Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2010 with funding from
CARLI: Consortium of Academic and Research Libraries in Illinois
http://www.archive.org/details/illinoisappellat188illi
5 V
AT A | OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
r/nth day of
April ,
Begun and held at 0 1 1' on Tuesday, the sevl
in the year of our one thousand nine hundred and fourte.
o +kU otiitp of Illinois:
within and for the ond District of tljjfe btate
I
Present — The Hon. DUAnL CARNES , Presiding Justice.
Hon. DORRk DIBELL, Justice.
Hon. CHAR/ WHITNEY, Justice.
HRISTOPtfC- DUFFY' C1^K-
iff.
/
188T.A. 1
T REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on the 51st day
of July, A. D. 1914, the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
Gen. No. r>962.
Estate of Christian Wresche,
ia Aok- an, appellai
ve A ieal from McHenry.
Christian c. Wresche, et
ellees. — _ _
«*-,,. 188I.A.! i
The will of Christian C. ','resche 9eems t<
admit ts'; to probate in y court of MoHsnry County
and b >eal taken by two of the heirs to the oirc irt
art t ere was a rearing in whidh the testimony
subaon I tnesees was introduced. This ia
a parently technically correct except t
in the record to show that the paper ltneseea
about a hieh they swore they signed
testator signed, -as the will. It ij j, ,i' ." ■til" ota't" oua
*t****mmJtG****4im.%iiaBa -»va isitiiiytinQ Oiua~t but '"i — inn-M
i ij mi Ij I .iJm*S=£»— pi».i '.'.jJiI J. I .. ' .. .illy-
cuit court ^ro1 I'-blj' not obeervinj that f.^ct denied
mot j on of the appellant heirs tc -1,
and entered judgment finding that it -r?.e the will. Appellees
filed no brisfe. We are asked to reverse without re
but this we ?houl' not do. The c^se should he reversed
remanded for another trial.
Rsvr- -led,
I
I .A.J
Vo.
►nV\
STATE OF ILL I NO IS, I
second district. I I. Christopher < '. Dupfy, Clerk of the Appellate
i OUrt, in ami tor sail I Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, do HEREBY CERTIFY thai the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appellate Gourl 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 thirty-firsl
day of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hun-
dred and fourteen.
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
,.„.„...„...„......,....„.». „i .„., ....
/
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and fourteen,
/
within and for the Second District of thf State of Illinois:
3resent--The Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Presiding Justice.
Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice^
/
/Hon. CHARLES WHITNEY, Justice.
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk.
I
J. G. MISCHKE, Sheriff.
i
8 8 I.A. 2
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on the 51st day
>f July, A. D. 1914, the opinion of the Court was filed in
;he Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
'ollowing-, to-wit:
Gen. No. 5963.
The People &c. appellee
V3 A oeal from DuPage.
Louis Thaxton, appellant,
Ty^ti^f 9 . 188 I, A. 2
This i.3 a suit proseouted t Loui* Thexton
- nt by the people to recover >enalty r"or the vio-
lation of the a. to. mobile law, I c
running at a ra.te of speed -rohibited by - ite,
J lent »c.s entered against s pell nt - -. '
from which this peal waa proaecut
Appellant irni^ts that the evidence does not ?how
atomobile was running at a s~>eed exceeding 15 or 30
miles an hour in a corporate village, and also in ~ts
^r rate of Bpeed is not a violation c s law,
except under I sonditiona named i. fcute
. there "as no proof of those conditions. Thin que:
of fact was submitted to t i nation on
conflicting evidence re of the opinion
is sufficient svidence in h s reo rt
( a court and sufficient to prohibit us from reversing
en t t ground. It 'ted it must appear there
wilful violation Lty oouid
imposed ind that *wilf*l1' meana Ticked, wanton
rith 1 a intention to t rong. Thi=< is to
reeover t statutory penalty ;hingi
hibited by the statute. T 9 onx r intention necessary
is »'i-s--4e-io>-^«<£. the lot rohibited. It z
xe that this case is impeo s; t xt rag a
oriminal case : ay it cou I
this court v.s y writ of error. Har
motion to di amies the ~ "> ai for thin reason it
f
■ ■
doubtedly have prevailed, but it waived this right by joining
in the stipulation as to the bill of exceptions ,r. filing
briefs in this court. (Ferriaa v The People 71. 111.
560 and casen there cited.)
Judgment affirmed.
.
STATE OF [LL] NOIS, | ss
SECOND DISTRICT. \ Si i. < II RISTO]
Court, in iuhI for said Second District of the Sta1
and Seal thereof, do hereby certify thai the foi
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause.
I x Testimony When
iki: c. Duffy, Clerk of the Appellate
i of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
going is a true copy of the opinion of the
if record in my i iffice.
of, I hereunto set my hand and affix th<
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this thirty-first
lav of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hun-
Ired and fourteen.
Clerk of tin Appe/taft Court.
... u
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
I
, the seventh
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the seventh day of April,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and fourteen,
within and for the Second District of th| State of Illinois:
i
i
Present--The Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Presiding Justice.
/
Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice!
,/ Hon
CHARLES WHITNEY, Justicl.
/
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerkl
J. G. MISCHKE, Sheriff.
/133I.A. 3
\ /l 8 8 I.Ac 3
/
/
:
/
/
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on the 31st day
of July, A. D. 1914, the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
Gen. Tto. 5965. c
The Ds pie ex rel. .appellee^,
vs A sal from Co. Ct. Marshall.
John DeWalt, ?nt.
Tr&Ucu^Z-* 188 I. A. 3
John De';" -t, t, wae -cnvictad of the father
of a bastard child of *>.il^ Jane Ray, This a >eal is :ro-
sacuted from the judgment entered in that caae. A reliant
wae a nan with a family and "mily J:.ne Ray was his wife's
half aieter. The or. anoe in the c-se in regard to
the alleged intercourse from -rhioh the child was conceived
^mily Jane Ray pliant. Emily Jane Ray
re that . . vther of the child, and he
testified he wae not, and that he had never done -^ny of
the things leading up to the lie^ed intsrcouree. The
testimony of Emily J-ne Ray ia of aach an unsatiaf aotory
contradictory character that it r'oes not rociuce a
favorable impression u on this court. When she testified
on the rial resulting in the judgment which ia
from, 11 j f th time she testified concerning the
2 facts. There had been two revious triale of this
case, the record h trials are not in the r cord in
this cr.ae, but the facta ire ^t:ted in the brief >
not Lueetioned* Sh had been t ice in r
for seduction brought by the father against
le mig t^vzi^rr- Bitnin n nmwi tw.Bao feel
firm under this testimony, the case havin bssn aubmitte
to a Jury and they havinr paased upon the questions of
fact, but there ia sufficient error in one of the iruti
tions &iven for the people to require a reversal o
judgment on the ground of the iving of t at inetructicn
alone. By that instruction the jury were tol
-
(
t«»JBO
i KiMWUIMt *km»mtfc -mart.-:
moat convincing evidence was on tl a aids of the ople.
Evidently sonethin- waa omitted 'rom this instruction.
T.e jury "''ere also told by thia instruction law
is that the most convincing evidence w a or.
the people ithout re ;rd to the number of "vitnesses.
number of "'itne^ses in an element which 3houl I be
n into consideration by the jury, Such an instruction
waa calculated to mislead the Jury ne^ trial should
be iven. Revereed r nded.
-
[
STAT i: OF ILLINOIS. |
second district. t ss" [, Christopher C. Duffy. Clerk of the Appellate
Court, in and for said Second Districl of the Stat.- of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copj of the opinion of the
said Appellate < 'ourt 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 thirty-first
day of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hun-
dred and Fourteen.
Clerk oftht Appe/Ut/t > onrt.
5828
■■'-
lT a term of THE APPELLATE £OURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the ^seventh day of April,
I
in the year of our Lord one thousand ninfe hundred and fourteen,
within and for the Second District of Ithe State of Illinois:
Present --The Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Presiding Justice.
Hon. DORRANCE D I BELL, Justifce.
Hon. CHARLES WHITNEY, Justice.
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Cleft.
J. G. MISCHKE, Sheriff.
/ 188 I .A. 6
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: en the 51st day
of July, A. D. 1914, the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
f ol lowing , to-wit:
18S I .A... 6
Commissioners of Highway!,
ve Appeal from Whiteside.
Drainage Commi-s loners .
Per Curiam. —'
The commissioners of high/ays 'own of Tanpioo
in Whiteside county filed an amended
Drainage Commissioners of D ' trict No. 3 of Tampioo
and Hifean Townships in Whiteside County for t of
mandamus to compel the Drainage Co 1 oners to se a
bridge ov ?r a drainage ditch where said ditch crosses a C3r-
tain highway and to levy an assessment therefor if necessary.
The respondents filed BT and plea6). A demur:
sustained to certain pleas and i sues were joined on
answer and the rest of the pleas, A j of 8
were heard and a mandamus was awarded pursuant to iyer
mded petition. This is an appeal Y>; indents
from said judgment*
At the October Terml913 we considered this oase cided
it by a majority vote. The preparation of the opinior
; le ajority was a signed to Mr, Presiding Juatioe Whitney
*ho Wrjs one of the majority, lis was af1 irds
ied on July 18, 1914, One of the remaining members of the
t fi of the opinion that the judgment should t ad
and the other that it should be reversed without
An o anion upon irite cannot be until after a
uooe-ssor to Judge Whitney - pointed, which p.tly
not be earlier than Octr nd until
of the court has had titre to con.^.i:3r said oausa o-
tion v.'ith his other duties. It is at to us
every arty may be defeated; if will not be sati - Lde
r\
I
?v
.
!
a b
I
■
tk
.
.
the judgment f this court "but will endeavor to secure a
final decision by the Rupr -me Court, ,T7e therefore conclude
that the interests of the parties "ill be est served by
avoiding fu ther delay in thia court by f farming
ment by a divided court. Binder v Langhorst, 139 111, A
493; P'. C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co, 144 111, App. 393, i II x
178, 184,
T. jnugment is therefore affi
STAT E OF ILL J NOIS, / ss
second district. i s>1' I, ( 'ii i: isn >rn 1:1: i '. 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, i><> hereby certify thai the foregoing is a true copy <•(' the opinion of the
v aid Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
Ik Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this thirty-first
day of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hun-
dred and fourteen.
Clerk of tht AppellaU Court.
/
/
, ''172- ,
Piled Dec. 27, 1913- j
T.U.Pox., I i^ fJ t{f
. ; ) County-
. . .,
II jat.
18$ LA. 11
on
the cftoo t
■hi] oom " ••- ' y , .f dur-
ing flO, . ..t r/a r«n r-
ocl ;* etinat nt on * a
•50-
Biw , .ice
on Auf^iat 12th, r;>io.# t °°
oti led * .! .
M in door a 1
. ivinc » 1
odly cars, It
«1 re J nt •■•
rvid
ra , '.a at
C.MT8 aqulp] J ;.;:.
5 th '.'*>.-
:* wue billed out Oe
loao on t 9 « is not in
u aoll . . la,
■
bualiv.-i on
nt.
It i
m
lle'> had noi:: %i ~z-:
was no In boryard at ; i , but i
have a prct*r'".! LLls
No such duty involved 8
lent to .' rr. iah cur a suitublo he o
1. It io obvious not be
in cure r«« ■ leaa con-iict
in rd to .' - ;ee
ooro, l>ut It ry to rooonclino thin and ite verdaot
on ifcatly
int io ivlAc. -ivinc l ' •-• ~*
*ion. Thit , au -, fixes appellee's
»at "-"" o° ^ "-ny* *' artcet | ...r^,
of auc *±££saaauacf. xx :wyx hnJutaxa xtat rsodacft jocxbx
v t . | ana tha riurkot
pri.- .'vlly futti eftfc*4*a
• Lvon Inst root ion noos tiv
of dan-'ves, .... Ua nr
nouno^a tour* of :,
n confined bo that prevail inn
laot hi: to
■ai-'ed and the dano^ea
it was ttc ;»Ily
, vi.',., . Bt« . j.o
to a} : ' liant .
DM - daty i
to furnish fl r equipped »sth --in
* -\ . .tons
second -
and in r fusing * :is.
circuit court i ad*
At iiri
V*
v
^
/ ■
:
. ITo. 6087. Oot.ob- i i- /
Filed Mas :-, /-914--
Thc People of the State of Illinois,
Defendant in Hrror-
VS, » i -V Court of
Charloa Carter., /Ch
I iff in Hrror»
1, " .J. ■** (
ItJin states j -ounty riled -n inforriati%
of twenty c\unts in the county eou?-t elwrcing Charles Carton
eelling into^Loatirv: liquor in ,' ■ of Champaign in oaid county
tho aanc\waa anti-caloon territory. There wai ■• a
jury ;md the defendant y-ia.9 found r/ilty on Lr«t t -elve
counts, i otiona • ~ . . In r.rreat of $u gment were
ovorrul^i and a JudRMiwit Lvpotfing a fine and i.r •) riooment was duly
fedoon said verdict. The defendant haa aued out a writ
to roviow t}ir.t Judgment.
r t' e plaintiff in error had lty
ho entered a notion ,-ule on ;<ar-
tioulara imci in support i tion filed an affidavit
had a conplote defenoe to the oa8e on the •
bio to pro; ut a hill of p rticxilars.
The co;: tiled the lotion aoinna er-
ror on t!iat ruling. Tho only oe hetwo n the various counts
is in the date on ha sales art
The date allngod la in n
tho v^oof e-iod of the ntatute of
limitation, ndant I xr.d to a bill of particulars
as - of right (People vo. Poindexter, 2*3 111., 68)., but
when it 9 t oannet
pare hia defenoe v rtioulara ttornpy
o}' T.iah or. . ' of
ill of ■■ ■ articular a I Lsorotion •
(People vo. Kail, 2'-2 111., 284 1 , in, :!00 111. 1:7).
i
In this case the affidavit stated tliat the defendant was not ~i 11-
ty and t)iat he could not prej>are hi 8 defence without a b
ticulara. Tlie law proaumoB the 6 t is innocent bofo-e the
trial, and he was "before entering on the trial, entitled to some in-
formation ao to KTg99 ar-'iinst him that he might pr-^'arexlaopc
hie defence.
The reoord shows that "among other" ue. tions, aaked a jure
hla preliminary examination, one informs d him that the I umea
that the defendant is not nuilty v ■■. time the jury arriver
a verdict an then uskod the juror, "will you do that"T It is in-
aiated that the court erred in sustaining an objection to the que a*
tion. The qu stlon ia inf'.rrial as it is the presumption of innocence
ith which the law clotliea or accompanies a do fen-ant until verdict
That is the only question in the record tluit w ,s asked the juror
and the record doos not show but that the question had been ans-
wered by the juror in reply to other questions, on hie axaminatieai,
hence it ooea not appear that the ruling was erroneous.
It is Inaisted that the prosecution did not rove that the Torn
oi
Champaign was anti-saloon territory. The pe pie introduced in evi-
dence the record kept by the clerk of the Town • f Cham] .ign ahoi inc
at at the tovmohip election held in the Spring of 1908, the que8%*
tion ahall thi 'en become anti-saloon territory was voted upon.
The reoord cives the number of votes case for an I against the propo-
sition and shows that there was a majority of five in favor of the
town becoming anti-saloon territory. In 1910, in 1912, ohe
nation ahal the tovro continue to be anti-saloon territory was
voted upon. The reoord shows the r of vote8 caat in oach pre-
cinot on the proposition submitted and that in 1910, there was a
majority of 357 votes in favor o tovm remaining anti-saloon
territory, and that in 1912, there waa a majority of <79 vo.es in
favor of the to n redlining anti-saloon territory. The returns in
the poll book! of tlie different precincts v/er also of La vi-
denoe and verify tlie aoouracy of the record made by the cl^rk.
I
The evidence ahowa "beyond a doubt t)iut the tonn of .s onti
aa. con territory at the 'lino all ned in the information*
'.no a a who nine a transfer bueineai ,
had nitlier delivered i.- to the * of buaineoo
nor rtocn Livered there wai & to testify over ohjec
tlon that hie driver !vad delivered Ivvra cjitb
evidence
plaoe of ' ninoas. Thia lv/&b what hie driver
Tim ohjootleB n sustained to k±x thio evidence, t:ince
it v/aa hear Bay.
T>ic defendant in error riade proof concerning the acta of the
plaintiff in orro* by tt/o detcctivea ^iong. '. : r Arm*
8trong testified t]iat he boccine a detective 1] raiber, 1 .
The plaintiff in error in croa8 examination sought to Show
the witnoa8 had maidod end what had been hie occupation he
beoatie a detective lied that he hz. -oacher cjad
lace of roiidenoo ae far bttck aa i . ;'.-, to court sustained
objection; to farther croee examination ho had lived
and '"hat liad be?n his occupation. The c^oaa '.lie
witness in that line wae a rr.ttor rafcc tthin
tion of the court.
itneaa ill testified thai he had only boon in Q
paign week "■ • : trial( nothing further-
crooa-o a iiv.it ion " Ltnei .^ajv/ored that * iaed
money for teetifyinc in the cauo. Ho waa then a not
been of '"red $100. ;\nd riore Cor teatlttying in t)* caae if tl« defen-
dant true convicted. An pbjootion to otion v;aa i d.
The witnoase had not testified to an; thing in the cues and t]
wao no or-or In ou staining the Lou,
T)ie defendant did not testify in Sow his own : but in
nt to 'Ate jury, oouneel for •." 1 * old
Haiurtioc "Garter hao ia innucrnoe If he wonta .
Thia wae an in :i~oot reference to the ? I int
had t" to KHHllftr '-stify In hie own »M uct
rt of counael la un, r occasional end . rejudi< I 1.
v . feople, 216 111. 507.
I
«/--
Plaintiff in error contends court erred in giving the
1 »e ninth and tenth instructions. Tim nintn io a copy oT hat
ladcjt part of Section 1? of the Local Option Act ' dcribos the
effect of the lsauane 1 revenuo gpeolal p.
The tenth Informs the jury in evidence is evidence euf
fioient to establish a loan that uco is rebutted* It is
not error to ive an instruction in the langu ■ te.
)onk Broe, Coal and Col:c Co., v . :,on, 192 111, 41.
ly tell the jury the meaning ot 0 Jie prhaee 3 riraa
facie evidence*
fourteenth .fteonth instructions fiver. .1 eat
of ci i ■ . or refer to the detective a who liad testified in
the o?iee and then tell the Jury that they should not "be
to the nrttent of -iobelioving such witnesses simply on account of
ouoh f.txjto". Instructions are erroneous and euhjeot to cit-
iciom 'or the reaoon they arc argil re for to an<
the attention a of j>urtlcular witnesr.ee.
1« vs. YThalen, 1 -1 111., App# 16). The nineteenth inntruction
fiver: meat of plaintiff in error r^forts to the evi
the detectives find is vicious in that it telle the ury
evidence of private detective 3 slu
tion. le vs. Oardt, 2^8 111. 466; Hronek v , ople, 134 111.,
139; *s, "Win-ld, 260 111., 196.
S court t -ivc t)ie following in- ^-ruction asked by
plaintiff in error. "Tho jury ore instructed as follows}*
7 in a cri: ae re, by thee statute of II inois,
made of the 1 videnco; rjid xmder these statures it is
the duty of the jury,
the instructions wfl« of the court, to-act ,
ade'ordinc te heir best judgment of such law and such f.cto.w
Shis in ruoti,.r nded
by Die statute Hoc. ^31
modified it hy adding t)ie judicial limitation ;?«n
to that section, "if t}» , ry can say upon th u that
1 law better than the court". (Juritioh . 'ojle, L'23 I Ll.
4-84.) but- it w?,o error inntruction. rrori
pointed out the it la rarovwd and the cauo» renin •
Koveraod and Refunded.
V
Q
c
0"
-
Gen. ilo. bl23. October Term, 1913- / Ag.
Filed May 5, 19]/-
E, L.Scott and TS.E. Gaumer,
Appellants.,
VS. ; Appeal trim Edgar.
J. Ogcien O'Hair.,
Appellee-
18J8I.A. 26
Thompson, P.J.
This is an action in assumpsit kgn begun by plaintiffs
against the defendant to recover cojRniSiJions for services claimed
to have been performed for the defendant by plaintiffs as real es-
tate agents. The declaration consists of the coaaon counts v.ith.
which the plaintiffs Yiled a oi^ of particulars:- "To coil is ions
in assisting in the eacYiange at) 1 nds of defendant in Edgar County,
Illinois, for the lands In the/ State of Arkansas, and caBh $2,500",
The jury ret rned a verdict for plaintiffs fox %50. on vhich judg-
ment was rendered and plaintiffs appeal.
The only question seriously argued on behalf sf appel-
lants is that bhs verdict is contrary to the weight o:" the evidence
The evidence shows that appell ants are real estate
agents dealing in lands in M 3sissippi ^nd Arkansas, with .n of ice
in Paris, Illinois. Appellants acted with a !rr. Trice, of W.lf.
Price & Co., who are real estate agents in Stuttp-art, Arkansas. The
appellee resided oji a farm of 331 acres, ten uiles south west of
Paris, Illinois. In the Spring of 1911, Scott, one of appellants,
requested appellee to go to Arkansas to 1 ok at lands that appellants
had for sale .nd proposedto pay appellee's railroad fc-re and other
I I nssl if lie would tiike the trip. Appellee accepted the offer and
went to look at the land Scott had for sale but did not buy the land
There were several conversations b twees the parties at
time in which appellants sought to sell land in the south to ap-
pellee, in December, 1912, appellant! with one Burton, a brot]
in-law of Scott, and who also was a real estate agent with
1
! t
b in tfrhonn it in Arkansas Ian , l-
leo's roaidenee and solicit o to Arkansas
o rnc • not desire . . " nn
' 'razior, in am nelghfe** of p Ila • :.,
• liia o;qiona©8 i luld o to Arkansas
in. "Taaic: o,
days thereafter Scott went with an automobile raz»
i r, kanoas ;.t the
P ice londSj ' ioh xxkji did not sul
.llee 731 i-orns Bflu A. ir re-
turn to Illinois, b© appel-
ate ."or -ince of ■■ ;. • lie » b
farm 'or the O.veen I , • ah.
oe ten - h
00 of south we: k •
not working 1 stifled and
ellanta tits.
le in Arkansas, 11 rut:, on would him if *.
they made a 1, at no, that d cot from
Price, ould p y .iiicsion had to be
paid, r'cott ^t Stuffy; rt, b -fore this and or. appelle • b
■B bo Tliinoie, ee with Frasier «nt immediately it
er»n -id adoot tabs asked him if a trade ,her
pest compensation Led| "no not un-
leB:> . mind to ivo it to us". 3 -ver is denied by
.0 oaye -ulf charge the customary corrr ie-
slon. Thie i.i ;onied by . vi dene ft that
Scot ; , $200, llee
Lfa to oleu t - •■ inc
la noe a^op tends very otrencly
cuntr ct was oi -
ed, inc in the irttereat \es
Lee. If thay inc in the intrre. I
Arkansas j'.-l.ins n Jbot n i-
tled to recovf! llee.
*pp6Erasfbs ■ argue that they are cither entitled to a two per
cent commission on the amount involved or they are not entitled
to anything.
-3-
There is evidence In the case on the part of appellants that
the trade for some reason fell thBOugh, and after that Scott stated
that he was 3orry it idn't go through as he was out considerable
for expanses and appellee replied that he would pay something on it
some day. The jury may have awarded the amount of the verdict for
expenses incurred, A new trial for inadequacy of damages will not
be allowed on the moo ion of the prevailing party when, in the judg-
ment of the court, the ver.iict should have been against him.Iov t
vs. City of Chicago, 35 111. App. 570; O'Halley vs.. Chicago City
Ry. Co., 30 111., App. 309; 29 C.Y.C. 84-7; Hot€ to Toledo P.. & L.
Co., vs. Trason, 28 L.R.A. (U.S.) 130. If lie trial judge had not
believed that the appellants wore not entitidcl to recover und^r tho
evidence he would have granted a new trial and we cannot say
erred in refusing a now trial.
Appellants state that the court erred in giving the fifth and
eighth instructions given at the request of the appellee for the
reason there is no evidence in bhe record on which to "base them.
These ins '.ructions in effect told the jury that if they believed
from the evidenced that appellants were acting as the agents o the
Arkansas parties in procuring an exc>iange of real estate without
disclosing that fact tonappellee then appellants were not entitled ti
recover. The preponderance of the evidence tends to show that appel-
lants primarily were endeavoring to sell Arkansas land to a] \ ellee
and the trade of appellee1 eland was only an incident to the sale of
the Arkansas land. There was no error in the instructions. Finding
no error in the case the judgment is affined.
Affirmed-
Mr. Justice Schol'inld took no part in the jfeciBiL. case.
jecii
V
Co
%
\
Gen. Ho. 6131 October Term, 1913. / Ag. 35
■' " / ^ ~~
A eal from |[ontgomery
John Trice , Appellee
vs .
The Clover Leaf Coal Mining
Company, Appellant,
IgWlJV. 27
Opinion by Thompson, ?• J.
Appellee recovered a judgment of $1,600 for rersonal
I
injuries, which he sustained on June 2£jf, 1912, while working as
\
a coal miner in the mine Of a. nellant
(" The declaration contains/ three counts. The first
count avers the enactment o\f the Compensation Act a p. -.roved June
10, 1911; that the appellant;, had el/cted not to orovide and oay
/ /
compensation according- to the\ provisions of said act, and that
appellant thereby was deprived'ei? the com ion law defence of
assumed risk, fellow servant and contributory negligence, except
that contributory negligence of an employe shall be considered
in reduction of damages; that the ^app-eHee had electad'to accept
the provisions of said act which entiled him to recover for the
injuries sustained; that while the appellee was engaged as a
miner in a certain cross cut between certain rooms, a large piece
of slate, which had been hanging in the roof for to-wit a week,
the condition of which was or by the exercise of ordina y ere
would have been known to appellant, without warning fell upon and
injured appellee, etc.
The second count contains the further averment that
it was the duty of appellant to xise reasonable oare to furnish
the appellee a safe place to work, but that disregarding its duty
it negligently caused appellee to work in said cross out, whioh
was not a reasonably safe plaoe as there was a large, loose and
dangerous rock hanging over here appellee -passed and was employed
the condition of which, by the exercise of due care, was or could
have been known to appellant.
-2-
I
The third count avora that appellant was operating a
ooal mine and in said ooal mine was a oertaln cross out whoro
■ ellee wa3 require* to pass and work. It pleads the .roviaions
of Ceotion 21, of . r: lot of 1911/ concerning r.ino
A
examiners and avora that in 8&ld er03:; cut, where ■ i lice was
required to work, won a danforouo roof and that the inc <xamincr
wilfully filled to | laoe a oonapioioun raor thereat and failed to
t ke up appellee's entrance choolc, and permitted appellee to mtor
the mine and to «ork durine- regular '.vorkinf hours under sold
danrerous roof, and while a- '*lloc was oo employed said dangerous
rock fell on him etc, A demurrer which Is general and ipc ial
waa overruled after which a pel Ian t filed a plea of not puilty.
The ap ollant moved for a tile on fcppellee to elect
on v/hloh count he would rely for a recovery , this ration was
ovorruled. At the close of the evidence appollee requested the
court to ivo in tractions directing the Jury to find the defendant
not puLlty on each count, These wore rofuaod.
The appellant han assigned for error and contends that
the court orroi (1) in ov< r lint* the demurrer, (2) in refusing
to require appellor to elect on which counts he would ask a
4
recovery, (;3) in refusing to diroot a vrrdict of not puilty,
(4) that the judgment io contrary to th<. > vidSnce and excen?lve,
and (6) in the pivin of certain instructions.
— The demurrer for special ataton with other
that the Compensation At is unconstitutional and invalid,
and that it is no' averred *hat the a < llr-c ~ave no: ice that he
had elected to accopt the rov"aioju* of 61 ot.
-^The rule La well settled in thio sf t Where a
party to on aotlon denireo to have an order of thr oourt
:'ulinpr a d' nurrer, reviewed in a hi -her court he ;iuat ur>ide
by the demurrer. By pleading ever t war is walvr .
Heimberpor v^. :illot EHrltah -o . .' .448; C. S> A. ". . 0o«
v . | , 173 111. 100, lite*, ven If tl rer
■2-
-3-
had not been waived by pleading over, the appellate court is
without jurisdiction or authority to pass on constitutional questions
and the appellant by appealing to this court and submitting ihe cause
on errors assigned, over some of which this court has jurisdiction,
has waived all constitutional questions. Luken vs. L. S. & M. S.Ry.
Co. 248 111.377; ?. C. C. & St.L.Ry.Co. vs. Chicago, 242 111.178;
People vs. Maushalter, 149 Ill.App.399. For the foregoing reasons,
the major part of appellants brief and argument should have been
addressed to the Supreme Court on an appeal to that court.
Regarding the contention that the court refused to require
the appellee to elect on which counts of the declaration ho would
ask a recovery, neither the motion, the ruling of the court, nor
any exception thereto are preserved in the bill of exceptions.
Section 81 of the Practice Act provides that a formal exception
is not necessary to save for review any question submitted to the
court for a ruling thereon during the progress of any trial.
This provision of the statute has no application to motions made
preliminary to the trial such as motions for a continuance, or the
motion in this case to require the appellee to elect; rulings
on motions preliminary to a trial, which are not a part of a common
law record proper, must be preserved by a bill of exceptions.
C . & E. I. R. R. Co. vs.Goyette, 133 111.21. Appellant contends
that there was a misjoinder of cause of action in the several
counts of the declaration. If the ruling of the court on the motion
to require an election by appellee had been properly preserved
for review, still there was no error in the ruling for the reason
that all the counts were based on the same state of facts.
If appellant is liable to appellee in a suit at law either under
Section 21 of the Miners Act or in an aotion at law as modified
by other provisions of the statute, the appellee should not be
required to bring separate actions based on the Bame facts. Marquette
Coal Co. vs. Diele, 208 111. 116.
-4-
The evidence shows that the appellee was a miner fifty-two
years of age working for appellant in a cross cut between two
rooms loading coal into pit cars and earning three dollars per day;
that on April 25, 1912, while at work, a rock about six feet by
twelve and six inches thick, fell from the roof over where appellee
was working, striking him and breaking both bones in his right leg
below the knee, tearing the ligaments loose on the inner side of the
left ankle and injuring his back. Appellee v/as treated by a physio ian
about two months; the physician's bill for treating him was #100.
Appellee was confined to his becl about two months while under the
care of the physician, and to his home about three months; he
used crutches until March 1915, and at the time of the trial in
April, 1913, was still suffering from the injuries.
The evidence further shows that appellant had declined to
accept the provisions of the Compensation Act, and appellee
testified that he had neither sent any notice to the Bureau of State
Labor Statistics nor given a notice of any kind to his employer
that he would not accept the provisions of the act.
The testimony of the mine examiner is that he examined
the roof of this cross entry the night before the morning of the
accident and found it sound and safe; that he marked with chalk on
the roof of the cross entry the time of the examination, and before
the men went to work in the morning made a record of his examination
of the mine but no record concerning this particular entry in the
book kept for that purpose outside the engine house, where the
men in passing to work could examine it. There is no evidence
tending to show that the appellee sounded and examined the roof of
his working place before commencing work the day he was injured,
but he testified that before starting to work he saw the chalk mark
made by the mine examiner the proceeding nipht.
It is argued that the court erred in refusing to direct
a verdict for the appellant upon each count of the declaration.
The first count avers that appellee, an employe of appellant.
-5-
in its coal mine was injured in the course of his employment by
a rock falling upon him and pleads the Compensation Act of 1911,
the provisions of which appellant had refused to accept and
thereby had waived the defences of assumed risk, fellow servant
and contributory negligenoe, except that contributory negligence
shall be considered in reducing the amount of damages. This count
neither avers any duty due from appellant to appellee nor that
appellant failed to perform any duty it owed to appellee; it avers
neither negligence nor carelessness on the part of appellant. The
averment simply is that appellee was injured in the service of
appellant by a rock falling upon him. It would have been a good count
under the compensation act, if appellant had not elected not to pay
compensation as therein provided. The court should have given the
peremptory instruction as to the first count.
The second count contains the averments of the first
count with the further averment that appellant was negligent in
causing appellee to work in said cross cut which was not a reasonably
safe place to work, in that there was a dangerous rock which was,
or with due oare would have been known to appellant.
Under the provisions of the act, if the employer has
elected not to accept its provisions and pay the compensation
therein provided to an employe who has elected to accet the
provisions of the act, then the employer "shall not escape liability
for injuries sustained by such employe arisinp out of and in the
course of his employment," because of the common law defences of
assumed risk, negligence of a fellow servant or contributory
negLi"-ence of the employe proximately causing the injury.
The statute also contains a provision that in the event
the employer eleots to pay compensation as provided in the act — that
is has not refused to accept its provisions — then every employe
under such employer shall be deemed to have accepted and be bound
by its provisions, unless the employe shall file a notice with th
-6-
State Bureau of Labor Statistics that he elects not to accept its
provisions, in which event the employer shall not be deprived of
any of his common law or statutory defences, Ih« provisions of the
act are automatically accepted by both parties, by the employer
not filing an election declaring his refusal to accept its
provisions.
The act does not contain any further provision as to
the effect, where the employer has filed an election not to
accept its provisions and the employe has accepted its provisions
by not filing an election not to accept it.
Section 10 of the act provides that "Any question of
law or fact arising in regard to the application of this law
shall be determined either by agreement of the parties or by
arbitration as herein provided." It then provides that in case
or disagreement each party shall elect an arbitrator, and the
judge of the county court or other court of competent jurisdiction
shall appoint the third, and for the procedure by such board of
arbitrators and for an appeal from its decision. It is manifest
that if either of the parties has elected not to accept its
provisions there can be no arbitration on behalf of a party or
against a party who has refused to accept the provisions of the act.
The third section of the act is concerning the
employe's right to recover damages and provides that "no common
law or statutory right to recover damages for injury or death
sustained by any employe while engaged in the line of his duty
as such employe other than the compensation herein provided shall
be available to any employe who has accepted the provisions of this
act." provided if the k injury was caused by the intentional
omission of the employer, to comply with stat tory safety regulations
nothing in this act shall affect the civil liability of the employer.
'tVe conclude that the provisions of section three and ten can only
apply to oases where both parties have accepted the provisions of
the act, and that where the employer has refused to accept its
provisions, he thereby waives his defences of as.suuB d risk, fellow
r
-7-
servant and contributory negligence, and that the right to maintain
a suit a law remains to an employe, who h s not refused to accept
its provisions, for anyin juries received by him but freed from
said defences, if it is averred that the injuries were caused
by the negligence of the employer and the evidence sustains the
declaration subject only to the provision that contributory negligence
shall be considered by the jury in reducing the amount of damages.
The evidence is that the coal had been blasted down
several days, and that there had been no shot firing in that part
of the mine for three or four days . There was but one mine examiner
to examine the entries, roadways, cross cuts, passageways and about
sixty rooms. This work he did between nine o'clock in the evening
and four-thirty the next morning; the rock fell from the roof
injuring appellee about ten o'clock the next morning. The evidence
of the examiner showed his method of examination and the extent of
it. It was a questinh for the jury to say from all the evidence
and circumstances in evidence whether the examination was of the
thorough kind contemplated by the statute or merely perfunctory
and whether the roof at that time was safe or was in fact dangerous,
Olson vs. Kelly Coal C0. 236 111.502; Aetitus vs .Spring Valley
Coal Co. 246 111.32. There was evidence tending to prove each
count and there was no error in refusing to give the peremptory
instructions asked as to the second and third counts.
The first instruction riven at the request of appellee,
in part is: "If the jury find that the evidence bearing upon the
plaintiff's case as alleged in his declaratioh, or in either count
thereof, preponderates in his favor although but slightly, it will
be sufficient to varrant the jury in finding issues for the plaintiff."
The second iH:-"The Court instructs the jury that
Section 1 of 'An Act to promote the general welfare of the jeoi>]e
of this state, by providing compensation for accidental injuries
or death suffered in the course of employment', approved June 10,1911,
in force Hay 1, 1912, 'Provides that any employer covered by the
provisions of this act in this state may eleot to provide and
pay compensation for injuries sustained by any employee arising
out of and in the course of the employment according to the
provisions of this act, and thereby relieve himself from any
liability for the recovery of damages, except as herein provided.
If, however, any such employer shall elect not to provide and pay
the compensation to any employee who has elected to accept the
provisions of this Act, according to the provisions of this Act,
he shall not escape liability for injuries sustained by such
employee arising out of and in the course of his employment because
(1), the employee assumed the risks of the employer's business;
(2), the injury or death was caused in whole or in part by the
negligence of a fellow servant; (5), the injury or death was
proximately caused by the contributory negligence of the employee
but such negligence shall be considered by the jury in reducing
the amount of damages."
She fourth instruction is a literal quotation of
paragraph (b) of Section 21 of the Mines and Miners Aot.
It is contended that the riving of the second and
fourth instructions was error for the reason no reference is
made therein to the evidence, and that there are some portions
thereof not applicable to the case.
Neither the second nor fourth instruction directs
a verdict or is peremptory in form. It was said in Donk Bros. Coal
& Coke Co. vs. Pet on, 192 111.41, where the same objection was
made, "The instruction was coached in almost the exact langu e
of the statute and where an instruction is given in the language
of the statute, it must be regarded as sufficient because laying
down the law in the words of the law itself ought not to be
pronounced error." In Mertens vs Southern Coal Co. 235 111.545,
It was said, "The first instruction offered on behalf of appellee
sets forth all the duties of the mine examiner specified in
Section 18 of the Mines and Miners Act, while the evidence only
•
-9-
ahowed a violation of certaion provisions of said section." The
court held the instruction proper and that there v/as no error in
giving it. The firstninst ruction requested by appellee was clearly
erroneous, for the reason that the first count was proved by
simply showing that appellee was injured in the service of appellant
in the course of his employment, irrespective of whether appellant
was negligent in any way. All that part of the second instruction
preceding the portion that tells the jury the penalties imposed
on an employer for refusing to accept the compensation act was
misleading in informing the jury that an employee has the right to
recover for any injury received in the coirse of his employment
under the compensation act, the giving of the second e instruction
was reversible error while the first count remained in the case
for the consideration of the jury. Concerning the fourth instruction
while parts of it had no application to the case, it was not
misleading and there was no error in giving it.
The propriety of some other instructions is
questioned but we find no reversible error in then, and we do not
deem it necessary to discuss them at length.
The ju Igment is reversed for the errors
indicated and the oause remanded.
Reversed and Remanded.
^
r^
- ^
/ ■
/2- ■
Gen. rTo. 6137 October *er . . 38
Piled May |, 1914-
John ;:• Jonoa, Appellee, )
va« I Appeal fron Chi
An ust Inks , A ope llant , )
0 ini horapson, .J. 1 O O/JL.rl* 4: O
A udfciaent by con/ or £,735^.07 v ovember
£7, 191£f entered in vacation in tho office/ of tho circuit clerk
of Champa gn county on <jxr. uted bj
MlnTra. The notes were all myable to John I". Jonc tod
1, 1911:; three of the not™ are for i Mipal sura of v300
eaoh; two art 700 each and one is for #118*81a At ho folio
January term of court, on - ant tho judgment
, nd leavo flvon th- defer, lans to lead fee feha tool r tion.
The defend ant filed four plea* of failure of consideration i
the defendant in hi i argonaut states are lm aterial to feh is.-uea
before this o:;urt. 7 on a trial before a Jury, after the defend
had practically closed hta evidenoe, he obtained leavo to file
two additional 1 . first additional plea avers a failure
cone ideration as to all th< * ; . feh V7hic!
tho aura of $U8«81a The second additional ilea avers a failure of
oonsider-'-fci n aa to ,1,700, the art of the uotos v? Le ven
for the tirchaae of a gaaoline tractor. At the close of defendant' a
evidence the oo..rt excluded it and instructed the ^ury to find a
verdiot in favor of tho plaintiff for the full amount of all
notes.
on an ordor '.van entered v order o
up the , ' or rdered that th< orl Lnal
J ant re a in in full foroe. The defendant appeals.
only r.uent iono m this r the
tnlnr of an objection to oortni : evi *cd by defondnnt
and tho giving of t> .tory instruction.
that np ollee Jonon is a lo rvootcr
iny t uowey, li. . innt fe
livln- about three ,Llos ' . arch 191 , apenta of
<
-2-
the International Harvoster wompany.named Hewman and Lynoh, called
upon appellant to sell him a gaaollu tractor and plow. Appellant
had an very 22 orno >ower steam truction engine and shortly before
that tl o had entered Into a oontr- ct with another eomoany for e
gasoline tractor. She evidence further is that the agent a of the
Harvester c orap ny in-.'uoed appellant to cancel the contract with the
other oorapany arid repronented to him that the Inter, tio. 1 no
t root or was a 45 hor3e power engine and had the sane iowor as a 26
horae pavaf stoara onino; that it used a gallon of gasoline ,er horse
power per day of ton houra; that it would iull ei ht .lows ..lowing
ten inches deep and 7;a3 btter than, a ateom engine for running' a
threshing machine Appellant wont to C&ioago with "owman to the
plant of the Harvester Goapeap ncl was shown one of the onrinos.
A few days thereafter, Newman acting for the com. nyt a oontroot
wa3 sirned at ewey for the purchase of a trot or and plow. The
prioo of the tr otor m ^2,700* In the tr na otlon the Aver.
traction engine mm taken by the rarvoater Com-; any at vl,000 and
notes to the amount of i* 1,700 were given for the balance on the
tr ctor> the- other notes wojx given for the plow nd other things
purchased* i'ho order for the machinery dlreots that it be "consigned
to a c n of . . Joiie I, a: ent at Dewey." She tractor was
delivered by the vendor to appellant at hia form and tho notes were
rivon at Jonon nlaoe of business where he waa shown the cont1
and waa anlred by lowman if it was al right to take the notes in
his name and upon hio roplyinf- that it waaa they were ao taken.
Jonon never v a nonted or demanded pap cnt of the notes from appellant
and bo ore tho suit wan bf owman, tative of the
Harvontor ^om any, ^".lled upon a pollant and fioivnded uyment of
the noteo. rJnder nuch Lt wool .-ear that Jones
waa the trustee for the 'arvo;jtor oomiany and having notioe of the
oontroot ho we a in aoaat urc' aoer*
contract for the i*irohaae o otor is in writ
nna oontalM a 1 at urohaes the samo "aubjoot
to oli >ondltlono of afreeaent and aaroantp rinted on the \ aok
of thlo order and made a part hereof"* She warranty haa several
-3-
lengthy and involved conditions attached to it and rovidos among
other thing. -
"XHTniATif- CCA (Incorporated)
hereby warranto said thresher, attuoh-aents and angina to be well
made, o ood material, and durable with propa oaro, and to do
good v/ork if properly operated by com e:ionn, with 3uffi<
power, and the printed rule a and directions of tho nanrnfaotamx1
intelligently followed. If, after three days1 trial by tho arohaaer
said property shall fail to fulfill the warranty, written not loo
thereof a'nall at onoo bo riven to 3oid company at Harvester building
-hicego, Illinoi.;, and also to ent through who iae was
purohoaed, stating wherein it fells to fulfill the warranty, and
re 3onaMe tiiso shall be allowed said com; any to send a ooraprtent
man to remody tho difficulty, the ;urchaoor rendering necessary
and friendly aviatanoe. : aid con any reserves tho ri vht to replace
any defective ports, and, if then the machinery o ixiot be iade to
fulfill tho warranty, tho art that f-ila is to be returned by the
purchaser, free of charge to the lace where received and the
company ratified thereof, and, at- the company's option, another
aub titued therefor that nhall fill the warranty, or the notoa and
money for inch art immadlataly returned, or the amount credited
on the notes that have boon r-ivoa, and no further ::laim ahall bo
made on aaid company*
I'ailure to make ouch trial, or to ix-o notice as
conclusive
herein rrovidod, shall t,e evidence of the fulfillment of
nty, • :i >ie com any fttall b( re lea -11 llobi?.
and "thpt no representations made by any peraon as an in
to ivo and execute the within order ahall hi nil the con any . -^d
"This ox ress warranty exoludea all implied warranties * *".
ellant uontonda and by hia pleaa avoro that the
agents of tho Harvester Com;' ny fr -tly and deceitfully aiado
the follow inr untruthful re na to bin na an in ooeaent
to him to urc aae its traotor. (1) 5hat ho u -koo and maintenance
of tho traotor wan lens than t - ■ steam
en ine of like over; (. | .root or wo Id do
same work a steam tractor would do fully as satisfactorily and at
less oo:rt; (8) that the p-aaolLiio onrino was more easily handled than
a otoara engine; (4) thrt the warioline traotor would op f rate on a
pall on of paaoline per horse powor per day of ten hours; (6) that
thr praaollno traotor t;ould pull eight plows oon inches
deep and would also pull a har-ow and drap after it, and (.;) that
the gasoline traotor would oporate a sholler and separator as
Batlnfactorily as would a steam traction online.
*he ploas are in the nature of a plea of fraud and doooit in
that appellant waa in meed to exe-'uto the contract by false and
fraudulent representations an to the nature and value of tho
tractor but do not aver that the untruthful re; re o. Lations were
knowinply made. xhe nleas woro not do ;urred to and the trial
proceeded as if iSMies were joined on them. In Allen vs. Hart,
7L .11.104, it U Paid: "Rut it la not indispensable to tho rirht
to rescind, the party guilty of makin- the misrepresentation knew it
to be false, or whethor he was if nor> nt of the fact sated irovidod
it was material, and the other party had a ri^ht to rely upon it,
did so and was deoeivei. x x x."
The appellee's contention is that the contract of warranty
is in writ In- and that bee use it provided that tho express warranty
excludes sll implied warr at lee, end thet no representations made
by any person as an induoenent to o ecu to the oontr: ct shall bind
the comnany end that theietvfeve the contract havin boon re
to writ in*-, no oraL evidence coal" be o " • oaourred
irior to the riafclnp of the contract.
Tho m It rocover on notes Lvoa for th<
ordered under the contract a ;d not n on tho > tract.
ogotiable Instrument Act Mit i tent to at
the defendant was induced to exooute the I and
fraudulent representations, aj that la • ie of al
failure of consideration * and for thin ur ose it any bo
ebown thnt the oonsldorntio i expressed In the in I
)
-5-
the real consider t ion which iniuoed its execution but that it
was in fact entirely different. Q. ... Ins. Co. vs. Sees, 29 111.: 72.
In that case speaking of the statute referred to, and admitting
parol evidence to explain the consideration it wan 3aid; 'it iB
i possible that this statute can be made effective in any other way
than by receiving such proofs ; and in receiving them the old ru]e
that written contraots cannot be varied by parol, becomes, in all
snoh cases ineffective'." Gage vs .Lewis, 68 111.6 4; "hite
vs. Wat kins, 23 111.482; Taft vs. I^yerscough, 197 II ] 600. "If a
person makes a distinct assertion of the quality or condition of
the article sold, whether it amounts to a warranty or not, which he
knows or should know is true with a view to induce anothor to buy
and the other relies on and believes the assertion to be true, and
relyinp thereon purchases, and damages ensue he may maintain an *
notion for deceit." Huff vs.Jarrett, 94 111.475; Thome vs .Prentiss,
8. 111.99. •'•'he ealstenoe of an express written warranty doe3 not
exclude a defence based on fraudulent raisre present at ions inducing
the sale Gage vs.Lewis, 'Supra.); Taft vs. Ilyerscough (sunr );
Mayer vs. Dean, 115 IT, Y. 556; 35 C.Y.G380. The evidence shows that
the Harvester Company is the ru;nuf- cturer of the trrctor and sold
the tractor to appellant to be used for certain purposes. The
manufacturer of maohinery is presumed to know its cap' city and
adaptability for the purno^es for which it is sold. Iroquois
furnace Co. VS.Vilkisfl Lianuf. C0. 181 111. 582. *h« plea being
failure of consideration by reason of fra.;d and deoeit, parol
evidence to show the alleged fraud and deoeit waa properly admitted
and should not hrve been excluded.
She evidenoc tend3 to show thnt the tractor rated aa a
45 Vorse- i0 ;er en ine, did about the same arao nt o x>rk as an 18
horse power steam en U , would use a ton of coal a day costing
|S« per ton, while the gaaolinr tractor U3ed fr m 80 to 100 pr lions
of gasoline costing 15'' a gallon every ten hours; thrt it would
only pull six plov/3 plo In ive inohea deep in nlaoe of « irht
plows plowing ten inches dee and th t the engine constantly
cmt mit n-p n-prin-r tinA h«fl tin hrnim on it . The written contract
-6-
warrants the "engine to ibe well made of pood material, and durable
v;ith proper oare and to do pood :ork if proi orly operated by
com otent persons with sufficient oower * * "• The engine was
the pov.-er to operate the farrainr i plemonta. The warranty appears
to be very adroitly worded and avoids any mention of the power
or it3 economy in tho use of fuol, while the representations
mrde to induce its urchnse were that it waa a 46 horao power
engine; thnt it only used one gallon o gasoline per home power
for ten houra work end was better than a stean: online to o.-emte
a threading machine.
• hile the evidence that appellant dil uuoh work
with tho tractor between the time it waa delivered to him in May,
of the company
and November when he finally notified Jones the »gent_,that lie
would not keep it, yet it tends to show that tho tr- otor never
v/orked satisfactorily; that it did not have the power represented
by its manufacturer to induce its arehase and that it was
unrovemable with e threshing aaehine for want of a br ice.
Appellant kept comi .-lain in to the apents of the Harvester Company
that the traotor was ot accept? bl e and sen were sent at several
different tinea by the consny to try en" fix it, and tho evidence
Introduced by appellant ten1:; to show further that they never
suoceede in fttking it wor 0 lo fch< .ork it was repreaented
to do, The last ; an to try to fix Lt waa Joel aloney, who was
one o he employes of the oo rap any that delivered the traotor
to appellant and showed him ho. to riin i M a tor fair
time and took the online to pieeee* Re found that lt had to have
some new parts and did not rot it together e^ain for a v;. ,
after whioh it was still unsatisf otory and in the course of
three :r 'oixr days broke don. Appellant then refused to have
anything further to do with it and notified Jones that it was
at the Company's disposal at th4 1 ce where it had been
delivered to appellant. >e are of the opinion thet there wes
-7-
auffiolont evidence in auooort of the additional pleas to roquire
that it bo Biibraitted to a Jury. If thore was fraud in obtaining
the contract, then appellant had th. o rescind the contract
and return tho traotor on the d in co very of the fraud, and, if
the oontract wag rightfully rescinded, there was a failure of
oonaide v tlon for the notes to that extent.
Appellant was asked if he believed anl reliod on tho
representations concerning th< tractor, that he states wore
made to him by the r > sold it. i.nie agents were sales
itn of th Tlarvoster Uora>;>ony. The larvcster Company cainot
by insert inp: the olause in the contract, that no :tation
made by any :orson shall hind the oomj>any relieve itself of any
false ani fraudulent atatcnents, if any there we.o, made by its
epenta while in tht line of their duty. Ihe r,;lo is that a ;.arty
may testify vihether ho believed and relied on the alleged
false and fraudulent re re es/tfti na made. ;; v .avis,
Ill.App. 37; Haldormun v . chut, 109 Xll*App«£M«
**he Judgment is reversed a for
tho error i. '. r twy instruction.
Reverses and remanded.
r\s
I
. o. 614-6- Octobr , 1913- A/. !o# 4?~
Filed May 5, 1914-
Prank Whisjuji, Adnr.,
Appoll -
VS. ; A] i> al fron ):c#,oan.
a.H.Sn.il.,
Appell . ,
18 8 LfA. 6 1
Tho son, P.J,
This is a suit brought "by Prank Y/li/snan, administrator
of Laura B. ^hiaman, deceasdd, against B% ql™. Snail to recover dana-
i /
ges for the death of Laura R. Vhisnian, t^fe wife of ^.-.nk r0iianan,
averred to have been caus id by rial practice of t] ant. The
first oouht of the eclaration Wrero Jraat. the "fondant, a } j\-'sician,
braary 1J>, 1915 1 mm called to attend Laura W B, Vhlsnan in her
rat and tly infect- eceaoed the
delivery of a child vrith erysipelas and thereby caused the death of
the pattont. The aeoond count avers that the defendant not
rcise the 'b^tcc, 0f Care cor.unensur&te v/ith ilM standard of
medical skill in the vicinity of Leroy, sidence of
and did not r>ake as riany professional visits as the seriousness of
the ease reqxiired, an wilfully abandoned and refused to nive f-
treatment on February 21, 1913» <Hc. A trial resulted in a verdict
and judgment for plaintiff for |2,500., fr ih the defendant
.Is.
The evidence shows that ?"rs. \?hisman was delivered of a c ild,
at . farm house bhree and one }ialf miles fron LeP.oy, on t of
morning
February 15th, or early of ifcinday the l6th , and that Trs. Clarr .
Buckles was thn nurse who attended her and who called the physician
to attend the patient. The court sustained an objection a
lant testifying to a conversation between the pljyaician and the xx
nurse when the pliysicioi; .rrived at tlio house, h^ld in an
adjoining room to that oooupled by the patient and which oot
been 'leard by the patient, ind to ;. sonvori ' Ion
ioion and the patient the secon day bo ohi^d wae born and
in v/hioh lfrs.« Buokles too.: 3 .rt .rd - ig whioa !!re. Buckles
had ^d«
v"\
The question o t witness to
testify In her of these conversations ed
. m ">nds on whether >>ndt or
.graph fourth or* s otion 'nee /vet -"ondere hin c
t. id is:- "When, in ouch action,
ing, 11, in bnholf i
son or ■, oroono suing uod, in either ioe
i, testify to any converaation or transaction n ouch
nt and tho opposite party or party in int root, ^te
party or party in internet jtify concerning the some c r»
sation or transaction".
~aph fourth is:- "When , Ln >ny , pro-
oeedlng, any witness, not a party to the record, or n ..* in
Interest, or not an agent arson shall, in
of any party L, suit. Lng, tnstify to taiy
oonvcr.ution or odnlBBion by unyradvnree party or party in int t ,
eeourrin • death toad in Uxe absence
aon, uuch adverse party ^y in interest i
lesion or oomrnroatioaN
oooond paragraph pernita a ouit to testify against
on administrator o a conversation, i deoeased had
testified consnrning that conversation b twsen
nst rm ad> inistrat* :tneosr not 3-
ed persons, haa toatiiMod tb nation i *sion by
occur1' ■ deoeoa he dee
ceased. 1 as a witness is oo -
>nt to testify, and th f o,
to ot.tr ?iis o c tiono", .11 vs.
Campbell, 157 XU« Msi *2 4-66; ' oyd vs. Ma , ? HI.
•ty in interest to
testify to r, oomrersati rrith I biased, wheth-
er it was tost! ' r-
eated witness, nor do i
a conversation before
death In the pvatenos d to by
a disinterested vitnoaa not an agent detfeasod.
i'ra, Mokles testifier buolnosa wan waiting on
n in ohild birth and tliat ohe ..Tint to lfra . v'hie lay
evening about six o'elookj '•« n was then w 11, b\it ooar
ave labor pains about nine o» clock, ncl t]iat she, lira,
makl^s, called thS phyBlol*n aid aaid WI think <inr to
you out here, I thought I oall to sea if you n*, «
and I aaid, lntor on I 'ill 1*1 past ton aha
la call'-. aid "rs. Whisrian si &■ sick and wanted
D cone0. " ■ . us] a an »nt of < in calling
the physician to attend . ■ >r the phy»icians arrived
the question argued ie was ; he nuroe an agent or si | ly ye .
3 difficult to define the distinction between principal and a-
ster rmd » rvant. Al has been 8aid to V red
in a sapaslty superlof to a servant and ia clothed
cretion "vant ia bound to erforri the service in '
ner ootiianded by the Haste** (31 CYC. 1192). The recora in this an
oaae disclosed tluit -v.. ' -uoklco was al-
cian but beyond that .'ra. tickles was a nuroe to perfi p duties
under the direction of a the attending physic
The court had to pas;.* o:. cation of whether she ami |
ploye only, or whether her enployamt was i: i uro of an em-
Slsycmit cr acrvicc. ency conbined Oj it.
We oonoludo era w .a no error i court.
. i I ars ie] ' ■ •
nidn -„ aXlant visited
with the nurse ■' -e condition of*'- at lent <• ayt
and viait^d hor about r r.esdoy. Site nurse testified
patient was vory oick Thursday Morula tried to cull
the* appsUsnft swo* the ' -iephone tl
clock train had on n, and ■ ; f e told
h^r appellant liad <:one to IU,o be book until
- -
6 o'clock that evening; th wt -in- isj cone in she called
forwappe llant, nd appellant's wife eg; in answered
eaid he aenUb* did not cone in on the S o'clock train i Id
not he in until ten. "I uaid whatever you do tell him to cull
lea at Y/hianan»s, I want to talk to hin". f and that appellant
did not call her. lion testified that he called appellant about
six ^riday aorning tind wanted him to cone out hu had to
on at light, n t] a1 h 01 Id 1 ave -:dicine
that appellee should no and c^t and that he went and ^ot it; that
llant called him over the telephone about 3 or 4 o'clock Fri-
day afternoon and enquired o patient was and appellee aaid
her teap< rature wae not quite so hif;h, nd appellant n id he was
busy then and asked appellee to let him l:now later on how she was;
that about fi or 7 o'clock he acain called ap] nllant
if he intended coning out, pe llant said no; that
told appellant the patient1 s temperature was over 102, an 1-
lant s .id that i3 not much fever and it was not necessary to o<
out nd appellee told appellant "if you don't cone you can count
yoxirself out, we are going . a doctor end he Baid al
hunf; up".
The appe llant testified to substantially the same conversation
-on Yiday Morning but ha addition that he said to . ; ellee*»
that he would co:je out immediately after the train cane in at 1-
and if Use wanted hin, to telephone his wife. Llant testifi-
ed tJmt he was not called by any person Xhxntagc a-ursdjor, >-,At
in the conversation at 4 o'clock Yirtay, appellee told him it wae
not neoeeeary for him to noma out. jit waa asked if he 1<
ed from any one after his return on the 1-50 train "Tic'ay t
had called hin and an objection w s sustained to that queetion.
11, the wife of , ■ aaked conoerninc
the conversations ovr the tel . .loklos uid an o r c-
tion was sustained to her testifying w ;round that she wus the
wife of app llant.
After the court lv^d sustained an objection to . all testifying,
de a notion to exclude hi v :...:■ noe of ro. i chles as
to the conversation with !uo 'ifs court overruled the notion
The only ci*o\urid on which ths toctiraony of rrs# ?uckles concern-
ing ths oonvcrnation . o oonv' the theory
that Mm* Small -nt of her , iband* '.." nee
in the record that 're. Btaall was ' nt of hor h sband unless
noy nay he pre owned from her answering th- unet and the
evidence .. nt hat nxn on Yiday he told appellee »if
ed hin to telephone hie vifa*. The record o^-s not chow whether the
telophon ■• w ,a at ztic M residence of '.nt or at Ms offic .
That a physician ne in his reel oee not of
itself Hales the ssnflm ■ of hiB fa: ily, sower a te]
oall Ml :.'-ent of the physician • Unless the person answeril tel-
le was the agent physician xfee xxxxxrrx see con-
cerning this conversation w..s incompetent, not find any "vi»
lenoe In the -ecord that }'rs. a ^nt of her husband
rsdoy when 1*8. ""uohles says slie Udked to her on thi
and it was error to STerrule the notion to exclude the evid; noe oil
the nurse as to conversations with Mrs, Snail. This evidence was
very prejudicial in vi'-w of the seconJ oount c ion.
ion 5 of the TJvitencc Act provides: "in all rs w of hus
inoss t-'--nsactions whom thi tr-'jioaction was had .ed by
such married won b agent of }ier husband, tin 11
the h sband and wife nay testify 'or ■ nst each other, in I
sane MUM rties nay* undor the ] rovisior is act",
provided nothing in this act shall be constructed to porait any
husband or wife to testify to any ad.nl 8 si on or conv ■•rr.ations of the
other except in suits bstwsen then. Ur. he
statuto, if it was nt ±x < "' ' "s. Puckles to testify to the
conversation had with . , "8. Snail was a nt
witnosts to testify to the sane conversation, c vid ve. ,
111. App. 4 ,
The , '.Is r vors d Mid thi OMM ed.
<^>
.'
Gen. Ho. 6l58. October Terra, 1913" £ • 5*>"
Paul 0. I'oratita
App^lleee
I
VS. ; Appeal f^om County Cour^ c. "cLeatf
ITaurioe C. Jfcparthy, *
Appellant- I
r.
18/81.4. 69
Thompson, P.J. c'
\ /
Plaintiff be<-an thi3 sui^ "before a justice of the
/
peace to recover he amount due on an ^rder for $77.67 -iven him by
the defendant on a Settlement of a bu/lding account. An appeal was
t ken to the co, nty cWrt. At the April term, 1913,of that court, one
\
of the attorney* for defendant b.-;i>i;; absent frori Bloo::ia'jton, by
agreement of counsel in"'qpen coMrt a triaafc by jury w.s waived, and
it was agreed that the c oe sn tried at that term upon the
return 0:? the absent attorney. :ro trial was had t3iat term, A vreek
before the Aucust term, he judge of the court had counsel called
to the court room to set a trial docket for the approaching term,
and the trial of this case was set for the third day of the term.
On the day it wa3 set for trial one of the attorneys for the defen-
dant made a motion for a continuance, and filed in support of the
motion tin affidavit made by the attorney and the defendant xjt I
they had not ]iad notice of the setting of the case for trial end that
the defendant could not be ready for trial by 1-30 of that day be-
cause he did not know of the whereabouts of two witnesses , who
were in the City of Bloo iin,:ton, end because another witness was in
'Taylorville, and statins: w)iat the defendai t expected to prove by
said witnesses. The Cou:-t denied ths no±±±nxxx notion "or a con-
tinuance and offered to postpone the trial to 1-30 he next 19 day,
but co-.msel 3t,vted he could not be r« 7 .t time; the court
MtrtywslxBJtt did postpone the trial to he following ay. Ths next day
counsel for defendant failing to appear bh» cu.se was tried I
jury and a verdict returned in f vor of plaintiff for $82.50 on
which jud;;raont was rendered*
t <
oase "Kit
have not filed uny brief or argument. It appears ' s
in eoi he notion inuuna . it
ehcvrc t.r'o of hio witm in Taylor*
Ville* no ro.-.;oon
re. dy For trial the dny thi y/:w8 tried, i" the d- fowiant h
usod any dillgenoe to proci hi8 vritneen
aftsr thf hearing wae postponed to the fo
i Timed .
\
r^
\
y
aen. No. 6169.
Ootober Term, 1913-
Filed May 5, 1914
. 77-
The People of th of Illinois,
ex rel. Stella Chaney.,
Appelleo,
B|
Otis Preston,
Appe llant-
Appeal from Countsr Cou^t of
DeYTitt-
188IJV.93
Thompson, P. J.
relatrix, ntalla Chaney, an unmarrieJJL woman, on i.hc
2nd of July, 1012, made a oomplaint in bastardy b|fore a justice of
J
the peaoe, that she was pregnant and tliat Otis Barker was th»
er of the child. The defendant was found to be the father of the
bastard child of the relatrix. TJud£iaent was entered on the verdict
and the defendant appeals.
The evidenoe in this case is very conflicting and as the
ease must be reversed ror rrors of lav/ we refrain from expressing
any opinion on the weight of the evidence of t ■ he case.
It is insisted that the court errid in sustaining an ob-
jection to evidence offered to show the relations that it is claimed
existed between the relatrix and other men. It was competent for the
defen ant to introduce evi enoe to show that the relatrix had inter-
course with other rien about the time She became pregnant, but such
evidenoe must be limited to a period of time within • hich, in the
course of nature, the child could have brm begotten and the relatrix
may on cross examination be asked whether she had in b with
other m men within such time. 2 r.jioyc. of LV. 24-8; A.lcomb vs.
People, 79 111. 4-09; 1Tobao;i vs. People, 72 111. A] p. 4-36. She
child was born July 24, 1912. The ovidonce shows that the jtriod
of gestation varieB from 240 to 300 days and that this child was
born 16 days before the usual poriod had elapsed. ioe
offered isolated to aots of the relatrix in "^bruary. The objec-
tion wus properly sustained.
in the cross examination of the relatrix she was asked if
'
- -
she had no ; testified to certain things at the preli: lnary e;.anin&*
tion before the jiustice, and on re-e::anination counsel for the peo-
ple was permitted to aak h r, ovor objection made, if ;he hud not
testified to oth'T things before the justice that v.-e-e not connect
ed with the que tions asked on Die cross examination. The evidence
on the re-ex . limtion shuuJ hav been confined to such answers, if
any, as were connected with and modified or explained the answers
inquired about in the cross elimination J it was not } roper for her
to testify concerning her evidence before the justice us original
evidence on the trial in the county court.
The evidence shows that the relatrix had in pril, 1908, pro-
cured a divorce under the name of 7?stella Luker. The defendant re-
quested an instruction that if the jury believed the correct name
o the relatrix was 7!stella Luker they should in the defendant
not guilty. The court refused the instruct ion and defendant contends
that this was error. The evidence shows that the relatrix ent, -
and was known under the none of Stella Chaney. rhe Hade the compleint
±x xxjExnxxsKxf in the nai \c by -;hich she v/as , of co*
responded with tJie complaint ai.d there was no e ror in refusing the
instruction.
The appellant in several instructions requested the court to
inform the jury tliat it v/as incumbent on the prosecution o prove
the appellant guilty by a clear preponderance evidenoe before
they could find him guilty. The court modified the instructions by
striking out ,rd cl^ar. A prosecution for bastardy is a civil
proceeding and a preponderance oftho evid nee was all that the law
requires to authorize a verdict of guilty.
In Instructions i on at the»request o' the | ople the Jury
were informed that a Judgment of conviction, only meant he de-
fendant r/ould bo compelled to pajr the mother for the use of the
Child $100. for the first year and fifty dollars for nine siiccendin
years, if the child lived that long. The jury h o do ith
the result of the verdict ;-nd the instructions as to the effect of
a verdict of guilty wore Argument at It* and improper not
have boon -ivon, roo^l" va. Welch, 1*3 ill. . 191.
fn the final argument o he caaof
•aid sooqc a-.ong other things I- "Any man, in th strength .d ,
ill v^irv: hil old room, I)
perjure h'irafilf 'or '-.In is not fit to ae:ooiate with docei !§•.
"I don't Hilieve -'ion ha walko dot>n Chicken I low h^rc, Lhat th Shhubi
tanta r/ould recogniae him, any mot< Id a our dog".
tleraen Jury, if a oh a daughter of nine,
aa thie nan debauched thia w« n, ou! n't o jaea
upon that qmation, aure ae I here 1 /old
kill him", OTSjeotionn .1 i.ut
the court node no wiling thereat • . ly
inflamtory end prejudicial. It ia highly
to tell the Jury jid
that a court be unneooaaary in auoh mattcrst if it wae a
bor of hie fa .ily that ho thought had boon wronged. It ing
the jury to ro ard duty iy .lty
whether justifind or not ' the law. An att.omoy,-
an officer of the oourt, ahould not b l to make auoh ap»
poalo to the paaaions rand prejudices of jurymen, vi-
dnnco ia as conflicting aa it ia in reaent caac let ob-
tained by auoh lnflnmatory statements oi euatained.
rooter, 06 la. 698. counacl alone
quirea the revereal of the caac. The Judgment ia r ■-.-
cauao rorumded.
Rev ;ed*
r
^
r
CV
> 1
Gen. No. 6l8l.
Ootober Term, 1913fi ••• 86-
Piled May 5, 11914-
Trank . on,
r,urvivinn Partner, "tc.,
Defen ant in Terror,,
VS. ;
Richard Bnell,
Plaintiff in Er^or,
Error td ])eY.ritt.
188ff.A. 101
Opinion by Thonpaon, P. J.
Thia suit was hef;un "by Richard A, Lefion and ^ank K, Lemon, part
ners , to recover attorneys* fees fron rlchard Snoll for a^rvicea
performed "by plaintiffs in litigation osnoerui.nf: the estate of Thom-
as Snoll deceased. he auit was/benun Richard A. Lemon, id
and the auit was prosecuted in bha nojno of ">ank K. Lemon, surviT-
ing partner.
The clai:. of plaintiff is for $15,000. for services render
in the contest of the will of 'ihomas iinell, in which suit plaintiff1 s
Of
were attorneys for Richard Hnell conteatant, and for $i>»>00. for
services rendered in the estate k£ 'or defendant aa 'administrator
after the suit to contest the will was termin .ted. A jury returned
a verdict in favor in plaintiff for §1,7J>0 on rViich judgment was
rendered and the defendant prosecutes thio writ of error to review
the judgment.
nk K. Lemon was called aa a • itnesB in hie ovn behalf* The
defendant waa permitted to ask the witness aome preliminary questions
for the purpose of laying a foundation for an objnotion to any evi-
dence boinf; heard by tha Jury concerning the rill contest. On this
preliminary examination it was developed that plaintiffs on "
8, 1910, signed a receipt for $4,000. in full o ys fees in
the case of hell va, rs. Ih ant thereupon
objected to any evidence concerning the services performed, or the
value thereof, in that auit. The plaintiff wa8 permitted to show
that there were tlireo trials o" tliat case in - 'Ouit court,
f
*>
e .oh of which cxtened over f "oi : two e we ks, and two ap-
peals to the Suprene Court. -his witness testified he value
of the sorvioes ran ered by plaintiffs luxxxa In that litigation was
$2*. $25,000. He aloo testified t' at they had an expres contr-.ot jc±
with the defendant for the payment of $7»?00 . at the notM successful
conclusion of that litigation or $1,000. at the end of it, if it was
unsuccessful; that • a contest ended in favor uf Richard ;;nell t
and that $3»i>00. had "been y<aid to than before Deoeriber 8, and that
the receipt for the $4,000. was for the ; of the balanos of the
$7t?00# Plaintiff was also permitted to 3 rove over defendant's
objection, by a number of attorneys that the value of such services
was from $1^,000. to $20,000. The objection to the evidence con-
cerning the will contest and the value of such services should
have been sustained for the reason tlie services were rendered under
an express contract and there was no liability thereunder for the
reason it hud been fully paid by defendant.
Plaintiff was also permitted to prove, over objection, that af
ter the payment of the $7»500. they had made a claim for further
compensation for services in that litigation and that wit had
made an offer to give them $l,i>00# T! i: jre than an
offer to make a donation. It v.'as a : romisp to :ift d there
was no consideration br it; it waa an titterrpt on tlie part of de-
fendant to satisfy the plaintiffs and buy his peace. Tho court
afterwards exclud <d all evidence concerning the will contest, the
services rendered therein, the olaim for further compensation and
the offic to give $1,^00; and gave a written inot-uction Meeting
the jury to disregard ;:.ll the eviddnce concerning those attero.
•r the will contest was disposed of p.icliard nell by his at-
torneys, Lonon fc5- Lemon, " .J.Sweeney and a and
petition in the county court for the revocation of Live 1 tiers tes-
tamentary theretofore issued to Lincoln H. Voldon and for the ap-
pointment of petitionor as administrator. An order vaa entered re-
vpking^the let' ors testamentary and or setters of ad inistra-
(
which vrero iasued to hl». on t day of t] Torm, 1910,
of the oounty court, an order v/as entered, that Weldon turn over to
the administrator all the us ets of the estate In his hand! au such
executor. Ao soon as the torn of court at - ] ich the order was en-
tered }r\d expired, no:,ioe of the order was served upon Weldon* On
April 5t Weldon filed a report of his account as executor and made
a motion to vacate the order on him to turn over all the assets in
his hands to the ud inistrator. The county court- denied ;ion
to vacate the order on the executor to torn over ±x all the assets
to the administrator, and on motion of the ad; dnistrator etruck the
report ofxMft Yfcldon from the files.
Weldon, the executor thereupon took th eeappeals fron the crderj
of the county court, (l) on j'pe&l fro: fie order irectinp; hi to
turn over the assets to the administrator; (2) an appeal from the
order denizing the riot ion to vacate slid order, and (3) an 1 fro
the ordereata±x±jqc striking t>« report fron the files.
On tne hearing of these appeals in the circuit court, the court
held that the order irecting the executor to turn over the assets
to the administrator was erroneous; tliat the county court should
have received the xppafci report of the executorwrt and acted on it.
The irouit court -id nut make a final order in the ut re: .an
ded it to the county court. The court also overruled a motion made
by the administrator to dismiss the appeal of the executor fror: the
order d rooting him to turn over the assets to the adninistr
entered an order vacating that portion order requiring
to turn over the assets to the administrator and that aaid matter
be romanded to the county court, ""ron these , snts in tho cir-
cuit court, One 11 us ud inistrator prosecuted Is 1-
late Court here ull Uiree o" Die cases wi v raed, 11,
Ts. Weldon, 162 111., App, 11, 15, and 17.
AppHllant does not contend that appelle s are not entitled to
a Ju Igment against )iim, but insists tliat the Judgment is e::ceseive
and that the excessive amount f the judgment was caused by the evi-
dence e roneously permitted to rd by tbJ ,'iry and argues 1
the erroneous admission of thi ice v/as not cured by its sub-
sequent exclusion.
r «
-4-
"rank K. Lemon, ,To}m 1\iller, L.O.V'illiams, L.E.Stone, end
Robert P. Vail, practicing at to , all testified that they knt-w
the value of legal services unci that auoh aervicea , ... endered
by plaintiff a in the oat tar of the adminiBtration rere reasonably
orth from #2,000. to $2,500.
The defendant only called one v/itneuo George K. Ingham, who tea-
tified that the services of plaintiffs in the adnini8tration ;ere xm
■orth $1,000.00. A review of all the evidence 8hov/8 that the verdict
and jud[?irtnt are not excessive, and the clear preponderance of the
evidence v/ouia h^ve justified a larger judgment for tlie aervic a
for which plaintiffs were entitled to recover. The anount Involved
waa large toid the queations in issue v/ere bitterly contested at
every atep. It i8 clear thao-t^e jury were not influenced by the
evidence heard by them and afterwarda excluded from their consider-
ation. :>ince a jury coxild not reuaonably , on a consideration of
the proper evidence, have returned a verdict for 4 leas amount tJian
the present nt the defendant haa no just cause of complaint
and the judgment is therefore uffimod.
AFFIRUED.
( <
^
\
V
. iiOSOm
. Puea aters, a r.-..
. 11-
Irma Paoswaters, doceaaed.#
llae**
•rn
, J.
ircuit
188I.A. 121
action in o
pellant ath of Irnu PaaoY.aters,
about eir.ht cuid one-'uJLi years of o^e,
noon of 3«ptc ber 2d. 1>'11, oroo;in
lant,8 trains, y with 1 ,
Pasevraters, iitl court entered vor of
on iiot oi" tha Jury asoesalng the damages at $3, ,00, om
.it prosecutes ••' . »ol#
ation oon8lst8 or five founts, ->us
etc o," nnoe on svoh
count aver a tha lid was ^"eytfisiog due ear* *—
tion fox1 n safety I the at,
firat error xaRsat urgsd li «he dscl.-xalion is
insufficient to sustain the verdict or i a
variance between its allegations no the proofs, his
contention is t)iut, i e it, appears bhs ssassd >.as
but < i-ht .-nd one half yars old and was rid': Xe
;t she rras therefore u:: ,
.ice of v/hioh his c-
laration uhoultl dxsaat 2kk£s said d avsrrs
the father was also oxerci .• he .Imp
is injury, ;.'o oritiolsa Is laratisa on its
does not utats ;ood a
cited to sustain ouoJi a rule c ,
fail d to Isoovcr any. I;l our 0] in ion ion ie
ble fox oovoral rontons. f# , he
was riding rrith
trial, at uixspjy evidentiary ioh ns
A1bov If, us tk of law, the contributory n 1007 of the
father, If tiny, nhoul*: be i.>rputed to dooono<?d, ; "on hie noo
"booariri her ne(:ll:<moe, and ie Huff
of due onre no ion on her art,
necoaaarily i*q>ly duo c «rc and caution on r.
Elans v# Conrad, 115 Iowa 183. SI* t to
sustain the v^rctiot under the evidence, o do no
stltute a varianoo -..horofron.
The oae am.-atcrB, ASfctx AdNDC* of th rles A.
Pasovators v, I»« B« & W. R.R.Co., ... . option
brought by the Administratrix of the ootat oyer
his death, whloh ooourrod ■ tveoi ont,
was a verdict an'. Jttdgnoflfl in favor of the pi in that e ,
•xrid oaid , it vns affirmed by this court, and a l eertiora-
rl donisd by the yuprene Court at t lie October Term* I , >of«
The haif-ed in ...ration
surrounding the accident In loee are euhata ti; J.ly the rarao ae
they are in this case, eee no reason .'or ohonj ins our vi
in r the facta boss ^xpressod in he opinion
case. • we riuot hold -iahed that
injuries resulting in the death of the deceased child
by the n<T.lifience of appellant :.a charged, and V . father was
' any negligonoo whloh oontrUmtsd
rule i. i ler <ih ciroi'.natanoso the contributory
.ice of lie father should be li Id, it hav-
inc " n terr lined that h v'ua not guilty of uny bi ,
■> impute. .5 case
ia no avid If was
Lty of any nogllgonoo , r>d ipso fryctp. none that con-
tribute;' injury. The trl
t 'or — - flta -rvry to
the mnifest w i ht o ' tha owl
Lift in a irot, o<~ d fffth
♦instructions on bona f of appellee, i 11
required larolaa of (tea oare
not require It on lid* T1 lone
ao o
Of Mf 0 T* '*:\ ild, Hit ■:', ,
"by elininating tha que at I on of due caro on ild, sad
substituting therefor tine dut.:' of the father to re.
Thia wae done evidently to oonfoxa to appellant** theory
The evidence eh- -inf* no once on behalf ohild,
nmoh to.tht advant*ige ■
not uoe due of.ro, njn : that auch want re or contributory
rt, should be lnputod to the child. T'lia waa the
theory of appellant trial, ■ iR oonolueJ n
by lta object iona to the adnlsaion of evidence, ita lona
to exclude the evidence and Lir ct a verdict and ito in ns,
•a request the Court n*--vo nineteen instructions, nix of
jftposk which oonfino the lauue to t)ie duo caro of bhe father,
■em presenting the iaaue tof dun core on
ohild.
Pour instructions ' »d by and riven in
instructing lie Jury in oubotance that i'. find ppellagfc
not guilty I ll«
od to exercise due trlbuting
injury. Aa stated before, illaat asked n on re-
quiring ' .rt of .
,* induced t ory of noat favor-
able to itself, can not no\t inoiat that thi
ed oorw oth^r theory, nor oar.
appellee* 8 i Ions to oonfona to
aented b, »s oxti i. ana • .- ewvr, 1 was any
error X Lrlnf lribc: of • a said nociifiod in. tarn
it waa hornleaa, .a all the evidence shove ho child, jcllec
c
intestate, was in tho exercise o f au* cure tmd rras not guilty o
contributory negligent)**
other critioitno of tho i Ion* civon for
re diapoaed of by the opinion in tho car. ^ero v. L.B. &
TY.R.R.Co., 1B1 111., App., **• *ha principles l at of
appellants refused lneti*uotions v/nre rAally presented in tho nia
that wore f:ivsn, ane. «&a no error in the refusal of
Under the n dociaione in thio State on of
oo, tho vardiot is not eaooijoive. I. . Lag Co., v, SJudbdbi
-tolt mborg, 11.5 111., App, *ro 3?; Chicago City , ,s v. rong,
129 111. . -1. c.r, A ss.L. IV. Co., v. Boyd, Vl: 111,, App„ ?10|
Vest. Chicago St. Ry. Co. vs. Stolt^nberg, 62 111., A} p. 420 J C.G.W.
Ry. Co., v. Root, 106 111. App, 164; 0. ft E.I. B.R.CO., t. ,
138 111. App. 3J>2.
¥0 fine: no rcvoroibl" error in the 0 ill
be affimed,
a y y i r i
(
•
'
7
I
.
An ell -
VS. |
Electric . |
llunt-
XJ2, J.
Piled May 5, 1914-
' Cidbuit Court of
ilion County.
18$I. A. 142
Ilia \u an action on '.he cioe brou aga-
inst h> Circuit Court of Wmllion County to reco*
for .1 injur leo received kil ' Lne««
A to nl lot wm rondo rad nt ■■■ llty and aaai alag 1-
lee'a damage* at $. ,. . , yard lot j\> and
to review said Ju.;-::ent thla appeal ia proaeouted.
::.- . LOf) . I . .: t
third and fourth oharga . . -he
•eoond count ia predicated upon llful violation 0 " B otlon 21
(a) of the Luers Act of 1907 1
tino or :.-.a injury. In ■ via nt
I uat be sua linod ttfl
to a erera aoirjncd axoept ouc of
Lalntif a out under said count. , ance
ohargea that on 7 bruary 4th X 11 .
coal mine la [uaatlan Lot iff v/aa in the employ of ant
aa a co tl digger) that
eosary for hin in oi:^ (.0 an : fra i ork to puas
nd Bouthaast rv.in entry in auid nine. .. uaed aa a sin/»le
road on 1 ±y- ine of pit c ro Vyv
.in ^y\ IX ' and o then
k through aaid entry j .nt llfulJy \.iled tc
cu^ aid valla of said
tht\tx 3 feet in d pthf 4 f and 5
than 20 yjjMo apart a o: w \ at j
fo^t b aides of aald lia 1 | oad
and the at . while travelling on foot to his work
in said entry a truin of c .rs, or trip, struck him by re-:.bon of ; -
fenaant,s wilful failure to eomply with the statute ..rid plaintiff
wae unable to o scape from said 010*8 or trip and wae crushed between
id the side of the entry and had his hip "broken arid was oth
ise permanently injured. The defendant filed the pl~a 0f general
issue to all the counts.
At the tine of the accident the raine of Ddant -as con-
structed with a perpendicular shaft from the bottom of iiich an
entry known as the east inain south ntry ran aouth. c salt
main south entry other entries, had been 0 theeast , ■ hich,
at the time o" -.he mo i dent 9 •■■ere not b in.; o\ -ated. A circular en
try, called the runaround , connected the various entries, orig-
inally there was another entry which ran couth fro: of
the shaft parallel with the east main kk±xjc . ■■ try a was call
ed the "hack south entry. This kccaMJc baok ^outh entry ■ iox .:1
used as a passage way for miners to travel on foot to and from
work and as an air passage and in rhioh there was no haulage of
c rs, but at the tins of the accident had been permitted b>
to have became filled with - ater and debris nt and for boem -■■rtv
prior thereto had been impassable, :.nd abandonod. "or this reason ••
the miners in 'oing to and from their v/ork w ,ss
through the east main south ''ntry, or haulage way. In -hio
way ;here was laid a tr%ck U] on which cars were drawn I rope
haulage system operated by a .team engine located no;:.r Lhe bottom of
the shaft. The haulage system w s about 4^00. feet in length, runnin:
south along the east main sout\ entry 3000 feet, thenoO est about
1500 feet, to ihe latch. It w a over a mile from tl e bottom
shaft to the plaoe hore the .van rs worked^ It is conceded that at
t5ie accident no placea of refuge were constructed 1
tained in this liaulage way as required 1 ion 21 of the Statu to,
aer-was there, a oleaf sp^.ce of 3 feet wide on .ide of the
try be two en th sides of the oars 'Jid the entry, h. t it is r.onten ed
that the failure to prooids said plice of refuge was not tha \ roxi -
■ate cause of tha i .jury.
lleo, h five -.thor Miners, g .he
•haft in tho out 6;2,. o'clock on t tin aeci cht.
tiately on arriving >ttom, pp Ilee ,
Alfred Flnnet, started to walk to <rk alone W uy.
n they ano to its junction with t>ie runround, a tri] of cars,
standing partly on ry and xxxx}$w. partly on tho runround,
blocked tho v<nyt Und they climbed into a car 9 intention of
climbing ew voceecting uj on their way. juot
into tho car, the .rip started and they stayed in hlle it ran -bout
xx six oar lengths, when it stopped. The; n climbed out and walk-
' haulage way toward their placea of work. Vhlle I
walking down the Middle of the track, Finnet noticed, " a rope
moving, that the trij) had started toward t] ins, jumped to
aide and at the saMO tine called to ..tch out. Ap] ^ilee
attoppted tos "un to the side o.~ the entry ;uid while i>in<: se, the
i-'-st car of the trip hit or pushed hi net en-
try bf,tv;eea two timbers. This did not injure him, ho\.eve», and
by squoexing hlaself clo.;;ly to .he .,id? of he entry, six of the
; assed without injury, but the seventh, being I the
others , Lng an iron e tending fro e, cru
him aid "broke his hip.
The evidence show a that since the abi.ndonr.ient of the back south
entry, the ori inal passagev.'ay for the minora, it had be n the cus-
tori of appellant to start a trii) of about 40 cars into tho ine
through the liaulage way each Morning o.t about 6:4£ o'c-ock, in
which xaaaaikK cars the miners could ride to their places of work.
Appellant sought to prove that the Min rs were forbidden 0 alk
to their : ork through the liaulage way and introduced the following
rule whioh was poated in the Mine, in uu] ;, ort of t-iio contentlon;-
"IIO'JICE: All oMjiloyes o." thiu cos ipany art? hereby notified to
keep off the rope haulage roads of thio : ine. under no c ire u 1 stance u
will any ojte be .lloved to trav 1 in or out of t.iilo Mine on
haulage >*oad except under the direction of the ine "anarer i6
assistant. Air/ orie violating the above rule will be :.",
—
Tim evidence o appellee tends to show that said rule was not
enforced find tliat the miners either rode or walked • k aa
they saw fit, aid tliat appellant knew t':is fatt. of opinion
that the weight of the evidence supports appellee on thia ueetlon*
'•vidence aii lioes not show when the above rule was adopted
or posted, it la a fair inference from the evidence that said rvle
waa put in force alien the back south entry was used by the i iners
ing to and from their work, Le it remained posted after
the abandontaent of said entry, it hud no application utthe tine of
the injury. No reference is made therein to the fact t] •
would haal the miners to their work rough the ay in curs.
Ajlso all the evldenoe shoves '-hat that part of the rule forbid ing
them from returning frc 1: on the rope haulage roada waa
not •■.-. ia time of the accident. Ther<
tha appellant hauled f r work. Th I ■ vied out
on foot, in fact there was no other way or them to get out.
I ore, the night boss and his assistant each txxktixA testified on
behalf of appellant that they vurned the innra that morning not
to no into the haulage way until the trip had been pulled out on
to the entry. If the nlnera were not In the habit of ralklng
through the haulage way, and appellant know that fact, It •. oul seem
been unnecessary to have r;lven this warning. It it
s rule was not adopted to a] ] ly conditions as they
existed after the aoandonaent af the beck south entry, but was adop
ted prior to the uk« uf the haulaga way 'or the mlnera to go to
and from their work, nd was not in foroe at the timr
Mor over, appellant Itself having abandoned part o ule , i
lee had a right to assume that aid rule was abandoned. A
£ak± lant oannot rely on a rule that it itself did not obs rve. It a
le admitted that thn miners had to walk through this haulage way
ItaijgRinuiAliig in returning from their work, and i' re came
within the provisions of section Ll JLd aot«
The giving of two instruct iona on behalf of appelloa is aasign
ed as or-or. These instructions en on the first trial of
(<
this case, and on al from that judgment (Harriage vc, ■Mec*
trio Coal Co.. 176 111. App. 4£l), wore not assigned as error. The
pleadings and evidence on this trial are substantially 1 as
they vero on the first trial. Alleged errors "hioh existed on -he
first appeal and not assigned for er~or, • annot be urged on a second
appeal. If they had been assigned on thefir8t appeal tills court
v/ould have had an opportunity of considering then, and if well takers
coul ■■; have pointed out the errors and thus a repetition of > 'iciri • oulc!
have "been avoided on the second trial. Spitzer v. Schlatt, 249 111,
4-16; ttureft Coal ft Ice Co, v. Howell, 217 111. 19C; Lusk vs. City of
Chicago, 211 111. 183. , he first of said instructions wu a
in regard to the law as to the preponderence of evidence, ile
subject to criticism, coul not have misled the Jury, and the giv-
ing- of it v/ould hot Justify a reversal of the judgment. The other
was given in relation to one f th n law counts and if erron-
eous , the giving of it was harmless error.
It 1b also urged that the Court erred in refusing to -ive two
Instructions, offered on b half of appellant. The first of these it
is insisted I ined by the case of Sohlapp v. T'cLean County Coal
Co.. 235 111. 630. The rule ann unoed In that case must be eonsleV
cred in connection with the f ,cts to whioh it was applied* In that
case the accident find i jury happ ned without -arning trnd ire re in-
stantaneous, an videnoe showed that a place of refuge ■ ould
have been unavailing if it had existed, mmtly llure
to provide one was not the proximate cause of the injury. The f .eta
here are very different. Appellee was walking dov-n hfl entnr of the
entry, when linnet "arned him that the trip was 00 ing.
that there ware no places of re uge in f"ront of him to which he could
go to seek safety, ho did ehat evidently in his Judgment ens. the
only tiling he could do, ran bo the side of the entry on nee
that theeo might be spaoa enough for the cars to p*.ss him without
injury. Under such a state of facts it certainly was the ;
of the Jury to determine * /bother the failureto provide places of
- -
refuge ?fas the proxinate cause of the injury. Brunnwcrth Y. K«re
ens Goal Co., 260 111. 202, and caues cited therein. This refused
instruction was inap] ioable to :,he facte in thio case. The second
refused instruction related to the law under one of the common
m nta, id there vcas no error in refusing it. Sev-
eral 01: the instructions i en for appellant were -,re favora-
ble to it than vrero warranted under the law. The damages awarded n
not excessive .'or bhfl injuries sustained irnd the judgment is affirmed
AP J I R If E D.
V
£>
ooto'i , -■ i .
Lawrenc . uedict,
Appellant.,
• > if
John . , .l.t Couu
linos.,'
/., J.
written instrument :-
1881 A. 145
L
"In consideration o." tb I
tin!) ~ibed in -,d "bill _ , LdJ on
Sections 2, 3, 10 Slid 11, I&wnehlp 31 North, i I ,
hereby anree to inde;;nify " . . diet, his he/Lrs ,
any loss or di ^xistenoe
ny mortgage or incui-ibr.jicc v v i
(Signed) . - y ,
a".
Appellees sold by bill of sale to
about 300 aores of land rice of $2250.00. These
lands, togother with others, vera incumbered with . Aftox
the bill o? sale was executed , ve
set out was executed. Appellant b ■ t;.ai to remove timber from
the land and cut timber therefrom , hen a bill was
filed to foreclose the mortgage! *j .3 enjoined
moving any ore timber fro ."Onises. ured a
modification °? *** injunction to
remove fro:1 the premises the timber remain im an hich had bee
cut. ?h case was tried be i I , ,
.asuos in favo assessed his dv. - .
70 . T is amount lnoludos the original
interest thereon, ' s fees
in p-oouring the modification injunction xJac in t o-
suro suit# B bill of exceptions does not contain
out in full, bv :.y states what the xxIAsjoisx si
to sho«. In the "bill of exceptions it is stated \idenoe for
-lant ten .ed to show Uu^t at the time -8 enjoined
fron removing any further timber fr< promises the re
timber the -can hud a re .aonable cash Market stumpuge value of
$11,000., and that it oouAfl "be nanuf ac tured xaztttBOddbt and sold at
a profit above that amount | that the evidence for appellee tended to
show that tho timber no remaining at said time h
of not over $600: that up to said tine appellant :oived ^p-
yraxitofcfcigeie proximately $4-,Goo.OO- fron the sale of the products
of said nd had on hand at '..he time of the trial about £400.
"orth of said products, t ,)»peHeeBnevcr received but
$1500.00- of the $22^0.00 consideration mentioned in the hill of
Sale,' Tho contention of appellant is that the Court ad*pted the
wrong measure of danag«St that the timber sold under the bill of
salo became personal p^op.'rty \nd that appellant was entitled to
the ] rof its that could be derived fron tho timber remaining uncut
made up into Manufactured articles,
only consideration fur the indemnity agreement was the
executed bill of sale. This was not sufficient consideration to
support the oontr-.ct of imioimity, hi i-eliees liuve assigned
no crooaosraoe- error on vhioh this Court will br ieed to
reverse the Judgment and remand the cause, the judgment o; lhe Cir-
cuit court will bo affiftaed.
A P F I P. IT B D.
(
I f
\
V,
Ten. Ho.
Oct. Tom, 3
Filec ,
. .
e;: Van Wormer,
App lloe.,
VS. J
letroj olitan Life insurance
Com], tuny, a oor oration.*,
nt.
SLDREDO,
al from Cirjuit nourt
. on Cotnty.
1881.1.166
i brou-ht suit in assumpsit Brains llant
Eonipany, on 3 olicios of insurance issued by it on of
Clara E.Cake. The tyily errors assiflpiod reiats to 'he cause of ac-
tion charppd in thoVsecond count of the ration, h.ch was hos-
ed upon a policy for 1&L00O.00., dated Oofeojber 11, 1910. To this
count appellant filod n\ne pleas, the first boin h isral issue
and tho other ei^bt specif pleas setting u I false nsvera
made by said Clara E. CokeVin her sspnju cation for tho policy.
To these speoia iicationB 9/1*0 filed. The jury f und the
issues in favor of appellee und Eos a sal is from the judgnont
entered on szrt said verdict.
The bonofiCiary in the policy was the husband of
the insured, Charles B. Cake, but the licy \ it assigned by the
insured one; her husband August 21, 1^11, llee.
Cake tied necomber 6th 1911, of pneumonia. The amplication and
..cy constitute tho contract of 'ice, n< h ■ torus
, not war-
ranties. The burden of provin ia t nt. 79M Two
inoipal insuos ore raised by .hran r iications th roto,
first, weri | n.-.tions in controversy as..ed of tho riocoased,
oto roccrded, B , ,
wore ruch :nsv/ers kno-. in ;se? irst issue tion-
ad is general leas, whil cond iB o
i
;uinod b vidonco g action
and '.incsT/or., Tho medical examination in. uroti it1!
ining jphysiciaa, ...'..•, ,1910,
. in tho
at that lino, . • . , 3-
pendont recollection i illation* At na-
tion ide the in; ured was -living on I p.
B tho re lant com-
jany and testified- t h- .-five or bhirtg
b trial examinations a day cine of tho large onos possibly a jagc
one u. cay, < no h a ic un.--.b_ a to ej$r v.hother the as-
ked jj_er with roforenoo <_o diseases, i ig cancer,
hurry over .hem am
details : -. . ,
the husband of the lv? U rod,
.nation by ' ral of the (.uostions in
• .rpv.rsy lot ackod nor oswors thereto recorded,
.it.-ans ,
ever hud an, ' r
question , •". low, under a sub-cu vi-
sion dono, inated ' . >ona
:~ ' nstrual it . ;
mor or cii;joase of . •• If yes,
since? , . . iou8 troubles in labor? Mo. • 11
istions ■
suicJrien out b;> .
.^jo admits jross mark, bv.
r_. The in,
taken to Bother with the testimony of . pe,
unoei it questions iske< n,
Were was at least a conflict of evio
not say that the wei~ht c oe shows that, t_b ood
tiona and nav/ors wo o in fast aa :ivnn.
o second loa is t 9 above i, "Any cancer
Hi SJB
or tu'.or?". The v.-oight of tho testimony undoubtedly shows that the
insured had cancer of the breast uno she w s eza inod by
Dr. Spra - ■: erial uestion ia whether she knov; that f
■una and falsoly reprouentod was not so afflicted.
70j. bor, 1909, aha rated on at ar<
ar, and cancoroua tissue removed, but Dr. Sawyer testified
that he did not toll hor that she hed cancc *, hu\ ^or that
she did not have any malignant growth. T>r. -Goodkind in May, 1910,
examined her and Discovered lumps on her nroast and adv~ to
see Dr. >rc Arthur, but did not tell hor tha b »d cancer. Dr.
well examinee her in July or August, 1910, ^nti also ii berf,
1910, but did not ell her oh at aha had cancer. Pho visited Dr.
Thorn son in September, 1910, and had him oxaroino her
she wanted to use his testimony in suit for malpr actio oat,
. "awyor for operating on hor hen an operation ^as unnecessary.
Id not toil hor that sho had cancer, but . her
l bring the suit. 'Yom Tune 25th to July ..1st, 1911., she was
Konfinodin >al in Springfield suffering with neu: ..a,
and t't. Colby attoncied her. Dr. Colby told her in his
0} inion she had cancer, ad she strenuously incinted that sho did
not. All the above physicians itneaaea produced by nt
ith the exception of Dr. Maxwell, tua^fxjdaaaaai Two phyaiciana,
Dr. i-c^onald and Dr. Spitz, testified that she admitted to them
that she had cancor, but e think the woi -ht of the nvidonce shows
that oho was firm in the belief that she was not afflicted with
cancer, ..nd thia belief was wholly reasonable fror
Dr. Sawyer, who oi orated on hor and made a micro sec . 1 examin..
of the tiB8uea, aa.ured her that she did not have cancer, and she
persisted in this belief ui to tha bine when Dr. Colby was at! end-
ing her shortly before hor death. Urn 8 circa , if
the above question was askod i .answer -ivon aa noted in !.he
liation, he waibht of tha oyidonce cos no; she- ana*
war was falaely
- -
Tho third ploa la b..sod tion, ■Any ta or
r.o of bro st"? tofl or, r:o". motion lonfcaanwacrx
and ansv.or, as above 1, n out 1\ . go*,
under ax£k cuch ti i^ncpB swcai ot 1
askod cjid the answer* siv n.
Tho fourth jleua is basec nation and ans-
wer, R of , or fa w y< over at H
for treatment, an asylum, h* 1 or s/initarium? If , ,
on;;, an &•*. er, ;! '. istion embr
at iioaat throe questions or bo far ^nce
ahowa was correct as to two of fliiin, them, that io , aoa
dooB not thi boon in a "r:onit.. rium" or "asyl'
It io an olenv:ntary rincijlo , - tea*
tiono or uno orB nuet bo resolved in f vor of d. Tho
Supreme Court in M ib which, in &^ct, ahi
several questions, say in of Pot vcon v. Manhattan
:r,, " . .. . , ion, in f ,
included a h.if dozen . loaf ro i
in uno, xfcKk I a f at
is apt to anB or tlie I nation and ir^ioro the first la vail
knov-n". rda "Dnnitiirium" and "asylum"
con; ilh "hoB] ital" mx Jit readily leant,
fifth rlaa is baaed u on- ne*
, wr1\ t 1. i jme and 1 J nt"?
, io". The ovi donee b ohow ho
. It shows ; consult ns
for trivial ailrcont?.', , "time she was ex-
amined f icy. ;h one ohe consider
ic n ioBod, but, on ha oontr ay,
- none of hM eere a 1 .as
Tho sixth plea d u on ion, ' • "0d
an,\ :i? If e< , b it* a r [l i H. io
tion evidently r fors t VleaM itioa,
■■.oat-ion, enewar
would n . il" do as i s.
The coventh plea is b.^ed vn this question , " " n were ; ou
confined to the h^ufje by illn; , rer". 1 vi-
donce doei not, show that :ho was ovor confined to nor house by ill
- .
The oi-^ith plea is based , . a question, ."Hare you had any
other illness than the ahove named"?" Answer " "• evidence
does not show that aha ever had an; othor ilinoec except trivial
iaints.
zaShsssxtkiqQiBa: in ktxaaix
The ninth plea is based upon the question, "Have you had any
othor medical attendant, or have you been prescribed for by
other physician named"? newer, •No". No physician
had . Bed in i cation and consequently the -jisr/er v/aS.
literally correct.
In connection ■. \-ith oho questions effibraced in the 6th, Pth and
9th ploas., i had boon any misunderstanding thereto
was another question in n hich, if an answer had boon
required, would hsare co ored those
removed any aoubt in ra . ohem. This question was as follows,
■Give full particulars of everyillnoss you have had cince childhood,
and name, of every ph sician who h<j£ ever at on ed you or proscribed
for you". And undei this question were ccj.ujnns heao.edjxonx re
tively, "Affection, umber of Attacks. Date . Duration. Severity.
Complication*. Results, tfedioal Attendant'1, Through ques-
tion b blank Bpaoei for ixx the ana ho azami
drew another 1-crge cross, allowing thai the question asked
nor any answers required thereto. The striking out o£x of
qhostion in the ap; ^icauion, be ■•nh^ out of the
Oi-hor i nt questions above noted, ai at
female, wore sufficient to put appellant company upojj notice if
ion was not satisfactory. 11 ion
in tine concition ana is:;uod its policy thoroon, end ia osto -
ed from i$xx questioning the integrity of tha a.;c ;;r8 .. : -essod
in said a, ru
The . e circuit ^ourt will bo affirmed-
^
^
■A
|
4 • * r f
Gen. :Jo. 6139. Oct. Term, 191 - . . 4 0-
Filed July 2, 1914-
Frank Thoole,
Plaintiff in i:lrror-
to C9 on.
Tiiinois Truction Co.,
Defendant in Frror-
188I.A. 214
Thoapsonf P.J.
ha s cond tian this oaso has boon lv-fore
thio court. A statement of aiinga and the evidence as it
appeared on tfafl first trial J» in 171 111., Apr. 198. 't that
trial tha court instnictod a verdict for the defendant at the
clone of tho plaintiff*a evidence. Thifl court reversed and ro-
ad , oaao for the aa ;ro was sufficient evidence to
require tha isouos to be submitted to a jury. On tha second triaji,
a jury returpai a verdict for Jie defendant on which judAjaaat
a rendeuod., ?ho ;aintiff roaecutea a writ of error to review
that juoVjnont,
The plaintiff testified on tha last trial in his
own behalf, substantially ao on tha former trial in regard to tha
manner in which ho w a injured. It is inaii tod tor ho had
boon cross examined, tho court erred in Bustaining objections
to queetiona put u> him on ro-c'ir ct examination <• to hethar
from the time he quit work up to the *time he was b truck he noticed
3 nk .hat struck him? Tho court in sus'a-nin; ho objec-
tion remarked , it : i iit ba aokad -hothor h r i 1
notice, 'ilio fom o was then changed and the wit*
noss was asked and answer «d fully v.hat he aaw. It was within he
sound discretion of ho court to pexsit tha witness to bo re-ex-
amined, and the coi-rt die j err.dt a liberal ro-o^auination con-
cerning things ibont e witness had testified fully in
oil fiwafcainc first examination.
It ic m 00 con.. uho court erred in - ing
tho defendant to ask the court reporter if a vitaaao, "tenotnan,
testified on the subject of a warped ] lank on the first trial,
and in r -fusing to permit tha plaintiff to chow by the reporter
Bald witness was not asked any qoaation about a warpod plank.
The r cord Bhowa that iJio . of the court was changed, and at
plaintiff's roquest the entire testimony of ohe rvitn«cBr "tonstrura,
c*t he first trial w«a read to iie jury. -Bw last rulin ;
court cured my possibln arror in the first ruling, la find no
orror in the rulings on admission or rejoction of evidence.
It iss also arr*uod that tha court erred in ;: c-
tion on the miostion of ellow servants. It la apt ;on need hat
the instruction doaa not state the law correctly. The last x&sau.
instruction
£zax requested by Antiff and road to the jury involves
the question ofxdbc follow servants. ' '• ia plaintiff may not com-
plain of Jhho ^ving of an ipntruction on a . .1 question invol-
ved in his own in tructions.
It is also contended that the defendant's "Seventh instruotinn
informs tha jury that if tha injury was > result of on accident
the jury should find tha defendant not ^ulty". The instruction
-ivon is, "iJfcc If the jury believa from tha ovid-jneo at the
injury to plaintiff was the result of an aeddont, am
ne £Uganoa on tha rt of the defendant, on thay should find
the tefondant not guilty. The instruction states a correct proposi-
tion of laww and there w«b no error in giving it. Complaint ia
made of other instructiona but on a carafm) examination of the
instructions we do not find any error, Iho jury oar
boon canrafaUyxx fu^ly and properly instructed on all 'Uostiona
involved in the oaso.
It is con -ended that the vordict tm< . lot
the wai^it of thn vie once. 3ha ovidonco on behalf o:< tnt
in tha r cord at this trial, tend! to show Jiat plaintiff was
not an oruinary workman, but was a foreman ii ; ng
of six men, an: that 0fOo nors, ha road Master a nee
gave
on tha fonaar trial, showed tha order to ylaoe tha planka on 'lie
car, did not -ivo uich ordera. In was sard in lio forinor opinion
J
it was a question of fact , for a jury to decide from the
evidence t whether the defendant was g ilty of the negLiguwt
alleged and the plaintiff w a in the exerfiise of duo c^ore v/hen
injured. Reasonable men mi 3it disagree on these questions r/hen
all the evidence in the presont record is considered. It waa Tory
properly a case b& to be deci( <;d hy a jury and there boip,~ no
error of lav? in tho case, the judgnmt must be affimed .
AFFIBHEB.
\
■
I -
f
. ol6fi- Oct. rj m$ I.I - .
J.I. ^toutonbeiv : h nd
Robert ,
1. 8.
i i>t.
Edn -xlor.t
lB8i..\, 220
, .J.
Thi
b county b bo appellees, aha a half
mt| uo havt a cons^rv uintod foj ntt on
the jrouna th&t sho is a foobic-ranGod P 'Jtaopkt nd inca of
jr. A tri
rosultod in a voidiot jiytf^HBt d f :■ :jit, - ad*
U, n a il o -■ '■ irouit com in .. i by
a jury ana a similar verdict returned on hich ju rod
that a conservator ahoulc b als
n in 1
Hor father iod in ICO , 1 children b; ir»t wifa
::t and . jond ifo .
Her fatho dovisod si. ,
tdez in fo . ■<> ... i idon il
191 . u at oara ickon *ith
, ad by ]
■>ociy, fro:, .liicli, lilting ^mont in 1: ,
sho has ein^ ortont. the
, covory
attended school and went through the sixth grade . lirec
::viile 1
5.: death
with Ita. C. ,
• -
In >-oj timber,, 1912, up ellant leased her land and notos
each for £210. for the rent from 1 il, 191: , ,
. . . ■ , in counted on of hruary 191 -
150., Of 10(18 fOJ il
3?recoodinG. In . arch 1'. 1 , ,000. on a note
ho John Hancock Life 3 ; , xb
with interest at x five and on> f ir cent
annum, with t riviloge of . iy multi io
ny interest iod. TSiii was Becured
>r iodubo: l,and. Only $2, 712 was obtained on
\>mo: », 1! . v n • been > aid as , 0 retained to
quiet i oi an a b tract of /.id.
d b h . •:, t her brother
tv ray his cebts. nt brother, then
eho ±a±k let him have the ,000. not;-?, but did ,
akraix shortly boforo the tine of !,ho trial i cuit court
from him a no to for $2,BT)0. dated hvCk to the jfotfca
date of the mortgage, Thic note routes that it o nocure
lose in h event of her brother failing to
pay the interest and principal of the noto executed b
the Insurance '?okpuny •
rial in . cuit court twelve witnesses testified
f f 1 one conoernin j ,
charactorioticfl of appellant s-
had a mind like a child,- and h
hor business. After sees,
associates, had , op-
inion on hor mental con' i ion, many of
mi t tod to r over ol ing
If of ; s:- *!\ think :' -
stand ure of an , ; on
her land*? "Do ; ou think from your i; Ita c-
tions or have ha(' with hex
the nature and effect of a not , ,
ttun if foci ': iior9". ■ Id
i sufficl -nt i. :■• vitality to resist r-
son hi. war try in* to induce h r to siga a no to c for
cone's benefit who -n... a request*.? ?ho sane .jid
. r kod on ho ore- ion of ixny of
sloven witnesi a nt, tad tocti^od
that ap] ollant was oon; eteufc c tr n .ot on in xy b cine .
ritnea os we arte, at itne -
08 to toll n con-
?od
Iboy knew noti ut he mortgage, ozcopt
, re no : mion con-
comin,% the r ontal j ant to 1 t-
tors, han the juro)B inion concerning them from
the evidence. The rule concomirv; lay witnesses i ,
bions are uekod on ho • ir ct or c .n.
• #
Noejy vs. Shepardj 1CJ0 111. 637j fo va.,Paynei 161 111.,
640. ; ^ittard V8. postor, 12 111. . 1 .
court also r funad to admit in evidence that note
by Wil ia . . nt. The issue tried b; ry
ollant •• tri 1 a fe bio in od .,
T/o so I reason for 1 fur. in 0 in evidence.
The cor
, Sixtoon i - as
. n request of - "10
ost of apj oliant . Seven of the i
st 01 appellees, , , , ,
,000.
sort , y
one , tc.
tiona with others, in o j. ion o n
torn-ion of the jury « ha not iind aortga p j
ti?e is heir nature. rd ia arguninntativs,
jury ii in | - l'v-
- -
ootato oi Edna ,J.or. 7-iis in an assumption by tho cou;
may, or may not bo true. :o 3uch a
to the jury in an instruction. ■■, t 'ho
is re* net tho oauo- od#
<
CL
,-.
Co
\
V
,;■
non. Uo. 61 e7. April Term, 1914- . No. 10-
Piled July 2, 1914-
Oscar f andol and Albert Sonwarsman,
Defendants in Error-
VS. : Error to lie Loan.
Bloomington S ■ formal Ry. 8c Light Co.,
Plaintiff in Error-
Thompson, P.J.
1$8I.A. 227
This is an action on aha case to rocovor dac a^es
for injury to a team of mules, a wagon and harness fix caused by
being struck by a street car of the defendant. A trial resulted
in a vordict for $350. agains£\tho defendant on which judgment
was rendered. The defendant has sued out a writ of error.
Plaintiff in error operates a street railway on
kot street which runs oast and west in the city of Bloorin;;^ton,
Roosevelt Avenue intersects Market streot and has an incline of
over six per cent from the north. On December 209, 1912, an employee
of the defendants in error drove their team and wagon loaded with
groceries down Roosevelt avenue and at the intersection of Mar-
ket stroot was struck by the street car of plaintiff in error.
Thore is a sharp conflict in the evidence as to ".he rate the t m
was being driven and at which the car was running. The testimony
for the plaintiff in error tondi to show that tho team was driven
at a gallpp or as fast as it could run down the hill, and that
the car was only running Bix miles an hour at the tine of -he col-
lision, while the tostimony for the defendants in error tends o
show that trie team was only going at a walk and that the car
was going at the rate of twenty-five to thirty five milos an hour
and that a gong or boll was not sounded before tli collision.
Witnesses for defendants in error testified t at the car pushed
the team from 135 to 175 foot after crossing Roosevelt avenue, and
the employes of plaintiff in or or testified that the car went 0
V
-2-
f eot after striking the team and stopped with the i ulns under the
car. The driver of the wagori testified that ho looked oast, the
direction Ae car came from, just before he got on .' arket streot
and did not sen a car and then lookod west and on again looking
oast the car was on tho crossing and that in attempting to avo?d
tho car ho turned the team west on the track when it w s struck
by the car. Tho distance ti at the car vent, pushing the team a»
head of it after tho collision occurred , tends to corroborate
tho evidence of defendants in error as xk to the speed at which
tho car was running.
She questions of whwther tho driver of the team wan in the ex
ercioe of ordinary care and tho plaintiff in error was gsdc goil«
ty of negligence as averred were, in the conflicting stato of the
evidence poculiarly within the province of the jury to decide and
this court cannot say that the verdict is a :ainst he preponderance
3OQ0OC of the evidence.
It is arguod that the court erred in restrictingthe cross
examination of the driver of the team. Wo have road the sXaxy
record ana are of the opinion that counsel fax were not unduly
restricted.
One witness testified that he was not an expert on mules
but knew the value of them. He was then pom tted to testify to
the value of these mules. We fail to sen why he was not competent
The, pleasantry in the f irBt part of this answer did not disqualify
him.
It i; also insisted t at tho court erred in giving tho ninth
inut-ruction roquostod by defendant! in error which ia;« "The jury
are the judges of dhe questions of fact in 'Ms case, and tho
coui b coos noo by any instruction :ivon :o iio jury in thia case
intend to instruct tho jury how they atiould find any < question of
fact in thia case". The instruction should have said "from the
evidence in olio case under ho instructions oi" Jio court", but
the jury were finl instructed and tlie tociinical orror ii-not
sufficient cause for reversal since the jury could not fe&xKSXSEb:
be misled by it. C. ft A. R.E.Co., vs . MoDo noil, 194 111., 82;
xasxfc
^
South Chicago Ry. Co. v. McDonald, 196 111., 204-
It is alno ar;zuod b at the court erred ift refusing plaintiff
in orror's second rofusod instruction* Tho instruction told the
jury that it was not material whether a ^ong was sounded if
they believed "the driver" of the team saw, or could have soon,
heard, or jouid have heard the car by the use of reasonable caro
on his port". Under thiB instruction, if it. was possible for
the driver to have seen or heard the car it was immaterial neth-
er the gmg was or was not sounded. Tho law docs not oxcuso tho
failure to sound a fiong on tho ■ ossibility of the traveller
ing or hoaring a car in the exercise of due care, but only if in
the exercise of ordinary ware he would or Must have soon it.
