Illinois Appellate Court Unpublished Opinions: first series

Digitized by tine Internet Arcliive

in 2010 witli funding from

CARLI: Consortium of Academic and Researcli Libraries in Illinois

http://www.archive.org/details/illinoisappellat193illi

'fc.-fc»^.-^.--

«4,'5 - 20175.

Utffertdant in iSrror

milQH 'SO

mVlQlPOL COURT

OF OfllOAaO,

HR, JUSilOE SdAfifl»AH ddllTsrei tha opinion of %h& oourt.

A. £. Hertllngt defontlant In ©rror, h3roinnfi'9r callad
the plaintiff, au9d th« Ojtwftld Ae«tylan« Ooapany, a corporation,
plaintiff In •rror, borelnttftar oallod tb* dafandant, in an ao-

\^ tion of the fourth olasa In ths Municipal oourt of Ohloaf?:©, to
rtoover damsg^s sustained by him a« the result of a oolllalon
b«tw«en an iiUtO!Robll<ii b«lon^lng to th« plaintiff and an autono*
bll9 bvlon^^tlnn to tha dafandant* Tha dasagaa olalraad w«»ra tha
ooata of rapalrlni? the plaintiff's maohlna. Tha nagli^onoa
charged In tha atatament of olala waa that the aarvant of tha da-
fandar.t. In <Jharp;e of Its autoiaoblla at the tlwa of th» collision,
oaralaa2!ily and nagllgantly oparatod or drova tha auto-raoblla of
tha dafandant upon and afi^inat tha autonobllo of tha plaintiff.
in Itis affiU^wit of norlts tha dafandant daniad that lt« -machine
waa carelaaaly and na^ll^antly opaz*atad and oontrollad on tha
oooaalon In quoatlon and allaji^ad that tha plaintiff oaralaaaly
and n«F:ll«®ntly drova hla automobile upon and ap;%ln»t plaintiff 'a
auto-nobila, and further allagod that tha Injury to ttw plaintiff *a
automobile whs eauaeil by an unavoldabla accident, rho oaaa was
trlM before tha oourt without a Jury, and tha laauaa ware found
in favor of tha plaintiff and hla daaiagaa ii9V aaaaaaad at the

x^ aua of $lliJ.50, A notion for a now trial vaa ovarrtJled and Judg-
ment waa onterad upon the finding, and thia writ of error follovad.

rho collialon between tha autOBoblls of th« plaintiff and
tha autoaobila of tlia defendant oocurrod on Juruary 24, 10 i:?,
about noon time, on Aahland boulevard, Juat north of Taylor atraat.

l\

JAN 11^^22

^ft\»»..vv..* .^U«*—

-<>.-f>

rc.r

I" *ll..^^ O'^i-

.».'r^ ti

.... i-ia»jtu •

■ iv'4 -.\:iii

• ^ '^v/ k^lB 'j»'«a« VV

^ •«<•:/ •

In tho city of Qhloi&go. Both naohlnaa wer* golrg north at th«
tlnj« or the oolllftlon* fcnd «h«tb«r or not th« oollieicn wan du«
to ne».vliK»no« on the pa-rt of the dof ©ndant * » swrrant *&pi a oon-
trov<:>rtod quoatlorj of fact in the oeiHa,

The dvfondakT.t haa a»sijn{n«d Hnd ar^^d a number of allef^^d
•rroria» but Irt our Judg«©nt It I . only n«o«(i»&ry for ua to pass
on on« of th«er,« ihe pialntlff was alIO)>JOd to tostlfy ovsr tha
objcfltlcn of the d«f«>ndant th&t «kft«r tbe ooXlt«iori tha oiiauffaur
Ir oh«i.r^«> of th« (i«f»n<lar.t*e auto^aobila got out of hla autorooblla
.nd w&lk*<i to *her« tha plaintiff «a^ atandlni/ by hi?, o^m raaehlna
and aaldj "ily atderlng; knueskia brok«» and i oouldbnH help Itt
tt&rl thd bill to th« oxvald Oocipanyt I oalltid the attertion of
Ky boaa to tha condition of tha staarlng knuofele* and that It »aa
dafaotlva; nrnnd in your bill to tha Oxaald Company and they «1ill
fix It up all rl^t.* thd trial oourt oxprasaad doubta ati to the
oo«Tpat«r.ay of thl^ ovidenoe* but finally adsnittad it on th«« es'rounda
UiA4»t It aaa a pst^rt of the rasa j|aataa» At tha oonoluslon of tha
o>i«3, th«» dafandtmt aubrittad sovarjU propoaitlons of Inw to tha
effi^ot t.ii4it tho aald avldonoa waa Inooiapatant* Irralavant and la-
.'.itoristl ur.ii !«houl<l ba striokan from tha raoord and not considarad
by the court In aaklni? Its flndinga, but tha oourt refmaod to
hold the *al<l prppositlcms*

7h<;> dafaruant conttiinda that tha adnlaalon of tha a&ld evld-
anoa »a» error, "firatt that it was not ralevant or aatarlal to
the l&auo jolnad \jauimr plaintiff U atatamant of clalis, a TarlcJiioa
betwaan tha proof ana aliegationo; eaocrid, that tha tlwa alapaad
betwaan the aoaidant and the oonvarsation w&a too long to adialt it
aa a part of tha rM gaataar third, that It aaa a raoltal of a
puat tri-nsiiotion, and fourth, that the adislawiona of tho chauffeur
and -r. aoyt ware not binding on tho defendant ocrporntlon.* the
plaintiff contondB that tha defendant did not ralao the question
of varianoe until all tha evidanoe waa In amd that it thereby

waived th« s&ld VAriAr»e«, »nd further, that the etate-winta of th*
ohmuffeur were part of th« res gestae and therefore adnlgi^jtible.

Asldie froa the queetlcn na to whether th® defendant waived
tr. Tariuroe, «» are aatlafled that the atatement of the ©hav^ffeur
to tno dt!!fendant wae not a part of the r®a geatao In this oaae arril
ehould not have been admitted ^j the trial oourt. What wae eatd
by th^ chauffeur were not utteranoee of a apontaneoue oharaoter
tnat were Ottll»d forth by the trainsaotlon itself and that served
tv oh£^raot«»riae or ahow the nature of the aame, but on tho onn-
trary the evidence ooreplalned of appears to be a etate<nertt of a
doilborat© kind* having All the ear saarke of deelarationa that
have boen held to be not a part of the rea geatae« 'tVhile it must
be oonoeded that it Is aoinetimea diffloult to determine whether
or not a oertain etatertent in a ^»iven oaee la a part of th«» res
^eetaej^ nevertheleeey we think It plain, under th» authoritien,
some of w^^loh we olte, the »tater»nt of the chauffeur w%n not ad-
aleeii le ae part of the roa peetae in thle oaae. o]pr1n.arfi«fld v'on-;
aolidated hf^m^ 'Jo« v. Purtflrnr.ey, aoo ill* 9t I«gvjr v* >'>orancl :^roa.j^
l'U> ill* App« a^^'t Oondon v. Jhioago aya> QO«^f et al», lei ill,
app* 550 f Leoklieder v. <Jhio>^o 'p^itj^ Hy» ^o»., 14£ ill, App« 139;
Penn, oo. v. ;^oOaffrey, 178 ill. im\ :3el«kie v. Uering Coal Oo.,
«.4i<) ill, ^£:, Hor oan we eay, after :% oaref^xl exardnation of the
record, that th9 error of the court in admitting the evidence oom«
pl&inea of wa« not prejudicial to the defendant, and th« jui}?;nwmt
of the Municipal oourt of \;hloaKO will, therefore, b© reversed
and the cause renianded for a new trial,

REVERSED A?fQ 5- ■•■'-•■DISO,

JONais, OCATskS * 3AlLjiY, )

a Jorporatlon, )

)
▼». A ) / OUJIIOIPAL aOORT

/\ ) /

wOisP&;i]r» a Corporatfitjn, /

r"V 19 3 I. A. 9 '^

l?ft» JUSnog SCANjUA#^jltilver«<i the opinion of tha 30urt«

Jon«s, Coates 4 Httilsy, » eorporation, »9p»«ll»iit, h«r«-
inaftor d«sl«rnat«<l aa th» plaintiff, 8u»d th« Kellogg ijwitoh-
bc&ri 'i ;juppljr Oojapay?y, a oor|K>rat Icn, appellee, harelnafter
salldd W^« defemdant, in th» iimtsip&l court of Jhloago, Irs an
aatioR of th© flrat el&ss* A Jury waa v&ivea ani ti:e cause saa
aubj5Qitt«cl to t-M© oourtj a finding and judgraont in favor of the
def enda- t resulted smil this appeal followed.

The plaintiff is a oorporation erp;aged Irs th* luraber ani
box saklng buain^ae in Uie «slty of Jhioa^o, and th© deferdant ia
a corporation engaged in the naanufaoture of telephones, switch-
t»oard(3 anvi telephone supplies in the aa.*^ plaoe. Tie suit vaa
broyi^?ht to reoovsjr dama/^es for the alleged failure of the defend-
ant to perforac a contract made with the plaintiff in 'iarch, 1910,
It appears tbat about March 1, 1910, \?r. Bailey, th«» treasurer of
tM« plaintiff corporation, called on Jfr. ^oboenwerk, th'Q purchas-
ing a^ent of thfc» defendant corporation, for the purpcse of aelling
the defendar^t the ■knook doim boxes* that it would require in its
bueiness fcr a year, lialiay and Soljoanwerk held a number o^ con-
ferences on the aubjeot, at which ti»es they discussed the kinds
of boxes the ief^ndant would need In its business* and froa tlrae
to tiise the plaintiff sent to the defendant sanple boxes of various
kinds - in all abcut fW). On f^arcb 24, 1910, th© plairtiff wrote
to tr » defendant the followtn,^ lett-srs

T ^ o r

blkK>*

-3-

"Uhicago, yaroh ^4, 11? 10.

Kftllogg Sxltshboard % Supply <;;o,t
4^4 South )r««n 3t,

Se b9g X«avo te sul^ndt yeu prloaa upon Itr.colted down
box9» for yo'ur r»qtJlr9«!«r!t3 for a year. ?h®ss» boxee tc b«
tr.« i9A^« ae the ones »o are dallverlrg tc you today? th© lun-
b#r to b« ;ifttched.

In est 30 you should require ary wooden fra^e flbr« boxoe
for Bxpr^B& ahipmenta, the prioe will be ':4 r?ore. In oaae you
ae5?ir€ &'-<y boxtsa made frorrs l irjoh lutsbsr, for export ard other
0hipr;.mt3 *h«j?r^ yc\j cihould have* heavy lumber, our prioe for theee
boxea, kiiookod do*r: arsd dolivered at your place »lli be all fig-
ured upon » belli. 5 of i2?j far thoueand lumber feet, with l?.t added
for aaste. rh©s»e boxes ar^ to be tsade of good solid luaber,
free fro'"» Imot boles and rot, ajvi Are to b© .ireseed and matohed.

/cure truly,

(iilgned) H.K. Bailey,

yo* a *5 X 11 X 18 1/2 M'^

>iO. <?i{ fc::. X 19 l/^X 11 ..SI'

2vO. 9?. 2!^^ X IS l/4x 19 i/i2 ^?3?

^/O. &7 i^r- X U l/Bx 15 l/ii Si'l!/

vO. 59 ar X 19 l/^X U l/e SS'

iiO. 9y £5 X 21 1/4X IS 1/^ 4'y/»

On the folloitlRi?' day, the defsndart, throu,!?h Ita purohaeln;^ agent,

hy-nded to ..ir. aailoy the following lettert

"ahloa^o, Varoh Z-^, 1^10.

Jocen, aoataa k B'»lley,
1014 S, hilated -it.,
Ublsago, 111.

W© erail b«:' pleased to jmrehaas froiB you, our requirewenta
of knock doitn bcxea, tstylea a» par aa^iple aubtsitted and «fet
prtoea p«r 11* t aubraitted Harch iJ4, for at least a y^ar from
dat^i.

Yours v«ry truly,
KiSLLOao iilflfailBOAEO & SUPPLY CO.,
3y (iilgnod) 0. a. aoho«nwsrk.
Purchasing Agent.*

~0n the receipt of thia letter, Ur, Dailey thanked iir» .i-shoenwerk

for /,ivlnj5 hia oonpany the oontraot and stated that hia company

wiahed to buy the lx«aber to fill the contract and it would like to

know ho» .Tuch t?ie contract would amount to; to tfhldh Mr. iichoen-

#erfe responded, *To« can safely count on at loaat §10,n<V) or $12, 0'^^ s

*orth of bueJneae." Thereaft^sr, on Jure 1, IS 10, aa the plaintiff

reoelved ro orders frcr the defer iant, altbouieJ& Mr. Bailey had re-

peatei oor^f erenceo with 'dr, oolioenverk on the subject, it wrote to

-*»1,

v«*

-3-

ths vlwfendATt th« following lettart

/ •Ohlcago, Jun« l, 1910,

i:oilcg|r, Saltohi?oax^ & ^iupply Jo.,

yfo dttulre to call your attention to our «ontr«iot for
furrlof-lnir you 5?ltJ5 ail your requlrei-erta In knock down boxes,
imp /oijr aofseptano* of iiaroh ii&, 1910, arKi requeat that ^e r©-
o^lYe your apecjlflcatlcnd fordaliv«ry arltbout- furthwr dolay.
It irf no.^ two Rontha alnc«^^^^nt«r«d Into this oontraot and
6lro« tha data thereof *e Save oontlnuoualy bser. ready to fur-
ri»}i you boxee S3003r*dlng to the a^e«*:^er.t, and hnve frequently
called your atterstlcr thereto as-^d requeatdd your apeclflcationa.
Ke shall a.Tp^ct to b«ar frc^ ycu prorptly, sitii dlr«otiona.

TOUTS truly,

JOKA.i, CCAT£d & SAlLiT,
(aiji^iod) H.H. B&lley,

vice-I'r«3idont."

Xo the above l«tter t'.e defendant replied aa follos^et

•Chloa^-o, Juna 3, I'^IO.
Jonea, Joatea ii Bailey,
l/H jioofeer Jt.,
Ohisago, 111.

Keplyin?i; to youra of the let would atate that In our
letter of siiroft <^r»th, wo norely a^^reed to puroi^iaa© fro:? you,
cur re q:a- i r e^v. er. t s of knocked do*R boxes of t!^?Q style aa per
SAwnpIoiSulE^nTtea by you aiid tMa dfould Tlavo us the privilege
of purahar.ln4 any othor stylos of boxes, shich are different
fr«>r5 said aoT/ple. iVe aiao at^te, Barely our requirenenta and
ro opeclfio quantity. Should vse have any requlrementa of your
atyla, we certainly ^tiall purchaae ttoeiT! froas you.

Yours tmly,
KSLLOG-:* ^'MlTCnUQARD * iUiPPLY UO,
By (ol^ned) 0, U, iohoenwerV,

PurGha3ln.5J A^ent.*

tic orders «9ra ever received by the plaintiff from the dof'^ndant
undsr the oontraot and thia suit eae eosniaenoed on October 24, 1911,
The defendant an the trial of the o«u9*» oontandad that th©
written contract betvteen the partlea, evidenced by the letters of
March 24th and March sa^th, l&ia, waa plain and un^abiguoue? that
by Ita tenaa the defendant did not a^ee to purchaae frora the
plttintiff all tb© •knock do>m boxaa* it afould require In its buai-
neaa for a year fro?n iaroh as, II^^IO, but the defendant waa only
obliged to buy of the plaintilf ltd "requirerenta* of •knock do»n
boxaa" of the kind and atyle apecificaily mentioned in the plain-
tiff *8 letter of iiaroh ii4th; tliat it aa* not precluded fx^jss buying

rcl tttal^tiam

of oth«r perser.a tlmr. the plaintiff ''Icnoeit down boxea** of diffsr-
©nt icinda anci prioea frois those o®nt,lon«d In the plalHtiff'a aaid
lattsr*

The. platr.tiff oont^tcaed timt th» jtrltten contrast m&a
pi&ln arKi urmabiguous; tfesit by Ita t«rra» tn» plaintiff a^^r^M
to fumlan tsan-d the dcfwtKiant to buy *11 tha "knock doars boxea"
the Ji«f3nda:it «Oiild reqfuir© 1x3 ita bu@in«dd for one y^ar fx^» th©
data of th« eojitraotj t&s plaintiff furthsr ooKtanded that if
thero is any doubt from the languaiga of the written ecntraot aa to
the intention of th« pekrti««» tba ovid^noA of the olrcu«istanc»8 sur-
roundlr;< the untiring of tho contract absolutoly clears up any possible
ambiguity iti th« 9a2C9» ^n^^i froffi ttm lar.gu»g» of the oootrftot* ^rsA
frcTR t>i« olrc«stBtarnoo» surrounding tlM> aakioK of tho oa-:e, it plain-
ly app&ers thut tha intention of tho p«trtiaa aaa» as o<mtandfiNi for
by th« plain tli*f.

rb« trial oourt suatalnod tha d«fanaact*ii construction of
t^ie «rltt3n oontraot* and tho finding in tho oaa« «as th^ roault of
thia ruling*

la think th# trial court orrod in hi a cor.dtructio'--. of tho
writt«m contrast bataoan ti^a partlassy ovidanead by tho latt^ra of
k'ar<^ 24 th Av.d jsarofe iiSth, 1&10» Aa aa intarprat the aartjo^ tha
/ plairtiff ir. tha latter of aar<^ ^th aubisittod an offer to tha
plaintiff to furnish it aith th« '*imock doam boxas' it sould naad
in ita tuslnaaa for h year: it atatad tha saLk.9 up of th^ boxaa it
propoaad to furnish: tha r^&tarlala to ba uaad in tha ^atna; tha
various slsaa of tho boxaa to b« furriishad and tha cost of aach
also* Tha dafo''iant» by Its lattar of iiaroh ^Sth, a^raed to pur-
ohuae from tha plaintiff the knook down boxes it aroiad naad In lt»
bus'naas for a yoi&rt tha aatarial^ aisaa and prloaa of tha aald
boxaa to b» ,ffov8m««l by tha tarsa of tha lattsr of th© plaintiff
of faroh a4tht tha styl®;^ of tha boxaa to tea •aa per aampla 3«b-
aiittad." The word *ro<|ulra!sentB* in contraota of thia oh«iraotar

•PO"S ^«i

i l)«it<Vv

^O C?A i^J(iliiM<li

•r?'^ »» vifruil

six r^i t*«0 :. UBXCKi .0

has & well di»»fireKi a<Mmi»g, aira-ieaoto. Liuabor Co, v. Coal Oo.y
I'^a ill. ;55j puro»lI Co. ▼• :iage, ii^o ill, 34i;,

.i^d ar« unabla to sigrod with t.h« d9f«rdant*« lr}t«rpr9t»>
tlon of this sontz^ot aa atatad In Itss Xettsr of June z, 1910,
UmX'ir 3\ioh ,» iCttiitruotlors tha defendant oould avoid buylna; any
hoxes und&r tlie contract by «imply purchasing frosj other parties
bozea of a alightly difr«rdr.t style fros t^oao stated in the pro^
Hisition of tho plaintiff. In our Jud^sent, «ueh an lr!t«rpr«t«tlon
Id neither r»ason&bl9 nor fair and should not prevail ,

While »e &r<» of the opinion U>^t the intention of the
partis* in U\& o&ao sAy be is&thered frois the written contraet»
T neverth@le8« *& think that th* <;vid«?;oe t'snding to eho* th« olr-
cu»dtano»8 eurroundi^.^'; the execution of the agre^&ent supports our
inti»rpret«itiQn of the contract.

As the finding of th<9 trial court »ae based upon a mle-
conatruction of the eritten oontraot, the judgment of the Municipal
court of >hio«k'o oust ba reversed and the cause renianded and» in
our fieni oi the case, it is entirely unneodaeary ^or us to notice
certain other contenticna raieed by the defendant. The judi^^ent-
of the Municipal court of Ohiaago «111 be reversed and the oauae
rei3%nded for & new trial*

asv£H3£D AH9 wmunaSm

fj t! h^Jtt

"ifx

*-v fw SI -''^C'

;:<»<»t!i ;**• •I'lii." I J

1 *; .'

-3 ^a«!i«T»*>

ie to ^

>e>^fuaMn

I

)/ COOK CQUHrr,

/

Cm Appeal of KABh/ Aiixaoi^i,
JOBS ^, iiUi'iOK, t>eti4ioR«r,

*p*.m« /j 19 3 I. A. 12

i£B« Jy^iiaMi, SQAXLAS d«Ilvt9r«4 t&e opinion of th« oourt.

th* oirauit oeurt of Gook ootsnty an4 r«(00V«irad ft J^^S^jf^^nt against

hia for #750. John «i« 4^it<») »aa th« attom«7 of recoil for

tCeiahkOtftikl in the »ai<l »utt. th» appellant tt^ok »n appeal fr^s

th« sskid judMp>«rs&t ^^^^^ while the aa^e sae pe*^dir)s» Kftl»hl?o«akl»

aisainet the advioa ^nd ai»^«0 of ^iutton^ settled tl2e judgeadnt for

fl^O* ^j?^> of thi>* a£30ifiit «aa offered to Sutton in full of all

olaiaa for legal uer7lo«e he sl^iit itave against Aeiehko^skl but

h» refused tise offijr, atatin^ that toe !sad a eontraot with iiolalu--

kowsim b^ the ter^a of whisi) he «ra» entitled to one-half of the

aisount of th<^ judgments Sutton %h<m fllea in th«s Siroult oourt

of Cook oounty a petition to eiiforoe a^aln^t the appellant* ^iarry

dostros&. a'oialts for attorney's lien* under ^eotlon f55, ohapter

.j.r-.q In
S2f :mr(i*e Uyyimjui o.1^«»%tHk«v^4 ^« a|>pdllant filed an aneeer to the

aali p«ti(,ior)* k jury ea^ «aiv«d and the oauee saa aubiclttsd to
t^s court, isvlderioo *a« preoented in support of th^ petition and
the aRa*«r, *nd thereafter •the oourt lister ed to arjKUfsente of
counsel * •» * at the oonoluslon of i#hioh tha soiwt stated he would
render Ma de«l»ion latar.* rheresft«?r th« court notified both
partitas that he »ould rarsder hia deoiisioet in the oaae on August
kip VjXc* Ot> the laat aentioned date, the pa^rtles to tbe prooeed-
iRf^sa being roprea-^nted in court by oounael, the oourt annoimoed that
he found that tbe petitioner :iuttci!i had failed to prove M^ caao,
and that there would have to be a finding, a^alnet the petitioner

it tit

•is-

6uii in f&vcr of th« defand&nt* HsdrextiJOK, the attomoy r©pr«-
ae'tlng autton a»lr«d for a oontinusncs of th« oa,s& on account of
t2s« absdcoe of Juttcm aoid ths court gpart®^ th« rsfiuest. cas
Octobsr i>, ISIS, th9 foilotsfing ooourrddj *rhi9 ca»« asfaln ^a»
callsKi for rendering of d«olslon by ths eo«rt; all partlae pr©»«it,
John &'♦ autten tnsn a«1<r»d loavd of coiirt to wltbdnnur his pstltlon
arl tak« a non-auitt fee »ftioJ» re-iuest the defandart fey hie attor-
ney cijjdot^, stating i»& groandi tii^p^for, that aa tlPi« p«titlc»»r
sand ti5« aefsrsdarst had both ar^ed th© c«s© fully to th« oourt, sub-
aitt«d th«ir bri!»f'^ «knd nuthoritlas, and th^t th9 o&s9 h&9 b«on
fully anvi fln&lly su^ittdd to t}}« ocurt for final ti«ol(tton «hloh
tho oourt «us r»>« riN^dy to r9n4ar» the petitioner i& not ftov •»-
titlod to witbdr&s his p^titloDy dlesinles or nc»~>»3uit Ma o&^at &nd
&s th« sourt had 80-mounoedl lilss retwiln^es to r«mdar hlis docl3i<m»
and «v«n «xpr98@o4 fidiftt the d«clalon isould be» this o&se shoxild r^r
b« dttoiaed by i.h» oourt »?d tsot dl«s*l»B«d«" Tha trial court ov«r-
rul»d the isald objeotlon of th» dttfondant »rkS ^rf«^t«d 1 »»■!?• to tJ»
p«tltioR«air "tc ieithdni«r and diaKlas hla petition awrsd norj-sult him
ea«#9* i«hl3b «ai» don^ over th© objection of th© daf«r«dar5t. TMa
^ a^tpasl fulloit^* I ?h« appellee, th« patltlonar in th« lo»«r ootirt,
has not fil^ an &ppe^mr.C9 In this oourt*

7%« d«f$nda»t oontdnda that the r«oot*d ol€>arly shows that
thfe oaaa (ont» triad by th« oourt without a Jury) had b»«n aiibrtittsd
to tJiw court for final daclsion i;«for-j th© ssotlon for a Rosi-auit was
fsada, and t)i&t undar aiioh oiroimat^^oas tha patitionar aaa not «i-
titlod to tha banafit of a n<»?<-ault*

Tha question bafora uu for datar»iiwti<Mei ia i^vamad by

et«otion 70, oi^aptar 110, Hurd*a Haviaad Statutaa* fteikt aaoticm reads

ua follova;

■avery parson daairoua ©f aufferlBJ? a non-anit shall
ba barred th«»rafro?8, imleas he do i?c before t5.:o Jury retire
fro» the bar, or if the oaaa jjg trla^i t'efore the court without

& Jury». 'cei'or«> ino oaaie ia' su¥«tXie'^^'''for 'Yari'al 'a'g'clsl'qn,''' ' ' ' '

iJ«**':

4aj him

L^

>!■• t^f •;» *f^i.•« ,-^ha?T

-3-

Pisfciniy, lasdler thla osallim aar^ the faota of iJ3f» oitai«»
the petitioner i>uttcm «aa not «niltl94 to a non-sult« Th« record
shosa thjfet before tis* patltlonar swd* bis ssctlon for a Kon-«uit,
ail Via avld«na« in thd oaaa hod &«en heard, argimcsnts had bean »ad«,
and tb© o&»« ha4 i><iwn «ub!aitt«<t to tho oourt for fin»l doolaion*
It further appears that the oouri oossidt^red the eaas for aom« tlawt
that hm th^n «i^rv«4 i30tioa on th& aoxmm^l that he iKmi4 docldd it
on u. certalr^ day at^ thai on the ©aid day he did. In fact, ar^.oune*
a dftciaios of thd oaaoi* 7h9 statute plainly at^t&m that «ti«z*«> a
oaa« is trlsid by a oourt urithout a Jury, the p%rac^ deelritsg th«
benefit of a non-auit muat aassrt the rl??ht 'bafors thg oaae 1^ sub*
gittttg for fir.al aeoi«sion«* It la obvious that if a party «<9r« al-
icwad to t»A« a non-suit aa m&9 dona ir> this eaaa, ha ml^t «ait
until he l^&rnad th«it the co«trt*s flndiiig liroold he againe^t Miq mad
tb*sR take a non-euit, arid ha eaii^t (by agsic atartlng auit) comtimia
Uiis praotioa Indafinltaly until ha foimd a rial prlua oourt that
aould rardar Judgn^rst in aooordanee »ith his %'1©»3. Th© prcvielon
IR soctloa 70 ralating to tha trial of & oaa@, without a jury, iras
eviiiently pa^iaail by tiw legislature for the purpoaa of praveritlng
auoh a praotioa. Aa «e read the record in this oaa^, the trial
court aotuully ar^nouRoed hie decision, and the defendant was; entitled
to the beaiefit of the aane, but even If it could be held that the
aetios of tii<3 trl&i court on Au^^uat a?, ISIS, did not a?gcmii to a
flKai aeciaion In tha case, nsverthsleaa. It le absolutely cl<>ar
that U"!® oaae l«ad h&^n aubjaittai for fln^U degialor;, before th@
petitioner mutton aode hia tsotion for - non-a\tli, aj^, tl^erefore,
under the atutute, the Botion for a sion-ouit eaiae too late,

Itie Judf?»ent of the Circuit oourt of Oooi county elll be
rever&e^^i and th© oau^e reiaanded for farther proceediB.rt* f^ot Incon-
aietert dlthtble opinion*

jsvsBiiiQ AMD wmxsnim.

a^ Mr a4 ««ot.io-flPW| --
£[ iM»eei AM inn

an Jhmoo JUU

0*1 MM .

♦noor oMcn« i»<frTsrt lal bttAeiMn •»«»• •riJ

5?n - £0338.

A ) Appeal Ksoa

.CtSSul, \

UlKOUl? COURT

tMlLIG L(jS:

Apiellant. /) aoo?: QoimTf,

y 193I.A. 21

/

"/R, JtlJilOS SOAiUt&N dell^er^ the opinion of th» court.

Johanna Rau Lon^ii, appeli^a, harelrafter oalled th«
complslrant^ fll&d a bill for separate matnisnat^ae in th© cir-
cuit, aourt cf Cook oounty ^gaiKskt anll^o Longhl, a,ppslla?it,
hervsiraftor o&H«d tl5« dofdt%l«nt« rii» blXi ahj.r/res adultsryt
oruslty tiiTid dda^rtlon, and 3tat«a that th« present suit i« thd
aeoond so»arata m&lQten«n!3« pro©e«<i1ng brou.^ht by th« oojsplain-
i)TX ^>r«ilr.at t}ie U«fdXKi&nt; U^a first on<a havlnf: b«en dlar^isaed
affcwr the parti »J» had r»«u80d the maritAl raiatlonahlp, "hs da-
fand&rt fil«d an anawtir to th<s predont bill, in ahiah h« »d'?tltt©d
thtt 1:* had oot^Hsltted adulter/, but ali^gei that t)^a offenssa hwi
b9«n eandon«d by th^a oos^lAinantt denied all the char?:®^ of
orudltf, 6XQ9pt 05R«j a» to the lattisr h« adrtltted tii&t h«! Jxad
8la;>p«d tH« oowplairjant on <* oertain ocoaalon Iri a fit of arsger;
derisd thiit he d«asrta»d the oonrplairant or that ah« was living
A.iart from hla without h»r fault, and alleged that th« partlas
tc the proc#©dir.g w»r« living apart by agr©«iaont. Th« chanoollor,
wno hei*rd try osise, ©nterad a deore© finding tha dafendant jjullty
of dru«lty and dda^rtion ua char^jod in the blli, and that the com-
plainant «fe3 llvijv. apart fro:a th« def^rdsa-it without har fault,
and atf&rddd tha co?a,>l.JilnAr,t ^?J0 » ssonth for the au^pport of h«r-
aaif and *a;0 for the support, education and .maintenance of her
daughter, a Jjiri of 15 year* of a^^e, and further ordered the de-
fondant to pay to tha complainant tho fmas of |ia5 for aolioltor's
fee*. The defer*dar,t appeals frorr this decree.

\

J fiim ryjT'i*

. «eufi4» ,Jic. ;,£!« lie

toilet ICfM rtQl al !• «l« •!» >n«/Tlal«5K-t^tJ •£!<;

-2-

The defendant a.-ika for a r«varoal of the doorao ut^on
t«o grounda: firat, thAt the partlas to tha proce^dln-i^a, prior
to the oojsHenas^.«rjt of thm aa»«, «©re llvl«g Bi»parat«» and apart
b^ «m iigrtte'^'st^t si&citt between thsm^ and that by tha ter^a of th«
ssttO, t?te dfif.Jndafc?;t px*ovi4«d tha complainant with property «uf-
ficl«t;t for her ««parat6 saiRtenanee? that the aeld a|?:ro«'n«?'!t
aas fairly nrta vcluntarily •rteredl Into* without ocerolorj, dt«r«0s
or fraud, and that tb« provlnlona in the sa%e for tha tsHintar.anca
of the i(flf« w«r* fair and equltabla In vies of th« property of
th« husb&nd, th© r}««>4i6 or th^ aifa and th« etatlon in life of tha
pa.rtie3j that th« Sitld a/jraa^?®!! t waa bindlnf: upoR th© partias and A
praoludeil her frcia njaintainlR^: tha bill in th« present oaissaj
socjond, t?iJit avati though tha said a^aawent did not praeluda tha
oomplainant Croa saiiitainln^ fe«r pra»<«it bill, r!«v«rthal©a-^, tha
pro4ft aKowfl that, prior to tha flllnf. of thc= hill, tha dafandant
i',6v» „c tho cor-plalnart •an aisount of proparty fur in axoeas of
rfruit ury court rfouldi daoree;" that it 1*5 not ahown that the eoi::-
niairsant la ir want or daatitute, but on tha contrary tha pr&ot
8ho«a th-it a\x& la poaaatsaad of moi*« property thar; tha daf^ndartt,
arsd thsrafore it ia not a^ultabla or Juat that tha dafarwiant should
be oo^allad to provlla awythinr further for har saiwtdnanoat bat
that in any avant, 'tha daorea ia exeaaalva corssldarinf, the olr-
cuaatanoaa an.! the raapaotlve fleanolal condltiims of tha parties."
iha dafi!»r!dart Tuiii not argusd that tha ooaiplainarjt 1^ not entitled
to live a«pitrat« and apart from hi©, and his* aol« oowplalnt raiataa i
to th * allowunoa wade by the ohanoallor for the support of tha cos-
plalr^nt and the young dau*^tar of the partita.

it ii3 undoubtedly the law of thie etate that an a^Ti^eeaent
for a<»purat«r sialntenanoe aada between a huziband and 4ife, «ho are
livin^, apart, i»hlch ia fairly and voluntarily entered Into, and
>#hich is free froa fraud or dureaa, and «hich wakea an eciuitable ^
proviaion for the «lf©, oonaidarinir the atation in life of the

.u»» mil

t«r

lMiFtl»«, la valid and le • bar to a separate TBaintsn^fow prooood-
inr. hroMitht by the salfe, - it t^ln^ r«?«©»b«r9d sLl^afs that a hus-
band or rftfe carnot, ty nn agr«ssent batween ther-, doprlvo a court
of ci^anoory of its pow«r ovsr the oare^ ouatody and support of
iflnop cbiidrer of the parties, At» to the flrat oontertticn of th«
dsfsnJ&nt, this ohariceiior by entering a d9ore« In favor of the
ootnpialn&nt In thla ea9e> held, in effect, that there «ras no a^riree- ,
f?ent fcet«e»r the p&rtlea that »ould preclude the oOTpplairsart frora
enforoin,?. th<3 present prooeediTJf^a, and after a careful examination
of tMe evidersce bearing on tnia eubjeist, »e are satlafied that tbo )<•
OQtiCiuaioR of the chancellor irt thia regard is fully warranted by
th& prcof* W*iiie it is true that the defendant, prior to the oora-
aie»3e!i»er t oi' the present prooeedin^a, transferred certain real estate
ti.r.i other properties to thg cotsplainant* nevertheleea, we sire unable
to ®ay, froR the proof # that the f»aii trtinafera wer^ si&do aa the
r&sult of sax a.gr««f?eRt for eopHrafce asaintenanoe b«twe«r the parties,
A6 *<f h»vs heretofore said, the defardant haa not arj^ued In thla
court that the ooTr.pl*inant ie not entitled to a decree for separate
aaintenarce, ar^d »« think that by aseiuslng this position, he con-
cedes that there «&8 not a valid and bindins; agreetier^t between the
piirti@« »3 to separate iaaintenanoe, for. If there *as, the complaln-
iint douli not b'^ entitled to austaln her present bill.

tHe r«6l contention of th» defendant ia, that considering
&11 tbit h* h»s. done for the ooRplainant, lr» the way of transfer-
ing property tc her prior to the cosCTancemont cf tha^e prooesdlrji^a
and oonaideriniT furth^ar the financial ocnditicra of the parties at
t^e time of the entry of the dscrea, the allowance awarded the com-
plainant by th-H chancellor ia exceaslye and inequitable. 'here can
be r»o doubt that the defendant, on certain occaaions prior to the
oor"s^f?oef"*nt of these proceed! mra, tranr*fa.rr«5d to the ooaplainant
propertiea cf considerable value, but it i>* alao clear that none of
thea« properties waa inooiae-prodilioing at tha titss of th© eatry of

i^* ,ViI V *.? ,sptl-'

m

^

>0 Mtl li«ib1U»«« ,»«^»«JLi <;.f(^ \e <<'

ldtfOl» Ml

«jiiW.

the learc'S. rhe or\39 valuable busltsosa aoqulr«4 by ths aomplaln-
ont throui^h ih« defendant bad baen lost to hsr, and fe»r irstareat
in tn* real «dtat9 tranaf«pr«d to her by the ooiaplmlnant proJuodd
her rothin^ , Th« aaall intersjt in tbs rsrsaind^r that 3h« hs» in
bar father's ««it4&t« was ftl«o improdiutjstiv*, Hn think th« olmr^ctllop
sraa aarroKt^d from th« iwoof In flndllRjl that tht tJCEsplalnarst had
no prsi?ajrt aouroe ai' inoa^sa fro^ any ©f th« propartiaa in ;«hi3h gh«
»aa int»r«3sts4, and th&t \mr Bhyalosil oonditlon ar«ia suoh that ah©
*aii un<ibl6 to afork t© oara a ilv«llhoodl» Yh» a-^ount of th** allow-
ance that 3hail be deor««d In (i^m^m of thia obaract«r r(»9t« In ths
90und Judicial dldor«tiom of th« ohancollor, ana *hil® hi a g,ctiorj
in t-;ia rsrsara is always 8ubj9ct to r^ivie*, thtj ajaount aLilow^d will
not be dlaturbtsd *jr appeal unless it ol»ariy a»p«ftrs» th«it there bas
bcitstn sn. eibu««» cf di scroti on* rh« presant c^iidtt aras hoard by an abl«
and exparloncod oharscellor, mfnA »© do not fa^l that #s ari^* jtjijtiflsd,
under tfie pr of , Ir dieturblng the allowances in thd d«cr5«*J. It
amst bs ree«'?5b©r«a Irs this ooraiet^tion that the oh«ftr!«©llor iwiyt
upor &pplioation> maka 9uoh altaratlcm ir th* i»,llon?mo9 for sain-
ton&noa aa sh»*il appear reaaonabl© and prop*r» and, tbersfor*, if
at fc^ry tl-^t^ Ir, the future the fitiarfclal ocTviitlon of aith^^r tb«
corsplalnarjt or the dafendaiit should isatejrlally oiJai-jg©, it ia en-
tiraly *lthir5 the po»«r of tha ohanoallor td reatrd auoh oliang^g Ir
thai, part of the 'iQcr^it that risfars to tha allowancaa i^a aqulty
und the eirousiatanoaa of tha parti 0a a^i^Il raiqalra.

r^lndini- no error in thla record, tha cJearae cf th® aircuit
court of Joo'r county will t>e affirawsd,

AFFIBMKD.

411 - fe^OSSl.

B&om-dLL i>AKi<'iiimir uompaitt, )

\ Appall «#, ) / APPEAL PBOli

\ ) ^

▼•• \ )/ 'iUKIOlPAL vJOURT

\ /

iis, JU37X6g aCASLAK eUilliered the opinion of the oourt,

H5« Bro«n«ll Machlrsery Company, a oorporatlorj, ar>p«ll««,

hdreiimft«r called the plairtlff, au«d Aza 0, Walworth, doin?;

buslfseass ^» a* 0» t^al«orth a: Co., «pp«llGkrt, herslnaftor oaillect

the def«ncUr.t, In th« ^jfuniolpal court of Chioaj^o, in an aotior

of th& firfet ei&aa, the plaintiff in It* atat«*3ert of ciala »!->

leered that t,he d«fer<i«r;t #i»» indebted to it in th9 sua of ;^0^.5t^

for certain "sachtnory aolil by the plaintiff to tho defendant. ^i:fi»

case «ai» tried before a oourt and Jury, and eoisetlma during the

jacrr.ln^ of ^overBb«ir 13, 1911, the Jury retired to oonslder of

their venlist. i'beretLfter, about noontiae of the jwirje day, the

Jjry retur?3«d into 90urt, "and winounced t^»at they had reaohed a

v^^rJict, ahioh Tsrdiut «aa hanaed to th« olerk, opened, and read

in oper court as folloatet *afe the Jury find the iai^ues for the

plaintiff and aaeeaa Its dasagas at t5=?t,'^2,* wbloh '?erdiot »aa

received by the court. The jury then retired ar:d waa allowed to

separate for lunch and atasj directed to r®ti3m at i ^•'^* The clerk

^ade a 'B»Taoraj^di»ffl of aaid verdict upon the half -sheet and ralnute

book." At ^ o*oiocv on the aftomoon of the aa»^e day, the Jurors,

who hiid tridd the oaee, vere called bao^ into the box by the oourt

ijnd the following occurred j

"tfii?: CGUSTi aentle«aen of th« J«ry, In tVtis oaee
1 diellk«£ v^ry rajoh to be ccnp^llwd to take tnia ooi^rss,
but 1 eee r.o ot,2i«r way. .s havo b««»n a day and a half try-
ing the case, and the vdrdist oouid not stand. This i»
your rirvit day, and porhapa you haven't yet l^amt^d that
certain verilote oari't atand. unlesa the ver'Alct la re»pon-

Hi

aive to both thoi luir and tha fasts. It oan»t stand; am
it i*» tho oLJty cf the Jud;?* to aet it 4«lda. Of ootirae,
m&ny verdicts? art a^it aaldo. isOioe Jurcrs 3O?c0ti?sda think
th&t ti^air verdicts ara final; th«jy ars not »t all. ?he
oourt ha^ th« powdr to a«t it ^side, and it i© not only the
poif&r, but It ia the duty of th« court to set a verdict »8id«
if it does not rsispond to tbs evidenca and the lae involved,
rbis varciiist doaa not, i'h®re ia no possible ;B;rov«Ti or theory
upon arnlch u vardiot for tvAi, could ba auatalnsd in this
e&da. aith>r it suat b@ u ▼ortiict for th** ahol« '4'sount, or
a. verdiot for no a?aouJ3t »hatsv6r,

i'ha partiaa in llti^atio»i in any trial ismf oostpx«o-
-l»<? thair Oarn oasaa; txbat is up to thais, Nattlwr tha Judp:«
nor tha Jury has tha ri»?bt to coaprosiaa tha partl«»3* casaa.
H9 ssay rind sinjply for en's party or ancthar, but It is nora
cf our busir.aasi, t.nia setter of oompToml&it'.w, oasa^, Wa ca?i*t
ooapro^iaa thair c^a9ea for thafs: thay car. corspro'i^lae tbalr
orfn oaaos, tou l^ttve th*^ ri-^ht to fin.i tha rii»hts of the r>ar-
ti'^a ir Gtos^^a, i»nd thon it la up to thes to oomprorsisa, if
th'ify oJf.'OOi?ei« Wa oanH oomprossiaa, aT34 I ars not eritlciaing
ycru baoiiua^ pertiapa tn thi-s oaao you soyght to oocipro'laa ba«
taaen tha partiaa; but auch vardicts ^ra sat aslda ona rlj«;ht
ftft^r the other,

>iow, in thia oas^, either this plaintiff la antitlad
tc i^^oovfip tha fiill ajsount or It li not entitled to raoovar
«iythin^ at all, i said to oounaal h«re, there Kli^>t b®
pcJBslbly a queatlor. her© as to tha ri;^ht of th« plaintiff to
raoovar for th« uazTloaa of a watohaan during tha tirae when
titia rnacviin^^jry was in this building; that was tha only ques-
tion in th^ oaaa, Ihs qua^tlon, Ro^avar, saa not otr-trcvartad
upon tii« vriai, and tharafore nothing aati said about it. i
have th«r*fora atrlokan frosa tha olaits of tha plaintiff, of
VlS^-«Js;?» the itscount olimrf^od for aatchaian, yi'Si^*, laavinir, a
balanca of JikjSS.iii?.

K'ii. :>:oJOP:iICK: Let the raoord show that tha plaintiff
ocnaanta to etrlklr:^: out that aEou»^t,

inx-: COUKTt And I ^ill tharefora direct you to algn a
vardlat for that atsount, rhla a!?ounta then, i^entleran, birwply
to thl^, that tha court dlraote tn« verdict: and that balng
ao, it 1« a quaatlon than for this daferviant? If the court haa
i3ada an tfTrrotf of oourao tha dafeMant «lll taks ailvantaf^e of
that arror upon appaal. You :7!ay thtsrafcre aign t» la verdict
for )lii3a,asl*

Xheraupor; tha Jury, aotln?: taider tha Instruoticna of tha aourt»

r«turnad & v«rdiot for tha plaintiff for |iaJ53,£9, asKi tha clarfe

cf tha ootirt, alao acting undor tha ordera of th$ oourt, eraaad

froa tJ>« half-ahaat and asinut^j boelE tha rseaorandu^ of the vardiot

for i5Sl,62, iTopor objaotlor* n^v swda »r^ axeaptlons ware pra-

•arvad by th» aafar<d«^t to tha aforaaaid act lor. of the court, A

raotior; for a jiim trial was ovarruledj judgment in favor of tha

plaintiff for 4l£?3,2a9 aaa enterad, and this appaai followad,

fha dafandant oontand* that the vardlat of tha Jury In

favor of tha plaintiff for ^6Pl,«2 aaa duly pronounced by the Jury,

tV'-'L

L&iq orL3 lo lor

r«e«lTed by th^ oourt mvl rsQordsd bjf ths clsfk, all Ik op«ii
ccurt, snoL th<& jury wata tb«n &Xloi««d to m0p^r&t.», and that it
was error for th« oourt to th»r«aft«r, at t»o o»olo«k, to raoall
the Jurors into tbe box «ind to cllr«ot « verdiat for ths plaintiff
for ilii33.^, and to <s«U96 th» al«rk to eraae th© reeord fe« had i»ad<»
of th» ¥crdi{Jt for ^fjai.s^.

d« think tb@ cscnteotion of th* daf«rviant 1« ®«iritori<m«.
it l3 plMn that ths v«x^iot had h99m pnmaimced, r«d«lv0d and
r«aord9d wnen th& Jxiry s?9r« allowed to aaparate at ths nooi? adjoum-
i3*«nt. r]3« trial oourt in hl« »tat9?f!«nt to the Jury &t two o'olooJc
r»cognl2«d thlis fact, and his aotlon, at that titra, in @ff«ct,
aarountad to a aattin^^ aside of the varllot of tha Jury and a di-
rection to th« «©a>b»ra of the Jury that had tried the oasa and had
ba«i «xoused fro^ sarvioa In thd oase* to find a Yardiot for tha
plaintiff for $ia53,29.

Until a ▼erdlot ia roooived and raoordad^ it is not eon-
sldered valid and final, and it lisa in the ^arar of tha )tiry to
alt«r, i*f3«ni or oorraot tha ^vrn^p but not aftarvarda* If a ver^Uot
la r»tum©d by trie Jury ahioh la dafaotiva or infortaal, th» oourt
«ay aend tha Jury baok »itii direct lonia aa to how tha vordlot ehould
bfi ;i;ada up* If a vordiot ia «tood in aubstanoe* the oourt may aftar
veriiat - evt-rs at a «ttbs«qu©nt tarm - if tha oaaa is atill panding,
Boaend th« vardlct as to aattara of fons hut not aa to setters of
substance*

If in tha pras«Rt oaa© tha trial court did not approve th«
verdict pronounaad lursd r«>09iv»d (ard it is olaar frc^ th« oourt* a
jstatwsart to th« jxxry that h« did not), ha had tha ri|?^t to set tha
aama aalia, out h& mtts arlthout power to oali ba^jl? iKto tha box tha
wb^YoTB of tha Jury that had tried tha oaso and direct th*fi} to return
a veriiot as be did. sfhtm tha voriiot of the jury was pronounced
and recorded, a^d the Jurora exouaed, the oourt »© poaer over th« itxrj
in the grm»^n\. caae aaa at «» end. »o authority has bean oitod by

»tt* fft^'

^»m •lU

-4-

Vw. ooun.i.3l for W3« plaintiff, nor ar« wc asary of any, that «ould
authoriae tbs aetion of the court that is corsplair.ad of In thd

pr«uei^t 8&4lt.

Counaol for the plaintiff argus th&t the trial court
shoulii hsfev-^ directed & vsrdiot for tto« plaintiff for fi^.^5.29
^,«ri ail th« proof was In, and that thsrafore tha pr^aant jud^J^aent
la ju8t s«4 rlKht a»i a}i<Hil(i b© ellovsd to ataiid, "sven though th«
aotlcn of tha oourt eosplainetl of, fe« hsli to b© inrapgular. ?J«
think th» aoticr? of the oourt was a aerloas violation of settled
rules of prcceiduro, ana «« wouli not be <ilapos»d to antertaln an
argUTont trt&t the |tid£ai':»)t should b« auatainad in apita of tha
aald aotion, unlaaa it oldarly appaaraJ that th6 claf^ndant wa» with-
out a daf€inda to tha plaintiff *a clal», and, aftar a oaraful axa»:-
ination of tha raocrd in thia case, ^9 are tmablo to held t^st
such i8 tha faot, Aa sse hava »said bafora. If tha oourt #sr© of
tha opinion ttmt the vertiiot of tha jury wa» an impropar oise, h«
had th«i pow^r to siat it aaida, but tha defendart, in that avant,
had th^ rif;ht to bava a retrial of tha oauaa, and to hava tho ias^uaa
in tha aaa^ sub^itt^d to a jury.

Xha Ju4/?i5ar.t of tha ^unioipal court of Chicago »ill ba
raTar«ad a^d the oauaa raiaandad for a naw trial.

Mrt •«;

1

♦7S - 30011

MFXICAK lUrOPT COMPANY,
a corpcratiorv,

Jlppallsnt,

VB,

oorpcratlop, f /TRTc^TLV'NIA C!<^P^

a ocrporaticnL ana FITTf^BlTPO, jPI>^- )

WilY COMPAKy, 4 corporation,/ )

Appeal froir

Mtmioiixtl Court

of Ohio age

\

y

193 I.A. 26

MP. JUrTlCF ORIDLKY DFLIVFBED Th■T^ OPIKION OF TK^'; COUPT.

V On November 1, 191'5, the plaintiff, Mexioan Iiaport Con-
pany, a ocrporwtion, ooRic.enceci an action of the flrot olasa In thr
Munlolpal Court of Chioago agalnot the (iof andante Hbove najn«d to
reccver dAicagee oooaflicnod by reaaor c*" their allagKj.i failwre lo
«xeroif<« proper cars Iri the handlirsg an<l transportaticn cf t»o car-
loadt of totsatcee, shipped fro* Chlcagc tc New York City, and l>y
reaeor. of alleijoci unreawonablo delay in th« tranoit tiiereof, where-
by the to&atoee were either chilled or ^rozerj. Tho defanuantA in
their joint afidavlt of merits d«nied tint ^.hc darr.ar,o, if uny,
to the tcrcatces wa" oooaeion«d by any failure on tJieir pnrt to ex-
erciflo propar care while th'» aaj^e wer« In iholr poasestion and oc>
trol, cr Hat there was any urreaf:^onf»tl«» dolay in V:,fi transit of
the eaae, and alleged that If the tO'isatods w^re at ary tijt:« daui-
afe<t aald damage vaf* inourred prior tc tb ? tiffi>^ of their ddlivdry
tc tho defendanto, /ma that thet torcatcep. were vieliv«r*«a to the con-
el£;ree ir the saf&ti condition ae when delivered to the dcfendarite*
The oaoe w«i» tried before a jury an<< at tJ*« conoluftion cf plnln-
tiff'a eviderc«^, on motion of tlie dofcrdanta, tiin court Inntructod
the jury to find th*? ie*uen for the defondante, whloh thoy did,
and « judgment In f'lvcr of the Jefendanto wa« accordingly entered.

ftf

«4I«

Plaintiff se«k0 by thic appewl tc rQ¥9rse the Judgment.

Plalntiff'a evidsnoe diaolofled th« following facta in
BUbatance: Refrigerutcr oar T.F.E. lOCSS," loadaU with tor-^atoes
froB Los Ucoki«, Uexico, and ccnBigned to plaintiff at Chicago,
arrived in Cliioaifc over t}.« tracks of tba Chicago, Rock Island ord
Pacific Railroad Compttny or* Saturday «T«ning, Deoamber 30, ICll,
ana was placod o« a taas traak of aftid railroad ooropany. TUe iui-
tiala "F. F. !?.• are tl.« initials of tho words Pacific Fruit Ex-
preea. On Runday «orning, December 31, l??ll, A. 0. Davies, an
inspector of fruit or.J vesatftblea and «airloyeu by plaintiff to ex-
amine the condition of the ton»«toe8 in saii oar, ^anl to »ald tearji
track In coispany *ith ono Taylor, manager for f laintiff. Thay
there r-.d the foreaian of ths tearo track; tbo oeal of th?j oar was
broken, oviC of tu« doore was opdn«d, anl Daviee and Taylor want
into Xhn car. Davies taatified in eub0tano« that h© wais inside the
oar from <iO to 30 minutca; that during all this ti»« said door re-
mained open; that It was "very odd," that the twtperatura waa lees
than twonty degrees above eero, and that it wae "awful windy*; that
there wae an alcohol-fed heater ir. the bunkers of the oar, which
raised the teaperaturo of th« car; tt.&t th« tOKatoeu were loaded
in boxeo, eacii box containing four square bawketa and eaoh basket
containing about IS or 20 tomatoes, each wrarr«d in r>«r«r> that
there was space for ventilation between the tiern of boxes; that
he examined the various boxes in the uaual Kanner and eaw about
4 or 5 per cent, of Ino load; that none of the tomatoes which he
exafisined were chilled or frost-bitten; that froas hif» examination
h-i reached the ocrclu«ion that all of tha tcaaatoes were in a good,
fierohantable condition and fit for ehipwent to R«w York City and
other eantom raarkoto; that upon cowing out of the oar he per«onal~
ly olo»ed the door and said foreman put seals on the car; arid that
then the witness loft and did not again eee the oar. Three daya
aftey aaid examination, on January 3, 1913, plaintiff gave orders

t»^

«3-

threugh the Ohioago offioe of the Pacifio Fruit Fxprese timt sftld
ear bo reocnginngd to plairitlff at Philadelphia, Pannoylvunia, and
tho oar wae started for that destination. On the artemoon cf
January 5, lOlS, plaintiff talepboned the ©mo© of the ranneyl-
Tania CciBpany in Chicago directing it tc uivert said oar, then
gn rctita to Philadelphia, to "Moxican Import CoapAny, New York
City; notify Lyon Brothere, Jfe* York City." Plaintiff 'b avidanoa
did not 8hc» that ary furtb'i^r ©xaminatiori waet »a.3« of thtt contentc
of tho car until it reached Kaw YorJc City cr what was* the oonui-
ticn cf the torratoac when plaintiff gave nald raoonnignjisent order,
cr what war^ tl.a tempernture in Chicago from Deceicber 31, ir^^ll, to
January 3, ir?12. The car arrifed in Kew York City ai^i wa» unload-
ed on the Kcming of January 3, IDlr., at the piere of the defend-
ant Penncylvaria Railroad Company. It w^n found th«t the towatcea
were greatly damaged, that tiicsfj which had heen near tho doore of
the oar were frosen and that tho others were badly chilled. Hub-
eequently, the entire carload was? Bold for |43.15.

Refrigerator car "P.F.E. 3997," aloo loaded with toi&a-
toee froK ecae poirt in Mexico ana conoi^ncd to plaintiff at Chi-
cago, was placed on a teas track cf tho Chicago and Factorn 111 in-
pla Railroad Oonpany in Chicago on January 24, 191S, Davies tea-
tified In oubBtance thit at the re'iue»t of plaintiff he examined
tho oor.tent» oT thi.3 oar on January ^54, 19ir.?; that the temperature
«ae than about 24 degrees above zero; th&t he waf^ engaffsd in oaid
examinaticn from 20 to 30 ainutee, during which time ont* of the
doorR of the oar wan open; thnt there was an aloohol-fed heater
in the oar which raised the temperature cf the car; that he r^ade
an examination nierilar tc th:t inade of the contente of oar No.
10036, ard found tho tomatoee in good condition and fit for nhip-
ment to Kew York City, T^c dave tLareaf ter. on January ^6, 1^12,
plaintiff, througJi said Chicago office of the Pacific fruit Ktxpreee,
reocrei?tned oaid oar, Kc. 3997, to "i^exlcan Import Company, New
York City; notify Lyon Brothere CoAp&ny." It doee not appear

to

•4»

tit&l any furtiier exatrinstlcc was tiuie of tha oontents of thi» oar
until it reached »«w York City andl «.i# unlcaJsJ on the morning of
February 1, 1312; neitiier does it appear wbat waa the condition of
the tomatoes en January ZO, ISIS, or «hen the oar raticheJ tho tracks
of ixuy of the a«fendant«. when %h& oar wna unloniwa in Kow York
Cit-y sojce of the toaatccB *2re found to be badly ohilI«d and dam-
aged. The tofr.atoea ware sold for 1763. SS* V^

Counaal for plaintiff do not oontend that tha fthipmanta
cf eaiu tomatoes, cortrtined in aaid two oars, were ocntinuoue «hip-
Bente froK iioxioo to Now York City. Thoy etate in their reply
briaf: "^hen nhipying direotlor.f? wero givan by plaintiff for these
oarc at, Chicago, to aend theta to Sew York, they were on the team
treoke cf the Chioago, RocV: Is land * Pacific and the Chicago A
Fastem lilinoie R»ilroad8, re»f>eotively. Tho^e railroads were the
j^nitial oarrlera in the tranaitfl to New YorK City, ai.d iki«y woveu
thf? onrB frcE Chicago to the nexj. o*irrler en route." Oouneela'
poeitiOK, as we uridoratand it, i?, th-«t dofondanta were oonncctln?.
and doliverinp; carriora, that a "sufficient priwiy f,aoie oaso agviinRt
then, ua cuoa carriers, -hh^ ahown by the evidence, and that thft
oourt erred in inctruotint'. t].e jury at th-^ olof?« of j^laintlf f 'a
caoe to find for th« defeniant.

Plaintiff's evidence doee not diaoloo^s that there wae
»ny unreaeonable delay in the transit of either oar frons Chioagc.v-^
then the initial carrier receive© good*? in ^ood crJar, the law
preaumee that each »ucoee@ive carrier, interwediate between the
initial and laet carrier, rec<}ive» ther?; in gccJ order; anl thi«
preeuffiption, wording through tr the la?st carrier who dalivere them
in bad cnier, caats the burden upon it tc prove that it provided
all Huitable aseare cf transportation an-' exercieed that degree of
care which the nature of th'S goods required, or to r r*>v€ ihixl the
daitiage occurred before it rcceivgi the goods. (IH. Loujg, ato. ,
£. Co. V. Coolid&e» 73 ArV. 112, 115; Ruddell v. Saltir:iOre f Chic
P. Co., 17L 111, App. 4&6, 4^7.) But tho burden, U the firat

•^»

Jlngt:inoe . ii? vpor. the pl-tintiff to show injury to the goode while
the ©ajr.e are in transitu; t)<«t ie, tc show th-jt the goodo wera in
good convlition wh«f. deliverei tc the initial earrlur for shipment
aRil th.;.t they ware in a dasaaged conditicn at Xha deetlnation.
(Cocper v» Oecrgla raoific K. Co., 9^ Ala. 3?^9, 330; LftVe rrie ^
^e«tern R. Cc. v. Oa^oe^ 11 111. Apj.. 4S9, 450; Michigan Cartral
Ry. Co. V, Osimuc, 1.?^- 111. Xpp. 79, 80; rhftblg v. Oregon Ti, & K.
Cc, 51 Wa>='h. 35?, 364.) Tr the present oone, plai^tiff Jiu net
fihCTf thst the tOBsatoeo ^ere in »ccd ccrditicn in djica^o at the
time© when the Chicago, Fcok Island i Pacific ar.d the Chicago A
i:ae>tern Illinole raiJroQj ooispanles, T'';erectively, |^ ££iIXi£I£*
received e&id toautO'^a for shipment , The toPti»ony of the witneea,
Davieo, teiideet to shew that the tCKatoes in the two oars were in
good condition, three ^nd two days resjpeotively, ijefore ©aid rail-
road ccrDpani«e received tn& tOD«toee afi initial oarriere for ohip-
ttent. ^e are cf the opinion, under all t-ha f.ict^ ^rd cirouif.staDoee,
that Btjch evidence ie too remote to raipe the preiiii»ai;tion that the
defendantg, n« Buoceseive carriers, reo-^ived the tomatceR in ^cod
condition. (LaVe Frie ^ ^egterr P« Co. v. OaVee, euiora. ) Further-
»cre, to rsi?i<2 'nuixX, prot^umption it jBUst be f.reftiar^ed th^t the tojsa-
toe» remained in good condition during said three aind two days
respectively intervening l)€twesn their examination by Davier» and
their shipffi^rit by sAld railroad ccmpaniee. One preauicption cannot
bf the liaeie for a eaoond prestacptlon. (Opndp.yi,, v. "ahcerfeld.
214 111. ddQ, 329; Qlcb<» Insurance Cc. v. Cgrlsch. 163 113. 625.)
And we dc not thlnV th^^t plainti t*" '•? evidence ap tc daniagea was
oufficiently definite upon which to l^a*ie any verdict. Our con-
clufticn iP thit plaintiff cliu not make a flufCtcient prima r^.9ie
oaee againet any of the defendante ana that the trial court iiu
not err in taking thp case rrcir. the JTiry on.i entorinj^ the judgment
appealed frees.

The judgrrsont of the Municip^tl Court la affiraiod,

AFFIRMFD.

tJ

^

299 - 20231

HUGO bti'EHKKIH and BKRIJi
S7HAUS3* copartners. trn/Ling
as Lpp^enheiiD &. ;atraua9t

Defendants i/i Error,

J.

H, kAwK

in Xrror.

}

■^-kj.

9..

^-^

'^^^^

-^ ;.

EHROH TO liUNICltAL COURT
0? CHICAGO,

193 I.A. 48

liB, JUviTICS SklTH DBLIVSIiKP TliK CFIKICH OF THI. COURT.

OQ

One question only io preaonted by this writ of
error* naT^ely: Lay a trial court* nfter Judfjoent has been
entered in f&vor of one party* amend the Jud^ent upon mo-
tion of ouunsel, unsupported by evidence or affidavit* so
that the jud^jnent is cVianged in favor of another nnd en-
tirely distinct party?

^'^^'^he action in this case was started in the
court below to recover for goods* wares and merchandise
sold and delivered by uppenheim & atrauss* a corporation.
After a hearing, the trial court* on i<'ebruary 2, 1914* en*
tered a finding against the defendant and in favor of op-
pcnheim & £>traus8* a corporation* and upon this finding u
Jud^^cnt was entered on the same day. Gn February 5th* three
days after Judgsient had been entered* the attorney for the
plaintiff* on due notice given the defenaant* the plaintiff
in error here, appeared ar.d moved the court upon his unsworn
statement alone to enter an order amending the praecipe*
statement of clsiiu* suminona, record and entry of jud(;;^ent by
striking from all the papers and record the words* "a cor-
poration*" ns a description of the plaintiff below* and in-
serting inotead the v/ords "Hugo Oppenheim and Bernard litrauas*
a Co-partnersnip, trading as penneim i i^trauas," The court
sustained the motion and ordered the amendments and the Judg*

leao'j - ees

•ji4 tot vAcnr ojtiv aii^ ^<b«n:vi»tn9 (i»«df liaxl jn9/Tci)f)ut tttttm my/»h

.•q[to»««ni^- M[# iMiiba«x;A tobto (t« tains oi ^nclt iQ*ai»^.eJB

ment to be oorrttcted.v^

The change attenqpted to be made in the Judi^xoent
rendered in the cause vms not to correct 'any defect or im-
perfection in matter of form contained in the record^**
authorised by bee. XI* Chapt. 7, on ainendixients and Jeofails,
which is the only section under wnich, after judgment*
amendments may be made in proceedings, proceases, entries,
returns or other proceedings in a cause in order to correct
them in affirmance of the Jud{.;ment. Lnder this statute the
only amendments allowable after Judgment are those which,
first, ere matters of form, and, i^coond, are matters in
affirmance of the judrment. 2.ukowski v. Armour . lo7 111,
App, 663; hcnrr/ v, Beaton, 170 id, 1; Laice^ v. Vorse, 11 111,
587.

Lur statutes make a distinction as to the power
of a court to allow amendir.ents before JudfiT&ent and after
judgment. The statute permits amendments before Judgment
"either in form or substmice for tne furtiierance of Justice, "
but after jud^yaunt tiiC; order or Judgment may only be "modi-
fied for cny defect e or iiuperf ections in matter of form,*
The attempted amendiiicnt of thia record was not an amendment
for a defect or imperfection in matter of form. It was a
substitution of new parties plaintiff. The suit was brought
by an entity recognised in law and the Judgment was entered
in ffivor of such party, A corporation is a different entity
or party from the shareholders of the corporation even
though all the stock is owned by one person. A co-partnership
is different and distinct froti a corporation of the same naiie;
hence, the amdndment attempted tu substitute in the record
Hnd the Jud^TDent new parties plaintiff. ThiB was unauthorised

by the statute and could not be done at com. on law.

The Jud,:^aent is reversed and the cause is reznanded.

*^Tc'>J:

*0!"

I. «1C«di^A.

asK'.

*' .•9jt;r8iu,

,.t*^^«J!l

;t«;uik:(.e^

';iftflc4l)L!

vfuO

01/ «JM<

9i;^««<;;

51* 20231

HUGO CrVKmii^IJi and XiFHHAItD )

aXl'iAliiii*, cop.'irtnera, trading )

I>ef0n(ian&3 in /.rror, )

; IRRCH TO MUHICUAL COUKT

▼ 0.

Oi' CiilGAGO,

Ulntiff in Error. )

7^

ilaintiff in Error. )

193 I.A. 48

IfcH. JUailCE SMITH mJt.lVm&D Thi> OilKIOS 0? XH3i CuUiiX.

One question onXy is presented by this writ, of
error* nojsely: n ay a trial oourt* after jud^^ent haa been en<*
tered in favor of one i^tirtyt siacnd tU© Judj:;ijaent v^on laotion of
oouneel unsupported by evidence or affidavit ao Uiet the judg-
B«ttt 1« Gh3.n^&d. in f&vor of another and entirely distinct
partyf

The action in this cae« •«• started in tlie court
belo'^ to recover for (;oode« warce and merchandise ucld and de*
llvered by Oppem^ei.ri •& ;>trausfi, a corporation. After a near Ing
the trial court, on February ^, li^l4, enteired a finding ag^inot
the defendant and in favor of jppenheijfQ &. .itrauau, a cc^rpora*
tion, and uj^on this finding a Judt^aent was entered on the same
day. On Februfii-y 6tii, three siaye after Judi,^ent had been en-
tered, the attorney- for the plaintiff appeared and moved the
court uj^toc his unsworn atatOAient ulohe to enter an order attend*
Ing praecipe, statoscent of clria, oui^irionj, rftoord and entry of
Judi^i^ent, by atriklnii out fron all the papers and record the
words *a corporation* as descriptive of the plaintiff belc7/,
and insert m^ instead the words "^hugo appenheis. and Bernard
i^trauue, copartners, trading, as Lppenhcim &. atrauss,*' The
court sustained the .t.otion fuad ordered the amendments made and
the Jud^nent to be corrected.

The ȣjeodjaent8 were 't.ado upon due notice given the

defendant, plAlntiff in error here. Under the statute, the
Adonic ipal Court uf Cnlc&go i^ae no terj&i but the period of
tairty dayia ia vubstituted »• the tii&e witiaia >iiMoh the
court can modify, alter or vacate « JuJitsJi^ent or entertain «
motion for tnat purpoee. (The xetfjple y, j||*lij,» -i^^S ^1^» *5<^'»)
The iBotion to oaeod «o«plain«d of on thia writ of error was
aad* within three daye after the judgment wa« entered, 'nd
simply invclYed correcting land changing the nafi;e of the plain-
tiff so as to sake the record «p«:aJic the truth. The eu!:end/3<ents
were made vKtxlle the evidm^ice was fresh in thn mind of the
court, smd were based, doubtless, upon the proof that had been
•ffered. Ve Jcnovv nothing of the evidence, for the evidence
given in the case was not preserved in the record* The record
as here presented eho^s only the order of the court, on the
hearing of the motion, to correct the record, in the absence
of a bill of exceptions containing all Uie evidence heard by
th« court on the trial, there is no presumption in favor of
the theory that the court acted on the motion without evidence.
We think the contrary presumption is to be indul^jed jn, that
the court pc;rraitted the aaend^ents because the evidence of-
fered before the court on the trial of the cause Justified it.
( I>avi J V. } owery Coffee Co., 67 ti, £• Hep. SUd^ij iiouthworth v.
The Ieopl<i>. 1S3 111, 621; Cox v. h 1 fjiway Coam 1 s a ion e_r a , 134 id,
355). If the Judfisent, as finally entered, hnd no foundation
in the evidence, It was for the plaintiff in error to troUce
that appear in the record filed herein. The Jud^-ment la af-
firmed.

29L - i061©

Ai^'iAiiAa ;<ijbas.ua for use of
EVA zMjiar.'si,

Appellee*

TO.

A, CLa^JSVSKI, doing bus in est

aa A, OLiJZH^iiKl BAKK,

Uli, JUiiTiCK

A,! 1 i.Al Fhvk COUL'TTf 'J( Ul'.T
Oi? COCK C0UK7Y.

193I.A. 49

DKl.lVKWSD Tiir: OIIKIOK Of TKi: CUUSIT.

An action was brought by appellee hitukuB for Uxc
uae of £v« ^:^uni.nte agAinat appellsmt to recover the aiaount of
a BftVings r<ocount deposited by appellee Rimkua with appellant,
vLo conducted a banking); buoineaa. The account tfaa aaoigned ver>
bally to KTa Zauninte* fur xtiioac use tlie action «&a brouf^i.t, for
a valid oonei deration, and tiic p&aa-book showing the account
was delivered to her by i imkua, on the trial the Jury returned
a verdict for thn plaintiff and 4uii£;Qient was entr^red on the ver-
dict. It is urged that the verdict nnd judgKent are not supported
by the evidence.

The evidence shows, witiiout .'ny contradiction or
controversy, the assignKcnt of the account and the delivery of
the paS8*book, as above stated, and the amount of the account.
A parol trsTisfer of the aocount for a valuable oonuideratian was
liiade, md thie is sufficittnt in law, (Bri^>;a v. yarTt 19 vOhns,
liej . 9&; Taft v. f^owker. 1^52 irasa. 277; .lorrig, /iUifar. v. ph«ney,
bl ill. 4bl.j Vhe evi deuce furti^er aliovs notice of tu.e actoign-
mcnt to defendant, ap|.ellant. in our opinion, Uia cvldsfiue aunm
tains the Jud{!i&ent.

£rror la asiiu.t,n&d on Lae t^ivin^ of the second in-
struction .which rel»t(^0 to the cunQideratiun ol the a8<iitii )£ent.

:^ It is contended txiat U:iere Iq n evidence in the record on wKiob
"^ to bnae the inotruction. we find sufficient evidence in the

r

?■■

fir

record, in the t«i»tl!(iony of Bva ^aunlnte, tc warrant the
giving; of the Inatruotioo.

The Jiudgnent i» affirmed.

565 - 20900

I'i.Oni'KCE A. lAUOBUiyi, AdKlni strati Ix
of the Folate of JOliU FRAJ^LIN iAKGB
deoeaaed,

Appell

COURT OP COOK COUNTY.
KIIICKKRBOCKXR ICE C^i'tAKY, a coj^ora- )

tion.

193 I.A. 50

MR. JUSTICE BAUtR imi.lVKKKI} TUB 01 Uauii OV THE COUKT,

This lo nn appeal by the defendant, the KnioJc-
erbocker Xoe Coiapany, from a Jud^^ent for #6000 recovered
against it for wron^^fully cau^in^; the dentin of John Franklin
langburn, plaintiff's inteetate.V Levi and CoAprtny were in
control of an ice-houae in vhich the defendant ice Company
delivered ice throu/;h a door in the ea|»t end of the build-
ing near the roof. The buildini^' had a flat roof and iamedi-
ately over thA door vma a 6 X 6 bf^^azn 18 feet long, which waa
securely fastened to the roof. The east end of tnia beam ex-
tended About 2 feet beyond the building. Apparently it waa
found that the beam did not extend out far enough frois the
building, and perhaps also that the chain from whic/; the
pulley blook waa suspended did not raise the pulley block
high enough to persiit the ice broug<it up by the tackle to ^o
in at the door* and a jlank 4 feet 5i^ Inoiies lon^; was nailed
to the top of the beam, the east end of wiiioh extended east
of tiie east end of the beam lb inches, leaving 2 feet 9i
inches of the plank resting on and nailed to the beam. On
top of this plonk a block of wood waa placed and the chain
froa which tht pulley blook was suspended was pnssed around
the blook and plank a few inches eaet of the east end of
the beam. The beam, plank imd bloc on top of the plank

\

0? .Aieei

nllial^ I

ihMtifi^V

ftAt lOiriv; , ,\>i

snv

?>•.< ..

had been in the position deacribed at least IB years befors
the acoiUent. During all this time the defendant proYlded
the pulley block, rope, tongs, and other appliances for rais<
ing the ice and attached the pulley block to the chain. Th«
defendant Ics Company and it alone u^ed the beam, plank,
ohaiin, pulley block and tnckle for the purpose of raloing
ioe. on the day of the accident certain of the Ice Com*
pany*8 ejsployees. Including the deceased, were engaged in
unloading a car of ics which stood just east of the ice-
house and hoisting ice by means of the tackle smd putting it
into the ioe*hou8S throuf^;i-i the door above meTitioned* In
thiti work a horse was used to hoiat the ice. In doing so
it vas found that the ice could not be raised high enough
to go in Ht the door without the pulley block striking
against the plnnk from whicn it was suspended. About one-
third of the carload of ioe had been raised before the acci-
dent, and each time that ice was hoisted the pulley block
struck against the beam with such foroe as to cause a Jar
and the Ice Company's superintendent decided that the
trouble should be re/i.edied and directed the deceased to go
up on the roof and remedy it. In obedience to ihe order de-
ceased went on tnc roof and attempted to re;:;edy the trouble
by insserting anotlier block of wood between the chain and the
block of wood OTer which it passed, for the purpose of rais-
ing: the chain and the pulley block suspended fro«. it. The
deceased inserted a block of wood under the chain and sig-
nalled the men belovi/ to hoist tne ice. He then laid down,
either on or alongside of the beam and plank with one iia-nd
resting on the plank and witn his head and body extended
about a foot from the building so that he could sc^e hb the
ioe was hoisted whether tiie trouble had been remedied.

,9aA

When a lot of ice had been hole ted to within a few feet of
the door, the strain on the projecting ea»t end of the plarJc
pulled that part of the plank which was nailed to the beam
loose from the beam, and the plank, chain, pulley block, ice,
etc., fell to the ground, a distance of 35 or 4C feet, curry-
ing with them plaintiff ♦• inteatate, and in the fall he waa
80 injured that he died frox the effeot of hio injuries.

The pil^ank did not break, but the a train on the
outer end of the plank acting on the eno of the besuxi to
which the plank was nail nd, as a fulcrum, pulled that part
of the plank which was nailed to the beam loose from the
beam and permitted the plank and appliances attached to it
to fall to the ground. An exa/:inntion of the plank and
bean si^iowed that the plank was rotten; tuat a p»rt of the
nails by which it was fastened to the beam were pulled
through the plnnk and recaained sticking in the bean and other
nails were pulled out of the beam rmu reainined in the plank.
The position of txie deceased on or alongside of the plank
did not tend to pull the plank loooe from the beaia, for his
weight rested on that part of the plank which was nailed to
the beam and not on that part of the plank which extended
beyond the end of the beam, v^

Prom the evidence the Jury &>if;ht properly find
that the superintendent of the loe Coiopany ordered the de-
ceased to go on the roof and correct the trouble wltlj the
hoisting apparatus, and that the Company knew, or by the
•xercise of due care could have learned, that the plank was
so insecurely fastened to th& beam that it was liable to be
pulled loose therefroffi. The CoaipHny owed to ita servants the
duty of exercising ordinary care to keep the bea-a and plank
in a reasonably aaf c condition, and we tiiink that from the

evidence the Jury might properly find th&t the ice Company wae
guilty of negligence in percnitting the plank to be and xe>.ain
insecurely fastened to the beaun. #« fail to find in the
record any evidence from which the Jury ini^ht find either
that the deceased assumed tine risk, or that, he «ras i^uilty of
contributory negligence. The duty of inspection was on the
Ice Company, not the deceased » nxid he had a x'ifjnt to aasuae,
in the absence of anything tending; to show tue contrary, t'n&t
the plank was securely fastened to the beaaa. The deceased
went on the roof in ob(.dienoe to a positive order, ana tuere
is no evidence ti>at he knew or should have known tiiat there
wma danger of the plank being pulled loose from tlie hessun.

""^When the case was given to the Jury the defend-
ants were Levi and Company and the Ice Coiupany. The jury re-
turned two verdicts, one finding hevi and Company guilty and
assessing plaintiff's daix>a^,es as againat tiieci at ^3000; the
other finding the ice Goxnpany guilty and assessing plain-
tiff's damagee against it at ;^5U00. Thereupon, tae trial
Judge orally instructed the Jury that "there was a mi >i take in
the rendering of the verdict, anu stated orally and not in
writing that if they found all the defendants {^liilty all
must be included Jin one verdict, and tuey o^iould tlien assess
whatever damages tiiey, the Jury, found from the evidence and
under txxe instructions of the court the plaintiff had sustained.
The trial Judge t,aen directed the Jury orally to return and
bring in sucu a verdict, all uf wi.ich r.'as done iri the aoiienoe
of the oefendant, etc. aereupon the jury returned into
the court and presented to the court the follo'«ing verdict,
signed by all the jurors: 'ue, the Jury, find the defendanti
guilty and assess the jlaintiff's daiiiai^es at the sua of
#6(000.* And as soon as the said proceedings caxne to the

OJ.

^

knowledg* of th« Knickerbocker loe Company it then and th«r«
by ita couna*! excepted to aaid procedure, etc," Tlie Court
sustained the motion of Levi and Company for at new trial and
the suit was then diacaiatted as to thei», and denied the loe
Company *s motion for a new trial and entered Judgment on the
verdiot againiit the Ice Compcuriy, v^7he oral instruction so
given was aa to Uie fur::i of the T«rdiot and was no% an in«
struotion **b8 to tiie Iny of the cfise" and the Court did not
err in ((iving auch indtruotion orally.

!• C. H. K. Co. V. wheeler, 149 ill. 5;^5;
ConnesB v. i. I. &. I. K. U, Co., Iw5 id. 467.
The record is free from reversible error and the
Judtjsent ia affiruted,

AFriBMIO),

^«v

•d.

9£ia Um

69U • 20926

of th« LBSt ^ill and r«8t«ment/^f

Appelloot,/
I / ) Ail i hi. SfHQti CifiCLiT

\ Ta, / )

/

COURT Of QQOK COUKT'Sf.

and LUCY t:;\ UKLL, '^

\

193 I.A. 58

MR. JUiTICB BAKFit JDEIIVKHSB THK ClISXOR Of THE GOUltT,

y
'...-''*■''■'

v/kay 27 ( 191ki, R, Judgment leras entered In the
Oiroult Court In favor of >>allaGe j.. Xm^oltt k-mry >% Kellogg
•ind I^ttcy kt b«ll against th« estate of warren Springer, vie*
oaased, and larKuarita aprlng(>r« executrix of the will of
the said Varren Opringer, After the expiration of the Judg-
sent teria the judgment was amended toy atrikin^ out the words
"Kstate oi warren ijpringer, deeeaaed," nnd adding, **&.$ h ol4iiB
of the seventh olnss, to be paid in due course of ad.'uiniatra- -
tioB." Vrom tuis order an appeal was taken and the order ^ras
affirmed by branch B, of this Court, yeafoXf -»4^-al. v.^inrlnger.

/ ?) ■ ,-.•■-. ''/-'•

iix»9kk%x^m^-^ko^JiJLi2Sk--^-Jiat-. yet raporte<i . Before the atftendraent
«aa Made a copy of the jud^^iment ««& filed in the irobate
^ / Court as a proof of the olaim of the plaintiffs in the Judg*
sent against the Estate of M^arren J>pring»r. Afte-r the Judg-
ment was amended the c] nitnar.ta were given leave to file an
amendKient to their proof of claU^i ao of the aate of filing
such clalA, From thiE) order an appeal was taken by the exe*
eutrix of the will of -warren iipringer to the Circuit Court,
Trinere the order appealed from was "confirmed" ujid leave given
to file aa an ata^ntiment to their proof oi claim filed in the
Probate Court, k copy of the order am«?ndlng the Juugnent,
yroa tnis order ana Jufi^^eni. the executrix prayed arid was

■"^ i^ .*^, T o ,n r

olAXo

•itsmai^

alXovtd the present »ppe®i te ti;l8 Court.v The qu^etlon* xrio-
eented af, first, did the irobate Court err in allowijog sn
•3«n(iniC:ni to the proof of cIrjbi; and* second, did Uj,« cir-
cuit Court err in affirminii; tae or6,er of the i rob?«te Court
ftllowihe. ttuch fluaentiment*

that the I rotate Court did not «jrr in amending
ilxe Jud^:^«nt nur &he Circuit Court in affix^ing the order
of the Trobfttc Court, w»» decided in j^tfol^ ct la, r, :.;prin^»
er. i.xcoutrix, i;o, 20220, arid in Umt dteciaion we concur.
When the jud^^f-ijit was a-jrisrided it wns clearly prorer ts per.*feit
the cl^tioifintd tD file en SKtendment to tiitiv proof of claim,
mid the Clrouit Oourt did not «tt in nfflrBiing the order of
Uie irobftte Court prraittlng ouoh smerid-ifent.

The order and juden*mt of the Girouit Court is
affirxaed.

imii*-\i

tii

.^•imLTlo

591 - 20929

of the Laat itfill nnd Teetmucnt

Appellant, / i Ali:£,AL PH(JW tHK CIRCUIT

vo. / ) COUid OF COOK COUNTY,

WALLACl!? L. DB\OLy, i^AKY f/kkLLOOO
and LUCV &. B£UL, /

X^-'Y'- '19 3 I. A. 60

Ul<^ JUJtivf.. r.; !<K CSLIVRHIJ) THE OHKlUt O*- Ti; ' i;ujJJ7,

•v ll»rgu«rltc aprlnger a» Bxeoutrlx of t-i* v/ill of
Warren ^springer, d«ocas«<i, fllftd in the i robate Court her pe*>
tit ion praying thAt the order and Jud^^nent of that Court en-
tered July 24, 1912, allo«finf: the cisim of ippelleee ae
claimcmta agalnut the estate of Sarran iipringcr as of cluass
Seven for {*25,190,97 be vacated and aet r.aide. The prayer of
the petition waa denied and the petition diataiseed, and the
Kxeoutrix prayed and was allowed an appeal to the Circuit
Court, In that Court Uie order of the i robnte Court appealed
froiR vffts "confiriaed," the prayer of the petition denied and
the petition disiaiaued. This appeal i« prosecuted froai the
order of the Circuit Court.

The appellees here recovered a judgment in the
Cireuit Court iiay 27, 1912, against the eatate of riarren
aprlnf.er, deceased, rxnd arguerite cipringer, his executrix,
for $2b,0c0. A copy of the Jud^swent order iras filed in the
>robate Court as a clain against the estate of barren Springer
and allowed July 24, 1912, for 1^25,190.97 as ot Class 7, to be
paid in due course of adi iniatration. After the expiration of
the judgment terjs the Judr.ment was amended by striking out
the wjrds "Sstate of afarren upringer, deceased, * and adding
the words, "as a claim of the aeventh claaa, to be paid in due
course of administration, • Before the amsndcient was aede a

Oo .h.i t;

J^^CJCi

')

copy of th« j^<i&&eat o£ t^« clrettit Cdurt entered kay <i7,
ISI£» <«ra.a fil«d in ^h@ >ro0&ie court a» ft proof «f tb«i «laln
of the plBitktittm in U&e Judgtt«nt afi^iaai t&« %£tAt« of wstiv
jr«B ^^ri'^^er, Aft«r tj^tt ^n^^m^nt ^raa »^«»4ed tJ&e elaiisiintB,
1»y l.eaTC ef the '; rob&te ceurt, fil«4 « eopy ef t^« atatvaded
jttdisBu&st order a;» an ^ta«Rd»:«at to their proof of claitt &»
of th« date of the filing &f tiielr ol»lm,\/?tee aai«B4%ent to
the 4ud4^4mt ai»d« by the circuit Court «a» obg of form
OBly and vas properly made Rft«r the Jtt!Jye;^«nt terst» a^d
the Irobate Court properly perrtitted ttoe eisteatsts to
sftend ijieir proof of cl-jijs "by filing a oopy of tae judg*
eent order as amended. ?h«^ Judj^sent of the Clreuit Court
wfta fln&l nmd ecHrtclusive against the exeea&rix 3jQd her petMloa
to t£ie I robftte court to vacate mnd set e^s^ide Uie ^udfiii&ent
WMi properly denied by tn&t Court nnd &y Uie cireult Court
OB Uuft appeal fro% tj&e order of tki^ rrobste Court,

'i'he order &nd iutiimeni of the ;irflult ^^ourt dia*
fiis«»iiie the petit iOB of the ; xeoatrix is affirmea*

556 - vi06&6

CITY Of CKiv'AOO,

4>^enumit in iTtqt, ^^

^ ▼•i ' i / >

laiintlff in i-rx^, j

\ y 19 3I.A. 72

Uh, JUi^JlCM iSC^liltlOuV DXi.IVSREB fKK i)i-l5.iOK Qf tm. COO«*t,

This is ari Bctlon broueii'i b;? ttic City of Chicago
c^ifurgiitic defendant viHu vioIaiioKi of the ardinancsa touching
*r«ai»tiiig «n officer* jwd * disorderly canauct.* upon the
triftl h« «aa found guilty (^nd fined ^7d«

Viiie fstctii, in brisf , axe Umt a police officer d*et
defendant is tue reur of tiid i^recdtttttt suid a3d^.e4 nif^ to open
i«v Aba»ti«» locate^d inere. Tuey ««rtt opened ay defanaant &nd
•xsusin^d by th« officer. Uiiortlj^ ti~*«r«aft«r tliroe officers
eame to def^r^dant'a iioustt Siiad stated tJ:isit they had ht^ard he
IAS Stilling »fc««4i' ija the tiaaeaent, to ifliicfc defeauswit replied
tiiat tJ3iis wa» not so. 7he officare st»it<?d tfcat they had been
sent to »ake an inv^stigetion. jfcfentiant took thesi Oo-^n into
hia basensent. and after inspection they infonced defoneiant
timt th«y found no eviaenee of atiy killing of ai^eep or c»t-
tie. TiiKt no indications of eiieep killing were aeen wa»
testified to by the officer* upon the trial. After tirtis in-
apecticn in the baseaeat one of the offieera ijiforcifd the ac-
fendont that he «m8 under arr«?8t and otts&jitcri to put upon
hi* hAnda a wrist-chain, ana ti^e otner officers seiaied his
hands so aa to binti thea v?itR th« wriat-chain, defendant re-
aleted thia for three or four BJinutea, an i Uien eubsiitted
quietly eind -rmlked up ^teirs and was taicen to tiie police
station in n patrol wagon. He aras subsequently charged
with viol^tin^ the ordinancs* first above referred to.

g^ ./

n«ft(f i!^.n^\ i« 9sf9r,

taMt»nn\tA b«a

asw ti9«u

'tA van

4 •« i&w Atd m

■"fee City ao«ji net &p|.-fe&r in this «ourt to »up|.«rt

this Juil^icnt, &B& «e i&re ufi&i;l« tv »«« now it csw be Justified

upon th« record ^efere as. TJ^e statute {^ivleg autt^i^ritjr to em

officer to arrest siti^out a ««r7»,rit is hu foll^wai

^An arr««t .ssay l^e si*>.di« "&.y a^ officfff or hy ». jiri-
vat» fivruoa v^ifericut warrant, for » crif=i»fti otteir&e caaiisitted
er nttestptea in hi& presence, eij^a by a^i cilie«r» «^e& & crijeinal
offeniM hn& is fr^ot been co^^itt^a* mi4 hK h&& r^aaosa&le grousd
for feeiic-fia^ tli.'t Ute peraoa to be erresteu fiaa eoaaaitted it."
Illinois atatates, C2^apter 5&« aeo. 342.

&e« sisko js.ari|4ii|^ ¥. Mfej&SE* ^^'^ ^'l^* Stfc. fi4e«© atatutoicy con-

ditiana «ur« not tti be foau4 in ti^ia caa«. i'i^xe officers iiad ad

•sirriint for def«nci3nt*s arr^at, it 49«» stot appear Uiat a

crl&inal offensd Jti»d in fa>ct y@«a c<xs^itted« we kn^m &£ no

s-Uttut« which si»kea it & erise te kiii m.«ep in ik ioaae^ezitr

imd no orai&ane« tsue^iis^ t&i£ subject apj^cara iu Urn. record

before as, />«i ^-rs ha?» »eld sa«^ tix-A&a, w« ca.miet tak$ JudieiaJ

zK>tie« ©i" city ordinanetS; sut ^iren upaft the a«sufepti-.Ma Uiftt

this is a ori&inal ftff«»R»9» tjiera is aot $niy »o evidence tuet

dttfsndeoit cor^ltted snnu an offeuae, %ut tii*r« is aff iS's>sttiT«

evidence tua'v he -^ms gui]Ltl<«s3 &1 ;suci^ mi i^ffmnme,,

UBd«r Uie biatute* t£i«refors, t&« effie«ra Me^d ao
rif'ht is »rre@t defenu^jit* atzd ti«e aetioes of d^feed&iit o^uld
not b* c&lled resist ting a^n &ffic«r ^lu the c^i&Gii£trg« i»f iaia
^U*t>-»" uiiich is IriC l55ttgtt«f,e of tiiC ordinanc* deferss^fct is
&iMTm^ wit J* iiavios V^l9r&t«^.

The 4ud|i»fit}t ie r«ver6ed«

ixi XI

^SQQne,nlbio \,i L:>

357 - acee?

:ll\ CP CHICAGO,

t^efendant in JItto

vs.

n a in tiff

19 3 I.A. 74

MR. JUiilTICS ScSbEHLTt iXKLIVFIijED tli£. Oi'IKlO^ OF fiiK COUX-iT.

Tjsia bas to uo ^'itr tiic sa'j^e facte aa ap-ear in
oaac II o. 4&0(50$, 1b -a^iicfc an oyiaion lu WjI;; day rer.aere*!., Xae
dofersdarit ia this ca«e ia tlio wife of the 'iefcnosnt in tac
oilier cfts?, £^n4 sJie took aofse part in tti«^ alitor oat iac »iui
tiie officera,

fhs ttSisa r«a8<?na ^hicii i-'spcllci ua to rever»«
the Jud/5ffipat in the c.'jb© agaiast the haabsmd must prevail in
th€f c?»9e against thf> ^ifr. m neiti^er ttf tiiese cases haa the
City avrearcd in this court to present, any consideration* wiay
th« Jud^^nt snouX4 be suEstained. ?or I'ue re&SQtis «^tiited in
th« otJaer ca«e th« Judgjaent is r«vers«4.

\

•4**

519 - :i0852

CApjus is. xmACAm,

, Appellee,

ClTlf OF Clik'AGO,

\ Appellant .

/)

V

/

193 I.A. 75

V,

-^'

fe'., JUciTIC£ fcCdUH&LY jxvxivKJiSD THE d-l^'lOK OF TH£ COUtit.

Jlaintlff brought siilt for daa^uges for personal
injuries rec«iv«d froa a fall or tuc s^idewal^ on ? Ist etreet
in Q£iic8^o. rue verdict wjta for ,^6,73v., rcaac«a by reii.it titar
to ^5,7bc, for vkich njiaount jud^isiftnt i*tai entered.

ilalRtiff ciiargcs that at tiit ^/lacc of the ac-
cident tb« 61 8t street sidewalk p&d6«a under a railroad
viaduct, and that defcnciatit {:-er.'^>itt«(i a deprea&iun to be ;md
r«£;ain in tiic side«s^lk at tais point, i\xi<i permitted large
quantities of znfsm and ice to noouusulate in und around said
depression, msiicing; it dargeroua for persons u&ing tJiie side*
«nlk, and that she was tJ'iKreby caused to fall, receiving in-
juries. The allegation as to Uie condition of tbe sidewalk
was sufficiently proT«n toy the evidence. Many witneaaes
testified that the smlk was sunken nnd water would acouiiiulate
in the sunken place uxi^ freese, making hus£aooks of ice, some
say four or five xt^cues aX^u., tne witness desoribed tiie
place as "full of holes and bumps eight to t«»clve inches in
nei^it." Tii© Jury could reasonably concluvie uufit the defend-
ant was guilty of negligence as cnarged.v^

Plaintiff «pas not ahow to nave been fo-uilty of
oontributojry ne^Ii;%«ace. A fall of ono'^ on tn« corning ot
the accident had covered soaiewhat the raugii bu&pa of ice,
rlaintiff knew of the danger of the vialk, and sayt* ane was

G « • i-i . i ci

6n

J

■jssuttiiQ 3iixxaai «»s»o7t one

saw 9^

"X

walking "very elowly and otirefully trylnfr to pick ay way along,
I talked In the Icaat <i»ng€rott8 ..laces," The freshly fallen
snov covered the deprc8«lon into r^i^icn Atift stepped, .ihe
»ays, "rty font went down Into it n dlststnce of five or six
or perhnps u^ore inches," «c tnink it not uni^eaaonsbXs to
conclude that plaintiff waa in fact very cautious and vaa
exercising erery care to avoid the danger.

The presence of the recently fallen snoisf, of
n^iicy It 1 8 nrpued defendant could not hi^ve known and cannot
be responsible for, did not cfFuae the accident. it only C&nded
to hide the danger and mukti it Asore difficult for ped«;strians
to esoat') an accident. The depression in the <valk HUd the
rotti^h bur<;p8 of ice was the proxitrt^ata cause of tht* accident,
and this condition had existed fcr aucii a leneitr* of tiue as to
change the defendant with knowledge thereof, oimilar cases In
point are uit^ v. Filler, «cl7 il). *J7S; ja:fac v. UAtv.. l^f ill.
App, 163; City of Aurora v. j>ale, S»w ill, 40; Ci t v >?, Atit',lie:,
63 111. App. bb.

The criticism of th»i declaration na containing no
allegation of notice to thr city, while perhaps Juetifying a
deaurrcr is of no avail after verdict, Cit^ v, buxhyte, 17S
111, 555, is precisely in point.

It 3if5ht also be aaid Uiat in Citv v. ote&rna,
105 III. b&4, it is said thnt the words *«per®itted to refiiain
out of repair* jacan assent thereto, and "from tiiis definitioo
it is yl&in tnrit if th#> city assentrjd it aid so froJE a kno^rl-
ed^e of the condition of the i?alk,- ine assent iruplied knowl-
edge," This at/itRnent ist the opinion is also applicable to
the ooaplaint owde by the defendant to instruction :-o. 3
given at the request of plaintiff. ^ve arc not referriiig to
the aotice to a {Municipality required by the act "concerning
suits at law for persoxial Injuries and against cities, vil-

If)

.1 fl fi 3 J T n " V f J fi -? o '-

:\r.}

').♦ ^ai^ii«l

l.ag«» and towna." in fosrce JalJF 1» I90b,

w« 8«e ao reason to rever»e -fcccnuse of rulings
of thm eourt on myid^nce or th«* alleged is^ropi^r arframent of
ooan»»l for plaintiff, mic it caimot be a»id thnt the vt.rdict
was for 80 Iftrge »n amount es to iTJiicsttf paaaion s«d preju-
dice, ilaintiff received aevere injurifs.- a fracture of the
tibia and fibula, ^ita dislocation a«d tearing of tlic ankle
ligament*, and otber injuries. For several months sfce wa»
obliged to uae a tfhoel ehair. thes crutches, J^nd at tiie time
of «»e trial, nine years nfter the acoident, aiie ma obliged
to use a cane in walking, ohe suffered great pain ana haa
^ecn permanently injured. The damages ar« not exaoat^ive.
I'iie jttdfe^^aent ia affirsed.

t'»

91

'iasil

!•« ii*tri»oai

«*>.:

i9*d

573 • 20909

Appellant » ) J

/ COOK courfy.

\

1931. A. 77

Xk, JO;itICB SSoabRKi.? &K1.IV1BED THX OPZHIOS OF tWS. COmct,

Thia is a replevin auit ic recover an autossobiXe
anoi acceaeorieo. ?he dcfencinrit, Oremii^mtld, claisted title in
himself* and upon this Iji^duc tJ^&e eftse vas tried b(?fore a jury*
which found the ri^ht of peeeeasion in the ilefendani. ^udjf*
Stent ysBa entered und writ of retorao iasued*

Vyroa the evidence preae.ited the jury rcaiionably
j2iight have believed the salient facts to be aa follows: that
plaintiff was a olerk employed in Uic offic« of iiXn father,
Jtr, iicnjciuin k. bhnffncr, «n attorney at ls» practicit^ at
t^e bar; that prior to iiay 1, liilii, plaintiff omied the au-
tOAiObile in question, which he had sent to a rei airing com-
pany for overhauling; that this "work was not paifi for ana the
repairing oompany eecured a jud^^^acnt for ^lC'ii,75 af^ainet
plaintiff, and levied upon smd took posaeissior of the autojao*
bile, ^off^e ti^ae before thia, nt the request of Benjas^in H.
ahaffner, the plaintiff and the defendant, Greenwald, enoorsed
his note for the sum of ^2&(;, ^tiici. hotc ws-s then diisoounted
by a raan na«ed Ensign. >:flsign finally dued on tlie note and
had judgnent a^jainot both ohaffrjer and f^reenwald. ;>haffner
tiiereaft«^r ^.ent a letter to Greenwald requeatinj.; tnat he
Should h«lp in preventing a levy threatened by i^nsign upon
his judgtuent. An arrani:6<&ent wns a;ade by vhioh Benja^uin 1'.
Shaffner vas to pay this judtjttnt in installtaenta, but ahaffn«r
failinc to dc this the defendant, creenwal d, ima eou^i.ellf.d to

TV .A.i 8Gr

;«arrr

jfliiirH; ff.

no

t;»i

pay the Juclg&ent. About i&y \, 1912, the defendant waa at the
office of the ;ihaffners, to pcr»u»de tn^is^ to repay iiXK. th«
MMant he and paid on tao Kosign Jud4,&«int. i^laXntiff tela de*
fe»<JtfltQt tkftt he fe4&d no aoney, but told hi» £ibout the autos;cbile
wTtiob had l>een levied upon by the repairing oos&pajiy. defendant
offe-red to cancel his claia on the l^oaign matter and to pay tbe
repairing eo&pany the a»H>unt of its Judf^ent if pl&intiff -t?ouXd
giTe defenc^ant a bill of sale for the autoieobile; and on that
date as uncanditional bill ol s^ale cauveyin^g the autoi^obile in
question wae executed by the plaintiff and delivered to Green*
«ald, and on the following day jbe^Jafiiin oh&ffner executed a
written order ok the repairing compuay %o turn over the autono-
bile to the defendant. 7h€ defendnnt paid the repairing eon*
pany its claiss nnd received tJ^e i!sutoi9£oblle, J'&ur daye tiiere*
after plaintiff awore to uxi affitlavit for the replevin of the
&ut»e>obile fu:d obtained poeBesslon ef it.V-^

We hsve considered the evidentiary ft^ct^ present*
ed by the plaintiff to induce ua tc conclude Ihitz the verdict
of the jury «ae not justified by tlie evidence, l^ut aifter con-
sideration we are not persuaded chat the verdict ist incorrect.
We arc of the opinion ti^nt the Jury waa Juotlfied in believing
that the bill of sale ima an absolute oonve^^arace of the prop-
erty in Queation, and not a iBOrt(:age, aa ivas claiis^ed by the
plaintiff*

A furUicr oonaideration WiUcu »ould prevent any
Jad^»tent favorable to p}aiBViff is tiiiii,- that even should it
be conceded thsi tiie bill of sale was in f&ot a aortgat.e, plain-
tiff waa not entitled to tae .possession of the cnrtttela until
he had tendered to defcndarst the aisiount due or* the juort^age,
and kept that tender good. his plaintiff failed to do»

ilaintiff arguea that tbe Jury waa iiaproperly

• i-i-i

t*tU ^#1

•JL;

^puilJ

St»fl i.»V

:iOi#«nd-

/9-xq bi>

liJ

'ii

instructed as to tji« meftsurs fit Quan^^^^Uf and aaysi tiiat tiie
Tfrrdict WAS li£p7jper In Rsacssini, the d«fendHt3i*» <ifiii^!t^ea &t
|X5C, «t appears th^t subsefjuantly u.r. order vaa «nt(^r«d re-
xsitting tJals assount of d«&eig®)(, sc that -^re c«mnot «ee that
plaintiff lifte aoyUilne to coaplain of upon this point.

^e do not fiad say rcveruitle error in the
iulini>;e of iiie court on tiie ad^tiasiUllity of evidence.

?h« Jodpaent is affirstea*

6&2 - a0990

AS70S i»i^01*aKl,

Apptllee«

▼».

\

A>i>M.. -^OU CinCiilf COUi*t,

/

/

V«ua.t, y 19 3 l.A. 79

,/

jeir, J-ii;.,tia^ soat?rii3.t .^T,ivin^i3 tb'^ ori?;iO!i of tm couht.

n/i lain tiff ha-d judgment toT $S,C'CO Ag n avit for
Hmu)^B» for injuries received wnile «%ployed in t^« fouiHiry
plntuat o«med aed operated bj the dief^etid«uit>, ^n Uie ya^rd of
this plant '««rS sa appll^sjiec for bre&king aiersiv i)ft»3, called
a 'drop*; hy ie(;ane of a derrick n beavy metuX bit^il '^^e raised
to sone consldermble hei^Jat %nd alXoweil to fr^li an ttte pile
of scrap bclov* breaking tins ii*0n into bite, Taist feoul<i e^uoe
pieces to fly in all direetitRd. ilsiBtiff w&s a ^'cjrapper*
««ployed ia cleaning CA»tinga» and i^is uiiuiU pl^^Ofe of trork
wa« iA tJbe yard per&ape ftbout :^<.i feet west oi Ua« crcp, A
piece of flyin^^ iron etrucic ai^ a» be waa gain#« &e ha sftye.
t« lUs tool*bex nearby, icflictin^i Uie injuries ccf&pliiifted of.
#e stiat2 notice o^Jy the claiis of jslaintlff that
the aeciUent w»& caused tiiroufc-^^ tiie failure of 6@fftnG.wat to
comply witJa tiie provision of the statute entitled '*firj act to
provide for tJte ii«eiltfa,, safety and e&sjfort af ««;ployfe» in
factories.'' etc.. appxtj^ed vuae 4, l«<..y, Ib farce «a?iuary 1»
191i. . This provision i* as foUowe: *A11 daR^,eraue places
in cr about mercantile estafcli&iri>.«r».ts, factories* suills or
aforkaiiopa, nfear to which awy fssploye is obligso t© p»e«s, or
to be employed, 3.^jai, ^^ere practicable, be prtperly en-
cl0i»e(i, fenced or cwuerwise guarded," ^o euclceure or fence

6T./UTP

yS'-- »>yi-^

e^

Ituardea Ux« drop, ^^earby %«« m, «riuttity« the presence of ^nich
It is AT. uetil satisfied tke requirement td have the dAngerous
pX^uMi ■otijer«i@e t^uarded,* This ftftanty was ;^bou-<. sisc tr ten
feet weat of the drep, was about, four fe«i *»id«, aevct) x'eet
leag and seven feet iiifrb* The tritneesee are net in accord
Ofi IJee seaeuret-enta, txie wall of the shanty neareet the
drop waa etroisfily tmiXt, i laiatif f wor* cd at a i.oint weat
of V.it shanty, -A'uJich witnet»ee& say ws^ta tr&& tec. feet to
ever thirty feet ira* it, it ae*s»« to b* c»£ic<?t*ed that
whili. at tiiia pl60« je-ie,xmitt »*id in danger frois La* fiyiOg
]^iee«6 cf irob, but it i:« said Uwai^ it ^a« i^^tendea that
]^lsintiff suaa ether »£pluye» ^nt^ wart^td that tue &t>tai hall
«aa about to drop should «i.ther tnter Uie »ixmxty cr aiep be»
hittci it to avcid beieg atruck, ^uer© i« teatia.ony that the
^&i»ioye8 were »o inatruct«»d, although this is aeaied, V^

Asausin^ &« a f>>ct t-ciat jmicti is controTer',fed,
that the skuaaty was proviaed for tne protectlaxi oi caployea
ia the yftrd, qslh i% Xnr &&ic, taai the presence of a rlaoe of
refuge to ahich ^si icyea aiiHut flee daiinfe tit* operation of
the daiageroua agency is c cosspii^^.ee witi:^ the statute? s/e
think not. i*h».tever s»».y be aaid as to the suff ici€?r;cv oX the
ahasty ia saeiterieg tJ^e partieulnr »»n ^ho released the
eet&I ball, tkie: fact that it flight alao be a place of sefuge
for other taiiXoyes doini^^ w^rM. not oonneeteo wit*. Uife drop
4oe8 not laeet the &msi»n<X of tiuc »c^tute. it »i^ht be argued
viUi equal consictency th@t in^iae the urick. foundry b^ild-
in^ on the wreat side of the :^ard ?as a },laoe of safety for
«ucir> employ ea, and of proba&Iy gre<«.ter safety thmn «ifi'arde4
by the ^i^anty, i;ut it eannot b^ claitaed seriously tuat ao*
cessibility of the foun-iry building rh a refuge satisfied the
re<(UireiT.ei. ta of Uir; law. the aa»«late of the statute is

»ro

U»9

tisat "Rii daiic«ro«a } laieft* ' * near to «ixici* any ei&plojre
ia oblicpd to p«i0a» cr io b^ esployed, shall * fe« pr.>pfjfXy *
f;uft)r<k«)fi." d« l^ld temt this oaEit«%|>lates tlL« rroteotioa of

pl«««9 Qt wi^rk said jfiasaing to aa4 froo »uc0 places* by «d»e
pyot«eti&g: «cr9«n or deTiee »i tti9 soux-ae of d^44$«f«

w»« iv 3iUC«ro io toe *pre.cticalilf t<i ^^ara t.iae

V« are of tii« oj^inion tksv it -eirsa. :cj|« piece oi' it&& miioh
strucl: s^iaxntiif tleti o-^ar tA« top dl the i^aistjr. oa« ^praie-*
tio^ble" m^tiioA "^iiicn tx^is &l^iit iiAT& SM^esfced to th« jury
mid to mmkti uXi^i^r tu« '^rs.ij. of tJb« slij^iiiy sext to thn ftrop^
if tkij> wall ii& )»cven f««t hlgn, rna & j^etal i^all fallg; on
m *'^IX& or 8«rct|>*' «uis:fi •««&« to be- co"^p«3#d largely of e&r
itiieel&» ft fiyin^ l^jice* ot iron R««»d not go «^ry lii^i^ to
cl«.&r J.iiJL5 mO-l, «»|^«ci.silly if it is six c-r ten f«et a^sfty,
3d rtiaaon a^pcara <iitty this ^nll cauld not be &,miu tmn ot
morn feet hi^ier th<>n it 7as» or -tiiiy the CtimRty ^i^ouXd set
he pl&o«<i cioaer to tlie tiroip, wiiis;. \«juld IssyeB the iiKeli-
^oU of flyiii^ ^4e««» oi" iros goxn^ over it. £ut ^;tatey«r
-soigidt t£iea« au^^3«tlo»s Si^y i^ave, tl^r« iraa t«dti^oft.^ httHk
tat AiiC A^foififti tk« pmctloabtlity of guardian tae drap* ojad
«« do fid& fe^l justified in aX&%urkxsi^ tt&e v:3aclu<ii«»n of Ui«
Jury o& Viile point.

«« liJStG no reversitle* error in tii# irji4tru«tioa»
ftiVlM %G tJi« 4 wry Of in U:« ruiia^s an evia^'Rce, ;;T«n if
it nlbmili t»« esse^tis^, ^t.ieh iu not, tiaa?^ U^« t^«idifitiatioa
by iii« co^rt of AKstrttcilons t*s»*, S sr4 6 presentfed *oy tlse
4«f#i;iiaiit t«».4<»d to lEialsnd tii* 4»ry, yet tfa* JLKit«tra«tiQnft
ao ten4ere(i did sot »tgt« tu« i«sc% cdrr«ctly, in i.uat li^^
told taa jury in substsmec tkat daf^Bdasit imm aoi guilty if
A pX«c« of r«fuge for etaployfto wis B«e«*3ilS!l«s. i <?f ©n iaBt

««•-.- %1§0'i9y. •<#

i«?

->»iq »Ai »««<-

■K«C

0«

«tinuet b« £t.c=aid \.o cosxpl^in qT a doubtful s^ofUflcatlefi by th«

eourt of its iApropei: l6struoti&os. ij^cattuy ^;ex;eftl jt'^111 wjo.

W<» &ee no eoRvinciinii;: rcfiieoR %c revtrse the Judg*
K«fit end therefore it io ftlTiJ^ed,

9if* T

-?

it*9

\^»

/

223 - 21200

ILLINOIS IMPROVEMENT AND BALLASTI
COMPANY,

i Plaintiff |h Error,

Error to

I vs. / 1 Circuit Court,

I Z ) Cook County.

INGER C.|HEIN?EN, Execi^rix, ^
etc., \ /

\ Defendant in Error, )

\ / 19 3I.A. 82

PER CURIAM. The bill of exceptions in this case
having heretofore been stricken from the transcript of the
record, and it appearing that no errors have been assigned
by the plaintiff in error upon the common law record of said
cause, there is therefore nothing before this court for re-
view, and the Judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

\

OOSIS - sss

03 T07'

., .IxjJoO iiuoiiO
{Ji^UOO 7(ooO

( /rcAJJAe aHA TwaNHvofiT^ii aionuji

I

S8 .A.ieer

( ,xii#U09xa ,OnKI3H-,0 H-HCMI

bBBo r.ldi ax arfoiitqsoxo lo Hid sriT .JiAIOTO H:?^

srIJ' lo iqiiOBnui t edi moil nejfoxicfa n&scf sioloi^sisd snxvfid

b8n8X8S« nssd svb.1 aioii© oa :t£fl.^ saiiBsqqB Ji brts ti)ioo9i

bx68 ^o ijiooei wsl nommoo edJ aoqx; loiis ai l^xJniBlq sriJ' y<^

-•?! lol i-xisoo exclcf eiolacf snxrfioa eiotet^di ex sierfi- ^seuBO

.bemixltB 8i .tiuo- ;>xaoiiO 9ri:f lo insargbul sdJ fcnB ^wexv

.aaMRi^TTA

S78 • 1 94 lit

ejr CHICAGO,

V^ 193I.A.83

YlUls >/>fB** w*^ eoRSldere4 by ii^ii^ Court &o<i tui
epiitilon ^mA filed Juo« », l{i»14. mi/Ju^i^/ta «titer«d her«
w«f ,rev*r9«4 bv ih« i:>u^>rQi6« Court b«»cftuae of {ui in»af ficietit
Cintixnt^ «iX 4aat«. lhi« wouii. uaa ciarefully ]r«60RiSi4»x>t4 th«
Q«us« And is urmtie t(; rssutlti » diff«rc;ni concluiiii&n froaa that
exprsaistfd In its fonscr opinion* onc-i Uicrefore «e r«8tdt6 our
▼iewt in »ubatanti«ayy ih« waM* iunijUi^e.

Api;<?Ii®e recovered n ^udi^iment in the i^utiioipal
Court of Cnica^o Ag«inst appelHanta for 11691,20 ««d oosts,
Tbitt Ap]?#«JL is^ pros«outttd to rftVerae it.

The e»»€ was tri«dL l>isfor« tbc court wiUiOUt a
jury. ilAintiff filed the camion counts «.»a ft bill of par-
ticuiara in viiioh he oIttim«4 th«it ke foa<l loaned tib* <J«f«nd-
mtto on t^re« separate oooRsiona 8u»b of money nggr^gfttine in
nil $4017.75. The def enda^'ite, ^j^jrlittnte li»*re, filed a wet-
off olflicUng sjoney /Jue from the plaintiff to aefena&i'ts »»
folloire: #2046. fc2 due to the defendmste frt^ the plaiwttff
upon « oertain innd oontr»ot he^twecsn the partiee, dated fcay
6, l»i,6, nnd tl*^&1.3S due upon wtotner land oontraet between
the partlea, dated i. etcher 51, iVc5, *tixch avu&», witU inter-
eet, amounted to <;>44fc7,36, and ijivin*; the plaintiff credit
for ^lii77,08, for caah jaid the» J^ay 2lt 1» 7, on accouiiii of

\

•A.ieer

i^9

ill

eontrftots* tritb interest ai fiv« p«]r u^nt.t j&tiicing 4rl277«t;6,
leaving a 1»ol«iin«c due the ^.mten&ontft of -iMlv^^tQ, 7h9 plain*
tiff fil«a an «ffld^*vit ©f ecrita «c tia® aet-off , danying
that defendanta yerforwed un^iar tka oontraot of cctobe; ;;^1»
19U&, and ailtgiiif; that ib« did not aaive any of tli« provi*
aiona of th« oontract and itmu antitl«d to a eredit of
$Xes^I.^&, r'U pa>«46ot u|:on th« oontract cf ^.ay d« l,9i/&«

Tli« controT«ray girowa out &t ncMt^reLX differant
land contraoia widoa;; it will tte neoes^aarv to ^tate in aub*
staxioa*

1 rior to any tiefiotiationis witii plaintiff l.nugh*
tin, tlia dafandanta bad aequirad oartain ri{.;iut« in tm& cos*
tritotft for the »ale of ti£:£b«r lanc^ in »ii»con8iia« th« first
ef th«a« oontraota ia Icnoim aa "oontraot ^S'., <** Tc^iarab.y tka
2lorth wi&oonsitt !4M&£>ar Coispany agraed to ucill ottrtain d«tt»
aribed land to one ^ava^a* wlio aa»ign«d iiia rigtut to defend*
aiJta* Tha aaoond contraot, known aa "oontraet Ssi?** v&a be*
tvaan the sai&« original partias and irae aaquired by appell«snta
in Uia aaaa mannar ao aontraet 53, and oono<»r»ad dif.t'«tr«nt
laada.

n (jwrmnry 1S» I9t&, dafanciarjta and plaintiff
antarad into s^n sn^raasaant rei»p«citin^, said oontraat &3a« By
tli« torna of tibia a^reatcant def«ndat-ita «nit Uia ^ts^i^ekagon i.aad
4 Lumbar Cojftpany aasignad tbeir righta uad^r said contraat
aSO to plointiff ae stourity for "i,ie91,95>, otatfed therein
to hay* baan adYfexicad to d«fendft!;t«s by plaintiff to pay aoaia
inatalffianta due thera^^n January i», 190&, In tr.ia contract
RiPP^aupn «*iat i» rafarrad to in tha teatiaony a» ttoa option
givan platntiff to pttJE^taaa ii>a l«nd d«»oribed In tha con-
tract« nhioh ia jftaterial her* and ia a« folloaist

too

- '-.tm Iftn ll. 1.^ ^a^ t%ijSil

"iJtit coupX&d mkth ti.ia RtisignMetit and ple<i£;e of
lA&id ecjutr»ot in ta« option ^ivtn to aald iaughlin ta pny
off all future j?«.yK.ent» on the lands d«»eribed and theraby
becQKa entitled to a daed fur tne l;md8 direct fro^ said
Forth wlsoonsln I^i^'^tbcr Votnin-jay, provided he exercioes t^la
option within Gi(fiat iuontiiJB fsroa tids a&t«! nnd £i,t the stuaa
tiaa oa doea ao pays th« itmek^^on Limd ,.% Lumber Compajny
iha 0ur<i of (<^2(;;46«62i r^o 'Uiouaand i-'orty^aix i.-el^ara and
c>ii:hty»two oentida imd r^t tUe» &at&« timm exeoutea and de»
livers to tli« pctitiea of Lh«^ firat p^trt a release in full
for the mon^.y9 by Jiim advanoad pur^iuant t€> tnle stipula^
tion«*

At %h& time of tiia oxecutlon of tb« »ixnuary 1B»
I9C5, oontraot, i^laintiff saughlin delivered to defendant
C* i:, Korton Jtiia check for ^l&fl>l«95« ■mnioa h« olaiae waa a
loaiiif and for whicsJi itLo recovered Jud&uient below, ^ay 6, I9cb»
Ux9 parties (^ntisrad iato a oantract baarinig that data, ^tueraby
the rights of tne uef endaiits* aztder said oootxaot &3c , t^ere aa<
si^ed to jlaiatiff. The twc ooutracta of Ja^m^ry and l^ay*
19o5, deaoribed the aama itj^nd, oanstitutinj^ 10S3 nn^ a frae*
tiottt aores,

itubaequently, o» ( otobe>r 31, 19t5» Uie- same par*
ties ent^^red into a^otiitir l«ina oantract* by the teraa of which
dafeetdanta agreed with the plaintiff to assign to iiim the> en-
tire interest of the original purehaser in certain described
lands which the defendanta held by virtu© of an aaoigniaent of
a oontraet between the Korth *fiaocneia Luiaber Coaipsmy and one
John i^va£e« f»bove ref&rred to i*© "contr&ai "?io« SS?*** for the
SUB! of 4iabl,$5, ttnd Ui« aasusiption by the plaintiff of five
deferred payments to b&o«;ffl»K iltAS andsr the contract. Thio eon*
tract provided thav the dcfendanta ahould eonfira by deed such
asaiet^ent* in litm^ner and fojKa to tli» oaUiaf action of the
plaintiff, and frosj all the pnrtics in interest, including
aiiareholders of the inweka^an LejJd it Luaber tto&f^miy, and nlao
obtain the con^»er.t of the Borth ll'HSOJisjin i^ajaber Cosapnny to
the assignment or trainaf^r to th« plaintiff of said contrnot
lio, 527,

•4i le

\ A»Y*V009t 9^ JtXiOli te

:Ufti

;:j''rt>up»i(C>i.

1.

• r.

&«•« ft* lo VUJ

^•ms;

OOi^

lf*b

, lt»

1% iu 6l»Ui«4 toy til* plaintiff ftna ti» ae te»tl»
fled tii&t In «cpttesber, l9Ct>» prior to elgnin^ th« coRtract
of i)et&h9» an»t, *h« «l«f«n(iarit, C, h. isorton, tol<i &ija Uier«
«»• ft p&ysttnt ewftlng cluo on the contract ^o» &«'/, coRc«rnlng
«eilcii dttfonaunta waa piaintiff were trying to msik» ttn egree-
»«nt, aatl 4ef«tul«U3t, c. H, Korton» flaked pi&ifttiff to lulyanoe
th« £ueount due, «*iich Jut wt-uld treat ;*a a loan ia ea»e the
cofitraot waa not oo»a*iiisjsat©<J, or upon ROeoims, oi tJa© contraet
if it wae aon9tt«m«tea l»*-ter. TiAc m&ount aue on tn© oontr«ict
ii«» #ll«6,t*f ♦ ilRlntiff furtfier tt&tified «iOd olftiiaeti Wiat
OR uctob«r 30, 190S, he exieeut«d eja4 delivered a ehec^ to tiie
order of ^lUiaw r, i-ii&», attorney for %h(^ def^«u«r,ts, fcr
|sliSd,8C, an4 Uiet lifter, ir« fc^&y, iS^O?, C. «, isortou a^uxn
etttted to the pleiintlff tiiat tiiey were istxll in traut^le grow
lag ottt of tlie lumber venture Ir i«l»oon3l2i; Uutt h«, lorton,
wanted to &tike a 4lTldend aaiong the otfcier* irttf^rested In the
land, ana ftaked plaintiff to i«t aisi ^aire ilO«0 a» « loan If
the deal then pending did not go throuj^i ^^^^ th«sreupon
plaintiff delivered to defendaiat hlu eiioox for $lQt^Q^ ys^y title
to the order of ifilllea E, fcoea, d»t«d »y 21, 1907, i lain-
tiff*e teatljsBony aa to thie oonveraation «?aa denied by tor-
ton. IlaiRtiff also teatifi«d Uriet he never took posaeasioa
of the preaieea deecribed in the totohsr 31, l»Oi>, contract,
Bor did he exereiae any rights therein, and tlmt he never re*
oeived the ooni»ent of the lorth M»can<ain }.imheT CoEipany to
the aaaigineient to his of co«traot a, 527, aa provided by tirie
teroa of the t ctober Slet contract.

It vtwi cl&i&;k«d by tliO d&fenaa:.ta XJa&i j^aughlin,
the plaintiff, waived the prooureisent by the defendnnta of

the con^kent of the !iorth t^iitconsin i.U6^ber Cois^pnny to thia

aaalf^ntsent, and agreed to attend to that matter pf-raoitslly,

and tjctat. the Intereat of all the partiea Ir^ %ne Innda dea*

• #4 ht

itte

mdi *Q«o at ci»oi

•d9 c

■ «A Mlt vol

t»tfo^o

•ilJ ai JHi#«»«*lr.i. ifi^iauiro ttili 2|oa««

aioi««»e

19T9A •;.:

3 lb Y«il

arlb«d ia th« oontraot of i.etober 31, X90i>, including th«
ahftreh<;;l(i«r« of t2i« %fiB»«kKgoti J^andl h i.iUEsboX' Qampmiy, vms con*
T«y«d to the plaintiff.

It yma furtiicr oootftwded on Ui« ff^irt of tha de-
fcm<Uunts t;imt l.aui;hlln ^leoteU to «x«rcl8tt kia option oont»in<
«d in the agrreement of January ia» 19C 5» out of wlxioi:^ the
coatr«ot of l^tiy 6, liJ>> d, ^ev.

The trial eourt In reaohing its Ju4^y^e»t found
tliet the ^1891,^0 Mentioned in the oontri^et of 4njii\xu.ry lo,
1(K'&« wfte a loftiT), and thei the burden of proving payment
thereof v%» on the defendants, and that th&y had fji^iled to
euatain that burden, The eourt hold U.nt tho contract of
Ootober 31 « 19eS, waa not fulfilled b^ the dit>feDaants; thut
the plaintiff iaui^ain had advanced ^11^5,dl to apply on the
contract of . otober 51* It' £>« anci Blm> the llOOO loan ef
May isil« IK. 7 a to «^i:ly on that contraet if it tma ever cofli-
|>leted; t^iat the plaintiff waa entitled to int^reai. on the
■UJB of ^ld91«9l>« vjfjiiloh amountrj^d to ^71V« jsai^ini; a total of
$4755,12, Ae a^,ainat tnia amount* thi!^ court found that de-
femiftnte were entitled to a credit of #iio4fj,fe2, nmsed in the
contract of vay 6, IS^U^S., with lnt«reat» aiaking, a total, of
|^2839«tf^» and leaving a balnnce of ^1&9&«2C' £Ute plaintiff.

"upon a review of Uie eviderioe, we are yf tiie
opinion that the loaii of $l»»l,«a mentioned in the contract
•f aeeign-^ent of Januiury l£i» 19ca, was applied on the .>avBge
contract kn&mi in th«» record «« * ontract / o, 53 « in the exer-
cise of the option contained in the aaai«;i<aient contract of
January 16, 1906, by the piwAntiff laufealin, prior to the
contract of j-ey 6« 1905, swid ti*ist by atireessent between the
plaintiff LauKblin and dcfen^Jantt* the receipt of the payu<.ent
of the cueeJc for .1691.95 to the ' orth wlaconeia lumber

•1t»

^?

U«u

Caapany, tofc:etV.er with $%^L adviteoed fey 4«fe«aRr.fc», and «»♦
doraed on thu coRimot by tfc» Lutsfeer Cfi»|!ak'jy, wpearftted as a
reXease and di»cii».r6& of th© losiu* l^y the ter.a» of tiie con*
trattt of January le, l'SK>5, if LaufeOiliii «xerctiaeU hi» oi>tion
to buy the land he «na to s«alc«^ tbe futuiMS paj«s<>{iti» au« on
th0 lend, pay the aura Of $2046.62 wjd r«lea*« in full the
jaOBeyo b.y his adrrnced, r.i5;.«ly, tiie iie9a»95, XLe «Tii«no«
in th« record ehovs, w© think, that ax'j»«littnt» rftiaed the
fl^oujnt of monty R«e«i»s)ary and uaed I»»iii*lin*9 checi; of
s^l891.5*i), and, ts?itii the cson«y and csheok* fia«<il« th« pa.vp«»t
due in ^emui^ry under the terf^n of tbe oontriiot, ujon -augii-
lin'e iequ«»t and upon iiia afj-rci^c e«t t^; take an fttsign%«Bt
of the oontrnct, or, in o trier ^vorda, to exercise hie option.
This vm» don« in th« early days of ? «y prior to th« execu-
tion of the May 6th oontrttot. 'JThe t^stizaony of I^oss onA
C, h, !4orton, tai^«tuer witii the «riting»« ehew tuat thits rnkM
done in psjrtial execution of the e©etrsj«t of J»nu^-ry lb,
I9C5* The p&rol tcetii^ofiy offered «nd reoexved on this
question did r>ot tend to Vti^ry or oiiange the contrsot ef
il^ny 6ih. It showed %hAt wee said «»nd done by the p&rtiee
under and in execution of the oontra^ot of .anuary IH, li)>&5«
and waa competent for Uiat f^urpoae under Uie isiaues in the
ctiee. the uianifeal* previ^nder&^nce of the evidi^ntie on this
question ia with appelXanta.

on the iaaue aa to f^iether the oontract of o*
tober ^1, 1^S» waa aubatantiaily porfoz%:ied on tne part of
def e:idar ta, ve thiuk t^e tindina of the eourt wau a^ninat the
clear weight of the «vide»jce, it clearly £%p«ea<rs wlUiout oon-
troverey in %iie uiriderioe who were the stockholders of the
KaAekaiton Land 4 Lunber Cooipany, and that they corned all of
the otock. All of tho atocichol^Sera (except Clia Kenyon) and

0 ^li

iOf'n i.it'.u .j»r s'^

the oojapany Itself Joln*«S in r tjuit oifiir* d«e4« dftteii ccto»
bcr Sit 19i>ft» to Uk9 plftintiff l«ughlin. titi^ <Stte4 ms de«
Xiv«x-«d to Lftuishlia, a.n<X, at the i»^«» ti%®» a tK^ed from K«n*
y»« im» delivfrod tc niia, the «Yld«Re<i' *io©» not 8i*ow that
di«f*ndftnt8 obtAin^d or iiitlirtfroA to thfl plaintiff tiie coa*
•«nt of th0 Korth wiaeonelR Ltaffib«r Gomptm^ to the aaslgiment
of eontrnet i.o. i>H7 to Lau(!^ lla, oa provided by ti5« terma of
the ooBtract. of ; ctPto«sr Si, 1905, X'tow protrunaj^nt of thi©
oon^iotit, ho-»«Ter» imo wnlreA, as eno7m» %^y the olei^r and
direct t#8tju»on>' of apj>«liArtta and of i^ooe. Against thi«
t«8tlft.ooy 1» that of p3 »intiff , doryinif, tiuftt he wtiJlTOd the
proeure&cint of the eoitaent by defendn»t» fttid «^rQ^. to ob»
%*in it lilisioelf, a« tnink the eleoj?- weight of tur evid^Kee
on Uiis point im^et be held to bf? v.-ttii doi'and^nto, '#'« regard
the l»w »• settled io thie 6tMte that ooirona<it« ooatai^ed in
ttn executory eealed oontmot smy bo ^tilved by i^siirol by the
party for rtioee beisefit t^ey woro laeerted, provided no new
•XOiKeut or ttenso are added; and the party tc a co6tri:^<et eo
waivioig one of ite tenut or eovenante ^ill be estopped to In*
elet that »u&h aovenatit im* not i>cMrfox%ed by the other.
(i»ockei: v, £ieei£er, iif^j ill, ii7; koeee v. ].ccais, 1&6 id,
392&S Terrell v« /orayth, 143. id. ZU,)

?h« plaintiff laughlin, «eeardin« to the evi-
dence elated teat he ^ouici attend to "jroouring the oenoent
Of l^e s^orth viaoonain iuaber Company hibnoelf. liy this af*
fiwaative eet or utntiment on hie part, he iaaucad the do»
fendaAte to b^lisre tuat a striot pftrforciimoe of the covenani
would not be required or would be ^mi■7ed. M«lying upon thla,
the defendant* did not obtain the G«tni;ont of the tuaiber Co«*
paniy aa they isould imv© done. It wuld be a fraud upon the
Aaf andante to i,or**it the plaintiff tc tliuo put theja off their

guard and X(»Ad tii€)i& mtc tt£.:4tiixig %g imrt&vtut ^u<i Uiein,«<u«n
it la too lat« for Uxms to pex-fona, in si at Umti Uicy ii&T«
f»i1iea i(. lc«ep their (fov«naj)t«

I'here is ttotae queatioa oada in tii® 4»vld«iice aa
to Y^jTieihtr ftay deed trosik y.tetiyon ^oB-a «v«r deIiv«rod Uo Ui«
plftlQtiff. 7ui» «ri»»s as An Infrzctoce fr^is plMliitiff *»
tetti^iGny Umt li# had d.«liv«r«d to ^ r, Jon«ft» of eounattl
f«r y^lmintiff , «ai the d«f:d» vhieh he r«eeiv«d fl^os) ilit dtt<*-
fimdartft or WillieBi a. kQ&nf^ t^nd it w»» «t£rci«d on tlie trial
Uutt if Jen«» took the witness &tr..U4l h^i would testify thai
h« h«id produced in aourt All deode turned om9X \ty th« piain*
tiff to hlffi <:cuii3«l* it appeared that no dood fr^m Ko&jroa
wko ftmone Uie p»p«r»« the teotiaxooy of ^r. uoma ia direot
emd positivo that asicn^ tlio pa}^6ro he doliv«r«d tu the plain*
tiff wao at iiultociaiB d«ed of >:«n;^>on to tho pr^^jperty deooribod
in the ootobor ecntraot. if » ho^&'evor, a q[uit»ci&ia> dood froft
1^9&yoA waa not obtaXaed. it «fomXd not lmT«> boon liuoi^ u faiji«
uro on the p^% of defeKda«-ts to po^rforc^ Uteit oontreict aa
ivould hove «fititled tho pl-f>^ii»t,iff to fete^ndori or reaoiad th«
iigir«««oat and roooTor payment a s$ade thoreon, The <&rif:inal
oontraet, ooneernins: '"^ich the v..otober ocntraot vrstas i^.a^e. waa
luielgnod liy Seva^Ot the oriRliifel puroi-iatier, o» May IJS» 1904»
t« t;* li, a«>d H. k'* .Siorton, and ©n Cototeor 25, ISlCS, the s-jor-
tons aaalftned and tran»f«vred all their righto theroir* to tho
pXaintiff, llsilntiff thereby oOtMced all thi&t it ^oa poe-
oible for him to obtsiin, ihe ahnrtholdera of the tiajsekogon

I.eiid 4 Luarsber Company do not appear to have h»d aoy rigi^its in

the ooatrcMit. and deeda fttm them «ev« u^eieao «tnd of no legist.

eff<;ot«

In ordav to Juetify i.ai»ghiin in re»oindiiii^ the
ountmot «Jid reeoverin/g the aonoy paid, defosjdanta saust have

A.'

eontract, ih« oi»j«o«. of (.hr. eontri>et fRii»t bave l»««n <lttfftAt«d
or renderad im«.tUiin«ble "by d«fendi»nttt* ml»odn4ttei or d«sfault.
(»»intx V, Mafnar, ?ti ill, 27j t.e»pol4 v, rt«lkey» e59 i<S, 412;

on Uika 'QU«st>a.«iia «oR9id«re4* »« &r«$ of the opinion t.j'^t 4««
f«ur;^aan1»9 8ub«t«tnti«rllj^ jporfai^aad th« ^ eiobor SI » 19v' 5, con*
turaot* i.au£i:llni tb«r«ft«r«» ti«» no rlgjifc t© r#oov«r b»ok t«.o
||illS9«6<0, the aiaottBt of tki^ ahmtiik pstyaibl^ to uillimsi H „ ioaa»
(S«it««2 r«iob«» &v • 190S; atid it follotto fuHher tkfti 6i%o 4tt«
foedasito ar« dtititlod to rooovor from L»ur,i)lin on their atit-
9tX iho ooMi of $2i>46*<t2!« proTidod l>y Uio oontraot of Mny 6«
1909 • (« )i« paid to aofominrita by plaintiff with ir.toroot*
£'Of«n(i«nto Ar« a14o exititlad to rooovor tbe mum of #l<ii>l«5i>
ak^rood to bo i^niA by |>laini&iff to dofondAiito by th« eont:root
of Ciotobor 3X| 19 ij, with l»%«ro»i» im.% AjfXit ii', 19Q6*
i^^|i*IlOAt« H'innnA^ in tholr atAtstso/it of #ot«off nnd in Ui#ir
briofo tliot 4ir<peli,e« is onbitlod %o a credit agoinsit tiu.«ao
it4ttb» of ^ioco, OAoa ptiiA i'.«y ai« 1907, witi'. int^'jr^ot Uioro-

YJfco 4Uc.f;;toeiit itt li.«»r<»f''3r« rotii-o^.d audi 3u<5,t'i5«rist
ii» mifcxed hma co » fin<Uiiii m ft<var of appollflutto, tiofonii*
suTito bolow* (mC i<.g«ii«st £t.{vp0ll«e« j^dnlnilff b?-levr» tox
4-54ii7 , &« .

9ti3 lit am '

Tj[«»*v.- as \Mt "■* ■

if& . ld4X£

Appellor, ]

▼ s.

