aa. J 


red bOLtY ,inantatqnoo belleo rofteatored ,1t68 ie aod, 
e{l@L .L8 tw9edotoO nm .YomtLs tot betas bre —E & 
beresne soLleonede edt .yromiLe yustoqued 10% nottom 2 
tod ro? désom 1teq 0896 ted oJ ysq tnsbreteb edd sad? 
‘yituoo ed to tebi0 tedstawt eid Litnw eonsnednteam bas 

. «{[@f .08 tedose0 mo obsom ed of Snomyaq sok 

eid? oven of Sriquoe ef +2 Sau0o atdt od Leoqgs aids ve, 
Git 06 sad eteds tad3 bougts af 41 .eblea dee Dee Sesenee 


9 


1) 
—* 


J — 


to osus 4 etstea tom seob I{id ecld stew ynomtis aniwol 
ton yd tom seob tnentaiqmoo ont Janis beams et 3f hus 


F 


hetsiomoo artiver dtiw inabneteb erid egiacdo elisot Oe a 


‘ F — 
di doidw ,Litd ef to enoidagelia ots gattioe: dvodsiw 
of tnetoittve si sf ,mmarb yLietottisasnt et bebeonoo ed sem 
taetolttus eentado afatnos eeob [{id edt molniqo wo at + yao 


ob ew efttw .ymomife yistoqmes ynitradga mi davoo edt ytt ; 


— 
Pr 


~~ 


yd bewolle jnvoms eis to omits Jadét ta ytetiqotq ent ease 
tom ae bootatebmay ed ot dalw ob ow ,fi@l .f& szedoto0 to 1ebi0 ® 


eft to tobto ytea {aw yne mt toetts of motmiqo elds yd vo 


sf 
—8* 


eds gridovot ot 4L8 odo oo of sneupeadua betesme 10f a 
-Yeromils to tetter 
riasileqqa odd Inemeaivbs rebrw cexst asw eaveo otis t03ttA — 


ve 
aicl bre ,L0L «BSL yful mo ,otlt etdt bedtaqeh ,{fod ,H diveeod 


8 


death has bean suggested. Accordingly the judgment of the Superior 
Court will be affirmed, nunc pro tune as of July 11, 1913. 


Leonard v. Springer, 174 lll. App. 516. 


AFFIRMED. 








“mottoqua eit 20 snompbut 


yod Beitr yshantatgess belisy rein Prod eae a 
SoteG wm, etomile 60% bitao ee 
hewsre “ellésnady. eat eumoad Le Cle Toqmed vet 


~ 


POR 


FQ iS — 


Ted +H"? 


-BL0L ff yt to “on gms 


se SnuOo. Nooo 


8 OA tna © | 


etal aveat of 


1* 


jo 


74 
St 


esa 


(Iso. exeri¢ 


14 
fins won 


sit Io tebto versa? als Lise eotare trite 


& 6@¢age fon secooh iitd act? seterts yoouds is 




















e886 6GGA 


te 


Y LV 2075S 


TMOG FHT VW KOTRIDS AHP ——— 


m tog O&8¢ ted of ce ted edd-, 
AL@l -06 teiedogd 6 obum ad of tomo van i 
iiquioe ef #2 davon aide oF JSnogue elds - 


vadée bovtute 2) 2! . sebles den Bas 


1) traptiaigqg<ueo att tad) Seg ab 22 haa 
Maigeleh cvld owtatio yliaek 


er To 27 fanotin ots ariitines Sirod$ : & 


(ilstottisrant. oh hebeomele 
poo B ae od3 . rod aigqo iI at 

: otmes ettrurte 1 truse od wre 
wa 
ia eelsqotq.en?. sen 


«ee 

at i © «ilvl «54 sevdoze0 to tee * 
X od sp intqo.efis ~9 
i's 


' Jrevpestve Le wwe ne 
fnonils to. 9 


at we eon oldd teeta ' ao 


Ri, eLic? Das 16980 i lve. J eum” 





tip ae cee oe ii G oo 


ee 
— — — * 









311 = 193228 


PAULINA “MATSON, 
Appellgse, 
APPEAI, FROM SUPFRIOR 
vé. 
COURT, COOK COUNTY. 


1821.4. 497 


CLARE s. JACOBS et al op’: 
peal of ALVIN E. WEPEDM, 
. Ap@ellant. 


WR, PRESIPING JUSTICE F. A, SMITH 
CELIVFRED THE OPIWION OF THE COURT. 

A motion is made to diamiss the appeal in thie case 
for the reason that no complete record «nd no abstracts and briefs 
haves been filed by the appellant within the time required by the 
rules ond practice of this court. The record filed on March 5, 
1913, is a short record. The time for filing a complete record 
with abetracte and briefe for appellant has been extended from time 
to time until and including August 31, 1915. Wo further extension 
has been made. No valid excuge is shown for the failure to file a 
complete record and abetracte and briefe within the time specified 
by the ordere of this court. For non-compliance with the orders 
and rules of thie court, the motion to diemiss the arpeal is sua- 
tained end the appeal is diemisesed, 

APPEAL DISMISSED. 





wh ——— ede SE ial 
Se, . 






aioe rer git Vint & 3 B——— — — * 
~ i - : ‘ | Sook a A panies ans 
bers ° aert a @® ry roaraw ike, 

BEG sg ' Th (cetfoddl Mn elit 
‘a SOTATIUS VOY JARIIA ir? 
px a 


. 














tna re\ 


 - FOb.AISSE 


BS ate NRE TE eit 
asso aid? at Laeqqe edt esimeth of ebam et mottom A 

_ etetid bas atosttede om bas baooe a etelqnoo on tadt * 

«set yd Dettupet emit odd atdttw sasileqges ed? yd bell? m 

‘ .@ Sota ao belit broos a eff .s 100 sidt to sottoarg be 

— Peovet evelqmoo s gatit? rot emt? ed? .btove1 t20de oe 

: wake mot? bebuetxe ased asd tnel{leqas 1ot eteird bas et 

- mokemetxe sed?1ut o8 .ELOL .f8 teuguA gatbylont bas theaw 8 

# elit of exsilet eft to? meode ef esvoxe Dbilfsevy of .ebem * 

beltioege oat⸗e edt aidtiw adobad dae efostieds bas biooet 2 

otebne ed? diiw soast{qmon-n0n 20% .d1woo etd? to eo 29 : 

~ve et Ceeque ett eetmetb of aoksjon edt ,tusoo sid? to 

.boeetmets elt Ieeqqs ed? 


-TH22IMATA JARTIA 






; gr semmongetnam 4 

et... ie —— J x, = 
DS mE he de ESOT ROC TERR NSTI 

— 462-19865 

ALBERT L, SCHULTZ and ALBEPT 

F. SCHULTZ ,co-partners as 


A. L. SCHULTZ & SONS, 
Apeellees; 










A, ae — 


vs, 
COURT, COOK COUNTY. 


WENIG TEAMING \CONPANY, # cor- 


) 
) 
A®PPAL FROVW COUNTY 
) 
poration, 


Appogllant. 


1821.A.498 


WR. PRESIDING JUSTICE F. A, S¥ITE 
DELIVERFD THE OPINION OF THE COUPT, 

A motion ie made by apreliee to strike from the record 
of this cause the affidavit of Nicholas Pritzker, Ths record con- 
tains no bill of sxceptions *nsreby tie affidavit could be made a 
part of the record, The motion to strike the affidavit must be 
sustsined. 

It is further moved to dismiss the sppeal or affirm 
the judgment. The appeal must be dismissed for the reason that 
the errors aeeigned are predicated upon the affidavit of Fritzker. 
Ae tc the judgment by default, it mist be presumed that ihe de— 
fault was entered before the plea was filed. The record, which is 
our only meane of ascertaining the fact, shows that the default wae 
entered previous to the filing of the plea. The appeal is dis- 
misded, 

APPEAI DISMISSED. 

















| YTHUOD MOST! JATISA 


TH. tiv Tm 909 


Beh A.IS8L 


F J ¢, : 


ty a. 7) X 


J 
wm Tf 
hoot Foky 


4 


—* 
MTIV2 .A .% NOLTSUL OMICISIAT . AM 


— e SSA A, RT 
o tH <¢ FOLIRIGG BAT TAI LII0 


* 


brocet ↄod⸗ mort — ot selleqqe yd ebam at motsom A 

Aeos “toes edt “xeKet tat “esfodolh Yo Fives rts ens 

| ‘I | Gham ed Divoo sivabtYts edt Ydetede mot tqecte 6 ff 

SNe Yea avann ris eat ottatd v⸗ — ⸗ brooen ® 

i am bof 23 totes 3 rye SLA? We oot toning 

wrhtte 10 Teeqye ed? ostmeth of tevom sedfawt ef YT © * 

nas aodwet ead 02 Dene taat ef foun “Lsedqe SAT’. : 

‘stedstixt Yo fivabitte edt noqu betevtherq ‘ete benygtede é 

© © seb “eae wads benusetg od tem tf (Pfueled YC Inoagout’ 64 

‘Gt dotdw (biooe7 edT .Seltt ‘sew sel ett soled beretae i 

— gaw Piideten ‘edd ‘Kade ‘ewode" (708T eft gatnletxeced To % 

~ -eib at [aeqqe edT “Jaelq edt Yo _— edt of evolvetq ® 
Saequs aff bas 


-CFAFIVRITD TAVITA 






fegun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the first day of April, in 
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and thirteen, 
Within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois: 
resent--The Hon. CHARLES WHITNEY, Presiding Justice. 
Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice. 
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justice. 


CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk. 


8214 18 
J. G. MISCHKE, Sheriff. 1 O & Lefhe 5 











BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on the 2d day 
of August, A. D. 19135, the opinion of the Court was filed in 
the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures 


following, to-wit: 












7 J 


J————— bas bo tbaua roe —* 
i 


— — atsi2edt to totnterg 

Oe * ro Od S801 aaibiaord ,Yamehie 

RS OG Al > seetsaut — a9 

BS — * -ooftaul ,2aMRAD .t suave: 
 g Ic aA, t @ at 7 “ 


— —— ——— Dt 
> esegen fitte Oh ak fant ae than at —— 





Gs OR pe a Sy (2 Fes pares —— — 
ae Pk SH wetter ye be Poe ee 
} este tive Teese wae oe 
oe eee 
Le E we a . 4) PAause 
io ¥ RIO ty waden. PS 5 Sho ag 
* —66 (Sete st ce eee Ve — 
VSb 5S ods a0”: tbw-ot abtawretis:tadt dagaauauaa By 
“ai Bolt? esw truod edt %o aokaigo edt .€fef .@ — 
eeTosgtt bas sbtow edi at +100) Bisa to oottto at 
itiw-ot , 





Appeal from Warren, 
nkaid, appellant, 


Whitney, P. J. 


Thie mee wae before this court once before when 
we reversed the decree for the reasons stated in our opinion 
reported in the 168 T11/ App, 333. The case then went to 
the supreme court where this court was reversed by opinion 
reported in the 256 Tll, 548, with directions to this court 


either to affirm or reverse an’ remand the cause for the 


reasons stated in the opinion of the supreme court, 

We have re-examined the case and think for the 
reasons stated in our former opinion the case should be 
tried again, 


Reversed and remanded, 






ode gertect’ ; lige ————— ess 

ine mer eet oh, etn, st nt 

ape paiahe ap 2h. x— AME TOr semen be: — 
ree » ot trew mods, onad off .EEE yqoA \cit aad oda 

 * pohatao Xd beexever exw too chit exotiv $200 ono 

#iuoo ald? of emottoerth dtiw ,0d8 LIT ↄat ag 

edt rot eaute oft baamet hee eerever to auitta § 

-t1v00 emexqya edt to moimiqo eft at | 

oft tot Untdt hme —— —— J 

ed bLsrosde een ort motntqo remot auo ot 








_bohasmex huts heeteveH | 





© 5 4 











STATE OF ILLINOIS, l ss 
SECOND DISTRICT. I, CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk of the Appellate 


Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records 

and Seal thereof, Do HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the 
) said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office. 

In Testimony WHEREOP, I hereunto set my hand and affix the 

seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this second day 

of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hun- 


dred and thirteen. 





Clerk of the Appellate Court. 










pera snr te y a 


——— aT Aa hs — 









— kA eh! 
Se ee 


ke 

Bch om et 
oe 

x 

* *2 

J — 


ites Ciena — ee Se sh ae ha oat ate — 
9 : is met) RYT: ee, DNF Raa is SR —* ohh 
BY Cin! aghehiyp “gels Oe ieee * se pea 
CER Sak ee Seine imate J 


— 
i Doe e Gs Sates 
i 


‘ 





J— de pina w 
F pie 

By. : ue 

~, 


" 


LOWELL 4 
Nelleqg/ add to Ald yaad 2 AsudovenAD ad xa ‘rownTaid 4 


#hiooes edt io t9qo0d bow wionilll to ete odd to tointeiG baoose bisa wot E 

edd lo noiaiga edd Yo yqoo aut) 0 ei goioyorol odd Jedd YuITAsO xia auu od | 

Solfo yer ai bros Jo ,saueo baltitas svoeds ot ni — 

od) xis bis bast yor doe ofauened Jouit — | 
486 bnoves eidd wswaitO te. dtu") elsliogqé bise odd Yo knoe 
aod onin Dawevotld on0 hiol avo to tex odd ni deuguh to 
i 90Ntidd bas both 


SING sobaqeh. y 


» + 
‘t ‘ 





AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT 


& — — 
i —— — 
* 







within and —. Districy of the State of Illinois: 


Present--The Hon. CHARLES WHITNEY, fPresiding Justice. 


‘ 


» Justice. 


Hon. DORRANCE DIBELY 
: Hon. QUANE J. CARWES, Justice. 


BUFFY, cert: 


f 
W% 
@ \ws 
} 
sabe * 
* 
cn 
base 


— 


Sheriff. 

















BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on the 2d day 
of August, A. D. 1913, the opinion of the Court was filed in 
the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures 


following, to-wit: 

















-TAUOD araaaaaaa FHT TO MART 


* eLitgA 10 ysb teri tyedd wabeouT no ,swatt 


-fesitidt bes bexbasd ofa baseuodt a0 61 


* 


—— Wedaseld one 






-sotteut gaibiaer%M, YauT IHW 2a SAI 
—— 
* * * 


aata aouagaoc 





ei ,eoitaut, 


qsb bS edit ao :tiw-ot ,ebiswretts tsdt , CIATEMEMEA 
at beftt esw ttv0d edt Yo aolaiqo edf -8fer .d Ay 


29Tpait bas abrow edt at ,i*y0d Bisse to sotto 


——— eel m 





Appeal from Peoria, 


x Whitney, P. Je 
mea Fs Appellee's intestate was killed while cleaning a 
wringer in the laundry of appellant, Suit was brought to 
regove * damages for the benefit of the next of kin, 

The first count charged that deceased was a minor, 
eighteen years of ages that the operation of the wringer was 
new to him; that he had no knowledge of the dangers in the 

operation of the machine, and on account of his 
youth, did not appreciate the danger, and that appellant 
neglected to give tks him the necessary instructions in 
‘regard to the operation, use, cleaning and care of the machine 
| and did not explain to him how to safely perform the duties 
relating thereto, and that he remained ignorant thereof} 
and that three weeks after he began his employment, while 
in the exercise of due care and caution for his own safety 
he was drawn into the machine, when it was revolving at a 
high rate of speed; and received injuries from which he died, 
There were other counts which the Court took from the jury 
at the close of all the evidence, ani which are not shown 
in this record, but no cross errors are assigned on that 
ruling, and those counts are not before us in any way, The 
trial resulted in a verdict for the Administrator, and judg= 
ment thereon of Two Thousand Dollars, from which an anoeal 
is taken to thie Court, Numerous errors are assigned, 
but as this hearing is decided on questions of “scot, there 
whl be in this opinion put a brief touching upon the 



















 onidoam suit to oreo Ins yrinselo goes Roltareqo ant of B 


‘eta — 
& gutnaslo eLtdw bolita Baw otatectat 


od tguord sow Hn stnalieags 20 —— 
t Yo txon out to tEtemed 6d, te 
«toxim s asw boaasoeh stadt — smugo text? | mt 
enw sxegnitw edt to mottereqo edt tact yee Yo exsey a 
od! at exegnad elt Yo egbelwora om hed 04, tact * 
atl to truss no brs emkidona est to Mottaxsqn 
tnalioqgs tact ine ,tegneb edt etatoezqrs ton pe 
ai anoltoustant yreeesoon edt mis mtb evig of 
astoud edt mrotieq yLetse of vod mid of mtalqxe tom 5 1 
tloetedt trezomgt bentemex ef tat baa ,otexesdt ‘i 
oLidw ,tromyolqme eld asged ed setts edeew coud 
Yeotse mwo atd sot mottuap has 9580 euth to. pat i 
& a gnivloves say ¢f codw ,etidoan edt orat award | s 
beth ed dotdw mort eetiuiat bevieoe: bre ,beeqe to eda 
Tiust odd moxt Xoot twod ont dotdw mtawoo xorto eTeW ox 
mwotle tom oxe doldw here ,eotshive edt {La to ococo on ; 
tadi no hengteas exe etoxxe enoto on tud ,hrooet — X 
eff .Vav wis mi sy etoted tom eta stmsoo eeont bas 
~Bhut ine ,todwrtetaimbA elt rot #othzey 2 at beds 
fseqns as dottw mort ,exallod bassver? ew? to moored? 
~hergioes ers atoxrxre evoterl ·tauoo atdd ot maa wi 
oresit ,toet to arotteeup mo hebtooh et gakised atdt os tad ne 


rid nog: grkdouet Yekrd 2 taf mokntqo etst mt ed hae J 


ah 


> 


7 * 


ak 


ere — * ws 5 ee ee | 
i OL em aah J 
——— 
— 











of the Court below on questions of evidence and the 
ing and refusing of inatructions, There were no eye 
w tnesses who gaw and. could teatify to the whole of the 
‘aécident, When there io no eye witness to the killing of a 
person, his administrator may emtablish the exercise of ore 
" dinary care on the part of the deceased by the highest proof 
"of whieh the case is capable, including the habits of deceased, 
and from any other fasts and circumstances from which the 
vb jury may rightfully find that he was exercising euch care, 
(Stollery v Cicero street Ry. Co,., 245 Tll, 290, and cases 
there cited.) Therefore, no error occurred in receiving 
evidence as to the habits of the deceased in this case, 
The @ppellant was put on the stand as a witness in his own 
a : behalf, and was aksed in reference to deceased, if he had 
geen him prior to the accident on various occasions, and 
sft he ever talked with him, or warned him with reference 
to the use ef the machine in question, or placing his hands 
on the maohine , which questions were objected tom, and the 
objection sustained on the ground of the incompetency 
of the witness, We think that ruling of the court was proper 
‘Nothing appeared in the ase to remove the grounds of incom 
_ -petency that both sides mmeatte concede existed unless such 
grounds ware removed by the evidence in the case, Gomplaint 
is made of the giving of the first, second and third ine 
structions asked by appellee, We think, under the evidence 
there was no error Gerard tees by the trial court in ceiving 
these instructions, The refusal of appellant's segond, third 
fifth and seventh instructions is aleo argued to have been 
7 erroneous, It is sufficient to gay that the secon: 4nd 
= third of these instructions are but abstract propositions 
— ney a Law, not tied to the onan? in this cas@, end there 
was no error in their refusal,-Tae fifth and seventh 
























aya! xe “Feta 
& gitneslo eLtdw — ear otatocrat * 
ES ——— tg Gil ara 
ao : æti Ro tam adt eid tRedid Mala Meuaa aE 
| stent 8 ssw boaseoed aada hegrado tnugo textt edt 
hae enw xogeicw edt to mottnxeqo edt tadt yes to exsey °6. 
= ed! i eteynad elf to egbelworx om hed ed sacs * ° 
| atil to tmuooos no bra yenkiionn eit to Koktexeqo 

tnalleqgs tadt bre ytegreb ogt etstoezqss tom bth « 
at antottoustant YrseReoes eat mid mtb evig of a 
~ saidoam sit to oxad has ge bese Lo oe stottszeqo edt ot & i 
aetivh edt mxotxreq ylotse of wod mid ot mbalqxe tom Bi 
ttosredt tretomgt bentemex ed tact dns sotexest 5 | 

ofidw ,tnesmyolque eld asged ed setts ateew ooxdd 
ytetse mwo atd sot mottiuso has e480 uh —X pot - 

& #2 gnivioves sev sf modw ,eitidoem edt otat auth 
»beth ed doidw moxt setxutat bevieoe: bis beoge . to ster 
yuri edt mozt Aoo⸗ fxws00 ont sto ttn sorte orew © 
mwotle tom oxe dotdw hee ,eomehtve ed? {fa te erolo ¢ + 
tadd no bergtees exe etorze esoto on Jud .hrooez @ te 
od? , Yor wis mt eur oxodod ton sta etm seodt bas yoni 
“Shot bus ,totattetaimbA edit tot #othaey 2 at bet iseex L bx i 
{sours ma dotdw mort ,erallod baseverl owl to mooted? ; 4 
vhengiess ets atorxs evoromu™ ,#auod atdt ot meine ak 
exesit ,toet to anolteea:sp mo habigab et gattsed atdt Los Ca q 


eit mows gikdeved ⁊oaad 2 due ‘Bok qo atst nk ed & 





@: 





ulin of the Court below on questions of evidence and the 
— and refusing of instructions, There were no eye 
“witnesses who saw and.could testify to the whole of the 
aécident, Woen there is no eye witness to the killing of a 
person, his administrator may establish the exercise of ore 
dinary care on the part of the deceased by the highest proof 
of which the case is capable, including the habits of deceased, 
and from any other facts dnd circumstances from which the 
jury may rightfully find that he was exercising euch care, 
(Stollery v Cicero Street Ry, Co., 343 111. 290, and cases 
there cited.) Therefore, no error occurred in receiving 
evidence as to the habits of the deceased in this cage, 

‘The appellant was put on the stand as a witness in his own 
behalf, and was aksed in reference to deceased, if he had 
seen him prior to the accident on various occasions, and 

af he ever talked with him, or warned him with reference 

to the use of the machine in question, or placing his hands 
on the machine, which questions were objected tom, and the 

- ebjection — — on the ground of the incompetency 

of the witness, We think that ruling of the court was proper 
Nothing appeared in the case to remove the grounds of incom 
peteney that both sides encace concede existed unless such 
grounds were removed by the evidence in the case, Gomplaint 
is made of the giving of the first, second and third ine 
atructions asked by appellee, We think, under the evidence 

: thers was no error committed by the trial court in civing 
these instructions, ‘The refusal of anpellant's sesond, third 
fifth and seventh instructions is also argued to have been 
erronsous, It is sufficient to say that the secomi and 
third of these inatructions are but abstract propositions 

a Of Law, not tied to the evidence in this case, andi there 
ra ™ atror in their refusals tre tifta and seventh 






























odt bra eonebive to etottesup ro PtOD oda Lo 
GY om oxew execT ,enolfoussant ‘Bo, gebeuher hmay.: 

edt 0 efodw oft of Ytitest Divo hmm, manodw meme 

2 to grille edt of anentiw eye om at ne ob4 
“to to satoxexe eit detidetme yan sods - fio 
toorq teedgtd ent ys henseveb edt to taq — 
osco doh Yo atided ect gathutot geldeqso at —“ 
— ——— oe 

e760 sgegragean pio oa wot i mut (tried ity. 4 
——— wk ——— — 

” eats Shd¥ at béeseded wi 3d nai 6 3 

sito ek ni toendiw © ba bieds Bad ho dud ‘baw # 

bad of Yi’ (bebeedon 6+ Sbitetetes nt — 

eis <ariotewovo avoltev mo dtebfoos ode ot tokxe 
sonexe'tex A¥tw mitt Poruaw to” mbit ai ‘bexties 20% 
bred elit gntostq ‘to cioltaeub hE onttoam odf to ‘eal di 
oii ins mod beoetdo sxew enoftseup Holite sontitoan 6: 

| " Yorsdeqnoon! ext” ‘Yo braro%y ‘edd mo ) Kedtesane 'm 
rocord ean Pusoo ott to “gndtex’ tacts Videds “GW” "Sanentiw ey 
~aobnt to shrusorg oft evenex of ede odd nt bexeeqis a 
dove weet bodn ive sheonoo aiusna ebb te dtod sad¥ 
titstqmd® Onan oily Mt OOHenive odd yd” be vonon etew ab 
sect Bxiity ‘neta Booed dade ‘Sid 2d GubvEg WAP £5 
eonebive eft te heir qAtkdt OW oelfeqds vd hetha ‘abd 
omtvin at dtvoo fatat ” oid Yo Bede Hmido “2oxze ‘On ew Oxo e 
bridt idee b'dnetteqae “to feadtés sat adobfdust en ry =a 
Keod oved of bougts® Obls at ato tdourd ant ioe itt 3; 


* 
Te) 


bars boner: ont dake Yew Ot thetolYtud wt Pert te me 
anortteoqorg somsads Hid Oxd sosfedivank sions 46” 
— feta (bern ede mh — e of bots fon” — 
— ——— wy rex dterte at ‘xoxo “on eek 





(= e's —— 
ry — 


instructions directed a verdict, ond did not include all 


ee the elements involved in the case, There was ne error in 


HS * ‘he evidence in the case substantially shows the 


followingt~ A metal circular receptaole with amall perfor- 


‘ations enclosed within another circular reccpt%cle wae 


Gslled the wringer, ‘The wet clothes were packed in the 
inner recepticale when not in motion, and then a cloth was 
placed over the top, and the power was applied, which caused 


the inner receptical to r volve at from nine hundred to 


twelve hundred times a mimite, and the centrifugal force 
thereof drove the mkx water out of the clothes, Once each 
weekit was necessary to clean the wringer, which was done 
by the man who operated it, with Sapolio, or some kind of 
soap, and a cloth or rag, by serubbing the inside of the 
inner receptacle, which revolved inside of the larger 
receptacle, which was stationary, The application of the 
power was right close to where the operator stood, The 
sister of deceased norked in the laundry, and she applied 
to the foreman to employ her brother, who was cighteen years 
of age, and he apreed to do so, On Monday morning, September 
Sth, 1910, deceased came to the laundry, «nd was introduced 
by his sister to the, foreman, Hamlin who turned himover +o 


a man Remy, to show him how to do the work; and Remy testi=- 


fied he (id not instruct him how to clean the maghine, or 
give him any instructions other than how to operate it, nd 
it is the lack of such instruction which is set up in ths 
count of the declaration — It was the @uston to 
Glean the wringer every Monday, but as September Sih, when 
deceased went to work, was Labor Day, it was not intended 

to run the laundry all day that day, therefore, the cleaning 


1 
























” ‘Fe “ehietedt gon RES BAS [Fosiew 2 Bev bexin 5 

ak ‘torse “d — 

amg “te eLody o:i3 oF ytit Seo Dee. Wap ome 

. i ibd — ttemencaa banc ott nt Sonebive od 
~'wrotted Liane “itt Ws tdstqeod? zatdorls Latewt a's 
O08" Paw Btbodqs od EARLE 0s die HEHE EH? ceroron 
VS" Oty “nd Bag Hew aster Fer er— Pregme oi 
"paw Atoto"2 helt ih 2b de t6t noite @Labktey 
iste “doidy (bektGnh Caw tewoq SaP has — 
Os Berbrurd aitth hort’ 8 evkov: +" of & 

— Lewittctees dd bin cents Whaat 
owe eon peeddoro oit# 2 ‘bast a a aie 8 tt 
“anob asw to Este”  xonittew sit Kealo oF 

$5 hex oboe’ <3 oktoqnd iv iw —* —— —* — 

aud" “to shient odd ghiddurba td get” —— 
ep — ‘odt ‘Yo obtant” bevitovex ito tdr « a 
ei to Mokibotlads: om” — —— ee. ‘sok % > foe 
eit Voote ‘roFexoiit bli BWW oF wubLo: Fit hr eaw hd 
betiaas bie bra cerita ony wt _béitrdi? Hoesebon” 0 8 
‘ateey moodigte dow odw\ wensord tist Yottine OF tants 
= “teduetqet “coed tout vabiot #6 {6e ‘os: ot ods ot tan 
“Beouiboadaik sv “tee — — hes as o 
“Od wévOubs Bénxit oA} meteor’ tame oF tered 
~tteot yme ink ¥itow 64} ob of wod a fe od 
to —8 oi? mel of wot med fourtartt For Bhs 
baa att —— o¢ wort nadtt tedto ‘ante ton tet ves 
— écdf at qu #80 br dohde mObtouteint doe 16Stolat 
ot moteno off Bew 3 “berottiter motterafosh oitt ae 
todw ft sedimotqet Ba the «Sethe OM YrSews sega tte eat x F 
bebnednt vom eax ¥E" WaT ORT Bn (dot OF strom £ —* a 
arinaslo est’ e866 aoa" Sed —* Bes Sat Sextet — ’ 


of tomas Get eae 


oe 





was ostponed until Tuesday, The foreman, Hamlin, testified 
that on Tuesday morning he apent from one half to three 
quarters of an hour to show deceased how to do the work, 
ineluding the method of cleaning the wringer, and gave hin 
instructions that he met never clean it when in motion, 
or put his hand in the basket when ih motion; and that he 

waited and saw deceased clean the wringer, and that he dil 

s0 without having it in motion, Brassfield, the engineer 
of appellant, testified that the second day deceased worked, 
he showed him how to shut off and turn on the power, and 

: told him not to put his han@ near the machine when it was 
running, and that if he did, it might take his hand off 
and told him he had known of a oase where this had happened; 
and that he stood by and aaw him operate the machine, and 
saw that he obeyed instructiona, He also testified that 
fifteen mimuted before the accident he saw deceased 
cleaning the wringer while in motion, and that he went to 
him to shut off the power, and told him never to do that 
or he would lose his arm or his life, and that if his arm 
or rag got eaught, he would be drawn into the machine, One 
witness testified that twice during the three weeks deceased 
worked there, he sawiim with his hand upon or near the mis 

_ Chine when in motion, and that both times he went to him 
and told him to stop 1%, Wo one saw dsoeased at the instant 
of the accident, but sometimebefore he was seen by several 
persons, and ‘he was pouring water into the wringer, andi had 
it in motion, One other operator on a wringer testified that 
although the instructions were positive and direct never tp 
clean the wringer when in motion, yet he had teen in the 
habit, after he had scoured it, and before turning in the 


water to rinse it, to set it in motion so that the water would 






















bebiitqes rtineh mametot etl -yabeouT Ikari 
| Sele of Mat ome moet tneee 64 gmdsexom, 
«Atow edt ob of word beeseoeh wode ot sywod me, 
atg aveg Dns «tegatin edt, gainaeto to.bodtem ↄua 
Aoc om rh seedy Rt helo reves. tas Of BAG » 
of fat bon potion £1 aedn, aoae ag cit a 
Urb ef Sard tae Regntey ef? aaelo, benmaned man mh 
_ teentgre, ad}, gblatteas .fottom nt tt 
Wexio" Deessosh yeh hioven ot fonid bot tidued: «dalton 
bos, corti ett eteteqo mid wee bas. yd boots i 
_ tatt bettitoot onls ol. ganottoyntent beyedon 
ry PERSONS PERE REO MR ORR ORE MERRIE & 
ot serge, et tact hoe gmottom.o2 oh, seomse. et: moe 
tet, ob ot govem mid blot bre. onog ent the. dle © + 
mrs eid Tt tent bos ett etd ro mre, etd ovat x a 
220 sentidgan ert tat grart ec. Shion ad, tioume.203 BaF ae 
rote eed? od? anturh pokwt dads. Reltivent geemtiy 
nent edt en to mower tend wih ott be ait as 9d, eimoe 
mist ot $H9r of sont? died tact .bas. .kotton ch cede amide 
tuatent off te heageoeh wae acio ol. nth Moto? fot whte 
Tezsyes yt meen aan at erotesomksonns, dud neh non ee 
Rad hau e ett ott tetew gct oq sawed haw ¢ 
tad? bettiteet reqriuw £ no xoa axoq sorite on0 snottor 1 
qi teyex teerth bus ewkiteaog esew anghtorsiantd edt im 
edt a! gaseg hat pd toy  .tottom at sede eget ait meeLo ‘ 
elt ak prtneyt exoted bas 4th bemveoa bad er med Taqiihdad 
bivow xetew et tadt op sottom mk tt tee ot, «tt eants ot motam 


eae! 


ee, 








* 


| _ be thrown out by the motion, When seen, just before the 
aooadent, deceased had it in motion, and had poured in water 
| "and had put his hand inside, The next moment a sereamnxa 
was heard, and he was seen with his armand head drawn into 
. the ma@hine, The machine was stopped as quickly as possible 
and he was taken Out unconscious, and never recovered 
consciousness, ani died that day, There were contradictions 
in the testimony of the several witnesses, and it is argued 
. this contradiction juétified the jury in disbelieving the 
foreman and engineer, and in believing he was never instructed, 
~ Although the jury were the judges of the credibility of the 
"witnesses, yet we are of opinion that there was so clear a 
preponderance ofthe testimony that he was repeatedly in- 
atruted and warned that the jury could not reasonably find 
otherwise, It wan clearly established that deceased was 
‘gpecially and repeatedly warned acainst putting hig hand 
inside the wringer while it was in motion, and against 
putting his hand inside the inner receptacle when cleaning 
it, while in motion, and that he violated these instructions, 
and that his doing 90 was the cause of his death, and that he 
waa not in the exereise of due care for hie own safety, Tt 
_ 48 argued that this meant, if true, that he was engaged in 
an attempt to commit suicide, We do not so view it, He 
Might have been careless and negligent and disregarded in- 
structions, and voluntarily did that which he had been 
told. would take off his arm and kill him, without having 
any ‘thought of suicide, It is evident he knew the dancer, 
It is shown by a witness who testified, that as he went 
by the machine one day while deceased wae running it, 
deceased told him, in a Jokkng way, to put his hand in there 
| and see how quick his arm would be taken off, It is not 


41 Die 
so 
. es 


odd etoted taut. green nodW \motsonr old! yas 
notsw mb hetveq badf his? grokiom mts tt ab aditobd 
AxamAoTOe 4 tremom PROM OMT) ebtestk brs wtst dq baste 
oSftt meexh baod Rmkatte ets dtiwmese mew od bra 
— alativenagal en heqqots enw ofkdost of% ° ,¢ 
 BerevoosT ‘eves hrs .SuORORMODNE tO Molt dem 61 
arottekbartroo sew eted? ,yab tedt Bokh fra canon 
beugis et ti brn ,eebsendtw Lerevee eis | 20° 
orf grivetiede:s mt yaw edt bebritext no 
detouttank revert ecw On grtvelted mt hus yromtyne | 
edt Yo YWIikdtbord sit 20 Reghut writ owe 

& theto ow wae SxHiTe Hild! “Mbimk@o! Yo eth! ow + 
eet Ybotnedon caw ert duit wromkseod e620 | 
bat’ Yidecorine ton bivoo’ yuh! od tat bent! dren! 
naw heasevol suis bedetidetse Yixsefo: asw ¢T 
beet gid yoked wentahs Betxaw ytbetastwt frets 
tentejs ban prottonm mt ser ti eltiw tegntaw silt 
srinselo medw eloatqese: xennt edt ehtank brat okt 
<aroltorrtent esedd petalotver anit han yroktom nt els, 
ont fad? Met itech etd to saKEd oft Baw oe Hatbhuett ¥, ae 
OPT .ytetwe mo whi tol exo’ 61 Yo eatotexd erly tnt tommy 
nk degagno waw oif suid yours Th (Wraew atity cade totyteee 
ef +2 welv on Fon ob oW yubfokva threo ot Fomot 
at? hebreyerath bas tres hfgen brs eae fered maed \ 
feed bat of dohiw fete td _ytRustny Lov brie qanoe i‘ — 
gnived suodtiv etet SOE Brie mre lke tro Met beuon hoe 
Tontad eft wend of Srohive or VEo Vebtokye ts Seto — 

drew ed ss tate .SeTitset odw seendsiw's yd mwore’ abate 

«it gitnrast sew beeapoad @lidw Yad emo centinnn wiheghs: 

oxo? at band ott tog ot jeer grtitop as at irakeindaial 
ton at #T No aelot 6d bluow tes td toLspondd gen vhrtay 














;. = 





r 


ye semua that a boy eighteen years of age could not be 
held to the rule of the exerdise of ordinary care , or 
contributory negiigence, and therefore it is umecessary 
to review the authorities cited by appellee on that subject, 
the judgment isc therefore reversed, 





2 Ct} 
—_ OF FACT TOBE INCORPORATED IN THE JUDG om J 


— — — — 
— — 


We find that deceased was not in the exercise of due 
care for his own safety at the time when he received the 
injuries from which he died, and that he waa guilty of 
negligenee which resulted in his death, 


4 ‘ 
ther ALS LAr nn wth in dee ) Jack 


A 
{ 






























—— rite wits 46" 
— ae —— 
dion cbernmanst: ouoroensoasr tuo meth a ae 





— Teron sw Of | 
ei? * ye ee hel 

& Said oy war sven ME 
wet Yihooseces env bd Fe yhetksees. Bieter oF . “a 

EY yicantvasdy ton blared. opxuk) @riveaaates becca te d * 
aay he aaote’ doit becel ldataa, Yleeery’ aay om 3 1 te 

buat eid webivag Gente bata eibetasqet bop. & 
tudhehs bik ~notdom.2t sev #2 @iaw segmkaw A 

aitieelo Heh efaatqenes wath edt eptrrt Sevatt 9 bate ‘ 


2 ve —4 
aa 


gatoltourdent sete Netelody ec tnds tee ymoktom at ee : 

od far? nie eed chatty deund. ath pewoor yngiod ata — ity 
YI \vte tee tee wit <6? Bied sof hoveskortere orm tes som 

at Segeaten ame wil Say your) Bt “Ghee CRAP eel teaE 3 

att j9) weds’ 66 Fate ah a ye béokive’ —X oF apse 

at? Debi aestakh bat Oem SR Arce woe Lene naott wvind a 

(ood hank sated Pade Mh eebeo Low betes gatas re 

sy twos! sarong te miyvt £89 Ocoee tit haere —E ie 

gh ast 2!) ** ant ant daebivo of “ot: yebtetsa 4a daw arta 

be sf gd tote Bett ipea®rddy seensiw' syd pb 
otto? saw besascel ofidy cyuk em. coment * 

bef trie at Oleh eats email SLOP ‘fon hay ce 


- a a — 
aodat de ee Bote iup eh gee eee 
> : et te J i 478 ' 
‘ a j the: oe 
ae cj va 





STATE OF ILLINOIS,) ... 
SECOND DISTRICT. — 


I, CHRISTOPHER C. Durry, Clerk of the Appellate 

Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records 

and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office. 

In Testimony WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the 

seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this second day 

of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hun- 


dred and thirteen. 





Clerk of the Appellate Court. 









p dite 


244 





Any 


J ie AS RY —— —— aay 
Rg “tale — — ——— hy 63 * — 
— h ae 


ok, GAT SE Re ist yk EMRE Wee 
Wee — * — 

















at 





REN Neca AM h 













“idl * 
Nellsqqé ofd to diel) vow OO husovrendD (T TOUMTAC 


ebrovesl odd to sequent bas ,zioailll Yeo ss faa edt to Jointed hacost hise oF 7 ~ 
edt to noiniqo ad} to yqdo omit o els gniogetol odd dodd YAITHAD YESAAA OC, loot 

j soiilo yor ai bioset to sense belfitde ovods orkt ai S100) 9 
odd xifte bas baad yor toe otowoied 1 Soman yom? “i 
wsb brrooee cid awettO tw. 0D stallogas. hime offs Yo Lee 


* 310 


“aud sutn bosasodd one btal Wo lo 1esy vid oi deuyuA to 
ottiild few beth 


i} eet 


ANE Shak Gls “ko 








AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT, 





Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the first day of April, in 
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and thirteen, 
within and for the ae Of ti State of Illinois: 

Present--The Hon. CHARLES WHITNEY, Presiding Justice. 


Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice. 


Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justice. 


CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk. 