It ia also contested that the court erred in refusing certain
instructions one of which is called by the r: iff in error
a "stock instruction". This and another conclude «n.th this stafa
mont. "No juror should consent to a verdict which does not i
with the approval of his ov/n jud jiont and conscience after due
del ifce ration with his follow jurors after fairly considering all
tho evidence admitted by tjie court and tho Ian as gives in the
ins ructions of the court". Those instructions tended to encour-
age and invite, a disagreement. They wore properly reftwed. City
of Evanston vs.. Richards, 224 111. 444; C. & S.I. B.R^Co., vs.
Ruins, 203 111. 417. The juyy were fully instructed .
, Finding no reversible orrpr in the case he judgment is
affin,ed.
A F F I R U E D.
\
"V
£
^
/
t
■ ■ ■
J Gen. No. 6206, , il Torn, 1914- ' . . 27-
.Ap oljloo-
Filed July 2, 1914-
i/?:. ; Appeal frfn Colea •
' •* 188 I. A. 234
;ut in 0ttttsp8i$ hhvu fit by John Rich rd-
dou ageina* V.'tHa Johns on a BOta for frOO, dated , .. M ar-
portiag to V, d "by John*; aid others, put defendant filed a
ttffj log the xatrauecution of the note.. A jury
returned a v»rdicV f intoin^ for lai.viff =03 hiea jadgaant
rendered, ad Is.
tBui } laintiff and another TritneeB, Willncn,
tifiad thai they wore preeanVand ea» the dofrnt.^nt Big .ota
Thre.i other v?itm?s-oa testified nay know th urea of
Johnn and that they believed . . . , t.;i the
note ,
0n<^ me witnesses, F^lix Johnaon« .'..ant of
the 'ec . Bunk 0." -a ton, to, tifioc<
Jain , 1 iount at tae First of
Charleston and for aetferal • had received ^cks
di-iv- , - bu on the First Rational Tvwk and that Bunk hud
ways rmioived and ■ id h 1 ..hocks received by tha
witnoso. He wao than aakod if the nignatura to the notrs was in
the writing ;ofcncant ad tits tnLtneoc aisv/orod that it ,
looked liko hi a ai.Tiature. It ia contended was ori-or.
Tha r cord contains no objection ;ocuon oonoani
aigpK<tu:< e to the note ho hut the cpnr.'-e ^oncy of the qu >Boion
and answer Li -navad for review •
* tnfinn Cyrua Tteavora tostif iod that he had knotm
Johnn thirty years, aid had se n I f ir to 03,
and had aenn hln i n ooka in p " r .arm foi
• he krr . ta ■ cigaature
n note aued on woe in the writing of JoJma « It aaa ovol-
on croBfj e^ooina ,ion iiat thi.- witness has a n ^ tot
Jolinar v/hich JoJina deniea making, -n that he ]iad compared eig-
-2-
natures of Johna on checks with the signatures on he note aued on
and his ovm note since this controversy arose. A motion to ex-
clude his testimony was ovorruled, ..his ruling is assigiod for
error. The facts developed on the cross examination did not ron-
der hia incompetent to testify x> tlio signature but only aff eoted
g his credibility.
It is also contended that the court erred in permit
the witness* IZessick, ho had soon the defendant execute a note t
on J. ay 10, 191.5, testify concerning the signature in controversy .
There is no objection la he reco d to any of the testimony of
tins witness «nd therefore no question JLfl a ved for revidw
concerning Uio evidence of tliis iritneaa •
It la also concen. ed tha tourt erred in the giving
of tvt in: .ructions at the request of plaintiff concerning
credibility of the witnosea. These ins true tiona are In he for
that has been repeatedly approved • ,
Finding no or: or in the case the pu.u! (an/ntt la af firmed.
AFFIRMED.
J vf
■A
... / .
i>»n. Nt. 621 . April Ton/., 191 • jh.
Gtcorga E. Lucer
Filed July 2, 1914-1
S .P.armatrong,
las*
; il from JTcLean.
188 I/A. 248
ThocpJion, ?.J.
wit be.'?m before aiuatico of the poaoe
by appatiee to rocovor from appellant a balalco daiaad to bo
duo for cocao hay ship; od by a froa Hoj&, North Dakota, to
eXlaa at Blooniington. A Jjadgaant in favoj: of appolloo was ren-
dered in iho juctice*a court. An appeal wal takon to Jbi« circuit
court yfraro on a trial before a jury a vfrdict v/as returned
for $151,75 in favor of oppolloo on -iiich jiu rjuont was rendaradL
Tho appellee took tha ovj^tonco of several <*itnosse8
by dnpooitions in Dakota, Appellant majde a motion tt ou
the depoaitione anion was overruled anid it is .now cent at
this nil ins w><6 error,
$ie bill of o:ioo tions clone not contain ion
to aupprana the depositions or oaxor Uon to ho ruling iimroon,
A bill of exceptions is nocwaary to proDont for review r. linga,
on motion; -t and anything ouj>aide of tha j roper corron law roeord •
°chafor fa* t GorberB, Ili.# j Sturtevant Go. jn . Sul ivan ,
69,111., App, 47;. Bro-n va. Kennedy, 138 111., Ap; . 60f| Jacob
va. C. ft L;.I. E.R.Oo., 145 111., - . 140. «hil ion and
ruling horoon aro in ho record anc5 tho clork has v/rittan an
sxoaptlan to the ruling, that d oo not cave tha ({Bastion for re»
view. Thia court can only review a ruling nn, ha
f.neetion ia .reserved in ha bill of exceptions.
allant rata from Bloopiagton to , »ilaa ■•>,,
Uorih> Vtakota, that ho would pay $16, par ton "your t: ck for A,
No, 1. timothy h^y and $12. por ton for A. No. 1 , clover ,
r truck*. fy\ allaa ami nt ihroo car loads of
timothy kag ith drafts for $389,7b ctUt,..chod to the billa of lad-,
lag and this cuit is to recover tha b 1 nee of the purchaso : rice.
<
The defence was a not of tho qualir nnd in
tho correspondence, fin evidence war: conflicting "ity
of ■'. c hay, but with tb ;,ions of two .ons of prairie fc ,
and for that a deduction ■ o made, tho prepor
der.ee c.early sustains the ver the jut pent does substan -
tial Ju. ti.o.
Appellant claims sWaanacaDaa there was a difference be-
n the wsl{£t of the hay at Hope aid at Bl on, end in*
oists xtikst thai he bought the hay to bo v/ni^jiOd ac-
cording bo the custom sSL at BloomingfcoiL ftie proposition of
poll ant under which the hay w, e sold to liici was to j ay $ir>.00 por
ton for timothy "your track", Tftion the hay was placed in he
cars at Hope and billed to appellant it was doliTored to him
there unci was at his risk from that time .
There jLs a ciiscusaion of some f the f-iven and refused in-
structions. One of appellants instructions omit, -prd *ti
ottiy • in describing the jiay, and used the letters F.O.B.. instead
of the v/ords "your track". The, meaning of the fetters F.O.B. was
not defined in the instruction. The torn F.O.B. is one sx in coaaon
uco and its naming is so v/oll understood that we fail to sr ,
whan Hie hay was delivered froo on board th t Hope, how a
jury oopld be nisladby its use or by the ocission of thi word
timothy.
Tho jury were fully instructed concerning tho law and wo
find no reversible error in the case, \he jutfpent is thorofore
affiined.
A7POWKI).
<r^
c>?
^
X
/
Gen. No. 6157- Oct. Term, 1913- ¥Ag. Mo. Mz
Filed j|ly 2, 1914-
S.J.Danskin, Acfeinistrator with the
Will annexed of Karl D. Danskin. , Deceased.
Appellant.,,
VS. ( ; Appeal frofc Cirfiuit, Court,
Margaret A. Denny and John J. Denny, Sangudbn County.
Appellees-
ELDKEDGE, J. 18 Oil. A. 26 7
Appellant ac administrator of uhe assignee brought Lhis
action in assumpsit to recover on a romissory note for the princi-
pal sum of $3,500. dated at Killsboro, N.D. June 5, 1909, and pay
able on or before January 1, 1910, to Brown-Daaskin Company, and
pui-ported to be executed by appellees. Appellees filed several pleag
including bhe general issue, with an affidavit denying the execu-
tion of t,he note. The only evidence offered was on that issue
and there was only one ins true tipa on each aide and they re] ated
only to the execution of tha note. Tie jury rendered, a vordic,t in
favor of aypellees, on which Verdict zaot judgment was entarod. 8-
No quescionl is raised except I e clear preponderance of the
evidence shows that appellees aic-ed the note. There was a r.harp
conflict of evidonce on this issue, and no useful purpose would be
served by discussing the evidence J^JJue opinion. Fton a care-
ful consideration o± the evidence we can ot say that its manifest
igkt is in favor of appellant. The jury saw and axxi heard the
witnesses and one trial court approved the verdict Of the jury.
The jury and the trial court had a superior opportunity of judging
the credibility of the witnesses and under the evidence disclosed
by the record we feel constrained to abir1' ur finding.
The judrjaent will b^ aff i need -
AFFI ?. M E tj.
I
5U
^
x
c
Opinion of the Appellate Court
AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, on the Fourth Tuesday
in the month of March in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fourteen, the same
being the 24th day of March, in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fourteen.
Present:
Hon. Harry Higbee, Presiding Justice.
Hon. James C. McBride, Justice.
Hon. Thos. M. Harris, Justice.
A. C. MILLSPA UGH, Clerk.
188I.A. 278
W. S PA YNE, Sheriff
And afterwards in Vacation, after said March term, to-wit: On the ^ f/t day
of July, A. D. 1914, there was filed in the office of the Clerk of said Court at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, an
OPINION in the words and figures following:
J L Pj^uifi. t
^
No. _.JC-
March Term, 191 1.
KKKOIt TO
APPl'AL MIOM
> -
COl'RT
<^<- COUNTY
Hon.
TRIAL JUDGE
rem jo. 8.
. . 191-1.
Pas People of th< 5 tut a o* Ellinnii I
)
Mit in Frror, ^
)
Thomas H. Jones,
Plaintiff in — or, J
1Q Q : i\ 97ft
■■ s -5 H . Jonee , plaint: " f
brought before- a juatloe c
■ :.."-■•. • ■" r. ith ' + '
by wj lfttllj en1 iring rj
being -. cpresal;
< '
Just: of the peace,
jury returned < verdict of gui]
■otion for
judgment Inst plaintiff iz
and cost. and ie brings the recor? h*r«
J?he - ■ ' ■ ' 1 -
armed the east half
tawnahip fiTe 1
purohasi
m atfc half of t3
purchased it in 1881 frsn his brother, aha had owned :
The north fort,-; of the Jom
east fortj of the :.. a
•
III So ■
( 'v
C Oof • ■ •■ , »iat«0
;oid
I \;cf
•
, ■ ::sxrt
-'
zioai
■rndttxaq
.. W9i* 1881 ai | .'. oxir»i
hwft cttrtoja
i
There was & conflict between the respective oimei
the division line wee loceten and then • i B and ia -
land about si.t rods *ide at one end and thirteen at 1
extending east and west at the junction of t) •
claimed by octh Jones and Mangle.
evidence at least tended tc sht ". , thai he
of land under the claim cf ownership ani o^ f u^erse poi
for more than twenty ^eers. Qnm the other hand /one a ol
and intoduced evidence for the purpose of ahc-vin, .
greater part cf the strip hart been abandoned ^or a nvu
years, and had been permitted to gro* np in ba
timber; that he did not know until the «prir:c cf 19.13 thai
had lately attempted to cultivate any part ol ^t. Me also ir
duced surveys in evidence, tending to Bhon the land in -
waa a pert of his north fort; ecros. It is not disputed
Jonee hnd those assisting him went upon the land in
and put a fence along the nerth side thereof .nnd h
doing is the offense complained a*. Jones while
his ownership of the property, relies also aa
claimed fact that he wee not expr< !>b1v for old den to ant< -
premises in the manner required bj statute to oe dene b<
could be held guilty cf the offense of treapaaa. On
the evidence 13 meager and unsatisfactory. Mangle teetifJ
in 1907 the highway commissi oners talked of patting a rc^'
through between the two forties and he tn«
addressed to Jones an*4 the
to come upon the lann and caused his sister to rent it aj
disputed stri]?. Re also stated thnt Jones cane to hil
ingn and wanted to know nhat he ft* a going to *o > b
.- -
na .t8»w baa Jaao |
. , : fa eonabiv*
I e^ -tewfux ttti
t naxfd- atoffl toI
t -j hGOiiboiat baa
1 3913
frari 6aa ,8ias^
; xsdtalt
• tin tl&>
.3 fcaoi/6
.83io W >o Jxae a aavr
Jar«8a saorf* bad a»crow
oorra^ a Jxrq Baa
>o 9ane" .ttob
0 rjirfaioi»ro bU
i<rt$ Joal fiaailalo
•tom 9ft-/ at 89aira9i<i
1 Mod ©d ilx/oo
tre ad J
Fttf4 voex at
>so-Ltl-t
ml of baaaaafifia
'0 0*
alb
'tiqB
fence and that he told Jton«i i - •
matter end that he wanted him fJonee) off th*
Martha Miangis a sister of the aaaplalning altnaaa, t#
put up the notice referred to by hi»;
...HnGiB, addressed to Jones and tfec nonaiBSio:
that "the substanoe \.hb for them tc s1 r his poasi
there and not to acne there r.nd nahe a road' . J.
denies that i^an^is ever told hiro to keef off hi
states that he never raad the posten netlee and did not
the oontents of it.
Jnder the statute, before Jones could pro perl •■
guilty of trespass he must have been sxpreflBlj forbiddei
iftoneis as owner of the pi— 1 bub ?n ^tteatlon, fron enteri]
the saiae, there bejn^ no clniri tint any :
Jones by a tenant of Mangla, who aaa in the aotual poastsaiou
0 the premises. The written not-'ee i 3 ^«— *=»gfc cense'' I
posted seme ./e^ra before the alleged tre;:
purposG of prevent inL tba ub — 1 BBl ottera fron eatabliahin
over the disputed territory rnd was not even seen by >U:r(
whom it is said to have been direct all a* to th<
ionero, anr therefrre it could not poasihlj be construe
the express notice required bj n the baai
prcseoution for trespass, such . 1 sneia b
oral notice civen by Lira to Jea -1 the It r I i
to see v. hat he at 5 t*alBfl to r< the fen< - ■ ' ,
1 had nothing to aay to him /+ all, r
my premises". This notice, if 11 MB] Im
ar to us tc hawe been sufficiently definite «r eoi
- -
t* hnn eons*
totttm
Mi «•**
j -sore i ■*
lirj *i wm*m
; "io *iw«e* a ^d aeaoL
"'X^ . .aeatae-xi atf
ho^Jiqalf. wO *
a •! #1
■ not
ail****
the expreS3 prohibition required by the b1
not. spoken and these !-*>.;■ *ell haYe indicated Binplj
on the part of lian^is that Jones should not eOR«
land owned by him, a wish to hi Tft nothing whtil
Jones. The strip of land la eontrOYeray sennn te hi '
claimed by both Jones anc* !"nnti^s in good faith p.nd '
not appear to have been any wilffcl fleaire on the pari
to trespass or enter unon the land o* Il^n^is, but Bii
wish to fence in his oan land. This suit In Am»1
be an attempt to try the title to the strip of land in.
,h cannot properly be aoee in a prooeedlnf a this.
The Judgment of the oourt belcw is reverter! rnd the
remanded.
Keversed and Terr.r
(Bot to be reported in full).
/, A. C. MILLSPAUGH, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of the
State of Illinois, 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 have set my hand and affixed the seal of said Court
at Mt. Vernon, this Jh> 1 t*M day of July.
A. D. 1914.
Clerk of the Appellate Court
o
o
2
\
V
Opinion of the Appellate Court
—
AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at Mt. Vernon. Illinois, on the Fourth Tuesday
in the month of March in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fourteen, the same
being the 2-1 th day of March, in the gear of our Lord, on? thousand nine hundred and fourteen.
Present:
Hon. Harry Higbee. Presiding Justice.
Hon. James C. McBride, Justice.
Hon. Thos. M. Harris, Justice.
A. C. MILLSPAUGH. Clerk. \ W. S PA YNE, Sheriff
And afterwards in Vacation, after said March term, to-wit: On ifce qZ> I t '-A— day
of July, A. D. 1914, there was filed in the office of the Clerk of said Court at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, an
OPINION in the words and figures following:
yu^,^Cc^<_ 7t C_x)
March Term, 191-1.
ERROR TO
APPEAL FROM
88I.A. 279
.COURT
t^
COUNTY
Hon.
TRIAL JUDGE
Sarah Sara A.D.1914.
xaul Kuhn et al, Partners, etc. >
)
Appellants
)
Pulaski County hill and "legator >
Cor^any,
Appellee . j
Appeal froa Pole
27P
Opinion by Hifbaa.PW. ■*■ ^
2hia auit *se institute* o; aul Rata nai !UMk«tl
iuhn, partnern doinL business under the name of .-mil
Qaaaaa?, appellants, against PRlaakl County Hill *nd
Company, a corporation, tppellee, baj aatla* of tt
Of Pulaski oountyr to reoo^er .176.10, HaiM<| »? *r_
be due to then by reason of an cTer pajwant mart, aj th«
appellee for certain wheat which aaa not Up to the
to be furnished by the latter.
Appellants reooTrred e Jwlgw— t far the amount
before the Justice of the peace, but on *a appei I *-
court where the cause v..? a triol kg the court Jury,
the ssuea Here found for appellee anr. jmagaant «n+-
appellants for costs. J>ror that jaAgmnt ft
taken to this oourt aj the plaintiff belr . Ikere •<
propositiona of 1«* submitted to the trial Mart and the
question presented to this coiirt for • •tan&natioa in &j
not the proofs show e right of reoo^f.'
The evidence showa that prior to Jaiy 1, 1910, appellee
a corporation, taaaa ataafc aaioh aaa hald ; . .
.
.
Tlfl.'i
| «vrel" fa taualMU
: '
*-* A ao£xx±qO
tan! a** '*»■ *
..-;»*.*! ,adttZ
mtcm <iM<i lo
I noansi «l «ail.t oJ eub od
,o io> BBlIaqqa
, I txt-urt ed o*
I ;XI©qqA
- jled
lw *-uioo
hftffOt »19^ B9I/88- erf*
.aJaoo to! aJntflaqq*
-woo ulAi ot mini
■■TO 'MB ««I *0 Bfioi
I fJO^flBBOlCl ffOitBBtfp
■• . . *B aSorf* jo a
*ife snd James Bert la son,
at ~rand Chain, Illinoia, «nd *.as also en
selling t,rain tt thr- 1 place. D&viAson as ■•
secretary of the corporation « nr< trans
its business. Bartleson sh€ asiAsnt c^ t>
lived at 0 Instead, a plf ce shout utm
Farly in July, 1910 appellee lassed Its propertj
tinnier and Louis dimmer, brothers, who carrier- on t;
until sometime in February, 1911, when the prcpej
beck by there to appellee. Ap_
at Torre Haute, Indiana, buv^nLr and selling grain, . ■
(bein^ in charge of their business, re p.ccustoEe
send out market quotations aad these i »ej e reoeiTed by
Brothers. In the Irtter p*=rt of July, I- . pallante
the fcllov.inc letter-. "Pulaski County Kil] lain
Inoorporatod . manufacturers o* Purs intr
Chain, Illinois. July St&i, 1910.
Paul Kuhn ft Go. ,
Terre Haute, Ind.
Gentlemen:- Have been reoeivinc- your ssrkel
and will be able to do business with you on bet)
V* will telegraph yon when so hUT« r»r.
Yours respeotfull;
Bo one connected with the Pulaski Count;
Company knev. of the aondin^, of this latter or I . •■
\.ith it, but it v,ru written i
Simmer Brothers. Bhoxtlj khan number of *
ed between the dinners sad appellants, rclatiy.- b
sellint shsst. Zhosi isat
with the corporate SSJ
■ '.1r.hr
. >**►! 1 1 , ■ . ' ■
IX»8
19B
.-©niaiKf afri
T- ■■ ' jvII
I ©«ixft(!f:« oxex t^xirt bf ^Xts*
boa -i»rm±i:
, :*««<* »• I f-tJrur
>J wed* ;d rfojscf
r*Mi
*o s'yx.iao ret scriaqp
■
.OXC'X .ftrtHS iX«t .atonl-XXI ,ni:arf3
> £ total Xxr
. OX1B
■:<Ie>t Xlitf eVf
oaonoo afio ofi
•ai toss.
.♦£ tird ,*i
I
mI« daili©«
.
appearing, but sone cf then vere fb 11 owed
rise signed with appellee's name nnaer it being written
liimmer". Through this correapondenoo. appellants purch
four ears of wheat to be shipped to Terre Haute, ^.j.ich
grade lfo.£ vvith weight* and inspection guaranteed at
In pursuance cf this contract four earn of whoat v.ere Bent
the Simmers to appellants at Serre Haute. -1th each
of laoting with draft f.tt; ehed ma eeat through the *an>. bo
appellants oould onlj get the wheat By paying the aeveral
of the drafts which acre drawn, on a basis of th* prlee
paid for lio. 'c ?<heat. Ham pasaeaelon of the when
by ax^pellanta and inspection n.^de, it waa ^ound none c^
ed Bo. 2, part of It Deing lie. 4 and the balance "no grt
Appellants honored the Craft* t the wheat shi ;\
by the Simmers, paying j-176.10 more- than they should hi
had the drafts been based on the actual price of wheat of -
grade shipped then. The drafta paid by appelli
"Pula3ki Co.iiill ft Sle< Co. per Louis haSlnaer", am
August 4, 6, and 8, 1910 reepeotively.
secretary of appellee teatifi efi th n the propel
ed he told the "iramers not to use the oonpany's nefie nr.>
did not know thep ware usine it until sometir.e in thi
was after the transactions between the Sinners anl i .
had taken place; thai he ',}ien l ont to the* rr.>i told ■.
not to ise the eearpear'a name; that When ■
of the mill he took the stationery aari tha bo< '■■■
but left a fan paper bags with the name of the compan; < n
thot ho did not know rthere the Simmer.. Bjat the lettei
used, ualess they had tar the le<
the property he moved to hit 'ieR ^f
-
* fit aaao -uxol
a.oH ©bat a
a^aafleqqfl o.f i.n:aaiaJt£ *dt
I 10
f>Itroo aJnallaqq*
lo
• £■ . uft 6i»q
Tjd
, •
staalleqqA
. iq .fcTecr- 4<f
no f'saacf aeod 8^3*6 an"J BjhC
I j Ida ob«TB
I . mt? ©rf-t JWoJ erf to
><;£D£ Jorc Li&
.ixwvxJ ad J ioila mam
• :.: aa3(:s^ faaxl
' yuKBOO act# aa* o J Jon
?.xl Ilia ad* lo
3d j- n»^ -von* too. bib arf Jadtf
tad ;orfJ aaolaa ,toaxr
jdJ
appellee sa rothera had separate be
jjoutoffj.ee and he get the company's mail about ene<
ho cane to town; that the company ne1- easiness wit]
he did not knew nor had ae ever heard of appellants until
this suit MM commenced.
James Bertleson, appellee's president, swore he
miles fror; Grans Chain tru fcfcj t ha Aid not authorise tl •
to use the ocrporotion name in the transaction .
did not know the;- were usin<_ the same; that he kn.-v not]
the transaction between appellant and the dimmer.: urP : .
the lailer had left the mill. That appellee ' B nf-r.e
in the correspondence connected with the sale of the
question to appellant is jrlain pnd in fact is not der ■
it is also clear that it was used bjf tie Sinners ■ -'
knowledge or consent and against the express instmctici
its manager. There is no evirer.ee even tendin... to si
doeb it appear to he claimed by appellant a that the-
authorized to act ra agents of eppellee or that th<
any wr? knew or profited bp the transaction in he
dimmer brothers are shown by the proofs to have been
liable to appellants ^or the amount olj
seeking to bind appellee in the transaction
nnthinc to do because the parties v»?no are liable to
damage*} used appellee's corporate nano in earryin
transaction with which this suit is concerned. Tot c.:.
the uncontradicted evidence show that appellee did n
the iircner brothers* to use its corporate name or
agent, but the proofs also fail to disclose any • ot
of appellee which could lei Hants to believe th
dimmer brothers v.ere aew . ant or tl
to oelieve that the; had a rj
act as sue}
!
tsdt ;rw<yt of aetsa otk
.->?> od J. toa btl msi
. ftoprtoMHoo a*v? 3 torn e.
rtfl fltw'D fiaiii" ncrct e*±£m
)aSJ Oi
•bb »-.©# ^»di woari froa Ala
-«»*} ad notftatonitt adt
I M dall #^8l iafl iilloi a<(#
slo oalxs ai U
t^ts» e»o.if»fi£yo oa k .isgsiiHffl Bifi
J£ aso&
aj M3Si^oi£^xw
• vrarol x°* ipsa
■ £iaaa
•■• oi oJ ^ixfJoa
'oexr aa£a&a£
Aft* rroi-ro^an.
ns*r»e fit>#»i:f»a-i*flOoxuj ad*
IMfltafei TaoBlS ad* ^j
■
A mere shewing that one ft amine 3 to i I
sufficient to establish an r can the s^rt.
proved by the act of the suppose.; agent neither expr^
nor impliedly authorised b; the alleged principal.
ft Co. v. i.allou 131 in, App. 664.
here one Ptteriptfe to take fdvantage of the net of >'
cla inert agent, the burden is upcr. hin to show the auth< :
to that a^ent. Jackson Paper Co. n,
161 • Vhile appellants M£ iu.ve been nialeari by the nar
by the ^iroerr.. cf appellea'e corp'-.r^ + e .nr.r.e In the trau
in question, yet the proofs fall to «hf '• hr; a«t
or omission or: the part of appellee which who Lid oi
renaer it liable to appellant growing on1 o"° ?.t;; transi
with the liimmcra upon whioh this salt ?s baHen.
The Judgment of the court be lev. will »e i r-<-<Tne.r..
**•*■« * ■■• **
(Hot to he reported in full).
-
,n &avoiq
dlfqrai ton
. It JD .▼ .oO i
■
arft .Jrcea* ban:
,* .oD >a^o/*.L o*
I -;i.-J &r:vi ••;*» 8?.'
I i :ioo a ' n ..u
aft a^ooi i at
■ ..: mU oa OoiM-bN to
.ret
ji ad oJ
■
/, A. C. MILLSPAUGH, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of the
State of Illinois, 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 have set mv hand and affixed the sea/ of said Court
at ML Vernon, this J2, ft C U. day of July,
A. D. 1914.
Clerk of the AppellaJc Court."
o
2
2
o
2
5
^
'(
'-,
Opinion of the Appellate Court
AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at Ml. Vernon, Illinois, of the Fourth Tuesday
in the month of March in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fourteen, the same
being the 24th dug of March, in the pear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fourteen.
Present:
Hon. Harry Highee, Presiding Justice.
Hon. James C. McBride, Justice.
Hon. Thos. M. Harris. Justice.
A. C. MILLSPA UGH, Clerk. M \ S PA YNE, Sheriff
And afterwards in Vacation, after said March term, to-ivit: On thd._&b>. i day
of July, A. D. 1914, there was filed in the office of the Clerk of said Court at Mt. Vernon. Illinois, an
OPINION in the words and figures following:
«... / b
4-s+mro^ro
APPEAL FROM
i
1881X285
1 .
i
COl'RT
March Term, If) 1 I.
a
COUNTY
Hon.
TRIAL JUDGE
1
Den Iio. 16.
Agenclt
i_urcL Tore A. 2.1914.
Ella Stafford,
Appellee
r.
)
e rr y .
. . Iebm 1 , Txec ato r , e t c . |
-lant,
I.A. 285
Opinion bj Hi£tee,J . .
Appellee was allowed J760 aa
of Hat thee Lazon, deoeeaed *"or services rendes
Mkeeper and nurse. H. ., executor, p«
appeal to the cirou.it oourt froa the order if J
allowing the clain., but filed ac appeal ^cnc'.
*na filed and the eaae do eke ted in the circuit oo
•lies nade a Motion to diBj
appeal bond, which was sustained by the (
disjsissed.
The cirounuti.nces oonneeted with the
circuit court upon tha fliBBlssal of th
with thoi>e which are involved la the case of CC.
... ..liisnel, axeea/ftor, etc., where s sinilnr ol
rendered deceased, r.r.s filed end wherein an c.
filed to the present tern of t -i %•
stated in said opinion, tha jnAgaent .• ' ■ oonrl
be affirned in this >;ase.
(Dot to ae published in full)
.31 .
90-
......
. V -T '
282
. . , • aoeniqO
>o© ft .rtoxaJ we.
on :a ,l9inri . . . itU Q rma -i&qaeXa
' laoqqa
■ f>9i£* -oilb
I 9x£* 5n« fteli! 8 a*
roa a dftaa 9aII
.- rioidw .ftaod laeqqa
. fteu8laia£6
■ " .ntroiio sxfT
dineib Jiiroilo
itVloriKl a^rt rf?iriw oaod? riJjtw
-a a 8TerfiT ,.o?o ,".oiiJOD7:3 .laacil .
•as .fteuaeoeft ft an 9 final
>9«9Tq srf? oJ belli
.*)£ab nl &9*a*a
• 9J-. at hocnltlB &d
toq 9Cl o* *oH)
/. A. C. MILLSPAUGH, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of the
State of Illinois, 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 mi) office.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF. I hare set mi: hand and affixed the seal of said Court
at ML I 'ernon, this 3 / ^J\_ due of Jute.
A. D. 1914
Clerk of the Appellate <
1 •
o
z
o
>
V
■
* — 3n
i •■•
Opinion of the Appellate Court
AT AN APPELLATE COURT. Begun and held at Mt. Vernon. Illinois, on the Fourth Tuesday
in the month of March in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fourteen, the same
being the 24th dog of March, in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fourteen.
Present:
Hon. Harrg Higbee. Presiding Justice.
Hon. James C. McBride, Justice.
Hon. Thos. M. Harris, Justice.
A. C. MILLSPAUGH, Clerk. I IV. S PA YNE. Sheriff
And afterwards in Vacation, after said March term, to-ivit: OnthecA-£ dag
ofJulg. A. D. 1914, there was filed in the office of the Clerk of said Court at Mt. Vernon. Illinois, an
OPINION in the words and figures following:
1
-*n
mxtiLu,.
No. A?.
March Term, 19 11.
kiimiii to-
APPEAL FKO.M
188I.A. 291
COI'RT
IjJdrUr^
('Ol'.NTY
TRIAL JUDGE
Term Ho. B0« . 40.
Karoh Tern ,A D. 1«14,
Thomas C. HoAleeoan.
Appellee, )
) Appeal trtsr Citj Court
V. )
|
5SBt 3t. Louie Light and «■)
Power Company. )
1 O O J~ «
Opinion by Eigbee.l2. J.
In this suit appellee, Thomas G . MirtliiOT. olajj
his horse was frightened and caused to run mj by the i
leusneaa of the servants of the ^.st t. Levis Lj
Company, appellant, resulting la injuries to the her r
a nature as to render it aeeesaarj that it be kllle
ing the wagon and harness. The amended aaelaratj
the case »*a tried, charged that one of appellant
carelessly, ne^li^enti; and improperly, threw n 0
which >ie then and there held eeiled in his hand,
aervant, who was then on a telegraph or tultfllijii
within a short iiete&e* from v here the horae of
tied, in suoh a manner ut to -Tighten and Marc •
cause it to break Ms halte: wmA run a The:
of not guilty and a ver (fever of 300.
remittitur was Sewered -llee and judgment *s<jl> jpunrtr A ran A
uiven for .LIS. 60. MM Sftja lot-
•Hee given leave tc file an s4 L count to the
tion. jn t^e meantime an appeal sad been prayed froi
Judgment and an appeal bond filed. Appellee inater
.
I .naoittolAa-l .0 aaostft
i
■MM •« *o CBanaael
MM M '•""•^ °* 8fl ^^ B
. jV; .-Inaolwao
. £«, MP**!* ^O tffi ■> °rfw «*Mn98
fcM o? M **mmb ■ rfoxre ni M**
*r * froo ^Ifira *on to
fr >■«.,, ilifftirt hnn H9-n haiafraa a«* -urfmtaan
w «wtJn«acx art* nl
,ft«XIl teed I39q^a a* *■■ **»«3*»t
an additional count to tue taalaratli
leave given hija, filed a complete air«ien<Jftd Am
again entered the remittitur and JwAfBant ?.rb a »<
entered for '; £13.60 nnd an appeal alia* > .
atate that the aeoond amended declaration w«s fi\
absence and that they were given no opportunity to pita
the same. The last amended fteclart'ticn fllo
allegations of negligence ahovs set forth in the former
declaration and in lieu thereof charged, that on
appellee securely fastened his horse to a hi toning p<
the easterly sjde of (ollinsville Avenue In the "•
St. Louis, Illinois: that while said horse was so hitch.
fastened, a servant of defendant engaged In lt« busv
ed a certain telephone, telegraph or electric light polt
ing in front of and within a short dletiT.ce from v*h(.
horse was tied, with a certain rope, one end »f whir;]
attached to or held by the said servf -
was on said pole he carelessly, iy, and
dropped or threw the end of said ro-e to
was still holding to the other same; t]
so suspended, dangle- and moved in a vibn
and In front 9t said horse so au to frighten
cause J t to brtak loose ana run away.
«i*inc the question M to whether the trial e
properly exercised its discretion in pea
declaration to be filed la the absence of oour. *
and after thi npjatfl bond )*d been filed, i
on this appeal fa though the amendment hai
usual manner upon the trial. hen ths li st wmmn ■
was filed, the - contained In ths previ ••..
were abandoned and the case must stand on the
-g-
• as
*:oTt f>©a»*tt©
fHlQ0©8 ©43 J«
JMJ f>OB 00fl»8Cf«
rru Coo* ;T»firt»nn *saI ©rfT .©ataa *rf*
I <;Id-5«o©a 89lle<iq«
S© ©ote ';I xeJusa art*
• i OB MM , -
t fCJt n»_ fO«n»« » ,&©«•* 8«1
. . •♦ at*ti80 a b©
r.oda a a
ao ao»
39 »di tiozrtt to t&<3$gjlb*
J .. 8A«
■- jOBO ,iO. ( OS
.
.^Hw» n»Ti hns A800X J0»;vxa' erf it t«x/«o
■ torfJeifw oi 88 noXiaoug srit ^aiT/.
fc£# 00 3X8iOOO
'.*©<f had ftfroa" I«e*qq8 841 -tats
.aw
■:'. .Intxt edt ivxiss iinnaa Iaisbx
ratio ©rf* ,hBll1 8«w
1 ©830 sdS ho* S)*«oJ>nnufl ©T©W
contained in the laet declaration. Vhere. oar. be bn1 i
declaration in the cane and when appelle<
amended declaration he abandoned his eclaraticn,
and the last declaration con ! .«. ■ not be ai^eri oy an
ed in the former. Foster v Idler 64 111, '4. Joil
j'owler 133 Id. 36.
The proffa ahoft appellant has a line of electric li
poles alonj the ea8t side of Gollinaville Airenne in ">■■ I
Louis. fine of these poles ia located nf the eAft c
sidewalk opposite what ia known fs the ?eoplcn tor*
five to eight feet south oT this poll iron nil
poat. On the nomine of August 9th, 1913, appellee I
horse by a strap halter to the post and *ent awry to attea
some businesB np.tters. The Horse faced north tc v
post in <iuestion and was hitched to a sprinc wagon. t
11 o'olook, some thirty riinuteB after appellee he>i L<
horse, appellant's line crew, consisting ee men, £
up in a line —gea, carr^in^. teela ax
aone forty feet north of the pole on the oppoaj te ai
from the horse. The crew car*- to attach an e"
wire at the tcp of the pole and run one *
sidewalk into the peoples store. Appelant i
respective duties were as follows: One pienbe?.
pole and nakc the connection, another to bori
brick building end prepare for a bz c be pli
hold the wire as it entered the building and
at the wa^cn and make the bre>.'
sen testified to having been ao en,
broke loose and ran away. Appellee was not
time and had to rejy upon the te-atimo:
-3-
■
it • nwa«js a£ ?jviw ^isoic0 ila^^MP
iidTJoa t&aJ
^mt^pk i<m 9sL$ a > ,*ao^
• c>4 «*t# ©? xe^Xari <i«iJ« >» iu ©«xod
dftiaiid &cioe
jAJtvpi 3 *>*■ haAo&M «w r.na rcoiJasiitf nX ?aft
d Mtttggv *<•**« eetx/rtiif |
dnn.i ,woio «r1X e'^oaXXa^-fl ,eq»Bg[
Un iJfeattJM ima eXo-
=.?a© -t©-io ari
a« 9X0 4 aeUir
"Blqoa'Q «*i* o*fli XXaw-
Xo* ea «aw a*X^A avXioa^aai
3 aiod o»+ isjCfaaa .noiJcaxwoa «d# HtQH bns aXoq
gft tXCfffll h/to §nlf>Xii«l j*«>j
nwtct, M d/i e^i* •«** iXad
■ t no *hib ,$e>A&-<- » euii }*
^s^a^aa ailiJaaJ adffl
■ a«* aeXIa^qA. .^awa na* tea aaooX
.. .
his case. Sis princi
testified that he want pcrotia the stree'
where the horse aaa tied to a saloon to
as he cane beck he aav, one of appellant's aarvaal
the ground coiling up f rope an*-. thaewin
man on the pole; ps the nan did that the horse rear*
broke loose and swung ri^ht aroun-: ir. t] i
Collinsville A-yenue; that the aaa to whon the rope Wj a
was up at tho arms of the pole 18 cr kO feet fror. the
and he caught the end o^ it en' the rope dangled do"- r
of the hcrse; that the thin^. that Started tve hcrr.e
on the ground throwing the ro^e up there; that he 8<M
hcrse.
John H. Unith, another witneob ?<>
saw the horse break loose, but- did net so-
ground throw the rope. He st- ( see the m.
telegraph pole taking off none alia froa the rati; that
not see what caused the horue to brer.i
rope dangling nown fron the pale about two ainntea e
horse had starte'i to go. three eraplc,
swore that no one of their orew threw a rcpe to ti
the pole; that before ascenriinc the pole the nex. ah( ate
work at that place, fastened one en<i of the rope to
and left the coil on the sidewalk anc' then mat aj 0 •
16 cr k.0 feet; that pert o* the rope won la the coil oi.
sidewalk and the rest w« at the aldaatMthe pole extendi
to where it was attached to the aaa I
was on the pole, Chlendcrf, atataA,
reedy to work, that he had Just reaahed the creep
strapping hla snfet; rpi-liaace to ^ f ,
in position for work, when he sew the
.oemo win"
was 9^ -jo ori aa
• ?»cicn *e .00 torn
turn ad* a* ; no nam
•ty 3r{t ni j,fti;o- j^mmo ton saool 921016
- * ;9i;.T©vA olXirectii
) dif &na
.^arf^ ;ecrrorf aft to
j 9dt no
.8;
liift 9rf fi9 + ^a 6 roisV Stiff ot$
' er.i-i anon r*o gnbra4 ©Toy rfqaiS"-
,iaf> aqor
.0 taja fian" satori
oad on 1 owe
9d*
rftow
6ae
I ism 9q.oi o ;.*«9T 0; -ro tl
•a ■ o*
mi
' 9fMjeK; .rnta
• >aoc nt
•
down th6 street.
The witnesses on the part o4
they did sot know whet soared ♦ : • ■
thet there was no proof whatever tending fo r
charge of the last srcendc-' declnratior :,
of appellant on the pole carelessl; i gently f>nc
dropped or threw the enn of the rope to I
the horse, thereby causing hjr to run ' the t-
and judgment based upon the proo^ which ni mtrt
be sustained. \<e Bay also state that in our opinion
weight of the evidence wes clearly in favor cf defend; r.1
the allegations conteined in the first mended fteelari
upon which the case was really tried. The judgner.'.
case will be reversed and the oauee renanded,
ereed t nd i
(Hot to be reported ir. fall)
-f -
fQb
I Tonal foa hti> <jexit
•
^39'^ ta»H^t»xir feces
■ -■- ' -,<« 9 • rriataire ad
i*s ad? "^0 J.vjiaw
*& ;«r Mao 9£j mxib
I ftna fcauioTd-t id Ifiw Mao
LXIfl) nl 6»Jtoc«i e<? ot J
_ _
/, A. C. MILLSPAUGH, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of the
State of Illinois, 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 have set my hand and affixed the seal of said Court
at Mt. Vernon, this £L % 6ft- day of July.
A. D. 1914.
Clerk of the Appellate Court
o
o
z
..V
*
Opinion of the Appellate Court
AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at Mt. Vernon: Illinois, on the Fourth Tuesday
in the month of March in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fourteen, the same
being the 24th dog of March, in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fourteen.
Present:
Hon. Harrg Higbee, Presiding Justice.
Hon. James C. McBride, Justice.
Hon. Thos. M. Harris, Justice.
A. C. MILLSPAUGH, Clerk. W. S PA YNE, Sheriff
And afterwards in Vacation, after said March term, to-ivit: On the _J_ dag
ofJulg, A. D. 1914, there was filed in the office of the Clerk of paid Court at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, an
OPINION in the words and figures following:
-TU^
UUli
?v
KKKOK TO
APPEAL FROM
188 I.A. 302
COURT
No.
March Term, 191-4.
LlrCU^
COr NT Y
Hon.
TRIAL JUDGE
Term Bo. 32. ^.^ Bo# 25
Larch Term, A. D. 1914.
Robert A. Vfoddell,
Appellee,
Ts« Appeal from Kando
John A. Uoser,
Appellant.
3 02
Opinion by Higbee, >.J.
This was a suit brought by ^obert A. Waddell , appellee,
to recover a broker's commission for the sale of real estate
owned by appellant. The declaration was composed of tv/o ot
common counts, one for money laici out and expended and the oth-
er for work, labor and services rendered by appellee in end
about effeotiag a sale of snid property. There was a pie?, of
gsneral l ^u# ftnd a j»uigment upon the verdict of the jury for
1329.00. Appellant insists the judgment should not be permit-
ted to stand on account of prejudicial error cennitted y the
court in excluding certain evidenoe -nd in instructing the
The proofs show that appellant owned a flouring ill ana
some vacant Teal estate at hockwood, Illinois, and deciri \% to
exchange it for other property, employed appelles tr ii i in
a satisfactory exchange. Appellee v/ho did business if. t.l
sent for appellant and introduced him to a ' r. Rowden, ?h
three houses in that city he was willing to exchange for
property. After appellant inspected the houses he anci ..iwden
went to hockv.ood so that the latter could loo]- over
property. Rowden then in: pellnnt that his houses in
St. Louip were covered by mortgages - nd further negotiations
were thereupon discontinued and Kowden went to the railroad
station to take a train back to St. Louis. Before R-^wden could
I 9gA .tf .0,1 ot»T
.MCI .a .A ,niisT rf3T«M
.IlaJbbe*/ .A JTadoH
( ,93ll9^qA
-al I"B9qqA . •'
"B~ /""\
.Toaofi .A mioL
.Jnr.IIaqqA
. L. I tv9cf3i:i ^cf no In xqO
p , IfaibaW .A J-xac/o^ \;cf frfsooicf Jiua a sot aiiiT
"3a Ijsei lo alee axiJ tot noxaaxranoo a'taimo' a larooaa oi
>;/) lo beaoqrooo a*w noLSaiBlo&b arfT .Jnall9qq« ^cf Jbexwro
-[Jo atiJ- ftm baLiaqxa bnc Jur. bisl ^anoai tol ano ,a*m/oa nommoo
nx aallsqqB >ja b9t9bn»t aeoivias bos xodml ,: i w *o"i aa
1p 0M 9iarfT .x*n9<ioiq blf.B 1c ill 9 ■ jnxioalia Juod*
to iotbrtnr arfi noqjj Jnafrahat a *•» *u\ t Luftf*
-. 9d .ten blw ,L>'^ »xtt aiaxanl jnallaqqA .00.6254
I us lBxai*«t»1'q lo ttwoooc no bneJa oj- bsj
MtiHM ax ao.e, aoaabxvft niaiiso anxbuloxa nx J-iuoo
m n a l»anwo J-na!/'. ,« JaciJ woiia eSooaq tdT
oJ -=a» ana ,«lonxIII ,boowa[oo>I Jb aJaJaa laax ioaoar aaioa
tl oi ••Ilac, ;■- a :.l d ,\:ii9qoaq MtiN to! Ji agnBiioxa
axuoJ.,x • ax ■PMtaarf M6 orfw aallaqqA .aaflBiioxa ^o^OJBiaxlaa s
f-*ri oxf» tn9X)woH .t I « o.t mid baoubortnl bn* trusllaqqm zol tnsa
I 93n.-u.0xe ovf anxlllw aaw 9d tfio Mi nx aeeuoii 99*xtt
nabwort bn« sd aaauoif adct aaJoananx ixiBlIoqqa -xaJiA .y.ti9qoiq
•X9vo Jiool bluoo tsJJbI adi Jsrf* oe boo-.Tafoci oi Jnaw
■d eld tedt J | fey narfj- naftwo^ .^-raqoiq
• V* f)ai9V00 9T9W xuoJ .is
I ^naw nsiwo/i feu baunx^nooaib noqi/9-xan\+ »?aw
ioarf nxs** m ai** o* Wi#«#t
get a traiM, appellant went to the station and ade a contract
with him to trade hie mill for one of the St. Louie houses.
Rowden took the laill at a valuation of $6,700.00, and in pay-
ment therefor appellant took one of the St. Louie houses "valued
at $9,000.00, subject to an incumbrance of #3,800.00 leaving an
equity therein of #5,200.00, and a mortgage back on the ni 1
for $1,500.00, making in all $6,700.00.
Appellant contends that hie agreement with appellee was
to pay $500.00 commission if appellee would procure $10,000.00
in cash for his property or would get for him in exchange St.
Louis property, which would bring hia an income of ten - er cent,
annually on that amount, while appellee 3Wore thst appellant
promised to give him five per cent on the dollar on any trade
or sale he s.iould make for the mill at ^ockwood or his i
property. The amount of the judgment Vas five per cent of --he
valuation of the equity of the St. Louis property, $6,70'.
lese a payment of $6.00 .or which appellee gave appellant cred-
it. Certain letters of appellant and the testimony of ct .
witnesses introduced on behalf of appellee, which tended to
support his claim that he w->s to have five per cert c omaiaslon
for effecting the sale or exchange of appellant* a propi
would justify ■ jury in finding that each w-.-s the contf . -he
theory of the defense is firM, that appellee did not fulfil ii
contract to find appellant a buyer or a trade for the . ..t of
consideration agreed upon; second, that the original negotia-
tions were abandoned and a new trade consummated entirely dif-
ferent from the original for which appellee wae not entitled to
any commispion, because he was not the efficient c ue<
consummation of the same; and third, thet as apptlle.
carried out the special contract between the part lea, )it
(2)
.. , , „M lo n.»«.X*r - *« Htm m ioo, a.**
, , ,„, ,. .no ,oo, ,-nIX.,,. «**• *>«
,.I 00.008.S» lo .on.,o»uonX .« oX »M , »•■■*£ ..
M . b» .OO.OQS.M f oi.-r.rfi *1»P.
.00.O0V.9* II* ni ijnXito. . .It «*
,,,„ ..xx.r„ .at. tmmmm ■« »-» e6n9,BM *«"•«»
M «».« Muo. .,11**1. « -*«»— <">•«»•• ™ °3
. „ .» 1 *• — - •*"*»* — "* — * -
ir„ „ „,x v .—x • «m anUrf »iw, I .*»««<» .""J
,„:iw X,,X «o.o -X .»«» •« »■ ^IJ,Un"
. -,»•> ■« Jnwsbot «o'J »o »«u/o.«i KIT .vl*»V«
,»* ,xJM<ro*q .iuoJ .« I" ■ W^m
xo„lJnoo
(S)
entitled only to what hie services were reasonably wort:, u ;der
a quantum meruit.
Upon the trial the court refuse0, to permit evidence of-
fered jy appellant, concerning the actual value of the St.] ouiF
property t;iven in exchange for the Rockwood mill and also re-
fused an instruction tendered by a ellant, which told the
jury that if they believed from the evidenoe the contract f
the sale or exchange of the property between lioser sad Rowden
was wholly different from that contemplated by the contract
between ttaddell and Uoser, then tfaddell was not entitled ti re-
cover the commissions on the contract as originally made. ""he
theory ft this instruction appears to have been tint appellee,
if entitled to recover at all, could recover only on a quantum
meruit for his services. Whether or not the court properly
excluded evidence concerning the actual value of the St.Loui-
property, depends upon whether the comraiesion, if any, which
appellee was entitled to recover, should be calculated upon the
walue placed upon that property by the parties to the tr-de or
upon the value wxxUBt it might be proved to be worth upon the
trial. We are inclined to think that for the ■ urpose of cal-
culating the commission, the property must be assumed to be
worth the value plaoed upon it by both parties to txie trade
at the time the contract was consummated. Kad appellant's
property been sold lor cash there can be no question but that
if appellee was entitled to a commission, it would have bee
the rate of five per cent upon the amount of the sale, and
appellant instead of cash, received property in exc;.
he, as well as the owner thereof, valued in making the tr de at
a certain amount, he, for the purpose of estimating c .a- ions,
(5)
^ M 9rfo aniniaonoo falton* V- *•"*
&1« fcoowdocfl ,rf;Hol .anndoxa «2 neri > *»W
oxriw ,*n*IIa cp V* boiabna* noi*o»i*.ni m. b..*rt
«1 tMlna arf* H»IM a-* »oil baraxlad ^ *2 '*» *■*
. ,,„ TM0- n9»w*9(f ^lacroio .xl* lo ^« *■ *•■ sd*
| ^ |* 00 *Bd* -Oil KiMttl vlloriW 1BW
*liii«. *.« .*r Habba* nan* .«*•■ ^ Habb** «••**•<
.noiaeisusoo •** laroo
,m£U& »-*# -5* •"* °* «"«» «*""«*80i ti* * *••*
itroo« tftet .II* *- ^ooei .J b.I*i*«a M
.,qo,< NM •** *•« « '«"•** ••**«• «±rf '0l "^
ft-i.tf ax* lo aulBY L«*W «f» snirtiecnoo .anabiva b.buloxa
. xs.too *i* iari*.dw noqu abnarab .^1
i b.,Bluol,o .d M,od. ti*vooai ei Wti**- *«» a.IIaqqB
-. «J if »*** ■* tf tf* »«* -V b.OBlq .uls»
...i,nw ad M bavoiq ad **t- Hi *"**, auI.T «* no,,;
-1*0 10 a,, ■ •« toI **i* fi*f» o* baniloni MM •* .Ib2i>
■ ,* atf *«- *r««o*cf adi .noia.xm-00 ftdi anW.Iua
M a.wwq d*orf *d »4 ~f» baex-lq t«I* ^ «**ow
.A.*m.«OD a** *W~ ad* WX2J ari* *b
,.„p on ad »o aiad* d.BO lol bio. n.ad tfWo„
Wad U«o. H .noia.i^oo . o* bal*i*na a«w aallaqq. 12
, ,ftk« auo lo #*~- •« nocrn *naa i*c frit *• e*«i id*
| eft**, bavx.oai td..o lo b..*.nx Jnallaqq.
,.. ,; txo*i.xtt lamro ad* .b XX«w «b ,ad
^ ,, ,- arii fl ,an ,#«» nlBiiao .
I
must be bound by the valuation be as well asthe owner, lixed
upon the property received by him.
Appellee did not seek to recover an a quantum meruit ior
hie services but relied upon his express contract with appel-
lant for a percentage commission. While the trade was not con-
summated in identically the manner contec1 lated by the contract
between appellant and appellee nor according to the ori£inal
terms talked of by appellee and Rowden, yet it was coneucr.ated
along the lines talked of and discussed by h0Wden with appel-
lant and appellee, and there was no such departure from those
lines as to warrant a change in the manner of computing the eon
mission for that intended by the original terms of the e.
ment of appellee to make the sale. A ppellant relies on Close
v. Browne, 230 111., 228, which holds, that where the transac-
tion in regard to the sale of the land is wholly different from
the one contemplated by the parties when the contract wns ade,
there can be no recovery upon the contraet, but that if the
principal received the benefit of the agent's services rendered
at the instance of the principal, he is liable upon a quantum
meruit. But that rule cannot apply to this case as the
sition of the property was not wholly different from tint con-
templated by the contraot between appellant and appellee ut on
the contrary was directly upon the line indicated by the terras
of the employment. 'We are therefore of opinion that the
properly refused appellant' ■ instruction above referred to.
Complaint is also made of the reius^l of instructions
3 and 4 offered by appellant, refused instruction ;.o. 3 liid
down a rule of law to govern the jury in case they found that
the negotiations Mix for the exchange of the properties of
(4)
Haw 3« ad aoitaulBV adi \d bnucd so faun
.mill \£cf b^vxaoai ^Jiaqoiq 9dJ noqu
..' ■ i: n« m/injBijp £ na lavooai ctf il99a Jon 6ib vsllu
-1 t% ir 5tqKd axxi noqu bax £ t>t Sud aeoxviae exd
U axW fcllxfW .noxgaxruaoo 93«Jn90T9q a aoi ^nal
.:■ axfj- \;cT fta^t'-I .-nre^noo lanoeiH 9xtt y-T-£r°* Jix9bx Ml boiemujQ
i adJ o.t an; ion aol I a ^nel'Iaqqa a9aatfecf
be.4 10 exiw ^i t*\ tfi3i>wotf laa aalXaqqi r^ilBi 8.
• rrsbwo-*- \;u oaaaxjoaxb boa to kl&Lmt aaaUi adcf anola
9Xt;J-x£qab done on asw nM uia JhbI
t* Tdnflf. tiurxw o^ as aanil
babna.tnx tfBrfi tol noxeaxcr
raJtla? tm r.faajm A . aJLM adJ 93lBin aJ aallsqr?* io J nam
, :i.i< . iioiilw ,8SS ,.III OCS .anwoiff .v
9*i9x*iJtb ^IXoaw ax bxiai edi to bIs-b taft o* Mcasi x:x noij
«r *obi^;:oo 9xtt nfjctv aaxcfaBq adi \d b ioo aco exit
9iiu noqu y^tsv^oat on ao oaa aiadj
baxabxra? aeoxvree barlsoaa I*qi*nxxq
fexl at axx ,i«qxontiq sdtf io aan/jani adJ is
D ax. {J o^ t-Cqqs ;fcr<n»o •Iu~ J ad J J-jjH .^Ix/iaci
ixx> Y-CJodw Jon sbp f#Y««o«4 erf* ^° noxJis
no #j naaTrtfacT tonxiaco mdi \,d aa*alqg»#
a.nrx9i 9xit x^ »*#*al**ii anil aritf noqu ^IJ-oaiib bpw y^-pi^oo •***
ihwi -r-xfj oaiolqo la aicxoTadJ 9tjb aft' . ctnarrrYoIqras adJ to
. oJ- banal a*r avorfa noiJoxx-rjBnx a'*cu5ll9qcj? bsv.ulst \lre
MRlMl io I.raxji9i 9dJ Io afcsra mX* ax Jnirlq/xroO
: ..-iJanx baeule" .tfru 9i9ilo > br.-
Mi I I v.iixt ad J ni9V0s oJ wbI to alx/T a xtwob
'to asUtaqo-Lq adJ lo aaxujxioxa adJ- toI x±k anortflxio^an ax(J
(*)
Noser and Kowden had been abandoned by both parties in rood
faith. This instruction was improper for the reason t t
there nae no proof of any abandonment of negotiations between
said parties. "The mere fact that negotiations may have "been
discontinued for a snort time, will not defeat a recover. In
order to constitute an abandonment the evidence must not only
show the breaking off of the negotiations, but also an aban-
donment of all intention by the purcnaser of purchasing the
property." Rasar v. 3purling 176 III. App. , 349.
The fourth refused instruction told the jury, tnat ■ ner-
son employed to make a sale of property is not entitled to c
mission where he is not the efficient Cr use of the consummation
of the transaction, for whioh the recovery of commissi-*:) is
sought. This instruction, if given, might have been misleading
in this case as tending to cause the jury to believe that
plaintiff was not entitled to recover unless he had directly
brought about the trade exactly is it was consummated, which
is not the law. The theory that before appellee could recover,
it had to be sh-wn by the oroofs that ho brought the defend
and Kowden together and that the result thereof, was the
ing of the trade in question, was fully covered by other instruc-
tions in the oase. Upon the whole case we are satisfied
substantial justice hac- boon done and as there are no erore of
sufficient materiality to warrant a reversal the judgment will
be affirmed.
Affirmed.
(i;ot to be published in full.)
(5)
.\BfiB n»»rf hfuL n©im<
vr sild- rot toqotqtat 9bk ItW
a **r MtrfJ
M >n tori* ?Of.l ^a©r wiT* .eatt^cB- M
nr | e t~ol.o£> N* Tliw ,©ini* ttotta -c lol RftHilMt
■a stuJlte'-oc ft! tabic
aft arii to «o $n£jia' *oriB
twq "io iseniiotuq arfi v.tf nrxtnstnx -nettnofc
| , .qgA .fIX &VI |ajtl«*ajfe »f *rSeH ".^tl.
- 1 MM noxtotntafti bmulsi dtnsol #riT
0 ot AaLtitns *«■ ex ff s »^*k o* ba^oXqnxe not
It • ■:,•:, n *.viO:"te sat ton *i id oaexiw acti&km
tx "isvooei art* rioiiiw lol
Sni it svAri trivial U***l It .rcxtoj.-Ttofu axrfT
' sveil90r ft Ajiut 9ri;f eaufio ot \nibnst as eero eidt at
9[nu isvoot* ot MXItli
• «?*?.*- tX C-X9 ftbtflt ftrit tt'OCfJB txi
,16VO^«l fciu^o wile**?* #1
bn»i9i "B etf °* ^
Mi s»w jliiliil J Ii/esa <wil #*' nsbroH J>r-.e
.aygftii -sarito yd" baasvoo ^£1*4 sfw .roxtBoup til *§•** odt 1c jfii
. i -. . MM pfetfi arft ncqO .©e^o »xit nx anoxt
i<ceit» on o?6 9iet?'t B'- I >• need" surf *•!#*«( .dua
•HI filTlflT " '■■rr: ot \,txlr itotsai tnexaxllt/e
. hmm. i'MA
Iwi aj bsriailcfxjq acf ot to.i)
(a)
/, A. C. MILLSPAUGH, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of the
State of Illinois, 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 mo office.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set mo hand and affixed the seal of said Court
at Mt. Vernon, this A/ C / \. das "I <J"fa
A. D. 1914.
Clerk of the Appellate Court
o
o
/ fTv
•i
Y Opinion of the Appellate Court
'
AT AN APPELLATE COURT Begun and held at Mt. Vernon. Illinois, on the Fourth Tuesday
in the month of March in the pear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fourteen, the same
being the 24th duo of March, in the near of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fourteen.
Present:
Hon. Harry Highee, Presiding Justice.
Hon. James C. Mc Bride, Justice.
Hon. Thos. M. Harris, Justice.
A. C. MILLSPAUGH, Clerk. W. S PA YNE, Sheriff
And afterwards in Vacation, after said March term, to -wit: On the qU^ dag
of July, A. D. 1914, there was filed in the office of the Clerk of said Court at Mt. Vernon. Illinois, an
OPINION in the words and figures following:
APPEAL FROM
188I.A. 310
(JU^ju^^
Jsf^fiX^
COl'RT
COUNTY
Hon.
TRIAL JUDGE
^erra No. 40.
Karch Sam . .
Ida Jefferies, J
)
Appellee, )
J
v. ) Apoeel from J'.arion.
J
A. J. Alexander, et al, )
)
Appellants. )
188I.A.SK
Opinion by Hiebee, P.J.
This waae auit unckr the dram shop r»ot bronchi
Ida Jeffries, appellee, to recover danagea on aooormt i
death of h*r husbanc, against A. J,Al«3Mf»der,L.^.Xai»!ier,
3d ward :-:.Xell and August Loa&enfeltf, appellants, and
othera who were either found not gttiltjr or Aisni
the suit.
The declaration contained two counts, the fir; t
set out the marriage of appellee to Newton Jeffriea,
2£,1908 and alloced that at that tine he «M
.jarion Count;1 Coal Conpan; . for ,fO e month and was i
oeivin^ an income in the nature of r. life estate,'
to ,.37 a month; that o; reason of the amount ao r*ee: -
he was enabled to an" d:d provide a e )le and lib<
maintenance for hinaelf and plaintiff; that commencing t
riber 1,1906 and ondivera daya end tines fron then
the death of SPid Jlewton J^f ferir-a, on Jebrjary 8.19:
defendants and each of then fr *.v -1. i a, Bold
him intoxicating liquors, censing la whole 03 1]
intoxication; that he thereby became habitw
in consequence lost hi a position, w s*lar;\ aq.ni
' f83t-I3'
I
■
i. tLa $6 .lob-aaxalA .1. «A
i
a oaif> eaj- r. *A;ut >+ixit a saw etrfj?
. . , , .;.'. tao£as>a .ooacairrf i-'rf to rftaab
. tea 11 .is«bZ
Lzrij ton ftnx;ot Sflrf#£« «idd*o
.tfiirs ad*
sJft erf* ,«»+nffoo owJ f>en£a*noo Ml erf"
j-8r gga to ©^a^nan ©d* fen Joe
oils f»aa 30
.rnuoO soJ
C « So M !•«* «a ^n^vieo
i oa tan •■:yi;J;4taiofi a Y€£ o*
I £©Idaa© ea«f ©d
ft£( />na tin eooanofratam
.- •• i itt Fina B^ab mtmvtbm ,1 i&da->.
' rto*wa!i h±sa to d*a©F.> ©d*
rndt *o rfono *>aa e^/iabnateb
i8/:«r> .KTOupi:! i>a£*30izo*al aid
[Ad a-iap -irf?;noi*rtoJtxo*al
ltd *8oI ;:jo at
ed hia none^ and property, became greatly inpover i afedd ,
degraded and wholly ruined in body and Bind, a
cf ceased to exercise or Attend to h'ls dn
earn or provide a livelihood for himself 63 fj
became continuously intoxicated and a?fliete<
tremene and by reason thereof became ill and aftertax
day r.foresaid, in consequence of amah habitual intoxica
he died; that appellee Berved notice ^^cr: aach • -" fch«
the,- aeinu license" (Tram shop keepers, not to seal or
husband intoxicating liquors but they persisted in ac floi
by reasen thereof, p.ppellf-e has jeer fierrri^erf of
support .
The eecond count was similar to She first, except tl
allecea the de«ith of said Jeffariea waa ceased by delirium
tremens, resulting free intoxication branch* about J r. eht
in part b; the intoxicating: liquor furnished Mm by the
defendants. There vss a plea of the general .
ment and verdict In favor of appellee for slOOO.
1'he record shor/b fourteen assignments o:r~errors by
appellant, T>hich in different waya Plle^e that the pro< !
not sustain the verdict, that the court erred Jn its 1
.d to the evidence, that an improper instrni
on behalf of appellee and thct one of the aounae!! fo;
made inpro-' jrejudiaial remarks in hi a addr«
The proofs upon which appall* baaed her riL
reooverj were in substance cs 'ollows: ror tw cr thai
prior to his marriage te appellee, a « ".ton Jefferin- .
occasionally indulging in the nee rf intoxlet
net da so to excess, fW'. ■ ime cf. hi a rnrr
- -
a .Li be
•io rrxae
i ft9+»oJ:ioK
i
-■"
. MU ;u ftaq at
\
...•-*'■/ I
irt.saoo
j'oa
a position as weiuhman for a Coal Hiainfi Conpea .
month. About that time his foster nothar died.havir,
provision for him in her will for the life use o* a fl
paid him ,37 a month. Two or three months later hi
prinking heavily and in January. 1909 lost hla position. I
that time on until hia death he was out of sag 1 p. no
habitually intoxicated. During this time he on<: hla *i
dependant for their livelihood upvn ':
from the foster mother's estate. It v.as clearly shown c;r.t aoee
not appear to be seriously disputes that at different tj
he received and drank intoxicating liquors pwrchsno-
from the eeveral appellants. On _'uesdr-; niL.ht- previous to
death he cane home intoxicated, Rla clothes were
hat mashed in, he was unable to talk, and was so drunk t]
-to
step daughter ha • to put him **• bed. He never le^t the hoi
after that time and »,aa out of Ma aaa* only for a short
on ednesday. qq Thursday he was worse anri beoana it
He thought that people were pursuing him and that sru-
qer© trying to gat him, Ee of.id there vr.-; none*
get and kept picking at the mattress and sticking things un
his uncerv.ear. He tried to t at ut of his bed anc* fina.
detain him there, the step daughter cct a rcpe r
row suddenly worse and died the following fewdaj »ft<
It is one of the contentions cf appel?.ar.'
could be no recovery for the raaaon that the dee"
that Jefferie* die' or delirium tremens broag]
haoitual into :ti cat i .. r., bat tflat there wan no evi^.f
to shew that he died of delirium trenerio. :iher*
evidence tanrtlUfl to show ♦hat lefr-
utlirlum tremens;, though it waa not position
baj phi' si ci an afec atter
-
nod A ,d$aoa
-
.dtaoa a -.'•- bt&i
- . ' - : - I I .-.'-■.- „- ' ~ "\
w erf d I LtSav ao anil lad*
^lljiixJldad
£IeY±I li^J -xo? Jaafiflaqaft
. y.nn:: . jcr i©taol adt i
I xsa^qa tojc
: Aazilt ftru? i ad
lIXtVfB leiaTea ad J ciot!
eaod anna ad diaeb
hm .jilfl? o£ aldami 8«« ad ,a* fiadbam lad
tavan all »B a* yjao <raJa
i<f e trf : .ia e2i±l lad? ial!ta
w aaio<v aa# ad (Al
£a& aH twf aiajr
• gai baa
*i aid
M rxialeb
.Lsxibhub wai<j aH
bo at H
on ad A
i aefxaTlal Jadl
onealve
erjwlpalaa am1 thai Ho aaa usable i
was or ftas not suffering Kit] laliriun ti^ri-iorn.
was in a highly delerioua st^e and ma fleeing ai
thin^a commonly 8uppoae<; to i Stand an I Stack of del:
la Undisputed; that this condition and hi8 Bn&aoquonl
ted from his habitual intoxication, cause '1 in irbx
by liquor sold hie by appellant ana that appellor aaa the
injured in her rasanB of support, vaa clesrl;.. prefer. It -
to ub that under theae conditions, it ia ai
the delirium frcm which h« suffered *as properly named in 1
decle.r? tion os delirium tremens cr not. The proofs pli
ed a oase which entitled appellor to recover.
upon the trial appellant effere-i in evidence thi
record of the county of Marion, showing a forner aarrii
-Jefferies prior to the time he married appellee and pro* !
offered to show that hia former *ife was still livi] •
of divorce entered in the circuit court c+ afid oountj
April tern thereof, 169b in a 3uit brought by Jefferies
former wife, was alao offere l, ;>ut objection waa aaat!
the court to all the proof offered concern? r.(; the *c :
and the exiatence of Jefferies former v-ife.
to failed to Btste that the complainant in fchat auit,
Jefferies, waa a reai1en+ of i.srion county and m
appellants for the p rpoae of showinc tha+ the court i
juriadioticn and therefore the decree o^ divcv
that the first wife of Jefferies vaa really bia
wife. JMs evidence- wp.a excin the trial ooart
reason that the decree a* divorce could not be aollal
attache one In thi a suit an
claim that I jK *n era
-
I
■■■' has or <*«•
*t
Hot -io»i>Jti ^tf
^K 18d rri f»*Tirtfii
It V4
1 !**■■ > r 3 6 ei*
reb as n.>tt*ri«JCo96
10 ?»8 • ssao 8 be
- fttoaet
I OS 83-1*1^0
<r£b to
„>.a 80W te"i±vr tsurxol
. ' . . --. ■. ■ ?d*
1 ^9ii«',
v*.T?»^Jt891 8 8«W .BSii.Vttat
ft frarf*
:9 saw v . 3**W
.887
.. -
appellant relied cr .oecklenber^, v. '-^ocklenber^
Jarrett v. Barrett 252 111* 318, where the questd
iality of the reaidc-r.ee of the eonplainant in h aivorce suit
wa*» under consideration. C'heae oases are not in poinl
the yueBticn there aetezadned una that the juried ioti
trial court in a divorce suit Bight be raiaad for the fij
on appeal or v»rit of error, although it had m ' been ocr.
in the trial court, '.'he decreea in those eaa< ctly
attaoked in the sane oases in which the; were enter*
question cf a collateral attaek in another suit whh net oenaj
In the ease of Casaell v. Joseph 164 111*976, the TaliAi
deed executed by the adr.in! stretors erf an estete naa atti
oollaterall; for the reason that ft deeree of the ocunty court
directing the administrators to sell the property, failed to
ahow service of process upon certain neaeaeary parti«
bein^ clained that the count; ocurt wea therefore m±\
aiotion. It is there said "It is wall Battled that p court of
general jurisdiction, octir.c. within the scope of ita autht
la preauned to have juris iletirr. to render the judgment cr
decree it pronounces, until the oontrar; appears.....
ciple, that presumptions will be entertained in fev/oi
jurisdiction of aonrta cf general Juriadletion haa beer.
to oases v. he re the decree is silent a-: to the aervieei
process upon the defendants. In Dwoarangen v. Guile
20b, we said, '..hore the record < f a Judgment or *enn
relied em aalLataiwOly^Qwxla . nJSthouglf'il ■■•
or failed to appear in the rec<rd'. In benefit
rat, 665, *e said' hero ft decree la cr Q.aeetl<
all?, as is the ca>. it nay as n £<"
th&t in all courts cf ceneral Jturladietioii nothint 1
•t noxJaaup ad*
ra aavor ♦*i;oo laxi*
--i9'i*B no
;3«>90 r ' J" adfr rex
-*aao eoaa ndt at aaitaaiJa
j laisfraXIoo & to aoifraai/jti
Ml 5to oeae -ad* a I
fte iw* "ha fcmftN §atn»«a9 baab
«J a fad? itoeaat ad* Mfl -falloo
^iJBlWhilifl 9d? sattaaixb
o aoinaa woria
^ ^aiad
•^rae eted* ei ti .00-^
xtJo/»,noi?oibei,iift laieaaa
afsvi j f>«fVMVl ax
.jf.asecuraor?
Hi SBoMpMBq . jIqxo
jr::-3 $0 »S-ruoo *o ooxtfoxbaifru/i,
'laof) au a«aaa o*
jfO .r ,T(*j.t87t»«» .atnaftawft:^6 >ooiq
' • taa a* ,dOS
"*:««»<? B 10
,111
I b— »ajt> oao ad+ ax aa (^XXa
ae 5*0 1
-a-
to ue out of their jurisdiction hu1 peoiall;
bo so; out or. the contrary, nothla
within :the Jurisdiction cf en inferior 001
expressly alleged. In the oeae ©Iter if • .-: alno
v.htre the decree *as ailent afl to the Jnrlan&otii
over the defendants, in the absence o* griper.
jurisdiction v»as not sc^ui: • that
the court had jurisdicti>. r> ' ' ,
The decree offered in eyjdene' in this ca^e shewe
the complainant had resi^i in the State of Illinois ^'ct a
year prior thereto, but ps it failed to shov- what
resided in, it was therefore silent n& to the jur
the court ofrer the complainant ano her ottasc ?r. thi
out under the authorit; above quoted, the aeeree eould nx
collaterally attacked; and the court *il not err in n t«
admit the decree and the other proof In connection the ran
Complaint is made bj appellants o^ !
second instruct ion, which v>as as follows: "The c<
the Jury that the statutes of this state prcwi.de as fail:
. Mrg husband, wife.chi Id, perent.quardi an, er:plow i
person, who shall oc injured in person or pro
support, by an^intcxicated person, or in conseip.iene»-
intoxication, habitual or otherwise, of en„ . crscn.slj
a ri&ht of action in his cr her own name, se^zr-H:
atainst any person or- persons, v»hc shall, by selling .
intoxicating liquors, have caused the intoxication, ii T"
in part, of suoh person or
and Jointly, for all damages suttoine" .and for exe-
and a married woman shall ha"*6 the er.ro richt to br±
to control the same and the amount ^
The objections to this ins4-
while it purports to be a i .
■ '
- >fl «^sarr?noo or' ti ;oa ed
site aaw •©15^6 «rff an
hr» *o aon»' -raro
.? » /ft *ad ?«MfDO ad*
Mhr<8 rri ft9*i8**o ©a-iosS aifT
I »*0*««fMff aaw tl ,rri 6©5i88"i
' ■:•> ©rf+ tatfo frniro© arf5
©bm; turf
*• bmi 99 rmb»
*<< ©ban at frnralqaoO
I a^ an* rfohfw, oa*
\ wii
. ** *v» , ftrtntfaflxf Z'-
,noert&q
wta ~;d .Moqqira
~u< ,«ot#ao£xo*a.£
fct> Jr(3jht a
» . i«aa
ftfcjwa ©*«rt,e~: joWaalxo
■ ^o,J*xa<T al
tanow hai-nsff a tea
/>na ansa ©rf? lot Jr.
8-tdJ oJ 8floi:J-oet,cfo ad?
the eame in full; that it is an r .straot prope
containing no reference to tba case or ev? ienee, an<
not re^uir'. proof of -'acts whicJ oreate liability
instruction ■ to oa tc ..+..• *• nil i 1 .<
applicable to thia oase and the portions 1©** c\v
here and could not have aire' in informing the Jnr; c.
whioh ah'.uld govern thee in re, sMng a ▼erdiet.
refer to the case of Kapenn;- Y«Hnfft*m, recently
the Apx^ellate Court of the 'hir-. Diatriet of thia ntrite
its October terrj end. not yet reported, where it is o.
that a ainilcr instruction van held tc be reversible error.
It appears however that the instruction oriticib<
case omitted a material part o^ the statute whiofc in ino
in the instruction in the case ee have nadez ■
and therefore the aaae objection "■ ould not t la
said in that opinion, "'.The instruction as oiven is mi...
since it tells the jur;> appelle ntitled tc rector
dossa^es sustains' rnd n net Halted tc dar*>£eH aneti
to her r.cens of support $ . . . . -The giwii reet
instruction was reversible erroa the record si
instruction vae giTen llrrttinc tba flar#.gee to the loi
her no^cu of support o.r infemint the jar; what wee th«
innn of Aeaagec in the cf!>e." i-nnere-
case before us limit the Aanegea to injury Buateine<
appellee in her aeasa of aapport, anfl. appelle*
Uo. 12 in particular, clearly defined the aeaoure
and limited the sar.e to injur; to appellee's mema i
ao that the criticise referred to as applicable *
ticn in the above case does not applj to the li
erffr
■
m Jtxi
•taltat* a
• *trjO 9B33
♦ has
\ .... i +zo urn *o arrso.Ti 13.1 o*
•. -f^r aa- t t*stt
- rrtltsi.
501 "!:o cases ^^ff
rr.'jft ?:o ofjTaaaffi
M yro^ocf aaao
• ,£to^3 n* sail
Sf^SBJ c> 21 .oil
;<ob 38co ov
i'he jury ccul^ not }&ve been nisle."! by this S
and the court rtlri aot err in pi ring it.
It is farther clr.iaed by appellor'
for appellee nrde iaipropex en>' _ re- Judicial rer
argument to the jury, It is difficult to learn froi
whether objections were Bad* la nr-t tine +o ' *
of and whether proper exceptions Rare preserve'
of the court thereon. But at any rate the ?•
called for and in a raesanre rnpre per, were n o I of i
importance ae to warrant a reversal <~* the JuAgne 1 .
The Judgment of the court belo* will be i
Affj
flat to be reported in full)
Mo Bride J. hzr/in^ tried this case ir. tie court
took no part here.
. -
'erfw htm lo
a tfOmxm oJ as 9oaa*T:ocyai
■.
/, A. C. MILLSPAUGH, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of the
State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true cops >>/ the OPINION of the said
Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in my office.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set mi: hand and affixed the seal of said Court
at Ml Vernon, this c Q> o. day of Julo,
A. D. 1914.
<Z,.(L '../■ <
Clerk of the Appellate Court
o
O
2
*
y
I
Opinion of the Appellate Court
AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at Mt. Vernon, IBinois, on the Fourth Tuesday
in the month of March in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fourteen, the same
being the 24th day of March, in the year of our Lord, one thousand ninefmndred and fourteen.
Present:
Hon. Harry Higbee, Presiding Justice.
Hon. James C. McBride, Justice.
Hon. Thos. M. Harris, Justice.
A. C. MILLSPAUGH, Clerk.
And afterwards in Vacation, after said March term, to-wit: On the
W. S PA YNE, Sheriff
3,* - * _
duu
of July, A. D. 1914, there was filed in the office of the Clerk of said Court at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, an
OPINION in the words and figures following:
i:kkoh to
appeal from
188I.A. 312
March Term, 1911.
Jr
COl'RT
tL*
^y COUNTY
Hon.
TRIAL JUDGE
<--U^
.
-V enc* «
i.brch .em .'..I .1914.
Charles J.Hahn,
Appellee .
V.
.■auline oohnoal,
Appellant. *
,
jf Opinion b; ^ijbee, I . .
The declaration in this o-.;.it ma in trespaai
Carl^le Schneil tad Pauline .chre? turning
house of appellee Ch&rlea J.Hahn ant* : oppen fio
windev.c therecfR Inr^e stream of water, with e*eet '" '
\iolcnce, thereb;- injuria appellee, •:-v;tur<:<iyit hie
nird and lBfl his property. Iher-
and a -verdict in fs-rcr of appellee for |900, <
jud^ent for a Ilka anount. re this Judg38©*1"^
alone appeals, claiciir.^ that the proofs foil<
in an^ ^ny connect* i wltht the offence conp?.f.inef
waa L-ianifebt error in Appellee' a third givwn instru<--'
the court. '3 ruling in re^ar-i to certain OYiflen
ant Carlyle Jchnell vv*b gnlll
net deniea, but upon the question whether ag»pe?.li
hi& mother, v»at> also gailty, then . .>mrp c<
evidence.
The proofs peo^uce ' OB *Vr- trial
merly an-i for rnn;'
and that ohe owk a 1 aee and lo*
i
iH.L 83:
,14^
■
LtBJ
3Wjjf&/xEW
to -xovat Bl 5otb?37 4 baa
a oaola
•on mii~l i> atfi
iad taa
,beta&b ioa
.sonebtTB
so fteouboa^ e*o
frffftl KJlex ^flun io'v Ktjb ^Ii8«
sda Jarf* baa
Last thirteen years she lived in *.
in0 Carl;ie fro. ! that in 1905 or
ec Ler Lcuse la Carl.lt to af.>pellee. There •
between the parties to the leasing ontil about fchi fij
year 1911, t>lle< :: . aeductei
therefrom on eeeooat of repairs. arlyle
appears to have leer, attending to the business .for his ootl
refused to aeoept the anonnl Llee
and caused euit to be brought 1 forcible detftim
justice of the .^f.ce fcr poi • of the ■ -llee
Sid not eppei r before the J peace and J
entered against hin. He however, appealed the cr^e tc the
circuit co;irt and sf^tei ras , in Jun<
pending, the natter was aijustt i llant accepting
ar.t-unt tendered* The I a then oontinnefl <i.-> be
appellee paying Lis rent Quarterly b; speoial delivery ]
There appears to have been no furthez difficult; bet-
parties until the night o -Tune Ke,191£.
this appellant hs'' come frcn St.Louie
her r custom stopped at the Trueedail Betel, •
northeaBt comer of the court house square, 'he pr«
ed to appellee vere sor.e Six cr aeyen blocks west c
uest corner of tho square, -he daj previous tc I I
Carli'le iJchnell.vh liv^c acncv.h. . isaouri.oew t<
anc 0!. the night in luestion.he^ a conversation with
:or. h^lla about a little Job he wante< done. hs
that 3ohnell "«ns talking about fciilnc ■*• ' '-n-
acaro cr settetfeiac aboat 0°-r'c **> '^' •
little jcb he nested dene".
-
I
.
.... .
I
.
Mi
M
BOW" X. -id*
-30C
."©a- i cioi. 9lttU
. iclmell treated to &r±nk& v.ith bet
and he also bad tvsc . ittlea oi
afterwards drank, it nee oc ■ - ?hall8
3 would "take the c r aarryini; out
tion.
Cn thi b night appellet
tv/c until children, he b1« - the north roon
•teond iloor, while ahe and th< ehildren alept *n the
rooii. ihe night waa nan i fnaily had retired ■
I ten o ' clock, leaving ' open, .'.bent t>
a little later the three r.en went to the cit;
cured o &e .- ich the;- took ^or ■ <
to a city hydrant diagonally aozos& the atraet fro
v.hore haar resided. Sohnell and Thalia took thi ■■'.;-
ho sue across into the Eahn yard and then i
the hydrant to turn on the water, which he did. Jhe two
rge of the hoa< then ir< ' it towards the wind<
Hahn'e loozi and a stream of dirt^ ■ '•
*ir-dcvi into the roon drone hint . ra«fiahn and I
tlj Aaaaglng *-..•
Into hex husband's roor, n earri*
the house anc began tarowii . ' " into that re ■
■bora the wates isaa 001 n int< t
rcor.Aot a revolver an three shots tonnrdi
oh struck Shall* in the ankle, infliotlnf
he died the following
t an atrocious and inoxouonbi*
the three men against the public L
and hid family, i a freo-1. adaltti
• .e three nan
tion on the ftiol
- -
baa
-jfta
. -
o as* t
Y&l aittti a
, i ^b B oJ
I z&aii otod*
6B01D3
.*)>b 9S. mist o. A »dt
I 3d? "to o^tsdo
...
.
9tmt
: dauoA sdt
•V9T A .TO^.COOT
tti 6l.rA.;: ^oui?e doMw
chroIXcft 'a *rf
h»
..o aoiJ
sfcouefl' thai sppellanl *auline Jebnell ai^e
tv. outrage peri
Fhst sh* did so i
If tnich there
eirouastanees:
After the assault ntta Bgr<
tele the other 1
then neat to the hotel
sdnutes* It:;.
Hi go to her t* th; it *
the boose that evening, but both Btat<
the offense conteci.l^ + e . • testifies "
•ae seas trouble there e-.rf v>ant« to gc
• hi l_ bin if fc« art,
of that kind. Shile she state
the house, but ja^e no infora 1
bjsi to i>. then for. As to her novenents th err eft cr, v
introduced the fallowing said once.
Er. Dietaries testlfle
the street at. 10:11
ed if he had seen Carlyle her son;
the fruesAall Betel; that h»
hul^ an hour latei
ilstanoe and then * • , and all
bank at ehout 11 o'eloek sntl ;.- *o >fr hotel* t]
tint-, in front of the hotel nhev she oasis seek.
marshall testified he rJaw her st thi
ocurt hoiiae square, ^oir.u toi bs "htm renter.
minutes of alcren o'aloek;1
-4-
I
-
■
i
.
. arfl
; ta»a ft/ii-f ail 12 £9
ttfl J.i 3(.ottrf
■
, FXaup* MXrod i ■:
) nevole ^o ea#J
for her son Carl, le, and she said si < ,
testified he sa* hez In the sane rioinj
time and later sar her on the north aidt of the squai
east trearc.s the hotel about 1£ o'clock.
tc seein,_ her while she vaa talking t< r« Loo:
know what time it w.s. h. ... Jhoupe i 1
frcci the direction of the Hahn re;, :f!er.ce t<
11:30 o'clock* Josephine Kuf.irho li^ed southeast o-*- I
residence just across the street, testified that i
inL in question, about 9:, 30 she 88 •■ r4 woaan goin<; eor<
atreet in a north v.esterl. direction towards the
and that about an hour later she saw her doin. bh<
thin^t; that when she oa?? her she v.*
plug; that about half an hoar after she sai
beard done one gracftinj scne thine alone *-ie ' '
house and got up Bad looking out of the window sa . thre<
attaching, a hose to the eatez plug; that the 1
carriea the hose across the street and enr- staler! a$ theplug
that the lady she aav* ohe first and m
be the sane person; that she irae ae quaint <
an»l "this lad;- i?as built about like Irs. :chnoll".
testified ir, htr ov.n behalf thi aft the hote L • i
p.m. and walked tc the eater plug in Qjoeotion, an
feet beyond; that she then turned and car.e baek tc tht
that ii mediately thereafter she net the mar shall and
{joint, bach to the hotel eaa *hftt
that time she also sa • . i erich a-
ed them if the. had 3een hi r ' whea she i
frcn her trip. It could not havs been
— f -
. I
I
■Gtv sromf
,iio±?s»iJfc> ;i£ 3nx
c at tetrte
■
. .: w«f arte nsd* tMt ;%atA$
■ i llflfl J'JToaa Jarf.t ;aclq
. j 1 | too ©r.
i
TT3©
■
;6n^ixf test
■
■•■•.•-.
past 11 o'cloch and that aba wafi aot "up t] -
time that night*
..hrle the proof doeb aot positiT.
;aesent at the tine the c .'
it tends to she* aha was there at the
ed on two occasions fari&£ thfl
least very ne?.r to the tint the off ana
fcka evidence as a whole show* facta froa which a 1
inference arises that ah* kaei the c '
by her son. Under those oircumotances it was f&r
eay whether aha Ma present a3dinc and abetting her aoi
ooEuuisaion of the offense or if .ot preeent, •
kno*leci£e that the offense wro about to be oora-ii ■'
ec" &n>~ encouraged or abetted fain in the aoaaiaaii
in either of afeSoh oaa* s ahe as Y?ell as her son would be 111
to appellee- for the dacjatfea incurred 95 Mn.
Appellant lays stress Bpea errors r..
contained in the laird inetruaticr, givaa
instruction is as followsV "Jhe court farther 4v.
pan believe fror, a praajoztaarem
that .ji>i<i tthaia ai Llfnilj bin
entered the premises 0 by the plaintiff In t •
tine, end turned o Btraaai of water fron a hoaatoonne<
the city hydrant, upon the flv<elli.nc house rcou_ 1
iff and through the open atadoa of :if • i.'- hone*
of the plaintiff.aa aharjaad In the tea
er believe, from the evidence, that Bail . a\id shade
ihalle were araaurad or aaajleyed to Ac aail aalai Pal
defendant CarXjla oohnell,
abetted them in the perpetrati on Bf t] .anc1
-6-
.
... e.iii i
..voiaaooo oxi ao 5«
ftfPtrft sleirfv a as aoa«L
isrf an£^&<i« See j/i±*i:a £fk»t>9*<£ ««w «eUi ivdteSw
is ad* lo aojUai*«oo
!>•
:-1J±* a±
. -• I . dxtoe
a* at texil
I
, offxAyl £*Jte edi
i
.
. .. i ■
.. .. .' .Lijiiieldu
believe iron, the evidence that the defends
the o\ra<r of the d*ellinc hi aw
vicv. of procurin£ po8rte8sion of the aane
tii'f h-nd his family to vacate the availing
pre uen t or f> to o ~; by and aided, Bb<
oariyie .\>chneli in the BUMiiBSloD of aaid »mli
you believe from the evidence that the 84
not bein^ present had fcaonl
and had advised, anoourat©d, aided or abet+-
Licbnell to attempt to dispossess the plaintiff an
possession of aaid d?vellin^ hoaM by the oomisBii
done, then both the defendants, Carlyle BahnaU end
-ohnell, are liable for the unlawful acta o^ the
chace end fteMM Stella*"
Ihe particular objection mad* by appellant to !
ticn ia that it appears to la; streas on the
on the part of appellant tc p possession
in vL^e^tlon b„ forcin^ appellee and hi a fanil; 1
same, rhile there had been trouble between the parties
leasing prior to thi ■ tine, there v.f a no positive
appellant desired to cbt;.in peas* salon o.1 keraairi preaisee
fsaa appellee and. the paction i f tixe instruction i
thereto, is somewhat la the nature of >
a reason why appellant raiuht have Aaalred Br beer
or enociirej-e h<-r aon in hiT unlawful aaaaalt
hib family and on that, account the lnatraetion
refused or modified by the court. 9at t,
which may or ma„ not have aataatc
or encourafcei said offense, the instruction eo
-7-
zl9Q
.■: ew#
■ ■■,■-■■ I ,
-.-?»££•»©© :xjso
I
■ i too.
>ona ,b*attb& bad boa
.»j*eHoq3: ?»?Ja oi IXanrfoS
-..eaeeoq
i')£»i»* ■■ aswl* .•nofc
f>aat not+o^trfo ■s&.ruoi'JTftsi
lo Jxsq. 9di flO
»
■
1
eeroa al.oiarxatf*
i» aoaaei o
m TO
10 Tjaa rfo£tfir
& rule of la*-, applicable to the aeec Am
part of it docs not to us to he n&:
fce warrant a reversal of the ease en t
I ellani also insists thftt <-.}<: cotb
to pernit Carl;-le lichnell.one o^ "
alii w ti» t he had paid out large bthw ""or fine an<
aaae act and that lire. Hahn had recovered a Jui
hit* for f 500* 00 This evidence appears ti a
excluded, as it could not atfff ct the right o*
recover against Carl;le ^chnell nor the amount o-
3ut i-feii if that v/ere not the case, :
advantage of here as It did net in ar , r ooneez
right of action against Hrs..Sehaell,wh£
^lant also conplains that the court erred in
certain of her instructions in
dasfc^es, ))Ui; we flue froo an erxam? rxt
full^ covered so ff-r as ...ropor, by an. insimeti
court en behalf of appellant upon the ars\c subject •
The „udCTi- nt of the court below wil] '" rr.< .
Affimer. .
(Hot to he reported in fall)
-fl-
3t to tvu&q.
■ ' > i a Jxia-na..
Bat oula ta»LI% .
i aoo. Ilaorfe j^ o*
kf| w da
• rs hart miaH .aiH Ja^J bca Job
yv 00.002.
> ^ifl Jon &£woo ?! bo .oabirlojca
SffWH »rf+ ton Ilemfo '3/tia^a isrooai
nor* JjJt
♦* 83 oiarf "io e
-•s 1:o &d
tom&BOt xati 1o niataao
fit &&& i isaJb
■ilS-O^A to ^ladiCt CO J c
-
••bmbbk art o,+ 1
/, A. C. MILLSPAUGH, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of the
State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true copu of the OPINION of the said
Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in mu office.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set mij hand and affixed the seal of said Court
at ML Vernon, this J2/8^JZ^A, dao of Julp,
d.<L ■■;it/.
Clerk nf the Appellati Court
o
o
2
.:
?'" Opinion of the Appellate Court
AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at Mt. Vernon, Illinois fin the Fourth Tuesday
in the month of March in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred 4nd fourteen, the same
being the 24th dun of M arch, in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fourteen.
Present:
Hon. Harry Higbee, Presiding Justice.
Hon. James C. McBride, Justice.
Hon. Thos. M. Harris, Justice.
A. C. MILLSPAUGH Clerk. f. S PA Yl
And afterwards in Vacation, after said March term, to -wit: On the mt=<~ day
of July, A. D. 1914, there was filed in the office of the Clerk of said Coift at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, an
OPINION in the words and figures following:
)
f^) oJJUuuujX/
»0.M
vs.
October Term, 1 J) I .i.
j^Mu^bciJ^^:.
/ERROR TO
881X315
COURT
KA-VW COUNTY
Hon.
TRIAL JUDGE
Term Uo. 14. Agend • lo.
October *erm, A. D. 1913.
Thomas K« Bell? nee, )
Defendant In Error, )
rror tc
vp, ) Circuit feovrt of
) : r.dircn County.
City of Granite City, )
Plaintiff in Error.)
1 Q Q T J 3 f S
Opinion by Harris, J. "*"
The declaration of one count -lleged that en the 7th dry
of Hoveciber, 1909, plaintiff in error wrongfully permitted
the sidewalk on the eaet side of A Street to be and rensin in
an unsafe condition for travel; that it permitted the board--,
planks, stringers and timbers of said sidewalk to be and renajfcn
in a rotten, loose ind defective condition; alleged notice to
the-City; thnt defendant in error, on the evening of the 7th
day of Kovember, 1909, was walking along and over said ^id;
in the exercise of due care and caution, and tripped :*,nd fell
L,y reason of the defective condition of the sidewalk. Avers
expenditute of $200.00 in trying to be cured of his injuries,
and o.llecos damages in sum of Ten thousand Dollars. To
declaration plaintiff in error file* plea of not guilty.
jury returned a verdict against plaintiff in error for sua Oi
$2,091.00. Judgment entered on the verdict and this appeal
prosecuted.
r-
The error argued for a reversal of this case is ^the verrii<"t
of the jury is rc.-inifestly against the weicht of the evl
The defendant in error assumed the burden of proving b
ponderance of the evidence:
That the sidewalk in question was out of repair at
>3A . »I .oil arxaT
.av
( ,^i0 a#tawii lo \;**3
[.lonA ni tliJniali
r
.t .tlTXe1? >ca* nolniqO
b rllT silJ no Jfuli fc*gsllr Jnuco *no lo noll-EXRloab a.iT
baJtiiirraq ^IIulgnoTW lo-x-xa ni lliJnxrlq ,5091 ,T»dma\roI to
■J has so* oJ Jaa-xi3 A to 9bla t*n» »dt no ilsvabia arfi
. - 9ci3 baJJIirrceq it flMJff {far**! *ol ncUibnoo slsaxxu aa
bni; sd oj aUswable Jblea lo aiacficli bn£ ataaalila .ainalq
oJ aailoa Jbsaalls inoitibncj arittoalab bar aaool .nalJoT a at
3\r» arfj no troit9 al Jnx»bnalab Sr.cij .-^liO-ad*
,°>\ro bnjB ano£r> yii-tflaw aaw .ectfl .Tedjaavotf lo x**>
oaqqiaJ bar, . > bnB aiao aub lo aeiotaxa aril al
. . . II lo noxJtbnoo ariJaalab ad* lo noaarx \d
fc« be-iuo acf o* gnlxiJ nl 00.002$ lo aluJibnaqxa
naT lo mue ni eaaatonb aeaallr bna
lo ^a£q 4»H1 -xo-iia nJt HUnialq noilr-xaloab
: ioTia at HlJ-rilalq Janiaaa iotbtar a bamirJat \ru\,
^IMm aatl no baiaJna JnamabuT. .00.160,24
.baltfoaaoiq
savarr n iol bair^a aorta axfT
la Ji^terr arfJ laiilay ^I*aolJtnr..n ax >cajjt arU lo
-s- lo nabiu</ arfi bamuasa Toiia nl JnjBbnalab arfT
raonebxve arfl lo aomnabnoq
ooi.' | . r»l 1c Juo a«« noxleaup at ifawabia art* JarfT
of the Bccid«nt and for a suflicient length of time prior thereto
that the city had notice thereof, actual or constructive,
the City had notice of the accident as provided by statute .
That defendant in error was at the time of the accident in the
■fci
exercise of due care. That he was injured ana the exten* tnereof.
The arguinent of plaintiff in error is confined to tie in-
jury and that the evidence does not show walk out of repair.
That the defendant in error was lying on or near the walk in
question calling for help is not disputed. ?hat one of the
boarde of the walk wasout of place at the tir.e is net disputed,
he describee how the accident occurred and this is disrated only
by argument and what plaintiff in error calls physical facts.
The memtent of the injury to deiendrnt in error is testified to
by hicself and Dr. Irwin, the attending physician, eno Uill
is disputed Ly argument and inference dra*>n by plaintiff in
error from £he evidence.
That the city was given the statutory notice of the injury
in time to make an investigation is not disputed. That the
sidewalk was at the time out oi repair and had been for por.e
months prior thereto is testified to by Jacob bcherer,
Hancock, Vnry hogan, hllen Christy, -d Voorheee, hylo 1-atcnell,
Charles Bezonn, *illiam Shutto, Lrv. John Green, I . £.. Howell,
Charles hogan. Jerry *.atson, John Dial, John Atchison, clay
mwmam Holmes and defendant in error. Upon this question plaint*
iff in error offered the evidence of J, C. 3choene, h. -dt,
G. W. Sink, Crover ohotweal, J, fc. Brown, George >urnieh, .^en
Angelo, John iiaserang, as witnesses showing the sidewalk it -
place was not out of repair. The credibility of n number oi
these witnesses wes called in oueetion by plaintiff in error and
is now argued.
(2)
p»I dn9X0xi1ua a id boa dosbxoo* aiU ±o
• o 10 la- , 0 ban ^Jia add todi
f9bioojs arid lo ao Xdoa bad \ilrJ 9dd
aoid odd da aaw 10119 nx dar,bn9X9b dadT
; on a baixitnl •** «4 dad*? .txa«l 9ub xo aaloiaxs
its nx irtdnlalci lo daaau^ia I
uo :<tiwr woda ^on aaob 93J9bxv9 add Jeiii baa \in\,
:nsn to n n» ions nx da;jbn9X9b 9dd dad?
li« don al qlad tox ^rtXItco noidaoup
li anixi octt is aoalq to Jj'!82'' aflaw »dj lo abxaod*
. I N dnaxuaaa 9d^ wod aodxiosab »H*
;: i) LaAttxftf »XXj 9 iona nl x'Xldnlalg daaw bo* tii9K>j£i£
..-it* nl ^aol)ii9l»i» od tiutnx rjdd lo duadico* adT
,:t J ^lax?4-l aal^s^^a *dd .alwil .id an* llsaaixl yJ
* n «*ib jonaxalxil obj daaau ji* ^d j»iuqaxb ax
^aonsoiva 9*14, moil 10119
>oldon ^icdudrda add nmrlfi aaw ^xo »t£J daxtT
.1 al noxds^deavnx om aaLaa od maid al
i n990 bad b.xe ilf.qoi lo duo moid adJ da a*w 3LLtf»9bia
f od oaxixdaad al oi9i»dd loiiq addxioa
.ssirtiooi/ b~ .xdtli.l^ aall«i ,oaa©a Y*fJI .jtOOOOBH
,. ..-> tfej .1 ; ,oddua*a aaai^ :>•€ ealiadO
adot tlMtQ adot ,noad»« >£iieL .0030a eai.iad3
noiJe9ifp eixid aoqu .10119 ni dnabn9l9u boa ag^XoU aauexxt
,9nao;ir> 90H9blv9 and fc919ll0 ioix© nl 111
1000 ,nwoi6 .a .1 *JU«S*«fe lairoiO ,aau.
sbia add anlworfa sseasoilw as .^iBisaf-i odoi , ola^nA
ar.I .neqsi 10 duo ion aaw aaalq
tit a uxdaanp al b^ilf.o aaw 89a«andx* •aadi
.b9UJJ1.S WO
(2;
The Court and the jury trying the c ae i^ve a duty to
perform and with tnat duty assume res Legibility and t eir
finding on questions of fact is entitled to more than forml
consideration. The trial court, as well as the jury, see the
witnesses, licten to their evidence, find finally upon a notion
for new trial the court asuunes the responsibility of putting
U'-on that verdict its approval. Iron that time forward the
plaintiff in error assumes the burden of showing on appec.2 , not
only that there has been a mistake in determining where the
weight of the evidence lies but tliat the verdict, if permitted
to stand, i3 contrary to tne evidence or that there is no evi-
dence at all to oupport it. "And where there is a contrariety
of evidence on both sides, and the facts and circumstance 3, by
a fuir and reasonable intendment, will warrant the inferences
of the jury, courts will reluctantly, if ever, disturb their
verdict, notwithstanding it may appear to be against the strength
pnd weight of the testimony, 3o, where tne verdict defends upon
o
the credibility if the witnesses, it id the peculiar province
of the jury to judge of that credibility, to attach weight to the
testimony of each as may seem to be proper, after 1 due consid-
eration cf ell the circumstances, arising in the particulnr co«»;
such ap the relationship of the witnecs to one or bcti
parties in controversy, his supposed interest in the. event of the
suit, his means of knowledge in respect to the aatter<? in dispute,
his appearance upon the stand, Lis maimer of testifying , uie cen~
eral character for eeracity, and the like, and to find t sir ver-
dict accordingly." (lowry v.Orr et al.,1 Oilman 70,(p*ge 83.)
Thie orse upon the fnets is net rueh a case •■ would Justify
this court in setting kbit verdict adide upon the gr<
is againpt the manifest veifht of the evidence, the '11
therefore be affirmed.
Affimed.
(Mot to be re orted in full.)
(3)
art 9ri,J brui ***uoD •***
tlldritt&iatfi acnooBja \jufc *nn;? rf*ivr bn« anolaaq
sicn o* loltlffia ai *a*2 1o 9nor*s9ir; no ,-yiibniTt
Mft,TS*t ,rf* sr XX9t? a* ,*iwoa Xsii* adT ■-; <bic:oo
\LItsrrt1 bn» .sonobivs ftt* J o* na*ail ,aoeean*iw
;o tiuoo ad* XaXa;* woa toI
inaynot aar* *isrf* aofi .Lav I *aibtav *.sd* no-ru
• no jni-rorfB lo tobiui 9d* S9uu9er. T0fi9 rti l"il*nXsXq
art* 3i»dw aninian a* ab ni atfaJaiGi b cr»»cf Bfirt ararf* Jsrf* t^«o
M ,*Ofbl9V art* Nfltf *Xltf B»XX 9 0H9biV9 3rf* 1c Jd3l9W
-tvc on ci iMtf *»d* to 9»iT9brv9 9rf* 3* ^X'w*r!00 -* ,bru;*a O*
at rrc9rf* srarir bnA" .*X tioqqua o* I '->rtab
e*oclt j .aabis d*od tin 9onoblv9 to
as MM lit* , *na«l>na*nX eXtf/utOBcart bas xtoJ, b
ii» !T dru^aib ,t9t* ii ,xf*nB*ou£aa; XXX* a*ruoi» ,yrut At
d*an3'r*3 *»:i* *enie;aa ad o* ■xsaqqa ^a« i i i.bnor
mar- h tolbT9Y ■ tXpiMlf—l 9rf* lo Jdgraw ban
o 1*4 artJ ei »J ,59B8an*iW art* 22 \:* t i i rt b919 9fC*
9dJ ,vjt Li? ibrto tm.J 2o aijbut, o* vrut, »rfJ" 1o
■r i*lx- t"r j o* a»aa \:uai or. Jo«9 1o ^p"*-1**8*'
;«bp- . JtikT 9ri* ** gnislia .aBorteder-woita arfi lis 'to noX*aaa
- . ' ad* to qM»iroiJjBl9i ad* <m dois*
ad* tfMfal baaoqiua alif .Acataro-xditoo ni aaxJlaq
-ra**Ker art* rtnl aabaXromf Jo annara aid ,*Xua
;tB9* 2o tM ,bHRia art* nrqn 90OBTn9cfqB aid
-«r»v .aitil add- bnr. .x^iaxrxaa ^ol ta^+oaiadD Xa-xa
- .v \ftwoi) ".^Xjntbrroj-J-- doib
| ■ da jo dor? gi ad'^pl oil) noqo *fB3 7tdT
513 -nil rtoqy 9^ U jnitdao ni Jiuoo Bid*
»biva 9d* Jo Id3l97 Jaaltnr'.a ad* *nrt^aa 9i
.bafln.t2ljs ad arolanad*
.bs^nlllA
***¥***,** it
{.ILuJ ni ba*io iai 9d o* *oH)
(£)
/, A. C. MILLSPAUGH, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of the
State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true cops of the OPINION of the said
Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in my office.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set mp hand and affixed the seal of said Court
at Aft. Vernon, this dap of Jule.
AD. 1914.
;Z (L-VUfc <<--<■■
Clerk of the Appellate Court
o
o
r
*~r
X
^ Opinion of the Appellate Court
AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at Mt. Vernof Illinois, on the Fourth Tuesday
in the month of March in the pear of our Lord, one thousand nine mindred and fourteen, the same
being the 24th dug of March, in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fourteen.
Present:
Hon. Harry Higbee, Presiding Justice.
Hon. James C. McBride, Justice.
Hon. Thos. M. Harris, Justice.
A. C.^MILLSPAUGH, Clerk. W. S PA YNE, Sheriff
And afterwards in Vacation, after said March term, to-wit.j On the <^o JJ doc
ofJulg, A. D. 1914, there was filed in the office of the Clerk offsaid Court at Mt. Vernon. Illinois, an
OPINION in the words and figures following:
No. J-_0__
October Term, 1 i> 1 .\
-1, ■//
J-
•a. 3 at
ICItltOH TO~
APPEAL FROM
C -> c
« v ; /-
COURT
cor. MY
TRIAL JUDGE
Hon.
tceX* ;f 7
Ter.'i No. 35.
•
October Term, A. D. 1913.
Angelique Huohette, Administratrix
of the Estate of J. B. Hutchette,
deceased,
Appeli.ee,
vs.
ffilliaijison County Coal Company,
Appellant.
321
Appeal Circuit
Court
" illia tns<
Opinion by Harris, J.
The appelle- In December 1911 filec Lr this case
& declaration consisting of four count* in the circuit court
all of i hich charged cooaion la.' ••.=» -ll^enoe ii form
and lanroiage. The first count th-.t the ,
ly and negligently failed to prop its roof. ?■
IBM of its duagerous condition or could b .
That appellee's deceased did not kno> of suol us con-
dition, and did not kno- of tl - rs consequent t
properly proppin-j ro f and did not have equal insans of k
ing with appellant. The second count that said ro . . -
sufficiently propped and sa a as first ;;ount. The third
count th t the roof »as insuffiois . de-
ceased leasly and - <.tly sert into > t to
assist in ext'vn.Tiiiahing fire, the see i.-.
loosanir.- of rock, etc The four..
se ll^ent order, unsafe lice to
All of said counts charged t
.
• cJS .OR irteT
.SI CI ,Q .A t;msT TecfotfcO
- B ; qA
roO
xkr)£i$eLntt.\bk ^JJerfouH supileaaA
ts.t*e;-;cJuH .3 .1 lo 3*i>»a3 edt lo
jee^Ie.TqA
.ST
,YfU8TiaoO X£o0 Y*«^o0 n08fli£i."Iii?
.cfnaXIeqqA
• L ta2tui.H YCf rroJtnlqO
«s£o elrf* al bslll II6X Tea-iecsd nl eXIeqq-is erfT
^ai/oo Jii/o-ilo scitf nl eJru/oo auol lo gnlJaienoo «Ql#TaIf i £
anol tsuau e:f;f nl eoa&sii^en %hX noraiaoo bagxorfo rfolrf > lo IXa
-asslei i erf* J.8rf# lnf/oo Ja^il T .93*Ltfr>aeX bnas
. ioot e^l qoiq o* bell-sl xXJae-.lXjjer. has \L
• tl Vflrf fcllfOO 10 Clottlb.OO BJJOIB-^CUib 8*1 lo <kbh<
iiovB lo son* Jon bit beeBeoeb a^aXXe .c *>rfT
- - ^upAenoo aaft:«i-b erf;? lo «ond :on bib bn.c tnol*lb
:i lo en^em XjSi/pe ev£ri Jon Dib bn« 1 oa gfliqqoaq ^iaeqaiq
j oa bliss *£rf? Jni/co bnocaa erfT .JnfiXXeqqji' rf*l
• Jou^c Jeill ax e.'^a bnJB baqqoiq ^X*n9lolllira
-ei: T-x-tnalc211jLranl •«■ looi trfj J rftf Jnuoo
.'I'.ee fXJ ui YXaaaXattJUO bjs beejseo
oae erfJ ie<xll gnlrfelirsnijjce al tfaisa*
T . otfe 4>ff.oi lo aiateooX
10 I A
he a9 in the exercise of du= ^
the negligence oA' appell
the sun of Ten thoueai
The plea or nc
joined thereon, FTom the srldenoe it
v. as a trial in July 191". Tl . I I disoloef
had in April 1913. A cliaagr f the jury. /..
trial In Jiay 1915, a ver i jury fii
guilty, appellee's daaogss fixed at $140n.G".
thereon and this appeal. Th2 fact? In this
fe- of hioh ar? in dispute, appw :
The appellant >r;as on the 30th day of J nuary,
and for aoae tlms prior thereto operating a coal
Johnston City In said county, anploying at number of
among ^hoK i as ap. slice's deceased husband J. B.
That 80:.e tiro or three days prior to ',he 20tP
1911, the day of the accident, a fire err/ a
L.r.1;. operations .-are sue., s tai
of the mine. Ilea Vers employed t. nto thy .
and extinguish the firs. Among those a I ed'u
deceased, a man "SO years old,
mines in France and thia country fro boyho d«
In fighting the fire the company e t^>o
shifts of men, the day shift under John B.rio- ,
left the cine on the lay in question at 7 P. U.
shift under Georje Foster, toting foreuan ent
at the tint the day ohift left. Ap elles'e i, ith
Sa^ Yaokua ■ Bre sent to the 1st oroac cut bet sen tne "ifth
and Sixth south entries off of the
(3)
lo eei > sfl
b sdi o:
loCI baesuotii neT lo ^ua adt
,1'1 \tlla% ion lo iselq erfT
grij mOTrt . .
. C9X, y^^Xi Oi i-ei'x* 0
sib A . £IGI liiqA. nl ftgjL
;.«v £ %SIQI yjbM ai l&lrt
. r 1$ J£ i>9Xil a»sjsa£i) ••seller* ^Jlius
1 T .£ae '.q£ airij £ius floexsd*
: . ':-qq.e 4eJ [old lo el
.-(JOS stit no «jsv. fruiIXsqpta erfT
; oJeisiij TOiaq 9 .2 J ev.we 10I 2>ru»
. £oI<.y.,e jJ'-wyo Ai£« itl y*2D atttfenrfoX,
jti beeaeceia e* a* > mori guoffue
. cq ex«c eaid* ao o*t e^ioe J
atll £ , ^xiei
eqpye eie>> anoljflieqo
(0X9*4 aeM #aaXm ad* lo
"•as ;.Xe a 9eoxl^ ^flojiA .a-sil adj- dalifjjflijxe &«£
-9Cf tali: , L#fl 0^ OCa A 4£>&(?£&&s2
. D elrij L 1 ni 89i
•^cuiqmoo eri? alii a; il nl
lecnu Jllua \sb odi 4ae-. lo ailida
: anin 9iitf itleX
lxa*ao'? 9~xoa0 i3t«u Jlide
1 .tfleX J"ii^3 Y ifc ad* 9-2* »&*
■ I
::t8 DCiA
In extinguishing fire. This orosa out prior to the
of the breaking out of fire had been closed up, but :
them a better opportunity to get at the fire *hich was burn-
ing in the fifth entry » the gob and refuse in this cross
out -as removed and prior to eeven o'clock of the eva
of the day in question under direction of mine manager the
roof *>as propped. That the ■ ork eaa done in a proj
ner is the testimony of witnesses oalled by Appellee. That
a short time before the acoideng eaeording to the evidence
of acting foreman George Foster and Charles Clark, Master
Mechanic, walked up the sixth entry south to cross cut -here
Hutchette, Taokus, Sobleski -ere working. That after -
sounded the roof they both expressed themselves in the rea-
ence of the deceased that the plaee < as unsafe an
ter ordered the deceased and Yackus t
That Poster to k the hose from dece-'.-i- Laid
it on the slate puttinr a stone upon it
Clark led Iks deceased and Taokus out into the sixth entry
in a pl;ioe of safety, ordered them to si alt for
them to return. That after they left deceased said to
Taokus, his buddy, he was going back to see ho* the hoec
working; he v. ent back and Taokus *ith hi*. Th* test J
of Foster and Clark is corroborated by ths evidence of
Taokue as 'to what occurrsd while they ere together and
Taokus further says when they returned deceased beg n to
pick the roof ffitb his sassi used it to crumble
fall in a fe« minutes, the etc ning from five to e.
tons fell u ion and kil.. 'a deceased.