"^^Tlit Court tind9 taat *« Jaou«3jr:5' -"lt# iVv&, «p«»

And henry a, Garten* th« auRi of ^l&i^l»95» ijU«£iUo»ed !;< u
o«rtfLin contraot o^ «ft«iligmi«nt of tucki. <Ji&t»« ^«tw««u &£»•

of App«lXnnitt, «»» applied iin a a«rtain oontr^iot for tiie |.ur«

H

Jwoabor UGopar^t kuovc en4 :&'«f$rr94 tg i» Ui« i'eoord au c^on*
traot Kc« &3>:''! iliat prior to i2i« ti^mun^ of u^e euxttiract '4ttt«&

Mumtioncd* said tauglilin tales t»«td \q avAiX kiumelf oi uad to
•xerox •• \.h0 optioo ij^Xywa hi:a in Ui^ A&ai^uj^ent ooutx'uot af
4imuftry X6» 190 5 « anil tsv purchaoo tUe ocntx-uot £uia wjft# Xntidfli
dOi^orib«4 therein; c^«a ii^i ac»j»aid©rat»iGa ih«rcoi' and o^la«»
gooa ftBd VAluabXei' ootiaidorjationa, jj-pfi elite : nugJuXia a^re«4 to

Ami thm CqutX ftoi'tii^r flntiB tiiat. by <& «»»atr»ot
in f«rltiog fentsrftd into on l/'.ay 6» lC>vt>, ta«» aj»paii««, ..onry
X>« laucblia* nt^rood to pny appellant* 4t'2i046«6i^ (bttinn; tJ»o

rs-

Mwtmt of thm e«sh p&y»ent mtich %he «pp«]iltuit» had su»<i« on
eotitra«t ^o, diSH; «b«n «li«y aoqulred It; on or l>«for« two
yeflUTd firott tmd »ft«r lf»ay 6* Ittub. wlUi int€ir«»t ti^er«oa «i
tti* t-Rt* of ft per o«nt poir m-imm to a»te of payaiontj Uatt
ikppelXanto kopt WKft perfofued tiieiir iigiree.^ento A»td covenanta
ie cMaid oontrMit of &ay 6* I9:d» but oAld »ppe3-l«« t mie,i:kllii
fftil«d to aake ouci:^ i>a>'^9nt of |;i«lC46.B2, or any part th^ro*
ofi tb«t i}«id ii^]^«i3.e« i ttughXlB* by n. oontract erterod into
botwooo hi&oelf and »i>peXlant»» dated < otobor 51, l$Oi>, agrted
to pay epp«lXantE» ttxo furth«r aim of |XBM*3& upon ttoo x>«v*
fox«i«net by ai>i:;oXXantfi cf »aid Xaot aentioned ooatfaet* wnd
also to aoeuao and pay five det^tfd payuento andor a oartain
contraet known at So, S27« datod :iOir«»b«i^ 6, X9^3« batwaaa
ti«e Morth jiiaoonala Lombor iiosipsuy and Jotut H* aavago* men»
tlonad (utd referred to in tJbe oontraot of uotobcir 3X« 10v.&{
tbat tne first of aaid deferred payuente feXX due Movas^ar
6« X9C/&, Hud li/^ountad to #lXiiid«&w» and ikai aaid appelXea
dftXiv«>red to appftXlante hi» cheok, dated otober & * X9<i>da
for ^XXSS«6u, in part perfomanee of «iaid a(iro«&f>nt dated
<}etober 3X« X9<»5, and that the nnount ao adiranead «a« paid
to the ^orth ^iooonein iAiabar Cotapany in aatiaf action of tba
aaid payneat due ^oveeaber 6, 19^'-^t en eaid contraet So, ti27t
aad appeXXee £ms notified of auobt payment; tnat apr<^XXanta
perforsMid and carried out said ouatraot of etober '61, Xdi6»
axeept in Uxe !&atter of the prooureo^ent of tbe consent of tbe
north Wiaeonein Lumber CostpMny to the aseigna:ent to i»ald i^au^*
Xla» provided for tiierain; tiaat the prooure^ent of tb^e oonsant
of aaid Lumber Company by apps'Xlanto uraa waived by aaid au^*
liaj that the totaX aBtount of eaid eusta of ^£046,32 and
$X4&l»i^, 00 agreed to be paid by aaid apt^eXXee taaghXin to
aaid appeXXanto* »ith 5 per oent interest thereon to cuate,

.1 miami

tJi-

09 felAfi 111

^ bnm TfmmXJi oMw^fti

«<*W«M '

.>2~\Jai.

bMft

-«UJC*

>ant« to #4865.56; ttoat tmi& app«12«4» Laughlln ndviurtetd
to appellants tho awa of IIOC'C on Kay SI, 1907, ea a lo*n«
«nd thftt said loan, with intoz-ftftt at S per ottnt t;n«rttcn to
dat«« «£3oui}t<» td ^I39&» which rtf^ount appellant* eonc«<ie in
t&0ir ttt8it«tn«st of aet^off Btid in Ui«ir Isri «fii fiicsd h^^reio
should b« credited to fti^palltstt T.aughlifi; tmd ilie Court flndi
tbftt thero itt ft bftlanoo duo &ppell«nto frofi app«ll«e Laugihiin
of $S4a7«!»& »rt«r allowing: oil juat credito, ^^

minmli

t^'

5 902

AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,

!eg-un and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the sev^th day of April,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine Mndred and fourteen,

ithin and for the Second District of -^e State of Illinois:

0

Present--The Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Pressing Justice.

Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Jujf. ice.

Hoh. , .^stice

/
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFF^f Clerk.

J. G\ MISCHKE, Sli/riff.

193I.A. 91

^^^x-^/zvT

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on the 13th day
of October, 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:

AiAddmHA aHT '^0 ua:

V 0 ■ ■

ni :; :• I r : " ■

No. 5902 ^

Jennie Mahlstedt, Executrix of the
Last V'ill and Testament of Laniel ,
i'ahlstedt, Ueceased,

Appellee,
vs.
Ideal Lighting Company, !

Appellant,

Q p i T) "i rt »> — -

AppeHrant",, Ideal Lighting Company, was a corporation
engaged in the manufacture for sale .among-ot-her things--,
of gasoline lighting and heating systems, Daniel
i'ahlstedt, husband of appellee, v.as a farmer, '■^hiteside
Brothers were merchants, and fi. Busier was a salesman for
a-pellant,

Ob y.ay l&'^--3r93rl ,,a pellant , at its factory, delivered
to ittahlstedt a lighting and heating outfit for Imfetallation

In hi s fprra house, pursuant to an arrangement that had been
made with him by Busier , and sent Vihiteside Brothers an
invoice of the Items "Sold to Dan Mahlstedt and charged to
?;hiteside Brothers", with a Iwtter saying, "We trust ^ou
will lose no time in installing the outfit for our cus-
tomer". The arrangement v?aG that Vhiteside lirotners should
furnish some necessary material for the installation and
attend to the work, and that appellant would send an eflipert
to help on the last day of the vork and to start the plant.
The work was started by one of the '.ihiteside brothers ©«-*-
■=r44ay, and Moong other thingadoae that" day the carburetter '
and a gasoline tank wereplaced in a hole ■*»§ in the yard 20

So 06 .Orx

^v :i:-!:*rro9x2 ,^b9teLdBM. slcnsl'
rnrtT 'to ;trt9inBcfe«T i>na III'? cfac

.©eirsfT'TA

.sv

.3~STn5'

— a— ©---i — a— L_c[ Q

eliXBOcMiiA .iSHTCBt B BBiv ,89ll9q[qe Ic Jbnecfax'd , :^ fee ;^ side

lo'i rxemselea s saw isleuK .ii baa ,a;^n8rforr9m eiew eierlcfot^

.^Cfil Lb : 8
£)9i9vi:Xeii ,vio;tcBt ail t& , ;f nail sq 8.^ X-£&^f--i^i-''5jAJiC-.ag

CCS sieAtotS. ^btsQildT tase J5ne , isisuG -^d nlrf rf*iw gJbain
oS- J&a^^-sfldo bna iJ&a^^a/da'i obC o* JbloS" Bixod'i sri;! lo ooicv"

-S0O "Xifo tiol tlliivo an) gxiillc;fani al emiJ oa a&oX IIlw

Jblxroda aiaditoit!- 9i;Is9ulriV &edi c:ev; i aesiB-zaBiie a.. . rjv.ci

baa no I its I Ida at ed.i ioTl lalnsia.-a ^sessoon anioe daimul

ttoai^p n.o Jbn98 lilwov? cfaallgqqa iadi baa .ifiow 9rf;t od" baetie

.txielq 9dJ ;fTa;te o* Jbne iio.v ©d:} lo Tjafi taal Bdi no qled ot

-o^-tf^ eiedJo-xiJ 9t.J:s9^1d'ft adJ to sno ^jd boi-xai^s aBsr jf-xow 9.-

T9d^t9TirdijB0 9dJ- ■^B&-:}-sdt-9ff©:&-a-3xrJtdit-T*'i*-o-8fife«e one .•^geJ^'v

OH b-za^ 9di nl -^iirir slod £= nl £908lq9iew 3lnj8;t aniloasg a fina

or 30 feet from the building, ^hereif uncovered , tiaey v,fOuld

fyhJ

be exposed to the direct rays of the sun. Busier came f^J yuu<:.
-3aturt\ay morning awid- stayed all day ^active in the work.
The system was started in the evening on Buster's suggest*.
ion and Mrs, iviahlstedt used it in getting supper. There
was something more to be done and iJusier and Whiteside left
vwith the intention that Whiteside should re turn , ^oiid«k^ and
complete the work, / The tank and carburetter were left uncov

ered/--fHsd should have been covered before using the plant in

daylight to prevent heating from the sun*s rays. The
next day, Sunday, was a bright, hot day; the family used the

plant and towards night were unable to light a burner, and
Mahlstedt going into the basement of his house to investiga^

and lighting a match, was fatally injured by an explosion
of gas,

jli;pelle9-a« hi-9 exeoutor, brought—^Me action to
r-coovcr for~hl^i3[:ga1rh;--^ad-fiied- a declaration, in Case;
■ohorging amofig -ot^her th-in^rs-" rhat at<t>«llant agreed "to
-fn rn 1 atw-aB4 -install ,- under the supervtslTan" of one of its
experts, a lighting and heating sustera for ^Mhlatedt,

fcll-«»e, (dasoribing it) g and informed, i«iiahlst«dt
-in condition to be -»p»gHt^d; that an air -pipe was
nat. praperly^looa4«d~«Bd e%u-ipi)€d ; -that the eerbu,re't^«-r- -and
pipe ware improperly placed and left uncovered; and that
BO- expert- wjta-fttgBiabed- to inspect Llxe system and put it in
. Pjp.fe.r:ation;._that Busier acted for ai>peiiant in that capacity,
and informed ii**hlated:t ijiwrtrirhe syslreTE Tra*- properly inBtalleda

and in condition to use; but thyt Busier war not an expert,
and Mahlstedt having no knoiwledge of that fact, or of the
aefects in the system, attempted to use it, resulting in the

-3r.so Talaifd .cjre ©lij lo s^jst tootlb ©riJ oJ Jbeaocfrs ^cf

m.iti»^-gsm 8'i6^axr£. ao grrlaeve eri --ej^a sew meta^e 9i£T

. :3q:q!:r8' grfid'd'©^ al tl boBi: *Jbe+aIrfjBM ,ail£ baa t
crt:©! ailaealrlW f)flfi isiairtt btiR 9aob e ora snld^eoioa fc

ba& ^»d»^«i^ mir;t9i JDlxroda eJ&iae^fliiW 7sx1j aoiiaeiat 6di tic
ipooKir cflal Qisvf istiBtudisQ baa. ikie:f exiT ^ .atiow arid" etfalqmoo
al iaaLq, 9di Qflisxr ero'^ad ■fretsToo need 9V&d blvoAB bttff-^ bs'i
' moil ^tiBBd ia:9\-. :^d^l£\i:

9di baern ^ixmai , , \jfsi)xixfc; «^ei> Ixexi

has ^reatad e (tti^i igxn Bbiamoi bas fasr

^«5lt89vnl o;f asfforf aid lo wxieaisB oJai yriog tJ&9i"8lxt6ii

floiaolqxe ns Tjcf b&ialal -^LletB^ ea# ,xio*«n « ■^aiid'glL Jbn

- iil-fccB- ; rf':ffiBt • e tit toI ^oToeo^

c* ^ov.. V. iixiilTQc'i^ Jiiil':j''~8^rtfritf •n:«A1^o•-^ft©ta»-8f^ls'^erie-
(JixaJCiii.^ =),+8j:fa' 8fii#««xt- £>£ie- ■gfli^d^iJ: ja. ,alaaqx9
agfl aq,tq-.q[.la. Jia..<tt» iOiUJuxoo ax- a aw J^i .rtBff J:-

; J&919TOOECX; *1©I bCLH JUeauixj ^I;:;^a<j^o'nxfli.t "aiaw aq^l
.•s ioa^a^ axiJ ;t^x>aq8ixl. o;t. i>8x(8J;a^i/l -e^^w- 4^9qxa. on
, \tJ-lQji(ijjc. J *o"3U.ii9>^AB. 'i3i:ejafi,.V-eifJ_jiiox.JiLi5a.ft^

,, Hived ibB^BidtiiL haij.
Qiii ixx jifliJJjjfeex ,«ti ©aw oJ iiaitqifiaaJft ,m9;fa^B &di ai. eioBt^ii

-.«3H?3ro^tmr'ar«.~-ctmsHqtient-lTl7inT~*Satr~^ - A plea of the
gRneral.-4&Bge- wa-g ^led, arrd - « -^ttry trial resulted In a
-verdict ■ aa4— fftftfflgejyfc--for |6gg8v— fro»-^yhleh--tM»- appeal ,

7'hiteside Brothers had .waaratofoya purchased similar
lightingfeys terns for their customers, and had some, btit not
iDuch, experience in installing them. This t^aasaotion
was hrought aljout by Busier applying to Whiteside Brothers
to accompany him in a canvas of the countrv for 6nfr»B,
wJaieh one of them vras •4o4jag^,at the time of the sale in
question. vvhen Mahlstedt removed the machinery from
appellant's factory, heLaSESje^tly did not know whether he

was buying it -©Tp^appellant or Whiteside Brothers, and, he asked

■^■. ,
whom he should pay, ««[ was told by one of appellant's offi-
cers that it made no difference, he oould pay either as he
pleased, '-'^►'^ .Wie involoe^sent to IVhiteside ^rothers wa-s subject
to a commission discount. As between appellant and
W-h4-t e s ide- Sro the r a it was treated as the sale of the latter,
and the pnxpQ.afl— Qf-AppeAl<uat- la- ^rnlshing Its agent Busier
t©--eo-lteit trade in that territory was no doubt to create

r^ demand for -it^y;od-9-to-1»e"fe-andl.-ed by Whiteside Brothers in
tfefi- ordinary course of their business as retail merchanst.
It is contended by appellant that the transaction amounts
only to a sale and installation of the plant by 7,'hiteslde
Brothers, and tJaixaioxe it •aBa^-t l»e liable for »Hy- defectrin
installation; and that the evidence show d no defect in
the machine .that would make it liable as a manufaeturer

-eetlifti^-s^od-e -to -a retailer, for an injury to one purchaser fra

bhe unirrehagt. v;e are of the opinion that the evidence
-ef. the whole-4;^ran8actlon beginning with, the conversation

£ ai ~i)«* lira ^-s Ifi-i-s^- ^4ft-« Sofi , JSwii^'eew -©«»ai-Xaxaxta:.

ion txrd ,effloe ^jsxi jpijjB ^ismod-auo ilaxft xo't aciaite^jslsnli'iJ^i l

-■■ ' ■ ••J^ .-s; ■'■' • ' r

a*xsrftoi5 eilaeJJtrfW o;t grtlTilqqa lateirS. -^d isjo6& iii-^sioid sb

■*«
al Blee eriJ ^o oiali 9d^ 2z^i^Xcjj BUTftaedt 'io sac do^^

.noil ^errJtrioBit; edt fievomei tLeoBlxteiA aeri>'' .aqi^pexrp

s.-f x,srl*9xlw won:^ Jog 61:6 "^I' 3^'ejdt .^otoat. e'strrslieq-c.;

j>9:^aa ed baa .sierfJ^OTS. Qbt.B»il:i: ■ ' '^ '- b ^l^«i^- i I jcl^wcf B£

-iiio a*jf£i<Bii#qg« lo ano ■^d' fclo.ci ..^.'. u: .^ t^fi'i i>Xiroria ei nor:

erf ea Tsriifi© Tt«q blaoo ad ,90iiei8'tliii on eLam d"i iBcid eie:

toeldisa s^w 8'i9rfi'0'i^ 96l8e;tlrf?? o;f inea ^90tornt 9^1. ^ j ,Jb9§a9l

bae ta»LJL&q]& fl99w;^9rf a^ ^iaisooalb aoleQistcaQO e c

rtalsx/S Jae^ sii -^aiAet^ufi aj. ■4u»£l»c^qA:!i<;i.fi&x^q:iaq■s^t~b€i■
9is^»'xo oi iiitob oc aaw T^otJtii%9i-tBti>ii al'9kBi4 iiiyi^icB^o..
at aterf^oia ebta^ttdV x^ b^ibaadr^ -t^^'&bc^rSi:'9^]i~'tQ\-»aB^B»»
.iattadot&a Llai^r ■es.i&Bealavd iJt9xU laH^B%«<M> ■^•a«iiiia-a*i
eJauoma 0.oid'oa8flai;t 9ff ' f^ " rfttall9q_-ia 'id .bginatrfoo ax J
•£J:8e;tlxi\7 ^[d *c«Iq sfiw ^c ..wiJsIIeJ??"^ '-•-'' oJjbb a o^ 110.
fll.'.?o©*i96 iffla 10I 9idalX «<f-t.G««»© J'i a^vv,^ - ...j.j.j^ ^o« ,ei9dio'xLi
al ioB'l&Jb Of poriH 9on9i)Jtv9 eria d-adt i>fla iflol;^aXXe;Ja^j•
ngiird'oeljcfflafls .:: ,... .,IdaiI ti- ftstoE Jbitiow-treri*, enlrfoam 9iL
err-^ -rc^Mjidsiijq •fio €«^ •^x;(,fli US ict ,i9Xiaid=«i a ct- sJboojf-^i'aWe:;
joiS©iJlT8 'erl:j tadt aotatao erict io eia -&::■' ..^ttmAotBi^r-^grii

B0Xd-«gi9Va00 «.- ■ 'Irt-tii' r^r. f r,n r-ror r.r, ; K. .,.-,.,.. f -r.;,^r/-., a.-:.! 'H,-

the iBsta-llaMoa of --bhe-ey-eteffl, and incltidlng whst was said
r-^eAr th« time- ::>FChl atadt-gat . thje_pxop»r^ •fcliere ,
,._^xay-4Ha--#4«d-l^^-^h*t!^-fts- ^jetireren -JtaMrslredt' and
■appellant, it was the appellant and not VvhiteBide- Brothe-re that

lirstBl^r-tiie— sy^t-emj irherefore- -arppellamt
i-a&j^^^ged-ie- that- &ap&frity.». and not -merely ee a
ttaB«f»et«pe^,--4tt-l't« relation to -Mahlsrt^t a««l ooasequent

Whateyer may be th^ -fagT-flB tcr-tfae -pi aciag- of t he
p-} p«« pTAjna-wi y ■n.y>.4^<i»Y>yf»Yyff-w y , /there -i^ little ouc st ion , that
the cause of the accident v/a=? the effect of the sun's heat on fe

the gasoline in the cerburetter during t^.e--Jtay , Sunday, and
that had it been covered before it v;as so heated ^the accident ft

would not have happened, V^hiteside testified that when

he left Saturday night he told Mahlstedt that it must be
covered before using to prevent heating the gasoline, and
that Busier, who was taking part in the conversation, said it
would not make much difference. I-f this ±s trae-Jitafalgt^dt^nB,

a;a0 ■ Het-fflb41-'fcy ~frf- aaeh eentributery negligence in not covering

the tank: as rould-defeat-a-reeeyea^i -l^-aay be - that -the

a»t4on of. heat an sHaQXjLixe -la-a-mattei of ooHiiBon knowledge;
but that-^-fae result of heatin«^ this gasoline. -l-»oftted in the
yard iiilght be to let gas escape into the cellar, would not
be known to a man Trot fainlliar with the working of the

«y»te«t rhwrewas sufficient evidence to supisort the

oonolw»ioiL_tlxai:; BuEler was acting as the agent of aripeiiant
in control of the installation, and that he assumed to
und^xatand the situation, . and that Mahlstedt nilght reasonably^
i

tf no iBstl a'flira arfvt ^o to9Yt" ^-v *09fiiooa siiJ^ to esxreo erlJ

i ;tfl©blooB aii;J, 69;tB9xf 6b bbw tl ©Totsd jusievoo seed il bad ieAi

ne.-iff tBdt bal^tiB^t sblaeitd'f! »f)ecfeqvi«il svari. Joe Jblx/ow

ad Jsirra *! iedi ibd^BLAeiJ^ blct 9ii id-^ln \;«I)'SifJfi£ ttsL ed

he a. .sfliloaes erfi' ^nltssrf tcsverrq ot snlatr sao'isd fisievoo

i'i iilBB ,noirf'eeT9vrroo »Ktf rrf tTcq; ^nlifBif saw o:iw .laleirfi d'Sild'

aytiSg^f Asm otnt^—gl-siil'J "Il .eorT9ie'i^i:5 doma a-Aam ioa JiXcow

*o« Moow .lalieo art I o^ni 9<ieoe«-ti»tB 4^X.(lJ:.8XL_idalffl„£)5^^
'c SirirjfTiow -8rl-:r rf;tJt« trailienB't d-on p»W" a,T5nt' nwucrrf' Bd

; t«xirt btiB ,fioii>eXX6^«ir,&fW .^o- ^£^4flO0 nl

aet-ander ills advlcre-aadr direction. There 4-s evidence that
•^usler said he had never before unstalled a plant, but it
d!t>^4 not appear that Mahlstedt heard him say it or knew that
fact, aR4--4*-i«--tt»c»fitradiot^--tfeat -the 'pttreh»se was made on
t hft Rtiif •t^m'^TT!^--H»*'*^-*TT^^-"'^*»^"*^ «Mt>.>vx.a^.p>.fv,y-Mi^ an -expert for the
wny>^ BnA-HihiJ-«^^t. ^c^p fl". „'^91^>t yndPT&tnod h^y ifiahlstedt that
j^bi teBJ^e-B-rothera were to da the— aiechanical work ^ and one
of them d_l4 a -part of -lt~^ he ha4 no reaeen to suppose he was
the-€xp€-rt cont«»pla^ted , and' might reasonably assttme Snsier
wiaa, and be guided, bywhat he said,

Thwrfl T?fts a suit pp'^'^^^g a«ainst- Wh-i t»«-ide B^ro-ther s
fey—the sanre injury, and their interest in the event of
this attJrt-€tg:d-Tigtgrar"a6igire that the liab-ility &h«uld rest
an appell-€Bat rather than them selves-,- is urged as a reason for
jjisregarding-tjtei-g teairifljooy^ - Busier died before -the
tj4 al , aad — tJae- agent of appellant who delivered the apparatus
te---MaM^.tedt--*kt--whe --faetery was- 4i&tu«lif-ied as a witness
Jiecause of iLLs-ijatejeet-^-ftl-lr-ef- whieh -pa^t- appall ant ..in a
hard position hs to proof of facts, which difficulty his
flLaTinaftl -uiga her^ with- much tact and earnestnesa; and we
jH?e««»e-4rt- -wa^- ■also jpresenteft to the jnry and by them

^ TJrB'CJOtirt at the request of appellant^ave
try—a-mraber" oT what is- known as cautionary instruc-
tions, in -Wlilch their a,ttenticn v.as as. fully and-cXaarly
d.ij;;«ct©d"to.-tJhAae..aon.siderAtiQn3. as the law permits.
Ve oannfrt-drlraregard the evidence of witnesses nualifled by
l&w-to—te&t-t^-in a case merely because they had a motive to
distcxt the facts and the opportunity to do so without being
contradicted, and vre see nothiog in the record from which we

il wJjd ,ia»lq e Jusiiai'aiiir aiolao '\B\Ba bBA 9A btee lelsv^

j-a^ac x)i»»rfB ^(^itXio'jtlX *aJ ^terW* wrlsdii "XBiir?Bir frca->#4»ei uiit-
8xri'«i«<ig* -©fti i)!n-»yiiei&-erfir'^n«£id^a[« lo *ff»^» •^i4-Aitt«~^-X*i-
,8;tiBrxeq.wRX.ft4?..,S«,.^A0- ;t4anaiU:srioo-.aec.iU- o4^fea**4att5 ";

oj- ©Y^^i'oa*' a 6«4 ^%aii^ -©ax/f.o >o ^I-ei^ra 8a#6 a* ni-j|g$^-*»^'-^-«#-'WBi
^cclad ;f«;oii*lJi„p^ jQjb oi Jij^icir^ioqcTO edt fiftR 8.toBl- a"fU '*»odfs !^'

oseB- say the juiy -w«t^ «^-w»j?i?a»iye<i in creMting such
93ii n e n o.»— la t fal g case.

Appellant offered the widow of Busier as a witness, and
she v/as permitted to testify that she accompanied her husband

to the Mahlstedt farm on the; cJaturday in question, reaching

i
there some tirr.e before noon land remaining until after

!
supper. She vas then asked 'to state what her husband said

to idahlstedt, and an objection to the question was sustained,

when counsel stated that he; proposed to show by the witness

I
that on the arrival of Wr. Uusier at the Wahlstedt farm on

Stay 2C, 1911, he informed ilr, TThiteside and Mr, Mahlstedt
that he had coae there out of curiosity to see the install-
ation of that machine and jJlant; that he had sold numerous
plants and never yet had s^en one installed. And further
to show by the witness that before Busier left the Mahlstedt
farm he told him, Mahlsted-t, not to use that plant until the
plant and carburetter and pipes had been covered with earth,
The court held the witness/ incompetent to testify to those
conversrtions. She was mot qualified to so testify by
out Statute, It is provided in section 5 of our Act on
Evidence and Depositions < "That nothing in this section
contained shall be construed to authorize or permit any such
husband or wife to testify to any admissions or conversations
of the other, whether made by him to her or by her to him, or
by either to third persons, except in suits or causes between
such husband and wife," She was not competent at the
common law to testify toi admissions cr conversations made
by her husband to her or to third persons; Baker v. Baker,

239 111, 8S; Donnan v. l)oonan, 2J>6 111/ Ml; Abrahams v.

i

"icLis sxxJLnififli^a i>xi« ; xiooa eioled &3d.i sT.qa Q"?*^

ibe^BlAeii ,tlu bne 9f)ls?^ '■'•• . ,..-..- , .- ^.^

-.XIjB^anl od:)- ssa cj ^tic. - .siQq bad ©d ^JetiJ

BSioiBBit'D tic- .5x.fl erf d'ait'- :&:. aalilo^jT. ;?iii'J Ic aoiJ'ja

tJisd'aXdail edt tlsl rslairtl siolsc .-asntlw edt %6 woda o.

» , ■■ ■ . ■

erid- Xt*nxr txi«I'^ .>ajt; o:t ;tc,.T , tB'5:^EIxlaJli[ ,.mirC SIo;t srf .triij-.

©aorfi' oJ Aj;!tl3-?=:!^ jrft j^Xsil JxuQO srf

iio toA Tiro lo a HOl^fOS .-'?Jj;t£j'

noXtoes aXJic^ r.i afflrf:^o;
doira y,ae ;ittnrx»q 10 sstroffttrrr
anoi J"e8isTnco ic Bttolaslcr) 't T^i-J lir to biif ■

no ,«XJi 0* Z0A -^d 10 rt«/£ , sdJo eii

neewi^etf aasirBo lo a^lxra cl tqaox© .enoetsq Mlrf* ot leriitla vc
e£t:J i-B tn.ai9qai.00 toa b*w ©ri8 v tajE frrflderrri rfoi':

a^sm acoXtaaisTfTOo to snolaaimfif; . fset oC

xidi oil-xo lod ocr baadafsd i©4 /^c
.V eiUBiljs-- .<3 \XXI a&S .flBfloocj: .▼ nanflod ;38 »XXI e£.

V-oolley, 243 111/ 365. Thte exclusion rests on the grounds of

publicpolicy independent of the question of interest of the
husband in the suit.

IL'he widow of L'ahlstedt; testified in the case and was
permitted, over the objection of appellant, to testify to

various facts, but not to conversations of her husband or

I

to any material suasxEZsxJditx controverted fact that she
could be presumed to have learned by means of the rrtarriage
relation that would bring! her within the rule announced in
Schreffler v. Chase, 245 ];ll/ 395, cited by counsel for
appellant, 7;e find no other question arising on the
admission or rejection of evidence that seeme to us fca of
sufficient importance to require discussion.

It is argued that Ifiahlstedt should have known there
wasescaping gas in !:he cellar and therefore was guilty of
contributory negligence ip. lighting a match, ThatJt v-as a
question for the jury ♦ • The Court would not have been
warranted in directing a verdict on that ground, V'e are
not inclined to disturb t|ie verdict of the jury on that
question or to hold that ihe Court erred ir, adopting their
conclusion that he v^as in the exercise of ordinary care in
so doing, ;

Appellant argues earnestly that the Court errer in not,
of his own motion, given the jury instructions as to Tpieetlons
of lawjLnvolved. The fielid is not open for consideration of
the necessity and propriety of such a rule or of the
construction of our Statuie relating to instructions. It
has long been settled lawjin this Statethat the Court is under
no such duty. It is said in The People v. Luoas, 244 III.

lo r^- aolsffloxo JdT ,ad5 \IIT S*S ,r.elLco*i

.&i:v6 exf^^ a I baadsLrd
SP-- . joscfaJJlflJfi 1:0 •'ToB^w sd'2

r ^Ixd-eto ,J-n6ll9qq« lo fi(JJ-t09f,rfo Oii. ,68J'*±an:9C[

..(SQud. i9il lo e£ioxi"Bei3vni. on iud ,8J'oal euoliar

^axfj^^oal Jbei"i9voii-aoo KkxlxxxxxjEsx I«ii8i'6ai-TSnB ot

e^siiifira gri^.^o exuBem -^tf Jberripei everf o* bamttzetq^ ed Jbliroo

x^i hdonuoaas elsn ©rf;t nirfcfir cTicf JBIxrow tadt aoltalBi

70l leanxroo \;cf fiSylp .SC^, ?.^S ,9earfO .v isIlleixfoS

. ;giijt8li« ftoi*S9irp TerfJ^c ,;fafiIIeQ[q«

'to 35:2 ajj- 0* ©neas tad:: - ooiaalaiJbB

♦flcieaxfOsijD eitfsi ^jaBi-xoqmt J-Tsiollltra

eitdt smoni' ev&d LLxtoda tbBiSilde^l tadi Pbd^ii

Ic x^^^"^ B'BV? saolsasd;^ Jbaa lalXeo ad: nl sag jnlqaoesaaTr

9X8 9'!! ,ofij;;oi3 d'arfJ^ cc joIAiqv; b sfli#o»Tl6 nl fisa-oBTifiw

&sidi no -STtJ^t ^f^-^ ^o c^olfiaov ©4* <fiiX*aJt6 ot Lsailoni ton

•xi^iii -^aitqabB xrx fidiia tix; i &di bLoA ot lo noit^avp

rrl 9-rBO ijianiijio lo »aioT«x9 edi^ at af 'olaulofloo

.^iIojo oa

,Jon nl tsiTa tiaoO 9di imaLi \iiiiBate. *ti&Il9qq[A.

8Col;fa9ffy o# ea aflol^oin^aal t51' , ot&ota ano airf lo

lo fl:ol*Bi«6laflOO lol as([o ioz ax f>'(f9±l r, . '^vlovnifwal lo

9dt lo TO 9lxn a done lo n^Vliqoin l>nxi -^j^^aaaoan Bd&

tj .z'jottoirvfBat oi ■^ultAlB'i Q^aintZ lao lo ctoitoirtieaoo

i&btw ei ;rij;;oO arfrf ied^B^ta^E, airier rrx'wal X>9l:Jtea xi9©d gnol earf

.III 1^i'S ,aBOx;J .V 9lqoe<I 9dT nl i;iB3 ai tl .^;t;/X) rfox;a on

603, on page 614 "This Court has often held that it is the
i.nty of the Court to pass on and give or refuse such instru-
ctions as are asked by the parties, and that a party cannot
complain of the failure of the Court to give an instruction
unles3 it has aeen. prepared and tendered for that purpose"; ad
and the Court adds that the rule is the same in ciitl and
criminal cases. Bumeroua Instructions were given for the
defendsuit covering every questjion it saw fit to present.
The Court refused one instrucljlon asked hy defendant and
modified another, "but in insttuction given at its instance,
the law attempted to be preseited by those instructions vras
given fa41y and fully, ITo cpmplalnt is made of instruct-
ions given for plaintiff and no other error argued that
seeiES to U3 to reouiraiiscusslon«

Finding no error in the record the judgment is affirmed

This case was considered and decided at the October Term,
1913, and the preparations of the opinion has been delayed by
the sickness and death of Mr. Presiding Justice Whitney, to
whom the case had been assigned to write the opinion.

Gd3^ cx Jl ^y^Ai tl&d 09.. cS bixi: -^gjiiq no .

-ir^dani doxre sax/le-i 10 avi-^ iiri.. i*o asj^- -.uoL/ esi^i to i^uD

toDSiSiO \.tiBq B ^Bda lea ,B9ittBq, •di \C ^.sjlee 9ia bs acoiio

iiOltoirxiEni rie &v±s o;t d-ix;oO -eAi I0 qivUbI 9di lo nielqmoo

fijD ;"eeoc^rG ;t£d;t icl fieaeMed fma ieifiqeiq fleecf eeri ;tl aaelr.-

bcB littt at qsibA edi at elsn srf* ^Bdi BbbB &ivoO'9(ii bsx..

.taessrrq oi itl wbb JJ- f!0K"....t. v.-^>j ^...iievoo tiieiftrielsfi
fens Jftfifinslsb ^6 Be^tee noilfonJeriJ: sao Sseden izxrcO sAT*

-toxrr^tarrJ: ^o efisa el ■tateLqm^o 0" . ^Ilir^ fine -^IAb^ aevi.
Tfjprf^ fc9ir«-rfl -roTTs TarfJo on bOB ^tl^TztBlrr lo"! nsvlr aflol'"

.ffOleBroBlfifeiJtirr'ST: 0^ aassa^'

^smTxile 8l tReavgbtrl sriit 61000-r dritf nl tcit© or gnibal'^.

^arxsT leflod'oO sdu era b&bto&b btiB berebtaaoo eaw iseao a±--(T
^d X)8-^el9l> C9S(f aerf colclqo ©ri;} ^c ajnoitBieqeiq 9df bRB ,SIGI
0* ,\;ec;fiilW aoi^atrt -gntblaer'i .til ^c rfJ-eafi bCR BBsn-iotn ^'d^^
.ctcinlqo eri^t stiTv? 0* Berr^^las* jn9«»d fcsrl seso 9A-* mcdv

STATE OF ILLINOIS, )_

SECOND DISTRICT. f '''^" I, CHRISTOPHER C. DuFFY, Clerk of the Appellate

Court, in and tor said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records

and Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the

said Appellate Court iu the above entitled cause, of record in mj' office.

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the

seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this thirteenth

day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine

hundred and fourteen.

Clerk of the Appellate Court.

5956

r--l

y^^"

/

AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COlrflT,

.^

/

Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the sfeventh day of April,
in the year of our Lord one thousand ni^ hundred and fourteen,
within and for the Second District 0/ the State of Illinois:

Present--The Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Preiiding- Justice,
i^^on. DORRANCE D I BELL, Justice.

\ /^""19 3I.A. 10

Hon

CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY ^f' Clerk.

V

/

J. G. MISCHi^E, Sheriff.

\

V

^ ^ /5t,^.oJ^ c^7A\l'

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on the 15th day
of October, A, D. 1914, the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
follov/ing, to-wit;

\

U a.

Uo. 5956,

Sabatino Magnan^, appellee,

vs.

Spring Vallay Coal Company,
appellant.

/.f^ CL~r

Opinion by DIBis:LL,J.

The Spring Valley Coal Corcpany operated a ,co.al mine 99

thB. lon^ -^on rinn gt -F-ft^l— rtl , ]Y\ ?Trrmn CattBty. 8Qbut"i-jie '

A

'I J

MftgnanJ worked tfagretn as a coal miner. 'Jhero wao tt-maiia

'kiiuv'.ii ao the gain sauth wcot< S©«ms8---ox-_eiitxxei5^ »•*•--&«*»« d

off this uiH'lii buiith-iiwe^ Magnani '-B-jw>««-<»ic wo-rkrng'-p-2:ace"'7;aB

on the fii-st 1 l.jjitenti-j/ off ilie -^rmrtir-tyea^. On August 29, it

1912;

.-yhe''',

'forked t>i*«*e without his "buddy".

close that day at l.SO x. i.;. Shortly after 1 o'clock

"^ entry was loaded. he api)lied to tiie

The mine was to

»:. the
car he had in

driver to take the loaded car out, so that ke could set in an
empty ana begin loading it, and vas informed that the loaded
car would not be taken out till next morning- , he could not
do any further work till that car was taken out- ae thtrre^
fore left his ffnt^ry^-aad started walking in the Bouth ■ffo.ot —
entry towards the shaft ^ 7,'hoyo the -««<»»h.-<>»«t ^^^yned -off -the
mai n w p h t-aad-4u.at . Xaslde^tJiifl^ &oxLth. west *ae a door to control
t'i'»^-e4i?<^nlatiop of fcho alg^--- -2«-0ee paeeing through — tirirfr-tl'CTfr
and-gtJl^r^Hwwixd&_Ua*.-.£ftc*«ai;^thfi .aoal- -in ^^t be loalp south >e st
l^iN^^yJia? "^ ''^''''^ decline, A-lix±jamx±XKx^ ^ trip o««.pa«^-#

^^ of a driver and one jr.ule drawing two empty cars, e«»e--Hrt*wT^
th«( door and otQ3rted down the--deci-lne^; i'here was' no brake /.
and the driver hid no sprags and could do nothing to lessen the

t'^i

.3563 .1

' , \-ncqnoO laoO •\^BlIflV ^niic
.JaBlXsqfTfi

.L.JJXCia ^jcf noinlqO

BB'.V aSfirftr ^ifcrtjitow io jskkt*— e-*-i«ft-rt*«*5 v*»««^-tHrrcB~rrtB3r-3:^-(MH

•''■• •■.■"■\ \^

eiit .*— .'r jiooJLD»o I laJla -^jlcrioric . c* . "^ ' - \Bb :fsdf ^aoJ

8uJ oJ i)9ilqqa eii .babaoi ^.... >,t-.ij «j-s?ti4 rci: bad oil ije

63i)uoi 9au J'adit i)9jn.olni: eflv bna ,cli :^nibaoI rriged r)nfl ^Jqa

ioa Jbixroo ad, ,3rrixii0:ii ixen LLli ino najfa;? scf ;^ofl .filrow t«

-•grpwW B^ ,tt'0 creiBCf ?.£? lao itsAi LLtt 3fio-T Toii-irt •^fia c

lOi'TfioiJ' 0 J -TOO 6 »• -a^Bw i'&.a-*- Miiii;'aa.-ad J. .aiuaxu- law-V-****- <taa.x gtii
^I'Olr^fwi-*— rf§HOiE«l;*"-3»i6ae? ^ffo -^ r«f^ o lio !■ » - go i ^ Jgo^l-a-erftf

b fegQ<qa»iB qlnj- ■pr*r»*faM-qf«^at'- A. ^enilosl) qtarfa a sb.v aTsrl*

; STffiicf on *eaw ?-t9riT .-grri: Itmfe -8rf»"gw<>^-d»»^M»^- bmJ loofe TtJ

9

:ij nssael o3- scin^on ct Jbluoo bna s^atqe on ^'"i T«vfTh «:[>: 5a

speed of the car, eaccept with his feet, and he could not
by his foot impede the motion of the car to any great extent,
xlhexa^^e^?* , in going down the incline the head oar ran
against the mule and the mule ran rapidly to keep out of the
way of the car, After jlagnani started towards the shaft iit
the main oouth ireoliT his light y>'gargi-e4o-J3r hi u oa^. went out.
he sa-w the car coming, but because hi3 light was out, "Che
driver could not and aid not see hizii till just oefore the trip

reached him, ".hen iilagnani saw the car coming and knew
that his light was out, he started running from tne car and
going from side to side of the entry, »viden'fr^y seeking for C\„
**« place ^ of refuge providod ay Oeetioa lr5.-H3|l''tr:f-~thyjS:c1r of
■-f>riij 1, 1911, uuiitiCTitlijfe, i.lifi(j!j and Miner^^ , ne was unable
to finr! a-plaoo of-refttgc, and the entry was so narrow that
the car could not pass him, and when the driver saw him just
in front of the mule it v/as too late for the driver to do
anything to stop. V:hile running, Magnani struck his nead

a.?ainst a lov/ place in t}.e roof and was knocked down and
run over by one or both of the oara*-""'^ .i^aoh' ■■og.p4»y^"««r
fflfni,;;]iori 1 SCO -or 1.600 pottado, — So bono o -were -brokea , but- he
*a-s. seriously Injured in vnriawo '¥ay»,-i!ietaeee3-aary -to-be

doocribed. lie waa in attuajji tal-^fo r -w tltn'-r"'^ arfd '-vras

ti-g-alod Hi hra'lfU'iiie lay <* jfjii^aiciaii -fog- a iang ^Were,- -bti* -rras
unable to mork for ono year }--^Hfteh-g:t- 'the--^i:B>«~-fr£--titfr-4j:lal-, in
-y««nayyT~1914., h» was -«t41-3iauffftring,jCrxu&^tJM^-iBbj^gy7i He

f n r .^a i (i i Qj.]irJl^ 8 , . and f ilad.. aa--»»igitrar3r- deelargtlotr and
aeLdlti-»Bfil nnnn,t.a-J3JUl. . siEeri^me.a.ta x*tere1w end- sxtcrVtrer
add it ieaal -oeuntir ' Some- o f-ttrr COTIBTs "cTiarge^ngr^'tl-fttlr-^rle'-
1 at ion of the- et»tttte and trthers coinno-tt law- aagligonee.

1^4

olrroo •A baa .cfsel ttld dtlw *qeoa© ,tJBO sri* lo iseqa
,;?iidJAi» Jjsd'xs ^j;ru3 of iBO 9di "to uoJtjTc aaqml J-ool ei.''

eri^ lo Jlo iisei oi \l.htqM'. ^ma eiLi jboc ^Issta 9d^ i'snlssa

-»i cMarfB adi afiiewo^ i38;ti. .cao exl;f lo ybw

,txjo ;tiiew .^^do -»-M •ao^i'Kctis ^ i_i;-,i^ ix*4 ,^^3v; eU^toH-'atan ea^

8jio (jj;/u $sw td:glL ^td 9atisaoBc cxliuoo i«9 a.'Icf wsa sii

qjtij 3d^. siotQcf t&ssl liiS sntd asa JOii ^lv Jjca ;fott .Jjlxrod talhittS-

tsiJt ^xH- W3a -f9VliJ& aiicr rteflw Jtoe- ,aiiri aeeq .v^on JjIjjoo tso ad*.

oi) (»;r levitb oiid- nol s^fal oo;f ; ° ■• ^' -^[r-r**^ id ictcnl at

b&<>d a Jut ilotrxjta Xtma-%^1*^ .sclonir: .qtoJ-s o* 3nirf*ic«a

^H»e. -^i^ffMO- .r.r-~ **s,B130 6.1? Ic rf^Crf TO 9^0 Tjtf 19V0 rUTX

...... Urnr -^-sai^-^fio-i -* ««.>-Tir±rrrflH5s*'i - ii-^ie«f"9!ttOTl U'til Jw JDorAJtif-

a 53l(5i5Tr Tsi V?ro*ST 1H ■'T^D'tnrrs'- -H trt -!hrr.t«:gs"-»ira aietit -^t-f-gtw^rf
had iio'ttBTtrf^r»j&-:-fBtr±^i*e. oa^liaXil J&«ft . , 8 tXXJitiix JULaaL-XflJ

Issues of fact v.ere joined ofa irostof these counts and there
was a jury trial. At the close of plaintiff's evidence
plaintiff dismissed his suit! as to all of the declaration
except the first additional count. Certain evidence was
excluded by safgument , Iher^ was a verdict for plaintiff,
assessing his damages at $l^pOO. ^otions for a new trial
an din arrest of judgment wejredenied. Plaintiff had
Judgment on the verdict and kefendant appeals thBPBfrom,
The first additional icount alleged that the mine
examinerwil fully fained to comply with various requirements
of the statute, and among these charged the wilful failure
to inspect all places where qisn were required to pass in
the performance of their dutjfig and to observe whetner there
was any dangerous roof or dargerous obstructions in roadways
and in the roadway -^fere-oaiAtaHA wllfal^ fallnre to place a q^

"onHrirmnnff -iwrh 'iV'''i(; ""!'^ f iTgH^by-M-f tu^-.A^m^ji^'w^Yrr* roof
8«4 — wil fair— failure to molio a-yeeegA-y— e^e. The proof
introduced by plaintiff tended to show thpt t**e roadway
had been brushed from the outside in for a certain distance
and then at the place where plaintiff struck his head against
the roof the brushing had ceased and that there was a sharp
drop in the height of the roof and that plaintiff struck
his head against that. i itaa a oo »• f wT'-fibef ertdrgrrf i^ertl-gd - that
tiliorr. Tin any enoh nhnrp i Imiiihii.' iL«s»*4;.iiei.*s«., the oral
evidence and plat introduced by the defendant, showed that
40 feet inside tlie entry way the roof was 7.3 feet high on
the right hand side and 7.2 feet high o-i the left hand side,
while 10 feet further on it was 4.2 feet high on the right
and 5.1 feet high on the left, showing a drop in the roof
somewhere within that distance of 10 feet of over 3 feet on

l^ i

noi^at-eloeJb eu i^aeei^nQiB: tttiale^

lalij- weri a lol aaolcJ'O* .004,I| ^s aosBmai) aid •grxlsaeei

.rno'x^«9ad;t eXssqga ;taai>rr8l9lJ bas tolbts'v »rf* no j-flsoigfij:
snitn eil* tariJ Jbe^ella tniroo' tsaotttbhe taill aril
8d-fc»raei±xrp»i aixoliev f(*iw -^Xqcaofo oJ ibaaia^ ■^Iijrt:Xiw4eal!aB:
©ifflial Iiflllw e.'tit fiegtedo ea^JdJ" grroaia fina .©^xrleta »dcr to
111 eeaq. oiJ^ JbeTlup^T: e:t©w c.«e 9idii«r adoalq Ila toaqaal r-*-
»iBd^ i©rl;t9r{w aviaacfc oi i>ca aajtitiii) -ixsrl* lo •ocaimco'iioq ei
B^ewijsoi nX 8aold"oia3-8do avo-xs-^OBb -xo Ioot auoi9;giia^ "^ca sbw

looi ariKn'9^««& -^rtf-tv: -'^^H'n^T' WifS^f jflCJXar*t««--ejxQjiaJujjBXLCLO
liooiq- 9ilT f^i^^^4rt^99f-« 9itogi •«;^-0TgXJta^-IiftIiw--Jkfg
XAVbaoj ^Mt ^erfd' woda oi bebnsi tliiatslq y^ figowfioidr
eonaJ"BJt^ ataix^o a "xol: nl aBxai^iro pit saoti badanid neod bsd
taaiBs^ii hBQd aX4 -iointa %%ita.ialq^ eigxiw sofiXq 9iivf J-a rrerf:^ .orra
qiaxle a s^vy qt;©!!^ (^ad;^ |)aa Jjee^ao Jbaxi snXriaxnd edJ loo
ioxndg rtl-tfllaXq .taiiJ^ iiaa loo.T:,»<i;t lo i'dgled ed;t nl qo'
i stir -fmtTPertr tT3^!Tfi\'9-b- -T9t'-'»9« s^»£^l >i' .texiJ teaie-^B Jbasri aJ
Xarto erl;)' ,.B.a».tftfUigfccvafc •"I'tr^iiBd^ rj^edB ^iMw ;gfcA..^.p.A 9,rQB
itarij- &9W0fl8 inebnelsb grlJ y<^ i>90i;f)o,i;fni ;faXq bfia eoaebi\
no ilslxl i-Qe. . t;-.v "ioo'- / -^T^tna »di sbiaixi. iaat Oh

,«J&lR Marf ;Msi .2kd ioa't ^»^: bna obis basd id-^l.

drl-tli adi ac d-^ld ios'l . 1 co i9iiJiul ieal OX »XX

A sniffoxla ,tlt o d-^ld ^^eal X.a X:.

no d-se^ Ji ■X3V0 lo iJ'eot QX lo aojoac^ei-Jb ;faxi;t atd&lw a-iariwemv

one side and over 2 feet on the other. It- iu "8ontoada^.l;hat
VaJglug lliu cviaenee-g^H:iTy-'ffitnesffigg----fyr--tffae 'p^^^ a s

Lu the ylauu yhejr« — pi aint i f f f el-1-,- -t^ti-» plwta- where the
roof hr>fii ^r^^+r■1T'•1trny■^TTnr>1^1Tn1r-■iT^^ th»- place wfe,«re the

plaJLrrtifX' s. jtiead .Jaii— ■Wa^--»©'0^-r -- ~ 2fce-»© witHe»e«-s "*-i«k- not
protond to-h-avt) fffeagflffla tfle tttgtrant:?e3-~franr^tiTe^-d'0<Mrt -no r
tOn know- -gy»e-lee4y "how- f»» liB"''Mtfr ©atry w^ky-it- W€i»--tkat he
^^;3s^ Plaintiff testified that as he ran to get away from

the trip, he held his head down low, ¥inere- lg"ti<!> yaaa

ideKi«>3r~"tff"-t!'*!'e ovlffgHgH (rf-rhe'"fgtt1r -tsjieatified to Bfr least
by two — witnoocwo thn% he' did atrilfe hio hoft& i t. a 1 ow

■pTnpp ip the fngf -fiTiii ^hnrffliy fgHlli -in farryat nf this trip.
There is no statKita defining the height which a

■)

roof is required to be in ST|ch an entry way. It is evident
that an entry way can be so /low as to be dangerous to those
// employeAs who are required 1* pass back and forth therein
between the shaft and the tlaceof work, Ve think it the
spirit of the ilining act that if such an entry way is so
low as to be dangerous to employees rightfully travelling
therein, then this is a cohdition which is required to be

rcarked and to be removed,
brushed this roof to about:

It is clear that defendant had
the place where plaintiff struck
his head and fell and thai? then defendant stopped the
brushing of the roof, and that this was a considerable time
before this accident, I?t was a question to be determined
by the jury, whether tbio roof was so law at that place as
to constitute a dangerous Condition, Piazzi v, Kerens -
i^onnewald Coal Co, 262 I1X> 3C. If it wps a dangerous
condition, then it war thi duty of defendant, through its

It t>ir-v TOfrtr- tntT' moi^-^ voanTtcTtr irffT" TSVTUaTStl9l » v gii-»»- ■ baoi »5cg
exi #a<<4-^aay^ ^A...%aw-'y^#<W'-'»ri^»-g^t ^t^^ wpgat o^

gggy ' og-^^jt" ■ '■gf grf^r ,woI awoJb f)B9.-l slrf 6X9x1 9x£ ,q-ii* Qdi-

: i:: i . ilsij fi;fifrj>s*a Ofl al ©lerfT

^■09^1^9 al .. - , • .= ./j; oj- I)©ii:irp9t al 1:ooi

98ori* o;t axroiegxiiji) sd ^: ^ 7,bw '^i;J'a9 ne :rerf:t

Bdi il inMJ eW .iiow lo90Blf ©ilcT bna ;fleil8 erfj negwd-
oe i-i: i^:3.r \;-r+r.3 aa. do ires il j-aid- tf'oa sninlM 9rf* lo ;t±:tiq9

SxllIl9VflTd xLLtfiid-uli eas-^oi
9tf oi' fi9Tlxrp6':'
bad tasbaBl

9mtt 9i(l&t3biaac

beainnaish sd oi nc-ijaai;;. b sew j
88 eofili^ ^arld" ja w«I 03 aew looi

s;;o'i9sii«6 ©tf o;f as wol

da oi !tooi aiild^ b9dein

' ' " Bfcfi 6«e *

i

i;tJ:f)rroo» n rroT ognafi a 9d'0d'±i'artoo ^

. ■ ■ /^ " '■ " ,r-- ■■ - 0 " 5 lawgnno

]

proper officers, to cause a ^conspicuous mark to be placed
thereat and to make a report thereof in the book kept for
that purpose and to permit ao coal rriner to enter there until
the dangerous condition had been removed, and to cause ihe
rootfeo be brushed and the dftnger to be recioved. defendant
did' none of these things. We conclude the jury were
JTistified in finding that this was a dangerous conaition.

defendant introduood in evidence a rule of the
company requiring miners ^o keep off the hauling ways and
away from the shaft bottom during working hours while the
mine was in operation. This rule was ignored in an
instruction given for plaintiff. Section 12 of said lining
Act provides that whenever men who have finished their
days work or have been prevented from further work, shall
come to the bottom to be h<iisted out. an empty cage shall
be given them for tlBt puriose. i^nother section of the
statute provides for place^ of refuge at the sides of these
passage ways, and not over 6C feet apart. 7.e think it
clear that this means that pen may lawfully be in the
passage way at any time andj especially when they have
finsihed their work or havfe been prevented from further
work. The operator of thejmine could not lawfully adopt
a rule that would prevent tjie miner from exercising the
rights given him by the statute. IVe hold that the court
did not err in ignoring this r^ile of the company in its
instructions. If plaintiff was negligent in disregarding
this rule, that would not bfe a defense to the first additional
count, under which this recbvery was had.

Instruction' So. IP f cr-itrcn q+ i-v,^

" ^». XL .3 given at the request of plaintiff

i *

\

£1^^^ g.; )j T9fli£H X«oo Off *Miiq. ,Q:r .J^«« saoi-iirg:

.0 sXirx X3 90ce£ii:v« ai i^ouboiiat i-nefinet©^

Ili^vf 8-itrod ^nltfYtW BftlTtJifB Ao-J-*©^ t'ierfB sjiljcQ^.^ .-^fi'-
-»TO^t «Bir ©i*n atfTr - .eoiJQ-ssqo.iJi saw en J

lo'i U9vl^ rroitoind-Br
lied* fierfeirrll evsrl ori* tragi i9v«fle.-Iw JadJ asbivoiq *-
IlBxie ,iiow larttTi,^ moil f>9cta9v4iq naed 9VBd io iiow.e'^::
Xleiia 8SB0 ic*<lffle az .*iro fie^Ud a^' o:f (itojiod sdJ o* emoo
eri* 10 noUo9a i9ii*ofl/i . i04;;f«i. .ri^T aeviS ^^

aaedJ Io eeJbls 9rf. *b 9^x^91 ^o ^soelq-col E9i.xyoiq e;fx;*s*8

9.1:^ ni 9d ^IIu^wbX ^bw csb* JwriJ ^^sem eiiO teriJ isglp

97x:ri x,9dz fl9rlw ^Il8lO0Xi.-; ^ ^^ ^jflw 9SBa8aq

lerlJtXTl fflo.i B33it9V»iq nsB,. Xio.v liaK* f)9rfiean

;tqoi.B ^IIiftWBi ^oa Llirc. -c ac*.a-:f3qo 9dX . _.^o-^'

9rii- 5ffJt3loi9X9 aioi'i i^axu ^;^r-" -.-1;^ 9lin;

■ iisjoo eriJ ;fBrl;f Mori e .y^^Jx^^y a.^ >i^ "-^'^ ^^^"^S ^*'^-"

■iJl Hi .jfiBqinos 9riit 10. oiirx n^di ^i-ioa-^/^ " -"^^ *o^ ^'

iBCOi^lfibB ^S-Xn 9ri-^ Olt 3809^0. C -jCl ^OH M.:... ...i:f .bXXTX ax...

.Joflrf aflw ;tl9V(^GeT etri*. doXriw :i9/>r - , 'crr.n

relating to tne method of ascertainin/j the damages, if
they fouud plaintiff entitled to recover, told the jury
anoag other things that thay might consider v,-hether the
impairnient of plaintiff's health end physical condition
"is of a pei-manent nature or otherwise, and if you believe
from the evidence that sucl^ impairment is permanent , then
you may consider to what e:ttent, if shown by the evidence,"
it is contended that there. | was no evidence that plaintiff's in;^

Injuries were permanent apd therefore this instruction
was erroneous, Ihe injury was on August 29, 1912,
■^he trial began of January 21, 1914, Plaintiff's physician
testified thnt shortly before the trial he found that
plaintiff's right knee wa(& one-half inch larger in circum
frence than the left, and that this indicated that the
inflammation in that knee from which he had suffered still
existed there, but he gave it as his opinion that in 6 or 8 »•
months it would be normal, This indicated that there was
som&degree of permanance iip the injury, Ihe jury also
saw the plaintiff on the w|.tnes3 stand and might be able to
form some opinion of his condition from his appearance before
them. The instruction alio liiaited their consideration to
the evidence, and did not tell them that a permanent condit-
ion existed. V.'e think it; was not reversible error to give
this instruction, nor do w(b find any reversible error in the
other matters suggested by' the defendant,
5he judgment iis affirmed.

1 •

|pcu a''ili;fnjtBiq JbxIJ ©orrsijivt ca saw ari? £)9i)a9d-i.too

r*ol;foxn:f8nl eicii eio'lSTSdJ :.6£LBJix9q; 9i9W aalii/i,

.SIi?! ,es ;fBxr3x;A no sx,.; 'i;i:i;^nj: eril .EXfoecoTTe se?.'
OBiols-^q a'tllwxii*! . -I?I ,12 jrisTjoiiu to aueaao Isti* WiS-'^

a i£iiJ 9cLJ 9io^9d %L$ioA9 tf'di b^t^ti-^

moiio :■:. -ra^-iGi doal llBil-gno 4bvv gecoT ;^4al*t a'l^Jfcd-nlBlj;

eiit 3"erf.J ieitBOJtbxil alxid' i&A^ ' , tl9l siii oadi- ©ortgil

ILiia JisielljjB LBd arl riolrivr moil r^.w^ JBiivf ni aolizm'^&nRl

•« 8 10 3 Hi i-firfj iioiiilq[o aid e£.- "r ""- :^ *•'•■ , iieii;^ bQtat%e

SB-.v sieri;^' ^tedJ r.^ t:-,,.j .^ f ,. f- ■ _ ,,._^.^ _^, ^.ucw ^M ed;^com

obIb V^wt &^- »<,ix.^,^u. c..... .ij. ^onBABCHieq lo (peiyeJopr'^

oi side 3d ;J"ri3i:in x>as ba&ia aaBaiXw ^d^ ao ^.tlialBlci edi Ao...

eiolsd eoaBio9qqB sxri nioil coiJlJ&nio aid ^o nelfflqo eoioa rniol

o* ccl J'BieJblanoo ilariit i)9.;MttxJ: o^Xjb aoJ:;^otn^8fll »rlT .oteitT

-tlJbcoo tff9ff«nrr9(j b iadt m^dt ll9t Ion: iiiJb bas ,eot:iebtv9 sit'

97I3 oi^ 10119 9ldlaiev9i ton aB?v'Ux kaiii^t 9''! ^betslxe aof

sdt at 10119 9ldl2i9vsi Tjaa Jonll^*- ob 10a ,sioliou^iaat aidi

ttiiubns'lQb sdt \d oa^fse^sxra eisid'em -39:

STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) ,,

SECOND DISTRICT. f ^'^^ I, CHRISTOPHER C. DuFFY, Clerk of the Appellate

Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records

and Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the foregoinof is a true copy of the opinion of the

said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of i-eeord in my office.

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the

seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this thirteenth

day of October, in the yeai' of our Lord one thousand nine

hundred and fourteen.

Clerk of the Appellate Court.

^ ^

O ,1)

r

KJ ^'O

AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE JCOURT ,

/

Beg-un and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the*sixth day of October,

/
in the year of our Lord one thousand nipxe hundred and fourteen,

I
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:

Present--The Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Presiding- Justice

Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice.
Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, ^justice.
CHRISTOPHEk C. DUFFY /cierk. J9 3 I«A« -L4q

7

J. G. MISCHKE, Sheyiff

A ^ yi.'l A

(M/9-r d

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-w^i t : ''©h- ttte.„.,,64><"tfCy
of January, A. D, 1915, the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
fowllowing-, to-wit:

obu.

Henry Boehning, for the use of )

hinsaif and Connecticut Fire / ^

Insurance Company, -ii j ^ i } J

Defendant m Erior. _^ i^;^^\/-,

v« ; j 1 Error' to Kane

Elgin, joliet & Eastern Railawy i r^L^'^

,^..U^^

Company, ) </Vv-pW- iX -t^CA o'v O ^K^:

plaintiff in Error, ) f-/ ^ '[(fiOO^ A^ I

-I t

"Orj^ 1 n i » n J^-y^:fl:

^"*^

"VW- '•^.•v^wji-fi;^::^^'^ 'vv^-^^t^?--!:. Co-^A.-^-a>' d-<i,*lJ<l^><-A-*.. rh~*- s-h)^-^

JPlaintiff in e-riJi'^ defendant below, t*e Slglxi, Joliet

& Saatern pallway Company, herainafter called defendant, owns

and cpara^t^a a belt line r- ilroad -^xtendlns frorr. Joliet to

Waxike-ran, Illinola, It croaaea the 0/ M- &" St ,P/ Ry^at

Spaulding a few milae frorfl Slgin and is at th..,t point a h

sinsls. trs.ok roa.d running about north ^rom Spauldin^ and ^>

crosain'3 about a wile north at nearly a ri;:ht angle by a

public hii-h..ay. Defendant in error, plaintiff hslow,

^,enry Boehning, herelnefter oalled plaintiff, owned a farm

on the south side of the highway east o^ and adjoining the

defendant's right of way^ with farm buildings located about

thraa hundred feet from defendant* a track. It is up-grade

frort apauldins north to ard for some distance beyond this

point, and the railway track is below the natural level of .^

the ground opposite plaintiff's premises. At about sieven

A.M. November 37, 1907 there was a strong wind from the south-

' \ ■ '

west and a fire start,ed in the south side of a straw stack at

a point »€*etr or eight feet from the ground and 345 feet east

(y

.")

^'•'C-

r

(

o* . *6iioI> i-fcrte^aws- b«oi-Jri~a- Anil- -iX«^- 5-©d^^T*qo iaxLs

lo IsveX Lsiut^a »df woXsd" »* i'ojBi* y^wXlei ori^f f)njs ^^fnioq
ff^VsX^* *.u-odj3 *A .aeaiioaiq «*mjnl«Xq ©;tJt80qio bauOTg 9di

-rfi-jioe erf J .aoi'i bnlw -gnoiiB s eav Qiedt ,V06x ^VS lacfiaevo^f .H./l

p '

rf^B*e ifae^ a^S ^ne fjnjjots erf J moil J-eel *rf!S« 10 -«*vt&« taioq jb

of the center line of defendant's track tird rssililted in the

destruction of all the farm "buildings. Plaint if ipiuima

that the firs fRa e«t hy 3. jpark from an engine of def endjxnt ' 9
and he brought tliis suit to recover iamagee for t].e looa, and
iad vsrdict and judjiient I'or ;'76oo,».*^ in the co-art Ijelow,

The fact:? ao far *» above- atatcd are not controverted,

eithar is there aiay ejus at ion to the v?.-lue of the property
Jeatroy';d, or aa to :;.ny rulliig of the court on the evicience
or instruct lone, except m refusing a peremptory instruct ion
direotinj a vsrdiot ..■or the defendant, We axe asked to

revarae t>i9 judgiuent without recTianding the caae solely en the
ffround that the verdict is not supported by the evidoncsjp.nd
i; is insisted thare is no credible avidence th=t the fire
wii.ia set by an en<?rlne, because it i« said no engine .laased the

:et.iis3.s at a tiraa vthen it could have ao caused the fire, and

if it h«td s© ijassed it is ir'.possible th^t it could have ,^

throvm a oindsr or spark cjapable of settin;^ a fire !.h?.t distan**

jt appeared in evidence introduced by the plaintiff that

5^ 3
the onlw people on t'. a premises for *$^ or t^i-co hours before

1) i-o

the fire were a housekeeper in the dwelling house one- -hundred

sHwt-tw»ft^ feet north of the straw stack and plairtlff's son

tyglrtftfta- years old working with t" 9 hired man about the farm;

that there was a fire in the kitchen stove in the dwelling

house and no other fire on the premises* The son, Leenard

Boehninj, testified th t he and the hired man came from tv©

field to the barn j.nd the hired man droveknto the basement

to do some work taere, while he, the boy, stayed outside to

shut a sa-te, th t he 'vas cutsets abcvt M4^ minutes and in

the vivinity of the straw stack ard noticed no fire bi^the

iii gte^^^a; X9V0097 oJf Jitm ail* ;trf2?'/9^cf,.9<i bn^

iJLbaoiTMi.a iuQdil'w tii^^bi. ~ -n^vsi

eioted BTuod ^^t^xAi no ~<^Sf$ ttol asaJtaeTq tJt no ^jXcipaq lyXno pdi

x3sxbiK«f-#ftO aai/od anillewis ©rfJ ni i8qa»3i88j:/orf « aiaw ©lil ad*

iiOB a'm^ljilq bnA ^(ojs^a w.^tta adjf lo rfJaon Jael -^fl-ftw^-^fte

snJtXIewfi ad* nl 9Voi% mdo^ti. 9:ii al Bill s 8«w ^i9dt tJidi
M^RceJ ^ffoa BdT ,ee8im0Tq ed* rro attil tedd-o o«-£Kn« esji/od

9^'A fflo-xl saiJBO rt/JM f>aiiri ad* baji ad * dJ tei"JX*ae* ^gnlitdaoa
in9ti\0B£d %dt oiaitvoib nsis. bsxld ad^ Jt>n« fnjBcT ad* o* bL^Xt
ot eblatuo b^'^&ia, ^x^<^ ad* .,«^ eXidw^ett&dv^ 3(iov amoa o^^p^
rrt !>«» a«*junlm ^V4 iifdda etba*x/o e^v ad if.od* ^a*^j « ^^^^s

ad,3l/rf^aTit ont fcaol*orp^l>ftjo 1ojs*b wai^s ad* lo ^^iaiviv ad*

' 3 1

saw a freight train with one engine and t^enty-five to for'ty
aar«^ eoxr-ing north f-roia 8i>aii dins and about half ray fror.
Spaulding t^ 'iho high-.vay croeeing, that it waa not ooming fast
and he could hear a heavy exhanet ^ and see smoke coming from
the stack like a black cloud; that he went into the barn
where the hired man was working and stayed not more than
M^tAflu minutes, and when he came out the stack was on fire;
thir-t hti and the hired nan and a M»« Brit ton who drove into
the yard^ tried to smother the /ire with blankets and v;ater
but in a '^ew fcinutea It '■ot so hot thev had to abandon that
effort, Thsrsi is w-nother eakft and west road about -*^©- rr. ilea

north of plaintiff's premises. John Hartiuan testified

th. t he is a farmer and at the time of the fir^ lived or. trhia
road 'a little over half a mile east of the lins of defen^
dant*8 railroad; that he saw the flre^ that he started from
his home about t^fi-thJjrty jf.M. and drove west towa^Pd-^ Eljjin
and stopped about «£x rods east of the railroad crossing to
let a northbound freight trair pass,' that there were perhaps
triftTfy- care drawn by one engins^with a lot of black smoke
coiiiing out vjf the en. ins; that he felt a few cinders flying
arourid and the train was not running very fast^ that he
drove on after the train passed^anaL when about ftS^^y rode
west of the traok^he looked south and saw a lot of smoke and

in a few minutes saw flames from plaintiff's burning buildings,

still .^ /-^

There la c^nother east and west highway about w©- miles farther

north "t^K/n^ crosses defendant's right of way under the track.

Dr. Sha:i^ s practicing physician of Elgin^t/stlfled that he

hf 1 for son.Jyaara prfcticed in the vivinity :f piaintiff 's

hoxu3 and waa well acquaint ad with that part of the country;

tht.t on the sit*«*ncon of the :l'^\ of the fire he had been
/I

;; _ ,- - . . J.: , ^. : - ifToa .^,\

moil gnifflOD 62{OflW ©9e briib ' ;fejoriilx© YVJS^rf •* sjBsrf Jbluoo eri

rxad ''©rf*"'o*«f "Jnew arflfirfl ifci/olo io^lJf Jb siiX iOB*e erf*

.;;•' .t iio BJ8W jiOvsJ'e «r(rf' *i;o "effiiio arf nsrfw JitiB^aed-unla aseiUri'!:

i''lt«T" x.::ji&-:is'ti rrrfoL ♦sseloiaTq t*11;i:dn,L':lQ: Ic dizoa

■ •. -- - ' . -^ «^.--..

0* snl«80io bfiOiXi-si ad;^ Ic *a£» stbot «t» fuocfjs Jfcaqqocfs l)njs

d:jiOiae jJo^Xd" lo JoX - , ; s.t.'; eno Ttf rrwjsi^ aT^o -^f^Bff^if

3:11^X1 e^ceJbnio wel ^ *X»1: et srriaioo

erl J.-ixfJ- ^'tajBl \:Tev ;g/T:lnnirr *Oit ajw /oijs

.locx arf^zfo^i* aTfrTo* *esTw
. Bsni&Xixjtf s^lrn:i;cf a'l^lJnlaXq mciiY Eara^Xl wjsa Rs^Wtlm r^"^ js rrl

.iojsid' erf* lebnx/ ybw ^c ^.Hfr'i'T" a'JrriJbneleh iaaaoio JftxJj^' xf^rrorr

6»llii-

.•Mrtlvi-r Si-f.-; .•>'?^

visiting patients in the country and was east of the
defendant's ri-rht of ray thriving west on the last ment-
ioned road end rsaohed the railway crossing about 11 o'oloc
th; t h? TT5.d driving a horse afraid of the cars when they
passed over head; that he stopped about fa*^«ty rods east of
the crossing to let a nortlT bound train pass; that it was a
long train, perhaps thirtyf Ivo or f&a?*y cars, drawn by a
oomraln size engine running slow and throwing out a large
amount of smoke and cinders; that there was a strong wind fet
from a little soutl^eet and cinders from the engine struck
his buggy; that he drove across the right of way after the
train passed, and when he got from an eight to a fourth

of a mile from the viaduct he saw smoke which he knew
was at plaintiff's premises^and 'Irove i'-mediately there

whsi^e fee four-d maiiy people^ and all the buildings on fire.

There 'v^rs other witneaesa for plaintiff teetify^
ing «.a to vt:.riou8-rj6tter© --.bout- the fire, its fr03r3as>

efforts tc extinguish it.eto-. It appears that it vas

a dry time, that the ground and srecks were dry anu there
was a high "/ind blowing from south of west, perhaps nearly

due eouthrrest, the vdtr.esses diff3r -a to that-, /hey

aXsc differ aliorhtly as \^ the tim«- cf day> as- sit nee see

c
^idually do on such occasioas, but thsy connect what they

BAy- about the j^e-sein^ train with assing ths fire in such

a way that there ie little ;^round tor supposing that they

arc mistaken about the relative tlc^e of the passing cr the

train Cvnd the iire, and while they are testifyinp; acne -

y^ara. after the event^ it rae a matter --ot likely to be

forgotten*, It C5-.rmot reasonably ■ e .said that no train

went north just before the firs at:-irted and that the

three witneaaee that testifisd to the fact were mistaken

in their testimony because -:f the frailty of human memory.

5^^

9dt lo J«i3© 6J8W i>nj6 x^tnsio'j »rf^ -ni iTrnsUBq sxiI^IbIv

yerf* narfw sa«o ©rC* lo IjIjbtIa aaiiori iS gnivi^i) c srr -rri-*.<:MW

lo ;faj3@ stoi Y^^^i^^^ tuodz Ijeqqo^e eri c^jsrf J ;!}«erf isro J!2etfa«q

« 8J5)R' ;ti tMcit ;aeAq /ri£2j^ Jbnmocf tf;f70a a ^eX od^ grzltBOico eri;i^

« YCf nw*ii) ^aaJBO -^f**©! xo •▼i4-»:-*»l-*# «q»ffT^q' ',«l-«<;»^~ "gfroX

egajsX A tuo gnlwoTd^ i>ii« woXa gnlnmrs ani-^a »sia irJia^'O

aeS^ fijoXw gnoi^a « ejsw a^carf* tudS jBTaJbnlo ,Ans'*»S03a"!to*tf^xnrom«

adf letls yjiw to td^trt Bd& aaoaaa ovoiA arf ^J»rf* tYSS*"^ '-^rf

fI;fijjo'5 A ot td-pjQ nj8 ootl *o^ axf it9dyf l^rtd ,S>g'BSti :tZ£ti

vrp,rr^ *->' -foiifw eioflis wj&a arf JoitbJB^v arf* moil alia e lo
.i:i>ec!:tl avo:rb> f)ni3^apEiiae>*s:.:, e'J:.tl!^niaXq *j8 e«-r

,eTil no esnlfcllx/cT »d*^Xi« '. sia Jtrcyol «-i ei*©rfw
,• •• •' '■ i-flM«**'^f??-#>t«:-tfi*-e^€#.-' ';.- ■ "•■' —

BTe. cii; a-xaw eafojria 2.1-:: inioig arfi *i3nJ ^e.ijtj -ctjd £-

YanT t'#-fl*ti o* «i4 'Xfllii'> t. -•^''^

t^^ec e ■ ^XcfAHoajjBt j'Onrtjso »x ^rtajr;J^03B::ol

ill Bff : ;trtew

• Yaofasrs n.sfiu/rf lo Y^-tiJSTl arf" Ic esiro-oacf y«o^-3-86u lisdt al

The court In passing or. the motion to dirsct a
verdict for the iefendant had to assume the truth of thia
teatircony and if tn;e it seeme to u3 auf-flcient to 3ui-port
a verdict fcr the plaintiff;- thereforg the court did not
err ir: refusing to take the case fron: the jury,

Bi>t the defendant introduced evidence that fsea/us

-about aa oonolusive th-t no tr?.in went north troit, Spaulding

on the forenoon of uhat- day, rt introduced ir evidence

it 'a train sheet kept by the train diapatcher, &t Joliet,

■Aooording to thia sheet there was no train th:<t nsnt north

out of Spauldinc; and up the grade or; the day in que at ion,

i-rior to the fire, and not until fiju*- o'clock in the

afternoon aft ^r the fire. There were several traine that

went south on the rcorning in quest on, the one neareat

to the tirie the fire waa discovered a^? a doubie-header

pulled by engine R.in»tyajLgiyt and pushed iiXfey^-g-evefu

/<?
cjt paeaed the farm at about «^ -©-hritjck A,}$, s^'^x^ivin^ at

Spaiilding at *«Tr 15^ A,M» There was no fire on the

premiaea w'-'sn it passed, and "^ oourt instructed f e

jury itt the instance of defend ...t th?.t there ./aa no evi-

denae thr-.t either of those engines set the fire. The

next train going south waa at about Ifweiro M, at which

time the fire waa well under way and the buildinge aub-

atantially burned, there waa a train fro?-, tre south that

' 1 1 : li" ,

reach 3 i-Spaul ding that day at 11:15 jf.M. and left

returning south at 12:45 P. M* ^There wrs a station

(Sutton). f^.iM TTir^jiypii ■t-r.-.ifch^ miles north of Spaulding
and another (Harrington) ^ ^ivo and.-.fch>»tt tenthe Kiles

J

, . ' ciXni7 »[it''>c6- tqBi ^derffe ni^ai »^v+r

' ' V ' ' ■ " •^ V " - - ■
.t--' -^ •'--■'■ ,-\K atoolTT^ »•* *£;c -Til •rfiT ^^aees. -

■ :r,/i ^.o&eft5<3 ;ti at' .•. eat x.tieivi

. ,-<fjjt_ agniiiiiifcf frij-^fixia Y*w Tehnir : ^ 9i3w dii^ bHi sail J

^ '■'■ '^V ■ ' ' ■ ■■■"" -r'--^" ^ .'■--■'■■ --/-'^t'yMtB

north:*rly from Sutton, ther^j v»ar© aide tracks at these
VccriouJB ;it tiona :.nd ?.t Barrinjton conneotion with the
through iins Mriiich neoesaiteted ooneiderable yaatd

raokag*-. It appears that there mi-;ht have b»en ccnsld-
6^x*te-l& -»wit-Ghir J 0X3 aide trAOJ-:3 and traoke in t'-g yard
Without any reoori of it oti the ttc-in dheet; tout in the
ordinary oourae of bueineea the train seen hy plaintiff *a
witnesses woi .^d not hsve gone north to the point where
Dr. SharpI said he asm it without a record reported «k to
the train dispatcher. The train men of the 4fi^ trains
PSJiainx aoutb that -^orenoon. and of the train th/t car.ie
r.orth to eprulding 3.nd returned, testified i'^ the ci^aa ua

did also the a^ent at Sj^aulding and a witness natwdd
:/jC-ftrthy who <vaa employed ?t Spauldinf^; by the defendant
arrid the St. Pi R*f; cSTjointly, at t; s jrossing nd
reportei every train i.n?t Tjaaasd to defendant's dis-
patcher A^ %fi*^. ' ' Th3 testimony of all theoe -"itnes-
Be;e oorrgboratad the statisment in the train sheet as to
ohe passing of trains on the day in question. >Ta

-: eo^af'A af th^^t -day kept at the oTfioe in Spauldlng ;ma
. roducsd. And toy wa^'- of impeachment of the .vitnees

LicCarthy, ^ha jrojper foundf-tion baing laid, it was
tsitMied "by t'.e plaintiff and his attorney that they met
lioCarthy some time toefore the trial and t-i © attorney
?t3^ed him if he saw a train going north rrc.. the

/po,u 1 dir-^C 9t ?.t i on , toy the Boehning farm, at or atoout

^ If I L

aO^v^ft o'clock ^.f. on Novemtoer 37, 1907^ and that

McCarthy replied yes, a freight train went toy, north, toy

• •l^iJnijalq Ycf neaa alsTt erf^ ••efljtauc ../oo ifiJBnii:

osyolqffid ct^K

^aotalies: -if6d"*q

,no2*B6i/p at YJ*fc •'^ ^nltesq 61

ramffo^eqai 'ftf J5>«A

*8a verft ijuii ^90x0 ftM ■! l^Jxti*-

Attoa ^nios ni«T;t- « w^£
.+ ':ff* firra VOei »TS TecTmsvoH no .k.ii jf««i©*^o *«wii»

Boehning's place, heavily loaded, with a small engine,
and that a few ninutes afterwards his attention was called
to the fire &r tlie Boehning .^lace* When McCarthy's

attention was directed to this statement he at one time
answered that he did not reraember and then positively r^

denied making it, atna his answer that he did not rememb-
Ver -i-«»rfeftjps-ctiir-.s fro» hia not -unier standing the- qus;?tjon;
Tsut it ie quite likely th?.t the jury believed th-t h3 lid
jnaite the at-teruent and that it infl-aano-d their verdict*
^e cannot say 'firoiu the whole svi lance th?t the jury -.vere
not -warranted in finding' th^vt th* freight train did pass
north as stated by plaintiff's witnesses,
:>y^ It l3 urged-that it is In.posslble thrt a opsr^- ohould

have be^n thrown fror.. the erojine to the atacic evsn if it
^6 o©noed*dth:-t the eri^ine >vas passing and throwing out
Bii'«»k-s- and fire. As .ve have seen the engine v/hen di-

rectly west of the stack was thgoe hundraA anA foiMi-y
£Jiiste feet diatand^jand if vv«^ aaeuffte the wind blowing from
due southwest ^nd a spark shot iirsctly like a rifle ball
In thd i-lreot aourse of the vind it would have traveled
About f^ve hundreq: feet before reaohin^^ the point on the
stack where the fire started, li it be assumed

th«t a »py.rk fror the en^lfie r,et ohr ire it i:rob*bly
txav-©i«d Aewe dHotanoe between th*3 t'vo sxtrdi'.ss ns.i'..ed,
presumably hov/evsr not in a direo't line, aparks have a
w»y of blowing in the air and changing thsir tfouras- before
settling on the -ground. It inpidentaily appeared In

the evidence that ^arks froir. the- burning buildings set

<^<r

'■if»n«l A<i.ii)>J»»^A'at'-'' ""

»»:,££-■* ^ i- vr' n/*

'■ X.'

«i fira a h.-lf mils distance in :- field, and it is connQn
knowledge that sparks from "burning aulDstanceb will sat
#ir*© at o^nsidsrabie dist.-ncsa, Couneel aay thia ^

ia not true of sparks fro. a iooomotive engine and quote*
from QOsa* Work on Locomotive Sparks, page 128, to the
effeot^ that a large perosntage of all spark* thrown out
and the largest Individu-l apeolmens are found within a
distance of «ge^lttm4*ed feet from the center of the track,
which distance fixes th^ danger line; but this is neither
law or ooimon knowledge. Counsel say it ifl a question

of expert knowledge an 1 argue that the plaintiff should
have introduced expert evidence on the question of distance
that a burning cinder misht be carried from a locomotive
engine. No case ie pointed out where such evidence was

introduced by the pit .ntiff and many cases are found where
the jury were permitted to find fror^ their coniKOn knowledge
of affaire that spar 1. a from an engine did set a fire.
As said in First Npt^iotwi Bankf v? L^ I^^ W. R.>* Co,, 174

y

,W^I11. 36> it is difficult ir. any case to prove that the
--^ fire was caused by a spark fror; a locomotive, by a witness
'JJ^who actually saw the spark failing upon the property des-
troyed, and who actu:,lly aar< the fire arise from such
falling of the sparks. And where there ia no evidence

of any other agency /hich could have caused the f ire ^ -: - k^o^^
verdicts of juries hc.ve often been sustained as in C* &
A. R.tii* Co. V. Esten^ 178 111'. 192, on circumstantial
evidence* It may be true that the distance which the
cinder must have traveled is in this case extreme ^but vve
conceive no principled of law under which we can say that

B&ioui: Lets ^Hl%a6 'miibmobl ... _. lo eincJ- *on ai

erfo' o.t ^8SI ©igiq \B:irnrj^/hvlf.os&oood aQ ixoW Ueo,') mqii

a aWtfiw fim/al-ifjl iilafljios'^i X.tijJblvlJbnl d-ea-^i.*;! .d£l;f_Ln«

aoitBQifp A B-t &ii X'^e XdeixjjoQ >»;g£)eXwoxn( tiomaoo lo w^I

©on.sd'si.fc ic not fat ■ 'rrrsbiv- ■^. ojjbot*..

sviJoaooaX j8 zotl tett, . i^balo "^rdaiiijd a Jadi

•si) erXr/oxuT xrtJiifiTioo ilodi .lioilt Jbni'j J-JbiT'^fi stew Y'^x/j,^ ]»d,^„

;>

dojjs iftc^'"'9a i^jE si:

BcnsMv© on ■! oaerfit saj.dv; LxtA .t tiaqe erf:* ^o ^-T-^XX^l

iiii *r(j- ijSBjyao ovarf JbXiroo rfoXrfv xonoj.::

A \0 cil Bjs iidnijsJBire nasd' xieJlo dv.-id «9X:iirt "io a^oXMsv

i^i ^njSi^BfliJUO'iio no ^S8X ,XXI 8TX ^na^s'i .v . oO rf<?*iT .A

6c[i daXdvr eoasiatb 9df isidi auxi id YJSiri tl .aonsbive

8w *xrcf^9iaaa;txe ea^o.eXrltf, nJt «X iieXcv^i* dvusrf itaina asJbiiXo

c^£rf.t Y-Hs n^o ew xloirfw tebnu wjbX lo eXqionlaq oa evieonoo

the jury may act on t^ elr common knowledge of affairs in
determining the quest i.n o'f the distance is ?. given
nxiKiber of feet and th> c their verdict must be supported
by expert teatimony if that distance i3 exceeded, though
it ia no doubt true th t the distance ini<;ht be ao great
that it would be wit}" in the common knowledge of mankind
that the fire could ret have been ao set and a verdict
resting on a finding *- lat it was could not be auetained,
T7e do not think this case falls within that class and do
not feel warranted in saying that the jury might not
reasonably find that a flying cinder in the high wind
that vas then blowir^- traveled the given distance and set
the fire in question.

Nothing in the record points to any other cause of
the fire* Tt waa a queetion of fact for the jury to
determine whether it was caused in the manner alleged.
The evidence viab CLrflicting and a verdict might well
have been found eitnsr way« The jury and the trial
j'udge had the advam:age of seeing the witnesses and
hearing them testiTy and we do not feel authorized to
disturb the verdict approved as it is by the trial
jud&e , ^,

^ The judgment is affirmed.

i ^ 1)0' !

fo n

/p

**i»:cs 06 e.' Wt-i.^t dorcj;3-sJti) f: -a'i/oJb on el :tl

i)nl:invSfli lo sstsXwOfc::^ noatri^oo -. fclirow #i ^jsrft

,i;eaisi-eirQ dcf ;^on i>Xijoo a^w JI jf.3/ .■ gnltnil J8 ao grri^eea

Q^J^as aejBlo ^jsrf;^ nirfd'iw •Il£% es3o «itft slnJtrf^ ;ton oL e^

&on iA^ita, X^ul dAt &sAt gnlY*« ni fce^njncrrJiw Xeel ioa

c* ^tul Bdt xol to&\ lo aoitBsup & bjs>7 ij .enil 9Ai

Xlev Jrigla *0JtX)i»v js JbrtJB gnl^o-tXlaoo tJBw eortsli'ivs erfT

Ijairs* Bdrf' fcctJB yaut ©^"^ .yjsw te ^ti* Jbnx/o1 need" ©v^rf

£)fi5 aeesend'iw Bdt gnXesa lo ©sjfita^BvfcB erii- Lfirf ©^i/I.

oi- i;£sX:tod*ir£ Xael d-orr oL ew Ijajb '^liJtei mtrfrf' gnlTBarf

XjalTd- arf t y.^ al i"! e£ Jbevorrqqjs tolbiBv tAf drutatL

/

STATI^ OF ILLINOIS, , ,. , . , .

SE(>;OND DISTRICT. \ ^^' .1, CHRISTOPHER C. DuFPY, Clerk oV the Appelate

Court, in\and for said Second DistFict of the State of Illinois, and keened of the Recfords

and Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy oi the opinion dt the

V '- ' / i

said Appellate Court in the abq;<^e entitled cause, of record in my ofBpfe. i

^ Iiy' Testimony Whereof, I hereunto s^t my hand and af^x the

\ / seal of the said Appellate Court, at/)ttawa, this 1

; / day of 1 T^in the year of our Ixi-d one

\ y thousand nine hundred and f

\ — ^ , 5

I

Clerk^fthe Appellate Court.

AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,

Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the sixth day of October,

in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and fourteen,
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:

Present — The Hon. DUANE J. GARNES, Presiding Justice
Hon. DORRANGE DIEELL, Justice
Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Justice
GHRISTOPHER G. DUFFY, Glerk
J. G. MISCHKE, Sheriff

193I.A. 167

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on the 9th day
of March, A.D. 1915, the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-iAfit:

Gen. Ko. 5933-

Cen. ITo* 62-

Arthur Keithley,

vs.
Cit.y of Peorl*

.68 P. J.

Appeal froiA Peoria^County Court,

384

' I-

Appellant Arthur Keitlalty, Auguet 16, 191^, eued -pprlle*
City of Peoria, before a Juetice of the Peac«, f or daraices claimed to
-0 "been 'lone to a reeldence T>roperty by lowering the trade of the
street in front thereof. A trial, on apne^il, in the County Court^

ulted in a verdict and Ju<Uxieni for the d«fendant| froa whlali
liidiBTn'eijt this appeal is -prosecuted.

In the 8prin^ of l&OS, the then o-vr.er of the property laid a
X ,foot cement sidewalk irr^tf front of It. The sidewalk woe laiA
^ith t)tralssion tr6m the city authorities,' at a grads desi^-nated l:y theu
for that walk , anrt corresponding "^ith the prade of the continuation
of this \7alk \t each erd. The o-nner of the lot graded It, -lade a driv»-
iray at one side and lal«« a cement walk from the house to the sidewalk,
all in confort.;lty «fith the »;r .de of the sidewalk. Afterwards, in the
ro year, appellant purchaseJ the property a«' hin ever since been in
pot'sepsion o'' it by hi? tenant.

In 1910 the City piesed 'an or'in.nce for tho pavini^ of the
reetrf with trick-, ihd oeiucni curb. The ordimnc.e in specifylnr the
d« referred to the grad« of the street "as heretofore eetablished" ;
t it does not apTjeap that the city ha'^ theretofort established a gr- de
for that street at that place, and the testimony makes it quite certain
thai it hid not, and that all it had done In thai direction was to
dictate the griAt at which th- •sidewalk should oe laid^and maintain the
Btreet in front of it at per'anpe varyir.L' trides^ caused by working the
'^Irt strtsU The pavlne *aB comflet«d iji the Fall of 1611, This being
action be»,un in Justice Court, rith, consequently, no written pleadintP,

- 1 -

985

appellant was entitled to recorei* for fkny actionable Injury that he '
could prore within fire yeare of the beginning of thle eult, or since
Aufuet, 1«07; but hl» main eontentUn ie th-^t he was Injured by lowering
tHe Btr««t when the parihc w^t pit in; In 1911, He cXalat, and there
le eridenctf tending to euppori hie olaim, that when the eldevaUl w»«
laid IB If 03. It wae on a lerel with, or lower than, the otreet In front
of it; that there was a sewer laid In the street in 1908 or 1909, and
at that tlM the grade of the street war Bubetantially lowered; that
when this pavenent was put in, there waP another lowering of the etreet
80 that it beoane ImposBlble to drive heavy loads from the street on to
his premises, and prnctlaally destroying his means of efrrcss and in.-ress
80 that he would be compelled at considerable expense to re-arrange and
re-gride his lot. There is a itaotp conflict of testimony an to the grade
of the street at the time the sidewalk was built, and from that time to
the time when the pnTement was laid. It appears withput contradiction
that before the j^yement fas Is^d ih«r« was a gutter of brick, or brick
and stone, along the si'le of the street next to appellant's premises,
a* that the water had washed it out in front of his driveway rfo that a
wooden bridge was required, and kept there, to enable teams to drive
from the street oa to the driveway. This was th* oondltlon at all
times after the eewer was put in, and for come time before, but for how
long, there Ip eome conflict in the evidence. There i's quite convincing
evidence that appellant his much better and easier aoees* to his properfcr
froia the street now, than at any previous time within the five year
liBiitatien; and it is certain he could not. either after the pavement
wiB put iu, or for several years befor- that time, drive frou the street
on to his premlHse without making use of a bridge projecting from his
•treet lint into the street; and the evidence makee It quite certain

t the present cement gutter isnnot so low by six inchee as wae the old
brick gutter that was maintained there before the pavement was laid.

386

pellafit oont^ndt that th« City should b« held to hare eatabllehed a
xd« to the etrett btfore the ti;ne of the paving ordinance, because it
citeo in that orr'lnanet that there was an eatafcliahed grad«, and bseause
did establish ths grade of the si dtvalk built in 1903, and ir. ths
Bence of other eridence^that should b« held to control the grade of
t Rtreet. We do not think the fact that the ordinance recited a
eviously establiPhed grad*,- is of mich importance when taken with
B rest of the record that indicates there had been non« esiabli8hed{
d if there had been one establiehtA and the City in called On to
Bpond in dajQWt.'CB for departing from the establiehed grad^it would
SB a part of the plaintiff's cas« to show what that g^rade was . ITeithor
we think the fixing of the grade of the cidewalk in 1903, h<p iSsJfc
arinc on the fsadt of the strt^t b«fore that time, or if h« oMiintainod
ter that tim«. There is none crid«nce that as a rule there %ras a
rtain dictanee maintained between ^he grade of the stre«t and th«

walk aa a natter of practice; but the eridence shows that- in the
ty of Peoria there was tt no fixed and uniform rule as to those .
spectire grades.

The court at the inetance of appellant instructed the Jury
at if the City gare a grade in front of the T>roperty and a sidewalk

uilt recording to that grade, and at any ti^'ie within fire years
ilor. to the coitnren cement of the auit^ the City charged such grade in a
0 injure plaintiff's property, then the City was liable. That the
of I'vrress an J eerees ir protected by th< Constitution and if
ity in ?nakin(- the improvement damaged plaintiff's rit^ht to pass to
rom his proper tjr then thsy mnmn liable. That if they believed
f city changed the grade of the street in front of Plaintiff s property
y BO doing damaged hie property then the City was liablo) and
it ia no defense that the City in so doing waa operating under a

ordinance. That it ^f\» the duty of the City to keep the
•- in front of plaintiff a pro-Tty in a reaaonat^ly safe eohdition^
" the grade. of the ctrert hap been changed so ta to injure plaintif'e

- 3 -

My

opertjr then the nity was . liable, regardle.. of Thether plaintiff was
(julrcr* to bridge the gullies m the street befor. it was pared in ord*.
get to and from his property. And the Court refused to instruct for
.Intiff.that if the City ha<^.ehan^ed the crad. ar.i daaagt has resulted
FlaiBtiff^t prop^t3> that It w^ liable eyMi if the roadway of th«
■eet ra^ lower before it was pared than it wap after. fh* refusal
this instruction if complained o J but its substanoe waP corered by
icr instruction., ciren^whieh repeated to the Jury that any chance in

rrxde of the street thnt dana^ed plaintiff's proi^erty was actionable,
s is not true as an abstract proposition; if the property ov^er.
np of ingre.e and ejzresB ire not interfered -.Tlth ra-^ny thincr mny
per. in the care o- the streets affecting; injuriously the ^narket ralue

pro'>erty without subjecting the City to liability. Ri^-ney r.

y of Chicago. 102 111.. 64; Barrows y. City of Sycamore. 150 111. 680;

City of Chicago r. Jackson. 196 111. 496. It ip «ufficient to say
t these inetructlons were as farorable to apnellant as he could ask.

The court iretructed the Jury at the instance of appellee that
the street was lower than the sidewalk befor. it was graded, there
no obligation on the city to ral.t It to the lerel of the eidwiralk.
t the city was not- bound to crade its streets t. afford accer« with
ae into adJoinlnfT property where surh accere could' not be had before
streets were gr-ided. and that if the street ir question before it w.tt
•e^war in such condition that plaintiff could r.ji drirp into his
lerty without the use of i bridge extending into the street^ that it
the right to remove the bridge and waP ur.der no cbligatlon to place
-treet in condition so that plainUff could drire onto his property

:^ bridge; and that th. plaintiff ha^ no right to maintain the
Ite leading fron. the sidewalk line Into the etreet and eould not base
clai. for danacee on the action of the city in re-^rlng It. TVjfendanfs
-ot^n^^^aybe^^^

^c^ty^; but as applied to tr... eriitr.rt in thls^o,.. we do not find
•^ error Ir. the.. There 1^ no e»l^er« ir. ,U. r-cord fro. -hich.

- 4 -

I

888

, ury coul^ hare found or considered any grade eetabllched by the
lity before th.- time of th^^ paving ordinance.

The evidence win .Ipo conflictlne on the qucBtlon -whether the
.t v-ilue of tlM premiree was leeeened by. the iaiprovement of the etreet

4

here «ae ground for the Jury to find that even if ingrese and egrces
een interfere^l -with there was no depreciation in the uKirket >^alue
cr ( loned by the improvement , or r<^Lther that there was no epeclal

e to plaintiff's property occasioned by any act of the city within
ioe year period of limitation.

It if. cald by eSuneel that the jury virited and viewed the
-08. If they did they were able to better umlerKtand the evidence
3 we read the record it seer.a to us that the evidence ehowe that
»re was no interference of HpVllant'e mQixnv^ of ingreee and egress

is prealsee, e»cept/ln taking away a orid^e tkat he had for a long
le uee.!- for that purpose # that the brid«;e was maintained in the
treet by the euf'feraree of the eltaj^anrl that he has no eauee for

ilnt that he- 18 no 1 .nger permitted to rmiintaln it there, and that
no other injury shown^and nothing cloe that would tend to
predate the market value of appellant's premiseB.

yindlnc no reversible error ir the record the Judgnent is
'ed.

Affirmed.

STATE OF ILLINOIS,]

Appellate Court, ^ss.

Second District, J I, PAUL V. WUNDER, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and

for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do
hereby certify that the foregoing is a true, full and complete copy of the opinion of the said Appel-
late Court in the above-entitled cause, now of record in my said office.

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand
and affix the seal of said Appellate Court, at Ot-
tawa, this.Z-^ day of..

in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred
and sixty.T..C^i<£j

.(/icci. ^/..^^^^^r^:^^^

(79969-3M-12-59) '^c^^ Clerk of the Appellate Court.

eoio

AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE C(|CRT,

Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the Jixth day of October,
in the year of our Lord one thousand niae hundred and fourteen,
within and for the,Second District o# the State of Illinois:

Present --The Hon. DUAN^ ' J . CARNES, Pre/iding- Justice.

Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Ju/§tice

Hon. JOHN k. NIEHAUS, Jiistice.

CHRISTOPHER! C. DUFFY ,^- Clerk. X93IA l^S

J. G. MISCHi:|], SherlTf.

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on the 9th day
of March, A. D. 1915, the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and fig-ures
following, to-wit:

AjjmA SK

O k •>•

V..85 riiG 6d* no :Jiw-o* ^zbi&vxe MilSaM^Mafl TI

Gen. No. 6010.

Joseph McFadden, appellant,

va Appeal from Putnam,

Adam Deck, John Dore and

aames McCutcheon, appellees.

Cernes P. J,

Joseph McFadden, the appellant, sued Adam Deck, John

Dore and, James McCutcheon, the appellees, in assumpsit

itrtd fil»4/a declaration conaieting of the common counts

and two special counts allHging ~ that- eppelloeg- ^v» Marsh

6^- y- : ■ ■■■;

-jC^^— ^tr«ir two promissory nd4H»« which .vere af 'feerwarda ag^

ai^f»«d — toy Mar ah Co-« to^-ae^e^llant ^ Hnd -defauit^- in- payment

liiiiraof^-ftfttJ filed with the declaration aopi-ee-of^-^cTte— notes

&n«#-«n, which notes were in the conmon form signed by the

throe aonellees, but at the left of their signature appeared

the v/ordi "Conmitiaioners of Hennepin Drainage District".

A 'pe -leea filed a general and apecial demurrer to the two

special counts, setting out as cause for special demurrer

that it does not appear whether Marsh Go, is an individisLl

copartnership or corporation. The record shows that jcka only

tne general demurrer was brought up for hearing , and the

court sustained that demurrer; thereupon appellant dismissed

the common counts from the declaration and elected to "abide

by the counts to which a general deraxirrer was sustained *

and judgment was entered against the plaintiff (appellant)

that he take nothing by his writ or suit and that the

defendanta go hence without day, and for cof=5t8.

It appears from the argurienta of counsel tliat^the question

whether the notes were on their face the obligation of ap-

)eilees or of tiie Drainage District, was presented to the

Court on the aasumpsion that the cApies of the notes were a

part of the declaration, and that the general demurrer

.0108 .oK .noO

,m£atu^ moil: XjB»qql av

ba£. 910(1 adoX, ^iLoed snabk
.aeeXIeqas ^tl09doiuOtM sorajil

,L ,9^ B9IfiSiO

oifoL ji^Ioea BUBbA 1)61/8 \ JTtwsIIsqqjs ©riJ^ ^flefcJb£^oM xfqeeoL

^Maqottreo^ nt ^BeelZ9q^s: srfi^ tMoerio*i/OoM aeraaL bHJB ©toO
eJxufoo nommoo arfJ lo gni^aienoo noi^aiisi;
liti.aM' -»v«f^--atwl£aqf;a-»grfrf — aif-tga^'i'^ Btaisoo Itoioeqa ow^ *.
-»£ -atojwwe^^a eiaw rfoiriw »»^^ Y^oeBinoiq ow^ ^»l'»4<f' t^>0-

aaj-ofl a A a- --»3-^H>^^f— aottaisilQeb ©r:j- riJiw be I it bfi#^— (^tc«at

9[it xd b(in:Qt^ mrot ttotimoti 9 tit nt Btotf &»t^ef: rioJfejtw ^troi^-

JbeijBSqqjB •■su^isngJtB lierfJ^ 1o cfleX sri* && ^tucf jaaeXXec^oii aei

."^otaJaJta esJBnljsiQ nJtqertneH Ito aaenoisBiBanoO" afjiou t.

6lfrt ©if* o* leaiifBieb Xsioaqe bnjs Xexeneg b beXl^ eedX. eo

aaiiymeL Xeioeqe aol aaujso bjs cfi/o jjnld'^^BB 4a*m/oo L&tot-

ij3sjbi.vlbat na aJb ,oO rfai^M aeriJsrfxv a-saqqjE ;fon aeob tt ii".

yXflo Biist ;t£riJ Bwoife biooei arlT .BOii-^aoqaoo to qixlBasn^r^aqoo

sri;t bn£ ^ sniajB-eri rot qu J-rfsiroitf bjsw i«aii/meb X^eiensg e

baeelmaxf) *n*XXaqqj8 noqxi-srrerfJ^ jieiix/mafc i-JBrf;t b9nXjB;tai;B ;t-ii;oo

8i>i(j6" o* balo&X© iaiii nol^JBiJsXOab sdJ- «oal t*m;oo noramoo e.

" ban Jta^ajLfB 8«w aextu/mab Xjgisnss -s xlolrfw oi^ aJmroo erf;^ xci

(*n«XiaqqjB) llid-flJtJsXq Bdi *eni£gB bsis^tne bj8W iaea:^bu\, bxije

erfj ^Brf;f bnjB Hub lo i-law BJrrf ycf gnlrfi'on ©jtjBj- eff ;fA

.a;t»oo io\ bnJ9 (Y<eb ^fi/oif^fiw eonsrf 03 BiaahnBlou

noi.t8ejjp eri^ *j8rf* Xeefti/oo to a^^nsm/siA ©rf^ moat aaaaqqjB il

-qjb to noi^figlXdo erfJ^ eo^t lien'^ no aaaw aejon eriJ asilJ-en

i
arist oJ bttJnaaeiq bbw ^^olitfaiQ agjeniBaa sn;t to 10 aaaXXeq

£ aaaw aa^fon 9i\t to aaXqio brf^ i&di nolBrnu/aBA erf;t no ^ax/oO

lettxumeb Xaiensg exf* J-fid;^ bnjs ^noiir edt to rf'uaq

waa auatained because the court held they were not the
obligations of the appellees. But appellant asks a reversal
on the [ground that the ti^o counta of ths declaration were
each good on general demurrer, and that the copies of the
notes were no part of the declaration and cannot be noticed
on demurrer. It is true that ths copies of the notes
were no part of the declaration, Harlow v Boswell 15 111.
56, Hippaoh v First National Bank, 159 111. 515, Boyles v
ChytrauB, 175 111. 370, Appellees do not deny this positiion
but say it is unfair to raise that question becauae it
was not raised in the court below, and could have been easily
avoided had the point been there made. This may be true
but it atill remains that they have obtained the judgment
of tha court on a question not presented by the rsoord,
Whether the notes were on their faca the obligations of ap-
pellees or of the Drainage District, is a question not pre-
sented to the trial court, and therefore no auch question
is before this court. The j-^dgment must be reversed and the
cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

edt ion ••i»w xeiiS bS... <uA09d(, ftenJ^jBt/a iftfiw

iBsaevsT £, a^eiQ ;fajBXI»qqj» iuH yjMdXXsr((q« eiit lo waottin^JiJicio

•Tsw aoi^JS'LsXo«^ atavoa o^t dtl& iadi bnuox^ erf:)- no

beol^oa acf &oanAo L..£ aoi^AiBJ^Mb f>d;}' lo tiaq. on uxs'ii u&Soa

se^ofl &iii to eeiqos 8(l;t ^«x{.t outi at . stiiutaob ao

^lil 31 XXeweoS v woIxaH ,ttQit£\Aiot ' .^q on ezen

V «»lYoa .eiS »XII 63i t^Uufl Xjsxtoi;t£l! -ftiil v n'OJsqqJtH ^33

noiifiEoq ntdi yneJb i^an oft •«»XXeqqA .0?E .ill 3VX ,Bjj43t*\:riO

Yiiaea aseJ av.erf bXi/oo bns \,'WOi»i( J-xwoo 8/l;t at iieai«i joa Ji£if

uint 9cf yjBffi 8i:£fr .9JbBm e'sexi.^ neecf ^nJboq exfi Jb£il iMbiroYfi

^fltttngbx/t »tii botilMido Bva.-i Xfiu Itatsr^Bi Xllia J i: tud

.fitiooei »rit -'d b9isie9ei<.r .toii aoifasap b no J-xxioo 6x1^ jIo

-qjB lo aaor^JsgiXdo ^iU •ojBit xidrfJ ao oiew setoff «riJ ledtorfW

-ft-xq ion aoxiasitp B ml ^totrftitci ©santtJBTca tdS lo io ••sXXsq

floiJ-aeup rioiifa oc siolks'xaiii fciin baffles

.hahajsrftea a«jj.&o

STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) ^

SECOND DISTRICT. f I, CHRISTOPHER C. DuPFY, Clerk of the Appellate

Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records

and Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the

said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the

seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this ninth day of

March, in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred

and fifteen.

Clerk of the Appellate Court.

OUl^

AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE CO

Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the »ixth day of October,
in the/year of our Lord one thousand ni^ hundred and fourteen,
within-.and for the Second District o:^ the State of Illinois:

Present--TJ^e Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Prefiding- Justice

\ Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, J^tice.

Wn. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, /us t ice.
\ /

dsSRISTOPHER C. DUFFY;/ Clerk'l Q "^ T /\ ISO

J.\g. MISCHKE, Sheriff.

^

^

"*«*«Si*»*<^

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on the 9th day

of March, A. D. 1915, the opinion of the Court was filed in

the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:

Gen, No. 6016

John Funk, Deft, in error,

V8 Error to LaSalla,

Chase Fowler, Pltf. in error,

C^lrne6 P. J, xUfh: .

Plaintiff in exroT, Chase Fowler, -is a patacticing
lawyer ajwi for gome time nrior to July 13, 1906, had profes-
sional and businesB dealings with John Funk the defendant
in error, and in 1904 bflkd -f^iTen him ar-w-3Pi44»g-in-4>h8 f&rm
sii an ax4^4al'e-of agreement for the conveyanoe of certain
lands 1 H Seo t i<m 14 1 n^ T&wneh^ip 5S, Ranee 4, LaSalle County
JllAnoie, on conditions therein namedj bnt which was intended
as security for moneys loaned and indemnity apainet lose on
liabclities assumed by Funk as surety on notes of Fowler's;
6w«i in 1905 Fowler gave Funk another similar writing covering
other lands. -a^-aecurity and indemnity in other like trenaac-
4-i-©fts. There was a T**4-ey mortgage lien on some of these
lands, and in June 1906, there were judgments against Fcwler
and it was necessary to raise five or six thousan'^ dollars to
satisfy such indebtedness; and July 12, 1906, Fowler gave
Funk a Quit Claim Deed of said land for ttue expressed con-
eideration of i^lSOOO.OO, (which is not claimed to be the true
consideration), and Funk by mortgaging the land secured a
loan of t5000,00 and with the money so obtained .and an aui-
ditional sum furnished by himself, h«e satisfied those debts,
©»-4uiy-»l, -1906^ the parties signed an agreement &a foliows:
■July 31, 1906, This Is to certify that ffohn Funk and Chase
Fowi»r have this day settled all past demands and claims to
da,te, and C, Fowler is to finish tha Xempton matter in which
Mr, Funk is partner,

Cha-'S Fowler

John Funk. "

Pi

dlOQ .oTi ,a&0
i .ilan ^ioi/l fldoL

,1. .<T aenxjLsO

;fnj3bn»^9f) erfit jLru*^ nrfot. ditn u-gatLeeb aaertleud bna L&aota

mot &f(ir ni. n«-Jt*nt«w-fl mid fr'>'/i:> l>«ij[ AOftX fiJt has ^rtoiTs ni

..J

Xtnuo'C) eil^jaal ^* ajfi«H ^^ qiikwwoT «1 II floi;^^«?r »* afaaAl

baJ!)Xi8tfii 8^:w rioiriw tirtf tl)emjBn nlsierfJ anol^jtbrrori no ^aioai^JHD

flo aaoX tarii«;^js x^jtflnrabni bcie b«n£oI ayeno .^^ r.ii^ioofi a^:

;a*tC9lwo7 lo as ton no '^tsrsin oa Jtai/? ycf bamifasja BBtiliodAtl

gniaevoo gnl^Maw ttJBlimlB i»dfoa£ HasA Bvjar^ lelwo"? 2061 nt fcfwa

BBadi to Bmoe no noil a^jsg^iora loiN^ 3 asw ooiarfT .««o^i#

Tsltro"? tanl^si! atnarngbut »t:»w eiari^ ,8061 ani/L nJt hne, ^abnjsl

OS aiJ8llo.b '-nBax/offit xie io svll taiBi oJ ^■ijsaaoosn aaw i-i bna

ev^S lelwoT ^5061 ^PI ylxrT, bfs ;aa9ciha*cfebnJt rfoua Y^aJtJ-aa

-floo baeaearrxa ■ to basG akslO Stu9 jb %ai/i

Buxt srfJ- sd oi bernl£^ X.OOOSit \o aoiSMtsbta

A beix/oaa bn£l orli gnlS'^^^o'Q Ycf im/I bn£ ((aox;f«a9bianoo

-5* hjs bn£ benlsido oa xs-^O"' ©rf-^ dStn hnjB OO.OOOat lo iXiSoX

.a;fd9b eaorl;^ bsila^tea wd ^tlaamlif ^d baxfain-xul aura XsnoX^jtb

:aw©Xidl ail inpofx^ hb ben^ia Bcttracr «r:i ^aoai ^li ^iuh^iUi

aajBriO bn£ ini/i nrfoB *flri:t y'^^^ioo o* •* ^tdT ,8061 ,IE ^iut*

at Hml&lv) bttB Bbajsraab taaq XI« bBlttBB y^b aiif^ evjari liimo'i

rfojtxfw nl ie;t;fBir! noJqmsX edi detalt o* ai xaXwoT .0 baa ^BtAb

^tfiatrtir at :laj/l ,iU
«©Xwo'? e«BriO

A»d on TJovember 33, 1906, they executed an article of agreement
for a warranty deed of a&Jd. land ,19y Funk to Fowler, r citing
theroin that Funk h'oldc the land in trust for Fowler^ and
agreeflCto convey to him upon Fowler 'f aeauming the mortgage
OR the «a«g and paying Funk all Buma of money that he -feara" /
paid out for Fowler and becorr.e obligated to pay for him with
interest at blL; and providing that Fowler witarl3b have the uae
of the land in consideration of paying all taxes thereon ^nd
the interest on the wortoa-ge debt and "he interest to Funk
on all stuns that he ha a been cowpelled to advance for Fowier,
and the inter eet on all obllrjations which Funk has become
surety for or may tw»y»aft»3f, becoino surety for or oblir;f\t3d
to pay for Fowler.

Fowler kept pofsseaaion of the land, excepting a small
part thereof that was oonv??yed by Funk, till Febrxxary 1911 '^
but defaulted on eone of his obligations iraposed by the con-
traoti and Funk conveyed the land to his con-in-lawwho c^ot
posBeeeion of itj whereupon Fowler begun a forcible detainer
suit before a Justice of the Peace to recover posee-aion.
The son-in-law reccnveyed to Funk and he filed a bill in
equity to enjoin the forceable detainer proceedings and pray-
ing foy a cancellation of the contract of November 34, 1946;
and iri4«4, the deed J»€ declared an absolute conveyance; of if
it should be hald that Fowler had an eq'jity of redemption
that the Court fix the amount to be paid within a short day
to be naned.

The theory of the bill 4«- that the deed ^vas an absolute
conveyance; ti.at the oubaequent contract was intended and
should be construed the same as though Funk's title had no
connection with Fowler; that the recital in the contract
that Funk held the land in trust for Fowler wns inserted by
Sovrier without Fxink'a knowledge; that the relation of at-

Aft

fcn^ (TO; i anJt^£ o

tieJ JBff* »fBX'

>"S1JJS

XXiicie, fi anicTqsoxs ^fc; aoiaaes

-no rsaotts^ildo d

aoiJqsb

e;fx/Xo

on bexi t^*i;t a'jfnir^ rfgx/c jaiJeno-

*oBi*noo »rf;f at lAttoffi Hrf,-

torney and client existed between the parties and Funk
therefore repoaad cor.fidanoe in Fowler and signed papers
prepared by hinwithout question; and that tha contract was
net binding on Funk if it contained anything indicating
that the title was not in him absolutely. That Fowler had
defaulted in performing obligatione irapoeed oxuhim by ths
agreement, and that a reaeonabxe tine for a conveyance there-
under to be de'-'snded by Fowler had elapsed, and for that
reason he had no further interest in the land. Fowler answered
claiKing that the whole transaction waa an attempt to give
Funk security, in thenature of a mortgpage, on the land in
question; pnd t.'at the article of agreement of November
32, 1006, was v;ell understood by Funk when it was executed
and 'ffaa in fact the written expression of the oral agreement
and understanding between them when the quit claim deed
was executed. He also filed a cross bill praying an accounting
and reconveyance u on payment of the amount eo to be found
due.

A temporary injunction was granted on the original bill
and a motion to dissolve it denied, and an appeal prosecuted
by Fowler to this oo\irt. ¥e- affirmed the orders of the
trial court granting and refusing to digaoivs ihe injunc
tion,/^on the ground thaty as the case was presented, H^^^A-oAly.
question b-afoj:a this court was "whttthar vh« bill on it? face
was sufflp-<flT«* ta warr*»*--4ii#- i 8»v^nf~o-f the writ , and ws
ha1.d it was^ if ''Bfaumifd 1»e Vin--4MC-u»y--Au££iclai\t. (Funk v Fowler
179 111, App^ 356.)

Tne cause v/as referred to the master in chancery to-take
eviaonee -ch^- report th'? «!ame and his finding* of facts and
cpnclwfl-iQna A-r Tfl« tk«xe<»i. He rfiportod finding the allen;at:' one
of the original bill true, and , the equities with the com -
plainant therein, and recomit.ended a decree which was entered

awtacf heiR.txtt ^rteiXo baa y^nto^

^: iJ--. "i&frjijstn, i: jfrrw^ no ^aifonM -^Or

.+i;Xo8(^,8 mi: ;« ajsw »XiJ-it"«ll*^^»iirf3^

.ImrEotTCdrr ni foad-lujolsij

joiBiehciit II«iw BBw ^^0eX -^88

:spltauooo& as atflt^lQ Xlircf eeov obIa eH ,fieti/o©x© e^av?

♦ ejjb
fceiuooaoiq Ijsjk ^Jbelnsh ji ©vXops .;n-:

on.!./ fit:- 3/tia0"!t*a Jbit;-; ^.f

e '-^ilWt-flCrtitf SUP

(.5c:e .qqA .lii evx

ano . . .)»«ft44^ am f ><7 ttrtr^ia re Lntt f»a

'.'n. ^eiHrJ^ XXicf XBxxiglxo sil^t io

f adding the deed absolute and Fowler still indebted to Funk
in tlie sun of ;%5760,03; making the temporary injunction per-
petual; cind distJiisaint, tlie croaa bill for want of equity;
ordering Fowler to pay Funk said B\m pf f.5760,03 and in case
of defauft that Funk have execution therefor, and further
ordering that Fowler pay the taxable costs of the suit.
From which decree this writ of error is prosecuted j th^-
riri n;:i r"1 ^^i'T'Tl4^Mt--'*'^"'^*^-^»'^''>''^*''^"'^y'"g^^ the court

■■Arred in .f1^^^-t"s ■tiw^-^ttrit-ciaiBi deed an abscilute conveyance

^lid not an the nature _of.. a. mortgage.

We are unable to concur in the finding of the Masterand
tiiB Chancellor that the qultj claim deed in question was
intended as an absolute convey nee. The facte can hardly be
Bu-id to be in dispute. The whole history of the transaction

including the tsstimony of Fufik himself, when his dirsct and

j
cross examination is read together, seems to us opposed to any

claim that at tns time the 4eed ^aa delivered either party
believed or understood that Fowler had not the rignt to
discharge his obligations to Funk and th\ia redeem the land.

It follows that the accounting should have been on
tiiat basis, and a decree should have been entered permitting
Fowler to redeem within a time fixed therein, u^on the
satisfaction of the obligat^one for which the security
Was given, A recasting of the account as stated is required.
It now includes rent of the premiaee and other items that
would be differently treated on an accounting as t e basis
of redemption. The items of the account are numerous and
are not svifficiently pointed out or disouRsed in the briefs
to enable ub to give specific directions as to the treatment
of rr.any of them. It ai^pears that a sinall portion of the land
wae conveyed by Funk and that he rsceived the money there-
for. If this sale was acquiesced in by Fowler, or if it wae

iI.'Tijf 0* betdshai. I., i^a a&Xvv.-iTr hn^ e;fvIoac/£ beeb erf* gnlltfiil
-ttsq flor^onxrtai x^aaoqcoe^^. ~ w ,j. _..,... iSO.OaTS^ to aujs sifj xil-

;X^-£'-'^P* to itt£^ zot XXlcf aaoiu Biii. ^alosJtraaif) fe«Ji liJwd'e
eefio ni bn^ fiO.oaTc" i uuja i;j:ii8 ^aiil v-si o* aeXwo'^ :^iipb'i

tzsjoa ' h'df "»fti-w .. .. .. c»*- ■isd'.' S'sri ft© Jn©!^-Tvtfl-ol^4iaup^-L.scvi5xU:i

bn&istBBU edi to snihnll erfi nx tuoaoo oi -.Icfj-^. _ .

1
asvf noirf-eai-p nl baefi aiJtijIo 'jt i^jiy .dj< .< ,., ^oXi^oaj^jn'O

ad ylbTjeri ii«c .^.T .eon '^-.T/noo sJ-i/Xoatfs jt« 8« ijebnoJ.T

nol:ro^,8iT£T3- e ; irf eioA- .^j-ijqaii) iti ad. o.? b-tj-;

^iXeecnXri ixft/J lo Y^oajt^fesJ- »fivJ ■^aiiMlont

Yn£ o;t beeoqqo ai/ 0^ esa&ea ^i6di&&oi baei el aofianimAxe £301

o.r ia-slt edj toa bad aaXwot t&dt booi^ershajj lo *>9v«iXt
,bas:l Bdi fflsebei 8ud;f bae ias/<i oJ anoxi'^gxido exil ©^s^iiloBi

tio nc^ed avBff bXxroiia 3cX:t'auooQ« eilJ iadi awoXXol: ^I
Sai^fitJtaiaaq beaeJ-ize nsscf evjsd bXijfOila es'xoBb .s ncfa ,ajtajs<f ;fi5i.

Xt:j:(_c. anoJ|ifB3lXa;.. - io£;loj3X8i^..;-

,beitr;pe7 ei be^Bj-s nz tnuoooz Bdi lo anirf^a^os'i A .nevl^ aa^
:Tx*t isri.; aeaxmg^tc^ Qdi lo^nsi aebwXoni won il

bIbp.Q' ■ 3fll;frti/oooa «£ no pBie-^it tli~eisXtib eo" bii/ow

E)nfi ax/oiarum ••->> ^nwooojg sifJ- to 8m& .noxcfqoebei lo

aleirtcf erf* n.c beaRuoath 10 tuo ibaJ-nioq Y*>^ciexox'iiijfi Jon oii?
d"nir 3£ BaotJoe-iib olttoBas evxg Oi^ au e^-ujine o.

bnxJl lX XXjsma a tsrft eiaeqqa ;tl .raexii^ To y^jbti io

-a-cft;?' YerfO"r 9;:;^ bevlec. r;,ilj- im* im/^ y<^ be^avnoo sba

«.fe ^leXwo't "({cl nx b&otpijjpojs aaw tXaaairii' II .uc

net and t>ie price received was not unreasonably low. Funk
sliould only be charged viiith t:ifl amount he received at the
date when he received it. There is a controversy over the
charges of FovJler to Pu^ for legal services, in Our op-
inion the Master correctly found and reported that item.
As to all other items there shouhd be a re-ref irence to the
Master to re-state th j account on nuch evidence as the
record already contain!, and such futther evidence as the

parties or either of t.iem may produce. The temporary injunc-

i
tion ahould reiiiain in :§orce till the satisfaction of the

decree to be rendered, \

The decree iu reversed and the cause remanded for

further proceedings not inconBistent with the views here

expressed.

Reversed and r4r!ianded.

iUtsA ,woX YXcrafToa^ein*/ ton a^w fcavisosrr eoliq dif;t bnjs Jon

Btif iM hevlc-c awoauj s r ri#lW begajBrfo •cf ylno bXworfa

exfcf T6V0 \fiii9voaJnoo £ aJt sasri? ,ti bsvleoea »d ae^v et^b

-qo lO fii ,8©oJ:viSB I^sel ibl * ilrkrt! ot aeiwoT to ieguBrio

.rrtsi^i ^£rft LsJioqsa fins bauoJ \l&o^itoo i' >te^;^i o.ij noxni

1
•dJ' 6* eoixettslet-e'i £ ecf b:{ju-ori» sierfl smed-i asxfJo LIa ot aA

Sfl;? aj3 9t>nebtve doup. no ttiuoooA idt eJiJ*a-ei oj idJ"afiM

9tf3' SB eonebJtTs uerfcflut dojun hn/i »4niB;fnoo '^bBetlB Jjt:oosi

-Ofl^tni Yisioqmf .^ouboiq ^fJ8t^ meriJ to TtttrfJ* j ifi^q

enj Tro noiJ-OBlaxd-as etut ILtt eoiol nl nijsioe^c faiirode aot^

.ftetebfis'^ aexosJb

to ■ Jbsbrcjjfifsa 68060 6rfi" Jbn£ b»8aftv»a (jjc eeaosa eriT

ftierf Bweiv drii- rfJ-iv? i'hei-aiarfooair toa tgnibeeooif/ isxii-

.bepBaaqxe

.bebnjtinii bnB baaaevefl

STATE OF ILLINOIS, {

SECOND DISTRICT. \ ^'^' I, CHRISTOPHER C. DuPFY, Clerk of the Appellate

Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records

and Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the foregoing' is a true copy of the opinion of the

said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the

seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this ninth day of

March, in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred

and fifteen.

Clerk of the Appellate Court.

6026

(

AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE f OURT ,

/

I
legun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, thef sixth day of October,

in the year of our Lord one thousand nfne hundred and fourteen,

within and for the Second District <$? the State of Illinois
Present--The Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Presiding- Justice.
Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Ju'stice.
Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, iustice.

CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFy/ Clerk. "lQOT/\ IQQ
J. G. MISCHKE, Sheriff.

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on the 9th day
of March, A. D. 1915, the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following-, to-wit:

Gen. No. 6036

Adam Nebergall, Admr. appellee

V8 Appeal from LaSalle,

The Prudential Insurance Co,
of Anerioa, appellant.

Cart^ea, P. J. /.

This ia a euitin a»eumpatt "br^w^t. by t*re- gippoilant-,
Adam Nebergall as administrator of the estate of his son
Edward L. Nebergall deceased, against the Prudential Insurance
Co. of America, tho appellant-, on a policy issued on the life
of the deceased, A jury trial resulted in a judgment against
appellant for the full amount of the policy and interest
thereon, t384,08, from which^ j ua^iwiFti -th-i^ appealfie taken.

JSioro wao a atipul-ation that al-afc— »¥4<^^nefr- «4gh t
bo intrt)duc'od"lLjy nsfscch-- party -'t^'»a>t-"wo^^d -be eoittpet-gfft under
any protmr iJluadingi 1\ — i a o lalaad -^by . Appkellamt -that the
gourt or JoA■-4^--&dmlsaion>■>aJad.-.-X4a.3^ctioja-■o^-^-■el^4•«^le<^^^^ 1 n
g1 vl ng and ref ueinj^^Hna^bJuot-ir^ne^^ -^t—e^d that no contro-

that "the geal-qpteMAeji eeowe to-be-"&Tte-"Of~-'^gwrt.
UmJcA
The policy was ieasuod^t Ottawa, Illinois, where

the insured resided with his parentgij.LApril 10, 1905, when ',

Ae was sixteen years of agei 5** provided for the payment of
a weekly prem4tm of fifteen cents; and that it should be
void in case of default of payment of premiums when due,
except, that if the premium was not called for by a repre-
eentative of the Company, injured might send it to the
Company before it should be in arrears four weeks; and in
case of lapse for non-payment of premiums the policy might
be revived within one year from date to which premiums had
been paid upon payment of arrears and showing present in-

3608 ,Ql9[ ,neD
eelXeqqfi ,iaibk (XXa^iecfsTf mebk
,9ll&2&d molt i^f^r.r-t av

.i'niBlIeqqs .BOJtasmA ^o

aoe aid to st-s^se edit lo io^i;i;fei;nifflb« BBlZegieda^ nusM

dorxfauanl Xj9i;fndl}jji? ericf ifan^jBs^ ^Jbaajsaoef) IXa3<Z8d'sK .J bijswba

ellX oAi no bsjjaei YoiXoq £ no ^^(^frBIIsqq* prf# ^BOiismA "io ,oO

tBal£-g& taesa:gbul a at be^Xx/eei ££i.ii xiul A .baajseoof) ecif to

tB6iottti bnjB YoiXoq erf;t 1o #flj;;offl« XXx/t an'o rot tnuXXeqqfi

■ /,.v,.> A^>^ ^M-
.aaia# ai U^saqq^ a-trf^— »iHi»i^Liyt ^florn-.- caoi^ ^OCI^BEft ^nosTa.

t ri3^»- eoflehlye XIa~4d»ri^ — mektMiuqlf o aaw oioriX

Tebni/ ^rre-i^qmoo «d- *dctfow-"(h9ff#" Y*^i«q tfose ^ ~OrDiffeo^»n i ad

8ii;f tgTf*--^ffjXraqctn .^ftf-AaaB^jJa ai #1 -;yiltia»±q -rerrpTtq yaa

nJt Brig-t»«t»fe^^-^ a»Jt4s>atei ha& aQt»%tmba aX fca«»a jf^iifOi;*

"OtSctoxi -xm tBTtt-^JtfiB 4u4 taii«i»0tfitanJt-8fllai/t9T fawn gnfvlj^

.»oa»-%e-<Hta-'atf-o» -^wa^a jytiaaup Xjbt 9rf:t — *«t
siexlw ^aionlXII ,J9Wj5;t:fO ^A^^baireel a£W voiXoq aiiT
i' narf* ,3X XliqAUaa^nsTpq siri ri;fiw babisai baox/ani ar

lo tnQ:i-i'i»ii exIJ- 10 T- bablvoiq ^ rfaga lo ti^ax nas^xJta aaw e

ed bXuoria ^t tsiif bna iBtneo ase&ti'^ to m*4ffleiq y<£^0&^ *

^Bub nerfw aflu/ims'iq lo ^rtsrttYfiq lo JXu^lab lo a8£0 nX blov

•eaqei a ^fd aol helL&o toa ajHW muXneiq arfif tt f&dt ^*q90?C8

arf^ o^ ^Jt basa *rf3ira baiirbnX ^^^fnaqaroO sdf lo avXi£^naa

at bnjs ;a^8ow ruot Biae^iB nt »d biuodB it eaolsd xnBqmoO

^rlaXm Y^-^Xoq ecii' Btavtmeiq lo tn&mx&q-aoa lot aaqi3X 1o eaao

bJBrf BtButaexa rfotrfw ot Btnh caoit xs&v ano citdttvi beviv-

-at taeBstq 3niworfB has Bireme "50 Jnemyaq aouu bXiiq need

J

surability of insured, Otharttee all rights under the policy

were forfeited in case of non payment of premivims when due.

The insured died as the result of an accident about two o'

clock In the mornirg of April 11, 1911, while absent from

Ottawa, Hie weekly premiiim due February 30, IQll^was paid

March 15, 1911^and there was no subsequent payment until the

day of his death, when one of *iwj- broHihers of InouJed after

hearing of the accident, but not of the death, went to the

office of the company and paid :tl,35^which was received by

one Donovan, who gave a receipt for the same, reciting

that the premium would again fall due April 17, 1911, The

Company afterwards returned thirty five cents of this

money and used ^1,00 of it to pay for a certified copy of

the record of the Coroner's Inquest. Oeie quootiea is made

whathej Donovan waa '^«4^^^■4^%^'-%l^^^«■"arn«.ffi»n^t-o^£■ tb«- Go«pany ,

but we think' th»-T»3Poof -wado a iigiwa~jEacla.-.a]xa«lng>-tfe'a» he

«aa, and it war ne<r-g«butt«d. Proofs of death were ivade

and the company refused to pay on the ground that the policy

Ct-o
was not in force at the time of the death; — taat^it had

lapsed and been forfeited, ^.

App Ml ] ftnt""etduii'fB ., that if Ui« practice of the Oumpaiiy

and jrtrs course of dealings with the insured, and others known

to the insured, has been such as to induce a belief that

80 much of the contract ag provides for a forfeiture in a

certain event »iii— not be insisted on, the Company wi-11- LACiMM.

not be allowed to set iip such forfeiture as against one in

whom its conduct has induced such belief, Thia aucLrliiH Te

dioouaeed aiiQ aruthurili«»(*-»i"ted and-roviewod-^-^hil-a-ee^Ar t

J.jft-Unlt>ed Oiates Imlemni ty guu-irety-v^-Qgigge ■H'8' IH:-^ App,

.677, flnd bji Lli(^ Ai^p^iiatr t:^crcrrir--foy--tiW' ffrihrd--Bi<^ in

ITeJtk Amat9ftn--Acgi:glHt ' Tn¥tt3r aftc e C<smp&w "^ ' "^^ ^ ee i d«^j- i-54

JUX> ^App., .2a0j. awd i*~na doubt the J.aw-r-

,9ufy aeriw ■nuxlaieTq lo ^irsMX^q non "^ - «? •;- ^ !• ^eitetttol :-'Tev

Boal *nsicfB ellrfff jXlW ^11 XJtiqA ^o sninioa scif ai iodiXo

bi^q aisw^XieX ^OS \TJiurdel eub taukmsiq \ii99n exW 'JwnBiiG

erf^ Xi^rcif #nemY-Bq taeuptadiuB on bjbw sierf^ brtB^^XXeX ^SX xfoijeW

T9;f^£ Jt>©«t^ef^i~*» Bisrftfoicf -o-r^ ^o ©no a»dir ^Ai^it^b eirf "io X-^i"

8rf;^ ot drtew ^c^ta9b edt lo *on *iicf ^JnaoiooB srfi lo gnii-serf

Xcf fcevJtj»o©i SAW doirfw, ac.Xl^ bi*q bn* y^^Q^ioo srfJ- "^o ©oillv^

artjt#i:o9a 4©ffl£8 8d^ sol c^qisosa ^ evjeg oriv.- ^aav'onoCI eno

afiT .XXex ^VX XtiqA auJb XXjbI al£:qii blx/ott mvioeiq Brfit d'JBxl^

Btrf* lo aJnfio evil y^^^rf''^ Jb»mu;fetc 8?iai9wae*ljB x^aqraoO

lo ^qoo bBt^ttxaz £ lo'i^ y,eq ou *X lo 00,X^ f>?eu baa \9a0m

aJiigm ai aol^aaup. ewoO .tf^ati/pnl a'lenosoO eri;t lo biooai ©ri;f

, y(i£q«Ot> «<{^ Iq »n»§<ifi^ •wi»" juCf i»c aawftgTOgeig"'Mt^riJ^tirfiff

ebja-n etew ri*«el> lo »loo'i<T .M^sN*rf«

YOiXoq edit ^crf* bnuo^s srtcJ' no \J8q od^ baai/lfla ta^Bqaioo erf^ i)nj
barf ti,>«r-j> — id&BBb edt lo emXJ- eri:f ta eoaol ni :rort bjsw

VUJaq.iuu9 9ti&> ^o 8oX*OJ»aq 944 Ix -A

nworti BTsrfJ^o b/uj jbeauanl srit rftiv' e^ftlXjaefe >.o aexuoo fftjt bna
■^3i'.t IftiXscf p 9r>tr' . . aaod Bjarf ^baiuarti exl^' o;f

e ni •ii/cTiel-i . -w toai^tapo eri^ lo iioum oa

iMtf YW-octMOiJ »rf* «co bs^exani: ecf J'oa'Hc*** *nevs ataiiBO
at eao ^aitJtA^B •£ exu^fislTol xfoua q^ i9n oi b«woX;« ecT cfon
«T»uiiJuulj BjfciH' .leJtXed tious beoufcni 9Md toubaoo all morf.
ionieo^-aJWt- Ycf fteweiTat- fena ba^Ao a»A#iaQiIJ jju bM.a "fcaatufowjti
♦ qqA- .ihHh-ejEX-HiagTt^ ^ y,ii9iV'jB \.i iumBiml ■■^g»e--fe»#i<iy-« ..
rfx-'-^o-t rtt!-^- fw+fff -iMf*--To^ •fnroO-UijBiieqqA" BUJ viJ I^«j»' 4^5^

tfttteXXcq^B i»<jff- - , wjbX. s4i> -tddwob o«r- -^ ba« -t^SL Hr4£jL-»X!;L

^rgiiea that decaased-'-did-TTPt'-tnciotf-'of— -«By'"00^iy»»-of -daallng

tjY the Company that cojulLI create -» teelief that thB~ir±Tn« of

pttyiHiiiut of pi'i^mlumB liad boeri waivAt AppQllQe--4-R%*^4uoed

flViflftn^iTf that a nnriiDer of timea durin£- the life of the

policy, premiums had been received bv_tl:|fi. company when m^t^i

' -- /^

•g?l f^'^^'-'L ^J J^^ mxicti jL\{yi'H'f trrgtn four weeks overdue; aad the

^polloy'^had b o^^t-^ctiyfr-^-ft^jPtMPe^ '^ay— thir pTaytrrgnt 'ol* ■ Btich "oreTdus
^AOMiuiiis without the insured complying with the provision
for re-instatement of raembers whose policies lapsed by non-
payment of dues, ft ttippettJ^d th^t i^uMi*-^d \>i,efi aAgant
from home much of the time since the policy was issued, and ^'^
premlumi had been paid by his father or eorre other member
of the family, AF>y»a.lee also produced withesses to prove
the course of dealings of appal la<fw with othar rembers of
the family of the insured; ajwi af ta* ■objaoA.lona 9Ufl.'.>aiJft#<h to

quf?s-tlons aflli;^.jLxL-l-alriXeiio.ft thaxeto, -h^- -o-f f erad ..ta<>.pixx>«4^

that there were nine children in the Nebergall family; tiiat
they and their father carried policies in the defendant com-
pan> and that payment of pr miums on such policies had,
before the death of the insured, been aocepted on varioue

and different occasions, that — "wero in arrears for porioda

/k< 0JV\Jia-\4,
-e#- from five to thirteen weeks, without declaring a forfeit-

urs, and that this practice was known to the insured; whioh

(Tvldettoe -wag ^b j ecfara:'"" "tcr^Hy " appel lant "&"»■ Incoape'teTTt;; -and

;tfe« — objaotioR" -wi« tftinBdv~ Thl a ~BV±t^enee- -e^ews-e^wp^-t e nt

uadfli_ths_-ai«i-VA-xui*j--"?tnd' It 'seeimfe ' tb ue arar»e-4iha* -<t-h«--father

and ethog mgaibHYl' of the family THng "±ntru»t«€^•«i*tev"4te«•- pay-

TnflTit nf pyf^T^^^yiyig r^»-»h-f»-pftli-Qy> w^»i^> 1rh» in9tir«4 wfiw^ absent

--fxom-iiGme^_j!j[lljj3h--»*-i^^

-~a©*4»g-a4MTtTrSgeHi'lLii780~pay
mfltaglaX and' importantjr-tm^thla qni-e-gtlog' o'f^ 'w^^ by the
A --com^finy ...,..,iX. -ttHr-scgBTit of the tnefur'ed ' wa» i^d^-^ta^b&liQve
that the time of paywsnt'oT "premiums wottid be waived- -bif

noxBtvoaq ed* rfi'lw gitlY-fciooo Jbeiuani ©nJ- tuodtin •mJ^i«»*^^
-non X(i h^aqnl a»loi:Xoq eeodw aiscfmsm to tnBv^eiBiant^Bt aolt

■^iv\ tttti .bt^,.. „ ««,.. ^olloq erf;f eonis smld" srfi "io doom •wod moal:
tCBcfmsin' neriio araoe lo lerf^jel al'f — -' ^ >:■-'■ "e^-i bad •faulflietc

to 5ir«-'«'='^-' f'-.rt>,^ ,r-t- ....^.j,.^^...^ io agciXjRSi;; "^o eBTifoo erfJ'
04" .fe»ciA ..-.V. ... — ««^«,j.***4«-l»«vG ^IjeairanJ: edJ lo y^Llms'i fids

( '■ 1 ■."• -

i'jBd* lYliawl XX«8TCScfc-. .»i neifcXido enJta •!©% eiedJ ijari;^

■•" •'.'i-~* "^ "^^ '.•■ , .. .