— 
Gyr 
a 
© 


dS 
pat 
@ 

> 


*8 
J. G. MISCHKE, Sheriff. 1 Us 














BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on the 2d day 
Of August, A. D. 1915, the opinion. of the Court was filed in 
the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures 


following, to-wit: 





of 







— #2 Bene 
:efontilt to siesie end? to foltiang | bas 
ty .sotiagl antbias1. awn TaM eka Eye 
ar 7 — —* a 
; “\,@otteosl 
ae 
Axed ‘verve -9 ABH ; 1 
UES G AT 8 8 i ——— —— 
— — — ee — etic Se ie ee 
; Ta te ee 
— * J 
Se 
ysb DS edi ao :tiw-ot ,abrewze 2s fedt gaaaasu coe 
at belt? agsw 7000 sdt to netatqo edt S101 ite 


asivgii bas ebrow edi at $09: Bias to spttto 


—— ee 
aver 
<= 
be 3 — 
⸗ 
~ — = 









Gen, No, 5674, 
Henrietta Bertha 9¢, Administrator 
of the tate offlienry A, Hunsé, deceased, 
appellee 
vs Appeal from DuParce, 


appellant, 


Whitney, P. J, 

This appeal involves a judgment for $3142,00 rendered 
in favor of appellee in an action on the case against 
appellant to recover damages for the benefit of the next 
of kin of Henry A, Hunse, deceased, for a death loss, al- 
leged to have been caused by appellant's negligence, — 

The negligence charged in the several counts of th: 
Declaration is negligent and careless operation of an 
engine ond train; failure to cive warnings at 2 certain 
highway crossing by bell or whistle as required by Statute; 
negligence in the construction of approaches to a crossing 
on a highway; runninga train at a high rate of speed, and in 
failing to maintain the right of way at a highway crossing 
a0 that there should be 9 clear and unobstructed view along 
the railroad tracke, 

The death Was caused at a highway crossing in DuPace 
County between Gretten and Lombard, The highway known as 
Meyer's road, erosses the railroad &t the place in question, 
The road runs north and south, and the railroad cast and 
west, A Highway known ag St Charles Road rune about one 
hundred fifty feet North, and par@llel with the railroad 
crossing Meyer's road, In the angle formed by Meyer's road 
and the St, Charles Road, West of Meyer's road an’ between 
the railroad and the St. Charles Road stands à dwelling house 


















te a J 
_ betebrot 00,88L8% rot tromghet, & vevioynt Iseqqe ola? * 
tenteps easo edt so aoltos nx at eesteags to 4 
teen od? to #h toned oft 202 seganab roveoer of § 
=[e ,seo0l dtaeb « tot ~beeseoeb yoru A 
| womentigen of dmefLeqne yd bewvso meed ev 
ant Yo etmvoo Letoves att mt hegtado someghiged » 
te to mottereco acelorso bre gnegtigen at 
Siaeites 2 te entintew evty of emltat atest . 
jetute?a yi hertupes as eltetdw xo Iled ee gat * 
giiscoxrs & of aedosotqaa To Mottasrtenoo edt nt eon 
mi bus ,beeqe to stax dyid s ts mtaxd egninnut yyswrh 
gittesoto yawigid « ts yaw to 5 eat mtainten ¢ 
grole welv botourtadonty brs Sto 2 od Sirota pe 
-exoatt baoxt. 
eget at gatesoto yerigid # te beeuso eaw dtneb ot” 
as mwont yewdgld od? ,bredmal ine mettex) meowted — 
Mottzeyp at esalq edt #8 beoritex elt eessore ybaot = 
das tese baoxltet edt bas gftsos bre dtcom ena 
eno tuods acurx Beof celza® #8 a8 mont yang A 
beorlie:s eft dtiw fefiereq bre ,dtrol toot wre | bi 
beox e'reyeM yd bemrot efgas edt aI .baot e'xeyeM 3 yn baeot — 
meewisd bre beot e'teyeM to taeW .beol solxzsdd “pial Ee * 
eeyod gutifewb s abnete ‘heok seized: #8 edt bas decribed — 


oi. 
4 — J 


— 


~~ — 


aa — — — —— _- i—_ — 


ooeupã ed at the time of the accident by one Mrs, 
Trebiatrowski, St, Charles Road is theeo or four feet 
above the railroad tracks, with Meyer's Road descending 

, toward therailroad, West from the cppssing of the railroad 
and Meyer's Road, the railroad tracks run straight for about 
three quarters of a mile upgrade, with a twelve -r fourteen 
foot rise, to a railroad viaduot, At the time of the accie 
dent, and for several days prior thereto, appellant had been 
engaged in raising its tracke East and West of and at the 
highway orossing, It is important to keep this in mind when 
considering the evidence of the highway crossing ond its 
approaches, at the time of the accident, because what their 
condition might have been the day er evening before the 
accident, or the day after the accident would not accurately 
indicate their condition at the time of the accident, which 
occurred about one o'clock P, M, June 23rd, 1910, Deceased 
hed lived in the dwelling house above mentioned for from 
one to three years accerding to the testimony of different 
witnesses (Leaving it some two years before the accident) 
and while he lived there passed over this crossing almost 
daily, and after he had ceased to live in that house, he 
@séquently went over the crossing, 

Ifanything can be determined from the evidence it 

is that he was well aequainted with the surroundings of 

the crossing, June 23rd, 1910 was a warm, bright sunshiny 
day, with no evidence of any high wind blowing, The de- 
ceased was, prior, and up to the time he was killed, in 
good health, and could see well and hear well, He was coing 
“South on Meyer*s Road, driving a onehorse wagon anproaching 
said crossing, The only eye witness to the accident was 
Mra, Trebiatrowski, who lived in said dwelling house, and 


















sexM ono yd gnebtons edt to 
teet awot zo seme ab bat eel 
githrecseh heof ereyelt ditty , —Er bs 
heorlter edt to ymkenean sit mort to , ; 
ttfode “toY tigtsde tux atoext beorltet * ol et, 
meettet 1 sviewt a miiw  ebstggy elim “2% * 
~fooe eft to emt? oft ta” stoubity baoritex 7 
need bad tnelleqqs otoredd ao tzq evsb fatovea we 
» Pitt, #8 Des, to. FON tne tne eoery. eft — 
noitn date mt atid qeox of dmatsognt of #T gal 
ath bie grtarorp, yandgtd eg? rein 98 
Tiedt tas paxared | taphtoa, ert, to poke Se dha 
edt exoted, ankpeve, 22 WAP git meod syed tigi 
viedtewoos ton, dauon smehtoon ett mis yab — 
fotdw as hhooa afd Xo, emt? edt, ge ee Hes, of 
Donagref Aft wPrES, aru, aK nS Apatg s OM Pnen Re 
_ Maxi. .rot. henotinen axoda easod ak gnt, est, ab 

troxettth to, yuoutiaot ed? of grtbtpoos Bisex © * 
_, (nobkeos edd exoted aaaex ows smop tt antyse ⸗ 
—— Pisssozp. ekift revo dead ag oxoi⸗ bevel, orf “ — ce 
ext (savor tact mt ovil oF heeses bad ed { retts bn 


—— ody at BL ai baz", 

ti ponebtve edt moxt hentwxeteab ed mao pitbat yaa, 9— 
to egnihavsoxtye ext dtiw begntsupos Siew saw * pd, am 
tiene tidgicd mew 6 asw Ofer ebabS — os reno 
“eb ox _ satkwold baiw dg tet ws to sonobive om Soe Nea 
mt ,bellidt saw en omit edt 08, ay bas g FP 43a. 08 
gmtog asw eH flew gasri * tiew eee Lago, brs — 
ↄet oaoraqe monsw ⸗rodeao & giveth baoh “at zoystt mc —— 
aau gae Noos eft oF, anomd tw, exe ying. ont _ spatenone f > ‘ 


bra yeevod gratievh ikea at bovis of o 


oe J 
ayy 
J 


wo 








“ 





| saw abeoraoa aærrant south by her house, She had just heard 
the ube and whistle of a train approaching from the west, 
and as she saw deceased, she called to him in a loud voice, 
"Oh Hunse, you will never get acrose that track,” whon he was 
‘within forty or fifty feet of the tracke, buthe kept on 
‘driving his horse on a walk, apparently not having heard 
Mrs, Trebiatrowski, or if he did hear her, giving no indi- 
‘eation of it, His horse kept ‘on walking right onto the 
orossing, and when deceased sot onto the track, he looked 
right at the engine, the very same second he was struck by 
wh 

. Here was = cage of a man sixty four years of age, in | 
good health, with ability to hear and see well, familiar 
wth atl the surroundings y approaching a place over whith 

_ Be. a man of prudence, he knew a train was liable to pass, 

He drove onto the erossing without stopping, or apparently 
Looking, at a time when others heard an approaching train, 
Mrs, Trebiatrowsk’ heard the rumble and whistle of the 
“train wen deceased wae forty or fifty feet from the railway 
"tracks, and another ritnens hear’ the rumble of it, Wo 


“fog ox, cima was in the sky, ‘It was clear and sun=chiny. 
Upon a careful reading of the evidence we are satisfied 

that the testimony of Mrs, Trebiatrowski is in the main 
reliable and that it should be as fairly and fully con 
sidered as the evidence of any witness who has been subjected 
to as ‘pevere and Lengthy a crose examination as this witness 
was, We are immressed that she was endeavoring to tell the 
truth and that an impartial consideration of her unzka whole 
evidence discloses that she did testify truthfully, 

It ie the duty of one arprosehing a railroad crossing 


eg 


bat Se <8 ” ao oe) “4 Sa ee . >a oF Oe et Let) 
At Fe J, hold, age may “lea Take sa * 
nial md “aS —— — 

* —* a — a 

























bused taut bat os senuod 2 sod we Asse 
By hae Belt ‘ , 

teow oat mot? gnbdonozcce ntart s to eltetdw X 
i e’vaver afi .storw <liat sity 

.sotov buol a at mid 6¢ Baltes exe gbeessosb mae od 


baoxzl re svtorgenoe sir amott fae? 4 
eaw ed edn * tom tad? anotos toy seven. —5 
eoca 33 ‘jo ter akoete? Baoxwlliss 


o scot oan —— edt to toot tit 


— — ei tin 
brsedt gatbved tox ‘etnerace & fo ya; 
—2 potty baotliaz salt na 


=that on arivig ‘Tha ‘toad bab oe 4 x0 
mead f 4s oe ee te <8 
mene ond * ofan fg hs Sor bh Law nd tee ’ satod eat , ae 
te hee: te big bee saga — 2 ups fae : 
bexoor bg «Foard od + otno tog ——— 
— 


—— 





colle ni tT od taex seat af co 
ve vide aaw of Anoose omse Yxov edt ft te 
ett Sx srt beeoTDS CA isid ans. id —— F ee * * 
<tadé dec eo 20 pakt ot te oaee 
“ak gous to oxsew mbt ‘exte sim 9 30 ono 9 mer wh ; 
eAaz 3% eit mSeod : ¥ 8 
astiine? Econ bes brn ‘aed ot —— te { 
ViG24 WO OF 4 t anhioonw ane “t sie ——— 
ths ty * coats * “Biifoseriqs yagathnvorure od: er] 
$ to emt? oils PS obit thwrat boats} 
— ot sidett * iat 8 went ef 


Lf .bske ena = soc tec ‘o> are ¢ * rs 

vitnereqca to eaatqrote duontt iw anteesoto oft 0: ts 

T949, m savor a geod ot ki feuh ed rats 

bert labeoraa⸗ ne * —————— 

* * ua 

‘ents “to eltotde ‘has ofan ‘oft brass ‘bawottatdet? 

og & tenet) | 28 

wend re edd mort toot wh: 10 ‘Wrot aam —— 

—— at ot | 
oil ait to etd: « ent Won —— zedtons ba 

lt ot begsed Bad ef. tot ts be 


<urkde-mve bre teelo naw #F. vite. odt sk maw. OLD g 
Deltettan e158 04 eomehlyo.adt to. — Latenne = 

BL 80 eld mb ek Sieworsaldert ,at% to wronstent a 

moo, Ylvk boo yiztet pe ed bisode ott tad? hes : 
hotoetdue need asd ony esent in yrs to eogehtye add, , ty 
esenttw atdt 5 sottentmexe anoxo a Yatadorl bes — 0 
edt Liet of prixovashre saw ede tadt begcommt aes 
eforstw ales tei to otterobtargo Latdrecms , BS ana MOK 
 aYlividtutt ytiteed bbb ede tadt eegoloaih © 
giteeots Baotltet 8 gartdoeoxcoe erg he wwe add et ce 





se and a failure to look and listen precludes a recovery 
: “for persona injury where, to have looked and listened, would 
have prevented the injury, and where there were no circum 
stances or conditions justifying «a failure to look and listen 

or any obstruction to the view, (C, R, I, & PR Ry. Co, v 
Jones,135 T11, Appy 380, ani cases thewmtin cited.) It seems 
almost impossible that the ceceaged could not have heard 
‘this approaching train, even if he did not sae it. 

The evidence is conflicting on the question of 

obstruction to the view at thet point, so it is possible 

he could not have seen the train, but he is shown to have 
been so familiax with the spot, that he must have been 
thoroughly swere of the danger of not using hie eyes, to 

the utmost extent of his ability, Deceased was killed as soon 
ag the engine struck him, Deceased was thoroughly cognizant 
of all the conditions of that cposeing, and he obviously did 
not look to see whether a train was coming , and he cid not 


hear sounds of the approaching train, which were known to 
others who testified, Ne must have been either asleep or 
absorbed in his own reflections, 

The positive evidence ig that the engine whietied at the 
whistling post more than fifteen hundred feet west of this 
crossing, more than the statutory distances; that the fireman 
then got down to replentish the fire, and whether the automatic 
bell had been ringing prior to that time, he then pulled 

the cord, and started the bell, and it continued to ring 
until after the accident, and until the train xa satovpad. 
There is negative evidence of persons who cid not notice 
the whistling at the whistling post, or the ringing of the 
































% sot metetl bre took * wt 
* F —* 


ae ten va a? tran wyrthye 


Fae Bere steed r * s 30 Oitelaw yr old 
rieygoer 2 * — hers took oF oSrE A ad s 
A or aT ne by o meses sce ,heeaetsh aR os 


_bLuow bonoye:t _ ba B hetooL eves ot —— — 


Eorto of exey oꝛeat oxo Imo. mat ot Mono, ae 


motets brs took ** —— sto —— aia 3 $2 
“¥, 90.4 + * & 6 he 2 wtr ond tf J —— * 


— A(,bettp atonon⸗ bg tn ax eazor 088 4k ey. 


p ‘ovad ton bLvoo be edt tadt eldk aa 
Bere ,aeatsd ef of Fou heeseseh fea bits , * ie 
oth eae tom bbb ed TL neve 


VE Xxx en oMee Yisy gilt et — 
hoi tea hear salt — sorrebive * 


eidtneog si tt oa ,tnkoq tart $s wetv out of 
a & tO @uB6 © ea — 
ad of J morte et on dud qnbaxt elt meee b. 
taf: No weer? of wit itda cet SO 
, Med oved teu est pase: Fors odd dtiw xstlimst 
mr hiios ‘TH , Bon khrvoriiss aver’ 
oF. Bee, sts, ten tor * ‘togash eft to exews yl 
2 wort ed .eorelerd to ie 
oop ae peceht Raw besssostt sythitds etd to tnetxs ge 
nivtewoto sft offe We 
_Aroxtego0, {Lito enw booe ooc atg Aunaat ee ft 
sIvO Sent " & Fh 
bib auotvdo, of ba coitknaogs taut 0 1 anotsthaoo 9 i 
Awwos tatde 
tor bib. ost bes 4 gtinoo nw abet! 8 teritede 008 OF 


yews d — 


wt mwort etawotdw » tttaxt waa Bie to 8 

20 » qeelas toidftie mead ova faum sf — — ode a 

s0mto! $00.20" Wo 8 nf nt be 

* te bottetde exkgno ‘edd todd oh one eee tba 

eld? to deen toot borbruwstl meesii? mest exon ont ‘dag’ 

— E— edt tert ceortada tb viotutede ont nat onta , ! 9 2 

oltamotss off xortodw bre cork ‘od — bine foo os ech Soa tal 

be Litre nec of @mtt tout ‘ot ola gitant ‘need. ‘pad Eh 

** ot hourtt dro tt bre ‘ited ont “botzad — Bo 

beacote 2x nhaxt ott tite bas " dueptons ‘adh meet? 

sottor fom brh ory anxoetec to eomvhive ovbimen wf « 
sit to yaigtts ed to y#eoq oabite ftw edt te —* 

2 1 


1 7 ik as 


7 
ae 3 


ee 


vd wy 4 
RR ca 


—* 
— 
— 
é 





Mere is a dispute in the testimony as to whether the 


‘engineer at the instant he saw the horse, just before he 
etruck it, blew the whistle; the fireman being engaged in 


| ghoveling coal, did not see the wagon and horse at all, ‘The 
wagon and horse being on ‘the opposite sidé of the track 

- from the ee, he gaw nothing until the horse camé upon 
7 the track just ahead of him, ard just before he struck the 


rige 
— Considering all the evidence in the light of the 
decisions of the Courts, we regard the positive evidence 
as to the fact that the bell was rung and a whistle sounded, 
is entitled to more weight than negative evidence in re- 
jation to such facts, (C, Rs I, & P, RY, Co. v Jones, 135 
Tll, App. 380, and oases ther cited,) 

We are satiefied that the bell was ringing, and that 


the whistle was sounded, ‘There is no satisfactory emidence 


an this record that appellant was negligent in any of the 


manners alleged, The track had been raised as above indicated, 


‘and they were working on it at that time, and ite condition 


the day before the accident would throw but little maxgkk 


light on ite condition the day of the accident, 


Before the accident on the twenty third day of June gravel 


had been placed between the rails, which had been leveled 


off to some extent, “but the evidence is not that deceased 


was stalied between the tracks in fresh gravel, If that had 


been true, it might be urged os a ground of negligence, but 
his horse had merely cot upon the track when the train struck 
it, There is no evidence that the train was running at an 
excessive rate of speed, nor is there any evidente of any 
impoopermanagement of the engine or trains but in any event 
— was not exercising due care and caution for his 

} 


4 
a, 

ot 4 F 

lusts & a ; 





ve ee 


| qhotebtnkt Vota’ aif petiber fete Bad towx¥’ siti’ — 























odd Roils ortv ot Ba wromsteed —— Ox site 3g 
gif exotted Hut yetaoH bur — 
aE apa pict estoy bY tit — 
eit!” 168s wexod has toyed eit bee Fon & 
ROGEY Oct to Wb Ae VFadyyo AF — axort “titi * 
Hogi emits voxrod dett ttorte “goikition’ Wide olf abent a 
edt widirrv@ eit ‘broted’ tel} brit muti to” hdoctal Hai 
omson +2 {,becto midmow? eemet hte YORE .aok — 
eit to Fityis Ske nf”? suneBive sit ik ye 
sonebive ovittsoy oft ‘bxoget sw iti Wire 
ghebruros ‘bt tulitw 2 das hart eww cred? ott YHIA a 
“or nt wortetive | svktaneit Hac? ddybew sro oF 98 
act’ J v Joo =v 52° oo it Loy eve” hb 
fend vad tui om 5 . — 
tadt Sno’ \pitkgit's Haw tied ett Fat¥ tetterthe yi’ oi * 
venohteae yrovonte rte by ar Brent bebairda Siw 8 vt 
olf 2° ye aE tkoybIyeH ow vB Loci’ falty”” beebee" es 


3. 


ad te theroc· aet ders deritee seit te $b tro Birktzow Siew y 
auto olttii tod woutlt: bisow #ashtooce edt eToled)) 
‘eirebtoos edisto yebredt moltkbroe! > ck mo @ : 
fevetg emul to yab bridt yinews edt no tmebtooe oad ore 
belevel good bel dotdw yelies eft meowted beosiq: vot B a 
heexeosh talt gor et gomebive eft tudy 4 drodxe amos, 13 - 
bed teil? t2 ,Leverg sheext mt wilperd edd neewted.~ eves 
dud ,eonegilgen to hnayoze s' as begutr ed diigia div 
dourte bent edt necw,adoatd ed? moa tox yozem bed éexod bb 
aa de gekonex paw atattoedt {aid eote hive: om ak oral 9d 
ye ho e@onebive yre exsit)et son ,beeqe! to eter - D 
iteve yha mk tud paket wooemtgerp: exit torde 
Sti rot matinee hrs stem sini. sa suman ton mst 


(eae 


* the ings 





wn gafety, and his negligence must be held to have contri-~ 
‘buted te his death, 


2 
a 
‘Se 


The judgment is therefore reversed, 
1S OF PACT TO BE TYCORPORATED IN Tire JuDEmNT) 


J We find that deceased was not in the exercise of due 
 @are for his own safety at the time he was kkiled, and that 


he lost hie life because of his failure to exercise due 
care; and that defendant was not negligent as charged, 


< Ge 





















oP EDI IOS, 4, Mek ———— 


bit ————— yo — 






Si ‘nul? te Wb re Hig oe — 


oy SUB eetoꝛeo ent ak eg. oom bao 
dass aca bess aa of omkd 9 
_ ub eatotoxs of etuiist e — tes 


Ped, ie se fuephigen to oon 8 * 


sonobive eyifticd at? Pager we an oF ’ . ee 
= ‘OL vibitw das Year ae SEO oity FRI i 
5 get ay ebrb tive ‘ evkeoyai Wack” ddytew oom” — 
ae Re ** — 
DD————— 
taut? Tne Vathgrty Sow ‘toed od? Fat} *7 
Stivetiees’ yxotontetthh of t ee 
ot? td’ wha “nt fe milinan eiw dnaliotha sats 


<botanthr? eyotin at deehar ied a’? |) 



















Moti tiou eeF bos jemte vadd Ga 3) eaxer — 
tinker sistil tod wouth Meow daehtoow anh, otohod 





Ae rebtomn ett lo veb-edé aotstbhpos!. ation 
. Levy rh enw to yah Ouide ed ne Freel LOR Me a 
; bei.ewl) deed hed doidw. galiax odd geortac: banalg: ead 
g Wee Pat Pacer geredive cect. tae puters 
3 | hod ged &Y ,Leweogoginet tin? one namie taal * 
dini. ,eoneagliges to teutom: bi dg hey et 
| jaunte elext ostt cocw, dorks et? coqn te, ylenert: bed @ ad | 
cA te” Quiche tere ant gaat sate Skye ot as edt 
Te a 
ataeh ty: otis oo) et wen .Deeqs To ete * 


J 
Neve tho al sic Aent ween tert eth qo ß e 
" ; Sti So TUE * Pe | bork Suse eb Qtielovexs’ asa 





STATE OF ILLINOIS,).. 
SECOND DISTRICT. I88. 1, Curistopaer C. Durry, Clerk of the Appellate 


Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records 

and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the 
said Appeliate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office. 

In Testimony WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the 

seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this second day 

of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hun- 


dred and thirteen. 


Clerk of the Appellate Court. 














Pape Use reek Seat ks ie ak 


* 


4 \ aLonitar? 
stellaqgA edt lo Asal) yaad 2 yunsoranno -TOMTeIG 


261000 oud Io foqevd bose etonilll lo ssid edt to toiweld hooved Bisa 108 

it lo yqoo ouTd & #i usiogowl of3 Jedd Yarraap vaunon Od joe 
salto yar af bitovet to venad baltiine evodé-odd at d0O a) 

add xii: bow bape von toe ofaeaed J NOMAD W yvoMirerT) x1 


AD haores vidd wwanO te 1069 vtelloqg A. hige ott. to Unae 








out to moisture. a 













“mi! onin Danevods suo bial wo to 1697 ot oi duuguA to 


sort! bite bork 


* HOLY. SAYS sya *8 Aah) 


8 
ie 
‘ 

—— 


| 5707; ag al 
ae Ce. 


AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT, 







Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the first day of April, in 
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and thirteen, 

within and for the oo ee of the State of Illinois: 
Present--The Hon. CHARLES WHITNEY, Presiding Justice. 

Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice. 

Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justice. 


CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk.-y © s) 7 ~ 
5 a. fr. fi j — 


— 


J. GG. MESCHEE, Sheriff. 











BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on the 2d day 
of August, A. D. 1915, the opinion of the Court was filed in 


the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures 


following, to-wit: 












Sone wat »fitgA 30 ysb terri edt wsbeen? a0 $ 


,asettid? bas berbeud sain basewodd eno ane 













+ patoohiix to etss2 edt to prea 
nt gar" 


soijaul goibleetd, 





9 
Anan 


ao 


sotteaut ,ddgaeia sowamiod 


4 


ie 
4 


.sottegt 


cht SS 


Cat ed hee Pee wae — 7 
He cet ed 


vine 
t 


joey 





t: y5b DS edt ao :tiw-ot ,ebtswistts tad  CRAREMAN 
mi beltt asw tipod edt to moiatgo edt SOL La 
astu3it bas abrow edi nt ,#1009 bise to eottto ats 
7 ; 
Pe 








Se ee Le 


Errot to Iroquois, 


This cause comes before this court on writ of error 


owing out of an order of distribution in 4 partition suit 





—— a a a ha 
» 3 ¥ = LP Oe * J 

oo 

— 


in which Benjamin D. Herrick was complainant and Lizzie Grove 


' Ryan and others were defendants, and on the denial of a 
motion to re=tax costs in the proceeding, 


On April 4, 1901, defendant in error (who, for brevity, 


will hereafter be styled Herrick) filed in the court below 
his bill praying for pattition of several tracts af land 


located in Woodford @ounty, and one tract or lot of land 


_ located in Iroquois County, Demurrere were interposed to 
this bill by plaintiff in error and lielen H, Ryan and sus= 
_ tained, The demurrere having been sustained on August i, 


1910, Herrick, thereupon took leave to file an amended bill 
and filed the same on December 46, 1910, in and by which he 
described the lot in Iroquois county only, Plaintiff in 
error being in court, or represented therein by counsel, 
when leave was given to file the amended bill, cannot pisad 
ignorance of the fact that it was filed, and she suffered 
the amended bill to go by default. A decree for partition 
pro confesao as to plaintiff in error was entered st te 
November Term 1910, and commissioners were appointed by the 


decree to make partition etc, They reported at said 


Nove mber term by whith report they stated the premises were 


not susceptible of partition, and appraised the same, At 
the November Term 1910, on December 31, decree of sale wag 





; 
7 


5 ee ee Ae 


4 er TT See Le SO SY eee eee se 
* ‘ak - gy es .* " 
‘ Ae ¢ X 3] 





















eetosporl of fox: 


een abe 


ATS 2D HM a eo 
tories to tiuw ao fxwoo alt exoted: somos ——— 
tive moititusq 2 mt aotaudt adeath to 1ebt0 ma ro 100 an 

evord elsaid fae trentelquoo wow Aotaaon C1 | aimst rod : ‘ 

⸗ to fatash— edt no bus etnabceteb exow exedto | | 
eankbeesorq edt mt afeoo xataon of 
<Vtivetd to? ,odw) sorze mt tnsbmeteb .LOCL yd fe 
woled tuuoo edt mt beLtt (dotrzel heLytea ed rettacted 
Bast % atoart Lozevee to moittita rot gatyerq I 
bast to tol xo toext sno 5ns Xcuoð bro⁊boon at) 
of heeoqretnt exew exer umed ,y¢mroD stouporl at bets 
nove bas may .H mefol! hue xorxe at Ytitatela yw Lftd abs 
cf tevguh mo bentsioun need yatve exetumeh eft * 
Ifid bebnoma me eftt of evesl Aoot mocwerxentt qloltawel g 
ed dotdw yi bra mt ,OLCL .88 tedmeced mo emae od⸗ best? | 
mt Titéntart ,yino yenwod stouporl at toL” Sid's 2 
.teemmen yd aleredt Sedneverqot 20 .ttvoo it ated ve 
baelq tonnao ,Iftd bebredn odd oft? of Rovis ‘saw ove fi 
bexetiue oie bos pbeltt exw th tadt tost edt To sonar 
motthtxaq x0t eeroed. A .tiuateh yd og of LLid —A 
eit te berstne saw ‘sorte mi Btttntalq of es Osastmoo ox ) 
edt yd betmtoqqs ezew szenotertmmoo has ,OLeL wret xed 
bie te betroqet yedT ote motttteaq olan of eagoek 
oxew seaimera edt hetstea yedt *roqex datdw yd ore? ‘toda ov — 
th .omso oft heeterqan bes ymottitzeq to eldkiqeoeye tom 
enw else to eetoeh .f6 tedmeoed ao 5 wror ⁊ocino volſ i 


ga a 


“ 


4 a 


Th 







ꝛd and on February 4, 1911, the November Term 

adjourned. Report of sake was made at the March term 1911, 

4 and at said March term on April 17, the report of sale 

as approved by decree then entered and by the same decree 

; ‘the solicitor's fee and the guardian as litem's fees 

J herein complained of were fixed upon proof submitted in open 

; Court, and by the same decr e the master wasottdered to 

Bt make distribution” of the proceeds of sale, amon: other 
things being directed to pay "To Fred Benjamin , clerk's 
costs, $121.75" and on May-20, 1911, the March Term adjourned, 
The reoord ‘shows that at the November term 1911 « report of 
partial distribution was filed and approved; the order of 
appreval recited "and no objections being offered thereto" 
to which report is attached the receipt of the clerk of ‘he 
cireuit court showing that there waa paid him %121,75 
*for fees accrued", The firat effort was made by plaintiff 
in error to question the taxation of costs was on the 26th, 
day of December 1911, one of the days of the November 1911 
‘term, when she filed her motion in the court below to re- 
tax costs by written motion unsigned by her or her counsel, 
The motion to retax costa was set down for hearing on 
December 30, 1911, There is no certificate of the evidence 
heard on the motion to retax in the record, therefore, we 
axe compelled to pass on the record as it is written, There 
is no item pointed out srecifically that is cliaimed to be 
wrong in “clerk's costs, $171,75" and in that item the 
fault must be, if anywhere, Every intendment is in the firet 
inatance in favor of the proper taxation of costa in the 
absence of proof to the contrary, In the order of (istribu- 
tion the master ia directed "to pay Fred Benjamin, Clerk's 
costs, $1231.75", The report of distribution shows payment 
to Fred Benjamin, costs and fees of $131,75, On such a show- 





; 
be 
; < 
r 
iz 


{fonds Hert to “ted yd Hérgtert Sty Am Hedeeae — 


— Aeere ef #f on Brodet od} a6 ‘etre ot belles 


























mxeT xodmevod edt .{f@L .o 

«fLeLl mret dota edd ts ebem eer gfae. 
oltas to, troges edt, VL tAxaa mo muot 
eexoeh Gane eft vd bos bexetne stot ee 


meqo nit hettimdve Toorq moa — etew to & 
o¢ hetebfossw retanm edt 9 r98eb emee of * 

SO°8° gerd Aeoms (othe to’ ebssobtq’ sti 28°" RoLdid et 
PLO gt teB TS — — ⏑⏑—⏑ ⏑ —⏑—⏑—⏑—— ie 
Perabo pbe wet Hoa enh ctet LOR” yaw wo BAR” WEN, TALe 
to #xoget’s LLCL ited toamevon” Bite thal toe m 

to xebro ett thevoteGe Bus “pete? saw molsudbs: 
WNBA Der tho Sitia amb tF65E as on Babe —— 
“Od? 16 “MteL6 oat to dqbeoss edt setobFra ok Heqete 
SOS BV PERCE mbH BAG aa 'Stedd “Yad? “gnbvedtd * 
—————— 
AOR ———— 
Xxxot fedsiovon ‘otf to avan “edd to ‘odo —— J 

Mbt oF wokod Froo oY RE mottom Sok BOLEY Sites 


“hts gebtndit 26% ‘ebb $68" WAW nd Bod Rated 62 RORION 
Gonctitve eit ta ofnoltt fed ‘on wr efent “ycfet (bes 
Sw Sexo Yetotd (Hrosds Ody WE Ravet “St “notFom edd ae 

“pe of bémfols he Party ‘YlLao kt foer a ‘tuo ‘betatog 7 me: 5 

eit ibtr tad nf mele WSN Cre leaded ature tow ab’ i | 
tore edt vt of drommteditt ‘Yuova Jevedwune Yt Ved daum | * 3 
eit nt wiido Yo horfexey T8co%e edd Ye “adver ak —X — 
asdittult % Yebro’ etd at .Wiasrmob eff of tooxg os * es 
dVifxrold ydbeintrtot Dow Yoq off Beddorth | a xed nam tee 
trestyeq swords ho lktidtytdth to Prodet. ost —— — 


— ———— ⸗ hate ‘ptRod Arnn toll het ot 
Ta — — 


Te oe, 









pe eg oe ae 
“ — 


* things are wrong, but the record fails to disclose 
wha: Vii ous, if any, were improperly taxed by the clerk, We 
not indulge in inferences and presumptions with no 
ord before us, except a direction to pay "t Fred 
enjamin, Clerk's costs $191,75," Perhaps solicitor's fees 


guardian ad litem foes and sheriff's feea for service of 

! parties residing in Wooiford county were includiad in the 
$121, 75 but we would have to infer it, for it is certainly 
not set out in the record, ‘There is no evidence in the 


reaord that the clerk taxed among the “clerk's costa" 

either a solicitors fee, & guardian ad litem's fee, or 
any sheriff'e fees, There was no praecipe for a record 
filed and the clerk certifies "the above and foregoing te 
be a true, perfeot and complete transcript of the record 
in a certain cause lately pending in said court on the chan= 


‘cery side thereof,* 


The reeord shows no evidenee of what, if anything, was 
wrong in the item the master wae ireoted to pay, namely 
the item "to pay Fred Benjamin, clerk's costs, $121,75," 

A motion in the court below waa the only basi» for the 
retaxation of costs, (Klajda v Wilandt 93 I1l.App. 373, 

Considering the state of the record we cannot see that 
the court below erred in denying the motion to retax costs, 

Taxation by clerk ie presumed to be correct, (Eney, Lay 
& Procedure, Vol. 11, P, 165) 

Every intendment is in favor of the proper taxation 
of sosts, (Dietrich v Richey 34 rll, App. 343,) 

‘qhere may or may not have heen error in allowing 2 
solicitor's fee and guardian ad litem's fee, We are not page= 7 
fing on that nor is it necessary to the disposition of 


‘oar as. ae - Ee A es on at ie ea ee fo. ee 
fg? he Dey 9 : —VD& x 























noltom edt ofunteve tud-anidtos ob bios t00 ast 3 

tromugta, ted mk even; gosto nh Pistnsals ) 988809, : 

esckpaih of elsst. hereneg: ott das ganour one, * 

OW stasio eft yd hoxst ylrecotqmt orew., wie th qomeds 

On tin smottammorc bas seorprsink mt egies a a 

X reco oi beak ot* pey ot) sotdosath s dasoxe —— 

ao⸗oo⁊:ot dt soe egacized . ax.cc aeoo a⸗ auo c 
¥ ao eptyxen sok soot mI RRExede fins boo uuo⸗ at be 

oct mh bathwLont erew yirwoo brotsooW. mt : 

) orylatedromysiodierot.« ti setak of eved bisow ow, t 

lo tedtett to comb hye: or eho otamts (5 brooee addres: 

ed > vo Mateos ofagelo" sft gaome: bexet Aelo. on 

* 20.08) efmettl bs satbtars A/yoe? strertosion: j 

- | bio On ptt eqkpeera on eer oxedT, sneer 8! ttimen 

of umtogexo> bre evgds ert. me thttneo. Agate oft, * 

broden acd Xo aatadonore odolano. be, ecooa· 

~tada eff mo twos htse mt gnthned Vletat, comes, nteti9s 

{LOL dedtsvor ‘ody “to or? *6 ‘boxe cMaRopaedd. btm o 

eer, agatdt ys ht stadntorgeaebie! om. aworls To 

coo Sfomeay ye. of betperth.eaw xoteaw edt) mot b arity 

".2Y,L8£8 .eteve etdroLo ymimatmed bext. ysq of) metd 

-@rit-tot ekead elmo vit sen woled: tayo paitint mottos 

BIS -CALLIT. 62 thasllw veeblelh) .eteo; to aolta 

tats, ese tonnes ew bropex edt to etata edd) omde 

-a¢soo xat¢ex o¢ nottom edt! grtyneb aly hetre) woled 

wal ,yorl) .tooxtoo ed ot bopwretc ef aAxolo yf gots: 

 AeROL Gogh ————— 

tottexat tecore: ait, Fo toyet ah et snembrotat | 

(868 ack gil 48: yodolsl v do ixtotd)> —ñ— 

2 satvolle at torre goog’ evartom yer oO) yam oreieis 7 

| · tom oxa.e¥ seek a'mesil fs gethuevg bcs aot, a'xototion — 

to. melt keoantp, Pilih is yrnpwonen th ek Zon... teal — 


4 


* —J — — 


ee ee 


ia 


a 
* 
wa 

4 oy 


ng 


wa 

7 4 é 

* +. 
9° 

7 

7 


. 














a8 not preserved the evidence, if any, taken on the 
ng of the motion to retax, And we must presume that 
ecient proof was heard to justify the denial of the 


is nothing in the reeordshowing that such allove 
@ in any way affected the amount @ireeted to be paid 
_ plaintiff in error in distribution, 
; e so far as it appears the error, if any, there was, 
f worked no harm to her, .. 

Nothing appearing in the record showing in “hat par- 
a ticulare the taxation of costs was wrong, we are 
disposed to affirm the order of the circuit court, 


Judgment affirmed, 

































cotton oct-edurueye tad. yetdifos ob hues, hae0 eit 2 
*22* “asi. ae zeos xox⁊e a⸗ Digeaaey toad 


. % — 5 ——— — 
oF ce athe Fs ye fos, Te Sere act — 
— aeotten — TS 
5577 ot a 08 mottom or 
aset.o hy: ite SA Senn am 
Ro eotexee-xok aps? ot ebsegde Axe soot, werkt: r 
of — Mee tee Dit oe Dts 
— et det ee —— — 
ent nt egtebive.or Sets: we ER 
_SBtnoe a eae sud gous —— 
- 5o ,ee? otoesal-he nodbuary 6-4 eet —— 
panies Sat learn aeare oven Me 
od sas wen Meee Wn ote b+) y3 “to moztaxat 9 
Meones wt te — — — 
aig elt me tzu00 Larges ir ee oginn f 
| | * stow padé . 
AM BRE OS - FA og THrihe ——— O@27OrIa none 
ysemag , vac ot betoan aan sefeam a? wett.oty, 
* ,O¥,LGER ~wptevoe etilxo fo. mimateeg Devs, gad oF 2 
~ait-20% vtead gigmo s42 aar wobec dayeo editcct met . | 
BIS squls LE Be eheekiG vb hate), peso0dto.m0d 89 , 
fait een toutes of heoeex ad? ko abate pes? —E we 
.eFsoD ReteT OF agiforss ou gniweh at het — ied. 008 
wal ,you) .teaxtoo seipe hengegac Of dxolo. yt notes i 
(240 4% gh sToY.gbMaber ; 
taliatet spqors emf >o -copee. ad-et- Qreghasend Seer 
(,8%3 ..cugh oor AS eee oy Mh tegotd) pee 
athvoilno mi. texxo stood (eyed. aon Yar tO Tae —E— 
— D ated gs ba geihrenrg ioe 202 — J———— 
bo, mo dhFacey 22 Of cme —— 4 nk zos Bhai no gtk 


J 
vy OY Dad " Le _ 
ine ee S rE — —2 ye * ee * 


STATE OF ILLINOIS, Iss 
SECOND DISTRICT. I, CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk of the Appellate 


Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records 
and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office. 

In Testimony WHEREOr, I hereunto set my hand and affix the 
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this second day 
of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hun- 
dred and thirteen. 


Clerk of the Appellate Court. 





ie tee ta eb th — — 3 aa 
— —— 


ee : Hie wees Brows 46 38 Pie BRU. ane, an * 
Mi ve — * * at : 


Pa P sta a J 
Soke ae RR, BREF 8 






9 + eS seth sees 


m4 












Rie OP Sty UL aera ait we rank * ina 









> : 5 Adie! —* 3 he 
‘ is: / —R ha * 
2 ies yeti * HSS ee | Reta 

















— RRA Reeth a —X (kegs 
4 4 — Sy a * *— th a! 24) 48 Sieg * dd eet — — 
iM * an 4 ~ J 






* pen —— Lesh. 


Ca W vats od 34 yy * 
— Geigy — 1 “9, as * bis Yy PEERS * ‘ 
° * , 4 ag Xe 4 d —* —— 


———— J eh 
——— 


ye — ef F ts 










Mea ae kis 
— 





amt ; ats eas 


— PSB eRe — * wth 
‘ : : ‘ 7 ee ie eh ie. Ren a 
5 ay de & —— ea ee — shy ae. ics Pay, — — 

— ft " » ¢ “> é y ; ; 
ie gt RHO: FRE GAG wee “Pe —“ ee iz — 
ip : * 1 ——— 






x 






> * 4 seit 
* —— 
t 
Jet ; 
J * 
rey 
a + 
Se 


Py be 4 ’ 
afte & 
i 
et * 
< . 
ih 
\ 
, 6 


¥ er a 
|, ALO AINE 
atallogips. atte aislD .yawy@ 2) soe OVeine ) 3) papal ‘T9I 


r 


absooow ot io 1sqoed bas zionilil to stw@ edt to derdeid buoso⸗ bine 10% b 
* Sit lo noiniqo edd lo yoo aude se el Raiogs1a7 agli toda Yvruiso YaasgH od , 
soifto yar ai biese to oeuiis hottiines orods ould of SOD 9 
* od? xis hoe baal yor ive otasrued. T 
, Yh baoows sidé weisiO te dived siallodqA hige Odd Yo Iese 
“quit sitia bosevods sao fal dio to 1294 Odd Mi SeogiA To 


oostidé bow berb 


etary: >. ahiyyh\ Marth. 4AN VO vay) 








AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT, 






egun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the first day of April, in 
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and thirteen, 


within and for the ict clase of thm State of Ll Linonss: 






Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, 
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFYY 


J. G. MISCHKE, Shefiff. 











BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on the 2d day 
ae euevetsn. OD. 1915. the 6pinion of the Court was filed in 
the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures 


following, to-wit: 







reromtiil to etste ef!\%o ee 
softest gs — 


~99 





ts : 
a ¥ 
+a 
— F 
pres ‘ : 


ee Fs 


—— — AN ey \ 8 dws 


Ue Oe te Le) ee bao Oe ne 
at Bp ys . s3 


| vsb BS sdt ao :tiw-ot ,abtswrsits ‘eae 5 f 
at belit esw trod ed? to nolLarqo sdt ie * 
428 7361 bas sbrow edt r— bise Yo" ‘goth? 
. aw 
#2 









ta 


No, 5753 
« M, Sears, appellant, 


vs Appeal from Putnam, 


©, C, Gmerson & Company et al 






"{ 


J 
' 


a : 
¥ 
* 


matney, P. J. 


appellees, 


—— Mrs, M, Sears had a claim againet thenon-resident 
firm of C, G, Emerson & Company, and sued out 2 writ of ate 


tachment before a justice of thepeace against that firm in 


which garnishee summons was served on A, W, Hopkins as having 
certain funds in his hands belonging to said V. ©, Emerson 
& Company, The American National Bank filed an interpleader 
under the statute claiming the fund and en a trial judgment 
was rendered in effect finding the fund to be the property 
of the American National Bank and dismicsing the suit at the 
Gosts of the plaintiff therein, from which this appeal is 
prosecuted, 

The facts briefly stated are that Imerson & Company 
sold gome potatoes to Zraik & Trahd, an Tilinois firm, drew 
a aight draft on then for $218.90, attached the draft to 
the bill of lading and endorsed and deposited said draft 
and bill of lading with the American National Bank, Seid 
bank gave credit to C, C. Emerson & Company for the amount 
of the draft and forwarded same to A, V. Hopkins, an Tili- 
nois banker doing business at Granville, Illinois, in the 
name of the Granville Bank by Zraik & Treahad and on the same 
day Hopkins was served with summons as = garnishee of ©. C, 
Emerson & Company. Various proceedings were had in the at~ 
tachment auit and on the garnishment branch thereof prior 
to the filing of the interpleader by the American National 
Bank, in none of which, however, wae final jucgment rendered 





ee, EE — SS —— —— — ———— —— 


— moxt Looqgk ; 
Ls te yraqmod 3 a ex 


A⸗ Ut aw 
sueblaei—aoneds tontens mislo # bed aree® Mo! a 
ote to tixw 2 tue beve fee qytaqmod aoeroni 0 401 
at mxit tad? tantage soseqedt te eoktaut 2 exot 
antverl es antigoH ,W .A mo bevroe a an eons ⸗0 at ore 
‘owxen 0 .U diac ot gatgnoled what etd at shut s 
sobseiqzesat ns belit Ana Larottell naottemA ont J we 
dnomphst Lalit 8 me bre bust edt geimtelo etutste ent 
yeteqots od? od of baut edt omthmtt tostte mt hexebs 
eit ts tkue ett oefectmetbh bos ined Lano' tat aso 


at Leeqys etd? dotdw moxt ykereds tiitntela ot % 

















Bi “ 


wisqmed & Movies tedt sxe hetste yileixd stost ott ‘ 
woth ,mrkt etomtiil ns ,.bdert 4 44488 of seosaiog | os 
ot ttatb edt boostts 08,8186 x0 mosts no —X 
ttexh bias. betlesoqeh bre heatobis baa gathel Xo, 
bia® And Lanoitel maotxemA edd dtiw gatbal to £1 
touoms edt tot yreqmod 3 moexenil «0 .9 of #tbero 3 
witli ne ,ectiqoH .W .A ot omen bebrawrot hae dtard ed ⸗ 
edt at ,otomt£iil ,elfivniss) te eeemtaud gatob roined # 
enas edt co bis bidet? & ALaxS yd ansh elifvner) ont * ome 
0.9 to —— © es eacomuse ditw bovroe eaw enkic Hye 
~ta eft at bel otew anmthesvorq avolttaY§ .yneqnod a 
roivq teste? doneid énemdetate,; eft no boa thus . 
fanoltall meolvemA edt yd webssiqretmt eft to ynkiit ont ¢ 
hezebne: tremphut Lantt sew .zsvewod mast to onan mi 





for the attaching creditor or apainst the garnishee, so their 
interpleader was filed in apt time and the motion of appeli- 
dant to strike the interpleader from the files was properly 
| @ver-fuled, Julliard & Go, v May. assignee, 130 T1l. 87, 

| ‘ Appellant also filed a devurrer to the interpleader 
which was overruled, The filing of the demurrer amounted to 
a waiver of the claim that the interpleader was interposed 
too late, Julliard v May, supra, 

Appellant instead of standing by her demurrer to the 
interpleader went to a trial on themerits on the issues made 
therebb and introduced evidence on that trial, This amounted 
to a waiver of the claim that the court erred in overruling 
the demurrer, Hepler v The People 386 Til, 275, 

The case originated in justice court and going to 
trial on the merits and introdueing evidence on the issues 
raised by the interpleader was in effe t pleading the general 
issue to the interpleader, On the trial in behalf of the 
American National Bank the sight draft for $218,90 endorsed 
by CC, C. Emerson & Company and the bill of lading attached 
also endorsed by C,C, Emerson & Compang were admitted in 
evidence without objection, A deporit slip made at the 
Anerican National Bank and testified to by the assistant 
cashier of that bank as an original entry of deposit with 
said bank showing a deposit among other things of "check on 
Zraik & Trahd for $213,90" was also offered in evidence 
by the bank and received in evidence <h@hest-ebseusdumy- 
The acsistant cashier testified without objection to the 
sight draft and bill of lading abeve mentioned and that they 
were deposited in his bank in the reguiar course of business 
and that a deposit slip of the transaction wasmade on the 
day it purports to have been made, October 12, 1969; that 
he had compared the deposit slip with the books of the bank 





5654 Ay OS My re ‘ye J a ed 
Re RS Ne ee PT 
. are J 
2 vy 
at . » 


~~ a, 


ia 


SSS — — — 
= * 


Sed eT! 