(3)
:jo eeoio e/rf? .Mil ^aldelx/s^*** nl
, ■ fceeoXo f»»tf tad Mil lo iuo sflileaid adi lo
aiil edi i» ie& oi Yiim/i-ro!qo is*iaa £
f ni aet/lei 2>o« do>j Btit x T*i*» dilrt »rf# fli sol
:»o o9Tse of tclT{ i>na baror.se* •«* in*
b lefcaif ^oitfaa/^p ■! y«*> •*** *•
a a] ditofc ea* jf^o* erf* iftrfT .Iwtiiqoaq aa.» loo*
aaaaaa#l*lo Yao»lieei arf# ei ^©fl
J lolaa* *ia2J iioda a
ijqXO aeXt-adO L jc ■xsiso'? A-ioaO naoieiol gnliofl lo
.c.oic -j rfiwoe rains dixia tilt qv oeiXa* %oinadoeM
e*ew iiaeXdo8 tacufo*T ,eiied etal
t ni eovXetttftrf* JJaaaarqxe diod xarfi loo* arft bahnuoa
laaoxr aa> eoaXq arf* Jrrfi beeaaoair adi lo a on*
sraaX oi •xnfOi'sT ba& fceaeeoea adi baialmo ft
blaX ba£. a. eJimomb moil aaorf arfl i oi leiaot ieiflP
a exfo^e .'iiiq ai^Xa erf* no Si
too amtoaT .ofta aeaae aafc watt beX iiaXO
.a anoD J la oi merfi Jbotafcio tTt*l*e lo aosXq a oi
bae«*oeb ilsX Ted* *»ila iadT .rm/ie* oi mart*
1 -«a oi load $aio$ ax* ad %\b> ;/o aid <^mtoaT
I ..iirf dii* arfaaT hoe *oad inaw ad 430X^x0 a
somMvF edi x<3 beir-iodoxxoo al /iaED bfus oeieo? lo
• tA&* oi" aa ainfoeT
ad beeaeoeb Jcen-uriex y&dt oada a^a ladihxxil auioaY
;.oa boaif aid dil» loo* erii ioiq
- :,!»* aao** srfi %aeixmia> el £ ai XXaI
.bee^aeeb a* a belli* ban no- u XXal anoi
(£)
Foster, Clark aad Yaokua -.ere old and export
understanding the English lan^mage. Foster at tl
.fas not employed by ay eliant. Stanley Sobleski
present at time of accident shortly thers.>ft-r li
and did not testify. Thit Sobleski ■ .3 orkin it tht
ets, not "ith deceased and Yackus, but fii'r.
a« ay •
The evidence of an Italian Uike Sionari as to the
preeenoe of Foster and Clark >-here daooaeod
working and as to v.hat was done or said is the only
in the record upon '■■nich ap-ellee base their right to i
This ^itneaa Honari, v-ho testifies through an int
•ays his kno ledge of the Eni llsh 1
cine talk. That at the tire of the accident he J
Amerioa about eighteen months, sotting at this nine
months; says he aa at the place hare the accident ■
at the time, •■> Foster -nd Clark there, that they 1
out making any examination of the roof 01
deceased or Yackus. that Foster and Clark did not
oaased and Taokus out of cross out, although he Mori •
that he as a* ay from this pi ^e about 30 minutes,
a omvasm in second cross out, a canvas th
say as not there. That he, Monori, are n^
ni^ht in question and from hla evidence, exo*i t M
up oanvas was •■ ithout -int.
The burden is upon tlM
tlcn to i rove by a preponder -xiiae of the evidenoe:
That the deceased .hiie in the exercise :
and o.mtion as injured by I to m»c i
■ e care to furnish deceased 1
U)
j '•'..■ eustaeV
ce#8flH .o'yiasr:i\cL AtLL%cOL tuit ynJ
^mUM *alnatfi • iajaXArtiaja ftf *a?«ftpa> *©« ■**
■'. isae '10 aul^ ta JnessTD
1Mb© Idea tfadT .yH^ee.* ton btb turn
tr&c&Y hxt£ fcaaaaaa* Hit* *oa ta?e
I uuxaM ajiXii a&UJstfl iw» "Jo eaasDive srfT
- iisoei) free ' si/us aedao? lo aonaaai
?aofc BAi taAif ©# aa fcna -^nlaio*
I .iolrirf noqv j»oae* art* al
■ rtgircmftf •aili *bb* ode ^ixaoolf iaaaftftW aia9
o«iUlnoo ws» ■sanj'arj: italics eitt io egbal^ocDi aid ayaa
aajl «rf JaaJb/ooa ml* 1c ami} aits *a #arfT ,3fX^# ante
,ari*ncai naatttsla ftflxfa
Mfi »TS<f.« £)QflX4 «ft t« a* ' «Jl BT*»
,eT.?rff jfxni- ;Jso* «a ,a.«M ad* *a
rroitaaiaaaa x«b 3«***» tea
MjtJ *c a£0 late isJaol tint .atri&r.Y 10 baaaaoaa
laaaal art 4s»«xl?Xa ,Jaa a vote lo +uo auiaaT
'.fa eceXq aid* •oil v**i a
J ft-sanao a ,*i/o aacio aaosaa ni aaaras* a
^iijs/ioU «arf #*ri? .fMiJ #oa aa I x*»
: ej aa *<rc Hbiva «irf «a*l boa aoi^eaap al tdftta
-a^aXuRti $uo4*l " aa« aeasaa oar
Jaia&j ed# rxoqu 8i aa&zutf ad?
o acaaaafcajamaot * *o* aro*
■n aa*J al ulidr aaa*a«ai> ed* Jadf
i tazn'iixt s£ noi*u<.0 boa
•aai AtlmiA. o* rxao e
to *ork« That at time of accident deceased -as act:
and in obedience to a special order. That the i\a;jr
knov-n to appellant or could have been kno*n by exercise of
reasonable care. Th-t deceaeeu did not kno of the A?
jr. That deoeaeeci —as fret fron, negligence
tributed to the injury. The contention of appellee is
because the case has besn submitted to the jury ..nd the jury
have answered the special interrogatories subnjitt
general verdict found for appellee th t it uta this c;iae In
that category here the Court hare said: •When ther
contrariety of evidence and the facts and oir es by
fair and reasonable intendment will authorize a verdict
withstanding it raay appear to be against the Btr
weight of the testimony the verdict will not be e
The examination of the record in thie case ith the
Ui on which those decisions are based calls for the
tion of an entirely different rule.
That deceased as working under a genes -
special order md th t the danger '^ae pointed out to deceased
and Yackua and they taken to a place of safety i-
of Foster, Clark and Taokus, denied only by the It 1
was known as Mike Monari, *i%k all the circumstance*
Terences to be drawn fron the evidence oorroboratJ
witnesses and not the one fcitnese. n theae
and the condition of tjhi^ record the u
<<as said in the case of Illinois Steel Co. vu Ke
App», 03, »If the finding of the Jury be
Whatever, or if it be oontr -
evidence, in either case the duty of this Court 19 :■
( )
boe«?c©L ta&bl.cs lo ami* tB insi?
T .oebto X*ioaqa js ot ecrralbado 1 boa
.isad sTR/f bXx/uo to JcuaXXaqqa o* n^oni
Jon Mb bsar-a cab fadT .siro •Xdrnosre*
I ssxl azs • baai>aoeb *xdT .Tasasb
.insJnoo edT .\rulal art J o* fiefudl**
Y-xx.'. iadx/a assd sjuI ea*& adi aepjsoed
•i.flai-x aeiTO^jsgoit^ini Xaioaqa erii ba?a*Mua tir.A
xol bnuol JolcieY Xi«ea»a
a ©Tiid * **9d YXO8s*£0 *£d*
io boa aJojsl- arfJ bn* aonablra lo x*«i'IJJ^*1100
ibier £ •sliorf^ufi XXI w *aaabnetf..i ald-Mioaaa* boa ilai
ad o* i^aqqi; x-6* ** salbflflja^
Jse ad ion Ltl* tolbitr ad* xaoffiiJaa* srfJ lo Irfsie*
a1 ©bao Qirii at biooa? erf* lo naltraizuiX* sifT
: bsajed 9** anolaioab aeod* rfcid* i
.©Xifi Jnaiallib yXeii^rra n£ lo nol#
iiltfio* es baaaaoab #'.'T
bt is^afib -xetao X^ioaqe
eo«Xq a ot r:si«* y»^^ baa au^acY fcnjs
; < airier. Y ixsi>. rfifiXO tit>t90"i lo
CXe ii Ji * %liaaoU ailM e£ a -on* &sw
99 aaaabiva 9d* noxl n»um. ad o# eeoaeial
•aaan}** eno ad* Jon boa aaaeaall*
bj I biocsi elry lo aoitflbnoc arij baa
rt aiOflilXI "io aa^o ad* ai blsu mm*
ad yxiit erf* ^o %alba!1 ad* II* ,58 t.qqA
* ad 11 11 ao tiav»*adw
Sid* lo >+ ae-ao ian\' *>oaeblT»
declare and to set aeide s. Jud meat based
Citin sany oases where the Supr-iise Court ho : . re-
vie ed questions of fact."
A second verdict base—
evidence &11I be set abide as against the ev .
final Jadgaeat rendered in favor of adverse f.rty her--.
evidence does not support the judgment in the lo ax court.
(Harvey vs McGuirk 168 App., 390).
The mere fact that a jury a&Ti
of foot c nnot absolve this court from deter. i.inir
not the verdict is justified by the evidence. (I. C. R. .
Cunningham, 103 App., 30G).
The verdict and judgment in this oas^ being • it
sufficient evidence to support it and tat oaae be n
tri=d at least t ice in the lo« ■■ er voart and frou. the
it appears all oC the faote have been brought for crd by both
parties material to the issues a ne trial ■•*]
I urpose and th* case ell] be reversed > ith s. fin
fact as it ould not be of any edtaraatage I
parties to discuss other error tied.
We are of the opinion that justice
interest of the parties require an end to be ] ut to thj
fortunate nd expensive litigation and the ju
circuit oourt is therefore reversed.
-■on*
ReverRed »ith findi^bf
Flndin- of fact to be .
Court:
That the leoeaeed J. B. H
the accident 'as not exsrcisin due •
That h tea taken from the r.
fal
.'■?• of I
3 9ixi mssK* «ee«e \
*aoqq**» ioa 690* nyfrxv
t "i «rx»a eriT
. ■ ..♦ ^ &»ltl*«it «2 : *«w
>S i.qqA. SOX +u
t»*dX 8u; oi toi 4 t*&*l j*> I
B&* •*" I ee2#%aq
i^<lQ «ri# lo •*■■■
a© a» rtlupe? ••24i-:q |dj Io #a«i»^ai
. 1 tllSQZ *lk
/oO
JB .In &*»*«0»Jb 1
oil neifij nee<f
r.}
toy a; ; el lint to a place of safety
of the place -here he as hurt. His ret
injury was in violation of theee direotions.
(Not to be reported in full.)
(7)
Xtf
rati a* bd arm' extt lo
(.>. . oqei erf ot ioZ)
(?)
\ V
/, A. C. MILLSPAUGH, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of the
State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true cope of the OPINION of the said
Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in my office.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF. I have set my hand and affixed the seal <>/ said Court
at Mt. Vernon, this <& <?. .' dag of July,
Id
Clerk of the Appellate Court
o
2
z
o
u / <r
\
Opinion of the Appellate Court
AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, on the Fourth Tuesday
in the month of March in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fourteen, the same
being the 24th dog of March, in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fourteen.
Present:
Hon. Harry Higbee, Presiding Justice.
Hon. James C. McBride, Justice.
Hon. Thos. M. Harris, Justice.
A. C. MILLSPAUGH. Clerk. W. S PA YNE, Sheriff
And afterwards in Vacation, after said March term, to -wit: On the oo 'o,: das
of July. A. D. 1914, there was filed in the office of the Clerk of said Court at Mt. Vernon. Illinois, an
OPINION in the words and figures following:
)
l^u^utJLJi
vs.
±Lf.
AfPEAL FROM
188I.A. 328
No.
October Term, 1913.
6l3h*tm*. &=* I C
COURT
COUNTY
Hon.
TRIAL JUDGE
:erra !lo. 49.
rtohf;r Terr., . . ' .
)
lllM, )
1
▼»• .pee?, trtm CiRcuit onrl
) Line Gotu
0 ' Gara C o& 1 i tmgt n„ ,
)
Aopol-V n% . ;
I inion aj Ranis, J*
328
The declaration in thia ceae
counts, the first Qi\t.T£±r>c f. denan*' for props fit. in
and a failure to .furnish suitable props* The ^eocnd count
akkrgea a ouston p.nd practice adopted in nines one1. )a,
recogniaed by appellant, whereby the -
cape and timbers from the tlaber-VAn
•d so ordered but thai ilfully failed tc
them. The third count charges a dan^ero
■••re appellee's deceab' rejrf.re'
duties to be, consisting of loose •late,
stance forming a part af taa roof
•llant kne* of this Aaageretia oonr
thereof. That appellant a] dinnas Raasoll
room and to >.orh 'heroin witaoat the lire •1
nanag^r before the aai r1 oondition had
That in etch of said ooaal JT is a
Thomas Rasas] -Injured i oh inj>.'
that appellee ai. his surviVn. haa beer
To each of the o< >asta tre renerr?
• trial fallowed, verdict i
,Xl068J
■ ■>■■ i (» .vJ-v-
(
8S8.A.I88r
.!• ,a£"rs«H Tjd rtoir. I
jsiab a • toUS orf* ,tiiatioo
tfltoaA oJ eiirllal a tea
■ ' »rf? tno-x'* I ■ a^ao
;.' i ?irc< fce-r 'bio oa &•
Hi awoT^ tWJ exff .mmLt
•$30 ah t :/» j"x©d«
.■•«noo ,9d o^ a«U.ui>
i *o ^oo-c oi? t* ?a-Rt[ e jfLtwio^ sonata
fcfcgoa bifoto^rteft atdt \l *enX *n*II»qqa
.'Joe-xorf*
> ao£tM*£t arfj \o* ot has aoo*
M ahan fiawf hud ^ohtkhnoo . • oio'iea rto,jj*a«m
VUtOt Ml . MMMfT
cy-uja e.W m Mllavffl tadt
*df at a
tot fixer ,t>ewoSI.£l La tit a
asBeasinc apj ellee's a. ■ .
from which Judgment I in .ronecute^.
The faotw ea the; appear
the £nd da; tf .eroh, 1911,
llant pa e locrter of coal
of the ath South off of the nalm eaat entr;
ond Cross vita worked cnths.
room was thirty feet aide and one hur.r - rt in
depth with a roof of what w-es calle .; fli ;.e, and i
of slate or hard substance. That the h«i
varied, depending upon amo mt cf hanging • vein of
coal wea frora six feet two inches to six feet
for three r.cnths or mean it had been the onati
oaps, antf timbers of the tiwber-man and he Irivei
would deliver then. Maw ye and saw ther %c fit.
days before the accident Ososa Bays Hu,.'
was in this room and asked Cross end
an;1 geropa, to which Cross aaya he sai'l yes an
a*id lio, but props were delivered, alth he tirr/b. .
not return to saw and fit * suitable
length to be used. There naa an -
a suitable prop on morning of aoaiaenl
went into the entry ami brought b? prop and
which with the fall that followed broke- The treaohea
this draw slate fron the eviaenoe was understood by dec*
and by the timberman and the Bine i
existed la sounding; the roof ti-sbrrman' 8 in g
That there aero ppopa in the roon
but were not suitable props v. our tor that exist
was recognised by the ocmpen; in that the;, baa m I
and sawed in suitable len< • hat the proper way:
,»T«Afe 8 ©a-1--
,
■erf?
. ■
a prop tttiw with n sap ^nd • for pro
include npi and tirib«rs. K>.t fror: * fJOU o * tUp
slate roof, on * In .jiaatinn
from which in Juris;, ha died.
The contention of appellant upon !
at the tirae appallaa'a deceased orAer*
needed and an order ^iven in advance is M
IMOI the evidence oJ lc tfce condition of the roof in thj
such 1 rule if ndhored to tvuold either atop
a dangerous condition was discovered until ;.r<
and arrived or the gigger would net live to see the
arrive. The atrtute in entitled to a norc- XiYaral sonatz
ion and has been so construed in the case of Poreha v 111.
Coal Co., 156 App., 140.
It is further contended by appellant that the t c
.. t. net caused for want of peops because he bad an
Viola is true as e bf.re at* tenent still it ,
props of suitable length, end in %] a where the
has adopted and recognised a cuatora in ragard to the o»nnei
ordering props, caps and tlnberfl and faafctii
meusure and determine the lengths of suitable props,
■I oj such l custom , and the timberwan Jinder th«
■ vioe-prlncipal and his knov.' ledge Bad naalaat
of the company.
There is the ■ f ention by ajpellan* with :•
to e dangerous oonf' iaoaaaa
the two days after props ..ere ordered. he tiaben
the room charged with knowledge < '
exiated and pemitted the flaos
of the mine Manager. I oharced wj
erous condition existed. Cent
uatd risK constitute i BO -efense.
-.-5-
I
■
i neoeoa
x 3 do.ua
syiTXJB bxua
jt'^io^ .f)«ifTC*a.ioi? 08 aaecf aad fia3 noi
.0: 631 ..00 I
.taw so^ fc— >#o too. saw
©•sad o aa aarxJ ai a Mi"
M So 8<joi<i 6ad
. jba cad
axuaaa*
N'fl ^d bruod
- otr a
to afiae m
Tirtoo auoio-iCUib
I -xatia a^ai
)£C( d?L
ttthrxmq baa I>a*aixa
xi enJtn odi So
Appellant says the evidence in ttJ.K < •
therefore the WtHngw of the court ir. aAMttinc 1
instructinc Jury should be accurate,
to the ruliJic, of the court in a Anil riftanoe or .
same called to the attention of this ooutt.
(The complaint »$ appellant rs to appellee's £iren ij
ion number one th'-t it refeyl^to declaration racers to cj
and timbers when the evidence waa with rafereiuu to pri
instruction undertakes to set out what it is neoeaBej
appellee to prove under first count of the declaration,
under the evidence in thiu caae the undisputed e"
under the custom props, caps and timbers *Ath minor an tiki
man were inseparable. Under the evidence it : -j not oleJ
that more than one order for props waa {.-^en sc the inati
as to time could not be misleading*
-at has been said of appellee1;: first instruction
to second and ?s to who ws injured could not . 1
jury as no injury could result tc appellor
her husband .
what has been said of instructions one 1 no t
appellee' 8 t.:iven instructions three and four. "»:
appellant's contention not gpsa1 nhare appellant
admits custom and recognition of it by offering nc c'■", •
the contrary.
Appellee's <j.iven instructions numbered 6,0 and 8
sistcnt and X> tt substantial!,/ the la .
modification of appellant's sixteenth instruct? c
founded as the instruction modi fie • 1
the law as applied to the fac* . :hr t . ppell< •
er whtre At ceased wllfullj violated the mining atatut*
-4-
!
7<iat.
I ■
\ ■> ai^\«yxit si TOtfam aot
icrtw ateowl^ baa
iva fee of B«Cstx»fcn0 ciclfoirxtani
r 3T0i . ot aallaqqs
I aon*fc£»e 9iiJ leftrw
jtauo edit i9btw
Hqabat ot#w nan
•>hto ©no narfJ aaoe:
■ > Jil±* O* S3
>o tttna need aad tatfW
;ooa off
. .afCni on a a T^l
■ onr.cf ai/d tari
I a«r( ffadW
tg u'aelleqcta
f *i *o . nofswo Bttmhm
' TOO odfr
-
-a 5 J-fl3i-8ta
»txla e1 - otttboa
; ^Bfli art? 8j ftabocuol:
'oa+ art* *al ad*
■\»c -fo aa-srtw IS
involved un<ur the foot.-j in this case.
The modificaticr. of appellant's n±n«
striking out the »ord "direot'' and inserting 1
is not error but la a.g$a la oase of Chi 004
Bf&mOllaf 197 111. 630.
Appellant contends there v -aa error In the o< 12 :
refused a mortar ci its instructions but no special ....
assigned that ^oea to the writfi of the case. Whan th
fused instructions era examined in aonnafttion
the jury,.*. we fin''. + he Jur;' were full; inatmc1
and under the pXea&laga in this case.
ue find no reversible error in this record t
judgment will therefore be H^firned.
AffixJM .
(Hot to be reported in full).
-5-
.©hbo p +Qtft a:. ii*r£ornt
<£li£oa t
I ^iia ioa at
.0f;3 .1X1 Y«X aallle^
i^olJ-.o>; i^aai &*eul
can ;xr/£. orft ft ail M <*&*
•he Xiw iaau.
- 80 Otf
i"«i
-a-
/, A. C. MILLSPAUGH, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of tin-
State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true cops of the OPINION of the said
Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in mp office.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF. I have set mp hand and affixed the seal of said Court
at ML Vernon, this
A. D. 1914.
G..G-. • '■
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
o
3
o
f
\ 5 Opinion of the Appellate Court
A T AN APPELLA TE COURT, Begun and held at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, on the Fourth Tuesday
in the month of March in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fourteen, the same
being the 24th dag of March, in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fourteen.
Present:
Hon. Hang Higbee, Presiding Justice.
Hon. James C. McBride, Justice.
Hon. Thos. M. Harris, Justice.
A. C. MILLSPA UGH, Clerk. W. S PA YNE, Sheriff
1 (» i>
And afterwards in Vacation, after said March term, to-wit: Onjhe ...c» < dag
ofJulg, A. D. 1914, there was filed in the office of the Clerk of said Court at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, an
OPINION in the words and figures following:
ZSEll \J^l
i^~=.
vs.
&l
No.
October Term, 1J)1.'J.
KHltUH TB-
APPEAL FROM
tutf
188I.A. 330
COURT
/Jla^d^
cor NT Y
TRIAL JUDGE
Hon.
I'erra lie. 61.
1 . eoary-j J am a anc ,, ] m rle a . till ,
...toutoru of ' .; AnnStill, )
r ei awl ,
)
. ppollo<
i
va
c f K&diBo n Count; .
: 1 1 Still,
188I.A- 3 30
Opinion by Karri a, J.
Title la a salt brought by . .a, in "
.atice of tho Peaoa in ..?.•• :"••■.< : .-
Circuit court and fron Cirouit Court '
Ihfc facts are that Ihoi LI in hi. a 1:
ovaox of the north poet •xuarte>
seotion 'A, township 6 range 10 neat
ison County. But Vhoaaa still h
the ,/eer of \y09 loaTing a
probated in nnn Bj which ■aid will b* tid '
viaed to hi a *ife Ian ; till. Sbat at the
sftid Ihonas still Bad for boom twentj -
an id land wafl cccupien b;r '
but v.ith aor.e un
exact n ature Of v.hich ia noil
iafciuee 4a* thiu case. Thi't aft. r the i
v/ill aforesaid appellaat ooatio
aary, 1910, a forcible
Juutice of the _c>oe of e- .:
BT
■
o o
•
Kt3 ho*5 tea ?i>!o0 ?tu>i£J
I 9TJ3 BvT
virion ad J lo XI
d fltlffff
. , iioat
vo XMf od^
MM ni i.e;t iidoiq
r«.T etrf sjJ- &9Btv
km! htaa
< enoa r
trprtM a toaxe
• . i utiit a* a h
■"...;.., J t0j
cf tsuici l<no by :.nn Still i "dward Still,
entered In faTor cf Ann Ctj against appellant
rent flue and unpaid anc! foz th» sioa rJ
of 2 c uti tutier. leaned and execute .
at aftez < "t desiring tc ka«p '
a ^ettlercent of the judgment afo:
iitill to lease Bald land for oj
portion of the or.oJ'. rent Involved in th« Poroi
ment. A written leauc uru pre]
appellant on the 8th day of ^fr~-, 1&10 fcr one yeej .
of the leaiie and the description ware written 1 - said •
. . innit;. Attorney for Ann Still ir, +>>c
the ccr.Cient cf appellant* deti
uued in the description where th< ♦' i
Fhat on ..eptenbrr 10,1910, p.ppellant paid ■
upon the rent due under thla 1*
expiration cf the one ^e?ir a Aeeand in writin
possession, an conpleint in writing A... deao
this suit brc.
t since the oi tere fcr
court appellee ctcr; }.cr Inst Wll]
&er Lfc,1913, a cop;- ( I the sar.e beJnL file
suggestion en the record of float]
of Eenry Janes and 3amrlea Still,
Still, dece?
llant ur^cs? three tr°uri(-b
1st, .That the proourenea*
and ap^cllar- • o; thr<
2nd . B e oavic e the i ! a a o rJ p t i o n i r.
;. i lend occupied by appellant •
-: -
-
ass baa
i lo
■
»I nrt#£u a .Jaws
'3 oa* no Jrrall
■. : to
j
D a/rh .■♦
■
I
-
3rd. 3ecauL>e appellee nei
the right oi' possession to the prei
■<li&t id procured oj \ i
constitute duress and avol<
cl»iiCc.Licnrjut*t be present and
inf_ of the instrurwnt such threat
Mb free afene? ar.c mke 1
cnoti.ti . .hio is not even ol< Li
afterwerde recognised n^ hin
n<- t elalaed he v/^3 even bein<]
Vhe first pro pe eit ion not bell
have a binding lease wi1
parties t-o t aietake beoatia« s
occupito *exe the ^.ar-e aa involved in it rnc
iric rent en the: ..ror.isca he c
Bl8taka la description
proposition i
_h<- third proposition and the e.1;'
do not applj- to this case because frcr. t • it
the evidence, one Bait <«i & brea
rent compromiser' b; ■. ■ .
parties, pejnsant of rent ■
of th. tenancy the reandez ta the bringing of :
Hunt habin^ attorned fc<
ed froa either laeatienine her title or ri
Ion0 f.d he renfiins I at.
Chare is no error in !
affirmed.
- -
(lot to be published in fall)*
- -
:
) i
i
■
. ..
bald a i
■
•
■■ . :oo Jaat
•
I
■
. 1 ...ila
1
/, A. C. MILLSPAUGH, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of the
State of Illinois, 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 mp office.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF. I have set mp hand and affixed the seal 0/ said Court
at ML Vernon, this c^J: dap of Jul 'p.
Clerk of the Appellate Court
o
o
z
a 1
•.._ •'
y Opinion of the Appellate Court
AT AN APPELLATE COURT Begun and held at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, on the Fourth Tuesday
in the month of March in the pedr of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fourteen, the same
being the 24th duu of March, in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fourteen.
Present:
Hon. Harry Higbee, Presiding Justice.
Hon. James C. McBride, Justice.
Hon. Thos. M. Harris, Justice.
A. C. MILLSPA UGH, Clerk. W. S PA YNE, Sheriff
And afterwards in Vacation, after said March term, lo-wit: On the ^2, I Py\-r dap
ofJulp, A. D. 1914, there was filed in the office of the Clerk of said Court at Mt. Vernon. Illinois, an
OPINION in the words and figures following:
1
Z^c/^V
4vrHU)K TO
APPEAL FROM
188I.A. 342
No.
March Term, 1914.
2^-7^/L
7 e x t * /■" COURT
?<- ^ j^^y- COUNTY
Hon.
TRIAL JUDGE
Tern Ko. cj.
roh Tor ■■. . .5. 1914 .
Coerce ::. Sraer;,',
j
I
vs. -.'el fr«» ir«iii<
roh,
)
alloc, j
42
Opinicr rrlc, J«
Appellant fllel hi 8 ftealaj
of two courts, tl r"'j fe i ipeciPl s< -
reason of an orcl OOntraot •
attorcie; en the £?*:• aj : ml; . 1910,
In e titles to
titaa Court, In , to ; :.
and prepare forae "' :
in the transact j
&en4 -.-, >• ' ■
owner of i.!."'
llant ft > .
expenfif-s.
caid part of eei<* a| ►ccaaarily e
of 16.00. Jha1 fad-'
and the own - u* waa aban
»cpt«abex Let
the full ajMtmt cf sea.
rbc acooaA count the ooramon or
That the appellecf-* '
verdict for In mm of 888. i
for new trial vordj
. i trial '■ -
(
• .o '
(
« °>
' , \-ur « oni to
-
-■■.,.
I ■
ft taa
it KIM
The amount of appellant's fee and expense!
dispute* Ihat appellant v.? s enplc, appelle<
attorney is not a matter of dispute. ?he errors i
resolve themselves into two qsastions of f&ot:
ifirst: Appelle claims that he emplo;
bonds were issued and everything completed to fttrnis]
opinion as to legality of the issue, such an opinion
appellee oould furnish purchasers of the oonds.
Second: That appellant w«s to ne pair out of i ' u
vc;500.00 allowed by the owners of the land to appellee i
in no other way.
..hen these two questions of fact are dispose
assigned and argued upon this appeal will be settled e ec<
ingly.
The first proposition as a nuestion of fast cnllt; for the
judgment of the court es to whether Appellant wf>« employe
claimed by appellant or appellee. Appellant claims and in I
is supported by r'/itness Rose that he was employe^ b^ appellee
to investigate the title, prepare bonds, etc. ^he corrt
ence between appellant and appellee show that such service i
being rendered from the 1st of August to the 1st of September,
1910, and that appellee upon this proposition is his
vdthaut corroboration of. either witness or correspondence.
Indulging and giving to the trial cotirt the benefit
presumption that only competent evidence was considered ne dan
not, when ^11 the competent evidence is eon Bid ere cl,
the finding ':here the jxidgment is against the man!
of the evidence so thf-t if permitted to stand the C<
satisfied there had been a niscarriaL< o^ justice it
set aside.
ta 93?: a' :3 Jo tfrwoaa extl
. . ■ _ ,9J"i/::8ii)
. ' aif> \o isd^aai a Jon ax £9x110**8
>wj- jjfri: aovleurieii* avloaai
-<9 art tan* arcxaio ■ -.teifi
re Jjxib »ej.aal 9ie# atonod
oa dove ,ura4i grid- *o \;*J:Is39l o* es nox.
.afinoci edi >o aiaasrioixrq rlaxxrxtft hluoo aeLlQuqe
->a o* f: ■ tafi :finoo©2
••• B .-,- | atecwfo a U .< t)9;voIIa 00.00d3£
. [ 19X1*0 Ofl Hi
*or1 >o aaoife oaexi* n
jifl Ma frarraxeafl
. : '?.o no.1 - *E;ir'v erCT,
fffllf ffTgr i9rf*odw o* ea >+uroo axi* to irnacia&trt
lloqcja to *nall9q;q3 jd bexttlalo
99ll« .boxr+j; ^q r»9*ioq.q*[* al
diioo ex(_ .o*e ,ai>ao4 9iaqaiq ,91*1:* oil* 9*a;ijx*e9vn:x oi-
rfoxxa i iiZlaqqa hsm Jaalls^qa xi99**-ecf 9oaa
' -.il edt ino-il bsiehnsT. ^atod
B| xioi . ai:vJ tq^l 99lIe<jc[B *ar£* brta ,OIGI
.9: ; ;>I100 10 88911* £» 19r[Jl9 ^C XlOXtf'VXOtfOllOO *IT0Xf*.tw
• mi#4 * . I c* ori* o* jcrvx^ bxta %a£&£isbal
-9*9C[aop (£fl| *3d* xtoi*qruraeiq
, fcrt * fie**., .too 9riJ lis nsxfw ,*oxt
' . ,a ex *xi ■.<:.>. . jcrlfixixl ori*
t-IiiOU 9Xft bnsfr» 0$ frsJ " 0XT9 9lf* tO
[t 591181*36
.9£»2a.s
The second . Ltion when the e1"
shout sit her svidenee .. Eher<
the record that appellai
employment ; I foe anc o^eaaofi out
of ,£500.00 or to look to tl . t ■ rohw
BOM a ? reside. rit; and prined
foe end exper.8ei3. Die a* pellea Ao< a not
to this. It would bo r.eceBGJ rv t c bind rj
shew b} seme evidence that appellant In
acquiesced ir. it, -nd agreod tc v oeept •*
are sstiofied froir the ur
the judgment ia contrar; tc tl
and ou<;ht to be aet aalAa and no* trial ei
olll therefore be reversed en- oaaco reaaafle 1«
t ''reef1, and re i
(Kot to be reported in full}.
at.
■ t aJJ
• 09RrC6
terft sorts sir© amoe
,
»Mn«5 J©a etf o£ Jrfjrro firm
P ri otf o-rol:oi3dJ £X±v
/, A. C. MILLSPAUGH, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of the
State of Illinois, 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 nnj office.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF. I hare set mo hand and affixed the seal of said Court
at Alt. Vernon, this &,.&£& ~ dap of Julc.
A. D. 1914.
Clerk of the Appellate dun:
o
z
o
■y
/
I
Opinion of the Appellate Court
AT AN APPELLATE COURT Begun and held at ML Vernon, Illinois, on the Fourth Tuesday
in the month of March in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fourteen, the same
being the 24th dap of March, in the year of our Lord, oris thousand nine hundred and fourteen.
Present:
Hon. Harry Higbee, Presiding Justice.
Hon. James C. McBride, Justice.
Hon. Thos. M. Harris, Justice.
A. C. MILLSPA UGH, Clerk. W. S PA YNE, Sheriff
And afterwards in Vacation, after said March term, to-wit: On the <^L t day
of July, A. D. 1914, there was filed in the office of the Clerk of said Court at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, an
OPINION in the words and figures following:
qJU^&vt_
No. / (i
APPEAL FROM
188 I.A. 343
COI'RT
March Term, 191 4.
^csm,JL:dLA
dteitLr
COl' NT Y
Hon.
TRIAL JUDGE
1
Tern Bo. 1.. Agenda
karch Tem, A. D. 1914.
Joseph oalcrno.
Appellee, ) Appeal from
vs. ) Circuit Court of
llssourl 4 Illinois
Coal outpany.
Ut. Clair County.
Appellant
.!
Opinion by Harris, J. J_ O ^- ■*-
This suit was brougnt by appellee against appellant and
tried upon the charges made in an amended declr.rption c nriut-
ing of four counts, and the plea of not guilty. The first count
of the declaration aside froc. the formal allegations in sub-
stance charged:
That while appellee on the 2nd day of *arch, 1912, war-
mining coal frojB roost nine off the 12th south entry there exist-
ed in the roof of said room at or near the face tears si
rode, slate and other substance which was iikely tc eoaa
at any time and injure those v/orking in the room nn<l finding
that props, oapc and timbers were necessary to support the
thereof at said paint, he then and there demanded ol
nanagsr of appellant that he then and there deliver at the us-
ual place a nuiaber of seven foot props. Caps and timbers to
rescue said roof at said point for Harts own safety; thrt
lant wilfully failed and omit tec through its sine manager to
make delivery thereof as denanded, whereof and while an] tele
was loading coal into a car at the place afores id nd pa
beneath and under said loose rock, slate seal other substance, by
reason of raid wilful failure of appellant to furnipi
caps and timbers a lot of said over-hanging rock and
.m«x .
•
, OivxoXac rfqOaoL
moil XrOqqA ( ,99XX9qqA
to JiuoO Jiuo-xXO
nioallLl * tiuomml*
%X^»qmo^ XaoO
,4n* IXoqqA
C*8.A.I88I
.1 ,ai-rxaU \d noinlqO
boa -t.'-.r.IforyqK. .tanirj* ooIXoqqa yd Sn&uoio a,\w Hut aixiT
-#1 o» baiwoaai aa oi •baa a Ontario ad* aoqu bo It*
■. r .. 1 .-on lo nolo adi baa ,aJauco noo 1 to yil
■ ni a.ioiJsaaXXa Xanrrot ad* «nrl oblaa aoJtiaraXoob ad* lo
tptjpMli •«■#•
«bw /:XSI .rioMJ. lo x«b bnS ad* no •sllftqqa 9Xid» *adT
-Jiiiro a^rf* \.*i*n9 rt*uoe rf*i; £ 9x11 llo an in caooi moil Xooo jjniniia
io9is.iJ aoet ad* %son to *a moor £>!«• lo toon ad* nl bo
nwob o joo o* ^IeJT2I aew rfoi/iw oanaiatfua iart*o bna o*aXa ,3Coo?
■ ; baa taoo-x *d* at $nl*?o* oaod* #ru\,aL bam aau* \fw *a
I *>r!'^ iioqqua o* tYaoaooofl »io* aiodmiJ bna eqao ,aqoiq iadl
to b»btir,2S9b 9? ad* bam nod* ad ,*niaq bX< a *a loaiail*
-su aatt *n aovifob arils baa nmdS ad tmdi loaXXaqqa to Taaanaai
•I 3i»d.<li ban eqwO .oqoiq *oel navoe lo Todmtm a aoalq Ism
-Xaq ;<£*9laa nwo Tian* 10I *nioq blaa *a too* blnn auoaai
?9aanna snlxs e*i dauorii* ^e**ino boa baXial ^XXulXiw *naX
Majmm ollriw bam loaradw ,babaaaab aa loorod* \xmvli9b oaaa
artlaaaq or MHa aor.iq 9.-<i *a too a oJai Xaoa anibaoX boot
\,cf,90fi- b.-. • a*aXa ,-A.ooi 9aooX bloa aabnu baa d*aadad
o* *aalf9qqa lo oruXial Xi/lXiw bloi lo noeaar
t 3t'.i.$nsui.- -X9T0 bX»a lo *oX a ai90'-iti boa aqaa
stance fell and pemanently injured ppellee to the dar
of $3,000.00.
The second count after describing locality, condition,
etc., as in the first count charges that the ttlne examiner
failed to inspect the roof of said room at said point nd to
observe said dangerous condition of said roof tnero-.t ad to
thereof in a book kept for that purpose, before the cine]
A
were permitted to enter said fcoom for work in consequence whems-
of appellee was injured, etc., as alleged in said first count.
The third count alleges the same general condition as first
oount and charges that the mine examiner of appellant entered
said roost and inspected the sane and observed said loose rock,
clod, dirt, slate and other substance in said roof at said
point and wilfully failed to place a conspicuous mark or sign
thereat as notice to keep out and wilfully filled to sake ad
x record of the snme in a book kept for that purpone before
miners were permitted to enter said mine for work; by neons
whereof appellee was injured, etc., as alleged in the first
count.
The fourth count describes the saxae general conditio
the point in question at the time and as alleged in first o
and charges that appellee on the 2nd day of larch, 1912, de-
amnded of mine manager of appellant props to secure the rooi
at said point and he was then and there informed by snid mil
manager that appellant had no props ~f the length required in
said room at said point and that mine annager then and there
informed appellee that he would go into said room and examine
s-id roof to observe whether it was safe tor work and said aine
manager went into siid room and made an exani nation of the roof
thereof and reported to appellee that the roof was all ri
(2)
sanouit? *:tf mi 93 L' it \ltamarnnmq. baa XXe'J aoxusla
.00. 000, C* lo
xixbnoo ,«;JiXnooX anidxiORob talla tattoo baooaa arfT
lani-anxa fhi tatf J»d.f sogoaxlo louoo la-xll mdt at ma t.mto
l&M J a aooi bi.es Id loot mdt loaqaxxi oi balir-"}
Jaaiaxil loot bins 1c nozllanoo auciayr^b btam ori—do
««aiia mdt aiolatf ,aaoq*xuq taxi* aol tqmi ioocf a nt loaxacU siLa
-«adw •onoxiposiico nt tfxow not moot btam rmtam oJ bmtttmrmq atom
-■> Jarit bxeo at hm&oILv ma ,••#• .banutni ac-w •sllsqqs to
Xeional •faaa art J saaaXXn Jqjjoo Midi arfT
;*Jno *a to T9niiasx» »'.ixa adt isd* eaatario brie Jouoo
,ii i blr-» beriaacfo bo- mmmm mdt baloaqani boa oooi bi«a
bisa *s loo-x hxx-a at mmnatmdum rmclto baa ale la ,iiib ,bo!o
.3 10 :f-raxr. ajjowoiqanoo a aonlq oi baXtat y,LLulttw baa iaioq
I a otem ot baXxnl xXIulIlw baa tuo qaaoC ol aoxion a* *«a-tarfJ
wit oiclod *- orrurr tadt rol t<\oi iootf a ai aa-a axil lo brio oat %
an nam xtf ;Mtow tol anJtm blaa totao ot bmtttsaraq aiaw sianxu
. il adl nx ba^eXXa ar , .otm , bwxxj ^ t aaar aaXXeqqr. lonadw
.iouoa
la enoxiibnoo Iniaaaa aauaa axli aatflioaab inuoa x!**jjo1 axiT
Niil at bm^mita ma baa matt mdt ta aottmmup at tatoq mdt
->ob ,&xei .. \rb baS mdt ao aaXXaqqs tadt mm^xmdo boa
loot axli artuaaa ol aqoiq lasXXaqqa lo laarrtaa matm lo bmbaam
•xxxxa bi. a \d bmanotat mtmdt baa amdt a** axi bam tatoq btam ta
b'rtlupmrt dt&imt mdt 1<- aqoiq on bad IxtaXXaqqa tadt tlgMaa
mrmdt baa aoi.it im^aacM matm tndt ba& tatoq bteu tm moor btam
xo bar aoo-t bins otat oa bli/ow md tadt aaXXaqqe Imiiolnx
matm bta» bat jCiow rot mlam maw it rmdtmdw aviaado of laoi btrm
Itaatmexm aa mbamboa moor btnm otat 2amv rm^aaam
tr lia mom loot axil tadt aallaqqs ot b«ltoqat boa losiaxli
(S)
and reasonably safe, and then and there directed apyellei
j.rooeed with his work of loading cool and appellee in ptursui
of said order and relying upon the examination Bi.^de by said
mine manager did proceed at point in wuestion, by rea n *!c
he was permanently injured, etc., as alleged in fflret
Upon the issues so joined a trial was had by jury i
verdict returned in favor of appellee for the sum of
Motion by appellant for new trial, which too overruJe, , n
ment and this appeal.
Appellant in presenting its rea.-oue for a reversal of
judgment assigns and argues but two general propositions.
Pirst: That under the evidence as applied to e«ch smart
of the declaration there cannot be a recovery.
**econd: That the trial court committed reversible error
in refusing to give appellant's first refused instruction.
Under appellants first general propositi ■ before enter-
ing upon details as to fact it will save time and space to
state some of the facts as to conditions as they existed on
fcareh 2, 1912, which applies to each of the four c unta:
Appellee and his buddy Paul Palermo were miners of consid-
erable experience familiar with the terms used und rules f
mining in and about the teine in question. Appellant's flM
perintendent Eauth, Acting ager -butler. Assistant Bine
l.anager Branden and lilne Kxamlner .Vontieth were all men of ex-
perience in and about mines of this kind, familiar with differ-
ent conditions, dangers and the rules of mining. xhat in appel-
lant's mine appellee and his buddy laid off room nine off the X
12th south entry, which at the time of the accident had beer «♦:
from 12 to 21 feet wide, some of the time widened and a
of the time narrowed to in the neighborhood of 60 feet to I
(3)
bfioottb jimdS baa nedJ bos ,»lcc \Ldana*M*rt tea
:l 99lS.sq.qr fame Xooo jfcnXbaoX lo afiow aid dtlw baaooaq
Mae ^d «b«ffi nollaxilmexa ad;f no ;u yil^Idi ban vabte btam to
oi \c<f .noiJaaUj. ■! Inxoq lr. baaootq bib isasnra ante
.teuoa tart* at bo^lls, ma %,ot» .bwutfii \;Iin9aci«x»q aav eii
£ bar. x^vt Xd ^^ 8R* Xaia* e b*nlot oe esueax mitt aoqU
to ohj3 ariJ tol aaXXsqqa to -xoval ni twnuJw 1 alb-tar
*vo a aw rioldw , Lnxal wan iol JoaXXaqqa Y.tf nolle*
•Xaaqqa iMi boa inaa
7»rsi a iol eno- jw ell anllnaawq al *acIIsqqA
••noifii - ni owl li/d eauaTa *>xia analeaa lasat&but
I o.t bsXX?q« me aonablra Bdl xabrur ladT :tm\t%
.^xwwoomz. » »d JonaBO atari! aolla?»Xoab aril lo
totio alrflaiovoi bollxaj;aoo liuoo Lsl-il aril JurfT -'buoo***
:;oi.nianl baeuls? J a? it a'lnaXXaqqi* »riji ol anlauta? ai
-Talus sio'is»d' ■ ilxaoqoiq Xaiaaay Ibix! a)*flaXXaqqa ftM
ol aoaqe boa mutt »tbb IXi«r 11 loal oJ s» aXxalab umqu an!
ao belsixa \,»ai aa so I oJ ss alael aril lo aatoa alala
Mil i " t aal lo ifoaa ol aaiX^qa rioxcw ,s;iex ,£ darts".
-bi jtmv ooncaXa? Xaal \bbotf aid baa aaXXaqqA
uaXirx bo- £>o«jj anW sdl iiit<* talXlausl aonaliaqxa aldria
I laallacrq*. .noileauv nx ante aril iuodv bns nl yilalQ
anxU lABla^a' .laXlt/d xaaan, jdilaA .dliiad laaanalaxisq
-xa la n»sB Lin vxmrn i.'laxlcio .. -xanxmaxK anlM tea aabnaxS tagaxiatt
-is i •xXimat ,b/tt>( aidl lo aanla luotfa baa at mmamlimq
.^r.ti: im lo aaXxrx aril tea a?aaoab,aaoilxbnoo Ins
S a.lt llo »nxn soot llo btal \bbu<f mtd ban msllmqqm malm m'tanl
t#a iioai bad in»blaaa adi lo acili adi is doldw 4vt^fl9 xtiuoa dlSX
oanablw mtxts mdS lo aooa tablv tmmt XS ol SIX noil
Ml 03 lo bocdxotfdalaa ad* at ol bawo-rxan tmlt rndi lo
(2)
of coal. 7h« win of coal was iron* 6 to 6jr feet t- ick.
roof was what was called a rock or slate r^of. Tee kini
roof was the reason for narrowing and videning the re.
what was called whitetop In the roof was familiar to both
pellee and the witnesses heretofore named ofappell:int as of
bluish color and of a brittle nature. That it ight be die-
covered and known before falling or it might not. That the
roof might upon examination sound all right -\nd soon break no
fall. That the precautions as to width of roots, und frequent
examinations of the roof was because all the witnesses r<
nizsd the dangers of the kind of a roof in said room nine.
That the method of making safe such u roof is by taking down
the clod, bastard or stone or by, if the piece is too 1
putting in numerous props. That the piece that fell mat i •ij.te
top six to eight inches thick, seven or eight feet Ion*. ,
three to four ieet wide, located seven or eight feet from face
of coal. That to have secured it by props would have required
prope, about seven feet in length, •'hat but one prop was set
in this room and no attempt had been ude to re-ove this store
clod or white top from the roof. That the mine exaainer woe
in mine and this room on the morning of the accident but placed
no danger marks upon any part of this roof. That the nine man-
ager was in roosi and sounded this portion of the roof ou d;iy of
accident, about two hours previous to accident, pronounced it
safe and ordered the room widened. ahnt tnis licit and exam-
ination was made because he knew the roof was changing. The
above are practically undisputed facts.
Appellee and Paul Palerwo, his buddy say this SCOdltioa of
the roof began to show white top and daneeroue on ""uesd.^y be-
fore the nccident on aturday and on 1-riday coal nap undercut,
(4)
.:■-•. I *oal i* o* 0 a»?t saw Xaoo lo nior ad* .Xaoo lo
. ioo? •*ale to 3(00? a bsIXao saw fast* saw loot
jnxnsbiw bo* aalwoTXaa ?ol aosaa? utt sew loo?
sj aaxlxsel oaw loo? •di nt qo*a*idw bsIXao eaw *ariw
sr 4nnII»qqalo btiun a?olo*»?8ri eoaasa*xw ad* bnr aoXXaq
~ctt> od *daim *t *adT ,9?u*kji aX**x?tf a lo box; loloo dexuXtf
.ion kWi ** ?o anxIXal o?olsa' nworal bco La?ov09
tor. ;Lr«-rcf oooi on a *dax? XXa bflvoa nox*nniaiRxa noqu *dai«t loo?
;i b.u- aoo? to rf*bx.w o* aa aaoltoaaorxq ©iii *adT ,XX*1
39i aeesaa*!* orii TI asunead saw loo? od* lo enoLSe.nlnc.XB
.anxn moot biaa at loo? a lo bat* sal lo B?saosb ad* basin
zr.l-Aait xJ ax loo? a uoi/a alaa gaiaaei lo bod*Oia ad* JsriT
•I aaolq art* 11 %x& ?o oao*a ?o b?a*oad ,b©Xo ad*
9*xdw saw Hal *ad* ooaiq od* *adT ,eqo?q suo?aca«x ni 3ni**uq
oX *aal *dala ?o asras ,afoXd* sadoax *riaxa o* xis qoi
S :ao?l *as>t .trials to naraa tolawol ,abxw *©•»* ?uo'x o* a?
bo?xupo? owaxf bluow aqo?q \jd it botoooo orad o* lad? .Xaoe lo
*aa saw qo?q ono *od tad* .a*a»jal ni leal novas *uotfs (aqo?q
naao* sad *qas**a oa tea ooo? aid* nl
saw xaniaaxa anla? ad* *adT .loo? od* a»?l qo* o*iriw ?o boXo
itloio, ftaj *nab*ooa ad* lo a*txn?oeo ad* oo ono? old* bne •aim. nt
-a** onia od* *adT . i-c? tttd* lo *?aq t/w> ooqx/ aahcaxa ?o$itab on
3d* lo aox*?oq old* teteooo bam a»o? nl eaw ?o&a
*x as ,*ri9blooa o* euoiva?q a?uod ow* *uoda «*naOxooa
-aixo aoa *xsxt ex.i* teaf .bsnscx. a»o? od* te?ab?o bar alaa
.^ni^aada aaw too? ad* woosf ad osu«ood otea aaw nox*ani
.s*oal h9*uqoxbov xXXaol*oa?q a?a oroda
6bua* axu ,o«nroXs? Ium* tea ooXXsqqA
ao 8uo?ayiaa bos qo* a*ldw wods o* nsijad Xoot a di
^Hbnui-iC no *nabloOn ad* a?ol
(w)
loading fa» done and in the evening coal was ■
on Friday evening appellee through hie buddy deaandec
mine manager seven foot props be sent down to make ro<
The sane request wao made on Saturday morning ine
itanager said he would send seven foot props if they b
and on Saturday morning said if they did not have auM
come down. That there were no prope ia room except I m
prop that was set by appellee.
Appellant's witnesses say that no seven foot ere
ordered. That the custom of ordering prope was by black br
at bottom of mine. That props from six to six and ■ half feet
were in room at tia.e and were of sufficient length for use
this place. That appellee was familiar with these conditions
and should have removed the white top or substance that fell.
Applying the above to appellant's arguments as to firet
count of declaration upon the question of whether seven loot
props were demanded, whether propB were needed and whether
there were in the room at time props of sufficient length to
support the roof were questions of fact submitted to the jury
and upon which there was a sufficient dispute to warrant the
eourt in accepting the verdict of the jury as binding.
The application of the sa&e rule in considering the fact?
under the second and third counts of the declaration that
the evidence a dangerous condition appeared on Thured .
iriday before accident and sheuld hove been made s matter ef
record and marked by mine exaauner on -aturday Bernini was u.
question in dispute and upon which evidence wae offered.
If white top was discovered on Tfcurrtday and ' ridny and w»
known to make a roof dangerous the mine examiner should
discovered it. There being evidence of this fact the aaeetlea
(•]
i»AOS<290 x£b"* ttXd d^JJOXdi 99 1 .9 \.tilil'
\ 9**n ei asrob in»a sa aqoxq iool aov»e x»$nuiua ouXn
oa* animoia vinuit*" go »Juua saw -aaupax aaca sdT
.-j»aj a«a <c»di 14 strona io&i aairaa nn»e bitrysr ad blfia xasaaad
aadi »vr>u i*tt fcil) tadi 11 aXaa aolnxoAi x****'**"4-' ao ba*
■I Jool xXa iqaaxa aooi al sqoxq on new axadi iadf .nwob taoo
• 99£l»qL<ift \tf iaa oaw ^sili qoxq
p"»i'; on ^adi *s9 aaaaaaii* a'iaaXXaqqA
,'a*Ud \d aaw aaoTfr /julxaJbxo lc .noisyo ad; J .baxabxo
■ baa xX* ©i xla a&oxl eqoxq Jari* .talsz lc moiiod ta
i* asu toI isUaaal iaaioXllwa lo axaw tuts a.uli i« sioox aX sxaw
oXiibno© aaadl diXw x«lXXa«l a*# oaXX» i*£ JaJT .aaaXq a Mi
. Xial iftrt# aar-Rjadua xo qoi aiXdw adi Aaroaax a?fcd blood* luxe
iaxil oi aa atnar raffa a'ioaXXaqq* oi avod* adi ani^XqqA
i. ttavaa xauiadir lo aeXiaaup suit noqu noxiaxsXoao lo tauoo
■xadi au* ana babaae exaa aqoaq xauiadar ,ba,pnamaj> axaar aqoxq
ot .it ^ 19 1 inaiolfLua lo aqpxa; aouti ia mooa adi aX axaw aaaxii
*J beiitadua iail lo aaotiaawp axaw loox adi i-zoqqua
•iuqaib ifisiotitua « aai> axadi doXd* aogu Jklb
.&xtX.uaXd 6u \iu{. 9dJ lo iaXiwar adi y iiqa-ja ai ixuoo
nnixabi jXiti a*aa axli lo ooXiaoXXqq* ad?
di aaXiavaXoab adi lo otsw oo bxMJ bo* baooaa adi ?*Apf
boa ^sJrexudT oo baxaaqqa aoXiXbxtoo ayoxaaauta a aonatXvs adi
*; aXifli oaarf arsd blutua bam. inaaia— axclad vs~
ao xaolaaxa aoXoi xtf oajtx: m boa X
i alio scv ac daXdw oa«^j boa aiuqela al AoXiaatfp
mm :>xm ^b'-xj-i-" nc baxavooaXb ea» qoi aiXilw IX
avad ijXuoaa -xa^iouixa aolm adj auoxa^tiaJb loox a astofii oi xovojut
a«l -bXva j^iXod axadT .iX baxarooaXa
whether an unsafe condition existed which c>uld im
of reasonable diligence on the part of wine examiner been difj-
covered wrd a question for the Jury to determine, end il
to be dangerous then it was the duty e"f the cine r to
have marked it and made a record accordingly.
"he fourth count of the declaration the evidenc- e>
onination by mine ennager, a direction to appellee to sork.duc
care upon the part of appellee, and the evidence m 1o direc-
tion of tie assistant mine manager to take down the rock,
or stone and appellee* b failure to obey and the fvrnlfhl
appellant to appellee of a reasonably safe place to work were
all submitted to the Jury and if a recovery in this cape t nd
the sustaining of this verdict depended upon this count, the
evidence and the application of the law might bring aloi t -
different result. But as we are of the opinion that there Is
sufficient evidence under the statutory counts to si ■et; U
judgment and a general verdict under one good count to n
it is sufficient for not encumbering the record vith n dlame-
eion of the evidence applicable to this count and law, of wil-
fully violating orders, equal means of knowledge, aeeuraoe« of
safety, ricks assumed i nd changed conditions cited by appellant
and applicable to this count.
Under the three statutory counts it is argued that even if
the mining statute was by appellant violated, there Is nc eho*
ing that the violation wae the proximate cause of the injury.
*he proximate cause is not necessarily the beginning, but t e
efficient cause, such a cause in the absence of proci of which
the court would say as s matter of law the injury would not
liave occurred.
(6)
- balaxjce aoUtlMon atnaau tut tmiitlii
-si icx» sate to *isq art* no aaaeaXXio aXxteMCato
4oitarrala« ol "£xat a.il tat noalaaap * bjjw bar woo
1 e<0 -1 \:lua o4.fr i«w IX Mtft auo-xasxraa ad ol
-stb-coooa hoMT s atea bna 11 h»#i«i avxrrf
;> ean^biva isiAiori axil 1c >1 arfT
39II9.T >i 1! noxJoa-rx* a .Taqaaaan mla ffft nallaxtros
.aaitl o.t Mi sonooXra a4l tea ,aaJX«4fa to Iwq adl MKftf axao
*ro» aalaf ol liana* aaia Jwtlaxaaa axil- to r.oil
tel brui code o* aouXxfll 8*1 II 9 of qa tea anota to
#oaIq alaa tltfam'saaz a to aa£Xoo\jB nl .loaXXaajeji
boa o*u pwMM a li tea c*"t axil ol ballxoitfua Ltn
9 , ; taq# oafcnaqso loxircov 3 Ml to ^axaX^laua »rtt
M tej|i Wff H0 te uoAla»tlqq»» tel te« aanaciva
■ • • »ia aw aa lutl .iXuaar Inaiottxb
»tU ol alouoa ^-xolalala aa- -xateu aoaafttva laalj
air joos •» wteif lattexaw X&Taxa»3 a Xvta
teooa? actl ^aitactenoa Ioxj «•? Ixtoxoiltua • ! ix
U* jar, int. <jb aaaaJbxvs aJ0 10 sate
. ^ibaXwor. ail Xsupa ,*«atee iwtfrafr.v \;XXi/l
snoliiteoa aajawda baa ■■■■■■ aataxi ,%lataa
.Ircjoo aXrtl ol oXtfjBOXXqqo tea
it aeva Jtasti tet/HTa si ix alrruoo ^satwtste await ax» vaftoP
I vx»dt ,batjoXate Inallaqqa ^0* asm alxflsla astute •*»
xso alanXxovq axil aaar aaJtsJtehr adl Ixatl gni
-iK? a^teotead axil xXXiaaaaosn lou aX aaxxaa alaalwiq aru
la a— aarfa mtt at aaana a xfaue .asnaa Ixtalolila
I -om x^«t"- axil weX to -xollaa a aa T«* ateow teuoa aril
.teTXtroeo vraA
m
If the court ie to any as a natter of ] aw \.r.nl is
what ia net the proxinate oauae ther*- must be absolutely
showing that tne violation of the statute had nythij .,
with the injury. This for the reanone <;iven under sash count
of the declaration iB a question of fact and the Jury' a find-
ing on the asm* for the aaxae reasons we refuse to disturb.
covers
Appellant in its brief/eonsideraDle space in citation of
law which upon examination we conclude waa cited no re particu-
larly as we have aaid upon liability under fourth count. ?ce
wilful violation of a statute is nothing more than a conscious
violation thereof and that determined from all the fact
circumstances in evidence.
Appellant oomplaina that the court aid not give one in-
struction which read, a« follows:
"The Qourt inatructa the jury tnat if you believe i
the evidence that the plaintiff knew the roof in hie working
place waa loose and liable to fall and injure hie, and th/.t
Jtnowing this continued to work under auch dangerous roof and
waa injured in consequence thereof, then you should find
defer-dant not guilty aa to the fourth count of the plaintiff ' e
declaration.
Appellant' 3 Injury, if any, in Lhe Court's refusal U i«
this instruction could only arise under the fourth count the
common law count baaed upon an assurance of slaty. Tbw in-
struction waa properly refused because it ignored the examina-
tion of the mine manager, his aasuruncea of safety and the
principle of law that although appellee may have known there waa
aoo« danger, yet if the danger waa not such that an a
: rudent person would refuse to wcrt, then he might oontl
The refusal of this instruction could not be reversible
(7)
ax tadw 9bL 1o -xatjwa b an \na oj al tixioo oA& II
■Jd J-MiJA 9"tvii SBuro aiauixc? j axiJ Jon «i jaaw
*tuie.tB 9*13 to noiiKioxv noJ Suit anivoaLa
ja > xobnu aavxa sxioanam asij -xo'i alAT m\^.ulal tit Attw
-bo.i~i a'v.Tut axtt has *a*1 xo noiJaaup a ax aotimrtBloob attt to
" asulaa 99 anonaoa acusa sdi ?ot au&us o«U 00 jpU
array oo
. aoaers ■Ii«a9iiaaoD\lsxitf aJi ai JnaXX*<«A
■i^iaq $noa xtaiio eatr axufloaoo »w aoxJAXiXi&ax* no.jw aaxaw waX
.•JijjcI aoboij ^iii'^ciX aoqu biaa avail aw a* y,XibI
atfoxoe- yniaioa si aJu*aJt« a to noIJaXoiv lutXXw
a J oat &siS XXe xkoiI x>anxsna-»o i*d* iuta to at ad J noxJaXoXv
.aonskxva nx eaaoisiBiHUo-iio
arXa tori bio tiuoo axtf ietU aaXaXqao© JoaXXaqqA
:a«rolXox ax* ,iiA»i xfoxxiw noiSourfu
|1 avaxXacf uc^ ix *Mtt ^luj, eaJ aJowitfanx JiuoJ «4?"
I nx looi axii waxut llxJnlaXq axii J«dJ aonabXva ao?
B1HUU bm; XXat oi eX«*xX una aaool axtw ac
jxa,±tteb a'oue aobna i-xow oJ baunXinoo mlJJ aaxwoxut
C iioxXJ ,toarcaxtt ooaoxipaeaoe ax ba-xutnX a*v
• ' 1114 AX J Iq 9xi4 1 =*ttf oi aoi ^JXXx»a ;nn JoebiateO
;.,viTU,Xoab
arX^ oi1 laaxita? .a'^ixioO axU at p%/u tx %\,iui,al e'laaXXaqqA
IHuaal aaJ aabxui aexxa *Xxio oXxjoo aotJbuitmal Bidi
,\i»% a xo aoneTUvt.e na nocjxr baaad inuoo aaX ooonoo
j.>ion^i ix aauaoou bsou'xaa \i-xaqeaq asw aoXJou-xJa
sxtt >:o£ \^at*« 'xo Baoiurxusea aid ,1 asanas aax,a act* to noxi
- aw rxtuXj xnroxuL avail A&sa aaXXaqq^ aauouJ-X>: #sdi *«X to aX^Xoaxiq
us Jaiij xloufi ;fE aav la^v^ab aaj xx -4a^ ,ia^o«b amoa
100 ixl^Xa ail amdi ,iaow ol aouxai bXiiow xtoaxaq ^DAbxrzq
"rtrai 9d ton bluco aoitouitmat ax.ii to Xaautoi eii'
(V)
error becouee in appellant's eighth and ninth glv<
tione are practically given the r"^ne lew ap. "i«ked lor la
refused instruction, iinslly ti -is instruction a, plied to fourth
court of declaration only and ne we have decided Mere war* ev-
idence euliicjent to purport the verdict and judgment under the
statutory counts the refuf? 1 of tl.jp instruction beeoce*
terial.
*• find no reversible error in this record tnd the
nient will be affirmed.
Affinaed.
iMm -
(Hot to be reported in full.)
(8)
'■i •,*ns'II»i.n* at «t£Jco»«f rofx%
■ vol »w»* adi nsvts ^Ifoottse-irr *ie snot J
. '-o rjoi*«"I8£!»«b to *awt*
I .oy.9t 9~ n oi *r . .3 -»on»bt
iJ'fi t J Blotto* ^iolui«l«
■I -toTt» 3ltTi«T»r»n on bill •*
.t*erxtVt<* •<* Iliw taM
IMMMMMA H
(.ili/f Ml JoH)
(8)
/, A. C. MILLSPAUGH, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of the
State of Illinois, 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 have set mo hand and affixed the seal of said Court
at ML Vernon, this _J._ / \ ' day of July.
A. D. 1914.
Clerk of the Appellate Court
o
O
/•A
Opinion of the Appellate Court
AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at Mt. Vernon. Illinois, on the Fourth Tuesday
in the month of March in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fourteen, the same
being the 24 th dap of March, in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fourteen.
Present:
Hon. Harry Higbee, Presiding Justice.
Hon. James C. McBride, Justice.
Hon. Thos. M. Harris, Justice.
A. C. MILLSPAUGH, Clerk. W. S PA YNE, Sheriff
And afterwards in Vacation, after said March term, to -wit: On the ^is.i.^ day
of July, A. D. 1914, there was filed in the office of the Clerk of said C<,urt at Mt Vernon. Illinois, an
OPINION in the words and figures following:
7^u
€^
tc
Ni
xs
March Term, 191-1.
IhAa^L. EMM
t v-JL....
IMiltOH TO
APPEAL FROM
88I.A. 345
e^^j-
COl'RT
o-x^y
cor NT Y
Hon.
TRIAL JUDGE
Tern Bo.
^rch Term, A. D. 1914.
John liuback, )
Appellee, ) Ar;ne-il from
te. rci;it court of
Wabash Railroad Company
and Illinois Terminal
Railroad Company,
Appellants
□ ( cur.ty .
.
4 5
Opinion by Harris, J. J
This suit was brought by appellee against appel .
recover damages for personal injuries.
The declaration filed consisted of two count'
substance alleged: That on November 6, 1911, and prior ,
the defendant the ^awash Railroad Company, was posse ss<
certain railroad, extending through gad ..ithin a part oi
city of £dwardaville, Madison County, smich crossed
in said city and which the defendants, abash Sallron
and Illinois Terminal Railroad Company were Jointly u -
operating; that defendant Wabash Rail
of a certain engine and train of two coaches which were
operated by the defendants, jointly, nd defendants Joi itly waxx
had in charge of s»id trair , nductor, Philip limmerechej
that plaintiff (here appellee) wa? a joint servant si ei
fend^nts working ae a brakeman on said train under t ■
snid Jhilip Zimrerscheid; that defendant required and raid ti
was run backward with coaches in front of engine alei
railroad toward said High Street crossing sad plaint!
man, was required by defendants to ~n& did ride on the foi
plntfom of the first coach of said train ap snid train .
( ,j£o*jtfu'{ I
(
■Olt ( ,99XX9qqA
fiuoJ tiuoi ( ."v
.jfmtt
VtaqaoO baoiXXafl riaada**
Ian im»T aionilfl tea
,^naq3o0 bflOlXiaH
.aJnpXXoqqA
.L \^d" nolniqO
%r 99XXaqq* \cf aaw Hug aid?
,a»2i --':.nl f«.no3i9q 10I aaaaar.b i9too»i
■ owi le baJaianoo bali'i ueiJoaeloab »dT
. icltq ba& , rXGX ,3 ^stfawvoM r.o Jarf? ibeaoXX* oonciftdus
• saoq bsw .^naqmoS baorliaR lias** < arii inabn9l9b 9*1'^
Hw ban dauoidi ^atba»4x9 .bBoalisa alaivao
->cdw ,x*mio3 no a X bail ,»X£iT«browba; lo \;JXo
'■aCiftil rtaada? ,a*nsbn9lab tit /iolrfw ban ^io Mjaa ni
at9W \.ni»qmoO b/joiXlaH XanXarieT eXonXXXI baa
ta« Yjnxqno.) bnoillafl dassdnl Jonbnalob tniU ;aniiri»qo
o ttafl no ow* 1 bn* oniano nXsJisa jb lo
xxxv (. ,>cXiniot tB*n^bit9l9b 9d* \<S baiaxaqo
;bl9ffoa'X9f3rnl' fllU , jubnoo aa .ni/j** bX«a lo ablatio at bad
~9b biaa \a i ■ lioj, a nam (aaXX9qqa 9?Pd) HXJrtXaXq tmsU
:')bnis ntzii blae no ajtwiKid a aa jjniaTiow aJu^bnal
nXrnJ bXsa b.:fl b9*xlup9i Jn«bi.9l9b tadJ ibttAoai^xonll- qitidl bXna
I anoLa antane lo tnoil nl aadoaoo diiw b-xiurioaa' nui an*
aoio Joa-iJi: daia biaa binwoi baotllat
ib bn« oi aJnnbnalab yd bailupai saw .aaac
■J i* biaa lo doaoo Jaill od* lo oxolJnXq
run, -Mid there eound an air whistle as
the crossing aforesaid.
That the engine and each of said coaches I
of stopping e-me wai? equipped with air brake:
operated and set by a certain lever at the raii.
form on Baid coach upon which pi intiff was ridin£,
eaid, and that when eaid brakes were in rea^-.
juetr.ent and repair the eaid train, when running at t
of 15 miles per hour could be stopped quickly wit
of 120 feet, by throwing or setting of :-^id brakes i
by means of the lever aforesaid; that the defendants
failed to use reasonable care to keep said air br
ably safe condition and repair ad negligently pe
to be and remain out of repair and in nn unsafe c
use, in this that the piston in each of the brakes upon
coaches had too much travel, na-ielyfcen inche? of travel
the piston should have not to exceed six inches of t*
that the air brakes when throvm or set in emergenc ,
of the lever aforesaid, would not >.ee with pufiicic'
nor quickness to stop s; id train quickly, and the said
when running at the rate of 15 miles -per h
stopped in a lers distrnoe than 300 feet, all of which w&i
known or in the exercise of reasonable care,
known to defendants Msfl of which plaintiff ws
means whereof on snid day, while the Paid train was .
ated backward along said railroad at the rate of I
hour toward said high -Jtreet crorring, md while
in the scope of his employment and in the exerci =e ol
for his own safety was riding on the fereetoet
train, when a oertain team md wagon were being an r*
crossing, and when in order to av id
(?)
r - irlw il« am bnuoe 9i9fil
■i9io1p, anlsacno oril
xol BsriOfloo Mjn lo .ios9 ban 9x1X300 ■
id IX* rfliw Jb«q>ilur9 tw em-8 jjniqqola lo
in-r aril #fl 19voI rtx*»li90 « xtf '•• *"« b9l*i9qo
, >r;->"7 nrw 112*nt' fq rioxxir noqu rioxsoo Mdi no arrol
-ba 9lsa ^i I ni 919W 89/fsio bine t*9ii* Icdl bnx ,btnv
I la »nxnxun norfw ,111—1 birs ^ij ix.Bq9i bnr Inoislnat
1 o<f bluoo mori i9g aaliffl <SX lo
t eaieicf biri to 3nxll9a 10 yixwoiril \<J ,l99l OSI lo
; jbifsoiolB 19T9J aril lo anj*ara x<f
•id lilt bi.«8 ;99.-f o* otbo 9lcfisno««9'i 9BU ol t>9iia1
>jxfa9n bn ixaq9i bfl£ noXlxbnoo oxo* \l<Sa
nr ni bar lioqvi lo tuo nitimax bne ad ol
1; R9ir.-.t(f 9ril lo rfo«9 nX nolaXq 9dl Irxil aXdl ni (9«u
.BXt lo 89rionx fl»4xX9mHfl , l9v»ai rfOWiU ool b/xri 88liO*00
.'--il ke aorionx XX8 baooxs ol Son svod bluoria nolaXq axfl
t>;i98,x»w9 ni lo« 10 nwoirii noriw o» 9xfl laril
klM iiltw Ion Ion bluour ,bX*8910lr. 19V9X 9JI lo
tine ,xl'Aolu ». qols ol asscrfoiup 10a
-.9 liar fil lo 9lm oril Is gninnui asdw
;criw lo XI* ,1991 OOC and! 9onnl8ib ««38X * ni baqgola
- (JJOO ,9100 9ld«flO'5391 lo 99*019X9 9ill Bi 10 (IWOXUC
ilxlnxeXq rioxriw lo bru? 8lnx>ba9iob ol xworul
-is saw nir:il bXsa orfl aXXrfw t^t,b bir.n no losiarfw 90808?
ID to 9lB1 Dili 1* fcBOlIXsi biOB ^OliS bUSWrfOSCf b9lfi
, j l99il^ iiglH bxsa biflwol luod
9« i 01 9X9 9r(l nX bam InssixoX^no slri lo s J ;sX
no ^nXbXl as* x**^a« n*0 -xrf *°*
i9d 9i9w no|>» ban ■»•! atBll93 b oodv taiM%i
TM ol i9bio ni nan** bar; ^yiXsaoio
team and wagon it become necessary to
and within a distance of '230 feet
purpose threw and set said nir brake* in eiaergenc
the lever aforesaid, by reason of the- ne;
ants and the unsafe condition
afores"id the said air brakes f \i]ed to act pr ef-
fectively and failed to ston »-;io tr?<ir >vithin tne cii
230 feet and the said train ran md struck with gre- t
violence against snid teas and wagon, and thereby plaintU
thrown with great force and violence from the foremost
form and coach upon which he was riding to the ground, hi.?
skull fractured, and he was permanently injured, his rar
and hand permanently injured and disfigured nd he was o
wise permanently injured in body and limb to tlte iswsj
♦15.000.00.
A plea of general issue filed, » trial had, and verdict
of jury finding issues for plaintiff, taaagM #7,&0G.
tion for new trial overruled; judgment on verdict
to this court. The credibility of the witnesses I
has been argued at some length, but from an examination
record and the opportunity of trial court to observe
upon their credibility we ^ccept the Judgment of coi-
jury upon this branch of the case as final. Th<
in this case appear that appellee, 2? ye*rs of age on t
6, 1911, was and had been for about six weeks prior then
brakeman upon the train in question. Th t prior to this esv-
ployment he had been employed as brakem-n on freight +r
That he was a strong and able-bodied man. That the o
jointly operated the train inqueetlon consist!:. ,
and two coaches between Edward svi lie \nd Alton hi rdeville
(S)
nt »»rf.*acf li* fei*« *•• *»n* w#lrfi Moqiuq
an arfj 1© no*«»* X'J ,5J;h801o1o X*v»X sett
I has noUlbnoa »lii«na »ri* tea
I •»»<*•*
t nM*!- ntatS ~*a ** txUlmt bur ^i*vi#M*
> • tn *n* **i a 2 k?* bis* •M.i kn* tm** MS
Ml ..iojw lm» «••* bti»a Jtalsaft •an»Xclv
hfta »o*aT Jro-ij itiiw nw©-ixU
hC rftitftr acqu «£*>**» Im arret
HMfeaMtatj «*▼ trf fcrm ,»—*>— «t Xtarfa
JMiBMltq bttmd Im
bnrr vj3#.a .-. J- f^rn/ftX ^X#l»©fiaert«q •*!*
.oo.too^Mt
**1 -.ouflji snlbatl ^ic«(, to
•liimwo Xsiti wofi
» no to 3ios in hstrgxa
* Stuoo tmlif to x^inu^icqrio (wtf luu
. Mlb«?s TJtarfJ
vrfsar x ■ to! «»»<f b«r' bna ten .S.TQI ,D
-«• fil«*# 9itt nwqtf MMiM
9 no»cf *««{ ttf #ira*t«Xq
- Mw arrcx Je * •*» »rf JarfT
1 •rf* »
«K rrsmuJatf atriteo* otffr flaw
and Ldwardsville Junction where they connectc
of the Wabash. The Junction i ■ tww >'.i]er di
wardsville depot of a -ell-nte. The train run he-id o
.^dwardsville to the Junction tnd returned with c
of en&ine driven backward. Appellee was required to rid
the return trip on the foremost platform of the fro:
the train ae it proceeded southward from the Junction
wardsville and to sound an air whistle as a warning i
train appraoched street crossings, «nd apply the air br -.kee
when required.
The engine and coach were equipped with Veetinghon
brakes having 12 inch brake cylinders, v.hich hung under the
center of ench coach and beneath the ^n^ine. The tail boss
the train pipe line controlling the *»ir brakes hooked o\e
railing of the platform on which appellee t/ss required to ride,
and this tail hose was provided with two an^le cooler- or lei
one of which was used by appellee in sounding the six
and the other to aj ply air brakes which could be ipplied
platform of this coach as well an froa the engine.
had made one service application of ike irnke? nrior to
in question, he had the day previous observed
el of the brakes and noticed that they ran out ■ dist
nine or ten inches whsn the brakes were applied by t ieer
at the depot in Awards ville, but appellee says he d know
at that time what the piston travel had to do wit:
operation of the brakes, nd that be did not kmi
bout the adjustjnent of nlr brakes nor what wai< a
ton travel. That a proper piston trnvel If from five tc six
inches. ..hen the piston travel exceed p ei£ht in<-
(4)
B?a • noiioruiL o wba bam
t J noi^onuL 9f(? .dsacfaW erf* lo
olM j '" .-3in-If9 [M 1c Joqab ell xvai)i«w
Uiw bamruJai bnc- ncxionul, »ftt
8bs» »©!£9rtq\ . bxswrfoarf nortnb onions lo
iliawi »di no qxi* nauJat *dt
arli aroil t - bobasooiq Jx e.?. nisi* »rii
m m an •limidm iti: ae bnuoa of bra* •tlivbiaw
tMl MU ,syiis«(no *99?Ja borioo^qf;.:; axu-i*
ut its- bo /-tow dosoo oas anxjjna arfT
,3ncebnil\r> aiMCu ! aa-fairf
difisnotf brw? cfoaoD dons lc i»Jn»o
tlloiir < i«*l.t ad*
91 8BW 9911 vlitW no mol*?.I-7 ad* lo gnii
: owi rtjiw bftbivoiq sew ••Oii Ixai aixW bo*
,9i v* baajj sav doxiiw lo ano
ao doxdw aaifa^q lie. \Iq (js oi nadJo 9dt bn«
9alJ iaa arte «oil aa IXa» a* do«oo Bid* lo nncol Jnlq
wfi lo oolisoilqaa ooxvioe 9no abivn bmd
-YB-- U b9r*taed*o auoxyatq ^ub adJ br '. i . noxJaauj nx
nai \;ad4 iadi baoxJon boa aa^atd o
i99r J y^ batlqq« 9iaw aaif.iti arfi nada aarfonx nai to Bfltn
won" Ik art bv;b8 aalf^.Tqf J«d .alfxvabTBWbj. nx icqab axW la
adJ diiw ob oi bpri t^rnil 9iii iatlvi amxi SntU
inn bxb »d iedi bn ,E9^Ricf adi lo noxJBi;
a a«w tmdw ton aaat«itf tia lo SnvrJauiiM 9dJ Sued
.LsrsiS not
y sbaaoxa i&vr,it noiaxq 9di nadv ,aa:.
(*1
ing force is destroyed, never
brakes in emergency previous to the r.cciden4. .
had at the tine of the accid.-' it n inspector of c< v.
of Cuaraings, who lerformed his duties at the Junction
every day looked over the couches in thin train eiu ii
brakes on these cars were out of order he wm
pair them, he inspected the coaches and brakec about nine
o'clock of the morning of the accident. he had about x
years* experience in inspecting cars and brakes of ei . .
says he examined the brakes the next ■•miag --»fter accid. ,
about
measured* the piston travel and f^und it to be/six in<
brakes not in need cf repair. itnea? henuidt says as a
otive fireman he is familiar with air braken, nnd ;..
ticed these brakes three or four days before accidp. t
evening of accident that they were not in prorer adjustment
and that the piston travel was about nine to ten inc
Appellee the afternoon of hovember 6, 1911, was upon
train as heretofore described, equipped as before stated,
proaching the high street crossing, a street running
easterly and westerly direction. Acron iigh street !■
the north and immediately west and parallel t
main tr<ck is a switch track known as mill track; locatt
the northwest corner of the intersection of mill tr ■
high atreet is a building 165 to 170 feet lc 1 the ware-
house or cooper shop, and on the other Bide of Hi re<
opposite the warehouse is another t>u:idinfc known
building, except about 22 feet immediately south
this building extends to next strer t, outh College - -trc«.
the afternoon in question - <
-treet crosping looking south he noticed a team nf nules when
they approached crosrint from vehind warehouse. The train wpg
(5)
( . ba^oiJ'a^b at e»io."
■I mis&twsq "ia ni aa&avtf
' zbioof- 1ULS 1c %mXi mdi 3* tad
ft».noii» ort» ,«8nl«au3 to
IB SOW 8*1 13* a to J, -a SY«Y ««»• »— I tf
enlr *isodit «st!biJ boil asrioaoo ad^ balo«<iani
■Mai brd m .Jn»l>l»M *6# 16 wnlaxom art* to svoJntf*
bruj •*E» arU^a^qeol Ki ajoo-hxaq&a *
can orfj aaatjraa' mU aaat— noi sxl
■fa
.ft bnu EOTMVl rtolal^ ad*
■ .'52-xcio-i tmmoii .Tlaaart 'to bona al Soa aatfaTd
il3-£w inLLLnxl mi. ad ajunvtl avi
i xolsJ *\iib xua-1 -xo saiii'i aaatjcttf ac
. aiaar y;aaj J«;tt ln»Mso~ to bmIi
.aauiyni as.* Mil eafv Xsyeti noict- oiU lad*
I ,a Y^dsravc i lo rroonxailii anil •allaqqA
; /r » ,i>9diTDC3i> anofeatfavarf a* ni«xl
: a ,%nl*m»xo t*vt&a d&MK aatt jjnidojao-xr
Tft& .a02109T.t& tHaJ-aaw *
« bam t*m* xlaislbaawfc km
9s avmarf *a*j*J kMBj oIjub
ciddsrau to Minn JwwrfJ-r « arfj
ci ti,"»I yitbliarf « at tmtrttZ
ibta i9dJo %r.2 no bo* ,<foa*a xaqoc.:
■Btf .iftai; ncf i«rf,+ cna at •auodvsjnr adJ a* too no
. >eaatt *aal 'IS luod* ^9 9x
■xJ9 lx«fl oj- cbaaJxa yiicli
' xq<rm -x.'i ma ,nx"B tmUto •> p al aooanvfls
wed* to :s? a b»»t*on ad «K» avdOHMRl ^xloaoio ia#»#C
»if:ir bnidaa? moil snisaoio baiioaoTqqa x'^J
[•)
about the north end of the warehouse to :j00 I
when discovered i? the evidence of some of '
nesses. That the location of the eye v/it-nesses and
portunity for seeing gives ri»e to a difftrenc-
to distance from liifeh Jtreet at which air was a
quently the difference of opinion as to the effects of th<
plication.
The appellant's argument unon their assignment ~
is confined to four propositions.
First: That the preponderance of evidence doer
that the brakes were defective or that nuch conditio
proximate cause of the accident.
Second: If the brakes were defective appellee is el
with knowledge of it, and assumed the risk of injury r
from their operation.
Third: Assuming brakes were out of repair or cefc,
at the time of the accident, appellants had no notice of
condition as would render them liable to apoellec.
Fourth: That ..appellant was etititled to a nev t i
the ground of newly discovered tvideaae.
Appellant upon the question of preporrderpnee nf the evi-
dence discusses in detail Ike evidence of the di"
nesses, their credibility, experience and knovded^e oi
ject about which they were teetifyiiig. The cour
where there is a contrariety of evidence, pfter nn ex
of the record, determine as a mathematical pi here
the preponderance lies, that being wi1 vlnce oi
Jury. There was in this case sufficient evidence f
glee upon vrhether or not the brakes were defective and
such defect was the c-use of i
(6)
• ...*w »oJ lo bn9 rttTton «jfW iuodB
kc 9on«bivr» s-iarooaib nadw
aaaBanJxw a\a '^ JfidT .aaaaan
,'iib & <si aaii «asvi3 gnlnaa iol x^inut*oq
taw iIb rioxdw te *awv#8 d^tH moil aaraJeib o*
■s^oalls 9iU oj lo oonatallxb adJ x**«»wp
.aoxiaoxfq
j ^asfliugis a'JnsXIo
.anoiJiaoqc -' oi banllnoo ax
:©o6 aanaMve lo 90 9Tq adi imtVF :*a-x tt
to avlJoslab anaw aaJtaid aiil tmsli
.3: 9tt$ lo aauco otrml^orq
f3i> aiatr aaalsid ariJ II tbnoomi,
I ) rfaxi adi bomusan beta ,Ji lo ©gbalwoai xttxw
.noiJnaqo ixaxi* sacral
xo 'ixtqsi lo Juo 9T9w Bvisrtt aaiouaaA :bi irfT
bad eJno/faqq* .Jnabxoo* arfi lo »«x* ad* tm
qS alrf>il modi Talma? bluovr a« noi^xbaoo
tl# vt teXJilaa bow *nrliaq;qpr *«dT rrfJiuo'I
•:va baTarooaxb Taiwan lo bnuotj edi
■ tq lo rtcxJeaup adj noqu JanilaqqA
lo aonabxva sd* Ii^i9b nx saaavoaxb aoaab
9&baI*oni boa aonaxiaqxa »^xIxdxba-.to 1 .aaaaan
,.lxJa»* ai9w \9tii rioidw j-ucda Joat
bira lo x*«iiBi*noo * ax siodJ aaad*
9Tca BOx^&aadiPts a a* anxarxaJab .Mooat Mtf lo
j RdJ ,9911 .■»on.Pi3bnoqaxq 9di
lua aa«o «xdJ nx a«w a?ad? »\.xul
ii aw sajCsid Mil tad^adw noqu aalg
-i lo sau!'3 adj aaw foalafe dooa
the jury, and unless the verdict of the jury
manifest weight of the evidence it will not be «e
with this we are satisfied on this proposition.
The second proposition, knowledge of appellee
and assumption of risk. These nre jueetione oi i
termined by jury ae other questions of fact. ] t .
this otate under the rule of law th*t appellee i
this kind must show due care and under this rule a «er\
prove by a preponderance of evidence the iollowir
Piret: The existence of sone defect in the construction
or operation of the air-brake which rendered it ineffi
doing the work requires.
Second: That a pellants in the exercise of ordir
would hsve or could have had knowledge of such defect:
Third: That appellee did not know of the defect
have equal opportunities with appellant* of 1- It.
.trie & *estesn Railroad t-o.ys. v.'ilson, 169 111., 89.
Uaohine Co. vs. Zakzeweki, POO 111., I
The rule in this state is in actions for psr
Jury that the plaintiff must allege >nd prove that tas : ; in*e
from negligence contributory to the inju^.
to charge the servant with negligence he must not only Id
have the means of knowing by the exercise of ord:
the defect, but must also know that the defect rtndere tl i
pliance unsafe to use, and he is not bound to make an in
tion for latent defectr. here want of knowledge ii n^t xx
susceptible of direct proof it iaay be inferred froc. ci
stances and the appellee may be aided by the prssu
a person does not voluntarily incur d nger or the ri;-
Knowledge or want of knowledge of s defect r.-.-iy \,e i iferr<
(7)
iLbrsv 9»(J saalxtix baa .^aixi,
>or»biva ?»ii.' xaw Jaa^
' ■•fjevq »J -ailaijna 9-i« aw aiitt xttiir
tlwacoC , oaq bnooaa taTT
nn- H-q'.vp ai." aaarfT .Tlalt 1c ncteqmjmmx baa
. Ml to artoi^aaup t»x£Jo a* ifwt. 1^ baniarrai
ai 99lt9cqc> issd.1 w«X in »£«t adi tafcau •#•#£ sixfi
IMM ai«o a«b roxia Jau&i bnitf aixll
axi* aoiaablva lo aon.tti9bftoqa<xq a \cf aroircr
artt ni ls*1ab s»<«oa 1o aonaiaixa ad? :ia?l%
nl ia t a^jrrrf-iia arfJ- lo noiJ^taqo 10
. hi i up 81 rftow axW gniob
•bnoo»S
. bui •* «vrri. bluow
1 sroxttf ^on bib ••
lo ajn rfJiw aaiSinuSi ;->• srsri
<o: .ax.oJ bmoillBn amaiaa* & •l*&
. COS .iJewaxX/V .ev .oO a«U
~.i «Ja,?s alrii ni eltrc axiT
aatl asw • 11J tq ariJ ; rii v.iot
a :,.• mC# ei \. MwamffiM 001!
, .an riixw Jnavtaa »di a^iasio oi
MM axiJ trf sniwoxrf lo axiB9.cn axtt arurt
rmbJ mJ j'utf ,*oeiab axlJ
ion ai axi bnr> ,aeti oi alxsano eoa
. .Sos'tab trivial aol noii
-tsuotto axr.' pM i-i toasq ioaiib lo alcfiJq^aaua
^i . -> •■.: torn aoonmia
vfftaM t - v Son aaob nosiaq a
mt «• aajMlw
(V)
the circumstance* but by whatever evidrnoe the fac
shown, the burden of proof in that regard re; itt-
iff. (Swift & Co. vs. Gaylord, SM 111., 330.)
The servant is under no r.rimary liability to
for latent defect* to test the fitness and safe-.. e,
fixtures or appliances provided him by the :..'ietdr.
sums that they are fit and safe, aad though the cj t-
may be such -a servant is chargeable with knowlec, i
fects as are patent nnd obvious and of such defect?
exercise of ordinary MM he ought to have Icnc
servant is not to be deemed as having notice or ka<
such defects and insufficiencies ne can be ascertained
investigation and inspection for the r-urpose of
that there is no danger. (Armour Vs. Brazem
While there is no absolute duty to keen appliances
safe condition there is a duty to use reasonable c re i
th«a fit, and this duty may require inspection t
intervale and the employment of r*uch testf
condition of the machinery or appliances. ty of in -
spection rests upon the employer and no l
depends ution the character of tlu aery or ,
since ordinary care may require an inspection oi
case than in another. (Anaour »a. Brazeau.lv 1 111., 117.
Wrisley Co. vs. Burk, 203 111., 860.)
while it is true that an employee aseur.eB such riflk
employment as is usually incident thereto and o;
ary hazards of which he has notice, or exer-
cise of his faculties he ought to h-ive notice, ucotwsw loea
take the risk or dangers known to the master T bieh c
ed by him in the exercise of reasonable car' .
(8)
ly* iar»tBdw \d iwi aaaaaiamvaixo adJ
ti MA|tt tsdi at looiq lo aatmjit 9dJ .rnroite
... . . , „ ntvt) .111
vol o3 ;! \caaaliq on isfanu el Jn/'Tiea adT
; ji«n bm e*9n*l1 a.ii issi oJ eloalab tixmtml lot
■
.i»*«Rxii edi \;d mi- babxvmq saotujUqqa to aeiu#xll
k«R ,9tu» bnn *xl *ie \9di iBiU awe
I »abalr elrf-esaTniio al tMTOM s clous ad ^am
t«l WouB lo baa tuvtrdo btt* JnaJxtq *** •« B#oal
;i 9V«d ot iiL^uo ad 9%no xinnlkno lo eaxoxoxe
anxvad »n baaoet atf oi .ton et *orvi»8
as acf rueo as aaionoior ituani bam eloelab daoe
i90«« lo •acn-tuq a:W -xol noxJoaqanx brus nottn^itm^tat
tuoarxA) .tOiitwh on ai artextt 3*dt
■■').•: ?oii oJ \iub aiuloeda on al eiadtf six
iatl eeu o* ^*ub a al aiodc ncxiibuoo elaa
I :c 'ij -mi aalupai ^(jua \tub siiii bun „it1 tmsit
ij-aai dox/a lo Inara^olqin© arfi on- »Lm
o exd? .aaontfxlqqa to iptaflidoivn edJ lo nolJxbnoo
ion bna i»v,ol<^a9 9*U noqn aJeei noiioaqa
,s to \-i . mU lo la^ooindo art* nogx/ aAaaqab
\a erxxupa? v** axao Yisaliy
,. MM*%S .rv TVOBtxA) .toriJaax ni xtorfj- aeeo
,.111 SOS ,*1iJ*J. .8T .0^> ^alalltf
ra aaouaes aa^olqaia n« tads otnl si. Jl alldtf
arfj Ji.o:.. . Inuau «1 8J3 Jnac^olqoa
.- .soxicn aarl arf riox.tw lo abxasnd ^tb
*«fcad ,< v*d o* i.iyuo od eailluaal eld lo aelo
.v.voiui ataaxtsb no ioxi axtf a^n*
"»j\»? lo aaxonaxo ad* nx mid x* *•
(a;
risk more or less haanrdous of the se.
but he has a ri£ht to presume that nil pro >er attest!
be fiven to hie safety a;id that he shall not Vie eareleeslj
needlessly exposed to risks not necessarily repultf.
occupation, and preventable by ordinary care and prei
the part of his employer. (Alton ; av .
176 111., 270. )
The evidence in this cape upon knowlc
assumption of risk was sufficient to make it • questioz
the jury and it was pro >erly submits
The third proposition that if brakes were out of re
defective at time of accident thert is a f;< ilure tc
of such condition as would make appellant
Notice of a condition may not be c-v.atle ol direct
and is not required. Kotice uay be proven by faots
cumstanoeo which facts and circumstances
of or an opportunity to have knowledge of whicl 1
the servant, as in this ease an inspector who
day inspected these brakes for latent detect? ind . : rt-
or held to a knowledge of now such Aa facts affected v-
ice. 1 duty to inspect and test for defects the
chargeable to the servant who had only to
tion. "bile the master if? not charted with at al to
keep appliances safe he is charged with to use . i
able care to keep them fit and reasonably safe for servJ
"he extent of that duty and what would be a faithful aer-
formance depends upaa the cliaracter of the machinery or ap li-
ances since reasonable care r.ry re uira ine"ectl->n eftener in
one case than in nnothe-. v . arke,
(•)
. ■ -icii lo auobassnrf seel 10 a-rco imtt
.' ORlJ4 9Vq oi tM id erf ^ucT
I 9* ion LLr-ila srf i atii bas \ialss aid oi nsvxl »d
uaai ^£xi«a«?9ni»n ion 9ii»li oi bacorxa x*«a©-£k»»a
MUM yinaibto yd eftfoinavo
noilA) Jie aid lo ia*q arii
to •afcalwooa* ttequ aaBO axdi xtx eaaahxra adT
oi inaxoxllue asm iaxi lo nciicjauriHui
ftftlssf** \tii3 oiq a»w it baa yTtt/t *di
ibw aeiBid Ix ierii ooxilBOcro-rq intrf^ a
irobxooa lo arai^ is aytJoalab
I [ BiamllsaqB 9:i*& bluow gu noxixbxxoo rfoua lo
■ ad ioa x»* noxiibnoa.a lo niJo
If ad x^ssi aoxio.'i .baixupai ioa ai bar?
.io bnB aiar.l xloi.iar aaooEiaixufO
.dw lo r. i* av«rf oi \tluu. -.:■> io io
u OB ease si.f'.i nx as ,iru<r*as exfi
■aw »ioaiab t— #sl 10I aaisrcd aaarfi boioaqcnx xpb
-v . 1 aioexeb doua arod lo eabslwoai s oi blarf 10
lioalab iol iaai brte ioaqani oi \tvb A .aoi
•4 vino b#rf odw ixiflv^ae arfi oi aXdsaaTnrfo
■a xiixa ba^isrfo inn a 2 ^aiasra arfi slid
■I ad airs aaansilaqs qaai
:->! else ■■•x bos ixl iasdi qoaal e aids
■' . .:■■:■■ ■ yiub j ta ad"
• b aonsorxol
-an* ei . I •*Idsxto3c«T oarixs aaacs
. - . ...,./' . .<■■ I ■ '» I ■:■
It)
Appellants in thio case recognized tl is duty to ti
having itnese Cunwiinga inspect there or^kco ever
defect that appellee was not presumed to be t\
ihether or not this inspector w/1? eoa ctent and peri' ; e
duty and whether appellants exercised . .
performance of its duty were uestione of i"ct dc
the jury. 'i>pellAnts contend that they were entitlei
trial on ground of newly discovered evidence; fro:
ation of the affidavits, there whp no shoving nf
and the evidence would haire been cunul-r.ti ve. her
of discretion in overruling the motion for nev trial .
There is no reversible error in this record and
ment will be affirmed.
.
(Hot to be reported in full.)
(10)
I \}jb . s« d ?.L.:; XaqqA
3, enl r^Liouj aaanJxW anxvwri
| ,*on ajsw aallaqq* J«rLk ;Joj'x90
At »rfanl exd.j ioa no inrtimsL*
InitHB a/n«lIaqqA ladJatiw feu« \iu£>
£ "laJsib Jo^l lo BnoiJaaup aiaw ^*uiJ sit lo 90»j«inibliaq
i- 9T9tf y<_ fanaJnoo ■#« . iu{, ad*
k noil ;9on9biT9 baiorooeio ^Xwan lo bnuoifc no IkxiJ
lo gnxworia on saw 9iailJ ,aj xvf.bx'ilp arU lo ncxJn
M agsc »rr.i bli/ow aanabxva exii bur,
. jvc fix noxioi jbxL lo
tons oldxsiavai on ax 910
.bemixlln ad Uxw J nan
. fta
v.ilul nx boJto i9i ad oi So'A)
(CI)
/, A. C. MILLSPAUGH, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of the
State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true copo of the OPINION of the said
Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in mp office.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF. I hare set nuj hand and affixed the seal of said Court
at ML Vernon, this 3- f. //o "'•'•'' "/ ^
a.d-VUV^r-": i
Clerk of the Appellate Court
o
O
2
)
'
Opinion of the Appellate Court
AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at Mt. VernonWllinois, on the Fourth Tuesday
in the month of March in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hdndred and fourteen, the same
being the 24th day of March, in the year of our Lord, one thousand ni/fe hundred and fourteen.
Present:
Hon. Harry Higbee, Presiding Justice.
Hon. James C. McBride, Justice.
Hon. Thos. M. Harris, Justice.
A. C. MILLSPAUGH, Clerk.
I
And afterwards in Vacation, after said March term, to-wit: jOn the Jz u^t dao
ofJulu, A. D. 1914, there was filed in the office of the Clerk of laid Court at Mt. Vernon Illinois an
OPINION in the words and figures following:
)
no. 2:1...
APPEAL FROM
1188I.A.
CCH'RT
March Term, 191 1.
SLa^id
.JUt^L^:
^^Y-AA^-f-d-r-S^ COUNTY
Hon.
TRIAL JUDGE
Uj.A., D..JUUTU
I
Term *o. 28. -Agenda Ho. fc.
kaxck Term, a. D. ifcl4.
;iacjuel ft", kontgowery. Mice )
vont{*oreery r»nd German .^ort- )
go&e ry,
Appe)3eee, ) Appeal from
Vs. ) Circuit Court ol
0. Hickok, I. C. Turner, >reu
;',ei£ler, n. B. Jor.ee, J. f.
■-kite and v.. fc. tit&tkers.
Appellants
rawford County.
? 4 8
Opinion by Harris, J.
'uit in nesampeit wae brought by appellees tn recover
from appellants the sum of ("ne thousand Dollare alleged to be
due from appellants unan nn oil rnd gas 3eape. The amended
declaration consisted to two counts. The first count dec. r-
Ing upon said lease, and petting it out verbatim, ~nd nl no al-
legging that appel3nnte by various aesipTJnents and conveyances
beoame the owners of eaid lease *>s a copartnership under
of Bees f">il Company and that said company, pursuant to the terms
and conditions of s^id lease drilled a well en said land? v.
sold well when completed was a paying oil well and by mennn ■*
whereof appellants became indebted to appellees in pun of Two
thousand Dollars and thereafter on July 2nd, 3 909, nald 1
pel lees the sum of One thou send dollar* on sala* debt.
The second count of said amended declaration was the con-
solidated common counts with statements of account puedor, .
npnellants J. W, White, W. C. Turner and . . tnthere, e»ch,
for himself , files the p3ea of general is^ue, verified rlea
denying joint liability, and r>lea of statute of frauds. That
afterwards appellees file two additional counts. The first
•itional count alleging owndrphip of lmd in S samel • .
•ry, the exeoutlon of the leaoe by appellees to 1'red D. ieigler,
.OS «o4 onaT
.liei .at .a ,2u»J daraM
I
[ noaiaH bn«^ X7'
•VMM|
amt XwaqqA ( ,aaaXI*'qA
iD tVtnt
-[■
( ,W «T. .aanol. .X »« ^rtaX-jiaX
,w«tt., . . I bne *tld.l
( .atnnll
.1 ,«iix»«fl[ ^a* noi
•tavooa-t M *"*aXCaqqa \d Jd^i/o^ ai»w .tjtaqsnaan nl Jtu':
orf »$ b*7)ft£Zn aiaXXoiI taMuivli «> - m art* atne ffaqqa
babnann adT .aartal aag l>rm Xio nn noqu alnsllaqqa ao-rt airb
-iloab .tnuoo J«it art"? .a*rmoo owl oi baJB£»moo nol,t«:cflX08b
is bnr ,mtS»<ft*Y $m it*9*t bn.. .aa^aC M*a noqu yii
••on.'v^vnoo bnjo nJnstm^lnhn mmttszr ^rf ainnttaqq* Sntii jjntjiaaX
9f»inn tafeas qtrriianJxnqoa « ■« 03«al Maa to enanwo »rfi ara.'iooo*
Mil ot in ,vnftrr;3oo r?£ bn« Yn«nno') Xin aaaff to
T'iw a b^ifith ar. j t« anoint *>nio bnn
*« nnnotw \ law tin yii\.nq n ajaw bo.ta [qsroo n»dw How bina
owT To aw* nt aa-tXXarrq« oJ r>a*o*a*bn.t ooroacf aJnaXIaqqa toataiiw
n ia*tsa*artJ brw ataXXoC bnaatrarfJ
.Jdab bkmm no aifiXIoi: bn«euorf^ »n"> to an arti aaaXIar
:i a**- noilr .»abnartiA Maa to ttw^o bnooaa adT
Trxi/nDOfs to aJnaaaJflJe riitw aimioo nomnoo ba^ablXoo
,ff *«* TarnwT .0 .V ,a*lr(V .r .1. aJnrXXecrqo
,»i'»8i TBtanaB "io ualq an"J ea.rit ,t raerciri tot
to oJuiftie to aalq bru» ,Y*i£io*«lX Jniot aaixn»b
tllVN IsnolJlbbi* owj atlt aaoXIaqq;* atapwrtaJtr-
; Jos ni bnrf to qld*?anvo anlaaXX* tnuoo Lsuioiitb
— f f>mpi x.rf »riBaX adi to aoi\*uoaxa ad* «y**
the covenant of Ire:? ^.eigler for himaelf, .:is euccee.:oi. i.heivs,
exeoutcrs, administrators and assigns tc
lars in case the first veil drilled should 0<
gas well, the assignment fy Jei^ler to appellants Uckok, Turn-
er, Jones, ^hite ind °tathers of certain interests in leisee:
that all appellants jointly took poaeeseion sad jointly as
owners and copartners drilled ■ veil *hich when complete:
a paying oil 0*4 Nt the first well drilled ursu.-.nt tc-
tersa .and conditions of said le^se, whereupon appellants tecaae
indebted to appellee? in urn of tv;c thousand doll»ra, ri
said sua appellants did af ter*ards pay to appellees '
of one thousand dollars.
The second additional count bein^ oa notion ?f
and ty leave of court .. itudrawn is issaaterial on t.nt
The appellees file a hill of particulars in 3?id c
Appellants refile their pleas . .<ia doaur to
two and three, which desiurer •»• overruled, a ppelleee file
replications to said pie s. Bj* ■greesaent a jury
■; trial of said cause by the court. Tne suit -it t ■
ion of the introduction of evidence m
int Jred Zeigler on appellees' notion.
The Court found the issues in fa^or of a >pellee
gainet defendants 0. i.ickok, . . Turner, C, .. Jone ,
White and 3, Ba jtatherr in the sui of One thou a
da&ages and upon the finding entered judgment in favor >i
p<-lleea und gainst W. G. Turner, ". ite and 1. ./
era for the swa of Oat thousand doll- re -•nd costs of ?ui4-.
defendants of whoae the oourt had juriedietioa, and oa
lees' aiotion ordered scire- fan i as t ie«ue ng i-ist de
(2)
J >4 ;<_.- -toj •teialrfce ,bi:Jjc»xj
I iuod© b©XIl*tb iX©w isiil ©ni »«ro at ■
I»c<jb oJ TaX^l©..- v* Jns>saal2'>s »*U .Xlawr ©b$
1s9tsial aletxMt lo aiarf*****1 bar •ilrrt .©©not ,*s
nriasr t©t «JfiaXX©qqf> XX© J*<i*
lie] XX©* s b©I£lab ©*©aiX£7o;> bns nunc
•CM :- Ultft ££•* ie-ill ad* Bf lMXM( *
Me© lo ©nolJiiaco bcic ©e-ioi
J 1c 3o/e ni e»»Xl9ciqe c- b*}d9bal
' 399XIaqqe cb-X8w*©ilB bib *t at LL*i\ctji mut bin*
leXIob bftfiBt/ciJ ©no lo
I* no!"?' £>S SrfT
:?©J.po*1 ?! ntf** t© ©v«©-T \' br.r,
,9v 5Te£uo2*ipr' 1 - ltl<S a ©111 re. scfT
ha* e«©Xg Tiad* ©Xlta-T s jrcXXsogA
. h©f CTTT9TC tab T©Tuaeb rfoliiv ,©rxxf£ fcnr ©wl
ftt ©Tjt xfl .© ©Xc blB9 of bito! J/ olXq©*
te *lu2 »f{T .J L-tre \o Inl\
' .• • r» lr ficlJcuboUrrt ©rfl 1? no*
no i©X3l©£ beat Jnr
»©©XJ il artt bciua\ SiitoO ©ifT
,*©n*w? ." . , :cAot'.' . 5t.-'bn©I©b ianlfi£
-isrfJrJS as ©ilxf*
if, fe©i©Jn© 3«it. .-orra beiB ©©JBCBb
.• .T. ,**• sntejjs fcnr 9©©X£sq
to minor it ©c^ lo ooe tit tol «l©
r ,noiJ©2?3- \^©1*A
y ©tf«sX oi sri.orl 9?2ob bstsfno rrft-tont *s»©I
0. Hlckok and D« K« Jones to snow cause why they
made parties to tne judgment; to these rulings and j of
the Court appellants *'• C. Turner, J, . Baits and . . vuth-
era except and bring this appeal.
Tae appellees on the Sth day of -epteu^er, ly07 , exeouted
and delivered to 9m 1). £elgler a -tease to the Northeast .;u^rter
01 tne Southeast quarter si -action 15, Township 5 Kort>., -\mgo
11 est, containing 40 acres more or less, situated in 'oan-
ship of ;»ontgocery. County oi Crawford, --tate of 3 llincir;, waiv-
ing all rights under homeeteac .-xemi tion laws; consideration
One foliar, in hand paid by second party, and of the covenants
and agreements hereinafter contained on part of the party of
second part to be paid, kept and performed, does desiise.le- re
and let to second parties, successors or asoigns, for so i
onl> purpose of mining and operatii^g for oil and gas laying
pipe lines, constructing tanks, buildings and other structures
to tnke eare of s-id product; that le.se should Msaia in force
for ten years irons date and as long thereafter as oil or gas
is produced thereiroa by second party, successors or asi :
l rovided party of second part, successors or assigns apea Um
payment of one dollar to partieE of first part, latin »r as-
signs uay surrender said lease for cancellation thereby all
payments and liabilities shall cease. Jill covenant ree-
aente between the parties therein contained to extend to
heirs, executors, administrators, successors and aer
Among the covenants and agreements of second party
contained arc the following;
1st, .0 deliver to first parties in pipe lii.e fre>
coot the otiual one-sixtn part of all oil produced and savtu
•aid premises.
(3)
Vfw aaui-o woiia oi tsnoL ,:i ,« brm iciox.
ia aaftjtlifx se&dJ oi : Jnaoqftbut, «^J °* «9XJiaq 9J-i'ti
. ,1 .lejrrjjT .0 .w ej [jb Siuo'J axfj
aqq» etiiJ a^i - cf tmr- T s»«« 'Jiy
bo*wo9x»,VO«X .aa^n^cro-. lo ^*b itta a*!* no asaXXoqqa atf?
toitru, i-iaadSioll 9dJ oi sobji a i*£%l9& .CL . £ oi bo-iayxfab boa
•anna ,;fi-to".f i qixienwoT ,SX aoUftattJ io •x»i"XiW> Jeoaiiiuod to* lo
-iobd': xxx bjjfiuSlB .eaaf to aaos anas 0* anlnxs/noo ,Ja
-vi*w,GloniIir lo aJj»*C ,urolwxre«J lo ^Jauo3 t^*aoaiao^ 10 qixU
oo ,'awaX nolJ- raaxii j-soiaaco-i rcabni/ ai-ijx-x XXa $fll
gjiv-iwoa Ski J lo i»«i« ,^iiaq baoooa xtf i>i-i»q bxiaii ai ,xsXXo<I MfO
lo ^-.taq adJ lo #i«q ao banxxitfuoo laJloxxiaiaxi sinsrsayisa Jn»
.>£taexaab eeob .baarxolzaq bae Jqai.btnq ad oi fiaq buooa-i
baa aXo« iol .aaaxeef to a-xoaaasaus .aaliixjq baeaaa oJ t»X dajj
t jaxlxsTaqo bos ^fiXflla lo aaoqtuq
oa'iL.-iouiJs tariio brus agxitblxud ,ein*J anliouiianco ,«»all
i nx alaMrt bXi/oxia aaxnX Jsdi {##0**?q Ma to m» •*««* o>
*B£ io lio «*' lailratadi auol axs bo* •iib ftoil BlJ»*t *** **©!
or. to axoaoaaaua .'cirn: baooaa x* ■tctl»*«d.J baauboiq «i
a< njtxaa« 10 aToaaaoous ,*xb,; bin* 09* 1c t^iaq b9bxv
-au to eilao" ,Ji«q Ja-xi'i lo eoxiiaq o* TnXXcb «no to Jnaer^aq
vjnaaif.? noxifiXIoorujo Tol aej«aX bt/-e labnariUB \pm axiaxa
-•» . :Jrusnoroo IXA .93193 XXxuls aaxiiliurxl bcus alnftentsq
fcwif ■;■ oj boni Jnoa oiaaadi eoilta ■ oxtt txsaa-Jatf eJnaai
.sn^laus bns 8to?h9oowb .ciotfxsT.tuxnxEbc .aic^uoaxo ,3Ti0d
I to alnataoaisc bn* aioBnavoo art* ytonA
;anx--olXol 9x1 J oir, bonl/ Jnca
«1 aiiXt -sritq «tx ealJicq IetxI oJ -xavxlob o? .^bX
''Oiq Ixo LSjz lo Sinq dixle-enc Loupo adi Jaoo
.aaaxaoaq bln«
2nd. To pay for gas produced and furnishe< fir acs
gae free of charge lor hMU consumption.
3ru. To pay ior gaa producea froe oil well. l'o oc
plete a well v/itlun si;tty days or pay at rate oi >er
month in advance for each L.onth cok jetion it: delayed.
the conjietion ol Jive wells Hhali be and operats .all
liquidation nf all rent under thla provision ouring the reaainl-
er of term of this lea.se. Tne right to withdraw machinery
castings at arty liiae to second party.
4. Second pnrty agrees to place rig 01. ieu?e »J 1 ti v:r-
ty days etc. iaecond ; arty agrees to pay first party v/hen stake
is set lor first well the oun of 1400.00 and two thouaunc d
lars additional in case first wall is paying well.
'..hat under U*e diiierent eui'igiiijente cilered in evi
Leigler had assigned to ■•» C. Turner, J, \.. *hite, Q. Bis
1). JS. Jones and •*. fta btatners in -ejiteinber and 'ctober, lv07,
and they had accepted said assignments subject tc the to:
and conditions thereof.
That in Uecersber, 1007, tne saiG parties entered uj on
described land under saio lease and oooaeneea the drillii
'in oil well, completing the s?xie in February, IS k iter
the completion oi tne well und beicre July 1, LOOO, i.eecher ft
1 arrington bought tne interest oi hickok. That about JuJ
ivov, the several parties paid in preportlea tc their interest
on this |2, 000,00 due on flret well tne sue of -ne tnous--nd
aollaxe, Greener ft Harrington paying in pj Ickok.
fhe appellants urge under their aesifjnr ent of errors six
reasone for the reversri. ri tfcll judgment.
first: " ney are not psrtieB vo the lerse r^nb by the ae-
si^nments to then they did not as.ume and agrt. c to keej
(4)
>. . , ^ I 3B3 101 ^<J »T
...-qeiLanoo »aod toi »,«j-iaiio Xo ea-xl sua
...■, U< :'i. iftuiioxq «*£ 10 | . rto
i»q lo »J*1 Ja \«q io s^ab i£JxXa iXsar a aJaXq
; *I|BK>0 4*aoa dates i .Snon
kto baa *d XXaris uXIsw floXJaXpaoa aai
•Mt,J agj Jiv^iq 3-iiiJ isu -<P*X
3IU- wailviJiw «j AiiaXl iat »9%aml uidi to arts./ |i tu
1*% JMIQOati OJ •CTXJ- (flM 4 J* «ial^«£d
ijXl OOaXq oj aatnts* x*u*« iXtOOaa •>
;» «|4i ^Jnaq J vaaiao *J*aq J»uoo»« .o** a\ai> V
ow* bai XXaw JaiXl lot Jaa aX
y*nat4oaistt-3 iastatH'o «u. i«D[
,ii ...... ,iJii, -r aaoaXaaa bad i»Xataa
+ tmkTtm •ifl»aa*|3«* bina baiqaoaa a*4 t»4l *»•
. io»i«*U si-; o tea
sisjoe oaXJisq biaa 9di ,\ - daweaa nl faolT
jonajsaoo bus osroX oX-sa xabaa on*»X bealiyaao
■xo. -a %^iflindrf ai aasa adJ yUl»I.i«o» ,iX»« XXo aa
lote* baa XI»» :U to noifsXqaoa aai
J-uosf« *adT .*o<o* lo JsaiainX ad* jxiatfod" aoJ»nXixa.i
auctlj afl-> It visa •OJ XXaw J«iXX -io aub OO.uOO.S* uXUi ao
q «t a«X**q 'j»t3ania:i aaaa*-^ %axaXXob
noil© lo ins/an^XBss ilajl-f labttu oji» aJnaXXaqq-i adT
.imsK&kiJl aXdi to X.sai aval artt tot anoaaei
-as ad.* \.d baa *•<*•£ » tJ 0/ aaiJiaq Ion oia gp(1 :i3X'c'i
•-ijje boa mu(<«s j on bib xaxtt mad J o4 aiaaraagXa
(#)
perform any of the covenants and conditions of the It
posed upon the lessee.
-econd: The agreement to pay two thousand d In c-.tse
the first well drilled is a paying well ie not r covenant run-
ning with the land, and was neither rent nor royalties,
the agreement to pay said sun was an extension of credit by
lessors to zeigler, the lessee.