-moo JnjBfcnetsf) tidi nt aelolXoq fcftJfcii'So x^di^'i tcxeriJ- bns y:Bii&

^b^d aeioJiXoq dox/a no 9tautm zq "to ta9ta\aq tJidi bns. t^aq

BuoiiBv no bed^qeooB need ^bBZu»ai. sdi to d&A9b edi eioted

»b»igoq 'Kol miJi%^^^ -i^i- -fi..%**m — tmdt ^BaoiUAOoo, ta»TLB\'iJ:b bn^
— — -> - -'>K, "■■ -

-tfistiol £ >3nlaBXot J, -sisew aasSiidi ot mvtJ. moil 4^

d»i^ir iboiu^at erii o:^ awnni b.-v- HoO-oaiq aid* Jisiii bn£ ^niu
bet Mr -^tntrtq qanyan J: .- .. .- „. D'fr'JtTottc^ •»"' aagolJlvt'

-X«q- e ; ' J d j . . ^ ; yX IkbI t iftf «?» nnnn -WMf^^-brrr

©veil's,.' oJ bal B=£iii.''t)W *t In :fT«)-7i- -.^i^- li , i{£{if4B(Oo

appellant, A party cannot jbe heard to object that a fact
was not proved whers the proof wae prevented by hie ob-
jection. Hahl v Brooke, 313 111, 134; C, & A, R, R, Co. v
Walker, 118 111, App, 397; American Tnaurance Company v Meyers
118 111, App. 484; Rook Island County v Rankin, 118 111, App
499. , j

The evidence admitted and offered was sufficient to pre-
vent the court from disturbing a verdict resting on the
finding that the nrovisibn of the policy as to time of
payment had been waived ay the Company. If the agent re-
ceiving past due premium^ lacked authority to waive the
provision in the policy, 4a appellant suggests, sti'.l it
^ must be held from a noursaj of dealing in receiving past due
^ premiums that the company «knew of and ratified the act of
the agent.

Appellant received the last payment after the death
of assured, and it is txxxe that it did not by so doing re-
vive the policy if it was before that time forfeited; and
A the court ao instructed th|e jury. But the fact that the agent
/ without knowledge of the di'eath of tie insured received and
receipted for tie overdui premiums, tands to show that he
did not regard the policy !then forfeited for non-payment
of premiums; and if it be jaaid that he had no authority to
waive a provision of the j^olicy and therefore it is imma-
terial what he supposed, (it ill the receipt and return of the
premium was a part of thjg history of the transaction, and
we do not think the cotirtj erred in admitting the evidence in
[reference thereto or in rief using to instruct -the jury to
disregard it.

We find no error torejudicial to appellant in the ad-
mission or exclusion of evidence. Neither do we find what
we regard reversible erroi in giving instructions for

-xju exxi ^di ibsJaevelq |j8tr ^ooirj od^ ©aert, .bevoaq Jon ajev-
•a»Yi>^> ^ '^u^qoioO aon^Tuent njsDJtlemAt ;?GS .^qA .1X1 8XX^ieiX«W

qqA , moO bnJBX^I XooH ;>8^ ,qqA .1X1 6XX

-eaq oJ *n®loil:l:jj8 bjbw bettsllo fani' feetiXmfiB eoneMve •riT

odi no 3al;f8ST: ^oJtbteV « shltf'sutslh mont ^turoo arfJ- #nt!V
:Xoq erft lo ftdiaiveaq «rf:r t&cii gnlfaixi
-SI jfi&3^ fc».:;a II .xnp.qmoO erf* -igrf b»vl£w reefer bed tnem^Bq
erii evJte^ oJ^ yi-iiorfJi/jB fis:>(oaX jsnu/lmeTq auJb *8aq -galvieo

tl XXl;fe (8*863308 ^njSXJeqqjs til ^YDiXog «d* nX floXaxvoK

■> -. . . .- I ■ • - •

»ub >8«q snivieoei nX gnXXf'^ moil: fcXexf ecf ^bjji

lo 1 hdXlXJc? "^^ o v?ufli Y-iJ^qiBoo 8rf* *JBd* •mi/Xmei..

d*jBei) sriJ ie*t£ Jnem^tjaq Je^X srl* fcavlsoea *niiXIsqqA
-ea 3flloB'oe ycT *on Jblfi it iati& mif at tl ibrtc ^bBZUBen to
i^ftjs ifceJie'taol emi; 16180 Bait it \t x^iLoq etit evt

. if ' ' ' 'ii^t ^rf* be^ouiJenX oe *"ii/QO jjnJ-

r.p.x. iDevXeosa Deijjaiix ; rtt«8ib erij " 'eXwonjI tvodti

erf V , Boijjifflaiq ^nbtts •. ao'i bai'qXeoea

JiiL.^.3Y-£ic,-nc; ; -jxslaol: xiefl*^ YOtXoq &.:>• bt^9%' ^on. bib

' ■ lecfruXoiaiq lo

-j^Ei.rji fc.c J-: BxolfiexlJ -:jra:. x^iXoi; s.iJ to nofaivoaq « avX^w

;^ " aii/*8i i>aa ^qleoe?: ' ' *# ^fiasoqqx/e »ri t&dvi I^iis*

!a,; ^noitoaen^i* 8ff* \o Yioj-axri h ' " :t i - ajaw MU/Xmai'

nx aon^sibivs f.Ii gnl^^ifflfcjs aX 6eTi9 J-cx/on Si.' xnrrf* *on ob ©'■

o* Xiu'i ©u JoxriJaixX o* 3rtXaxjle^ nl lo oieieriJ' aoxxeaetei

.s^Jt fcxAj^eaeXb
-' tni-:xx8qr.o oj A« C!3xnir{;saq "coi'r? on xnxi eW

j'^ . wvr -' ■■ "' .eorrebJtfe lo noXsuXoxa ao fiox8 8-.m

aol 6iicijy*j-xjsxix ^jiiivrg nX tot:t» sXtfXeasvaT M-Ssei aw

Bppo3.toe or refixelng iwa^^wifltiona of.£^^»^4»y-ftppyH;ttTrt. The

"-4^ rftOPiipt — of paa» 4ue p?«mi^«B#-'%y-~~»f>fH9^Aaw%7 atnd tm ao

P«i^t#« — *u ]JiovB L?iai niey naa tjeeTi accepted w^ltHMF'diTcia^^^ /
t^e .. a fnrfftit,ur.u af nirpuliAey, .Anpellawt offered »Wm«,1

A

fa*t"9--~we*t>'-#o'

^^'

►\nid-*jytite,-+ur^, Jgnorlngirire question of waiver,

''**«ij--tJia„iicmrtixcop«xJLy Refused; It -a-lao »£f-»r^4-«Tr-±Tt»%yiao-

A

fjjiji a a fnllowat.^

"The court inatructs the jury that the burden of proof to
show that the policy introduced in evidence was in force at
the time of the death of said Edward L, Nebergall, 6s on
the plaintiff and he muat prove that such policy was in force
by the preponderance or greater weight of evidence."
w^ich ltre--«aur-4^- rtrfuwedv ^I1i4«~4n»%**ietie«- w« a- »©■*. w«a4
calculated to advise a jury clearly on what questions of
fact the burden of proof was on the plaintiff, and may be
criticised as confusing questions of law and fact; but in

1 other instructions it should
;he proof as to controverted facts

view of the language used i
have been given, yet under

no reversible wrror in the

we do not regard its ref uea L xa ax reversible error. Finding

ioord^ the judgment ia a'"f irrced.
kffirr

-otf^#«gi -gjB-feo^t^l jta-oaJws- - V uroQ.etli Jfei^f*

o^ loorq lo flsfcaud f;f BtouitBttJ: tiuoo erfT*

;tB eoTol ni SAW soneP : 'jtOi/boaJnl Y^-tloq eri^ !^Axf* woxie

. . bi«wb?f b4««° 1:0 fftsef) erlif lo ecnii eri*

/.sw ^oiXoq riojj . brr,6 llJttftiiaXtt adi-

" »80fi9Jblv8 lo ^.'igjtew i©^.»9to to eonaiafandqeaq erfd" \d

ed" Y-BBJ br£ jlli^nifli-. .aw !tooaq lo flefcii/cT ©rf^'tOAl

rri tud {toBl bna waI to »rtot*«^!'p gfll»u^fl6o •£ beaJtoli-iio
ijXuofiB ;fjt Bnottz}"T.i9nt aaw agisugnai' *rft W weiv

•Snlbnt"^ .tOTift «»Irft9tevei xs «« i^eirlei •*! biAgei *on ob ew

fll lO^ttW »ItflaT8V91 Oft

STATE OF ILLINOIS, [

SECOND DISTRICT. I ^^' I, CHRISTOPHER C. DuPFY, Clerk of the Appellate

Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the foregoing- is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in mj^ office.

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this ninth day of
March, in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred
and fifteen.

Clerk of the Appellate Court.

"N

AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE jCOURT ,

**WiWW*«.y^«-'<*-'*^

Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, thej'sixth day of October,

in the year of our Lord one thousand nipe hundred and fourteen,

I
within and for the Second District o^^ the State of Illinois:

/ f

Present--The HonyDUANE J. CARNES, Pred^ding- Justice.

Hon. bORRANCE DIBELL, Justice.

Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, J.^stice.

/
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, /Clerk

/"""•IQSI.A. 224

J. G. MISCHKE, She^ff.

7^

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on the 9th day
of March, A. D. 1915, the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit :

:-;9T*

Gen, No. 6050.

Anthony 0* Grady, appellee

V8 Appeal from Will,

Chicago &Joliet Electric
Railway Company, appellant,

Carnee, P, J,

Y Appellant, Chicago & Joliet Electric Railway
Company, operates a street car line extending westerly
from the busineeeportion of Joliet to and beyond the city
limits. It is on Mc Do no ugh street where it c osaes Rsynor
avenue atabout right angles near the outskirt of the city;
and there i8 a turnout or passing track 365 feet long, con-
8tr\iGted in the usual manner, extending each way from Raynor
avenue. In passing, the cars turn to the right, west bound
oars using the north track and east bound cara the south
track. The cars stop at the far side of the street to re-
ceive and discharge passengers; ?. west bound car would, under
the practice stop at the west side of Raynor avenue for that
purpose. Appellee, Anthony 0' Grady, a man about 78 yeare old
wae in the eeening of May 36, 1913, a passenger on a car
going west on McDonough street, and wished to alight at
Raynor avenue, and so informed the conductor. Appellee
claims that the car did not stop at Raynor avenue, but did
stop about 150 feet west of the avene , and that he got off
the oar there, which was on the north track, and went around
the east end of the oar towards the south, and in doing so
got on to the south track and was struck by an east bound
car that v^as running without signal or warning, and
dragged back the whole distance of the avenne, about 150 feet,
and received injuries to his face, causing profuse ksxi:
bleeding, and to his clothing. Appellant admits the request

,0208 .oH .aot
•elXeqqA ^xJ^jBaO'O yaorfJ^nl
,II1W iioil IjisqaA 8V

oiiitoaiSt ^elloLS 03J30jbril[
,*flJiXl8qqs ^-^njaqmoO -^snLiAf

,1. .^ ^sena,eC

Xlisiteew snibnecfxe •nil imo ttBita £ aa^^ieqo «Yn£qtBoC

ytxo erfj ftnoyecf bn* o;f itexXoL to noiitioqeaeaJtBi/d eri^ noicl

loxT^fiH asseo o ;tx eaerfw tB^r^B AguonoGoU no bI il .a^^outJ

;Y#io erij lo i-iiifeifuo eri^ ijasn aeXsrrjc ^/fglT ^trOcfjs^jB »jjrnevji

-noo ,3noX ieot 585 i!o«i* gnl89«q io tx/oniifJ' fi si e'i9ri;t bat

lonx^fl flioal x>5^ rfo*8 3ni:.ai?3'X3 ,i3niiJBm Xjauau srit at betoui&t

bauod *asw ^trfaJti erfJ oi" nau* BTjao eri;f ^gnlaajsq nl ,8j;n9vi

di-x/oa 9r:J BiBO bnwod ;f8JB© bns iOAT* dtion sd& gnlajj a^cjst

-e'X ot t9»iiB Hiii Io BblB xsl; sd:t is qotB b-xjbo sifT .)(ojb7j

leJbnu ^bljjow T«o bnuod ^a»w : ;a<x&3flaeB«q •s^BfioaJtJb bnB avle;

^«xl^ -lol- eirnevB lofl^-'^ ^o Bbia d'aew er[:t ta qo^a eol^ofiiq sxlJ

Z)Xo ai*8Y 8Y ^uodfi njsm « ^xbJS^iO'O -^odink ^eeXIeqqA .aaoqax/c

l£0 £ ao le^xxeaaBq js «SX6X ,dS y^M to ^inavd er(;t at ^s^

t£. id-gtle. ot bedat^f -iiJB ^tBeria xf3x/onoOoU no ^aew ^nJtoi

aelXeqqA .loifoubfioo erf* haaiolnl oa bn>. ttimavja iQaY&f

bib iuxi ^axxnev£ TonyjB^i if* qo^l-a Jon nt'i ijao srfJ^ rf^ari^J auTiJBXc

tto ifo3 ed *JSri;t bnr. ^ a nov£ ?n,t lo #Bew ieat OSX *uOcf>s qo>f«

bauozs dTTBW bn£ ^jIoatiS- il;ti;on adi ao a£w rfolrfw jB-xerii/ tjso »dJ

OB ;^nlob ni: bnB ^dtuoB fid) Bbrswof tbo edt to baa ^^bjib sifd

bnirotf i^BBB xi£ yc^ ^ioiri^a bjbw b/i£ atoJS-xJ^ rfi-uoa ariJ oi^ no J^oj

bnjb ^gnjcha^vf io XjwrgJta tuodtt^ gnlnni/i bbw tJBri^ a«r

(^9et 02X tirocfB ^srcnavJB edi Io »im£,teib alorfw erfcf ioacf bbg^BTi

JUcRtf eautonq ^nla^BO ^eojst elxf ot asiTxrtai bevldosa ivu

iBBupp-x Bilt Bttnbe qA .gnlxltoXo sXri o^ bna ,r

to atop at the avenue, and that appellee wae injured, "but
clainie that the conductor before reaching th« avenue gave
the signal, one bell, that would warn the motornan to stop
at the far aids of the avenue; that appellee cams out and
stood on the back platform with him :ind a paaeenger named
Calkins, and when the car was v^ithin 50 to 75 feet of the
eaat line of the avenue, and running four to six miiea an
hour, appellee pot off and fell upon the atrset in so doing;
that the conductor then gave the Qmerp;enoy stop signal,
three belle and the car was etopped at the eaet line of the
avenue; that there was another car, east bound, standing
still at the time on the south track naar the west and of
the passing track, about 75 feet west of the avenue, v^

This action was brought to recover for that injury and
resulted in ?. verdict and judgment of |?545,00 for t e
plaintiff; there had been a former trial resulting in a
verdict of $500 and anew trial granted by the court, because,
as counsel both say, the court was of trie opinion that the
evidence did not augtain the verdict. The question presented
here is whether the evic'snce sustains the verdict. The
arguments are Mostly directed to that question, and it is
the only one 7;e need consider. If tlie accident occurred
in the manner claimed by appellee the jucigment should be
affirmed; ther^^ is no question about the amount of damagea

;id no other question ir\ the casa that should prevent a
recovery if the faota are established. On the other hand
if the facts are as claimed by defendant there is no conten-
tion, find no room for oontei tion, tliat the jvidgment should
n;.,

N^Appellee testified in his own behalf and narrated the
faota as vre have above said he claims them to be. He called
as a witr.esB Mabel Palmer, a young lady who was walking west

^ va-g ttuat ■galdo'sti'i ©Tol»rf rtoi'Oi.ibfioo ttdt t&cili awJUtic

t^o^e 0^ n«ujto;foin etiii ai&n f)Ii/oi^' tadi^ ^IXecf erto ^iJui-giB

bn£. iuo smBO seXIagqs tAiii ;ejjnev£ &di to ebia la^ Bdt ft

- '■; r.''
b^tasn rcagnesBJBq is fen;i mjtri titiw flnotd-jslq :(0'. no 1)00*8

•rf^ to ise% aV 0* Oe atd;ft^ 9«w ibo 8:f;t n«rfw hn-r< ^Arcl^CX^

fl* B»41ni xia oJ- lijol juilnrijua fine ^auaevfi *rf,i to •nil *e*ie

;anjtob oa nl taanffi oqu Lief "hnk Vko &<i^ BuLlnqqu ^luor

^inci'Qtti qofB yon0<)iaaie 9d& eyjtg'tniti lot oubnoa aiiS^^Bd;i

Bcii to Qrtti i-sea Sii ^qqot^ a«w xao 'Wif*^ ftrt*. aXiad aaxrfJ

i. . . . trurocf i'BBs ^iao -Tarfd^wcr* tAw aiBrfJ' d^jwiJ ;»ffn«v«

to tab #R»w srf;f t-Gen iojsai xltuOa arfJ no »«it arfJ *js'^Xii;^8

.airjtevB arfi^ to tae." J-eet 2V tuode ^JinAti: -^atamMCi arfJ

hrtjs Y^i/trt-k lArit tot icsTOoei o^ ^r^uoid taw iieid-OA airiT

• OO.aj^e^ to tttsa^bitt f^-R toibX9r a xit b^tiuBQi

£ at anlifXi/aei Xjsta* ismiot £ itaarf b£,d eisrf* ;'^tf*ntj8Xq

^Cr ^taxroo erf;? \d ba;fflfl*rg X*jti* wam^ bixB OOS^ to ^aibia^

ads- tjidi aotalqo & ■ to a«w tijL/oo arfit ,t*> rf^oo' Xasnudft^tJi

fca^naaeiq aoiJaei/p eri? ^tothrur *it* nljaJaua ion btb eon8iilv««

sn'r .J-oJtftiav 9ffJ antJB;tRu?? aoits'ilTra «KJ ierfi'ariir»il^tt#l

aX jI bns^ ^no bfi&ottrtt ^lisiom f^ijz t^nemijg^r^

bet-iwoco . r.fczBnoo ib«f-n e-.7 ano ^lao ttdi

nj l)ii;oriB Jffsm^btrt X^ batniJElolartfcfim etdi nt

aes-smj^ "io iaisom& niii fuode ttOttMtup oa it ftrterf;^ ;fc©miJ:t%i

& ^nevaiq bXworia ;t:9rfJ §aW sifi^ rrX no.t*»sjt;p 5»rfc^o.*on ferta

bl^o:[ nO ,ftorfBiXrfflc^8P aic« at^fll wftf tut xiavooei

-natftoo on sX e^erf^ JflBftrcpteU t"^ ftemXjsXft ae air R*oi?t wriJ" tl

bXi/bda frtamgbi :-arfjf »ttoJ:J'de*ntKy tot mooi on bn ' ^noJtv*

•rii' 5e;fAsXiln fiOJB tlndod nwo aJtrf nX baitXifaa* eaXXaqc.'-
JbailjBo ^Bl•{J' aatijlo -«rf 'Kfc"*!* »yods avj^rf ew 8« a^ast

on McDonough street with a gentleman. S le had come on to
MoDonough street from the next street east from Raynor Avenue
and says as she approached Raynor Avenue she saw t o cars
standing on McDonough street, one just east of the avenue
and the other about half a blook west of the avenue; She
saw a nmnber of people near the east end of the avenue
and on reaching the place saw appellee with his face hleeding
and people brushing off his olothee. She lived on Raynor
avenue south of McDonough street and appellee lived on Raynor
avenue a short distance south of her home; she and the gen-
tleman accompanying her walked v/ith appellee as dfar as her
home and then he 'went on to his home unattended. She is

quite sure that ths car she speaks of, near ^hich appellee
wae; east of the avenue, was on the south track, which tends
to corroborate appellee, for if it was the west bound car,
as appellants claim, it v.'as on the north track; but by way of
impeaching her testimony it was proven by the court reporter
that took her testimony at the former trial that she then
said that she did not notice which track that car was on.
This is all the testimony introduced by appellee showing
or tending to show that he was struck by an east bound car
and dragged back to the avenue.

Appellants introduced as vritnessee the conductor and
motorrran of the car on vrhich appellee was riding, and the
passenger Calkine who was on the back platform of that car;
the conductor and Calkine both testify that appellee stepped
off the car while it was running and before it reached Raynor
acenue and fell in bo doing; the motornan testified that he
first got the one bell signal, befors reaching the avenue,
which meant that he was to stop on the far side of the avenue;
that before he reached the avenue he got the three bell signal,
which meant stop at once, that he succeeded in stopping

6irrt©v« ©fft \o *Bj8d *exit sno ^^aaajfa dajL/onoaoM no gnibnstr

»xf5 ieansvs f^di \o ts^i iooXrf £ \lmi tuodA tadtQ ari^ ^jj

eirneyjs exiJ Ito brt© tejse &d& ibsh eXqo»q io iBcrnmn « wjbb

Snjtbaal.f eosl «irf ditn ©flIXeqq* wjsb soaXq »rf;^ ^ajtiio-sei no btiM

toarfflfi no bsvll "^ .ft^rict'olo atrf llo^nt/lax/Td elqoaq baa

ionvwh no bevll eslie .( e )fTi« tseii'd rf^xxonoOoM lo rf^uoe iunavjs

-n©g ©ri;f J«tj= ' ;»morf lerf !^o rf;ti;o8 ©on^j-niJrb rf"Xorfa js eju-xi»Tif

aerf en t«4 as eeiileqq* ri*lw l>e?(X£ir THff gniyffJBqnioooA n«fflaX;f

«i arf3 »bebri9&TMau ©tfrorf elrf ot no in»\r erf iierf^f hn£ ifniod

oeXIeqqjs if&Jxfw lissn \%9 a^CAaqa en's iAq itd^ &Ad^ sti/b •tiup

Bbnnf rfoirfw ,i(o<ftt# d^xroa «iff rro tjaw /•atiaVjs sHt "io Jbbo Ja«w

^i«o Jbni/ocf *a©w edt bjbw *j; li iqI ^eeXXaqqjB sihiodoiroo ot

to YJSi'f ycf ;tiS(S lioMtt rid-Tofi s.-rt no 85w tt ^mtjilo e^TnjBXXsqqB «jb

•ratioqei *ii;oo ©rf.' yrf rtsvom saw tt xnomii^asj^ isrf ^ntdOjaec^Jt

a»d^ Bdp. itidi L&ltt ibttiiot '^di is ^aomttmiti xexl ioo^ t*d^

,ao nam xa9 tMAt -Aostt doirfw aotton t^a bib eds tjidi bla^

gnlwodf) eaXXeqqjB ycT bnoisboiiat ynofflld-eaJ' adi* IX^ aJb aid!

iJBo fcnuod JhsBe ""^ ^' *' -^« '-^ts ajsw ad *«d;;f »oda ot gnJtftrrn* "'^

.©jnevE 9dt :>i jfOAcf besa*"'^
f'-^" ■! .V -. .. ..ov. ati. a -. baojjJbortitni a^fljsXiaqqA

;i hfl« jgnl ->. . o.,~ ioIXsqqjs doiri^r no a-eo erf* !to aBroioj -..■

;xjBO ;ri3cf;f lo cntoltAXq iO«d ©dit no asw odw ftflt;(X£0 le^aoaa^q

&dqqe;fa 0»XXoqq« i&di yli^ani d^o(l BfllifX«0 bn^ lOtoi/biTon odit

TOflyaH ft©do«9i ii ©TOTbecT 5ft« snXarxrr ©jbw a. ©Xldw xso ©rt* I'to

&d t^di btiliti^^i nBrTtco^Offl »d;t i^nlob ot* al IIq\ bna 0jj089JS

(•x/fl9v£ sdt aflldoj9©'X eaolocf ^Xansie XI©d''©rto edi j-og ^attXl

;«xjit0va 8ri* lo ©bia xft% ©rf# no qo*B o* B*r ©^rf ^*rf# *iiJi©m dc^^";

X-.--j^« jEliid" ©Btrfd- ©dt *os *rf ©xiRsv* ©dt bedoJMrr ©d ©tolBd if. -

^iqqoi-B nl bebttaeoini ©K +'''^ ^Boao iA qo^a *««©»" rfnf rw

with the front and of hie car about even with the eaat line
of the avenue, that ha went back and aaw the conductor
raising appellee frirn the ground. The conductor and
motorman of the car standing v.'e8t of the avenue testify that
their oar was on the south track about 75 feet west of the
avenue waiting for the other car to pass, the conductor went
to the west bound car which v/as standing just east of the
avenue and found appellee there with jtaiithese people around
him; thay both say their oar struck no one and injxored no
one. Two or three of these ^'itnesses say that appellee said
he was an old railroad man and thought he could get off,
which statement he danie«, \y^

It is idle to discuss the reconciliation of the tes-
timony of these five witnesses produced by appellant with
the testimony of appellee; Mable Palmer's testimony is all
consistent with the theory of appellant except her statement
that the car was standing on the south track, and that state-
ment may be disposed of by presuming that she did not take
particular notice which track it was on, as she said she
did not on the former trial. Very little weight can be given
herteetimony as a corroboration of appellees testimony.
We have practically the question whether appellee shall be
permitted to maintain a judgment that is based on a aerdiot
supported by his own testimony contradicted by the testimony
of five apparently cre^^ibls witnesses. It is true that four
of these witnesses may be said to be biased and prejudiced
because of their relation to the matter in dispute, and
their desire to protect themselves from blame and censure;
but appellee is certainly as much open to the suspicion of
bias and self interest that might influence his testimony
as is any one of these four witnesses; and as to the fifth
witness for the defendant, Calkins, there seems no motive

•xxJfcl tB»9 ^di d&tff /t»VB iij9(S& "xao 9x4 lo J^e taoxt ddt. tiii,^
lotoubncv erfJ- wjse b«^ 3lP4cf i'naw e4 . 4'«rf;t ^OLtiev^

srl ' y» ifaelt 8V tuQdB io*a* rfitwos ari^ao bbw x^o aia4*

I

*aj8e *BjJl; snlfjojste Bisv.' rfoiriw ajBO brruocf ^esw arfi o;J^

bflx/oiA alqoaq aaerfitaiat ditn 9%9rit aaXIaqqas bo^ql 5n«, ai/asyjB

on beai/dni b/ijs eno on iOiftJ-f •;j»o riec'J \jut r^J-od rftiJU

bx£a aeXlaqq^ #«ili x^e BaBasn^Jtw I9a4ct' Ito aaiii^. IQ ^wT ,eiio

^t"io d-ej} bit' .is-yo4^ b'^-s fl<6ip bjjp^^jtljB-^ bj;^ ijjB sjsv

-. , .aeiasb ad ,*aefliai^4lB j^l
-Bei- &dt to floxd'«JtiJtonoo9:i 8f{;t aajjoaXb ot aJ^bJt ai,,^

rfJjtw i r Hi juui) a Ycf b60iiboi«t aeaasn^ XnQ«^^

llA ei ^nofflX^fBOtt a'^emX£<T aXicfaM \M»iiio< 34V'

irtefnetjsj-a -xerf itqeoxe ta£i£Qqq& lo x^oeriJ «jii J^neJexenoo

-eiJ&i: , '■ . . fjaJ-B a<M«i a^BO .©4^ <^«44'

ajljBt Joii w£j. euB **4J 3aii(u/*©iLq beaoqaib ecf^ x*fn /p^xa

a4a bl«6 Sifs b£ ^no bb^ tl i,Q^%i iiux4w aol^^on :cBX0oi^;i:.^q

a

navls atf.nao Jxfglaw nimi xiaV .iBt-xt lecni Jon bib

,XCiomltBet eaeXIc loi^AiPcfozioo « a^ "{aoafx^aa-^T^d

Qcf XXarfe eeXIeqqfi 1£•J^i^&^ii^■ aolt»sup eid" yXI^ol^OAiq avvarf ,:©!?

toibiev J5 no baascf »i ;fjwfj^ ^rtecT' tijaitajtsra pJ baiJ;Ji:aix©q

xno«irf^aet ari;f y?f ba^oibjBXjaoo Ynoffti^nby nwo »i4 Ycf baJ'aoqqxfa

ii/ol i-JBrfit axra^ ai tl .BsaaanJiv/ aI<Jibeio,.YXJn0Tcanq.s avil

b8otbjL/t&' baa^XcT htSB 0<i yam aeaeea^fiw aaerjicf io

^b,iiJqMikb at aaJ-Jiim &. noX^*XaT, xiaxIJ- ^^Q fav^oa.tf

;&i.^an30 bna eataXd moit aavXc? ' .loiq ojf fxjtea'

)o aoiolqaua adt 0^ aeqo doum bjj ^Xnxjstnso eJ: esXXeqq^ ^ijc^

Xnoini^ee^ atd eoxtauXlaX td-^tm iAdt iBsrstat IXaa baa a«lcf

rii'lc o;f BA ban ;aaaBenl-.i:w tuot 9BBdt to etio xfiif^ ai a«

erijom on amsas 8Teri:f ^BCilAiBO ^.+ itvi

whatever for him to misstate the facts or color his testimony.
It is sometimes said that the testimony of one witneas should
not be permitted by a court to outwei^ the testimony of many
witnesses, in th"? absence of some consideration of probability
to support the tsetimony of the one witne*»a. It eesma to us
that instead of appellee's testimony being supported by
reasonable presumptions of what the facts might naturally
be, that the situation is just the r:^verse, and that it is
much more reasonable to assxime that the accident happened
as appellant's v/itnesses say it did.

We are of the opinion that no consideration of the fact
that the jury saw the witnesses and heard them testify, and
such consideration is of much weight, should permit this ver-
dict to stand. The trial court had no authority to weigh the
evidence, and therefore did not err in refusing to direct
a verdict for the defendant; but it is our duty to weigh
the evidence and in our opinion its 'height is so
manifestly against the verdict that the judgment mxist be
reversed. As there has b^en two jury trials and nothing in
the record indicates that the evidence could or would be
substantially different on another trial we do not remand
the case. Reversed,

rinding of Facts,

We find that the defendant Chicago A Joliet Railway Company,
was guilty of no negligence causing ot oontrlbuting to the
injury complained of, and that the plaintiff was not in the
exercise of due care for his own safety at the time and place
in question.

,xaoKkta9t Bid "loioo o Bfost eri^ BtmiBBlm oi mid lol i»V8*Affw
biuoiiB 98Qailv> Bito lo ^n^mliBtt BAi tMcii tlKa taml^emoa at il
Xniiw lo YAOirtdhted' eift r^i»wti/o o;)' tnuoo a -^d bBt^lmaq Bd toa
X$iS.td9dorq. \o aoktMXtbteaoo emoe td soaeatfjs fri^ nJt ^aasa&nj
ax; 0-+ 8ne©8 *I .t^eHtlw arro ©rid- to ynoml^es;? iri* *ioqqx/a oJ-
■^f/ ba^ToqquB arriacf ynofflii-set a'aeXIeqq^ T:o b^a^anl *a
'^Xljix<j|«a ;trlsit« ■#9JKlt ori;^ itJtrlw 1o . aaotJ-qau/tS'xq tldJUtoaAai
sJi ^x ;f«i{# boA ^nMXttvsT 9di teat, aJt aottJsuSta erf:!' ;fJ8d;^ ^ed
l>eadqq.&if tae>blooJt edt tjodf snufses o;f eld£no»Moi eiom xfojjoi

.i>i:b i^x •%£» aaaasati:w b* tnMlLaqqji a«
^0*1; e; iox^tJsiaJblanoo on ^*rfJ- aoinJtqo erfJ" lo eioa eW

ttfifi ^x'^Jt^Si^'}^ mexlcf MjBerf bna •aaaaai'ltr Bdi WAa yii/t ^^^ ifArfi^

-x»v Bidt tijaxBq blitodB ^&d:gi^y^ ilojum lo Bt aott&tahlanoo douB

ertf rfgtswf oi t^iiorfj-ijs as bjoi J^woo Ij8xa* eiflP •fenAife ot *t;

;foeTJbi) o* gniairTCfl^ at itb ton bib aioleasrf^f bna ^aonebivs

i%l»w ot ^nf-jL/i) TWO ut &t tiid i*n«bno^ab edt tot toifaxav £

OB ni trfgJtevr a;)-! ixoixiiqo ttx/o af brra tonebivs t-
a<f isim taessgbul *^^ ;^Jar{;t ^olbiAv Bdt tBatB^^a YX;^ealia«tffi
rri 3ntxf;i^on bna aXaii* ^irt ovtt ««»cf Bad eiari"* aA ,baaa»vei
9ci bXuow TO bXxroo donsfjive sjfd- t&di la^jsoibnl baoo
bajsipiex d"on of: ew Xala? TRxtt-ofi^ «o ^«»if >llb YXX«i*ns;t8a'i/e

.beaasveH «aaj»o arii'

.Bi'Oja'T lo- gnibrtJtt

^Xfl'^qmoC) Y«wXiBfl tollol. it 03*ojtri0 i-n«bn»^eb erf^ iJ^d:i bnlTc aW

•i({;f o;f ■gBti-irdtttttOo to sftJtaujto aone^iX^dn on ^o y^X^^^^S *^*

eil* nl ion »«w llJtifiJtBXq ©rf* i-ari* bae ^lo banii^Xqwoo -^fiutnJt

•OfXq ba& emlf a^/ t«M^alAa rxwo Bid loJ. •ijbo aul) I9 »»JtO%ax«

•noi^aex/p nl

STATE OF ILLINOIS, )

SECOND DISTRICT. \ I, CHRISTOPHER C. DuFPY, Clerk of the Appellate

Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my oflBce.

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and aflBx the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this ninth day of
March, in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred
and fifteen.

Clerk of the Appellate Court.

5979

.•>»^^l

AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE/ COURT ,

Beg-un and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, tMe sixth day of October,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and fourteen,
within and for the Second District/of the State of Illinois:
Present--The Hon. DUANE J, CARNES, p/esiding- Justice
t..-*3n. DORRANCE DIBELL, justice
Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS / Jus t i c<
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFf/, Clerk.
J. G. MISCHKE, Sh/riff,

193 I.A. 227

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on the 9th day
of March, A. D. 1915, the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit :

Gen, No. 5979
^A, Silver,

jf^- Ejpgor to DoOTie«

Chicago and Northwestern Railway Company,
D«f endaTrt-tTl^ Si?r6r .

-^eiB lh» iBBlBg' of ehedB •at t]a»-»««.th
weot oornay -e#"Marin- and MegdOW Streetar in the city of Bei-
videre, wj-^i^i-eh he had stored rubber, rags, paper-, «eale 8
»agfa4-ReA'y and' ngther articles, called "junlC^— ISSS^IoW^'Btrgdt
juns 9a.&t-An<i west awd defendant railroad company l»«*^8witoh /
tracks, running «!(■« «a»ng ■944d■•«■t^^ee*■/^ In the afternoon cf
April 13, 1913, the aheda caught fire and plaintiffs property
was injured thereby, Pltintif f sued -^jfta- -awtiriroad -cett^K^y

k

., that, a switch engine passed back and forth on

M«a4ow, Street within a few feet of his property^* lahort-^^^lJ

...tiaw before the fire broke out»-J>nd »hat t'b-Mwts hauling or'"^

, pushing sonns freight cars;^ «T»d- that it labored heavily, ai d -^

> jtoat the wheels «4 th^e engine slipped j and that jrt threw

\ : sparks upon i.he roof of the«»- sheds and set them afire, /
^ ciH XKx.

Defendant introduced proof that, in doing Ite switching *t^ ^ ^

. af ternooni this engine did not ^o woot of Ma4-n--etregtv which

J waj»-ojiyi«^«a-»t side -of these sheda, and that a gale of

wind was blowing from a aauthe»iy d i r e c t i o n ^;«: nd /%ha;t -notirtTi^

s««»i*l«g from the engine oonld hav^*^ been carried upon ttte

property, and also that the engine waa properly equipped

and was operated by a competent engineer, 'Ph-ere--w«fc»-a

verdict and-ft>--^dgment for the defendant. Plaintiff pro-

semates this writ of error to review said judgment.

The act of 1869 in relation to fire«~«a«AeA-^

evee .ow .nao

,l(5TX*-TTt -tt-Wwtei* ^aevXia .A

At Mm »riJ- »a- tJberf 8 to wa«gJ-»rit -•wfr- ^tW<Wi^df et -erfT

-iea to ^d-io erfJ- nl \t991tQ ^obavU far* -ni^M ~*0" t«fl«d©~^«<Hr

flo^iw«^;4btfM( Y(i^<I'ooo bsotliBi tttJibatteb ba& ' *BV»~heiA -^s^t^^-^swK

«L

N)

Y;f'fiqoTq eltiJnijBlq bnjB •ai't ^frigi/BO abexis erft ^8X81 ^fiX XJtiqA
YS^i-^w^o bjwncf JhBS- - &it# -bfttra— lJki#frit*dW .Yrfftisrii" berxi/tni: bjbw

CD dtrot baa io£d beea^q sniaas dottvB & tsdt -t^^t^ Jb»OMft

_. ^..iiUBri ;e»»<^-*± -^«rf*'-*ff«-^.^yo ejfoid aiil erf* siolecf »«li-

^" b re jYXivBerl beaocf^X *^ *JBri* Hbrro ^taso rf^rfaleal arnwa grtlriiuq

we 'Jif (» <»■* *Bri;t bn£ ibeqqlXe .snigao eriJ >♦ tXeariw Biiir ttnit

.e'xltjs ffler(;f *ea tme^ abarfs ^m^Ai \o looi Bdi noqx/ aiafiqa

A

jnlrfoJ-i-f: <?-^t nioi- ni ^;^j8rid- tooiq beowbot^nl J-nsbnaleQ
iijjtaw ^tsoio j*e« 0; ^on bib anig^® eirf;)' ^noonisJl^

Bkli aoau baJtiiBO nsscf avjBrf blueo anJrgna arf* 0OTI i^Jtqaxa

beqqJti/pa yXaaqoiq aaw anXsne erfj tedt opIb bn.8 ^Y^^s^o'^cf

«■-♦»*»" e^MHfT .leenians ^naiteqmoo « ycf ba^Bieqo bjsw bn^j

-oaq llJt^nlBXq .jffrjsbitatsf) BifJ icnt TKhltf^bu^-e-ixar'tvttrt^v

.iTfsnrsbjJt bi^a weivai Qt ■xoiae lo *Xiw 8iri<t a^ttroea

fSlifair-Rr^SV— -i^3-i ~!>^.- 1»68 #105, >-. pxiwidM - tat
Itt-aotiono like-thle f or -44»e- g-eoavegy-o.iL daiaageg oJi account
oi! Injury Qauaa<lby^-#4-g^-a^mwfttniQatad by any looomotive
dngina — Jshiie-paBsin^- along-arny railroad, the fact that
auoh fir§ was so communicated ©hall be taken as full pri«»
fa^ire-'«ridanovto~trhaTge- - i^i-th- negli gence th a c or nor&t i on
u3lng...tiia-railroad,-. In Chicago & Alton Railroad Company v
-^^y-jt-ntanffft^ 5Q T1il,?^Qj 4t maa «aid that the effect of this
tHiatute io, — H f th e- -fact iyg-e»tablA eked -tttat an Injury hae
been occasioned from fire sparks emitted froaa the engine
while pas-stng along^-tire'-road, to make that fact itself
Sui^i-pxilnaJt- facia, evidence of nsgligence on thu- part of ih e
(^mpa»yy.._.ajad...of„-i-ta-- Agents, and, sarvanta in charge at the
tima. Jf thft party injured^ establishes, in the first instance
tae fact that the fire, which occasioned the injury complained
of, was communicated from the engine, such proof vould
entitle the party to a recovery, and the burden of proof to
rebut the prima faoie case thus made, is on the company
to show by affirmative evidence t/iat the engine at the time
was equipped with the necessary and most effective appliances
to prevent the escape of fire, and that the engine was
in good repair, and was properly , carefully and skillfully
handled by a competent engineer," Tiiat decision has been
followed many times since a^d, if there isin ■^ny case since
then any language not in ex&ct harmony therewith, it will
be foiind that the meaning of the statute was ndt squarely
presented. In this state of the law, and with the contra-
dictory proof above stated, the court gave the sixth in-
struction, requested by defendant, which placed upon plain-
tiff the burden of proving , not only that defendant set the
fire, but also that either the engine was not in a reasoaably
safe condition, or that it was not managed with reasonable

J8fliia-q XXifl «« a»?ffi;^ «<i XXafi« i>«4-jBOinjuTrmroo 08 b-sw Bii'i dOifB
V ifn^qmoD btioy.1 1^ ao4Lk A -ogjuOiiO aX ^ij^oalX^Xv^exIi^ .;gxxiexi

wtJ^sfi* erfvf oo^% l>B^^i«e BiliJBqe sTl^t flrcrr'!t bBfrofe^or-
1X9b;M *ob1 *arf;f ©jf^' 'isoi -ffrft "31TO.EB 3xrt»»J5q eiijo^'

9 rff lo tiJBcf 8if;f xio ecyissil;;isa I0 eatiaJbiitB. eXojil .atj8fflix<f-Xlw*

fcenxaXqaoo yiutni: saJ^ bsnoiajsooo rfoitrfw jBiiV ed^

bli/ow I00IC rfojJB ^Bfljtgns ed't fflOTl b9*j3olniji:iDoo a^w ,10

o;^ ^ooiq ^o nsbiitd erf+ bnn ^Y^evbosi fi ri^ Y^TtJsq erf;t dltXtae

YrtJBqaoo en'J^ no et ^ab&m audf bb&o Btoal jsmtrq edt tud»i

eeonjfiijtXqqfi ftvli-oelle tBom briB yisBBaoe rfitlw teqqii/pB e^v

e£W ©nlsfxe orij- ^jsrfJ bns ^e-x ' ; .:: .ose srlJ; iaeveic

xXXi/IXXijCs bne ^iluto'iBO , yXtcei^o iq e^w bnx ^liJ8qs■I boc.

fisecf er.rf noiaxoeb .^ " ".leenians &ns;^eqmoo ' bBibr.i.n

9ont9 OBBO x^-t nlii 918::: i ^' ■ eonXs BBmii" ^lajioi ijswoXXol

Xttw cfl ^rl*iweiei-;;f X'^Omx-. BgEjjgnjsX y^jb n:'"

XlB-TJBi/pa ^On Baw eJ-x/^Bcfe erf in^s sij ^arf* 6xu/o'

-JBTi'noo 8rf;t ff;fiw bnfi ^wjjX en' io st&ts Bidi rtl .beitneaBit;

-Hi d&xtB erf* evi?a ji'iijoo erf* i,Jb«#J3*B evocf* "iooiq x'*0J*"0-^J^

-nXjsXq rroqu baojslq rfdlrfw ^Jnabnjfleb xtf be^eei/pei ^noiJoi/t^a

grf* i-ea tasbasteb tadf ■^Zno ton » gndvoiq "io nebxi/d eif* Hi*

yXcffiHOB^ea b ai *on bbvt Bftlgrxe an* aerf^is *jBrf* oeXa tud ^Bitt

eXtffinoBfis'r ritlw bes^n^m toa bjbw. ^i *«n.+ 10 ^notitbaoo 9^38

aaj^-^flfh-vkllrlV" Thlr^a^yj^i-v^d- plaintiff of lue benefit of
tir,(>. ^tatutw, RTid waa ftxafltly _cnn.tjarv to the iaw governing
t U a o a e e-t-— -^i^te- -#e«j^t--aX»» ^ gave "th^ twelfth iaetruction
XAquaatecUby defendant, which told the jury that there was no
yawef- tha»-4fee engine wag. -4ftot- fur niah.ed ml-iih the most approved
aftplianooB for-a^fa^eetlag-aparkay and na p^roof that the engine

•and ito -»f>pliano-gg" "trere-not-'^Tri^rood TepatT- and no proof
^at the~-ei^i«» -wae net-hai^l^d -^ a compel^.eat,. en^jineer.
In fact there was proof t .at this engine ,tiH?«w eparki vjupon
that roof shortly before the fire, and also that ekrf*«da«rt« .'„ L
awi tr.h angVne had thrown hot imparks a number of times to—fehs
fcnowlodge ef --witneeeee within & few weeks before and shortly
after the fire* TJ^^eee- witnesses fi i ri not ,ide»t4fy-^»eyy-#ul4-y
Hit) engine" to -^l^- they r-eiexred a* --ths engine vifhich plain-
tlff'6 WitnnarBrew tee^if led paeeed by theeeohede -Just before
the fire.' But s-^i-tiie9eiU»g- -defendant Wij^l^i^ thl* lack, by

'^eetiJyitig tnat The gngine-4R queation was tiiS only engine
which did switching at this point for six weeks befora the
fA£e~--&iid--iUax.^»o»e^-4ri«e-isftT5r=**-, — This -proof — trh-at-^tfais
gjtginc' threw-farotr "gparks when drawing comparatively light loads
-tJwkt^^t-.MLa- -eAthes -not properly wjnlpped
iy- 'h^Bdied, Tliere was muCh testimony to contra-

-dlot the-ea>ee~JttadeL^t?y plaintiff's witnesses on the subject

•■of th-g -getting of- ii^irftre^ but these instructions deprived
plaintiff of the benefit of this statute, and caat upon him
a burden which under the law he did not have, and deprived him
irt- the proof" above recitedi'^^^We- tireref ore feel it our dirty to
reverse 'the- ^ JTrdgweirt arrd^Tewand tire' -Oftuee .

Reversed and remanded.

yttttiey<rg wax ©ri+ ai^ ^^rrAalnaa afUtaAx , adurf^ijs^jazl

1ooi<i Ofl Imt« liBqsi boo-; ni -ton -rsw tsonsH-qctA-H^r^-i"-^

.•i&eni3nft..J:xxave ycf Jbe-IArtirff tow- «^w ©frigne erfj- .*«ri

fl Oqitf •iTBq* w*«H^ onlsrte e J looiq taw diarfj^ ;t-««-l-fl

3^ J, ■e4ix«J^at4»fe tBdt OBlJB bn« ^tiH drij- eiolecf vX*iori8 ^oox t&ii

tti4--cri BBmtt to xedman -a »5f:t8(je Sod nwoan'j b&d tnl^x^- AaiJM

Xiftoda baa eaolecf •istw wet ^-^ atdit^f «^«»««^-JN» -%o -es^&^i^^efl

-ni 6lq. jlolif w in ign 6 e rf :' as b^ a a» 1 ajt :f»<l J rf«rirfw^ ot sirfgna— ♦*!
siolecf t»tft-«*»rf«- <»»©A't X<f b»BB£q bbi\£4B9f taSB'iKfilt'^Vtt

Bdt 8i,Qlscf iXeew xJt?; :Jtoq •!<{* ifi 3nlrfo*iw9 bth doid

ab«oX i^rfalI'xJ^evi*BtJsqmoo gniwAiJb nerfw •3fT«ia ttrtf "wrrrft-witaa

-stir YfT^trcntn •♦^fi-Hi

tevlTqeb •rroJtJouTtinl BoerfJ J^utf ,e . - -^o "^ntttvw ail J' ^

miil ib»viiqaJb roa bJth a^ ii«X eti^i- rtBbnu dotdv abbtud

,S8: ">rs trrstT7jf:irt 9rf* enev©

.f)ehn- 8Tev©H

STATE OF ILLINOIS, \

SECOND DISTRICT. ) I, CHRISTOPHER C. DuPFY, Clerk of the Appellate

Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records

and Seal thereof, DO hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the

said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the

seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this ninth day of

March, in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred

and fifteen.

Clerk of the Appellate Court.

..-■;

V

i%yij^,

•' '^ A ■

^

/

\ (0 u

AT A TERM OF THE APPELIATE COURT,'

eg-un and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday! the sixth day of October,
in the year of our Lord one thous^d nine hundred and fourteen,

within and foif the Second Distrfct of the State of Illinois:

\ I

Present--The Hon,\DUANE J. CARNES ,1 Pres iding- Justice.

•-^n. loRRANCE DIBELlI Justice

Hon. J^HN M. NIEHAU^, Justice.
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFl^ , Clerk
J. G. MI|CHKE, Sheriff.

193I.A. 234

*««»»^

/

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on the 9th day
of March, A. D. 1915, the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:

PiiBqu8llli IiOlli,,'«Pl>8ll««

„ PiiBquaH

Appeal- ^g^^-C-Jbty^-CtT- -Spring

''^'Soring Valley Coal Company, J Vft*±By,

^-1*13, While ^-^

»ppe Llanos i' I'^M-a

driving a trip in ^ mine ^ of appellftut , -ftwd he euod appsHant
til!) y'jcogijl' t!aiiia,g'ga ,.rur Ba±A-"lTr:t'"^ gg^ CTtfl ' !iad a verdict and
-* judgment trmi 'nhiah defendant ^gjlgw apneals,-/ Tlie ilBOlara-""
ti^m-- joa^aAriB bIa counts, 96me for w44f«3b-Tieleufcl on - -aI-/, / / /.;,■/■ / .

the statute goveitiiing nines and Tninere a

oownt at oo!ii»iuii"lBir; — At~crr--i7^eape-tfee""tjlt3rffff^ ff3r"a:ppelle e • a

eviricnoo -jm^-eh-ti>f^" the f irrtV^Tirtfi" and sixth counte were
-<jiami(3oed^ — and lliw v<!trdlol aiKTtha Judgment Test" upon the

sfinnnd, third-anO fourth -o^uat^ywhi oh arc BftclL .f ■Oi.jifiliul
-j»^i«4.at^±ott«- of—the-- statTTtw, Each count charged .-tiiat-appeJlr-
4 a nt h«.A~x^3-e<^t«4- th»"-llferkwa»i»-X!ompftnaa.tioit..Aat»

The accident occurred in iri*«' straight -acigthaaBt entry

it/at*" -'-A.-' ctt'.cV,..^/' ^^- ijee^w^ .-(//,

or roadway, Appellee was driving two mulee tandem/' A chain

want from the center of the forward car to the center of Umt^o^

a butt stick. The rails were 41 inches apart and the butt .> ^/

stick was about 34 inches long. The rear mule wore a col- ^''^'''''"

lar and hamea. On each side of the rear mule a tug extended

from thenames to the end of the butt stick and was hooked

thereon, A-:ip«il»e--Wffc«--4rivi«^"iB toward* 't^he face of the mine

The front car was oartlally loaded "^rith orope. Several men

who ^wished to [^o to the face were in that car with J|4«, Baok

of that was an emptycar. Appellee occupied the u?iual seat

of a driver on the left hand side in front, , with hie legs

hanging down in front of the car. The" trip- wanr-p^^gatng-dcwn

a -slight dBcHBiS . The car had no brake .and appellee hud

no apraga with which to check the motion of the car.

^000 ,<*•
gfl i»<f8- T*0" T*^- «^*^-^X^8»<?Tr*^ -♦»

r#fl*X X»qq*

ti-:; .li.C',!. ^G; r.35- i>««uj^Xii gj»^-e»XX»qqA

a' ssXTflqcTB to BBoXe-»<fJ »ae%erf-Txy~^A .irgT ffom.'iioo »a ^mtaa

eaew B*m/oo 4»x.l:a for d;fHf '^-yyrt^ ^tirt- ^'ipttio ft4-iy&nffhtr9

ed ;i aoqu .^ aea ict9SCSiJStrf^tir~imirTomTiiV BxfJ vbrns- - ^Jt»aoA«Blf>-

JO

. liiiiiio A ^ .-ai-a^*^ asli/in owt snJtviab afiw seXXeqqA -XJBW^JSoa

fSud 9ffJ fiaq* ••ffortl X^ a^svi- eXi-ri ©riT .jioirf'e iiinS a

-Xoo a sagrt aium iflsi arfT ,3fioX aarfoni i-L .tjjocf^ o«w iolls
bei3(T9;fx8 "gut a •Ii/rrr laei scl^f \o abla rfoaa rrO .aamjsxf baA ifii
be:>{oori a-cw hae. iotta iiud Biif to bna exlJ o^ aemafteii^ noat
ertim eitt'"lo~TrcMrt--»Tft ■iriawoit «i^^vi«'b-««w ««XX*q£Jl .noeiBxl;^
nam : " .•5T0'iq ri^htw b0i>«Ql YXX*t*xaq aaw x&o tnoil arlT

XojsH . :. ;.80 tmiit at ©taw aoal ari^ o^ 03 ot betletK orfw

^£sse Xiiu'v, ariJ" i>elquooo ©eXXsqqA .taoY^qma «a aaw *ad* ^o
agal air' " , ^tacxt at abla bnj;xi tlei arii ao revtih a "
n*oh"'3iTt?r-r- Frw-qTrir-E.IY .xeo erfi lo J-noit rii rtwob anlgn
f.- " V iisad on b/irf ibo sr.T . SiHTItwt trfjiX;.

.s«o bii-t lo iiotioos &Ai ioerlo oi doitivi dttv «3Biqa ou

In said entry at the place of the accident a post supporting
the roof stood on the left hand aide about 13 inches from
the rail. At that point the rear mule turned around aide-
waye with his rear parts to the left hand side. Appellee
claims that the left end of the butt stiok caught on thie
post. Appellee claims that the mule swung around first
and that, if the butt stick caught upon the post at all,xw.
which it denies, it was after the mule had turned across
the track and after appellee was injured. Appellee's left
leg was caught either between the butt stick and the car
or the mule and the car or both, and certain bones thereof
were broken, Ax)pellee claimed that the presence of this
post, 80 near to the car, was a dangerous condition.
Appellant contended that, as the post had been in rhe same
place for three or four years, actual use showed that it
was not dangerous.

The second count charged that the mine manager wil-
fully violated the !?tatute in falling to have the roadway
at that place examined by a certified mine examiner at the
times required by the f9tatute and to cause said examiner
to report said dangerous condition in a book provided for
that purpose before the men were permitted to enter the
mine on that day. The third count charged that the mine
examiner wilfully failed to inspect this roadway and to
observe whether there were dangerous conditions, and wilfully
failed to place a conspicuous mark at that dangerous place
in the roadway, Tlie fourth count charged that the mine
examiner wilfully failed to make a record of hie examination
in a book kept for that purpose, and wilfully failed to men-
tion in said record the dang rous condition at said timber,
and wilfully failed to make such record that morning befoae
the miners were permitted to enter the mine, and wilfully

ani^aoqque *aoq jb *nebJ;ooJ8 eriJ to Boalq ecit iB '^fn& b tea til

raoil ••doni SX iaocfJB ofcia .brfisrf i'lsl »nJ no booSo tooi srf^

-•J>J:8 Jbini/ottA b^atuf eli/m lAei erij- ;ritloq *j8/fJ tA .XiBi •;!*

•sXisqqA .9i?t-? feniSff i-laX e^;'' 9* «tTJ9q ib»^ «trf ffifxw •X'S"

BkdJ no Jrigi/i?© XoiJ-> i-;tifcf adi^ to bn? *leX srfj #jsrfj- artil^Xo

j-aillt bnuoiM 3fnn»a sXirra arft i^j8rf:f anljslo ssXXeqqA ,*Roq

-wqc^XXjs J-^ *Boq arf^ aoqix J-rfgi/Jso jfoi^a iftxrcf srfj' "ii ^iedt has

aaoTO* benii/J- nsrf eisjat erf^ T»:ftj8 gi;*' *i . ^aetneb ;f,t rfoirfw

.; aX 8'eeXX»qqA .betsjlat a^w eeXXaqqjB T8;tli5 bn..- alpAi* erfJ^

■IJ60 srfi- hm ^LotiH itud zdS a*9Wt»cf lerftte ^d-guuo B£Vf gaX

losisriJ" asnocf niatiso bnn ^dtod 10 tjso 9rfJ> f}fl«4iXjEflB ©jtf;!

BixfJ- to eo(T&89Ttq 9rf>f isd.f bemiJBX:^ eaXIeqcrA .fle?{orrcf ©iei"

,aotitbnoo suoie^nsb jb 8>:w ^tjso &Ai ot men oe »*aoq

9tBjis £'• nl naacf b*d *8oq erf;^ ajs ^^arfit babas^noo irr^XXaqqA

&t iAdi newoffa aai; Lbsj^ob ^91se•z "iuol to aairf^ ^o'i aojslq

.aifcrsgftjsb i'ofl baw

-Xiw xagAn.sm anirt srfcr ;tj8rli^ bagiflxlo Jnx/00 bnooae srfT

XJ5wf)Boi 9if,t evAri oi gnJtXIa'i rri a;ttr*j8;t3 ftri,t betsLotv xlissi

•rf* *« TWfliMJSxe anJtw batliJ^aao s yd ftenl.'ojsxe eojsXq &Bci'i te

rtsaimaxe AIbb eBifftO o3- fortB a&u&ff"^ y.:f beTcXxrpaTC aamid'

"xol I>cbi:voiq alood ■■ at aotttbnoo euo'XiiaflAb biXB tioq&z ot

»ci& z:;&ttp oi b&ittmteq stbw nam a/iif 'jio^sd •aoq^ii/q tfiriJ^

©iiim e.iJ iHiii bajjtierio {frrx/oo ft-sxrfiJ- ©rfT .yjab JJSrit no ©ftim

od" baM >jJ8wJbaon airf^ ^oaqeni ojf beXiJsl ^XXif"iIlw lonieiAxe

^XXii'iXjfcw Kta ^ano-td-ibnoo BiJ0i9T?fl-^b eiaw aiarr.t larfterfw evxeBdo

aojBXq BuoiBf^ttBb tsidt ta ilram •uouoiqBaoo jb ©OJsXq ot beitBl

eaXm etii ijuit beg^usrio i-nuoo ri^-xi/o^ ©riT ,Y«8*^bJBOi erf^f ni

ttot^£aJ:m&x& eirf lo baoosic x; e;f>em o^ b©X]:«l yXXxxlXJtw "lanimjsxs

-nacT! ot beXXfil Y-t-i^i/^Xlw bn/; ^tBorruq tmiii aol i-qsjf iootf J3 at

^1bcitut1t bijse *B aol*if^noo ai/oi 3njjh ^rlcf- Moo©-: bijse at aoif

Qsoted snJtniom t«ri** bloo©a rfous ©jfjem od" beXiat xllulilJtn bne

Xlisjtliv bnfi ^Bnta^ Bdt tod/t© oi h^iitmieq ©lew a«t©fflat arid

i

failed to take posseasion of appellees entrance check and

the checks of all others who had to drive trips along

said roadway, and wilfully failed to -ive such entrance checks

to the mine manager before the ir.en entered the mine that

morning. Each count charged that auch wilful violation of

the law oaueed or eubatantially contributed to appellee's

injury,

It»-ed*^Utirn-lTT9^ahoe8 the trjal coiirt improperly
permitted appellee to put leading questions to hie witness
in a very material matter, over the objection of appellant^
and improperly permitted etidence to be introduced by appellee
for which no proper feundation had been laid, over like

objection, and perhaps unduly;. -ires trie ted appellant's effort

.-^

to introduce evidence oairt\ilated to rreet the evidence in-

X I
troduoed by appellee'. As t|ie Judgment must be reversed for

other reasons,- we deem it unnecessary to diacuss these de-

tails or to determine wherthiSr that action amounts to x%-

versible «rror.

ft»pmnnT^->- n^Tia^rff "^ ^^° •^Y'^^f^A ^* ' o«x-t»i» -l^ie t sue

tions r questeA by It^-toy whi-<HlT 4rt w ought to ma4E«~ tJ^e-ques-

"t^^Qn^ y^iftthftr tha poat, , *«•- i«c«-t«d, TT^reT r danger ous oo nd i -

Ainn tf> f^epand ii^gp tilft jnHgiriftnt nf the mi-nA..A3camljaaT . and
of men exoarienoed in that bualnsagf and to rfllJAV-e, -its elf

^f liab>:l,itY if l-l^fiL-ni-aa-^Axaminftr - honeet iy- -eene-ittd ed th e
condition was not, dfing-pirmifl. ArmftHant oowld not thus e scape
1 i ability, if the condit>-o»-wefcg"i:tt--ffte-t- danger oug — txi-the
opinion of the jiu'y-ftw* the covurt,. Aa. ■ahkaw»-4a Aetittis v
^aiiBCJiLiley.jC<>al. ^Oev-iaa' nr.- 'Ag|s; ■ 49X;''™arntt-~3415-'Tll. 33,

_and in the cae_e_a_ gi tgd_qn jia.£;e, 3t ^GX.„tlia. -lat-tar volume;
and said in6truo$jljana wnrpi thSigef^iHP-n— •prf^rftT'^y ref uasd,

There-yao proof --thart-'t-he- ^be«3fr->-te»p*--^at--t^><>- Wp^-- ■ was
1fc«pil.-iii an angine room. The sixth instruction, given at the

.^Jli i./iJC ll-^^if. C V X

. ~ , < .

to aoti&Lolv lulixr iit 8 ^Arfj i)93XjBrio tniioti 'dojaS .aixjtni'oio

^Hi^.o ... lo aoitoeldo erf* t»vo ^la^i-aci' XaiieJ^JBoi ^sv M'at

eaXXeqqB yd fceoubo^-^- r 'rrf o;f eonehits Jbei^d-imisq yXasqolq^l 'BnJ5
^* ' •■^■^ " - 7A-. A .^

»3iJtI levo tii-..*-^ i»-.. ■ '"-"^ ''-^ + '-'^n[i/<fi: ae'--- -^ ~'^- ■^"'?:rfw ■10'!!:

^ pf. ■;■ j ■■-■.■■. , ■ - ,.

lot besievox v^-.. rfoij.;. „■ .■i-,;,-j;..u.^ .- ..n . 3c A J- ?. •■ '.qjB ^cf JMOuhoti

-eh •""-'t ■exroslf) o* Yiaeeeoeftrf ' -"^sb ei^ »r -'—•"- 1 aeif^^V

-»•! w. vj-T'"-""" '>"^- + «- +=•-■; --:• scttmrBSio- w^ xO B£t£S

1 Q^TT*^ ''' '^ ''^ ^ '^ "*" " V
OJJI^Sn. liivcw aw,^ .<v» *— «j-. *i7 . '^'"; ^ '■ t n r i.ytl(iQ^ijXMiL i.£i > ■- ■-.

~..XS3-^ ^' .aofieiififixe nsffL ;-■
- --- 3XKW»an^^ *'>«7 - _„. :-^X

^- 'irffik cif. rtw -.\-tiinn ;, . , ., „ -^e^gJtqo

, ^ > ,.. .__ - ,-_ .-. „^©a^3faXXj8i r^>fi^^^

■■^>>«fhr ... .- -.

request of appellee, recitei the statute requiring the
mine manager to have the min|e examined by a mine xxxac^ax
examiner and hie report entered in a book provided for

Y

that purpose, anci that the |:)Ook should be kept in a conven-
ient place on top, but not ijn the engine room; and it dir-
ected a verdict of guilty if the jury found that appellee
was injured because appellant wilfully failed to comply
with those provieions of the law. This directed a verdict
for plaintiff if his injury/ was caused by wilfully having

said book in the engine roim, instead of eome other place jon
top. Besides tl'.e failure otf the court in this or any other
instruction to explain Mvhat ehgine room was meant, (this
book not being in the maiiji engine room, but in another en-
gine room on top,) this i^istruction was erroneous Ijecause
thers was no allegation i]n the second , third or fourth counts
that this book was kept ijn the engine room or in an imoroper
place. True, as appellee ;arguee, it is not error to state
the law in the language |of the law itself; but it is error
to direct a verdict of g^^lty upon proof of a ground of ac-

The tenth instruction, given at the request of appellee
told the jury that if a dangerous condition existed at aeid
place and if the mine examiner wilfully failed to make a
record thereof in a book kept for that purpose or wilfully
failed to mention such condition in such record before
the miners enti^red the mine that day, and appellee was
injured by that condition, and his injuries were occasioned
by such wilful failure of the mine exaainer to make such
record, then it made no diff rence whether, before entering
the mine, appellee read or attempted to read said record
which the mine examiner did make, nor whether appellee was
able to read the language in which evich entry was made, and

i
10: DsbivoiG jtoocf B ni Jbe'X9f;fn8 ^faoqsi aJtri bn* aenlmiac©

-nevno J-qsi sd bXuorfe jfood erfJ^ ^*xl ' D80o/u/q ^£iU

Ui-j ;aooa aaJtsne adS mi i^on ^tyrf ^ttO'' «o •ojsiq rf'nei

eei^isqqAt tjsrfcf Jbni/ol Tii/t 8^* ft-* Y^Ilirg to toibzov ^ bQio&

yXqfflOu o^ beliat^ ?iAjuJ.Xtv tajilleqqM »euao9iS berulat 8«w

*oiM»v B» fcstOdTt-if)- axffP- -.wbX. tut^^ I0 anoxervo^tq BBOiit iitl^

gnJtvjsxf xiiutilv ycf btnsj&o rbw |\fai/t'fi Bid 11 lli^nl^Xq 10'i

rro eojBlq 2SI{i^o emoa Jo JSwwfenJt ^ffii^oi snigns ©ri;^ Hi ifoocf feifla

lerfJo YHB ao eirf;*^ nl it'xi/tjo- »rfd" ^ otulte'l erio* eefoiesa ,qo^

aid*) t^rraBRT «BV (trooi snigrie {tfir>i aljslqxe o;t aottouiiBai

-ns "t&xf^fon* ni J-ud ^aoo1 ?;rri3fr8 rjijsm erf* ni anJt&J i^on aLood

eeuJBOacf awosnoiie , asw aoii^O£c:c*ar^l axrfif (,qQi^ rro raooi enlg

etnuoo xWaLiol -xo biidt ^ bnooas sri^f xx^vaoi^f^cgsII-B on aaw -lariit

leqoacnrt njs ni to mooi sni^e ed& a^ *qe;f jaw iood atAi t&tit

B:fjfi&s oi 'xo-xie ioa ax ti tasusija: •eXIaqqjs «« ^ei/riT .eojsXq

loitts ax li ^i/d ;lXsad-X wjbI en) lo| •SAU3«.«iX fidi aX %aL 9d^

-ojs Ijo iKH/ois « lo looiq floqxi •^i'Xii/s lo Joxbisv js ^o^iiJb oj

, rrnrtn-rnrnipfT Tnit rrf hoj^nitn j-on ngfJ^

•eXXsqqjB lo Jasupsi edJ" ^£ flsvls 4noJ:*ojji;f8ni diaoi anT

ftiaa *fi be^sxxs noii'xbnoo axroaagnjsh {-lut ©^^ ^i"*

a ei^m o;^ beXJtjBl x-tJ^^'i-tiw lantmj&xe oaLu siiJ- 11 bajs eoAfXq

YXXx/IXIw 10 eeoqiijq ;ti;5 ct-qs;-! Xood fi ni losiafW" baooai

aaolsd biooei rioua ax aoiSihaoo doua aol^faam ot.beli.sl

aj8v. aaXXaqq* bae ^"iAb tAdt snlm an' J beie^ae BaanJtffl e

fcsnoxaiiooo e^aw Bstrulal alri baf. ,flol*lbnoo tadi yd bejiulni

rfojje ©^«in o^ lanlejsxa anim ■ an/Ilalt Xj/lXx vd

3xilis;fne stoled ,:ceri*eriw ©onaa on aft*n *i nani ^baooea

bTOOai bl£a b«ei ocf ba^qarsU^ lo bjsax aaXXsqqA (tnlm aii^

SBW aeXXaqqB lerf^adw ion «eiAm bib TanlmjBxe anlm sd^f rfoldw

bflfl ^ebjsm BiBW X'l^no rfOive rioirfw at agsjjgnaX siii^ baBi o* eXdJS

the jury should find the defendant guilty. In fact the mine
examiner did make an entry of the condition of said entry
and reported it safe in said book, so that the cause of
action in that respect, if any, was not in failing to make
any examination nor any entry in the book, but was in writ-
ing the word "safe* instead of stating the supposed dangerous
condition created by said post. In determining whether tie
failvire to make such a record that morning caused the injury
toplaintiff, it certainly was competent for the jury to
consider whether appellee read or attampted to read that
record that morning, and whether he was able to read the
language in which it was written, and this instruction
was o]a culated to make the jury not consider the evidenceon
that subjec', and we conclude that this instruction was
for that reason erroneous.

It is a very close question from the evidence
whether this post located as it was, constituted a dangerms
condition within the meaning of the statute, and whether
therefore there is a liability by appellant to appellee,
and under such circunstances we conclude the judgment should
be reversed for error in giving said sixth andninth instruc-
tions, Tlie judgment is therefore reversed and the cause re-
manded.

©nim eri;r tojsl nl »\;fll.u:Q ta»ba9'i»b drf^ hixt'i bluocin yii/t arlJ"

to eaxrjso 9x1^ ^«/l;t oe ^ioocf b^jsa flj; ^^as J-t be^ioqe'i bfi£

siJBEO oJ- aixilijB'i nJt J-on a^sw ^^k* "^J^ ^fo&qBsi tjsdi at nox*OJB

-*jtTW ni tew J-i/d ^Xootf 9di rtt yT^tn© y^* ^on noli-anlmjsx© '^n«

ex/OTeanjBb bsaoqqi/a ©rli^ gniJ-^j^e lo bJssJanJ: "elaa* biow edt gni

ari^ T8rf*erfw grrinira^LsJ^eb nl .taoq bijse ycf l)etJ5ei:o aottthnoo

\ijj\,aJi ed& besuso anlniom ;t&d& biooer £ dot-a e^fjsm o;f exx/Xial

o;f T^i^t 'rf'^ "10^ Jnaifeqwoo bjsw YXiti;A;tieo J-i ^ttt&nteLqoi

tMdt bABTi o& bB&qmjit&Ji ro bMBi aalXaqqfi tedtedw teblBaoo

ed^ bJBex oJ- eXcfjs bjsw arf asil^erfw i)iTJS ^gnlrtiora ^ariJ- txooei

aottouTtant axftt ianjs ^^aJ•:^jttw bjjw Jl rfoirfw ni eajsi/^njal

aoeonebiva sd:} ^eblBaoc ton x'^l »rf^ ejtBm o* jbeJjsIifo jBto aj»w

«£W noirf-oi/tcrf-anx elrf* j-arl^f eJbuXoaoo e'.v hnij ^.-^o^tdx^e *»rfJ

♦ ei/oanoxae noejsei itsrfi- 'lol

eonebtv© ©i^J" moi'l noirf'ssirp eeoXo yiev a at t*I

aflD^sSit^l) £ i}e;^x;:^Xta^oo ,e£w ;)-i a^B Jbe;f&ooX ^aoq etd& zed&Qdv

leri^srrw f>«j5 ^©i-x/^is^^B sat T:o gnJkflijam ©rid- rtirii^iw aoiiibnoo

^©eXXsqajs oi JnAXXeqqa ytf ycf iXxcfJSiX -B ax s-rerf;^ aaolaisff^f

bXxroxlB taemgbul edS §bislonoo ew QBonAtartisorto dona zsbnu bna

-oi/T^enX dtntabne if^xls biJE© gnivig ni loiis tto'l baa^svei ©cf

-an ©80BO ©rfJ- bna beaifvat eioterrerii- el j-nemabx/t ©'IT .anotd-

.bebnfiffi

STATE OF ILLINOIS, }

SECOND DISTRICT. f ^^" I, CHRISTOPHER C. DuFPY, Clerk of the Appellate

Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records

and Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the

said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the

seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this ninth day of

March, in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred

and fifteen.

Clerk of the Appellate Court.

6023

AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE | COURT ,

it? (/^^

iegun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, thelsixth day of October,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nini hundred and fourteen,
within and for the Second District of Ihe State of Illinois:

Present--The Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Presicfing- Justice.

y^on. DORRANCE DIBELL, JustiT'ce. •
Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Jus/ice. [^ X9^ T /i f^ ^ 0

CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY,
J. G. MISCHKE, Sharif^:

BE IT REMEMBERED, that after
of March, A. D. 1915, the opinio
the Clerk's office of said Court,
following, to-wit:

ith day
le Court was filed in
;he wordS:^nd figures

Gen. No. 6033,

Simon KopteiMc, Adair, ftppf^ltftnt.

Anpeal from Putnam.
Sydnfjy Uhi taker, -g>xH;HllHfai '^ /

Diboll, J. -^^ ; yJ^^Jrfl-i

-9n-T;«i''r-97-ltn:3, Frank Kogtellio was killed by

/
coniinc in contack v/ii th an electric v'ira luring on or ne?)r a

sidewalk efi-^in ??l.njgt ir tha Villa.re of Granville, in Putnam

County, Tr.e v;ire waa, a part of an electric light BVBtam owned

and operated by S*tdiiay-4(ft»4-tsvkrer in Gpe^vil-4#T--a»cL.-stfi^ .uaedL-as

n nnrt of h1n onti m n^ntfur of wirijag tfi CQiULey -eieetcic

cirrrent — to hi a notyono i»-firaavUle and- iMjxrcundlng-v^i-llageB.

SiTOon KoBtJllie, a brothqi' of-f^ooo»o»d, w*«* apt>ainte6 adraibiB-

tra-tur - -ef -hJsH^-e^-freir^ yt^-byougl-^ t th iq e-uit-lQ recover -damages

f-<UL_5lie..lQ3E .^i4?ta.lnea by hia next of kia» Ho filed a dectgra-

t^^i of H i X -connrtg',- "aTPt- a deflarrer to th« third />©««* wae eue-

'ta i ued . Tl nv ^ 'Vag "?■' :plea ^of not p:ot3rty g^rd « jury trial and a

VBrdlu I b mt'!r''fiurpienT~fcr " defendant-, fro» which plai-nViff

On the evanir^ before the accident h»»«->*ti-eh*»»Vion
there ■tina Ui-Uii ?- storm in O?0invilla,~ahiqh broke off a por-
tion o-f K Use g^tarding-^.Tr^hg-yatTtt' of • on^ ' gf" -the ^ITfiJlaaee^
.am! one uDper part of -tMu-t^ea fell ■«»« over upon the/5«rirei
•of— nTip»-iie«-whiah ')rBT?~i>x-tend«d'?rpon- poles standing near the
aldaualis; About fjeven o'clock ©»~the raorning o^— Jwiy^, the
wires i^axB way and the tree fall over and u on the sidewalk
and the vJires rerrained hanging from the polefl and reaching
to and upon the ground. At' lea at one of the ^ i ghb&g«- -^■9Vmm '^-^
W-rr?nre noticed the position of the wires et the time of
breaking, but ctoi|s not <v!5^>«ar to hav« notified any one of

■ condition. Pm-nk-Fcstelliw at that time vras about thir-
, tes-ii-^»«are"^id,- In rood health and pofl3e<?Bed of all hJa fac-
' \*14i4»*TAle live.-^ with his parents in a little vrilage near

.J i.1.1 'irn j;

A
J3 5«»rt 1:0 no ^iyl ftrtJtw ol:t*09l:' a - .1.; .^Oja^noo .x_, ...i-.'

£Baa#i/<T nt ^gi'^^-—'' "-- - rillV c ' ' -' ♦■'^~-^'^— ^ttSM-ff« il^web

fianwo ms^t"' - ji'.-.j. o.. x. ..sis rte '■ 'viiw arIT ,^'+-' '

afc J>s.ax^ jBLBW-^±iaj8-n>'fet^'<w<flK» iT^«g»jt.3;»jL --^ .— id b9t^'i9c. .

t ©7j.smjab - ^^^vooaa .Ml ■ ' ^' '=^ >■ f^~ it i fgt/oerf f- 4^# ♦#te#«'^'*irf* l-o—'tf* f^*'
-«TJ5f«fir-*"*»Jrtfc*--e^-,>.«.— to-ijcan. aJ;j:( J!fdJ!>feaJLa^Sif8,..9§Pi..aii -

■•r c. ^ "r -vT- ' f rr « -V-: % rf ~ ? 'TjTl'U -iVLli'X

. sfsatrT* — '^^
-loq .w w..-.—... .-* --, -V •«■< fflio^e --"- 2'j.o

Bdi Tiien jftlbrtKr^': fffr^'ftr' 'ffOffr'f«rbfrar^:!t»'~?'T0r lirit ri r-o^Jb-f ff tf ff /?-

iX*»reble eiU flcw IxiJB levo He »rf* bai: '{/jw av^jj ae^

■nnixfoiie'i J:rtii Aftloq erf* mor'i 'Qtxk-p.nH.l beniarnei aeiiv.- Si
.•u., s .. t,. r;;-;-i,-*f erl* 1:0 ano t^ia'f---#-A ..brtu-o-r- erfj rtoqi; bfta '
'^(^ efiil:^ ©/{*■ i's •BiJ'w beoi:?-on &vjwI~

-itdt ^uods aJBW awlJ Jj3rf;r^a'--»*li*aTf'aroH' -jfatjnfl .noid-xbnoo '■«

Granville and waa sent by hi a mother t-\at morning to Granville

on an errand. He was last a?sn alive ■fay-Iiaawil -Spire* and
wa» -t'-en|- about 11:30 o'clock that morning, oroasing Main
Street to the slde'vallc on -Nhich this tree vvas lying and
aboiit half a blcnk from the traa. Mig-3. Spirea went into har
house, which wan directly opposite the place v/haro daoaasad
crossed the street, and remained there about ten ninutea. (pf'Jyi^
She then otarted down Main Street, and wl-.^-h she reaoheU the
tree she attempted to z^ around it .ind saw the body of de-
ceased lying on tha ground on ita back, -vith one wire under him
and another wire on hig breast, his clothing on his breast on
fire and the i^ireB apittinc fire. There was no eye witness
to the accident and no one can tell exact xy how it happened.
Engineer Jai.aly, in ohar.e of the plant <ia ■tu&..»a»r.aA.ng-AR
^«e»ta.oja, testified that he felt a jerk or jolt in the machinery
about f3even o'clock that morning, believed; there was ao-pething
uniflual on the line, made t^jete 7.'ith the appliances at the
plant for that purpoee, found no evidence that any wires were
grounded, and paid no further attantlon to the matter until
informed of the accicisnt a fsw minutes aftar it happaned. The
appliance used by Jvikely- was known as a "plug-in circuit
breaker," and there ^14 svidence Uy ^Stiwr-t«4« -ii^itnesreea, qualifly-
Ing cm experts in electrical tiattera, that the u«e of auch
an ina'.rurcent to determine T/hether ox-sw^ a wire ia broken
is of no avail, unless it is uesd at the very inatant the
wire falle, or unless the wire remains on the ground and
makes a complete short circ\iit. It also appears from the
evidence of th se exp-rte that if a "static ground detector"
or an "autojuatio circait breaker" had been in U3e upon the
switch board of this plant, thn current in ths vires in question
would have been shut off automatically the instant the wires
parted. No such static machine had been installed, but
there wae one at thepi»ant for the p\irpoae of being installed.

ex^j.vuj:iiT .•:7;iju:--; ' tntee sew bci£ Blitvaaii

niJSM 3ai««<w;r/ ^grtiatoat *«rf* :iooSo*c OC:Xi ,>.jjodjb ^ur j «»
bxxB saJt^jC a£*r ee • :* •-*-''■ -'-'■' no iJBwefcJte ad^ pi is;-"

-uefa ^o \hc^ „..^ ,...>^ *...4,..- »* ....x.^^.. .. , <•♦• f'°-^T^e^;t£ ©rie _ »©«.

no Ja«st^ °>'^ M» a«lrf*<*'"^5> aJtrf v^^f"" "^ "'rrl rto tsrtJtw .nari Joaj^ Jj^j
" «eeaJ oa bbw sieriT ,atii.. .....>. v, i:q« »»aJ:w dfi;> 6n« »a^'

3rt"iri*8t«OB W-. ... — ^...*-wv ^^nJtxrxom t£it -iCooXoVq ,a$v^ke J";jo4i

:Mi;bal6 ai-girXq*' -e t^. n'OitJi a«r. ^ ^^ ycf tfw/' eeojifloL;.

noufi T-o r i£.j*i':r l£0±ttijapX« 111 «;t"ieq.x» »«--8#{3

Hte/ion,. TiiyTe.+ e: cJ J'iiajujX.'erri rr.

fafijs bnjjoia -. aniajJioa six 4»Xijal ©li!

on'tf 210 :cTc 8 i«BQqB ok tZ .:^: o'.io ;^TOfie e^aiqinoo u et^J^

^lotoQi&b finjj<ns oi*«;f aj^apqxa aa r:»t "ip ©oael5JtT(

9tiS xtoqif 6Ptr ifl:" rt»^tf "fcjsff "la-^SBTcf ft rrto rii-«rTO*«e" fl* Jt(

asli yXliSDl^ajBOixra tlo tuAe rxe.ao .Xuoi

i'x/cf ^JbaXXfiieftl neecf I)J9;1 ealilojsm oli'AjRt iiojje oVl .Jbaixst

-~ift-tfeee-tronaillcn o ^ t.he'~BvlttBw?»-it wan BBiftfltial' timt the

j^r-y-.ghouJLd — iE»«©onrec tiy ■ ln»-t3F tko-'fe«d j -«#-±irirtrB--s'~cpaeattOTT~t?f

guilty of emy — wa^^Trertc^in the eqTi^pmgnt" aMnpp'grstlon of
_AtiL_£JLaiit-,---*ftd--l7r-l^^ to aa«

■cet.taln imailiJsx.-'»ay---*o«i4««t b«4 — kappe»ed--"1ra~lt a Tir sa

af-ter TXOtlSfltlg' soffletHirig unusfual in th#wft«feinery about seven
o'clock tiii^t morning. The STrth, instruction given at the
request of a!-)pellee, read in part aa followa:

"Eacii separate and diatinct count must he treated as a eep*
arate and distinct and ROle oauae of action and must be so
established by the plaintiff by the £:reater weight of ail
ths evidence jn the case before any finding; oan be made
in hiH favor by the jury or under either of said counts."
Tliis is equivalent to telling the jury that, if each coimt
was not oroven, there could not be a verdict for the plain-
tiff under any count. The first oount of the declaration
charged negligence on tne p|art of appallee in allowing a
current of electricity of hjigh and dangerous voltage to eaoape
from its 'Aires while the ^ame were lying on the ground, and
in permitting the wires to Ibe and remain out of repair; the
second count charged thrf iame condition and averred that,
by tae exercise of reasonable dlligsnoe, appellee could have
known taat its wires, etc.L were not in reasonably good a
dition and repair; the fojurth count charged negligence on

on-

the part of appellee in parmitting its wires, crona arms and

poles to become v;orn, unsajfe and danperoue, a condition which

oould have become known to appellee by the exeroi'^-.e of reaeonable

i ]
care and caution whereb}[^i its wires fell into the street and

deceased was killed; the |f if th count attributed negligence

!'
to a-pellee in falling tc) equip his plant with proper appli-
ances, 30 that by the exiroise of reasonable dilioenoe within

t^O'Trottrstcrp tf '■>< •■\1n4ou%44t»it~'ili96ti9&^i — biMod»-^u\

•HUB oa aqt^^* -Xftrf»Tirt-B^By o* yttrfirst HJt ul bus — ,^n£lq s^J

:8WoXiol e .jsei ^et^Iie

-qsa £ a£ b»;f.Be-iJ^ scf imism tnuCfO }^oatftti.h ba£ a&jataqea ila^

1£m 1o Jrigtsvt ts^^e', ycf I'iJtifrti^ ycf badairlcffi^eii

eb«m acf obo gnlfonl 'olscf aafio an'. jnsbJcve

".aihx/oo I)lJ5Vtb'*it»itt-xe .»aiiai;:ao Y'S'-fJ: en J ytf lovjfel axrf nj
d-ajL/oo dose li ^t Si.it \tut a rf* gilt II la* cft tnttlMvlupe Bt «tffl
-hiaXq anJ lo'i ^OJtBVev b acf J-on f^luoo eiarf* ^navo'xcr Joxi asu
noi^BXBloab etf^r !to ifni/ocj ^arti^ jariT ,tnvoo rfi^ i&brfv 11 id
js gniwoii* nt eaXIttQau to txfljti •rt.f rto aofieailsan baaa^rft
eqxsoaa' df •3«^Xov Buoiegnsfc 1)«b f^l^ lo y^floii^oel© lo ;fxt«Tai/c
bri^ ^tdssoTg erl;^ no sniyX aiaw ©oair »dt aXXrfw aaa. .oiJ

adi ittsqe^ o atsme':. ■ "WiTft' sdi :ialJ4 im-isq ai

^SAdi Jb»TSt>vi5 ijiajB noitibao £)©ai,arfo iTtiJOo^ firrooea

ev^-il JbUjjoo aeilaqqB tdonsailli; ©XdAAoSiiaT 10 aaioiex?
-non feoo3 TjXdJBnoaBai ni fort e , - ;fi;uJ m.oaii

no aonaaiXgfln fieg^CBrfo ifni/oo di'ij^o ;Xi£qwi bnij noi\Hfi

ijn^ aisxa bbo"xo ^aai: gjnicftx a&lXaqcB lo tioo,

dsldm aoiiibnoo b ^aiioidynjsf) bns eljien^j ^fliow iraooacf o;^ aeXoq
•Xd"jBnoaj8s»i lo apio-xaxa ddi yd aaXIaqq fta' aaooed aviiri bluoo

'-eiie ©rfi o*ni XXsl saii Jaierft

sonaalXaen beiudtrii^ iatto. 9dt iftaXili ȣ'* Ziua^scai

-iXqqa laqoiq dilw #rt/ qi-upa b* aalll*! iti »aX.

tttditv %6ne' tith aXrf^nce.sai lo aslonixa tirlv* ycf *"£rft oe ^at

a r9asoriabie-ti»e- after the breaking -oJL^g^ny of hia vvires, he
oeuld leagn-nyf^'m^.gfi— brgaking and ahut ja£f.„. tiiAt ciirrefiti.. .. and
ir^a niitt.h CiQunlL..a]3>arg.ed jiegiigaao e in-falling to — kafi^ijii a

'^QJ}l^'»rux.Aa..£LjaA,-.m»^Ta.^mA»y~^i>n wnrrtti -A-p^f>T»A^i.-«tH tH nf repair

-4haV Ita couM be Inforwod of tho dongoraua..CQnditioa o^-irh^
Tiirtag MiUiyiiiH mirh lij^ti iiiiT i1nn;^'"irmH rmr'Tout of ^iee^Ttdty^.
-Und-er this. deolQjaViea^ i^ "^ae eiiur bo"i;;:tTg-"-^jf»»--<t34tw.-.ir»--

etrilCtion. The ^W' , ^ natrMr-tirm, ni-ir»Ti,,a4>,.ikii ^■w.ii.HW'fe nt^
aijpellaa, told tiilf j^^^y-<F'-at -J -r -KV^Q rr.nr.h-tn .^Ty At tba play^-^^^^

Vfnp AqiiS^T.»H wTi;>i.-M. — rrovBit'' ywa''Trod-oTn--<fci»f>lio.iiqea -"4»i?— t^Mi.
m-event-iin nf thf>-- nnnnnr -rrf- — -1— ntrtfH-liT thrrrfrBiHy fftnd ;v i th
affective app3|i7;nnrni f i i' 1'''""l1ri[" Mi" nv'-- rf '^1 ■^''•^ •--'"•' "^Y
'^^'^ \'^ thfl RMft ^«'^'' •'^ r"^"* ^"^"^^T-""^ tf "^Tl' i^a^h-tnprv waa
ajL tha tlrifi "arefulia:.^.Aad.~pxonarly .xaaaasflA, by. goayteat a er-

^ejotixaly-^xd^lAided- froa"^i;tty"''jTnry'^ttiy-ip[HiB not

appellee *7lfftflnffg11c:«'"'^ ''^ "r*"*"- ^laAuritiTig +,pt» -hrAav -in the
"^IXfJ ^Ti floint fi-'Uv-r-'trny- -^THJ i-ft wM* -»«Ha»l»ABig-i^4M»#<Mr« the
-anriiiant. — TTIiilnj y>fti»>iapaj|. — tkAra ia \}\f\ gllght^^^ay^de nC 6
■in t?is TtfL'Ui'd tg aTlOW^irtt^t "thg-iypeafcagtr---ghmt^d--eg could have
MBl\ d« t §fi 'leT^'In^son e otlffr ^ way th^li-tK e'dha employed by
Jal! ely > - ye^ that' qtteet2k>-»-^»h|»u3^ jaot-. lia-VLa-JaaajutAJteir -^trom

f given at the request of appellee
fficient in this oaax if apT->ellea

the juTy, Inet ruction No. 33
told the Jury that it v/as ab-

used a high degree of dilif enoe in equipping ita engineo,

dyramOB, etc., with standard

of detecting the condition
pa'^sinf;; out of, to and upon
village of Granville. This
even though appellee had eq
THAchinHry and appliancea

appliancoa, devices and apparatus

which are generally recognized aa effective for the purpoae

of repair of tlie lines in service
the Btreeta and alleya of the

inatruction ignored the fact that,
pped hia plant with all neceeaaxy
re waa evidence tending to show

eqmpped

, yet the

\l ^

TC3:jww«*««i^ -111 iniiiriiiii'i iTfif";f]i'rt'( mtifi <nt niajIgiXar*/? evJ^J'o&l'iba
8£w Y^l'JAisCst.RS jfeSfgu'Jtl'.u,. fvT a ,, .n gA«f«»»:- f>»«yM* t^aaaa^.^^ , ,li, bft-fl

cons ^ .Atrrf-i^^ ftfffttjlt^i ^•q<irfi¥mf ^^B^^ffff Jiiaiilnaj

Ycf iidyoJEqans aha aH:; ufj' itSW

9dt lo e^ff 4.*#*©7.#« ariJ

^isdi toj&l eri^ lisionai aotiotrtiBa^ttt^ .eiiiv..AiO to sgx^

'fa HJbW . ' tv .iaor

■ UiaL Um failod — to wamtaln — euch an|jiiajiuB«-ii»"t;<?od omrdi-
'-— ^a»Hf3--tiw4- — f <>l-lo<i "■»«»■ "fef>»jPft'fe4r-»neh- ^y^pjLiitnocg^inr-a obi'.; fill tiiad

T?e thus have a condition of the evidence tending to show

tnat there had been a severs iitorin at Granville the night

before the aocidentj that, because of such ntorm, a tree had

been blown over upon f^^he wireB\of appellee and had remained

ther-^ all night and oaueed tha icires to break about seven

o'clock the following morning; that, at that time, the engineer

of appellee, who was in ohargi of the plant, noticed an

unusual condition of the machinery and made one test with a

certain appliance at the plant to ascertain wmt vfas 'he matter;

that, according to certain experts testifying at the trials,

such appliance was ineffectivt for the purpose; that apoellee

and hie servants made no othar effort that morning to ascertain

whether or not there was any trouble with the wires carrying

a deadly current of electrlcJLty until notified of the accident

to deceased four and one naif hours later; and that aopellee

had at bis plant a certain other appliance, which experts

testified v^ould have preoanted this accident if in use, but

hioh appellee had not inel^alled on his switchboard. Tliere

^^as alpo evi'ience tending io shoiw that the cross arm on the

pole nearest the point where the wires broke was rotten and

; id been in that oonditionj for BOrrie time. In this condition

of the record, it was a qjuestion for the jury whether or not

arpellee had exercised due; care tax in the construction,

ejuiprcent, maintenanoe and operation of his plant and± its

acceasoriea, and we are of opinion that for error in f^iving

tJ.a instructions above gtated, this cause should be presented
to anoi/jisr jury,

Tiie judgment is therefore reversed and the cause remanded,
EJehauB, J. took no part, '.

\r

wode

nevsa tuo<S£ lir a tit

aasnigna »rf"j^' \e . {t^ixJtntnif •gnlyrollo (oolo'o

hjb iieoii-ofr ^ta£ •=»«» orfw ^esIXaqq:^

a dtlw isei V^srtlrfo rroiJibrroo LBumana

»«X6i :nlY'H;fee:t a#ieqxs alAiii tbiotitu-.

eej fvl^oallar; onfijtiqqe rfoot

atM.iteoB& ot gxrlna. etxiBrree sirf fcrtin'

SniynfiO Bs-i" . J;tiw elcfiroii yni IBW 616' to nodt

ttiebioo ?:a*bffls lo jPnaiULfO t^^bBs

eelleq ':yol beajssoe':

Bifteqxe ,t6a«Hr

•■xariT .Mj8oarrio*lv o i>0lXii ^rf »eXX8qei>

iTO BIB a 80 Bortabiv

.:. lo. ajBW •ioid'^BB'ti '>flldq: »rf# ^teitijsn oXoq

^aoitovtiBnoo tdi Itim aaaO ,*ajjb bealoiexa b«if •»xre
BJ^i tbnfi ^fXJBXq aii-f 1o nolJjsTeqo ibfti? •0«AftdJnJ»n j^rt&mqi
"yxJtrl ite' !tot iiolniqo -^iioeteooio'

be'itneae Xi/odo eeuso BtdS ^beiAtB svocTjs anortsjcrti'ani eJf

1 &8JJI30 oxfJ bflja bae-

STATE OF ILLINOIS, |

SECOND DISTRICT. f ^^' I, CHRISTOPHER C. DuPFY, Clerk of the Appellate

Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records

and Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the

said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the

seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this ninth day of

March, in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred

and fifteen.

Clerk of the Appellate Court.

6027

AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURTi

/ ...

\ 1 ■

Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the si^yfh day of October,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine jQundred and fourteen,
within and for the Second District of j^e State of Illinois:
Pi:esent--The Hon. DUANE J: CARNES, Pres,t^^ing- Justice.
Hon. DORRANCE -DIBELL, Justice.
Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Justice
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY,
J. G. MISCHKE, Sheriff,

, Justice. _ ^ ^ i> /^ C O

,,,^^^9 3 I. A. 253

'<

•/

/^^^' /jiM-o^ a^[/^/\i

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on the 9th day
of March, A. D. 1915, the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and fig-ares
following-, to-wit:

\*

T L 'i I

3©3

lie

Gen, TTo. 6037,

Louisa J. Owens^ appellea.

V8 Appeal from TOiiteside,

Gerhard t M, Cass ens, appellant.
Dibell, J,

"^lir-±^-a suit in aasxifflpsit, brought ,., i»-4fereh, -i^iU,-Jby
Louisa J« Owens ag-ainst Gerhardt M. Gas sens iKi^e»«by>, -ao^eTd-
Ing to an_a5iend^ed bill of partleula**.^ -plaintiff-^o^ught to
nhnr^fl fiwfsnftaRt with ^3,000 loaned the defendant, with f^SOOO
held 'in trust for plaintiff, with -650 entrusted to d-efVnd-
ani vvith which to pay for certain patents , with !?1,000
as plaintiff's share of certain moneys realized by defendant
from the sale of various o4feeT patents te-the^oc*" River
Manufacturiing Ceapany of' Dixon, Illinois, with :'tl,000 due
on various xsccaKJila aiipunts, and with ftSOO paid defendant
as the purchase price of still other patents. Defendant
filed a plea of the general issue and a counter claim, whereby
he sought to charc-e plaintiff with $3,000 loaned to her, with
^1,000 expended by him for the use of plaintiff, with ^3,000
for the purchase of a one half interest in certain patents,
with ^1,000 paid a third person for the benefit of plaintiff
and with ^1,000 accrued interest on these various sums,
AX^-eywaxdg-Ti-trfendant -I44^t^"ar^pit» of -thr statute of-Llmita-
■^ ions ^ 8 et ti ng jiil- that- -a3X-ar~-about-r«tMruttrv^ 35-> l^©6v-aR ae-
..flOi^nt had bsan g^«t^ted between U>a parties that there had
be«» no- renewals or payftierita thereon, and that plaint i f f • e
ea-rree-o-f action di^- no^t aocxua_vzi-thir»-- f iv« years before the
conFrenoemen-t of this ault, B^Laiwtiff traversed said plea,
a«d-.also-. replied to said plea epeoially to the effect that
aha -had-lianfid. large sums^ of monsy. to del endant who was her
brotherinlaw, wlth-whijciL„4o_£urohase patentf or an interest
ther.^in for her; that she had trusted him but had discovered

,TE08 ,o: .
.eeXIeqqJs, ^aaewO ,L jsaix/oJ
,9ble»titfH moil: LABcpk av

.;tnflXI©qr« ,eiit8BJ30 ,M ^btcBrfieO,

.L ,Xi»cri(I
YCf-,*€€l- 4tl«««W-«4 ^ i-rigiroicT ^d-laqau/ae* at titra Jrmi atiflP

\ ot ^<i'gu^9^-\^ ttaJjUJsi,, .,*aAfci«>Jt*«Bq~ "to Xltcf fcafeoajgJBjiB o^ agj

OOOSf ii^U' ^d^njsbnetsb erfcf berrjsox 000 ^S^ rf^itr »fh9fea»>a^ ,ft;^iaffja

OOO^X? rf*Jtw. ^ fiiapt&q, MlAtTipo zol. yjsq o^ rIoi.riw riJiw ixLS.,
Jnaoneleb xa besiXJsei 8x©no« iriB^t-xeo ^o 81£xIb a'^^lJ-nljaXq $a
a©f2fl:"*5afl-jax{cf--©* •;rne*«q i8>4^ ■x/oj:i;sv lo eXa^ eriJ «0)sl
eub 000, X^ d^Jbw ^aiOfliX^I ^aoxtG to ^^ooO •s^JIm^-OA-^MMU
^nebnel^eb blaq OCS|^ il^iw bn£ «a;t-ax;ojn£ Bijuaaxx Buotn&r no
i-fljsbnelea .ad-ne^«q lerfJ-o XXi^a to soJtiq aaBrioiijq ©rid- a£
X<foieriw ,mi«Xo 'X8;ffluoo jb ban bubbI Isinab-g 9Ai to JseXq £ bs.
iW-lw ,aeff o;f ben^oX 000,5$ xfJ-tw 'iljt;ff(Jt£Xq e^aario o* Jrfawoe 6x1
000»S^ rf^iw jllJtJnJtjeXq to aeu erf* aol alri ytf babneqxe 000^X1
^B&neiBq nlsiieo ai tssietnt iXari sno a "Jo aaarioii/q »ri;t lot
m*«iJBXq lo i'ilsned erfJ- zol noaieq hitdi a bisq OOOjX^ rii

• anufB auo^TBv aasjclJ ao ^asis^nl bsxriooA 000, Xf; if;fiw boM

w'WJfatJil^ tBiiT ixTB' ^aotr9dt 9faeKX*C[ to BlJBirBiiai -«« «w»<f
6d} ©lo^frd -rTJsa-y'fr^-t'^ .ai^^.ia.sjjiooa #Mr bib aoi-*©*- -!•-•«';

^srf^J* ^TJsrVle 9/f:r o;f YXl^sl-d^oa ««Xq i o»iXqex-oafB l^4»

•red 88W oriw *««iic©i»b.oi_4tftaflK.i°,J^?.^23^'''A J^tg£j.X.J>x>.tt. adl ■>

*e5S5faJ;-aa. 10 ijno^jsq 6earfoiusL..oi-'ioliIw_ii;tiiT ,»»Iaiierf^o"x<f^

h».v-rr»Vrt!"Mi ^ h httlf ■i-rrrT niFrf l>in+iBfr«r* KaW *W* jfan'Tf ••r«rf Tn^ flf > "J, t ft ff i- •

^haee of patsnt» by frttr 'i"cnr~trgr-ytth--h-fr money -wox^ untrue
alitf-tTrsctT'trs'tiad^neVer expended her money for that pumpBe;
and- tba^siie'tnstf made such diaoovery ■wrlthii»"^fe^«>"-period of
five yeare prior to the commencement of this suit*
A Jury waa -wa44;:ed^ani1 the-c»ee--waa trie<fl^,beforr? the court,
and in June 4,SJr4, a judgment was entered in favaf of plain-
tiff aealnat-uiaXft^dant for :!^1,345,00 and costs, from which
-judgmant defendant ^al©w appeals.

The evidence in thie oaoe-jfc^e not only, conflicting but
in many reepecta vague, indefinite and uncertain. It- i* ol«ar
that appellee conducted financial transactiona with appel-
lant involving considerable suma of money and extending over
many yeo.ra,' but neither of the parties appear able to give
definite testimony regarding the detaila of these transac-
tiona. A otudy uf iho grid enc e from the record- tt-weif - 1 e&dA
ua to conclude tha^t the ywpeponderande of the evidence
reveals the cojaditi©««- hereafter stated.

Appellee and the wife of \appellant were sisters, and in

the settlement of the estate pf their deceased father

I
appellants wife became the owlner of certain lands in White-
side county, subject to a mortgage thereon for ^.3, ©00 in favor
of appellee. When appellant I married appellee's sister, said
sum of $3,000 was still unpaAd, A short time thereafter
appellant bought 80 acres of land from apnellee and gave
her a note for f5,000 (appa|:ently signed by his v/ife and
himself) as part of the piirchase price, secured by a mort-
gage on said lands. Appellant and his wife were therefore
jointly indebted to appei:

total indebtedness seems

.:.ee in the siim of p,000 but this
bo have been treated by both the
parties to this suit as the debt of appellant. Thereafter
appellant paid appellee $3P00 on this debt by buying a house

. \ ..,...■.■■

tt;3»»^;. 3i rfi .iixjsjTS'jrii/ nnM ititaiiebat ^etfg-sv ti'oeqast Y<xism ci

-X»qorj» /ij-lw •flol>0JB«/TJ8i* lAloxtanl^ beJ-ouiinoo eellaqqa i-^'"-

•vlg o;t elirf* 'tA9qq£'»«tJtrijiq iky io'XBttit fill *ir<f *,iXfi&v y«-«'TJ

-OJBBffjiT* eaerf* to wlleieb mtit sn'ifiiBgai 'triow.f*68;f •^ffnileb

Mae-i. -IhE^wiM- fetwee^ - -9ri&-mKyx^. fi tsntfbtTB •arli- ■ "hi^ ylii/^^-A . an o i '

nt r.i.H ^eifcjjHie ©lew i-niBlXeqqJi, Ito ttJttr eifj biiP- e^x^sr ./i.
•^ttiUff at abnaX aini^i^o to aaiiwro arfJ- auusoacr §12* a*n«Xiuu js

Jbiraa ^Mi-aia ~tf'tfiriia.qqlf ftafSaimUftBXXaqtr* ri«ffW ' rosXieqqjB lo

xttTiAtiBclt Qtttt trodm k tbJo^Brftts llkt9 a^sw 000, C$ lo iRUa

1
avib^ bci£ ••XXeeqjR cBO^t ftnjsX i|^0 traaois 06 tff^uod ;fnAXXeqq«

Jbrti ©TiW~»lfl'">[<f'l>6lr8l¥>fXitn«4jBqQ*) ^^^^ •*©« * ^'"'

-trofiE JB vcT fieHroa'a ^aoiiq ea^rfowq affi to'Hjsq a^ (IXaem^

aiol8itf/» "e~*«w 'itlvT a f rf JbnA trtAtl »-■''' ' " . •ba&L bJtiV no ejjb.

• Irf* ifi/dlODOt'^-'lb' aft/a erf* nl a© lit-.; ,..^ batcfafirrl xJ^^^lot

Biif tlfod T(f batJ8dT;f rraacf av£if o4 amaea •aenbe^d'ebnl latdi

tia;ft3o:ceriT .i-n«XI©qq« to #cf»i) flri* ta *10B alrft o* BetttJtq

ati/ori is aitiYJ^cf ^tf #cfff* Pidt no oodfef "•©XXeqqJS bJtaq *iN!»XXa^iq«

and lot for her in the city of Starling. Later, appellant
and appellee together purchaeed a faraa in Manitoba, for
which appellant paid and in which appellee's share amounted
to about i!?3,000. After the purchase of this Canadian farn
and either in 1906 or 1907, appellee and appellant had a
meeting and a settlement. Appellee and her husband testi-
fied that the r:^?;ult of the acoounting had at ths settle-
ment meeting showed that there was a balance due appellee
from app-llant of about ''^1400.00 while appellant denied
this, and claimed, at one point in his taatimony, that
the accounts were all square between himself , and his sister-
in-law, while at another time he claimed that there was
due him under this settlement the sum of ^Sfixfifi. ^3600.
The statei^ents of appellant with regard to this accounting
and settlement are not coasistent with each other, and do
not agree with other circumstances in the case, and as both
appellee and her husband testify positively that the settle-
ment showed there was dut appellee the sum of ^1400.00 we
consider that position upheld by the preponderance of the
evidence, '

Tlie evidence further shows that after this accounting and
settlement appellant bought an interest or interests in var-
oous patentg connected with the making of barbed wire. Ap-
pellee claims that nhe authorised appellant, at his solici-
tation, to invest tl,000 of the money still due her in such
parents for her, and that he always claimed to her that
he had made such an investment of her monay. Appellant con-
tend* that, while he did invest in some patents, it was on
behalf of himself and appellee's husband, Charles B. Owens ;
that the first lot of patents he bought in this way w«r«
sold to the Rock River Manufactxiring Company, of Dixon
Illinois, and the proceeds used to pay debts, except a small

J-niBliaqq^. ^-usiiBj .snlXlwJ-a Ito \iXo arfJ- at l©rf rol *oI f)n^
icol ,*doJinAi: ai mxal js bp^sApTusq, aeri^^goi- •eXXeqq* 1><.
beifflx/omA ©iJSiie a'aaieqqii rfoirfw ni^ bn« ftJiBq insllecrqB doti.
aai*! nalJbAnJsO aJt/fJ- to oierfnii/r: si^t irJ-tA ,000,S§ tuodA c

-iJaad' f«jBcf"i/d xeri vJbxiB 'e«a^ .<nemeXjf;^»8 «,„ba3. .siLt*©"

-r»X*;fes srf^ ^J8 fcjBrf an Jt;^ £11/00045 orij^ ,lo iJXi/sfii «rf* *«ri;t AaJfi
eeXXaqqii eub. BOa&Lad a bav &3Adt .tJUit. £)AWox[e gniJ^aam ta&ia
tetaeb lasiLleqqB eXlxfw 00,00.^X$ ii/Qcfjs ^o ^rtsXX' qq« ffloi
;l^xi,^ ^Yaoffljt^fasit sXii nx d-aioq aAQ ^^a ^JbamXiSlo baa ■. ^mts:
-Tsi-aia. tlri -Mjb tXaemiri a©eii[*acf ST^JUjja iXjs sie^ sj-m/ooo^ aai
saw eiBfl-, IjamlBXo a4 •ai* mrftofli. - :rfw ^WAX-ni

.GoaS?:.fi;ax«illl 1o nma si1;l.40efflGX;^#8B aXxi^ xobau nixf ai.

■ j - . ...

^iiauooQA 9^ld3 oi .iiX^3.ei,xLlJ:.w. .*a^XktSQ6fM..|o aJnaraafAj-e tt.iT

oJb baa ^xarlJ'o xio^e diiw taeieiaaoo ioa bia iaecaelitBB baa

dtod BA bciA ^asito ad^" cit BBon£&Bmuoxlo XBdto dtlit aaagjs toa

-bLUbb Bdt iSiJ yXevl^Xaoq x^ii-aaJ- bfisdeud i6d bna aeXXeqqjB

aw OO.OO^X^ lo su/s Bdt aaXX^qqjs tx/|) «fiv ateri baworfa itnb

edi to eonjsiehfcoqe'xq si J- yd LXeriqu, aoii-iaoq iadS xebXaaoo

.eonsbivs
Jbrtii gaiJ-nx/ooojB aldt iBtle tAdi^ aworfe iprf*:ti/l aonebirva ariT
-iJBV ccJ: a^aaiaMJ: lo ^faaaa^nl ite ^rfjiip^f ^rt«II .:-:aiaX^J^9a

"tQtloB .Bid *J5 ^itriJBXXaqq* ba«iioffJxrj9 ^rf** ^urfJ aoifiXp faXXeq
xfoire ni ta/1 Quh littB ^cenoxa at,. vni ot ^aqitAi

t»dt • x^d ot bBtat&lo BTiJiYiiM 9d t^Hii^'ha^. Biao^eq

-aoo ircBXX8qr.A .,\Baosa rod to #nam*«{?yn .!;,«* ifmr?
no B£iv il,^BtnotACi BmoB.ai' tspva^l .4^Aa<^..Wbae^,

1 snsvO ,3 aeXaaffO ,AnJBcfajjx( ••0eX»£»qc[£ ban IXasmirf lo 1.

asew YBW Ri.l^ ni J-riguocf arf BifiBilBQ i^i

^TjcwqffloO Bniiua'OJslti/jiijBMj lavJtfl ioofl i . ja,^

Xlj^irrr.? .s ^qaoxa «aMab y^q o:f baax; abaaooxq ad:f.bn» ^aioalXXJ

balance {lietributed among the nember© of a nmall company
interested therein; and that the aeoond lot of patents
ware tried out anr? found to be without value, Appe lant*8
evidence in this regard ifl not oonniatent throughout. He
ftdmite tiiat he purchased interests in two different sets
of ptitents at two different times, and that he did not make
these inveatnents for hirmself alone, but that he put up the
moaoy. At least it is a fair inference that he put up the
Boney, for nowhere in the raoord have we been able to find
any evidence jCXKAiitg tending to show that Charles F. Owene
hiirioejlf put up tkn kskmjc any money. Neither is there any
evidence that appellant owed any money to Charles F, Owens,
A. 'tjxlant is therefore in the position of claiming that he
put up money with which to purchase patents for Charles F,
Owens, without any existing reason why he should advance
money for Oens, and without jiny evidence to ahow that he
ever made a demand on Owens to repay the money so advanced
by appellant. It aeema to u^ very improbable that appellant
would so act. On the other liand, as we have already stated,
the preponderance of the evii^ence shows that appellant was
indebted to appellee in the ^um of !!rl,400,00 and that

condition of af f v ire would pake it entirely natural that he
would advance the money wijth which to purchaee an interest
for appellee in these patenlfB, and thereby, in effect, pay
eo much on his debt to appellee. This would also explain

illant's failure to demajid a return to him of t .e money
he so advanced. We conclude that the preponderance of the
evidence shows that appellant did make these investments
in auch patents for the benefit of appellee.

With regard to the two investments made by appellant
in patents for himself and for appellee, the evidence in
reoord seens to show that the first investment took

Ynajciwoo XXaMB ,a Tto ttisdaet ... ,;.u...„ ,^;fycflijf8jtl) eoni _

e.'lam ton bi:h sd tatlt" txfja \M9m^i. itaBte'i^kh ofrt tJs Bttt'9tu<^

tttit qu txiq •xi tsdi- iud ^BttolM' llB^mlci 10% mtaent^9vaJL •%&

tbili qu tvq bA t^dt eonetotni liat a »1 tt tBHBl ik .Y«fl

bail: oi eXdii nescf «w evsd bz.opeii »rf»'«r •isrfwon lot ^t**^

artewO .'I ■•XosriO t£Xf;^ woxia ot'sttkba&t giitiiKxx •oiteh±Y«r x

YHJS 6i»H^' al "XBdil&T^ .Yenoki yrug 3|mkm in(t qu tuq 1tXe&';

.BnerO .T: ieXiBifO oiT venoai Yf*- '.^ewo JnaXXeqas *Bri^ %bine

on i'jMf;^ . s''*'"'^*'^^ "^^ nold-iBC', rx ©loleieni ui ^ttaXTlf .

."ii a»Xi**flO aot uiatit&cr ••arfoWq o;t rfojtifw dttv ijerton qi/"*^

80fl«vl>£ JbXuoriB sd v^' ftoe/i«7 3altt#lx« '^n^ tnodtim ^mttB

i

toonsvbA oe YB^om A/f^ X-o(T(^i <^ sltdwO no JbnBra«l>-' «' *b«m Tfi

^b^tatB xbABXla tTKli 0w bb ^AaJft^ tvif^o <»/{:f ifltO . blu

aj8w ;^^«XXaqqB ^jsrf* iwoxfs sonaiira ftrf:^ to ©on«i»JbnQqeiq 9
'^l«x(9' tea OO.OO^Xl lo mu0 »ii;t ai eoXXi^ftcts'^tt^ hi^^cfe!)
Bd iAdj iMiutsM xioitia^ SI Bilsin bluovt b%1 11b lo nol&thn
i%6-i9tal ns aaarfoTuq o^ dotdn d$X^' Yanonr ad^t aaajRv&js foljj
ysq ^ Goalie q1 «\:daiari;f bna ^•fae;^aq eaarfi al aaXXaqqi
aiJiiqxB obX£ tXxrow aiitT .aeXXaqqa o^ #<!«£> aXif ifO' dou
Xenom edf to fflJtri oJ- is:cx/#ai « bif-omab oJ* aiJvXiat a' ^naXX-
encr to aonaielinoqaiq Bdi iMAt ^bulonot^ aW .bBoanvbA o*
8^ne;n;fBflvnJ: anerf^ 97iAm hlb ittMllBqqM tAd:f bwoiIb aonef^i
.aeXXaqqa to ' tf'Jtlatiacf atl^ lOl t^jxa^sq ifoxr-
ifaaXXeqqjB ^cf thJUt aj'aai'dteevrtl bi# a/f;f o^ biB-^Bi ditlK
rtJt aonalilY* <liT^ ,aaXI»qqs -xot haAll§»mta 10'r mtaB^M

1^1,000 of the money then due from appellant to appellee,
entitling appellee to an interest in those patents to that
extent, and leaving appellee atill his creditor to the ex-
tent of about f;400,00;that the second inveatmsnt for appellee
was also in the sum of ^1,000 thereby using up appellees
balance and leaving h^jr indebted to appellant for about ^600j
that appellee settled this ^^600 indebtedness by giving a check
to appellant for :|?500, signed by herself and her husband,
and also by turning over to appellant a note then in her
poasesBion and belonging to her for about i^j^lOO; that the
first lot of patents was sold to the Rock River Manufacturing
Company for but little more than enough to pay certain debts;
but that the second lot of patents was sold to a Mrs, Martin
tO£,ether with all of the assets of a corporation known as
the Sterling Machine Works, in which appellant and Owens were
interested, for the sum of ^8,000, No accounting was made
to appellee of the moneys received from this aale to Mrs,
Martin, "While no proof was offered by either qide to show
that any profits wer^; made on Ithis last eale, which should
have been divided and a part paid to appellee as a dividend
on her purchase of an interest in these patents, on ^he
other hand, there was no evidence that it was necessary to
use this sum of !|8,000 or any part of it to pay debts with
and we conceive appellee to bSj entitled to the return of her
invaitment of $1,000 out of the proceeds of the sale, if
nothingmore. This sale was mad|» on the 8th, of August A, D,
1907, and appellee nhould receive not only the $1,000 invested
by her, but also interest at the rate of five per cent

ereon from that date up to the date of the judgment. Such
interest at that rate would amount to practically $345,00
and with the sum of $1,000 to be returned to her, makes the
amount of the judgment entered herein. We believe that the

i

-xe (9xiJ o^ xo*ll)eio slrf Lltt$ OftXXeqqs g^J^VBeX bna.^*ri0;fX9
8»Xleqq« not J^nB«#a©vfrX bnpo© aifi^OO.OO*^ 4:i/ocfa T:o i"n»i^

;008' *uocfs jQl #nJBXX,f>cp3J»..oJL Jbaj^f cf j/ - i a rf aniv^teX hns bdi\-
^oedo js^ J8nly.J^a xrf •tenJbed'crsfjnl Opa$ eid* l)©X*^ee seXXs^qjB
^bnBdBlu-i 7t.d f;n -: IXeaisr: xd bengia ,002$ icol: /nJsXXeqr
■tsrf ni a&iii &ioa a taaii&qsie, oj levo gninii/i^ ycf oaX^-
#4i*" *■Brfi^ tpOXl tuocffi Tcol i»il oj- anlgfioXf ■.■■ ca«ee«io

;8:tae£) njt£J"xdo \aci oi xt^ijoad i^Ai^f d^QOi e. of aol Yn^qnc

ni;raiaM ,«itM & oi Mob bbw §*a»it«<5 ,1p #oX fenooee fnii tzAS

eidw iflBwO Jbn« .^fUJXXaqqjc rfoXrfy.- ni. ^eiaoW ©nlrio^M gnlXas^S
al)£Ri aj5w -galinuQooM 9TI .000^8$ ^o KJja 9it io\ ^.beiae^s^oi
«8xM o;f 9X<A£ Htdi noi':r bev48oe'i e^enon axfit lo eeXXAqq^^ o;^
wprif p* e^ia aerf^re yd beas^p ajaw looiq pa eXXiflf i,al*ajBM
bluoA^ AotsiH ^%LsB tasl aixi^ i- ^ ei^tlipiq y(/a£ t.&cii

bneblvib jb 8£ eeXXaqq* pd^ bi«q ii&q e bn£ beblvib naecf bv£,.
»if np ^a;tn8;f.Bq eaerf;r at \tBen9iai fus lo,0«<exfptjjrg fa^ HQ
ocf XTJ98BeoerT bjsw ;fi: i^di aprfeb^ve on baw aiei,^ ^bnjsd Z9siio
iidab xmq 0 J^i; "io nue aixf^ fax/

10x1 tp atui oeLitiii aeXIaqqa arlapnpo ev<r be

IX ^aX-BB eilJ- to abeappic v 000^1$ %p ^rcem^Aevxi

?ajL/3JLfA lo ,ri^6 X#8 bIxIT .aapqtanXxjt^oxi

bed-aevni 000,X|,^rf* ^Xnp Jpxi fvlapsi bXi/p4B aeXieqc;

riou8 ,*n9m3bjj{; arij .t arptt floaain.

00.9^Ci^ ^fXXjspX*0J8'. iitAi *«. ,;a9'iH;tfli

exit ae)(^ ^xaxj o;f boA o m/a •xi^ '.:

6d.' »^|fti»xt^b^'r»;fxx« *n^m3bx/|; arii- to irwom.

preponderance of the evidence sufficiently shows that appellee
was entitled to recover that amount.

Appellant claims that, as more than five years elapsed
between the tirr:e of the nettlaraent and accounting between the
parties and the time of the commancement of this suit,
during which nothing was paid by appellant to apply on the
amount he owed appellee, the Statute of Limitationa should
prevent aipellee from recovering. We are unable to agree
with this position. After the accounting appellee authorized
appellant to make invest-^ents for her with the money he owed
her and which, in effect, he w s holding in his possesion.
Appellant was her relative by marriage and had been acting
as her business a^ent for many years. She had intrusted him
with the investment of her money, and it is clear to us that
he -^as acting in a confidential and fiduciary capacity to-
warde her «■ and was bound to act fairly towards her and
keep her fully informed of all his transactions with regard
to her money. This he did not.; do. He made no disclosure of
hiR sale of these patents to jwrs, Martin, and appellee
first obtained her knowledge qf such transfer from Mrs.
Martin long after the event Ijad occurred. While the evi-
dence as to the exact date wljen appellee learned of i ,is
sale ia not clear, yet we f-^1 justified from the evidence
in concluding that it was within the statutory period, and
also that, by reason of his relations to appellee, appellant
cannot be allowed to avail himself of the protection of
Statute of feimitations.
As we have stated above, the evidence does not furnish
us with a eery clear otatement of the exact facts in this
case. But we find sufficient evidence to justify ue in
concluding that appellant was indebted to appellee in the
sum of ,^1,400 at the time of the accounting referred to above.

, .Jni/OWfl J-^rfi- TBV0081 OJ i)8l*Xcn3 BJB

bB&qjBia eijnf^Y evi"i^ ncxf^^- eio« 8s\*j»rf* B.«'lJ»In ^nailnqqA,

arid- n:«aw;j-«rf sniirruoooa hrc^a tneWfilitd-aB , t»frri;> »rf+ fleew;te<

exit no \Xqq:£ ot *£iAlIeqq£ t«f &jt*q e-^w :^Xiitoa rfoirfw 3^11
oXi/orfe Bffoi^fiiflmJtil lo ©tx/^js^a erfit ,8eXX»qcrB ft»"wo erf :fnuota
eeag^ o;f eirffinx/ stcjs »W .grrliteTooei -aroiLl eelleqt^-B ^rcsvc
bs&lroiitsjjs eeXIeqqa gnl:frtirooo« erfi- T9*^A .aotJ^iBoq alrf;^ rfi'il'
bB'^ro erf T[erroffl eriif ritiw tttd tot e^neirritBevni ©5(«m o# ^fiAXXe'
.noteeasoq »Jtrl ni arclMorf 4*os'>>s rti ^rfoiifw brtji te

anlJoe aesd bAd brts esJSiTaBm ^: f 9vl*-'?Xei red bjiw tnaXIe<:
mjtrf f)©;^8in:*njt b&d oriB ,n:j«©v ifnafo ttot i'/Te3«' Been lairtf itsrf e
^■jBriJ Bi; 0* x&alo el *Jt hna ,x^^o* "^^^ I0 Jfismi^aeTftt »rfJ Att
-ot TiJtOBqjeo Y^jBioi/fall fcfl* iBi^nebxItnoo jb ni gxiitojs b-gw e
bnji terf BhTJSirot x^^^Ji^ tO£ ^t brwod bjbw bnA axx teri 8£i.d
btjRgei rfd^iw Bnoitojstn^ii^ alil|XXjs ^o Jiemio'5-iTi ^liul •terf qee
lo etifsoXoBfh on el)j3ffl sH ,9b \foa htb erf siriT .^f8^oflI leri o
edIXeqqjs bas ^altrsU tBil^ o^ Bittsiaq eaerfi to elaa at
,8iM noat aetanei;^ rfox/A to tsbeXvironjC %9d bttttsi^o tB^i
-trs HtK^lldm ,hB%issooo ba^ iatvB »rfj- ^eitjs ^aQl altiA
) beaiAei eelX^qqc aaif* t^^b ;fOAxa 8rf;t ot bc aona
eoaebXve 8rf;r ffioit betltiBSJi Lki\ t .^»Lo ion Bt aX«

fcn£ ^Jboxneq xio:Tut£iB »rf;t nifltlw bbw *1 *firf# girlbuXonoo n
*njaXXeqqJB ^aeXXeqqB o;f anolteXfcT tiff to ftoeisaT tcf* <**rf* o
• to noli^d**oaq • arf;t to t£esm)trf lliMVB ot bewoXX-a ad *ofin*

,anoi*J!ll«idr to etir^-si-S f.

dnlarul ioa aeob eonebivs erfJ-' ^evotfjs bacfjsJ^B svBrf e« aA

alrft at B*oj8t ttAxB eriJ- to Waem^^tBif*^ ibbIo ytisw js d*iw a.

al ax; x^i^ai^t 0* eonebiy© i-neloittr/e bnlt ^w ill* .ea*

edt nt aeXXeqqB od- beitfebnJt bjbw i-n«XXeqq8 isilt galbi/Xono

4«)Vdcr« Oif hetrislei gnitnxfoooja ©if J to enrij erfJ- i-« 00^,X^ 1» mu

that he invested her money thereafter in certain patents,
and that he did not deal fairly by her in the various sales
of such patents nor advise her thereof nor a' count to her
therefor. The trial judge saw the witnesses and heard them
testify, and vve find nothing in the record that would justify
us in holding that hia view of the evidence was wit|iout a
sufficient foundation.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.

^Bttl^-S.-. .. .^.

--- "- --"

8eX.8B euatrfv

-^ Ti "nii

Tcsfl oi- .^ •

. xun Itc-

merf* b»A... ^.c.

, ae«^""*

t ;
J8 i-ifOJlJ-iw BJ3W ?'^T

t I«eb ^on btb Bd tatit ba

i.x ,>,xilxf^oa bnll: ew on. ^ -^"'^ *■ •=. ^

tf\ t- t i> « r ■

STATE OF ILLINOIS, [

SECOND DISTRICT. I ^^' I, CHRISTOPHER C. DuPFY, Clerk of the Appellate

Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this ninth day of
March, in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred
and fifteen.

Clerk of the Appellate Court.

604G

/ [O

AT A TERM OF THE APPflLATE COURT, ^-^^

Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the sixth day of October,
in th^ year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and fourteen,
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois;
Present-~The Hon, DUANE J. CARNES, Presiding- Justice.
Hon.^^DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice.
Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Ji
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk.
J. gXmISCHKE, Sheriff

'"'"19 3 I. A. 284

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on the 9th day
of March, A. D. 1915, the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:

Gen, TTo, 6046

Minnie E, Parke, appellee

V8 Appeal from Kane,

I, M, Waetern, Adnr. etc, appellant,

Dibell, J,

i6M*. Minnie E, Parks filed a claim an;ainBt the ee-
tate of her deceased Itxiilixxft brother, Merreles E, Covey, 1^
the probate court of Kane County .upon a judgment note, dated —
glgin, Mareh 38, 1007, payable tc tlw order of Mjor- Minnim
Eaxke for ^.3,500 w44J» — intogaflt at -gJA [jex' ueul 'ptJr-aTmUm
f*o« riaie till pal'tt, bearing the signatures of Merreles E,
Covey and Caroline E. Covey, ^(whe mam the mother of Mrs.
Parks and M, E. Cobey^, on theback of which was endorsed the
payment of ^300 on the nete en October 30, 1907, and the pay-
ment of interest on March 38 In the years 1909, 1910 and 1911
The administrator filed an affidavit, denying the execution
of the note by M, E, Covey, Tiie cause was tried in the
probate court and the claim was allowed 1' fmll. The admin-
istrator appealed to the circuit court, where there was a
Jury trial and a verdict for the full amount of the note. The
administrator «»ied, eiud hie euooonoogr a^ftTgr-'-ffTBtfrrb'trT^
new tgift]b was donted "gTltr-ar J'udgmBiil eulBied fO'f 'llie^amount
of the vo»diet anel inteaestj appealed ,te this QQug4>y-

Appellee- eewtenA^-thaifa aiaa» — -^fel»»-4«C-jPi-<l(»yi't * d-otxyl ng
the execution of the note ielnot contained in the bill of
exceptions, she was not requilred to prove the execution of
the note, and evldrsnce denying the execution was incompetent.
In cases where there Is an af:^idavlt of claim with a declaration
in an action of assumpsit and p.n affidavit of merits with a
plea in such action, it has n^t been required that said
affidavit should be preserved jin the bill tff exceptions, so
far as we are advised, and we tfierefore treat the affidavit as

3*0a .oW .nsO

,enj»7 moil iJSsqqA- *^

»*nBll9qqiJ .0*9 .iml)A ^niecfaeW .M .1

.L ^Xlsdia

ii ,XevoO .S .eXeiieM ,«ri^o:id texrfiwri be«B9oeb lerf lo e;f^;f
..^•♦•fe ,t*ofl ^nemabnc b nocu,M*nx/pO eriBX lo ;fnx/oo a^f^doaq eri^
^jnfllM jO-»M ^- isbao e<t4~o^ sId«YJaq »^t©«-f«e rf«>»«M ^nisX^
mu„A^ .^.1. Ji.eiu xBiiJC-ta J^ luflCDfnf rf■^^-^^''■^^ ^0^ "^ta^
,:E ssXeiieM I0 teox/^enslB •rf:^ anli^ed ^tlan 1X1 J *J*ii "oxi
.aaM to «rf*om trf* •-.»..i*4 ,YevoO .3 enlXoa^O bm xavoO
8rf^ be-iTOb«s. 8*w rfoirfw 10 <Q^8.t.^ no ..%9^^oO ,^ .M baa 8Xi£q
.X*q erf^ bn.. ,TOeX ,0E aedotoO na Bt.» >rft ao 0OS| to *n8«x«q
XXex bflB OXeX ,eoeX •ib^^ en* itl BK dowM no tae^itnl lo ^asfli
noliuOBXB erl* 3niX«ef^ ,*lT*bntB ab bsXH toiJ^-xiBtatmb^ eriT
8rf^ nl bBtii iBw eanao eriT .ysvoO .3 .M xcf •*Ofl arf^ ^o
-flJtmbB eriT .XX0t 1 bewoXlB .bw «JtBXo .rfJ bnB *ax;00 eiBdorq
B .Bw 9:i8rft easrfw ,truoo ttuotto sricf o:f beXBaqqB lotstiBt
edT .eJon 8d> ^o tnuomJ^ XXx/l ari^ lot loib«v XbIt^ ^i^ut

B-¥flt nt5iy6a M IBJl-t ,-lgBiH»»ll« Bt'f f'li i^'*^^ T0*Bi*alni«bB

ffuToaiB "aiTf -^OT !»ia-Ju» Jugmgtct "B "^^ UBlUttfj 8BW"i«i«* wan
■^^4. 8iirt nrt. b0X*eqqB c*a8«u<»l f M tfttf^ "rft to

10 XXM 9Ai at beniBinoo toJ.i s^Toa ecii \o noi^uoaxe eri;f

10 aoitisoexB edi svoaq o;t b8ai[/pea *ofl .bw arlB ,tnol*qeox6

.tfle^eqaooai bbw noiti^oexe Brf* ^nl^neb aonsblve bna .^^oa eciJ

flot*BiBXoeb B Aitv mUlo lo cTiyBbtllB hb b1 eaeacf e^erfw Bea^o fli

M rfJlw •;fJtTem lo JiTBbJtllB a^ baj^ JiaqBU/aaB lo noltoB ns at

blBB tBrf* beaiupei nserf *in bbxI tX ,flol;foB rfoas fli BaXq

OB ,8flol*q»oxe ID Xlltf eri^ rtl bav«B9iq ecf bXxxorfa JlvabXlli

-- .+ w*f.h'h'*« iiri* *Ber£* ©aolp^erit ew bnB .bsatrbB oia aw sb -zal

•^n iffmnt, a .iipIafidAnc ■•im"'*trt¥"'''fvfr We- arl-Ba oall at t ent ion

to ffeo, 65 of tho Adiwtni^g»4^ion Act,

The main question is whether the state of the evidence
is such as not to support a ver-^ict for ar>pellee. She pro-
duced quite a number of "business men, who dealtk with M,
Ei, Covey in his lifetime, who testiffied that in their opinion
the first signature to said note was the genuine signature
of M, E, Co"«ey, Appellant introduced about the same number
of businesa men, who testified that in their opi^iom it wa»
not the genuine signature of M, E, Covey. Two or three pf
these had had a better opportunity to know his signature
t'lan the witnesses for appellee. Some of appellant's witnesses
on that subject, however, were not at all sure but that it
was his genuine signature, and several of them admitted that
it strongly resembled his signature. Two experts in hand-
writing, after examining signat\ire8 of M, K, Co\rey, conceded
to be ;enuine, declared this sirnature not to be genuti e,
but their theories on the subject ware not harmonioue. A
daughter of appe llee testified that she and her mother and
her grandmother, Caroline E, Covey, left for California on
October 31, 1907, and that on the day before, her uncle,
M, E, Covey, came to her mothers house and paid hsr mother
^300 on this note, and that iihe note was produced and she saw
the endorsement of that jjayment which now appears on the back
of said note written thereon in the presence of M, E. Covey
and also that she was present when at least two of the in-
terest payments thereafter endorsed thereon were made and
saw the interest paid by her uncle and saw the endorsement
of such interest made on the back of this note in her uncles
presence, Ray Shoonhoven, a son of appellee, testified
that he was present when his uncle paid ^300 on this note,
and that the note was exhibited then anci the endorsement

•oaebivs stLt 'io 8;tjs*a 9d^ redtsL nljsm erfT

-oaq edQ '.ealleqrrjB. ro^ Jolf-iex ^; J-'ioqauei o* ^Qii td rfoua si
,M dtiv< i;Mijfrb orfv.- ^nem eBsn^aucf ^o iBdmaa jb a^iup beoub
aoiatao lisriJ- nJt i-£;r^ bttlTtfe^ okw tBmi;fsljtI alrf hi x^vo'^ -ta

ledawa ewBa wiiJ- ittrods beoi/boi-fftit #nfiIl9q(:rA .^earoO . .
•J9W ti moJt^iqo aierlj- ni *«rr^ ftei^ii'ae^ orfw 4rte(n teeVrieucf "^o

tc *«ri^ ^isd eai/8 iCXjB ii* *oflr "exe'w »*t6vswoxl ^Joatcfx;© *jjK> no

tsbeofloo ,x»*oO .^ «M to a»tu/*«rrglB anirclmixe tetljB ^griiitliw
,© ciunfts 9(S ot toet BiutJta<^ttt airft bnzBlQel ^oni: • ^
A .aijoinoraij^ri Jon aiswr *ostcfii« drf* no BBtioatii xiodS i^x/cf
bn£ XBdiam lari bciB bAb ^£idt betllitM-94' 9*li' »<X^& 'i&'^x^i^^uMh
no ainiollXjBO lot it^eX ,X9voO ,S •rrlXorrjsO \nerfif ooifani .