— i” 























nted? on ,eedeinrag oft tontage 10 to¢thets — — 
-ieqis to sottom odt han emkt tqe ‘at Beit? ed ob 
Yiteqoty aaw eaitt ort — —S edt oitits - 
V8 ,L5T OSL .eemgtene wie ioe oe an : 
tebselqretnt elt of teTumeh 2 BOER? oni dratoqch 2 
ot heotnuome xextumeh eft to gakltt edT .helusteve es ae 
Benoquesnt-esw zohabiquostt oct daddombeLo wise RD : 
? — src ug dat Li 
oa⸗ Od TOTIEMOD tox YS gnthasse to bastegtet 
ehem seueat edt no othvemert mo: Lakxdéoacot otaew: 
betaveme etd? sLetxt tad? no seonshtve 
ghkiu«xeve mt bente! tis00 édtotadt «mbsloveritto 
Loxenoy ont gutheelq. d-elts mb ean tobeelaspint odd vd i 
edt Yo Yorled mt Lett odt m0 .xehselqzetat guldvoty 
‘hestobn® OG.BLKt tot Fterb digte wild Xm LenoteeM mat 
~ODedoatin nrthal to LLkd ed? beck gmqnededon 
wt Destimds orow eunqmod HMO TeMT 429 wd bee 
‘Ot te sbomatie tooged ld amottostder suedtiw { 
tastatons oft ys oF bekbiveed dro ana Lecorselt ' * 
Hitiw theogeh tocyrtes Lantytro ma. es) and! Susi tov 
no X60d0" Yo epntas revito proms theeqeb & grinotie a 
edrebive mh beretto oof daw 08,0586 «bt be 
a!) od mottootdo tuodtin bettidesd sebdean: 
veods Dac? Ste denottner svedse getbal to Likd ham Ssh) 
etentoed to sexveo sefivget edd mb dnad: eid xt botteoqed xe 
ent no ohawesw fottosenert erdito qils tieogeh £ fn 
farid OMSL .SL redosed yada mood eved of atuomteNT A 


te to tifew' a yuo 


oe 


9 





he 


g 


“uy 


be” 
a 


a 


& 
, 
A} 


.- 


— * 
First National Bank of Hiawatha, Konsas v Walsh, Boyle & Co. 


rel 


¢ 
J 


and that the deposit slip was true and correct, No evidence 


was offered by appellan$é which in any way had the slichteat 
tendency to rebut the evidence offered by the bank so that 
as the case rested at the close of the trial the evidence 


Bis 


of the bank was the only evidence on the subject of the 
—— — of the fund, 
Thin ease is to be controlled by the law announced in 


131 Ill, App. 508. All of the evidence before us is te the 


‘effect that the American National Bank received this draft 


on deposit with other items of cash an’ other checks ad drafts 
in the usual course of business, Even if the deposit slip 

had notb<en offered in evidence, whibh clearly shows a de- 
posit and not a receipt for collection, the testimony of the 
cashier was that the draft was received as a deposit and 

in the absence of proof of fraud we would be bound to pro- 


‘sume it was like any other item of deposit and that the 


bank upon the deposit being made, entered it as a credit 
item against which C, C. Emerson & Company had the right to 
eheck in the usual course of business, No evidence appesartdx 
showing the deposit was ever charged back »gainst the om 
positor, There was no proof of anything but the proceeds of 
this draft ever coming into the handa of the garnishee, The 
trial Judge had but one thing to do and that was to refuse 
the instruction offered by appellant to find against the 


- glaimant, It did not harm appellant whether the instruction 


to the jury to find for claimant was verbal cin writing. 

Seeing no rev-rsible error in the record on any of 
the errors assigned and argued, the ane of the circuit 
court ie affirmed, 






















@onobive OM. .teeTz00 bre earns ser hin tteohtvottsidé 
teoddgtin edt bad wr yan mt foldw tras leqqa ys boeeRRO® 

(otal? 00 Snad.2st ed hexetteeanshtvereis tudet ot one 

cure bhve coftocLabedineddstoveucge 

» alt to s90tdse edt. mo ednebive vino edd aaw ict ad et 

F ot betnwome xoruneh ef? to tt a! ; 
a5 i Peogwonns wal edtoyd “hellotiae0 edad af aso” 


( ,09 3 elyod .deLaW v asencl gadteaweth te dasi 

| odd Qt ah ,e%-9TOXed eonedive eft YO LEA. 

: » Herb etd? beviecet) Anel Lacottal neotzomboedt » 
Bt Tar dae eoero r9dte hae desc tocaneds ‘medtoudhtw 
; - GbLe dhsoqeb et Th neve yenemteud 20 #eT00 


~eb 4 erode yraeiy ridin ~aonshive mt shezetto 
en? Jo yremltees edt .mettoeetioo tot dgkgdne: wz 
fas thoogeh © ae hevieoes gow tab. edd sted? mewn 
qh tech ban theogeh — ’ 
~ @khexo & sa tt boxette qobem anied timogeb — 
ot @idgie est bad yreqmod $ MouxenSe.0..0 dotrdw 
~) edt tonkege doat begtaio. reve: eaw theoyeb! ert yet 
to sheocorg ax? dad gnkdtyn te Reoxg om ta exert 
ent ,senainuge eth ho ehiad eri¢ otnt gakmod reve 
eater ot now teri? bao eb of grkdét emo tud hat 
ot gontegs battot sralleqcs yd) hexe? to sol 
noitowuteant ad tedden. trelleqqa srxed tom bit: 2: 
smittinw ot ». Ledrev, eer: dnamtelo: cet hath of | -yurt. 
to ye, no. brogen old mt torxe eldiecsves. Ort gatoot 
tivoxto, oid to drompowt ers. yhexgte baa bengtess: exes suid 
—* ode he eile -bomntties | 
i ,ol xededae oie on cay of s¢aequgute: * 
i? bet £13800 ° bas 


ee ee ee ee a ee! Pe ee ee eee — ae 33 eel? 


‘a 


E 









STATE OF — 
SECOND DISTRICT. oF 


Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records 


and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the 


J, CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk of the Appellate 


said Appeliate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office. 
In Testimony WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the 
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this second day 
of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hun- 


dred and thirteen. 


Clerk of the Appellate Court. 









— a ait ** 


— — tee i 
: : a 


’ ” oo qh. ag righ arya” * 
J dh es : ts Te a ae é 5 rie i 





pee pete OVA. i ra Wis ee — — — 
a : : | 


Citas MEP Rar he how 18 lake 

5 . A 
aa Vora ery Yet ae Ags ete: pa 
eds: ‘si Lea cost nia 


4) vi 


e (Fem — My 
* es ating spbskgts sa a —* Wiehe — 


* 
gi 


— rene 
— —— — Py Agha he Re a Ra tay tata. i 
—E 
REDE Siew eee and JJ— 


oer * 7 ; c*% : : > { 7 J rey ' re res 556 RX * st vith 
a ean ; | 
































* RAY ib) ‘ Nase 4 


J—— wht sh Ys 8b) conten pate Seb 


“ 
⁊ 
— 
Se. 

a 


‘a 
WAG 
a 2 iat 
* —* ey 
‘mg : ; - wie — Vas ’ 5 te * ie Pa ity 4 * wah, vi é 
La i | 
—* 
VG i L f “8* *F “ae RS : Pay ye er baie $e. 
—* | | 
3 


aloe — 


‘ae atallagg A ads to Wald Yang 6 yy et pat ge i 
Bos. wirtoba Si add te wsiqenat tym cicnstt le 80 sage wal pets debra ——— 
ea a TOON pals 0 Vago eue 8 at ꝓꝝaoaiol ond dade’ CANEAS KGAA 
f: soffto ya mi Bove 12 sen boldiite ovods ait ai $140 9 Bl 
odd xefte fet bok yor tom Otansreded wom iW yyOw raat Sree weet * 

b hacxos eidd we eO de drgovedstlioda hy hisetedd Yo Inoue ‘uaa — 
“iidheuia bagenods pio brat ayo to 19% odd mt dengoh jo 3 


unsavtidd boé bow 





OAV Ao egy 


527 











BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on the ad day 
of August, A. D. 1913, the opinion of the Court was filed in 
the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures 


following, to-wit: 















;LiaqgA 1o° ysb dgtit seas 


-nesitids bas berbecce sain ——— 880° y bod —— 


t 


;sioaiiiI to stst2 adt Mo — 


—— soreub goatbt aed vyaur [BW°SHIRAHO - 
‘3 — ,Jaaate WOMAdAOd, 


joottedt MemMAAD .L amAUG ” 
ay to ok. I 8 8 J —— * oe 2 aaasoTer8 
Ait de HH; 


— ta nee woe re et. 


i cs — — 
7 
ysb bS sit no :tiweot ,abtswresis α— ae 
ni bettt<-esw ftyod ed? Yo not sige adi 
aetuyit Bas eabrow edd at ,f1u0d hive * 





Gen, No, 5762, 

People &, appellee, 

ees 4 ve * Appeal from Co, Gt, Peoria, 
| Lucy Moore, alleged custodian of 

 @arl Moore, appellant, 


“Whitney, p. J. } 

— A petition was filed in the court below pursuant to 
the statute to inqnire into the alleged dependency of Carl 
Moore, a male child of about three years of age, alleged 
in the petition to be dependent and without propor parental 
Gare or guardianship, and Luoy Moore was named in the petie 
tion as having the custody of said child, The child was 
produced in court by her, a jury sworn and impanneled to try 
the queations at issue, and 4 verdict and judgment followed 
finding said child a dependent, and an order was entered 
committing him to the Illinois Home & Aid Society, subject 
to the control of the court, from which order and judgment 
the said Lucy Moore prosecutes this appeal, 

Tt was urged in the court below and is here urged 
that the county court of Peoria county had jo jurisdiction 
of the case, the cause alleged being that the child was 
not a resident of that county, but was a resident of Bureau 
county, The question of the home of the child is the only 
question in the case, As we reg*rd the case it is controlled 
by a very few facte which seem to be undisputed in any 
way. The verdict of the jury and the judgment of the court 
- is not set out in the abstract and for that reason alone we 
might affirm the judgment of the court below, but we prefer 
to put our decision on other grounds, The child was born in 
Peoria County, a bastard ciiild, and the said Luey Moore 
testified that the mother of the child gave him to her when 


- 





* 


* 


— ig ees 
— — —* 
— 


«* a 1 — ee ee "= - 
ree +. $5 9* 


ext of bo feanctacit len ercowe yxot s ted yd turoo mt 


— tt 7 F —*7 
* ‘ x ‘ 4 eS ; J icy * — 
ie 2 3 — Mes 
J— re . — a — ⁊ Hy, — 
c * AT A * 
— 7w- TS ie ? 
-eelileqqs ,o 
e ’ , y rin 
ixoet ,s8 ,00 moxt Laecth — 
= Rathoteso begelin- 
: 9 steak Togas 






















a) —— 
ot tnavetug woled txo0 odd mt hettt err wottiten A ae 
{xs Yo yonebreqeb begesia odt otmt ortupett of ef — 

begeiis 4994 to oraox soxit tuods Yo Bikdo ofan a « 
Istnersq teqotc tuodtinw bus $mebmoqeh od ot nottttor 8 
mites edt at, Seman Sam —— einen 
saw bikso eT ,bLtdo bkae to yhotauo edt antvad 
hewollot temghrt ban tothwev's bie youRst $8 enoltuoup t 
Sete tne naw xebto an bne ,tnebroqeh & bLido phew gak 
tookdin yytetoo® biA & emoH etomt{it edt of mid * 
Smomabyt bera xebro dotdw mort xvoo edt to toranoo ef 
eineqce etd? eetuoeesotq etool yoru! hee 
‘hegty ered at baa woled diwoo edt at begus osw aI 3 
aottothe taut of had ytnwoo atzosT to txuoo yemuoo odd | 
ean bikdo edt tadt gated hegelic asso edt yeaso. ent | 
wnend to taebteer » as tod yytrwoo tert to #mebtecs & Hi 
vino edt at bitdo edt to emod oft to motteeup ed? yea 
hellorinoo at tt asao odd bregez ew aA ,onso ond mt mot at \ 
Wie st desunethus ed ot moe doidw atest wet yrev # We 
tuyoo edt to tnomgbut edt tne yet ent to #othuev ou? ym | 
ew enola monaot tedt 0% bas *#oattede eft nk tuo tea ton ; 
teletq ew sud ,wolod sxuvoo eft to tmemgisrt eft mitie 
at mzod aaw bitdo exT .ehuvsorg xodte mo motetoeh we tuq oF 
e100 youd btae edt hee .Ditho Susteed s yytmsod stro 
nedtw ted ot mist evan blido ect to tedéom odd tant bettitest 





‘ the child was about eight or nine days old, end that the child 
a had been under her care and control ever since, It appears 
3 from ‘the testimony he lived a part of the time with her and 
‘- part. of the tine with a sen of hers, who kept a saloon at 
- Spring Volley in Bureau County, Lucy Moor@ is shown by the 
E testimony to be a colored woman and the keeper of a house 
. of prostitution at No, 126 Eaton Street, Peoria, and lives 
next door at No,.127 Maton Street, There is a yard between 
the two houses to which the inmates of the house have access 
and where this child was aco stomed to play, It seems the 
child wae bought within the jurisdiction of the county court 
of Peoria County when about one month old, and that Lucy 
Moore claimed to be ite mother, but finmally admitted that 
she was not, and that the court allowed Lucy Moore to have 
temporary custody of the child on condition she should not 
have him in her home, $< then caused him to be kept at a 
house in Chicago with « certain Mrs, Franklin,and the court 
aft erwards ascertained she was not a reapectable person, 
Afterward, Mra, Franklin notified the Peoria County vrobae 
tion officer that Lucy Moore had taken the child hack to 
Peoria, The probation officer then discovered the mhkk boy 
wag kept part of the time at Lucy Moore's place and part 
of the time at her son's place in Spring Velley, The child 
having been given to Lucy Moore by ita mother as Luey Moore 
Claims, and — Moore testifying that she has the oare 
and con trol of the child, and has had it ever since the 
child was given to her, thus she could have the child either 
in Chicago or Peoria or Spring ve lley as she saw fit and 
when she saw fit, and the child having been a part of 
the time in Peoria, under such circumstances and under such 
control, we are of the opinion that the ohild is, within the 
meaning of the law, a resident of Peoria county and within 
























biido ed? tact hae ,bLo eysb onka to #dgke suoda’ aii 
———— $I ,oomte rove Loxtnoo ban oxnd’ xe tebn o 
baa red diiw okit bid obey Wheyae ————— we mo 

te moolas 2s tqed ode pemed — ome? ett 

ed? yo mwosin wt exootl youd ,yenusod sali HE pect * 
savor s to teqeoxt edd bie mamow betofoo « —— cron 


pertt bas gairoct oso vat aos a Abt .OM ta aotauu i vo⸗ 
towed busy 8 at oaa — 88, 40h #2, x Wile 
es008e.evad eauot od? 20 eatanmt xl? dotdw ot — 
gd oameceoth- Xs (ot enod a noe easy Ditd efit ¢ ee na 
#100 Ytm00 edt ——— 
youl tect baa; gblo Atnom, ego. tueds sedw yenyo) # 
‘todd Ciannds, ding. qedtom, et 04. of Penbaco 4 ’ 
orvat Oty atoot youl hewolls. trop sit tagt, bre stom @ i 
tor higody ode goitthneo mo bLtdo edt to, ybotave vxaxos 
® Podqowt och.ot » mks Heauap gedt, oR . opmogt zog ats fe 
tmoo eld haagthilnarT ,2 aaties 9 Atty —— 
-ftoetsq sidstoeqaet 2 tom aay ein bentatxeona af 
eo madonc: A090 atime edt. bettiton m&Llaert .e .braw 
rots eh Aba blado paa aoaat Aad axeu xml, tit .weOk2NS * 
wos fide ods hesoyoos.t melt teottto Rottadorq oft ont ve 
erea chan, eeaid.etexooll, oul, ta,omtt. edt Jo tuag tae ® 
Bkbtio aff gyeLleV grdack at anata. egos zed 26 gts odd. 
“ST00M Youd as seddom ei k yd exo youd of — —— pny 
ems est eai etn dads gatytitees ezooll. youd _ be 
*\vogdt oonterteve df bad aad bos, gbitdo eft, to. — 
xtocdl ate bikdo ecg oxad biueo erik audt 70d ot. movis ose Be a 
hes #it wap ore ee yeti c¥. pabxa® xo alzoed | 0.4 
to txane moed pained DLE ont hee. kt was a pit 
dove toh ue aeonegenworto dove xehrr Bhx098 at pate dt 
wote sbiditiw et — ent tadt sotaiqn od? to }, OTA os kod scam 


nifitw bro yinueo atroe< to — f 9 eft to — 
ive ee i aa ay 


eal al 
y ‘one 4 a 
‘a 
F ¥ 
> 
: : 









bai “2 | 



























tiitde edd ,)Le@ eyed ont to titghe su0ds* 

 fadt boa shee aha Yo #xuoo yensoo eft to. 

ir, % szeeqye 71 ,eutie tove Lottcem bas eran oe — a0 
pe 10 otro Latnora; *5 at tw tnebreqeh s at h oa 
1* nia “ed : o itaq 8 bevit on —“ 28* * 
ew t00 ‘wrwee ont to tnomghut edt cada bas , 


- oa 4 om ,auec De foe woe ont? 4 ae 
— edt yf oworln at erooll youd aod px me yea ay 
— — bomzitts tre 


mys Saved 2 Yo tensed ac  peamaen ye hetoloo # ed ia 
er. «% ¥ 
fe sovil Ana gaia00T ~seets8 soda aal om ta —— ? 
— br —— 
Aaeuvo act Siny «af .tesath aotet Sat, 20k ta. x0 






















’ Ma, 
Sis 666998 pvai eetod edd to sedans edd doldw of neaue 
* 


* ade -aneee tl va a ot bemeta.ous an ꝓca @hrlt a 
> Piven winues sdt. do goito! hetcut edt ni gti ‘taued 
Ua 


ie Wood PeAtohnal pblo dtoem. ena.. tuoda sted) auod a 
we ” ; . a 


rs Wedd betiinbs. y aii}..tud..godtog etl og ot —— 


aa X —⏑ Yor. — Tanon aie Fatt, Wie 5998. = 
* 

— Pin * : Oe digas ace hos vet ye 
wf * BBs nd 4370iic ih Go. 7 fihreo to Ditido eds Lo photeyp 

* 

pit 

; 

—* 


Pa tqer edat mid de WAS Secs ocB  ,@marst tas ah. 
Wee Swat hengthLilnas: .ewaletren a ptt poke 


te ‘yifoetog sigatvoeqeatr « tor_aw n banked xapaa. ef 


— endanc: taruad of< alt. helliivon a . ei Pe 
¥: — ies 
% GS Aoi biido. add tetas Aa eaxoolt youn tatt Tavkt Tg, 
4 ad : . + 
Wo 2kde aneyous..S red? seoltio netits sie | om? £ 
*— 
i 7 re >» : * 
Stag fas oA .2' Gx00L...1 te only od? te ton 83 
DEH V 5 * 4 sr Ft e oy i < a'ron taerfl ta oe | F ar 
J rd 
t ay t , ox ral o2 Rave[s — 4 
— o tool vt Ta * 
7 o e esr , 
r 4 ing bik; + Bia. 2d Ao ae 
— 
. " vert? od of meuvin w 
- { 09 * 14 , 440 ui , fay +53 paw 4 
meerf - , - 


STATE OF ILLINOIS, | 


SECOND DISTRICT. io 


J, CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk of the Appellate 

Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records 

and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the 
said Appeliate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office. 

In Testimony WHeEReor, I hereunto set my hand and affix the 

seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this second day 

of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hun- 


dred and thirteen. 


Clerk of the Appellate Court. 









wy 4 * 
ae —— rye ¥ * a: 


—* on ‘ a “perme i. mm ott * — —* — — ar u % $2: : 
bee — ot at Sd * Se Se ae a J — a ~ Je 
| Wel cape As ores a ea a — * J— 

ae ay * — van * —* 
fe 
















* 
J 


* — 


{4 — yieaEs 
mies TOUTE 


— 

ebrooes edt to tsqood. haw .zionilll 16 ateiA odd to doinfaiG buoos® Dine wolf i 
aa 

odd lo noisiqo eff to yqoo Siri 6 ef etic goto) off Jedd eurtagdo. Yasaan Od * 2 Thy 
sotto yo ot frodser ta eto holt asievode od ni tivo) shah fe i 


atallogal ont to diel) — Uf 


ee ee 










sd} zfs bus breed (i Joa olnusied I wountuWynowrreaT 1 ti i. rt 
web byocsa cidt awatO je ud Walloyqd bine oit to Ieee PY 


“id onta Hoasetodd 900 Dal sua to 19% Sh al jeigeA to 
Antti! bas berb, 
Ae ow) Ma > ‘AS AN Yeah } 


< 


. 1. i fd ict) eae, 


“ S700, yO 
J—— PQ \ / yeg ' 
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE —— 


Hon. DUANE J. 


CHRIS fOPHER C. 


= 
g 


2 


’ ) 
J. G. MISCHKE; 





i 


fjegun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, # 





JIS Tees. 


— 
4 
= 


A. 59 Q 


Sheriff. 





sd SOIT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on the 2d day 


of August, A. D. 1913, the opinion of the Court was filed in 


the Clerk’s office of said Court, 


J 


following, to-wit: 


in the words and figures 










,fitqA Yo yesh fertt sd 





»nosesitid? bas betbeun sain 
t atontiii to — sdꝰ 20 Fo aeto —— 
a sottaul gatbieer4 
ese * 
— 20 4 
F sot taub: , Olly 


— YUE J — 


—* 


canna 


- gaa.A1S8t" 


me he 


vsb 6S ↄda ao :siw-ot} ,2biswisiis tsdt - CEATSMEMS 
at-beltt asw t1v9d edt to aoLatgo sd {SI@L. ada 
estuzit bas abrow edi nt ,t1#05 Hise to: sothto: 


——— 





| Fonsan, The declaration consisted of the common counte to 

Mss * 

which were pleaded the general issue, the five and ten 
Pas ee as 

eh year s statute of limitations and payment, Issue was joined 

re txial had resulting in a verdict ani judgment for 

¥ defendant on which this writ of error is prosecuted, 

rae, hi pleas of the statutes of limitations seem not to have 


* 6 2 relied on and therefore they may be disreparded on this 








No evidence was offered in support of the plea of 
, that is that payments were made to plaintiff or 


befo this — squarely” on the question, did the plaine 

- ie deposit $1300.00 with defendant, 

| - ee  Gortain fate about the case are undisputed; (1) 

om draft for $1300.95 was issued by the insurance comoany 

aoe mentioned in the aridence in the year 1898, payabl« to 

| —— (2) plaintiff then had a husband living nawed 
es He Hanna, with- ‘whom ahe was then Living, an? with whom 

ae eontinued to live until 204 the year o” his death; 

ae 3) th } B—— had any anne business «ith de- 








eftetreW of roxx c av Be: 
| etorte at ,¢ted am 




















— J we 
ci Vat ween — figuond aay 2 
_ temtegs Rtoatata helyte red tentered, orae kg 
inabreteb etonkL{l ,dtwomrotl to pd Lacortelt « * 

yeorom tevode ot .snahnetoh belyta wittenteved 
~eb edt dttw bettaoqgeh ased evad of “titéntsla Wb 
od egnyoo romeo edt to betstenon motésxsLoeb ont 5 
met has evit eft ,euent Isteneg edt bebselq * 
beatot ear excel ,tmenyeq bus enottetimt£ to 
tot tnemghut bre tolhrev 2 mt ynktivee: bart 
»beduoveozq st Torte to ¢ixw abit Motdw mo dma 
sve of ton meee anottatimit to eedutete eft to 
aldd mo bebtsgexeth ed yam yedt exotersdt bes mo 
to selq oft to fxocqwe nt betetto eaw sonebive on 
to Tittnielq o¢ oban erew atmenyaq sadt at tacit ' 

od ILtw onbiiton sxoterett bits ydnegs hewkrodsins Yas 
Senco sean off ,oansteh » ax selq fait ot ae bet vetobte < 

wntalg off bth .mottaerp eft mo c Pw00 ebsd- 4 
etrabaeteh déiw 00,0061% stooge 2 

(£) ,betuantios exa sexo oft tuods stost —— 
vViaqtaod eonsusant edt yt beseet eaw 8@,008L8 sot # ia 
ot sidseyeq ,868L tsey oft at eonsebiw ect at enol dn 

Boman youtvil huadem! © bad aedt Ytttmtelq (s) yIrH 

monw dtiw Se  gpertvil nett esw ede modw-dtiw ail * 
tdtseh etd to tasy ost “«¥oes fittus evkl ot beunttnoo ei 
~oh Ativ geetkeud gilded vee hai tever tttinislq teste) a 


: Bd 
—* 


* 


J 






: f 


- payable to and endorsed by his wife in his wife's name, but 
as his own money, and checked it out as his own money, but 


— th time it is claimed she made the deposit of 


Pint the $1300.00 and the defendant tried the case on 


the claim that plaintiff's husband deposited the draft 


by checks @rawn in his wife's namé@, If the hueband i n fact 


“made the Gepesit he had the clear legal right to deposit 


in his wife's namé so that he could dfaw checks acainat it, 
Plaintiff testified that she took the draft to the bank om 
March 5th, 1898, and wrote her nawe on the back thereof by 


the direction of the cashier and deposited it ani reocived 


the puss book offered in evidence and took it home and 
placed it in a bureau drawer and kept it there from that 
time until March 1912, when she presented it to the bank 
and they told her there were no funds, Afterward, in Sep- 
tember 1913 she drew a cheek for $1300.00 and took it to 
the bank with witnesses and the bank refused payment, Two 
officers of the bank who were then the cashier and the 
assistant Cashier, and who are now thepresident and cashier 
thereof, testified that thie draft was not brought to them 


by the plaintif? a% all and that she never wae in xkxa 


Wapte, Sank concerning it until March or April 1912; but that 
on March 5, 1998, her husband J, H, Hanna, came to the ban« 
with this draft endorsed in blank by his wife and told the 
bank it was insurance on his iife and waa his money, but 


that he wished to deposit it in the name of his wife, and 


eee  ~ 


“uate ser 
ad * * 4 






















t — carota w 
stone nt — — fll y 
| — ea 
sninali .V amet yt woled tums edt nt tiguond war tae 
 tentegs ,ttitnislq helyse sestenteted torte af Tt 
- ttabee'teb <@tomif{iI .dtsomnoll to aad Laat tas Lg 
yonom xevooor ot .tnahretob belyte. mitentored x0 
~eb edt dttw betkaoqeh ased evad of Bttintsfa yd | 
ot e¢myoo monmoo edd to betstenon mottexsLoob ed of 
met hae evit ett ,eumet [etenes edt bebselq or 
bentot esw eveel ,tmenryeq bus emottatimt£ to » 
xot tnemabst fre tothrev s mf gaktiveet bard 
sbetuoseorq st torze to siaw etdt dotdw wo dnab 

eve of ton meee anottatimtt to estutste edt to. 3 °. 
atdt mo bebrspexeth ed yam yods stotetedt bre mo ton 
to soelq oft to ¢2oqque mt berstto eaw somebive of 
to Titsntsiq o¢ oham etew stnemyaq dadt at tact 
ed iftw ontdtom etoteredt bas ,énegs beaktodtiva % 
semoo sefo off ,eereteh « as gelq tart eg ee 
qttaiq edt bth ymotinerp eft 6 Yletaupe — obit -< 
etrabaeteh dttw 00,0018 toa 2 
(£) ybetwqethns exs seno eft tuods atest bgt Ms 
Wisqnoo sonsxtsant oft yo Desert eaw 80,00EL8 sot # — 

ot eideyen ast seey sft nt eonebtw ext mt benot a8 
bomen yotvil Saadam! © bed sedt Ytttnkalg (8) att tata 
monw dtiw tee  gprtvil nett esw ede modwttiw anal He 4 
tdiseb atid to tasy ont FOS {ttew evil ot beumttnoo —J 
~eh dtiv eeertaud nib strc! we bad xever tttintelq seated 


st 
— 





: fentant * the time it ie claimed she made the deposit of 


the draft in question, March 6, 1898, until the time she 
demanded the money of the defendant in the spring of 1914, 
a period of fourteen years; (4) that plaintiff's husband 
died in 1907, 


* 


i Plaintiff tried the case on the claim that she depos= 
ited the $1300.00 and the defendant tried the case on 


i ae 


the claim that plaintiff's husband deposited the draft 
payable to and endorsed by his wife in his wife's name, but 
as his own money, and checked it out as his own money, but 
oy checks drawn in hie wife's name, If the hueband i n fact 
made the deposit he had the clear legal right to deposit 
in his wife's name so that he could dfaw checks againat it, 
Plaintiff testified that she took the draft to the bank om 


- March Sth, 1898, and wrote her nawe on the back thereof by 


the direction of the cashier and deposited it andi received 
the pass book offered in evidence and took it home and 
placed it in a bureau drawer and kept it there from that 
tine until March 1918, when she presented it to the bank 
and they told her there were no funds, Afterward, in Sep» 
tember 1912 she drew a cheek for $1300,00 and tock it to 
the bank with witnesses ani the bank refused payment, Two 
officers of the bank who were then the cashier and the 
assistant cashier, and who sre now thepresident and cashier 


thereof, testified that thie draft was not brought to then 


by the plaintiff at all and that she never was in xkxe 


their bank concerning it until March or April 19123 but that 
on March 5S, 1898, her husband J, H, Hanna, came to the bank 
with this draft endorsed in blank by his wife and told the 
bank it was insurance on his iife and wes his money, but 


that he wished to deposit it in the name of his wife, and 


























— ee ted? mteLo ext mo eazo oct belts — * 
a Go eaan oid Setst snadasted oft, bua ¢ iB 


r 4 
ee 


tad? tud {SLOL LbzoA x0 floral —— at as tcræe octoo ag. 


Ynad ort 9 Qnso acura EH ab braces wed 5 mia. é * 
edt Slot bns — otd yd anald wt bestohtrs j — nt. 


Sud 4 Yasar eid aw Res. orts eid a0 benaruea i 


to #laoqeb edt ebam ofa bembalo et tk omtt oat 
oie ombt ond Lhtny .S0GL Bott \,w6tsdonp 


— 058, et oaaee Meade Ar rtombatg tai 9 
—— ria h m Ae ASS Ye , Sperotece be *4 

Ri Oct aitece Sy bes Sd bi Ser — 

— — ——— — AM va ee Wis 1a 
_ttnosen 98 RABID Haak Fante act Set oe See 
tt tentens eigen wat ' ——“ os rs vi 
mn, aed tJ ot “IR oF 18: wee Et oo eet ote OTE, nee 


bevieoes h hers at bet teoqeh bas ⁊e oraaao at 20 8 


* aoeeg boauteg ares edt bap seasont . 


xe tseso bas nebteex at west era * bea pony: 
ant ot gꝛuoꝛd tor San dtath okdt tats edt stage oi at 


(LOL to gcbtqe ett Wr wtéfineteb ait to ronoit'ed d 
basdeud e'ttitakelq teadt (5) ¢ 
ato tis at ted ot 


m sitnvosd 


vd Yoorods oad exit N ays —X SAF Seen ‘ 


fs enor $1 ood bos gamestve 585 Rosato 
fad? mox? exeit #2 so0% ee, vaomud 2 ane 
— edit * as t detmosoxg ote me eo set ee 
08 ak sient th eabayt on ezew ezoit tod btot ; f 
oF 24 toot na 0,008.8 gor 8 —*5* — ite 
r) Be 

ocd ba rotdeoo exit aoat exer rte oes ont — 


mint mt a⸗ar sever ose fasts tt 14 ta Ae 


: 4 


+ Fy yn aor ‘i 
bag ety J to gman act ut sf xaogeh ot hosiotw — 


es Be 
ae — 
a 4) — 









at he vould check it out. The bank then issued to him 
@ pass book in the name of hie wife and delivered it to 
| ‘The bank produced in evidence fifteen checks in all 
. the handwed ting of Je H, Hanna and ali signed either in 
_ the name of Tmma V. Hanwa or Emma V, Hanna ‘by J, H. Hanna, 
oy which watt two months and twelve days after the deposit 
| was made, J, H, ‘tone drew the ontixe amount of ‘the deposit, 
Plaintiff never drew any checks against the deposit until 
the check she presented in September 1912, just before suit 
was begun, 
"? After the death of plaintiff's husband, which occur. 
red in 1907, plaintiff stated to several people, who were 
produced ae witnesses, that she had told them she had no 
money. The proof showed that plaintiff after her husband&e 
death received quite a sum of money and placed it in another 
. bank, taking from that bank an agreement to pay her four 
ik per cent interest on the deposit, Her husband ieft no estate 
| and after his death she went out to work two days o° the wear 
at ironing and canvassing for various articles and did 
this , as she testified to obtain a living. It is practically 
inconceivable that plaintiff, who seems to have been intele 
ligent and whose husband wae 8 lawyer, should have held 
$1300,00 in the bank for fourteen years without interest when 
she knew that interest could be obtained uwoon the money, 
and it is also inconceivable that she would work at common 
service as a domestic in order to get means on which to live 
When she had such a sum in the bank, 
We think from all the evidence the jury were warranted 
in concluding thebank officers gave a correct account of 
the transaction and the verdict having had the approval of 
the trial judge, ought not tobe disturbed by us unless 


j 


os 
“te 
* 
hs 
if 
: 

- 
— 
J 
>. 



























, ee of douse nedt ined edt. ety, $+, Apgit 
"ot th Pk al hc ag beta orkn els to oman suit 
ile at exogsto gett emtehive att 


ak tedtie orate Ale bre acme oH b, tog 
Auctall .n ob yo dome .V sar x9 somali — 


ttaoqeh edt rests eyah eviowt bay adtrom owt eer 
»theoaed edt Yo Prupome extine edt worth PEK Bon 
theogen ert sanknge, efoesa em, yesh at 
thse oxoted tout, 862 PRIA. bogoaoaa * 
—— “okie “ghadpunt styatintatg * stood — 
exow ode taorg Laxover ot hetate Yuinteta 4 
ont bad ede most blot hat oe, sant, «serena 
obinagesd rest 19th —— tes —U a fy 
reritors si tt bepala bia xegon to mum 2 ottup b beex,, 
m0 ‘xed yor oF sromeetas 14 avec. tacit — sa 
otatne on trod, da adaud 19H ,theoqeh edt so. J——— 
Leow eit 0 eyab owt Mow ot _ te Prag. ge Aaah, ab x09 
bib, bra _sefottie svottey * ag tes gvaso bow gerbe 

vt ſaote oaxq et #t party he 5 nisido oi, bead ttpo? ote, 2S ¢i 
~Lointk nood ovedt ot ames. od athitatalg Jat sidey, * 
bigrt aved hivode .reywal 4 ew — — 
ect teoretmt todd te ‘BIsSy moot no? 70% Anes edt gh § 
gverom ext socy Bentsido ed biuoo oootat tat, us * e 
ao woo gu Axon dtuon ein tad oidsytoonoont oeig.et +6. ‘baa, 
evil of dots no afteom tex ot “ehto mk oiteemoh,o.n4 of mh r 
| Aasd oft me me § doye bad ode Aa ; 
betnexzaw etow yt ect gonphive at iis nor Ants OW, o: / — 
to tauoota doeTI00 # pray reot No Acadedt gathutoaog 
to Lavorag s edt Dad gutvad tothgev. ed? bas noltosenard edt. 


seeli ev yd bedsatath sdot ton aduno eabat Ltatxt — 


— 









ig error in the giving ofinstruetions, or the re- 
° _ of evidence which would seem to demand 


e cheeks by which the husband drew out t.. money within 
6 months and twelve days after the deposit was made, ‘this 
⸗ ‘not done ‘or the purpose of provingoaynent to plaintiff 

under the plea to that effect, but it was to avoid leaving 

a the jury to suppose that the bank still held thie money, 
“and also for its foree in tending to corroborate the bank 

; ofticare, rs 

Dee ‘It is inconceivable that if this draft had been 
deposited by the plaintiff in person without any direction 
a as she claims, that the bank officers should within a few 

Eo days thereafter begin to pay itout to the husband on | 

; _ checks drawn by him and not in her handwriting, The way 

; “ain which they did pay the money out is the more re%sonable 
= in which to view the deposit and the withdrawal of the 


honey, as a business transaction, that ie that he daposited 








thie money in his wife's name and under an arrancvement by 

which he could check it out. 

ss Momplaint is made of the giving of the sixth instruc- 

ig ‘tion for the defendant, That instruction is in substance 

| that the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to prove her 
Gaue by the preponderance of the evidence, and the complaint 
is that the giving of it put upon the plaintiff the burden 
of proof under the plea of payment, If thewe had beenany 
attempt to prove the truth of that plea, ‘this instruction 
would have been erroneous, but the checks offered in cvi- 
dence were not for the puro se of proving the plea of pay~ 
ment, and they had no tendency to prove: the plea, There was 





“ 
oe 


i —— viet ee Ae 
a TNT fe Ao] ym Lie 
a) i a ~ co 
2 > 
xt F i? Ge 
* f 7 























* “eats ‘to rere silvia’ ond RE x 
brome oF moge “bhueow doldw paitebive fo Robes 
beds mgt tkY eguehiwp at peoubagg a 

— — 6d’ oS” Faas xt” 8% 
% nbifitsybeoh olds Wes wake Hest GF hi" 
abt Jebam abn dibdqes batt rede Seat” Suiteld bal hath 
Ama⸗ito ot tegen vorg 6 esocie bi 40> a 
gitveer biovs of sev tt — — 
———— 


Aaed edt starodortoo ot gnkbret mt eorot eff 
esuD00 Moidy .homiein e'ttivatala to Atagh oxi? ott 


“need kad Hie ee 1 slants — —————— 
gottoorth ys duortiw mosxeq nf eentatg bu wh , 
“vets mtdéiw biwods ereottto Yaad ont Yady enbato | 

¶ as ‘bradaud eit? of” ained! yal OF acjett wi Racabite 
“ean edt sont wba, nett at $08 bad’ “mit va — - 


Pode o 
>. @ uy 


—— ettom od⸗ st aio —— ext yaq 335 ‘yous “dt 
: “eft ‘to Lawarcbsls be oat Bree yee ond woly “dhe 2* x 
bet sous) ‘on ais ‘at tadd ‘offecdiead 6 enteud s° —F 

Rul Acregaiara⸗ * — brass emer alotiw did at ion" 

; O°" gue FE itosde * — 

~ourtent to dntvin edt to oban at difatqnay * 

eonatedue mi ‘at — fadt “°,saetnetes Ste xe 
ted evorq ot sileasig’ edt mous @f toot “Fo tested rae | 
tntalgmos odd brs eons Sive “ests “ta * $onerebaoqetg ‘eit a 
“‘peburd eit ritimbteta edt mocw sud Ft ¥6 aaivis ott RAKES 

Wane od bad atest tt vdronyaq 6 hela ed? te Beu tout" 4 
ftottourtunt tie ,eelq tact to die ats © bvotq OF 

=tve itt heretic uxtoeto out dud (ase OF nood eyed’ t 
~yesq to asi eds — re en og ‘ostt xo For ‘etow = 
ecw etedT gaole ent kJ ‘od yore hao? on “nad yous bind” gb if 









aif: a tion of some of plaintiff's instruetions, it is 

ioient to say that in the main they are correct, and 

; if in some slight particulars they are incorrect, we 
Zz i 


ver iet which is clearly sustained by the preponderance 
‘of the evidenoe and by the reasonable probabilities of the 
Ri J Seeing no reversible error in the record in any 
respect, the judgment of the court below ie affirmed, 


















soystent Sixto dri? to gnivis ed) do ehan et mien 


SE At — fabge eh, att 


bramed of Moen Slee do kstee sotishiwe te —* 
sit bre to henkelamoo snoktorrtent todte 


_q), SE at qattottoutsent afaatanaala 30 pson ko 
cu PAP gearroa wae Vet atan ent ch tadd, yom. 
sit ow sSvetzccad px yedty —————— 
‘eons resnogens nt, Penstoun, wixseco, ef, 
eit Do wets 41BGntons: eLdansene. 9, fe 0 
dasd ¢2 stavodortes of anhhrad me wo xo? wae 
Wis xt brover ond? at corre eldteteves on 


pPowrcetae pe Petedt=yon: tds n, 10t 
mertdeors ve duadttiw —— — 
aneo tt AnaG elf adi «ei 











































to beacaud od? of tho d: vat OF ktjes 
yare ed? .pckitcehnad xe8 at fon —— mit ——— 
eldanoetex atom oct t aii Yoram elt vag} yay “i 


ad} to Lewathdtiv edd bes sinened ent woly od 
















hedtsage) sr tard at * — 









yl dremeacerse te zebra fein Ging otetiv aid at 


“duo FE tosae “e 








— 





a 


¥ 
eonstadire xt 4 mortsutdadk toot deletes — 
ma 


wed Svoxrd oF Biitaiata add noe Bi toorg “3G aot td ° — 


—* 


——— 









rt ar Hag ghonohiys es? Te eit 
Isirruuzd @ Mm ttalelq eft macy See TL 16 Saketa ene of 
; . — eal 
bed sted) tT J éteogaq to Aetq’ od? teh Boome 

J ¥ 






10 Fost! ,eelq facy to dire aif OCR GF 
whys bh bes Saxena ¢ ti Roose osts nook uvad be 19 
. ~ fe ed 

=i 2 wate at) gatvaxg ‘to es ctsy bay “orien See 






‘ ; pio > a 
⸗ 4 7 7 oT * 
, poly ot eves OS. — 





I. CuristorpHER C. Durry, Clerk of the Appellate 
and keeper of the Records 


y of the opinion of the 


STATE OF ILLINOIS, | Wk 
SECOND DISTRICT. ci 


/ Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, 
and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true cop 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office. 


In Testimony WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the 
this second day 


e hun- 


seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, 
of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand nin 


| dred and thirteen. 


Clerk of the Appellate Court. 









* ‘ M j — 
4 
J i Ave Wy 1 








Re GO ae Di) RRS 6 pea Teas fh 





#2. Ok ideas a8 
AED: then Sea ia petit Wy . vai He ? ra Ada 
eae 4 one i sens , tate ied st aE A ai 


—RX Si ee: sdiety: wegen sb P Pit J a 










i i Pe 
M | nie J 
al Niklloggs, oft Yo anol) ,yatud .O namievretaARD St an rour⸗e 


an. abwooH edd lo taqonl Das .zionilfl lo otee edt to goiter hades bie” 0) | bi 









Saat > ond Yo mv Ne old lo yqoo oun « ef gaiogdiol sdf ded? YUTAe Tease. on, te ot 
J oolllo yor ut biog? Jo oavke beliias penty 100 
Le add xifte bite bowd yar tee ofavered J woos vnowirent 7 i 

Ky {5b baooes eidd wwetO da ito wtellogq A: bike ait Yo inde 4 


“nod acid basevodt ono frral to. lo wey odd 6 


roel? bie Dotb 


— sShoblagaph Gly Vp daly EROS 
J @ 4 
‘ 4 —J %, 












AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT, 


: 


Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday,#the first day of April, in 


the year of our Lord one thousand 


Ed 


nine hundred and thirteen, 
within and for the Second Distriet of the State of Illinois: 


Present--The Hon. CHARLES WHITNEY ,§ Presiding Justice. 


Hon. DORRANCE DIBELIS PaaS Q >) T A pe 34 


i 






Hon. DUANE J. CARNE 


/ 


CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk. 
3 


Sas —— 


J. G. MISCHKE, 
% : 
* ra 


# 


— = SS — — — — —v 








BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on the ad day 
Preauewet. A. D. 1915, the opinion of the Court was filed in 
Bhe Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures 


following, to-wit: 







THUD & 


* 


at eLitgA Yo ysb satii edt  UebsouT 90 + 












_deeitidt bas bSDstbeod sgia A guodd 


: | catont fit to oteta odt fo te sod bao⸗oe oat 


° 


— 8 ootsenl -gaibieerd ‘ann ram adds 
aaata SOMARA 
1 8 8 — za ois: 
3 ae G ahs — Anaad .o 


es — — 


: . | —— 


Hee . 


; 2 ——— — ——— * Fi: 
; tne —— — —— — 
—* 
* 
— 
⸗ 
1 — * = 
* 4 
~ 
* 


ysbh bS ed? a0 
ai betit eaw t1p09 sdt to no¥aigqo edt 
aetugit bas ebtow sde at ,tivod Sbise to ecitio @ 


iftw-o: 





, appellant, 
J Appeal, from Mercer 
ig ry appellee, i | 
ii ts @ euit on a note for $711,96 dated April 
OT» “given by Jomie ¥, Bridger, who ie mentioned 
| Pleadings ia⸗⸗ suit we the State Bank of 











| von the docket of this court at the present sine 
on Same Tumber 5770, Tem Rwiber 25, Tue plesdince 





i 
; 
ty 
* 
din 8 
r 
; 
—* 
* 

















* — —— —— 
* = ~~ 
me 
—B 
pe « i7%, 
; 2 ee MART A SEY 
Pty £C 4 
w 
3) 3 * Mivaay' 5 
mee £0 
gtmallegqs yrotect well 
Pe . 
s 


—— — 
a Naas — 
ee, ro? sto 9. no thve 8 at 
Crna Price 3 
beaotaaon et od tenota 7 —— 

to sine etst@ ont vd ddguord tive © at epe 
Motegnivkl AnerT bas notegnivid a ofa 4 . 
mutt tnonorg ort te tuyoo eidt — 





ence fait mt es omne edt items. od ot moon my tbe 
esast tadt mi beltt motto edt at * od 


/ 


* rbomrttra et soso efit 20 ¢ 


) a 
4 a bE i 
; 
* 
fe, 


STATE OF ILLINOIS, 1... 
SECOND DISTRICT. | ss. 


Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records 
and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the 
said Appeliate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office. 

In Testimony WHeERE«OP, I hereunto set my hand and affix the 


seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this second day 


{, CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk of the Appellate 


of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine bun— 


dred and thirteen. 


