Skip to main content

Full text of "Illinois Appellate Court Unpublished Opinions: first series"

See other formats



Digitized by tine Internet Arcliive 

in 2010 witli funding from 

CARLI: Consortium of Academic and Researcli Libraries in Illinois 

JUL 3 1C33 



Opinion of the Appellate Court 


AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, on the Fourth luesday 

in the month of October in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fifteen, t^e same being 

the 26th dap of October, in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fifteen! 

Present: / 

Hon. Jlarrg Higbee, Presiding Justice. 

Hon. James C. McBride, Justice. 

Hon. Franklin H. Boggs, Justice. 


And afterwards, to-wit: On the .Ai^/. dag of December, A. p. 1915, there was filed 

in the office of the Clerk of said Court, at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, an OPINION ill the words and figures 



No S.A. 

March Term, 1915 

I9/I.A.8 1 








,.Qf- h^^a. 

'Jerrn I.o. 3J. Agenda .'io.S?. 

r.arc'.'i Ter.^, lyij. 

^harleo .i. Cartels, ) 

ApT>*llant, ) 

Ve, ) Apoeal from Hp.ndnlph. 

J. V, ^.udlftfl, Ltl. --]., ; 

Appe] lee, ) 

Appellant, Charle? V.. Bwrtele <j"A;f?ed an 
r. ttwchment vrit to be irrued mr- levied en the r)er- 
ponp] T)ro7ie.rty rf thp i^pellce .' . . i^ud] •.■:f t , 
c'nprginfc In ^ir? nfiidavit that f?Pid -lulloff Vi^aa 
ptoi't tn depart fr?n the Ctate of JllinoiT with the 
intention '^f h nvirr hie cffectp rcn^oven l}.crefroin 
and thr-t vithjr t".'o years Ippt rart, "'.e Lp.u fr'=^.u'1- 
ul*;nt'.ly c''r\ve\e<^ :->-ri^ nprifned hir ti^fect;' <=o aE to 
hinder and deJny his crerlitore. Arpeileec, August 
hufloff and ,.d . ..udJoff the "brother father of 
pT>pel*Lee, .^. i.". ju-d]nff, filed r-n irterplsnder 
inthe pi:it, olpininf the prorerty attnche^ii upder 
a ciifsttel rortfp.t^e t>:ecutc-d to t^ em by J. . :.ud- 
loff, to Fecure m indetterine"e of eozie ...Z'tOO. 
Upon the trial of thip c^-se the i:;artiep ■'vrivsd a 
jury Rnd the cnurt, ii'-^ving hc;nrd tt.e proofs found J. ■ . ^'udlolf i CT the r;xnount of .-ippellant' »» 
deht, amount int to .':3b86.G8 •'ii'.d { nve judf-rent 
r.t'DJnet hiTi for th^t arount, n'lvrrdiri; oecutinr 
therefor, "but found m favor of the interpleaders 


,- [i 


m? bar ' > . , 'i9l"xr-:10 ,inj-!£X9qaA 

ayril:iT I.: ' 'rwo'-m i;.'39l^'- -•-'-•■ ' ^ - ,' • 

•" " ~ " ■ ' Lj 

., . . .. ^> ■ • 'vr-'o , lor 

, b.-[f. 65.38: ■'■■■' 

- .. -- ,:ibTfiwn ,tncji"r3r . . . ;.. 



on the nttachincnt i?»ued and entered an order 
quaahinfe the writ of nttachment nind directing 
that tJ'ie pro'-erty le\ied u-.on under p?^id vjrit, be 
releaped. irom this order nnd judfrnent the 
nlaintiff bel n-w, i.s;iC mnefi^ed, 

T '^nnA- 'TltTPt' ' CTj h e f ' 
reeidiffa^ in ot. iaryi, Lippnuri '^nd owned r^. farm 
on KftskapVia Upland in Hnndolph CountN.', lllinn «, 
-^■ftr-^a; ^ t^.ff — i- f^ ^ if f*i "v i ' I'l' v^r ii J, . -udloff h^d 
been n tenant on thir? farm for n number ol yeare 
handiin^i otock and (;rain» wlth lii g in' fTtt l t r tv^ 
^^vffc^fe' ^tr.iiai'innt' had taken ur> a raortf^age against hT5 ^^ 
tenant and throuf^h - their variolic ti^??n!=inctinnf3 n€o' 
litrfjg indebtedness ; ^d accunulated againpt him 
in favor ol c^^^^^Qrirf^rtt; e)=ttounting to v. 3588. 65. In i-«"ii't if- ■.ove!7!ber,1913, the -•-rtiee ^'^'\ 

rfemi^ted to c ! » ! ' ■! « t p a settlement ns to the -sarunt 
due ag i fn g llf^ * ^! wnd f ?. lling to 60 80 ^"^-^-^^^ '"* '' ^ 

-*«■ a'.ree(5«sM t r teiat thg ir . at i » e y ^l e gifonit^ti^^to ^h C' 
■ gn id •■iiic»n<- iiinr.f-f nnrf >M Jtu < Hd ^£fi^ the inter- 
pleadere and John I', i'^artel?, a brothc^- of 

-a yf»ea 1 a» t , ^g arbitr^^t^rs; it yrp,i? further agri 

tiiat w>i4 tever amount the arbitntorr lounn due^T?houl( 
be irarnediate jy '^lid or ■secured to nin^^e3 ■ ^ ■ O i n t nnd 
that jjoeseurion of the nrpiaipes should be f?urren- 
d e r ed , V»->i'J!W hy (."Ud .T, V.. uidlciff . ? L . i ii arve g iiimt ' 

1913, btt4. •i..t-«pp<» ar» to, hpvft..,hBpn £XCP.iii.tC4l'-T>v jtud. 

tutna «t^ b9Z9in9 bnr f)»x/«e£ iti9tsiiioei:if\ atdi no 

9d ,ft^v bi#« i9bnu no ju bsivsX \,:tt9'ioiq 9di iedi 
9f{J ^rrsin .ji>uf, bnp Ttbtr -'-♦ - ■■ ^9np9l9H 

,%'oniIfX .v^nuoO rfqXobnpn ni: baiilsL £;i3{>»B5i8B.i no 
«To:*v >o i?»rfnu/n B Tot anpt tttdf no inmn9i n ci99iS 

nriff ^»»rfi^3« b'»**<rtrnunor h- ' ■^-^rrbtJ'tfebfii »atr»Lr 
nX .8d.8B2S ot inx.+mrc.- , t«c lo -xovwl nx 

-i9fT^i 9rii i^^taJJt»iti.':^--fcmv-Jllo JLtf **- -^ytryriir- -iiss. 
to '"irfioTrf e ,«?I»ttn?! .1 nrioL bnr :i9')!->ri 

nrijol Txr^PT.ticfiB sri.t ^nxreci'* -xtrsi »% i«c(i 
bn»- .*.n^M^»**[^«— o-.t hsTUJ)*?' tri bfrc: \;'ri5B.b32tffii »cf 

ifi ^ ii B n n \m • ^ si^ . tio.X*»4-*iU.;t_-bjn»« ^ tf / '"^•^ -*^ , baa 9 fc 

-*U'. '^^n-'AaJuxtax?* xraad -*va4 fi.t. .WTffifffyft-'M J'-'f-^ ,SXG'X 
9,<,» i^rt ' (fiT?«si» -^'-' i4<» -*^» c: •nrXffl'i/oH ao_ii&^ 

ncc-Dim t, ,r.rf]f! .-^jM^JafaMiBdliii 

r r " ^ " "* "" ^'T'- -^ '- f H-^V .. 1 i rn ti « nii ' ..<■ t' /j .-kj j - 
^:■^, ■^t^ t.:.f = ■-^■-i t r .-i t rv i i . „i>i il ii r i'i ■'■ *"-- t ^: t 1 rj^ t i ri T tT i r i i i i i'tm i 
,.i,.i^;i -t--^-'*.i..<i74^i — ir.t r r r i t r f • t i (^n V!v. r. r-, e v e r c n nc: T \j d e d . 

note for "^^SOC mc ^^r-c./eF^r f^i i t i j Aft e, ynyrhle. 

:n W ig" "iiTi!f - "^ '-■T ^■^'^^ 

■.i.'£Vf:t uc'J'^lf p.nd I.d 

hi'dlofl, virh :ntercrt r.t f7even T>fr cer.t ■; 
'"nriTirr fror r'^-j r , -«-i« to rcf'-ure: ti^ ' p ' Otr e i.f^ve a 
c ■< .Pi. 1 1 e 1 ;.: o r tit f:.- : c -:<» the — ^ »>.rt — "-«, j." i i e l' J ) . ! i i i- «> « i"- 

<M i •■ fo^ 'j re.rc not ga 1 1 ? f ac t <■ ry and on r-feceoiber 1, 
he txecvted. e new ncte,^^for th« s;v,.e aciour't end a 
ne-A !.''orti>--\ge co\eriri£ the sa^.c pir.r.erty to e -? i d 
i'i1it'rt7l '^^fi'^T?. '.his !'.3rt£age w.^^e rsc: irded H»fc;:''ec- 
•T'ruer rii-'d "- day or tv.o tiiereaf ter, che. note 
'«»^a, d-rlive-ved tc : . J.-..:j.diGli . ■^•x "eceri'.ber 13 

folio v;i% tuii r iifl1i«?i7 ^^ ^ ' x- ■■ i ar ,-^vi^ .-f^ri t.l. nt J»fl i^ ^ 

jEU< ^**4 wwei»» filc'l '.is affid'ivit for attachnent 

w - bovc ■■■ ■ » — f-rrt^. 

vudl'^ff wf.f aVi.-iut to iHi - - ...: L fi. nii ^tjie ?t.'->te ' ■>! J i ! ■ 
v?ith the intent! •);, "1 j-. iit' iiib ,. nip cijectp 

roir.oo'j tlif ref ror.lT/pn.' the cnly quertiori -I f-'ict 
upon t-'-e '=' tt'-^.chi^e.-' 1 :. ssued, was vhether tVie '.akint' 
of tlit^' ci-i'vttel r-.-rrtp^ige by hir. to his iaf-itr nnd 


, bsbtilonoo - 


brrther c -institutfd n ir«iudulent c^nveyinc^ r-nd 
Rpsi^.nmcnt "^f lis effectp for the jmi-pope oi hindeT- 
inf ^nd del^.yinf hi?: creditor?. 

J t i? R viftll vnown rule of law tViat n delator 
in fa Dane cirf>\i'iiftnncep, who docp not oet-k the 
benefit of the rr-ier^l f^e'riKninent r>ct, t.^\v r- refer 
one crefii^or to t>»e exrl union of oVct^ y/};en he 
doe? Fo in t^C'Od i^ith. } u] i?e \. ? er^hnn, 1^5 jll, 
bS, :-^.chroeder v.!?h J ^"0 Jl] - , 403. It ha? 
rIso been held th=t\\ debtor, if -^ctinr in fvood 
faith, imy !7ec-jre CGrt^^iM cr«dit'^rf» t^ the excli:*?- 
ion of otherp, even thoxjf::h purh preference will 
opente to thot extent to hinder nnd del^y hie 
fenernl creditor?. "el 3 on V. "eit^r 190 '1].,^"14. 
■^he proof VH? rs^.nle that .T, v, . udl'-'ff v/gg Indebt- 
ed to the intern"' e~der« in /rood f^^ith in the npount 
secured by tr.e ?-ote -^nd :-ort. -re "n6 thnt ouepti-'n 
is not "?eriou5ly di.?outed, tut it i? crtersded by 
appellant, thPt as the interi'l eoders v'ere ^ctine 
ns arbitrate? m the di^r'Ute betwe«?n °nr;el]ont 
and .7. «. -ud]off, they had no rif.:ht to -ecure their 
o??n debt by tfikint 8 rrortgafe on hie -,ro-erty -^nd 
thPt in doin^ so they r^ere ruilty ^f '^ fr^^^d v.-hich 
made the trans^cti ^ r void ^nd rer:-:'-r°d the rrooerty 
Butject to ottachner.t by othrr cre-'i t-^r-. '-.pellont 
citep authoritic-f? holding thrt arbitrator? nupt 
be held to the highest decree of rood faith; 
t'qt they 'nust hove nc secret intercut in the fub- 
Ject 'i-.atter ol dirjpute; thfit indehte-ineps of ,o 
r:arty to :my of the arbitrators ^ay unfit euch 
arbitr^'tor to «ct in the T:.atter sub-itted; t'^at 



i^Lubufii p- b'^^(j:ttiec-r.o isrid-'^Ticf 



, TSonsJ^ . 

lo ^x'l^sns 


, Tl^'.lJT 

y. U''^ : i. ■ 

1 i yTo: 

, J . 1 !v I .L3 i • j; 

- ^„ ♦ , .-f.. 

X.-' *■ 


•f ; f.'i- ^ , ^ 

-1 ^■'-, <»«a-i-i<ah +a«"{i ■<■ n •! + r. ■* h f ft , i -iif 


or'':itrrttorf? nre lilre jur ^r«? anc tJ^ c^i\duct 
miipt "be cle?'r. in every rc't'oct. The at>rve dnc- 
triic* Iriid dcf^n in the nuthoritieF relied ur;'^n 
\\y .^Mpel ] ant , is f; corrtct ^ind ?eli evid^snt 
thnt^ fevi r^-rpoiip, if eny one ?/ou]d fsteV t--^ dis- 
pute it, pr.r. in thi? cnpe if tlie a-,7f,.rd ;::v:3 been 
tr»ide Isy the •=»rlji. tratorF? f^nd the pAi-it hnd ''ocew 
ptt3C}.ed oy .-nTfl^ant, >ic oouJd l.-'^ve "Drr.r.erly in- 
voked the rulet? above Inid dovm afainet tl'e 
nwrjrd, but ther^e rait?f apoly only to the .••action 
ol ^.r'aitx'-'it -)r!v, n« such, in ictinfc- upon ^ntters 
submitted lor arhitrntion nnd \(in,kinf an ?iv'-'ird. 
an thip CTf'e no arbitr-rstion 'v^^e concluded nnd no 
av;i.rd :-nade, i^o th-'t the i.etter r.f =ir1'i tr-vtion 
ptond as t>.,-5u:l. nr; ■?,■ ret:f>ent thtrelor ;i-d ever 
hcfn entered into and the ^I'l'itrntorF occuried 
the ET'^TTie rel'^ticr to gp-^Hent a? though they 
had ret teen selected for sucr r^rtitrpti or; "^hey 
therefore h-.d the sme rife;.)it to cccu're tl.'e indebt- 
ednees due them fron J. V.. hudloff th'^t his other 
creditorp had. I'.ip indehtedrieps to the inter- 
plcpders're to have oee^' hort-et in ^11 nmrt- 
iculftra "nd >:i? r^ortf'ape to then-, eeeir;? to hnve 
hcen in good f.-'ith to i?ecure ?i;ch indehtednee e 
and shoi.ld not te held to be n IraucUil ent c-invey- 
nnce of hie effect? to binder pnd dejpy creditor? 
vithin the rennin"- '>f the r-ttrichn^ent act, 

'Ve j^re of (bpinion tlie fjndint of the triftl 
coiirt siiRtaininf; the rit-iits of Me j nter>.. 1 e-^derq and 
the judirroert qna !-'Kin{j -— ^tllnrt? vrit of att'-^clijrent 
were correct and that eucli judgrient should be pffir- 


Judgrnen t o f f i r^ied . 

L'ot to be reported in full. 



liidtR oa mar 

t9ii^r r'iolbij,' . -oil .jBtitl.,.9wb e»9fTl>* 

. .^ 3 J r. ii 3 a/- ' - : ■ii..^ n.t rU i w. 

' f ' '■ » 1 ..' 

. baa: 

/, CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of 
the State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true copv of the OPINION of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in mu office. 

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set mg hand and affixed the seal of said Court 

at Mt. Vernon, this Jj^L. dag of December, 

A. D. 1915. 

Hate Court. 




j^- / 



Opinion of the Appellate Court 

AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, on the Fourth Tuesday 
in the month of October in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fifteen, the same being 
the 26th day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred arid fifteen. 


Hon. Harry Higbee, Presiding Justice. . 

Hon. James C. McBride, Justice. I 

Hon. Franklin H. Boggs, Justice. t 


And afterwards, to-wit: On the „ l?!.. day of December, A. D. 1915, there was filed 

in the office of the Clerk of said Court at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, an OPINIO^ in the words and figures 


197/l.A. 11 

J . J , . Henner, . 



No. 22 

March Term, 1915 


..a.t.» L.o.u..i&., Ir.o.ri..Ll.o.unt.alri.....s^... 




Hando.lph. _. .COUNTY 




"erta "o. 33. Agenda '?.o.l6. 

l.Brch ' er^ijiyib. 

J. J, .\enner, ' 

Appellee / 

V5, ) Appen] frorr; 'mndolph. 

rt. iouis, i r c;n >"ountain L ) 

southern PnilTray Corcpany, ) 

Appcllrijnt. ) 

Opinion by i.ii.bee , i. J. 

Appelict, J. J. i^, r tenant of '.. il.l- 
iam Ifflenjaan, broutbt ILis suit lor injurien to 
crops growing on tlje l«nd rented hy iiirr. for the 
yenrp li/10, 1^12 Knd 1^1?. here war- a verdict in 
favnr ol ' e inf.^r for ■lif.2, {'on?v/ed by a jrdfr.ent 
for a like .ijxiount. }'r«rviouj< to the brinfinf, of the 
present suit, npnellffc'p Inndlorf! broup;ht ^uit 
ntjHiftot .•?ri'^>ell?int tn recnv(?r d.Tr^if~ep for injury to 
t>ie rental vnlue of the sa-ac lands for th« yenrp 
li»Oi!» to li>15 inclusive. If'? cLtained a JudiTn^iGnt in 
hie favor in tne circuit court -ind an ^pnenl iro?i< 
the sar.e wae prosecuted by tlie r^iilw.-^y co.'.p-iny to 
tnjs cotir'i. In tii.-it c.-'?c an opiniTivMS" filed in 
tnis court at the :-arch ter-::,, 191b {I fflerrnnn vs. 
iit.i ori? Iron .*ountain 6. -outhern l\n ilv-iy '-o. 
3 11, -'pp. ] rever? in{^ the. judi.;rr.ent nid re^andJnf 
tne cause, in the r>piniQn > render! drwn in thn t c??!»e. 




95 f iB'.rrr-' 

, . . ;vrX»{fffA 

xivot^ Baoto 

v*ftiftrX9r(rf5 is«ii»}ti« 
finifcjJ. . ■jwi'^ui'c.- OOff 


we aeld U^nt 39 the pu:t ws f '^r rt^rt^'O yr']\,\c.f 
only t}iere could oe nf> reocvfry \>y the l^ndlnrd, 
for the renson triat ti'C titlt^ to tve cr-^^ wa in 
the ^tenant until, df] ave^rcjci or p.nid to the 1 f^ndlcrr'. 

Iro'L ycrr to 

ye--r, , cocr-'enc irij. in iyc"i:i and pnyirr n? rent one 
tiiird tne crorse, excent the h?>v of vkici. he :^ id 
one hfclf . The fsrn' onPi .«ted jl f-aa^^fj^ nrren and 
WP5 interpected by ."Ln-r til nnt ' f r«ilroF*i, 1 er, vinf,^ 
200 acre? tln►^ef^f nc rtl, -e*^ctr of the ri^;ht nl •H«y » 
tT thg Vjlw^f. The r:ntur-vi slo-.e of thi « ^'CO '•-ere 
tract is tovardF the railroad -nd throv,rln it ' odcc 
creeV flrwp inn sou^hve-terl.v <Mrecti'-n nnp^'inf un- 
der ipnrl Irnt * ~ tr-'^Dc snd into n ;:?] r^u/ 1: p.r.-e 5Q0 
feet on t.)ie other pide, t>mre.^. "^li? f?lni';-h ncnrly 
X]i parallels jLitf^ rt 1 »n%' p rlpjit if wny and carrif.5 
the ifffi ter about tv-n -r;ilet» on rl.erp it emp- 
ties into the ;. i»!f iei" ippi river, r odoc crrc-: for- 
merly fr^rff^rf nver nil tJic Innd but heforc tl:c r--' il- 
rond ws- 9 constructed the channel cleanecl <nit 
«nd 5tr'-%ii htevie'! . -inoe the oonr tructi ••n of the 
r'+ilrond Tverflov ch-^nr.els l.^^ve rlr'o bern dug and 
•til the v.r)te.r fathered by the c}i?tnnel flowr: under 
the railroad trock and into tne pIouj n throufl; three 
openin,k» rrovided t: erefcr by appellnnt, the nain 
one beint; 33 leet lont 13 feet vade find roi;e three 
le*t deeo, ''he - 1 ^i 1 1 1 < >ft <l cnhMnkment across the land 

in question, upon which the rr il ?• are^aid.yajg s-'wue- 
three and a half feet in laeit-ht. -^"f 7 "^rr wt^i'^-'C' 
tViat by reason of the maintenance of s4w»«ii^*ftV-tf 



.ti OtIS'!'.'?!'- 3 , .t i .. 

1 -rr^^*^ ;')rJi5fii 'j9to«s COS 

- .-»! 
^xan \li9tn 

' : . . ': ■^ f - 

V' '- '.'»biVOTC B \ftin9qc 



xailiflAd-eiTibankraent, tlie iaprnper on-truction of 
the outlet? under fcJm lu ' li .n -^nd the fact that ib rviuVi 
miU iau g« n.^terifil? rntre permitted t(^ io«iy <» ..m t i aiM ■■ 
11 1.1 up the outlet, the -^--ter intin:e= of he?)vy 
rains was iield bade *m». .'xis crops jwid eie f*'fff! i y i rt \i a < <=ij 

rrrXi tr.e water vjcnt over the I^Ti 


■ ^ li'r 'TlRit clp.l egfci t* J.r i f e w i «f th"t "bef^rfi the 
erabnnlment «af' built the Ifn.d in >;ueftion wnr? low, 
wet, nflrehy «nd unfit lor cultiVMtion pnd thr^t no 
crops could have he^n rwised on it except in pxccs?- 
ively dry year-^; thr t by the mraehinc <^own of silt 
ynd soil frora the hi ufi's, which filled in east cf 


the railroad, sniri tr,t''» -^i:^i»»nrt wa?? i!nnroved i r.- 


stead of injured; th--. t part of the overfl^w and 
d«Kif?i e viGs cnused by a failure on tixe cart of .-.'ppellee 
to keepf'^eT''' itches -i -ewt p e t i ^ ^on the land; i^n^en; 
that r>w-«iyieeig 'WiX entitled to rccovej' a'uj. ii'ijurlep 

ed the innd i ^ nj e stinn and fron yenr to ye?;r there- 
after, uror the renev/f'i of iiip leapr, he vac filly 
sd vised jnd l - w ew of thr existence of thr j rpfl ro a4 
ensbanknent r^ail ♦•itt' the c^rdition? relating to ^(^Mt "^ ' 
" f nrm ^ "hfjjB y»m]pa /^numbtiT of vltncff-es oroduo<»d 
by the nartier t^r> py^v ^ »v.*.-i ^ ir««,.»ni.i v rTnlirn niBdp. 
testiTuony was conflicting- and at r^«-''t variance. A 


■ i i f Jml 

■~~!!Hff ■*" 1 Xi V^' ft 


ro!i bnr, 

^iiA^x^ , 'get" b gja o" ( ^-s-'dJI^ 9rf^ W99-s( oi 


ifloni *»ol .Ai44- VJ^M^ 

.e dt) not thln]< it necespRry to review' 
tne evidence in det'si.l, but vvill only f?iiUt"!i^t 
upon consider'^lion of tne a-'-ir.e, \w find jt whs 
euffici^'rtt to w'jrr'*r.t the jury in linding t^iat 
the or!i?nin^:9 throuf^h nprieil '-int ' r- r?iiirr)nn ttnbnnk" 
Efient wer^ insufficient t'^ carry off tr:e v/nter con- 
inf: from the hi;-hcr ground witlrln n reasonanle 
time; thot by reason of such emhnnkiaent tiiC ^;F^te^ 
wae held back upon the trnck of land in mepti'^n «nd 
the crop? ruined hy the overllov.', -herp v;sh but 
little controveri«y ae to the ^n ount of apnenee'i* 
lose. I:e confined hi« proof to twn tiiirds? of the 
totni loss claiming only the f»n:ount v/hicl- "ould he 
coniint' to him ae ten«nt. Vhe proof riade \:y hira 
showed hie loss to be 1^70, wh. le tiie vtrdict wa& 
for only ':116'^. '>pell»n* insietp th- t thr cnses 
of 1 c'-'onn«ll V, Kibbe 33 111. 172 nnd Junston Vp, 
J off man 23?, ill. S60 puetnined itr theory tl.-st 
=ippellee, Vnowing the exietence of tr,e e-b-mlr-^ ent 
^nd the conditi-^nj* surr'^undi rif- it ^^nd ti.e injury to 
crop* lilfly to occur, coild not renew hir. Itp-ee 
from year to year J^nd reco-vrr d-n.m; rr? for injuries 
occasi 'jjjcd to liis crops by ovprflo^'-. In the ' c- 
Conncli case vji.ere nn injury \v?=ss dcse to a huildin£ 
wMle the p.irty had ?i nold interest thereiri, 
it was held that the holder of s^uch interest Lad 
a Tif^ht of action for the portirn of thr dr-LiRges 
he Kad jsuutAined, but th^^.t if the preinise? sere 
leased alter the wrongful set wrp done, tiie leeeee 
could not recover any daaiaj^es caused thereby; and In 


"9 ?V**f «^^ \^ 

v.- ■ ^Ai 


^nmd blmd 9«v 


)aiBj$,i> ViH .]i»yoo»'x ^Oii bLiiooi 

the cae«? of -un5?tori V?,, cur>rn , it was 
heicl, tiiat & tenant fr-^rs yr-rr to yapv, v.ho rent'<"?ed Itriee, aft* r ^n ndj oliini' "land nv.ncr >;ad tftken 
ur> hi? tile 'Aith v.i>ich tlie lirper^ l^nd wnp connected 
and knowing hnw sriich f»ctl'Mi hnd j^lrpad}/ da'-aa; ed tue 
crops on the larnir Ic-'fT'cd by Vrbn, could not recover 
from such adjoining ov/ner lor i njxiry to trie crops 
occneioned "by s.tid cnuse, dLrl'-'.f: the yr r>r irr u-hich 
the ICHpe wae r*!neweri. ' hi f rule l"'^'?.ever, dnef not 
appear to n^iylj in cnces ';:herft r.^llrond*? nre coneern- 
ed, a? tliey -ire c -f^tr ol] t-d oy n PTjecinl pt-itiite 
upon ti;«r subject. '"Dpenfnt'r ror-'i whs c -^ir true ted 
at the place in nmstirn in ]901 find iOOr. In 
1891 an act Tsas '•it.vf.-ed by the Crncrrl Appe'':'';jy 
of tlii? ptate nuthori y i n^- the i«corT?or>-ti -" n of mil- 
road?, nnd. in oItupc b of section 1^ ol p»id -"Ct, 
it WKP privJded t-.n.t "In no f'FiRe ffhal.! any rriiJrond 
coEpony construct n road bed, without fir?t cf:n- 
etruct mf the neceypary culvertt? cr i^liiices ps the 
r.'^turfi.l lay of th.e Innd retiuires lor the neceB^?nry 
drninRgc thereof. 

In '''etherinfTton V?. 3t. louij?, '^roy - 
i^aatem il. ii. Co. 2*^6 HI, i:?9, v^hich ?; <?uit hy 
Tetherington to recover 4a"»i>;ei« to rip l.;^»nd by 
»n overllow caiJ«ed tr.rou^^h the erect!-'' n of itn mil- 
read fffr.bnrikmcnt, rjon^; its ri^'.ht of -wpy, the "injreme 
ccurt In ite opinion, vhile recognizing the rule 
thnt where fi nsrty comes into '^joingegnion of land? 
ns grpntee or ler^ee, Tvith nn cxistinfr nuipnnce 
upon thc^i, he cannot he held llnhle to ^n ^tio'ifor 


iACi »iiJ 


,7-.- '1 



damrifep uni;i3 Vie H^ p hj'«-r> ''iTr«t nntifiert to 
resjiDve thftr. , F=tfitfr t>!fit tlip ii;lft of 1-av with 
reference to nuisn fiCf^p anp. been chan/ ed l.ytl'p 
pre t inn of T.Kte law oLove referred to, in src f^r 
at* it ip '»,ji'"lit'i tn r;5.i l.i'ond* c: nstructf 'i .-■.fter 
the -pntfr^cc of thf? act. It ie liirt)it-r ^ in re- 
ference ti "I'lid "cction, "It if ri ' \uv\ nnd 
in poffitive ind ex-reof? tr^ns nr-jhibitf* nny r:i3- 
r oad corr-oany, 'ift-r tt.^ r.a»(»r»!-,e of the -ct, from 
construct in^: its rofid vntil it shmll l;».vc rrovi<1ed 
Hi] necespar^' cu3v«*rts and r»luicp!« to I-^Hm c'rp of 
the wnter which natnrplly dr^; :'ncd throwrh the I'lnd 
covered hy the ri(,ht of ws.y. "'her>rr'f '^r^-? nee of 
thnt rtutybecoine ?> crnditicr rrecrdc-nt tp +h.€: hTiild- 
im. of the r-»ilroad . . . . ''he ■'.vrdr , •.;'^dpr "uch oii*- 
cuffistp. acep, 1 B ur-ori t'ne flefendnnt t-^ ->.! f irr.!-! ti vfly 
show fncti.' excusing the f.-iiurf to corrrply 'A-ith the 
st-itutt" .'' In i.TtTsey \>. ii. tA 0. 15, >• . ■ '-'■'->,, 
'2Z'c 111. 50?, ^j.ich wf?« -I c-^pe pier;!!;?: tn thlf, 
L/ie ••=?t!ie lurstioa -sfn? rni!«ed, >};ich >'/e hfive under 
discjpsi-'n i. er«», nnd it wjt*? t'-'^re nxx f?:-!id by the 
court, "} t in rIsc c-sitended thnt plnintiff «• coi.-ld 
not recover and the cox-.rt oufht to hr-vf? directed 
a verdict for the rea??on that they li^^^^ped the 
farm fr^tn yeor to ycHr, ^nd the renevrt]? tor the 
ye^Vf libOis nnd 1906 ^'ere mnde with f i^ 11 l^n-nv/ledtie 
of the condition of the tre^tl*?, trf^cl.; p.rnl ditch. 
The duty of h rnilro'^d conpnny to ^o construct nnd 
maintain i tf rof»(^ ^TTotsf ^ Ptre^rr ni« not to injure 
I'dj^cent 1 --ird hy throv/anj w?t?r h^^rV uv.on it ij« ?» 


«i5tj3«; r 

TR&v^ syct'l an.'jl 

continuin(. one, arri c^.c^ o\f*rnoi> rervltin^ irnrr. 
p nef'lftct of thf^t dvity cre^ tes «'. riev. cMne of 
acti^^n for >ny Jujury Lhrret., occa«?ior.ec3 to the 
crop? and lurci, - nj.rt.y injured by >n i^i'v. rfrut 
••truclure or ■>. 3PX?« wr"ri£ful or negli^Jtrnt ^-lOt it net 
bould to ^ssur.e that the str^ctur*'. \ai.l >><? per- 
manent or that the -.vrrn^ful or nc^^l ipsnt '>.ct •?, i 1 1 
be c-intinued, but l:e --,. ri({ht to rui^^r' their- as 
of a transient cltarncter. .he dr.-nare v.'hich ths* nl'vis 
tiffs suffered by r«»Mj»on of the v,'T^iit;i"ul pctf? of the 
defendant n!i(:ht or r, i,ht not occur, uui t;;«y h- f^ s 
right, in t"kanp t It^nrfe of t};e ?tar;d, to ■■•ct u^-.on 
t}'.e prc.?ur3-^<t ion thn*. tic nuirrnc? voi:l() not be con- 
tinued ?»nd the drfr'-rir.nt -■rovld. r^trfoyr, i tp contin- 
uing: duty im^'^f^ed by the "i r^" to nr* ';b*'tri;ct 'J.e 
papsape of thf> -wnter in itf n:;ti>r'>l oh'inrpl.'' 
it follo»vr Irorn vhnt i« above 5-'id, th?'* npretlee 
was not bprred of Vip rlr^it* nj-Rinet r-pr-eiiant for 
injuric cavipcd by nprellsnt throu^ch the imperfect 

construction of its railropd embanJorif nt in fnilinf. 
to provide the ncce««iary outlet? for the pan?agc of 
the v/T ter over the land in nu efti ^n, by re.iprsi of 
tiie ffct t.'i?it he renewed hi" 1efi?e frori tirrie to 
time with >cnov»ledpc of the exjptence of puch eia- 
bankment, -^nd thnt the smi? rrsiif-hi: cmise tix? over- 
flow of t}e land find the deptri.-cti on Tf hir crons?, 
Appell-T.nt contend-' thn.t four i'!«trr:c ti or.« 
riven by the court ir' favor of n'sr-el!! ee,x'crr erron- 
couf* pnd ffl'ould ).?; ve br>en ri^f'UPed. One of thern 
eimply stFitetr the ^^rovi p ion of t)>' ptntnte T-eouirinf: 
railroads to construct necei?sary culvwrtr 9.nd rluicejs 


'xai bnu- •cpoio 

941-; ' :>.X!» i i^a e i i i J 

i i t 


^^-l' •'» I--- . ^^W 4^n ,jj|j 

..i.;o »XTt«J{,l|i 

•> S X '/Otn o ,t 

a'b'''ve net out »nrt t>"ie other" »«titP thr iaw 
«prlicab1e to the r.PBf a.M v/** )nv« nlD vr I'.eld :'nd 
ae ri^pe-r? to be laid d->v.n intVie «iuth'^ri + ief rftr^we 
referred to. "i'hftre i?n" therefor** no (^rror in t).«»pe 
infltruc tione and th(?*y ^'ifv*^ nroTierTy riven. 'Tf^n 
inntruc ti^p.?^*ii*r* i'^.ven fnr •-n"">'?'l 1 ''nt nTi'} l'7/i»l ve 
refurjod. ' htt ten viven i nfltr'ictim« nn-)e->r fv.Hy 
to oo'ver ip-^ftl ;i"tnt' "^ tTiPory if th<» er>«<p no ffir 
ne his vieT.n w«»Te Jn nccor'l vfitlT ^.r,r lav/. ■> ^i^^ve 

sind find tl^nt t>ie criurt iiri n->t ('rr in rcfuri'if: 
the sntrr , fir the rr^pon that po;,>e! of tht-j' v/e.r'* 
coxicrert ty those gl\fn lor ''pnel 1 nnt rnd ot'--:-r? 
V'cre not in nccoi-r) vrith our vit^wp of t'/je- 1 nv? an 
ab-'ve Bet fTtVi. -!■,<• proof p in thir or-^p •■'1 o\^ 
ritht t1 recovery on the mrt of flp^ene*:-, nnd 
ar thfrt vr? i-o 1 1 ver^; iljc Trmr co-'iritte;"' by tVi.- 
acourt VMon the tri;. 1, thr judgment pj'.oiild b«- .•mt'! 
ir ."f f irmto, 

Judfr.'-ient " f f i nat d . 


Kct tobe reported In lull . 


-. .3 In 


I -jv ;; ■J'^ 

k -Wlii^- I r: : 

/, CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of 
the State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true copy of the OPINION of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in mg office. 

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set my hand and affixed the seal of said Court 

at ML Vernon, this ^L;^. „.^. dag of December, 

A. D. 1915. 





Opinion of the Appellatq Court 

AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at Mt. Vernon, Illinoii, on the Fourth Tuesday 

in the month of October in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred (hd fifteen, the same being 

the 26th day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred hnd fifteen. 


Hon. Harry Higbee, Presiding Justice. 

Hon. James C. McBride, Justice. 

Hon. Franklin H. Boggs, Justice. 

And afterwards, to-wit: On the L^L day of Decen&er, A. D. 1915, there was filed 

in the office of the Clerk of said Court, at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, an OPJfHON in the words and figures 



97 I.A. 40 



March Term, 1915 








Aj^ead't '::-'. 22* 

.Fifc'.'i :er-.i, la].'.;. 


(. '*T)r>e^♦l fror: ii li'tinpon. 

.■ ■" 'ly I ( 

i] pi ii_ i _ ^'n by i"lf"'-te. . . . . 

•'■ppeliee tued =in-'fei] art fo..- tre^rrrp, reelc- 
inf, Dy "xiie f,rj.+. +c rcccvtr b'~.ti> rcturl p.nd runitive 
drra, *•?. '*here WPf: r. -verdict in f?iHxy fev^r ci' rtpntllee 
frr r;4^'C. Cn tJ/e "rf,\;r£rt of ?> notion for ^i nc' 
trial, tlvE court recivilred p. remittitur ni 180 -md 
dAidf,'.:cnt VAS ontfied i^taiast defendnnt fi-'r '<;50, .froci 
v.-hii-M, Jiidtinent tnigi rr-'^icrl is r-rosecuted . 

.'"^ipellant coaT.'iPin? there -waR not sv-lf icient 
e\iclenc.fc to ??UF«t'iin the vordict, thnt nro-^er e\idence 
ofi'ereJ ^y «pr elln.rit rms refu«?6d ;ird the cotrt comsa- 
itteci Tre.'jvjdici rl error in ri\in.'", refiisinf. rv.d rr.odi- 
fyin^:: the inptnicti cri^. 'Ihij' puj. t/^.rev ' ort of rhe 
follcv/in^- f;:>ctg;"X ' - 11 le l l l. f ' / " ^" I'^' J w, r.V/. Lrfidiey 
orne'it n, Q^oc-r-.^ T-t'^rc jn -'err in, ,: 1] Jnvi 3,^ llif .?tnck 



ii^;.'I600. Trd :ir^ A\i-\\ 

4 Vint •''•^^e .^trndc 

ied it to 

?ii)n mi7taft of c.ish nnd n houpe nnd two lot?^ Vt 

th.^t tine 'irRilGy inds'btc.'l t ■; a 


.-n the 

eum oi ■;-i75.34 for t-'^'^de ' ^Jh i o J i fm-r' L' 1 1 " )i t 'tim I pold him. 


,':'j'-":^'~ . ..xc- 

bn- ruii:^:fx ,:--: .-^ o's:i: :;..;- :> .inxTJ 

lrt^iOXli;j8 ior saw s-r. -."Ilsqc' 

' ' - - - "tJ -nx\;i 

•f;' 1. 



:3 nx -^f 


The Ir'dp r.'a?» r-ride "Ti rsturday ■^nd - ■ mnD.Tl wn t ^■■^•' x 
n o tj ? ■■'?' ! ' ".t trie tr'^ nr: e.r, -tsjc — "^^rr — <=^ — it? !■«■ ■ le rn^n . 

Cpn '. »)ri(l •■.;/ /T '*.n I 

o,; e itf credit riQn and treae- 
urer TroT. 3 ari'-'>, y-h'^.re it crried on r, v'r^olee^le 
grooery store, t'^ ]>rrin to try to collect ti.e gccount. 
Vknen V.'elt,e n rrivec' n.t 1 er r jr J .e iound - tayiTcln gr JT^ 
poesessicn rn !.>ie ntnc]- .-•! n f i ^ j . r o d 1 e y t" n r. e y ^ /.Iter 
talkir.t, c rve^ C" '. i ' ule wit}i itTrfirlwr who "nna teen a 
cuoto.'ier of Tpr g l C gnt-, fn-r n nuiTiJ:-er ol year~, iie re- 
t.irr.ed to .".nrinr.. ^''he next apy he returned to: errin 

t .".nrinr. . ^''ht 
in coiupnny \ . :^CRn.'', f* yowi^: h 1 1 ory^ 

?illy emnlo'tid by it to collert account 5^. -..(. tvo 


iTi a 1 

i.-PT,;=r]_fj-r T-it. v.- 

st the "tore -~nd ang—ir') X^7i'\t ''-" !■<>- 
teiPi. adia4~"*w>^^"*'»gT" "^ • ^^^ ric c o ■,; n t e 

dr not ijTcr. .^ -^ -/r^f'^^ ig/yt-^t'SP that ""elir.c spid to 
^ ^ n Jv- 

lii'Ti "? ■br-'v;]f;r-.t 7.'r. .'c^f^ire a^k s nf i7ith :;.e,^you cr-r. fix 

this natter '-p" ^nd further so id, ''you cjn inpure 

tbegfi ficcruntri nr n^ree tc p'sy theci.or tee t'ot they or- id -nd ve vront ettfjch th-im; il y^u dr. not^we 

vill r."t( *>\c rood^ and v,'e "'ill "nK-Ve . vVint we c'.n 

out ol tlie j.ooda"; th^.t in the c mree ri the conver- 

a-.ition Cco' g.-^id, "holl^j. you < ot ^/'urreii in "badf 

you hp ve /ovrself in -fca^ ■"/here you cnnrr-t pay out, 

Jr you KL-et! out nf tiie oeni t<*ntiiry you will do well". 

-Sr-Tfs dcrv »■ . - . ■ * » * ^:epe ?tn.tenents •#%*»*—»— 4*; '>nd testifM''^**^ 
A A , ■ 

zr.ey vent thi*re to fir.cJ out ho out the tr«de l i a4w »i 

jPjw.^T Ttia fniifi ■• rm'i I -I nno ?e< if ti:ere v/np ^ny ^^y the 
acc-.wnt' be i,t^ . d> ' . .jt i'.crrrr } :i rjowaf n.diojtted 

wiirtt he f?f),id 4-: — or i-.c i ii i tf ''sure J y thi? i 

not fraud- 

ulent tranffnction; if it i? theee fe,oo(^e ore liabla to 


r -c-»*-^t*->- 


j nuc 0' 

'' 'I' . ' ) ' y Q' . - !.M.t 


-T'3/ .■'U* 





9Cii V 

-i^- .lit inwv y,9d7 

"ti{ii»niii-irift :i3v 


]ey ),;f> reccivcc! tiic. J .".. - ' . x. -rrTy — t-r-ti l „_^ 


. T*^ 

>y a^«rv ' t. ■ d r in", .err .;.. i.e;, af terv.-> rd ■- crJJed on •_. L. 

I orgnn, an a^torrtcy^ - i- ^ \ic '' <■ .:. ."n — "■'■ n, j --' Tj .^rix d- 

tiien rt' + urneu ^o . ar-oii ^nfii.a v/riT. of .--Lttrc/uient wbw 
from out agaiiiet .Uradley^ oy^ the y.apfr? being 
prepnre?d by ;?c;it?ir?, fliy rrit \7a:-i d*iiiv.:-rGd tivat 
nij ut to the -flace deputy ?}.erifi by *C'«gj,f', ^who 
irjstfi;cted hir;, to Ae-vy i^ on the hoii?e;-;o'id foocp of 
J. -. ;:.r»dlej,. -hc: r.lfice deputy delivered jt to 
the jj-.tria';, v.hc -er.t it t:. '. vPteav^y pit ..c-rr. ^, 


r.or.iaf.i, the- sherii; *.'»■:'. t 

Capavn;,, wf.-rit tfj mii t i i « ( a rg''^^ ?;tf>fc .-ibout •' i^rjit "'c}ock, 
levied uiiMs k -, oc. ] , j^y uid v d u ; iii or.tKircC the keye 
01 tiie si.4ijri.^ i»4P » f j J ' ite a Md .. ociied it up niter nutting 
n notice yl ti-.a ievy nn the dcor. '^'he eheriif tuen 
returned to ^.ari.yii t.nd at-^f^t — Iv.''.,' nni. r^ ia'.er ?nv; 
;'^cat.;,j: ij and nfxer tnj]<i;.t. ""'^ i^ii;i trlephoiied i^r-rtavi-iy 
to tnj.t d-;vnthe notice, releai:^ the Ln-d- pjid t.ir9 
f»r' ml e w **«c eyr. Ca^av/.-'.y 1-^- ,■ x tr A i u n r ^ --rS fh^ r M'TV 
fr T i ' i fV^r i | iii i »-»"^ i i ;:i too..c d ov/ll thf ir-;:icf :\k; attf;iTipted 
to oei-Aver the l:eys rut i ounr i . ^fS^f^^ tw'l It^it the 
city n;nd ht >';\5 tT*«««MBne; unribTie to '■!c'-:v^r tier. \.n- 
on- tx..fc r^e : - day, v.h^n ^ p i<T J I e; e^ rt.ij rvit^d . 
ttrtilicd th- t c;i;ririfc: V-.c t i? e -ie .'?•' ■-'re 
'■■■"'•• c 1 " '-fT^ i . i jt - tuo At tjn i Oii» i |fiH.t , cirto}'" f ri''' te ^'ttI veg- 
etabjeg ■ t herein iraze and the rate deptroyed 3one meal 

tij ."e-.'ii.v 


.-r ■^di 

Ij') ive C 


-»v-i; ti.''-*-^'.-L*!Jii 

fe9..1 3 

.^ioii n i^ffnit ■ eelJit^a 


by ;,»»''. LJT.f^ thx'OUijh the- s^cxg ccnt«inir.{: it ana tbdt 
lii« dHrHL'*-*? '•u.iijv.ntfcd to :; 30 or ' ':Q. 7}je 'ItTjuty 
gheriiT' ;^Tr!?-*<f*y tiestifiec tii'-t '-Ofitgs o--'j.].^<i :,i''; up 
ov<:r t'ic "phone Vie evp-nin£ before t-l-^e levy vms "lade 
and told hiQi t-o ■|ev:y on tVe ''toclc of (■;,oodF; t/;-.t tne 
next; ^cngge chilled hin a^.'^i" •■^^^o va;er. infor 
•4««^rl tVfc 3tr)ci: oi foo';!?- j-'^c tef. r. ifv:«d upon, rioted 

tl. .7 1 1 ;•• v/u?' t lie v.T: n t e d d ■: ;■. e . 

•iti f?? e:x"-MaJi- tion 

hov.'evei-, })fc etrtci that soie i.'Ocy c-;'rief5 Jiin utj in 
the evt-.iin^: over tiit; telephone, aii'j he u^'-derf-tnod 
it v.'as? ' r. wC>x{(Tp nno he rguur;:tfl the £?^cond couer- 
eat ion raAty -ili.;, »i**«. ■- cHj^t:' j lep tif it >,: he did 
not tr:lk to t.he <-tcputj,' •«'^<-'riii otiort xj k 'c ' ; .' li.nii;"V.T;. ' R 
' Ic u J -u i .'ti Tito I' alter t}\e Jtvy, unt ij .v:hfc ni^eriioon -©^ *'"^ 
tiiC ci..j^ytiie levy '^.as i ?>c3e ■ nd hid not It:!. ?i :.r. i-eiore 
or alt.:r the levy tj -t he \vP''-.t»-j(i i}ie- et.oc-«' levl.'j on; 
th.,t wi.en h« learnc'd i'rov' ^ht yiaeriif th« lt£vy jTod 
tccn ifirtde ne ttt; to'3<it' releagea. 

. II I . (' 1, ' . ^i i'i fa ' 1 1. e ! '.T' t t'u to Tjrovf oy uel£..c', .,'cat,£^8 

aiid Wor^nn thpt v/hen t};«y verc ies consul t'^ti'-u in 
}-'orfe'-*.p. ' » '■sffict?, elf'e tQld hcat:^:!? co t-.e v.-i^it 
cl a ttacjuaent levied on :'rnoity'cT hDiinei.old f nods? 
inc'- nol to 3 ovy on tht etac'i*, ;./Ut the com'i, rf.v-!3ed 

0(9i^ii:it tr.iii: s teii timnny, i-^ r ■ ; 
ant a] ?o ■•"fiereo t-*' '.rovt o-y severfci vitnes&es that 
-i4r^ — * — > j " iiT f r '. t-j^e h«id t;i\c'n ;juats&;fe: pc-itive in- 

strv'Ct i '.ni? i'.iniec. i. ixel y "Iciorf tiie xr?su:.ti*xe oi tjie 
attrcitv.ent vrit, to ^ave the s.iue iwvled ''.' th.e 


>w> . 

flfnf "H'J- 





p T "t i'*! ^ ''' - -^^-^' V »< >i 1 1 »i ^' '-ff p ■ y-n thip oonnefttim, it ie the 
nlrin of ^-orcllint thnt .";c.t;\jp ^vris? '"out a rr.eojv] nwent 
enpl ;->yffl f'-.r •' rirrticiil r-r Trjrr-ope, v i th '^opitivp in- 
Ftructi iiifci t ? r.«-vc the nt tachvient '-rit 'leviec >n the 
hc'jseho'jd fjoods nf j-mdley, ind that il rie ^rriored 
t>.»^ itt'jy to by "rde upr-n the '.rtock of vooop of "pp- 
ellee, he e;;ceedcd hi? Tathority and ;r-)-;ell;!,nt if? not 
lifible i'or ^,r.y -iHTTiJ^ie? 'Trinea one-l tnriie-)/, mt that 
if t'.'u-'.re 19 aay 3i-=biHty it Iv IhPt ol ci^rr-p ''.ini- 
oclf p.i-'d n-j-t of p ore! lee. '"e Ci-^n.-Bider it true, qs 
a fS/iT"! rule, thet il r>r. .-ige)"it coHimit? p> tort, "ind 
ii; ao_rif- ?.-^ i-y.ceenp the ?-:r-iit of hjr authr^rity, the ih rM-t Vinbl«- +'-tertifnx-, ever. r/:ou^'h ti.e act 
\7?.s c. 0,1 -r; It ted ><y the r^-ent for the h'liT.eiit of the 
rsrii^cipnl n^ !:« t) ouf-hl. 3 ri Clcvo]^!^. ■■ o or . :• t ov e Co, 
V. Koch, i? :i:i. -Vjr,. ~,95^ it v/ns held tin-it an agent, 
^ffho hnci autfiority to briuf j?uit on tch^vlf of tbe Com- 
rvny v/ti:' not ai^thcrireJ t: c}.r.r£e hi r ccrp.u'p Ij ;>n with 
i±a hii? O'.ji nfOicious ■lots' in -^lettini, in Motion the 

cri'iinrl nr-^cecivire of the atfte froTj the leriti.'iiate 


rxHi* 02 vjich the corpor-.tion covld derive no benefit. 

3n nhittiii^rtCii v . Hcsj, 6 :ij.. Ap-p. 034 chis court 

pn:d, rati ri(,:htv, ciutif?p, .nuth.ori tie? ^.-.a 1 i^ibilities 

of nitornc,:'S at :;a\v, (not otf jeers: r. uertions 

t>.nt hiive Irequejitly le-'r. teicre the r.-ura-erf court 
of fnig !^i-.n.t«T. 


siV: --^ 





.Si 10 1 


>» 2 X * . 

I'i <■ ■ . 1 Pol3 ec t 

a <]e"'+ v/it;\rv(t (jxprepo or ?y>«cific authority, he 
can Irrvi'uily Jo no '.'.ore t;jTn obtr.i'i r judf.rr.ent, order 
nn erecv tier. '?nd receive ■•■iid rt:ceirit for the mcnry. 
i!€' c-'innot trKe j eet t/'n.n f:-:e nT'^ount cue in Batirfncticn 

thir.( liu^iiiney. lie Jic.;: no 

of the debt cr recf;ivt! -myth 

impljec fiutiivrj ty ' . }f 3c5^-g? va? evinloyerJ pener?.lly 
by apy.tJ lant to cojl.-ot t""iip de'tft -vo-^ellint vjoi-ld be 
bound to ant'^?c'r ini hi" •■^ct'^, bnt if he wrp inntruct- 
C'^J "pec i ileal i y T.'h'='t to d-" r.nd t}'e .^ctlon vhich he 
tc^^ic, vr- p c ■»ntr.:ry to >iL<:'- inntructi -ns .-md not implied- 
ly '-jecer.'^i^ry ior t;-;^ ro"i 1 ect i c.i of t)-.* dect, ?m^eij- 
ant ccij'iri not ororerly o;- n?1d Ti-iTjie fox- ^ny wron^'fu] 
act .'.e rifjy h'.ve col-.-ii tter . ;f he excc'ec'.od the author- 
ity t-iv^n "i.i/r. .'Tid cor'.^ii tted n-ch •■•.;: net and injury re- 
euj tea tAijrel ron to nT.'ncllce, ^cif.f^? o.n'l nc^t apr-ellant 
v<o>.id C2 Jiahif the re '■•.■■'. "'rur.hull v. ^'iciiolson, P7 
Hi., 1 ^; =f . 

"•'.e think it ■".•pe 7 r r^oe^r in fri?. cr>pe to sh.OT the 
extent ol ^..cntt.;? €"r:T;] lyiaent nnrt the mafoority con- 
r«.^rj:oa u:^n hi-i hy n-.-pp-llont siri.d for th»t r.urpose 
tiie evidence ahove j-eftrred to, vrar oo-'i'ifttnt p'r-A 
ehouli ;\"ive heen adri.ittef'' . Bvit i-.r»rt fro-R tlu; right 
Oi «ypf,llant to rhov; the " of the err;ol oyrr-ient of 
vcifc;'.';- a« > dtien^e to \\'€. frujt, t>'.''=rf i? another 
rea:''in v/ny this oi'oof wm* adria -'-'ih") e. ".« heretofore 
stated this ?ui t '.vis hrfiurht 'for 7)unitivr a?. Y/el 1 a.6 
nctu.?! daiuSfa^s and the .jv(djme»-:t i'no bided ho';h. The 
fiMdenot in que5?ti?n vt? cl?sr3y 'dft-i ?3iblfe -''b benr- 
ir*t, i>on tie oiitrtio.o of the sTfiDnt ^i r^unitivt 
afee end ehouid hnve "ueen heard for th ie purrsose, even 
if it iiad not been ad.nis«eible generally in defense of 
the 8uit. icr tiie error of the covirt in refu^inf, to 
admit the teetinony upon the queetion of the instruct- 

-5- I 



XI Tf- 





lo a<SflUi9;i ai. Vi 

i'lng !,iver. to t/ie Vvi t.iei-r .■c-^...(!9, i-li,? j;adj<.iej\t of 
the C'^urt b(il<!V( wiLI be revcr==evO -va.I thr criuee x-e- 

rc'Vc-r^ed Hi-id ret^nncied, 

l.'ot to "be rf^rrted m fiil'i. 





/, CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of 
the State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true copg of the OPINION of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in mg office. 

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set mg hand and affixed the seal of said Court 

at Mt. Vernon, this /.i^Z.^,-^:^ dag of December, 

A. D. 1915. 


'%^ f ^'^K v^ •*^ 


Opinion of the Appellate Court 

AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, fn the Fourth Tuesday 
in the month of October in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fifteen, the same being 
the 26th dag of October, in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred ark fifteen. 

Hon. Harrg Higbee, Presiding Justice. 
Hon. James C. McBride, Justice. 
Hon. Franklin H Boggs, Justice. 


And afterwards, to-wit: On the — la.t dag of DecembeL A. D. 1915, there was filed 

in the office of the Clerk of said Court at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, an OPINKgN in the words and figures 



.1., P.,...K.(?.r.ex, 


No. i>A 

March Term, 1915 

..Ed., ??.imp.s..Qri.,.. 




7I.A. 55 


.Cix.cuijb___:_.._ COURT 

-?-?nA .._. ..COUNTY 




erm NO. 'A, Acenda 10.43 

1 arch Term, 191!:. 

T, r. :;orey, 

Appellef I 

Ed :>lmpsofi, 


) Appeal frons Fond, 

Opinion by Mfbee, 1 . J. 

^ .Oecenber 7, IQl'', j »)ii| jftll^ifft , - -v - t . j . « t e r ,* « 

lliirg'i ? T T '"■« '— , executed «nd delivered » note 

nayable tn the order of the : «xt on- 'ckman Oheraicnl 

Compsny, for Ute t ' um e rf i2200. due ten months after ^, 
d»te, with interest nt the rate o fcjj even y tx. 

c enl. fcT ' ftwwmn ?>lter rr>. turity. "" 1 jl i l IPPii A* -n '^ 7;e r < 
of attorney, nttached to g>?id note, fiuthori^iof nny 

attorney of any court of record to wp-ear in euch 
court in tenn time or fficsition, nt '^ny ti^ne tlicre- 

after and confess judfrrent without ^ocefs, in favor 

of tl)e holder of the note for puch nm'^unt 3? r^ifht 

then apt.ear to be unnnid, tof::ether with Kmla costs 

and v'lOO attorney s fees. /*A4 note was ■ fter- 
wards and before maturityi- indorsed in blpnk with- 
out recourse by the r)ayee, and on Aujrust P5, 19131, 
a judgment was entere'T^ in vacation by confession 
in the circuit court of oond County in favor of 

A H m T i p e t J. e^ , " e- 1 ■ » fc . o r ey , jngainst appc -' H -gTrt, . for the 

sum of ¥2300 and costs. At the .jeptcir,ber Teni, 

lyiZ - ui said Luui> , on rnoti nn nt ? » yn y g W g iTf • exe- 


^it ansT 

fyf , 

.nORijCirj t'n 


vj,. X ' bioo»i io ^Tuoo xn« to \,9tnoiSM 

-g-'-iff* <5 . ,nfiriP3r'% to ^mlf en9i nx iii/oo 

, ,..-5^^,^ *._...-<->..., +nft'nb"t, snalnca bna aailji 

i9hXo/-( sd^ Ic 

' f<»ni K±Ka rfiiiv t^n'in^fti ,ht«<Tnir »o oJ Ttji«q<T« nsil^ 

-i«^it nam ai isniotia OOXS bnn 

,§Xer ,2*? .tiju^juA no hn". ,fl9\« i arii xfi ob-iuo09T luo 

io tovet ni v.'nuolj ', Jiuoo i iuozto 9di nl 

^f .F!^9'-o bn« OCXS? Io rarua 


t^ranted leave to plrnr'r;^; nnnV^tr nf 

tl i ^^ rt^i Inrt fiir^ c«»ffe finally vent to tri4l on 
what WR8 known a? the pecond amended pi/", v-hicn 


pet up »» -iuaHege nf r 3 e f e iTg e , t}i- t npj > ^olfln , ni ~.bPught 
nf s j» - i < l r . (ji npmiy ^O,000 pounds, of etfck r^owder, un- 
der a contract in Yfritinf:,^9ettini/ out un 1m U Ihe 
agreemen t ^of tr . e oatta ie ^* that ^le price t,<a.„v»g T^a-^^ji 
for »° j<i p» i M > .iii w (1» * | wn s ■ S8j?0 nnd d c f r M p n t , a f? 
part payment tharof or , eold i\^d delivered one horse 
of the value of '00 wnd th^ note sued on in i -tt s i g 
£*•*«•; thnt after e>:ecui ion*" of the order for tliC 
purchase of t>ie "lock noWder nnd in c onpider^ti'^n 
of pnid promieBory n o tje^ltm id Uh e r.' i Ix ; . ■ 1 ( ' nBtp w w y- p ronj- 
if>«ed to furnlfh def enchant a e^lesnian to nppiat in 
selling vcki^ stock powder, -app e il-ww fa then h w d in ^<^ 
his possession nnd i^^ the fore; oinf vras the pole 
conaiderntion of tfei d ^ notr-; thnt aftcrwordp <»pn,cll- 
ant requested th^ company to furnish him a smlc!?- 
'ns" to flffpint, ht'n in Pf 1 1 1 a£....lli&.jaafiJs,juaJBijRX..t4P 
^r'^S J U ii i ja i ilfl Ji^ - ^^' * jirn iwp ■■! in i» VI -^crnrdnnce %vith **wi. 
Wrma nt anid nfree'ient, bnt th-t the ci-nT.-nnny whwlly „ 
faile<}»4»4-H-rv4 ta » y o v iu r. f - a\jj ^ ) i fy (j |^vl - B t»it t >; th-^t 

upon eiicii-**»"i^Tm? apf»«i:1PT7Tt",^prior to the » e e i » i > n i M 

mitnt nr>i transfer of j inid T'lMuilgynry .gotet, by the 


payee, rej^voked nnd repclnded iiis swid -ort^er for 
-•i**»3^t7^ck powder nnd notified the ' .-ay ton-' ffV:man, 
< ^h ci mio*t ' Cotnpany* ff f -w ^uO T ftVo c'a[tA , <» *y^'Uul^. ow . Rc . « i Ail .».ii 
. tipn? th't »*»*d conpin-ny consented t x r '" yum I v. f iHfi ' ^ J 't t . 


Bti nnr <>i t>d ■ y vo. oiitlum and did n iJt » ■ t -a ny -'t4cMg 

W*t« del- 

.^jjrtjjfcj^.o-' n ^ n'ilTlIi^i^ !^^ f^2idk-A^^^l*9Sr*Wf ■ ffTGiTfr'''^. 



, Trr h^hri«»m" bnooy-3 SiiJ 8« nwo«j( saw ^Hdw 
. . A 

nr,iiPiot)i^sioo at Sua t9b1»rr il0O#«i'«rii Iro »»i-flri»^ijq 


-^i .£!£«l.AAiU^ 

ni mm 9 htd. b«bni:t)99t fen?* bojfovVt .•jsyiicf 

HwH»ir*^«T* m Id'" 

y^not e J/ \'±n3333L>f^ i^ *<' pri-^r to the -« 

A* A ^\- 

4jjjL.transfer of the same; that, at trie ^jf^ie of and 

\ prior to the assifJiMint of snid rHNyii'lBinjlji, no te to 

K. h. Jorey and >.;y ;.. !.. orey tff TiT^-w "i/ ^' f ' ffj", they 

then had QOtlce ol the defense^ xo vnid rromo gaji'y 

n'^'*'^ and therefore tnnt T.j , /orey y/fto n!>t n .iH 4 is 

not an innocent holder of ^id prcraiseory note with- 

out -tloe^^w, / 

< '»i;pAll g e irf repyy denied t> at iie^J'nd notice 
of any alleged defense/ t n eai ic l i no<jg n*,-1 :he t vs.e 


■ the ■mwfr nnd nfS^erred that he rurchor-ed the 

note frx: H. l*. ' 03P;ey before i^-aturlty: that Y., 

h, I'Torej' J^t the time he purchased the n>te, did not 

have notice ol" r>Jhy defense; thnt at the tine n* 
ee took sm i a rqite. the conf id erotion had not wholly 
failed; that "♦*i4. order inKu^ i twt i ' d T)lft.o ^^lentii-^ned^wne 
not revoked jwnd rescinded s? all e^ ed <, iiT"thr ' ij ' i ' ea^ 

.'-t the conclusion of all the eviderce in tlie case, 
on ractdDO of appellee the court directed a verdict 

in hijf^ favor and on nuc}: verdict heint; rcturne'^, 

hy the jury, the court overruled a motion for n new 

trjfel and entered an order thn t the judfrraent by 
confession stand. irom that Jud£;nient order, defend- 

/ -4"-*-«' the tri-il below yuj'|»c:i1 wnt /gourht to show 

/ ^ A- 

^ the evidence ^ thnt the ccrpany, ii^ving f n i1 ed 

to comply with its contract to fuEnieh p. "aan to 

nssist in sell rif; the powder aftr-rtTHTTt had on hand, 

caieented to the cnncenation of sue i -r /con tr?^ct; 

thiat by reason of such C".ncells?tion notrinr- was due 

on snrfti note, and ixn^<in mi t mm i' entitled to the poss- 



■u. .M»-i:mGittr ikXMf 

... ..-: t'^ hnm \:#Toa- .»C;-;h 


no i i «•» 9 Jbi 5 n c - '' --w Moo* . #• 

U9SI a» 



" ^^ ' fi^i>9/<oY9j ton 

x«uX9rico 9ii* ^ . 

>:ui 33iXs>iTqr* ^P nct^oai no 

bf>t*tn9 Das i«i|1ti 

■ '**-i»4l*A-.i volscf I«i 



- P<^ 

. <#fti88A 

-«J8f>.J 9- 

i «*W^ H»-i ir*'^M^ 

, >j ji otsB no 



; tb't h, ii, } nrey hnr! notice 

of^tV.iP defenf?e when he pDrchnscd ti:P mte; thnt 

frvpoiTH^^aff the father nf i . 1\, : orey and the 
tranrler of the note to hin ^^a? in the nature of 
R fraud nr su"bterf uf e.^^'^hc court hel d -<«*. the trinl 
thnt the Jjurden was u o o n^ '♦f* HWl'tT^Til to ppt»V>ii<»h th^t 
notice of i>?oine defrnpp tw 'th i g i wotr 'fi-^^ broufiht home 
to. m pvm Y ^^^ beiore V.e purchased the note^snd if 
thin be correct it ie needle^e to diFcueu the que!=>- 
tion whether 1:, K . I.- orey knew of such defenre or 
not, or ^>iethcr rAp-^ell =»nt liad any other defense to 
the note Xy it WBr 3dr::tted thRt the note v/np ihd^r- 
eed in blank by the corrrtany and -or* tVie tri '4 l<, i , 
J'orey t stified th->t lie gave 'i-- check to the com« 
for the note, and rjf tf- i^w^rd? •old it to 

at that tine, called his father upover the teJcT'hnne 

and mnde the eal e in th-t way, 't ap-e-»red thpt the 

note WR8 in pceesrion of )>. )i. '''orev at the time 

)ae made nn affidavit as to^ ii^jimI 1 n ft ' ? sif^nature, 

when th/e cpnfeseion of judpnent was tnkcn, but he 

-t 111 at tViat the note h«d be«-n pent back to hin ^%il'»««, ' vM 

The tendency of the cov.rtf» of thip et'^.te ip 
to euetfiin the ne^^otinbi] ity of co'^ erci;'l r.aper 
not vet due and the cpse r;;U!»t be i etrnnf. one where 
they will annul the title ol the tranpferee, every 
preeumption beinp in fivor of it? validity. "The 
rule now ip that the cndorree or ansifnee of corarier- 
cial paper who take? the soni'" before .Tiaturity for 
a valuable c cnj'ider'^tion, without Inowled^re ol any 
defects and in < ood faitli, v,iil be protected ofiainr-t 


■ .10 

.\i .mi ;" ''--J9 ' ; "jnw n«tww..! ^di iartf 

ff bn- i^a; :^«««rt9Ttijq »simo'i9d 9*^t*fr^ ,S-^ 

■f - ^*5rr«»'t-^h Hrnj" In w*»n^ vVr^ , ■>rft»rivr noli 

5 I'oM 


tfi9tiv •■'. ■■■• • ." bf»r 9.a!i J9 jon 

visv^ ^s^-xe't^fif iWna' ffiw y»*^^ 

, • ■■:{'■■ Ml i,rqini/»»lf; 

Y.nK ' ■'■i'3bx?»m5 ©XdfluXav f 

J«niA;^r. t>-»:^0 9,.tm(7 set f Pt* ,rittj?t boo , rti bns^ e^oalsb 


the defensep of themaker, nnd 'ncrc ffuspicim of 
defect of title or the '-nni'/l prff e oi c Ircunstances 
cglculfited to excite su»i)icion in the r.ind of a 
prudent man, or even t^rosp negligence nn jii? v art 
at the time of the tran'?fer, v.'ill not rip'feat his 
title. ip otnev i»,-ordp t>ie only tbin< whic}! will 
defeat his title is "bad fs'ith on hip pnrt, 'inci the 
burden of prooi is urson the nereon assail ing his 
right to e8tatlif«Vi th;rt fact by a preponderance of 
the evidence. ^ atso". V. /Hey 141 111, '^BA; lemis 
Vp. homer 165 id. ?47; ? erritt V, Poydcn, 191 
id. 136; AUirrpy i/s, i-eckwith 8i id, 4S; .3hreevei« 
Vb. Allen, 7^ id. bbS"' I!ov;ever hf=!reh triie rule mny 
on firs«t impression seem to be, it ip hnpcd urion the 
policy of the Ih^w which 4-ivei? full fnith -^nd credit 
to cor'-Tiercisl pf.pcr transferred before msturily, 
po thnt it rmy circul ite, ??? far 'if popiiule, v.'ith 
all the conveniences of currency'', Tiradvell vs. 
iryor, P.21 111. C02. 