,»Xoxu; jsii ^©lo^etf y^^* •if* no ^-Si^ ,'roSX ^SZ ^Bdo&QO

XBiiiOBi Ten jbi*q hits 1^^^oil mrmi^om isrf o/ Afnlso ,v»vo^- '
w£~ •>Bi>uboiq »aw ©ion stttf **>r*"]bVH\eyW alfrif^ "no tfC^

iojatf erii no tajaeqq* von rfoxxlw Jnefliyfiq J-Aff*" to'"'!fi!tfetnd8T6Hns'"sird-'*
XevoO . . -o ©onsBeiQ erf* «i !«o»aBr';t rtttJiiw ai-drt hi&a lo
-jxi: exidr to ow^ ^maX ;f< aerivr isatftoiq •«« eiia ^£i-f ;
An£ ftitiuo •lew no^iBtit beuiobttB ae^tiSd^exfif BtaBtrc^dq 'inBieJ-
triemdrnxoboB edi w^a Jbae •lorri; »erf yd M«q tf-aaieitni ^
Bfiloiui xeri nt e-;^o«; aJtrfi^ to alojBcr ©rf* Irrb »t>js« ^asiaJni n-

JbaitJt^fae^ ^eeXIaqqjs to noe £; ^nevorleroorS? v^ .aonsae'xq'
«e*on Bldt no poej bieq aXoni; airf netfw .trr«te:cq aaw erf "t^^
tfisimeeaoJbnB srf* kciM ti9dt be^icflrfxe saw 6*0fi

thereof made on this note, fnd that hia mother and grand-
mother left for California the next day. He also testified
that he wa« present on two oQcasione when M. E, Covey paid
his mother interest on this Viote and that it was endorsed
on the back of this note in his uncle's oresenoe, and that
one of those occasions was in 1911, Mrs. Caroline ^, Covay
died in Calidlornia the day before Thanksgiving, 1907, About
ten days later, t'le will of said Caroline E. Covey T/as read
by Charle e Hazelhurst, an attorney, in appellants home.
There were also present M, E, Covey, his brother H, E, Covey
appellee and her son and her daughter. The will created some
dissatisfaction in the mind of at least M, E, Covey and per-
haps also of H, E, Covey. The will gnve appellee ^3,000
more than the other children, M, E, Covey said that the under-
standing had been that aopellfte was to have f?l,000 more
because Caroline E. Covey had lived with appellee for several
yeari, and said that his share of the estate would be hardly
enough to pay appellees note. He said the amount was :f3,0C0,
She g&id it was ^3,300, Hazeljiurst produced the note here
sued on and M, E, Covey conceded that it was ^3,300, It was
suggested that, inasmuch as h;is mother, who appears to have
signed the note as security, was dead, M, E, Covey should
get another signer on the note. This he declined, saying
that it was not ne essary, aa he intended to pay the note
when it was due, which would have been the following Maroh.
Biis conversation is testified to by H, E. Covsy:^ Shoonhoven
and Mies ParVe, If this were all the evidence, it would be
absolutely clear that this is the signature of M. E. Covey
or, if not, that he haid repeatedly recognized this note
as his and had made payments \jpon it and is bound by it.
At the trial in the Probate Court, the administrator called
appellee as his witness, and asked her what the consideration

-|}n£i3 ^^^ x&diom Bid tsdi bttM ,tioa 9lti& ao ftbism loBi&dt

b£<i\ttB9S 08l£ eH ,yj»fc *xsn eat Mlano^tl ttai ladiom

btijq Y*voO .jf .W ns :w sfloiBBo/)© owrf- no J-neeoaq tjsw erf tAdt

i
X>9«ioJbne e^w ^i tarit btin ettoti 6tdS ao tuaiBtal ladtom ^td

(
iadt bnjB .#Oft»tdlq B'elofu; 84rf nl Btoa Btrii 'to io£cf tii;f. iio

.;- . -. .. J . , . ,-,,^.-..<.

vevoO •'il snlloT^O ,biU ,II9X at saw caoia^ooo eaorfJ' to sno

(tx/ocfA ,VOiU ^snlvigBJifXAriT eaol^cf X£ alnioiilBO rci fieJtl)

bjBei 8JSW xavoO .3 enlloaaO jbi«e to lllw oLi ^iBtsS. ex^b net

.©tnori BittslLBqtyji at\-^BaxQtta aa ^^axx/iiXesBH a stajsrlO xd

XB\o' . /i leil^oicf tirf ^xev ,~f tneaeiq oalc eaew eierfT

erffoe 9j>;3io IIlw er(T .lecfrig^^^ "^^^ ^^^ '"**• '®A ^^'"- ^BilBqaa

-leq bnii xevoO , d^eaaX ^« l|o balm edt ai aottoBlBit&aBlb

OOC^Ff BBll^qf,. ■ l"^ .-^javoO ,3r ,H lo oalij aqijrf

-aefcflij arid ;fjBrf;J- bi^e yevor . . .cxeibXxrio isrfJ'o eri^ aadt aton

s-xon 000 (l| ev£rf ot e^w BQliBqc]a iaiii neecf b«rf ^nlbafi^a

Xaasvaa lol aaXXeqqjs rf;fi:w baviX bad yavoO .2 tatloxalO tunaoed

\LbiBd ad bXx/ow a^^e^tae siU Iq SiAxfa aJtrf ^j^rlJ- bx^a baa ^9i1&ex

.OOO^fil aBw tnuoflUi Bdt hlsB sH .e;fon eeaXIsqi;-^ \aq oi^ i^ona

atdrf oioa Bdi baox/boiq ^axarfXas^H .OOS^C^ afiw ;ti bxjse edS

S£w tl .00£,£^ a^' babeoaoo y^voD ."^ .M bn£ no bax/a

Brad ot BiaeqcA onw ^^eujoffl aJt^ as rfoumajanl ^^£rfj bacf e83;g^B

bLuodB xdvoO .jI ,U ^bjseb nav ^\ttisjoB% Ba tiioa &d:t bengla

■^ai\aB ^baniXoab erf alxfT .a'ifon lanaia i&dtoaa te

©J- on Bdi- -^Aq ot bBbaB^al ton aaw i^i i^JBrfJ

.rf07«M anJtwoXXot ©rft vfirf h^uo'it rioxrf.v ,ax/b a^vf rf^i nerfw

nevorfnoorfS vX®v<>^ •^ ^H x<^ ^^ iBULltuBt bI aottaBxevaoo eixfT

eo' i ^aoneblv " , - .bT aalM bn^

Vevc ., "to exx/JBfigi:- i. Birf^ j-js.-^.J i^eio YXe;t0XoBd'JB

eJ-on eirf* bajtXnaooetE •^XbsJ:^' '. •Brief t*on ti ^"10

' rT0Od" ai brta &t noqv aJnem-^jsq ab*im bad bcia Bid Ba

- ■ •... ..;■.;■ •'vi::i';j: ;J- ^i'TU.roO B&sdO' ' nt lalli 9rf;t *A,

xicxjBieoxenoo en^ d-£rfw isrf baafajB baa (e6»fiJ-lv elrf bb »©XXeq»-'B

for the note was, and she testified that it was ^3,500
in caeh, a conaiderabla part of which she had had in the
house for quite a long time, and ^1,000 of which had been
paid to her by Howard B, Winnie in payment of a note whioh
he owed her, and she named ths source from whioh she re-
ceived several other sums, but left quite a large sum con-
cerning Tfhich she was not sura where she obtained it.
On ths trii&l in the circuit court these statements by
appellee were proved by the 'efenee, and the defense
produced Winnie and he testified that he had never owed
appellee but one note, and that was for a small s\im, and that
he never had paid her Si, 000; that shortly after the trial
in the probate court, she same to his place of butiness in
Chicago and told the witness that at that trial in the
probate court her son had testified that she r-aceived ^1,000
of this money from Winnie, and that she had been obliged
therefore to testify to the sa'^e thing, and she wanted
Winnie to give her some kind of a paper to substantiate
her testimony that she had paid hex ^1000 upon the note;
and he told her he could not do that because he was heavily
in debt and this would get him in trouble with other creditors
His cross examination weakened the effect of his testimony.
The defense also introduced the amovint of appellee aa a
depositor in a bank, and showed that he had a small running
account in the bank and frequently borrowsd samll sums from
the bank, and that she had no large deposits therein, and
that during the time when she had stated that she had this
large sxim of money in her house, she borrowed a small sum from
the bank, and that she borrowed ^350. of the bank on the day
the note here sued on is dated. Appellee testified in rebuttal
that she made this loan to Winnie in 1903, and that he paid
it to her in February 1907, in the sum of $1,000 which was

erfj- fll AJBri J&«rf exie xfcildw to *i«q eld^tcsbienoo & jrfs^o ni

neecf b^rf rfolrfw lo OOO^I* * S'ni^f 3noX ^ •iftyp ?pt e8i;0r:

;^J^on a lo *n»m<i8q nx sxnnJtW ,3 MbwoH ifcf »exf oJ bljsq

—j'i wne xfolrfw moil Boxuoa sffJ bsmBfl eria b/ifi jaerf bewo sri

-rioo su/e s'siaI jb sttup tt9l tu^ ^anu/e xedio iBievee bavleo

.d-J: lbenlB*^o arif eiisriw eii/e ton aaw erie rfjpjtrir anJtnieo

Ycf aitnetred^jajg ©aerf* i^-xuoo ;fi:i;oiiQ arirf- ni Ifliiit n

fanalab .©eneleh prft vtf bevoiq eisw ©6j.i.e>qf:j3

isVeh'ben - '-f^ttBst erf bne einaiW beoi/boiq

, Tu/e XlBme . ■• brtJf? ^ei-on ©no *jjcf aeXXaqna

x^xij sat lerf-lB Y-t*ionB jBi.^- iQOO.Xft tad J^J^Jsg bed :cav©n ©il

rti aaeniti cf "^ islq alrf '" ---r ': ^tiuoo Bt&Joiq. erii-.nx

baglXdo nsscf bfirf ..^rfa :f"
be*n£" '-' - ■"'• 43ft'J:rij ;.

ioiton Bdi noqAT CX)OXt i
\;XJtv£erf ajBW. axf ^au^soecf tfixl

,Yno«l*Bs;J ..

« Bis at^Xiv '
^ninnwi Xljfi,v;.- ^ ..... ;,.
ajoal auu/B XX-:^5B bawoii^.. , v-

talnniW meat xenom airi;t lo
ot x'^i^^o^t ot eaoleaerf*

. ..... .. ...:•■ -r-vig o;t '- '""' '""

'•^Isiou ojLi *drf blorf' 6rf bnfj
ttXi/ow at/ft bn£ t(i»b ai.

rs . t r-. ri ^1 + v h rt e- ■■ o o B rr «s "^ a i i ©iff

XJSJ'.tl/dt . ..^ ^L,-. ..,';.^v «. .b»*J8ft Bit no b9UB «*v.j c- w.. •

bjt«q erf *«rf* bnis ^SOP* ..* 6 .f- ''V r,+ njBoX 9tiif «|.bJ5m ©rfa *>.. .*

»."■«•■ rfrjh '■.■■• 0<^''' r^ '--^ .'Tf.-t

."vfoTr nf^ rr«»rf ocf- Ji

shortly before the date of the note sued on, and that he
beniged her not to tell any one that he had paid that $1000
to her because he had other creditors who would be very
much diaaatiafied if they knew it, and that he was paying
her because she had beena friend of his wife for 30 ^'eara.
She teatified that when she visited Winnie shortly after
the trial in the probate cou|rt. At was to try to collect
from him a note forr ^270 (which she held against him and
atillholda, and that, during that converaation, she told him
about her testimony that ahe had received $1,000 from him,
and asked him if he could find that old note for her, and
that he said he had destroyed it, and that he felt very sorry
that she had told of his paying her that sum, because he was
in trouble with his creditorp. She denied using the language
which he attributed to her. She further teatified that when
she vaa sudldenly called on the stand in the r^robate court,
she did not have any memoranda of her transact iona with her,
and waa mistaken in some of her statements then made; that
at the time the note in suit w:^a given, she held three prior
notes a^-ainst her brother, M, E, Covey, of f500 each, which
were then s\irrendered to hJLm, and she loaned him ^3,000 in
cash and took the note in suit and that she had had that
money in the house for some little time; that ^1000 of it
she received from Winnie t^e previous month, and ghe gave
the aourcea from which the other money waa received. She
teatified to tacta showing that she waa a peraon of some
little means; that besides her dwelling houae she had foxxr
housea in Elgin which rentipd at from ^33 ro ^35 per month
and that, in settlement of controversiea between heraelf and
her former husband, Shoonhoven, she had been paid ^5,000 by
him; and she showed receipts of money from some other aourcea,
, It waa for the juryj to determine whether to believe

OOOiP. iMdi bljtq bad eri tjuii «no x{t« XXjt^ (atdt ,d'pn le^f ,lMS3^»d

XTQV ed blsjQv oriw tio^ibaao. «eii;to t^ s/f •«jj£00cr 1^4 9^

SalyAc^ jMw d4 i»di bn<& ^,tl i«f^ ysrf^ 11 JbaJf^^jt^TiSSBi^ dc^ifli

.•xueY OS %9'i bM'k eld Jo batJ^^Ti jBfleed tsii ad» sawBoacf aeil

tt&J-ljQ Y-t*'torf8 £'in=ftjtw Jba;fi8iV erf* «©r[w ij&iit J^J^tlias^i e4S

Jofllo^' od- X"^^ o^ B^v a ^ttjjoo pisfiQzq »di ijJt JLaIsJ. 84;t-^

i)n£ mid tsxilii^^ Mad axis xloldij OTS$ ovl eioa s mid ao'S^

aid bioi eria ^aQii&»X6yaq% tAdi ^aliub ^tsd^t bn^ ^ubiQdlitiB

^ald moxt OOOyJi^ Jt>evld06i b»d jsrfa ;t&/l;^ ^oral^«8;t i»d iuqdA

baja t,X9d to't •J-Qfl ^lo i-s/Ii l>nJ;'!t />Xx/oo ad II mid b^i^aJiOA

XtroB xxsv tlot &d tadi bna ^ti. bf^oitnbb bad «n blAa pd, t'Bdt

»JBV 9x1 OR^j^oad ^aua t&ii i^d ^^I'^&q airf ^o Mot bad axfs d^^dt

«;§/jx;3n5j nia;^ heJtnab eriS .^"Kj^iljaxp fid dti^. eXrfjJOi^ nl

addw ;^«dt b^XltiBst xtdiiul edS i,T9d o^ beivdlTiitA Bi:

^tiugo etMdoxq Qdi cii. btiMitB sdi po JbeXJuso itIo&i)Jy;/a ajs*'" ©rfa

«aed d^iw sxxoi^oJesnjBij' led lu Attfl^ioneiTT \a£ ayad ioa bib 8d«

^jsdd- ^aJSuaifli xsadi »iasm»tAi9i rtad to emoa al a^AstBlfa a^vi Lrte

•xolxq nandi bl&d ede lOevig tJ5V Jlx/s ni s;foa ©d|^,^l* aricT jfA

dojtdvr jdo«a OOaf lo ^XOVoO..- , -a.uj : isd taale-^e ae^on

al OOO^S^ mid benzol 9dB .baa fttid 0* bax^l^nsrsTuB flsd;f saaw

JjBdd- bjid had ed» tMdt bn^ tluB ,nl Bioa Q.it ;Ioo;J" bna d««e

ti 10 OOOlt i'Ad;f ;aml* sXi^ ^xi ejrnoa xolt •aifod trfJ nx YeaoM

avisv; ?:::rp I;Ai tdj-nofli ti;OJtv»«q ei|d- aJUiniW moil fcavJtao^^ 9df

%dB .bavisodi i«w yanom t«:'f:^o ^dt t^piidw aoil aaox^jQit td^

anaa 'i.o noaxeq » a«w ada . ^niiworia tj^oa.^ o^ baJtUtd-adv^

lijo'^ X>£d ada aauod sni^Iewb xad aablee^^ -^^d;^ ^an-eam al^ii'lX

di'noffl xaq 8S^ O'x 8S$ aovl ^Jb XM^i^xxt^a dotdw xii^XI al aeaxiod

fcrrfl ^Xaaxad naswjad aaia««!T07^i300 .lo tasmtilttBP at ^tB■■:■:i bcis

i^ OOO^SJ^ blaq, at»(S Mad pdn ^aavodnoodS «Jba>3cfex/d lemaol red

•eaoxuoa xad^fo awoe moxT: ^nov to aihqlsosx bawode ade. ftnjs jmJtd

gvgiXad oJ^ xadi'e/'lw snXnjttf-

\

\

\

Winnie or appellee, nnd we see no reason to diaturt the
conclusion of the jury to believe appellee. The fact that
appellee testified differently in the probata court from
what she did in -^he circuit court as to the consideration
of the note in suit and that the moneys which she claimed to
have loaned her brother had not been deposited in the bank,
though she had a bank accouiit,, and that she borrowed a small
sum at the bank when '^he cip,imed to have this large sum in
the house, are all cirovimstances to be considered by the jury
in determining whether to believe her testimony, and if her
testimony stood alone, theie ciroumstanoee might create
great doubt of its truth. But there are so many witnesses
who testify to the genuineness of the signature of M. E,
Covey to this note and t^ hie having made one payment on
the principal and three payments of interest with the note
present and the payment sfndorsed on this notein his presence
and BO many who testify to his recognition of and promise
r\ to pay this note when hi^ mother's will was read, t at we
conclude that t .e verdict of the jury, net only cannot be
disturbed upon this evidence, but probably is a correct
decision of the controversy.

Appellant offered in evidence a tax schedule of appellee

y I

in 1911 and it was not 4<imitted, and it is argued that

this was error. Ttie sohe4ule is not in the bill of exoeptione.

As it is not efcre us, ne have no means of knowing that

its refusal worked any iujjury to anpellant. The court did

I
I
admit tti8 personal proper'ty assessment of appellee for the

years 1907 and 1908, It seems that these schedules were in

a large bound book which -wae supposed to have been sealed

''I before it went to the jury room. When the jury returned

into court there was found amon;^ the documents >«/hich they

brought in two blank tax schedules, and it is argued that

erfj diu&ttb OCT aoB^ex oa aa«.' •w Jbn>'-. ^deXXsqtt-s 1:0 alruxiW
*fi> . 5(fT .seXIerrs ^vsiled p^ "sriJ^t *^^ ^° noiax/Xoaoo

moil ttuQ) ni x-tifnsa«l^l£! JieilijfBai' •sXXsqqjB

i

0* Jbs : - ? xloixfw SYSJiom dri^ 44^^ ^^^ Hub. ni ntoa qiH lo

4>lnJ3rf er.t ni fteitisoqei? xiascf d^on ji>J8£( larf^toid asxi J!>aixsoX avail

XX£?^is i f)ewo7iocf erie ;^B/fJ■ brtjs ^*nij/ooo« TtajscT & Jbsri erfe dgi/oriJ-

nx Nu/s e i;f ©vfij. : - le nsrfw ata^acf ©riJ" *Ji flU/a

XTLi/t; •rii' vd b9ve£>ianoo ©cf Qi •aonjSt^sflu/oixo XIjs e-iJ3 ^taifori ©ri*

19a ^^jnoffllJ'ss* asd. eveiXad o;^ isrirf'edw gaiitijarre^^pb at

9^£e:to tA^im •donBd-anwoajio ©M^j)* iflnoXjs boo^e xrcoaiX;^^^:

seaeeni'lw ^sm ob bib biedi iuE .diuri sit lo tduob ^tjseig

to BiuiMcxstB eri>? 'to saenenjtunes ©lU Oit Y^iJee^r oilw

ao ta&mxJiq ©no e^m ^tIvaxI ©id o;r bn£ ©"it- 9x1 ex^i o;t x©voO

©*ort ©;'^r riJ-iw JseieJ'Hi to ©Jaeof^fj^q 9©:tri;f isns X^qioniaq f-j

©onessiq ©xri ni©;to« exncf no b^Biobae JnsmxjBq ©rid ^jb rfneaear

©alroo': hnn "10 nolJixtsooeo. e^ld 9^ '%'iii66i odw xnisni oa i.. ^

©w ;)■£ i ^l)J3Si law XXJtw ©'asdcfom jixrf n©i-[w ©;ton atdJ' if^q ot

©d *onnj80 tXho it^oxi ^x^^t •^''^ ^'^ *f)ibxav 91 t j^Briit ©hulonoo

00 M ©1 xJ^<^*cfoi<T i*'wcf ^tor.^bivj* sjtriJ^ noqw Jbedoi/^axb

, vBiavQ^d'noo ericf lo noiaioe'^

©dXIeqqjB lo ©Xx/bedo© XA4' A ©on©&^v« at baaetto ^n^XIeqqA

*J5. i bejigajB ©1 i:^ iia-fi. , ,h©d-;MjBi>f ioa ©sw J-X bn£ XXei ixi,

.©noXd-q&oxe T:o XXid ©dJ- ax toa ©i ©XxAario© ©nT .toiie asw axty

Jari* anXwon^l to ©n^ea qc ©VArf ©k »bju stot© ior. sA

bib i-iwoo ©jrfT ,i'n-BXX©qq£ oi \iijlf:t w* bs^fiow X^autsi aJi

©d^ Tot ©©XXeqqfi to *nem©a©8a^ X^^^o^Q Xjanoaaec .; J itimbjB

ni: a-iew aeXx/bado© ©eed^t #fixl;f ©n©ee tl .80eX bn£ VOfiX ©tbsy

beXse© a9©d eved o;t boapqqx/s ©fiw/xfoxdw iood btufod e3i«X a

ben-u-ivcTai X^tut s;iJ- nsdW .ooo^. ytw^ sd^ ot drtew ii ©acted

Xexf;)* xfoJtd'^ sl-nanu/oob s4*^ ^omj& bm;ot bbw ©^csd;^ t'tUQO otni

the presence of these blanks in the jury room wae reversible
error. How tl ey got there la unknown, Tlie attorneys on each
6ide purged themgelves of any blame for it. Probably they
were inside of the book and in some way not out while they
were in the jury toom. We find nothing in these blanks
which could have prejudiced ?npellant.

It is contended that the court erred in jriving the
|Becond instruction requested by appellee. It was to the
effect that if the jury believed from tlie evidence that tha
/ deceased executed and delivered this note to appellee in his
lifetime and that it has not been paid, they should find
for appellee for such an amount, if any, as from the evi-
dence the jury ionuul find due upon the note. It is argued
that this erroaeously omits the consideration; that deceased
might have signed end delivered this note, and yet not have
received any consideration for it. No giich defense was inter-
posed in fact, but, as the instructions only authorized a
verdict for appellee in such an amount, if any, as from the
evidence the jury found due upon it, this only authorized
a verdict for what deceased owed upon the note and, if he
owed nothing, it authorized no verdict for appellee,

A judge of the circxiit court had been counnel for appellee
before he became such judge, and during the trial in the
circuit court he came into the court room and went upon the
tenck and spoke to the presiding judge for a short time.
In a very blind way the motion for a nev^ trial claimed that
this was prejudicial to appellant. It was not shown how long
this judge was with the presiding judge, nor that his visit
upon the bench had any connection with the case on trial,
nor that it was or could have been prejudicial to appellant.

We find no reversible error in the record. The judgment is
affirmed.

dose no j»y&aio*.+A siTT ^anQnAms at <fi9di to^ "i&ii woH ,aoii9

yerlJ yXdadoi? .;fi lol sciBicJ \jriJ5 1o iBvXeaaia.'iJ begauq ehi©

^I'li' allilw *jjo *oi x*" 01^08 nl ^n£ ioocf Bcit to »f)Jt8rrt eiev.-

tifl^icf •aari* njfc jjnlrf;ton bnil aW .mooit xxufc erfJ ni ftaew

*JTii5XI©qq-K bdoibift^^Q evfiri bXuoo rfoJtfl
9rf^ gnivjt^; nx l>siie i^xwqo erf* iAdi b^haeiaoo si J-I
e/f.t oi »MH tl .seXXeqqis y^^: ^e^ssi/pei; aottouit^ai. baooee
adi j-a/li- ftoneoxve sn';t aoal; bevexXscf )fii;t en-t IJt tjidt ioe'i'^e
Btd nl aelXeqqe o^ eion Btd;f i>8va?ile£> boA b&tuosxQ beBBBoei
baiJ bLuoda x^di ^£>i£q aetfo ioa •Bd ii isdi bas Biatt&tll
-ive erU moil B£ xYfl£ li ^inyo-ffl-s n£ ifox/s lol ©eXXeqqjB lol
JI)ei/3a« 8i JT ,©Jon sdi aoqis »i;b bail tavat \'^t ^^^' Boae;
bfBB&scet t»i\i ;ao:^iiie bianco sdt Bttmo YXsi/oaaoite eJtxiJ^ tjadt
ovjBri Jon ;^©Y i)n«. ,6ion Bxrf* beieyiXab bflo bena^^ sviirf Jiigifj
-le-^ni sew eaxreteb rioxrst oH ,?-i lol noi^JBaebianoo yae ievleoaa
« besJtiod^^x/jB xXno BttoitouitnaX ed;i e« ^^x/cf ,Jasl nx beeoc
sil;f moTC^ B£ ,Yfi'0 "i-t ^;fni/oniB na rioi/e ni aaXi&qojB aol Jorbisv
beslioff;ti/£ vino axri* ^;tx noqjj »^;b Jbnx;ot X'^^t 6^^ aonebive
arf It ^baB Biott erid" noqu Jbawo beaaeoeb ^jsn'w toI Joxbnev c
.aeXXeqqjs lot i-oifjaav oji bB&t'iodii.-£ Si j^nlrfJon bewc
©eXXaqqjs toI Xasm/oo fl©9cf b*ff *TiJOo tluQiliy pd-i Ito aabi/t A

edi- at Lstii 9di ^^atiisb baa ^tt^^bsjl douB BmsoBd ed siotscf

ericf aoqu taBw baA mooi Jaxfoo blU oini eojjio Bd truoo iiuozto

.arali- tiode a lol agiix/t 3rti£'iW!^q txiii? o* ejioqa has ioadi

J-arit i>8£Cjt£i3 lAitf wan £ aol: noi^onr siii ^jbw iniXcf y^ay jb nl

gnoX woti awojfe Joa e^w tl ,Sn.sliaqq£ o^ X^loJtb^t®'^? ^^^ eld&

Ijterv elri *«r[j ion ««3bx/t snibiia-jq edJ djlv aew agbi/t sxrfj'

^XjBiiJ- no ea£0 eriJ' rfi-jtw noJtifoennoo yh* ^^^it domtd sdi aoqu

.^n«Xl9qo£ o;^ Xaioibij^aiq nead avfiif bXxroo tco t^w tJ; tJBdt ion

al iaem^bul erlT .biooea Brid- al toi^;^ eXdieievai on. bnjtl aW

.baniJtH^

STATE OF ILLINOIS, )

SECOND DISTRICT. (' ^^- I, CHRISTOPHER C. DuPPY, Clerk of the Appellate

Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records

and Seal thereof, do hereby certipy that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the

said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.

In Testimony Whereop, I hereunto set my hand and affix the

seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this ninth day of

March, in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred

and fifteen.

Clerk of the Appellate Court.

oo^

AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COU

Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the smth day of October,
in the year of our Lord one thousand ninqrhundred and fourteen,
within and for the Second District of /the State of Illinois:
Present--The Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Presiding- Justice,
sjion. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice.
Hor^ JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Justice.
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk.

193I,A. 286

J. G. IIISCHKE, Sheriff

i'-i\i' <

S

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on the 9th day
of March, A. D. 1915, the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:

^

Gen, No. 6060.

Illinoie Northern Utilities Company,
appellant,
ve Appeal from Ogle,

City of Oregon, appellee.
Dibell, J,

TTfir vayy many YQ^!ig._^^^/Q.„^*' been Sl. dcuB across

jrfe-wdM uwugtrw John B", llix, 'George A. fflx siTicT Ma^y j; Mix

ifir; — -Thoy made(varioua conveyances Toy which -4»t^g-»i»^«-Hn

that daw ftnd'wytegfi^^iNir paAaad- ta-^hs> pcgBon>y -o^-ihat / e^dcfM^

'fitioii thir""Bult was Ijegiin, on February i^— i93:4, the Ill-y ^^^y[ ^,^

inois Northern Utilities Company •wsed 107/110 ti»«*^of^the Qxiu (\

City of Oregon 3/l(L0 thereof and the estate of J^hes Harden ^t^A4j

X/110 thereof. In all the deeds axeoutad hy the siowTisege- of

the Miw fajslly-ania thair f5as«^»^«♦•■J -«*«*«- ^^^Hs-hir-prwrent-t^^

IM "-
tjiera have p*ri<rn nnrr:erous covenants and agreements for the

/I *-' ^, . /^

repairing and maintaining of said dam to s«k«h a height -as
will furnish et — hoad o^ — five and-eww hc^lf Fwwt hJibii Mis-^

..»atax ..^pB^ R»»k- ftiv»3et la. at- A,.>XaK a tag* , and for dividing the
expense of repairing and maintaining ^^«hM dam among the various
ovrners in proportion to the'' shares vid»4<»b>^thay»M»y #»•■ «44mg
»o »4y»e -^wn—irR-'ga^id^^ d«Bt'«Trd''Trat'trr'-^aflTrt'--1:!T»--i»«r*i^^
'by Bflic^ rinm; anirl ai-jtoh exyanseB ax oh»>g>4 ■">^»»>-ft»~4ii.»^»4-'^nd
i>r1nr Hun nn-».JJ:iA. rtitTtMT.Rhnrns f^nri .lataraat o£,-.ftach-aiwaer
theraini- It was ther in provided that If any of the owners
fail promptly to repair any damages said dam may sustain,
within ten days after receiving notice to repair from any
one interested therein, (the season of high water reasonably
permitting such rexjairs to be made,) it shall be lawful for
any person owtiinjr an interest in eaid dam, -woitog and-'wat^r-

-pawBT , to proceed immediately to repair the eame and to charge

.oaoa ,oW .neO
..vaeqmoO BbtttlttM atsdiiot sioniXII
.(fnellsciqje
.-•.,;-.in mo-j;'5: I>-?ocr A. 8v

.1. ^lX«dJta

-III erft t»^ei-r&i-T'i«fJ^^»'^':*^<^i^"^J<°^ BBW Jluu airfJ rrnrfv-
eri^'^tot*^^^ OXX\TOX b«w«"^«q«oO .ei^tiXi^U naeri^fioK axofii:

lu oxocfwiiKt tri^ -rcf l)otif?»r» abdeo erf J 'XI« nl ,loaaerf;f OXX\X

2iU io> t^flemeeriBJB bnjs a^njs-'evoo •uois.irm n»*^-#*««i-»a*^

••-^riaJterif* «foi#« o* m»b btBB to 2ni.atBjatBtz bnM stttttAqei

. dd£.jutiir i9B\ ItXBif ego fewa »yt> ^» bM(^A-^-tl9in'iu^ XIIw

erf* anJtbivtb ^01 bnB ,ta*i.«. «at a *-b s-l .«v^£ iw«"**-«»**«

suoHBv a;lcr aiidm* ■wfe'W^' aninliiifrtl«m brta 3nlaiJ8q8T \o aan6*«»

9ml4^^««»«*^^*«.4|»»^^-4»A^ •tMrf8^».^;f o;r no i * aoqoiq ni «t6«wo

•leflwo Bdi 10 rfna li ;f«il* b9blirotq at iBdi a^w *I ■ ,a^»f(^t

YXdJKioaBa-r w*JBw rfglrf ^o noaaaa edi) ,nt6i9iU betsaietat eno

tot JjjtrrBl scf XXan'8 ti ( ,abBm ed o* attl^qea rfoua ^^Ititarvq

-ie<<iw.i>n^ »o»<w>- ,bub5 Jbijse nt UBieiat n£ gnXilwo noataq T«<

aaiario"o* hwe smjas erf* ntaqet ot ^i9tBtbBmmi beaootcq o^ »tww^

to dach party his proportion of the expense thereof. 'Tlitsra
Trnn Tnnrh-iiiii Inn I llll{;;'iii'iLit m nnrh nV fH ~"r ^ ' ffiSatT*" to carry theee
rjrevioiono Ante efi'eut anfl 10 BftKB WranyiM' any^l'viBe e'quent
pmuliamr'61 d^y inTerest in m^t^^'^atm. — Tlie BplllwiTiTorThe
d»M i«" a1uou< yyfl 'f Bet leug. In IfeHMh 1913, the ewm»a>ohip
tiain^ t\iQ aamt ="* at^«^. ,a*.>*4.^A^ about 100 feet of ths dam
went out. Notliing having been done to repair it, the City
of Oregon Jn 1ha manlih nf ^rrtitrhrr 1^-^, notified the Illinoie
Northern Utilities Company to repair the dam. It failed to do
flO« Thereupon the city of Oregon obtained bids and let a
contract for the repair thereof to Henry Maffioll and the
7/ork was begiin. The Illinois Northern Utilities Company

then filed \Y\o Qvi^mmii bill i» this ciiaa against the city
and Maffioli to enjoin the work^^ and . tod--ef" tewpegai'y -4nju^ -
t i Q r\ -; X XlkQvX .i^c**i4frm-r"Th a i>v4iy"4ri^.#>w-.<w«»iM»<» - tO^ dl 9»0l'Ve th e
In jmrxit i BnM.-£<»JC»^ awna^t <»f notitHi — ^nd for -want of squity In the
la t lek- ^■^'SJn^-ftmx-tla.A-,. U^bu an te r eat into a stipulation that the
complainant would conatruct a new dam across the river at

to the location of the present dam
that the city should have the
eame pro ortionate aluuta interest in said dam and the water-
power created thereby as in the present dam, and that th«

54/55 of all damages sustained
by Maffioli; and that, if tjy the first of Aiigust, 1914, the
actual work of constructing the dam had not been entered
upon, the defense should have a right to insist upon the
hearing of said motions; and that when the new dam was
constructed, complainant should have a perpetaal injunction.
Complainant prepared plans foi\ a new dam. It has never done
anything further. Its excuse iS that the European War made
it impo<?sibls to procure the mOney with which to build it.
' Thereupon , on October 33, 19l4, complainant filed a sup-

or as near as practicable
during the year 1914, and

rreUT .loaaari^t daneqxs 9dt lo aoltTonoiq aid xtXfiq dOst o.t

YiflO eriJ^ ,.fi lifiqei o^ &aob n&sd gnivdrf gaid^oil .iuo *new

• JfconiXII eiU Jb©ilJfc;fofl ,ei«l Tg<fo»«^ If ii»fl»« wiil.JJ^. flo^eaC io

Ob o^ bBlJtjBl ;^I .flwh ftri^r ttijBQftT ot ynjsqmoO ael^ili^U ansdiioT/i

©ri..f bnB JkloJtlt^ y-uieH ol loex6i<;f al*q«a «iii xol ;ro*a;fnon'
xn&qmoO •6Jt*iXi*U naaxUzoK sioxiiXil erH' .mxasrf aijw iio

erff t«ii:^ floi*JBlwqi*9 b otni k^iefOB x[«.^...iiai,^.ijiQ- 4N^ — .^*Atf

t*. levii e.f;^ aeoiojB iaab w^p £ *o;ja;fMtoo bXwow i-nBnifilqoioo

Busb Jneaeiq stl^ lo nox^fAoaX erl;^ oi] eXdaoJtitoaaq as :c£eft bb lo

-iV£ri bXuorie Y^ia- e^"^ *«rf*| ^«^ ^^XGX :taev arfJ aniix/b

"as;^Bw sri:^ ia^ mab hlBs nx *aeaedfli asuulK e^^enox^io oiq 8a?ita

arid- *£ ,«eb ia9Beiq Bxii Ji aij x^saaff^f bafJSBio sawoq

beiiiJiJaije aagiunab XIjb \o a£\^ ic«X** t*tl bXi/o^v JnanlfiXqmoo

arii ^J^XeX ,JaijauA lo ^aail »cii xp ^Jt »*«^^ ^* illom&U yrf

be:frt;fne nefco ^on b«ri awb ad;^ ^Irf-Oi/a^anoo lo i^cow lau^oA

ri.Id^ CoqiT J-aiBJii o;t id^ti & Bfan t^Luodn i.it-:,^»tBb Bdi »XXpqi/

B«w ia3b waa a4* nariw ^jwtt bnA 4anoJ;;rom bi^a lo gnixaad

.notjfoni4fli Xj3»#aqas<i « »VAd bLtoAn *aJBXxi.RXqmoo ^be^toi/a^anoo

aoo^ leVBd aarf JI .Bueb wan a fio'!: aitisXq baojaqeaq iJxxiiai*XqmoD

9bBBi X4iW flBeqoouS Bri.+ *£.rf;f ajt aax/oxe a*I .larf^rtxrl gnlrf^Yn*

ft^li, plLud 0* ripiilw rW-iw y©"^"' »i'-* exuooxq oj' aXcfiaeoqmi

-qua M bBin tami&lqttioo »^XSX ^lS^ X9dotoO ao ^ noqx/a^ft

tn ^iT* "^ ^ ^^^ -«>^>«.~ A«^"> T»iij ■ yrt y.y ~tt-r>^i>«-.»ft-j und- th«r«~wa8^a hearing
of the cause amA «.~deogt>» di»»Atigii>e the bill ^f or want of
equity, and 1>hl8 i»"ttn ^ppeaj^•4^s^^jfr< oomplaiiiant tirn^^^

•Wwj — ei»y #aa T>i ill I'll its Isgail^yteh^e iit ■'fNMXMMidlng ta r«pai r
■4 ho ^em,"9ai appellant contendi^ that the daa i^'' exceedingly
old and weak and full of holea and that it cannot he sue-
ceaefully repaired, ?nd that -.irh^n this break is closed up
so much greater pressure will be put upon other parts of the
dam that it will p;o out at sons ether plac«, and that this
attempted repair will therefore he entirely useless, and that,
as nearly all the expense of the rapair will be put upon
appellant, it ought in equity to be relieved from the ex-
penst of havinp; thia dam repaired at all; and it asserts
t}.at if the matter be allowed to ataiid as it is until fin-
ancial conditions improve, it will build a new dam. There
ie evidence that an executive officer of the company
has declared to ap-ents of the city tliat the complainant would
not rebuild the dam at all, but would allow it to be destroyed.

There a''s evidence by experts, aalluel tej' r^TpgttaTit, t)iftt this

U ^- u ■'■ -''-

dam-^8 so old, weak and dilapidated that it earmot be so

repaired as o make it a useful dam, Tl'j^rg' ±v irivivnen -

for the defendant by persons who have repaired this dam

in former years that it can bs repaired so as to be a usegul

dam. The city had contracted for the closing of this washout

with what ie known as "rock crib* construction; and it proved

that a former leak elsewhere in the dam was repaired and

closed with that construction, and that it still remains

in the dan in a sound and effective condition. The ghaiwaiirlor

boagrt-the vvltnaavo»--4-»-e^»»Br^otty^i W» a^'»-'Wftftbl<» ♦♦ deaonotrate

I

ylsnibssoxe'^'i^ mAb toiii j
-ous t tonriMo :i t»Iori ^o liuJ bn,^ jUew haj^ bio

^^i&di ba& ^aaeXeajj YXeiiJns e,i ©loleTsri^f XXiw liaqea b©J'qp8:)-^J3

noqw tijq ©cf XIlw iJtAqsa sriJ lo asaeqxe ed^ XX* yXaaen aJB

-xo 9ri;r moil baveiXsi x^iup* af &A-^uo ti ^^nelXyqqjB

e;^xe ; ub ** fc«xi,aq8a nuBi; - eansq

errsiiT ,rn£r ^avoiqraJt anor;tx,iaoo X*jxor'.-:

\;a£qfflc Xv>sxi:lo avl^i/Oiiza a£ ;f<Brf/ •oaeblTe si:

JbXxfow jhftJBfli^Xqmoo s^j' J-jto 8rf;f "^o aJnega ^t J^eaaloab aBfi

,beYOi-*eeJb etf o* *Jt woX. ^a

iOrtftAo ;fi ie,iU bad'ablqjiXJtb baa iaew ^bXo oa sl'-rajab

e'Mit.; .m»b XI/'!t^ ^ 8J3 bsiJtaqei

m4sb ajcr - anpeasc ^o, iambap\&b erfJ aol

Xxr^®"^ ■« ©' OJ ai oe ba-- ' srij- fuseY asniol nt

iiSoABSivc tiiiii lo gniaoXo iii b : OA-i.: ao-^ bad \ilii ai . -aJb

bsvo- ixxoijoi/i^anoc "alTO jIoot" ■« cwonjf a.l tf-aiiw fWiw

i'u-- '81 a«w m«r; r eiarfwaaXB 3C«eX lamiol ^,. jffi

anifiriitt ^j.xi'e .' " ' otioutttiSiOQ iAdi 4tt^ beaoxo

Uoxrw- ■ ' " "■ ... ■' ■ ' ;. . . a L r.^i': ;.;1j nl

that this darn cannot be so repaired aa to make it effective.
The chancellor believed thoiae who had had actual axparience

i

in successfully repairing th^s dam in former yeara, rather
than the theories advanoedbyl others. No one can absolutely
know ehether, when this brea^ is closed, the rest of the dam
will withstand the pressure, j It is a matter of opinion only
and we are unable to say tha^ the chancellor erred in accept-
ing the ooiniona of those 7;h4 had actually reflaired the dam
in "oi-mer years. !

The decree is therefore affirmed,

V

/

1
Terf*jBi ^Bifiev asmiol nl mnb «JrfJ -niiiscBT -itllijt •esoox/a n

LoBda aao arxo oTl ,8ierf:fo Ycf&«»onBv5« aelioerf.' irf

' ' ...

ma- . >fa3a en'it ^ieaolc ox :|xjaTd sirid" nsifw ^xarf^forfe won

-;f({SOOA al beire loXIeonarfo exl;f ^J3ri;^ yaa oS eidBsxts e
;a£b exf^ Jbetlsfifea YlIju/;fo£ bjscT bxfw aeoxt^f Jo enoinlqo ai

tbetaritlB Bio\&ietii 8| esioal) arlT

STATE OF ILLINOIS,

SECOND DISTRICT. ) ^^' I, CHRISTOPHER C. DuFFY, Clerk of the Appellate

Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this ninth day of
March, in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred
and fifteen.

Clerk of the Appellate Court.

AT A TBBM OP THB APPSLLATB COUBT,

B«gvni and teld at Ottawa, on Tmailay, tha aixth day of Ootobar,

la tha yaar of our Lord ona thouaaad ulna hundrad and fourtaaa,
within and for tha Saoond Diatriot of tha Stata of Illinoiat

Praaant — Tha Ron, OOAIB J, CABMBS, Praaiding Juatioa
Ron. IXSBANCB OXBILL, Juatioa
Ron* JOHN N. RZBAUS, Juatioa
CRBISTOPHBB C. OQFFT, Clark

J. 0. HISCHO. Shariff 1 93 I.A.. 288

BB XT RBKBKBBBBD, that aftarwarda, to»witt on tha 9th day
of Haroh, A,D« 1915» tha opinion of tha Court waa filad in
tha Clark 'a offioa of aaid Cenrt, in tha worda and fifuraa
following, to-witt

l9 3>/:zrr

LBBT KABT21 Md CHABUB M» mBBJi, )

e-Fartii«x« mi IAIVTZI 4 WIILM,

-__ .-.-- mm^.^mm ^ mm,^-^ • » APPEAL PROM DUPAGE

Oa 81AZI MOIV and fKZLZP 8.

. J

* ■

Xa tlili MM tht •p»«II««f tiUi, a bill la ChMocrr, to
»r«oloM • Mohanie't IIm against tlM property of vpollanta. lite
111 allagaa, tliat tlia lion aeemod to appolloaa bocauao tho ^pollaata
lilod ta fay tiM Wlanoa «aa far «ark donoand Matarial fttmiakad I9
^pollMo, in tha taiUiag af a dvalling hauao for appollanta, an tha
rwBlaaa daaariWd in tha bill. fha bill alaa allagaa, that tha vaik
iM dona, and aatariala ftmiirtiad, by appollaaa ^tiA9T a vrittan l»iU-
ig oantmat, axaMtad by tha partiaa; alaa, that thara vara astraa
inUahad by aypallMa. tha bill yraya, that m aaaattsl aay ba tafeM
' tha aattora allagad in tha bill, and tho Mouat daa aaMrtaiaad; Md,
lat a daaraa mtj ba rMdarad diraatiag tho f oroeloMro af tha Um«

ippallaata fiUd as aaawor tar tha bill, adaittiag tha azaMtiaa af
la ooatraot, but daaying^that tha hMaa vaa ooaplotod; and adMittiag,
itt tha vpallanU taak paMaaaiaa af tha hovaa. fhoy alaa daay^that
«ro Ma aaythiag «na appallaaa; aUl^iM. that ^^allaaa vara iadabt.
i to ttaaa ia tha M» of |423.M. Shoy aUo avor, that tha houM Ma

77

ot constructed in «ccord»nc« with th« plant and •p«eificatlons, as
•qulrad hj th« contract ; and, tHat tha work waa done uaakllfully, and
n an unworkmanlike Bannor; and that tha matariala uaad in tha oon-
itruction of the houaa woro dofectiro; and that tha cons true tioo waa
■proper J and that the appellanta are entitled to certain craAita.
Llse, that appellees failed to hara tha house ready for ocoopanej by
lufust 1, 1910, aa required hy the contract; and claiaing a credit of
^500.00, aa liquidated damagea under the proTioiona of tha oontraot.

The appellMCalso filed a oroaa hill, alleging that app«ll««« •»-
lered iaU the oontraot aet up ia tha original hill, U tuild the house
Ln question for uppallanta, in aooordanoe with plans and specifioationa
prepared by Clarenoe Hatsfald; and that they agreed to finiah the house
t>7 August 1, 1910; and that appelleea did not oonstruot the houaa aa re-
laired by the plana md specifications, in rarious partioulara, aat
forth in the oroas bill| vi'd that the work was done in an unskilful
md unworkaanlike Banner; and that it waa not ooopleted aa required by
the contract; the delay being cauaed 1^ the carelessness of appellees;
md that, consequently, the appelleea beoamo liable to appellants for
tha sua of $500. oo liquidated daaagea, prorided for in said contract;
that the appellees were to grade the lawn, and lay aidewalk and a drlre-
vay; but that appellants did this; and paid out the aua of |121.S3 on

78

;hat Aooount, for «ppell««ti that «pp«ll«nts h«T« a total claia of
fX024.66 against app«ll««a* olala of #606 .09; loaTlng a balanco duo
ippallanta of |418«09. Tho croaa bill al^o praya, that m aooount aaj
»o takon bj tho Court, of tho aoMunt duo appollanta; and that tho tp-
»ollooo BiQr bo doorood to pay luoh aMouat to appollanta j and that tho
slain for lion filod by appolloeo aay bo hold rold, oto.

Tho appollooa, by loaro of Court, filod an aaondod bill, id&ioh ro»
litoo tho aaldnf of tho oontraot botvooD tho partial , and allogoa that
ippellooa ooaaonood work on tho houaa in qviostion tho lattor part of
^rll, ItlO; «id oaaplotod it on Doo^abar 16, 1910, in aaoordanoo vith
;ho vritton oontraot; but making ouoh ohangeo in tho original plana and
ipoolfieationa, aa vtro roquoatod by appollanta; and that appollaaa
^lrnl8hod tho nooooaary aatorial and labor tharofor; that tha original
iontraot prioo waa |4550.oo; but that tho appollanta had roqpiostod nuaor-
mo ohaigao aid oxtraa, iriiioh appollooa fumiahad, at m agrood prloa of
11305.32; and that thay alao fumiahad othor oxtraa for tha building,
All eh woro ordorod by appollanta; that tha oontraot proTidoa for tha
^•yaont of all plaabing by appallanta, and that on Xaroh S, 1911, apptl-
^••i filad % atatoaaBt and olaia of liaa; and that through laadTortanoa
uid mlaundoratanding of tho faota and olrouBatancos, and by nistaka,
ippellooa oaittod oortain itoaa froai aaid bill for lion, riat far

• 79

Lunblng, 1709.00 and $46.85; that appellants acoapted all of tha i«-
roraments made by appellees; and that there is due to appellaaa the

m of $1077.51.

tha appallaas filed an answer to the cross bill of appellants, In
Hloh thay deny the allegations of tha cross bill, relatire to improper
nd defectire construction of the house in question; and deny tha uaa
f deficient or dafactiTe material; end deny, that tha appellants are
ntitled to the credits claimed in the cross bill; and deny, that the
ailura to ooaplata tha house at the time specified, was on account of
heir naglaot or oarelassnass; arar that the time for completion, had
een waiTad by appellmts; and that, therefore, tha appellants are not
ntitlad to tha liquidated damagaa claimed.

▲ motion was made to strike the siMnded bill from tha files, which
'•s denied by tha Court. Tha appellants, also, filed an amendment to
heir mmwt to tha «iiandad bill, la ahich tha appellants specify other
lafdcts in Mterials, and deficiencies in construction; also denying,
;hat the plumbing items were left out of the original bill and the claim
»f lien filed, by mistake. inother amendment to the amended anawer
ras also filed, 1* whioh more defects in construction are specified.
%e appellants also filed an amendment to their cross bill, alleging
'raud and carelessnsss on tha part of appellees, in not complying with
the plans «d specifications for the building of the house in <yiestion.

89

rh9 pUtdlng. hmtins been ••ttltd, the case prooaed.d to a hearing te-
fore the Court, concerning the ..ttere In leeue; end the Court took en
account of thaee mat ten. tfnd found that all of the .aterlal allega-
tlona contained In the wended bill of conplalnt, were true; that the
.urn of 1700.00 m due to appellee.; and that they were entitled to a
lien therefor; and entered a decree of foreclooure of auch lien, and
dlsmloolng the crooe bill of appellante, for want of equity. fro«
thla decree the appellant, .ppealod, and brouj^t the oauae to thl.
Court for reTiew.

The appellant, ae.ert In their brief, that the only natter. In
dl.pute between the partle.. are -whether or not the hou.e wa. erected
in wb.tantlal coapllance with the contract aid .p.olflcatlon.; whether
or not the defendant., with knowledge of all the fact., accepted the
houa. a. co^leted, and agreed to pay the balance; and liiether or not
the Item, for plumbing. lAlch fomf a large part of the claim, ^Ich
waa allowed, wiftomltted from the original bill by ml.take, a. aet forth
In the VMnded bill of complaint"*

Zt wa. not neoe..ary to mak. a ahowlng to the Court, that the
plumbing Item, were omitted from the original bill by ml.take or Inad-
▼ertanoe, In or4ar to entitle the appoHoea to an amendment of their
bill of complaint; nor wa. It neoea.ary to make midh a ahowlng on the
■ hearing of the cau.e. Amendment, to bill. In Chancery, which are not

8]

■worn to„ •nlarging th«ir toop*, %T9 Allowed by Courts with gr«at 111?-
•rality, until th« proof* mr% olotodi tnd alaott •• • mttor of oourto.
(VowUr T«. fowlor, a04 111. 82.)

Am to whether the hougt in queitlon was built in eubstantial coa-
plianoe with tho contract and the specif loationa, is a matter «hioh
oust be datennindd froa the ewidnca. The eTidence upon this point is
somewhat conflicting; and, therefore, the weight to be given to the
testimony of the different witnesses who testified, becomes an import-
ant question; and one that the Chancellor, irtio saw and heard the wit-
nesses testify, is best able to decide. Ye think the eridence fairly
tends to proTs, as the Chancellor found, that there was a substantial
eon^lianoe with the contract. But eren if the oTidenoe were in irre-
ooncilable conflict, it would not authorize a disturbance of the decree.
(Shoop TS. 8hoop, 115 111. 1pp., 346.)

Zt clearly appears that the specifications, in a general way» were
oarried out; there were important changes made by appellants; also ad-
ditions to the construction as originally designed. Some changes were
made eTsn after the date fixed for the completion of the house; «id
after the appellants had taken possession. And it is true, that there
were some deriations from the strict letter of the specif ioations, in
tha details of ooastruotion; and some defioienoies and defeots in the

Rt*:

82

rial! uied; and in the work done; but none of th«t« ar« of lueh •
ubttantlal charactor, as to affact the general oharaoter of the work,
Litaral eonpliance with the prorislona of a contract la not eaaential
0 • recoTery. It will be euffiolent If there haa been an honeat and
ilthful performanoe of the contract, in its material and substantial
irta, and no wilful departure or oaission of essdntial points of the

I

Street." (Blooaington Hotel Co. ts. Oarthwait, 227 111. 630; ?eter-
m TS. Pusey, 237 111. 204; Irikson ts. Ward, 266 111. 269.)

If the wpsllsnta Mf fared any daaasBS because of the siinor defi-
encles and defects in aaterial used, by the deTlations froa the exact
nea of eoastruetian in the building, thay had the right to hare such
aages recouped against the balance due to appelleea; and whatcTor
■ages were proTen upon the hearing, in that regard, were undoubtedly
ken into conaideratlon by the Ccurt, in arrlTlng at the atate of the
count between the partlea, and in aaoertaining the balance due the
pslless. tt any damagea were euffered by appsllanta, i^ioh they did
t prore at the hearing of the caaa, it la not a matter which can now
rcTlawad by thia Court.
It la InsisUd by the appellanta, that they are entitled to a cred- .

of $600.00 for liquidated damagea, which the Court refused to allow.

P

» is olalMd under the clause in the contract by idilch the appellees

I

83

^vd to hare th« hou«t in qfutitlon •ooapUUly finished and r««dy
for uoe or occupancy on the first day of Auguat, A. 1). 1910. weather
and othar condition* par«ittin«». It will ba noticed that the agree-
■ent to finish by iuguat firat^ ia not unconditional; but ia axpreoely
baaed upon the contingenoy, that the weather conditions and other condi-
tions did not delay the work. There ia oTidenca in the record to ahow,
that waather oonditiona did delay the work} alao, that the work waa
delaytd by the ohangea in, and additiona to, the plans and specifica-
tions, which wars aade at tha inatance of appellanta.

The sTldence also ahows, that the appellanta took poaaasaioa of
tha hoaaa in qvastion, about iBfaat 30th, after th* date fixed for ita
collation; and urged appellaas to proceed to finiah the saae; and to
continue to fumiah work and ■aterials, and expand ■oney for tha pur-
poae of ooapleting the aane for appellanta; and that appellaas did ao;
and that appellanta aeoepted tha banefita of tha work, and tha suiterials
fuznishad by tha appellaea, as thsy wars fumishad; and then set with
appellaas, and practically agreed upon the aaounta due them; and upon
tha eradita to whi^ appellants ware entitled; and that thereupon the
appalltfita aada a paynant of |l50.oo on tha aoeount. Under these cir-
cuBstancea, tha liqaidated dsMiges stipulated in the contract, though
afterward claimed by appellanta, cannot legally be exacted; and are

84

walTtd. (]|jr«t«r rt. Farrott, 83 111. 517; H«rt t«. Cartaly Mfg. Co.,
116 111. App. 159; Stroebel 8t«dl Construction Co. Ti. Sanitary Dia-
trlot, 160 111. ipp. 554; Bloomlngton Hotal Co. ra. Oarthwait, 227
111. 630.)

tha oaaa of Hjrstar ra. Parrot t, aboTo raf«rrad to, la ita aquita-

Wa faaturaa, waa rary iiHllar U thla caaa, and tha language uaad by

tha Court la quita appllcabla hara. Tha Court aaya:

"Ippollaata inaiata upon tha antiraty of tha contract, and that,
baring failad to parform, «ppellaa had no right to racoTar at all. Wa
think tha Circuit Court took tha oorract Tiaw of thia nattar. It ia
trua, that appallaa did not eoaply with hia contract aa to tiM; but,
•ftar ha vat in dafault in thia ragard, tha appallant «ada partial pay.
Mnta ta hla, ant urgad hia to go on wdoi tha work, anA ha did go on,
tnd azpaadad nonoy in work and aatarials ta • eontidarabla minint
Jhia waa a waiTar by vpallant af har ri|^t to daaand, on aooooat of
roch failura, a ferfaitura of appallaa of tha work ha had dona. In
Bood oaatoianca, appallant aught ta pay what tha work aatually doaa,
U tha aannar and at tha tina it was dona, wai raaaoaably worth to
Kppallaat, taking tha ooatniot prl«a for tha rata at il^oli ta walua
tha work dona.*

•• paroaiTW no arror ia tha daoraa in thia eaoa; and it iliottld ba
ittlnad.

I

Oaraaa, Fraaiding JUatioa, taak no part.)

\

I

STATE OF ILLINOIS,]

Appellate Court, ^ss.

Second District, J I, PAUL V. WUNDER, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and

for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do
hereby certify that the foregoing is a true, full and complete copy of the opinion of the said Appel-
late Court in the above-entitled cause, now of record in my said office.

1^

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand
and affix the seal of said Appellate Court, at Ot-
tawa, this.-^.A— day of..

in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred

and sixty.rr.«f«r^.

5917

AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATM COURT ,

iegun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, thf sixth day of October,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nijie hundred and fourteen,

within and for the Second District of
Present--The Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Presi

the State of Illinois
ing- Justice.

Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justifce
•^on. JOHN M. NIEHAl^, Justice. Q ^ T /^, x^ 9 X
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFy\ Cler]
J. G. MISCHKE, Sheriff

M

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on the 9th day
of March, A. D. 1915, the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:

^AJJai<IA IHT ^0 USiT

0 btoJ

9dJ no '.ii'w-oi ,abisiT-tQi\s iscii ,aaflaaM3Mafl Ti aa

r r1 ??«v noinir

Gen. No. 5917

People of the State of Illinois,

Defendant in error,
vs Error to Co, Ct. Bureau

John Romani, Plaintiff in error.

Niehaua, J,

In this case an information was filed by the States
Attorney, in the County Court of Bureau County, charging
the plaintiff in error, Hohn Romani, with violating Section
3 of the Dram Shop Act, 1»y selling intoxicating liquors in
less quantit]^ than one gallon, without a license. There
were 73 counts in the information; three of which, namely
the 69th, 70th and 71st. also contained the charge, that
the plaintiff in error was violating Section 7 of the Dram
Shop Act, by keeping a public nuisance,

(Dt was alleged in the 69th count, that the plaintiff in
error fon Lot Number Sixteen in Block Number She in Smiths
Subdivision of part of the South half of Section thirty ai^x
Township sixteen, north range ten, east of the fourth prin-
cipal meridian, did keep a certain room, the said room thsn
and there being a place of public resort," etc.

There was a trial by jury, and the jury returned
a verdict finding the plaintiff in error guilty on thirty
two counts, for selling liquor without a license; an' also
finding him guilty, on the 69th, count, ''or keeping a
resort which was a nuisance.

A motion for new trial was made; also a motion in
arrest of judgment; and both motions were denied by the
court. The court thereupon sentenced the plaintiff in error
to pay a fine of ^100,00 upon the 69th. count of the infor-
mation; and to be imprisoned in jail for a period of 50 days,

vies .oM .neO
.lo-zie at taAba9lL9(l

ilABZllQ ,tO .00 O^ IOZl'3. 8T

.loiie ni ttttntBL^ ^laamofi nrfoL

se&dQ 9ci& va Jbsix'i aer nocd-Brtrio'iajt as ©ai}o Bxnj nl

anigaario ^yj-fiuoO yaexuS lo i-ix;o)3 \iauoO edi at ^,\9aiot&k

nottosQ ■Qalielolv dtiw ^JtfljaraoH nrioB jiottis al "ttl&ntsLq hiit

at Biouptl 'yiiteotxo^nt sallies \4 ^tok qocSH sustQ sdi to S

oisrfr .esneolX « SuodStv ^aoll&s eao njsrfJ' t^i:;fnjsup aB«I

^Xeman ^rfoirfw to esirf* ;noi;f«m'iolnl eri* nl Btciuoo SV saew

*Brf3- ^sgxjBiia Bdt beRt£faoo oeXe .tBlT bns riJOV .iftsa erii

mjsia e iJ to V no.rtoeB gnJtrf'JsXoiv bjbw aoTie rxi lliJ-nlaXq ©xl^

.oonjseXjjn otlduq « ^gnlqse:! xcT i^oA qodS

at "ilii-ni-t'xvi ».: i'firi^ ^tauoo d^QB edS at bB-gBlL£ bjbw *(D

eiii^imB nl srOD iBdtmM sIooXH nl flee;)-xl8 aecfou/tl tod a&k aoTie

x-ia x^airi* aotioeQ lo IXarf riJ-x/oS erfJ- to &ieq 1o aotatvtbduB

^atiq dfujol Bdt to &ba9 ^iia^ Bsa&i dtroa ^a9etxte qlffanwoT

n srft mooi bt&a ed& ^mootc xxlfitieo £ qssal bib ^n£lblaeffl I«qlo

.0*9 *^d"ir)88a olXcfi/q lo eoaXq a ■gated azsdi ban

beaxutet Y'l^'t ®'^* ^^^ *Y'^t X^f i^tit n bbw eaeriT

Y^iixfJ" no \iLtir^ aoiie nl t^tii^nl^Xq 9di gnlbnlT: (foibrtev s

obIjb ixi! jesneolX £ ttro/f;flw lox/pll -^ILieB aol ^a^t'njjoo ow;t

a 3nlqe6:i{ lo': ^Jnjjoo .rfJ^Ga erfJ- no ^\iLtu-^ mtd anlbnil

.eonjsalun jb saw ifoliltv ;faoaea
nl aoti-om £ oals (Sbjsm bbw X£li;f wen xo"^ aotioa A

9dt ycT belneb eisw anoli^om dtod baa {taattvgbul lo ^seiiB

lOfze at I'iltnlBXq adt beorreifneB noqusiarf* tiuoo enT .^tx/oo

-lo^nl &di lo tauoo ,dseB edl aoqis OO.OOXi^ ^o eatl e \aq oS

.ByjBb 02 \o bolieq jb ioJ. ItBl'n.t benoBlirnil ecf ot has {ttoitsn

The court also ordered, that the place kept "by said plain-
tiff in error, to-wit, "a certain room on Lot number i6 in
block number 1, in Smith's Subdivision , etc. the said
room then and there being a place of public resort", be shut
up and abated until the said John Roman! gave bond in the
penal sum of tl,000. conditioned that he would not sell any
intoxicating liquors contrary to law, ?.nd would pay all
fined, costs and damages assessed against him for any
violation of law in that regard. The Court also sentenced
the plaintiff in error to pay a fine of SsO.OO on each of
the 33 counte upon which the jury had returned a toerdict
of guilty; and, that he stand committed until the fine and
costs were paid, X writ of error was then sued out, and
the case brought to this court for review.

One of the errors complained of is, that the des-
cription of the place of tte nuisance is not sufficiently
certain. The objection in this regard ' is not well taken,
A similar description of a place found to be a nuisance,
was held sufficient by this court in People v Shook, 175
111. App, 53.

But it is also contended, that the evidence in this
case, does not positively show, that the drinks sold were
intoxicating. And it is true ti at there were some wit-
nesses who testified merely, that the beer which they pur-
chased was "supposed to be lager beer", and looked and
amelled like lager beer; and there was also some of the tes-
timony to the effect that it was thinner then the beer
usually sold in saloons; and that it was "temperance beer"
or "Near-beer". Testimony of this char cter, standing alone
is, of course, insufficient to sustain a conviction on a
charge of selling intoxicating liquor. There was some

ai. dS tedauja iod no oooi aiJB'aeo «* j^iw-od- ^loina ni ili*

, '-'.- --if- ■ \ I'-.
iit&c ■■■r.i , roielvlbtfi/S e'rf^imB nl ^I isdmufl iooXd

tirrfa ad ,"^10881 o^IJi/q lo aOBlq £ gnlt^d aierf;^ hns aadf nooa

edi at bao6 av£3 InsffloH rrilot* M^e Bdf li^txsj b9&A(Sa bas qu

Xns II»8 *on bli/ow ©ri t&di fcanol^Jtbnoo .000»I^ la mwa Ijaneq

XIj8 y*<I J^Jj/ow ba4 ^wj&I o;f yisTcfnoo aioi/piX snl^fioJtxocfnJ:

XXta lot iflM jt-enliSSJB baaeaaajs 8S3£ra£b bn-e a^feoo «6aiiJ:1:

baofisrf^nea o^Iu *rmoO ©rfT, ' ,&t:jj38'x iarfJ- nt wjal lo noid"«Xolv

lo xfo«d flo OO.OSj to anJfi j» t«<l «>* aoa^e ni l^l^aiaXq axf^,

toib^atf B baftau*«i barf yi^t •^>'" dotdn aoqu Btnuoo 85 aii4

bitA snfi 9dt XJtiTtx; batcTlmaioo bn-sJ-a ad tBdt ^baa {x^lXvg lo

fxiB ^iu0 b»isii aedt 8JSW,T&<xtc» to Urn "K .Jbi^q exaw..«^auo

,w»lYeT :to1 Stuoo Btdf ot td-^uotd aaao Qdi

-tab eri^ Jjsns^ ,ax lo baniJBlqmoo aao^tae aifJ- '^o ©nO

YX*rtalojnr1tf8 '*on ai soiiBairifl aecl* lo eo^Xq ^di to nouqxao

.naiCfiif iXaw <#o(T al ' btje^si elrf^ ai aot:to&t^o eiST ^UlAireo

\%(mBBtua\i& 9<S oi bauot eojsXq a to ao£j'qjt:coaeb laltoita k

~7X liooriR T eXqca*? nt tVJOO dtdi Ycf tciatoil'iij ' 3bw

.S2 ,q7A .XXI

8xnj ni ii-cneoivs adJ fsrif ^bBbne&ctoo oei . si it tuS

aiew bl9t s^JtTF:, erft #*ri;r ^worfa yXsvl^laoq *ort eaob ^qsjco

••#I» amOB a"xaw aiarf* tn/i euti al *i bnA ,-Qat&Botxotat

-tuq xedc^ rfoiffvr searf e/ft iRdt t^Xaiam btt\tt99t tOdvr aaaaaxt

hnz baiooX bae 4'xaacf aas*! atf ot baioqqui" bavt bBB&do

-Bot exil to smoa oaX£ eaw Btedi biie ^v^aJ ta^^X a^IlX baXXama

Ttaacf arf* nerf# terJ/rlrfJ- bbw if tarf^ toatte erf* oJ- xnomli

"aead soni?l6qiD9i-»B«w *l #jBri* bna ;anooX«8 nt bXoa YXXai/ew

srtOXfi >3nlbnj6i8 ^la*o■:IJ5rfo eirfi to ^{ito«l*aaT ."lescf-iaalt'' :ro

" rto noiJoivnoo « nlp;f8i:/8 o:t ^rreJroittx/snl ^eaix/oo to ^eX

amoB e«» ateriT .rouptl sniJ-s- ixoJnl gnXXXea to •at^iEUlO

testimony given in the case, however, which appears to "be
sufficiently positive to whow that intoxicating liquors,
had been sold in the pl^ce in question; and we think, this
positive testimony is sufficient to su port a verdict of
guilty; though it is not clear, that it is sufficient to
sustain the verdict on an of the 33 counts. On account of
the other questions involved, however, it will not be neces-
sary to go into a detailed discussion of thjs feat\ire of the
case.

Incidental to the main inquiry, as to the sale of
intoxicating liquors, and the keeping of a nuisance, the
plaintiff in error was interrogated as to his marriage to

'^^ Clementina Romani, whom he claimed, as his -.vife, and tes-
tified that he was married to ^er at LaSalle, Illinois, about
5 years before that time; that hehad peeviously obtaineda
license therefor, in Bureau county, A deputy county clerk
of Bureau County, Frieda 0, Uelson, was called as a witness
in rebuttal, and without objection testified, that she had
made an examination of the records of marriage licenses
issued in Bureau County, -within the eight years past; and
that, from such examination she could state, that no person
by the name of John Romani, hadmade an application for a
rarriage license in said county. After the trial the witness

mitted, and verified th^ admission by an affidavir, th*
she was mistaken in her testimony; that there was a record
showing the issuance of a license to the plaintiff in errer,
on August 4, 1910, to marry Clementina Boggl. It cannot be
doubted that this erroneous testimony by the deputy county

' clerk, strongly reflected upon the veracity of the plaintiff
in error, and introduced into the case an element which
must have affeAdjed the weight to be given to his evidence
\?y the Jxiry, It placed the plaintiff in error in the light

^Ttr.tdi 9* firti*. {ttottaeup at, Qoilq ettt a£trioB rrsecf bac\

^o itm/oooB nO ,9Sttuc )■ "^o Xl-e no totftiey 9rf;f at^f^t

-asoen ed i^on 'Iliw'ifJt ,ttevdwo/f ^bevlorrtt Mttottaeup Torfto e'riJ
8x1^ lo etr/JiSe^ 'strfJ" '^o rrdlasxroeib beliBtsft b ofctt crs'^f i-iaa

.ea<cc

r«B'#rfJ of •JB^^lijprtl fltjsm e'ff* ot Is&nebtonl

erij ^eoniseliJrt jb to -sttiqetji. sdi bas\9iosjpt£ gftltfioixod'rtj

0* egslaiiifli alrf oi' ae JbetEsoxiei-flX a*w totie rri "i^idrfl'iSic

-ae* Jbnxj ^ellw aJtrf iB " ',beml£lo erf morfw ^lastnoPl snttnsdi'iZ

ivQds ^aldnJtlir \eIIa8i»J Jr« teg o;f beliiBm bbw ©ri i-arit fcailiJ

jBi)8nls;|-cfo YlBiiolT^'dsq JDsrferf JjBrf* lemJtt ;tJ5rf* sTolacf etJBeif'^

alTsXo Y*nx/oo ■ Y^J^qsJb A ,'\fi'XTUdo i/seTi/S ni ,ioloi9rf;f eanaoiJ

aaefx^lw a iiJB JbaXIao aifw "^ftoaXsW ,0 abaiz'? ^xtais:]0 ifBeii/S fc

l)arf erfa J*n7 ^Jb9lll;f88;J noitoet^o fuoAtH bn£ ^Lsfi-udsr ai

aesneoJtX egjsJtii^m ^0 BMoostt srfJ- ^0 noiifaniausxe n* sfc^r

fjnjB irf-BJBq aajsey trfglfl fcif^t ntdti^-^x^ctuoO ubbiuB ai beuaeJ

noBisq on &£iili ^»&Bte biuoo srfe noJrtisnJtniJSxe liouB'aozl' ^t&di

-•.oiteotLqas tta ahJBmfijBrf ^Infimofl nrfoL to' entcn 9rf;t '"iti

BBocsttTf »iii tBi-zt edt *x9ilk> \x^nuoQ Msa nl ftaneoiX e^^i^xian

♦rid- 4iclv£fcllWfi<B ycf iToxBBtflrfcs ^^rf^ beJf^itev bnn ^b9tftm■'.Ji

biooett £ B«w sisrfJ tjsrf* iTtfiottiJaei xarf nl fl;9>fB:f-Biflr BBtr 'aria

^ttaiae at fititttAlq' edf oJ'BtfleoiX « lo eort^ifBah 6cl& grriwDrfa

9cf ifonn-eo *1 .JtagoQ acttinetuBLt xttjsm ot »OXCI ^i' tstrgx/A nc

Y^nuon ytuq©f> e.-^t ycT YnomiJas* ax/oerrbmca alriif i^arfit bttrf-fcfiiof:

l^l*nl£j to ^*lo»«r drf* ttoqx; Jbe*08l*6T yXsriOTita ^:ftt6io

.fulriw ^xtsmsXe riJ8 eajBO ecit otat bBOubo-xiai bni^loaiB ai

©onehJtve aJtri o& navlg acf p^ tfx^Jtew erlf fcetb^stlB ev-£Jif J^8iJfl

^trfgiX €)rf* nJt ioi:ce* ril lll^rtJtAXq erf* beoaXq *T ,x^t »rft' Yd

of having given falee testimony; also brought to the jury

the inference, that he was living in an open state of adultery.

The credibility of the testimony of the plaintiffin
error, in thia casx, was a very material matter. There was
evidence tending to show that Clementina To^ani was the
keeper of this resort; there was also evidence tending to
show that the plaintiff in error was the keeper. There was
evidence tending to show, that at least soir.e of the beer
sold by the plaintiff in error, was "near bear", Abd the
plaintiff in error, when called as a witness in his own be-half
testified positive ;y that his wife was the keeper and "boss"
of this place; that she had owned the bar fixtiirea and fur-
nitute in the place, before their marriage; that the beer
which was sold by him, was sold as agent for his wife; and
that he did not sell anything but "Near-beer". It will be
seen that the credibility of the plaintiff in error with ref-
erence to the question of his guiltjc or innocence, was one
of the important matters to be determined by the jury in the
case; the extent of his guilt, at least, had to be determined
practically with reference to his credibility as a witness,
in connection with the other evidence in the case. Under
these circumstances, the mistake in the testimony of Frieda
0, Nelson, and the damaging effect it must have had, brings
the case clearly within the rule laid down by the Supreme
Court, in People v Pezutto 355 111, 583, concerning the
effect of mistakes made by witnesses in their testimony.
And ikpon the showing made by plaintiff in error, on the
action for a new trial, of the discovery of the mistake of
the deputy county clerk in her testimony, the court should
fe»ve granted a new trial.

We are also of opinion, that the court should ha« given
the 4th, instruction requested by the plaintiff in error.

Viwt Ci^^ 0* tdr^uoid oeX£ i-<(nomttB6t eaisl: nsvlg 3niv*4 H
ri'iettubJi lo st':;^e neqo ne nx gnlviX esw »ri i^eil;t ,eonsae'ini r

•«w iuerfT .leifJ-^m IfilieJ'sm yiev jb tjsw ^xsjeo ex/ ^loi:

oi^ 2nir)n8J^ ©or.aaivs osIb bjbw ©xerfJ jJxoaea airfit lo lev^j!
aJ5W onariT .leqeeaf eii^ e^w aoiie rcJt llt.int&S.q &£ii f&dt vfoi
19Q(S ecif to emoe ie^el t& fAdi ^worie o^ gnJtbn©;^ eoflsjbx
edi MA ,"T«8cf ijssn* «J8W t^oiie at "iltitttsLq 9d& Ycf i).
lXsrf-9cr nwo Bid ni aesnJ'iw js ejs ijelXeo narfw tioaas nt lltint^jj
"aaocf" im& xsqecol Bd} aj5w eliw axri ^JsriJ- xE^evJtd-jtaoq iieili^'af
-ixrl £<n£ eaxjji'xil: icd odf benvo bed pda f&d:^ ieosXq atd^

£tn£i 49IXV exri xol JnegjB e£ bXoa esw ^mlrf vd Moe 8i3w rio
©cf lit'V'' fl ."xescf-xeeH* ^fi/cf snlrfJyrxjs XsEea J- on bib eri ;fi.
-lea dti'fi xoxxa rtl lli^t-nlaXq edi lo villldiibQio adi &&d;f ne<
ano e«w ^aoaeoonnJt xo j^^tltuyi airf to nol^Bsxfp eri* o* eono:
©rid rtx YXL't ed& xd bectlmte&Bb ad o;f sist^tBtn. tnBiioqjai. Qdi 1
£)anjtcixe;taL ed oJ' ^-sri ti"eael J'jb ^&ii.^2 sJfcrf lo JneJ^xe en* ;ei^
»eB8ft:fi:w £ e-s ycUXxa'ibexo alri ot eonexslex dtivj '^il&oi.toi:
xebnU ,eaj2o adi- at eonebivs x©r[*o erid" ritiw noii'oennoo x
Mbatrl. lo ynoflJid'Es* ©rfJ ni e^&tBla 9dt ^aeonjsi-emjjoxio aaei:
9<jfiXrd ^b£d evjsrf iavm &i: *o©lls grfigjBmsh 9ri;t bn^ jfloaXeW ,
BBiexquS silJ ■^d nwoi5 Ijx^X ftXxn: ©xfJ- jtiixfitJtw yXxaalo ©e£)0 ©r
srL^ anlnxsonoo ,E85 .XII ScS ottsj&eH v eXqo©^ nl ^iiui
^•^notatte&t xxerfJ- nJ: aaaaanifiw yd sb&si aM-Sjaini lo *o©';'
ariv no ^xox-xs ni lljfci-nisXq x<i obam. ^atftode sd^ noqi U
lo eH&tBlsn ©rfJ- lo x'^^svooaih adt lo ^XfilxJ- w©n a xol nojt^c
Mi/orla i'xxfoo scii ^-^oaxtaei xari fli, 3txeXo ycfni/oo ytuqen f

.Xjsxxt wan b b&iaBx:^ a\*
xx6v2a «pfiri Mjjorfa J-ii/oo eriJ- ;fi3rl* ^xioiniqo lo oaXJS ax* aW

.xoxxa lit lli^nl^Xq erfcf yd iiai-aaxrpax aottauntBat ,di-^- ax

This instruction was proper and applicable, in directing
the jury's attention to the necessity of sufficient proof
that the beer sold, was Intoxicating beer; and not "root-
beer" or other beers, which are known to be npn-intoxicating.
The aoouaed has a right to have the jury instructed with
substantial accuracy, as to the law applicable to the case,
(Hoge V People 117 111. 35.)

For the errors Indicated the judgment of the county
court of Bureau County, should be reversed, and the cause
remanded for another trial.

Reversed and remanded.

\ I

■'..'" .".J. jic ■■

.^att&otxofat-nqn ©d o:f nv.o/tjl ©ib rfoirfw ^saeecf aerfj-o 10 "aesd

xtt-jtw b©rf^oin:fenl y^x/^ erij- evarf oi^ i-rfglT « aarf fceei/oofi srfT

♦ eeso ©rfv^ oj^ eldeolXqqjs wbI ©rfj od- es ^\oa1iJOoe Istta&taduB

(.es .1X1 VXX eXqoe? V ©aoH)
Ytooo srfJ^ lo cfnemafcut Bdt btiSsoibnl bxoit© ©ri^ :col

eejjfio ©rii^ bnjs ^!>Bei9V9'x sd fcXi/orie ^Y^^iJt'o'^ ujseiua lo J-auoo

.XBiii- i9rf*oiiB -.ol befcnaitiea

STATE OF ILLINOIS, )

SECOND DISTRICT. j ^^- I, CHRISTOPHER C. DuFFY, Clerk of the Appellate

Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this ninth day of
March, in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred
and fifteen.

Clerk of the Appellate Court.

5983

AT A TERM OF THE APPEfLATE COURT, "^^^,v*,^

ieg-un and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the sixth day of October,

--»■
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and fourteen,

within and for the Second Dialtrict of the State of Illinois;

Present--The Hori. DUANE J. CARn|s, Presiding- Justice.

/

Honi DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice-, r^ ^ ^ . ^

v^hAjOHNM. NIfflAUS, Justice. J- • rl • ^ Z/ Q

CHRIs\rOPHER C./dUFFY, Clerk.

\ f

J. G, VlSCHK&( Sheriff.

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on the 9th day

of March, A. D. 1915, the opinion of the Court was filed in

the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit :

'saaaM:;

Gen, No, 5983

Carl Swaneon, et al appellants,

V8 Appeal from Rock Island,

John F, Rose et al appellees.

Niehaus, J

Thia l3 an action on the oaea "brought in the Circuit
Court of Rook Island County, by the appellants, against the
i appellees, John F, Ross, Coroner of said County, and August
H, Arp, a physician, to recover damages for paid and anguish
of mind, caused by an autopsy alleged to have been wrongfully
performed, whereby the body of a deceased brother of appelleuits
was "cut, hacked and mutilated" by o ening the abdomen, and
removing poortions thereof, etc. The original declaration
was filed December 4, 1911; and the appellees filed a
general demurrer to the same, which was sustained by the court.
General leave was tlien given to appellants to amend.

On June 35, 1913, appellants filed an amended declara-
tion, to which appellees filed a general and special demurrer .
The demurrer and aome of the special causes of demurrer, were
sustained by the Court, on January 14, 1914; and the court
thereupon entered an order dismissing the suit, at appellants
costs.

On April 3, 1914, durinp; the same tern at which the
order of dismissal was entered, appellants filed a motion
to set aside the order dismissing the suit; to reinstate the
cause on the docket; and to allow appiellants to file a second
amended declaration, a copy of which was attached to the mo-
tion. This motion was denied, on the 4th, day of April 1914;
and appellants thereupon prayed an appeal to this court.
The errors assigned on this appeal are as follows!
1, The court erred in denying plaintiffs motion to vacate the

CSea .oW .neO'

.brsisltl ^'/n.-'T ;TfoiT- rf'^fTfiA BY

.88oIl8qrri5 Ijb *• 880R ,T nrfbt.

ttuoriO ©rli rti J^rf3i/o:icf eaiso edS no noi:;fOB ab ei al/fP

exi* teniJBSje ^iitnjKlIsqqB eri/' y^ »xi"ni/oO briBlal aloofl "co tiuoO

teu^x/A brrB 4^*01/00 bifie to leno^oO ^eiofi ,% nrfoT. ^seelleqna

xfaiixgnB bna iiilBq aol: 88;gBmBb levoosi o& ^nBioieyrfq -s »<l^A ,H

Xlli/I^a^oiw n©?cf evBrf ot bs'^eiln yaqo^i/B n« ycf beai/jeo ^bnJim to

• tnBlXeqqB lo loA&oici bsa^soeb « 'to x^o^^ ^^^^ ycfaisrfw ^Jbooccolasq

bfijC' ^namoocfB 9rfc^ snlne o ycf "b8*sXjt;fjj» bns be^foBri ^Juo" aBW

nolitBiJsXoeb iBnlgj^^o erIT ,0*s ^loeierlit anoiJxoq ^nlvomsi

« b»lJt1 aeaXIeqqB arfJ bns iXXe^ ^^ iscrmsosd beXJtl sbw

.Jaxroci srf^ \fcf benlfi^fairs bbw riolriw ^smBe erfJ Ov+ isaiuraeb XBifenss

• bnerriB o;f a^tnaXXaqq^ oi aevt-g nadS aBw evaeX X£idfl80

-BijsXosb babnemB an beitl sitaBXXeqoB ,CXex ^SS snxxL nO

. sbitumBb Laiosqe bciB L&ita9-^ a bsXJtl aesXXeqqB iloJtrfw oi ^aoi.t

eiew ^leziumttb to aaai/BO XBloeqs erfJ- lo amoa bn£ tetiimob sriT

*Tuoo srft bnB jJ^xex jM y^BunBL no »^xi/oO Bdi xd b^atntBua

B^rtJBXIaqrB tji ^ii. 3 $!it snlaaimatb i9biQ aa beifiino aoqusiodi

,ad-aoo
»dt doldv t£ utBt •ouia %dt Qntiub ^tsLQl ^C LtioX nO

notifon £ bBitJ ecrnaXXeqq<B ^bBrsins bbw X«aai:mijtb I0 lebio

sxfiJ^ e^isJ-aniat o^ {ttsm tidt aftlaelraaib lebio edt ablaB *8a oS

bflooaa B Bltt oi a^xxBXXeqqB woIXb ot brtB ;^ej(oob drfd* no aai/BO

-om srfl oJ' berfOBd-i^B bbw riolrfw to yqoo b ^flOltBiBXoab fiebnsn*

l-S'XSX liiqA to \Bb ,dt^ arf.t no ^belnab aew noiJ-om eixfT .noiJ"

,*Tuoo airiJ o* XBeqqB ab be^Biq noquBredt atnBXXsqqa bns

tawoXXot 8B 8TB XjBsqqB Bliii no ben-QtBaB axoiia eriT

Bdt ©J-BO/iv ot noitom atti^fnlBXq sniynab nt bexiB tiitoo eriT ,X

order dismissing thair suit »nd denying their motion to
reinstate said cause and grant leave to plaintiffs to file
an amended declaration ths^^ein instanter,
3/ Tlie court erred in dismissing plaintiffs suit at their costs.

3. The court erred in sustaining defendants demurrer to plaing
tiffs original declaration.

4. The court erred in Bustaining defendants demvurrer to plain-
tiffs amended declaration.

5. The court should have allowed plaintiffs motion to vacate
order dismissing plaintiffs suit and should have reinstated
said cause and granted leave to plaintiffs to file an ameHted
declaration as proposed in thisir motion to that effect.

Concerning the third assignm-nt of error, it may be said,
that the appellants waived their right to insist upon the val-
idity and sufficiency of the original declaration, when they
obtained leave of court to file an amended declaration, (Re-
tail Merchants Fire Ins. Co, v Coz, 138^ 111. App, 14; Maeg-
eriein v Chicago, 337 111, 159.)

Passing to a con'^ideration of the other errors assigned
we fine as to the amended declaration to which a demurrer
was sustained, that while the record does not disclose, that
the appellants elected to abide by this declaration, it must
be presumed that they intended to do so; inasmuch as they
took no steps from 'which an abandonment of it could be infer-
red; and they are therefore, in the same petition as if they
had formal^ Indicated an intention to stand by this declara-
^. tion. (Bennet v Union STsntral Life Co. 203 111, 444.) The
amended declaration however, is not set out in the abstract
and hence we are not required to examine it; and the abstract
therefore, does not show any error in the court in dismissing
the suit.

As to the action of the court in refusing to set aside

Bill OS BtlltnlBlq 0t^91lBBi ^£I.B1S hCTB 9$uAp^ biAM ^f^a^f^

tTi ta^taat nle'ft.iJ- aottntsloBb btbaBma a£
,8^eioo lisAi iB &tua BtlttnlBlq, -j^lBBluBtb at baixB txu^o er^ ^
^rrlAlq OJ^ iBX^uia^L BtaxbrnBl^b :^tatA&BUP. at bsziB t^iuoo erTT •£

,aoXtsziiioeh laniglao allJt*
-nlaXq o* tBi-xvmBb BiaMbnBteb -QnlaiBtBUB at bsine t-iuoo ©rfT ,*

.nor^jBiJsXoeb JbebnemB aHld-

6ijeo*v od- noxj-offl al^id-nlalq bByrolL£ Braii blx/orie Jrrx/QO ©rfT •S

Jbo;^£j8njtda evfirf blx/oxfa Jbnjs #ljja aliitnifilq anJteeimsJtb lobko

bflfeetRA n« till: ot Blli^nlsLq, oi ov£»X bei^n^^t^ &nn eai/AO JbiiiSa

,ifo8"il:s i'jBri.t oi aottoa ziidS nt heaoqo . lottsiAioBh

-X/.. ..;)-Qy taxanX od tii-^ti ixsrU bevXjBW aJnaXIaqqB ©rfi. ij^i

\eiii nsrfw 4«oi;ffiiaXo©b Xjenialio ©K>' Vo x^naJtollt^i/a fiStJB Y^lbl
-^Si) .flolJjBTJBXosb babneffli. ns sXXIt ot tiijoo lo avjseX bsnlfiJcfo
-SOfiK ;*X ,qqA ,XXI ^8£X ^soO v ,oO .inl eiil aJnBrfoisM Xlai'

(.eex .Xl'l 7CS ^o^AotdO v nXoUd

ben3l»8-s atoias larfJo nocJ-fiaebienoo js od^ gnJ:«8J8<T

■ ). , ■
..!i8b JB rfolrf?.- oj noid"j8LJ8loaf> b©bn8injB erf^ r»x? ev/

tAfU' ,eaoXoaJ:b ion aaob baoosa erf;f sXlrfw tndt ^banX^.-^aue a«w

dvi/ffl it ^ttott&'iniOBb Btdf ycf abXtfa oi be^foals ad-n^XXoqqiB erft

YSffd^ a« ri0i/H!8BnX ;o8 oh od' babnad^nJ: xbxH tsdt baraijaeaq nd

"tetni scf bXi/oo d^i >o ^np^frohnacffl «£ riolrfv ttoal: aqed-s on aloo*

^{eil. li Sit nolitB9<\ ?>• nt ^aioleisrf^f Bie \Bdi uxm jbai

--•tJBXbab Btdt y(jf bnjSv -tl n£ ba^Bolbnl yflmnio'i bad

Si.T (,^^1^ ,xxr £015 .©Oi ©^IJ XAiJnsfl floxntj v ^©nnsff) ,aoti

*OJBi*acfjB ©rf^ nt iuo tQ^, ion ai ^isvswoif iioi*BiBXoeb b©bn6m4

t&Ai^adJi arf^ bas i#i' ©nlm^xa o;r b©tciup8'X J-on bis aw aorxsH bnia

anXae'X'maih at tiuoo « 'J ni loiia ynB worfe iton aeob ^eaoloaarfit

,ttUB 9dt

BblBM t99 Ot snXeulaT nt aottos ©rft o# bA

the order dismiasing the case, and denying leave to file a
seconded amended declaration, it may be reasonably presumed
that some showing was made for and aj^ainst the allowance of
this motion, which was made nearly three months after the
case had been dismissed; but such shovring, whatever it may
have been, is not preserved in the bill of exceptions; and i n
the absence of any record of what showing was made, it must
be presumed that the Court acted properly in denying the mo-
tion and refusing to reinstate the case. It may be here
emphasized, too, that the written motion, and the attached
paper, purporting to be an amended declaration, cannot be
considered in this case, because thsy are not a part of the
record; not having been embodied in the bill of exceptions.
Any writ en motion, in an action at law^ must be embodied in
the bill of exceptions, to preserve it as a matter of record,
(People V Taxman 186 111, App, 348,) For the reasons stated
the judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

bowi/8e:rq vidsr^oeBei: 9cf ■^vism i-jt ^^oii•J^1.SJ oeb bebnawja bebnooee

lo awiAWoIiB 9d1- ;t»frijrnfl bnfi lol ebsm bbw ^niworfs srtnOB *BrfJ

!>ff;J- ibJ^b •ilJ'rtOOT eeTfft vXiBort ©feaw bjsw rfolrfw ^xiot^om eiri^f

YJsm it aevstariw ^gnlworfe rfoi/e Jtrd ibeaBimeib nsad barf oa^o

n i bns janoli-qsoxe to Xllcf 9iii ni. bevreBBtq ifoti ai ,flesd »v«rf

i-Birai *i ^abBfff a£w gniirorfe #Bxfw lo Moost yna "io eonaaJB erf'*

-Ofii odt ■gni-^asb ni x-^^^riOiq beJ-OB d-ijJoO ©rft ifB/fJ^ bani/se^cq e<f

oiaxf 9cf Y'S''^ *I .esBo ©rfi oJB^renls'i od^ jgrctatrlsi bfiB'ffoi-J'

b©rfoad-*B &cif biiB ^ttottoas nsJJ^llw ©rfj- iferf^ jOo;^ ^beaiaBrfqme

acf J-Oftrtao ,flox*BiBloab fcabnsniB n« sd oi i^attiociuq ^x»q^iq

9Ai- lo tteq s ion ©ib x^i^i eaueostf jObbo eJtrfi^ ni be^tabiertoo

.anoiJ'qeoxe "^o Hid sriJ ni bai bocfaia at>edl •gatv£d ton jbTooei

ni baibodmo ad" tBum ^WBi ;ffi noiitOB ab ni ^ftoi^offl ne itirtw ■^«A

.bTOOsa 1o i»)i&&m b bb ti »vi»et9zq ot ^anortqaoxe io IXicf stit

bet£tB' enoBBci 9tif 10'? { .Bi>t .qqA ,IIT 881 flBiaxBT v elqoa^)

.beriTiilliB ad tBi/at tnanrgbirt s'^*
.bawriHB i-nefngfH/I.

STATE OF ILLINOIS,

SECOND DISTRICT. f '"'■ I, CHRISTOPHER C. DuPFY, Clerk of the Appellate

Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the foregoing' is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this ninth day of
March, in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred
and fifteen.

Clerk of the Appellate Court.

5992

AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COIffiT ,

Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the srixth day of October,

/
in the year of our Lord one thousand nij^e hundred and fourteen,

■I*

within and for the Second District q,c the State of Illinois:
Present--The Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Presiding Justice.
Hon. d|3RRANCE DIBELL, Justice,
-^n. j\hN M. NIEHAUS/ Justice. 19 3 I»A, 3 0 1
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFF^ , Clerk.
J. G. MI^CHKE, Sheriff.

^

'-v.-^

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on the 9th day
of March, A. D. 1915, the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:

01^

Gen. No. 5993,

J. R. Xepple et al appellants,

vs Aopeal from Knox,

Philip Stoddard, appellee.

Niehaue, J,

This was a suit in assumpsit, commenced in the circuit
court of Knox County, to recover an alleged balance due as
part of the purchase price of a horse, which appellee claimed
he sold and delivered to appellants. The appellants deny,
that the sale was consummated; and insist that the horse was
never delivered to them; and that, therefore, they are not
liable. The case turns mainly upon thie question of delivery,
Tiie parties agree that a bargain wss ma'^e for the horse in
question, in August 1911 j and that the purchase price was !r95,00
and that, according to the bargain as originally made, the
appellee was to drive the colt twice; and that he was to put
a halter on him; and deliver him in a day or two. Appellee
testified, that he went to town the morning after the bar-
gain had been made; and there dajt met the appellant Kepple,
who inquired if he, appellee, could pasture the horse; where-
upon appellee replied, "I havent got any pasture. You will
have to see the old man"; that appellant hereupon inquired
where the old man wae; and being informed that the old maa
was in town, he went to look for him; afterwards he came back
and told appellee, that he had hired pasture of appellee's
father, and was soinp to leave the horse out there; and v!0\M
get him there, when he wanted him; that In this way, the
horse was left in the pasture of appe." lee's father, W, FI
Stoddard, where, in the following month of October, he wae hurt
by coming in contact with a wire.

.seee ,ovi ,neO

.xon^T mo7> Ipe" A av

.dellf^ar'fi ^br£bho:t3 qiUtrfl

ttuoilG ericf nt 2>eone/T;rr!00 ^ttaqmueeB at Hub & sfiw aixfT

«£ Sifb son^Ixid" hegaXxB n£ tisvooei ot 4Y;fni/oO xon3{ ^o Jix/oo

ibftffllalo asXIsqqjs rforriw ^eeiorf j? "io eoliq esjsrfoijjq scit to &\Mq

^Vnsb eJ'nfilleqqjB eriT .m&a&lLeqqB o& be:tevlleb brc* Mo* eii

SBW esiorf axl' tMdf taisat bna [bBfemasuBnoo sjsw bIab ecii i&di^

ton 8i£ y©rf;t ,tio'i©aerf* ^#*ri.t brrfi (meriJ^ ot beisvilsb nsve-n

»Yievil9b \o nott»&up atdt no^jj YJ^ni^srer anoi/t eajso sriT .oIcTjBil

nl eaioil 9:'t rot 9^>Am aaw nljBgTJBcr jb d-arft aei3s aeii^aaq silT

OO.SGlS «jsw eoliq easrioui/q srfj- tsdi htiG {ILBl tau^uk nt ^noiJaewp

aiit ^ef)J5ra Yllsniglio ss nt&vixd erfJ^ o;r gnlhioooa ,*«oJ- baM

tifq ot 8fiw 8ri t&dt haA jeoJtw.i' ^loo erf;^ evinf) o^ aisw esllaqq*

ssIIeqqA ,owj- 3:0 yjsb b rti mirf isvilsb bns ;mirf rro letled m

-tzd eri.t 19*1jb gniniom sdt nwo^t o,? Jnew ad tadt ^Jbeil c^eat

^eXqqs^ ^a^XIsqqii edt t&m ifax Bxedt hns {abnta nascf bed ala-^

-e'lerfw ;eeaori adi anstaBq hluoo ^esXIsqqe ^ad \t bartupat oria

Xiiw x/oY ,©ix;j8£q yn* ^03 Jneveri I" ^batlqsr saXXeqq* noqu

beiii/pfljt aoquatfid tnMLl9qaB tAdt ;*nJ8m Mo adt aaa ot ©VAri

«jBni JbXo erfl t&dt batmolat gni&d ban jajBw flfim bXo srfi^ ©leriw

ilofid eniJBO erf abajswas^f^ii i.Tjjtri xoZ 3{ooX o:t i^nevr erf ,nwo;f nl b£W

a'eeXisqqa l:o aiuta^r^ beitd bMd ed t£dt ^esXX&qqis JbXo^ bnA

iXi/ow ixiA {aiadt tao eeaori erfd- ev^el 0* ^nlog b£w bns, ^xadtAt

adt tXJiw atdt at i-adt [mtd hetan^ ad neriw ^aradt mtd ta

Ti ,W ^tterf^Jsf a'aal aqqA lo aii/^aBq 8rf;f at ttel bjbw eatoa

tnud ajsw erf ^^xadotoO to dtaom latvoLiot adt at ^eierfw ^biJibbotQ

,artv £ dttvr to&taoo at -^atmoo xd

W. F, Stoddard, appellees father, corroborated hig son oon-
oerning the matter of pasturing the horse for appellants. He
testified that he had a talk with appellant Kepple, in St-
Augustine, in August; that ICepple wanted him to pasture the
horse for him; and he finally agreed to do so, and told Kep^e
he might let him stay in the pasture. The appellant, Kepple
denied that he saw appellee in town the next day after the
bargain had bean made; and denied also, that he had any con-
versation vvith the appellee, or with appellee's father,
about pasturing the horse.

If it be a fact, that the appellant agreed with appellee
and appellee's father, that appellee's father should hold
the horse in question in his pasture, for the appellants,
until appellants got ready to take him, then the delivery
to appellants was completed by this transaction, which amounted
to a transfer of the possession of the horse, from appeliee
to appellants.

The jury by renderinj^ their verdict, in effect found
the facts constituting the delivery, or the transfer of the
possession, from appellee to appellants, to be as claimed by
appellee. WJiether the facts constituting the delivery were
as testified by appellee, or the facts were as claimed by the
appellants, was purely a question for the jury to pass upon,
and not a question for the court to decide. The credibility
of the witnesses who testify in a u case, and the weight to
bs given to their testimony, are questions for the jury.
(Lowry v Orr, 1 Gilm. 69. Martin v Morelock, 33 111, 485;
Chicago & A. R. Co. V Fisher, 141 in. 614; McGregor v Reid
Murdock & Co, 73 111. 464, )

Appellants also complain, because -he court below
sustained an objection to a question put to appellant Clark

an .t*nEll9qr:B lol cerrorf 9ri;f snlTif^aaq W -ie^f^am'eH^ gnirt^oo

-*?i ni .elqqsX tnJBlI-^qqB Ait^ *i*f e bBrf erf t«rit bsili^ae:^

afl;t ^ijjJ8£q ocf Mill batnjBw eiqqeX *«d:r iJeusx/A n± .ertttaugi/A

aliiqeS Mo:^ fcna »08 ob oc^ baeoga ^fXI^nit erf hni? ifflirf ^ol aaiorf

alqqs^I ,*flBlIaqo£ ariT .aii/taaq arf^ at ^^is mid. JaX Jriaifli eil

9iii rails xAb txen ari^ flwoi aJt aaiXaqqfi >*«* arf *«^i^ bBla»b

-noo vna bari sri tadS »oalB baineb baa 4 absm ns ad barf nlaai^cf

^TtarC^al B'aaXieqqa ri^iv.- 10 ^aalXaqqa srf* rfi^xr xxoxJ^aaev

.eaiorf B:i:f ^ai-ustBsq. iuods
aeXXaqqJS dJ-iv baai^* .fnJBXiaqqa sri;^ i^di ^to^'i m ecf it ^I

• bXorf blx/oria Ttarftal a'eaXXaqc.^- ,Tterf;f/;l a'aaXXeq^i-s vaa

.ecrnaXiaqqjR ari^ -co" .aaiiisAc airi fli noi;rasi;p «1^^ eBlOii
YTcsviXab erf+ ne.it t«ilri eii?* o;t xbJiei ios ikSaslleqcji iur:i<
betnuoms rioirfw ^noito&BciMTit airi^ .^cf ba^sXqmoo efiw ataaXXeqqa o;f
aailaqq* mo^-i ^aeiod aricr >o noiaaaasoq ariJ Iq aalanai*

,s;faBXXeqq^'i qj

erfJ lo Te-iariBicr erft ao .x^sviXab eri^f gniJi/^Txcfanoo mtosl
xcf b6ml£X?> aa ed oj .aifnfiXisqq* oJ aaXXeqqa fflo^> .rtoiaaessor
aisw xaevJtXab arf^r snl^i/^fXJanpo a.to^l arfi xarfls-IW .eeXXaqq^
arft Xii beffljfcaio aa -law bjoa^ eri^ lo ^esXiaqqa ^d baXIX^e "^
»noqxJ aaaq 0;? yxx/t erf^ iq\ noictea^j ^ YXauuq aaw ,a*naXxy _
X^fxXtcftbaio eriT .abtoab o;f Jiiioo e..r 10I aoi;r8di/p £ ^on bn.:
oi tnaia* ari* bfl£ ,8t-o as » ni x"it*8^* 9^'* ^faaaan;rtw a: '

.X^ut eri* 10'i anoiJaai/r «i« ^Ynomiifas^f ^iarf^ oJ nevi:„ r

iee^ .xxi ss ^iooXa-xoM V fli^wM .ea .mliO X ,aaO y xiwoJ)

biafl V :to3aaD0K t^XS .XXI Xi^X ,it>dBi.l v .oO .H .A 4 ©SisoinO

woXsd ;f'XJjoo erf- es^ROsd tnJt^Xqmoo oeXa aJ-fl«XXaqc.'
iiaXO JnaXXsqqa o* iuq, ttolt9eup « ot aottoeido aa bc-.x ,. .

about the ownership of land, at the time of this tr?.n3action,
and beoauee the court sustained an objection to a question
asked of the appellant Kepple, as to what condition he and
the appellant Clark were in, with reference to tlsc pasture,
at the time of this transaction, "^e ara of opinion that the
objections to the questions were properly sustained in both
instances. Up6n their face, the questions asked, would have
led to the rai=:ing of an immaterial issue in the case; and ^x
there was nothing in the appellant's offer to prove, ^7hich
indicated that the answer wh ch the v/itness might have made
would be rcaterial on the real issue. To have merit, even as
a circumstance, it was at least necessary, that the offer
should have indicated, that the answer would show that the
pasture, if the appellants had any, was somewhere near the pas-
ture in question. The court's ruling was therefore, proper,

Tlie record does not disclose any substantial error,
and the judgment should, therefore, be affirmed.

Affirmed,

flQi^BPup -=. 0& notfosJ[,dio na bentA^a-JB tiisoo erlJ &ai/&o&^( tn*
bci.i 9fl noitlMoo *jsriw of er, ,elqq©3 ircBlIaqq* erU 1o Jbsjie.
^B'xv^Biaq jdJt Oct- ^oaeislei rfJ-Jtw ^nl ©lew atajsIO inBlIsqqi> sri-
sxl;t ^TArfJ- notnlqo lo e-iJS ©7^ .floli-oaBnjBi to eraJt^ erfj' d-

ri;^o>;r ai beni£:fBL\e \lreqoiq eaew anorifa&x/p srii- oi 8noi;:f09t<fo
©V£ri bXifOW ^beiBJB snoi^t^enp ©rf;t jSOJel axs.It ndqU .©eonisd-Bni

rioirfr: ^Bvoiq 03' te^io e'tnBlIsqqjB ©rii- nl 3xiJtrid-on taw ©aeriJ^

©pfiM evjerf triglm •©ertti?' ©rict riordw iewens ©rft cfArii" betAOibal

8J8 neve ^^raerri ©visrf oT ,8Jj8sr Xaei erf;)- no IbIts^bsi ecf i>Xx;ow

Te^"io erfct &Jinf& ^yi^eeeosn cfsjseX i^jB ©bw tt ,©on£;faflu/o'ilo £

©rid- tBdt worie bXtrow xewerrB erfi Jjsrfrf^ ^I)©;fj50ibnl ©vjtrf bXi/orie

-©aq &tii iS9n enerfweff-op ©sw ^yca ftflrf eJftJ5Xj'"8r :^i ^siwi-ajsq

.asqoiq ^stoleierft «bw gnlXi/t 8'^ix;oo edT .rtoxJestrp nl 9'xuc^

tio^io l&ita&^BduB vfTB ©BoXoftib Jon eeob feaoosi ©riT

.bom^mjB ©cf ^©"xolflidrf* ^fcXi/orfa Jnsmsbut arf;*' bn*

STATE OF ILLINOIS, )

SECOND DISTRICT. \ ^^' I, CHRISTOPHER C. DuFFY, Clerk of the Appellate

Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this ninth day of
March, in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred
and fifteen.

Clerk of the Appellate Court.

599B

AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATlf COURT ,

Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, tl^ sixth day of October,
in the year of our Lord one thousand r^'lne hundred and fourteen,
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:
Present--The Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Presiding- Justice.
Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice,
^^'n. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Justice.

CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFy/ Clerk. 1 9 3 I.A« O 0 4
J. G. MISCHKE,'';. She/iff .

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on the 9th day
of March, A. D. 1915, the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit :

/iaHiOT8i^h.-

Gen, No, 5999

Ollie H, Gillette, Appellee

V8 Appeal from Carroll,

Tlie Chicago, Milwaukee & St.
Paul Railway Company, appellant,

Niehaue, J,

Thie is An act:' on on the case brought "b" appellee a^inat
appellant, in the circuit court of Carroll County, The declara-
tion charges negligence againet the appellant. The Chicago
Milwaukee i St, Paul Railway Company, in driving a numher of
wooden piles into the bed of Plxxm River, for the support Qf
its bridge, at the point where the appellant's right of way
interaects the river. And It is alleged, that these pi lee
were driven so cloeeitjt together, that they formed an obstruction
in the stream, to the natural flow of the water at this point;
and that they caught the drift natter, which naturally floated
in the current of the stream, especially in times of heavy
rain, or freshets; and that this caused the waters of the
river, in this inst?vnce, to back up over appellee's land,
and injure his crop of com.

To the charc^es of negligence contained in the three
counts of the declaration, the appellant filed a plea of
not guilty; and upon this plea insue was joined, and a trial
by jury had, which resulted in a verdict "finding the defend-
ant guilty, and assessinj;; the plaintiff's damages at ^550,00
The appellant made a motion for new trial, and in arrest of
judgment; both motions were denied by the court, and judgment
was rendered upon the ver iot. A reversal of this judgment
is sought by the appeal to this court.

One of the grounds urged for reversal, is that the
evi'lence does not sustain the verdict. We think the record

esXIeqqA ^B&teiLt^ ,H e'iXXC
.XIoii/jO moal X*-'^'-"-^* av

.tB A ss^vi/fiwXiM tOgAolxlO suT
.tneXXeqqjs .vrrBcimoO yawXiz-JT Xi;£*^

,1, ^auari^i'.
iealJ^z dsIXeqqjs vd .trfaifoicf ©ajiso srfl no rrottoa an et atxCT

-jBiisXoeb sriT .yJniroO XXoiisO lo ^tjjoo .tJtuoaXo sA,* ni ^ta£ilQqq:
03JSOiriO arIT ^rf'nBXXsqqjs srf^t j-9nl«gB sonsglXasn asaxjsrfo noi^
lo iscfmjjn JB 3nlvlib nl ^YneqmoO yawXiiifl Xtr«*T .tR 4 e9JL;£.wXiM
^e ^^loqqws 9rf^ 10"^. ^isvjtH mjjX7 lo b»cf Bdi oSni ssXiq n&boc
YjSW lo J-rfgXi e'^njsXXsqqB 9rf;J sisrfw i-ntoq erft j-js ^oj^Jbiidf aJ^i
•ftXlq 8ae;l;t tfirfi^ .beasXXJS •! &t toA .isyJtT erfvf s^^^^aa^xt
^oltnuttBdo tt& bamioT: ys'"^^ *J8ffJ^ ^aarf^egot ^ieeoXo oa rrevXib srrev/
l&tttoq Bldt tM lad'BW srfJ- ^o woXt XjBijjJ-.isn ©rf.t oJ- ^maea^e ariJ- n
bsi-jsoll Y-tXjsii/tan rfolrfw ^re^it^m tttrb &iit d-rfgi/jso -^edt tedi bn^
yvaeri lo aamlJ- ni yXXjsiosqae ^B!«eiJe erfj- J:o iattiuo exid^ nl
eri^ lo Biet&vi erf J baax/^o eirf^t tjidi hns laiferfaeTl to ^ctlsx
^bnBL a'aaXisqqA levo qu Jfojscf o& ^oottR;fant airft nX ^^r&vXx

.moo lo qoio Bxrf eii/(;ni ims
•earf;f erf-t nl beni^J-noo eonssiXaan lo aa^Jia.'fo ariJ' oT

lo jsaXq a beXil JnisXIaqqis 9rf+ ^aol*<5a«Xo9ft exfJ- lo aJ-njjoo

XjftxiJ- s bnis ^beriiot •■aw •ifSRi isaXq alri:^ noqu bn^: i\illuij Jon

-bnalftb ari;? ;^ni:bnlT ^oibtav a at heJ-Xuaai rfoirfw ^barf x^tut yd

00,065$ i"4B aaaJBfnAb a'lli^tnijBXq eriJ ^nlaaeaajB bne 4X*Jtxi;3 ;tflJB

lo tBQiic nl bn£ jXjsxi* »ran lol nofJoor « ebsm J-n«XX©qqB SilT

tneragbxTt bn.*? ^truoo erfJ ytf bslneb eiew anolj-ora rftod j^xratn

^nsm^bi/t 8lrf* ^o Xjseievei k .;fpl isv 9rf;t noqu batcabnei ijc^

,tai/oo alilj- ot leeqcfi, adt xd tdQUoe bc
9di tBdf at ^XB$i9vei lol h9-[;,'tu ebnx/ois eri^ lo enO
b'X009T erfi :fnlrf;t 9W .^-olbTav edt atBteua toa Beob ©one; - v9

showa that the axtotsKBB evidentiary facts established by
the testimony of the witneseee, fairly Justified the inference
which the jury must havs drawn from them, namely: that the
negligence which is the basis of this action, was the proxi-
mate causa of the injury to the plaintiff's crop. Where the
evidentiary facts fairly justify the inference of the ultimate
fact to be proved, thair probative force is sufficient 'O
sustain a verdict, (D4nlap v Smith, 35 111, App, 338.)

Appellant took exception to the admissibility of part
of the testimony of the witness David DAlloghy, The v/itness
was asked, and answered, about vvhat he observed with reference
to the waters of ths stream backing up, during the freshet in
question. Objection was also made to ths admissibility of
evidence of Samuel B. Adams, who testified concerning the ef-
fect of the overflow waters of "Pl\aa Rover on growing corn.
These were all matters of common knowledge, observation and ex-
perience; and there was no error in admitting the testimony
of these witnesses, on the points in question. And the same
may be said of the admi -i^sibility of the testimony of the
witness James Trafford, who was ahked concerning the effect,
on the waters of the river, of the lodgment of brush and
trees and straw and weeds, between the piling of the bridge.

Appellant urges objections to the first, second and
dourth instructions, because the words, "that such extraordinary
storms, freshets or- rains as could have been reasonably anti-
cipated", were not qualified by addinr the words, "by an
ordinarily prudent person"; so as to present to the jury, in
that part of the instruction, the idea, -liat such extraordinary
storms or rains and freshets are referred to, as could reason-
ably have been anticipated by an gixDi:±H£X)c ^UTOstnnt ordinarily
prudent person. Tjie objection, however, loses its force
from the fact, that this very qualification, which is insisted

9di tjiiii t^enjia ^n$(i;^ moix nwjsab evflrf ;f8j:/ra yijj-{; dcli doi4w
-ixoiq ©•^;f aaw ^txot&OB stAS to alaM erf" -Iw eone^^Xss.

arf* eiariW .qoio e'llti^fnijeXq 3rlJ oi' XT^^t^fiJ^
aJ»ml:tIi; arf* lo eons'iatnl srf.t x^l^ajj^ Yli-tJsl: Btoat •sfiJBitxiebxvs
o' tnetotlluB Sit. aoio':: evltAcfoiq lisrfo ^bsvoic; scf oJ- &om'
( . ■ '^ .qA .X-IT as ^xl^tifflB v qBlniC) .^oiJiaav a titBieut
i"i&q lo x^ tlicCia'^iiabjB SiL' oj noiJqsoxe jfoo^f J-njalieqaA

aaenJlw sxiT ,>(risoXX4Q bivAQ aaert^lw ari;t "io tttomJt^aetf erfJ lo

aon©i8l?i ri^xw I^evTsacfo erf tjudn iuods ^btt^iriciA bns. ^bBABu f ^

nl i^erfeaat erfJ- gnlii;.':) ^qu ^nl^foacf aieei'^a eri:f "^o eist£7r arfj .

Yo x*JtXicfi8Biial)x ebaoT 08f£ sbw noicrostdO .nol^fasu;

-Is e hailxtsej- orf*r ^frr X©i;««8 "io eonebi?<?

.nxoo gfliwoxg no levoH mul'^ to aietew woXlisvo 'ifrfJ''lo *oe'

-xsJbna aoi^jBTisecTo tesbeXwoni fcommoo lo BX6ti&m XXjb eiew aaeiiT

'{noaild-ae^f srfcf snJti^.tlai6« ai tone on bjbw ©isri* bn« ieonslis

SAss srfi- bfiA ♦flox*«3i;p ni stnjtoqr 8,f;f no ^eesasxiJ'iw eaerfJ- . .

erfi' lo YnomJttas* erf^ "co x;tiXJtcria'^xmbJB arft lo bJtfia e:; ^^^^

^toelte erfJ snlnieonoo JbeiiJS bjbw orfw ^biolljeiT aeraJsL aaen^lvt

bn£ rfBJJicf lo j-neraaboX 8rf>t lo iisvl-. aasi-jSw^' aii:^' no

.egblicf erf;t lo -Qatilci Bd& nssw^sd ^abesw brtjs wai^a bn£ ■aeiJ'

bna bnooae jd-aiil s;\< oJ anolJ-oefcTO bb-qisj ttiAllBqqk

XTi&x ibxoATtxB douB *£££** jabio? srf-t aausodd" .inoltoinJ^ani rf^ix/o

-i^n£ YXcTjsnoeaai ttBB6 evj^ii bXx/oo «js BRisii 10 atarlss-il ^anioi'i?

n£ Ycf" ^abaoT.- siJ^ ^nJtbbs vcf bsllxXjBijp itofl exeir 4*b93^

xti ,X^i/t 3 ''"f 0^ Jneefe:!: o« j^noaieq tdBbuiq Y-^-t'^JsnibTO

xrtJsnibaojsiJxe xfox/e ;fflfr; ^ae: ^.lot^OijrtBttt 6/1' I0 jtcjsq ;t«ri:

-noaaerr bXiioo e ^ot iioix^l'-i aic aterfaeil 5n^"^ wdLirt' To ejnioie

xXlajBnlbao abtaiajnuf :(XXK±Jbxi n/s ycT be^*qloitfra nesef ©vjarf yXcf/

eoiol aijt peaol ^aov. 'tostcfo arn* .noairscf ;fne

be^aliBxti al rfoixfir 4X10 t*J5'S'JtllXJit/p VeV aJixW- tarf:f »tOJi«l erf* moii

upon by appellant, was strongly presented to the jury in six
different instructione, namely: the 8th. 13th. I3th.
15th, 16th, and 30th. whioh were g'ivsn for the defendant;
a,nu these latter instructions, must be considered in connection
with the former. All the instructions must be considered
together, and taken as a whole; and vohsn they are thus conad-
ared, they present the completed definition pointed out by
appellant; and present it vith sufficient clearnese to h€Mre
made it apparent to the jury. The Ipw ia definitely settled
on this point. (City of Chicago v McDonough, 11'^ 111. 85;
City of Aurora v Seidelman, 34 Til, App, 385; Slack v Harris
101 111, App. 537; TTagner v Myer 95 111. App, 68.)

Objection is also iiade to the 5th, instruction, given
for the appellee, because it is claimed that the language
dees not require the finding by the jury of negligence to
be based upon the proof in the case; but that the instruction
bases it upon tha charge made in the declaration. We do not tc
think this objection is well taken; and do not perceive how
the jury could have drawn such an inference from the language
of the instruction, taking it altogether; and when the instruc-
tion is considered in connection *ith the other instructions
in the case, it is quite evident that they could not have
done 80,

"One instruction may omit some needed qualification ,
and aven appear to be misleading when considered alone;
but may not be misleading, norimproper when considered with
other instructione; ?,nd it ia sufficient if the instructions
taVen as a whole, present the law to the jury with substanUal
correctness," (Toluca M. & F, R. Co. v Haws, 194 111 93.)

Tliere are no substantial errors aoparent in this record;
and the judgment should therefore be affirmed.

Affirmed.

i#n«l5rTeleb 9rf;t 10^ nsvls siew rfoixfw .rftOS bns' ,[itBl ,iiiZl

floltoeaffoo ni bsasfoianoo sd Jsjjin ^snoxrf'Oxj'iJ'BnJt asi^d-jsl saorf:?-' Lnja

bsaebianoo scf Jai/m eiol^ouT^anl erfJ^ IIA .ismiol 9rf:f rfd-iw

-ijJBnoo iSjjrlJ' 91B yerft nsrf« bns jsIoriW b sjs nb^fjs^f bna ^tedts^^oi

Ycf ;fiJO £>6ifnloq aott ratteb be^eXqmoc prf;t jneas^cq vsil^ ^Il>6:c&

ev*^ ot eeeniJseXo tneloiliaa dtt^' ;ti tn^jasicr bni? ;tn«XX©rqjB

l28 ,XXI fix" ^rfgixonodoM v ogAoiriO to x^^'O) .tntoq aJtri^ no
8J:'i'i£F V :i(o*XB ;a8S ,qqA ,XXI hi ^itJBmXebiaS v aiotuk lo yJ'xO
(.88 ,qqA .XXI 26 levM v :t9ns«^ i^^S .qqA .XXI XOX
navig ^noilo^ij-ani ,rf;tS srf^- ot '^b.*' oeX-s ei nojtJoetcft)

egfiygnfiX erfit J^rid- bsmljeXo aat/jsoscf teeXXsqqir; 1

o* sonegiXgsn to xiul srfi ycf snibnlT ei'l sixjjpei J'on ssob

noxd^ODiJ-ani SffJ "*J5jrf';t Jjucf ;e8J5o' »rf^ nl looiq erff floqiJ bsa&d sd

xf i-on ob eW .nold-Jsi^Xoeb sfi.f ni eb.^m e^afirfo sri.t aoau tt asafid

wori evleoieq *on ob bnf> (nsXEct XXsw el nbt&oel^o Rirfrf' intdt

esJSi/an/sX erfjf moil eonsislrti at rfouia'nwjattb sved bXiroo ytut sr'i

"OuitBnl i;d.t nsriw i>n« jiadi-eaoJ-Xfi d-i gnJt^js* ^nox^ouitanJ: erit lo

anoxJ-oi iJ-ani ierf;to erlt rid-iv*. noLtosnnoo rti beieblBnoo ex no.i'.d'

on tluoo xsAi i&di- tneblre sttup at d"x ^9B£C) edi at

.08 sxiofc
^ aotiAOtttlAuf' be&aen ©moe dimo yjsm aoidoi/id-anl anO*

iSrtoXjB baasbianoo ne-lv gnibAcXaxm ed od ijssqqis n&ve

/fl-iw beisbxpnoo nsriw leqoiqmlion ^gnlb^eXaJtm ed toh yam txd

anoilox/id-arii 9. J ti d'nsloit'ii/t al' *i bn." ianot*ouT*erx t3;:j-o

^ XatfnjBitBdua ri*iw yrtrt add- od wax er^+ *n*>s9iq ^aXodw .? as ns -'id

(,se XXI J^ex' ,awjBR V .00 .H .J . iOuXoT) " .aaan^oeiioo

ibtcooea sidd' nl i-nelcAqqis axorci© IjBl>ft«*adua on 91 :; 9i9dT

.bemixtVa ed eiolstadt bXworfe taemsbiil erf* bfi^
.Samitt'iA

STATE OF ILLINOIS, )

SECOND DISTRICT. f I, CHRISTOPHER C. DuPFY, Clerk of the Appellate

Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records

and Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the foregoing' is a true copy of the opinion of the

said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the

seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this Jiinth day of

March, in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred

and fifteen.

Clerk of the Appellate Court.

6044

AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE CO^T,

■ ^''^^tp.iwmfK'itrm'frf^

Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the spth day of October,
in the year of our Lord one thousand ninemundred and fourteen,
within and for the Second District of tlie State of Illinois:

Present--The Hon. DUMJE J. CARNES, Presiding- Justice.

\ ■/

Hon. DORItANCE DIBELL, Justiie.

Ion. JOHNW. NIEHAUS, Justace^ ^ -. - Q A

CHRISTOPHEB,. C. DUFFY, Clfrk. J- «^ '^

'\ i

J. G. MISCHItE, Sheriff/

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on the 9th day
of March, A. D. 1915, the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit :

Gen. No. 6044
L, 0, Eagle ton, Admr, &a,
appellee
VB Appeal from Peoria,

Prudential Insurance Company
of America. appellartt .

Niahaus, J,

In this suit the appellee L. 0. Eagleton, ae Adminii-
trator of the estate of Raohel Maloff, deceased, claimed a
right of reoovsry on two life insurance policiee, dated
raapectively December 4, 1911 and January 39, 1913; each of
said policies having been written on ths life of said deceased
and icsued upon her written application. Each of said policies
contained the following; rirovision:

"The Company's liability under this policy shall be limited
to a return of the premiums paid hereon, if the insured die
before the date hereof, or if on said d^te the insured be
not in sound health, "

Tlie case was tried by the circuit court, -vithout a jury, and
upon a written stipulation of the facte agreed uoon by both
parties. From the stipulation it appears, that the deceased
daied April 34, 1913, in less than six months aftsr ihe is-
suance of the first policy, of carcinoma (cancer) of the
Uterus; and two or three months after the iasuance of the
aecpnd policy; that at the tir.e of her death, all of the
premiums on said policies had been paid; and that the proper
roofs of death were Vurnished after her death. It was
rther stipulated, that at the time she signed both of the
applications in question, and at the time both of said policies
were issued, she was suffering of cancer of the womb; that
at the time she first made application, she advised the doo-

^^Od .oil .neO
,tA ,xmbA «no;feX3aa[ ;0 ^^
tftXIecrq*
.jBiioe? nort Ixeqqk iv

Xn^qffloO eoasiueal isUntibuT:^

. tHAil9qqA .JSOtZBOk lo

.1. ,8if£ri©XlI

-sinifflbA efi ^no^feXsjiS ,0 .J tfiXIeqq* eif* ^xub 8iri;f nl

b&^ah ^aaloiXoq ftonfiii/an,! ellX ow* no xtevooei to rf^rfgli

lo rfo«© ;8X6X jSS Y's-bj-O-b''^ ^ni:. XxeX ,^ ascfffleoeQ YXsvli^oeqaei

6«8«eoefc btBe lo eliX srfcf no ne;f;tiiw nsscf gnlvBri eeXoxXoq bxaa

telolXoq bi&B to doJs3. ,aoii&oi:lqqB aecf^flTW lexl aoqx; beirsai bn£

rnoxBlvoiq 3nJtwoXXol 9di beaif>^noo
bettmix ed XXisrie Y'^-'^Xoq Bini lebnu ^*lXicf£iX •^'^^qmoO eriT"

&ib Jbeii/sni: Bcii tl ^ao&ied btaq Brnjlaeiq erfJ "^o aiu^ez « o^
Qd fcoxuBni eri^ et'^b htsa no J.1 10 ^^toeisri a&^b 9di eioletf

".rid'XBerf bajjoe ni ;fofl

;^)i.r: vY'i^c - Jijonjx'.*- ^i-ixjoo J'/.i/oixo 9rf;f \;tf t>©i^^ ■«* ©aao exlT

il^^oo ^^d noqx; beeaga aJ-oat triit lo noi^jBlx/qlifB nei;fjtaw « noqu

&9a«eoeb eri^t i^Ai ^easeqqa it noi&aluqitB edt moo^ .aejt^iisq

-ei ari.: le^ljs itiinoai xta nsdt aaeX nl «8XeX ^^^6i liiqk baihb

tr'.i to (aeon^o) »monxoT«o lo ,YOiXoq tattlt erfJ ^o eon-sus

• rf) to 9on£un(tt eiiJ leJ'lJB sff^noci 9azdt to owj- bnii ;a;/a8*U

ariif lo XXjb ^xf^aab isri lo emlS odi ^£ isdi j^o^J^OQ bn^oaa

^aco-iq 9d;f t»dt bn£, {bisc naed had aaloJtXfiq blaa no anuifflsiq

8JBW *I .dtAsb led tette. btdBtntuI saaw dtBBb io alooiq

81W to diod t>ansia erfe emlJ^ s - t' ifjsrfJ^ ^bt*BXuqjt*a lerii^ijjl

aeioJtXoq blBs lo rii^od aml^f e/i^ i.^ ,...« ^nox^aeup nl anoirf^JJoJtXqqa

f£di icTfflOw eff:f *o aeon^o lo gntnellue bbv arfe ,Jbex/a8i eiew

tor examining her on behalf of the company, that ahe had un-
darfTone an operation fourwonthe before that time, for fibroid
tumor in the uterue, by Dr. Hayes of Peoria, Illinois; said
operation confliating of Hueterectomy, or a removal of the womb;
that on the 35th, of January 1913, she again made application
upon ''.•hjch the second policy waa issued; no reference being
made in second application to her operation; permission had
to be obtained, however, from the company before a second
policy could be io3ued; -vhich permission was granted. Three
months later, she cied of cancer.

It is farther stipulated that if the plaintiff is
e;:titled to recover under the terms of the policies on the
ground that the policies were in full force and effect,
he would be entitled to recover :!^207,40 which would include
interest up to the date of judgment; t^ero being a provision
on the face of said policies, that if riaceased died -'ithin
six matsliraonths after the date thereof, the liability shall
bo but one half of the face value; and that if, on the con-
trary, the policies were notin full force and effect as con-
tended by the appellant, becuuee of the deceased not being
in sound health at the ti^re of the issuance thereof, then
under the terms of said policies, the plaintiff should recover
but S8,90 being the amount of premiums paid by the insured
on both policies up to hsr death.

The circuit court found in favor of the appellee,
and rendered a judgment against the appellant, for the sum
of ?p307,40 and cost* of suit; from v/hich judgment an appeal
was taken to this court.

The only question involved in the review of this case,
is whether or not the limitation of the Company's liability
in thepolioies, based upon the fact that the deceased was not
in sound hrmlth, at the time the oolioies were issued, wa»

-rtx; b£d e/ls ^jQriJ- ^ynJ^qmoo sr!. fso' no itiii ^^.telrn^xe loi

aoi*jBOilqqj8 ebjsn ntj^sjs 8 fie ^KISI YijajjaAL to ,tii&S> Btii «o. >.'
gnisd Bonsisle'x on ;i)0y8ec b^w YOiXoq baooea 9rf,t doixlvr noo^i.
b£d noiestxasq ;x:ox^jB:[sqo asrl ot aoitaotiqqM bnooaa nl e£>J8-
fjnoose B ©aolscJ" ynjaqraoo erf:r moil ,:coveworf ^Jbe^l£3^d

ccoJt'asJidsae: ;&9x/eeJ: ed ZjXx/oo YOtXc

eoaol IJ lew aeioiloo sri^ i-jarij ^auo1■

noxaivoaq £ gixiec/ erxe

i. J. ■ . •■-
aldttyf fib boBAe

...■•,('.■ -
i-arlj (aeloiloq bisa ^o eojsl exf^ no

-noo e. , cJt iddt bae (•i/Ijbv eo*^ arfrf lo IXjsri ©no i'i/d •;

-coc B£ todlle fen* aoiot I Twit ni^on ©taw eeloJtXoq aric'

gnlecf ^laft baB£i^

levooai xjlt/oria ^tliJnlJBl'
I;eix/aai

oma an J -xc
X*ec ■ asingbx/t

.+ 3 rl;fXBexr :
99toiloq bl<a lo ittae* ar
;vieTtq to ^nxromji exft arrltcf Oe.
rf 0* qu aaloiXoq

:t bnuc

0 ituotto BriT

«96£0 aifii^ to vaJtvei

^i-iXitfijiX a'ynjaqffioO an* io aoi^fi^fi

JOfX aijvr jba«j380s

".:i8w ••JtptI-.

./■ix/oc
'oevXovnJt xxoiJaexrp yXno f;

*JB ^xfrf^X^prf fcffxros nx

effective at the time of her death, or had been waived by
the appellant.

It is admitted in the record, that the insured did
not conceal from the appellant, any facta in regard to her
condition of health; but that she gave to appellant ail the
information and knowledge which she possessed on that subyjeot
And it appears from the evidence, that four months before
the time of her application for insurance, she hadundergone
an operation for the removal of a fibroid tumor in the uterue;
and t"..at the operation consisted of Hysterestomy, or the
removal of the womb. Sound health, implies a sound condi-
tion of the body; and to be healthful, as defined by the
au^.horatative lexicographers of the English Language, neane
to be :u a sound state — having the parts or orrans of the
body entire; and their functions in a free, active and un-
disturbed condition. If the tumor, with which the insured
had been afflicted, was of such a grave character, that it
was necessary to remove an entire organ from the body of the
Insured, it can hardly be said, that the appellant, who had
knowxedge of this, could have reached the conclusion, that
she v/ae in sound health; and aurely, the appellant had suf-
ficient notice of tlie defective physical condition of the
insured, to be put on inquiry as to the fmll extent of her
physical imperfections.

We are of opinion that having issued the policies in
question, and accepted the premiums therefor, vith this
knowledge of the insured's defective physical condition,
the appellant thereby waived its right to enforce the limi-
tation in the policies, by which benefits accruing to the
beneficiaries could be forfeited.

If the appellant had notice of the phyeioal unsoundness

eio^scf ari;rnom iuqI iMni .eonsbiTe edJ totI awjeqqa jx DnA

exio:3:tefaai/I«ri erfe ,eanj8Xi;enl aol floi#«oxXqqs aeri " ^

t«u:t©lLf arfcr ni ionu;:r hloxdtt « lo XavoBKi :jiJ^iec., as:.

) ^Y«'0*»e'te^aTtH lo fce^aianoo aa^i^-iu^Q sjii .t»ni

-Ihnot. bfii/op « eeilqmi ^rtfXiseri bnuoB .dmow edJ lo I^vomea

8fT«3io to niiAq sriJ- saivari — Bi-&tB bauon ...