Clerk of the Appellate Court. 






































GE en ere al — te edit 








poate Rip Marty Cone: * 
— oa RG Mi 


LAY) AN, HOE ERE PEE 


F 





getalye OE aie iets 


—— 


F — dined ee ett ie tate, sea bo anvons 2k 


ies Pah wt te as . eh ‘gine ee ah nen 


{iat depen Soph BA ote Ses aw: mth as iit weet 


hy A eS aie —— ity Sin 


—JJ5— #towlddt 
otellsqgA odd to ayo ~raaud O Agnsoranin®D (1 — 















—— 








abiooed odd to t9qeod bow ,eionilil to atete odd lo toineidl hong biea tot 
odd to aoiaiqo edi lo yqos eutt & ei nologen 't ont dedd Yarraa) vaagaw od ,te 


soit vm ai biovet to ,seueo boliias avoda old ni J 
out zifte bus based vin Js8cñ I soanaHW: yuomrteaT ul 
web Gaodee vid! wwanO ta dim0D stelloggéA hige odt to Lesa 


“aud onin hacaciotld oso bral apo to wey odd oi deuguA Io | 


fsetsidd bas both: 


ASO: sohyqegh. sit W hel) : 





ee 
ve 


3 : ; 
7 fa 0 OE eee > Q ye — 
St abs 


AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT, 


Bir and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, — day of April, in 
the year of our Lord one thousand nige hundred and thirteen, 
within and for the Second District f the State of Illinois: 

Present--The Hon. CHARLES WHITNEY, Prgsiding Justice. 

Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Jy¥stice. 


Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justice. 


dx Ge 











BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on the 2d day 


of August, A. D. 1913, the opinion of the Court was filed in 


the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures 


following, to-wit: 














oi ,{itqA to ysb seri 


re 


,aeettidd bas berbcod 


an ae Ce 
» 


; :etoatff{l to #tae2 edi’? botazend booed 


' ° 
—— 

—— 

=?) & 

nt 

[> 

—— © 

- * 


3 ESS eee —— 
poke “ATS 8I- rerte yrtud 


— 


* 
8 
4 

a a 
? * * 
J 
og 5 

* 
3* 
Cy J 
= 
7“ 


usb bs oft ao :tiw-ot ,ebyswrodts ted} ,CaAtaMaMad 
ai belt} esw tyv0d sdt to -notaigo edt ,228f°.0 


estogil bas abtow edicat ,ftpod bisa 20. sortto af 


3 
—* 
+ 
i Ps 
é * 
— 
ab - 
~ 
a = —— 7 
t- 2 
— 
* 3 
> 
— nie 






Appeal from Peoria, 


oie —* et al appellants. 


Tue Ay Milier, appellee, sued P. M, Carney and wife 
* a justice of the peace to r cover for work performed 
dn paper hanging, The case went on appeal to the circuit 
x court where two trials were had, the last trial resulting 
in the verdict for $99.50 for appellee, Appellants intere 
posed a motion for a new trial, specifying the cpounds 
of aaid motion in writing as followss~ (1) The court erred 
in not granting these defendants « continuance on the motion 
of defendants upon the affidavits read to the court and now 
on tiles (2) the verdiet of the jury is against the law and 
the évidence in this case, The motion for a new trial was 
overruled and judgment entered on the verdict, from which 
“thie appeal is prosecuted, When the case was called for trial 
dn the circuit court, appellants moved fo: a continuance 
on account cf the illness of the appellant, Nrs,Carnoy, 
which was denied and it is claimed this was error, It was 
not shown that Mre, Carney was to be a witness on the trial 
and that if she was to be a witness, there was nothing appeare 
ing in any affidavit filed in support of the motion showing 
what ‘was expected to be »roved by her, so as to give 2ppellee 
an ‘opportuni ty to admit she would so testify, as the statute 
provides, Neither wag it shown her presence was indie oo 
sible for the management of the suit, There wag mo @°ror 
in denying ‘the motion, Appellee'c contention was ‘at he 
wads a contwact with appellants by which he war to “0 0¢t= 
seta woe. Ap take his pay in board, and that i (id that 





— 


—* mont Saad 


“gitv baa yoo 4M. bese gonttote! che EIN yh - 
domrotzeg Axow Tot teveo:: of eoaeq ert vo sottut 
| ttuorke eft of Ltegue so drew geno ot * 
gnttiraes Latxd teal ext ——— 
wtetnt stnalloqcA ,oelleags 20% “0B, eet not # 
abayowy oft getytioeqe efatet —— 
herte Xoo ed? () —— Be gas tn at —A 

notton edt mo sonaunttnos s —— seedt gettin 
wor his tayoo sr? of haex adkvabltie edt soc 
has wal edi fontogs st ywt edt to totheer sit (8) tek 
naw Iotxt wan 2 tot mottom ot 202889 ata⸗ mt bk 
dotdw mott ,tothrev edt mo betsdme tremghut brs 
fatxt tot beliso esw oaao edt med ,betuoesotq ef | 
eonauntinos & «ot bevom afnalleqqe ,.sxveo ttuorko ¢ at 
— 0x qtuslleqan edt Yo ensnIik edt Yo smoot 
eaw ¢I , torre ssw etrt bemteto et tt bee betmed es a 
istid odd mo eventiw s ed of asW Yorted ,etl stadt — 
—wmeqqs guidtom esw exedt .eeentir s od of sew ota , ct, 
gtiwore motfom edt to troqqum mk beflt tive Rte yrs al 
selleqqs svtg ot es of ,ted yd beyore ed of hetoeqxe | 
etutate eft as .ytitest on binow sis timbs of yrinuta 
eroqelthat eaw eoresetq ted awoda ¢h esw tot tow saobty 
torres om saw eredT ,tive oct to tremegansm ed? of of 

ed tact saw cotinstnod s'eelleqqh ,mottom oat bs 
“teh of ot eaw et dotdw yd eémslieqga dtiw toaxdno0 8 ebamt 
tect bib ed tedd daw — at yaq ata oat tna Azow a ie 


ee: ve : 




















JF 


—* 


ie 









| received board for all but $2.85, which sum of 
eam dieclaimed trying to recover in this case; 
¢ then ceased to work for them for sometime and after 


© a unless he was paid in money, an@ was then hired to 


: “ i. per room, and did eight days work on a hall at 
by x me makkng $120,003; that. he received %90,50 in board, leave 
5 ing #09,50 due him, This is the amount that he recovered, 
— oy ‘the contention of appellants is that there never was 
a second contract and that the work was to be paid for in 
* oo and that they were ready and willing to furnish 
ee the poard, This contention furnished a controverted 
qui ation of fact, upon which the jury found for the appellee, 
4 is a130 contended the record does not show how many 
days he worked on the hall or the price he was to receive 
_ therefor, and hence that the charee of %20,00 is too high, 
% The lew of this state is that the question whether 
aS * J evidence is sufficient to support the verdict can only 
be preserved for review in this court upon a motion for s 
new trial presented “in ‘the court below, where as here, 
3 ee gase is tried vy “jury and if iipon gaid motion no written 


are filed, then all questions which could be heard 









Re : 
’ 





. sor @ motion for a new trial are considered to be sBxma- 

_wrscontod but if the pointe upon the motion for anew trial 
arg tiled, they constitute a waiver ofell other points ax 

- onty the points so filed can be argued, Yarber v Chicago 
Ape Ry. Go, 235 Tll, 589, 

Po ae here is evidence apnellee worked in the hail and 
— avidence indicating that his servicos were 

nox $2.50 per day / Appellee was abked ex: ressly the number 































to mse dotdw .28,8% tud ffs sot Dusod hevieoet wd . 
teeeo etdt at revooeT oF griysd, Ddomkelosth wh 9 8 af 
totic bae emitemos.xot merit tot Axow of beaseoutedd ed 
henkioeb one hraed tot amoot aiatxee teqeq db bowin e R. 
ot borld medtd asw bee .yornom wi hisq saw ef ene. 22 
edt te amoot not bezeqaq an pat iyertom to xo% COW 


— X 4 — eye. 

— beers ‘ot fe amcor ‘ovit. — ‘seq; 00,58 to sokay 
gneeq ent to — 

“$s ttt ⸗ to drow — tdghe ‘i bre — 
“veel —— wk o2.0% bevieoer ed ‘fast —— 
1X Ov 
sBexevooe: 4J tats ‘frevoms cit at ett cub, 0 

+o? tbat 


pew “ever srody tad ‘et edmat tears * ———— = 2 
ar — bteq ed oF eew tron ont ted fers toarditoo f 
Oe tasut of gibi tte * oso —— — J 

‘bedtevorinos s hede fers? noktretso0 oka 55 

bot loa⸗ ed? xo? fmyot vast edt fobs ‘roo «doa? 0 a0 


wrem wor warts tor asoh broge x ett _betmo2noe ont 


ao 
7 


ei edt 
bvisoox of esw of eokza ont ‘to —— oxi a0 — ue i 
<i 
ghd oot et 00, os 8 to onran⸗ att tat} Sheet bra 4% 
or wOeeorn & Ine x es 
toiitendy fottnsup act tect et ovate atds ve wal oft : 
o trswto Se 


xine LBD totbrev edt ——e— ot trotortive et eore bh ro 
2 dt nokten s hoc —X alr? nt wetve ot bev * * 
cera BS — oced — att mh betrener, ttt 
nottizw on motiom bise * bres — Ww betas ak * J 
‘bused ed bios doldw enottasup {Le merit shegtt oa, fit 
“EBaxex oc ot berebteroo 5⁊5 fatxt rer * J 


fetut — Ot fottom Site nocpr atntoq “ont be — at 


~ 
s* im 
- 


‘ine etetog tedto Lfete roview s otutttenoo vor, _ sbedt 4 
nS 6 Dee * 
onesotdd v redxseY abeugrs od auo ho fae os atrhoq of 


482. iit aes 100 avi cone 


2 Ue 


hits fred out mt bextzow eeifenis ‘eonebtve ef ered? - Ned 

: { roararrea # SS 
etew aooivise eld tact ‘rie tnt gonebive ase * x 

4a sta oF 

secu elt Wsnoraxe beads naw ees teqcA \ eb ad tt 


fe, 


wr > Te 55 






days he worked there, and the answer was kept out by 
: “objection interposed by appellants. If that fact does not 
— anmymere appear in this reoord, then it is true that the 


bie he 








foundation for $20.00 of the verdict is not shown, 
he motion for a new trial stated that the verdict was 


the low and the evidence, but in order to avail 


asign for error én this record the refusal of said motion 
for a new trial, The refusal of that motion is not assigned 
for error in this court, Appellants show in their abstract 
_ there was such an assignment of error, but their statement 
| is not supported by the record iteelf, There being no ase~ 
ignment of error questioning the ruling of the court upon 
the motion for a new trial, the supposed excessive character 
of the verdict is not presented for our considération, 
nt It is also contended the instructions given for 
appellee are incorrect and the ruling of the court upon those 
instructions is assigned for error, 

J Where no motion for a new trial is interposed, ruling 
on the instructions is preservedfor review, I, 6, R. R. Co. 
v O'Keefe, 184 711, 508, But where a motion for a new trial 

. is interposed and points in writing are filed ani the 
ruling of the court on inetructions is not one of those 
"points, then the ruling of the court on instructions is waived, 
‘Yarber v Chicago & Alton Ry. Co, %35 T1l, 599, 
| Appellants! motion for a new trial contained no 
reference to the ruling of the court upon instructions and 
that ruling was therefore waived and cannot «afterward be 
assigned for error here, 
| Fe ie assigned for error that the court erred in 
— certain evidence, The —— of the cowrt in 


ge > ees i 
wes 3 




























“yd tuo dqon daw'sewans oad Kan bee & 
— bald” Sabi * 
Ta ci aa a 
7 — tom of totbuev edi YO 00,088 “Sot” assist 
—— —— thtd “hedata fatz¥ won 0°62 Robs 
er 
of stnolieqas xo% werrsven ont san th <eakp P ghta hs 2 
4 Blas rs Laewtex —— aide hd ork oti 
“bongtbes 3 ton ot noi tom sail to —— bar’. stud wen _ 
— xiex? at wode etnallequh Si bt ok v 
8 "gaometata uted? bud ——— to — trommytoes ns Hove 
“eas ot antes oom? ,tLeeth oe $a wi be ‘toqeura 
noqr #2u00 edt 40 gabtuy’ tnottes: — = 
“geveczaso evtasooxe —— ates -fakxt — ro mo. EF of 
ee noitexbbtenod ale 0% bedasmexd 4 oi Wf Poul tev 
Wo. nevig, enottourtens edi bebdetnoo § os. set 9— 
snot ‘moar — ‘etd 0 ‘amb edt Sits toorr0onE —— of. 
etal a ke gt —— oꝛ Boral ‘et “ak 
—— ——— ‘ai told * ‘snot aotaon on frig 
100 a —— 10.3 .wotvex xo!bevxeas — ssi ‘ 
tekst J ⸗ ‘wo ‘molsom & — ua — “ait nat <9% : 
| edt tae boitt eis gakd tne ah tor bra eno ote 
eeortt ‘to eno tom ef ‘eaottouxtend —* #08 ‘ode 0. 
bev kaw et enol tourtant. to #1009 act ‘to oakivt ‘od odd « cate 
.@88 , LIT BE .0D av moti & ogeo * sd 
ot bemtastoo Lotus wen R ‘x08 motsom — 
hee enottositent RoCus +09 oft to pablirs est of pane | 
ed buowretts tons hae hevkaw oxoteredd ear + gti 


rors 
— ——— — Si; 


_ 
* 
Bus 


aos 





J 


git bexxe #uroo * touts Torro “0% — Hn ae 
thao SK 
ak tus0o ods to peckiira ont ssonoblve a “9 Bo'ssbthlte = 
Bey pow anlioenh \wah téq O8eRe itsow ae 
. ss ; 


=. % al — — J 





here, 
for our 





Vote) a a rx ao ahr be . 
« 2* — 
































vd tue iqedt ont ‘ia — —— 
‘od? ak 


gon.s905 font fai — — ——— 
altered anoasex od⸗ iy 
out Zadt erty @f FS Rats 3 ae 269% —n F aac a 
ref betebtanog 


— toa * — ————— 


J —— * 
ire Ge totbnoy oa Seer Peres a a 
~ Ehave of tetto ak tut beneblee a4? the 
of ‘afuslleqqs 1» 102 qxEAKeDSs Soest a — ot 
mektes bins Yo hasuter aid htodux adds pone 6" 
iets “engties son wt notion dade $e tnnil}kes sae ‘rand * ca 
: f dogwnde sicdt nk woe —“ —E—— sf te 


a ; ma 
eur trened ate sled? dud A to ‘diomrytoue’. aa ‘tac ea * 
—— ar —* J Loads habeas ‘and ‘ud bei 


¥ 






7 
2 


——— — — 
——— 
* 


as oad⸗ —— tuveo eft to nak furs —* wards darted’. 
-xo%to Sat Bergen’ ‘as ‘prot 





souzotat ef Jain® wen to? biter or —— 
* bibs 
oO .& .4.,9 .f. .welves to" bevreRexG al eno l¢ovstent 

latad ven © x0) meltom m exeste Hr 804 117 —* @ i : 


P ead ivin bolkt occa = pnobtier at —J bra benoged 


— 
pear? Ye @en0 fader em — ae i) txvon —* ro 


beview ef enoltoyctenlt co suger it} Yo mbes “td nit 


| =) add t HGF 00 wa notin & — 
“i Sextatnes Lalct von) a " mole at ‘aerial 


ne. seoitorutan’s sous tcveo t? Yo cyeb iar ‘eit oF ‘oon 


ed . gorres ome Be view etotateds aay gtk 
0754 *Oxte sot. Ben 

, e* ⸗ ay § 

7 * — 1 

—————— al⸗ sorta cot honalvas al 8T — 


i 


| ** Ae oe 
2 — 
t toyoo mit: to wehiee — wonabiys Aae abo a⸗ x 
J ror at Ms An —3— 
\ * 4 : eu + * with > at 
| ¥ * 7S fe * aS Nee | ay hit aM 





— — 


STATE OF ILLINOIS, ; si 
SECOND DISTRICT. (SS. 7 CuristopHeR C. Durry, Clerk of the Appellate 


Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records 

and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office. 

In Testimony WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the 

seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this second day 

of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hun- 


dred and thirteen. 


Clerk of the Appellate Cowi't. 






ty by 5 





a ae 







See 
= 





etelieqqé ot to anol yard ; 
Bins abrooasf add io ‘bi pe bos #ionilil to ost ond to wbdaitl b, 


odd xffls Oo hued yor doe odneoed J vi 
* VEh Bitosoe eds w7eAttO de savod aleleq¢sA ‘bled dt TH fase 
“no aia busesods ono biol wo ta aney odd ai deny to 


ool tidd haw beab 





Yow) 6 —X— —8 Ay hay ) 





Ve —7 * & j ¥ — YY 
— A i 

i { ; * ? 

‘ % a, j 


AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COJPRT, 





Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, th 











first day of April, «in 
the year of our Lord one thousand nigie hundred and thirteen, 


within and for the Second District ff the State of Illinois: 


present--The Hon. CHARLES WHITNEY, Pwesiding Justice. 


Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, fustice. 


—J 


Sane | S ya 1A. 236 


Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, 








BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on the 2d day 
of August, A. D. 1913, the opinion of the Court was filed in 


the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures 


following, to-wit: 







= 7% 


— ¢ 





5 . 11810 tr 

a : ae 
— 
5 —— = ~ ae —S * — ay 
* 
* 
F 
— 
ve “ 
a 
* 


ny f : rs ts . ; * — — 
ysb 6S sdi ao tiw-od rObTS¥IOITD teat CaAz 8h 
ni befil aew #tu0d edé to nointqo od B12 


astugil bas abtow ‘odd ai 


Pe .sotte 
ge 
Teng 
— 


98s ALL 8 8 — — 


———— Kis to ‘9013p @ 





* 
. 
: 
~ ~~ 
* 
— 
“te 
— bn 
Te. Pa 
“ — 
* 
ae as * y 
os Ge at a. 


i 
* 
a 
* 
4 





Gen, No, 5778 


Ole Johnson, appellant, 


vs Appeal from Boone, 
Gail C, Downing, appellee, 


Whitney, P. J, 

Thies is an actio# brought by Ole Johnson appellant 
against Gail ©, Downing, appellee, to recover damages for 
the shooting of appellant's dog by appellee, A trial wae 
had in the circuit court and resulted in a verdict and judg 
ment againet appellant, from which he appeals to this 
court, In the bribf and argument appellant presents only 
the following as the points relied on for a roversal, 

(1) The court erred in admitting evidence as to she general 
choraeter and reputation of the dog for viciousness; (3) 
Error in both instructions given for defendant; (3) Error 
in refusing instructions asked by plaintiff, 

In a or-liminary way appellant alse speaks of the 
impwpoper remarke by the court, but in his brief and argument 
he in no way points out in what way or why the remarks of 
the court were improper, Prior to the time the dog was shot 
the evidence shows attacks by the cog unon several persons 
one of whom was bitten by the dog, It appears from the 
evidence that appellee knew of these attacks and knew that 


- Helen Oleen, a little girl, had been bitten, and appe'les's 


wife had twice been driveninto the house by the (og, and 
the dog had chased anpellee's chicken; and that th morne 
ing before the shooting a man had told appellee that he 
had been attacked by the dog, Appellee heard the dog “4s 
inhis yard and started out with a rifle and the ¢o) ¢ome 
at him and growled and aparently he thought the (of was 
‘going to attack him and he shot, inflicting such injuries 


* 



















actood moxt Leeqgh — Zam f: 
ioc ute 405 


4 ; 4 ——— 
coe idan a 

> tit cobie aahiab aah ald 
: oe: 
aay ats? A .eelleqes WW god stdnattegch 20 gtkteo: 
~givt hoa tethbzev 4 mt betivess tne truoo thyosko ont & 
etdt of sLsoqqs ed dotdw mort ydmalloqges wy 

vino Atnseera ·aat locas tmomgte ino Yokad edd mE 
vot o tot mo betlex séntog of? as | 

ieee 0te 0b tn tiestiis heed 
(S) tawenauototvy tot gob edd to mottatuqex dae . 
soxx® (&) géushroteh xot mevty enottourdent dtod mk 
ettitnisiq yd bedes amottoustant gn ite 

eft to adeoge ool tralieque yew yraninties a at BS 
trevugre han tetvd atid mt tid gtxvoo odt yt elzamex xeqot 
to adzamet oft ydw xo yaw dade nt duo sintoq yaw on | 7 
tode ear goh oft emkt ot of solxd ,xeqotqmt exew * on 


J 


fa 


* 


anoateq Laxevee moon gob ode Ww aloatia awore cones J 
edt moxt araacca #T gob ed? yd mesttid eaw mai to 
tad? wont bua atoatta ‘eves? to wend selleaqs tat on 
e'oollegcs bre .tottid need bat githy oltsht a 000 
fre ggoh edt yd sexod oft otntnevith mood eotnd bat @ 7 
wom oft gad? baa geetoido s*eelfleqrs heeado had gob 
ef tad? gelleqqs blot bad mam s gnkioods oft ons . 
saw gob ed? brsed estieqgh .gob eid yd betostts ased 
encod yob off bas e@Ltku a ddiw t0o beisste bas Bray 6 i : a 
eww gob out triguodt od yLtmexs ca bas helworg baa mid te 
solwat dove grttortint .tode of tun mkd tostis ot patog — 


— ei 
es 


a 


— 


that it became necessary to kill the dog, Under such cire 
cumatanees, it was for the jury to say whether he was juse 
tified in shooting, 

'. Appellant complains of the admission of evidenee 
offered by appellee of the feneral vicious character w& 
‘reputation of the dog. It will be found, however, by 
examining the record, that each time appellant objected to 
that testimony, and his object on was overruled, the wite 
nees did not anewer the question, but went off on some other 
subject, and that other witnesses testified to the general 
charaoter or reputation of the dog beingbad without 
appellant's objecting to the testimony, Ye think the tvo 
instructions given for appellee were proper under the evie 
dence, As to appellant's refused instructions, we think 
each of them pad) The first and second ignored the testimony 
of attacks the ‘dog had made on others end thefact that 
appellee knew of some of those attacks, The third and fourth 
refused instructions were bad, because they left it to the 
jury to determine what was a legal reason for killing the 
dog, the third and fourth instructions containtng the lane 
guage in substance that the defendant was liable if he 
killed the dog without any legal reason for sodoing, 

Seeing no reversible error in the record, the judg» 
ment of ‘the court below is affirmed. 





















-tio down tebal .gob edt Litt of yxeaeeoen — ⸗ 

-aut eaw ef tedtedw yas ot yxut edt 50% wa Ft 6! 

.etroek max? Leengh vankiqgde nk 

sorehive to moteatsba ort Yo engalgmoo, imac feegh 0 

™ sotoszaco avolotv Laxenen oft to selloqqs yd 

yw tovowor ghayot ed Litw #% .gob ett aor⸗ 

of hetootde #eefreqdh Smit Home shite’ etoods Sit? gx 

“tiv eft \delrtteve tow mo*tosido: wHf ban ayn be 

xeilto enoe mo Yo stew tit ymotswexp ed? rowers Fam BE 

“Sites ofl? of betthinct eoatontin zeito "daltt ba 

 "gyortiw badarted god nb songs 

owt edd Ankit} of , ymomisast wilt” oF gittoctdo of 

atvo ot Rebtur xoqdita Stew beLtodie Hot Revky™ an 

Artas ow’ (eroltobrtont boartes —E Fra 

Wontines SY betomy! Koosd has text eit” Bad hed 
‘GbHt Sostott hae wets RO ebsm bhit ” 68! off ke 

trot bas brtdt off letoetia seodt 26" shoe” to” ' 08: 
eit o¢ 2 Fel Yond ovttooed — * one anottousdenh be 

“pitt Amertta ot monbes Lages a waw #hde —* 

asi éc+ ghaebhthoo enobfsuttont mrxor Bae ‘bald 8 

pd th efdatf eow tnabaeied ent tact sidaditinn*® 

sortohos tot moanes Lages yta toddih gob "er 

-phut oft .btodez odd “nk torre eldtetevet of sett 


bonds tia et word ——— 
rc. a 0k0 a 


“it otmidagixe deod init bail 


——— 
F 





STATE OF ILLINOIS, t ss 
SECOND DISTRICT. me I, CurisropHEeR C. Durry, Clerk of the Appellate 


Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records 
and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office. 

In Testimony WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the 
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this second day 
of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hun- 
dred and thirteen. 


Clerk © the Appellate Court. 

























Ord a * * * aad i Ms WR —* ult ; oH — sen 


5 : | a A | 4X ely Minar alo — ne 

ay i et ⸗ J 

ae ava howsa ds Rann opp tt 9— wh —8 

Bi SoMa Se eats’ 3 Aa 
Bey SRO DERE. stein sath, MNor kia — ihe ibis | 


J eae ae ——— —V ——— ty he 
ae —J — he ints 9 a he: fe 
pe Re at jah bie ee wre at gst (he 
hu enn eri eg ty ee —— 
coated ah Ane Tie “oteheelt i. 
tee) he eam naa) dere — 
— Keck’ Wee tee tot eben * “ee 
La st vetoed ow Maaae re ere: ie ca 
YWat “any batt tye sachs toed min 
Si ker gey SOR ee Mees ads ——— 
— —————— ‘aed iia ge 


— * 
We 
% 
, : aa hi oy 
ye , ) P : ; * thy — 
, nay Re . Nigh Oa — Suey at i eh 7 


“ . . | m 
* pds al 
| a i Fanny 

atallogyé odd Io diol) ~rvayd .D ——— Al wa 
abrovexH odd to t9qo0ud bas ,zionilll to edata orld Yo dointeiG — — 
eit lo aoiniqo add to qos ots & ei Raiogstol odd dads Wurraas Yaanan od le 
' offo yt ai bose to sesso holiitoe evods edt ni s09 9 
odd zie bos basil yor toe olouoied | oanaHW euomineaT “1 





ee 


—— 


a —— 


— — 





* web buosse vid! “weltO te wo) stellogqgA bise sde to lace 
“nud oaia begavodd ono frrol 10 to 10% odd ni dewmguA To 


As! eed tidd bag both 


Vexod SayWoqah aA) Xo deh 





‘ 7: — — 
ea Pas 
; uA SRS — A + * 
—* 3 


F mm, f. 
a ee { } 
4 —— 


eee 
AT A TERM OF THE APPELJATE COURT, 












— 
—* 


Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesda 


the year of our Lord one thousgnd nine hundred and thirteen, 


within and for the Second Disgtrict of the State of Illinois 


Present--The Hon. CHARLES WHITNEY, Presiding Justice. 


Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice. 


Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justice.] ROTA Pf 
LOR LeAe DO 


f 
CHRISTOPHER C./DUFFY, Clerk. 


Sheriff. 





poone Liret day of -Apria., -im 


a9 





BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on the 2d day 
Srehgeuet, A.D. 1915, the opinion of the Court was filed in 
the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures 


following, to-wit: 














> = >. mt  IbaqA to yeh tari? ed? | J—— 
nes? tdus bas berbced enin ba —DR ‘eno prod. 
Lag’~ 2 pronisit Bo tsi @ Onn Ber ante ig Saoeee 3 


* <9otseul BZatbas⁊1 
⸗ ANasaut fe Iq xX wAgaOd = 
Se Og 


ees. BT GS Beet, a8 en. 


Fo. age SP ie Ar⸗td aoo oe 





Pa 
— 
Pe — See 
q — ee — — ssp es Bo asin Sai iets ge 
hoor — at Steg 
* 
— 
whetcs Te ae 
* = - 3 V — — 
a * 
» 
; eee 
3 * — 
= = 
+ ae. _ ned cies 
« 
3 pire * 
Pe 
— > * 


= Gao | 


— > 


sb bS odd | 0. rtiw-od ebsawze? 35 dads ——— 


* 


at bottt esw $100 ont 10 noFaige. eds — 


29Tustt Bas abro¥ sedi hi a0 bisa Yo: eattio. 
ve — 


atiwor 4k 





— Pn 4 To * ane 


— 
=} 
% . 
— =a 
— 
— * 
7 
— 
+ ? —— 
» - 





Gen, No, 5784, 
Spring Valley Goal Go, appeliee 


vs Apoeal from Bureau, 


John Framasetta, appellant, 


Whitney, Pe Je 
* In 1904 appellee conveyed to appellant by warranty 
| deed Serteain real estate with the covenant in the deed 
that the premises should never be used for the sale or retail 
thereon of any intoxicating liquor of any Kimi, either malt, 
fermented or apiritous, On December 5S, 1910 aopeilee file a 
ite bill spainst appellant charging that he was selling 
intoxicating liquor st retail on said vrenises in violation 
‘of such covenant end praying for 4 perpetual injunction 
restraining him from making such saies, T-aue was joined 
on the bill and the cause was referred to the master to 
take the proofs therein and report the same with his con» 
clusions of law and fact, The waster took ssid proofs and 
reported the same with his conclusions, Objections were in= 
terposed before the master and overruled by him, and 
exdentions were filed in the cireuit court and a decree was 
enterad overruling such exceptions and deccesing a perpet= 
ual injunction as prayed in the bill from which this appeal 
| is proseauted, 
This is a wivil proceeding and the rules as to 
the kind of evidence andthe quantum of proof aré the same 
#8 in other civil oases, fhe allegations of the bill could be 
proved by direet or circumstantial evidence, or both, If 
facts and circumstances are proven which lead the mind with 
certainty to the conelusion that other faets and circum 
‘ptances are true then such latter facts and circwietinees 
may be accepted and acted upon. (. P. & P. U. Ry. Co. v 





— — ot 
(5 baru yt trakcoans — 

“ beod ect mi tmanevoo eft dity tates feox * 
| Etater ꝛo alee exit aeꝛ hear of xoron ciav “mscino 





vat ‘ X& AAs le 


5 offt eslisqes OLCL .8 todmooett 10 sevotiztas 
grtifes esw ed tact nabyrsio trallequs tentiae 

“ Robtsoty mi eenimexc Hies no Lteter te xowpll grisea 
toitonstat Lavteqreq & tot styer ine dmomevoo a 
Sentof osw exaet ,eeine dove yattem moxt mid 2 


ot Tetenm edd of berxeter sav eauso oid bas Lite © 


* 


—od eid dtiw emee eat droge tre nlotedt etooxd 
hos etocr bise toot setaer off fost bus wal to 
“i exew enoidootdO ,emoterlonoo std mtiw emec ort 1 
brs ,mid yd belurrrove bas tefanm edd eroted 

Sar sex0eh » has #10 siverto edt mt befkt o1ew 
etoqted & giteoooeh has enotsosoxs dare 69a tu 
Eeeqrs atidt dotdy moxt Likd odd mt bevara as motte 


— 


ov as celui edt bas gntbeeoorg Liviy a et ata? # , 
suse eft xs Tootq to mutraup edthrs somebtve to brit 
ed Sisoo {itd oft to enottanelis sdf ,eseao Livin zedto mk 


%f ,dtod x0 ,oonedive Lattnademypotto to foetlhh yd. 
dtiw btm er! bsel doidw meverg ets aeonatenwotto has 
~myozio bua atost tedito tad? motawLoroo eit oF 
seonestenyotio boa atest tettal dove neds euwit ets 
v.09 .Wi .U .o 3 4% ,) ptoaw betes hus 


\ 4 — 
4." a <> 




















* 


Phy 


wei 





GQlayberg, Admr, 107 T11, 644, 
‘Here the proof shows all of the usual things and 
adits that co with the ordinary drem shop wherein intoxicate 
; ing Liquor is sold including the selling of drinke end the 
. mind is led irresistibly to the conclusion that intoxicate 
fing ldonor was being sold on the real estate in question, 
No evidence was offered by the appellant, 

We think the proof justified the decree and is 
therefore affirmed, 

























a" “aaatxat ~d InaLls OO etn Sectqa Site Ye Be 
ae ak has eetted eit faite heat, Msbte 





ttt tenn ahah enti ttt 
edt has edntxd to yabivon ett grbbufont be 
otadtxoint tadt —————— — 
— — 


A ah) 


ktatec xo oiee off 16t hour of tever bisoda 
gtlarr cost te ~hoktt wee to sips ——— WS —* 
8 BLE? welToimn otat 42 vedimbett oO aieeieiat me ® 
eelisen wav ait fact BYE say as) fnallecre tenkege 
vitaloinw ai asainess btan qe Ttatet Sa oipts tes 
wiilwiytat Dowveseq 4 et spdyeru ore Imesevoo 
otiet ear Oral life dowy yaitten neat mkt 

ct Xedenn oid oF hex teller kaw cates eu? be ‘ide 


a J 
: aA 
egoo wid dise emee ond Proqet bee Biotad? @20ekq Bae 


* 
* 


we acer tort amt -.fuet Gre wal Be 
“ak wrew ei ofdQ ,eco'ce’ aoe ald Bie omta off 

wii yt Seiueteurs ane cofteg off ptoied 
as owreps » San Sde ffoerto eff at SalP-eder 


; : 26 
eos Ae ae . osotiqoste se pi tivrmys 


fot?’ ote RP become oe mer 
ot 
,boludang 
org Lives @ ol aff - Se 
oe — ‘a 
4 ~ ed¢hvr eartehive- to OR 
; X ASE 
ee 8 7 22g? levis = 


* 


ss 

j so5ive obese? » Poed)s " ; 

a 
evox nour otetmeale Sane? 

7 PK ' potewlonan act oe véal 


a. dave nad>p awit? ase 26 


STATE OF ILLINOIS, |... 
SECOND DISTRICT. I88. 7 CuristopHeR ©. Durry, Clerk of the Appellate 


Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records 

and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office. 

In Testimony WueEreor, I hereunto set my hand and affix the 

seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this second day 

of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hun- 


dred and thirteen. 





Clerk of the Appellate Court. 

















i ot —J WER Aree 
\ — 
— de> — 7 Ns SAT aa +e *3 
—DD——— 
Bee Toye Int * ier Pikes wily 
2 * F 
* J 


Asti atta? aah: aie: * * —* 


emt ign et 








{ 
— tril 
— 
” 94 asi J — Ma 
. 2 
Ast 
2 J 
* 
4, 
* 
— J————— 
sisllaqggh odt lo dsl) ,yaaud OO ——⏑— Re, se 


abtooa odd lo 19qoed bow ionilll to siet@ edd to tolweid. baqose bine 
edd to soinigo edt to yqoo Std 6 ef ynioyd10} odd todd YAITAWO TAMAR OO ts 
oie yor ai bivset to Senso baltitnd saved od? wi Hed — 

odt xfie bas boad yon Joe otowoted L nn yeourresT ut x 
yah haosas eid? .cwatO Je JiwodD etelleqgA bise odd Yo leon | 
-nud sonia basetods odo bial 1uo to 189% odd ai weugird Yo 
ee nosttidd bow hath 


: Veo stodisagg hy oth Yoel) 





= t a — * 
— eae i 
Vy —* —* +. b — * X 
* oa: ; } 
‘eee | > j 
> 
F , Se / : * 
AT A TERM OF THE APPELEATE COURT, "7 


















egun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday , the first day of April, in 


the year of our Lord one thou bnd nine hundred and thirteen, 
within and for the Second Digtrict of the State of Illinois: 
resent--The Hon. CHARLES WHITKREY, Presiding Justice. 


Hon. DORHANCE DIBELL, Justice. 


GARNES, Justic§. Q 9— 
Z 16 ida Nae 540 
CHRISTOPHER CA DUFFY, Clerk. 


a) Gi. MESGHRE. Sheriff. 











BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on the ad day 
Of August, A. D. 1915, the opinion of the Court was filed in 
the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures 


following, to-wit: 







peo t tee, yad 


“Oh “A. J 8 8 rset ⸗aug⸗ 


—— J— 


4 ¥ 
“T) 





; * Puna: ‘ 
a Si-O eee = — — — — — — 
— ⸗ he 


¥85 BS sd} ao :ttw-o7 -abtawretis ted onaae 


ai Bolti esew sryod sdt to noFAigqo edt .éfer es 
aetugtt bos abyow sdt at ,druo0d bisa to" 


- 


Ls tn” 2 Lae (Oe ie 
y Viernes — eee i a 





& 
—* ‘No, 5786, 

| Charles I, MoNett, Appellee 

ae ne va Appeal from Kane, 
| voniaa J, VeNonald, Appellant. 






: 1 5 » Pa Da 
; | This is an action of assumpsit in which the 
laration gaansiugs consists of the cormon counts laying 
= | aang at $1000,00, To this declaration » plea of the gen 

eral isaue was interposed; there wae a verdict fr xavpellee 
and a motion for a new trial which was overruled and judge 
ment was entered on the verdict from which this appeal is 
prosecuted, The record does not show te evidence on which 
the verdict and judgment are” based, nor do any of the affi- 
davits that are shown in the abstract of the record state 
what appellee's cause of action is, therefore, it cannot 
be determined what is the nature of appellee's suit, It 
may have been anything for which = recovery could be hac 
under the common counts and as far as seid affidavits are 
concerned none of them disclose any defense from which 
this court can determine that auch defense was sustainable 
under the plea of the general issue, 

The whole basis of the appeal ie that the trial court 
exceeded its — —— powers in refusing to po aside 
the verdict .which had been obtained in the absence of 
appellant and his attorneys, and in refusing to crant 2 
new trial of the case for that reason, The cause was, by 
agreement of the parties and an order duly entered on 
September 16, 1912, set down for trial, to follow the crim 
4nal calender, On September 23, 1912 it appearing thei the 
oriminal ealendar had been finished the case was co ted 0 
set down for hearing on that day, appellant not appearing 


} 





















tai wie 

edt dotdw mt tiaqusees to sotion: te ot pict 
artyal stauge genes edt to afpsunce m mole. 
ney edt to sefq a mottersloeb atdt of ,00,00088 ta 1 
eolleqis 24 tothuey = ese srott ybevoatednt — 
~gbut brs beluxtsevo esw doidy Inttt wer & tot 
ei Iseqqsa stdt dotdw moxt toLhrev oft no boxsine 
fotdw mo eonebiys sit wore ton seoh brooet efT 
~ttts ot Yo ys of tom ,besad ems tromghut haw 
etsts brooet oft to soet#eds. edt at mwode ors sade’ 
tonnso $i ,etotetedt yet mottos to eaveo a’ eelfeqai 
#I tive s'eelleqcs to eumten edt at tesdw | xs 
bad ed bLuoo yrovoves « dotdw xot gmbdtyne mood ova 
ers ativebitie biee as tet as has atawoo mommoo 
dotdw mort esaneteh yrs eeolosth medt to enon 
eldartsteve ssw ganeteh dove tai? ontexeteb nao S200 
soueet Lexeneg eft Yo aelq out & 
tus0S gaint ots tact ef Aogas ot to stead exon , 
ebtes 8 ot uxfevtet mi etewog vEsagivexontD ett & 
te sonoads oft mt bemtatdo meed bad okey. 
8 trero of neteutet mt hres eeverzotie ett brs come 
yd ,eew-oereo orf .oasex tact sot exso odt to Le. + 
mo betetne ylueb tebzo ne hae seldéusq edt to 5 
watts edt wollot ot .iskrt 1% swab tee ,8L@L ,al qe 
eft tact gniteeqqcn th GLOLI 88 tedmetae® nO ,rahreiao - 7 
bre Beliso esw easo eft bedetatt meed bad tabmelao Lenk 
patuseqqs tom tralleque «yah tsdt no gakteed xot — 


rr 
—18 


iy 
ae 


— 


ee 


9 


Fy 
ae 









1 Fea, hal 
new trial or not does not appear from the abstract, nor 


oes 
- oe. it appear from the abstract whether any of said affi- 


in person mor by counsel, A jury was impanelled ond heard 
the evidence and rendered a verdiot for appellee for 

This motion for a new trial followed, Numerous 

n ite are shown in the abstract of the record but 


they were filed on the hearing of the motion for o 





) avite were used in evidence, From none of the affidavits 


a 4 err. 


; does it a-pear appellant could have reduced appellee's ree 


covery, We cannot determine from the record that the reo= 
overy would have been less had the appellant with all of 
his counsel been present at the trial putting in a defense, 
Ts is Mot shown that appellant had a meritorious defense 

tw appellee's Cause of action, It appears the case was 
called for trial on September 18, 1913; that appellee was 
ready and that appellant was not; that arpelient wanted 


* or three days time because of matters his attorneys 
were interedted in in the courts of Chicago, and as 


above stated, by agreement the case was set down for heare 
ing following the criminal docket as above stated, 
It appears appellant had three attorneys, two of them 


appear to have been engaged ina suit in Chicago about 
- Peptember 18; 44 appears that appellant did not attend 


the trial court on September 23, the day the suit was 
oalled and tried, and it also appears that one of his 
three attorneys wasnot enraged in any trial in Chicago on 
that day, It also appears that his attorneys got into 
communication with the clerk of the trial court on September 
23, and the attorneys claim that the clerk told them that 
he thought it would not be reached, but the clerk miss 
affidavit that he told them very likely it would he reached, 
tee wae at this term but two weeks of jury work «nd it 


— * ha 






















bised brs heflensomt anew yrut A ,Leemyoo ve 
tot eslleqqe xot sothzev ag oe 


auoro cum — E — won 8 20% mottom se 
tud bropex ot to tuietads old ni were wee wel 
& tot soktom eft to gatteed edt mo bell? exow Nose 2 
tom ,tosuteds srt morh teeqqe tom ago | temo 
 abthesb bea te, yan tedteds toorteds si i 
-ativebttie ett to exes moxt ,oonebtve, a, to ne 
~ar sioelisqns bemsbet eved bLsoo bank forge: 2 ae 
~ost of tadt broges od} mort eaters sob tonn2o, r 
Yo: Lhe dtin. teailogas egh bed, seel aed eyed, hiwow.) 
sonneted sgt gatttua Leta : . 
_ PETeleb nvoinotines.< had. taalleqqs adh m 
oe 880 O00 edt araeqae #1. —— — 
saw eelionas dadd . 4640 44, mecimedae2, 0 abe, 0%, be 
hotaan stnalleqca tarit- — ae Succ Ff 
peverrotta att axestton te. eeuaned emt ayab 
eos tae, bre yogenisd? to. sirs0 0nd sb ae bothercink · 
160 cot swol tom asw page al?  @romeengs yd ghed 5 
Lo je | shededa eveds am tei00b Lenkmine ost, gabvoLiok, ane 
merit to owt ,eyonrotis eauit bahdaallong ») acenaad : : 
_ @vatie opsef? ast tire a sh degesne, need event et 2 . 
 heotts ton Mth dredtoane dads emaedna th 28h 
aw athin orld yah oid g8S xodmetqed, no a Lait, ef ee 
atd to amo dvaid mason onLadhkelnte . ghekrt bee bOkkee 
ra ogaoind nf Laizt yas ah hegenne tonsaw ayeriotta ‘ 
otak tog wyontatis abd gach mxceqgqe gels 4 » 28 dt 3 
radiwede8 sto.tmuoe Latet edt to Aeto ot debe — > 
tail? merit bLod Xx0Lo edt. Pade make eyeriol te edt. dae GER i 
noisy (x00 edd tud .desoses oc ton bison th taguodd om — 
bodosex ed biyow tk ylel&k yxev, medd blot, od tact thvabitts — 


tr Drs Xxow yt to ateow ows Jud met etdt te eaw exec? 
, ; if * 


* eye : 





J 


was nearly through, and if the case had been put off 


I 


* until the termination of the business of appcllant's 

z — —— in Chicago, appelice would have been deprived 

_ of a jury trial at that term, «and it seems that the case 
5 had already been postponed for one term by the non-attend- 
anes of appellant, This appeal invplves merely the 


— question of whether or not the trial judge excseded his 


- discretionary powers and was arbitrary in his refusal to 


set aside the verdiot and grant 4 new trial, and it not 
appearing in the record that the nature of appellee's suit 
Was nor what if any, defense appellant had thereto, and a 
meritorious defense not being shown by the record, we 
are not in a wre position to find that the trial court 
abused the discretion that the law gave him, 

| Judgment affirped 


Carnes, Justice, took no part, 































a i hie dn ida —* 
| c — fd, pros pone tft vit 20 tes enh 1 prog 915 
— Bee fs —— — a ewe —— bendy 
* a ta ott an “ast 

: “tit aaa Saiit ated a Yo 20 
See we — 
Bi aVeetreqae YO Sxinfinn elt” ast” Brobod oil 
BP ids (Sasa halt Palace GentsYeb “Se 
SG logs eit vd iol died Ra ah : 
ir ae 54 gaat if Aegon Db J 
at Sv wat: SAE Yai noone 
E euch Onn aets mes Aa dia” unioottet.so. Lates, 


Petoan trades sel pgs Padd, 





Rea LOA * E 2 — * Hugs é es 1 Q “ered ital — ontt. anes —* ag is 
ity M8. GRRL AS, 20 —⸗ Rot icty seh . ed bothened 


a eee 
” * 


: 160 to? tne soe see oe ph ote @Remeexne vel — 
-hecsia ver tedoe! dagtukee. odd. p 
. 


aucs tq ont ,eyariotta oexds: hadbepali coger LLG QB | 


2s FY 


trotla-moceid? of tips @ eh bepesan. need, oyanheds 
dente for, AbD gngllenes, deltenener we eb Bae 
f, ‘ a 
ww #1us of4 VA ohh gh. codmedged. ae, O00) SRE 
exe gtna. cools wiles. hati Daag 
, * re 
sh Lass? se ah: Sega 2 Nin Pye ‘i 
atte add ¢adt wetene> mils, OF «Wes 


sen Latw of 0 igeto ac’ <haw aoitat 






rT — 


at moc? Bed S2elo Reh pest stbelo oro yer? es Onde ; 
, 1 
rm un o. tuck. vefiaest od don teem ee 
' ; — 5 
| P ot at OSwew th ~Lodbt ete GRR bfod,od — 
| ; * * 
re, 


| , (ames oe bP THO fiso — Soaſ c⸗ whit ia ner 








STATE OF ILLINOIS, * 
SECOND DISTRICT. a 


Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records 


and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the 


I, CHRisToPHER C. Durry, Clerk of the Appellate 


said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office. 
In Testimony WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the 
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this second day 
of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hun- 


dred and thirteen. 