It i* contended by Rrir^ellant thrt a? tliere 
was proof tending to sWri th-^t P. ii, Vorey had no- 
tice of sonie defense to the note broufht to hie 
knowledge and that af tf-rwardf? he !?old the mte to 
appellee, who is his father, that fro^ these and tr e 
other attendant ci rcumstanc^ s referred to, the jury 
would h-ive f*. to infer thnt appellee kriew of 
such defense and th^at the transfer froo li. h', 1 orey 
to appellee, was in the nature of r>. fraud; but the 
mere relationship between th.ese r^artiet?, doe'^'not 
even tend to show fmud in the trsneact if^n, as i:,yi, 


hni- adi ai noloiqaws ■>Aio' 9*«XiioX*o 

8i 1 J«»l»fc ion /Tx-:* ,i?ilr'fiJEil »«^ "io sr-it srf^ ^» 

■i:'J i-nn ,i%li^ eifL ao uJ tmt bso si slitii n't A *«»l»b 

to !»onfl:t9fceo(79ift « "^<^ ise"* *'-rf^ £<pifd«i'8» r^ Jft^ii 

■:r ofuT sin* •iP.-r-'-d isirsv."^ ... , ■ ■ •''^ 

, ' aoxa«»isrmi ^e-ri'l no 

'. t!>^ '^4- h9ftm^ "."f^fi -t^»fr f>*t9>f*^ 
-0(1 .:>^.i X' , - ■ -itr 

\txur , 'i-ns'isT 9:iOK*?^«i.<Tj;£n to t«Jsbf:«»t^j» TstiJo 

' 4T . .olenaT hot-* ^tnslftb ff»t/« 

. • r ^onnrfHtS aiii nx bufiil worta aJ «^« i' 

I orcy had the same right to feJl the note to ';ie 
fnther that he hari to sell it tn any onr else ^^nd 
frpud must he proved nnd not ore"unied. lie re wne no 
?uch proof of fr=?ud in the tmrsactinn or of nttice 
to appellee, eithtr direct or circumstnn tinl, ns wss 
sufficient to overcor.e the prim fncie CTpe reside 
out \>y the production of the note indorsed ?ip nbove 
set forth nni ^old to ap-^ellef before mnturity f>nd 
it was tiierefore r)roj:cr for t'l e court tc direct n 
verdict in lavor of ar>^:ellee, 

Tne judftirient ^rder of the circuit KjDMJbc 
court will be affimeri. 

Affirmed , 

Not to be reported in full, 

• f^m 

90i + *r looiq riout 


>ri»q'<pi o;} r iftj* 

TtOl T»';Ot<j; 91019-19111 BAW Jx 


,II.ul ax b9itoq»« 9(i oS fell 


I, CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of 
the State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true copg of the OPINION of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in mg office. 

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set mg hand and affixed the seal of said Court 

at Mt. Vernon, this J^......,..,^ _ dag of December, 

A. D. 1915. 









Opinion of the Appellate Court 


AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at Mt. Vernon, IlUnoil, on the Fourth Tuesday 

in the month of October in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred a&d fifteen, the same being 

the 26th dag of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred aid fifteen. 


Hon. Harry Higbee, Presiding Justice. y^' - 

Hon. James C. McBride, Justice. - 

Hon. Franklin H Boggs, Justice. 

And afterwards, to-wit: On the J.:-^... day of December,\A. D. 1915, there was filed 

in the office oft}\e Clerk of said Court, at Mt Vernon, Illinois, an OPINIOS in the words and figures 



Ipi.A. 83 

cnnon to 



March Term, 1915 







■Texx. ! 0. 73.. Ate -de "r.^S. 

1 arc:. Ten;i,1^15. 

?3ry J.. :e;2, ^dniniatratrij!^, etc.,) 




/Appeal from 

lv« i l-'tin y C r.i: p an,/ , 

'■>v;f)ti J Tnt. 


Coir. ion 'u; f - i<,.beej_ 't . J. 

■^ i'Ti J nn i! r, ry ' -J, j 9 1 5 , a 1; a ^ .- u t t ".r e e 
o'clock in ':.> ft ^-.f ttrnooii John •.ell, v.-iiile del- 
iverinf, fo->df- with r; 'VHf.on dr-'Vvn ly n x.l1 b te??m, 
In Corii;i?vi]]?., raincif^, v:r,r- run ini;o Ly nj.e 

of n Twiol^iwfe ' g cr.rj r.r.c! pr : iijiKi-dd, th.'t h^ d : ed 

■&«»e^?iX inys UwM»«aitor.-^e.J.. ajL-y 7.. Tw^Tl , v-i., , 

. : , • J f^ n V , Wf ? n^i no i ii t » d^ ~adikliii-fc.lj.ra-tj p4 -K , ■ rrrr'r^r'^'m^^ 
-2iL*,t .,,J£iiivl.sil JliJP-eliiUi!h..X Qr ti*b «Uwifci'.i i- ^i--irfae 

^ ^ " ^ '' • ..-}Sl2}-^.^-'^''^-SBMR% .Jm.s .Te ve:?«kft4-^ii4 -- t-i^« .. c vMint' 
remand e d . (180 13 1. App . JS^.>««-««^-»^»*n- 1;^^^ 
H ^ '*.-^ »_ J^i^i**-^ •' *'' * "^s^**** reco_vftred a judfT.ent -*«. 
ii » j. f a nil , t V.- > fm r.ft toa.i ag t .rv i i>i,it.i„inr f.?r «*•» 
*«**iafc»^' -^h»?5t5';^na fror, thn t ju&riir^trt the defen- 
dni.t Mri L>¥ » y hag ?^^ appealed, c >.ntpnd inf, '.h^-t 
t}.e judt.;r/t'it v;ae c.-ntrf!x;y to t..€ v/ of th« 
evidence and that tne court erred in the ."d.r:;:^..P?ion 






,M. 0-3-1-'-.% -tni'^jo'u^ .'rf ex JO;! .JU Iqr.-l 


bo •-, 

! 1-fiiW gboo.ii ^ii5<» .': 

9. ijx' .uzjiUin .•sEIxvefu I To:) ... 



• »*•»-;•*- - rfri. ■IT f W*r ,I*i'Xi' 
. ■ .xjr'";j 8PVV J(!Soiifttf t ^-^ ' 

of c»^rtaiii evider.ct-5 -i/cred ly 'fr^ieilee. 

:.< tiTne 

rl the in.n.rv,- vJj?r oii hie ivaj, lo dt^jve:: 
^ccde to P r~. .'ohnrcn, v.-ho li\e'J on the south 
pide nl ; --. in Ctrcet in Co] 1 insvill > , ir. the 
Fecrrd } ciffp v'e7t :<f Guernsey Rtr-.-. t a;id tl.nt 

ha? r sin^ae track for JFi#. el ec trie 


onrs alont.; ti'e ct-'.ter ^-i - nin .itrtrt, r' 
runs east nnd v:e?t. Bel.l ^'hp. {cIm^ v/e-t p.l one 
l.nxn Street and cme c.f n.i»rj e no.r i ti - V^ c'-'-f ym^^ 
behind rir , 9inf, in the ^mue airec ti -^n. ."-fter 
Ve .nnd/^^vi.T - r f 1 ^ t \.f rneev .-tree-"-, vi.joh cr-, pped 
.V9in Street nt r.irl:r, pmJfr aj*4— m«^i- ;e-; i r.?. 
John?cn»e., the viafcr. in v/Mch ],€> v??.: ri'Unp, 

^cnr -ind "ell -^k « thrown out 9r\C 
receive?-; the injurie? ^a.V;ir]- pir'-HPniifinJil y rer- 

ha t th 

M;e'iPe.l v'a.-?.^.t th<= t: •.• e> drivj ri,-;' ^i?f*f3t 

with one wheel of the v-nvon "octvie-i the rr^jli^ and 
the ot'ier en the "orth pide if the tr-cV; thnt 
the c^r *a? heini7 r.jn -• c .->,n exre^isivd rntc -if 
?peed; th-^t those i •-; ohnrce -4;ii«xfi"^f ;-iv'? v-in 
alj/nTlij; ^.hnt t^;ere -.^ns nothii-ij^ to olv-U-^uct 
the view of th 5 p<? i i ohTr^^e of the c^r when it 
'arrived v. j thin ''OO feet of the tenr- -^nd 'vrron 
- ^iM y^^thi^t they failed t- h=?ye t>Le ^n.r iindpr no'T- 
trol, T^erritti-ig^tr. et^iv^t ^-ew-,. n-iunl n^ Ihe 
f^t->1 Injury to ' . ^JiifilT e l - 'IT fntp ^ t-: t<" ; ^'^" * " t, 
•'•''n tiinn hfliTl -ffflp ji the eyercige j^„iidiUift f '^r fi i 


j^J'ir-iQ le 

, ; ;■ i: V 3.'^i ' i'v J' TTi >93t:^2 rri: :• • io abin 
3it*'vM» ts* i^J^ i< I "OiiXj 31 ,i-tx3 (» sun > jfiHIt » r? qc- 

O' Oft;? /ir> isr'J-o stfJ' 

^ .- ;-<.tr.?r '.w .• — — TTi-r- i * iw « <rf t o* vTi;(,rr rr.*."?"! 

-,-r-o -4 . • r,e. -v.. «,.„ „ ■ .. •- -taf tf»S trnri^f r>it 

col" isi.';n. ~4 

Q f i ih t' i-imjt, nf •'y??yWTTant"7~TT'*''*>>^ c o n te n- 
ded thit t}ie car rrrp te;nf run at s noderate 
p-need,that, pro-:er si{.'n?.lr were given -Tifl thnt 
T.eZl v:°f> t;ui:it:/ oi hqi net;Ii{^-;-?nce , ip iY: \t. vi.ile 
^riviut: cJ^ar oi tie trnc'; outside ni" t'.e raiis 
on the north. f;,ide, >ie sudd.cniy turi-:ef] '• i^ teati 
ptr^^iCht rcroe<? t-.f trar]- in front rf airineilfflw^JLi^ 
air, so th^t the cnr could ;<-;t >ie -toru Si'^ in 
tine to nvDld the c^ 

In order to entitle pppeliet '.o :ec'.ver, 
it vas rierey:."ary for t'" proye hy ?: 71 rt;prn(ie ranee 
nf tne evidence tiiat dect-dent '"n? '-..self at 
tie tine oi the injury, orr] prior tii'o:r-2to, 
in exercise of ordinary c.;re :ior Hio cvm 
oofety. < :ift . . 4i ,i. in ^ J i ■ n t, ^- r <Mi > . > jg •:, t u ff s s <r - ^ « ti l i-i.^ 
- fuj a i Vi iB ll -frw. ^ :.^rti!< Ta r d 3 3 r y .^ . staliifedjf -:;-t he 
was on >.>in Street n ?r.ort distune-? '-vert of 
Cnerneey <"trefct at^ut rventy I'ect frc:- thf5 
street c^r tr-ockk th ^^-r re f ir 3t ?a\v 'en ap-nr'^ etch- 
ing iTOist the e?^st !*00 feet ^wny; tVot ns 3eJl cr-me 

on, ■ ^I'itnaBD CO served thnt tlie -;'-,ecl of hin ■'■jngon 
y.'?ie caught on the i.ij-ide 01 ll.-e trocVt? "shidding 
along" »r.d the Tu'Ji^= eeercd to loe trvin/' t'" i^ull 
the ws.pon ^^ver to the rjorth; thot * 'i 1 1 n - v -g- >|- v r n e d 
p^vr^j ".•.'■. *n the :'«.{.■; o'-i wa? 7C rr SO fee', fr^'i '. im, 
ooptinuin^ in the ?r<.'7.c v-;^; a^ bef ;re- f-^-t 4} e 
f'f » T t t ' , ; Mt .. .t h-^ t V 1 1 y pgj.^^r V i a. - id .. L t. i j 1 1 L t i H.i MM I ? 

qy» .a h a nt^ . n i iien h ^i leBliiu i i . 

■nd thr- ■•!nl ^r- v;ere 

i^.ti-tar. rt:v .^ i>£A yn t^ affl j.taftt Tt tqrr 

_ ^iit- '!.'.* b<^n a Jjh- nuT 5n-i9i i?"W •sieo si* J^'-fit be-*^ 

aXiaw , '•■Ofl«;jj.X;>dn:|pr i o . .\;J- T tiJ-^ »i!**w J.XeJT 

eii ;'■ ftb.ceJuo >'or'sJ Bit to li'Srio jfftviat 

'X ? , ; - : J ;: " •:! B j ts f*^' J ? v o -i 'ii 9 u • • 

i: ^ -f ' 'J s- ■» » 9 r*t t »> , ■ ; ..+-ir ■* -i\' - nor. «w nrf-t 

•» » •* '!i.o a^S at ---•■-- "(SO 

fi-vn on the rjtrcei; or Ln /ront oi' tii;i c:^i■; that 
the cnr ^;a0 r-ton-o-i Tfte:r lait; coJ lic'i on r'"^:)-^\it 60 
feot \v<.i-.t, nf.'-uernsey etj-r-e-^.. C.iar.l ef? •.;rnter 
snore that he vo;, t;0 3{int. to ii.irdclty on : -an 
•":tr«et. ii>cut -n f^et rrvr. thr; ca.iter of 'uerneey 

nnl ^.%\v "Jelil 'il or 70 feet .i.-wny; ti - T X^T^^ ^ driv- 

in-- in the cer.ter of ITie etreet with one v reel in 

tvc cent»?r ni the trac:< c-.nd 0;:^ en b.^e ri'.r.-ui eide 

^ . .ricfj." ' Jwti >-','?f=t nnout 


40 ftet and jrs^rA^ ^ 1 ; , I.*; J.e/ rd t},e crar:;; wrfrt<^- 
«te* did not tee decej^d j^fter r^.ti a r tw pi.sQet^di: 

(•f.p' in^ «»+s^ vaE? drivnnt -'=c)9t ia an r.a- tor'Oi.-ilfc , Cum/ 
tegtlfiert he r-^soed iece-^Hta o^.out '?00 leet ir-m 
tlie pl^cc v,!.err the ftcci.-t:^! occ.ricc, .-.nd the 
latter vr.v- ther •fi'iviinj v/ith one ^\hke2 oetveen 
th" trocVn, lut t)^t }ic cii- not >noY. v^i.cre 
Lf^n. drive nfttr v,i-fne?;DE oaseed hi>.. rn the 
part oi /jt*v<>«ft[^ -c.-oe i'^raxe tcr;t jfieci th.^t 
Bell vlr^^ve -ith one vAxerl hetwe&n the Lmcic? 
i:ntil he re-^che-j the caxitei of ^'u^Jinrj^y etreet 
v^hen i-.e ^Mnn^ x-, t]u, c-nri: r, iittie bit f .k3 cir^'ve 
ranlj?] ^vith -..nd outside thi; tracks lo a poijit 
ahout 40 feet r^-r^yond the i;-.ters:OCtipn ox ^.;ern- 
sey Ptreet, and tren tiixued aouth Kcroas t>.t 
ti-xc:<:-, v.hure ha v,n3 stri-O . . i ve otncr v^it.TcPsee 
s^fio te-jtifisd ti.ey pnv; dcjcripet! juf-t hefory 
t};e rccifh-nt; th.-;t ht -;/?!? L^:tvfet!.^ t.^e cuii. ync 
the :n the north ;:*id« ana th^t Jut^t bei:;re 







I'./r.o'iv J- ■; 


J wrt-J 


-.'.'i..- no 

sttjtr— *^T lij i-3 a? 


■iii. D9' 

.1 JdSS'Xejliii v ■ 

. ^ - — -- - ■ '7 t- r 

. ' ^ * LfC / R 

the coll isi'^n, hp turned ?outh -'croer t'r-.e tvpcl:. 

These witneeee?' io~- - ^porl .1 wn t t , were corr'^VicirRted 
by undisputed te?>t.2m^ny, <»ho'«vinr tV.f't tre m^lee 
and tiie left fr-)!!! vrY'Qcl of ty;e "/af.on vere '?truck 
"by t'le car; thTt riecea<?ed, nfter tV:.e ''ccidpnt, 
told hi? ^-ployer thnt he "n^d nn order to dei iver 
at Vts. Johnson's; thnt he went dnvm Iwin .treet 
and atteinpted to orops ever tn her plnce to --r.ake 
t'le delivery -ird fne further fRCt tr^^t "re 'i id 
pctur?. ly the dt^iver^ of the t nr^de 'ifter he 
vp p ir.jurtd "nd hefore : e va.p t?>ker> nvnyfor ""led- 
.cp.l trer-tT-pTit. <3F^ "T" 

't to ue that it v^f^ cjenr3y 
"^hovn hy the r-.rer ondernnce oi the e\idence, that 
nfter he -oRBsed Cucrnefry street Be U wn? driving 
on the north side of the tracVs, and tf.flt he 
turned «=n\ith to cross the tracks for tj.e r.urpoee 
of delivering; the focds irtended for Ixf*. Johnson, 
Concerainr tht- Question of the priced ?=t T.'hich the 
C1T wne trovelin^, a nvmroer of witnepres tes- 
tified, -D^acint' it pt different r^^te? fr-s.i ten to 
■'Li?enty tv/c rijes on hour. Ap to whetlier sif:nals 
were fi\ea hy tlio -e in cjiart'e of npT>ellant'p 
cnr, ?ever-il witnespec for opnellee testified 
ttiRt they hegrd none, v.-hile eix teptiiyim: for 
nppel ] 9,nt- et?'tedpoeiti veiy to having heard eig- 
na] p repented]y piven, three of v/nom testified 
their ??ttention %-'3s -^o attrfu;ted th^erehy p.s to 
ind-jce them to wotch the car. Jn Chica^io City 
Ky.Co. V. -'■Iher 107 m., A-^p . 397, in r. case 

--' . _■ . t'ne 

.... .... .... ..:^>t/ 

.n .. J , • CSV r ^ *^<=.-.~ '-^ii:3-fJ S5?i'3=<<r ^si xpXX-b 

^ 'Of 9il.t .no 

,rfG 5-1 ■[:;'• iniX!9V"Jt-L9f> to 

.... \',j'"'9T- 

."jrTrtn b"i«(9r y^rf* ta;"It 
r + . ^l^i 

s oinewhat j'i'aiiir to this, it. i= .-"nid, "As 
Irt vihst}i.t:T ap'':en ' ^; ::. -tir .-■i rmj-r hi? >iell 
as iie fl^jpi-oriOhefi t-",ert' i? fMr^ct conflict ni 
ten tircor;/- "■evsr-il r.f '^..»y...ellec ' s? witneepeg 
st-^te t:iat they IJu rot ''.c^r Tiy 1-;.?11, -nrt otkere 
et-'-te pr.'.-ij.i vel.- ti.^ t iirne "'^ ?■ r'ln^ . i -p-.'- puch 
r. confli^ct cT f?tat»-:.ent tie c-'urt p.nd ;'ury •who 
Jear ^.r.c. s< e tie v.i tr-trst-c-F '-rr ir r. "bftttr 
pcsition to pne? uv.nn ILe Vfxliie c-i the trrtirony 
or. either firlt tr.'^n a court of rpvic . .t is 
rruttless true ■'owevsr, th'i t the -tio::^! tivs evi- 
dR.'.ce ci' '^ne 'io did ;".ear i. r rererrlT;/ -f more 
evident! -jI v-"'3i4S t'/;an a jr!'^r<? nef;ntive ptater.ent 
of :).'".t v.'i.') di'l not hear. It i^- cnr:."^o extierience 
v?i t h. f'.'O^e in the i^-tit oi ''e-'-rin; «*reet car 
■&elle or otj-tr :^i;,':ilr:.r -;r;iacr? thnt the :-ind 
after- t.'u^ee r.o ci:'ti:^ct i'jif:r<':^ :•'*=■ i -n of then, un- 
-:er>s rf.ut. v;i th i.r.usi,.; 1 clarii'nr, -nd ths •'-rppence 
of au i.rr.j;eridin; peril tc ti;./ '■•rie T.'-y -perhirie 
easilj iii"trricx itte-'tiin f r ir f?"iund'= -"hirl; would 
■' t h rv-- i 6f e be r t ::> e t;.c e i- •; d . " 

JollovJinr ti'.e rule In Id d o -;n in tb.e 
rt^e reiarrcd t", ve r^ '^ric^^ude thr^t thn weirht 
oi t.he • A'^st re]i7.ple fvide^'co;, i ? to the effect 
;," tiiti drr.£-er fii^rR?}' ■'*ere :.;"i fpct ;; iven by 
tliOse 111 clu^rge nf rtittJ ^ an t' ' cpt nrior to the 
-jv.ll iBior. . •'"'r! t/'c tri'O the .-'hidr'^ent 
)f7ne reverr-ed rnrt th^ or»uBe riscT-ided ny rep.'^on 
Oil ;» lac.V ni oviffici^-it pr?of to ^'^O'v eit.ier 
.~e£,l it e-"cc on the ■^-Tt "^f f^pr.ell 'ant 't due ere 
on th« part of the deceased, pnd the evidence v/a? 


■:■-■■■■■ " ■ '^ ■■ : - . _ . .Y-isaui'aai 

''" '~ ju'^i V J. J i, .-- C 1^ ;. -J f^a S 

j;. i aii *«•».: 7v».j^ ic 5c'iX-tr:6o: « 

'■' ■"" ■ ^"'iaifr.^l;. »rf.t »,^5 b^.£, ikarf 

Xfic"^:ii"'. . i j.j^i^f -iiiJ^iwqif »e«a.o* ncii'isot'r 

ex .t . . ■ :-j ; -^ " ':'■ '•■•"-'^ <- .-: ' « * ihi^ i:>x(,Jl9' r;c 

91 ci.. 1p \:.I ['iisftsy; '. .. .■ . .■^. •^'^-' -tp. 3ort!»i> 

^n9CTe*i5i« ^t^■J^rtf^'■i'^• •■''• r « ■fi^i^ ■, I?Wn5.J!>xv^ 

-'>^«!»rT self's '^' "' .tsm^-ior. lib r-iW 3^0 Ic 

: - TO .*tc «XI»a 

'»ori?j^w .,i±'X jjiin'X B*:9"- 

_'-.., jxriiaeifcu" tm. lo 

.^,.:ST sd '■••- -■ ■••'■T^>.l.•*•'■ 
.r^i:*oII - 

• i«w •orr3i>iv'9 sdj bn/' ,b»i?-90-3b silJ- lo iiBq •AS no 

tubstantiftlly the efi-iC on the pecon-i trinl. 
Appt-liee ccnLeudB 'chF..-': m rew elerrej.t was in- 
jectt'd into the chbc by the tefrtii-.cny oi 
Sfvernl witnereef-, ehov.'inf, the density of pop- 
ulation and the ] ''.r^je ■-•riount nf tr-vel nt or, r t>ie jrlace ol t-it injui,/, but it f<'!i"jed ',0 
pho'ff thoL tJicre v-.'-iS ajiy otner veiiicle "• t. th^t 
place a': tha Li.uc ia iuesti-in; nnd t}xe -o roofs 
appear to ^uatain a-opellant' s clnin thot itp 
eervintp ^!<ire .round me^: the danf;er sif:n.-'l.a as? 
it ap]- rr-M.ched le]!':- v;aj'on. It i ? true th-^t 
those in chrrije oi tiie cnr h^d nn unohp'tri.oted 
vie/.- oi the f!V[^cn oi c'eceaoed for 200 feet 
belore the cir etruc" .t, but tn^^re wn? 'iothing 
to iidicatf» ",0 the '^otor/nan thit tlx- vva^ 1:1, 
wh.i c Yi v-i 3 p r c e e I i n^ ^.1 o ri^' th e ? t r e :• t i ri G le 
'inne dia-ection aa t^ie c;^r, v/ouid "ue I'uddenly 
turned pcrosg the trac.Vg directly in front of 
the ntproac^iint;. car, and in the- ib^ence of 
mnythjni; to warn hiin, the .iOtornian v,"-C! not bound 
to assune that the driver of z/n ve:xjc]e would 
so turn Ujion t}je trsclce aliead of jiici. i^^abo \. 
A. . . .V C, .X. h. Co., 185 11]. App. 34. "he 
fret thr.t t'.ti err rtopped within fei;;ht -:r ten 
feet after tlif col] -si on, would tend strongly 
to contrrdict the ccntpr,tion of flpT^el'ee tli- t, 
pt the tlTS of t/je crllioinn it ■vps rimni'-ii at 
an excefjpivcly hi^}. rr;.te of t-rneed. e are of 
opinion that on tlii? trial, as on t}ie: ;o:Tr-er one, 






b»j 3*L 

J pic-.TJTtr') • J" 

•■"^'lOX'S riF 



appellee fo oie-^.Tly i^iig''- to -■■ ov; a m, l.t of 
recovery by the vrrofr, nni t^ie verfiict i^- eo 
TTiyni leetVy «»Kiiri<?t tre veif.hl of t}ie evidence 
thnt t,V:e ,;i!dj'"enr ^.^^t '."e r^ver!?eci snu 
the c^vsc renn nd e r . 

pverf-ed ,■ .. rf • , 'led. 

ifot to be rerorted i'^ full. 





I, CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of 
the State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true copv of the OPINION of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in mg office. 

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set mv hand and affixed the seal of said Court 

at ML Vernon, this ,/i^2t::::^. day of December, 

A. D. 1915. 


\ s 





Opinion of the Appellate Court: 

AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at Mt. Vernon, Illinop, on the Fourth Tuesday 
the month of October in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred ind fifteen, the same being 
P 26th dav of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundrf-Shf fi^e^^J XU J>-^ 

the 26th dav of I 


Hon. Harry Higbee, Presiding Justice. 

Hon. James C. McBride, Justice. 

Hon. Franklin H. Boggs, Justice. 

And afterwards, to-wit: On the _....„...^. day of December, A. D. 1915, there was filed 

in the office of\he Clerk of said Court at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, an OPijiON in the words and figures 


D 1 1 ^9^5 

/? ^ ^ 

E. PASLEY, Sheriff 

7I.A. 101 






Term l.o. 16. 

Agenda Jo'. 6. 

larch 'ierci, 1S15. 

Kile? i . i-ixler, doing ■business ) 
as iiles !• , iiixler Corapany, 

'pLAlUTIvy in iirror, 


T. A, henson, 

DEPENDANT in Krror. 

Krror to the 

County Court of 
ir«nklin County. 

O pinion by I^r. Jugtice x^oggs. 

Thit was B suit brought by plaintiff 
in •rrpr, n ^'holesale jeiwelry denier at Cleveland, 
Ohio, agRinet defendant in error, -i retail merchant 
at wept irankfort, Illinois, on a -written order 
for the sale of certain Jewelry and one. sr.ovf cn^e, 
the contract price therefor being vl98.00, ""n the 
trial a verdict wne rendered in favor oi the defen- 
dant, fallowed by judgment in bar of action and for 
coetf, from which judgment thie writ ol error is 

The *hov» or^ee wae to be delivered by 
freight and the Jewelry by exrjresp. "'he order for 
these goods was teken on l^ecember K-, 1^1^. he 
show cise was delivered to the ?:ail road Co-tpany by 
plaintiff in error for shipment to defendant in 
error on :eceT.ber IP, 1913. '^'he jewelry -^as del- 
ivered to_th€ xprepp Company by plaintiff in --rrT 


. ^ i. .oil ax9' 

} ,\,tt»qtB.oO t^Lxtd. .'{ ••Ix^ urn 

'^' j 1 . .nos.".*.! .A .T 

.hnslsv:' >^ I^wfat ©isselori.. f? .-^o-xi* nx 

^n«i{Di^ " - ,1 119 f!i iiiBbtidlsI) tsnip-^ ,ojtxiO 

at Xr^ri:- "■■' "-''-- ^ ' "r' ) /^. "• •Sirfv iroil ,9l800 

. '■.■»'! ;.« c : ^-jii -u - ainnf if'-0 WOiin dl{T 

""' ''■-■- ^01 <xscfa»o^ no pt»>(n^ «6\r «booa •«©.^:i 

.iS'iiXxBK 9ri^ r+ b»i9vU !9l> sew »9j^o worle 

^nBbn«l«b oJ ttt«Ka^ii(8 lol loias nx 'i'li;fnifllq 

on Decenber 17, 191?. '''he defenpe i? th?t the 
tood? were t.~ be ei-ipped po 'jd to verrY ri ef f^nd'int 
in error ?t est .' rnnkf ort by '"ecember 13,]91?, 
as he WBB r;urchas?ing pnid poods to be u!?ed in his 
holidoy trade. 

'^here is nothin-. m the rritten order 
sifcned by defendant in error in reference to the 
time when eaid ^oods v/ere to be deli-«red, but it is? 
claimed by defendant In error that the r.^-ev.t of 
plaintiff m error, who took the order, verbrlly 
a^reed with him th-t paid foode ehoulc? be fiihi^-^ed 
00 a? to reach defend-"rt in error ot 'ept ' r^^j'-kfort 
by December 17., 1013, pnd th'^t "'itnecper? to the spid 
acreement were Cf.lled in by snid af^er.t, r^rtd t>iat r.e 
etnted thot that wnuld be ,1upt pb , ood np nuttinf it 
in the contract, and if thip n^reement v^ere ^rorer 
to be shoY.n we think the evidence pustaine defipn- 
dant in error in Lrde cnrtentim. 

The only qiicetione th."t prire or t>ia s 
record are: firet, ifrfiether or viot the teiT".= of the/ 
written contract can be varied or ?^dded to by ornl 
a^jreemente made by the agent of plniotilf in . rror; 
eecond, whether the obtn ining of P?i(i written order 
by said agent upon verbally opreeinf- ^i th the de- 
fendant in error to phip spid t ood e f?o pc to reach 
defend?'nt Ir error by ■ecetrber 13th T7ould be held 
as Buch fraud p.p r/oiild vitirte the co^ntr^^ct. 

it wae r ro vjded in t te order pif ned by 
defendant in error thr-t T3F!le?rn'^n hn? no authority 
to chanf-e or pdd to these tern-'? exce-ot by writing: on 
the original order, which ip subject to our occent-nce. 

t^f'h^fll9^ bsffcxrfs erf r atsw ffcco j 

,9fa*il \!;«faxXo{t 

9r(+ o:r 9 oriel's "ie' .t ri««l»n»l«b yjii b»ngis 

x'^iif!' ni J-n«bn9'i»i> v:cf bstnifllo 

' bivoiin 9bco3 txp? i^."It fflir; rij-iT b»«ia« 

7to':: jnina ni JnnbfHr^eb 49>»*T c:f ?« o» 

-!=?'?9nJ-l'v ,+ p.i-f.t bn« ,5191 ,^f T9cfm»»9Ci y*^ 

J at b«fri?o »i»w .tn9OT9«T3* 

D^9bxv3 3r{^ jfrridJ' svr nworla ©of o* 
i -xoTt* ni iamb 

s»ilJ tariff •rfir «ttictl '.•im brco%x 

1 ro bsxTsv <:• ssi^noo n»i^iTW 

,"ic-! :iifrr£«XT ir irtdi^r »rt:f V,i:f abjBM 8^n9m9»i:^fl 

lahTr '^sjj'XTw hiiis to jinim .-.jcfr Sti^ isrfisriw ,bnno»s 

-»b »r(? {^fw inl»OT 9;4^ bin^ yd 

r(0JB»T 0+ 9fl a B £»n-i bt'^'- ra nl ^nabnal 

■ tcbnslsb 

vcf fc ) b«btrr 

nr, ^atfiivr yd t-ooxs cmcftt ©Barfct o* bb« to •3nBrf3 'it 

not subject to countermand. -')elivery to the 
carrier is delivery to the -^urci-ir per v/ho riaye the 
cliargee. Je*relry phinped ty eyrpre^^, eh-^v/ c^^pe 
shipped "by freight." it -"/-tuld ceera from n, rep*ding 
of this provision of the ccntract tlr^t errpreee notice 
was t;iven t** defendant in error thnt the rfent of 
plaintiff in error ha* no authority -v^hr.tever to vnry 
or change the terns' of this order or contract, 
without matcing chfin{.~e on the written oontmct, 
and that even if ■such chan^ie wns m-^de on the v?rit- 
ten ?rder it would -/^t he "bindinc. upon p3n ntiff 
in error until accfrted by hin. That be inp true, 
v,'e ore unable to perceive 'why, under the law ag 
has been uniformly held, defendant in error e' o\ild 
not be bound by said written ncteement in the con- 
tract or order pinned by hjr-.. 

It is further to be observed -A'ith refer- 
ence to thie Dif^iter th-ot defendant in error read 
this provision of the contract and reo epted the 
agent of plaintiff in error to insert the provis- 
ions with reference to the delivery of t^ie r oode 
in the contract. It cannot, therefore, be said 
thnt defendant in error was not aware of this pro- 

C, J. Acree, tlie agent of pl;?intiif in 
error, who tonk the order for said ^:oodp, had no 
implied authority to gujirantee that the (- oods 
BbtSrotxsTKcbc ordered v.'ould arrive ot r/est Irankfort, 
Illinois, Y/ithin a desit^nated -^-.irje, except he did 
8 by writing said agreement on t::c orif:inel cnn- 


**i."; ,n9'»lrrx3 N/d" frflKXirtflh -^jrfftvrct .a-^rgiArfo 

YTflV r+ Tsvs^-tffw ■<i|tif'*r(.^|f* (Un %ncf 10*3:1% Wl l^/tniefq 

,?49«7i-." :rT<f to mtrf& «ffJ ^-^rrBrfo ^o 

,&OKi&rt- iw iwt? IR**" •^jjH'^f^o ^^«» ^jftt>f«ii!T ^uotiJ-iir 

'ftf-r 'yrii n- »hjF«ft! i^w ^^strdo tioir J. t n9Y» Jrilt bnm 

9B w»»i wtf i9hrm ,\jfer »iri9»t«^ o# ^Xcfeni:' ©irfi «-' 

.iTTbrf vcf f>»fi:3i9 t^b^e i- toprtt 

wC* fc9.t»»nn9T ban t5r,*f;tn*3 'jrfj- to noieivoiq atdi 
••boo^ erfJ^ !♦ ^w i/»ft •."«• ci ^onBi^tn-f. Hi tw «itf>i 

on hiuf ,'j;'>o'' , i'/r. f%F. f^ .■: 119' , 

,:fiol;£xwrci bsiebro KbsxiiKJaMh 

bib Sff .'rfio*:^ . -• sli •■ .Ti.lJi'i' ^nlonlttt 

tract of purchase. If he did !?n guRrsntee tlie 
delivery of said ^;. ood? it w^uld he the ■perso'^.al 
guarantee of said 'crep, nnd not oi plaAntiff 
in error. ]ieeganrd \p . ':. : . i cfP * Co., ne 
App, 544, affirmed in 387 111., 283; Yiu^er V, 
-ire Clay Co., 64 /np., 437, nffirme*^ in in5 
111.. 505; Ladiffcn V. Cnbalek, 86 /pp., 450. 

The other proposition ne to whether the 
act of the agent in making the a^^teement -with re- 
ference to delivery of the g^oods \7ould ha such a 
fraud as would vitiate the terms of the contract 
or order signed by defendant in error, vie tM?ik 
is hardly a debatable question, Defendnnt in error 
had express notice, by the ter^^rip nf the- order signed 
by him, that the af:ent had no authority rrh'tever to 
rcake such ?> verb«il ^igreernent, =ind for us tr Lolfl 
otherT?i8e would be to ?et nslde t;;e fundnner^tal rule 
that parties are bound to knew the Iny r^verninc 
their transactions, -t raay be observed further 
with reference to this transaction, that by the 
written order signed by defendant in error, plaintiff 
in error does not unde-rtalce to Am^Tmrx deliver the 
goods to defendant in error *it v^ept ^ranVfort, Ill- 
inois, but the order specifies "delivery to the 
carrier is delivery to the purchoser". 

It follOTTS therefore th!?t this .judfment 
must be reversed, and the ciuee remanded for fur- 
ther proceedings not inconsistent herewith. 

Kevereed and remanded. 
Kot to be reported in full. 


9.\S 9ft.+ ir«iir«UT} o?( ttb Btf ' loiuq to ^9X1^ 

Xjpf^C3*t»fr »fif ««f ftXtf^w :^t iubcX'Ti, bias io \,i»iriX«ft 

'tT^^f7 ii^"f<t tr tor' f>m» .•^••xo/' biJia t" 9»iruit«ir3 

.05^ ,.T<5fA d8 ,3l»lJBcrBD .V rroelhn ;dO^ ,.Iir 
-91 ;*-^J:v' tnBr^9«»*iP «rf# yitiam nl lc»9ii »xl;t io job 

1CT1* ti ;>rnbn9't»C .noiJeawp 9£d&&ndmb p ^:£bried el 
bBttziti^ Hiifvn &rf^ Iff «»-rTt«»* »ri* xd .aocton ae»^x» IjbxI 

♦fff ttrfifoh xTWlfa k of ftMnfp&brtu t«m ••oh •xoTtx^* nl 
,+ir.Ttv,-t«T^ iti«i«W #■# ioTt9 at ^iiBbn^J^b oS mbcoQ 

. :)9.onR:o9'; > . 


/, CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of 
the State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true copy of the OPINION of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in my office. 

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set my hand and affixed the seal of said Court 

at ML Vernon, this U^....^ dag of December, 

A. D. 1915. 

'of thf Appellate Court. 





Opinion of the Appellate Court 

AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, on the Fourth Tuesday 
in the month of October in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fifteen, the same being 
the 26th day of October, in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fitteen. 

Present: J 

Hon. Harry Higbee, Presiding Justice. g 

Hon. James C. McBride, Justice. g 

Hon. Franklin H Boggs, Justice. 

And afterwards, to-wit: On the /.r^. day of December, A. D. 1915, there was filed 

in the office of the Clerk of said Court, at Mt Vernon, Illinois, an OPINION in the words and figures 
following: U 


N, IX 

March Term, 1915 


97I.A. 103 







Term Eo.19. October Term 1915 

Agenda lIo.Q. 

kary IToonan, Adciinietratrix 

of the instate of Dennie I'^oonan, 


Philip A. jy^aus, 

Apt) el lee. 


Appeal from the 
Circviit Court of 
1 onroe County, 
I L L I i. I S. 

Opinion by I.'r. J 'u stip e I'Ofigg. 

This ie nn ap-oef?] from n judgment of 
§2500.00 entered '}ctol)er 10, 1914, by the Circuit 
Court of I'o nroe County, Illinois, on an section on 
the case brought by appellee against the appellant 
to recover damsgee for alleged wrongfully causing 
the death of apnelleep' intestate. 

The declaration contained lour counts. The 
first count charpes that the defendant neflif ently 
managed and drove hie aiitonobile, upon the public 
hi(;',hway, vdiile approaching.' i meeting and passing the 
team and wagon of plaintiff's intestate. 

The second count charges that lie negligent, 
ly and carelessly Riana4;;ed, drove and operated his 
automobile upon said highway at a rate ol speed 
greater than was reasonable nnd proper havini- re- 
gard for the trnffic and use of the way. 

The third count charges "l^liBt defendant 
negligently and carelef?ely drove said ?»utomobile 
around the curve In said road where the view of 
the road v.'ap cbrtructed nt a rate of 3peed exceediig 
six miles per hour. 

The fourth count charges that where the 

-1 - 

) xiiJ'fli:t9inxiaJbA .nenooTI xibH 

) .»»Il9qfqA 

9x1^ jncrl Ii?9C[qA ) .aV 


'to +;'f5;n-3bi;i, f irroT i t'^acrcf.?. nr ? x ?£riT 
truoTiO f^i(+ ,Mei »0I i9cfo;foO bsi^-tn© 00.00aS§ 
rfo noxtop riB no. .aiorriiri ,Y'^f^wo^ scjnn:,! lo j-iwoO 

gnx^ "■ - '■'f-^>if;oiw b8:4»Il6 lot 893«inj8fo isvod^i oi 

5,,- , ..1 ; \. . .. LisnrBinoo not i'PTsroab 9dT 

'^r^rftJq■ 9t{> /Toqu , »Ixo"oc7o.i^ !/B sxn' 9voib bnr. bsaBnem 
„ ,.: onn, r>n.e gnlt99m iiviiirfoBOTqqB sXxti^ ,\,/5wrf3Xri 

. -- + p-itrtr. g'ltiJ-nXflCq lo noaaw bnB amei 
-J'no ,- . ,,. — . ,. .; J jiiulo ^nuoo brt'osa Si^T 

aid b9d-"i»an bnn avoTb ,b»aj3nj8xr« \;Isa9 Xsiro bnr- \,I 

b9fi!-- r • V' i - ,tB Y,^'W'"fBi^ bxB8 noqu alirfomoJuc 

-'^'r '.-.tiP. &Id«no9B9i eBvr nBrlJ' i9J'a9Ta 

, -.^ ^r:t 'I ■ -?-^.-: hnn oli'tnii- sriJ- lol biB^ 

inz-.bna'isb tnuoo bitiij' arfT 

atxcfoiTfO^OP bi«« gvoib x^as^f'*'^^'^ ^^" \;I:fn9:%t r^an 

'Ir ■•.vsrv" 9-L'' 9T3;iw 'OPOT bx >-'5 nr svitjo ^rfJ' bnuotn 

gjxbssoxs b99rf»3 lo sjPI -^ ' nwid'^do ^s^v biio'r ©rfJ' 

.ii/orf •I9q ealim xia 
«f{J' 9t9dw fndi RSgiBiio :fniJOO ilJ-iuot ©xfT 

snid view was obr^tructci the deceased v:r>7; suddenly 
confronted oy ?aid -nitoTaobile; t'mt t>:e te-nn "oe- 
cntae greatly frightened find unnMna^jen'blc, v'V.ich 
v.n,e apparent cind lcno~:n to the defendant, or i^hould 
have leen kno^/m to him "by the exercise of reasnnabie 
care; thnt defendant fnlJed nnd refviped to °itop, 
hut negligently and corelers^ly drove hxp autonohile 
lip to nnd past said teas: r^.t -:' hi^-h and ne^Tif-ent 
rate of speed, namely, tv,'enty-f ive r.ilep on hour. 

j'^ach of these counts chargeff ne£!li{,ence 
in the operation of the autoiaohile ov.'ned hy the 
defendant, ^vhich ne^lieence, it -.asalle-ed, caused 
the death of the -nlaintilf'? intept'ite. ''"he general 
issue was filed, tri'l was had, resultinc in a 
Verdict and judgement for 2b00.00 ne noove stated. 

The evidence tended to ?Jiov.' th'it Dennis 
Uoonan, plaintiff'?? Intestate, n iariiier, fifty- two 
years nf age, v.-no -Hs? engf>.i;ei in the hucK«ter 
business, and on August 19, 19in,y;r-.3 drivin£ a 
team of mules alon^, the '^ubT ic highw?\v, n-nnin^, 

north nnd south fror. tlie residence of ". rs. ^innie 
Kottmitfr to the residence of } red Tuer^elei fr, v/here 
it makes a turn to the southn'est. A.t about six 
o'clocv in the evening on Au^unt 19, 191?, appellant 
was returning fron his farir in his autonobile, 
accoupanied by liis son, Geor^'e ; nus, and -'.hile 
feoinii north on the Kaskaekia road, between I^urks- 
ville and ?.enBu3t, at a point about op;!)Or'ite the 
residence of i-red Kuergeleig, they net IToonan, 
travelling in the opposite I'irection. At this 
point the road vme about fifteen or tverty feet 
v/ide, and on tJie east side there v.'a8 a bank, the 


T/t9 • i^tnB SeJBq bnn oi qij 

ft 3" aAbas'isb 

. r ;*•}!,' ^ .-i«f*?tt5*' 

>i\F. 91XXV 

ground on that side being higher thn,n the madway, 
while on the west side there -was a sloping ridge 
about pix or ei^ht inches hi^.'h, beyon^ which was 
plowed gi'ound^ 

The evidence of appellee tends to prove 
that appellant was driving., his car at a high rate 
of speed, krs. Nottraier, ^, witness for arjijellee, 
testified that tyie apnellant was driving, his auto- 
irohile'st a hifh rate of speed, estini-^ited "by her at 
thirty miles -oer hour, and that v/hen he -"^poroached 
It. Koonpn, the mules which 1 r. ll'oonan were driving 
spread apart, turned to tlie right -^nd ran into the 
plowed filed, nnri then Inck into the road. .'rs. 

ITottmier further testified tliat the mules v/ere run- 
ning as far as she could see thera, hr. iloon^.n 
having hold of the li/ies, Tlie testimony ni her 

son, Herbert, is practicTlly to the same effect, 
except he doesn't estirri'-^te the speed nt which 
appellant was driving, hie car, 

Tl]e testimony of Georf:e h'aus, son of 
appellant, is to the effect that at tlie time hia 
father approached Ir. Jloonnn, he v<'ae only driving 
about five or six mileF' r-er Jroiir; thnt nh'-'ut thirty 
feet before they net I r. hoonan the te'^.n turned out 
of the road on the plowed ground; that they were not 
running at the tine and tl'iat the nan, (hr. Nonnan) 
did not seen to hold uv }iis lines ".nd v;as stooned 
over; that he did not think 3. ri Iloonan noticed them 
at all. he furtiier says that the teain wal^^ced out of 
the road by itself, and back into the road a little 
way beyond then and wallced along the road so far 
as he could notice. 

The undisputed evidence is further to the 


B»w riniitw^jftoiaci ,iis-t^ ssripni Mai? cfa 

,i)m;cT.;) b'inoiq 

-oiiXR Bid. saxvxrc arm in/iIidfiCT» ariJ' ;t«/(d- l)9i3t.i^?9^ 

anivlTja Slav? mine '^ua »(i^ ,«sno^ 

.91'". .'-'K.*! «»rii o:iru >i.3«i , ' i'v&»/o£q 

lOi; jij'^-rt 3.f':' *a»in;if •rid' lo bXoff ^oiv^ii 

.ipn e til utivisb eBw J^nsXXsqqf' 

nxr r>- .f ' , tniiXXdqqs 

inrvi: '»f''»«0'X'Tq"Q tetWel 

i-'G bft.', ' 3M Y*'"^* 9^:i^l9 

j^on 9'r'=3'-' 

(nr :wB 9£ai 5' -.jcifffufr 

bstror :^i\r- 9*r. . " nines J'on bib 

v^9ci:^ 'aitii ion Mb »d 4r.ri* ;rr9vc 

sriJ-iiX «» !^' , oaiti Tid" fosoa sdi 

irI tmjfXair bw* «awtv+ t(no-y;»rf x^w 

.motion bXwon srI en 
Off beSi!<sBibnu 9fi'^ 

effect that about ?even o'^clockthat eveninf; T^oonan's 
team v/ali-red into tr.e yard of a 1 re. ' ueller, nbout 
two rui^es ueyond the point v;here it had met appell- 
ant'? automobile, and a little later on I.con«n wns 
found lyin£; in the road about one hundred rid forty- 
five yarde southeast of iuer^e'i eis * house, suffer- 
int from the' injuriea fron: v;hich three days later 
he died. 

The princiyjal ground relied on by apnellant 
for a reversal of this case is, firet, tn.-'t the ver- 
dict is afesinat tiie -naniiest «feifc,ht of the evidence, 
second tl^t the court erred in the giving of in- 
structions on the -art of a-rinellee, ^nd in refusing 
instructions ofiered oy appellant, and third, that 
the court erred in the admission of testimony offer- 
ed by appellee over oojection of appellant. 

lirst,- there v»as a sharp conflict in the 
evidence vf-ith reference to whether appellant was 
driving hie automohile at n hi{5h and dpnterous 
rate of speed, and as to whether he ejave v/arning of 
his app^foach as provided i.y statute. If the tes- 
timony of 1 re. liottiriier and her son, r.eroert are 
to txe believed, appellant vms driving his car at 
a >iith rate of speed, estimated hy Are. Kottmier at 
tliirty rriiles hour, and that no horn v.-ae blown 
or other warning, f.-iven by apoellant. It is true 
that these v/itnesses v>-ere at n dist-nnce of some 
three otufour hundred yards from the Tjlnce of the 
accident, and '« not in as favoratle position to 
agcertain the matters about v/hich they tertified 
as was George Laus, vAiO testified on behalf of 
appellant, still the jury saw and heard these wit- 

-4- ^ 

tuctfr, ,-x»ri3Jrl .ST 'Xi^\; »iU h^^lmr sussi 

>3nw nRCioo' no raijsi alJJ-xi: Z' brt« ,9Xido«K)^«». •*^nfi 

.l)dXb 9d 

,30n9bxv9 di:>t ic jil^idfe' iadiia*. ^.axB^ 3X loi^ 

9JBW drjBtCscTqs isfiJSi jisisiea xi^xw son-jfoxva 

nn ,i)99q« lo »*JR'i 

oiWJjBJV DPOlqqB 3XXf 

• ■^nofljxJ 

.rii ij 

awoi'c snv a^oil on itaii b. ^-iliiXi '^Sxliii 

9ijii ~ .*atiIL9r .liinHV i^jAio ic 

9ilw* :»s-xbnwxl 'luolMlc jsi^lJ 

TWiaoq sIvjIb-xovbI -' /.;di>x03ii> 

to - ,TO9 9&e/ SJi 

-cj i ■• -aea ij .-i.^ . XlxJa ,:tnoIl9qqB 



neeees teetify, and we are not prepared to say 
that they were not -warranted in findin£ ae they 
did fr-im t}ieevidence in the record, 

Second, «i« xt is next contended thnt the 
court erred in refusing: to give appellant's? per- 
emptory instruction oi'lered at the close oi app- 
ellee's evidence and a^ain at the cloee of all the 
evidence, directing a verdict in his favor. This 
instruction rai5?eo the question of due care on 
the part of o.prellee'!? intestate for his own 
pnfety at the tiiiie of the accident. 

It is contended by appellant that there 
•were eye witnesses to the transaction, and, that, 
therefore, it was error on the part of ti^e court 
to admit proof of the careful iiatits of appellee's 
intestate, and of >:is sihill and ercperience in 
^the i'lanagenent of norsee. The law in t).iB otate is 
pretty well set tiled tliat v/liere there are eye 
v/itnesses to an accident tepti(-iony as to the hahite 
of tlie person injured are not adnissihle for the 
purpose of proving; due care on }iis part. C, <k A. 
K. R. Co., Vs. iearson, 184 111., 386; Casey Vs. 
Adams, 137 111., app., 404; Anderson vs. ^ et. 
'Aest oide .il . P.y., Co., 170 111., App. -10. 

The que?3tion here is, v/hether as con- 
templated by tlieee authorities there were, in 
fact, eye witnesses to the transaction in this 
case. It is true th-t : rp. :.ottnier and her son, 
herbert, witnesses for appellee, and ceorf-re liaus, 

\vitness lor appellant, v/ere eye witnesses to what 
happened at tlie tij-ie the team of Hoonan ;^nd 

appellant's autonobile net, and iramediately th 


iri^ ifs\i bafensjnoo >t;x9a ax tl U,b£Toa«i: 
-isrr f 'lft*Cf9q<fB 9VX3 oJ- •anxei/ts'T ni b^^t^ ;tii/oo 

©lit rfi*}gi» fcflfl 9Dn»i3XV» «'5»»-II» 

Sx val si*! ax ^t-oifcisv b ^lij-osiiij .soriaMvar- 

no afLffO dt/b to noi^oeup •licf os^xAn noj:.Jojjn;teni: 

n«ro siii "tol •:>iAi35ifri: ^ *«^eI.C*frgr- i^^ cf-rcrf srfJ- 

.Jri-jbioo^ 9di to »ih-xJ *rf* d« y.^ta'iss 

? '»9.CX»frc?;p io aJX'.fsif Itfls'i'O »rfJ iO leoiGp j-iiTLbK oJ" 

9y* di/« ^ladi sit. ujjiiwi?- 

»a# lOi tjj.rfiee'JrffibS! rf^on sijb bsxuf^* noe'xsq 9ii* lo 
.A jf f'.c BJtri MO sTflO au^ i^nivoiq lo sacq^wq 

.01'". , . ■ .. ■ ■ , • . ' 

, ->i*'.Y e>i©xiJ s'ftxiiioriJxfB e?;3fi;f ^^ i)9,jBlqiD9J 
9idi ni no i ^ i>fis«fli J^ fSfesrtJxw »\.9 tio»1 

after, "but there v;ere rio eye v;itness6s ris to what 
occurred at the ti:ae up;;ellee'3 intestate ";et 
the injury that c^iused his death, '.e are of the 
opinion tlitt the que gti on oi due cnre on tlie part 
<">!' appellee ' 3 intestrte \7a= in ip5?ue, not only at 
tiie time oa^ the r-ieeting of the teairi and ■^utoE^o■bxl«; 
luit also down to the tine r.e met his injur;;. 
Jn other v/orde, the tcDtii:ony of apy.eliee'^ vit- ' 
nesBGs is to the effect th?.>t the rriule;: v.ere otill 
running n s far ae t.iey coulcf see thejn, nnd ae 
appellee's intestate v/as found at the ?ide of 
the hitih^way only about v.-;ne hundred nnd forty-five 
yards frora the point vviiere the ;uat mobile and' 
tne mules met, it vme a fair inference for the 
Jury to dravf that he war tiirown fror-i the via^^on, 
and injured as a result of the run-a-v/ay. It, 
therefore, lollowe that there were no eye v-it- 
nessee to the whole of this? transaction, and in 
our opinion, that being the case, it wap ^ircner 
for the court to Mdnit evidence of the careful 
hahlts'cf aprellee'^ intefitate for )\if? ovin safety, 
nnd H!? to hia ehil] ^nd exrexienne in the t.':anage-r 
raent of liorees, a? tending, to x-.rove due care on 
iiis part. '-i-'lie court, in our Judgment, did not 
err in refusing appellant's ^'Cremptory instri!Ction, 

-I'pellant aloo complains of the ^riving 
of appellee' p second, fourth and sixtii inntruct- 
iono. Appellee's eecond instruction is to the 
effect tliat due care «nd caviticn for ^nee own 
pnfety are not necessary to be proven by direct 
and pBoitive evidence, but raay be proven also bv 
facts and circumstances appearing on the +" 

-6- 1 


.J noxniqo 







9t0f{ J.' 


• irf 

noii'i/.no ^ ,■ 39119 

Thip, v;e tliinV, ie a correct, ytateiaent nf the law 
and there vjrb no error in the tivin^ nf this in- 

Appellee's fourth and sixth ins true tionp 
were to the effect that it is tne duty ol a driver 
of an autoarobile to ^ive reasonable warninj;- of hie 
approach v.hen meeting tcsrae on the public highway. 
The only argument advanced "by ap-nellant apqinet 
these instructions is that they are not based on Ihe 
evidence. This objection is not well t^ken, for 
the reason tha-t tr;ere ^vas teptimnny to the effect 
tlvt no Y/arninf; was { iven. '"rue this testimony was 
of a ne(2'<tive chr^r^cte^, yet ^/hile negative is not ^ 
of as much weight a? positive tei^tirnony unon nuep- 
tions of this kind, etill it hne nlwaye been recog- 
ni^aed by the courts as •oroT)er to be considered by 
tjie jury. There was, therefore, no error in the 
giving 01 these tv/o instructions. 

Appellant also oontpl^in^ of the refusal 
of the court to c,ive his seventli iristruction. This 
instruction ie as follows: "The jury are instnicted 
that they are the ?ole jud{-es of the credibility nf 
the witnesser-, R:":.d ii they i ind and believe from the 
evidence thst -" ny vitne-^s had testified falsely as 
to any material fact, they nre at liberty to dis- 
regard all the evidence of such witness." It was 
not errrr to refuse this instruction as it does 
not st?.te the law correctly. In order t'"- '^ake this 
instruction a correct Dne, it would be necessary to 
add, "except in so far as their testi'-oony i-^.y be 
corroboiated by oth^r credible v,itne = nes, o r "^ ■ 



.iioi Jou'id'9 

>3 i" - :■ 'io 

■^ ■ ■ ;- ■'i.i.n 

"to ,. _i. / ,,,:U i5^riJ 

- - - 1X0 ion 

-;7 ^ 


.: cToilOO 

facte and circumstances appearing; -jr. the trial." 
Besidee tide instruction falls to include the 
eleiaent ol " il liuin«8s ' . 

Third,- -t if contended cy appellant 
that the court erred in allowing, the witnesses 
to testify. as to the careful i^aaite of sc el^ee's 
intestr^te, but from Vvhat "tie ha^-e already p.-^id v/e 
do not think that the coiirt erred in ?dnittin£, this 
evidence, ae we t.hinV it v.'ne proper in this c^se 
Hs there were no eye Y/itnt•^-^;es to the entire trans- 

It lurtner be added tl- -it the 4 renter 
part of this testimny v;no not objected to at the 
ti?rie it was offered. Ii7>eciiic --.bjection -Hiiould be 
nade to testiEiOny for its incoiaT>atency -\t the 
time it is ofiered and not %vait mitil it is all in 
nnd then move to exclude it. 

heins ni the 0'",inii>n the trial court 
committed no serinus error in its rulin^.^s on the 
trirl of sfiid. cause, or in the (giving of its in- 
structione, and there being a sharp c cnflict in 
the evidence, v-e are not jnclined to dipturb the 
jury's verdict or the jud£0;Knt approving";, the sarr.e, 
and said judtxaent will therefore be affiitued. 

Kot to be reported in auII. 


■ u ^ < > 4. 

1 + t £ •^15 -^ ' 

?on9b!: V 


*^ /, CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth Dif 

the State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true copv of the OPINIO 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in my office. 

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set mi) hand and affixed the seal o 

at ML Vernon, this /,^... da' 

A. D. 1915. 








/? / 

Opinion of the Appellate Courts 


AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, onkhe Fourth luesdag 
in the month of October in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and f^teen, the same being 
the 26th dav of October, in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and $fteen. 

Present: | 

Hon. Harrg Higbee, Presiding Justice. f 

Hon. James C. McBride, Justice. I 

Hon. Franklin H. Boggs, Justice. | 


And afterwards, to-wit: On the.. 

dag of December, A. 

ISLEY, Sheriff 
1915, there was filed 

in the office of the Clerk of said Court, at Mt Vernon, Illinois, an OPINION irf the words and figures 






Tenn .0. 2Z. in the /■•npeViRte dmvt, A£A.,'l"^, 

i ourth I istrict. 

I. arch ';err', A.",:-. :i91b. 

Geo. L). l.ichrrjond , ) 

Appellant^, ] 
^ { 
\!?. ; Apne.-?.2 iron the 

iinry tenner, ) Circu:t Court 

/■npellee ) -^x 


~r«per County, 

O pinion by i r. Jugtice hogfg • 

The record in this dieclopep thnt 
in vacation, ^fter tiie "ctober Ter'v., 3^13, of the 
Jnsper County Circuit Court, ueo. .i. .-.ichtfinnd. 
Appellant, nctained judgment "by confespion ''gainst 
^ary Conner,^ appellee, ior iir'l?..74; thereafter, at 
the uctoher ' erra X914, on motion of sopeliee sun- 
ported ty nffidnvit and or=il teptinony hesri in 
open court, SPiu jud^ ent wan orened and leave to 
plead vas is ranted. 

Appellee filed h plea of the genernl 
issue, and tv/o ppecial pleas netting up vant ol 
coneicerotion an>'i frnud and ciroumvention. /- de- 
icurrer was sustained to p«id spec in 'i pleas and 
leave 'a.ts ti'ven -txr F.nrenee to file ar.ended end 
additional pleae. ';}iree cpecisl pleas vere then 
filed Betting up as the princip=il ground '^f delenee 
that said note was obtained by fraud rv.6 circur.ven- 


, baof'-i-'ni 

.H-:.n r !-■,' 

, T'Tt- " .J 

.fpnt 99H<iLo»it 9a ^0 8£ii.+ ni. bio 081 BiiT 

,bnor. : . - ' ,+-Xi/o- ;ttL'oiiO \}nuoJ isqsr. 

-rT«9 aalijcfrfs lo noiJ'orr no ,:M»^X inaa."' TScfo^oJ ea^ 

-9i) A .noxi^nsviEumtlD i)a« bu«Ttl i>n« noxcf Gisoxsnoo 

bn" by' • tr^ ns/i^ ^B«' OVJB9I 

ns-ii rii • Xfiia9f;2 39-i.i. .aa«fq XflnoiJibbn 

99rr»t9b 'in n;-';jrT^ Lpqiontiq 9iit 8R qu jjnx.f^»a bBlil 

•ciovnuotlo b'i'-r b'j'^xl \jcf heninicfo bb'» 9&on bias J^-HiiJ 

A jury wae waived and on trifil before 
the Judge R finding was rrade for ayjriellee and judf- 
ment rendered nfeainet appellant in Lnr of 
'Action nnd for coctp, fr :.. which judtraent thie 
appeal is> y^roeecutcd. 

'he ])ri»cipnl contention of ap-^ellant if»i 
lirst, that the court erred in opening said Jud^- 
t-ent and in fcivint. leave to plead; second, that the 
court erred in liuding the issue? for the appellee 
on the evidence subraitted, i;';8tead of for nprsellnnt. 
In other v/orde, that the court was In error on its 
finding of the facte in the case. 

Appellnnt'e first contention for reversal 
of snid cause raiees tiie question of the ri^ht of 
t>ie trinl c-iurt to or'cn n jud^uaent by confeseion 
where a terrfi of court intervened betv'een the 
taking of judgment and the motion to open up the 
same. U on tj-iie proposition it is well settled in 
thie State that Courts of law exercise equitable 
control over judgments by oronfepeion. hloec'Kner 
Vs. Jchafer, 110 -'pp. citfl; errce vs. i iller ?01 
111, lb\^: urnewick .e. rurley, 131 App. 235; I'astin 
Vs. ivichardson 134 /.pp. 25;?. This rule also ob- 
tains after tlie tera 'ne.9 closed nnd another term 
iias intervened siiice judgment was confessed. 
I loeckner Vs. L>ch-Rfer, 110 "pp. 391. 

In the case ci Iloeckner vs. Gchafer, Hupra, 
it vas held by the court that a judgment by con- 
feseion could be opened up on motion after four 


?;• '-.►..; /«^; f9r'j to'l bn^^ noiior, 

,■<,. ,..,. .!., '> .■■ ,...,.,. ^-.., ... ...'ivxioniiq s.i 

-4b«t i>if\9 ^^ninaqo ax bsiTS ^luoo 4ri.^ ^BriJ ,^aiil 

99C£9ffrT' ="•'+ '■'^■^ •=» , ^ .-jnibj.ilt nx bfttis iiuoo 

.ini»IX9<7 ,bi»ii^ifficfuf! 9on»bivi9 trif no 

"ir- :tr(3ii -^ * f - 'tox^sai/p 9^1^ easini asi/eo bisa to 

nr.i^ualn. . ^^ ,. a 9ra'» ' ■ "' • i.^-n i^ 1-7^ -> r.-r-rt ■) r 

9i<J I- ^ - . .j.;iabut, io ^tilBi 

ni bBtf.f^'. +x»!oqo"xq atiii no lU . 'j .i«i? 

i--;! .on V :r -? t fiiT.ibut, lavo loiSnoo 
-:1I. ,i9^mo- .r/ 
nXj5 • , -M wstnikS ■ ;t:'8I 

-:blBriOX - 

'■■1" _:■-' 'J--J ZsJtB BXUr.i 

.bfi'- ■'! :"-nei,:r>ibuf, eoriie b^nsvtsinx ba-; 

. r: . rr , loTritio'^ .9'/ i^in-.,'n :o c • 

-noo vo i-nafH'ibut - ^ Ci - - - - - 

^jol "ift^tln noi;)'0'j! no qu b9(i9n-c scf bliico nci9^:i1 

tenne of c^urt .n.d i.itervened j?ince enid judf- 
r.ent iiRd been cinlesis'ed . ,e think, therefore, 
that the tri'-il court did not err in o-'^enirif said 
judtment aiid in giving leave to plead, as tl^e equi- 
table fcT'-iunds pet forth in the motion v.'ere, in '^ur 
judgr.ent, pulfioient t'-> v/nrr^.nt tJiin notion by 
the court. 

Coniing now to the second proi>o?iti -^n mnde 
by appellant, viz: Thfst the court erred in finding 
the facts for appellee, defendant belo^v, .e find 
that there was n sharp conflict betv-een t}ie tep- 
timony subir-itted "by appellant fmd that subiaitted 
by apnellee. 

The testimony on the r-art nl appellant, 
plaintiff below, bein£; 'o tlie effect that appellee 
on October 28th, 191?, executed nnd deiivered to 
one '' . '.. c-<»nie'l, ",ayee, her oroDiigorrj'^ note 
for 193.50 nnd that at paid time rhe executed 
and delivered to him a rnortgaee upon certain real 
eetate securing the eariie; that in leptember l's^l3, 
IcDaniel gold eaid note to mery Andrevrg, isie 
Attorney, in a bueineps trnnencti-^n h^id by them, 
and Andrews in turn s?old said note on ■■ctober ^4, 
1913, to ??ppellant, plaintiff belo\¥, v>ho on Dec- 
ember 8, 1913, obtained judgment by cof.fees'ion 
against apoellee, being in vacation after 'ctober 
term, 1913. 

The evidence on the nart of appellant i8 
further to Ihe effect tnat said note and mortgage 
were executed by api ellee voluntarily with h full 


i.oxiOi^ r;j:.i+ ^nuTifiw • t irt»ioii1i/9 ,J'n9i':i;ibut 

obfM'.- ;■. L.^i-:" :''!■• hf '^ 'i^P'. sttt '^? won ^nxooO 

bni; ,'S^ftb ,«>»XX»'iq« lio'i 9^0«1 ©riJ- 

boy' THflaTqr t^i h^ii tiodwi x^ociii 

,i-n/5EX«qcr» to itr < Q;i:} no v;no«i^«8tf eriX 

:..t f'T/TT/ i "3fc bn-- hgfr-gxa ,"ier ,r;*ac lyJo^o ^ no 

, , . . . ano 

. ; .. i»Aii bnr Od.f.ex?- -sol 

• iRB bXo9 XsinfiCioU 

, .^ip'j bfc>5 r^ruJ fii ew9ihnA JtwiF 

. - ; , . «i:X9irq.p of ,CXftX 

I-:* '' .d»rX»rrqf, i^aisif^B 

.iX^X- ,.:aT9;t 
«■ a3(.'»bx»-9 tiiT 

ilui ■-■ •:.' i;. . :,. V J 'It b»JU09X9 SldW 


understanding of the terme «nd cnnditi'vr^ cf the 
same. "he evidence -n the v-'Tt ".1 -^,rT)ellee i? to 
the effect th^t ehe •wa.!" *»n i^ norint wonnn, unable 
to read but little, and unable to write, ?vnd that 
KcDaniel, the rnyee, in s^id -.ote, rerirefented to 
her ^nd dauts^iter that nppellfce's eors wn? indebt- 
ed tn him in ti.e sura of 4193.50 and that unlees 
this clai-: was settled he v;ould iiave liim put in 
jail. Appellee 'p evidence is lurther tf^ the eifect 
that ehe r/ap delivering to T cDanie] n cow nt V'50.00, 
telC;:.h'ne etock at -25.00 and 3 5.00 in mo- ey, and 
that aha wae to f^ive appellant a note for ,100.00 
for the balance, and that appellant produced «? - ote 
which she underetood to be for «100.00. dauf;h- 
ter teetified tl^at she, too, go understood said 
note to be for ^lOO.OO.ind that ' cBanie] paid to 
her and her mother, that said rote was f'^r paid 

The periously controverted question in t; ie 
case, therefore, is or not anpellant nro- 
cured tue signature of apnellee to the note in 
question by representing said note to be for -100.00 
instead of .193.50. 