Third; That the assignment subject to the ten .
ditlons of this lease does not create a personal liability
cause it is not a covenant running with the 1 nd.
lourth: Because the agreement to pay two thousand doll
in case the first well is a paying well is the per snsl cow*
of Zeigler and is within the statute of frauds as tc eppel]
and void as to them, and part performance or offer to teriorm
will not remove the bar.
Fifth: If there was a legal liability to nay the two t.
and dollars in case the first well was a paying well the evii
does not show the well was a paying well .
Sixth: The defendants to said suit were not partner
absence of an agreement express or implied and, if amy 1
exist? it is a several liability and not joint.
The first and second reasons argued by appellamt is upon
the theory that the provision for the payment of the $2,000.01
upon com- letion of first well is a personal covenant betweei.
sor and lessee and ie not binding upon the arnignees ol the les-
see a he assignees took possession under the lease and drilled
the well in question as they I U ht to do under
and when they did so the wourt had « right to presume tbey elect-
ed to accept the provisions of the lease in this regard for t
(&)
el 9dJ lo aneiitonoo bri£ eiaaneroo adi lo x*«* ■raolieq
.eaeeeX 9ill noqu foosoq
98 IXoi) bnaeuorfi owi \c»q o* ^n»B5ita* *dT tbncoao
■ ion ei XXaw ani^cq a al boXix-ib I law ioii* eui
.aaill ;o~ ion inat iei1iler! aav baa %barl aai dilv jjnin
\<S Heaio I aixe na ?sw ova blae ^aci a* }oaaaa?&s adi
.aaaaal srfi .Misled oi noaaai
-no iaattfue inejraraieaa ad* iarfT ;b*iidT
.IX XanoaTaq a eiaeie ion aaob aaaeX air;* lo anolilb
I t«f* dilw ^nlnnsn Jnsnewoa a Jon ei J* aaoaa
aid! owi x*a oi ineasei&a edl asm oafl uiiiuoi
itsm aq adi mi Haw anixaq a el Haw iaill art* aac© nl
ei 84 abuatl lo aiuiBie erii niriirw al bna tellies lo
at >lo 10 aanainotiaq txaq bub %mmrli of aa bio* bum
.iao* adi arooai ion IIlw
iiXldcil XijaeX a aaw eterii IX :dJHT.
flew gnlx^q a aav Hew ianll adi aaaa at etaXXob brut
.Haw ■$ni\r.i * «it xXaw adi woda loa aaob
»*xew ilua biaa o* bJ.t. bnolab edT :dsxi
,<al to aaavqxa inaaniaiae am lo •oneecfa
ion bait .itiicfaiX XaTaran a il il nialxa
. b enoaaerz bnoaas bob f evil edT
■.. -a art -tot noialrcrcq ad* icdi \*oodi ad*
a al I lew ia*xll lo noli of -aoo noqtf
«e-3aal«ea I ■ anlbnld ion al bum eeeeeX bub toe
aaneX 9dJ isLmu aolaeeaaoq jiooi sasnaisoa edT .see
M«.li aa noliaau; nx XXaw adi
Mjlt a bad *?uew ad* oa bib \9cii nadw boa
( Bl 3«i;el ad* lo snolalrotq adi in-jooa oi be
(a)
betterment oi their holdings thare
appellees1 property. If the covenant between lersor ,nd
relates to n thing not in oseec but whleh is yet
t-jon the land tending to enhance tif o: tr
enjoyucnt more bevtafiaJ i Dwner or ceo
eer if need ure nlfo bound. (Taylor's Landlord
•ta Bd« Vol. 2, :ec. SiO.)
In this caee the assignees had the o;.tier; nf proceed
under the leape off not j.roceedi ng, electing to nroceert t
did 90 as nsp.i^ncer in privi '.y of eati te. If the aaaigi
had no l elected to proceed and a ault had hern instituted
:>. f; ilure t^ proceed involving privity -f contract a riif
paartion ;..it~ ht arise. ?hir> covenant between lea —
lessee, whan aealgned, ccerted by r»e -jignoeB and acted upon by
then, that run with thf .' . hla J '. .ether in t]
of teras under thla lense tit A-ent or boo.ua. TJ
feet of it was* to * nlrmcu the \ f both o-wne.
tea* intere3tu la the property iu queatl >n.
">ii3 $^,0- en lease waa as signed may have
onua betwaen leusor and &■ , but when they ente "
.-.oasoBcion md drili«?<l the vail 3 l aff aa tad the thinj
and wac no longer collateral to the Ic-isehold
vlding upon these two pro oeiti :>ne ire in accord wit
nol iiaga in cinea cited bj 1 t ine
Wisher vf. O'jffey, 193 * . , 397, hich la case not In
in this ense but that sunt was vaeed upon
ing to contain the word a aufficl< :t to rein* neso to
pay a pergonal obligation.
The tkird and fouri >aitiona are disponed at b:
holding on firal >a rond. r hat it ie a covennnt
(6)
■
. ..- *o\ o£ [old 'I 99869 at boa ^ptdt m ot sain tot
■
■10 -I)fr |
I 12 T99
■ ■■■
»I« ,anl&99notii Jo.' nbau
. sonatas* sb ob Mb
■ b»90ot-,i ci bsi.isXa Jo.
vlovni £jd»orT[.f oJ *iuI2 "i 0
. lait* i. .■••41 J.'
■£(f '>ai.{:>D3 ,i asdvT t93ae©I
.eiarf.*
( 3 IMX 5 i I Jj lO
I 9/Xi BOOMifi ui i BV Ji: 1o Job!
.a sxtt ni Bies^Blnx 'a»3
.
iXilL b: .<J8BO<£
ftlorfasrol «dl o.* Ibib- [on caw iuiB
writ m»9tii MKfft anlblori
' s ' atxLIoxl
,SCC t . *. CQI ,x»Hufl .3T TBdeii
■ AV it i/3 !.&.[/> .tutf 9'lft* siili ni
nhB at
.noM'^iftfo I«no3T9q x
"iuol en* b- |
Jl jadT .ftno»2 bo* isixl no anlLIod
i i th the land, kOcoj acted i
not peruonal -..ad not aa . I ■ rfer .or
obli£niion of another.
filth ..roncsition ae a quoi -
Stian of Is* bec:mse a]
-'.' trial court that a roll proaurii^'
'ix to pay operating expenses ;uid tone profit ia
That the court chculc. .hvave held that unit all dec
u^on in s or would produce oil In such quanta
at current price will pay the cost, of drilling, I
operating and a seasonable profit, to the opex xe
neceauarily expended, it le not a paying well, in tlu
no n.ccount v/ae taken of drilling and e^uj • --j
o^culd there tc ±z ic : . it keeigneea wer« taking t i
to puffer Iocs if they did act succeed. .'. c
T>'il3int to take and the ovmer to 3ct ,c his
land and rut up with trie hazard and inconTcnicncc
chance If e(iuiprsent and drilling are to te taken int
■iteration why not the dan^^ec .. ^ side.
oi the Court ui. un the evidence • -..r- the nore : '-
■.hint, the correct theory aa lc shot La and what io act a paying
veil. That the evidence cut'tains the lir.clrifc of tie c< rl
that the well jaid oter-" ting I and a prclit ■
iined v.htre the finding ia net agaiaat
of evidence. 1! ;.c..ld be lcit 1
Jvdgawmt and anrd faith ol the operator au agaiaat * I t c'
intereotee part/, enleaa thi eoatraet or ie.ee so pi
to ©e without rc>: >n to support it.
The eixth propoaltJ denying joint liability
icerit. The undioputec facta appear I
(7)
its twlJiao " it aiiY
.. ^ftXwaianrm, Ham a SstLi 3ijo^>
.
jfc l'Xsv/ U M»-I »rnn
-
tib to m ir.uo 9
^ J: oi stsit^ bl'.
jf:' loxra Joji bib Mauil Ix r.aol lotii'
nsrmo *£W b ■ nt jnx CIxw
. art* dttir qu tU
i bnm Sasaqlu,™ x£
I iji a
1 rtciJJ tttroD yJ* to
(w baa si Jsrto oi 1 : Jowrf
utt anijiinixi aon-v*)! ui? .flaw
rtmiw bsntr. I
» to
.
. .fX | 9rf OJ
.tlso^oTrj .itxxr; 9rfT
: bsiuqoibnu «xfT .jxtsm
(V)
Jonee and hxcock, accepted this lftase, entered intc aoh
of the pre.-iiaea, ajrlliftd id equlppa
ami atyxe of the hesa '-ii Ceaq»any, what the arrange c*ent
between t-:ew as to a partnv.-rsiiip being ins&aterial in tnis oaM.
Tney held, thenselves out as a partnership, invite
t,o de-u. vii ui tne.a ae ouch. A/pci±eea did ae a aith them, ..er-
t'utteu them to drill and operate as a partnership, whic. v
not Juive been 'lone in any other manner. They each conl.
and paiu a doot due froia the partnership a.iui the fact tl.
hud 00 partnership accent:: t should not control -hen this record
ia conaidered tncre is the further roason that the exron
allied oy a;v)^lia.at3 should not prevail: Tiiat tlM
wiven they accepted the asuit;raaent oi this ica^o drilled the
veil in ^ueution and paid one '.-.one .tc dollars on the aaount
uue thoj placed a conatruction upc;: tola contract that it wae a
covenant naaniqg with the Land, -hat the well xs&b a paying
that the two thousand dollars Vaa c«ue appallaas. ' bla con-
struction shouia and ioea bind appellants in this case u:d the
juut^aent will there! ore be affirmed.
-
I lot to be reverted in lull.)
(B)
I
axIJ- jfuia t\/u:j,&a'J Lt^ bbo vJa inm
itiusat snietf ijjt y.jbJ
.j sc Jt/c abviocfrjad^ ,bi<
5L bzb aaoil'ui A .<ioue B - - a oj
... .rj r;B>v
, lianas •'ndi^ ^ru ni jU sTot
B I .• sri* ooil oirb I <i.riq. f>ne
: I ou Inai
.';hrai/I 6 • Bi
TBrtq ion Mutme ei i ^o" ^aiiai*
gfctif nwfw
3rfj uo BTruIob • 3Xio fct«q bas . il»w
.- - -— ♦ .*Oni -.'Oi^OiMJ' ■' i 91fi>
b bjbb Lion *At SMd . di tr uftlamrt Jbumibvos
. ■'.. . j auh ane .ii arii .
a»«a c ga bntrf sor ?irt*B
TLillB Brf Btw.J10.iJ iliSf J.
■1 0#**Oq91 «d OJ J
(a)
/, A. C. MILLSPAUGH, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of the
State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true copy 0/ the OPINION of the said
Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in my office.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I hare set mi: hand and affixed the seal Of said Court
at Mt. Vernon, this ^J, tf^/tt ,l"'-: "f Jult;-
.4. D. 19 14.
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
* '
o
z
o
/
Opinion of the Appellate Court
AT AN APPELLATE COURT. Begun and held at Mt. VernoS, Illinois, on the Fourth Tuesday
in the month of March in the pear of our Lord, one thousand nine ihndred and fourteen, the same
being the 24th dot) of March, in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nir\e hundred and fourteen.
Present:
Hon. Harry Higbee, Presiding Justice
Hon. James C. McBride, Justice.
Hon. Thos. M. Harris, Justice.
A. C. MILLSPAUGH. Clerk. W. S PA YNE, Sheriff
And afterwards in Vacation, after said March term, to-wit: On the dau
ofJulu, A. D. 1914, there was filed in the office of the Clerk of said Court at Mt. Vernon. Illinois, an
OPINION in the words and figures following:
jfLOt;
No. IC&
f
APPEAL FROM
188I.A.850
COURT
March Term, 191 1.
(SJUU^\ T
^(xlfU
f\AAy\/^ COUNTY
Hon
TRIAL JUDGE
,.§L^ ]Ql,.IW
?ena Ho. 39. 'vg<«' \ 4f».
Haxcli Term, A. I). 1914.
*-;ary K.Bell, Administratrix of the )
letate of John Bell, deceased, \
Appellee, ) Appeal frorr
▼8. \ Circuit -Court of
Marti eon County
East St. Louie & Su Durban Railway !
Company, j
Appellant. )
0 pinion by Harris, J. **■
Mat action in case brought by aprellee against appellant
to recover $10,000.00 damages resulting from the injuring and
killing of John Bell, deceased.
The declaration consists of three counts, the first and
second counts in substance aver thAt appellant was, on the 9*
day of January, 1913, the owner and operating an electric rail-
way on fcain Street in eollineville, Illinois, carrying passen-
gers for reward, that it became and was the duty of appellant A
to use reasonable care ic running its cars upon and along lain
''treet to avoid injuring persons who might be traveling al^ng
and upon said street in the exercise of due cere for their own
safety; that appellant sc negligently and carelessly operated,
controlled and managed one of its care on tain Street near its
intersection with Guernsey 8treet, that said car wrs driven
upon and against the tern rnd wagon -~f eppelleels intestate , whfl. e
in the exercise of due eare and caution for hie own safety; by
reason whereof appellee's intestate, John Bell, received inju-
ries from which he died Jfebnmry 8, 1913. *he appointment of
leav: ng
appellee ajtselxee. adriristratrix/surviving appellee his widow
and Linner *ell, daughter, heirs at law and next of kin d"r.ages
. a* . .85 .off ert*?
.11QL .C ,A ,Hn»T doT»tf
( attl to B*sftnt#alAMaA,£X*CI v
( , b98JF90ea ,II»a ariol xo 9*-*sI
xo ttuoO-iJ-iuDiiO ( .ay
( ybwIxbH nflrf-xjjo'ifB & eiuoJ .J- a JaaS
( . JnaXXaqaA
■* .t.axawH x<* no inxg. 0
+i. f«U«yi 9?XIa rg* ycf JxfauoTtf 9B«o at aeltOB tonfi
n.ist,at 9dS moil yiilloasi aoaaxiieb 00.000,01$ ttoobi ot
.b98B039h,ir»a ttdoL xo ^nxXXxat
bn;* latxx 9xtt ,aJnnoo 99^x11 lo aJaxanoo noxJaiaXoBb 9xlT
rite" aril no ,aaw inBXLa-ga iaxfj istb aonrJatfna rx aJnnoo bnooaa
•li^t 0XT*09l9 hb anxJ»a9cro bna «»avo 9ri* ,£161 .xxennat to ^?b
'.< tnionxlXI ,9XExvanxXXo9 nl itntii ntnd no v*
A JnafregcrB xo \Jub *xll a«w ban 9aao9tf Jx JbcIj .biBTrax tox anag
rria I yMla bnn nogw btcbo aJ t jnrnnun nt axao 9Xd3.ic&s9'X aan oJ
3n s ; *rsti atf *rf$iia ortw enoaiag snxiutax bxova o* laa**0
nwo liari* toI 9*B9 *ub to 3sio*t9X9 artt nx $*$xi& bis* aoqu ban
,b»*st9(io xJbMtffVM bna ^;Iln93xI^»n oa JflBlIonga tadt ;y*9ib«
ait isan ?99i*3 ntm'A no a*»o all to 9no b^nnao. bos oallotinoo
nsrtib asw tbo bt«sa Jaitt ,*99i*8 X9ana9:j0 ditw noi$09Bi9tnl
a Xtriw.ajBtaatnt al99XIsqq8 x*> nogna' bns ma* 9rfJ- lanl^as bxtB nogu
Xtfj^jaxsa nwo aid *ox noxJuno bnn atBO anb xo artxoiaxa adi nl
-it bvvtfiati ,XX9^ rtiiot .alalaatxTtx a'a^flagqa xoaxaaV noa*9*r
x~ #afl « an** .5X6X ,3 -^inxrida4 baxb 9rf doirftr croix aaii
wobxw airf 99XX9agB 3nivTrai7a\xiiTB«i*axTX bf? aattzai^it aaXXagqa
aaiAra^b nijf xo *X9n bna w»X *b a*x9rf tt9iA^unb ,XX9d 39nnIJ tea
in sum of $10,000.00.
The second count in addition to formal allegations alleges
that appellee's intestate in due care was driving westward on
Main Street near the intersection of Guernsey Street, appellant's
car approached from the rear with an unobstructed view of srid
wagon, and through its servants in chares of oid car fsiled to
exercise reasonable care to have said car uader control as nt
to run ag?inst s^id team and wagon and thereDy carelessly and
negligently ran said car against said team and wagon whereby
John Bell was violently thrown from said wagon to the ground and
received injuries from which he died.
The third count in addition to formal averments alleges
renton and wilful negligence. T-he court, however, at the con-
clusion of appellee's evidence instructed the jury to find ap-
pellant not guilty under third court.
To this declaration appellant filed pie-? of not guilty,
a trial, cnse submitted to Jury under first and pecrnd counts,
a verdict in favor of r- relies and against appellant for rum
of $5,250.00. Votion for new trial rverruled Judgment on verd-
ict snd this appeal.
Some 3f the material fact? in this case are undisputed and
ap-rerr in substanoe ae follows:
Bain Street in coliinsville, 40 feet wide nith the railway
track of appellant in centeLr extends in ?i northeasterly and
southwesterly direction; Guernsey street croc res it at right an-
gles. John Eell, appellee's inteptate, s man thirty- eight > t rs
of age, about three e'cloefc ir the afternoon of January 29,1913,
was driving ■ mule team hitc) ed to a delivery wag^n west en
Kein Street a rroaching the intersection of Guernsey Street and
(2)
.00.000,OI# to txuji nt
a»80l.CH Bnp-tJ-ij39.il* Isartat at aotilbbm n± Jiuuoo bno;j»« erfT
no biffwJeaw gnivtib aav aiao eub nl e*B$ae*nl a'aeXXeqqa iarfj
ayrvrieq b ,*99,r*8 ^anaetfO to floi*9eeTe*0i en\t -teen *a9T*S niaM
fciB« to ireiv ba*9in* adorn/ as d*iw *aa* arid- molt bs foBoijqa 700
0* beXi;t ijbo Mf*a t<~ agxsrfo ni a*nByrrea nil d^uotAi bn« .nojaw
in e« Xo**nno -xebgw ibo Diss erarf oj at«o altferfoaBe'r •stsf'Te
bns YXaaaXeiao ^dancani' fine ao^sw baa /nee* bira tfanl°8B curt ot
\d9i9dw co-gsv bna aura* aiaa tnnt^^a xao bi*a abi xXJnaailaan
bna bauoig erf* 0* no^sw bt a mortt mroid* ^Xinelolv awr XIaS nrfol
.fcelb arf tf»irfw rroit aaMut^i bavleoe*
■fcgfeXXa e*. [err?r^l o* noittfefc* nl *r-r:oo bttrf.t a.d?
nno arfj- ?a .leraworf .d-rxj^o arftT .a^nasilaen luttiw baa rr<>*nBi?
■ qtt bnit o* YTut ad* b9*oirr*ani aoaabtva a'aaXIeq^s to ■oiacrXe
.J-™ 3 brlrf.t *ebnu ^*Xiu<3 *fln *n«XXeq
,X*Xitr| Jon 1« fit *n-If9qq« noiiBTtsioab a iff* eT
t**fltffOfc brr~o»* bne *eTit tabno xiJ-ft otf ba^i'tidua ea/»a ,X»i1
ami tot fruTHiqi 11 *3ni«3a boa aeXXecrT* to toti»1 nt *oibi9T b
-fcrev no *n9(P^hr?j baCimaro lstrt wen ict noi*o«* .00.0<fS,3$ to
. Xf »'-tc airfJ fctf» *oi
fraftrqaX&ow a?* ee*o Bid? nl ?*0Bt leiiaJsr srfJ' to eaoS
rawoXXot aa ••ns*eflr.y.3 ni ?<$Mppi
Y«wXi«^ arft rf*iw ebiw *»al 0* ,eXXiTe~iirca ;-i J-991*** r.c
bne Yr~a.ta.pa.'f*T[on n nt ebne*r» T-,a*nao ni *n a r refers to tfWVt
-rrr. ^i Ha^got') *»ar*e fMferiMM ;nol*oa*ib YXie*aewd*uoa
«pe^ ftffeft*. ■ ,»*B*a»*Rt e'eeXXeqqa ,IXe€ nrfoT, .eels
r,«S YT'1 "t« »rf* wi <#o'X9»o aertrf* *«<sefa ,95a to
isw YTertlab b o* feat!** in' atee* al«tc * Bniri-rb saw
te9T*3 y^a«r»«^ lo no>i*9?>8Ta*ni arf* a.iirfoaoTT .-a *9f
m
when a short dietanoe west of said intersection he was struck
hy a cfr of appellant going in the same general aire
car striking the Eiules ana the l6ft front wheel of .Ms w..ig- n,
he wax thrown irom the wagon and injured, from which injuries
he died letrunry 6, 1&15.
There is a dispute as to what app#lls**B Intsaftatc was
doing just prior to aatfj at tine of ace ident, and what fig ". e
if any, were given "by appellant and whether or not the oar w.-.s
under control, and these disputed facts and the law te he p-
plied is the contention hatween the parties in this court.
In short it is argued by appellant that the trial court
siiould have directed a verdict at close of the evidence and
that the verdict is contrary to law and against the greater
weight of the evidence. A small auount of space is devoted
ty appellant objecting to ruling of court admitting evide.ee,
the refusal of one instruction and that the damages are exces-
sive with reference to these ohjastisas they are without i i-
it. The evidence objected to was the conclusion of the wit-
ness, the instruct ten was not in form, sad the Law had "been
given to the Jury in another instruction nd if it ir a esse
where appellant is liable the d-- images were not excessive.
Recurring again to the isnin contention, parties agree that
two of the material allegations of the declaration to be proven
by appellee by a preponderance of the evidence are: that ap-
pellee's intestate was in the exercise of due care and caution
for his own safety.
Second that appellant was careless and negligent In hr.nd-
ling and controlling its car and that sash carelessness and
negligence caused the injury to appellee* a inteetste.
That there was some evidence upon which a jury ^ight find
(3)
Izwite bbw aii aotfoaataial axaa lo teaw aocu&Salb j-soxfa a nsrfw
toazib Xmaroa 9.-na« &1S nx »flxo3 *fi lo r\o r, frf
1« Xaaiiw Jnoai tfleX artf x>ua aaXxaa sdi gnxjix-r.+p, n«o
iOirfw noil , ba^o^nx ana Ba&ya* artt nmni amoidi xa« »xl
!
.3X9X ,3 RMRrfiV Sexb 9fi
3j»w ifa&aai .i j'» < oi na atujaXb m «Jt aiad?
,•: btu .inaaxoo* to acix* cfa «xt<? oJ aoxiq Jaxrt, anxcb
|M 1.^0 an"J Jon 10 leiltarfw Ana JaaCXaqq* xd n»Tlg aaaw .^^ru; Ix
-q;- Jtf oj waX •rfJ bna a^oal httiuqalb aaaxfj boa .loi^noo nabnij
.J-. J nx aax-xaq sjW naawjaJ noiJnaJnoo artf si baxXq
hutoa Xax-rj >xtt **att JuaXXaqqa ^;cf ba^yin ax J-x iaoxfa nl
bna -io:i9bir9 adi Xo eaoXo Ja *oxb-c9v a asJoaixb avmil bXuoua
1»J-«313 srf^ d'^Eiaaa bos waX o* ^tai^noo ax Joxbaav ad* fjidf
fcaJersi: ax aoaqa lo i/iuooa Ilaxns A . aonabxra adf at) Jx^xa*
,90nabxv9 anxJd-xi'iba Jix/oo lo jjnxXx/Tt oj- anxJoe^cJo JnaXXaqqa \J
-asoxa 3xs 33aaiiuj& axtt Jr iox.f3xnJanx tno lo OBx/la* axi*
-T3LT i-uoxlJxw ata y,adt anox-oat^o aaa-"J -J aouaaalaT: diiw avxa
-?xw 3rfJ io aiiauXo.ioo sxtt saw oJ 09*09 O<fo aonabiva aoiT .Jx
barf wrX axil bn.i ,cnox nx Ion asw nax.+ oxrc/anx 9xlJ- ,aa3n
x fi Ix bn.- noiJoxrc.tanl tadfoiia nt <ciat adt of navla
.a»ox9 toa aaaw aayanL-b ad) aXtfax.r ax ittvLlaqqm aradw
fmdi MQQP aox^xaq .jijxj 7%*m 0 nxam adi of nxa^a snttzusaR
09toij 9d ol noltciaXo3i 3_rfi lo enolJajjaXXa iRtiaisuR atit lo owj
-qa i-di' :9^c« aonablva adt to eonaiobnoqaaq a \tf a«XX9qqa ^U
se2#«aal bnr.; anao aub lo aaloiaxa ailJ ai aav aJa^aa.tnx a'aaXiaq
.^a^af m»re axxf 10I
t kfj^XHW Bflfi aaaCaxso aaw ineXXaqqa isxU axxooa.:
brifi saanaae J-«di bna las xti .±ti I Hcztn 00 ana ytXX
'iOv,'ni ••••J a4 •i'tiJiul adf baaaao aon»sll-^Mi
bnxl irfaxr ^"t B ri»-trfw noqii eon9biT9 aaoa aaw aaan'^ *adT
(5)
both allegations proven and under the law the court committed no
error in refusing to direct a verdict.
i owever, upon the question §i the verdict heir: against
the Manifest weight off ohe eTidence, the verdict being the re-
Bult of a consideration sf something other than the real ieruee
involved, and not in accord with substantial justice are ques-
tions that present themeeivee on i motion for new tria_ a -d to
this court on appeal. The consideration of these questions by
the trial court on a motion for new trial are governed "by 3 dif-
ferent rult of law than that under sonsi aeration in direct i-.g
or refusing to direct a verdict.
Where a question nf f-et hM been oroperly submitter to the
jury upon motion for new trial ia the first tire the court be-
comes responsible in any way for the finding, but when eo e-.lled
upon it becomes the finding oi the Court as well as .jury. And
where the trial court or appellate court are satisfied that the
verdict of jury if againct manifest weight of the evidence to
permit it to stand would mean that great J-nj''8t ice, not only
in that particular esse, but in all capes where it might be in-
sisted the verdict of a jury should be conclusive no matter
what the evidence might be. (Gull vs. Beekstein, 173 111., 187;
C & A. R. E. Co. vs. hernrich, 157 111., 386; I. C. B. K. Co.
vs. Baecher, 110 App., 102.)
Now for a consideration of the facts in this case as t1 ey
appear from the evidence:
John Bell, a resident of this small town, fnmiliT with
its streets and railroad, ■ driver th-it brought him in c it ct
with ears and track, driving west in this etreet end turning bis
team across track with car coming within 100 fret. Tic Ttate-
(4)
on b9$3l«<!90fi ttsson 9dJ vsi 9di labau ba» n»rr.ia anol^Kgallp dSoci
.JOioisT b i oat 2b of snxaij i»t ax 1011a
fran t»d Joibiar er.i t* noxJeaop sdt noqw ,ievenro :
-91 adj jjnJracf tfoxbiav odi .aoaabxve I -.'iigxav Jealiixarr adi
■MWgl faai arfJ fifiriJ' T»dto sraidJ-ajpoB to f!©x*.aiabxBno3 8 xo *Iua
-ssap aia aox;tao'u i*t^nf.j8du? dtfiw b^ooos at faa bna .bavXovnx
o* bn« -pxij van icz nox*on 4 t»o 3avxa9ffla.i.t .tnsaaig twit e
^cf «/p aaadJ io noxJciabxarroo ad? .Xaaqtra no iruoo axdJ
-lib a ^o* barrt9T08 ai* Itxi* wan toi noxfoar a no ;tijjo;> 1.pxi* add-
gnxtoe-rxb ftl noiiaiabiarcoo labno tsdt nsdJ xr&l lo. slorr iamrml
.tolbi9r a Joalib a4 jnxeulai zo
•d* o' BaJttflJtfn* y;Xi9qoia aaacf «f»d frtft 1° aotiasa-i « aiadW
-acf tiuoa adJ ami* Jau.1 acd1 ax Xnti* wan -ioi noi-toa nocru \£ioJ,
bafX.~9 oa a»xf«r ;fud ,3'ixbnH 9dt ioi <fatir ^na rr c aXdxanoqaai a
bn.\ .^tni a* IXaw ax? d'ltro') edJ to antbnii adJ" aamooaxT tt
adJ Ltsxiaa 9X8 Itmoo m$*lt*qqm io Jitfoo Xaxii adi aiariw
9onabiT9 9iif io Jd^xr* i93lx~R.ii Janijsaxi «x Y^t *o toll
Xtw too .aotta.'tni Jb»t3 trdt naam blxfow fcnata cl Ji .txnrTaq
■ rm fri aiadw *9tB9 lla at tad ,aaao laXtiaxiiarr tmeU at
•rai'^air' or arxarrXanoo aa* bXuoda yTrwt * *o ioxbiav adi b\
.rtiaj'STfaaa .ev XX&0) .ad id^im aonabxra adJ **d*
.-0 .* .g .0 .1 ;38fi ...rfX ft! ,.ioxi'Tia:l ,3V .r .A * 0
(.SOX t.qqA OXX ,iaifoa»ff .er
TCadJ as aaao axrft ax ai'ojs't a;fi- to noXtiTtaftxar-^D a to! iro*f
:aonabxra ad? moi'l t*?ago;«
cf^xw irxilmr;! .oiroi XXaiwa atdJ lo ^nabxaai a ,1198. rrdoX
Jopjnoo elI 0 Tavxib j» .baoiXi^i boe a^aa-x^a 93 1
axri yiirTrf^ bns taaTd-a axui nc Jaaw ^nxvi-rb .afoant bns a*rso dV'f#
-eta^a aidf ,t9ij OOX ttlxttiw sfrir->o ijro dtiir <o^Tt aaotos maaJ
(M
cent, in made from the evidence that is not contradicted. The
miles and front wheel of wagon were hit and thr t is net dis-
puted by appellee, and this could not have been done , . he
collision occurred from tne rear or as deceased was leaving
track toward north with rvur wheels of his wagon ekiauiug m
claimed by appellee, three wiinesscr- t :r a] ul.ee are aU
that pretend to give aay ace curt of deceased at the i.iiae and
Just "before the accident. £ardsley Grater and u.rp. Phleger add
all sny he was driving v/est near etatir of street &al naitner
say tney saw him do anything to avr.id :.jury. other wJtii*t3ei
say, v;ho were disinterested, that deceased was driving vert p.
safe distance north of trnck, and went went of i itereaction of
Guernsey Street turned his tean acrof-s street.
These witnesses, seven in number, being retidei.ts . f Col-
lineville ana passengers en car, with une exception, the motor-
man. The physical conditions and undiaputeu fact, in -.coord
with this testimony it would be against all precec Ld
that the verdict of Jury finding decc.sed via^ i exercise i
due care should not be set aside.
There is no evidence that the car was beit.g run at a igh
rate of speed. The undisputed e/idenct is it ste] ed i.
eight to fifteen feet after accident. There is the evidence of
ceveral witnesses that gong was sounded rapeatadly t fli jIiui
two blocks and up to the . loce '.here the accident occurred.
Tithout givi.g in det- il the evi-2er.ee of the oeverLi rit
Lessen the case as made would cot sustain a verdict on either
the dve cere of deceased or the negligence of the Cos any, be-
cause the .iudfjnent ond verdict is against the r.c.cifest '-•eig1 t
of the evidence the judgment sill be reversed and ..
sanded .
LISYBK: SD ..'' h F-
HHriitltHiH ■ I
(Hot to be reported in full.)
(ft)
«r-7 . f^ti9tbititttC9 ton at tedt aonwbiv* exit ajci I I 'na.j
-aib ion ai txdi baa t;f «s* - hioil birr. aa.Irjn
./ml Ion biuoo ei>i* bos ,a»I f-j.rq-j? >£d" b&tuq,
ijnJtveal aaw baassoaJb aa to i^«i *iirf nrot't fcafiuJttu noicilloo
aus 3 <$■** airf to «I*»tfw i r .-f*ioa Jbxswod- ia-sii
II- a-x~ »*X£aqq* 10 i aswttji'* asiift .aariaq\T- ^cf bami/sto
• J tn boae'S^-. I - a , I . i . .
JIcb lags-i-ri^ .oi> bn* aa*srti; tatfaa>ta& • - *& aiolacf laut
i* a-xJa 1c i9tifo icac *aaw aftiviTi mew si v** f-I*
■ ' 5 .iiu' : .:i yjza
» ti*<x aniviib a«a bsaaaoat iwii , bc»;taofi»ni.ii5 siaw oxfa ,^«a
la aoiJtnwr laavr Jnaw boa ,^c:t3 tc rfJTon aojxadala »1«8
.Jaaxta aaanai ftairtad frajaipls x»emauJ
-XoS ir aJ.iafc^aar ania>f .•xacfiaun Bi nsvaa ,«9e«snJi'.v ciean?
-lO^rii! »i{i , At& t%S9 to B13Sri90«i:q no,;: aX£iraffli
34 Bt£ s*osl baiuqt jtftj 9£fT . naa
j Jgafftayiq lib ■ % ad blticw Ji ^ncaiJ-aatf am
te a^xsi.oxa iri oew &ae .: -jxinov adJ todt
.ebtec ief an tea bltoi ■ acb
.iut gttecf a»w tro arfJ ?aat3 ng on ai aiarfT
Cl - • . i. :,9 botuc^ibnsj 9df .baa ja lc 9*81
9d^ si aiarlt .J^abiooa ^sIIb ieal naaJlii M I
Ju- I f ^lfc9ir>»qai fcafcfluoe asw saoa #«ft aaa30iiJiw iaiavaa
. oaiacrooo f«*6iaaa axf* ata i bne ajfoclcf owl
-Jiw IsttrM edi lo aonebxva acCi Zl t9b si anivis fflbtCd
tadtia tar a nirJaua J on bluo* abaci aa a^^o *di aaaaan
tit TO boaj'd©9b to 9-1/3 eyfi adJ
. .;<- pa 7x Jpixrrar anc fnarayAufc »*W aauxjo
cm tiaTsrvt arf aaaabitria aif* lo
. bab{u.j
( . XIui ai '. ( ad" oi toll)
U)
/, A. C. MILLSPAUGH, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of the
State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true cops <>l the OPINION of the sunt
Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in mi: office.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I hare set my hand and affixed the seal of said Court
at ML Vernon, this - " dor of July.
A. D. 1914.
Clerk of the Appellate Court
u
2
o
y
\
..-■-■
Opinion of the Appellate Court
AT AN APPELLATE COURT Begun and held at Mt Vernon, Illinois, on the Fourth Tin
in the month of March in the pear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fourteen, the some
being the 24th dug of March, in the pear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fmtrt, i n
Present:
Hon. Harry Highee, Presiding Justice.
Hon. James C. McBride, Justice.
Hon. Thos. M. Harris, Justice.
A. C. MILLSPAUGH, Clerk. W. S PjY.Xt. Sheriff
And afterwards in Vacation, a/ter said March term, to-ivit: On the dap
ofJulp, A. D. 1914, there was filed in the office of the Clerk of said Court at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, an
OPINION in the words and figures following:
1
^Uvflh-
■ICItllOR TO
AFPi'AL FROM
1^81.^.352
COl'RT
( Ol'MY
TRIAL JUDGE
Hon.
C~l*-^Cr- . C(
lens lie. .
• oh Sem . ,
Eellcr I Livingston, A )
sllantt, )
r )
■va. )
)
rican Oi I ondry )
Oonpeny, )
Kpsllas. J
188I.A.352
'..pinion hjr Lnrria, J.
This suit was oanmonoeu before a Jnetio< of the
eppelli«.nt> to recover en an M
by one flsji Aiken for '-*oe8
eppellee. Ska case was I to the Girauit Cour*
a triel in that court b; Jury at the cl-
oy apptsllant on appellee's r.< '
ion a verdict fin«''i?;i. for spp<
unt foi aaw trial isln • 1 or r 11 ■
enterti: judgment «.r. the verdict,
in< an appeal, i.^o'n brings I Si e to thia <^ &ri
fL j'lcyd Aiken on the SVth daj of Rovat
tv. ,.ait'HBDerit of all i^a^en find salary conniafiion.
next *** nature rtue an(? towc-Gor.e fa<
8Uc .x nontha fron the Ameri onr
-v.,, , -us eaplr. or. ikea
a,-^, d January 1918-192J but there in nc
^Plo^cent at
tine o? r;-"
«t *u i ft the tine
' th* titte of ta
\ a oorporr
.3 J* .ol arce'I
( ,n
.67
j
. a©U
ay*
a. A.I 8 81
joaoexnoo MM Stan aid!
s rrt^ieaa na ne ipvoo ..alleqqa
_ ■ • A nw£.t £d
» aaw eaao 'Ifetiqa
Mli ni laliJ a
M a ' aa.Q 9qq * a id
♦ i I ►£$» ■- V . rr a ctoi
.cod LAtii «9fl Ttol Jna
;> Jnoer-jbui. baaaJae
'"•" K ..-..est* rfpt;i.« ,l3 3.xq.? as ani
«eaa»» II » to taoem
^ 3fc ;♦ baa oah otuiaa r
tb *xt>cc
.9HA ad\t ■of) Mt#saa x'
1060008
Tia lecfn
£a ^aaar^olqaw
.
saw JoalleqqA,
.ai:i? ^o aisW 0x1* *a
property end '.aueto cr the partnership*
l. »<.r received notice of the easi£Za&ent
tne T-o^es ©erne 5 by hir_.
A party taking and accepting assignnenl
relied upon to bind e I i r% act e privj \
under the lew asoune soce responsibility rio)
by eaylng »» have done enough to put
£ Party brin^in^ unit mamt prove all the u
entitle it to recover and in the afcnnor the rule
Froia an exnednation of ,:hc record ir
several reaaona an;- one of ahiofc would be »vd
the judgment of the trial court,
to rely in the presentation cf thii
Of its fisai^nnient Cf erroib. Shot Jwci.
should be reversed because the Ju
by the court that no sufficient noi the aBslgnasnt
been, by lawful raeanu, served upon appellee*
The argument of appellant
and as v<e cannot agree with appellant a upon » Men
and do agree vith the trial court in
.serve no good purpose to Alsess acts or 3j
further than to diopoae of the /aecticr. -
xhe auffioiency o* the notice cf ass lenient, the r* ■?■ ti
the parties, their interest* in the subject natter of the
and that the Ian requires actual notice of t' anient
shall be proven,
If the cox.. ' &•• °-*
.viae competent ea a cc :-e ia no evict er
prove that the original srs encloaei in ai
n a place for receiving Jn?.te.J 3ta1
fcaga directed to nt .
•nr axae aa^jj.7 adJ
.
ii ©« ^aJt^aa ^c
■jltltao
■ ota «a uo-rt
- laxsrea
:if ©d* ; ©dJ
ytit tit \1&-l ot
Lit id
;©H IXJ^Vf.'lI yd ,xiet»d
99-150 ^ocrmo »w sa boa
aii bo*
J o w«I 10 ectoa" q hoo_; oh ©r*x©6
•,1 aotte " o? narffr idd^ijjl
• ,+nojir: ©dfr %o ^oa©2ol*li/e adl
*; raq ©a**
>>df tad: baa
j rr -r
• itavoxcj od Ilada
tonslJbro
• ;jl<l a 0
-
receipt cf itaei- aot proi
received by appellee at tat
%C i;e considered aa t Link in the chain of evidence ne< •
to shot, tik let kf.d aotnal notice
.llant. e±n£ no proper foundation
duoticn o*' the sap; of the Notice it
'ihore toei; not eppear to be an? eYJ
Oi appellant's aaaiganont upon anion !
without it appellant could not recover. "he jmfie? i
therefore be afflxaaA*
»«■*«»
(Hot to be reported in full
- ■
I
rioa 5-jrC *e la o*
-
I« 'to
-
/, A. C. MILLSPAUGH, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of the
State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true cops of the OPINION of the said
Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in mi; office.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I hare set mr hand and affixed the seal of said C 01
atMt. Vernon, this d > dao o, Julc.
A. D. 1914.
„. . ■ I ■ II .... / •„....<
Clerk of the Appt
o
o
72 "
/!)
Opinion of the Appellate Court
AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at Mi. Vernon, jf/linois, on the Fourth Tuesday
in the month of March in the ijear of our Lord, one thousand nine hutidred and fourteen, the same
being the 24th duo of March, in the pear of our Lord, one thousand ninf hundred and fourteen.
Present:
Hon. Harry Higbee, Presiding Justice.
Hon. James C. McBride, Justice.
Hon. Thos. M. Harris, Justice.
A. C. MILLSPA UGH, Clerk. 4". S PA YNE, Sheriff
And afterwards in Vacation, alter said March term, to-wit: On the day
of July, A. D. 1914, there was filed in the office of the Clerk of said Court at Mt Vernon. Illinois, an
OPINION in the words and figures following:
LKjiv
KSVSJ&SJ: ^"Wj
no. (£.k
APPEAL FROM
188I.A.353
March Term, 191 1.
.QjS^ysA^L\^
((HTM
-&.-..WoL<m-^
<^A -tittW^H^i
Hon.
TRIAL JUDGE
r&ijUJU*^ ClJL.^
A^l
Tern 3o. 46.
. L914 .
:.. eiretein, )
j
Appellant, )
i
vs. Appeal froj
Pete Carol riSXi, cunts.
)
Appellee .
00 o ^ o
This is n suit oorr.er.cf." n; appellanl
before e -Justice- of the Peace in
arm of $100.00 which appollrnt <i) i .
t?.llp,e. The Toetloe r_r the
i .t+aoh»nent anrt rendered Judgment in favor c:
u% appellee for the oaoual
perfected an apj the Citj' Court
upon trial before r\ Jury, f
of appellee , and notion for nem tric3
entered Ju&faent on verdict antf ' appe]
which Judgaenti sal to th"*!
The facta in thia ease pre net mmeri
leave the tmt3 uncertain.
Appellant earl; ii epteober, '.'.',
t bueinesi In . r •' ■ . "
-
appellee had f nto hlappeaaeBBlcn
divers persona Given , Steel j'cundr;
to the place of business of appellant and teld ap]
he wea in nee* of wore fane's to cash eh
checks which appellant says anounten f ■ •' .
(
( .«▼
t.
- - : ■-
: r a Ml
LOZIR rfoirCw 00. 00 if lo :2»e
I scJ^air^ a^T . sella cjqjs
lOTtA nh tnorv^birl bci^hwz firra trtorrfoi?t*^
TO »l£# 13^ ■ lUXtfiQii
.3 10
' r. I VtftdS erfT
•tttB^seOHO tad .'■'xrtJ' arfJ1 ovsol
, ' ' ' , - • IleqqA.
•
*o soalo ad J o*
ma at aaw art
a amounted te
sun of $800*00 in oaah 1. p.xinc the checks ?.-: '
appellant obtained the none;?.
Ihe follov.j.j1L Moada? aorninf eppelli
fro ri the latj aad upon '-he wif<
ant for balane* ppellp.nt inf
not obtained, the oaah on ti
appallast turned . • .1£ An oh<
•Hurt says -it, v. *h< u*
nia in oaah the oun of $3
part of the oanvareiitlon. Appellant inal
should be rever«i?fl :
Firr.t: ▼erfliet ia i gainst th«« ra
of the evidence.
occnd: The court erred in nfiraittine inprc) e3 -*r- •
!Thlrd: The Court saflre InpropcT AnBtrnotloH for
first objeatlen one r'-- lantl; uB£'*»d ps r ,rrur:
reversal rmiBt V consider* I frcB + )>c ?a«t in, in
perticulnr c- . Ma eaae the >~+ tprjhFinnt £•< I .
hfiv* been eAanAc eppellnnt upon the trial in tl
as nc evidence appaarn in r*<?ord, on with that brano]
fe&se out of the »aj ■* + ia only rceessr.^; f •" conoid i
appellee o*e appellant the .100.00, or waa the e^l-.rti
..ueation sriuoh an tc ■aetata t verdict c"0 the Jnry th?
did not.
Appellant, hi a Bor, pnd a witneftn bv th.
-i/ve in 4 *ri ■• t*ndn to eetablll
clt-.i' nt and they ere oc-rre if r> tf - -: b; the ledy,
dder, tfrom who, r.ppellf.nt 8*;/s he
oaturdny nic,ht. ..'he appellee says he tamed over tc
one hundred dollars mere in checks than elaiax
I
) tanllg
■
ElJfc i I art , 39 tleqft H
[otiCa nJ &I«
rfteaierai 9C* ft!
■
-
oO e;f? : In
■•>; ^"r'v
I bib
■
.81
;«B ?n3/-r . rfv boi* ,is
©no
in thd r he 5 a ooxrobe i
lohnidt. It In '.r 1 alone *he rriu*.
ma^- considej in arriving at their verdict.
(•re there is> * oontr*
arriving Rt the truth fron the little thi.,..
take place between the partlee ehowi *.
can ;h Aon* frcn detersdnin,
lone v.here en* eet ni eitneaaeR tafee '
mii the other the ne£ativ« nf <
the truth. The andiapnteri eiren
BaJpleltnt to sustain the verdict, She enlj '•
coaplalnad of bj. appellant 1
appelle "'her*- in he
atnvT ind the anai r : I don't o^ or>. :c-nny.
The object j^n In r<r: it it *an fcha iasue in '■
the answer called far
issue, ffhile this rue it ie pj
re mr; and negative in an r>x-
the chf-r, .
It v^fts oeoper ^or defendant To denj »her^i -
Slt4 inawer were propel
Asno Appellant nn ).■
afe*. instruct j
of attachment and issue of enouat invnlv*
far appellee, six of re objected in b
6,7, 6,9, end 10 *r< lading end n^.
rheHf' Instruction* when examineH .••<,;
j-.re asitaer nialcadiac r^ w . ' ^ '
four, this instruction sells upon the Jmi
the
ion; _ „
-.1-
". ■
r *X9if£
■ - *no£n ao
..it vit art*
-
rtTinoo
BMM c ?woxr
t aifrtp Jt ■ I >
otf? $$f ■MpMKfcflM RrtB erf*
.wMH'
,rt©f> o* v*- TecToa^ r.p...' tl
mwmM htm
j ant Mi
M* 013 ©ft*©
_^. ^aoi
.. _
■■■ of the Mil
r, but in other ea»«
epialOB of the oonrt affeot*
-e «■) of the npinlen
■ re tho laanee* 1'hi
La/j RbeJiA< • • g i tt aehnen :
to deternine ,
cr nil' I. '; /dr. ?h* jur; ■■ ■ *■■ inatmot<
instructions on the Isaac a I m .e na *c re1?.,
he girl; 11 or fi
It la a$£ fir en t BU e< snt
BhouU net be reverse*' ft natruetj
. 1st. :•., ISO Api ., -t'
The ixaeatioa m this ck«« •■.. . . ?*ot and 11
rule that • ' iet aalde a It?
sa thi ground ! he jar; *rong oonolm
iaotB or ft eTlffereat conoluai entertaine
anleaa the ri
parependertnot of the evidenoe,
. kahras 128 111*, .l4. . , ^j Ll., <
u no error In thio record that cu*-..
the ease one tn< ju
co be reported in full ! .
-
I
. iteat
i
.
....■■■
V
-
it sni q:
/, A. C. MILLSPAUGH, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of the
State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true cops <>/ the OPINION of the said
Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in my office.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set my hand and a/fixed the seal of said Court
at ML Vernon, this c&gfc day of July,
A. D. 1914. o n/J,, ■ / ,
Clerk of the Appellate Court
o
o
'
o /)
>
Opinion of the Appellate Court
AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, on the Fourth Tuesday
in the month of March in the uear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fourteen, the same
being the 24th dot; of March, in the usar of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fourteen.
Present:
Hon. Harry Higbee. Presiding Justice.
Hon. James C. McBride, Justice.
Hon. Thos. M. Harris. Justice.
A. C. MILLSPA UGH, Clerk. 4/ 5 PA YNE, Sheriff
And afterwards in Vacation, after said March Cerm, ta-wit: On the c dai:
ofJulv, A. D. 1914, there was filed in the office of the C/erf of said Court at Mt. Vernon. Illinois.
OPINION in the words and figures following:
i:mu>n 10
APPEAL FROM
I88I.A.355
COl'RT
t f c t Ctl^fc. u<-<- i~v-u/ COUNTY
Hon.
TRIAL JUDGE
Term Ko. 48.
March Term, A. D. 1914.
James C. Kennedy, Administrator
of the Estate of John ij. Kennedy,
deceased.
Appellee, j Appeal from the
vs. Circui
Chicago & Carterville Coal I /**«^*^<^^
pany,
Appellant.
\9 & 355
Opinion by Harris, J.
This is an action in case brought by appellee to
damages for the death of appellee's intestate in the sur
ten thousand dollars. Said death occurred on the 7th day
May, 1911, by slate and rook falling on deceased fro
of the 7th north entry off of the fourth eaet rntry in -r.ine
of appellant.
The original declaration consisted of eev«*n counts, under
direction of the court, the jury having found defend
guilty under all the counts except the fourth, fifth an.
we find it unnecessary to give any of the other count" c
•ration.
The fourth count alleges that the defendant wm
a sine on May 7th, lull, in which a large number of
ing the deceased were employed; that on said d-t' rms*y
was in the employ of the defendant as n track layer; that
warn a squeeze or low plaee in the roof of the 7th nor
off the 4th east entry in the mine which prevented the 1
sage of the electric motor oar; that on said date the deo
was ordered by the defendant's foraaan to le»ve his work as su<
track layer and go under s*id roof in the 7th north entry
with ■ pick and other tools, to take down the eoal, p
.MSI .C .A %jri8? ilolflii
,^bonno3I.ii ndoL lo 9i&in'iL atli lo
,b0Sft9O9b
9/iJ moil £«9qqA ( .ooXIgqqA
• ;o3 iiuortO I ,av
■
»^«-VJbr-»-*-JfcOoV<^^
888
-moO Ii--oO 9fIivT9ii*0 4 03*01x10
.^rtsIl9qqA
.L ,alTii»H \d noiniqO
9*Il9qqa ^d Iri^jjoitf 98bo nx noxJoa na ax axrfT
■n 9ili nx 9J«Ja9*nx 8?90lf9qqB lo e(is9b grfj- tol aagBxnaJb
lo ijab iiiV 9rf* no b9*x?uooo xf^ssb bxaB .Biellob bnsauoxiJ nai
oil b99S999b no gnxXlBl tfao-i bna 9*ala \d ,1191 ,x»M
9nim nx \^iJn9 Jrbo dJ-iuol 9x1* lo llo x,itn» dtion xttV 9rfJ lo
.IciaXIsqqB lo
i9bnu ,e,tnuoo nsyaa lo b9Jaxa^oo noxiaYaloab lanxaxio erfT
i9b bnuol anxrarf ^Tut 9dt ,3tuoo adf lo noxJoaixb
xb bn« rtcrlxl ,xii*uol ariJ Sqsox* mSnuno 9di I1b i9bnu x*-f*u3
fnuoo -i9rfJo 9rfJ lo \aa 9vxa °* x*fi«*»o*-nnu <** bnxl 9tr
. noxi-flio
»f»r. 'jbw *rtBbc,9l9b exit S*di bb^oILm tauoo riJiool 9riT
•toXoisi nsm lo lodoiun a^tal b rioxrlw nx ,XItfX ,rfiV ^ali no anxxa b
• bx«8 no i«iij- ;b9^oXqai9 919W b9BB909b 9riJ sni
,"I9^bI *d.p<?3 p. br Jnsbnslsb odJ lo xoXqmo 9rfJ nx «str
'■ 9ut lo loot «d3 nx 90BXq woX 10 9S99opa a apv
cl 9xtt b9in»y9ict rtoxrfw onJtm 9xi* nx x'tin* ians xit* sxii lie
Jnb bxaa no Jaxtt ;tbo roiom 9x1*09X9 9itJ lo e^aa
. I sr«9l ol xuunarxol a'Jxiabnalab od) \,d bo?9bio aaw
}<XM rfiV otto nx looi bxs»a rsbnu 03 bna T9\;bX XoBtt
, U rcwob 95Lb1 oi alool *X9XiJo bna ioxq ■ dt Iw
rock in the roof of said entry at said low pi
roof was in a dangerous condition and wm likely to i
disturbed with picks or other tools in ti i
work as herein stated; that defendant knew of sue
condition of the roof and of the dangerous manner of
the same or by the exercise of reasonable care could
thereof; that while deceased was in the exercise oi reac
care for his own safety and when he did not know of the dnngers
aforesaid, nor of the dangerous method of doing the »orl ,
while he was attempting to take down the roof ae ordered
foreman said rock, slate and other material suddenly bee
tached and fell upon him.
The fifth count which alleges the same ownership
ation of the mine and the same employment therein of the dec
ed; that there was a low roof in the 7th north entry
fendant desired to take down in order to make nore roo be1
the track and the roof; that defendant's foreman in char
the work negligently and carelessly ordered the dece i
down said roof in a dangerous manner, that is to sny, to
der the same and with pick and wedge and sledge take the
down; that the method of taking said roof down was knov.n bj
defendant to be dangerous or by the exercise of reasons
could have been known to be dangerous; that the danger o u
od of taking said roof town was not known to the dec
he did not have equal means of knowing of said danger
fendant; that in consequence of the dangerous method oi
said roof down it fell upon the deceased killing hia, ■ 1
the exercise of due care for his safety.
The sixth count alleges the same ownership and o-«r
of the mine and th^t there war a low place in the roo
tth noftth entry ^defendant desired to take down in order "
(2)
biaa iadi ;aonInr woX bi*a tm . to Ioot ad* ni 7L001
1 o* v;-f9^if bhw bn/B aoi*ibnos ai/oTasaab s aJt art loci
-•snaera ad* ni eXoo* Tari*o to eioiq d*iw bscfTu*Bib
;b rfoua to wanat *n«bnalab *.ed* ;ba*cia niarad an *xow
si to -xanflsiB auoiajjHFb 9t14 to tat Ioot on* io noi*ia*t9
ni avail bXuoo aiao «Icf«noaK9-i to aei o?axa 9At \<S to amae ad*
B»:o««ai la aaioiaxe ad* oi aaw baaaaaab aXidw iaxli jloatad*
aTaan^b ai*.lo ifaMl *<rn bib ad nadw bn« \*ataa awe axii to! a?*o
, tow art* gniob to bod*a*s aoorafcnab wdi to Ton %bi «9Tola
'no a* Ioot arl.* xnrob a*a* o* »nl*q«a**e aaw ad elidw
-ab ajKFOacf \;Xaabbi/e I^iTaJam Tad*o bna a*aXa ,i»oT bisa zwmaTol
.Bid noqu Hat baa bados*
-Taqa bat* qi;i*T9Pwo enea an* aaaaXXa deiriw *nuoo d*tit arfT
=iaTadJ *ne«Y,oXniBa a&na aril baa anira ad* to noX*a
-a; Vfai d*«oa d*V milt ni lao? wax a aav a<xar(* *axl^ ;ba
nf>aw*atf trrooT aioa.' a&un o* ?abre ni awafc aaLe* o* bavinab *o«bnal
Saala ni n«maTcl a'in«bnatab *ad* ;tooT ad* bna j£o#t* ad*
*£«** o* ^aanaoab ad* baT'ib-xo xXaaaXataa baa \13ri9:$ll&9n *tow 9di
J ,X.hb ©* ai *ad* («aan»m auaiaaoab a ni toot biaa •*••
ao«e ad* 9**i a^baXa bna e^baw bun. iolq d*iw bna anus a ad* Tab
Off ixwoiuf aaw owab Ioot btam a«i*eJ to bod* am »AS *a>i* ;nwob
aftfanosaaT to aaioTexa arf* yd to auoiagnab ad o* *uabnalab
-4* am aiioTaanab ad* *ad* ;«uoTaanab ad o* cwontf xiaad avad bXuoo
, >aaaoeb ad* oJ owe a* *on aaw nwo# Ioot biea sniatni te ba
-ab dJi^r -sajnab bena to aniwoai to aoaaai Xaupa avad ion bib 9d
,*c auoiaanab aati to aoaaopaeioo at Smit Uoabaat
I :>r ,mXd aniXXiil baa»aaab 9dt noqu XXat li nweb tooT bXaa
id^Mt 8i:i Tor aTao mub to aaiOTaxa aid
bam qirtgiacrwo aaise adi aagaXXji Jcuea tUxta adT
| ro loo? ad* ni aaaXq waX a a*w NMafoiaatl boa anirc ad* to
J TabTo ni nwob #jla* o* ba-jiaab *0*a*u»l9b«x,*'*"» d*4on AiF
(fa
more room for its electric motor car to pase under;
foreman in charge of said work negligei t
dered the deceased to t-;ke the coal, slate and rock i a
the roof in said entry in ■ di ngerous m~Jiner, that ir
to £0 under said roof and bepin with picke fit the ec I
gins of said sag or low place and take s-id rood dowf
facing talifc other until the s^id workmen should meet in I
ter or middle of MM low place; that the method of taking n
roof down as aforesaid was known by defendant to be dnnp« -
or by the exercise of reasonable care could have ber-n knows
be dangerous; that the deceased did not know that the meth^c1 kx
•■ployed by the defendant was dangerous nor did he bare t
means with the defendant of knowing thereof; that while
ed was taking s.^id roof down in the exercise of due c^re
own safety, it fell upon him killing him instantly.
To this declaration the defendant filed the feener»0
The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff as
his damages at Three Thousand Dollars. A motion for iew tr
was made and o verm led and judgment was entered on the •
This c>ee has been tried twice and submitted to two
upon the three counts mentioned, the jury upon each trial re-
turning a verdict in favor of a> pellee for the e-\jne sac
This being the second appeal to appellate court
the former opinion of this court appearing in Volume 180 1
42, and the statement of fact in that opinion ip here
follow*: "On iay 7, 19 LI, John Kennedy wae killed in the eJ
ant's mine by the falling of coal r>.nd slate from the
entry which he was engaged at the time in tikin* down. here \
a low place in the roadway in the seventh north entry of.
fourth east entry in defendant's mine, which ^lnce w«; r
(3)
1 aeaq o$ %ao Ttoioa axiioala aii aol awo** aaocn
m yMn*%iLA»n altow aiaa lo *$iBdo nt m-.'na'iol
Kt soil ovoo Jt'»oi bm; »isl« ,Ibo3 oiiJ «U| f'-* baa*ao9b axil bsisfr
,icb« oi , ;.^a«ffl auonaaausb * ax v1*"' k*68 *i loot adl
a« jba auJ - b"B looa bxsa Tsinu 03 oi
aaoo bn« nwob |*#f bjUa aalal baa aaslq vol to »ca biea lo anxg
* Isani biwode naanf-xow Wjbb axil iiinw ladlo xlo.«a »nioal
i>i»« snx^«i lo bodjsai +di tr^i ;•*&!<; vol bira lo sIJbMffl 10 isi
8i/oioa«*a acf ol Insbaalab y.d nworuf saw bxeeoiotxs ec nwo.b xooi
"*»rf »T«ri bluo© ax»» aXaaaoaaai 10 aaioiaxa axiJ x* 10
«rf bodlaai Mil J-jcviJ- <vcnj£ Ion bib baexseoab »i(J laxtl lauo-xayiab ad
Xjsupa sraxf ad bib ton auoaaaaRb aaw Ixxabnslsb Ml >ccf ba\,oIg»p
sliriw 4&£Li ; ioasoxil ani *• laabaslab aiil rfliw aosaw
atBO aub lo aaiotaxa axil ni nwob loci blnu aniial bow bm
.vllnolani mid snlllial aix. Usl Ji .^alas nwo
.»naax Lava** aril balii Jfisbnalab axil noilaialoab aidl oT
q ad J lo -ioval ni loxbtav « bexrtMJaT \iul axfT
ai wan iei noiJoa A ,*xe r T aaxrfT 1a aa^Bioab aixf
>-iaJ-na axtw Jiia.-oijbui. bxts balirrxavo bi'.s axiom aaw
owl otf baHxirufx/a boa aaiwl baiil naad box! aaro a -till
-art XsxiJ riaaa noqu \iul adJ ,bonoilnain alnuoo aaaril axil aoqn
iooa» a.. I io! saliaqqa lo tota! ni loib-xav a aniniu*
;a oJ Ismciqa bnooaa axil aaiecf aixlT
: Odi am. iu^o aiiii xo aoiiiiqo aannox arii
a& bnt'TJbn ata > B ^sxiJ at laal lo Inajaaiaia axlJ br. ,
I ftiaawv ' , M •' VI :i-,n :*woXXoi
. aiW «oil alajta bxia I*oa lo ytillal fit \fi anim 9'Snfl
aaw eiailT .mrob snl^rl ni aatU axW to ba»oa«a bhw a.t xtoixlw xTi*a»
©ii . on dlnavaa ad^ ni ^wbfioa adi- ni aoelq wol a
baa law 8bw aaalq rfoxxiw ,anxm a'loabnslab ni ^-xlua tins djiuot
U)
muddy and interferred to some extent with the or
motor used in hauling teal. On Saturday, i ay
had been at work in this entry at this lov? p]
the mine manager, passed through there 3>nnedy said I
can't get thie road in ehape like it ought to he;
to he cleaned up and this road filled up with ashes." And
Flynn said to him, "till you waat to work tomorrow on i ,
Kennedy paid, "Yes;" and Flynn then said, "How mary mer.
want," and Kennedy said, "A couple besides myself," and
said, "All right," and he then had the ashes taken in then
sent korris and 1 roudlock with Kennedy. On the next day
began the work and ^orcoran, the assistant mine manager,
came to assist them in this work. After raie, truck It
became necessary to take down a part of the roof eo as to allm
the motor to pass through without dragging off the coal an
Itr. Long was oalled in to assist in this work. There was as
ten or twelve inches of coal which extended to a feather t
on the face of the slate roof. When they were read; to r<
the coal Corcoran, the assistant mine manager, ns st
of plaintiff's witnesses, examined the roof and found
or soft place in the roof and at that time said 1
like it was going to get good but afterwards ha took d
soft place and then s id it w s all right to go abend
this soft place was taken down the witness says the roof seei
solid and he went to cutting on one side of the sntr
coran on the other, i e says Corcoran showed them ho
wotk by cutting the pole on the side and wedging it d
from time to time during the nrogress of the w irk they t*
the roof and pronounced it solid. Tl.f uiager i
off the part of this roof that was to be taken down,
(4)
lx» •Moa o* tftfl%*iai baa \kbum
, . apxliiad at baaw loiom
ma bOM so.rlq woX ei-U J* ^l.*a9 • *«W ** **°* ** "*•<* ***
bx*a x,tsr.«9.. aiadi daucini 6»ai«q %f&nuw •aim *Mf
I i ;mH it 9A.II aqcda at Jbeoi. «Mi ls^ J'xtaa
".aadaa dil«r qw baXXxl beoi axrf* boa qw bsnr.aXo »d oi
Wat too* r>j Jaaw uo\ lltW ,mid ©* bxaa jusfil
MM y.^»o woH" ,ii»« awU aa\l'i btiM "jaaY* ,bxfla \b9UA*Z
an\l± ban " ,lXaa^m sabxaad alquoo A" ,bxsa *bao«»Ji ban ■ ,*n«w
i n«xsi aada* «4i ted aoxtt ».i bam " , Jdai-x XXA" tbxea
ft j^.jfl 9iii oj .\,bonna.i :U im Jtoolbuoa . bne slno^ *a»«
oeX« .aa^aar.ji aax« *a«4aXaa,a axti ,a«iostoJ baja ataow anJ na^ad
iLonzS edJ ^aieis-i xa*lA ,iao«r aXcU ax «ad* JaXaaa o* auaa
.[« o.; a« oa looi axil lo JiBq a nwab axaJ oJ ^-xaaaaoaa aaa—at
ofu? Xboo adj zlo «ni3d»*ii* iaodfxw dawoid* aaaq oi lotota axtt
j 3 a^w axadT .iiow siai ax iaiaaa oi ax baXXao a«w gaoX .T*
a^ba itaaJf.si a oJ babn^xa daxdw Xaoo lo aadonx arlawi %o fltft
(baa? 913-v y9ui xtaxt£ .loo-i 9i«Xa an4 lo ao*l adJ ao
ia as tiaai5xuia snlw iaaiaxaas *dJ .ujmooio ■ Xaoo art*
be o.iuol bo* loo* ari^ baniauaxa .aaaaaaixw a'llWaxalq lo
I biaa aunii Jad* *a aaa lao* adJ xti aaaXq *loa xo
iooi ad sxrcsvxailB Jud t>oo» ioa oi anxoa a«v ix »UI
.a fcxuj toauia oj oJ td^ti 1L& it-f li ox a xiaxL* Jaoa a«aXq iloa
coot sdJ a^aa aaaxi^xv adi rrwoo nsjLrJ a«r aaslq ^ioa aidi*
xJaa «dJ lo aoia sao ao ytxiiuo oi ixiaw ad baa x>2Ioa
oi> oi wod raadJ bawcde osiooioO a^a a.i ,i*dto tit n* tui«9
iad Jx aniafaaw bno aiiia adi ao aXoq axU &aU3uo y,d allow
to saai^oaq 9xW ijaiiijo axsxi ci tali aoil
i''3i«i.i's,3 b.^ui. -xa^aaaxo axtin a ioa - x basoxiooa'xq ana xcoi axii
Laiaat ,owob aaXsi 9d o* aaw fait loot aid* lo Jiaq adi llo
(»)
about thirty feet. Two of the men worked fr^n the e
two from the west end, working towards each other.
an hour before the accident Corcoran left the pl>c
ere remained at the work and about five minute* before I
cident there waa a pop in the roof and the men bacfc
Kennedy then sounded the roof and said it wan solid
proceeded with the work, ae before, -^nd had completec
of it except about lour feet when the fall occurred.
several tons of the coal and elate fell and caught Kenned;
crushed him to death. Kennedy h-d been at work for the a
for about two years and, as appears from the evidence, i
miner of many years' experience; had been a mine for<
mine in Oklahoma for about five years, and that he had dug c
in Ohio and Alabama, had acted in the capacity of assist'-
manager for the defendant for four or five yearn, had paper:
this state as a rrine examiner and was a practical coal miner
competent to perform the duties of assistant line manager,
to take down top coal and timber entry ways. That durin,
time he had worked for defendant his { eneral business we
layer but during this time he also acted as a>fl
ager for four or five weeks; that he had been engage
up place where there w/is gas to contend with, to create
for an over cast and had been called upon to do
kind of work in the mine, was regarded by tne (nine mana.
competent to perform any kind of dangernur >.ork and
time to time performed for the defendnnt work of this ch
There are numerous errors assigned why this cns<
reversed. It would e^rve no food Dunoat to extend t
into a discussion of more than the one:
Judgment is against the manifest weight ^f the e\
(5)
bsoftwr nM aU
. • i'tijliow ,bna Jaow odi mctt owl
llel OrfJiontoD Inefcxooa erfl rxola ■! iu<
i-nluu agflMfci wXi li/otfs bite aiiow extt #0 baatammt arn
-iqmui aw. mat ban loot »iiJ ni qeq a aaw eaarfl Jn-»bxc>
-..«-.w ii bxas ban loot rutt bebru/os narM ^benna?!
>">J-al rnoo bail tau .atotad ea ,Aow mt* A3 1* bebeeoottq
.beiiuoyr, Ilnl scU nexfw leal tuo'x luocfa icj9X>xo 12 10
i.jueo cmu) lie* sie.Ce brr* laoo aril lo Bii"i iBaWW
i.u=-I .- .am la naecf iwui ^benrra>: .itlneb ©1 axil beJsirro
e »nm taoaebxva aril awxt niKeqqn ma ,bas at.nsv owl li/otfa W*t
t ani/3 « fiaed bni ;»onaxTec|Te ' sib«\, ^nnat to TWli
I 7i«b bjnrt art laxil brut ,«ig»v arxx *wom; lot ataoJialsfO nx •«£■
niaxeae 'to xJZoskv'O aril ak beloa bad ,aau»tfa£A fttte ox
*q bad .Elesv »tx1 10 *xooi tol Ixinbnoiab eril 10I 1*
jiioaiq a esw brta tefixnax* 9atm 0 me niatm
, -f>yuuM snxw a« 1p aaxlub aril ancetteq oi Inelecje**
j 8.1 club lari? .a^»w x*ln» iMhtt^ tma Xaoa qcl mreb «ABi ol
;1 aaar «aanX*c.J fa-tana . exri Ipabnaleb to'1 i>ai(-row bait erf Mtft
toal-sieea *a btOM oela eri ajixl axril snxiufe *«tf *8\:bI
bega^ae aeecf bad md iacLS jatfeew aril \c ttsot tot Tcea*
sJfSio ol ,djxw baalnoo ©1 ca* c»w ataril aiariw eoalo; qu
■l ob oi nocu bellao naetf bari boa laaa tsto ae toI
Tco^snr-n arrim aril %d babia^ai aaw ,anxx ?ci.r at ihow lo bni<
• i bar. Jtio ■ auriaan*b to bni>( v;na motiar el Irraiaqawa
.•jm^ •■>*•. i-iiio nidi to iiot? *n bnolab adl 101 batraoliaa atuxi el «Kil
•jjbo sxili yf<* banBiaaa nont axreiecafa **cp. aiodT
«xni baelxa o* aaetrxjjq boon on arrcaa blaov tl .baaiare-x
> btsv aai J-PifT" :aao ndt nr.&t aiear lo aoxas«aaxb a o#d
".aenablre erii ta lii^iov laelinaar ari.+ tanlm^B ml tnmta^bv^,
m
That the evidence as it appears from the
presented to this court on the forr . llee
produced two additional witnesses Thomas Clayt
The evidence of these two witnesses does not add
the issues in this case and as some of the con
pellant were the same on the former arpeal we
ing language of the former opinion:
■It is contended by Counsel for appellant that hoi ore
there can be a recovery in g cnse of this kind the burden
upon the plaintiff to prove by ■ nrepondernnce of the evi
that the place, appliances meth-xl or thing charged as beint: de-
fective, ie defective, as alleged; that the defendant knew t t* -
of or could have known thereof by the exercise of reasonable
care; that the deceased did not know thereof and did not fcave
dqual means with the defendant of knowing thereof, and the de-
ceased himself was, with reference to the injury, exer^i
reasonable care for his own safety. It is true as contend
counsel for appellee that it is the duty of the Bastes
reasonable care to provide servants with a reaeonable saf
in which to work is a positive obligation,
the negligent perforaance of such duties whether he under
its performance personally or through another. (himrod C
v. Clark, 197 111., 514.) It is charged by this declaration
thit the deceased was plneed in a dangerous place to vori
was known to the defendant or by the exercise of re-
could have been novn to it, Hnd that deceased did not
its dangers and did not have equal meant; with the del'
knowing it. It is true, as appears from the evidence,
the prosecution of the work, a clod fell and killed Jolm
but what was the apparent condition prior to the fall
(6)
i9bir» arfi iflriT
99ll ?*>X9 %lB9qqe i9Brxo\ 9rii no tiuoo airii oi bain9aaTq
noi^aXD aajBoriT aanaanilw Xr.noiiiLbfi owi baouboiq
J\;nr bbr, Jon aaob BaasanJlw owJ »e»j(J lo aonsbiwa srlT
isinoD 9dt lo aaroa an bnm aa/jo airii at sauaax arii
bo aw I-'.9rr-ip Tamrol 9rfJ no aase arii 91 9W innXiaq
rnolniqo Tamrol s.ii lo 9aeu3n.nl anJt
aqe toI laanuo'J ^u~ babnainoo ai il"
rabrucf arii bntjL airii lo aa«o p ni ^xavooat jr 9d nao aTarfi
aonvibivs arf* lo aonmabnoqaTq n \d aroTq oi lliinialq aril noqu
-9b gniatf e» bajyxario gnirii to b^riiam aaansiXqqs %ao*Xq arii JaxU
f VMM ;f.;.rbn*V b adi ^sx(i jbaaaJU* as ,ar iioatab ai ,ariioal
9 id nno^BUt lo aaiOTaxa arii y.d loaTadi ttwoml vwacL bluoo to lo
9T ail bnr loaTadi worut ion bib baajtaoab arfi iarii ,*9Tbo
-afa arii boa .loaiarfJ aniwon* lo ioabaalab adi rfi iw anram Isupm
ioTaxa t\rutn* »rf* oi aonaTalaT riiiw ,tcv llaasiiri baaaao
\d babnsinon «. r auii at il .^al*e xnro aid toI aT«o aXdanoaaaT
•«».' oi «•#•*■ *rfi lo x*«*> »rii ai ii ,ijuii aallaqqa toI Xaanuoo
t^a aXtfenoaaaT a dttw aioavTaa abivoTn ot 9xgo 9l(/jMjoaA9?
sldaXI ai a , .<oii«3iXdo eTiii'Joq a ai xrow oi rioiriw ni
\fbnu ad Tarfiarfw aaiiub rfoua lo aon«/nolTao; inajilaan adi
boiairf) ,T9rfioan d^uotr.t to ^IXsnoeTaq aonxsairolTaq mil
nr grf basTmio si il ( .Mfl ..III VCI ,xr*X0 .t
f* alTow oi ao*Iq a.fo-iajjn.-'b a nl baor.Iq auw bae^aoab aril ipdi
aTdAnosBaT lo asioiaxa adi \d to imtbn9l9b adi oi nworul shv
lo wonif ion bib b9esaoab tacit ban tii oi mron naad avt-rf bluoo
lo tmk 9di dtly* enpsm lAupa avari ion bib bna eTagneb aii
ni ir.rti .aonabiva 9rii oiot! aTaaqqa aa ,auri ai il .tt agAwoml
.^bftnns-f ndoL balliaf bnjn Hal bola a ,arow 9dt lo noiiuoaaoiq adi
risl arii oi ToiTq noiiibnoo JnaTaqqa adi arw ts>dzi tud
(a)
the time the cien were digged at work in taking down
The. evidencp iB overwhelming that prior 1
there engaged at work did from time to time eound the
that it appeared to be solid. The only time that ftny
the roof was shown to exist was prior to the conn the
work, when Corcoran, the assistant mine manager , sounded the
roof and found a soft pla.ee which he removed
place was reuoved the same witness then p->ys the roof bee
solid and continued so up to the time of the fall, ->nd :
the witnesses say that the fall was occasioned by ■ fault in
the slate which could not be seen by any one.
It is contended that ti ere wes a squeeze on in the i ,
near this entry, which made it dangerous. ■• have ey
this record carefully ->nd practically all of the witness^
that the squeese did not extend to this place; that a squee»
iB evidenced by the bulging up of the bottom, or the pressure
upon the pillars, causing them to chip off ■ nd that a ev-
idences were present; and they further say that some f
coal remained upon this roof. One witness testified
thought the aqueeze extended to this entry but on cr
whether
atlon he did not know/ there wan much of an upheaval of t
to« or crushing of the pillars or not, he did not t. it.
The other witnesses aid examine it and s-y that no such
occurred. Iractically all of the witnesses for appellee
appellant who had any knowledge upon this subject s
the time of the removal of the soft spot above referred
Corcoran, th t the roof continued solid. It seems t>
this evidence that any reasonable person would hnve beer,
tified in concluding that the plr.ee in which the rjen were en-
gaged at work, and their manner el erforming it *nf
safe.
(7)
' if, bas^ia 9i»w n»i.: rtdi 9u\ii adi
bloott 9di oi aoiuq iadi aninfadwi «yo si •> onab ira arfT
; .tuoa tali oi 8miJ saorl bib jIiow *a baaayie a*xad*
I MKii \£lno ad? .biloa *»d oJ baaaaqqB Ji iBiii
aatt lo Jn.wsoa^iiics adJ oi aoiiq caw laixa oJ- awe da caw loon siii
, .' a , ia%aasM anxm JnisJaiaeG axti ,aeicoioD asdW ,jfuow
bnw bavooe? »j{ rfaidw aonlq tfloa .« bru/ol baa looi
too* 9di b^kb aad* aaaniiw aiafta adi bavone? aw aoalq
, iLet 9di lo amiJ aj£| oi q« oa baunxinoo bus biloa
j lual a \d bonoiacooo aaw Hal 9di J-cuIJ \aa aaaeartiiw 9di
.ano xn* Xrf naaa »rf Jon bli/oo rfoidw aJsIa 9di
aasaupe a aaw aiadi iadi bsbuoi noo si JI
twarl avcii a':/ .euoia&ciBb Ji afcr-is rfoidw ,^iJna BidJ- taan
•rii lo lis ^IlBOxJo^iq bar- ^Ilulaxao b-xoaa* aid*
•saaupa a iadi ;so Iq eid-J o.t bnsixa ion bib aaseupo s
aauaasiq adJ^ -xo .aoJiocf adi lo qu anialucf add- Y,cf baonsbiva ai
_v?> Eli bn llo .jiifo oJ madi aniauao ,*i >dJ noqw
...a vaaLhufl ^aiiJ bu« ;Juaaa»q aiaw aaaaabi
baxliJiaJ aeaoixw anO ,'xoo-i hIiU uouju bontsiSBi laoo
•jd" \1ta9 aldi oJ aaba^ixa assaxipa 9di Jdai/oii*
t« down BM9T9>n\itonX ion bib ari noiia
.Si ' tion *xo a-xr.XIiq 9di lo ^ixdauio to saoi
ii anxaxaxa bio "jaaaaaix / TtedJo axfT
iol aaaaanJx^ adi lo Ha \LLnolioaii .baiit/ooo
) noqw a^alwoa^ ^a» aed odw Jnnllsqqa
'laalaa yvotfa ioqa Jloa 9di 1c - adJ lo aoij 9dJ
■iaaea JI .biloa bauniiooo loo-x aui J. dd .naioaioL)
a99d avi'rt blue v noaiaq alrffinossai ^ne Jadi aonabiva
adi daxdw ai aoalq 9di iadi a«-ib*/Iono3 nx bailiJ
I 9hv it. aniimoltaq lo Tanna.a -xiadi bna ,a[-iow ia b»a«3
.alaa
(7)
. e Relieve that it appears from this evidenr
defendant's representatives -ind the deceased both believer1 I
place at v/hich they wore engaged at v/ork to be re
-.nd that it if not made to appear that there w?f »nj raai
the representatives of the defendants could have believed
erwiee. They, as well ;>:? o the re that ».orked vith then -.nd the
deceased, applied the usual test for determining ite p-iety, t
we think sincerely came to the conclusion that it Wi
work under, '.e think tiiat John Kennedy was a man of azperii
and that he had as much opportunity to know the eonditioi
whether they were reasonably safe or not ac the defc,
managers. It in fact appears from the recrrd ti-rt about
minute 8 before the fall came the defendant's manager had
to some other part of the mine and that in the meantime there
was a pop in the roof which caused the an to jump hash,
then
John Kennedy/tested the roof -nd proceeded with the work. It
certainly looks ar if hie apporta&itiea were as good ar- a tj
to know the real conditions of that roof; and if this be true
then under the doctrine l-.id down by cur supreme court i
but
only-necessary to prove thr t tha place vaa defective/Icy
.r.tiff must also prove that he -id not fcnow of the defect
had not equal means of knowing with the master. (lion1
Coal Co. v. .Harrir.gcr, ?18 111. ,5 '7; Goldie v. tenter, 151 1]
551.) Cns of the witnersee who helped to remove the
the injury says the slate was hnxd, that they had tc take a
sledge to break it up and this confirms the statement
witnesses that it appeared solid in the roof, ano
probably came from the f.ult in the sl^te which war
from every ^ne.
It is contended, however, by aounee] fox e,
(8)
actsbiva nidi noil -• jvailetf
»r\ 5»aat>o» ip aoriJ.sJnaaa'xqs'r a'Jnnbnslab
!"t:n9i acf oJ jtio* J-r ba^sna aiow ^o^* «f»iihr Jo ec
s^sir aia-fJ tsyiJ Tt.«©.?rq oi »b *i .tedJ but,
;arailstf srr'ri btueo ahi-bnalab sdJ lo wvrtininnartTi.ii arfJ
bmliOTt ft*dt aiaiiJ-o ^h Haw a.e ,Y»l{"' . aaiwra
, .ircrroJab tnt JaaJ Lnuau aiW bet£qq& ,baa#*>aab
•/ it intfi noiaufonoa odi ot a In intrii tm
■Mi n a«w \;baana?l MM .*iabnu tfiow
o 9i"W wcrd oJ \i tnut toqqo Aouut ae bnri
; to a lea xLd*nor -at at aw %9Cit tadiadw
\tii toil «t- xsl ni J- 1 ,«y>BnRi
aw a&snjsin t'Jiii'b^olsb anJ aoi^-o ILal dirt atolao' as^c
aiorlJ »rarJnsaGi a AS ai J xtffct bna onia arfj io Jinn larfJo araoo oi
batua© rfoxlw loot adJ ni qoq n 8sw
N babaaootq bn« tool ariJ baJtsbJVtbannaX arfot
ano i^rus o* i stow aoiJxnuJTOoi.TO airi ti M alool ^roWtOT
auiJ- ao aiiiJ . tj lo anoiJlbnoo lean srfJ wotuf oJ
B vcf rtwob bi • . toob an.J aobnu ftMtf
Jud
xJii\aviJn*'iab t.^c ao^I-j ariJ JmiJ aroiq oc? xi.oaaaoan-'^Hhi
tob ariJ lo woe* Jon bi*^ Mf JsaJ arotq o»I« Jawa llitnlftlq
no •) .TaJaem afl c onK \o aKseci laupa Jon bail
;\ *• siblea ;V 5..XII SIS .tsg.-ixvx**. .v .oO i*o3
taJl ;>Toa3aT oJ baqladi o-*far aaaaanJiw aafJ lo anO (.153
' J*dJ ,b*r,d sjbw ©J»J»a ariJ 9\bq t^rutni ariJ
M JuamaJKJa msU aarxilnoo eiriJ has qw it iLuand oJ a^bala
Mu ,loot ariJ nl biloe bai I i JbcCJ aeaaanJtw
Jbs -5.SW riol;{iar aJ»?Ia sf(^ ni JIu«l ariJ aiotl »b»o \;I<f*d
.affc ^lara motl
,l Jfianuoo xd «iavawori ,babnaJnoo ai tl
(8)
deceased was taken In i.i? usual work and w;
eng'<ced at work under a specific order civen by the dej i
'ach count of the declaration -lieges that the d
taken from his usual work; charges tha t tic defendant kne
such d- ngerous condition or could have known thereol
ercise of reasonable care, >nd that the plaintiff's inte
did not know the dangers and did not have equal ,.ieane v .
defendant of knowing thereof, which, as we understand the lsw,
it wae necessary for the plaintiff to alleg«.to entitli
recover. Viggins 1'erry Co. v. Hill, 112 111., App. 47E>.
we have before observed, the appellee has failed to prsl
of the material averments above set forth but aside fi
we do not believe that the principle invoked by him is aplicbl c
to the facte in this case. The deceased was shown b;
derice to be a capable man, one of many years er^erienco !
ing, having had several years' experience as mine for? ,
experienced in taking down and removing coal - nd slat* f: the
roof of a mine, had been engaged in track laying ^hd had in
fact, in this mine, pursued to nm extent each ne of t
particular occupations and was reliedupon and usee for
that purpose on account of his skill to care lor
gerous places in a mine. The mere fact tfeat he had, on
previous, been engrged in the particular bueinese of tr (
ing and was taken from that work and placed at ^ work
understood, h->d heretofore yeriormed. nd wac e>- eriencpc
knew about, would not bring him within the rule
transferred from his regular busineen to a T>ork t
no acquaintance. It is the fact of the serv nt bein(
a work with which he und no acquaintance, concer
not informed, that the burden is caet up or th« • etf
(9)
a ar.w bn.~ :fiow L'-.i/su mm bsB.sosb
^Cf fl9TX3 I'^btn oi'txos :nu >tlOV.
axv iJ- i suii io»b 9di 1o Jnuoo 4ff£
j 1 f,nat9b m a9j»,Tj"irio jaftow Xbijbjj ax . naXsi
-xs tosnarti rnron:*' svcif bluro ic neiixbnoo aiicia^r
»J-',ijR*J-ni a'V ,o aXJon 531019
In up a <itr.i' ion bib bnp siq-jabJo adj wonat ion Jbifc
au 9W se ,ris , jaaxii gniwoni to ioi5t>n9tafc
I oi*aa.r talg 9di lot ^ifiiwoua a*w ii
. ' r- .-f ,«XIX SIX ,: .oJ \.-ii9i aniaai / .istoosi
oi b»fi"l a rf ssXXagqi? 9di ,b»vx«atfo 910 tad s>vad aw
at • ■ -k iaa orodn a*n»mi9T« lat\*4am sdt to
f bsiovnl sLalopifla 9ii3 iatit 9V9iX9{J ion ob aw
f nwoda er-v b98B999b axfT . 98B9 aiiii ni aio*t 9di oi
isiia^xa atB9^ y,aux. to ano ,0cm aXdaqso b ad oi aonab
, :o'l aain en aonsiiagxa ' aiaa^ Xr.isvaa barf yrivsd ,j§nt
Xaoo gnivonfli bits iwob ^nxini ax bsonati
n: x4 nx b9j}?ana n99d bis.i ,9nx.a b to looi
Ma inaixs srnoa oi bauaiuq , antra aixii ni ,$o&1
,■"■- bj noqvbax.X9i asvr bna anoiiBquoDo isXuoiiiBij
■tox mbo oi XXxate a til to inuooOB no aaoqauq 3*rtt
, • •/ ^-t9m aiXT .aniiH a ni aa< 0193
1 T-sarrtaucf TaXiJOiiTsq 9xii at baa^n.) nasd ,auoir9iq
allow iniU moil ti9X.si 8aw bns ant
1 ba baoio'iiaq 5io'ioi9*rad bm %booiai9bnu
tiao aXxii adi nxdiiw mtd aniid io. %iuoda wanal
i allow s oi =Ja9fliaud i!-Xujj9T aid moit baii9tanaii
. - ■ ■ /\a 9xii to iaai 9di at it ,90nainiF xpox< on
at 9 3nini9onoo .aonrinxBupOs on br.i »d dl tw allow a
TrtlM arfi noqu ia«o ■! nabiurf 9xii i xsdi .baarxoini ion
(e)
he i b not exposed t~* dangers unknown to him. e
are that the deceased was as well acquainted with the
which he waB engaged as the assistant her
■person employed in this work at that tine. It was at
for the plaintiff to allege and ^rove that th
gently given and to noke it ■ Mgligent order it r?ap nee-
to prove that the place to which the servant was sent t
the work or the manner of its nerfemance was not rcr
safe and that the I'pster knew it W could have known it. : t is
said in the case of Sw**rs-z vs. Illinois liteel Co., 131 111.,'
'The ispue on trinl was the negligence of the def endant .
was essential to the plaintiff's case thr. t the oro>r nhr
been negligently given. It was necesn»ry to -rove that the
defendant knew, or by the exercise of reasonable carr iove
known, of the danger."
The evidence in this case having been twice examined
this court we again reach the conclusion that the verdict of the
jury is against the nianifest weight ^f the evidence. That
deceased's knowledge of conditions rmd the dangers was eqi
if not superior to that of appellant, if so his reoreser>t.i tive
could not recover. That the place at the time of the set
was reasonably safe, if so he could not recover. That tie
was
er m civen/a general order and not a direct spweifii
do work in a particular manner, and if a general order it
not relieve deceased of the assunrntion of risk. (Hn1
frey, 259 111., 378.) The deceased assumed the ri?k incurred
by obedience to a negligent order i the master when
was to him as apparent open and understood as it is to
ter who gives the order. (Swiercz vs. 111. Stsel Co.,
456.)
(10)
ni i'trw arfi d) In b9i, Cfsw rb a«w b9iR909b 9tii i*rii 91.r
nMtt jnBialaas 9rii bb b9&sj&fi9 asw «!•' rioldw
T is aftow alrfi nl b9\oIrrm9 noaiaq
MV i»bi^ ■ »vot - bfi* 939.EIB oi lliirirl-f 9rfi tol
*;°f*o»n "iBW Ji fv-bvo inaallaa* a Ji 9inm oi beus asvir^ Y.Iin9i
9i in9a bbw J-nerisa arii Aoltiw oi eOBlrr »dt tartf •vo'iq •*
9i Jon saw 99ftJsrrrol-t9q ail lo iann*o 9dt 10 :rf*iow »rfi
?1 jA. .Jc nrrontf 9r«ri bluoo it, it mstri tmtn/i'l arfi tntU bam alaa
I I5l,.oJ l99,f< itoailil .mv svvfttwi lo aaao arfi nl Jbi*«
^b 9di lo 9on9»i£.^»n arfi «bw tmk%i re 9»jaal •riT'
19^-ro 9rfi *«li 9«*9 ■ •lllinlB.Eq »dJ oi J>iin9R89 saw
9rfi i-rii ami nj ^tjiH8909n saw J I .rrSTijj x-f*H»3^^S»« n9»d
srnrf iri^im ai«o 9 Cdiinnajasi lo 98loi9X9 arit x<? 10 ,iramf inabnalab
".-ieanab 9rfi lo ,nwocnf
tax* 90iwi rt99cf sclvsii 98 no »tdS at 9onsblv9 arfT
9rfi I-- iot^iar 9rti iaiii nolaulonoo 9rfi riossi ntn^m aw iiuoo alrfi
ifirf? ,90n9blV9 9-iJ In *flql«W ieallfl#IH 9CiS iBCXtB^B «1 \
■r -9 arw aia^/iab 9dt bnn anoiilbftco lo asbalwomf a*baer,9oab
9vlifiin989,x<79,x Bid OS 11 ,f ■■ flMijaj ** Sndi oi loii9qua ion 11
t lo anrli 9rii i« •o«I<t 9rfi iariT .19T0091 ton bliioo
Wft J r._'(T .19T0991 ion bftfOO 9X1 OS 11 (9ls« Y.Icffln05B91 8«W
BBW
-)I)io ollloarre iosilb a ion bn* tabio lBt»n9^ aVrsTia an *a
bit #1 i«ibio I^-x9fTS3 s 11 brw ,i9nn*ai i t b nl tfiow ob
-laT.. (#«V) .rtuli lo nolirtBuaexj srfi lo b9a«909b 9T9il9i toa
b9«rii/onl i«li 9dS b9fflua«« bBBB999i> ariT (.8VC ,.III CdH ,y»^1
191/inb 9f(i n9riw teiBHrn 9dS 1^ i9bin Jn9^il39n 0 oi sonalbatfo ytf
.- t oi al ti ac booiai^bnu bn« n9co in9iBqqB as otlxf oi nam
201*1*12) ,19blO 9rfi 89Ti3 OXlW 18i
(01)
It is not pretendedthat there was any danger latent
parent for either matter or servant at or near this place, ex-
cept the evidence that some years nrior thereto there bad b<
squeeze all trace of which and dnager therefrom had been re-
moved long prior to time of accident. It is n^t ol aimed
deceased did not have the knowledge, experienc* r.y to
know and did know all that a reasonably prudent ir.an could Juanr.'
know of the eafety of the pluce. This being the condition of
this record it would certainly not be in accord with justice
oermit a verdict nd judgment entered upon this state of I
to stand; notwithstanding, the rrgument of appellee that le-
eause twenty-four raen have passed upon the s-ime state of iocl?
and reached the same conclusion by setting their finding nside
the jury system becomes a failure.
We will trert this as an appeal to give the verdict of
juries and judf.-nente of the trial courts the consideration and
presumptions they are entitled to under the law, because coun-
sel for appellee would not want any other construction put upon
it.
The duty and responsibility now imposed upon this eourt ir
that notwithstanding there is evidence in the record tendir.<
support the verdicts in favor of appellee, yet it is the d..
of this court to review questions of f"Ct and to reverse a
judgment based upon the verdiot of the jury when v a
eration of the evidence, it finds such verdict cle«»ly n,
the manifest weight of the evidence. Thic has been the law so
long that it is undisputed. (I.C.R.K.Co. vs. Hecker,!"^
Harvey vs. LcCiuirk, 168 App., 390.)
The facts in this c se will never appear different,
trial would serve no good purpose, labor and expense t
ies and counsel wi tb the Bame result, fchen these are t
(11)
iTodi iatiibibrfianq ion ai
VT)8 TO 10*8«&I IStfiJxi. >t«i
•raclJ- ir.titj axe»x, •fltoe Jarf* aanebxro s-'ii lq*o
r' Ko-ii.*iartf taaBnh boa rfaxitw to •« ss»sup«
is lo sax J o >ioI bar*ar
■nmtiix^w ,tgtefmni a*U av«r( io,<
, icfancaasa « la vorat bUb
• eHj jncflo axtfT . soaiq aitt lo x^ < *o «MBf
'^op nt «o" Jon «;Iai«J*ao bluow Jx b?oD»i ■tdi
■1 ru twxaJ-na Jrwafi&fci. :jxbi»r s J tuawn
■ i of>££»qqm 1© Jaamtai- arii ,sni ton oi«it#tw#'o ft ;tome*» c.(
ai >.ri to ***** ancsa art* noqu battaaq TmA mm »K>i--\£fnaw# till
sb: "'i« x* ■»l»ii Pfl a-'-f fcartOBST ton*
£lfll a Q«H09«tf «a- -
=>qq* its an aid* tafzt Htvr »Mf
.. . -rabxaneo id* 8/iuoo i>£«r;f axti 1 •,.JiT»ar»i)ut bxta as:
,w*I arfj i&bnu od- baU I Via/lJ anoUcBJBMMR;
iSouttsaco :a Jnaw toa toltrow »*II&qq# *ol lee
.tl
Tiuoo axrij- noqx/ baaocuax won Y-t-ilio^noqaeTt *>afl Y.*«b 8>1™
!i-ioosr a...- ni aonatoivs ax aMriV jHllWMMift xwj-on tmH
$mt .aaULaqq* lo tov-rx fix sjax^xav «U tvaqifM
*tiol$e*snu *9tw»Ti ot J"x«co axxli lo
-tor ;«fV mtiv r^r a* *•!&»•» »xL' noqxi h_.er>cf Srmts&kvl
tMr rtoiM* =»bnx* #i ta*naJaiT« exfj lo noxJnTe
naacf oarf alrfT .eonabxva art lo *rfj$x»w iaalinr-ar ariJ
• 'oarf .9v . "ptiftAV ax #x .t*rtf 10*1
, {t1u9on .ev v>WK
•iV9n flxw as„o axxW ni a*o*l aiflP
oi aanaqxa bn« lodijl ,95 0qi;;| boofc on arias bTxiow JaiX
HU ana aaa/tt naxiw .iLuzax aaiaa art"-' tfi £-•* laanuoo tona aax
(IX)
and the condition sf tr.ir record the duty of this court
said in the case of the Illinois Dteel C . ▼«. j.ennall, !. ,
83, "If the finding of the Jury be without any support whi j%
or if it be contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, in
either case the duty of this court la to eo d eel re and I
nside a judgment based upon such a findirH .' iting ny esses
r.'here the Bss/VSM Court so held when it reviewed questions oi
facts.
A second verdict based upon eubstnntially the snme evi-
dence will be set aside as against the evidence and ■ final
judgment rendered in favor of adverse party where the evidence
does not support the judgment of the lower eourt. (Harver vs.
ctiuirk, 168 App., 39.)
The mere fact that a jury have passed upon questions of
fact can not irbsolve this c^urt from determining whether or not
the verdict is justified by the evidence. (l.C.R.K.Co.
Cunningham, 102 App., 206.)
The judgnent will therefor* be reversed.
_ hevereed.
Finding of fact to be incorporated in the record: l
find, First: That appellee's intestate was not at the ti
the accident acting under ■ negligent order of m\
Second: Th«t the conditions of safe or unsafe plaee to
work at the plnce where aocident happened were >r well
to appellee's intestate a? to appellant.
. MHitth.
(l"ot to be reported in full.)
(12)
iiuoo axrfJ to \$ub silt inoosi noo axU baa
... . ■ I''i" ~i ■ -i. T '. j,? to a;:1) -;. ' nx fci.ua
>J*xfw Jaoqcpra vit* txroxtjxw »cf ^rri/t octt xo gnibail 9&S W"
, ; ibivb 9 ftf to trfjirsw i"i9txnija adt ol xpsztnoo acf Jx 't'.
Ss» oS btus &ip£09b 03 oi ux 1-suoo *±tiJ" lo x^**6 9rf* »aaO ia4|Mp
eea*'-.' ,tx*xj it j« xiDua noqxr baa-ncT j .0 9fc.ia*8
■ .- oup banralvat Jx aorfw bi*9ii oa JtujoD ss'; .' aaaxlw
. a J o/j'i
-xvs f».ifia 0 scfus noqjj ! aexjcf Joxb-tov fcnooaa A
• 99n9bxv9 3rfJ Janx-nae ijs ablajs *sa erf II.hr *on5b
i a-iaxi- o«ir*vb£ lo lov&l ni baio^noT ifnaa^bur.
.av : a ♦Toc:!r-;e jrn aaob
( .£C . .q<jA 801 ,3fxi
lOOi#M0p noqtr baae«q avrri x^tri. *> ^BrfJ ^orl ai»E OiiT
to isri^ariw anxntarrai'ab .-soil Jtxioo exxto ayloarfw #( ^obi
.0.1) .3onobxv9 axf* ^d fcoxIxJax/t ax tolb-zav *i&
(.dOS , .cjqA SOI ,ttiGj:3iixnnu..>
.baaiavaT acf #roi9ri9ftt ffiw Jnanabut »^T
:b*t0 99T 91U nx b9jri? i>(i 0-tf Josl So anxbnxl
ton BBW 9i •>*r>9-f .■ i S'99Xl9qqe tf-Sft? Z^BTXl #fcnx1
.J-nr ri9qcrjB 1c ?9lrxo Jnsai , Lior. iaobLoaa *dt
ot »MXq elxtarru to 9*n8 So arrcxJxbnoo sxtt JjbxC :fca05+£
....
cnrofl rum b9n ^bxoc* siarfir ooslq 9ilS Sa jftov
OJ S.I 9i »tB9tni 9*i ■ ■'• Qi
(.Ilui nx b»J-aoq9i 9«f ocf faM)
/, A. C. MILLSPAUGH, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of the
State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true copv of the OPINION of the said
Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in mo office.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set mv hand and affixed the seal of said Court
at Ml Vernon, this J&&2 dar o, Jule.
adi"" a.<L., . . .
Clerk of the Appellate Court
o
2
o
Opinion of the Appellate Court
AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at Mt. Vernon, Illirii is, on the Fourth Tuesday
in the month of March in the pear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fourteen, the same
being the 24th dug of March, in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fourteen.
Present:
Hon. Harry Highee, Presiding Justice.
Hon. James C. McBride, Justice.
Hon. Thos. M. Harris, Justice.
A. C. MILLSPAUGH. Clerk. t. S PA YXE. Sheriff
And afterwards in Vacation, after said March term, to-tvit: On the ■ due
ofJalu, A. D. 1914, there was filed in the office of the Clerk of said Court at Mt. I'ernon. Illinois, an
OPINION in the words and figures following:
)
st
AHPEAL FROM
No.
March Term, 191 I.
3^£^fi~Ao
1$8I.A.377
'Jr.
COURT
Ar^L^r^r [^ c COUN
FY
Hon.
TRIAL JUDGE
Term Ko. 58. .
March Terra, A. £>. 1914.
Clay Jfrecbett, Administrator of the )
Estate of Lewie v.'. Johnston, de- )
ceased, )
Appellee, )
Cirei i t Co •••■
j
Illinois Central Railroad Company,
Appellant. )
188I.A. S'7*'
Opinion by Harrie.J.
This is a suit brought by appellee against r
wrongfully oausing the denth of Lewis . Johnston.
The declaration filed and ■»— which the trlai wt:-
sisted of five counts, the formal parts of each count beinf xu-
practioally the same and alleging: That on the ?6tto day of
January, 1915, in the life tine of Lewis • . Johnston appall
was the owner, operating and using a certMn railroad sxte
through county aforesaid and tnrough the village of Hi ,
densely populated portion of Srid county, sai being sue'
appellant then and there drove a certri n locomotive en
train of c<rs thereto attached up to, upon sai ncrops- a tr
xed way in said village and appellee's intestate vrae tr t
along and upon s-id travelled way from his pi ce of bualnesi
the east side of eaid village to t.is pIicp i eidence —
west -d±*e, exercising due care lor bis owe safety,
by its serv nta run said train at s hit erous r
spesd, m 45 miles per hour through said village, no bell »*
whistle being sounded ->n s^id I >c -motive, aw •'-)-
burning although it was d- rk, and that anpellee'e intestate to*
struck and inetuitly killed. That Lewis . Johnston
•tving fcx a widow, son, two daughter?5 ^n<i n f : <-r as
.06 .0(1 an»T
•ftifj ,fl .A ,arx»T doMJ4
{ artt lo ToJuijBiiiJtoibA.JJarias'xi
.9b .rcoJanxiot .'«'. alW9 I to 9*.«*«1
i,baaaaa
.soils
. I
.
.^laqnioD b*oiIiBH Ijsn*naD axonxIH
.^rusIIaqgA
t ft ft r
«£-i#i C/ KJ JL tltihMl x^ noxnxqO
Janiisas aaXXoqqa | iua a ax axrfT
. axwai lo rfj«ab 9iU sniaui50 icllulanoiw
•7 noqu bna balxl noxJaiaioab ariT
-juo( B»"»i«tf I <8 "*° **i*q I^iffiol arW ,e*nuoo avix lo baJsxa
io ^s%b J no tutn :anxaall» bam •nam axtt TcIInoxJoaiq
;icianrloL . axwal lo patt alii arii nx ,Z£Q1 ,^xaun«T.
:9 bao-ilxmc nic^iao jb a01*" bna gnlifliaqo tionwo arii aaw*
9;v?Iixv aiii rfawort/li baB blsaatola xttwoo O^uctdi
,19 m snlod bn>- ,^nwo9 bi'ta lo noxJ*oq baifsluqoq x^aanab
•,Ji93 f avotb ai9Jtli boa narii 3nell9qq*
wnf & ■ , qu fesri >uefW a*<-o lo nlBit
4 InaJnx «'9aIl9Tq« bnjp 9-abLHv btse at \,bw bat
lit 99- lo axrf fflroil x*w b9* ^ x * - e nor.u one anoI«
•btmti lo so o* agalliv bias lo able Jaaa art*
, C^al*a iwc eiii aol aiao aob snlalotaxa ,-«±b- Jaaw
M « *a nxm* bxaa nine a^nriaa a*x ^rf
Clacf on ,93a! fir blna li^uoiiit lucci r»q aalxm £* *»••*«
-bfipti on ban ,av: bine no babni/oa a«**
aaw aiPii?a*ni s'aallaqqa SbsU bna ,rfi«b atswr it d^uoAS
ol nnJs" c . i . ballxrf y^"**'*1*
a« *a*i{3;jRb-bn/*3 a bna aia*flauab owi tnoa ,wobxw f
his heirs at law and next of ki*;, who are still livir,
have "been deprived of their ctnni of support ^nd cducati
the damage of appellee as administrator of 10,000.00.
consideration of this case it will become necessary to refer
to the different counts of this declaration, and they ar<
tinguished as follows:
First count sim ly charges negligence in the handli-
train run at excess! re rate of speed, without bell or whittle
being sounded and without ■ he-<d lif-ht -nd it dark.
Secona count and the count under which apnell r.nt was
found guilty charges that the railroad of app el last crossed
a certain traveled way in said village used by the uolic
crosFing for edestrians at a point a ehnrt distance Berth of
passenger station at Ullin and had been so used for 15 jn
and as deceased was traveling as heretofore mentioned
by its servants as heretofore mentioned dro-ve a certain I
toward the traveled way and *hile. deceased was rightfully tr v
eling upon said traveled way appellant wilfully, wantonly
negligently drore sjsi managed said trrin in thai the loc
tive was without a headlight although dark and was run at -
reckless and dangerous speed in Villa, to-wit: 4t dies er
hour, and no bell or whistle sounded and that *7/ltl rough the ss
c-relessness, wantonness and wilful negligence Johnston was
killed.
Third count charges the traveled way was used by tl I
lie by and with the consent, -equiesaence -rnd invit- i
appellant in other respects sir.il ir to first count.
The fourth count charges a public highway to be t
whan Johnston was killed - nd negligent operation as ir iirrt
count.
The fifth count also ehaxgei a public f>J
(2)
llti* »i£ , : to txsn beta vb£ t» zitt.L Bid
itcqqi** to ftufea TiarfJ lo b9Ti*i<-r9b n99cf srnri
'.000,01*. to loJasJexniinba bb 99ils<\qM to a^asus* »rl^
it saao aid* to itoxJ^-rabxarioo
::Io»b siitt to iJnuoo ;h-9T9ttxb ndi nt
:9wo£iot as barfs iuani*
Bad 9A3 nx sori93iIa#B aaaiaxfa vL> mim #nwf"
- KMt4ltJV ,b»«cr« to 8*H1 t5VX*n99X9 *J3 flX/l flXSlJ
.sfisb Jx ban tM%li br«*d i JuorWiw bits *9bnoo« anistf
8SV Tsforrii inuo9 9d* bftA Jnuoo fcnoaaS
ba tlttffB lo bsoTlte-i a.t* JadJ «9i**ario t***wS bnoot
M yd MM 9gPlfiv Ms* ni ^nr fL&rMii IsSise a
%i*tb tioria a tntoq a te aamM artisans
San oa ne ©a' bad bn i* -zv^ntiwimmtr
> -j-* ^i9aox+n9a[ 9^^toi9ic<rl as ^jtixIsvb^ saw bae^aoab aa tea
i»o a arotb Jb*xiei*rj9« atoleJsTarf *a B*a*v*aa eii yd
Mai* a*« b»ss9J9b arid ons ^pw bal^varr* 9di binwct
•qpaji %0m balav*?* bias nocru anils
i basanaai Inn wvorb \.tSs:9^tt§0t
IMA dinortl fa Jrtai .rbsarf a iMflMw aaw srli
tm <J* :Jtw-c* .ai.rii aj b09tf* euoT93n*b ham assists*?
«a • '■dtyt* '«d* *«a baarttfca 9l#axrf# to flsd on Jbn* ,iy^if
--, . ;- i •-. ;■ .-.■ >.,-,.: | aj |g . - j ajaj ajaja>i -x -••
[fhf
sa« aar v*w balsv*»ti tajaV aa^usda <—»» avfiff
iO>na»a9(:upo« ,Jn»af»oo »<U rf.-f xv brt.« x^ 3t-f
v xadJo nJl iflslfsqrcpi
,.jMrdai,d - ^a^terfe MMa-a riivrot adT
-fli^ *«»" awMMtol aiada
^waa xrtu no xf^tit axffr
(S)
give statutory signals. *pp«3
the plea of not guilty nnd upon trial of the issues so joined
by a jury a verdict **■ returned findi 111
charged in eecond count of the declare ti^- ixing appellee's
damages at sum of $0000.00, lotion for new trial overri;
Judgment entered and this appeal.
The facts in this caee practically undisputed are tl
the 25th day of January, 1913, appellant* a railroad extended
through the village of Ullin, a town of from 900 to 1000
lation from the north to the south and about the center oi
village north and south was appellant's depot on the east side
of the tracks fronting west towards its tracks, the track next
to depot known as north bound track, second track from depot
south bound trac' , third trac from depot passing track, -*nd
fourth track from de;;ot h«mse track. There is no street ncrose
right of way east rnd west nearer than 250 feet south of depot
and another street 250 feet south of this one.
That immediately west of .:ouse track sad extending south
p»st the northwest corner of depot is a cattle nen; on
right of way of appellant immediately north -if cattle c t
about 25 feet north of depot is ■ cinder walk frors rtreet
ning north and south; on west side of right of vay ond axt< ,xje-
ing east on right of way to west side of passing tr-ck.
cindere to build this walk were furnished by appellant
structed under direction of city "uthorities sevenl yore ~.^o
and usedpince bjr pedestrians. Immediately north of tr.ir cindei
walk is a coal shed, the walk or tmveled way** described in
declarntion Is between the coal shed r-nd cattle 'en on right of
way of appellant. There wac no filling in between r"ilv
(3)
.: * luiuis ayxa
fcc aauaax aai lo Lett.. ,
: . s% ia* rXsoae axuJj;xx Lv . a iPPtbVS?
i'i i>cu: ncl-BXi:Jo»fc axtt lo tnuc o buooaa ax xjaaxaxio
,i> an aoi no .Wo .Oc.cooa J*
>iqz mid) baa boistns tat
no tstdt exe fc<: u ^IXaoxio^a.: aoua ai*il ox aioul axtT
baiviaJxa o«oTli*^ a ' *a« flaquja ,&LQ1 ,\.xpuxwii lo v*» ^*?|Jd
006 etoxt lo nwoJ a .nxIXU lo o&>£llv AffaASntt
Jiuoa axiJ- oi xfcfxoa axtf <ao'x
afixa *ax;9 s aew xUuoa Jans fiviea ajjjBlixv
ij ejx bJmujwoJ Jaaw :: aaloa-W »xLt lo
-. : loaxi -'.002 .jIojstJ zm:jo~.' a.^icxx a^ awoai ioqaJ oJ
.ioaxJ *oq»o xrtoxl . oRit tntxii , oxrx;
; rcJ a on ax 3. " . ->Bit 9BUijd Jo 06 xnoTl tfaeaJ rixt-ixjol
^0 ct*u#4 J-^a'x OC" at\d& ia?.RBn «*aaw i>n.n *ajio \&aw lo Ja^i?
aixtt lo xttooa t.»o't 0<2S J-»aiJi larUons one
tUuoa anionaixa im* &o*xt •auoa lo *bbw ^fsj\ax;.ainaix JxwfT
1: xajr&oa JaawxitToa axtt *e»q
ana altfc. 10 ^n« l^A^p^jl
-nx>~ .rsaiia jbotcI jIIbw xabxsio a ax Jo^ai.
-^fv^v.: xa o« • \.** lo Jxiaix lo ax>xa Issw no ;n\t.'o* Jbn
■50x3 Ism oi \am lo ^xtaix ao Jax>s ^nx
I oof. *njjll»oqo <£d csdaxntjjl aiaw XJaw ax*!* ol'xud oJ- ax&bnio
03* ***e^ Xnxaraa »»Wi'x ... . : v'io *° coWoaxxb xai snla
Tab n v.Io^a.xaactiai . iasxa^aabaq %d aanxybosu i>n*
acfxToaax* aax^w ha I 0 j£I/jw axU ,fcada Xaoo * ax aCXaa7
r naq aUJao fcru? barto l&oo ntit nsa^Jai ai noxiailoab
jwtfat/ ii. ii on a«w atoxi ,/naf f»Mi lo xp*
(O
ing track, switch or south bound track, between
north bound tr cko extending north Iron de ot to o poaite
cinder path, appellant had constructed a board platform.
T/e passing track was used lor stori g care ^nd ti -is c.
er atb was frequently blocked with such oars. It wap i
opened up by appellant at request of auti oritiee. There were
cars standing upon it at the time of the sccident and fo
opening at that time a person crossing would travel about two
car' 8 length south.
Three freight trains going south passed through ^11 in on
the morning in question between five and seven o'clock, the
first two through freight the first at about 6:80 and the (sec-
ond 6:30, and the third a train handling dead freight 6: 4 o, and
a train going north at 6:30.
The deceased Johnston on the isorni g in question, i
60 years of age, living about 50 feet northwest from dt. ot at
about 5:30 left his residence with lontern to go to .v is place
of business on the enst side of the track to nake firee
up steam. Eis usual way was across right of way over cinder
path and by depot. That a6ide from tht lee- of an eye i.e v-
etrong healthy man for his vears "nd Lad as member? oi I .
ily at the time a widow, one pon, one daughter, ai ,
ore daughter arried, wife of appellee, and one grand c
lis business was operating a hoop factory from which busineee
he had an income of about $1,0 C. 00 per year.
It is the contention -f appellee that deceased was kil let-
by the first freight train going pouti
of engineer hriggs. The witneeses differ as to the ti e
train went through and the time Johnston war lound lyinj
west ride of the south bound traok from eight to twenty- f Its
(4)
j Jos nsaarjatf ,al9BTt bm/oa* ciiuvt 10 tfotflwc ,^0;<iJ jjni
0 rob noil it^ion ^nibns^xo nlOril bnuorf rfilon
baJouiir. #hBJf9. iq tabnio
■)9U a*w jtbanJ anifeaq t
■ saw *I .aiJBO rfoua iii t* baXooJtf \;Ii^9up9Tl a.«nr dfe 19
eiew *i .••i#lTOilliui lo ^.asfXatrq* X0* <**» »•«•<(■
u ^rlbflB^a aiao
ov blucm arsiaaoio nonaq a »3ii* J*ui* *r, antxraqo
.riiu-st it* ana I
9iij ,2fo it rraawtfstf noiJaaup rri aniri-roB 9di
-099 mdi b'tp, 08:fc it wrt Jaiil
&rus,<2fr:S JrtaJtail fee** aniJbiiBri fila-xi b bic.tt 91U has t05:d bno
fion aaloa bIbtS r
3ii nc no^e-rfo'. baaoaaafe arff
■*!) .soil ittwwiiticn J9al fa anlvil ,ejc lo siaa^ 08
aonjq al i oJ oa o;f mcsJaRl rtttw sonafelae* aid tti>£ 0€:<2 Juocfa
iag afela Js<,9 arf* no aaanlautf lo
i»vo ^aa .saeu ti
r arf *«. -nU moil 9bla* Jad? .Jo 79b \6 ban tthtq
•tacfKOGI 8*? 9TB»Y 9t(i 101 B8flJ ^rf*I««il gOVXi 8
' : ,;nu ,\c i .nor? arro ,*»ro oi ,-
,oaIC©qq« lo f>lia ,l*£nfeai T*4a%M»fe ano
• oorf a anlJ'-taqo fjbw aHaniaucf at
Jwod* lo ei^oortx ae bad ari
*4i a I *I
j tfrtalail Jaiil 9ii* \d
mi oJ s* T9ilife aaan9fl*.t'rf arfT .aaaiiii isanl-jns lo
97 1 la ijoil jfoaTJ brtijoa' diuom aril lo abia Jaaw
feet south of cinder path. I ome of the witnersef alee it as
early as 5:30 and soi.e ae late as 6:3' . . • i
controverted question of fact toeing the tir.e and t>>e train that
> it him. The evidence tending to ->rove ne, the op-
eration of theee traine is as to the first ;:rair.