Clerk of the Appellate Court. 








ie J— esa ty 2 5* —— a 
ae — ae Nig. ia Sr 


















, —— We * ‘ 
: sad ery Ay Wind ae or hs 
hy i Meds Were — 
9* A 7 i * diya 4 — f. et we — —R 
ey ‘ » r — 53236 —* TA han on. 
hes ae hg —— tai tie * esi — 
an 9 ae tar’ F hae Fal 







bz 


hrs —— eat ee se i — * he 





"A : i . , hae . 

ay eg aia! & oF ee f il hy az 
Gt. a ARTS, elt uae spas ied fe 

eee ty CR rel can we Aint aoa 


— DESH AT Se BREE n° — — a 












: ss ie —2 —* SO. 
" eR ME MO eae at oe 













* 


we =e 


Whe aay SET ae eh 





—* ‘A oy — er 
Wea oF SA: @ 5 Ren . —— 











F An Puree 

rm Rye hts Ve 
BS “ 
ie “ghd hy 
ac = ki 
* 
40 i 
\r ' 
ih f 
BY Ne 2% erowida A 
as aellogqh oils to Anal) ya, DD ARGOTHARO TD 9 y TOAT 


abioseA orld to ‘reqoor bud ioailll to oted@ ont to soinsid —— 
edt to noiaiqo edt to yqoo omit 4 ai o cxd ac odT dad Yarraao vase on Ae 
99ffo Unt ai b1ope to seus beltitas evode edt ai ‘anil 
adi xis bow bosd yor toe oOdnuored LT NOaHaHW yuomrrenl “ul | 
Usb baosee vid! awseitO de J1u00 atelloqq’A bine ort to nse 







“20d eoiu baeesods ono fol two lo i684 ond Wi dtesmyinl to 
noel tidd bog bork 


Sao.) stolloah. sas Fo Ayo : 





i . 
rr L~4 / ~ — 
Pa ⸗ 
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT, — 













Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the figSt day of April, in 


the year of cur Lord one thousand nine JMundred and thirteen, 
within and for the Second District offthe State of TTrinois: 
Beeent--The Hon. CHARLES WHITNEY, Pregiding Justice. 

Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, J¥stice. 


Hon. DUANE J. CARNES ,# Justice. 








— * — — — — —r — — — —— — 
4 ⸗ 


BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on the 2d day 
of August, A. D. 1913, the opinion of the Court was filed in 
the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures 


following, to-wit: 










al 


at ltagaé to yvsb tagit onf ‘xebaeuT, a0 soma t0 


,aseitidt bas betbask enta bas2uods, eno “beow 
c 


F :gtoatlil to stste oad Xo — ——— 


BRS AA. —— ae 


ysb BS edd -no-:¢iw-oj obtswroits ted? , CIAIA i 
nt Bslit eewt1y0d edt to néintgo oft 


g8togit bas ‘sbrow sdf oi ,ftpod brse-Yo soft 


a : 
* J 
J 
* — 
= a 
¢ 
red 





Gen, No, 5795, 

Mary Hanson, appellee 

oF wos Appeal from City Ct. Bigin, 

Julius Nolting, et al 

* appellants, 

Whitney, P. J. 
This is an action in case brought by Mary Hansen, 

appelies, to recover damages for personal injucies alieged 

to have been caused by the negligence of appeliantes in 

having some woven wire on the sidewalk in front of their 

store in Elgin, over which appellee tripped and fell onte 

the cement sidewalk, 

The deglaration consisted of four counts, three vf 
thom slleging negligence genevally of having placed the 
woven wire on the sidewalk contrary to iheir duty not to 
obstruct the walk, and another aleging the violation of an 
ordinance of the city of Eigin, which ordinenoe we think 
ig mot shown by the evidenge to have been violated and 
therefore nothing further need be suid about that count 
or the evidence in relation thegeto, To this declaration 
the plea of not guilty was filed, A jury triai was had 


‘Yesulting in a verdict for appellee for $500,00 and motions 


for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were interposed 
and overruled and judgment entered on the verdict from which 
this appesi is prosecuted, 

The errors assigned are error in refusing to take 
the gage from the jury at the close of plaintiff'a case, 
ang at the close of all the evidence respectively; exroxr 
in denying the motions for a new trial and in arrest of 
judgment, respectively; error in not direeting the jury vo 
find the defendante not guilty, and error in refusing the 




















Hound! yrakt —— — va 
begeits seisufat Lecoexeq tot eegsash ssvoDes ——— punt 
at sémalleqqs to eomegiigen ous Ww 
“ied? To ¢mott ni ALewabte edt m0 “ext fovo% on 
etno List bas bequixt selieqqs doidw seve qthglis 
Yo sexdd .einwoo wot lo bedatanoo motteralosb edt 
ott beoslq yuivad to ‘¥lieuerey sonegligen gakge 
ot tom ytub thedt of Yrerimoo Alewebts — 
as to aolvaioiv edt yntgels wedtona tne Aleæu oct @ 
Ankit ew eonentbso doidw gtkgla to qwio oft to st , 
ins betaloty mesd evad of wonobive edt yt swod 
dnyon tat tueds bine ef heen cedtuwt aniston exe 
Hottarsiee okt? gf ,otewed? mottaiex mt conabim 
bait wa Latit yuh A .beLtt ean ytliny tom to. “ 
esottom ons 0O,008$ tot eelloqus sot totbtoy a ai — 
beaoqiedn: exew dmompbut to Jeotxs at bus Labxt wes 
dolkde mort dothiev edd ao bexedne tremgtust dns 
absisossotq af 
sist of gitlavtet ai rota eis bemgiessr atotte oa? 3 
,8eso e'tilinialg to seolo elt te yurt ed? mozt 
xoxxs yyleviteeqee: @onebivye edt Ifa to eagto 
to #serte ok Sra Lebut wont 2 sot anoltom ont gutyat 
ov yust ed? gretoonth ton al xoxxo iUsvhtoeqnss | treme 
edt goltewts: mi touxe haz eWelion fost eiapias te edi st 3 





peremptory instructions, 411 in effect that the plaintiff 


had not proven her case, No quastione are raised to rulinge 


on evidence or instructions, It is preetiosily conceded that 
the woven wire was placed on the sidewalk near the outer 


edge thereof by appellants, and that appelice pasaed along 
. ‘the walk wheres the wire was, going south - appsliants store 
facing east and the street runnsingnorth and south, That 


appelles tripped ani fell on the woven wire and injured 


- herself more or lese is establivhed hy the testimony cf 


appellee and appellant Julius Nolting, Ray Cleary also 
testified to seeing appaliants omployees veasuring ths 
wire on the sidewalk and to seeing enpellée caich her Poot 
on the vire end fall, The case therefore, revolves itself 
inte ene in which the only questions arep were appellants 
Guilty of negligence in piaoing the woven wire on the sidee 
Walk, and was appellee in the exereise of due care for her 
own savety at and just before tha time she fell over the 
woven wire, According te the witeas Cleary, corroborated 
by appellant Julius Nolting, the wire that appellee fell 


on had been cut off of » roll and was lying on the outer 


edge of the walk toward the pavement; that he saw appellants 
employees unrclling the wire andi then one of the employees 
left some emall object on the north end of the wire where 
appellee fell, and walked up to the other employee am’ they 
then Cut the wire off the roll, According to appeliants 
evidence the wire wes three feet in width and was cut off 
from a roll 150 feet long; that it was meaewred and out off 
oa near the outer edge as could be of a ten foot sidevalk; 
that the roll from which the piece was cut stood on the 
north end of the piece thet had been eut off, holtinc dom 
the outer adge and about two feet from the outer edge; 

that the wire was measured and cut off on the sidewalk because 


@iténtalq edt gecit toatte mi Ifa 
egatins of beetet exe anoltiasup of e 
tact beheonce yllevktonrq sf #2 yenottowstent to. 
togvo sit teen ALeweble oft mo beoelquecw 
gros beassq selleque tad hae ,utasileqas YW tosteds 
etotn stnelieqqe = dtvoe gatog ,eaw extw edt etedi. a 
» , beavhat bas ette mevow oft ao, List 
co vtomkteet eit yd hedutidsiee of eaet to 
-. @ele yeast ysl yamttiol eulint naive: 
edt gatiener eecyolque ataallaqge grees: 
foot ted doteo selieqcs atlees oct brs 
Boatt goviveet .s10tctedt eas eff. Liat bas 
stra iaqgA @tsw gets srcitaey Tine edit, | 
sehke sdit mo eakm mevow oft wheat ib emanate 
sot 202, eran errh ko eatousxe » mu ot wotlec as 
edt teve Lint erie embed ett —V— $o% 
Seterodaxxoo yyxself anatiw ested yrkbxwook 4 
Siek eslieq a dais oxtw eft qynktiot-uey tis’ 
xetwo ect co grkyl serihae flor sto: tro! sue 
stnelieqce wae orf tert pineosrac eld beewot ALmw elt. 
eseyolqme ed? to eno mevit Loe erkw orft) gabl lent 
etenty exiy sit to bere dicon oct ao toetdo Ilene 
yedt bea esyofgme terto odt of ew Beller part 
etnelleqce ot umkbroook Lex. en? Rovere: edt tee ai 
tte tvo eaw fae dthiv abotestisetdd cow esiwieds« oneb 
Yto tyo bua betetem cen ttotacd) gpmod Peek O8LoL. 
{ilLewehts sooturet & toed bigeo ea aghe roto oi? nest — 
sat mo boote tuo gar evsiq eit dotdw. morte Lflormedes tt . 
AWOD qsthiod Aro tue aoed hedt.tudt evetqiedtt — 
toghe ⁊o tuo eit moxt test ord tyveds: bra egho aosus ont? . 
esuaced ALawebliea af? mo tte tuo baa awe eer — a 


* 





















i 


— 


J * 
— * 





the alley was muddy and the sidewalk was the only dry place 
they had for that purpose, and that they had been in the 
habit ef using the sidewalk for such purpose on vainy days 
or when the alley was muddy, 

The case of Village of Kewanee v Depew 30 111. 119 
relied on by appe llants is not in point because the facts 
in that case are that the person injured on the sidewalk 
knew for several days of the defeot which ecsused his 
injuries, In that case the suprege court says "Had he not 
known of the defect he might, probably, have beon justi- 
fied in assuming that the sidewalk was safe and in acting 
upon that hypothesis", The cases cited by appellants in 
75 Ili, App. 1983 100 Til. Aoo, 3145 120 Ill. App, 609; and 
147 Til, App, 406 all turn on the point that the plaintiff 
knew previously the condition of the place in which the 
injury ocourred, 

In this case even if appellee had looked, her ate 
tention would have been drawn to the object nearest her as 
she was approaching, viat + the upright roll of wire, which 
according to the testimony contained at least 125 feet of 
woven wire rolled up, making an “bject 5 feet high, and which 
stood according to appellents own evidenoe at the north 
end ©f the piece cut off and about 2 feet from the outer 
edge of the piece cut off, Appellee might have seen the 
roll and wm sas6d around it and not ree2ll that she noticed 
it. One sometimes unconeciously sees objects so as to avoid 
running into them without being sable to recollect aftere 
Ward that he even saw them,  CGoncedins that appeliants 
évidence is correst as to the location of the unre) iad 
* wire, we are of the opinion that fact slone is sufficient 


exeuse to appolles for not seeing the piece of «ire that 


\ 


soalq yxb yiro eit saw'diakebhte snd bs ¥ 
edt mbomeed bad yed? tadd hae | 

| eysh wrtat ac seoqteq mye tét —— 

X Xzhann esr 

CLL 4IIT O8 weqed ¥ eenarel to egelli¥ to ease 
atoat edt seusced tatog at tom ef edmall sac, 

ALemehts sdt ao hetutmt moereq edd tefé etm 

etd herszep dotsdy doeteb eit to ; 

tom ed beH® eyes P10 eyEtque odd sea0 godt ne 
cwltast need eva .Yidedor . tigi edtosteh edt 2 

gttios ut re etes sew dlanebte sdt tact. 
(ost! atuslisqus yi betio useso efT os* el 

beta 3@00 sqyA «Lil OSL gAS sooA LIT OOL Gens 
Trivntale sift tadt sotog edt no atest Lis “ 

. edt dotdy mt evelg edd to xotttbaoo ‘ent yle 






















8 ‘ > SHSOLHFH el log 
ats ted ,bedloos bat selleqce tt stove Season wiry ah! 7a 
4 tot teezesn Sostdd odd oF mmwtd mend overt blsow ae 
doldw ,atiw to {lex tdyiiqs ol? · seiv 
to teat G&L tesel te hentotxoo ‘yromiseed edd oF 
Sokde bus gtigth teet € tostd> ma onkian you belie 
aijson ent ¢2 sonebtve avo vine eqya oF Ant 
tejue ers soxvt test & tueda bia Mo dup @oete eis 
ofy gece evad Srigter eelleqyA ~.Yto duo epolg olf 
Deotios esis tait [leper ton bre of wows bewe @  biw 
biové of ae on etostdo essa _feveteenoumr senktenon 
“sete tosilooes of elds arted tupdtin madd dbak 
einallequa tad? gathoomod smedd wan move od San bus 
befloxurms eft to solgsool ag? ot se toegTOO. at. 
ttetottiua &. e@ngla sdet tatd blag ent) ) te ern 


ted? gxtwte seete ont — xet ——— 


tus host nner gon oxkh at tart? 


ad y i ey Pas aa nad 


* cr y 
a. 


pire > 
” bd 


oe ght 
—2* fay 





had been cut off which ran to the south of the upright roll, 
Tt would seem to thie court, as we believe it would to 
anyone, that no one is bound to more than a reasonable 
‘use of their eyesight, Undoubtedly, the piece of wire cut off 
because it had been previously part of w roll, curled uw 
at the corners where the upright roid did not touch it 
thus furnishing an obetruction on which appellee trinped 
and fell, It cannot be said that aprellee previously knew 
of the fact that the wire had been placed on the sidewalk 
because according to the evidence it had just been placad 
there by aprellanta, We aré of the opinion that the 
jury were warranted in finding that annellee was not guilty 
of contributory negligence and that she was in the exercise 
of ordinary oare for her own safety just before and at the 
time of the accident, 

The case of Tolman & Co. v City of Chicago 240 T1li 
268 is probably the lateet expression of the supreme court 
of this state on the proper uece of sidewalks and the rights 
of the public ‘a indieidual abutting »oroperty owners 
therein, In that case we find this language in substance *The 
Public has a paramount right to the use of the street in 
all ite parts, That right is the right of all persone to 
pass over it freely and without impediment whenever they 
have occasion to do so, but it is not an absolute right 
in every person at all times, It is subjeot to such incie 
dental and temporary partiel Chstruction as manifest nec- 
esaity requires," 

Such right te temporarily obstruct a street is, c= 
Sording to the authorities an exception to the general rule 
and secording to the last qame cited the moment it sppears 
that a temporary obstruction is unnecessary that moment such 
























itor tagtacu extt — “Bude ih ter 
of binow #h eysited Ow as «tnd bts or: 
 ‘pidanocae: « naif “eton oF “beited Wb 'en6" ea 

Ye, tre, extw Yo eoetg esl? Ubesdnetatt,# 7 
‘eo bolure ations “Yo Haq {Laisiveg 


Of9n: of% sare 


tt dowot gon bth tick #igbxas — 
A * 
beqotxt eelieqas debe — * 


Sic ee we { 


wert Ussotvers Sian ‘be 


On 


dtgeohte eds m0 4 need Sad vit i pat 


~ESturh cp 


heoaty mood tout ‘ped is bone bEVe ote “OF 


bi ee ea 1k 


“eat ‘fads } motnige edd $6" oRi eH a 


— eaw paloma ‘tedt  gobhatt at 


ms 


eatorexe odd nl ecw ote Pads" BUb “Sbmewal, 
J — stated uit — 
o steno e eet 
r 088 ogaotdd to yet vy 00 & mamfor to Sen SHT | 
"feo ome toe ars to ‘no tevetqxe teotel eft ¥ 
———— ext? iro ettewohle te sem “teqety ont mo. 

| steno yirecots pik} tude Tadbbot ett : 
; eam ponetndue ai egauyial etd halt ow sed tetft ott 
ek teonte sit? to ens’ bit OF — ruonousg ⸗ ond © 
ot eroeted Ita to diye odd BE trigtx tat?  setany 6 t 
yout covensdw tromkbeqn! tvodttw tha Steer o2° tere 
tigi etufoeda ne tom at ¥f Hid «oe Of oF 
_wtont dove ot tootdue at. at ,senti Ti Fae 
—osit tee? tnam 2a nottorateds = eretoqmed mo 5 


< 
18 F J 


* 


J 


J 
A 


~os ,et teexte 2 toyxtedo — ot Sig br ous oe 
eLux Lexsnon edt of motiqeexs ak ebht eit oF 4 

ataogae tt smemom eit hetlo 'eaap tral ait oF j 
floss tromor tad? yxseReobiey at nolttorrtedo ¥ 








obstruction becomes a misense, It is not enough to justify 
such temporary obstruction that it is required by the 
necessities cf the person who so obstructs the street, 
Such obstruction must he reasonable with reference to the 
rights of the public, 

Whether or not the use to which appellee put the 
eidewalk in question wae reasonable with reference to the 
publie was a question of daet,. Tolman v City of Chicago 
supra, 

Therefore we think th: ease was vronerly submitted- 
te the jury to decide that question of fact, The jury foug 
that question of fact against anpellante and returned 4 
verdict for appellee for $500, The question of the ox= 
cessiveness of the verdict wae not included in the motion 
fer a new trial or the motion in arrest of judgment, and 
4s therefore waived, Yarbor v ©, & A, Ry. Co. 735 Ill, 589 
Nor is it even mentioned in the errors ageigned, 

Seeing no reversible error in the record the judge 


trent of the trial court is affirmed, 


tie + . ve 
















— of Aare tom. 9845. ——— 
nes * “ait Ya bosaupes ab 48 tact 


tor * — ye tied —* 
* — hse * — * 
— ate ——m 


> aq Yledelesetq Bers 


Bt ta obtinen dit ou of — 


Ad of wouowwtor Mite oldanonser nay. mo. 
cno1@ Yo 0 v santo sade elder 


werk xiasvoive® 
} noad Sat o¢kw BaP FEA © 


——— Frocoxe saw ost Antdd ⸗ 


mene gt 


buck (ut wa stant 20 mebteeen tact sim 
# bearutos tus ebnacteqee tantege.¢9 
ke edt Yo motteoup sa? (9008) 202 selfecge., 
| Aokton ed? at Debulent ton aay sokbxov, wae 
OD ads —— to teerz# at nottom eit se 4 

oe st 3 BEE 099 Vi oh A od ¥ — — 
3 * sbengteea 55—— 


— edt bide edt st toxze eldte 


> 
a: Pa * “ut ss 


—* — @2, t109 


1) nekY ow éaebtartt ag 


etit 


fezt aicnaq eS aad & 


X F =I * * 
> ts vlor 
; } ¢ 
- ot 
tess talbas rrsTodeet 


——— 


n Lei oes d + Stats sce O58 
—NM b xd née: clothe ott ae 
a dit i ae oF ſeoros 


3— 


free er ererse Yue 


v 





STATE OF ILLINOIS, ).. 

SECOND DISTRICT. (SS 7 CuristopHeR C. Durry, Clerk of the Appellate 

Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records 

and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, ot record in my Office. 

In Testimony WHERwOF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the 

seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this second day 

of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hun- 


dred and thirteen. 





Clerk of the Appellate Court. 












PP ree We BE 


@yct — pt he 


ne ny Seats 


he i # tied ae — i ae at Te ne Sate’ —J 
95 —* oa Be! a 
—9 teas : 


464 


yet 





— 


’ 







1 ex Apso a ig. ile. Dargie Pet — be fey ais * — F * 


Y 


BOC) inal wea sion oe ia a or J * 


J aN ARG 
aM MSIL HAT HTS EY ‘7 — ed ‘ 2W — —— nist war 

. SS 
an 24 “bite 9 ore z nx * A ‘ae 8 * —*— ne f * 9 a Ma 


ow vy 
—2 ate J 


—34 












ty . Cue ie rae Oy w 9 v yA 










LHR tent 


He ey an. 23 Mes 


atalloqgqgs odt to Atel .vraud .O agmdoreinn® ~ “*) 
abio09ff oft lo t9qe0d bas .eionilil to atet@ odd to toittei baeose f 
—* off? 10 aoisiqo ads to yqoo urd # i auiogstal odt ded vuUraao aaa Oa 
| sofffo yu ai biovet to ,eueo beltitae evoda ond ait * a5 
on! xifts fas bowl yo toe otsueted | ounsaW YnoulrenT vl 
«Usb broose vidd .swaitO Js .tt000 dtallogg/ hise odd lo lace 
“oud osia brisevodd 910 bral wo to 1wsey oft ai deuguA Yo 
Head tind bas beth 


— — 


7* - e . — — — eon 


ae \ owagk a Ao asl) 


“" 7 
rey Pa 





— 5798 — 











zegun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fifst day of April, in 


Present--The Hon. CHARLES WHITNEY, P#esiding Justice. 
Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL,#Justice. 


Hon. DUANE J. CARNES 


CHRISTOPHER C. DUBFY, Clerk. | 
7 TY 82tA. 547 














a 


BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on the 2d day 
of August, A. D. 1913, the opinion of the Court was filed in 
the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures 


following, to-wit: 









nt ,LitqA 10 ysb sea¥yt ont — no > sans 90 ta 
,aseitidt bas betbaud ents basauod? 2a0. “prod 


——— 


® <sotteul gaibrests 


<>” 


ae te @ : * ay ws hey aes 


— —— 


Z Rit 





— — 


fa X zs 2 = 5 —— 
— Sk re 


ab bs ods 20 
ft botts gsw uod od} to — — — = 


e9tupgit bas sbrow oft at 11009 bisa 30 — 


* X 
* — a = ete a SA Sa ee 
we 7 — —— Pei. Sth ae 
‘ tae — 
3% = 
— 
— 
* Se 
> ¢ 
7 — 
2 — — 
= * 
* FE * — Rue 





q 
Gen, Wo, 5798. 
: J, F. Heeeling, appellant, 

ie is ve Appeal from City Ct, Sterling, 
_ ‘Henry Frey, Sr, 2aprellee, 
‘Whitney, P. Je 

Thies is an action originating before 4 justice 

of the peace and appealed to the aity court of Sterling 
where  traal was had reeulting ine verdict and judgment 
fro Henry Prey Sr. appellee, from which en appeal to this 
court ie preeecuted, Numerous errers are agsigned but in- 
asmuch as the judgment must be reversed and the cause ree 
manéed for a new trial because of errenesue inatructions 
given for arpellee the facts will be reviewed but bricfly, 

It app: re from the evidenoe ‘that appellee owned 

and desired to 7611 an eighty acre farm and listed it for 
sale with appellant, and siso with other erents, Appellant 
showed the farm to William Baex who was locking for land to 
guek purchase, «nd afterward Jonan Reer, another resi estate 
agent, tonk said William Raer to see the farm andi to see 
appellee, and + sale was closed between appeliee and William 
Baer and appellee paid Jonas Baer a commission for selling 
the farm and declined to pay appellant, Appellant then come 
mended suit to reagnver commissions, Before the deal 
through Jonas Baer waa made, apoellee eailed up anpelisnt 
on the telephone and talked with him and told him Jonas Baer 
Was coming out with a purchaser or that a purchaser was 
coming to see the farm, Appellees testified that he then 
asked appellant if he had a purcheser, and appellant answered 
"No, to @o ahead and e@ll it,” Appeliant testified that he 
_ told appel'ee he had Wiliiam Baer in hamd and thet he 

sould go ahead and sell to anyone else, Appelise seems to 





























soxkirete .#0 wero 2 woe ano = wy. 
is ay “seedoam 6 X 
ad * 
sotteyt « exoted _gattentstso notton. as at 
gniiced® to tuo we eit of deLseqqs bas 2 
| dremgict, tae tothzey @ mt prtt Leeox bast eam £ 
eid? of Ledqte me dokdw moxk sooliscas xa 
eat tud bergtecs exs axoxxe evoxemd® bets * 
xeoauso oft bia hemteves od Joum srompturt, ox a 
eroitoritank avesnoxto to eevsoed Lstst went a: / 
wUtetid tud bewetves et [ite etent edt sffog = 
hemvro eelleqgs tad? eartebtye oft mort omens @ | 
sot ¢i betetl don met oroa ytdgte ma Lier of oxte 
tanlleqch ,atmege tedto itty oats bre dmatleqae dt. 
of bral rot smbtool saw odw ‘tha maklCON of mat ont 
statee faex tedfone ,tesf seaol hiorr setts Ares | 
eee of bas mist etd soe of tes matii iv bise doo: 
moiiltw bra eelleqos meewted heaclo saw else & ae 
griifse tot aolssimnoo s oss eocot, blag sol secce b 
“moo nerdt fnellognd etnalloans wad of bentioeh bea 
iseb edt exotefl ,emoteatmnos 1s vooe7 ot ton * 
inelleqcs qu belise selleuqs ,.eben naw 192k si 
read eenot. mtd Blot has mb dtiw bekLed hax . J 
aew ⁊os acoaug « tact to sesadoug 6 tin suo gam 
| mots of tat beltistes? eeffequh emxet odd een ¢ 
betowsns ¢raliecqs bue ,teendowd s bad ot ti tne 
od tard beltitees tealieqqA “.#f Ifee ire baods os 
sd tas bos Deut ak coe metlily bed od * 
of eneee sulleq:A ante * o¢ Iles has i 


an ‘ 


ee 


; 6 ay r} 





| inasmuch as the ease is to be rewanded for another 
trial we make no further comeent on the facts except to 

J state) that there was 90 much conflict im the testimony, the 
: ; jury should have been accurately inwtructed, 

The law is that if an arent ie employed to sell real 
estate by the owner, and is ing rumenteai in bringing the 
owner and buyer together, and the owner concluies the sale 
at a less price than that at which it was Licted vith the 
agent, {which is the cave here) the arent is entitled to 
his Gormission; or if the puwrchaeer was induced to apply 

to the ovner through the instrumentality of the agent, or 
through ov by means employed by the ageut, ile agent ia 
entitled to his commission, Rigdon vy More, 436 Til, 532; 
Hafner v Herron 165 Til, 342, 

| There was a conflict of the evidence on the quéstion 
of whether or not apneliant was the proguring sause of the 
sale, By the second and ninth inetructions given at the 
inetance of appellee the jury was instructed in cubstunce 
to find for appellee unlesa they believed from the evicsage 
that appeliant had established by a preponderance of the 
evidenee that the appellant named terma to the purchaser 
Which the latter was r ady, willing and able to accept. 
Those instructions were vitally bed and on thet the jury 
could have returned a verdict for appellee reguidiese of 
the evidence, The eleventh inpiruction given for appelles 
dirveeted a ver’ict for appellee unless the jury believed 
from the evidenoe, among other things, Ghat appellant was 
prevented from bringing about a consummation of ihe onle 
by fraud, procurement, miscomluet, or fault, on the past of 


appellee, Ne attempt is mde ic apply thie ts the evidence, 
—— 




























xeffons 10? bebisuex ed of et engo odd an 
ot tqeoxe sfost ed? co dmenmoo teihest Ge 2 

odt <yitamttosd od? at Velttbed Wiih es xan wand. sd 
faex Lise oF heyoiqus st dmege me tt tad? et rr 
old grikyastd ef Laimoctetiant wt tris’ SBetiWo “er 
elit odd Sedttsaas ueied SF Siew Sedddegod S 
— — — 
Of heLfbade Sf teteya ‘wits —— 
“Miata bd bouubrt Haw Bomdonty wis 8 "fit 
“0 "Ydudye wil “to ‘ete Lahatnaes ail OF pater 
of tireys eft (divs ett yo’ Seyoftoe “asem Ye “0 
** eer bas” oul V Koigii toler timod wid of f 
fal? aonb aa — — 

noltetup off no eunebsve’ ed % PORTING # iw baal" 
ott to woken yrtwcbug bd eaw twacteaqe Fou Yo setite 
et te nevis wxohtourtertt divin Nek’ hroowe bit’ e 
thirctodre of bedoustent siw yt edd ealreqae ¥ 8 
sonbhtve edt wéxt hbavetfed Yods* Reetan — — 
"ets to tonatohroqedy a yo peifakroatee bad # 
weeaitiving off 6} aattes nema Iratieadk — ‘Sonat 

“ tqbbn of ols han grettiw .yha < os eevter iz” Dt 
aut ott abit} ao his bad yliaetv s<0w sito ts ouster e 

to d@adlbisyet eercbdgs® cot 4 beniite: vad Bil 
ebffogte tor asvig” nottolitbeltt ‘ateverls ett ——— 
bevelled Ywy wit aeetas —— 
eww Snallogia fal? pepirhil touts pardons <eotrebive te i 
efnn of} 40 wotdatuuset>d 2 tobds Bigttad hort Beds 
to fang odd ao * Finat to FUSES GOR Ler drome tive A 


seomohive sili of sheft — —V — —* +3 on” voll —— 
* F tarde ape “ad ip . 


gil 


— 





_—— 






















aint ,Sromenuvoon, ybuatt edt ‘to wiudun ost 
“Bhs 0b eidutkeva'ed of e¢ of ‘Svad ‘biden 
os ybexe <t4et off uo dyeomoe tele ee 
: ebetramex ease edt 
‘> fas Stee of Depot —————— 
ait gebeusid wi Dakeitet! wid at tte Aaav —* 
aia etry Bhwiene gels eel @ 
a@ae 20 ie Aegis war ti Hota de —XRX sat; * a@ 
Oe tel) Dhee +i tts ud? 6 (one Waa eee wi —— 
Kqaus 63 —R with St “oye 
“ae iss vie ty VRanenire Sar —— eee 
* oP Boeys tly chose 68 eee yd oe 
WOO ohik BAA pind v mula qlee! wh oh 
bho LILY tek hOmeE ® 
mgitsiup of? ao FOR Ret ae aon ed 


eh 39 Seber [htt toig bch Sew Seedioned Fea te 4% J rn 


Ww 


$i tik ae7iy eiéttomitent divin BARES 


. 
- 
. 
4 


—— —9 
niitt ome Yawk ele “eelionaa #4 


eee Stra i> “x bavakled Yo.) eeelair seclenta x08 Ba 
tet 2a 2 4s beRblGeton Bat ee teat x 

x ryan 5 ai > hai eel Tor ats tats 
Soltis of 4 yitin ths a hae ae 

me YATE 2? fee eth bron stil i 

(races tol OOtieew 2 Beauly aoa 

os ‘ 5 —D wae 


vi esc “ons lTeg iek For 08 * - 


, at Sac — wwii "yack Jeanine ee 


; rea 
* a”. ‘ 7 Onl GOR be, Rene Sete _luteth . 
» hate e —X a on: — ea 


STATE OF ILLINOIS, }... 
SECOND DISTRICT. 88. 1, Cupistopuur C. Durry, Clerk of the Appellate 


Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records 

and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office. 

In Testimony WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the 

seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this second day 

of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hun- 


dred and thirteen. 


Clerk of the Appellate Court. 











Ree Os See Cid A ote ilies nis Mond hates on 


— hein: wishin Gi? SH8 —D—— we 
Mh ge ee Kea ‘eater aie —J 
Vie 3 Aye 





; LOWE * 
atelloggqé odd to AnolD .yututh  nantereiin I BRS, — 


eh1ooe orl} lo teqood bow wionilil to atete odd Jo dotdei hood bise tot & 
alt lo noisiqo edt to Yqos aid & at yniogetot od? Jedd VUTH YauAaH OG door: 
volfhs ot oi bio9e1 to eaves beltitue svods old ai io ¢ 
edt xifte bas bred yo toe otavered 1 MomnaHW yvuourren'T “ul ‘ 
Usb Daosee vit ewaltO te 10D odtalloqgA bine odt Yo lade 
‘nud seit boseuod! sao biol +0 to soy old ai Jevgns, Yo 


1990d1idd bow heh 


yA ay ) a\y\\ ye 18 W 4 —8 











Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, t First day, of Aprad, in 


the year of our Lord one thousand ngne hundred and thirteen, 


within and for the Second Districts of the State of Illinois: 


Present--The Hon. CHARLES WHITNEY, esiding Justice. 


Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, #ustice. 


Justiceg q> 91 a 
iO a 1 .Ae 5 68 


CHRISTOPHER DUFFY, Clerk. 


Hon. DUANE g. CARNES 


PEAS MISCHKE, Gne ee 
* 








BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on the 2d day 
of August, A. D. 1913, the opinion of the Court was filed in 
the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures 


following, to-wit: 











ai ,LitqA Yo ysb satit aii ysbeeuT ao amass F 
,mesitid? bas berbeud oa : bnaawoxt a0, bro 


:atomtifl 10 otst2 edt Yo Yotrsaia baoose edi 08 | f 


PA ⸗ — ,softecl gatbies* ae 
: * — * — 
⸗ a ‘ 

—— solitary ——— SOHARHOG 


89 ro A. I 8 8 ee fe 


ysb bS sedi ao :tiw-ot cabisetes is tsdt —— 
nit beltt eaw 00 edt to cofaige sd .Sfe@L 


astugii bas ebrow edi mi ,t1u09 bise to — 


ar” 


Gen, No, 5818, 
Philip Buescher, Pitf. in error, 
a Error to IeSalle, 
Tilinois Velley Railway Co, 
—— Deft. in error, 
‘Mhitney, P. J, 

Laintiff in error commenced this action to recover 
for injuries alleged to have been received by reason of the 
acts of negligence of defendant in error alleged in the 
declaration, Issue was joined and a trial had which resulted 
in a verdict for plaintiff in error, A motion for a new trial 
Was granted and the oases tried a second time resulting in a 
verdict and judgment for defendant in error, from which this 
appeal ig prosecuted, The errors assigned are muimerous 
including rulings on evidence and instructions, No argument 
is presented by plaintiff in error, on the alleged errors 
in rulings on evidence and such errors are therefore waived, 
| It is urged with great force that certain instruce 
tions <iven for defendant in error are erroneous and inasmuch 
as the judgment must be reversed and remanded for a new trial 
because of erroneous inetructions we make no comment on 
the evidence except such as may be necessary in order te 
show errors in instructions, 

The first count of the declaration charged that upon 
the approach of the car on which plaintiff in error desired 
, to become a passenger, he beckoned it to stop and in response 
to his signal as it approached it slackened speed andi came 
almost te a stop, and that became an invitation to him ‘ic 
eet upon the same, and that in the exercise of ordinary care 
he stepped upon the car and defendant in error neclig »tly 
caused the car to etart forward in a violent jer\ anc 


2a SS ee ar — —— 
wi sg 


















_ . tevooez of mottos aint heomonmos tops mi Pittnl 
Sut Yo moaxet yo hovteves mood evar ot begeita, se 
edt at Sepelis rorre at trshreteb to 8 : 
hotiuest dotdw bad tetst # Ses bemtot eaw pont 
fSaiat wen s 10% sottom A ,ToTTe nt Vtentata tot ¢ 
& at guttineot omtt bmooee 8 hottt erao ert hes t 
etd? dotdw mort ,zorTre at tnebmoteh tot trenrgbhut | 
euoTemm oi hergtaes erorts ed? detuoosors 
tromygts of ,stoitorttent bre somebtve mo gation 3 
etoxss hegelis edt mo ,toTre at thitntelq yd bedm 
-hevisw sioteredt ets azote doves has sonehtve mo egthl 
-outtent mistxeo tad? gorot feet, déiw epi et — 
doumennt Sra guoenotie ets xorze mi tnsbasteh tot mevty 
feist wen « tot behmamet bas beexavet sd seum tromgbit © 
ao tnermoo on sim ew etottnirtert acoenorts toes on 
of tebuo ak Yeseenoen ed yen a2 fowe tqeoxe tw 
sonottourtent at exoxte 
soqu tait bheyxedo motfatalosh edt to tnwoo textt emt f 
bextesh xorre mt titénialq dofdy no Zap eit Do 
eenoqset ci bas gote ot tt honodoed ed _tontesasg & 
eso brs beeqe bexedosie tt bedosomon tf os Largte afd 
ot mid of maottativet se emsved tadt bra .qote & of . 
S125 ytarthxo to eatotexe edt at taft bow ,omes _ 


a. 
To 9 


vit a yilges xoxre mt A⸗abasdo da x80 eft moc t | r > ns ai 
fos Atet trelotv eat Sitswrot tists of ta0 oft | e1 2 


— ie Wie oe eal 





jerked plaintiff in error from the same and he was thrown 
to the ground and run over ami suffered an amputation of 
@ leg. The second count alleges when pladntiff in error 
Was endeavoring to cet shoard the car, in the exereise of 
ordinary care, he wae thrown from the same without sufficient 
tine being given him to get aboard owine to the negligence 
of defendant in error in operating the car, The third count 
charged the same and that upon « signal of plaintiff in 
error the speed was slackened and plaintiff in error was 
thereby invited to get aboard and that he attempted 
to do so but the car suddenly «tarted forward with accelerated 
speed before he had an opportunity to get sboard, and the 
Gar being viclett ly started he was thrown to the fround, 
There was therefore one count which charged that plaintiff 
in error got aboard the car and that he was thereafter 
thrown therefrom by the jerking of the oar, 

The evidence was very contradictory on many cu’jects 
tut there was proof clearly tending to sustain the averment 
that -laintiff in error had gotten upon the car, anc was 
thrown off by the jerking of the car, Under these cir- 
cumstances the instructions of defendant in error numbered 
18, 19 and 34 were bad, 

The 18th, instruction is thet if a person of ordinary 
prudence exercising ordinary care woul not have attempted 
to get upon the car, then they should find defendant in 

‘error not guilty, ‘This deprived plaintiff in error of his 
first cause of action, or might do so even if it was neg~ 
ligence for him to start to pet on the car, yet if he hed 
gotten on and had hold with both handa and had his left 
foot on the lower step and was placing his other foot on the 


step, ag some of the evidence is, and then woe Jorked by 


befetsleoos dtiw bust Setaase Unaebbue xao sdt t 






















nwoult son ed bus emss edt mort xovze mt Thitabeta Be 
Yo fottsiuqme as bexetive bray seve nyt) bits ~ | 
torre wt Midatalqurede segelis tnyoo br 

to saterexe edt mk .ts0 oxi? Braga Segre? 6 
tastoitinue tuodiiw smae sdt mot> sword: naw ert — = 
Sonostigen edt ot gatno useds tog of ata movig pas 
dmioo Miift sof 4x00 ext qubteneqo ad xoxre. ct, dm 
°° jk ttemkaly to Langie a mnogu tadt bas onon 
‘ieoe Retqnette of utedd bas bancds teg ot. beth 


‘ett ons gbiseds to of: yt tavtxeqge ms. bad es 
 “abagots edt of mort eon od betuate yl ie 
attadnte date togentectalse — — 
o des coe saw ed ted) Ans seo edt busode tog 2 
2 eto orld Yougmbdzet ent) yd. /t ie 
tremtevs' eft matrim ot -guthned ylueelo Yoong aan, 
~~ paw Ste yteo oft mom mettog Sat tocrte. mb, ttitnd. ** 
| warts snedd asbaw: .xe0 enh to guddtet.edisad.. tte | . | 
betodmua votre mt tnshrsteb to emottounteant, est 5 
2* oh wes em od ga e> ihbademaw AS how - 
yrantbzo to mosreq s tt tadt ef -moktnuntank -AtBL, of . 
hetquetsta ovat ton Brow aise yienkbso yutatorexe some | 
(Mt treireteh hott biveds yedd xedt .aao edt) aoc 
etd to torre mb Yttintsla Sewkeqeh etat ...ysitus ta | 
“gen saw ti tt geve of ob tigi 20 goltos to emu 
bed ef Tf dey Aad oft ao deg oF Ptate of mid tot 4 
ttel gid bad bee abmad dtod déttw blod bad bas) Mey eas 
ad? mo toot tedte ald: gatoaiq esv hra gete -sewol eff, | bot 
yd betxef ser med? Dos ,eteeqmsbhyayedt 19 anos 8 08 © 


— 





the start of the car by reason of ites accelerated sveed and 
that threw hin off, and if thet act was negligence, then 

he would not be prevented from recovery because it was nege= 
ligent to try to get on in the firet place, 

- ‘The same critieicm applies to the 198th, ‘The 24th, 
also says that if he was negligent in attempting te get on 
hé cannot recover, thue ipnorine that part of the proof and 
pleading which charges the company with negligence in starte 
ing the car after he had cot on, The 24th, inetruction is 
also erroneous in saying thet defendant in error was not 
required te assume that plaintiff in error was foing to 
attempt to board the car while in motion, nor was it required 
to stop its car lest he might attempt to do eo. That might 
bs true undersone oirownstanees, and not under other cire 
eunstances, 

| Tf, as some of the evidence is, the motorman saw 
plaintiff in error standing there signelling to get on, the 
left front vestilmle being open and 2 man having just got 
off the cay a short distance away in sight of plaintiff in 
error, then if the defendant reduced the speed so low that 
it amounted to an invitation to get on at the front vestie 
bule thanit would not be true that defendant was not req 
quired to ascume that he would. 

The inatructions for defendant in error numbered 

20,33, 35 — 36 are each erroncous, They select a single 
circumstance or point and say thot that alone would not 
entitle pheintite in avror to recover, or that alone would 
not be negligence, or that it does not matter what the fact 


is in eBpard thereto, There might be several circumstances 


for example, As to each one alone it would be true thet it 





age cols at gakon est torre at ttitnkaiq tadt.- 





















bhs boege detareleecs ett to vonwex wii xepiedtte tu 
$ poorest igen wav. toe. tact Ab bas 4 Tomb wont 

~300 eax gt eeueced YrevoReX mort hesasverqed oie 
Lee betewe od? qt eP@Rlqterttoedd stone ot 
sé) _ tag edT, «AtOL ods. — case @ 
Ao fog. of gattometts nt trenkigon, cams tts 
bas Yoore edt to tueq tadt)pehvomgh qudt, 
atiste mt eonegtigon Atty yraamoo) ef? 
nt mottoustant 4st% off 4sootog bed. odoxod! 
tom saw sorte mh tashae teh dads sogmaynecat : 


betinpet 24 saw tom ytottom mk elkdw tas ed? 
Atdgin tad j0n-0b ptr gtertaess — 
‘a edd: ¢ hat) doe tao oft baroda dog —* 
was aanxodon ocit ak eomebtve oft tovemde as) · 
edt ho tog of na tikeagta sted? guthnate torts ak | * 
--.feg sagt gatvad nen 2. Bas geqo gniod) eis. J 
nt tttdatsiq.te ddigin. mb yous womatab doe \a eso 6 
tadt wol on beeqe od? beouber émabneted edt: 21 \umedh 
_ektesy taott edt #2 no deg 0t>mmottatival asjotel 
“ot ton sew dmahreteh tact euttied tea»bisow . 