If the testiLr^ony o l l.cDaniel , the -ni^yee in 
the note, -^-nd of . r. land, the police ..atiptrnte 
who accompanied ' cDaniel to tlie h-^i.-.e of sppellee, 
and who took appellee's acknowledginent to said i7iort- 
gage, it to be beJieved, no iraud vmntever was 
practieed on apnellee. If, on the other hand, the 
testimony of appellee .and her dau(-hter is to be 


•r^^ Si 9f> J v.'r.fv '- "■ - "- - -• -^ " eonsbttrt sriT .92uia 

ot l)9inen9ifT9i , jj • bii^e ni ,9#^«q sdjr ,l9inj3G»i 

-.ti-fab.ti »"w nca a'dsflo^ffli i»d:f tsSA^Uffb laa bn« •xaxi 

aagfnu :rerf^ bnB<?X^ "io mus stiJ -ri Rriri q> be 

nt iuq fnxrf 9V«rf b fff r^* »:1 b»I^,t09 ««w «iflIo eifi* 

J^09^1:9 91 j '^1 aj!i;tiul el »on»bxv* q'9»XIftq<|^ .Xi«t 

.CO.Od .trr - r^xn*!*^ oi :^ii»v-il9b e*»v «r(« tseii 

00.00I» lot aJ-on i? i'nfiXIiqq/s •¥1:^4 6^ a««r 9£i« *ftii^ 

-ri-;i«Bb ; .30. 00115 tat srf nt boo^sTisbnu 9xl« rfoiiijir 

bl«8 boo.t«idbrui os ^oai ,•;!« t«rii I>allli8»^ lai 

0^ bJtflB C^i(T«CIo ■ isd* fmn .OO.OOics hgI 9d o.J ©^on 

''^XB^ T'^i Pf'M' ■rj+n h 1; 'jp 1-6!^+ »j<» '♦<-»-! -r «> , .' btl 8 YSX{ 

.inae, R 
. . _ + -!9i;p bs^TSvoiJ-aco xLeur)tt99 »riT 
.tn - r r-.'.n trr, TO -i^'itmi'ff si ,»t:o1»^9,i;J ,9aflD 

OO.OCr ;j.tor< brMs- -jnKtJiieBatqaa ^cf Ptc>i:.^3aup 

.oe.SwII ^0 b-Hdi^ani 

9*r.i^c,£3/5; . 9oi£or 9Lii ,bntid ,ti lo &a/v ,aJon »;iJ 

,9»f£»i7fre lo ftiEOif siii oj l^tn^da' b»iaAq.«093« oiiw 

-^■ioir< hisfj ni ^^nsia^bslwroniiox? y '»»I la^qr, j(o»i Oiiw bt\B 

"nv T9V9.tRrfW bXir-r '-tr<»i[9Cf 9Cf f>i li ,»3«3 

9rf.t .Pin—* t9j<io orfj , . . ;9ir9(T(ifl no b»»lioi»Ta 

•2X la^tK^jj^'b ted bnv. oalTftiUfx In v^iofTjiJ-agJ' 

believed, then spid note vag either ior 100.00 
or wae rer.reE«ente(l to theci to be for < 100.00 nnd 
the sife^nature of rippellee was -Rmcured witV; iier 
having that \jnder standing of the anount and terms 
ol the note. 

The question belni; n controverted one, -^rd 
the e-vidence being conflicting;, the finding: --f the 
trinl jud£e, where ti.e jury Vmb been waived, should ■ 
not be disturbed wiicre no errors of law J.ave inter- 
vened, unless such finding is afeninst the manifest 
weight ol the evidence. 

In this case, while we 'ire not able to g-iy 
that our finding on the evidence a? dieclosed by 
the record would 'nn^e been the saiae ap thfit of the 
trial judge, still we feel that v/here ti.e trial 
judge has seen /md lienrd the witneesep testify, 
the finding should not be disturbed, unleee ag-^inst 
the manifest weight ol tiie evidence. 'his we bel- 
ieve to be the holding both oi the :uprerne nnd 
'ppellate Courts '>f this otatc. .che^nd vf?. ' ein- 
berg, 145 "^pp. 27A; I^eckley vs. lorton, 140 App. 501; 
Bigger^^taff V9. biggerstriff, 180 111. 407. 

After R CTeful readinr of t>ie evidence in 
this case we nre unable to ony that the finding, of 
the trial court v'ae against the ir.anifept v/eit:ht 
of t" eevidence. Irnctically the whole of tiie ten- 
tiiTiony nnterial to the ispue? in ti;i» case v.'^.s 
t.,iven by icTJaniei, the payee 2n snid note, •"■nd 
i'rnnk Land, the police najistrate, vlio testified on 
the part of the ??pnellant, and the testimony of 

CO.C li.'jxft 9A^ 9,Tofi hisB n9.'.* ,bsvoi£«i 

fj.OR 00. 001. .i T ' '■ " b»^r»9«»1t<7»l «Bnr Tco 

ton iiiiw b9nks-jrx^ e.c-.' osiiSTtf*: to 9Ti/yArt\|t« »fiJ 

.'it on »dt lo 

.sonsbiir© ^rt* In J^d i-tS'y 

Yd JS»98ofoeib n.r. ••)0n9biV9 ©ii^ no aftifcfti'l tun ir-.w 

- * ^ ~ -- Qtissr. 9>ci:f n9n6 avPif lȣtrow bionsi 9di 

■tM.'i. 1 iiiw if^di Li^l 9".' CCiJ^e .•abft^*!:'^ 

,'-^ ^ ' -.,-+!-. eft t>t«»9ii bflr-. nsae gfsri dybut 

, •.•7Ui ..^oib »cf Soa feXf/Drie i^nibnll »ri^ 

-joa©5iv» 9ii) to ^rfaiswf Ja^^inum ©rf^ 

-'■■'^ '■ t€iocf aftlbloff *rti »cf oi 9v9i. 

--^"•^ 9f(t 'io slo.'i" ■'■+ ' ' '^9tf99i ■. .sonsblvB^ ^ lo 
n- . 1 ?■> . ;t<t«* Orfyr , Si8T.+ «£ »«j.l »0i f»q DSif ^bniMHft^^'^i 

.:'ii; t «!<4.f 'iKt bn". ^^r^c I {tt.-.ri- ttd i '!;.•> >•)•!<'' ftri^ 

appellee and laer d«u(:,hter v/ho te?t.ifien on the part 
of appellee. The evidence "bein^ conf lictinf, it 
V7ne for tlie trial court to m^y where the truth lay, 
and to make ite finding accnrdingly . 

It follov/j?, tliereiore, that the judgment 
of the trial court should he, and ti;e same is affir- 


hot to Ije reported in full. 


J-ie- illi«»^ orfv 39fl*qq« 

. bami ill 

*'j:<-'q9a -«d nj jo t 

,.. . » 


/, CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of 
the State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true copy of the OPINION of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in mi) office. 

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set my hand and affixed the seal of said Court 

at ML Vernon, this ./,a^......f^^^ day of December, 

A. D. 1915. 


Tefkofthe/App&tktte Court. 



Opinion of the Appellate Court 

AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at Mt. Vernon^ Illinois, on the Fourth luesdag 
in the month of October in the ^ear of our Lord, one thousand nine huifdred and fifteen, the same being 
the 26th dav of October, in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hi^drfd and pUeen. 


Hon. HarrD Higbee, Presiding Justice. 

Hon. James C. McBride, Justice. 

Hon. Franklin H. Boggs, Justice. 

And afterwards, to-wit: On the J^j!l. dag of Becember, A. D. 1915, there was filed 

in the office of the Clerk of said Court, at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, arj OPINION in the words and figures 
following: \ J 




N. Af 

March Term, 1915 


19^I.A. 117 







Term So. 36. 

^genda ITo. 18. 

Clarence i'enrod, a kinor, 
By Clara lenrod, his next 



East ot. Louie Hailiray Com- 


Appeal fr-.n the City 
Court of Last St. 
louie, Illinois. 

Tp lnion "by 7 r. Justice Popge : 

This ie a suit brought by apnellee, mx^tnT: 
mking "by next friend, to recover damages for injury 
caused by the alleged negligence of the appellant. 
Appellee was knocked down by one of appellant's cars, 
the wheels of which passed over a-nnellee's hand, 
necessitating the amputat-on of nil the fingers, the 
greater portion of his hand and a portim of his 
thumb . 

The declarf^tion consist!? of two count?. The 
first charges in general terms that the accideit v/as 
due to the negligent OTTO-ation of apnellant' « car, 
while the second cbflrges it was due to appellant's 
negligence in failing to give warning of tne r>pT)rcf5Ch 
of the car, the running of the car nt an excessive 
speed, =nd in failing to keep a -oroper lookout at the 
point in question; both countp allege due care on 
the part of a-opellee. The defense relied upon by 
thedefendant was the general issue. The cause was 
tried and a verdict returned for t4000.00; the motion 
for a new trial was overruled and judgment rendered on 


ex .r-'i nbnsgA .85 .oil flrx»T 

fxma aifi ,bo^n9l subI'J ^a 

.^8 *a«d "io J-Ti/oO ( -taoO x«*fJ^*^ aiuo.I .J-c itaaa 

.•xorrirrr ,8:1."" [ ( .tneltaqqA 

YiutJn^ '^^'i 99%fimBb 19V0091 oi ,£)neiTl *x«n \;cf sailn 

.IrojIIaqqfi txl* io »on»^xl39n b»3*XX« •xlJ ^tf beauAO 

,81B0 B'JnfillaqqB Io tno x^ mrob fidaloonjt bbw dallsqqA 

,bnp.d 9'99tl9iqB i9vo b««aBq rfoiriw Io slasrfw ©ill 

Siij .Bis.inil drtJ- Xlf Ir no : cf B^ijqatB 9i(i ani.tBi'iBBeoan 

ai^ T,^ rin it'X'-'^ '• ^r^' bnBfi ai!^ io noi^ioq 13&B913 

. cfxoi/xiJ' 

9r(T .^iTfuoo owi- io gJ^aiBnoo noi^f-iPif oab srfT 

aaw irabiooB arfj J-Bii:t arfftai Istsnaa ni: aaaisrio ^aili 

^iBO >> ' :^nBll9ciqpi io noiJ-B-B^o J-naaiXaen 9di ot 9ub 

9'^nflIX9qq.R o;t 9ijb bbvt J^i aa^^t^rfo bnooas adJ" aXlriir 

•iOROTaqB sfiJ- io anxntatr avxa o«t gnlXiPi ni aonaaxXaan 

9vi9990X9 rtp c^^, 1B0 9dt lo anif.nui ariJ' ,tbo 9di io 

9rf* +fi Juc-rfool igcroicr b q99>' od" gniXxri ni bns .baaqa 

n^ 9iBr) 9i/b 93»XCe siJ^njjoo rfj-oi ;nr-x^i5»jjp nx ^nioq 

\(S noqxx b9xX9T a^naiab arfT .aaXXaq'-'B ^0 j"iBq arCt 

BBw 9BUB0 9r:T . suaB X XRisrisa 9J.1J' BBW i^nBbngiabaxiJ' 

rfcxJom ait^ ;OO.OOO^Mt loi b9r.11.1i91 Joibisv b ban baiiJ- 

no &9T9bn9t ^nsci^but bnB baXjJiievc bbw LpIiS wan b loi 


the verdict, from which judgment thie apnenl was 

The evidence disci osee that at the time of hig 
injury npr.ellee "wae ab'-ut fifteen years of age nr^d was 
employed by the postnl tele/raph Comrjany of apt ;'t. 
louis, in the capacity of errand "boy. 't the time 
r-f th« injury he was delivering a rnegeage tn the Van- 
dalia Railroad Conir)any's freight office, situated on 
the river front. In delivering the message he went 
south from the office to ":roadway, intending tn go 
west on Broadway to the fiver front, and thence alonf 
the river to the office of the Vandal ia Corai-)any. 
The upper deck of the bridge extending from ':t. Louis 
to ij&Bt St. Louis ncroBS the ? iesissippi, known as 
the Eads Bridge, is used by appellant with itf tr^^cks 
n 'd cars in carrying nassenger? between the cities 
of Eaet St. Louie, Illinois, and "t. louie, to. The 
easterly terminus of said bridge is jupt south of 
Broadway ;■ tree t, but the railroad approach to said 
bridge from . rast T ouis angles nortrieast so 
that it crosses ';ver orofl.dway about a ouarter of a 
mile east of the levee, at an angle and at the height 
of about thttty feet. 

On each side of this railroad approach is a 
wagon approach about twenty feet in width, which 
atartB a little to the mJkkxHfx. south of the point 
where the railroad approaches cross Broadway, and 
ascends to the top of the bridge, '"hese two ap-nroacb. 
ee are public highways, used by the nublic generally 
and by the defendant, Tompany, with its care in f oing 


uw fcnf- s:a« io «JT/»©^ nsoJlil -+tfntf« 9mw 99££^rrqs y;iu\,tti 

.:nBoaioO tiqB!i-:s9i9i X«*aoq 9di \;cf btxolqme 

•iiiiw &ii.i J •\'''' bnBi'i9 1o xiiopiqno 9di ni ,Btuol 

-n ^ 93B999in B ^ni;i©\fil«b 8«w 9d \xultti ^tit \<^' 

no otv-f^x/jxq ,901'i'io iri^isil 'j'xnflqflioO bnoiLiBH ttttmb 

^ffdwr 9ri 93B«9««frr saJ- gnxasvilsb nl .InoTl istxt sxi^ 

inolB sons; J- bnr- ,lrfoil 'i»vxl y .nwbjBOTS no *«tw 

axLfoI ."^d^ arotl gnlbf?9;fX9 •3t)it<f 9d& to <a»b tSgqu •£!? 

BP nwftrfV ,lcrq2«9l«9i ' tff^ tsotaW tiuoi^ ;»•&>•«.* '"%'l 

•^^o^rt ■'jt rfJ-flf J'np.ljtiqffa ijcf b^tu ai ,9gbi'ia: «b«a arf* 

9 " . " bn£ ,«i6ftlXII ,«fueJ .^8 ttsS to 

tc dfui'P. :r°ui ax s:^!)!"!^ bifi* lo Iianhsn9& \lt9i'^a9 

btf^^oi dorr-zrfqn bnorllBi 9x1^ fud ^t99it? XPWbBorE 

08 iHsm-.tron edlans ex>'o T .*£■ ia*.^ moTl ^abitcf 

:-^i-^j:9-. ■ ' . •• - * ,99?al »fiJ to *8S9 •Xl.n 

.:f9al ^*1rtri* ;ft/oo'jB to 

fl Si I'.o'ciiTqfl baoTlxt-i ^ix iJ- to abla rfOBd nO 

rfoxlw ,diktyr nt t»9t Tid'«»w* i'uocf* rfOflOtqq« no^aw 

;ff!Xoq SilJ to rfJ-«oa xlxxiiiJHt arf^ o* •Xi-^iX « t^i^ia 

bns ,^{.«<irbflai>^ aacio asi'fojse'xqqs bnoiXiaa arfi Stsxlw 

^fopnacrcru nw* •89'f'' .^gblicf 9rf* lo qoi 9il* o* abrtsoaA 

\;XXs*x9rtaa Difcfuq 9dt x^ b9«u .f^iswri^ild: oitdwq aiis a9 


from i.ast 3t. Louis to St. Louis and return. Xlie 
defendant Company has a track on each of these nagon 
approaches-- one of them is used by ap-pellant' <? cars 
goin^. from iiiast St. T on is to 6t. 1 ouie, and the other 
is ueed by it in return. The northerly approach is 
generally used by the appellant in goinf towards St. 
Louis, during the sumicer months, but in bad weatiier, 
during the winter, the ice and snow remains on the 
northerly apTjroach longer than on the south, and duripg 
such periode the southerly approach is genernlly used 
going towards St. Louis and tl.e northerly apnroach 
on returning. 

On the day that appellee started to deliver the 
message to the Vandalia Railroad Company, }.e paseed 
along the south line of Broadway until he came to said 
bridge approaches, ^or a portion of the distance he 
rode on the back part of an nutomobile tnat was going 
in that direction, i.e rode up alonj^ the southerly 
approach of said bridge until he car;.e to the puulic 
crossing under the railroad approach, -wijere the injury 
occurred. It was at a point where apriellant's car 
stopped going in either direction to take on or let 
off passengers. Ttiis passageway v/as uwed by the gen- 
eral public, both as pedestrians and with tearag. W]rien 
appellee came to this point he stepped off the nuto- 
mobile on which he was riding, and crossed under the 
railroad superstructure to the northerly approach. The 
bracing and bric-a-brac work under this portion of the 
superstructure in a large measure obstructs the view 
of the cars that might be coming down the incline on 
the northerly approach. Appellee's view was further 


©ffff .nil/* it bnfl attJCiI ,tB oS •luol .tG *«b- cioil 

nci.iBW 9B9di 1o dons no y.OBiS b mad ^^naqnioO i^nBbndtsI) 

azFO «! 'cfnflllflqqp xd baeu ai m9Cit to sno --eedoflOTqqi? 

tsif^o 9dt bnp ,aiao r .3^3 oJ •! ao T .t'C S9A3. moz\ afllba 

si nopoT(TC[« x-fi''"'*'3ff'" •rf''' .nTi;J'9T ni Ji x<^ ''b***' •■^ 

,J5 abTBWPd" ^inlo^ ni ;fnj8ll»gqfl •n'^ xd Jb»su ^-t-'^'xsnd^ 

,T«f(t«ew bflrf nt tud ,is.-ftrion TSiiTaiua trf* art^Tub \91uoJ 

9tiS rtr. tnt nm9t won? bne »oi »r(i ,i»^nlw •rf* grriaub 

^jijiTCfb bffR .rW-wd^r srf* no n«rff TsanoX rfdBOtqqi? \;-t^»^^*^o« 

p)99i/ irll^isnei 9l rf»«ciqfqjs ^J^'i^^^t'o* •^^ aboiisq xfous 

xfOBOicTtrn Y-ft^rf*'*'^" 9^<^ ^fi« BiuoJ .*8 tb-xawo^ anioa 

.aninii/l^i no 
erf* isvilab oj b9tip:ia 99t[9qqn tar^t xfib 9tlS nO 

b9Bsacr er^ .YnsqrwD bROtliB)? BilJ5bn«V exil 0* •a^asen 

5iB« od- srwo 9n' litnu x»itbBe*i:S to snil ri^uo» •!{* anoX* 

9d 9onni9ib 9tit "io noi&toq jb to ^ .»»rfojBcaqqB »abia<f 

jiTio-^ 9BW t'pcit •Ixcfomoi'UF! np to tinq ^OBd 9d& no dbOT 

y£i9tiSunnt 9dS ^nolB qu dboi «d .freUoftiJtb ^Aifj- nJt 

oiXcfua 9cit ot •trr«o srf lii-ni; 9^bitd blPM to rfoaolqqs 

Yit/t"-c •fi* ©tarfw ,fi8«otfrq« bfiPTllfii srfJ- i«bnu a^-tBioio 

ISO 8 '*n«II©cr<ri< a^9'-(w irrlorr « cfa bbw it .faeituooo 

.tax TO no 93(jid- o* noiJ-oanib 'X9i-f;t]:» nx a'^'-^oS baqqoia 

-naa aiiJ- x^ bawx; saw \:jBvraa«eaBq alffT .ataanaaa^q Ito 

narfW .anuRaj- /{j-iw brjR anRltJaabaq aa titod ,oiIcfi/q lijia 

-oJ-up. »xl* llo baqqa^a i»rf *fTl?>q sx.iJ oi amno sallaqqr, 

srfi- labnu baaaoxo brw? .^ntbit aew a;"( dot Aw no alirfora 

9rfT .rfafloiorqd x^TanJtrn 9.^J o* 9T«*oxrTi'»T9q»a baoilxRi 

9d* lo noii-xaq eirf^ asbrfxi jf-xow aBicf-fl-oiicr b/tJ$ anxoBXcf 

•^9xv a.iJ BjouT^tacfo siuaflora »3tj»I a nx 9iut oin tats qua 

tto eniloni 9i'j- nwob 'jr-xaoo acT J.ta-t'?'' *«riJ btbo 9xlj' to 

I9dtiut 9Bir Tirsx'/ s'aaiiaqqA .rfoBoiqqe '^i£T9i{J-ion sad" 


obstructed by certain tej^^e of .horses used for, 
what the drivers call "^,uJ)l-up» purp-ses. "hese 
teams v-'ere standing near the westerly side of this 
cross street. Appellee testified that he had never 
noticed the cars feoin; up t: e southerly approach 
to the hridge and coming down the northerly approach, 
and testified he thought they would fo up the north- 
erly rind come down on the other side; that Leing the 
route ordinarily ohserved in ti-e c-iurse of travelling 
on the hifc.hwny. «hen he the automohile he 
started through the cross street, running, or as 
so-ne of the witnesses dsBCribed it, in a slow trot, 
he testified that he was listening for the street 
car, for the gong of the street car, and as he was 
about to emerge from under the superstructure upon 
the northerly approach he, without st -sprang, looked 
to the east of him to see if a car was apT) roach ing-- 
that being the direction from w' ich he ex-oec ted the 
care to cone. By th-?t time he was at or upon the 
Tail of defendant's track on the northerly approach. 
Almost inatantly thereafter he was struck by the car 
dfsoeadiBg the incline upon the northerly approach. 
The witne^^es on the oart of appellee testified that 
as appellant's car approached the crossing no gong 
y/mwi sounded, nor any signal given. The witnesses on 
the part of appellee taxxxamtxxxtMx estimating the 
speed of the oar as it approached the crossing at 
from three to four niles per hour to eighteen miles 
per hour. The evidence on the -oart of appellee tended 
further to show th?it apr,ellee was first knocked down 
by the oar and that he attempted to get up ^nd was 

Btiii tc 9bJ:m vLx9t99w 9ci& xji»n ^.tbnnim »i9W eciAdl 

.rfonoT«pi« yXi^riJion oili" mro^ jniaion i)n« •j^biicf wit ot 
-ciizoii •iii qv c^ bluow x*^^ ^frfnaorit- tri J6>«xlt^as# bnM 
9xU ^ieJ it«ii^ :9l>i« fdio^df nc rnrob •«io» bn« \lf 

a«ill9r«i* to •9Turo »!(* fii jb97"x»ecfe x-fliaJixMo •txroi 
• rf 9li<ioaoSu» 9ti* llo,*0 3 »ii rtscflfc' ,xpml^iii ^^ii Ao 

.^ot;^ wcl9 « ni ,^i bscfiioasb •99a9nJ'iw 9iiS tO-ltnOt 

t99-x^« 9iit ro^ g9ir(9#8ii. SAiT ail i»tii b^ittiBSi nd 

9«w 9/^ aA bna ,tbo i99Tte 9r{;t to gnon Aii^ xAl i%«0 

no«fu ^tu:!^ou1t91aqv% Bdt tsbxiu aio:il ©a«*m9 6i tuods 

b9irsol j^nicKTPJa :fuorfi'Jtir ,»rf il0floi«rf«*tXTt9xl^i<:»a »sif 

--^nirioJSCKTfTS aflw "leo n 11 9a« rt* «iif Id ♦•«• »ri# •©# 

9ili b«i 09erx» *.' rfoiiw mott aoii'09'xib aii^ giiuid -*«ri^ 

9xli aoqa lo *« tjsw sri anli *i»rf* y* .9moo «»* §xbo 

,a.osicicjqp xlfrii.ion arfi- no iofliJ- e 'Ifl^bn^^^b to flAt 

•x«o •/<* Tccf afooiJ-a axnar »rf Ta*li5ai9xlJ^ X-f^fiA*««l *»^mXA 

• rforoTotTiP YX^'rf*'*^^" •rf* aocfu till9Cii ocit a9tJbrr9089b 

*RdJ- beitJ:J-»9J 99ll9q^ lo tt^n •«* no «9^«»»ntiif »f£T 

3no% ofl aniaaoto srft barfowoifrqja t«0 a '*rrBXl9(tqJ8 •* 

ni aaaaan^iw 9r(T .nsvia Xart^ia x«« **"" .b^bniiroa imr 

9di -^niSmmtiBB xMtmaXtMMXJUUUL 99lIoqqm to tnaq BCit 

t« snlaaoTO 9dS bariajBo-icrqfl tl a« ibo axf* lo ^•♦qa 

aaXira «994'x(^ie or "iijori T*q aaiJtn •xjjot o* ••axf^f fflotl 

b9b«»^ 9arr9crqp to ttBtr •!« n^ eonabira arft .Ttrori t»q 

mrc^ ha^ofin-i Jatil a«w 99rX9(Tq.P i'l'rf* wrtdm ot i9r(&iut 

SRW bnr <Tff :t'9i 0* ^•i'qr'OCf^R 9ri Smit buft tnt) 9^i X^ 


knocked down again and finally manRfted to throw 
himself outside of the northerly r^i 11 where he was 
rolled and dragged ty the cnr. hi? left hand, coming 
upon the rail, v/np run over "by the vrheele of the 
front truck. 

The car r/nv etopp^d vithin h^.li the cnr's 
length nnd he wae t«ken out but his hnnd v/a? -o rarin- 
gled that amputation was necepp-^ry nnd the i^ortion of 
the hand heretofore descrihed was removed. 

Appellant 'p track at the point where the Injury 
occurred wae within tv/o feet of the superstructure of 
the "bridge and ite c?^re in pas^inf nlnnj tlie etj'-er- 
8tructure extend v/ithin a font nnd n half of the ear;ie, 
80 that there was '>nly a ppace of a foot and a half 
after appellee had etierged on the north side of the 
superstructure where he could have feeen the cnr hefore 
getting U'^on the track. The teetim'-my of appellant' e 
witnesses, most of v/hom were ite employecF, 7;ae to 
the effect that the gong wae pounded, a?? the car app- 
roached the crossing, and that it? speed nt that place 
was only three or four tniles per hour; that appellee 
was running when he passed in front of the car and 
was not looking either way; that he was v'ithin three 
and one-half feet of the cpr when he ?ter)r,ed on the 
track; that tliC bum-ner of the c^r struck him rind 
knocked him down nnd thnt the fender cufht hold of 
him and rolled hiTn olonp the track ^nd >^ushed hin to 
one side of the north r-al; tliat the car r^n about 
fifteen feet after ar,pellee -/ra? struck. The raotorrian 
in Oi^arge of the car testified that x'hen he paw 
appellee coning he threw trie air into the emergency 


sflj To gXaftfJw •£(* t<^ "Jswo nW6 •wr-iflAt afCif noqu 
• 'IB 3 •d* ilflif :ntrf*i:w WKfr^rt-** »ii#--tA4 ©rfT 

to 9'Xu1'ouxi9i9(fam srit In tft©"? f»vr* nirfilw aww b9itu9oo 

»-T[.t "ia 9bL9 lit^oti 9rii nrt li«94t»fi!<> bAcf ¥9£r»(rqA *N»)fls 
Bt&'iti ana »rfd- rrssrf 0v«fi bl^/ro »rf «i»ffw ©Ttu^ouT^atsq'jJt 

-q£f« ijso •ric)' R-^ ,b9bnuo« cmt ^o?^ 9rf# *flrfJ Jd»^1» 9tii 

aofiXff ^flri^ if? ij»»<T» iSvti terCt bfts , j^rH «<i<f»t«> 9cif bBdOHft 

••£X»<TrTfi J-j^ri* ^i:/fld t*^ lP»irt«r «i/o^ to 99nHt xlnry ^bw 

bae i«o «;i^ to ^noTl rri f>»it«iB<^ •/! n»Hw gfttnntrl eftw 

a»T[it? rtiiirfxv ■?»» »Fi Jpif^ ;y<'*' T»ri;f 19 ^tttiool ior. tfnw 
•ri* nro b#trTfT»#'? 9A aadvr T»tO >d* tO #»*^ Ifisri-lMKI t*i« 

io bXori trCsixfi^o T9bn»l KHfi t»nt brif^ flir<^b miff li»#7foonal 

ol mlri barisun bn* <3*rt* sKif i^nol* itttrf b^XloT bi^i^" litrf 

iL'ocfa it/it TFO 9di &mL-.t ;XJ:f«t-riiltdfJ »rfj to 9bi8 ano 

a»»noi€>m »riT .>'oin:^« »*»' »eXi»nor» «»i^l« ^99! n99#li'i 

wna 9-f rrerfw t»fi* b»tti:^«;9^ tflo trt^ to 9^tB(i9 ax 

X0ri3Si9ns 9ri* r>St\l itr 9 i,J w»lCf(J trf yrlKK^d 9»XX»cre[jB 


brakes and applied the same; th^t there was nothing 

elee he could do to stop tine car any quicker. This 

in subetance is the testimony in the case. 

The Aptiellant insists, first, t'nat the court 

erred in refusing to pereraptorilly insturct the jury 

to find the issues for the defend^int. ;"^econd, t}:j't 

the court erreti in failing to find that apTiellee v/a? 

guilty of contributory negligence, tarring his right 

torecpver. Third, that the verdict of the jury was 

contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, nnd 

fourth, that the court erred in giving instructiona 

on the part of a-n^^ellee. 
In/view wt liave taken of this case it willnot 

be necessary to discuss the first proposition as 
what we have to say on the second and third propo- 
sitions effectually dispose of the first. The most 
important question in t} is case is, as to whether 
appellee was in the exercise of due care for ^is ovm 
safety at the time the. injury occurred. 

It i» moat seriously contended byqppellant tJ^at 
he was not. and numerous authorities are cited in sup- 
port of the \ariouB propositions of law which he in- 
sists substantiate his position on proposition. 
The authorities are all to the effect thnt "before a 
plaintiff c-^n recover in tnis charncter of a case, he 
must prove tr.-Tt at the time of the injury Vie was in 
the exercise of due c-^rc for his ovn safety and that 
he was not guilty of negligence contributing to his 

The questions of due cnre and of contributory 
negligence ordinarily do not arise as quepti^ni of 



aixlT ,i05£oxup xna ir'-. ck bluoo Ti Ml* 

.99B0 9£i& ni \i,c.:.ij9si ddt bI »onBi«cfu« ni 

tiuoo Sill ?t5ienx J^nsIX^crqA »ifT 

CTut saJ' :toiiicrani \;IIxio;f qmai^ci cJ' iniaulsT ni b9ii9 ,bnoo»' . t-'bnol*!) sriJ- lot esuaaJ: siW bnlt oi 

<»»rC»cTqjB^JEuJi' bnii o^ anxll«l ni bans tiuoo •dS 

iil^lT «xa' ^niriRd ,9on»^ii^9n xnoiudtxiaoo lo xSXty^ 

t«vv ACixrt •^^ '^0 J^oxbisv sri* ;fBxl^ ^b-xlrfT .levoosTo* 

jbnr> ,8on9bly» ©rf^ io ;fxl3X9W ^9»^xnfixn tit oS x^MiSnoo 

•nnxtOifiJ'itni: 3nivx3 ni b»ii9 tiuco 9dt tadi ^ii&iuo\ 

.9*I.X0qqA to ttBq BCit nO 

^csoqoiq Jeixi silJ" 88U08xJb oi x^B99eo»n 9cf 

-0^01:; fcii-'ft bnn i>noo9a •rfi no x*** oJ' •vi?ri ew *jwlw 

^aom srC" .Jaixl 9r{;t xo aaoqaxb \llBut09t'i9 nnoittti 

'i3iii3.iw cj 9p ,9X 98.60 « jt IJ fii noti99up itiBtiocpat 

■ml 91^0 9x/b Ip 88X319X9 9rl;f nx SAW ••Xlftqqfi 

.bSTiuooo x^ut,ni.8xi* 9iiii* sxii' tB^t9trt9 

J' Tnf;I£9qq;i»x,cf babrocfnoo "^l8uoli99 ^aom li *I 

• qu^ ^sj-io SIB 99xJ'liorf:fuB euo^tmun bn« .i*on 8«w ari 

-ni 3 iioxiiw wbC "io anox:ti:80<joiq auoliuv sd* lo tioq 

.nnttt^oqpiq ai.ii no n<-'x:fi50q axrf 9tmlSRmtB<Su9 alala 

• ' ^ .' .*j ' • 

,..%_.- ^ .^^ :f03li8 arii oJ' XXb •!;« aai^liorl^tx/jR 8x11 

" ..■■f^n K--> ' ~ t '■>■■■■■ ■■ 

3. ,3y> j .5 ^o T9i0f^issi9 tirit nl •x9vro»'i nro filSntnlq 

r.i s»w 9il x'lwt^-t •rf^ io 8«i;:f 84* tB tBdi ayoiq Stum 

indi bnB \,i9tBB euro 9lii lol aixo 9ubto 98io79Xe •lit 

•■?1': ''* -j^'r *■;-'+ --0 9Dn9ixl39n io \,tLtug^ Son. »bw 9fl 

'i*il5» .'^f^r ;:•■■ 

\. ■^..^i.^.i xn ban 9160 •? ; • •- 8Rci^89tip triT 


law except yi'uere the important fncte in the c-^ee 
nre undisputed, and it is ^nly in euch en see that 
the court hae the right to declare, as r rr.atter of 
la*, that a party was not in the exercise -f due 
care or that he v/ap guilty ol contributory neg- 
ligence. ], C. M. R, Co., Vs. Anderson, 134 311. 
304; Cicero & Iroviso Street Railway Co., vs. eix- 
ner 160 311., 3?0; Wabash Railway Company Vp. Brown, 
152 111., 484; I.-wnson Vs. 111. Trust o. Savings 
Bank, 166 111., 165, 

In this case, however, the queFiti-^n of due care 
nnd contributory ne; ligencc, we t/^ink, under the 
authorities, is preeminently a question of fsct to 
bo determined by the jury. 3f, as the testimony 
of appellee's witnesses tend? to show, appellant's 
car was approaching the crossing in question at a 
high rate of speed, without sounding a f ^nf, or 
giving any other signal, and if aiopellee before 
approaching the crossing stopped ^nd listej-.ed for 
the ringing of the gong of appellant's street cars 
and if appellee, expecting the cars, if ary, to be 
approaching from the east, looked in th-'t direction, 
then in viev/ of the admitted facts, t) at the tracks 
of appellant's street car line vpn within two feet 
of the superstructure of the bridge, and that the 
Tattis work of the superstructure of the bridge 
practically shut off the view of persons ap^-.r'^ aching 
said crossing, we think the jury would be warranted 
in finding that appellee was in the exercj se of 
due care for his own safety and that the aripellant 


in tsiiAia » itB ,'9'iBlo»b oJ fd-gti •sii •«d J-tuoo ant 

9tfl> r 9axOT9X9 «rfl ni ton bjbw x^'3C*ci * ^«ii^ .wax 

-l^n \'tr:fuditinoo to tiXitr'^ 8«w sfl ^mAt to sisa 

.Xi: >61 ,f!o«i»finA .«. , . . .aonsaiX 

-XX3 ."Jv' .•'"^ YRWiif!.' ifd^-X^E OliVOT-i j6 OlSOlO J ^OC 

.iTsroiH .aV Yn-BCT'-noD ^^PmUAff rf«ftcf«W ;0?J£ ,.XX[ 091 fn 
garriVBS i) tajjiT .XXI . aV nootuf^i ;Kb^ ,.XXI SdX 

.d9r , .XXI ddX ,Kn«c£ 
•dTRO 90b 'io rroi^tsup *ri;t ,'i9V9wori ,b«ji9 eliti nl 

axiJ- i9bnu tTCnidJ- 9ir .^ortsaiX^sn \toiudJLtineo bns 

e ' tnmZl^crqfi ,«(»!i« ojf tte«i^^ ti—mmaiiw b ' •9l£Bqq» lo 

It j^e ncid^BScrp nl ^ieaoTO arfi^ ^nixlOBOiqgB »inr ibo 

TO :^no3 £ lift i fciti/o <* fuotQlvr ,b»eq« to •#«! rfalrf 

3Te^9Cf d9fX90frri? tx bn« ,XfiAaxs Tsri^o \aB anxvi J 

Tol b«»n»J^»i:L bftp ba(T<Iot« anistOTO arfi 8nirio«oTqq« 

9TJP0 is^ifn 9 •:frfftXX'>'^'i=' to 3nf>3 9cii' to axixanxT arfi 

»cf oS ,vifl ti ,8Xso «rid^ 3fliJa«cpc» ,99XX©qqR tX bns 

,''i'rxj-o»T::b t^di ni fcaifoo f ,tt«« Bifl eitoTt snix{a«OTqq« 

a-.iOftTj- 9rf; ,«»J^Oflt bsJi^imim mdt to w»lV nl itari* 

J'sat ow^ nxxf^xw riBT sniC t«o ^aaT^fa a'^nflXIeqqfs xo 

».-!** Br(:f bnr .^abiicf ».i;f to •'ii/iouTJ-sTaqua ari^ to 

9,-gbiTCf 9fl* to 9TUi0in*BT9qU8 SiiJ- to jITOW BX*^JBt 

73: xrfOflOTcrqr awn^jTac to waxy ari* tto ^furfa Y^-t'''J>-i^o*'^q 

hmintmn-H 96 bXuoir \;Ttft, •HJ' :lnir[J' aw .antaaoTO biee 

re 99:0*19X9 9iii ni b«w aaXXarrqiB Jurf^ '^nxbnxt nx 

■tn«I[9»^frn arf- bnn ^^atAq mro aixf'xot •tro aub 


was guilty ol the nefligerce, which resulted 
in the injury complained of. Dukeman V. C, C. C. 
6c St. I. Hy. Co., "^Zl 111., 108; C. B. 6, '^, . H. 
Co. vs. Gunderenn, 174 111., 498; Doneleon Ve. 
i.. St. Touis y-y. Co., 235 311., 625; C & !:. W. 
Ky. Co., Vs. "Ounleavy, 129 111. 132; i enry, Admr. 
V. C. Cj. C. ^ It. I. %i Co., 236 111., 219. 

In the case of henry v. C. C. C. d ot. ~ . h^y. Co. 
suprn, at page 222, the Court in paaeinc rn the 
queption raiped rs to whether or not ap-nellee'p 
intestnte was in trie exercise of due care for his 
own safety at tre time of the injury which caused 
his death s'^ys; "The view of appellee's intestate 
as he approached the appellant's right of way wa? 
partially obstructed. A narty witha tv'n.horee 
tean, who just passed him, drove acr'^ss t}<e 
right of way of the appellant without apparent dan- 
t,er, and no warning, was given said intestate of 
the approach! rig train. it cannot "be snid, we think, 
therefore, a? a rnatter of law, that ue was guilty 
of such contributory neclitence in driving upon 
the •\ppellant's track as to defeat a right of re- 
covery, or that he acted, after he found hi' self 
upon the track, in such n lerligent -anner ps to 
bar a right of recovery." 

In the case of CViicago and i^'orthweptern P.ail- 
■way Co. Vs. Iiunleavy eupr^, on page 146 the court 
BO id; "The question then pre-ente itself whether, 
it it he admitted that the deceased neitherl -^oked 
nor listened for thic train,, ^rA also that if he 
had looked he could hove seen it, and if he had 


. .' . . -■ .. nBflio>£tKl .t-^ DsixijRrqnwo Y^utrti 9di rri 
... i joi , .hi: "Tsr^ , . . _ . .era;* 

..IXi: d55 ,.o3 .xd aiuttil :»*3f- *fii 
.imbA ,^T:ns:i .-SSi .III eSI .^vfoXnuC . -. ,.cO ,xE 
.^X^ ,.XIX dCS ,.oi> i\^ . , . , , . 

.J-S ii^ ,0 . . .V y:"xn»ii lo"-«A80 mii 'nil 

^ ssXXS'^qR Jo • e© bsflifs's itoi^^^up 

aid ini ^'XRO 9isb tc 99 1 o'x»x» lii (tt ««w- »#Pt«eJnx 

b9BUP0 rioidw \'tisltit 9cit Ito •ott J" A.»j(i^ ;ffi >^^9l08 mro 

a^fli^sdrii: a'»©Xl»crq.p io wroxv •xlT" ;«Y.p? s'jBOb nLd 

^nvf Y^-w lo J-rf^it a'J:nBrx»ffqiB dti^ b*ci ojw>itj«rr= »££ sb 

-nBb cfr(»i»<rc[« *jj»i4J-iw arnBlIatfciR •4I* 'to xam %t> ^xtjilJi 
lo •*«*99^ni bi&B nsvii «ibw gflXfttcflw o."t bas ,:c»3 

\;j XxiJ»i «iiw Sit i'fsxfjt ^wKf 1;© T»i'^ACfl B S.C ,«-xol»iC9ii;J" 
noqu ^iviib ni 90«»3lX;i»n xxoiudtrtnoo siouB lo 

lC»i»rTif{ bni/o't Sjrf ic9tlp ,l)«*oaB uri *Brl* ao ,\;iaveo 

-Xi.«fl rtTtd^gswrtJio..* bnp o'^oi^^i lo 38no orti' rri ~ 
irao'x 9rii Qt^L ^r^Br^ nn .iiiqtr* ^sslntitl .aV .cij Tfrftrf 
,'i9if*9fi:ir llseJ-i «tn»ii?9iq- nsdi ncttasup •rfT" ;biJF%*. 

£)t»[OC X«9£[i-X9ft ftoaS^OSf) •riv+ tf«£ltf b9d"!ttHtfcB ©cf ^x Jx 

•> ' i ;":+ "iXn bcxp ,rtxr.ii *r{* "xol Jb«n8t»xX xon 
b«ii •a li hni' ,*x a99s svfiii bXuoo sri baifcoX bail 


listened with hie n.ttenti"n ci^ncentrated in that 
direction he could have he^^rd it in time to avoid 
the nccident, euch faote would constitute Puch con- 
clusive -oroof of contributory nepligence n the -art 
of deceased a? would have hprred ^ recovery. T'n- 
doubtedly, a fni]ure to look or lieten, em'nec-'illy 
where it aff innatively apoer^rs that looking or lis- 
atiiOtjqix ening might have enabled the -party expoeed to 
injury to see the train and thus avoid jeing in- 
jured, is evidence tending: to ehow neiligence. But 
th«y are not conclusive evidence, so that a charge 
of negligence can be nrec'icp. ted upon theLi as a 
matter of law. There may be various Tnodilyinf cir- 
cximetancee excusing the T>arty fron; looking or lis- 
tening, «ind that being the c^se, a raere lailure to 
look or listen cannot, as a legal conclueion, be 
pronounced negligence ^^er se . " This case was 
cited and annroved in henry v. C.C.C. oc ::.I.Ky,'o., 

It muf?t also be borne in mind in the crnsider- 
ation of this case that appellee had a ri^ht to 
assume that appellant would obey the lav,' oy ring- 
ing the bell or sounding the gong, and thf.t the 
motoman would have •.if c^t under prn^^er control at 
•aid time, and appellee v?ould h^^ve the right to act 
accordingly. Chicago City ^.y. Co. V. Fenninore, 
199 111., 17; St.L. P. a U. Ky. Co., Vf?. Kawley, 106 
App. 555; iienry, Admrx. V. C. C . C . a. ?t. T. Ky. 
Co., 2S6 ill., 222. 

The courts of this state have also >ield t-^at it 

btovr- ^j '-"i-^ ""*' ""^ n-iJ-oarrib 

.. i^ . . , .. _ .; ,\cXb»;f Cflrob 

r - --,«ort,rx--> 3iiJ Jte Ccr/5rf9 (iT>txl ^xisj^Jfin 9i<liff» xjaclscidC 

tii'l .<5one-,- . ,3.. ' ' : , cJ&n»J 9on9iitV9 nt ,b9ti'l 
9 ,x ■ :o r ip;r(+ f>«!! .ftorrsblvs sYJtti/Ionoo ^on sijb •^•rii 

sJ" ^ox^^'tfii »<f rtijo »3n93lia*n Ic 

stf , r'-'Cior ,. orfiT«!>~rt9*8ir tc :fnoI 

9R-^ 5^ ^^-^ 9on93iX3»ri fttORwc^ttoiq 

... . ■; rr b9VOTn-cr« Bfin b»*xo 


■^■J'.t'^iyrjp +ri:'f 98«^o Bi:(? 'io' nol^s 

:rf*iCf9cT<te fftrfJ 9>Tx;a«i) 

^nlbnuos ic Ll9d 9di gnl 

IPO VJhrf mrtfd tituow lu^artotom 

J"0 yv.r( b[ ' ^9'£s(tqB bnjs ,enti^ bxm 

<flOxr{3 .•^lartibioaofl 

■ioi -sO-'.-^fH . T :a .«? .j.ja .-vx ,.ixx cex 

.xitcrb.A ,Y*ia«tT jddd .q'q-A 


is incimoent upon t' nee in control of etreet cars 
to exercise n grenter degree of and watchful- 
nee«? n.t street croePin£P -^r i ntereectione than at 
other places nlon^ trie route, that wiiile driver?, 
grip-men or motomen are ob]i(;ed at all tines' to ex- 
ercise reaeoni^'ble c^re in the cnnduct of their 
care, the requirement of reasonable care impnees 
upon them a more exacting attention when they fr-v,- 
roach (Street c rose Inge in a crowded city. (Chicaf-o 
City Railiray Co. V. Tuohy, 196 111. 410; Chicago 
City Railway Co. V. ienninore, 199 111. 9; 1 eiden- 
reich V. Bremner, 260 ill. 447.) 

In the cage of Chicpf o City liailway Co. V. 
lenniniore, supr^. the court held; "that although 
tlwe res no ordinance or st'^tute lindting tiie S'leed 
at which street care were allowed to run, yet in 
each case it was a -^ueetion of fact for the jury 
whether under the facts and c ircunstancee of Che 
particular case the rate of speed was or was Jot 
dangerous; that a raiHroad comrianyp in tnerur'ning 
of its trains, is always required to use ordinary 
caie and prudence to gruard ag'^inet injury to the 
persona or proerty of those who may be rif,htfully 
travelling upo ^.the puhlic streets." Bo that the 
question in thii? case as to whetJier or not the xsjsix. 
appellant whs exercising the -proper care in the 
handling of ite as it approached the crossing; 
where the injury occurred, having regard for the 

travel at said point, is a question of lact for the 
jury. In view of the holding of the courts 'i this 

ir. nuiiJ- BnciJ-©aaT9trtx to aaax^eeio S99ii9 tB «a»n 

9»B'-^girtI attio •Io[«aoa«9Tt Ic j'nsma'xiups'x srl^ ^9i»o 
-(jersi X9rii nsri^r nni^nsiti/! nrxiOBxa sior « ra^fii^ noqu 

o„.'=ox.^ ;0I^ .11; set .\:iio«T .V .oC> j(;rwXtFfI> x^x3 

i.vfk^ ,i:£ OSS ,i»«i»Te .V riot«T 

.» .c^ \awLlBii V-i^ OHwai^f'^ ^f^ »a*«9 »xi:t nl 

a.jUCMlJli; *wl:r" jbia/i izijr mii .ntqu-i ,»"iomxnn»I 

bsoce »iiJt .^tiiSinii Btu:ft^iB 10 sonsnib^c on gaw aiarii- 

: _ .^6v: ,niji cJ- f>»woIXi; •law b-sbo J'ssiJ'b rioti-tw ia 

vrt^ 10I JoBi lo nox^taeu' * saw ii »9fl0 .ioas 

e!»on"J'5f.'TUOTi: Jbrv*; q:tOijt »tli labnu nstWadw 

B\'-' basqe tc atBi f>dt aa/so ijsrijoi^iflq 

iCijBnxbio sejj oJ^ baixiJpai aTt^ssrCR 9x ,ani: pii' si'x lo 

sdJ- oj Y'l'JUii Janic^js; btRu^ r.i aonsbuiq bnjB »^f.o 

Xiiv1id:\vt 'i*6 \BBi oxiir 9B0f(;t to ^d-t»'~oT<f tof enoBT* 

•fit cfpiU oG " .ecJ'aeid'S olltfucr 9xl.troqi; anirXavfl'T:^ 

xftxfltic 9 J- tf'-t -if! i«>i{i9riw o;' B'n 'iftflO oiri* rti: nrx*B»«p 

iniaaoio «ifj- b^iir^BOtqc fi an aT«o ^J"! lo -^rllbru&d 
9f'f lot bTfl39i -^ntrBii ,i>»n uooo Yiut"-^ 9^^^ aiariw 

b: :J-iioo arfj lo anxblori »dt Ic waiv al .xiul 

otnte in regard to the qiiestion nf due c.^re and 
contributory negligence we f,re inclined to hold 
that the queetion of due en re and of contrilputory 
negligence on the part of ap-nellee were by the 
court, in view of the testimony in tJie cage, prop- 
erly suhmitt^d to the jury, and their finding in 
tnat re^r^rd should ."sot te dieturbed, unless on 
account oi otliex- errors of puificient -ninent in 
themselves to cause " reversnl. What we have e."?id 
with reference to tlie question as to the due c^re 
and contributory negligence raised in t'r.iF cnee, we 
think, practically dieposee of the errors aspigned 
by appellant charging thnt the verdict of the jury 
WB.B against tiie manifest weight of theevidence. 

The evidence of appellee's witnefees, xi bel- 
ieved by the .jury, i.e abund?mtly sufficient to srs- 
tain the verdict, ■'•ni "n s^ne of the -points invol- 
ved in the cuec appellee's witnesses are corrob- 
or^ated by those of appellant. The iriotcrmm in 
change of appellant's car which caused the injury 
testified that he vag unable tc see the a-niellee 
until he was on the track on account of tlie lattis 
■work ofl the superstructure of the bridge, and if 
appellant's motorman could not see appellee on that 
account there is no real gmod reason why it s;ould 
be said that ap;iellee sz-ould have seeji apyellant'e 
car before he passed the superstructure, and when 
he did so he was practically up-n the trick of 
appellant v;here ht^ was injured. 

Certain instructions fe.iven on behalf of apT^ellee 


dXori 0^ 5»ftifonx •tp sv »dn*3^1f3»n y:;Tco»Brfl**flo3 
•rfi Y"-f 919^ ssffsr-an xo irprr sri* no #9n»di Caen 

-- -■-■ -■- ■■ '.'s . rsstdvai « 9«{md oj- ^tvltsmtil* 

-8iig rj- .tn9ioi1:lu»9 XLitiBhryudM *i iX^isX, •di\(i b«73x;;/ al-.iw TWO «» •;tnaIX*<Tq^ lo »ij«jRrio 

qjtjtr .;. oor no 3(o*tT* »rC^ ao »«ir stflilnif 

, ,DilCf 9X1 J i ~ dliJ^OUI^BTCSm/B 9di Jko ]tTO«r 

. ■; rsorcTH 999 ton bli/oo rrrrxo^rni 9 ' J'niRXX^crtrF 
'no«i39'x i^O(K^ !*«» si9fi-t itm/c»aB 

t!»S9 SVRrf biuc V«. »«XX»frefP #BJli' JS>ijii» ♦< 

n3 ^■' , > u;t3i/i^«:t3ffj« »iit baosjsq erf 9iol»tf x«.o 

./ qw -^f !:jBi>i:J'3J«q a«w ari oa bxi)^ erf 

.b*»iTjf,ni: aKy» sn 9i9xtw J-.n4?IX»jciq«. 

9»Ii . ... .: ..' . 1 af[oxJ-0in::f»KpTiiftH9 


ure criticised "by pppellart but ;^.n exaninntion of 
ttiCise inptructi -■ne antigfies ue tJrir»t no oerioue error 
vae comjn-itted by the court m giving the earne. One 
oi the instructions r- resented an abptrqot nrn-nopi tion 
ol law, which we think v/as fairly n-p-nlicahle to the 
facts in the case, ^nd ii so it was £:'''0d and n'lt error 
in giving the sni-ne. Another of the inetri-ctions, it 
ia claimed, singles "ut a certain ^TOint intlie evi- 
dence and tives it undue prominence, ■'■e do not think, 
however, that the instructi^^n is subject to this 
criticisn, as the r.atter coraplained of was whether 
appellee v/as negligent in f Ailing to look toward the 
T/est as he stepped on appellant's track, but even if 
It should "be held that this instruction s) ould not 
have -oeen ^iven, the last instructio;^ fiven on the 
part of ip-^.ellant is subject to the name crit-iciem, 
asit calls attention to whether appellee was neg- 
ligent in foiling to watch for the car. Neither of 
these instructi-^ns, '^e think, cnn eerinjsly be cotn- 
plained of, 

A ca»eful examination of tiiis record satisfies 
ue tiiat the trial court committed no serious error 
and thn u the question of due care and contributory 
negligence on the -;art cl ap-nellee and the question 
of nefelit'ence of the api)ellant were properly sub- 
mitted to the jury, and thnt tneir findinr anou Id 
not be disturbed, 

'-'he jud{;raent will therefore be affirmed. 

Kot to be reported in full. 

sr J * J^ijuaoa ssnr 

noli X90q'-^; LdJraga^-T ajioi JOiJii«ni sri;t lo 

ndf oi 'ilJso otdw ,waI lo 

toil' - 'i- ,j3 nx atOfil 

-iv^* ;x'^ii30 -sianis ,b9ailisIo •! 

,:'fnx J • 'jnioioiq aubnij ^ i: Bavi^ bna •ansb 

8i OUlitHx 9X1^ iBtii ^tsvswoxl 

larfcfa -W esw :_> oar: .riqpioo T.^iimm *fl;t en f.-^sXoitito 

9ai faiairn.^ ,niiiel ni in»aif3»n ajnr sails-; qn 

"ix nev' , ;II«qq.*? no i»»rq»J's »xi is, ^asw 

J-on Mi; .OiriJan fniii bloi std bluod-a ii 

i " an a?»'/-i ' o .; ' •..• j " .nsvJt^ naacT •VBxi 

, :5Xj •r^ajj5 9C jnBlIaqqp lo ttsq 

-^Sr: SSV." ^9 J.3T-rJB T9.1J9.1W Oi rXOHaB^tB «IX«0 J'XSS 

- ^ - ,-'.-:-■' -- .aaoitoi/ti'vni •asili 

,lo banxBlq 

loiaa 8;;oxT9a on bs:^:^ l^^moo itunc '■-■■-* ^di jBiii su 

Xi'~^iudllitnci:-> bajB 91po nub lo »cii jcxl^ baa 

noxt99isp sr'.^ bntj 99li.9qqii ia iiaq 9At no fons^iXasn 

-due -y^lTsqoiq s^^w J-njsIXacxqA srfj' lo ©oneaXI^tn lo 

. "■"-cTii.J'BXi) Ovj" ^on 


/, CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of 
the State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true copy of the OPINION of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in mp office. 

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set mi; hand and affixed the seal of said Court 

at Mt. Vernon, this .l,<^fZ^ day of December, 

A. D. 1915. 

Terk of the App^ate Court. 





/7. ^ 

Opinion of the Appellate Court 

AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, on the Fourth luesdat) 
in the month of October in the pear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fifteen, the same being 
the 26th dap of October, in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fifteen. 



Hon. Harrp Higbee, Presiding Justice. 

Hon. James C. McBride, Justice. 

Hon. Franklin H. Boggs, Justice. 




And afterwards, to-wit: On the _ ./r?^. dag of December\ A. D. 1915, there was filed 

in the office of the Clerk of said Court at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, an OPINION in the words and figures 


• No.. .V^-^.-. 

March Term, 1915 

19TI.A. 119 





Terra :!o.42. /^gendn lJo.42. 

Amos Joneff, ) 

Appellant, ) 

va. . ) Appeal from the City 

Lottie Veeck, Juliue i', ] Court of Alton, 

Veeclc, Julius \eQcy', and [ 
Rosa I , Veeck, ) 

AppelTieee. ) 

Opinion "by ^ r. ,Tu3tice ''Of-ge: 

This is an action in attacnoient 'brought 
"by Apnellant, plaintiff below, against appellees, 
defendants "below, to recover a renl estate conm- 
ieeion claired by appellant to be owing to him 
from appellee, 'he suit was originally brought 
before a justice of the peace and apperiled from 
there to the City Court of Alton where n trinl 
was had resulting in a verdict and judgment wae 
rendered against appellant for costs, irom said 
judgment thi» appeal is prosecuted. 

The evidence shows that aprelle^e vere 
the owners of certain city property in Alton, 
Illinois, and desiring to sell or exchange the 
same entered into a written contract with appell- 
ant to assist them in disposing nf the spme, 
said contract being as follows: "This is an 
agreement between Amos Jones, first party, 3 cttie 


.Si* . 

( ,B9no'L aocsA 


rl IfSqqA { .v.Y 

'. . i auxlul. ,il099V sxJ'^oJ: 
ban ,Sos9.' guifii^. ,2f099V 

V ,3(09«7 ,.r BBO.'T 


-iTaraco d;^.a^«?9 Irg-r n i^voo9t oi ,woI»cf s^nxibnslsb 

ni.^ ot ^iiro 9d o^ ^n*II»qqB xcf b9\isLo noxael 

JdBiJ'^irf Yrisni^iio aaw ^fxue erfT .aollaqqfi moil 

moil b&LnsqqB briB aoBsq ariJ^ io aox^aut, « aiolsJ 

IflXT^f r. 9i»riw noilA Ic ^tcuoJ x^i^ '^j o-^ aisxfJ^ 

9BW jTs»<BghiJi, brtB JoxJbiar s ni ^iSlunoi bad bbw 

.■.-;> rf.r.T -.taoo 10 1 insIXsqqjf) .taniBaa baiabnsi 

.haiifoaaoiq ax iBsgqa axilJ^ ta^a^bul 

-'^■^ ' +"«d' 3Worfa aonsbiva sxfT 

, - ^-iaroiq \;Jio nxB^i^^o lo aianwo sil^ 

3::\? sjjn^r^oxa tco IX99 0^ ^^nxTxaab brtp .axoniXXX 

-'fgrcrr. i-fj^ivj ^fosainoo na^Jxtw n oinx baialno aauaa 

<^ 9iit 'to ^nieccfaxb nl msd^ ialaaB c^ ins 

sxff!"' :?ivfoXXot 8b aniscf iotininoo bisa 


i minjiT' i ^t ' ^ a w i-- 

'veeck, and hustHnd, and Juliue \eeck nnd vife, 
second ourties. 'econd parties put store 'build- 
ing r.nd d-wellin^j houee in Jonee' hands lor 
snle or trade for ;. 6500.00. Jonee to receive a 
comrtiesion of v200.00, if he produces or intro- 
duces any ore, that buys or trades lor the proper- 
ty at ?6500.00 or Qese." 

Thereafter, Twrsuant to Me em-nloyment 
appellcint procured the making of a contrn.ct te- 
tvjeen Lottie "veeck and one wrr.. P. JJuncan, ty 
which contract appellee, 1 cttie Veeck, was tc 
exchange eaid city property, su'bject to certnin 
encumbrance e, for ten acres of land OT.'ned by 
Duncan which Vvae also encLunbered. This contract 
was afterward signed by JuBius veecx, or., '-^nd 
Julius veeck, jr. 

The evidence further shc^vs that apr.ell- 
ant was also representing Duncan in this trans- 
action and was to receive a commission of $100.00 
of him if the deal went throutli. Appellant con- 
tends that Julius veeck, Jr. was aware of t'ds 
fact, and was also aware of the fact that appellant 
was expecting commise ions frora "both sides, nnd that 
he as agent was representing j ottie 'Veec}c, wio 
"held the title to the property owned by the "Veecks. 

On the otner hand appelleep insist 
that they knew nothing about appel J ant represent- 
ing liuncan in t^iC transaction, or that he, apnell- 
ant, was receiving pay iroc! him. 

The question as to whether appellees 


^ . ,,-,rv + ggnol. .00.005^ ; *xoi 9f3B%S to BlRe 

ootji^oicT drf li ,0O»00S^ lo noiaaiaunoo 

•-: o<»f,a-Y+ - iv.ui tsrit 9nc xna asoub 

. ?«»i to OQ.OQdd'-^ *« x^ 

1 -^Trf^ .i:i. ... adJ" bsiuooiq insXIsqqB 

^ . u - . -- .-;■ ano bciB jfoe»V aiJ^cJ n9»wi 

;/ P-. ■ ,^099^ 9X1^0 l] ,99i:i9qq£ ^OfllJTICO ilOX .Iw 

x'-J- .rDSLcTwei ,xii3qoiq x^io bias 9^as.xiox9 

ba:'^:i bnfil io a9»dB rtsi loi ^B9or.Fit:Jr'Uori3 
. i-iit^iaii/onii 08 1« 3Bvr xioiifw OBonud 

.rl ,iod9v' sulIuT. 

-»a«i" 5i:-iJ- tx n^anw^ an*«*'^909'xcro'X obLb osivt &nr, 

00. cor ^neiffliaoo ~i dviaoa'i o:}" asw f)a« noicto.5 

/iy-ile.TaA .ilyi/o'xxi* iaaw XB©i> 9x1;^ 1i aid to 

*»e. «jBvr .-lit ,3iDJ*9» auxXuL »^A^iJ• nbsxhi 

.TfjbiB fi^ocf iiioi'i enox e«XflBiico ^x^oaqxa sbw 
^^/ ^xd^;^o L ign^^fi^^sicfftn tsw ins^iB bb »f{ 
fxo .^srr/'O ^^Tsqoiq 9Ai oi alJxi aril t»X»xf' 

3£j:dqq« bn«4 taetlo srl^ nO 
^9^ isutit9q^q» iuo4» :^ti.iiton wsnji ^(eii* i^*;xf* 
,9f( t»tit 10 ^aottooaani^ itiii at aeonu^ ^nl 
.mixi ao'it x«q anxTX9oe7 saw ,sasi 
esarisqqjB TC-9ri;?9uw o:f sj? aoxJaawp 9xiT 


were cognizant of the f?>.ct that appellant was 

purporting to represent "ijotV. sidee of the trn -is- 
BCti-^n is the raof?t important question in the cpee. 
If, as contended ty pppell»nt, it. was kmvm "by 
axjpelleee and C'"in8«=!nted to by them thnt he should 
represent and receive pay It en Duncan, as 7'e 11 
as them, then, so far t.8 that feature nf t'r.e case 
is concerned, it would not defeat appellnnt'? ri(:;ht ^ 
to recover. -f, on the otrier hand, p.rj-nel'iees did 
not know -ii, or consent to, his go repreeentinr, 
jXincan and receiving pay from him, then thit of 
itself under nu'aerous authorities in this state 
woxild defeat nis ri^ it of recovery. 

There beint,, a direct conflict '^f evi- 
dence on that point, it became a qaestior for the 

jury, and if tnere were no nerious errors in the' 

>«<ilinc8 on the admission of testiraony or in the 

inatructions, the judgment on the verdict oi the 

jury should not be disturbed. 

«'hile appellant assigned numtorous 

errors on. the record he devoced ^)ractiGally tlie 

wijole of his argument to questions of fact, iie 

Wholly abandoned in his argument assignnent 

of error on the instructions, and, tjierelore 

under the rules, we would not be required to give 

them any attention, r owever, on exavainin^;. the 

record, -we find that the jury v/ere iully and fairly 

instructed on apoellant's theory of tlie case, and 

we do not believe the court :;iade any serious error 

in the giving or refusing oi instructions. 

jt'or some reason the trade between p.ppell- 



BBW iTTBlXacTqB Stiiii ioj^'i *xiS lo ^nasxnaoo. »ieir 

,95 "0 e :tiogjnx J'eoui »ri^ e: ni^oa 

bl bne a«&iXegqfi 

lid aio'il \Bq ^nxf 19 091 bae nBonuCL 

• Yiavoo^Tt "io ^xlarx alii SB»t9b bLvow 

©x/: ijSS.Kt) -■' SiOiJOSu ii ,:^nxoq ^sdJ no ©onab 

■=! CO \;r£0ffii^a9;f to noiaaxmiifl sxl^ no aanllVrv 

ibi3v 5;fi no inamsbui, axiJ ,anoxJ'Oui*ani 
,x>acf*xi;iaib scf Joe JbXx/orla ^-xut, 
a:joi#isx/n ban ixaaB .;^n«IIsqqa alxrCiw' 

».ord-ojrrrr ftad^ovsb ar£ Incooai axlJ no artoiis 

;. ■ -'toxia'aup oi J'namiraia axri to »Xalw 

-^x25« 3--. i nQOisi^TB Bxx{ flx Jbeno£>ru?cfB ^IcXoxiw 

•'.cc xsiteiicf ti>nx5 /ancx^oini-anx aa* no icoiTa lo 

9"' ' JOM bXiJow 9vr ,saXxnc srl^ isl)nu 

,iev3«T0 i ,noxi^naJ"Ji« \;nfl msild" 

,.xix-'T '/itr :^'i:9'.y ■^tuJ, axil ^arf^ br.ii 9w .bioosa 

br^- , \ioQiii a' ihsLlBaqB no fcad-ouiianx 

icx'jH ^ ■ axjfii;: i'^txfco arf^ 9rdil9(i ion oJb aw 

.p ■ Ljou-rianl ic anxftjjlsi ic anxvxa axij nx 

• 11': cr-.T'- i9^v.7:-B f -^nnit 9Tl& nC>8i»91 SXiOB lO*^ 


eee nnd Duncan did not to through, but jupt why, 
the evidence does not "veryclearly !?liow, nnd we 
do not think on this record it is ciaterial. lor 
if appellant fulfilled jiie y^rt oi 1. is contract 
with appelleee, he would "be entitled to recover 
whether the trade with Buncnn v/ent throu^,h or not, 
unleee he forfeited such right of recovery "oy 
taking conaniesions fromhoth rides with tht knowl- 
edge of appellees. ' 

Appellant ccntende the court erred in 
permitting appellees to offer evidence is to -why 
the Duncan contrnct fell throijgh. ".e tidnk, 
however, the court did thnt for tlie ren^on thB.t the 
evidence tended to show apoellant had riierepresented 
the L>uncan land with reference to road ways, etc., 
and also that apoellart procured appellees to 
write a letter to .Duncan c-incelling the contract 
with Duncan lor alleged failure on Duncan's p-rt. 
Vhis testimony, we think, ^nas corapetent for the / 

jury in deterniining whether appellant had for- 
feited hfte rif^ht to coEnii«8i''n, 

'■Hie que«?tion involved in thie case 
being principally questions oi fact, and there 
heinfe no eerioue error ir the rulings of the trial 
court, we would not he warranted in di<?turhant' the 
verdict of the jury, unleee ae?vinst the raanifeet 
weight of theevidence. V/e are unable to say that 
the verdict is ag-^inst the weight of the evidence, 
and the judgment ii? theref:>re affirmed. 


i<ot to be reported in full. 

t. . Lnld) ion 6b 

•txal'sol s'li lii«9lau 

,999lX9CTC« to' 0gb» 

&&t"'^'■ b9b,-.9C^ aonsbiva 

'■i»lt*qqm ;tJRrii ot£B~J>fm 

, , ija9> 'illxi^ 

^nxfixfln'»it9l> at xtui 

■ ' 

• ■-■d id^ir «itri iacTlVlk 


' i «qi ofli t q" an i ©cf 


joiTi* on aifi X9tf 

•itW" Tyirrfttr 

bXt;ow »w .ituoo 


,-CJ»^R «r^ 

^l>ir»9fl* to' >rf3X9w 


■^'.sfliabut »x{J*'bnR 

ixui nx fcs^ioqsi 9u oj joa 

/, CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of 
the State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true copg of the OPINION of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in my office. 

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set my hand and affixed the seal of said Court 

at ML Vernon, this A^^.-yrz::^ day of December, 

A. D. 1915. /^ /^ \ ] ^ 








Opinion of the Appellate Court: 

AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, on the Fourth Tuesday 

in the month of October in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fifteen, the same being 

the 26th dap of October, in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fifteen. 


Hon. Harri} Higbee, Presiding Justice. 
Hon. James C. McBride, Justice. 
Hon. Franklin H. Boggs, Justice. / 


And afterwards, to-wit: On the _ Jik/. dag of December, A. D. igiS^there was filed 

in the office of the Clerk of said Court, at Mt Vernon, Illinois, an OPINION in the i/ords and figures 
following: / 


N„ ^2 

March Term, 1915 


197:^4. 138 


C^ AjQkt^^:^^ 


^X<i^^^^C<c^t^^ _ 







Term Ko.49. 

^genda lio, 66. 

J/iargaret I.irr'^un, 


T. h. Benton, 


Appeal from V-illiams-'n 
County Circuit Co-'rt. 

Opinion Toy I.r. Justice Bo ^gs. 

This ie an action on the case brought 
by appellee against appell?«nt to recover for in- 
juries to appellee alleged to .ave been cau'^ed by 
the negligent operation of ap-nellant's autonnbile. 