Ullin as testified to by train dispatcher at 6:20. The verd-
iot in this case is b- sed upon the second count of the declar-
ation and the jury in effect have toy the s^me verdict four.d ap-
pellant not guilty under the other counts of the declars
(A ull vsl Swift fc C o., 155 App., 638).
The com -laint that the second count has not a v-lic
for recovery can not toe raised at this tine if the evidence
meets the averments of that count of the declaration s the
count after verdict is good although it may state a good c^uee
of action in a defective way.
It is urged toy appellant it was error to admit evidence oi
the construction and use of this cinder -nth, nnd the case of
Meice vs. C. ft A. h. A, Co., 254 111., 595, ii cited ae BJ
thority. The evidence in that case admitted was? of entirely
different character, it was what the public did in violation
of the notice of the company and of their own accord.
case before this court evidence was offered as to the 1m
streets, and cross streets, location of depot 'nd acts of the
company in the building of cinder walk pending to prove
Uie travel of tuie way was by the company's invitation, which
if established by preponderance of the evidence would entitle
the deceased to treatment by the company of a perron ri
on this path and under the authority cited from considera-
tion of this record th t evidence was properly admitted.
It is next urged that Johnston was rightfully upon
(5)
■:..::; lo riiuoa ieal
'Ctd efi aifil ma »ttf>3 br i* \tiaa
. \- -Af anlatf io«l In noiiaa>;: bai-igvoiinoo
ra arf? .miri iirf
.'J oJ- na ai enia^i saerii 1- nriJaaa
.02:3 ie TSriOwcgsib niaai yd o3 bottlitis* •rnmBm
brtoose a ba*i-.<5 el aaea airfi ni J ox
'3lfti»v ■ srad ioalla nl >ciut 9-rti bnM aolta
,'osb uU -f> I :. tabnu \,ilxua ion Jruellsq
I ,.o 'J isv I/u A)
roa bnooe* arii J*rfi in I _ sriT
•< '.tsrooaT: lol
tiataftfaA arfi lo inn uinaavxava arii aiaam
ae>' -j.tffia \^m tl rfsuoriil;- bona al ioibttr tail* iouoo
,\s» avlioslab a nl aolioa lo
oJ to-tia ejv ii inarr»<rqa t°* **8*tf • ! il
f lo ssu bap neiJ otnianc :o arii
i aa bsiio ai ,eea ,.xii &as , .o3 ... .0 .r? bo
> lo ««w baJJlmbe »««a Jp.rfJ nl aonablra arfT .\Slzod3
llMtni arfi i«u+r a*w if ,aaia,s*Brfo inaisllib
0 arii lo aoxion 9dt lo
< nsblva iiuoo a 2 IS siolatf aaao
,jiaatia eftoio bru» ,*toa*t8
flfiw Tabnio lo anlbfiud arii ai V
arii y;cf aav x*w I*taxt aril
;njbxva ari.t lo aonaiabnoq >iq \i badnlLdatea Ix
icnarrjaoo a\ >ainati OJ baeasoab arii
IS Urn arfJ 19 rfiaq 8i
iblra tr.J.i tnooai auii lo a)R
arf' -w noJanrioT, i*rfi aasitu ixan 8i il
tracks which was not proven, '•"here w?e evidence tteci
facte which tended te -rove he wa* rightfully on the tracer, or
qualifying this statement somewhat where I
onably expect pereone to he.
""he contention of appellant therefore that tue perer tory
instruction presented at the else of appellee's evidence and
again at the close of all the evidence should have beei
fails. It is not necessary to rove either wanton or *i
negligence, that appellee must prove that nt thr^'
servants had specific knowledge of an individual on the truck
or platform or specific ill will toward or an intention t«
jure an individual, where the servants of
ning its engine in the dark without a head light or a he1
ing at a nigh and dangerous r^te of speed. hile it in tnie
that upon the right of way of the railroad where the ;.uniio re
not invited or authorized to go for the transaction of
with the railroad company those in charge of the train suet
knowledge both of the presence of tne trespasser and
gercuB situation, but where depot grounds and platforms, 1
ing shoots, coal shedp provided hy the railroad eonrp»ny for
use of the public in the transaction of business where < i
have a right to he for legitimate purposes and vhere they mi
reasonably be expected, are quite different, r-nd in t
there was sufficient evidence to make the question raised of
wanton and wilful negligence a question of f^ct -nd the c
did not err in subritting the iscue to the jury.
The case at bar belongs to that class of case? i
close case urron the facte because the appellee relieve up
negligence in handling of the first nf the three trains to re-
cover so that the tiae of the injury ind the -ass ng of
(6)
i/e asw rod': .cay ftlAr ailo^-ii
It saw 9H 3v I jbsbasi doliiw atfoel
a srii 9T9iiw Jjaxiwercoa ineaeJaJa aidi ani^zilajjp
. arf o* artoarraq J 997*9 \ldana
t ietii eiolaiarii ttusLLvqxs, to noiinai
b«* 9^n»biy9 a'asllaqqs ic aa^Io axfi ie b9ineaaiq noiioiniaai
9VJ»rf b£uorta ^anabiva 9tif XI« to aaoio 9rfi to nisa*
■ ■ ^* i9rfii9 9V0T ' oi xi-"'3«»3,»fi ion ai J I .nlisi
. 9T0Tq isum aalleqqs Ja/ii ,93
fsobiri: aabalnroni oi'itoaqo bad aiiusYYea
I oi noiJ-n-5tni a I Iliw III oiliaarre to jnrolialq 10
•>rfi lo a>tnnvi9s ar£i 9i9rlw .Isirblvibni na etiit
a Juorfiiw iaab arfi at aniane 3ix
am: >Xl .b99q? to 9*jri 8uoT9ansb boa rf^iu a Ja 30!
Btadm baoiltjn arfi to v>w to Jii3.i1 adJ aoqu i.axU
no i J OBaneii *fU tox 03 oi bQs.lio.it u.n 10 baiiTnx ion
m nlari -9rfj to a^T^ria nl aso<W ^p*Qjaoa bsoT-fxar erf* rfiiw
•01$ msU to eoneae*q 9rt\j to diocf 93b»Iwornf
-• • ib ebnuoia ioq*b 9*iarfw tud #noiiouixa ai/oagj
9 bn 01 It ai erfi ^o' beb ivoTq shad a leco ,aiooda snl
;ecfe -»aanxai/tf to noxiasansTJ adt flJ 9di to 9au
rteaf* bnr, 99 j9l Tot erf oi Jdaxi * erad
ma ftfneTettxb 9i2up at* ,bai09qxe erf \£danc989i
"Haisi noiiaairp 9rfi tdg 1x9 fnntolX'iua msw msdt
39fl SsjI noinaur
• X,iul mU oi s ^inliiiarfua nx lis ion bib
ai aanoletf i*d is eaao
asu^oatf aio^l erfi ncqu aaao eeolo
-at "til arfi 10 3rilbnnc£ ni 90;
\.'i. :.! ■ t to •aiii erfi JadJ oa T9T09
(8)
tr^in, the e bein& no eye witnesses,
have the testi< l * witnesses varying; one hour
one-half hours upon both proposition?. The furthsr 1
the age of deceased with the evidence city
would t-ive tr- this verdiot the apnenrance of btmt excessive,
so thnt whatever errors mny appear must be scrutinized tl r
closely and held as going to the merits of the case.
Appellant complains of the giving of two instructions
for appellee: The ninth reads a? follows:
from
"You are instructed that if you believe/a preponderance
of the evidence in this case that the defendant carelessly
negligently operated and managed the train in question in ■
ner and form as charged in the declaration, and that such n« *-
;;ence amounted to wnnton and wilful negligence as defined in
these instructions, and th~,t as a direct result of such w.intnn
and willful neplipence the plaintiff's intestate Lewis W. John-
ston was struck nnd killed by snid train, then your verdict
should be for the plaintiff."
But one count in the declaration either by way of i
or as a conclusion charged negligence wenton and wilful w\ un-
der this instruction the court gave the jury the right to
the charge of negligence under any of the other counts if in
the opinion of the jury the charge cams under the defini
wanton and wilful negligence and find defendant guilty. The
Jury should have been limited in finding defendant gull'
such neglifence to second count. This instruction doer
prstsnd to state the facts that constitute wnton wm
negligence Mi c-mnot be Justified on th*t ground. The de
(7)
<-
' «Md M r aoaaon.*! 9imA
to 3ob1 tmiixul arf? ,".naltic. oef »oq*? ofttorf 1X«4 »m*
vj trMm mid lo I tf AJ2'jr bn.'SMb lo o^s oil*
,»vr.«<**0Tc* MlM* 1© ••ajrtaoeftM; 9rf.t Joibiav aictt ^ av
■^if rtoit* tars' to*
*NM ■ Mil o* antf>3 Ob Mod <lMtn \;Xr
I m& M an Juris »rf* lo wi^Iqmoo tiiBLItn^k
*hr~9i rf-tnln »dT ;o*x. orr<y« *•!
-"^•valXotf wr>Y li t*.i& Jbo^outJani ai.s uoT"
tm bn^loft «dt &Mtt «;io iW.+ Ml ©ons&ivo odj lo
H ftosanan ftns bo*f.x»TO x^n43^Xpi
, ^i$fttr>la*b aifcf nl fcogxario aa arol fcflu
ni I)»nll:»J> a* fronts* I 14 2w hn& «o*n.«w o* ftajmionui Of
"Tift e aa ##0 ftnn ,snr»i.touT*«nl oaortt
.* <*iw»J ajfljsajrrl a'lllJniflXa; erW •WWgi/^n XolXXlw fcn*
MJMNN MMM |ifli t<* ftoXXX* ftnrt tfairrla a«w «•#•
».112*nl*Xo; arf* 101 Wf fcHNMte
n» t* is. j.Jj&i«Xo*& orfJ «2 .tnuoo ono *#€
i Jrw wftnrfitjsw soci»slX^»n fcaaaerfo r iai»I»noo a a« TO
3 ovks - J nol*osrr&attt alsft rcob
ait* le \tm -lob.Tt; oonaaJtlyMi lo oguuf* «tf
<n.cJi nl 'loft srfj- to&rttf «SUH> •a'WtfiO *r'.t \:ii/t orf.» lo nolniqo «atf
1 1 M| /rtafinolo* tell ftoe aono-jjt r^on XulXJnr on* ttttnmw
Cllfl Jnalwoloo anlbnll ni ootfiariX noarf ovarf bfuorfe
. njLroo Bfloo^a eJ ooii»-'jlls»ir rfoua
iw man awtc: I4HM I -rt.t 9jo«7 ©rfj oJa*» oJ Bnocra-ro
MH .fcnrmni *»sri* no oaili*ai'-- Tftao brut •OUaoaXXsen
(■
tion of wanton and wilful negligence La
seventh given instructions does not assist the jury in
guishing the facts under these different counts of dc
This is a matter of which appellant could not complain ind if
this error stAod alone would not he reversible error. (
is made by appellant of the tiding of appellee's elevent.
last instruction.
*lf you find the defendant guilty ac charted from the ev-
idence then upon the question of damages the court instruct:
that the plaintiff is not required to testify or produce wit-
nesses who have testified to any specific damage as represented
by dollars and cents; nor is the plaintiff required to fur-.ish,
in the proofs, any definite or specific basis for the cemputa-
tion of said damages, but that such question is for the jury to
determine as practical men according to the evidence and
the facts and circumstances proven in the case."
Under the statute authorizing a Jury to fix damages in
case they found appellant guilty there could be no defer:;
to the language used in the latter part of the instruction,
c-iuse the statute says, you are authorized to give eucn dpnages
aa they shall deem a fair and Just compensation with reference
to the pecuniary injuries resulting from such death, to
wife and next of kin. The statute is the jury's limitation and
the basis for computation. Vith this instruction the doorr
apened to a consideration of all facte in evidence not «nly of
pecuniary lose but of tne evidence oi Mgllgence and the
rors of the killing. This instruction has to be condnuu.
criticized. (I. C. h. R, Co. vs. Johnson, 823, 111., 4". uren
Coal <x Ice Co. vs. Howell, 204 111., bib. late vp. Ous E
baa ao^of.w xo noli
dJ Snla~ wOUTJeni nsvta riJn9T*a
•. Jna-xsixxb saa o aJor,l artf %ni,.
11 b ion tluoo itxall lo is*. i£ axxfT
.. iuow anolis ^oa*a loil* a hit
■ vftla a'aallaqq •: ro 3ru i J abacs ax
. no £ t otn 1 tlTMl
I bnit t;oy; II*
srfi a»3jRciwJ!> to txoltnttup ©rft noqir nsxf* aonabx
to \;>xis»$ 6$ baxxupa? Jon ex 1*ti„
t ?b d^AioBct sillot.qc \ne> o+ osi'ti^aaJ- ovsxf oxftr aa»—
n ItlinteLa suit ax ion jainao brus bibIIij
ibbcT oxtxosirg io aJx-ixlab \:no .aloortq art* ni
I ex noxiaaup rious icrfi tfucf ,aa^oiOBJb fclr.a xo afW
/a erfi oi jjnifcTOoos naj.i IsoIjusi U
" .Sara ufj- ^ axIJ
x.zt oJ ciu'l £ ^ub oind"s*a o±i.f labnCJ
on ad blaoo situli x*-f*uS
-atf tnoiiowT;»« j J-xjsq 19.JJBI *iit nx bagjj a&iRua***^ 9£^ d
»vxa oJ JoasxiOiWi/jft a , ^aa aiu^nJa axft a
oa t»u\, bns Tlal b ussb Slciie \sdi aa
, ar rfaua L;oi'i j x aoxitfta* vsBxmnaq odi otf
brie noxiR^xrril a'v.- ii dJuJRJa axfT .nxi lo Jxan '
9-xb eioob 9x£j noxJ-ou-iienx axrf .?B$uqBToo xol axesd art*
to t II« "io nox^«l9bi3noo e od1 bsaaqa
•Jxod 9iiJ- £■■ • jllaan to oon9biV9 *di xo d^'cf isol \i^
uzSanl aiffT . >, l£XH a 9 io
ol .sa .oQ .... .bssxoxd-iio
x£ ,.CXI *0S ,Il9\vch ,av .cJ oox
I Co., 150 App., 576. )
The appellee recoini.res the force of the critic
authorities vn£ renlys by Bsjlnf «i er instruction nuabor eleven
is considered rath wicllee'e number ten as neither inptrut
cells for a finding harmleee error at lc-i3t wae com ittei ,
tie case of Carney v . Marquette bonl Co., 260 111., '26, iv
cited ai rm , uthority in support of this contention. er of
the instructions con-plained of are set out in the opinio
that case. The court was of the opinion after an examination of
the record that there who no revere ible error. .As to whether
the question of d^nnfies beinf. excer-jve rae oueetionec doce not
appear. It appeared fren the Opinion to be a question ci
defendant bein$, liable. In this case fror Btn exrjmir.aticn o
do
struct ion ten, if the £.iving of clever ir error, ten lay,
er correct and different rule for tlM Jury in eeo< \c»>
not ae an aid in considering eleven, but contradictory the r<
hich rule er laid down did the jury follow, one was as r-en
rnd broad as the other, one ae much the 1m bindir.f- u-on then an
ine oxner, ana ir.e a^nrges p.iiowea oy T.nem "touiQ moics^e i
nad'-followfedf the m^osTiibernT/one of the two ( eleven vv i
t*% pretend to direct a verdict. It doee caJ 1 u
termine the amount of damages. The court will aest
other questions to bo determined by the jury to make s
responsible for ieajafjM l-od been determined by the
they rrere ready to coucider thir instruction ~nd that doc-
put this instruction beyond criticism.
'Jhe question oi the first fast freight being tne trail.
caused the injury in thic ciee bein*; the clone question t
determined, coupled with the i<:ct that tne verdict is l.^rge in
■ t, are considered by the court in holding
errors go to the merits of the case
"herefore for tbe rearo-s $iven the judgnent will b<
versed and cauee remanded.
.
(Hot to be reported in full.)
•
\ooi? 9 arfT
" &tty.r-9 v.J m^ Sua
tU tw bstsbJtanoo o i:
to%X9 *b . vi 1 butt r, rot ellao
. ,.o0 Ibo!5 9it9upxai& . v |m i»«9 adj
■ aMJ -silo
sis to bsni o;n:(tan2 «tt
■ tlUOO :. .
If • ' | • . ' OH 3BW 91»ilf J/iJJ blOOfll I
..rjoiiasij. : f.cf !9jr «j»up artt
I • J I ."XJB3
9o.no wtdf nl .»! - 3(f irtKf.
1 :3SJB nl X*Mfc 9rt* 'J"'1 •Xjtx J .-•:! 10 TC"
to*: , - .iasbianoo at bin ao su;
trf wjjI o ?b 9nr , . »tU *& bcord ban
row ssorf* x<? b9W0l ■ idt brie iio
>/7 ( • t Kf frT2om orf$ i b ?V o iTo 1-' b nil
hooxifc o* bn9t*iq .ton
3 9rf? .asar.icr.b tc -idtf anJtin?*
jol altfxsno
^oxrcJanJt siriJ toMshoo oi ^br.97 ozsx ijortJ
>cf Jiijjls'xi i«al .Jnii »di to notttibup
I
V 9dS J J 9b
-aiibir: ,
CO -■'■Hi': i 0'a 91"
jrfj n9v: 3ii
TR19V9H
. b»ba*SR9't 3
(.IJu/i ni baJiotjgi 9d oJ Joii)
It)
/, A. C. MILLSPAUGH, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of the
State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true copo "/ the OPINION of the said
Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in mp of/fee.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I hare set mp hand and affixed the seal of said Court
at Mt Vernon, this >=3& dan of Mo,
AD"J" 7 • Vllte ■/
Clerk of the Appellate Court
o
o
2
1/
►*
IF? *?7
Opinion of the Appellate Court
AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at Ml. Vernon, Illinois, on the Fourth Tuesday
in the month of March in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fourteen, the same
being the 24th day of March, in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fourteen.
Present:
Hon. Harry Higbee, Presiding Justice.
Hon. James C. McBride, Justice.
Hon. Thos. M. Harris, Justice.
A. C. MILLSPAUGH, Clerk. W. S PA YNE, Sheriff
And afterwards in Vacation, after said March term, to-wit: On the J das
ofJulo, A. D. 1914, there was filed in the office of the Clerk of said Court at Mt. Vernon. Illinois, an
OPINION in the words and figures following:
\r~A
No. L.*cL...
March Term, 1911.
T,
oJl^XkMr
jJbdL..
APPEAL FROM
188I.A.397
cor hi
Jjiilb
)J^lUUMA^lAy COUNTY
TRIAL JUDGE
Hon. ...jLLL... ,\£SVU&
'"era No. U«
. 191'..
o. 272 )
I. ... Cools isrowint company, /
e] lant ] appeal i
v» . ireu! •> f
) a ty .
ike Vaccaro, )
•ppellee. )
fco. 273.
! 1881.1.3 97
.. . Cook Mmm| -ojtpany, )
Appellant, ) I rom the
we. j Lrouit Coux
.o.tneco Rod.ieta and Antonio j
V^cc^ro, }
Appellees . ;
LcBride, J.
The above er:titled causes vrere eo :<oJ iduted and tri
ti.e court without ■ jury, by co: oent, and at the
the trial the ^ircbit Judge rendered jud^.aent against \
iff for costs. The plaintiff appeals two oas*
agreenent abstracted, argued -uid tried in tnis court
in the abstract the former c-tse is de nominated h ,
and the latter case aa ■•• "73. Tne two oases grov
order brae upon the sace contract.
* In i.o. :e Vaeoaro Is sued as principal
273 the appellees are sued as sureties u;on the
contract. ?n the7th dcy of ay 1909, ike Vacc.ro art
City, Illinois, executed and forwarded to tbe s pell ant at e.
tille, Jndi -.na, tue following agrer xi.eut, the exeouti
was com le ted on ay 9, 1909, nt Rvanevllle, Indiana, \>-j
pellant approving and cloning the ut:
"This agrecnert tande nnri entered
and t>etwei-n tbe •_.
.(>•? arts.
p«0 ^nxJ»8ia iooJ .1 .<
.••XXsqq"
,ox«3a*V 9
r i
.
( ,iiu*XXo
, 11
( ,OXB0O»T
."5. «
vj»*r saeii: u bilJitv srcd* *cfT
~3« Jrrsu-^but toiabnM 9;*bul iLjuit- 9ii3 l&tl* •dS
i i^ffl tliJni£lq •(*? .**«oo *o* 111
•Ml bap to© a it a ,b©3 j>nt*5de ttt*a»n&m
■»b »l m >* »d* *orai«cfi» sett nl
j «mbo owi trfT (ffl .oh s* t*B« a»l*el »a* tea
.ia**ciaoo •«• »rtl noqu jdwwo" isbio
q Bfl bous si oxaoor-V t nX •
'j;.'»iU3 .n bsus MB «3 IX» ;qjs •£& £V;
.•-£ rxel fcaB b»iuD»r.& ,8ioniiII «>C**3
,«n«Xbnl ,aXXiv
31 ,C v. jJ»L<coo M»
£aifi£la ba qi- JnaXXaq
->*rr*> bos »b*ffl 1p9A9*T9« nt.il"
vi.le, nirttnaa, ■■■'. 'o, wltnesru
BWd H hereby itjreeg to ,/iv the Mie
exclusive orivile^ea of se^li.-^; its dr-.^.i't ™d bottl<
at wholesale la Mid t ohnston I ity. I Ilia ~ees
to sell Mid JviiVer to him tto bo«rtr £. r. * ■■ . ■
City, Illinois, in car load lota ->t the foil
nd the s-^id ire
freight on e^.pty cooperate cases nnd boxes re'
the B.id -ike Vacc-ro, ~nd furri le ice for nrspf
of the draught beer ia traneit, "nd uke allovaneet
cre:'it for all bottle beer caser :c ottles ratiu ■
It is understood thatk the e';id §m
be expected to ...ake any pay.-erte or allowances not hereii
cified. t nd t;ie saic Ikt Vaccar" settlt
and payments whenever der.a-ided by the sr>id Erewir,
its repreecat-.? lives; take good tam rty of t •
brewing too., rusted in hi e crre, rive erec:.
to gathering up and returning of 11 empty eoeperagc
ing the continuance of tbli ent he will nei •
be direct or indirectly interested in the sole r£ any beer
other thun that of the said Brev7in(
:i£ agreement si.-.Il .-
ny until ti tea oetn a:- roved by its j-resi
President or I ecret .
aflixea t v riBViile Jndi;-
r.ted by either party upon ten tice by eit] *
writinfc."
M the back oi the fort
(I)
•."*!▼ ,0"
■ ■
..I alxiaalorfw Jft
,| aT*»tf ait old o^ tar .list bne Ilaa o)
| artf in etil b&ol
-■'■■ tlf-n 9di aaA
;axod fen stBr.3 v^tsr^qooo xiq.^9 no iJ^isil
lot ao* I .. ,oi< ooaV 3i arfi
, ' - T.99<1 ttytmtB aii lo
...i a»a/>o xaatf af »"i3
m 99*nj*KoliB to a*nacv»q v» 9<sa oJ Jbeiaaijxa ad
3i -J eaaii >i»« adi feu A .Jfcailio
mU y^ JbaJbflwsao isroft^.iw •-.. bos
iB lo •" 9X*it ;»«Tl^eic»«0iq»i «JJt
..:>a')* tvi ) 1*4 oi oaJairW
■ ■ ■ " i
■ >3tb »Cf
,\r. to fsuij na&& xa4Jo
lixd* Jnaoiaaise aiitt*
ait x^ ijavo-Jdici* naad Ar.il anwa ȣtt I Li nu xo*
.
.•j.iaaTtyi ai-Live:
-
dorseo* -n >t'r««nert I j orcetieco
et-uid as sureties, "in ■ sum rot to e ■
lars for trie fnthful r>erf orrance by ? •
all of the ereej"ent* and conditio ined jn
rent, hereby guaranteeing that the aooaro
snld Brewing Coapnny all sums •wfcao:
to it for beer solo" to him, incliudin, , mdoettlei ,
well eg for saloon fixtures ?md other
reiiain and continue surety for the faithful pcrfa
'ike Vnooaro of the condition* am ents above r
to, »nd the filure of the fid '^rewir.,
sureties of any -viol .ti one of ■■ ■ i .
>ilke Vacesro rial) not release nnid mrotiot in
*"or subsequent violations. Dated fay 7,
2t is> etimilated by the ysrtiftn herein tl
of an election under the local optiea statute
Illinois, .Tohnston City beenne dry territory in Docej I
nnd renained "dry" until Hoy ) I ■■ . no letter t
of Vay 7, 19 Cv, ! ike Vaccaro, after oxocut
tract transmitted it to s| si Ian t and in such lotto] *
one oar of beer to be sent -t once, if tic bond vol r->atir<f
pnellpnt forwarded the beer to ' ike Vaccro
thereon to Johnston City, Illinci". "ncT
f re ;uent orders oi c r loads of beer, soT,e of which i •«
; od to hici direct ^nd others to the Ci renin i opol r
directed, by > j ke Vhccto. This ahi
■•.f t.er >ay, li-10, -t.
territory. The tot*.l shipraent? of beer b»6o I
ike Yiccaro ■ u ru:t to 36,84 ■
made on . arcn 4, 1.11.
ii -rot trial
tilt to Llm
r acwa XX* x*111!"*^ »*Xw»T:ff Mjb»
f9d to: it ot
loxiJo bn*i 9«nui Imm tot hjz IXaw
xq\ \r**ttfa tun: niKi»T
-tfcs iwi* anoXJi&noo »di to 93QM
I lo Mul I ban ,•*
.,.-.- to anotJ^folr ^oh to vottoxn"
<HXnmi9l ton Until oTt*oo«V atfll
.maottalotr Sn*up9*dium tot
Fa ■?! SI
>£» cu to
T&i ^ifc KwiMtf \tt ) np|andoT. .ntonll/I
»«/ T»#^ u nf^b" bmntBrrri bos
a isit« .©leoaaiV o , 8X ,f x
oe jojjiJ
M »tf o^ noad to i*» *no
«M bafrt/nriol *n-iir»qq/
to «n»lrro Jresu-ait
bn« 1»*t; lb >t>
bo^orTlb
*r»Jt£
>Jff»<wj4rfa |g hrtaJ
ffjMM tir.fi to tine •
ce oi l,r," .
recover which ihl aw lnet
io. 27:.', wharein :.«:• la wumi
Tiled consisted of ; -w c^uj
it ID C
.-it the "beer chovld b« 1. a, a«
city, llllaa&a, |M it;.. sd in Ub
ita arrival at Johnston City, sad -
up. ellant to appall as :'t Johnston I 11 ooaatj
at Jc. ity ir alaXatlaa tt i
llliJtols, ) rendered tie cntr ef »>
could bl -uch contract ;>ed.
■ e ajfxae wit. t
as the c-:;trct rcvideu I > • be deiive
■ . cars at I 9:18 I on City that it •-:
trds j-lace. ".here i? no c
abse.iof oi M ^grftr-rnt e fea tk«
the dcii.v . the vender tr
to the vend< e ■ ce a I
tha goods and t; litis tc roparty vept,
chaser iiune^i ;t«j..
of -arthage va. -Xi* , .11., . , bosavi 1
tr ct provide a ;
vendee's? hei-e, or pi si
aaawan carrier all)
be delivered is ve.idee at hi a
the titJe ir *aa%ad La
y, 1 6 -■■:•]■. ,
(4:
•r.'v
.tt&tnjrio W»f >oLVt
utt iadi
I
tmlrxm ait
•-■■>.-.'<
:(. in
- .
a.ij Be
ia exa« .tf
•■.■■- lo »orraatfa adi
• , fi»fa uU
■
.. U H^tl Bail
* ■ ssbtY'.-
act .,■•>
; atf
■ >r n alii J ariJ
W« are In accord with the
les that under the contract and -yie
appellant that appellant delivered the "teer
ear losd lota, on board the ears at John;
that if eueh eaxe was in violation 1
there could be no recovery. It appears fro* the evidence
the contract was accepted and its execution cob letec b -
ville, Indiana, and providedfor the delivery of the I,
nan care at Johnston, City, Illinois, nd fc]
presented for our deterr ilaatlssi i», oes the r '
In the Banner herein provided violate the lor
Illinois? As this beer MM shipped fj
into the -tute of Illinois, it was undoubtedly nn i\.
Bhlpxaent and for this reason counsel for appellai
that sucii ehl patent and delivery la not in violation
al option lavs of this state, and that it is protects
excepted i'rois the provisions of this statute by the C<
tion of the United -tates, which provides, "The Congress?
have power to regulate conferee
nations -aid among the several states and with the
It has been uniforaly eld by the Supreme <~ourt of
.tates that the citizens of any >t,t« have the rifc.ht to
ship any article of corarierce to a citixen of another state,
less prohibited from so doing by act of congress. iao the r
established doctrine of tlvis court 1b, tlMt wiM*»
Corgrese to regulate Is exclusive, the failure oi
make express regulations indicate e its will thrnt -
shall be left fre» froia any restrictions or lapositl-
any regulation of the subject hy us, except >re
(5)
. btoonm at ©xa •*
asa xaexlooa #\4 fbcm s*tlS yl
at '*■■■: *Hi *** baxafiXa© ttu*lL*q.n* tmdS Xnu Uaq<|*
nnj »ui JrvjuMf so «*Xei fc««I i«o
toiv ni s w aiaa rfaae tx XsdX
NnMPI »dX fljoal ex»a«* •« XI .^MffPtt on ad JkXtfos asaali
- mi 9X» mil baa Hlq*|M mmm XoaxXae.o mm*
<i*rMa6 adi %r.\b, bam tsxwtbPl ,i
IMBI >yp adX Asa .aiwtXXIi ,\>U ,«o*aruioL 4a axas
*><*.■■• aX«a sdX seoil ,ai eoi^Fi. : mnSnb tva vol
. ;■ I jjl M0 »X«Xoiv b*b{r««q aiaxad TMtrw adX «i
«osl fcoct^i.ie mmm ?a<->d et±>X »» ,. etc
rw v.L&aXtffcoJa...., »««r Ji , fcg aJa*C »rfX o#«*
i iHiiuea fiOa«ax aidx so* to* Xaasajjtfs
aatXaXoltr ax XoB ai tsariXa* ten f— girta a-ass* XarfX
bam ioXeeJot ai Xi XafiLX tew ,aX«Xa exdX lo sval ants up Is
■j3y.t-,ia sidX tej aftoiairoxq adX aoil futajaaaa
ii« asaxjss . ■ ---i dnuat tmm4&3*> tetfiaU ad* la osi#
•i 4X kv aaxaoaaa aXaXir^ax | xsvof «f **"
' ■ taoix* «fei: iite Sam ****** Ltnormm adX njtcmn tela mooting
t*uo- anvcqivo aal# \d bXad xXarxotitav o*aa* sad XX
-•.*jix flwiX erau aX„Xa v*"* *» aaasiXia a4* Jadi
raciXta a oX ssrfnasaa to aXaixxa
«ao - | | aj xd »nio» oa anil baXididaxq aaaX
xavao »rfx «»rtw »*uix ,ai tistno tidi 2c *aix*aafr brnami X«s*ss
■ as, t ,aviaui9xa ai aXaXsasx oX aa*«s**0
*ax *a*X XX iw jXJt afi*oaii>Ri aaoiXaXMaasi u««?qxa ajSast
Sea; oq/at %n aaoi<*?ixXesx v* aaxx asxl Xtai ad XXarfa
^ si Xqsssa .aaXaX^ ■afl xti Xoo(,tfu> r.oiXaTixass x»
of loc-1 concern only, ae hereafter mentioned, ie rt
such fredom." Kobbins vs. Taxing District
U. 3., p. 6fc6.
It ie quite clear, ae we think, that until pi
Congress, any citizen may ship beer cr otner articles oi
merce fron. one state into another.
The next question that arises io, hat prohibits
ulatlon bad Congress made, 11 rior to the
contract, and the shipping of this beer'.- The only re
pointed out to uo or that we have in our research be
find Is an act of ^.ngress passed August 8, IMA ,aes,
"That all fermented, distilled or other intcx |
or liquids transported into any slate or territory or r«-
therein fox use, consumption, sale or storage the r*
upon arrival in said state or territory be subject, I
operation and effect of the law of such state or territory, en-
aoted in the exorcise ol its oollce powers to the same extent
and in the satis manner ae though such liquids or liquors
been produced in such state or territory, and
therefrom by reason of being introduced therein
ages or otherwise." Prior to tias enactment ol Congxee
held by the Supreme Court of the United tntee U
meat made by the citizen of one state into another, that sc
as it remained in the original package the importer c
it, notwithstanding such sale was prohibited by a etatutt.
state into which it was ebi eisy vs. hardin, 11
100. After the passage of the act ef Congress nbovs reft
to, it was claimed that by such act, that as soon as the in-
toxicating liquors came within the b
which they were imported, that t. .ey were at. once
(6)
■ Uwa i94Xwt*r>. «« t\iao irimmiQit Loool lo
9 -taix/siu ^alx&T . cv tai . *it (taum
.0*d - .
..^aJuiJ aw s* ,i alj aJLjp el J I
o xes*d qlrt* ^mr aasiiio £■« ,8«*i^d*0
cjM##oaa WaX yiuJa mo oil »o«*k
I •jtf sid# to atu j-iuik Mtt bn- .Jaaxiaao
oj . irx^ase* xuo ul or-Mf Mr 3i*iJ to ma oi :ioq
bmssuq «*rx,aao^ lo *oo as el tail
fcxo*ai xari^o to bmlxUutb , j»Ju»cael XI* i«tT"
tnW to WaJi km oini bo-t-soqaaaaJ *biwfii »©
I.'jjiis .i.iJiaAf s&cxoie io ol*« .no-ttqawaooa ,#au vol oi*«tutt
,io*^iuii arf ^*©4.hc5te4 xo »Jr3z blam at Ixrlxis abaft
um lo wal Oil* lo too2i9 aaa aclfaxsfo
I W«*«a OdJ O* S'f W? i »OiiOii *J£ to •*i0?9*9 90^ fii ©a4o*
6et xo a*iu?il iioua rtjpiarft ea> ?oanao fata* mU ci Jm*
Jqaas -Aa bam .vxo^iTtaJ xc 3,*:-f« ciaua at JbaauJUoxq aaao*
i» -vi alaxa ai acufcod lo noaaax \fl Jsoxlaxa-iJ
a^oaA# si.<4 oi xol7. ".awlvxadJa to 89BJI
4eu4 iMdi. »aiJfcc& *otf lo *um2 ***xqpi. «%ii xtf Wad
- ei.s4e auj lo aeȣJ,to aakT & afc*ua tmbK
i^xaqml acU eaaianq laaljjfctxo attt ai aaclnaatt ii ea
a#a a \,j 'xoiitfx.nrri aa» alea uoua ^oiot^va^Jivjoii ,it
X«i»; .ijagqlaa saw *i doiufa o^ul aJaJa
•aaxiaoa 1© 4 9* axi* lo a&aoaaq aett x**i
:*J«f s« uoo6 a* 3*ttt ,1 Jaatt ©aaUiilo eov 4i ,
ci?-i6'J »£ij atdttw aanta aiovpll £o£Ja«2xoJ
>orn 4a txaw x» ^ *a*W , baJxoqal »*t«ar xariJ doiiiw
control of the state law proxibiti
a construction of this not wh;* riven by the >.mre/;.e **
the United .t tes in the case of Khoads vs. : tate si I ova, 3
. 3., 412, in which it is siid, "The Bownan ease wne decided
in 1866, the opinim in Leisy vs. ilardin was -nnounccd in
April, 1890, the act rat under conoider-tion w?tt
August 8, 1890. Considering thene dates it is re
infer that the provisions f the act wore intended .
to cause the legislative authority of the re^
to attach to intoxicating li uors cooing into the et:
interstate shi; i.ent only after the ccmeun&ation of the ■
raent, hut before the sals of the iterohandise, that ir>, t
the one receiving merchandise of the character naMft,
retaining the full fft<M so use the sarao, should i r
enjoy the right to sell free frosa the restrictions as to
created by state legislation, a right which the dec:
l«eiey vs. Hardin had just previously decl-.red to exist. "
the uuprer.e Court, io giving its conlouslon* in U
ther says, "We think that interpret! oj Uu St> it* "
of all its provisions, it was not intended to and di
the power of the state to attach to an interstate coronerce
shipment, whilst the mere h and 1 so was in tr nsit undcx
shipment, and until its arrival at the point >f dest.i,. itlou
delivery there to Ike soaslgysse, tt course this c<
reader a it entirely unneoossary to consider whether 11 the act
of Congress had submitted the rij-ht to t.*t!<e interstate c
3iiipcsents tostate control it would be r<
tutlon." • ^rtly after the adoption a a stat-
ute its constitutionality was att; - ere
presented to the upre o court oi
(7)
I waX mteta a*U N lo-i
taw Jaa ii-U la aotioinJaaoa a
,sr ^b/«o.f»f to »a«io »rfi r.i s»^r# baMfltf adJ
.Mac si * • ,.8 «tf
3 8vr nibtr.- .a* x«i«' nt rwlaiqa ».i.t ,6dftf Ml
•■ ~ •• ■ rant Jop •»!{* ,0981 ,XlYqA
■ •' -s- ,c-?sx ,8 twqpA
) bafcnaJal at** ion 9ti3 1 anoicivota art* UvJ r9tnl
m -Mrio^Xatial acttatauta o*
. . -rtt.T Y.XTO tnasxii/la at«ia»a#«i
,r-nt^inft- aiii to aX«o ft
t*.!o «U lo eaianaffsttaa aoXviooa-r ana adi
•i notl.ttoT arii wait sail XXaa oi id*!* ftdi ^o^na
:■■ otii d? aitoXaiyvX aia#« ijtf ba-t.nwo
rsjaXoafc ^Xauchraxflr #aur, k-d ulbxaS ,«v x****
at .J^uoO iaJ«|H a4f
•*• ,»yna *adi
>*e ej o^bnaJ-ni .anolalvotq ait XXa la
si*« o* ftJnia art* to ?a<?aq adi
itavi JXan»t# ni »bw aaibn** {tn»a adJ fftliax ,5n-;.< . t«
jfinrta
ifcadf ^tarlXfta
J-f'oa o ^aaVHaaa *i s*aftn«
g »»xa/H»3 la
>r,' a£aow ii > ataiao.fr ainaafirfa
t ' qob* arfi «•#%•* xX-J*
nv 9<«a y* : 'iJE'u'O eti aiu
■
ing its validity, and aaong their, the paint i
locnl option act was in violation of l
clause of the federal Constitution,
iuestion the supreme Court e ye, ttAnot);er
ael is, that tne act violates the interstate dS
the federal constitution, and alt
volved in thi» case Mi any invalid! t
not effect the act, the position of counsel is not tt:
the section designed to prevent evasion ol it it is
vided that tne taking of orders or the sacking
anti-saloon territory for the sale or delivery f iatexlc .*.: a
liquors shall be held to be an unlawful Milling, e re re-
quired to interpret the act in such ■ was no to uphold 11
er than in a way whioh would invalidate it,
hinrichsen, 161 111., 83Bl)a and it is always presumed
legislature did not intend to exceed, MM have not, in I
exceeded, their jurisdiction. (; ndlioh on Interpretation of
statutes, bee. 171; Stanton vs. City of Cai ii>4 1:1,
It is not necessary every time a law is passu.
lature should s ecifically state that there is no intent to
interfere with inter-gtate coix;erce or aoiae other su;
which they have no jurisdiction. The act doei* not ui rt tr
control in any maimer the importation ol Liquor fr
states." people vs. fee-Bride,:' 34 111., 176.
It it contended by counsel tot
made in one state for the sale of liquor I
would be valid at common law, and which 1p no'
valid, where iraade, will enable the seller to »»1
for the rrice in tlie state where delivery is tads, ri-
le))
I »fi*a »&* ialoq siii omU aanmm ta*» .
Btf bam AaoituJ !*«;•« J raii»b«< a^ 1« «*ua£»
o aevawaO o-.ijRJIhta^ai: »iU «t*^«XoiT tati a<iJ J.nd* ,ji X*c
tpM *sju 4&»osU£a «aa .woiJurfiJarr.o XataLai »al
••
I leaauoD lo ajciJiaoq suJ *##• «wU Jaalte Jon
?• io»yM' <tf t>»a»±9»b aoiJ©a* mU
4 ;-="&■«$* 1-3 t«^it>L«i «4£ ao M»ho Sa ^wxifoJ *:* Jni* oabir
SO •Xfl'S *di 10. x»t nOQiJMI-iiMI
-97 t» »d Bi cXo:-t »<f XXjttla ■TUfil
•:a«iu o* »js acw ■ dau* B| i«M) ad* *«xqtB4ai oS bmxlum
.tsv ; ;-i x? •■• yaw a nl sunit 19
•a aaajpffi 8v>#Xs ni it ann , iiMfciliajn
14 ,Jon »v«sl i«**5 ,J>3*oxa oJ iasi ••. i Jon tii> arutiafataul
ioirrau^nl no .ioiXbaii) •a»£#+xJ>eiiift .&*&*•■•
. I,1- >3i tnjytW » .»t wftwil .oea .o*a)a*a*a
J»«*«g al o»X * aaU* y«*** xTaea»a»f< ion a:
j ai mate fD» ,3 ijXwada fnoataA
lo ~ M lo aanraatatoa e*a*S-T8ini JUt* alalia.* ax
Mi Jan aiiT .aoxJaiaaiOi-'t o« aa-a»l \«d? 4avlatv
3^x«Kfi«4 a<4J Tawmw v«a at ltii$mm
.stixSii .«» »l<|taB,. ".«•***«
aaXX*^* 2 ai Xe«awoo xtf b*mnmiao'>
<s la-- a . *»J« aao «X afeua
iiis? taw ,*»X amnaaa lis
M arii yl ins.-* XXXw .adu^sj trx-ufsr ,fci.
't*tfa a*ij aj| MM xol
m
lag, if made ir the 1 tt«r . femta the contrac*
void. But this rule is of no av-.il in th<- er,
such as have been enacted in sever -.1 eta ten ■ r^vidi |
there shall he no recovery en i contr
the purchaser buys with a view to violating the lav*
own state, although the contract would have been ere
Bade." We do not regard this rule of )av as
there is no statute in Illinois : ror.ibiting a r*c
such circumstances. The LJupreree Court of II]
upon a kindred question vith referenc to the transport!
liquors froni another state into tfci3 state, eaj"*, la
ing the different kinds of nuisances enurerotes threi
the second consists of "Those which in their nature are not
nuisances but may become so by reason of their locality,
roundiugs or the nanner in which they way be conducted, r-maged,
etc." ^nd later on in the opir.i
says, "As we view this case, under the sti ulations in
record the transaction properly falls attain the se<
of nuis nces as above classified, and could only be^
ennce free the manner in which it rcif.Lt bi
etc. The richt of the citisen to pirn wail goods fox
consumption from dealers in other tates, ;>nd the rit
those goods carried <nd delivered re to be cjlassed
among the highest rights of the citizen, and can only b<
tailed when, in the manner of conducting the business, t- •
endanger the health, life or property of othttl ere
is nothing in intoxicating li (uor inherently
y be said to be dangerous to those who use it.
like explosives or d^n^-erouo drugs, thai may carry wil
<•)
aMfbHf «4* 9?2l: lOtSai ©d* at afcr.i IX ,9x1
yU ni IXsva on \o «X alut <.id* l«a .XjXoy
I &•£«*« IflXtrM aX baiAaaa aofttf 9vad sb doua
.toaxJnoo * an XTXOTCOa'i ^n »d XIarfa 9T9.i*
79lT A 4*Xw tt^yd adeBdOli/q ad*
7 io*i*noo ad* d<juo -Is .©J**© awo
u ui lo aXyi Ridj bro^ai #a (wun
. ' tl ■ :«U«i .'ir>' bX sXuJria oa tX 9?adJ
rgguS 94T .esoiijiaauo-jio doua
| :t aoXiaatrp ba-xfcaXi a aocru
*r,.*8 laaioa* coil s^oupiX
juiJ e-5. taoacslira to eb a* ,*aaial:lXb »rfi aaX
»T.u-*ar. asodT" Xo eSeidr.QO tmooao arfl
t*f \d o« asooad \sb *od 39©naeXsja
I** %©di doXdl? B.X H90TLZZL ad* 10 ajinXbnu 1
uil nL ao i©**X baA ".aja
Ij * vaXy av aA* ,av*«
•6 xv eXIr oiioaaaaotf ani Moo*?
bXuoo bn# «£>aXlXeanCo aroda o« a a on eiua to
ni aaaaoa; ad* aan* ooano
I xiust'lo ad* lo id^X-i ao7 »oi»
xmiio ai >b «ncl aoiJqouacoo
oa-javX;
JsadftXii a:tf saoai*
looo to lawtoai ad* aX ,aad»- belief
...:,: .. •^•>^o-tq to alii ,d*Lsau adJ -xo^oaAo*
^XJuoXxoiai aX ^aXd'oa «i
o^oob ad of biaa ad
•ica *ad* , iiX
to the persons and pror trty of other .
aoUtititf in the stipulation to discloc-'
conducted was other than the ordinary oourac in rein ii
the carrying and delivering of other eg f trad.
c atone re e that might be, and MNtim
coapaniee. In other words, there is
the Biethod of deliver^*! or in the cmnner of co
business there was anything Uhftt could be ■ id ti ive
to the public Borale or good order, or co
to disturb anybody in his tranquility I , her.ltl.
safety or right of property. la the absence of
cannot be successfully contended that such business or tr-
action may be declared to be a nuls-i? M
unsol, 203 111., 478.
From the views above expressed by our iuprei^e Co rt,
reference to the business t selling intoxic -ting li.uore, we
are of the opinion that even though li urease.
imported into this state that the fact that
known that it was the intention of I
unlawfully, that such knowledge would not bar « reccv
the vendor unices there was a statute prohibiting a
under such conditions.
We are of the opinion that the coi*rt erred in n
Judgment against the plaintiff fear cost? and for
above set forth the Judg^t-nt le reversed and the c-u^e re Mided
KB .
(To be reported in full.)
The ense of I'. ■« Cook Prewi-
and Antonia Vaoc^ro, Tio. 273, depe-tdt i p m
(10)
%\todio 'i
icliBiu'iiia 9d3 ni ^aixiion
oS 9yTi/oo 'cxxnlbao v*1* n*1** TadJo BM b9l0UbO9»
x -■■: id to apiT«viI*b bru* yu\:TT«o «dl
-rtiJO ,9re Tt-C***«i:&**o &°* •«** lda*« l«rfl votmodo
:-. si 9i9rii ,«brov T»rfJo a I .aeixmqiHoo
to -laan-iri ojI* ■! to jurti-JVi I»b lo bodl«a 9ili
■<£a< «jnr »T«ufJ- «fi*filsatf
, ioino bcoa t" al4rzoa ollduq 9di •!
>Da»8J« art: >> ; to ^»l«o
bebnoi ian .oo.fs 9tf lonnao
• 90* oJ boT»Io»b stf ^«o notio3
* ,,ai cos .itMoH
•KSBTque ruo ^J basso-icrxa 9T0<fa eweir «rff aotl
•v r>lxoJnl aailXwa 1 »B«ni«utf arte ol sonoaoTST
9T» 3"xoupJtI rljpir.dS nsvs Jn.'t mat To »T»
f liidJ ion* 94II larfi 9la#« still olnl bolvoqpftt
199:^0-- t Oil* BJ»W II Ifldl BVOCDt
:»» m&bmlmori-i (lout tmdi ,\L Lirtvnlfri
iR&ft m Bear rrorfJ *39lru/ TObaar tuf!
.•nollibneo rfojw Taboo
vrra It tm& mttlalqm 9d_f lo otjs •*
nol be. ^ni^ga l»»sq^k0t
B *dl b«fi b9*T*v«T • : J: •~:j»b'jf, «rfi rilTOT 1«« *Tl4m
,W .1 To 9«nO •ifT
odl i»qu aline -pb ,£?3 .OH .ci-jmV azaoloA bos
contract entered into by ik*
v»hicn tLey were sureties, i nd as we have found ir
case that this oontrnct ll ie^a
we see no reason why it is not also bi
the appellees in this ease, and can ace no re
not liable «r lor whatev^ - ed tlmt.
vaccaro has frilled to pay, --Jid fcr tne re tsona
the above opinion the judgment in
and remanded.
(Hot to toe reported in full.)
iHINSMintntiMM
i
( l:ec pa^e 10 for order in Vc. V!2. )
(11)
tmut*'t »t*u ov m» be . ,«a£*««M ntv v
^•is. no?«ei ofl »*• n»o frne ,»•< p eiitj ai a#jll»qq* Kll
| J"tao«n pi #a«cau v«v**Mttr vol « 9X<ikj
. ^a erte*it«x sdJ *©% brvi ,^pq r* ioli-.l 3«« oummMT
ww^ air ex »»«*»• wis ssbut *!* «»£«£*•<
■
• n«>iM«rita»ft
is no toTT 'I -j^iBq —a)
ill)
/, A. C. MILLSPAUGH, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of the
State of Illinois, 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 have set my hand and affixed the seal of said Court
at ML Vernon, this 3 fM day o, July.
A. D. 1914.
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
o
o
Opinion of the Appellate Court
AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at Ml Vernon, Illinois, on the Fourth Tuesday
in the month of March in the Dear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fourteen, the same
being the 24th don of March, in the pear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fourteen.
Present:
Hon. Harry Highee, Presiding Justice.
Hon. James C. Mc Bride, Justice.
Hon. Thos. M. Harris. .Justice.
A. C. MILLSPA UGH. Clerk. W. f PA YNE, Sheriff
And afterwards in Vacation, after said March term, to-ivit: On the *<*, dag
ofJulg, A. D. 1914, there was filed in the office of the Clerk of said Court cat Mt. Vernon. Illinois, on
OPINION in the words and figures following:
eH.V'V^tf
.:
March Term, 1914.
.£ SMS £L?^.:.^...^
ABPEAL FROM
1JJ8I.A.403
(hi ^Jh
COIKT
Ar tyU^r
COUNTY
Ban.
TRIAL JUDGE
Term iic* 21.
. .
August Tome,
)
Appellee, )
)
YS.
) Of St.
East St .Louis & Ju^burber. )
railway Company, )
)
Appellant* i _ _- - /f A O
1 8 O J * \J o
L&e, J.
opear;3 fron the record ia
inutitutetf a ax±t against appallanl a1
1913, of the Circuit Court of t. !1 \r County,. .
declare td ! aliasing that appel3.ee was inju e
reason of the negligenoe of appellant,
for trial on the 2.' ad of October, 1913, aa
time of the instituting of &\ic\ 3ir_" and 1 he date
trial ee Bettled hia • eller
agreed tc dj
costs. Appa ellee the ■;!
an agrse ant from an;
and it *i
for t . . ani* f.
posed 07 1- reliant to clisiiiibn
ion, and for judgment against '
in support of suo]
containinc the proTiaion aoovt
to dismiss t at ooe1
f
.oelle
i
I .8V
»tR to (
( I HOO (■
I
• 3Pijo {;.;:(+ ul fcsooen wi* it n?
O0£?ffXaIO9i
»« ' • ' ■■'"- . '•- "- ■ -- ' . I ■ '- I
l ,
■
i o.a ban '■■*■ -
%am no- I bmbmtM e*
. , | - | : : . '■ . bam
. . tatqgt
- tmtmtaoQ
that the plaintiff tras ins<
cf its c^n Botion rendered jv
(appellant here) for ooots; tc i
proscc-.tr.
It doen not a*
prior to the ooramei
court to pxoaaeute :>n. . ~
net paXBlt * rt to rcr.cr:
fbx costs, unO er the agreei
by 3eotioa f.;, Ohap"< 'd'e . • •• i5
the plaintiff be non-suited or faile
that the lefaniant
It ».fis the fintj cf the Ci
H£Toc: mmts if preperlj iftentiflai , t< RIbbIbs
coiit of the plaintiff, onleBs ar. ©rde3
isf the plaintiff .yiTa&KTix to proseoi ' •
plaintiff we ■ in default, fail* I to
so the eoiirt wenl4 have no Buthoril ever tc render e
inent against the cfefer.rant for oc
I think the court orred in
defendent for ocsts, and the Judgaent
flat to be reported in fall)
. reoe i,
n
...
in.
"; q "
at 8317 ^tt-Tf-./vr
•Si
l Art
/, A. C. MILLSPAUGH, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of the
State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true copv of the OPINION of the said
Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in mi: office
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set mi: hand and affixed the seal of said Court
at ML Vernon, this j / U V. '■'"<" "' Jul»>
A. D. 1914.
Clerk of the Appellate Court
o
O
2
I
) y
H
Opinion of the Appellate Court
AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at Mt. Vermin. I/limtis. on the Fourth Tuesday
in the month of March in the pear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundreaK ami fourteen, the same
being the 24th dog of March, in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hunireil and fourteen.
Present:
Hon. Harry Higbee, Presiding Justice.
Hon. James C. McBride, Justice.
Hon. Thos. M. Harris, Justice.
A. C. MILLSPAUGH Clerk.
| S PA YXE. Sheriff
And afterwards in Vacation, after said March term, to -wit: On the , dap
of July, A. D. 1914, there was filed in the office of the Clerk of said Court at Mt. Vernon. Illinois, an
OPINION in the words and figures following:
Or. La^X^'
No. . .. A.(p. .
March Term, 191 I.
KHKOK TO
AHPEAL FROM
lis l.\. 405
TkI
y^^r
$Jr-!^{.
COl'KT
* em^vr*-
TRIAL JUDGE
1
Hon.
DOkJ
MSP
I
&t Cento
Vs.
■ •
fcte Weber,
Appellee .
1881 5
tfo 3rifie. J.
Appellant instituted n pruseout-
on December £S, 1911, fer obstructing a highse? known
ootbOix ..oaii in Canteen Jowaship, 3t*Clsir Bounty, lUinoj
uhar&e is, ttet the appellees built a fence in the n-Adl<
road covering one half of the rof-d end extent
red feet in the road .^rallel ,
obstruction v*es plaeen there i tenth of /"une 19]
that appellees ted been notified verbal1-;", nn
I futr, in writing, to n »stmction.
It fur the.' net the; pw
ion if ten A&ja tine inure ri^en ther., but
longer than the tee depa the; failed tc rer.cv
and therefore tsls salt - (*8 instituted.
The penalty bo recovered is un
Chapter lr.i of Eurd ' s heviser, Statute of Illinois,
"If anj person shall injure or obstruct
I tree, or trees in, upon or M
leaving an^ ct>.. ruction thereon, 02
same *ith any fence, •%•.***' * shall
such offense a 3un not less than '
,*&L .IAS
(
(
( »*fl
(
.aV
( ba
( .Teds.- adt'xMSS.
(
i .9011 |
;; . t
•l .efiiTti oit
IsqqA.
,S1 xedaaoo
naeJrwO a± I .aooj
18 aomft * tl&MJ a^Hec^a erf* ?da* ,al ©aiajio
K6 6iu> ft fcc llAd 9fio :jh±iotoo baoi
at. ImLLmuq haoi &ai at teet bei
.tilth &?.*dt boonlq, a** aottontiado
wed barf eaalisr.
ix/i JI
j o-se.v eaJtf a^/jf' era* x± not
;od.t avafi rifiJ Gdt audi le^ao!
• ftaJx/JiJarrt a'** ttssa btnt oioln-xadt baa
CXI >o - • idtiiailD
s .toxn.+fofio to ©ix/tnl 11-Mrfa noa-i»q t«s II"
TO ,MMM tBi 89d1? TO ,d3lJ ft
Jado idrfJo •;«* anlyaal
UtW MM
?orc cure a eanetto
n
■at axsesdlag fchn •
obstruction shall rsaai . t
■ b; the OOSBlael &nexs«
_iie otitic v.ns tried before a Jar;
finding the defendants not
this appeal*
xhe appellant • i ft.'i err. ■
jur^- is oontrary to the etfi^e.c-
erred in ^ivixic appellee inaxr'.ictl 0:0 Uo.l and tha
erred in overruling appellant' 1.
i.hilo o^ner oerors have ijeevi resigned, th<
■Ml that v-e thinl It neeeaa rice An
o- this ease* Bhile it io trtu lie
.i.Uux i..:\L net been argued apeoifleall;
.■i.ci. censidereu in thelz relntli
be neoeobj.r^ tc apes % . it ia inaiatt
t>ei for eppellunt, find ■« thin]
Jaxj ia annifeal net the weight of th
in determininc; this question it to notii
a fthltth tale ease eee trie* • re
ct^e r&s trie-, apoa an inoorr< ct theory ai b<
..nicb a road must be uaed .. ttblie fee eenstitut<
publio hi^hw^y. iioth parties hawi pi esente< \ c
theory that twenty yeers user was necesB?
alalia highway. ThiB la e slate hen Tie* 1 - the
1, Chapter LSI, nurd's Revised i tatutea which ht
I Jul. 1st, It8T, ;:rr,vi d«
\.hioh have been laid out in pni
or of the territory tti Illinois, or >eei
< Aleatic ahU a aa a higi
^s, and v. hi oh hr.'ve
j ore
■no lei aii': 3SM
.lae^qa fciiiJ
.\i3cioo at ^i^i.
ni. boiio
■
..•, naad ?on :;aoai
s*d
, • ■ III ^3 ioI Xaa
toallaaa ai 'ixif'w
gt
itdt io:
oni oa h >Jto a 3* aaao
, 9d J-ainn fiisoi b rfoM*
tfxeq rf*o&. . oildjjcj
AaRsosn firtw xoaxr ai jif*
■ - i i •:* :.i * at ■ . . ^amd^hi. ofilo'rq a
.1
n IXa tadS" tmbl ,tal \i.
ddu dvad iotdyt
hereby fteolared to be public highways",
has ■afttslaeri + 1
statute a period of user flez
qttired. City of Chioajo »8. lault— ££4 Lll.,
The instruction glre& bg the oourt ir
advises the Jury that to oon
It v&6 aseessaxj that it ehoulti be
at least twenty -ears. This, it Bill be observe* , - in
accordance with tha atatate, and ouch of the + eotii-.o.-..
l cr the t±ial of this ease '-'ixes the peri <.<_ nhicb
road had been used as a highway at froi to twenty
and the testimony of one c appeared t
the Boat definite ialbmstioa vith reference to tha :;ae of -.
ay, fixes it at sixteen „6ar;), and unier thin iaatrui I
testimony together with thai -or wit:.- oald be -
ignored. The witness, Leuis Ik.urrtin, saia he tra-vaiec < -
and know it for fifteen, probably tw i are, an
du. ing that time it was o:r the width of sixty feet.
said, "We traveled it for the laat forty ..eazb. ot«
place in dispute here". Carl Ulvig Bays, "I tiavi
with ny produce; the width of it wa^ aixt;
the phblio for its full qidth. People sonHI occasionally use
different parts of it when tha road wr*", had, it naa
road, it had been osed for that wi<Hh for the past a:
seventeen vears. "or fifteen ;enrs i h*p« ■• .
selfV ether witnesses alas testified to tha .30 of thie
for periods nHeslng frcn four to ; aara and
disputed b„ the evidence of the appellee but iT
praotically concaved that the road hrt beer, traveler at
from fifteen to tv»ent;. years, and if it hat, then cm
it oecaine a p\iblic highway.
-3-
-
I etttfata
■-
•' .
| -;il mi? ewffta
4aao3aa east Ji
• axs»-; ^praaw* <taaal >a
i<xal£ee . tut as a 6ti3 iift.s soBMmmm*
oaqjf
Mjjio ao I aa Jteair nsad fcari Jieoi
. 'loatirf roatfreatf tail Aca
. . J-aac «rf*
■ .cue; aae?x±e Ja ft sazitt ,V»ri3-W
pauMtJbir '. i6s&*fiQi jpsomlfaei
■■.:. ,ueoaitn ac.2 . .fceioafci
■;ai Atta fcMT
Hi lo ej»? M «Ki: xfcatrft
.'oiarax? w/P ,b&na
iar.*s? :" .fi,.)- . ''o-xeii etingilb *jt aoalq
. aojjfcoiq; ^:i xittti
•o fc£aM ' 'iy Ilirt: oJ> lot ot£da._
■p ftCWC «rfv
. oatn
.«xae\, nf»lmnP—
."'.'■ .« n^cifc' ai?-0 TlXae
'I.iigql o^- -0 aortebivs r* : 3?uqBtb
• 'wsf tmtid hat\ r f AaMonov ^llaottotei^
iSotJFL otKTft
.X«*A'b£tt oklilitc a s.:ia©««f Si
It further appears Iron the c
obstructed the roi b;
hundred feet alone
it. Under the eri dense ae
the opinion that the Yerdic
the H-eitht o*~ the evidence antl
triuQ. Or. the foraer trial of thi«
of the appellant gare Inetx
attention to , „ sal.
The court at the request c Llant ir in
Babetanee, the t If s read ia ia I and traveled b; a as
a hi^hwa- and ij reeocniseel and kepi In j
highway oomaaloners,
1 1 ; a 1 .re scm p ti on l i r. bl e t o b e
lio highway. Thin theory s» na to be supported by the o
leely Y3. 3rovvn ft al, l;?t Gilnan 3
Supreme Court, however, la : Orube ti
92, necne tc ^e In conflict with \
the Inter utterance sould neoeeaarlly prevail.
tliio latter or.Be that upon the trial it wp.r reeognf.se
the rotn led nnc" worked one' " ^c
authorities that this woalA constitute it n hi>jh?.ay.
the opinion that thla case r*as trie<1 apon
tc the law co'verinc the period for hhioh e roi
-itute it a publio . an# that !
was nanifeetl; < •
-
I
inadvertently dona bat
fcr ocste in proBeouticm? ot t'riu oharaeter.
Lacey, 123 App«, ;
- -
■
■
. i z
l I
■
■
;;E -3C 0 fr£I
A .( L -
I i
■■
■
MM
ITor the errors ftbova indicated ve ar<
that the Judgment cf tbe lower court Bboult
the cause rer-eric'. eci for r. nev. trial.
+ % » X v * * W • *
(iiot to be report** in full ) .
-5-
n m ****
■ -*
- 3d 0*
/, A. C. MILLSPAUGH, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of the
State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true copt) of the OPINION of the said
Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in my office.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I hare set my hand and affixed the seal of said Court
at Mt Vernon, this -2 tf^&L-.. "'"-<' "> J"li:-
A. D. 1914.
Clerk of the Appellate Court
o
z
O
<0
/
Opinion of the Appellate Court
AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, on the Fourth Tuesday
in the month of March in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine lumdred and fourteen, the same
being the 24th dog of March, in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred ami fourteen.
Present:
Hon. Hang Highee, Presiding Justice.
Hon. James C. McBride, Justice.
Hon. Thos. M. Harris, Justice.
A. C. MILLSPAUGH, Clerk. W. S PA YNE, Sheriff
And afterwards in Vacation, after said March term, to -wit: On the > dag
ofJulg. A. D. 1914, there was filed in the office of the Clerk of said Court at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, an
OPINION in the words and figures following:
74-^
No. 3.o
March Term, 1 J) I 1.
'S2ilKj.
APPKAL FROM
188I.A. 414
COl'RT
GttB3S3Ey
Hon.
TRIAL JUDGE
IkJlU :
Term Ho. "50. A*,, . 11.
March Term, . . 1914.
Royal it. Hamman, Administrator of
the estate of Phillip Hamman, Be* }
ceased.
Appellee, ) Appeal I
▼s. ) City Court of
East St. Le
Illinois Central Mail road Company, }
)
A-ppellant. )
IJ '
fccBride. J.
The plaintiff in the traal below obtained a judgment against
the defendant which it seeks to rererse by this appeal. On
the 29th of July, Phillip K. Batsman was willed by one of de-
fendant's trains, at a highway crossing known as the Chart
Croesing, on what is called the Mailing Springs road or ayenue,
near the southwest .limits of the city of >,ast St. 7 ouis. At
this place the Appellant** railroad consist? of three tracks,
extending nearly north and south, and are located about t
feet apart. The east track is called the inbound track, th*
second outbound track and the third the yard trru
scales is looated upon the yard trr>ck -nd st the distance of
about three hundred fifty feet south >f the Chartrnnd Cro»- .
The Jailing Springs Highway crosses the?e tracks at
about thirty degrees, the ighway extending neatly northeast
and southwest. The tracks are elevated the diet nee of fro*
four to six fec-t at the place where this highway crosses and
the center of the Highway at the place is graded in such a man-
ner as to make in approach on to these track?. Oa tne i
question the deceased. Phi 111 Mammon and a kr. Abbot had been
•■(aged at work in a field near this croesing and it being the
r>bna&A -°« .ol arxaT
.M- . ,tn*T rio-xaii
ad* moil IjB»qqA
lo JiuoO x*10 ( .^v
qlllidl lo 9*fll«»
. ■ i«i • aaX
•
.xneqwroO bao-iIxaH IntjnsJ aioniiH
inallaqq-A
.1 .ebl-xEaM
Jania»fl ^n»a«o"t * baniaido wolad Xiul-zJ aril nl lliinislq adT
-aqqa aid* xtf •«*»T»t oi arfaaa fl doidw Jnrbnalab adi
-9b Jo ano yd belli.* saw naasnfl .H ql (Art lo dJCS idi
EftntfQ ad* as nwoni y^*"*"3 X******'* a Jaanifrx* a'inabaal
,sx/n3TB 10 bsoT ayil-xqe yillXal ad* batlno si tmdw no .yilaic-i:)
ja .«J JaaX lo x**» »rf* *o aiiail JaawdJuoaad* taaa
,9iroinJ aaidi lo **«ianoo baoillai a'Jnriraq-qa axl* aaalq aid*
la baisool 9ta bna ,d*uoa boa diion \Iiaaa anibnaixa
,.4-vii fcnuodni adi oalfao al ioeii Jasa adT .itaqa Jaal
'ic Ttpq A . AohtS bim\ ttfl air. ii *di baa <oa?* bnacdiuo bnooaa
oauiaib 9di S& bna Horii btav. ml* noqu baiaool ai aalaoa
I ^TBiiO ad* lo diuoa Jaal Y*lil baibnuri aairtt Juoda
i* aiaRii asadJ aaasoio xsadaJtU ayiiiqS anillal adT
iiJion x-t***" anlbnalxa x'^d.jifi 'di ,aaa?9Bb x*"***^ *uoda
■roil lo son * sib 9dt b->?evala its axasi* adT .iaawviiuoa
^i-wdaid 9 id* a-xariv aajaji^aMCSfca *aal xia oi auol
» dons aj babnijj si -a or It srif J a ^'wdaid axli lo laJneo 9dt
.•iHomrtt ano.ij oi no doaoiqqa na axaa oi ae ian
rtaad bad JoddA .ill a baa na— ■!* ;illirii .baaaeoab 9di noiJaaop
an* | anliaono ax.iJ iaan Mall a nt <iot la ba«a&aa
noon hour had ceased work and were preparing to eat t
and froa some cause undertook to croor nt's tra ; r .
short tine before the deceased ~.nd abbot undertook to crose
tracks the appellant's servants pareed along
with sn eneine, going up to the ecalee for the purpose 1
ing the cans. The engine was on the south end of the car
after weighting them the engine pushed the 1 our n-rr baok I
north and towards Chartrand Crossing, the engine b^ing in
rear with the oars in front, and was runniiur at the rate of
four to six railes an hour. At this time another tr^in was
ing along the inbound track going in the e>-u!ie direction, toe
the north, at the rate of about fifteen miles per hour and
listed of quite a number of car?, L.nkine a train of considerable
Length. Just before the engine with the four cars reached
Chartrand Crossing the deceased and Abbot walked uron the yard
track, apparently engaged in watching the train that woe pass-
ing on the inbound track, and while they were upon the yard
track the front car of the train upon that track struct them
-ind killedthem.
The declaration consist? of three oounts: the fir"t ^ne,
after the formal part, charges "And •fell* the a* id Philli -
man with all due care and cnution was then walking ee
said railroad at the said crossing upon the s- id -ubll-
the defendant then «md there by i<e F^id ewrranta so eai
and improperly grove and managed the said loeomotlv<
tr^in that by and through the negligence and .
of the defendant, by its servants in that behalf,
comotlve engine was then and there Httached to enid '.
care backed in front ol said locomotive engine on on«
several tracks ;>nd di<; not ' nr f] 14 ■*
.?•* bac ifnow bocRso b«ri tuoii noaa
9 Oi T(©Oil*Lr ■ aaiOB BOll bflfi
■ br-.tr Jo id-? bnr baaasoab Mil 910I9J ami J *?oi{a
!>9B!3«<T B^n-TTSS B ' * J eAO-B4!*
iol bbXaob 9ii3- o* qu galas ,sni^n9 «r> tittw
t* brra rf*uoe ariJ no mw anisjna aifT .sios axi* yil
<*-i-o ii/ol ail* b»xiaer«f afrijjna arf* madi snlA^ai-'W i*$\b
,ytt»«o • ab-xawo* bn* ri*»—
itft enr b 1 nl btiso arf* ri*iw ib»*i
rJ t%$ xmtUt >« ami* aid* 3 A .Yiforf as aalia? xi* o* tool
,noi* :>a-rrb am<-t art* nl 31**03 io*"i* onuodni eftt »notr jni
^lil ttjotfn lo 9*JTX arf* *« tri**ofT 9dt
,rT»a 2^ istfnmn e **iup lr> ba*ato
bflffORsi lips • -» arf* arolatf isul. .rfctanBl
MfLMl *o«*d'A bn* boacabab ad* ani^sotO bna-xJTarfC
-83 -tarfJ nlnit Ml ^jntrf-.trw at baryta xlfnvt&qqm .jfonii
i Ww bn* ,0*1* bflusotfni aifJ no ssi
.site <b«tJ srf* 'to l rl ail* laoYi
.maajbafiii baa
■fitrij lr staie^ roab arfT
'jaaTWlo »*t«£ iaartol art* rca*!*
ana »i"0 arrh ££« rf*Jtar nmm
■:■■-> M«a arf# ** baoilie* bias
t x* aiarf* bn* nad* *ttnbftalab art*
ar(.t b*a*fUMn bna sroih Xf***> croTqpai ftna
Mft rtaudtrt* bnr x* *»*0 nla»»
■ »rfi , — ,*r.obrr«lab at!* To
« OS barioaiia ata.ii' fens naff* 9ew anisna avis
I nl baifo«tf aiso
*« ' . .' Xatavaa
nor any switchman, nor brakeman on the front c?r ol »> id ti
The said locomotive engine and train then and
struck the said Phillip haasaan on and about ale head
with great force and violence, etc.
The second count charges defendant with bavlnj f-iJed to
ring the bell or blow the whistle upon id cross-
ing, as required by statute; in addition to the '.negations .
tained in the first court.
The third count, after setting forth the facts subst^nr.
ly as alleged in the first count <t tue declaration, fil-
es the existence of an ordinance in the city ^f
requiring that the bell on the locomotive shall be rung
uously while running within said city, and avers a fnilure to
ring the bell as required by said ordinnn.ce. The defend
filed a plea of not guilty.
The cause was heard and a verdict for appellee for im:r
thousand dollars, upon which the court rtndr-red judgment.
eral errors have been assigned by counsel tor appellant bi
we view the case, it will not be necessary to notice all of
them. The first r>oint argued by appellant is, that t:
gence charged in the first count of the declaration ie not
of careless** and improper driving and managing the engine and
train but it is that of pushing a train of cars over the sr
ing without a flagman at the crossing, and without having h
switchman or brakeman on the fr^nt car of the train. And con-
cludes by saying, that there is no law or ordinarce re uiring a
flagman at this crossing w ■ switchman or brakeman to ride on
the front end of the cut of cars traveling in rr^ad dayl
that the allegations are not sufficient to nn or1
We do not believe that this iaalaration ot toflthe
(3)
tao Snoit •tii no ar>am**%d ?o« ,**arfa*Xw« xjui 10a
1% > ana Mali bbM »nia«9 •vUo'.osol ble* BAT
Mi *uoo* |m oo itb— ah* qixxirt* Jil«« 9dt rforxls
.»*a ,»oaaXoiv bfui »oiol Jasts riliw
^9 11 si ^alVAd: dtiw taAbR9\9b aa*XArfo *nueo bflooas t>t<T
-»- otqqa nc ju »XJai4v a«W waX* 10 XX«rf siii aolt
I It oi aciliaca ai ;#JjjJ-«#i y.d "'OTClupax •« ,*"!
.iauoo Nail •** «* btpjj#
stfua •#■ rot ^ali#es x»Jls %*nuQ9 inidJ •rfT
ios 4%til arfi al bs&BiXis »• \X
t« fftN MW fix •ortsnifeso aa Jo aonaleixa »iii 99
-.de avi^omoool aili no ilatf 9<ii ixiiii aaiiiuBrx
»iufi«l a sit*/* ha« *vMt bi*a -ilaJiw an In run alxda* \Xaf
.trsRbr.B'isb *af .aansnibao aisa xrf barlupav b.« XXbiJ »rf* sail
1c e«Xq a baXil
Tiiol url 99ll9qqm tot ^olbTt9v a Jta* bV bsb*» Brf?
.tnatsBbiit b»iJb«vt iruoo >>di aoirfw aoqu .sxalXob bnaauorfl
iel 1st. i •«?« avatf affld sioai.* Xa?a
•iM9»39n 9d $wm ffxw 11 ,»ssa Btit walr aw
raqqa \d b»uaxa silt 9,-iT ..Ti9.ii
Jaail 4&r nl basxaaa Boara*
bat- sni&iia 9dt i/iXajBOBia bam yiUiib i»qoiq«i bo.- xxaaaXatao lo
. ■•> niftil a aoXaauo; to Jarii li ^t lira' nlaxl
i3 9HS t* oaaqpsXt a iuotiti* 90!
. ii.-xj sa,' 'ir. -» t a&4 oc naawifaicf 10 naadoiiwa
10 to */ef Mi »J atadl .Jadi .aiii'^aa \d aabufo
oo -:(f to imaaf pi Xya a xr ani»ao-ro airii la oaacyaXl
to .too acU lc baa iaoxl a4#
Jon nr enoliasaXXs actf Jfliii
ril Jrili »T«it«»J Ion ob a*
criticism offered. It seems to us that the fair int« r
tion of the declaration is, that the defendant, by its serv-r
improperly drore and managed the said locomotive engine
train, in this, that the said locomotive engine rat tl
there pushing said train of care back in front of said loco*
tive engine, on one of its snid switch tracks, *nd did aot
any flagman nt s^id crorsing, nor ->ny switchman nor braki
the front car of said train, and that all of the*e elements
united in the count as constituting negligence, which we ere
inclined to think, under the circumstances, would constitute
negligence and would be sufficient to pustnin a judgment, es-
pecially after a verdict.
It is also contended that the evidence doep not show the
appellant to have been guilty of negligence or that the appel-
lee was in the exercise of due care for his own safety. It ie
true that the evidence as to the negligence, and eppecinlly ss
to the due care of the deceased at the time of the injury, is
not very clear and convincing, while it appears that tne deceas-
ed could by having looked have seen the train approaching >nd ; op-
Bibly avoided the danger, yet the circumstance* of ■ tmin run-
ning upon the inbound track at the same time, which wpf
ably attracting the attention of the travelers, and the further
circumstance of their traveling at such an angle that their
were nearly towards this approaching train nnd thnt it a]
ed so noiselessly were all matters to be considered by the jury
as circumstances from which the Jury might excuse ti.e r-irty I
looking or listening. The courts lay d>wn the doctrine , "That *
lailure to look or listen, especially where it -if f irr/^tivelymaw-
pears that looking or listening mifcht have enabled I
(4)
-
-.-• t 9di ted..: au OS asaaaa tl .. y-iello anxoxiiaa
:•■ ait • '-• adJ Jari* ,«1 lo^b auJ lo noli
*i oot bx«a art* bsaaxiAffi bxta -*TOTb \liitioiqfU
: aaw 9nxjn9 ari-tc-joool bxr.a 9if.t JexiJ .olxii nx tnlBii
icil ni ioscf also lo nxxn,J Mb* gnixfexjcf 9i9dt
..'9 blpa ait lo sno no .anxana avxJ
ion %ani'.^oio bl^e Jxi xurngBll ^u»
'-9£ii lo IliB J*xi.t fcr. , . li aire lo aao Jnoil aiU
a* rfoxrfv .sonagit^sn grrx Ju^iJtsctoo an Jnuoo axil nx baJinu
, j -^lijo^xo grf* r»bau tirrJuU oJ bsnilonx
ra <>i .tnaxoxlliia otf b&jow &«;? aonaaJtlaaa
J iroila Ion aaob aonabxva aJ4 JaxU bebnaJnoo oalu si H
'it Ls.-j% aa-scf »tjw1 oi 3 acll9qqe
ax tl . y^alaa nwo airf *ol btbo tub lo aaxoi->x9 axtt nx 9bw aal
cjr t fa«n axtt at ae aoaabxva 9xU tzdf ami
9aii sxW Sx baeaooab 9ii3 lo 9txjo aub sat oi
•> t L 9ltdH .gnionirnoo bite xb_. lo v**v Joe
nisi* 9At naaa 9tat£ baotool anxv*rf ^cf blx/oo ba
•vti*) 9iU t*\. .laytrb 9£t^ babiotffl \Icfle
taw .acltf anna oxU *« io-xii bnoocfni; aril rioqi/ anlxi
, t9 1 rami an"* lo noiin9tio axiJ xfla xlda
Ota Moue J* aniX9Viii^ tiarii lo aoxir^ajKuo'ito
.ittnf a-' * Villein aiaw
:. 9At \(S baiabxanoo 9*1 oi BistJan LIb 9iaw xlaaalaalon 08 be
■JiLi rfoxxiar noil aao: I p s.<-.
.aaxtloob axU n ;oo atiT .gxiina^exX tc '^nxiocX
-faja^Ia. . i aiaxiw ^Xlsioaqaa .naJail to tfool ai 97
•Ixa 3i!tJoJ-»J iiooJ taxUt exaaq
-
posed to injury to see the train and thus? ovoid bein. , *
is evidenoe tending to show negligence. But they are not con-
clusive evidence, bo that a charge of negligence ean be i radi-
cated upon thera as a matter of law. There atay be vmrloui
fying circumstances excusing the -party from looking or listen-
ing, and that being the case, a aere failure to look or listen
cannot, as a legal conclusion, be pronounced negligence per re."
Chi. & H.W.R.K. Co. vs. Thmleavy, 129 111., 13?; V»inn vs. C.C.
C. & 3*. L. R. R., 23B 111., 132. 3o that as we read tne de-
cision of the -njprerae C-aurt, under such circumstances it
euestion for the jury to determine whether or not the dace
was in the exercise of due care for his own safety. The;e,
however, are natters upon which another jury nuat pass in this
care, and we will omit any particular cornea t upon the evidence.
Appellant further contends th3t the giving of appellee's
second instruction was reversible error. This instruction i -,
"If the Jury believe from the evidence that the deceased waa
free from negligence on his part in attempting to or
track, or railroad, that the defendant's servants In eh
the train were guilty of negligence, either in running ovei
crossing in question at • greater apeed than was usual and
was reasonably safe to persons about to cross the track, or in
not ringing the bell or sounding the whistle continuously for
the distance of eighty rods lefore reaching the crossing,
that by reason such negligence the deceased wos injured, then
the jury should find the issues for the plaintiff.* It will be
observed that this instruction directed a verdict ects
into the case the question of running over the crossing "At n
greater speed than was usual and thsn was re^r-onably safe t
(5)
irfj ©»a of x*1"^* o
■:* \9rff 3uX .»orr»sll3©n worfa of anttmsj ©onsbtr© al
»in sri r.p« 30n»:^ila©r to ©aiarf© *» ;.ndf on ,»an»bi79 ©tXsl/Io
-ib ihv stf v* 9-x©xff .wr-r lo •xgffnti a 98 mecit noou b»$*s
r.^ool biot! Y***n<T 9tti ijx'iauox© BBOnBfBru/oiXo anX^l
: of siuTIbJ staff a ,©a»» odS anlstf f Al ,a«l
baofluonng acf ,nolsu[orro f«a©X a es , fotaJOT
.0. ; :<5:r. , .ftl £SX ,\.yx*©XnuC .by .00 .H.fl.W.fT 4 .IffO
-»t 9/i'J ba©* «w a ri ess , .JI .ft .1 ,*e A .3
* el St eaonniarao : ; ,#ii;©-D yma-iqu^ arif lr no is in
ba»n»09fc ©tfi ton io iBrffvifiv ©n ian©J©b nj ^xi/t arf* *ol noiJaatrp
,©s©r(T .\t9lrff nwo six; io"i ©i*o suf Ir ©etoiex© ©rif ni saw
Birff nl ea^q fatMB y.i»: noqu Bt©i? ,i»r»w©d
i nnqu Jnfljmoo i*Iuoifi*q ^na f laio XXJtw ©w bna ,9 ro
8*99X1 gnlrls ©xfi frrff abn»inos "X©rfJ ' f 9qqA
ifanr aixfT .10119 ©/• Jt> i«r©* anw nolf ouifani bnoo©a
rs» oonafciv© ©xfi moil ©T©lX»cf y,iot ©ft J II*
©rii BBO-io of &ni#qam7*« ni tiaq airf no aonaalXgar moil ©art
to f 9fn-vt98 B'fnnt^slsfi ndi )< 7 io .rfoal*
ioto antnnui ni i9.-ffia ,«>9n*si£3an 1° ^JJCitfi 9i©w niaif axlJ
auau eew cq© i9Jp.bijj a fa noifssoi' r I galaao?©
ox io,>[Oisif ©iff bboio o.t fuocfp anoei©q of ©$x->8 \,Xo*an«8a©i sav
'•Xfsirlw 9df anibiujoa io Xlsrf »rif ani^ali len
an* ,ani©r ->i <vrol©>- afcoi \)ii%i9 to ©onafslb flv
n? i,ni saw b©8«oo»fi 9rff 9on«all39r xfoiia noBnei \tf farff
. 'ntsXq ©rff lot B©unr f>Xuoff8 X^^'l
.ibisv 8 boiosi v l^r* fpxfJ bevt*Brfo
ioto 9x<j 19V0 ^r.lntiui lo noXfoaifp ©xlf sbbo ©xt? oJnl
nurfi b©©qa ft "91^
(3)
persons about to cro s the truck." ''here is nothing in
declaration charging defendant with naving operated its train
at an exeeesive speed or at an unusual speed, and we are oi1 tie
opinion that in tlM giving of the instruction trie court
luive confined appellee's rifcht to recovery, t*» the charges set
forth in his declaration, and that it vras reversible error to
eabody in tne instruction, elements of negligence not set lcrti.
in the declaration. Justice wilkins in the care of Consol-
idated Coal Co. v », Yung, 24 App., 258, says, "When the decias-
ation alleges Lite personal negligence of the defendant as the
ground of liability it is a fatal objection to instructions that
they direct the attention of the jury to other and differ*
element!* of liability." C.C. * 1. C. K. K. Co. vs. Troesch,
j.11 . , &47. "An instruction which allows a recovery for negli-
gence in general respects without limitation to the particulars
of negligence specified in the declaration, is too broad."
C. & A. fc, -. Co. vs. hock, 72 111., 141; B. * 1. K. Co. vs.
. eople, 96 111., b84.
It further appears from this record thf>t there ie no evi-
dence whatever upon which to bass this instruction. Ie have
bten unable to iind any evidence tending to show tu % t] i
was beirig run at an unusual rate of speed or that it was tw
a greater rate of Bpeed than was reasonably safe ior nerpone
about to cross the track. It was B*id by the Supreme Court
that as "no evictnee wa* offered to show that the servants oi
the defendant in charge of the train were incocretent, c
or unskillful, and in the absence oi such evidence Here wrs
J££±
nothing on which to base the second instruction. It wap/to be
presumed because of the happening oi the accident alone. it was
16)
si 919 r,i 1 9ti4 B-on ■> oj iuoo'fi 9X10*190,
.>qo ^nlvtui diiu tax> aaitfl is9b
v* btm tb99o? L>3xwxfxuj «tb Ja to bt»9qh 9vioeo»?-9 ns Jxi
IgllaaU axit lo apxria » <;uj aoixuqo
9»\J **» ,\iii»voo*a oj J'iijii e'sgXI^qqa Jteaxxnoo *vxul
Ti9 9ltfi8T&r9i Mi Jx * ,ncx^«a^£oBJb 6: lOi
sa ion 9ons&iia»n io sJna.'oI© ,iiox*o»ri,j9nx ©xiJ nx vboc.y
-fo»noi> xo i ax sxixiiXx - aoxteui. .ncx;tjBxcl09X> »dJ ax
, .qqA #& .»nur .«» .oJ Iso J i*9^Dbx
'3 19^X1 jap i MJOS19.1 9uU 89:*j»Ii'*. OOiJii
»i#oH^° f*#«3 '"• si *- ^iXJtdjBlX lo bttuoia
-jiiic cJ" xiuj. s^j to aoliti94Jti 9riJ *89ixi> x**^
... , | | . ,..; ".ViXicfBXI xo a4xi9xa9Xa
•foaei i* sure . tr aox;f ox/xJanl aA" ,V*5 ..XX*
juo&iiw 9J-o9qs»t X ai9.it> <j ni 99at»s
o* si ,nnxjj*axil09i> 9xtt nx. b9Xlx:>eqe » ^n xo
, ,.IXI SV ,a£oo4 -sv .oJ ..<• ." .A. A .9
,.IX1 dti ,»Xqo»x
xv ,: i pvf oiousi aXitJ aoix axoaqqfl i9tid-aux J- 1
^vari 9- .w x." ouijaxtx «xi1J 9a>rf oj iioxxlw ar>,;y ijvaJariw pausb
W0ii« orf a«ifcn9* 99096XV9 y>:m bail oj 9ldt;nu i»99£f
n jrw Jx jRti-i s-x Ii«iJ8ijiui xw Jb xtxrx ^nxa-d uv
9 (Xcffiuo9«rx asv rusjiJ- b99trs xo yj»vx 'xajamr^ m
3 9a9'i; .•ica *»«* #X .^ojbxJ- 9*ii a«oxo o* juoda
fmd$ wodm oJ Jwxs'Xxo aaw 99uai>xv9 ou" ss isnU
a»9X»iao ,^ft9^9>fiao9nx -.ttj | ibLXSiob axU
9t»iii aorobxva 9on*eria 9i\J ux Aaa .Ix/xIIXiianu -xo
•o* oJ\9i»w *I .nnxJamjBiu baooaa »iU oajso oj iioxii«r xio yix^Joa
*ovr ';'33B 9t{.i to |jnxn9qqad 9»iJ to ••uao»cT i»9.iwa9X..j
(d)
error to give the second instruction for the plaintiff.
0. R. ft. Ye. Godfrey, 155,111., 82. ^he jury could re.Tor:ably
infer from thie instruction an assumption of the existence of
the factsaa set forth therein, and for that reason, the court,
in the oase of Sieman vs. Schnitker, 181 111., 406, c;
it and says "The fact that the court assumes to state the 1
applicable to particular states of case is of itself an as-
sumption that those states of ce?e exist, for it is not to he
presumed a court would give the law to the jury wl ile tryirt
ease, with reference to questions not believed to he before
them.* And the court there held that the giving of puch in-
struction was erroneous and the case was reversed.
Owing to the character of the acts of negligence and r.i a
care proven in this case, we are of the opinion that it is
highly important that the jury should have been correctly in-
structed, -nd we believe that the instruction referred to
of a character calculate* to mislead the jury adn pan it *
to assume as elements f negligence ■attars that were ? ot in
the case, and that the giving of the instruction under such cir-
cumstances was reversible error, and the judgment f the lower
court is reversed and the cause rer.ianded.
(Mot to be reported m full.)
(7)
aoxJouiianx bnooaa »rti avxa ot loiia
qu${ art" .n8 , .III, ddl .^aiclboO .ar ./I .fl .0
.f-axxs *4J io nTiiqaoBSB as noltouitant si iJ moil aainx
,i it lot ban ,nl*i»di litio'l ias «.«aJojti a^J
siucsbno? ,aofr ..III 181 ,!3j(*iriJ-jC .ar fluussxl lo aaso * it at
■l 9dt stnta ot asouaar )iuoi s. f Joal adr* a^se bn« Jx
•LiQji lo ax aeao lo a*is£a ivluoltix , oi aldxsoxluq*
»«• ii Ji tol .iaxxa )°ao lo aaiaia aaoiii isxli aottqmun
, : ■' iXJ t iral aai avxj bluow jiuoo a />
violatf ad oi oovalXdtf ion anoxJaaup oi aonaialas .iixv* ,aax*o
-at d9tf to anxvxg aiii Jari- bla4 s-iaxit liuoo silJ- bny>. ".caxli
>ai9Vd? ^b« asso arfJ boe auoanoTia saw nottointa
ionssiljjan lo aior arij lo -i%toBT»do 9dt o* yixwO
si noxnxqo «fj lo aia aw , aeao axuj nx navotq eaao
-itoo nsacf ovful bluoxla \iul arfi iadi JruiJ-ioqal ^Id^ld
> nst9i iioxiouiianx aiii Jfidtf araxlad aw fan;- .baiowxia
liut *atl baalaxm ot aaialjjolao uaJoaia/io a lo
' *l9tt&& tjoaoaxl^an lo sina&als ss aaursss oi
.'ani 9 it 1 ytxvi^ ad.J tacit baa , aaao 9dt
"1 iasngbul, *tit beta ,ao"xi3 a£dx»a»T»"X b«tt aaonaJ-;
.babnaniai suuaa axlJ^ bnr- baaiava* ax ituoo
l.XIul ax bainoqai ad oi JoMj
(O
/, A. C. MILLSPAUGH, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of the
State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true cope of the OPINION of the said
Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in nip office.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF. I have set m& hand and affixed the seal 0/ said Court
at ML Vernon, this J, / ■^L,'- dar <>/ Julc.
A. D. 1914
Clerk of the Appellate Court
o
o
z
Opinion of the Appellate Court
j
AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at Mr. Vernon, Illinois, on the Fourth Tuesdnc
in the month of March in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred anm fourteen, the same
being the 24th day of March, in the uear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundredfand fourteen.
Present:
Hon. Harru Higbee, Presiding Justice.
Hon. James C. Mc Bride, Justice.
Hon. Thos. M. Harris. Justice.
A. C. MILLSPAUGH, Clerk. W.fS PA Y.XL, Sheriff
And afterwards in Vacation, after said March term, to-wit: On the Vj>odr^ - dag
of'Julu, A. D. 1914, there was filed in the office of the Clerk of said Courf at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, an
OPINION in the words and figures following:
*OJ4U+«-Ttt-
\.PPEAL FROM
I.A. 416
COl'RT
COl' NT Y
TRIAL JUDGE
Hon.
Tern So. 36. Agendn Ho. 41.
barch Term, A. D. 1914.
Gsrrst Wilkins, )
Appellee, )
) Appeal from the
▼s. ) Circuit Court of
Madison Coal Corporation, )
Appellant
Madison County.
J
416
McBrlde. J.
A jury was waited and trial had before the Judge by con-
sent of the parties, which resulted in a judgment for the
plaintiff for $2,999.00, to reveres which the defendant pros-
ecuted this appeal.
At the time of the injury complained of appellee w*e en-
gaged In running ■ machine ussd in under-cutting Coal in one
of appellant's mines. He, with his buddy, was opsr ting a ma-
chine in a cross-cut that wis being opened up off from room o.
1, towards room So. 2, off of the 14th Sorth entry on the main
east sntry. The fall and injury occurred Wednesday, Uovembsr
1, 1911, at some time after eleven o'clock. The wine had not
been in operation on the day before but on Monday before appel-
lee and his buddy were engaged in undercutting this cross-cut
and had eut two boards, beginning at the -oef t, but had to quit
on account of there being soms down coal at the right of the
cross-cut which had to be cleaned up before they corld complete
ths cut. At about three o'clock on Wednesday morning, November
1st, ths mine examiner examined this cross-cut, and curried with
him in the making of the examination, as he certifies, an iron
rod about two and one-half feet long md hwlf inch in diameter
with a knob on the end about one inch in diameter; and also car-
ried a snfety lamp and an anemometer. Le testified thnt he
. C* ■ >»A .d£ .oH anaT
.*xex .a .a ,i
.anxtfXxW laiaaO
»ri^ soil Xae
lo 1*0*3 IxuoiiO ( .«▼
r<0 ncitb&X (
( ,noxlaaoq*xoO XboD aoalbaJI
( . lasIIaqqA
.1 ,abxi8oM
I ;/i s^JbuT. »rfv* "doled bed I«lai boa barx«w eaw viut A
Ml* to) Inaw^but a nx bsSLuatt rioirfw .aailiaq aril lo Inaa
-soiq tn<*bci9lnb aril cioLdw aa-xavai ol ,OO.e?etS$ to! lixlnlnq
.X*eqqa axdl %9iuoB
-na a aw saXXsqqa to banxaXqaoo icxu^nx »d4 lo aaill adl tk
ano nx Laos anx^ltro-Tabruj nl baau anirfoaot « yAraut at bagag
-cat a afiii -ncfc a«w %\lbfjd aid dlxw ,aH .aanxm a^lnallsqqa lo
M moil llo qo bansqo 3nr»d" a^w *ad^ J-i/o-aaoio a nx anxrio
nxam a. xina d;t*o.< rflM ariJ ro t'to ,2 .ol aioort ab-xnwol ,X
•tatfmaro/i ,x«baanba* banuooo x^"L«i *>nt« Hal adT .^ilna laaa
Jon bad an .Xorio'o naraXa talla amll aaoa- la ,XXCX ,X
-laq-TP aiolad \;flbnoJa" no Sud aioxad \jab 9dJ no noxleiaqo nx naad
i anliluoiabnu r.l bag^aaa a-taw \_bbud aid baa aal
, >V •>:; Js anxnnlsarf (abxaod owl lua bad beta
. : otto Sp Xsoo oweb anoa aalarf araril xo lauoooa no
sis I 9-co'xatf qir ban^aXo ad ol bad doxrfw luo-eaoio
tarfm^v Bba^nba1* no jfooXa'o aa-isil Iwodp 1A .loo aril
stit^ | aiitJ banimaxa -xanxaiBxa anxm aril ,JaI
noix na .aaxlxlT** ad <s« ,n^i •» adl lo anxtfam adl at tatd
iBtnatui^ ni rionx I gnoX laal *Xj»d-ano boa owl luotfa boi
-iKo oela bne :iaJam»i: .' oda baa arij no cfonrf a dlxw
.■;••■ .-xalaflioaiaaa oa bos qaiaX x***^* « b*ti
examined the roof ol this cross-cut, thoroughly sounding
roof from one side to the other and found the roof solid, r
his Tisitation mark l/ll/ll and reported the crosp-rr . MX
about eight o'clock in the morning of the same day the load*
who had been engaged in cleaning up the coal in this took c
into the room for the purpose of examining it, expecting to
shoot and load out the coal as soon as the under-cutting was
completed. At this time they both testified they poundec
roof carefully tnd lound it solid and no loose or dangerous coal,
and proceeded to com iete the loading of the down coal thnt
been left at the right hand side of the room. After they had
finished loading this coal appellee and his buddy, at nboul
o'clock in the morning, came into the crose-cut to complete
under-cutting. They testified that shortly after they commenced
work they discovered some loose or hanging coal at about eight
feet from the face and near a cross bar. That they notified
the loaders to set a prop under this loose coal, which they
and after the prop wa» set the roof was again sounded and as-
certained to be solid. Thereupon the appellee and his buddy
proceeded to operate their machine and pfter it had been at work
for about fifteen minutes another part of the roof, a part th^t
had been solid heretofore, became detached and fell upon ■$
lee and injured him. The portion that fell was not that which
had been propped but was a part of that which had been sounded
and found to be solid.
There are two counts in the declaration. The first ohart ee ,
that on said date and prior thereto there existed in the roof of
•aid crocp-cut and over the working place therein, n lot of slate,
dirt, rock and other material that was insecure and dengeroue
likely to come dov-Ti it any time and injure those at work in under-
(2)
« ^Qla^oTOii.t .iua-aeo-io aldS lo loci acii bonxmax*
abam ,bxXo8 Ire Mil astral bna *9d.to arii oj obla ano moil looi
Ml .»1b9 it/o-aaorry adi baftoqa* 6n* XX\.fI\X iinai nol^fl*x*lr aid
t Xflb asoaa ads 1c gaJtcrxoit 9di nx tools' o trials SuodB
9O.P.0 oiooi aldS nx Xaoo adi qu anlnsolo nx bojft&ia noid bed orfir
j."Iio»frx» ,*x -jnininipxa lo aacfiuq «di Tol scoi adi oSal
ssw anliwUD-itbnii ddJ as noos ss Xaoo 5rfl iuo bsol bna ioodo
>riJ bebrtjjos ^tttl baxiii39i illod ^9>li »mlJ eldS iA .baiaXqooa
, xaoo ejoT»an.«») 70 aaooX on boa bxXo; ix bnx/ol bnr. yXIuIoibo xoot
bjR.\ Sadt Inoo rwob ?r(l to gnxbaoX adi •;•! noa oS bsbaaooiq boa
rf f<|# TailA .ffiooi 9rii "io 9bxe band td^lr adS ta ilaX aaad
. Jiroda ip ,^x>bud aid bos saXXeqqa Xaoo axdi jjnxbBoX bsdalnlt
■•■ - »s cd Jjjo-isoio adi oiax am«o .anifl'XOK adt nl iocLo'c
baonao^oo vadS i*S\b \lSroda S pdS baxlliaai \adt .■&alSSsio-iobaa
idgxa Suoda Sa Xr.oo %nl%nnd to aaooX 9moa beiorosslb \adS ixom
bull IS on \adS iariT ,rad bsoio a aasn ban aonl »di oca! ioal
,blb \9dS doldw ,Xboo aaooX aiiii -xabnu qoaq a Sam oi a-xabcci adi
-s« hnr. bobnifns nxAga ssw loci 9di i9a sew qoiq adi "t9ila boa
liu 99XIaqqa adi aoquaiatfi .biXoa ad oi banxp-tieo
tfiow ia 099d bnxt ix isil^ bos anxdaaa -ixadi aiftiaqo oi baboo ootij
indi itaq a ,1oot wfi to i-xner TOdions aoiunxa n99itil iuocfa *xol
-la •/ Hal bap b9dosi9b •nr-oacf ,9Toloi9<X9d bJLXos flood bod
rfoi I ioa B«^», XX9l SndS aoliToq 9dT .mid baiulal boa oat
bobnuca aood bnd dol.iw S ndS to iiaq a eaw tud boqqoiq wood bad.
.blloa ad oS bm/ol tea
il 9i£T .noxJ-BTaXoob »rii al iinuoo owi ora oiodT
lo "ior-r arij ai ^oistxo 9iod^ oioTorfi Tol^q boa ainb tl«i no iadi
,»iala lo ioX a ,ni9todi ooal^ ^nii-xcw »di rove boa iuo-^qrao bl^a
iuotosaab bar oiuooanl mav SedS InltaSam. isdio bar afooi ,Jt2b
• -«r is aeodJ 9Tutnt bnp »oii^ \pa Sa nwob aaoo oi ^Xoiif
(S)
cutting and loading coal therein, of which the de; then
and there well knew, and that the defendant wilfully failed r*id
omitted to inspect s«id r ->of at said point and to observe e-id
dangerous roof thereat.
The second count charge that there exietedin the roof of
said cross-cut and owr the working place therein a lot of
loose, cracked and dangerous slate, dirt, rock and other mater-
ial which was likely to come down at any tine and injure serv-
ants of the defendant engaged in working in said crors-cut, of
which the defendant then and there well knew. That the r^ine
examiner within twelve hours inspected the place and observed
said dangerous roof at said noint, and wilfully failed and orit-
ted to place ■•. co snieuous mark or sign therent as notice to all
raen to keep out, and wilfully failed to make a daily record of
the conditions asre uired by statuts.
Several errors have heen assigned and argued Vy counsel
for appellant but as we view this case there is but one ques-
tion that is necessary to be considered r>nd that is. Was the
cross-cut in question in a dangerous condition at the time the
mine examiner examined it, Bnd if so, did he mnrk it as dan-
gerous? ^here is no dispute as to the fact that the roof or
cross-cut was not marked as dangerous. It is, however, con-
tended by counsel for appellant that the reason it was not so
marked was because it was not dangerous at that time sad did
not require to be marked as such, and this is the reil ' uestion
that is presented and argued by counsel for appellant and appel-
lee. At the time that the mine examiner passed through the
cross-cut, examined it and sounded the roof, he says that he
sounded it thoroughly nnd found the roof solid and foams'
loose conditions existing in the roof. The next persons t
(3)
.!•& Bdi doldv 1© ,nlvfdi Iaoo anibaof boa iaiJ*i/o
bfr 'tri* Jnabneltab »rii Jed* boa ,wamf flaw »i»ri* bna
e» avisado o* bna iniocr 6i*« $* lo^t biaa Jsaoisni o* baJJimo
.JaaiadJ "iooi »uot»afu»6
to **o* arCJ ntb^iaixa wsrfi ItuU a*^*ada tnuon bnootm ariT
Jol s niaxad* aosln snishcow ad* iare bits Suo-*ttmo Mat
-«•#*• -trtrfin b.iff tfoo* .Jtib .aiais mro-xasnab baa beiDjRTO .aaoof
-V193 atutni 5if MrlJ xn.s i* tnob aaoo ©* ^faKfil 3«w doiriw Imt
biaa nt yiitfxow ui bss'gns Jn bnalab ad* to ntn»
ani-a ad* -Jad? .irarH Haw arcadi bnn !f9dt in^bnalab ad* dflMt
baviaado bflji aaafq arfj bajoacmrri aiuorf aTlaw* nlrfJi* isni/wxt
II bari«*l vCftytXtw b«Ji ,*Hla^ bipa la loot »uaTas»«b bka*
4 M ">n a* #»©*xadJ n$ hw* boo- I b»#
lo bxoaai xi**& * •**■ o* bafint x**"**** *"* .*"» qeaaC o* nam
.a*ii*»*a \d bartlupaYa* enoiiJtbnoo 9dt
X<1 bau^TtK bnm bao^iaas tt—d ar«f aicna Ij^arafl
-*»ut> arm +ud «i a-rad* aaiso ntdf walr aw oa iuo* *naIIao;<7a 10*
-<iablin<io »tf o*J ^npwoaoan ai tfdt noli
9dt ami* a •ii^'woa auota.^nrb a «i noiieaup nl Jtro-aaoio
=tr fj iinai »,i bib («a li boa ,*i banimaxa •xaniaax-i anlm
•xc loox ad* */?dJ *a*1 adi o* am aiaoreib on ai aiad* ?ano7a3
-no3 ,i9T»worf ,*i *I ,ei<oT»srtRb a*, basfiaai Ion a*w tuo-mnoio
oa *on inw ii noanei ad* isd* *n«II<M>7« tot laacuoo \d Jaaba«#
bib ba« sen » auoTa^nab ion a«w *1 aauBoao' aaw hatftlt
i airt* ban %doum ae bwftnffl ao* oi aiiunai ion
t I»«n«oo \-i bwytm ba»> bainaaarcq ai J
al* iiiuo-rri* banaag laaittwxa ania »rf* Jr-.ri* aatti adi *A .»al
s «■ od ,*ooi adi bab *i banitygxa ,tuo-&i30xv
bauGl bn^ biloa ?otii H0 bn«ol bn« Y^^Sw°iodi ii babntroa
*a :aq ixan adT .tooi adi ni ^nlimtx9 anoiiib.ioo aaool
were in this m croas-cut were Louie Arnaldi nnd i'red Dryer,
who went into that cross-cut at about eight o'clock in the
morning, and ae they were expecting to shoot and load the cc
that was being sunder- cut both testified they sounded the roof
of this cross-cut from side to side aal found it solid, -mdfound
no loose doal of any character in tieroof ^t that time. The
next parties th-it came into the cross-cut were appellee "nd hie
buddy who came in at about ten o'clock in the morning for the
purpose of wompleting the board that they had commenced to cut.
That shortly after they began work they discovered some loo?e
or hanging coal, near the first cross-bar, from the face and
called upon the loaders to set a prop! under this branding coal,
which they did, and after the prop had been eet under the eoal
the roof was ag^in sounded and it was then determined thnt it
was sound and no loose conl. Appellee and his buddy had been
engaged at work operating the machine but a short time v;hen
some of the coal near the face that had sounded solid but a
few minutes before icarne loose, fell upon appellee nnd injured
him.
The declaration alleges that this dangerous condition ex-
isted at the time the mine examiner was in the roor and exam-
ined it, and the burden was upon the plaintiff to show such
conditions. Cook ts. Big Luddy Coal & fcining Co., 149 111., 41;
Cdorizzi vs. Southern Coal & Mining Co., 151 App., 393. e do
not believe that the evidence in this record sustains the alle-
gation but are of the 0r inion that the weight of the evidence
ehoww that at the time the mine examiner visited this cros--cut
the condition coraplainedof did not then exict. We think it
affirmatively appears, not only that the roof was solid i t
(4)
,X9\- IbfeatA wtaol aia«? Juo-aaoio sex sldi ai oiaw
. o-«8oi: *«d.t oinx inaar odw
m ■■•** b'-ol bns £•*■■ oS aaiJoaorxe 9T*w x»-"<* as en* .gnxnioa
•^tll*o»i died tuo-T9butJK^ai9<S sew iutf
t . , •■ I bns abxa o* abia noil: *«9-»aoio «lril lo
9d? ,9iVtt laoTrt* al ia*o*i^do \nei lo I«ob aaooX ea
£sor<T« axaw *i/9-«*c-i Maftt fcM(J aai*ia<x *x»n
Mf* i i tfoolo'o no* Mcde is al aaaa odw x*>**«f
- feai x«dj led* biaod sifcr aaxiaiasM* lo aaoaraa;
MIM Mi MOM) ^«rf* rtow naj»(l \ari* Mill x***cda JadT
aosi adJ s-.' . 31 It act? isarr .laoo sniyuui io
d anxlnul sidl xaaau KooTir £ *ae o4 -labac! adJ aoqw bmtlm%
-sbna iwm naarf btui qoiq adJ xaJla bnu .bib v,9dJ doxdw
$mM baniarioJa* nad* MM 11 bae babnu^a nlr^gi as* loni «U
YfcbtfcT axtt boe aaXlstrefA .Xwoo •tool on bna bavou aaw
nadw wii' itnrfa 0 3tsJ arsxdaiva adi ^lXimaTo -jfxov Is a««Bl«a
a # 1 babnuoa ftaal ii»ili aoal »rf* i*%n Xkoo adJ lo amoa
-A
-rjlni bna <>aXXacrrr*» noqu Hal .aaooX 9«tifo) aiolaci aaiunzn wal
.»id
-t» nrii^xbr'oo Biici^i.iab airii ftffjfl aagalia aoWoi-nloob adT
-ai 1 ad J iii a0V fnLBxix* anx« *di aatiJ arfi 1b bo^a
a wada ftf itttattarff ad* noqu i«w aabxad* 9d* bo* ,*x aanx
;X»,.i'XI Qbft,. i A ImoO iMtfl alff .av XooO .anoxJxJana*
M , .qgA I<!I,.oO »nxntfi £ XooO ai9dtuoJ .ev xasllobO
oai Matt ai 9an»bxva art* JHriJ araiXarf ton
9tiS lo tn^,i9w 9ff? iaaH noinino ad* lo axe jud ooiiaa
baJxaiv laaieaxa Nafta aa.t aarij ad* i« *«d* avottf
t a* .^slxa nad# tfon bib lob»aiAi({8K.'9 noilibnoa ad*
t>? a«w ft) ; X-l*ri*sai.
time "but in the morning at eight o'clock two disinterer-te^ • it-
nessee testified that the roof we.* then solid end no ind,
tions of loose coil existing. It is contended by counsel for
appellee that adangerous condition did n f-^ct exist, ".nd the
mere fact tnnt the examiner did not ascertain it would not e- -
cuse appellant from liability. ^hi? is prohably true as a legal
proposition, if such physical facts were disclosed as ought to
have caused the mine examiner 'o see the d-nger -nd thnt in
passing upon the dangerous condition hie judgment was at fault
and failed to appreciate the danger that the physical fuctp
factr
dicated. We do not understand that if there are no physicnl/ir—
dicating a dangerous or unsafe condition that the appellant
be made liable simply because it afterwards turned out t;
latent danger not discoverable really existed and an injury re-
sulted therefrom, luch reliance is placed "by counsel for api el-
lee, in sup ort of this position, upon the case of Fiaszi vs.
&«rens-Donnewald Coal Co., 262 111., 33 (Advance Sheets), which
wae decided by this court and affirmed by the Supreme Court,
which sustains the doctrine that although the i ine examiner may
have examined the place and in good faltk believed that the oon-
ditione were not d-angeroua, yet the appellant would be linble.
"here is, however, o marked difference between that ease -nd the
present one. In that case there wr*s a clod that hung from the
roof of the cross-cut, which the mine examiner could se. , ^>nd
did see, but he did not peem to anpreci-te that it wr>e dnnperoue;
but in the present case, the evidence shows that 90 far ->a the
physical fucts that were visible or culd be nscert^ine'1 , d
means required by statute, there was nothing to indicnte
gerous condition, and we must conclude th- t the danperous condi-
(6)
tt-sioJn Lttb owi sTdoIo'o idjjxa in jjnxmooi adi tit iud omit
ban MI08 nsrfi 9jnr loo? 9tl) t&d.) b9XlxiB9i 89es*n
■sot Isanuco vcf r,9bn9jno3 ax il .anxialxa Ir.oo aaool to anoxi
stit bnn .iaixa io'-z n. btb noxixbnoa auoiasBrtba Jprfi 99 tlaqqa
1 ion bluow #1 nipJiaoafi ion bib Twimns »dl i«nJ ioci arram
•I 2 9b Mrsi taj ex aid4 .^ixlxd«xi botI innliaqqa asuo
"?oIoaib aiaw aionT laoxaydq doua li .aoxilaoqoTq
nx i.<vii tea laan-b ariJ ••• of aanxnipxa anxai arti baauao araxf
i fa ar»w in9<rr:jbut •**<< noxixbnoo euoissn'fa arfi norru gni^aaq
iiaal [ — ra\;rfq 9iii iadi lognab adi aiaxoa^qqa oi balxal bna
sis aiad.t li ^*di anaiaiabnu Jon oil »W .baiaoxb
Bdi imit noxixbnoo •tsnftxr 10 auo-xaanBb a anxii«9xb
KM? abTawraila ix aaunoad x,lqniti ald^x! 9bem ao*
-91 xiu\jil n/» ban beiaxxa \LLr91 al a eiavoor cb ion ?»sn~b inaiel
Laamxoo \:d baoalq ax aonsxiai dou : .moilaiad^ baiiua
.ar xxssxT 1o aaao ad.t noqu .nolixaoq axdi 10 i*o qua nx ,aal
rfoxrfwr ,(aiaarf3 aonsvbA) 55 ,.IXI SdS ,.o3 IroD Mawannofl-enaia-*
,tTi/oO aaa-rquS adi ijd barnii'ifl bn* i-xuoo axri* ^d xtabxoab aaw
\;aa lanxcusxo ani • art* dji/odili* iarfi anxiioob adi anx^iai/a doxdw
ifix-l bcog nx bn<* aoalq adi baninaxa avad
.alcfntl ad bluow i adi t9x ,«uo,ia,$na-b ion atair anoiixb
adi laj 98fi3 iRd.l nsawi 9d aonaTaxlxb baxraa 3 ,Tarawod ,ex aTadT
1 mnit anx/ri JjBrii bolo a irw siarfi Mas i«di nl .ano inaaaiq
lanxHu-xa anxm edi doxrfw .iuo-eeoio adi 10 looi
b >rw it ifldt 9i"xoaiqqjB oi a»o^ ion bib 9ri im.1 taaa bib
adi a- I awode eonenxya arii .aano ino^aiq adt nx iud
t«iT:908f 9tf bluoo to altfxaiv aiaw iadi aiaax laoxa^q
atmmtkml oi snidio ' aaar atadt ,9tvff*f9 xtf bartxnpart axutan
ixfi 9buIonoo iaoiii aw bna ,rtoxi2bnoo auoias
(8)
tion arose even after the room had been examined by the lo deal
in the morning.