— —  hivow od tad? meson ot 
_ beredmun torte at dasbreteh 10? anctsouttant office hiay 
efpaia o toslee yosT, .aveemotre Hose 218. 88 tas S * 
tom bisow anole dad? sodt -yse baa, Jalod to : ion 
hisow enols tedt 10 ,teveoet of torte at thi tabedg eftts 
gant ed? tade setter tem seo) 21 itadt ro geet on 
seonatemworte Letevee ed tigtm exedT ,dcetedt 1 

ot dad? eurst od binow ¢t enols erovdonscot ‘ok ye bani 
eham gated teortq tey bee ,sanegtigan ‘to sorebive tom 


to establish each of these several facts, the combination 
wight be proof of negligence, 
x The principles applicable to these instructions 
were discuceed in Coburn v Moline, EZ, Moline & Watertown R, 
xR. CO, et al 149 T11, App, 139, and in Coburn v Moline, 2, 
Moline & Watertown RR, Co, st al 3435 Til, 448, 

fhe 35th, instruction was to the effect that it 
did not matter what the condition of the brake was on the 
Gar in question at the time the accident happened, enc the 
36th, instruction wae to the effect that it does not matter 
how far the car ran after the accident, They are literaily 
true ins sense yet thedistance the xm car ran anc the cone 
dition of the brake mighe throw light upon the question 
whether the oar was running rapidly when pleintiff in error 
stepped on, ox sought to step om, as the case might be, 
or whether the car was running slowly and whether eo slowly 
that it amounted to an answer to the signal plaintiff in 
error had given, and amounted to an invitation to him to 
get on the car, If for instance the breke wags in bad order 
and if the car stopped within five or ten feet that would 
stronzly tend to show the speed had been very much reduced 
and would favor the contention of plaintiff in error, If on 
the other hand the brake was in perfect order and still the 
Car ran several hundred feet bheforethe motorman could stop 
it, that would strongly tend to show the car was running 
rapidly when plaintiff in error got on, or attempted to gat 
on and would tend to support the contention of defendant 
in error, 

While those two matters would not be sufficient to 
predicate a verdict on, either one or both of them, yet toey 
might be material in determining one of the material facts 


in the case, 
Judgment vrevsered and cause remanded. 


* 
is 
-.. 























_ fottantdmes eft .etost, feteven —X te ) foe sie 
wiih a adtheatinisiheiual _ afore ttyen Anand — 
— — ———— pefatontaq of. 
A mwotresa® & enkfol ,5 Aen ¥ aArueo a nt voe 5 
E genhloht v rude mb tre REL pak AAT | on , 
. sBdD ,LST ENS fa 4; te. 9 oar mosses & F 
* tt tase _toetts Sit ot maw pokdourtart od BE aE sn 
_ pas. no BAH oxard eit. to Rok thxoo edt fastw, bids 
edt bre aheme gest dnehinos etd _ emt pate #B 4 rot: 
tottam som veoh tt tats toe%le edd ot gar mokton J 
wleretit ete yout etrohtoos edt eta, soo — 
“Roo agg Daa Ket te0 me oft ennstathort? sey. easton 
 Rottaeup edd moqu — woult Biagio, elarzd he 
Toure at Miidntel¢ mesiw Ybiqny grtacurs, — 
<9d qtat seco oft as Ao qete of tifguon xo 
viwols oy tedtedw bre ylwole paftrtss naw bi edt ved 
ae tritatalg fangte edt of Towers 8 of f J — 
ot atd oe moitativat na o¢ be dreams bas —“ 
* xo bad at saw oAsid oft vonatent xot oT (9389 ont a 
binow tac? seer net zo evtt —— bogrot⸗ TAO odd 3 
bheouhbex dovm ytev freed bert booae ost rode, ot bres tg 


yee 


mo tl ,torm at tikinkale to aotdnetnoo ont rovat bi 
edt Iftse bas tebto tostreq al Raw extsid ft, peat * 
qote bivoo nanrotom ediexoted teat berbaust fazpveg. a * 
Axceaura aat tao eft worl of baot yigtozte inom * 
tog. ot Setqmette 20 A0 tog soTxe mt ⸗gtata mode vi | 
tasbaeteh to —— edt sxoqgaquve oF bret piper. 


T Of reals r 


ov tnetoitive ed tom Dirow exesion ows } opodt — 


yout toy nct⸗ to tod 29 969. zosthe 9. SP ST 
etost Lstrager out to P20 


a —* 


STATE OF ILLINOIS, |... 
SECOND DISTRICT. 88. 7, CurisropHeR C. Durry, Clerk of the Appellate 


Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records 

and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office. 

In Testimony WHEREOP, I hereunto set my hand and affix the 

seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this second day 

of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hun- 


dred and thirteen. 


Clerk of the Appellate Court. 






Geer tieak, OF Paes, 2 
‘ vee: atin 
84 i # Me ts 















ae 
F — — 

ae reise ra Cia. BH iW a) ihnay: ki oy ‘at Pedy peat 
NEI RE S, COREE i xorg OF tt ie — 






a" ’ ath" nye FS £27 ¥ sty ecstts tat kaa Late % i. ny went J 
lacy ‘ ‘ Sed by : ie" > ers wale ‘ 
* * nah aa — —* 
ie Ae a path aa 4 Mf 2 — “i : 


<% 


po: Fars Pw sha we re ** 


of A ) y 4 
i —* re 
— — ef — 
De pees bile Bat GA i Oe are Fat ES rv! * —B— 
— Se, a! * Dea lid Rhy — i — a ™ AS: J * ‘i ae 










AS. pai nge ak: beset tae: Pepin dai pe —— 
Page As i fy 9 i 1 Ae 
. Pi Lan tk, orc ett ARR: bee aN a deme 


eo. sapere Seay heh RM ai eptde Mi SOG 











’ 


— we TOM ieee, Pag oH i —J aah 
————— RE Sone | SLIME ME — te Aaa, Canin 
Re Tee cee ee a) an ft 
WML at “eat: CY Re Sher Sirota ei —* ston 


























—* rue, f) * 54 vv, “, —* 
—0 — H 
Ne ‘ wh ae 

J ee) cl aid aay tt, Tose ee Sais obs Ra 
mm 


. wren ii , —— Apt. Oat os anf 


* 


twa. 4 ni — 


Nalloqqs of to diol) yr 2 agndoreant 1 ved Sty SORE Oe 8 

abiwoon edt lo 1eqeed Das «ionilll to stei@ add to soil baoose bise. 4 

odd lopaoiniqo ait Jo xqoo auattR ai auiouchot add tnd Yiraey vaaran' 0a | 
pitto rt oi bxoget to..eenge boltuo ovodeadt aide 

ould xi: bre boul yin Joe ofnuored 1 AomaanW ynowiraw “tr 

Usb broove aidd cweitO te 1009 stelleqgh dine ont lo less 

ud etia hagauotla vito Trial so to mov, sit yal by Pita J. 


MS toa > ER 
VW SO Mogae SAYS Gay. A fires 





JUS tee. 
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justice. 


span — Clerk. 


‘@ 


{ 
rn 


ee hy 






Presiding Justice. 








| 

| 

| 

— 
| 

| 

| 

| 


BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: 


on the 2d day 


of August, A. D. 1913, the opinion of the Court was filed in 


the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures 


following, tc-wit: 






:ete0aifill to sis? sdt Yo +95 


: os ——— 
ie ssorteul 
, 9ottauk 
se -Are19 
K86 1881 


nf 


¥sb bS edi ao 
mi bolt? asw d1u0d edt to crates 


a6tugilt bas ebrow edt mi ,d4u0d b 


or 






re H, Decker appellee 


* ve Appeal from Lake, 
iam F, Cochran ot al, 
Te appellants, 
— a, 
~ .. hie is a suit in equity ‘to enforce s mechanics’ lien, 


the bill filed by appelles sate out a written prososal to 
furnish material andlabor specified for a hot water hoating 
plant in the house of appellants, stating price and terms 
of payment, but not specifying time of beginning or complete 
ing the workg and the acceptance of that proposal by appellee 
with averments of performance, etc, After issues joined, 
the Sause wae referred to the magter in chancery to teke 
proofs and report his conélusions of law and fact, which 
he did recommending 2a deerse for appellee for the ‘olanse 
aue on the contract price, $243,50m, and the disallowance of 
appellee's claim of #40 for extra labe@r and material fur- 
a nished, The Court after hearing on exceptions, entered 4 
decree: as recommended in the master's report and ayy pellante, 
‘defendants below, bring the case here on appeal, 

ie t is wrged that the contrect set out in the bill 

4s shown to have been altered, was improperly received in 
ala a and ie no basia for any claim in favor of appellee 
under hie bill, which counts only on the written contract, 
‘It appeare from the evidenee that appellants were, in the 
apna of 1909, fitting their residence at Ia-+ Bluff for 
—— in winter time; that they had ther: tof ora occupied 
| panne! residence, In July they were <igging @ weline 
? ze solid foundation under a part of the house 
oR A to protect another part of the house by covering 







— A kor oe 





tial most —9 —— “en 4 
> = 4 ¥ z — — 
atasaſi oqaa 


au ta ZoMadHOg oi 
c awatnt 
soll Yentnastoen 2 eoxotne of wiupe th tive a uh « 
cb SA ety — mestiax @ tuo ates eettoxcn wi Bett it 
setae ohn tidak bettiosas xodiLins tat rot 
| amtes brs eotrta pritete qeinal Loqga to eevod ocd a 
. -teiquoo to gitumiged to emit gthytiosce tom tud , 
| eelieqys yd Laeonorq tentt to samatqsoos odt bas ¢: 
ebontot astraat tettA ,ots ,eorewrotireq to | 

eat of yroonmsdo mt teteam eft of bertetet aoy omnes 
fotde toxt bus wal to anotasodoo ett troqe7 Dae wt 
eonalei sit rot selleqqs tot setosh s gittbronmones b : 

to eonswollseth oft bre qmOd.8het ,ootxq tosxtnoo odd m 
stmt Istretem bos wedal arixe tot OM to mbaLo dias 
& bototme ,anottqeoxe mo grirecd tetts dxs0d on? » 
einalLeqas bas droqet 2’ tosean oat mt beonomoaer a8 
elzeqqs mo ered se86 edt grind | ewoled " 

iftd edt mt tuo fee tosttmeo oↄile tacit hegus et st i 

at bevieoor ylreqotamt eaw ,bexretia need ova os — — 
selleqqs to toval ai mkalo ye tot ekead on at baa 
»tosrsnoo mestiaw edt ao yimo strwoo dotdw .{ftd at 
eit nk ,oxew etmallegas t¢adt somebive oft mort oad 
tot Tinlhi etal te sonebleer ctedt gnttett , oer tet | ’ 
beiqrooo exolodexedt bad yed! tadd gemkt sodmiw at ' 
saileo s githggih oxew yedt ylat al ,eonebiees recuse 
sevod ed} to txsq a tebe moltshearot biLoe 2 on. A 
gakzevoo yd sexed oft to dreq xedtone ftetgnq of 

















7 
w 


9 


— 





5 for —8 of the cost of a heating apparatus that would 


en) 


_ sufficiently and properly heat the house in the winter time, 
* ahr . hs 

‘The matter was discussed between them on several occassions 
and on August a0th, 8 verbal agreement wag reached as to 


_ the labor and material to be furnished and the price to 


be paid therefer, At that time appellants asked appellee 

tO reduee his proposition to writing, which he did, and 

On September 2nd,mailed appellant & partly written and partly 
printed specification with propogal to furnish the materiaal 
and do the work for %485@ 50% on delivery of the goods 


258% on comection of mains and balance on completion, 


This proposal, thoughx mailed September 2nd, was dated 
August 5th, William fF, Cochran, who was wnducting the 
negotiation on the part of himself 4nd wife, discovering, 
he says, that August Sth, fell on a Sunday changed the date 
to Auguet @nd and wrote his acceptance on the contract in» 
serting a condition that the work shall be begun inside 
of one week from the date of xhm acceptance and comp eted 
before September 30 +09 and sooner if possible," He dated 
his acceptance August Srd, and mailed it September 3rd, 


) Appellee had already gotten some of the saterial on the sround, 


Appellee testifies in substance that soon after re- 


G@iving the acceptance, he and William FP, Cochran met and 


discussed the matter of the acceptance being dated in August 


instead of September making the condition a to beginning 


the work impossible and also thet he might not be able te 
comply with the condition as to finishing it, and that 

the condition in the acceptance was sbandoned by the mutual 
aeremnant of the parties leaving the witten contract a> set 


Bas iy 


> 
























* 


~due exit modu bus omtt atdt $A ,xeqeq thw i 


* 


pellecqs ot betigas yedt *— era 


biluow tadt fudeceqns attizest s to teoo edt to stam 
,omtt xedutw edt ot eevod ant teed yixoqorg fre 


snoteanoo Laxevee no aoat meontod beans th saw rs 
ot es bedoast aSw tnemeerge Iisdtey & 41tO8 
of eoltq edt bux beretnuvt ed of Latrotam b 
marci ‘ednelleqgs omit ‘telt $A it 
° Beer (DEG Off doketw ante Paw of t6rE Bacon a 
Vitis bes nett tw Lda 8 dnslfecgs helkan, bis 
Paskdotun oxtd Mateivt of Liseoqorq dtiw mottaort Loeqe J 
~eabooy eit to tovELés to ROB. HIBHE” tor Aro ithe 
C8 SO Fetes 16 etmaiind ohitsMemtem Yo Mot 
‘befah saw” sbi® Tedmsviqen Heltan miguodt 
(ead girtdeirha ® caw odw crerdood “yT maths 
fgittxevoveth fetke bis ecmba to tte ‘sdf ito | 
ofeb sit Keymato Laheuc sto LfeP jie sedge’ 
Lt PowreS edt no sonsiqedds ali efotw bes hn’ 
‘Bhtort “ruged ed Ifate txow oft Sails DEI 
dete qnido beta sotatqdoos mit To ofa5 ord mort 
 bétad eH ",elfdineoq ‘if ‘renooe haa 00S 08 
sbre todmetqe® FE DeLtem dite ,bte Feugeas > 
-bavoty ‘sdd cto Lafretat ed! to Ctow nedtog yosetle bad se 
6% Tete mos feds eonetedye ni sertitest veLloqak 2 
° me font maedood iT MOLL LAW bts ed” Yeenstgsdos ‘ods * Oe ; 
SeuguA at betah ottod weonetqeénes off “te wettan edt j 
Qninntgsd of 6 moLtthndo oid yebtam tedmetgse "RO 
of cides od ton Scigtm ot Fact oes hia @ldseesomt Aiow | 
tert bee ght gartdetet? 6F as motttineds ent it 
Laudum of! yd derobnade oon Sonetqeoos off nF onok rroaoo 6 
toe es SoOartwoD Metin ond aakvewt « — * 
GP se, tytq «pe ie —— 


* 
— 


* 





— 


out in the bill and offered in evidence, Appellee proceeded 
with the job completing it some time in Qetober, Fifty 

per oent of the contract price was paid and this action was 
prought to recover the balance, There was conflict of evi+ 
dense on this question but the court was warranted in finding 
that the contract was changed and. modified after signing by 
the mutual agreement of the parties and treating it 80 modie 
fied as a written contract in which the action could be 
maintained, 

It is also urged that even waiving this question 

of admissibility of the contract in evidenee, appellee was 
not entited to recover, because it is said that the plant 
aia not fulfill the purpose specified in the contract, There 
is no question under the evidence but it did not fail to 
heat a part of the house, but it was that part of the house 
that was not sufficiently protected from cold winds undere 
neath, It was guaranteed in the contract that when "the 
building is built, furnished an’ ocoupied as contemplated® 
- the apparatus would be capsble of warming all of the rooms 
to a temperature of 70 throughout the house when the weather 
outside is ten below zero, It is testified by appellee that 
in hie negotiations with appellants for installing the 

plant it was represented by them that they would protect 
that part of the house with lumber sheeting and paver 
covering, much moxve thoroughly than they did, and that the 
reagon why that part of the house was not properly heated 
Was because of defective protections that the floore of 
the roome complained of were single, hot double, «nd that 
the rooms could not be warmed with@double the radiation 
whthout better protection underneath, § There wes vonfiics 
of testimony on this question and no such preponderance in 





















bebeovose:eesiequk: seomebiye at bexerto “hts £620)" 
o NXOUET 4 todotoO ah emkt omos t2- anttesonoo sot ¢ 
ean aoldos aatas bas ‘bkag caw ————— 
vtye Yo toLltaoo enw event segmeled —ã— 
gutbatt at betnaxtey aew tryoo eds tud mottedup *@ 
vd gatrgte meats Betttbon has begnado exw: 5 Oat 

-thom on tt gubtacxé — — 
‘86 bLu90 notton eft dotdw at foaxdttdo 
bak. DoD) ext fog:  abttt ieee? Rost ieecety & 
_» -dtotteeup atid geiview meve tadsObegny oats e 
taalg edt tad btew at ti oateded \asvooer oF 
arecT .foszrtnoe eft at beltioedr weootug ont LL 
ot Liat ton bip tt dud~ sanebtve’ edd tobe 
savod oft to Pueq tedd caw tt. ted yeauod eat to” 
~tebny ebatw boo mort betoedeta Ytmetortive tot’ ert 
+ 908" mpdy tad? toextnoo edd mt boodnéeany! abi #1. ii 
"hotslqwednoo as hetcuose ona’ hedte herent yohtudo! girkBA 
emooy eit ho LLevgntmsw YecsLdadeo! ed: bkiew * westar Ber 
sedtsew elt secty eavod-odt drastuords OT toe: 
tact. eelleqaa yd bettiveat et #2 powex woled wer ed” 
edt gntiiotent tot atmal Leggs .Atiw! gett wkd | 
Poesoug Hivow yest toi? ment ys hetmoawtqed ‘usw tf Sal 
Leqeq baw yrtteede zodeml dttw eavodt é'f° to Fteq | a J 

eid todd bra gbth yest madit ‘ykeigwovortd stow Monat Yar ro . 

hatsed viaeqoxq tan asw eayodt eft to gay Jars ye 

to ewoolt odd tadd grottosteny evitosteh “to @iusbed — 
ted? hae ,elduoh, tod yelgtts eter to berkeley ‘endo? — 
nottatbat ect piduotesdittn bower eo tom bivod ender SP? 

to£LLoo eww Sxl | gddeere hms noltostoxe tel sed"! Hyodeaw 
at eonerobmeqeray dower or cm: okt eo ap! bike sro wWien ta· 


ay 






tom 








Hy 5 i 
reversible error in 
- 8* 
' 
; 
— 
—— 7 
x 
{ 
he 
' 
As a on 
ye Ba f 
yl 








as woule fustity this court in disturbing 
of the master, who saw ang 











-aok 


— 








as pre oe 
4 ‘ 
“4 ’ 

— 


* 






ae to aivee 


— of #2. gabtavet bien Mee ee. ea 
























(5) am sonabitee eds 
a a ere ——— sweat 
Side indie tia le Set — —— — 


a phos olotto x wake nai wet. bead 


‘aon a —* Tia fie: + or * 


Aeſa wou BEd tvy tow sates Paseo bowen! nibs Of * is 
Pun eoLiecan ,eGmeblve nf téertaod: axorke! fie a 
tually ede tee) deme ‘at Sf Getecet 4 tovdtex 6p 2 ig 
etscy ,gnasdnoo- nts: nt de tthoagh weveery etd) LL BES . 
+ Thad ter \tb6s2 dat eneetlyetet? dade ned * 3 
saved eit: Yo tueq tad aan st). dod Yamiod aid 16H “e 
vcthay ebrite Dion mort fe treveke, ea dar ries 
org" gpdw tarit ¢oereacon ets iat tendnarn tf 
‘botalaneines on betcwone gre he dN inert elie ee a 
anes: 453 to Lin -gh imal te eidaqes eo Obie ‘eet a 
tedsecw ods meri wend et duynguontt OF to > siete 
dad? eallorna yd hod tired? we 3 (owen kofed = 3 
om arliiatorrt Ant wPamnl L Site Atkw ana ; —* 
Poatorg hla yeild Yeele. walt ond tesa red Maw yee 
Lockey her yriteede.goteed afte ‘eno ee fog 


we 


* 


OAS, a ⸗ eat ERG tN ee eer nosey yaa 

heteed vieneic. daa ane ener €4F Riga e padd’ yw e 

B50149 ay FRCL gor vp —XX oN RTOS? aR te” eis 

$309 ‘wa, ofduity foe (i Seah te view Yo | denRaletee 

woldek ues echt. eideosewite Dieta Ge coer ie . 
Psitices Ber eee ook wipedipemmnatae ts 4 

sth Ohaus — soxrt Oo Erce — — mbna * | 


BR." 


Vin ae , a a 





SPATH OF TLUINOIS, | .. 
SECOND DISTRICT. pees I, CHRISTOPHER C. Durry, Clerk of the Appellate 


Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records 
and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office. 

In Testimony WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the 
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this second day 
of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hun- 
dred and thirteen. 


Clerk of the Appellate Court. 










pbave J— mie a: — Ae, 









bees 


oe ee 


waif eto what 
NellogyA sd to dil) ———— , - SPOLA TEN 


ebioveH odd to — Hots — to i nag ed to Pobadet(t baoass Bie 10% ; 


ont xifte baw baad ven doe 9 J pe —— vi’ 

veh badose aids wend te ip00 oteiboqg/, Sive adj ‘to Adoe . 
“smlad omiss Dineiodd ano baal wo tome, alt at deuguA to 
gedtidd bos bob, 


» Ed adobaaah ot to pasha) ae 





AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE couRT, ~~ 








Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the firstPday of April, in 
the year of our Lord one thousand hine hugdred and thirteen, 
within and for the Second District of tHe State of Illinois: 

Present--The Hon. CHARLES WHITNEY, Presiging Justice. 

Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, 
tion. DUANE J. CARNES, 


CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, 


J. G. MISCHKE, Sheriff. 











BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on the ad day 
of August, A. D. 1913, the opinion of the Court was filed in 
the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures 


following, to-wit: 








etrt orf? — ao — * 
rye 4 


— 


ysh BS edt no :tiw- of vabiersaste dads cena 


— 


at belt? aew sx09 edt to nota! qo: ait S101 . 


aetpgtt bas ebtow od? at — ‘bise to sarito. 


4 





Gen, No, 5755, 
Oo, Ae Lundquist, Pitt, in error, 
; : vs Error to Putnam, 


‘" A Pr. Child, Deft, in error, 


Carnes J, | 
— * O. A, lundquist plaintiff in error, filed his dao- 
laration in assumpsit against A, P. Child defendant in error 
alleging thesale of certain real eetate known as "Blacksmith 
shop now occupied by Bert Fifield" by plaintiff to defendant 
at public vendue for the sum of $800, $200 cash, #300 at the 
delivery of the deed, and balance tdbe agreed upon by the 
“defendant and the plaintiff, the tender and refusal of a 
deed therefor and consequent damages, A written memorandum 
is alleged to have been made by the auctioneer se follows: 
. "0, A, Lundquist sale, August 3, 1913, 
Article: | “Names 3 
Blacksmith shop subject to street tax: A, P, Child 800,00 
W, H. Westcott, 
G. K, * 

A general demurrer was filed and sustained, and 
plaintift in error abiding by his adeekxuxan decisration, 
judgment was entered against him, and he brings the case here 
for review, - 

Mere Advantage may be taken of the Statute of Frauds by 
general demurrer whenever it appears fromthe face of the 
declaration that the agreement sued on is within the statute 
and fails to comply with the requirements thereof; Cary 

v Newton 301 T11, 170; Dicken v MeKinley 163 111. 315. 1% 

was formerly hela that the writing required by the statute 
might in case of auction anles, be by memorandwr made by the 


auctioneer, that the memorandum must be compl«te on ite face 






















smart of rot 7 
vrorte mb ftom x pte ‘3 


xm sie » ot Seti 
- * t 


~0eb ati boLtt .xorxe nt Yitintelq ¢etupbeunt ms 20g 
tore mk inabaeteh bLId) ,F .A tentege ttequecs mt mo 
a⸗ tacaoata: as nwond state Leet ataaato Xo etauedt aa 
tnabneted of Wintel yi MbiotrLT duo yt botcrovo ve 
edt Se Oost .dexo COR? ,008% to mre ert to? exubaey 
edd yd socus mr ope ie eae ae 
# to fasvter bas rebtet ost .ttitnkalq ont das nM 
minstomen tetttiw A ,eogaunb tmespermoo has to’ sad 
sewollot es teemoitoss edt yd sham need ever of be —* 
ALCL 4S tevguk .eLae tetuphaml ,A ae 
romem | tee 
00,008% bL200 ,7 A xed teootés oF Sostdue qoda sid don 
ettootee® .E yt — 


ing 


eat 2D 

Bos ,dbentsteun bas beltt saw textumeb — a 
tolteteloeh mukeiank aid w “gabbids x0xt9 at 3 

eto sasn oft ogattd od bas eakd seakegs boredne en 


* 


J 


— wotve 
yd shusxt to etwtet® edt Ro mexet od yam ogeénsvbA — 

elt to sont edimort eznege #2 teveredw terigmeb | 
etutste edt mid¢iw at mo bewe tnemeetge edt stadt notte: 
Yted {loetedd stmemetivpet eft d¢itw ylquoo ot aL f 

$I ,8L8 ,L1T 88L yelnkXoM v mevtoid ;OTL .LLT Loe — 
edueaa oft wW heztupes yatitaw edt tedd BfLed yitemzot F F 
edt yd obam mybnatomem yd sd ,eelas sottous to eaed at tigtn i 


sost att no eteiqmoo od teum muhnatomem eit tact ·tevaotaoua 


—— 


i “gs 
J 


or "in connection with some other writing, but that the aue 


tioneer need have no written authority therefor, Doty v Wilder 


25 Tl, 407; but this was before the Act of 1869 requiring 
the ‘authority of an agent for sale of landg to be in writing 
signed by the party to be charged, and excepting only »ales 
on execution under a decree or order of court, Since that 
amendment in ausion sales other than judicial sales, the 
authority of the auctioneer making such momorandum should 
be in writing, Hartenbower v Uden 242 Til, 434, The dee 
laration contains no averment of euch authority, 

: Without considering whether the memorandum above 
quoted is sufficiently definite to enable the property to 
be located by parole evidence, which may sometimes be ree 
sorted to, to explain latent ambiguities, it is to be shar 


observed that the written memorandum plead, shows © sale ‘or 


cah, while the contract declared on, is one for part déq 
ferred payment, therefore even if there was a written 
memorandum of a contract answering the requirements ofthe 
statute, it is not the contract declared on, 

The declaration is bad on another ground, he cone 
tract declared on is not complete, The time of payment is 
an éseential part of a contract, It is true if no time of 


| ‘payment is fixed the law will sunply the omission by assum 


ing payment on delivery or within a reasonable time ete, 
but. here the puehassx purchaser waspromised some credit as 
to half of the purchase price, whether with or without 
interest, does not appear, If the time had been stated, as 
for instance one month or one year, no interest could 
have been demanded during the time payment wasso suspended; 
it was therefore material whether the deferred payment of 


$400 was to be for one day, one month or one yoar, The time 


Ps 4 




























sus sa? talt tet geitior mite scge co. ee 
TeiEl y ot yupterad? Binds secttor ae seal Seow 
writinget G2Gi te fo ete etted eee htt pet ST, 
peisice ai ot of shesl to cla tc* Scege cs i 
— — att 
fate emte pu te aes —— 8 ee 
“gl? eelee feteteet cee ete sites 
— —— — — 
— — eed OCT te eet + erties is 
* ———— ⏑ —— 
erete mercies str we Sew oeitetooes tree ~ 
ot Uftecote sof cliams of sfiettes reer & 
“61 s¢ semiferce ter deter (soreties sfscar We! 
— od of of $2 (eet Aeptcies Sretel atetices oF Ls 
tot sles 2 evods (Seete meGeerombe cfr her Ser tact) 
<66 fueq tot ent st .2o SetaiceS foetiase ect a 
meiiice 2 ser eet tf aes evoteeet! See 
edito efzsastivg@: 2 gcfweweca fuetiese « te — 
te Sezziceh fsetiass sd fom af #2 

— of (bmuot: tetfone co Sad of — 
af frenyer to ot? ST .etetimes for 2: OS eta SB 
te Sntt ax tt ere? ot $f Ghoti « we 
⸗ (i Zolesimo ott yiqrae iffy wal edt Sextt SF Saag” 
-0fs emit siderceset s atéfie <> yrerlie® ao dees yn 

as Jibet> smo- Sesto t-eer tsesfomwe seamteeg 67! 
tvedtiv to <3 fr tatgs ty .eeive goede ott HS 

as ,Sotets aced bart emt? ef? If .xesen= fod Bec . 2 
bimec feetefet tr (<Sey <88 to afeon she sccatikP moe 
;tetescece oaacw treergeq ect? edt onPmS febeemst see¢ ovat 
to ¢rsmyac terzsts: -4¢ reatele Teltetee orpterety acre $F Es. 


ert sf .1sey seo to Stren ote (yas Seo wr de co ale CORD : 
a 


o* 


Po 
— dee 

















— agreement, an was also the question of 
oc 4 'y it can fardly be ; esumed thet ata 
— intended thet payme should be deferred 

i ini me 

it 3 * attaonoa to the declaration under the title 

fount" a copy of the advertisement of the 

2, which included the — in question, in 
that the terms of the sale were as stated 
eelar - Counsel in argument treat thie copy of 
sas ant of the declaration; but it is no part thereof 
hin which the court in considering a demurrer 


00. v Schoodoe Pond Pack Co, 15% Til. App, 
f it be read as part of the declaration it would 
e a the eonclusions here announved, 

| no error in the record the judgment of the 
is affirmed, 





eS ee ss — yu a — Se) 
y 7 — Ae = ‘<a 






















ous ort taiid tud ygnkitiw tonto omon Attn me aooa nh 73 
tebliW v ytod ,rotoxedd ytiuodiue mettixw on — 2 
ancttivupes @a6L to toA exit ‘etoted paw aft aud. hee 
gatsiiw at ed of ehasl to eLae 10% tnege ne to J 
neler yino gattqeoxe hae ,bentaio od ot xtꝛ⸗a eft v J 
filif? eonie tuv00 Yo ——— * 
Bh — te ret tire’ ithtd ange’ eetbe fe 
* prweite’ — ‘Mowe ‘gechtem — var 
“Root wit een lrer no most ¥ xevedhoieall Vg 
— aco tio OE 
“evods imrtnsromen edt “Se ddbitw guetebterted i 

ot Ytreqort iit eluents” or ebtet ten rane forint’ a 
“nex bef eombteinon yan wfobsty (eotebive etousg’ vi 
waits of of of TY pwbhttingtdiun Inetal midi We 
sot else s awodm hota mubteronbid Kotte ett + 
“eb txeq tot end at <9 betaloeh soaténoo sit it 
08° eset paw erbit tH neve Broteteny” etrooea Be 
eidto — erty grttewers tosttno9 2 to 
Aco bezsloeh toetineo edt tom at ti, — 

maod ort (bring téittons no Hid’ oF ROLY ALON bay! * 
ak trenynd to olit¥ BHP Jetettmas ton at —— * 

to bmt+ on th erred et 9f donrthob 
-—myneas yi notsetmo edt ylqewe Iffw wal edd bexkt at ¢ | 
“ote emtt ofduvoerer s mbitiv to YxovilIeh’ a q 

ag tibexo smoe beetitoreeaw xeestow, xunaxnay 6} Ore: ¢ . 
“""” suedtiw to aot donaeltw weixe eadokug ede $° SER * 
ns bovkie nood hat emt? 6H} 2 .xaeqas tod Béod ,: 
‘bites treretnt “ow yey ait to Atom oho sonsvenk 161 | 
ihebneqasé onaaw trenmyaq emt} oad are hobitemed nese pvi ; * 
to dremyaq ‘borreteh oft ted#elte tabie diay erbtoret? eae wv K 


3e 


emt? eAT jasey emo xo détrom ono (tab eno ‘not of of ei oo 


“ 





tas left. for future agreement, aa was also the question of 
interest and seourity, it can hardly be presumed thet at a 

| public sale it was intended that payment @ should be deferred 
without any seourity, 
— There was attached to the declaration under the title 
"of “copy of account” a oopy of the advertisement of the 
auetion sale, which included the property in question, in 
which it appears that the terme of the sale were as stated 
in the declaration, Counsel in argument treat this copy of 
accounts as art of the declaration; but it is no part thereof 
and is something which the court in considering a demurrer 
*sannot see with legal eyes" (Pearsons v Lee 2 Til, 193; 
Steele-Wedeles Co, v Schoodoe Pond Pack Co, 153 Til. App, 
576) But if it be read as part of the declaration it would 
not change the conclusions here anngunced, 

| Finding no error in the record the judgment of the 
circuit court is affirmed, 


* 





obeu⸗beu ened axotemfonoo eri! open 























to nottasup ite ‘ousni samen <gueneaiast? ti OU LO SOTOPR 
eds at pommenq ad yLbced —— be 
botisIeh ed Bivore! “tnemyeq: soit dodaoant amv tt eae: 
gritéze af od ov sieal Yo eles to} srogaggek waits 
ot⸗ei⸗ ett temni aot⁊⸗atoot eus: os déieattsragr stem | 
/* ent Yo tromestérevha: ont to oxo! a°™tnaoOR TO 
cult woltecup' nt ytreqorg-edt bebutonts: dota , —* 
betede e& erew efas ot Ro emret: esttg — 
Tor ygoo! ets teect Ywemgn rt Lowes 
tosrert #xoq. om at ¢t dud qnedterstoeb: ont | 
terriMeh a gritebtenoo mt gtuoo Sit dotsw 
a3 eek <LLT © eet! ¥ Broetse€) | ‘Taeye: Lonel: dike 
“QqoK LET BBL od Lost Snot woboorot WYO) ese 
Obiow HE motterefoeb' eit! to tung! ns baer ed tt 


“ead IO Sremghyt eft. brooet elt mb tox ont) gn 
woifian a ner Sor Ut neve Seema sigalg ae 
eitl0 sinoomthupyr's oriterera foaxtaos 2 to muh 


to Her2iosh 


timon§ eft dom ef th « 
100 ode (brvoth xetivors ao had at oes eat 
at gad ; tO OM SAT ese leo For ei nO hexcrooy Fem 
—J— too 4 te Sieg Lat | 

tta wat ent Sexe? OY Se 

tt ofdnnonscar 5 xtifiw 2 veeviled AG dream on 3 
o3v teantotwey siteedaeer Bit? oxeitt fl 
a: torntet®y geolse eeédextgq ehy “3 ‘Bins 
of? If’. “wi fom 8608 — 

tusrodat om thoy’ dk ta Atnem who eodadene 
yaq owt? of) atkep) bebramed weed evi 

7 <6 twit Latwwiur exoteted? ; 


rey sro Gag Yol ed oF aan | 





STATE OF ILLINOIS, 1... 
SECOND DISTRICT. (S88: 7, CuRistoPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk of the Appellate 


Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records 

and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office. 

In Testimony WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the 

seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this second day 

of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hun- 


dred and thirteen. 


Clerk of the Appellate Court. 



















Ah 0 SRA OL id SOR —* anne Thats, 
Be Mae” Jaana ty i ie cal eae peli CE ir 
— atta JQ cg ote aie! ait paca: buat ae’ 
a oe ) J MRL LNs a “es ube 
LP Re wed ay eck ee — jase 3 A ead pba | 
BEET RR Rie eRe Ray Ae malic (i eat 
— qth Bie Jhs cter da. Seine on din adn’ 
J Dae i tbs nel 
Pep tani us Beton uae ay ia sally 1 eas al 
2 : — She nor cae fee eS it ete pen se a * ‘eal 


By att, exits. ¢ cole ae Dig Rho dis & * aie — — er ohh SiR aos 








re BS PIN. Fe dats y ree eA Sp ——— 
‘gn, ie? CH) ae eh are ae — — —— At 
* 

—* — — St 
J ph RT ay Saeed? wag bigs epee sees 


94 JD—————— ilk iy tee ahah % 





Wa arowraatm a 
MilloggA odd lo. dial pywind J sSuvoTEenMtEo 1 —8 ———— 


tsqoↄml bas ,eionilll lo ste! odd to buosse hisetot — 
au⸗ 16 noinigo Sct to Yqoo Bud & Hi Riloge 6) ond Jade y wre Via oa ‘Loong 


Sotto... ni bioss4 to ,oarso beleliad ovode ond ti uoo⸗ 
odd xis has band vor toe otutiowd L Ossyn W -yuOmrraaT vl 
Teh bitoodse eft .awetiO 46 10700 ental epeqey 


610 WH and to 


bine od Yo" lnea 
“od ole basevods: sao bal we te 1H9y ot at desguedy to 


oedtidd bos tath 


v066 WMvxdx aA Yo a s\") 


: 5776 


——— 


— ig 
L 









AT A TERM OF THE APPELLAT 





Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, t first day of April, in 


q the year of our Lord one thousand nyne hundred and thirteen, 


within and for the Second District ~f the State of Illinois: 


Present--The Hon. CHARLES WHITNEY, Présiding Justice. 
Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, J¥stice. 
; Hon. DUANE J ustice.q © © I A 6 0 8 
ay 1 8 = ey © 
ae ae Clerk. 
— 


J. G: MISCHEE, 








BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on the ad day 
of August, A. D. 1913, the opinion of the Court was filed in 


the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures 


following, to-wit: 





— a “ Tar * ate a? 


usb DS edi ao :tiw-os jobrawret ia dentd agseMawea TE 


ot belit asw txv09 ed? to mo tatao eds —— “4 


eeTugil boa abrow edi ot ,#1u0d Disa 6 





Gen, No, 5776, 


‘Vera Scott, appellant, 


ve App a2 from Stephenson, 


1 ——— et al 


¥ 
3 
LFS} 


; eppalicns, 


Carnes, J. 

| | “Emma Siecke, appsliee filed a bill against Vera 
Soott apPeilant, to compel the surrender of « certificate 
of bank atock, the. property of appellee, which had been 

in the possession of appellant as collateral security 

for a debt of appellee's hueband to appeliant, alleging 

an agreement that said stock should be surrendered, There 
were other parties to the suit not necessary to be conéid- 
ered in determining the questions here presented, Issues of 


fact were made up and the cause submitted to the Master 
_ who heard the proofe and reported & finding of facts with 


a recommendation that a decree be entered granting the re- 
lief prayed, Objections and exceptions were duly presented 
and passed upon and a decree was entered by the court in 
substantial accordance with the Master's finding of facts, 


ordering appellant to deliver said oertificate of stock to 


Sppellee and for costs, Appellant brings the ouse here for 
review, 
We agree with appellant's counsel that the oase ali 


depends on the decision of one simple question of fact, 


and that the burden of proof was on appellee to establish 


that fact, and that there is no question but that tie venk 


9 i 
; certificate was the property of appellee endorsed by her in 
ig blank and used by her husband, with her consent, ‘co secure, 
| i ‘dn pert, his indebtedness to appellée, that the only question 


gy a 
' ts did appellant seree t> return this certificate before the 
















ae 


“ane gomtogen Lid 2 beth eettoons ston 7 
“ aguathitan 6 40 shai sek teller aes . Z 
cob bad dotee yeaLfoncn Yo waocons at ote i 
Wisrese Laxetalloo as tnalloqas to not recog 8 
galgelis gtnalleqia of bnadet e'eelienge to tied 4 
sted jbershreriwe ef biwote foots btse tacit * i. 
-blenoo ed of yra@eeoen tom tive oft ot eetitec wi 
to sevesT .hetmesetq sted enotteeup orld gubmimreteh z : 
roves ont of betdindue seuso ert bus qu eban oxew 
ditiw atest to gnthntt # betroqer bas etooxa out bused 
~ot oft guttmatg bertestne ed eetoeh « tadt nott. me 
hetmeserq yiubh erew enottceoxe bas anottoetdO ,be ae 7 
mt Sayo0o edt yd betetmo eaw sexosh s bas moow f ne 
eetont to gathalt a'rosastt edd dt tw aebaodoe Lat: veda 


6’ 
ot dtoote to eisottitteo bise xevileb ot tralleqas on ts! 


‘ 


tot ered evso edt agnivd tnalleqch .efs0o “ot brs oe Le 


ifs eeso eft tadt Leanyoo o*é¢malloqas dtiw —— on * 
«font to notteaenp elute eto ‘to fotetosb edt mo ba 
fatidstes of selleqgs no saw Tootq to mebrud eft tad? bet 
Anad etd tact tud mokteeup ont et etedt tadt has .tost edt 
mt xes yd beetohre selisqaqs to yuscotq ed? eaw stsottd % 

_ setvoee 6+ ,tnxeenoo ted ditw ,basdeui ted yi beaw tam 
—* yino eft tacit ,86l Leaqe ot saechotdehnt etd . 


etoted etfaotttixss elds numer oF “— 2 tnaioqaa Sth ab 





indebtedness wae paid, or did she not? that on this point 
the evidence is conflictingy appellee ani her husbam testie 
fying that she did, and appellént Sione testifying that 
sha did nots and that the three witnesses in the absence of 
corroborating or contradicting Circumstances are go far 

ag the record shows, equally ercdible, 

It appears that appellact an? apveli¢e are sisters 
that Frank V. Siecke the husband of apvellee, was the execu- 
tor of the will of their mother, that in closing up the es- 
tate in May 1905 he cave appellant his two notea for $5000 
each, colisterally eeoured by $9500 pa value of so oslled 
Vinegar stock and $500 par value o” so called German Bank 
Stock, The certificate representing the German Bank Stock 
waa owned by appellee, but was used by her husband with 
her consent as such security, the indebtedness was not 
paid when due, renewal notes were given, all of said stock 
still standing as security, While matters wer atending in 
thie shape, Frank W, Siecke, desiring to sell the Vinegaxy 
atock, had a conversation with appellant in the presenvs 
of appellee and 4 sister m® Alma Biersach, in walch appeiise 
and herhushand testify, it was agreed that ali the collateral 
both the Vinevar atock and the Bank atock should be sur 
rendered, and that one of the notes should be paid in caah 
and the ether extended, Appellant testifies to substantially 
the same thing, except she says that nothing was said about 
the Bank stook, Mre, Biersach the sister, wae not called as 
& witness, The Vinegar stock was returned “nd disposed o7 
and one note paid, Appellee and her husband say they sun cced 
the Bank stock was aise returned; this wee in dune 1007, 

‘Tn 1909 appelice contracted to sell the Bank sto@k to one 
Raleigh, and failing to find the certificate tecaved it 
























éntoq atid mo tant Tiom ede Sth to yhkeq vate 
-tieet fimadnidt ved hae eelloaqs ggakterstnéo et 
geds yntyvite’s  @Hol4 Hear reque bas eth erle t 
Yo soreeds oat nk aecnend iw perdt ott itd brag 
tat ow exe secret nnurotto atktothettios x6 : 
-eidthers yllevpe .ewode ** 
—— dag. tpalleqce sat aut SHtw 4 4J 
“woexe ods asu yselieqge to Predeyet exis — — 
“ue od) qu gttaolo.nt tardy szodiom —* te — 


00088 sok o⸗oct owt rid taallecas vey © oe — 


DoLfno. 09. tp). euler tag, O08} yd herpes 4 
vias gare boſd ad on 9, suLev. tac, 008 bas — 
Hoots Ans, aaaxod ed, vatageooxao⸗ ——— ont 
thie» Devecheasel ‘tat vei beay a aw dod — 


jon saw eeenhetdehat sit «Wixwoee an * pone te 

woote pise to Lis .feyis erew eB: ton —* —* 

at orthusta » sew Aged iam Ata syttnvgee oo grt 
tagonly sit Lise ot anttteat etoe te oW Aanst , oa 
qoyerexg. edt mt Inailegqs dtiw — 2 b NM 3 
eelieggs doldw ai ,doagrteld ein tm tetete — “oot a x 
dayoieiioo alt Ile tadt Seetgs | rev tt Ytiteod & — 
wwe ed Divode daoote def od? Sets doote —8 
ileso mk blag ed biyode eefor edi to sno sat — 


— ot aetitiacd gaslisqak phobrotzs — 


194 or 


iuach bhae est  gabsidod sacs ayee pde dasoxe set 
ak belleg tom eaw .tetets od’ desaxe tt eat oot 3 
mo ovnogelh har hensutes sav doote canons edt 


bat to 

howorie yeas yse boadeud west het ↄoe ogu — — 
J 

——— —E—— opts saw Ac 


* 


* 


— — —* 


210 et ctat wid {ioe ⸗ —— so llega 


a5 T's 


ot bedeoud otepttitxes on? Pah at, cae | 


SR Bc By 


; 





as lost and procured a duplicate certivicate to be issued 
by the bank to Hawleigh, Afterwards in November 1911, Fran. 