The declaration consists of six count?, 
four original ind two additi-nal counts, '"he firpt 
count charged the fippellant v;ith driving hi? car 
at a greater speed than twenty-five miles per hour 
in violation of the statute;, the second count wit i 
driving his automobile at a speed in excess of 
twenty-five miles per hour and with f'^iling to ^ive 
reasonable warning to appellee of his ap^-roach; the 
third count with driving his .Tutomobile nlon^ the 
highway approaching appellee, who was holding iier 
horse, without giving reasonable warning of hie 
approach; the fourth count with driving his auto- 
mobile at a hi^h and dangerous rate of speed, there- 
by frightening apnellee's orse, nnd with failing 
to stop his car after it was apnirent that 
appellee's iiorse wrs frightened. The first additional 
count charges appellee with feoing around a corner 


.^a.oVf sbns^' .ei^.cH arxaT 

) ,99ll9qqA 

nosoriXIih mril fBtcrqA ) ,bV 

.ii'foO *xj3ilO x^nuoD J ,no^n»a .^ .T 

j .inflllaqqA 

Jilauoicf 9«3BD 9dS no aoifOB ns ai airiT 
-nx ipI T«yoo9T o,J tnpLlsqqa Sanla-^B 09lL9cqB xd 
X<i b^fUtiO n9»Cf 9¥'A.' OJ ib»a9XlB 99LL»aqB oi ssxix/t, 
.»Iirrooio;fwf» 9 ' J^ttRlIsTqf! to nottsisqo JnsaxXasn ari* 
,=^;tnao3 xx« lo B^eienco nct^BTJSlosb •rfT 

180 giJ aniviab dSiv :fni«II»qqB sri^ bdaii^'"^^ Inuoo 

luod laq salim 9rx1-x;*n9ir* nj?d^ besqa i9iP9i^ b Sp 

i : ivi inuoo bnoosa sxi^ ^aiuiJiJ'a •riJ' lo noi&Blotv nx 

lo asaoxa nt baaqa b Jb alicfoinoi'UB aJt ^ sniviib 

»Ti;i oj- ;inxlir>'t li&ivr bnB nuod isq aafifli 9vtli-'\,tn9wf 

9si^ ;:-loflO'X''qB axrl lo aali'acrqB o^ ^tntuw alcfBnoaBaa 

9iii jiiclR 9 fidoraoJ-yf 9Xff ^nivl^b rf:?iw tnuoo bilAi 

tari afjiblorj: aBW oiiw .aaCIsfrqi" anirfOBiiqqB \flwrl3lxf 

siff lo aniniBtr alcfsnosBai aj^x^-ts ^iJOri^tiw .aaaori 

'OiuB Bid qnivxib rfj-iw fnuoo dttucJ. 9di ;riOBOiqq« 

-9H'itit ,5aaiT8 to 9S Bi ax/oiaansb bnn rf)xrf s ^b allcfoin 

jnllxBl filiw ban ,aaio e'salXs'-qfl sjnina^naiTl xd 

tp.d} tn9'inaqB 9sw ii la^tlB ibo axxi qo^a ol 

Xsnoii^ibb" f9il1 ariT .banaJrtjiiii a^w aatori 9^99LL9qqB 

asnioo p bnjjoiF ijnio » dtiv? sariarfqn B93>Ttf«;fo J'nuoo 


or curb^ in the iii£hway wnere the view was o^becured 
at a rate of speed in excess of six miles per >iour; 
and the second additional count with approaching 
appellee's horse at a high rate of epeed without 
giving warning of is apnroach, and with driving 
past appellee rt a dangerous r-^te nf speed ir;hile 
appellee was holdin( her j-iorse attacl^ed to a huggy. 
all of said counts charge that in consequence of the 
alleged negligent acts of appellant, the horse of 
appellee 'became frightened and appellee was there ly 
injured. Appellant pleaded the general issue. A 
trial was had, a d a verdict returned f^r ,700.00 
on which verdict a judgment was rendered, -^nd from 
which judgment tliis appeal is prosecuted. 

The principal j: rounds relied on "by appell- 
ant for a reversal of this case are, first, that 
the verdict v/as contrary to the manifest weight of 
the evidence, and second, that the court erred in 
refusing;: certain instructions offered -^n behalf of 
appellant, and trdrd, that the verdict of the jury 
is excessive. 

ixceseive. . , ^ f 

that i>py eprT eeana a 1 rs. Sanders drove to the home of 
a n e ichloog , a iirs. liewton, in a one-horse hug^y, i or 
the purpose of buying some eggg . Just prior to tiie 
accident i n qu aa t io ft a pp e lT Se Vnft rs. Sanders were 
sitting in the buggy on the north side of the road 
in front of ] rs. Kewton's house, talking to i rs. 
Kewton. The horse and bugt y were facing west. Wh; 

lacing west, wnvifty 
n stated tfo am t t a ' imt m ' 

the women were talking ire. Ilewton stated tfo -a^ 


;tuo>i i9q 5sXira xi8 lo eesox© ni b9»qs lo eJaa b in 
gnirfoaoiqqr, rfJiw J-nuoo I.«noxJ^ibi)R bnoosa sdi bnn 
iuoiitxw bssgs lo 9^bi riaiii s :^fl SB^r.i b* 99lL9qqB 
^niviib liixvr btiR .ilOBoicrcffi 9t^ to itiiniaw ^i/ia 
all.'fw bdscTS 1<^ »+"'r Bwois^riBb n in sslfscrqp iasfr 

9 + '" sonsupsenno ni Sedi 9-^'iBiir) wSnuno faifls lo Ll» 

^C/etei-fi 9BW 9dCl8crqi5 bfuj benatrf.^iiT: Siveodd •slltqga 

A .9U8BX XBianaa »:iJ" bsbBalq ^njBlIeqqA .. bsit/i.n'i 

OO.OOVt? lol b»mwJ^9i J-oibtdT b b fi.bUif t«w Ifii-x* 

moil bnp .bdisbnsi amir inda-^bu'i r ioxbT9V rioiriw ao 

,b9i!^o9ao'iq ei lB«qqB alxli ^nsmabut rfo-trfw 

-Ilegqfl ^cf no b»xl9T «bm/c*i3 iBqioniiq trfT 

^BxIJ ,i»li5 ,91JB 9980 Siri^t lO LM919V91 B 10l ttlB 

lo J-.i jX9w ia9liaBni 9ili ot xrcBtinoo 9bw ioibi9v 9x1^ 

nx b9i"X9 iiuoo 9d.i tndS .bnooss bnB ,»on9biv9 9di 

Jr. "iiBrfacf no b^tstlo anoiJ^ouii^ani al»tf9 gnxaulga 

TCtut 9:-'* 'lo *oi&^»r 9CiS &Bd& ^bririS bam ,inBll9CTqB 

.'%Yxaa30X9 sx 

i aali-a julio-1 ai, ajiaa. axitt— ni^so 

to 9ii!0xf 9di ci 9V0Tb 9i9bnfla .91 i r> .. ^J^ e x g * JbxI* 

lot .\,^3iicf •9aori-9no p nx ,noJ"ir9K .aiM « , ^ o rfrij3A » a c 

9i ^ r^i Toiiq iauT, ^y^^7i9 9t!to9 anl-^wcf to 9eoqTUq sriJ^ 

9i^w eighrir .31 "fr. . . »<Mf»-.-acii»*[xp— ai i^n9bJ:ooi5 

bBOT 9Ai lo 9bi8 jii"ion arlj no \^^fjd 9di nt ytx^tcfxa 

.81.1 ol anirfls^f , sac/Oil ■? 'noJ-wa io inoit al 

,^^ixfW .taaw inxoal 919^ y iSwcT bnR 9ai0ii »rfT .no^ir9lI 

■#»* .■ b9^nj'3 i^'^.twr©! .ail 3nx>fl5!j' 9T9w nsmow 9iid" 

nnd i rp. Sandersy that an automobilf ima, cr'i^sing 
the bridge. " nai B HafriA e e tj^^--evid<nc> qtiowe'wae 
"■gomfc. five or six hundred feet east of where the 
horee was standing.. , 

evi ti e ' -see further 

andTrs. Sand.ers at once Botf owt ol the 
■ tuggy and app e floe wenlf Ground to the horses nead, 
and talcing hold of the "brid^le bef-'^n leadin£ the 
horee into a lot at rs. Ilewtone,-- ' T * i. ^ ■e wt' - iii open - - 

■4-w£; -t-h^ gn^f fft-r that, aurppae. AT" LO""lTl"g^ (TtrCUTl'enCee 

wiip to that time the£fi-„X»^^but-Xi4tl» €<wtflxet" 4n the 
evidenq^T Ap to- wlaat,^Q!Q.curred thc,;^af te^v^the evi- 
f^»r|c » i« ■niTwin w t . n n w 4' - i ^^^v^^^wg . -Aj9f f i -ll e e ^^te gt if icd 
that a© soon aa Ire. l> TrtPn «»'^"r.ii»/T.a/^^^^f .,nt ^n puto- 
mohile was coming WtH^ she ^nd " re. Canders at once 
got out, Tnd she took hold of the horse's bridle; 
that the automobile A - r i van toy -' »pwe l4r«ri»fc' was couiing 
at a ' >f<{j> ^' rate of epeedv estirriated by her ^t from 
thirty to thirty-five miles per hour; t'^iat the horee 
at once became frightened, -^nd began to kick and 
plunge and dragged her into the lot ^nd cirpled^y^. 
around and finally threw her to the gr'^und./^ AppeiJbe«! e 
chief injury was to her knee, which she testified 
wae still swollen and caused her pain at tlie time 
of the trial some six laonths after the injury, <»««* 
n r redi ' "y^ 

? rs. 3anders testified tliat the horse 
did not becone frig/itened until tJ.e nutomobile wae 

opposite or past the buggy; that it tjjen 
rea^and plunge and finally thre|(|^- 


(= ,. .w., ■ .- . ^ ^.. - :^ -i • --..-■' .»3^iicf •lil 

ftiii; If. oao 4« sitJ&nBo .si/ Jba» >»I B»^» 

%di «i ^9xi%noo eJWi^X- iJMt.4Li^ji*:{j94i^^ft|B|^ JL*^^ 

-iT9 9rti-rs .tin 919x1^ t>pT.:iuppo ,J BJdM Q.t Jtii^ ^^tSSBDJAittt 

59i ^: ■ ^WfA- . 3ft4^-9^f%»f>^-#<icflf BI09 -«X- JUyaiJL 

-ocfw*« n« tiul;^^l>»^-. ~, iiDjt3Kft/i_.9'ii «* nco© 9 3 Jsrii' 

9onn ;tf, Bi9ha^B mfX--' i>ni^ •^'^9 i^itftf f^imcTt 9 aw slicfoin 

;9Xbl'xcr 9'9«To4 9di Iq blod iioc;t 9^9 Imr .tuo ^os 

snifooo 8«w #«wii9^<f'>4t<^ ■ a»via^ 9lic/ 9al t«£fi^ 

isoil Ic- idii ^cf l>9ir>^iJ'B9 <Jt>99q9 lo 9;f9i r*H * '* A ;t« 

99aoi-( 9ni J'fld^f ;tworf T9q 99riia 9vxl-YJ^iiii^ o^ ^j^tl^l^ 

bflfi i^isl oi aeaacf ^ns ^b9n9tsi;^ii1 9is«09(f 99nQ #•« 

^J!>9l3Tio brtp ^ol 9ri;t oini lari b9y3B'ib bBUi •qftairXq 

a-'-99iJb*^«fA^Vf^nuoTa 9xti 0* 'X9d w9xrii i4lXBOil flnc Am/oicB 

faaxlxJas* 9d« d3x4w ^msr.-A xa* ^+ saw \jiwt«i I9id9 

nmli -idt ia nxRg laii i]i9«iufi3 J(uvs a9XIOw«i IXx^ta mjrw 

-'»*^* axil "is^tli! tri^xjoa xia 9fflca Ibxi;^ 9a# lo 

9a'iori,9(\* J'flxlit bailltasJ' aasbrusi:, .«a 4 

9BW 9Xid'o^c#iw« 9;iJ' Li^nsj b^n^in-^iil mncoedi ion bi^b 

oS ia»9 :x J-Al* :\.aaw'i 9dt 4BMq 10 9>^i:eoq[.qo 

Jarip'^.^.g^a* i*<*«(«->(l|9aa:r \;IIfinxl bnB s^j^nx/Xg bnxiAd^B9a 

the fence. Mis. Osniaeje*- teetified iwrt^eT that 
the horee was nractically throut..h txie g-^te beiore 
the automobile passed. -» y e. — Sand e g g- algo testified 


that the nutemg i loil e nt the time of the accident was 
running about the . ^ e nme rnte t* \i xutomijbllw ' n ' diUHrity 
*-*tm., hut she could not estimate its speed. ^ 

The evidence on the part '-'f l^ftpioollan -t ie 
to the effect that r.e was drivinc hie car at a very 
moderate rnte, o o mething likc ^^ten or twelve niles 
per hour; that 4^ehorgfe of app e ai e e di;i not become 

frightened until after tpp e 1 ImAk >iad passed and 
thnt the horee was ineide of the lot ^t Iiirg, Kew 
ten ' -8. when his automobile passed, th.-it placft.- The 
witness, Spires, brother-in-law of ' ^appellant , who 

was with hi'n in his^testif ied that he saw the women 
getting out of tne buggy and that "it seemed t^ him 
like they were getting out of the buggy to get in 
the clear", that the horse was inside of the lot 
when they passed and that it did not beco'ne iri|:hten- 
ed until after the machine had massed the buggy. 
1X9, l^ewton testified on behalf of appellaw-t that the 
horse did not become frightened until after the auto- 
mobile f »f appolla^ had paesed. The doct'^rs whr> 

treated a ppe llg ^werr of the opini-n that her Xr 

Junes were not i^erm-'nent, but that apr^elflce- sufTi^ 

ered a - fer e flt d e al f>l' pain, e8^;eciaHy with her >-nee . 

ADpellant's brief, consisting of eit:hty- 
eifeht pages, is largely devoted to the argument 
that the verdict of the jury v?as against the manifest 
weight of the evidence, nnd thaV the judement should 



mill oj" Jb»cis95 jx' 

aw saioil fd* i»iit. 
■~9dtoi^ ^f^itqji ,9«»n^lw 

Jol 9:-. J- io ofcixsn. efi" 
-n9^xi;i2aA •C!0 0*cf ir 

oxmw \mii mM4 


bfixi 9[iidofiiz edi ipitAliiau b9 

»xf^ ;J'«rf^ ^«*i.*i(K»-^& ic ilBriacf no bsxti^asj- noJ'ws • v974 
-o^u« txli i«*l.R Xiinu bsn^JrlgxTt 9moo9(S ton bib asioxf 

»»n7^ T9(i d^fxtr x,£irao9:a9 ,nxi!q t-n ■ i^^iy -^ n » %^ e b9i» 
-XJrf .^l^ " ItBlBnoo ,l9Xicr 9 •d:njsXX»gqA 

* ':.9io<f9b xC98'X«X •! ,9 9jiaq^r(ajk9 

tBSXi.Trr 9. j- ■'Bnx'^jf ep.Af ■y^iui, 9riJ' to ^oibnav 9iii Sudi 

bl'sotie &n^^bul 9rlj- ^acii- bn'- ,sonel>xT9 9ii-i "ic ic^iaw 


X>e reversed for that reas^in. 

It -will be observed frosn the above 
statement that there was a sharp conflict in the 
evidence. This being the case, we would not be 
inclined to disturb the verdict unless after a care- 
ful examinaticm of the evidence, wr were able to say 
that the verdict of the jury is against tlie manifest 
weight of the same. As was said in the case of I. 
C. n. R. Co. Vs. Gillis, 6S 111., page 319, "If 
any rule of this court can be so well established 
as to be neither questioned nor require tlie citation 
of authorities to support it, it is that a verdict 
will not be set aside whenever there is a contrariety 
oj evidence, and the facts and circumstances, by a 
fair and reasonable intendment, will aut:^iorize the 
verdict, notwithstanding it may appear to be against 
the strength and weight tff the testimony." This 
language was quoted and approved in Lourance V. 
Goodwin, 170 111., 390, and in Chicago City Hy.Co., 
Vb. :kcClain, 211 111., jtt at page 596. 

In the case of Tolman V. Kace, 36 111., 
page 477, the Court said: "It is the peculiar pro- 
vince of a jury to weigh evidence and reconcile it 
if possible, or if that cannot be done, then to de- 
cide according to the weight of the evidence as it 
may appear tn them. They have so done in this 
case, and we cannot say their verdict is so mani- 
festly against the evidence as to justify this court 
in seating it aside.". This language was quoted 
and approved in Lourance Vs. Goodwin, 170 111., page 


' — ■-^* 
on IXiw 

r :f»oiv» {0 

--'■-■■'-- ,iottn%^r 
.*- 9rfi 

. e / 

r i,bXO 

j*^; ■■ ■■:--.■■ 'I "5 •■■) i" 

fis ' 33:<j vtrI QirfT '•.nxtiJ>»g nl 


T.o i nstructirvns were offered nr tiven on 
the Tjart of appellee. On the part of appellant tyren^y 
one inBtructione were offered, foiirteen of which were 
given. An examination of the fourteen instructions 
tiven on behalf nf ^pr^ellant, we think, disclose 
that the jury were instructed Bubstantially on every 
phase of appellant's CRSe. '^he first and second of 
the refused instructions offered by aptiellnnt ^re 
drawn on the theory that the law f^overninf the 
operation of automobiles alon£. the public highway 
does not apply to teams on private grounds. There 
was no error in the Ccurt refusing these instructions, 
even though appellee's horse was inside '^t tlxe ' ewton 
lot and the biigfe,y was passing through tiie g-T.p at the 
time appellant's automobile passed that place, for 
the reason that the evidence is to the effect that 
the horse had been in thepublic highway and was beiiTg 
led into the lot for the very purpose ofgcttin^ out 
of the way of the automobile. If that is the correct 
inference to be drawn from theevidence, then these 
instructions would not have been proper. 

The third, fourth and fifth refused in- 
structions, sofas as applicable, were sub tantial ly 
covered by the instructions given. '^he gixt>i in- 
iBtruction directs particular attention to appellee 
asa witness. Instructions of this character should 
be genernl, and should not call particular attention 
to any special witness. Viiere was no error in the 
refusal of this instruction. 

It is also urt,ed by appellant that the 


no fisvi.i i<^ 159191 i.- 9iaw aar itourSan i o". 

»i9"«r 401 ':»93-'mo'i (bsisllc ai^ir onoiJ'ou'i^anx sno 

■noiJ-ouiJ-9ri nsg^iii- i .^ ^ nisiBxa nA .nsvia 

9toIotiJb jrfnicf^ 9w ,J'fT«Il9qqs lo ^^(iiscf no n«Tl9 

t-^ ftncoe^ bnB ^eixl 9dT «98jro 9'J"a«IX9qqB Ic saaxiq 

XaqqB ^ccf b9n9l:'io enox^ouid'snx bgaxrlsi 9rf^ 

9dj ^nxm9vo:j WBl •rid' fsdi \,i09nt 9di nc nweib 

XPWriAjxn oilcfuq tri^ anolB «»£iaromo;tijjB 1o roxJ'fli9qo 

t^»f(T .stnuoia •^Bviiq no «af?9^ oJ Mlqqfi ^on stob 

.nnciiointBiii. ••»i-(;f ytieulsi ;fiuoO 9dt nx aoiie on saw 

no^ira ' adi lo 9i>xBnx bbh' sead e'99ll9qqB iigi/oili' n9r» 

9fl;f tR qB^ 9Cii riaaeirf* gnxeajBq sbw Y.33ucf arlj ba.P! loX 

)DBlq ;tBrI^ baaarsq alxcfomo^uB a'in«Il9qq» 9mti 

j0«"tl9 ».tJ- oj- ax 9on9bxv9 9di i^dJ noe«9i 9di 

anxacT -sisv bne -\(;«*rd;'ij:ri otid'uq9dt nx n»»d" bari aaioii 9di 

iuc ■ins.iSo^lo acoq^EJjq xi9y 9dt lol ioi 9d& ntni bal 

)09iir.o 9di sx c^flricf II .alxcfomcJo/' 9ai xo \.bw 9di 1o 

aaaitt aBdi ,99nal>xva9rfj' afci'i nwaib 9^ ot 9on9i9'ini 

.Tceqo"xq naad 9VBd ion bluow tnoliouiiBnl 

aai/^ai dilit bciB dtiuct ^bnidt 9riT 

XlfB-td'np;^ o"jjg 9i9ir .sIcfFOxIqqB »B a«l oa ^9no tiointa 

-r.i .\'j-Xi. .narxa tnoxi-Oi/iiani 9.^1* -^cf 6919/00 

•allacfqfl ol noxJ'na^ta i«Xuoii'i«q aioaiib noliouiia 

bluoxle laJoBifliio a irfJ" xo an^xcfouiitnl .aaanJiir amn 

a^itn9i IIso Jon bijjcda bnet .Imanaa atf 

9««r 91 i TsnJiw I#;x09q9 '^rw oi 

tC^ciiosjiSanz axxli io Inaijlai 

9x1;^ tBdS inslLBaqB. \i bs^iu obIb si tl 


yerdict returned "by the jury is excessive. The 
evidence with reference to theextent of appellee's 
injuries was more or leeB conflictrnt, ?ind while 
v;e believe tz.-^t the verdict -as sufficiently l^rge, 
at the same time, we are u-ial^le to say that the jury 
were unwarranted in fixing the damages at the sum 
they did. '^he evidence disclof^ep that in addition 
to the injuries to appellee's knee, she r/ae -ither- 
wiee bruised and injured, and that at the tirr-e of 
the trial sr.e was still suffering from these in- 
juries and was more or less disabled on that account. 

In our opinion the trial court did not 
err in refusing appellant a new trial and its judg- 
ment is therefore affiiroed. 

Judgment affirmed. 

Not to be reported in full. 


9'aC- *T9^X33rfJ 0^ 90^919191. iiS lYT 90n»bXV» 

alxriw Lap. ,.^n !: J'Oi ftnoo •9©'" - ^in •«» 9»l"aij{,flx 

,93ipr Yf^f^»-^0Jt'^^"'» sB'v .toibi tbH* "'•▼9i'l9</ 'a\r 

Tjii " ' Tl;f 9m«8 9di ta 

fliij.. ",a^Riv^^j3 9-j jnt cii ni bsin.BiTflwnu 9t»w 

noli^xr»r>!^ Hi JbiS^ g^floloaife aonsfciva ©XT' .bib ^srf^ 

lo 9mx* 9rf* ;tB *«ci* bne .baiotni: bn« fc^eiuirf ««Jtw 

"ti ani>t»llu« ltli9 8«w »rf8 liiii '•!£* 

. - -u - c. nfl-faaib 9a»i to »iOffi 8i<# .bn« ••iiut 

iof Jx ' o i.j ffiii^ •rW noinlqo tuo nl 

,XIyt at b9iioq9't »d" o* J-oK 


I, CHARLES a JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of 
the State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true copy of the OPINION of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in mg office. 

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set mg hand and affixed the seal of said Court 

at ML Vernon, this .^^<^:^^.t7t^. dag of December, 

A. D. 1915. 







Opinion of the Appellate Court 

AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, on tS Fourth luesdag 
in the month of October in the pear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fifSen, the same being 
the 26th dag of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and nteen. 


Hon. Harrg Higbee, Presiding Justice. 

Hon. James C. McBride, Justice. 

Hon. Franklin H. Boggs, Justice. 

And afterwards, to-wit: On the .1.6 1. dag of December Ja. D. 1915, there was filed 

in the office of the Clerk of said Court at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, an OPINIO^ in the words and figures 


..\ .^^p.p.e.l.lee., 

No 71 

March Term, 1915 





-^r "jj^ 

ig? I.A. 167 


. / Circuit 


.P.ula.?ki... COUNTY 


HON.... A.....3iV.....I.e.wis.... 

Tor:n i: 

JoJm H'>ni',/, 






CuoTle?? Br ftt , 


r T>ula^;. 




^lia la a«. ^r>9al fi* / ' . .l©Ci*oe of the 
Clrcait Cc-^t of PulasXi Co mty or i 

to convoy to ^r; 3lloo» c rt-.ln nrorUaoa, liorooftor 
doaoribod, poraa^Jit to an allo.-jod ir rb ; ccrtr ct 
b«t..^on on* Ctrunt Bfltt, nc : d<*c©ao9d, f 
ar-'TW 11 O 3 , T,sl 0." 00 T 1 .n t . 

J u i, II'Mi*^ , - iViPrit. - 3^s f i ; /" -- :l -«?- --r- V ..- .i^^ -, 

in •a'Jiit/ filoc in the Circuit Coart " 

a^oirsiit CSiarloa Bfltt, ;..t>-*-'' ■■' 
ax«catrix of th^ ■."til of a* . .j 

' ^7/u Aif 

Barton B-gby, ^a« of aiiid •' -^A)l3r;o 

that on Aa^^jat 1, 1904, J»B«lT:;t.. . , -ty^*4-*- '^r * 

of thf? •ic;athwts3t xaart<i!r of th: ..'is»r of 

aoctloR ,9, In tovmsiil- 14, Soatuj 1> -^' „ - ,. '"■^t :? 
ViW Tlilrd Principal " ;, In ihn - ■ y-iw> ^Cc^unty ; 

nsad.3 Jtnd doliT0r»a to tha aairi^'lalfluirtt a i c 

aijjn^d by iiljB raifo, Ifi.lli- I, ~".i.l3, condlt ■" 




fir t:.o corvi. « 

cor- ' " ' " ■? 3i.r:: 

of 3ac"n, »ylth lnla.vN>-.;l ..t uiov..'- -or on;l. 

pogsoaalor. — — 

rosaftoolor,-: -^ ■ '" ■'■ 

J, B, iiathia ana .U'o ^Zi 

^Tit , ^ 

conditions of , — ' ■ ^ -^ ^ '^^ ' i ' 

h-f A i ^^1 Br .r>-, W-4. J 


^. '■■ tt ..^'jT'iQd to '• ,y ' '. r-r — - 

inz 'lii9 -^ tm-uld b r nr, :,f tho boyjd,,!!! r«-paylri — - — >- — ■•-"-•.■. fs • ■'■-! .^ 

tho T>rORJi903 to t^"^ - - 

tus bcfOd for a. cto®*ii 
Bro.m diod, jxI aft-^ 



D©cet:i>©r 14,1006, Grant Br • 
djr^t Ctiarl3'i Er-ttt, ^ wlnor, m 
at-1 J. ^ ^*4 /^^ Octobfsr Ic 
OS -sxocatrtx o^ t .- i i ■ lii U 1 
pr«nlso3 to Charioa Brltti 
H, ?.T. Dritt v;aa "d yaar ^^l^s Brltt* 

, . , 'm 


lun, tna . jr of tn© < ^^^^ 


5N ./»^3C 

tiie l/i]l filed the defendant ?urton bnifly vns 
guardir.n of ^'i.arles Vritt, ^aid th.-t the coraplniiwnt 
had demanded the execution of p. deed, which •.•■np 
refuecd . The defenrtnnt, g.rfnret '= . ijrov/ri, exocu- 

■^^^^ '» ^' t>io will of •' , w. 9». yo^ ' 'n , <^ 6c c <4 ( ;Kd , >)y her 

finsntiT admitted the ranking oi the conveyance to K. 
IS, hTOvm, subject to the nond lor a deed, }as de^thi 
nnd the conveynnce by her, ■^■.^ executri?., to ^.hnrles 
B r 1 1 1 , tf» t].»i tp^'*iiexe_m£.^9.. j;j3, rdLs;2i-JiXg^_.^^ jn ny 

-n^ H s t i ^i* o ft ix auBjajLafe^her or,,;.. \'i. brown. The defend- 

ante Ci.arles liritt and r.urton Ba^by, his {^uardir.n, 
?mswered ti^at they were not i'-iorraed ae to the 
alleged purcJ-iaee by the compiTinnnt frrp. ^.f.. 
Iiathir, or the payment of ,17.T-. or of the deed ftora 
-^-r-*^. .athis and v/ife, to /'. ■ - ■ . brov/n. They ««*e ^'^^ 
nop deni>4j, •«# the nverrr.ente of the bill reppectinp the 
agreer.ent between the comrl-TinRnt an6 Grnnt I^ritt, 
and '.'^4q no answer tt 3uch - vcm.ents, "tut drnied 
that compl-.iTVint }nd erforr-e^' hip r>b1 it-nti^^ or h-.d 
paid in^ sun ^^^msi^m0-^-r-mm' either of ther,, or on benalf 
of either of them, on the '^urch.-«se r.rice of the iand, 
or that he hi^d piid nny tnxee or negeypnentp^ffg Tiof* 
foTroetCnig v ju yl- ^f t he ■ftgj^errerrt. 'hey fiilef.ed thnt 
the only thinf that the complainant ever ^ave tliet-: 
wae a few loads of corn pnid n.r- rent, -no tiicy invoice 
the :'tfitute of Irnudp and " erjuriec a? r.£r=inBt the 
agreement between the cnrr.rln inrnt '^nd ;:rnnt Tritt. "^^ 
■ . Dlt xe J fca s , -th»*y«i-^3r€ , «© i^«Hi« my de -by -^w-n ir ■ ■i t ii Ttg g 
--WECept- tire leiingletjxiert ion whetkier the cnrap^nrmmt 
fese-Ti-aTir-tlie ^mrrount dx»€, but, of course, it 


. -Jfifci art^ n9ft trbsi i^jwann 
iicsw \».i:r J*££^ t»»xe»sni} 

" i«^ tius \m- binq 

yjiij 9VBa 19V9 J"«/'rti{:I'^'mcn 3fl^ Ifuit ^niiiS \Irto arf^ ^«»r(^ bfiR ,v?n9T[ vr binrr nioa lo tbscX W9'jt /> sBir 

igm-nn ' • -' .1. ,"•■-.■ ' , i*-soi*'X-*fi^ ,»AX -JlXSUiiL 

« > » «« g ga ry l» r -- %he e r Mmil '^ -Antm^-to-Ha^ro^vfe^^ fe/ft fa ct s ' 

nlloL i tti i -'ilfh Trrrr ■ • rit'"T '' 1i I i t l u f^ "he chf^ncellnr 
heard the e\idence; I'ound ti»e I'^.ctF ns ancfed in 
the till, ind et^ited an rice our t tetveen the conrl^in- 
nnt and "h?irlee -ritt, r-nC petered r. decree finding 
that Charlee Iritt hnd attained hj -^ iriajority; thut 
the hplance due i'mm the coinyjl^inant v/ae . 55.79, nnd 
ordering that upon payment of eaid sxxrr. Ch'^rlep Lritt 
execute and deliver n deed of the oretBi£?ep to the com- 
T>lainant, nnd in def?>ult of such conveyance -t ppeci*?! 
master in chancery, rTppointed for th-^t purnoee, 
phould execute the deed in beh??li . irom thnt 
decree Charles tritt aJ one ap^-enled. 

^ A t the he a r i ng there wa?~rrS"'T4TVfH*.te ae 
t o the •i!j«*'i-np- -t>i -■«*»- fe-owd -l-nr- r;--is:wwn';"'XT'r~TTi-]y). t c f 
the ho.ld.ex ot. the boa** ^o « t^en vey^nee unen payment 
of the stipulated anount, or as to tiae convey^ncce 
alleged in the "bill. The rcatter of fact in dispute 
WAS whether the coBrotttlTimi^' 'h^iJ'Trrwslrd-^ihei ndvjjneee 
nade 4o co^-piete t.':e r.ayrients on the "bond tor a deed/ ' 
and tiie quesjtion of law was v/hetiicr the contract be- 
tween him and Crnnt Fritt wae subject to the defense 
of the -t->tute of irmudf. The errorn .'assigned and 
argued in this court ire, th»^t the or'-^l contr^ict "be- 
tween the com^l^in'^nt and Gr^nt ";ritt could not "be 
enforced in a rase where the ' t-itute of I-rnuds vrns 
invoked, as was done in> case; thf^t if Grant 
britt wa? a trustee under tne r-llet.e^ a£ree:.-;ent it 
was voii PS F.n express trupt, ' nd thr!t tiere v.'as no 
resulting trupt. 

This cape ',?ap orifeinully npr-.c-iled to tliC 

' SUM ftxflc ?-> .'rt^nrtoCT rtoqK^ -./rfJ :B.tii«*Mo 
-3103 9«I;r o^ 9«ttia««t« »rt? to boeb n T^YiTob btiti 9 1 1x69x9 

* it J: fa939 11 a 
.©D i^aS t-itAi-isiv 9HV wbI io- noiJ'a»Ut> «rt* bnB 

*• ^T^ '^'v 9a«n i ttl h90to'tn9 

jrir.-x- ■" •• '"^ ,b£.'?{oynl 

iiupreme Court nn the theory thnt it -wa? n exiit lor 
ar/ecific -nerfomftnce and t};nt r fee wns involved, 
but that Court held under tli? '■■leadinff? the Tee 'vne 
not involved nnd certified tY.e cnuse to this Court. 

If, ns contended by r-.p-'Tell ce, nnd ne found 
ty the trial court, he nseifcjned hip bond for deed 
to v.-rnnt I'ritt, father of Chnrlcn i^ritt, p-b cecurity 
to orant Lritt, for o loan oi raoney to vn.y the ll^l- 
ance owing on enid bond, and for taxe? to be 'aid 
by iiritt, irrith tiie under^tindint that Britt phould 
take a deed for the i.rerriieee and hold the saiae ns 
eecurity until apv.eilee ehould repay bin, t}ien under 
the decipion? of the urireme Court Buch on .-irrange- 
?aent would nu.ount to » r..ort£'!fiC', .^nd the deed eo t?.Ken 
would stand ae n security for the money advanced, 
onith V., 71 311., 185. 

Thip doctrine wap agnin recognised by the 
Supreme Court in this cee in its holding." tlint no fee 
was involved, henry V. lritt, ?65 113., 151. "^he 
lanf^uRfte of the c -urt being "-here b rurOirtPer of 
land Rseigno his contract to a third - erson ae secur- 
ity ior payments to be made on the contract, nnd the 
nesifenee, on conpleting the pnyrcent';, takes from the 
original vendor ^n absolute deed of cnnveynnce, tV-e 
deed rill stand ae a mere security for moneye ad- 
vanceii, citint Jraith V. Creiner, eu^ra. " 

Cnrier t}.i? theory, which v.-e believe to be the 
correct one, thie ie not p nuit for i?r>ecific uerf ormnncc 
but in itp nature, i? s bill to redeem, nnri if under 

.frirf ' ' , ' ^ 'lii Snaxkj oS 

T 99Xff^ 10 ' .'TOO ».)xr"i --0 jjniwo 3onR 

Muoft« ^di ^ibKa}9%9bttV 9dJ liS irr ^iitiH \<S 

SB an: ion bnn sssiaai f aili «oi bs>ai> j;> oAa^ 

-^jrtsTir. nn nous ixwc^ siBB^qi. o "snftiaiosi) 9iii 

srf . ^§ .^ItTi' .V x»ft»'- .tfevXornx •«w 

-Lh 9\j*Aoiu *io r x<^iiwos«! »*i9/j JB •«. bntiifi L£iir b»9b 
" ./nc ;ii«! .tsaraiJ .V iWim« j^rsx^is ,b9on«r 

th<' .-iuthoritiee above dlted the deed t.-^ken by 
appcilnnt is to be held in the nnture of a mort- 
gage and ne security for paymentc made by hiis lor 
the benelit of apr-ellee, the statute of Iraudi? would 
not apply an<l oral teetiwony v/ould be aduuesibDe 
under the r>leading9. 

Appellant prp-ctic-O ly adnitp in his plead- 
inf.s that ap-^ellee hail the right under the bond 
i-iven hiM by .'.athie and v^iie to }-rvc received the 
deed for the preraieer? upon paying the naount stip- 
ulated in the bond, but he contends that at no t-inie 
did appellee ony eitlier hie father, Ur^.nt j-ritt, or 
h, "., Britt, hi» feuardinn, or hinself, r-nythinr^ on 
the bond, but th^t nil payr.ientF' thnt v/ere made by 
appellee after tjie death of "mnt ' ritt, fot);er f^f 
appellant, were r.:ade on chattel raortf,nres nnd other 
indebtedness owing by apreilee to tlie ssid urant 

V*e are incl ired to bcriieve th?it the trial 
court wr.s right in finding th-t the bond held by 
appellee laras aesifnod or del ivered to Grant ''ritt, 
father of appellant, to ?ecure said ritt in ^d- 
v-mcing the sionfy to pay the bslpnce on the bnnd, 
tnxee, etc., but we do not bplieve that the tri^l 
court etrited the accov;nt correctly between eaid 

ve are mindful of the xxx± rule reo agnized 
by the courts as to the vfeight to be fiven to the 
finding of the tri^l court, who rees -ind r.ef^rp the 
testimony of the ^-itnespes pprjearint on the tri?^l, 
but *e also recognize the rule thjat it is the duty of 


.; isbnu 

:.n nidimii \<f mid novi^ 
nob 9r{^ T»il* OsII^qqB 

oJ- x;^- * anionrv 

©sin »w ^tlrf 


t'r.e Appellate Court, ii it be^itvei? tljnt the iindin^' 
of tV.e trinl court xs against the rr=T,niieFt wei^jit 
of the evidejice to set such finding aside s^^f^BBfc 
,-ty4->H:-^^o\xrt c ? r r ' .i ' j.L i i 9 ^.'-JiJt'l'3 1»» > vath nrincipni, inter- 
est -^nc) taxep in the ri;ia oi 'lOUQ.yO :nd cre<lit8 
hir4 as follow?; /mount '•^nid to urnnt 'ritt l&l.OO; 
interest on e^n^e, T% frrirrs drite nf payri^ent to c^^.te 
of decree, ' 76.0r? nnd with ■ 300.00 pnid to ::.■ , 
britt, gunrdinn of Chjirlee rritt, -Ysith irtfr«?f;t ti 
the sRiae fron t)ie df»t e of T>ayrrient to-wit: Lay SO, 
1909, to the date oi the decree, 97j.00 md nleo 
credited hi:n v<ith 42 londe oi" corn at ei(_hteen 
bushele per load fit fifty cent<? i.^er "buphel, 387.00, 
with interest on s'-uric, ' 27.09, tsakin^^ i tot-'l 
credit of 1064.11, leaving: a brtlij-nce owing oy 
apr^ellee t'> ?iip\!ellant of ^35. 79. 

.Ve 'oelieve the co\.rt was vaxTinted in 
making, the finding \7ith reference to «11 of t^ic 
credit? rith the exceDticr-, of the credit of '300. 
alleged to )i-ye been rmid to I- . " . liritt, x-u-rdian, 
^nd the 93.00 intere??t or. the, and as to thope 
itemp v/e btlieve th:9t the finding of the ooTjrt ^^ps 
ngninst the r-anifest v.eife)it of the evidence. 

No i^itne«=s testifiefi directly or to this 
C nuij4.Au' Alt/' 
payment, except ftprxlle e and hio evidence as to 

thig^nayrnent i? 9ertainly inost uns-xtif^ftct'^ry. 

pt>rfrrtT&e te^ifie^ "1 paid ;3C0. t;- ll.J'.T^'l'itt. " 

": pnid him ;.300. : very doll-nr i !S here ori t'Ms 

ptick (preaentint: etick) every notch ojs thip r»tick 

is ,1.00" "\. -here did yoM i-,et r-^nsiy': 


fi'l^-il f\''' : 7 is. 

•'■•liSJi" ■; i£t. 

. 0C.S8 »dJ bn« 


' */ * *. c ; 1 -; r if : n J "x j i> '■; i r a . "t-r^ i ^sidf 

•it His . .... si 


"A, 1 r-Tised c tr'^vt^f rriep, v^ear nnd "beans and 
•shipped theK." "'-o. "■ic- you pny hi'-i L'OO. «t one 
tirneV" "A. To, ?ir. very titre : -pBid hirr. 10. 
1 would cut ten notcree on f^.i« rticl?. very notch 

here ie a dollar." "it* "'^'hen did youput thef?e 
notches there?" "A. i'Very tiT.e 'i :a«de ?! r.nynent."' 

■J t wne r»o'j^ht to oorroborntti the tej^tinony 
of oupolJcfr- Tfjth rei'erence to fiiis ppiyratnt ny j-^e 
sons, Jred, renr;>' 'xn^- John ienry.Jr. and hi'? daugh- 
ter ^arg?>ret i'enry. ired henry tent if led that he 
ga^e his father -.110.00 and that hie oifter, ; nr- 
gsret, fc^ve ner father il70.0C and that their fa- 
ther, the app-allae, had ; ?0.0C nakinf. in all 300. 
nnd tVint he took thip ;300. "nd p?id it to J. . ' . 
Britt on the land. 'he testimony of ' nrr,nret is 
practiO'\lly to the spiae effect. Jiov/ever, neit)ier 
ol then testify as "being present nnd r-eeinf, the n'^ney 
paid to Lritt, "but pinply that they fove their 
father the :r:oney and timt he vas goin(- to r:.&ke the 

phyrr.ent to l^ritt, «nri th^.t he hroupht 1d,?c1: i?7ith him 

a slip of naper which they called a receints "^Y \^ 

osper i" in vrord? nnd figure" as follov.'r: ""Jnhn 
Henry to H. I', britt, ^I'SOO.OO". John henry, Jr., 

who was fourteen years old when Je testified, p«?ye, 
that he wa*' with iiis father \«hen his father deliver- 
ed soiae monty to 5., l\ Eritt, •■nd /^e sa'.'>' them pour 
the laoney out on tlie t.^'ble i^nA count it, I'Ut he 
does not know hov.- rauch there v/nr^, or lor v'h,at purpoee 
it was delivered tn Britt. -r?<wu3 nyitne5?s ras ten 
years of a^^e at the tir.c- the money wos allejred to 
have t»een pnid. 



7 T[irl«^ 

' i • 

, 3 .1 5 

'"-->■■ ngs^i/nl aB«r o.lw 
?iW SAW "«/i J»rfi;tef?<i of the r^per referred to ariounting 
tc & recei;it, it renlly '.vrul<'; indicr-te tY.-^t nt the 
time it wae ^.iven, Hpnellee .John iienry, v/ne indett- 
ed to >■ . 1 . Lritt an the sul-. oi 300, '^nd vm 
inclined tc think thrt really vn\B f!ie -ennij.i of the 
paper, "he fact of the ratter i:?, t>;xs i?- en- 
titled tn but Xif^le \;-eig->!tf ns the Fnir.e is rot ei{-'- 
ned by anyone, nr.d there i e nothing: to ehov.- the 
hnnlwritir4£ nnd tliere isrenZly nothing to ghow nov- 
appellee came by this -.nper, except hi° own et^te- 


wp.e largely indehted tn --iritt for different f-unie f^t 

ir.oney pccured by chnttel !r.'-srtg-^^:'er-, vhich «hdttw'-l 

Ciprt£-,agee cant- to the ijoseeeeicn of 1.. i'. 1. ritt, -wmo ■' 

*>g len ne adninietr«t--^r of tre :.rant lritt est.-^tp, 

[•nn tiiB 1 B rt 1i 1-rr rn Y i^ that they iiSd vnrlous traneact- 

i'tne with reference to these cnrittei irortf af ee, , the 

eaae l^ing frorri tine to tise renced, find in f?ict, 

the evidence shows that at least o-ie of them is f?ti]l 

unp'^id. 4 t , 

-•pptHrhBtr r-n lis err e? ex'-.rninati on vji th reftr- 

esice X.'-: tVicee chattel rr.ortfrre? 'A'ne npV.ed tV.ip quep- 
tion: .;,. ae it after Crant ritt*? deat); you -.-nde 
thir, ch.Ttte] r.ottf'iise. -'^ 'J'^'^ renerr.ber be in, beiort- 
i'r. Curt Xn take the acl^nowledfcnsent, '?o you rener'^^ber 
that'; "A. he told '^e ?»t th?t time that '.• did not 
OTwe but 300. CO. "-p 'hie beint the tf^tiinony of 
f^rvfoVri^ in connection with the ch^.ttel T-rrtf^a^ e? 



--%»»«'. -Ail' -TT"^ 


■}.^T.Hi S«W 

~i-inftwt lift i>nf] 

.J. .JOS ij-' 

s.hich lie 'iwed to C.rn.T;t ' ritt in i is liletirre, nnd 
which -^ere 'being 3co>red fitter by K, L. iritt, his 
admin ietrsit or. 

V.e think the inferer.ce \yarr<^nted, that at 
the tirric refe^rred to, he :wed on chattel rnortgn^ee 
t>!e puin of ; 300. It i? r.ore thnn Tjr^liaule thnt the 
■paper referred t-: in tlie v.nrdp and fi{urep, ".Tohn 
I enry to ]•., ). tritt, "300.00" had relerencf to the 
tplpnce owin£' or the chr.ttel mortgagep. Instead nf 
the teptimony '^f red I eni-yand ; argp.ret f enry vith 
reference to the ^inyrnent of the t300. corrobomting, 
appellee, we tliinlc, th.Tt it fpiils to corroljornte him, 
lor if they "^re correct the payrient of -T-'jOO. v.'as all 
made at one tine. The money as thfy eny war in eix 
different sack^, i>0.00 in each saO, >vherer>p apoellee 
testifies thfit he did not oay the money xjk all at 
one tine, hut oaid it ct different tiraep, and a? he 
stated it, h« Veot n irjemorandura of it hy r'niint;' the 
notc}iOB on the sticlc, ench notch to represent one 

r-j r iif-p np> i. . .^■4 » . V, in tonti - nrt j uiy— i-p t >;.A '*'^ S t JlI;,^^^ 

-t^M^ . L". Lritt, -idr^iniiatrritT of the eptnta of Crant 

I.ritt ^ jie ceg^/ed, -xnd for n titae .Qur^rdinn of CharlC!* 

Brltt, .4*— t^-re- effect th-'t at no time, after the death 

ol Or^nt rritt, did «Bii4+*«- ni^lfe liim nny 7)et7!.;ents oi 

Piny kind -whatever or tJ , i ^ bond for deed^ • iid ihr" t 

Charlesi i ritt., tr.Rt fit nn time did nry-ellee 

pay hia anything on e»id land. Wtj-'^ thr-t, po f^r af=i 
the evidence vath rtferencf to the <;500. pryiaent is 
conccnred, we l.hinV:, the evidence is v.}'.oily inrnf f ioient 



.T.:!-.'; »i'_j >'. 


do intr 



1." s. 



-V . i. _ „ V 

'J '' 't CftM^ 


The turden ^i proof l>e:nf; nn -^p-nel leo to "^rove^ 
this -nayiaent by n r reponderr'ncp of the evidence. 
Then, too, Rp'^ellee was? pucceepfully imre-'^chec "by 
at leBBt four v/itneeste v;ho te??tified that yds repu- 
tntion Tor truth --ind ver'-tc:ty in the community vhtre 
he renided t-ae bad. 

Appellnnt cnnttmJed by ni- fevidence, rnther 
tiasn by .'.ie pleadintP, tiiryt tiic C'^rn delivered by 
appellee wae rent corn, rather thnn corn r-^.id on 
the purchase ^irice of the land, and '.-'hile the evi- 
dence on thii« point is r.retty evenly di'videa, we 
are inclined to allow V/iS findin£ ">:'" the trinl court 
who sftv and l^eTd tise /•itnepeee teijtil.;; to etand, 
as we ■'•re unable to say that tlse evidc.ce i r- not pui- 
ficient to support the findinj-r'. 

The decree ■will be reverped nnd c-upe re- 
manded v'ith directi'^n to the trl^l court t'^ Te-ut^te 
the ■■■ccount by s:txii!ii:±Rf<- ?trikin{- out tl^e iter; of 
^300. nnd the interept on the tinme ^rnn ntinf to 
■'^&3.00, rrakinti. the airiount owin^ by --.p^-enee to 
"ppellant -428.79, vith interest ??t the rrte of 
b/. Tier nnnurri Imn the d^-^te of the- decree }iereto'^ore 
entered by ti.e triH.1 court. . re«!=!on-ible tir^e to 

fixed by the c^urt to rr.ake 3?>id payrient, ^nd upon 
Bnid p«yrient beint; mnde, the crnveyance t"> be ex- 
ecuted by opr>ellant, whrrie? Iritt, >^nc in defi^ult 
thereof, tn^t » p-necinl rofiiraissi - ner be aniT^inted 
by the court to execute the e-^^ae. 

r>ever?ed ^nd rci^nded, v/iti 
d i recti one. 

hot to be reported in full. 


. jn^oq si^'.i ,ao. ..90c;«i> 

.4 ;i«fna« •'X« •* ** 

•(JUS oJ' fxidioxl 
. ; sab 'jiill 

i«t.X«.xi*a V.I Ju.f-oo 
- - J- ' ^991'SJ ' '.:i:. .OOi • 

■ i , . :.' fniiLL9q<[" 

: i • It) . .ujllaqqip \fi[ b^iuo^ 

»...---^i 5,..: iiiwa^A.^ or jiuco s 


/, CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of 
the State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true copg of the OPINION of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in my office. 

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set mv hand and affixed the seal of said Court 

at Mt. Vernon, this jU:^C- dag of December, 

A. D. 1915. 

^ellate Court. 






Opinion of the Appellate Court 

AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at Mt. Vernon, Illiniis, on the Fourth Tuesday 
in the month of October in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred^ and fifteen, the same being 
the 26th dag of October, in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fifteen^ 

D!:Oi 1915 

Present: I 

Hon. Harrg Higbee, Presiding Justice. I 

Hon. James C. McBride, Justice. I ^. 

Hon. Franklin H Boggs, Justice. K 


And afterwards, to-wit: On the ...k^.. dag of Decenifjer, A. D. 1915, there was filed 

in the office of the Clerk of said Court at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, an OPINION in the words and figures 
following: \ 



l<i?I.A. 188 



March Term, 1915 


Ci^:c^c2^kj^jL:K- COUNTY 



'eriL Ko, lii. in the Appt'l'inte ' ourt. ■''*^;d. ir^.b. 

xourtl; "igtrict, 
■ ?*rch "erm, A. 1-. 'iiflS. 

ierschbsch .rns., ) 

Apjellants. ( 

Vff. ( Anrien!! fro^ the 

lucian 'Jaseout and j a^.^ie { Circuit Court nf 

Cae9''>ut, ( Randolph County, 

Appellee?. ) 



^^ hi f» •WHS an nctinji oi replevin brought 
by appell 'in+f? to rooover two- thirds ol' twenty-live rcres 
of v;heat tlirt had "been Harvested and ready to 
thre&ji. "-he trial court determined the c«pe in 
fMVor of the appellees. Q^ O^^^^-fl **^^^-^.*- ^0*2^- 

It ap! ears from the record in CRf»e 
th?it on iiepteir/oer 3, li>3 3, ^he appeJlee j ucinn 
Ca8eout» riade a mortgage xo the '..t te -..anli or ■ . .-, 
Oilrter ■. Con;T)any, nnd that in siid •I'^rtgagfe wn.8 
included twenty f^cres ol ^ rowing v.'heat. -': t further 
appears from the evidence tiint tlie rsiortcage, while 
it bore clnte of epteiiber l?ft,^ not acknowled^'ed 
or recorded until tr.e lltii of "ctober. -n tl.e 4th 
day oi 'ctober of tne paae ear .'ippelleep cof.iepeed 
a Judgment in favor of anpeilnnte for tre araount 
of JilOl.lO. ..xecution was issued and pl.-'.ced in 


. jsaXlaq'qA 

:o ebiitiit-ow^f 79 von 91 oi Rv+noIIaqvi* xcf 

.9saIXsqqn saj lo -xo/hI 
9"!«?0 ■'. bio 091 r^A) mrstt %tn9aqB H 

b^^)b9^won.•(o« ^on a«w .jhI isJi-a.^ qa to sirJa stoa i'i 

riifr 9iii n : .TocfojD"' lo diLL -i.^i Liina b9:ii^'J9t 10 

fcoe^ali'i'to RSdlXft^or -isa j>i'.'s=^ aaJ to lac/n^o' io yab 

Inuoow 9Tii to r^qcr* lo loval ni in.3a^bij\, b 

Hi f)90:-.icr baB Bb4/«8»ij: phw rjoiJi/oax. .OLXCIi lo 


tiie handa oi tiie rii.eriff on the sane day nnd 
on ctober 6th, 1915, thin execution was ■?er-sed 
by copy upon the a7)peileee, And upon tne earne 
day appellee? fiieci their ecViedule of pergonal 
property nnd in the schedule i? inc}uded 'f?5 -teres 
Ti fcTowint: wjie^t, le?9 rent of nne-third'', ^.nd 
paid eci'.edule nlpo co.itninp the follryrinf; cln.iise; " 
Ahove property belont;,/:^. tn ! ucian Caseout, pnd tvie 
mules, v;heBt and Tva^^ on me under ri'^rtg'^fc e or con- 
tract to be nortEflge pimped on the vheat ap f >on 
rp ecv.Ti". On iiovember .19th the appellantR crused 
the aforeeaid execution, then in the >.ando of the 
ohertlf, to be Deviea Ufon the P.b ^;crec of wheAt 
contained in snid schedule, and on I'eceriber 1, 1913, 
the wheat was eoid at T'ublic auction oy the 'iheriff 
and bid m by plaintiff in the execution pt 107.51. 
it appear? from the evidence thfit «.fter 
the wheat had been out by tiie appellee lucian 
Caasout, and was ready to be tnreehed, tlie appellants 
sued out ti-is writ '^1 re^oleviin and obtaine^^ 
posseesion of such v/heat. Lpon the nakin, of 
•aid schedule the pheriff did not pel net appraieerp 
and the property set forth in the schedule wa? ^^^ 

treated as exempt roperty. — 

It ie contended by cou.-isel for apriell- 
ante in tiiic case that at the time t>-e schedule 
was rade the v.'heat in QU€t?taon had not been ?own 
and that it wr. e poy.ti after the makin<7 of the 
schedule »nd prior to •ct'^ber lltf., and that on the 


bnp xxib Oi''isie 9.1^ rtc -.^- -.. lo abnaii 

h9,-- ^" R»vw noijiroajcs «iiii .otCi ,ii^a :c9ck>^a i no 
J. ...".a j-.J noqu i>«A ,e9dXXe(;(T»« a't.^ no uj -^qoo i^g 

H<5iD:' 3^" ? arij''3a'y«? r.-iii nx hrin^qoKj 

;').":• . ■ . , ,:UWOlii "^^ 

";«?»!.'»Io iniwof f nl ?. .-f^ s^i^t'-o '^<-; Ir- ^luIosriOB bias 

9ri.t hn*! ,Juo^««'^ HRiowI . -ijqnq evocfA 

-no'j t:- •• r'ltT"' i3>r::j ■>■_•• no ■,?.-■ hna J-«sii»r .aafufc 

, ■ ! r-. ■ '1 5 « 
rtc- . 'xofii o«f o^ Joflii 

4-Aai{-v "ic- 7 91 or "ir 3.i:- no-yu i09xv9i ad oj .lllidiiC 

,5IW-!" ,J ■t9ffr'9'»?3 r /Ngios bxPB ni fadni^Jnoo 

.fd.V'J" J" ^^- X-" i.rr)£)A9 »aJ ri 1~:£v'iTi«iq i^' nx bid fana 

Mfi-^-jr 3'.>rrscTrrr s:i* id iuo no3Cf Jbflrf Jn-jfiw 9x1^ 

• injsrX^rrqr , . . <* 6na ,juo»«i»3 

^^'■;i:r';t'f■ . ■ . Jit* 9t::f &uo bsun 

i;-;,. .s^jBSjrr-* sii3iJ9 Iff noxBa9B3oq 

•^pw -> rx*5St.i: J-'X'-'l |-95( xii9qa%q Siij 2)n« 

. v.iTeqcr ■ iqa»>;& Bn b»SB9tJ 

siubsxfoa 94- .<iJ" in itaia 9%mo niiiii nx einw 

nw^^ nae-J ^orr fc.n;-( tTott»9up ai irtfuiw «ri^ 9bflfn aair 

idJt-H nvoa aam Si tncii bnp 
:9ao»toi, oJ T^liq brift 9ftf^0I*0B 

day the schedule •wReioade no sue}, prrrserty ^mp in 
existence "'nd t!-is*t "by reapon of hovinp so^m the 
v/ «?ft«r ti-'C TTiakint: of the ecnedule it heci^rie 
ndditioTial r<ro-erty acquired by appellee and *fis 
therefore suoject to Jt-yy under ar^Dellnnt ' ^ ex- 
ecution, ne p-i^et acquired nr or,»Hrt/, -^nd t),Pt np 
it was levied v-on --<nd sold by tne '-heriff to 
Aypellante trj^t they v/ere entitled lo recn\er it 
in thiR (7uit. "riere i? no teetinony in this re- 
cord ehov;iri£ when the wheat sovm, and no 
proof T-ade upon that question, except the ptate- 
inentB contained in the schedule, -md it ib cDfiirn- 
ed by couneel lor npptlj anti* thnt '\^ the schedule 
contf'ined the cl«?use "above property belong ?< to 
Luci.on Catsout, and the rnulee, v;he^t nnd wn^; on ^'re 
under r;-ortt'f^f:e or contract to be - ortf^ge pln^ced on 
the wheat ae ocon ae sovn ' th«t tViip ■was proof of 
the fact tlvit the •wheat wae bov.t» ofter the raakinfj. 
of the schedule . it ie clear frotr thie record 
that the ;!'rqjierty of appel lee=^=, iic1i.''inf^ the v.Tu-nt, 
wag exepjpt from execution. here tlie court ia 

satisfied that property is exernnt such promTty 
oufrht not to be eubjected to gale u?uier on execu- 
tion, except it is clearly mRde to anT->ear th^t the 
debtor had in some ruanner forfeited his ri^^ht to 
the exemption. 'here ire t*yo clauees in this 
Bchedule, the lirst specify in^ 2c '^cree of growing 
*heat, "less rent ol one-tnird", and the ot}ier is 
the clause above quoted. it rIoo aTipears that the 
mortgage referred to bore date of Tentenber 3st, 
Vow can it be said that xrnder pr-ch rircur-etr^nces 
the words, "or contract to be raortgatve pi need on 
the wheat as soon as scvn' necefparily sjiows tJiat 

Tiiiii.-i:' .ill. L-r- \,J i .^^bH ihbp 

o ./ i » =* i Q«« i i 
'" " x,-j>.^ ia.\S ^JoBXioqqA 

., ..... ,v -t ,v..^-:- bioo 

, . , .. .^ J^ .(J' nofru ebsi!* looig 

ir>9i-io« 9dS ni bentflJ-rtoo 0in9a 

=» + rr rr -,r,-rc 1^, j. Issnuoo ycf bs 

,iu6ftifl-J nfiiou I 

, : _.; : J.- : J .1 
-^ , . .-jtubhiiOB arfi lo 

l^r•.r.t^.:■' sn>o^ n x i)J3ff 'lo}<i9b 
. ItqtSSKfi 9iii 

, .i ..,*-'?:■■. ■■■! 9 89 f" ,i-B9tiW 

B^) , ■ o..^^ biBP ^-^ " ':. lino wc ' 

no baopf^T o ,'-iJ"ir- ocf oi ^oflilnoo io.v arfJ' 

the ■whtwt T'HB not at that tine n^ivm' ""hnt ptate- 
ment "i-ay hs well refer to t e tern;? ct the c^ntrnct 
with the mortgagee tht^t ns pnnn of the rheat waa 
80WI the r.ortg--'K:«? "^ould he placed upon it. "here 
wns no other nroof or te«tiTriony rlfered to rhovi 
that the v/hf-at had not heen !?own, ?=rd if nr.ipellnnte' 
were relying u-non the fAct thnt this no^eat was 
properly acquired after tl.e n.-.Vinf of the schedule / 
then they should hnve phom it to he bo by the evi- 
dence, it was a c'^/^ter cnpnhle rf proof, if that 
•was the fact. Another pt"tet".ent in thip schedule 
to which equal credit should he riven cnys that it 
wae "growinfi ■^vheat". e do not believe tViat appell- 

ants have shown that this pr'-^nerty -.'^af? ''fterv^rde 
acquired with that clearnepe that the Ipw requires 
0uch factn to he proven when it is soiu-ht to de- 
prive n man who is the head of n faT-ily, consist- 
ing: of a wife and five children, of the exernrjtion 
allowed him hy law. 

• '"here i? another reason v/hich ^?e hel- 
ieve to te equally as imnortn.nt why the anpellants 
phould not recover this property and thot i", t^iat 
the sheriff ace er. ted the sclie'iule nade by the nn-nell- ^ 
eep rontFiinint" tnis claviae P-nd he "new v,'hen he 
levied upon the wheat in question thft it ■"vn? the 
saiEe wVieat that appelleer r.'ere peeking: by their 
schedule to hold as exempt r^rooerty, and if the 
sheriff v;ere permitted to levy unon tiiif? exempt 
peyperty end sell it under such circuinetp-ncer^ th.en 

3JSW +J3 4.1'? 3-1J 

Vod-^ nf hSTSV '!Tf' TSi'fJ'O Oft «aw 

air ^- bsTriupojn xr-xaaotq 

"ira Br!. J V! -- V. ' L iprfa y*^* nsriit 

"~ "' ■'" — * •^^Prfe avea siftJI 

■ ' ■'. ■•.' . rz K3 1 -J J r-.j i rti liir' b»t 1 irp oc 

-V. -•'•*- r---.--— - '-^ -* -*0i^'.^ iDlfB 

-/J n J ;»tr 9 J. 

'ori bfuoflf« 

1111 « J nu :) 'i-^-^ 

:»•: jp - "7 

•''■■■■'■■■ ml*. '• 

we think thf^* it wuTd be ^n evnpiort ol the Inw 

v.-hich requireo nn officer holdir.f nn execution 

to de"l fairly ard in uood fnit>- -vritb the devtor 

and not use the rrcvision? of the exen-ntinn ] sw 

to trip or cot^h debtor? vho -ire honeftly in (-ood i/' 

faiti; seeVin.: to nvail theneelvep of the benefit 

ol it? 'irovieion?. ! s>n£:9tnn Vp. Murphy, 51 111. 

Av.p, aasx 108. 'he exemption ]ny?3 ere '^acJe for 

the pujrpoee of pr'^tectint: the v'^ot <='nd unfortunate 

ana ehould bo libers.lly construed ay the cairtp, 

and tjie rights of Buch debt^-TP should be freely 

and fully upheld yithoi't etint or {-rudt^^inft. ' nr- 

riseey V?. . eeley, 36 111., Apn . 556; (<ibr<on Vp. 

The ieople. 122 ill., Anp. ^117; cC-icllan Vb. 

Powell, 109 ill. App. Z22. 

It is said by the -.iu-nrerre Court, "'i-e 
have }:ad frequent occapi'-^n, in onstruint exenrtion 
atatutep, to eay that they are not to be f5trictly 
construed, but euch construction will be plnced 
thereon aa r-^i'il carry out the obvioup nurpopc of 
T.he :efeislature in enactint then, --to protect the 
debtor." j.inlen vs. Kowp.rd, 12*^ "11., ,?bv, 

'^'e are of the opinion t>>it tiii? rercrd 
diacloBcr, that the pronc-rty in question pought 
to be subjected to this? e">'ecution v-as in fnot exempt 
under the lew, and thnt the debtor in ^-ood faith 
eoufeht to protect it from erecutinn, nnd thnt the 


?«*3l»i\ro'5CtT »iii 9»u Soa ban 

ban rioi.toai^snoo ciou- . airrianoo 

9fit -litnan^ at *it/^BlBi^a; SiiJ 


appellantp cu* ht not to te a]lo\>ed to eubject 
ezemr.t property to efiie undex- execution, under 
the circumetn' ces and teptiKony ar disci oped by 
tiiie record. e l€lit\e that sulistsiU.ip.l justice done in the trial ol ti:e case and the judg- 
nent of the lo^er court le- nff irv'-ed. 

Jtot to be rep farted In lull. 

i t7 .. II I . > ' ■ ^^ 

y , / K «^ -. J *-v r *^ o V i 

/ I MitifilX'j.Tqji 
Jfqoiq Jqtaoxa 

. -j«.:i. saw 


/, CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of 
the State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true copy of the OPINION of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in my office. 

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set mg hand and affixed the seal of said Court 

at ML Vernon, this J:^LZ^ day of December, 

A. D. 1915. 





t - - 







Opinion of the Appellate Court ■ 

AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, on the Fourth Tuesday 
in the month of October in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fifteen, the same being 
the 26th dag of October, in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fifteen. 

Hon. Harrg Higbee, Presiding Justice. ^ 

Hon. James C. McBride, Justice. yr ■-^< 

Hon. Franklin H. Boggs, Justice. 


And afterwards, to-wit: On the _. ./^£. dag of December, A. D. 1915, there was filed 

in the office of the Clerk of said Court, at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, an OPINION in the words and figures 
following: \ 









Tern ho, ??6. Apend^ to. 62, 

A r P E I 1. A '!' ir r V i'. r 

OC7C-T5EH T£W;. 19"! 4. 


Vs. ) Ap-'>e<'l, fri^i the Circuit 

J"ohD 3prnfeue, ) Court o.t Saline County. 

A'.riellee. ) 

-cPride^ J. 

Appellaiit brouiiht an «otion of xorciole 
Detjiiricr 'i^ainat ,ij)v>ellee, bef>->re -i .justice of 
the . eaoc of .^aliiie .ounty, /'U/jiist 19th, 19ir>, 
to recover poeeeesion oi certrcn fnrn ]rindp ir. 
tbct Co\^nty, -eiore tVae justice, appcAlrnt re- 
c-.vereci, ana sppellee "^pnenled to the C ircuit 
Court, At the :epte-;.ber -er:, 1914, the c-^use 
if.a? tried "before (^ jury and n verdict returned in 
favcx of appellee, otions for " ne?/ tri"^l and 
in arrest ox jud^imeni v.ere ver-ruled, prA ^xxdg,' 
raecit entered on tue verdict. 

Appellee defended on the frround that he 
irae a toiiant froai year to year, nr\<3, ss such, 
entitled to sixty days not-ice to terrrjnate hi p 
tenancy bef'^re any iction could be maintained 


,Sd .0.: ^bn«»-}.' .^? .0' ^TiTol 

,X.inuoO 9r , at' d/:a .t::: cufoL 


• [(."iXOlC-. iO nC>..j;J' )1' j;Ljl.' -U J 111:, i i -Mli^ 

re 90:*" ■' - <T-' • ^. i ■ - jQr.iij:^.- •x->....':w' :•■ . 

,."iyr ,;i.'wt ^ ,. ..j.Ijs:. lo oor.s tiiii 

rii «£)<mf rrifl'i . j i i. '3 sea acq- lovoosi '••i 

brt' r<. '■T- rrar ...... X j '^ ■ .^oXi&ivqfl I'o Tovc"i 

. '*.-i^» ©iii' no b9i9itx-j 

ooni:sJ.',r :■^■j \;ap ^t- :*> f voniKi^)^ 


flfcainet Mm. 

It ^p-e-^r? frnr the evidence that appiillee 
rented the rremines in quee-tion trrif. J, ';". Potter, 
the t'-.ei-i ov7r!er, ?.-r;etir.e Bbout t]i« ':;i^.d^>s ol August 
1*j08, for 3 period o:' oae year, p'^yin^, as rente 
a portion of the various crops r-vif!ie=>d, dfflivered 
in market. "he nartie? do not a, ret' a& t,n Ju'^t 
M?hen amellee' e ten-;nc,y feetf.aii. At tn& eTr>iration 
of the ^e«r, m'::^f3Tee c-^ntinvec to cccuriy the 
premipep. The cvidcrce lendr to nhov- th'^-t each 
ye-ir, ahout ^tTer'M.i\- tire, Tetter vrould vii-it 
the preriser, -"ind he ^.ni arpellee wculd .-.o ever 
the farm, and deterriine t/Yiit crq^s 3hoiild he cul- 
tivated in the v^rioxis vorti -> n-?. Thie course v:^9 
fol^oved Jn 1U09, i?:() ??nd 3 91?. "he evidence 
tendp to ph'jw th.'-t nn ner It a si rife uitVer hetween 
'■^tter, "ixid '5p!:pl'!ec, nr hf-t'^ecn p^pellani: ^nd 
nppellee waa pver entered into, althcui:h Jotter 
Cliiire thst in 19.11, he :r dieted th^-t he c hoi; Id i!'.T*e rent cut rf a feife acres.' of paeture, 
Appellee inslot? that he did not pnuise to pay 
any "ddlti ^n-jl rent, hut after-ra;-df3 <iid soue haul- 
ing for .^otter, to ndju:'t thie natter. 