It Is further contended that the question as to whether or
not a dangerous condition existed was lor the triil court to
determine. This, as a legal proposition;: is true, if there is
evidence in the record to support it, hut, as ire have above
stated, we do not find any evidence in this record to sustain
that position.
It isaalso said that one of the witnesses discovered a
•lip in the roof after this prop had been Bet, but it is fur-
ther shown by the testimony that this Blip was not discern-
able at the former examinations, and that it frequently happens
that you could not discover a slip until some of the coal uad
fallen.
we think the principles laid down by thie court in the cap e
of Vyekocil vs. iidwardsville Home Trade Coal &•., decided at *
the Oetober iera (not yet reported) are controlling in tnis
caee, ana that the appellee failed to show that the dangerous
condition complained of existed in the roof oi thie cross-cut
at the time the mine examiner visited tne room, and thie being
true he was not required , under the law, to mark it in any man-
ner, except to place on the walls thereof bis visiting mark,
which he did.
Viewing the evidence in this case as we do we are of the
opinion that the findings of the court are manifestly against
the weight of the evidence, and the judgment of the lower court
is reversed and the cause remanded for a new triel.
RhVJtKSJ.D M.D RhiiAhDED.
(Mot to be reported in full.)
(6)
35C3& ,o£ »£[j id i3»nimrx9 xi9»d bed nooa sdi -loiTr caya oaoxa noii
• aninic.:: adJ ai
to T9ii3*dvr oi ma noiiaoup adJ tsdi bsbnolaoo •xonj-iul el JI
©J- ii'ioo 4*£jc{ 9iiJ lot esv bajaiito noiJibnco auov&nsb n ion
«i 'JTSil'i It ,9JJT* 8X ^i.OXiJCBOqOlq lJSg9l « 3A ,Ciur .Oai :-J >J 9b
avcdxs ivrsi ow e£ ,.tud ,.tx j-xon-yua oJ- bioos-x adi ai ooaobxvo
tilcinua, ot fxouoi aids ni oonoJbir* vis bnxi ion ob or? ,botBiQ
. nciiicoq iruii
£ &9T9T004Xt> 89«990iXW Silt 10 »U0 t CtLJ bUit OSXJUWX tl
-tux ax #4 iud ,Jm n^jrf 5r.il qoxa. exdi Telle, loci 9d# ax qilo
oaxb jca tnt qxia ax/fi Jedj Y.no*iia3<J od- \^d nvoxlc lottf
sTLDotvc-.d" xlJaaypfsax ix iaxtt baa .aaoiiaxtiaiaxa loxtriox 9dt |« aids
oo axU lo 9.UC8 ixTflu qxia £ lavooaxb ion blx/oo jjo^ $&i{f
.nallal
9 aao Biij ai iiuoo dixit xfi ouob bid **& tionini 9&t xxxixtf 9»
- |j bsbioob , .oJ IboO abe-xT 9»oM 9IIxf«J&x»wA& .av Xxooiavy 10
| saiii07i«oo *%b ibeitoqoi tm\ ion) arxa'i latfoioO 9xii
at;ci93nr,ii adi isdi weda ei b*iisx salisorg* oxfi ixutt Dxub ,atao
iuo-apo-xs »44l to loo? ad.* ax ba^gxxa lc banx^lTcoo ncxixbnoo
Hflxad sidi bax; ,.:jooi 9tU baJxaiv laaiiaexe 9axn edi 9jlU adJ *«
-nwi i.ruB ax il ixaxa oi ,w*i 9d# aabnu .oo-xxjpax Jqxj acw ad axrx*
.iisa ^yziil'ilv «xd loaiaxLt alXsw axtt oo aoeiq oct iqooxa ,xan
.bib axi daidar
adi lc 9xs 90° ob aw ae oa*o sL'i ai ooaabxva adJ gaxwaXV
Janx,?aa xris^xxan aae ixjaos n-.ij to 9&atbnll e.ii ixuii noiniqo
i-xuoo -xavol axit io in9taabut 9xft boa .sonabxvs axli lo #03x09- ao(J
.Xsi-xi waa u, 101 bsbafctrft-T »a>o'S »iU baa b9»i9ir*T ax
. J . ,. . ..
(.IIxjI ni baiic<r©i otf o# ioH)
/, A. C. MILLSPAUGH, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of the
State of Illinois, 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 hare set mo hand and affixed the seal of said Court
at ML Vernon, this J&jD. .fc&V *»* "' Jul°'
A. D. 1914.
Clerk of the Appellate Court
o
o
2
} /
41 '
Opinion of the Appellate Court
AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at Mi. Vernon, Illinois, on the Fourth Tuesday
in the month of March in the year of our Lord, one thousand mine hundred and fourteen, the .same
being the 24th dug of March, in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fourteen.
Present:
Hon. Harrg Higbee, Presiding Justice.
Hon. James C. McBride, Justice.
Hon. Thos. M. Harris, Justice.
A. C. MILLSPA UGH, Clerk. W. S PA YNE. Sheriff
And afterwards in Vacation, after said March term. to-wit: On the c dao
ofJulg, A. D. 1914, there was filed in the office of the Clepc of said Court at Mt. Vernon. Illinois, an
OPINION in the words and figures following:
No. rz?...
1
138 I.A. 418
•J'JIkflrHl III
APPEAL FROM
March Term, 1 f> I I.
h:
COURT
COUNTY
Hon.
TRIAL JUDGE
£.. it.
Jo. 37.
. . "'14.
2he People of the v t« of Illinois, )
for the naa o " .nr\, \
)
)
)
. COT"fa,
Q T
O X
■
This is >: .suit pro sew
i.oore charging hln with
that Maui oorn to her I
■ said el . 1. 1 ■ g tt .-. .
LI 13,1912, cuii the oc:.
^ M.t r ■":' '
evidence < •
• that th Llant had
the fathi r
ed, an-i mm evidence offered ••
this tirue ether par tie te>l inter
trial resulted in ■ var diet, finding
ex f the child and Judgnent wan a
Lrlag the defendant ! . K) for 11
juagreent the nppellanl
lour errors i lotloed but not in '
In the fourth error appellant oo»j
tr.e court in rafaal&f to sot aside t W
trial, elaladai the yerdiot
tonll.f. I
,rxn> io>
i
:: > 1
■ !
I
. - oxod mm JadJ-
?noa i.oa , bo
•I Wo oziJ J. ie.~.
»^njj^ ■
■ "io Tirol
I nl
km ^ii^ai rtJt Jxuoo
evidence .
•.re ia i lertifio
that the reoord herf presented contains * 1.1
offered on the trial. It is true that J".
the forecxint; la al] e evidence anr>
but this is not sufficient, for the rcafci:
ia a judicial act bb4 amst be perforee
authority cannot seoe: •<
be delegated to the parties to
agreement. Hellers vs.Vhittier
i'ointcn vs. . (S3.
"j?he | -ell nettlt
the Jud^e, is not Incorporated in the bill
the Appellate court ■aart preame that the Jnrjj and thi
were warranto! in finding the - er
and v.e oan net Interfere with auoh vej
Jiifl before whom the ease was frit
bill of exceptions contains all of th«
tificft' of the re]
certificate 3
Young vs. Lit; of Palrfiali 173 11.
law ia that the evider.' snffioiant %o support the 1
of the Jur„ an . the
can net be revi' urninr'r.
Coajylal&t ia also nade, by eotuux
auling of the trial court i
neas to exhibit and di
the namner 1 he evidence
\Nitnoas had tfet ourt, and th
near the Jma
at«
. - .
> e id* ttnf
r»ft letolfiSJl a ai
) ^3 ttodt aa
.'J1 A. A Bl
a? .©gftjJt ddJ
I
9* b££8
(t flIO/tW
.it aruroT
-•^•tre bap il wax
• o* da9a
,-ssm «dt
■
■ . •■
v,ith the ohil
no effort, aa ■!
this child to the jnrj r to cl7e 1
to examine the tthlli sritioally, mr* •
rule v,hich prohibits the e
for the purpose cf lotr
whether cr a t It raaaablss thi defeat si
referenc'. to •
that the ohilrt *,p.k in the > curt reopi with the nc + ] •
understand the La* It is net error t(
HM court room, ^eneo v.i. Paopls, etc. ,
It la neat oonplr-inen that the eourt
the paroaa anting altaaaa %e anai t <
erosa-examinati n with referen* -?ther or net Aprl]
was the firat time that she lied ever had sexual inte;
that if shf en other oeaaa
first aaa alth i rer had an;
have examined theae ^ueatiens of. re full. .
improper, and the objection .
others of then; All . rand th-
thinjj mere than to former oecasi< •
be a virtuous >»onan. e do n- t think *
question as it could make no difference ahathi
tuous or net. if the ot fond ant vma the father cr
is bound in law to support it, to sale qw
Jur; wns as tc \, 'the chr A' .
say that the eourt oansltte! anj error la on
Jecticna to this or<
It is next cor art err
instructions ^or the plaintiff. Ins1
because it tal lat in oetei
evidenoe
aev
; .. dttM
■ i . J*oil» on
ft *dl o) kllcio atdt
:di<te9 ©rt* BtJ&MfcSq Avtdv »i;rx erf*
, hj<j *AS TOt
■ -• ;.t Holp«»e»«t M .:*•**
:d* ^o T»r»e«TXi arf* oJ »»«e
a"£J ,iJt ■;«*• biirfo sri J .*A*tt
. .oJ©,t>Itoe«i .«t aaoeC ,jbooi fxuoe •*£*
. tii #1
•xenons ofr eson' erf*
ixe-tteoso
-ijBr>©o lad^n Je Job hart ad* }Jt J*xto
?o I) ad e ■> &am t«ii^
:»fl« ,t;IIjj*si -.o BnoUeatfi ^eariJ benliatfxa er?ia
■ri*o
«i &alrf*
* * o«. ■) oil sjCom fclcroe ft ta* :toi*t»wr|f
.
u^ o/ a^ B«v»
ii tna ft ^it.t'vioo Jsiioa erf* *AdU
■:. tl
reel
■ i
> -.ire
to f-11 the fasts and oirotuBstaneei
think the criticise la without marl
and it v.as their dnty, to ] plj
led^e the; na„- hevr -. determining flu
It ia claimed that instru fcj
in£ told the Jur; that the; ire not 'bound
Bier el; kMHit i .« hrs teatified to it
do bo" if fron all the fact?} v-nO. oirevnsti
neas is mistaken cr testified falsely. The objecti
that the Jur; ore liable to thin) thi
other evidence, {he ^i^in/, of tail
Instructions four and flTe are eriti
the jur;- that the. are n< t ko take *
witness as absolutely true j ahonld not do sr
are satisfied from all the facta end ol reams tenc < .
trial that the witness is Mistaken, cr testified ft
oannot see an„; objection to this instructs cr. , bead
ion one o'ven an behalf < f defendant iinbi
and the criticism its r, on.
Inatruoticr. is erltlslssd besau
that even if the prosecutive vjitness had into:
persons such feot »0Ul< rrant 4
defendant not ^uilt;, J< t thej Believe frea a
,the edldenoe that the defendant is the f: the?
child. This, c and era tend, to or. the aa* an
without merit.
Instruction three which reeds rs foil
ed that the credibility of tht nltneBeea .
ly for the jur:/; end t:
testify alreetly apposite to eaeh ■
0*
.-- ■
Ml srsrt ? a$5o!
el *I
. jat
.^leia*
"oa ob
yi a&i&i*Zjn ml aaa*
:
>... . >ott©6ir© xadto
J&al
. I ban «jrt£ ^Ln&aLooiia ea aaenJtw
^affraa ate
.ffo .na 33a to.taa©
j navls aso aol
"•■so ertt
• lJanl
w . nara Jadj
lOSCt dO*T8
'Oil *art&ia*«fr
■:
:ttW
inl
to consider the wei
jury have ti
uitness^jen *
oandor and fhlmsM ?:no from all thi
tf ncca l ype< r4.
are ; -rth; of j .
are incline
inc alone i'. Itioiaa. It
ion similar to "
the case of Bjaa t«« ,
the expression "AH the oV- b« ,;;•
the opinion rendeir ,
the reocrd, conbiderir.L the r<<-gree or proof ri
in a criminal case, it
given to the jarj should be suhBtartiall* eorreet 1
of the Iok, anc in forr , * . ' ....
outceotionr . It Mill be c osr.rveri that t.
direct a verdict.
Instructions one, three t a
Itfliant. ml one nn^' four given on
exprebslv aefrla* the jur„ fcersdnin^
case they misst te&e iat '
anti ciroiunstanceb proven on the trial • ir. the
SSi iialswic, 179 App. Ui , he?.
instruction mm *.!•,
by appellant la that it rtifl net eon fine the
sidor'.tion of the ft eta and cii
ed ther tc the evident ■•
ii'hile not- technically aaemr
ion »a« harmful to
- -
.
foal &xa
■ a>£a jax
. act
. mit
.noo ,f>i
.
. . . .ocelaf)
-■'■-.. -
-Jaai
f bo
)I ttfH
no!
this osse was not speed ficall? argued ir. *
es, yet in Chic-, .I.K.Co. vh. Balna,
and in the Dipine
166 111., 9, an instruction sjni1
be good. '?ven if it be aoi
ecus this court m ale" not be Jnati
for such an error because appellant fell Into a Bind
v»orse er.or in sor^e of hi a c±^er\ instruction- ,
v.ords, "under all the oirc .38" or
cudstences" were used, and is therefore
complain". Wbi.lt *.e believe tl
criticism, ;et n i rt not able to Bag
in any manner »j the instruction, or thM erei
would have beer. instruction
accurate, -hen nil of the instructions are cor.ai
satisfied tfeat the court wna liberal in its ins true
en behalf of the defendant. '_;• criminal east ,
was the one referred to bj Justice
oupra, but is onlj a eiTil proceeding ant* brought to enfoi
jient of a s\ui t f Bona] -or the au„ the chile1.
not able to sa; that the court connitt > • rsible as
c:ivinL of thia instruction.
It is next content1' judtrient rend* :
is net in conformity v>it)i the atetnte an# ia erronema
ing to bind sureties to teYer fuA groan t nig)
defendant for the support and maintenance
bastard child, before and in 1
ed, Juat upon their 0? ■ •
ed the record ir. this crse and find +
Mil teker as the Jn ia rend-
, and not
-6-
I ban
•
till .Cle* ts rfom;
I «1 10110 OBTOW
t ' .1i.fH ,8.
H KJ ft* /T Old* "aoO£C8#B«BO
-at Led ©* 0/ • -IsIqiHOO
I Ol* «W **•; .BttioiJllO
.-.Cf TjftHJWf ^B8 flt
flood ©rad bJuow
• •
*d as
OflO Oif* 8i*»
I tnfi .sxqxxfc
;3« *0 M/a B !L0
I I
• n/ifo/rt + H;
^Inotnoo *xe« •]
MM ;■» ojt ftrw otfjr#fr:J,«-
,So
B haa ,
-a-
their appearance and agreement ne.rie in open
the rendition of JatflBaat '
the paynent of the jaAgnaat naaaaia la the n ■" • . ■> , I
not in any nanner incorporate fl in the
all.be only Ml r.creeraent to be eafOrta 4 In b
objection is net Mil t.'-hen.
'J here bein^ no MTtlfloat* oi
the evidence introduce-! on the trie
that lew requires uh to gnMH thi I fchf e?la<
rrrnt a verdict and jud^men^ la this ease.
mined the* the evidence !a sufficient tc
cannot set that there is any such error la the railage
oourt upon the evidence, or the gialnt of the instruct
■ ill warrant a reversal. If the defendant is thi
child, as the jur„ end trial J*
duty to help support the child and he oaghl nc-A< Tt
to escape fron such su_ nere technicality m
instructions, or exclusion rf evi ie-noo, aaleaJ tc
clearly appear that he was pSaJaAieed la
rulings of the court.
e are satisfied with the verAlet c^ the Jur.
of the court, and ( nent is efflsaw .
( i*ot to be reported in fall
.idi odi
,H9 :L\t lit tOti i
tat aonebirs eriJ
-ire sd? f'itLS btatm
>ortao
•
■ olio noil a^aoto
j
> •*
/, A. C. M/LLSPAUGH, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of the
State of Illinois, 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 ma office
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set mi: hand and affixed the seal of said Court
at Mt. Vernon, this "'"•'' "' Juli>-
Clerk of the Appellate Court
o
o
2
w
Opinion of the Appellate Court
AT AN APPELLATE COURT Begun and held at Mt. Verion, Illinois, on the Fourth Tuesday
in the month of March in the year of our Lord, one thousand nini hundred and fourteen, the same
being the 24th dug of March, in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fourteen.
Present:
Hon. Harrg Higbee, Presiding Justice.
Hon. James C. McBride, Justice.
Hon. Thos. M. Harris, Justice.
A. C. MILLSPAUGH. Clerk. W. S PA YXb. Sheriff
And afterwards in Vacation, after said March term, to-wit: On the <^od dag
ofJulg. A. D. 1914, there was filed in the office of the Clerk of said Court at Mt. Vernon. Illinois, an
OPINION in the words and figures following:
f^(\l(Uuf
No. r^> 0
March Term, 191 1.
KK-RttR<**>
APPEAL FROM
188X.A. 420
COl'RT
^o<T &+yJr-~
JjL^JIl.,.
< «-> COUNTY
Hon.
TRIAL JUDGE
JUL.1LJ
Term Bo. 30.
Ivg Dallas, *
.el lee, )
of <~+-,v, ill:
'•iaat 3t»Laad I >an l
Ballaay Coispany,
L lent .
, J.
Upon a trial of thia aase 6h«
ment la taa court; beloi for L'ir^. thnuaant rtolli
defendant oceko fcc
.■- eoaalsie< of on< oorxni e« tlict on October
Llai Uric railroad
in the eit,, of Collinavilla,
appellor waa a
cr.rrieci froa Saaperia
; it t to Bt< .
corner of
time to allot iff to al±i
raaarAi Lvtj in
at plaintiff 8 daatiaation.ao
cere and caution M
the purpose of ali^htinc therefroa, o
• sta aaaa< d the apc<
almcui etc: . ■ *& '
ere Bai
allowed opportunity
violently aaua«4 said oar to b« Joj
.oH arraT
t . ovl
I .8Y
(
Joa£
,.
/ s. • , .ta
i
.1. ftl
■ rrcxv
:0O iiol-iW
. t no -x*v. a fasw eellaqqa
<H fflOTfl
lo iacaoo
■ ■ -
:tdm iam^aoltmmttmmk ***tltatm£q ia
'■•--. 3^^
M . .
.
ilia
plaintiff with roe and ▼iolono<
■pen the ground, or paved street, by
permnnentlj injured. .;c this deolarM
the plea of general issue.
If appears frcn thi
was operating on electric railway bel
"dgenont pnc< Shi * ebon
appellee Decnne a a-assen^er to he- oarriod frc
"Co Byeanort tree4.*!-: Oellinarille, upon
final destination of appall* e> at, but
to stop at Syeasor< street for t]
orders to * Hr»1 oilG who li1 streot.
thct shortly aftei beooi
the condxictor 3 r nt Syaefflore
enough to .■ '• It her to leliYer Bone orders *
he toln. > or the;, were bebJ le an^ cci
thereupon pair1, her fare
ever, e^nies haTin told her t] " oi\?.(' not stop ]
at Sycanrre It re el to ?emi r
clains that he Intended to stop for
Sl<tS the4
mctoinan a signal to stop there. Appellf
pnanlnfl the last street befo]
it becane apparent * the ear
at 3; ignore si '
car find q$c\ otornan her
that the oar be^an to slacker.
inf the street she ar<
of the err and eti
a sudden jerk and thr-
injur! ;
■
,
.9X;i: ;:e"3 Jo «»fq edtf
<qo asw
iB^g a ©neosd ♦©Ilscqa
oT
I *o n. t*M £*••• I*n£*
■- > . • -
di
.: tl -ro+oj/brroo arfJ
•
3 icezedi
I f afitslo
I ! kQrfj' CTTifllO
.•-•>* OH
•0) ^©I^B fr«
zap 9dt j
^*^S! f#a edt
lao 9di lo
.laAbxrs »
iJhurtJrt
started ■addenl
oiaiffiB tht-t uhc salked out into the
steps end Jacpe
The _.rir.eiaal
the appellant, afte: th* appe3
the car and wall)
c»r Kith q sadden jerk and thr
uid she ate; Into the ,re tib Le ai wait for r
or attempt te g< t of! of ! i all 11
It is insi; < 3 eoaael for Bpppllw
Of tLe jur;- ia sanl#eatlj .
In this ehee and thia li fital rir +
detenination* It appeara fron the e~
alicut fifteen 1
in^ur.,-, end appall* < ! lone in her
e ft - z ■
a jork and thre^? her off, 1 Lto of *"he
•..arc on board the 3 ad conductor .r^
the oar did not give a Jerk,
fiod that she walked off of the oar wlthPi
stop. fcified,"
I est* t#e oondueto? lbj oban^in^ far
c;irl8 cot on and 2 thought he aaa not going to ri
bo I p.iaheo t 1 oell nyoelf enfi »?0->od to V •
oar and then it alnoat 3topp< - 'r •"
and I thought they were I nont ■
Uiitil the;- carried ne into the fie
$0 the rear plat^om with the f, rk ao( n
atoppe»»,to Blight, tat there *«b r
an;:: c until the,, oarried ne i:
The atret pared. 1 dent know I
1'hia la the ahol Lee'
laolaration thai
- -
. u ban eq .
Ii?g to :• J
•
0 ;>-'{:?' »ItdM
[4 o*rr£ I 613
-— io
Q
.
. '.J lo
. to Df.d^ ni
•*'..■: tan >Jj2>
■ orftf ft-c.-ioC rto e~ew
^o **o freilnvr eifn 2ad3 Bott:
taw ro&ochnoo etfJ xsa I
■
I 08
_a£i I baa 130
£* I 5aa
139-X ditt 0$
.0*8
/ JaoiJa ad?
into the vr,til/'jlc. .■:,.
Vails tel • • .
tsstifled that be li"*e< west c the roi
J c'iV.A re tw at • It appeara
foil m the parem . . ; sat, on<
tho bell rope i
Ij efi^e a third, c> dangez signal, t<
the car tY.< . . ■ ;■..-•-
chief saps" nothing ftbout *.■■ . ^ut on
crest; sWfflrtgatlon he Bars, "6-!
it Beeaed tc Jerk to Be, 1
fitrvard* Q»— Then Mrs* Dallas waa !;■:•
Tsa; I flidnt b< , Mr,
Laast one honored feet west of t]
he did i.ct obae rri the soreaent until i
ia« ha< fallen ■■-■• s» 6 hi 8 ia i .' •■
art ion to the s<
It 19 .
ioJsb, e witness for appellant, testified t'J
aw fill sadden; which Is true, but a ,
teBtifiionj the sodden end unuatial ato;
after Ira. si ell on the
oi the joasxauL?.:* dang<
■
The ■ottt—iij ana in the front of fcho o< r and h
we saw ther^
■W ei^nala piTsn* .1 soul( ao1 I : •
?rior to the t ir;e n;T attention
of the car I kno . of ncth'n^
I didn't knoK who had potter, off of tb ^oer" .
oort of the witness fl for appellant ' r.nan "r>-
testified, There «M nc violcn4 ;
-1-
•
toi Had oAt
f a 873£ ;I
:
-
nil
--..:■! .--10^:
;o»Y
. pttf ano J.
.
j.txa
fjSJEKJDOt *i\.
I
I arfV
t -O
tie**
- -
ear prior to the aoungin^ or \
ferrlna, to Ar.ng
J
may hi '* i Ae e v: top, i r onnaiial .
Jr.ciuet, the ecndaetor e< . .
step Jub1 n ■ nJ so i
the 01 r, 1. +.he srsc 1 . .or, the c
about to come to a atop, 2
Joe Anbroaat,
to the tice I i. I^llae
there wae ac anas
he eaya, "2
when ^ho came out of 1 ,
bundle in bar Lend,
Seaaed tc ae 111
t or, on."1 - hen she ■'■ . ■
va tiljule;
doer ehr. juat v.
bundle In ..c: lei't ham •
as Bht Balked oa1' .
•..! richt on
back of the oar, ai
rear end of the ear,
car, she iidn' wytlae !
naming* I don't renaabei Ja '
aaJLkad off.
ohe aaa holding, on to a grab handle; aha hi
holding the gn
the act of getting off. I«
end of the of r" .
-its
I 'VSfll
, .. ; -loo oj .txiotfa
9 0L
...:* oj-
;
•iw ; si . ,"..-.; eel slfwxrd
j
»rfa -roofi
crJt sZhauti
-id S3
(0
lo ton ia©x
I 'obit arfa ,X80
01191 ? ' .
• o* no . edg
•ttag !bo Job 3d*
.-.oscoe JTilson, an fchi
tine that the
the obi .n, there rub no un
nothing acre thi "• "I
p cut Into the Testi out, or.
bule; che £< to
door leading C**
sleo anywhere frer ' <J
jut! walked ri£-h1
■ad Balked right cut of thi veatlbnlc*
the cr,r a.e fne* i flireotii
out. n' . ■: BBC *
bht erne i: "
of la t . tier, the c;
>;.... '-.'»■„', another passenger, !
the tine Mr 8. JVillaa stepped or
coining to a stop.
ed off; she was oomirio to bpi isual sto •
iirs. Dallas until she got on *h<
ofr tne oar, she Just .■•
The 1 la« ■ '
the rear platform. Ireoka, another
Bcc.ted in the car. says, "Prior to the tl
was attraetf Lnj. of the ear I kn<
a.-rut tee notion of the err. I flia'nl
the: eni".
Paul Pisher, ?<r.if>'r passenger says, thi
tirce hie attention eaa atti
th nc; Unseal about the notion,
anothei
was nc unuvj.nl i
dinf.iy r ~6~
■
■
•>3t 9.-6
run or.- . . ace©
■
■
-3-
The v !
^oncUraaea over the teatlaony of appe?. ■
ci.r did not
i.nd &lso thr t
utrai^ht 0*t
motion. c oaa
could have la tell:
Jue exedlt should not
it io the - •
a jury where it oau r«
Ml upon thr oom )f the <
verdict cf the Jury is greatly a^n^.Bsl th<
then it beconea the duty of aneh appalls
It oxl st a in this case, to reTerea the j1"" * I
ocurt. C. ra.Eelnriea — 157 111. ,588.
read this record oi refnll
•
r i. f thi I Lnnt, bo
cf the appellant
gyei -r.ten-1.:.
ionable + o !
ie \.e deem it :iccc-asnr; * II '^skxtuc;:*-' ;
the contention and atatenent of the witr.ei sea cf
• . be thi t she
net ei-vin^ the prop*
thi a does not e
the Terelot of the Jur;
evidence, ;
facts.
f t / . e 1< ■
•:nded.
-7-
<:tOq.
!
xte
»oq nao a - .notion
'-. erad hluoo
>10 QilL
tab odt at it
I
;
,93b-) stiff n£ tiJehsa tl
II— rf»! . • xuoo
-
• . .) n
&d)
loo.
.oat
I hctaman
/, A. C. MILLSPAUGH, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of the
State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true cops "I the OPINION of the said
Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in mu office.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set mi: hand and affiled the seal o/ said Court
at Alt. Vernon, this c-Zff ^^t^ - day of July*
A. D. 1914.
(.Cl * - • ■
Clerk of the Appellate Court
o
o
A
)
£r Stern, 1913. iTo.
- 191 ..
) i
PI.anr.iff in Error, (
) lt):jr tv
▼a. ( Superior Courv,
IUTIOKAL FI r. PROOnVQ C0MPA4Y,
Defendant i )
Ccuiily.
£88I.A. 447
. : rrnn :- .:r- • i • i OOURT.
The rsc. revios it. tiif» t uf aeeond tiUi of a
u-iev, in tha fcra:er trial of which a joint juftfptict *&e rendered
against defendant in nrot Dd tha tulina Braoe Coar&ay. On
nppsft-l tbs <ucir<-».ent *ftc ^averaed, *ith a finding of fact h*re in
favor oi tha lattar, am* ulrsctloDa for ?« n.?* trial M to tha
forcer. (See ift? Ill, Apr. pf. ; B, JOS.) tha toond trial
resulted, in a Judgaent f^r defendant in error. One f th-s grounds
raii^a upon for ravereing it ie th<* giving of tha following, in-
struction:
■If you believe froa all tha avid-anes in tt.ls t*««ia
that 1 '• erploysr, he fill ii c •
( j inj • -.a. -.-re i?= reaeonable i - h-
pin J .* rk at the t i&e
of t^e acci <.-:.t, and that said negligence <••*
e icjui . U I , ' I B] y \. a hoi - tha
defendant, Rational Fir* Proofir*,? Coapaay, nof guilty."
flatter tha William Oraoa Coapanj thua Mgllsant
In failing U furnisr. plaintiff a r-tr.on-j.tiy at
las tiff,t« of tha accident an* tha v >ry Li
fever un tha for&tfr appeal H'l, theref-re, ahould fcove l»*eu re-
garded js .r?e jc. - (§ Ln the ■•< ria;. (Payaon v. Till
•I kilan, 16- 111. App, Li;-, Grissbaoh .'. . ) It
sag error, tbsrsfore, t b*»11 u; on tha ji.ry t. rssdju ioata I
vUtfetion in ordar to iwtarslne *heth»r ijfeniar.t in error *ea
guilty of t I ■ ence obargsd «£>in«t it.
It *ae also error to Mnct ■ vjf.;ct without ragard
._
to ahether t;ef»ndant In error we* giilty or nep 1 igcnca; for it «ee
to Itternine tht*t iusetlon thet the uvl^nce «3» submitted to the
jury, and the instruction requires tha* t 1 ftore it. Defendant
in »rior a .y h»T« beei concur r«ntly negligent *v«n if the proalMte
cause of ths injury *ae the negligence of the Willlna Craes Coapeny.
(Seith v. Conva.o-n*eelth Else. Co., 343 111. 552, kcCary r. **at Chi-
cago Et. R. R, Co., 85 111, A;;.. 610.) Th* error in civinc tfcie
met ion fe.;L.irv'« u» to reveres the ju.lrrr.ent and remand the c&ee
for a nan trial.
/-.nothor instruction improperly aiaglee out one fact in
the chi. in of eviienoe for the oonaicieration of the jury. Whether
any of the othar point* urged for revere- 1 constitute erxor «e daem
doubtful, cut '« nsed not review than ae Ibey nre not ;ik«iy to *ri<»e
on anothsr trial.
.nSKD A*! I DID.
.
r Term, 1913
THai CITY ^F CHICAGO, )
D-: : . Ji' RrrOT, (
) tttOX to
vs. ( Muni ii.-t
) Of Cfcii..
CHABIJCE MURPHY, (
Plaintiff in Error. )
881.A. 449
l
k!R. PR2SIDIBC JUSTICE PARBE8 DEUViRfp THE OPINION OP THJ COURT.
Plaintiff iri irx >r «a eunvlctad la I
Cou: 3 >n the char^ f etad *ita t □ ga-
•-'. 1 ration of raaiaaa in ih * city jf Chicago kept (
ir.d jur^oea of permitting peraoae t la la »i I tion I
orrtin.-r.ea of aaid city. The ml4 proof of tl J »aa that th»
gaabliag to .-■ • 1 I *- s . I - it, " ■ fc of aat
city ioae not appaa* in th«
9le«*b«rs, taa eoarte of thia a tat a ail! not. take judicial notice
that, atraeta aantioaad in taa r. - lacstei in %ry particular
city. (Dougherty v. Thu ? • | - 8 III. 3 v. Tee
pi •. | • .) lor doee th* rso-rc rave*] any fact or
circuE-staaca ahoaiag by aaoaaaarv iafaraaoa taat taa place deeig-
nstss cu*t ba la taa city of Chicago, For i\ it
aay cs in bom otaai city. Proof act
the city of Chi >< the
court, and ths anforceeant of the >rdin*no«, • I *&»
eeeantlal to t» valid conviction. (Peopla v. Lewie, 1*0 111. Af .
..) Taa Judgaent, h vlng baan readarad upon ineul icieat
proof, *uet be rav*re«>i »=n3 the o»ua- -
RITERStTJ 191 "ED.
XJo.
- I '< •
MARGARET CAREY, )
Plaintiff in Err r, (
) "rrcr to
Vto. r Court,
) Cook C:vr,ty.
< hicaco rah t .'. nmr, (
Defendant in Error. )
,4 50
KB. -DICING JUSTICE BAPNEF PELIVEFEl? THE OPXIIC
Ons of tbe points assisted aa error or, thl i record is
tL« (^edification by the court of an Instruction tendered by pli in-
tiif la error by substituting for tne word "will" the irord "aay-
in tfcs final clause of the fOiio*i- Instruction]
"I he court instruct*, the Jury that it ia the duty of
plaintiff to -rovrt bar cass by a prapondarance or grsstsi 'eight
of the evidence ..and If the jury believe that the s\i -• — »er-
luc uror the ] U intlff'a oa«e, a laid in ber declaration or any
count thereof, prapcadaratee In b t i v r, tbaj caj fii -
fends j t ; uilty,"
3 j1 ry jdiuJJi ^ip-": fcr ' — " r*y f-;t provsi
?reponderP-noe of the evidence .if-; not = debatable iro-
poeition. ''' ■ ■► It i tory. To sell th« A' :; they
.ir.py eo rind !? to convey the uia& that it ie discretionary,
if, thwrefor-s, b] leading. To be eure, th * >i I ".. j ',
in atatutea or there pul Lie lutj ii involved, i. oft d In
r mandator; • , but ( ther*i e it ui jj in >* par-
ale ■ discretionary eenaa,, »o un< ire toed c_>
» jury.
The purpose of the inetructlon ec jf'erc' »»-• t. di-
rect a verdict for lalntifl if the Jurj found the e»l<
derated in her favor. In marked oontraet *it. lified
the jur> *ure told by ins true tione rivor. in behalf of lofendant
that if plaintiff b i failed to rove c rtaln a 1 1
pondftrar.ee of the avldance, tha "cannot rsoover"; ii th« avi-
uance Sid not . ■. i in fsTor of plaintiff "or if It raj r.d-
-ratdd In faro* of the defendant • • • then > i re inctruotod to
find tha defendant not guilty." Th« jury should not bare been
laft in tha dubious josition of sxarciein* a iiscrstion ae to one
party and following mandatory direotlone ae to the other, with res-
pect to the hm« subject. The instruction ahould htva laft no
rooe for touch dieorlaination and the ordinarj jury sould not sake
thj ruflneu aictinctions drawn by jefera -at in error.
Tha verdict in suon a caae being Btandatory, t, => *ord
■shall" or "should" it tha proper ona to employ. Tha fact that
there is eaaoh oonfuelon in the ordinary use of the »orde "thai!" and
"*ii]", £ivaa little foroe to the oriticlea that the instruction,
M tendered, improperly efl>ployed the tsras "*ill." Tha el a leading
ch rioter of the instruction is sufficient in it*alf to ra uir* us
lo reveree the jud^want an rei c I the caut-a.
But another error aselgned aa to t: a rejection ci =t
tain evij-.nue na) -riss on another trial, Tha . 1st of the action
sea a van ton ano »elicioue assault by defendant's oon uctor in eject-
ing plaintiff fro* ite oar. Plaintiff s»ore that ehe gave the con-
ductor a trui.ivfsr. In thia ehe vac ocrroboratad by the taetii
of anothar p a u tie agar »ho alec awora that ehe tela t..e conductor be-
fore ajectin^ plaintiff that aha bad 1 i fare, hut the tes-
timony or plaintiff, that «.•• ir! paeecnger eo told the o aiucwr, *a*
etricken out . - heareay asidsnoe. Ii ehe Sid not pa) bar fare, then
ha could, altbout u:in[_ unrieoe.uMr > lure*, rightfully ijftot bar. but
if aha did cay b«r fare, the ;vct i . »ron fu , * .on
tha C'.ncuctor had before so ejeotlng t*r that ehe bai
•ta natsriui ana direct evidence bearing m the {ueetlon of Aalice
at.d tha character oi hit subsequent t>ii ot. Th-> c»urt, therefore.
*rr«d Ln atriilnt out &uob taetiraony, 'tiili it i. 1 * t'ul
«*haih3r any >tbti .o-. wi«nt if- — *- • ••. •■ •' 3* pcent ■■ill
r. a r*v;.-ej'i and the ^jss remaded for th* reaeont tit.*.- .
I
>
- 19749
WILLIAM K. NOELS, loins buei&oso )
as fAYSii HO^P COMPANY, (
Ar:*ilJ8, )
( A- r :je.i tro»
▼8. unii 1: *1 Court
( of Chi.
CHABI.iT A. WAT80H, BOIJIALD A. )
: II BABOLD B. I»AT80«J co- (
P&rtnere :ioinr bueinees ea )
C. A. IATBOI 4 CO.,
^11 *>nt«,
5
188 LA ' 1
UR. PUtSIDIJSO JUSTICE BABJKS DI^LIVSRED TBS OPIIIOB OF THE COURT.
Appellee, ** e&nufacturer of turr*l houpe at Fort ftji.-u
Indiana, doing business in toe na&e of Wayne Hoop Ooapaey, -
appellants for the purohaas fries Of ■■> c»«rio*d of hoops shipped to
the lattar at Savannah, Uis&ouri. Appellants din not deny liabi-
lity thsrefor, but fil»d a set-off for daaiagei la is laying as*i*ory.
By agrssatat botooon the*, the oluin; of appellee *as adjustsd ?nd
ti.a> c&ee board on appellants* ale. is of eet-off e if on so ina .. s -
«nt action therefor. Appsllaats tfttsrafor* aewun.sd the burden of ;rooi
and at the close of their ca.ee the court, on motion the ro for, .. lract-
ed a veralot for ippSllse. The* ..nily ueetiou presontsd io ehstbSX
the court eats justified in ao doing*
The contention of appellants *e« that there * i •svi-
lenoe tonding to eho* a ooa Lote >reJ reenent tet*aen th* parties
and deaagst for a breaob t her oof, end eppelles'i c n-.--.tlon »a« u.*t
tLs oral agreeaent was eergsd in » subsequent ■■.rittar: agreeaent, *«
to ibiob tboro ■ • no roof of .i
The reoord .»>.o*8 that Begin I l no of
pellante, tsstiflau t;.s*t tr.e *e»
tba telephone #ith ona Killiken, •' >nt, < l
1;1. , that in i conversation on August Mat the latter I rat^y
I | rcj»i**d . . id ' ntaininj , bo< pi i
.
I
by Biptaabar *nd and dallvarad at Cotannab, Mo. , bj Baj t*Kb*r 5,
. 10, without fail, at tb« prioa of |10.26 rsr t. , and that
tharaupon Watson Midi "You can ta*a tha ordar and I ill wlra
you toaorro* so tan* | u *ill bara uoaathinp: to eho* for tola ordar.»
Accordingly, tba oast «orcing ha aaat illaa tba following tttlst,ra«;
"Bhlp Savannah, Kg. , 0*1 to t-i rolling night of S^;-
faajabar caaonz eixty Ihouancd ounu-r on* alfl boqpa ui« foat,
C. A. latson * Co."
and *rots nppallaa a iattar anylngl
Tills coiifirfcS our *ira thin data in*truut;r.; y.;u to
load car - , .. No. 1 air h op* ri ft., tc La blllad t< ur«s..j.v*a
Savannah, Wo. C*r to \ <s lo.-Jeu ari roiling Friv.*y Right, Sept.
3, 1910. Prioa to ta f.s fir your -not:) tion |10.38 ■ ti «. t. 0.
B. *bov* daatination, Uraa tc ta iv. dsya n^t. ** naf
port of kbifl c-r at Aaat on la *ith I stop off at Savannah t o rt-
iy unioaa. Than if #* *i»l> all oar to Savannah can unload aaca
tbara. iinaly forward E. L. to u«. for; tly ao that »« can
traurf to destination ono you alac traoa *« *e «r« waiting for
stock and if «»&!'* ie ant ia factory you *1 i 1 baar fro* ue «>ith
further cuainaaa. In haata,
C. A.v. * Co., R. A. tateon."
A Idttsr of nsjj.a data, ac#*arir*f: s : id talapra/. and
ai^n^sd "IP.tyo.* Hoop Co.," *a« an f->llo*a:
"In .Una wltu your te'ia^raa of *ven data wa entjr your
viajf for ear load of aO«0O< - 6 - o" hoops t< i ■- ippad Sav-
annah, ko., which *« -*il'l let po for*ard /jithar ""^turdsy or '» r.-
uay. Ii *« oajn ■ *t tha«- cut tomorrow, wili certainly ao uo,iut
hardly think our ecill ail] >d ibi* t^ -«t tha*- out.
Aftar t.ia car leav«sa our bill, *a will hav* it fallen-
sd «ith a wira tracar, and baaa it ruebed through to you alth*
out further ualay."
On September - , ; ailaa replied la I -e^anta1
l«tti»r aa follose:
*?a bflva your faaor •anflmiag your t«i«grar of jv»d
u&ts, Su »rot« you jraatardmy , tanging rao«ijt of \
.>ru„r, t> loll a wired yon »a oould rat oa t .- ia) sit'M
a^y or Monday of oaxt »aak, ** not* y u rant uu to bilt tii«
abipaant to yon at A»*-'-.ri , yo., with » atoj.. eft ,- ; j.h,
. t i« aatt r uj- *itn our Bill 1 . 1 1 i»
a tittla doubtful abathar tbay will -110* ui to do tr.i»», «a
tiirf aaatarn raiiroaus aa p rui* io not ille* • tn I
Our traffi. ar baa n?t rsti t - -<, Vo.,
*a praawaa it ukaa €t. J apb f^u . , fralgbt. Ii not, m
>ot you to ataad ai] oaar I
Your* truly,
*.-iyna Hcop Co."
After r»oal*ln| tha t*o lattare fro:.-. I] • , »!•
lants »ir*d on r,ay-i*'Lsi Otbl
"Ju»t ^rriT-sd ChicHfo. Iota
.
latt»r second. Iv car roiling? San;! nu*.fc *f 1 ..ting,"
en 8*pt<tK,D*r Ctb: "Why loa*t yov £i*e ue cur nuabar r>utinj. c...r
hoope. il^at beve car at one* 10 pravent tiarioua aa.Jia.£e."
Oth&r corraapcn:ianca **..» introduced in avi.iaJice r.ot
material t tha oonaidoration of th ueetiona before ui,
So avi.:.»iica w >.e offared in bebeli of ep] oilaa, and
"a thinfc the laoord aurpoitt- tha inf»,r*nc* that «han appellea wrote
the lattara of September let and 2nd, auyin& I b t a rlo . sonld go
forward on Saturday or Monday ( the 3rd or oth), either be did not
know hi* egent h. .. «.. • = »n or*; efcresmant tbe >re that »»• to
be eottliraeu by *»nii; tej.ag.xafc, or hi, acu^tt s- *r..-.ii Mc -ti
*i to ItM tifca tfc* car eheulO go fcraerd, eblcl ' - «y cli-vary
free cuj to tbraa u&ya. Co far aa U<« ..uaetion before
ca nad, it i* ieaaterlel «hetber eppellente eeeented 6 *fi-
cation or not, if there wee <* ooatplete and blading oral egrea»ent«
Krofc a ceraXui examination Gf th* racord d think,
therefore, tbe evidence tan* to eno* » coaapietu oral, eontj tot eede
by telephone with appellee'*1 aanegar on Auguet 31, - 19, to liirei
tha<: by Oepteebar bth a ear lead of boopa, oonteinlaj £0*000, at
$10. 3d par theneead, <tt S ?«nnah, iio. , end tbet tb* letter eed tele-
gram of September let mt« Intended ru4ra^j t Bonfire euob |i t.
Appellee ur&*a tbet eppellente' t^i-graa and letter
conatitut* an *or. nation of tfca oral agreeaeat if entered lat , bat
latar in hie brief erfuee that at no po»j»t if. t-. inf. cti
there en tttmw by ona pstrty that was a,et in *v *y reepeat bj Ibe ea-
se] t^nce of tha ether. If tu Lettet eoateatloa i*. ■*-, ihe
fornar cannot o*.
Baid teiegra* Lett** eeoeeeeriiy Uooaeieti
,at eitb the oral egrcenent teetilied to. Ir. f et,togetb are
capable of being construct .»« ■ eoafirnatiea el it, • • "*tb
I
1
-4-
■ o *r« r«iU9»t for * Ofi*Bg« of <j *8tin»tioii '<c %c p*rt v. i tfa« g« id,
»ith *fcict- *pp«ll«t *x,-r»»j»»a ■ *iiiingn*a« to ooaply if pr«otlo&bl«j
r... tfetrt is nothing to la tt that acc«f't«.z'ic» of t
«u Oft to«;iinc«i oith tfcfl ra:uj*.t, I t '• a, %h*t9tQT1, . Ill
uastlon of f:ct for •ttb*l*«lOB to fcfet jury *fc*th*r th*r* **a *u...
©ml ftfrvM *ot.
It It; arg«4 that U.<> t«l«pttOBt c> nvjruatloft on August
ilet »»« B.srely «. tsnt^tiva »gr««««nt, but unl«»t th« BUbM ;uor.t
sufiKMfctioni cl3»»rly a«g»tivt the ^o«itiv» t*etiaor.y of a QO«pl«t«
oral contract, it r^train-JO (*n open <-<ua«ticn vf foot -' : - }ttf] Ij
ci*terwin>s, *i;en tha court ilracted Ihi Mtdlot, vtt«th«l luol ors-i
fcgVSWMUat *£fl siittfrad into,
For can -'a ftgr'ae *Jth RppellB«*t c onto:: lien tkfct t).«
«$viv«nc* furnished no b»»in for tha caaptttatiOB ;f . ?;:* =«». T^e
ourt BttOttld h-jva jut apptllM t*> his deff«w*, «r.<J If he r«fu»ed
to irekt •'■*ny> hav« •ubftitfttd th« c M to the jury.
MTERSIt) ASr REMAfDID.
■
I
;
■era
388 - 1-jPOi
J. A. SfflMBFIDOCa" ii 8
J. A. Strewbridge,
Appellee,
CHICAGO CITY RAILWAY COK-
PA5Y,
Apj lllMUtt
UP.. PRKfelDIK JU8TX0I PJPK5-
fApr^»1 froa
Cc >k County,
188 I.A, 454
IVrPFC 7fT oPTVTOff OF THE COUP?.
Thlw appeal ie frcja a judgment for J3000 la «»n Mjtion
tl&f
lor p«r&onal injuriaa resulting to a r.-aes6nc_er on defendant* j car
iioa a collision tstwain it a^fid a horee tad *at.on at tha int»r-
aectiou of Princeton avduuyano bbtb etraet, *"bii« the car wstr £o-
ing west on the foriH^y-'^mJcI tha tea* north on the lattar. Th* acci-
asnt happened after dark, about 7:3C p. ■*, Deceaber '**, 1P10.
The action is grounded on the clsia of naflivsnce
by the BOtoraaa la approaching the croa<. lng, (1) in propel I lag the
car at too great ape ad; (2) in falling to keep a proper lookout,
(i) in not caving tha car undar proper control; (4) in failing to
eouud the goag. Rhile it ie doubtful wbethai tJ.are eae sufficient
testimony to support either of tha laat Uo cur.tentloue, there was
*via*nce teadiag to establish, diractly or by inference, one or
i;oth ol the flrat t*o ooatentloaa, so '** lo ra.uira tutoi^ciun of
the case to the Juxyj and, while it is cjntendact that tha variict
ie againat tha aanifeet weight ol tha evideaoe, a have ravl«*ea
it with the oonclueion that *e would not be earraated in disturb-
ing it on that i round. The rata ol epeed «m ■ controverted fs»ct,
whiob, together with ti.e circumst'incee of the accident, including
tlice ana w«ce, fairly rraaanted ie«ues for the Jury'a itern.ina-
tion, and tha vardlct should stentf unless complaint that it ie e*-
I
.
-3-
ce*elv:, in aaount, or that there *.b prejudicial trrcr, is well
taken.
It, ia urged th*t plaintiff's Injuries are net jrer-
n-anent and that ae he rt;c«ived his «&£:» during tie period of dis-
ability the verdict end judgment <?.re exoeeeire. Plaintiff »a«
renc^rtiu unocntcicuf and r^c^ived c fracturs of tht akull, nacepei-
tating the removal of & portion thereof which left h .iej- reunion
about oQe-third of trt inch deer and two inches long where the brain
i* no* arrarentlj* covered bj connective t.incue rnd cartilage only.
Thia condition ia unquestionably permanent, and headi be »nd disci*
ncBs have continued to the ri-etJ-.nit tine, and for about .•, y^ar iaine
m aie head acre continuous. Under suoh conditions and oonne jusnt
juff-jrin^, ae oannot <*ay that the judgment should ba disturbed be-
oauae of its amount.
tfs pace, therefore, t? the olalne of prejudicial er-
ror.
Plaintiff's oouneel called the Iriv-sr of the warm
to the aitnees-st'-in-i, and c-!'tsr askinr cerelj bis eaes ind -sdnr-feB,
announced that he bad BO further ^usiti^rs to ask hi*. It 1« con-
tesded that thie amounted to sa opec <*c6 unfair challenge before
the jury that appellant proceed tc examine tbe eaa it tlured for
the accident. The record shows «one colloquy snd legal erarring
between counsel for i van tags frost the incident, and the fiaal
dlenleeal f khs wltneee without further exaalnatlen, counsel for
appellant saying, •!« aill let the jury b=r-r froe us both on that,"
nut calling upon the court for any ruling relating tharato.
fthila the court night have aryrorriately rebuked euch proceeding,
whloh tended to convert tha trial into n rrere pane, yet appellant
ia in no position to urge as error that of whloh it read-, no com-
plaint below, but which, on the oontrary, lte counsel eourht to
use for ite own advantage.
I
•
i
!
-3-
Coaplaint i* aade >f r«fut,ai t^ ;;iv« ths following
instruction:
"4.. Tiia in.. ow*t/ Dot regulate tha preciee rata of
ape ad at ahioh a street or irust be run under nny pi van clr-
t nee a, t^r rtoea *w require that »>tr.*at cart >.c run at ouch
a io" rati of arc^o that aauld pr**w«nt tie praotioal operation
the' railroad's ..ueinasto ae a pet lie oarrlei i aeeengere*
There 1* no la* ii^itlnf the r^te of aresd to any riven number
of a-iiee. The i&» only requlrea that thoee o;sit.titi£ ths oar
txejrolea toward?? passengers the hiphast dapraa of praotloaale
eare, *« defined by theee instructions, *ad if you believe Iron.
the evi iafioa, &nfi unuer the instructions, that tha rata of
speed tt trhicb the car eaa belnj run at tha tla-a tat) plaoe of
tba accident was, undar tha cirunr stance s in avi.-'ance in thli
osee, aot inconsistent with tha exercise i blgheet .jap/rea
of practice:-}* cpre aa deflaed herein, on tha part af thoee in
charge of tic car, then nu negligence oaa ba chargeable to tn«
defendant in the operation of the car on the ground af tha speed
at ebich it saa running."
It 1h contended bj appellee that auoh instruction
violates tha rule agalnet sing! Li [ out and dlreetinfl. tha Jury'e
tenticn to one of a aeries of facta,- that relating t. tha car*a
apeed. *e hardly think it Mur*!^ to t.hle criticisa. ae it die-
tlnotly direota oonaidaratioo of tha evidence on that point
tha other olrouaatanoee in evidence in the oaae. But, *a think no
prejudicial errcx eesulted froa refusal to give It. Bo contention
i that defendant ••&., Halted to any particular apaed
.... jUi> sore told in bUOlhOX instruction '.hat tha exercise 01 the
blgheet dagraa of ears by defendant aid not require it to run it«
Lth auoh a dagraa ol uare and caution na would prevent prao-
tioal ... oration af ita businsea, and that if tha aooldanl oould not
L-vc boon prevented, aaoapt bj tha <-xsrcioe of such (.ere and eautloa
Mild prevent auoh -ractica:* ... iratloa, than tha jux> ahould
fir.. f«i defendant. ' think th< Latter inetructlon Included all
that wau notarial In th* one refuaad.
Tha othai struct ion re uead, of ahloh anpallaat cok-
pa>lAO% aaa auhjaot la tha oritioiae af luavinr the Jury ac datar-
alaa fox itaalf rroa thi ration and •ithout any other inetruo-
tiou en the auh^oot to guide thaai, what were tha emtarlal palate
of tha ca*e. This fora of instruction ha fraquantly caun con-
denned (B*ker * Roddick v. 8uKrers, 8C1 111. 57, C«sey v. Chicago
City Ry. Co., So7 id. 146.) Tbile, at ftppcllMt erfuea, another
instruction tl»en for plaintiff direoted a v«rdlct on tha finding
of certain f tcts which r*%Uy constitute! tha waterial inauss of
tha esse, yat tha jury »*ra not eo told. What w#re tha eatarlal
allegations of tha declaration and 1 tuee of tha caee, were quee-
tlona of itt.", ahlch tha instruction arronaoualy left the Jury to
determine for thep-aelves, (Bak^r I HadHcn v. Sure/rare, aupra. )
Prejudicial arror ia alao ciainred in instructing tha
jury that in ietarr.ining tha amount of da^agee thay should oonaid-
ar evidence of 'future suffering snd Iocs of health," ate, ap-
pellant contending there was no evidence to Justify consideration
of such matters. As already stated, there »a« proof of the recur- -
rence oi pains in tha head and dlzzineaa up to tha tiae of tha trials
Their future continuance e>ight wall be inferred and teemed rrejudi-
clal to health.
It ia aleo urged th«t there w&a error in giving the
following instruction:
•6. The court inatruota the jury that it le the
duty of cosBon carriers to do all that human care,vi£ii*nes
and foresight can reasonably do under the ciroucetanoee, and
in view of the character of the code of conveyance adopted,
and the practical operation of the road, reasonably to ruard
against accident and consequential injuries, snri if thay nag*
leot *o to ao, they ure to te raid wtrictly reaponeible tor all
cones juenoee which lirectly flo» fro* such neglect (provided
such neglect and conee-tuencea is alleged in the declaration
and established by the -roofs); that while the carrier le not
an insurer of the absolute fcnfety of the rat.uenger, it does,
however, in ] agal contemplation, undertake to exercise the
highest degree of c&re to uecura tne oufety of the ..asaanc*rs
ana is responsible for the eli^hteat naflaot reeultin; in in-
jury to tha i%efcsr.;ar (frovid*d such ne ;..lsct and injur} 1* sl-
le^ed in the daclaration an.i established by the proof) if the
psteeeng.r ia , before an; l t the time of t'.e injury, exercielng
ordinury care for his own iafety."
The point oade ia t.at while the instruction h e teen
approved on otb-jr grounds of criticls- (Ohloago St. 5y . Co. v.
i":hreva, 326 Hi. 539), it hta not bisn ooni«id*red with raf*r*nce
%o the objection here raised that the last Fart of it (following
I
..
tha Mal-eoloft) oirltw to : in.it the rfegres of o- re to euoh *e ia c n-
eiatent *ith the practical operation of the cfir line; tnat th« in-
struction ib practically lb* oRblnixif of two different instructions
on the degree of euro to in 4iarci«!»i by da Pendant, one of which ia
incorrect &nJ, therefore, jj.leieading. In vi«w of the fact that
anothar instruction »;*« given, abo^a refarred to, explicitly ae,-
iiou>inr the iittitatiou aforaaaid, and that reference to the oaae
limitation 1* again a&i<i in the firat part of tee Instruction com-
plained of, it . iy probable that the jury ee^arat^d tha two
p*rt* of the inatiuotion and, ob&arving the fsilurs to rapaat the
limitation in the second part, »<*rs mioled or oonfuead 10 to Ua
extent of care to which defendant *sa held in la*. If it *sre the
only inatr'jotlon on the auhjeot, tha criticise pifht poeaeao come
fc<*rit. Ae it ia, it aeaisa aora or leao hyj srcritioaJ .
We do not think that thare *s* euoh error ft* would
juetify a reversal of the <?*ee.
tTVlKUZV.
I
.
-
183 - 19836
ADVANCE ANoemxyT CO., )
Appellee, (
) ' >..•."; .' rca
v*. ( Municipal Court
FRl'E RICK H. FTUNEE,
Appellant. )
) of CblcafiO.
l/88 I.A. 4 57
Kc. PRISXSJBG JUSTICE BJHfgg DltlTERIB iW OP II 1 01 Of TBI COURT.
/
Thie ai p**l ie from a jW-fr-ant for plaintiff In a
euit brought by it && lau^a**, t- recover' the bub, of |3500 ia;oeited
by it with appellant/ tbfa laafcor, puj dVnt to certain provision* cf
the iea«.e entared into bet«8tn thee l$rch 11, 1013, fcr a terir. anding
Fabruary ?£, 1917, at a renta] of $3p0 par conth. By raftaon of da-
fault and failure to pay rer,t for Pecarrbsr >ni a portion of the rant
for Hovea-ber, 1912, the laeeor, after glvlafl th* ttatutory five days'
notice, brought ouit for ;^ti»e<seion uf the prealeee, ol taining juJpt.ent
therefor Deeea.ber 1?, 1912. The judgment i.3j 8 appealed fr:-n *aB for
thj aun. cf »y*d osroeit, iee» t).a aaount of out tiiat had accrued and
teaalaed unpaid te the cate „f the termination of the iea«e at afoi«-
aald.
rhila there are s^Vii..: aaalgnuanta ; ~: error, none
are argued e v« th-j ciuaetioo vbetbez tua bub» *o dapoaitad abould -a con-
strued ae liquidated daaagea or a penalty* Following the s«*tat,iienaa
practice, *a ehall o •naicar this queatlon alon*, th» otbsr polnta
raifcid by the ueaigni.ente but not argued bala| *Hiv»d.
It la truj, :. contunded by a, x el i.ant, that the in-
tention of tha irartiee <:\ et govern tba construction to f. e planed u; on
the contract, but, aa stated ir Oobble v. Lindar, 76 111. 1-7, "it ie
the difficulty in itc .rtainlnr what *a» &aar:t that bai j.iven tie* to
eo aany coxifiicting chsee.* Where, fr> .. tba nature of the c;>ae aud
the tenor of the agraaoient, it lb apparaat that daasatee have aiready
I
\
-2-
been the eubjeot of actual and fair calculation Mid a^juetirent,
the da».a(;.ee bein^ uncertcinand not. capable of hsinjr a*c .rtaineri,
the* till usually be considered a* liquidated (Cobble v. Under,
supra, 159) « lut when there ie lenrufepe in If e contract indicating
that the decagea that aay ari::e frup; it* breach »ere not irravc-
cably fixed and settled by the parties, he inference, la barony
with the policy of the la* afulntt f«vorlnf forfeiture©, would be
againet "ha oonoluelon that the -d auiv wad intended s * li-
quidated d£ft&fet», even though the parties to d«M->niin&tea it.
The ienfjuaf© of the clause of the lae^e rwlied on b>
appellant la that in the event the leane shall be terminated by
reason of e breech of the eecond party of any of its terirs *nd cun-
dltiona by htti- to be performed, "then and in luob event the party
of the firet part tray at- hl> option rate in a* for and in full of
liquidated daaagae the said eua.," etc.
In Kay Gee Aiuiaefcent Co. v. C-jve, 17? 111. *PP«
the use of tha ©ante laagu&ga In ■ le&ae thars under ooaeideratioa
wsa held to rcilit^te agafcaat the contention ^.hat the daMgaa should
ba regardad se liquidated. Rural? , the leuuor'e ortion ao to re-
gard then: or not, thus giving; the nltarr.--t.iva to drift greater
daaagee, is incompatible with the vie* that tha part lea tore calcu-
lated and adjusted ia >idv-:nr:3 t,n.s darra^as that aaj ariee from
breach of tha contract, and inconsistent, with tha theory that
their ninda met in * mutual intention to that effjet. *; need not
reiterate what was s Id u<-?n that mi-Joct in the case acove cltad.
We think ita reaeoalng sound sn1 conclusive of the creation here
raieed. Regardless of any other lanruare in the oontract, which,
taken by itself, ffd^ht support a contrary conclusion, «re thin-, the
reservation of said option retiree ua to oonctruu the .leoait in
the nature of security, at it is designated in another t r: >f the
lease, end, therefore, aa a penalty on* not as liiuiiateo aa«ra:ee.
I
.
i
-3-
The worao, "?tt hie option," canr.ot be Ignored In gathering frorr. all
parte of the contract, &e we must, the intention of tht r'irtlee.
If tbe>- intended the sum deposited to tfe liquidated dea af.ee, which,
in their v«r> essence, ^aan a fixed an< eittled s\r agreed upon
as the aotcal do.a.fi.t;eu, these T^-rde, leavinp It options 1 with the
pert* suffering the d»n:kres e^ to rerard ther? or not, would have
no si^nif ic; nee whatever, without th*rc, we eight readily adopt
appellant'* conbtruotlon and aew. rtrtlrient the authoritiee he
relies* upon. In none of the ccese cited by Mr, however, did the
contract undar coneideration contain these *ords or &ny airilar
reeervation or condition. In ench of then: the apriertent ea to
liquidated danaf-ae »5 8 clear, expMcit e»nd unconditional. The
ceee of Pinkney v. Weaver, 216 111. 185, cited bj appellant, ic not
in point. There the contract trade it optional »lth the vendor
of real estate to forfeit and '!etarr.ine the contrect, tut reten-
tion of rayu^ntp rsde thereunder ae liquidated dun.agt»a was not
optional.
We think the court V elow proper: y c nrtrued the de-
posit ae a penalty. Whether t.ha testimony •••arr anted a larger de-
duction free the Aepeeit as d^rpe* tustained, vo need not con-
sider e the point is not argued.
AFTIPk'EP.
I
]
lrter ■•■--, ..
•«3 - li-84-b
MARCUS SACKS, )
Ap. eiilee, I
) Appeal froa
ve. ( Municipal Court
188I.A. 462
of Chic
CBARLEf? F. GIE8EMSCHLAC et si., (
on app=s*l of CHARLES F. GIESEW- )
8CHLAG, (
Appji<*nt. )
MR. PF28ICIKC JOTTICE BARKIS rELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
In ». suit for on accounting b*t*e*n M.y.roi.e B^che and
Elmon Saohe, copartners, a fconey leoroa in favor of tha foraar was
entered, and in default of payw-ent th'jrsof a receiver «»«. appnlntnd
to hold the property until sold and disposed of under IIm orders of
the court. An appnal by tha latter froa that visors* having bean
dieicieswd, this suit was fcxought on th« appeal bond, and this ap-
peal brings up for revie* a judfit.ent against one of tha euretiee,
the appellant herein.
To the csuss of action it *ae plaadad fcelo* that tha
receiver took possession of property talon. Lnj to Firron Sachs suf-
ficient in viius to pay tha decree, ooatc and intsrset, un,i that
usiti decree gjwe appellee nerein a firct lisn thsreon, snu it is
contenoed here that the possession of the receiver under *ucb cir-
cua>*tanoes was ■ eatief otion aub mode tha earn* s» a i.evy ty virtue
Of IB execution on property sufficient to satisfy the judgment upon
whiQB it ie leeundU
The undertaking of aj allaat «ae not to pay tha ^acrae
upon conoition it shoulo not be Sitisfleo out of tha piuperty in the
hr>nde of th-j receiver. Cut that it ehould La void u> on condition
that Blnoo Sachs should prosecute his appeal »ith affect and jay the
s count of tha decree, cost*., interest ind da*; a pes rendered una to be
I
•
I
renaered against him in case »ai4 decree shoui.^ bs af f lrn-.«d, -other-
wise it *ee to ran.ain in full force :>nd effect. In tbe case of
Mix et al. v. People, etc., 86 III. , l eialllar iefanae to &
suit upon a bond was interposed and the court said: "The far-
tlas, in all such cases, Mrs bound by the terns of their contraot -
they icuet pay upon thrf occurrence of the contingencies upon whioh
they agreed to pay." Wa think that cats liclaive of the ues-
tion here involved.
Besides the d&rrapea and oosts incurred on the appeal
«vere not Included in said accounting: or the daorea ren-ierec there-
on, and as to the recovery of their airount, the right of ac-
tion on tbe bond mould not in any avent be suspended. Nor oouii
appellee be required to split bis cause of action. Seedless to
say, there could ba but one satisfaction of the sum decreed to te
paia, even if enough na realised froa the property in the bands
of the receiver fo* that purpose, and if satisfied by appollaat,
ho, doubtlsbo, coulo. te subrogated to the debtor** rltht ; r o u-.nto
to funcs in the b?ncs of the receiver.
Other reasons wignt te suggested shy the position taken
by appellant is untenable, but *e need not discuss thea for, un-
less the doctrine of s*tief;ction can he Invoked, there was no
defense to the action. It it unnecessary , therefore, to oonalder
questions reiatin. t< tr.e idaiaaloi of evidence. The juignar.t
will tre affirmed, but *s are ■ . oaert, ae request.--
pellee, to view the appeal af r rv?eecu t-id tot it ay.
AFFIPWSD.
I
I
?
iOSOi
POSTAL. TIUECftAPii-CaBUS CO*PAb~T )
rF ILLXIOXB, rroratioi., (
Appellee, )
( Apfea] frM
) Circuit Court,
FOFtPT BTAEHSfl, doinf baa,
ate,, »t k1,( (
allnnte. )
( / fook County.
!
fesi.A. 464
/
KH. PHISIDIEO JUSTICE PARSES DttJTSSSD TBI OPIW I >1 I I C WJHT.
/
this ie an «Kp*Rl frotf ta interlocutory crier rrsnt-
/
ing aa injunction and -jftoyinr-. tfcfc action to dieaolre the Maa.
/
Pursuant to the prayer of the rill, it restrains dafeadaata
Etaebjts Mid hi* attorney., £lar) ad Clark, froa proaaeutiag
paadlag euite aad brlagiaa. fur thai suite at ia* or. aeaignaento
of tagOO aadO by aoatplalaaat'l acfioyst, aad * ror» ax tor ting or
ftttea-rting to extort aoadj fro* then.
In ite aaterial parte too bill avera fcbal aeaplaia-
ant eapioy* * large foroo ox skilled pereoaa to nbon .- -nt
Btasfcia baa »«5e loatte at axorbitant aad uaurioua ratee of in-
terest on their individual Mtee secured ty taaigaaoati of the If
wagae earned -nd to be e^rnei for a period of ten ysire, each
*itfc *n annexed f>o»er of attorney to sake certain *<lvir? and
confea* jadgaoat for the erount loaned »itr usury, attorney a1
fese, etc., that ooaplilaint b«.» oadearered t j *ith aucta
aeeignnerite *ith the reeult tbat aopioyee juit lie aervi<-*
ita t/uaineee waa $)er 1 y injureo, tbat it aaoa an agreaaant
*lth dlofaadaat ftaebie for par 11 -ants each s.onth on c-jrtoin
of said loan* m\ I tbat Ftaahla A is regard! tbe I,
payaonta in Pall aad roaortiaj to tbo aearto f wforo«
of tale1 aealgnaento and hie c, :l<re; tbat seearsl euite caeed on
i
- -
fcsid %bai£ne>aats ar* paadlag agalaat eoaplalaaat and oth^r auit*
are tbrawt^ned, ^n- that tbs otbar t*;, •., lyt,
ara cunt,' irlnj; *ith hit to trinf .uch suits.
Connoctui with thatt vir . i- r = alltgatloat Ifl
gaaaral t^nts, «msupported fey s»«r?*ntf of f*ct, that tn? aa-
ei£ns.er:ta *sr<5 proeuxad by fraud, ir-i ararraBsLti tion iad ourae*,
. u - that .lefar.c.a.nt stsabia bat 'axtortad1 ^r.:. li ui/ to
axtort iila£»l suae of eosey ?nu the sageo of ec id e*p*oye«.
In tt.a abaanca, bo*sTsr, »] . ,. rtraaatt I fact to
support tha iissisr'; conciusiona aa t titrapraaaatatl« , ud,
Jart^t, extortloa >r eoaaplraoyj tha bill oats fortb notninr tc-t
le illagsl in tba tr^nfeiicticns except uecry, tha only paaalty *. r
■hiah is forfeiture of int.raet, (Bond ▼. far»al3 Co., 8 C. C
A, 546) tad Ehicfc ie avallal ia ai - fensa so lonp &e any por-
tion of tea dsfct raaaina unp£.id. (tf ton v. Pierce, 14: ill. 531.)
It la adalttad in tat arpueant for appalltt I
f 1-ja aaalgaacata not illegal in thlt i.f. to, that
the purpoaa of taa frill La not t pravtat dtftadaat Btatblt froa.
loanir.r conay or «van frots recsiring uaary or Us attigai ir.ta of
*»gae its sscurity Tat la^nt, bat to prevent v. a me f si.cj
asent*; to ax tort aeaoy fror eoatplaiaant or it* saployti to tha in-
jury of aaaqplaiaaat*! fc ineas. In the st eenc« of 1 .-.▼or-
arante of fact ae afore a? Id it suet fet infurrea tbat tba pltadtr ra-
tanlt tba aroartlon of dtftadaat U lar •.: ri<hta m:jr tba aai-ifo-
aanta aa conatitutinf tstortiofl "
legal aatd tba aeeifneants v;.lio, tha tar*. f?>ct that eoaplalaaat't
fc^ainee* is or aray ba ir.ji.rs-. by tha aaforcaatat of tueb atoign-
fetnia presenta do c<ee for a-ultcLle relief.
lor can cnepl^lnnpt, et lsat-t althoat barlog taadtrad
taa ia-cunt juetly due dafaadaat, oraatt cnee for g , re-
lief by cayicg sBflcya? their aaget *fter recalvinc noti.
thair taalgataat. So tojulty vrl0«« '■ ro* tbt 3»r« f-<ct that tha
I
-3-
asaigncre *ili 1*3** its «*ploy in c^ea it racogniaa* tha bladlag
forts of $.,ch a«aij;'ri5*nt6.
Sor loot rayfrunt to tr.e aaalgaor* under aucn circue.-
stitcae rreaant a case of ^abrogation at sottioadiod f r. Ths ae-
eignore ars legally liable for the wjunta of their loan* .una
by thai* aeoignsescte, (In-i*j-endent Crailt Co. r. So. Chi. C. By.
Co., 1:1 111. A] . 5) and if cor.rl*in<<nt *iifully SI -jb
ihair sffect, it is iiffieult to OBdaratanO: boa it thoref-y ac-
c;uirae tha right of eu'rrog»tion.
Tut, t: ;i»a co J or tc a right for a-u it = !-,;* iiiisf,
cowplalDsnt claita a right to discovery »ad M *c_ountir.f . Its
right tLaretc ic ; rs-Jies-Ud apos t**e Olall thai .t ha* no sons
of kno*ing Us nuRbsr su<i aa.-A.nt of such aaalgjaaaata, « '-.. . it
aaa >,*- its *&ployai - gai > .; aaalgaao' La ardor I ratals thai*
service*, and to prartat visfeodant aalag ruch aaaigT.i^rte "tc ex-
tort ff-oney to ^.'icS ha is not . ;d . " But it if act . 1 able on
any aaalgacaat »f abien it has r«c«iva;i ao aotiea L^fors csy*.snt,
and, in tha ateance of any allegation in t :,& bill of ita laabllltj
to acQuirs yucb information sith:r fro* ite aaployaa ■ .- . 1- vi^ le,
or that thay bara rafoaad to jiv* it, no c-;te for & diecov=ry i».
aho»n wv^.'i if coaplaioent la oth^r-iiea lr. roaitiofl to aaaart auch
a right. A- Lafora stated, tears ars n f cte aliagja to rapport
tha ens-rca of extortion or aoy Oefenta to Staehie's el'iae not
■.. v- iiat la at i-s*.
I does tha . . taadll to ehow, aa
ci;ir«a, that tha a8eignora v-jra r . inowiad^e ind
toe aifact of the arittan laatroaeaata thay jxacut^a, ,t facta con-
atltetlag I Cvccj iracy t Injure ;:■ lat't Lu^irsaa.
To the farther ooata tioa «^f equitable ;urii» iiv- tion
to rravent a aui tif. lici ty of suit*, it is *nou, t. tc cay that the
only Milt a th*t aaa ba L>roogbt 1 mat eosplelaaat ra upon «*uoa
-
I
_4-
lgatfentn. I 11 i Ld a-sttla sry controversy of f-*et cr
ls» in the otnoro. On tit? theory of ivoidinp a «ru2ti iicity 1
suits, eonplainant 6«skc to adjust in on* mit by r accounting
the ti.v.r-: rjft •* c-irr- *hicr it ii'.f r.^iun',.: ri iy irvlt«i
inst iifr?lf ty diaxe] ferdintj notices Of »hat it sulfite *9ra i«-
g*l aSPi£nr:£r.ts, are *t? to ahleb anything li: thi Liii constituting
a defense aoeld b* ave>ii*oia *t ie»« TKs biJJ acta of no f*cts
• so&fsx os it an seti - internet >r tb : w t&erisa it to
v n« itttc t; <uity sr;a litigate for ite ae; '.oy-att , aintiy or co^iect-
ivsly, tbfs :uaation of afe&t it duo i'rca. tha.^ on thair »»Tsr*l
transaction* *ith defendant Btsenle. !fo irrejara-i-i injury or
legal liability of • -at£ therefor, or otbsr ricot"i^eo ground*
for &n injunction o-.r* :.tk;olo8«-5 in the bill.
Th« injunction *e.«? grantad on tha railing of e till,
essential allegations In efeieh ■»:* ?2ririi^ >n infor»%tlon and b«-
lief. It has fcssn frequently bald that ir. scefe ■ sees • prslinln-
?.ry injunction * ill not a n nted. <?-* Bchrotfa *. £is£frisj,
Iii. App, 5, and cas«a there cited.) The* notion to ale-
&oi»a tha injunction should .- ... printed.
reversed.
I
:e^ Term -
yj-3- So
386 - .
CS 8LKS • . E ' , )
tat, )
)
vs. ) Circuit Court,
oat] .
C )
appellee*.
188 5Xi
i
m. JUSTICE GRIPLEY DSLI¥SRSB TBI OFIVIOH OF THS COURT.
n J&Bttftrj |, 1913, Char lea A. Butler riled Ma bill
of complaint in tba Circuit Cout I f Cook County .rsinet Geor> o
Kir by, Selene C. Elrby (*£fe of George Li illlaa,
yuhienteid, defeadanta. Th--- tii: alleged, Inter alia, that m
Bovsater 13, 1912, Sutler recovered a judgaect la the iuaicl]
Court of Cblcago ag&laat . i ;i-oy in tba sua. ai .' i .fc.o9,
apoa ich axecatloa eae i^fcu^ci an returned uaaatiafiad; that
previous to the rendition of a&id J >nt ( - . i cbj • .. t a
owner of an ondlTii . »~belf interest, joi I '- at ejtta
•aid Salaaa C, Eirby, la eertala prealeea in Cook County, ti
on February ,1912, previoua t tba ranctition of 4* fcOBt
out alter tl la -• tedneet u. c lc'o too aaaa f -
accrued, Helena c. Elrby Ce or ge Elrby, Itb tba lateatioa
of defrauding coaplaioaat and >ther eradlt ra of Georgi
out of their judt daa&nda, aoBvey \ r^aia^e to aaid lllllaa
Kublenfeld for tba oonaidaratloa -f |10, to tl t oa tba aaete d*y
aaid Kublenfeld ooneeyed tba prealeea for a iika cmeiderstion
to aal Irby. fba red, int^r ;Ui, that aa
to the ooeplela&nt o >aveyaaoei ie1 i -
nui"; .u.j fold. Tba iefendaata, i i • Eirbj la Ha C.
Eirby, filed tbeir joint -.. aeeral uaewer, Uet oeaplala-
act «aa an titled to th« rallef aouf t, »atlj tee u**e
:
*aa h=ari by the chance: : jt in open court, r« La tba datry
of a oecree disfeii kln£ the bill for want f •j.v.it), .r.c L< --
cree tfiit pa . li roeaeut
It appa&ra thet on J&auarj ., 1911, th^s d .sfsn-:a:.t,
. Kirty (thsr Belaoa c. .- aalckj is., t >. io ^=-
fendant, Gaorga Kirc-y, that, at the tire f . rri - eo« *se
the s»asx in fc=r o*n ri£'tt of eaab r. iiu kscvritiae of tha ralua
of wrs thar, ;., ., that in Kay, 1911, aha purchased tha j rea-
iaas in -*,ueation, $ayin£, therefor altb her o*n coney the eua. of
$8000 in eeafc and saeuainf as axietin^; eort^jja thssrecn of
$lC,o.o; that at tba s^rnsai aciicitation of Caorga Kirty tba
deed to said prin-ieae aai o to Balaaa C. r-'irLj .:, Cicr;*
Kirty, .5. joint tenanta; that or. Fej ru ry , L913, Hiler>. C.
Kir by insisted that, »a the proparty telong.ed to hsr, the he >civ-
en tba exclusive legal tltla therein, aad that on aald date
the &**&& to yuhlenfald and fro* tfuhlatfei i t> her *ers axecutaa
and recorded.
bava reviewed the jvi;i$nce board - .> ti = a ncellor,
aa contained in t'e transcript c * fore ua, aad are of the opinion
that the court *ae fully *arr*nt'3d in dieftitsinr tba til fur
want of equity. T;^ ooavey vmce8 of ¥ n i, ,1912, »bicb
ar« e>ou£h: to be est aai -a ae teing fraa - - ■ i.n-
aat, -.r i aad« ^ors than aina c t< tba data L)
complainant ortain=d his j>- gaent al&at George Kirby. Vr«.
Kir by teatified thet aba first learned of ooatplali t' Judg-
»«nt gainst her bael n shortly after lte r aad it ion,
tba nrat eh* /. I " .out Br. Kir • :: :. tfcii^
*ae aoout the firct ^< Bay, I 1 , *hen . - rad ».»n care *ith
eo«r.e papari irby.1 M in tba intir* racord 'a fiil
to xir. . a&y Ladloatl i tba . Irby, ox
uoythia >na by bar icvitin; _ Lalaaat •. * t ^r.
'
Kirty uj.on the supposition that ha bad any int. rest in tha
r.^-a-iB&a in .uastion. Ae e*id in f, ^dari; v. Allan, 98 111.
468, 471; *8ae eae La equity tl-3 owner, tad hex aa.it. -
tit-te was by these dead* properly converted into a Segal tit^a,
and this tefore any Men *oe eetcc tliehed against the leg*} titia
in t.';a bands ol her buabaad. Fsr jjbity sag fit*. ... w^«.
therefore firet in right, and <oe firet conamatad. • * • Tha
land was equitably tur own, Bd i between h<sr \vd credit, re
of hex husband ex^ aaa equitably entitled to it."
i decree f tha Circuit Court is affined.
AFFInVfD.
i
ofc
HFKRY TRIFDMAN, )
Ippa 11 aa, )
Appeal r|roas
to. ) Circuit Court,
Coo) County,
IQHSRfVeTERH TF!>?A COTT.« ) «« O. r !
CO., a oorporat icn,
lppa\l&Bt.
188 I.A, 483
8TATKMXKT OF THE Cj$E. Tnis i • .1 frO« a Judg-
I for 936*936.14, randered in an actio alt by the
Circuit Court of Cook County, In favor cf Hairy Friedman, j-i iin-
tiff, gainat Borthweatajro Tarra cVtta " . , . . an-
uar.t.
Plaintiff *i . ' • - ooooioii wunta
I ocujnts, to nhieh iha defendant filed i plea cf
tao general ioeuc. The fir.«v epaolal count allegad, in eubetanoe,
i, 1 il, th< ■*-! ai t aa* in '-.• ..u^inees i
factunng and aalling tarra ectta ?cr ouilw.ifc: .ruction
purpoaaa in ;c; that tJ .. ihera
a a oontraot ] ^intiff where*... plaint I to aork
:'cr <Aef and ant, t ..arge of ita cc>;t-kdeping an itli iting ae-
I .r'w.'-j *. .(i ill t imo &r.<x energy if ril | oon-
Ir-iCwO f < r >. ". <■ f terra ?«. n.,-, produot Ld -ervioea
defendant agrees to pay plaintiff -. ' , .0 for th<s y
ending Deoemucr 31, 1911, ai .'urther eiu of 4}£ ■ccrunifiaion"
Upon all &aie* of taid terra ccit* produota tfc Lntlff sight
make aurin<j I yoaxj th I plaintiff faithfully per -lis
oontraot .? uring aaid yaar aeoi t i int
froai uivers terpens rporationi lontraote fcr th-? e«le cf,
told, large uftounta of . rodt ite, to-wit: ?1, , wcrth;
that en January 1, 1913, plaintiff became ant it lad t< the cue cf
?40,CCC, aa ,'oclT.£..i'HBlcn,' en aaid oalee, in addition to «aia au«
of ?5,0C0; that the def ndant >ai t< p3 Lntlff tJie total aub of
r
•
Id, 303. 86, ari that there rem* i •.. owing U plaintiff
sun of §39,697.14, which sur | h** net p« iu and still re-
fuses to pay, tc Mil damage of plaintiff, at*. Toe »eoc ,.
couiit la *ubntantially the -laae *« the first, »«vi that it enumer-
ates in fietail the names of the >-irti'»a tonts It rle in
eaoh cf the several contract lain tiff jlle^* he mans fcr
the defendant curing said y-iir.
Ti.8 cass »aa triad before r. jury. Only three witnesses
were sworn jr.j examined,- the plaintiff, jrori;ent, Ouetav
Kottin^er, ana the vic-3-p resident, Frit* lagr.er, of fcj 'endaat
lien. The f.>cts a* disclosed from the teetiaony of i
witnesses ^re substantially sp follows: Tne defenciart aexpocation
is engaged in the city of Chicago, Lt aa I its credooe*ftots nave
there a*aa aagagad for over thirty year*, in the business of aanu-
faoturlng and celling terra ootta and terra ootta prodaata for
bulla ins purposes. Plalnti*** entered the imploy of defendant.'
predecessor in ldc5, and continue..; in defendant 's ami loy until
J mi ry 1§, 1S13, when he raaif&ettf his position. From 18-5 on he
ha\± charge of the cost-keeping and estimating dapartoeat of
fandaat'a btoalaaee, and fjroa 1909 he received a salary of la,
per year, rince 1907, ti> u Laeee < ifaadant h.-ir. been managed
oy th<? »ios-[ re aidant, ^-.a:ner, ir- consultation with . t,
Hettinger, except when, lagn<>r was absent on * vao-uicn, it *i.ich
t ice* Hottinger ia manager. The defandai
agents La many .*iti-J<? I antral anu western »tatee ahO ro-
aal*ad a certair. corsn:ie-3icn en ccntr-.ct? prccureu oy then, ana
sher. there *a* cc*potition uni the agent succeeded in fatting tae
euetoeer to give a r reference to tae aefeadaat aa I ooived a larger
coaciieeicn. Vauallf no soliciting sgents were employed in Chicago,
and when Oaioafe areaitaata or oontreetara desired torn, ootta *orv
to he made fcr building! U % image or elsewhere thsy would guner-
ally write or telephone .Wendant asking fcr bias, ana from the
}
-3-
reccrue kept in the <.-*t i* *t ir.g uo.rartw;dnt *».s;nor, cr in bin ab-
sence Hottinger, would nam I prlei "cr which ieferiant wcul- wc
the *crk desired. In the ye*r 1°1C pliintiff requested that he
ceccice a eteckhclci'-r and officer of tha company, cut he did r.ct
for an lnoraaaa ir. salary, ^i^ner, in reply, lid net Mitt
any definite promise n» to plaintiff becoming ft stockholder and
officer, but eaid ha would r»t the end cf the year fl'UC) figure
out and pay to plaintiff and cihere, at ■ bor.ue, a "percentage of
the profits" cf the business, if eny. Wagr.er t, however,
state what th&t percentage would be. Durirj the year 1C1C the
fandant pa rait tad plaintiff to Aran against hi? salary as he night
elect, and ir, the month cf October pli inti'f had drawn out all of
hie |B#060 ealary for that year. In December, 1910, plaintiff
aeked Wagner if there waa enough com in? to hixa ao th t ha migi.t
have 08,800, end Wagner, after consulting Hettinger, g,ve plain-
tiff bi« (^agnar'e) parsonal ehaot for *r.,5CC. Early in 1911,
after tha profit! foi the year 1^10 had baan ascertained, ffagnar
and Hottlngar »gra#d upon tha paraantaga which they would allow
to plaintiff *r.d cert'- in othar enplayaaa. Plaintiff, however,
aat inferred whet that percentage was. The defendant cci
turner over to Wngner th* entire air.ount to be dlatributad
employees, and ~agner dapoaltad the same in hi* owr. t - unt
and gave hie personal check to th* several emplcyaea. The anount
so turned over to Wagner Vai "sea-
missions." Thia nathed c<* prooadum api 'Jar* tc have been for the
purpose of withholding all knowledge of the rayment of a»y percent-
age to laid employees frc^ other employee*. The amount ooalng tc
plainti'f *ae flgurad it $4,199,94, and Wagner Intlff hie
personal check, datad March 9, 1911, T< uaour.t lese I ,
till fl,698.84, which ch>?cV plaintiff accepted. During iter
part of the year 1910, and during tha year 1911, the octne^t lticn
in the terra ootta tU'?inean in Chicago hai beeoKe much keener ..
■
;
-6.
As to tbe facta as above outlined lh*sr«s appwar* to be
no auvf.c.r.tial dispute. Th«; real issue in ... '.■■■•- La wnwt.. .
ti.e defendant verbally eontr*ct?K: ko give plaintiff, for hie ser-
vices during the year 1911, in addition tc hi* walary of *5,0C:,
a certain "coram i&f- ion" on sal?* sad* by bin, cr a "percentage cf
the prc^Ate" of t;.e business, a& a bonus. And on tiii s issue the
testimony U c<rr.rlicting. Plaintiff testified, in substance,
that In October, 191Q* Wagner Informed bin la ;. tertaii ti-
ter from the Fnat ha-i entered the Chicago market ana wa« cutting
prioee, and instructed him tc go cut and .get tbe work away from
said competitor, and tol^ bin lb at prices would not cut any fig-
ure and x.u>\ plaintiff would get "an good oeawiaeione as any ether
l"j tbat othar Dgenta working evtaida of Ife alt] of
reoeived a coratr.iflaion of b$ en contract- procured up te tin 000,
and 3# on the excess; th-.t plaintiff during the mom -;tcber,
November ana December, 1910, was instrumental in oleeing several
contraota, aggregating about |300,000, for work, tc be done on
building M be ereoted in lb* year 1911 j that during 1911 he was
instrumental in closing contract* for work aggregating practically
$1,000,000; th"st during thit year he several times protected to
Wagner at the low prices -it which work wee being teken, and that
at each time "signer told him to go ahea.. ind get th« work and that
the faot of Ibe le# prices wouli net militate against pie in tiff
reoeivin; hi- senaieeiona; and t. t be realgned hi^ position in
January, 1-51*, boo sues of Iba refu««l of defendant to give hiu» -
etcck interest and elect hita an efficer c ... c.npany. Beta lag-
00)x and hcttinger denied tbat '.greed to give
plaintiff, in addition lo ail ialaT7i any "o< I Ion" on o< i I
which plaintiff (Ti i . • in securing, leeti-
fiad lb t ooeeeienally, prior le Oetol r, 1910,
sent out to assist in securing aontreotej .. he we^
sent cut mere frequently] Ibat wh*n aert out bo w** ir.ntructeu oy
I
!
;
-e-
*agnar as tc whet prices he ahould rake; and ti.Mt he vai net rer-
nlttod lo aolioit work or tufas it tide en hit own initiative.
The 3ettor of J/soeraoar 30, 1913, above referred to and
which *aa refused adfMiaeion or. the ground that it, aa* an offer to
ccttprossiae, ie an follow©:
"Mr. Kenry Friomnan baa called on t*w» in re lotion to .a.
olalm for benua proud >>eu hJUn on contr.:Ct>^ cloned by bin '<.*
four con.(.'»ny juries this yaar 1811. It if Mr. Frieajrinn's ocn-
tantioa tin i although a bonus wa» promise J him baaed on earn-
ing" en contract a ^cured by him, that after h« reaigaed nir
connection vita your cor3par,y thai you aivinad him tij.it the
any bad eada no money during 19X1, and ooneequently a very
Doalnal bonus* ana paid. During the yeur 19X0 when llr. "rioa-
Ban succeeded in doling only a few oor,tr-<otf; a oonolderable
bonus was- paid to hire, and consequently he continued auring
l~ll with you* oo.'! p any a .-■ - i id": efforts, anticipating
a fair reraune ration for the ^awe. Your president, Mr. Hettin-
ger, also he la cut ucfsv to Mr. ~rie-.iK«r. that ho would be core
closely aaecciated with ycur company in an official capacity
and wcuIj le liberally rewarded at ti -■ of '-• on cer-
tain good c or. tract s closed in which Mr. Friedman euooeeued in
obtaining preference and by helping to eliminate from this
field certain other contract-. xniea.
"Ie it not possible to :unic?»Lly adjust thia B.atier
Without filing a bill in chancery to con-el an rrooour.t ing?
Kindly advice me.
Yours vary truly,
010. D. fEltllOTOI. ■
When tha Jury retired t< eon tide? tnair verdict en the
afternoon of June 3, 1313, the attorneys for the respective par-
tial agreed that they might oesl their verdict and oeparate un-
til the ueual hour on tha following morning, ^her. th<2 court con-
vened, ap apfe arn from the bill of* except iona, tha foreman of the
Jury banded in tha verdict and stated that the juror? coula net
ransiroer the exact mount of plaintiff a ol*im, and, in order not
tc laka a a la take, they had returned a verdict •for the full aaouat
of plaintiff *a claiK, " whereupon the court lnetruota 'erk to
read the verdict, which w(v signed by all Jurors and wbiob wn<» ae
followai "we, the jury, find the insuea 'cr I In tiff,
ri'VOrii plaintiff ' laa tgea t the :i;;:. of, full unount of olaia,
uollara." Afte- Idarabla Aiscuoeion, indulged in
by th.> attorney! and tha ocurt In the preswrce cr the Jury, '-he
court, owe* tha objeotlon and axoa tier, i . 'findunt, gave to
.
]
the jury the following inet ruction:
■Th« ocurt instructs the Jury that the amount claimed
by the r.Uir.tiff as due from him, th* defendant, is *36,536.14,
and it if* claimed by nt that neither urn ncr
any part thereof in <xv* the plaintiff frocs the defendant. By
tn<j giving of thle instruction the -curt irp? net intimate or
wioh tc be understood ae giving any opinion one way cr the ctrer
bb to whether the pi Lntiff !• entitled to ,n allowance of said
amount claimed cr any other amount fro. tha ucfenaant, cr ti
ihore la cr la net due to the plaintiff any amount from the de-
fendant, cr that you shot) f,i be isoues Jcir.ou in fnvoi
tintlff cr in favor of the defendant. It in aolely
exclusively for the iurw to determin: . fnetc. end this thoy
must do frew the evidence, and having uct* so, than apply tc
the faots the law as stated in the instructions of the court."
The Jury again retired ana subsequently returned a ver-
dict, ae follow*: "*e, the jury, find the iseuee for the plain*
tiff and assess plaintiff 'a damages at tne sum of $36,5.35. 14, ■ tc
the receipt of which verdiot by the court the defendant ohjectou
and moved fcr a aei trial, which motion the court uer.ied and en-
tered Judgment en tho verdict.
1IR. JtF8TICI GRIDLIT DEtlvlCHEI} THE 0PIII01I COURT.
Counsel for defendant ur^e in thl* court that tha judg-
ment should be reversed because (1) the verdlet ' "eetly
agalnet the cretende ranee of the evidence, (3) tha sourt hitcu.
in refufiirjf, to auait ir n t Lettn*, cated Decemoer 3\ ,
191.5, written to defendant by Mr. Wellington, the attorney fcr
plaintiff, anu (3) the court erred ir. giving to Lne jury the
struct ion mentioned in tha foregoing statement cf the case. In-
asmuch as we have reaohed the ocncluaicn that thi Ji ihould
be reversed and a nee trial had, m ell] m epinioi
an i I 'a first point.
As to the letter, wc are of t nioi th t ti.
ccurt a refu»i- e. It
|] t plsinti'f, aftHr his attrrney, Mr. Wellington, cf
■
.
i
-9-
the faot« re;jardir.i? hi a el ft la egaiaat tcfenaant , espreeely auth-
orize a the writir? of the letter, and it naa offered in svicisnoo
by defendant an tending tc lapeaeb certain of 6 i itateaento c
plaintiff »aaa upon the at-?mi to the offset that i-fendant had
verbally is^reea to give hi!*. aertain aonyt.U>pionB on ?al««, ae dl
tlnguii*heu "re** a o«rtsin tonus on the earning* of defendant. Tr.e
cctrt refuaed tc admit the lettor en the ground that it »haa to do
with a QOaprenlee and a settlement." fa think that under all v
faot and elrtnaneteneaa the court 'a refusel constituted errcr | re-
judicial tc the defendant. *nd we do not think that the l = +.ter
wo? inadmissible en tee ground ststed. The Ia«t paragraph of the
letter wae p. mere aug^eetion that peeelbly there might ba ar. aal-
aabla adjustment of plaintiff*! elate). It eeatalned no effer tc
tpaj rctr.lse, and no atateaent that plaintiff would be willing to
any ccrce'sicn. In Thoatpeou v. Austen, 3 Dcwl. * Pyla- .
360, It la aaidh "The sneercs of d I rfer to o^nirrowiee in, that
the party making that offer la willing to tuba it to a *acrifioe,
end to make a ccnc*«Pion. " In 1 Qreerilea'* Of) rvid*»nce, eec. 1 ,
it i" r?»id: "Tr order to exclude dlatinot adaleelene of f< rt , it
muet arrear either that they were wpreeely nada without rrejudice,
or, at least, th*t th«*y were fti«J<) under the frcith of a ponding
treaty, and ir>tc vhlefc tha party alght h->ve been led by the confi-
dence of a corny- row i«« taking plaoe." (Tee aleo Hartfcru Eridge Co.
v. Granger, 4 Conn. 142, 148.)
In view of tha foregoing it will ha onneoteeary 'or ue
to ext.r -pinion cr the third -elm urged by ooimae] fot ie-
I .. » it nation will doubtlaea not nriae on another trial.
Par the reeaenn indicated the judgm nt of the 0iroi
Court ie rove road ad I
WflflgB a REIf/llfDED.
.
]
■era.
2£-
No
435 - 19833
FREDERICK W. JOE ana DUDLEY
TAYLOR,
Appall 9 38,
?
/Appeal from
Kunlolpal Court
c1* Chioago.
VS.
HENRY V. VALLAC*,
Appellant.
/188 I.A. 485
CTATFJIFNT Of THT C*?F. This ie an appeal from a judg-
ment for ?1,475, rendered ty the ilunioipal Court of Chicago, in
favor of Frederick ¥, Job and Dudley Taylor, plaintiffs, against
Kenry U. Wallace, defendant. The case was tried before a Jury
who returned a veruict finding the issues against the defendant
ana acoeoelng plaintiffs' damages at £l,600. The court required
a remittitur on the verdict of $135.
In plaintiffs* amended statement of clai)« it i« alleged,
in subistar.oe, that en or ai,out January 3, 1699, at Chioago, the
defendant employed plaintiff* to represent hie. as his attorneys
in the matter of hi* relatione with the Klondike-Yukon Copper
Fiver k'ining Co., and the proposed formation by «aid defendant of
a new company to carry on dredging work, gold mining, etc., along
the rivers then controlled by said Klondike Co.; that it was then
agreed that said legal service* of plaintiffs would be tendered
from time to time during a period of about 60 days thereafter;
that defendant agreed to pay plaintiffs for said services in ac-
cordance *ith the terms of a certain written agreement (thereto
attached and male a part of said statement of claim); that plain-
tiff 8 represented defendant in the matter of hla relations with
said Klondike Co., endeavored to procure an adjustment of said
relations and a settlement cf the claim of defendant against said
Klonuike Co., instituted suits at law and in equity in behalf of
defendant agslnst said Klondike Co. and certain of its officers,
.
.
■
]
appeared for and represented defendant in a suit Instituted against
him by inid Klondike Cc, rendered oti.er legal services to defend-
ant is relation to er.i^ suite and the matter* in controversy, ar.a
fully complied ffitti the fceZBfl of ti.eir employment .luring mere than
60 days after January 3, 1895, ami for a long tiir.e thereafter and
until Qi.-out Maroh 17, 1900; that plaintiff* were able ana willing
to render servicee ae tc the proposed formation of »aid now company
but said defendant decided not to form said new company and diu
not require plaintiff? • services in relation thereto; Ua at defend-
ant did net ray plaintiff* $100 or $1,000, rod did rot deliver to
then Si, 000 par value of capital 9took, all e« provided in said
agreement; that defendant haw net paisi them any part of Mid $1,000,
or delivered to them any capital atcck, in payment for their said
serviced, and that there is new due then from defendant the sum of
$ 1,000, with interest at 5J& per annum from January 3, 1901*
The written agreement mentionoj is a* follows:
■Chioago, January 3, 1S89.
K. K. Wallace, Esq.,
Chicago, 111.
De a r 8 i r : -
Referring to our consultation with ycu Saturday and
today regarding lagal services to be performed by us in UM
matter of your relations with the Klen like-Yukon Copper Piver
Mining Co., and the proposed formation by you of a new deepen?
to carry on dredging work, gold mining, etc., in and along the
rivers ncs bein,-: controlled by said Klondike Co., and referring
to the matter of payment for legal services to be rendered you
by us, we would say:
You are *o ray us llOO in oaeh at khl time n osrtain
One Thousand (fiOOO) Dollar* now contemplated to be oolleoted
fcy you is collected from Mr. and Mra. D. Hunt of Ann Arbor; in
any event eaid flOO to be paid not later than 60 days from to-
day, end also tc give us on aooount of our servloee flOOO par
value of the capital atcck of the new Klondike Mining Corpora-
tion, contemplated to be incorporated by you under the laws
of West Virginia, an soon ae may ba exreaient after or during
the settlement of your differences with the first above named
corporation; in any event said *10^0 r** value of oarit«l stock
1b tc be Jelivered by you tc us on or b«fcr« two year" from this
date; you are to further guarantee an'< do hereby guarantee to
us that within twe ffart 'rcic tail day you will purchase from
^ay us for aaid flOfC capital stock, the «u» of $1000 (less
the ?100 hereinlefcre mentioned) end «• a.rreo kaat at any time
after the delivery tc uo of said stock, end ^efcre two years
from today, ycu shall have the privilege of purchasing said flOOO
oarital etook from us for the sum of *10f0. In the event that
J .
j
]
-3-
saii new corporation is not formed by you, or said etook ia
not delivered to ue bv you, you are it an r hsrsby agree
to pay ue the sua of *1000 in cash (lean Id oum of $100
hereinbefore mentioned when the sans if? raid) on or before two
years from this date.
raid sum cf §100 and raid *1C00 capital stock eo guar-
anteed by you 1? fee be for service?; rendered by ue a> afore-
said; if no unusual arccunt of legal services are rSndsrsd by
ua in the matter of adjusting your differences wit), the first
above rained corpc ration, or the attMfc upon the mare by a
stockholder who io friendly to your internets, then aaid sum
of *1C0, and laid Mpital stool «o gnarantssd by you, r.r the
cash in lieu thereof, shall be nr DBS a full settlement
cf cur services rer.uerea.
If, however, any unusual amount of work i*» necessary
or becomes necessary to be ione by ue in and about said mat-
ters, then we are to have the right tc mi furtbsx Ohargt
to you for aai eervicee.
You are tc furnish all racneya tint say bs or become
necessary to cover actual costs and c-.iPburpen.ort8 paid cut
and expended ia ana about the Is gal work contemplated herein.
You are tc and io hereby agrsa tc protect and iniem-
nify us againat any assessment© or leg^l liability cf any sort
whatsoever that may be made upon or against th».* aaid *1000 cap-
ital stock to be given ue by you.
DUBLFY TAYLOP
F. *. JOB
The terms of this Agreement accepted this Third day cf
January A. D. 1889*
H. M. TAUACF. •
In defendant's affidavit of merits the nature of hia de-
fense wa«j stated, as follows:
•That the plaintiffs agreed to file a bill for a re-
ceiver and tc taka the ~-:.ry stspe to show the insolvency
of the Klondike-Yukon Mining Co., and secure an adjudication
winding up the affairs of said company within a period cf thir-
ty or sixty days. It wan agreed by the plaintiffs to give pre-
cedence to thie *crk over all other ^ork in their office, that
time was the essence of the contract; that ths plaintiffs failed
to taks the necessary svidsnee for the ssouring of ths j roper
orders, that thaw rsfassd tc give the matter the necessary at-
tention, rsfussd to give it precedence ( .i.ers in their
office, f.iled tc bring or to use reasonable effort tc bring
the matter to a fins) adjudication within sixty day?- as agreod,
refused to appear in court or before master in ohancury unices
paid in advance for such appearance; fehat the bill file.: by fehan
was demurred to and they neglected tc call up and dispose of
eaix uemurrer and finally dismissed the ir bill without securing
any ad judication in fehs cuit; th:*t ths plaintiffs wholly failed
tc perform their agreements and by re ison t oreof this defendant
was put to grsat expense and loe* cf money and profit."
On the trial eaoh cf the plaintiffs ^as examined
cross-examined at length, and the agreement of January 3, 181
aued on, wan introduced. At the ocr.olusion of plaintiffs' evi-
dence the court denied the motion of the defenirjm for a directed
.
(
.
I
;:
•4-
verdict. Tho defendant was the only vitnesa in hia own behalf.
Certain letter? nnu dccumsntB were also introduced. In rebuttal
each cf the plaintiff* again testified, . r letters were
offered and received la evidence. At the cjoae cf nil the evi-
dence the Motion cf defendant for a directed verdict was renewed
and a^ain denied. Th« court inatruotad the jury orally.
KB. JUSTICE ORIDtlT DELIY&HFE ':'.- OPINIO! 30URT.
It ic Tirst contended by counsel for defendant that tho
motions fcr a -lirected verdict fcr the def*nd:tnt, Bode at the close
of plaintiff e* evidence and again at the close of all tho evidence,
ahould h&ve been ill owed, (1) because the evidence showed that
plaintiffs repudiated their contract and abandoned their retainer,
and were therefore entitled tc recover, if anything, only the rea-
sonable value of the MXTlOee rendered, and (2) because the evi-
dence chewed that the contract upon which plaintiffs eued had for
its consideration their agreement tc commence groundless puits,
which contract was contrary to public policy and void. After a
careful examination of the transcript before ue we cannot say that
the evidence showed ih«t plaintiffs) repudiated their contract, or
that the contract aued on tad f©f itf consideration the agreement
of plaintiffs to OOauesroe ^roundlesfr wuite en behalf of def<*nJunt.
JJor .;o wo thlat that the verdict 1^ rcafcifeetly against the weight
of the evidence, ae urged by counsel. In our opinion, tho evidence
tenueu tc prcve all of the alltgatioaa of plaintiffs1 u ■
statement C claim.
It i contended by ccur.esl that error, prejudicial
to th»; defendant, VOI SOaailttOd by Lit ^eurt lr cert. in fcrticna
cf the cr*l charge tc the jury and lr. t) - refusal to give tc the
jury certain written inetrusticni u»t« It ie
2
-5-
argusd that the court in effect told the Jury that they oould net
consider what was said by the parties prior tc the date of the con-
tract of January 3, 1S99, for the purpose of supplementing said
contract. "*fclle it Ib true thai! tfei DOWrt in 8 aoaawhat lengthy
charge told the Jury that the terms of a written contract oould not
"o<j chunked by oral evidence, we dc net thinV that the jury were mia-
led. Th«* court allowed both the plaintiffs and defendant to testi-
fy fully a« to the conversations had between the parties prior to
the signing of the contract. Furti.ermore, no epecifio objection
wa« aaae to this portion of the charge by the defendant at the time.
(Feoararo v. Halber*. 346 111. 35.) It ie also argued that the
ccurt erred in charging the jury that if they found for the plain-
tiff* they should find plaintiff*' damages at the pure of 11,000,
together with interest. Wt do net think that under the pleadings
and the evidence the court erred ir this portion of the oharge.
The suit was upon a specific contract. Be attempt was Bade to re-
cover upon a quantum meruit. Furthermore, no specific objection
was Kade to this portion of the charge, li to the written inetruc-
tiona offered by the defendant and which the court refused tc give,
we are of the opinion that they were all properly refused. Several
of them assumed as facte matters controverted by the evidence; eth-
ers were misleading, Furthermore, it ha* been decided that, where
a Municipal Court JuJge elects tc instruct the jury orally, it is
net error to refuse tc give offered written instructions, even if
they are correct and applicable to the facto of the case. (Morton
v. fusey, 237 111. 36; Hakes v. B. «arcn A Sons, 182 Ill.App. 100,
104.)
And we do not think that thu triM ccurt, in the rulinge
on evidenoe or in certain quest lens asked of the defendant, com-
mitted any errors warranting • reversal of the Judgment.
Finding no rsverolblo error in the record the Judgment
cf the Municipal Court is affirmed.
AFHSMFD.
.
;
be
* J.ei
449 - 1U863
CHAHLES W. HOVEY,
ve.
D. A. MATTESON,
Appellee,
Appellant.
Appeal from
Municipal Court
of Chicago,
/
188 IX 486
i
STATEMENT OF THE CASS. This is an appeal from a juag-
(
p.9nt for £l,K,3, entered upon the verdict of a jury by the Munici-
pal Court of Chicago in f:\vor of .Charlee fe. Movey, rlaintiff, and
against D. A. Matteeon, defendant. Plaintiff eued for comr- ib6iona
claimed to be due hiir. ac a lloenaed rasi dstite broker on the eale
of e certain 15-flat building situated In the city of Chicago and
owned by lefendant. In hie statement of claim plaintiff alleged,
in subetance, that on July 16, 1913, the defendant "lie ted" eaid
building with plaintiff and "agreed thereby to pay the customary
commission" in case plaintiff found a customer; that auoh oustomary
commission ie 3* psr cent.; that plaintiff found a cuatoroar, one
Eir.anuel Leavitt, whe purchased the property at the price cf £47,;
and that, therefore, plaintiff claim rd a concise ion of 8£ per cent.
on the aniount the property eoid for. In defendant1 • affidavit of
merits it ?ae alleged, in substance, that plaintiff did not pro-
cure said Leavitt pa a customer for defendant's building; that eaid
building was exchanged for another building owned by said Leavitt,
which latter building we a of a value much lest than *4?,5G0; that
another real eet^te broker, naaed Gripp, was the procuring cause
of such exchange, and thet plaintiff at the tine wat? acting as a
broker for eaid Lsavitt.
It appeare from the evidence that in April or May, -.912,
the defendant saw C. A.E. Gripp, a licenedd real estate broker,
and informed hiir that he expected to scon aoquire title to a certain
]
-3-
lo-fiat building in the city of Chicago, and requested Gripp to
endeavor to sell or exchange the same. Subsequently, in July,
191'.', defendant obtained a contract for the sale to him of said
building, and about July 15th be met the plaintiff for the first
time and also requested the latter to endeavor to sell or exchange
said building. At this interview defendant mentioned $55,000 as
the price for said building, but nothing was said regarding com-
missions. Subsequently, on July 30th, defendant received a dead
to the building. Some time in June, 1513, Emanuel Leavitt listed
his 3-flat building, on South Spaulding avenue, Chicago, with the
plaintiff for sale or exchange. Later in the MSI month Leavitt
also listed said 9-flat building with Gripp. On July 35th plain-
tiff wrote defendant to the effect that a party named Emanuel
Leavitt was the owner of a 9-flat building and that he desired to
trade his building for a larger flat building, being willing to
pay the difference in price in cash. At this time plaintiff had
an agreement with Leavitt that if plaintiff suoceedad in selling
or exchanging the Leavitt building he *as to be paid the regular
commission. Plaintiff, however, did not aaviee defendant of this
fact, nor did he mention Leavitt' ■ address or the location of said
building. About August 3rd defendant telephoned plaintiff saying
he had received plaintiff's letter of July 35th, and that if plain-
tiff thought that the party mentioned would be interested in a
trade to get a proposition from him. In the meantime Gripp had
noticed in a newspaper that defendant had acquired title to said
15-flat building, and about August 1st or 2nd he communicated with
defendant, and the latter again told Gripp to endeavor to sell or
exchange said building. On Sunday, August 4th, Gripp called at
Leavitt'e residence, met leavitt and the latter's son, and submit-
ted defendant's building to Lsavitt, and on the same day telephoned
defendant's residence ^nd left a ireesaps with defendant's wife,
whioh message defendant reoaivad that evening, to the effect that
I
I
he had a building on 8outh Spaulding avenue which ha want-id de-
fendant to look at, and requested that defendant call at Gripp's
office on the following morning. After Oripp h&d called at the
Lsavitt reeidancs, Leavitt'c son, Richard, on the Bame day called
on plaintiff and aaked if there was "anything ne*," and plaintiff
etated that he wae "getting a line" on defendant's building (giving
ite location), which he thought might be traded for the Leavitt
building, to which Richard replied that that building had already
been submitted by Oripp, After this interview and on the Lama day
plaintiff wrote defendant a letter, dated August 4th, in which he
for the firet time gave defendant the location of the Leavitt
bui ding. The envelope containing thie letter waa postmarked "Aug.
bt 1.30 A. M." In thie letter plaintiff wrote, in substance, that
a man named Gripe had submitted defendants building to his "client,"
Leavitt; that because he h::d only yestarday received defendant's
reply by telephone to hie (plaintiff e) latter of July 35th, he
had not been able to previously present defendant** building to
Leavitt, that "in case the other gentleman should ose you or com-
municate with you, you will of course tell him that I hid taken
thie matter up soma time before ha did," and that he hoped defendant
would examine the Leavitt building immediately. On the morning of
August 5th defendant called at Gripp's office and Cripp give him
the location of the Leavitt building and defendant eent and examin-
ed the building, mat Mrs. Leavitt, vife of Emanuel LeaTitt, and
then called on plaintiff. Defendant testified, in eubetanca, that
at thie interview he told plaintiff that he had examined the L-avitt
building; that another broker, Gripp, had firet submitted the build-
ing to him; that Mrs. Leavitt h&d told him that the Leavitta would
not deal with plaintiff because Gripp h- d submitted defendant's
building to them first; that plaintiff then asked defendant if de-
fendant would not give him a proposition for a trade which he
(plaintiff) could submit to Leavitt; that defendant replied that
•
]
_4-
Le aculd do so trui that he t?ou!o also give the ssre proposition to
Gripp and that whichever of then consummated the trade would be
paid s co/rrivsion; that, the proposition *as that he wanted $1&,Q0Q
anc: the Leavitt building for hiE (. tf t-ndant'e) equity in the 15-
flat building; that defendant then went again to Gilpp's office
rrd made the saire atateaent to hie; that about e wsek thereafter
oefendant telephoned plaintiff end sekod hiir what he had dene with
Leavitt, that plaintiff replied he had submitted defendant's rro-
position to L&avitt tut that Leavitt had esid that defendant "ant-
ed too o.uch ironey for his building and that he (plaintiff) could
not get a counter proposition from Leavitt; that he (defendant)
did not again bsar froa plaintiff until after tie oontract of Aug-
ust 88sd was signed; and that when the deeds were subsequently
passed defendart paid Gripp $600 as a coar. lesion end that Leavitt
also paid Gripp #300 sa a coaristicn.
Gripp testified, in substance, that defendant called at
his office twice on August 5th; that on the second csll and after
defendant hod examined the Lt^vitt building defendant told hin to
subrrit a proposition to Leavitt that he would trade his building
for the Leavitt building and $15,000; that Gripp told hia that hs
thought the price a little high but that he would see what Leavitt
would be willing to do; that on August 7th or nth, at his eolicitatior
Leavitt and defendant raet in his (Cripple) office and various propo-
sitions, beck and forth, looking to a trade were aade but no agree-
ment was arrived at; and that subsequently he had various inter-
views with both Leavitt and defendant, which finally resulted in
their entarlng into a contract, on August 22nd, for the exchange
of their respective buildings.