Wy Siecke filed w petition in bankruptcy, and in Jemary 1912 


appellant filed a claim against the benkrupt estats on the 
$5000 nate held by her stating thet it woe secured by 


this certificate of Bank stock, which oe in fect still held, 
Appellee and her husband say this was the first knowledge 
or suspicion they had that she retained the Rank stock 

at the time of the reearrangement in 1007, and they theres 
fore filed this bill, 

The decision of the case depends entirely upon what 
was s@id at the meeting in 1907, above referred to, Counsel 
for appellant strongly urges that a oareful inspection of 
the entire record discloses many reasons for dishelieving 
appellee and her husband, or at least finding that their 
combined testimony does not outweight that of eS peliant 
alone, We have carefully considered the evidense and while 
it is true that there are some things in the history of 
the case that mignt lead a court to sorutinize tie testimony 
of appellee's husband ith care, and w me reason to doubt 
whether eveetian herself was sufficiently informed spout 
business. ‘unt ters to understand and remember distinctly what 
took place, still if the question was to be determined by us 


on the face of the record alone, we would not feel warranted 


in saying that ‘the testimony of appellant wae not oute 


weighed by that of the other two witnesses, and much leas 


ean we, aided by the report of the Mast-x who saw these 


witnesses and heard them testify, confirmed by the decr-e 
of the trial court, say that the court erred in fincing the 
facts in accordance with the testimony of appellee and 


her husband and apainst the testimony of appellant, 
Findinse no error in the record the deorae of the trial 


ourt is affirmed, 





er J. 



























douaot ed of osaot⁊ itxeo etnotiqud a aoꝛuoe 
soe fier odio vot at — — 
— 
Ox? ao otatae tyrdned edt tanteys ately « desk. 
wf bexoee sor #1 tae gebtate new 


sblet Litte fost at ee “dokey «oot ra suas v9. et9082t2390 § 
See Oe Steen bare we ons Laeger " 


foote xnalt wit bentstot oie tad bad vers. qaue 
— vot * “Toad ne i 7 


4a Fr 





— At 8 
st owe eid Bort ls i⸗ ↄtan be —J 
ee roo voutine ebrregsh | eBA. ast “te.potntpeh eft. 


on — 


feemod ot bexzetos svoda oer at atktesn edt. es at we 
to mottooqort Liftexe0 & ss 4 eogty Watotta, a 
antvetlodeth 102 enorwe wen Beeotosth , bropen @ 
⁊tont todd gated teool te so boca x04 bora, 98 
tration: 8 Yo tart —— ton eeob “wionttee¢, be x bel 

of tty bas eoret ive eile bexsbiasoe — one 
to rrotetd ot nt womtdt smog ots ereds badd es tt at. 
Wionttec? ott extttturoe of iu00 2 beet tagim tect — 
#dwoh of noeset omc —* J Attn baedeaud * 
turode bemrotat yitnetor vive * YLearedt woll 
sactw elton tdeth *cite WO bas —E ot anette 
ey vw bentuxose> ed of aaw notteeup ot te Litte 7 
betna:zen Loot ton biyow ew sonols broges eat 20 SQet of 
-tyo son saw dnsiiegqs to , wrom.téwe ? ost’ tant 

eeel doum has ,ecesentiw owt terivo ed¢ To sadt ys be 
eredd wee ont +t deol odd + he srogqez edt vd bebe. oy 
esxoeh ont Yd deus} taoo eB ttood tae cid igen bose 
edt gol ett at hots: WMoo ys gad? yae xuoo taru woh 
hrs delloqgs to ynomtt aed edt at iw ooa ab r ooos at — a 


taat Codqua ko —EXR ott tenes bas be regs: a 
Lekut of) Yo ORTOoh Sid BkOoes oat Hk tomKe OM 96 ee 
da bana ee a 


Pea On TLLINOIS,:) | 
SECOND DISTRICT. (°S- - 7, CarisropHerR C. Durry, Clerk of the Appellate 
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records 
and Seal thereof, po HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office. 
‘ In TesTIMONY WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the 
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this second day 
of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hun- 


dred and thirteen. 





Clerk of the Appellate Court. 

















| | al iy — 
—E — —— athe yds — — * J — 

Chong Pte a Mepeirem dt Beet IPS tie i Mihaae Pig wid 
| | rapes 1h POR . feta Ste NM — 
Pele LiPo tes gr oetis Agios Te. baits 





> 
a6 
te 





Aree. ae * a see —F aya ———— tas — 


44 > ead —R 40 gud ook 1 Oy ee Fae “ ‘A 
SERS TT A Re ee — 3 
‘ahh a 


* os * 
J 
Pare 3% ; > PALO - Ha WES FS a Mh —* piste bel, — 





TOS aL * wet Migt Gewese ———— ony. — 


Fie! ) LOWRIE: 
atatieqgé ods Yo diol) .raaud . aano'trera 41 a SPOULTEIG 
abiopesl odd to teqdod bas ,ioailll io Male edt Yo Jointeil baoved bige 107 B 
od to aoiciqo oi) lo yqou sett 6 at -gnioge10} ods Jedd YOIT Aa Yaswood (t0 fo 4 

pe 


voffo yar oi hyovet TO sevun heltivae ovedé edd mt du0D os ut 


a gm “ 


odd zits bos bos ym tos ofauered 1 soansaW yvuomiveaT vl 
wb browse tidy wswalt0 i 100 sdellagqsA bine Sid Io ines 
-tuid ecia bagevodd ono bial sa to s69%. odd gt detQua io, 

coottidd haw beth 


Rey t | 
yur. SSD Wacgey os GAY) * rite co ) et 
A v 
* OY ei ke wm 34 Lada 
det ae 
a! at — ey ah) iol Oh a. cotta ae 


— — 


& 
X 
—& 


Begun 










the year of our Lord one thousand ni # hundred and thirteen, 


Wethin and for the Second District te State of Illinois: 
Present--The Hon. CHARLES WHITNEY, Prof 
Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice. 
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, 
— DUFFY, f' 


+ 


Jv. 








BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on the 2d day 
of August, A. D. 1913, the opinion of the Court was filed in 
the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures 


following, to-wit: 










i ‘at. ,LitgA to ysb -tarttt 
-asoettid! bos. be tbced 
:B1OntIiIl to state edt | 


Ms * > 


“4% . YaMT LAW ou IRARO — 





flmerd —— 
ee 


,BIARD t auaa ae 





ysb bS Ssdt noirtiw-o2 abrewred36 jsdy deat auauag 
ni beltt asw stu900 eid Xo sotaigo | odd eel oy t 
es1ngilt bis abrow eds ar ,t1tg0d bise 10 esitio ork 


:ttw-ot 





Gen, No, 5779, 
Ida Gourley, appellant, 

ve Appeal from Grundy. 
Carrie Pierce et al appellee. 


Carnes 3, 

Charles V. Burem dies July Sth, 1910 leaving as 
his ownly heirs at law, hie sisters Ida Gourley and Alice 
Rourigan, and his nephew Walter Moyer and nieee Rose Bonin, 
Children of a deceased sister; whether he left any estate, 
and if so how much or of what charaeter, the record does 
not disclose, He left a will executed about one year before 
his death, in which W, Scott Pierce, Carrie Pierce his wife 
and Corenne Pierce and Bernice Pierce their two minor chil- 
dren are the only beneficiaries named , and W, Scott Pierce 
is named as exacutor, The attempted disposition of property 
is by a general residuary clause after provision for two 
legacies of $500 each, The will waa admitted to robate 
and V. Seoit, Pierce qualified as exeeoutor, The four heirs 
filed s bill in chancery June 24, 1911, to the Septerber 

Term 1911 of the Grundy County Circuit Court, to contest 
the will, setting up the above facts and charging mental 
incapacity of the testator an@ undue influence by the bee 
neficiaries at the time of the making of the wili, and 
making the four beneficiaries defendants, In the bill 
they asked that a guardian ad litem be appointed ‘or the 
use of the two minor defendants, There was service on 2.4 
defendants to the September Term, 1911, At that term ll, >. 
Smith a solicitor entered his appearance for all defen ants 
and filed an answer for the adult defendants, denying the 
allegations of mental incapacity and undve influence and 
admitting all other allegations ¢ the bill, Duin «hie 


— — 


—— oe 
—— + 
As 


— 

— 0—— 

—— mort Ineqch Ls — 
ecolleqqa ts te — 























es grivacl otot Ade Lut wots — 
“OFLA bas yelrso abT eregete att .wal ‘te extod 
thro 90h gosta his LOYOM redlel wedged etd Bae , 
<etatos yu ttel of xodtodw yratete bonaaved # to # 
weob brovex ed? yxeteczato tiv Yo x0 doum wod 08 2 


** ae 


exoted tsey eno tuoda hetuoexe fitw a #teol of , or seit 
Otte eid eorelt oixx80 yeorolT d#o08 ,W dotdw mt .ddae 
-Lido tonim owt xhedt eore tT esintet ans sorelt | | 2 
gore too8 .¥ fas , bomen selistotiened yLao ent 18 | 
yirocotq to aolttaoqetb betqmotia enT ,xotwoaxe es ‘be " a 
owt tot Molstvory tothe sauslo Yrauhinest Leveneg 2 ¥ 
otedox of hetiinhs env iftw edt dose 008} to eetea 
atied uvot eff ,totvoexe ec heltilesp eorelT to08 um 
zedvetqeh eft of ,ILGL ,df envl yreonado at Litd a be. 
fesinoo of yduroD tivoctd ysrusod ybawsd oft 0 oe 
fatnen gaigtedo fra etost evods edi qu gaitten —— 
<od ov? yo soroulint denieu bes totsteed ost to wi⸗ ca 
hae ,iifw eri? to antden adt to omit? ont ts ae <ato! : 
Likd o:td of .etnatamted aettstottened aot edd 3 
act to° betntoqna ed mectiil ba anthaavy a tact — 
iLs mo solviee oew etellT Z—nnhns doh «somtm owt — 
of Horse? Sact Sa ,LIGL ,mre? todmetqe?® oft of — 0 
nineineteh Ifs rot eonarsequr atid hexotme to¢iotfor s st tn 
eit gnivaed ,einahreted diube oft tot tewana ne betkt | . 7 
das eoneultal ewhrwr bea Vtoaquont Latnem to anottey esta 


etd qrtuat ,fitc eft % emottenotia sotto Ila abe — 


a? — — 





term V. Seott Pierce died testate and there was an order 

of court senskitutin substituting the executor of his will 
‘as a party defendant and permitting the answer filed by 
Pierce to stand as the answer of the executo® so substituted, 
Afterwards, and before the September Term 1913, other parties 
purporting to be beneficiaries under the will of W, Seott 
Pierce, entered their appearance in writing, September 19 
1913, at the September term of said court, with the 
pleadings in this condition, no guardian ad litem appointed 
and no issue formed under the atatute for trialby jury, the 
cause wes set for trial "to follow common law mamber 2507" 
apparently with the consent of ail parties, certainly without 
objection so far as the record showa, There is nothing in 
the record to indicate that the Court's attention was called 
to the condition of the pleadings, or that complainants 

had suggested, other than in their bill, that a guardian 

ad litem be appointed, or that anyone sugcested that an issue 
bemade up at any time pefore, or at the time when, the case 
was set for trial, though the record shows complainants’ 
solicitor was present at that time, 

On September 23rd, 1912, which we may presume was 
the time when the oase was reached for trial in accordance 
With the order of the 19th, setting it for trial, it 
appears from the certificate of evidence as abstracted, that 
the solicitor of record for complainants "Mr, Huston explained 
to the’ court that he could not progeed with the case and 
he sould take no part in the trial of the oase; that Mr, 
Shay was the leading attosney in the case but was unable to 
be present at that time,*® Wo action of the court is shown 
on this suggestion, no continuance or postponement vas 


requested for that reason but the case proceeded to trial 





















etnalleqqs ¢ * 
svorwxD mors Leeqk | —9— 
ecoileqas ts te cont @ 
As 
es grivacl OLCL ,d#2 ylut eoth menue ” celta) 
| sotth bas yelru00 abr exetate A nat te axtod ⁊ 
thao enofl goekm he oyOM ret tan wedqen okt baw 
<etstno yrs ttel ef tesdtodw yretete sonuhanh i decal 
Reob hiovex edt xstoozado taiw to xo pete» | 
exoted tay eo duvoda betusexe Litw 2 ttel eH es sont 
Otte etd eorelt otraad yeorott d¥oo8 .W dotdw mt Ade 
~Ltifo tontm owt tied? eorett sotate® Sn eoxett snnexed 
parol ¢tos8 ,W tna , hemad sebxatotiansd ylae ect 4 8 
yrocotq to maolttteoqetb betqmotia eT ,totuwoaxe es be | 
owt tot molstvoxy tothe gauslo yrashtoet Lereney ay 
etedox of bettinh= exw {ftw ef? dose 008% to ote 
atied svot ext ,.totwooxe ec Helttileaup eotelT trove a 
roduetqe® od? of .Lf6L Of saul yreonats at Liki « . 
teetnoo ot ptuvod tivosid yenwod ybrurtd oft to 108 
fatzom ygatgtedo fea etost ovods adit gy pattie ‘ F 
“od oft yt eorovltni emir bee tovateed oft te Wie 
hee ,LLkw esi? to antdem oft to omtt ott te solu 
Likd oxld o® ,etnatated aetrstottensd wot edd abs 
ocd tot Betnkoqra od mesil ba anthraug a gait betes ¥ 
fis mo ooitviee new erectT ..etnabnoteh somtm owt edt. to 
off .H oe? tact $A ,SIGL gorreT sodmetqe?® odt o¢ 8 fhe te 
ninehbneteh Lis rot sonsrseqar atd hexetno tosiotior a it * 


eft gniymed ,inehueted ¢iubs oft rot Tewarte me belly hs a 


M 


bie eoneultnt exter bea yttoaqeont Latnem to amok tapes ia 


eidd ambuat LIBS est % enottenolin tofto ILa gp doin * 


eae | 


’ ae 
» his. 
ghee 
; 





term W. Scott Pierce died testate anid there was an order 

of court genutkkutin substituting the executor of his will 
as a party defendant and permitting the answer filed by 
Pierse to stand as the answer of the executo® so substituted, 
Afterwards, and before the September Term 1912, other parties 
purporting to be beneficiaries under the will of W, Seott 
‘Pierce, entered their appearance in writing, September 19 
1912, at the September term of said court, with the 
pleadings in this condition, no guardian ad litem appointed 
and no issue formed under the atatute for trialby jury, the 
Cause was set for trial "to follow common law number 2507" 
apparently with the consent of all parties, certeinly without 
Objection so far as the record showa, There is nothing in 
the record to indicate that the Court's attention was called 
to the condition of the pleadings, or that complainants 

had suggested, other than in their bill, that a guardian 

ad litem be appointed, or that anyone sucrested that an issue 
bemade up at any time pefore, or at the time when, the case 
was set for trial, though the record shows complainants’ 
solicitor was present at that time, 

On September 33rd, 1912, which we may presume was 
the time when the oase waa reached for trial in accordance 
with the order of the 19th, setting it for trial, it 
appears from the certificate of evidence as abstracted, that 
the solicitor of record for complainants "Mr, Husten explained 
to the court that he could not progeed with the case and 
he sould take no part in the trial of the osse; that Mr, 
Shay was the leading attogney in the case but was unable to 
be present at that time,*® No action of the court ia shown 
on this sugcestion, no continuance or postponement vas 
requested for that reason byt the case preceeded to trial 

























tebro a& aew ered? bua otatect beth oorote $4008 F 
{fiw std to xotvooxe oft gukdutttedive xa anan > 
vd bell? . cewate ed? gatttinzeq bre dnabneted ¥ 
shotutitedsa oe totyooxe edt to .29wine ed ne —A 
soktuaq toto .8LOL mxoT redmetqe® edt ototod bas gal 
#008 4H to iLtw ext obey setusiortened ed of anki 

et ————— —— tte sine ott veal te ost oif a 
edt ditt weoo blag Yo mxed medmotqer odft $a 


* 


“ 


Py 


ry 40 
ae 
(4 


nar, moss ba gotham on wtoktthmoo edt 


OGM Oe» 129 
x Wists * otutese ot zobnur homo? LH * 
oes oder wal poanoe woLfot oat fatyt Fok see nee = 


“fuga tn “Untste9 _qeettzag iLe to tmoar00 oid dtkw * 


fa or) 


at gntitton at oxoar — droo⸗· ⁊ ont * * oa. p 


hotiag eon notinests e wod ett tag⸗ ‘ptoothnt of ot * 
atasntaiqmoo tat x0 _sepathne.q os. to ote i : 
mathumrg @ tad sshd wteds sk naitt — ie 
eumek ns tart betaesqwe enoyns, ‘tadt * sbetakegua od Re 
geno oss gftoat omks eit i ™ ⸗roꝛo⸗g omkt * ba wa 
Jadnantelqwoo swore bxooe oul — stata rot d La 


eomht tad ts tnovera ee Me f 
“ 19 a f 
Qan omuegzg * ew fo kein SLE ohehS | ; 


mae: 


~¢g 


te tan 
‘eonah0008 nk faut tot hedono aan 98.10 edt node 


3— 
tt faba tot tt guities wit 0 oa⸗ to ‘robo : 


¥ 
i @ a} Ge 
£& * 1 


tad⸗ ——— tude a6 eonehtve to otaaitiézes * mort 
bentalqxe soveuH a agnantalquoo zo? oroosꝛ to pot to. 


* 


hat nao ort tty eewerg tox bisoo oxi tat it 


— 
(on 
.tM tedt youro est to Satxt eis nh tueq of ost fh, 8 o8 
: a4 Ve 1 * 

ot eldans ger tud geno edd rel yeraos ta patbeet @ * * silk 

myode ot uoq edt to nottos of * emit _tadt 4a — “1 — 
gow tnomengataog x9 ¢ eocimumttino0 on ottoeuae #f fit. Te 8 
faixt of hebesoorg, — tas apenas gd i, Jeeupet 


* 





with no further objection; two witnesses testified on the 

i part of the proponants of the wills it docs not a»pear whe 
examined them, or whether counsel fer complainant took any 
part in their examination, but at the close of the proof 

the abstract shows "The court instructed the jury to find 

in fayor of the defendants, To which action of the court 

the complainants by their counsel then ami there duly excepted," 

Te jury returned a verdict in accordance with the instruction 

of the court and a deccee was entered accordingly, It is 

complained that the court instructed the jury orally but 

the abstract does not furnish any information on that point 

further than above quoted, and we must assume the inetruce 

tion was given in proper form and manner, 

At some time on September 23rd, the day f the jury 
trial, appellant filed a petition for a change of venue 
charging prejudice of the trial judge against her, the other 
complainanta neither joined in nor consented to the applie 
cation, Also on the same day ail somplainants filed a pe~ 
tition that the cause be discontinued as to the three com 
plainants, other than Ida Gourley, and that said three com 
plainante be made defendants, Appellant also filed a stata~ 
ment that she had been appointed by the county court of 
Grundy County administratrix de bonis non with will annexed 
of the estate of the testator and a request that she be 
substituted, as such, ae defendant in the place of Pierce, 
the deceased representative, and that the eause be continued 
that awanons might issue and be served on herself, She aiso 
asked le@e to withdraw her petition for chance ofvenue, 
These four motions were each denied by the courts in what 
order they were presented and aeted upon we cannot determine 
from the abstract, and the record is about equail, confusing. 
In one part of the record they re recited to have been filed 


— 
V 
r 


ge. * Boece 
























odd mo belttteet aesventiw ont man 
grin taecce tom sooh ¢t — elt Lo abmanogors ¢ 


we toot dria tosqpoo set 4eenusoo tadtodw. % co _ gett be 


- Yoorg, oxtt to eaolo ons 4 sud ———— 
“nat? of uit eit betoustant tuo 9Af® arose t 


, SHe° edd to mottos Aokdw Of  » Sénahretoh ia ws 
* botqoore ish otodt ie sett feensoo hed? we 


ra 


nottorstent et atte eonstnoees mt tokbyey 5 ——— 
at at + vigntbroon hezedme eam geo00b = hyn ft * * 

tus yilero yut ett pedo 
tatog ‘tadt 0 mobs smso%nt me dati? 4 r BeOh 4 
~ourtent ont oma teum ew das detour — 
—— hey mot reqorg at fev, 
et edit t yeb eft” bee redine# qo no omtt snow #1 


at? - 





00 @ 


— to emtario 2 tot nottiteq 8 boxe 4 
reddo edd «tod tantene enhurt Iat:t ent to — 
etlaqa edt of betneanoo won ak benttot ‘godt ten as 
“oq & bolft efrantosqnoo fin we emer * 0 oath 
“<too gexdt oxtt ot as bountt¢novath od oeuao oa⸗ 
aon bine tects ome otr wod abt masts Sats * —* 
<etase s beltt oaln tral toqth sptnehnoten, oden ota 
to ** Vauoo et yd. betakoacn reed bad ons é 
bexenne Litw iti mon sited eb xiatarteiatabs yén00 
od orln stadt Saeuper & has tovsteos eft to osstpet 
eorota to eoalg oct af érabreteh a8 ,foue as shodust 
hewntttroo od sesAo oct⸗ tait bea ,evitstresexqet evr 
ocis ofB .tenved no hevres od fins euaak digtm t a I 


Sr 


1 


N + 


ot 


eUMEVTO Spmadto tot okt ktoq yr watbat tw * om 
vadw mt qtrwoo oft yo betmeh soap eTew ano kim 0 
etiureteh tonnan bw moqy botoe hare betmore a oren or 3 vide ‘i 
santestnoo vi Lespe tuods ef brooez ont bere — sty a at a 


a 
deLtt need ova oF hettoor x on Yertt prooe edt to tug f oat | 


ny 


i Ae me he? 


and acted upon after the verdict of the jury. If appellant 


desires to avail herself of any error of the court in 


acting upon any of these motiona, it is her duty to so 


abstract the record that such erroneous action of the court 


ia showng not having cone so we cannot say that the court 
erred in passing upon any of them, We cannot see tiat appel- 


lant can complain that the court refused to continue her 


ease to enable her to make herself defendant and ~et sere 
viee on herself; or that she is injured by the section of 
the court in holding her three ¢o-complainants in court as 
Complainants, instead of discontinuing as to them snd 
eéntinuine the ense for service on them as defendants, 


The application for change of venue was properly cenied 


because, not joined in or consented to by the three co- 
complainants, if for no other reason, and if as the record 
indicates, the ruling of the court denying the application 
for a change of venhw followed his ruling denying appellant 
leave to withdraw the application, she was not harmed, as the 
result of denying both motions was the same as would have 
been the result of allowing the motion to withdraw her 


petition, 


The remaining questions are whether there was any 
error of which appellant can complain in proceading to 4 
decree without the a ointment of a guardian ad litem and 
without an issue at law mide up as provided in Section Seven 
of our Act in Regard to Wills, which provides in case of con- 
test of a will by bill in chancery that "An isoue at law 
shall be made up whether the writing produced be the will 
of the testator or testatrix or not, which shall be tried 
by a jury in the circuit court of the county wherein ouch 
will, testament or codicil shall have been proven an recorded 
as sforeaaid, acoroding to the practice in courts of cian 
























trakieqge 22 .yswt edt to totbrey ont tadte nog beten 
nk dus00 edt to sor7s YMA To Ueated Shave oF ¢ . 
(08 Of Yivh TOA ME FL yaMoktom onedd Pega 
tiw0eo. edd to mottos avoenorte dors tad? brocex odd ae 
sudo edt tadd yor donctao ow os enoh gntvad dom gam 
~loqi# #21 908 sonaeo oH ymedt/to yaa mour-ankeaquth. 
wed euntinon of bearter txvoo ont tard atelqmes map 
‘-efen ten bas faahroteh teen, eden of tet adeno J 
Yo mottop edt ys. bewwhateak ode tact Bo 4 Ho8 
a& Fusoo ns eineriaicmoosoo vexds cod gatdiod at * a 
bdaa⸗ medt of aa grtumtérooekh to baetant ,eiaanks 
-o «din sbreteh ae med? mo.eotvaes x92... 220. edt | al * 
betneh VECO OT, AM AUTON: EOE EES aot aot 4 
_ np eemd? ont YS of bodmeanos. x0 ak belt € : * MF 
brooex eft 98 tk: bne-.moeset tedto on sor TE gt ana a 
mottooilage eft gakyneb ¢won edt to gakive: ult | $ woke 
tnelileqqe yrtyreh gakinx etd hewoslod..witey to. enmado.. a 
eit es 4bemzad tom aew srin gtoltaotiqga elt waxhdtiv) ot : | 
-evad bisow #8 omsa oft sew enottom tod parkyno. Ro ⸗ ute * 
~ Sed wathitiw of motton ed? gntwolle. to * it me 


Vite ean eted! tedéesw ors anottesup gainianot, ent, walt, = 
#& ot gathbseoorq at mlhalquoo aao tnelieqqa.dotdw..to ne 
bas mesit be smethvasg = to taemtatogos edt — To coh 
meveR mottoe® ni behivexqiem qe ebem wal #e event nape ! — 
“fod to osso KE eebivorq Mote yolleW ot hragehl at; — 
wal te ognet mA® sac? yroomore mi ILkd) yd) LLiwoe, 
Iitw edt.ed . heoubord aaktiaw odd seddedy qu obey * 
belxs ed Line dottw tom to mitRatecd so  totateos end. %0 
dove nteoredy yhoo ed? Ro ¢aveo tyento, estas ret + Mio 
bobrooor has geverd Kesd: ever Lime étethes Tor tmomntoot — 
—o——— —ED eae o gakboxoos sbheaerohe, ae) 





Gery in similar cases," 

On the first point it is to be remembered that the 
minor defendants are not cémplaining of the action of the 
court, and that nothing done or omitted by the court ree 
sulted in an injury to ‘hemy they were not heirs of the 
testator and had nothing to gain by any decree of the court 
other than one dismissing the bill. The question ig whether 
| appellant, who was seekine to deprive these minory defendants 
of all interest in the property and whose duty it wae to see 
that all parties interested were in court and in position 
te be bound by any deoree in her fagor, and who had by 
counsel been present when the case was set for trial, with 
out objooting that mo guardian ad Litem was appointed an 
without Picccsting that fact to the court, and had been 
represented at the trdal and taken part therein without 
any such sugveation, ean now for the first time in this 
court, avail herself of any error of the trial court in 
that reapsct, We are of the opinion that she cannot, in 
the absence of anything appearing of record showing any 
injury to her interest from such failure to appoint a 
guardian ad litem, Gage v Schroder, 73 Til, 44, and 
authorities ther citeds Ency, of Pleading and Practice 
Vol, 10 Page 634, It is sai’ in the text of 72 CYC 644, 
Adult parties cannot invoke the infaney of another party 
not vepresenpediy. guardian ad litem to set aside ths decreé 
aa to themselves"; and whatever limitations there may be 
“to that rule, we see no reason why it should not be applied 
to this case under the record here presented, showing e 
| hearing of the case participated in by appellant, in which 
there was no evidence whatever introddeed in support of her 
bill, Appellant cannot complain of error not affeoting her. 


abn 


Mok 


— — 
F “7 1) 1* 
7 

























try? r 
1. 


ped: — cata enn 
odd ‘tad? ‘betediomex ‘bd og BE ¥E ron Paty "ea a 


VILA 00 * 


silt Yo nottos edt te gnknbescmbo fon exe ree here 
en et #i08 ‘eis yd het? into «0 ros — 
Yon ‘oxew ‘oil * ‘qed! / ot yuster 


~“""$tuds oat Yo seted yas Yd ata’ oF ak Bid bree - 


coddeiw BY moltecup sir” Lett ody Se tcn i da 
heh tontn seedt evEdeb OY Snbitoce’ » — 

ect of waw FP ytish bhon hid eo off wt” ott 
‘nol¥ivod nf dhe Hdd" HE be” deechaernt wee a ft 
ve bad od bid (owe xb at bevdeb Ye Ye Bawed 
adtiw ".rstx¥ xo dee eaw debe bit morte tnevez¢ tebe yi 
sn ‘betmtoqes saw medil bs — on te fi we #09 
tod bud Bas <Pxwoo edd of 4 a tuts ‘gabteony! * 
“tuodtiw ntered? ‘dxreq nexet brea hey J wih * 
mee Se HE Omks dott oft 20% | om hdd Bis J 
“Cb Fives tert bie YO pind sD pe = ts 
nt .@onnes ode sats nbinico eis to ers o¥ * 





1 


“wns antwode hxoost to gattroccs oink a Yee 

‘s tntoqcs of emuEtet dove tor? Yooustak” Es & 

hae od .£1T BY mebordbe v ego) moths * 
edttoere bus pitheolt to Yor! thedto | dene” port 
.oS9 DYD BE to dxod oct mt “tes et a wae get’ o. 
Vietet Tedtone to Yorstak ort exovnt donkiad — 2* 
eetoe! of? ehtes tee oF mettt be aatdei vibes 
ed yan orem? aholded taki wavetacy brs preevs ‘ of 
bettas ed tom bryos sf yuk moeses Ot bod ow ae srt $0 * 
& Oikwote .betmseo re eked brover ort tob-as eend ® 
dotiw at .tuatfoqcsa ef at befaqho bY enc easd ‘ad to 
tet to troquie tt beobbortnt rovetatw sonebive ¢ Lh 


fis 
2ted x — oct torzs to piney ton#0 —— 4 
. e athe se BALooF 28H —BR * 
F — ‘a we ; 





a a 


VOPR ee ee es a; 
: vee 4 =* 7 


Pyle v Pyle 158 I11, 289, Appellant only citea two Appellate 
Court cages as authority for a contrary view and these cases 
go no further than to hold that in case of injury to a minor 
defendant, resulting from a failure on thé part of the court 
to protect hie interests by appointment of a guardian ad 
litem, the infant may have relief. tt may be that even 


An Cases where the infant im = not complaining, that the 


court in ite tender consideration of the rights of infants 
might grant relief in cases where the decree was adverse 
to the infant's interests and he had not been represented 


4m the trial, but the record here dées not present that kind 
of a cane, 


As to the other question « The record ‘shows a trial 


"participated in by appellant with no suggestion of any 


“lack of proper issue, There was an answer on file that pre» 
sented insues of fact to be tried, and while under the otat- 
ute and authorities Cited by appellant it in no doubt true 
that such an issue should have been made up, and it would 
have been error of which appellant could complain, had the 
court on sugcestion from her refused to present such an 
insue, no authority is cited supporting or tending to 
support appellants eontention that she can in this court 

for the first time urge the error of the trial court in that 
respect, 


Tidburden of appellants brief and argument is that 


_ the trial court erred in foreing the case to trial in the 


absence of Mr, Shay who wag to act as lsading counsel in 
the trial, but there is nothing in the reoord to support 
that claim, The solicitor of reeord for complainant wee 
present at the trial and is not shown to have xame even 


requested that it be postponed; the roserd discloses no 


oa 




















etalleqqh owt sotto vino dnalfoqgh 88 xcxt 88 
sence esods ban MBLY YEAXtnoo » sot yotvodium @ 
Tomla a OF THRAL to wend mh fant Med o⸗ Ratt. oe 
fuoe edt to tam edt ao ↄrunt tat o mor’ uto taacx 

⸗fpyo Pad? od Nam at. Aphtar —— 
_, PAS dace qgmtntasquos tom x at acaat ont oxnd 
— 20. stfiptx 28) 3m sabtaeblonen, £8 fil 
eo⸗ ꝛovds Rew eOx50b 949 smestW aaa⸗d mh totter gr 
cꝛera⸗re iaea mood fom. bases Saw, uaxagad 8 
anit ange. — —B—— 
eked oft aa, dreséze & 
————— ot 
Wie 10 Molseogaus om Mbty static 
~omq, tad? elit so tewane 18 Bew oxory — 
~tate odt xebny eltidy bie botas od. oa soat.te e 
eux} tdyob om gh $2 tnallegga yd bette —— 
bivow #£ bas ⸗ ebam weed oxad bivode exgel ta, ¢ 
ont bod qatatomon Alyoo dnatfeque doit to — 








a 


he eds 


ad — —— * — et —— J 
— E atd? mt tao ‘Sele tacit soltiosage g}inelleqgs, 
tact mk taseo catad edd Yo sorre edt oyu omtt taxtt odd 26 


Pa 


te 


tans ot tromgis Sete totad gine! legge to iti 
odd at Latxt of seeq oft gntoxot mi berzn. ————— 
ai Leanyoo antbssl as 98 of sap odw yadR: ott. J 
⁊roqqun of hropex of? ml na tddors af onedt. tud .tetz “4 
eaw trian LaLqwoo sot Hxooex to tottolfoe oft . satate add 
eve amex over ot awode tot at bis Leist add ta ————— 
or neaoloath Hager edit ——— od tf dant. if 







— 








Hed to poatpone the trial, wa assume he would 

8 parties on that question and taken such ace 

: ght neon just and equitable on the showing made, 

as & Be. sovernibie error in the record the decree 




















“Gab ostd 68 “Sonia Wadd VAP tbew *SQleer 
‘orem oft tud aubition ried tan tated oP KekLes em 
Soni © Rha Faas die ee vbetoup even tats 
— bd bank tor Saheb 

ae thalia a ted Sai nt iB — — — —— a 
ee oe ee — 
| cornei’ oid suabbit’ aid it We Statin 


Aénetal te weigh ons 388 
eeterhe gn —X deed — — 
—— Reed Jos tah tal feu et 2 . 
ietkd ¢act taepexq pon avhbh, pred. dxreoax aed tid % 


RA * ade Ene > 


fattd 2 eworly. 9002 ptt « — raga att oF 9 
We 4 Messe ugew om Sethe tat Longs ve nh} 
wetq #i¢) 6£23 co wevane ge saw oxorT genes: 
wtnte oft rohnw olishy bina ghekyd pdot fost ** 
oust uob om. m2 t2 somlloqge yd Bess e0tt240d; * 
binow #2 bow you ebum Seed oval Diworie) oui? oe & 

Mit Dot gttialcmgn bikyed #s silogge Aplidy. to . sorta, 
fe dove itengsa o¢ Danuta tel mov? wetted § 

oF Bashres tO. gritronmm bedin af we troacus on ‘ 
7TUOS #iG? nt can ae Parts nolteeenen a)smel Lerge, * 
gi fcuen Laixd } to yorxe et Opa giks detht oaee 


o Dre tolag aire! soe 36 meee, ae 
: 

8Lo P oi kp 9 ri E730 FIROQ Pa 
De... 

easy nihac. 24 298 6! #9 ody yak set aeuee 
f wide sf ssede soe yt 
bins > foe wee aio Lo 
. i} ¢€ oe 
"a> & OF mee fom #2 tn -Baisd mit Za 
sTVO8% mad LSoqgoriy me BG Pk sat. a 









poate OF ILLINOIS, )... 
SECOND DISTRICT. pee 


I, CuristopHuR C. Durry, Clerk of the Appellate 

Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records 

and Seal thereof, Do HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office. 

In Testimony WHERxOr, I hereunto set my hand and affix the 

seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this second day 

of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hun- 


dred and thirteen. 


Clerk of the Appellate Court. 










® 


sh py WAL FOSS mae Gi ie 
‘beet acta: we SR” easter ed 

fgapicrs) Git Getta ee AABN ett eynioer deat 

ti Hers WSS teh Bees se asa 4 

weber —— elt ee ack “seal ‘yeti aneg d ie 

‘ Dba —* 

———— —— ae 


' 
: 
are [FAP a ee 
J ad 











oy 








* 
* 
J 


roniaat 
2öl odd Yo V ,vaaud 2 HAM TOTRLELTS i * —————— 


ebrosesl 4x 0 toqood bow ,ziodil{l 16 —— hie rot b : 
9} to noisiqo sdJ to yqoo ut! s ei gtioystel odt ied} yaITHaD yausan oa roe . 
sollte ot ui b10s91 to sess beltiti® ovods edd mi d1u09 Lodi is 
edd xfhe bus bosd yor doe odauerted 1 open! rvomires’'? vil | 
¥8b baoves bids ο⏑ Je dD : osalisatph bine ond to Lede 
“aud oni bugevodt eno bial so to Toy eff ai geoguA Yo 


eealtidt bos beab 


ww shyy\) Muh. say ag vx 





— ** _, |‘ 


— — 


— ⸗ ae 
(J 3 -y ⸗ ⸗ 
— 


⸗* 


oe 
Y 
DY con 
= — F 


AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT, “s, 


eee 


Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the first day of April, in 













the year of our Lord one thousandgnine hundred and thirteen, 

within ana for the Second Distrgct of tHe State of Illinois: 
Present--The Hon. CHARLES WHITNEY, Presiding Justice. 
Hon. DORRANCE DIBEEL, Justice. 


ii J i = a9 4 
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Maids | Qs 1 iy G 1 1 
, BR VW hw & of & 
CHRISTOPHER C. BEY, Clerk. 








BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on the 2d day 
Se apenet. A. DP. P9lS, the opinion of the Court was filed in 
the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures 


following, to-wit: 


* *8 
Vase” 





Rie — 

— = z 
- — Sore. 

igs. face 3* —— 


J 


Be bs edd mo stiw-ot 1ebtewias ts tedt 


at bolid a8 t1y09 edd to nolaiga edt”, — 4 


eer rpgit bra abrow ods at 


q 


— 


a vere 
¥ + 


—— 


= 
* 


+ 


——— 


Gen, No, 5793, 
Gustav Baseleon, appellee 

ve Appeai from Co, Ct. Peoria, 
M. UM, Baker & Co, 


Carnes, J, : 

Appellee Gustav Baseleon, commenced this section of 
assumpsit against appellant M, M, Bker & Co, a aorperation 
filing a declaration with two counts, in the first of which 
he set up a warranty of an automobile, purchased by him 
of appellant, and 4 breach of that warranty; the second 
seems to be an attempt to charge deceit and fraud by appele 
lant in the sale of an automobile to anpalles and consequent 
damage thefrom, Appellant filed the general is#ué, with an 
affidavit, stating os the only ground of defense, that ap- 
pellant had ne connection with the sale of the automobile 
in question, There was 4 trial with a jury, whose atten 
tion kas directed by the instructions of the court, to which 
instructions there ie no error assigned, préncipally to 
the question whether appeliant or the Superior Motor Sales 
Co, another corporatim, sold the automobile in question, 
There was 3 verdict and judgment of 8400 for appellee, an @ 
appellant brings ths case here for review, There is conflict 
of evidence as to whether or not themachine was defective, 
but the main question argued is, whether it was purchased of 
appellant or of the other corporation, 

It appears that in June 1911 appellant was enceged 
in selling farm machinery anc? automobiles at 4 store located 
on Harrison Street in Peoria Tillinois, Superior Motor Snies 
Co, was ealling automobiles in = store on Main Street, in 
the game city, until August of that year when it went ous 
of business. M, M, Raker was the president end arctive.y 
engaged in the business of each corporation, Anpslios was & 


Ly Pete 


















eee 


notteroct0s & .00 8 tee yt M traSteqs gontage # 
dotiw to text? edt mt petnuon owt tte sotbanabiiel 
mid YS Somsiong yettdometes sn Ye Ynexcem a9 4 
iurodes edt yytnaxtaw tad? to done! a bas tna 
=forcs YW buss? his teoeb eysato of demote na od ¢ 
tmeypseroo hrs eslieqns of eLidonodiee m2 to ofas 
me atiw .aumat Leveney edt doLkt inalleqck ,mortedt, 9; 
~ia tert yeented to bayoxg yino edt ee yrktate gthy 
elidometiue eft to elae edt dtiv aotaosaccoo on had ts ' 
media esodw .yust 2 dttw tated a asw oxedt etott * 
totde ot ,fuioo sit to amottoyztent en? yt betoexts 
o¢ yLLaqtonétq ,bengtess torte on et exertt 
eelam toto totreqe® oft xo tnelloque zedfedw aot 
Motes at eltdomotus edt blow uP ttareqros ⁊ 


; 
Tee 


b xe ,selfeqas 10t oat to sremghurt dra dokbrev £ can om 
toLLtinos st eved? ,wetyex xo? ered esad ocd eggttis — 
s2visGr leh ssw anidoamedt tom to tedtodw ot as oD to 
to heesoug aau dt costed e .at hewgts as tae kan os a 
Mottaioexoo ferto ed# to to LLoc 

begsosme asw dnelleqqa IL@L erat ak tad? euseqea #E G4, 
betacol etote «2 ta selidomogca hina Yeo hdoam mret pectin, a 
eele@ totoM xokrequé ,atomkill sizoot ab teorse soatriall 29, 


* 


at ,Jeousl mie no etote 2 xt eeltdomotus grkiies — 
tuo teow ¢t mony tay felt to temguk Lhtaw .ytto. — 
vyievitse bas tnebleerq ed? sa tetet ,M Mu — We 


ae ie | eee een ui te Bt te de in Se, le et te a en a eee vt eee Ft 


* 








Greek engaged in the candy business in that city, he under. 
stood the English Language imperfectly and could not read 


or understand a written dooument of moch length, He met U. M, 
Baker at the store on Main Street June 37, 1911, ahd after 
some discussion about the purchase of an automobile, Baker 
filled out one of M, My, Saker &0o,.'s printed blank orders 
for a four cylinder Franklin Automobile, prica 500 and 
handed it to appellees, there was inserted in the order a 
warranty that the machine wae well made and if maintained 
in good working order would perform well the purponsa for 
which it was intended, but no list of equipments, Appellee 
took this order to his attorney who sugpeasted that the words 
"full speed* be inserted, which was done, an’ the order taken 
back xm by appellee to the Main Street store June 30, 1911 
Baker then or at some prior time inserted in the wader "to 
be equipped as per memp 6-30 attached*® she signed the order 
“accepted by M. M, Raker & Co,, at Peoria, TLL, M, My Boker,™ 
the order still remained in —— porsession but was 
not signed by him, There was some further negotiation prins 
cipally with Anthony, & clerk for Superior Motor Sales Oo,, 
My, M, Baker was present a pert ov 411 of the time, Anthony 
filled out under the dete S= 30, an order on the Superior 
Moter Sales Co., on one of ita forms for the same deserip= 
tion of Automobile, same priee “S00 in which was inserted 
the words “second hona® ami a list of equipments, andno 
warranty, and told sppellee to sign it, which he did after 
sone demux, Tie words “second hand" were not in the first 
order but there is no doubt that - second hand automobiie 
Was contemplated in drafting each order, as it appears that 
& new machine of that descrintion would have been much 
higher priced, Appellee receivad 2 second hand machine 























~nobtus ed yytto tatd nt eventeud ybnao edt mt begs 
bast ton bisoo haa yltostroqmt emg se ttga 
ui JUotem eH ,ditgael doum to tromyoob mettizw 6 barman & 
tette bits .cot ,SS envt teerde mtak mo exote esti # 
zeied .elidomotve ase to evadorug edt tuods mot 
(Stebte aaala dotatxe e908 nada WA it 20 ano lb m 
. fas 0088 wobne yactiomolilt | Etat T tebe: 
s 2 tebro eiit ni betxount baw’ oxédd (betteagan’ OF” 
bentotnten ti bre oben Ifew este exch tat 
tot senor edt ftew motion - piisow ‘tebeo pe 
sel toca ssdriomg pe “Ye Hoke om, tin — * * 
ebro%: ertt tact bedeegaue ont ‘yorrotts elit oF — 
mein} teito oft Mae enoh eaw dotitw bod teenth od "ho 44 
LL@f 08 om exote fooxt® mhatt off of sexredaa yd int 
ott tobe ‘oft mt hedrennt emt? ‘totsq emoe #28 to = 
rebxo eft borgte hate *hertoats 08=3 qmam req ee f 
J— pit Rg WUT yabroot $e (Jods xestha at br et 
* tid ‘not anpanog alestteqaa’ nt horkamet S£f+a” 
mathe mo ttabtogen tedtxist amos tow exroet” aint ya 
4.00 neled “roto eokxeqi® ot “Weords  WroritnA —* 
wioninA emt? odd to Ifa ‘ko dr8q a tnosbtq saw ‘te, 
zokrequ? edt no tolro ne OE = 6 Stah wit biter’ a8 
“qironeh oman ec? tot eerxot ett ‘to oro mo 0 sot 
DSetreent eaw dotdy ak ooes en enor ,oltdomotsA 
on hera eitromgtupe to ett s *heot froose™ —* 
tests hth of dotrw .#t mote of eslieqce blot hina | * LAT 
tort? odt at tom oxew “hiad haosee® Bbrow Bi 3 
sildowotue Oroad brones e tact tdob “on at’ tect tend 3 4 
edt ecseiqe tt en ,tebro dose gaidterh af Sotafgketmeouaw 
ior teed evad ALwow notictzoaes tent to — 


enidosem foed brooer s " bevtooet ‘sof toac boottq t 


We, gals RoR baus 
5 *% e —J es et ae 


4) ‘ 
ie 


J 


— wy 


ome 
i 
. 





anewering the description contained in each order, There 
is a sharp conflict of evidence as to what took place during 
the negotiations; appellant's theory being that Baker used 
the first order as a mere memoranda indicating price, etc, 
at wheih a machine would be sold to appellee by Superior 