It iurtlior e.prearp from the ev;.de;nce 
that on th.ft leth (Ip.y of Aii.ur^t 1900, letter gold 
the farr. in nue?tl"n ';■■> appel lar-t , nd extruted a 
r.'err^.nt.v f^eec thrrefrr, ••;].jc1j v/sr -uly recorded 
the next dr:y. f^n the d'^y t!; is dtecl tvp? r.-uie, 
npp(53jant, by rr, r^x^^l -'^ Teetit^nt lea?eo t^c farr.T to 
Potter, hie gmntor, for oaph rent, for a period of 


or(^ '^-cyou .■^"'^:- ■ ■ 

riOije ■'■ ■' ' ' .: -J -■ -> :m ^ ■c 3.";^ ,'::ij'3 J:;:,9'2q 

T9vn r , blijo*' j-sLl^q- " , ", .sei xisa :, a^-l 

arw 991U' • ■ suci's^vi/ * £ b9v/;v.:"' 

9 an-' ."..'. bav.c ricl 

n99r',^ r ^ or: J-nxlJ trc.-^T o^ ^tr.'^i 

fan ' ■ . -^ 

•X9i-^c . -er/stiit x'jT--? sr.-v 9-3 I ii»-rf i:;;r 

.9n«*=i>:c tc ji;'j;.: x" ^uc trf'Jl yr'? j>vPri 

-Xjj«ff 9C?rs b£© ':.t>':.i;: '■■.^:^ ,' : - ' /Tritibfcfi^fl* 

B b»j^ '*'9(;r ni m.«^ Sri* 

bsbr •• • * ' 9«»fc ',;i-jti.'^'rT:.3«.T 

,9b;-. ,\y.b tx»n »rft 

one /sar; f-t tV\e c^xpiritioa of llu.i j^i.^, a 
fur1,htsr Oi-*?.! It'^asa v?.t8 'Mtere:! ijito Let -een 
•sp,,,«T.]^.rit hr)6 '.otter :? or a ioUi',ir j^.ns: ■> ', the 
swT.e tens-^. \t the exj-ir.-.tio.-j. of the last orpl 
lenPR, ^-.Uf ;3t 17 1}., IJlJ., n rrittan "afiisa for 
one yenr *.yh3 eatg/od into \jC "lae'.i 7 r,t .jr and 
•ipiiellant, 'oot:iniiir'4? Mi.riiot 17fi., :. 91", md tern- 
i n-) t. i ;T^- .\ u pust 1 7 th , I ? ? '"^ . 

-t furtht;r ^u.r-Q'^.r" frov;! the a»I' ene« 
that an ro.itr? oue from i-v.-pclJec fci: £?id premises 
hrive Let=^n •■aid; th.?t svch pa^iserite; v.exe :r,de to 
letter, 'Mid tl'.-'it appellee }^s .-.t vtir ixcot,nized 
nppollF.nt ae hi. Icndlorr!. The <i\idenc*: teds to 
sii-^-w th^it liter : rtter deeded ths l;-!.r.d = f,o appell- 
ant, 3i«2 c mtlnuc:' to Dxr rcirjc; cl'.c s'lne •. ■^ntrol 
nnd <1nnin;-r!n 0%-^^:* the fjir: nn ho had ^/rior to 
tl:.-it tin«. '•.r,pe]leo teptified th-t >xe :r ver Jmew 
of e.;iy ler.elnt' lirtt."7<»»'u a.jpellr.nt end 5' .•? until 
about tlie t.lT.e this ouit waj; rtarteci. 3-: further 
te?tify;d t,>'.ft he never Vn.err of t3ie cl:!if\,Q of owner- 
snip until ?owotiue iri :-ecei:'oer, 1911. :t fur- 
ther f.p^-earr- iv^r the ev".«?5nce, th-t a3 tiiough 
appellant ocqitired tit3e tc tiiir fnr.n Ir 1909, 
he never vicfited the -prernipefr until in .'('gust 
191;^, -ind -lurinti ^'^1 of th-"! Ur.e, never in an^ 
V/P..7 s?u,ht to 5xorcii.'e a:-!,/ c-.MiLrc: or f^vthority 
ovdc citO'se l"nd«, c-yoe;.>t 'c>ir';u-b hiv di-;.- lin£i,3 v;ith 

/■m>P<.!1 laiit Xia«i3ts thit 'iy reas-.i of hie 
purchase from Potter, nnd hio subsequent leasint^ to 


a , 1 .c <>ric 



in', , ili-» ,9t«3X 

. f<r, -rjjMV. Tt45»\ ©no 

ii-joo J moil ij'titdffqii i.oiill 

'^ ^ ■ " .* ' 


I iiu, th'it nppellep "ticcnne i\ sub-tenaxit ri 
InttoT?, on-'v tVi-nt Lir? rir't-t t? hold said nrem- 
ise?, «r?i'ert vi+h thf» written Ippse to Votter, 
August 17th. 191-'. iiis contend: in-, ^vould be 
sound iiMd rH'->nelle»9'" t^nnnc.y befun after r>uch 
fii-i]e: cut v.'^.en fs^pf.ll^nt -rcT-'ired the title, 
appellee r.?? :h ten-^nt in-)csBe5«iw and mrtellant 
rn? ch^rge«»b"le I'fith notice of "h,->tever rii-hte 
lie tyien had. /-r.«»i lee's ••'•83 r-.n interest 
in Uie l"nci jtself. •'^nc? ii his orit.ii'-'^*- lease 
for nnft yesr, by v-irtue of a Lol«5irJi:r over bec^Trie 
n tennnoy froir. yf.nv to yer-.r, he could upon 
th?-t f.r-^un.-? defend ^gninpt «r)y one wbr e rught 
10 dippopgepp hi:?-' v/i tlTiOut notice, "he change of 
title r.'iO ovner?hin woulrl not dejjrive hici of 
thii? deff?n?>-.'? , ' e cannot sanction the pi- tiposition 
th'it n^.pellant nnd ■ cttsr, 7qpA±x hy virtiie of 
eecret lenf?inrp bet?^een thets-jelve -, coj.Ld change 
appel]e«»'!? orij-inal tennncy into Ihn.t of a suId- 
tftnancy, ^ind tii'vxehy suhstit/.te for the legal 
rifrhts which he tcav h?.ve -^.co'aired in eaid prem- 
ise:?, such rirhts as vz-^uld accrue to hin ns a 
suttenant of lotter, under n vTitten le^ee of 
which he never he'ird, -^nd ol the '.mkinfr of -which 
he l^nev ncthini", 

1,st>er cr not ar"^ellee v'ns r^ tenant from 
yenr to yffnr wns r que'stion o.f iact for the Jury, 
■ind '«T!ia in fact, t'-.e only issue tn he deterr.;ined 
in the cnpe. ""he \"?rdict :■•=.« -I'^d +.••*> -nnrov'il of 
the tri^?! court, nnd we c^nrrtt say that it iP eo 


,19J " ' • ;: ryxf . v &ai 

. ■ ■ " ... . -,^, ^j^j^ jaina 

8,til>ji"i 1"-'. e-ai^on rf.ti<» ■aXas^a'iado •.«\* 

tci^fjr 3 idw 9no ^ifp taniiJi^p tiri»l»fa fcnfforj^ Ss^D 
'xo xr: =»-'-'^ T9^ Jon hluvu rrirfe^carftwo bra al^t'i* 

ijnTi +rujr ' ■tllcqrm ion %Q itsi^Oii -• 

, • , -iAi IO?. ♦o't Io ncx#«#Mp £ ■««» ti'^v: o& rnft ,. 

to Li%voi( TP-- JoiJba^T aof' .»«bd ♦•(t ni 


contrary to the evidence, as to require a re- 
versal on trvii giouii^ .-a one. 

it ie uxbed ti*:. t tr.e Court erred in 
i:i\ir\(i the Lhira j.ri»cruc'oi.Oii on "cehr Jf of 
f\ppell«ie, v/i-icli toivl the Jury trjit tlo Ijvr'len of 
prooa as to 4he ttsiuit.' oi '^ua Icnijc -vrii.- ^-.ron 
py-peiiant, tijid rn supporx af ;-;;_,:! '/ojcc *■ '. "n, 
appellant oitus z^^Q O'se oi i D^.c.-jiioirr. V-:. iiniide, 
ei. ;.ijl., liJ -li,, .-]>p. ^i^ . rziS C-, idence in 
t'xiHi cijje srorfed ti.;it ...citcr, ti e ovricr, "a* in 
posseaaion o. tne prsLiise? tiicrt; 2\'-'j~1visi on the 
29tii OJ August, j9Qi, ari'.; on tl..'.^ dn^; )Krped tc 
plaintiii"s, i or ■■ tsrii* bCoiii? ine J'i.ra;r.ry Ipt, 190:^. 
in Jacefuter l\)>Ci, ullc-x .he .LaV-ir-i. of yLiintiff' e 
leaae, tut oeicrt tijey aad Letr 'Jct int^ ■oos?-^fiSPion, 
the deiend&nts in fronie i;^ ;!j;t.r obt: ;:r ed ypsesaion 
ol the Ifeaaed jrti.afe?. Inder tie circvr-if'tnncee, 
vhfere t/iovi/M, the >^r-urt i^cld tL'=-t it did not 
ufevoivo upoi; the jj^uintxila l". pro\e th- absence 
Oi a po3*ec«sor;>- ra.i,ht ^i. t'.e d.<?fi j.-xr^rt?. The 
facts ill tiie case jxteu, and i "i t'lc o?;?c at "bar entirely diiiereat. liura ij)po''loc- v."\t9 a tenant 
lawfuiiy i.n possession at the tiri« a-.jpp] 'Irint ac- 
quired the preuiite*. If ne ~:z:Te permit "ed to 
iioid over, h<» "bect-'^^e a tenant Cr d: year tc yenr, 
axid as suoh entitled tv notice t'^ .aiit. Appellant 
did net uiake ou^ h pxi.;'.- ii:.cie C''!?e b;/ :*atroducing 
his deed *ro:.u otter, and ni^^ v;rittc?n T(?-f3e to 
A&tt«r, together witit hJ!.? dcc"nd for poosesaion, 
i^e Viae xevn.. ixed to t.*"' fuitJ^er, f;nd ?hcv' af fimative- 
ly by hie evidence that whatever rir^-t? np-pellee 


fic i • ' ■ 



• nc . Sri--'. 

iij .ydl £«»qqr, 

'- J.0 J«rXiS(yqi8 
r issaesoq 


■jUJ to 

, .Oivi 9-1 ddJ 

, .ofc Hod 
js tti bilk, 

At iilli 
■ , , , ..-1 .• t»3. .! ... 

«s»H^Tn - i^»''-97«aw .< ; .' »ornibiV3 -sx*. ■\t«3' \;I 

had in (? •• rer.isee Ifid in ir.ct terr : mted, 
tlie le."»e being oml, he we3 re uired tc eJ!~ 
+e>.ili?h the temp r>l the ?ep»f»e, ?c tli-t by 
kno-"<inf. t/..e terrne oi" the cnntr.-^ct by -which 
appellee held the riremiRe!?, the Co\irt and jury 
could determine vihetJier or 'not th-Jt contr' ct 
hnd tenainated , noccrding to the terns thereof. 

"*e thin]? the in9tru.ction compiJined of, 
as applied to the f^ct? in thl?" caee wee nxciper, 

luijrhteen i netructi "rp tendered by appellant 
v-ere ref V' eed hy the trial c-urt.and tnig le aeoifened 
a<? err!?r. j our inf tri'Cti ■^r.p v.'ere t^iven for app- 
ellant, F>nd four fcr nppellee, nnd v/},en consider- 
ed re a perie? the ,1ur\- v.'erp f?>lrly instructed ae 
to the l=5.r/ of the c^sc nr^-licr^ble to thciaa 
iepue involved, viz: wp." ap-nellee a tenpnt fr-^ia 
yenr to yearV 7f he wr« not, «.rT)ellant v/,-*© 
entitled to recover. )f he wh,'?, p-vr,eiiett waB 
e;ititled to the verdict, '.'he tcBtinony rmd ex- 
hihite in this case hive oeen ,'ibi3trocti?d in 
ten p'>.-'-«e, ^nd ^.-^pellant ' s refui?ed inetructions 
QOC'- oy seven pagee of the abptrnct. -n vie-w 
of the !?ifipl9 issue submitted -^ the Jury, there 
vrq? no oocnsi-'in v/hatever to hurden the trial 
court vjith the duty of coni=iiderinfe and ^oaasing 
upon puch a maws of instructions, hclicvin^^ ^i» 
ve d 1 , thfi t the i n et n; c t i "^n s <• i ven , c o -v e r the 
cpse, nnd fully '•re^fnt the ip^^ue? ve deem it 
unnece^eary to di:^ci!e? the refused iri!=«tructi ens. 
The nractice ol Bubimitti2ifl l^rga numbere of in - 


xd : ■ ' 

dot. "- -■'-■i :4fixv'0n:{ 

.los-uuii* s 119^ •xl* 0^ gni/vtooon , hftj^jonime* br.ri 

J-nftlls^ffp v., i;3ia...s;-" v. n- i-^o;;r.f -3.: i nsa^fn-jx-^ 

"l^b I'ii'j.i nti.-(\T bnr. .99T t%q^f^ 'xot ttnr tiii ; .JiTiTrs 

• ' ' - Tirr Off 1 " 'T'.^v o;t tnsx 

■ -- " .j.:^M9v o':t oj- ^•>^JJ:*^» 

?vr..i 9Sf.o cirfj Pi- f,?J:<:firf 

JA ;;d^.l ifi'c/ue auBfljt »IqrfJ:5 9d3 I0 

1. .„. r> .- .i.-o-iu:-!" 0.* T9V9*JBrfv? nr.t«n3oo en sew 

•'•^' '^^ >/^ ^lebi'snoo io ytch ')'+ ri} iff ixuoo 

-^ ' .... .; arf* :frf«»»97 • -rr-'i bafl .taao 


t;tructiv:*-.ii U]. on 

le is-^iies l'.m Icon .:t:;;ent- 

tx.'in tc aid t. d jury ir their d^l iTfcr^t i ^n», 
(CLicftfo City /. '■-0, Vc, J-nrtt -k:, .C-^ Ii:., 
j'pp., 164. i' 

It v.rytr-Ti lV.rt ir vrilirii. Uf 1 y t- Ju'^j:;- 
nent ir iri* c-csc, t-.e cj£-.;1: n-'dt. ?• -.ipt-r/e, rnd 
i/;.rr.eaU ci v.?:jtiri£ Ui: *':.£ J uc» t ■'f tie Court, 
cf'i" Vy ti.e Crurt, c. itered. -■, J'jr:rni<5nt 
tiu t the ?-,ppef.l in tlii? c,?-ee "be ••Mori'i^ce^ , ^nd 

str^ckiiji fr-u t'.e dockst 

ex'T -r -vp:: -ao^ 

dipcv^vered until .:rter t},i; cl'56e of f":--. tern at 
wi:-:ic.i tilt cnjfe vat' tric'J, -irS. Knpnre^^tly, not 
until ti.f rcc Td I'or tliie f/.per^l "rr -rv; -\red. 
•hen the rfietoVe v.t'.s diccDv. rcC , caur-e"! for 
ftpj^eJlee ^^ve xjotice to rrje^lrtr!!, .''.:-i'' ,?rt:?rcd 
hiu fftDtion tt ("crrect tl'ic record of the judfrient. 
Vi.lg j.otion a^lCT.ed, and -t^iO rrcorc' "f the 
Judeir4ent corrtctt;^, rur.c x;rc tvnc "B rf '•he ?3rd 
dr.y of fc'c'--rber, ISl^. 

Thie -ittior. of ti.e ^rvrt is rrrl^red ae 
err'.5r, r.jiptllDKt ir-rrisiifii.: tli- t f;« the '.crtr. .^t 
•.',xich i' jvc^.^-cnt vmr c:r.t<>r<-c! j-.^/i rdj--.:rned, 
trie crui-t kyna prY.-erlers, i^.t a fi;.ture tcrr- to in 
<iny viee cli.-.iij-^e, rr.o'.iif^, or \:';t>nd itr jv-^r'nent. 

it ip n. .-juificiant n-Tfjcex- to thi'' cl'iira 
to eny thp.t the ir^srt neitlo<^r chnritred, -odified 
rr p.r.r.ndcd itfs judfccnt. h-it the Covxrt did was 
tn correct t/.e rgc vrd of itc ^xtinxr,*.. hen it 
T7a9 brought to tl.c attention of tine Crv.rt, ■l:iy the 

,J-i . ■ ■■ . 

•ic. . '■ ■ ■ 

ni "" , »n »X*L£rwiq- maw iXisos wii 

ip-irlo ,■ ..iici'Mift ii ai i-l. 

mntjor fijed, t> at in .-; r te r i n^' up thi? Judgir.ent, 
tv.e clerl-- hnd •-■nfii^, -■ ritt5te>-e, ?o ty^'it t^-e record 
of t/ne ,1ud,-<r;ert '-no irrcrreot, the Lourt not only 
p.^«po3?cd th'j nov-er, 'jut it r/as itj duty to »rder 
t'le Clerk to irr.end nr-i correct tj.e reoord of the 
Judgiijent, fro tJi^t tJie jud4:,';.ent 2)'^ono"anccd iDy the 
C^nurt vTul.i be cnrroot'y ??'i thcron. (Church 
et. a,l.. Vs. :-;r.g;ii9h, ei lll., 44?; .'nefel Vo. 
the yec-nlp, 137 -n.. ':n.2: ^jolter, c>t. ra . , V8. 
Ko-»lo>e'^i, ?11 '1*; , . 79. ) 

In re?idi-f t"r:e ter"*!.! ncny in case 'v?e 
find thct appellor,.'; teptified -\2c:.f^\ rhen he v/ent to 
eee appellee jn Auru-t, 193?, he took vith hi'i a 
!''r. ".elands, v.iTOTi )e "Stated to ?ippellee, iiad rented 
th« placi? for t)is fin?viing yeor, nnd the noject 
of t-'ia vi^jt s?eer.?» to .-i ive Ve'*r. tn gee ? f 
arrnnf enenta for porf!«??Baon t-i ol^^nds could be 
r.adf?. '.'.hile thin rojnt hap not hern r'sJeed in 
the "brief ?> filed in the case, it vrrT;:ir', -eea to be 
decisi^t of n^y r l^^ht -'P apvellant to recver 
po?s«8?ion. If j-ic } nd in Inct Jet-r-ec 1-^ . olands, 
he, -'olJind;-, wn? entitled to ro''ees!?i''r!, ':nd not 
ap-^ellant, nnd on t'-'it groi;nd olcne, rp-^ellant no 
ri:Sht to 'aaint^dn thi? «?uit, or tc recp'i/er poso- 
ession. It d -en n«t -^-openr thi>t ;jfter diffi- 
cn"! tis^ mrnpf- cv<fr siettinr pogf?e?!iei on, th"t 
AOl-?r.di» rele-^eed '.pr^ellprt fror. 'li? c^ntr^et, or 
th"t t}:e lpn.?e letvt-en t-iori wr*" ■■■jtian-Jone- or 
re5?cinded. If t> ii- ip trie, -ol-^rd^ "'ne tJi© only 


Mo 31 9.1-^ /^is/r) 9 AS 

rfoiua'^)) ./j.-y-:^ -.u-' i . v ." \, • J oar, v. op »<*..i)fjJow frucO 
. ■" ■ ' ' ,-'»jfc£8fTw: ,?. ■; ,.:■? .^9 

.■.-•ia«^»N'^og TCi pc^^90^?v■l/'rtt'i« 
'Si5ff^n£0fr eiti^ •>Xx^l.'' .wbaa 

..;:.;." ^' -' -ist^TC ■^«R T:o 3vJ:?tD9t) 

. - .... ,J'ni;Ii;«G;fJi 

. , . J -, ... ,. .... . ;;i> Tuo 

... ... . . '.;x ; ;'i.t.I'>'TCf<' bas.ceoCfi'T e-fc.TRlo^ 


on I.'-' 

, ;.. 

— «'2 . 

., .-.-SI '■ 

-fi T^.i' 

person, so lr'n£ ng Vio V"i^e Pt~-i. ytI + v, nr-r.e] 1 ant 
vt.c coul'l m-lrf^W r>r prti.^r for -^ -rno?e-:->n, 

Vf. Vilron, l-K^ 1 1 "J . , '"•"S r C '>bb Vp. "'fyr He 

i'or tlie rePfon^ i rdic- tr-d! , the ,n'd£cment 
cl tt.c Circijt Coi-rt i? -iffjrren. 

i^ot to be reported in full. 


^n"?;- . ^i^t'tolfr i - iiT? if-y'r -iri* to ■<• 

b9ftOii»% stf oJ- ;fc/i 


/, CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of 
the State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true copy of the OPINION of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in jng office. 

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set my hand and affixed the seal of said Court 

at ML Vernon, this ./:i^..,,-^ day of December, 

A. D. 1915. 


Clerk offth^\Af)pellate Court. 



\ Opinion of the Appellate Court 

AT AN APPELLATE COURT. Begun and held at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, orfthe Fourth luesday 
in the month of October in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fifteen, the same being 
the 26th dag of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred an§ fifteen. 


Hon. Harry Higbee, Presiding Justice. 

Hon. James C. McBride, Justice. 

Hon. Franklin H Boggs, Justice. 

And afterwards, to-wit: On the 

THOMAS |. PASLEY, Sheriff 

dag of December,^. D. 1915, there was filed 

in the office of the Clerk of said Court, at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, an 0PINI01% in the words and figures 


March Term, 1915 


19^7l.A. 199 





Term Ko. 28. In the Appellate Court. Agd.Ko.l4, 
iourth District, 
l-.arch Term, A.D.lQlo. 

Henry Hues, 

J, W. lord. 


Appeal frotT> the Circuit 

Court of i'ayette County, 

tcBride. J. 

It appears fron tne record in this caee 
that appellee v/as the ovmer oi the north v/eet 
quarter of Sec t. ion 35, Towiehip 5 JSorth, Hange 
one west of the T/iird i-rincipal I eridinn, in iay- 
ette County, lllinoie, subject to a mortgage x or 
the amount ol (2650.00, and that F. h. Kill wp.p 
the owner of one eif'ht room brick cottage situated 
on lot ten in '^ro^rdon Addition to the city of : oores- 
ville, Indiana, subject to n mortgage of ::1cjOO.OO. 
That prior to the 13th of December 191?, appellee 
had told }3urru8 a Huee, real estate agents at Van- 
dalia, Illinois, that if an opportunity presented 
itself to sell or trade hif? land to let him know. 
That the appellee lived in ^t. Louis, ; iseouri -md 
hill lived at looresville, Indian'-^. Shortly before 
Deceiiiber 13, 1912, urru? and i.use communicated v^ith 
Appellee by telephone and advised him th^t };ill 
had this property for trade and explained to him 


( ,88ui T^ina-i 

( .inRlLsqqA 



.I .abliS-oi 

i^sar cifton 9rt) io lan-tfo adJ^ asw ssllaqqe JbiI^ 

D.;)r»RH .ii^iovf 5 qliigrwo? ,d£ nol* ooE "io 'i9SiBup 

-X«i ni ,nfli&it9 > Xsqioniai JtrtxriT sriJ lo teeft 9no 

•tor sasa^TOfl! a ot }09lcii.i9 .sxonxXXI ,\:^nijo0 9^;t9 

9^if XIX.X .H ,^ itBii* on p. .OO.OfidSJ to Jnuoflw sxiJ 

b»Siiijit9 93r- + + ''<'^ -JDiicf aioo*i ^rf?4i9 gno lo ignvro 9ff^ 

•s'-iioo'^ to x-^i' " ■' j-r-nfeA nofcaoiT nx asi ioL no 

.00.00311 If) a^i J- * ' .. ..J ^ost*^"^* .Bnflxbnl ,9X£lv 

9'*IX9qq.Q ,<?XtfX Tscfffisoaxl lo lilSX 9rf;J oJ- loiiq isdT 

-.:r,v *A s^na^B 9^si^99 tfl9i ,9aijH -ij BifTiucC blo^ bAti 

59^rt999iq x,Sia!jSioqqo no Ix issiii ,BioniXXX .ciXcb 

.wr.nal ciiii SitL oi bn&l is hi 9bBti to XX98 ot tLsB^i 

bnr tiuo9Bl'' ,sxuoJ •J'Si nx berxX 99XX9qcrfl adi i&rlT 

aio'rscf Yf*'*0''f^ .i*nflibfiZ , 3Xixv89ioo.\l Js bsvxX XXiu 

rf^i-v bsi^otnuBuooo asuH b'm ruiiu"- ,SIGX ,51 TBcfiii909Cl 

Lltd if-dS aid b9«9xvb^ fans 9norfq9X9^ \,d 39XX9qqA 

Olid oS banxBXqx* brrp ebsit tot \i'i9ao'tci eidS barf 


the conditions. Appellee tnen told Burrus a. i ues 
to go and see the property and niake the trade. In 
the conversation over the telephone it was explain- 
ed to appellee that the coniraission would be three 
hundred dollars. After appellee had told i-urrus 
6l Huss to make the trade, if the property wae satie- 
factory upon examining it, Burrus c^ Kuss, in the 
name of iiord and ne agents of iord, entered into a 
written afereement with T . 11. Kill, the owner of the 
Looreeville property, rmd agreed to make the excb.ange, 
specifying in said agreement the deecription of the 
property, the conditions of the trnde, that each 
was to furnish the other with an abstract of title 
and make conveyance within ten days fror. tiie date 
of the agreement. Said agreement contained the fol- 
lowing clause, "Brokerage fees? to he paid ae fol- 
lows, towit: party ol the first riart (:; .'x.I-vill ) 
to pay Burrus o.. huss 4250.00". After having ex- 
amined the property and on the 15th of 'eceniher, 
Burrus u Kiftes wrote appellee a letter ndvifinfc him 
that they found the property at J.ooresville really 
better than expected and advised him that they hnd 
closed the deal and enclosed p. deed for him to ex- 
ecute to 1. }:. I ill. Vhe deeds wore execi ted and 
after the trade was clo??ed appellee not knowing 
that the contract entered into with iiill contained 
a clause for the payraent of fees by Hill i:ave to 
BusBUs o. Kuss a note for .201.65, dated January 
1, 1913, which was the balance due on the contract 


-^tJ 9v{i «»Jl - sa'J 998 briB oa o^ 

-nlmlqKo : • ■ i dnoiJq»I»J' saJ i;tfl8'x«rnoo sat 

99iiii 9d bEuOTr noiseliscBOO Siil ^eiii selXsqqA ot 1>3 

BunuH. bioi bm ^sTXaqqjB is^lA .ci«'XXob l)9'ii)nur( 

,11 j^ninijasxs aoqu xxoSoBt 

'.£)istfi9 .bto'i Jto 8^n»ii^ aa l)n« Moi to sm^n 

omro grf* ,XXxiL . . di iv iaeiB»»'t^ nditliw 

,93ruiaox9 9iit »>fsis o:f beota^s fani? ,\;i"X9qoiq alXxvae-xooiJ 

orfcf lo nol^qiio^^ab 9il;t laAmsaags blse a>| a(ii?^)io«qB 

039 iRciS ,9bflTl 9riJ- Ic snoillbnoo srfi ,Yi"X9qoiq 

afd'it lo^dsnl8(fB ais di tw t*£iSo 9sit dmXntut at ajiw 

{^ motl i^Yi'^ a»i atf(^Jtw aonfi^^Tnoo aXBci baa 

^n9m>9r^» bti^' .inasoB&i^ 9tii to 

^bI 9'ii»t9:io'xSL' ,99UBlo snlvoX 

[liz. jisq Tiiwo* ,awoX 

. OO.OdSi as jZIuS. >c«q oJ 

,i9rfia909n io ii#flX axW ao boo \,i^9qoiq 9ciS b9nissm 

9aXX9qqr. 9io'im aauH ^ auniuS 

\; sliivas^ i4Jr-i9qoTq 9dt bauot x»rf^ iBdi 

xvbfi bflA ba^oaqxa amtii la^^acf 

^ol i>99ii H baeoCong bns XB9b 9ril baaoXo 

bxifi bdJ Tbssb 9ii'^ . . oi 9iuo9 

^9l£9qqB b98o£o saw 9bBXi »dS •X9itB 

SsiUAln 'fii b9t9ta9 tOMltnoo 9dt fndi 

a99l lo ia9at^Mq 9di io1 98jjbX9 b 

" " . , - " • ■-- s 

c-j^iijoeL bajcii ,3d. : -^ aauH ^ ai/aauS 

ioMJnoo srf* n^ DHJiiXiic/ aai «Air rfoirfw ,«xex ,X 

after deducting some paymentr? that had been made 
"by Appellee to Burrue <j. hues. This note was en- 
dorsed by Lurrus & Hues to appellant, and if? the 
n-»te sought to be reccvered upon in thi? c^se. 

It was the contention of appellee in the 
trial below that the note was void lor the reason 
that Burrus 61. liuse had contracted with him and 
also with } . ii. hill for the payment of commissi o'.e 
upon this transaction without his knowledge or con- 
sent. Upon the trial oi the case the plaintiff in- 
troduced his note and rested. The defendant then 
introduced the testiniony of lord, reciti';{r the facte 
substantially as above set forth, and the contract 
entered into and prepared by BuBrus 0^ Kuss as the 
agents of iord, with ?. h, hill. 

The appellant contended, first.- That 
Burrus oc huss were acting as brokers and did not 
sustain that relation with appellee as to prevent 
them from receiving cormaissions from the other 

party. Second,- That the conanissions stipulated 


in the contract above referred to were not in fact 
coming to them but v/ere being collected by them 
for one John Janett whora Turrus U Huss claim was 
the Agent and representative of hill in this trans- 

The appellant presented propositions of 
law submitting these questions to the determination 
of the court, which vere refused, and judgment en- 
tered against appellant for costo. Upon the first 


99lf9qqA \d 
, --t '- .' -~* 9£[^ noqli ,}tt9B 

. i i •. . •& H ■ - 

iiu^ :»Jon aid bftoubcx^ 

d-98 aivo''- "• ''.flBxinBJftrfuQ 

=.30^.. ^w- afl-iviebdi soil maxii 

,.j.„ j.iii^iitKirjje wiil 
. a_j. ilotrfir ,;>'iuoo li^l to 
■■■■J .tnr, ri?jrrTi? ianiKua boTJ,? 

proposition as to whether or not they were "brokergi 
and as such entitled to collect fees from "both 
parties, we think the evidence clearly ehove that 
they did not sustain this relation to appellee. 
That appellee had constituted thera his a£ent, had 
given them the power to examine the property and 
determine wliether the trade should he made or not, 
and under such circximetancee they clear] y could not 
come within the rule or within any rule that would 
penait them to contract for commissions with both 
parties to the transaction; their duty did not 
consist simply in bringing the paritee together 
but were entrusted v/ith a discretion as to the vnlue 
of the property, and the holding of the court was 
proper upon this proposition. 

The next proposition submitted, f>s to the 
right of appellant to introduce evide-nce to prove 
that the amount of money specified in the contrnct 
tobe paid to Burrus <*• Muss was not in ff^ct lor their 
benefit but was for the "benefit of John Janett. 
The rule of law governing the ndcissibility ol tes- 
timony is that as between the parties to the con- 
tract, where it is definite and certain, parol evi- 
dence cannot be adrr.itted to vary the terras of the 
contract but this rule does not apply to third nar- 
ties or where it is necessary to introduce in evi- 
dence such contract, v/here the action is between 
third parties. Greenleaf says, "The rule under 
consideration is applied only in suits between the 
parties to the instrument, as they alone are to 


=?i(»!r. -:n - 1 itoqOTQ 

'fT9 rioun 9B bnn 

otb \9iii 
jllaqqjs tucif 

::i.*':t'*rt3j')''.i.o nou6 isino l>nB 
f)r<;f iiii nidivx omoo 

f>9*ewic^n9 919W d-i/rf 
, \:tTi9qoiq eiii to 
. 'C£*<9CC|r©Trf 9tli& aoqu T»qOlq 
: xsrr dd? 

J^^ifflJbs 9cf ionnso sonsb 

, QMTtaO ■:. 

llqtfja mi aoiii>'S9blanoo 

"blame if the writing contains what was not intend- 
ed or OEits that which it should have contained. 
It cannot effect third parties v/Lo if it were 
otherwise might be prejudiced hy thinfcp recited 
in the writing contrary to the truth through the 
ignorance, carelesenees or fraud of the parties; 
and wiio therefore out,ht not to be precluded from 
proving the truth however contradictory to the v?rit- 
ten statemente of others". Greenleaf on Lvidence, 
Vol. 1, 3ec. 279. i'he evidence in tliie case, hov/- 
ever, shows that Burrus o. Husp v/rote this af reeiaent, 
signed it for the appellee and in the appellee's 
name, and as the agents of ajjpellee, and knev? the 
contents of it and were in a position to knov; v/he- 
ther or not it was stating the truth and to know 
whether or not they or any one else might be ■'prej- 
udiced by things recited in the writing contrary 
to the truth, and while the at;reeiuent was in form 
a contract between lord and Hill, yet it viae in 
fact a contract made according to the ideas and ex- 
pressions of BurruBii. Hues, without the knowledge or 
influence of appellee, it also appears that those 
present at the time of the v;ritin£ of this contract 
were Burrus -x huss, hill and Janett, nnd if it was 
being inserted for the benefit of Janett ^^e can 
see no reason '.vhy the name of Janett might not hnve 
been used instead of ~ the name of ISurrus <j- Huss. 
The trial court heard the testimony of 
these witnesses, saw their conduct and bearing while 


. ba 
^»»11» toaaBO il 

'<;TBainoo -^niStiw arfj nx 
saanaeala^xjo .donfiiohal 
^x{;^uo eT0l9rt9xli o>i«r baa 

, ^:. ,1 .loV 

iud i^jsd^ sworfa ,i9V9 

jiij "zol ;f£ bsnaxs 

i>XXsqg,f 93A 9rfJ 9a btiB .sjaan 

979W bfui *i '10 'iins^noo 

Xaiit * •S9iiJ-9riw 

ax tsajxosi SjnixW- x*' b90ii>u 

i«9TaB 9di 9lxxlw bflij ,iiiu-t* 9rf;f of 

broi n99'siiad ioaiiaoo n 

•xo r^nxDiooojR &bam toaiiaoo m tOBt 

ruorfcfiw ,ssu:i ^axrciud lo anoiaa9iq 

.99ll9qqB io 9on9JjI1nl 

^ni^xtw eri^ lo smx^ 9xi^ Ja Jnaasiq 

"9XIBL boM Xtti. <iiuQ. ataw 

Jll9n»(S adi aox i>e;ti99ni anxscf 

- 9ffiAn sd^ x^ noBsai on 99a 

'Ciiiasj 9x1* b-XBd^i ^fauoo latt& adT 

"Oixbnoo liOiVi WAS .saeasnJxw 989rfJ" 


upon the witneee stand, and was "better able to 
tell whether or not this? ysae an effort upon the 
part of Burrue •* hues to collect cornmissions 
from both parties in this transactione than v/e can 
tell from thie yecord, and ne ).ne evidently found 
tliat they were endeavoring to do so and we are not 
dispo0ed to interfere with such finding. The 7>rop- 
oeitions of law submitted to the court enbodied the 
queetiong that hn ve been decided and deteiTained 
herein, and we nre of the opinion that the court, 
under the circumst-H nces of the co.?e, correctly 
deterrsined the propositions of lav? submitted. 

iindint; no reversible error in this record 
the judgiuent will be affirmed. 

Hot to be reported in full. 


or slcfa le^^stf 9aw bna ,to«73 aaan^iir 9dS noqy 

9no2«8tirtBio..» i 08 Iff :3q 

rtRO vff itariJ HTioit9»9atfXj ti 9»xJ'T«q xi*oa moiTi 

bttuvl x.tin9blvi ««if »'i bnn .oTcooai •iriij otoil lJi9i 

^on si'i 9w bfis 08 ob oi aninornsbn* eittw'xsd^ SmAt 

i '"' ^' *^ '. '- i i -* ■-- - ' ' - - -^ ■ ■ ■'' 
-qotcj s ibnii xfojJB rf^iw si9"ki»*ni o* b^m^qtlb 

■ ■■ ■ncvfl.- 

^dt bQtbotin& tnubo 9di o* bsJ^ioitfos vtrI lo ittcttXeo 

b^cilKnoS^b btin bBbto9b a©8cf :^As «noil«»up 

V rtoonoo ,©=ifio orU- lo e»on Ki'smixoajto »rf* ^ebnij 
.b»^t£mcfua trsl 1:o snoiiiabqciq scU' l>»nJtarx»i0Jb 

.bODiilla »u xiiw ^nduiabut «rfi 

.Hut ni b9f'xcsq9'x ad oi i-t^'d 


/, CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of 
the State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true copg of the OPINION of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in mg office. 

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set mg hand and affixed the seal of said Court 

at Mt. Vernon, this M^..,,..rr^ dag of December, 

A. D. 1915. 






.-- ^ ^ // 

Opinion of the Appellate Court 

AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, o% the Fourth Tuesday 

in the month of October in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fifteen, the same being 

the 26th dag of October, in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred andi fifteen. 


Hon. Harrg Higbee, Presiding Justice, 

Hon. James C. McBride, Justice. 

Hon. Franklin H. Boggs, Justice. 

And afterwards, to-wit: On the _.. 


dag of December, A^ D. 1915, there was filed 

in the office of the Clerk of said Court at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, an OPINION |n the words and figures 

19r I.A. 211 






Terci lio, 32. In the Appellate Court, j^genda l«o,68. 
lourth I'istrict. 
Larch Term, A, D. 1&15. 

Nicholas Gill, • ) 

Appellant. ) 

Vs. ) Appeal txoin the Circuit 

John Gill, 3r., ) Court of terry County. 

Appellee. ) 

KcBride^ J. 

This ie a euit in forcible detainer, 
"broufc^t by John (iill. Or., appellee, to recover 
possession of eighty acres of land in Ferry County, 
lllincie, which Ylq claims lias been unlawfully with- 
held from him by his son I'icholas Gill, the appell- 
ant, "he Jury found that appellant v/ae guilty 
of unlawfutly withholding possession of the premises 
in question and judgment was rendered in favor of 
appellee for possession of the paid premises and 
his ^oste. 

^^' It appears from the evidence that on Oct- 
y ob«r 2X, 1904^;. rt pod - to je purchased the preTaise? in 

- r- — . '' ■ — ' 

question from one 7:i]liarc I-cConnell for Cl, 550.00. 
onie txEie the follov/ing L'arch npp rfll on t^ t o ok 
possession of said premises at the request or vutb 



isoO 9.t«XIsqqA *dt nl .SC .orl arxsT 


( . infills qq/v 
liu-oi^u sncr 12011 i/^aqqA [ .a/ 

.Y^nyoO x'i'xa'^ 'i« ^'scwoO { ,.iLi ,IXiO rulol, 

( .esiXsqqA 

• L .sx)iiao;I 

,vJ-njJOwJ ^Tasi at &ft«X lo s»io*5 ^^^ii^is 10 noxeeasaoq 

"di tn x-tlulwBXrru nsscf Buti amii^Xo 9*"{ doiiiw .exonxXXX 

•'£L»qq» 9ti& ,L£tii saXorfaxH noa axn ^^d rairf cio-xl bXaxl 

^c*Xii. njBXXsqqa ^bxIcT bxiuo"! v;ii;t a^*-' .^Ab 

«a«xcra-. ;i:a«98eoq ^nxfeXo-fxli-iw xliu'viisi£au to 

I0 "XOTB^ nl b9i9ba»'s. etw d-naxsabut, bn^: noi^e»up nl 

bn6 e9«ti:ai9iq bifte »i1d' lo iiK;i:ae9e«oq to'x aoXXgqqa 

.aJ'aoa Bid 

-#oO «o Jrari* 9on»biv» »d* moil ei«9qqc *X 

ai 9B9tm»tq 9At 6««BrfoijLrq 9i »f r t 9< rq c \j_^Qei ,XS 'xocfo 

.OO.Oae, IXsnno^oil fliaiXHT ano oioTtl noij'asup 

3(ool^tftiH.tittirftfr inx.voXXbl 9ri^ 9ai^ aniol^ ^fltat? 

liiiv TO *89i-'p9T: 9x1^ &B »93l£39aq biss to rtoi869»aoq 


oi !*tiM>i 1jri3, -«*!-?.« llui It claimr the 

' the consent oi a ja fi^-A re-e, -a^teiluiit claimr that 
the arrangeisent cade "between hire and hie father 
wae that he was to rent the place and j.-ive -\-is 
father one- third of the crone, if the latter 
needed the sa^el ^ n pr a l ^ a r was to keep up 


the taxes^ "^hat i^ppffl 1 apt v/as to have r^ossession 
of the oljice as long as "vfi^il"lji° lived, and i t was 

I to belonfe to a]i]! ■lloifLt* Jflaat he v/ent on the place 
under this arrant;ement,made valuable improveraents 
in exTieotjincy of future owner si. ip, and lul filled 
hie part of the contract. •'■ly.ipBiiiie o n the eari w 
tjL.iij claiml^hat the relation between tlie parties 

( wag that of landlord and tenant; that the tenancy 
f was one from year to ytar, coiiigiencang on the liret 
day of larch in each year, and providing for n crop 
rent. J This oauee wag tried in the court uelov; Dy 
the appellant upon the theory that he procurea this 
land from his father, the appellee, for a fcood and 
valuable coneideration, made improvements thereon, 
and by reason thereof he wae ri^itfully in the 
possession of the lands, '"he appellee tried the 
case upon the theory that he rented the land to the 
appellant froiayear to j^ear, for a crop rent, and 
that hie time expired upon the first of j arch of 
each ^ear, and that he was a tenant from year to 
year. I-i^*j'©n Tiececiber 11, 1911, JEq& pellefe ser- 

ved a written notice upon appellant to vacate soid 
rreniisea on arch 1, 1912, which he failed to do. 


.. , t^ --- eidS tsbnu 

. , ... - ^._ , -_..i- s'Xjji'u'i io \oaBto9qx» nx 

■-if ^6qui SnaLl^qqie dd^ 

.ladSBl aM aortl bdtt 

; jrft lo oolaeseeftci 

■sd:- :)d iadi xio9iiS 9di aoqit e«Bd 

■v;; 3or:tcn nsJ"* Itw a bnv 


••■^ > 


That thgreof ter thi s j gu i t v?jL£__inatituted . ) Upon 

the trial l aai oy thf - ^ i- pp ei log objected to the intro- 
ductioii of evidence unon the i:;art r>i the wiufeiinu b . 
t o the oii^ » t that he purchased this land under a 
verbal contract and had made imp ro vera eqts? thereon, 
becauae it was the making of ^.r\ equitable defense 
in the suit at lav/. The court, hov/ever, edrnitted^ 

i^hij evidence over the objections of the app e lloo , ; 
and notwithstanding the ad'i.-ission thereof the jury 
returned a verdict for the ;ippellec. ^o that ae 
we read the record, the only queotior. left for de- 
termination is, Did the ap-nollee rent this land 
to the appellant from year to year, and did the 
relation of landlord and tenant exists If so, 
then appellee v/as clearly entitled to recover, 

f The evidence wae conflicting, but it appears from 
tlie testiiaony that a i^reater nunber of v/itnesses 
were introduced on beha] f of the cpn e aijuowt than 
tqi-prrrl 1 T,r, jr.nd it is nov; insisted by counsel for 
appellant |iiat as they iiiid the greater nmr.ber of 
\witnesse9 tliat there vms noreeson for discrediting 
the testimony of apriellant's v.'itnes^ee, and tliat 
the verdict is r.ianifeetly a{,nin0t the weight of 
'the evidence. It ie true, t>iey aptrtriTnTt deniew 

\ specifically that hio father rented the land to 
him aa long ae he did fjood on the place but eay*-, 
"While he came to ae and told rae to take poeseseion 
of this place and to fam it as my ovm farm, tlriat 
it would be mine at his death" . 


idd-laoisdJ taiC 

^\:iTtt 9 r:" r> sdi io fit- vUiiaMva \o aotioub 

' -r .ti sasJBoacf 

\;-i*. ..-.r.J'a.i^ iwJ'oa baa 

ici JoiMov B b8nncij;fe"i 

, bio 09a 9ri^ b«»T ».v 

Diif: ' , zfualanai 

f '' ." no xd^Alei 

. ._ vXIfeOliroaqji 

V ) 

.MM^AS . ^._j 6ib 9i(" a« 'sihol 6« mid ! 

;. ■ / oj- b". .-^ 0'- r ' 

^ "/f^/isb * 1 bXjjow ii ; 



Hna ii iie nee^'ed the rent i-'C vinnted it and if lie 

did not need the rent I need not pay the rent but 

: liad to pay taxes." i-:e also teptified, "Ve r,ot 

hie rent every year viith the exception oi the one 

year he iisve me the com.." The next witneep in- 

troducfcd by a-p^fci i gq_t. wae his SonctetK l^rcfuer John 

Gill, Jr., who testified, "■.'hy he told me ne had 

bought the ■ cConnel nnd vtas £Oin(: to i- ive it 

to !;ick, he v;as fcoing to put ' ick on the plj^ce." 

"Aftd Wpon Ci6|^ 8- Px.'imi nation the witnee? eeeCiS to be 

uncertain whether his father said he %»» fcoinji to 

rent the plnce to -liclcolas or not, nnd in anev/er 

to the question, "•;.- Did he use the v/ord rent 

or not? /'.. I don't now he night nave paj^d rent." 

. And wjiile the witnees thc-reaf ter ^njjfK-. ne d - "iy ' » think 


the word rent wae us?edj yel-^a-jf^ad i n^ . o i t h.e...:ah o 1 e 

of hie teotinony clearly demonet^atc* that he **>• di^ 
fict a very clear recollection oi what lis fatlic-r 
did Bo^^ The witness Cartter o t mply teetifiew 
that nppg^lrYT talked to him and toid him, "he 
bought a farm, his >erry County eighty fcre fonu 
for ? ickolae and he eaid he £ave it to l.ickolas, 
and after his death it belonged to lickolas." The 
witness l.oberte testified, "V.hy he told lae ti^ut he 
had bout_ht Ilickolag and John -s. place and ' ickolae 
was^doing to suit hiin and he v/as i^oin^ to be be ss." 
This was a conversation between witness and ■apriPllff^ ^^**-«l5!57 
about the trouble tJiey were Ixavint, in their res- 
pective faciilie?, and upon cross- ex^iroinat inn wit- j 
ness adujitellis .'jearin^. was not very to-d. j^ 


jdi 5^8n ioa btb 

aBlo^olI^ of fltpr.Iq 0ilJ- ;f naa 
• . " ,r.pxtfB0ijp ad^' o^ 

it^&ents.ncn^h \l-iB»lo ^aoinliestf »ld to 
— J tisO 9»&ailm arfT V^^b?* oi>. 

- an £>x^a »u' J[>ne snloilotd -zol 
-» >^.oX9cr ;ti 4^««|} aiil -zallB bno 

,nio^ saw Sii bnn ivtd ttuB oS AttJicb^aw 

'■ ' io9rrt9d noi^aaiavnoo a aaw BXrfT 

. . . K^i 9^£jw xaxli aXsfuoTi' adi^ iisoda 

.i... -.-.t>-a»<'To notfu iwii's ,?diIiJBal arii-OBq 



Vipfil 1 ri denief^ that he liad this conversation 
with this witnessJ Thie is subotantifi lly all 

of the evidence in the case ^nd at "beet the 
testimony ie oi that character that is not very 
reliable because it consists principally of sttxte- 
nents that iwere/,not very v/ell reci entered: but in 
none of theee aiateiaente nor in the testiinony of 
appellant hicself doee it appear th^at any val- 
uable consideration was ^ iven for thie land or 
that there was any contract to buy it. The most 
that apt) ears was that the father intended At 
some time to tive it to the /Appellant. Besides, 
appellant himself admits that he paid the rent 
every year but one and that year he paid the taxes. 
Thii? was nurely a question of fact to be determined 
by the jury. -if the relation of Isjidlord and 
tenant existed then the appellee clearly iiad the 
right to bring this euit and recover posn^eesion 
of the premisee. Owing to the nature of the evi- 
dence introduced by the appellant and hi ^^ conduct 
in paying rent, whic}. tended to corroborate the 
etateirient of appellee, and ovi'ing to the further 
fact that this case 1:8 8 been tried before two jur- 
ies, each of which found for the appellee, v;e do 
not feel warranted in disturbing the verdict. 
, The question of the right of defendant to 
\ make equitable defenee in thi3 case is tiot before 

US nnd not coneidered or deternined, as appellee 
I waived all his rifehts under this phase of the case. 


■yiii- JkBlna 

: kit -ioaebtv^ Bcii to 
ex x,noBitSB9i 

.".s'- ■ Clorrcrh. sd& ot Si •via o^ Bsaii saiOB 

Tfitti tmr ?jftO iud 1B9Y V19V3 

„ ml •xlJ' y;tf 

'■-■'.■ V 

- '. xJn t 90n»i) 

■>bn^.t (( ; ' nei .^rti'^Bg ni 

.^II»(jqj8 TtO.*n9J3SJ^^#9 

. . 9VJJ0 aixl^^^j^rf^ ;tpA^ 

O^ ItnUOl liOiffW Ip if0«9 ,99X 

i/«iib nx bein/iiiaw l99l ^on 

' - CcfQ*Jtllp9^"*'M«fT 

:-.i,,X'r e.. ':j9Yiam 

After a full ecneidertttion of the case 
u-e are of the oijinioii that sub^itantirl justice 
Yiue been done ^xnd the judciaent of the lov.-er court 
is affirmed. 

Hot to be reported jrx full. 


98/; aolttiiabl 

n,£.qp Si 


/, CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of 
the State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true copti of the OPINION of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in mg office. 

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set mt} hand and affixed the seal of said Court 

at Mt. Vernon, this l<^.yfr:r^ dag of December, 

A. D. 1915. 





/? /^ 

Opinion of the Appellate Court 

AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, on the Fourth Tuesday 
in the month of October in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fifteen, the same being 
the 26th day of October, in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fifteen. 


Hon. Harrg Higbee, Presiding Justice. 

Hon. James C. McBride, Justice. 

Hon. Franklin H. Boggs, Justice. 

And afterwards, to-wit: On the /r*^. dag of g^cember, A. D. 1915, there was filed 

in the office of the Clerk of said Court at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, ati OPINION in the words and figures 

No. :>$.-4 \ 

March Term, 1915 

197 I.A. 227 




Term ho, 36. in the Appellate ('ourt, Agenda ho. 53, 

i ourth District, 
tarch Ten/i, A. 1). 1915, 

lake Temple, by ( 

5. C. Temple, his ) . 

next friend, ( 

Appellee. ) 
Vs. ) AnTDeal fri^Ri the City Court 

Alton^Cranite « St. ) of Alton, Illinois. 
Z ouis Traction Com- ( 
pany, ) 

Appellant. ( 

ItcBride. J. 

The appellee recovered a judgment against 
appellant in the City Court of Alton, v/hich is sought 
to be reversed by trds appeal. The action V^rose 
out of an injury received by appellee caused by the 
interurb-»n car of appellant corainf: on contnct with 
•m automobile being driven by apy^ellee nt the point 
where appellant's railroad track crossee Kidge Street 
in Alton, 111. The tr^icks of anpellant nre locat- 
ed upon 3econd Street, in Alton, 111., whicii runr 
cast and west and appellant's car v/nc traveling east 
upon this street at tl^e hour of nbout 6:30 I .; . of 
Larch 15, 1^14. It appears tliat at the distance of 
about three hundred leet east of liidge Street there 
is a curve in the track of nppellnnt, and that there 
are 'nany business buildings constructed nlonf, the 
streets near the mterpection of Kidge Utreet with 
Second Street. The appellee was driving an automobile 




^cf ,9lcpD»T e>ffl r 

39f l9ff>TA 

!.c-x;tOfiT 8XJJ0 ! 

. L .dblggoM 

9l rioiitw .no^IA to ftuoO xilD 9di nt inallnqqn 
a- T'^ noiiOP ri : ^.•qq« nl-.-i \d b98 19791 9Cf oi 

9vi:909i xiulal a« io iuo 

i /I'KJ ji-\Bl/9<j06 io 1B0 nrjcfii;i9^ni 

)\riil> r^iscf 9lxcfoaio;fu« np 

jsiJ^v. 93^i.-I >t»sjQ,-'iu !:;«■*.] i.snil£s:[ 8'J'n«£l9qq« 9l9riw 

-^ROof 91 .Xrr ,no;MA nx 

nnjL • ,J93iJi; bnoo9o noqu 1)9 

l«fl9 a-ii^Siv'^i . qF bnfl t99«r bnp- i9tK9 

'.'S:d Jij ' J'sgii'B BXdJ- noqu 

■fih-.mi 99iiii iisodH 

51- li 9tii nx 9viiJ0 fi 9i: 

:t»_*auiJ' xjud 8e9ni5iJi/ Y,njnT 9Tfi 

i * " f?9n 8^9 91^8 

truck lor the Alton Baking ck Catering Cov.ivr^ny nnd 
was passing K^rth on hidfce r^treet "-nd test if ie? that 
just before crossinp the railroad ;.e looke^l tn -?ee 
if there was any cnr appronching but vms not nlile to 
see one and tliat he again looked just as hie auto- 
mobile reached the track nnd the car was tlien 30 clope 
to him that he did not have time to ^jaes over -r turn 
back, ^nd when about the center ri the track t.^ie car 
struck his automobile, separated the top from tlie 
trucks and carried the automobile and the f^pr-ellee 
the distance of about eixty feet down the track -^nd 
injured him. T/ie sneed at 7/hich the car 'vap be int. op- 
erated was variously estiraoted at from f^ur ciilei? to 
twenty aiilee and it was clained by some of the v/it- 
neese? that the automobile was running rrore ran idly 
than the car. At all events the testimony unon the 
question of the sr^eed of the car and of the autoiao- 
bile and tliC aanner in whicu the c-^r was lighted, 
or whether lii.,hted at all, and as to the care of the 
appellee in attemtting to cross the tracke, was very 

The declaration consists of three counts. 
The first count chaises appellant with careTeeeiy, 
neglife,ently nnd improperly driving apr.ellont!? car at 
such hit;h rate of speed, greater tlian is reasonable 
and proper, havinf. reg rd to the traffic and I'se of 
the streets, and so as to endanger the life and limb 
or injure the property of any person on said street. 
The seco nd coun t charges the operation of paid car 
at such a hifch rate of speed so as to endangfer the 


^,,.. J .... ^ . ,ili.5B^10 ST'^'isd isiii, 

oi sZ iftj' -^nixiOi^oTqqfl ii»» X"« saw siSvid- li 

-ojij . . t)9Tfoo£ fJiB^o 9d. isi[i$ bnn 9no ssb 

380 Id 5 aari^ baw tr-o ait^ i>nr. :Jofi*xJ ?>.ic^ b^doa^i 9li<SosB 

niui iri 19/0 ••»« oi sralj 9v i^x j' aa ir.cii mirf oJ" 

i.BO »Hi^ /api* •(<# l:o i9.tnso an* suode nsrfw bri" ,3{ofl(f 

:>?) I lo r\-f;r gitt ftit« sEirfomoJufl »:!*• bdiiieo bak BaioiTX* 
t nwob t'is'i xSxi9 iuodr. lo BonflJ^Bif) adi 

it *B b9i''-!!ltiH^ XlSUOllBV C-BW fjej^illd 

0-rp \£cr b92ix.nXo saw J^i bnn a9Llsa x^n*wi 

Y-rbi:. ii-tntji 8BW 9i idomoiiiFi siii ^Btxt esBSBn 

:^x*'^^,t stit nSnara LLi^ Sk .ibo 9iii ntuii 

IKO 9dt " h09cr9 9tiS to noi^BBUp 

'3ftt ri.nt ranflflt'i arfd' bn« slid 

'iri-) 09tci.j^il isriiBiiw 10 

jiTx^c-inB^^fl ni BsIlBiTqu 
■ *»e'r/i+ CO ^iatsnoo noi:fBi»lo9b SiiT 

mfXecrqB 99^1 ado tnuoo iBlil BrfT 
o 1'- LVitb xLr9'joiqal bnR x^^^^ai^a*^ 

•J9tfn Ic siei rfglri dous 

i3i ^iyari .isqoiq bna 

tfff- ^n<^bn9 oi ba ob brsj; .b^sqi^b 9di 

.t9^rs in» Tie. \St9q0tq bxIJ^ 9'iulai 10 

i"> bin I (TO 9dS ^m-yx'-iio inuoo bano99 »riT 

life or limb or injure the property of any person 
in eucii street, and in violation of Section 10, Chap- 
ter 1?1 of Kurd' 8 Revised vtntutee ol llliniip, re- 
ferrinj^ to automobiles, "he third c^unt charges that 
aprellant befnre reaching said croesin^ or internection 
of said streets" failed to sound a gong or bell on eaid 
electric car in disregard and in vi'^lr'tion of ection 
17 of ordinance 1015 of the ordin^i-nces cf the City of 
Alton. Snid ordinnnce -^rovidee that all rtreet cnr? 
must sound their fcont or bell before crosping an inter- 
section of etreete, and all cars mupt approach curves 
■with caution and sound a gon^. or bell 'efore roiinding 
the curve. 

Viewing this case ae we do it will have to be 
reversed u^ on errors committed oy the court in the 
giving and refusing of instructions and owin£ to the 
highly contradictory nature of much of the testimony 
we deem it impxoer to comment upon the testimony, 
except 00 far -is may be neceseary to develo-'ie the 
facts in connection v.ith the errors aseitned and argued 
upon the f;ivinf. of instructions for appellee. 

The givin^r of the first instruction by the, 
court for ??pnellee_i8 assigned as error. / ''"hjfci^ instruct - 

ion'xd*4* as follows: "'fhe C'v^rt instructe the jury 
that if you believe from all the evidence in this 
case that the plaintiff was exercising oil due care 
and caution for hie own safety md the safety ol others 
at the time of tii.e injury complained of, or if you 
ifurther believe from all tne evidence in the case that 


s. ji imp .iasicte doiiB nx 
^ «»e,jLfj^f>' bsJ5xr«H ,s'biJj'H 1<5 IBI ie^ 

floiJpai' to o«j:Jr[ . axis jbTCf-^ij&isli) ax ibo oii^osla 

fn Y^£ jnftiibxc scut io eXOf eonHnibio Is 71 

Jpili e9bi\rQ^-T sonnnxbio fai«ci .noJI^' 

89V1JJ0 aonoiqqjp Ibwot sibo liii; bna ,8i99Tj8 Tto noilosa 
^nx&ni/oi azolaJ llsii 10 ^ao3 a Jbnuos Jbns nol^uAO d^lw 

ai"ft ax iifc' ^i b^iJ^ioasc'j si oil 9 no.-n; b-eataVai 

9iL J>n» •noxiOAJr'Sd^sni lo ijnxaulsT brrs anlvl j 

\;noaiX.. ..a io 9^1u&.fin x;xf)toib^i&noo xlrijiri 

,'r;-r.u. u ^nsOTinoo oJ" T»croi(rcix Jx rnaob sw 

;ifl«SSiS09iX 9«f Y'US 8R ^C/*"! OB ^090X9 

3n?jxB8i» 810-119 9di rfii.v nox^fosnnoo rti bJ'OibI 
. j^Ll9<i€(B TOl »ifoi*Oin*jBftx lo ^fUvt^ BtiS cioqu 
. 9£it \,d noxcfouiisn x ienil 9ciS "io j^nivis »rfT 

T9 00 b9n:^ires ax aaliaccffi tot liuoo 
Xtut 9i'i.i ^ioanisni Ikuco od' " rswoXXol •« tfrrat^n-^ 

J fsbiva •!£/ IXr, moii ^vaxXscf udx 11 ^ffldi j 
dnx$xoa9X9 8bw m^nisiq si^^^axii 98fid 
5" t»lBS nvo axxi to) aoI^uao bna j 

:9nxnXqmQ>u viu^flx 9di lo ami* 9itt tB 
>nabJ:v» 9ai II a moil 9r»ir*>tf zacifiuf! 


the defendant throu(;h its servants eo operating; an 
electric cn,r v;ae careless? ond negligent at the time 
and pj'ice, namely, t}ie intersection of "econd nnd 
Iiidge Street p, so ae to C'Tu,«e the aforesaid injury, 
if you "believe the plaintiff was injured, then your 
verdict should b'fe for the plaintiff in such amount 
as you rany believe from the evidence he is entitled 
to receive, not to exceed five thousand dollnrs, 
jthe amount claimed in the declaration." it is ob- 
jected to this instruction that it does not confine 
the negligence to th^t charged in the declaration, 
and the daiaages are not limited to n compensatory 
amount. ' e think thnt both objecti-^ns are veil t-^lcen 
to this instruction. As to the former objection, an 
examination of the declaration will shot? that t'nere 
was nocharge in the declaration of negligence on 
account of tl.e im':^rorjer headlight mion the apnellant's 
car, ^nd there was much evidence introduced on behalf 
of the appellee and apnellMnt as to the manner in which 
the car wa^ lighted, and the jury could well c->n?ider 
that they had the right to take this element of neg- 
ligence into consideration in determining whetheror 
not the defendant was guilty. It was about the time 
of day that the light would be required and if the 
jur;/ found ti^at it was negligence in operating r^ car 
without n headliiiht they could very readily determine 
under this instruction that appellant was liable for 
such negligence; when in truth and in fact no puch 
negligence is charged in thedeclnration, and they 



■ It 

■IT' i. ■ ;•!. 3 r 9 h 





defendant u on fnie net. The instruction wae error- 

eoue in not limiting the nefelife.ence to th"t chpr^ed 

in the dec3 ^ration. It will be oi served that the 

cLnrges in the firet and second counts ol the decJ's- 

rntion were confined to the sneed and the third count 

was failure to sound the feong or bell on the car, 

and the doctrine that the plaintiff is confined to the 

Specific charges of ne(-li£:ence contained in hip doc- 

laratinn is io familiar that it is unnecessary to 

, city authorities, '''he second objection to this in- 


I ptruction ie that the d.'ii;.iges should be limited to 

' such as were sustained by appellee. ■.e think tiiis 
I instruction is erroneous in not limiting the damatves 
of plaintiff to such as to compensate him for the 
injuries received. ,a}dron et -si Vs. ! nrcier, 8P 
111., b50. "The inc true t ion was wro r^. , upon the 
point of damages, in tellin^ the jury they rr.ight find 
for the plaintiff such dama^res as in their judgment, 
from t>ie evidexe in the cnuse, th.e lolnintiff ou^-ht 
to recover.' left the jury free .?cope to (Tive 
such damages as, according to their individual no- 
tions of right qnd wron^i, they niifcht think the plain- 
tiff ou{^ht to recover, un^uided by --ny 1 egnl rule of 
damages, and without regard to tlie da'-iages sustained."' 
Keightlinger Vs. Egan, 6b 111., !?35. Instructions 
of this character, includint- the statement "liot to 
exceed five thousand dollars' ore condemned as erron- 
eous and fully commented upon in the case of L'uren 
Coal u Ice Co. Vs. Howell, ?04 ill., 515. 

It is urged that the second instruction riven 
on behalf of appellee is erroneous in tias, th^t 
after iiavin^ stated the rights of each :;arty to the 
use of the crossing, and the necessary nrecautione 


bd-ji^. ' "" ^ ^ ^i- sue 9 

[ jr.if- iQiiL> &iii a: 
- -"• rtt «931i-.:0 

r. *--,- =^ -tl^nisfq siii iMii snii^oob 9fi;f Jbne : 

: . i 

■' '^Xuoii« 9»aEu»f> 3/1j iBxiJ^ si noi^ou'x^s 

*?=''-" "^ b»nifl*9U« 9"X9*r an rfous 

3 7 ^ ^y.A.- ^.. J. *. V .. wx auoartoTxs ax nox<touT^«ni 

,.r^ « + «»«^.,.. .-. ., + ^.. '.^,,e oj. iii^nifllq "io 

"■■ . ... .- .... 3.^7" .oad ..III 

.-.s, t.'Si^ ...u.iti nx ,e93ainsb lo ;tnxoq 

rr^'* f^ . >«,einflb riot/« llii^nxxiXq %Ai toI 

..*.,.*.... >. . ,9«uR0 ^di ni aonsJbivs SiiJ' moil 

-...^^4<.x tjisxii o^ 5|nxbao90>f ,b« ••^JsraBb doue 

i ^rnr,i± tr(3X8r x®^"*^ .r^noiw bne idali io enox^ 

- - - :,- - v- ccf bibiujnx; .isvooai o;^ *riguo llxi 

...-JanI .aso , . _^ ,::.<5aA .aV T9anxl;frfal»a: 

/laas^xi." iifuloni .Ts^oBiurfo axri^ lo 

-fi 1»bn" > Lob bnnauori^ «vi:i basoxs 

"c-i ■) ;<ijn-:>. trrii' \:IXui briB gjjoa 

. ■ L .'■■■■: .cO 93l .0 Ibo3 

:?oui:^B :39 9iiJ J- Bill ba^iu ax J'i 

■t '^il , H'U'^arro«9 9X 99ri9qqB lo llflriarf no 

3fij 0^ x^ir... ilon9 io 9fd^ii 9iii b^iais i^nlvBii i^Hb 



required "by e^cli ol them the iollowint; l.infuage ie 

contained in this instruction, towit: /"And if you 
further believe from the evidence that the defend- 
ant failed to tive the required eignnl in approach- 
ing sQid croesint: by ringing n bell or eoundinr^ a 
gong, and that such failure contributed to the ?.ddi- 
dent, then your verdict should be for the plaintiff 
in such an funount rs you believe fror. the evidence 
he is entitled to receive, n'->t to exceed the amount 
claimed in the declaration." It will "be observed 
tRat all'*that~i e required by thie instruction tn make 
the defendant linble is that the net of neglifence 
charged con tribut ed to the accident vhen in truth 
and in fact it ie charged in the declaration that this 
act cauped the injury, and as v/e understand the law 
it is not suificient to crente n liability th?it the 
ict contributed but it must have been the efficient 
cai!se of the injury to entitle the plaintiff tc re- 
cover. "The breach of duty upon v/hich nn action is 
brought rautt not only be the caupe but the nroximpte 
c-^uae of the damages to the nlr-intiff. The prox- 
imate cause of f<ji event must be understood to te tJiat 
which, inn natural and continuous sequence, unbroken 
by nny iew, independent cause, produced that event, 
and without hich that event would not have occurred". 
Wabash R.R. Co. \8. Coker, 81 App . , 664. Affirmed 
in the 183 ill., 223. This instruction «1po t.ives 
the jury the right tn osseps the damages in such an 
^mount ps the jury rary believe from the evidence 


i. b9iiiaiao9 

H .^nibtutoB 70 lltf .&: ifiki^n.i% ^ j^aicao^o blBH gax 

./sfq 9X1 / bXifOi:!* ^oi/b-x»v xuox nari^t ^in^b 

donebzva dctJ gsoxIC 9Vi»J:l94 uo\i ae iauoBn ai^ si^ua ni. 

tnsjcam ^4 b^aor .jvidaai cJ J&»I*iJn» ax an 

b9YXHado 9J {ii . ^ttBtf^Losb 9Sii aX b»:nl»io 

iioiioiniBni. ^itiS \d baiijpa rio itarfj" 

99n»%xX^9n "io :toB 9fit )adi ^x glcfsiC J^n«i>n<»leb srii 

xiiu j^a^bxooB sri* ojf b »^ud4'iJ' noc> bsa^jwio 

:cit tfidi noit§itBi09b adi at bs^iyda ai ^x i9f«l ni baa 

■ tr-iBiabiiu aw ac bnfi .^loi,"* 9ii* 1?9bu»0 4o-9 

9iB9io a.t ^«9xoxHij8 ton ei *i 

rjcf baiudiiinoa iaB 

iiaiBLq udi 9Ltiia^ oi \iu^ai 9dt to aeuAg 

•ogy '^4r<<'() ./^o doB9xi an'T" .lavoo 

>j :-:i : 1 9Sit 4u<ij»i^u^,9 j9dX ad^ixio ion Jaaat iiljwoicf 

-■>''^'( -> i.ij:^JL,i»£^ axli, ^ «,%^3]4k^ •sU lo 8ai/<«t9 

aooisidbajj so iaura ixiavs ns lo aauAO 9iAii]i: 

«9:(0Tcfriw .aonsi/pae aoounxJnoo baa I«ijj^«n anx .rioWw 

,lii9V- -ioubozq ,38u»o inebnsqabnx ,««< xnfi Y.'^ 

jaiiuooo avaci ^on bluo'T Jnav« ^Btii xf0£4' ioodiiw i>n« 

baantillA .>5d ,.qqA 18 .-xasioJ .sv .o<d .^.^ xlaacffvVi' 

ir^i^ouTianx %xxiT .5SR ,.I.Ii fid£ Siii nx 

"■ J iPOfib 9di asaaa^; oi ixla-i"* a^ii 'i'^'wt, '^^^-^ 

9on9biv9 -• . 9V9if9rf X'^'fl^ X'^J^l ^^^ *ip inaoran 


plaintiff ie entitled to receive, irresT.ective 
of the net,ligence charged in the declaration, and 
it is in this reg-Td defective for t)ie nnrrie reasone 
assigned as to the first instruction. 