This oontrcct w&« introduced in evidence, and provided,
in substaice that Leavitt would pay to defendant $5,725 and de-jd
to defendant said 9-flat building, valued at $85,000 and being un-
incumbered, in oonoidaratlon of defendant and wife conveying to
1
]
-5-
Leavitt defendant's lb-fiat building, valued at $47,735 ..ad on
which thsre was a mortgage of $17,.)s,0. Tha contract bore an sn-
doraeaent ov^r thd signatures of the parties to thj effact that
said contract had bean consua.c.ated on September 1, 1312, by the
delivery of tba deadd, payment of cash, ate.
The plaintiff, Hovay, testified tnat on Sunday, August
4th, aftar Richard Laavitt bad called and advisad bin that Gripp
had first submitted defendant' • building to tha Laavitts,he (plain-
tiff) tri*d to telephona defendant at tha latter' j residence, and
latar succeeded in teiaphoning him at his mother's residence; tnat
hs than inforir.ad dafandant of Gripp having eubaittad defendant's
buiiding to the Lsavitte, and that dafandant repliad to the affect
that ha (defendant) had told Gripp that ha (Gripp) was too lata a6
plaintiff had firat submitted Laavitt' 8 property to dufenuant, and
that he (plaintiff) wrote the latter of August 4th to defendant
after he had b ad this telephone oonvaraation with thj defendant.
Ths defendant, Mt-ttaaon, denied that ha h^d any such telephone con-
versation with plaintiff or aada any auoh stateir.ant to plaintiff.
And in plaintiff 'a letter of August 4th there is contained the sen-
tence, "I triad to gat );ou on the telephone today, both at your
houea and at your Bother* a, but you ..era out, so I bjb writing you
this letter," Plaintiff further testified, in substanoe, that
after defendant had called at plaintiff* a office, on Aagaet bth,
ha old not aea or cou.>.unicate with either Laavltt or his son for
throe or ^.ar daye,that than he saw Leavitt's 6on, Richard, and
submitted to bin defendant's proposition, viz: the Laavitt building
and $15,000 for defendant's building as inoun-.bared; that Richard
j^id the $15, CCO difference was too nuoh, and that plaintiff so ad-
vised defendant Ly telephone, and that defendant auggsetad that
. intiif procure & counter proposition, that plaintiff again saw
Richard and urged hlai to sake a proposition, saying, "it is poeai-
ble 4a car. cat bio (defendant) doan aonie thing from that," and that
-
I
-6-
he never got any proposition from the Lsavitte.
While plaintiff was on the stand there was offered and
received in evidence, ever defanuunt'u objection^ carbon copy of
s letter, written by plaintiff to u^fendant on Septenoer 3rd, after
t,he contract for the exchfcnjre of cuildings had beer, signed and the
deeds had in fact passed. Notice to produce the original *as given
and proof of moiling trade. In this letter plaintiff stated that he
had beard of Lh ; signing of said contract of August 32nd, gave a
history of the dealings and relatione of Che parties as viewed by
plaintiff, expressed surprise at the "clandestine" Banner in which
thi negotiations between Oripgdefendant and the Leavitts uai
be^ii carried on, Intimated that plaintiff *ae entitled to eoaale-
iione on the des.i and demanded an early interview.
At the conclusion of plaintiff's evidence and again at
tho eeaolueion of ail ths evidence defendant moved for a directed
variiot in nie favor, cut the notions v.ere aenied.
The court delivered a soeewhat lengthy oral Jhar^e to
the .jury in which the court stated, aaong other things, that "if you
find the issues for the plaintiff your verdict trust be for $1,195,"
to which charge as to damages defendant objected. There *aa no evi-
dence tr.at when defendant listed his building with plaintiff, or at
any ti/r.e, defendant agrjed to cay any definite sunr. as coibpt lesions
in case plaintiff negotiated a sale or exchange. and there
was no positive testimony us to the aotual value of defendant's
building. The only sug^astion of any value vias that contained in
the contract of August 32nd, viz : that the parties agrsed to ex-
change the buildings on the basis of trades values ^s follows*.
Leavitt agraad to convey his ouij..iing, valued at $35,030, and pay
$5,725 cash, in consideration of defendant can/eyinc nis u,uiidinp,
valued ai $47,735 but eubjeat to on inourrcranoe of $17,- >00. The
only testimony introduced j«i to the ouetomary oiiargea £>r co nis-
sions of brokers in Cbioago in the year I'.n? for calling or secur-
-
:
-7-
lng ar. eKct.:i;)^a of cj*1 eetate fc&e that of the plaintiff , who tes-
tified that at the tin.3 ami plaea euoh cuatoaary chare* *a<* 2^
p ;r osi.t. Ko further t eetlf led that be bad ccri.put-C cor iEeiont
it ff| pax cent, ok & sa^e >,f $47J?:ic and it amounted to |1,193 and
tone cents,
"P. JUSTICE CRJP'EY DELIVERED Tt'Z OPINION OF THE COURT.
It La contended ty counsel for the defendant that the
court ened (i) in admitting plaintiff1* latter to flefendant of
Beptanbar 2,1.. 13, u:,<: (2) in charging; the jury that if thay found
the iec-ee. for the plaintiff their verdict rau-at he for the sub, of
£l,lfj3. It la further e atended (Z) that the ^udgaient should be
reversed sitfc a finding of feet, on the ground that the evidence
eho*fc that Cripp, ;^nd not plaintiff , "sae the .procuring cause where-
by ;he exchange of said buildings '<*<°c cade by Leavltt and the de-
an t .
In the Vie* are tafce of this case It is perhaps unnec-
ssaary for us to discuss the two point* of counael4flret .<?.er.ticned.
We may, however, aay that in our opinion plaintiff's litter of Sep-
tember 3rd should not havejbeen admitted! and that its adaieeion
tended to prejudice the Jury in favor of plaintiff. The letter
v;u.a irltten after V.\i sxohange of the buildings hrid heen ooneusurat-
ed and after the rightr. of plaintiff , if any he had, bad become
fixed., and it *ac a :elf-servinp document and apparently •written
in preparation of making a olaim i^ainot defendant for cor lesions.
also
And, in v:t opinion, the trial oourt^erred in giving that portion
of the jhtirpe to the j iry a to Samagee, wherein the ;ur,- ere
Inetruoted that if they found the issues for the plaintiff their
verdiot <ruet he Tor |l,193. The plslntiff testified that the ous-
i
■
I
i
I
-8-
tomary charges of brokere in Chicago for selling or exchanging
real estate was 2^ per cent, and that 2£ per cant, on a sale of
$47,750 airounted to some cents tore than §1,193, but thera was no
testimony of tha custom on what that rate was figured, whether on
the actual or trade value of said rsal estate; and there was no
taetimony as to tha custorr. when mortgaged property ie exchanged,
whether eaid rate is figured on the value of the propsrty lee6
tha BOrtgaga or not. Tha actual value of defendant's building *aa
not shown. And the contract introduced in evidence discloses
that tha exchange was on the basis of certain trade values «ade
by the parties to the contract, that the Leavitt building tas
valued at |25, 000, that the net value of defendant's building was
figured at $30,725, and that Laavitt was to ray defendant the
difference, $5,725, in cash. In 19 Cyc. 237, it is said: "In
estimating the commission upon an exchange of real estate the
actual and not tha trade value of the ptoparty should be taken as
the basis." And see Ca liana v. Trapat.70 111. App. 228.
As to counsel's third point, we are of the opinion,
after a careful examination of tha transcript before us, that the
evidence clearly shoiss that plaintiff was not the procuring cause
whereby the agreement to exchange and the exchange of said build-
ings were made by Emanuel Levitt and defendant. In Friend v.
Trigge Company, 147 111. App. 427, 430, it ie said, quoting from
Day v. Porter, 161 111. 235, 2^7: "A broker , unless wrongfully
prevented by hie principal, must bring about an agreement in order
to be entitled to hi6 comirieeion, and the principal may employ
Beveral brokers to sell the same property, and r;ay sell to the
huyar who ie first procured by any of them, without being callad
upon to decide which of the brokers was the primary cause of tha
Bale provided he remains neutral between them and is not ruilty
of any wrong." In this case the evioence shone that the defendant
listed his 15-flat building for sale or exchange with both the
-
■
1
]
-3-
broker, Gripp, and the plaintiff; tnat Gripp first brought defend-
ant's attention to tha Leavitt building; and that Gripp, and not
plaintiff, brought about the agreement of August 22, 1912. And
the evidence doss not tend to show that defendant did not retrain
neutral ae between plaintiff and Gripp, or that defendant was
guilty of any wrong to plaintiff, and, in our opinion, plaintiff
failed to rrove hie claim against defendant for commissions.
The judgment of the Municipal Court, therefore, will
be reversed with a finding of fact, and judgment will be entered
here for the defendant.
REVERSED AND JUDGMENT HERE FOR TKE DEFENDANT.
FINDING OF FACT. We find that the plaintiff, Charles «.
Hovay, was not the procuring cause in bringing about the agreement
for the sale or exchange of the building owned b> the defend-
ant, D. A. Matteson, to Emanuel L^avitt.
I
461 - 19R64
HAS LORCTXI, )
Appellant, (
Apparel from
vs. ( I Municip 1 Court
) of Chi'.
FOUR IHSBt. DRIVE AUTO COMPANY, ( J
Acpellaa, ) £ ^ _ >« /-* ^
18(8 I.A. 488
i
r&LIT DELIVERED THE OFIKION 07 71
MR. JOSnCl CRIQLEY DELIVERED THE OPIKIOK 07 THE CDUPT.
\
Abraham Lorenzs, plaijitiff, commenced 3n attachment
suit in tha Municipal >Court of Chigago against Four Wheal Drive
Auto Company, a corporation hr-ving ite principal offica in Clinton-
s'
villa, Vkieconsin, defendants Subsequently tha Jafen ant antered
ita general appearance. In tha amended statement of claim it was
stated that plaintiff 6 claim was for a balance of $1,200, due him
for cooiuit-eions on account of tha sale for defendant of IOC shares
of ite corporate stock to Mre. V. S. Seville. In d-fendant'e affi-
davit of merits it mae stated that defendant was not indebted to
plaintiff in any sun wliataoevar, that plaintiff did not make a
sale of said shares of etook on banal f of defendant, and that de-
fendant never hud any contractual relatione with plaintiff as to the
sale of aaid etock. The oaee was triad before tha court without a
jury, resulting in a finding and judgment for defendant, and plain-
tiff appealed to this court.
On October 22, 191S, the defendant entered into a *rit-
ten agreement with ft. A. Olan, a resident of Clintonville, fiacun-
sin, and president of the defendant company. By the terms of caid
agreement it wee provided that Olen ehoulu become tha exclusive
agent of Jafsndant to sell its capital stock, and should tuiva the
privilege of sailing 1,000 eharss a£ not lass than $110 per share;
and should receive n commission of $15 for avarj ahara sola by bin,
that all applicatione for said etook ehould be taken on regular
■
]
„3-
blanle furniphed by ths company, one-half tc be raid in ceeh and
balance within 50 days; that Olen should receive his comrri felons
as the stock was paid for; that he should have the right to ap-
point sub-agents to assist him in the sale of tie stock; and that
if he sold the amount cf stock within the tiir.es provided in said
agreement he should have the exclusive right to sell all tho re-
maining stock, but that if he failed to do so the agreement might
become void at the option of the company, fubeecuently, on Novem-
ber 19, 191T, Olen, individually, entered into * written contract
with the plaintiff, Lorenze, to which contract a copy of said
agreement of October 22nd was nttched and made a part thereof,
and in which contract it was provided that plaintiff should have
the exclusive right tc eell stock, within s cartain limited terri-
tory, in accordance with the tern.e of Olen's agreement with the
company; that Oler should poy plaintiff a conmlsaion of #15 $$t
asch ehare of stock sold by plaintiff, to be ceio ?s soon ~.e the
stock was raid for; th& t Plon gvanted i^lointif f the right, to sell
500 shares upon condition that the latter should sell 35 chares
on or before December 3S ', 1919; and 50 <?h*r=ts every thirty ways
thereafter; and that in o&ee Qlen'e agrosn.ont with ths ooopany
should become void this contract should likewise become void.
Duplicate copies of this contract ware executed,- plaintiff re-
taining one vn6 Olen ths ^ther.
Plaintiff testified, in suhstanco, that, he did not
sell 35 eheree of Stook by December 2?, 1913, that early in January,
1913, he had a talk with Olon, the rranl^ent, and with Frank Cause,
Secretary, of the As fondant company, -herein ?t was vsr bally agreed
that he should thereafter make solas of said stock on behalf of ths
lofendant company *i.nd should receive the a?n-e rate >f corr"irt;ion at-
provided for in his contract with Olen. Both Olen and Cause ".anisd
that any conversation to that effect was than or at any time had
.
:
with plaintiff, or that the defendant company over entered into
any such verbal agreement with plaintiff. Olen t^utified, in
eubstnnce, that early in January, 191C,ha h?d a conversation
with plaintiff relative to the continuance of plaintiff e contract
with Olen, r.no that at that time plaintiff requested that Olen r.ake
an endorsement on plaintiff 'e duplicate copy of v id. contract; that
Olen did eo, an,' that 'hat endorromsnt wae to the effect that Olan
extended m.id contract, as lone Ee Olen'a agreement -*ith the defend-
ant oocpany renalned in force and as lon^ ae sny a took regained to
be sold. Plaintiff denied thst suck endorsement was mads on bis
copy of the contract, but he w?e unable to produce the same, say-
ing tv.ot it bad loan in 1b laid and that he had made dilirir.t eearch
tut oould not find it. Olen'e copy of said contract, which was
introduced in evidence, did not bear any endorsement. I* further
appeared from the evidence that, subsequent to J?:nusry 1, 191^,
plaintiff nsde several aalae of stock to various partiea and re-
ceived hie cor:r iecicr.G therefor,- sorr.e remittances being- rr.ti.de by
checks of th: defendant company, which c^ecl-fi were charred to
Olen'e aooount -ith the defendant corrrary, v?ric«a "".ettera writ-
ten to plaintiff and signed ■¥. A. Olen," r,r "7. A, Olen, -rssi-
clent," were Introduced in evidence, &e were also sons of plaintiff's
letters addressed to said Olsr. individually or ne "president." On
March 23, 1913, plaintiff wrote w. a Olen, personally, as follows:
"Apparent y your stock derl with rre la cleaned up - outside of try
commission on tha balanoe of Mrs. 8aville'e -.tool:, and when oar I
3xpact a remittance frr earns?"
Td cannot say that the finding and judgment are tani-
feBtly against the vrgirht of the svidence,na contended by counsel
for the plaintiff. It dees not appear that tha »gr< • ant > et»»3*n
Olen ana tha defendant had been canceled. Nor dose It sufficient-
ly appear that plaintiff madd a verbal agra^cant with cisfanvant
whereby the latter waa to pay hiar. oomsieslons on ctook Bold ly
1
S I
-4-
him, or that defendant by ite acte et any time recognized that it
had any contractual relations with plaintiff. If plaintiff has
not bean paid all the commissione due him, hie claim ie against
Olen pexeonally and not defendant.
Neither do *e think that the trial court conn.itted any
errors, rre^udicial to the plaintiff, in its rulings on the ad-
mission of evidence, as al6o contended by counsel.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Municipal Court is
affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
r Ten , 2 i
471 - 19374
HFLFN NFFNAN,
Appellee,
Appeal from
va. ) Superior Court,
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF THF KNIOHTP
AND LArir? Of P^CUPITT,
Appellant,
i
Cock Ccunty.
i$8l„A 4 90
STATEMENT OF SUE CASE. This 1« an appeal from a Judgment
for $920 rendered April 12, 1913, by the ~uporicr Court of Cook
County, following the verdict of a Jury, in favor of Helen Beenaa,
plaintiff below, and against National Council of the Knighte and
Ladiee of Pecurity, a fraternal beneficiary ecoiety, defendant
below.
In plaintiff *e declaration, which ccneiettdof one count,
it was alleged ir- eutetar.ee that on Pepteraber 3, 1S08, the defend-
ant admitted Jeremiah Nee nan to membership in the local oouncil.
No. 741, of the Order, located in Chicago, and ieeued to him a
beneficiary certificate, duly signed by the officer* of the nation-
al council of the defendant society, ana duly signed by taid Neenan
■for the purpose of acoepting the conditions of said certificate";
that defendant by taici certificate promised to pay plaintiff, wife
of eaid Neenan, upon his death the sum of $1,000, upon the terms
and conditions in eaid certificate mentioned; that said Neenar died
on Ootober 7, 1909, at Chioago, while in good standing in Raid
Order; that he during his lifetime, and plaintiff at all times
cince hie death, complied with all the requirements of the certifi-
cate and the laws of the Order; that by means thereof defendant
Oeoame liable tc pay plaintiff the sum of fl,000; and that defend-
ant hae refused to pay said eum or any part thereof, wherefore
there ia due to plaintiff the said sua, together with interest
thereon, at 5jt per annum, from Auguat 12, 1610, etc. The benefi-
•
■
-
I
-3-
ciaxy certificate was net out ij: haec verba in tho declaration,
and in one clause thereof it war provided that should said Neenan
die within 16 months of the delivery of the certificate the Na-
tional Counoil should be liable for only 30 per cent, of said
|1,000.
The defendant filed a plea of the general issue and
several special pleas, alt of which, except the sixth, were with-
drawn. This sixth plea, as amended, alleged in substance that the
contract of mesibershlp between the defendant and said Jeretaiah
Neenan was composed of the certificate, application am, by-lawo
of the defendant society; that it was prcvldeu in the by-laws
that each member should pay one assessment each month on or before
the last day of the month; and *hnt if the member failed to pay
said monthly assessment on or before the lapt day of tfaid month
said member should stand suspended without notice and all hie
rights forfeited under aaid certificate, but that he might rein-
state hinself at any time within 60 days from the date of said sus-
pension by the payment of the current assessment and local council
duee, and all arrearages of any kind, provided he be in good health;
that by virtue of the contract between said Neenan and the defend-
ant society there teoaese due on August 1, 1909, a oertain asress-
mer.t from said Neenan, payable on or before the last day of said
month cf August, ar.d thftt there becarce due on September 1, 1909,
a certain assessment from said Neenan, payable on or before the
last day of said month cf September; that said August assessment
was not paid during said month cf August or during said roont;. of
September, and said September assessment was not paid during said
month of September; that said Neenan became suspended on September
1, 1909, and remained in suspension up to and InoludlBf th I time
of his death, October 7, 1909, and was not a mer.ber of the defend-
ant society in geed standing at the date pt his death, and tJat
neither he, nor anyone in hia behalf, while he was living and in
•lb
-3-
gccd health, paid any aneeesirent for the purpose of reinstating
him; that on or about October 7, 190", while said Keeran wae in
suspension and net in gec-i health, as^eserrente for the monthe of
Auguet, September and Octcter, 190<T, amounting to *4,50, were paid
to the financier of said local council to which eaid Keeran be-
longed, and laid payment* were taVen by eaid financier without
knowledge on hie part, cr that of any officer or agent of the or-
der, that raid Keenar. was not in seed health; that thereafter, and
immediately upon defendant 1 earring that «aiu Keenan wae not in
good health when *ai>> payments were made And before the beginning
of this suit, eaid financier eert to plaintiff a check for the
amount of eaid payments, which check hap not been returned but
hae been retained by plaintiff, and which check ha* been at all
times of the value of eaid payments.
To thie special plea the plaintiff filed a replication
in which it wae alleged, in substance, that eaid Keenan wae a mem-
ber of the defendant society in good standing, oj provided for in
said contract, up to ar.d Including the time of hi* de-th; that
while living arid in jeed health he raid all assessment* due from
him for the purpose of hie reinstatement and which did reinstate
hirr. before he died; that en October 7, 1909, "while the said Keenan
was in good health," assessments for said months of August, 8< -
tember and October, amounting to |4.50, ware paid to ana taken by
said financier and the latter did net return "to said Keenan" the
amount paid by plaintiff.
At the beginning of the trial the defendant raaue a legal
tender in or en court to the plaintiff of $4.50, together with ceeta
of suit, and interest thereon, but the tender wa^ refused. Plain-
tiff testified in her own behalf and Introduced in evidence the
banefioiary certificate sued on and a receipt book showing the rv-
ments of dues and assessments on Keenan !e aooount and the tiaes
when made. On behalf of the defendant, Harry w. Amey, the financier
-4-
teet if ied,
of ©aid looal oounoil, Ko. 741,/ and defendant Introduoad the ap-
plication of the deceased for membership, the constitution and
by-lawo of the defendant society, the certificate of death of oaid
deceased, a check for f4.50 and letter accosn- ar.ying th? same, dat-
ed October S, 1909, sent by defendant to plaintiff, and eeveral
other documents. In robuttal the plaintiff again testified, and
also a witness named Mrs. Mulvahill. At the conclusion of all the
evidenoe the defendant moved for a directed verdict in its favor,
but the motion was denied. The court directed that the testimony
of the witness Mrs. Mulvahill, as well as certain portions of
plaintiff's testimony, as to •custom" and as to "her delinquency
in payments" be stricken from the record and disregarded by the
jury. It was adaittad in open oourt by the attorney for plaintiff
that Jeremiah Neenan was not in good health on October 7, 1909,
when the dues and assasements, aggregating $4.50, were paid on
•aid Seenan'n behalf to said Amey, financier of the local council,
and that at and before that time ssid Arsey had no knowledge t . .i
said Neenan was not in good health; ?.r.d it waa further admitted
that e good and sufficient tender of said $4.50 was esasonably
made by the defendant to the plaintiff about the tiae of the death
of said Neenan. And it was stated by tha court to the Jury that
the attorney fcr plaintiff admitted that "in no oaee could there
be a verdict for more than f920," via: $300 and interest. Three
instructions offered by the defendant were given, and ten instruc-
tions offered by the rl^ir.tiff were refused. The court of bit own
motion wrote and gave to the Jury two instructions, numbered 4 and
5. Instruction Ho. 4 referred to I certain "established ouctom
and method of doing bupinasa adopted by tn? defendant" governing
suspensions, and an to the tis.e the financier made his monthly re-
port? tc the Naticnpl Council, and wo« to the effect that if the
Jury belisvsd there was ouch, a custom and method, which was knewn
both tc the insured and the National Council, and th*t said Neenan,
■
]
-5-
cn Ootobtr 7, 1909, wae in arrears fcr the month of Sej teeter,
1909, only, and the financier, Amey, had net yet reported auid
Koenan tc ti una! Council a« delinquont, ar thi t on a .
data Neenan had paid all hin at •• assents in full, than the Jury
light find the issues for the plaintiff. Instruction So. 5 was
to tx.e effeot that all nlbence rer ived and afterwards vtrlokon
cut by the court muet be disregarded by the jury.
The membership receipt book offeree, in evidence ahowed
that Ueenan's aeceeononts and duee amounted to the sum of |l.50
per Eonth; that said sum wa£ paid to said financier of the ;ccal
council fcr the months cf Kovember, 1203, and January, 1909, be-
fore the last day of each month; that like fume were paid for the
Months cf October and December, 1908, and February, March, May,
June and July, 1609, within SO dayc after the last day of said
months, respectively; that a lite sum dus for the month of April,
, was not paid to aaid firanoier until July 15, 1909; and that
like aura* due respectively for the month* cf August, io» and
Oct >r, 1909, were paid on October ?, io0o. Arcey, the Financier,
teetificu tiu.tt he personally had a verbal arrangement with - 1 A -
tiff, who wa« also a member of the defendant society, that if
r plaintiff or Jeremiah Kaenan was behind in the payment of
dues and accessc-ients, he would pay out of his own pociet ..th's
assessment for them and plaintiff would subsequently repay hi
that he was accustomed to forward to the National Oounoil a writ-
ten report about the .'iCth c* e-sch month, remitting for assessments
paid by meabert during the preoe-iing month, and ^ivin^ the namee
of members suspended for non-payment cf assessments; that he p
Neenan'c April, 1909, assessment out of his own personal Tunds and
diJ not report him aa oeing in auepeneloa •■vhon he forwarded i
writton report about May 2C, 1909; that ha alec • Neeran'a
August, 1309, asee»»ment out of hie own personal funds and a ia not
report him as being in suspension when hs forwarded «aid written
I
-6-
repcrt *bout Oatteraber SO, 1T,09, but that, Keenan not having raid
th« r, i '), aftaeaareert to the local council on or cafore
tenber 30, 1309, or re* aid tc A:rsey the .August aeaeBanent so ad-
vanced, ha (Antey), in his Octcosr report, reported Neenan ae being
in Bu«;:an8ion for failure tc pey the September a>«flB>.rJunt; that at
no tlaa en iitner the bocks of the local cevmoi! or the Nati<
Oouncil lid it apr-ear that Xoenan r»a« in aue^on-sicn a« long at 60
dayo, and that after Neenan'e adai«*ion a.i a wemfcer he we* not re-
examined by the itedical examiner. Plaintiff testified that in
case she in at e.ny tirse in arrears ae to the assessments of ^itaer
herself ex nuaband, A;tey had agreed to carry thea; that nothing
had been eaid by Amey aCGUt hie advancing the aafieeement fcr only
one month, ?.na that ehe never Said anything tc her huabanu about
.rrange^ent with Affiey.
It further appeared froa the evidence that Jeraai^h Neen-
an aied at i»i«? hene at 11:46 n.i4. on October ?, 1909, of pneumonia;
that he had geen confined to his bed for four or five I . ricr
to hie death; that on the evening cf hie death plointiff 'e brother
took the t4*&C to t pay t teae '« uuee and
aaaeasmente for August, Bepteaber arid October, 1909; that eaid
aaount waa received by Afr.ey, the financier, abcut tea o'clock in
the evening, and that Amey did not know that Neenan wa« ill until
about 11 o'clock that evening, whan he was rc ad y lead by a aeaber
of the ledge.
.
i
.7-
MR. JUSTICE GPIDLFY DELIVFRFD THF OPIIIOS °~ TKF COURT.
It in contended by counsel fcr the defendant that (1)
the verdict 1b net supported by the law or the evidence, and that
the court at the conclusion cf all the evidence should have direct-
ed a verdict for the defendant; (Z) that the trial court erred in
admitting improper evidence, prejudicial to the defendant, and the
subsequent action of the court Id striking out the same and in-
structing the jury to disregard said evidence did not cure the
error; and (3) that inet ruction Ho. 4, giver, by the court of his
own motion, wee erroneous and prejudicial.
In view of the conclusion we have reached it will un-
necessary for ue to consider the 2nd and 3rd points above mention-
ed. In our opinion there can be no recovery had ngainet the de-
fendant in this case, the court erred in entering the
Judgment.
It is well settled in this state that the constitution
and by-laws, the application for membership and the benefit cer-
tificate, together constitute the contract cf insurance (Love v.
Modern Woodmen. 259 111. 102, 106); and that parties oempetent to
contract are at liberty to enter into Ruoh agreements with each
other as they see fit, and it i«? the purpose cf the law and the
function cf the courts tc enferce these contracts. (Crosse v.
Knights of Honor, 254 111. BO, 84.) In hi* application for mem-
bership in the defendant pooiety Keenan agreed that should he
cease lo be a member of the order, either by suspension, expulsion,
cr otherwise, he thereby released and forfeited all -.lain to the
beneficiary funds, and tnat, if accepted as a member, he would
faithfully atide by all the laws of the order. The beneficiary
certificate issued to Keenan provided that at his death the Nation-
al Council would pay plaintiff the •um therein mentioned, "ha hav-
:
ing complied with all the provisions cf the Constitution and Laws
of the Order * * * and being at tee time of his death a member of
the Order in good standing"; end the oertifioate contained • clause
to the effect that the oortificate waa issued in cone iderat ion of
the warranties j^nd agreements contained in the application, anu hie
agreement to pay all as ee ascent a and dues which would become dut
while he remained a member. Ceoticn 113 of the by-laws of the so-
ciety provides that all assessments for every uionth shell become
due and payable on the fir^t day of the month, and that the cer-
tificate of eaoh member who has not paid such asaeaBmente and dues
"on or before the last day of the month "shall, by the fact of such
non-payment, stand suspended without notice, and no act on the part
cf the Council or any officer thereof, cr of the National Council,
shall be required as essential to euch suspension, anu all rights
under said certificate rhall be forfeited." Skis provision is
Mil -executing. (Fatiomil Council v. Bur oh, 126 111. App. lb, 30;
L«fcian ▼ • Clark, 174 111. 279, £88, £92.) Seotion 114 of the by-
laws provide*? that any beneficiary member, cuapended by reason of
non-payment of aesesaments or dues, "may be reinstated by payment
within 60 days from the date cf suspension, cf all arrearages of
every kind, including assessments and dues, for which he wculu
have been liable had h« remained in good standing; Presided, how-
ever, That he be in $ood health at the time cf reinstatement; Pro-
vided, further, That the refleirt g.nd retention c? such nsseeoment
or dues, in case the euejonded member jl£ not in gepd health, ah*. 11
net have the effect of reinstating ftaid member. or of entitling him
or hie beneficiaries to any rights under hia benefit certif ic.-its. "
The evidence in the present case shows thnt Heenan did not pay the
August, 1109, assessment and dues, but that Amey paid them for him,
by virtue of n private understanding between Aney and plaintiff,
which wan unknown tc either Heenan or the Kational Council of the
society, ard that neither Neenan nor anyone for him pnid the Pept-
■
3
amber, 1909, assessment and due*. By the r.cr.-rayment of said
aeeesemer-t and dues on or before the last day of raptember, 1
Keenan was, by virtue cf section 112 of the by-laws, if eg facto
euependeu and ha forfeited all rights under his certif ioate. He
could, however, ba reinstated ae a member of the eo-ciety, ur.
eection 114 cf the by-law?, by making payment within 60 days?
the data of ■ .. ' vion of said assessments and dues and all
arrearages, r,rcvldad ha *a* in good health at the time of rein-
statement. The evidence further above that, on Octcbar 7, 1 ,
within about two houra of tha death of Keenan, while ha was than
in the last stages of a mortal illness, plaintiff, then 'nowing
that he was eerioueljr ill, caused her brother to pay to Awey, the
financier of the local lodge, said pa«n due September assessment
and duee, the October assessment and dues, ar.d the August assess-
ment and aue<?, previously advanced by Aaeyj that the sail hues,
amounting to $4.50 were received by teey without knowledge on
hie part or that of any officer of the defendant that Neenan w&o
net in good health, end that Amey shortly thereafter returned to
plair.tifr the OhOOk of aaid local lodge for said sum, which plain-
tiff retained. We dc net think Neenan wa* reinstated a* a member.
He wae not eligible for reinstatement. ^3ueta v. "ourt cl" ticrcr,
173 111. App. 71, 76.) Furthermore, plaintiff, when *Le oattl
the said sum to be given to Amey, knowing at the time that Keenan
was seriously ill, was not acting in good faith to*«rd* -.ho soci-
ety. (Roval Highlanders v. CooviU. 6G Neb. 13, 330.) And we
do not think that the evidence sufficiently li*olc.«ee any waiver
on the part of th* defendant -society. Tha private »ent be-
tween Arcey and plaintiff that the former wot/ I advance the assess-
ment ami dues for one month, or more, in cace the ''awe were not
paid by Seenan cr plaintiff, was r.ct sho*n to hive been known
either to Neenan or th* latioaal Council. And the agreement war
beyond the soore of the authority cf Amey tc Make, bp in -sgert of
]
-10-
the defendant eoolety, and net binding upon it. (Love v. Modern
Woodmen, 869 111. 103, 1C7.) Considerable *vidar.oe waf. offered
and admitted on «,h«> trial in ?.r attempt tc ebow that leniency
had been extended cu»tcfc rily by the looal lodge tc certain ■ -
bare thereof as to the payment of their aa*e*araent«. Meet of the
evidence was aubeequent \y ttriekeo cut by th« court, but «©rae cf
it re&ained. In our orinicr. it *ae all ti ■ lit. Trocf of
a custom i« never allowed tc overcome the eatpreee terse cf a eon-
tract." (Benevolent Ccciety v. Baldwin. 36 111. 479, 487; SUlon
*• National Council. 148 111. Sj>p. 121, 130.)
The judgment cf the Superior Ccurt *ill be reversea
with a finding cf facta, and juigwent fox the defendant wiU
entered here.
T?ryvp«rr, gift JtjrjOVFNT HTRF FOR TK~ DCTTfDAVT.
FiySZVQ <*>? F«CT". ?e Tina that I he taeused, Jeremiah
Neenan, faile.i to pay the feptember, 1908, aeeeeenent uee
and thereby beoaffi* euepended ae a Ee.rbar cf the defendant society,
National Council of the ^r.ighte and ladle* of Security, tl t
inoured wa» not thereafter and before hit death, en October 7,
1?C?, reinstated ub a mei&ber of taid ncciety, «r..! waf net a mem-
ber cf the society in good starring at the ti»e cf bla death;
that the defendant society lid net wsive the default eauei&|
euepeneion cf the insured; and that ti.e defendant society ie not
indebted t< the rlaintiff, Helen Keenan, upon the beneficiary c r-
tiflcate sued on.
;
I
318 - 19531.
8LIZABKTH STlOfrOH, )
Appellee, ) Ai'?l?/i FBOi
vs* / C1RCUI ■ COURT
CHICAGO CITY RAILWAY COMPAQ, J / 0COK c _
Appellant. ) ''
/ 188 I. A. 502
... JtJSTICJB SVITfl DELIVERED Till-: OPINION 0? fRB 00'JRT.
Appellant, Chicago Gity Railway Company, defendant below,
proseoutoa thi^ appeal from a Judgment of $3;)0O, recovered by ap-
pellee, Elizabeth Stanton, plaintiff below, in an action on the
oaee, on account of personal injuries alleged to have been sus-
tained by the negligance of appellant. The parties »ill be desig-
nated as plaintiff and defendant.
The declaration contained one count. The negligence
averred is that on Jeoember 15, 1910, while the plairtiff was en-
tering a atreet car owned and operated by the defendant in the city
of Chicago, and before the plaintiff w.'io able to set securely upon
the platform of the car, the defendant, through ito servants in
charge of the operation and management of the oar, negligently
started the car forward without notice or warning to her, and with
unusual force and violence, so that the plaintiff waa thereby
thrown from the car to and upon the ground and injured.
The plaintiff .ma a dreasaakor, living at 514< raid
avenue, Chicago* Her regular way of going homo from the place of
her employment Mas to ride »eat on a '17 th street car frora Lsnglaj
to aal9ted street, and then to transfer and go eouth or Bala tad
street to 5^nd atreet. 6he left har place of Jiork a out 5»S0 in
the evening of December 15, 1910, and rede aeat on a 47th 3treet
oar, accompanied by \'rs. leyers, another dresamaksr. rha plain-
tiff and ru. eyers received transfers and dismounted at the east
side of Kalcted street: they then crossed over to the northwest
oornor of the intersection of Halated and 47th stroet3, and wait-
.
.
ed for a southbound jialated atreet oar. rbia wa • an Important
Junction point and a number of persona were at the tine waiting to
board cars. Jor,e Hoisted street cars ran south as far as -~9th
street, and others ran as far as ^9th street. 90th Olassea of
!Ial3te3 street oars ran as far aouth as plairtiff and Vrs. 'eyers
desired to go, the plaintiff desiring to leave the oar at 52d
street and "ro. ioyars at 00th street.
After they reached the northwest corner, a number of
southbound oara arrived, but the women did not board th«a eitner
because they were Jenter avrnue cars running west trci that point
or becauee they ware tco crowded, finally a southbound Painted
street car ca^e up, and stopped a little north of the north line
of 47th street* This car was a double truck, pay-as-7cu-enter
car ffith a large rear platform, partitioned off in the manner that
pay-aa-you-enter platforo3 are usually arranged. On behalf of
defendant it is claimed that the car sa3 very droaded and that a
large number of por<?ons boarded the car aheiid of the plaintiff.
Plaintiff doe3 not concede that the car was so crowded as defendant's
witnesses testified it was, and plaintiff and "rs. 'eyers did not
state that as raany passengers boarded the oar ahead of plaintiff
as defendant's witnesses did, though these witnesses testified that
five or more passengers got on ahead of plainti f . Plaintiff fol-
lowed the othar entering passengers and had placed her right foot
on the step and her l«ft foot upon the platform, and had grasped
the upright bar that divided the entrance of the platform, when
to car started* /he lower step of the oar was 14-1/2 inches
above the ground and the platform *as 15-1/2 inches above the step,
eo that the platfona wa3 UR inches above the ground* The conduct-
or stood on the rear platforra in the railed-off apace in which con-
ductors usually stand on thoae cars. than the car started, ''.ra.
eyers had not got on the oar, but remained on the ground with many
other persona waiting to board oars.
On behalf of plaintiff It wag claimed that she wan thrown
to the ground by the starting of the oar and that the car etarted
■1th eome Jerk. She testified that although ahe had both feet on
the oar, one on the plutform and tho other on the step, and although
ahe had a fin hold of the upright bar with her ri$ht hand, the
starting of the oar dislodged her so that she waa swung around
against another passenger who had been standing north of her on
the stop, jo that her body then swung around with her back to the
south, and that her feet, one at a time, slipped off the* oar» ihe
only witnesses to the occurrence on plaintiff 'a behalf were herself
and her friend, ira. aeyera.
Dn behalf of defendant it waa claimed that plaintiff
fell by reason of her attempting to step off backwards from the
moving car as aoon as she discovered that the car *aa starting and
leaving her companion behind. Defendant contended that the sole
cauae of the accident waa pluinti-f's voluntary act in stepping
from the oar in such a manner that ahe herself lost her balanoe
by getting off backwards. Defendant's witnesses defied that there
was any unusual jori- or lurch in connection with the starting of
the oar, and denied that plaintif *a body was swung again3t that of
any other pa3aenger« Dix witnesses on behalf of the defendant tes-
tified as to the occurrence. The conductor died before the trial.
Done of defendants witnesses did not seu the whole transaction,
iill of them testified that there was no sudden lurch or jerk in
connection with the starting of the oar. three of them testified
that the conductor, before starting the oar, called out a warning
that he was about to 3 tart the car and that no mora passengers
should enter* i'hree other witnesses teutifiud that plaintiff vol-
untarily stepped off the oar aftor it hdd started in motion. hese
last mentioned witnesses testified that ir»« ..'.eyers called out,
"Oh, Lizzie," or something to that effect, whioh waa Juat before
plaintiff stepped from the oar.
:
■
I
Plaintiff foil with her head to tha south and v.-lth her
, feet to the north, ihe struck first on the bank of her head which
wa3 proteoted by her hair and by a turban hat ehe wore. She wa3
iaoediately assisted to her feet and asked whether oho wished an
ambulance to take her home. 3he declined that aH and said she
was able to get hows on the street oar. -,ith <rs. .'-'eyer* she
boarded a relieving street car and rode on it to r=2d street. :'rs.
eyjru did not leave the car sith her. Plaintiff happened to know
a youn>; lady on the car, who was not called as a witness, and that
youn«; woman then walked home with plaintiff to h«r horo or :'meral&
avenue, a little over a block from the place where plaintiff left
the oar. Plaintiff walked upstairs to the apartment of her ai~ter.
She testified that she felt pain particularly in the back of her
head and along hor bac^.
ohe did not call or oonsult any physician for over two
months after the accident. On February 17, 1911, she went to see
t>r, John l« urphy, who examined hor and tumedAover to an assist-
ant, Dr. John :', Jolden. Dr. Jolden diagnosed her condition as
tubercular inflammation of the spine* An inflammation of the
spine ia called a spondylitis, and when a spondylitis i3 tubercu-
lar, it Is called Pott's disease, ur. Golden was of the opinion
that plaintiff's trouble wa3 Pott*9 disease. :ha part of her spine
whioh he claimed was thus affected was In the lower dorsal region,
below the waist line. There aas no abrasion of the skin or marked
bruise at the point at whic* it ia claimed the Pottos disease after-
wards developed* Plaintiff testified that there was a slight puffi-
ness or swelling and redness at that point whioh she observed by
looking at it in a mirror. At the time of the trial, according
to the testimony of Dr. Solden, the tubercular infection had ceased
and plaintiff wa3 considerably improved" "e testified that his
treatment an I her '.tearing of a cast and leather Jaoket had eliminated
the tuboroul'-r condition, bo that while plaintiff's spine «uj not
,1
■
■
I
I
:
quite as strong as it had been, it was not afflictocl with acute
Pott' a disease at the time of the trial.
i'bo defendant contonds on the record that the verdict
and judgment on the issue of liability are manifestly contrary to
the preponderance of the evidence; that the damages are grossly
excessive on any theory of the injury; that plaintiff's counsel
made many improper and incurably prejudicial statements on the
trial; that the court erred in giving an improper instruction,
and also erred in admitting inconpetent evidence.
It is contended on behalf of defendant that the trial
before the Jury was unfair and was not free from cirounatancea
calculated to mislead or prejudice the Jury. On the cross-exam-
ination of .'icl-iaaea, a witness for the defendant, plaintiff^
counsel interrogated the witness at length with respect to the
first time he had been interviewed by the company to ascertain
what he knew about the accident, and with reference to the taller
he had had with the defendant's representatives before the trial.
Jcur.^el Insinuated that MeJfeaee was not at the place of the acci-
dent. He said to the witness, when he was questioning him about
how he happened to bo at the intersection, "old you have an in-
tuition that an accident vaa going to happen?" He crojs-exanined
the witness at length as to where he hud been on the lay of the
accident and he* he happened to be on the cornsr of 47th and
ii aid ted streets ^t the tims. The substance of the cross-examination
was an attempt to show that the witneso' testimony waj a fabri-
cation of recent date, on the re-direct examination defendant
offered to show, that in the letter, which 'cMuraee had testified
t-- en cross-examination he wrote to the ooapany a few days after
the occurrence, replying on its inquiry blank for:1 to questions
there propounded, he gave the same account of the occurrence that
he had given on the stand. Po ovorccro the of feet of defoniant *b
offer of testimony, plaintiff '3 counsel, it is claimed, made
■
■
■
I
-o-
grosaly improper statements calculated to prejudice the defendant
before the Jury in the following examination:
"ii. &r. McNameo, did you receive - you mentioned that
you received a letter, asking you to state wh.it the facta were.
I Mk you, was that the letter? (exhibiting paper to witness).
A. Yes, air.
■,}, Up to the tine that you .urote that lflii^r, in answer
to the inquiry as to what you knew of the faotsyTycu talked
with anybody at all connected with the Chicago City Railway in
connection with the accident?
A. SO| air.
'r. Condon: I Offer IMa in evidence.
y. o-hane: I object to it.
r. Condon: I will as': you to re-.i:i that over to your-
oelf (handing paper to witness).
,'r. vcChare: If a nan go out and fix up those kind of
things with employes, ge'. ting it ready for the purpose for which
it is being used, the whole thing would be a farce.
r. cordon: | object to the statement, if the court please,
that there hao been any 'fixing. * It carries with it - it in a
term that has a oorcmon and well known application. It is a tens
used commonly by men who charge others ..ith wrong doing, and I
objoct to :r. i.,c3hane'a statement as Just made.
Mr. ioShanoj I moan writing it, your Sonar*
!r. Condon: Oh, you mean- yea, you r-ean nothing. I am ob-
jecting to what he said, and 1 will ask the court to rule on it as
an absolute outrage.
ar. -JCohane: .-/ait. I say- I ^ean preparing a statement in
writing, writing the statemont, *&nd I mean nothing else, that is
all.
The Court: With that explanation, 1 think it may stand,
•ir. Condon: Vov , then, after having road that atatament, do
you desire to change or modify any part of the testimony you have
given here?
r. ^cChane: I objoct to that, your Conor.
r« Condon: He is trying to make it appear - the reason I
auk that -
r. . cchane: If he has not a ri^ht to get it in directly, ho
has not a right to get it in this roundabout way, and 1 object
to it.
<ould you like to look at it?
No, I don't want to look at it. It ie cheap.
2 object to that statement.
What I meant was-
''.e aadea an unfair statement, and then apologizes,
You are trying to make something out of it.
;ou &.»ked me if I want to look at lt« I kiioa all those things,
and it is sickening to me -
r. jendon: I object to that remark, that it is chear>, and
ask tho court to rule.
The uourt: rhat remark rcay be stricken out.
r. lechane: I want to say, he hwli thia to my face, and
asked if 1 wanted to sao it, and I certainly think it is very -
i don't oare for it.
Mr. Condon: very whut? V.hy don't you bo courageous?
::r. -^cchane: i'^s. .cu *ant to got a fo* iaoro exceptions.
If it was not for that, I would be very candid with you.
(thereupon the Jury wore excused from the court room. )
1 .
Condon:
Mr.
c.hane:
"r.
ondon:
r.
c.;hane:
r-
London:
r.
cchane:
-
3
-7-
r. Jondon: I desire to Eiove that a Juror oe withdrawn In
thi 1 •*• , r±nd that «re proceed immediately either to the e-ipar.el-
lng of another Jury, or that tha oaae be continued, because of
the remarks, and imputations in the remarks, made by :'r. c::hane
regardin: the witness who has ju3t testified, and the defendant
in this caae,
( Jotion ovarruled; to which ruling the defendant duly
excepted. )"
One witness, Jupil, was employed by a chattel mortgage man,
and In the cross-examination of Oupil, plaintiff's oounsol resort-
ed to tha following methods. Jupll testified i
■ r. synch's business is that of a money broker* Ae does
not lend money on wa-?aa, he loans on chattels* I «va a collector
for a chattel mortgage man. I have been a Jitneaa before.
Q. How many tim-33?
I think only the once.
(Objected to by defendant as b3ing immaterial unless there
was one or the other of tha parties to this la*3uit involved.)
cr. sCohane: oO;re men have a habit of being witnesses.
•J.r, Gondon: I object to that 3tate-isnt.
The Jourt: Objeotion sustained.
1 never testified as a witness for this company before.
.1, Did you testify in a personal injury suit or death suit
for anybody before?
(Gbjeotei to by defendant unless the question has reference
to this defendant or plaintiff: objection ovarrulad; tc which
ruling defendant duly excepted. )
A. 'Aot sir.
QU ^'-re you sure?
A. To the beat of ny rocolloction.
Q. Oon't you put it better than that?
A. To the best of my reooilection.
(objected to by defendant; objection sustained*)
I as forty-five yeara old and have bean working for this
chattel mortgage house eight years.
Q. En othsr words, they have a mortgage on people's fur-
niture, and you go there, and if they don't put up, you throw
ther: out.
(Objected to by defendant; objection sustained to tha question)
r. dendon: I abjisct to the mannor and conduct of counsel
in putting questions in that manner, ■••king to bring discredit
upon the witness. I u objecting to counsel 'j conduct in putting
the question.
(objection overruled; to which ruling defendant duly
excepted. )
4. r;hat do you do no*, what la your work?
A. wall, as a collector, to collect accounts that are a
little back in their payment, a little alow.
■«i, What do you do towards pushing tnom up a little when
they are a little behind?
A. 1 talk to them and ask them about their accounts.
y. Jo you aeize their property?
(Objected to by defendant as immaterial; withdrawn.)
r. Jcndon: 1 object to counsel asking frequent quaationo
and then withdrawing them when objection ie cade, as improper."
A little later in the orous-examln-ition of Dupil, the
following occurred:
-
■
■
]
' . Do you kno* of the olain agents, lawyers, detectives,
or anything of that kind?
■T. Condon: 1 object to the remark 'detectives. *
.';r. KcSh&no: Or investigators.
:r. ;cndon: Just a nomont' rhere Is sons mere of it.
i object to hie making the statement in the snoerir-- namer in
*hich ho doe?. It is improper, and l think, if the oourt oloase,
that a oounael vsith an experienoe nuch -.3 he has at the bar for
so sany years ought to bo told that hs should not dc it. It is
unjuat if the tin* has arrived when counsel can, by his sneers,
throw 3lurs both upon thi^s defendant and the witnesses produced
by it, and I object.
r. oihane: Let -9 suggest. About every time I a^ a
queatior., he gets up art Bakes one of these speeohee, tantaliz-
ing in their character, to try and provoke a reply. Ha cants me
to say somcth**- thai a complaint nay be Bade of iat^r en- I
have sat here quite patiently listening to his orations* ^very-
thin ; I lay, he putj? thi* p.nd that meaning 6n iT-, and makes a
speech, an I Z must sit hare mute* I don't 3es that there is a
thing that is a iked this man that it la not perfectly proper.
If he objects to the use of the word 'detectives, • 1 could 3ay
'invooti gators, • and l just asked bin nor? if he !rno«rs - if he' has
any acquaintance with any one oonneotod with the logal or investi-
gating department of this railroad.
r« ;ondon: I would not object to 3uoh a question, but I
ars objecting to his o-nploying a tern xitfc an intent to cast a
reflection upon this defendant, employing the sord •detectives,'*
and the nanner in which ha doey it, si th that beautiful sneer
of his.*
Counsel afterwards repeated the testinony of the witness
and asked him whether what he had said was true* After the witness
had testified that he had giv*n th? conductor, on the night of the
accident, the witness card which was exhibited to hir on the trial,
plaintiff *3 counsel brcka in with the remark: "Tc» could write
that card if you had it yesterday, and if you had another one, you
could write it now, couldn't you?"
in cross-exanining defendant's .witnesses, cour.301 for
plaintiff resorted to the following:
Jo you know John Harrington?
A. No, sir.
"r. Condon: Hr« Harrington is not connected with the City
Kailway.
Mr. loSbane* "e is a graduate of your institution."
In th« cross-examinati on of loGulre, counsel remarVed that
he queetioned r.'oOuireV. beinr present at tho place of the accident at
all. At the tine of oakinr this remark, counsel thought he had put
the witness in an embarrassing position by forcing th6 iitne-s to
adrrit that he had beon calling upon a married woman, though It later
■
-
I
-9-
app-mred that tho married woman Sea a rel&tlva of th? *itneas and
that the witness hid b*>en vi Bating her slth tho rua„ or h^r ranily.
Later, In the cross-examination of !o7ulro, counsel put a
question and then interrupted the witness when the latter startsd to
answer it. iJofondant *s counsel remarked: "lie started to anasror and
you interrupted him." r. ;.;o.;hano then oaid: "You aro sparring
here for tine; he ia Just giving this gentleman a chance tc got his
wind, ft is a fast, it is evident what the purpose is."
It appear-? fro^ tho reoord that the entire arguments
ware finished and concluded in the ease at 4:30 p« ■*• She follow-
ing occurred at the olc^e of the argument:
"k'.r. Condon: As it is rather late it is not fair to the
Jury to send then out at this ti^e; the qpieetion ought to be
left to the jury.
Mr. v*.c3hane: I object to any talk in the presence of thia
Jury, Just some cheap talk -
r. London: I believe r.ysolf thia ought to be put up to
the jury, as to whether they prefer to go out tonight or tomorrow
aomirg.
: r. ohane: That's it; a little cheap talk; a little play
for tho Jury.
^r. Qandom ::ct at til. Let then decide it. I think they
ought to decide it at this hour. It does* not mafro *ny difference
to me.
r. eSnsnei .'ou sent t. little cheap play hero.
:r. Condon: There is no cheap play about it, r. o .Shane.
I have always done it, and you knos- it.
r. KeShane: :'ou have always made every little cheap play
you could.
i-. London: 1 have always done it, and it i ths rriotice
here. I tried a oase lust, v/eek and tho court put ths question up
to tho jury Mnuelf» ^.hat s.re you talking about?
r. *c; hane: Any little cheap play -
*r. Condon i 1 sa goin£ to nak this court to do if i,et
their decide it, that is all 1 am auggectir.g* I ic not care how
thoy decide it.
The Uourti <;: en t loner, whut ir. tho wish of counsel v.c to
instructing the Jury tonight?
"r. char.©: you aee, it Just prejudices Kf - it puts this
girl 'a oaeo - prujuiices this girl's caae. because some of the
Jurors may want to go now. I tMn> we all a-ant to get through
with thia oa-o, and I would vory such prefer t< ' all over
with now. i'hp.tia my #Iah.
^r. London: \'y Judgment about it ia that sanding out a
Jury at quartor to five- it is coin- to tcV.< probably hair an
hour to read the Instructions.
r. cJhane: It won't take fifteen minutea.
*r. London: Well, it may bo fifteen ainutes, nut it jj a
matter that ought to be out to the Jury. /our Honor, it io not
only proper, but frequently done.
-
-
I
.
.
-
]
-10-
•'r. -Cc &Mnef t have beer: here longer than he has. and
I say it is not customary and it i3 not frequent, it ia v^ry
rare.
:he Court: rhia Jury were held over fro-n last reek* 5e
will consult the wishes of the l-jry. ton tl even of the Jury,
do you prefer to take your instruct lens and .50 out tonight,
or would you prefer that it go over until momlngt
(Thereunon the Jury took a vote, and decided to salt until
the follcifir.? mom In-- to receive their instructions, and re-
tired. )■
At the ord of the re-direot examination of plaintiff's
witness, Jr. iolden, the following occurred:
■ U -l dislike at this time, if the court please, to de-
tain tie Jury; I &r goin;- to 0.53k the doctor to return Monday
for further cross-examination.
r. IfoShans: i object to that: he knees perfectly sell
that he cannot possibly detain the doctor but a' few »lnutes
lender.
"r. Oonion: i will try an 1 do the be;?t I can; I as not
anxious to detain the doctor, but I also am not anxious to hold
these twelve men.
T. McShsne: fou are net anxious about thla Jury: you
are Juat playing for their sympathy.
r. Bend ens The doctor may answer in four or five
questions. If he answers as 1 assume the answers would be, why,
we possibly can conclude It in five minutes.*
In hie slosing argument to the Jury, "r. '.'cThane said:
* ro repeat, if there was r,o bbc po< in that car, and
that conductor kro.; it, and hs started that oar, and tou know
how fast they run - with a soman out there standing on the step,
it is almost criminal to start a car and run between blocks
with a *onan standing out there on the step -
r. London: I object, if the court please, to the remark
of counsel that hi3 conduct vaa almost criminal.
.'r. 2o3hansi -o do that thing would be almost erininal.
: hat 1 the court's ruling?
The Court: Proceed,"
in our opinion the presiding Judge failed to control
sotmsel for the plaintiff in the oross-examinatlon of the witness-
es, and in hi 3 rsmarke before the Jury, characterizing motions made
by counsel for defendant and suggesting improper motives to defend-
ant 'a counsel shsn there was no basis in the proceeding to warrant
such insinuations. The court also failed to rule on prop-r objec-
tions when made by defendant's counsel to the remarks of plaintiff's
counsel during th*- taking of testimony and in his closing argument
to the Jury. The remarks of plaintiff's counsel above quoted were
calculated to arouse hostile and intemperate feelings in the rdnda
.
I
-li-
ef the jurors and to prejtfdles tho Jurors against tho defendant.
, trial Aurlltg Shi'sh eoSmooS 1b psr"»ltt«?d to * hlasslf jr. the
manner in wrlon piaSnMff'a Botmaol In t.Ms Case lid, i-3 not a fair
trial. Counsel's conduct and rem«rV3 were calculate to prevent
tret cr.lir and unbiased consideration of the evidence wnich la indis-
pensable to a fair and impartial verdict, iiow f>».r the Conduct
of t-.p plaintiff 'a attorney was potent to produce unfair results* re
oarnot <*ay; but, it l.i better that apoolloe fco put tc the trouble
and expense of another trial t.hun that this court should appear, to
countenance and eowwend such violation of lagal ethics. (lost
Chicago St. r.K. Do* v. Kean, 104 ill. App. 1-47). Kaklag accusa-
tions that the oppos'np t^rty and cour..;^l are guilty of deception
or other dishonorable methods, when there Is r.< ssi-dsnss tc , irrant
tha accusation, ta itself reversible error. (Scott v« Chicago *
Alton ft.R, o. , 3S£ tn. 410: asfesah .-. .... ■/. .mi,-.. , Id.
37). In tso Scott O&sttj supra, the court said: "It sould be a re-
proach and disgrace to the la* and tns courts if caso3 Should be
tried C'.nd the rights of the parties determined upon such grounds
as the attor^?y presented to the jury as axgunents in thii ease, or
if a pnrty could be ooroittsd to retain the benefit of a verdict
and Judgment obtained by such means."
At the request or the plaintiff, the court ^ave the
follo^inr; instruction to the jury:
■«« If under the evidence and instruction.} of the court,
you find that the defendant is legally liable for an', on
account of plaintiff's alleged full fros or in connection
with the -street car; and If you further find froin the evidence
that plaintiff sustained injury to her spine aj a dlroct k
proximate result of aaii fall: th<>r. and in juoh event, ycu
are instructed that even though plaintiff had tuberoul —
gsrr-j In har blood at the time of aaid fall, .'9'-, if you fur-
ther believe frora the evidence that as a natural and proximate
result of said injury said tubercular ger;.; ] •■ I at the
point of said injury, and thereby caused a diseased condition
of t , lad that such liasasod condition of her spine
would not have occurred except for said fall and injury,
then the defendant is legally responsible i'or Ji.. 'od
condition of her spine."
.
.
-1-2-
Dhe instruction is objectionable upon the ground that it
submit a to the jury a question of la if, rhether the ief - la le-
gally liable. It should have submitted the question of fact f.o the
Jury aa to whether the defendant vac guilty of negligence in operat-
car in iueatiOn, tbsrnby causing the alleged . of the
plaintiff.
The further objection to the instruction is made In argu-
ment that it authorizes a recovery of damages on a ground not alleg-
ed in the declaration which doeo not allege a right tc recover dama-
ges for an aggravation or arouaal of a diseased condition as outlin-
ed in the instruction. ;nder the hold.in.5-3 in Chicago Onion Traction
Co. v. i'ay, 281 ill. 536, and Chicago "ity Hallway Co. v. r.a-jcby,
£13 id. CT4, *e think this objection to the Instruction la not bound.
These decisions arc not In harmony with the decisions in Hlohlgan
and Ohio, and, perhaps, othir states,
Ob the direct examination of Dr. Golden, he was asked
the following juestion:
" r. Keshan*: aaaum*, doctor, that hor Injury - that
this woman, on Jecember 15, lilO, fall from the step of a
■treat car and landed on her back* Have you an opinion is
a laedical man as to whether that injury #as raffle lent to
cau39 the condition you '^ave described?"
he question sa.-j objected to a* not a hypothetical juoa-
ticn; that it usurped the function of the Jury: that It vaa for the
jury to determine vhethor the accident caused or produced the condi-
tion. Ihe objection was overruled, and defendant excepted* Phe ait-
neea answered, " £es, sir." :ie sir then aaked: "Vhat in yoor opin-
ion, lector?" The sa'-s objection was made ar.u overruled* The *it-
reafi ansv;ered: "It war, sufficient to cause the condition I found
and treated hor for."
in th* next question counsel for plaintiff gave a Metory
of a suppositious case, and then asked: "Upon t , have
you an opinion aa to aheth r or not that fall »a3 the cause of that
■
]
-13-
ewellirg and the other conditions you have described?" "'he same ob-
jection waa made and the aame ruling by the court followed* The
witneaa anoaered, "i have." ). "bat La it?" A. ""hat the fall
waa the cause of her present condition." The 3ame objection and
ruling occurred before the answer. Defendant's attorney then moved
to strike out the answer on the same grounds and further that the
doctor waa not aaked as to the cause of har presort condition.
"The rule in that a witness cannot be par^ittod to ji -
hia opinion on the very fact which the Jury is to determine."
(Illinois Central R.H. Co. v. Smith, 20*? 111. -30S). In nty of
Chicago v. Didier, 22? id. 571, there was no di split e aa to the
manner and cause of the injury, nor ma there n^y dispute that the
injury w-s cauaed by tha fall, a^d it was hell not improper for
that reason to ask the doctor what ho would aay waa the sans* of
the condition In which he found the knoe. The same waa true in
the Roberta oaae, 889 id. 481, and in the Puhry oaae, 839 id. 548,
aa ths Supreme Jourt pointed out in .Johlauder v Chicago & 3o.
frao. Co., 253 id. 134. ;ui in this* case, aa in the oohlauder
cane, there ia a dispute as to the manner of the injury, and whe-
ther or not the fall waa the oanae of plaintiff "a alleged subse-
quent condition, and undor the oaaes cited above the ruling of the
oourt in permitting 0r« -olden to give an opinion &:i to the ulti-
mate fact wa^t reversible error. 3e« also eefe v. Armour It )o»,
ii. 88; Lyona v. Chioar-,o City Xy. Co., 25fi 11. 75j People v.
BcfeultS, 860 id. 35.
.ho sue at ion of liability of the so-"- n I r-. t in thie ciiao,
including, .ia it does, tho question of contributory negligence by
the plaintiff, in involved in grave doubt. Che only substantial
injury claimed by the plaintiff ia that aho suffered from V'ott's
disease, or tubercular apondylitia. The claim that plaint if 1
tubercular inflammation of the apine reels solely on the dlagnooia
of a young physician, Dr. lolden, whom ahe employed to treat her.
-
I
-14-
On the trial, dsftolant repeated that pluintifi ooraant tc ... ax-
arninatior by ■ diaintert i ted phjaloian tc b« appc t
curt* nitr. the cor.B«nt of both parti*** fche oottrt appointed >a an
ejuu^ining physlolaa Or, John Ridlon. After a th< i ion
of thy plaintiff, .jr. -idlon teetlfied fully aa to hla findii ,
a- .jorapletely rejected the diagnosis of tubercular inflammation
of the spina ana said there waa no objective evidence of any in-
jury to th« spine ■ or' of any diaoruer or abnormality thai 7ir • Chis
t : '. y, in connection with the physical clreumatandes of
accident and the subsequent history of bha O&ae &nd U
tial recovery of the plaintiff sake it s«u iatpoaalbl that I
fail producad Pott'u diaaaae or that plaintiff suffered injury for
which aha should recover ^6500. the verdict on
rd before us la excessive.
rhe judgment i^ reversed and the cause is remanded for
& new trial.
RS
.
385 - 1978G.
In to I I :r of ta ' ' I of
I'T IKPF1 MOJ iad.
• "'FLING, Exeoutor o^ the )
- "ill ?Sf UtTflMta1 ; , >-"
Appellee,
tt y ffflffTl 1"°, " ", )
OSCJ I 31 T , TSSIU, )
T i •■■ ~r, ~> ' r )
j
clients, )
•
j 188 I.A. 542
^r r,rwrt
r?00K COWTY.
.. JT3 •' tC5 -■ ITH E DPINIC3 C
n..i- t;e'»l hrin.^fj u; for review
Probite Court or Coo* County, o <le of '
• ■ i; ' ' tthatm HewpflinR, deoeaeed, to pay ;' *
1 i-i, fhe ri?ht ; po^r o4^ the eourt to decree
re al entate la
there was sufficient Money of the »a1 (t t( '
i ■ tts proved ur nd Loved, ti •..■ ---ft
so eased ehould he first resortc
Th«* laet =*! J 1 <n ' sent of" Matthaua Beatpfling,
Lad roll , 1911, wis proved ai Lttad to
prob I -• . • !< fctere t. •• i ••-. , *?<} June 12, 1911,
ad to Andrea Heeq Filing, exeontor nnaad In 'h- will,
lea i si on of tj ■ satioi
- i'ov ' -. i en* of tn< Ill,
then it; fell as follow*:
* F i •: f | t - T . . ' i
ire | I !, -
I i -■ r , a v I i ,
Fling, y Mte*l estate* and '1 '
Coo* t*te of 1 . Pro* ' Ld E&lly : . . f-
llng »h< La. or j of
■
1
- ' -
ry busj ran ,
fling .1-ic Helen r . , »i i, it.n
u.y ifc, Fully Raaqpfllng, < nua ier 1701 ' »1 Rrie treet, in
c i t.y of (Thioage, County cr r^ok 1 of 1 Linois, un-
til they ehall bsooi . to
. 1 i V a .
. - I be qua a th to By ai at , riicg, re-
siding in tha city of BtatstelnsSk, TiVi-rin, Europe, the
of "iv.: ' ri i I i ) '.-3.
pd - T be>< ' . ' BathO>110 Church i\ ':. l< n of
g, :.. rau | y, Fi*i Bu I • )Oll&TS.
• .. - T be C I < , I '. '-.he
city of ChJ I Illinois, tin
of Fi Vf 03 1 r.j .
fifth - I have est :u>ie Fire Hundred Collars " v.;- til
•■-.<: In *y laat illneaf I] , ' .
j9 I a .ve be tusathsd ihov< I tsd in tha ' ' 1
, Lara, and Id
Fie at ■ ' r of
: . i- '.••. ' • ' eity of Ci Lc
• of Illinois."
• to, roved July 7, 1911,
■ the fol 1< rty:
Per3C;- i Es1 ' c:
The gooda and ohattsls . r • r I
t bill 141.00
" ■ id in 7 ir at I I ■ ■ ,
pa a a hook Ho. 116, &«3 3017.00
■ • : tats |2158.00
Re .1 • t.e:
Lot 49, in luh.ilvinion of "lock 15, in 1
I Trusteee guhdv, o; tee. ?, T.
.14, . of 3rd *. M., hie rty
i -* ieqprcved i%] Lwelliag
i ■ ' I . \a i ^e .
i { ' rd, improved July 7, 1013, ror...« 1 .._
J\ • ■ i ount, i i ' red i . • 5,
191.3, ii.. rsooal
' 141.00
.'. i i ■ :ol lection of unt in
;
fct ? fc L.4
Debts:
■ ',t of ~: aci f ic
':° iiiti under peragrepha , ■ ■■■ *
•
r 1S67.B4
IS< .
La of C , ' ' 15S.OC
I >:a Church, 1 * .
. :•>• " I I , C !■ .
Tot 1
Deficl ay ol
.
■
.
1
Arr.-;li <-'it.l SpOQlfiC Q :. '. Mitt On* i C- , (l) I .. ' I
uecsr^e direol I . . ' -ie of '.hi- real estate : - -idea's
award i* mxt if errooeoosj (3} that the iut©» should be
(treated to pay '..I OOney Ln fi i ;
(..) • bequests of soney i . the 'ill — A ',ed to ■ I
«?«tent; vn;i (4) the! thi ieoree should he reversed eith
lirectionc. SOOOYOtngly.
[a Mpf ft o* these o< -ns, eeui ' ell ants
citft keener ». firth, 14 111. 39 J "rucc, I nr, v. Crooe e1 .1.,
II i.. Bl{ rnelrn t. Phslra, Tfl Id. M6l I Ulot r, filler,
.u 4T7. T.^eae oa^es ore net, in our opinion, bio
to the cane prenf-ntesi \r. t he reccr.L. fh Loo re i::-
volvfd . t f: . c* .-at lone vilscuasad ii ; ve
citea. "lie foot! here are ifOrent sad call for u.e ^plica-
tion of differeat principles of loo.
Vhether the Probate c r-\; r t erred tot »ant r i»
order lag the solo of real estate to | y fieete <.*i.ile there was
ilte in the eotato *'■ ode upon the construction of the.
eill. Ordinarily, a 1 property t« or
■tent of doW •■ r 1 l< so J ee, anl .- - ntrar}
- r+ of the riiy -
If, bowOver, froo the thole will, i> • pears by sxprooo i
or by nece^s^ry imflic Ilea, I * rtloular tort ion c the
i Ii i to be the » rifi ■ ry fond for t;..; lymei 1 oi 4i:<- debto,
the reaminder of the eotote viU bft Rxon. rated froa the burden,
(Brown v. Saathcff, lo& IJi. /<;-. 17). A dlreotloo La the
rill, , { Lories Oi /.->--l eetati I Icon »ubj I
I of dobto, ii it rtj ri Mi I 'f or
r, ill ex enej tte tl r estate • I i J i
on VI lis, kicao 75 10).
In larrie v. Las, 64 111. 473, H :
■The ! i'-c ii i<' ds iM ibis '
country i^ th re LI o] rly ri to h
1
- 4 -
i- • n* ion of '■'.• '.'...'. ^t ■'. .. r > his r ,
exolu I . i . •■• , '.. orda In
. i i i, 'Aftai y >iebta'( »iiJ
roffident 'or that purjpoae. Thia i?
aodi ' tut* iii bos1 l ' a ' tea,*
it first fij.iui;: .' ' ••-ill bare Li rolv< I i:
•That ;1 try ji. ' I uneral Id,
T ive, >l«jl=:ft Lueatfe *o ny 'ife, tattling, >y
re. i] tat "" , + ■ > *c . , I i - '
nu»1 r in (Tnio •. " I • ■;' oritiea eited ■ ■■■■: r**ny . ■ here,
thiCT "' testator's in< I Ion I .
o:. rge ale r •? -- 1 aetata *ith tha payment of hi te. Rut,
ljj« 'mir.-ir' elaueeaj o' his -13 i. in nhicfa he pecifio lly
I c«fia of all hia aroney ir. •. nl, - a hij indention
al« 6 possibility Of Mc.-:. ( i L :i .? v.
i Lne, 65 ff. Y. Co., -.r'; Fensic* t, Chapi , 0 "f>t,
ycCullon: v. Chicl^r;*rr, 83 111, 477).
The testator it *lv:- 1 ins of tia . -a c*nad a ;. if.ce
of re j -' I ■ valued in tha petltioa .' bout £10,000. This
talufctien is not leitled in thi record ol
iter, I rrefore, i I ot I . * ad to deprive hi Ldow of
rd. Tnis .. '. -.^. , .
fron. Jthe vill, to cii-irf.e hie re...! estate iritis of
lit fti 1] »bte, knotrlajj I real itate
i mere tl fficlent *o • ty then • ita i.-.ia-
• - Men.
.-e i -• no srror in tha lecrea Li I fii
I !.
a
P Term, 1914. 17
229 -SOI 6.
o .
TATS OF
ILLII0I3,
Defendant In Lrror,
rs.
AHDBR30B*.
Plaintiff In :>rror.
) KHROS
HOSICIPAL OOUBT
Of CHIC
188I.A. 550
. justice s'r:i\ dklivbrbd the opinio:' op trb court.
x': la writ of error is brought to reverse a judgment of
the municipal Court of Chicago, finding ",unt Anderson, tho plain-
tiff in error, guilty of an assault and battery on Jon.ia . laon,
ani fining hira .-100 and costs, and conshiting hira to the House of
Correction of the city of Chicago until the fine and costs are
paid or are aorked out at the rate of $1*80 per day.
i'he firot error reliud upon ia that ti^e name of the
injured party la not proved by the record. *o think thio point
i3 not borne out by the record* Anna. Olson made the complaint,
charging that the plaintiff in error maliciously made an as-
sault upon Jena a Olson. The evidence in the record sho^s that
Jonas Olson waa the husband of tho complaining witness and the
party who wa.i struck and Injured.
'i'he second ground of error is that the court had no
authority to compel plaintiff in error to pay money to Jonas
Olaon. It is a sufficient answer to this contention to say that
the record does not snow that the court compelled plaintiff in
error to pay money to Olson. i'he court, in sows talV. during
the trial, attempted to induce plaintiff in error to pay Olson
some money for hi a doctor's bill and attorrey's fees as an equi-
table settlement of the affair; but this proposition was reject-
ed by plaintiff in error and tho court sai J no more about it.
Ihe evidence sustains the judgment, which Is affirmed.
APF .
-
■;
— o_
r. Juatice tiarnea:- I think the record fails to
Identify the peroon assaulted.
1
•
.
Der Terra, 1912. No.
380 - 1HS47.
CHARLES OftfcPfAl,
vs.
CB* ?Lr3 T. RICHFY et m1.,
On Ai pool of
HFRBrRT i?. wnrcjiwaoir,
n-.nt
vs
.
CHICAGC TITLE & TRTT^T 5C9J-]
v, Trustee, r:t al.,
/i; polio**.)
: ' :
■ ' ' ~,
COOK C01JKTY.
1881X551
kh. P9t3t©nf5 JUSTICT BA91
BKLITOREB THI OPMIOJ OF ~;
On October SO, 190$, Will** J. Lufcen% tht owner
of certain rreicises loo ted on the ccrrier I *ton LVenua
and Ainaley street, Chicago, uonoluded negotiation! it(.
Herbert 9. runcmson for th« 3*3® f the ease for " ', I ,
$3,300 to be paid in afeah Bet by two .note* of
11,900 each, payable in two and three yware, to bfl secured by
a mortgage upon the rrr-ruisen subject ti firet nortg-.ije bOJ
laaue or A40,OC0 to be ^iven for the i rep rev fluent of the pre-
mises by the erection of an apartatofit build in on, and
:t the ln»t ;::ne t Dti Bi n^on the preadaee ?-ere c I to
bharlefl T. Riehey, aft eiqpl oyee of Dunoanaos, who purport! to
e.-.l i--. the building business. Thie :!eed
e ok nowl edged J ftU rj 31, 1909, oorde.1 Ipfil ', 1
On J tra n ', 1909, Du aal
.. Loan ""o., .. rela fter called the Lean , the
Mori by it or |40,000 bon
first Bortgag* on ♦
B true tOd thereon, J '
1 to 150 for ^100 WW . - 01 ri 1 :1 to "" G ,
two Of tUOh hon.i:3 M 1 tO 96 ' ' .ning
I
January 36, 190?, tad tho •: anjer of ntel turing
J imp ry 3G, 1S11. Richoy then «lao executed a I on
iaee to the GhiOOgO Title I Trust Cottp.ny to a«oure
tae r -yitent of a.»id bond ioeuo, tfeioh *ruet at. I
ieagacl W oru. ry 9, 1906, ajtd xecorcied Pehruftry 14, 1606. Or.
January 37, 1906, rui:,Mri>ion, toting for Richoy ill i
of tho . sraniooa, oontraotad fox saterJ 1 for the eon~
■truotlon of a.^lvi apartaent building on a i leoa with
v rloue Ttie8 m fcllona: A. D« ny, for
i -, '"I, 353 J Silverborg r>cc-
, |0g 0. ?. FallgrOtt & 9on for ctsr; water work,
|3uQ,00Qi A. J. Honor Plunhlng Oong) <ny for plunhing iota,
t4**90; Qiuurloo Olson for painting, |l,S0O; D« J. Ingram &
Cox-i .. ,uy for slootriool vork, |600« On J .nunry 31, 1906, «
iKe coairtiCt ana tr.--.Je »ith Charlao Ghapaan for the aaossi
l rV for ri',7!K). rr. . y C. ". fellgren A Boa, ooji-
fcraotnea for the oarpontsr -or}., oontractoo with Se&aur, P#t«r-
.ion ci Co. for cc? t sin lissbor fo* |3,?50, and OB '■'• *ru ry f;,
1^06, Cfc r]>)i H. Vo-m & So. >on tract «d tith w 14 Pelj jro* :.
;on to furnish thft niil work lor '.-.,, . Durla aa
of tho *ork Charlao 1. Fe.ii. i Qts4 sith S— o fci
fox flojw; hardware for ?360, ( Botnosn April 6th md Jim* :t;.,
1^06, ■* ':. Ld '. .ce of Dui i, a partial | yaast oul
'.... pjtoooodt of the bond issue ire . «b of a* - r 1
oootraotOEaJ as foIIo*n: ApriJ 13tfe to ;*.. i an & Co.
ilgOOOj April • *<ii to ,_'. J. Ingram & Co. |300$ April its to
a. j. Plonor Planning Co. 11,500; Ajril 37tto -tea
, i o; Kay 85«h *o C. t, NUgroo & "on 1300;
39th -.o C;; i- i ri a Olson (300. Upon U» "
e.tci. • | rtiea ai T.nei <i raosipt " r M I r of
lien, ifcloh, sxoi I ' , ;rk,
la Ldontiool slrth. > follow*!
■
- 3 -
"rent 46C6 ? A ITER.
$5,000.00 Csieaga, April 87, ] ^6.
Re;; : •« T. Rickey Five Th , - .
roll irea to fly an - ■ •• in tract work Contract i u building
3. ^. Ccr. £ vans ton md AlAsley. The uadereigned for nd in
ti deration cf Cae Dollar »ad other sod i - i io con-
• . ' ,.::, the r«0«ipt thereof \ .v , .ices
hexebf *aive tad relaasi ^.1 elsisis or Ilea* on
building under -.ny Acts in relation to * ,
•awed or in force, en ..,c-.uut cf labor or . rials, ox
beta, Euraiahed or .-.-.-_ inh any be r mi shed by '..• ta i •
for ■--. id • .,n.isea,
. " , Contractor.*
Bn June 8, 1906, art ion,
11,000 of the bei ,000,
unexj fn.xei |a the heads c /, *hich c
...i.eon -.n- Bioaey directed said Loan Cosj ajf tc y out
Ui en the - ■■■■■ - •-'' Jittaer, - ' .■ . 08 I lay,
acting for •. .:■,..■••.;., .. v - 6 • -■• the . ri>
:-:?r+y ;u:ro Involved for icaa re erty - Laed ned by
3-; id ■•, r 11 36* 1906,
cieiiverod Jana 8, 1906, Rickey conveyed said property to
Bittner. Before -. Li ry oi I ser of the
property elaiasd to be kii , ■ ■ ■■> for
hiftielf, 3*1 ley tad iichey, on July 1?, i , repudiated the
I ion *ith B i m repre
for | .rii.-i Li arc i . ler&tlaa, lied bJ La «
-r1.! i ion agai aet tin roperty is
I 9, 400, sad oa red
property is tioa ti . I . Brooke*
..eea of the property by a.- . teee
...re uuii-j ortaata
"... August ?, 1906, Cbarlei ill
in ' . rior Court I .. - Dies* li ' :.e
. * . i c1 i rial
for - ky« ' , , tj Btioa
• i -
the ippointeaat of a r^oei.er • tag, i in ■• Jenali ,
UK osiwr am J hoi let <■.'. |9yO0O Of CM bond* ?eoureU by the
■ ru it lead vi. lea property, being itore thaaa 30% o; *uu total
bona i*i*ue, notifi&a the 8k4eaga ?.iU<j a&d Txtsel Co. of his
rship of Mid beads md fchat by rtata Of the; ii«J uj11
the r~.*?-.T in the teas* o" Raid truet deed in failing to | y
tiki general taxes "or the year 1906, rrior to >- y j, 19( , ad
MM ItfcuH Stt the u.;;*or In not Alas) rgiag Mrtaifl liens of
,:io9 :;..-; r tie rial im Upon the ■ '. :<, by the ''jling
o/ the bill fox ateohattioe' iien by C&arlei . ■., tad ae-
fauit of the Bii<i>r la falling *0 c..si} i<?tfi and render tenant ole
UM feel Id lag vithin a reasonable tij-n, ha sleeted to declare
uole anoe&t af r c • oi; -1 tnd u.' r<^t w; the ■ soured
by said trust dead i-.- I tely ;ns and payable, uested
'..:!■-. age. Title & Treat Co, to i iv institute fere**
closure v " rocee.U »"'.£&• On August 1 i, 1906, in reej
: »t, the Chicago Title A Truat Co. filed Ita bill In the
nj rior Court to ferealoas the rust* Thereafter a
reiear l or the property was tppoiated ;>y the sourt,
two nausea wex-e oonaolldated. several iiea slnlnaata
>.oiore Mentioned, with others delating tttfchaniee' i i t:n?j on
.<•. yf filed their aneeera and also their interrenJ
petitions to eaforoe susb liene, end 3 rv* masher cf I
bed tare red Um bill eti ai c rahlp of their respeo-
tive bende. Cora £« Lukene, . ..t.rix a * :. I tat *iil
• I •.. llllaa J. Lukene, filed be* tewex w M
u{ her r.vi.ij. af tha ■ ; tge. n Lchey
filed <. I ;.r lanrlng ':::t t:;er;: y -.it in
my of ':••■ K- n ■ af ' •"• ■■' deed; i n rrin * t thi -'.;re-
.^o^uro wn » not hrought In -'*h, :r.r foj !..^ pux a af
involving 'he property tn llti ' \ r. lion to cover
up n ihortege of |8»«lT.tO in tht lo&a; RT«rrin| 1 I til
taecn.iriicfi, ilea olaiwuita .. trod liene,
•
olalas of oertala lien o Salaam ta h I not been 'iisi of reeord
for thirty lays at th« tla* th« filing of t>ie bill; ■.^rr-
ins the salt of ta< rty fo Bittner and the f ail are of
. - eratloa tad taking fcr i <reador*a lien . . - ., ,
-object to the Lukf-na1 aortgaga; ttt .-^s the right of oertala
laaata of ce-Ttiin bondi to mcovfir t.nereor,, ska that I
thiri :-crt:' kge. on the r oj f rty axeonted by Bittner rod
fold *nd crisred c.^noeHei. Tiohey : ■.':■•; Puneaneon . i«o filed
r crona-bill, ha rein thay rr-'y*d rcr ' .:e relief nked
by the* lr. fr.f?ir tna«ar« This nro??. bill »aa subsequently
.- c niecl by Batting forth that * record title *o the orOrsrty
: : > ..oy, but that Dtancanaoa »a« the re< 1 *ner
rdf nd that Richey had oonvsyed * Sunoanaon 11 hla right,
title tad in*or«fit in ths property tad in oertala illeged fnnde
in the bands of the loan eoai my sad of one J. I lie**, i . ings,
Da Jaattary 31, 1910, t] fhicage Title £ Trust Co. filed its
n :c6 and 1 bill, herein it set forth j ' ' r ;i-.
that «ince the fllla Lnal bill oartaia bonds had
nrad ini lefault had been m.:\a ia * * thai of
the I t soupoaa thereoa and that certain holder* of b i.
bonis .-. =3te<i t,..» truataa to inatltata foreclosure rro-
Ithor by original or supplemental bill. :: id i
supplemental bill « a erad by Ricfcey tad Puncanaoa,
-.n-1 the consolidated q ose t than referrad tc i tater to
i -rt •. - th hia findings. On July l, ] ,
a 1er?rf»e entered In tcoordaaoe »ith the rii i':pn of the
*"'>.r. Thi 'so rcfi finds that lafault h i In th< teraa
of the trust ioe.i i- * . .* the taxes yr.r \ ■> ■>, ware not >- id
before Say 1, 19 :, tlao in thi 1 Lea* Mean
i ' ' ' ' " h to th - . ; M t, • * fault
- n ;rior to the flllfl
or i I 3 till tc f Oreo lose U:ed; I . I ' ri^ht to
Of 1 ":1 ts
.
1
. M -
alleged in " • r.atiA »ad euppleaent ] >ill ; that there M
,tue • i Bfei o Title & Tntt Co. for ita certain pre ai <. ;-
oursur.Hnts |3«d*Q?, >lee 'or U« aolieitor*e feea ! >, 00,
for Ua *ervioes " : , I . I ' ana iue. to raraJ
ierjJ; ii>tod boad-JioXdera for priwolp&J and Latereat upoi their
beada, iaol I : ■ . KMI.08 to i . .>st
Be>, the eerem! aaounta therein eet forth; th ( b oh ..; -.11
of -. it aonda vara ah equal lias u; on th« i adaea nw irere
entitled to b« paid next after the j Lyeei ' I .-.• ' liens0
taxed costs and naeuate found due the E& . • c Titl< I Truat So.
for its diebureeaente, exjpeaeee and a lieitor1 e« ~; that the
following eererel Beehaniea1 ii a3 taanta rare entitled to
•-.ics' liens upon '. ieea f«w ,-. < rare! ukouate,
;;~ir:j.s: Char lea Cha a hoae lie» attached J&nu ry -:i,
1906, ' ,057.95, I tereat : ' froa 7ulj 35, ] ;
Willi.it: L. B.rr.um, Jr., Cfcej ,
lion attaeheej January 37, 1906, |7?9.;i6; A. Bepeaaa a Co.,
iaeee, lion attached January S7, 1906, 51, ; D« J. T'
& Co., ehooe lien attached January 27, 2906, |3£B«79j A. J.
richer Pluabing Co., those lien i ttached J m ry ?, ; ,
|3,487,75; aaerioan Truat .., "rue tee In bankruptcy
ill verba rg Bros*, afcoee Hen att - <T nuary 57, i ,
|4ol.?4j Charier h. aeara 4 Co., rhoec liei tttechec January
. 7, . , 3,569.65, including Utereal I ' from July 15,
1906j Ba«er, Fetereen & C<:,, vhoae lien attached J nur.ry i 7,
1806, §1,385.00, including latereat ,< {>' fret, J\ Ay 1,1 j
i. r, hoea ilea attached Jaau ry 37, 1906, $486.77,
Liai Latereat at &% ftov. July 2 , ] H .;; ta l tbara woe
dun ui on lee Luker.n aoeoad Mortgage M,2 5. 5j that there wae
,iue 0. f. teltaei Lumber ?c, (623 .69, wren it? judgaenl -inet
id i. Bittner.
The croae bill ol Rlchey men * I I -Red
for »ant tulty, ;;-; the decree r;.rtr.er • rori ■ ■ that
1
default in payaent vitaia 1C &aya Of ;.. aer pa] mount*
.. reia drudged* 6k nlaee be cold and the prose to lirided
trd*r of priority aa tteereia prov: . .
Phi* . | ■■■. _ fjsen told liecree La '.rv ■ • . bj art
". i ineaaeon, tad i , Baiea o Title £ Treat Co., b . i
•is error;? and joined altfe tacfcl q
toe Jaeree La po for 0 1 * aetaelleaed '•-: right of the several
iiica' .Lie;: i ■ tt* to aeehanles* lien* u= on th< 1
Ic h i .- rted that th* original bill for foreclosure
turely filed on 14, 1906* eecauee ■.. Br* ..• ".sen
. ■. . aliening iefaali for thirty days in say of ' .. ita
of to • './.■■ 3:. deed •
Irtiele ■'• truot Lead pro^i&ea, la > irtt m
"Said party of the first part further covenant* md .:?r:en
«. > y nor to +.::. •" '. r , ;. day < • *"•. eaeii pear 1
and oento on said preuiee* t auch tia* Sue and pi fable,
not to mffez any part ■■ . &*i .;os to 5w *old for any
' . or aaeeaeaeet matacerer, or naffer any eeohanic'a iier. to
ttaea ■ 1 id pre*riaee*»*e*f iad W 1 they all coa&leie and
render tea dl j« eithia a reasonable tine, free rros: all liens
k ry a ture, aisjl and all building* now being greeted or
-hioh fc.jy bareafter be erected thereon.*
article i preridee tbavt la h 1 n .> u Liars
Of tgagCtt tO ) -o; xc ; . r;y
Ji^ns or . ios or 1 ) aea or to eoi to ar r; nder
[taint reason ble tian ling being ■ ixt c >.r.d
on tha nraaiaee, then the trustee or the hoi At r or ..ny of the
beede, fi-y at it*, hi: or their option, paj suck taxes or
.ts, Oi- diaehi - liea ox title on
■aid ftrealaae, or aettla any lion of any • c 01 1 rl lasn,
, or 1 -i- 11 oh re] i re, ..^y8
toreot at 7jt j r oaui to 0 ' ,
tional J " red
txv it teed.
.
I
- b —
Article 7 provides thai "in oas* 91 ef ult in bio
f srf ornanos of my covenant or - r. . : < ut rein i l« by the
. rty el ths first part, ox their tie Ira, executors, administra-
tor! . Lgns, :Mi Leffault continuing for thirty (3« )
d«ya, th< n th« ffhols n. > Id | rincipnl BUM .; by ■ <:■ red sii^ll
>t onus (without notice I ersof to said party of th« first part,
r - ,'ir iieirs, legal representatives or ■•)» at t,he option
of *he holder or hoi iera of twenty per sent (20£) of the bonds
hsrsis described then unpaid, beeoss) due and payable*
A -j heretofore stated, tha original bill for fcrs»
closure charged default by the waker continuing for 'i.irty Jays
prior to T.htf filing of said bill in ths following | trtioulars,
lat, payment of the general t :>;ea for the -■■ r 4 i rior to
,, ; .-.., failure to ; • S ichargs certain liene
ol neohaalea sad Mfttsrlal nen upon the premises; 3rd, <-.r-
nitting clalns or ntsohanios or material *en !< ->.c rue against
said prenlsee, 4th, failure *c eostpl< te r tenantabls
ths building, within a reasonabls tltfe. An analytical con-
sideration of each of the nunsroua tuestions raised by counsel
tad sxheustively argtsd in their briefs, would unduly extend
this opinion* Vs have gives each and every question raised
lelibei ! tonsideration, ind shall content ourselves aitfc a
brief etates)snt of our conclusions ur en only sucb itions
fsot th« ;• '-■ ta of the controversy*
It is sdssitted •.. 4 ths Mortgagor failed prior to
t day of ) y, i"; ., to | y the taxes -or •. yt r 1905,
■ :. I th< Lefault of the Kortg^gor in th t | rtieular n-
tlnusd rcr ■'(- iya prloi 1 the filing of ths original bill,
hut i*. la urged that ths reeeenl oi th< >' ■ or, "to
prior to the flret Lsj of Kay ir. nob ysar all taxss
*;r,to on laid | rsadsea I tl payable, nd
not to suffer -ny pert o;' ■ ■ ea +o bs *oid 'or
or ■ • I batsc -r", i- one Lndlvislblb i i bis
;
1
- 9 -
covenant, ind that there could be no breaoh of the coven r-.t.
until there bad b«en « sale of the property cor ti.e tax or
. a assent*
liif. p&raKOunt rule for the interpretation of covenants
i-i to so ex; our. -J the* »• to ,-iive effect to the actual ir.1
o.r the parties, collected not rrofc a single clause, but iron.
the entire context. Soneol^dBted Co-.-.l Co. v. Pgcrs, loC 111.,
344. The application o'* this .mie in the Interpretation of
the several covenants ii» the trust aeej octepels u^ to the
oonblusion that the covenant to pay taxes la s separable, in-
derendent covenant, for a breach of sthich a Iefault accrued,
■ t it see not necessary that the mortgagor ahould have
suffered the • r^Kisea to be eold for taxes In order t,. t the
ojtior. of U.e; holder or i.oli';rs or" the requisite mount cf
^oii.'ig night be ftxoroi^Rd to i^olire the entire issue of bonds
due - s 'able* The failure of the mortgagor tc pay the
taxes for 1905, trior tc I y 1, 1906, incurred a penalty ..ioh
became an added burdea upon the j remises superior tc 'i.;: Hen
cf u.e truet ise-i. The covenant to • y taxes prior tc ; y lot,
is treated aa i *o covenant ir, the provision in Article 4,
whereby the trustee or bond holder or holders are authorized
to pay the tixea in the event of the failure of the mortgagor
to pay th< m« She the r or not defaults accrued i;; eiti
or all of the otner particulars relied upon by ippellee,
Chicago Title &■ ?ru«t Co., it Is riot bos necessary • er
ti le1 .ermine, but the fact t*i t e lihvft refrained from i ■-
cussini other grounds of [iefault relied upon, »nd have predi-
cated the right to file the original bill upon the one
at t< :, / v not l*i roperly be construed uggeeting *
conclusion by u^ thai vuoh 01 ler it u i *t:r. ibl*5.
11 is urged thai the llo ce to 4i.e trustee
|5,000 for ite eolioltor'e fees is • Ive.
.
*
- 1C -
An allevanoe tc the trustee of iti reason Vic a olio 1-
tor'a fees La expreeely Ruthorised by the t< n ■ of th< I
ucod. A cor.ni leraMer!, ho>--evtrr, c" *i.r snot ring
upon that inaction, tnd of th« necessary services ; ■ ri >raad
by the solicitor <"cr the trustee, as shown by the record, con-
vinces us that an allowance of &5,00G la lve« For the
necessary eetvieea performed .. poneibility sasuaad by
lolleiter ror 'ie vrvjiice in M.js esse he all) b« *? i I y
ooapsnaeted by an illowacoe of (3,000, ad upon ih« rei ant
of the c ur,c-. tin aeeree eill »e provide.
There is no warrant for en fellowsROfi of &350, ox «ny
other -Tat, to the trustee for k: use of = + r oasa In fehia i ro-
needing* Boa* service ponsibility devolved upon the
trustee for which it »i*l be amplj i rated by llo»anoe
of ! .
', ,; in r . ,'• AUJ BgS, filed hi I
'.. Ui. hill (herein h«> set forth thstt he thi h -■ of
certain bonds eggxs ( i $9,000, ... ■■ ', ! fcher Ith
interest thereon at ?£ . ; tsavm fro* J ■ nu ry ?*% 1307,
•tin Am i.'. Tha decree erroneously allows to said
defej. >::.-..*., Jenalsge, interest en eald bonds froi Jane ■ , 1906.
It is elementary that : irty c«n not aval] hiaaelf of ■• ;r«
of eoBplaJnt or defease net set up in a pleading, even though it
.ra in the evidence, jgurjaa i'.ii;.:,=:r Co. v. noy.-.clon r;p.,t
146 111. .< pp., S56, nd oases there oil T " ■ *
;io*oci only fre* ,' ausry Bth, 1507.
The decree allows to th« ' 51 tea * o.,
nn ' . 0" ISA I hC Idejf 11 151, .
principal ' • treat on in] . Bald Unit States
Jo. has fa] ir-' to enter lt< i in thi
i - !r to t&nri any <~vi . ; leh
m ...crts the seeteje i" ' * i raicu] r.
■
- r -
Tha glalna !>f ft mh Tii til r;f ':. : lies' itn
Qlai«a»t«| eae?eft &ha$ of Hil-v* -bt-ri in% "or 9*51.34, allowed
i-laan True! i Savings Sanl* it tr**etee in b*ftfcruptoy
of said cleiaaateg ire ioataetnd by both II I Title &
Tru i1 "3' : ey, I " •' " . pall int.
12 oif said lies clalat&ata, ritlj '... i tioa
or Bilverberg Brothers and Q£» rlea H. Sfeare & Saapany, -.t la
.- ij[atad *.. t *>y the execution by tbea or tnsir pricci] .1
> tract ore of, receipts in the for* heretofore »et forth la
tae stateaent of tue case, they »re barrad troa aaserti . -
their olalaa fox c^c^nies' lions upoa the preaJ
Xt la esee) ti 1 la ss .ry oij.^raot th«*t 11 ■ Ted
u< or. a JOOS BOaai •'• ">ri, ^ .•".• . •' £, ?4 III., '-
tn Bonne? ». BgjBSggj S7 Ill.i ' '• » U I* «W (*6X);
"Trie principal is elementary thai . .. i usent affecting
the righte of property, executed without ration, has so
bi i •• ■force or effect in Iss >>:.. k y be avoided aa between
♦.>. i-f ; . rtiee«*
It is said thai c ■ ont to salve a lien requires
no i i ratios to support it, but no authority is oitec
• ine such statement, conaj lex li ki ie usees—
sary *c rapport the ■ iver of ■ lien is clearly intii te.i in
uiaoft v . ?.:.\nske. 128 111., 73, Undoubtedly <i lien aey he
waived in en original contract : or labor and material »nd in
gi . at v. J>.hn;--oi». 351 111., 135, it i- eaid (139):
•OlOArly, if a lien en be reived ^n thi • .ct,
it oan be lubeeqviftntly waived, for a valuable : j it ■ ' ? on, a
Ban ?li« cri • rtiea."
In 8t Oyo., 265, 11 i i hi id: "A e lver of nio'e
lien oust e supported by e consideration Li lex • e effec-
tive.* again, t ] , "• - *" ! ' fJ "* releaee of a
sechanio'e lien suet, in order to be < tlve, be
upon '» o6neidcrstio&." Th( ' '••
I
,
1
- li; -
Tne MUM or similar statements re j...:«* in Rcckel
en Ksoh&nlo*s Li«ns, see. 189j Phillips on Hechsnio's Lien.-?,
474; ind Boisot on Kechanio'a liens, sec. 732.
The payment • Bad* to the several lien olaiaante,
shea they ^i;:e.i the receipts sod pretended waivers in tueetion,
rer« ' I ;-ts »erely, or payaents uv or. icccunt ~or
teria] theretofore erforned u mi shed sy the*
un-.ier theiz several contracts* re ras bow money then ue
•.»•-! than they receive;;, id the only nei lerstion for tLe
yret?." ;eri ^.-ivera *»« the sccney thee y La to thea. There
no bon.t fi:je lispute between *h« • rties, l;sr.: oooproaise of
which woold hive been s send consideration. Tfes sbsenee of a
ooaeldsration ',c support the pretended waivers r<~"?t9 en the
(round I I greeaent for the Uncharge of an entire .iebt
by its perl payment is without oonslderation. Jackson v.
Security Life In*. Co.. 333 111., 161.
In Turner v. Brencfcle. .:49 111., 334, ihe saiver in
-a to have :-een executed! by the lies claiaant in
connection *ith or ?.a forming s part of the original contract,
or nt Ien3t before ny li ;biMty had accrued unver t.ne terms of
lite contract ir, f*vor of the contractor Inst the owner.
In Kelly vT Johnson. 3S1 II?., 135, the original con-
tract between the eontraater and <«•* owners sas etieacquajvt iy
Bodifiea by the contractor executing a saiver upon tr.e j tyseot
tc hiif. or |3^000, irtiioh amount i* io^c- not r sua then due
■ in.: ewfaa, tc him unier the terra of the cr; inal cc tj Let.
ve concur in the cenelusioa -rrrivei t i.y the rtister
the -cftllor rivers here involved .•re ineffec-
tive for as nt of o - * I -r r ' ion.
As +o fee ClsliMtets, Bader, Peterson d Co. ind Kama
Kreujer, fhe rrtoeirt .n • • • •: < -r i] ned Ky ►r.'ir principal con-
tractors, 8. *. F<;11 rer. A "V.n, nld be In etive, svsn if
*.ilid, because suor. waiver eas executed subesKiuenl to tr.e
-
1
- 13 -
ocntrsota between aaid eletaaata -r. . ■aid principal c:cu*ractcra.
Ksiiy v, Jonn^cr. . m);rat
Tail the elalai of •■,: Lla&l ■:. . t the InetxuMntej,
signed by 'he lien olamnts ~ere effective to *aive i„fir
I :.u a:is .»n afterthought ia eviuert frots an inayection of
t» letter ■trittaai oy ep£ellaat to the Loaa eca . .iy pa June 8,
i.06, it folio* a:
■Thia is to notify yota thai the building t \ . :-.st
corner of Evsneton ^voue -;r. . Air.alie otr^et on *hich you
n&de i loan or 140,300 hafl been this tiny *old tc E&t ,-' . Bittner,
eftd the belafMSa of :ll,.>-o.35 left in the loan will be paid out
by N r. Bittner in the Uncharge of tha obligation* on thia
property. You will t ke the ;:eoe ^ry etateiaente *nd ■ ivers
on the ivaant of this fund, aa heretofore, fee protect £r.
Hiohey in ♦h? wr.tter."
The leoree ia erroneoua in so far as it llo*a Interest
the lien claimant a, Zu:\t^*-x Chaj . ". L. R rr.nm, Jr.,
assignee of Qh&rlea Olson, from the *ir*n of the eoapletion of
tfi irori by then o a July 35, 1906, inate» - froi ': Mas of
f i '• i r v.- of y*elr petitiona on Ai rual ". \ ", ■ mber
5, 190S, respectively, because said lion claia ata i i by
their petitiona failed to ask for interest frow the date of
the completion of the aorit, a.r failed * ■■ tu&cunt
luffisieat to -^jthort;-;e .n allowance of inter<?.-«t. < r-.: • a .:te.
?-.:Uh v. ;-orth A- iXSM r:c "' S£gfiJ5&«> 36° ^11., 3
It la finally urged by rat that tin nee 1 lor
latproperly rti sal seed *"or aant of equity the cross bill filed
by ppellant md Uohey to eatablieh in them n vendor's lien
upon the ^roT»rty *cr $3,400.
The erosa Ml1 preaenta no rear! tori oua equity; there
la no subataatiee evidence in the rsoorda to aupport it,
it was properly dlaatlaaed. appellant rterer invested a ;oll*r
in the property* H< oaneed '. title to the 'y to be
I ken In r:." aaaa of hie esployee'e, who aaa financially irre-
sponsible* He C;VTfd \ * to b« burd? ^ ind
.
1
- 14 -
llttBfl beyond lit reasonable ability to carry, and rc contrived
and r. cii elfl ted tha title &* tc avoid persona} liability fcr
.ny if Isbtedaeso or my toe* to bSateelf, urleiag out of the
verdure. Ria effort* ippeax tc t.. va bees directed to foist-
lag the { roj . orty, vita ;il tae indebtedneea incident to it,
ui on Otheae by aaaa* cf >n exafeange, r hereby (<s eight aeoure
a eabetaatial peeaaiary a&i ;c to aionelf.
Tha wecre* li ffiraed in | rt sad reversed in part,
;..= • taeS i» reft.-,nded tc Ihf Saperiox Court with irectioae
to et.tfit h decree is ooaforaitf aita the riewe ;,ere exi ressed*
Ti,e coats of this appeal rill be taxed, aa follows:
Three- fifths aj inet J r,t. j one-fifts against the ChJ
Title i Truat So*; cae-teath t&aiaet th* Cnited 3 -; tee Trust
Cos; iay and one- ten Us against I twin B. Jen» Lnga.
;?-:rfk jirTiflKEC is part; ax??;R3Er
IX PART ■ XI ITH DIRECTIONS.
1
- - . Ho
393 - 18850.
JACC8 FIASCO, a minor, by hie nex?
friend, BJUtiM PIAICO, /
»lle*.
'
v«,
\
/
PT L. J08SPB & SCfcTANY, A
corporation,
APPEAL FPOK
6XHB811 "TORT,
COOK COOTTT.
188I.A. 555
DfUTSSW TH1 CPIHICK OF TH2 "C'T.T.
Tfcia 13 an action of trespass or. the esse brought
by arpeilee, Jacob Pi-jnco, a minor, by his next friend, againet
appellant, Herbert L. Joseph A Co», ■ corp oration, to recover
tiaKLigee for alleged &ali<5ioua prosecution, ier in s trial in
the Circuit Court reeulted in a verdict and jndgM&t i
appellant for *r>00.
It Is urged if.it the verdict la gainat the nanifeet
*ei$ht cf the evidence; that the tri;l court erred in giving
•ini refusing certain instructions; and that the danagea re
grossly excessive.
On October 4, 1907, ps-ellee, ^sho *af? then between
16 and 1? ysaro of H^e, purohaaed froa appellant end ring
for $8'3, pjy.ble, .« the Inatrtuaent he then executed recites,
§8 do*n and th» b-Vince \~. v;;ekly in*t.:llftenta cf |3« Cr.
February 32, 1?0B, vftoiicc, having in th* neantlae paid fhc
»«ver*l accruing installments on the purchase price of the
ring, returned the 3.i*e to appellant :>nd porch aeod .< larger
ring priced to him at *:."".>, open ifeieh he paid §30 down ni
executed a contract of purchase therefor, thereby . • ed *o
the balance, $195, in «eexly Install »ent a of §4» H<
then executed a bleak font of ohattel *ortgage, *hich appellant
thereafter filled in by Inserting a general ieeorlptloa of the
ring and .i oonaideratlon therefor of $155, payabli La *ly
.
.
1
• 3 -
installment* or 24, «ith interest fit 6£ per :rmua. 4j r-ellee
fcavlhg aade no further pajvestl ur on the ewiQhaM Trice of the
riag* appellant on Jr^rch 4, 1C1G, procured an information to
be filed in the Municipal Court, charging that en or about
p3y 20, 1SOS, during the existence of the chattel BOrtfl
lien thereon, appolloo, without having the consent of *pyl-
I&nt, iii then and there unlawfully and feloniously cenoaal,
remove and sell aaid diamond ring, ccntre.ry to the forft of the
I »ute in such oaoa node sad proviued, laet the le^oe
ana dignity of the People of the State Of Illinois. Appellee
was arrested under • warrant iwsued out of tha Bualeipal Court
uj.cn eaid Information* sod ana held in custody for about six
hours, -hen he *ss admitted to bell. Thereafter, open
trial in the Kualolpal Court of the offonme in the
iafor»»tion, appellee *ns acquitted uj d finally ciiscn-r&ed.
Appall ant sayo that the eoquittal and .discharge of
polloO in the oriainal prooeedi&I wsre pre iicated upon hia
defence of infancy, whereby the instrument relied upon aa a
v lid ■- *tol mortgage, *?»9, et his election, rendered void
n i unenforceable, sad that the verdict and Judgment in the
; .resent eaeo are predicated upon tbc tUM ground* The por-
tion of the record of the or lain*] proceeding ofered in evi-
Leaee is this oane ioes not liacloea tee ;^r undo upon wnich
.ol lee was acquitted of the offense charged*
of appellee*! infancy ia only material in this oaae open fhe
inaue of probable oeuee, in s?o far ; i ; ible
with knowledge of eueh infenoy*
.slice testified that Nfcea he purehaeed the first
ring ho inforifcftd : a I int'e saleenaa tii I at sixteen :»ni
one-hulf yearo of ago. T c vitaoeej
tilled thai appellee thea atatad be »es tventy-oni
of ego, ..til one witness, soee duty it wee to Invoetlg
credit of intending purchasers of jewelry* taei -
'
3
- 3 -
fore the flrat ring »*9 ielivared tc eppellae, he 0*1 ltd *
appellee'tj place of residence and waa there informed by appal-
lee1* nether that appellee aaa of ?::<e and conld ~.o as he ohoae
about entering into a contract of purchase for a rin,T. ?r.<
pother of f>:renae, s!:en hailed aa a titnena in 'ebu-t 1,
' ' that a B^r. employed by ftppel] ant had ooiee to :cr
* * ■--.. : *t cor,Tf:r.i:i ties «i tr* him, hut denied
she told the ft&n that her eon ^as of age. The eon tract of
pnrehaee of the flrat ring, union is algned by appellee, atataa
hi» age t.c ba t??cn*y-ane yea re • Open thin loeno tha decided
*cit-ht of the eai&eaeo temi* to ahoa Uu I fcppell&nt dealt .-jth
iso la the belief la good ?'-sith that he was of full
\>nd oea&eteat to ecotraet«
Appellee testified that after :. N the p&pere
In bleak, on 3a turd . , for the purchase of the second
ring, he ana permitted by tppeil< at to take thi ring for
pnrpoee of aneertninlng what It ana north; th t hi had tho
ring priced ' a elth it 4o •■- \ ■•*.' lant*e plane of
buaineaa on tha Kea4 y following, and told appellant1! Ian-
Kan that the ring *n*a s-vrth only $60 or £75, and that r.e wanted
hi* none? br.ckj that he then Offered to return the ring to
llnnftj th t appellant's a ioenan tola hia tha papara vera
all riiJed out and h<? could not get hin none? bc^ck; that the
next thin* that happened *ss abent two yearn ofter, -hen he
waa t>)iceR out of bed - i.c< :rre^ted, Titneaaaa oalled by
illant denied t;.r:t appal loa ever returned to appall ant 'a
pl&ce of bu'sinaaa after he procured *,i\* ri' , ad It la con-
ceded that appellee thereafter '.either paid nor offered to i ay
ny farther laetelleente on fcha purehaeo price of i\.e ring.
la are net impressed v i th tr.e trutfifulneaa of nppelleo'e atate-
■sent th* t ho «ae parnittod by appal lant to t rir.ii aeej
for two or threa d.« e for < he purpooa it i rloed be-
fore ha ahould ha held to .. .vc porohaeed it. nt
:
- 4 -
that a domlOv in SOluable jewels for n.ile on the installment
I I n eondnoted hi* busineea in such r :r I jca out credulity.
It. iw olft.irly eetebllahed by tiis evidence, ladeed
tr.ere is no countervailing avi ;e:.ce, that several persona
e&ployed by appellant ue tracers nade frequent and repeated
effort* taxing the t-so yearn following the elivcry of ti.e
ring to kppellee end before hi a arrest, to locate ppellee,
that their ffforta in that regard aere fruitless; th.~it
u. cn cccsoicn© uhee they -*ent to hi* plane o[ rt-.iiucr.oe, T.ey
were infomed that he «as in ft* Tori, but hie addresa *»s not
known* or that iAk hereabouts ana unknown.
The uaooj trad ic ted toetiaony of Frank Slime, the
polios effieer she i^rved the warrant upon ppellee,
sueetaati 3 \y i* follows! "In Stay, IS1C, I received & -.^rr&nt
■.'.. criming the -.ireet. of oas .'-cob fiasco* I looked 'or hia.
i * tw< seka. I went to his house on Hersit&ge avenue
near Twelfth a treat. I asked his nother if J&eol o»«.
She said, 'he* that he »ae our of town* I went bank there
two cr three tines. I arrested ««i» on a Sunday nerni . I
* into r.ifl bouse, and he '*afin*t there, ac I went next Joor
is to ;.ir .rotnwr-ir.-law'a bouse. I went is the rent n .>
* iii two or three mo»e •. r\.; fiid -.ot see rAn.t sad ia the front
rooa f.j:ere were folding leers r thej »ere closed sad nocked.
Tiiey didn*t waat to let Re in there, but I unhooked the joor
I ?ent in .^ni I found nia lying; on 8 cot."
Appellee ;Jai».tad that Mft^r it- yrocartd ths ring
fro* '<f'ftnHnt he had the Aianond re-«et ir. a ska Ilex setting.
In k itch in* en v. Proa's, 58 111., ;S66, it i i esid:
■fas ^iBt of the Action ;or :. tlioious proeeoutloo in,
' the r roesoutor toted tlthout probable cause. If taew
lice, cr if there i^ probable eauee, the eotien ;ill
not lie. tflice, »ithout aant of prob ble OAuae, 111
•tonj both must concur, th - ho
inferred fror mint of probable oauae. LoMir v. 3:.*-?on,
1
1 3onB. 27Z} J,t;k3 v. 91w-9cn. 13 111. ?08i [| v. I-mla.
aurra.*
A re^on.ble ground of eueploioa Purported by cir-
cu*«t:;j.ce« sufficiently strong In thease.lvee to earx t
cautious »nn in the belief that the | t cuaed la guilty
cf tne offence sh&rged, oonetitutee f rob bis c ;u*e under the
- »■ Hoaa vT Inrie, 35 I'.l., 487 j gelgel. Cooper & Co. f.
Tuebbeckfi. l->3 111. A;r»» 513, "The iaeue for ' - la
not the guilt of the plaintiff** A.M.^r^o,-. v. ••r|»'.-i>vit 85 111.,
135.
A careful eonaiderstlcs of the evidence iifcT«i* us to
coacluoa thai tie veriict cf the Jury upon the inue o.f proba-
ble eauee. that le, the finding that ell&at instituted the
oriainel proaeGutioa in negation * pa Ilea without
•b^ble cause, la ■ ry to the a&nifest woJ \ —a
evidence.
The vardiOt r .y h se been prCttpted by ^rrcr In the
i * ructions.
The firet instruction ftiven at the instance of appal—
iee ii erroneous in that it faila '- .ire the jury fcc fii
the facta uron -hich the aaacaneeite&t of law la there pi ,
by s preponderance of the evidence in the oeaa. Th« ee<
instruction is abstract la ; ore, and i^ »o « tfted L1
calculated to reisiead the jury. The third instruction sw.ich
■ • . ;.e.««i;r« - -;;ee I no 1 tide a certain el 'Ot
supported by - iay aTidanea la the case, and la f»le© faulty in
I tiling to lin.it the jury to the consideration o?" euoh proper
elements of tc m aho«n by the sviience in the oaae.
The court lid iot n la r toeing oartaln instruotloaa
■ el Lint.
The thirtieth Inatruotioa refuaod ea« *ot red by
r . ructions w4. von at the lnataaoa v.' ppallant. I<
.
- 6 -
party terriers two or eore lantruatiOM efcbdiyins the s.hko
I | riroijle, ho> cannot be feeavdl to coicrl <ir. if the court
wjorta sr..t 5i»e« ts the jwry *-i.f> Instruction vhicB i? least
r-.vor bie to hiit.
T;.r: julgisont 1- rf-versftii I l . .ed.
'
/
Octo'bei I . ria, 1312. No.
409 - 18R76.
JCfif F. DITX8Z| idadaiatratex of >6e }
>*e of JAXE9 BTXSj Deoaaai .,
appaiifca, j appeal nm
vs. / J -RT,
CSZCAOO OfTT RAIL?A7 GOfe I ft j&ad ) ■- TT.
C;LUk:T ;v 3C51H CHICAGO BAZX.VAT C0.,)— -. ~ _ _ _, _. -,
W«»«f. 5188 I. A, 558
SKLZVES ■'■ CPI8I0B ':v Tfif CCUBf.
This If G salt by ^irelioe I t a to
recover daaagaa **or ■■to ;;-.'.nlly oa&si&f ta Mia .«•.*; 'a
inv :-r te, j. i..63 Dayar« gaaraia i tri. i ia taa Superior Court
si tad in -. vaxdiot aa 1 j». . . - * * " i fox
, -00.