,e©il iJ at 8noi*onx;l tt&tit bn« iO'xuae >(i;
be-iueni ©ri^ rioxrfw xttxw ,aomi/^ edi M .floiJibnOo berfox/Ja -
srU ^i«(fojBiJ3rio avBog b rioi/a lo ecw ^b&toti'i'i.A noBcf
ari^ io >fbo(J eiit moal flegio f^iicrne nB evomeu o^ x^aaeeoe.
Jb«ri o.fw ,*nBXX9q- ^ ^- ^^^^^^^ «*° ^^ v''*^'

*BiI* .floxai/Xonoo ari^ bado&Qi ev£ . ijii/oo »airf* ^o eabe^wci
-li.-a bsrf taJiXleqqa •di ,xXeax;r; ; i : i bnuoa at ea- f-

:. aoi^ibaoo X«aiBxiiq tviaoexfc ..-^^..-^ +r.

asi-i iii ina^xs XX*t ©rf^ oJ a« xiXi^P«^ ^'" jijh au

jnXVJbA J£: ■ fioiitXijo io ^
;. y nwjlxsi'i odi bad'qBoo " ^..„..--

»fioUx;>floo i^ols'idii avJtifoalsfa a'bsaue"*- ^f'**'^"

at, fir:' -o eoi-'

of the insured, at the tir'ie of the is?8uanoe of the policies,
then the extent of such unsoundness is not material upon the
question of its right to enforce the limitation rrentionod.
In the case of Demintj v Prudential Insurance Co, of America
169 111. App, 103, the court in passing ur>on an instruction
involving this question, ajtys:

■Appellant insists that this instruction was erroneous for the
reason that although ths agent miglit have known at the time
the i>Bi±B]|E policies T/ere issued the insured was not in
sound health, yet he might not have known that the insured
was at that tine afflicted with consumption which the evi-
dence shows suhsequently caused his death; that in order
to constitute a -waiver tie knowledge on ths part of the
a' ent must have been that the insured wag afflicted with
oona\imption and ths instriiction should have so 9t>"ted , . .
The instruction complained of followed the language used
in the policy and covered and included in its terras, not
only consumption but any other malady or disease which might
cause unsound health. If the agent of anpellant was notified
when he took th*? application for insurance, that the insured
was not jn sound health, then it is not entitled to avail
itself as a defense of i hat provision of the policy, which
limited its liability if the insured was at such time notin
sound health, and it is immaterial what caiised such condi-
tion of health on the part of the insured, Tliere was therefore
no error in the giving of appellees' instruction,"

That this kind of limitation of the liability of the in-
surer in life insurance policies may be waived by trie insurer
is well Hettled in this ntate, (Hancock Life Irs, Co, v
Schlink, 175 111, 384; Derclng v Prudential Ins, Co, 189 111
App, 96; Harviok v Modern Woodmen of America 158 111, App, 570)
Trie' j\idgment of the Circuit Court of Peoria County should be
affirmed, . r-— --rrr-— _Wdfc««s"^^'^=-'*^ \

nojttou-iaani rra rtovi/ anls^Bq nl tiuoo add- »8QX .qciA .XXI 8"X

erft lot •voeaoTis saw xxoi^ouxcfefll airi;^ ^jsri^f eJaianx cfnaXXeqqA"

nn ftJBw fteii/arrt srfJ' Jbsxioai ©tew ••ioiioq 3|«li«^ & ■
Ije'ijjaiii Bdi *Miii ttfroaH av^ri *o« trivia ©d ;faTf ,ii*i/ittil fcnwoo
-ivs arfi rfotrlw noiJcmjjertoo dJ-xw ijed-otX^l^ eai* rfadJ- J-b er/r
.^g. • -r- - tff fieajjjso YX^neupsBcfiiS tworie a onto

..Aq eiU no esheXwofli otf* aavi/jw » o^y^i^t^nao o>r
:.oJ-olX^lA pf'W battuaxii eri* »r«ril naed ev^fl ^bwib *fib i-
,&cf-.+B OR 9V£ri JbXuctfa noitouiiBai 9tii bn« noi^qawan^-o
LsBJj assugnjiX e.'it bewoXXo^ lo f)«niftXqmoo [igtioiJi$Br^.\
d-on ^•r.a8;t p^I ni tebuLov.t bae beisvoo ba^ ^oxXoq - ^
d-rfsim riolrfw etJsaaii-' tto x^*-!^** teriifo yp.B tud noiiqsauBttoo \:J.iio
be ilict on b«w cfrJBXlaqq* ^o ^nes£ eri.^ ^I »/UX£ert fcitifoaxii; eeirBO
te-xjjani ©ri^- *»ri;r ^eortjsTifBfti to^ aoi^BoiXqq* eriiT Jtoo? eii neuw
XioJrfi o^ bisliUno foa ex Ji noriJ" ^fi^X^sri fonifoe nt *on BiJW
rioca ■ ^yoiloq ©•'^^ "'^ /toxexrcnq t&dif lo eanfllaft fl aa IXeeJi
niJori »Mjt:t rfn,.'a Jr, ee.tf fceixrani srfiT li x:fiXldJiiX 8;fX hei imil
-ibnoo rioxra fsnirxio Snan Lattetsrar^t ai ft ba^ ,xl#X/iftri hnuOB
Biol9i&df aJ9^ ©iBflT ,bBiuBat s:'.^ ^- *-sq Bii* rto |i*Xfl»ri ^o nox*
-.aoitajjT^ani «808i-..n :■,» :o gfT>tvJ:7i ocfJ oi loi-xe on
-nX oaj '0 ^(^iXidJBiX Bilt lo «oi*«.-tJt«lX lo baki Bitii iJidH
leiuent atU x<^ bsvlaw ecf ^jatr. asloxXoq Bona'xxieni elxX tit aex^j©
V .00 .erfl BlJtil ioooflfiH) .•J^stn airf* nl J>«X*;f9e XXsw ^r
XXI e»X ,oO ,arl iBtitt&bui*^ v aaimsO l*'8S .XII aVX ^inlXdoa
' ' .■,;'' "ax JDotrtomA lo nambooW aiBboU v jIoxvxbH i3e .qqA

STATE OF ILLINOIS, )

SECOND DISTRICT. ) ^^' I, CHRISTOPHER C. DuPPY, Clerk of the Appellate

Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records

and Seal thereof, do hereby certipy that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the

said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the

seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this ninth day of

March, in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred

and fifteen.

Clerk of the Appellate Court.

AT A TEEi: OF THE APPELLATE COURT,

Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the slxfa day of April,

in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and fifteen,
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:
Present — The Hon, DORRAIICE DIEELL, Presiding Justice,
Hon, DUAIJE J, GARIJES, Justice
Hon, JOHN M, NIEKAUS, Justice
CHRISTOPHER C, DUFFY, Clerk.
E. M. DAVIS, Sheriff

193 lArd6^

EE IT aEI4ElBERED, that afterwards, to-wlt: on the 15th day
of A-ril, A, J, 1915f the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk's of ilea of said Cornet, In the vjords and figxires
f olloviin;^ , to-v.'it :

I

k

«w 483 77

l«re« Truft it 8»Tiiic« Bmnk, ftpp«ll«nt,

▼*• AppMl froB 0«Kalb.

W. f . ?•!], %pp«llt«. I

BIBXLL, J* On Il«y S7, 190a, th« .Pl«re« Trust A

iTlngt Bank, a bankSnc cotpormtion 09itm> butln-«e In Byemaort Ir Dt
lib CouBt>, »nttr'id up judcawt by oonf«ttlon on % note for 1 1,000,
ttcutod by w. f . Boll, of tho ouie city, tho Judgaont, ^principal, In^
•••t uid AttomoyM foot, uicuntirc to 11,078.25. On July 6, 1908,
>13 Bftdo % wrltton aotlce, fupportod by mffldavlt, to T«o«te o«ld
id«Bont and for Iooto to plood, and on order wmt ontored, T«e«tlnc
to j«dc«tntand pomittlnc Coll to pload, but proterTlng the 3ler of
It Judgment on hit property. Thereupon Bell filed % plea of
it general lotue and aleo eoTon epecl%l pl*»«, allying, no reaeone
y he ihould not be required to pay eald note, w%nt of oonelderatlon;
•olToney of the Jobbere Uanufaeturlng Coapany of Illlnole, to ahoai
♦jtte vae originally given In 9»|BaDt for eharee of Itt capital
tJok, end knowledge of^i^ujoh IniolTcncy on the part of the Bark and
e offlcere %t the Uae the Bank puiAhnoed the note froa the Jobbere
npany; knowled^o by the Bank and Ite offlcert of the want of conoid-
»tlcn; end a coneplraoy betweer the offioort of th4 Jobbere Company
d the offlcere of the Bank to defraud the defendant. , The eoTonth
•clal plea alleged that, %t the tlae the note h«re in queetlon wee
eeuted, the Jobbere Cott^any enteral Into a eeiMrata wrlttaa
reement with Bell, by which It wae to extend hie note for elx monthe
tor It beoaae due. If he wae not ready to pay It when due, and that,
tho tlae judgaent wao entered, eald note wao not due by the terme
Mid agreenont. The plaintiff filed repjloattone, denying the
argee of coneplraoy an c clalalng that It took the note In the
u»l oouree of buelneee for a Talvabla oonelderatlon In good faith
fore aaturlty, and that It had no knowledge of the eeperate
Itten agreeaent between

I

484

II And th« Jobbers Coapftny. Tttere «•• a jury trial which resulted in
rerdlot in f»Tor of the defendant* A aotion by plmintiff for a new
lei vee OTorruled and Judgaent was entered against plaintiff for
Its, froa which plaintiff below appeals.

Appellant is organised as a banking corporation under the lawa

this Etate and was erigaged in that business in Sycaaore in October «
1)7, at which tlae one Townsend wae pr^ident. About October 19« 1907,

I. Crawford, then preeident of the Jj|bbers Uanufacturlng Coapany of
aayre« went to appellant and offered to eell it a note executed by
)ellee on that date, and being for the payaent of $1,0C0 six aontho
ter date to the order of said Jobbers Coapany, with interest at the
le of oeren per cent per annua until paid. The note also contained
>ewer of attorney, authorizing any attorney of an^ court of reoord to
ifess Judgaent on said note at any tlae after the date thereof, with
I eustoaary proTlslons regarding waiTor of proceee and ieeue of ex-
ition. The appellant bought this nets and paid for it by giving
I Jobbers Coapany credit for f 1,000 on a note which appellant held
ilnst said Jobbers Coapany. This transaction was carried on for app*
Lant by the cashier, although he first consul tsd Towasend, the pre*
Isnt of the bank, with regard to the ptarchaee. Appell%nt held the
te until April 16, 1908, when it was due by its terms, and then not!-
ed appellee that it held the note and that it wae due. Appellee went

the Bank and discussed the natter with the rice preeident of that
itltution and with the assistant eashisr, at which tlae appellee
ited that he could not pay the note then but would take care of it
fore the aiddle of May. Ke did not take care of the note as he had
reed in hie conTorsation with the Tice president of appellant and, on
e 27th of May, 1908, appellant caused judgaent to be entered upon It

confession. Appellant now asks that the rerdict and Jud^aoit in
9 lower court be reToreed upon the following grounds: (Ij that there

I

•no proof that, ^en «ftld nolo wao glron, «ald stock wma Taluoloot or
»ld corporation mo Inoolront, or that at the tlma the note In contro-
erey was purchased by appellKnt, It or Its officers or agents, had any
Dowled^e that appellee had bought atock in the Jobbers Company and had
iTon this note in payment therefor or that the stock ^s of no Talue
t the time the note was given, or that there was any fraud or conspir-
ey on ths part of appsllant or ite officers and agents; (2 J that the
rial court erred in admitting certain oTldence offered by appellee;
Bd (3j that the trial court erred in giving certain instructions to
he Jury, requeeted by appellee. We will first discuss the second
round, for ^xnreraal.

1% appear e from the teetlaony that in the eunmer of 1906* the
obbcrs Ir'anufacturing Company of Bouth Dakota, at that time located in
hlcago, made an agreement with Towneerd, pretident of appellant, by
hlch Towneend agreed to furnish the company with $12,500 to >e used
y it In the purchaee of a factory site in the city of Sycamore, the
Tectlon of a building thereon and the removal thereto of the machinery,
iqulpment and material of the company; th^a this agreement wae curried
lut nnd the company moved to Byoamore and engaged In busineee there,
iseulng note?" to Towneend for the monlee so advanced, which notes were
)y hiiE aeelgned to appellant; that then and up to the time the note
lere In queetion was given, the company owned consloerable equipment and
jertaln patents on hardware specialties and on a gas machins, #ilch It
las engaged In manufacturing, and h%d succeeded in eelllng stock to a
lumber of residents and busineee men in Sycamore. During the stamer
>f 19c7 it was decided to incorporate under the la-^e of Tlllnole and
thle wae done, all the effecte, IneludlnK the good will, of the South
DaVota company being traneferred to the Illinole company, subject to
the debte of the South Dakota Company, which the Illinole company agreed
to pay. On the 38th of October, 1907, after the Illinole corporntion

' 486

Id tetn orc«niz«d and all the effectr of th« South Dakota coajany had
ten t«rntd over to it. It cold appellee one hundred eharee of Ite pre-
irred etock, of the par ralue of |10 4u each, and appellee gare
lerefor the note here In queetlon. At that tine and euVeequent
iqreto the company wae operating ite plant and manufacturing and eel3 -
»g the article* authorized by itr charter. At different tlmee after
a**S keuiiJm e tf appellee* e note, appellant adTanced money to the
)mpary, >me on »»• iieteie^ llie HUiUfj el ine aw* >■■• or the note of
le company and ite officer*. The company continued to carry on Ite
Jtineee until about the f ir«t of April, 1908, when it ceared to do
tieineee. All thie erldence ae to the traneactlone and financial
)nditlon of the company wae offered \j appellee and admitted by the
)Wrt, over the objectione of appellant. ^e hare etudled thie eridenoe
irefullyV both In the aletract and In the record iteelf, and we find
a eritftnoe fro« which the Jury could reasonably conclude that the
ompany wae ineolTent at the time appellee bought hi* etock and gmve
ie note therefor or at the time when appellant bought thie note from
be company. '.he fnct thnt appellant loaned money to the company,

oth before and after the dste of appellee's note, would tend to ehow
hat the bank considered the coj.pany to be fcund financially. The
Hct that eereral of the loahe made to the company were erldenced by
otep elgned not only by the company, but aleo by the officer? of the
ompany In their indlvldval capacity, would not neceeearily indlcnte
hat th- VnnV coneidercd the company to be ineolYent, as such a
Tocedure ie often adopted In the ordinary course of banking bue-
nep*. •^e are of opinion thit t^le e-flderce ne to the llnancial
ondition of the company and as to the change In Ite organization from
.hat of a Couth Dakota corporation to that of one operating under the
awe of thie State should not ha^e been admitted and allo-^ed to go to ^O-
|ur:/, unless connected with other STldence clearly tending to ehow
.>"Ht theee facte were known to some officer or agent ol appellant.
"▼en if there )-.ad Veen such connecting eTidence, we fail to find any

oof plainly pointing to the intolrtncy of the conpany^ WhlU appellee
lege*- In hla brief th«it the etocV of the company w%e not relllng
n' jr the r«mer of 1907, we fail to find any eufflcient proof of the
ct. There !• eTldence ol the ealef of etock to appel3ee and to one
o«B and to eeTsral other cJtltena of Sycamore. V.ut there ie no eri-
nce of any attempt by the company, or 1 te officers or agents, to eeU
ock to any person, which failed to result in such sale. Appellee
mrges in hie brief th^t the notes of the company were due and unpaid
d that it had become necessary to do so:aethlng to get more money,
plying, we pre.-u.e. thnt O - c.u^ar^ ^s insolTent and hard pressed.
« eTidenoe .hows that a note of the company for t2.000 came due In
euet. 1907, and that the inter-jst had been paid, together with a part
' the principal. '"e flna no evidence ter-ding to ?how ^ai the bark
,(1 demanded payment of this note or that the company was pushed for
mei, m the siarner or fall of 1907. Appellee contends that th- banV
lew of the organisation of the company under the la-s of this Gtate.
Td evidently claims th-.t this change in organization was a confession
rmsolTency. Even if the appellant did Vnow of the change in or-
inuatlon on the part of the co-npany, ( and the .ttdence is by no
sans clear on that point,) still ^ do not consider that to be any
fldence. in itself, of financial sobarraer.ent . Appellee devotos

oneldernble cpace Ir. his brief to a discussion of the agreement where-
y Townrend, the president of appellant, became a trustee of the
outh Davota Company for certain purposes, ana argues that Town-
lend's relations with both of thsse co.ipanles were ?.o close that he
lUSt have Vn.wn that the Illinois company was insolvent ^t the time
appellant purchased the note of appellee, but, as we have already
stated. ^ find no satisfactory proof in ihe ecord that the Illinois
!0,pany -ae in fact insolvent at the time in question. In fact.

>ne Jarley. who became president of the company in Ootober, 1907,
testified that, from any infomati.n he had at that time, the company
»as solvent. As «:arlev afterwards asMeted the company In securing

%

• 488 •••

credit on two occasions, by eignin« notee for It, it m*y be fairly
Inferred th%t the j/reeident of the company did not consider It In-
iolrent and that it was not, in fact, IneolTent in October, 1907«
'^e consider t>»t the eridence Introduced In regard to the c>Targe In
• rganization and th* trust agreenent was calculated to mislead the
Jury, unlets followed up *y eTidence ehowirg the actual ineolTenoy
of the company In ]»07 and the Vnowledge of such a condition of
affairs by some officer or agent of appellant. Thether or not
appellant knew of th<? change in organization ippenre to us to be
entirely Inanaterlal.

In our opinion, the material quest Ion to this case is,
whether or not appellant purchased thie note in good faith, for a
valuable consideration, before maturity. If the evidence shows that
appellant, through its officert or agents, nt the time it purchased
the note of appellee from the c^pany, knew that this note had been
given for stock in said coiapary and thnt said company was Insolvent
and the stock valueless when it was purchased, then the judgmert should
stand, as appellant would not be an innocent purchaser, and the note
would be without any valuable coneideratlon . If appellant knew
none of there things, then the Judgment should be reversed and the
cauee remanded to the lower court for a new trinl. Fwrther, ever If
the evidence ehow«? that appellant, at that time, knew thie not- had
beer given for stock in said company, yet if appellant did not
know that the company was ineolvent and the ttock worthless, then the
Judgment should be reversed and the c-use remanded.

We are un.ibl e to find any direct evloence in the record to
prove that appellant knenr the note here In queetion war given ir >%y-
aent of stock in the Jobbers ComiAny . Appellee testified that he
had questioned Townsend, appellant's prerldent, several times wit^
regard to Investing some -soney in the company, but Townsend deniee
lUvic^ advised any one to >uy the stock, and there it no evidence
wh-ttever In fche record to show that Towrfend yvetr thn t appellee had,

m

489 ^-

In fact, made a purchae« of «tock. Snow, th« caehier of Xh«i bank

In October, 3 907, teat If led that when he htd a talk with Crawford,
the president of the company, ulth regard to the purchae** of thie
note, Crawford did not tell hla whnt the conelderatlon of the note wae ;
that Crawford gare hia to underetand he wae taking thla note ae a reeult
of eoae dealings he une hnvlng with appellee. V9 do not coneicer
thie ae satiefactory proof that the officere of the bank knew that
thie note wae actually giren for etock, but even if they did have
euch knowledge, we ire unable to find, after a careful eearch of the
record, any ^Tloence tending to prore that the Jobbere Company
wae ineolTent In Cctober, 1907, or that appellant knei>' It wae Ineo*
iTent. Had the bank known that the company wae inaolvent at
that time, it would hardly hare continued to loan money to the
C(»pany, eyen though the n^tee OTidenclni^ nuch loane w*re aleo signed
by eome of the officere of the c.os^any . When the* bank called upon
appellee to pay thie note Ir tht Cpring of 1906, nix monthr after 1 1«
execution and purchaee by the bank, it le plain that appellee did
not then conelder that he had any ralld excuee for not paying the
note, for he agreed to take care of it abo'^t a month later.
He did not then accue'> the bank of haring purchaeed the note in the
face of knowledge on It* part that the note had been giver by him for
worthleep f .uck in an Ineolvent corporation. In our opinion,

appellee hae failed to prove three -eeentlale to enable him to
avoid payment of thie note, namely, that the Company wae Ineolvent ard
its r tock worthleee when the note wae given, that the banV knew the
note wae given for etock, and that the bank knew, at that time, that
the c<Bipany wae ineolvent and ite etock worthleee. ""e find no
Juetlf ication in the record for the claim of appellee in his brief
that a conepiracy exeieted whereby appellant wae not an innocent
owner of eaid note, or an owner without conelderatlon. Th«

)ttrd«n of proof ««■ upon appellee to ehow that the benk tme not an
innocent holder mnd, h«Tinfi fftiled to do eo, the Judftment of the court
lelow o»nnot be euet«ined.

The firet Inetraotion, glren for appellee, atated that
here a prealaeory note le firen without eoneideration, the holder of
id note oaaaet oolleet the ease in a eult at law.* Thia ie an err-
neuttn atateBiot of the law. Tha law goreralBc the righte of an aee-
nee of oeaaeroial paper hae often been dieoueeed by our courte and la
fficiantlj atated la CoMetook ▼. Hannah, 76 111. 630, Murray t. Beok-
th, 81 111. 43, Bradwell t. Pryor, 221 111. 602, and Karanaugh t.
nk of UK Aaerioa, 239 111. 404. We are of opinion that the forego-
I eztraot froa eaid inatructlon ia not euffieiently cured by the
tter part of the inetruction, and that at beet it waa wmUmmkm^ cal-
Lated to nlelaad the Jury upon a Tary naterial point in the oaae.
I fourth inetruction ie eo worded ae to indicate to the Jury that the
Idenoe ahowed that the facta therein enwerated were known to the
Ik when it purchaeed thie note, and thie wae improper. The fifth
itruction ^Ten for appellee ie defectire, probably beoauee of the
leeion of eone worde intended te be Ineerted. The other Inetructione,
'*" '•'i ▼i*'™"^ •'• inTolred and contain iaperfeotione. They
>ult be nore carefully prepared upon another trial.

The Judgment ie rerereed and the cauee remanded.

^nJ#

M^^^jUf-

STATE OF ILLINOIS,]

Appellate Court, Us.

Second District, J I^ PAUL V. \VUNDER, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and

for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do
hereby certify that the foregoing is a true, full and complete copy of the opinion of the said Appel-
late Court in the above-entitled cause, now of record in my said office.

I

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand
\ and affix the seal of said Appellate Court, at Ot-

tawa, this././ day of.

in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred

and <^\y:tY~(^-<^ '

t79969-3M-i2-59) 2,,^^ " '''cierJc'oftheAppdlateCourL''

AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,

Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the sixth day of April,

in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and fifteen,
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:
Present — The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Presiding Justice.
Hon. DUANE J. GARInTES, Justice
Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Justice
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk.
E. «. DAVIS, Sheriff 1 9 3 I .A. 3 7 4

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on the 15th day
of April, A.D. 1915, the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk's office of said Court, in the vjords and figures
following , to-wit :

• 562 I ' ^"--^

«U43 50

Waaten Coal Company, appolloo, )

ra, ] Appoal from Will.

Aaerican Itofraetorioo Company,
Appallant*

DIBXLL, J. Vliaaon Coal Company trovght thlo ault

againat American ^afraetoriee Company for coal aold and d<tllTcrad to the
lattar upon a contract tharetoforo azlatlng batwaen tha tvo corporate
lent. Tha defendant admitted the amount claimed, tut filed a plea of
■et-off, clalmlnc damagea in exceaa of plalntiff*a claim for failure on
the part of plaintiff to delirer all of the defendant'a requirementa in
the matter •f co41, aa the contract required. There «aa a jury trial
tnd a Terdict in favor of plaintiff and acainat defendant 'e claim of
■ et-off, in the eum of tl,846.0e, a^ich aaa the full amount claimed by
plaintiff* Motiona for a new trial and in arreet of Judgment vere de»
nied, and plaintiff had judgmmt on the verdict, from which the defend*
ftnt below appeal a*

Bt Appellee 'a declaration conaiated of the common eounta*
To thie, appellant filed the general iaeu*, and alao a plea of aet-off ,
ehlch alleged, in brief, that on September 9, lOlG, appellant bargained
vith appellee that appellee aell It appellant* a requiremente of coal,
called Harrleburg three»inoh ecreeninge, from September 1, 1910, to
^'^'^^xA^* 1912, upon apecifled tema and eondltione; that from 8ept«i*
ber 1, 19IO9 to Deewber 1, 1911, appellee fumietaed appellant with ite
rfqulrememte of thre«*iBoh eereenlnfa; that from Deoeaber 1, 1911, to
■rch 31, 391S, •V9ellant*e retulreaente of three-inoh eoreenlnfe were
It, 499 tone, vhieh amount appellant ordered of appellee; that, diirinc
•«id period, appellee fvrniehed te appellant only 8,691 tone, but would
Dot delirer and refueed and negle«%«4 te deliver 1,807 tone of eaid
ooal, ordered Igr mpfellant and r«oir«< by ite plant, by reaeon whereof

5G3

2

4ppell%nt •uttained daaagee in the eum of t2,027.28. To thit pl«a of
8et-off» appellee filed arri^Ilcatlon, averring that the eaid contract
bvtveen the partiee prorSded that la waa made aubject to etrlkee* acci-
lente, car aupply and oth*r cauaee beyond the control of either party ,
and that ahould appellee te unable to fill the epeclflcailone of app-
ellant, due to any of thoee ccntlngenciee, appellee ahould iomedlately
notify appellant of auch Inability to make full ehipmente and the reae-
ona therefcr; and that, at all tluee during the life of the contract,
when appellee wie unable to fill the apeciflcatione of appellant, auch

inability wae on account of eaid contlngenclee, of vhlch It liomediately

>
notified appellant. Appellee aleokfiled a general replication to app-
ellant's plea of eet-cff and appellant filed ♦ rejoinder Utereto ^^u^^^i^'i^Piy
IL At the tine of the commencement of thie euit, appellant was

hgaged in the manufacture of •^ elllca, magneeite and ohrocie bric]r at
Rockdale, near Jollet, in Hill County. Theee brick are uaed in ^/lacea
where realatance to very high temperaturer ie necessary and are worth
from fcur to twenty 'five times as much as common brick. 7n the process
of manufacture theee brick are burned In kilns, shaped like bee hires,
having eight fire boree each, placed at equal distances around the base
of the kiln. The coal im fhoveled into these boxer by hand and« as It
is essential that the fire boxes be kept closed, a reasonably fine grade
of coal must be used to prevent cold air being sucked in over the top
of the fire. These brickA, when hot, are very susceptible to cold

air, and, if cooled too rapidly, will check or crack and be worthless.
During the last five >ears prior to the trial appellant had confined
itself to the uas of three-inch ocreeninge in its kilns and used about
ICG tons thereof per day, seven days in the week. On September 9,
1910, appellee and appellant tntered into the following contract:

5G4

Chicago rept . 9, 3910,

CCAL cor TRACT

rArSCK COAL CClIPAITf 07 rARRIEPURG, ILL. afireee to eel] :

AltSRICAIT REi-RACTCRITlir CCMPAJTY OF CVICACC, ILL. agreef to buy:

(Quantity;-

Compiry'* plant at Jollet, 111. of Kar-

er

Prlca:- tl.^e per ton of 2000 pounds, y. 0. E.

care Rockdale, 111. Thle price le
bated upon the precent freight rate of
96^ per net ton, and any Increnpe In t^ie
rnt* to Ve added tc the above price and
ir. ^^-y decrease to Ve deducted from thi»

bore price.

Set%leinente; • ^'eighte ae accertalr.ed or the ecal*fi of

the "eetern P.ailiriy Weighing Aeeoclatlon
at P.ocVdale, 111. ehmll trorerr eettlernent,
HT\'i accountP '.re due am payab] • on the
2oth of each month for %11 coal delivered
to American 'efractcr lee Com^^any during
the preceding month.

rhortage In

rh:pm?rtip ;?■ >cr>enlri.e; It ie agreed that If at any time during

the life of thle contract the '.'aapon Coal
Co. ie unaMe to supply the entire re-
qulremente of the American Refractoriee
Co. of 3 Inch ecreenirgr, that the Taeeon
Coal Co. will Bo advlee the American e-
fractoriee Co., ra tJe ""atter rhal"' have
the right to specify shlpnert of Karrie-
burg L'ine Run coal In eufflclent ouantity
to make up the thGrtat;e on 3 inch ecreen-
In^p and that the i.rice on such mine run
• hall be |1 .93 per ton of 2UoO po-onde,
y . U.S. carp R.>:Vin]*, II : .

CtrlVer, Lockouts,

Accidents L Car This contract ie raade, subject t. strives,

t3upi;]y:- locVjuts, accident?, car supply, 'ind ether

causes heyond the control of either party
hereto, but should the Tasson Coal Com-
pany t« urabl • to fill the specification*
of the American Lsfractorl^'P co.iyiiny, dae
tj a.-;^' of thef'-? contingencies, the Coal
Company shall iniraediatsly notify the
Refractories Company of their inability
to make full shipments and the reason
therefor.

• 5G5

t tht tla* thla eentzmot ««• •z«e«t«d. It wm« uadtreteod b«tw«tnnh«
artlvt that tht r«quirai*nt0 of Apptllant would b« «bout 100 tons per
ay, for eoTin days in tho «««k» but It was cuatomary for the operatic
eed of appellant to notify appellee from tlae to time of the amount
f coal required. Appellee furnished appellant with its entire require -
ente of coal from the date of the contract, Eeptember 1, 1910, up to
eomber 1, 1911. yrom December 1. 1911, to and including karch 31,
912, the date of expiration of the contract, appellant ordeScd 10,499
6nt of appellee, about 1,600 tone leee than Ite ordinary requirenente
f 100 tone per day. Appellee did not fumleh appellant with the amount

isMt^

X ordered imeiythe datee epecified, but only tent it 8,691 tone, and
he difference between the amount ordered by appellant and the amount
eoelTod by it from appellee wae 1,807 tone. Appellant con tende that, t
n order to make up this deficieoojr and to keep ite kilne goinc. It vae
bilged te go out into the open market and purchase such ceal ae it
ould get, at a much higher price than it would have had to pay appellee
nder the contract; that it expended $2,027.28 fn.purchaeing euoh coal,
>r |180.t8 mere than it tlHm owed appellee for the coal it did ftimish
;e appellant; and that appellee wae producing coal in sufficient tuan*
itiet to tamTeTKppellaiit with lis requirements and shsuld be held liable
:er l|ie amount appellant was obliged to expend outside of said contract,
appellee contends that its production of the kind of ooal required bgr
appellant waelfmaterially reduced by causes expreeely mentioned bgr the
:otttract as axeusiag it from liability; that appallaat was intnasing
Its orders oomsiderablj STer and a^TC what it actually required te r«D
Its kilns and was storing coal in amtioipation of a possible strike on m
>r about April 1, 1918; that appollaat oas only omtitlod to ordor frca
tppelloo so mmch coal as it aotumlly moodod to rum iio kilas 19 to tko
ixpiraticB of the ceatract, but not for purpceoo of storage, to bo oood
It soms indefiaite date after the ooatrmot had expired; amA that app-

566

•llftst, iB purohatlDc outtSdt o«aX» «14 not do oo to tho boot od<f«ii*

ftfo, but pvrehaood eool of o hlghor g xmdo and at a hlghor prloo. thou

Rt Boooooory^ ond thot, by roaooy of all tho eondltloBO, appolloo io

•littod froa all liability for failuro to fill tho ordoro of appollant.

During tho laot four nontho of tho llfo of thio contract*

roB DoeoBbor 1. 1911, to March 31, Itlt, tho total production of app*

lloo*o Bino aaountod to 122,390 tono of coal. Thio So eallod aino run

•al, that, io,all tho ooal that coboo froi tho aino. Tho kind of coal

pocifiod la tho contract ao *throo inch ecrooningo" aoant all ooal that

»uJd paoo ^^■■■K^ throtwh ooroono having VolooTthroo inehoo ta Attm k^^

A
tor. Thoro as io botwoon ib% and 60ft of throo inch teroonlngo in tho

iBO run coal, and vhothor throo inch oerooningo aro producod or not

laply dopoBdo upon whothor or not tho ooal io run OTor a throo inch

croon. Throo inch oerooningo aay bo father ooparatod or diTidod into

oal oallod "10. 1 nut,* "Io. 2 But," *Ho. 3 lut," and "Udh and a qoav-

•r ooro«ni«g«»l ^«t thooo four oitat, uhon put togothor, or bofiiro b«*

ag ooparatod, aro throo inch oerooningo. Appollant oontondo that, in

•toraining tho aaount of throo Inch oerooningo appolloo producod imm

or each of tho laot four aontho of tho contract, thoro ahould bo taken

Bto con oi deration, not only tho aaount liotod ao throo inch oorooningo,

ut aloe the aaounte produced in tho ohapo of 9o. 1 nut, Vo. 2 lut, ye.

• |ttt and inch and a quarter aeroeBiag** •• thooo latter, before being

oparatod, aaount to three inch ecreeninge. If thie eoi^utatioa of app-

illaat le aeeepted, appellee produoed, during thooo four aontho, nearly

'••000 iOBO of three inch eeroeninge. On tho other hand, if wo confine

ii| ooaputttioB otriotly to tho m*kam% aaount of three inch eeroeninge

flkuead ao ouch, ao teetif iod «» by a reproooBtatiTo of appellee, wo

riid frea the reotrd that af»ell«e ffw«ftoed 28 .M? teat of tteee iadh

'erooainge during.thooo four aontho. During tho oaae tiao appellant *o

trdtro were for 10, Of tono of three Inch ocrooBlngo, aad it wao only

rumlohod with S,M1 tono. In appellee*o brief it olaiao that tho OTi-

, 567

d«no« rthat App«ll«« produe«d 20«T40 tons of thr«« inoh toroonlnco dur-
ing th« aonth of March, 1912, it ftn orror, tut wo aro unablo to ooo tho
'orco of Its rooioninc and «o aro otll<«d to tako tho flguroo ao thoj
ippoar In the record. In either OTont, appellee lo shown to hare teen
ible to produce an amount of three inch ecreenSngt, by oonhlnlng -Ite
rodttotlon of Ko. 1 Fut, Ko. 2 Fut, Fo. 3 rut and Inoh and a quarter
lereenlnge durlac those four sentha* or by not oeparaiiac tho ihroo inoh
lereenings into those different classes, much more than sufficient to
LSTO suppliftd the requirements of appellant. There ie no OTidonce in
he record, so f%r ao we oan asGortain» to «how that appellee was under
iblifiUiOBS to furnish its coal, of whateror sise, to other ouetomers,
kore binding than its obligation to fumieh appellant with Its orders
)f throe iBoh soroenings. Much str«#i is laid by appellee upon the
iTidtaeo by the manager of appellee as to the curtailmont of its pro-
LuctiOB during the monthe mentioned, by reaeon of acoldfato, cold woath-
tr, lack of men, eto. Without discussing these mattere in detail, wo
loubt Tory much whether they conotitute sufficient excuse for appellee 'e
railure to fulfill its contract. The oTidence clearly shows that, in
ipite of all these hindrances, appellee wae able to prmduee 122,330 tons
>f coal during thie period and, in our opinion, it hae shown no Talid
reaeon why it could not hare produced and deliTered to appellant 10,490
tone of three inoh scrsenirge. It did furnish appellant 8,691 tons and
apparently should haTS had no difficulty in furniahing 1,607 tone more,
rhls shortage of 1,807 tons amounted to about 45 cars of coal and in
regard to that shortfgo appellee* e manager teetified: "I did not take
up the ehortage of 45 oara olaimed by the defendant. I did not intend
to make it up and I did not make it up." There is no claim in this
tsstimony that appellee could not hare made up this shortcge; simply,
that it did not Intend to do eo.

Appellee contende that appellant did ndt need all the coal
It was. ordering for the purpose of running its kilns up to the 31et day

i't7^

f Kftreh, 1912, th« dftt« of th« ttralnation of tho oontraet, but that

t tmo ttolnc* or trylnc to uoo, Ito eontract with ftpp«ll«« to ooeuro

Ml to to otorod and uood by It afttr April flrot, oteuld thoro bt •

trlko anoBc tho coal alnoro; that |^(^||f|A no right to coal froa app*

illoo for otorago purpoooo; and it ia at loaot iapliod that thia vao ono

f tho roaoona for tho failnro of appolloo to fulfill ita eontraot.

ban appalloo ontorod into thio contract. It oxpoctod to bo oallod upon

0 fumioh appollant with about 100 tona of coal por day, for aaTon daya

n tho wook; in othor wordt, that it would to called upon to fumiah

ppollant with 12*100 ton* of coal during tho laot four aontho of tho

lontraot. Inotoad of ordering that aaount during that poriod, appall -

Jit only ordorod 10,499 tona and tho oTldonco ohowa that it actually

onouBOd in ita kilno during that aaao poriod 10,285 tona. It ia thoro*

'oro ohow) that, in four nontho, appalladt only ordorod 214 tono aoro

han it aotually raqalrad for ita kilao, or about two daya atqpply, and

hat ita ordora woro actually 1,600 Una loao than appalloo had axppctad

;o bo oallod upon to furniah whon it ontorod into thio contract. Wo

'ail to find any oridonco tending to ohow that appellant wao engaged in

obtained from appellee under tble contract,
ttoring a large quantity of coal^for uao after March 31at and wo do not

\%m it aaa^aary to diaeuaa tho quaailon whether or not ap^allant would

vara been entitled to uee ite contract for euAh a purpoee«

8 5G8

Th« proof ohows that appellant foar«d thor* would be a strike In the
coal Binee In April, 1912^ and that It would be Anable to procure co4
for the operation of Its buelnete for eome tlae. Before December, 1911,
appellant began buying coal and storing It for use during eald expected
strike, and before the end of this contract appellant had bought and
stored enough coal to enable it to operate ite business for a month or
six weeke iffter April 1, 1912. Appellee sought to have appellant buy
said etorag'e coal from It, but appellant refused to do so, becauee app*
ellee vas already so much In arrears under this contract. Appellant
bought eald storage coal elsewhere and did not obtain an^^ of It from
appellee. Ihf^ appellee failed to supply the amount of coal required
by the contract during December, January , February and l!arch, and app-
ellant needed coal for Its dally use and found It difficult to b«;y the
requlreocoal on the market. It took eome coal for Immediate needs from
the other coal In stora^s. Appellant had a right to return that amount
of coal to the stor/age pile from coal supplied by appellee under this
contract, without subjecting Itself to the claim that It was using ^^^* <^rjfS^
to store up coal for uee after April 1, 1912. We are of opinion that
appellant's orders, during theee four monthe, were no more than were
required for Its actual operations and that, during the same period,
appellee produced enough ooal to have enabled It to Mkmm flll#^ those
orders*

The erldence of appellant la undisputed that the total ohort-
age In appellee'e ehlpnents was 1,807 tons and that this shortags ex-
Istsd at or shortly prior to lUroh 9, 1^12. On that date appellant
wrote appellee as follows;

1

560

• X X X In eh«ckiBC up 7^^^ •hlpa^ntt «calntt
•»r •p«elClefttl«Bt, wt find that you %v today ohort
45caro, and ao your ohortago to ohipmento io nocooo-
Itatlng our uolnc for currant nood* other | coal that
wa haTO purchaoad for uao after the flret of Ipril,
wa ahall expect you to sake up the ohortage a^re
etated. and ae there le Tory little time left in which
to sake purchatae for ahlpaiant thle month, wa raquaet
that you adTlea ua tothat wa will haTO your reply by
the 12th Inet. at to whether you will make up thla
ehortage before March 20th, ae. If you do not, we ahall
be obliged to buy It eleewhere at market prlcea for
your aecawt. lor your information and that you will
know poeltlTely that we hare not been epeclfying ohip-
■entt m excaae of what we are coneaalng, we wiah ta
Inform you that during the month of February we burned
about 2,900 tone of coal at our kllne.*

n Karch 12th appellaa wrote appellant ae follawa:

■ X X X our inability la euch. and hae bean
•uch the laet few daya that we are not going to be In
a poaitlon to fill all of your requlreaienta, and wa
would kindly aak that you make arrangements to take
care of your latereete elaewhare; howerer, ae ooon
aawe can gat atartad we will do the beet we can. ¥a

Pwill notify yau fro« tima t# time how our praapacia
are."
M receipt of thle letter appellant made Inquiriea of all the coal op-
iratore in the dietrict ragardlng the eeourlng of a aupply of ooal af

ittltable quality euffioient to make up the deficiency, and. on Farch

440
IMh and 14th. purehaeed about.imm tone. On Marhh 19th appellee wrote

that it would ba aliiaet inpoaotbla for it to ftimioh appellant the en-
tire requlrementa of what ite contimct called for. and thereafter app-
ellant made other purehaaaa. ¥a are eatiefied. fro« the avidenee. that
appellant ueed !■■ llliill dlligenc>^n making theee purchaaee. to aeeure
the required quality of coal ae ehaaply ae poeelble. and aae unable to
tecure the kind of coal it required, taTa at a coneiderabla adTanea
aboTe tha price at which appallaa ocatraotad to fumiah it. Aa. in
the Tlew we take of thi. oaaa. It .mat ba remanded far another trUl,
we deem it unneceeeary to diecuaa the queation in detail.

570

ThMr« do«« not ••«& to ^« any tTld«nc« upon #ileh to bate the
And 10th instruction*, glten at the requett of appellea. A given
tructlon for appellee and the modification of an instruction requett-
by appellant eeea to make the meaeure of damages as to coal taken
appellant from Its storage to supply appellee's failure to meet app-
ant'e requirements to be the difference between the contract price

the fair cash market value of the etorage coal "at the time It was
used." If this instruction had said at the time that It was taVenxlr
B the storage^ we think it would be correct, but there was no proof
to the precise day when coal, taken from the storage, w%e put into
lellant's furnace, and manlfeetly It Is not likely that that could bo
iwn, and If thle inetructlon meant to have the meaeure of damages
ted as to such coal at the precise date when It was actually put Into
» furnace, we think it wae Incorrect. Ao to at leaet one inetructlon
rer at appellee's requeet and one instruction requeeted by appellant
\ refused, there wae evidence tending to obviate the caee stated In

571

th« initruetlon, and it wa. not prop.r to glr. tuch inttruotlon
without A r«f«r«not to th« proof Introduo.d by th« other tlda.
Co»plalnt is Md« of the refueal of an Inetruotlon, requested by
appellant, to disregard erldence that It offered to oo«pro«lse Its
damages «lth appellee for a leee su> than It now olaias undsr Its
plea of set off. The Instruotlon wae baeed upon a correct legal
principle, bdt we fall to find any erldence upon whloh to baee it.
Appellant made a written etateaent to appellee of Ita damages by
reason of appellee's failurs to perfom its contract, and placed
thea *t mich leee than it now claims, but ws find no proof that
it did this by way of compromise. It was asserting what it then
oonoelTed to bt ite legal ri^ts, and ths fact that it thsn
olaimed less than now was a proper matter to be ooneidered by
the jury. That instruction was thsrefore properly refused.
There are other instructionm which ars open to orltlolsm, but
thslr discussion by oounsel will doubtleee prevent the*» reourrenoe

^^^'Sla^her trial.

The Judgment is rsTersed and the oauee remanded.

STATE OF ILLINOIS,]

Appellate Court, ks.

Second District, J I^ PAUL V. WUNDER, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and

for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do
hereby certify that the foregoing is a true, full and complete copy of the opinion of the said Appel-
late Court in the above-entitled cause, now of record in my said office.

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand
and affix the seal of said Appellate Court, at Ot-
tawa, this...<.7. day of.

in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred
and sixtyr^jO^oULi

(79969-3M-12-59) ^'.^^ CleVkoftheAppeUat^Court.

6005

AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,

'"'■•^i^^s^vfria'si^^-

Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday ,/the sixth day of April,

/
in the year of our Lord one thousaild nine hundred and fifteen,

within and for the Second Distr/et of the State of Illinois:

Present--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELl/ Presiding Justice.

Vft

Hon. DUANE J, CARNSfe , Justice.
Hon. JOHN M. NIEH^US, Justice

^CHRISTOPHER C. Ij^FFY

,,_19 3I.A. 376

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on the 15th day
of April, A. D. 1915, the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:

Gen, No, 6005,

RoscoQ Durf linger, appellee,

vs Appeal from Co, Ct, Kankakee.

J, K, Fisher, appellant,

Niehaus, J,

This action was originally brought by Roscoe Durflinger
appellee before a justice of the peace, for forcible detainer,
to recover poaeeeaion of farm lands, from J, K, Fiaher, appellant.
The case was tried on aopeal, in the county court of Kankakee
County, Tliere was a jury trial, and at the close of all the
evidence, on motion of appellee, the court instructed the jury
to find fax the i-^sues for the ar^pellee; and the jury returned
a verdict in accordance with the inst ruction. The appellant
made a motion for a new trial, which was denied: and the
court thereupon rendered ^ judgment against the appellant, on
tha verdict; from which judgment an appeal was taken to this
court. The question to be determined, is whether the county
court was in error ir. directing a verdict for the anpellee
and entereing judgment thereon.

It app-ars from the evidence, that the appellant, had
a written lease of the lands in question, from the owners, Ab-
salom Harrison end Myron Harrison; the term in the lease being
from March 1, 1913, to March 1, 1913, This term was extended
to March 1, 1914 by written endorsement on the back of the lease,
which was signed by all the parttes. The appellant claims,
that in the latter part of September, or in December, 1913,
a verbal agreement was made by the parties to the lease, to
again extend the term of *.he tenancy for another year;
which extension of the lease, was frok March 1, 1914 to March
1, 1915,

It f\irther appears from the evidence, that before the
expiration of appellant's term undsr the written lease, the

.cOOa .oPI .nev)
*SdXIoqcjs ,1^6311 JtXlxuG eopaoi^
,»ei«3inj32 ,ifO ,oO moi'^ lAeqcK av

.jf'njsXI&rrqjB ^asriall ,S ,L

,1. j8i;£n5.xii

4ienljBJ'eJb sidloiol -xo^ ^to-eaq &rfd- 'to dOl*«iit ■^ eiolecf osij-sqci^

,;fnBilsqq« ^aarfBif^ .."T ,t, monl ^ibnBl nii*l T:o nolsaeeBoq isvooetc oif

••iJB3(flJ8X It'o i-iuoo xtr.isoo scii nt ^Xfiaqna no bBtit asw esfio ©rfT

arl* ILa to aaoXo erict^ J£ ban ^JJil1.3^ Y^^t * •*^ eaeifT .Y^nuoO

^Xift ©rfJ bei-Oi/iJ-enJt J-iuoo erlJ- ^eeXXeqqjB "io noi^onr no ^•o^eoxv6

b9ni.uiti \t.sjI ©ri.^ hns jaeXIeqrrB Belt tot aauasi erfJ" »b1 bnll oi-

rf'fl.fiIi9qoje ©riT .flojt^ox/- ♦arti BdS rfJivr eonjsbTOOO* ni Joibisv js

erfj- bn£ ^J!>©ixi©b aaw rioirir ,X*ii;f wen b aol noii^om js ©bjera'

no ^JnjBXXsqojB ©riJ ^artiJsgjB ifnsragbjjt '' betebrrsi noqi;©isri;f t-.iioo

9itcli ot ne^fB* sjsw XjBsqqjs na Jnemghi/j; rfoirfTP bot'^ ;tolbisv ri-lj-

X^auoo erit red&oriv aJt ^benimMteb ©cf o* noitasx/p ©rfT .tii/oo

• eXX©qa£ Bcii lol *oini©v jb gnl^oeilJb nJ: io-xt© nx 8jbw *xc/oo

.aoaa©a;f *n©ra3bx;|; gnleisi'Xie bna

jDsr: ^j-n^Xistyi-s encr jsr r ^©oner)/.Ys erf^ moiJ aiB-qqB *!

-dA 4 8asnwo e.:cf raoit ,nol:*»eup fll abrtjeX ©rfJ- Tto taBeX nsd-ct-xaw a

gnlscf ea««i 6ri;+ ni mas-t ©r:j- (ooatiXBH jxotyM bn;? ftoalTiBH moXBa

bebna^x© ajev- m-isif aJtrfT ,EXeX ^1 doiaV. 0* tSXex ,X rfoiJsK moil

^eaaaX ©rfj lo :ioj8d ©ri^f no Jnameanobns na-t^liw ytf *X8X »X donsU oS

^aiBjkBXo ;fnBXIeqqj3 ©rfT .aaA^aaq ©rfJ- XIxs vd bsngxe bbw rioJtrfw'

I'M

^SXex 4:c©cffflao9a at to ^T9dme*qsB 1:0 tTjaq letJ'BX ©rfd' ni jBp'r
0? ^eajseX ©ri-f oJ- aaXt^-sq ©rij yd abiim «bw ^'nemasa^.e XjBcfiev & '
'iBex i8ri;fone ao' xnaAmt - to oins;f ©rfd- bn8;fx6 cls^^^

i.-x.^ oJ" J^XSX jX doiBM Motet a^V' ^esoi.-j. ©rii- to noianei^xe xloJtrfw

-3 m .- r

• A • - ^ -

arfj- e'lotecf ^Bn* 4eonsbi:v© ©rid- ffloa'f aaB©qq« asuvfaxr • ^^

h&t ^aaBsX nat^Xiw erf.t icfbnx; wn^i p'tnjsXXsqqB to floi^-ts^xqj;©

ownership of the premises in qusstion was transferred, by
Absalom Harrison and Myron Harrison, to George Dainty and Edward
Pearson, On February 34, 1914, a written lease was made by
the new owners, as parties of the first part, and appellee,
as party of the second part, leasing the premises in question
to appellee, from the date of this lease to March 1, 1915,
Appellee made a demand on appellant, after the expiration of
a ellant'a term under the written extension of the lease,
for possession; and possession beinp; refused, he comnsenced
this suit.

Appellant made objection to the intrnduction of
appellee's lease, because it was executed in person only by
Georj^e Dainty, who, aasumine- to a ct for Ed. Pearson, had
signed ^earBon*s name to the same; and appellant insiste, that
Dainty's authority to execute the lease for Pearson, should
have been shown, before the lease became competent evidence.
This preliminary proof, in'^isted upon by appellant, v/as not
necessary, inasmuch as tlie law presumes, in this case, in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, that the lease in question
was made v;ith the knowledge and consent of Pearson. (Schwart*
' V MoQuaid 314 111, 357. Moreover a lease signed by one of
two tenants in common rould entitle the lessee to possession
of the premises involved.

Appellant also in=?ist8 that no sufficient foundation
Was laid for the introduction of the rscord of the deed of
Myron Harrison and wife to George Dainty and Edward Psareon
conveying part of the premises in controversy. The preliminary
proof made for tV.e introduction of the record of the deed
was sufficient, under Section 35 of Chapter 30 of the Con-
veyance Act, in the revised statutee. The introduction of this
deed i:|^ evidence, however was apparently unnecessary, as it
had already been proven by oral taetimony, which was introduced

^_ ^:.:i-xid'l»asit sar aoziaeup at aeeimeaq eriJ- lo qirfeaenwo
bi^^-h-J -.rr \fnlB(J •gaoaC of <noBJ::ctJSR xtoicvM brtfi floeJtxx^H ooIisedA

to aoii-Aiiqxe arfJ- retlM ,tn«Il9qo45 no JbfijBmet) 5 ©5j8m^9- ' "-' A

.+ r r* p rr'

lo Roiioubaii^at t. _. i-.. .wostcfo t ._ . ,„

t«ri.t ^•^eisxif ^n£lXeqq« ba-6 ianiBS siij' o«^.•als^ •'noaiJis'? bengie

i)Xyoris ^flo«a«9*I lol eajisX edt ti-x/oexe pJ" x^i'iod^J^Js e'Y^^i*-

.•ondbive taet&qaQo ecnjsoocf aAJBeX er(;f aio^ted ^xtwpile asdcT dv^n

Jon B.(?w ^taailsqc{£. ycf floqi/ beJsisnl ^Ipoiq \iaitmXisiq atcL:

eds at ,e8£o •l£f;t- nj; ^aeau/seaq v«X, f^fj^ tis £[ojjflt9£nl ^Y^«9890&r

floi;tasx;i: at «8£eX 6riJ ^BxIJ" ^Y^J'ii'flPO »d& ot fOnebiy© Tto 80Xi88cf£

*..^:; . ..ilo5J) ,jao8Tj«eT lo #n8Bnoo bn£ egbsXwoniC arfiJ' d^^^i- •JbJsm ajsw

-. eao vcf iJeflgJtv ««A*r « TsvoeioM ,V5E ,X^I ^XS JbiavPoM v

no'Le^ftf^- r^i- 07 fis«is^, :',t/>jTT9 tXjjow aofli.Tioo nJt fifnjsifxsj or^i

,JbevXovai aeexne^cq en >

Xv r;©-^ . . Jo Moof-x fexfJ "t:o noitQirhoitat erfj- ao'i tJkiiX s^
ao8i£."^ iJXf:\kbl ba£ xtatjuQ. ©gioeC o* alir Jbca flpaiTcxjaH ixoiv!
Xi*flintXX8'-t'^i .-^laaevo^Jnoo ni aaalmsiq arU J.q tiaq afti^evnoo

£)a«i:i f>ri^ io Jb:coofii eat ':o najt^owboaJni erfJ" lol pJbjBm loo-Xf..
-noO ©dJ To Oe as^qfiilO lo 2E aolto»B xebau ^tMlotllu^ a^w
airfi \c. actioubo'ttnt offT ,a»*i/Jj3;t-? baalvea ©rfJ «jt ^^^oA aonjSYS'
vj i a& ^\xiifi6d0fisxtw Y-^^nexAqcv£ aaw xavawoxf ^aortabJtve j^l ^aai:*

without objection, that George Dainty and Edward Pearson had
purchased and become the owners of the premises in question,
before the expiration of appellant's tenancy under his written
lease. The verbal agreement to extend appellant's term to
March 1, 1915, was clearly within the statute of Fraud*. Radler
V Hoffman, 135 111. App. 454, Appellee had a right to question
the legality of the verbal agreement to ext-;nd ar>pellant*§
tenancy. Folrath v Hutohin 1*5 111, App, 434, The evidence
shows no legal right in appellant, to the possession of the
premises, and appellant claiinsd none, except the right based
on the verbal agreement, Tlie Court therefore, properly in-
structed the jury, to find the issues for appellee,

Tl)e judgment of the county court should be affirmed.

Affirmed,

,flot^6. ae«j:i«9: .:ad«>«cffirtiJ ......... .^

noitfas;.!; o* ;fr^U ^ l)sxl «(ftU«ciqA ^^^t- .,cp|/l ,XII «ex •,ftB.'n^ '-''-■ v
• •J|i^Xiegq£ l>n^^X^.9<^^xipfneti8« X£cf«#r ♦rfi -^o Y^iXaaa- ^

.ef-XI^c.qs xo> ••tft?! erf* i;. ^^..;^ .rfd- betouita

'^■^'f«-'^p t"t;.xn y^xTWOO 9rf;t ■^^o :^l■f-•.v, r^ <,M'«f'

^^^^sECON^msTmS?^^' H"' I, Christopher C. Duffy, Clerk of the Appellate
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the

seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this

Jay of ^ in the year of our Lord one

thousand nine hundred and

Clerk of the Appellate Court.

•JIPl ir;-

I-'

6011

^A'--^

'Vs.

AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COlffiT,

Beg-un and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the ^xth day of April,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nin/ hundred and fifteen,
within and for the Second District of/the State of Illinois:
Present--The Hon. DQRRANCE DIBELL, Prea^^ding- Justice.
Hon. DUAnE J. CARNES, Ju^^lice.
k^^n. JOnk M. NIEHAUS, j/stice.XS/ 3 I»A« O 4 8
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, /Clerk .
E. M. DAVI§.^ Sheri

y /(/ ^PuaaU^ Ki^u- { f

/v/

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on the 15th day

of April, A. D. 1915, the opinion of the Court was filed in

the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:

Gen. No. 6011.

Tae Ravinia Co. appellee

YB Appeal from Co. Ct. Lake.

Jean M, Strobel, anpellant.

Niehaua, J,

This was an action of forcible detainer, brought by
appellee. The Ravinia Company, against appellant, Jean M.
Strobel, for the posaeasion of a part of Ravinia Park property,
described in the amended complaint filed by appellee. There
was a jury trial in the County Court of Lake County, and at
the close of all the evidence, the Court, on motion of appellee,
instructed the jury to find the appellant guilty in manner and
form ae alleged in the complaint, of unlawfully withoikding
from appellee, the possession of the premisee in question; and
to find, that the right to the possession of said premiset,
was in the aopellee. The jury returned a verdict as directed;
and the appellant thereupon made a motion for a new trial
wh:.ch was denied. The court rendered judgment on the verdict
and the cause is brought to this court on appeal.

There are various errors assigned, but the controlling
question involved i8, whether or not the Court was justified
in directing the jury to "ind a verdict against the appellant.
The proof shows that the appellant went into possession of the
premisea in question, under a written lease from George M.
Seward, Receiver for A. C, Frost, dated December 16, 1908;
the term of her tenancy under the lease, was for one year,
ending December 15, 1909; and the appellant had an option,
under the lease, to hold for two fear a longer; provided the
Receiver was in possession, and had authority to lease, at
the expiration of the year. The option provided for, wae
taken by appellant; and , her term therebjD extended to terminate

,1106 .oK ,ai^O
eeXIeqqje ,oO JBinivjafl e,.?
.s'isj .10 .oO raoat lifrqqA tv

.^nisllsqqjs (IscroacfB .M n^^L

Ycf td^ifoid ^^BntsS^b sicflonol to not^ojB kjb s^w eiifl

.M flJBsL ^*n«XIsqqjB i'snlAg^ ^ynjeqaioO BinivjBfl ©riT ^•eXXec^ ■:

•iSflT ,«eIXeq; JB yd b»ltt tnlsiqiaoo bebnemja edi at bsditotbt

tji baA ^-^tauoX^ eiaJ "io tiuoO x^^i-^oO mU nl latrf yiiit b iii*

^esXiMqjB lo noi;fom no ^J^ijjoO arf^t ^eonafBfVd '9ri:f XXa >d »9oXo eifj

l)njs isnn-Bm at xtliir^, taalleqqe firit batt o& yai/t ^^^ fce;fOi;ad-8n2

gnifci/ori^iT xXXjjItwjBXiiij lo ^^nlaXqaoo axf;f nX bn-gslLB 83 111101

fca£ ;noJ:*a©ifp at aeaimeiq edi lo rroieseeaoq arfJ- jeeXXaqqi} moil

^•a'aiaPB'xcf i>i«8 lo noiaaaaaoq erfJ' o;f i-rfgii sdi- tadt ^bntt oi

;f>e*oeiiJb bb totbiey a JianuLrJai TtJJ't »rfT .eaXXeqqjs eiid" nx aaw

IjBiiJ- wen B lol: noX^fom & eb£m aoqisetedi JnjsXXaqoB eil:f baa

totbzer arfit ao ;fnefli3f)ut fcaiebnei ^luoo erfT .beXneb bjbw rfo:rfw

.XAeqrjB no tiuoo aXrft of J-rigx/oicf ei eei/jso f

aniXIoiJffoo an.t d-x/rf ^beogXaeje aioiia Sijoti^v ais eisrlT

haXlii-aut •«« jiooO arit J-oa 10 larf^fsrfw ,aX bevXovni nox^aewp

.JnaXIecqB 6df tttni&fj.^: tolf)ie-v & bat~ oi Y'^i^t •^'^ gnX^toeiib ni

arlJ lo noiaaaaaoq otnl #naw .^naXXaqq-e arfJ fmdt aworfa looiq exlT

,M egiosO aioil daaaX naj;f iiw 5 lebni; ^aotfteL-p rri aaaXmaiq

iSOeX ^ax locfmaoaa b9tBb ^foi'i ,0 ,A lol levieoafi ^JbiBWaB

^ijBaY *«0 "JcO aj9W ^aa^eX and^ labnu xo«*fre'^ "^^©^ ^o mis:!' adt

^noXJ-qo rtJ5 bad tnjeXXaqqB en'J bafi jSOSX ^SX lecfmaoea :Qalba&

Bdt bebXvoiq iiaanoX aiBef o^i lol Mori 0* ^ta^aX arid- i&bau

d'B ^aiBaX ot •^fluodtuB bMti bas ^noXaaaaeoq xiX bjs* levXsoaH

•BW ^lol JbabXvoir aoi*qo erfT ,xs*;y edt lo noxi'BiXqxa ed#

Biaalmief oi Jbabriscfxa afcTaiarii- a^ei red ^ br.e. ;*rtBXXecroB vtf fldJTJBl'

Daoember 15, 1911; and, after that date, ahe became a tenant
of appellee from year to year. The lease was assigned to ap-
pellee OB July 37, 1911; and on September 30, 1913, appellee

, gave appellant a written notice to terminate her tenancy on
December 15, 1913; and demanded, that ehe surrender possession
of the premises on that day.

It is claimed by appellant, that the notice should have
terminated the tenancy on December 16th, the anniversary date
of the commencement of the term, instead of December 15th, the
anniversary date of the end of the term. The general rule of
law, concerning notices of this character, was stated in the
case of Priokett v Ritter, 16 111, 97, and the court says,
in passing on the point in question; "The authorities all
seem to agree, that where notice is required it must be given
a due length of time before, and terminate with a regular
period in the tenancy; that is at the end of a year, half year,
quarter, month or week, according to the party's right to
terminate it by the notice,"

But the mattsr is fixed definitely by the statute concernling
land-lord and tenant; anc^ section 5 of chapter 80 of the act,
requires, that "in all cases of tenancy from year to year, 60
days' notice in writing shall be sufficient to terminate the
tenancy at the end of the year," The notice therefore, properly
terminated the tenancy, at the end of the year; and no further
demand for possession was neceesary, before bringing suit.
(Section 7, Chapter 80, Kurd's Revised Statutes; Stillman v
Palis, 134 111. 533.)

^ It is insisted that the description of the premises in the
lease ie indefinite and uncertain. The description of the
premises in this case meets the legal requirement. It is
sufficiently definite and certain, if the premises can be
readily identified and located, (C. & 8t. L. R, R, Co. v

taMcisS J5 emeoed erle ^§tab tsdi led-tja ^ba& iXXSX 4fiX ascfmeosa

-qjs 0^ be«3l88£ PBW 98JS«X erfT ,TBeY od- :i«9Y motl eeXI'eqpiS ^o

eelleqqfi jCXex ^08 iscfmecrqea no bas ;XXeX tTS x^uZ flo seXXeq

no xoa&a9t led •i-finlmieJ- oJ- oolion ciet-^lryr h ^n^XXeqqa 9vag

aox«B«Baoq iBhaeituB erfp ^arfj- ^tebrifimeb bne ;SXex ^SX lecToisoea

• Y-s^ t^rfd- no 8a»Jtm9:cq edi tp

•Viiri ftXtfOris 90Jt;ron eriJ- *Brfd- (i-xijsXXeqqjB ^cf fcemlaXo al i"!

•*Bt> >[iBax8 7J:njCiJ3 srfj .rfi'QX icecfmeosa no YO^-^necf sii-J- beisatai'iet

td& ,dtdi lacfneoeQ lo bjsacfivni ^oia;)' a;l;f lo d'Hsmaonscomoo 9dt 1o

to aXx;7 Xaaeaeg ariT ,fflas>* arf* "io bas eriJ- lo a*s£i ^waasvipfl*

0di at bti&Se s^w ^led'osajsno Btdi lo eaoJtJ-ofl a^inieonoo ^w*^

^^X£e ^-u/oo 8£[:t bnjB ^Vfi ,XXI 8X »?a**iH v i'Jejfoix^ to af«9

XX« 8«^^Jt'ioil70<s eifr" laoitieap ai iaJLoq, edi no snJta^^q a^

nevjtg ecf tax/tn tt Jbaaxijpax ei eoiiJ-oxx aierfw rf-ariJ^ ,asiaje p* ina9|

a«XjJ8ea J3 ri^xw ei-jaaimxed- bnjB ,eiol©cf emit lo xl^anfeX ax/f) ji

^ijaeY tlsd ^ta6x s lo hne erly* ^ja ax d-Bxl;? iYonjarra* arfd" nx l)pixag

o;t J-rigXa a'y4"aBq eni o^ gxtJtf>iooo« ^aCaew lo rfJnoai ^ae^J-i^xip

".aoiJ-on arfJ- ycf J-x aJ-anXaxsJ-

3fl4niaonoo 8^i;cl".s;J-a tdi \d y;lbtlai:t»b bBXil ai rstt&m ari* JuS

^#o» 8/i;t lo 08 xed-qjsiio l:o 6 noiJ^oee baa {iaAaat bas biol-baJij,

OS ^TJ8©Y oj x^ey noil YonjMst "io sea^o XX.8 /tfc,*.,„#'6ri^ ^asiXxjpai

eaj" aJ^nxm- ;^J o* ahnsioxltxia ed XXj&iia snii'iiw nl aoiton *B\J&b

Yixaqoaq jeiolaiedd" aox^on ariT " ,ij»aY arfit "io ftfle © {oxxanaf

lariJ-ixf^ on bn^ ;xBaY ^di lo ^a srij ts ^xo^-sned" Si.J feacf^nXmi^l'

,;»^ii/a ^niaaiirf aiotfeJ ^-^tJ^aaQcta 8J3W noxaaeeBoq 10^ basm^b

V flEfrXIiJ-a laaJtfitBta baatvaH a'f5i;/H »08 xeitqfifro 4V nox*988)

(,sc.; .XXI ^Zi ,axx*<l

ad;^ at aaaiaraxq et^i ^o aoX^TaJ^ioaai? axiJ- ^arf^ baifeJisai ax J-I

arft lo £[oJ:<^q^xoaab a^IT .a^js^fieonu ba£ aiMAiildbni al aa«aX

8X d-I .ifasmaxXypar X«saX tdS ataam tejso 8X4^ at jtaimaaq

td n£0 aeaimaxq »di it ^ai&tieo ba^ attatlttb YX;faaioXl:lx;a

V ,00 ^H ,a ,J ,iB A .0) .X>ei-BooX bns f)all:iJnebi xltbjuer

Wiggins Ferry Co. 83 111, 330; Stillman v Palis, 134 111, 533.)
y^ Appellant also urges an objection to the sufficiency of the
preliminary proof, for introducing the lease, and the assignment
of the lease in evidence. We think the lease and assignment
were properly admitted in evidence, unddr the proofs made; and
that it a,npeared with sufficient clearness, that the assignment
offered in evidence was the assignment of the lease in
question.

Appellant contends, that because no preliminary proof
was offered to show that the president of the Ravinia Company
signed the name of the company to the notice, to terminate
appellant J 8 tenancy, no proper foundation was laid, for the
introduction of the notice in evidence. It is sufficient to
say, concerning this contention, that no objection was inside
on the trial, to the inatroduction of the notice, on that
ground. The general objection -vhich was made, dods not cover
the lack of proof on this point. (Buckley v Robartaon, 186
'^i 111. App, 605,) However, under the pleadings in the case, the
notice was admissible without preliminary pr of of its exeour-
tion, (Section 53, Chapter 110, Hurd's Revised Statutes.)

There was no evidence tending to sfeow, that appellant had
a le[^l right to the possession of the premises in question,
as against appellee. The peremptory instruction , tiierefore
was proper; and the coiirt did not err in directing a verdict.
Tne record does not show any substantial error, and the judg-
ment should, therefore, be affirmed,

tffirraed.

(.see . — . , . 'rziB'^ anJ:3i}j:

• rf* iQ ^onsr .Th-f-.- ■_. .. ^„ txiJSilecrcrA

tnemosins* »ri; .. -f-ior.frfr ^toox4 'V^-B^i^'*^^^^-

irt&mrtgieejB feni, i..„^_ .- .— _. ; . , tvd rtl ftSjeeX erfJ lo

..... ;*r>fim 8looi:q'"»rf.f afcJbni; ^eonsfciv;. „_ _^J-:fjfiaJ5ij| "YXteqorrq btsw

'^al'artf "^6 .ffT:^ntff-~ .c^-pa ? -r+ a.3w eo^^e^_^•7■o. ai fitftellio

"ioot^ I tinJtla-rq'Cwl •BWBoed t,eift ^Bbaetaoo tnsir&'qcA

■lasqaoO ^tt^ivsT. =:.f' ":• .tffs'issiq arft i'Arf* worii ot I^Tsllo B£ir

eJ-Bnimn . . - yfl^qffloo tM lb »fflj8w Bkt beirgi*

'i/ii- a61 jAlrl efw rtoiJ-jBBrri/o'i lerroTq on4YOflJBrteJ 'aJ'ihnJSlIs^qA

OS Jriiioilli/e ..crrefclTft ni 80Jt;fo« 9di^ to (tottoubOTiittt

:s\7 itoicfor'-'fo oit jjBi!* ^AdlJAeJnoo elili^ gnlrtaeofloo ^^JJB•

i-jBiiJ- no ^e-.^ --- 3ff.^ T'6nof*oirbol*«nl erf?'oit jXil^Jerf? no

i:svoo toa tiho^ .dfcF . : id*' xroiJoetcfO iBlftrt^g srIT .ftfixroig

881 jitOB*:! 'iBlioisB) ,9titoq ttldf'ao looic \o ^tJit Biit

erfd- \B%Ao eriJ- ni sarrlfojieXq erfj- :cebrtx; ^aevewoH (.308 . ,... .Xil
-iroexe ad"! lo lo- iq v«^rrlfl!lie'iq''*i/6cWiw •Itfleeiatbjs 86w poiJi^rt

•r :''*'^r B~^jirf;f ^woj^p -'>" -fhnpj- eorr- ' ^vf* on" iew aie..-

,- , ..- aealmeiq '.^ . . -loinaes-^ , ., o;f ^itgii X«7^?ei js

eio"lei9^# , ftOi^Oi/T^titt vtotqnsteq •£!? .•«Xleqqj3 ^anJtB^^ •«

,iotbney & -gattoBilh at lie Soa'btb tti/ftS-ftrf* bn£ jieqciq saw

-■^bul' edf baM ^ibirrs l£l:*.rr.=:i-* *j.rp ynA woifa ^dn aeob ftiooen sxiT

HjBMiif 4»%o1t9tterId^ ,l>Xxrorl8 iaBta
.bBttntttt

^'^'^SECON^DisTm^T!^^''' H'^" I, CHRISTOPHER C. DuFFY, Clerk of the Appellate
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appellate Court iu 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

jjjy of in the year of our Lord one

thousand nine hundred and

Clerk of the Appellate Court.

601B

AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,

Beg-un and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, jEhe sixth day of April,

in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and fifteen,

f

within and for the Second Distri/t of the State of Illinois:
Present --The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL ,/Pres iding Justice.
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES^C Justice.
t^-^n. JOHN M. NIEHA|fs, Jus tic

ciiRISTOPHER C. D#FY

\ /

E. '^. DAVIS, S^^riff

\

ABb, Justice, _. j^

4„1§3IX3?9

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on the 15th day

of April, A. D. 1915, the opinion of the Court was filed in

the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:

Gen. No. 6 019.

Tae Palmer National Bank, appellant,

V8 Appeal from Kankakee,

H, V, Lewie, appellee

Niehaus, J,

Thig is a 3uit in assumpsit, co"renced by appellant
The Palmer National Bank, in the circuit court of Kankakee County
against appellee, J. V. Lewis, to recover ae legal holder, on a
promisaory note made by appellee, for the ava of $400.00 bearing
date March 3, 1910, and payable to the order of the Wendle Remedy
Company, nine motths after date, with interest at t e rate of
Bix per cent per annvim.

It is claipied by appellant, that the payee assigned and de-
livered the note in question to it, before maturity, as col-
lateral security for an indebtedness of the payee. The appellee
pleaded, in otsBia ief'^nae of appellants claim, the general
i33ue, and filed a verified plea denying the assignment and
delivery of the note before maturity; and also filedpleas,
averring a want of consideration, and a failure of coneideration.

There was a trial by jury, -Tvhich resulted first, in a
disagreement of the jiiry; and then, on a second trial, a ver-
dict was returned by the jury, finding the issues for the de-
fandcvnt. Appellant made a motion "^or a new trial; but i.he ab-
stract does not show, whether or not this motion wae passed
on by the court. T^:ie court rei dered judgment on the verdict;
and an appeal was then prayed and allowed. The record is
brought to this court to review matters of alleged error,
corriraitted on tlie trial of the case,

Tlie record, however, does not contain any assignment

/
01 errors, as required by Rule 13. This of Itself, is fatal

to the aopeal. But passing nevertheless, to a consideration

.9X0 3 ,oTT .rt»0
' ,J-rTJ8XX»q<-rA ^iLaJiSi L&noh&fili ioiiiXj6<7 eriT
,»tijB3lrffiX moii X.serrA tv

•eXXsqqjS ^•i>f9J .V ,B

jHiJi s(:q.T. ':a i>eons":"oo ^Ttsqrajj-e^fi -ix crii/p ^ ei ex£ff

£ no ^icebXOjcf XJigeX aa lerooei o;t ^aiwr^' ."' , '^-XXaqq* teniJi-^s

■gciliMid 00.00*$ lo fflua srfd- lu^c jeeXIeqc-s -r. e , .m a^on xloeeimoTiq

lo ©*B-x a J^ t£ tssasitni rfcfiw ^^isb ib&Ib addritow enin 4^nJBcmoO

.flurnna ^csq Jneo leq xia
"eb bajB ii6n3xe.',i. ^..jc BuJ crjjncf ^;J-na£il8qq\e vcf fcewi^Xo t' ""'

-loo B& ^'^ti1l'tBn pito^^ ' .' ' ot aott^Bsjp at ej-orr erf^ cst. xX

eeXXeqq* eriT .eevaq 8xr+ r.^ 6e6nf>9;fd'el)nJ: na loJ xttiisoef l&i9Jnl

Xaaensg 9df ,mifiXo eJn^XXeqqjs Tto eaaelreBi Ktssis at ^tsb&9iq

btip ;^^9m^glPBJB 9d& aniynsb aeXq balliasv « b^lt't baa ^ax/eai

,a«eXq£»'iXt*3- oaX/j bas lY^tzu&Bm aiolacf eton srf* ^o Y^svJtXst

.noiid^sTftbisnoo lo eT.uLtM'i b basi ^aot&Ai^bteaoo "io &nefr jb gnii'xavf

* ni ^ifaix^ £>e*Xi/8si riocrf^ ^yoirt vcf l6t%t & ajsw siexfT

-T8V a ^lAtti bnooas s no ,aai"fT bnB jx'^rt *"f* '^-o tastate^

-efc eri^ tol aeireei ariJ- ^nibflj:'! tYXtrt exft vcf benix/^aT aflw j^ox..

-tfjs eriJ tud {iMtit W9ft A TO* aotiom a eb^m taaXXaqqA .^flAbne^

tateisq ajsw ftol^fom airiJ- ton io tedteiU ^worfa *on awob tositt

{totbiev 9d} no J'aemscijt Jbaisl) r»i Jauoo srfT .Jxijoo e r: * ■ no

8i biooai anT .l)ewoXX« 6«£ beyaiq nerf^ bjsw XBeqiit a -

^10118 beasXIfi "^.o »reji'A?i\ weiveT o;t i"UfOO aJtrfJ' o* iJ-riajjoxj

.eaJBo an'* lo XjaitcJ- 8i[;t no ba^J-X" r-
d-rrsmnaleefi yn,6 ^i:fic^^oo ;»-ofi aeoF; ^aaveworf ^bzooe'i r ""
Xjii-JBt sx ^IXeaJl 'io airiT ,SX eXx/H vcf baitx/pa^ aje ^Baoii-. -
aotfAiBbtBaoo £ oif jteeXed^taevsn gnlaajsq ;fira ,X«eqqa eri., o;J

of some of the errori which have been assigned in the abstract,

nd referred to in appellants brief, we find that appellant
makes the claim, that the verdict is against the weight of
evidence. This is a question that canbe raised here, only,
if the point was made on a motion for a new trial, and the^
overr\xled by the court. The abstract, M^hich we must a?eume
contains a correct statera-nt of the record in that re<^ard,
I shows no ruling made by ^he coiirt, on the motion for a new

trial; and, if no ruling was made by the court, then appellant is
not in position to raise the question suggested. But, on
examination of the evidence, there does not appear to be any
roper basis for appellant 'q claim.

The appellant xa also claims, that the court erred in
refusing to a<fimit certain evidence, which was offered by app-
ellant on the trial. Several witnesses -^or the appellee tes-
tified, on the trial, that after the maturity of the note in
question, it was in the hands of the Bank of Momenoe, for col-
lection j and that they saw it there; and that at the time
they gaw it, no endorsement was upon the back of the note. In
rebuttal, appellant offered evidence to show, that the note
was endorsed when it wae delivered to appellant, some time
before its maturity. The appellant ^hen called J, E, W?.lker
a bank examiner, as a witness; and offered to r>rove, "that
the examiner, examin-^d ^he books and notes of the Palmer National
Bank, on two occasions, between March 5, 1910 and December 3,
1910 while 'Plaintiff's Exhibit 1* (the note) was in the files
of the Palmer National Bank;* which proof the court, on ap-
pellee (sob jection, refused to admit. It ig evident that app-
ellant did not offer to prove, that the two occasions were
the same time when the appellee and his witnesses, claimed
they saw the note in the possession of the Bank of Momence.
As thi« was the only material bearing the evidence offered.

^ioBitedA 9dS ni Senglaa^ rtesoT evsri riotrfw taone srf>t 1o •taoa lo

^0 Jrig^dw ©rf^ i-BjijtJ93£ si tQifciev 5rft tsdi- t«i*Io srf* sa.'fjaoj

Ifa.iJ^ hnjs ^lAiijf wen « aot noi^fom a no sbAm ajew ;fnioq ©ri^ .:

»mu89£ Jaum ow rioiriw ^i-o^iJ^acfjs srfT tiruoo ed& xd b^luxi^ . o

(M£38a #JBrfi^ at Moost e£r;t,lo ^fl.med-^j-e ifosaioo b BxxJtfi^aoo

wer loi^offl erf^ ffo ^trutoo 0di \d sbam -gatlin oa fv^ -

ax i-njeXIeeqe Of^d:^ ^ituoo erf? yd %bjsm a^w gnili/i on ^x ^ba£ iIjbx ;

.jbai-aaggi/e noi^ae &Bi&i Oo" flol^jts^oc- ni ioa

':n.=^ etf ct iJSaqrrjB ton aeob siarfj ,aone&iv o aoi^£aimsxe

^mtjslo ?* iasileqqA lol aiaBo
ni: iboTis f-xiioo edi tBrli ^anl^Io obIh m* &aMLS.eqq£ erfT

cf Jisiel'io Bjsw rfoJtrfw ^aonabive flJtB^iao ^iflfts o& gniai/lei
Hie# ••Xlaqqa tflt 10'^ eeaaaa^iw lAieveS .XaIi^ erft no tn&iie
ni eJ-on erf* Ito Yi-iTx/^Am arf* istitA tMdt ^L»t' ^' r ^^.r

-loo io'>. ^eonenoV J.q iaOEL trfjf- lo tbnjRri arl;)' nl ibw i"! ,flOi*eeijp
emij !;f bnjB (BtBtii ii wjb6 j^rlJ- ba^ ; rtoijfoaX

nl .s^oa erf J to :jIo«cr e * noqu a«w tnemaa^obne on td'i W'.
eton arft i-jarfd- ^wode 0* ep/iehiv^ Jbeie^kio JnjsII . .

emi* arsoe 4tn«IIeqna orf- b#i8vil£ -t npilw Jbeeiohne e^.

i©3i'- ftAlIaqq* edT .y^lOirtAOT a*i die.-. .

lArfJ" ^evoTc oJ- beietlo btiB iit»n*lw « sm ^Tsnl/tisxe inB,. y,
Ijttnol*fl7[ ramJLjs^. 9di to aston bnja aafood axf iixa ^aaniRusx© t- ■

rt£ 0I6I ^S rioasM nsewtecf ^anoieJBooo owj no ^;ln>ia
•am Sri* nl •«» (a*on eri*) *X *jtcfirixl e'm*nijBXq' aXJkxlw Ox .
-qjB no ^t1uoo atii Ttooiq rfoJtrfw ^litmSL LuaottOi aemXjeq ©ri* 3(jJc.
-qq« >j8rf* tneblTe 8' ..imba 0* beeutsi ^noi^osccfoeJeaXx

foieaooo ow* erf* cfn.i.t ^evo'xo ot la^tlo *ofl bib in^j..v
be sdaaen^iw eli{ bctB aaXXaqq^ trf* rtarlw amJt* am^R erf^ '

-iCnjsa erf* lo aoiaaetaoq exl* ni •*o
^beiet^to eonablVB erf:^ snlTAecT X«iTe*Bra yXno erf* taw aid* aA

\

could have had in the oasa, the objection was properly sus-
tained.

Viewing the case, however, upon ita merits, there was,
apparently, sufficient proof of a failure of consideration for
the note in question , to justify the finding of the jury.
The note v/as obtained from the appellee, by the Wendle Remedy
Company, the payee, as a consideration for the transfer to
appellee, of tlie sols right to uee a certain remedy in Kankakee
for hemorrhoids; and for fifty shares of stock in the 7?andle
Remedy Company, which were to be i«qued to appellee. It was
agreed hefween the parties, aa apoears from the receipt given
appellant for the note in controversy, that in case the etook
wae not issued to appellee, the consideration of the note would
be refunded. The stock was never issued to appellee, although
he made a demand for it. After this, the Xanifti St^mpuiXf Wendle
Remedy Company allowed its incorporation to lapse, and legally
went out of existence.

If the appellant did not become thelepral holder of the note
in question before maturity, then the failure and efusal to
iseue to appell e the fifty shares of the stock, was a le^jal
def-inse, on the question of failure of the consideration ofthe
note. And vfe are of opinion, that a preponderance of the evi-
dence shows that the note in question, was not endorsed over
to appellant, until ?.fter maturity. "A promissory note cannot
be assigned x]gaa under our statute so as to vest the legal title
in the assignee, except by endorsement of the note itself."
Packer * Roberts 140 111. 671.

The verdict of the jury was, apparently, in accordance
with the weight of the evidence, on the vital issue in the case,
and the court did not err in rendering judgment on the verdiotfor
tha defendant. The judgment should be affirmed.

Affirmed,

k

-aua \Iisqoiq Bjbw noi*oef;tfo Bdi ^9WiM^'%lli rA b^A srarf bluo

^•&vf aifi-j ,acMi9m sit aoqu ^xevavrorf ,e8J8o srii- sniw&iV
lo'i aoitMtebianto to ttiuLlBt £ lo looicr faelot'\'iua ^■^iin&x&q
.Yiut »ri+ to snihftJtt erf;f Yll^si/t oi ^ noi*»9ifp ni ecton erf
yfcofflSA albfieW arij- ycf ^aelleqqB eat moi'> fasnlBrf'cfo b«w eion arf
oi- lelanaaJ srfj 'xo\ aoiiAtsblBnoo b bp ^e9Y«cr eri:f ,yn»qflJO
8dii«:ifls5 ni x^eirts-x nlsJ-aeo jb eei/ o* i-rfali eloe t©eIX9c

fXbneVf erfJ ni alooifa to Betarfe yt^til: io*^ hns jafcioriaaomari lo
8J8W tl .eelLeooA o* fteireel ed o:f attsw riolrfw j-^nsrmoO xJ^*«s
aevt-^ #qieoei edt molt aiseoqe 8!=^ ^aexiMaq 8ri;t neewjscf bttd'x
2loo;t8 srIJ- s8£o ni J-jsriJ- ^x^^^voajnoo ni ed^on ©rf^f noJ tn^Ll&i
bXi;ow aJ-ofl ari;t \o tioifsttbitnoo edt jaeXIsqns o^ fteuapl i"on e^
i^uoatX^ (deXIaqqJS o^ Jbax/aat te^art as* }(oo;fe arfT .bt£>ni;'xf- i t:-
aXMeW i(K)U(Kaa itfiuaX eni- ^e^rC^f ^le^ttA .ti lo'i bns'neb a eb*m i-
XXXa^eX bna ,atqBX o.t aottsioqiooni •ii i)awoIXB x^*qajoO x&^i"'-

.eonai-aJtxa to tTuo Jnt

e*oii sdt ?:o laijXori lAgeXarfi- anooecf &oa bib ta&iLeqq£ BiU \I

oi- iBBis'ia bn» sruiiJit sffJ tied: ^^ttriitBn^ eiotad ^oxJssx/p Ji

X«3eX A 8^w ,:!foo*8 srfJ^ to aaiJBrfe y*tit arfd- p iieqqfie oj ai;»p

aritto noid'BTaijlBflon jtrfc)- to BtvitAt "io ctoxcfesup exii no ^aanete

-iv& sritJ- 'io aonAiebnoqaTq e t£cii ^aoknkqo to aia ©w bnA ,6Jo

levo fieavoftfis ton sbw ^aoitseup ffi sioit driit tarf^ eworie aons

*0flr:30 eton. xroeetmorq A" .x*iiJ^itaw i^ita LtirM 4*nBXI«qq« o

aX#x;f Iji^f>ti edt taev o;f s£ oa a^fxrtjBt^ ixiO rtebnx/ Ksan herr^jtep^ a

".tXeeJJt aton erf* lo iriftrnaaiobfle ycf ^qsoxe ^^anglasJB sHj a1

.XV8 .XIT 0*X aJiscToH ¥ lejfo-;
aa£r«Liooo.ib aI ^X-t^naiAqrjs jejsw yti/t «ff;t^ lo Joibiev anT
^esBd 9di tti •ifSPi' Xjs^Xy arlJ no ^aonaiilva srft to ^rfgiaw eri;^ ri^i
■lottoXbtfJV ari* no ittesagbut gnlTabnaic ni iis ion bth taioo 9Ai fcn
.berttiitljB ad bXworia ;t/t9mgi>ut ©^T ,ta&bn»ib
.JbamTltlA

STATE OF ILLINOIS, )^ ., , . .u . n .

SECOND DISTRICT. i I, CHRISTOPHER C. DuPFY, Uerk of the Appellate

]ourt, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records

ind Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the

iaid Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my ofBce.

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the

seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this

(lay of - in the year of our Lord one

thousand nine hundred and

Clerk of the Appellate Court.

6

AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,

Beg-un and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the sixth day of April,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and fifteen,
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:
Present--The Hon. DpRRANCE DIBELL, j^esiding Justice.
Hon. DiVnE J. CARNES, Justice.
U'-ffon. JOliw M. NIEHAUSi Justice.

CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk, A i^ O X»A« O O^
E. M. DAVIS, Sheriff.

\ /

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on the 15th day
of April, A. D. 1915, the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and fig-ares
following-, to-wit:

Gsn. Ho. 6036

Wilfred A, Johnson, appelle*

«s Appeal from Cjty Court Kewanee.

Galesburg & Kawanee ^^ledtric
Railway Company, appellant*

Niehaus, J,

This ia an action on th'^ caae for r!amagei, "brought 4n the
city court of Kswanee, by Wilfred A, Johnson, the appellee,
against the appellant, G>le8'burg and Kewanee Electric Railway
Company. The declaration a leges that the appellee was riding
along Rose Street, in the oi y of Kewanee, in a carriage drawn
by a horse, driven by one Clarence Cantwellj and that at the
intersection of Rose and Boss streets, one of the electric
cars of the a}:ipellant ran into, and. struck ihe carriage that
appellee was riding in, with great force and "iolenoe; and
thereby threw appellee out of the carriage, and upon the ground;
causing- the injury to hi? oereon, for which he clairrs damages*
The anpellee bases his right to recover, on the alleged
negligence of appellant's servants in driving the electric car
in question at a higjh rate of speed; and because the oar did
not have a sufficient head-light; and becaupse no bell was rung
or gong sounded; nor anyother alarm given, of the approach of
the car.

The evidence in the case showed, that the appellee and
another man, by the name of Clarence Cantwell, came to Kewanee
together, in ? covered buggy, dfawn by a horse; and that Cantwell
was doing the driving. During the afternoon and evening of the
day in q jstion, after transacting a little business, and
visiting a n\imber o-" saloons, where they drank beer, and bought
a bottle of whiskey, thf?y started for home; using the same
horse and buggy for that purpose. It was about half oast ten

v^ w - s.> , -yet • 14 .:/0

.L ^ ex/fide 11?
•fft ojfc irfax/oacr ,«egj8mjsh ao^ osbo PriJ- no not&OB as si eidT

^eelleqqjB 9dt ^aoenAoL .A het^IiW yd ^•oaayr&'K to tzuoo xtto

YJB^IIbH ola;}-oel?l esaaweX bna sajjcfsel 0 ^^nalleqq^ exlJ" ;)-8nlja3JS

gjrtJtbJti iBW e«IX8qq£ ed^ tAdi •e-gsl.a aoi&si££o6b exIT .ynjaqmoO

flwjBaJb tajsiTaao -8 aJt ^een^weX ^o t^o sfi;t cix ^teei^Q seoH yxoiji

8i1;f *A ^JBriJ' ba& {llBvSasO eorrsijaXO ano vcf aQvtib ^9Biod b yd

oxtiioeie srlJ^ to eno ^ei'eead-a eaofl £>na eaofl lo noiJoosa&J'fli

tjids sgjsjtiiao exf^ ;iojjiJ« ftne ^oini nMi tanLloqqA »dt lo txAO

bflj; teoneloJtv bfljs soioT: tsBi^ rid-iw ^nJt gxtlfciT saw Bstlieqqe

[bcwQi-g edt aoqu has ^©gjBXTtiJSo 9dt to tuo esXIsqq^ tietdi ydeisfi

.aes-BffljBfc B-nljalo 9x1 doiri .noaaer^ eiri o;f Yiyfjt ©^^ gnlei/ao

JbegsXI* erii" ho ^^tevovsi oi- jfrfali eirf 8e«J8cf •eXIeqr* erfT

iJBO oliJ-oeXe sffJ" -gatviib nx a^tn-evnat e'tf'naXXeqqB to ©6n8ajtX3©n

bib xfio eri* eai/AO&d bne ;l>8eqa "io e^fjsi rigii- aoiJ-aeup ni

gnuT aaw XXed on eeuBosd baf. (d-xfglX-b^erf ♦neioc'ilira s •varl fon

lo riojsoiqqjii edt Jo ,«9vig ffixaX^ iari*oyn£ loa ;bebni/ote sno-^ ic

,a£0 arii
briJB aaXXaqqjB aricf ifarfj^ ^baworfa easo sdJ- xii eoaabivs edT
aenJBWaJl o^t ernjao ,XXawi-«£0 eoriexsXO to sm.-n erf" ^fd jfljain aeriJoflJi
XXew^n^O *«riJ brcB jaaioxf « yd nwalb tYSSi'cf baisvoo .xedtt^o^

ed* lo gnlnave baA dooaidiliA edi snitu/Q .gnJtviib edt gnlob •«!
bn/i jBBeniejjrf eltitl js stfi^ojBanjBi* ia;fl6 ,noi*a: r ni >f£
*ri3x;od bns ,«9d :laarb '^^dt enarfw ^anooXae ""o :tadmi;n ^ gxii;tlaj.v
amjsa 8rf;f -saleu jamorf i-t ^8j•a£*e Yerid- jyajfaixf'sr to eXJv-
sq IXfirf &uO(Ss ejsv . ;aocaifq 'rss-wcT bna'aaaof

in the evening^ and Cantwell was again doing the driving. He
drove the horse along Boss street into Rose Street, where ap-
pellant was operating an Inter-urban oar line; and aa they were
about to cross the track of this Interurban line, going south,
appellant's car came along from the eaet, -md collided with the
rear end of the buggy, in '^hich appellee and Cantwell ware
riding ; cavieing the horse to run away, ?nd run ths buggy into a
telegraph pole situated about nineteen or twenty feet from the
point of the collision with the car; and ther by precipitating
the appellee to the aidewalk, near the pole, and injuring him.
Tliere was considerable conflict in the evidence, concerning
-a rate of speed at which the interurban car was running, at
the time of the collision; also upon the queetion of, whether
or not, a gong was sounded, or warning given of the approach
the car.

These were queetions of fact, which w^re properly left for
determination of the jury. The evidance clearly establishes the
faot, however, that the appellee was not injured by force of
the collision with the interurban oar; nor thrown upon the
ground, from the force of such collision; but that the effect
of ths collision, was to cause the horee to run away with the
fc^SSy* '*hich resulted in another collision, namely, of the
buggy '.vith a telegraph pole, near by the scene of the first
coiliaion; and that the appellee was thrown upon the ground,
and injured, in consequence of the foree of the latter colli-
sion, A variance, therefore, clearly existed between the

^saations in the declaration, and the proof, as to the manner
in v/hich the appellee was injured; and such a variance is fatal
to a recovery under the avsrmttnts of the declaration, Wabash Ry,
Co. v Freedraan, 146 111, 583. Joria v Illinois Steel Co. 101
111. App, 416; Wabash Railroad Co. v Billings, 313 111. 37;
Chicago Union Traction Co. v Hampe, PPS 111. 347.

-Qi3 sieffw 4*»»Tr*8 ••ofl otai t<iet&» aeofl 3noIj8 eeaori srC.' evo^-

^rf*i..o» snio-g ,enil nMaijjjefaJ iirfj- 1o 3(obi* erl^ ieoxo ot. *uo9^
%dt dilyi b%bilLoQ hoe ^t%M% tdi woit gnolJB snBo'rtBO ^■'iaali

8T6W XXdw;tnjsO btiR eeXIftqqja rioJkxfw ci tYSS^^ *rf* ^o ^'^*" ^**-
« o;fnjfc xaSJ^cf eriJ- m/a bxTj» ^YA?fj8 rrx/T oJ- eaiioff erfd- gniti/jaOj. j m. .:

g£tJt*,ft;^2qJtoeiq x<^^ "^P^^ •^^•s l^tfio ©dJ- xUtw aoia.JtIlQO e
.«jtii snlijjtnx JEinB «0ioq »r(.f ,;(XjBwefc;

^« ^gnjfcjixuia tBw XBO fUJcfii/Xftj-ni eif- rfoiriw Jjb Jbeaqe io e
ieii4"sriw ,lo nolJ-Bei/p «triJ^ «pq« fl«X^, inoipjtXXo

SfU aarfslXcrjBi^as x-^a-seXo oaneJbXye srfT .Y^^E, ^ AQ-t**

)• ©oiol: Yd Jb^iJutJ^-t i'Ofl ajsw eaXXaqqjB ^4" J^aaJ jisvevc

3-09^9 erf^ *«rf* it|/cf jflotiiJtXXoo 4ov9 tQ %Q%o\%Ai moil ^bni'
Sri* xifiw XJBWJB au-x ocf ••ttori 94;t 99^*9^^^.^^ 8,6* ^nQiaiXXof

vXsnim jiOOXBiXXoo.i9£l;t9Jl4 X|Jt {}94^XjjeeT dolA^ 'y\
^faiii .. ^nao9 idi Ytf.?«9jn ^fXoq xlqBigsXeJ. £ d^i X

^bnxfOTg euj noqjj ffwoirf* 9«w teXXeqqs arfJ- (J-jsrlJ bn& inoisxi-oo
-iXXoo 19**bj. eaiol/ sf(| Jo, »pfl©ypf9flpo stt ^b&tuiai.

9if-t flBew;rs;; j)9j^s;x» \i,%A6lo ^%xo\i''j.9di ,90n«jta. -
XtaajBir, 9X1;* ocf »** ^looiq srl^ Jbflj^^ ,noxjfjBl«^Of^ j^d# "x tno
Li&iA\ %i. »f>fljBxaj8v tn« ibBiuiai 9jbw 9oXX©<l<J« Q0* ^P-^^-

XOX .00 X*e4-8 ^lofiUll T tX-. ,XXI 8*X ^a.Bmb^9i'i v .;?.

iV£ «XXI SX8 ^BSAlXXXa V .00 i3*o'*XiUR ritBcfa^ iSX. ,

The appellant pointed out the variance between the averriiente
of thri declaration, and the proof, on the motion to etrilre out
the evidence; which motion was made at ths conclueion of plain-
tiff's case. The question of variance was a£:ain raised, on the
motion for a nsw trial; though not specifically pointed out on
that motion; but, inasmuch as the variance still existed, and
had rea-ly become more apparent at the close of appellant's
evidence in defense, and the close of appellee's evidence in
rebuttal, we are of opinion, that it was not necessary, to
again point out the xxxzoua sjieeBfioa^iy variance specif icaljr,
on the motion for a new trial, in order to have the question
passed u on by kka csascxi.thia court.

The record of the evidence shows, that the court ruled out
the inquiry, about what the witness, Hepner, had ?.n8wered to
attorney Damerath, at a certain time and place, concerning
all-ged statements made to the witness by he appellee, with
reference to the tnerits of his case. This inquiry, we thinJc
was competent; at least, for the purpose of laying a founda^
tion for imi)eachment of ths credibility of the witness;
and the fact, that the matters about which it was claimed the
Witness had answered, were read to him from a paper, did not
impair its competfinoy for the pur-^ose indicated. We think that
the court erred in ruling out this inquiry.

Objection ie made to the fifth instruction given for appellee
which embodies the idea, that if the jury found, that the appellee
himself was in the exercise of ordinary care; and that he was
in the buggy as t.e invited guest of ^^he driver of the horse, and
that the driver had the sole control and management of the horse
and buggy; th^n sven though the driver, was guilty of ^ want
of ordinary care, and th-reby Kotxtix contributed to the hap-
pening of the accident in question, that auch want of care
ofi the part of the driver, should not be imputable to the ap-

8#a8iiTi8vJj erf* rr88w:^©rf BotiAttAv edt iuo bB&ntoq fn&lLeciq& erft
tiso 6:^tit% oJ :ioktom Bdt ao ^iooxq tA9 has ,fldi>«tJSlosb ftilc^ l.-
-fll,eXq ^0 floxaiiXonoo erf* tM 9b&m e^w ixoi*o« rfoirfw ;eorteJbi:ve drf^
erft no ^teBlfii njfcje >; sjpw BOtiBfiMv \o noiJesi/p erfT .ea^o a*15i*
ao tuo bhtatoq, X-tlJBomosq* ton d^uod;f {t»t'it wen s lOt «oi*Oiu
,.!5e*aJtx« XIl*« eoni'tiBv erf* •£ rioi/atjani ^*x;d ^noxJom *J3ii*
e'i-flfilXsqctife to esolo erf* *b taBtJioqA «iom emoosd y-^
rij «oxi8£)lV8 8'eeIX«q(tJB to eaoXo arf* bR£ ^68K91s^ ax ©onsblit©
ja8«80sn Jon a. ^nolnlqo lo eas 8vr ^X^^Jucfei

('llBOilioaqp eonaiiBT it'£ft6t%l8«8[B-~K]iaiixxx erfcr *x;o *nl<i>q IxJtjB)^-.
0oi*8©i;p 8rf* ev.sr.' o* leMo ni ^l»iii wen £ ao'i xioJtitoi

vtiJL/oo axrfJ-.sbcxax s^sk y<^ norx; |>ee . -
*x;6 JbeXx/T'i^Tirbo &rf* *«rf* ^aworfn eonelblVe erf* Tto Jiiooei eriT

0* beTevfBrr.i? barf ^lenqsR ^aaen*Jtv erf- > , •{aii/pai i :

3nift'i©onoo ^aoalq briA 6f"i* niJ6**i80 ^ *£ ^rf*fi'i8fli6(I YSff^o**"^
ri*J:w tealXarqi frf^'ycf 8aan*jt*r'»rf* o* 6b&m a*«eme*>«*a fceaeXX*
idlri* aw ^x'^tifpttt piriT .esiso eirf to a*ii3;r »rf.t o* eonsxate'-
-vabftirot JB gnlY-S-C to eeoqiirq erf* lot ,*a-. i*n9*eqmoo 8j8W

iaeefi*iF erf* to >f*lXttfiBsao srfr to ^xxemrfoAsqini lot nol*
6rf* AeiniaXo 8«»f *i riolrfw *jjocfa a:te**J9m erf* *jsrf* ,*OBt 8rf* ba
Ton I . .. qjsq B'BoTtt mlri o* bjsei eia* jbexawanfi bjsrf aesnJiw
#arf* inlrf* 8W .b©*BO.?bni eeov^i lot YOnsJaqmoo 8*1 xi.6u«:.

.Y^ii^pnl alrf* iuo gnilux nx bexie *Xi;oo erf:^
eeXXeqra aot /levlg noi*ou't*anl rf*tlt erf* o* ebam ei nol*6©{;cff^
•al v. "Jilt ,bnx;ot ^fiJ^t *■ ^^i* ^AaM j^rf^'aelbocfflts rfolxiv.

afiw erf *£rf* bftjs laiJBO ^ijsnlbrro to aaloiexe ^: !-3w tXe

bnB ^eaiorf erf* to 'xertth tetisg bsttvnt 6:lf 8jb Yaa^ff ^^^^^ ^-

asion : *n6C!93JBrr'^ .oT*noo eloe erft bad levlib sr.J *^*

*rij;\ :*Xii;g" BJBw , XHVjtib erf* rj^worf* navs ti»di it^^ai^cf A)fl-

-qj5rf bdf 0* beJjjtfln^noc x±tJt«X Ytfe'irrf* bnr. ^eiso Tftanibi.. o
exao to *njsw ifbira ,;Tdl*8ax/p nl in»bioo& srf* to gxi.: ^

^ 0* aXtfis*irqflil acf *on Jblworfo 4ievliJ) ©rf* to *ijaq »x.;) So

pallee; and that the appellee was, naver^heleBO, entitled to
reoover. If aa a matter of fact, the driver was intoxicated;
and appellee placed himself in the ^river's care, knowing of
auoh intoxication; and that because of the drivera intoxica-
tion , he failed to exeroiae ordinary cart, in the management
of the horse and Vehicle in question, it cannot be aaid, as a
matter of legal responsibility, that appellee would not be,
under these circumstances, chargeable with such lack of or-
dinary care, on the part of the driver; jtet the jury could
very wqH infer, from the language of the instruction in
question, that the appellee would not, under these circumstances
b<3 chargeable with such laok of ordinary care on the part of
the driver. The instruction was, therefoie, misleading, in
view of the fact, that it was a controverted question in the
case, based upon tne evidence, 7/hether or not the driver was
intoxicated; and whether or not, on that account, he did or
did not exercise ordinary care, in the management of the
horse and vehicle. The same error, here pointed out, also
a peart in tne seventh instruction, given for appellee. Both
instructions, for the reasons stattd, had a tendency to mislead
tiie jury in the determination of questions of fact in dispute,
which were material, and affected the right to a recovery in
tne case.

The other objectiont made to the instructions under
consideration,, ncnely, that the inst ructions limited the matter
of the cart exercised by the appellee, for his own safety, to
"the time of the injury complained of", we do not regard at
well taken, under the facts and circumstancet presented "by
the evidence. In this oast, rs in the oast tffL, S, & M. S,
Ry. Co, V Ouska, Admx, 151 111, 336, the phrase, "at the timt
of the injiiry complained of", covered the wholt of the trans-
action which was involved in the determination of the question

{bs^MOlxotai ajBW -xsvJc^ .to&X to xa&tsta b ba 11 .lavoosi

^0 :^iifoai ^•'X^o a'Xdv.tXv siiiT nx lXftatsJ:£[ beoRlq, aell9C^,Ji ba£

-AOixoini kZi^\lii) eiti^ "io e&uaDed tAdt has iaoit&otxoi:i£ dxxjm

tn»m.6-^&nmi 6:ls at ^•a^o x%fiaXb'io eaxc-is^e oi beltzl: eri ^ aott

,bt£A aoT tomiBQ ii «aoJt^tex/p at aiolxler bn£ ba-xorf an';^ lo

^•tf ^0|i tXyow a«XX.eqq« ^arirf- ,^lXlcflBfrocri»a XigeX lo Tej^J^^rc

-10 to jiojBl iloifE ri^xw elcffiastceiio ,aaon£;^«im:oij:o eB8f:>t isfcnjj

JbXyoo Y^jyt ®^^ *®f iievixh eri;t l:o Jrueq arii' no ,etc£0 yrtanib

Bsoaht^tauoiio aaexfr iBhau ^ioa bluov BsllvqcB 9A& t^di ^aotttsup

\o tzaq 6rit no eiJBO v^janx^uo Ito iojsX .riaxra litivt BidBS^T^cic . .>

at ^-^aibAbl&Lm ^BnolBtedi ,e«w aoitox/aj-ani erfT .levxnb sdi

Bdt nt agttBBjjp he^iBYOt&ao^ a saw tt t£dt ^tofit arf;^- lo wsiv

BJBW laylxE) . JWW ion 10 xsxl*©riw ^eorcafjlve Siii^ aoqu bBnM ^B9£o

at. ..li ^tauooPA tA, -run 10 tcerftferiw baa ilJsJ-JBoixoJnl

a4jj- 1q^. tf'neBi©$jan£« orf*,#fc ,«'3;i80. x^^nxoao eaioiexe *on bt'.

oc-Lfi ^tuo b9taloq JtiBd |XQ%n9 emjea exi'T .aXoxxlev- bn& ae-xo/

dtoS. ^»aXXeqq* loi flavig. ^tfo.^ *oui^ an Jt ri^navee ant ni tx^s^

6«aXaxffl of \oaebae* m b£d ^bBtJ^tet anoajsex Bdi xot ^»aotSotntaai.

^Btuq,Bib at tOJtli Io BaoitBBup lo aotijuxlmi^^fb Bdi ai ^rai c r

ai x^avQOaT <a oi id^Qli B:it Jba^oelia ta£ ^iMhtBtBa di:aw dotdv

.eeeo e/Icr

'za^nx; BaaitouiiBat enii oi abaa aaoii-oatefo tcdil^o arlT

TaiTJ-jM f4i# JbaJ-iaJtX iusox;tox;'i^anl Bdi tAdt ^xXa^^n ^Aoxifa-citbxsfloc

o;f ^^^8^«8 flwo Bin ^o^ «j»eXXac.qA 9dl -^d bBmtoiBXB Mtao adf "io

a 'H oh aw ^"^0 bealAlq^aoo x^t^^ "rf* 'io Bmit Bdi*

Tjcf Zje^J^aaaa-nq •aona^^arfu/oa tD 6nJ8 bJos'!: arit lebnu ,fte>(3;t^ XXav

,8 .M ■ . '-'t BBJio f -f: ,eairo atdt nl .aonsbxva firf;t

a' . ." ^eajsariq ea* ^dSS .XII X2X .zobA ^&:i9SjC v *oO .vR

-anjsTJ Bdi.to tXodw stfd- taiavoo ,"10 ijsni^Xqmoo x'^lot Bdi tc

noJtjffiejup t. -oii-^iniari&tfefc sii;f ni bevXovni a^sw ifoJtrfw aoxJOx.

of the exercise of oars by appellee, and the instruction wae
therefore not misleading in this particular.

But for the errors indicated, the judgment of the court below
should be reversed, and the cause r^^.manded for another trial.

Reversed and remanded.

9B7I a9lt0itn&9nt 9d& baa tSeXIeqq* -^d exao to efltoiexa ^dt to
,%jiiuo{trAq •Jtrf* at -r^lbsBlatm ton (b%o\sxed^
woI»rf ;J-Ti/oo :- fnaogl)!' /.^•isotbat miozie Biit lol tu5

,ljsttf "T^d^otsB tot b»bnsm?:t 96sjJiO 9rft briB ^bemieyei od biuod9

/

;TATE of ILLINOIS, ( ,,

SECOND DISTRICT. f ^'^' I, CHRISTOPHER C. DuFFY, Clerk of the Appellate

3ourt, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records

.nd Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the

aid Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the

seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this

day of in the year of our Lord one

thousand nine hundred and

Clerk of the Appellate Court.

<f

AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COlflT,

/

:.><,

r

^flitWt.^,.

.....^

Begrun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the sixth day of April,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and fifteen,
within and for the Second District of tfe State of Illinois:
Present--The Hon. DORRANCE\ DIBELL , Presid^g- Justice
Hon. DUANE J. QARNES , Justi.
U-«on. JOHN M. NlWuS, Jus tile J 9 3 I A 3 9 rt

CHRISTOPHER C. DU^FY, Cle-jpk,
E. M. DAVIS, Sherikf.

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on the 15th day
of April, A. D. 1915, the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following-, to-wit:

I

<vds.im:

Gen. Wo. 6047

Utica Hydraulic Cewent Co.
appellee
V9 Appeal from LaSalle,

The C. R. I, & P, Ry. Co.

appellant,
Niehaus, J

This is an act-on on the case, commenced by the Utica
Hydraulic Cement Company, appellee, in the circuit court of
LaSalle County against the appellant, the Chicago Rock Island
and Pacific Railway Company. The appellant was charged in the
declaration, with negligence in failing to provide its loco-
motive engines with appliances to prevent the escape of fire,
and keep them in repair, and uae them in surii a manner, that
fire 'vould not escape; and that in consequence of such alleged
negligence, sparks and brands of fire escaped -'rom a locomotive
of the appellant, and set fire to a-r^pelleee barn, which was
situated about 150 feet north of appelltat's tailroad tracks.

The case was tried by a jury; and at 'he clo?e of the
evidence 'or appellee, both sidee, respectively, rested their
cage. Tlie court thereupon instructed the jury, as to the le^-ral
questions involved; and the j\iry returned a verdict finding
the appellant guilty and assessing the appellee's damages at
$1350. The appellant made a motion for a new trial, and also,
in arrest of judgment. Both motions were denied by the court
and a judgment was rendered upon the verdictj. from which judgment
an a-^peal was taken to this court.

The principal errors iasisted upon, by a nellant, are:
First, that the trial court erred in not grantinjl appellant*8
motion, to exclude the evidence offered by appellee, from the
consideration of the jury; and in not directing a verdict for
the defendant; secondly, that the oourt erred in giving to the

V^08 .oH .neC
,oO ijTrsMeO otLxjBzb^H AoJtJl

.oO .y}. , , . "[ .0 erTl

T. .Bi/JBllsil

jeolJ-U srld" ycf beonemcipo jdaBO srft no ao I ton as nt sidT

lo ttuor^ ttuoito sdf at ^6slL9qqB ^^casqaoO fnemeO otluBibyt

arf* nl be^lAiio saw j-fiBlleqqa ©rfT .xn^qmoO x^w^-tJ&H oilxo*^ bai

-oool s^Jfc ebJtvoiq o.+ -gakHslL at eonsgllsefi ri^tw ^noltf'BTsIooI

,e sqjsoa© si^;)- ;fneveiq oJ aeonjBilqqjs dtt^f es/ilans ©TtJoJ

*BrfJ ^tBaasm ji tti'Bat msff esv t merfd- qe&bl fcni

JbesellB doisa, lo sonei/pearcoo at t&di- bas (tqjsoae ^on Muow ei.

Bvlioaoool B moiT: Jbaqjsoaa eiiT: to abnaicf brts aalrtjsqs tsonegllsex

aJBw rioxrlw ,aiJ3d aasllaqos o;J- utfi *et- . /njalleqaa en'^ 1i

.aiOBT;^ f>J5oaIl«4 a 'rf-a^IIaqqjB ^o rf*ion J-ssl Ofll *i;ocf£ l)6*>sjj*i(

erlj ■^o e'soXo erf.'- ;fj3 btiB {X^ul m xd b^tif bjsw sbbo ©rfT

Tclerfj iJdJ-aai ^-^Lt^yttosqaer ^aeJbi^ dtod ,e©IXeqqje 10" aonafcjtvj

X»;3»i arfi od" a* ,YiiJt ©^^ JbeJoifiJanl floquaiad" tijjo .eejsi

SfilJbnil ^foibttav jb bentx/Jsi x'^i <>df bnB [bsviovat »aotfem

t£ aaaBmBb a*aaXXeqq£ Bd& ^nleaaaas baB ^tLtu-g taBLleqqB 9di

^obLb baB ^iBtzt visa b rol: noi^om b Bb&m taBiiBqqB SxiT .056X|

tiuoo sd:^ Ycf fieJtnah Bieif BaotSom rij-ofl .tnamgbJLfi, I0 ^aeiajs ai

taaKjgbJjt rfoJtriw raoit ^i'oibis'v er:t aoqu Jbaiabnei aBW ;tfT&-nisbi;t js fc^

;8tJB ^j-naXXeq b \d ^aoqsJ be^faJtacri bioxib l&qtoattq ©rfT
aAd-CBlXsqqB gni^nBig jfon rri Jbaii? iU *£flJ ^^faiil

©xi.?- ffloit jasXXeqrB vcf AelialTto ©onet ©birlox© o:^ <nox*o<|

ao^ *oibT©v B TgnJtJoatlb *0j> : .{J >o aoitBi3btBn<

anivjts nl heiT© ;fi.uc zclt ^x^baooBf| (^nBbnals

/

jury appellee's third instruction; and thirdly, it is urged,
that the court should have given to the jury the ninth instruction
offered by a^^pellant; and t lat it erred, in refusing to give it.

In reference to ths first error assigned y appellant, it may
be said, that there was evidence to show, that just previous
to the fire, a locomotive belonging to appellant, was passing
along a-)pellant's track, near the barn in question; which lo-
comotive, in its operation, threw out large quantities of
cinders; that a breeze was blowing; and that from certain points
along the track, where this locomotive was passing, this
breeze was blowing in the direction of the east end of appellee's
barn; and that a fire was noticed in the hay loft near the
opening in the east end of this barn, very clofjely following
the passing of the locomotive. From these oircumstances, to-
gether with others proven, the jury could very well have drawn
the inf-^rence, that the fire originated from a cinder, which,
while still burning, was thrown out of appellants engine, and
carried by th^breeze through the east opening of appellee's
barn, and set fire to the hay therein.

The evidence, in cases of this kind, is nearly always cir-
cumstantial; and whether the fire was caused in the manner
alleged, is usually a matter of inference from the circum-
stances proven. And the law is, that where evidentiary facts
fairly justify the inference of the u.timate fact to be proven,
their probative force is sufficient to sustain a verdict.
Dunlap V Smith 35 111, App. 388, We are of opinion therefore,
that the court did not err in refusing to strike out the evi-

ence, and direct a verdict for a^-ipellant.

Object' en is made to the third instruction given for
appellee which is as follows:

"The court instructs the jury that proof of the destruction of

property by fire escaping from a locomotive raises a prima faoie

^fctgajj ajfc d-i ^\xbilitt baa {aoitoui&Bat biidt it'eeXIsqq^
aottoii^ttat fWnifl ejij y^>. t nevig 0vbA binod» &ruoo si

siiOiVeiq tBiil y-foAp o) 6onebi': . ut tAdt ^bian so

3fliBajBq aaw ^J-njsIxaqc^^ oj' 3nlgiioIecf eviiomoool * , srij oj-

■io »ex;tiJ-nBup egTc^i ^-wo w©axi* ,noJ:J"saeqo •*! rrx ^syx^^ooxoo

sxrlJ- (gnleB^q i^bw •vlj-omoooX atii^ oiAiiw ^j(o«x^ pdt gaoli-
• •»sXI©qqj8 lo i>fie /««• tdt to aoitoen at gnlwolcf aaw ©set i-

vjBri 8ii;f nl beotfqa f^
^4*w»ij.o| Yii>©**oXo Y^ev jfliiscf Bi:riv+ lo i>n© ^ei;8a ;
-Oij^ ,teonj»*Bmx/oaio f«»xl| a^xl^ ,,fTJt*o»ooo >j a^iie.

nw4ab evBrf Xlew x'^ay Wupo Y'^^^t •^^ 4asvoiq siedio dttn -xt^ii-Jb.^
^rfoiriw 4isbnlo s aoat i>«i'jBni3lao 9iii sz: ^9oa9^sl:at f>.\i

e'eeilaqqjB "io anJU^eqo #t4f,.%i;Ii^ 4jwo.?d* •staicferiJ- ycf Jfc>©xiii^.'

,al6iedt \.sd ed& oi^ e ::njt ^aiAd

-%Io tx^wljs ^(Il£8^ Bi ^baii BirlJ- 1q a&B-ao ni ^touwi/iva SiiT

laiinjsm erfJ- nx iJcauAo a*. ledtedvr .bas iXj8X*n*^8.-ajjo

-«xfDi t(o'.' •oneie'iax ':. yXXaubj.^

• tost Y^jBjtJxis..iV6 arteclw j-«rl^ . ^a.. 5nA .ntvuiq stor.^.-a

.-■'■'-.:--- ..' i^aaxoj:- ■'-..8 ai aoiol »yXiAdOX<

,aioT:6ierii ao :xiiqo io 8i£ :- . .crqk .XII 88 dtiitiB v qjeXflija

-Iv© ©li^ j-juo aj^lxta o* gfil

9al brl ■ ■ (f("i

case of negligenca, which the defendant must rsbut by ahov/ing
the absence of negligence by a preponderance of the evidence
or that plaintiff's o^vn fault or neglir:enoe contributed to
the injury,"

This inatruction, which contains a n abstract proposition of law,
IS, perhaps technically inaccurate. It may properly be
questioned, as an abstract proposition of law, that the de-
fendant in a case, must rebut the proof of nsgligence -.vh-'ch
makes a prima faoie case for plaintiff, by showing the absence
of such negligence, by a preponderance of the evidence. But,
while this definition may not be strictly accurate, in the
abstract, atill, inasmuch as it had raferenoa merely to the
amount of evidence which it was declared was incurab -nt on ap-
pellant to offer in defense, and as appellant did not offer any
evidence, the instruction could not have had any material
effect; and could not vary well have been taken into considera-
tion by the jury, in .weighing the probative force of the
only evidence which was offered; namely, the evidence adduced by
appellee.

It may also be emphasized here, that the statement in the
instruction with reference to the preponderance of the evidence,
under discunsion, must be considered in connection with the
stateiiente in regard to th^ aame m.atter, in the other instruc-
tions, vvhioh were given for appellant; and when ao considered,
it is clear, that the jury could not have been misled about the
law, on the real question involved; or the feature of the rule
rerarding the preponderance :f of ihe evidence, which was
applicable to the case. If the evidence of the circunstanoes
warranted the jury in drawing the inference, that the fire
which consumed appellee's barn, was caused by a burning cinder
or spark emanating from appellant's locomotive, a prima facie
case was made out under the Statute; and the burden was then

gxilwoxfs xcf tiJ<Szi f'^'.jjm taAba»'i»b erfJ xfoirfw ^»o^9aiI3©^ 'to •a«o

eortebxvf - nA-xsSnpqeiq j? •^jcT •on©3JtXgen lo eonaecfjs eriJ-

oJ baiudtiitnoo eons^iXaen :to d-ljjjs* rtwo 9*\titat£iq t&ii:- -o

,wjsX lo noiJxacqoiq rf'OBiifBcfB n s 6ak&ttiOo rfoirfw ^noztou1tBni eidT

ecf xiteqonq xam tl ,9&aisjooant xLiAOtttcioot «qBiii8q ^9l

-eb Btit tBcit ^^wsl to jBoitisoqoiq *0BT;f«rfj8 ii« aa 4l)enox*asL/x;

rfo^rfr ernas-gtl-^ea !to loo-s: _ ■ oudei tttum ^9eBo -'3 ni i-nabnel

sonee f : Irrode ycf ^^'ixi'rtlfilq to> eajso eio-el JMiiag ^ aex'^^ni:

4;fijp[ .©onsbrTs erf.- >o eonattsJbnoqeiq fi \d ^eonesii^an riou.-^

eriJ nl 4a*j3iifoo.B yXtoiatt ecf iJ'on yjam aoiiftnllei) aid* aXXxf

eriJ ot xXaaam •oxieTcsleT b£d :fi: a^ rfojjmaBnJt ^liiiB ^toAXtad,^

-q£ no itrx- dHU/oni bbw fcaiaXoab a£% *x rioiriw fonebivs lo J'nwoiBje

^;nA talto toa btb d-riAlXaqqjs «£ baa ^aanslef; ax aello o* tfl£XX«<

XalTsJjsm YfljB t£rf evBrf ;fon bluoo aottouziBat edi- ^eoftshirvs

-jBieJbie'ioo otni at^lat cascf svBri XXew y^ev J-on bXx/oo 5ns ;

0 eoToi evitjscfoaq 8ri;t griJtdalew at ^x'^l^^^ ^^ nor:-
XCf b90ubbe ao«ef>iv9 arfJ ^yXefffffl ibeaallo e^w rfolrf'^ sonebJtTe ^Xflo

.esXXsqqj
edj at tae^.S'fH;^? -!:'+ JArf.t ,aT9ri Sssiafirfqai© scT oaX£ y^^ ^^

tSorsbiv :ai?t<'':'rroqf^i'^: sucf o;f sorrsielkei dttm aotiowi&an^.

■ ., . aiBbtsf. - m ^no s' job it isba.

-outiBnt isrf^o edj- at ^XBitam aauBs cil Btav(i^b&&i'

^bBiebisnoo o» aedn baz ;*««XXeqqjB lol aevig aiaw rfoirfv- ^anoi^

9dt tuod£ baXaxffl ns'^d" *v"rf ton fcXwoo vtrx/t •'^^ Jisrf* ^ifislo ax J.

fXxrc Bdi ':.o Biut£i ^bevXovrtl aottBBup L-' cio ^wa-

ajBv rfoJtrfw ^aonefcive e . ^o It eonjjieljrroqi gnibaA^a.

aeoruBd-p^/oito grU lo aonehtva eri* II .aa/^o axf^t oi eicf-solXqq-

enil erf* tAri* ^eoneietni erf* sxtJfcwjsrrb al vrirt exf* fcatflAiiAw

nebnXo gniniucf « x^ JbaeuBO aaw ,aTAcf a'eeXXeqq* bBtmsBcoo dotti-

Qlojil f.^.Xaq JB ^evltofltoooX e»*ttBXXeqrB moitl gnWjwraffla iaaqa i.

rteilJ- eavr fieb-u/rf erfJ bnjs ,-»*if*£*a erf* aebrci; tx/O 9hBm taw en^o

uponac appellant, to prove nnch facts as v;ould excuse it. C« C,
C, & St. L, Ry. Co. V Stevens, 74 111, App, 586.

As was said in the case of T, St, L. & W, R. R. Co. v TTeedham
105 111, App, 35, "To overcome appellee's prima facie case
the burden was upon the appellant to show that appliances for
arresting- the sparks, on each of the three engines in ques-
tion, were of the most approved kind, and were in [:ood repair,
and each engine was carefully and skillfully handled by a com-
petent engineer,"

There was no error in refusing the ninth instruction
asked by the appellant, inasmuch as the propositions of law
presented therein, wer::^ already set out in the seventh and
eighth instructions, which were given to the jury, at the
request of appellant.

The record in this case does not show any reversible
error; and the judgment should, therefore, ba affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

, . ..;...- .-.-1 -•. ^x-isvei'S v ...^ . ,,.. . . ■^-'^ a .'^

... .^cfiJBlIcjrfi t£ii* worfs o* trrifelliqc,. aoow bjbw Aeftii/ci ...-

^li^reV S003 n^* e^ter bnjs ^Istti:! bevinqqs *«o« erfj "io ©aew ^xiojt^
-moo £ vd" 5>eXfcrfj^ri vIIi/?:IIi3fff f-rt-s vin/1'«>'f£r> b^w enigns rlDS» b«J8

.leecigne d'fistaq

:.I'9qq,B to cte-i-ipfei

iiicTxFTevci ^{^s wodSg ;fofl aeoB ce-.- - „_oo©a enl

STATE OF ILLINOIS, )

SECOND DISTRICT. f ««• J, CHRISTOPHER C. DuFFY, Clerk of the Appellate

Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the foregoin- is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my oflBce.

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the

seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this

day of ill the year of our Lord one

thousand nine hundred and

Clerk of the Appellate Court.

■dt xfni; I.

lb 0 / ^

)
1 / 1

AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE C^RT , f '^Z %,^_J \ f^

Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the sjixth day of April,

in the year of our Lord one thousand nine? hundred and fifteen,

within and for the Second District of fhe State of Illinois:

I
Present--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Presiding- Justice.

I
Hon'r'^ANE J. CARNES, Justice.

Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Just/ce.

CHRISTOPHEB C. DUFFY, Cle^^k. 11/ O i.A« 0\j ^

E. M. DAVIS'4 Sheriff. /

fKitV.*^

r

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on the ii&th day
o^Apss*i, A. D. 1915, the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and fig-ares
following-, to-wit:

Gen. No. 6013,

Ed-wards & Bradford Lvunbar Co ,

a corporation, appellant,

V8 Appeal from Co. Ct, Peoria,

G, Eontjes et al, a elleea.

Carnes, P. J,

This 16 3 suit ir. aesunspsit prosecuted by Edwards &
Bradford Lumber Co. a corooration, ths appellant, against the
appellees G, Bontjes and J. K. Bontjes, a partnership, to
recover ?348,33 the purchase price of eight carloads of coal
sold anr! delivered to aipellees in February 1913. Appellees
claim that they purchased the coal of one McCulloiigh and not
of appellant, and that there is no contractual relation
between them and appellant, snd no indebtedness that can be
recovered in this svit brought in tlie name of appellant,
A jury trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for the defend-
ants and the plaintiff appeals, G. Bont^QS is dead ind the
case proceeds against J, H, Bontjes, the surviving partner,

IDt anpears from the eridenoe that prior to July i, 1913
UoCullough was the lessee and operator of a coal mins at Spaulding
Illinois, and was in financial trouble. On that date he entered
into a written contr^^ct with appellant in relation to the coal
bueineHB the: e conducted. The docuDJent is not in evidence, a
copy was offered by appellant and excluded by the court, apparently
on the ground that there was no foundation laid or the intro-
ducti vn of secondary ^virlence. The copy so offered is not
shown in the record. Oral evidence as to the substance f the
contract was offeredby appellant and heard without o bjection,
and there is othsr oral evidence from agents of appellant as to
the relation existing, presumably because of the contract,
between appellant and McCullougJi, From f?ome of thia evidence

,EX06 .oTf ,n90

, oD zedtmsd biotb&-xfi ^ aJbi^wbS

.tiiislieqqjj . "^ ■; " "iDqioO «

.•eexxtr li .Ijb i"e aerir.on .0

erf;t tf-8nlBg& »#njBlI»qqjs erfit ^rtoiJjBaooioo £ ,oO redmiJ. bio\bair.

03^ ^qlrfsxen^aaq b ^%bliao8. ,K ,1 bn/? eet*«oa .0 •©elXftqtji

Xjboc lo t6*oIi£o sd-gtt to soiiq ••srfoTij-e[ erf:*' 5fi»8df^8? nevooeT

• fiellsqrA .ei6I ^iBi/id's'H: flx aesllsq b o:f fceisvileb ^nis liXoe
d-on bn£ rfgifoXXx/OoV. ano ^o Xboo erf^f beajBrioix/q x*''^^ **rf* nfljeXo

aox^^Xex- X«t';ro*itfloo 0|r* -»dt Oieff-* #firf* bnja \tttM£l9qqB It

,*fljBXX»qqjB lo effi£xc arii- xii id:gisord ttJB 9tcit nx X)©Tevooe--

-fcnsldb drii- -xol: *nemaJbi;t bflJs totbiev b at bttXx/asi XjbIiJ' yujc A

adt bcxE buftb al aag^noa '.C .tXaeqqjB llid-rtljsXq orfJ brtA a*n;;

.aen^iaq anlvlvxi/e ori:^ ^ae(;:tTT03 ." ,L J'a.'^Tljegjs aftseooaq aaAO

SXeX ^I vXi/L oJ- loxaq tsd^ eonsbive erfJ- ffloil easaqr^Jes *I

anibXi/jeqa ^jb tnXm Xjboo jb "io zotAif^qo bn& aasaaX arfi ajB** r^jjdrrifDoM

Jbeiajne erf eiab *j8n:f xiC .*Xcfx;oi;f Xjutortsalt rti aj8-«r Jbne ^aioniXXI

Xjboo eaJ o- rroi*3Xei ni ircjiXXaqq^ rf*iw *oJ3i;tiioo fT»;i-tl'iw" s 6&trt

M ,aonebJtTe ni J-oit al taerauoob ©rfT .ba^ouhnoo 8 erfif aBanliiro"

YXJneiaqq* ^*xuoo eri;J' vd" babuXoxa brtB j^nJSXXaqqa y^^ berratld" *«*' \qoo

-OTC*nl srft -loi bi^X rtoi;fBbni/o5 on auw an:9fi;f Warier bnwoTg s-rf"^' rfto

;ton s t baiLello oe yaoo s.IT ,eonpbivs ^iBbnooep lo a itoub

9dt t 9onstadjjB arft o* »a aonsbive XaiO .baoosT erf? ni nworfa

taoiJ-csta o tuoditvi bxaerf bna JnjsXIsqqjs Ycfbaaa^lo aJnr tOBiJ-noo

o;t a£ tn&llfiqqA "io atnagjs moo:! aonablva Xbio xeriJ-o «i: 8tcerf:t bffB

^*ojBi^noo erfi^ Io aaxi.'joscf ^{XcfismjjaeTq ^gnitaixa aol*jsXe:i ©ri*

• onabiva eirf:^ to emop moi'^ .xlgi/oIIx/OoM bn* tfusXXsqqB xtaewd-ed'

it may be inferred that at the time of the sale of the coAl

in question appellant wae the owner of the entire output of the

that
mine and had an arrangement v;fith McCullough kxA ail coal should

be shipped in the name of appellant, and all invoices prepared in
the office of appellant and by it eent to the purchaeers ;
and ail money* due for coal should be collected by appellant;
that McCullough 'e relation to the mine was atrictly that of
operator and he had no connection with the purchassre of coal_,
except in the capacity of salesman for appellant, and except
that he waepermitted to sell to retail customers taking coal
from the mine in wagons on hie own account; and from some of
the evidence it may be inferred that anpellant was handling
the output of the mine as sales agent for MoCfuilough. It
seems that McCullough was operating the mine at his own ex-
pense and aopellant was furnishing him money to carry on the
bu^ineas i-.nder the provisions of thia contract, amon£ which
was on« that appellant was to have eight r>ex cent and Mc-
Cullough nineto two per cent of the amount received for car
load shipments from the mines, and was to advance McCullough
on notice of such shipment ninety two per cent of the selling
price and collsct the whoie amount from the purchater. It is
likely that the relation between appellant and McCullough
created by this contract could easily be determined ffom a
knowledge of its exact terms, but the case was tried without
getting that information into the record and leaving a dis-
puted question of fact in relation thereto,

TlUhile McCullough wa« acting under this contract
appellees were operating a coal mine nearl)yi, and there is
evidence that it was customary for McCullough and appellees'
agent there to borrow powder of each other to be repaid in
kidd or in some other way. And it appear* that about the time
the eight car loads of coal in question were shipped to a^pel-

Xtoo Bdi to tlBB tdi to soilt erfcT ^A ^Arf^ ^jt^crslnJt ed* yam &t
9df to iuqtuo eiisna e:ij^ 1o vionwo 9.'i^ taw J-nAlIsqqs rtoicfaeup nl
Mi/oif* X«oo IiB jtox i^i/oIIx/OolI j1^2w ifneme^nAi'Xje njs bad bns ^atifi.
nl biasqeiq ••oiovrri lis bnjs ^^naXIaqqa to drajeft 6d& ni bsqqida 94
I •a8»«rioix;q 9di o& fn9s :fl yd bns tf-nalXaqqjB. 1o •oillo ©xfct
i*fiJBiXsqq£ ycT JieJoeXXoo ed bXi/oris Xboo to^ si/I) tysnom ILa baM^
to iMdJ yXtoii^a ijiw aftlm »ff;t oJ- nottMltz 9^ ct^uolluOoU ^4d^^
^Xaoo to BtteBJBriota/q 9d& rtjfiw rtox^foenaoo on 6j8rf erf bna xotat9qo.
i-iTtoxa bn-s ^&arMLL9qq.B lot nanvaXjss '10 y^Jtoaqjeo s:'iJ" ni ;fqeox#,,
X^eo -gnistst tTtisotairo Xt^ts'i o;t XIss 0^ betd-liarceqaAW ail ^^M^r
to ©mo9 fflOTt bnjB iirtjjoooz nwo atrf no •flog^vf ni enXia erfl ia,Q^^
gnlXJbfiJBrf aaw JnaXlaqqe JsiiJ baxietax 90 y^ta ;tjt aonabivs 9p,$i
tT .liauoXIjjOoM Tol *rt93B »eX.99 as ania a4J to tuqtuo &r^^
-xe nwo aiif fi: arrio edt snicf-e^c^qo aaiw rfai/oXijjaoM .j-^rf* ,anjsi,a%
9di no ytiAO oi yanom raid gnXriexnii/t bjsw JaaXXaqqa bnB aaaeq
doxxfw 3A0ffiA ^itofiitnoo sXdif to aaoXa^voiq 9di •s^Bbnj 99^aJ;eij^.
-oM bna drteo taq ^£[3X8 tvxri od' ajiw tnjBXXaqqa ;f«xid^ p»no a aw
1.80 lot JbevXfiOfti Jrxiroffljs sd^ io *noo laq ow^f o:^e^X^ riguoXij^p
xlSifoXIi/Ootf adfliSvbA o;r aaw bs£, ^tanXia 9di aox'i Btaeaqldm bAol
■gaiiL99i erii to *nao leq ow* y;f9nln #xxemqXifa xloye to ©pitcn no
»»i J-I ,i»a»rioxwq 6r:t moi'^ tnuomz aiXoriw ©f{;t i^oelXoo bas BOtyi
ligijoLluOt'V. b(r£ trtMileavt aeaw^scf aottslc-i 9d:^ i'-Bd^ yXf|^4»
-a iHott bexttmifei^ab scf yXXaij© bXiroo tvei^taoo ftldo yd batsa:;^
ytrod^xw baXrcd- a«w 6R60 arlJ- tisd »»B*ie^ *o«xe a^X to agbeXwo^^
-aib js giiXvjsal Lnfi biooai snr otnX no-t*aftiiotnX ifBri* 'S^^i^hi
,o&9iedt rioitAXsT rtX tojet to xioX^eex/p baJifg
^OBiitiTOO aXrfj t9bnu sntttxa bbw ffgi/oXXji/OoM eXXrW
ai 9t9dt bcxM ^flftfrtAefc anXa Xaoo jb gnXitaiaqo aiew aaeXXaq .ii
'aotjXXeqoA 'niR il3jjoXli/0oif not y^BmoJai/o aaw i-X d-sriJ- aonebXAff
nX l>X5q»t ad o* T:ariJ-o iifojBe to ttebwoq woiiod o.t eiaxi;f ^^*d3
9ai& »rfj- *0Ods d'Bifi' it/?©m'/ ;fi rrtA ,yjaw ledi'O ©moa /iX 10 bbXi
-IsqrA oi baqqXdft sxt** aoi;t8ajjp. aX Xjboo to abJioX a«o rf^£^i« ? ...

leet, McCullou^ prociired of appallaes through their agent

at their mine, 100 kega of powder of the value of ^115,00

Appellee* claim that the powder was oTotained ty McCullough

with the express agreement that they would pay for it with

coal, and that the eight car loads of coal in question were

shipped to appellees pursuant to that agreement and as a part

of the aawe tre.neaotion . Appellant claims that the purchase

of the powder was tl.* individual affair of McCullough with

which it had no connection and that appellees had notice of

the fact that it owned the coal at and xtefore the time of the

saisj and there is evidence tending to eu'^port each claim.