It i3 unnecessary to consider the other 
objections urgefl for the reversal of this case for 
the reason that the errors a"bove coneidered are 
sufficient, in our opinion, to require a reversnl. 

The judgment of the lov/er court ip revereed 
and the cause remanded. 

Lot to be reported in full. 

■J9l9i) ;i 

■fan J oaf!' 

, roxnxtj' 

■JKA (I4i. 

> Hi. bft^ioqdi ftd o^ #«H 

/, CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of 
the State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true copv of the OPINION of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in mg office. 

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set my hand and affixed the seal of said Court 

at ML Vernon, this M^ dag of December, 

A. D. 1915. 





/ ''Xs. 

Opinion of the Appellate Court 

AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, on the Fourth luesda& 
in the month of October in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fifteen, the same being 
the 26th day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundrfd and fifteen. 


Hon. Harry Higbee, Presiding Justice. 

Hon. James C. McBride, Justice. 

Hon. Franklin H. Boggs, Justice. 

And afterwards, to-wit: On the /<^... day of December, A. D. 1915, &iere was filed 

in the office of the Clerk of said Court at Mt Vernon, Illinois, an OPINION in the woids and figures 



i 1 



ll. 239 




March Term, 1915 





TexiTi No. 48. Agenda Ko.23, 

In the Appellate C-^urt, 
i'ourth District, 
Larch Term, A. D. 1915. 

K. B. oipef, ) 

Appellee, ) 

Vs. ) Ap-nepl frori ' illiamson 

John Parlov, ) County, Circuit Court, 

Appellant. ) 

hcbride. J. 

The plniritiife rec ivered .? juci^.ment in the 
CircuiTO Court lor tvo hundrec dollars and cpts, 
v/hich the defenda?-t, f?eelce to revf-rse. 

The dec 1 •■•.rati on » n thin UctOT nriixi' aneurr.yipit 
nnd rinv i i. I' . "*_ t " c-pecial count r-nd tl'.e cnnrmn 
count£. i-t «i6charged in the special covnt that 

on .ay 29, 1914, laypcl] ee^wag entare*^ in t) e Vupi. 
nesB of moving hrnaeF tinC 1.1..! L r.n, thn >t. d'ite the 
;liaai- employed him to Lnove certa:.n 


ir- V iiuiiuh < .ipptll.-ni t a^rceliuto pay C25C.00j •*• 

; a.ppoiinnt further a£:ree(^ae a uart oi' tl.e con?ider- 

ation to erect ;»nd hnve in riiace a f oun<y:.tion under 

the larger :iOuoe wi :hin one v/eel; of ter^aaJui V.oiipe LioveoL ■■ t - o ita futtigu l e ciLlun and placed in 

I)osi tion,^ Tn i ] t'" f ^^ [ ^"llfnt r*'Tf'^ not^rec-ire 

.jjIj^I^XaITv keep >iis liouse rr.ovimL tools un<3er BfirirA — "^^ 
house Ioniser than one weeV after .-en id~houpe was 



,5.9, o:t abn^nA .81^ .oil msT 

.dl9l .a .A .rrts'^ ilOT«.J 

( »T9qiE .K .a 

( f^sLx'i qcrA 

( .triBllBqak 

«L .ei)iido.^ 

': I ^^ip rjii>u 9 ill J j«w> sxci.ip.-ti'- 1 o^b Sil" 

; ban inuno LbIo^c^ 3 no ^Tt! g J s i» ft<;> a ai\ a 

'iii-ij:-,- WMM«P" ''...Rjryj 9/-"-J ■' ': S^vr^ r.-j^wtt .^n r fg^gga 

» i»» rf? ,00. 0(3. ■ - >t»uftjjijf. j . t r.CiaL f qa itoiriiw i - i 

"" -'^ _: ■■ c 3vru' bnr, J-osia oi' aoiia 

\jv i»fic nxrlj xw eauoii isa'iiil 9iii 

■ bi ->M i 18. . .. . jiCX/OJ! 98 

h'"upe? v'ithin ^ reasonable time Pnd accord in£ to 

th e tera p 9i the atree'tieiit. ''^fprt -frpp^-iiiMitt did 
- net CfinpJy ritl"^ Mj g Mi ' m ' tl ' t? ' ? hu & did not place the 

se within a 
T"lleey^cnCiW no t ren;ove 

wki^nouee until 

ioundati''n under ewa d houge within a T?eek, as 

agreed My on i and t hrt <'.|>.f;.Lj.c^y^ 

hip houee novinj; tnole frocaunder 

July 27, 1914, - ■ ]T- • - 1 1 irlVp' iT^'T ' i 1 r i and rei'uFed 

to pay the f^jlil i^ ^j' vruut uf > 250. 00. Appellee liir- 

ther nlle£e|( thnt by reason nf such ini'Jure the 

BS i aunt of ^a b Q.OO "' \mt ilaa hia rengonable djta ageg 
fnr the lose cf the upe of naitf houijc saovir .f; tools, 
vith the neceepnry r>nrc>JiBe of otlier tools ap v;ell 
a e tht lunL' .•.lir d atn .^ t e t r/^ 

lave made 

gaine and profits vrhich -44ij 

or i Si^cgp 

"by the use of '?uc}^i tpolg . au i.x ? e. ' iid .Uurin gglB Pf 
fflovirii house?. Aw a a'^ e y w unmAgee to th e ngnunt 
l.OC. tf-pp BJ I nnt fjiet; r r-len of not 


.-750.'J'J. ^ 

^ specinl pie.- .-.verrint that the i ^T>T# a l 1 a »Ai<?o v ed 
the ociid o-.^es sc unekiDlfuily nnd neflifiently 
th:'.t one of the houses v.'8.e darr;aeed and inji red. 
to the unt of one hundred dollars; •■^.nd further 
aver<\5l^>:', t "^^ "* "^^^'^^^0^ a t.twX of the contract 
to ^erfcrra certain labor in the excavation of a 
b?iseraent ^vhich u ^ i fellSCy ^ ^ i r l 1 y failed to do; 
'i' ^ g re ' »y^ t p i; i\ l nn^ r^ damaged the sum of 1>;15.00. 
TT" 'it ap rears fr'" ' the ^\!c^t.ne9 in\m t •• 


b.. -fv a Hfffl .1; 3.-59arjB adi^ >e ■aei t^J silt 

i^^* 'f*br«'j;?'^ .i:voCT%9uor( e iri 

< ^ t9* ' t -i^ TO i^Kfli8t)'TJiii! ynoi Jl(,t ax3 

-->4ift.-i,,cTi .00. Gas's 

■uiXCirf- - 

:«X ntBti90 aaolxsc ot 



and ? ^jT^ lloc «,erttered into an ornl crntrac-t, 

to move tv/G frame houeea ovined Vjy af» '|' .i e l 1 i"i.f i, 1 7 i!yA-jj MM < M M*^ 

1' yy'liiili II III III 'f I'l Hii il-ri-inlr f .v n" jl llii n 

Recall uii;-Tip on the egSe°"Tot7^"'"foTirTrrgtW'no«..^ f 

bl oa k nni «. liaW . Thc t- H . ^Tr- e ll^e ja.gree€ ^o ■lOve 
tlie liouBCB ae they then rtood ior the sum oi 
s^ 250.00. It nlso ap7)eared thnt- it was deciratle 
that s eertnin room be taken off oi the large 
house to faci li tin. taf ^iWK moving; Mje i ( y r ul , -■ r.d . ^■ >in t ' 
if apr e liajT^ t^ould i'- ^mooj .ji detach the onid r'-^nm 
■ tlm t- a i Jij^i e <i ^'woul*aMriOve "he 2*4r*-'buildir./,r. lor 

§200. 00; but *i*Wl. if ■^4'^ Ipp^Mtf to detach «t p.r.d 
remove it, or rriove the binildinf,, v/ith the room 
attached t h* 4 the ^rice vould be 1250.00. "«*»©. 
LhHt ^t wae etipulated that np t miH^ Md n^t 
be liable for any dnna^e to the build inf", and th-t 
under t h m t a rm g 0^ the r - r t r - r t _S np 1 ' <a 1 1 r r t vme to 
build r. fottnd^^tion under the lai:{3e houi?e v/ithin 
ten days frora the time %«h|[«^^«^ JlaB plpced it in 

re^iove nis no;jse 

position 80 thnt ap^ 

mo Vint-; tools from under ty.e building. ■^ '''}fT>r^ - - mie 

houses v/ere noved and the latter of the two houses 


placed in position on llay 29, 1914. ?4%a4 repeated 
demands Here r".ade gsyy tpfoTi i tc ;iiiiil lii ■■■ &mn Icr -**•*•« ^^ 
tools but they wercy^not ^iblil>i t-«8 obtn.inft .|lr * owi until 
about the 27th of July iollowirt • ^t further 

appersre fgniii iht luMtll ilflj/. HI flf 

^'fffjjiasiJMhfc. tiiat at that ti 

^v aPld !iipi« 
a contract v.ith 


QSiAT^t pnt BromoS 
- > ft < f im v : "8BiTT31iIli "iu Sim 

:Di{^ 8.S astiiOU &siS 

1- -mm tud ;cc.OCS« 

Milrd' 3rf# DTOi" ri .J-i svonjdT 

^.j'ltin saw J^^silJ 

V7P 5 -^atB 10 1 ^slcf ail 9cf 

■i f * ^isi%0i m ii i Z9bn.u 

,\Bi 9Aj nfitfifbnuol r bLiud 

:,s, . • 9iit ntotl *\Bb aai 

•(it 08 npi^ieoq 
i- mbnu r.'^'tt aloo/, .aaivofli 
^tiS bnfi bay on aisv.- aseuori 

-»u* O ' Ttiaq ' gH ^i^^ 9bB>v. 9im ab^^Bnssb 
• . J19W x'^rf^ ^t"^ a loo J' 


a ft w .n hy IJ ' W iiu .u ^^ 1 Lavis to nove. 
f or v ' O ' jMigi i' lm ' " iti J., ' j ' i ^ five hi; rid ret! d om arr ttic? 
pl"i- » i i nt IB f a ilure 

thn t "oecauee of aji ii"»^ 

f u ui ' iaaU ^ni iiivn" ' release 

^*') OTmit tifi 

se irrn- ' . c vi at t^^o^lg "HT 
]^rocure th-t- a-e^iotsice --f another h'-i.^e nnver. 

ilrith hig tools, tu t i > i<ii m the novin^ nf the Davis 
houre, aiTct- oliiiiae tha c by reason »J' ■J r'O ' i ' i ' ng! to ^^"^ 

T i 'ij i l J UK 'I " r i rt f " ^i''— "-t-v- M iifci 8 ii O i ^ r, ji it., Oi'T. tJa«i m' Ba ii vi ii e 
,JaawMK i:e loet pro/^its to the anount of ■1125,00, 

or tcore. 


"•'L e ; e Jidence irtT^auCyd. uvi?r LJlU i;as«t 
» i ^nts r>j; i j>r,^l 1 t i-rt- . tei^ded to r-r^ve th?!t ati x ell ee / 
PicTeed to move the i-ouies i<'r v200.00 if th«» rocin 
vas aet-<ched i^ut if not det-icVied he was tr^;:iave 

$2b0.00 for -lovint:: it. Vr r f ^ " i| i i j.n LC itreed no 

detach the room or ell hineelf if '.ermitted ?'^ to 

do, and n^ove the houee for 200.00. /tt^ollLuit ^y^^-^^^-****^ 

denicg^t- i.^ s t la^ p,{:i-eeti«^o plTce a f -'vndfti r>n under 
the aecond hrupe 'ao\t'r 
and deniea thnt 

thot : 

Pti'DUl 't 

>t«^^^-q fihitiifaaiaffitji 

be Qyctivt fmn Tia'bility for 

daicagee cai. !»ed by the movini^: of the hoi'sef? bu. 


that ai 

v zTtni to n.ov e th« 

on Tie F tvithout 

damage aad 1 er.vo then in ne {.ood condition 3? r.e 
found thei.i.itt. "^'he evidence ofc^ pp^iel lant tend? to 
p-''ove that trie houses '.vf-re d^-Tvi^ied; t>ie ^1 -istering 
cracked, chirrviey injured, "nd t} 't one of the ''.on see 
was otherviet tynpted ---nd da^^ed t-).^he nTnount of 
^75.00. it nlpo ir -ep-ri? thi^ *fr-i*n le^ '^preed to 
aosist in di^Tfiin^^ tv.e "fcrioc'ent under the V'^vse 







as nart of tlie conaideration mid .1 -I ' lUfeLUtin fc e ~. 

under thie atreenent, \«hich he failed to do; 

and further tende to eho^.- thr.t npTtoj le.nvf inrur--ed • 

additional eicpenee an'-'intini^ to b'-ut ^■■■IV.OO 

m procrrinr '"-torirlia. 1^ reicedy the injury 

cnueed by nvip fil^niiif f a^ilXire tc r.-rorierly cnre lor 

and support the lovves in tiie remcvrli fH i' T cw fr ^^"' 

The evidence in this cape is very con- 
flictinf: r.nC if the account oi this tr«n?pct if^n 
as given hy the appellee p.nd nig v.-itneeciee if? to 
be bfclicved then th-^re is no question but what the 
defendant is liaol. e to nripellee for il'DSO.OO for 
the iriovimj of thef?e .»-ouees. Upon the other hnnd, 
if the testinony of ■?ppell-"int .ihd r i 1? v;itne°see 
is to be rtlifcd u;"?r thtn thf. re is no nue?tion 
but whfi t the appellee a{.;reed to remove the lovees 
for two hunc'red doll- re and to pl^oce thsTi in rs 
good CTnditior ae they v.ere then in. hese , ] o"^:- 
ever, are que 1; time r-f fact rhich it v-oi? prorier ijr 
for t}ie jvs^' to dett-miine, pr.d if nothing nvre. than 
thip contrMc: jctid!! of teetimcny h-id rrieen u-'ion the 
trial of tlie case there vmul d be no difficulty in 
affirming ti-e Juufment upon the firdin^, of the jury, 

^ouneel lor ■^'^r^eilant 1 -Tsiet thf»t the 
court erred ir ^dr-'itting evidence p-a to the '^eapure 
of d?jran£,ea to which appellee wee entitlec^ or account 
of the breach of the contract, f?nd in refupirf to 
£ive an inetruct ior r^dvigi 'n£. the Jury thnt any J-oee 
of profits under ti-e Tavic contract couDd not le 


? iiibnu 
; bbfl 

r; ■: ^naJbnsl*!) 
^ivom 9riS 

■ , \l: 5-; ioiJ-ibnc3 bcoa 

' qaannpb to 
aoRSicf ^!ii "io 

. -i-jL.' 'J -■ jx loiq io 

considered in eBtinatin^ appellee's daTiagefi. 
These nre the questions to which courefcl lor 
appellant and i=nTnellee have devted tiie £ren.ter 
part ol their argument. 

It pppeare irom the evidence it 
the timfc that ap^^ellee entered into this contiact 
with ap-nellant, he had a contract with one ]>vi8 
for the removal oi another iova lor which he wsc to 
receive a coneideration ol live hur-dred dolj 'a-p, 
and that because the toole of appe; lee were ept 
under appellant's houses louter than agreed uj^on 
ti'iat appellee was comp Ilea to employ aiu)t"':er 
house raover to aseiet him in the moving oi the 
Davie house, and he tiiere'by lost pro lite to t}ie 
amount of i^ 12b, 00 or 4-126. OC. The iivtroduction 
of this testimony was objected tc by counsel for 
appellant, objection overruled r.nd erceptirne 
preserved. e believe th.'' t the court erred in 
permitting this testimony to be introduced "f 
the measure ol d?ima«i;es v/hich appellee y.tis er-!. i^^led 
to receive. It was t oin£. Into n lield '■•i opeoulation 
nnd profit when }:e ehould iiave heen confined .in the 
measure of danages to the vp.iue oi thcu?e nf the 
tools during the tire which he wae aeprived cf them 
by apT)ellar t withholding thti.i, especially so in view 
of a statement made by appellee in hip testinony 
wherein he says, "1 s; ould >irive i-sd r.y jscke in 
ten days. 1-e was to yjay rae lor the use of these 
toole if ne didn't linve them oul". -hile it pprears 
iroLi the testimony that ;:p-pellefc i:ad this cmtrnot 


c" 5fiv mjo; ziKiionR to Ijivobst sriJ lot 

r-if XBinoi B^9uoii 9*tna£l9qqB r^bau 

T9x<7oas xoiqam :J osIX qino8 ■inr ssIXftqqs *JBd* 

r.t/oa 9:{j Hi mtii ^sl9BC o;^ T^vor ©euori 

-oX xdtt^U^ 9ii Jbnu ,9ti/oxi alr»Q. 

riniinuooisai •xi-' .OO.OSXl to OO.dSI» 1o J-niJonui 

■rcl iosno' ■ i>sJ39t,cf<' •«» X"o^*«^^ airtJ' lo 

■'-■ir xiq9o ■:» .un»? is^Iuitsvo noi^oef^o ,;^^BII^ffqB 

•adJ- t f^4^ Qvatied 9 •bsvisas'xq 

■ 5s9uoc'i.. vaofKx:tB9^ «liiJ ani^^^fnnteq 

beX't^tna 9AV »9l^»qqa lioiriw 8»ji«fflfi& io oiuasam 9x11 

TXr 3 9J9W J'i .9Vi90'J1 0^ 

xae vxi(r&i> eer «ri aorriw axii arid- ^nxiub aXoo;t 

w»x f-xssqaa ,r.3nj anifcloxuiiiw ^.-wXXaqqe xrf 

V;n' . ^alisqqjB x<^ 9i)Bfr ^nsnatfaJa is lo 

;/a-i 9/i?ii Diu'ue Z" ,9\;e9 ail nj:*i9riw 

Be. a J Toi 9fiPt \:«fT oJ axiw sH .«!YJBb net 

ai^ano- . • .ic aaril ev rui t'nbxb aa iX alooi' 

;fo-''sJr':c a» "-^XXaqqx; :rBr[J A^nornxj^egj axU moii 


iritli Davis at the time -^f making liie a£reerr.ent 
wit], appellant, yet it o^ee not ppfeai- txiat he 
advised nY^pellint of hf^vinfj^ any e\ich a coritract 
on hand orhavin^ 8.ny epecial leason -/or fettinf: 
hie jn.cks and tcols out from under the house 
within ten ciavaS '^t seems to us that frori tliis 
testiticny that appellee did not ;-t th.-'t tiraf. Imve 
in ramd anything but the use of his tools and t-id 
not ccntemjjls te ch".rr,inf proi'ite iih* tlt?i.t lie luifcht 
1 '.ise upon the L^rvvis j ola to nppellnnt, 'but even if he 
did he Icept it to hi'-ipelf nnc under repented de- 
cisiong of our Court prospective nroftte are too 
reraote to form t>.e neasure of daraages occasioned 
by the breach of contracts. in profits 
to enter into and i orra tiic bfiaio of damages for 
the breach of contr?ict it v;as said, ''Lo net' od 
much wore likeljf to raielead could ■veil te d6\iped. 
tiuch estinate ie ; urely C'-mJectural. A tloupr-nd . 
tl'-in^e i:3itht have prevented tre ren.Mnti'^n of the 
prolitp sancuine witnespee estirate could vve 
seen, wusto.iere lany fsil to pcy; rivalry ^.ay OTuae 
a decline in price; nccidente may suspend Turiness; 
injuriee to empjoyep or etrnngers mny cnuse lose; 
dishonesty rnay eweep ;»wayi'und?. 'ihe reaf?*tn 
why eetitacitee of profits that cculd nnve been n-de 
is not tl'^e proper criterion tor rscertcinins. dnm- 
et;es is ouch a cao<.;, ie Lec-iuBe puoh i- not the 
method pointed out hy the jav/. Cn. Iculations ae to 
prospective profits in otht-r enterprise? vliirh a 
party would liave engaged in, had his contract -vith a 

, ■ :.' ' -nw 

, ■ ■ f ----- 3 ^on 
JLEJ5U Jif^ cno i J)n«, o^niL Tc«4:Aa -PJ^ 

. .:8. 8J8W ii J;pi^lCJl:«0O„ XO -A°*^*^'^' W 

. ' .brwlx^Ti.«s .tj^an^a: >CJ5m -^ R9J%p*U JLb 

,,.u..4j ax .ftaBO^ ^ 4q^B .ji^^»;j»« 

■ r. •iUo nt aJ-iloxg srtiptixyikoiq 
h«4 ipyne aYAii fciuow A^i-xxi*! 

defendant heen fulfilled , are altogether too 
remote to form thebasis ni damn.^ es occasioned 
by the breach of puch contracts." Coneumern' 
Ixjre Ice Co., Vs. Jenkins, 58 App,, 523; and ny- 
th'^ritiee there t^ited. 

The serioi'« quest ic-n, however, to be 
considered in t}.i f crise i?, •<as the p.p-ellnnt in- 
jured "by the adEiesJ on of this testimony, ^nd 
the refuonl nf this ins true tion?'Tit ?ipr;earB frm 
tho testimony of the w :pi ie? ' ^Be^, thn t some time i^i / 

the month of July he had a conversBtion with fcrnn c l'i .. 
ant in which he says appcllayHr ollered to pay him 
two hundred dollar p, by cl^eck, r^or tnat ?iBi"urt. 
ihl SjL. J * owcvor Yi i? . dQlii *^<ii. ^y the ■■ a^^pollgint "out the 
aV'peliftnf «LaA£> atntft t :iat in this conversation, 
"Ke claimed thn t 1 ov/ed hid *t250.00. i clfiirr-ecl 
that 1 owed l.iin ^P.00.00. ''Jhie declarrtion v/ps r^ade 
p3-ior to the corjiienceiaent ox the suit and before 
either of then iwd figured upon any extras that 
they Kiicht •demand of each other^n^nd it seems t^ us 
that it ie a clear ndnission upon tiie part '^f 
apr>ellant th^^t he ov.ed the apoellee tv/o hundred 
dol la-e and if tliis be true then the \erdict 1 ~ not 
unjust, for it is lor the exr.ct nir.ount of tT'"' hun- 
dred dollars. . i^ven though there roay h-i\e V-een error 
in the adnipsion of testimony and the ing-'-.ruct ior-e, 
yet if such error rap not caitsed injustice to tlie 
apT^ellant then this court no rigjit to disturb 
the judijnent of the lower court, it is soufht by 
counsel lor ao-oeliant to avoid the force of this 


9L ^yov 9 W 04i. j^e .tffl 

'nisniJono'J • .<5?o«n;tnoo rtoi« lo rionntd oiiS xa 
-tff^ bnfs ;55e ,.c[rfA afl ,9rtxiftf»T. .- .. : o l 9tj/5 

-ni ^fTHfr»'^q» ^xlJ- es^/ .-^i sano boisM^noo 

r i m (iff d siS.rv bjui srf xluX, lo ri^ no nt »ft.t 

.>t0 , 09; I o >:'f .TEs/Xof: DSibni/if owi 

. ?« 

.0C.03S* fflirl 69W0 I iOilt bemifiXo • 
9i- HiBlodl) ai.i." .OO.OOSI wl.f bawo X JartJ 

diotacf brjfi ^t;j8 j>r£J' xc Snommoa^tnmoo 9dS o^ intiq 
aiST.^xs iTUi noqu bSftu^zl. ba:i msxTi to r^cifto 

1 r.Bf'J But^ 9dt kitsi'S''ti bnfl" BTBtlob 

To^atO'js ,i/Oii* I19TJ1 . .BiJRlXob bstb 


,e loi JotfT' «iti »:. nofni^fisJ- to nolesirrbe ar.^ nt 

^f{:^ oi" sai^aojjfix bswi.'fio ion nt^ri lotia rfoi/e xl ^^e^ 
(iiu* ;tt en »»&r<. Siuno tidt abdt cTrrjalXaqq* 

.iTiioo Tf^woX exfJ lo Jnsiojjb'ut, 9f(i 
uioi »aj biovjB ol IriBXIsnrqrB "lo'i Xaanuoo 


admission by saying that it was a etatetnent made 
in an effort to coreprn?Eipe and tin:relore r.ot 
adinissii'le in evidence. .e ut no* tniMk rii. 
The condilinnp unaer vnich t>ii3 st.-'.te.neat was L^nde 
were ti-at apricllee went to r.prellant ' 8 place of 
"businees for a settleinent. A.T)i-)el lee stnted ''fw-tt he 
claimed tli'^t «;npellant owed hii; nnd apr.ellniit 
stated wii.-jt he claii-^ed thvt, he ov/ed apvelJ ee . The 
differences "between theia v/ae not pou(,lit in any uJin- 
ner to be adjusted or no eflort nade by either 
party to sompronJFe or adjurit ^,he spnie. e think 
it if clearly fn^ adrniceior. of Pn independent fret, 
and ever though the adaipsion nay have teen iiiade in 
an effort to settle their differencee, or Cimpro- 
niee, that v/ould not prevent it fr--"!-! teirii cornpe- 
tent to show puch an adnif?eion. '-hc^re ip r.o inti- 
mation in the rtriteRient thit it ■»?(? !i:ade hy t'ne way 
ol coniproir:' ee .nd :■ n confidtrice or without .orejudice. 
"It ie well settlea th.ii.t in offer hy v/ay of comprc^ 
raise is net n-diiipsible in evidence again»;t the 
party mal'.vif' it but adiriisoiong of indenendent „ 

facts r.ade in ti f. course oi admissions to settle » ^^ 
areadmissiblo , unless expressly stated aa r.Hde 
witnout nrejudioe or in cnnfidence, "reenlcaf on 
iividence, IJ?; '.horton on Lvidence Sec.l09G; 
Sanborn V?. '^eilson, 5 I.. H, 501; . arrin^ton Vb. 
InharVitants of " incoln, ^ Un^, 563-566". : eine 
vs. The Ffe"iple, 37 Anp . , 589. And the sfme doctrine 
is annouriced in '^horr. "V. hees, 51 ill., app,,.?74; 
Kuhn. Vs. Williams , l?4 Ill.,App. 290, 

sbnsr in9Bt9ffi&B B BBv it t^di ^nt\B9 \d nolaaimbB 

imoTr^crs cJ Jin Ha ttn a: 

. n^fltof^J-^e B rrl assniatfcf 

e<iiw ?!«9i:+ n«9V(^stf eeonsialli;!) 

Tfni •:■ ..,.'- ■:=ui,i>3 t:© 9-!imn'i:qnioc oi ^c^^i^q 

rex ^h&ai ii^vi ^a,A ^^^s aexaaxft &« wf.f ti>>iiOii;)' .ior> iim; 

-oic|irr I Jaw 9i tX" 

boJjLi^^ \.A««s>iqx9 aeeinu , t>id'XRal:rrb£e^<« 

,Bort9i>lino& f!X 10 aoxtutsTa .tuorL^xw 

;. — 01.00.^ ooxisJbXv. "•'► ^ :?tr .os«:, .aonsbir-l 

: . . ,f;oBXt9.:I ,e,V, nTc.<in«<i 

., . ..'looai.I lo a,t0*^r^iifi,X 

9.fxiw ■. •'««•■'-,»• lfI-^4 "WS- :ii»!f<F*i: *f^^ ••" 

, 39S»K ♦/. aipfiT ni bsoitucnra ai 
. . ,.-' '"' ,«crjfiiXXx .-/ .-tnij:'{ 

It nppe-^re t'^ dsi fv^T tMe record th^t 
nothing is to >;e gained V>y the .cTantin^? of » new 
trinA .-nd tl:qt it ie unjufft to require P'^^cllee to 
incur the er^iense rf nr'^tber trial, ir?iere it is 
discioeed t-y the r<=cor'''. , ob in thi? case, tl: at 
appellnsjt }ii!iiself clni'.ed thr<t the amount y.e oved 
apro3:ce wps fr?oo.oc. 

Oty er err'^TB ''''r>ve "been n?!?if>ed f;nd 
argued hy coujireJ for n-^nellpnt in thip c^sp "but 
the errort? are ^7i.t}".^^ut nerit nnd fnr lesf? imT)ortant 
thrj'. tn-? error plinvo considered -''nd rve cannot pee 
thnt Fuoh errorp coiil-i in snv ra^inner have influenced 
tljeontniiiirv^ of the ludf^ri^ent, a+ least tiint ap-^sllant 
WRR not unduly'iced in hie righte hy reaf?on 
thf.reof. <-.?ure eubftf^ntial justice has been done 
tie ArpellRte Crui*, wi"^! not disturb tne verdict 
merely '.lecuaee of errors corr'iitfced upon the trial 
of the caee. "^eifield V?. jeose et al . , 101 
111., 'pp., ':.Z9; Burling Admx, , etc., ve. j. C, 
h, K. Co. . 85 111. , 18. 

V.e are of the onini-^n th^-t the verdict 
and judi:,xent in thi ? case should not "be disturbed 
for the rea!?onp above set forth, and ihe judgment 
of' the leer court is Pitirmed, 

liOt to be reported in full. 


*00.00S$ B0W »«-I<£9fr<r« 
inBitccrmi aaat asl bnn fli9ip-:SttoHilff.BTih-.a%o%iii ^tit 

nc»««9i x<^ aJ^^3Xi Bf.ii ni b90L ut^xq xLubciu .ton smr 

j-oibasv »h^ dtuifib ton iriw -twcO •JpII^qqA ,9li 

. Is^^:f ^fiJ^ [ioqu b&$iipv-ion 910719 Ito aafiuoaJ A:£'3i9m 

ICI ,.Ii» :^9 sssei .?v bLiitiaV. .dsflo eJ^ i« 

. > .1 .«/ ,.9^9 , .xmbA jnlXuffi ;«?:i ^.qqA ,,£II 

.81 , . [f C ciS ..oO .>i ,H 

^oxo' 9ri,t iiidS noinxcro tri^ lo 9::in a ■ 

Jb9cfiu^?xb »cf Jgn bXi<on'a •«/»o iidi ni loaaj^jbut iaa 

jnsagljjJt art^ bn« ,ii^iol ^»« ayotfa -saoaesi )»fi^ 10I 

«t?»inii:ttn »? Jiw^o lyol »xii 'lio 

tLiu'x ni fc9^ioci9i acf Oo ioi 


/, CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of 
the State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true copg of the OPINION of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in mg office. 

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set mg hand and affixed the seal of said Court 

at Mt. Vernon, this /^..../Ti::^ dav of December, 

A. D. 1915. 

..„.t£:^ .\s^..'..^.\^. v.^^CrV^ 

"oftfieAapellglte Court. 



I, '\ 


/ ^ 

* J 

Opinion of the Appellate Court 

AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at ML Vernon, Illinois, on the Eourth Tuesday 
in the month of October in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fifteen, the same being 
the 26th dai) of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fifteen. 

Present: m 

Hon. Harry Higbee, Presiding Justice. f 

Hon. James C. McBride, Justice. f 

Hon. Franklin H. Boggs, Justice. 


And afterwards, to-wit: On the Li^z.. 


in the office of the Clerk of said Court at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, an OPINION Hn the words and figures 

day of December, 4. D. 1915, there was filed 


No... S^l" 

March Term, 1915 

19^ I.A. 243 







Terui 1.0. 50. Agenda ! o, 65. 

I n the -■■iX)p el 5 at e Court. 
>ourth Dii'trict. 
1 arch ■" erm, A. D. 291ii, 

>red KleAt. ) 


Appellee. ) 

Vs. ) Appeal from vaiiiamson 

Soutiiern Illinois Coal ) County Circuit Court. 
6. Coke Company, ( 

Appellant, ( 

LcBridej^ J. 


It is sought \}y this appeal to reverse 
a jud^rjent oi five hundred dollars and coste, re- 
covered by apptllee in the C^iJpciUt Court of V.illiam- 

8oa CountyTf'-ftie ft j ^llce -imcif f oTa^WTmryear^ oeen 
A A 

en^^fiiged in Vt^ m buoinogo- ry ji' drivir:£- «( mule^in coal 

mines and had been fit v/ork for the fa pp cllftnt as a 


driver lor several monthe prior to hie injury. On 
Lay 21, 1914, he was fciven a Euleij u.*jLLd iLUiLf, to 
drive in what was knovm as the first v/eet <::ntry oft 
the third sout}i entry, lie i»A dtt »%v « V il — ty a o 'O - J u l . t^ 
•**Wr«— iMsHNt , 4ri \1 rr ** from nboyt eight ♦'oloeli '••" ^ 
the morning until lout four in on e af^ g gnom*, 


w liiei> 4img ^le was injured, ir ^ ■a. pr^en.i 'B fgowi 4 i i e f^ . y , l - 
iltiiiut Liiff4 nule was unt' overnatle nnd hnd r habit 

of turnintj off of the vjUju'i ar iine^of pulling; into 



,dd ,0.' !ibst9^^ 

aoescRirXi-V jbotI lB»qqA 


tXa&iyaoO 93(0 m 

. JnoXXsJcrqA 

.1 ^ftbiiaoi 


.0 JiJcD 

X«oo 0x^9 Xi/m )« aiiiviil) 'to eofiioirfrf a<i*< n.x ba^^na 

s B^i ^Hi^ llo e Ktm adi nol aliow ^fi naacf bii.{ baa s&niai 

.'Ciatni axxf qJ- loliq BrfJrioai X^isvae loi, asviaJb 

:i ^'9^' iV 9' J- boma a vsXun a naviii saw sri ,MtjX ,IS1 ^flil 

,cU h i f a a j * ! ^ A rfii a# ya M mba s ai .'^ic^ns i{;fi;oe Ii'siiiJ sdi 

**♦ .w o a g ti i^t o j ft i i" «'*■ lijol iuodr. Xi;fna aninTom arl^ 

i^xrfed « bsd bri-^. aXfifjamdroytu e«w alua ax.if >«iiJ auicjt)"" 
o^nx ^^nxIXuq lio^aali t.s iuijfta ad^ xo lie '^tniuS lo 


rooms wft«*MMi4ur^ he q> ,i i .i> i»A^ a light in the rooms, 

••il^l^knew nothing aLout this aule and «mres:Ki9SSSS^ f^-— 
of such habits, and ttewtf 4i<M^waP*"the lirst day he 
had driven it.. It apwea r g that M^ien the laule nttemptr- 
ed to leave the wr » (jii1ng % n\f]f track Wmt it ireruent- 
ly caused the car to he. thi u uu Si uiu ' iihe liaaj^ . nnd 
<»» drivers were unable to restrain tUa mult; by 
the U8e of lines, »o they c lmin the mule v.-ould 
catch the bit 1;l. Ullu . teeth so that the lines" 
would hnv a n&n.ft a, ^ » ot ' W^oj i check«8e o^ guidj4t6i»iiira, 
a n d it i e oAn i Tnad whan hi* wnnld^lurn olf this w uul d 
^AJt uU' »JN»»*«- t^* ear- ' f f ;^tHe tiuLk --tmgt ~ttaa l T r"'Wa p danfelT bug 

lo,..-ttee-4«-'rer. -iwrt^uring the day jrPWl** drc 

the mule he h^d turned cut j mh. t-m^ ut Lhi ee timeo 

and ^J aB o wn ^the car off o - i- tho ti-.icL , and that the 

last time i . i a f o r a . « pi» e l iea v i a a tHio p t v/as about twenty * y 

or thirty minutes, or po e atVily iVtii - Ae ' e m ', ^-^Cb ' 

assistant itaine manager , was y^^^*^ 

- tit s<e r. Dickson, 

present, apd it is* ^f^iia<d , n nd not A#»4 i«<i, that 

<* y pf3 i 3 ae aaClKi to }iim "Joe, this 3.ule to be 

taken off of this run, if lie aint he is , o ing to 

kill or hurt soiae driver." a nt -.« p . !» « »gg -- ti w i t 4^ter , 

the ayuetlBc\ hadr&3cribed-;Lo thoM^iibtstmi't iiiiw ..nnJ^ft/^^j 

tnnnttjj i ar th e manne r — in whio J : ^ttfee. mule iiad ^een -tUiJSi- T^^^^ j 

f nrimr ^^, - ■feft^Hi t ha raine iflanmg j^r tta g w said that he 

would stand at the roouL and '^^er, the mule froL'- turn- 
inf: into it. ffh r it aij^eaniie ^sadcr t 8 la>» that he 
oufeht not do tr:at ng it v.'ould cause the mule to 
hurt hira. AKhx iii'Lliaiit^ I'.l'ree 'or"'io'iI' 


- _-.. o . ^ .<^ ^ air 

bar ,'A va'iii •'O di Ttgrrt- awuiiiJ .»cf oi ibo di-iJ- tMssUAO xT 

6£u<]^ 9Ltm 9di ^ a±»I '9 ^^ti ^-t am .esniX lo asu srU^ 
asnil sifJ^ t*.'i^ fiB di99S BLi^nrmi&v oiso 

y/oab »>fje<{q« i^nb adi ^nxiuo^iMH' .TBr A » b "ad i t qJ ;. 

esinxJ' ssiilJ "rv &w^ •■»* Suo b9mut bfid a/t sli/in 9d& 

3i oi tti^iijo 9tuai ^aidi .ftoX** AJcxf o^ Osfis^aaXI^ff^ 
o^ %Qto'i mt 9d^ 4tPlB 9jc( ti .ntnt aidi lo llo n'sie* 

r'l'iirfv .,;;r^_j, ng »g f fci tt ( >< ■ i tl w rrt ^t wwww a fi i f attain b w 

-n-xu^ Moil ©fujsr s''-^ -- - r t _ -^^ ^^.(^ ^3 [>nd^% fcli/ow 

oj elun 9dJ seuso bitrow ;M 9b tc.i^ ob ton fd^Uo 
rpl * I'o" " 99ti iT'^JiTi X-wM JL» J^ A .sitd Si mi 



^ the mule agnin attempted to turn into -x rocia and 


T?ick8on^ undtrtook to keep, h im out, 

I5ick90n came towRrdo the 

mule with a etick when he turned in,>hut theiriule 

turned out and tbt e 8lacken%hMthe tail ch^^in Rnd 

f p u si i^Ufck*^ a^lrTf the car ninfl. that }^^ fnia., r^nt in 

LaIXuJuu ^^ gra'b' iAil( at tiie spreader afcrap ^ne^jniesed it p.nd 

swun^j under the car a» e l % kft ei ' J i i^ ran upon hira and 

K "broke three ribs and otherwise injured apn e it l e e . ^''^^^ ' 

DicksonJ^ t »t»" «*e eAg4 «.at<»flfatr<>e m ^^ m r g e T , denied that he 

stood in the room and fri£,htened or etruck the fnule, 

ae olftitnft d, or that the mule hy reason a^«imch 

friiiht turned and knocketf ^utllee under tne cp.r. 

he claime that app0ffl^ was lookine hack to oc u ti i e 
Ti r i v e r -f ull or t T i^? - "hliu and fell off of the tai/i^ ciitiin 
and was hurt. 

It further r?pneai4i^ f t 'j iu Ihe i; ' mdMf i»e in- 
tnis case that at the time of and prior to the day 

he. ae 

of the injury the App e ll w wt riad elected not to 


operate its mine under the corapenss tion act 

The fir?t c lunt of the declarrition cr^arg 
that it was the duty of the defendant to exercis?e 
ordinary care to provide plaintiff with n rer.?onab]y 
eafe rcule to drive, '^nd that the defendant nejlitent- 
ly provided him with an unrulAr, unrovernahle ?md 
^ /-^l dangerous mule, in this, ««** mule could not be safefc^ 

handled by the driver ?n account oi his iwii'uly »inA- 
«ttCT5^Me?mrtn e disposition, and was likely to injure 
plaintiff by suddenly tuminf; into ro<^me or cmse- 
cuts along said entry; th?st the defendant knev; or 
by the exercise ni ordinary core for plaintiff's 


aft/firarW *urf,ni bdrrrifi sil ft»ffw iLotf^ s rfJiw dX</ar 

at bnn , H»» ' 9ri »«tXi v-J6g8 two Aif t ^r Y'te iSM:JiMu''iGtiiq 

bfT*\ St bwrnit^yri- fpsntdS T^bwsTtqs arfi^ fB lift '(ffi^rs JLO 

^"^"^^'^^ . y»< tfuf ^ R bViiJlttt •mtn^':i}o btia trfit »»itr{l ©icrttf 

.aTifW «rf^ ifoi/TC*9 to bafTs^a.jiTti bfta aboi sriJ^nt boot* 

rioj^ito ft09B9T Ytf aXixia atff tnrft to .i » g J * fl.f s ar 

.tfxo »ify Tislfniy u u r I J I f i^ b»?f ooit?! brtB bsmcuT trfalr^ 

XF' htfJR ^ suit* ^Wlt t^B IfBTfth SBBd altf* 

'dt'y<m b»ir»*X9 barf *fM»- a- yciulnk «rf* Ic 

sslof^xs «* *rt*»bff»'i9b 9;ft lo x^vb 9fit vsm tt iBstf 

X^dAnt>9Bsr A dJii'tt Yttinltilq abivotq ot 91*^0 \:ic«ffib'XO 

-ias%i.l-^€h rnwbrt9l#b »?ff tjuii- Wrtr *»«vtTb o;f sfuat slsit'^ 

bn« 6 E<f/?ftt«Mro-^ rw rfj-hir .trJt/l b^btroiq ^J^ 

Ct&liJ» ^«f >6ff bltf?© »£»« .OiH B t^trfi fit .srirni Buortsgnnb 

•itirtf^i ol \X«iir nsw* brto ,nf»JtlJteo(j«ib 9 rthtoTfRTTrrgrw* 

-"SQCTO rtd %3?«frt oJni 3niflitfr-xXn9bfaj/9 >ccf llt^niaXtr 

10 woHTf frrobnSlsb 9ri* tnA^ ;»;TJn9 bis*? anoXc ci'tfO 

B*tlfiftl»lq t<»l 9ti>o t^Bfl-i'*^©'^^ ««ibT9X9 9rii xtf 

safety could have kriown oi the ^ tfivulj/ -And dRi]{ ' er jui*" 
dieposition oi »ws*mulc, "nd wouJd mIbo }i?ive '-nown 
oi the danger to plaintiff oi driving Si^id raule "by 
reason thereof. That a yp ello r w^ prlor to the 26th 
day of -..ay liad fleeted ^lOt to provide nnd pay coia- 
pensation unaer the conjpensation act, '*jiach ie v-et 
forth in lauljstance in che declaration; and had 
prior to 3>^id date Tiled notice f ?uch electi'-'n 
v.ita the industrial i oard oi the tate of Jillinois?, 
nnd liad not on »aid date withdrawn said notice. And 
then aiiet^s ~^^ consequence oi such election that 
^■s^v/as dtp rived oi the defenses specified in t}:e 

"he eecond count of the declaration 
allefeeflL the same conditions as the f irst^ eowwti 
and tne sarae diepo-ition of the >iiule, '^.nd then chargevV 

that the foreman of the defendant approached 
mule with a large stick in his hand and laegan "oeatint 
p?nd gtrikiufc «**d|^cltile over the head v-ith the ptick 
and in consequence of the^ txiid uni ' uly ff-»d ui i iRO i tm-f 


.aT»Ae disposition of aw ^ A L-ml e , cor.ibined with the 
assault made on him hy the lormaMn, said mule jaicHed 
plaintiff 'betvfeen the car and said mule, therety 
breaking three rios, etc. 

The first additional count charge^ the 
furnishint; oi the sanie character of r.uJe ae pet forth 
in tlie former counts, nnd then al]e{:efli that while 
plaintiff was driving i^*4<^u]e the foreman ne£;litently 
stepped fromone of sf'id rooias and with a large stick 
in hie iiands frightened ewWL mule, and on account of 



.- ... -_^^aeJby.f^ lo 

on '., -•."xivi.t iw 9^Ab i>449« fto Jon Jwwi bar. . 


i)d: ;-fi bine .ivatcxci 94^ i()C( £s|i^ CO, A baa J^Xuo«s£ 

. . .98 bn« iKO »£i^ a99v;|»(;t :lt'xi^ni£iq 

3iij /^ti /vJDijfi i 91 11 mil: 

341B49 tusMitt'Sd^ lo -^iiiAJtaxul 
ui;^ il9.)9rX4 n9£(.t ban ,«Jrai/oo .a»itctai <m£1 /i^ 

uoX^e 937 .f bni» atfflofti b£<&« lo 9x102071 b9c;q»^s 

lo ioxioooB nc ban ,9Xum >*«*» b9u9i^f;iitl abnai^ jrIxI Hi 


» hc e oogy »?%iid dunnj ii gi » is^ <wn<ii ti ! T ! i tliat plaintiff 
wa3 unable to control the l aai al aule and th«t his 
disposition, coniUined with the f rii:hteninti. "by the 
foreman, caueei the plriintiff to fall from hie 
TiOQijAoxi on aatg^ cor, and ?it tnerel;y injured. 
.v>-ii "^aHJj count also uja^e(| 5.-ub?t?riitially the cose ollega- 
tion BS the other counts ay to the defendant hrvin^- 
elected not to operate under tlie coicjpenpp-tion ^.ct. ^ 

ihe liret trier av- igned ie upon t':--e re- 
fusal of the court, to give to fjie npTiellant p peremp- 
tory instruction oec^.ust neither count of the decla- 
ration stated by proper allegation facte from which 
it would legally follow that ap'-ellnnt had rejected 
the compensation act of l'.il3. Ae stfted "by appellant, 
tae count then sets forth certain provisions of the 
compensation act of thia state (being the -ict in 
substunce) and then r;verg> th^?t on tiie date siore^aid 
appellant wais an e^ipioyer tiT labor and servants under 
9aid act; tnat prior to the ;?bth day of J ay 1914, 
it had •lected not to provide and pay corrt'enaati on 
providad in ?aid act, etc, Ti.e point n.ade is, th">t 
it was necessary in the deciarntian to allege tvo 
thiiigs; Ist. That the appellant filed the notice, 
electing not to coine under the compensation act, 
with tne Industrial B-rird. 2n(5. '^o post a copy of 
this notice at the riine, ae required by pt'-^^utt:. 
The latter clause is not charged X::: /.ave been done 
inthe declaration cut it is cnareed in tieneml terme 
that tae defendant elected r.ot tooperate its mine 
under the conrpensation act; vmich as we believe, is 
the ultiu.-5te fact, and sufficient Rfter verdict v/ith- 


Btr. $Riii ba» sXiiiB'AiiHM 5a.l loxiflco cJ^ sXdcau aav 
•riJ- \rf ,^ins' ■■ ' " ' ^iiiw bsnidiuoo .nox^xeoqsiib 

I «^J^ # \_ 

--,?•' I- 53S5 •ri:' ■•'-'■ '•^fli'.je dag {(idjt^si otla 2tiuoo ^fftfKf i-^^^v 

^4txvj.i jn»broIw^ ^ . 0^ as •^nuoo «9ii*o 9xLi sb acii 
- arxscr s ^fL?.Il3c/£r« »^^ ^■i sviU o^.*i«oo »it^ io iaeui: 

b9i09leT ba./ inr-li&'-^qH Jtaii woLLot \Li:Bii9i bluov it 
I t:'^' 'A Y,cr f>»j«le aA .£XiX lo ^d« aoi j-fiaxxsqsaos ddj 

nX ^d^ oiii gtUdcf) $i4f->^e uxdJ lo JO£ noX^fisasqctos 

.ij:r.<9ai:»lr siftb dxu)' r^r ;fi[N!l^ fii->vjb ii»xi.V bam {aocu&i'etfua 

lohf'.L r^jiiv'Vi^r. tr.i? icciBl lo •x&\;cicf2i& an asv/ ^xuBXXoqqs 

, .- . , . lo x&b xli't/S iwl*'c:r luillti. imii ;4ob bi»t 

ira't ,ex etfiixi '^aicq <i i .oi» ^ioe bxee fix i>el>xvoaq 

Qvi i>^LtB OS noiifiXJDlotib tii at \x«eB9&an euw Ix 

,s»ox:fCii Biit bsllt SanlL^c^Si 9£ii J«£iX .^aX ;e^ixi^ 

.^op noi^flonaq.-Tc: 3 r;.-?.' ajbrnj siioo o^ *on ^^iJ'OaXe 

zo >c<TO^ 'B ;^«oq c- . ^ '-:.'«! XBxz;^sutXIX sxiJ atiw 

. i^j/c^ fwt* \d JiMtxi/t t>T «K ,»i'.xai »iij- itx5 «ox^cft exrii 

snoii v&aacf MtsA pi b»}iXt<^\o ion ax asuAlo i9S*bI sxiT. 

..T^dj Xi-t^xi9s at b«s.txm6 ax. ^x .tua ocx^isxAXaaX) Sil^nit, 

snius 9Si 94AXaq0o4i ion bod oalu Snjiba9t»b euJ' ianLi 

«*i .svdiXsJ 8V)^ 9A cifix<iw t^of; aox^xtaoaqmoo adi tabrw 

:-i.-fr ioibrsv initPi ^naXoixlua bm .^o«lt »li^a^j•X^J axi^ 

out iQsUcing any othtjr averment. It may be that 
if a dtiaurrer u%d been interpoced tc t^ie decla- 
ration and this question raised, tiiat the court 
would have required tre declaration to liave heen 
made riorespeciiic, The uitiri-'te fact reqi^jred 
to "be proven was that fippellant elected riot to 
Operate its laine under the cccipensation .'ct, • nd 
as we understand the rule oi pleading;, all tliat is 
necessary to make a feood declaration, at least 
alter verdict, is to allege theultiiaat.e fact to 
be pToven. "i or the purpose of pltadint;, the 
ultimate fact to be proven need only to be str.ted. 
The circumstanceB which tend to prove the untimate 
fact can be ueed lor purposes of evidence "byt 
they have no place in the pleadings.'- javie -e. 
SVis. Cent. '.. i-., Co., 54 ':p., 636. it ha? been 
decided by thi? cr-urt that, 'it is a rule -^f "J sv,- 
v,'ell understood that it is unnecessary to plead 
the evidence, as ul tirjote fact? only need to be 
averred in ^ood pleading." i^lton i.y. <k jllumirat- 
ing Co. vs. jroulds, 61 App., 33;''. This doctrine 
is fully sustained in the case of Cliicat.0 City 
l\. K. Vs. Jennings, 15V 111., 274. H ie true 
the declaration did allege tJie iilm^^ of the notice 
with the Industrial Board but failed to allege the 
posting thereof, but, as v/e '-ave eeen, this \--v-s x 
simply evidence or the nianner ofprovm^. the £eneral 
fact and truit it was not a necfcssary .^venaent, but 
if it were, under the rules of olc^din^ it -^ould 
have to be recarded as an avemaent iffl-nronerly or 
incompletely made, and it iias been detenained by 


)9b 9di fasitupd'X 9vtid btuow 

idi 10 i** .nevoixi *<^ 

d^f'-Axc^nii suj iT9^ xioxilir asonfi^SisuoTio 9cfT 

;f]|tir 9tin9i3iv9 to esaaqruq rot bsau •<! n«o i^oal 

.9/ Qiv x aoaXq on BVBd x*''^^ 

^.a JbsbxoBi) 

/iweasaanfiii ai Jx i ^uii ty?Q^9i9bnu lt9v 

'S9at »: Tfi ,30^.9btr9 9dS^ 

-^Hfii.r. ytiiiaaiq boo^ ai b9'Xi9rB 

ar^v: , .;■- . ?./ .oO ani 

;:»8<»o Mi^ ai J»»axaiau« ^XIul ai 

. r-v .: , , ntnnsL .aV . . 

Sf^BllM btb aoi:ftiiBLo9b 9iiS 

J'brmoE - rbnl adi d^iw 

z ,:isii .toaaartt jjnliaoq 

sonabJtv* ^Xqmis 

- i ^ . - . 

or 3 a*- ^x ^fuii fcnc iOBi 

- + - '■ . t X 

xavij nr^ 2i', bab-irioa-: :Ja ci 9Vtiii 

■ ■. ■;. ; '. 'ilir'y 

\j n9nxi:."ia^ji najo a/v n ,s>b8n x-t*^*^<PK>3A-' 


our BuprciXie Court that a defective stntement of 
a fcood cause of ^^ction ie corrected "by veriiict. 
iiany, if not all of the casee cited t»y npoellrmt 
in support of ite position arose upo n deaurrer to 
the declar-^tion, or under the city ".nd village 
'iCt wiie re the statute required 'js a condition 
precedent to the brin^^ing oi the t?uit thnt v notice 
be fciven to the city of the date, hour nnd place 
v/here the injury was inflicted; nnd it is but 
reasonable to suT)])oee thrit if in there cases the 
declaration had averred ir general teme thet 
notice of the time Find place, «i» rfrovlded by sta- 
tute, had beent iven, .-^nd the proof offered r^^d 
shown that the notice contained the necessary re- 
ouirenients, that at least nfter verr^ict this H-ould 
have been eufiicient, Indeed the 3upretrie "ourt, 
in coaanenting upon a declaration v;hich fa,iled to 
allege notice, in the ca»e of V/altere Vs. '"he City 
of <"ttawa, 240 111., 259, in reference to aider 
by verdict, in qui tint: froir. Chitiy s&yp, ''"^iihere 
there is any defect, imperfection or omieeion in 
any pleading-, whether in substance or form, v.'hich 
would have been a fatal Objection un^n deiaurrer, 
yet il the issue joined oe such as neceesarily 
required, on the trial, proof ol the iactg so 
defectively or imperfedtly stated ^r omitted, and 
without vhicn it is not tc be presumed that either 
the judt,e -flould direct the jury to t.ive, or tlie 
jury would mve JB^ven, the verdict, such defect, 
iitperf action or oaiioeion is cured by verdict. — 


lo Snsjf^Sn^B •vxt»«l«fr A fed) J"tuoi5 suw^cftfS itifb 

o^ •x»iT03»b n ocfu ssoie froi:;fl90iT '•^i lo ;fiO£jqu» al 
*3»rriT b/ifl YJ-xo sriJ- tibnu to ,fiolJ''^i«I09b «rf^ 

soi^On n S^iit rii/i sri^ to ytxjniicf arfJ oi ^«»b9t>diq 

9Dsr*T bfiR ^jo.'i .sJnb ddi" lo ^j-xo srf* oi fl«vJt*ji *cr 

^utf el JJL ban ;b»*oiI^nx 5BV YTtut«i *^* 9t9'dv 

9d& 9»«RO 9?»d[^ rtx 11 *Ff{^ 9«oqcrii« o;f sfd'anossst 

f»a{) ^ene^f £tn»tf9^ ni b9ii»vfl ban aotS»io£o»b 

-i»*9 Ycf b«bJ?ro*E<T •« v^o^fcT ^-^ 9ffli^ 9^? ^d 99i*on 

bpJ bvtifil'y toon<j a«f* bne ,n9Vlrja9^»<f bad ,9^»if 

-STL ^fXA'f'j^o*/! 9d^ bartii^d'noo soiifon »ri* Jsrf* flvro'rfe 

.^ttfC") •m*tqur> wfj beebn : .^nsiailloe «9»cf 9v'«l 

o* baXi^l xtoxtfcir- aoi^B'ii*ro»b t* noqis ani^n9oaK>o «t 

XJ-iD «rPS ,»V eitf^XuW ^o aiiaa *xfj' at ,90x*or» 9st»X£B 

tsbxB; OKt 90n9T9l»ic ttt ,«dl? ,.1X1 O^S tBim»ftF, ijor 

ninci^BXiao tc noi4'09l:c«qinl .^f.ociltab xob ax. mieiit 

iiolciv ,ano1 jo 9on«*«flf-ue xii 'xeAli^;»xiw ,;jaxba9Xq icfia 

,i9axjja9b accrij noiiosldb Lf\tBl b xi99d^ 9TX5a blucA' 

^x.riiii»«J9oan BA ilOiJB 90 baniot •"?«,■' *fi.^ ^^jt, *9\:, 

oa 5j?ob1 9/1* tn^coiq. .leixj^ srlf fto .ftaiiufai 

bnfl «bo:f^jLno 10 fti|ia*9 xiio^lt^cmt 70 x-C«vi*3»^**> 

aarfJ'le ::^eri;J• ba-^us-s-sq- stf n* *or . iloMw tuoiiitw 

,..,.. i i09iib bLuow aabut, adi- 

^ioalab lioua ,J'oxb»9V tift ,a»vli avna bXaow xxwl 

.J-otbisv xtf ba-xuo 02 nrisaiorc 10 noid osjlxaqail 

'".fter verdict it nifvy be intended that every eeeential 
irict alleged in t}je declaration, or f'liriy to "be 
iiiplied irom '*na.t is alleged, was esta"bl ished on 
trie trial; but v/Jiere the ueciarr.tion ff-ile ti^^ho'w 
tiiat trie piaintii'f he.« n cnuse of r-cti';n th^-re ie 

uo roora for intendr.erit or -or'SLymtior. . . 

'-here is no allegation in either of the criminal 
counts liaviiife even reriotc rei'»rence to the notice; 
noticing from which t.he {.;i"vi"^i o^' notice c^n be implied. 
It could not thcreiore, if a verdict h-ncl been rev.der- 
ea on tiioee count??, be nres'U'ed to }xave been oroved 
and the deciamtion would not hnve been ^uff ioient 
to support a judtnent.'' In the caye nt bjtr, hoi^ever, 
tue declaration does r.ver m general terLi;? the 
election not to operate under the corr.'enj?ation -ct, 
and tne proof siiows that the acts nece5?sary to con- 
stitute this allegation v;ere nerlomed, c fre of 
the opinion that the dec] arntion, after verdici, vae 
tood and that the point nade 13 not well ta';en. 

It ia insisted th'-it the -oroof nifered of 
the notic^ filed v/itn the Industrial Bonrd and post- 
int: at the nine, v/aa not competent to prove tnese 
f;.ct5?. Iroof of the filing of -^ notice with tne Indus- 
trial iJoard was shTn by crrtified cr^ny fro;*: the sec- 
retary and under the seal of the i:oard, which we 
bavei.'. proceedings heretofore J eld to be sufficient; 
triat of the notice posted v/a? si OA?n by etntement of 
witnesse.^ who read the notice, :;nd of one ••'ho cor;ied 
the notice and enii it wac a true copy to the bept 
of his khowledgie. This v/as only ■• description of a 
notice posted and we understand the rule of evidence to 


XBi*riS''T3 ^ 19V -5t-r^frt 3cf v^nn fi :ro£h'iov TsJl' 

;90i • ^r" atoKts'x nay* ^aiV^ Viiiuoo 

^?.S'tiLJOO - 

» - - - . ... - ^ . .. 

- -iiBiaiqo 6j /on 'aci xi aail 9 

Tc.m»pf»o»n «j:^Ojf» st?^ ;t«di svuxfe tooaq •oif fina 

...... ■.:;^? t . .. : 

. ^fl9^»qmoo ,onixa %sLi 1b jiti 

-aubn 9011 on t 

-o»C sell iT\CTl xcroo telltlioo %cf flporfe sbw Jbaaotl LbI:?! 

.bifiod »fll lo^ lB«e ^At xnhau i)fl« \'5«J:&Tt 

;ln9i' d-^olqlaxsd, e;^t.i*»«!Oo%q r^JiM©,^^ 

;5.-n9^/^l3 ?8w bdl9oq sioilQxi ajil lo 1*m11 

b£)- , ,'OxJo« a.i;? baa .^BSaoJiar 

iB^u XqQ.Q 9)^1 x<}8 liHA eailoa 941 

/xqtlgiToa*^ ft^,Vi/^9 «f?"' e- j,b9X»i!oajt «i. 

i !5on»biv9 "io elijisfil bn.*iliiabfiu aw bru; bslaoq soilon 


be that where you are undertr^kint to show an in- 
scription upon a wall or of a notice ported, that 
the contents of it m&y be given cy those wno iiave 
read tne notice, -e do not think that ti^e court 
erred in the f^doiiasibiiity of thii? testiKony. 

"h» next coa5)laint ie, that the court 
erred in refusing to tlive to tiie jury ^-Dnellnnt' r 
third refused instruction, "he point made in this 
inttruction is that tne second count allet^ed that 
the ioremrin struck the mule and that ae there was 
no evidence oi the loreniaji having Btruck the mule 
there could be no recovery under that count, v-e 
are, however, unaLle to 3ee ow the defendant's 
rights C'-'uld be prejudiced by the refu8«l to t:ive 
this instruction. The eifect oi it would ii-^ve teen 
to J-iave taken the consideration of th?>t count of 
the declaration from the jury, but if there was no 
evidence to support that count the prfesumption 
would be thrit the verdict was rendered u <"^n the 
other counts, and even though failure to ^rive tlis 
inetriiCtion might have been error, it could not be 
reversible error. If one locd count ie sui^tained 
by the evidence this is sufficient, hidoradn Coal 
i. Ci)ke Co. "vs. 3wan, "327 113., 586. 3'^ven though 
the defendant be found guilty upon an insufficient 
count, also upon a sufficient count, the fact t;.r»t 
the c jurt has given an instruct! ^n authori?;ini, 
a recovery ur.on such insufficient count, will not 
reverse. Teebles Ve. o 'Gnra Coal Co., 143 App., 
370. This is not sue}. - rror a? would tvorl: ^ sre- 
ver«T.l of this case, 


■ lioa B . ' qu not&qiiOB 

iij: .joiSon 9siS i>fisa 

.V:.;.ur-u3r f.;i..., .>r- srf^ cii baits 

^9s SiH if^iii si noi^outi^tai 

./s:: nj3.nei' c aonsbiva on 

-hni.' xiisyoosi on sd bluco gisxii' 

- yiDiiisrq •tf bXuoo s^dsi^ 

rj xi 9 »fiT , no! i oini Bni etdi 

oi jBtt»bi»noo orfi aosCbI »vfl£l oJ' 

gffi moil aoi;ffl'X£}I09b 9dt 

■" ■^"Oi-'qu* oif •andbivs 

" " ,fjQdi aftFe bns .a^m/oa aari^o 

j-:u:: n> .* .:.,..j i<uvi,j »?— ■*• ' .10119 SlcflBTOV©"! 

, ow ..III Vfig .m^wc; .•/ .0^ •i*il^^ 
rfocfi; y^Ciifii bnuol »rf ifiBbastsb 9Ai 
iiuoo j'nsiDii'iya ii aoqu bala ,;tniJOO 

rn'^ *rt«ini^twani\ffou» nrqy xibvoosi 8 
, . -, ' «i*^t7Vr> ,aV asXcfea-f . »ei 9v»i 

-j« ;^ii> r{au» i'bn ei siiiT .OVC 


Complaint is qleo made of fnilure of 
the court to define "i i'oxlKr.te crmae", -^accident'', 
bec-^u.f?e it lo 'jl-iifieii t)int tl';'r3e ■ordg are technical 
aild Q/iOul'i be a7--pl=}.ined. Ue do not reftnrd the f-^ilure 
to e.xplnixi such, v.-nrdg as nece39arily erroneout?. 

Critici'^'L; is? alec nade upon 'ip'^elJee'? 
instruct! •jr. \j^ ''. "his v/e thinlc is without aerit 
as tl^e instruction was ai r.ply '"ith x-eference tc the 
knov/ledge and did not direct a verdict, nnd it did 
app«ar fro:3 fie evidenoo that the boss driver, 
Hcberts, hr-d recei-ved notice oi thismule'i- disuo^i- 
tion during tLe ^.cntii cf lebrufiry "f:efore« 

Criticies!. it upon appellnn'c in- 
st- lJCti^■n [^^^p< 5, l)eC':u- t?e- it -^dvi r;'ed the jury r-e to 
the dclenee tiiat mp].;el3.ant was deprived nf, ii it 
i:.a(.' elected f.ot to overate under the cotTOeneation 
act; Also tl-^t it left tl.e jury to detenrine ^vithout 
an instruction v;hrt evidence vjap necespary and whe- 
tiu-r or not such r-n election h'?d >'een rj^de. As to 
tiie forLier oojection the plaintiff had r; ri^lit to 
an instruction advisia^i the jury -^s to the defense? 
tn'it defendant *as deorived ol ; and ut on the other 
que!?+ion, if uTjpellant iiad deeired in inetrvction 
delinini; what was? nedceaar:/ to be proven he ehcild 
hp\e asked lor it, and having failed to do so we do 
not gee hov« ha can coailain. And the earne rule applies 
to appellant's objection to i ns true t ion r^^. ''. 

Appellr..nt' e 4^^^ instruction, as modified, 
coujd well Jinve been <,ivun f •: s presentee^, but v-e do 
n.-^t think the ration nn.di3 th'^ instruction 
erroneous. It oniy i:.ade it rnore specific tut tlie 


etuL^ "iris 5rtB 

,r 8 Bcii oicil xs»qqa 
. . - tfouzSa 

10 i J Oslo n - i. • "- 

zatvbR nottotnittxl n» 

noii-oirt^eni: .if b3ii:«*b bad InjiIXsqc , toi^saup 

33 xlq^ ^.-nitg s.i .nlfiXqioos n»o sd woil !>9« i^oa 

:)e3Tq g« tvtvl^ aotd ^rmi IX»w bXi/oo 
■ '.xosqe sic^rtt *x ^liRv, \lat: .'oancn* 

•;ia-e i'vv.errl prinuiT.l e r/as? covered b;.- the instruction 
wltliout the E.periric r^oclif icnticr . 

The ISflh/lnociif ied instruction conplr.ined 
of "«?e'8 tiven upon t^ie re uest of apricllant riubct-'ntially 
in ap^i o'! 1 .int ' 3 ^iafth i.-ietructicn, "rd ^e think they 
have no rit-i* to co'^pl/iin. 

Other error?- hn-ve "been riesigned u on the 
inytructiCiig and the introduction of evide^ice, ob- 
jectio.TB as to te'='timon,y r»,nd deuiF.ration? by 
cou.iBCl iurint; sxrt;;in'-'tion of the witneseei, and 
the settinr of the case for trial. We hnve ex-^i-nined 
theij. oat ret--ord them arj i!.-ian-^.orto.nt, ond to so'ie of 
the^a as r.3.d*.-, m exc<jptionD have eve*^ been r;reeervpd. 