Taa Cdse aaa euaaittad to *hs jury boos th«? rir f,
taird oauata ad taa tao3 r tioa,
Tne first eouat ilagaa ta t ailaata ware in
paeaaaalos of cert ii\ itreat railway traok* or, South Caic
ivaaua -ore or taay I i g eratlag elaotrio atraat
cars; ta&t Laoaaaad • ■ .ye:: oy appellant, Caloago City
I Uaay Oou; .ny, aa a track iaborar La] ?iag
bricks between taa a id traaka oa South Caieagc &veausj !■.: it
allaata tare* : • I ■ a I aarvaata, asr< tl
there ore rating aa elaotrio eu t Loag
i . u; aa aaid Saata Chicago venua . * point '■■ at I
twaaa 69th a treat I ?1»1 atraatj fch »ta
e*c:. t. " ' l , iv, i ; " ■ •/ . i y rcwe,
oar at . \ :. . .rcuar
r • • , - ' , ' of 30 allaa -,
oir , f ;. *•*
in a a, ... r*ta of
, rlraa i*h gra t foroe riolaaoi
■
■
- 3 -
shile h»* ana fchea i sad thsre unj gad at ni« work -:<s Ld;
that ne **& then aad there jo;ocked to the ground md so injured
-. ( i.e. . l«d( etc.
The eaooad count furtr.fi r allegee that it beca&c aec-
ry for appallant, Chicago City Railway Coapaay throu h ita
^r;enta and a rv:int*, to c-»rry a^teriala acroea «,;id track a
u; on which e*irs w?*ro being operated "oy appellants^ that it
aty tppellante in operating their c&ra upon a-iid
tr-ioka to give to the earvanta of appellant, • il-
way Coap&ny, engaged in c«wry tag notarial aoroaa i upon aaid
tracks, reasonable time and opportunity to deposit the arterial
«o beiag carried by aaid servants and *o >jo fe&asge sad operate
their cars »e oot to eaaae injury to aaid servants of, the
Chioage City R&ilaay Coapaay; that appellants n«..i« default in
their aaid doty la that, ahile decadent was engaged ia carrying
.. v rial to the portion of said roadbed between the two traoke
lie exercising duo oare i • ution for hi- ~ . tafety,
•-iif>y so oarelesely, d gligeatly sad improperly drove, pro :;led
aad operated :t certain elect rio oar in a northerly direction
■ Ion; ad apoa South Bfaie jo -venue with oat giving decedent
ny **«rning of the approach of aaid o:*r by ringing a ball or
blowing a whistle or .ny other aeana, thereby the -s^i.'. car
■■\a Lrivea irith force aad violsnoe uj on decedent, etc.
The (bird count ia substantially a ooapeaite o; tn©
first and second counts*
At the tie* in Question there were upon Bout fa
avenue, ahieb rune ia u north aaaterly Rita aeterly ixroc-
ticnf t-o street oar traeke, :;.-: .-;tnt tr-.c-r in I rth
bound track real I rv.ck being I aad track.
The deeedeat saa eaployad by the China o City B&llaay Son iay
in the ovK of hM thi right of any with brick, *a
- tag of thirteen or • ' •
1
r'ninz BOtttfcveSd from fOtfe a treat, tafciag uv the old
brick, c . . > c.f 'hv old brick eo eera fit fer uae ir.
rt>»parla)gj m4 i'0>» pat lag the eoutfe boand trael i . * r
35 aoe between the two traefcea Shen the old brick *ere renewed
fro* the -.at they *ere curriea by the sen to the **«t curb
of the street fcttiii *moh ,: * «ere Tit for *me in r-.-.-. a*ing were
tnere ol*iiRod fcsd piled uf. elth the ne* briek neeeeeary to b«
uaed. Shortly after ? o'clock a oralng '- '■'•>
£3©^ the ,iee«?Ient rioted up Hlftnl :?ick free the > ilc
the *eet aurb, iWS bsrryiag thee on hi* rrc, * relied in e -lorth-
easterly tireoiiea toward the be P treble* .. reached
the center »i &ce between the f.ro treebe fee stepped I tocped
over for tne purpose of dropping or ( -x-'k in oeid
center s-^.ce, ead *hile in j*uoh stooped position 't.c* en
fchb right side or eb colder by the corner of a aorta bound ear
I ro^ching on the oaet treek, aad thereto? eeetalaed injuries
*hich resulted in hie. teath.
•.;.er or not the aotoraaa oowaded ■ gong or *hietle
iie the car approached the joint *i.ere deeede&t eae 'ruck in
.: ly controverted in the evldenee, and the evidence oe.-tring,
eg on the queetion or the rata o^ speed t eaioh the
thee operated la in oicae conflict. If the only Leeee
to be Hitersined «3» nhether cr not the negligence ol • in
tne leelaratioh ae* proven by the grestes eoight of the evidence
we eheeld not be ^notified in heldittf ' I rerdieU of the
Jnry u on that leeui 'e;i .
The ■ lege ties in the ties tl • eeedent
, til of the bee) :ant, in the exeroiee of due care
.;.iUtion t'or tiX9 own ■}<. ;ci-y, ,-y :r..i . .rial
Li gatio&f ehioh - rellee a;; i ; r.v I rove. .e»ell v.
C. C. C. A St. I., fry. r:o., 861 UK,
The ploce of the teeldi I a1 t« I iroee-
ing, b«i at -> joint -crih of TJ -t street ■ street.
1
- 4 -
It is Kanifeat fro* the eviieixe that, except fox tha eas in
iueation, the trncke there *e;re c.le.-r of eara; that there
waa ao obstruction to obscure a view by Aaoodoadi of the r-
S reaching car, *ad Ui.it no I MtfitlOM exisated shich excused
hie failure to observe tha car as it . Ihod, Tha -ork
in -.?hich he wee tfcaa eagagaal aoa oi tha aia#£«at t,
*uch .'i« dif* act .e^ana hi* particular attastion, tod in ihe
full t u r f or.t<i r.oe of Rshieh he had abui at : . rtuaity to
being tttruck by n iporo&o&iag o<if, He had aotoal * no* ledge
that tii? traoaa sere in use for tha oparatloa thereon ol oaro«
there la so evidence of *ny mile or cuetos upon the ofc—
rraaea of srhich as night haaa rf>*.is<3, requiring t..- aotor*
Kofi or other employes to notify laborer* uj or. or aa« r
tracka ©f tha if croaoh of eara, Tbara la not a scintilla of
.1 | to aho* any aot on the ;.;rt of iaoedant, *hicn
indicated aither that ha did or dial not aotstallf aae the c-ir
aa it pproaohod, but s>o fax aa f;.' avid&aoa ui'ioioses to *hc
contrary, he '*v»lked upon aod zeroes the *e*t fcraoli asd upoa
tne center »?pace between the t«?o tracks, sfaoily oblivious of
iny possible laagor Oi haiaj tn*ofc by as ppro&ohing o;r
upoe either track.
It i« insisted by a^allao that tha iootriaa aaaaanead
in scae of tha oaaoa* What ".nticipation oi a > ';c in ri©-
taer la aot a ,;uty efcioh tha i-sw i*q o^ee", t
in connection *ith & p:re«u»r tion i fron the mturui
instinct proatptiag rhe preaorration of life ►idaaaa
of injury, ie tuffioiaat in Itaelf to aatubli a -re en
the part of ijooodoat la thin c:?se.
There, aa in the c;3c "it hi r, tha aondact of ■ r-
cjcn i ;y before B ■ ' til ■• 0 oh
eaeolta f:> I i i oath la saaorihoal by aye-witaaaaaa, ra
thiag in the f.icta tad ci-- the
oca Idl *c U . er
■
I
- o -
to -ffcicli hi xpoeed, there ie no ,roo» for the preauaptioe
sought to be availed of, . :.\ h - tion .oe* r.ot bftOCM
Oporntlwo, 'ienell v. C. C. C. A 3t . L. 3y. ?o.« :•;•; rj .
Even •here there is no frye-^itness to the occurrence,
•uoh preemption ta not v..i'i . bl« to a * lea iue o<re r,n the
ft of the decedent, In th k we Of roof Of his :*er
hobita in reepect to earn* geaoll v. C. C. C. 4 3t. L.
Hy. Co, , ,'v.j, r-i.
Reelect ins the ether -renofe of the qoeatioo involved
it baa ta recently said:
/
/ There la a preenapilea of las that every peraoa >.ill
rfom the duty en joined by l.ss ox Ispoaod by o oft tract,
tiel] Mon of negligence ie othera is not 3 mty *hicb the
) a i h o aa a . (Chic-^o. ":.:r!tir:?ton S r"uinoy R/iilr^io ?o. v.
Oun.'er^on, 174 III. 49i>- ^vTT ~q ■"■jiy a,!'*...* ?p. v. F^r-ir- ore.
Ru '-.) lailo that ! I ■•■■ I : h often been 5de ^ne
I ■ ... tion la to hare ;u«* --?ei;*ht i r-, ! laing qiteatione cf
, it ie ataalfaal •.. v the r reetnrption is not a con-
; elaeive \ no one baa a ^i-ht to rely eolely opon it
:, ta r '.' tint, hie o>m soadoot* The preemption
Lbeolve one frorc exerei 1 rudenca ; re son-
| :ibjy prnatemt pereoa aoald a ;-.»; circu! I ae«e»*****
ruoted ?i<;* of road Las train vould
;U:?.i.rieci in closing kin 1
tr >Qk in relianoe upon the prreaonptien ta ! • 11 . be
rune OA' •• 'hietle gonad . gun* th ■
ill not be rioiatloaa of tfea ] ■;* or negligence of ;*:.er3
• o'i'nr f j-»- • i 1 ■ Ion n sxeuee of failure to exereie*
o*r*.m 5:iUUua*r v. ^io ..■o & 30. Tr»o. Co.. ;;>3 111., 1S4.
Coanaal for , Ling the mthority
of thin court to rovam I .' rt rith ul
• .. in a, apon tl reriict of
4 I . 1 ; : ;t ^«-i 'tit
of the cvi.i«nce, »caM»«J { r
r-ei.t by BUf^natlag that If such mthority ! 1 . li»
the eaaa " bn*rg or \r. Ilka oaaaa, • tiva .:*; ;. 1 y be
acted to ba i.-.voked to "ithhold rtty from taa crurn,
ttty i 0:"!ed by laa u; or, this court J
■ meibility aa ia ita Laty, I
I roJ r 0--to, to ravarea ' ;-' -- ffourl tl
•
1
- 6 -
finding cf feet tc b« Incorporated is. the Ju ■■■■ t of *;.ia
c,:urt. Ti,fre, however, the uty of felt c rt to ei r
juicu.ont Li olfl r, no i* is In th« o m t1 b r, a failure to
eerfeeej feat duty rould be eabeeroleo of ■ - " #.
In fe teeoee of eei Lesoe tending ■-(.
.!ece-jent mm in fee exn.ro\?e of w sere for hit s i by,
or . roof of any facte or ei reueetaneee froas *hioh due oare on
the part of deeedeot for hi* ee» **./"« ty atight properly be irt-
• rrc-vi, fee Jwtgnent nuat be revs? reed »itb s fir. raot
to be Incorporated in fee ^u. east .. irt.
FTWBISC 0? FACT.
- DISC CP TACT:
*.. .t *i:» injuries - biefc r
death of appellee** \ setate «re occasioned by hi« failure
to exercise lae care for hi ! ©*a aafety.
21 - 18903.
DOROTHY BR0CMI/.IJ3, IB infant, by )
MAROAHFT A. BftOCEBAttS, her next J /
friend, } AffltXf OF ]
Befendaat in Frror, 1 /
▼ 3,
W3KICIPAL CC
OF CHICAGO.
AGUES B. OAfBOEft, ;
Plata tiff in 5-rrcr. ;
• i, 550
PR. PR: JUSTICE BAUME
*:lLIV£Srr TBI OPINION Of TEE ecus?.
On August 1?, 1912, Dorothy Brookhaae, en Infant*
by Barg&ret A. Broekhaaa, her nex* friend, instituted an
notion of the fourth class In the Kaniclpal Court to recover
. gee for personal injuries alleged to have bean occasioned
by the negligence o.f the defendant* A eteteoant of els la snd
. ind for a jury trial *ere filed on behalf of the plaintiff,
and on Autuat 23, 1913, the defendant entered . r .•■..■ r-. l
iranoe anr! roved the court to require the plaintiff to file
a core speoifle etateaant of claim* Thin action eae tilosad
>i»tJ plaintiff »ao ruled to file a wore specific etatewent of
claim within five days, ana lefendaatt see ellawcd ten dare
sithin ehloh to file her effldavit of nerlte. Cn Aaguet 36,
1912, e Kore 3-iccific and sufficient etateateat of elaia was
filed on behalf of the plaintiff, but defendant felled tc
file her affidavit of merits, nu on BeptetAMV 4, 1918,
neat *a-j entered H£.iinet her by ftefavlt for her failure to file
kin for eaai erf BUDh affidavit of rarita. On Sei tejiber 1C,
1918, the defendant having failed to teke *ny farther itepe
in the oaae, I jury 'an lapanolled to aasees the destegec of
•he plaintiff «.n.i r roe<»«:»in^(9 ar^ear * (then n-id re-
.
■
suiting in a vrsrciiot and JVifftSSrt sgainst the defendant for
$300 LastafS** Th«re«ftcr the defendant nr.ovcd the court to
vacate and aet nsias iuM Judgment, which or.otion *ae overruled,
and defendant then prcaeouted this a*it of error.
A motion interrooed by plaintiff to ntrike the pur-
ported bill of exceptions frorr. the record was reserved to the
■ ring. The ration of the record which purport a to be. ■
bill of excer.tiona is not ■ aoiel, but it miffloiently pre Kent a
for review it lenat three of the twenty-nine que at ions riiaed
by the defendant* sad aaid motion to strike -iil be denied.
The rulea of (hi Kuniolpal Court herein involved
^re proj^rly preserved in the record.
Rule 16 provldee, that in fourth olaa< oaaee for
recovery of monfjy only, the plaintiff shall file with bit
statement of claim an affidavit uworn to by the plaintiffs or
hi a "tgent or ittcrney, eh owing the nature of his demand,
the amount dui from the .:ofandant, provided that in oaaee for
unliquidated damages the plaintiff need not state in hie affi-
davit the amount of dattiges olalmed.
that
Rule 17 providence suon oaeea the defendant ahall
file r>n affidavit sworn to by himself, his tt-'ont or hia
attorney, nt.jting that he verily b^lievea th t th lent
han a rood '.lefense tc said suit upon 'he: merit! to the "hole
or a portion of ths plaintiff *s demand, and arecifying the
nnture of auoh dofenoe, *hi^h affidavit ihall be filed -ith
t)ie defendants appearance, provided that upon good csuae shown
the time for filing men "f\iavit nny be extended for auoh
reasonable time aa the court ^iall order, and furthsr that,
if the defendant fall a to file s«n affidavit of reerita, inch
a« ia required by the rulea of thi court, ths plaintiff shall
be entitled to judgment by sefault uron the plaintiff *a affi-
davit of o]«irc, or upon ;-uoh further evidence as %uv court may
require.
■
- 3 -
Tha affi . <vit accompanying plaintiff '0 statement of
claim in this oaee is, in form, *»<* follow at
■Jamea M. Patano, beln& first duly a*orn, on o.>. th st:itea
tl.it he la the agent of tha plaintiff In the above entitled
cause; that the nature of plaintiff 'e doavanfl la a« follown:
for personal injuries aa act forth In the abova Htat.oji.ent
of ola in.."
It ia urged that ia ?<n infant i» without eapaolty to
Olnt as agent the affidavit of plaint if fa claim purporting
to be made by an a sent conferred upon the court no Jurisdiction
cf the subject matter of the cause of action, or of the pereon
or the plaintiff, and that no suRiuOn* could properly laaua
i n 9 1 tha ie f endant ,
Defendant entered her general appearance in the dae
and thereby submitted her para on to the Jurlediotion of the
court, even in tha absence of ny auanona* The informality,
if ;ny, in tha affidavit to plaintiff 'a atatenent of claim did
not operate to deprive the court of jurisdiction of tba subject
»aatter of the cnuae of notion* Tha affidavit might properly
h^vc- been mended and doubt la aa would have been ao amended, or
a more fornal affidavit filed, if la f endant had raised tha
question in tha court f^low, Xneuf f iciency of tJ • idavit
of plaintiff** claim oannot be first raised after verdict and
judgment, to dofaat a raoovery upon a oauaa of action of ahioh
the court baa jurisdiction of tha subject matter. After the
•ntry of appaaranoa by defendant tha judgment by default upon
bar failure to file aa affidavit of merits within the time
United »ae irregular* Judgment tbould have beon nil a loot
or for want of plea. The irregularity, no ever, in this
reapect noes not require a re ve real of the judgment upon the
l rits, V aa v. dro-ai, 863 111., 394,
Tnere ia no error in the record of nhioh defendant
can oonplala to defeet tha Judgment, th Ji at irmed,
JUDOhl WT MTIRWD.
Il&rch Tern:, -
54 - 19040.
/
HARRY U. EB0UC8TIZ1 and /
LOUIS FNCLESTEIN, Co-partner*, /
•Joing business as HARRY W. /
FNGLF8TFIW 4 CO., /
Plaintiff 8 in E/ror,
V9,
/
-ILLIAM 3ARTH0L0MAE and FREPPRICK
BARTHOLOKAE,
Defendant* in Error.
1881.A. 562
ERROR TO
MUNICIPAL COURT
OF CHICAGO.
MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE BMJME
DELIVERED TBI OFIKION OF THE COURT.
This is ■ suit instituted in the Municipal Court
by plaintiffs in error -gainst defendants in error to recover
real estate brokers' connri salons. A trial by the court
resulted in a finding in favor of :cfen iants in error and
ju;lgrcent against plaintiffs in error for costs.
It is insisted that the finding of the court is
inst the manifest weight of the evidence.
-H-~±» tmaent reverted that* in Buy, 1913, .le'endante
in error agreed in writing through plaintiffs in error sa their
brokers to sell for ?lf-,000 their property, then being operated
as a "nfcokel theatre", to one Stone, -vho contemplated a relat-
ing *ith hi* in the purchase ef *he pros crty, Oaarl** Bcnesoh
and George P:xul; feat defendants in error then aareed to fsy
plaintiffs in error a o okjk i a a i on of 2]i%; that the contract was
not signed by Stone, because ne was unoble to c oar- let* satis-
factory negotiations with Benesch, and was unable rersonnlly
to rale* tho required onsh payment of "5,000; that shortly
thereafter plaintiffs in error lnforreed defendants in error
that they believed they oould sell (he property for $12,800,
and In that event they nhould have an additional o orr.rr i « n i on
of $300; tnat plaintiffs in error ■vsre lnfOHMd by "tone that
;
i
I
- 3 -
Beneacb wbb a prospective purchaser, and thereupon they inter-
viewed Bcneeoh and arranged a rceeting between defendants in
error r>r.d Renesch to negotiate" for the property; that plain-
tiffs in error 'i::c :rcpanied Benesoh to the place of business of
defendants in error ana. tr*en introduced Bcnesch to defendant*
in error as a prospective purchaser} that that was the first
occasion upon saioh Bencsoh had ever r <:rson.<lly s?,et or "talked
business* with defendants in errorj that on several ooc;*3ic;-.o
thereafter plaintiffs in error interviewed defendants in error
sad «e.re l&foratad by the latter that they were not ready to
close a deal; that on July 18th following defendants in error
without the knowledge of plaintiffs in error sold the property
to Benosch for f IS, 500, and refused to pay plaintiffs in error
\^ any conjnisaiona on said sale.
There in nonv, pre tenet on toe | rt of def andante in
error thai one, k'oes, taa the roouring cause of the Belt to
Benesoh. Beriesch eM a retail grocor and Jt-oso *«• a ea Is swan
of srooeriee, '1th ahoti Sftneeoh had transacted ccnstdorable
.business and in «ho» Benesoh had confidence. The evidence
tends to show t ftl on one evening prior to the purchase of the
-ty by Beneacb be stood Ith Koto for about 1 i Binutee on
\i lows Ik on "he opposite ■< i to treat froej the '.fo-
rty for tbe purpose of observing tJ at ..o the
BniOkel theatre" business oonduotad by defendant a In error
enjoying. This was tbe extent of tfoaa' relation to tb* tran-
I ion. P .rephrasing what i . i Ln iU-'don v. *.orc»
111., 383 t "ffhere a broker has bean employed by the seller to
find « purchaser for ' - riy and through his efforts I
seller baa been brought into eosMmnioation i i ser,
the broker cannot be deprived of his ooaualaeiona« because the
seller take a ur am tea (he aegotiatlona hlaeelf, or
through another party* The oourt there uotaa ritb
proval what eas aaid in llaf ;a-;r v. j a. . . Ill*, ,
- 3 —
at follows:
■Nor is it always naoeesary that the purchaser should be
.equally introduced to the owner by the broker, provided it
i ca sffirMtlvely that the purohaaot i eoed to apply
to the o^ner through the instrumentality of the broker or
raployod by the broker* It i •-> sufficient if
i.i effected through the efforts of the broker or
h InforJt; iticn derived frOS) him. (3usa-iorf v. c'.;u»]iatt
t5 I. T. Slftj 5tc .-,■,. rt v. 1'^f.iior. 33 Ls, i .; Hik;q1)j v.
VoCl t,t;hte. 36 Conn. 150.) ftis alao true th t vhere the
liar oonauanatee n sale of property upon di ferant terms
loao proposed to hie ugant, the 1 ttet »1U not be I
by ■.. rivei of hie right to ale commissions. Bte . p v .
Mather, ^vi/rti..* See alao jtougjij v. Victoria Hotel Co..
184 111. AppT, 500,
The svidenca idduced in this oaae olearly lemanded a
finding in favor of plaintiffs in error for at least 3| ier
cent upon the .mount ©f the sale, and a oontrary finding oan
not be sustained.
The atrldonoa bearing men the question trhsthex or
not defendants in error agreed to pay to plaintiffs in error
an added ootnaisslon of $300 if the property sas sold for
$1£,5Q0, is closely conflicting, snd *e ftxj.ross no opinion
as to the probative force of the evidence upon that queetion.
The judgment is reversed and the oause remanded*
MrVCTHWE A*C 8FM AUDIT).
1
March lorn, 19;
94 - 19C8S.
■
JAMES B. HADffl,
Plaintiff in Frror,
B, B. CORDILL,
Defendant in BrsOr.
/ /
/
/ 188I.A. 564
?3RCH TC
5URT
Of 5HICAOO.
BO A^cPb.Jbik^*-* O O 4r
MR. PHB8IDIB<
DELIVERED TK~ OPINION OP T JCDRT.
Thie la a auit instituted in ♦he Municipal Court
by J. B. Kadaen, doing bttaineea ua j. B. Medeen & Conj ,<ny,
net *. B. Qordell to recover s balanoe of
§199.48, alleged to bo .;ue for oertaln trade fixtures tnd :«;r-
t^in extras sold and delivered to the dafandant for the a ,uip-
ncnt of a butcher .ihop. Dafandant filed hia affidavit of n.erita
ehereln he ol>iircad a «et-off by re-anon of' tha failure of tha
plaintiff to furniah 0 luffiolant ice box and tha refua.il of
the dafandant to aoeept tha toe box furnlahed by tha plaintiff*
A trial by the court raaultad in b finding in favor of the
defendant upon hi elalfli of aet-off and judgment > ^ainat
plaintiff for *03, to raveraa which judgment tha plaintiff
I'roseoutaa thin *rit of error.
On June 34, 1013, defendant in error gave to pi »in-
t iff in error en or-ier partlf rented and partly in riUng
20 follows;
"Tone's
C ;^h on delivery.
J. B. Kadaen & Co,
Pate Sold 6/34/1 !,
No. 839,
Bold to la B. Oordell
Town and State* 153-4 B* 44th Ave,
Delivery .Tuly 3rd, .1 '.:■!' . nka.
1 lO'-O Counter 34* Marble top Marble base Tiie front
1 8-0 Counter tha eejaa »■ ^ove.
H ;<0x3O Moat Bloeke,
1 18-0 Meat Rook,
z windo* n.-ils ^ent '-" Baoh*
•
1
1 l-t'-GxS'-OxlT-o Seat *ox Tile front taroie Baea ith
5'-6" Partition lr».-; UvUng dOOf on North end of Box li'-G* P.:rti-
'ion OS South end of Box 5*-0 of South find of box to bo ° A. •-*! sh-
ed .11 cornice to extend *o ceiling til expose vooa to bi oak
rot In tenter door* MO.OO
Light finish.
(Si .-.nod) «, n. Cordon."
The ice box ftetJisnwtod in the orler -«» the •Ml t
-Bex" was not installed ready for Ji.<; reception of ice until
July 12 th ov i;uh, 1913, and eoae extras neoe aary for •
; rouT o ;uipment of the loe bOX sere not B« plied nd in-
stalled, until eUgtltt IB, 1913, On Jul* IS, 1B1 f
in error paid plaintiff in error on aooount $400. It i«
oenceded that the charge for the ice box, anion m a included
in the total -in,our.t of $340 stated in the original order,
♦ The ice box ;. nufeotured by plaintiff in
error in hie f'jotory in sections and le live red en the
preihioee of defendant in error, '.here the several aeotions
wor« united and the doer* and partltiona inatallad by the
employees of plaintiff in error.
It ia unocntroverted that after t in error
oo nenoed to use the ice box for the storage of rcoet the
lowest tenperature Obtainable *»$9 from 44 to 'A degrees, end
th.it the temperature required foe the props* i reservation of
c.e. it lo from 38 to 4C legrees. It La further unoontrovi rted
that on August ;>0, ,r 1 , t in error observed .-. craok
or opening 1-1/16 inches in -\uith in the re«r Of the ice box,
ocoaoioned either by the separation of the seat ions foraing
its oo «♦ ruction, or the cooing tpart )f the r itched flooring
of which the sever. 1 saotione »ere oc atructed* Th< .noe
temif) to shoe * li ■* t the ice box *.;•■? wholly inefficient to ner^e
purpoaa for ahiob it saa deslgne4« and th. t defendant in
error repeatedly oonplalned tc . Iff in error oi the
failure of the ice box to Maintain th< t* r I rature and
of the defective *ork*aneh$$ and Material resulting in the
•
1
- 3 -
openin.*a or craoke tn the rear of the ice box end of itB
defective ee.f.'iition in other r rticul-vr*, and! that plaintiff
in error disregarded such ccssplninte and Ksde no attempt to
r«B-dy th< defeote com lMned of. On ^epteBber 90, 191 ,
defendant in error removed the ice box fro* his butcher
to the \*e;r of his rrei&isee and refused to accept toe e.sflte
upon hi« order therefor.
The rule if th.it, •There n s-nufrtcturer cer-tracta
tc :^u rly ..n artiole *hich he n^nufr.cturea for a f, rticular
rurroee designed by the buyer end Vr.own to the vendor, bo that
the buyer necessarily trusts to *he 3udgs.«»t or skill of the
.f.icturer, there is an implies '-=rrsr-ty that the rticle
■t. H be reasons bly fit for the purpose to ehieh It i : I c be
ii#«J« gsgfcj & ~-~r-s Cc» v» £ill£££si § r-c». **s m., ss;
r;ie v. "iUon. 14? 111., 14; SeitK v. greyer* T'e?. ■ r-h.
Co., 141 U. S., 510. B«e i^o Oil ••"ell .-u;rly Cc. v. •■>.■■* sen.
168 Ind», £03, and note or. saiss cu;r-e in lb L. ft. A. (B. :-'.), 368,
It is invii^ted on behalf 0* plaintiff in error th I
there eaa en aeeej t-iuee by r r i" error c? the ice box
in question, 1st, b? his several receipts for ti.ti v trious poa>
tloaa of the ice box, ea being 4rj food or-.ter • :.;:.. 'hoy -ere
ieli'?ered at his shop, ind by the several *O.K.'s" by defea-
• in error tq on tiitn e:-.rds which plaintiff in error re-
quired hie u.echanica to furaleh in order that they night re-
ceive credit for the tiwc efcplcyed by than in the | erforfcrt-.ee
of ■:. i- erk; end, Sad, by bin n ving uned the Ice box fron
the time it «ae I natal lei in hie ?hop la .July or Anguet, >. I ,
until .- , , .
Or. July 3, 191d, v. ; *: leiivored = t *ii»- ehO] 04
defendant in rrrcr by | :< u tar of plsintlff in error irag-
xento of the ice has Boneieting af om • rtitioa tad door
an. one partition eith tile, and en Juiy 15, i' I. , therw *«»
■
1
. 4 -
delivered in like :;.:ifver the ovarii section*? of ^ne ice box,
in each init;,nce dOfoaAaat in error *i?ned a recRift there-
for following an -enuHieration of the articles :elivf;re:i, i
follows: "tteceived the above good* in good cMr.r,'
K&aifsatly, Cfco 5.n pmrpooO in rrccurins these
receipts *M to IttfttM plaintiff in srror ttMtt hia *.c-tE.'»t*ra
Jeltvered the good* at their prop*? deetin'-ticn. o
opportunity •; ; -Vvsn defendant in rrror to OSOJBIM the
several articles delivered Mia no axaafvtatiea tnen wmU by
hi* of the MMmtl frsr.saep.ts of the too box Foald have d] -
closed the off t&loitof or maofc fragiMeats, *&*» toaoablod, to
I-rorerXy porfots the functions of ,n ice box naota • re-
quired for the ?ur ttlSHSt The "O.K." by defen-
dant i*j error e/ i . &asda of the employees of Iff
in s rrcr lo eot of eaffloiOBt ti;.niflc mce to norit >on.
It would bs .-?n unwarranted OXtOOftlOM lion Of tao
doctrine of estorpal to hoi: tfeat defendant in error by signing
the receipts and tisae oatdn motioned was preelndod froi* deny-
ing tfe&t he aeoeptotl the ice box oo in o oaf exalt? »ita the
lerlled warranty by plaintiff la error.
Any u«, however slight, of the ice box by - . . *
in error old .id opoxat* to prevent his fxon oxexololag hir
ri^ht to reject It on account of i breach of the implied
treaty* Vhetaex or ■ • ..,- ice box «ouJd nalntala to
necessary .legrse of temperature see not table u-.til it
«as ttood .;' tasted, and -hen the first complaint *az Bade by
defendant in orrox reepeeting too f-i'.ura of tho. >oe >icx to
aalat Lfl :.' neceaa^ry degree >S tea;. rTr.iture, - > red
by rl intiff in error tj t farther continued u:»e of '•■.-.c ice
box eonld re rove the oauea of eonplalnt* Defendeal In error
had a reasonable time tltfeln fcleh to reject '. box .ift^r
it . Led to <-.cr i ly : th 1 • . ' y, j. . In d< -
1
ter*ining feat *a« ■osfe rp'.-r.-. YU: *i:«) ;.l 1 the circur t. ..ccr*,
the acnjuet of r! I sit if? in error, vnA feat h* *«id a no 5 ,
were pror&T ta be takaa into eonsidar&tloa by to urt«
Porrmce v. Dearborn ggggg Co.. r.;v> 111,, 554 j yr :cr'-- ■:■•** v.
folf . X>1 111,, 4-;5. The .Jicstion Involved «ai one of f*ct for
toe court and upon this record mi not ite.rroperly oetermined
in favor of dafeadaat in error.
In the 0f»9e of ^olf gfflBBfltft v* Monarch gfj :« t,.ar.'itxnz
Co., 3$a 111., 421, relied won by pie la tiff in rrror, the
contract provided tbat t&e machine ahoulj be accepted or
rejected at the end of the teat period of t-sn daya, ;>nu the
machine aaa tr.ereaf ter used by the defendant t,n^ such aae *aa
held to aocatitata an acceptance un:;er the contract. The once
It not in point,
A* the finding tad ju-lgsuent of 'he trial co<irt acco*-
pii«h substantial justice between the nnrtie*, under nettled
rules of law# there Is no occasion tc .^r Otaax .;uestiona
raised aa4 aiacuaeed by counsel.
The Jnrtpiail la ;ffir&ed.
1
*
117 - 19113.
/ : 7 I
■BZTI OAK COAL COMPANY, /)
Defendant In Txrutl ) ERROR TC
vs.
\
JOBI TORTHIFOTOFA
Plaratifi #rror.
KUNICIPAL COURT
0? CHICAGO.
DF4.IFERID TBI OPINION OF THE COURT.
The Unite Oat Co i Benpany brought suit In the
lalpal Court against John Forth ing ton to recover jG79.il
fox coal delivered at itiRSd in heating an ipertraent
building owned by the defendant. C Ebbert, s oc t tlee-
snployed by the pla , tenant €
khe tern of one year beginning Kay X, 1910, t a rant 2
of *CC a sooth, le In • ■ » twie. Ebbert [ Ld the rent
fox May, June and July, 1910, in o. ah,
Deeeober 19, 1910, at bis solicitation, the I ted
oo!. 1 for the rent tiing to February 1, 1921. Thin ooal
Oae procured ty fxotB Thos. ". QilKOxe I So. leliver-
cut at the building. Tn the latter rt of J ry, LI,
defendant Llxeoted Ebbert to fill up the '->• eeeent of the
building -ith coal, and Ehbext consranlonted thi or ex ' the
book keeper or local nansgex Oi thi I ■ pi Intl
delivered the ooal in question during roh, 1911,
During this tiito Robert f, Sctivncy or Ro r1 F. A Co.
eere thi n1 l ente &f defendant for the ,
rgel ooal eo d taxi
the books of the pi Intiff it R, F. 8 A Co.,
■invoices fox said ooal, bearii ah 2, 1 11,
April 1, iOll, respectively, is fell owe:
•Sold to R. F. Behenek, Agt.
Delivered J. Forthir ton 1
45th A Prexel A ulreae 100 Faehington St.1
1
- 3 -
Statements of the OOal Slivered «r.re Mint by the
. Intiff to Bohanok and by ttla f©re eont to the defendant,
Ebbart vaeatsd the apartment ..> . n on J- y 1,
1911, without having p i^1 »* f°* February, Itarob and
April, amounting to $130.
The position aa^urced by tba defoi I ia that he
Incurred no paroonal liability to plaintiff for the ooalj
that hin ;iireotion to Ebbart to procure the co.l ■■ . in
com: li. i boo Itfc in ant between thai + h ; 1 1 Ebbart eh
t hie rant in oo-.l to be purchased or procured by hi* upon
hi«» oni orodit,
Opoa a trial of the oauae by th* court without a
jury tnere rae nent # I net defendant for
0499.11, the full amount of plaintiff '• cl&ln, leaa $180,
being the amount of rent due from Ebbart "o .
To raver ae this judgment the dofen roaecutes this rit
of error and the plaintiff aaaigna oroea err ore education
the propriety of the action of the oo rt in allowing to
defendant ae ■ oradit upon plaintiff e olaii ue from
/ Jtbbe rt. .
Kbbart teetlfied that upon the occasion in Jem 'ry,
ill, rhan ha >&e ;irt;eted by the defendant f.o i rooure '.
cojI in question, he told th^ tafendanl th < he (Ebbart) oouid
only eell defendant oo-;l where the purohaae d< Lreot
frofii the plaintiff, He further testified that luring I
■u amor of l9ii, ... lay . I the building on K iy 1,
defendant demanded payment of rant from hin tod to know
~hy he didn't pay hie rent; told d< fen .ant he didn't
have thr money, a it aald he would rafuao to p iy
plaintiff a bill until he ( rt) • int.
p- t, tifiad tto 1 in January, 1911, Ebbart
*an in tr-r^nre for eovcral nontha In the , ent
and that hi*? direction to Ebbart to \ roouro th< ooa] in mica-
.
1
- s -
tion *es £'lven Upon a ex tann %gree&enl with Ebbert '
the coal should be procured by bis upon bis* own or< 11 nd
!eliv'-r«4 to and received by deft id at lr. paysent cf the rent
iue end to becow • rt . D) nt is manifestly
Biatakftn in $o teatifylngt It l i clearly established by tno
evidence that on December 1 ', 1910, Ebbert paid hi • rent in
full | ln-jluling rftnt for January, I'll, and that upon the
occaaicn in January, I'll, *h«n nt i rnotsd bin to 'ill
up the bass * Ith coal Ebbert ens not Indebted to di«f« i1
la r.y mount for rent* Furthermore, &a Kbbort'.i lease of
the a« trtwenl expired Hay 1, 1911, and only rent to tha ::iour»t
of |19Q could accrue for the re« tindar of bte ten icy, It in
inconceivable thet iefendant, acting in good faith,
huvo directed Fbbert, upon hi* own credit, tc procure a
sufficient amount of CO 1 tc ri. 1 1 up ih *, t n
. ■ ' to eoet of $700,
There ie no pretence by afandant in thii b bc that
the coal delivered to hie building e»s inferior In quality or
that the price charged therefor by plaintiff was unreasonable,
and it la conceded that the. coal ■ s uaed for heating the
buil -tin .
The denial by . nt of any liability to plain-
tiff is ; inly predicated upon he olaii Ledge
of the fact that defendant was the : rinoipal and Sch«nck
hi* » gent, plaintiff gav« credit fox the <-o 1 in question
eralu-iivfily to ruch : ', i ter brought '. J in the
Wuni'.-t. I Court igeinet euoh kgent to recover tha purcn
price 0*" said ro.il, in ehleh auit ther<
judgment I * th< pl> i tiff.
If coupe tent evidence of ;ry euofe findinj
tent of the Ifuaioipa] Coi r*- red uj on the '*i i,
evidence doe a ro1 ir ix the nbatrnot prepared
■
1
- 4 -
uy tffft&MBtj nod in thia c.a?«j «e arc not disposed to under-
take « eearon: or; the reoord far the purpose ol .'firing
evidence fthiojl the rulee Cl thia court, all Battled
l-r&ctice in 'he eourta of review la tnla atatnt require to be
preaeatod for eoaaideretlon in *n abstract ..- roooru,
Im .-n v, [ i Uf£» 834 til*, 336j Love v. rjek. 177 111. App.,
93; o U i./ary v. DfiUtach. 17B 111. A;j;.» S33.
ait as the fact U redit is 16a first is it
;ive» to Sohenokj •. ■ • -..<., nor the fact
* plaintiff first GOB&enoed an sot ion h £ laid teheno)
oSn be rtecaied COnolusiVS of as election by plaintiff to die-
obargi the defendant aa the principal. Ferry v. Kooxv. .
18 111. Apr.* 135; L - BBS "'"- *'*;y °°» la Fitch. 131 til.
607; |ittj»j ■-•■;i.:en v. foirfe, 131 TU, /[p., 450; :\e* tnrntrOh
v. V.-crlc--;* ^cftl^v: ' . •. Co., 133 111. *PP.» a?0.
. I c a )te to Kur^h? v. l?^f.ohluflCn. 81 L. H. A. (N. S.)#
7S6. Upon the reoord aa awe presented for review further
diaoueeiOn of fne o.u«etion la onneoe«a«ry.
The- finding by the tri< 1 court that defendant •-
ri .illy liable to plaintiff for the eoal sold and delivered
is euetelosd by the evidence, but such fin ally ir-
reoonoilable with the further finding t.h-it defendant was
- *ied to "i deduction frou t.'.c aaounl ton liability of
|180 duo his frc pt for rent, in I sense of my
proof even tending to show that plaintiff at l to ox
uleeoed in . rush deduction.
The judgment ill be rev creed u? on the or i ri
Lgned by the defendant in error and ju ill be h
c::ts;red in favor or defendant in error a it 1 intiff
in error :'or $^79. 11 •'. aa •' • The ooeta
will Vjo taxed against plain • error*
JUDOVXHT RKVFRSED AWD
ancsr v.:
-
laarch Term, 1913, ..o,
194 - 19198.
/ , .. :- T I
3AK FRANKEN^TR-IR, / )
Defendant in FrjpSr, ) SP^cn TO
vb / j m'Ninir/L COURT
M/.X fflBEB tad DAVID '*.*: P, Oo-i irtnerej OF 01 T ' .
fid »EBFP 8P&TUFRS, / \
PlalBtfffl in >rror. )
188 I.A. 57c
KB, PWSBtmitQ e*D8TI€E &AUJSI
DILIVERKD THE OPINION OF THE C~?;HT.
Thia «uit *;.t8 Instituted in tho Municipal Court by
defendant in error gaii it plaintiff • in error to recover
b 1 nee of 319^,90 si] ;i I +c b« tiM f< t ods, rea
Merchandise eold and delivered. Upon a trial by tho court
d 158 9 a finding and judgment ' Inst pi iriUffa in error
"or the amount olained to be lue as stated.
The record oontalne neither a correct ten graphio
rt. f *ne proceedings nor a oorreot statement of ficts
by the trial ^u.ige. Uhat purports to bo a correct I tenant
of facts is nertly • statement that oertaln vitneaeee teatlfield
to certain facta, in substance, as there •• . *od in narrative
form. The judgatant Bight ?ell bo :ffirffi©d for failure to
file a proper record. KelloftK v. City of Chic i,-q, 176 111.
App., 13 8 j Schiavone v. Dii-mo, 179 111. Ar-F»» W«
The evidence, however, in the record a* presented
tends to sho* an cri In 1 proalse by plaintiffs in error to
y for the artlolee furnished, and as Li ine in favor of
defendant in error upon that iseue nay properly bo sustained,
the Judgment sill bo affirmed.
juoonraiT »yTiRifl d.
I
March Term,
230 - 19236.
HENRIETTA 0. MUHKLSJ
Defendant in Ftfror,
/
chicago, butn»ihotch & qotkcy
railway cotv.ky, mi chicago,
burlinhtck a skjibcy railroad
cojt/hy,
PI antiffs in Krror.
FRROR TO
MUUICIPAL COURT
OF CI ICAOO.
188 I.A. 5 74
MR. PHJ^IDIHO JTJSTIOE BATH
r?I,IVFRFD THE OPIWIOM CF "HiV COURT.
In « suit brought by defendant in orror against
plaintiffs in error in the Municipal Court to rocover damages
for F'^monfil injuries olalmd to h.'.ve been occasioned by the
i-~finoe of plaintiffs in error, a trial by tat court re-
sulted in ■ finding and Judgnent against plaintiffs in error
for $350.
The aamnded statement or cl»im rileci by dafendant
in error December 19, 1913* alleges that ths injur! e» cem-
pl lined of were sustained on Jaauary 23, 191 li In thalr
I davit of merits filed by plaintiff* in error they ieny
ml in err"r sustained the Injuries ooaplalned of
on or about J <nu;ry S3, 1911, and river that on ex I -fi-
ber 31, 1909, defendant in error c r on one of •.
as of one of the plaintiffs in error 11 feting there-
from she slipped and fell, rther • ' ' oause of
.otion that c^y .. BO rued to :;'?r by r^a^on thereof i» b»rred
by the itatute of limitation.-;.
"Hie only queetion | resented for review i« tl it ril-
ing upon the elela of pi ilntlffs La error tfa t I .;.• IS of
action is birred by the statute of lirt.i tst ionn, and it in in-
ileted that uj on this Issue to I Lng of ths tri '■ M in
cldrly i gal net the selght of ths svidsnos.
In this Btate it in held tfa \ ' *«He of Llalta-
- 2 -
tiono le an affinitive ciefenee, and '. v .ing
it la on the | -rty | it, ^cl.cll v, "t;^v« r, ISS 111., 15©.
It woula merve no useful pvjrpoee t< ft rie*
diacuae in detail the evidence be. ring u»on thi« iiflue, ":e
.. v« e Art fully examined And weighed th< aa»e ^n it i in
'he raoord, and find it inrxtrionbly conflicting, oannot
i y that the eon . arrived ?it by ' I sourt in
pel] ably wrong.
The jujigrcent i» nffirmed*
JUDQKOTT AFFIRMED.
.
Karch Term, 1913, No. /
285 - 19391. /
FR.4K7 KOCH, FRANK J. KOCH, 0OHH A.
flICHERT and ARIOLD BRAUTIOAM, loin*
bu.<lneae 0* KCCH A OOKPkXft
Aa&eJ 1 mta,
v v"
88I.A. cr^
ruoi
county court,
COOK eOMTYg
jchn h. - • nn,
A] •'. lee«
1 8 8
10*. ! ! IRQ JU STICK 8AUMS
LIVSRKD TBR OPINION OF ^F COURT.
This is a suit in aeeunpelt by iet
appellee Instituted in the C untr Court, nta
filed thai* felon oone&ating of the cosmos
attaohed thereto their affidavit of ol&lat. Appellant* .<lso
filed a bill of particular*. Appellee filed an affidavit
of ncrlti verified slain of set-off, to which olala of
set-off appellants pleaded thi ral % me, j»
satisfaction nn& the five* y ti ttute of llnltatlcne. In
thi»> utate of the record a jury wae empanelled), whereupon
before the introduction of any , • fhe
oloae of the evidence for appellant* and at >. of ill
the «vivicnoe the attention of the court wan directed by appal*
it* to the fact thki either pleaded icral
issue noc replied to appellant a1 pl«a*» of aeoord tl*-
f action and the statute of lint tat i one to e'e plea of
aet-off. Tns trial o< rruiea I »' i ; Ion for
• ory inetruotion upon the ;e filed
rciuiri; .ice to join laaue thereon aubi *o
the jury for theix verdict. The Jnn
! >llee upon his r i<^" of set-off »eaeed hi ea
at* at $949, and Ju noh
Lot,
police admits the inforwality and Irregularity cf
the proceed inge, but ineiata tl pellante the nocee-
1
nity of foi i by oing to tri »1 upon '
in en port of ■•.. \te» mu»eroue Authorities
announoinf I mil settled rui< rty ..- ;ftd«ci
to trial ' cbjftction, a* ur on iaeuea jci
r verdict or for th< ft of r«viow be
sit tod *.o t ' I lure of the opposite
party to file proi.cr pleas* ' uritles have no
Lc ties to the i , . erein ' ■
ih'tt .^rpoj la&ts
( ri i court to the i rcwo.ure adopted.
I I i -.-: for
further
313 - 19.VH,
Appall**,
r*«
TKOKsS E. McARm,
Appallaat.
APPEAL J*PCK
OTICIPAI COOTff
CF 5HXfl ".
188 I. A. 5 84
wr. Pr .v ticf BASJffi
LIVEBEB TBI QPXfXCI ' ' BT.
In B rait instituted in the Vi. Lei 1 Court by
3« D. Hy *t The*;, a K« SJcArvile t raoe**! in*»t A lne.ntB
of rent from October 1, 290S, to fteptaafea* 1, I -10, alleged
to bo due by the ter^s of a aartaia leaea, trial by the
court resulted in ci fi I fort jean t againet < n—
ii.it for $1,645, to rfev;rse Rfeiea j • f I Wieoutae
this appeal*
A forfaer suit by itppallee I
covor 1705. >H salary an. instil iisente of rent
Jue under the t<*rfca of the mum lease froa. Stj terser 1. 1906,
to "-ctober 1, 1906, brought in the Comity Court, resulted in
a verdict *r«d Judgment agalael <nt for |4?3#90, fro*
*hioh ju=i£»ent he r.roseuuU- I to tad • rl , *re
^ent w*e affiweed. ^y n v. ggAfiH&i 15^ Iu» *>p.,5?9,
The lease in question I t cut in tfee Opinloa of
the court on the fors-ftr Afi'e/.i, rence to which i<3 nere
Hag* in tea forn-er suit are incorporated
in the statement of olala filed by appellee in the Lna1 at
suit sad Um coRflete recorci in la* for*** ^uit, iaalvdlag
the cr-inton of 'his court on th*» c te
of this court <sffirn.in£ the jadgaeat i: i'»
sere introduced in evidence in 'hi clifte.
The bill O' f ,./tivsul..rs filed by
<;r suit is ^s follosa:
■
1
•> s •
•Salary KB* rent frc* 8aptaa»ar 1, 1£G;>, to
J ana i-y 6, 1909 §630.
Rent frca Jaawarf o, 190ft, to October lf 1909... 960.00
jl.SSO.CO
Credit.
By o -»sh on tee cant • *f i.'^*^
luff on October 1, 11*06 '95*8 ■
The rrincip 1 c. 1. Ik of -.e la tn ant rait
i« stated la " itaaeat of rr: .ifc filed ;.*rein as follo*e:
•Fax. 15. ffca* riftar the aagfnaing of 'hi* (the) suit
xn the preceding paragra at Bantioaed (aalag ti er suit
in the Ccttaty Court) tfeart a *c the plalatlff
froa. the ■ at under the agrtai
eaiJ »ub alea4ad rent at *he rata of |fs par aoata froa
first of C-ctooer, 1906, to the ta *, 1.1C, ,
■t.iking -~atti of |S|i9dS.OO*
"P.r. 16. Th:t the plaintiff aaa received at i c: r
on aald $3,&25.00, by ra-»reatiag the ; r Rise*? in eat
leased for the account of aald gaftadaat euas 'ing
11,680.00, a© acre, ollowa, viz.:
•Froa 1st of October, i )G6, taaoar.
1907, | r aaata tl» 300.00
•Froa August 2", ) C , . .. ■ ru.ry 35, 1910,
at I SO i i aaa ta I .
•Frore Febrt '.y 89, 1910, to Aagttat 38, 1 ,
at' aoath • t... ---■.■-
$1,680.00
Uaaviag & aalaaoa of §1,848.00 due tat pi iatlff."
la the affidavit of «erit* filed by eppa Ileal he
avert, ae grcunie cf defense to the whole of appal laa'a daaaad,
Hi t on or r^ior to Cctoh*r 1, 1909, >ppallea, hS*!. at aetioa
to appallaat, entered uron tat prtalata mention* i m .In
r«Hpoaaaeaat1 himself of tat aatrt ; ta i ring won
a»il yreftleea by appallaa en cr rrior to Ootafetr 1, 1909, **a
not lone *ith the knowledge or eontaat af ill not
.oi© unvier the t*r^a of ttt< * la rriting, mi I rtn in
:\ee*9 atataaaat of ei.ia; *ion of r.ppellaa
in entering latfl - •■**-
aelf of 'he aaat amounted to a tar n of tan ey ..ich
Bight t >re nive sxi^ted by tirtut cf • i in
lag; thai
1
- 3 -
or without -ny aotloa '.c uin, appellee has froa
October 1, 13C3, been and reaained in po Ld r -
aieea, either rof.5c;;vUy or by .'iia agent or tenant, I t. I
auca act ••!. . tcts ur.on tea part cf -jrculee so dona without
the oo Mat or knOwle< Ige of appall . I mted to
eviction of appellant from aaid prealaea, '..>y gy
11 ri^ht to iloaand rent of appellant which ay have existed
Trior to ^uch aviation, ceased and ternin ited.
A"? a separata and further ie/en^e appellant averc
that 6a October 6, 1903, ha »aa by appellee i. : U • ••-•• in -
certain suit ia the County Qourt of Sock County, being the
: >rooeedls£ t irtioularly rtsntionsJ ir. appellee* a statement of
ol i»; that in -^uoi1. ;iuit or proceedi . ight to
rfc^v;r frcir. ippellaat for rfint for fch< I . , uirsea for the
rial froa Jaauary 6, 1903, to Oo^o:v-:r 1, 1906; that in ■
•j<ii t o m eacad in ? .1.: County 1 sort, i red
laid c;.u>Je, ind ta t one or the xififrnru::? Bade
by appellant to said aait vat* that ,
S, 1905, avlotad appellant ?ro« id preKiaea n. a arii
into reof ixorciaing aota of
of po^^fto^ion o*er , ' »«id d«
aucceaafully made by appellant in -.i* La laid Coo
Court '. Liee did &ot ecov-'»r from ... . ■ "- rent
for aaid period fro* January 5, 1908, to October 1, 130a,
' . * * lereoy it beoaaa r<?.- .
■ • ; •.■■•.. I ad fi taid
! ^-i by - ■ 3 Lee.
1
- \ -
Belativs to ths fireS ground of defenoe sot rortii
in Lppellant*a iffliavlt of resrits, It 1? insisted '. I aa
thfl l-:<ji« i:^ : itiOfl tfl in T- . LB r:>r»x:i to
&isea thera situate, i*. nm*t be oonatraed In 1th
the Ian of I ova; that tt la nettled law in T~v> thai i f -
tenant abandon a • trt-I^ss and the landlord tern Into posses-
sion ind rents i . <•, without aotioe to th - it that
ha Ls renting - : nr (ha aeoeunl of ' I »nt, i surrender of
tha ; r;,a,ioi is sstabllehed and tha ioase tarsij
This laaisteaee night sell ho dissdaeeri lth out
fi rthnr : : seidero tt on beesuee ths Lao ts it ia sleicee' to
exist in Tc«i sau neither alleged h-h e ground of leftaee nor
prosed u- on tha trial* iMsei, there is so suggestion in
I . reoord that this praclss »HasttoJi raa raised Iti the
court seloa« '■'." I > i of oth^r itaeas are required to be
»lee4ed and proved in tha soorta of this state as facta*
■r jq v, aohlUln?»r, 345 111., f?31j Uathe v. Thcstao.
218 111., 349S gclosaa v. Igaj gejsjraj y. "s.t 183 111.
«:<., It.
It 1*5 altar 1? aetsbliahed by the evidence that opon
tha refusal of appellant to take possession t iss the
prsaisss viler the lease, Appellee notified appellant tb t h«
ssuld not oaaeel the lease, but would hc\ l ; - I \
■
.
.
3
- $ -
for rent thereunder, Tt: ".hi? state •'scjord, a re-rer t-
ir.>" of fchs • reel sea by appellee, thereby alnimlxing U:e rinej-
;.<gee for t.ich appellant *cuin bo liable, oil r the
rule announced in the leva eases oited by appellant, operate;
<ia a earrender snd lamination el the le?««e. ftrewn t, Pali _,
10? {Ova, 77; Ardour Packing Co. v. reakoir.eg rork Co..
116 terns, ?;;3.
The sepsr&te mad further grounds of defease re] led
uron by appellant are Led in the nee- , ta Lid, I ta
. sixth prepositions aubtaitted by hi* to *.r.e trial court
to be held as the lav of the cnee, itad UM satiea of the
court in refusing aaid propositions la tssi aad for arrer.
The said prepeeltloaa o-i;c-*a:
*3, The court holde, as i proposition of law, that under
the evidence herein, the leeae between the plaintiff nad the
■ " , • ■'■ rth is Lainl ' ' » » est of : Lb, s
Lasted by the plaintiff by hit act of re-rent lag the
\**r described in said lease on the 5th Lay of ry,
I !••
•:5. The court hold??, i proposition of law, that under
se herein, the 3 w ) itiff the
defendant, sat forth la r<lelntiff*s statement of clain, waa
4 ir si . tad by the plaintiff by hie set of re- renting the pre-
ai eaa laeorlbad ir, aaid lease osi the .'6th day of August, 19C • •
":j. The court holds, as » proposition of , w»
lag i. % ■ r* I n o
Court of Cock County, Illinois, or. th tsta er,
, the aaaa being the a ■ action particularly aention-
ed in plaintiff's at a tenant of el Us, ad tns plaintiff
failed *q recover froa the lefs at in sal cause in said
County Court far rental t said prealses for the i riad
January , ] , ' the 50th day of September, 3 - >
rent entered in said oaasa la - mtj rl I ffeot
re ^ rt--i.iu.tio • , be tween - ' ' »
■. t the leeas fcj aad in pi Intiff tatenenf olaii la
this oauss sea teralnatsd bj the action el itiff on
j af J snary, 19< •■
•G. The court holds, as a proposition of .. s, that the
judgement of the County Court of C< nty, Illinois, La ta
<e. i rtlenlarly aantleead in plaintiff's statement of olala
in ?his? eausa saa not re<? uriju Lin j * iee
t- this cnuue, to the efTect t:. •♦ tl M act "Orth in
1 Lntiff's :' i I >r 3li iR herein eas and lr, Lb ^ce
I effeot*"
- 6 -
An eaaadaatioa of < ut, wccn bad prooeedlnge in *.
former -ult inciting t.\<; opinion of this oo.rt u; on the rcraer
appeal ■iiwiose |aat tn« - | rerj ther .. met
I. lent mm for reat only, for the 1 rtod froa S**pt. 1, i 5,
to Cot. 1, 15C6. Thft ;.;:.cun* of the vrr ;ict J t lr< the
r suit so cioioiy appro* iae to* tfci cent e&lefti ecoroed aur-
in^, tfl iod, lose tho eatosat rttcelved by ^.reilec tss rent
u; to. 3at. 1, I906v froa other vtics ta r -a • tect the
pre&ieee ii'ter appallaat - *eti to take ion of the
3&*e uad^r I . • •«, at t« n tc i: ippartal '.. raofe rerdiet
.cent earl intended te covar the bbj ,ia Mat 'or the
entire period Involved*
7ha Judgment in u.e foraer suit if, ?;, res
.jU-tjc: :. t;. ':; ■ V Id ie.iStf »»• ftOt tSral • ,
by tn« not vf :*•; pcil&e i., ;;. -.cc a t i eg **td preaieee. j v»
Grog as BlaSm§f, ^o». 134 111., 11; K ru..»M .v, .Co. v. ,«.vt:r3>,
180 111. App.« 4?0« HM eaoaad 1 Ltioa rljr refused.
Tuere is neither pleading nor evidenoe u; en ehieh to
aeitioa, .• 11 **a, therefore, proper-
ly refused*
A lieoaeeioa cf the fifth aad sixth propaaitieas »wb-
titted by kppellaat sd tv th«* court saald - ' te
Aereiy titioaa in n , of that - • ■• -re
• ;ve tc the eaaoad crepeaitifia re ueed by the si rt«
Both c reposltioaa -^srfl properly refused*
The Judfaeat la 'ht former -w.it Le re? ^..jct..
to the eeseatial quaetioai I eel*
?n>; Judgment Ifl .ffirrts:d. ?h * th< ItiOIMll
• r^ot prepared aad )"iled by appellee "111 be t>ixed to
I] poll iat«
.
■
1
March Term, 19]
341 - 1^;J:>5.
ESTHFR BFREH7WFI0, )
Appellee,
VS.
ASF. KRFCUN,
Appellant,
188I.A. 586
/ L FKCV
irUTJT'TI^sL COURT
OF CHI 01 .
va. m&l&iia j««tici biuk:-:
DELIVERS! '■ IN IPH 0^ THF COURT.
This is n «uit Instituted Meroh 18, 1»12, In ths
Municipal Court by appellee it appellant t< .■•'•sea
for alleged breach of promise of irtrriapo, .1 by
jury resulted in a veraict unci judgattat ftgainet | ■
for *3C0.
f
Tt is urged that/the vcrJict 1? unsupported by the
cvi.iflncs; that the ^uit *r.a preaaturaly brought} that u . .er
the pleading It e*a necessary for st-p^ll^a to prove X
requested y:«rfoTi? mce of the slleged i trriage soatreot u.a
that tppailaat refused to per for*, i • -o ettoh proof eaa eade.
Appal lea* e statement o< elaia -ct as follows:
"For that ehereea on or (bout, the 15 th day of J tnuary,
1812, ir. the City cf Chiaago, County of Cook »nd State of
IiHncie la consideration that the plaintiff, lin tl n un-
tied, had than •-■ there eroaieed I *, as
re.tuenjt, to mrry him, «hen she, the j 1 tintiff, shou]
thereto requested, the defendant prevised the plaintiff to
her, the plaintiff svere that the, Lng ii the
.! rro&iie o? th< lafs lent ft 3 ye from thence 'o
ad still ie una r r i « .i and ha a been
till Ie ready sad Lllina to i rry s;iR<. Ta t
1 1 though plaintiff, sfi ■■ said proaiee of n-
it on the kid, nt to
rry herj ra" lefen <:< lid not nor would he then aarry
plaintiff, but rafueaa >, hereby fcl wie-
tained damages to the extent of the sun. of , .0."
The affidavit of n rite filed by lnnt statee his
tee J o the suit is roll owe: 'That lefead nt i * any
tin.e proaiaad to marry the plaintiff •■
.
•
•
1
It ia a fundamental rule in plealinc thr.t ,, n^cri-l
fact a«aerted on one aide, and not ienied on the other, if»
admitted, 31n,KiOn3 v. .T.-nkjna. 76 III,, 479; Her kino v.
Medley. 97 111,, 40;,; rosier f-.v(?r Oo, v. Bert Jo,. en ■..,,.;
Book Co,, 183 111. Air., 310.
Un :er the pleading! the nly aaterial fact in Laeue
ther or not appellant had proaieed to ■ .ee,
Ur on rroof by appellee of <iuoh promise, fa - • »1 tc ilnnt
to R.nrry ner and hie refusal ^o to so, auet b« held to bavt
been adaitted by appellant.
The evidence introduced en aebalf of appellee ten.t*
to *ftow that in Deoeaber, 1911, appellant promieed to tuurry
t.cr la llay« .u>l :, and that *h« cxpreaeael v. r lillinsaeea to
then aaxxy hiic. Appellant offered evidence tend! to ahoe
• . ' iie did not ao proaiae to t-arry ap] . upon thin
issue the onoe was properly tubal ttad to 'cic jury, tad • a
not 3«»y their rerdlOt tjs-^ ur.»:sr ranted, ?h« .*- ;.Jr-
ouastanceB ia ovi.:ence, other than t&e direct teatiaoay of the
partlea( tend to corroborate t] lisony of appellee*
than the teetiuony of appellant*
That (Ha suit mi prematural? brou ht appeara to
have been rnieed by appellant for the first tin* In thie oourt.
The question ie not properly preserved for review, 3tlt.r-.?i
v. Villor. SSO 111,, 7;;,
Upon the record aa aada the. ju '.-went te tffiraed.
1
Uarcli Term, 1913, HO.
353 - 19367.
JOIfi? F. DOTXHBt Adatfaietrator 0-" the ]|
Eel lU of ILLI*M LR3/:K, Deceased, F
appa&lee, )
"/ |
**pr> BlZIIfl OOSPART, atKWSe^ear tc }
3ARD-CCP.BY C0*PJ Y, j
Appellant.)
8 8 I '
APPKAl rao*
ciac n
god count.
KR, P83T3IBISG JU'TICF PATJkT;
D2UYS8ED IBS OPXSIOS OF ».
On tfuroh 1, 1S11, William Le . ad 3 y«;sra ,>nd
3 sscntha, eee struck by ftn Rlfictric truck belonging to appellaat
ead then being operated on F.:rnell avenue by t aervant of
appellaat. The l«d was thereby injured and t Jkea to his
bojre Tj-.ssre he lied about in hour thereafter. A 'suit brought
by his ari«laietrater to recover tajsagea for hia crongful
ueath resulted in a verdict and }u 1 .tent in the Circuit Court
tgaiaet ppellaat for |4,5C .
The declaration acntelna tee c?»r:ts. Tha firet
count illegee v. ' * e boo1, operated tad control lad
certain fcotor cr.r, and by ita eer* " I .gent, eaa Operating
the sane over, upon laa " raall -venue; that it >eoaj
4£*&-'±4 • t ■■■* ■ •
nac the luty of appellant i.~i , ... - mi id
street, to utte 11 \ refer care and oautlOO la tha running cf
c*r, so aa aet *o injv:re cereone c?i s-iiu a treat; I
. at did not regard lta Swty in that behalf, but on, etc,
• aile ..prellce*3 inteatate a lawfully yi; «,ii street,
wee in the exftrciae of r-rof*r eara for hi a o-n n./c'y, . pel-
] at, re^rdleas of lta luty La that , aly,
I] antly m rrongfully ran, operated tad aei r
in *o aaralaaa ;t r- at i ■ < c I -roue
rata o' *[eed, ac that by reaaaa thereof ppellee'a iateatata
waa run into, i -it, knoc;V«>: > »ar
1
in chnrge of appellant's v:rv . * t.;«reby *c badly Injure I,
tfeaj Lfc . iw.t lanaedlately thereto, a a direct reault of ■ i.
injuries.
The teoond const la ainilar to the first oount,
ileo further rredicates ;i right of recovery c-a f -ed
'. -.i^eat failure of .ijr^ii nt*a terrast to glee proper
king to r'. rao:i>» on th»-. • treat*
At abaott j o'clock on the afternoon of tl
ttioaed from ton *~ meaty boya u;rc playing n^rblea •: teg
or "it" en tho aiiewfiikQ mr i;-; the tf y ■-;. 12 ■ uc
bct*&en 3 r- itn fee* Tha not or truck la queation
*u« need fear the purpoee of Sail varying broad to the eustoi
of fcppeS last, );-.. -.■:■•- '1.;-,;; \-f. in( .-i-von by ftcLert J. Foelsch,
dune regular route embraced thf territ<: y • the
south t,y 19th street, on thu aorta by Slat street, on tha
went by -UKi;is *er.ue sad on •'.. t bj '* t.
Mill avenue la two or tb it Le tolelda ranue*
The ifollvary truck ana equipped l .< i oodan oncloenra having
.vss, front :n . glaaa i icr*. Feel sot., ~*ox delivering
let r. . An. ll l <^, .ri-ve real ..r: i I
treat U ' rr.eil ivesni tl . >rth *o : th a1 i I or
•).-.•..<•- ei | yed
pel lent, reeleeh then started Ho ..rive to arpells
1 ?lant at 07 th .p.: LaSnlle itreeta, '
turn:. .. 08 rr.ell reave r»t 3 1 n '
.riving louth on ? rncll renal I l rd
at re etc, tllee'e int« si ite, ;>s;n playing on the
-cet aide of Pamell avenue, •tarted to run ar tea thi ive—
nent tc *;. mat aide a .-.i I tanning " uol by
it*o Selivery truck and injured. Re • • in el a ted to
note »t o. gag] r mil tvoeoe, vhere ha
hour *f+er he. rat Injured. Foeleoh teetififl ' h W
1
aot 300 the ;i803uaaU epon the atreet, .mi did act r.rili.e
that .1 .tiJi*. Ldettt had caourrad until ru felt a j.>»- ooe
oy o^ie or both of the wheels on thf eeet aide of tha * ruck
paeeing Over tha deceaeed, an.! that be drought hla truck to
u stop -ithin ai< or eight feet o! tilt point vfcere he -via
:: Leeeeeed getting up fro* the a treat* lie further testi-
fied that ha rang a bell oontiaueaelv ee he drove itouth on
Parse 11 bveaua fro* 33nd street; th --* it •«« then ii ht;
; . the i iaq * on the truck vera sot lighted ind ■ . I ha
irivlag -• Of tfJOUt 4 or 3 R.ilc? tfl .. ..r. .- tesU-
fied .it the coroner* a iaqaeat that sit the tlee ha felt tha
jolt or thud he •■•■■■• running loaeahere oetxeea G and 3 Milea
to hour* Chile t .oro ia ah rj . :.'.liot Id the ivldenoa <is
to the rata or apeed 6t shleh - *ru$i «••-■ . ,
preponderance of tha evidence tesde tc shot thai o all
ruug or eav other varaiag eignal given *a the true* ran south
on :: moll aveauej that it eae thea getting derji that
tha truoSc ran i dietaaoe o.;' approximately ?5 feet after *•
etruoil tbJ deeeaaed - . ..■• '.. ' ra* atopped* There \*
also evl Laaoe tending to she* ■ jury ,.;'r« not unwarranted
in tinging that -a tha ti*» in tueotiea Foeleoa aaa iaroi rat-
ing the is« g'- (he road by ma iv the -ruo*. acuta on iba eaat
aide of Parcel! avenue.
Under tha evidence bearing or on tha leeuce oi the
negligence of Foeiech la driving and o: . ha tree*
lae oare by appellee* a iateetate -or hi* • -■■ y, n re
aot ^notified ia iateri rii *..- verdiet of the jury.
i ' i oy ecu ml tot ppell >er« i«
i.o evidence in >i> record that '... ■ eilce*a intee-
.. ml ted "ri». .. jjca illeged ia lh< Aeolar tiea*
and Jowiio-jp v. Chxo .--c Pity By. Co.. 166 111* ipp.( •• , I
o i too in w • crt of appellant' a J tnoa that ; ha J •
■
1
- 4 -
RAJtOt be rOYOr««d :or ".il.it:' to ft >o WJCh prOOf. The J . . • :■
oaee la not in point. In I ha • e «1 r, I tl ■.
tppellee*e I - I It .?' the person Injured iraa clearly a a tab-
lii^ed by the svi Jt*r»oe. *^;i!, tha eh r ;-^r dent of
hi*? lnjuriea -.Tv-ira not ahoan, hut tha •■ .. iclosea, t«
heretofore at a tod, that ha died * hia hone *ithin -' n
hour after he i • -.rf;a. 11 -:~ ~ to ' in conceded
by pel last open tl trial thai lee's int< ta* '<? lied ae
h. reeult of ; u ri»5« oco^=*io);?!d by Llant'a true);. In
r*a of hlfl eroaa examination of ■■ aitneea called by
I :•?, g u ■ ■ • ".. I o I ■' i illee'e in'^fj-
ta ti i little boy ah< : killed, ind -iron his; lireot
< i ■ ' Men of 4 loll ;. • Qa -:;'- >W ^r, . I ■ i for
appellant • : i ther he v& n
in;u*.-?, on March 3, 1911, *u; on tha body c,e
killed by as astoaetolle*. Open thia recor • <-o« ths
. iiiced the Inference is Irreelet&ble u. I . Use's
lateetate died aault of the injuries eoKplalned of in
the ration* In the J .. -s.-: a^o it la aal :
•If it It ted that the ;• ereen injured
-, that 1 Led seven houra after tie accident .*
hoejiti.i, tee inference *oul4 fee v*ry atronf that hie di
BCaatesed by the injnrAeo received*"
It La argon1 ta ' •.. trial court rra ;.
i. svUenoa orfcre . y pellaal ten4inj; to ahoa I the
tine of the aoeideat, ita :r\vcr, Foelaoh, ana not -c ■
i-..\r> ' scofe oi ni* enpleyneat, nor i:. I • ce of uis
1 i buuineai, ehereby. ' ■ ■•-■ he relieved of lia-
bility trl >ing froic the a« -, If ny, of 11
tt.K tltaoee, : , led 1 I ■■•-•■ leting
.i .nuwery «t 5 1 At itreet Incur ta aue, b< took a*r* 31«eth,
* aaleaa-.n enplored by appellant, to ;.i* (81eeth*e) hone, <n.:
i
-
I '. • ■ I- i> .:!.■■-■■ r-i tril tO) the Tg ■
- ■ 4 ' ■ Low to
take *'r. ^wMi ho- . i stlon '■ • .
^i-''-: .ri*i. Q< .r.':l for i] ■ :. at
■ "thai 00 I: . • : I :., • t i .• -
■ \ delivery ftt 1 % *J cF.t-x a ad *a .\.r ,
y to *i.' oti cna -ectioaa
ployer, sitaeaa aid »o1 cetera to tlw pltmt o- hi1? <;t.i i -r,
but proceeded U; C:, .-....'•. , th
bting to take a friend hat, he friend living s1 a
rate] . the • bllshed route of th< i iu -*B. 01 .,« otion
to the proof offers* ,•:'>"
record and 'in -.■'■. reiis of court
. 3 , ttj ■ :• 6Ji« .;■-"•■..',♦■•:.'. i .;;..-;. i
, • . u r .. i ■ •; by . . . : t
1 ■ • ',.);.. i ' ( . ,
that tfei " , , t the tiae ©i 'ne
cct, ei i 'i/ic the track in Sis -.r line
o\ !.i utj ; eaploysdfita
Hot eding the fact that e curiae) for both
I rtios h-ve -rp-ued this ion % . th, a icter&iaatioa
of the ^uftation ie ;.ei w 3 :iiy iavi oa T-ai
It i* Co-..; ;.;;=i\veiy established by the OKoonttroverted
•;. ' f f...- tiai g '..• coldest Foe lech ■• • ■ ■ ■ ■ in
:ri;ing ta«i 'ruck to the pl&ftt of ppellant, ea i* ..is
iuty to ;o lr. tho regular line oi | sent, after ne
e depleted hie crk» I cideat h ocourred while
he *aa engaged la t.ifcin?' ^Ireth ' o fch« letter' e noise,
liffereat juration would be ted*
It I i nj seated th ' 1 1 rror to 11
- I uck sw.tr, on t.. eaet tv .t of
the itreet io to lieregarding . The
1
- 6 -
reccivi io«a not dx»oiyj?e ny otojootioa by , \t *o
pvMf *hen ».*ats, but i;" tifMly objection had hoeu i ,,!p, it
I f iv* DOOR Of no vvtl. The 11 *•«■■: ^iono cf the . ec
r ion <ith reiyoot to the feat operation of the truck
ire tuffieiently oroevd 'o utalt *uch proof li i port vt
enbetentive grooMl of recovery. But If tfcl • ere not ^n,
auofc proof >cul,. t>e i ibJ*: ee be; ri?;« upon tfea ueatj ta
of i.. *ributory negligence of .. • ■ ! test te.
There ie ?;c eotee* ti 1 error in the record «nd the
Jo .tent ie -f f 1 raed«
JBDOMKBT AJFFIR! EI>.
■
395 - 18663.
cl/rk n:
■
OHARLM C, rt,BY»?*F., Executor
of the Eetate of .t- isll •.
D01& F| led,
dpi c Llant.
L FRO)'
188 I.A. 601
MR. JtfSTICI DU1CAS "ITv RRI 1 OPIM I " )T.
In >n notion of .i.i ivnj 3 i 1 ClarJ Aubrey recovered
ju : I < ', ..• I tlnet Ciiir'iea C. 0*ByraOj • i of
the estate of Je.-.aie 3. Donley, aeow/.ned, appellant*
case was tried Ufor. in afSOOtf etete of f«cts, in tubefc nee,
that on November 13, 1908, Jeeeie 8. Ponlny had on deposit
boy oredit with the Citi/ene :-'» N nk of Big Repide, Michigan,
the *uk or 1,-' Lot; loot cr. I .. been tn'om
* i\ ehe rt to 'tie end 00*14 not recover, .ni ehe be-
lieved she 000 about to ..'ie; that the plaintiff, Qlarh Aubrey,
»*e her nephew end her only .. Li * law* except box buebane*
tllli:tft !• Tonloy; th * ebe aid oot tbos I new |] it ti cunt
of money the had in th id tank end ebe ' . -, oa id
.te, executed bos ihoel in theeo werdot
•No. Big RaricU, Mich,, »©Y. 13, 1' .
Oiti;en* Stnte BenX| Pay to Clark Aubrey or onrr ,
To j i re.
■ i '". : r.nley."
1 1. • . tfa le liver* - I
Aubrey without < ay valuable e ration therefor, • by
(be execution end delivery thereof »h« intended to
to C;.<rk Aubroy te ift • right j title and intereet
in n*:i eui • ii' nay then or ej oeit in i nh to rier
oredltj tr it ibou* 1 *tnt) ebe drew ne
leo i ifl bev *ill in .hich no nwntion wee in • of
1
•aid ixun of Money -iepo*ited In said bunk, and i :..eok *aa
ialivered in oonteatplatlon of .ait lapendj . ;
i ure vt<-:r the exeoutioi of
•aid oheek to ml! Aubrey ihe dledj th M re*
previous to Ler death pi mted to Id tank Foi ■ I or
accepted by it at any »i. ■ , tor hex th it refuei
all tlnco to j y aald check to said Aubrey; th I i1
was on Starch I , ] , i pointed executor of th< tete of
ed by the Probate Court of Mecosta County, I Lohi
vhioh said court had jurisdiction of probate itteri ti tld
county ■' * , bad Jurisdiction of +ne said ■ Lat • ,
and ti ; , pell at, n iuoh oxeoutorj obtained said «.on«y
froa said bank r« i-^eJ to pay 1
hie - th< refor.
To an appropriate declaration filed by tppellea
eaid facta, appell >n1 | 1 i«*ue ...... tial
plea averting that it a** the law of the State of Vichif
, . lelivered by Ic or, in-
if! ±_± ■ ' i-*» to the donee, uere theei
ia net presented to or accepted by the 1& in the lifetime of
the donor * l* nc euoh delivery of the funds of the ..tenor in the
el ae to paaa -i*!!1: thereto to the donee, •. v * the de-
livery o Aforesaid did not constitute a valid
gift c .u«f> mortis of iny o- ■■■ \ funde of tl nor, eto*
No i roof whatever •■••", offer* I in lupp-ort of I
apeoia] pit ., by the -treed i1 ti rwiee. In
the abeenoe of averse nt tnd ■ r >of to the 1 ry, 11 am I
be presumed that the Donates law prevail e in th of
; bigan, 4 that 1 ( Dial one of tl ' of 1
■ iody ■■ rreot expoeltlon of I i on 3 m is i' ila
in the State of 1 I - -. . | ■ ■ l«:r v. T ^rm. Co,, 18 111.
A PP. i "• i ' w.. 1 oi- ■ I . . "o. ■■ . ■;vln«t 180 111. Ap] ., t ,
re cited; " ■- j- • . '_, 15 111.* 63.
■
■
uV.rier *h« ~oi ro:\ la* I 1 i/er; reted by out BupreMt
Court the .*r?.win.* of a oheok upon i banker by a . r.n*er having
fundn In hie bink opera tee 99 BMat Bnd 4r-:nofer ♦o
the drawee o*1 the le£«l title to no amob Of +he fund on deposit
ae ie nsp.ed in the check, ae between irawer v«h; th \
in order to Charge the banl rlth U ttat of the ch<*ok, it
ic neoene-'.ry taat th* check ba preeentad to it ror payaent,
or COM ©that act loni equivalent thereto, >md that It be
shown that fhe .'rawer bad at the tir.e of praeentawnt sufficient
funda or. deposit to p-.y the check. 3; nk of /;.tii-o v. "nion
T. Co,, 149 111,, .'U.i; ?'unn v. 3'irch. 88 tll», 81j gaga.
Petal Co. v. "nion %' | j . B nk. 1*1 111., 531,
if in thii eaae •• r, .Te.-iie :\ Lay, ]
drawn e oheok on the bunk to r; ellaa for the exact *uc: of bar
dapoalt, there could certainly br: • ! ion i . . - i the
aeia holdings it would have ope ru ted ee ntnent imd tran-
sfer to him o4* the entire* lepoait, *ith th thai ucitted
facte ooaeiderl by auoh check ah<> Intended to
ilivet ♦:.•- dapoalt to hit'. m b gift cai;g.! i.ortj«.
61 tlfl lo the deposit, toe, wotild undoubtedly bave ipen b-
e< lute in Aubrey rn'i irrevocable by the executor after
•h of the !onor fron the peril b ' I fidu Ift <i'ncut
revoking «hs gift, Tl Livery oi the , )( . y »aid
donor eltb the intent to r .liver th< It nd
no i »bre, ad ai delivery of th * ■• - •. it whatever it night be
arid «o Mutually underetcod by Ire r drawee, should
. • i!ered eltb the other ficts ir. the caee be tr .t<:t;
rood and coR.rl«ted gift cuen >:ottj». The delivery of 'he
lyafetflloel Jclivury, ind Juet ae ccpjlct* and effec-
tive aa if tfe lonor elivered to appellee
Hto n taction to the banl poait to bis. It
*a« :»i?cff] ted by appellee and the gift, th rocftble by aer
1
- 4 -
at nay tiw.a before nor death, waa aovox rsvokftd by ..'ro, Donloy.
Aft»?r the irtlivcry of :> gift gj -: tilt f-° ' aft r"ce '>y ■
ioi.or, .-.ii.. eftoi de^th of the loaOJ flthout revoking tb Lft#
the Isg.tl reproeentatlveo and :.eir3 have no ro^er or authority
;voke the ?,ifl,
A;i'fll}«« could not | k1 La etlOfl .rck
in -."iiieaticn agaioet the bank on whiob i' , iu*e it
M« in exceee of tne drawer's dej oeit* "o . *en v . ^ffl-'f .,
105 111., 470.
The nueetion, however, of whether or not eppellee
in hla oea ism could recover tgaiaet nk, 01 . '-« or
not tbt i ok tee liable on the oheok to appellee, loot not
.ietern>lne the queetlea of 'he liability of ppellaal to iiec.
A; [ ellant, ft» executor, took into hie pttitiflM aoaoy ri.nt-
fttlly t>0 Ion$ ing *'Q appellee and the l.'iw iaplteo a ;rouii"*e on
t |Q y it to appellee* .Vo^cnO^ v. Brown. 16 111.,
I j V\<rley v. 31bo. 8 L. 8. A. (8. 3. , 8S8«
The courts in ^ n i r - country | nerallf held to I
/ift of it book of a toying* bank t t of the
(un-i, tfi I I * ift Bay be Valid < a I ,?.ft o .i..i;. P-.ortln.
Tnorton en Qiftn u. ■ A ■v.i:>ce.^i»r,t<i (1883), . ,
334} 14 Ans. . Eaf. Betty. Of La* ( ftd I I .), 1< .
t in such oaeea is uphold upon til ..«-cry
♦• it ♦.;.< iv«ry of the bank-book *ith inteat to srliwcr tin
dopooit i? ft good aynbolloal do 11 very Li, suffi-
cient to satisfy tb L f to g u \ 'in
with rfi ■ 1 I i«l.tvt;ry thereof.
Section 186 of our tl lo I Aot, rd's
-. 1911, p, 1808, le not applicable to this o « , - ron if
aould be bo] I to i < rule *
for tba fall a cunt, I i, la an
•■. ♦ ■ • ... tank fund.
1
41? - 18484.
LXAH Ji
ITo.
,
)
•'188 I. A. 603
i
I
, JU «TTffl ' ......
I '.':'••• ■
t i , it it in ■ • rial in-
jury suit . ; ■..■!'
!
ir&tiouj , .-■ , •• ■ ,
rai irwa worker y • o«,
tut j ■ ■ i La
.
; i > ■ I " * *
. , i r: I ... .iles
- • i . ...
■ .
- • . ■
*
r 7, 1910, ir
t.ne iron continued to ccite «et aad tlippazj lita | -int, as it
»s« ciungerous to handle it in Uiat condition, Bad ;,e tbaa told
Ur. Berg, appellant* a feraeaa at fcba bui; Biefa Uat bfl *-a
.-; to :uit th« iob, unless the iron thereafter vaa .ry *i.u.\
delivered for unloading., Mr. Berg rejliea: "Well, *e -ill
see. I will telephone gnu see tbat -e get it. rer.eaied, ao
tb .♦ -ve ao net ^et : ny wore stuff like th*t.» Uj en tblfl
proitJee bein? «sae appellee continued Ht bit eaq loys.ent, -.nd
received al* injury *hile unloading the v*ry Beat loed be under-
took to unload ;>fter tbat crot?J.?»e eat to bin. A; relive
,r.: Mr. ?-tre"*ir. .»?re iireetefl by Ik* bum fcreaan, Mr, B^rg, to
unload tba aagoa in question. Tuey accordingly *«»*, to tlM
BBgBn /aae firwt removed ■ loose oi.iir. fron around it, and
looked at tba iron or steel Bad touched it sltb bbeis benOa to
see If it im »ry ana1 Bafa9 ar.i remarked to eech other tbat it
*as iry .sno looked gcod. They then reaceee' fro« tba top of
Cwe iocvd tb* null T-iron the paint on *nich vaa iry. The
Iovju of -tee J expended fcbove the short stakes or eta&eajrde on
tuc bolster* OJ tbi Agon aae above thtf Kneela* *'r. 8t.re<tJt
»a« leaking ior a oar to finch off tba i^eavy pieces *bila ap»
teilee f;ct on top of eoae earlier iror.a piled on .>n .saftv;-.ted
place by the side of tn.-i BagOB to atraigbtea then, out "O the
heavy ir;n could be unlo-nteJ on top of tnen without beniing
• r.y af tba .!ron. Kbila appellee *;!* then It work about fear
f^et from ifea a&gea and about opposite the hind abacia 4.j.ere
w«e ma Mealy a Bllgbt jar or rove of tba vegoa y.n.\ at the aar.e
in kaat «; ir-r^c lintel about Bigbteea ines:e» side on its base
anc free fourteen to ni-teer fast long *ebOt cut free the lond*,
^lr-ct cut off one of hin feat, Kr. 8 1 ream gava ippeliea
eneninf jum ^n tne lin4.el at* r-.-.i, bo1 tba earning '*a«* *oc
j.t»te. Tba lintel in quaatian waa tiigbtiy tilted pul of a
borisoattal position, aad itc r.'-caa faoa or aottoai aas faoa4
up close acbibat tba fac« - ttoi ':-* ■ siailar lintal. The
:
- 3 -
paint on the outside of tho^e two lint-Is 1 coked to be .Iry
but their two faces that *ere touching each other were wet ana
slippery, because the paint bad not *aaa driad before tney
were loaded. Tan witnesses described then ;m "alippery as
anas*, and attributed the sliding of the lintel baa Aietaneo
it was thrown to that slippery eoaditlen, whieh ewareaM the
friction that would etherwiae have held thea together. They
were not able to s^y whether it. wea a wove of bhi i or the
aoveaent of the lintel as it aaat out of the sagea that caneed
the sudden nova or jar Of the wagon.
It is first oootended by appellant that appal lea aa»
numed the risk in this oa.se, and that appellant *a prondae to
reawo the danger on appellee 'a eanplaiat did not enapead the
heo trine ef seamed riek, heoaoee sppelloe wa9 engaged in
si»p)a labor with a lap la appliance* , and t .:t the ^simple
tool rule" should be applied. TJ.fi slap la tool or simple
appliance rule has no ipplioation to this case. Tha evidence
shewed that it was tha custom af tha trade for etruotural iron
to be delivered in a dry condition before being unloaded and
that the elippery and dangerone condition of the iron in
question aaa not a usual and oustotsary condition aat with by
those who unloaded it. Tha - bat eaaeed appallaa*a
injury *aa in tha nature of a 1 1 tent, defect or danger*: It-
was an extraordinary peril of the bueinesa in which appellee
was [ad and troae free tha alioga< ronva of appellant)
and appallaa eoald not he hald to naaaaai it in the absence of
a knowledge of tha danger* Fx+rs haaaxda Lei) re ■suit i roe
'i.e aaator*a failure to perfora hia dutiaa to employee no
not aaaai within ttia risks which the latter aseuas aa a part of
thair contract ca lervice, until U I In '•;. Ledga
o" tha extra hazards to bloh thay -re espoaed. y. P. Collin, -,
9toc> Co. v. ~il or, 116 111., lOOj The CMc. H. ,ind B. Co. v.
huellwr, 30a 111., 558.
■
- 4 -
Appellee jricr to his injury beeaste .-.Tare of the
dangerous condition in which the iron, wna • Li iv'crPd for
unloading, end ht.fi his continued in the nrployr-.ent with such
kno^ledre and vithout ocsjplalnt fhe Sanger would I .iw continued
as an nxrumed rirk to hip., He, however, rave r,oMce of the
dungs? end of hie intention to quit the job unless the danger
was removed, and received the proeise of the foreaan that the
danger would be renewed. The evidence shows clearly that
appellee relied on the nroraiHe and, therefore, continued in
appellant's employment. Tnc effect of that promise to re-
move the danger, that is, to hnvc the iron delivered in ■ ciry
condition, yn^ to relieve appellee froie tie aewoagrtiesi of that
risk for a reasonable time thereafter, vuijens the danger was
so irair.inent that no prodsnt person would encounter it, Morden
fror Torse w. fries. 288 111., 848,
Appellee wn» Lnduoed to rely or. that prosies, nnd the
cvi IsnoS -ihows further that he did rely on it and that hp thought
appellant had complied with i*s promise. Thr. eondltion of
the iron already unloaded and the appearance of -\3 1 the out aide
or exrnaed parte of *hc load ir question Sonicated that the
premise had beer. eorcpHed with, and h« had no notice or know-
ledge f-o tks contrary. The evidoToe^ therefore, entirely
negatives the existence of any knowledge of the *.r>nrer by
appellee that caused his injury.
It is nleo ur?ed by appellant that there in ro evi-
dence that the horses ana wupon or the iron in ;uer-tion belonged
to appellant, or that the driver was the servant of Appellant*
The horses and wapon -sere not the appllanoee o*" which co«pl;:int
was Bade, and the driver wr*s not even at the place or v»ith nie
tenm and wapon when the injur* occurred.
Appellant only filed the general ir^ue to eppelles'e
declaration -nd, therefore, the ownership of 'he ir<*trur.enta.i-
ities complained of vna admitted by the plead Inge .«s the
■
1
- ii -
declaration charges euch ownership and control of the anae.
Chic, U. T. Co, v. J-rrka. 2.-;? 111., 9S.
The nueation of .nether or not appellee ana guilty
of contributory ne^lirence sag sub&itted to the jury, and the
verdict is »ell ettj torted by tne eviuenoe. Appellant *a.i
jIsc ejitrgnabla -''iih notice of the *et in a slippery coalition
of thf; it on by reason of tne g,reen paint tneiecn, although
tuc fQgcajaa hi*eelf did not nave actual knowledge of the
condition of this loud in question, appellant hod been $iven
notice of the conditions of the loads eoaplained of, hud
promised to see that no acr* iron ahould oe .if.iivered in that
condition, and its loaders* toes ledge* whoever they *ere, was
anosledgs cr actios tc appellant f and it »a* its daty to sea
ta.it tne iron was delivered in reasonably Aiiita condition for
unloading, •*$ it had promised to ao.
The jury ^ere also just if lad i». finding t..»t tne
slippery condition of tne irin >»v»s tne proxiaate cause of
appellee* a injury. The evidence toads to anna tiiot the
slippery condition Ci the irai ovcrcaaw the friction of the
tea lintels that lay surface to *urfuce, and that tiic friction
. id ..v ..zid than together had they been dry, and that the
one th.it slid eff the *agoa • >/ a last appellee would not ..*ve
dean thrown so far and againat appellee* If it had sot ',een
for the *fit paint* It is ..r^ued '.;;»*. it :<«a r.he reeving or
jar of the tagoa that deuced the iintei to auadenly snoot out
of the HSAgou. It is not clear by tne evidence that the
.... aaa itovcd or jarred otherwise than by the noveavent of
the lintel itself. Rut. the evidence done tend to ai.«, th .t
the sliir-ry condition o.: the Lintel -as u> efficient cau
.u.e,:5 injury and that it eould not .. *ve occurred but for
such slippery condition. If an iriar.ifc.ite thing contributed
aitn th«. . [enae of appellant *n<i appellant *o negligence
- 6 -
saa an Efficient cause of tr.e injury appellant ie liable.
?ullg.aa P. C. Co. v. Laaok, 143 111,, ■ ... .
Ooaspiaint i<? ft&de cf appellee's first Jr..-st r.JO tion,
because it. directed the jury to find a verdict ^itiiout taking
into Mill ;er.«ticn the uefcjnse of ;;36U»ed rlafc« 7,.e inntruc-
tiou {tight have been more satisfactorily drawn bad it be^n
baaed on tne second aount of the deolr*rit i on *nich charged a
complaint by sppeliee of the 4 mf-eroua conditions in whion the
iron had been previously delivered, and a proftise by at reliant
to retsove that danger froc future loaas to be >eliwcrea. ^e
do not think, however, Mnt rhere is imy revar>jibi« error in
tae instruction for ike reasons aealgnadU In the first plaoe,
the evidence »ho*s olK<iriy r .; > - r^liee had no knosieope of
the uanfaroue condition of the load in question. Hb nad
;x n ined it and fyunu it «*$ a] farently a ~iry load, as he nad
been proBiiaea i~v ahenld be, and there was no reason ^or hire to
believe otherwise. He could not know the condition of the two
wet surfaces cf MM lintel a until then were eeparated* The
ion of fir, iu&ea risk *i>s, therefore, not involved in the
c-ise, and it »ss not reversible error for the instruction, if
otherwise correct, to direct a v^raiot without reference to
the defense of aa-vuuied risk. Kr.ox v. Am, R. k". Con., ^'66
111., 437, affirming 140 111. App., 359.
In the next } l-:oe, there ie no diTute about the
facta that appellee oonplained of th« danger and h«*d ir.aae up
his nlnd to ;uit uj.ie»»a th< r wae reaovadj that appall ant
proalaad to renown the longer * * tea railed thereon
»nd continoad ir. the anploynant o< ippell nt and believed
the very tine of hi *» injury that appellant r.:;d c<wli<
ita r ron.ise, and that the load vvr,=i ■.. ;i-.- lend. Bj thi . rou-ise
appellant iieriif»dly s£r*-«d that appal lea should not be held to
assua.e the risk for a reason. ible ti^e after «wh y *-ojti3C, which
■
~ 7 -
reasonable tiae could upon r.o greuada be said to hove expired.
gaift A Co. V. O'KeiU. 187 111., 337.
Tin-; instruction is not --ubjrct to appellant1! other
objection th-it it gives a -srong definition o*" proxisate siuMi
The instruction in pffect to3d the .jury that, il though non-c
ether -;ency was a contributing cause of the injury, yet if
they belleVo** that the eli<pery condition of the iron by reaman
of the green paint was also n praotlaata caui»e of appellea'a in-
jury, his recovery could not be l^pnlly defeated, because of
the other concurring and contributing cause. Appellant over-
looks the fact that the law recognizes that there Bay be t*o
j-roxiisate cnasee of ad injury *hich would not have occurred
but for the joint existence of both of said causes, and in such
a cn«e both causes combined const! tute the proximate eataea of
the injury. In such a cane, if s defendant* a negligence is
cno of such proximate Cannes, he la responsible 'Tor the injury.
City of Joliet v. Shufeldt, 144 111., 403; Ferd v. Hine Bros.
Co., ::37 111., 465,
There *as r.o reversible error in the adartaalon of
evidence, as claimed by appall ant, and the other errors assigned
by it art Halved becaime not argued, The judgment of the court,
is, therefore, afflr**d.
aFflfiSSD.
'
la J. HQLSltAOa iftOiHg busine**
H0L3LA0 & COMPAIT,
I «
Aji *ii**a 3 ■ " LI
• . ) mr i : . ebt
ROBES* H. K0R9S, j OF CKICj
Appellant .)
SB. JU3TISI DUMA* DILIVTSEB ?H1 OriEI^1 '
T;:iR in »n Bppea] >>y Robert H. i-oras froa ..kIIm'b
Jti -v..' oi 11,475.73 fox . balance lu« un.er a contract for
alteration* and interior decorations in ut'n hone*
The declaration in the usual Ton. i th *.. . .on
oats only, accompanied >^y an affidavit shoving that th* olala
r for & balance :iue of $1,475,7 -1 Rettleaeni i ids
by appellee end appellant for «ork, labor ' • i fur-
nished by appellee t.o appellanl u oert in contract,
copy of ^Lich *a* attached to th« lee] i tion. Other I teas
La the account ■ tre added, but they re eliminated free
ooaeidegntioa. on this appeal, Because they t -
by appelle* tad '-ere not tllo*ed by thi court* Ths trial
srii* befere the court without n Jury,
After reading n I • art 300 pages o< a
record of over 1,400 pagss, nted 'oy brief a .n.i argu-
ments of ;. re th OC ■ ;'«o, -sft ..re able to itats that the
t< n j <\ its pplicabls tc ippellee** el in, ut hloa
th i . raotlcally no dispute, ue, that on Decseber 19, 1908,
lie* tppellant entnrea into . ritten tx et
:eijfte agreed to provide ill I *i i la and perfora ill
the rorl for th* completion of *11 interior cabinet - rK,
ad Btons snd Bant el ■ crk In lie root, .1 interior
dso orations ind pit La inting t glass and lighting fix-
ture* la the • i of
.
Appellant f<_>r fhe eontraot ; rice of 76,700. The -crk >-.>*
completed by kppellee in the latter | rt of July or Augueta
1909, pad Oontroaarelne tti«n arose *s to tbe tnount * c; r <.. | ;i^
therefor tc ippellna* Appellee elainod i oe cue niH.
of s»bout > ,000 on the contrast, h ;vin£ >1 ready been r 14
I $4*500, and olaiieed foi ftha* mm of
"], JO. There «:re autataadfna bllli eetlnated il 11,475.73
KM * o <-.ub— -; a tree tare. A] ! el i.-ed *:. *t aoae Of the
en .r-/-}* ;'or extra* *ere covered by tea original eentr 01
*: t ethere of then. -?ere ©rerohargee. Ob September 34, 1S0S,
those oontrovereiee ;ere settled by appellee and appellant by
:»n k r r. , c it beteeen the* by ,-nioh tppell I ta pay > .lee
*,\m of |3,576 en receipt froR appellee of a ivers of Haas
by the eaib—oontraotora, »nd appellee** aairer of Hen fox nil
*ork, and . sworn statement to the affect that ell bills for
I abox >ri | notarial had been paid by his, Tha *ub-c on tractors
. . be a ante doe the», ijo.^e aaitere of Her. aara to be
thus obtained, - ifioally fei Uted to
be a : folio :
': a ' . ' . . Co
Oh ice go On .1 Iron Co 1.0,00
irth "o , 347.82
Hnion Interior Co 135,00
Orr " Lool • * 4 , . , ""7»i .
Oodonhaad .*< Wo^ro* , ;>o.c>0
Tot 1 11475.73
Appellant irti* hi- reonal check on hie *r-rk ■
i 1» tc appellee in th<- «uk Of * , '• , placed it in corow
in *f;<> .', nda of one Robert 0. Owen to ba delivered to »ppeliea
Man he should dallaax to pel lent eai re af liens nd
affl ..v. t. Appallaa i ts .-o* to ?ecnrr ' I Li "
i it een>~oontreotore beeau i is.M liana on the building
for ota r *;i«n: fro* appellant, ao
I rted ta at. On Beptej i if . : 1 , ir. ''
office 1*0 e&id to .. ■ ■■ -> ■ . i.t, "Shy i>.-.'t it n. I 111
.
-
1
if I 6ive you the ohecko payable to thc-to people and ycu ,;ive
tee the Hi Terence or b&lanee »h»t La cosing to >,«." Appellant
repli , ■ . , \ 111 be 11 right." Appellee
there nade a ', ielivered * ska
bla to said several <?ub-c [ the ievc:r i mount a
tihg to 11,475.72, iivered to hi*, hi*
Ivor Of li*o and the affidavit . Ar.reli at *.:*n
eai L», "Ho* maah lc I ova yout" Appellee -ed
by deducting the ^um ot I Id checks fro* '. i ,87*J
>»:• n1 to pay hi*., ind replied .. ' ..ia
1,100.28. Appellant ■ , "Are you eure y »»©t
»lf?* T<: that f;e'ie« replied, "I fueea I
figure BVOB If 1 M i f ! . i ice." Ap-
ell n1 ran hi<< personal check to ippellee fer*$l, 100.28
in full", signed It m I all tared i< 'c ppellee. Arpellec
severed hie ni stake a few daye latex nu asked appellant to
rectify it ad | y bin the fcslaisoe of the $3,578 thai •' t
:c pay hi*, tt 11,475.73, but it n ad,
!> .:.e c3 ii- ' ilea that the *crk or. hie house
uone according to a on trad t the Circassian veneering
on the -<il of his Kuele rcon I i lit, i«*d
ea refer under the oontraot which guaranteed f.. rk
ret *o *!ieok or split rithin three ye^ra.
Appellee tnf under
r.e accepted appellant* Ln full ! the unl
him, and, a* appellant ex; n i I It, bli ^if out of
1,475.7 , rhlch ii ■ e until hi t-
thecke began to he pj for i tycent, It
clearly a] * * the tine be lii
in full o' ill of ' In knew
illee ^a in error ' ut 11 in hie
t hlnself • i cr nis
Lfylsg tb ' :.- ■ ' I r'- on i resc-
.
1
ing tmninsaa Batters t. '. i. i ,
t 1 8 1 ting th« k .'tnn • ■.■*«
;o not t.hii"*k it la wftrv • .
The • ■■ U«e oj I ant by 1 r««-
it •.{• t OK - ■*"«
I } 100, - , I •■ . in •;..'.■'•«■■ I " .
*f tor t l.: tool i&r< . t .t hod by *..
. . ■ tfi ' - ::■. ■ • '■.■ • ■: I '. I I i-
:*flt Cl'.ifj:, .r' •' f KS# Of
by »l .; pr.t i: •'..'!' .c t v . . • J? ov«r-
, ■ hinJj ell Jt«o«rn *o ■ ■ ' • ' , 58 1ft ] '
v claiR ir< fnll, *n ' oept rca ./
nuai of teonej loos -.. . v.n*- duo, e> n j -n:-
f.er* '. lit further e • -.ten, 1 Of
c.uch of • it «a 1 , Tfet cw] « \
-••„•■ y3 ©r Rones
honeat c
t. 7 i r i-- ;.i t,._ y , ; v ..,, :■ ., 8j ;■ v. r ,. ■..■j-,
11" 111., ah; H yto ■ , .' . I, I;.a. Cr:.t 125 J .. . ,
hipgh.i. .v.,, r;r .■:.lr.f, 197 HI., I 2.
I* l . * .' ■■-. - ■■ ! . -v ' : . .j '
ntont .:r ' ' ..• i
Lvod, cnlj
Cff t , **
«u* tl in ful ' ■ ■ * . Li
i;t»d da •. . a ,- r ' r, v . :- , 111.,
; ^. ,j , .,
' ' ■ : . . U '. *
«.
.
- ;> -
not fro-.uce.i ii untenable un i*r tfco too to rrcvaa. . ♦.
HUXttQ tfe* »rOkli«Ot T:: • . . ■ rtool
tO, .,, . .ft .i 5C ' ..ll .it!j'.i-.BB «lth
t c hi* ". xk. t ....:■ e
»>ucL 001*41] i B| 10 . yrfti; %« | -
. tO? 'J'-... ,
Lriag oortifioot , ■__. . . ■->-., 1 111.
I * » - » v t . . -fc , a', i: , C: :;tn;i. v . ■'"--. L04 ill . f .
I . vi. r; beAitiil | ' .
I t«euu1 ob . • to
■ i res due, feao c r w
, • ' r 00 raua in OTid r-
• '■ ; : ' . C-?r.o..T.: a, -i. Co, v. "'iirii:'.!.,
• • 1 . , >; A.ii./r:: v. > alcioeft. 45 111. t i .
Suk
th&t ta i o^ulrod • lot
i.i ce, r not
»c wd.y •'•;./ to
... ■ ( i | , bt thai
•
t.i-.i ■ ., •,.. ivoo Jtt*t e« i.
act-:.//, " ..-.....> .. ooivocl
;;*3<*r.i?*« Of t
. * Tr. i - -. - ■ ' . , ,
', rat ooo half of ■ • h«n rod
i ka vigorously ootployod In I r*-
I ■ I :'•,,,
. i • . , ' a
kf/t boat ion of tb< • " ill"
, ■. • • . i ■ . i * .
c
•m
- 6—
^:r B -■ »l40 to *4 \ til U i ' a ■. ■•:'■*. *. *
Ice1?; ■>] tin \ i ;•.'• on*,, Out III : ".-or \n oanolttrtlng that it
• not r logo] MKt binding; obligation gal not hii .
Appollant'a yl - . Ltl * ice
00 I " * ■'■ t I I, ; , • ,(;-
tiOR, Pfl I M »T»i b: . :'.'t.
The ■ Ifl tiona oi baa contract i rovirtad th< t *.
orl In tha ntaoic roan ahonltf eonalat af aood vi
tin - : .. sight foot b* If high • t . i ty
a! .tlertfid oi. re. aalnut n on ] ins eorOj i
i c icrk to be guar* ataaa rioo oJ throa yr.rs "net
to c cac)>. or u.ok ny tofaeta '. i"» *tha antin .rk
bat in knoan : i: " r> O" 'hft hi jb< »1 r i ■- . "
"fiifr tot 1 voaaorod anrfaoo ir t: t. roc*. i;» m irlj
re foot, r. ; tha -ork »»s aor»ft by reb~oontraator| F. C.
'g. Co., ior -hi " ratrael vrioe of |1, 692.50. "he
eaidonoa o* ,-. ; c l } nt toaded to prora that ir r, I ,
;■:•. ft to j r la • rt and that in
. . , thooa v • i , jot fivcry
cm ir. . ,-. at i t e rt oi ' ■ r
fo rated f the cross grain el tha »ood * tl . - -: - >
ut froa • ■ rk • i , or in ohat la
- ■ . -- "orotoa of *ha troo*j tni I in aeon plaoaa
i ico3« fron tii<" aora *c ihiob H • ;? glaod,
bulgod or bliatarod r eo« On ... 1 tint of <;-c i at
nollaa, . . an I Co. r 'he .;; r?.>. < -,
vviionca eftc«a tr...« in ♦i.rt-e , as nallod,
knot than i I ■- I ie nail r.f.»..H .(... /. . ii . ,
I •...• plaooa ropairod apraarod to oe pollaaad ind
b righto r than ki .ce of the finlaa.
ipnolloo'a kvijence naralf tandad to nininiaa taa
. i ., tnaoking oi tha vanaariag, or i . m. r to ahoa
• azagaratad thoaa Lafacta.
•
.i not I ■■■:.'.- ; 1( ' - it nt
bee..-'.. ■ l la fit ■.-.. • • ted vr.i. r
ROUld azaol •••■ •, t.. t r< i--.^. or - r» i ■ .. ub-
-. • r etOJT fcC ttt or. ..--.'. . : ry
t the w»b->oontraotor told th ■' st it.
;;,• .:i if ;ut on :.i':: '. . • ;
. i o If it I i • C r . .
A; j i . .-.• ' :.ji ,^r,o« tl«c i .. • ed oli rly LUi
for th* '-" ) -t>or mouldingj '■ jobm? of ti i^£
l8C MB WOOd, 1 0 - 6 • I •.' • I re SI B»S B ' ' ted
*'Cr, :.'..' "...:* i .
of ir. pin* core, the. .... tiler i teri&lj '.. * i; -t-
. is I ■ . *re • mmher of
kiadi • • - i fj :■• : \ ■ ' (WM i ' '•■ ;
fcta fcltet joists inate&d of tongue • xi i -cr
:ry in Riga ~i 8 rt o . by '
lee's? evidence, n< ; , the effect that I
[ nott] ,;,:: •• ■ mere.
to ROt 1 i tond to ■."• ' ' ■"- -•• ' ■ r ' " OC8
r • r to say that r. :. inl it i» very • * -
| :- " ' . I !1 ?iC:i:1 tW ■ ' ■ , i. «., 1
I -r tot tl grade < • '
• * • , that thi ^n
tioulare a ton< ere n©1 , '
• y rran *y • . '■
• < . iy ■ re in 11 srity
• 14 ire) i^*.f; t 1 ■< • ■ rowieion in it in ite re-
j . ■:.,- 1 i tc •. rl r tl materials oified. ~ iere
i ree rtlelee or i teri i.-' I • tot i olfio Ly le-
fined * - ■ • ;ed hy the »j - ■ ' , • '
re n ok I re* leion ae to tl terial "
c
^
- 8 -
ippallaatt The contract »j>eeific iy rovidea *.. ' nc *rtl-
•(-.*<> r:r %h« r-". ; ■ ?o+, aa »pi I sertifi . ' ■, ish; 11
. I (9 Of the • ' ,
■ithec ho 1? or la f -r*, >. that no .* n~
it rued to be en ooeptanoe or ■•-•.- *-• ir j, --,. (»r
teriale, 7 ;"" »**a no f'.i.I certificate issued b)
arts it act ''or the --07k in ineation.
c iude i *r. fehi i provt n ; :
.i ..:•••'; ork «f ' I e-
. ' ' ' ' ;:6 ■ \
fct bed feereto . i ■ :1 t a ruing to
": . • i r t c Ufi I V • • Bj -, tfe« OllGIt OJ
r ' .. .-." . .-; ' ( '. . '*.t rk in tl • • t to be
. i. i- -: a .a- • riod of one year* r< * r
hip or ' - ' • . .'?.''
Tfei rti only • tc
. . ; t« ' ill [ Cr . ■■ ■: I ,
. i - ' . . *. . r i gh t i ■ ■ i'er fw
. .-n ■ I .
'•' | ■ ' . ... ■ | >■ ' . i ;., " •■ ;;>1
r i &©t properly woii, ttrictly ,
Ol :- -y be 'rC^.^ioa, i, e*, fo« oould nitigata c:
llee'a ol*i*c Osi entirely :<:.: * it, ii t\i--> ei
t4 »r no judgnent for my in
■.of, 4p] t*e olaia jrowt out -t
01 i.i'jftol «>ttex « - u * ' WAicfe - ' I , hie
...... - ■ ■ . ■ .. mt) ' ri -*".
1 ] ml I r<n re< mi t ••• a -, un] a
■ :; i •) I ] rge oi tne oontxaet or
-■ . Lved • . •• ri ■ ' "••• UJ . ' ■ . v . Fen '.on,
[1 .., I ■■'; | . | |rj ■■ . . .j i ..,,, ... I .., . ; _. t tr. alth.
S3 ill, ■'::•» 83? » '»'■■ . t ■ ■ .. .> . - . o'tf't i 1 I > 1 . , <
L.-.>- ' ; I un | . ' , ;ot
i ^tioii ire rtot raived .• c.e oi •
*or^- la Igaoxaaaa of theix exiateaoa. Caatxaataxa w raund
to knew ol lafaota in tl tei t ••"rk, tad af *.. I lux f each
*ork to i) aply #ith thf c< ■■ e -*, . thex m by '. >.v»»b
or theix atft ooil to— toxo. Keg ■ a v. Fi t/.- .■ c x.: , 164 Hi., 185*
The Is* glxaa to the owner la btti I at,
aa sell aa to the oontxaotoxa tha rail ■■ fit of hi a eontxaot(
';..- tahiteot ah< U rely ««] >exintead th rr
aa r fi - . Lit? Bti fitness of the ' i
by Ida aoatxeet haa bo powex ai right to *aixa fox tin tax
hla xight to laeiet an tat ehaxaotex of tha roxi ad taxi a la
aalled fox in tha eontxaot. Bust) tuthoxity anal ba givea by
the aootxaoi or by the eeeent nraaxa befoxe it aaa bo
to axi at.
Ik thi i sontx at in *■ tx c r tha ownax
thiteot ■■• y Lv« ;-y ol Ita | rovi^iens, but the
ixahiteet alone ean aol *ive %h - ■ eof tc the
aefevta afoxeaaid. Tr j ?, oouid bt a id to be tj r'a
fault thai the xanaax oxnokad r* ohecked, that i*, that he
iaeietad on lta at op i?. sold d lai ■;:■ weather with full
notice that that euld crack shack it > that
rent pxopoeltion* : ! tea is *..-■*. tie -
of t| • th % aa wood bean ueeci until iftax . ati
for tha crk, s>1 eexioualy o 8t by a? one.
Ih&la ba aaaiatad ia aalacti . ,
be no objection to it by tha i fcxaotOX or BUb~e <,
baaaa thexe ia aa •elvex el the »u«x ty q] . :ae»
All aueli * icne on valvar re pxopexly 'tar
tvidanaa tc v li ■] laxad by eeaxt or jury or. m< '■'•• r
'. ri.l. . rt exxad in .<.' \{ ppellant to rac
hi ■ • tgea, but it I ■.-.•■ I tax fox us to -'ive Judgment
for ...re Both i ixtiea rt ant it lad t< trie] or. * > Leeuee.
A* thoaa i ittaxa »exe offexad uner thi I I i*aue
aith ' iU9, ' ui red t< ixthax
i
- 10 -
iaga . • vas '.. ta tiai liter tot ■ I ue.
■:cv -in v. Vococ* , 11 111,, 38j g -iley v. V . „- [ . g
2 W I.. I., 3.52.
The I tOOlti • I ■ I . * tppellea>*a OOU I **ed
i] utf ':■: n Lt ip pel lee, or as ax pert to axaaiaa the -^od
ork, 1 1 b a riea to i sating ->y rebuttal eei -face thi i r| -..ice
" ' 300 to tl Bring* "\,i i 1 . . r tat
In the fae« . :-i'i«e*« elaifl tl.it . ' ; . i^es
I -, I that 1 ;.■•' - . : Sd . Mm
ara faked., and in ;. i * r. ha could
• theft -o l • ' "• y . • ■ the . Ap-
. I ?.e Baa tJi^i^ | .: to f - t dl
ath or tat >■• ry m vtcw i.;; laeue. Appellant I '. ..t
• a to grai - rt 1 tp
ccrjij] j iii '. r; UI his rt ::i ;',?.r.cc . SVXSh refueal, hOK-
, . <;. ;■«.,',, ; in oui jv.:.iC-.;f :• co« 1 are :; ; ;ry
. .. )■■.' 1 ■ • -.■■! or »ct Inor . • ' . 1 • • 1 * .
Bylvanis S 1 iub-
ir. .. i;i; r case I • jury, seeta ctr unroaal. "To
te J ot re it , A
rtf iheta the floor open i fair 1 ,
rents tha jury tn i- ' ri 1 faetj auat 1 *^o
anoa af ny bow igmatlen shleh bia aonduot a y
excite. ~ naptioa, in o.iiuiB groli.-i t.. ria. la | fectlj
Itlatate. I* \ -it -A and m jeat that 11 is rt of
I ry Sitillsed cede." Hry.nt v. ?tils<;.U. ' . 9X.t 31*.
Wa eh i 1 1 net ui '. r ia detail
-0 i Led prepeeitioni 1 'rt.
Tha pi irjn-er.t of th< .-■:-.■
ret:
Illinois unplb. Opinion
188
-
Borrower who signs this card is responsible for
the return of the book.
\"t I ransferable.
Not to be taken from the Reading Room.
Sign legibly.
Obej these rules and avoid fines.
Date Name
32=
71^(0
•
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11