There was Bome negotiation between appellant and appellees

in relation to the matter agter the delivery of the coal, and

aT)pellee8 offered to pay appellant the difference between

the price of the coal and the price of the powder, 'vhich offer

was refused. There were other occurences after the delivery

of the coal tending to show a recognition by appellees of

appellant as their creditor in the matter, and there ie conflict

in the evidence as to sortie of these natters.

Aside from the question of the contents and meaning
I
of the written contract between appellant and Mo C?ul lough, -ffhich

should have been determined by the introduction of the contract
in evidence or b^ proof of loas and introduction of th3 copy
in evidence leaving the Court to instruct the jury, if neces-
sary, as to its construction, the important controversy was
whather the coal was sold and delivered to appellees by
McCullough as a part of the transaction in •-'hich he obtained
the powder from them, and whether appellees knew of appellant's
connection with the bueinesa, and -fhether there wae any
obligation incurred to pay a^-ipellant for the coal by transac-
tions subseqiient to the sale and delivery.

At the close of the evidence the court refused the

tfi»3« itMilf dguoi; J B8»Xlerrq» lo b^tuooiq tigifOlLifOoV ^%B9L

OO.fiXiA lo »iflJBv sff J- «.to i«£>woq ^o 9g©j( OCX »enim TJterii- *«

■ <

rigjjoiiuOoM yd" ©•xii>t#ao thw TtJbwoq erf J- tttdt mtxln ••aXlsprcrA

ciii.^ ii lot Y£q fclxrow X9,i;} t«riJ trtemesi-rs •••iqxe 9rf;t rf*iw

easr floiJsei/p ni I«oo to •IsjboX lao j-rfgie erf? tart* 6ni ^X«oo

t^«q « >£ bxXf #xxds»si3je f&di o& i'nAt/txuq ■•ellsqnB oj- l>Oqqixfi

••sdoxuq jxid- *«ri;t emljsio " ^xxjiIIeqrTA . iioiJoaenatc* snj^a erf* ItO

iiJ-iw djjjoXiijOo}^ lo iij8l:lJB laijbtvtbcit ?:(* 8j8W aaJbwoq arf;^ lo

to eoiJ-oa bAd •eaXIaqq* tAiit bas' flolloartnoo on b&A J-1 rfoidir

erfJ- ^0 Sfnid- 9ai sTolstf* J&cs ^£ Xboo •rif l)»nwo ;^j: i-arf* tos"! erf*

.iaialo xioae ;fnotir:im od" grrli>n3:f oons*>i;T© ai eiarf? hrts ;eiaa

ba£i ^Xaoa srfdr to x^evlXa^ ©rf~ 'xb&%b netSatn &ciS o& cxottal^r al

.'■ys'sied soneas'ilii) erft taalleqcs ifcq o:^ l)e'x&l:'.o BeeXIeq^T*

iBtlo xloiriv ^i»£!Woq Sri J' Ito eoi^rq erf;t ftrtB Xaoo arf* ^o eoi::rq ©rl*

VX3V±X0i3 •riJ latXa eeorraouooo led&o ©'^©w ©lerfT Jisai/lfiT ©aw

lO 8©©XX6qrj3 YcT nciti.n'sooti b worfn o* Tjrtibrr©? laoo srfd' 1:o

toiXIrnoo ©i eierf:*' btts ^xetfAm ea';f «i; rro^lbc'io rtxerf* i*t d-rtalleqqa

,Brr©*;^■Bm ©©©n'j- to ©moa ot ea ©oneb.f'v© ©ff;t rti

aniflaem Jbrrs mtne^aoo edt ?-o flo.tte©j/p ©rft meiJ eblek

doirf"- ^A-guQilvOtU bns irtaXXeqtrjB «©©w5f©o &oB%taot> neJ^fXaw ©rf* It

tOAitaoo 6^t "r.o aoitoisboitr.i sd: ycf fcsfilmTejsfc rrc^d ©varf bXi/ori©

Xqoo Sii^ :::' noxtoirhO'id^ni Jbn* ©goX lo looiq -':cf 10 eocibbtva at

-••oen il kX'^1 od^ icsjitsnt oi J-ii/oO •ri# j^nivaeX ©onebJtvs ak

• fii^ Y«isYoaJnoo JnaJ-aoqai ariJ- \nol^Oi;«*©noc ed-l o* ©jb ^^xa©

Yd ©©eXXeqqa oi btrBftlek bn£ Mor ©aw Xaoo 6dt raii&Bdn

b9cii»fio ©ri rioicr rri noXtosarrjia;*' ©rf^t "io tnaq r ».6 rfs-'^O-^-'^J'^'^oJ'

©•*naXi©qqa "io wen:?. i«©XXsqqa t©i*©/lw baA\nodJ moiJ :r©bwoq »ui

vrrcfi ©aw ©rtsrfj terfi-fcrfv hr: ■ ^©©©fiJtsx/d' erf* rf*x> flcltosnnoo

-oaajifxt xcf I«oo ©rft lol: tnaXX©qra -^jaq 0* A©ixi/oni noi^a^il o

.yisviXei: bxi^': ©Xa© j©rf;^ o.+ tntitrpBBduB pnor.r

erft .b«©*r1©x i-ixra» s^fiT ©ort©6ive »/f* 'to' ©©0X0 frf.* vfA

rsviuaat of aaoli party for a paramptvory instruction, directing
a verdict and at the requsat of the defendants gave the jury
among, othera, three inatruotioni aa follows:

3, "The court inatructa t}ie jury that if you believe from
the evidence that the co.^.l in queetion, at the tiiTie it waa
purohaeed by the defendant, throu^ their agent, P. J, Matheney
if you believe from the evidence that the defendant did ao
purchaae it, waa the property of E« T^ McCullough anc not the
property of the plaintiff, then the plaintiff oarnot recover

in this caae, and you should find the issues joined for the
defendant, Linle'^e you further believe from the evidence that the
defendant knew or had reason to believe that the plaintiff
had the exclusive control of the putput of the mine operated "by
said McCullough,"

4, * Tae court instructs the jury that if you believe from
the evidence that the contract ''or the purchase of ■':he coal in
question v/as entered into between E, W, ?ZcCulloush under the
name of the Snaulding Coal Company, and the defendant, through
their agent, P. J, 'ifatheny, then the plaintiff cannot recover
in this case and you should find the issues joined for the
defendants."

5. "The court instructs the jury that before the plaintiff
can recover in this case that it must prove, by the greater
weight of evidence that the defendant p\irchaeed the coal in
question from jfct, the plaintiff, and that they have not paid for
the eame. If the plaintiff falls to make thie proof, you should
find for the defendant,"

In short: If McCullough owned the coal, and appellant did not
have the exclusive control of the putput of the mine (and there
was no claim or evidence that it did mat have such control);
or if the coal was eold under the name of the Spauldlng Coal
Company (and there was evidence tending to show it was);

aoit ivaiXscf xroy It tAdi XV^l *'^* t^oxn^J-ani: tijjoo erfT" \S
IBW i-i etntf eift fa ^flol^idtrp ni X.?oo til* ^Ail* eaaeiilTa ed*

ot btb tiiMbtitttb Bdt i-jBn'j- •onsbJtTe erf f moil eve iXecf iroY ^i

erf* ton btiM x^x/bXIx/OoM ."'' .^ >o' 'V*V(»<Toiq sn^ esw ,i-J: etJBrfoii/q

::6,foo3T fonrtfib !tl:i*ni£_,, i..J .it... ^llltnijaXq •ri;t lo -^^aeqciq

e. ^Denloj; aeirspi: erftt Jbnlr bXifOrfe iso\ has ^eeAO alrfi^ al

llll;tnij8Xq e di"^ ijixfi" ev. .- .--.. ^ -^...^ ^>, wefli SaAbael^b

. -. :•. -.-. ■.-, .:f ■ ■• ■^.

Xcf be*.Bisqo 9nlm $ni- \o tw^^n o lortnoo evlex/Xoxe eri* bad

- ■ .' ' '".'■'■*.

" , rfgJ^OXXx/OO-^ h r as

i.- — ^, -z i-an\t yujj; s..- -- — v-ax i^ijjoo ex.1 ' .-

fli IJKio erf:' to etjsrfoixrq «^. t -<■ .'^ #OJ»i;ahnob erfj' i-jBrf* eonebire erf*

•ri* 'lebru; r^x/oXXx/Doir ,' ... ..^.vrjed b*ni beieJxte tjew noi^eex/p
rS^otd:t ^taBbn&tsb sdi hrt ,y'HqmoO XaoO gaJtJbXx/srrg erf* 1© »a&a

levooei *onn«o l^tJnlBj.^^ _..- .i^rf^f ^yrterfJaM ,L ,<I ,*ne3B lierf*

erfj to'?' bertiof Iftr-as-x ©t't bftil- TVIt/Oi-fp trov finp.'tajsb Btdt at

m^niiii , tolscf J^rf^t Yi-,„ i 5*0i/T*aflJk *10OO eriT ' . .

Te3-£9i3 srfj- yd ^evoiq *a.am j-i *Ba* aaJBO 9iri;t at aevooai a«0

hi Xaoo srft Atia.'foiuq Jft.sBns'^.ah & "' :f •.!*.' sonebxv© lo cfrfglaw

Tol blBq *on dvi^rf \erf:f &&d' . ... ^Wt moil nox*aaup

bXx/Ofia x/oy ^Ibotq stdf e?i^ra oj- ■ x*rtijBiXq tri* ^t .8m£9 erfJ-

■' . tfiBbnsleb bi.
*0« bib J-naX ^ -trrvo diguolLuOoU VL ti-iods al

• i^s'J bn.z) •attt er . •... .7 _. .. :.oztaoo avlauXox i

;(|oT*noo rfox/a svarf jbu bi:^ * x &Br-*' »na©bire to it.; :-. a^i

XaoO gtcibXxfjBqS erff lb »ajtif; , „08 aJBW - uj

:(uii'f.' -J- 1 worfa oi «nlf?.-?J- scrtsbivs aAW aa^xl. ; CJ^aqflioO

or if the ooal waa not purchased from appellant (and the jury
v/ould likely understand p\irchae9d direct from it,) and thsre
waa net affirmative proof that it had bean paid for; then and
in either of thoae oonditione, refrardlesa of all other consid-
erations, a verdict for the defend.ant was directed, Theae
instructions ^vere clearly wrong and were in dir-,ct conflict with
instructions given for the plaintiff as modified by the court
in vvhich the jury were told "if the defendants, by chair ac-
tions after the purchase by 'ohe (:<efandanta trtaated

th« plaintiff a« their creditor and the seller and owner of
the said screenings" or 'knew or had notioa that -cne plaintiff
had the exclusive control of and right to sell ths entire output
of toa mine* of if the defendants "by "heir actions after the

purchase treated the plaintiff as the ■"'ef endanta'

Ci^editor and as the seller of the whole amount of the screenings'
then and in either of those conditions 've verdict must be for
the plaintiff for the full amount of its claim.

It is familiar law that a series of instructions are
to be rsad as a whole, and a bad instruction may sometimes be
explainec" and cured by othera of thf^. series if a verdict is not
directed in the bad instruction, but if it is, that xhe srrar
can not be cured by other contradictory instructions. Ws are
of the opinion that "oecause of these erroneous instructions
the judgment should be reversed and the cause remanded for
another trial, notwithstanding tee fact that appellant is
responsible for a part of the errors it here complains of.

Aopeilant argaes that it was at least an undisclosed
principal in the transaction and as auch entitled to recover
in this suit, and appelleae say if appellant is an undisclosed
priroipal it must accept the trade of its arent 38 ii ■'inda it
and if MoCullough as ths agent of an undisclosed principal
paid for powder :-or his ownuse with coal belonging to appellant

.. ...,.,*- ■.. ,,

••eriT .b6&09xih BfiW ttisbn»\»b ■ ~ ' taaoxjsis

.. , ,.',. * ;?3

rirrw toliinoo toeatJb ni sidw Jbfljs ^noaw viiJ3b_o Si^v.' aa^ ■

t^x/oo »ri* YCf^«i'^ii>oi« 9j8 Itli'/ilBlq r : ~. navjfca •noiJ-o "xjanx

Jbed'ieiJ- •Jitaftne'te : vd «3BXio'rjjc ,;iii iaou

"lo isrr.vo Ln ^ .jJ-i:i)e-ro . ixxJ-niJBl

tifqJx/o BziLn: i^ " "'^•xj'aoo svisi/Xox'. -.

'8*fl*ftnele^ eAi &a xiL^atBLq ©riJ b©:fi?8'i. B9i..no-su<:i

'•Snlaeaioa exlj io ^ffifomjs eloriir s " :tallfe qvs bb bajn XQttr.eiio

701 ecf t&im &t>tbie\ :-a.oii&tDaoo eBodi l-o lis xft lei it Jt bn.b nen'd-

.mia. c- e.7x ^o tnuoth& iLu\ edi 10Y llUnk&lq en'^

•cf ••mJb^amO* x<B'^ aoitoxric^anjt bsd m bCtB ,aJ!oxfw js bs Jbaei
*orc *f lojtftiav JE li aeJtlse " f Jbeixxo fini haxix;iitiXB

Tiizii arfj i'jarfj- ^ai jJt ti jao ^ao.cjouTjsnx ijflcf axtj- f^l b9t0f%tb
8'- .anoiJouitani Y^o*'~'-i^^Jsi3-noo '^ xq' be to " -^ - ~ -

aiXQs.iDi.ft&ant axioarro^ia aaarij "io asu'^^oso xjsri'J- «ox ; .

i<rt 6aJb««msi aax/BO arf* baA baalavai sc/ biuod» tffisr.13i.uii. wiu

si: tftjBliaqqB tfAxf." ? " :;tftf 3nl]bnjeJBfftfjcwtfoa ,XjiiiJ" laritfona

.lo arrJt.ijiqwoo axaxi .■ : e-ioiae sri:^ lo timq a aol e'lcflanoqaaoi:

feaaoloalbnx/ ffjs tfajRel j-je a>6w tfi tfsrl^f asu^ia ^nsIIr-tor^A

aavooci otf fcaXtfitfne rioifs bjb hns flOjt*o*a*rrj5^i" "^ ' ■ XjBqxjitxx^

JbaaoIoaJrfonxr ~- ^ "- fnMlItcfa,6 It yaa aaalla<jqi' bn.':; jj^x>7a ttdi at

&k •fcrri'i: ' ' - f oja-rtf erftf tfqaooa i'ai/w tflXaciio/ti-iq

., ji. r ,. J

that appellant cannot repudiate that part of the bargain.
This may ba so, but we aaaums that on another trial definite
kno^vledge will bs furnished of the contract between appellant
and McCuilou^, and so much deperids upon that, that we cannot
profitably in-'ulge in gneculation of what it may ba and give
directions as to the rights of the parties thereunder.
Appellant also contends that it is entitled to a ver'iot if the
evidence ehowe that it is the assignee of a contract made by
McCullough, We see no ground for that contention, the euit
was not brought tn the name of McCullou^ nor has appellant
brought itself under the provieione of Section 18 of om- Practice
Act authorizing a euit by the assignee of a chose in action,
ndst negotiable, in hi 3 o^n name.

Reversed and remanded.

tcaaMO ew tjidi ^&&d;f aoqu Bbnoqeb rfox/r ^r^jjoITi/OoM boM

trTBXl9fr<t,« »«rf Ten ffgjL'-oIIijOoM ?

; J6 anoijop' tJ)
•Rdi' •worfp eonafcive

. .:3JJpXIi/00M

1.-..- ; ■ X . ;,.■-* o'i ■

.f=»mj8n nwo f. i:rf nJt ^elcfi? 1:^03 en ;fl>«

:c, :Tey-

5TATE OF ILLINOIS,

SECOND DISTRICT. f "*"■ I, CHRISTOPHER C. DuFFY, Clerk of the Appellate

3ourt, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
tnd Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
laid Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the

seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this

I day of in the year of our Lord one

thousand nine hundred and

I

Clerk of the Appellate Coxirt.

^lif

AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE. COURT,

Beg-un and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the sixt|f day of April,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hifndred and fifteen,
within and for the Second District of tae State of Illinois:
Present--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Presid'lng- Justice.
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES , Jus^^ce.'
Hon. \J0HN M. NIEHAUS, J^tice.
CHRIST^HER C. DUFFv/cierk.! 9 3 I.A. 39^

E. M. DAVIS, Sher/ff.

-4

/W^/" . Wy ?//

- 7/^

//
£^E IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on the IS-th day

of^pT-ri, A. D. 1915, the opinion of the Court was^ filed in

the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures

following, to-wit:

Gen, No, 5988

James Saviox et al appellees .

vi Appeal from City Court.

Anton Vieno et al, appellants. Spring Valley,

Diball, J.

On November 39, 1913, James Savio and two others filed
a bill in equity against Court Rose No, 13 of the Firresters
of America, of Spring Valley, Illinois , of which complainants
alleged they were mtm members, and against five persons alleged
to be the treasurer, the [financial treasurer, and the trustees of
said Court Rose No, 13, wherein it w-. s alleged that said Court
Rose No, 13 was a local beneficiary society, a member of the
Forresters of America, am' subject to the constitution and by-
laws of said body and of the Grand Court of Illinois of the
Forresters of America; that at a certain special meeting, held
on November 34, 1913, the majority of the members of said
local body attempted to secede from the order of Forresters of
America, and at a certain other meeting, held on January 34,
1914, they undertook to change the name of said local body; that
the call for said November meeting did not comply with the
rules of the order in certain respects set forth and was illegal
and its action was void; that the said officers made defendant
had pesseesion of about ^1800 of the f\inds of said order, derived
from the payment of duts by the respective members, and also
of certain r^al estatt of said local court, situated in the
City of Spring Valley, ind that said officers threatened either
to convert the same to their own use or tta. to turn it over to
the new order, which by said proceedings they have attenpted
to join; that by the laws of the order, in case of an attempted
secession by any local body, if 15 or more members, including
some one competent to preside, do not secede, (as was alleged
to be the case here), they shall be the local body and shall be

8865 .oVi ,xn
.•eeXIeqqjB Lb to ro1v£8 aamjBl
,*Ti;oO \:txO moil laeqqk ev

.L ^xxsJia

fitlll sasrfito owj hn& oivaS aemBT. 46X61 tSS tcecfnsvoW nO

•aie^Bei'ii'? erft ^0 8X ,oVL eaofl d"iJLfoO 'Janljaa* Y^ij^ps «-t Xlla «

•^lusnlBXqmoo rfoirfw to ^ tlonlXIT j-\feIXBV anJtiqB Jo ^AOtrsmk to

be3tXX£ snoiTeq evil ^snle'3JB &n£ ^tiaxifcHdm aun siew xe^ J^e^dXlA

^0 see^AiJT^ sdt baJn ^i^niBM^ni^ XBionjBnl\]erfj' ^teoirBJBai^ 9cif ecf 0^

tiuao Jbi«» t&tif "fiei^'sXX^ B?w J-i nlexeifw ,SX .oK eaoH *ax/oO bljsa

srfl "^0 isrffljQin e ^^^sxooa x^Aioilaned Xaoo.X b aaw 8X ,oTI aaoH

-yd bun aottistttBaoo »nt 0* toetcTwa 'ina ^aolTamA "io aTe;fa8iao'?

8ffJ io siorJiXXI io truoO JbnitO srff io brt g tt>ocf %r6i "io eWaX

JtsXsri ^a^li'esm Xaioaqa fliaJlao a *« tAdt {sotiemk Io aiei-aenToT

JMaa to tiadmera axlJ- to Yi^-^^otfim 9dt ^ZLQL ,1^5 lacffflsvolT no

to BietBaaiot to leJbio srf^f moat abaoaa 0* bBttpnet&a yJbocf XbooX

^;f'S x^msaBl, no fiXarf ^gnij-eem aarfj-o nlB^iao b ^-b bas^ ,«oiiamA

J 'i»<j 1 ^1) od Ib 00 X- 1)1 B8 to aMBn sdi eaxxflrfo 0* :loo.^iBbttu ^Bdt ^^XSX

■' ■' rfj-iw xXqttoo toa bib gnli^adfff aatfmevoPI fciaa xo"^. XXbo arfJ-

^.'., .,^..^ BBW I-)n£ rf^-xot ^aa a^oaqaai atuftBO ctlXBbxo edi- to aeXx/i

i-nAbristeb abam aiaoltto biBa arfJ *«xft ;bi:ov bbw floi:^OB aJJt bna

bavXiab ^labio bXaa to abni/t erf;t to 008X* tsjod& to noXaaaaatq bBri

waXB bne ^aaacffflem evltoaqaei edi ycT aii/b to trraiHYBq ari;t Wit

axlt at b9t.Butl9, ^tiuoo XbooX bisa to •^B^faa Isit atatzao lo

lariJ-ia fca^e:^Be'xrf* aiaoitto bJtaa tsd^'baf' ^ybXXbV anlaqB to \tt^

oi 'X870 ;fi aini ot mtt 10 aaix awo liarf^f 0^ amBa arid* ^asvnoo ot

bad^qasi^f^ avail y*J^^ aanlbeaooiq St&a yd rfoJtrfw ^tcabao wan arf^

bed-qmaJ-cfs ab to aajio at ^rebto &di to'awBX erft yd tBdt {tttot ot

gnlbjLfXoni ^aiadfflam eaora 10 SX tl ^xbo<f L»ocl xa» ^fcf nolaeaoaa

r-*-^e ! . B ■ 9J5) ^0fcsoaa ^oa ob ^eblaaTq ot ^nsJaqmoo eno eoiop

evi Xi«.;.o i.....; x^od" XbooX arftfacf XXfirfa xarf;t ^{•larf eeBO tdt ad 0.

entitled to all the propert^p which "belonged to the local ■body-
before the attempted aeceseion, and that if there are not 15
tuch rtienbere refusing to secede, then said property shall be-
long to the Grand Coiirt of the Order of Forresters of the State
of Illinois; and that defendants have in their possession and
intend to convert not only the said money and real estate, but
also the charter* rituals, books, paraphernalia and ^ost-umes
of said Court Rose, {Tho -bJAl f i-Jthsr alloged that tho — laws -of.
i:h(?-orderu:Ud not f-ar-Jii-sh any adequate velief in g.uo]i a oatg*
2m4-tyr&^t--«%i>e-^«^ii^9TLa4j«utt»--Ja^^ no ' -ad-eryj&tg»^;«»^Ay^^^^e»opt ■ i^n a ■-
*gtmi"1i^<rf ^ tfft(Vliy, The bill prayed that the acts of said meeting
of November 34, 1913, be declared i -legal, and for a temporary
injunction restraining the defenaants from disposing of said
money, funds, and property till the further order of the court.
An injunction without bond was ordered and was issued and served.
Thereafter, by leave of court, complainants dismissed said bill
as to one complainant, who had died, and s to defendant. Court
Rose No, 13, and made Court Rose No, 13 a complainant, and filed
an amended and su-oplemental bill, to which bill it made a new
defendant, the Grand Court of Illinois of the Forresters of
America, Tnereafter by leave of co\irt, complainants made other
amend«ment8, including an amended prayer which embraced the
new defendant',^ The defendants, except the GrandCoiirt, mo^-ed to
dissolve the injunction. That motion was denied. The Grand
Court filed an answer, admitting most of the allegations of 'the
bill. The other defendants filed an answer, denying most of the
allegations of the bill. The defendants, except the Grand Court
again moved to dissolve the injunction, and this motion was
denied, CBn August 4, 1914, the defendaats, except the Grand
Court, filed in said Caazt City C6urt an a^ipeal bond with
security duly approved, by which they undertook to appeal to
this court both from the order denying the motion to dissolve

XfcoG IjbooI ©rf* o;f b63fl0lecf rfolrfw ft;tieqoa<:: erf.f IXb o* bBltt&an
dl ^oa AZA al6il;^ \J: iadi .haR ,fioJbaa8oes bBtcpn93&^ »rf:f eao^ecf

9tJii ■ J eia^senot lo itbiO Bti& Ito *xuoO fenaaO erf* oi' grroX

Jbfiii noiesdeaoq :Eleri;J' ni evarf B^nabrteleij *j8xlt bnB itJtoiiiXII to

d'i/cf (0tj3;fs0 lB9a Jbrxjs '^snoot bXAB «if* ^Xao J^oa &X9vaQ0 o^ Jb:.9*xxl

•eiau;feo: l:njB stitmi^dqaiaq ^B'iood ^iiiai/ifia «a«*i£rfo 84* oeX£

.l.s-*wfiJ — Oilii-.-j-ijxiir -A»a6-Xj:ri rtcri^gi.li XJJid'- sriir .eaoH #ujoO Jbise lo

Y'XBioqm** B 'io': bn£ ^iB-Qel^i heajsXoeb ecf tClSX ,AS wdatevoT'T to

Ox«« lo gfliioqeib mot'i star.past^h sfl* 3flixxXj8i*BST: noi^onirt^ii

.tiitOQ ed7 iQ r^bio rtfdi'^ XXi* x^ieqoxq baa jRIIxcu;! ^xe^^o"

>?vi8a f)AJ8 b»iJB9i. «*w bnjs te:5tbto sjbw baod tuoilttv aoztoautnt aA

XXlcf btB%_ bBBBiimlb BtsiBtit AlqaoQ ^izvoo lo 9v«8X xd ^leJ'ifieierfT

*ULroD »*flJ5bn9l8b 0* * ba& ^bBtt bAd oriw ^*^£^X«XqBIoo exto o* a£

AsXil bttz ^taBai££qt&oo a 8X ,9TI eeofl :■ luoO ebem baB ^SX ,oII eeoH

w&n d 8bJ3flt *i XXlcf dpirfv o^ ^XXlcf XfiJflemsXqri/a JEuxfl ftobnomfi n^^

"io ea8*88rrip'i[ 9dt to •XonlXXI "io fiij(^ ba&iO en* ^^ajBbnatab

isriJo BOMta BtaaatMicgaoQ 4*0^00 lo evjs^X \(S le/lAerrerlT ,«oii3KiA.

bsoATdffl© .doiriw la.ijjj'xq bebn- na njs ^nl/ufXofti ^t^neouibnepui

:; ^tTjaOLa&'iO ©ri* tqeoa^e ^t^iXAbnelsb ©xfT ^,¥nsbne^8b wwr

bcBxO 8rfT .teineb aaw noi*oa *BiiT .floi^onx/t^-': •rf* »7Xo8«ib.

erl.t-io 8nol*sseXIj8 ecft *o *aoB 3fljt**irab* 4a8W8n>; hb JbaXil *ii/oO

9rlJ 'io *«om sn-tYoeb ^-Xfivaan Ofi baXil •*fl«bn©'i8b T©ri*o eifT .XXlcf

*woO ftnaxO jd* *c[»ox© 4a*flj8bn8'b8b e/lT «XXlcf e. *rxoi*iJ7jai^/;

sfiF noi*om «lf; ^aoid'ory/t''^ *^^ ©vXoaaxb o;; bsvom 01^3*

baAzO 8r. r> ^8*«jiDn8leb erf* ,*xex »* tai*^i/A nJJ .beln^^

rf*lw bnoff X«e jf^ti/W x*^0 txxwOk btM at btXll ^^Xi-oO

o* XjBSCf :*it8hjfix/ ypff* ifoJtrfr vd ^bBVOiqa& xlisb "^ttrsjofia

«■«■-■ rebio en? oioi^ dtod true

the injunotion before answer and from the order denying the
motion to dissolve the injunotion after :\n8wer. The record of
the caee up to that point has been filed in this Court, and
appellees moved to -ismiss the appeal and we took that motion
with the case,

■y/^ Section 133 of the Practice Act permits an aopeal from an
interlocutory order overruling a motion to dissolve an injunction.
Appellees contend that when appellants filed an answer after
their first motion to dissolve was overruled, they thereby waived
the right to appeal from the first order, and that, having
elected to make a motion to dissolve before abswer, thay could
not make another motion to dissolve the injunction before the
final hearing and therefore the second motion was properly
denied, and therefor^ the anpeal should be dismissed. We are
of opinion that the statute in question does not restrict a
defendant to one motion to dissolve, but that he may move to
dissolve both before and after answer, and may appeal from
each adverse ruling of the trial court on such motions. The
question whether two such a-pealt can be prosecuted together
upon a aiggle bond is not presented and we do not decide it.
The answer filed by appellants was not made under oath, nor
were any affidavits filed v;ith said answer, and therefore the
second motion to dissolve stood practical^ upon the eamt
grounds as the first and presents the same questioni. The motion
to dismiss the appeal is therefore denied,

/ It is contended that the verifications of the original

bill and of the amended and supplemental bill were defective
and made those pleadings entirely upon information and belief,
and that the court erred in subsequently permitting said veri-
fications to be amended. We are f opinion that those objections

to said verifications are not well taken under the authorities

»i:i- 3ni"^rtr?b i»ftio erf? mortTt hrrjs tcewt.rrjs eiol?«cr noiJonjj-tnl erii^
In f 'r.)'-.-,a exfP ,T*w«n ■ M^t« floiJofti/f,ni aril evXoBfsiJb oi- noiJ-joflt

^jxwoO tJtilcf nl fielit nai^cf a«rf drijtoq Jj8itt od- qu aajBO eud'

aor.^ora ;?'i-,'f+ iooi- 9w brrja Xisscnfi s.fj aaimpi'i 0* bevom 89aXX9<Ic{i4

.da«3 erU* Atlv

CM aioil IjBeq-'-'Js ri^ aitmieq tok aoJ:.fOA^*T ©rft ^o CSX noid-oeS

»ftoi:toxu/tnjt as evXoaaii) 0* not&oa b gftili/Tiavo lebio •^otsjoolistat

T9tt& lawafljB flj8 AsXit aif/tjaXXaqq* nariw *Brfl tias*aoo aealiaqqi

\ i*K' tcfetteil* Y8ff* ^AeXxmavo bbw avXcaaJfll) otf-'int^^id-oBi *a-xi-J .-xia41

blt/o- V* '.f ,T8W8ds aio^ad a^Xocaih ot aottom Jb aihsiiro*' -tKN-o^a

^otf^cf rtoi:J-oni;t«i ©rf* svXoaaift ot noJt;roB isdJonB eilasa toa

Xlrstoo-icr e«w noiJ-owr Mooaa eri* ft:totea8£;t fins gnl^jseri Xjaxutl

irijs 6": .£>9 8 8xiWf JcJb 60 J)Xx/offa XiacpTB •!!# c>T0^8-r8ff;t fto^ tbeiaed

J3 ^oiTtasTc ton asob aol&6evp at Btu&sfB 9ri;t:*Bffcf noixilqo lo

o^f avom -^sm erf tsdt iu€ ^evXoaefb o* notJom eno oi itt&ba^l^h

■Aoz.': ZBtarh yJBf" hn/i - ,wwajtiJS ie*t£ fens eiolecT rfJocf avXoaaxI)

.anorJow rfoi/ft fto txuoo L»trt ecii^ 'to gxilXin aa^ceyfja rio«a

^en'teigo^ Jbai'troeaexq oH hjbo aXiseq a rfoire owt isdtBti'v aoltf^eup

,tt ffhtneh to/I Ob •* bcB talneaeiq d-on ai Jbnocf eXspia j; rtocy

Qii ^a;!-;. T?-.tr;ir 8£>«m ton BOW a^ff^XIaqra vcf iwXit tra^vanB eilT

8.:j- erote-: .'ss^ane &iJ=sa d&i.^ bolfi MttvAbtttA \jn-3 aiew

t)r\k:- -Qjtcfojsaq fcoota avXoaaxb oJ- , aoiiom itnooaa

aol;ro« arft .irtoiteax/p am^a erf* ad-naaaxq brr* JsxJtt a:(J bm Bbaucxs

,b&ta»b eaoltetarf^ al -l*eqc£ Bii& •aJtoaib o^t
X*ni:gllo arft lo anoli'jsojt'jxxav arf^t JarfJ- Jbabrtatnoo at tl

avltoalab aiaw XXio' Xjsd-flenaXqqira btiM babctemji arft lo ibajs XX1(^

^lalXeor brt£ nol^jsriiolnJ: noqir Y-^^^-ttna 8;3nxb38Xq 8804;^ tJb«iR l)n£

-lirt -fcjtJS* 3fllt,timaeq yXtna;jr9acfjj8 ci fcatria ij-ijjoo ariJ i:zd^ ba&

snoi^oetcfo ea-od:)' *jsrft flolwirro t bib sW .ftebneTus 8cf ot arroitjBOi^

a»l*jtiorii-jj-F ri:r:i; najf^t XXaw ton •■!£ snoxj-«oizxisv i.u«{: oj

cited "by ua in Stephenson v Porter 111, App,
(opinion filed January 6, 1915) and that 1»hc)!i8 affidavits were
an abeolute verification of all the alleg-ationa of the bill
and of the amended and. euppletnental bill, except auch allegations
as were therein expressly stated to be upon information and be-
lief, and that the main features of the case made by said
pleadings were positively alleged,-^ ^^^--''^z^*^^^'^'*^/^-'^ ^^

Tne motions for leave to file an amended and supplemental
bill and the subsequent amendsants did not ask that said action
be without prejudice to the injunction . This point was not
raised in the court below, where said orders for leave to amend
could have been amended in that respect. This was not assigned
in the court below as a reason why the injunction should be
dissolved. In fact appellants really contend that by the course
taken the injunction was dissolved . In euch a case, in Craig
V Craig, 175 111. App, 176, we held that amendments so made
which did not change the allegations of the bill, except to
enlarge and strengthen them, did not a?-gect the force of the
injunction. The main purnose of the amendments was to make
tue allegations of the bill more specifio and to set out in the
bill in detail various lawe of the Arcier, the legal .effect of
which only had been stated in the original bill. We conclude
that the injEnotion should /not be dissolved because the coxirt
did not expressly order that said amendments should be without
prejudice to the injunction.

It seems clear to us that the bill states a case jus-
tifying and requiring the court to enjoin these officers to
retainin their possession the money, real estate and other
property of ^he local court until a hearing upon the meriti
or until the further order of the court. We are of opinion
that where the corpooate body is made a party to the suit,
a member of such a body may maintain such a suit for the pro-

,qr,A .ill Teiio^ T xiOBri6*-iqe*3 al mu \d i)9tio

111 'o anox^A^^tXlJi td& XXa Ito aottuolTitzev t^x/XoecfjB iub

•flOx;fA-££ll;-. ,&axe ^XXloT Xf^nemsXqqi/v bajd b«£>iiem£ exl;!' lo &flr«

-e.: ^i3 aoi^^m-xolini aoqu acf o;f £>et«i^& XXcesicixe at^xtdi txew tJi

J.J^iAJ>^J^^^^■V>^>^^^>^J^,^J:!KP^^ X-tdvi^iBoq a^ew eaflJtfc»»Xq

brtB ^bBbaQtaB aJi^Bll't .<»t . ty.B^X, xa^ aaoi^om axir o<. "<- »
aoii'Oji bice ^Bxi^ sfac ^on bih a.ifrupaf^n^rnjg tixsx/paacTjje axl;)' btx.» llkct

Jbnam^ oi^ tve- r^iatto btMB axailw ^woXed tixroo »ff^ ai i^asj^x

bsngiaajB ^oa »£> .i^oeqasx i'«ii;f ni: bei^ndniA nea<f avz-^xf bXvoa

acf hXx/orls aoi^onjjt^ :a'w noejsei: £ 8i» woXecf ixuoo B£i:t at

aeiuo' J tMt ixi9taoo x^a-*^"^ p.^a^sXIsqgB ^ojal- ol .JNirXoasti)

^ijBtcO ai ^aajio r cLouq al , ^fyLonwth s&v aottutujiai &dt a»iat

•bBia 06 BtaembaBiBM tadt bl^d av tdVX .qqA .XXI aVX «gJ:£xO v

8 0Xd ^XXla 6i^j >o •noJtJB.saXXij a<li^ ©snario J- on bifc rfoiriw

• Id- "io ao«ol 9rf^ *osa3s ifo^ bib ^mdt anAi-^bX^B has eg-XAlrra

aj^sin Qj- ifiw BtxiembaacDriQ .a£U Iqi aaoqxuq aifim afCT .noi^onxfj;^^

3 . -^a o^ bn* »JtiJ:oaq» saom XXld" ©dcT "lO anoi^s^eXXa ©a.^

,x8'.i* 3x1^ tcj awJSX ai/oix«v Xijsjfab rri IX1#

abiil .IXio'' li^aisixo Bdi at baJfii^e uead bad yXxxo rfoJtif»r

d'o^io:- ^•vXoaai;') sd J-qi^ bXx/Qx{a AOiJ'onfit^^ ^^^ tndt^

tuQdiiv: 9cf' bXuorle a^tnembneitue bts^ tAdi xabxo vleaavcxa &oa btb

,aoitonulal %di oi ^otbtslBtq

-lil aajBO a ae^jej-a XX|(^ 9di fjui) %u o; XjsaXo aneea tl

^t axeoit^o aaarfit flXo(;n8 Qt t%u90 ^dt snixiupax bas sal^li/-

tedto baa ttatn^ Xcex ^x^^orti 9di xxoJktsaaaoq jladt atatA&b-x

anlxflsrl j3 XJt*iu/ *?tfOo XjiOoX «ri/ lo x^^'^sqo'^'^

■xcifllqo to ax* itW ^tv/op exU ^o xal)xo .xaxicfxjjl 9di- Ltiau xo

^:J'Jt::.s axl^ o;^ x^^<Bq £ abjuR si ybocf aJ^AOoqxoo axf^ axexfw ^jsaJ^

ua ai«^aiBm x^^ xibocf s done 1o aacTnam a

tection of his financial interests therein, under the principles
laid down in Bruschke v Der JTord Chicago Sohuetsaen Verein, 145
111. 433, and in the authorities there cited* The complainants
except Court Rosa No, 13, show themselves to be members of the
local body and contributors to the fund in the hands of the
appellants, and state a case prima facus showing an attempted
secession of the majority of the members of said local court
and of its officers from that body to another kaly society and
an intention to carry with them this money and property, and
states a prima facie case that said attempted secession
was illegal and that there are enough members who did not con-
sent thereto so that said members remain the local court and
entitled to said property, and that if there are not enough
such members, then said property belongs to the Grand Court
of Illinois and not to -^aid officers, the appellants. We deem
it unnecessary to stats in detail the many allegations con-
tained in the complainants' pleadings. If, as suggested, appel-
lants should require ths use of some of said funds to meet ex-
penses of the local coxirt, the order for an injunction does not
prevent their aoplyinr tkm to the court for any necessary modi-
fication.

The orders appealed from are af irmod.

•elqloniiq srft ttbtw ^ate-zadi %t9»'xs>fttl iMtoasrifi •Id to aoit09&

• taaal&lqsaoo er!T .be^Jto tia.-ft aeli-i^oifJ^i/A ^dt at Jbna jSe^ .1X1

9df !to aiocffflem ocT ot •©vlsemsrli' ^orfe 48! .oH oeoH tix/oO Jqeoxd

•rfi- to aJbnjBxf srft «Jt Jbiflii/t •:!* o* BiafadlitRoo has '%bo<i XjbooX

Jbe#qae;fi'£ aa -^trrodB $uo&\ Amlrq asjso a 9t£tB baa ^a^ajBXXsqqjs

^uuoo XjsooX i)lj3e lo eiecfaem e/ft lo x^liog-en e/f;)- lo fioiesaoe*

baa x^eJ^oOE ](tsgf 70xf;foa£ o:t -^bod f^di taortl aaeoiitto a;}'! "io ba&

bas ^\&X9qoiq fans Y©nom alrftf a«rf,J il*lw "\n:i«o 0* floitns*ni Hjb

nolaeeoea Det(;pa9;f;fis bt&n tsdi esjso e20£l sm^iq « aa;t£;ta

-noo tofl 61I)''iailw artacffflsin rfsj/on© ©ib ©teri^ t«rft bas la^eLlt b«w

brcje txirdb tkbor 'Biit' k^titS^ 9*te<Smem blJiB tadt or oifeaerfd- tasB

c^x/Ofle ton dis 9t»rft li t«rft &fr« (Y;^:c9qoaq bxjBe o& baltitae

wTifbO firrstb ? '^^ctoXed' -^i^qovcq btaa aedi ^Btsdaeta rfojje

ffiee£> eW .■;tn£ll9qqB edi -^•Yeo^tlro bl»B o& &oa hast aioaiXXI to

-xtod aaofVA^tXiA t^nfot sif;^ Ita&Bb at b&a&b .o& ^xaBBsoQaatj tt

-Xeqq* ^fcetssagi/a 9M'^i.f^,$:^tbaeLq * utasatalqmoo 9di at b^at^t

-X0 teem oi' 9bau\ bin's to aaioa to aax; sd:^ eiJLupe'x bXi/oiia %ta£,L

toa eeofc rtotitonx/tixi a« lot xa&ao arfi^ ^^tujoo XsooX &dt to aeanaq

-ix)om Y^Jss8»osft Yttfi lot #xi;oo eric+ oJ^ aiCt Qnl'^fXqq* tied* tnsvsttq

.ilOJtt'JBOit

,i>8flnJ:' tfi si.c moat baX^aqqa axebxo eriT

5TATE OF ILLINOIS, I ^ , ^

SECOND DISTRICT. j I, Chkistophkr C. Duffy, Clerk ol the Appellate

:ourt, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
md Seal thereof, DO hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and af&x the

seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this

(lay of in the year of our Lord one

thousand nine hundred and —

Clerk of the Appellate Coitrt.

^fcff

AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATI COURT,

y

^y

Beg-un and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, tffe sixth day of April,
in the year of our Lord one thousand iiine hundred and fifteen,
within and for the Second District/of the State of Illinois
Present--Tije Hon^DORRANCE DIBELL, Presiding- Justice
\Hon. DUANE J. CARNES , ^us t i ce
Bpn

JOHN M. NIEHAU/, Justice

CHMSTOPHER C. Dlrf^Y, Clerk.

\ /

E. M>^AVIS,^^eriff .

193I.A.398

(^- /\/ /Sut^ %-^ 7//V

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on the ij&th day
of^Aprirl , A. D. 1915, the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and fig-ares
following, to-wit:

Cua^xx^^ <Cx. tJf Y /^j.MJ2^£c( 3r.-^-'i..*-<^

>v/~ / 9/\/

I

Hen, No, 5989

Thomas Caveglia, et al appelleas,

V8 Appeal from City Ct, Spring

Anton Vieno, et al appellants. Valley,

Diteell, J.

On May 14, 1914, Thomas Caveglia and between 60 and
70 othera, who alleged themselves to he raembare of Court
Rose No, 13, Forresters of America, of Spring Valley, Illinois
under the jtirisdiction of the Grand Court of Illinois, Forresters
of America, filed a bill in equity against five persons, whoto
the bill alleged to be the treasurer, financial treasurer, and
the trustees of said Court Rose No, 13, The bill was in its
main features like the amended and supplemental bill discussed
by us in Savio v Vieno Gen. No, 5988 in which we file an opinion
this day, A lil'-e injunction was granted and served. Thereafter
by leave o?r coxirt, an anend»ent to said bill was filed. De-
fendants moved to dismiss the cause for the reason that the
bill had been filed without the consent of certain persona
n mad as complainants, and affidavits were filed by each of said
parsons denying that he ever authorized his name to be used as
complainant in such suit, and averring that it was being pro-
secuted without hia kxaxtng knowledge or consent. The court
permitted complainanta to discontinue their suit as to all the
complainants so named, except pietro Siva, and then denied
the motion to dismiss the suit, Tliereafter another amendment
to the bill was filed, and defendants moved to dissolve the
injunction and said motion was denied. Complainants filed an
amendment to the bill, making the Grand Court, Forresters of
America, of the State of Illinois, a defendant, and said Grand
Coxirt answered and the other defendants answered, and said
other defendants again moved to dissjolva the injunction and
that motion was denied, and said defendants, except the

6862 ,oV[ .rcsS

,Y»iifi^ , 8 d-fl fill 9 qcrjB 13 d-fc ^orcfciV nod^nA

.T, ^Xletfia
hnjB 03 xisewtscf ftn^ BllaevaO aBmoxfT »*X6X 4;M ybM nO

txc/oO lo aaecfasffl ocf od- aevXaamerfd- fiaaaXXB 0£(W ^aiarfd-o 07

ajfcoaiXII ^x^XIbV sxxliqB !to ^BoJiasniA "io aasitad'xio'l ^SX ,oY. eaoH

aTed-aeaxof »aionlXII lo &iisoO ba&iO sdi- Jo aottottBixnl bA& lepau

Morfw ^anoaieq »vl!b #8nJ:B3B \ttupB ai Xllcf b l^eZtt ^aotremk X^

btta ^TaijjaBdad- lALoaaatl ^vexx/ajieiid- erfd^.acf 9^ £ie39XJ^£ .J^XXcT 84^

stl at aBW XXicT exlT ,SI .oH eaoH truoO JbJtBa lo ase^airid' fj^l

Jbeaatjoalb XilcT XBtf'asmalqqi/a ban baMainB arld^ e:;{JtX ao'ii/tBal nl.BS

aolalqo as BltJ ew doirfw at 8866 ,oTI .neO onalV v otraB at au yd

i6d-lB8i9rfT .ievrtea haz be&aBt's bbw nold-onx/t^l s TiX A ,\Jib Bldt

-©a ,b9lt\ aew XXlcT blB« 0* taembaemR as ^tzuoo I0 avssi ycT

8fft tfirfd^ aoaB9-x aifd^ 10I aax/BO eild- a^Jtmalb od^ bevom a;^^Bb^el

tiioaieq fllBd^iao lo ^xtaenoo srfd^ iuodtt^r bsifi fxeecf bjsri XXI J

JblBB to xfoBft \<i bolll Bisyi %&tT&btl:'tj6 btiB ^a^nBnl^Xqmoo aB Lam n

aB Jbaexi ecf ot antfin Btd bacJbiorfd'i/B tira dd tsdt ^al^aeb anoercsq

"Onq snlacf eBW *1 *Brfd- gniarcevB bnB 4^jtjk/a dojjs rxi ^-xianiAlqaios

tf-Tjjoo ©rfT .tneenoo 10 agfielwortJi SKi^RjsnX aid ^x/orid-lw bad^woaa

arid XiB od' aB Jix/a ilarid- ei/iiJtd'rtooaJib o* ad-flBfiiBlqcioo Jb9*;tlmrteq

ftaiaab nerl:t toB «btJJE[ ot^alq tciatoj^e ^bBia&a os a^aBnJ^/^Xqmoo

t/ientaamB iBd&oaB 'x»t\jsei9i^ .^Jtx/a arid- aslaiajt!. od- aoitota sa:

axid- avXoaaiJb 0^ b^voai ad^rcBbrteteb bas ^^aXJb^ aBW Xllcf erfd^ od^

as b9lt\ BtaJuithlqpsoG .tainab aBW nottom btMB bas aottoaulat

3to aT8:t8eiio'i ^tiu^ bneiO erfd- -^^ntsl&m ^LLtd edt ot taemba&saa

bajstd bJcBS bnj8 ^ta»ba9'ieb b ^BtoatlLl lo a^^d-B edt I0 ^aot1Qak

bijsa bn« (JbaaawanB atABbnelab laxfd'o arfd^ baz baaawanB iiuoO

bns aottonulat axfd- 9y£ob» tb oS bavoa at£-g» ad'nBbneleb ledjo

0di ^qaoxa ^•taMbae'ieh blBa bnB ^belnab bbw aottom tf-Bi <

Grand Court, filed a bond, appealing from said two orders
refusing to iiaaolve said injunction , and said bond wae
approved and the raoord has been filed in this court. Appellee
moved to disraise the appeal and we deny that motion. Moat
of the questions raised are similar to those passed upon in
the other case, and our holding is the same as in that case
for the sane reasons.

Appellants contend that the injunction should have been
/dissolved and the bill dismissed because of the pendency
of the other suit, -•■.'hich a plea filed by appellants avers is
by the sane complainants arainst the aawe defendants. This
statement Joi manifestly incorrect in part, because there are
about 60 members, complainants in this suit, who a-iparently
have rights which they are entitled to protect, and who are
/ not parties to the other suit. But, further, said plea had not
been put at issut nor triad. The mere filing of the plea did
not entitle appellants to a dismissal o"" the bill. The record
contains no certificate of the evidence h^ard upon he motion
to dismiss the bill because filed without the consent of cer-
tain persons named as complainants. Tlie affidavits copied into
the record by the clerk cannot be eoneidared by this court
without being embodied in a certificate of evidence, Langa

/^ Heyer, 195 Til, 420, Bellinger v Barnea, 333 111. 131, It
May have been shown that Pietro Riva did consent to become a
complainant, or that he had been indemnified against costs,
or that in some other way the right to use hie nama had been
acquired. Upon this record it m\istbe presumed tha court properly
refused to dismiae tha bill and properly retained Pietro Riva,

/ Court Rosa No, 12 is not a party to this suit, either
as complainant or defendant. We are satiafied that it is a
necessary party, for the reasons stated in Bruetschke v Der Nord
Chicago Schuetszen Verein 145 111, 433,

BZBbio owi- bix» moal gnllaeqq^ ,Jbnoor « ibelit ^i1uoO baAzO

teXxe. . . .1/00 ejixicf .^.i bslll neecf ■sif biooei eri;t bna ttevoxqc^

t«oV .aoi^fofli t«r:t vaol) tw bn£ I««qqA ed:^ •aimaxb o^ jbsvom
lit noqsj beaa^q eaorl.t oi xsLiiatB »x& baa.fex saottvssjp e ..
aaas lAu;t ai as arase arf^f sic s^lbXorf %i;o hn£ «ta«o ^eii:^o 9dt

• arroasen snrjBe erf;f 10?:
tteaa avBri Muorfs noi*Ofijjt^-^ «rt.+ tJBifcT bftetrroo ajJ-nalleqciA

YOfle'^necr srii lo aei/eof / £>aeBXfflf8xb IXlcf erft bns i)8vIoaalb\

ax aa&VB «*njsIiecoj8 xdi beitJ. aaXq s rfotrf*' ^tixra •iarf;to srfJ ^0

sxifT .a^ajBbaa^sb errrjse erf# ^aalS'^e %tnsntMlqmoo arruea axf;)' y<^

8IA aaeriJ- aaifAOecf (^v«q ni #oetioonl '^ItBe^taBm at JnsmeJ'Bite

YiifneiJBqqje ©riw ,^iira Btd:f at Bitten tpSqtaoo ^atacffflsm 08 txrorfJi

fijB oxiw fcofc ^^Odi-oiq oi- beX;tt*n» arrfl yariJ rioiilw std^gti svarf

jofl jbjsri Jialq bt»9 ^XBdf-zut ^tuQ. «*ii;8 isff;fo 6i-^;^ oJ aaUttaq tort

bib «alq erf;t 5o gniXlt eiera eriT .bal^J- ion tx/aal tjB iuq need

bioObi 9riT .XXlef enr o XAaaimaib 5 oi- atnaXIaqr* sitiifne *on

noiJom sn aoou Ma-ri ao/ieblTss a;L^ T:o B&Aol\ttrBO on tnlacfnoo

-xso lo taeaxiOD sd^ :fuoAitv bBlit nssjAOod ££t(! tid& aaiwalb of

oini Jbaxqoo b& trMbt\'ta 9:1? t^tnfintfilqmao ba bBsasa anoeiaq ttk»t

tiiioo 8J:rf.t vcf b^iafcisrtoa e { toanao afxaXo sif* yd Moobt i^'rfSf

•ga^J .eon;9.bxVs Iro a^jsol^xtiso e -<-l ftilhocfma gAtscf ;fi/orfi- 1""

tl .X6i .XXr ces ^aarrtDsa V Te^fllXIdS ,0S* .1X1 sex ^'tBxe^■ -

A affiooao' ot taBBaoo btb »vtfi ortet*! t»d& nworlf* ceecf svJBxf yjatf

^aJ-aoo tBntMy,B bBt^taaBhttt naecf bad arf t«rft xo ^JiTBfrlBlqmoo

oaacf bKd tmen alrf aatr ot fd-^ti arfj- if*w xsrf^o emoe n^

XXieqoiq truoo ari* bBouBBiq BdtBum tt bxooat atd'' rtoqU ,b9itupx>M

,AViH ox*ix^ baniB*ai: YXiaqotq bnfi IXM ad* a-imaib ot bBButet

Xbdtta ^ttoB 9tdt 03 yrfraq m toa «1 SX^ »'OTf taoH ttuoO

s Bt it tedt bBtlBttaB btb aW .inabaBlteb to itt.antRLqmoo ai

bioH a©<I ▼ ajfrioatax/xa ai k«*jB:tB f»no«£f 1 »rf;f lol ^x#iJ5q XTJBaaaoan

.£c;^ .XXI 3^X r-laiaV rrasatajjifoB o^JsolilO

The orders appealed from are therefore reversed and ,.
the cause is remanded wi-^h >!ligsotftena tjs thownoeui'^ Ivrslew ■tje*
jHi»«BL'4-^'»empl-atftaHt<--4c.ajriend< by roali4ng Ooui't Rese We. ID
althftB g oemplojinant or a ciaf iLiidaiaty^i.Ml ' 1.'' 11-w.y do-«e<3 wA^hjLni
■finitfoaiionRbaL--". tim< uKwr Ihij 'Tausu-io rottooliutad rin tlio oougt--
TaoJiawy tfiVo -fclmt amtAenj liiTian to tla.ae»l.¥e tho Anjuftotien onJU
*te lAAamiBB tlm 'lillt.

Reversed and renanded with diin^bl«B».

fan* DSBu«vbi eTrjl:&:.3 ■ J ;sx£ moT:". £)ei£8C>"i'.€ eiei;"xo eifT

5TATE OF ILLINOIS, \ .,

SECOND DiSTKiCT. ( '^'^* I, CHRISTOPHER C. DuFFY, Clerk of the Appellate

^ourt, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records

md Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the

iaid Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my ofBce.

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the

seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this

da^' of in the year of our Lord one

thousand nine hundred and

Clerk of the Appellate Court.

"-n. Mo. 6196.

\ October Tern, 1914-

\

Pilod Doc. 11, 1914-

Agonda mo. 1-

'^^o O.H.Paddock -Lumber CoJ
AppolleoT/^ .

^'' ._ '^^-^ Appeal from City court of ^ana.

T^io Westorn Union Telasraph Coi;yv

193I.A.416

c^ 9 C:-u ■'l-T' A

0- i.'iion by Th.odj'Oon, P.J, \

¥?iio iO' an action m cos© brou/^t bjT' IkT apf)«^^ to re
cover dar;,a,^eB freonrap^iiattt on account of a Mistake in the trtms-
misBion of a tolegram, sent to l^pt^ro by .he Louisyillo Gomont
Company, quoting the j.rico on 3000 barrels of comont. On thn trial
the apj.'ollant did not offer any ovidancef^Tho court afe-thfr^^oee
o^-m-^iten^ir -ovidence directed a verdict in favor of appoll-^-
for $300. on -/hich jud.^ont was rendered, a^^cf SjL oOUcix^eoJ olUjuiLq

The 4^eij^¥6-^^«f€^^^r^ in reply to a lot er. sent

a telegram -.o ^^.j^eiS^^i "q&ting the price at ,$1.64 per barro^f.' The ^"""^^
tolegi-am as delivered ^*e%&'1he- pricB-af ^l.M. ^^,-4thout
noLice of i.he mistake and relying on tlie telegram, fejsold the,
cemontto a customer at $1.72 per barrel ami eft-4{«r^, wired rba
acceptance of the offor.^T^.^*.„.^t. ^l-.V-^ wae-baa^ on the
RT^iaM-prioe at $1.54 -tsoi^tained in the tolegrom as Changed,
rho femiisviiio Cpiaont Company refused to furnish he cement at
W.54 isnd. app^iiW^in order to protect its contract v/ith its
caistomer was com el led to psy ^1.64- por barrel fm- the 3000
barrels of comont . 'Hfei^h-yrftr^ delivered to it to carry mxtltB
oontract-with its' ciretomer.

Tliore is no controversy or ciispute an to ^iie facts.
Phe evidence clearly shows ^t the appellee lost ten cents per
Jarrol on tho ctimf^nt by reason of the ciianf^e in tiie tnle^am as
ielivered.

-•'•

"*^^

When a naessage announcing prices, eoht in contonjplationn of a tr.do
18 erroueoualy transraittod, the party in.lurod may rocovor tha amount
of the I088 caused hy tlie incroafio in price ho was obli^^od to
pay in consequence of the nrror. (WoBtorii Union Telegraph Co.,
ys. DupoiB, 12R 111. 2^18; Woctorn Union Telegraph Co., vs. Pack-
ing Co., 186 111. , 366) or v/^iere there is a profit hidi would
have honn larger but for the error in tninsmiBSion he niay recover
the decrease in the profit whidi v7ould, have been realized.
(27 A.E. Encyo. cf Law 1068; 37 G. Y.O. 1770).

Ihilo the suit is to recover daiia^^on for ne^^lif^nco , the
amount of the daraaf^s is shewn with certainty; but there was no
evidence showing; any defence, said ^2iere was no enor in directing
the verdict; the jflidigaent is tJiorefore affinaed,

A F F I E M R 7) .

k

Gron. No. GZ6b*

!. Wilson

Oct, Tft]-m, |i'14-
Filod Poc.^l, 1914-

Agonda }ijy;-%ir"

Appol^iint. ,

1 . VS. I

Thomas HuVay^ot a^.,*
Appolleee/

/Lp].oal from ?ike,

193I.A. 417

0; inion by 'BioLipeon, VmJ,

. .H.WilBony a roeiilea^of ^h- city »f "lYaiLnlbal/ in the
gtiate of -Uiu^ovspir, filed a bill in diuncery agadnBt Thomae McVay,
Bert McVay and Gr.H.KodKan prayin^^ for an accounting conceming
coLaiiisBions realized from the sale of a fann sold by dof ondante for
a third ].arty. 'Hie bill allogos t^iat cotiylainant in 1913 , was
en^a'7;ed in buying and selling Illinois and piasouri lands for com-
missL on and profit and l^at irt — JHb^- one A.L. Coan, who r-WHtdee-in

Tojcaound oTmad

■of land in PiJ4e._tUH«itji^ Illinois, listed

Sdid land with complainant for sale at ^20,000; that ooirr lainant

was to have for his pa mission all that he could sell the land for
in excess of g80|9Q0; that tlie McVaye at« real estate a/T^nts^iirWke
Q<MMityi 4ili^n<HB; that thf^ McVays and coraplainant nntored into a
contract ii»«^<fr v^iich/, McVaya should find a piuxliaser for s dd lands

and- tJ^it t}io coOTnission or prof ijis derived

>-«al<»'-<H^"t»tii d
isiHd6'-'»i«mlfl bo equally divide4t-»«att half-taJiJCVayB and tfe^- r^JMain-
ing hit If tifr oorig-;lainant; t-hat Uie McVaya conspired with G.N. Red-
mond to make a sale of »t^ lands and ajn ropriate to tliemsolves the
entire profit; tliat da^uauauta- inade a sale of 6«i4 lands 4>o-H&He
fi«o*?5©"f^0Bne for the consideration of a mortga^ga of $14,000, on
^uid lands and divers suias of money and goods and nierchandise of
groat value; that coEq)lainant had demanded an aooounting from
the deffindants and that the defendants wrongfully rofusod to ac-
count to complainant and assort tliat ho has no interest in the
rofita received from said sale. Hw-biiir waives the oath to
Jiha- aQswey-*

The defendants dtdoirrod to the bill on the ;yound that
it d(H»6 not sot forth facts re(juiring the interposition of a coui-t
of equity and that tlie comi>lainantv has a full and adequate rer.edy

-2-

at law. aT^i^ court sust-ained "bhe demurrer and dismissed the bill. Otu^K^

The conmainant appeals. ^ ^ ,

-^The contentions 01 ajjellani are that tfeie-*e-* bill for
discovery and an acjount-ing between partners.

The bill does not ask, for any discovery either directly or
indirectly. All 'ohat ia asked for in the prayer is that an account
be taken of the moneys and [other things of value received by defen-
dants and tliat they bo required to pay etc. The body of the bill
alleges that a sale was made for a total consideration which is
not precisely known to complainant. There is neither any direct
allegation, nor any allegation of facts showing that any discovery
is necessary to a recovery by coLiplainant, The bill is not framed
to give a court of equity jurisdiction on the gi^ound that a discov-
ery is necessary to a correct accounting. County of Cook vs, Davis,
143 111, 151, The bill cannot be held to be a good bill on the
ground 'ohat it is a bill for discovery.

The bill sets forth a single joint transaction; tiiere was no
contract which would render either of the parties liable for any
loss or ex] ense of the other, the contfact as set forth is wholly
lacking in the elements necessary to constitute a partjiership.
The only claim is that defendants refuse to tUrtiover to complain-
ant one half the commisaion realized as profits from the sale,
"A contract whereby a r al estate dealer employs a person
to assist him in the sale t;f land on the agreement that he is to
receive one half of the profits, after deducting necessary ex-
penses, for any land sold to buyers brou^t to the dealer direct
ly or indirectly throu^ the others efforts does not as between
parties, c. eate a partnership irrespective of their intention".
Reed vs. Engle, 237 111. 631,

From Lhe state^ments in iie bill this is a case where the par-
ties are entitled to a jury trial according to the course of the
common law. A trial at law will afford an adequate and ample rem-
edy.

-;v

•Ihon a court of law is ooiojotent to afford ioi adequate und acij le
rotnedy a court of oquity v/ill rondt the partios to a court of law ,
v;here tho ri/^it of trial by jury is sftcui-od to tlinm. In nuch caeao
fiithor party has a rir^t to domand that tho Miittor of the defon-
dant*a liability bo aubmittod to a jury according to the course o^
the coir/on law*. Winklor v^, Winklor, 40 111. 179; County of Cook
iii, DauxB, l^^"s 111. 151; Douglas vs. i'artin, 103 111., 25; JVller
TB. Davis ^ona, 184« 111. 505; Gove ys. Knjimer, 117 111. 176.

..8 a e^^^neral rule, if there is a doubt as to r/hother a court
of equity has iuriodiction , it -a hotter in all casee of doubtful
character preeerain^^ a confl-ct of evidence, that the parties should
bo remittod to v^atever remedy they may have at law altlmu^ equity
ini/^ht entertain jurisdiction., Hackon vs^ Bart««i, 84 111., 313;
Wing vs. Shorer, 77 111., 200.

Tliore bein^; an adequate and conn lote reaedy at law cxnd no dis-
covery BoUf^t, the court } roperly eusitainod the doiaurror and dis*
missed the bill,

Iftie decree is affirmed.

AFFIRMED,

I

,7 (13530—3-60)

STATE OF ILUNOIS

APPELLATE COURT-THIRD DISTRICT

193 I.A.4

AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begim and held for the Third District of the State of Illinois, at
Springfield, on the FIRST TUESDAY in OCTOBER ^ j-^ ^9 ^ jj,

P

PRESENT

HONORABLE GEORGE W. THOMPSON, p^^^,^,„^ ^^^^.^^

HONORABLE EDGAR ELDREDGE, , .
Justice

HONORABLE WILLIAM B. SCHOLFIELD,j„^firP

Attest: ROBERT L. CONN, Clerk.

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterward, to-wit: On the ^day of

DECEMBER ^ j3 19 ^^ , there was filed in the office of the said Clerk of said Court,

an opinion of said Court, in words and figures following:

FILED
DEC 11 191^+
Geo. L. Tipton CI.SHK
AP''^H:LLATE court 3rd DI3T.

in. No. 6273. October Term 191^. Ag. 10.

Cornelius B. Keller, Jennie Ziraraernan, {
Elenora K. Martini &nd Grace Bach, j

Appellees. 5
0
vg. { Appeal from Christian.

}
Ch&rlie Vi. Keller, John H. Keller, Kary t
A. Keller and Willlara T. Vmdeveer, 5
(Charles W. Keller and V.'illiara T. Vrnde- 0
veer, 0

Appellants), fi
Statement,
This is a bill for partition filed by apiOllees against appellants

.leglng the tenancy in common of coaiplain&nts • nd defendants in certain

lel estate described therein; the exietence of certain mortgage indebted-

18S, end that the real estate, except two described tov.n lots, is in the

•asession of appellee, Charles v;. Keller, under a certain article of agree-

fnt for farming said lands dated March 1, 1913- '^'^-e bill ,,rays for a

Ttition according to the re8i)eotive rights of the ir.arties. Copies of

le mortgages and the farming contract, which by its terms ternint-tes March 1,

)lk, are attached to the bill and made a v.^rt thereof. The article of

jreement is "between Charles W. Keller, Jennie Zimrerman, J. 11. Keller,

.enora I''&rtin, Gracfe Bach and C. B. Keller, being the heirs of J. E. Keller

»oeased, parties of the first r>s.Tt, and Charles W. Keller individually party

' the second part", and is signed by all of them under seal. The contract

iscribes the land and states that the parties being desirous of farming

lid lands for profit agree to pay said second party for the management and

mduoting the same as follows:- said second pf rty shall reside on said land.

1.

a a J I •?

i^l^L IL 07(7
.T£IG b-ii T^JOO . ;a

.01 .gA .4X91 imeT lecfo^foO •CS'Sd .

} .BS^ii-S -qA
0 ' "

} Xi>iA , . ,^9IIe2 .V.' ©ilta; r

0 «'i- ILIV^! hna toIIeX ..

5 -sJJnsV .■: ^olili,, j.n«* -xsIIsS .W eel'XarfD)

0 tteev

B;Jn6ll9.Tqi? ;t8nlBgii a99ll8(:q^ x6 bi,ll1 nolJlJiJaq lol Illcf 3 ei eIriT

-beitisbnl ^"^R-^iiom nlfsKiftn "^o ©onecTsixs grij ;ni«'i9ri;t fi9cfI'ioe9j[) e*acr
srfj nl al «8j'oI nv/o* fiecfiioaeA ow;r 3*590x9 »9d"«:?8e lasi 9riJ i^di br.
-99'xg6 lo eloitia nlsJigo a lebnu ,*X9ll9X .'.' esliaciO »99ll9qqjs to noJt:
^ tol B^ai^ Llld erfl . C-tQ-C »-t rfonaW JbaJef) afinal Mae gnlnrxal nc. •
iO 3£ ■ ' . •'9jtjij3q 9rijt lo acrrigii qvISoq^ibbi 9rf.t oJ gnlJbiooofl noi;!.
iioi-i:. oeJiHliiiLj amies aJl yd xloiriw ^JoaiJnoo sninncal eriJ Jbnii a9gjB3d"'io0:
lo elol:iia erfT .lo9'-x9rfd' ti^^i a eiiijm ftna Ilicf 9rf:r o:t JbeiloacTcTa ei- , f-i
iielleX .H .L ifiiamiaiiiiiiS aJtnnaL ^ielLQ:i .V a9li;iriO n99wJ»cf'' aJt inecie-:.
19119:1 .S .L lo aiisri 9riJ- gniacf ,i9ll9S .3 .0 bn^ rloaS ^oaiO ,niJi.iM ciorr
.J-iaq AjIIjQuJbJtvlfini 19XI9.X .V oeli/'-rfO fina ,*iaq J'aiil oxl* lo aslcTiaq ,Jbf ^ '
JoaiS'noo 9ilT .lasa i9i)ni; fn9/[J lo Ila vd f)en3l3 ai Jbna , "[fiaq finooet
gnimisl lo auoil89jb vnied B9iJi.^f.[ sdi i&di aejaiTa bna ba&I 9dt Be
baa insme'giinjm 9di lol x^'t-aci bnooQB btaQ \aq ot 9915;: itiloiq lol a6n 0
bttAx bl&B no eblBQ'X iipda "^di^^q bnooss bias -tawollol aa 9maa 9rlJ gnl •■ )

in and manage the same to the best of his ability, rotatln;?; the crops as
>aslon requires, and make such reyvairs and lm-;.rovementE on the land as
' be necessary. It la further agreed that the j)artle3 of the first
•t "will furnish one half of the neceesary personal property vrith \vhlch
lond pr.rty is to farm said lands: and second party agreed to furnish one
.f of all the personal property necePFary for conducting said: farm and
.d personal property is to be o\-j^ned by flrnt pfrtiec and second party in
imon." The "second party is to furnish and pay the expense of all
)or neoesQary for successfully conducting said lands ond f'^^eding and
:Slng live stock;". Neither of the parties are to keep any stock on
( farm not owned by them in common; the second party is to devote his
;ire time to carrying out of this contract; "it is further stipulated
L agreed between the parties hereto that this contract is to be in force
! year from the date hereof, to wit: until March 1st, 191^, it v;hlch
le the same may be terminated and the property owned in common dlspose(ac.
by either of the parties hereto giving thirty dp.ys notice in writing,
if not terminated, then it may be renewed by the mutual agreement of
i parties hereto. In the event of term.inatlon of said contract and the
Lblllty of the parties hereto to agree as to the disposition of the per-
lal property on hand, then the same is to be sold p.t public sale \/lthin
.rty days after notice Is served by either party upon the other party
L the proceeds of said sale, after deducting the expenses thereof, divl-
l between the parties according to their respective right? and Interests
herein set forth." The foregoing is follov/ed by a stipulation that

2.

-. bn.ll asii no aJne'mevoiqinJt £«(« et'- -- '— aaf^n i>n.i ^BOtlup'

Utlt 9ci3 \o 8»Icr- -■■ --- ^ ..:.,^ i-.T-ix;! ai :fl .x-i^Baeoen ^i;

-~ ---• J^-^/j- -i^fiv, o.:'-'-~ "^rtA i^ai&nal Jbiai -

•-'^^®3 ^"'^ aniJi '; AicT ^anwo 9cf oJ- ai Y^'X^qoiq lanoi/x

-..« lo - -' •" -.' • -:- V-iul 03 ai ^;fi.v bnooaa" erlT

:,r ^ I oubnoo YlXulaseooija lolt xiJasasac
*"" -'>ri;r lo isriifiQM .";:{oo;fe ev.

'" - -''■'■" ;rtonjmoo nl in©r(;j ^cf J&snwo :fon x

^®*'"^' ;. ;f Oj8'i;tnoo slrfJ lo Jxro gni^tiiAO oJ e

nommoo nl bemro ^;M9qo'xq ©rij bns ti9is>.nlmiei ed ^-aar ara^e e.
,:;r.2;fir. i eolJon -v.f y.^iM} gnivlg o;f»i9rf aeiifn/iq 3il;f lo lecijl
'^. ^xgB lai; ^d bew9ci9i sd ^aai ;fi narfJ ^betjanlmiei io:

■t TOO £)!.... _. n 0 jt J lantraia J lo JnavD srfj nl .ocfeisd aQl;}\
-laq e;'.t — iiaoqaiA ©rfj o;r aa deiga o.:f oj-eisrf eaicr'x;^! ©riif lo xil~^<^

-;-*.?' oilcfuq Ja bloa ed oJ ai araae erfj nsri^t ^Jbnari no Y^l^qoi

. , 19/fcro o.-r.t n.vr, ,vr^ . - -«.^:^^«, -^cf Jbavxes ai coi;fon leJla a^Bj^
"■■'^'^* ,lo8i9. 3— -i/A8i» •xe;tl« »sl«a iiaa lo sfieeoo-

ccraei9Jni i)n ...jixieei "xls/lj pj sniJbioood aQi;fiJ3q sdJ n99 ..

^^^^ ''"-^' ■ '^"^^Xol ei sniogs-xol srfT ".rfjiol ;fea nit

.S

and II. Bach shall act as the representntive of the orrtles of the first
t and a stipulation aa to how the bank account shall be kept and checked
Inst and the moneys arising from sales deposited and the profits divided.
The defendants answered the bill admitting; the ownership alleged
denying that the contract for occupancy of the farm expired on I'larch 1,
k, and asserting that the parties had renewed the contract for another
r and agreed to make a written memorandum thereof and that the defendants

executed such v/ritten memorandum and that G. v;. Keller, relying- on said
eeraent, had sown 70 acres of winter wheat and purchased a large number
cattle for fattening and had done other things tovards carrying out the
tract for another year and asks, if partition be decreed, that it be made
:Jeot to the right of occupy noy in furtherance of said partnership contract
• another year, and tKat the interests of the defendants be set off Jointly,

The court found the interests of the parties as set up In the bill
. ihat under the contract Charles W. Keller Is entitled to the poscession
that portion of the farm lands upon which he had sovm wheat in the fall
1913, amounting to approximately seventy acres of land until said wheat
matured and harvested, but as to the balance of said lands his right of
jsession expires March 1, 191^ •

The court decreed a partition of the 2.^renises subject to the liens
the mortgages, and the right of Charles '- . Keller to retain the 70 acres
which vfheat was sown until the wheat was harvested in 1915, the interests
Charles W. Keller and John Keller to be set off together if partition
aid be made.

The defendants appeal and assign for error that the court should

ip.is.1 yij to 3 iii i ■ :i» 'tc ^\'ltAfa9B9'iq,t'x 9dif axs ;foa IJEsrfe rfoaS ..; finj
.Jbei)^vijj> o.tlTroi: Ari;t ,^n.> .^e:r Jtaoqef; -oil ^nlaiiB 8'cenom eri^ i;

,1 floi 1 ^oaiinoo exit tf'arfJ ;^l-^Bb

lOiiSon "^co . iJtsae;.

J&Ibb f -jmiomem natfJ'JtTw rfoi/a JbeJ"i;o8X»

i©c^ ijsaAiloii/q to aeiOB 0*7 nwoa f>«rf ,d"n9m»i

osioai) ed noii'iJ'^ . '3,->(Bfl ftna lasx iBiiiQn& lol ;J".

.ijeSY 18x13 >

asJtJiAq e:f3^ lo a^teeteiJni erf;:f Jbnuot ^tuoo eriT

belt 13 nB Ql iBlS ;oIiJ3XlD :toai3^noo srfJ leAnif J

''•xoB x^inB-vep xl9fBmtxoiq^q& ojf gniJnAroniB 4

.■;'^lv''I ,1 rloiaM 89iJ:q;c9 nojt
.J lo noi^i^iaq 3 JbseioaJb cfijjoo e;lT

■\9riTif eriJ litfnu nwoa sbw J^aax.
■ .■ nelXaX nxiol, ina lelleX .'»/ ael

Zfnlol llo ;r9'
III'-.

L:

lo ^frfsii ail'

snail 9iiJ o^ tOBldus bob

:;:'- r[Ia;t8i o;t lal

i:r5o-^;jni sa,; ,?I\cI i'.i bti::.

re decreed th-it C. V/. Keller had the right to occupy all aald farm lands
ill '-f.rcb 1, 1915. The complainants have assigned cross errors in that
! court erred In decreeing thct C VJ . Keller should hold possession of
I lend sov;ed zo vheat until the same is harvested. No question is raised
icerning the findings of the court as to the title or the mortgages on the
mises.

Lnion by Thompson, P. J.

The only ouections rciced on this eppeel are concerning or subject to
xt rirht of posr-es-ion of the defendants the p^.-rtition should be made. The
itruct bearing date March 1, 1913, which is signed by all the i.wrties is
t a cont,r?,.ct of leasing but a partnership agreement. This is conceeded by
1 the prrties to this suit. Mo question of landlord c.nd tenant is in-
Ived. The defendants do not contend that there vb.b any agreement to
tend said contract for another year beginning Mcxroh 1, 191^^-, but their con-
ntion is that because stock ^.?..B bought in the fall of 1913, and that the
fendant Charles •> . Keller bought cattle to feed and sowed fall wheat on
rt of the land v>dth the knowledge and consent of the husbands of the female
mplainants that there \mn an extension of the contract of partnership for
year by irnplication. The evidence shows that in September 1913, t^^s^e was
er 150 acres of pasture on the land that was going to waste and for that
iiason cattle were bought by Charle-^ W. Keller, with the approval of the
labands of complainants, to feed, but that there was no talk of any
^tension of the contract.
' Elenora Miartin testified that she never made any statement to either

k.

Bbnrsl i!iv> jjjt >'; ££■■: x^ijooo oJ Jrfgli 9di bmi laXI
4aA;t nl aioiit bboio Jbtng-f

9eeoq JbXorf i>I«oda 'x&iX^/i

"<

,„' ;?o:==|;,C!' \im:«Ofi. C^eqqjs 8X/l;f rti fi^olai anoi^faeun yXr-

©xlT .6£>o 7orf5! n©l;rJt j a5nfli)n©l»J!> OrfJ' to noXeBBoe

aX iBsJii .-■ j&engiE al rfoXrfv ,CX9X ,X rfoiAM 9;r«Jb sniifl'-c1 +•

-.i«nej Ana fi-xoXfin^X 'to noli&9up oK .i^Xi/a eXri;t oiT 8?itfiir>

-noD 'tis. - rioxiM gninnl^ecf leeY isriions^ lol tfftATJrfo;

i»Pvroa f>nB X)e9l ocf elJitflo Jff^uorf isXXi
sXsmel ©iij :^AWewff erf? *io iJneanoo finjs egj&eXvronX erf:f rf*Xw J^ncJ

3 3W ©•serf;/ «C-C9X TC©cfme:rq8e ni Jj^ri? sworfe 9onebl tfaotLc:

iad^ n6t bna ocTbbw otf gnlog asw ^tarfj bnal «/{;)• nc .■ to asiOB 0>.

9di to I.avotqqfl erict £<Jiv .laXXeX .V/ ceXij^ffO -^d" tfrl^L'orf ois.- sXcfr

Yn.3 'lo XI: • on tiw ©larW tf^iJ *«cf tii©©! o3l' taiJnaiJiflX.-Tmon tn «&>•

-'les '■: . Keller or John '". . Keller that the contract should be extended
r another yet-.r and that that subjsot yas never discussed with her. The
stlnony of y.rs . ZlT.inerraan and Krs. Balch Is to the same effect, although
ese witnesses all say their husbands acted for thera. The proof shows
at the seed v;heat v;as bought and paid for out of the partnership funds.

I thi-t va.s done '.ras consistent v.lth and under trie partnei'ship agreenent.

Subsequently to the beginnlnr- of the suit for partition the defend-
•ts sin:ned an a.^reem.ant for th;-"? extension of the contract of !:arch 1, 1913*
r another year; thin agreenent was dated back to November 1, 191^* and was
it yl^ned by any of the conplaiUKntf?. This latter agreeraent can not have
y effect on the rights of the oorr^jlalnajits.

■Jliatever i/as done v;as in perf orniiince of the partnership contract
id no sufficient reason apr^ears -"./hy the partnership could not be settled as

II March 1, 191^ as a year later. The v,^eat and the stock were partner-
dp property pnd v/hatever rights the parties had could be settled when the
Ttnership should be settled ;;nd under the contract it v/as to end March 1,
:''l^, unless an a^eement should be made for its extension. The court did
lit err in holding; that the defendants v/ere not entitled to continue the
'.rtnership and hold the po9:?ec::ion of the lands after Mr^roh 1, 19X4, but

.d err in holding the t Charles W. .Keller was entitled to hold possession of
le lend sown to wheat until it should be harvested. The case is reversed
id remanded at the costs of appellants vith directions to the trial court
> enter a decree in confuri'iity v/ith tlie views herein expressed.

Reversed and Remanded with directions.

5.

..Jnsffiee'xgjB qlrlatdnSTCAq erf;^ 'x«itojj ban di^l\j in&iaI.Bnoo ar-; enoi-

lo rrolspeaeoc; Moil oJ belti^ne -It ymli^'-

-bec'x. ,5o.to?v- rn-joa l)i

^TU/oo L»lii Qsi<f oJ anoitfoeiii) rWl 4 to e3"aoo ©dJ ;tjs JE>eJbna:-:

.£>seo9iq-'C9 nloisri ewoJ^v e.lj ri:tiw xilmio'inoo nl BBt09b a •X"''
»Qnotioeilb Ailv bebtismeR bm JbacaeYeH

.^

I

1, ROBERT L. CONN, Clerk of said Appellate Court, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a true
opy of the OPINION OF SAID COURT in said cause as the same appears from the records and files of my
iffice.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and the seal of said Court,
at Springfield, Illinois, this . ....l 9 th day of _. .JylX 19..^i.

Cleric Appellate Court, Third District.

7 (49548)

I

3"- Q
a o

c

CO

■S3

ifa

7 (13530 — 3-60>

STATE OF ILUNOIS

APPELLATE COURT-THIRD DISTRICT

AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held for the Third District of the State of Illinois, at
Springfield, on the FIRST TUESDAY in OCTOBER _^ ^ 19 ^^

PRESENT •« rV r% -r A M ^

193I.A. 426

HONORABLE GEORGE W. THOMPSOM, Pr^.^^Hing justice

HONORABLE EDGAR ELDREDGE,
. . . . Justice

HONORABLE V/ILLIAM B. SCHOLFIELD, j„^Hrp

Attest: ROBERT L. CONN, Clerk.

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterward, to-wit: On the ^^^^ day of

DECEMBER a n lol'^

, A. D. 19JcL , there was filed in the office of the said Clerk of said Couii:,

an opinion of said Court, in words and figures following:

FILED

Dec. 11, 191^

Geo. L. Tipton, Clerk

Appellate Court 3rd Dlst.

General No. 6275 October Term 191^ Ag. 12

W. 0. Edwards, Administrator of
Estate of Lonnie Arthur, deceased.

Appellee. ) Appeal from Vermilion.

YS.

George W. Negley. Appellant.
Opinion by Thompson, P. J.

This action was brought by the administrator of Lonnie
Arthur, deceased, to recover damages for the benefit of the next
of kin resulting from the alleged wrongful death of the deceased.
A verdict for $362.50 was returned by a jury, : > ihioh Judgment
was rendered. The defendant appeals.

Lonnie Arthur was a child four years old living with his
parents in a house owned by appellee at the northwest corner of a
block. The lot was surrounded by a fence. In the rear of the lot
was a fence separating the lot from an alley running north and
south through the block. The street rimning east and west on the
north Bide of the block is known as Gregg Street. The lots, in
the block in which the Arthurs lived, lying west of the alley
were vacant except that they were used by appellee for storing
logs for a saw mill of his on property west of the block. The
lot immediately west of the lot the Arthurs lived on is lot 24.

1.

G 2 J I -^

,^820 MC iiuoO 9ix..:

SI .sA ^191 «weT i©cfo;roO ^VS3 .oH lattntsO

( Jo •xc>virt's;talnlmM ,al>iBwl>a .0 ««?

^ .ctrralleqqA .^elseSl .W esiosC

.X. .^ ,K08qmorfT x^ noltitqO

elnnoJ lo 'iocJB'x;tB2jciiflibe •ritf xcf ;tri3uoncf b£w nol^ofi slrfT
cfxocf 9d;l lo ^jCieaecT ecli lol BVgemab 'xsvooei o^ ,£ea£«oei) ,'xirii;t'XJll

.3lfi«qq£ (tnabneteJb erfT . £)«'xel)ce'i aal

airi ff^iw gxiivll f)Io aiBOX •xwo'i Llirio b asw luric^iA simtoJ

B lo lerrioo JafiWiicJ-xon sri^T ;tJB e^lloqqs yd Jbertwo ©atrori b at zittBiaq

toX 9rl:t lo leai eri;? rrl .soixel b \q h^btwoniuB bbw ioX en'T .sfooXcf

JE>nfi ri^non aciinrwi x®-CXb tt3 nioil d^oX srfit snictBiBqea eoxxal e aett

9tii no cfa©w £>ns ;faB9 s"-t^^'s ctsaicfa eriT .jiooXd »ri;t /{guoirid^ ri^uoa

at i»ioL 9riT .cteeiJS ss»'i0 8« irworrjf ei jiooXd" ©rii lo 9bte diio»

X&LLq dtii lo cTsaw sniYX ,f>eviX aix;ff*'sA sri^ riolriw ni: >fooXcf eriJT

j^ti^ie nol .-3©XX©qqjs yd JE>©ai/ enew xarid^ ;*ari;t dqeoxe cfxiaaer on»»

eriT .}looXd" sricf lo i8s*w v:;t'X6qoiq no airf lo XXiai wea s lol o^oX

.4s :toX ai nio beviX ^TurliiP, 9tii ioL acii lo iB»v \leiBlbewmt ^Al^

.1

North of Gregg street and In line with the fence In the
rear of the lot the Arthurs lived on was a barn In which the
Arthurs kept a pony. There was a fence along the south side of
Gregg street. There was a gate in the fence on the north side of
lot 2^ and a small gateway into the alley in the rear of the
Arthur lot. The evidence tends to show that the end of the alley
near Gregg street was somewhat obstructed with logs and that in
order to drive in with coal and other supplies to the Arthurs
and other tenants east of the alley, teams drove from Gregg street
throvigh the gate on the north side of lot 24, then east to the
alley and down the alley.

The evidence also tends to show that on the day of the
death of Lonnie Arthur, George Arthur, a brother of Lonnle, with
Lonnie went to feed the pony in the barn and after that was done,
George went west on Gregg street leaving Lonnie on Gregg street
near the gate, and that Lonnie started to go through the gate and
across lot 24 to go home. The evidence further tends to show that
a day or so before the death of Lonnie, an employee of appellant,
v;hlle at work skidding logs on lot 24, had left the frame of a
truck made of 6x6 oak timbers about six feet long, with cross
places three or four feet long, to which were attached iron axles,
reared up nearly perpendicular against the fence or one of the
gate posts.

erii rfolriw rti cnod xi zbu rto jb«»vli aiwrf;fiA »ri;t ^ol sri^f "io os^i

lo 9f)i« rf;iwoa ©rJJ- yiolB ©onel e sbw •^wlT .vrroq « ;Jqr«>( artwriJ^tA

lo 9bie ciitior. srfct no "^onsl &HA rit ectivg e, suMt dioril .3»©*x5^s sr.stO

©ff;t lo iBen ©ri^ ni Tidllc erirf oint ^awa;**® IXbosb b f>iwE

Y©XlB 9fi^ lo fun© ©f{^ tBili woiia o;J ai>xtsi ©oit8f)iv» sriT .;toI •ujri;fiA

nl ;tjBff;J bc.B 8^01 rf;Mw f>9;touii«<fo ;tBr!wdffl08 ejsw ?9©icta asaiO •xe^.r

a•UJri;^^A ©ricf o;t s®llqqu8 lericfo Jbrrs Ijsoo ri^iw ;'i svjtii) O-tt ir

^•••itfe 8a©iO moil ©voii) a«Be;t t"^eilB ©rii lo ;t3a© zc^rLSiiei 'isricto Jbms

Sii^t o;l iB£e n«rfJ ,4VS .ioX lo e£>.la ii^'xofi ©ri* no ©.:^S3 dri;i riguoif*.^

.•\j9lXs eri^ nwo^ Jtar* v
9il;t lo x*^ --■• ' I'^O ^srt;J woria o;^ Bbn&^ osXjb ©OirteJblv© ©rfT
ri;tiw ,0iraioJ lo i©ri;Jo'Jcf b .•xwricr-xA ©sioeO .turii-iA eintioJ lo ri
,©xToX> eaw ;faricf t»c^ljH Jbirs tt^ocS ©iW ni 'v;noq oriJ b&9l oi ;?if0w six.

^9©ic}a sss'sC no sjtnnovl girlvadX JaoicJa ss^'xO no cTaew c^rrsw ayioeO

boB ©;t/jg ©rici xisxfotri;^ 03 oi be:!iiHia ©ImioJ cfsiid' fjnjB ^9^^ eri^ 01390

cffiri^ woffE q3 eJbnsd^ lert^ii-rl ©on9Jbiv;3 ©/fl ,oiao!i 03 oi ;iS ;JoX asoaca

i^rteXXoqqfl lo e-a^oXqiH© aa ,©ia.toJ lo iijsai) ©rU atcled oe 10 ■^sfc «

*5 lo ©oifiTl Bdi ;M©X Z)£jri ,4^* jOI xio agcX :^T[iii)JbX^a jflow ^fs ©Xjtrfw

ciKoio ri^tlw ,a«oi cfesl xle iuo(SB. ■siBtJsati 'Abo hxb lo ©JbiM sloifxd

«mXxb oortX Jb©r{.')£;}-^B arcaif doJtfiw o;l «B^oX :t«©l rujol 10 ©©•3n';t seGsf'ixi

©li^ lo ©no 10 501X01 ©ri^ ;:^8iiXjS8B •^sXjJoIi>^f©q^©q Y-ita®^ ^'■^ b9'iB&i

,8;taoq -^

.S

It Is claimed by appellee that the lot with logs on It with
the truok as reared up was an attractive nuisance and that Lonnle
pulled over this frame weighing about 350 pounds, and that It fell
on him and killed him. George Arthur testifies that he told
Lonnle to go home, and that he, George, had gone a few feet west
when he looked around and saw Lonnle with the truck lying on him.

George Arthur, the brother of Lonnle, testified that the
truck was reared up by the fence, the lower side of It about a
foot from the fence, when they went past It on the way to feed the
pony, and that after he told Lonnle to go home and Lonnle started
through the gate, and when he, George, had gone a few feet he
looked aroimd and saw Lonnle lying on the ground with the truck
on him and that he lifted the truck off Lonnle and put It back
against the fence, moved Lonnle a short distance and ran to the
house for his mother. A number of witnesses who arrived there In
a few minutes say the truck was lying on the ground a few feet
from Lonnle. The little boy was killed by a fracture of the skull.
The employees of appellant testify the frame of the truck was In
a safe condition and that the little boy could not have pulled
It over upon himself. Several witnesses testify that children
of tenants of appellant living just east of the alley were
frequently playing In the log yard with the knowledge of appellant.

The question of the cause of the death of the little boy
and whether It was caused by an attractive nuisance on the

3.

tiilv il no 830I rf:Mw ioL &vii j£jri;J seXXsqqs xd bemlelo ai 31

IXol ^1 cffiflct Lius ,aI>iTuoq O^t J^wods grfirisiaw oaLsil alrii levo JboII;
Moi »if ^Brf:J adilirfael iwdiiA »sioa»0 .mlrf i>elli>l btm lairi 1:
^aaw l»0l nel b aitoa Lcri ,esno€'" Sxus ,oiaofI og ocJ eXnjC'

.aid no s^lY-t Jioini 9if^ rJdiW elm.cd v.ia joiiij Jbru/oiiJ b&'Aool erf n©/

x*, ;:ruo<fB ii I0 sJ&ia "rowol 9ff;t ,aon©l eritf xd qu bBisei a.BW Jio;.".
©ricr JbesT: o;^ X£jw srii ao ^i ^aeq ctoew \;ori^ nariw ,e9cel •ri;t ooil etc
J&©i*jscfs sirrnoJ finB «ra6/i OS oJt airrrroJ f)Xo;J •!< i#^t« isri;f baa ^t^x
dri i9e^ wol B ©ao£ £)sri ,s3io»0 .©rf neriw Jbne geieg 9rf;t riS^ort
jfoirt^ ari;J ri;Jiw JbHuons arf^t no "^IxS. elanoJ was f>«B fuiwoia Jbesic

3io^ cti ;fifcf biiB BltmoJ. 1:10 '>foirii ari^ beiJll ari ;tBriif fine raid ■
©rf;f o;t fsfl«i JbruFi aonfi^aiJb ctiorfa b aXnrroJ fcavoo , aortal arii ^anlfi^..
rrl atarict Jbevlt'ie oriw saaaaxixtiw "lo latfau/n A .loiiiota airi lol aai;c
i&el wsl r Sni/oiQ arict no gni^X asw jiou^^ ari;^ \S9 zeiuntm W9't
.Xly^ia ©rW lo ^lUioBtl 2 xd fiaXIlsf bjbw yod oI*;JlX arfT .einnoJ fflc-^'
ttt 8BW Jioir'xd- ©f(^ lo OBifiil edi "^lirfaa;* ;tnsIXaG[qB lo assYoXqm© e;
JbaXXijq ©vBff ioa bZuoo xoc eXiiiX arii istii bns aotilbaoo alse
«9i£)Xlrio i&tii *(ilX;Jaa;J saaaandlw XBrjsvaS .IXaaairi noqi; idto
■sTiew v«IXb ari^ lo ia^a ^a^t "^trtZ iaBlloqqa lo acfixeri©;}
.d;\j c.»!r...s lo egLaXwonjl arii rii/iw insic goX arict nl :^txBlq YX;tns'' '^
\oa 9X:J:.*1I ndi to fW.s©L arf;J lo aai/so arfct lo noicfaaup ©rfT

etii no aoncait/c evlioBi^cJa hb x^ Jbaawao asw :ti •xarirfax.w -..v

.€

premises of appellant negligently placed there by the appellant
or his employees were questions of fact for the Jury to be decided
from the evidence in the case.

It Is contended that George Arthur, who was the father of
the deceased, was an Incompetent witness In the case for the
reason that he and his wife being next of kin were both bene-
ficiaries and parties In Interest. The objection In the record
Is:- "I object to the testimony of this witness on the ground
that he and his wife would be beneficiaries they are parties In
Interest". The objection Is not on the ground that he was In-
competent because he was the husband of one of the beneficiaries.
It Is a correct proposition of law that a wife is not a competent
witness for a husband although she is interested in the event of
the suit where the htisband Is interested. Thomas vs. Anthony,
261 111. 288} Schreffler vs. Chase, 2^5 111. 395- Under section
one of the Evidence Act, all disqualifications of a witness to
testify by reason of being an Interested party are removed except
as subsequently stated. Under section five of the act, no husband
or wife shall be rendered competent to testify for or against each
other as to any transaction x x x and except "when the litigation
shall be concerning the separate property of the wife." The
husband was competent to testify in any case where the wife is not
interested. The interest the wife has in the case, if a Judgment
is recovered, is her separate property. The husband has the right

*►.

tmbt&ob ecf o^ fiwt •rf^ lo'i #ob1 16 affOi*a«up e^aw ■aetoXqxne alrf to
lo leri^fll »ri^ a/iv* oxiw , •ri/ri^tnA ©3«tc»«0 tstii Jbaf)rfe."tnoo ai :M

I>itif0*r3 »rfd rto aaon^fjhr airi^ lo Y^omid'eocf aricf ot ^Joe^cfo ?!" -:al

-rri eew *r{ i:?siii brrwois »ff^ no ^Jon ai noicfoettfo srfT .*;JB£n»irtl
. sslisiolTtafTad sffct lo ©rro lo f)rfscf8wff &ff^ 8flw eri da^/Boatf in»jteq!ffO»d
:in&-iBqmoo a iorr si sliw a <?dff;J w/sX lo froi;tlao<ioiq ctoaiioo B ai d'l
Id ^nQy9 »ri.1 nl Jba3a«r:9;fnl a I sria djuorfiJIe ijnatfaur! s •tol aasn^flw
tXnotiJnA ,av asfflOffT .f?6;f8S'r«.tifTi al fjrrscTayrf erfct sierfw :tZtra aHfit
nol;Jo9a 'iei^rrU .c^^t .XII l^^ ,©3BriO .av i©Xll©irio2 f88S .III IM
orf^ eaend-Xw b lo anolcffloilllfiifpalJb II/j f*oA sofraJblrS ©ri;t lo srto
d^qeoxs f)9VOffl©'r ©ib x;ti£>g bftjtasiscfiti rrs snlacf lo ttOBnet yd ■'flid-E'
JbriBcfajjrf on ,ioB i»tli lo svil aolio&ti leJbcrtJ .&©*a;ta xX*««wp9atfua e^
rioB© ^8rti/?sa 10 rsol \;licta»tf oi cTfredsqinoo £)ei8J&rjsi otf Ilsria ollw -^
noi;?£St^iX art;* nsriw" iqpoKs bnM oictojssutsrri^ YXib orf ne rreriic

sdT ".©llw »ri^ lo ^tf-xeqciq ejiintfiqea 8x(;t snJtnisonoo ©cT llBt*.Tb
ioa si dllw 9{f4 «*x»fiw &8SO \:ns nl xlitfaect o^ ^tts^^qmoc eevr finscfe
;Jne»§Jb.;j{, b li ,sajBO erii nl zbH alive erf^ ;f8©ie;tfii srfT .b&i&et»^!iZ

.4i

to testify for or against his wife In a suit where the separate
property of the wife is Involved, except that he may not testify
conoeming conversations. We conclude therefore that the husband
waa a competent witness on his own behalf and that of his wife.

It Is also contended that the court erred In admitting a
plat of the premises in evidence showing the streets and alleys,
because there was no evidence showing an acceptance by the city
of Danville. The evidence Is that the streets shown In the plat
are used by the public and Improved. The witnesses for the
appellant, In their testimony, frequently speak of Gregg street
and the alley. There was no error in the ruling.

The third instruction given at the request of appellee is
abstract and very misleading. It is an argument on what constitutes
the preponderance of evidence as between a single witness on one
side and fovir or five witnesses on the other. It concludes
"when you are thus satisfied that tlie truth lies with a single
witness or any other number, you are Justified in returning a
verdict in accordance therewith. This is what is meant by a
preponderance of proof. It is that character or measure of
evidence; which carries conviction to yoxxv minds". The
preponderiance of evidence does not necessarily satisfy the mind
of the Juror. If the Jury believe that a fact is established by
the greater weight of the evidence it is proved by a preponderance
of the evidence. The appellees first Instruction Is also
abstract and argumentative.

.eliw airl \o i&i^ JbcB llari^cj' nwo «irl no aceAwiw :^ns^dqsioo « ustn

fSXelljB £ifi£ a9<>9n;i^a 9/i^ gaiworie ocixeMve xU eo«iai«iq ark ig j....

;tsXg arict til p^it a^aa'i^a 8fi;t ^Q/I;t sX e^noJ^iTe eiiT .eiXivnMi,l|a

arW lol 8»eas«;;Xw exlT •JaovonqinX 1)uj3 ollduq 9iiS xd tidau a'&a

JsoiJb sseiD "io Jije«qa xXd^-aaupeil ,v;oaU;Jat);J iXarl^J ai ,4fl6XX9qq«

f.t«j....jivraaoo ;Jaf{vr ao ia^mu-^ne ob et il .j|f'.ii)«i9X»Xffl x''t*v ^^ ioa-^sj .■.^: .
9no no 8S9n^X»/ dX^nie 2 iieovr^dcf &£ aonaliJtvo lo Goii&iQJbtioq9iq ^^t««
asfcuXonoo cfl .lifl^to adi xio eaaeti^-i^cfiw 6¥il 10 "swol i)na al)Jl«
aX^iXa 3 ri^^Xw aaXX xi;ti>TU^ dri^ iatii i>eX1aX^£a ax/fl^ aijs i;ox, r.^i'--
B ■^Xss'isjimi ixX i«XlX;tai/C ^'tB uox ii&dmija led^to x-o* •so aaarrg.!.r»
& Xo ^nfiam aX d^srfw ai aXriT .d^Xvanarf* soasibnoooB al ^iolSyrmr.
■' ^Txfaaam 10 le^o^nxidc ^&tti aX ::tl .locsq to ^oaaiotaoqetq
■^ '' "gj&fiXffl -xwci ci noXtfoXy*TOo BsXrs'jjeo I'-loXrfw laot'xeX).*^"'
...i.vu ii.jivj ^.. nAJ^-.a x;XX*iJsaa©caii ;Jon 6©oi) aoxi©X>iv» lo ©oxi«n:eX>noq..
Xcf X)9riaXXcfi3;t80 ai icx^l b isdi eveXXaJ ^lut. arfi^ H ."ioiiJi ©i^W *w
90jft8i9i>noqaaq; s -^d X>av<yiq aX ^X aoxraJ&Xv© a^i^t lo cfcJaJaw ladaais ?'' ^
.->,.. o.- r-^ A ■+',:■■ '"isnX ^feiXl eaf^XXatjqis ariT .aon8X)Xva f^r-

.svXctBd'i-rsnsi/s'i/^. r-c d.-

The appellee's fourth tells the jury that the master of a
servant Is chargeable with the Injurious consequences of the
servants acts done In the masters service and within the scope of
his employment and If the Jury believe from the evidence that the
dangerous condition alleged In the declaration was caused by the
acts of a servant of the defendant while In his service and In the
scope of his employment, the defendant Is bound by such acts.
This Instruction Is very Imperfect and misleading when considered
In connection with the different coxmts in the declaration.

The sixteenth Instruction requested by appellant Informed
the Jury that If they believed from the evidence that the mother
of the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence in permitting
the child to go about the premises in charge of his older brother,
or that his older brother so in charge was guilty of negligence
that in any way contributed to the injuries of the child, then
although you may believe from the evidence that the defendant was
guilty of some negligence in connection therewith, yet the
defendant would not be liable herein.

When the suit is to recover for the benefit of the next of
kin, the instruction states a correct proposition of law. True &
True Co. vs. Woda, 201 111. 313; Chicago City Ry. vs. Wilcox,
138 111. 370, and oases therein cited; City of Pekin, IS^t*- 111.
1^1. While the appellate court of the Fourth District in Donk Bros.
Coal & Coke Co. vs. Leavitt, Admr., 109 111. App. 385, announced

6.

lo ©qooa titiij nlrictiw Arte ©oiviea S're^asin »iii ttt snob Bi&& eirtsv^B%

ariiJ '•jcf f>aBtriio «js.w aoi$s*XBXo&t dric^ cri .bogsXlB «ol*il»noo ^uot9^tuab

.B*oi3 rfor/B '^cf im/ocf aX ^n:x-6fioleX> ©ricf « crnsn^oXqa© •Iri to ©croe«

X)9'Ss£»Xam)o xT9if>r ^ll>B©Xaira J&ita iaetmQqmt vrjev si noi:Jot;'r(tBnl airfT

.noXctfltJsXosf: ©ri* «1 a;tni/oo ;trT»i©lliJb eri;t rfdiw noitfoorijioo ni

gnXcfitXffiieq ffi 90ff©7iXX3S/T %;'io^jjcfiT[cffToo "lo yJUXtrg sijv; X>»aJ3©08i) exW "io

, 'jarid'oid' 'isfiXo airt lo sgiBfio rrX e88Xffi©*i<j erii :J-t)ocf« ob oct ibiirio 9fbf

eofi83XX39rr "io x^'^XX-j^ sisw «sijai<o tti ca leriiorrcf *i©Mo Biri ^Jsd* *sc

iiari^ »l)XXrio ©ricf "^o seXi^Jt^X ©rid" o* X>9;fj/cfX'r^noo v.bw xna nX d«rtcl'

BBW i£isAnsl9f> sf{;J cferi^ donelJXve ©fief motl eveXXecf yjani wo-^ d-^oti^le

©rict ^e-'i ,ri;JXw9T:0rf;J noXJoennoo nX ©or.asXX3©it auoB lo x^XXtfg

.rrXerteri eltfBXX eo *oc 1)1 wcw ^itja5nel!«s5

lo cfxdn: «rW 1ft cfXlsrrscf erict 'sol •xovooai o* ai d-Xwa ©rid' rcerflJ

A •uiT .wbX lo GoXctXaoqoiq Soat'ioo s aeSiicIa ctoiioui^iBal eii^ ,«l)f

,xooXiV; .sv .^R vrfXO os^BoXiiO iCjtC .XXI lOS .sX>oW . av .oO bwiT

,XXr 4^X ,fiX?i3? lo Y^XO ;beito ale*i9d^ aaaao XutB ,0^^ ,XXI 8^1

.ao-xS JlKoC rrX tfoiicteXa rfcriyo'd ©rfj lo ^'iuoo a^ialZ&qqe mtii •S.ttC^ .i4>I

bacisiiOiUiB ,?8C .qqA .XXI $01 ,.iJnM ,*^ivfi*kl .qv .oO «;{oO A XaoO

.^

the rule as contrary to the Instruction requested In the case
at bar and the Supreme Coiirt of this state does not appear to
have been called upon to necessessarlly pass upon the Identical
question Involved, yet It has in general expressions decided the
question adversely to the holding In the Donk Bros. Coal & Coke Co.
case. The refusal of this Instruction was error.

The appellant's fourteenth and fifteenth refused Instructions,
which undertook to announce the law as to attractive nuisances,
while containing several correct principles, yet they were properly
refused because of requiring the proof to show that the premises
were vacant. While the first count of the declaration avers the
lots were vacant, it also alleges that they were occupied by logs
stored thereon, so that the averments are contradictory and the
allegation of vacant lots was Immaterial. The fifteenth Informs
the Jury that the defendant had a right to use said premises as
he saw fit unless they believe from the evidence that the truck
was of Itself such an attraction to said child that it appealed to
his childish Instincts. The first count of the declaration avers
that said lots were vacant and used for the storage of logs and
trucks and attractive to children, and that said child was
attracted by said logs and trucks to said premises and by reason
of said dangerous condition of said truck etc. Under other counts
of the declaration, the lots were alleged to be attractive and

oi t.B»qqe :foa a^oli »^r,iE «iricf lo cf^uoO awenxjcS; »rfi brts "xM ;*t

.oO ©afoO A leoO ,»OT:a jtaoG erf;? il ^jjff^Mort ©ri^ oi Y^»e'S0Vl--fi noi;te<»{i|£

3 aesf noi^oi/*s^«iaJ: ei/ij lo Isaylw-i erf? .eft£0

8ri;t aievB rfOJt*/37jjXo9£> erfcf to inuoo ^aiil »ri;3" 9XJiift\' .^iH'OiSV »rjow

asoX -^cf Miqypoo oiaw "^encJ ?*5fi^ ae-sslls oaia cfX ,;t«jf30jev <»^eift a^toX

ericf ItfLS '^ji'io^toiJsietd'KOO ©tes a;ti£o:a'j©yA «ff;^ ^ed;i oa ^rtos'sefrj f)o»roia

Bono'inl iiir.9&i'ii\ osiT .X^XiecJ^BsiaJt bbm adoX inaojw lo KOic^esoXtB

B£ aeaioonq btUB 9ms oi iti^in & Lad ^fnabcaloX) eri^ ;>£ri^ X*3Wt ©'i^

>[o;/icf «/i^ i^W fioxtoJbiva arfa iso'xl ©veiXed -^erii aaoXnv J-il wda ari

o J f)aXBoqq;a ^X ^»f5i* AXirJo SjtSiQ o J rfolotod^d^is hg rioi/a IXsaiX Ift aaw

anovs noi:tBisXo«i) otUi lo itm/oo cJeiil »ffT . scfoiiid-eiti rtalMlrfo alff

i>«fi 830 X lo »ssio4e 6ii^ lol X-/«8w baB ^itj3D.5V ersQw a;roX liiBa iatiS

ufsw bll:io bieQ cfofW baQ ittB*ibl±rio oi Qvl:io&t^!SB hem asifli?**^

floai3»i: "^ i)na aealffieoq Waa od a^loyi^ Lrifi a^oX />Xj33 yc!" i>»;*0£nd*«

aifnjjoo i©rf;Jo *isi)irfU .c»;J® >tt)i/id^ Jbisa 'io woi^iibrfoo at/oiegnflf) ijiaa lo

Jbns tevtiOBti^i^ ©d" o;t Jao^oXXB aisir atfol eric? jnoictfnfiXceX^ «rfct "

the child was killed by the dangerous position of the truck. The
Instruction Ignores the allegation that the lots were attractive
and limits the attraction to the truck. For the reasons stated
there was no error In refusing the fourteenth and fifteenth
instructions. For the errors indicated the Judgment is reversed
and the cause remanded.

Reversed and Remanded.

8.

p

I, ROBERT L. CONN, Clerk of said Appellate Court, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a true
iof the OPINION OF SAID COURT in said cause as the same appears from the records and files of my

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and the seal of said Court,
at Springfield, Illinois, this A91^....day of July..___ 19__.6l

Clerk Appellate Court/Sijiird District.

M

r
r

n
o

c

:0) !
1^ i

i
]

0

0

Wi !

w

jO,

w

50
>

Is:

g^

r

>

!•

> 1

i

Z

p

n

is

•d

4

n

iO)

•d

P'

CD

Dq

(D

m

M

it-" ^

M

u

H

iO S

H

SB

?< "

(D

>

3

u

(D

p-

On

1

V

(D
ct
0

-0

6283-

October Tonn, 1' 14-i
Filed Dec. 11, 19i4-

The People., ex rel,

Emeleco Norbanta,

Appellee.,

YS.

Andrew Lucas, ■

Appellani*,

Appeal'^ from County Court of

/ Macourdn.

19 3 I. A. 4 31

Opinion by Thomvson, P, J,

This is a prosecution on a cliarf'^e of bastardy. A vor-
dict was returned finding the defendant to be the father of the
bastard child of ,uhe relatrix on v/hich judgnent was rendered. The
defendant appeals.

It is earnestly ur ;ed that tlie verdict is clearly against
tne Yieii^t of the evidence. It is contended iiiat tlie relatrix was
impeached by her own testimony given on her cross-examination,
Che is a yaung girl sixteen years of age in April, 191o. She did
not speak English and her evidence had to be given throu^ an in-
terpreter, file jury saw her on the witness stand and believed
her story.

The evidence was very conflicting vdth no manifest pre-
ponderance either way. It would serve no useful purpose to re-
view it in this opinion. The trial court approved the verdict
and no sufficient reason is shown why this court should say that
the verdict and judgnent are not sustained by the evidence.

It is further contendedthat the trial court erred in sus-
taining an objection to the question:- "Ask her if she will tell
the jury that she never did have sexual relations- improper re-
lations with any other man betv/een August lo, 1912, and October 6,
1912, iiisn she has told about"? Tlie objection was that the
question had already been answered, and a reference to the record
shows that it, had be on answered in substance in various forms
several times. There was no error in the ruling.

for liio aupport and la^dnUmmoe of tho b^iBtai-d child of tl^e j roe-
acutins vdtnoea. ?iu» i« fpll.we.d by u ooncrnte otatmaont of the
l«r ap) Ucable 60 zlu. cano. -^.o Uret r ort of t^a xnetrucUon
ma« U .tatoB . corroct propooiUon of law .^^ob tho jury no in •
tonuation conconiins any iame subroittmi to it. Wo fail to son
how it could affact the jury in an.- way and tj,e introduction to
the inar^niction wan hai..il»aB orror. People vn. MoKeo^ti, 171
Til., App. 146. vindin^ no rnvcuaible orror in tho caj)e, the
jud,:52iont ia affimed.

AffirLiod.

^(. YJ

Gen. No, 6301. October Term, 191jf- Ag. 28-

Filed Dec. 11, ]^14-

John W. Hankins, /

Appollee- /

i

Va^. -;, Appe^ from Sangamon.

Opinion by Thompson^ V.J, /

T*iis iti dii appeal from a judf^ient recovered by ajpellee,
John W. Hankins, against appellant, the St. Louis and Springfield
Hallway Company, in an action to recover darjages for pe^rsonal
injuries. T^ie declaration contains two counts. The first count
avers that ap ollee was a passenger and that apj ellant was negli-
gent in having an u.:li^ted trailer and failed in its duty to
give appellee a reasonable opportunity to ali-^t and pass behind
the car on which he was a passenger. The second count av»rs that
the relation of carrier and passenger had terminated and that appel-
lee was lawfully on a public street and Mt appellant was negli-
gent in failing to equip and operate its. trains so as to avoid
injuring persons lawfully on 'jJie streets.

The evidence shows that appellee was on April 3, 1914, a
passenger on a car of appellant's interurban railway from Garlin-
ville and intended to ali^t at the comer of Third and Monroe
S.reets in Sj ringl'ield. The car arrived in Springfield about
8:30 P.M. There was a trailer, in which there were no lights
attached to the passenger car before it arrived in Garlinville.
The Chicago and Alton Railroad has its tracks on Third Street in
Springf i dd and the double tracks of% the interurban cross the
tracks of the Alton R.R. at the said street intersection. The car
on which appellee rode to Springfield was running east on f/onroe
Street as it approached the railroad crossing. This intersedtion
is not a regular place for passengers to ali^t although they
habitually get pff there; there are no facilities for passengers
alighting there.

( (

-<i-

iEhen the car with the attached trail nr roadied the croBsing, it
stOjied and the conauctor ^5ot off and went ahead to see that the
crossing was clear; ho appellee got off the car facing south at
the sou'ch side intending to cross 'Jie t ■ acks behind the car to go
to a rooming house at the nortli west sxiia comer of this street
intersection. Apiiollee testified that when tlie car started east
he tunned and started walking in the eame direction expecting it
to pas a him and after walking a short distance ho turned and ?^alk -
ed north, T/alking in betwefin the car and the trailer or aj^ainst
the tj iiin. He was knocked down hy the trailer and had a rib bro-
kea. He testified that hn had frequontly ridden over the same
route and never knew of a trailer being attiichod and did not know
one was on that nij^t. ^en he gpt off the car he could have soon
the trailer but saya he did not look. Ihore was an oloctric li,^t
burning on the comer of Third r>ti eot insidri the gate line of
the /Uton Railroad, and there were li^^ts on both xx ends of the
jtrain. A largo nixraibor of witnesr.es testified concf;ming ihe car
and trailnr ssA tlxat the trailer was ] lainly and clearly visible.
One excuse -given by appolleo for not seeing the trailer, in addi-
tion to the fact that ho did not look, is that the brilliant elec-
tric- lij^hts further oast in iho busineas part of the city, toward
which tlie car was ^oing and ho was walidng, shone in his eyes and
dazzled him so tiiat he did net see tiio trailer; in other words his
complaint is that the city furnished too much lit^^^t at this point.
The physiciam who was called to attond appellee says that ho was
somewhat under Hm influence of liquor. After appell(« had alight-
ed from the oar on a i^ubiic street he was not a passenger. It is
elementary that in order to recover for damages for personal in-
jury caused by neglif^t^nce, the plaintiff must prove that ho was in
, the exercise of due care at the time hn was injured. The clear
> prepo -doranoe of the evidence shows that appellee was not in
the exercise of due oare but was guilty of gross hegligonoe in

blindly at tern; ting to walk over a moving train. The judfjnent will
bo reversed with a finding of fact that 'che appelleewas not in
the exercise of ; ue care when 4he was injured,

r. E V -^^ R S E D.

(kin. No, (i504.

October Tona, 1914-
Filod noc. 11, 1914-

.' /j

Ag. Mo, ol-

Elmor 0. Moff ,

Apjelleo., \

VS.

\

rwood Barloy f.'fg. Co.,\
Appollant, , \^

193I.A.439

from Taaowoll.

Ojiinion by TlioLipson, V.iS. \

'2iii+--i» jiR action in asoumpflit brou/^xt by Rlinor 0. Noff,

f Pekin, Illinoie, a^5ainst tho Harwood Miinufact/uring Oociiany, an
[ndiana corporation oni;a;5od in tho raanufacturo and tialo of motor
brucke, to recover a commiesion for tinioks sold by 'iio dofondant,

:ix\ pKi-chaaorB of which worn introduced to d';fondant by plaintiff
and on which tlio plairitiff claimB tho dofonciant a^^reod to pay a
comr:dBGion of twtTnty-fivo per cont of tho soiling price. 5%tr-d«j
j-uration cont.ai4iB t^-o ooraFon ouiints oiia a tj] ouiaToount on an oral
conti'act of af$onc^, Tiio plea ia- tJio^ ff«noral isBUo, A— j-v-rv rotums
■ttA a. verdict in favor of plaintiff for the sun of $1137.50-yLon
v=/hich judf^ent was rtjnderod, '- .^^ afondant ap};oal<,

liie principal contention of appollant -i#-that appellee
was not an a^^ent of appollant, hi Auguiity-3?4i^^, ^]']:ellant sent a
printed circular to appellee to which was attached a postal card
that ap])elle ; filled out by atating tiiereon that ho was interested
in a one ton truck and requesting that ap};ollant*B agent call on
him and mailed tiie card to appellant, Tho appellant on receipt
of the card mailed to appellee a catalogue of its motor trucks.
This catalogue on its first page under the heading "Of floor ard
Direc ors* named C.G, Barley as Treasurer and General Manager, and
on tho last pago und.er, tho head..ng "Agencies add F)o;rvice Stations •
names among others W.P, Breedlove, Joplin, His sour i.

1

*2»

On Septfaiabor 2, l&li5, uftor aj)})olloo had Eatdled tho card
to ay] rtllant, ho rocjoivod a lottor from upi)ollant Bif^riod by dharleg
0. Bailoy, TroaoiUTdr. The laet ]:arfik'^aph of this lottor is:-

•Wo aro rnforring vour inquiry to our Vr, Broodlovo, ^rho will
be in your vicinity noon, imd ho can cull on }'^ou ac ho can r^ivo you
th« fullost information rogtti*ding tho i rice, otc. He in desiroua
of 88ein(5 you about tho a ■ oncy of our truck in your vicinity, as wo
can savo you Borao Eiont^ by aaking you oizr ar^nt, W© can furnish
a one ton truck witli stakn body in about thrwB wenks aftor ro-
ceipt of your ordor,four at th« ou':5.'ido*.

•pho appollant at rjio tima it wroto tho inttnr to apjollan also
forwaruod tho card wittnn by ajjimlioo to Breodlove, Tho day aftor
appollunt wroto ito lottnr to ap] olloo, Breodlove wrote a iottor to
a];polloo stating tiiat ho was in rtiooipt of ho card ^iich had be<«i
referred to him, and tiiat ho (Bro(^dlovo) would call on appellee the
following weok and takn t}ie matter up with him and it would paj' ap«
p'^lloe 3B. well to wait for hiia. At tiio time fixod in tho letter
Breo lova went to Pekin and aet appelleo, TIio evidence for appellee
is that Breedlove, as a :ont for apj-ollant, proposed to apTolloo
that ap}5ollant would pay liira a cocirn-ssion pf twonty-five XBxtx per
cent on the s^de of motor trucks to sudhi prospective buyers as
appallO(^ mi'^t introduce Broodlove; l>hat api;(5llee agpeod to take
Breodlove to prospective: j^urchasers and introduce him on tJiat basis,
and thereaftm* on "iiat day did introduce Breedlove to Albortson
& Koch, who purchased a truck on Septocibor 9, from ai)] ell ant.
He also took Breedlove and introducod him to tho German Amorican
Browing (Jompany, whidi also bou^^t a truck from appellant.
After tlio introduction of Breodlove to Albcirteon h Kodti, and tho
Brewing Coinpany, ap}>oli0o and Breodlove v7ont to a bank in Pekin
and thore Breedlove told the cashier, in appelleo 's presence that
[Breodlove wantod to moke ap})Glloo a^jont for appelliint and told him
•what iha cooiinission was and figured out the comr/iission he v;ould
?ot if a sale sliould be rnade to Albortson h Koch, and to the Crorman
American Brewing Oomjjany. Tho evidonco of ap}.olleo arid tho castiier

-..>

[ of the bonk i« t,}mt uj>]>«lloo was to havo tho ogtmioBion a^^rood uj)on
' if A]fo^t8on and Kooh arid th« BroT/ia^; Oowpany pui'ohased truoka,
I md that durii^ the converuation in tho bank h(» su^^etod that
I Brf^edlova gIobo the aaloii to Alborteon h Koch and the fr<!naan kaor-
! loan Br<winf5 Go. boforo Meff r^avo hia ordor and xiiat Bieedlove
' jisBontod to thio proposal. Appollee tostifios that ho vixs not as-
ked to oigi an onlor for a trucsk but tiiut he did givo an ordor for
a trucsk to bo shij^ped to him on condition "f^t Albnrteon h Kooh
und tiio Browing Gorajuaiy bou,r^it trucks •

Appoll«A con''>ond8 that it waa noooosary for ajn ollen to pur-

I,
chaBo a truck and to (Kivonce $200. on it boforo Iio could bo ap*

pointod an iic'-«nt. Ajpolloo jroved tliat hn had botwoan ^1,200,

and ^1,400. in tho bank at tho time Broodlova nfui he wc-re at the

^^onk, and that ho waa not aekad to advanco ^200 J

Tho prej'ondoranco of tho ovidonce in tliat it v/aa a^jrood that the

ooianisBion lie would -^ot if tho salea to ^Ubf^rtaon ft: Kooh and the

Browing (Jong any ahould be made, would bo aprlied on hia purchatio,

Appollant 8ub8i»(ju(mt to that time rofunod to sMp a truck to aipel»

lee, <and oiaima tJiat A^bnrtson h Koch had beon ai)pointod a^^snta for

the sale of its t2*uckB«

There xb a conflict botweon tho evidonco of appellee aad
Breedlove but appolleo is corroborated by the cashier of the bank.

Appellant inoiatn alao that Breedlove had no autJiority to
ap)^oint a :«nt8 except on the condition that the propoaed a^nnt
nhould first buy a truck and advance ^200* on it. The lottor of
Septocabor 2, vrrittan b}' tho Troasuror and (Jonoral Muna^r of ap«
pollant infonns apj^oilee that "our lir, Breedlove* "is doairous of
seeing you about the ai^inoy of our truck in j'our vicinity*, and
placea no liroitation on Bre<>dlcvo»a ri^jht and authority to appoint
agents, Breodlo. e acted within theaj^paront scope of his au«
thority^SM Mj^aanx n^gmisax as the saraa is uho\m by tho lettoi' of
its Onneral Mana^ser.ih appointing appellee an a,^^nt, althou^^ ho
may ]iavo acted contrary to hia i rivato instructions. The appel«
lant received the b nof it of the work of a]>polio>; d.ono under the

m4m

it.^mcy oreatod by iJ4>rollant unci«r Uio autlioriiiy it notified appollae
it liad roposfid in Broodlova. Ap] ollant ctoifiot dafoat the ri,<^t
jf ono of ittt Ui^ontB U> a comrdaBion by making a/^«nto of ciistom-
ore introducad by mi ogont iilroady ap] ointod. The jury wore .iua-
tified undor tJio «viddnce in finding a vordiot in favor of appellee.

Apjiollant aloo arif^uoa that aprftllof^'s inotruction numbor sov-
ontocsn i» orroneoua for tJie reason "it aeoumeB Noff made a contract
with a duly ai-thoriaed a^ont of appellant'. The inatruction can-
not bo 00 conotrued, it atatee "if you find froK the greater woif^t
)f i.h9 evidence that the dofondimt acting bj/ its duly authprized
agent,, -i^eed", et«i.

Two other instruotionfl ai'o also criticised but we find no
ground for the ooiar'A<iinte iu-(5od a^^ainet them.

The jury wore fully ,'»nd fairly inotructed. i^indin^^ no error
thfl jud^ent ie affiiTsed.

AFPIR»fl5B.

^.^,j^<7'^

Peter Coutrakon and Gus Keresotes, £ r\ t^ -r \ A A W
Partners, etc.j^^^^^^^^^^ A 9 3 I -A- 4 4?

^^« ; ^eal from Sanganon.

Passow h Sons . , a corporation. ,
Appelleeii,

T

Gen. No. 6321. October Tenn, 1914- ||. No. 43-

Filed December 11, 1914«

Opinion by Thompson, ?,J, -
P .This is an action in asBumpeit bi>e«i^ by Coutrakon and

Keresotes, partners, a-ainst Passow h Sons, a c rporation, to
recover $400. part payment mad© by plaintiffs on a soda fountain,
which defendant agreed to build for plain tiffs, "^according to the
torms and specifications of a written contract. for $1,800. and y/hich
was to be delivered to plaintiffs on or about May 1, 1913. -ffee
d^o^l^ration consists of liie common counts.

The def en ant filed a plea of the general issue with a
notice of set off claiming a balance of $1,400. due on the original
contract together with $ 245.80 additional made up of itans of in-
terest, storage and freight, etc. A jury returned a verdict of
$1,400. in favor of def ondant on which judgnent was rendered.^5^e
plaintiffs appeal.

The w3Pi4tea order for the fountain was made March M 26
1913, and by its terms P«»s«wafld.-8on»-©fahicago, agreed to man-
ufacture and ship ^e-'iountai-n on or about May 1, subject to
delay on account of strikes or other unforseen accidents to Coutra-
kon k Keresotes at Springfield, Illinois, and to furnish a mechanic
to set it up. The frei^t m to be paid by the purchasers and
BetLlement im to be made on arrival of goods at S] ringfield, terms
$800. cash, balance of $1,000. paj^ble in sixty days with interett ,
the title to remain in Pasaofw t I^oiiB^ until notes and chattel mort-
gage have be(;n executed by tlie purchasers. ,, Tge pu^rchasers made an
ad«anee payment of $400. when the order was signed.
-J^yi^ yv-t*-'^ >x^^f y)A^ ex.. AJ-^.

-2-

Among other piovisione of the specifications is:- "Pud^) section.
There are to be two 10 pump eectionB, oac)i to have 10 porcelain
syrup jars, 7 pumps, liquid style, x x x". Goutralon testified
tha^ in a conversation with appellee 't - agent before the con-
tract was signed it -vas agreed 'iiat the puqjps should all be liquid
carbonic pumps made by the Liquid Carbonic Company. The;"- fountain
wao not shipped on May 1st, Appellants insist that they cancelled
the contract because the fountain was not shipped on or about May
Ist, and that they are entitled to recover tlio advance payment .
On April 21, appelle'^ vifrote to appellants that on account of some
unfoHseen conditions that had arisen it v/ould not he able to ship
the fountain on the first of May. On April 28, appellee wrote to
appellants that it expected to ship the outfit within the b next
ten daya. On May 17, appellants wrote to appellee ohat ,they had ce-
BBinded the contract and demanded the return of the $400, Appel-
lants eic^jloyed Mr. Mcjlrath, an attorney, in Springfield, to act
for them in the matter. On May 19, aj^pellee wrote to McG-rath that
it was ready to sl-iip the fountain and requesting appellants to
comply with the contract as to the further sum of $400. the balance
of the cash pajinent. On l-ay 20, appellee wrote to McG-rath the
fountain would be shipped the next day. I'cGrath comrjunicated with
appellants, his clients, and by their dirnction on May 21, sent a
telegram to appelle "send fountain under terms of original contract
except the $1,000 to be paid July 26th, and $400. more when fountain
is in store". The fountain was shipped May 21st, and on May 24th
appellants Y/ired appellee that the fountain was in Springfield, and
that they would accept it but wished to chan<^e the erms of the
old contract as to payment. On May 22nd- apj^elleo sent the bill of
JHtiilKjSX lading with a note and cha.'^l mortgage to a bank in
Springfield. On May 24th, appellee wrote to McGrath that they had
sent the papers and note and mortgage to the First National Bank
for $1,000. due July 26, and that they held a carpenter in readi-
ness to set up the outfit. On May 26, appellee received another
letter from McGrath stating that the fuuntain and fixtures would
be accepted if as represented. Appellants refused to accept the

-3-
fountain and fixturee which remained at tho freight depot in Spring
field until Septombor when the outfit was returned toMappellee in
Chicago.

Appollante contend that they cannot be required to accept the
outfit and pay for it because (l) it was not shipped on or about
May I \ (2) that appellee faiied to furnish a mechanic to set it
up: (3) ^he connections wore not proporly matchedj the \/orkr:anship
was poor and the maliogany veneering loose; (4) the tanks were not
afi Called for by the specifications and ,(5) the pumps were not the
kind made by the Liquid Carbonic Company.

^i]^-^ya«-t;ontract called for the shipment of the outfit
'©a^or^^out-May ly-x X X Btibject^^^^t^^^^ account of strikes
oi^-ether-unferseen accidents* time t-B-TiiTt- made the essence of the
0ontrao4, and jiappell ants directed the outfit shi] ; ed about the
time it was forwarded. TJie delay was caused by the failure of the
Marble t/orko isexx that manufactured certain onyx columns on
the fountain to have th^i cored, the evidence is uncertain as to
whether that was :he fault of the Marble Works or the appellee.
'Apfreil4aat»'4ia3?^inf5-d-i-re©ted the outfit ebipped on May 21, and-vrit-
tea-^ay 36|*>---tiiav it-^ould ba .accepted if i,t was as represented,
trnd-th^ :would pay the fur,ther» sum of $400. i^hm. the outfit was in
their floore and ^aqf $1,000. on July 26, obligated uiemselveB to
accept 14 4f.-it fulfilled the specifications. The appellants
were by the contract required to pay the f roif^t, and all that
'•appelleo had to do after it was shipped was to furnish a mechanic
tQ-_pxi2parly-- aet it up. The provision in the contraet^ is "Contrac-

toi^-4«o---&isniah-fflechani-o----a4--t]^ij? -eaEpwaae- to set up the outfit,

-pt«-ehaBer furnishing help'6^*. It is very clear that appellants
^are not in a position to xirge any defence to the claim ef set off
o«r .be^^'ground that it was not. ship^^ed on or about May 1,.

^pei-tants' inopected 4*,<on its arrival^ in-Springfieid and
Bay it was not as represented. The contract, contains the clause

L

-4<»

II claims for ehorta^ or non-coznpliance -vitii^ contract Boiist be
maoe ^iJain five dayeof delivery of goods". ^^£a^ do not
appear to liavo r^ven any notice within five dayo of ^at they m^
insist wan a non-ooLai)lianoe trith the contract othor ihm rj,„ ques-
tion of time, x . y

^ii\^ rofnronoo^to th-: Qther dejencoe ur^^jed to tJio set off,
Jh9.-^v.idaace ie confliofdng. There ^^^^ raanifest prepondoranol
eitlior wa3r.,«i4-it would net-^rvff any useful purpose to review it
'^'^'-^^^^^^' Tne finding of j^- jurj- ami itir n^n^reiral t^r-i^ trial
^«ei«-t^-is^ conoiufiive on thcifio queetiorifi.

^5?bia«^-^0i^laint 1^- Ttiade^-tr?- -t^ .^^

^0Blka.iit--4^.el^-in i:he 8M'.««ntT^^ ^^^^^ ^^_

quirea a reversal ef thi erase.

Tt IH Blao ano^ted^Hfari^-^e eQurt-«h^ui4 have gi^anted the

action for a nevr trial on tho ground of newly discovered oviriance ' yyo^
I^T;"'^ "^^^-^^^^^^^^^ h»»e l>a«n diacovcrexl uincn t e ^^V.^/

*ri:ai-ifi^8iEiply ciimlative on the question of the kind of piazi^os
that were furnished in the f o^^t^in^^%' wou:; d not noceosarily
havo chan.'jed ih^ verdict^.^md i^'^ot conclusive on the question of

the kind of punipfl in tlie fountain.

It i^^ed tJiat the verdict Hf^ a coroproriise ^ if ^^'
L^ waa exititled to a jud^pent on its set off it was entitled to
111 that it claimed. ^ fatjt tharthd-^ud^nent- i-^^f^laaa
ihaa-^ellee was entitled, to is an en-or of rhi<^ ai^rellante
lave no reason to complain.

Finding no orrorJLn^ecait.^^^ aff iiined^

AFPIRIED 7 ~"""

, ..^defied

Rehearing Denied May 26th, 1915.--0pinion/li#d refiled Jione

29th, 1915.

(^■;-N^,MT, MO. 6r'07.

EULAIA McCOE^CK, et ajU_^

rs.

o-jfOM^r^

^J. 11. DECICSR. et

EIDIIHDGE, P. J.

tifellants-^:

April tefj-i, a. d/ 1914

AGENDA NO. 68.

Fil/d April 16, 1916-

peal fron Circuit Court
/' Shelby County.

193I.A.451

Arpolloos recovered asJud^ent agains t-ar"?ol 1 iijxts
idn the svpy of f\Q,000j^ an ictio^^'nitler Section 9 of the Draju
:3!iop Act, for an injury in their- «ieans of sup?>ort caused 'bj the
death of their father resulting from hahitual ih-toxicatioii r-ro-
duced by liquors sold to him hy appellants, (/%^-uu/ji ' ^-^-^^

Three orfors are prinoi-y^l'iy relied upon hy ar?-.-'ellants
■^i-T" TcagKMis for the reversal of the judr^nent .' Thoco rolate-r
first to the admission of evidence, second to the jrlvintr of
instructions and thir^l to the remarks of counsel in the ar,';::uEients
to the jury.

The cause of action alleged in the declaration is
confined solely to injuries received by appellees in the loss

of their means of support, caused by the death of their father

in consequsnce of intoxication through linuour;? sold to him hy

app c 1 1 an t s . tTT^rH^T' fho, ri^^inwi-if-tmi Y,ci rinrr^ff^f^r: ^oajv fee-HPee^Tertsd

foy reason off thair losa. -In . tliaj

xT- -«»Pf>o«»t . Tlie Court,

over oljjection, permitted the mother of appellees to testify,
that, prior to the time deceased began tc drini: to excess, h.is
deneanor and conduct tov:ards appellees was very kind, but that

after he began to so use intoxicating liquouc, and T.'hilc

ho \iraa under the influence thereof, his habits with reference

to attention, care, v;atchfulness and service to the children

;rere very careless and that he paid very little attention to

then .

tfrarfc-'-raen^Ri— angtri'srh'r'tlXsgracb fi'^-loss

-mf* tlnr»■;f^^

..jiaiiJ.^ge

this^ section of the^ statut^e. B^i^jpjaa^^^ 496 j

MeS^&ar-v--1i3rfch±ar-*»^--I4i^-m 111. 501.

In tlie , case of Hackel^t v sielsley , ^f "Tir."Iorr'iff~-a- sraiilar
action brought- lxy.th&.4?tfe if oi^daiaage&..±a.J]^^ of support,

she was peraitted, over objection, to testify that ^hen her

!

husband came home intoxicatied he would get angry and throw
the dishes } that she had to go out of the house into the cold
in the rinter to escape infiury from himj that he made demon-

straticns to her vrlth a revolver and once held it to her head.
In the opinion the Court heldj

"The statute gives the rin;lit of action for
three separate descriptions of injury — injury in
person, or property, or means of support.

As the declaration in this case counted only
upon an injury in mieans of support, the evidence
should have heen cdnfined to such injury, and it
was error to admit f this evidence of personal injtiry
and ill treatment | | and it was such evidence as was
highly calculated to operate injuriously to the
defendants."