•The next error ?•> 3 signed ie, that the ver- 
dict is ;7ianife3tly against ti^e ivsi^ht "^f the evidence. 
The evi.'ence is very eonf 1 icti.''^ diificult to 
d'^tvirniiMt ?.'it}-i e;xHCtner-3. It is true.ns contended 
Xy iy;peliint, tiist ths appellee .^tate- that the nule 
turned to^o into rron Jo. 3, .rA suddenly stOT,r,ed, 
and the cn# cM;:e forw'/.rd -'nd caught jippelles, rmd 
tii<*t the tiule war; etopred r.y the acts -".no conduct 
of 'Dickson; this is oi] denied "by Dickf^o**; "but it 
does appear, .u^a is not di fluted, t;-;vt :^iclc-^on viant 
into t.'ic rooci for th? ]v„irx)ngt. of f rit.htenjnfe: the 
mule out or knock j rig: hin out if he attempted to x-urx 
into the rnoa with his 1 ofidtv<^(: rus little^^tt s:n^ 
8«.w Tics°n^ at ti-e ro/TF. witri c; ptick in his }i.oad 
wh« i' un i i^ that he H'C? t'^^i^t '''-'^ knock fftT^. the t^'.uj e^^ •**^j 
J. li, • .'•oney ''^MUM t**** I'ickpon icld hiir,. th^jt he v/as 
fcoint to turn the niule back. rc:Oouesl ^^uiitUot he 


i,)oq9 9HS $itodttyf 

_,ia on 8/ S.I 
o fee 1^ n i tirii . iine »n Q t/ OiJi ;^ en X 

h'ir' i-":x<=, ... .... \aiti':*9 dtXt 

r;7 li^jot xj... b is.:-' :f.lro.['i.tX0O XtttV 9it:i90ii9hiv9 .(»d.T 

sny Tic>:oon etandirife at roora 11 o. 7 or 6 with a 
stick ir; his nr^nd iroa lb incxit:^ to two fe^it lor»t,, 
and that Dickson told bii.,, i:.e was t'-'ing to knocJc 
the Kiule out"^lt lurtuer appears irom tl.e t<jt=ti- 
mony ox Clarence ::,rit.fes, that iie nttird the oonver- 
eation between i^ppellee and IJickson, in w}.ich 
Dickeon OHid, "1 stand here and keei. the Gule 
frc5R turnin^^ out. : iaintiii BRid aoraething but J 
didn't understand v/hat it v.a;?. .hilt; the evidence 

offered i? nnt \cry strong; in corrobornti ■'!., yet 
it does tend tn sustain 'ippeljce'e istdtement in the 
caee, and doee show that there was a diaposition 
uron the pfi rt ol Bickeon to jEXt wait for the riule 
to atteiapt to turn into the room, and when it did 
so tc acare him out or knock hiu out. it al tso 
appear? by a xjreijonderance of evidence tli t when 
Tjy^cnn told appellee he -.ouiu irit:.hten the mule 
out that appellee told hitr. not to do that ior lear 
ii& vouDd ^et hurt, ricksoii ws.a the aefcistant rtine 
mann^er and in charge of the men ami il lie did 
«tte3ipt to flC-'Te the Eau3e nnd cause tne T^^ule tc 
turn :*nd ipl^c-'.t-n t/e tfsil upon tj .ich nppellee 
"Fe standing, Oiid knocked rippelTice r<g;tirist :ht car, 
HTid C'tueed him to tail under the c?^i, au stated, 
then v'e believe tne jury woula be warranted in ren- 
ilerint p verdict a^^ainst appellant. Ihi? was purely 
a question of fnct to be determineci b^ the jury. 
They saw and heird the witnesses testily and ViCre 
judfees of their credibility, ^nd the court reaving 
overruled 'ip'.ellnnt' s motion lor a new tri-.i we ^^re 


,,ji;. <■ sot! bnjwi ax/f ni ilotfB 

-'.• T •'.'^' • '■■^'- ■ .... .w . .i.irt^'i" •ons'Tfllt) io xfiCM 

zfoi . -^ .itoeilbiCC bns 9»Il9qqB n»»v^9cf flol^«« 

»Xija arfv iS*^^ i>'' ^^ -i oub^s CI tw I" ,i)i«8 aoaioiC 

^ t(i f .4ft . ■: + '»'^'. rl.trffftf'!' .^i/o 3nxfrx;;i aoil 

30 .-- . . : .^-. :i.v ba^tBisbnu f*nbtb 

rK i ii^aJ'iiJ'a « 'a^rXsirqf" riiei'su? nj i>n9^ S9fb ^i 

I : -i-. .' ■ {? worla 99ob bno .ssno 

diu /; v'f XJtX '-J noBioid to tl nq srij- noau 

bib ;fx ay.iv' i>.'i . ,aioo"i 9rfJ od^ni n*mJ orf' ^qisaJ'^tB oi 

03 Ir virf :^oon>( *rc i^^i/c? cixrl aisoB oi o« 

as;fi> * ;{/ aanafcivo Ic sanpisbnoqarcq- r x^^ gta^qTrfl 

■:<^3'i . M cJ- .toH :!ili£ bXot 9«ri»cjqB ;?flf(# *il'^ 

snat^ttBB ariJ saw rroBafoil ,^Tx/ri ^93 ftCuow di'P 

^i hiia nam 9dt lo ©aiarto ni bam zB^nnsKm 

j'.ii 9su«» bn" »tmn arf^ 9apd«i 0* icftcsJ^s 

,Tfl3 - ^ i-yil^qqr b93{f)0ny bnn,jniftrtB*» 8St» 

-i. batrtni-TJEm acf blaow Y'i"t •'"»^ av^ttgo -^wf n^-I.t 

. -i.!,. Siii ^cf o9fti:fln«J'9b ad nt ton* io aoM«9up ^ 

»19w^ bnft tli^gst ee&8»ntiw ©tti' bTreri briF WP9 xrrT? 

ani/fi.^ i^lijca arft brtn ,>^.t EXirfibsio 1I ■=»:•' . jbut 

9"CR d»i I-'iit wan f; lel nciJom B'lnAffaaqjp baXuiTevo 


not able to say tn^n tht veraict oi Uit- Jury v/as 
ii.anife8t:iy ;.{,ainet tht v.'eibixt oi tiic cVadenco, -^.ncl 
unjesf? we cati uo so it becones' our duty tn 3i)i3triin 
the -verdict a/.d Judfe,infcut, 

Theat is no error in ti-.i.? record 
requires a reversal oi t.-xe Jud^rjoMt, r.nd t:.e .1ud/- 
nent oi tbe xower court is fjiiirrried, 

ITot to "be re\crted in full. 


jiii Jflifl ^ae J J aldlR ion 
» i avv 9iit J an X k-^- x t * « a 1 in j».a 

. ai aian 

- j Ic laaaaraTt *? aeTiiipat 

9cr oJ ctoll 


/, CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of 
the State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true copv of the OPINION of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in my office. 

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set my hand and affixed the seal of said Court 

at Mt. Vernon, this L^ - day of December, 

A. D. 1915. 





Opinion of the Appellate Court 

AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at Mt. Vernon, lUinois, on the Fourth luesdag 
in the month of October in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fifteen, the same being 
the 26th dag of October, in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fifteen. 

Hon. Harrg Higbee, Presiding Justice. 
Hon. James C. McBride, Justice. 
Hon. Franklin H. Boggs, Justice. 

And afterwards, to-wit: On the dag of December, A. D. 1915, there was filed 

in the office of the Clerk of said Court, at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, an OPIJ^ION in the words and figures 
following: \ 




lf7l.A. 259 



No. && 

March Term, 1915 


..r.ldD.r.a.d.Q...C..o.a.l.....<S(.....M.iiilB4 Co.,..,.... 


'%1> 1 







sTX trie /-ppell^-te C=^i rt, 

Pourth district, 

' arci : " e rr. , >'■ . iJ , 3 1; 1 1 . 

1 arie rushes, AdRiinistrntrix, ) 

of the e?tpte of .Tones '■ uchef:, ( 

Ap-oeliee. ( 

Vs. ( Ap-ne-ii fp'"--. the 

) " 
i-ld'-^rndo Coal .>•. . iuirij v- "•.rmnny, (^ '"'ircbit ^ ourt nf 

Arcntlian* . 

-n'line County, 

1 cLrxar. vj 

This ••J.pre':;! it? prneecuted t r. rcverr>e ^ 
judgnient of 2500.00 obtained ty '-^prellee ag^iinpt 
the HppftllftTjt in the Circuit Court ci" Jn] isie County, 
^r^ i t r, ppeare i yoiii t . Uii rce>yvrl ~ i n •fchji ft a n g o thrt 
Jp.cee hughes --ind his buccl. .iohn .'unr, vere erployed 
"by deffrp-dint nn ehct firere in iti' mine, nnd v.hile rO 
en<sHged n^— ii*»«%--wr?*c 'wwi onjioveinher -'b, 1'j12, r'.n 
cxploaion orci:r-e;i *#w«**«:oy. tiiy^E^i/j .'nnc" i i.^/hes? and 
John ''unn mo Jc "i' w ' '^lr^ .i n J urcMg fp'.M': rt.lUll .LMjUipTi* 
»?i-"y f ^'tiTYfflruB ftii«*i V': I 'n r ig g— « ufihe g 3fft ' ' ?m v- 

e>4i<U*. "he erploiion c,gaui^'»Hg^-^**< ^ ' ^^' ^ ^^'^ " " ^" f '-'"H^^i^^^ 
occurred in ^h«^ thirc! nr.d f ^untr. ■wes*! entries nif 



of the fecond north f.ntry. >n ^rJi ' - g ll>^nt - ' - " '■nine, ""he* 

entries inyolx&d-. 

nwe the firpt nrnd pecond 

north fc.xtcndinfc.- north -nd ^'■^utii, ^ind the firpt, pecorv 
third and fourth -^ept entries, which r>re turned 



. 31 «T 



-A J "3 9 9-'-^ ^' 


r-,ir Ol. 



.. i * ^ r^ 

^ptpi s»J>#ft*+**' 

■,-.1 bar OS*" 9^-* ^'^ 


to tho weet off of i;he pecond north, '"he north 

cntriee extend so;»e dietnnce north of the third 
nnd fourti: v;ej?t entrie'^. '■^1f& /fix v.a? cirouloted 
■ All unid (jiiiti ' i' e y ty r . ^r>np ol n inn, -iroducin,-; a 
covin cast oi flir, r?«.e«int'' into the i'ixpt north 
entr^/ -uic after f:.<Ang sot^e dipt^'ncc "bcy^nt? the fourth 

Y. e r t at t/:rou£h t1\e second north to the 

fourth v.'cn>t entry and tlience ••••ent thro'j.h the fourth 
v/eet entry -ind nt the «;:od of this rcturnA'^y the third 
MQSX, to tl.e second northand thence eouth to the se- 
en. id \i&i:K entry, thence v.'er?*., re turn int.: hy tiie 
first 7/ept to the sec."^rd north entry f'"'nd thence 
paeaing into the ahnft. g^ vifiy-U" ! !!!! *,"< ;> nl g j \i;j HI |J T it. ' IT * 
•*iui, ■ ftn i V JCi' re va? s» nintii »?vidpnr«» t,f»nriin>- *o nu ii niiC Y*^'' «^ 


evidence tending- t^^ 

R'luee^e jr tlie firpt ond 

8«ccrid Aert entire? \ *l ! ii!jj;"lm<1 ' c*-'U'='4<i«i|the t^-n to 


fall ann to so -:e extent, staoiwei u^' t},e!?e entriep eo 


that, n« n"li- ur r iff <;ii H ay m i ;; r nf t V fi» -r >,,t.nar rrrr r, tre --jaa- 
a^e for the air in returning to the ?hi\ft v?3.« very 
icucri artp.lier an tnes?e entricp th-^n ir the third -ind 
fourtii entries", noon ?)o. 9 ie l'>c?ited ahout tvo- 
thirds of the digtnnce ve!7t o>-; the fov.rtl; ■<'-6!?t en- 
try c^nd north oi the second north entry, "en rhnt« 
had been r/j need in thef?e entriei? to be fired "by 
liuglies and fai g "buddy ].'unn. i\ooa ho, 9 hnd tvo 
•hots? pi iced m it. "here vvae '•■ne !?}.ot j.j" trie ffxc* 
of the lourth weot entry, one in the cr-^Be-cut 
"beint, opened ne^T t?ie foce of t}i«t entry, tvo 
g it o^w in the face of the th.ird v,e«t entry -ond t??o 
Pirrrt* in ench of the tv" stuh eiitriei? off the third 
v/est nnd orir^osite t}>e croen-cut mrkedl 1? on the pint. 


+*o« btiooo 


.■>• u'^iio ««■? Tcr^- TJ^ 

. : bnrs 

• itr-fna <>ioM hA- 

Xi: yfl^ oin* -i"' . 

./c o 

1 onrx^d 90r»n^gxf 

, i.-jJ-ii. etna 



A' A 

»* f>n<3»©a 

» ,%*< 

^tif * ij fix %i>iL*^.M9 aOUm 

a biiu *n.i A ban si^auii 

•3 l)on«ro :i^t*<f 

-J0-B90 >il9(iqqa iMBi 4%mif 

^n the alternj^n of the 25th of '■ ovenjber lushes? 
'^"<^ ia ao ^v e iff ^^^'eTrt Into tnese entries snd iired 


the Phot- .^SttaK. .located nn6 -.Ue i««--h-»t--^,,,«^ 
beirii: -ired '-•?; explor-ion occuired --mid'" imiuitut^ 
^«-44*e injur?^^ both ^ thepe Phot iirer^. '-^mrv. /^ 
i jw» di eT>u tecq ^iti i e flvui a r . nn, nnii jji^^ke a i^wt» »»4 -n 
-r'"?'u.,.uai.(.j,--M«-^ vt.ere tlie»« Phct lirere conmen- 
c ed i i r i nt,» th e j .' i i M ^ . : t i c c i airaed cy ^-^in-.! 
'^-»»- nT- i roia < e ti.nt the evidence p> o^a^ they coir..r:cef1 
-irin^ ti^jjfc.. 8frf>t ai . m the t/.ird wept entrv, rr-.r] p^ 
« «o.maig » J i, .-ut^» i i^y n j B i 1 i ii i y tl.P t they co^.r^'^ced Mrlji jr 
in the fourth v.est entry and firmed v/ith the -•^i>' 
current p.nd ; T y ^ »i i n a.t^ - c ont r-nd A^h h t It i !■>)■,. f^ ^ 
tne '.-vidend'e^t})at the c'uoe of ; u^'hep de<ith w?P-^k«- 

rfwct *h,Tt-] »fc lir«(r}':iq 9hot« in too rmoid succession 
nnd ?ath the air^^ •.'Itf'P^rjy the poi/der pmoVe or cnr- 
hon rionnxide mmj< L-.uiJ'mi fr'»ri one shot tn tlie other, 
resulting in nn erDlopi^^ ^nd claiml^.nt ht m oTi^ 
puotained i w /hitit? hy the f,n.ct thnt -> portion ol 
the !?kin»of a^hnnd ■ . ■j. j1 i; ji hj i ii - TKru" bUi u e^ , ,- r.or- 
tion ol T little finder, c^.r:, ] r-np -nd oVhqt th:iKts 
v-ere lound in the third weet entry, - toyn- t he l yt jset 
''***''^ » J't if^contended by nrr oll'ec. that the ri;idv;??y 
in theee entriep \"oe very dusty, ^md trr-i* tne cir- 
culation of air hein{^ very noor^ t/.e du3t ririfled 
v.-ith the rov,-der er.oVe and 4i)b^ lirint «*r the :--hotP 

natpr^, rnt? oorablned vj th the duf-t, ?nd -produced 
the fntnl effect; pnd nl oo clnirri^Tlint frere w«« 
evidence? ol ci^rred du«?t upon the rou' '\nd '.--nrf? 
of the entry nnd that the dupt nad been >.;urned -md 


. . i*f ^3iuc«»Xl> • •- 




coked 'tnd stuc}: tv':; tnh tinberp ^<nd ro?.f of the 
entry, nnf^ thnt trie dust in t/ c rir '•••^r nrie oi 
t e cnupes of the exr;! '-«>i'^n. 

and Dunn '^ere ir\ind ir. U.e If^Li-t;. veet ontrv '-.nd 
it the diFtnnce rjl =^bout i orty feet froin ti^e 
eecond north entry. / 

' iie dec J ar'".tior, cm?5istr oi r-ir c^tnt?'. 
At tne conclu !vi '-■n ni the tcptlaony ol -iTir.tiff 
the court excluded trie evidence ' nd directed a vtr- 
dict as tc t}.e tiiru, lourth "-xid pixth Tr 'iddition'il 
count "but relused the motic;.i as to tju- lirpt, se- 
cond and iii'th counts, ■'■hich motion was 'lijo rc- 
iueed nt the conclusion r>f aYl of the t'Videncc. 

^■"he firnt C'>unt ch'rr(.?.«i<f t';". t t)ir: t>.ird nnd 
lourth entries vgre dr,./ and I'njpty ond t^'it the de- 
fendant wilfully failel pv.d neglected to x^rwf 
w tk ii 4 r ciitrieff n/id roadv/ny?^ tfcorouf Vily sprinkled or 
cleaned, <<f*^ Ly reai-on "-^^^rrr in fT"i'"-''iiiirrT'Y f*' *-*^'' 

huthei* was follcv/ing his duty, nnd ''hile ^it air 
in w»4«C. entry '-nd cros»?-cut -^ne- ?^ chf»rped'vlth 
duft, f^nd bv reaeon of the firing, of pn3 d. :^]iOtf? the 
tP**"* du9t becmne ignited *fflJ^? viriiPnt fr?;r,joPion 
in the c «» > i t entriep and cross-cut -Wi «', j irTy ,!a«'.cu.rl'ert", 
trrwk injur4#lLthe deceaeed huf.hes. 

-'he peconc cnunt c>i;"rf ei^ that defendant 
wilfully failed -nd r-ei_lected to cnnduct into t}ie 
'g aid rorkin*. nlace of Kufhes nn amount of sir 
eufiiclent to render ti:r- oaid vorkinfi' rlnce reason- 


7' :t ^^- «' 

r«,tf«it «nl cl loks: 

natfCI bn» 
• icf moil *»*iVici JucdP ic aonp.^alb 9r(^ ** 

't' .vT^f'* i^-^«« fcncfr)*»« 

cwiaxs .JiJoo Off J 

;jad ifluod 

-fro:. 'i^^°^ ^"^ ""''^ '^'*"^'' '^ insioxii.:. 


nbly free fror deleterinup air, etc., nn^). t\:.ri% 

air "beirii; chRrged vath,(?.ap an.l ci\:et - Uic n n -ne 
becnme ignited <»**4—Wiie violent explo^i'^n '-^nirrad, 
injuring decenped. 

'rhe fifth count Ciiar^eif that it T*/es ti^e 


duty oi" th# defendant to u?=e ren eona'olc c^^re to 

(Wo^ 2v 

lurnish a reasonably eafc r>jHCe uo tin idn lii g ^^ 

"V'ork and t hen nJlc(, t » j- tiint the an ad efitrie<3 and 

croP(?-outi! vjere in a dRngerou? condition, in tj^^tifc. 

there had been a squeeze m the raine and the nir 

rneeagCB '-artinliy cloeeO iww* to euch nn extent 

thnt sufficient nunntitiee of fref}- r-Ar en: Id not 

be Ic^ced throi>^h »«»id j|. i ■ r e g at; e g > > o p b tn .revent ^■^^ 

i: thi 

rd nnd fourtn entrjep and crogp-cute frora 


becoraint" deleter! -^u p. - ^nd wl! " yggn*. that -tjoe^^att. 

jXf \f4ijrri^»fehe 

LQV'1 adf.«^ , nn/^ ran «oonv>nt adr^t he bL ' mw 
f f rntgi ' 111— 3sp*^^^^^ +j-e tiapt Iroc-. ti^e 
'7iiotp u , i**T i Tife th ^ n Mnri — ti f' .L r-c caueed the otii(» r^p, 
duFt pnd other inf 1 oi2r.?\ble eubst-inces? y;ith v.'hich 


entries pnd c Dn g si-^^n^ ^^a ,«• chr.rped 

the air in _ 

.Ter^. to beco7::e ij^nited ^«d^.r» v2oln.r-,t ex- 
plosion o«4HMHe*4 "AMd i n j u r^ciih e<< n i d i.i/jhee. 

The orlfcinfiQ dec] ^r^iti r>n t}ien concluded 


witli ^.s-MWfii»of letters of adminiptrntion, etc, 
Vnp ffixth or pddit i>on??.l covnt wp!? filed 
vithln one ye'^r of the tiroe of tie injury, rnd 
charcei^n ptor^ge of one hundred round?? of -porder 
in the fourth, weet entry, rind tli'it the fire from 
the shots CHueed *■"•■ '^ pov/der to become ii nited nnd ^^ 
explode wwi injuriftrthe deceased .-.ugliep. This count 


^ V - -O 

-- ■ -^ - ■ -, - . 

.fi»9«90»fc aniTuLnx 

/??:;^ ^9 j-irs.D Jnuoo rfj^il ■;. : " 

nosd' br,:! 9T[9:{^ 


»5vj j^/j sMJQ apr 


rCoxrl-r :i^i -caprtrTt T»xllo bns Jsuh 

j.-jiioo ©irCT ,t»8i(a- ' i>B = ^»i»9b sa/TUtuOii i**** abclcpcs 

tiien ■■i.\(iTB tea* ce»'t.'i, 5?urvivorei; 1t3, °.n.O. C'vrl 
trith dar.a^es to the arr,ovnt, of tjiree IhouFsrc' •'^ci3- 
inrs, >\n6 **t«*k tiaicee proi'ers of 'iettere cf ridminip- 
trstior., and then iollows wrtti txiis "vcrr'ient; 
}lnintiif furtiier averp tiiit the ?r»i(i ciefendnnt 
iiad electee^ not to be tound by an f ct of the«='l 
Aeeemfcly ol the ..t.-tt; ol "jliinoji?, corrrr.-'nay knovn 
ae the coi;ipenpf"tion .'ict, -rn; thnt the -1.1 cfintiff ' e 
inteetate v.'ae br>un.d T-y tj/e ter:V.e ot 5'.- id -ot. 4bL 

i any errore i-':ve teen ?ie!?ij;nefi! ty the '5y)'^ell- 
??nt tv;t vfe shc.l]l only ntteiif^t to pase upon sucr of 
thert ns we deerr. important, 

!~'ne of ti.e principal erroru cpci^-ried ir the 
ruling of the courts in euntnini.'.t,, the dernvrrer to 
appRllp.nt'j? plcp of the statute ci liriit»j.tir.ri<?, 
pleaded to the f i rpt, secotid -'^nd filth counts nf the 
declar??tion. It ap-ear?=« triHt vJien tl'c- oriri'-ir.! dec- 
iHT'^'tion coneistiiig oi live county v.hp filed, thr t 
tnere wn? no charge cont?iined in Bsid (Jecl.Rr'-'tirn 
that t'ic defendant }\f^.6 elected not to bt bound by 
what is knovm ap the Coiapeneatioj) Act. T n.ter oii, 
Hnd v/ithir one year fr'^-ra the dp.te of the 3nj\'ry, 
the s>ixth or additiomil count was filed herein nhich 
contained the avernient we fi.oo\e auote-i. At tj;e 
close of plaintiffs evidence the court, uron motion 
of aopellftnt, excJuded the evidence ?jnd ''irected a 
verdict ai? to the RixtJD or Hddition'l count. After 
the verdict .uid been returned plaintiff ^vfs liyen 
leave to RrZiCnd the declaration, ^kich -r/^p ar^enced by 
ineertinfc in esch count the al 1 ej.; '^ t i on thst t>ie defenl 


w, A -U.V^ 

'i^ • 

. bursals bail 

AV.r h.'»d elected not to be oound by the 'v.t of 
the Genernl A.?penl)ly oi tY.e : *.^ tv of Iljinoie, 
coramorily knov/n er !>!(• t'ompenpntlon .'ct. ;. t ir con- 
trrded by c;ni;r?ei tl:f»t in or':?er to piistain tiiis 
p-ctirn it w^t (lece^oary to .iver "nd "rove thnt the 
detprrtfint J^iid elected not to be hound ly the i om- 
renpnti on -'Ct, ' hvt thiy v.'ac a lanteri'^l and nec- 
««SP*iry averiaent ruH tiaat the aiuendroent lupprtin^. tViis 
in the t'irpt, Ptcot\d ?ind fifth counts, tfter ore 
yenr, and after the rendition of the verdict, vjas 
crr'ir. ''l e pt.Mtrir.ent hert relerred to -'p be ir^. nec- 
esem-;/ ynd n;ateriJii to encl. {■.ount it^ of 'i ;:t'nrrnl 
c! nracter Jind it* not peculiar to any onrticular 
count of tf.e dec'l r>r«li on out nerttiin;? to vie pj» well 
ttP the other nr.d ve think that vt'i.ert n ^ enern ] p.ver- 
ir.ent of Ihip cViMrfiCt<»r j p ccr.t''inpd in nny one count 
of the dec.lnrntior thnt tlit f? tory r«»oi;i re'nent 
necepsfiry "^o TnnintHin the isctirr. faa been met. Thip 
nvertaent is of the sarae generf'! ch rncter r^p thnt of 
next of 5fin, etc. it i? Haid, "] t vrp not eri'or to 
euetnin tiic dent^rrer to the plea of the ptatvitr of 
limitations, •>)ule it is usunl in ir-ictice to uyer 
in nl] the counts oi tiie dec] /^rn ti'^n, in cafcp of 
thia cr-.arncter, Lliut the intcfit.Hte loft ne^ct of Icin, 
yet it in not necepsary so to do. If the ?!ver?iient 
appears in out cunt, the s?vnt.,jt'>ry reqt^irp''.t nec» 
eppnry to mairttniu th<"; action hr-p been > .After- 
ward? iilint addi ti on.^.l oountr, or -m amended dec- 
Inry.tion malciist.;; an ■;ver;r.::nt of eurvivor^hii in e.'»ch 
count, ie not tht stotement of a new chupo of riction. 


but a rcrtntemejit in ni\ msplitied f tt. of the enure 
of n.ctiorj ptnted in ttnt count ol tKe orifi-"^'! 
declarnti'Mi. ■ -.'}iic'Ji..o ''ity ' y. <' o . \r. li^'l'Ucir, 
1;m^ "pp., IVl. e tViink tViis docisi'-in i ;? fi^Tly 
Fuetnined by tnt cases of "^ , 'i. .;>. ■'. 3. .Uy. Co. 
vf. }.e'^5>ion, IfcO 111,, bbV; (' -.icn.{"0 '* . '(y. Vs?. 
i.ackendn/il , 18<; J ri . , ?00; l.nrifht \p. ::ihr^': 119 
App.. 411. 

"he e^tclndint-. '■•t the rvl(1e?.cr r.r.d i ircctinf 
n Vprdirt nr to th<; y-i^^r count ii'l not !rtri!-:f' 
li.ip count fr'^T, the I'erl nrft.i -^r bv^t it in ntni a 
port of tiie declnrnti'^r lor rcfrrencfi' pumopes* 
and r;8y furr.iph fijT f ici »: nt brpis for rdcij ti ■ rsil 
counts v.'J-dPh, pet forth t/ e pR'ne c-u'fe <~f ;'Ctior, in 
a ijcre nccurnte : nd lf£r?jl mivnrer thm v<vr incJ in 
the gtrioVen cp»:r. t. Lh^u^ lint rfy \ir, i:c"!t, ''?f 111., 
485. v.t ire of the opinion that the dcr ^ p.r-^ ticn, 
ivlien t?}ken hp -v v. rle, etntrd p con:pltle' of 
action, an(' that the c^urt did not err in ri,Ft??if- 
inf, the •deTiurrt^r to appt'llsnt' ^ plea of t>.c ft^^-tute 
of 1 iiJ i tations . 

]t is neyt cb.iected tV:;t before t>:C nLvirtlff 
could rriPintain her -ctiin it v,r-p neciM-'fory to prove 
th;it defendant i.^d filed *i t>. the :.ndv'?trin1 'rTwrd, 
snd iiP-6 surra ;?hed co ti;e decf.*-ipeo' ; t^rpoji'?] l.y or 
posted in n c onsciicuou y niece at its plant, fhon, 
office roon or nince v/h^re euch employe tv^;? ern'nf- 
cd in v.orV, n notice of its election not to pro- 
vide and nny compensation, in^', t^ the r^ovie- 
ion» of this act. '"hie ffeei<;s to be tVic provision 

j;.1'*JiiiT31 .; iow 

1 •' -. • liW 

■li toTt in^nitn 

.r^^ , . 

. 'ir^niini i 


SIOOl 901110 

of thfc ?«int.ute '.n^. if refrindnr.t l.n'i heen 'io-irlved 
of r».-)-f,e T r J t.- uereni?<>? 'Sr-y Tt;"ron cf nl mj nt.-j f f r^ 
fjiaAure lo .•nn.kf:; pucl proof then there t'llr' be rrM-.c 
reason ip ff^.y-ini" tVi"* p';cV y^'Jof ;?ro"l<1 1 sve Tjfrcn 
r.ade telnre Ir.e ;4ct,iri. cole \e v.'' i.-.^C . It 1" 
claimed oy apjfeJJHni ti:at inr want 'iT fvoh 'r:->'-^f 
it is concii;?! vely ^-•ror-'Uiac ! t?^ bt:» ?:;c-rntir.i' •»mt^er 
th.e c "?!ptru?n. ti Oil. ni' ' , aii<3 ..'tt i r; IrutVi •■snd jn fncrt 
tlif f:pfH.ljnnt fiid dL-ririf LVe • rc'/rerp - f the tri?1 
prove crrlnir. uoiitU ■*..i as •>:;'! -l rc^ur.ft^'ncep t.erdirr 
to ■• iOT.' thnt tlie net^if^encc ::f t]f.' f!<:fc-T*'int. t^nj: nrt 
the •; r''Xi"iir-te c-^u^a ~i the injury, '.Ifo th.-it It vme 
Oil arc'idt-nt'i I ir^jux-.v. u? it 'jc t^uc t>:' t :' r •.••.-'-('• .-i t 
wa? .iv^^rutir-f uruttri;' t'ue c jt ,icnu»x: " 
liability woujc nli.,jn;h, vii€-tlicr ti.ey ".lere nij. l If'tcnt 
or their cori<luct wa;? ti'io YToxiu'..i*3 ('•■•ur';, 
or vyhetlier or r.ot it ■•-hf' riu -'i.ccidt :i t, none '-f ■'' icli 
could he n doforii?e un>ifr the e..-)2iperj.--ntion :>e'. 'he 
Guprer.e 'iiirt, in n ciee w; crc ^.^ia i^ue^t:! on tm^p 
r.-.vide, -'nd Atieir c^unst^i upon zim ornj. ur?. urntrr-t 
Bt'itad tl.iJt the ;iei«rf.d»^r!t irai- no L un<k-r f'.he ^o.-r.-en- 
sation act cayp, " -h.-ile n.r p«^i-ifir' t h^r dccter" c^n- 
BiOcruL'Jo f.'pnco i r, itf bi'ief to n dire. ;? pi on rf the 
BulliciciiC.v of t'ri< fcviclfcincf tc £.'i'rtf<:i- the nver'-ent 
ir. tilt; dfcl -i..-'^ txon t'^^t p-j r.f:! lT?.nt "rr-^ r'irctef^ not to 
K5r;<iTTX'rt>' r'c>T.>j\y -vi th fiC '''- rV» if n ' r- C'-«;pf r. ""tion ''^^, 
nn the ornl nr^ UTiCKt covinoel for nnTcllj^n*. crnctidcci 
th-\t it wap TiOt .-it the •tirre oT the ''liC/'eii ir^j^ry, 
and iiCve:.* hfid been, or-er'iti n;-- u;i^rr r^nld 'Ct, r^o 
that in the di:?pngition of 'Vi.- nuf^p-tl or!r> here invol- 
ved it *i"!3 lie a)««unicd ae n fact t;.?^t np-tiellant hnd 





not elected to pay compenea ti;- n for injurier in 
«ccordT.nce vith pf>i<i irt." ' ietz v?. ! i^- -ndfly 
Coal .0., ?C5 m.. At?. -o th^it re bplieve t't?! 
the attitude ■■nJ dei'fcuee nude ty npre? 1 -int rn-rein 
rare c-quiv>\ient t" t}it' dec"; r'lr'jtlon tl'nt tlu'v v-'ere 
not opcrntJMf; under the cnm-pcrifnti'^n ^ct. f. ^urt? 
nrc reluctant tn pi s?t«in ol)jecti--?n? isliere the f^b- 
.lector hflpt not 'bpt.n iiepri-w<:d t}it-rel>y nf '\ny of hir 
rit;iitB ami nothinK could "be f^ined >.y "'jr-t-i n->np 
(jucii objection!^, ■>nd we beli<>vc th-^t we ;i re jristi- 
fied in apruminf in thi» cspp, nj« the 3\iprer.e Cn\irt 
did in tV.e cnpe ol iet/ vf». ''iff • uddy ('oal 0'>,, 
sur.rM, thnt the anr^fllant i-ad not elccte.i to 7n.y 
coinpensjr*. ti'^ii in niccordpncr v,'ith eoid «ct. 

It 1 « ne:<t contPnded t} - 1 the c -iurt t-rred 
in refuninf, to T-.-mit th^ v;itiit:a!* /i.op ,'rhnr'^n to 
teotiiy to ;? doc3 Kirntion nade toy ."inhn riinn, the 
buddy of decPHoed, to the? witne?>!« at a'.nijt eipht 
o'clock t> .vt evening in sui^port of the tli^ory ol 
apnellartt w.-lth referenc'r to fne r'i?:;mer in which 
thl ? ftxnlosiOii occurred, rm^l th-i ■. tVioy -ere In the 
third' wept entry at the tirae of the cx-lftr>ion. '"he 
9t"tenent offered 1^ he- r.rove<^ 'rp.f th^t Hup^hop and 
Tyunn v.erp in the third w,'e?t entry »t the tin-ie of 
tVie explopior. --nd th'st a v,-indy !?}iot from ";o. b» c<JT.e 
nut ni t'r'C rona H.nd w^nt throu(-'h the crfp?-ci>t snd 
blev dov/ri the Lrst^ice -md ciJfht huf'hep ?ind :'unn 
in the third went ertry, and th??t ap n result 
thereof I-ughem nnd Jh.nn received the inj'jry in 
question. It nlvo nppenrj* frnsi the evidence th^t 
"Dunn died shortly ^■fte^ the injury ?ind np ve tJ inl.. 


ti9Aa»ija»9 x,*a oj b9i09i9 ion 


:\t}Btoqo ioa 

, . 31 no »ri t n X bib 

;a3it*ivf s(f.t ^nieulSTC ni 

■ ioold'o 
" M 3w "M irii 

■■■..'■ J 3 

, J r nxgr LqX9 ©if J 
-*v/ naf* SOOT »rti Ir' itin 

--) f -.♦ ■ -cf r=»r(i nvob jfslcf 

." fon^i nnaCf bnn rjcI^u: losisrii 


trip »»t,j?tc"^'ent thnt they ^er'' ''t the tire of the 
exTilopjiri in t'^ie third vef»t cntrv -^'^ulM t-^rx^ ?,n 
»«up"Orr. Iht? c-nteat l->n ol =i'vr.e 11 -^.nt t!.'?t toe photr* 
wero lir<?d AJth tlit ^ir "nf? tK-:- theory tv^t t>T^- 
ponder at^oVe or c-irTon "^r>rt^7 \6f: v^s C'-'fTi(r<^ i rom 
one ."";:.•> t to t'?p 'Jti.'r rrr-.^ltinf' :i n trf« ey^ 1 '-i:=ion, 
Plid •,.Cu1d Lc ''f-inct f'^c- i '"tere-^tf of thr ^iecr^^pe-i, 
."ohr; Tunn. A«- vr urdrrrt'*!^^ tViC lr>v), f'^c'] irfti^n^ 
r,«,de ly fi det'O!^ ^cc' ^^rTrf^,Ylr '/-^inrt Vif i ptr'r»^<<t*' ''re 
ndTfirk HBillo in »^ videncr. "^r. Orepni f'r»f , i >i )^i.?? work 
01 •vidpriCi'" !?ny«, "Vcol ^tr-' t? ^^n?" of tv<-^ otfj'»r oJ^^pf 
oi "'aicb V;-. are /iT-v tc fne-i}' nr^ "eoorid'Ty (>vJdOiice 
:<i!a fie retiei v«:l nvly in cmtje v..':-ooe '>f the den + h 
of ujie per«i«>n .-..■Ofiiiti the-r. "^hi- riP«»» e^bT-irc?^ not 

finlj entrie-* in V)Oohs bi' 

1. ♦ -^1 ■» 

Oth^T ;' r>'»l ^> t"' t i f"n !?! or 

ctatf-ejil-' of l.TcU^, •^:hct:■.:^r vert'O -^r in ^t•rj^inic, 
find whether t'r.ay •.ve^^ -v.j^ie nt th* ti"~'; of t>'e tfCt 
dftCiHted or ^1 a eiitpfMien* c-^te: hut torrnder them 
ad'T^i jjil Ic it clxBixjrBcSyi'-r^.o rv^t ->T«>^r>nr th-^ ^ the 
^. e c 1 -- 1 pn^i i r ■it:cepre(.! , th'^t '-*■ •;^op«'e-<^od or?: •* rtent 
>:r.cvled£e ..if 15-e fr-rtr- r tr.-^t it rrr^ >a « duly to 
kncv^ Die!!', ; r.d tv.'t the Hpcl "rr-t i ori'- v--,rc r^t v;-irir.r.ce 
r/itVi hifj jjittreit. x.hen thepr^ c irrvn'i"tsinrep c'>neur, 
t.Vic evirtericf i;? rccr-ivrd, lon/irip i + e- *'pi.' > .3,i(j 
•9Tl'.ie to he detrrniriCd hy othP"^ C^vi'^'^^f^f^. J ■ reer- 

pcotion J }< 

le'ti^ on -^vidc'»0H, :'")C'^. 1^7." /'nd t.>,'^ 

T.i'ittM' =irjd ;^r>''»r'>vcd of in the Cffls ^-i "nrrr-^t! .In?. 

Co. V«. BurtlHtt. 18C r.n/ T75. .'Tirrher n> ; vidcnce 

vnj::-, "'ne of tlic rocujinr 5'entiirop '^f trip oIrsf 

ol dec I >ir^»i3 ii?Jfcrliev arc nd^i*-*?? 'Me to -^ '-yc: 

colluternl or irjjI^Tjenfier t fnct<* irtodiod iuthem, nlpo 









isaxxtavi JL si I'isst.vbB 

>.'if(sa9i^rix. ig i^-iaj alloo 


t.hoy pre scJfi.i esiblt in esidence in n. suit bctv/een 
e trangerp . ' iiui-rnop on evidence:, ec. 9 nnd 10, 
PHfc-e!' 100-1 CT. "hf fj"f;ner:iil rule ip */r;r>t dtMnar''- 
tions of a tliii'd -;HTty -re rot n..iir)ippil:l o in e/i- 
dencfe hut ?'^l;ere the ccclrr.Tr.t yrnr io. a iTifiti.-^n to 
knov. , ap .-^unnVas, the i: fitter** cr>:iicerrrint>; wliich he 
nnde thiia ptatt^nent, rnd that fsuch Ft'-^terr.f.ntf \7e-rc 
egHinpt his iatfre'»t, ."jnd tliF.t he h!i<i rincfi' V-ooor-ie 
uticenijcd, v-e bel ievp th?!t tVcre dpc^nr'-ti ns? cnvAt 
fuil^ rutlin the rule, rr.d ti.e. court erre-^ in ^y- 
clL-dm^ tiiesi. 

It it T:ext lirfed th-H, the court srier^ in 
tivirife nrnl iriE tri;ctionf to the jury-it the clope 
of ))lairitil 1 ' c evidrr.ct. T'.f nppell ?nt nt t> e 
close ol jO .=: int ill ' ? evidence entered n ijotion io 
diifect a verdict U'>ou each of the count?- of tht- dec- 
l.'iratioa. 'rht> crurt in j^as-^ing UT^on thope niotinnp 
euptnined t'ne motinn ar tc the t.rdrd, i'nurth and 
sixth countp but peDiit'ted the fiitii count t..) f-tr:nd; 
which chflr^ref" tnr.t defend'^nt directed >.i.i<.;heir to r/ork 
in the entriep and cross-out. afore i^f^id wiien the eaoe 
%n? ticn -ind th re in p dnngeroue condi ti -n , in thit?, 
that there nad oecn bef'TP that tiitse w].at is hnnvTrv re 
a squee^p in paid ?'. ine rtnd y rewijon t;.<:reof ti'e 
opening oi" .-» ir pa«??nfep le^.dint, t^ the working plTcs 
of hughes were thereby nartinlly eloped to nuch -.a 
extent th^it i?ui'licifcnt ''u.intitiep' ol freph air cvld 
not by r.erui? t-hen e; iy tno deferidMnt be 
iorce<3 tiirou^;,h Bii.d air passai^er- so 'iarti'illy 
olofcd ae alcresaici, po as to nrevcnt wwid fir^'t 
and lourth eritries oil ol the nor th, (;ntry , includinf 



r^ r i ^^Tiai 


j ~ • ■* - ' '. - ' br.a 

nncl chnri-ed v/i tii duf*!, i,RV ?r:d ctler •; nfT rr.-.r V.^i r 
pj'b.-tsijcep' . ''lie- curt in conirifCrit ;• n^ \rpr.n tV.i r> 
ccunt oi tViC dec'iHr'-t.j..' •. tvyn, " i ov Vat .no-t. cc»:nt. 
TrF ti" e iii'ti ccDrit . 'rere .".r*" five c '.untr Vant nre 

en Htnlutcry c ■'uui lior;.'-'; the other '^iie , .,'0>:-r -.r, ] -nw, 
j-S Sii.ply tiiv-i.-' ' ^lu-n n.^ I'.cro ^jCc ^■"•c. ♦.v.p -"utj^ 

of the defc;i i-'.f. i -;.' ;.>Ovide t) e ',}! "ir ti f f vjt'" -i 
i'ORBoaab'ly fs.-'li- ■.>?.?ir;i:- i;- t'hic)t * ■' ' "■ • ''•-..■: evidence 
indicate? th'tt tney iTi]t::i to ;n. r ■ , ;'•■ '!■■<, >mii i^vpt 
accu.TUJ 'rLed i^nd iov t-n^ renerni of t)!!?' t'le 1 -Jury 
fill -wed . ' I-"»re iMt oourl t-ci''. 'I'.'.c- j.i';< t.'i>'-, the 
evldcncH irrJicPiei' t]'.;*t t-.c dsi -fivi-i.'' ;. f -^d 1 ei to 
i u ra i an ." r -• fe : i ;? c e h ) ■«) t J vj t -i u s i ^ <.' <^ u"- 1 • ^ ,•; * -■=> ■? , 
Tf'hich -ruB cert?-..i/!l y err .'Kifi •.'jf!, \r<A '.''j-? rf c --(iii rtfd 
"by the ,jutU>e .-^r? bflr.^ errnr,e:u£.' the -Donci-it > 1 -. 
attenlir-!! w^: p c?'J.le<i to it, h '.■.•? er-ce r,ti<-r-r 'f^re 
t'^.s.en, he directe;! tli^ ^iufy not \,c c..<"»fr:iJ»:^r' nny^ 
tiiinf b* nny nriV«» pjijci ta tlie/u in>or; thi ^i natter 
:)r!rily, l-'it thic, ^n our a;, v.-as tec "tr^to. 
".'he jur^ -ilrendy hu'i L/.o x;~ov; • odt't: ti-at, th^ lud^re 
beLi;;\,ed thiL tie Oi/iu«^iiC<» iudio.'*'ced UlhI Q\ey had 
fMlAoi "L ") :turri;?ii •• «««/« i;J:\ct xml r-j'jt hfsd f-d'u- 
fuulatea. opide?', tn<> o.^urt beg:».ii '.Vic >• t ■■^••^' -*•-■> -it 
by cayin^'j "Tfic ,j'«;r> in .i i-.t«tT'',.t; i ed , ttc. , . er 

cri tlc.i 'ji.i!? M re rr,r.df i>y coia:f3t:i i.p,:>n thi r or-"'! in- 
stn.)Ct.i-n, iii tlij?, tii;?t s'i,attnejitp v:ere n^-de by 
^viiich other irn-^r.""«>T could Ve^ drrs/n'.'i . '.ve 
do net, M">v.ev<rr, coni? idt-M it neocf^frnry t o c. >"-•?: C'::t 
UT)on thes^e n:atters» ^f» ^ve mu6^- lu>ld thnt thr or"! 


M 9« «8 «n»tj«{n !»99iiJ no<Ta 

inBtructiDiiB so j iveri V-y tie court v'jif- errrmeous, 
pnd in viclition ol .iefiti'':rr 71*. o-r ffie rnctior Act. 
•'Under our rtntule the "-ircuit Judte /..".p n''- fiut'rrr- 
ity to i.iftruct fnc jurj/ or'll.y in nny if^ie in the 
case." hell inf.; vs. .''Hndt, JAP ;ll.,lf,f. Ardreas 
V9. i etct'^-ta* 77 ill., S77. I.ere the eroe-'ti i^-; ir 

tnken imiredinteiy nfter tne fiddre?««, ;»? v/a« d'^ne 
in thi ? c?ise, it if "tid fir lent to fulfill -•IT ^f tWe 
Ifgfil rc'iuireicente -rnd t-^ wr^rront tlio ".•«;' if nrafnt of 
error. JarnecVe Vi«. ('uicajo ^'.-^npol id'ted '^r-'ctiui 
(^o., IbO -pp. 'M8. 

(ejection ip «*i "O ur^^ed to nlnir.tiff'p iPtfc 
ii^et.-'uctioii, which r<.'nd? ac foll'^v-: '(.T^ori t>ie 
tjuesLioti of the danj.;croue onriiLi'in ns ildler'^d in the 
firth count of tlje plTintil 1' ?* («ecl;^r-'ti o n -'fid uuon 
the fiueptinn ol tne kni.>wled{;e jjf ihc defend '>nt coh> 
pauy of 3ucli d.'>.nt--eroi.i? cofli'.ion n? tnt-rein -"iiefed, 
the court inftrijcto the Jury t>.;it if tV,ey believ, 
fro'i. n prepondernricc of thrt evioerice ti.i'rt the dnn- 
gerouB condition in tht mine of tiie defpndnnt n? 
Mllefed in the liftx- count hnd fX:!«ted therein long 
enovij h i or tliC uefctidanc ron.vr.ny to Vi'ive -'rown of 
the sacie, then nmi in sucii cnnv. the »>lnintifl woi-ld 
not lia've to i^covc n.ctufil notice oi fuch all e, red 
dangerous conditinn but under ijuch cl rc»4r:!.?»t»nce« 
the defcnd»nt, i.i law, would he ch.-srfred -wit): the 
knowledt/e of the enae,'' iiy thir jnstrncti ^;^., ne 
v*e read it, tJie jury :tre ir;r''5niifid th'^t ?•- dFtnficr'^'jp 
condition existed, B!» chfir^-ed in the lift}.' c-o\int 
oi ^J.e dec Jaro.tiO)., and that the only queptir.n it h?id 




,b9^9i i 

ywijeiii. ilijoo J..-' 


-nub 9rf^ masivs fmctrsa ' 


to 'Icterr inr wnr the 1 enpth ai titr-e tha u it bad 
oieite'i. e bplitivf' in;?* i-ac v. i,->n 1. 1 b<; Rrron- 
eoi:r, efncciRlly •^" cr>.riF-j drred iti cnnru-ct i^- n 
v-ith the oral i-istruc tion th.'it had boen ,.-ivon by 
the court •t'ltri rclcrerxi. to tiii? count -i zwe der- 
1 arwt ion, 

'Isintifi'e t;.irfl ,;,ivfin i.r;etj-ucti -r, is 
t al(?o criticised bec^ it te'np tLe j=^r.v t};"t if 

tie defend-'nt war t.iilty oi" ti.e .-iiiui vi&lation 
ch.'.r<,;ed in their iiist or second coun1:« <>T the deo- 
Ifirr-tion thev shouid find the defendnyi r'lil ',./. i:-non 
er-.-.r-.i motion of U-e Tirst count of decl • r^-t J on 
it will be '■■rccivedtbat it ?»verif, "^^-t th.^ de- wi if ally f-iled mid ne^lecte'-l to '.^ vs s.oid 
entries '^nd ro''d>«f<<ys thorou^-hlj- sprinl-Iod or»ne<U" 

f'tsrut^ *'i"-iT>:jy 'rx-vidf?!«, that '^Vhe onurrtor oi s<uch 
Kino TLWt !..five .?urh ro''<^WHy£7 re/ul^rJy and thorouf^h- 
Ty prr-'-yen . ^vrinVioC or cloMne'i". : r, haw l;('pn 

^ f / that 

renff'tediy nc Id by th<; uij.;hpr courtp of t"!,l? «?tnte 
to cor.fffit/ute v.i 3 ifullnesF the ^c^. r.):<'=ir(.'e''. to 
be fuch ira-et be cnnfined to j»uch re ^•r.:>hi r.j ted 
by ptMtite. 

■'here are n;a;iy othci- c jtici?ir.(? rr^a'de ut;o n 
the -iri«tri;cta:->r.t3 but upon anothev trinl ruch im-jer- 
iecti^uf ?t» eriet cnn be reuiedit^c . ,c have not 
coMi.tnte'i u-.oa tre evad^iicc in thif^ cppe for the 
ren?on that it rnuct be 3ubt ttcci to r:aothcT jury 
for conjiider-'tion and wfe do not ftel -^a rr-n ! c' in 
exprecpin^: •"•ny vicv.;' tJiereon. 

ior the errori? above iridic- te.i tiic judf:ment 
will be reverned r:n(i tht caupe rerri^mded. 

tu!.vi-:r;:jkd akd !aiANT)j'.i». 

J»ot to be reported in fulj. 

1 J -3 ;. i ' V ■) 

. . _ ._ .. \C-^^-u.. 


.-nr,, ^f. 

.ftC .'. li.'X3 

i'naci^^ut, 9ii^ b«^roxfaiJX avodii «toti» aril to. 

/, CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of 
the State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true copy of the OPINION of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in my office. 

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set mg hand and affixed the seal of said Court 

at Mt. Vernon, this .^^^^L.-tt^ dai; of December, 

A. D. 1915. 




Opinion of the Appellate Court 

AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, on the Fourth Tuesday 
in the month of October in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fifteen, the same being 
the 26th day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fifteen. 


Hon. Harry Higbee, Presiding Justice. 

Hon. James C. McBride, Justice. 

Hon. Franklin H. Boggs, Justice. 

And afterwards, to-wit: On the ....L<?^.. day of December, A. D. 1915, there was filed 

in the office of the Clerk of said Court at Mt Vernon, Illinois, an OPINION in the words and figures 

No. sS^.y 

March Term, 1915 

19?I.A. 267 






Tern :;o. 58. 

In the Appellate Court 

Fourth District. 

March Term, A. D. 1915. 

/'^endn y<o,b6: 

Thomas J. Ostiorn, 



City of lit. Vernon, 


Appeal fron the Jefferpon 
County Circuit Court. 

f-cBride. J. 

This v/as an action commenced belorc 
a justice of pence and appenled to the Circuit 
Court of Jefferson County, -Ahe re in a judgment of 
one hundred dollars was^ rendered against apr)ellant. 

LUi4tui W** ^X^AuJW 



which he -te«4 hired to Jolin Grigge to be ueed Imji. 
^ni in tti:?' deli ve ring ^ goods, «^!i* ^'"^nrrfffTir*'— ** i 
on liay 20, 1914, 1» » 4<»g - driven by Alva Thomas, a 
"boy of the age of seventeen years; he had driven 
up 6herry J tree t and hod jupt j^assed on to 12th 
Street and while driving; aU-ftu*' the center oi the 
street the horse slid f- gg a ti ie o o ni e r o f ttoo b \v »% % 
to the side of the street and Vttc g c fell into n. 
catch "basil and was badly injured. The boy testified 
that at the time he passed on to l?th street he was 
driving at the rnte of about seven •>r eight r'.iles 
an Kour.Jlp- 1- jfurV i ^r ^o-ears ^T?ffl U P »viH.>nn^ fy:^± 


.aiGI .c: .A .crreT rioijBM 


.izuo') tluott'J \inucO 


.L .abirS.oJ. 

^iuoix^ 9x1^ 0^ bsIftScTqe bna eoBsq lo aox^ei/t, a 

In ^tnsinabjJt fi ni9i9j[lA',y;*«i^o^ noBisllsX. Ic ^uoO 

.^nBlIacrqB *anxB3,B baiabna"! _«flw aqcaXIo^b paibaud 9ap^ 

99iod p. "in 

t^^^ bdiabnsi Bfiw a'XAlIob haibaud dno j 

^ b9Bu e>rf <^i aaaxaO nrioT, oS bsiirf ixMUari rfolrfw 

.MMBBMetttjJE^ut^ * «> ^ ,aboo:j ^ ^iisv llsb 'STf^ ni orfii- 

« .eflincflT flvIA \(i neyJnb ytA »< f ,MgI ,0S ^fiJ^ no 

nsvitb bfli »ii ;aiit9ic nasinsrae lo e^s ddi lo xorf 

ri^SI oJ fio baaanc t'sul bfj.i bnn t99'itii \i't9dO qu 

ail^f lo i9in90 9di -.iao-La, ^iv lib allriw bns i9Siia 

$*9 %t m 9tt t lo > i a. ^n aa 9tL i ~mek^t bxia ae^od 9iii J-aai^a 

r o:?rrx Cfsl - ix a rt^ bn^ ^991^9 9di lo abia ed:f o^ 

b9xlx^8a;t a^ocC arf''' .batatni \;fb/»cf anw hnr. ixieecf rloiflO 

aflw 9f{ ^faaa^a xi^fSI o^ no bsssijo ail 9axJ ari.^ iP ST'.dt 

aalxrr ^ri;^i9 to nfiV9e ^iuods lo 9^01 erfJ J^b anxviib 

iBnt anna h^Ti Adj. wo-')^l , a aflsr-gg, i M^'^^'^ ^t^Mv^'Tt""^"^ 'u 


»4 ^ r iiit ii nf nl » ow* * rtT' T^i'ir Vrrt nTit^ f'tinY 

y '~y W tracks made by the horse in sliding extended from 
about the c€nt<ir of the street enet to the c^tch 
"basing in Mi ^i ^iifJ^i ^ll, The catch basin v/as. at the 
outside 6f^ l i ha A portion of the street t'-'^t mg iyc-I 
nn<i ftdJTir a nt tlrT » » t »n , ^md ^described by the mayor as 
being of the depth ol twenty-lour inches at the side 
next to the pavenent, MPtd extend*ffback to curb line 
thirty inches, and that north and south it is 
twenty- seven incher?. It f with e r apmi^ w g e' thivt ihe 
liayor knew of tJ a e locnUiou \ r i : this catch basin nnd 
at times it was covered over withn rock which Iny 4»y:» 
thp PVbia »C lit bu » for pofiw time Dm I ' l.u ' L had been 
removed so as to p,emit the witer frora j r fjf the 
street to -iwmh^ into the catch basin. An ordinance 
was introduced in evidence <> hi e > i T>rovidii?4''tnnt no 
horse should be driven faster tlinn six railee per 
hour upon any street or alley in the city, nor 
faster than four miles per hour in turning a corner.^ 

"pit was stipulated that the street 
occupied and crntrolled by the city was of the width 
of sixty feet, and had been paved to a width of 
twenty- four feet, f 

it is insisted by counsel for nprsellnnt 
that the c -lurt erred in refusing to direct n verdict 
and in overruling, a motion to set Tside the verdict 
and grant a new trial. There was evidence v.-ith its 
reasonable intenmente tending to show that the de- 
fendant was guilty of negligence, and we do not bel- 



TffiTT'FfiV 79gi'''^JL/of=tt iiiw» i»i>»ii<ii li LJFt^l)iw i>rt ^ 

fljn-jt 59bn9;fX9 gnibiXe nx aaioxi 9i.ii \(i abum. b^obiS 

ioipo Off;}- 0* Sbbo S^9iie 9dS lo r^Sato 9d& iuodm 

.x3Bd doiBO pc<y .Lim"k»ti •d9t(iyi tit /ItBBd 

9f)i -^^naw^ lo rf*q»i) 9dS to j^nlscf 

am ;nc!' o*bn9*x9 hw . in»a»y Bq 9n& ot tX9a 

.iuce bar; rf^Ton tBdS bna ,e»»lonx x^tixi^ 

of no ctdt Tcr neltffiooj 9 dt to wsnjt 70XBiJ 

* _.i 'f. ^,'',--,-''^,.-' 
^ X«^ rfoixiw :foo'X «rfllw isro bsaavoo taw il avail ^« 

n9 9cf hflti imi TT r rrf l - it mmm T o 1r # r r r f t h 1» a ht'g n rf t 

9.ii "tier s5r.1i i«j»w ©ri^ ^iH^3,«f of 9« ois b^voiusa 

o.: J^-jfiJ- f»kJbivcTc i tojrim Bo-f^biva nx b^oubo^tnx eaw 

TSiT irslxefj xii neri# «»7»ir^ rt»rxib frcf bluo.ia satoil 

ion ,xfi.'> ^ci' [ti \9iLm ic f99i39 ^ws noow tuoxC 

,*-»«>aJ"B 9rf* :fBii* b»jf«Xijqi*?! bbw 1I"V" 

to dfbttf r. o;> t9vnq «a»rf bjsxf bnie .tvvl x*xla le 

^.laal ■xucl-xinsir* 
lAJKiX»>-i^« aol Ideni/oo ^ foataxar.l si fl 

foibt9v e losiib o.t >vfTi««t»t ni b9ti» iltjjero ■ arfl i^sriit 
;folbT»v 9Af 9bl'iy i9n Qf noiioai « gniXoiiaro ni iknij 

-•6 9if;t iadi woiia o^t j^ibnal airtdfanslnl 9ldaaonB9i 


ieve Irom tiie evidence tlvat the court could say as 
a matter of law that the appellee was not in the 
exercise of due core and ciution for hia own safety; 
and are not able to say that the court erred in re- 
fusing to direct a verdict. Upon the motion to 
set aside the verdict and t'^nnt a nev/ trial, it wns 
clained that the evidence was not sufficient to 
warrant a verdict for the plaintiff, and that the 
instructions Given on behalf of the plaintiff were 
errcneous. There were errors connaitted upon the 
trial of this case which will require a reversal 
and we do not c^re to conment upon the weight of 
tide testimony under such circumstances. The rule 
governing the duty of the city with reference to the 
care of ite streets is thnt it shall use reasonable 
care to keep its streets in h reasonably safe con- 
dition for travel thereon, and this duty extends to 
keeping the streets reasonably free from defects 
or dangerous places throughout its entire width, 
Boender Vsi City of harvey, 159 App., S32; City of 
Spring Valley Vs. Gavin, 18? 111., 23'^. The duty 
devolving upon the traveling public re<iuirep them 
to exercise due care and cauti'^n for their own 
safety while traveling fnereon. It is insisted by 
counsel for appellant that the mere fact that 
appellee's horse was being driven upon the street 
at a rate of speed prohibited by ordinance was suffi- 
cient to show a want of due care and caution and for 
that reason a verdict should have been directed. l-Ve 
do not believe that this is the correct rule for 
there might be circumstances under which a horse wns 

6r xlBe joil arel 

•,vj9'im ! 91/b lo •aioiax* 

.IdB #ofl 9n» baa 

n tn»n% brt« ^oJtb%»t ^dt sbtwe ^98 

^on SAW 6on9btv9 9di tadt bamlaLo 

, : ^tinlslq 9£Li lol ^olbi9v R inatXBW 

sie Hii9d HO "inctiowiiBni 

9iif aoqu bnSiiOBOO •itorrxe siaw ©isriT .auoanjiaa 

Xflttarai a a^iupaa XXlw i(oi;iw aaaa aidi lo laiiit 

giaw »sii aoqu Sn9taac o ion ob a» boB 

3iuT on^i^ainuo'Xjto dona fbiw xnomli99i eMt 

inanal©' \:iio a*f* lo x^ub ad^ a"i«'5c»vo^ 

^li^ ax aisai^a a^i lo aiso 

\:.Crfano«j«ai - ni q^aai^a a^x qaaif o;t ai«o 

.noaiSii^ Csv^t 

•sJoalab moil aavl xIcfAnoanai a^a^at;^ cqaasC 

aii aaoBlq auoitaanab ao 

. tebnaoS 

: , .iV \9LLbV ^irqL if'**! 9^' ^ail aii^ no qu gaivlovab 

mro Txaxii lol aol^uao ba» 9'tBO 9Ub aaXo^e 

itiilsYBti 9ltdVf \)9iRB 

fOBi ai tBdi ^flallaqqa lol Xaanuoo 

^^9915 r^xad 9mr aaiorf s'asfXaqqa 

• i't1u9 9RW aonunibao \ii baJXcTiffoaq baaqa Ic 9Sb'x 

■jpo btiB 91B0 9ub to tnew a woda o^ ^nalo 

r!a.^oaixb naa(f ararf bXuoifa ^albiar a aoaAsi isdt 

ifi.'i -tos-XToo adi ai at;li i^dt aTsiXacf Jon oft 

af'w afliOil a rioiiiw aabnu aaons^amuoixo atf. ;trf3iin atariJ 


being driven in violation oi the ordinqnce that it 
could not be regarded ns a want ol due core. To 
illustrate, if the horee should tec one scared and 
without the driver's fault attempt to run away, and 
the driver was lyaat'le by the exercise of due c?ire to 
restrain him, such might not be a want of due care, 
and it is for the jury to determine under all the 
circumstances what was a want of due care ur-on the 
part of the driver, and ts to v/hether cuch "cts 
contributed to the injury, and ve believe th^t this 
view was taken by counsel for appellant upon the trip. 1 
of the case as instruction Ho, 3 given bj the appell- 
ant recognized this doctrine; and the furt>ier fact 
t>iat the rapid drive must contribute to the producing 
of the injury. It is, however, insisted that the 
court erred in the giving of appellee's instructionsi, 
especially instructions four and five, and we think 
these objections are well taken as instruction i;o.4 
requires "The defendant to keep the entire v/idth of 
the street in question in a safe condition so that 
the life and propertyof persons would not be injured 
while passing upon, along and over its streets %vhile 
using ordinary care for their safety and their iTSop- 
erty, and if you believe from the e vide/ice that the 
defendant caused any hole or excavation to be nade in 
said street, then it would be the duty of the defendant 
to cover or guard or protect such plnces and pl?».ce 
them in a reasonably safe condition, and if you 
telieve from all of the evidence in this case that 
the defendant neglected and omitted to so cover or 


^B f>»biaaei sd Son Htuoo 
.fttod 9CLi It .sttBXitutrt 

,...;„-,. "> ''''■■^vf'ib ^di 'SuoiUiw 

, ivlib 9dt io' tiBq 

> o:t baiu(ilticito 

-:. ^_ :i3]L&i aflw t'btr 

+ -It r -T J »»n i CB ' »• B a Wri'' 1 o 

_-.„ ,^ -^,, .^li bsain^bOBi lni$ 

' 'fit^nno ,t8uiji svctlL biqBi 9di iBdi 

^ivl'^ 9aS ai 1)9119 *iuoo 

: I9V 9 IB •aol^os^cfo 9g9i£^ 

ifiRfcastsb ariT* 99iiup9i 

. i&99SJp ni ^991*8 9ri^ 

^.'i :i9c lrvii9qoi«i ^^^^ sliX »xii 

.^ , ,..oqu aniaaaq 9liriir 

^ J- ■?. :i3£ii 102 •'V19 \;iBnli)io aniau 

Mpyno forf i^nr. haeuflo ;J'nrbn9l9fa 

' . ' ;■,•;, ;^':i-: . -; ;)i.69 

"09;fo'xqf 10 bi«ua ic i9vo6 ot 
, > j:«9 •\i£cfBnoaB9i f> ni madJ' 

H9n9i>iV9 Odi lO lie fflOll 9V9lIdy 

protect the catch l»asin, or hole, as described in 
the evidence, then the defendant would be guilty of 
negligence." This instruction is bad, 1st. ^ecause 
it requires upon the part of the city a icTeater de- 
cree of care than the Inw requires. The law only re- 
quii'es the city to uee reasn m'lle care to keep its 
streets in a reasonably snle condition, while this 
instruction enjoins U'-;on the city ?».n shi^olute duty of 
keeping the street safe for its entire widt>i. And 

again, it points out nnd etPtes the ^^articular 

things, /il omitted, would constitute nef;ligc-nce. This 

is improper; these are rn«ttere for the jury. 

Instruction i*o. 5 is drawn j'lonf the lines 
of coiparative ntgligence, which is not the Inw xok 
of this MXtM. state, and while it is true it concludes 
by the qualifying expression that the plaintiff must 
have been in the exercise of ordinary care for hie 
own snfety, wliich perhaps would bring the instruction 
within the rule laid down by Justice 3chol field in 
the case of Calumet Iron and Steel Co., Vs. ^'artin, 
115 111., 3b8, but the instruction as given tells 
the jury that if they "Believe from the evidence 
that the defendant was guilty of gross negligence 
in allowing the hole upon p»id street to remnin open 
and unprotected, if proven, and in a dnngerou?? con- 
dition 80 that nersons or nnimsls passing Rlong 
across and over said street might fall inand be in- 
jured, and tlriat such dangerous condition remained 
for such length of time that the defendant could 
through ordinary c»re and diligence have ot^erved 


.rtieficf dotBO 9iiS tanioiq 
■b.iiilfiti %At n9di ,9(in9btT9^^f 

■ r<'Ai noqo asTti/pst it 

-9' . oiiijpsi ATX sii^ n*rt* »t«o lo •ana 

i»i.ic alidA' ,.{fii*li)ftoa •!«■ ijIrfanosflSi h ni 9*99iJb 
ro 'liii/b »i»Io9cf« ftR x*^^ »^^ iioqjii tftietn* npiitowiJarxl 

99n ■ " . ' -lOl^auT^anl 

3M f i ji" ?-^n 31 aniiw ,9ori9ai-fS»R 9Yi^einqr-T03 lo 

aft&uIortoD il sur' ' ' : '^ . ' tnr- ,»j.r*8 sdboc elrfJ- lo 

J Bum"" ' cag-j-xtrxa jjnx\lilBup srf* x^ 

^T-ni^T '^ r. 019X0 9tii MX n»«>d '•^Kl- 

'' doittut "^cf frtreb MbT •Icrt »il» ni/ttiw 

, •■99;>'8 bn« noift ttitolftD "io 9iJiO' ad* 

^f; aoxJbsri*«ni »itt tW ,865 ,.111 SIX 
.jji'.^ni/^ 3ii;f moti 9V9iId6* X^rit ti iatlt x^u^ 9At 
sn9^tt^9n seo73 Ic x^Xlug sbw i nntyn9l9b 9cit istit 
.i^q<i r-^ — - ot *9»TcJ» bifflu i-toqii*»£ori 9iit aniwollfi nx 
~ Lri^tteb n ht tnR ,n»vblcq; ^i ,b9;^o»*o'xqrtu bns 

fB g^i taller iikai«R io »hoirt»{y *«rrft ob rtPiJlb 
^'-" "^ rrkl irfaiffl^airrta btB« tsVo &h« aacxaw 
.. V ^*. »i r ijibnca awotdsfffib rioua ^«rf^ bn« ,b»iot 
bXjjoo Jiiflbft»t»b 9dt teti& sarli "io d^^snsl rioua to'i 


and put it in n reasonably enfe condition .^nd 
failed to do eo, then this would be t^.rosis negligence 
and the plaintiff vould be <rntit]ed to recover if 
he was exercising ordinary cnre at the tine." ..e 
think that thie inetruction assumes to direct w' 
particular things would constitute groee negligence, 
and also is subject to the criticism thnt it assumes 
that appellant was tuilty of groas negligence, and 
the street was in «. dangerous condition. It is nlso 
complained that appellant's instructions v/ere modi- 
fied by striking; out at their conclusion the word 
"should" in this phrase, "Then you should find for 
the Defendant", and inserting in liew of the vForS 
"should" the word "may". These instructions pur- 
ported to set forth the law upon a cert.«iin st?ite of 
facts and that if such facts were proventtiAt the 
defendant would not be liable. The instructions as 
presented directed the jury if they found such a 
state of fpcts to exist that they should find a 
verdict fo» the defendant, leaving the jury no dis- 
cretion in the matter if they found such facts to 
exist. The instructions as Tnodifieri left v/ith the 
jury still a discretion to find for the defendant, 
even though they mi^ht find the facts necessnry to be 
proven to entitle the plaintiff to recover did not 
exist. This was prejuiicial to the rights of the de- 
fendant. An instruction of that character should not 
be 80 modified, 

'Ae are of the opinion tiiat the errors in 
this case are of such a charncter as to require n nev/ 
trial, and the judgment of the lower court is rever- 
sed nnd the cause remanded. 