. Motor Sales So, and that it was never delivered to appellee 
ag @ Gontract or part of a contract, but that it wae inten» 
ded merely as a guide to t' clerk Anthony, in making a 
contract, and was sO mmtmx used and understood by all parties 
concerned, Appellee's theory is that the second order wags 
mot made or intended as an indep endent contract but simply 
as a list of equipments to go with the machine and that he 
Was told by Anthony it was the paper referred to as "memo 
Ge 30 attached” and that he could not read or understand 
English well enough to know to the contrary, Each party 
introduced evidence in support of his version of the case 
and the jury were left to determine the matter on 4 state 
of evidence so nearly balanced that he would not be justi-e 
fied in disturbing their finding. ; 

Appellee made payments as follows: July ist, 191i 
check drawn to the orderof M, M, Baker & Go, $300,00; August 
4th, 1911, check drawn to the order of M, M. Baker, $150,003 
August 23nd, 1911 check drawn to the order of M, M, Beker 
$50.00; these checks were each handed to Anthony the clerk, 
who received then without comment anc endorsed payment for 
the respective anounse on appelleefs copy of the second order 
Writing under the credit “Superior Motor Seles Co, by Anthony." 
There wasmuch trouble with the car and it was frequently re- 
paired by M. M, Baker & Co, and wae finally returned to 
and received by them in the summer of 1914, before this 
action wae brought and several months after Superior Motor 
Sales Oo. quit business in Peoria, There was evidence tending 


_ oteT .tebno dose al beaketnoo. | : 
seize) stetactochtelerdsenadiaaiedian aaa adu 4 
| hens rede fads nated. yroodt ettnaliecgs  enotearsoyen i 

_ 90te, go0ltrq guiteoihat shaetomet.#1em & 86) % © 
-tolzequa yd selleaqe. of bhos ed bigow er 
eelleqgs ot bevavéioh “eves gaweth tailt Koko pod 
wcodat saw $2 tadd ted = soentmoo a ‘to Fiag x0 \ 
_ 8 gablon ak .wrodind Xtek0 cit of ehiug «se 
asitzeg Lis yd hootsrehay tise pews maior on ev bis 
| Bat tehto hnowse ey tait wt Yroedt -atewllediih \ 
yLamka gud toatines tebwe qehat ma ex Sebretnk x0 va 
og tect hen onkstonm orf st bm 0m 0% edrromptops to Subik we 
omen" eg of bexxeter. xogeq erit ear 2 unodend sep okey 

bretetebus wo heex som blyoo esi tail? hae i 

_utxeg. dost ,ytertnoo ec} et wort of aiguone Siow ior 

oeso olf to Motexey eis to troquwe mbeowshive Seeobbotn 

etete 6 mo tettan.edt entmxeded ot F20L. sxe" Yinh" 
-tteut od tom biwow ei tedd -beonaled ylmen 64. — 
Enos Gey ee wgakhaz? xiott gakdmwteto we Dee 
“suet, tel yOvl.seweilot es etnomyeq ehaw Solrodqa 44 y 
tesguA (00,008) .00 & teed gi sl toxehxo ont ov seeeB 
400.08L% .xeled MyM to xehuo dv od nwexd doddo 0ted 

Teiof ,M ,M to tebto ont of asieth toerio LGD", bee 

telo add yrtodtnA of behest teas stew sdosiio seeilt! * 

TOL Actaceaq beexcohme Soa émpmmoe suedmtiw sort savisoor @ 7 a. 
zohio brooee art to yqoo eleoilecrs so gimvoma evttood / 

® .yrodwad yd ,00 eelse todo tolveqa”® Pihezo edd Xehaw a 
~e% vitnoupext sew th dan tao oft ety aa adie 
et beniutet » yilantt eaw hae» 60s nexed 2 eben ; 

eins stoted ,ALGL to, somwe Ssido ct med? yd berlodor hae’ 4 

Toso xoltecne istts.edinom proves orm 



















—9 





to show that the car was defective and not as warranted, and 
evidence tending to show that it was not defective, but 
that the trouble was from inexperience of the operator, 

A fair question for the jury wae presented and their vere 
dict supported by the judgment of the trial court conclue 
sively answers it, They were justified in finding from the 
evidense that appellee in good Zaith believed. he was pur 
Chasing the automobile from appellant, that lie contrast 
was fully stated, except as to equipments, in the firet order 
which he submitted to his attorney, and that the seeond 
order hod no significance except as a meno of equipments 
referred to in the first order, We do not vevard the fact 
that the first order vas not signed by him of much sige 
nificance; it was signed by appellant an delivered to and 
kept by appellee and mkgitt he might well have understood 
that the two papers were each a part of the same contrast 
and would naturally have signed his name wheaerequested, 

Theres can be no question but when a oontract sakes 
another gontract or writing a part of it, the two are to be 
Construed together, (Home Ins, Co. v Favorite 46 11, 235) 
Tt is also familiar law that two instruvents way be executed 
as a part of the same transaction and agreement and must 
be read and construed as one instrument {Chicago Tr. 2 Sav 
Bank v Trust Go, 199 Till, 404) 

Complaint in made that the court admitted evidence 
of moneys axpended by auppeliee for repairs off the machine, 
Thare wae nothing in evidences so admitted that would have 
influenced the verdict of the jury om the prinvipal question 
sence contested, The verdict was for the exact anount 
that had been paid by anpelies on the purchase price of 
the machine, ani the mhine having been returned te 
appellant before suit brought, appellee was at least ene 





— 


ithe .hodintzew ea dom bas wyitosteh sew & 
ted ,avitoeteh tox eaw gl otedt wore od * 

_ stodateqe ed 20. pomsixeqxamh stoxt esw eidvyors oft 
=t5v itedt bag betmecete eax ‘ext eft xot mons 
silanes gusoo nits oft to tmomghst ect yd‘ 
OS Mess grebass ps beltiteut exew youT . tt | 
~~ SEG BOW atl Reweited dites booy as enileqgs said: 
toaiineo els tac .daellegge mort oisdomodus eit» 
telco foil wi? Ah yednengiupe of Bm aqooKe _botate 
> bagoee edd dads ine Yomxotea vii ot 
. Sérewglspe lo omer # Be FqQouxe — ooMevs Tinygke ar b 
Joat oils Dusyese don ob of ANKE SEU ec ral ese — 

wate doww to mid yd hewgia som ean tobxo deckt one MH 
bite ot desevelod one taallegns xf dergiv adheh yee ; 
heoterebay eyed Liew trfgim et aityhe how! eet Ceqes 
_toextnoo suse of) to txioq 2 dose etew etrequy owt! 
ebetseupetesciw emen aid bemgte eva yllexrden) 
-welcn soaxinon 2 nodW ted sotteeup on edman exedt > o%y 
ed oJ e15 owl odd .di to Ipaq gkéiaw cordeetinee i 
(8 Lt ob ethyovel v.00 sent enol) sxedtepot: 
betuesxe e¢ yon ptwenwitent ows tant wel talline? oefs 
fesm bos. <agegpegge bre noitonarnxd> emusn edt to, sxeq 
vee & .cf ogsetcd) ¢nemrten!t ono pe  bawctenoo. bas t 

(20% 440 0@L ,00: SaexT WO 1s 
cone> ive Seidimbe tivoc edt dedi shamiek wntelquode oor sa ys 
eenitogu. oft ko sutaqes' xot eoi.sems yd behbneqxe eyenam 9 — 
evad biwow tadt deed tmbs oe orutro at gerüen — cs 
nettueup Laqionéixug edt go yaut ed? to doliuer’eds: beoreuttat 
trong doers. odt to) saw folbverledT © Seteotnse Khana 
to s0Lcg enshoum edt mo selleqqs \dibtaq need bad sant 
ot  berwtet-teod ymbmet van tdoypan safes ORR: 
=t9 teaes te ese eel Leqcangtiguond Shue! ‘pyoted: sas 



















J 
9J 











bisq bed od dome oft x08 | 
tg oe @V¥eeOere? SGX sae él Pante wots aa” a ‘2 4 


“G2¥ sae! “So earaaoez dee pret sel : ; 


2084 Tyee intr? ep to fanmyht ade cats 
SS tres. piithns) ga. Seitétest exe yee? avk ee 
4 




























aa, eee al Dewwkie! Aedalvdeoy- ob eaphogne 
Soon oOo els faci .oqelilegue mox? eiidesotus bak 4 
WYER Tiki gly Me ever Qhuce oO eaceybos —bebate 
Wwe: ots dad soa goo dte-trdst ot) Debs Babies 
asnviagliqcm tO qevur & ea sQnexe - otmawe Lsqyde car 
Spar. Teor dot oh Gf -eauTe ceuk? at ak oF , : 
“est: «Gime te wis \ Bespin | fof onr ented eee ones 

ite OF - Dewew Liv fiuliogen vi fetn tes egies i x 
moteteatas syed Loew isd of Qyiph bce wel lentes 

lee ul nko. xe lo J2m, 2 866° ot8n) eubaey ower onl 
betes t X i evel ol taeda BE 
SGi.ce tO4xdRC so% tum. oa o¢ tab ese 
ed o3 " } f2 cot, & yindd aw co Sonido aaa 
iit OO et igpyvotl wv .00 som ome). somiboued 

tue Cu yam pea Sank ¢ t ant L taillow> gets 
Cow . ¢ % od? to 

wd oautt enoo taxa? 

{ $s3 OD. JavrT v3 
PGs Lalqmoev 
rot: fi Phe Qt 


% oe peice par ¥ 


a ¥ | fusvvov’ ead: Heats. * 
a 


ct gO '/ B25 feds eat 
me ol haedoe vGebtu moty MAri ane 


* wr ldfang miditee , oc knoe Beat 


z 
teh wie tt £0 asp tet * [a 


21 


STATE OF ILLINOIS, | .. 
SECOND DISTRICT. „88. 7 CHRISTOPHER ©. Durry, Clerk of the Appellate 


Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records 

and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office. 

In TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the 

seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this second day 

of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hun- 


dred and thirteen. 





Clerk of the Appellate Court. 









"a i 
4 d Re sae PISS My kz SR renee Rs redoaet 
er : 2 oR? gina 
Poe ke BAD « Rhee th he Ph Rvorton | ye ae. ——— 
—— 
Pe ly : ee 
* i . . i 3 
ay Wy , 
pee. 
/ ns *8 
* 
⸗ 
J 
orrat tO 
atalloqqé oft to Asef) .vaay .O nNadorennt) I ay TOMTEML ay On 
ehioooyl odd lo t9qo0d bus zionilll to stat@ alt lo toltteiG faoved bina a0? be J 
oid to aoiniqo odd lo yqov ouTt 6 4! Yoiogetot odd tad? YuIENAS rlosvedd 
sotto 10 ui H10997 Io ,seuen beldivas ovods odd ai d1n00 
odd xe bus bosd yor toe ocuered 1 soaasaW stomrpea® ul 
ysh haooss vids swaetiO Je J1009 etelleqgs bine od? to toe 
‘cud odia bageviodd “ono, bial a0 to 169% Od oi denyguA Ye 
| oattitt bos barh 
AUD adodleqqh 3M Yo dvi) 3 
| 
‘ at: Pree Fak ~¥ 7 eh ae ee ne tee 1 ae 1 See eo 








— V — ed 
— J 5 80 1 
a. \\ — F 7 * 
Pal 
A %, } 





ORT ⸗ 


——— 


AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE C 


Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, theftirst day of April, in 
the year of our Lord one thousand niife hundred and thirteen, 
within and for the Second District for the State of Illinois: 

Present--The Hon. CHARLES WHITNEY, Mresidine Justice. 

Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL — ee 


Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justice, 
CHRISTOPHER C. ‘DYyFFY, Clerk. 


J. G. MISCHKE, Sheriff. 











} — 


BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on the 2d day 
of August, A. D. 1913, the Opinion of the Court was filed in 
the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures 


following, to-wit: 








v85 6S edi ao :tiw-ot ,ebtswretis tsdi , (SAREMaMaS . 
mi-belit asw ituod sdi 10. dotatgo add ,Sres a as 
eetugit bas abrow edt ci_,t1r00D. bisa Yo sottie aff 


itiw-oty * 





€ 
Gen, No, 5301, 


The People of the State of Illinois, 
Appellee, 
vs Appeal from Oo, Ot, Lake 


Edgar Slaughter, Appellant, 


Carnes, J, 

Appellant, Ejear Slaughter, wae at a trial in the 
County Court of Lake County in October 1915, adjwiged euilty 
of bastardy ona complaint made b Rebecoa Carnenter in 
November 1911, The child wae born May 2ist, 1912, Counsel 
in their argunents assume the usual period of gestation, 
nine months, therefore it mst have been begotten in August 
1911, Appellant and the proseeutrix are both colored sha 
are from twenty to twenty five years of age. Only five 
witnesses testified in the case, The proseeutrix swore that 
appellant was the father of the child and that he visited 
her and was alone with her frequently during the month of 
August 1911, and befare and after that time, Her evidence 
as to such visite was corroborated by that of a colored woman 
a cook for whom she worked at that time ae 2 waitress at the 
Bachelors’ Meas in the officers quarters at Tort Sheridan, 
Appellant testified that he never had intercourse with the 
prosecutrix, that he visited her at different times before 
July 1911, and never saw her after the middle of July of 
that year, except on the street with some other woman, 
His testimony as to when he ceased visiting the proseeutrix 
was slightly corroborated by that of his sister, This sister 
and another witneas swore the reputation of the presecutyix 
for truth and veracity was bad, the cook testified it ~ne 
good, This is the substange of all the evidence ani it is 
manifest the verdict of the jury should not be disturbed 


"ls 

MS 
* 
— 
* 
7 
ah 
— 
















‘ — i ig 
* — 

xcose .on 
—— 


.otoatttt Yo state ed? to ¢ 


; selleqgd | 
etal .#0 ,09 moxt Laeqqh | ev 
etraileagA * — 
| edt at atase 2 te enw —E tech .tanileqal | “a 


 ytlivg beghuthe .8L0L xedotod mt  ytrur0d eded 
mk tedmerts0 sovedei d eben tatalqmoo a no ¥ 
fownyod .S10L ,teLS yal axod sew bitdo eff £108 cot 
wottaises to botteq Lawes ott enumee atnomugzs the 
tauguA ai nettoged meed eved tem tt etotetedt . edie 
ide bexofco dtod erm Xkudwtesorq edt bua tralleq 
evit yin .ogs to exney evit yinowt of ytnont mont 
tent otowe xirdveseorq off ,enso oft mi hettives? ae a 
hettsiv ed @edt bra bitdo edt to widest) ed? esw / , q 
to dimom eft aniush yLimewpett ted dttw enols esr rt 
eonehtve well omit stadt rette bra ewitod hue ,Lf@L 
namow bexoloo « to tadé wW betsiodorroo exw etistv vo 
odt ts eeextiow © an emtt tad? te bedzow ote mos tot Me 
stabbiod® t4ot ta etottasp exsoltto edt mt ese "et 
edt dtiw eexooretat bad teven on tact bettitest small 
etoted aentt tne ttkh te tod hethetv od tadt .xkxd 1903 
to ylut to elbbim edt to¢ts ted wee sever ban ,£f = 
efamow tefto emoe dttw teotia eft no tqeoxe 4 , 


* 


xixtudexnotq eft gaktiatv beeseo ef aeade of ef 
zeteie stdT .xetete etd to tact vd hetsxodortoo ser, 7s 
xiztyoesot¢ eft Yo moléatwqos ef? stows sesent iv . 

aaw tt Setittees dooo eft bad eaw ystootev base dé 7 o : 


ef $i bee oonehive eft Ife to somstedue oft at eidh boo 7 
A iat ee 
bedtusdalh ed ton bivede ytrt eft Yo solbtev eft #aekt 


ae " 
: - seue > hi 
a, 3 =. F 
—— ae ) es ee 


unless there is shown some material error of law, 

Appellant moved at the close of the People's evidence 
and again at the close of ail the evidence for a dir ected 
verdict and assigns error on the action of the court in 
denying e&ch of those motions, and argues that the court 
erred in denying the first motion because , as he says, the 
- Peoples case was made, if at all, by evidence introduced 
against his object on in rebuttal, which should have been 
introdwued in chief, We are of the opinion that the People 
had made a case when they closed their evidence in chief, 
and even if that be not s0, appsilant waived any error in 
refusing his first motion to direct a verdict, by pro- 
ceeding with the trial and introducing his defense on the 
merits, There was certainly-no error in refusing his second 
motion to direct a verdict, He argues that the court erred 
in admitting testimony in rebuttal that was a part of their 
case in chief, There was some evidence heard in rebuttal 
that might better have been introdueed in the first instance, 
but we do not see that appellant was injured by this order of 
proof or that the trial court abused his ciseretion in 
permitting the evidenee to be then introduced, 

Complaint is made that the court sustained objections 
to various questions asked of the prosecut&hg witness on 
cross examination 3; the sourt (id sustain objections to 
questione as to whether or not the »prosecutrix had taken 
a trip to Washington, how many ate at the table at which she 
wae a waitress, how many soldiers were quartered at the 
barracks and whether or not there was anybody else slept in 
there besides her, who furnished her money to buy her 
clothes in the year 1921, and her manner of dress, while 
it ia true that the court might in the exereise of its dise 
_ Gretion, have permitted more latitude in the cross sxamination 


ia. Ge +24 Bae BO ew 





















wal to torte Latxaten ooo mwois of xe it ano. 
eonebtye e'elqoeT eft to sea Sa Go ata ea 
betocrth « 20k eonehive of? Ein Yo evoto edt ta nay 
— Sans odd to elias odt so ⁊or⁊eo engiona bow | He 
txvoo edt tatt sexgts —— to" dos 
eit yeyer ed ve , ensaced molttom text? edt gntyreblat be: 
- doouhoxtat eamedtve yd .Lie te th yehan asw-eeno "ele 
 Meed eval bisode dotdw  .Lebtedet ab no tostdoresd ter 
 —- @LqoeT eft tect meiaiqo edt to steeW wtetda ał de bo: 
(eoektetdo af oqmobtve tied? besolo Yertt medy egsoos ebas 
ik Zoxte yas hevdew. tmallecqs oa tom od jtadh tt 
so mat. VG gtotbrey.s toertb ot mottom texit s 
od ao gaaeted oid gatourortat tus da tet · oat ddim % . 
hrovse eid gakavtor mt. xorze om vintatseo esw axed? noe@tht 
berxs Jayveo ost tad? eeugts ah ,tolbtev a ‘toetth ¢ 
thedt to.dxeq a eaw tadt Lsidudet mk yromtinot 
fatiudes at bised eonebhive emon new extedT te tdo 
9anatont saxtt edt mt bheouboxtat meod evad rotted 
Yo rehire nkds wi hewiat mow tralieone talt eed ton oh 
ni soltozeat’ ald beouds ¢xu09 Latat oft tatit 16 
heoubottal tet ed—ot somehive edt ¢ 
enckioe.dea bentataus tmsoo eds gadt cham ef strtkalqaod 1! 
‘fo Brent hy yikttuesaorg edt to hexles amo tteenp 
ot enaitnetdo mtetnyve dL) tied » edt 7 mottantuexe® 
fertst bad xkutdyvoorox: eft tem to teiitedw of 2a up 
oie. dokdn te efded out tm etm sum wad wtotyrubdestot iit i | 
edd te bazetcavp exew amethler yun wast qnserteage Be 
ab dqala ete ybodyta raw emedt gon wo xedtexiw fra “wlosried: 
teri yt ot yonem ted beseterust one grok eebined exedt 
siidw ,s8ech Lo tonmom ged. bea gSLOL taex eft ahipedtete, { 
nskb sth to ontexoxe edt mb digkm soo ert tach eumt mtith 
mpolianitmaxe seoro ort at obuti¢el atom betituxea eva noltexD J 


we cannot say that he erred in sustaining objections to 
these questions, The general character of the prosecutrix 
for chastity and her conduct with other men was not ine 
volved in the issues tried, (Holcomb v People 70 Til, 409; 
Scharf v People, 34 Til, App. 400) and no evidence was 
competent Te eave questions unless it showed, or tended 
to show, that the child was begotten by some other man, and 
for that purpose it was properly confined to the perio# 
on or about the month of August 1911, and most if not ald 
of these questions were not so confined, It is also objected 
that the court erred in sustaining objections to questions 
as to what the prosecutrix testified to in the court below, 
We find no ratorial error in that respect, 

It ba also argued that the Court erred in refusing 
and modifying certain instructions offered by anpcliant, We 
find nothing in that respect to warrant the reversal of the 
ease and nothing that in our opinion prejudiced the rights 
of appellant on the trial, 

Finding no reversible error in ‘ihe record the judg= 


ment is affirmed, 





























— Ro We —— 


i 16 THs A 


xttsueeaotg ods to pin Reon iagenes 
to eeaclo efi —5 


ax — ve ste! T gs 


Seifert SP tee 


Se2Grxib # tc. O& tve ar? 


{20d ,L1T OF eLqoet v dmooLoH) tut aeuagt ot 
Re Fee « Yo mottos on7 af"? Z0Tte ogi ess 


ad 


Br Sages goof ll * —— “a es ey 


beiae⸗ * —— —* oan 
gpk ee Eo re SRS 
eg * Be BF ** 
fe: bee ve! hg fy: Yao $j owt. Sto egon pt & 
— to ah acechite mente ieee on 9Re" aRoleeiD 
emoitseup of ano!tootde artabataure — et 
gg HS ate got aietmvonges et Ap 
ad? «oO Seng tel 59 ry tat m2 xox Late am on a 


Bihouter at herve sud on? tad? heugra cole ot $B. 


- 


eW ,énaello ~ be te tous : 

hes amie ox a aad w xs Sead —*9 enh abs F — 
8 bed inexover ods —5 ot Soeqecs, tod Bh. 2d ont 
ed bs eit : 

ds ¢ beokhutexa fro tigo awe ah sade aatdton * 


Aatæ⸗ —A 


— — 


J34 — 
Bat, ene roves * * *0 oidkatevex on yabindt ob 


fea Tory ODA ald Sarude FmLOO Lak=«t ura ae 
bocurbown2? wedt edo? gonelitva wld gees 
Ber pe? -i08 ao o@ edt phew ob tekalaad a 
Stsimpesorg eff to weolea acro btaesp oud as 


truce ed! . celheheas 


“_ 
9% om "Tey of c# eore 
ae oi 
ga @ 1 dg cotwuldasihet eee 
er so gf Peon Linge im 


so codfexnw News ) ahem 


net y Dew y dhl eer, ore ** 
X ede af. Pop ae oTpa7 O; et. rta⸗ Rad 


Pas * * 2 


STATH OF ILLINOIS, ).. 
SECOND DISTRICT. ; 8S. I, CuRisropHER ©. Durry, Clerk of the Appellate 


Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records 

and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office. 

In Testimony WHER«or, I hereunto set my hand and affix the 

seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this second day 

of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hun- 


dred and thirteen. 


Clerk of the Appellate Court. 









5 Ay oF et) Baz! 2 — ge at: J pen at — 























eat wT. Oi pat ole pes: * —— 
ck PR LAR SGM — ssh hee oat — ‘oa 
RAR LAP RE wh re’ . Sian —— — 






Punt og Bays (aps enh htt — 


ee tt Saba’. 86) 4 NR Sk eee ana tency 1 F 


eu a ice — Sa FBO ae } aah ame: Ad Ae esti BA 


— — 


em —— Ea heen ** es — 
ih ———— — 





ifs Page: Fae s 





5m, ‘ ne tea mule ee 3e ———— bel a — — tt nom potting J 


a 666 qu tttstrve wh, Seas, PAHO 





ike! Prices p23. ut oF bes tid me? REx MOER vOrRT: Wea, fi 





{outrou?7 Lacy et HEN ) — BE ax — 
* * 


‘ _ 
neces AR Neg PS peis . tat?! — Mh re ek. 


J a teers & ; no sane 

—— 

ae 

rey . ep ite Py) es ‘ rd m ch gents Ax bs ] 

hs 

» re —X yi 

> 

, ” ; J f tty « J 8 * Fx 

“ 

. 

ia AlOKbIdL | ic 
: ateiisqgAé off to dvolD pormud U vantioremnD |] sail | THATEIA © 
. ébsoovas odt lo «sqoed hus eionill! to ateteodt to dsinteiT havded bine 10d 6 va 
: a3 to noinigo odd to yqoo aunt 6 «i gaiogorol odd ded Yitread YasattH od los 
vito yor ni boost to sei bohivae evode oid ai 1wOD wh 
| Sdd xffts bas bool ta tse ofarenod 1 MONA ruaireaT nl 9OO 


YSbh buoose vidt swe ts Jjt0D atellogy/: bie orld do ieee ; 
‘aud Soid howsevodt and beol 110 lo may efi deoguhA to - wee 
a 


noatiidd bow bawdy * 


Aw) soleqeah oA} Aged 


my Ts 





— — 


578 1 — + — — 
6 Wet AS 













Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, thg first day of April, in 


the year of our Lord one thousand nige hundred and thirteen, 


within and for the Second District #f the State of Illinois: 


Present--The Hon. CHARLES WHITNEY, Pyesiding Justice. 


Hon. pag. ae DIBELL, stice. 


Justice. 


Clerk. 1-38 2: eee 59 
* ast A Of * Se di, ee 


AM 


Hon. DUANE\J. CARNES, 
CHRISTOPHER 


J. G. MISCHKE, 











BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on the 2d day 
of August, A. D. 1915, the opinion of the Court was filed in 


the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures 


following, to-wit: 










‘TAUOD STAIUIGGA BHT TO MAST A TA 


— — Tita lo ysb 44 PUsbeeutT oO ,BwSii0. ts. 
— bie de thas — bas auod⸗ eno ‘biog F me, 
— %o state ody TE 4s 
-Solisveul gentbia 


S0itay 


MED ALTSBE tal 


* 


So NE 


Yab BS edt ao ‘tiw-ot ,ebtewteits fedd CAST aMEMaE Ts 
Oi Sefit esw sryad edd Yo Moidigo odt. -SI@l .f A: a 


astoytt bars — edt “at 


~ east ae 
atxg09 bise to sotito a tiie 











Gen, No, 5781 
Henry A, Pope, Exér, dc. appellant, 

eg vs Appesi from Lake, 
We Sr¥tng Osborne, et al appellees, 


nape 2, J. 

Appellees as reo divers, operate a double track 
interurban railway between Milwaukee and Chicago, ‘he west 
is the south bound track, On August 13, 1910, « south bound 
passenger car, operated @ver said railway by appellees, struck 
Mire. Ethel P, West and inflicted injuries from which she 
died the next day, She left a minor son, The administrator 
of her satate brought this setion to recover damages for 
the loss caused to the next of kin by her death, The declare 
&tions and additions thereto contained 25 counts, of which 
it is suificient to say that it was alleged that the sere 
vants in charge of the ear wilfully and wantonly struck Mrs, 
Hest, and that in various ways the receivers are responsible 
Foe her death, There was a plea of not euvilty and a jury 
trial, At the close of appellant's evidamce he court in» 
structed the jury to find the defendants not cudity,. That 
Verdict was returned, 3 motion for a new trial was denied, 
and there was a judgment against plaintiff selow personaily 
for cost# with exeoution, from which plointiff below pro= 
secutes this eppeal, The judgment should have been against 


appellant in his capacity as executor, to be paid in dus course 


of edministration, but the point is not raised here and 
the error ie waived, 

Mrs, Weet and another woman were walking south 
won the south bound track, outside of any publie highway, 
and they were trespassers, The rules of law governing the 


: pility of appellees under such cirecumectances are variously 


—— 
rmrat qan 508 ⁊xaxc 
,oted most LaeqeA — 

—— 


dowrt afduoh s ets g etme Boer ns cA 
teow od? ogsois hee ro porn 
tnwod stan 2 otet «EL einpuh 20 ftv00 
dtourte emootLenqe vd yanitar ‘pte — — 
ete n mort setwtat betorttak brea — 
sotertetainbs of .aos rocita⸗ ot of od .yab #2 
‘*ot. eg amaly tevooe1 ot molfos obs? tighoxd 8 ats 
wtaLook off . siithed x60 ys ati to txen ett of — 
dokdw %o ymtmvoo as bocibataoo ot exerts onott bbw Be 
“Tea odd Shit begoils eaw tt tad yee ot datos a 

·xu Hovrss yYlmotasy bas yliytitw zap edt to ernie 
eidtenoqes: Sin wievienes edd ayew euvotusy mt tat ie 
vit 2 bee ytLive tom te aeiq 8 een oxed? . deeb oe 


—— 
* 


















eni tuvoo ef’ sombive s'tmelieqga to eeofo — 
ted? .Vtitey fom etushneteh edi belt of xxut ect * 


ghetone> aan Leltt wee £ tot motvom 2 domxudet one 
Vilenvetey wale Shtprtels ton hae —— aay 
“01g woled Ytitntela dotrw mort — ry; 


tentege seed evad Siuorte tnonghvt eff ,Laeqcs chat 
eetvoo seh ni bisq ed of ,todvoete Bs YSibaqeo eff nk . 
bea ete beetaz Jom at Sakoq siti tad —ttotds: Jo lrémba 
sbeview of zoxbe | 
Asus grtilew etew manow todtona bas seeW — — 
cWerigth otiduq wre to ebletve Ao⸗ar⸗ bryed — 


pth 


\. \, exlt gatteteven wel to —X ect sreeccqeett 


Se 4 


* Yeuotuey Bie ReONetamouio Hove ae bites esestogcs 9 


4* * * ot fo q 4 
⸗— rs a ae ae eee h oF eee ee 


stated and applied in the following cases; L. S, 4M, S, 
Ry. Co. v Bodemer, 139 Til, 596; Bast St, Louis Ry. Co, v 
O*Hava, 150 Tll. 580; Peirce v Walters, 164 Tll, 560; I, 0. 


 'R? R, Co. v O'Connor, 189 Ell, 559; Mortinv C, 4 N, W. Ry 


@o, 194 Til, 138; Chicago Terminal R, R. Co. v Kotoski 
2199 Til, 583; Chicago Terminal R, R, Co. v Gruss, 200 TLl, 
195; I. 0, R, R. Oo, v Macher 202 Tll, 556; T, 0. R. R. Co. 
v Leiner, 202 Tl, 624; P, U OG, & St. L, Ry. Oo, v Kinnare 
203 Ill, 388; Bartlett v Wabash R, R, Go, “20 Til, 163, 
The general resuit’ of these authorities 49 that those run- 
ning a railroad train owe no duty to a trespasser to look 
out for him and @isecover his presence in a place of dangep, 
and when he is discovered in a perilove situstion the pere 
son running the train owes him no duty except to shan 
abstain from wantoniy end recklessly injuring him, 
and is bound éniy to use reasonableeare to avoid injuring 
him aftex he is discovered to be in & perilous situation, 
The engineer is not required to stop as soon as he sees & 
trespasser on the traek, but, in the sbeence of anything bt 
warn him to the contrary, may assume that he wili act se @ 
Yeasonably prudent man and leave the track to avoid being 
run over, 

Appellant celled Albert T. Sprague, the motorman 
Who was ruming this oar at the time in question, He 
tedtified that he was running it at a speed of 40 to 45 miles 
per hour and that et that speed he could stop the car in 
about 600 feet by the use of ‘the omer genoy brake; thet he 


‘gaw these woewn walking south upon the traek on which he 


was running when he wae 1,000 fect from them and he 


thereuponblew the whistle and kept on blowing it snd also 
‘~~ the — ani that he kept on the «ame speed till he 
\ 


wii, 


7 - , 
a — bet: ; \ 
r a 3 , 

iw i J 


ae J oe ' e 
* 27 he 4 F * Ne se * Vie Gs 
: ¥ : i + is 
— ig 
ss , ~* 
Ke J — 
J * 
* —— 





















48 MA .2 wl gaoneo grtwollot odt mt beliqghthae! 
¥ 00 . etuol ,t% test oa £17 Col %ytomebed v1.00) 
oD .I 4088 .Lil dol qexotia’ v sorte! 4088 , he 
Wi .¥ 6S .0 v mitre zeas fi OBL 
bivotod v .00 .f fl LankmzeT ogsolm 488L 
+11 008 xneia ¥ 400 4H 4S Lantmxot ognotdd 4 


#4; neat vhs ‘ta 


+00 Hi oH 4D 41 4982 LAT 908 mosode ¥ ,00 200 ,ff 


¢ wrrilins 
oranintx v 400 a a 412 8 4D pet 
| #B6E «LA ost 100 fi fl dua v #teLtas6 . 


Joss" ‘Oo ae FFTOSH — 3 —* 
—5* ——— ten⸗ J —E eueds to * 
dai 4 


ook of xeonequoxt # of Yub on evo mbexd — 
me rp he —— 


—— to eosie & ak soneeen7 id ra co 
f — 
—— edt nottautte auoltreq a at dorevooeth of od mot 


SITET gy J ¥e 


“batde of Sooo Yuh on mit eowo abort et 7 


; %. rm.) + 
emis pebustat vteasiiosr bas vaora⸗a mot &. 
gatzutmt drova ot oade {danoase eeu ot vine b 8. 
SiG6 éi 


to itassd te auoLkxoc 2 mt od ot bexevocets ‘et ont s 


re tae 


a a 


's eees od a8 moos aa ‘gote ot bextupes ton et ; * 
— ae: 


og aꝛde vr⸗ to eomeods edt wt ,tud toot oats #0 ; 
SB ae to2 ILtw ert tarts  enusases yan <Yxextt0o ott os 


gitted bileve of dowtt edt — bos tam ‘tnoburea xias 
* 


* rer 
" paerto? om grid <RQETIS — — ——— terres ———— * 
1 mre <3 


eH etottaeup at omtd oct te wan eirt pecker, aw 
very 
selinw 22 ot ob to heoqe & tes at petanurt saw er tartt Toa: 


ak tno odd qote bison ef heoce tatd ta tastt — 
wd tutd joterd yoregxave wt YO oom edt WW toot oe 
ed dolde mo doers oft mor Acros gbXLuw amoow ene 

ec bee medi mott toot 000, £ eew eit mode ‘es 
ools bas tt grtwold ao oy Dre eltetaw eae rn te 


edt. Cltt beeqe omee oft to feet ont tarts fs 


oe Breet 


— — * * — .. Bee, EE Se ee 





~ 


was within 300 feet ef the women, although he observed that 


‘they paid no attention to his eignale; and when he was within 
300 gfeet of them he shut off the power, put on the emere 
geney brakes and blew the whistle frantically, for he realised 
then that they did not intend to cet off the track; and that 
he ran 300 feet aftr he struck the woman befors he could 
stop, or 600 fest after he anplied the brake, He testified 
that the track was straight and level and that he saw the 
women ahead of him all the time during that 1900 feet, 
Appellant siso called John L, Sullivan, Ne was s towerman 
for appellees and waa on his way home after hie day's work 
and was riding in the front vestibule with the motorman, 

He testified thet he saw these women when they were about 
1,000 feet ahead of him that the motorman blew his whistle 
contimously anc rang the bell and the women wads no effort 
to get off the track, and that when the car was within 

100 feet of them the motorman applied the emergency brake; 
that the witness distinctly saw the women walking on the 
track for 1000 feet ahead, and that neither she nor her 
companion looked around before the socident happened; and 
that in his opinion, the ppeed of the car was 25 or 30 miles 
per hour, and that the mtorman stonped the cax in 50 feet 
after he struok ths woman or 150 feet mx after he bevan 
applying the emerpency brake, Tn passing on the motion to 
direst a verdiot on the evidence introduted by anpellant 
it wee the duty of the court to sxccept the testimony most 
favorable toe appellant as true, Directing a vardict for ape 
pellees under these oireunstances was @quivalent to holding 
as a matter of law, that the motoxmam could drive the car 
#0 near these women that it would be impossible to stop 
before hitting them, without this act being wanton ov wilftl 


i or in recklees disregard of human life, or that all reasonable 


“ys : 
Bra ey \ : ; fe 
























dail bevxetdo of sguodtio yromor ef to toot 068 it 
aiittw thw orf neste Suc 'etengte wt of gottnet te ot 
tome of? no duq yxewog oft To tute od most To. 
boxti@en of sot .¥llsoktnatt eltatiw ont weld baa» Re 
tadt bie phoard Ott Tro ter of hretal ton bth y 
- ‘Biyod ba xoted mation Bdh toutte ed adhe peer oe 
 Poltisees el .eketc ot hetLeroan et mitts tect ob 
GAP niin ait taibs ties Level das ttgtexte . eaw tent 
‘pbot OBOL Faas: Qeturh: emt ond Ile wha to. be 
URensewed es aaw ei A⸗rt ee J adot bettas cots. dt 
atte e*ysh” eit wetts onod ym .ehd so, Rew Dag... 199: 
 yrantotom of? ui tw eludttesy, taost, est mb. pte 
— Stet weil? cect memory seodt. wae. ost, tat 2 
“sitet e tif wold seuminton edt dade. wht to — 
eri⸗ on abamn siamo add hue Ctoct ort poe bra 4 
— ‘Wkdthw aw tao vert sestw. Sorts bes ost, edt tito" 
{etexd youegrome eit bebloae tsuxosom, ens mont to °: 
‘oft no gnbtler memow-odt mee yltorktegs bent tn eid 
tot ton orte medion ted? bas ,beedte test ooot or! 
bra gbeneqond suchtoore edt  exoted heawoxe Sextoor mee 
eotin OF %O BS naw too ‘eft eto neoa4 ast okmigo bette 
— — test 98 xt sao sift heqeote manrohs edt fant ie 
of Nolsim Ord no ambeteer al ,otard Woregtomp, — 
tnalleqhs yf heowhortat! somshivs edt mo forbeoy 8 
trom yionttue# ont fysope of #1000 ext re ‘ytyb . 
~<a roY Pothrev es nerkboeri® ,ewtt es trallogas ints : 


Ce fel a 





ita" ou esi sotto 


er 


wiihio! of trelavisps sew seqnatonvarhe eopdé, tae 

x80 odd ovlzh bigon mautotor ert tact wal to * 

cote ut elitepocml ed bigow ob tedt Menor ¢ 

ip iin ro-mocnan yried ten ekdt suadd tr eng, 
——— Ila tad? x0 —* sumer * to brogexmzh a0 


minds would agree that the motorman did not act wilfully 
wantonly or in reckless disregard of human life, but with 
due Care, uncer the authorities above cited, The motorman 
did testify thot until he wae within 300 feet of them he 
thought that the women were going to get off, but he alee 
testified that neither of the wormen ahowed any indications 
of having heard the signals, There were other railroad tracks 
immediately adjoining and perellel to the tracke operated 
by Appellee, ae the motorman well knew, and the women may 
not have realized that these signele were civen from a 
Gar On appellees’ railroad, We are of opinion that all 
reasonable minds would not agree that this motormén oere 
formed the duty which the law cast upon him after he disceve 
ered these people ahead of him and saw that they apnarently 
did not hear his signals, it is to be considered alse that 
this was not the case of a heavy engine ond a heavy train of 
many Cars upon a steam railroad, the speed of which it is 
very difficult to instantly reduce, but this was a sikmn 
single cay which could be stopped in from 150 to 300 feet 
The jury were not bound tobelieve that the motorman did 
not realise the danrer till he was within 300 feet of the 
women or that he was exereising reasonable care in not 
teaching « that conclusion sooner under tne Gircumetences, 
We are of opinion that the proof recited presented a ques- 
tion of fact which should first have been submitted to 
the jury, Offmat v Worldte Columbian Exposition 175 Til, 473, 
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded, 























, Meiatitw tos ton bth samzoton edt stadt. arte . 

Mid te tard, ; aOR. seed to. Seeperete apetiner. ct 

Sercter oer, sbegto ovode aetttzotive el sobaur 
—X — 

, 9848 of dud Ro tog ot antog.ezaw memow etd 
enottsotout wis bewode memo edt to. wattos te 
exonxt beorltax zailto orou ↄxoct .eLangte,erlt beans 
hetoreqo exoatt ert ot Leltexeq bag gttatotou v 
yan seman edt hres awent Lfow maorgoton ent as 
8 mort mevig evow atacuta suadt tedt, bestiaer « 
218 tadt sotntqe to axa of »haotitas — 
| 19" mamzotom etdt tadt aexgs ton biuom abate 
~vooe tt od rette mid nogy taco wal edt dotdy ytuh a: 
wtmotaqca yeds ted? wae doe mba to Aeeda siqoog @ 
tadt oels betebtesoo od ot et #2 ,afongte aid tod go 
Yo mboxt yveed » bas eatgne yaed & ko — — 
BE #! dotdw to hoosas on} ,beorltex maste ⸗ noc Oto 
mate s new gidt tud ,gouber yigastenk . of, 2IEb. | 
tet Of of OL moxt mt becaote ad bivoe dotdy.. sao oh 
btb samzotom edt tedt evelisdo? bauod ton #20 
ony to #s0t OOF mtd te sew od LL8d xegtab ext 
fon mt eteo sidanosazes ante toroas aan ed stadt 10. 
_ateomateraieti® Sry —aetes manooe wmutaylonoo sadt 24 
“soup & betnesetq bettost toorq edt tat rolntqe to. 
ot Betiindve mesd evad vert? bivods dotdw sont a a 
“Sh LIT OTL molstaow-S matdmw£ed o"bex0N v tattO .xxut ved 
sbebaumex seuso ort dns deavevex. ef tnompbut ea, 


* 


+ be 


Cee ea Ta ne 

peal 2 earn if! 

E (00 CY neoat sagt 

gos iv, guard geeeiea Ss 


Be of 










————— — 
oy ca eve - 
narod —— 


STATE OF ILLINOIS, ! * 
SECOND DISTRICT. BS. 


Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of 


J, CuristopHeR C. Durry, Clerk of th 


and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my offic 
In TesTiMONY WHEREOP, I hereunto s 

seal of the said Appellate Court, at 

of August, in the year of our Lor 


dred and thirteen. 













7 Sakina pie Tay ye Bh 
Thi — ——— —— 


* 


pee — lah D Pear shee ‘oie i. 
pies sve ot SAG See balay 
pips — 


* 
rf 
i 





Ai Pay | yyy! hua a6 7 —9 8 


I gS ak ah, A apy $a beer ae tae 
. | . — J 
‘ Mee Ree — ——— ere Rott 9 


yas | pgp jt ZR eh ree 


















ne FR RIS” ABW so tithe tai 





arlene — Re (AOL LL 
a algal i 9, ‘iy a WIOTBIaHOD A ram TORT ANG 
2 rol on baie! sivas silt to one edi to forneid 5 ia 
ond a fi wi ilioyorod unl Jadd arr aao unan d 
gi ors Io 92169. baltisas ovede old Bi Save 
rared 1 ————— yromireaT ul 
Lancia Mallogqhy: bise odd O55 


tol 10 to 5% ond ul * to 









—* iE te Wet —* 























a= — — 








This reserve book is not transferable and 
must not be taken ſrom the library, except vhen 
properly charged out for overnight use. 

Borrower who signs this card is responsible 
for the book in accordance with the posted 
regulations, 

Avoid fines and preserve the rights of others 
by obeying these rules. 


nate oy NAME 








— —— a, Sea eT «pee 
YU WPF = 
ie — 5S 7 
YA AS pl othe * 


—— 
I —— 


bE: — eres 





_3- - =OFl 
x — —— ⸗ 2 
F ——— — 


LYSIS Wael PA rae 
— — Cask sp vis 

— —— — OE oe “YI 
CID, Bw _o — 
J— 


| pours | 670 Py 


GAYLORD 139 








‘hie ee 

re 
— se 

se? — 

=aY 

° 



























— 
— 
= * 

aud 

— oe 

—— — —— 

— —— 

— nt 

ae Tere 

————— 

— — 

we 


e— 
























oo 
— — 








—** 
Tete swe: ——— Ye 
— 
















— 
— 7 J 

— ah 3 . 
wegen * 








































—3 
— 9 — 
ag -** ~~ 
+ > an 
* we 
ete t cet 7 = 
Fh Hw! heme arte 
—— "= 
Aa Gre . * 
1 4— 4 ‘ 
oe ‘ 
. ' 
€ y —— J on . 
™: o dee ' . - \y . 
, — ‘ £ ⸗ se 
5 = Rig ; ; 
' * > _- - ye 
⸗ J oe ais * 
ho , 
. oe, ‘ - te i 
7 . $ z <n , ; 
; ⸗ —8* * 
tr - : f * 0, . 
. * ert — 
* * * ’ . ee ¢t wo . 
4 me ¥ a, Pads - 7 - 
u oe. ee * ame, . —— 7 aj 
3 . ‘ J - — ery bas FF . 4 
* sae iam er i ; 
oy J — — 
gees PLN 7 — — 2 * — * 
oboe san) * — Sie i 
. ° ae —— ⸗ — — > 
, : 
** -- - 
F , 
- —— 
~ 
oe . 
, . - ~ he 
> # aa » 
’ 
; : 
. 77 . 
. : 


——— 
—————— 


R