In the case of Ilanewackir v Fennan, 152 111. 3ni, '>7here

the cause of action rras conf ikied to injury in means of support,

i

i

evidence of the inconvenience 1 that the plaintiff labored under,

t

i
as to the hardships she suffered, and as to the sicknesa of her

children, was 1b Id to he inco^ipetent . To the saric effect is

also Flynn et al v Fogarty, 106 111. 263. In the case of

i

McLees T Mies, 93 Til. App. 442, in an action hrought "by the

v;ife to Recover damages for iijijury in her means of support, the

\

\
admission of evidence that her\ husband rhen intoxicated was

i abusive and cross v;as held to have been erroneous.

y^ In view of the settled ldi7 in this State in an action

of this character v;here the caluse of action is confined strictly

to injury in means of support, proof of conduct to the v:ife or

i
children hy the husband or i father Trhile intoxicated is

incompetent and the a^issiV?n of such evidence is erroneous.

an instniction limiting the damages

Such error cannot he cured h;

to such as apply only to the

injury in means of support. FTackett

V Smelsley, supra; HcLees v Wiles, supra. It follciTs, therefore,
^j that the evidence of the cond|ict of the father to appellees hefore
and after he acqiiired the haTiit of excessive drinking ^as
erroneously admitted.

A

flre witness Fortner en cross-examination was asked Tsy
-&<?w»s^"-#«p~a:pp«si±0€rr'T^S"Ti5Tl o^^^ gttcst 1 mxr^^^hsr^-jxm. c onv ic t ed

in c"Mrt for soiling intoxicating liquors during the year 10^9—
1910?" J ?o- LTfiy Ire answered that he had heen conricted a-t i)he •
laat j'iMiuh Tei'ui oP-xtrctt't 1913, four years later than the date in
controversy . lfT"Ts^contend«3"1jfr-apfreiiant-s thatr-BT4d««ee_of
the conviction of a crime by a T^itness for the purpose of affecting
his credibility must be shown by the record and judgment of the
I conviction. This is not the ru;|.e in this State. Proof of the

conviction of an infaiaous criinej for the purpose of iiapeaching the

j

testimony of a witness may be i^roved like any other fact and may

i
be adraitted by the ''fitness himself. Clifford v Pioneer Fire

Proofing Company, 232 111. 150. Selling intoxicating liquors

is not an infaraous crxKie, nor any crime at all, unless it is
done contrary to the laws of the State. If this question was
asked solely for the purpose o^ impeaching the testimonv of the

'CWUI

witness on the ground that he had been convicted of an infamous

i

I
crime, the pbjectibn should have been sustained- The ansTrer,

however, was not rebponsive to the question, was voluntary, and,

as no motion was ma4e to exclude it, appellants are not now in

position to assign ^rror thereon.

Numerous checks drawn by deceased and payable to the

various appellants were admitted in evidence upon the statement

of counsel for appellee that further evidence would be produced

to prove that they were given in paynent for into:^icating liquor

sold by them, respectively, to the deceased. A number of

these checks bear date at a time v;hen tliere were no licensed

saloons in Shelbyville, where deceased and appellants resided,

and v;hile apr^ellants were con^'ucting ether kinds of busincsa» and

"With possibly one exception, they were not connected by any

evidence ^ritb silcs of lifiucr to decease-'. I^r' was thei''g~'lLm
evidence -SlKflclixg- 8&le3 of intoxicatiiig liquors, legalixoT* illegally,
byMiiie_4ia4i:££a.j3£_,ibe. Ct\ej5ks _ .dur Ing-^^ t^
olfcwnstaricea , they ■ &hottl4 -aaot have been admitted.

?ke-H°;ivi«.R— ©f tJi« f4ri»«*^ -and sixth instructions on

behalf of appellees Aw a3..i'{^?nt;d" j'S" errcru" "/^e first instruction^^
is a erbatim copy of all that portion of s»ktk Section 0 wMch

has an7>^ aprlication to the cane. It is insisted that the
instruction is liad because it did not set out tlie entire section »
««Ae¥i--tiia--au^tl»opi*y-of Baker^-A-Re^^ick v SuKr*ers , 5roi II 1 . 52 v
Colesar r Star Coal Co., 255 111. 532; and, TTapenny t Iltrf'fnian,
184 111. App. 351. The complaint is that under this instructioii
the jury "trould be warranted in awardlijg all damages sustained by
appellees and '■■ould not be limited to the damages sustained by
them in their means of support. In each of the above cises
cited on this question, there was no other instruction limiting
tlie -daBiages to the loss in th© ine^ns of sup-port, 1>u€ ifii the
.pnftgant. f.awo- the jury eould not hav»-&ea»^«l»a^€ir-«gr'to—fcfae
MCcibUi'iJ I r"ttSDnaj^eBrTr— fi; was instructed to consider all the
instructions together as a series. By bhe /slxtgeiittr,
-gevenLcuiitli aiid-eirghtreenth instmictlons given on behalf of
appellants, the jury were ylftilnly told that they could not
find appellants, or either of them, guilty unless appellees
proved by the evidence that they had been injured in their
means of support, and the damages were limited solely to
such as they suffered in their means of support. UHdejfi. feliestr
-c±r©ttnsJtaJxces-r-4^he-.-glylns-^ not reversible

error_as the jury could not have *een mtslerd ttn9rp»by. Jeffrses
v,..Uesander, 266 111. 49; Dsinley v Fibbard, "^.2 111. 88;

^

The sixth instruction given Tcr a-npelleen is objected
to on the ground that the damages are not limited to those
sustained by appellees in their means of support. If this T7as
the only instruction given on the measure of damante we would he

inclined to sustain/ the contention, hut taking the Instructions

/
as a T.'hole, as ve have ahove stated, the jury cou^d not have

/

been misled as to the true rule to be applied in the assessment
thereof. /

Instruction ntimbor IC given on behalf of appellees -±3
nqf, nnm-p-}f3-ini^ri nf^ Tiiif f<° ^^Tn• g ^r\'=if^ TiMst bg! trl'^il agi^ain WO desiro
to- eall a-ttantion-toXt- £U)~ tliat tbe^ ev-pov-^m^j not be reT>eated.
Tli» A-K»^>ytteti-^Mi attempts to define the weight and credit t!:at
should be given to the vritnesses in the case, and concludes as
follOTfs: "and you should give to the testimony of such v'itncss,
if any there be, only such weight and credit as you shall believe
him entitled to under all the circui!: stances surrounding the case."
A jury has no right to consider any facts and circumstances except
such as are shown by th ^ ^idence, but under this Instruction
the jury was allowed to di^scrodit the tcstiriony of any ^.Titr.ess
upon any facts and circurasitances which might come to their

8.

loiowledge from any source^ The giving of ah instruction which

1

permits a jury to considejf" facts and circumstances not shown

by the evidence is reverspLhle error. Balenovic v Ansicic, 181

i

111. App. 660.

The Court refused to give a number of instructions
asked by appellants, but we are of opinion there i7ac no error
committed in this regard.

Mtxriei^euo roi ai^itc made by counsel for appellees iii-tii«ir
n,rg:»T'ff""t-p t" *^^ ^i^jrj TSAva Gb;Jeeted t«, but tko will h©ii©-nat ice
'but onoy i¥hi^h^-yft3innde In -Wie closing arguinent €mii wac-^^s- f oil ews ;
"The intoxicating liquors sold to 'IcCormic-: caused his death,
and defendants are murderers." 4^his stat^Hent^-r'trig^" (5bXe'ct;6tr~to,
■?>ut_-ihe -Court nade no iniling -fetee^reon. A litigant in a- siiurt of
laT? has a riglit to have the issues considered and determined by a
jury from the evidence and the law pertaining thereto, zmd not
by passion and prejudice produced b3'^ inflammatory remarks of
counsel. Verdicts procured by such rieans vfill not be sustp-inod.

For the errors indicated, the jud^.ent in reversed and
the cause remanded.

"'■""^■S-iKfg/j,

anNHRAL ifO.WjTrje. ocTOnnr. Triir

Filed^pril 16, 1916-
oal from Circuit

19 3I.A.454

IV

'rtiia io .an appoal fraa ri Judfysoiit ponitore'l a,r;rUsist -**"*■

-L^ollaat for t!»e sina of $10,000 in an action en the caae tc
roooTor dnoa^ds f<«p |>0r3onal ln.1nries alleged to have hc.&n surj-
tainetl by appellee because of tho Tv-llfHl violation by appellant
t;.r •'' ■-■■.vf>:iO 'B", Soc. 21 Of the :-iner-. ,va" -J-nora Act <it.t U: .civlfl.'.-aft-

M^-i^"tt1n«^■-*»y' •itmf't •^nti'^iftlr^f ■■ '-^r 'i^aCTnyr?^

:.4^^-^*»e~-^^^i:.'*egl to--%e- -In "^fHr--'»»gr<*r?s'p»*a»»e--^f"tl»«i-y>-^3aUi.cs

iAT lifiTQ ■.ti3-..2maa--to. -^ml. ?'■

-j^Hw^lwr^Btffn-

l"jl'»||WI>''| ^

^ir ■rH.'rk, pla^oa of

--■? i-nf -fwisjt^^'two' snft

::,^,^^---.v->-^.y^^^^»^, ^|^ryp».<jaft^fc ^rj

.It^f: ,

i>Trgi»TMSlijng tT7icatiy'--y#i

-Tfssrer'ts-tr-tjTHMrt?

ijiiim MP Oim mil m Tmir rniiti Tiufmii ii fTn mT'-nml tTin

lliere la no eontrcrreroy a2>out the foots ^(nimmnrtilAag
thai aoon.iiX>int ■ CotciseX for app<^3.1iuit a^aed on the trial h\

cr^en oota»t that tliero had l)©0a a yiol^^*'

•^ *,■'!/> <r! <•_■<(. ->•?■.-:»

aXld@ecl In tho deoloratlon and introeluood no oTldoiK^c.

faots aiaeloaed by the eyiti.oM<« iiintyta^lua^dL 1>y ni«i*'"3^>-^ '?

snl>3tastiall7 the saoe as tlioy appear cm a forxser apr oal or

this <5r»fle '""'' ■^^"'^ -•^''v* •*.*^) finfl. nna-'^ rrf: "■ ■ "■yi'tii;^ "' ■'-'i

«

it l3 oonoo-:!. "bj" cou35i30l foT ap^eXlant, tn 't^^eiw

:-^> ^-.._ , ......._.u at tho tt^'^ '-^ ^-^-^ injury ^--^ ■ ■■■^•'•s-'-^^

.lt!iin the seojpe of his ^aployssaent- Tho principal contenticns

'orgotl are* that tho 1««^ of the r>laoos «>?" r ^?*'s*«* •f-i'^- ^ot

J-i<3 proxtnate en,uso cf the injury, errors in the a^-inisslon of

oridonc®, in tho ririssg of instwotiorja

■x'n%vQfi are

Gxeaanlro * ■•» i»*Tri <*» m^ <»f.««r-^Y» -p-<>«4rtw »>>a» ^iT..ii»i* «^ » ff<^A»a

•ni tTift 11 r 'mi nil i ir"r'T"""r " , ^ i.. jvv.._|...-^ — r----"* — rff-r ■"'*'-i*niitt for

3 t-|.'^...4«^----^'^-«%*^'^^y^'^-'^'^r ■-'^Tr*- it-r--t^tsre ■ -iit- ■He-'Ttrrtcr*'?. :-.' "^ -ff*.

'opsnoc

^ ^,
^' ^ Tt i« al!SO InffllsteA that tli© yilacos of r©?"!.*^© rr^irlrJod

\

\> ^-

^ ^ for "by the statute tTion In force, voro not ino^wjt for the benefit

L.^>^ ot* ',pp«lloCt ^t for Klners i^olng In and tyxt of the tnine, to allow

^'5 /

-^ V tai»au^git_ijL-XJ*d-H«TttvC5T»tt^ for

safety t.:,s'- ~ftTr'i;t3trfe---»^~-<w:^<^t??er'-T!''*''^^
hiia l^nto the T-:iTii«f>'<i-rray.

It ia c7:il".o.'! f*~^ '''■■^Hvt erred in aadtv
that tJio assistant ciino ruiTiager Olrectofi aTspell<>c to /ro Ivto this

or.try ••'-ti-.'' "r^fsl-n .1. |i.ni.| trm ar^irei* of tho eaile toara. It -Ir.
c^nooded that it was th© duty of appolloe to do thin \rltT?c««t
any air©ct or sTXJciflo oirdor. ^»#"#««i*^'-'t»^'"''<9qw '♦if^ft •'yffyep-"4iH»^*»s*»..

~diyo#tiwM Hi* orAet'-^wici oi.MT'ly- am AnatdgTi'*i"-?i?*'T-yt •:'« ■ ■n^v-»-"-^3is».re5^>?FP,ont
of tl*0-#«etsr-3toa*tTigr'tiir'trn~^^

Error is aasiipied to the allof^ adbsdlanlotj cf <?r!f?o^>co
that the injury to tho -J^roatate f^la^ would c-uiao a lesrs^ni^^r; of
ton©, '.roiiia ij!:"?>atr vitality smrl vlgfor f%«'t affect t>e ~^rc:-^ f
procreation. An exaninatlmi of th© ahratraot shof^rs thnt aotinael
for ar pel 3 ant aro islat.ilcen in regard, to thl« as no sue?? ori-
(lonco -^-fia nrlnittofl.

¥!io <J!'ilJ chjoction rr»a4o V» tho iy)st3wictJ-r>r>-%~iUr- 1^?

A ■f*

•^-^'* fliFff* "Tin f^lTon for apr>ol?ee<r"— 'pMb \n wr. fr?Tiy"-;;',5">t!'mll
fihiit 1" '- ifi-flinfci fiTin JiUjif iil>fct»i|iiriTfiii thii flninfurAriiffi., a,"
a9s-^t50«l risk nor erintrf-Tnitory noglifjone© can ?50 "^BterjiOflel aa
a doftmso to tlie oaao T^ithout dofixiin?; thoso tomn, an-^. ^l>:io

hccauso it asfltazies that appellant wan relying upon i£:r>i*o?>cr
dofennes.

7Ti© Inafci-ucticm r.ifiht well h&roj'been rofuaect ar? the ela lonts

pleadings and proofs, in axty jray onter into the cafse. 5i?t if

it 1'-.v' .-jlao dsflnctl tlicse tojfan» this fact vouin not 'j.-ivr.- ~>^lnQd

the isastracticu any, or hare

l»e0n of any isioro advaatasc to

av.-<ollMit5 T>oosui30, as atated> the r-uostioiia ^ f arvf/tr-e- rxt^^. iiid
ecntrlbutory negligonoe roro jnot ia iaaue* Nor do we thini; tJiat
tlxQ Jury ',70uld "ao roasonat>ly( exi-^octed to be led to aajiiFic "hy

it J that Aipoliant traa relying n-pvn iiapropor dofen^es. iljo
giving of this InBtruotlon,/ if erroneous, tra® Jiaral^ass error
and not aufricient to caua^ n reversal of U\q 3utlf5aenc»

llie first Tortlict ront^erod in thia t&ae attseased the
dsuagos at ^16,(JC0 ana waa ^t i^ido tiy the trial court • iii@
aeoosKl Tor<Uot fixed the dsbages at ^17,000, and the tr:.al Goiwt

rennired a resnittittir of ^i

,0€C. On appoal to this eoiirtj it

^as lioltl tiiat ouoJi an escofslve vordiot ^ras stwh evlAonoa of
pjvaalon and prejuOie© on t!je part of the Jury that tljo rorjittitiir
required "bj the oireuit Coiirt eotild not cwro the error, and
the juot^ncnt iraa roTcraiod anti the oauiso rc^nande l for c. ne-; trial.
'i!h& iiiry liaa now fdimd tlje Ctoaai^n to ^o $1C,000 ana the trial
Oi>urt hao r.rr^orod this aotkon, and lias also shotm by re^irins

the ret-jlttitiir in the prcriijma trial that it conaidere tJiif> aiaa

not to ho os»sesslrc« The trial ccmrt lijoard tlio evltlojwso mtd

. -"-:.;• 0 -:.cr'C'^. jUi:l^;:c:?it /i'or thi.?; ^tr^cunt, and r-o arc vt'Ct, iKu'^r
tho clrciesstanoear Inclined to I^old ttsat tljo TonUct is ©xocanlvo*

Tfie jwd^:se:?

^"^r-icd.

« kj-'^'

,^^ ^- \ / ^ ^ n~ I ^«^

GfiiliiHAL flO, 6252 QCTOBKH Tiilul , A. i). 1914. AGKHM MO. 50.

'-- - - -..^ Filed April IS, 1915-

(f^CHARlBS F. BARTtiOH and WILLIAM MILLAiy;^-^^

VB

J. V. iijiibiKT, et al,
ELDRPIIXJE, P. J.

Appellant 8,

Appellees.

Appeal from Circuit
Court Logan County.

193I.A. 467

Apptllontfl comprised a partnership dolnf buslnose under
the flnr. name of iiarlJBon L iJlllard, and wnn^ imbt*EO^"^^» ^^^ ^uol-
nrrn of oenfifiruntiiTgrilTnilTmgW'intmiTin. Tliiij filed a bill to
foreclose a mechanic's lien on 1»^w lands owned or occupied by
-appellretry; J. V. .vlekert and H. ^. Bailey, for labor dono in
cuttin^r & drainage ditch thereon. The cause was referred to the
.\Jaster in Chancery to take proofs only, and was heard by the
Chancellor upon the proofs so taken before the iJastor, and a
decree wae entered dismisBlnp the bill for want of equity, from
which decree this appeal Is prosecuted.

Prairie Creek meanders In a v9Tj irregular and winding
course through sectlona 14, 18, 21, 8£ and 2o in :^rairie Oroek
Township In Logan County. A number of persons owning lands through
which the creek runs, entered into a contract v.-lth appellants,
dated April 5th 1910, «w-~pgeft>nbio-4adL-jiM^JvAii-«^ fallows :
"^Me ooot r<te-%-w»s-Tnardg and ©nt-er«d into- ^hle BtTi
day of April,. A. D. 191 0, by and between ii. Angella boully,
Hanke Haras, Clans inarms, i.iohard Hilgendorf, :irs. 0. M.
lest, Mrs. :i. li. .ooda, J^rapk Guenther, viTB, Albert Ine
iinaak, John V,aoker, J. V. ., ickerti, K. A. Bailey and Christian
i.eston, land owners, owning lands in the County of Logan,
ijtate of Illinois, Parties of the First Part, and Bartson
and iilllard, a co-partnership consieting of Cherries F.
Barteofl and William Milliard, of the City of "^eoria, Co^unty

-/-

of ?flr>r1a, rtt.atft of nHiv>4»y"-»etrM:<rg- of thfr-tir»eond Part:
■•laTllil^.'liirB!'" That whorettB" the ■wHWr Parties of the
first part are the owners of lande through which the
present channel of "^rairle Creek In Loe8tt-€qufiiy;-3t^te'-
»f Illlnoley^new nins, aiid are deelroyt's of straightening
the channel of the samj^, so as to prevent as far as pos-
sible the/r lands from overflow durinp/hlgh waters, and
for the purpose of oausiaag the water/in said ^rairie
Cre^Jc to escape as rapidly as possible in its course. "^^

Khe oont^^^yb— ^feh«6b p3roe»«d»~^^^o-py0vMe that the parties of
the first part, in consideration that the partieB of the second part
cut a drainage ditch of certain dimensions through certain lands,
the route to be staked out by the engineers of the parties of the
first part, agree to perforin certain things. ?irst: each land
owner shall, at his or her expense, procure the right of way, and
the execution of the contract by such lanil owner shall be con-
sidered as the consent of the owner to the cutting of the ditch
through hie or her land, second: the parties of the first part
to procure the consent andxight of way of the comciissioners of
highways of the township to cut th« ditch across the highways.
Third: that each party of the first part shall each for hir; or
herself, as to his or her property, keep such parties of the second
part harmless frorc all liabilities for damages, etc. Fourth:
that each land owner shall, at his or her expense, remove all trees,
stumps and brush from the route of sai i ditch across his or her
lands. Fifth: that said parties of the first part, at their own
expense, shall cause the route of said ditch to bo staked out by
a competent engineer for the information and guidance of the parties
of the second part on or before June 1st 1910. ;j.eventh: the
parties of the first part, each for him or herself, shall cause to
be paid to tho parties of the second part as fast as said ditch
is completed, the sum of vB.8o per lineal rod for each rod of ditch
so constructed through his or her land except where, for the purpose

. — X —

of Btraightening said creek, the channel of the creek shall be
be remoTed or coise upon the land of an adjoining land ormer, then
the party to the agreement upon whose land the original creek now
i8 shall pay the eaoe for which he or she would have been liable
had the new creek continued in his land for the same distance.
Eighth: Kach land owner agrees to pay the amount set opposite
his or her name for the cutting of the ditch. (Among tlie names
appearing in the list set out in the contract are the following:
"John V. iiickert & J. H. Bailey, 81.2 rode, |714.56."). The
contract then provides that the parties of the second part shall
commence work on the ditch on or before June Ist 1910, an* complete
the same on or before I>eoember 1st 1910; that the plat attached
thereto made by the engineer shall be made a part of the contract;
that the contract shall be declared null and void unless all the
parties sign it.

The contract 4* executed under eeal by all ti.e leuad owners,
except H. A. Sailey, and also by appellants and the highway oon-
missioners. E. A. Bailey owns the east half of the southwest
quarter of ^octlon 21, and the east half of the northwest quarter
of cieotion £8. These two eighties were divided by the section line.
The 80 in iiectlon 21 lies immediately north of the 80 in iieotion 28.
Appellee ftiekert was in possession of these two tracts of land
under a written lease extending for five years from Llarch Ist 1910,
with the privilege of purchasing said land at &ny time during said
period. «Jft#-l#»»* -ooatarla© th«-fo^llovtng prorlfirlcms:

" Party of tha a«oooA-»-pajr4;~.agx»^4^.;to..k»ap...tixe.-prami8e8

to eo food repa ix'^yer- ;nr«valTy -art-irht!?' i)t?frig^ .

^Mfid to hull4 np 4fe^""»eil.| and kaa|i..All.s.l>tt44A4«gfl-jri^-eo«d-i''
-tlon aa .good ae when aacep ted*, and to Improve all to. t)>«--

JaaBJUA*-*!!! ability.

T^lB agreement is intended to give five years

option on said real estate, to the saia second party, to

manage and direct as he deems best, but in accordance

with tho spirit of this i«fi.aA^Ji«— — -

S.

When Wlekert signed the contract he made a star in front
of hl& name and a elDllar otar on the margin thereof, beside which
he v.rote "Signature binding only whenever ditch ie out on or
alonf? eeotion line." The Court found by itb decree that appellee
Bailey had not signed the contract nor had he authorized .. iekert
to sign it, anu alBo that the ditch was not cut on or along the
section line and for these reaeone the contract was not binding
ae to V. iekert, and Bailey, and the bill was dismissed for vmnt
of equity.

So question haoDeen raised as to whether beotion 1 of
the liechanic's Lien Law applies to an improvement of this kind
upon fami lands, ana tl'iat yutf bttqir-fg' STlBinated In tW' ggEgfidera-
tlflja-oC-JthlA «»*««¥—"'

On behalf of appellee Bailey, it is contended that he had
not signed the contract and did not knowingly pemit ». iekert to
r-V contract for the improvement. Under ije^t ton l>-0L£~-the-4i«ehaato ' s
• Lion itot an owner O'g—land-'whe- knew ingly - ean»ftnt» »^ an-iapvevefnent
made thereon- by -hi^ tonant «ubjeot8 the. land^ -to-«^-llen"~r<5r~the
ooet thereof, iioyer v teller S&B 111. lv>&j H«,a»-*lectrltr-©OT-T
AiBuaeinent Co. 2Jt> ill. 432; j'riebele v l>ohwarta 144..iH^ i^'pfT'ZdA,
In the last caBe~lt wKB~heia:

"Under the present otatutie an owner, knowing an
Improvement is being.-.^adw'J'lBaBt object to the Improve-
ment, otherwise be"*Knowingly lieTaits the improveir«ent

and there>y^ consents to the party being entitled to a

lieft<^
. The rule that an aj>pell8te tribunal will not ordinarily
disturb a finding of fact i)y the chancellor does not apply where
the master made no findings of fact and the chancellor did not see
or hear the witnesses, but -rendered his decision simply upon the
depositions of witnesses taken before the master. Under such con-
ditions, where the error aaeigned is, that a finding of fact is
contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, this Court must
review the evidence and determine that question from the record in

7

The evidence ehows that when the subject of cutting the
ditch wac boine diecuesed by the lana ovmere they had several
meetlngB in regard thereto, and the wltneee Charles b, tood
testifies that he called up bailey on the telephone and asked hln
what he would do in regard to the rauttor ana he replied, "The
farm is out of lay hands; any arranremonts will have to be made
with Ir. .. iekert." bailey aoee not deny this conversation with
.ood, b'at says that he does not remember it. Appellant Uillard
testifies that after the ditch was completed he called on jballey
and asked him to give hiri a check for the money. Ihis Bailey
refused to do and told him that V. iekert was in control of the land,
xilllam MoCormlck, a banker at Kmden, testifies that he talked
•i?ith Bailey several tlifjes about cutting? the ditch and bailey made
no objection to it. bailey admits that he talked with n iekert
about the Eatter and tried to discourage him fron joining in the
project, but he does not testify that he ever forbid him to do bo.
Bgliey'tj tobliiiiony and-4)hait of the et'h<yr-tH.-%ft-ee«»frT'~.«learlir.,Afe9.w
thtt^ Bai43b»y ooaaeidered ♦te»<k'4l>i»fe«g't had th« uana^ement of 4;k« farm,

(j^iaJeftr^t-t^ determine for hlmeelf • tiia .dirgption. to t,bA*-d48*»*'<t»rti«8
that the farm was otttd'-niB hands and that tj^e arraageHNrBtrwonls
have to be mmA9 Jglth »*4<Jcext.-«ae a clear jlAtiP&t ioa -^*wH>-e» f ttr- as
hie intexesta In the land virere concernea they vero oo nt r olTeTliy
hlelraftj-anrt If thq olairlg n>^^npi iekert can be isustained, appellee
1 SL-aatopped-,lo , deay-.i;liat- h o i^aic. ingly permitted the improvement,
on behalf of appellee •• iekert it is contended that tinder
the condition added to the contract, that the ditch should be cut
on or along the section line, he is not liable upon the contract
because the ditch was not out In conformity thereto, ^ralrie Creek

enters the said north eighty at the southeast corner thereof and
meanders in a crooked and circuitous route in a northwesterly

direction across the west line thereof at about 16J feet north of
the section line. The object, ae stated in the contract, was to
straighten out the course of the creek, one of the land owners,
lianke llarma, testified that when he went to eee .-iekert about sign-
ineT the contract, ». iekert said he was in favor of cutting the ditch
provided it went on the section line, and that he told Vviekert it
could not be cut clear through on the section line, to which ulekert
replied in substance, "jBo, they could not go clear through, they
had to make a turn in hie field,"; that i.iekert marked on the map
the place to which the ditch could go on the section line and where
it would have to turn into the field and go northwesterly across
the land, and that the place marked by r. iekert is about the place
where the turn wae actually made.

The ditch followed the section line bo\mdinf the north 80
on the line about half way across the 8j, then turned northwesterly
and cut the west line of the 90 about 18 J feet north of the sect ion
line. This was done in order to make a connection with the creek
where it crossed the west line of the 80 and entered the land of
Christian nesten, and to avoid cutting through a sand hill on
v.esten'a land. L. J. LyiEms, one of the surveyors, testified that
i^iekert pointed out to him practically the place ^^here the ditch
is now made and the point where it should leave the section line.
Robert Hartnell, the Coimty surveyor, whom the lend ovmers employed
to finally locate the line, testified that he told V. iekert that it
would be impossible to carry the ditch on the line all the way
HoroBK hie land as they had to make a curve to avoid the saikd hill
on the adjoining land, and that ..iekert replied, "well, keep on
the eection line as far as possible." The creek in ite original
location separated about 6-1/2 acres between it and the section
line, from the rest of the 60. The ditch as eonstn'oted reduced
this to about an acre and a half. -A anhgtaattoil ooaplittweo-witJa. Ahe

setrH^n lino" wod-die junetirvely do not nooeoo&rily cirgrTirireot ly
thereon, but caty^ttpan near"gr~lTrtUe r ie4fti4y-tiTgrgof . bt^flr T

6.

Garter 116 Iowa S8J; Commonwbalth v r'ranklin lb'6 Mbb. 569. Their
neanln^: muet be determined from the whole contract , and as the
pricsry object thereof was jco procure a straightening; of the creek,
they TSQSt be construed to iqean as near the section line as a
practical construction of the ditch for that purpose would allow,

iekert denieB that he evei* consented to have the ditch cut at any
other place than aloni. tha| section line. Iho route of the ditch
as criminally contercplatedl by the plat attached to the contract
started in a northwesterlji- direction from the southeast corner of
the north 80. Its route vj^as changed at -lokert's request and was
cut directly on the seotloja line for approximately 70j feet when
the divergence was made to a northwesterly direction as above
stated. Hartnoll, the Ooui|ty i^urveyor, who testified that he
staked out the ditch substantially in accordance with .iekert 's
directions, was as much th4 agent of w iekert under the terms of
the contract as ot* any of the other land owners, de was not appel-
lant's agent. Appellant simply cut the ditch along the route staked
out by the county surveyor, Iwho was employed by the land owners,
including h iekert. 1

«e think the cianlfeE|t weight of the evidence shows that the
ditch was cut by appellants bubstsuatially in accordance with the
terms of the contract as amended by .iekert ana wit); v. iekert 's
understanding and consent thereto.

The decree must therelfore be re\rorsod v.ith directions to
enter a decree in conformity with the opinion herein expressed.

•?'

\ is>

fTen. 1^0. 6264, October Term, 1914./ Agenda JTO, 53-

^ ~~.«\ ]?iled April 1^ 1915-

(Hwrry D. Cowden, - ' / '

'- Pl8.intiff\in Error, /

VS. \ ■ . } Error to/Circuit Court of

rjoaeph Stout, \ \ / McLean =fo^t3»a T A 4 7' 0

Defendant tij/l^r^. / XcFO-L*^*^*^

ELDPJIDGB, P. J.- ^<^ta>t XfV C:i ^j cw-- /^"^

--Pl3daJU£f««iJft-^*s*»3^~«w«df'd«f^ error to recover

eta

|350, f©r commissions fe9»-4il«~ei3r©g«d- services in pro-curing a loan
for defendant In er-or in the siim of $35,000, The case was tried
before the court without a jury, who found tiift^^sau*.* joined In
favor of the defendant J«| in erirer and entered judgment accord-
inp:ly.A Sttbstant ially the whoi« argument of plaintiff in error is*
*--di»ousslon of the facts in aupport of th« assigninent of error that
the-finding is contrary 1 6 the evidence. There is ample evidenc*
1 n th ft .y^eo^^ d to sm^tai n the finding of fehe court and the finding
i«--iiot.,.eoatraiyto— the- manifest weij^ht thereof, counsel sa:$r in
^hPJr argiimftntt •^•-also'believe the trial court er-^eneouaLy
refused te hold with plaintiff the propositions ofof law im'Uaitted
in_JilaJbfihalf, and that the record discloses IxiglaXj technical rul-
IJ^gJL ViPQn thft-admisftiim and exclusion of evidenc© which resulted in
iniurjc—te -plaintiff*. The particular rulingfl of thee our t upon
-the -pxapQ si t ions of law fiuid upon the admission and exclusion cf
e5tide»ee-«3Pe'-^e'fe^"peiwted out in the arfrument and we have no meano
^Lf-Jcnowing-«^Mkt--3?ulingsof' the court thereon, reBpeotiveiy, are
•-effiaplain^ ef ©^ the Teafi6JSl''^rHer
HeweaLcr,^ "7S h^,^'? s^camined the propositions of law sulanitted is as

-4i»eieBed t^ rlie abstract and afe of the opinion that the cou^t

f ...............

xlld-«e%- err InrltTr "Tttl irigs the r e on •

Ho other er^^ors are presented tn the argument of

. counsel and the jud^^ent jmuet-he "af f Irwed,

t

U7^-

ir^:-

j(m?f

x.

reliant,

:-^UL A^r/LJl^r^^'^

V-roal rroc: Circuit

• ''ru2tric Ccutitj

193I.A. 482

Appcl. -:? '■■■ "olf, file: .-. z1 : "i:$ ctmv.X.-'j

!rt of 'ioaltrlc 'otp^t?' n.'r.ilnst ttjft estate cf "©or>»<^ an,

decc \';oI, T.^:\ao ' ^iT^^r: %r.Q ps^onio'^.ory notes T^urpcrtinc;; t

i C'*^»>€t<tt>d by Ol9f»an in blu 11 f tin©, one foi* t?»e T^rlnolpal

9ir.i '! :• 11, and tho ether for $7:u. T!a<* note is ^Vtterl

••^ l»t 1912^ sMid bears 7"^ interest- They «ire ^^nynblo in oir??^t

■ twolTO nonthn aftor T ;te, rospeetlvely . Tlieclain,iiJclnilLns

Inelral and aectsmlntou Interest, at tbe date of the

■^f iar-c/imtO'-: to >;i'i^ii.c..

^;o adoinletratcr and eaefi of t7ie Itolra filed b-

ao ci:ii» on tlie gromsi. tnai- ^ho notes -^.'crc not ?' ..
jd of tLo deceased, and ttro oC the Ti!?lrs filed a^Tldaylto

A

of tlio dBo^osed* 'he noton purport to ho signed b; George
^. Di^KKUR by Itla siar^y ond^SM^ vitnoasetl by one Ch:u*le&
lAioas. Dlahnaii died Jc».iiuary 16, 1013» and letters of atlEsinifi-
tritl< a wero issued January istlit lt)13. T!io claia iraa not filed
until ^Urmlbw 3» li>13«] It was aiaallowed in ♦'^^ ?v^f,v't^ otirt

ind on apr^osl to t!io Circuit Court* fm a trial boforo a .1«ry,
a vordiot was rendered in favor of apuolloe, on »?tiicli voriiot
Jud^nmit Tafos enntcred disallo^^ln^ tlio olaic!*

At»pollant proved a T'rJaa ffteJe eae© by tho ©vidonco of
Lueast -^4*** tostlfiod ttiat !io was firesont w1>©n tJ» notes rr^e
sirrned by DishBan «ltl! his inar%:at oaid tbat ?->«» Ltieio* signod
hist ewB n«ae on the notes ma e vltiioee to the aarks. Lueas
hliuioif &«ittM read and all ho "iSSmhritB 4* his slgiuiture* Hicro
io a total absfliiee of eridoiMie of any oonssideration for those
^otos eso^ept that haeum testified that thoy wero f;:iTen ao
V ronowals of tiro px*ier existing noton J oxtd froa tTr© character of
tho teetiSKsny of this rltnoss* if there had boon no t^ro jisdilcial
orrors on the trial » vo trould not bo inclined to disturb the
fu&^fsmntt but atJp^llar.t has a ri^t to haro tho ralitllty of his

(

4_

Liin dotoimlaoct f 5*001 ecrapctent ovideaico «nd undm* propor
tioticns*

Tosa jJoek, ono c tli© holns osaA Kltnear* for aimollee,
vor Ob .loot Ion of a|»peXlant» vtqb |>ersBltt«a to testify that
0 fpaa fsesilliar with her father's truslnossy and that ho trwatefl

olJtQf receipts and all such r»rtW0r« to t^r until Jil»cmt
year l«»for« his tteath; that ahe was foalliar i^lth h±& ymtittmaB
n ,|»enoral aal ha-'^ tc4l!--<^' ^""^.th Ma £ibout the asiK»int ©f ^'?i?^ f'^r-'hta
rtyj that she waa In the office of hlo attornoy tri th
.. .la }iG^m^r v^tor to his <loath» and at that tijm
Ttat his dohts vere ana trhat he owed? that tho first
.i.aa© notea waa within two or three v^rnvihp. ''ynrm*&
io trial and that j*to never heard of thMs lie fore tha^ tii^iej
-■'^9t she nover lonev of his horro^flng an aaaount of saon«y f.i^at was
equal to tlie afsgrogato aiati of these notes*
Charlea iHstKian* an heir and xrltneo« for nnrjoiioft.
was permitted* orer objectionf to testify t!mt he kno^ hi *
fait!ier*a hualiwas and neror heard of these J^oton imttl .i:b;:nt
three ewKths hofor© tho trial. He vaa then asisoA this fiiiaestioni
"siid your father horrCR? Jiny riorsoy cf "r. *' If?" Ask?, anrr
, "?!ot that I knov ef'.*

4.

Tlw adBadnisrfcrator testlfloti, jwor objection, that lie

or four

'1.(1 liocn sittomoy tvr Xiuiasjtm far t-hr««^^ars before bis

.ioatJj asid aovor l©ar:iod of t!io exiatctnoe of the notes usstll
y!!Oj*tly bofore tliej r-roro filed as a claic? .m the Cotuity

■■"' -"-o aboTc to3tli3orQr ■srao ixieGnrpotent and hi«^ly
5*e judicial. If ololDS for doMs left by a dooeclont could
'- .V •':of©ated upon tt=o ev^^.:,s;::,oo of h±n Iioirs ;»id att»;ni©y that
'ioy had not ho^^rd of thQia$ then fow» if any» o©iil<l OTor be
£■*»*■ -vwii '-r «5v.-..'Cr<jte4»

The sixth Inatwaotioa girwi on behalf of appolloo is

o

"Hie Court instPuota the jury that it ia your duty to
eoijsider all the oirotSQStanood proven by the defendant in
his caoQ» aa veil as all eiroumst^inoof) prore«i by the

|>laintiff . ind if you 'boliovo frcaa tho 0vl,aone0 and ©ir-
ouDtstanoeo prtrpoa in the ctwio that the notoa I'jero nucd
<m w^po not in erSntemoB d\iiv±m tlje lifiettow of f-«or|p»o
W» Dishmai^y then you Bljould find for the dof ontlant ."

This InatxnMStion a'^^paroutly cisikea a di-titiJiction 7ief^men

the evidonoe and eirototstanoee T9*oven and tella the jux? to

particularly consider tho cireissstanees proron in the oioo. Tli©

I.

vice o^ '■ •-' instruction rill beeocie uoro ai^parejit vrliou
road in oonxioctiort witb the seventh and eighth Instnictlona
ft.llowiiijrs, and especially la riot? of t*--- '^-^^^ ♦■^"\' '-'^^-^r-. ■.■..,

JO snuskh erroneous proof of oiroiirjntancos ♦ ftte Inetmctlon

. io bivd beetaiae there tras sk> evldeiMo in <^"* w^^^r^-,^ that t?ie

?.otao V ore not in e^dsteneo OurlTig the llfetitjo «f tho dece -rjtv^
T^e noventh Instntetion '-^ f»« follows i

•The Court instwieta you upon the cjuoatlon of the
prepcnOeronee of the erldenoe aa followsj ♦Hio tona
•prcpcmderaatice* neans *gj:^ater vie±t^\t* of the GTidosice.
You hare the irlr^t to take and oortsidor all tlie oircim-
etaneea proren in the oa80» and if you believe from
the clrcunatances proven in tho eaao that neorf:e T'. jUsIt-
Dan did not oign the notes hero in fjueation, then you
harre a rlgfit to find that the |«*eponderruiee of the ovi-
donee Is rrlth the do^ondrmt, althoupja tho proponrleronce
of the evldonee la nado up of clrciB^fstsmcen r.rov0n, in-
stead of diifoot and positive testlraony.'*

.t is the duty of the Jury to consider all the evidence >

-Ti,of?.0j. ±% i«5 circumat >ntial or cth©rv7iae.- Tsi?t. ?>y this In-
f^ti-mtlon the jiur is told tliat it had a rljc^t to conoider tlie
eiretsstatanoea alone? f---n.i that if it believed fraa tl!o GlV'^^v^'^'-.-'ic^o-
^•roven, that the notesi were not qI^mA. by deceaaedf It lv<vX a

i;:r;iji ti! find tliat tiJO propontleratico of the enridancQ \^t\n ■ - 1"-
\ the dofonclant.

^•.c oi?;Iith inotmictioi,. 4^ .. .-i-Lea a distlncfcl''" ^^"^
f. ttroen the ©ritlenoo and the clrcunistanoea -proren and roado

-5 foliova:

"•The Court Ijiatniota th© jury, tliat If you be5.1evo
froQ th« erldonoe and clrcuE^tanees i^roven in tho ease*
that aaiy ritneas tiho has cipfcarod here and testified has
knortnjsly> trilling;: ly and corruptly testified kn<wlT»«!:1y
false on any toaterial ra<ittor in this ease* then It - ouia
1>e j9av duty to dif3x»eeard his entire tostlEiony, oxoo^t in
so far as the ©Tid«nee is corroborated by other crerU table
evidonoe in the case**

These instruetions give an IzaT^ortaneo and <%ny>hanis to

circunstnntial evidenee which ia not ■warranted under the lav and

wei*e partleularly hamfal because of the erroneous admission of

\ so cnieb incompetent proof.

The ninth instnietion instructs f^^ <"ryt

"tJiat if yott l>^'!lieTe frco the ovideneet that Charles
Luoas» a ^fitness for the claizaant, testified upon the
fciiaer trial in this oatise. In tlio County Court, that tlie
notes vr9fe sl^^nod on the lot day of ?:ay, A- t>. 1 in,
you hare a ri^t to consider this evidojico in connoction
with all the other ovidenoo in tho oaae**

'il\±Q inatruction calls the attention of tit© Sury tc a
articul-ir v,dt:JCG3 'sy }^x^:io and ta a T-^ytic^i'iir ^-ar' " " ".n
tostlBJOuy, and road In eondiootion vrith tlso ps^oocylinc inatmction,
carries vrith it an :ua:-iication &!;.at if !:o f!;avo tlio tcai. ' . •. y
montioned on titc fonrier trial, it vrould bo tlie duty or the
jury to ;i3r«gai^I liis entire t03titnony» oxccrt in no far as It
"ight be ccrrobor-^itod by other ovidejice. It Is error tc sin^;!©
lit a ra^tlcular Trltnoss by name, who is not a party to thc> a'lit,
and apply the law of Inpeaehnont to Mm alone; such isistrwotions
3hou3.d bo general and apply to all the xritnosaos. ^"* ' ^ rilso
error to point out avid call the attention of t!ie jury to
particular facts in the case*

There was alao error in the aclcilssion of the testimony
of the vrltnesa Williamson ealled in rebuttal on behalf of
aT-'pellant, awi, vhilo no cross error has been aasir^ned to the
nttmission of this teatiooiiyf yet» ae this ease niist be rooanded
for anotfier trial, in order that the error nay not bo repeated,
"e call attention to it at thia tlric. . <. i,v; .i-ii^.ony e. .>..wad
of self BcnrrLng declarations on behalf of apreliant and the
whole testimony of this ^ritnesa waa incorapctont.

_J

n'.c Jud.'^Qont will b© rerors&fl and tho eouso roaandcd.

Gi;3{cnAL Ko. 0S82. ocTOnEi^/rKnK , A. r>. ioi4. AC'J^mA to. so.

K« B<

H^iieeSf {

t Court of vonailion -tr 1:/"
MATIOHAL hVfE ^TOCS INaUILV^Ci: n , t

Ap'ol .::'.t. t

193 I.A. 488

ELOfUSDGE, r« J.

Tirte— t^-rWB- \otlon of osfjucipolt hrout^t by apT>ollo«9 ngainat

ap!>ollant for the swa of $1,OOC» iMMOd upon a poXioy of insmraneo

to in^oemlfy aprcllooa for loss by doath froa aeoldont^ dioease*

a23td
theft A Tir9,€)r a- certain stallion niaaed •Royal Tv%ftfin©«". ji»ii«ii^»#.

rogBVorp"? f» jtidgaent In the trial court for f.lie aboro oata, «<*r«w**rr?e
tyhieli this appeal -lA^^rrnffl-ac-tail^^

Tho bam in wbicb the atalllon ^Tao ijept was deatPoyed by a
fir© In which tho atalllon lost his llfo. The aT>rlioatlon for tlie
policy was prewired flroo appolloos by apreiiant^s agent Zoa> and
eovoral of the defonsos interposad were that appolloas made certain
false statoaents In tho api>ll«atlon trhioh wore warmntloG, in con-
sequence of vrhltiti the polloy was void. The evidence for a'ppelleem
tends to fiho^ that they truthfully anew-red all the «^estlons In the
, applica nt, and that tho false answers therein wore inserted by tho
V^f^nt TTlthout their knowledge .J It Is oonduaivoly settled as a rulo
f of law in this otate, established by a long line of decisions, that
if an arriloatlon for inanaanoa glres true oaiawere to tho questions
' eontalnod in the ajpplicatlon, but tho agont of the Inaurtmco coraiMoqr
)orte false answers In lieu thereof, that parol owldenee is
iisaiblo to pvore ouch facts notwithstanding stip'^l tions contained
I in the application that the agent shall be deeiaad the assent of the

:tn:*ed» and also, that notlee to the s^^omt, at the time of tho airr^li-
cafcion for inourjanoe^ of facts material to the rlslii is notico to the
:uranco coopany, and that the latter is eatoppol to innist such an-
>rs aro trarrantloo. fioyal 'Joir?Jbors of Anorlca ▼ Booan 177 12
)viaont Life Society ▼ Canuon f^Pi 111. 260 1 Johnson r noyal Neighbors

• ill. 570. niotfjou' arT<sll003 tri;tli'- j.i.:y ur falsols' .ini-oro ' fT*e

stlona "npopounaod in tho aprlicotlon .ind v/lKJther tTjo anetit 1^ •oj»t©d
t-nio OP falae anairero t!?eroln» were viueatlona of faet for t!^c inrj to
Aotoml?^. The tastlnony of atjf^lloes Beeeif) to be coppobopato'l by ttro
ijaroptcmt facts arr'wlng fpoa ttm ertdencsfki first /zoa» vrcl-^wit's
' "-^Titf tostifiea on the trial and «!lid not dony t1»o toatinony of nr^^ollooo

•.t thoy £;are true and eorroot annwora to the quoatioris in ttjo apT^ica-
\,juon} and aoeondf ar7>olloo3, 1» i^ald-ni^ out tho Troofg of loss* fully
disolosed t?ioroin all tho oattot^ trutT'fi^lly, |«st an they tcr:tifiad
*'M5y told the aiscmt in tho first inataivjo trtion the at>rlioatiort iras

Id* )lt t7ould hArdly aoeu reesonable that they trould nsnmrer said
questions falsely t/hen the application was "boinj: Esade for tho r^urpose
of prooiirins the rolicy» and th«i antii?er the sane "iwsticns truthfully
after tljo loss had occurred and v:hein they tfor© seckirt/; ff^yi^s^snt there for,
the effect of t?hieh rrould he rlrtually to convict thgrjselres of fr;\ud
in procurii^ tho policy. tJndouhtedly these facts !iad weif^t trith t?»
<"»Tr in docidinji; tho case*

''lie policy provides that the Coerpany ahall not bo liahlo if tho
a >3ured> in case of tAiBknesB or accidcmt to the animal insured^ nYiall
fail to render fcrthwitth by registered nail or teleswrn* notice to
tho occspany at its horae office of smedi sickness or accident » together
frith the nooo and address of the reterinarian eeir^loyed. It apr>o£y:*s
froB the ovidenoe that aooe time before the stallion vran bumed, he
roceired a kiclv fnxa a horse resulting in a aXl^t scratch on the
fleshy part of the hip ^i^ bled a little but lUd not penotrato throu^
the 8lcln» created no sorenossf did not affect the antcial in any ^ay,
vaf3 considered so slight tliat no attmitlon was paid to It and ipt^oi^oiit
iras not notified thereof under the above nrcrisions of the policy.
It lo Insisted that there was a violation of this '^©vision an^ theroby
,jx_rocovery is barredj The seratelt had nothlz^ whatever to do trith the
less of the aninalf and in our o|rlnion was to© trivial in character to
bo classified as an illness or accid02>t ^?ithin tho tseanine of said
■^rovlaion.

n^o oourt at the instance o'^ a?>pelleos cjaro to the Jury the
following Instruction I

•The coitrt iruitzH:ieta tho jury that altJhou^ the
policy n questlcm oontalns a stl-rvulatlen that in cas© of
aoeid nt or rii«ikn»83 to the animal in ncaetitlon^ the Co&ptmf trill
not he li^bl0» If th© aannred shall fail to rontler forthrrith, hy
ro'dlstored raall or tolesi*:)|d)» notiee to tJio Cotapany of nuoh aooi-
vlojtt or siolEnoss together ^th the naae and «ddr«99 of tlio votor-
Inarian «c3r>loyed» yet you arc furtl^cr Inatruetod tliat It io your
duty to oondtrtte this r revision of tl» inirllcy as r'ell aa otlior
proyisiona of tlie - oliey in a nMeonahIo cianner in tlio lig^t
of the evidonee ana your kno^le<9|ie and experieneo as ziaa of
affairo*"
This inetruetlon is olearly errono«i8« To eonstruetion of the
tei^a of a contract ie a matter of law for the Court and not for
the Jury* It was tlio duty of tlie Court to inform the Jury as to
hoir the latr oonstruod tlie different r«*oTialens of the poliey and ar-
i^lioation in controvoi^gy, and it rsraa the duty of tit© Jury to detenaine

i3 facto froa the ovidonee ixnd aT>ply tho law thereto. Ti^la in-
atruetion virtually nadc the Jury tho Jud^ of both the law and
facta* Ho attaeipt is ciade by aT>T>ol3ee«to JuotiPy tho ,Tivi«f; of this
in^itniotion and there could be no Justification for it. Under Wvia
inatruetion the Jury was at liberty to find any vordiet they sm? ^it
rogardiosa of all rules of low £^oi*ntng the rif^hta ©f tho parties
under tlieir oontraet.

For the error Indicated the Judgsieni rniat therefore be reversed
iinCi cause raaanOed.

4jnMS«-ii<iK»^«->M'^iU>o

r, Mo» 6?-B9«

nalo Parker

October ...;.., i-if- ..^cni-v

ITiled Apriyie, 1915-

19 3 I.A. 4

oorporiitlon,|

Api^oll'iJit,

JLppvfik froBi Cir43uit Court of

Mill on 'r unty.

"^isti- , .~r ^ ^c-lon ©f a.nr:vass^Git \> ught lay ^pallas
vinst appollant to raoovor a* the beneficiary under a poliegrf
: inmremce on tho llf« of hor hue1>aad^ ^al*- j^tscr 3,

-i«^ Th« oaao was trlod ■before tho' court wich<mt a i%xry vaA.
judj738nt rendered Oir^^lnet appellon le num of 01OO«)ifo prop*

■xtlons of i.4ib.i. u.: fact ware sulsiiittea to the oo«i t and . > ques*
OR is dioouoood In the atguuridnt "bat that of Aether t^o p^tG^'^ent
' the last preaiisa vaa ^mde in apt time und&r tho facts eihovii in
idcnoo nnd the terns of tho polioy« Appellant has not seen fit
i abstiact the policy and wc liavc no sm&aa of knovins ^^ihat its
ovieions are v/ithout fj' Infj to the record^ shich wo are not oblir^Qd
do. There is nothing; preecnted ts us to be determined arid it
rill be proBUuasdl that ths cmirt did not err in ondo-^ng tho
ieraent*

The Jiuii^oent will ba afflrsaed**

&tTt Justics Soholfield took no part in tho consid-
at ion of this oaoe.

Gen. No. 6290 October Hevm, 1914,

/^Sarah f , Burge,^'

Filed
Api>ellae •

Peoria Railroad,

va \ \ I ) Appeal from/Dlrcuit Court of
St. Louie, Springf ield\ and ) •Maooupitt'^County,

^ ^ ^ Filed April 16, 1515,

Appellant. j 1931. A. 492

Eldredge, P.J, \

— -^ »*.

Aappallag reooyered a judgment against the appell-

awt-fox tho a\ui ef $700. in an action an thr ewwa-'to-gecoveT

dameigea for personal injuries received through alleged negligence

of appellant while she was alighting from one of its cars. vAX

'J The doelaratien avui'u th>it on" Jgne;;;ft^yt "tfae-appel'l**

and wao oper&tiag a-^ine <xf ra.ir3rroad for the traneport^tl^B of

i

pad«enger»- under -the tnanageaant of its servants ^o wete then
driving thfi nftg-fffgBi tht vlllf^n:? nf Pnn>4 ttr th^ oity of §illes-

^e ill Mauoupin-Gouaty: the plaintiff lii ■■■«•& passenger -a*
Benld, to be carried to South Gilleapie Groaaing in the oity
of_Gillospi#-i»d-*hat it wae-^he-duty-of-the^ -defendant to exer-
eiree due and proper care to stap-dai4-edx~at aaid^^outh Oille8-
;^ie Grossing and th^§_to assist her in ^.lighting from said car
ao th'j t-4he . in. thg^gxerc lag. of dus oar a for her own safety oould

allght-from, ftaid oar upon said orossing without iajury ; tft«t
ap^llanf,ja negligently n: . „-„ -.id epntrollod •"id <>ag-;;4faa»- ff^

tb«- ea»e was not stopped at Mkird South Gllle3ple crossing so

i-Iu Uu

that ««!«. appellee could alight upon aaM crossing, but that

SftixL cax was negligently and carelessly stopped so that the steps
thereof were about 6 feet north of the north line of a*M. cross-
ing «»d over and-^r eat ly above the uneven, rough and sltuiting
ground there and that Miid stents and servants negligently
failed tp exercise due and proper oare in assisting plaintiff
to allight from edd ojarjthat by reason of the darkness , she
could not by the exerqjise of ordinary care for her own 3 .fety,
observe and know that ;the steps of the car were not over and
above the crossing, aid that while she in the exercise of due
care, ajid having good reason to believe and believing that said
steps were <3.bove aald crossing, she was by reason of the gre-.t
distajace nd the uneven and situating condition of the ground

there caused to fall^ by whioh she^w^aiMfeB-^ured, ete.

It— ia> only- necessary to pase upon on© -of the exrors pre-

diet %e contrary to the law and the evidence «The evidence shows
that appellee resided in the third hous.^ north «f the crossing
in question. lEhe crossing itself vas constructed of brick and
was about three feet wide. The street where the c.ppellee alight-
ed was the ordinary xmpaved street of a country town ajid while

probably
it_yWa3 somewhat lower that hte creasing itself, no dangerous con-
ditions were shown to exist therein. Appa 13.«<e> ■ 1 jy iag -eo el^ee
to^-tha...oxos5ing. w<^o perfectly f "miliar with it and the condition

^ the otroet-y Appeliaal„la-5ii-interurb3.n electric :t%yiS%-'4rf*^^
pjjay, and on ^me-l^'t'i 19^13^, appellee^ with her friend, Mrs.
MirtX^ — -Hobinaoai had gone on the Interurban r:.il7r?f.y to the Til-
j,S€e--o^-^8eftl4--a3id"^a'f ¥"l?6turn4ng^ te-"C^

when- the-ao&ident happened. Two t>ax3 compoaed the train. Appellee
jLafl_xlding--4n the^ r««kr-«&*>whioh waa a trailer, tK¥"Tl«imsaat
■being the--iBOt<>g--ee?rr--a»>' reqtteeted the tyonductorto 8ti»p- the--
oar^t" the South ^lle^pteo^poaaing. When the oar: ocone to a

stop appellee aoid has friend proceeded to get off. too» H9h»

»

Hk»eon left the oar first aniA dia oo safely. Appellee followed,
and»xsl-4««^~theoirctimstance8"aa follows :-

— >■ I i*'-i' stepped off jttot ao yo-a-wouM >tep"-off the oar

^vU Vui. ,/ui. -j^u:-?^

and J missed ny, step and i^f^ foct turned in under «» and ngF~aii-

klo WftO dislocatedj^spralned, I alooed my step DSid foll-t I

wae- trying- -to- ert ep ~oir to -tii© • gr^uad- and when X. atepped I a t epped

a^d thought I war stuping im"TSi^~i;r(ffCma~bari^ . "

ThaJLaaL^Afflpftuej no duty on street car comiiajale§, pper-

in cities
at4ftg-~»^»*#f***^*ctsrB-~on~the ' street r^

steps Willie direotly over the oroesings. In frOt» it la a

iniJit£lLJif^j5.0Ji)iD0n knowledge that many-municipal itlaa -fox the

inirp?fare~of-proiwetiiiig public aaf e t y -have p»<a««4->-ogdlnano e e pro-

--hib A 1 1 ng mioTi ..,jx«x&..£zox[l .a topping on the crossinga-^wa-tfee-'atreets

alid-iwov4ding..j&hgLjL,jJa£jLJlfeii;i^^ be stopped ^*t^*h*aron--the- near or

>Iax 3idgs_tfeeraQ£^.. That the street was not on a level with

of the street

the oxossing was not the fault of the appellant* Neither le

there any duty Imppaed by law 4l0i^ serronts operating such

f

oaxs under ordinary olroumstanaea to assist the passengers In

alighting therefrom. There ml^ht "be oases where under particu-
lar clroufflatonoes the law woulii Impose a dutyon the c -rrler through
Its serfants to assist a passenger In alighting from a car» but
no such circumstances or conditions which would impose such a

I

duty upon the appellant in this case appeax from the evidence.
It is also doubtful In this oase from the testimony of the ap»
pellee herself noted o.bove, whbther the looa-tion of the car when
it stopped was the proximate ctuse of her injury*

The judgment must be reversed with the finding of faot

i

to be incorporated in the judgment th :t the Injury received by
appellee ws.s not caused by the negligence of the appellant*

Gen. IIo. 6298,

(^TTaT Matheny^

— Appelle

Oct. Term, 1?914-

Ag. Ho, 26-

Filed/pril 16, 1915-

/
/

Appeal from the city court of
P A N A ,

193 I.A. 503

ELDKEjGE, P.J.

C\crUv /■

assumpsit , in which^^^^ULee recov
ered a judgment a^'iainat apptillont for |246.37. Tho oauoe ef^ ac-
tioa Ae- "based upon the follo\d.ng memorandum In w-c4ting.

"Pana, 111., 4- 9- '11.
This is to certify that J.A.Matheny has half interest
in the note and mo-^tz^r-Q on Tower Hill meat market, less expenses,
amount about $600 .OO*

(Signed) E.L. Lees"^

The aLovB^ was givea to apijellee hy appellant at the conclu-
sion of a real estate deal in which ooth had an interest. The not*
and mortgage represented the commissions of applllee and appellant
for negotiating the sale of certain real estate*

'Pine not<--fmd-inoTtgargg"ha;d lyeaa CaS^en in the name of appellant'^
The evidence shows that appellee and appellant had been partners
in the insurance business for ab ut a year and that in addition
to »fi;i«--i^R«wpaR«e business ±bz s^ebk^ z 9Ckse they negotiated xeveral
real estate deals, and it -m the contention of appellee that the
reaUL estate deals constituted no pa?:t of the partnership business,
"but jom were carried on as independent transactions and tliat at

the conclusion of each a settlement was made for the work each
had done in reference to the same, and that^ only ©h«— ef-uwttd dealf^
remain«l /undisposed of at the time of the suit in cjuestioa and that
was the »h>« here involved. Appellant contends that these real
estate deals were partnership affairs and the only defense inter-

wd In thia oamo waa thftt t.hi« partftoular raol ostat* transaction was

a pa< t of MiQ partner aEKip buslnAss and timi ono }>artnar cannot
)?uo another mA at Xasr tmtll thartj ht^a "boon a diesc Xu^ion of ^he
partncrflhlp, f4Bal--s«*t3^»iH^n^^-~e#--4fe»-#«^^
pr«t:»i«» to x'Jtty. iStortiwr tMe trans^a:eti<«^ was coneuraraated
ft- ft xmrtnorBhay-4»fX(vlr .;-atj.£»a. .of-las-fiMM^ i/'.ct. ' -;e-«vl«>

. dgnco 4 '-y«>;i;xrd thereto 4s ia ir'«e«<^noi3.atoi« e*^ ry

/ i»fr.>-ing €nm\A t-.Tift lawmi -<»- ^hi» pg»0'poot44!<w-; .r...u£. x^p^oxce. ill

tn einneiUtniv» <« T^ngnai^ip — !:o t.?'WAt ^uaatim-tn-frnla-OOart •

to TafT i>na -uiud tc '^ngJuSryt

•Did tho plaintiff and *ho defendant, during tho tiim
■ay 770 "c asnoeiatod ^of^ether deal In real eatato g ncrolly for
.;ir xauttial profit, ffimrinrr th© x^rofita, lonocc and O3i;p«n0eo inoA
aont ^o said lyiiDincee"?

Thg oou t rofuBod feu "■atoflt Tlift IHtafi'flg&tttiy t6 tho
^ . ^M^^y, '^^d in thla 'JriBT^.mL» na ay-ar ao iir dl* n*t ««lllt« to aa

Tliojo ia no -ovoraiMa tS^r^ WrTt^nsmsS^vetOTt'^f 9vi»

denfig not |^n ^]^q 1 win* ninfi «»«*■« e-JiliA.rinii-1: .

T2ia.4«Mlf^aett% ramt "be afflriaed.

/Co /--f^ ^/t>u^

/^]

L

/

•Luyfrtu^yf-

../

f>cncral iJo« 6300,

Oct, Term, p. 914 •

-I

^ — ■■

^.E, Clark.,

Appellant,,

AppelXe<3,

,^.^'

Ae, IJo, 27-
I-fled April 15, 1915-

AtyvioaX from the Circuit C urt of
Vermilion County,

19 3 I.A. 505

Eldredge, P,jy

AppeIIaa% ^>you.'^ht ker action on the case
aj*ainst a/npel^uee for Eialpractlce in the treatment of her eye,
By the Tegdlct-of-thg-itgy (^le defendant wag fom.d^not guilty
and a pallant appeal* f-caa the judr^ent rendered on the verdict

Appellant Mfhen tlsr-nty» three years of age lost
her laft ^e ift-ewsn VBCy not dl istJlOBed l:y^- the- evidencs-? Jifhe '^<iL% ^ (mIj (J\
oya at h\\oA ''jiiae was removed /rou the Bscket. Pour yeara later a
ourceon at Cincinnati^ perfoiaed an operation including a shafting
of slcin in and aljout her eye lido ^f or the purpose of enabling
her to use on artificial eye. This opogation nat wasuo»»fdP«3L.
Twenty»four years later she went to appellee, who was a »i;ecialist
in the dlseasoe of the eye, ear, nose and throat, fO' the purposs
of Ii&%}ing him treat one othMMX her eara^ V.hilo he was treating
:-4«a? — «aT-~*rh«---«»b^"e«%--#f '.he condition of her eye and the possihil-
ity of the use "by her of an artificial eye throu^ another opera-
tion was frequently diecusoed between them, T:*A«h resultedin appel-
lee pGrforoing the operation on her eye over vflilch tliis contro-
veray arose. Thci teptiaiftno' oS appfdareaaffc'-tmdrappqllgi!; soa<ytfrtiat cpn'»
fllct as- to ItLU BuTtBtatttctriir-theae et^nwersatlons. Ap])ellant

atifies tliat appellee assured her he could per^fona the opera-
tion Buocescsfully, while appellee testifies that ho told her thers
was a fair clianoe of a successful operation, Twit rttaer discouraged
her in atteapting to ha-e it done on account of her aga at that
tiine, iM>d ■»!■(*<■ In >i-tA -fciimtiMftiy Mnifc^. ■ay* -4.<a.ii-4^ii ViftT. iviflhantf
. iMiddled abtnrt a year previiwS| that she d4-d~i»^VhaTe--TeryT^

ana, w»M a pulnXio ia»di»Mi| Ageiy«d %o {fo to Oftlifcrnia

iC h»»r lo 3gB cmilrl l>:T~4a»itgo»adk%y mi eurttfteial eyc^ Appellee «

^orforu.jod'4h» •pvamtimi ' in-"'^h"e'-»i«api^tt>'"'Bt'' 'P.'mVlXt'iaiy''aiy!tt' Itt t'i'te

c r -'•itien -grafted MKae> akin taken f em the arm of uppplXant en

lio ^elida* The oporatiim « eo fi\r as the graii;lng was con-
oernody appeate to have been aucceaeful, Taut It did n»% aeeeapHeh
the--T^--T^9a fviT^-v^^ t.he itye llda art ill

ahrank to such an eacteat that an artificial oye could not "be iommI ,
and ttpp IXant claina that aa a renult of the opcatien tho e$& laah*
e« en the upper lid were destroyed iaak.i-Kg^^-'-^iaffg>o Aimtifgaxtm^ nJ^\
iiiiSiii. before the opci^tien* Appall ee then wont to Chioag;* and had

f another operation perfonsed Xn^ a cqpeoialiat in that city, v?hioh
was ale* unaucoeasful, Aftorvnurda a3ic wont to joliot end had
•till another operation perfomedi ivhich waa likewiaa unauoceae*
fvSLm Sha thon brouf'ht thia auit ar^ainot appollee* j

i^pellont introduced no evidonoe^ esse pt ajio liaatli'vony wf
hoi'tittlf; aa to the ticillfulneae or uniticlllfulncae of the trcat^iouta
Olid operatiaa performed Iqt appellee, t^hlle the evidonea for appo^-

\ X%m^ aho^m tor a number of escpartSy tended to pr ovo tlutt the c^orak*
tlona were tf)cilfuI3L:r parformed and in accordanoe with the aodera
eolcntifio >anto?/lcdge of auoh operationa. It ia a im&tter of ^*eat
. doubt frasa the evidence vSiether the diafiguresaenta now complained
of were oaueed by the opcratiim perfoiiaed by apjiKsliec er tha

I subBO(iuant operationa perfonaed l%r the ^ther epecialiate* SRte

were ne^^TTontly and: tmastll:lfuily ^ene «aa uyeii^ <^pe3Llaat^jaad

j«ad««LJl«ba. jract»-.-«i»--de--s»Hfr'--'-«ee -^nry -cetad hay»Hiona etheg«>

■iad4»-4;ka»~f 4i¥iU44»e--ver4tct--w?ittB^^ -

It ie ■<H?«--''andttd-«-'%lia!»H»>p-'-f«eu?'j4--^^ certain hy*

pothaiical queationa^jpiMuaMUid o ti%e expert witneaaea produced

by appelXaey 44ft laa aaaB8rer4idi^/''-"^EIte objectionnto *.heac qtteohiena

=jc(: rfnftTiy. f^fmoyn^ nKhri. .♦.^■^fy -^^ ; ij}. liH-rvijfflird itft. Iiypetliiitli0al ..tinfT'it^

nuoh questions ars goneraXlW aeoeeearily yqt-j lenc<;thy axA involys
many facts, xi& ordinarily Iha trial Judge has no raeana of >aao«»
ing whore the questisn mlg|[t "be cr oneou8| o: on -vhat specific
ground objection is loaAe e^nd on '.^lich le is required to rule, luiless
the objections the eto ard pointed out, C&tlin v. Traders In"# C
83 111. J^p, 40j City of Mede ▼• Honeyman 108 111,, App, 536;
Mverton Coal Co., v, Sheijherd 111 111, App, 294 j Botwinia v. All-

good, 113 111, App. 188./ * > .
. I-t »g. oQ. BO uyged—^ifeat— ^he-

Bo ayged-~%iM>^- ■^he-fH^wc^^g^i'Mad - la "f»4 ving- -tTTgtraetirena
mmlaepsd 8| 3| Bp ? and 0 oil VCTTgET'^Pf''^^

^»*mA that lay oald lne»»uctAoiis appellee was hp*** liable only to
the escercise of ordinary eikill and oare esuch as physicians
in (^ood practice ordinarily uae^ ^vhile ihe true .ntle i"»|rtlia;t the
law im.niises mmn one t^o holds hinself -ot!rt-"%e"~the plakiat "Pttbii*
as a ^eolaltst — e»-dtrty~'inr-greroAM>0"-»°^^

care than is required' --tyf-iytre-ngrit^^ eritl c 1 sm

wight, be -4»ell--takeg"l-f^ appellant heysalfr^h d ae» requested and
caused the Court to sive Instructions announcing the saisie :mle .*•

tj^ore im»°iiO"-rtTc.yiil1BIe error In the case.

The ^^udf-aent •wnr-'tKIFeforo^'Briai^^

Mr, justice Scholfield took no part in the consideration
of this case «

^o

iGEKEILUj NO. 6302.

OCTOBER I'SRM, A. D. »'14.

Pil§d kpJxl 16, 1915,

lUTH bake:

pel lee, :

^fODE MILLINERY CMANIJ^*

ELDREDGi:;, P. J,^

J

AGENDA NO. 29.

Appeal fromixhe Gisyu;
Court of VicLe&a. Co'

i"^3I.A. 507

Appolloe reccvered a judgment fon clnmagog in thQ sura of $500 in an
action of asnumpsit against ay poll ant company for breach of contract
gbr. .arug^, to-^ovorae which appellant ppooooutea 4Iiis aprteal/.

Appfillant n^nnrl a.ingifliei!.^fi£jaillinery-atores.-in^ilifferent cities
pxA~ <ionirod-"fei>-opett a byanch store in Uloxaiiine; ton, -Illinois. Jir. T?recl
JFehr Eras file president and general manager of ar.r,©llant ctsnpany.

Appellee was an experienced manager of cuMb stores a»*-was en-
ployed by appellant as manager of its store in nioomington; Tme Vr-'

iginal contract^ of hiignff -aae made o« tha Iftth day of January;^, 1013, '«Hid

^y /c '

Wkttf employnert w*s to corunencc en— ^he- -l^Mi daj cP February, IT 13, '€H'Mt'

■tc terBiiiVTito on tho-M^4fe---day-ef -PelitHafti»yy-''it#!t4 . App^»l lee r--aeAexuixii^ to

her tes^iffienyj vas to receive J|;25 per week aa auoh wftnagcr, rrliile the

ov:i-i^.a?\oe for appellant company wai»^that her em'>loyiyent xrao for fourteen

.:s beginning the ICth day of February, 1913, provided she "jnade niood" .

-yiiQ ovaMtenoo fop <]feY»y>el^l^e~-^«n(lled to chmr that after appellee hitd bean

S^L* U ft * as

arrloyed about three vreeks, Ut»i Pehr told }»» that^the business -rras not

paying sihe must discharge one of the-ytmng""i«dy clerks, andiL that . oim told
l^^—^-^-vct she had enployed the fffari' for the season, vhich w«uld end in

July, and ratlier than break her agreement X7ith the girl, vrhc was only

"f U' V
receiving; ylO a neek, she would pay^ $5 per -iveek to the girl out of her

salary j tfaat -Kebr agreed ir" tMn nntl aprnlfrf . thereafter ^received

0 a week urtil about the 12th of July, when Mp. Pehr-ftgain said the

xpenses were too hi^ and that during the dull season, T-hie;!i lasts

om the 1st of July until about the 15th of August, her salary trould

have t«

live en gio a week, and /he tlMun said he would make it ol5 a week until the

io be cut from $20 to $10 a week; that she told him she could not
'n $10 a week^andme tiuMi said he would make it ^15 a week until 1

busy seastm stilted about August 15tlla» and hhtm lie Trould muke it :^Q «
weelc tuitll rcJbniary, iO» If)!-!} that ai»pelloe -iTorkod on at ^15 a v?oak'
until about August I2tli vhen sli© Feeeiifoa a loitar PrjiJ Mr* rehr tw -t?^
•ffogt ti^a* «fo» vas dia^arged and that a nan imniiago had T»emi ugg "leyed
who wwld itakg dlnu'K<> jmjftUBfc iiatin Mtat ftlie Pall aoaiiou !ijnl Lhe» li^wgun

and At lyoMig Tue quite ttiffiem-tfiDr HcypBitiHi wt riw^m^ aagrs^gifc^y

ycflittan at^ tfeafe 4iwet""tittit-Bhe wyo tg- to ' Mr*- Fuhr r'^n-verly te i»ii«

an»th<ii» pooitiion aa iwuwiiei' of imqir tw^istaa^tfeli^ iMaOrtliftt - *^ e
twIiMiilait liii Imlffl tTin- i'iniiiiij;'rinj tfl» - ita-'-««mtjHfcot^«ltli.Jto«^^.«4lii^^

pafuaaa »a pawBit"-1tgr-''i£<n!l°l^^ ^im -««m» ■ %^ ^t««r!i-?iif«t«m and

lwaiiiiiii>tnTrlH|ri,4ijiin!aaniia(flii ayi^alA— p alia ^>a#f» under protest; 49wt s^ho
ics;:o<ilatei7 tried to 30Gta*e a olaillar position with soTeral rjcro^j tmts
in 'loos?J.nf;;tGnf trhleti she vas unablo to do at that season of the yoai**
azkl then wont to Chicago uhero aha alao failod to soota*e <»?rnioy> ont and
finally rotui*nG<i tc '} ocanington suid aOKBortod a poaiticn as a elarL: in the
Eillinery 4«p2ii?tsaKt of another store at 'x anlary ef $13 a T'e^^t: for

ton vreeks; that the ;-515« thus reeeiired for the ten Trecks vrvts all tlzat
sho wa« able to earn fron tho time she was diochr^d to lobntary i ,

1 Ij that in sooldLnj* this ecrloycisAt she vas tnit to an csrponso of '25*
Tlio original declaration consisted of th© oara-ion ca«nt8*:?ith rhieh
vaa filed an affidaTlt of aoount due In vhieh was etat ^d that the onoimt
sued for ^as for :?apMi n.nd damages duo her tram appellant fro» jL^rittsit
li)tli IClSt to February 10 th 1914. Durini* tlio trial arroUant tr^a^lo a
notion to exoHido all the toaticiony introttucod by appolle?^ oojioorniag
the original contraet raade on tho 15t2i day of January » 19.t3f on tlie
gromd that it waa Toid undor the statute of irauda, vrhioh »ot±OK tho
Court sustained* Bj leave cf eourt at'polloo filed tin additional
I epeoial eount* which vaa baaed upon the agreement ctade by a?»?ol3oo
and Fehr on July 15th by wliioh a|»T>elloe wan to recolYO ^n |»er week
fron that ticie until August IStfi when she wao to roeeiwe ^5 a we«*

til February ^Oth» 1914* tWispsiifnew jBTmeXlaat^ wade a iMtion for a
continuaneo cm tlie ground ef a aurpriao , (whaiw tho Court owemiled,

t-. In. Ahlg ffOB»rtl tB-wartTrm^ aaen' r. No new
^Mi'm vV lielicn Vf9,'^ itHtQil in the avcclal oeunt-titri Mie MTlflavlt of
j^^mt 7nfl f*iiftji ^Tlth thft- nri ntliwT aeelfti'utlori* tjliicft titrngjatei? of the

ae^jJcinfr to recyoTftr ff?r tbf>- iti imy-ln'r ^er #**<>»~A»«!0»t Ifitf? t^tiit t«

.PrVininr;' t^'tV 1'^tf It lo contandcd "by appellant that t?ior« was but

one contract nml that the orlgiMwil one, Had© January loth toin, rhloln

craning; 'f':lthl« tli© Statute of Tjhiuda wa« void, tl»erefor6 th&pf*. oai

be no recovery. '?hile the orlfjlnal contract was imdcubtCflly roid

for tho roiMJon su.frfested* yet I the evidence teJids to nfxfm tl«at It *ms

aba>":do2iCd and a ne^ cor tract ^as rm&o on July l^th I'^trj, anrt apfellee

bad a i'ij't^t to rcocrer' under pho rfexr cc^ntraet for wsf.sje'? «^w«. ^:-.othcr

such a acmtracft xras jaode atti f'!s«>th©r apr«3ll©o "waR wror<p;fj?llY -li^j'iiharKedl

ver© iiKstlORo of fact rMch f^fiire been icttlefl by th.*y rorr?ict of fhe jury-

'^
It l3 a4«e jlalraod that b'^m tMtT't >!i.r.fHgifl IH JA'1>jttM.?p 0ri(^'-»T»ee of

tl«e eacre?^»o 3'nT>elleo incurred In seeking oiiier a»*>loyment. 14)"^%9

A

^^iw rt»f.y-f>^-^^f>fill<Mi »o waif rm bc»0Bl,..flffnrt to aeeHPTf otbep_.flBMBloy~

TiTf*Tit in •^riuvr t^* nlt^^alif i^hf flwf flf^ ^m^ -M M'* 's iw<q^it, *<« ^<»r.v the
vaaBfiL^ga^^oyoB* ' — ^t,Ilinrf^"'^***^f^f^*^**^^f^'' .1 *^^ ^^-V« Itl^itm .Th-^ff ?iiho

""F^fftr^«***^^y ^^*' ypr 1 i9^r ""■" '"*■' hn'iiw iw"^ mwirnmi-of

H..iiii|Hr<«5 n1^^^^1rl^l■y diiiiiBLiMtiiiiiiiiM^^'*T».T?T'ffn"^„fit^ ^»^^. y^tfM SM,Ml ''^^*

N^v^ /iiT».y Hin t.rr to rr- mtrr t niwilar wnplflymOTt nt tliallar ¥ngfin She
was 5uisuccos3ful in her efforts to secure sueh ewT^loyrtent in Uooinlngton

a«»HW'i^enee"-tgrews'"''t!mt' t»twa4Eii«#--41»»e attjsai&t-*- «l»«^ was put to a!:^ ex-
pense of about $25. "^c sieywff g'liasaii whyiiti an filwnwit t"? itai'aiigta^in
an'^etl.im ♦»» y^coyer «n- a-tfreaeli- »# eentwwit.. nf iwap;i eyiwffitttjaig:,..j«. f^wr-i eye©
fer her wrongful ^aa»dli«rg©i the raasfiina^Io <KEjMm»eii,..al!Suml^ht be put

to In ^'^''•'T^m *^»^*'»** am^l <>7yr»T^f. qTtnii^^ wQt bO PTOpor^

IT! ere ras no bari-jftil^crizaajeui*-^!*^ or reftiaing ef the in-

structions . I

The judipent rT%Jl--'^- >"-.ed.

914.

•.H.LAHB,-.^,^^^

SLDREDGB, P. J.

AGENDA NO. or?.

eal from Circuit Court
"ontgrauory Comity*

19 3 I.A. 510

^\

favor of aprelloo "4j»-aia action of aasunpalt brought by apr.qiaanto

\ to recover dUaoages for an alleged biroaoh of a contract^ (ytoyeftl toto

u^-h iAcA ^'^y^ r^ f. r^ ^jM\^

toy aprolloe And appellants Angnat Sth K^Off. G^'JUjlaJL

\ Tlie case tras tried before the court trlthout a jury, ^q rropo-

aitiona of latr or fact ere aoked'and the t?fa8lo argmnowt of appellants

f^ c-(a M ■ ^

!Au u<i>HPlnod to l!»o -gln^g-error that the Court aT^ouia Tjavo found
differently on the facts*
r The cr.nti''ae<> 1;

^That appellants

'aet if a lenetlMr--«tte and in aubaijumi rai""im TPi i otr r? :
M for tl>» ewiaMiwaufcAm tnei^oinftfter set Pi'irMi ii^i)iii8>ai

: to undertake the sale of 200 lots to be laid out and plattel fron a
; trac'it of land o^med by ap7^elleo; ♦ttot^-.iatmiiillKei^fe^ as a .ruaraiaty cf j:;ooa
^?-^fAith agreed to pay aprelleo '•1,000 witlTln 30 days of the accoptanoo
of the contract, and when oo y^fett to be considered an advance rayr-sont

} on the purchase price of -5WEI land; i^bmk, appellants mrthgr- agreocl to
L pay the interest on a note for the principal sum of $3,5G0 secured by

c!Qrtsage on the land ^pravirualy oa»«»wtie4->-byi aii>f>#l>!l«<»r^aBd tihenrtr "lien

^ thoPoeni"tmtd^- the JU>to IF€» r>«id.f that the land va» to be platted into
' v:-a«*»"«lP r©t?«iationn3l^»T"Bl8 laiglJt be doecied advisable l>y-a|«aoll^it3,

t Vwlinimliy iim ^y^nwJ 1 nim . £^a pf>Qa4'hl^ tay IciA £aftitin«ft^i| that Saiird lOtS sT^OUld

L^bo Bcld at an average price of i|;iOC.oi^ah upaw the tonna mf a paynont
? ef -^1- aaah^^ 3R*-'$rT5er'iriseir thorwifter until the full roitJfRKSsrprlco

f£ t*nd baaa w»a<?tived.} antV oaa tlKla-^b<»a4a tlw teiiBH>~«f i»aAtXaiaai>t -fay tlae

-f^appellanta t<>geth«(»^ifeh 4^»fi0^paii awnth-ta^-ba rccoivgd Tiiy appoaLSants

an .u^t sufficient to pay the naid note of $3,500 together wlt^the
exrenses\ncurred in making sale of the lots, preparing the grouml, ad-
rertlsing arid paying the taxes on the landj afterwards appellants '.7ere to
c tinue to receive $150 per month out of the balance of the payments
■an., appellee was to receive $5,500, which was to be /onsidered as raft
of the purchase pricey appellants were then to receive the renaining
lc/65 of the payments until they had been repaid the $1,0 '^0 advanced by
theiaj then the ensuing payments to be used for the purpose of purchasing
"' tever rights the Olympic Park Association laigl^t have in the land;
tt. . thereafter the remaining payments on the lots to be disbursea cne-
thlnd to appellee and two-thirds to s^pellants until appellee had
received $10,000, when he was to exe cut e\ warranty deed to an und;tviaed
two-thirds Interest in whatsoever mi"ht remain in such lots or land;
that the title should remain in appellee until the above comUtlons were
complied with; that appellee should at his own expense collect tlie
payments as they became due and execute deeds to the purchasers of the
lots when paid for; that appellee should enlist the ser^ces of socie
competent person or persons to off set the work done by apl^ellants in
the sale of the lots; that the crops on the land should become the prop-
erty of the parties to the contract and T.hen sold the proceeds thqrefroin
be applied to paying the expenses connected wi th> the^ ■»rsl«"*t5m'f ro 1 o b a ■

The tract consisted of about 115 acres of farm land and was located
from one-fourth to three-fourths of a mile from the city limits of the City
of Litchfield, Illinois. Appellants paid to appellee the $1,000 mentioned
in the c ntract and had the 1 and platted, but nothing further was ever
done by the parties under the contract until the year 1910, except thai
n-T^ellants paid the interest on the note and some of the taxes. I^o lot

...3 ever sold. In June, 1909, appellee conveyed to another party 45

tlie
acres of^^lractand testified that he told aprellants that he could not

\:vAt any longer for them to proceed under the contract and intended to

sell a portion of the land. It is contended by appellants that they had

no knowledge of this sale until about Ilay 1st 1910, when they went to

Litchfield for the purpose of advertising a sale of the lots, and it is

the sale of this portion of the tract by appellee which they claim con-

-3-

atltufrod a T5i*eac?i of the contract and prcvonted then frccj yroceoclijig
nn*?-'?r the terms thereof. TlliorG was evidence tondlrg to ahor that th©
eontraot had been abandoned by the partioa thereto and tliat several at-
tcH2pt3 had been made to seal the farm en msge by appellants. Appellee
claims that his loss of crops frcjin the land for the seasons fros-i 1007
to 1910, by reason of the failure of appellant n to sell the lots, incr©
that off EWJt tlio paynent of $1,000 and tlie interest oncT tases aaitl ether
ex{>enaos paid by th<»!j. 'i^o GCJntraet itaolf Ap BO-aB^ignGtiS and sc? un-

t"i>--»ttaaidLJyo„dotennlJ^^ the irl>^hta-«»»ft-eblisati:0n» of the pa!*tiea
CTrnrcto-^— ~33ia-_caae As<4|ar0»«ntod to t?ie~tJT'±ai judge tms t>ne ias^ely of
fact™amL~iieis:aaJj.Qt called upoa tliroagjt atty !i'U{H>gHd:^mBri7r""l^ygr or
otlierwlse to -giTO-tMBy-l^sal oonatruction to the-tstrntrstdrr — l?e heart* the
<rltr!or:g93 aiKl *>a««e<l upon the facta and we cannot aa:' frosa^the roo'^^d
bororc us that his finding In r«VB!l!' M AUSYtC^iUHj wv9-m>vcneovi8.
The 3iidr?3ent vmnt therefore be affirtzod.

i

i

Gen. ITo. 6307. October Term, 1914/ Ag, Do. 62.

Filed April 16, 1916j

Arthur Hilliron, for th^, (f

use of J. P. Gately, •;)

Appellee)

vs. jAppeal from odrcult court of Adame County.

Electric "Tieel Company, %- /

Appellajit.T / ^ *^ ^ ^

/ 19 3 I.A. 512

ELDREDGS, P. 4. K...-.^^''^^

Sills action was instituted before a justice of the peace
to recover from appellant , who wo& the employer of Arthur Milliron,
for -Wie-price of a suit of clothes and two pairs of shoes sold to ©ftid
Milliron by the G&tely Credit Clothing Conrpany. On an appeal to the Circuit
Court Appellee recovered a judg^bent against Appellant for the sum of ^

'' It appea3W-#gea"=the evidence that Hilliron bjf.-a-wxtt'fren Jf^

aoDignment dated-^tamary 4tte, 1915', assigned and set over to the Gfttely
Credit Clothing Company all wages or salary, commissions and credits due
or to become due or payable to him in the next five years following* his
last pay day from the Electric 7-lieel Company and every suxsceeding Jmploy-
er^ AttiudifiAJJtfiL ..the agsignm©nt--is a power of attorney al«o executed by
an i ci Mi, 11 Ixoa -in whloh h»| In oonsideration of the delivery to him, his
wife or -any naaber -e^f- hlg fainily, of certain gotjds by the Gately Credit
Slothing -Company , does thereby irrevocably constiyute and appoint J. P.
Gately or any other person whom he may substitute and appoint -felB true
and lawful attorney for him in his ncjne, place and stead to execute and
ft^4v»g-t»- oald Clothing Company an asGigiTixent or assignments or other
instrument in writing which shall effectually and legally convey and
transfer unto said Clothing Company any and all wages or salary due, or
to become due or payable to him from any and every employer whom he may
have within the next five years.

Appellant was ©©rved-HBft*!^"*^ notioe- ei^ned by the Gately
Credit Clothing Company, -»t€*i«g~%fea4.: ^ A^*^ cul.^.^^ yx**^

"¥re-|- the undersigned , Grately Credit Clothing Company of
^f. -JJLnoy, Illinois, 519 Hampshire street, hold as Assignment of

-8,- -^^

Vr'ages executed by Arthur illlliron, Qulncy, 111., who is now employed
by you. 5?he original assignment will be shown you if desired on ap-
plication. You are further notified immediately on receipt of this
notice, to hold all money due yotir employee, as same now legally be-
long and is payable to us, and your employeee has no power to receipt
for same, or any part of same until we notify you that this assignment
has been released.

You are further notified that Arthur liilliron has duly
appointed J. P. Gately his true and lawful attorney to effect final
settlement of all claims againsll him due the Gately Credit clothing
Company and to sign his name toiany receipt or payroll in liquidation
of assignor's indebtedness.

And you are hereby notified that the assignor owes said
Gately Credit Clothing Company $17.00 and said Company demands that
you pay unto them all money (ad above specified) when receipt and re-
lease will be granted."

J, ?• Gately executed a power of attorney to M. G.
Stolte, appointing him his true and lawful attorney for and in his
name, place and stead to make ar release any assignment or assign-
ment sof wages and to receive all stuns of money which shall become
due and owing to him by means 9f such assignment and to take all law-
ful means for the collection thereof, etc.

Appellant contends that the suit haviBG.. be^n brought for
the use of J. ?• Gately^ and not the Gately Credit Clothing Company^
and there being no assignment of the wages to Gately, the judgement
eannot be su^itained. !Dhe only evidence as to who and what constitutes
the GatelyCredit Clothing Company, is that it is not a cosrporation
and is under the "control" of J. P. gately. (Dho oait--'8feotd:d-fagiTe--been
brousht-#e3r-the uee-of the Gately Credit Clothing Company as the evi-
de»e*-do««-not"-show-l7hat' appellant was in ^^^jy way liable to J. P. Gately
personally -tmder the assignment executed by Milliron.

The judgement will be reversed with the finding of fact
to be incorporated therein that appellant does not owe appellee for
the uscLjOif J. P. Gately the amount sued for nor any part thereof.

. 'TO, 6317.

Appellant*

,?i,Kltcholl, \
Appellee,

Octoljer TemJ 1914,
Filnd Apr/l 16, 1915-

Agenda Ko,60

5 /Appeal fron the Olroult Court ef
McLean Coimty,

193I.A. 526

EU)PJIDrrB, ?.J.

Af>- iIa iTit -r-n.ou '»>■ B ivii-i in equity I'or the purpose
f setting aside a release, executed W hla| releasing ».nd for-
ever discharging appellee from any and fill causes of action, claicjs
ad dejoands which apcllaat ^he« had or nlijht thereafter hav- for
juries to himself and property cau- ed "by an autojjiohile driven
'7 appellee , The 1)111 averAi*^at the releane was procured Tayfraud*
'ulent misrepresentations on the port of appellee, that ;!.ppellant
did net know its con ents ^vhen he signed it, airi that It b4^ "bur
an aotiea at law brought to recover said damages unless the same
4* nnulled and cancelled. Appellee answered the bill and filed a
cross "bill averrinf^ that appdlrint had "brought an action at law
ap;ainst appellee for dama^^es on account of said injuries and pray-
ing that appellant be perpetually enjoined from proaocuting said
action at law/[

T3Bie issues oade by the orifrinal bill, answer o,nd
^plication thereto were referred to the Master in Chance jy '1th
IrectlonB to talte the proofs. On Iiar<di 23th, 1914^ the Master**
i.de his report finding ;;^e equities in favor of appellee and
recoHEiending that the original bill be dioaissed for want of equity,
yi the same i^ay appellant made a motion to diaaiss hisbill, vhich
as overruled on the >z^o\mA that a cross bill wmmtaax&tK^ ponding,
ler^upon appellant made a motion to strike he cross bill frost
he files. On A: ril 4th this niotion was denied and a rule was enter-
ed requiring appellant to' answer the croos bill. Appellant filed
1 answer to the cross bill April 11 and on the r«as day appellee
itod exceptions thereto. On April j| 18th. the except irns to the
nswer were sustsined, and appellant was defaulted under the croee*

-2-

bill for ..ant pf an answer. Trie O'^der approving the Master's
rpport was thereupon set aside on motion of appellee, and the aauae
a^iain referred to the Master to t^lce further proofs upon the is-
sues raade by "both the origi: al and cross Isills, The Master made
his report imder the last reference, findiri^ the equities for ap-
pei4.ee upon the original "bill cuid cross bill, recorxaending -'he
injunction issue as j)rayed for in the cross bill and that the
original bill be dismissed for jant of equity. The objections
3uid aKeaptiona of appellant to the Master's roport were overruled,
ahe . eport approved and a decree entered in accordance with the
findingsand ^-ecomniendationB the ein,

iz is u.gei i.hat the chancellor erred in overruling appel-
lant's action t« diamisa the original bill. Section 36of the Chan-
cery Ac$( p:^ovides that no 333d: complainant shall be allowed to
disaiiss his bill after a cross bill has been filed ■without the
consent of the defendant.

The cross bill was german* to the original bill and there is
ample evidence in the record to sustain the decree, ;7hich must
therefore be affirmed.

A l- ? I .R M E D .

¥

"^A

GliKERAI HO. 6S18.

AHCHILLE5 iV. CO J

OCTOBJiK ?i2HM. A. D.

L4.

AGEIiM 2iJ. 40.

) Filed Apr^ 16, 1915-

)

) Appeal fror/ Circuit Court

)

)

CHICAGO, BUHLliiGTJIJ & ^Ii<C^ )

iu\IIV,A^r CO^^AKY. \ )

Appellant .V )

ELDRfiKGE, p. J.

of Ajjffioas County.

^ 19 3I.A. 527

T-»;1a. i,'...-<M»./4yotlon on the oaee hiiixe^.2A by appellee against
appellant to recover dat^ages for pereonal injuries alleged to have
been received on accovmt of the negligence of appellant. The
first trial resulted In a dleagreenent of the Jury. On the second
trial a verdict wae rendered In favor of appellee, asseeelng hie
damages at the sum of i5,000, on which verdict judgment wae
enternd, ajid from which judgment thie appeal is prosecuted J

The accident occurred orr-ntii] i>jt.o>»A'- aat^. \'^^: i- , on a
public crossing at the intersection of Hampshire and Front streets
in the City of kuincy while appellee, riding on the running gears
of a wagon drawn by a team, was passing over the same. The amended
-oclarutioa coni-ic i:. couj:its. 'i'tie first, aecon_ and fifth
counts allege negligence on the part of appellant In not havint, a
watchman or flagman at the crossing; the thlra. In not giving the
statutory signals by bell or whistle; the fourth, in running the

train at a speed In excess of 6 miles an hour, the limit fixed by

I

' an ordinance of said city; and the sixth, general negligence in
the operation of the train.

Fron" btreet, at the place of the accident, is the first

\ street running north and south, east of the HlaBlssippi Klver,
and extends substantially parallel therewith. Hampshire street

i runs east and west terminating, apparently, from the plat intro-
duced in evidence, at Front street. I.tinnlng north and south on

the western portion of Front Street are the main tracks of
appellant Railroad company. Between the river and the western
track of appellant, running east and west on a line which, if
extended, would be the center of Hampshire btreet, was an open
ditch. 2lorth of this ditch, between the river and the western
track, was the Diamond Joe boat house. t>ome distance south of
the ditch on the bank of the river, vras a boat landing or wharf
used by boats plying on the river at that time, to land their
passengers and freight. West of the intersection of Hampshire
and Front streets a plank crossing extended across the tracks
of appellant. About in the center of the crossing was the flag-
man's shanty. Those who desired to go to the Diamond Joe boat
house from Front Street, travelled northwesterly across the
crossing north of the flagman's shanty, and those who desired
to go to the wharf, passed southwesterly across the crossing
south of the flagman's shanty. On the northeast corner of
Hampshire and Front Streets was Adams grocery store. On the
southeast comer of the same was Rupp's ^unl shop and south of
the latter was a building occupied by ijwift & Company. The first

street north of Hampshire Street is Vermont Street, and the first
street north of the latter is\ Broadway.

The train which caused the injury consisted of 15 loaded

freight cars which were being backed, on a slight upgrade, south

toward the crossing by a switch engine. The southernmost car
was a low ear loaded with crushed stone. The next car north
of it was a high box car.

Appellee for some months prior to the accident had been
engaged in hauling lumber from a mill in Missouri to the Knittle
Show Case v.orks in Quincy, and in doing this, crossed the Mis-
sissippi River on a ferry boat, whose landing at i^uincy was at
the wharf mentioned. He had oassed over this crossing a great
many times and was perfectly familiar with the same and the
surrounding locality. Un the morning in question he had crossed
the river on a ferry boat with a load of lumber and had delivered

>

the same at the Znlttle ishov Case lorke at v^ulncy He drove a
team oonsisting of a horee and a mule attached to i;; e running
gears of hie wagon, which were coupled out long: for the purpose
of accommodating the lumber, and on which there was no wagon hoz^.
After appellee had delivered the lumber, he started back towards
the wharf to cross over the river for another load. Re drove
west on Broadway to Front btreet, on which he drove south. .hen
he reached a point near Vermont iitreet he heard some oars hump-
ing' behind hln on the railroad tracks. At this time he was
sitting on the running gears in about the center of the wagon.
He looked back, saw the cars moving tj lowly toward him and states
that they were at that time about IJO feet behind him and were
going very slowly, about 3 or 4 miles an hour. ».hen he reached
Adams grocery store at the northeast corner of Hampshire and
Front iitreets he looked back at the train the second time, and
stated, in one pert of his testimony, that at that time the
train was goin^ a little bit faster than when he first saw it,
but it was moving quite slowly and not more than 5 or 6 miles
an hour. In another part of his testic.ony he stated that at the
second time he looked at the train he thought it was running at
the same speed as it was at the first time he saw it. Just as
he was about to cross the tracks he testified that he looked at
the train again, that it was moving very slowly ana was about
60 feet away from him. Ke further testified that he drove on
to the crossing as fast as his team could trot, and when he had
nearly passed over the tracks the car at the end of the train
hit the hind wheel of his wagon, causing him to be thrown to
the grouni and injured. At this time, he stated the train was
running £J miles an houx, in other words, that the train had
increased its speed within e distance of 60 feet from a rate of

5 or 6 miles an hour to one of £0 miles an hour. He further
stated that Just as he was about to drive on to the crossing hfe

3 ^

heard the boll oi" the ferry boat sounding as a Blgnal that the
boat was about to depart for the JdiBBOuri shore. Hl8 own testimony
in this connection is as follows:

"If I failed to cat oh that boat it would have been
one o'clock before I could have got another boat and got
across the river to West (>iuincy. I wanted to get to my
home in Missouri. I usually made two loads hauling lumber
a day. In order to do that I had to catch the half past
eleven boat. That was the boat I was trying to catch.
It would be an hour and a half before another left the
Illinois shore. If 1 miseod it I could not roake another
load the same day without making it awful late. "v«hen I
approached the crossing and about the time I started to
turn I heard the bell of the boat sound. I observed the
train three times up to the tloie of the accident. The
last time I looked I was just going aorose the track. I
never saw it any more until it struck lae."

His own testimony clearly discloses the fact that he was
rery anxioue to catch the ferry boat in order to return to the
llsaouri side for another load of lunber, and that all the time
he was. driving south on Front Street toward the crossing from a
;)0int north of Vermont atreet, he knew this train was approiiching
the crossing , had looked at it twice before he turned west on
'riampshire atreet to pass over the crossing, and had looked at it
a third time Just before he went on to the crossing. It is
apparent that he was attempting to beat the train over the croBsing.
v^e have very carefully oonsiderQd all the evidence in this case
and, while not discuseine the teBtimony of the different witnesses
in detail, in our opinion the clear and manifest weight thereof,
established by the testimony of disinterested witiieases, is, that
there was a flagman at the crossing who attempted to prevent

appellee from going thereon by waving his flag, calling to him.

V

and, wh«n he still peraleted, attempted to oatch hold of the
bridles of the team to atop him from bo doing. Also that the speed
of the train at the time it Btruck the wheel of the wagon did not
exceed 6 miles an hour, and that there was a brakoman on top of
the box car, which was the second car north in the train, who
slao called out to appellee to prevent hiE froK pausing on to the
oroBBing;.

The remaining acts of negligence charged, viz., failure to
have a brakeiaan on the rear oar and to give the warning signals
by bell or whistle remain to be considered. The only allegation
in regard to the failure of appellant to have a lookout on the
rear oar of the train is found in the first count in the follow-
ing language:

"By meanB whereof it then and there became the duty
of said defendant and said servants ..... if said
oare and engine intended to pass over eaid croeeing, to
station some person on one of said cars, or on the ground
at said crossing, for the purpose of warning all who were
about to go over said tracks at said public croeaing to
aaid ferry landing, that said freight cars and engine
which were then and there being backed and switched toward
Bald crossing, in manner aforesaid, v/ore then and there
about, and intended to cross over said public croeaing,"
etc.

There is no allegation of any duty to have a person
atationed on the rear car, but a duty ie alleged to have a person
on one of the cars, and this is stated in the alternative, either
to have Bome person on one of the cars or on the ground at the
orossing for the purpose of warning those who were about to cross
over the same. There was a brakeman on the next to the rear cor
who gave warning to appellee. However, proof that there was no
brakeman on the rear oar was competent iinder the sixth count
charging general negligence in the operation of the train. The

absence of euoh brakeman on the rear car, under the facts in this
casG-» could not have been the proxlraate cause of the injury, as
appellee knew of his own knowledge that the train was approaching
the crossing:, and he was also given this information by the flagman,
and by the brakenan on the car next to the end one. Under the
statute there was no duty to have a brakenan on the roar end if
the brakes were efficiently operated by power applied from the
locomotive. There was no evidence as to how the brakes were
operated.

The proof in regard to the failure to elve the statutory
signals by bell or whistle is conflicting. The train crew testified
that the bell was rung automatically and was ringing all the time,
borne of the witnesses testify that they did not remember whether
the bell was rung or not; others that they paid no attention to it;
some that they did not hear any bell, and one testified that there
were so mam^ bells and whistles sounding on the tracks by engines
switching cars thereon, that he could not tell whether the bell
or whistle was sounded on the engine attached to this train or not.
it is immaterial, however, whether the signals were given, as the
only purpose of such signals, if they had been sounded, would
lave been to warn the public of the approach of the train.
Appellee had this knowledge and the failure to sound the warning
signals, if there was such a failure, could likewise not have
been the proximate cause of the injury.

i'he Judgment must be reversed with the finding of fact
that appellee was not eTeroising'due care for his own safety im-
mediately prior and at the time of the accident, and was guilty
of negligence which contributed to the injuries complained of,
which finding of fact is ordered recorded in the Judgment of this
court.

I

l^

UL^^

k-n^^

^/9/^

c /«^7

^RAL ]J0. 6:^22. OOTOBEP W¥U, A. J). I'^fA, MMWA V.O . 74.

Filed Apfil 16, 1915-

Aj.j.oul from
Circuit Oour'. of
AdaniB A County.

Filia COUIIOIL OF mVMm CATHOLIC Wdm,

Ap]*llo(),

V

OZKA J5AUI.E, (P. id,\FHANK P. DHEN..-.,,

\ 4fi'P«iliint.

i^DGE, P. J.

^iit! oU].r(5m(5 Coitiioil of Weotorn Gatliolic Union f-r-^-*— r-.s
r~tn ~Jic- t}ir«tti"*r-t?rmrr \/.. forocloBo a mortf^ago f^iven to nncura
.,.oti, u■JA^u Au'jitiu -•, iv(&'.-, cn vfhioh l.h<!i'(» at; an oxiBtimj i.n-
^ednoBH of S^of'iOO, with intorost. .'ho note? iind ciortr^a/^o vmre
a.-; uted by Jolm T. WJiito .md Fijuiy '^ito, hie \.-if6. Tlio bill •
-08 Jolm T. Vilhite, Or.ru Haulo, Jainoa V. Brady, Jolm H. McMahon,
ilk P. Dronnan laid Will McOomioll };ari,iet! dofondcmt, aveu': ing
.: U]H)n infonaation and boliof tho dofnndants namod, oxcopt iJS^ito,
-^.....i_, vO havo Bomo mtcirost in xhe pronieoB ombraood in the
^;^a^_;o.

^'T^jtnk T^. T^)(,jiiiajrj ;j:i8Worod tho bill and file^d a orocsi: bill

■ ■ ing .Itett on I^'-bi'iAtay I^.()Ui-4'V'lo» naAci pt^onuaas t.hfgi..bujLi^.?.-4>»<tt«d
iMLuL- Cox,

r,

\.rgi^ covftrin;; aaid j-roraiaoB to eocuro a notn for tho principal
of rir/OOi v.avablo to Iuh ordor. bi^arin>; Mvon dt^Ti.i ..t'b.<irowi»th; ^^

-2-

at ti{i(»roaf tor uaUl yrtminoa xmro oonvoyod to ono John H« KcE'ahon,

■ . jUiroaftor ccmvft^'oc. , . • , .4>io to o?-" ' .r^if^ a, Folf.y, -ul^joct t,o
id Liortf5u^50 of ^l.'JOO, -oho piJ^iaont of wliich licioy aBaumod by iha deod j
at Hoi«y convoy«id tlm i-rjiBiBrts? to Ocra Sauio Ruhject to ti'do nori-
. -0, tlio ]:aviaont of whidi »aid Saule a8iniw«d by tho dood; xJhar, by
. uson of thouo facta if tho eaid ricrt/5Sip;oci vr«t-ii£5«R Bluniif' not

II for «nou^5li to j>ay tho v/holo of naid mortisa^o indobtodnoee hat
~^id croBu comjilainaiit would bo ontitlod to a iud^^-innt, ovor a/^ainot
Baid Bcloy ano Sawlo b;' roauon of t,ho aoj5iai:5:tion of the nortf^a^id
Indrtbtnomif'.;- by Qum an aforoeaid, aric! alf.o ac^ainnt Robort fl, f!ox
for any balunco tliat Liif^t roinain (hie on 'cJift note oxecutod hy him aft
ir tho jialc! of ftaid y>roninoo. Tlv; orosi! bill n kos ail tho
"tioii montionod jar^ie^n thejroto.

Ono N. Biiet hold a third inort-^r^ on «ai(i ))romisoB and v'ae
io a pai-ty %o tlio unit, filod )\xn aneror to tlio ori<p.r]ai bill
id t,o tlio croBB bill of Dronnan <ind also filod a croaa bill
letting UY Iiis ri^^tu by virtue of }iiB mort/^arjo. If?? dooa not
|oin in 'Uio appeal aiiQi further Mention of Ms orous bill is un-
jceaear;/.

Af':,er nimierouo delayu, vhich apj^ear to have bo<5n moetly
lauBod by ajn^ellant, the Court entered a decree on tlio original
Jill foreoloBin?; vhn taortr^i^y) hald by a}?polloo imd left t^e

Qlaimed by appellant in his croBB bill for further determination

nol^onicvT^tob imi^ii/t lol IXitf aaoio tiiC nx ifulXnqqB ^^

iMHlAlJ

.J a)^peilan-'. haa df^::.i^7locJ orror uhat iho Oliancollor }mA no
Jiority to ontm Uuh dcicrHo upon tho ori;;inal bill v-'ithcut first
/in"; had a hoaring uj^on hie croBs bill ant! havin^r BfitUftd all t^o
U08 raiuod Jicu-ciuiKin}'. T)irtr« v;aK no m'ror in t-hin. 'rhn ier-Vfis
ia«d by tho crcsj-; bill botwoon aT^vellant, Cox, Roloy ivnd rtade
•rt of no concflrn to appolloo imd in mi no vay affoctod its in-
teroBtfi under itB riort{^<^e uhich \7ttB a prior lion u* that of

Mllant. A];}uaiant by filin^r a croee bill could not dolay the
hoarinf5 on Lho ori/,^nal bill. Appolleo v/ac not con})ollod -o v.ait
until a] jHUlant had luxd an adjudication on tho quostions rai^ori by
hio croBB bill. Uyoya v Mannoy, 6:5 111. Ml; Ray v 1^ nnott,

1 111. 284; Kcluoy v. OlauBson, ^'-7 111. /10?2; Jonorj v Hillie,

^1 111. App. ^105.

It in further un^ftd that a doficioncy docreo rould he void

•lout proviBion th«r«for in th« ori/^inal decreo, md tte caBo of

.n-or V. la^lMf) 111. 5/i2, is citod in sup})ort of this propo-

Bx ion. TluB cai?« lioldn diroctly contrary to tliis contontion and

in the opinion it in otatod:

"It. ie not contondod that h« wae not liable

peroonally for the debt, but tho personta docroe

ii3 objootori 'vo bfjcauflo t^B ori/jinal decree did not

provide for such p/eraonal liability or jeraonal decree

in case of a deficiency. Soction 16 of Chaj^ter 96 of

the Roviued fStauitee ]>rovidoB ^Jiat such a decroo may

, ei Jofir bo r<indored conditionally at the time of docref!-

•3-

1

inj5 t,h(s .,.., ...^jstu^a, o; iihuclutoly aftor \h(\ sale and

asc«rt-iiitini«nt of i^o Ixilanco d.u«. Tlift laothod ad(;}*trOd

hero ifi ox^ roauly uuthoriaod by tho fiui{><ifco. If tho docr«

for th« dofioioncy had boon provided for in the docree

forocionin/; iha i3ortrra-n;o io '^^ould hav« mnounted to nothing

moro Uian a f orcial finding tliat tho coni-luimint v.ould be

entitlod to u decr«« in the event that the proi****'ty

B}iould not Boll for aufficiont to pay tho debt."

I 18 urf^ed tiiat ai5 the ori^^Lnal bill averred that Fanny White

^ the note imd morv^age lani no exjilanation its made in the bill

why 8b- was not nuide a i-arty, that tho orit^inul bill i« bad for

if necoSBary ptu'tieB. Th«i evidence Bhowa that aho died eeverai

before tho ori(!5inal bill v/as filed and at tho zism of her death

intoreet in the premisoi! except an inoohaUi rii^Jit of dtmer.

these oircuiQUtanceB, Y^hile the orif^nal bill should properly

ioged these facts, yec, an -iie evidence ouptjlieu -diis oi.uiEKnn and

that she waB not a j^roper party, no ri^^tB of appellant can bo

•diced by the omiBHion of Buch allo^^a-uiuna in the bill.

J decree provides for an attorney '« fee of tZ^, and complaint

ittdci t-hat, uhiB is oxcHSsive. Tim uinoim'':' was fixtid by the Court uj.»on

idnce taican in 8U})por-i thereof and unden tlitJ facts and circumstances

va by t}i« record m ^-hiB oaao v,f; fu-n of die o| iiut'ii ohat thiJJ is not

HFive.

find no reversible error in tho record ijid the decree is

_

I

General Ho. 6323.

Samuel C« Poraythe,
Appellee,

VS.

^Qifluel R. Killaaji,

Appellagit,

ELDREDGB, P.J.

Octoter Telm, 1914, Agenda "o, 44-
Filed ^ril 16, 1915-

V.

i

Appeal from the Circuit court of
Macoupin C unty,

1931. A. 534

Appellee recovered a judgment in the sum of |800.
against appellant in an action on the case to recover dsuoaf^es for
an injury to himself and to his "bugf^ resulting from a collision
I "between oaid buf^gy and an automobile driven "by appellant . The
accident happened about 2 mile* northwest of Carlinville. Both
ppellant and appellee were fanners, and appellant with a neigh-
jorhad left Carlinville about four o'clock in the afternoon to go
o his home in the country. Appellee was also proceeding along
■he Bpjae road in the same direct ioa in a buggy dravna by a te.am of
horses. The accident happened in broad daylight, in an attemptof
appelltint to pass appellee on the high-.ay. There is a direct con-
flict An the evidence as to the action of both par ies at this
i.me. Jho automobile driven by appellant ran into the buggy 4f ap-
»ellee, smashed it, b oke the couplings v.hich connected the tongue
'ith the buggy, causing the horse to run away and appellee to be
hrowH on to the r^round and injured. The questions of the neg- y^
. ligenwe of appellant r.nd the contributory negligence of appellee
were quesiilons of fact for the jury to determine.

The only errors assigned involving questions of
law are to the giving and refusing of instructions, ^e have exam-
ined the instructions carefully in the view of appellants crit-
icicms thereof and are of opinion there was no reversible error
in the rulings fif the Court thereon.

Ho other errors are complained of and the judgment must
be affirmed.

^im»i^^

y

/'

..-^

•eneral no, 633r«

'rank Adans*,

Appellee «

VS.

Jojaes Hogan#|

Appcll;yit,

October ^-erTn, A,D, 1914~ a ,.

Piled /ril 16, 1915-

} Apq^ol froa th« Circuit court of
SanfTtuQon county.

'.Ge-

iDREDOE, P.J. v--^ 1 9 3 I. A. 5 3 5

?hi« la an potion lb tre«pa«a for an assault and
battery alleged to hare been comiitted by appelifoit upon the par-
ton of appalleo, -sJilch reaultad In the ^oturing of bo^h of t^je
jawB of the latter. Tl^trlnl ^';'^"*<^»*^*P/;gs^ycrt, :or appellee
Hiefing hie rtarnar^Bw at #l,O0O^^^^S^''eF^5iQarr presentad In th«
i'gfuraent for appellantj first, that the verdict is contrary t.«
le ©vidence, and 8 eond, that he oti -t cr «d ■ - i-e giving and
-fusing of inetructione.

The controveray between the parties tool: place
in appellant* 8 oaloon in the fall of 1913,atout fire o'clocJc in the
arternoon. There were a nuQber of witneaBCB preoent who testis
led on the trial. The tentiraony of !,ho«e produced by appellant
iB in direct conflict with that of those produced -^ appellor. It
ae the prevince of the jury te reconcile the evidence and to
I paao upon the wol^t and credibility thereof. There is ouffi...^
I evidence to euntain the jud/?iaent, and the verdict having been sip*

oved by -^^ho t -lal court, this court oaimot reverse it on the ?^ound
f that it la contraiy ta the mnlfeat weight of the evidence.

There «aa aa reverelbla error in the inntructlana ,
.: .iud<Tracnt niuat therefore be affimcu,

A ;■•

^f^

I

//

^7 ■ r

GEHERAI UO, 6£60, OCTOBER TERM, 1914. / AGrilDA HO, 3.

Rehearing denied— Opinion raodiflefl. — 'JP^led
liay 26, 1915.

^THUR Ef. lERRERIRA/^^. )

>^Y HEXT gRIETO ETC*-^ -' j

Defendant in Error* )

_ vs. ) ERROR TO SAHft

(JSAAC R. DILIE^ )

PlMntlfTln Error.)

19 3 I'^- 5 51

SCHOLPIELD J. \.

This is aa aotlon on the oaee by tho dofeudant in._error
against the plaintiff in argoar to recover damages for personal in-
juries sustained by the dof ondant> la errar by being nm over by an

(J This* cajitse nas been tri<m three times^i
ond appeal to this court. The first trial regulted in a verdict in
fascoai-iifJUifl Jlef9ndflJit. in error for th« ira& <rf^ v^OOO; "which vipdlct
^vasujsfttaside by tho^trl&lr court and new tricuL- grsotedT^The sec-
^Bd trial-resulted in a verdict in favor of defendant in error for
tH© srmr^of $5000. Judgment was entered on this virdiot for the
defendant in error and against the plaintiff in error for the amount
"Of- the verdict and oosts^ and the case was appealled by the plaintiff
in^-erxor to this court and the judgment was reversed and oause re-
manded by this court on account of the damages awatded being eon'^

p^Bffi'P'*' ^bf> third -fcclal ramiltflA Iti a. irfljdlni: in f aVOT Of the

-defeadaat in-err©r f or the fnm-o*'^4000v upo^ which judgment wa«

entered and to reverse which ;j*ag^ent this writ of error l8"^ro-

fidouted. The faots in this case are folly stated in the opinion

of this court at the former hearing on appeal* (See Ferrerira v«

LiUer, 17^111. App. 447.)

The deelai-atlun uoiialHlgd"gf'iftvgnoourifrgi A plea of general

-j amie waw . filed tathe^ first and second counts and a deonirrer was <£u,'iJzUtirj

-#t±ed to the third, fourth and fifth counts.;/ The deBmrrer4W8

HWHitfl1nea-a& te ell three eormts and leave was given defendant ta-

■CJPV9» to amend said counts. He amended the third, and fouorth count s^,

by erasing certain lines and the fifth count by changing the word "or"

to "and"»-The enenineHtB were mnfle on the copy of the original-esBHrnd-

cd declaration and not on the original amended declaration. The copy

-1-

^r -•■ W:/'<^M

ae amended was then reflled and the plaintiff in error then filed the
plea of general iseme to the deolaration. Gtt-the-irriaL th© c<maFt «2:-
elttdedri*:e third eaid fourth ootmts and submitted the case 1;o the jury
(>n the firat^ q^QQtid. and fifth coimts Of the deelajfatten* The plain-
tiff in error ineiststhat as the fifth coxmt was held had on demur-
rer and was not anended and as the original amended declaration was
not refiled it was error for the court to submit that count to the
jury. Kilawas not error. Aft©r the amendment changing "or" to "and"
tr-mle was -entered against the plaintiff in error to plead. He made
ae-oh^j^otion. to the amencbnAnt but filed the plea of general issue and
prooeedeA 40- trieul. Earing filed the plea of general issue to the
entire declaration and haring made no request to exclude the count
from the JuagoHfee -etm^ not now raie» the question that error waajOLomm*

~Ttecirin that're^irdr'

Shore is no other guestionj^ of law in the case. It is pure-
ly a question of fact and three juries having found in favor of the
defendant in error we cannot weli;^ disregard the finding although
the court feels a preponderance of the evidence is for the plaintiff
in^rrtir, but it is not so clear that we oan^um it.

The evidence of all the disinterested witnesses tends to
show the boy is not nearly as badly injured as he thinks he is and as
soon as this suit is ended he will get well. Wo-feol however tho jud-
^iBfiat-, JJB. atill exooeeive and it will be reversed for that reason un-
le«»-the-ttefeBdajrt-4ja. error -wil;l"*Mit his judgment down to 4^2600, in

-which oaaethft. Judgment will. Jia„Af firmed ^or-that_ sum.

?~

IH THE
APPEUiATB COURT

OF THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS

OCTOBER TERLI» A. D. 1914.

ARTHUR 7/. FER3EIPJ.,
§y next friend, etc*.

Defendant in Error,
vs.
ISAAC R. DILIiER

Plaintiff in Error.

Error to the Circuit Court of
Sangamon County.

And now comes Arthur W. Ferreira, by hie next friend,
John H« Ferreira, defendant in Error and reiiiits the judgment of
the Circuit Court of Sangamon County, Illinois in the above
entitled oause down to Two Thousand Fiye Hundred Dollars.

($2,500^.

ARTHUR ;7. FERREIRA,

By his next friend, JOHII H.

S'ERREIRA.

By GRAHAM & GfRAHAM & JARRETT,
His Attorneys.

Gen, Ho, 6261, Oetobor 7e^, 19X4* Ag. Ho, {5X.

Filed April 16, 1915-
The People ©f the State of Illi *'
I)efandant in Error/

YB, i jr Error to Christ laa,

fotm McI)onal4.^ /•

19 3I.A. 553

Pl:dnliff /n arror-

Scholficldi J««

■■■..(

Plaintiff in error "U« corrvlcted on a»4"-6«vtntB of ,an
Indictsient oharfjinr: hin with a vlol&tioa, of the etatute prohibiting
the sale of intoxicating liquor outside the incorpprated lliaitt of
any city, to^^n or village| in less quantities than fira gallonOi
and not in the original. pacicaj[;e. "he inAistaaali ■^>Mmgsd tl>a plain*
^Aft in 0VV9V with the vialUitioa of the Act known as the "Sive Gall-
on Lav", Section 16 , Chapter 43, Page 1023, Kurds Hevised Statute ,
1^3. The plaintiffJJhr- eyw-iggved to ,q^ah the indictment and, l^btM.
eath o«mwt>.Ata#«'eefB Wts wettesiwas e^er:*-; led .awwL a ^9%mk was '

laa4-*e#aaMh-a»4ux3F~~«^iiaiv r««^

ttlff — ixL-.9JLxj:iX^&x!ilLi:$. j^ the

▼e«di«t->-la9F'-^^e-''«ei»^'->^e:ixija#.»tl34^ -jpitoin^lff

\-jaic..JCirat^leA.<.«bcamtAy^aKtd.4aiJL^^^^

|the"iBec6ni 'TjsjfJjanTn;^ at'^" tli^^ ciir '•ftir'-t^i8--'Tl:si8t-mrd-~c«^
ythe entire tiaiK af^ SOO^daya is eerirM out.

.Cavasel fer'thr-'^prgfgtttT^SjrTgri^ that

1?ed-~lii,..lM<JMUJuj6drv.Jji^^
txr-«afce--a--«t«i4w»«n*'"-'W«'- ij^-'-'-iiiie^ "evidence ,

l*--a^a-#iif»t" U£f?«d- lay -.pl»int4'<R^^

VmJLJnt^T^roTrcofr^"^-^--'-

Bach count of the indictment avers that in tlie Coimty

n
•f CJirietiaa the plaintiff in error, on, etc. not then and there

having a legal license to ke^p a dram shap , unlawfully did then

kand there sell intoxLcatinc liquor in less quanti lee than five

1

gallons, and not In the original package ae put up Isy the mauxofaA*
turers , the said place where said intoaicating liquors were sold
not being within tho incorporated limits of aiv city> town or vil-
lage, contrary" etc, A sonyAotisw sa aa '4ndityfe3BentHhr''tite^ eaaaot —
■1 anfpT ftfijffi nt^t h i n-Majsa. was ,,mistttiw<i>d-^TrTtiygda''Ti7"l>ao|2[e7'l^ *

T'le ppjnt (i)tilieaaiitsd to, hR rrndfj^XM that the tadictxaont is
double anu that it chorfjee plaintiff in arror V7ith keeping a draa
shop without a license and selling liquor contrary to the five
gallon act, f^nd for wliich different penalties are iai^osed* "tiis
' answey is that the yl>aantif#^-i»-eyg*Qy- -reread M'i^rmatEisd-thfkt-un-

JLaafi fhn ;fTTHlf '*-°"*"^ IciadA^^fr^mA fc>>«tf. pl^ylniii J^P. in fr-r-ay did nnt

ff^fttff^ till ^f f-^-n^^y Tyagq^B'f'*~>M'---''''^*f;<^*~*^^ f^y^^^ntf^ W

f {*,TAP*ir •'^»*<'^ «Km«>i«,fi«<^tijMi a A, ftf t>ft prftw <:aipp Ant^ T^'^'^J^"

«ny city ,V'iilaf^ ©r^towB, IPhS court^^^^p overruled .,iaa.€L„iagtio«

^JJ^ons_ and «e^jeaarjot P^.^Al^^-y%fK..A...Mf... .evidence that^ t|y|l..^.2idti|SMiiA
i^s^ excessive • , The jy-'-ffafn't irff-*hif^»^f^*»'y - aJEf Inaed*

A y !• I 1 M S D.

OESr:;RAL KO. C26S. 0CT0BI31 TETO.I, 1014/ AGENDA K' 0.

) /ilftd April 16, 191.^-

^^"^ PLAINTIFT^IN BRKOR. )

v. \ > ERROR TO TAZETTIL.

D?iF!?MI5AWT IN ERndll. ) X 1 9 J 1 . A. 5 5 5

SCnOLFIHLD, J. \

'gila ffaa an action of a^ssun-nslt brou^t by Wio plainLlfr, a real
estate broker against tho flerenrlnnt to reco-er a cocrilasion for 'rccwr-
Ing a purchaser for real estate under an allorrec! verbal contract. ^7$^'2<>^
TlTore wa5"^"a verdict and jud^aont for the defendant »j, i4» is eotjtt ended-
-fejf-tlie plaintiff that he waa employed by the defendant to ^^rocure a
purchaser for the defendant's farm; that ^ e Introduced Dotrlch to t^>e
defendant as a probable purchaspr of his farm, and that the deal Itavlnj;
been closed with rtotrloh Jbe is entitled to a comr.is.'jlon of ;)f5. per icre
ujhioh ho ololno wos promised hia by the defendant*

Tlie defendant contends that he did not coploy any agent and did Tiot
engage the servicers of the rlalntlff j that tl^.e riial?itiff did not act
for him and did not render him any service and wari not the ' rocurlng
cause of the trade on behalf of the defendant, but waa the agent ;wid
acted for Dotjpich^ in the tranaaction in question, and wao to receive Ms
coEiTionsatlcn frcra him. __, v

Wo tliiafc the cle tr i'^aaiPegf. tr'oir?;ht of the evidence shows thatM^ iu^ /
T)ot»4eh and the defendant were nor!;otiatlng for the escT^ange of tTieir
reopoctivo, farms before the plaintiff appeared on the scene at all, and

Ooti^eh ha<

that Dotmeh had made the sane offer to defendant before plaintiff clafco
hin contract was made ^^ith defendant. Tlio ffitnooseo Ilcwiror otttd •y^etiylch

!>e--gar. pwnplpyflfi by dfitf flTMlant. « — Th<i manHPegtr trolrtht CT'^Che' evidence

stiataina tTio dofonaant'a vcraAon of tli» Batter and l!ila~beln,^ tiiio
and the morito of the -eaee- being wtth-fyho defendant > toohiAoal en-oro in

reverse f Ford v*-£oi?ay -86? Ill* 041* T!w LahlgiB VaXIiSy^Tyagrsportation

f C©. Ts« Post sugar Co. 228 111. irJl. TIio Judgnent Is therefore affirrod.

*

t^"i

^/l^i-^-' 7

.'^■i- .

■■/^

/^ .

GEHiiRAI MO. 6£86. OCTOBiiK TJ-^HJ.!. 1914. # AGENDA HO. 17.

^^iled April 16, 1915-

PIR3T HAT I on AL BAHi OF ?AXTOH, ILL.

Appellee,

JAllEii H. bUKLl
LIHG. LEVI W.

SCHOLPIELD J.

JA:1ES H. bHELLING. PHAHCKii E. SHEL4
LIHG, lifVI Ik. HOOi).

v Appellants

VICTOR T. B^V^bbAHD,

APPlIAl FROM PORD.

193 I.A. 565

The oomplainants the First National Bank of Paxton, and
V. T. Braseard reepeotively and separately filed tholr bills
against the defendants in aid of executions issued on Judgments
which they had respectively and separately received against the
defendant James K. bnelling. By agreement in open court the two
suits were consolidated and heard as one case and but one decree
entered. The decree was in favor of the complainants and the
defendants Ja^es H. iinelline and Francis K. ijnellinc appealed.

On Uover.ber 18 » 1911, the appellee, the First national
Bank, exhibited its bill of oojnplaint, and on the E3rd day of
iJovember, 1911 appellee Brassard, exhibited his bill of conplaint;
both bills of complaint naned ^8 defendants James E. bnelling,
Frances ii. bnelling and Levi h.' i:ood. The allegations of the
two bills of complaint are the same with the exception of the
details of the two different and separate judginents therein re-
ferred to; and the answers are the same with like exceptions;
and therefore the substance of both bills and of the answers thereto
may be included in the one statement of tholr contents.

The bill of oomplalnant • 8 bank alleged that the First
national Bank, of "axton, recovered a Judgment on fiovetaber 10,
1911, In the Circuit Court of Fprd County againat appellant, James
H. bnelling for vl014.16; and tihat the same Judgment creditor
obtained another Judgment on tne same day against the same defend-
ant for ■;;;1800.54; that appellee Brassard, recovered judgment in

the Ford County Circuit Court
on Uovember 10, 1911, for f361

igalnst defendant, James H. bnelling
.3, and that J. U. Williams and G. V. ,

iitewart were also parties defeadant to said Judgment. That said

\
Judgments remained in full forjoe and effect and not satisfied in

\
whole or in part, That defendant James H. iinelling, then resided

in Ford County, and that on Worember lu, 1911, executions wore

issued upon all of said Judgmei^ts, placed in the hands of the

1

bheriff of Ford County, to be i^y bin executed, and all of them

\
were on the 15th day of Hovembey 1911, lovled by the bheriff of

Pord County upon real estate whi.ch it is averred had previously

been owned by defendant James HJ bnelling, to wit: The bouthwest

Ctuarter and the undivided one-h»lf of the boutheast Quarter of
Section Klevon (full legal descifiption stated in the bill) in

Ford County, Illinois. It is alleged that after the indebtedness
upon which said Judgments were ijendered had accrued, and prior
to the rendition of said Judgment, appellants made a conveyance
of said property to defendant i:9od, for pretended consideration
of (21 ,40 J; that said deed was filed for record in the office of
the Recorder of Ford County, bept ember 21, 1911. That after the
making and delivery of said deeds, said Kood (his wife Joining with
him) conveyed said land to appellant Frances E. ^snelling, for a
pretended consideration of '^-Zlj^OO.

It is alleged that said 'conveyanoee by appellants to Hood
and Rood's conveyance to appell^uit, Frances K. bnelling, were
merely shair.s and were made with; the intention of defrauding
appellees, and other creditors of James H. bnelling out of their
Just demands; that the recitals in each of said conveyances of the

oonelderatlon of *21,400 were made for the purpose of concealing
tho fraudulent purpose of the grantore in each of said conveyances
and that eaid conalderatiojn was not in fact paid between the
parties to said conveyance^; but that no consideration was paid
by Kood to appellants end :io consideration was paid by Prances K.
i>nelling to Kood. That said premises are now held by Frances a,
iinelling in trust for the said Janes \i, anelllng and for his
benefit, and for the pur poise of preventing a levy and sale of said
premises under and by virtue of the said executions in said bill
mentioned. J

!

That by means of eaid instruments. James H. bnelling
fraudulently attempted to put said lands out of the reach of his
creditors and of complainant , as one of his creditors; and by the
same means deprived himself of his property so that he is now a
man of no peotmiary rosponsibility and is possessed of little or
no property other than that so fraudulently conveyed by him as
aforesaid, and is in enbarassed circumstances and Involved in debt.
That James H. iinelllng; has no personal or real estate liable to
levy and sale except the aforesaid premises; and that although the
sheriff has demanded of James H. iinelllng that ho pay the amoiints
due upon said Judgments or turn over the property upon which the
Sheriff made a levy, James K. Snelllng has refused to pay same or
turn out property and fraudulently insists that he has neither
money nor property to satisfy |the same.

The prayer for relief is that said conveyances be set aside,
vacated and declared null and void. Jhat the complainant be per-
mitted to cause to be paid by the iiherlff the amount of said two
judgments. Interest thereon and costs by sale of said premises,
under said execution, or upon other executions to be issued upon
said Judgments and general prayer for relief.

The defendant Hood defaulted and the defendants James H.

Snolling and {"ranoee K. anoll|.ng filed an answer admitting the
recovery of Judgments and issijiance of executions thereupon as

alleged in the bllle of complaint, and the levy hy the Sheriff of
Pord County tuider eaid executions upon the land "bought in this pro-
ceeding to be subjected tOfthe payraent of eaid executions.

i
They admit the contoyancos of aaid land on the days alleged

in the bill of complaint by appellants to Levi ^' . xvood and by
Levi iV. Rood to appellant, JTrances K. bnelling,. DefendantB deny
that said conveyances either of them were executed v/ith fraudulent
Intent or for a fraudulent jj^urpose; but on the contrary aver that
said conveyances were made for the purpose of paying to defendant

'ranees E, cinellinf:, by means of a conveyance of said land, an
indebtedness which was then owing to Frances K. bnelling by James
H. bnelling amounting to '21,400 and upwards. That said premises
were then occupied by James a. bnellinp and Frances E. tjnelling
his wife, as their home and dwelling place in consequence of which
a homestead estate existed which could not be conveyed nor ex-
tinguished by a deed of one of said parties to the other, and that,
for the purpose of more effectually transferring said property and
particularly for extinguishing said homestead, said property was
conveyed to Levi V, . itood and by hit; to appellant Prances i^. knelling.
That said Hood paid nothing upon the transfer of said land to hiirj
and received nothing upon th>9 transfer thereof by him to appellant,
Frances E. bnelling.

Appellants deny thal^ said conveyances were without con-
sideration and deny that thay were without adequate consideration,
but aver that the consideration for both deeds was the same, to wit,
the extinguishment of the indebtedness due at the time of the date
of the first deed and for many years theretofore from James H.
tinelling to Frances E. bnelling, and the extinguishment of said
indebtedness was the consideration upon which said transaction
was based. That said indebtedness originated as follows: appellant
Frances E. Linellin^ is the daughter of the late Enoch bpradling,

j
who died where he had reside<^ for many years, in La Oalle County,

Illinois, possessed of a large estate, consisting of personal

property and farm land; that tliie share of Francea K. Snolllng In

Bald personal property was Jive Thousand Jalx Huiidred ijollara or

thereabouts, which i'ranoes ii. iinelling received during 2iay, 18B5,

that durlnp the year 1804, Janr.es H. bnelling borrowed from ii'ranceB

E. Snelllng Jb'our Thousand ^ix Hundred Dollars; and in 1887 James

fl. i>nelling borrowed from i^ranoes K. bnelling the balance of the

i
aforesaid amoimt of her distrilbutive share in her father's estate.

That in the latter part of lyu or the early part of 1911, a
division took place between Ifranoes Ji, bnelling and the other
surviving children of her father of the lands held in oonirnon by
all of said children which had descended to them from the father
of iPrances iJ, bnelling, and that as the result of said distribution,
Frances S. iinelling received Four Thousand Light Hundred I/Ollars,
of which she loaned to Jaraes H. bnelling at that time, Kight
Himdred Dollars, and in ::aroh 1911, she loaned him One Thousand
Dollars more. Tliat during the months of bept ember, 1911, James H.
Snelllnf euid JTrances ii. i>nelllng had an accounting of said moneys
loaned as aforesaid and ascertained that thoro was then due from
the defendant James H. bnelling, to Jj'ranoes ii. bnelling, as prin-
cipal and interest, tha sum of Twenty- four Thousand Two Hundred and
ninety five Dollars. That the land so conveyed by James il. bnel-
ling to Frances K. bnelling in payment of said indebtedness was
then subject to a mortgage of twenty Thousand Dollare, which is
still unpaid and constitutes a lien upon said land. Frances K.
bnelling thereupon agreed to take the equity of James H. bnelling
in said property in full release, satisfaction and discharge of
such indebtedness due from James il. bnelling to her to which James
il. bnelling agreed; and thereupon the deed hereinbefore mentioned
from appellants to Levi V.. Eoodlwas executed, but that, owing to

the absence from her home of th$ wife of lev! ». Hood, the deed

1
from Levi v.. .dood and wife to ai^j^ellant Frances E. t>nelling was not

executed until her return some d^ys later. That upon the execution

and delivery of said two deeds a^ part of the transaction, the

sane was accepted by appellant Frances E. bnelling, as full release
and discharge on her part of the defendant, James R, isnelllng^ of
his indebtednosB to her.

Deny that said conveyances , or either of then, were shams
or that they were made with 'the intention of defrauding complainant
or any creditors of James HJ jbnelling out of the Just demand or
demands of complainant or ar^y creditor; but aver that said deeds
were made in good faith for a bona fide consideration as above
set forth; and aver that a full and adequate consideration therefor
existed as above set forth.

Deny that said premises are helvi by Frances i::. bnelling in
trust for James H. onolling ^r for his use and benefit or for the
purpose of preventing a levy land sale of eaid premises; or that

either of said conveyances w^ro made with a fraudulent intent to

I
put said lands out of the re^qh of the creditors of James H. k>nel-

ling. i '

Deny that by said conveyance, James H. iinelling deprived
himself of hie property so as to constitute him a man of no
pecuniary responsibility, and deny that he is or was possessed of
little or no property after the making of said conveyance. x)eny
that James H. iinelling has no personal or real estate liable to
levy or execution other than the premises above mentioned, but
admit and aver that said premises are not subject to execution upon
judgTTient against defendant Janes H, bnelllng. Dexiy that James li,
iinelling has insisted, either fraudulently or otherwise, that he
has neither money nor property to satisfy said executions, but
admit that he has refused to pay said executions.

fly foeatoent-^o their answer to the Brussard bill o»4y-,
ftppelleat.e-aver that the notes <n which complainant recovered judg-
ment against i^jnelling, V. illiams . nd t)tev,'art, were void and without

consideration as against James H. knelling. That sfik4d bnelling
signed /«»44 notes merely as ao ace imodation paper and that the real
makers thereof were V. illiams and Stewart; that bnelllng was by

fraud and mlBrepreeentatlon Induced by V. llliamB and btewart to sign
the same, upon the fraudulent representation made by them to said
Snelllng that there was a mortgage of Twelve Thousand ijollars upon
the property which Snelllng had purchased or traded for in Chicago,
whereas in truth, there was only a nortfa£;e of II Inc 'thousand Dollars
on said property, and onelling sif^nod said notes with the under-
standinc and agreement that there was a Twelve Thousand Ijollar
mortgage on said property; that said atewart and i. illiams and one
Jeeee M. Brown sold to Braseard the notes in question, and aver
that Brassard was inforr.ed and well knew at the tine of the purchase
of eald notes that Snelling had signed same without any considera-
tion; and in consequence thereof, appellee, Brassard required the
said JesBe M. Brown to e:uarantee the note "by endorsement thereon
before Brassard would or did purchase the same. :T<»pa AoatinmR-jgAra-.

to taXy ana report proof to the court.

I^„.t^a..^yged by appellants/ that the evidence does not sus-
tain the allegations of the bill and do not warrant the finding in
the decree. The evidence shows that the appellant Barnes H. bnelling

is a farmer. -44e--o«dr^the- appellant- i^rancesK.-bnelllng were married
i2i-lil72_^.J,n.La SalXa.C In 1077 hBalliag boiifrht the bouth-

west quarter of Section Ellfve« in Township Tstenty-foAHr liorth. Range
"Ittne East of the Third Principal Meridian, in i'ord bounty, for
Forty-three Hundred jjollars. The first payment on the land was
Two Thousand Dollars, which he borrowed from his father. ^-Pfsef /v'^"
-«*v^d_J;a_JLo^4-XUuiai5L-iiJQ'-tM*--^^ In October 18 'i5,

iinelling and his wife bought the boutheast quarter of the same sec-
tion, talcing title thereto in their Joint names, and entered into
the possession and enjoyment of the same, as tenants in common.
The quarter section bought by Snelling, and bnelling's undivided
one-half of this quarter section so jointly purchased, ie the land

here in the controversy. The purchase price of this last quarter

'4ry

section was yifty-flve Hundred -j;>o^llfty&-i-wM-c-h was paid in iRKGrtl.
€fee money *o— pttre^^«f^"•4h^«-<f1MH^fc■e^r "cane from the inoome of the
S. v.. 1/4 of i;eotion llvtlTr-TtTEt farm We "Bought^' %e worked
— for i4-f'roB^ the- -crther quarter . "

On September ^ 188ti, appellaftt Francee K. Snellin^j deeded
certain land in La iialle County which she had receiver from her
father's estate and for which she realized oix Thousand iiollars.
This money was put into bank and was drav,n out as needed, part for
bnildlne, part in paying off mortgages ana the remainder for im-
provements and other things. The record does not disclose that the
money was loaned by irs. tinelling to Mr. anelling. Ho note was
given for it, by iinelllng to his wife; no mention was made that
its use created an indebtedness from him to her; no book entry was
made of the scune by either as a credit or a debit; no promise was
made to repay it or request made for its repayment: no interest on
it wao ever mentioned; no accounting relative to it was ever had
between the parties, until the twenty-eight years after its use,
when they rr.et at the house of their mra.tual friend liood, in La balle
County, accompanied by the attorney employed by onelllng at the
suggestion of Kood, and whose employment was expressly for the
purpose of aiding onelling to extricate himself from his financial
entanglement resulting from an unfortunate trade for incumbered
Chicago flat property. ->n February 20th, 1908, iinelllng and wife,
and each in his and her ri^jr.t, and as husband anu wife, mortgaged
the whole half section for Twenty Thousand jl)o liars at six per cent
Interest payable semi-annually, and evidenced by one principal note
of Twenty Thousand iiollars, and ten interest notes of iiix Hundred
Dollars each, signed by both.

About Jiaroh 1st, 1910, Rood paid Mrs. onelllng Forty-eight
Hundred Seventy-two Dollars which was her portion of the final dis-
tribution of her father's estate realized from a sale to iiood of
what remained from the father's real estate. It was not loaned by
her to her husband. Eighteen Hundred and iieventy-two Dollars of

it was spent on the farm at different times; part for taxes and
part in paying interest on tie Twenty Thousand dollar mortgaBe
and in putting iriprovcKents on the faro.

^^fee law-l-s-wlV €»Vtlfid that a wife may loan her separate
^fua:xp»^t^-4r&^-h»T fe«eband; a«d h« can plre her seouTlty which will
■^ hlnrilag »goiiiO'%Hyrttr"pri:»g -and aubsequent oreditora; but the
law ift_fiqually^ wall ^atabltehed that the mere fact 4f the wife
~l«^irliT:g'''tire"Bu8"Ban^ TiftTB h^r-^i^ to u»e ie aat sufficient as
a ga ins t-^tfeffr"Grgdli;or»< — -Th.a .actual -ooatraet or relat ion must
appe^iy ^y set isfaotory evidence, uheji the rights of creditors are
lELY-OlTad, the law will in)t-,f4FOCi mare delivery by bar af money to
,-Wr» imply.- A^promiaa to repay her, but will require more, either
an expregis proriije, or circiimstance*^ t«~j^ov€--4hat--i»-»aciL.jaatter
tJie husband and wife dealt with eabh other BB^~d«btor-an4 creditor.
-fcMle It la trua in this oa8e,JU»l--tiie^^^-^ ■'pas used

_l>3F-"t^ hueband, still there is no evidence of any kind that he was
t»- y«pay~4»er"inrttI'TIf''gg'lr"tB -fcilittg el rcuinatanoee . It i& next
xuf6«i-tiiat-JJiB--^jMA««cv doiB^ ntt^t^ 81^ were innocent

-ipurchaeers. Ve thln}ri*:«r evidence "fully ehows that th«y. purchased
-*fe«™jao±fla. .In- good f ai tfe mnd for mn Hone st e0TRSl derat ion . ■ i^ir think
the evidence, fully »*rraBt«'4h«^d«er#e^ra*^'"*l^^
deora« wllT" be' affirmed .

Affira^ed.

GESl^nAL HO. 0287.

ocToann rms-^i, 1014

BomunLEW J,

.R. T J : .'^> !' r * 1 ^^^''^ '

AorsmA HO, ■'

Filed ipril 16, 1915-

9 3I.A. 569

X

TMktt <^a an aetloo In ease by n " ; I'Ul !t m" a^yalpgt ap?iea*««4!i- to

/\

s»oeo7or danaow for tfte alleged vroi^^l ifleatti of S«HtRfiM»4-<«ii;a«sa*
Mlaiiij,Hr> aT»i>ollO0»9 Intestato* 'itiere-vmt a reraiet txnO. judir, o:Tt
for a»n>oii0e jtgpalmt ji.|^piiyllaiil for $50<>,'-o- i/rr-io nee?^i4irHbfflfr--'«*m«,
■Hiir±n0'*'"'T^"m'»''-5rTinttr> "Ije fiyot eotmt-cjra-rgedr — fejjet^-^^u^ defendant
carelessly oaidl iioj?:J4s©ntly fallefirfo u»o roasenable car© to have
it a risJit-of-way ftt a»a nem* the eoat -^Ide of' -^tArvey tfoot "^co
and clear frcw buahest brush, woede and < ther naterlas "^i ' c *s»e3^*ii;i-
ly milt nogliijontly pemitttMflieary c^onoe "biisliors or brua'^ of r--<i«-»^*tTi

a help:ht of six to ton feet to pNwr

fi-4iIio north 3ltIo of

"4f>e-east -isislo. of* -::.:,/,rrsi7 ':t3?xW5>4.->--e?kst^^uK!
■ j8£^aBii--4*l-i3^^ rlth an<1 obstCTJctckT

fy vie- ''f >ii4--"' rir:?it-^"ir--^/.iy ■^^y pornona travolins nonf^-.-'^r*'' unon
T:ii,',; " -irvoy Street HMt eaM ffuf!ir> '

THa nf>/>nTi/> 1^ry^^^ \^\%t(S- coimta c^xa.T^&iil that the clef oril ant
violated an ordinance el* t}ie Oity-&f-<?yba«» by virtue of which it
operated its railtray through 9«id city hy wilfully failing to con-
struct or naintain any sidewalk crossing at its said right-of-way
at litti'Tgy Street in «aid:-6iljy. And hy constructing and Eaintain-
ing its said tracks at the crossing of Harvey Street higher and
above the surface of «3ird street, t«^~a height— of t<>-witr 10, xnchGij.

The f ourth—o^ant^-obarged ^that the defendant negligently ran
its car at a hi^ and dangerous rate of speed across Harvoy Street.
it was also -^harged-J-n^aacIi-^ottH^-of" the deciaratlott ttifart'tlie "doceas -
edatthg„Jii£2fi^aaad.-4us t-b^foiie he receirvea "tris'^ln Jury f roui rhieh

...4eaSJbuJBas«l*ed> iras l!ff''t^^
own safety.

-It ia the principal contention of appellant ^^ that the deceased
at t^e time of the accident was guilty of contributory negligence
in not using due care and caution for his own safety. Tlic evidence
shows Harvey Street ztwas north and south across the railw^ay tracks
.aad-.ia rhat is known as a h11nd streafc.. ending a»t di^politt about two
hundred feet south ef the ra44wa^ trqyslfs. ^he- ©res^±W5--ist in a ^,

ulcus territory^ Thft.. firat qtrfi<g^,_east and parallel with Harvey
StreBtr'^S'""@T)t>dwln--Av^«*»e*- «Am^ Ctroet

ftaad MMT^i^-f y^g.|»»,a«^i^:^>.^„-4i3^ . fhe appellant o^vns

; a private right-of-way forty feet wide running east and west and cross-

; 2.

xiit; tlieae streetal at rigjit angles. -Tlicre . . is..>a...-4iouble^-^>JPft^-«n
Ihis vln^il or wa^/ 155TappelTg3yt"typei!'a4«d^±tg^..caga...Qa..^^^ at

-^l%e--4>iffie~e#~tl»«--aec±iient-T---At-'tb©-~^^ were

T!?ti lii!iutiOj»-Qii the west sld£LJD£L,.HaJCT,ecg^Ja;eet--gott«u4>g.^tJ*e--i^
traqlfiB anfl ff^^^i^ n«- <^h<^>^«>««* *h^**. Tlio only means of exit for the
people living south of the railway tracks tras to go north on Harvey
Street across the tracks. -?lw-f±r»t 15 tT»eet north of the railrray
t»«wte«>~<m*~i'*afmii^-^araiiei™ tirerwrrl-

jisxt^-^i^i-eai luiPXfnsr'this i?t'6y^etytiT^iT^n*vey-"Sint'ggTrTrT^ .

lUi tiT'r rnlri-fvf thff iTtornfifitlmn of Hnrvfty aw^ y^^^It^t ^^^n vmF "I'^p:'^;*- ly
nm Ihwebt LUiA !jntttTT5S§T. Tlierc was a hrick sidewalk along the east
side of Ekw^Fey Street north of the railway tracks which estcndecl -sewth
vf&rrL to g ■.point>"90iiie'irhere -l>c iweeii the dePendemt-s track and- -t-hg' "north

1 iiUft fif •" " " ' r'** "^"^'^ V • — Tliero was a cinder walk south of the

jaai^wfgy tracks on the east side of Harvey Street. There trere some
trees, shuhbery and weeds along the north side of the appollan*-^ 8"-~.
right -of -Vi'ay which "began about ton feet east of tho east side of

Hai rg^ Street,. The, evidenee toiMlctl ta..8h<»w-tJ.^tJidieiu-a-4>«gg««->wa6^-coir-

44*5-'-&«utl3UJm-ilai:xe5L.Sixeet ,theae-.^,to obstructed mm view

.0 that he could not see anything to the east for about fifty feet
north of the track, that the trees all stood south of or liamediately
on the right-of-\7ay line and most all of the shrubbery and weeds be-
tween the trees xrere on the appellant's right -of --ray and that branches of

3.

all of the trees extended over the lire about six feet. The wagon
crossing gA) U&vroy Otree»t was ooaotiniefied of boards about sixteen feet
long, three inches thick and ten inches -ride, bringing the level of
the crossing even with the top of the rails. One of these planks
had been laid on the outside of the north rail of the north track, -
and the action of vehicles in going off this plank in the wagon cross-
ing had worn a hole or depression in the crossing at that point about
the TTidth of an ordinary vehicle and from four to six feet north and
south. (P];ij evi'Ienmo yhoya ..ttiaifr-^tyhepe-iras a space at either end of the
cDossing three or four feet in width, where the crossing T:as practically
level . Tlie grade of the tracks was about two feet above the surface
of the sidewalk and the street j that a briok—ej^^pftlk" oat ended «etttli on
Rarv^5!LjjJU2e©t-*e--arT»o±nt-~w±1M^

up b3r tJinders^^-frflH -t lie plaoe^-^fhere- the- einders began *?^ th-^ track the

p.inf>ftT«»-,a±oppe^|^ with a grade of about two^ feeti Irat 'dia'lfy^t'' rdach the
Ifoignt" 'b'f~^£^"ra3.T"B}it r ea^ied-approxiHiately ti^ tops, of . tjje.^ iy.js so
that Jthe. ralL -atood -f±v:eL„SXiSijbiMB..,ja2ba3f&-^^^ and

^z:e"'6ieh. Witnesses for appellant testified that the speed of t'e
car was from ten to twelve miles an hour while witnesses for appellee
testified that the speed of the car was fron twenty t' thirty miles an
hour. Decedent came wo s t. ■ sn^-^ b1.eye^e"-en-^5pr JigTlgW '3iy\inug -JTO-ff arvey
S tpe»fe -antUfelaea-^tm'iiua sCTOCfriBriTayygy^'g^egt , as he approachel the right

of way ^n nnglftd t.n ttifi BftiitTiwff^gtr-Hn attemptwig to cross the road cross-

4.

Ing' of HaiToy ^ltrgcft» trfeoB Jso ntmek tho erossing; ^'C turnol h±a
td.:oyclo north artS juat then the ear hit hiia*

Vfo think the ©rl^ojujo fully

esttihllsh^a aogligonc^y at>pollaTit.

It was its duty to siedxitain its gjpaAo at its hl^^iht^ay oroanlrif: as ^ro«

!

viilod in tho oralnaneo. It Is n6t donled that it ftiilcd to do stu
Tho eTide3ic« shova t!3at it allowed to cociat at said erosisiag a tl0«tp
dop$»ot»3ioit sis or nevea feet ride and an long north and south v^iltlh
was a r>udd«n Jutap off froK tho x»3-ai5& north of tho lino ©l|»Jit or ton
inohos di»o|»* At the tlia© of tho Injury the dleooasocl rode up th©
aaglini; imth from tho end of tho ^idovolk to stnii:e tho one spot
where a erossif^ oould he emcle* ^©oosaarily |>rior to that ticj© he
ocmld not see the core eoedag ancll when ho lo<^i:ed ho OTidontly (lid not
eoe the ears* As »oen aa he tiini|»cl to tho west tho oars t?ero to hits
haok» and he hai to ijlre hla attohti n to the guiding ef ?^ie wheol up
the ippade to the south <md weet dmd oould not look to tho onot* .''a;n~
ifostly tho heavy foliage nnd the trooo antl the noioeo of the pop'Jlf^s
distriet pr<E)ronto«i Mm fr<n hoarii'^ the apryroaoh of tlio car;? or t^cir
sif^inals* Unflor tho t03ti£30ny of the notonsan, ao ooon an aoco^ao- ^liil
hoar the ears ho turned to the riglJt in an attcaapt to got off of t!ic
track and the i30t(a<nia& thoui^t hp was oafo» waa off the traok» anl re-
leased hie hralees and suddenly decaase^t arat hla ^heel woro t^romi
towards the ear, so that the deceased evidently loot control of hia

>3l and eould not Zceop it to the ris^^t. Ijoro is no otTier e:spla-

I

ig at said point irhero tlio ^coaaotl tttmea to tho irlf^it In an attompt

I

to get o^f tlie rljr*,,'^ . ■"'«*' +.?>;»?• -'■'■.■-♦■m f|0 gin!?^'^ ^»"''^ '-■'■>rx-.T i-.*..

tch doprosslon he aba :l«tely loat control of It, wao tlannm so that

1
i^ Qstr "tmek hici and threw iilia to tho no3*tInreBt and T-llleci ' ' • "^^^

I jwry under tho oriclotico in this ctase had a rl^ht to believe iliat the
tLmfSfona eosi^ltirm nf tJ-sifs drossrsinr' rrovonteS the Seootis^"' fTfira savlr^

l3 life aftor ho disooTorod; tho approach of tljc c-j,pa» "0 boliovo
tliat tl:o 0±:1 -1 ■O'^li-^swcG ■::si t*:!e •^-- a-rf. of ;\r;-'--:-»'5"! mt

i in taaliit. lining a dangerous oroesing* iltJO ^- e decoaood

at the time and jiist ?)oforo Jho rocelTO'l Tiin ,, .-^ .^ .-• ■<;!?

. resulted was In tho exorelsq of Ouo earo ai*! eotitlon for hia mm safety
W.3 a >-?ii«3tlon of fact for the Jury awtl only 'b^ammn one o? Irw-r --i^^^^re
tho WBH^Qputod criaenco cstabllsljcd t'^at th© injury rofjuites-i vom. tlio
nc?*lif^oneQ of the injured T^arty* If there may h© a aiffoj*'5t3e'> of
opinicm on the q|iK>stioii «o that roosoiiable olnd trill ^•vx'i<^ at, dif-

f fer nt conclusions then it Ig a qtt0f5tion of fact for tho jury* nr icT.~o

City Railway Co. re. Nelson, 215 ill. 433. 'fli© ordinancoss were rvov

orly admitted in erldenee» Cohrswl v. SrrlJM^flold Hy. Co. S40 ill. 1 '.

Finding no r€nr©rsibio erwor in the record the judstaont la

affipoed.

Affinaed.

aeneral Ho. 6391.

\.

Piled April

\
John H, Fought, \

\
Appipllee,

\

Jos • Schlitz Brewln^-^Co.

Appell:.nt.

Scholfield, J,

ih 6 /

October Term, «»14.

1915,

Agenda No. 21.

ppeal from Shelby.

193I.A. 572

John H. Fou2ht, the appellee recovered a jud^nment

for $1000. against Joa. Schlitz Brewing Co., the appellant, for

beer
f . ilure and refusal of appellant to deliver./to appellee under

a certain oontraot^ f'^ '^'^ ^ cL:^c.U^L<^l^^--d* ■

T^«--«ontswsr1r«^i^-^TT^^^ into Nov,

17tJw, 1904, and by the terms tfaer^ef the appellee agreed to
handle exclusively the beers of appellojat In Shelby Coxinty, -Hrl-
-iao4«* for a period of five years fajoia d'to. Appellant aggood to
loan appellee a beer wa-gon to be used by him in his beer business,
and to fvTth^r allow him five dollars for oold storage of each
car load of beer hc-ndled by appellee under the contract |. dxrrtng
the-tenrr-Appeiitmt agreeing to deliver certein brands of draught
ajid^bojdJft >isey--^to appellee, free on bosrd oaTs at Shelbyville
l"litinois-,thB- price of keg beer to be-five- dollars "sud" seventy
fivo oontf^-per- bnrr^lr^"and--the.bot.tled-te«er to be^^^^ t^
■ind 8»yenty f Ive centB^)er «ase, with a reb&te- to-«5>pellee of
40, 30y 30 oent-8-foT bottltrg-?iid-gasgl' re turned ,'^ap'pell5^^ to
psy return freight on empties.

In May, 1906, the city Council of the City of Shelby-
villerefused to grant lioensarfor the aale of intoxicating or
mi It liquors in the oity ef Oholbyvillc for the municipal year
Tpffglniitng en th' t date oind ending May 1907. At fe that time the
appellee had on hand fifty-two hrlf barrels of draught "bQexJjfUcA-
JW.S he shipped hack to appellant and nae CTedited with its
value on hia account. In Auguot 1906 appellant rendered ap-
pellee a bill covering their previous tr-Jisactions showing a

b; lanoe due to appellant of seventy-two cents. Tfei«k-«aovu*t ap-
pellee paid. In May 1907 the city Couniel »^:~^ke-o4ty pi Shgltiy^-
v41Xe — s.gAfaft granted license for the Sci-le of intoxicating and
malt liquors i»-th#"0it7-^-ShelbyTille for the municip 1 year
boglnniag...oa that daf-'gittd ending Itey 1908* Appellees then made
a demand on appellant for beer under their oontrsot and appell-
ant refused to let them have any, sayfeg^tnat thoy ■■ eondidered
the contract was terminated when the city cotuici^ refused to
grant license in May 1906^ The appellee then brought ^st*» suit
after the contract had expired by lapse of time.

The deelaravloii'^gottglisted-iyf two speelaJiO^Hmts- based
nr\ tha£i£>n4i»fte%--nTtrt 'ttts' tsjimmriTi counts consolidated, fhe- pleas
«««e-^he general lasuCjond that the contract had been forfeited,^
terminated, and abandoned,^ .m^^u " pl^g~ef-s»t--^^^- • Appellgatt-
h{i>g not r.-idoed--Ttny"Trn:e-gtiiDii--fri:th«g"--b3^-d.ea^
ftsxfi.at4ua*t4«s44ag--.ths^jBu^lld4ty "^f -^

t«-«sxiiu-^.iUdeMonal>l^-whe titer thereH^ mutuali^ty in it •
Joi4^H!-^otir2:±«gHff«NE«™¥»"-J^li^t '0i tiaens Brew^^ 111 .

App. 400 4 IlisboQ va ..-ftwt-r3«r^barA 384. Alt-:gppeanyer-g:greed

do
1 0^s-Tryfc--to--eeii--ajrr «th~d1«^Mr 'SSr^

^J]^[^g£._lhA-^on4a::ao4;-4»^'^3<>uld-n©t * tp have

bought cmy boog o#°ctppgIIcl[f .

We think- tcfi_...fi3cMeaae,..^>dmlt.tM.hy^.the..-aougt..^

infip.Burp. of dmnt^gfifl wan Jjapsopflx^ ll...ths-App©Xlee wars -entitled

tt) rooover on tfee--eontraot -tbe^ti -the-daiPages would be what he

h.d to pc».y tg"D"ther" parties to get -laaar,,oi! the saa«-^tts»llty

more thaa--M-a~<?ontraot~pglo» with .appellant .His...lQa9 . Q f pro f 1 1 s

and-jaj^jfiXLsjsa. la putting.. uji-.ioe-had -nothii^g ta 4©-with tlbe

damaga4>^~-£4r- was hig-duty-to-ge-eut" and -buy be«r-oXJtha. kind:

aAd...«^*»3^4ty -he^ had contracted fas^ and., the o^jQess he had. to pay

wni^^d hfl tVift mfta.mirA...i^<'~4-t4^»r-r^=mr».ga«y- -Tha ma j ortty'iyr the COUrt

are-nir-thg oplhibtt ' that thei dontraot wa*^* tenainatedrby^ppell-
I EUil irr May- 19t?6 when the city Council refused to grant lioenae
beoauos th4a--.s>PpeJble»-d44"-not,-.xa:d^u^,-ac-..b\iy a.ny-ba^j-of appell.:;jit
-for-that yotMf-ead »yde a-full sett lement-'^rtTr'-T^Tpsllant ' paying
vJULJL.-bal«baGe dug tty and that-M^s-^Anduot- shoga that ha -oonaidi»

ored thft nontrrrr'nt cloaedv— -Judge Thompeon, tipwaver, aoea nox
agi^e-« itir-bfel« last propoai t i on .

For thg ^Ty^T*^ tn^4-ft-a.^*>^ the 5udgiaeAt--wiii- bo sevear^ed with
a -finding -e^-igfeet- tfaat ht« oontraot wav t«rminr.tod" tsy tli«r ac*
Jjlsma Qf-appellae-ln May 1906 .

October Term, 1914

^ >

■■'/

Agenda ifo, S4-

■ppeal from Tazewell,

193I.A. 574

Gen, Fo, 6295,

Etta A, Gerdes,

Appelle.e.,

\

vs, ■

Samuel Nlemeyer,

Appellant,

Scholfield, J,

UUMyc^ IStta A, Gerdes a jnar ied woman fej::ought cult in the

Gxxxjuit Gow-ct' of ■ -?azewttll— C'euaty^ against Samuel Hiemeyer for

■board,
Eight.

jalt-uiag^j?xed-.i;^«3Pd«»| the huslsand of appellee to testif^^'^'lien he
t^eeM-^i^d in tJhief it was allowed on the grotmd that he was act-
Ing an aflffnt for h*«--^wJb'#«v^''''^ghi-»-e^id««o« ims air^ that he pre-

sented the hill for hoard to appellant for his w4fe^ and that appel-
lant refused to pay it. gho Bvlden-e»--i»aj»-wholILy.--JliBaat-&^:4aar-to
the i eauee in-^bh^ -cgfcge and ^ould work n« hara even, lf,..-inc.ajapetaat
However -we- t}iink the -evi-d^enefr-adalttedHay- the -eotiBHi - ©n that que 8»
tAen wa-e~compgtient , He- wOiB~-ag-a4a- placed e»- the~«*a«d-*«'>~'«tieRtjLf7

, lodging and washing, aw^ recover »d a, Jud/^ent an^ainot-hAm for
-one DollOT*»^ It ie #fe»-grt»--^»Tgi8dr''imt--^he 4wgt"-ai^3?<4 -j^'-per-

#1 cU~^\ fLiiV^h'4
in ?

ebut tal niadi '■ rr» vh(i) ■' ■ff'^ i ttn -inaa iinfie, T,ist,.a..ajftj!im-l-^«t i^ther' ground
of his incompetency and he was thoroughly cross-examined hy ap-
p ell aat . -'"^ nhjPintilcTv h^'^^'^^c "'^'»*'" "'"^*'- ^^-^ tvinf- t.-ima «.» t.A t.iij s
e^a^fs^et ency"iir'XTnr'crt"i3e"ra±^Bed-'~HOw.~ijtfc.*th4 Gi ty- »f Ghi cago

vis»-4l^>ga»^-8e--S3*s™^p*""54^V '^ 1S9 III", "46, B'eil v s ,

-I4Mtir~ti«act -"uapged- 4»ha* the ee-upt'-eTT'ed- in aOi-t-giving
apppl I ant 'j^Jjiatjni&tljana.,X>aaA->-><^,-'" Appellant's refused instruct i on
-3 — i»~8ubetanti«arly" the- Baffl«-a«- appel ant's given 't»8'truetio»~No,
-^ — The jury were ftiaA3MbiwHyy»e^ed--e;e" t^'"tehe--law"hy' pppellant* s
^fi*#»-4»etxuc.ti.oaJto*--%-Andr--^ court

t'fr repeat Itr tn»ta*ue»t4B-Jfin--eni(Bi:g |rf ope -ly ' r e fu'g«<r~ "Itr'^dtJes-'-iK) t
state fcH'cerreet principM oT law,' " Tt iiiras not necessary in order
f or, ,appeAiareA>;.t o mitatiaiwi "te«j^ «tti4- that appellant had knowledge :&hiat>^

with IMf)T»ellMI»^ Aai thati,-la..Bnn«Micmry <tt ».>^iiLf . ..A|t^ . j^^gl|iy^„^| g^^^^y,*,,

*«i« — '™""° '" ' " '^--*n •• iflmiiiiig tiln iimt iiiiiiiiiirtmji^ TlWlii iibulI
4 MM 1 flii wifiA«nm» rmm fnHit^im^' mA-^'t'-mm''t9m"'P'm^irm^ of

ly d,l«rtfHr«raJ ^Tf ^innftit, j* amrajjiit oiaattHtttiv-mintd -the- r«i(»r4'"Aotta Eot

■rant t.Tifl ■igra^uUag.jaiUfc.aMttr^.trtia, MiMt ^v--»-:lwi«a ■di«>tnroyee- glne<

^ieneral No. G303.

Fileyipril 16, 1915-

!!'»^^^''-"19 3I.A. 575

^

/ -'- 1'

rTr 3/^iQXa, J.

,/i4/l

l^om rt judfioont of $6«0OQv90

4*''^ '^^y'fiT'Pfil 1 Pf; '^fi'^'-^rirt Tiin>iriTiajt.f fcr th© all©?^il allciia

tion c-r '•-■^'* ''•o,.;v..,-i,i» - -xfr'-^f-f.

V

^^ C ijJU<^ JcLujfj

^!?o iloclaration coni^istctl of thro© oounto. Tho

count
flrat ..-,-■-.•> ^^ that d0^nn''»'t contriving and wic; O'lly

intcntUng tc injure the x^aintiff and to deprive Tior of tlie
.iff <"t-'. -I- ocioty. aid, lasalot 'vif.f: ^nd coiafort '-^ '^■F»/^a
Crrbly, t\\Q husband of p3Jaintiff, did on tho first

Jv'J'^'l'^*

» n /■ivoro date*? between that fcij->©

and. the coEmnoncOTiont of tliia suit, vrilfiilly iind aalicifnaly

doatrcy an-l alienate fronjtho -^'^.l-' Iff tho af T*--«-?-/t.5 ?: .-^ :T>n
said v>ed Corhlyj "by laeana 'thereof the ^liiintiff had
^ht llv lofit, T.n<1 Tvion cl0Tiri(ved of the n.^cictv, affocticn
etc. ' o!?e said Fred Ccr^ly, rvnd that '"laintiff was damaged
in tho niBn >f :*;1C .rrcff/.

>", j!v:l -jcmnt charf/oG tt^at rlal?5t:lff 'j-i^; -;arriO(1. to .

rid rred Gorhly on the Jl.'Jth day of rjoccriho":

-!?-

that thoy llvoO tosothor as tou; T-)--.!?-'. rv.iT -If'-^ Ti-'-v: ".■■^t r-nte n?itil

Ai!,?rast, A. l>. K'llj that th« loald t-Yed Cop'^'7 t^Titotl hor tTie "^laln-

t
tiff ktwlly and wa« a ?rood ank dutiful hiiflband until ahoiit v-^ 70 ,:

I
■^rlor to the time !?o loft hoi»\ln Awroiot, 1911? that the dlof<?nrlcmt

©alloioimJy -^r"' ^-ilfiilly -'.lioimted the affections of tli'? ' ''
'^'reil Oorhly ft^ora the plaintiff ;\ that the oald lAnHs&f Ccphly ^raa
tho father of tha sals Fred Corlily, and that the mild la.»i>.lsey
Oorhly the defendant # .iras i^ossessted of large nmctmts cf t'cney zrvl
real estate of the value 1 tf'-arltj of $SOf>,'^'^' -'"' - otc

Third cotmt c!;arif?e;7 that the; defen«l:mt on the ^r^t drty of Trvsi-
unvf, *. -n 1'OS!, Tmcnringly, r^irrtcsely an^l rsallclotifsl^, T>ef^-*' - - •

!

tf«:tatlc -Ian of r»olsonlnf» the nlnd of the Raid TYb(1 Cor^ly afralrsnt
the 'Plaintiff, and endeoTorefl tq have the said ^efl cnrMoy tr»
loare and aepai^te frOBS the plaJintlff, oaitsinr; hlrs! to f^lslllce ^or».
by laiot?inf»ly» r^sfpcTselj and nalieiously naliin^ t'^ '"**- ^''^ ''"' ' ' "c^^
Ccrbly ®Il|!»:^tlns rewartca, jLr»9ln^atlona , and fn3so ^taterscr-.tn -^.'^ont
the yj-Talntl^-f ^ -,,1^.^ '-^aklr^ insiniiatlng and sll^tlnr r--"--'^-'' ^ nni'

In^ •r^a^ntAff'' relatives te theUald Fred rorfljlv tht»,t he, the clofon-
:. ) '■ ^-'J dlainherlt hlr *>^'- "..^-iid Fr<i-->. f^^■">^■^Tr ■•'?» ^.^ -r-^-i,.-^ ■«..,
oerarsite froc! the said plaintiff: that the sal'' (defendant con-
t^T.^/^f' ?!"'.•" •^nt«r»atlo rlan up tc ^-.b^ -f^lrst day of ^"w'«-' ,

' c-n !^c finally suceeedod In wlio:|ly alienating mtfi destrcyinf; t?^o

affoctiona of t!io said Fred Ctrh^y fresa thia plaintiff, the aald

-ijCi-t'C In no "Kria© aon&oatlim tlicreto

tlonod i2atG tho said Frod

?^fonda»t dosertod ti

.rbly, to tlio damage of tho plaintiff of (l- *

^kjL oUihCCo-U'/

.-. .■•> ,-\ -s «^* .

Corbly as a roault of the ©fforts jjf
is plaintiff and

prirod of tho sooiet^r* aoaiatonoe antl affeotien of tho oaiti vrotl

oto«

tei^t/i-uLeL4 lAeif^ ^xAj ju^ic/e^ua

irt-Ia ui'god fty appollmit that if o ervldmtimo iloee Hcfe-aJwy

tTiat. tho df

-.4^^^^ -<4eg<»i3tj:4ontt of^ JherL. hwatianfj ^"**-!,-i

-KTio'j 'or <fft.-? that she bml lived In Pa»ton all bor life ^'itTi t?io ex-

C'rtt'-.r? of fivo yoaiTS* <^m« ^r>r u'Titolt sho i JV©?! i?i "t f*; . vi.'^ ,

and four years In iUibum Parte* Oliicagoj that I^e^l Cor^sly h«p l>iig-

fv2^...>.j; .laTi-ian^; t?mt her ooci?ratlon wa.Ti that of a miliinor, t-iat

fy,,^, ;»or i..>ua.l»'jgii x» Oitatwi--lTr-trtr'r7--t!Ty--"-^^ 4iay--4?g..4.iacau£u3y

;--''. 'C^ aha wat; mfti'yie"l"-tgr-""' - _:,'f" t'.:at on t?iC Eioxt day ;;.?t.or JnU-l

'Mw narriago she as^ ber Imsljand returned t

1 antl iiVfjcl

that ^^lie con-

i tlnued her laillinery bt- and hor husband irod Corbiy i?cnt

tc sclscol at Eureka, Illlp.oia an ' (.that she n^mlBhcd the asosiey for

.' 1 tiiiticnj tliAt .-if tor graduating fro:! the Emfoka '"■ualncts^; ■'■■'-

\rn ]!;cr !:ual!>ai1d retttmed tc Tasiton and cnr;arcd In the bncsinosa of

ipjdns fstee&j that during the first fow yojxrs of Tior carried life
iitrtatr tlie defonfiant did not invite her to his house and wtmld r>ot

, spealc to ^er cr reoojmlze her altJioiigJi he ■pa.nned her alnost orcrnr

[

' d2^ and at cue tiia© in her store bnished rlp?it \vp aj?;ainst licr and
did not rococnlz© her and that this troatncnt of her contlimed un-
til after a rerlval ise«tlng held ahcut the year 1601, when the do-

nOant eaiae to her erylng ancl aslied !:or to forgive him, ami that
afterrard she vislte<T the ?:oiise of the tlefenclrint jm*"! tlm defendai^t

and hie . if e Tirtited 1-or h<aac until tlio last two oi" three years

I

I rrlor to her reparation frosn her huabsmdj that .^wrln^ the first few

; years cf her inarried life l5or huaband had been a.frcctic?iratc and

kind to her; that these risita and friendly rolationa continued

, up tntil the deatl. cf the :rif© of defendant vrlsich occurred in

005 that at ore tlitse after the death cf defendant* a ^.?lfe 7/hlle

t they were eatini^ hre^cfast she aaked the defendant to pass I^or t!ie

vnper, and he asked "vhat are yon jE^oinp: to use p^l-*'*®!' ^or** and on

• iior roi lying, "on my laushi* he aaid> "Alnt yoii fiot no aense at all

r to eat penper on vmnht "^hy donH you tise cream on If?" that the

I ax-TOii^w^t %"oiud ooiac into her nlllincry itoro Wid In the presence

' Iior Imabaad jy&uld say that her father 7?aa an old. dmnlcard,

never aiiomitcd to ^vny thing, riovor wifm any ia<mey» -inj-:/ .- tnid

aiKl drank, rind tliat her brothers \7ere drunlcarda and they were all

; araek of thlovegy that they were doconeraton and thiereej that

I

Slienaan had married cjoiiey and Henry hart narrlecT laont^:: that Jim
had married Into the Irish, and that Frod (the husband of ar-^ olleo)
had niarrie<lno hotter- Along In 1' 03, tlie appellee and her hushand
had taken two little children to educate and raise and appellant
told his f3on Fred In the presence of appellee that these ttro
llttlo cirls had parents that were tTdsgraceful and low down trash,
anfl that ho did not intend that any of his money should he spent
on such children as those two little girls, and said if l>ed cob-
tinuod tc live rith appellee in that way he ^roul' never ^et any
of his money; that he would dlsij-Jherit him entirely fror. Tils es-
tate; that In 1910 appellant told IVed In the presence of apr^elloe
that if he continued to live rrith anpellee he ^rould got in the pen-
itentiary'' as a21 Walkers ought to' "be in the ponitejitiary, Tiat
they were thieves an<:l appellee wasn't any hotter.

!r.rr3. Uedrich, a sister of appellee testified tijat ^ho '7i\r, f^e-
qticntly at the home of the appellee ind hei' Imshand and that ^row
VjOQ up to ahcnt ll'ir* th.o hushand rf appellee showed i^rcat affec-
tion for apT^lleo; that in 1910 she saw I'Ved Corhly tlie husTaand of
appellee nlap the appellee on the ?2ead and hecoiae yqt^^ a!i^:ry and
ki died thinf^s about the house; that in IGIO she heard appellant

;"o.ik to ""Yed Corhly in the store ahout .'=:oi:ie trouhlo an loayrian

had
'•irl in Taston and he told Fred th.at if he wasn't sotfton out

of the Tfalbor farally the nest tItinG; h^ner tfiey would have h±a In

the pcnitontiary, cmcJ lft!30y(lid ho voulcl get none or hia money
to help him, ami also that if he did not got out of the TTilicer
fanily he trould disinherit hlai, tliat tho "Walkers rere thieves
and ro5^os, that rhen Pred Corbly ^7ould return froci a visit
to his father he would "be very an^ry and kick things aroimd
the house.

x_i33ie T-'alker another slater of appellee toatifie;! that she
called at appellants house for the purpose of ccllectln?i: some iioney
aprellant owed her and that apr^ellant said to her if she ^ould go
to Lida Corbly and get her to ^ro I^Ved a divorce ^rithout any
public disgrace he Trould pay her every cent he owed her, and if
she did not do so she could v/ait for her money.

A» T. Carlson testified that l^^ed Corbly was very affectionate
to arrelloo that they frequently hired rigs cf him up to 10 10.

"Hie evidence offered by appellant tended to show that the
appellee had been narried to a man by the name of I^addox prior to
her Karriago with Fred Oorbly and that Iladdox had obtained a di-
vorce frcn her in ^richita Kansas on tho grounds of adultery.
That Fred Corbly had no kno\7ledge of this prif:r rxarriage and di-
vorce of appellee at the time he niarried her. That she riiarriecl
him under the narae of Lida talker, and in her raarriage certificate
in anr>wer to the question ar? to tho mmbor of brides carriage she
gave the answer " first" j that the oarriaso -ras I:ept secret from

fO& Cor*bly»!3 pai^atifeB for oorao tlmo* r'roa Cci:<f>ly staylsv; at Ms
fatJi&r'a house; timt the appellant finally I^earOl of the natter and
upon nontionlng tlio fact to his son, stateOl to hiia that t!M3 rro-
or rslaco for a aarriod nan traa isrith his wifo and ordered Tilm to
go and lire with his rrtta* Tiio liuaband than vent to livo with a?-
pelloo and thoy aof»«ired a hone^ T!ie apr«llawt i^aro theci crnoid-
orat^le lurihor for tho purpose of building a house. This hoisso
aa afterward sold and defendant erected a businoso "block fcr the
-r^pellee to ooMuct her laillinory business in, with a flat for
rosttdcnoe nurpoeo for aprollee and her huslmnd over head. The store
rocBj and flat wae occupied by api^llee in confluctln?^ her business
and as a residence for herself and Inisband -afltliout paying rent i^^on
it to the tisse of their seT^aration an<l was continued to be oooir"?.od
by appoUeo thcr after until the tine of trial rlthout raynortt of
rent thereon. At one t:?jno defendtint !:ept them in W.n ^<wn<* ff)r
tvG tTee:-3» T!ie evidence showed that y'red Corbly a.fter if.rin?"
with his rrifo 3(Kr.e ei|^t i^jt ten yesMf^s bef^^vn to bo tntf?"nielou?s of
his ■ ife*3 faithfulness tc hin, and, that fio fi-'ally drifted Into
the habit of drinjting and (jumbling. T-'red Cnrbly t?>stlfied t!?at
bout tho year 1005, the afpellee «jeorae€l tc lose her affcctlcn
for hlia an<l that her attitude tmrarrl hiia ohan.'^^ed, that she wculd
';o off CTJ tri^s to Chloar^n tc -nnTt^-nno millinery stcoi; '-; '
jcinjJt acdOEip>anied by him, and stay froisfrlrcty to nir.oty days
.:.'.■ r the fall leavinf' '• v oso trj.7'3

8

she left in January a?-ul cUd net return until :!arcli. After ono
of appellee's triT>9 to Chioa/^;© In the latter part of t7M3 year
hor ImsTiand d±aot>veretl three letters !iiddcii imder a flovrervanc in
Iior Biillinery departitiont and they arcused his snsplcions. 't'hewft~

^ho fouixT t!^^" ^''^ hoT -yjrflfea aftd-li^s'tttnntoirtg ggattergilra^gttt-^ina

a;aH*-wi#e--?Ta(riJlK5€rie
ir^^^foTx:! xrhlfth hft ''Tff,'^ p^afiPifl 1n thff tin -h^Tf -»^>r^ -"^^^ - — f^e-tri^^r-to
get tIngKi,£EJMa ?d.fl vjli;a,aa»4^.a.oald.«ft<>~4ai«~-gK>»^^^--.^^^ TOOda^-

^t —tirt BTT^^fT one of t!ie letters w ',s Tosti^arkerl CMcafrc iUtT

addressed to arpellee ±n care of i^ajs,!!! Tii'OST a wholesale millinery
house f 1g??»"^W!Hgr"-'**^ tl<-e let4)ey asked !-;er to neot '^''- -^ - cor-

/
tain comer In Chicago and str^od "they roiild ro orjt pJ5cI Tiara a

/
good ti^tic.** -^r^-^yaflh- qiffltod. wAjh' the inmBet-AQoxitaP. ^\ih& tiiiiiQ i IjaiiTar^niL.

tact i ft ad wag ^travelling; salesman for a wholesale nillinery^^

'-^use J "'finally lio foimd a deed among r.osne ^oapei's of ?il3 ^rlfe r-zv-
voying property in Wichita, llanaaa, to Idda '■.. "laddox. At this
tixie ho haO never hoard of !2in •■'^^'3 r,rior narriage or that slio
had ever been loiom by tlie natno of 'faddox* Ho tioolc t?^i«"'4Q^i

•J .V,, 3. ^

- ..VDi-ofT to Mgi :% coi'tlfiedl cy;'>y of a decree of i^roroe obtainoS
frcaa his v/if© "by one Simcai A» :/a<ld03:, at V'ic'^ita» Llasiaai5> ^op ncgac ,
>iji vc.illtjy beJUig Liaa n."T;MJi?;s:> — Iirt?m-iy!!T't*i»iet! eopy-^f the

^'-yi<^ f'Lr-'M::^"^'^- t!?ifl>--*T.ffiqyO'0ii> 1.1jo ?'^»*i«#»«ga^'''t''!gg'tJ':f'.l{3d fc?ii*tfe'"S'i'.i';*!"""rigc had
roruaeu to penait hl2;i tc occupy tlio aane "bed for a period of scv-
oral -areaks. -Uid ^.0» ^I'v"*. 'ic^ra'- ■"■.I'^.-i^^llncoveraJl he at oneo left
...•d ni-^o' ^asiol.. :.^o tcatifiod tliafc nothing ^^is Fatiicr liad

.lt\ to bii3 or in his prcsosioe induo^d bin tc learo his V7lfe cr
ftiniialsod iwiy reasim tlierefor, oaid tiiat iie ioft Ijor bcoaiuie ho
did Jict thiiilc sho was trtto tc Ills.

-xk^ ct'nolujicin on •y'-gar^ntl ' aasamnatim^ of t!is--OTi*eTr©tT;::i«,
tliat tokins tlio OTldono© saost favorable to tbe aT»p»lloe as tni0»
; '■ a'^^^:■:^ tnorefroia •i.ifo iir,/eronoes no&t favor:i"bX@ to ari-oi-ioe
t lat can rcaaonably be dratm th«<»ofr<tei, tho ericlonce fail a to
il .iv tho aproi^ant ^>iiv?natod ti»e ft^.Taot:lo::i .r t;=e ^:uyaa;>:cU

llOTTe IiOW0V©r, -tlmt tl^o cleatr ami inanifest woifi;?:-t of all
tl; cviujonQ-- -; not oixly t:uvi. ..-O affoctioiu: ■. ;/ oho ;,;?i::;;\.:^:

The oas© vill bo rororaed T7itJi .- ^'--.'.^.l-ir; ^- r^aots, l\^t

Corbly-

vc. Rfllioarin'; denied- - Additional opinion filed

Corbly- May 26, 1915-

In a petition for a rahoaring it io onntonded that there is
no assifpiraent of tirror raiain*^ the question 'iiat tJio verdict and
judgaent are not ountiiined hyf the evidence.

It is assifjied for orror on tjfie record that the trial court erred
in overruling the motion for ^ new trial ;uid one of the reasons in
tlie motion for a new trial is |t>iat the verdict is contrary to the
evidence. Under this asGignraeht of orror the question of the suffi-
ciency of the evidence to sustJain the judjjnent is raised,
Suttle vs. A^5iQW 20;e 111, 56;;' 0.0. h F. R.K.Go., v. Mcl!ath, SI
111., 104; C. &R.I. R.R,Ca. jr, Horthom 111. Coal and Iron Co.,
36 111., 60. I.B, ^ W. R.R.GO. vs. Rhodes, 76 111., 285.

It is also argued in tlie petition for reheai'ing that the
court Bhould have discusaed other asfiignments of ..rror, Wlion any
ainf^le question fully disjjoBos of a cause Uiere is no necessity to

review other questions, !

\
\

Filed May 26, 1915-

(jen^ No, 6306 •

""ilppellee »"

OctoljGr T<snn, 1

Filed April J6, 1915-

Am caJL f am Adaias •

Ag. No. 33-

Scholfie.d, J, ^ A j

193T.A. 581

J^io wia g Bttit l^y appellcmt a^yiinsr* ^pp I'lit u to re-

oGTor daoAgeo ^tr th« failu e of appellee to purchase the 186 acre
fann ftf i.vpi>e.1 1 atili nti^J;2i&..,jxr-lce ftg ^eOw p»y (fcoye aooordin^; to a
written contract entered 1- to laatate iii>..4.haa» ghe oefttr-ac%-4wu8-.aatgd

■ '.vfraBiaftr 3k%%h» ASAAy-v.«Bd^#3?-ayAde4'« timt ,i ap.|iyelA#»^ jwas^- 1»- jMgr-#^0O «

liiU>t tj> note fer l^eooo, rfH»!r-"i>fa» H»eit Hpayms/nt^grx^^ -e^mtr&et

On, Janttftny-fladir^Q^^ gjppeliee «3p«te ap^pallaat jt ,3Ls.ttftr ^atAtlag he

rliiai4

ccmld nat take-r-the fauf^-^w^Hitipi^lAwftt -^t^ suit.

-urjwag-44*«*'fer*«a. appclXattt returned, t» eq>pe3fc:lee ia« notiB of

^2000. ?jift trtajk gegfttit-ed'ln a vepdiet-and judgjacnt for appellant

fo- one dollar 7>if-' fi*M<'^ ^f-n- Cu^ci Ki (5y(/'«/'^/.

I4r4,er.,ari>j;ca,..jfc^ftt.-.--JiAte~..-Qcugt<-exred,.Jja~-Bd.''titi. i»g m
evidence r? the adriiiesions or statemeatd ejt appellant "that appellee
u^ bought the land Qheapg that it was resQ-ly worth more t>ma &x>«
.. Qlle oereod te pay for it*. ThA a -wte q«agpe»eH<r'-trTidanctry Spi Iiiger

▼■/ City of phioage^ l^La^lXl . ft5ff It .la-jsejrti mp<*eA-4>^^ftt--%»K!r-vgr-

cilci;-of the — jury mae iigaA«rt»%'^hff'iamTt^eirt~-wrt?;ftt^^^^ of the evidonce •

^HiiXe — tha~^vJiLflzuu^j|*»B eesflietirnQr'i^'^cas'i^ say
^h*^* It WR.B fW'ia'a^t- — «to««-«a»»48^»'et--woif!h%--^---th^-4^ Conoid-

ta--xftjajpcaiag^i^i*a yej^dts^ fey >nc'natQ^t>TT''-'ifg'--otnt«ri^^ pre-

sent ed->....£aiL.xesiJUit»a»4>-4^ be af firmed*

^U JO

^^-t-<-\>^cA^ W^ctj, % ^ ^/9 /i —^

:en, !To, 6320. October Term, lll4, Agaiida !iO,42-

., . « ,,^^ FILED M>RIL 16, 1915.

AlTln Talbot ?ind /

Clarence Shoot, /

Appcllefl^B,, ■ /

^f^»\ i ifopeal from Coles,

Atlantic Horse Insui!ano« Corarany/,

Ap,.xx.ntA y 1931. A. 587

■CHOLI^IiH), J, \„.„.>/

Thlt is a BUlt by appellee* acalnst appellant to
rdcover upon a policy ot ineuranco iosuad by appellant to appelloo*
on the life of a. horao *mich died during the tena covered by th«
policy.

The declaration oeta out the policy in full and
avcre the payment of the prenlum and he death of the horse, zrua-
crouo pleas ajid ropll cations were filed but w.re all r/ithdrawa
except :he f^enernO. ionue, :m6, lixi af-'reemcnt wio entered of record
that all defence* p oper under anj' otate of pleadlngo, mir^t be
offered under the gen ral ioeuo. A trial «&s had by a jury v^iioh
returned a verdict in favor of appellee for llOOO.OO o; hicsh
ju(i(?aent TOO entered and to reverae .vhich fkHz appeal is prosecu-
ted,

?ho rolicy ims delivered to aiJ-Jtillew on the 20th-
day of January 1913 and 1:^ its terma coasaenced at noon on r,he .?2nd-
day of January 1913, and was for the term of one year.

The horee too:;; sick on "he Jl'lst day of January 191»,
and died about ono thirty in tb* afterno^)^ ef the ^23rd, of Janua-
ry, m* 1913, It ±* cialsied by ftp^aelleoa^that the aickneass of
"'-0 2l8t wco not the cause of the death of the horse on the 23rd,
out in the forenoon of the 23rd the horse becaiao sick froo another
and tfiffiiront disease, and died the oame day,

1$/ the third clause oi' 'he policy it i-s. provided,
that in the event of said anima.*s sickneois, }iat it fe^^I^be the
duty of he insured to in::icdiately p ocure he sorviceo of a vetin-
ary, and that the insured Mudirl ulso notify ^he Atlfintio 'forse
Insuranco Conjpany, Providence, Rhoao Island by r.ending a tele<rraa

Jbxaediateljri sia shall rj.no ne^id .-. .'o-'ior-crcd letter -rxriun "--renty
four hn\ir« it the ftnJUaakl 'bcotasm incapaoitated* "Ana Mic failii'^e
to perfonn any of the rtquiT^iaents nbove aontipntd In this para^raj^,
If daath snouo, ahall relieve *Iio conpaajr of ar- ■-- il liablll*

It -te- odroitted by uypalltesthat^^h^ proviRioiui of the ; .-•
icy It* valid nnd that a telagram waa^noiit to f^ii^pullant as re*

qvUlrsd "W it« 7}ie evldenoa Rho«irM»fc th« horr.e died about
one t^iirtjr otnd that Talbot t^o lived out of tova a couple of miles
on a f&TB where the horse ivaSy notified B.l)« f^tull, the a/^ent of
the ooiapony and that Otull went out about 2] 30 rxnd ee&ne in and
sent a telegraa to the Atlantio iroree Insurance CqHEMUVK ^t Previ*
dence Hhede ledand, and wrote a letter hat flamQ erenlng to ~he
Goa^cmy* The e*fldonce eSiows^hat the telegrfua ^ns actually recelv*
«d bc" ^hc r? r^ipoay at 6jS3 P«ll, of th^j saao day. The telegraa
stated^ tho horse had taJcen clck th^it raarning at ten and died about
n:50« The lottor nas ae-e in detail, Oa the ?Sth aftur receiv*
iag the tole.;;raai and Icttor the coMpany caohod a check for the
-'T'ciaium, Aft'^rwiu'ds the conpany pent blank p"Oof« of loaa. The

oofs of lose wero ooiapl ited Jan. 30th and aent ia* On the 18th
of March "hs c apany denied liability and returned the presaiusi
which was refus«0 ty app.jlleJ, Thiir tt 1w contended by t^}ftil'la'sr ^h*-^ — 7^
JwsM*- a :mlyar of the notice required in the third clause of the
poifcfljry lawa ho5P^«*-w«r-tas:eii aick on th#'morriiagTJf""tJi»"— rttot-tsnd
there l8.^»-thin# "fn th«^-~^='«eo7«d t<v sh<w timt tT« recercrod fron~1;hat
aiolMiftas before his dsathj .3h ther the horpc~die^ -froa thc-giflk* .
aftia-o»ft<vr acted on tlie iilat or^froja scother. -dlaease-centrrrctcd on
the S.;rd^ wc ,t::L.jak 4t af little if^jxirtaaoej The horse was being

treated by Talbott for the sickness contr/ioted on the rist at the
tiiac It mia discovered he hful another disease -tind froa v?hi^ ap» r'^*'**^'^^
<|»l(3b^«s claiiaa ho died,l Tlie'hcr ho died from the sieikiiesa contract*

ed on tho Slot or not it in evident at \^an hu died ho had not

recovered f Cm that sidknesfi and th§ awapany under the tcnas of the
policy was entitled to ':ave notice or that sickaese as reipiirod by

-jjwaJUarJ There '4b«-no evidenco ln*th« rocord 'hat at. *-hc tlm^j ::he coa»
^^^^ A

"^axf caahod the chock Cor the p tttaium o" ^iiat a iae the pro«fa

of lose w«r« B«nt that the appellant had any notiec: T9hat«vflr ^hat
the horse hau been eick prior to the S3rd.l The appellant undor»«

^~- — ■ — _ __ , "■'■ .■■■■I— II

the eridenee did not tmlre Ite rlf^t« to have notimi aeAt to it V

legrawM &e rcsqulred V the policgr* filler v« Union Central Life
Innurance Co»| 110 111. 102, IJjwm v, Mor, & Mor, Life Aosoclation
2G2 111. 300.

l&eoR a policQT require* ioBaediAte notice of aidknoMiy aocident,
death etc«9 ^"*^ p- ovides that failu-^o to give it ehall void the iol«
iC9r« no reoovergr c<m bo ha& if there is a violation of the con*
dition. Illinoio Live ntook inneu::;«nce co. v. Klrkpa.tridc, 61 111.
App. 74. (Treen V* £r.^« Livestock Ineuranco Co. 54 , )K.^". 344.
Johnson v. lU'^LivestocSc Insturance Co. 83 K.^. 64, fltKui v. f'ccur-
Ity Live fi'ock Co., 43 H.B. 104*

Tae agreea nt to notify tty ^ telegraa iiaracdiatoly in a binding
agreeacBt and the fiillure of the appellees ta ooiapljr ther^vrith
j»».ua.jt— *| defeats their ri^t ta recover under the poli<gr« Errors
are fiianigned aa to the "tivinc and refusing of inetruotiona but
tha view vttake of the case it in not neoeaaary to oon*iclar t^iesi.
The oaec is reversed v/ith a finding of facts that tlw ppuiioas fail-
ed to give appellEUit notice bgr tislegraai iisa ;diato2y of thu siok>
nesa of the horse as roquired V the t' Ird olausa of the polieoff
nnd "".hat -ppollant did not waive that notice.

Reversed with finding of facts.

/

aen. No* 6325.

October T^^na. 1^1^- Ag. tto. 46»

lied April 16, 1915-

Jennctte Coac, \an infant etc,, *

Apj>e\lee.,

A-

St, Louis, Sp^^lng^rieW^ &
Poorla Railroad *^

Appellani*

SCHOLSIELD, J,

APPiiAL wan M4C0UPIIJ.

193I.A- 596

This was on act in to recover damage* foriniarj

euBtained lay appellee a child seventeen laontho olcl|Jw*«« had strayed

near^api/olltm^ ' ■ raiir ad tracka.ind was ctruck toy one of ^ '.p}) lillrm* * r,
interur"ban cars, ♦*(«•<; waa mnninf^ at a higjicr rate of opeed rr.an
was permitted by ^.he ordinance of the city, crusihiOai her skull t«
, Bueh an extent that it was necessary to reiaovc a portion of it«\

There wag a v rdiot and juagraent for a x^ellee for $900, \

The declaration contained tvro counts, 'he first
charges the duty of t}ie defendant to be "to exercise and Jceep ^

reasonable lookout x x x x in order to discover and avoid injuring"
poraone on or near said trades; >.hat defendant " did not use ordin*
ary care or any care \^iatever to keep a reasonable lookout to dia •
cover plaintiff x x x but kept no reasonable lookout vjhatever and
at direct consequence '■-hereof did not discover the plaintiff but
run said car upon aaid plaintiff, thereby inju'^ing her* etc,
whereby it was charged she "was alsa rendered permanently injured ,
xaaimed and disfigured",

fho second count charger "".he existence of a speed
rdinance for electric railroad cara wi'hin t,he corporate licilts
>f \he city of Staunton, yjid that the car was inmning at a greater
rate of spood than that poroltted "by the ordinoxico ■-.o-Mt, ten
aileo per ho- r, '

1y\

m2»

It is first contended lay appellant that there is no teetlmony
in the record tliat the place of Injiiry was within the corporate
lialtg of the City of F?ta nton. ?!io place of injury is cieecribed
th th« declaration OM beln^^ on Union Street In the city of StaAnton
near the interaootlon of that street vrtth Monticalle Jitreet, in
the MOM city. ?he evidence fully entahlitihed the fact that the
child was injixred at tho place desorllwd In the declaration, aid
the evidence la sufficient to eatabliih the fact tliat the iJlace
Thare the acciaent occurred was within the corporate liialts of the
City of Sta mton. It Is ne:rt contended ty appellant that the or»
llnancc of the City of Sta ntoa was in^jroperly admitted In evi-
dence. The ordinance was printed In book fora end purported to
•)e inihliched W authority of the City Council of the City of Staun-
on, njid vmder the ctatute of this state wis properly adaitted.

It l8 hezt urfted that tJie verdict and Judcaent are oxceeaivc.
"^e cliild has ooaplctely recovered fron the injury and v?hilo we arc
inclined to believe tliat the verdict and Judgment are a little high
otlll we cannot say they are exce salve and that the Judf^acnt should
be reversed for that reason.

▼e find no error in tl^c givlnr: or refusing of instruo*
tioni. li'lndlnn no reversible error In the record the Judgacnt
will bo afflnaed*

A^FIl^lfi;]),

;n, 1.0, 6333, October - Af*. ", 69»

'rurn;.n»s Pioneer Jltud, !?ann, ]?iledjApril 16, 1915-

Appcllee,

VB. J /Ippeal frao Moultrie,

:ion B",Bak«r\ J.3P,Slaainf;,

J.n.BoIcer andVary C.Bfe'Jcer, y l<

j^pVllanto- / ■

\ y

S Choi field, J« V,,^--^

193 I.A. 598

H

Thio la a Guit "by appellee against appollante on a

p omisaoiy ,oto given by ^pp;;liantB to app.aiee for the purchase

-rice of a stallion and this ia "he eecor^ time the case has been

appealed^ to this court. The facta in the case are fully stated

in the former opinion of this court, (Truman* b Pioneer Btud I'arja

V, R-:<cr, 176 111. I App, 524)

— - -" - Tj-he hors© was bou'cht in the .... i..,j; of 1907 and notes

"iven. The -e i«- a nrritten warranty of the atallioa to he o.n av-r^ra.ge
•A

"oaH ^^cttcrC if bred to any reacoaablc number of ood brooding
iaares. said aiarAa to be regularly returned, tried, and bred) ajid if
he should prove otherwise, ho ahall and rauat be returned to Tru«
:?a»'c Pionoor Stud lana at Buahnell, Illinois, a;.d another stall i a
o-^ the raaaie breed, but of no p;reatcr ^'alue taken in his place.
At the end of the first y^QX the horse Xitt/ing
ved up to the war-anty, \yj agre-aaent of the parties the trial
and warranty we^e extended another year or tu March 1000, In 2*eb»
>-Tiary 1909 defendants a]^>eii«rrt» here, tried to talk with TruEiao
over the telephone and say. he refused to tmiy^nwi Truraan feps hs

'ofused 3dSB to tfill: except, he said return the horee. .Defendants
) \ \

do not daisi there ;ms any eartenaion for another "j&ax o:- ari;,- vraiver
\
• of the contract bT T^UEiaa.. The defendants kept the horse the

thirds yes* without .^.ttemr'tinr^ to return hL-n or having any fur-
ther agreement. |
I ' -— — >— ^^ only roaody for the breacjK of the contrcuji wrj,s
to roturn the horse, they could no eue for diaaagos, or offset d«ja«
ages for breach v/hcn 0ued on he noten, Cass Thrssliing Machine Oo-
V. Tnils, 158 111. A- ■, 1, KTiap y« 3?reeman 42 ill,, App, 600,

4lv»y lmv« not prored any d fnn©© lyod the c<mH aif^ht dir.;ot-

od a Tcrdiot •

On the fonaar trial of tiiin 0iQ9 it appaara from tb« fonaar
opltiioa it did not aig^^T that the horse me |:ept «k third y@skr
without m-iy agr«i«iaont as ncnsr anpoar* in this rueoz^«

It io conteadod that the oourt or &4 in rv^XiT^s,a on the evi*
daaoof jbhe «vid@noe offered ^ould iTavo beon i-ireper ff tlinre Imd
been an agreement of «;ict«aBion of the warantjir tmt there not l^eliig
an;/ ogreoacat of etxtenoicwi Af idn mJLtQT of thd warranty the erri*
denao was i^r^titex'iol*

Th9 aj?pclli.vat9 aaciipt for error that the trial judge was out
0 ; the room duriiic 'he fin«X argoiaeiat and cflunsol laado isxprojHiT
r«aarka» "^liile the action of the cou-t was er -oneous it vmm hana*
leiSf as a verdict mi rht Iiavu t>ecn dirtjcted 9knd no other Judgpaent
can be eus^ainod under the &vi<L<me%9

It is alao u^-ed that in March I'JIO d«fenclanti8 and plvdntiffs
agreed on an eacohiuigo of hor0ee« Tliis wafi on indepondmt tx*a4« and
i%lle it was the horse "boufijht yet there was ns waivt;r of the con*
tract iDUt aij^ply an offer tagr trmtm to xrplce an exchaisije find if
an oxchangs was agreed upon and the pa-ties failed to carry it out
:hnt le &n indei>oiid<»it csatter involving a breach of contract , the
dar:»f;es in ^iCh are unliooidated ewd could not ba set off in a
Sttlt in asoumpeit, lUgibie v* T!u8t| SIX 111* 333» ISwon v. miber,
20e 111., 492.

landing no rcjvatoible error in the re«eM the Judr^aent will
be af firiaedi

A ^ !!• I '^ M B 3> .

1

n

Kinch Tudor^

«:».pi)elltt«.

5.

Ootober 7«na« 19X4 •

Ag. no, 73-

193I.A.608

ThOEipooni 3

7hi» i« «» auAt in replevin brou'rht^ "before a Justice

of the peaoe ia September 19X1 .^ An appe^il to the oirciiit court "mm
tAk^f from iM^-^4*^^»m*!nt ©*" the ^ii»'iioo« --irr^h^^-tjit^tmlt^ icourt ea
Septe^iber 30, 1912, <*%• tihc elege of--tehe evidtsnoe f»r the plailitiff
the couit jb«84yu«ied^-t|ie Jtary-"t»-^etu-a!Ti a verdict in favor of th»
defendant. On tite eama day; a motion for a nen trial w-'.b laaide aioA
overruled and JuAggunt wae gendorod-ariaitngt-thtr'yirajbntlff , The
plaintiff on that day prayed an appeal to this court, which was
allowed Uj o» the pi^wwaHHrff filing; a hond ii»"the ewa of-|HBee>ii v/ith»
la twenty days £»«m ^Imt date, and a hill of exoe tions within
ninety days .

The ettEsnon law r@cor4, jsaade lay the elerk of the cir-
cuit coiirt, shows that on October rd, 1912, plaintiff filed v«Uli.
%h« olark a laotion to cat aside an order ovorrulin,^ a uotion for
a new trial, the entry of Ji^^nmeat and the order fixing "Ji^e time
to file an appeal bond. Oi^Novcaber 13, ldl2fii, a aotioa-^itBii.ajr~^ —
-to that filffd^^n 0'rtobci" ^^ was filed -wi^s-tho^lork* Oa Janiiary
9, 1914, at the Septomber Terai 1913, the potions 1?o~ -•©♦--aBide the
.1uti""iffnt wto, were over-xiled. , On Januaiy 24, 1914, the plaintiff
SijiyiAapi'ayed ^ appeal to this court, w^iidi was allov/edT on filing
a bond ia-tha-~«UH^'«#~#lb€6i within tweart^y 6ayUj and a bill of excep-
tions within 100 days, -en-?g^bOTiary 13^, 1»14^ the plaintiff filed
^-jbflnri in t^^ft ff^)p]q( of^J^OQ, fl^yiA. on May 4, 1914, a bill of exceptions
-Mas. -filed*

TlAC 'bl^'3f^ftg.».-«ge»**ti«itg-«h»fHi nelthsr a isotion for & new trial ob

Scptetober 30» 1912^ nor anything that oeourred ■u'bscquent to the

e*M^ ^ /Xa/- cLaju cnAv^
entering of judf^nient on Peg t> Kn'b er-jJOyirgJrg'g . ■f^ir t h« r than the prayer

for an appeal ,«WfiA..flQ„.t.hflit->A«y« '}1jii'---K' ' ^^^_-5

(T The t>:lll of except! one contairy^ nothing as to any laotlons or

rulings thereon at the ..laT^oh term 1914, aaid the 'of ere ne-easgeptisn

iH»-j»«e«ef»v«4'-iMi--fcir~miy iEv^s^ocee^iif^^

- Tnrra^ ;lqip., ^ J55hua_.ruljula~ w«li «»ta^i^4Ml 4iiia!t^him-» party de-

' sires i:o a»Bisaer"inrimi^ court «n a motion, ths

T e cord_ jjgr a Jb.JLX~.«^-«!eceiyMr^gWir*-— <?y • !l-;-n,€oi , ■- -t©; ■ - Town

o.£.Xaluiset I ■■J4a^I11^4iAat~'»€rop3:g'"rg; miswe^r*!^ 261 111* aTSj
Ad«ji. »JU. 3©sA JDliBtxijBi

The only 1)111 of exceptions [filed v^nM* ^^iiat wiitsli was fille^t'
<e»-Llay 4, 1914« The tiae for filing a bill of exceptions r^lveii
In Beptesiber, 1912, after % final Jud(^cnt had be :n entered , wsts
never octended , JEatJihft~l»lllw-.>JL£L.«3cc^ptioa«. Xlled Ma^, 4, 1914 ,
hflfl iShnmitLl]l.,.mT''-i"nff rmr\t mi^ffiTiMnt ts -the- '«^lne of entering the
J.udffMii%— ^n-S&pt^e^lMu; ~30| 1912^ -^and the orders 8md« ^«r^kf t er ,

t/hinh ara ahoit JhjLg the olerka jtMB4>eyd| ■the»'-tin4er-''tHr'i:iw"ilS' -an*

nounccd^ln_lIafllJjag-»«l--42wi4Jier»-Pa«4fl«-^^e^^^
_jt«,- JJraadlaSf-^? X1JL^^_^1^^ vSi-^annon, 182

...Jpa*, 51^t..ja3,a.^^R^^ ba*e retained ^ur^Mictioa orsrHsh* casf ,

— aaar^4fc~-felXlr-.«r-«xcoptl ozui .. ;riled-"-«Rder-it:Bavv"oT^crotx»|V~'~m
,^_|;i nal order^ 5£_tho_^_c©ur t jieijxijSil„lll'OSi*-iii.JMi^

cf JudgEieat on Sept<3a'1»er S&| 1913, -would -have girve«-th4s eotuft
J:uriMiiBt>lai% ove«« the ease.

gi^ -hin nf PTrnap.^^v<w»i»^-wi3nwing neither any aot ie» made , order
of the coiiri^-4«L-aay^-^pa5c«s~JjQr an appv^al, subsequent to Septeniber
-S0.j^,X92>Z^nPX any liltiie granted -wjr^^iin which to file a bond er bill
t»f exceptions al^er that data, ^oe»--«^t-"i^i«w any apfMaal -py^ed
«r allewed \3hich authorises the filing tfftjie bond ^iled-ea-gebru«
«yA3^-19l4yer-* who bill of exceptioM filed May 4y-1914«^ — The
only prayer for an api^eal shown b. -he bill of exce tione is that

oi!' Bepteurtwr aO| -l^arey-^s^acla. Xi^s^ta the tlac^ w^^ w}ilcli — it-

•a'-fr«iT--»3iir'-ftt««jr-andr^i^ — Ch&t Mi YMm S.vsa9a \sy ap -

A F F I H M E D.

QQUt Vo, GPm

Christ na«tu«Ben« «
AppoUfiu,

A{;» 0* &S^

Ohristian*

i:)

193I.A. 609

Ttiin im im action on Mie oao« Ta ■'CU(;rit tor Mvtin L«
'ocll| a.'irtlnst Christ Baaameewti to rocoror daam^e for the lose
of a Xojs oauMd \>y tho dieohargo of a f^un in t!o hands of dcfen*
d'Tnt, Tins Juiy ri'^iurned a verdict^ fc'^nho dcfcnclr^nt on ">3Ueh

iiu.iQiftnt vyn,o yondfWoAa --glie plaintiff ap^itoals •

1?h« eyidoiioe iCiwvm viu4irr;prffi:tmit''r^':eigfeir"Xir'!?t .
Lottl* and that a^jf>o3b3tOO-i»-^ tonsnt Hffetfiatar rsaidliigiigiar^oni ng»
^.on| IlliuaA#y--H^^o3Llxmt Jvtid-- appal loo a>o ralatsd ty r»r~iiaffl» to
a •.'?itnflSBi,..~.^'?wy J«Tia*<M»y ■.«Sao---Xiv<»»- itv-gt^^ — ^Btejriprflrct laet

x>a ?:iuii'wdaar,'tyiMM»aay.. .8^^ .Xiai^jaa>an^^«»g*^^ witli "tFohn*

son- wni ons (gigMflos n%o>n'bogg| who --is— i4^» 4i^«Baisit.n..|ri».%Mlf»|'"^nwiilr^'tl»
■'^>f.^nanfiton, -Ili.ini4a^-y** ii'*»*i apyelAsoM AppoXXcjO-hor-^owad a gun
f 0 • '-ho uso of r.iJpelIiw%-#r<acri>"»toJh''^>bor, Appsl -ant and Johnaon
v/.itli otliora wen* hunting sn ■■'wldtta^ "--andHBatugAayap — iVgyollse naa
hunn iaff sA tt»-^thwi -«n -Satui^ftny » <)H CiuiOay jaorain8'"^ii»<w»'"'*g^^<rar lit-
-tdte-nmow--«nrHSh«~fT<"fl»4^ «^

-t^»»--otney^~pg^l8r■^?7<mt"ti15^tln^r^^^^ — te-^feiw- ■eo««--f$«lA~4»£~a-4iulsStt

l?oy-4^f "»i>g>i^»H s-v.,.„„4n-.- <j^ti^t--^Ho---o<Mg»- atalfea' had -^^-n :treLmped"'<d:own*'^--i9y
?^a>tad - fat -ttw partisan — i>S>,t'^laa»"iiith a|>poll#o~.md ntei'iil)urg, ^o
had iKoa tirou'^Iit %• a|ypel;la^'»- liowPo>ty JnaaiaoB|- aad^ one fte2>r on*
son i^jjio did not have a-TtBrnri—i-ojainocl TixMt-^'^9tlwT^'^'4itiitm^^''t£ttmiiT
tltaa a gala^i-t ■a»a-woandad--aiid--ayw»«lAaa»y^^«^ ^Sorrennon

ria»-4UB*a»u4*-*«*'t*s«a- o^Tted" ta- tnik •b»«k"-a«4a;.--A#~^t«rrtlWMpjjjf-'--i^«n
a rabl'>it.^.atartod' ' up m -^-ffivr'- foot' "In '^Tront ^ 'ftf -'tlw»^^^'.A{>p<il 3>4lii,.J»ijy|.,,.,,.

A-lie aomliog ef t.he"'%hrge^--'*wt'tat'''-«f^><aJUB^ ^n the- *lr^ and Sor renenn
on hi« l>gft, fOl only a f cw ■faei»-ft|>— ♦< — -figp'p^Xtmt tOipt at tlila rato-
"blfc GsaiL — mJLoaed It^ ■-'^^hxritts^ft^t'Ti^ the" Tl-^ht, Appellee

turned^ to ^edt at -4^ ral^bit and as he turned, piilXcd 'back the

VU^'-A h^') oltri^d ffti'l^ nfiei\ SJxfLJL 4>

homrrzer of lile f^aa. Ilo -had -f;le^uu en and ati^m his, finger e w»44 ^ r

mwrt mwl ^he heaarder alippod f roaa hia -^httrtb and dl acliarged ^ th«— grxtr

hltting appellant in the calf ef the leg caualnf; o, wound , wiiioh

neeeaalt&ted JsHm amputation ,-a^<Hnp±lBnr.

Appelleint iiiQlets tha courterTod in admitting evidence that

he «ae a ^cat of appellanV^^ atayed at appellee* a house Bleop*

Ing and gettin^j hia ai«^s thereuntil Sui^ay^JUgrninj;, There was

no ohjection tg-^ny of the evidence so that tiuestlen in nbt saved

for reviet*;

other-
The onljr con'iontion of -.ppellant is that the verdict is aga»

Inetthe rnajiifGst wei^tht of the evidence,

Th<3 evidenci- ahowo that appellant and appellee were within 9*

few feet and in plain aif^it of each other. Appellee testified

appellant mlased the rah 1'- and turned to ahoot ±k at it and "aa«

1 tumad I waa pulling the hoianicr hadk, nor finger a were numb yjid

It elippud out of vty thUBib and diachar^^sd juat aa it (^ot even \7ith

his log". The app llrmt waa not in front of ai:>p lleej anieilee»s

teatiiuony lo tliat he turned tOTraida apjollant and the (jim was dia-

charged hy his act as tha raange of the gtan was*^pa»ning appellant.

It would appear that appellant was not ner^xi^ent -o-n he waa partl}ally

"behind appellee and did nothing; to get in the range of the gun |

but api ellee by turning in the direction of appellant pointed the

gttn in hi a direotlnn vjhile trying to raise the haanaor mdt of the

gun, Ap -ellee knev^r the condition of lils liarida and the fact that

the haoEnur slipped frcoa his fingera and discharged the gun, does

net excuse iOsM, his ne(t;ligence in pointing the loaded gun towarda

appell;xnt wftien he waa witMn a fev; feet of liia. The injury waa

the result of an aocidentbut not an unavoidable accident, since

it was the result of a force put innotion by the appellee.

^Uv

-3-

It a i>er8on is inju ed t^ the dlBClmrge of a c^ua in the hando
of another, who liaa entire control of It, he burden is cast upon
the latter to prove 'hat the shtttiag was inevltahle und \?ithout
fault on ha part. Atohinsen ve, Dulls^, 16 111, App, 42, We think
tt clearthat appellant was injured "by,' the negli(3;enee or careloBo-
neeo of appelleo for the roaoon it ls|nei:^lig ^nce knowingly to point
a loaded gun in the direction of a poraon. The court erred in not
granting a new trial. The judgment ^s veversed and the cause
remanded for another trial* 1

R 3 V

ED &REMAHDED,

pH:^^^^^^^ >^^

Jen. Ko. 6288. October Term lCf4. Ar^. 19.

i /Filed April 16, 1916«

. Lererich, Appellee. |
vs. »t jl ^Appeal frtan Vermilion.

Danville CollieriQp Coal

Company,

Proliant. Ji 19 3 I. A. 6 27

bpinion "by Thorapson, J .

TJiis 1o g stTJt Torought "by 0. G. Leverich against the Dmville
P'.llieries Coal Company to reieover clatnagen for personal injuries avoyyoil tu
l;-.Tr^ T->ffon sustained Tyy liian while in its employ as a coal niner^ Tlie ^'li'gt
^,^.fi Pipp,fri-[f] cn^Titn fif tihft declaration aver a wilful violation cf Gecticn 'Jl

i

I

iof the r'iners* Act in tftat the defendant permitted plaintiff to enter its
mine and vrork therein, without belrsg under the direction cf a mine nanager,
^hilc a dangerous condition eKJeted in popbi Ko" -It r- -< AM tha-eounfee wlead
facts* whAch it As avecred^ cpnqtijbuted tjie idag3£3ii3<M*»-«ondiir±«»^ th ird
o-tmt avoya a wjiliftil TiolatlewtrP th.fr "STme-gctHA-ett'-^^ 41^

-- .Tirlnnf. ;riifuAiy failed to plctee a (^Gr>spH^cu5tI3\^ar^ at tno danprerous ^-lace.

Tlie plaintiff recovered a verdict a.nfi judgment for $5,000 from v/hicH^^,

t":o defendant appeals j Tlie evidence shows 1 hat the appellee had turned

i^-iU; about 4C days. 1^et"C was

and liaci. ';7orl:e:l an At about 4C days. 1^et"C was a horse bad: in

neck of the i^oog which caused the grade to be slightly up-ards from the
entrance and tii^n, from the edge of the horse^aclv, fthwc waii for a fcr: feet

\ sudden decline into the room. A car track of iron rails was laid from the

entrance of the room to the edge of the horse back nearest the face of the

1 .

r -1!. Tfoodea rails were laid in the room from the end of the iron rails.

"'ooden rails from the point Avhere they joined the iron rails to the end

the decline had "been raised upon cross ties to a height of from six to

'teen inches. This nade a hole hetv^een the wooden rails, the horse ':)ack

the cross ties at the edge of the horse hack, i^yelleo tootificd t?7at

_^hmo wa«i 11 inohoo doop,.-j4Ma^rHr''0---'assrgtrsmr^ that

i-^vao only- six inchea deep oi'"ijU>Jsai.Tbly...ar--4:Jrtirtig"Ttg^ e s

put— iL'-Tit ajj iiiUji'UJuaidte tU^jailLi. From the edge of the horse back, the track

dc'icendel very rapidly 60 that in the space of a fe-^? feet,- from five to rtine-

t J track was level and on the rock, t^^^ npp^iipn tatili'f'inT I Tint v;hen cars

ere pushed into the rocm, as they passed over the horse hack, they -vould

mddenly lurch forward and that ^e^ had to hold and steady thera as best he

A

ould to prevent them from jumping the track and knocking timbers dorm; that
le had talked about the condition to the mine manager several times and t' at
ihe mine manager promised to have the condition remedied as soon as sore iron
•ails could be procured. Tlie appellee further testified that on DecesSjer
!S, 1910, as he was pushing a car into the roOTi for the purpose of loadirt/j it,

hile attempting to hold it, as it went over the ridge, it jerked forTrar-^T and
gulled him into tlie hole and that his foot was caught and he was wrenched and
lis hip twisted. Appellee, although sick with pain, continued at work with
lifficulty that afternoon. On the way ^ <nne he had a chill, his leg pained
»ia and swelled up badly that night. He worked a little the next day and

2.

[then went and consulted fti/i nmi'lluy, who told him that his trouble was

rheumatism caused by a sprain and that exercise would do ^ is leg good.

1

[Appellee worked more or less for about two ^veeks durirur vrhlch tine Dr.

i

Hundley treated his leg which was badly swollen. Appellee continued

going to Dr. Hunaioy for treatment about five weeks; he then wont to Dr.

Landauer for treatment for several weeks. Tlie latter physician sent him :

to iludlavi^a for a week in Ilarch to see if treatment there ^-ould not reducejv

the soreness and swelling. In April Dr. Landauer discovered that the hip IV

joint was dislocated and took appellee to a hospital where with other uoctors^

an operation was performed. The hip joint was opened and it was found that

the rim of the acetabulum was broken ancT several loose pieces of bone were

removed . Thm Iflgr in ntrir nnriirlT tiT'f ItrrrlTfTf nf-Trtffr For rvyf- ^yn tpjxt'tt

It is contended by appellant that the condition of the entrance to
tlio pooia waa.,jicii..-aa tcsti-^re^' to liy aippelleo ^aytd-f mtBgr fchafei ■■fcELAIaat was

tyuL

rtLU oOi.dltitiii, -it is not such a dangerous c^nditipii as is within the meaning
of the statute giving a remedy for injuries received because of a dangerous

ondition; that It is only conditions peculiar to the mining business that
arc within the contemplation of the statute.

Tlie evidence of appellee, \>f Joseph Runyan and of the assistant mine
manager leads to the conclusion \that a condition existed such as is described

by appellee, althougli possibly the hole at the edge of the horse bad: was not

■■ 3.

ThQ legal propooition contondjed for "by appellant has 7.>cen dociuO'I Tjy

(
I the coirts adversely to its costei^tlon* Tlie words "smj dangerous conditions"

in tho Mining let, "apply to dangerous condl lions in tho track, the road-^jod
or tijo sides oT tlie entries, and that they include any darr-croua conditions
which Lvxy exist in a coal nine which endanger the lifo, limT? or liealth of
cien working in the laine, ^rhetlior «>u^h conditions are of a ponaanent character,
duo to faulty conatimcticn, or of a temporary character, duo to operation".
"It is ^^^vious tliat a dangerous condition of a railway track, Trhethor arisi'^ig
fra: its disrepair or obstructions upon it, is a rhyoical condition vrhic'i
mak s dangerous tlie vrorking place of those engaged in driTlng cars over it.
T!ie conditions and hazards under which the trnnnr>orfii»tion of coal Is r-r^^^nri
ed are different fron the conditions prevailing in transportation, elscjlmre,
and men enp;aged insueh occupation constitute a class hy themselves. " '^r^e'-
kacip vs. Consolidatorl Coal Co., 239 111. 305; Ilertens vs. Southern
' Ccal Co., 235 111. 540; TXiJiJicua vs. r51aok Diamond Coal Co., rr^*: "''■?.
437. Tlie conati'uotion placed on the statute in "he cases cited is that a
dangerous condition in the roa.T bod is xfithin the contar^^lation of t'-o r,t, ,.f•.^^f,-'
i*-■4»-'«^*s«^Hs»•*«♦e<*-'*ho* instruction - uraber nine given at tlse rerniost
: of aT;T»olleo lu lii'iliLiteaiHiii;* "It 4a wef. ^ "tfaitreqilyiiry ■l<w<>i'MeM*»ii^'-' '''J**^c-''~r;t.r'-;c'-
iOiidk the jury that a Mine Bxaalner haifflno authority to detortrine that

riace is not daniserous contracy to the fact; that fio rlno oxT.rri^or '^^ "-ood

4.

aith thought the place was not dangerous tstfe* not an excuse for f allliif?; to
nark a rlace dangerous if it is in fact dangerous. PagU- ti laGwagi'it e»-the
Lav; is nir^rft"""^*^ •*" c.nntr -g-q. ni.g-Jtfiid>1y ^HTTtnju; m.). g4.^l 11'!. 4-1 y-^^fifl gtrtm'arlo

Till ir lilii'i yimi Wind fiTu i niii fi rirrnrrtTTTnTrrmT'Tn'^ -

Innt'n rotinn if i iT fini i in If ii ^^ ii ■ ^"■■^^A'^'a^^Jwq'WjW' fWM"^«i|iMTOWwa;>;¥ ■A'l'-rrT;,^-*...

Tlie appellant insists that "because apT>ellee
continued to work for appellant about two weeks after he clains re was in-
d and told the mine manager that he had rheumatism, that this was con-
tradictory of the fact that the rim of the hip joint was broken on pecember
28, hy 1 rill JiiiiliTii^ TiTri liifn fTii hiHi as is now claimed by appellee.
Iiamediately after the accident, aprellee told a miner, who v;orked in an
adjoining room, and who had inquired of appellee what iras the matter vrith
him, about the occurrence. Tlie leg swelled up right after the accident
and remained swollen, and appellee only told what Dr. Hundley had said wad
the trou"'?lc with his leg. T!*«if»~jaa&-4Mit»-«r-flw>intilla' of eTltten^ a

basis -f©r^-:g4»4rng~fehe'~4nstructiron-.- «hllfc_jbl2£tJL33aJ:>ri!l.rt1 nn mAgTyfe properly
fe«TC- oe^n g^trert-r Its rsfusal, under jjl]^^^^ wast -hapeileais^- error .

It v3 also contended that the appellee could not hcive remained at
work omd do^io the wapk he did for two weeks, if he had received the injury \

A

m noctifiijui &g; and from which the evidence shows he now suffers. Three

5.

physicians as experts, 6b bohalf of appellant, testified that the appellee
cculd not have performetl the rrork and got around as he did, if the hip joint
iras dislocated and the rim of the Joint Tiroken. ^Tliat the appellee's hip was
badly sv/'ollen and that he suffered great pain from that date is ■nrovei-' '^^ t'^e
evidence; that he went to a physician, a day or two after the accident, v/ho
p.dvised hin that he was suffering?; from rheuraatism caused hy a wrench of the
joint; that lie ultimately quit work because of the pain and that he continued
tc visit doctors until the actual nature of the injury was discovered hy a
more thorough examination made hy the physiciagsc>i.iiiiuniii feu W 61early' Aeaon-

e3et?erleiice'.~~TRly-7rOT3[rt"c^ai1??tH5" j«Fordic.t..lJi,i'avor of appellee is

ilfest wtsrtglit" tyF'-th»,,e3tiaene^ .

iHM^ut Li

It is -jjan apgiiieH. that counsel for appellee raaclO' impropeir B«siaKiiaJa_
tiiiOJy argums^ to the ji.ry. — '^^^ r^Tnirlrm 'rhligh 1t 1g 1 na A nt lit rl Trt»rfli orroicxj^"'
aeiia concerning the dangerous nature of the work of coal miners and the safe
guards that the law has provided for KHtnery. "'n din nnfr ■P'iriil iiiiiifrtti«Li»i§iii amppopc
or--©^btetrtriTOta*r*^-!nrT^^

Iir-5r!»~a^go anoigMed Poi- eirui* •that"i:rtTg"TertH:^ti& excessive . TJje
appellee at the time of the injury was 36 years of age and was ear^dng $50
every two weeks ^ Be has been unahle to work for over two years. He l*«s
suffered great r^ain, and his leg is now nearly two inches nhorter than the

6.

other. He ttxII suffer more or less from the peruianant nature of Ms in-
jury for the remainder of his life. Vlr^^^STFT'ffl'&ll't l'tiutJOH--4«"-ofe'ewBMg^..

/ AffirJTiecl.

' t.

aam^sam

won* '-Oi

\

>otobev

'V

,»«««!»..,

Filey April 16, 1915-

:>y€iol rvtun -"11:0.

193I.A.632

ri'i b;..uM f-it»il li"i caiAO a^alnc

•Gcor^cr

.tT<JJT<5d. tr-

hieli! jttdgjsjent was rc^Klarc^i..

U "" O d:c^o:^d.^r!t ;ipre*'-^ <^

■ ■|Ia.nt.'> i-^-illfOftd ruitr-.lrjf, v>-ent- Tf^n
a<UiouBO cr<-;s:-;eE t''.e ^llinoia rl^er .it rip*ht angles aJ"tor T^aai^li^M? t^^vx-m^

'^cv.t Ttalf a

r?.ile tfost or

lit ul'liroy l!>ctwecr4 t!:c rillai

me nnf. <:'"--cr;'.t©fli ft

rf)Ck cn?«??!Oi*. 'itts;'

■,rdc. '.re

vruciic:

i!; tci'^in^itao nea-

.'. ^^ ;r

it.

H5 oniolior, -:. -licLo trueli leayon tTr<

in ^.Ivldu),; it.

•\K;t

'ic r.ctit^ 'la-j of and Bwbatantiall

cuJTO tc: the no:

Ith th& ^tnmV.or bun-livjf?:

":i trao'c:

If! tho pai't, of tT?© Ins^.ltHn.T ■^•!«^:^:j»ei^'

mciBt -^orf^orly cf tTionc r!\Tit«^ trt\f'.'*5 ic «nlIo.1 tlio cr^!5^©l' traci

n«.'.'*

or

and nms i» an Irres'iliW* c^iT'iie l^ r^ji ca-'tcrly af.rectl

h^rllr. f*.^,-/,-; 1 +,

'*■»,

t''G tt^cy^s ?«r.v:'!i .'.?:■ ]*?!fic?5e^ a vni

I7t «iOtttTi of -■?wi*c tho T-r".tcl^ trr

!. x"^ {1 -. ■

r».m3 north ofj-:!toj*ly an^T ot»os55on tho nwiln trivcl: in a f^.l

•.+ ^ -o.•^ '-,•^f.T-?0.•^fl

irootl

f» -

"Ttcg

trft«Jc io alioiit JJ3 foot. TT-o r'-^'^lfc roal contlm^Of? on tmrardU) t^e ::ortTicv?t

, *» '? /■\i < ■■' »'

^ ^Vl,"l/'."-^'? "T-Jr '■'-;■- 'J' ?*-'tV*."* " » ^^ *

rcolcy, crcanaa :\ creok 5U3t Mfcrc

t^c roivH brfirs«??T«sj f*»-:'j;- tT-dt ^oint fco '^ic

•s .; ^, .-.^ :^,r, ■^T•

■'■•: ' ^•,•^>»^^•.■ vr^

■"■f-./fV /»'>r«>rtf-

♦C^d

tte ri3 Ik :?. 7ll^t up ryji<!le for a)}^t :?5C yards ncrt?}-oa»t of tT^e cr :

te

y, -■!,■', -,*, ^.'

1 " •• t-» ■

,',--'—. rritlT"

rlfx ^rf* ■' .,'-.-!"f - * -^f r»?>/»'-

thc trian/fXc bet^ocn t!ie nain track ai?rt tTr aoreeninfrs tracl: iiort

"ill.

•f»'! 1 "^Trf. V.f?:-! C'^T^'' ■''*l0'~ f",f ■'i»»-* T«?.-i . :^- f.

n««'f.<nf'.?-

ttobors t-srolvo incbca nfiiwjfe atjd fjroa al^litoou t«> t.Tenty-two foet

jd

".■■■'■>'?■'<•»■!;• f, '■■i?^<»V"'. ■j"'''' '?'''•■•'■'?■» O"^*-. :_., , Stt'JT^'^l^'*''! f*-'^T*c '■ ' 1 1"* "" "■-».?■•-• 1 ■" <■

hlfT^vnvf a Tory fav? feofc freni It, laut on t7><» ri?»!>t of way Of ft

fn.r r\3! t*'0 C'l'^f^l'-C^ 'lO'T ■■'.!- f;V/ri-t,'70

ni^'hlif. ''lr^,7;','v i?5 fjl-i'^-lv tti'"- *,r:r"ol'!G''l

..l^ay or 'T.arroii tr'ack*

;>cut!i of the scrooiiiT)(?s trad: jum south of tho xsroat <mH of tlw cnjs''-
ci' l:ousc, van :\ pllo v T acroci^-lnga ^'^Iilch had ijocn sijcvollotl fror: oars cp
scroorsinca, "Tson thoro t'as n shortai^ of seroonln^^ care. 'Hhc ;lintfmce ^w-

tv/cen t!:c public road and tI?o nearoot side cf the acrocsilrjf^fi VTt\r> nl>o'it tvro-^.iiy

I

I

I
foct» s:-o«tI» of the oast end of th* cntsTter bnildinfj and abotit twotity-flve

feet north of tl-'.e public road waa ^ 3t««aa box ov t*':;- ;rl ■^.■!• -'.■' -■■:,.;;• '* cijn.r'

This bos T?aa about tTrlrty int^en smiare nnd oxtojiAod rlnc i ■ ■ toi?: foot r,?)'-;-re

tho r^rv.i:i:d. ita-iioe ■-"-.■• <:c diaoJid-rj^e «rt?;mTrjt ntCT-: irtc tro :::.r.

"•'Opc T/aa alflo a locociotiv® find caboose in attoncL'yico on tho cnisbor

Trh.:c . an the ballast tspln. " -r^i.x.G

of tho '.rufjhor riant. The vlllasol of Poarl wan his tratUtig f^laco mitt his

route tc V' '^vr.^-n the rillaso wfts naat th© cru.<5l»er 7 isint on t'rio real e.rcoj-

Inr: tho railroad- '« tbo morning tliat bo traa Injured, be drovo to 'Oarl a

I
tc:.>^.i ■" ' crses hitel^ed tc ,1 lir^.-'bor' fr.^ri •: Vfch botlj end gates cnt, to ret n'

two by fours aod oorrngatod Iron ijocfin^- (>n hlo way bono tbo toasit^aftop

,; , " ■.'Iro?/- ?»■'.:'! rvmy am'^. Just after crois'tin," t.?>o ctJlvc-r*

cf tho omslier, tl«»ow aprollco out of tbe wag;on, broaliing bis log.

n^Sl^JSenoo averred In tbo first ootmt io tJiat »?bile arrolToo iraa

driving oo osa aprolltmt's track ndor tbe rock enjsljer, it negligently and

carolea:!ly ran^ tbo bell vjnC i.ae ' ibo trbistle on ita loeoEOtiro near tbo

boracG i«-biob vere frif^i tonod tbero^** etc.

3.

crcnt^lng on ttte ilre of tli© hi^ray .i large piX<:^ y.lt^h

-v.ni7f»'^ --!%:■: ilr-lvinff csi tZm Mr^TtVa:^ across tl'.e ra1.1rcriv1> ut

■ -liod oiTb© of tho iargN^ tii2i»3Cr.c> off t.ljo ■ "^lo

L-v, Mrr? rt'r.rrf .?.?>.l r.lrnr- the -sToat lino of the said T»ublJc Tiir.!rra3r" , ncar aM

:r':i Uio lioraeo tmd t!icrcby rrigi;tetie«l thOEi etc

j
;' c ■f.ririi Ci'UMt avorrj tTiat c>^rel3.ant •erasj nonll^^ont

la car, cnt«Iied rook ;ina ;>uXveriaea otono on the grournl aicmg and upon tli© ^iH

-!,\:!.-. "5:?^ll« !;l-^T-.:r;v7, tcnTjir^l tlio\ tofaa tirawn ^7 ,-it>pol'leo st3 that ilisst .rM*<isc
oiK>d t!iO ii«5r3Ca» \

;;o r>7irtT: eotiMfc arora r£e5:l:lnor.oo in r^rmlttinf?^ ntcmn to e",capo vrith
groat ncdso froa the storin oxlisiast l»ujs: notir tlie liii© of the public Jiir-ray
tfr.-:u»fl- Uir- toian vrhlch thoi*oby bocatie friglitened. The fif t!: ;CiO cIt:. Ci>tints
arc o^sabln&tioTjJs of tho avorjaonta in tho oUior o^Juntis.

^ /?ro la a sorioiin onnfliot in the orideaco a^ to tfje action n-r tho
horoos duriag tUo raomiJig "ijofore ilw* accidont. <>»« witiioas toatlfied that
L*v:i tcrun xrati Tvl'^t'tonoii on tli;o road to Poarl laofore it t^oi .:;i-i';:ter

Appelioo got t'-uiUJ^n ..i-ega... .f^lmi Ijj' !>C'.u^» fH.q;rr*;'gt?v -'frnrri^/nS ^tV' &r ^T
fr3l~*'t car at Tearl- ITc tostifica t!iat his lioraos Old net ta3':c frlf^l^t t?M7o
he who oiir. Two disliitorcatod rrltnosaoa totitlfiod %h& iS

fj.j.rjrt- ..^,' ,, ,. . ^' ,...:..., -J .;:;*oro avray finjc! tr?o car. After ,^;ctfcir'-,"; t!^

4«S*rHa5sr In tlio wa.:p;on ai»pelloc fSrove to tlie dorot *«-s«4-#!cr^ ecrrugatod Iw.

4.

ul3cr.t Lvelvc ''Jut 3 on.!!.; Jiml -trrn fecfc -ig4d4>. ?^o cf tho "bunohGa was leoae,

;j^,iiip; aiscl acted fri^it«xied frcaa the iioiao jaado in loadiii?? the iin.ni,vr!rlle

:■■; e.i^-;:- 0 t^atiflocl that tl.C toa^-v: was not fra/;:-x-:j;iie«A ;.a;.. ; .i^;; ut.

. oKocn tho depot an<^ the railroad crossing aprelioc atoppoa hia t&ma and

t-'Oli tliC l^vUi- i ; _:^):. ;r;-a. ^vad alsO ^icliod U[? f j'u . OOa

rocl::, oiicli v/eijdiiiXK abcut t'lToiity-fivo pomids, aaid inst tlKK: or the Co^^ c**
appelloiit arKiios to ko&v it fx*«*i rattliu *.
Kiezi roro starKlininj on ore of the piioa of tXiaber and that tlxjy r ilel a Iar«^c

r tlio top of th© pilo 0ig1»t feet Mgii, to tha fx^uncl, to tisa • ruul c" ;uk1

.^.voh x.'i ■;* ;-'■' v.'.o Bosr horse J t...v -.'Od

against tho off horse aiicL atartocl to run east cuid that a t.'CiiJi c-iEij froj?' tha

OABXj v.i ^,;.^.; ..;.i.i..;i iA.*sv: v;5j.is L..i.^iiij ;,.;,;. I'iii^jUi^ i.:jl; rj. :. . VO ' --

xjiC scrooningo out of a oar on the oorconlngs tracl: a; ind 'blO'*- tlwst

?riiig out of the oxiiaiiat plpo snU 80ttli2^ orer the roaii and that made t??c
Appollee is eorrobcratod aa to tho rolling* of tho tlnhora of r tfie

piio OY Clio :ii<'e of ty^o I or-vos "by ;i r;iv:ica.j Xnos, a coiisli-i '^ olloe^rlio

waii i'laii.ijig tl'ie fricticn hoist on t'le top or tb© cj:»ualv testlfiocl

i^iAio u;^:o:.'j ^^o*•y Lt/o i::on 0.1 t]:o j.ii;:ooi. r,xlyi vrlio rcllc.1 a tijn'')er tc the jTrnuntl
whew tlio tc-aia \mf5 -faasing 7:>y it. To ia dxocro.lite«l hj, zuion^^ otb;iX' tl:inr;s,

,-.i;.tu;a ivt^iOi.:; .I'jixt r:2a.de oy hiK ahortly after* t':e ac-:iJ-do:i^, :!.a .;:vic'> ;w n.^yn
lio sa;; a gang of man on the nlie of tiisbera at ti.;iO oopaslnf^ noai* the crushor
...::x.i Gtatctl, "..- v.xlx not 3ay bridge isen xrcre i- *a..;..i;: .;r ^^wvia^ oi.'jcr.. .'•Oi:!h9
Cvtiae up but they wore <n the pile", toother '.^itrjoa^s, :>i*iinaugli also tostl-
fievl tf:sn.i . . >..;.. .iv , .v^-.. i.^ uJio crasher u. ■.. a.'.,: Johnsca wlfli !._.:i io.t- . -
proacli the ci'ossing iuid two of the bridge men, who were cu the rile of tii^-
-ji^xu. .ith cant h.:;oIc^3, roll ii l.u-gc t:ur»her off tho top cf t: ..^ .-->- 1

five or six feet of the left traoi of the vra^^on road,',;hich soared the t-aia,
but he saja the horses cci-*o <'L.'ii*cins as thoy approachecl tV.e .- aiiiL-v -^.i. -•»..(. t.'?er
cf ;.I:o3e v/itnosaos knew of the accldor.t xmtil they irere told aaout -t.

Ti;ore v.'oro tvro (-iiiinga of non ^ith ptish cars talcinfi tir.hern '^r v thoao
piles to the "bridge over tho riyer that inornirig. Tlirirc rcre r.lRrAM'i ■"l-^-^a..
-gastg. T^io— aC these non testify th<;y -Oi'o on r. p;"J.o cf tlsf^ievs Then a tersja
went hy,.n,hoii Uu-. paLiTT"TglFliaH"TrognlmriHT^^ jm,!, I. ..af

^^-r u.'i.!jUini^. f W 11 tl'AlL tn (^g"tt'y ;i1iou!»-"»»»--A»'-"M^ and that th.cy did .ct rol''
.^jh^Mjiciber off the pile. Jlbo '^j-rliei* frmr T^^mi pf t^M^-- *"■■ w^rf "»!;-«"'"^'*ri..i oyt^ij

t«aUi^.. tliat >i^--t:Jira»er^ pile trhen tho tcsE: Trent hy and

that they slid the timbers en skids from the rdlo to the push car. ^ono of

wards told about it « .

The aoeidcnt hapfniiiml abuul tmr iy*'eTOtgr"ay"T:?yr^uriiiM^ s s

■YAi'gll Iluuvui waa {janglLlea tn'tea^ify dhali he dyoyo l>y ntha,Bft .tiaboy ^les
v/tn f-hn. aftomooTi nf thnt finyi anii thali tlTrr- tprr f'^^-^fr^^r^r '"f***- H'^^i-mi^^fT lying

1ti thffi rfiinTTi'.'iy; Tti!'''' PVimvrr*''''"nTr ''*'rfr*T*r"'''"'''t''' "if ■*''*'' ■ri''' "^Y'lwti &i\ frj.H...^''^

t^ft ff-^^mt ITT-"* re *-T^" fricMfflf^^C-"^ *^^^ *^^^^" ^y rfillj,jnr tiinihgrn nff fjir

top of tho pii»"l>y too ■siac fif 4l»e>^boaiB" aa' 4» ww!t"t»'y'^ ■'ii*?e'HP«^"-^i

fi[i^T|t IK "TTI [Tur riiin nrr Un [Tit ^runvi'l Timn w liiOrii "I < nnti iiori'niiinr ifjjj^r

Counaol fOT^-appalloo liiaiat that--^iMr»----ey4r4e3%ee-"4TOtfH-ye«itereLl' 'go^^
[jaj the yyJi^CTf*^ nfl^-*tt?'^^ "" *^" r""* ''*' ■■fy.Ti...<i *ii.i i.ii.« ..■»■ iiMr-Trrrr-Trf-

n^y t"''nff that t^a^y yn^l g^ny <-4m>.pr»B (r^**^ <-V.a T"*^^ ''^" /^Trifl».««» r-tiniOri >.OTra

^rr,pf;r

.,4w»y^4,«.„j!uiiL.-,o. 1 Ag;a.i rftasor.. J*"^

admitting nTirTmrr rrrr oh jooltiiOTi tif> frwbiit tho Imprni

iU vs

MfttiiP"" "'>^--^"»^^""'»3^'y-^^'''^p;^"fli g^** «■<^mj^a^n« «g.M<iiin t i^iiiw|wiii ■ii.iiiiiin ir.

-gjew of the-CJ)nniat.>^»~4>fee--eTlttigfflgBr"

7,

exopcioo of duo oax*e In that txn olj^it jeav Ifl lot of* hamoon ^m
llvoly toiaa. Appolloo i^ovo-l ijy a son o? hio, t^at tlie oon hltcic" tiio tor:
up that naming* It appeared lij tli© orldonoo of anotlior TTltneao tTiot a
pioco cf loatlior atrap roaocblii ig a broken lino ttos plcl:©d ur> fiftcr t!?o
acclilorit in clogo proxtolty to i'he '^laoo. Ar»T>ollant, on cross oxanlnatioii
of Johnson's 9on» undertook tohho^ the condition of the hamoBQ aftor the
accitlont and tliat T>art of tlJC ilnca t?ero tlien eiIs^I^t^. joction ?raa

prcr«rly guat^lnod to this quaation for tho roaaon it trag not crosn o-:?*

tion. AltTJoug!! it would have fieon portiiiont to show 'he ccjiaition \^an the

5

horses were hitched up*

It is contended that the court erred in laodlfyinc; an ins trtjo tion ro

n -isV" ";

quested hy appellant* The iiratrnotion aa sivon -icii— ":-o\i -^vo r^vi^i;:.,iiv ' -'^
wLfueted that if, on the oceaolon under invontlioiation, the '^lalntif^'^'i ton; ■
was excited, norroas, or alarmed by roaaon of, and on account of^t^o noises
tsodo by tho articles ho wan earrylns in hlti "oson, and that \7fiile such toaj
r;ix:; in t-i.it cort.'.ltion t!:o rsliintlff ca»--io upon tho ri^ht cf -
darit, on which right of -ay, of the dofondant, tT^e dofondant was eariTl
Itc. ■. vm Trar.j.nos-, '.n ::. rox3er and usual rray, ami that f;^2 acc-'Tr_>t " ■•
cited condition of sa-d toORySO caused by said nolBOa,or by other oauseo for

xch the defendant ot its sojr^uits was not resrobsiblOjS.iU tea
aiKl ran away> should find for the defendant.*

:,■•-. I.:. I'xcationa nmnlilnerl i»l»-jarr- :.jertlon of tho ' r ■•::. '^•i"

S.

Ita soxnranto* rmd '^o onusure after the rropcla pan jway of t?ic

aecount of sitoli proper and usual conduot of tbo clofes^ants buslnoBO in lie

cm pi ht of vsxy you."

It la aP|«ttOd that the adflittoa of--*rTO*tar^*ll*' atrgsof^^ r;--

i^oocrjsary and do not state the latr oorroctly. It Is only acts Mrio by

B0P^!s^t3 In V'^G lino of their duty r in furtlioraiaco of tT^.o /Viator* n imalnc

fcp trtii(ffi t?30 rmnter is liable » but there was no ioat^ or oonter!tlon tTin,

<Kr!>"loye3 of ai>poll:\nt clid onytlilng not in tlse lino or tboir duty anil \7h-V'--'

that T>at»t of t?>e inatmiction did not teclinicaliy'^fstato the In^ f«:lly -n Vtutt

tquostion it could no\ nsislead the jury. !> r • eraaod are nislcatliu'" r.

'to the J^gligenoe <fl» .rged in the geoona count and the inutruetior! Is ab«itr'>.«t

ana nafcoo no roforenee to the oridc??ieo« 'r!?o public had rl«»htvO on t!ie ^I'^llc j

hirliway trhere it eoosoecl the rVtht of way of appellant. If the appellant

rollod a hoary tidbor off a/ipile close besdde t!!o travollo^^ tracfe on t'>

/

lie highway by the aide pf and nrlthin fire to eoven feet of a teara boln^ dr
en alrnig the public Iiij^rroy, then it was a -r^uegtion ., f or trie .tr'y t'-; ;jay Wri-
the aridenoe* rhetlter such act was unreasonable in oharactor or rale at ';iic
/■

tiKO or undejp such circtmmtaiKsos as to amount to a irilful "iorot'^ard of the

/ \

ri'hts oira trareller on the hif^rway. Chandler va* I* c. I5. nX^ f»m> ? .

250. /Davis Ts« FexmeylTania R. n. Co.:.;: >: . A, ( :.

stntetlonjtras abti tract and wa!,g mAiatantiAlly ii^wea in a?^&©llant_*g sov^c

pollant's Instruction '% a@ uiodlflert ^y the Inoortl
porOs "and not froE the negllRcnit act.o t*' Aefonclaat or Itn soShrrto ^'j
»cetl 1» tb© declapatlon." ''^o tlnaortlnw of t1w>a» r7nrflft._SLl£3it-xijr»'^
,icatl tho Jwry in tliat t^oy i3i::;nt imtlorstanf; tho d^iml'': ■ :•©•' :irocl

to rroro tho injury ^aa not ccittsed b^jH^ neglij^^ont aoti imloss t!ie lury
sio ■ ■"'■ :".oe tbat t?i© injury wast produced hy V q tso'^lifrcnt

oet ur acts of.-tCwpollflmt the rercUot cniat "bo for appellant.

"l:lje-^ci!srjrlair'.t ±H gs»">? o ' ' '.lodlflcations arse' V^q refufsal of

certain Ingtruotiona wo^tfel^ the jury woro fully inatruoted and tJ^at no
ir;»j!i'i?i rT'.rppae 'ill be senred by roviot^^^^N^jwr oriticlaa iviade. o

of tho a'nlBsion of iKpropor e Icloneo tho Judi^ont Is^^^^erootl aand t^ie

neroraofl and noraanded-

1?).

p

^'**^*fl»**Sa»5»!S«**'*^^ ""

,X-

4-^*^1 -^4 -^z^^-

^*'*"" »■■■- M..,^

^:Z£i^

Oon. No. 6209.

October Terra n.014.

Pi/ed April 16, 1915-

Af^.C-

lAicinda Arlf^oy* Actalnistratrls cf/ |

the : ■state ^f Jolm '■.. Ai''::lC3?-,
docoased^ \ Appellee/. \

\ A'^-'^eal frcic: ^.'0^1311101?.

I
Williac C. NiMacky Receiver i6f tlic I
Perin- Coal ?r..^-a:;y, Apr94lai-it. '*1QQT/\ 6S6

Opinion by Thourpson, J.

^'in is an action on tlio c;ine TiomTn'-Toy Lwolndt Arkley, rir^'rinlnti»a-
trix of t!iG estate of John II. Arkley, deooised» against Wlllian ':'. niT>lacl:,
"oooiver cf tbe Derinrr Coal Ccrir'any, to recover cln2na?i;e3 nncler tlie -'inen and
Jlinors Act for the death of John . Arkley, caused by a portion of the roof
of >:^ voon fa"linr; on him TThilo ho was at Trorlc aa a coal r^inor In f-T-g! Bering
g • . al Ccip]pany-^-&^lne- on ?!riy " '"^'! , I""';*!-. Trr^-trlala-refrtillua, U- vor-'icts in

fnvrift f^f tlia r3aiPtMT.---'3:?^-^aa*--j«per44^<Hi»t^ for $5|p00^'^K? do^onaont

^

<\

^'rn-iPffiiliftrT VAn nrr'^flf^ from tJ*© judgment rendered on tli«rt ver-lictt A tj^g

det^^rar-!*±«n-~ct>nttr!TisrT?')T^^

f:ilGd--»&%abce--irtt!r't;?!^"S'C5t^"^ not

^t-t3:»<»-4eoeftaeTl 'mi8'--tm-*tar^^y---a^»lg-r-"'^?^^^ygty^ a--'T^el!ant~Sa

p«cL . in the r©©f ©f M»-w.t4*i«g-nlacoT- "ttKXt- ■'"H" tffiaT"?KiyT'^^!^^5E3fP!t~i^^^

his buddy, deraan^iTTSf-isn^olTrint-^

ecfffaln props an-^ c-:

Locos ar/l apTKjllaart- ii»M#«aXy.-failoa. t<H-^?mTBCCSK^ gaae, takl i iao u-.. ,iy

1 .

. J-v t

24, vrhllQ tliG deceased was at '-.rork Ij-
\ caused liis death •

'lie .gecond ooirnt contains i'^'"'^ ^Trt'^';-r -rllogation 'tbat +'''^ '' r^-,^'^ voek
; waa resting on anoth^er rock v:horohy it xraa made cl^ingerous .

: o tldrtl am fourth cctmts avar in cliff oront language t!>o /''-t-' f^*^
the Eiine esaainer to exainino tlio undcrs^roimd nvorlcinss of the tsinc v/ithin

tweivG -iours preoeotling cverj'' day upon iirhioh th.e nine is operritedj tl:r.t t^o

i

isine exauiiner did o:£ar.iinc the fcan and reportod it safe in the Ibook -rovidod

i 1

<•«.■!» t!i,'>,t purpose; that the roof was in a -i^an/^eroiis corxlition at t^-^ f ' • irvl

', appellant i3iOT?ingly and wilfully neslocted to cbsorre aaiil dangerous roof and

\

rio,rk xt d.^ngerous.

MiO f iygt-^»uit-«fttloa ■u3£-.4>japQia.ant 4i«- th»t tJ>» 5adgy>e<nt eaawot 1)C

bp.-'vi flT'^^-an n^nnf flff.y fftet li.->yQ7>d the ln.<it. p.ynart /mi;,. About l:'-^ ' ~ "•?
morning of Llay 23d, the mine exaLJiner nade an esanination of the ^rorking pli4e
of dccoa30<T ;\nd fotind -.% I0030 reel: on -.Thich he placecT n 'irmr^'rv- ^ .
decoasod and 'toody vrent to T/crlc on the morning of the 23d, the assistai'jt nine

naiiasci', '^dio \fas the day ir.ar'Octcr, tolu tr.en aljout tlie J-ocao roc'- •■'•■■•". r^-
atructod theci to fix it. '-licy tried tc got it do-km aiid rcnored part ■:,? It,
•I'ldinr"; tTio | art \rith the esajdner's dangez^ chall: ncir!; on it. '^lio-j then
vreiit on nith their i7orI: of mining. Iloody testified that ^o tried to pror

the 10030 rocls Tout that tho worl: roqiilrod six foot props aiicl the rnly pre-
In the vlciiilty uqvq sovon f ot lo?ic» iTio mine examiner tcatlfletl tTjat It
tho early norning of tho 24tb, he again oxanined tho roof of the v/orlring
place, oarlzed tho elate of the ojcaninatlon, but laaclo no danger nark an he at j
that tine found tho place safe. Wlien Arliley and Moody went to t?orI: on t1?.at
morning the rock vrith the dates aJay 23rd and Hay 24th had fallen Tlio de
ceased toatod the roof of the room with a pioir and found a loose rock orer
tho roadway, but tT^ey T7ont to work loadir;'r coal. About 10»30 tho asaistr:
nine nanager visited the room, was told by Arkley and his buddy about the
locso rock, sounded it, told then it was unfiafe and put a cross mark on it

and testified that he told them to take the rock down. Mootly testified that,

i

ho told them to watch it. The deceased aftd I'oody continued at work loading
coal until near noon, T7hen a side rock which projected under and supporto
tho loose rock fell and Id.lled Arlrley .

The method in that wine of or<!drlns timbers was for t!ic ainers requir-
ing timbers, when thoy quit work in tho afternoon, to fill out tickets -rith
the diaonsions of tho desired tlmbars and the roo«a and entry t^horo they trere'
required, and "^fee- date and place the tickets in a bos in the office at t!\
top of tlio rdno. That nigjit the tickets xrero talcon from the box by the
night boas, transcribed to a sheet called the tiinber ahoot and Tvanaecl to the
tlcibor hauler, trlio ttecn made deliveries acocsftllng to tho tiraber shoot.

Jiooay testified that on the afrfcemoon of the 23rd, ho filled out a

;3.

tlnbor tickot for ocano sis f oo€ -nropa for tfto sixth Goutli TTest entry and
plaood It in the tanljor hox 00/ tie r/ont "jy the offiooj that the -.xt^cI ' rMit

failocl to deliver any tJUnbers iln purauance of this donancl and that tho or .

I
ticihors in tho vicinity vrore aoiae acvon foot props in front of t!ic crcgn cut

ho night boss testified that he took the tickets out of the bos that nif?:ht,

transcribed thesa to the tinbep sheet and placed the ticl:eta iii on onvclo-rc.

I
The appellant offered those t{lcket3 and the tlraber sheet In evidence.

Tliere la no ticket aiaong thon made out by r-oody. TTie mine inanagor and thrc"

other \ritneases testified thkt about two hours after the acoidont, tliero

▼ere fire props lying by tho( cross out, throe of ^rhich vrero 3 . vc Toot loi:^

and two six feet -ind an inch or two. John inrton testified that '0 was 1:

the rocaa iEEicdiately a.ftor the aooiclop.t and tlsc-u .lJ the loose rocl: had beo-

i'oprod, the side rock would not have fallen; that there crero no 'six foot
props in tlic vicini y but there rrere sono seven foot rrops about "' feet
distant. T^o other witnesses testified there were no six foot r^rops there:
one of these ';7itness©s als^ testified that he was present after t; o accl-

■ont* when the ecirloyes of appellant measured the props in the vicinity and
that they were all seven fdot props.

The evidence cf botli porlles would appear to slicw that only part of
the reck that was loose andiiaarked dangerous on t?^-" '^'"^ t/ar, rer.tcve" "■■' ^ ,:
tliero was loose rock over t!ie roadway on the 24th, when the nine exanlner
osacinof^ •'' -^ -''orirlnf^ -^laoe of the deee:?.3ed. an-' ot r'ar'ro.'-

danseroiis. If the mine examiner had ctarke"' t!ie rock dangerous and recorr"^

i

it as required "by Section 21 of tne fliner'a Act of 1011, t-en the nine raana-
f^er rrould have r^ithheld the entrance check of the deceased ,„ lot

have been permitted to enter the mins until it rras made safe, except as a com-
pany nan under the direction of the i^ine manager to nalie the "^ lace ';-T-. '^-~ ^er
the Twiner's Act there can not "be contributory negligence, '"ant of care on the
part cf t!;e niner is not a defence td an injury rccciyci:, .:..';,./ : jury
would not have been received if the mine operator had complied with the
statute. Actival notice to a niner of ia dangerous conditiori r-ili net re-

lieve the operator fron liability, Trhel?e there has been a vilful disregard
of the provision of the statute T;hicli was enacte^L for the protection cf
miners. Mertens vs. Southern Coal Co.lj 235 111. 540; Henrietta Coal Co.
vs. . :..x-il^\, 'j21 111. 460. TOether the .'failure to properly nark and report
a dangerous condition in the roof of ajrociii - as the proximate cause of the
injury toa siner is a question of fact| f or the jury, nctr;ithstanding the
miner had actual notice of such condition before he entered the i*,oon and
began to -rrorli v^ithout propping the roof, a portion of T;hich fell and injured
hiiu. ricptcns vs. Southern Coal Co. (Supra) j Brunrcrorth vs. Kerens Coal Co.,
2G0 111. 202 J Tomasi vs. Donk Bros. Coal Co., 257 111. 70.

The evidence app3icablg to Uto oomits averin^ Ti failure to fui^nish
props on reciuest of the deceased and his associate is in direct co" flict.
There is no raanifest preponderance either v/ay.

Tne-4«e«4i4«a-ef -*'het*ier the tklIiffa._Gf.. appellant, to comply w3:tIT~tho

st.iiuto ..-i.; t'le rroxiiaato causo ofn tho death of Arkloy wtxr. riropeply smteaitt^
t!3© jury, and there v/aa no crr^r in refusing tho peronptory imtnictionr

It is also insisted that th^ court erred in giviiig instructions at
the rofiuest of tho appolloo. Th^ instructions o<^>n?l inod of are not por-
enrtory in fona, ami are in the lan^iago of the statute; vro find no error

in them. \

It is also contended that »iu i.'jiii I mn^l lit refiiritvy? Instructicns
roiuostcd hy appellant; Ar:-ullusii ■ s iiiati-uolimr nmimp l!r-amTe?r¥as~refT^soa
-2^ to the effect that if tho Jury believe tliat w;;on the i^inc exudner oxx. i-
nocl tho room, the side rocL, rhich fell, was solid and in the 1ud<r^-ter»t tf
tho csominer there were no dangerous conditions, an^ the rocl: in the roof
^as JaiCTiTi hy deceased t^ he loose, and hefore the accident t'>e day inspector
narked the loose rock ^ith a cross and told deceased to tal:e it dotvn inl

thereafter the deceased continued at work without ta!:ing it dotm cr rvr*oppins

it, then they should find the defendant not guilty.

Tl^e evidence is that the loosfe rock in the roof caused the fnide

reck that \TAa "bracketed nmlor it <c fall an' tl^c. fo '^-"'^ -" the case ia

ignoro'I hy the instruction vrhlch 3 « peremptory. TTie statute is nan"'atory

!

/ rtirl the good faith cr jud^ent of kihe r^inc extttniner is no defence tr " ' -

[ 1

t lire to nark a place as dangerous wiich in fact ^ras danftorous. If the rook
wa3 dangerous and had been so recorded the deceased t^ith

0.

t ,. -.r-. '. '•■('

net have been pem^tted to ontoi? tbo ird.no except under the directioii of the
(tine manager to nake it safe, hiat haa been said in rCoronce to contri-
butory neGlisonoe not being a dofcrsco, ansTfors the contenticnr? f .;ant
concerning the ether refused Instructions. Gerenteen instructions were
given as requested by appollanii and cover every lor-al '^ropositirm ±n ■•'' o cse
Tre find no error in refusing injbtruotions .

It is also said that the judgment is escessivc. Vaq doceaoo" was
fifty-two years of ago, in good health, and earned from $4.00 to $4 -GO per
day. '7e oanrsot see any reason on irhich to base such contention.

It is not necessary to re|riow tlie crffss errors asgigned by appellee.
The jud03ent is affirtned. I

'■r» Justice Schof*leld took no part in the consideration of tliic
caao .

7.

l^^

^

.JfVc^

>V'..^'^'

Gen. No. 6313.

October Tena 1014.

/

Aff. G4.

Aiaella Barker, Appellee,
vs.

DanYlllc Street RailoTay &
Light Company, Appellant.

AppcyQ

^led April 16, 1915-
fron Vemilion.

V.-^ 19 3I.A. 639

Opinion by Thompson, J.

'■Tliio Aa an action on the case brought by Amelia Barker nf>;ainst tl3e
Danville Street Railway and Light Corapahy to recover datnager^- for injuries

to have been sustained by heiV-through the neglis;ence of the defen-

. .._ ...-^- --. -^.- .-....,. ...,..„.

dantrwhiic attempting to become a pas3er)igec.-0U.-a..SLfersS.tjs^ nif nF»*>rn->n nrinu
A jury rotmn^edrtr-rer^-^etrln favor of the plaintiff for $500; the defen-
dant [Vi. u3^J■c^l^^^^il^i9 appeal <5^ •

The evidence shows that in the city of I)anvill:e, a public square is
in the center of the business district With streets le ding frora it to the
north, south, east and west. TTie north! and south street is named Vermilion
street and the east and west street islMain Street. The court house is at

the north side of the square and east of

Vermilion street. Tlie Daniel

building or Ten-Cent Store fronts to tl-e east on the w'est aide of Vercilion
street, just north of the square. There! is a side wait along the north
side of the square across Vermilion strodt. North of the square in Vcnail-

ion Street is a double track street railv

public square, by quarter circle double tracks, curves to the east and to
the west on Main street . About 100 feel north of the public square on

ay vfhic!?, at the north side o" the

Vonailion street ic a crosn-ov.er track,, v'here cars cominfr "rom t}ie r.crth

*-'^'>'^ run of vhich ends at t'le Bouare, after tur-^in^'- Toack north on the •'.rest or

I
soutb boimd track, cross over I to the east or north bound track ancT run north-

i
T'hat is laicxm as the junctlonl car comes from the north east part of the city

i, then sciM:

to Vonailion street, tT?on sciMh on Vermilion street to the \7est cnrve on t'
public square, xrhere it stops, turns its trolley, the motorraan ancl conductcr
change ends and it starts bade north, stopping on the west track vith its
roar end at the north side of< the side walk across the street and waits for
pasoengers on cars coming from the east. Cars coming from the east. If
tliey have passenp:ers to transfer to the junction car, come around the curve

[

from Min street and run iipon the east track on Vermilion street, by the
side of the junction car, fat* enough north so that the rear end of the main

street car is north of the rfear vestibule of the junction car. T!^o "^imc-

[
1
tion car then proceeds nortl^ to the cross -over irhere it crosses to the east

track and then proceeds on north.

Tlie appellee,y-i;liu rculded 1m lbo-ja^Ptft--ii>€>y%--##-tr!Te-irt1^

fimplnyPi in a bateoiry ayad»»a&>Acxuia.ti)me4..t0..glifte. tPgardah&r^a^ itt-^the—june -

tjjiiL_ftar. On the morning of the accident appollociD rrho had 73oeH in the Ten

[ ■Cput stopoy onaio out eg At cnrrj'liig a su^t oaae', noHJh'Cf^' the jrmctliJTr-ear,

**y'hieh irajj Hta;iii*ln^ "Jiiacncmrtfa of*- "the^-isl^e'-'Tmajg--^-twitH»9fr-"^fehe i»tr^^ TTie ^^uag -

**«»n car hais( a d or on the west side of the north end and one on tlie east

side of the south end. Appellee testified that sJt. otafied feowai'da "fyhw pwi'

jmL tha^t th© motor man In tbe front reatibtilc mo tioned. to Iior to j?:o

rctrnd t<T© front ond of tiso car to ^Qt to the door on tlv- oast nido or tT-e
re^r ond; that when she had passed around the north en-, of the '.'MM^r/fe'lon
car, nho sa-.T jst car coraliig fyow o»ot' M«Aw--<rtrcetjr Hh»i<>ii» olw^ down «nd
stepped on tlje WjO'!!.i''er that she t!i©n started to-7arv7 the rear a< or of
t!iG jimction oar, and that the mxim atroot car thon started isp v:lt!)out
rinjpjing a so»S oi^ giving anj 3i"mal iwA caught atid rtlled her hetvreen it

tKl the 3ttM»<>te«^, car and Injured, her. Ilio motor wan mn the "4«»»»tJI-f>n- ^
and a paoiBenger--o»--that -ear tes t^ifled^ t.l»at 4lt^ dMnaet -heop wiy -ont; ^^^
■ y. the TmwLn atroet cir^^y ITm root gn wi»ii.'°'<»''*4«e»'JtoJa»»»tye'»tF»^^

. otor aan cWn.tihO' jtaagtAon-^ifw testified that he did not signal appellee
to ^S' Jiround the car hut that ho reached to open the front teotihule
door and tl>at she signalled aT^e did not 'trant that door opened. -52**,
eTidoncc hearing on the question of the negli??rencc of the apr^clLAnt aM
the due care of the appellee ia very conflicting a-iirili thmoo «!'meff*ion8i.,.iaf!
f •^-*"- ¥f IT II 'ffiitih in hT'f ' I 'Ml HrrfriTr'i^ Jiii"j> <»>ii <i|ftnW0i intl'ff T'mrfr ri'inmlf

^anifor.t preronderimoe_there^^jg^^ i.r appeliani; canHot

Tip "^tiilnefli

It is also contended thaib the evidence of the arrellec :^^^oiild have

been excluded and a vercUct dLrecte' ' reliant, fteoaus® of i variance

bet'.TCon the pleadings and the

proof. The alle^d variance is that the

declaration avern that appel^oe v-as strucl: hy a car and laiocked do?/ri op t'

pavement and thereby injured, iv^lle tlie proof shows that she waf5 not
knocked down on the pavenient hiA v;aa stinjck, rolled bott^een and held up
"between the cars. One of the a-vlernents of the declaration is "she v/as
then and there struck loy said car on said northbound traci: by the care-
lessness and negligence of said servant of said defendant signalling
her to pass over tc the east side of said Junction car x x s and the
plaintiff was t' en and there knocjiGd to and upon the pavement of said
street by said car, and between said junction car and said other car and
was then and there bruised" etc

In actions of tort the averments of the declaration are divisible
in their nature and if sufficientl of the facts averred in a count arc
proved to constitute a cause of a<btion the plaintiff Is entitled to
recover, not--ithstanding there ara other averments of the declaration
■:hich the evidence does not sustaiii. Postal Telegraph Co. vs. Likes,
.?r?5 111. 249 J Chicago and Grand Trunk Ry. Co. vs.Spuirney, 107 111.
471; City of Rock Island vs. Cuinely, 1-26 111. 408; H dinners vs. Knight,

1G8 111. App. SOS J Hayes vs. WabasJ

Ry. Co., 130 111. App. oil. The

part of the averment that she Tras knocked dovrn on the pavement was un-
nece sary and may be treated as surslusage. The proof showing that
appellee was directed Tjy the emrloyo of aT^^^cllant to pass in front of

the junction car and alonn; the east

side of that car to enter a door on

the side of the car bet'.7een the trasks and that the other car, ^rhich had

stopped was negligently started add

struck her, is proof of sufficient

of the averments to sustain the action, and proof that she '.ras knocked

-4-

down on the pavement was not necea^iaiy .

A-r^ellant also contends that the court erred in tlie admisolon of

evidence introduced on the part oi appellee that Verrailion street Tas paved

I
and that travellers crossed the street north of vrhere the junction car was

standing. After arguing the question counsel state that no oljjection was

made to tjjat evidence* There is lio^hing saved for review xi-here no oTojec-

tion TTas made.

Appellant also sous^ht to sho^r [by Dr. Steely the reason v.-hy he called
in Dr. Perrigo to make an exaniinatipn of appellee. The court properly sus-
tained the objection to such evidence for the reason it was sirnply argumenta
tive .

The appellant called some witnesses from Clinton to testify concern-

I

ing tho reputation of appellee fori truth and veracity. On the cross esamia-
tion of the Tritncsses, the court permitted appellee to show, that in a crim-
inal case against the husband of appellee, in T7hich aprellee was t-e prosecut-
ing X7itncs3, the appellant had givm these ritnesses transportation. We do
not see hOT7 that could affect this ^ase but it was harrr-lesn error.

It is contended that the court

committed error in frivi^ig instr'uctions

for appellee which ignored the defence of assimed risk and in refusing instruc-

J
tions asked by appellant informing (the jury as to the la'? on the doctrine of

assumed risk.

The court^ instructed the jury ^n the question of ordinary care.

The only instructions given at the jbequest of anpellee were, two on the
question of credlljility of witnesses, one concerning the preponderance of

evidence, one on the raeasut^e of djtoages and one defining ordinary care.

j
Nineteen ^^ere .'^iven for the apT-eliant,t^70 of v-hich tell the jury that he-

fore appellee could recover she must prove by a prepondarance of the evi-

i

dence that she T?as in the exercise of due caro for hur otto safety, at and
"before the time she was injured. I Two other instructions given at appel-
lant's request recite the facts ^fhlch it contends the evidence r-roves, and

i

then tell the Jury that if they Believe such facts constituted ccntrilintory

nes^ligence or want of due care that the jury Kust find for appellant. Tlie

I

doctrine of assumed risk is involved in contractual relations such as master

\
and servant, while in neigligencelcases not arising out of contractual rola-

tions, the parallel doctrine is linovm as contributory negligence or ;7ant of
ordinary care. There was no errqr prejudicial to appellant eit';er in giv-
ing or refusing instructions. As\a matter of fact the Instructions iTere

i
nuch more favorable to appellant taian it was entitled to.

It is also argued that counsep. for appellee made improper remarl^s in
their argument to the jury. Counsel stated that appellant, a corporation,
had means of getting witnesses and! investigating cases that appellee did not

I

have; that statement should not have been made. Counsel also commented on
the fact that maiy of the ^ritnesseis were employees of appellant; that v/as a
ri.f^ht of counsel as the jury had a right to consider that fact in passing on

the crocliTaillty of tritnes00«. One of counsel attackoci the -vltncfsser? who
torstiried conceimln)* '^« r^'i-^Jt -^tlors of a^^clJoo for timtl-. :t"' v.->raclt7,
calling tli«ii "a flying gquacUron of character de'cstroyoro" . T^illc such ntato-
nont of otHJiifiel In 'Ttiblect to crltlelsaa axid ccti?isol acscfin tc ^■•■'•vc •■ovr.lttod

t>::GJr circlor to ovcrcocie t!.?o±r .■Judj^nant, vre do not tMnlc? --I^on tho rOT.mint b^

I
tho judf^tierit is considorod, that thd case s^iouifl bo revoraecl ?jecan9o cf the

irapr ror arfmsdiont .

I

/! It is also insisted that the Aamages are ©xcesr^ivet The a-^r-elleo
\7a3 talcen to the homo of a 35rs« Patterson after tlie aocidcr'.t T^cre ^r.
Steely, the appellant 's surfreon anft a son of one of counsel for appellant,
was called to attend her* !le haf^ her rcaaoved to a hcsrital two days t!?ere-
after, vr'iere ho attended lior daily until necember 17. Br. Stooly testified
on bohcilf of appellant that ^e couM find neither any inar!;s, hniises, con-
tusions or external evidence of any injury, nor any broken bones, and that
tijo conditions he found '^ere ohrohic and could not have beer, caused Tiy being
otruck and caught between the caris; that he thought she ras a nalingeT-or and
that ho called Dr. Perrigo to aid him in examining her» Appellee testified
that, after nhe left the hospital » l>r. Saiingart ^as called on for sertical
treatment. Ho testified that he found her suffering from a traumatic in-
jury of tho spine and tha^ she wad in bed for five or six weeks after the

\

!

was called and that she was still buffering fraa the injury :^t the time of
the trial. Appellee before the inliuTr was earainjc; seven dollars a week.

L

^

wo are of tho opinion arroll;^t has no eaaise for conT^lalat ooiwemltjg
; inemit of the Oacsages*

'Jtjcro la no rovoroible otrov In thQ oaso; tit© .ludf^io'" ■

I w

RESERVE BOOK

193

This reserved book is not transferable and
must not be taken from the library, except
when properly charged out for overnight use.

:Plli