Kot to be reported in full. 


sn; "iSST '^ nx *< yuq tan 

. : ':■■-" ,-: -" -^ 59lifll 
. li J n i .R X ,i 9di baa 

,-- :•:./ 0-9X9 «BW •Xl 

• ■ . .".jr.';'? 

+ ,- o r fc. , r- * ..K;^ baoiAlqmo o 
.-.i-i/.-iilq aiil;f ni; "bXi/oris* 


'^«"c bnA ,"^nBi)n»l»CI axl^ 

^..a* blow ^'<f * B£,t/ftrf«*' 

. s /r«. iL(.fow I'nsi>n9leb 

091x6 h9in9B9iq 

:tom^anl axfT ,iBiX9 

'«(»<9oafi . -in x*^^ xl^uorii naT9 

-tnl'vjltttq aaw a'liiT .J'tlxa 
ouTiani nA. ,insbtt9'i 

.bsittboin 08 ad 

rtoJtnirjo 9'fv^ Ic •rm a^' 

»lA^ 9a«i6 a'irlJ 

-i9/«5a si iiuoo itawol ad^ lo^ ifl9ffl:a*ut, s^i^ bnis .fsi-x^ 

.babneiccsn aauso 9x1^ brtB bsa 

• XXul nx ba^ioqaa 9v/ oJ^ iolS. 

/, CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of 
the State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true copv of the OPINION of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in mg office. 

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set mi) hand and affixed the seal of said Court 

at ML Vernon, this l.^^.. day of December, 

A. D. 1915. 




J' 5» 


Opinion of the Appellate Court 

AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, on the Fourth Tuesday 
in the month of October in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fifteen, the same being 
the 26th day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fii^en. 


Hon. Harry Higbee, Presiding Justice. 

Hon. James C. McBride, Justice. 

Hon. Franklin H. Boggs, Justice. 

And afterwards, to-wit: On the la t.. day of December, A. p. 1915, there was filed 

in the office of the Clerk of said Court, at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, an OPINION ih the words and figures 



0.1 th.e.....e9l?..t.e..:.o.f.-..\Vi.lIi.e....WilI-... 

...i.suHB.., fl.ece.a.afe<i.» 


197I.A. 271 


/appeal from 



No S9 

March Term, 1915 

.Circuit COURT 



J.efJ.erson COUNTY 




Term I'lO. 59. Agenda j^o. 44, 

In the Apr.ell??te Court, 
A'ourth JJi strict, 
};«rch "erm, A. D. 1915. 

'^llas vvilliaiT:9, Adrainie- ) 
trator of the e*t»te of ) 

'Aillie -illiam?, deceai^ed, ) 

Appellee, ) 

V«, ) Appenl from the Cir- 

lit. Vernon Car Ksnufactur- ) i^uit Court of ..'eff. 
inp. Corcpany, ) 

) erpon County. 

Appellant. ) 

LcBride, J. * 

Upon a trial hs^l in the Circuit Cnurt of 
Jefferson County a judfnent was rendered in fn\or 
of appellee and aeainet appellant for live thous- 
and dollar* and cost, which it is sought to re- 
verse "by this apne^tl. The appellant is a corpor- 
ation enf^a^sd in the husineBe of manufnctnrinf': and 
repairing of cars nt ' t. vernon, Illinois, and 
the appellee at the tine of the injury snd death 
was engaf.ed at the work of lining; cars witii pnper. 

It appears from theevidence that the injury 
and death of appellee's Intestrite orcurrsd on J=tn- 
uary 9, 1913, ?ind thst the apr-ellint was not nt 
that time operating under the compensation net -^-f 
1911, which was then in force. The plant of the 



.6cJ »oid onsT 


!18 i 

'. , ins [ Isrf'- 

'■tc-qnc .in.eli»qqji? srfT .Xintcrqii airW xd" •sisv 

f>n* 3iniau-^o.u'iiJti«in to 9«»ni:eud" sffj nx b»g«-^ie noi:*a 

.ttqnq riiiw «ij»o i^^nrnil lo 5liow 9x1* ;tB baaflgn* aew 

Yiwtni »di isd* •ort»btv»»i{* moil 9i»9nqst il 

-ni»i. no b^iruo'^o tini^o^ I s'asflsaqB lo il^asb hna 

in ion tmr *nprr»rTg« •dJ iarii bn« ,CI6I ,8 xtBU 

In ioR nox j-flffcsqmoo •rf* "isbnu .inxiBiaqo 9mtt i»rii 

Bdi 1o tcinLq »d'r .•oioi nl nsdi nan riolriw, Iiei 


Bppellant is located near l^it. tcrnon, Illinois, 
covers a large are.T of trow"^* '^nd the wortr of 
conetructinc care is divided into peveml differ- 
ent dep-artrr.e" tf», one of which if vhot i? Vnown r" 
the ?tee] plant inwh.jch the "iteel car frninef? nre 
built, -nothcr i? the rrill building, Tnd atill 
j^nother is what is called the set-up shop, in which 
th« injury in question occurred, ^nd lies directly 
west ol the mill building, "'his set-u-n shop is 
ahout ffixty feet wide snd 3b0 -feet lonr f^r\('' within 
its enclosure "^re three rnilroad tmcl's, cow^.only 
called north track, rr.iddle tracV, south track, 
and they are so Rrr».ngcd that the frnries cf csrs pucixCd in frnm 'he west on to these tracks 
for com-nletion, and ench track is of sufficient 
lenffth to hold nhont eifht c-rs, with spnces of 
//three to six feet het"epn each of the crars. 'hen 
the cprs were conrleted engines vould push in frrun 
the west roypie the cars topether and -ull them 
out to another part of the yard, ?'nd tViis was 
Cfilled ftullint the tracV, nnd at such times it 
ap'venrs tliat warnin^-s were usually riven vy the 
sounding of the whistle unon tne, rinr ing 
the bell and by men run^iin^ up nnd down tiie sides 
of the cprs Hiving, notice that they were shout to 
pull the track. oouth of this set-un shop was 
what is Qf^lled the paper house nnd to the east of 
that is apaint shed and still e^^cli of thnt are 
other shops, ^he south side of the set-up iihop 
buildlnfc was practicolly OT>en, Inrge or>en spaces 

at 8>;ort intervals. At the north west corner of 


f'ool ax in&llsqqm 

li 9QT6I c etsvoo 

"T"o ^ni J- OUT J- 9 no 

■" - 9 ;d"lBfT9b ins 

fiiftlw bti' t'^*! OdC bns sbrw t9^\ •iSxi9 iuccfB 

,jff)jM:i -i.3ijr,9 (jfOR-xi 'sXbbiin ,d[o«it riiTon b»[I-o 

i5"so lo ^oniBltt ^ri^ iflil^ b»3rt«»'i't ■^ ■ «; sir \©iij bna 

•s^forai 9' n-'TT'i nl bSxisurr stsi 

.fr.9toiJ^u- or^ bnjrt ,not^«»rqmoo lol 

i(- "-jowq*! dJiw ,*'T-n ir'N^ts itrccff- bff^ri oi fWa^aX 

••ew ait-fi- bn.« . bfiix *^^* ^^ ;t*i"t i9rt*0flJ! oJ two 
St -9sriti rfOMH JH fenft ,Voj«l# »fl.t ^tllttrj f»*IIsD 

3ftJ:s»niri .•ftliil* •*# «or« »Ilsxrfw Siit "io ani*B»f"' 

••f>x<i 9tii amob hnm t^u ^ninf^vr tim-v •jrf bt\» lisd 9l^i 

ot *ap5ft $i<c«ir x»f« tjult ••lt©n jjjrivlii •t*i» flirl* "io 

■ FW (-fO*! aa-*#« »t:<^ io rfiuoti -.TCon'fi s.ij Iluq 

to i-tB9 *rtJ- oi bflR 9 9uori «»«Ti«q •dt b»flBO if ^foifw 

aojW rr'i-t»«» »;f.t lr> «hl« ri*uo« •riT .errorl* iwfiio 
••O'ts n*^^ 93tar (fltS'TO y^ J^''0't^3''''f<? "*" .^«toIljjtf 
li 'lerf-zoo i»!9» iiiT^- ■'■'* ^ .•ir"vi?inj: tiorie is 

appellant'!' preniise? tlie ••ev'Tf?! tracV«" connect 
with the 1 » ot li . ! , H. LoKpany tr"cV«. v.hen the 
cars were etandinf unon the tracXp in the pet-im 
shop for coTTipletion there would he a ?pqce of 
from three to i^ix ff^et 'between the c?ir*, left for 
the purpose nl peraitting the men while enfa^ed 
at work to pare in hetween the c^r^. 'i'here vr^re 
•"bout two hundred fifty r.en enf?>('e(^ in r-ork jn 
each of these departn-ients. 'n the dfy in quef- 
ticn the deceascfi, illie -illlis^i'», was en^i^jed 
in the fini!«hin^ up otf the inside of the opt?" nnd 
iiC nnd j'^l'bert .'illlara^ were ennprcd together on a 
car loQtited ont>ie r.iddle track rt.nd at ahout 11: ?0 
o'clock in the rr.orninff Y'C went to the vf^rt^r h'^use, 
south of the s^on, to procure 5o»ne rolls of nnper 
to he u!»ed in the lining of the c«»r. ):e secured 
two rolls of paper and as he wns returning carry- 
ing a roll of paper under ench ^^.rTi, as* he '^tte^rir'sted 

to pssfl bet'ween the third «nd fourth c^rs on the 


tnxxik trs)cV he wns cau^ lit hetv;een tVie c.-^r^ nnd 

killed. It is claimed hy '^p-oellee tlist the en- 
fjine was nuehe'^ in on this south traO- Rnd hooVed 
on to thee cars while tV.e '^ecea-'ed wns down at 
the paper house and thi.t he Vnew nothing of the 
engine being there, ■^pellant clfiinis tViat the 
engine was in plain viev of the decpasfd ^t the 
ti-TC he nassed in between th^^ two cor?. "he cus- 
tom was to attach the engine to the fir?t c^r, f?nd 
then to the second nnd afterwr. rds t^ the third end 
90 on, .-'nd it is cl^irned by apr.ellant thot the usu?l 


. xj , ■ »ri* riS iw 

,.-- c:,.,.^^ .: rJ9l(TTrna icl CjOri« 
T-t ,t': . J.,. .i»»w*Off ts-it xls ot •#iff^iCro*l 

hn «- . . a. qu ^nirlsinil •rfi nT 

©•^^ " ■ -rfoiR-J oEbbir! ♦rfctn'-^ baJ-ponl iso 

^^•arrf Infiw aif ■or'ir.'vo.Tf srit ni >iyoio*e 

■ ■ 5 «! '; 

ftaJ'ar! •>,:■' ^ - TTraor Ic f foi « ^i 

«»rf,t frt ftrr-- nsswrtscf «R«q[ o;t 

^••'•T-i -'.TiBO 9»?»rfJ' oi^ no 

nnf» 98ucri isqflq »rf* 

.Bi9rii ^JtscT •niano 

•'«'^*b 1'^-* lo v^lT nlxlg nt ?»«w sni^"' 

bn' . .t liamiitt of iiiw moJ^ 

•'.b-i.-.mteS'xB bciM brtoo»« •Ai oi n«di 

-mrning was riven hcfcrft the enfine wap xit^JtSK 
attached to any of the car?, ^nvl a? it rajphed, 
back iron c.-^r to cnr. As to whwt occurped nt 
that time nnd the -.anner of r.uphinf the enfine 
and coupling u- ti'ke cars trie evidence i i? j«orr.ewhFit 

The declnrRtion consifte of two nountf, 
and the Charlie of negligence UTion t>ie pnrt of the 
defendant i«t eub»t^ntiill]y the eame in each count, 
and charge? that, "Tyie said ?igent? nnd ?ervnnts< 
of tlic defendants in olt^rpe of said lnco"T^tiv^, 
and vho were not t^ien and there fe'llovr ^ervqnt? of 
said plaintiff's inte*t"te in and about the >.-^ulinp 
of SB id freifcht cnrs then and thtre -ts^ndinf ii-non 
said trnck ne af^rp-^id out of snid set-ur, «hon, 
and without any reasonable warnin(y, notice or 
Bignal of their intention so to do, ^.nd vntyif^ut 
adopting iieasuree of precaution by which the on 
coming of said locomotive wps rade I'nown to or 
could have been aecertajn«d by plaintiff's intes- 
tr^te, negligently fjnd cs?relessly drove ^nd r^ro- 
pell ed or caused to be driven or pronelied the 
said locomotiva engine on, over nnd alon^]. said trpck 
snd upon, to nnd apninet the first of sold cnrc 
then »2nd there standing on i'^ Id traclc as nf ore- 
Bald, with such force as to violently nus?! and 
move 8«id cnre forwf^rd and to cause nil of s^id cnrs 
standing on s^id track to cra«h Rr\<i bumn together 
with gre«t force ^nd violence, \yj ^rean^ -wVierenf 
plaintiff's intestate in the exercise of due cr>re 


,b*5.'ai;a it ".n ?;■ Y"» f'J bsrfo«;fj-jB 

•xtiir 10 Tsnn^r •!!;? one •mi J' d'jirli 

i«5."fw».-nf>« 9i sonabiy* 9cii tTRO •ilcf u afiii^'Joa bna 

, j^x^oi Iinoo 

-er 9K.f aoqtf •on»^ix [ t^n 1p s^iArio trii Jtnji 

••t'r'tvT»9 bn« "Jinssi* br«»! ,i^*ri^ ••H'xsn'a bau 

, -"viirmoonr bis? to 9-%'tnd.o ni «J-rt«Jbn»l9b »i{J lo 

"'/■I*** wo r f^l »T»ri* bfis n»cli ton •^•w odwr {)n« 

T^ai ■'"^''^ bnfl ni e;t<«ct»s:)-ni •'ili^rrlBiq blH» 

^txbn<«^f» eT»r(J' hrfR n».':t btro iiigisil bise 1:n 

^forf* cfU-^9^ bi -^9 to iuo bi M^^irlf. bm -^opi^ bXK* 

, ^nr«A»i \^nR tuoriiiw bfffi 

TO 0^ nwon"*f ^bjau tew svxJojboooI bi«« to ^nimoo 

-«9^rir i^'llr^tn;. ii»n !:«*t«o«« a»»(f •v«f{ fclx/oo 

-PICT brff? svo-xb \(,Ii«»*»f»Ti'0 bnp YJf*n9:^xl3»n ,»iB:t 

■=)r[»noicf 10 n«viib »ti O.J b»ejjjio ic bs CXsq 

-A'-inii iii.'-^9 jnc f t: V -^ ,no »nj:^n» »vxion>oooX biisa 

,o»'-i>t inibni"*^ •isil* tn» ausii 

vf^r^toiv '' f ■»!» •aiol liaot riiiw ,b£i»9 

«?T:i^'^ •••■•jpD o;J bm* biwwTO'i bibo bin* »vocn 

'^•j«TO o^ Jlonti bxB« no .'»uxbn«is 
In • -. '*rf«.tv br.':' so-jo't J'B*'!^ riJ'iw 


pnd caution for ^i» own ssjfety nnd withon tnoti ce 
or means of kncwledf« of the in coming- of said 
locoriOtlve as aforcenid, vn? then find th ; re Kjoxr 
croesint tracks between two ot said cprp ?n f«tand- 
int upon 8«id tracks as aforesaid, in the nec«!«'ary 
discharge of duty a^ a liner and he wr? caught 
and crushed, etc, " 

Upon the hearing of this c»uj«e tjie appellant 
at t)ie close of plnintiffr evidence, and at the 
close of wll of tiic evidence, entered a notion to 
direct a verdict, - nd nl?o wfter verdict entered 
a motion for n new triol; n]1 of which motioris 
were overfuled, ^nd are assigned as error. At^-icH- 
ant also assigns as error the giving of instruct- 
ions for anpel3«e, and the refusal and ir^odif ication 
of appellant's inetructionf, ]n the view we take 
of t>us casewe will not atterript to cnnpider or 
weigh the evidence, as a ne^ trial will b».ve to te 
granted herein nnd v/e consider it improper to con- 
ment at l«ngth upon the evidence or the wei^^ht of 
it. '^he evidence introduced on heJialf of the plain- 
tiff was necessarily of a negative character, pnd 
SOTie of the witnesses by their statfnents clwimed 
to be in s position to hear and know or 
not the whistle blew, tfie bell r^nd pnd othf;r 
warnings were given of B]:nell''nt ' s attemnt to 
couple on to the c^nrs. ^''hile other j^ ur;on cross- 
examinnt ion, ad'nit thst they were not in puch a 
position as to be fully cogniznnt of these matters; 
while others adroit that they did not Know and could 


: stliaa;iisoii.' "ilele* nwo •tii- tot aeiiufio Ikis 

'."»;?« 9 sir ^ftcf sjiosio^ i^x"»«oto 

i3«l»J.ri« ,»9H»t'iv?; ■ JiB to 9to£o 

ut1^»i"* jjif'My 'X»i'ii» o« I« bn ,joibn9» .»» J^o*x tfa 

•7"fj»^*« &on Ifiv.- swdaAO «xril io 

td 0.* av*iii XIxw ij.jL*x^. wan >- -isb vo sxi^ fi^i** 

Hf-'-. ,iaJoaa*i;lo »vxiRS«a » to -^iJ:iBB«eo»n •««- lliJ 

.(j-t Xttcf fci* ,w»Xcf sfisiifw »rfcf fan 

•?i ' i.xtHll%crq» If} n*Yi:^ «i»w •T|nim»# 

-»9o-fj no a 'j^siiJ'o • f iff'* .w-uta'^nt «.t no mlquot) 

.lr>n »T»w At»ff:t ^*»riJ l-inrftji ,itcx ?»ni«i»3^» 

;»'i:-«j J r,iii 3J».>.ij io Jnrs.imioo xtlt/l »cf o^ *» rtriiiMa(y<f 

•^ ' — ■ n^- -v^n-f jnn bib \,arli tnrft & imbu BfHio nltrtn 


not say whether the whittle blew find wrnint:? 
were or were not tiven. I to on the other Mnnd, a 
freater number cf witne-sc!* who clnin to be in a 
position "-.o knov tertified thpt pever^-l blfif^tR of 
the whistle were blown, bell rnnf, «nd wj»rnin^-9 
given in the usual manner by men r.rsrinf- up and 
down the tr=ck )"hoiitin£ to look out on the ?nuth 
track. It would be imnroper, under the st^te ol 
this record, for us to attem-'-it to weip}' tl^ir tes- 
timony find deride the urion it? ^nerits but the 
character of thie testimony is referred to for the 
purpose of shov,'in{ the necessity for Mccurrte in- 
structions to the jury. e sre nf the onjnl ^n that 
many of the instructions were inaccurnte snd on 
that account a new trial wall have to be awarded 
in this cnee. 

ConrplRirt is naAe oi the f:ivin{f of nlnin- 
tiff's fifth, ""ixth nnd seventl! inr trDct ions, ce- 
cnuse tbty fail to ^ i ve a proper rule of i qw as 
to tne n«frli{;.ence of defendpnt. ^he declar.'^tion 
ch?>Tge9, in subst'»nce, thp.t without nny reas-inable 
wnrninf., notice or signal of their intention so 
to do, and without Rdontlng measures of -nrecfiution 
by which the oncomint of 9?<id loconotive was \\b69 
known, or could Inave been psrert-' med by plpintiff's 
intestate, the defendant negligently ^^nd carelessly 
drove and oror.elled t)ie sriid enfine appinrt t'le 
first of said cars with such force n»» to cpusf* nil 
the cars stnndinf; on said trsck to crash pnd burop 
together with t re»t force nnd violerce. 

• 6- 

.., .. ^..v. y^,,(i Jon 

inn 919W 10 9T»w 

■X9dr<.un t»iK»^i 

rtct5»;t- won?? o* ifoii-fsocr 

, .o id 9199.' sXis r . r 

. t .baooai ititiS 

in sso'^iuq 
i-rifODBri unnii^ocritJiiir •rtt Vo xnAm 

.9BO0 otdi nt 

iff ^v^'i bnr. citXtm ^C^iitlt s'tt'tV 

'■■ ■" •" ■ ' r 7 •».;• • • 

bnalsb to 90n»alXa»n »di o* 

'■■ ; ;.' .-. ». . . 

fo liinatB TO sox^on ,Bn*nT«w 

rro^ ,-rii(TOb« ^woriiiw fcaj^ ,o'b 6i 

=> nor. [ £>£«« lo gnimoono •rf;t rioirfw ■y^cf 

"» n»»(^ »v»t( biuoo "xo .nwbiW 

\» fcl*i» ©rfi b»ii»CT07(7 bnu 9/ot6 

:3u« rC^iir •TPo blue lo itti^ 

lOKi^ blme no '^nibnp.i- 9rft 

,?»m^Ioxv br-.a 90io\ in9t:i rii'tw T»ifi»80* 


Tie fifth inetruotiTi jiiven do^s nnt confine the 
negligence to tn^t chprged In tiie dcclnration hvt 
says, "And il the jury further believe fro';: the 
evidence t}iat the deat>. of p«id '. illie illinnp 
w«- CRU«ed, g>u8ta.ined by hirn, pri«jnf^ out of j^nd 
in the c^ur^e of liis ecip] oyii/ent wnd due to net li- 
cence on the T)art of the defendant, then ^nd in 
that case even thou^rh the jury way further believe 
from the evidence thr?.t the death of said gillie 
William* wa«> apfjroxircately CBUped by his own con- 
tributory negligence, under tne 1 p.w t}ie defendant 
cortipanj^ i» liable," 

'■"he sixth instruction i^t'-'tes th^t if the 
jury believe fr-'Tr. tne evidence t}'nt at the titriC the 
plaintiff " in tne enploy of the defendant co:i- 
pany, and if you further believe from the evidence 
■that tue death of eaid ..illie ..illiams wns directly 
caused by injuries euet-^'ined by him arising out of 
and in the course of >a 8 eiaplnynent ", that it is 
no defense th -t he wseumed the risK, or that death 
was caused by the nej-lifence of a fellov; nervint, 

i.netruction seven is of the eanse character 
Rnd contains substnntially the sp^^e lunjuage with 
reference to defendant'? net;! it_ence. it v/ill be 
observed by these instructions that the dofendj^nfr 
nejlijence '^•n." not li^rited to the nef^litence clui.r^ed 
in the declaration but was gllow^d to extend to 
any char-acter of negl iiscuce tii-tt the jury r'Utiht 

The sppellnnt by its eighth instruction re- 


■ r- 'T In ;(i«9b srlj" iflfii •orisbxvs 

nl jr.? n»rf,t ,jri»bn»l«fe '^ttf T"o tli»(T •Vii i.o •orts-^ 
«i\,"=^ r-^n" T«(.'^y1 ^uw Y*ii;t »Kit rfHi>iOxi;f n»v» •sas ^«rf^ 

•I'lbas'tsb •if.t lo xoXfi ^' ItiirxEXq 

jonabiws srfJ' .noil ^yiifsa isd.t-Xjjt ijov i-i ^n* ,y."JBg 

■-r^fooTib SRW em«lT£i<' 9iXIf<^ bijie io a^«»b SiT* ^fsili" 

■ -■>■"! 
• i^r.ieixn'mli^ ycf fa«nxitiBu« ■diiui.nX ^cf bacuAO 

;;'• ,' *n&nxrvr<]pTt» «x:-f to SBrti/tfd siC^ ni bn« 

rtissb liw' .wit ftcii bamu^OB Sif ^»«rfj ssnalsb on 

.Jnt^vTs? vnlisl k lo 90fi»3t It^en aiii \o bssof.o ««>* 

•cT i ,9on9iiiij9n r.'insibaoi^b Oj 9onH.i9l5t 

■» 'inabnolnfc. a.ii j-AriJ «.,o L^O';l#»!ni sflort^ \ci b^\ri3»do 

•^a'xsi'fo •oaaaiX^^n a^i* oi bj.Ji.filX *on ^ar ©onStiXjSn 

o| bns <>\i'.oXX-i ¥ «w Jod noi JriaXn'^b 9ilt nt 



cited the neg] igence charged in the decl nrati on 
and pnufciht to confine t}je nep licence t"" th/'t so 
charged, sind cnnclnded by tellirif t>ie jury thst 
•unless the ne^slifience 'wp* -^f the character !so dc- 
crilDed and charged in the declaration you shou ld 
then find tht defendiint not guilty, "he court 
modified this instruction "by -trifting out the 
word "should" ??nd inserted the word "laai' , fo 
th«t the instruction then told the jury th^t 
they way find tlie defendant not guilty. And the 
same word was stricken out snd inserted in other 
instruct ione for s-prellant which we think -was 
erroneous. <«here the instruction is hesed inon 
the fRCts charged and in evidence, ?5nd tlie jury 
find adversly to the plaintiff u on tl'Ofe facts, 
it )ioould then be the duty of the Jury to find 
the defendant rjot fuilt> hut by this modif icstion 
the duty was removed and the discretion given, 
We think al] of t>ie»e instructions were harmful 
and erroneous, !'o recovery could .ave been had 
fcxcept on* the net,litence charged in the declara- 
tion, c. E. L. ;^. .'-1. "a. \'s. ievy, 160 Til. , SS:'.. 
In C-uap roint 'ff. Co. Vs. ■^rIIuu, Admr. , 75 
ill., 417, it pp-:ear« thnt 'in ir struct ion had 
J»cen i':iven at t'le instance of the plp.iiitiff wliich 
did not restrict the right of recovery to such 
defects a- had been ptjrticularl.y alleged, the 
courtsays, on page 419, "'I'here ■^rt" evidence ■ iven 
of several defects in tie nachinery^ not nlle^-ed 
in the declarption, and the instructions should 
have confined the right of recovery to the defects 


noo 6nj»' ,b9jiTiti1d^ 

bi.uo pti uox nni&ninL99b sdS nx b»ga*!rfo bn'k tddlti^ 

»orf inpbtisl^b »iirj bnil nsrfJ- 

,1 ^ i ;f OUT ^'s n 1 9rft i ftrft 

. 0-i'iiua J Ln9if)b »rf^ briit ^Rpr x*^* 

i^u.t.. i-.i faiJ:^'I9^^x b.i». j.o jn^jfoiita »i'» blow aaui* 

j-aa' -ii iiitnx •rfi siari^ .auoanciis 

^nc5 ,0 0i;9Jc. 'ar bajjiiirio slani »rii 

'•1 ;:iq 9dS oi Y^tn^tbn bnil 

Dili: J to x^ub arfJ »cf andS bIuo«r i"! 

^ . . f > ' >;Jli{j^ *oft cfn«bn9l»b 9iii 

,^'r»vi,-i nc LJ^z.-)nx b sh.t bfiJI bjvocrs't 9«W \,^b »d[* 

f:;^^n.r ■ •5-—- mtio t&outSanl ait'jiit lo [I.« ^niciS •W 

.58 , .ie.M'-ij^n-A-t.iC- .J .noii 

b«rf hoi iojrt^Birji am ^fffrtJ ni<»3crq» J^i ,VI^ ,.UI 

bST^SriR ton 3{\;T»»Ttr[0«M 9:ii ni 9;fD9l9b I«^9V»i» "io 

bIuorf» enoito0id-8ni ©«ii bn» .noilBiaCosb erit ni 
<»io9l3b ^I'.i oi y;T»voo»"i to ^trfgii 9rfJ bsnilnoo 9Vi?rf 

opecified in the declaration, Jt is in-i«<te;' 
that the error is ot)Vi--?ted hy other inetructi -ns 
for the plaintiff, whicJ-i pre'Ur-'te the ri^.ht of 
recovery on tne deceased Imvin^: been 'killed by 
the defendant' f negligence, in mnnner ind form as 
alleged in tike declaration. but, after hsvirp, 
been instructed tliat the plpintiff r-ii^-ht reco-ver 
if the accident vfp • criur-ed hy any defect in tlie 
nachinery, the iury would not feel called uron 
to j^earch throu{:>i tlie various count« of tne dec- 
laration to find out T/bat particular defect?^ were 
therein complp»ired of. '-^Ynt v.'ould be unimTJortnnt, 
if there could be a recovery on -iccount of T^ny 
defect, 7'or dees def enda)it ' * instruction, res- 
trictinfr the ri^ht of reco\ery to t'.e causes of 
action alleged in the declaration, cure i.he 
error. " 

Again, it is s-iid in Chicaf^.o «k Alton 
Ivy. Co. Vs, lock, Admr., '/2 111,, 141, "The 
second and fifth instructicrs 'vere, furtli-r, too 
broad in allowing- a recovery for negl if;ence in 
(-eneral respects, 7j thout 1 ini tuition to tlie 
particulars of negligence specified in the dec- 
laration, " 

"It is elementary that recoverycon '^nly 
be had on the neplif ence charged in the '^pclar-^- 
tion," (:»ane Vs. Fogan, 228 111., ?3B, 

"In C. ii. a, .;. k.R. Co. V. levy., 160 
111., 385, supra, it was held "that in instruct- 
ion in an action for Tiersonal injuries, allowing 
recovery if the defendant was guilty of "erlipence 


'.aim- . .tini»L99h mii ni bailiosorn 

•>fiF lapnKj' nx .oong-jiX i^en ••. ' #nj»bn9T:9i> 3aJ" 

r.o >, .6. .BO I'ja't :ron bluow out ''^^ ^\T»ntdosiCi 

-osb sal lo i!»:tnifoo -^joiis? p.r;^ rfj^uoirf^ ;io'XJB»'s o^ 

»19W '•Jostab Tt^CiiOiJ-isor l*rfTr iuo bnll o.t rtol^p'iaX 

.inRJ-iccrririu acf blaovv j <;■('* . in ba nl « I qrnc o nJtS'rarfi' 

V ■ fooop a- \.i»voo»i * 9<i bluoo oi'tij It 

tjjii sri.t ^nitpiii 

^ ■'' f '\r. bgrprr*" nri:tOR 

" .10119 

00* , , ; ■ ^'>i)ouii9ai rW-lil bnji fanooe* 

-o9t> .sil/ r:i ^9i1irv9qp 'iyno^ij^an to mi^luoii'iMrf 
-~T*I^9^^ srlt ni p^Biiisiiio sons'iil^on ori;t no b«ii .»cf 

.iiCK ,,ni ess .,rii»ao:i .bv ;»ab%o ."s^^^^pJ^: 

00 1 „ .^»ii ^^ 1,0 ^a, , q nl"- 

-ifgtu^ljR^i., iix ji-i--^' oi»i{ e«w ii ^siqist .cJet ,.11 1 
iniwolla ,B©liutii-' I«nc»«»<7 ^o"! noiv*9« ft* 'U noi. 


contriliuting to the injury, wap erroneous as 
f^-;ilin^i to confine the recovery i.o tne rprticular 
negligence slle^^^ed in the declarjitinn . " i 
V. ^hioafio City Hy.' Co.,;"lS5 111., 17S. In t:'. 
later case the ouprerie Court tsnid, 'In the 
hfltner oaee the instruction v?ap held ba<i bec?U!?e 
it did not limit the nec'^ ^(-^ence ol the defend?<rt 
which would w^rrfnt a recovery to -that charged by 
the declaration, Rnd it waf furthf^r held t.h«t the 
instruction war not cured by other instructions 
which did roni"ir.e tiie rif^ht o'' recovery to the 

proof of ne^;lif,ence charged cy the dec 1 -■'.rati. ^n, " 
KRCkett Vs. Chicago taty '.-y. to., 2Zt IJI., 1.31. 

"'he fifth instruct i :)ji < iven upon leicxiix 
belialf ol the appellee 'Ud direct a verdict, ^nd 
the sixth and seventh inplied that o verdict 
should be given for the plaintiff by smyiiu.. triat 
the ruatters therein specified would be r.o defense. 

Corflpl flint is next 'lade ^f appellee' •< 
eighth instruction upon the quei^tion of d^m-=ges, 
which says, "The court further in.'tructs tlie Jury 
that if you find t^-^e defenirint rr.uilty, if you 
should do so, 3nd co'^.e to oonriler the damare;*, 
if any, you wiH. allaw the ))laintiff, tVien =md 
in thflt case the plfiintiff is entitled to recov- 
ery in this actlonyfor the exclusive benefit of 
the widow .-^nd next of the kin oT waid deceased, 
such damopes as the jury may bel ieve frosTt the 
evidence the said widow sad next of kin have sus- 
tnined by repson ol said deatv, not to exceed in 
all, however, the sum of ten thousand dollarr." 
This instruction is too broad rind allows the Jury 


iciiouiiinJc •di saso lan^Ari 

L^ivoosi N trfj ^.cn bxb rfolrfw 

osjioiri-j ,8V :ft93fojiH 
xit: : !l39nt tiStt\ Sri'" 

J-RiiJ :^ii\si9 'icf 'itiinlBlq siii- 'xol rrsrxs etf bfuon't 
g ,*-!:- -- -J c ....... (,^i-v-.,g^^ nisisrf^ eit>^^B»n »n;t 

r irr ^i *niA£qinotJ 
vr ■ T.9rt+Tyl ;fii;oo arfT* ,»yfl9 rfolirftr 

-■b i&rf'if 1 * e.""6o ^^tiR ,0' ob bluoil* 

«^9*A909b biBB 16 ttljf 9rfi' Id *X»n ftn* wbbiw si-fi 

9ri* iWO't'J '=>TSi Cad \;«Mr f^ut Q^"!^ 8« «9>)«mnb rfou"! 

-»!/« 9vr:I rtiJf 10 ^xsn bn** wCbiw bXB« srlJ eonsbivs 

rrt ba»8T» o* l^on ,:i:f«©fe fel*a lo no?*****! ^^cT b^Mfti' 


to take into consideration ap element of diinnfres 
I'lKtterf not uecersarily included in the statute, 
The statute i", "And in every 5uch ncti nn the ^n^y 
may ^ive such damap'eB as they sliall dee/r, r friir ;'rjd 
just coixipensation v'ith referene to t>ie pecuniary 
injury re^iulting frcm such death, etc," The 'jUpreme 
Court in cojamentint: unon '-in instruction of thi?» 
clitiracter says, "'•'he instruction wns wron^ unon the 
point of daoi?^ es in tellinf, the jury they ^ight 
find ior the plaintiff such ^an.sit:^^ as in their 
jvid^^nent froii trie evidence in tae case tne ^^iniritiff 
axjckjk ought to recover, '>iis left the Jury free 
scope to t'.ive sucn danjat^es as, piccordinp, to their 
individual notions of ri^ht .-?nd wron^:, they might 
think the plaintiff ouglit to recover, unfunded "Ly 
p.ny legal rule of dama^-es, and witi. int rei!^T6 to 
the darjat;es suetHined," luren Cofl c^ Ice -o.. Vs. 
liowell, 20k ill., ^^15. "ll,7intiff' p instruction 
"C", which was fiven by the court, iu j a ret''-'.rd 
to the measure of dar/.ate!?, and is obj ec t i naole 
in the eaffie reepect as vrb the instruction on the 
some subject w) ich was condemned in Illinois i^ent- 
rsl hailroad Co, vn. Johnson, 2P1 111., AP, on tne 
authority of n.any esses tnere cited, viz., it le»ves 
the Jury to fix ti'.e df>napes, if '?ny, -without re- 
quirinf them to li.-^it the appes'-^nent to the r>iJount 
of actual pecuniary d;viafier 311 , ap nhown by 
the evidence," iowler Vs. C. <>. S> 1, !<. I:, '-o,, 
2iA 111., 62b. 'fhe instruction iiere given to 
appellee did not Limit the damat-es to the riecuniary 


^... ,. .^■.-- :. r.'.C ' -.^ .-a ,'X 9*U^«i8 s^liT 

•II -r ; t B aioafi irRli xo-ii •: B fis^^jKrjtb riou5 sytj* \»m 

... .,.-,ot)i7 iiiid" r^ snOTslai si$ ivf noiissnsqsaoo tBu[, 

sT^sf era ' jff'." '.Tj-'* ,i1:^«^b dot'* troll: ,vii^ iB'^^'i-' y;tiwt"i 

'X.': 3 f. 'ofc iOcji» *tiiriif.Iq 9di lot Anit 

I'll" -^bi/s arti fiioil Inem^i/t 

"iai" . . . • rut J.i;:3U0 lltTIXX 

7i:s.- -ibTODOt , ' ' .3u« avi.i oJ' aqooa 

o^fT + Brt f "'t'Htnir. i ' .c.[. ,.II<.«|OS ,.(l9Won 
, iOD sfiJ YOf neyi^^ saw rfairiw ,"J" 

anl -J ste'v^ 3s J'Dsqaat ^ftiifiB 9iiJ ax 

-i 9'^ Bi'n.i'ri ni bdninabKOfj esw -iDX'iir ;t9»t.d'ue sxrma 
»ad' n , , f'ii ^noanaoi. .8V .0^ bROTclis-i l»i 

iSat^jsiiBi arfj- xtl o-t \in[, sdi 

. / islwot '".sbn-iStvl^ 4rtJ 

ci"- ciov . '10 'i^Oi/iJarti 9n1' .dS ,. .. ^tS 

\:T«xntjr>9.T Silt ,'-,ori<Jb 9. loA'bifc 99ll9ggA 


dH>Ti»gep repultinf from the deafa of plrunti f f ' p 

Ve are of the opinion tlmt, t>u? i riptrun t i'^ne 
fiven herein ^'Te errf^neouR -'vnd thnt t^.e CRse •••^b 
of that character that reqiJired accurate inptrnct- 
i'^np, and becnupe of puch erroneouf* in«truct". -)r,a 
the judj:nent cf the lowc'r court i ? re\€r?cd rnd 
t/ic c^uae rewpnded, 

i-.evereed nnd remnnded. 
Hot to "be reported in full. 


"sn"! * ouTt''' 

-^TTS saa." aipTiii nsyia 


/, CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of 
the State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true copy of the OPINION of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in mg office. 

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set mg hand and affixed the seal of said Court 

at ML Vernon, this j..:dk,(....^.^ dag of December, 

A. D. 1915. 

lerk off tn^ Appellate Court. 





/? -> ^ ., 

(0 / 


Opinion of the Appellate Court 

AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at ML Vernon, Illinois, on the Fourth Tuesday 
in the month of October in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fifteen, the same being 
the 26th day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fifteen. 

Hon. Harry Higbee, Presiding Justice. 
Hon. James C. McBride, Justice. 
Hon. Franklin H Boggs, Justice. 

And afterwards, to-wit: On the J^l... day of December, A. D. 1915, there was filed 

in the office of the Clerk of said Court at Mt Vernon, Illinois, an OPINION in the words and figures 
following: \ I 


97I.A. 278 


March Term, 1915 






, C2^.L../AM3^:Cfc 

Term lio, 63. A^tenda No. 27, 

In the appellate Colt, 
iourth district, 
Larch Term, A. D. 1S15. 

Charles Hueliing, ) 

Appellant, ) 

Vs. j Appeal froiayulaeki County 

0. L> Jiartlett, i Circuit Court. 


Appellee. ) 


] ciiride. vT. 

The defendant in tlie court bel ov/ 
filed a demurrer to plaintiff's declaration, which 
was BUBtai led by the court, nnd the plaintiff 
havin£, elected to etand "by his declaration judgment 
was thereupon reddered a/.-ainet him for costs '^.nd he 
now seeks a revere?*! oi this judt'raent. 

The declaration f^nd demurrer in this 
case are subetantially the parne as the declaration 
and demurrer in the case of I.. ■^•. Reeoe Vs. C, I, 
Bartlett, decided at the present term of thi? court, 
and the same questions are made and argued in this 
case ae in thnt one, so tl-^at the opinion filed in 
that case is adopted ns the opinion in this case and 
the judfcnient of the lower court i? reversed nnd re- 
manded with directions to overrule the deniurrer. 

JTJlHikEKT RlSVKRSiSD AJ^ KfcikAimiir' "felTK 


Jot to be reported. 

— 1— 

.vs. oil «bn9,jjA .£9 ,oi£ orxeT 

.etSX ,Ci .A .arts? riotfl^ 


\fauo') xiBaXi/TiMoil IsaqqA ( .«V 


( .9»II»qqA 

,Z .9t)iaao i 

r>i:nw ,rioti8iBXo9i) 9 'tlii'nii»Xq 0* 'I9'num9b b b^lll 

'ilziniBtq »rf# beta .^ijjco »ri* x<^ f)w ia^aua bbw 

;fn9pT;jbirt noitfli/if 3»l) sirl y;cr &n«J9 0^ ba^foeXs anlvari 

s:i bnr bJ"«oo toI inirf tmnipv^a baiabttat ncquaimiS saw 

.;tn9mrjftut eldS to Xfiaisrsi « silssn won 

9iiiS ni idiiumsb fcn-i rtotiBiBlo»b ariT 

. r ,'• .sV sosa.I ." .1 to aeiio sri^ ni rBiiuaxsb bnK 

,^Tcuco »irf^ lo i3Z9i Jnasaiq 9ii;t Ja bobxovb ,)t9lirBS. 

9tdS ni. bsu^as bns 9btua 9ia ancilssup aauB* Sil.^ ban 

ni bsTxl noiniqn aril SBdt oe ,ano iBiiJ ni as aaso 

bnii 99B3 9i:fJ ni noiniqo aril ax? baiqrba ai aaao laiil 

-91 bnr. baoiavst "ix l:tuoo tiaviroX dill io Inaaiibut, aril 

.T9Txtfin9b sril aXuiiavo ol anoilosixb xiliw babnam 

.balacqa^ acf ol loK 

/, CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of 
the State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true copg of the OPINION of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in my office. 

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set my hand and affixed the seal of said Court 

at Mt. Vernon, this ^:^i.. day of December, 

A. D. 1915. ^ 







=; a 

1— 1 




Opinion of the Appellate Court 

AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, on me Fourth Tuesday 
in the month of October in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fifteen, the same being 
the 26th day of October, in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fifteen. 


Hon. Harry Higbee, Presiding Justice. 

Hon. James C. McBride, Justice. 

Hon. Franklin H Boggs, Justice. 

And afterwards, to-wit: On the _ ..Z^^.. day of DecemUer, A. D. 1915, there was filed 

in the office of the Clerk of said Court, at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, an OPH^ION in the words and figures 

■ \ 


I No. 

March Term, 1915 


1$7I.A. 279 







T«r.mNo. 74. Agenda :io. 32. 

In the Appell'ite ^O'lrt, 
1 ourth "district, 
Kardh Tein, A. D. 1915. 


Jacot :J. Schmidt, ) 

Appellee. ( 


"^•» (.Appeal from the Circuit 

V^rine t ilk Condensing( Court of Ladieon Catnty 

Company, ) 

Appellant. { Illinois. 

l-croi ide. J. 

This suit was instituted and firet tried 
before a Justice of the leace and fr-n thence -.ppeal- 
ed to the Circuit Court of 1 adison County, nnd ip 
now "broufht to t' is court lor review. 

- 1 np-nenre from the record in t>>i3 onee 

^ /:^^^?^«^A^^^^^*--5£?i-^-*"*' ^ oo^P^r^tion.with its -)rinci->al 
/ . office^ in St. £©ui9>waB engafcd in the l.u£?inepp 

^^purc^^ing milk ^t-'^^ri- n o . 11 -3 in-i^, and^ 4*^ the 
/^SiS^ad been d^elivering milk to^^j-^^t^"^ 
tiwis the delivery for each month i7ouid H^c eettied 
and paid for on about the 15th of the succeeding 
°'°"*^* ^-^-^ ^th^r r, p. ,c ar s U ^4 ^urin/: the, month 

6563 pounds ofjpAlk and ^^ on about the 11th or 
/^^^^o^^Jo^!^^«r/l22S^vieited the office of 
gl^naiiL ii^ '.n. iuui y and thore r et '-r. Oi-afe.,.n-, 
the ] resident, he s ays ^he -urpof^e of hie vi?it was 
to make prices for milk for six months fron r.ctober 


t \- 

.0 Ltl . 'ir ! 


( ^ibitad ob , Jo ojp"L 


.aiOiixIXX j .Snellsqq^ . 

,L .gfxtTaoM 

• Insqq- gnr[9ri;}' rr-il hnn 9os« I arfi- to •oi;fa0Xi fl siolscf 

!?i: bnn .-^jJ-nAjo". noB.if>R * to JujoO iiaoixO ad^ o^ ba 

."/aivai T'-'i J'-r.uoo 9tdt oS i'xljiuoicf wort 

X»rrioftxior aoj-i xfj i'^.nox^pif- qfioo s ,ino££9qqB iadi 

=,. 1 v-MOJ-- hr<r , • >tXixo ^iaarioTuq to 

:fdX ar'* ii/ocfs no lol btB^ bnr 


' iv-y.-r 


*»fii^«^. bs'iavllab b£;j-( -a^itifra^f^v.CXex larfo^oO to 

t ;tuocff» no -*-«*W brus alXim lo abnx/oq Sdd3 

-Df'.' Tivt bad" t ■, .:iAcMH«\i9cfw»voil lo ri^S r 

,fff Mi a l «- iO .v : d-a-' at'':^o hnR a L tju J ,.t t3 w J: "tngf-eatytrs 

ervB- j-io . ■-' asoq^i/'.-' arfi a x^ P » *^ .^fnabteai i eaJ- 

■xadctoo mcil arfJ-nom xia lol 5(Xlci lol aaotiq aaiflfli oJ' 


with the Ireeident oi ^{v.i g ]^ mil nnA e ny f», " T .85 

I>er hundred ¥ <ag - ^h.nt '. ' ■■ae ig i ui r t would be ^'aid 
for six months let inning, "ctober 1st, 1913, tfi-e- 
Taii.Jf-to ^»*- -dttdi^tfreri ■?■!■ ..riaA.". shortly there- 
after -g ml mi ■l.iout the btri of-"'.' i coewl aer', the, 
caueed tc be siutliehed in the larine Telegram, the 
following notice: "Notice ie hereby fiven that the 
Marine I ilk Condenpint Corrnany guarnnteee --^n -average 
price ol. rj,65 v^T hundred for miiv for the six 
months beginning 'ctober i^t an^l endiQt Arril let. 
Henry Kieke, -..anif;,er. " ^ .^yiTpJI e^ aayy^hd rend this 
notice about the tirje of ite^insejtion and ccntinued 

to deliver milk to apfioIln.ifi» ' until Ai?ril 3!?t. At 


the *nd ol each^ mpnthg 9tntement^.-as sent irom the -'**'***'*'»^ 
tet. : Tuit i oil i^ce to t^jHiir ?igent at itHrine, to^-ether 
with 5 check for t}.e amount of tnlk delivered dur- 
ing that month, it appears that f»r the nonth of 
October the check was Cl.75 per hundred; lebru-iry 
«l.dO ^<tx hundred, nnd : aroh r'l.VS per hun'lred, 
;md the other months v/rs '1,85 i;er hundred. ?lMf ■ — ,/ 

«* eacii tine ■'¥*»•« the check was beloxv !^l.b5 wp-neilee 
0^ s- that > » » complained to the a^ent th^t it vae 
not enou£h but accented the check and Cii,s»;ed -i\ and 
upon the payir.ent of the last^ check «HB*»44-e*- told^ 
the afeent of ay i vjeJlan ^ Rt T'nrine, 5-J'14-n^j-e^ ti..'»t 
unless t>iey paid the br.isnce to i'«ke up the 1.85 
**»vb- he w'.uld sue them. The b^-lpnce was not ynid 
and this sui". v;\^ brought to recover the sarr.e. l3 

There is no dispute ibout the facts in 
this case, except that appellant contends ti.-tt the 

averager. rice for the rniik, even if appellee' e tiieozy 


•-;« » i< ow - i » flriy 9m w bsafcnuri a»q 

ijaia? 9rixTi»' «f;f nx b«r{«iltftffi »tf oi bsaueo 
o-i.; ji?rtJ rj»vi:^ xd^ttfi it Wi^oH" :»3i^on sniwollol 

xi9 3n..+ fnr vftm lol b^ibmui ifq: ^^Ifi .lb »oi-iq 

= i ' '- ^ .--I -- idcfrtO'" ytinax3»d Bfl^nom 

_ , „. -.;-. ._ .^_-^.- " .19.:irn«--'. ,BiC«iH ^in»H 

e j JIT i .^ ri - o -jn/^ noxJMenx . «J"x lo sJLtl irf^ Ji/otfis dOl?oh 

-aub h0i9v iiilsb sCi^i^. "^0 ^nucma 9Zii xci ^9»do c rlllw 
lo.ri4"noi? 9r(J tf^t^stfJ-.s-iBaqq* *.;; .4tnota. indt yti 

•thntfii T9 saw fti^aop i«4f^ fri* 7>fl*» 

♦♦W^WW e i9d 9isw t[oo;io 3i1^ »*#*r amxi ilo«9 ** 

? bsnlfltqaioo ♦t-H^grf^g ^ ft^ 

-*M*JM|» >(9'5 T •^^ "*'?" 

-■^rr>^9Ti oi d-.iauo-icf a«vr riu« »ldi ban 
ftt sJoAi dii^ ^tr'f'dp 9*wq«ib en ai »a»xlT 

.r^.^r+ -»'99r£yT.T»s tl rt#^a dilJ lol *'dlT:-«"a«ireyB 

ie correct, would only "be 1,^0.12. 

Appellant* "contertj on is-, lirst,- That 
the notice published in the paper gu^r^nteein^ n.n 
average price of vl.85 per hundred for milk for 
tii« six months beijinning October let, was not such 
a contract ae could be enl'orced nt lav. iiecond.- 
I'hat the acceptance nnd retention by r^r-T^ellee of 
the checks v»as n settlement between the i^artiee. 
The question of appellee havinf, been paid at the 
end of each month, and ^iccepted the checv riven him 
cannot, in our judfrrient, be c-insidered p.s ^ settle- 
ment 80 as to deprive nppellee of any b"l.«?ricf th^t be coming. The testimony is, that at the 
and of each month, when the price was belovv *1,85 
he nioteeted against accepting this price cind 
clf-imed that he wa? to have -lil.BL, so v/c do not 
think that appellee would be deprived of suing 
for any balance due him by reason of having acoept- 
i .^ the checks, '^hey were only accepted by hitr: as 
part payment . 

The next proposition thnt there was no 
contract binding appellant to pay any specified 
price for the Kil>. delivered by appellee for the 
eix laontlie period beginning October 1st, 19"J3, nd 
ending April let, 1914, is not free from difficul- 
tiee. It appear^e frou the evidence th^t after 
appellee had delivered the October milk, and before 
it was paid for, he saw the President of the Conp-^ny 
and the I resident told hi.21, in substance, th-'t he 
would be paid for all the milk delivered by him 
between the first day of October and the first day 



n.". j:i^^^:^:1ntf8 l»c b»r{«i r(/uq soiion 9dS 

i'-i Jiliir TO'i bsrbiwii i9q di.. soirrq- 9^19YM 

iiouB ion 9flW ,:t-8l isdo^oO apimxijjecf ariinom xt« •xW" 

)90iota9 •v fOBt&nco b 

99ll9rrc' ifcistmi bajB 9oajRiq900B 9d.i iadX 

.8 9iJ"iJ9.f alii n99wJ-3d J-nanrsIJ-Jaa n i«w ejioddo •rfi 

»iiJ- in bir. 3»ri9qq iJ^asop »rfT 

mtii ^o«£{o sri^ b»icr9 00F bnfi ^dinom xlose lo ba* 

-91^*98 4' 39i9bJ:sn-o 9cf ,Jn9nr%l)ut "^w® "J^ .J'OnoBO 

; •9lX»vrcrn 9»li{xeb oS aa oa Insm 

9ri rnosiiSmmi 9dT .^xiaoo 94 Sd^lm 

28,15 V70l9cf v^tflf »£f*^ n9,i«r ,il^no«t ilo«» lo btf 

bi-\r. 90i" fq900« *«ni:j*3« b9ta9iotq ad 

' fl^ ^sxtt l>ai«isla 

'jnii;^ I i'^w >9llagqjs ;tf.;ii- ilflictf 

-;f<i900fl anxvjBrf to ncsRS-r x^ aiirt ©ub »onBlj8cf -^aa lo^ 

a" vi.i xd b9JqoooB ^^rno attw x.9iC^ .e^toarfg ^fl;^ anl 

bsilio^qa \;n3 xr.q r? *i:jBXl9qqB ^aibnicf JOJBi^ttoo 

f»dJ- io1 aallaqqa -^cf bgisviXab irx^ai^»d^ %9l ^Qi-iq 

bnr- .see .3a'Q^aO fnirtnis^cf boxiii>q Btiiunm xxa 

-l0oxl*iJb mil 99'iJ: ^oc. ai ,i^fGX .iaX litqA a^itibna 

lai'^n #erL*' sonsbi/a 9di cio«l 8__^^««qq« II .aalJ 

•lolscf bnj8 ,){Iim TecTo/oO arli barisYlIab b£ii o»-IX»qq« 

YnpqffioO ftrii^ 1'- :?n9bi:8arr'I *rf:f waa -ari .to^ biaq aav Jl 

9ri liwEtt ,9onn:t9crn« nx ,ir.lrf blo;J J'nsbiaairl 9tli ban 

axrf ^cf baaaTifab Jllltt ea'J' IX« ito"i fclaq aJ bluow 

X_tib iaiil 9riJ bHR Ttarfo^oO lo ^sb ^mrfi 9rf* ««»a#*9Cf 

cf April o.t the rate ol -.l.tb per hundred, ^'hrtly 
thereafter he eavv the notice a^'.-ve quoted, in the 
Larine Telefe-mra. and eays that ..€ did continue to 
deliver the milk each n*.cnth up to -'nril 1st, -.nd 
the milk wae received each acntb by np^ ellant. e 
think thfc-re il enough in the state^aent niPde "oy the 
I resident to appellee, that he v, ould be rjaid at 
the rate cf sl.85 per hundrtsd fcr all mill; delivered 
duririL this period, sufficient of itee'il tc tind the 
appellant to pr^^y this anaount. It it Tue, thp.t upon 
cross exaaination the npnellant »«id thnt >ie did not 
take hie conversation v/ith the resident n^ a con- 
tract, and in another part oi hii? crofje-examin'^tion 

saye he relied/uTon the c -invera-iti '^n -^r.d tne ndver- 

tiaeintiit pu oil shed. Jt ig argued th»t the onntriict 
locked mutuality find that appellant was not hound 
to purchase an^ppay a specified price for the inilk 
unless appellee was bound to sell .-ind accent 3uch 
9 .ecified rice. If appsllee v/as here seekine. to 
recover uonr. an executory conr.ract then the doctrine 
invokecl would be applicable but v'e do not believe 
that where >?a offer of t.iis cn^racter i& iuade, 'ind 
the person to v.'ho'ii the offer is t.iven hse complied 
with the proi'uses triat he could he deprived of the 
price stated, either m a conversation or in a 
paper. i. e tiiiak tnat where an oifer hae betn ni-^de 
tc pay r. specified price for the delivery ol «n 
article, that vhile such offer reu.aine in force 
there could bt no reason in eaying th^-^t y;here one 
perf ■^rras the natter i'er.ueeted thnt he could net 
receive the i^rice offered, ''^his doctrine ir recog-- 


.jiiiXa~«eoau J 'i^ asrf^ooA «i.iia£ .ia^V 

tua 9XcfaoiI(nia /»<f; .-fcX^IPW .^Movqi 


-300»-x -31 »nx-xJ30l) aid* .bsaallo soXiq •iU^ •visoaa 

nized b^y^our 3uy)reiTie Court and, quotinf fron 
tarsons, T,pproves the followinf doctrine: "In 
commenting on this cl^pg cf cnser.the author enye: 
here it is e^-id that the '^a^ty -naking the rjromise 
ie bound, while the other is at liberty to do any- 
thing or nothing . But this ie a mistake. 

The party makin£ the promise is bound to 
nothing until the proniae, within a reasonable ti'-e, 
engaees to do, or eli?e does or begins to do, the 
thing which is the condition of the first -nromise. 
Until such engagement or such JkxxKX doing, the 
promisor may withdraw nis promise, bec^upe there is 
no mutuality, nnd therei~ore no c )neaderatIon for it. 
But after an engagenent on the part of the promisee, 
which is sufficient to bind nira, tiien the orcmisor 
ie bound slso, bec^uee there is no^^' a oro-.-aise fr>r 3 
promise, withentiie mutuality of obligation. 2o if 
th« promisee bef,iti» to do the thin^ in p wpy v;! Ich 
binds him to complete it, here ie also a rrutvolity 
of Iblifcati.'n. But ii, withc\:t any prontise what- 
ever, the promieee does the thinf required, then 
t/i« -promiecr is b'^und ''r.\ airothr-r ground. The thing 
done is itself a sufficient -=nd a complete consider- 
ation, ^^nd the ori^ inal promise to do «ionethinp if 
the other party would do sornetning, iib a continuing 
promise until that other party does the thing re- 
■-iuired of hica." Plumb Vs. Campbell, 129 111., 106. 

It is said by counsel for appellant that 
this ie in the nature of an advertisement, or invi- 
tation, for appellee to deal with appellant, and 


rayKS lorijtfi* •r(#,«>#Bj«o to 9^r-lo 9tcii no ijnt^nsajJaoo 

-\nB cb r-i xii^^lL in 9i T9dto ©ili •Xiriw ,6fluocf «x 
.9itf,t%iai B 9i mtd:i iu^ .gnxri^on 10 ^aidt 

oxiw ,ob c^ sni^ad ao s»cl> asl* "xo. (OJt> oi a»a«iat 

.aaimoir i^zil ^ui to noxlibnoo jri^t «i xiolriir anxxi^ 

9x1;^ .^nxob lactobb cioum 10 insma^gna xioua Xxi^aU 

9i 9-x9a:^ »>^ijAaatf ^•eioioTq aiii maibdtxw \.Bm voexitroiq 

•ifx to"! nc istnasbxant -n 9Xoi»ieriJ isx}^ ..x.JjkX*^^**'"' OJB 

.Qsei.ieo'xq aitjt to itijBq ©flJ no ;fn*a»a^ao» a« i:9;f'l« it/S 

1':^ ex mo 10 erf* n«rl^ ,0x4 fciud oi Jfltioxllwi •! rioixftr 

p tol •^axE.o'ic. ai 9n=iiii •suBoecf ,o«Xjb l)nupd.p^ 

-■ t-;^xjjo xp, Hii*xI«Ai^xi» 9ii*fl»a;^iw ,s«xffloig 

uji .1 x^-.w ■ Lix ^ixW. t^ .oi) 0* iii3x:^9cf •••xaoTq 9iii 

TCJ-irr>;j.tjj"a s 09l» ax "^i^rf ,lx 9iifqmoo oJ- axxi %bai(i 

'incUf sax-Tic-xci ^rre Jaoxtixw ^li iuii .«ux<J*aXXd4 Ip 

rT«'-t ^hsT-'-fn^T injrft ar ' '*'»o|) »»aXMD5q; 9di i;i9Vt 

^. ;>.. r.riijf.d" ■! *xoaX«OTCq fcxi* 

-i9f>£Bnoo •.^aTTctr- xci' ' ifoE.*x ex snob 

It 3rflrf;t9ro8 r '^ .- - : <=•>.' i . i _ ,noi;^s 

^iunicTroo n *i .^nirii'ainoB ol> l>Xucw xcfiaq isciSo •di 

-9T ^/lidi 9rfJ s9ob \tzRa T9rf*o tFXii' XiJTfu aaxiacaq 

.501 ,.XII CSI .XXscf-i-'nO .eV cfniuX^ ".mirl lo bs-iiJi 

*prf,t fn^llirrqji icl X9«rfuoo i£Cf bl.e« si t' 
_x , ,^rj«rt;9a tt *x9vba riR "to 91;/* an s.rfl rtc ax »idi 

bnti ,*n«XX9qa« I'w+iw r39b '^i 93XX9.7qf' 1:^ , x^t^J" 


tujix until they get tocether and eny.-.e atreenent is 
Tcade that it /mounts only to nn rKl-.ertisexacnt . e 
do not belieye tli-it it coraos within tiuit clasi? of 
caeee. It i-? rnore in the nr. ture of a revard or 
premium offered as ^n iniufi/enen* to appellee 'md 
others to fuxf.ish ap-nell^jnt 'fith r.ilk durint^ the 
winter months, or in the nature of n conditi'^nAl 
promiac thatif he would furnieh milk durint" tiiese 
TTjonths that they .vouiij '^ly a certain -rice. '1 
course, ne couid not receive this price unleps ne 
complied with the conditions of the' offer; but if he 
did cor.piy v/ith the conditions of the offer in an 
entirety we see no reaeon why he not re-cover 
accoraini: to the conditions, and -ne tiiiiik eras 
doctrine ..f iuliy sustfiined hy the case of './ilixHiae 
'va. ■■■.'est Chicago 3t. "'.h. Co., lyl 111., 610. 
Counael for ii^jp'-i -atit refer ':c the casu of o,'::aith 
Vs. V.'eaver, '■JO ill., 5Sii, as on-n^ coiic^iusive of 
the MHttc/"!? h(:i*e presented liut uiji.i residing.- cat 
caf?e it wilj he o^ ?erveJ thjtt there was a yi-ivi'-o 
in it 7)r>')viding that if the party paying the money 
"built the b-^us.: th:.? frll, -.r v.-ishe-s to get ti,e 
lu-2ib^r for }:ir }.ouDe thirr fsin, a.ixc the (^Mden^^c 
?hov'ed thrt he did rot hulld. Ve dc not -chin'^ 
the case is decir^-ve of t3 it^ qiic-tion st ^11, 

It 1p next int^^isted t-Vit Via- contmct is 
void under the ':ecticn of the 'iiR44^>-':t , v;hich providBB 
"''.hoover contmct? to Lr.\'e cr t.ive to hineelf or 
another the option to aell cr huy, at a future tir.e, 
rjoy grr>in or other comicditj, stock of any r^jlrcad 

or other company shall be fined , snd 

all contracts Dade in violation of tJais section siiall 


Ti.' biavTBZ o to 9TtfSza 9d$ nt 9ioa ei il .39««d 


Ififioi^lbaeo^^jB tc s-xarf^n Si^l «!: to ,eri#nrm i^^niw 
■ 99^ii rins^ab iLLza iinlsnui bluoyt 9A'lt Sutli aMtrnttiiii 

9ik m«i9j.iiM 9 9i%q Midt 9fl69»T foa timoitd id9'rufy9 

. a« .«x -xsito *a^ »o 9^01) i^ao9 9!^^<\a9 bik 

ixt ' , b»ail •cf Clftitt ^naqmoo i^dio to 


"be contjidered gemtline ccntr'^cte and sr.all ve yoid," 

and refers t^. tl.e cr^e of i?nyder et p1 Ve. Turner, 

130 ill., 28, in pupport cf the poeitinn here 

astuiaed. " b I've read tide cnee and pIpo ''he caee 

of J inneeota lumter 

xixiinraesjEiiak Company Vb. Coal Com-cany, 160 

ill., 98, wLcfe the a"bcve case it? corinentcd upon, 
and it ^s there held tlvit the offer to pi^rch- se in 
the caee of Snyder vs. Turner, Supra, v/^e einirjly an 
option, and they say in the caee of I. inneeotf 
Lumlaer Co. Vd. Coal Conipany, ouprn, "It is the duty 
of the courts to give a reasonable ronstructi'^n 
to the c^-^ntracts of parties, and to effectuate their 
intention if possible. 5y no reasonable con<?truct- 
icn can it be eaic,that the modified afTeeir.ent of 
August f^l was the contrictir.f for a ^^.ere choice, 
right or privilege of selling cr buyirp coal at a 
future tirre. The. part cs rgree to "-.ake actual sales 
a)"id purchneep with the intention of delivering; and 
aaceptint; the coal". We do not believe that the 
caee at "oar comes within that class of case a, or 
that they \7ouli be prohibited bj law fron makinf.'; 
a conditi-in-\l nffsr for t^-':e delivery of milk as this 
was. As before otited, the =mpellee •«i?ent to f?e'» 
the prepideat cf the corrpany and the lore^ident told 
him he rould be naid .^1.85 -er hundred for milk 
delivered fr-rr October Ist to April 1st, ^nd while 
it i6 true en croes-exgrrlnaticn he psid he did not 
regard this sjj h contract, and vib.ile he iriay rot 
}:£-ve so xC£-.rc:ed it, hia crUBeel insist that it was 
a conii-act erd we cl) net believe thct np-nellee would 
be estopped from recovering sifiply because he put 


•"^fc.: [fan bnp. atOKtinr^o aniitfioa^ bet9hj.anoo ad" 

»QBo sii.t oq.C«^ bfui 9«c-d ■•c*^* •£W5«'i e-^^pii t»"" .Laiauuafl 

nl S3 Mioiim c^ -xalio ftiij^ ^a^ 6I»4i »x&a4 bj: ji i>nfl 

n« ^Xcfinia «bw ^.aicrac: .xaniuT ,«v' "xobxrJu xo aa^o arli' 

'"-to»»/tn-; { "io »»i50 »ji^ nx \bb x^cLS bnf\ ^ciciiqc 

^tovrt^nco ftlrfunneKsi on yS .elditaoq It noi.tn9itii 
to 3-nd.'n»»t-iifi h«t1ib0i"3 9dt tDdf,htn9 «<f .ti n«o noJt 

« i^R fflP© H'^ivw'^ f": anJtXC^q lo fl3»Xi:v iiq to :trf3Ci 

«>»Xr->« I«tj*o#? »7{«^ ot ••*r3iq *i^i t^nq ,9liT .9ax«J- s-ccriJ/i 

Ane jviiftri: Xf^fc "^o v ti-nsJ-ni: sxtJ' rt;tiw tsenrionuq buB 

9a.t iAriif *ir»i:/»rf :tort ob *iW .•Xjsoo srfc! arvi^qstolNB 

to .("©BPO To ««.«Xf> ;?JMf* nirt^iw «9mco iBd" -^jb iJ8f»6 

■^n '<■ i'./KtP WOT* ireX ytf fca^icflrfortq etf titrow y*'^* ^BriJ 

ail).? #<? ?rxipf I'-n viavi fflb ar?* tcY tfl^lr' Xrnrl^xtnob' b 

•09 nj- invv 9«»XX9rTfri? drft .bo^ri-o »lcl»cr e/. .bbw 

^Xxft ic1 ti9tbnijd. t»cr ea.ft fcisff 9d fclucv on ^jBiII miii 

>ruow 9#fX«T>f?! Joiff.t avsIXsd" Jon oi) ew bna tor^tJnoo a 
}jq •rf 99ijn09ff \;Xqi|i9 gniisvooat moTl ba'Tqoies scf 


a wron& legal interpretation upon the facte stated, 
and xn our opinivon if no oth.jr contrfict or iaduce- 
ment had "been offered to deliver this mil': and the 
riiilk waa delivered for six month.;, na the evidence 
ehows it "vag, thyn appellee certainly v/ouid be 
entitled to recover at the price proTEieed. 

Oov.e complaint is* 'aade of the. refusal to 
£ivc instructions for cvppellnnt but no particular 
reason is pointed out, except the eenernl pmnoel- 
tione that have oeen argued and passed upon, ond 
th'it the court warranted in refusiiig such in- 
structions, --ppeilaiit, however, by its third in- 
etruction tliat M?aa offered and fciven by tne court 
on ita behalf teila the jury that even though appell- 
ant offered to pay the price of 'fl.SS by insertion in 
the paper as aforesaid, "atill un^esfs you further 
believe that the plaintiff Schmidt delivered rriiik 
to thedefendant for eaid six nionths period then the 
plaintiff ie not entitled to recover." '^he in- 
struction here offered by pppellp.nt r^nd t iven by 
the court is in perfect accord with the viev/s nerein 
expressed, and tr-a.t appellant itself on the tri-il 
recognized the doctrine that if tne mili- v;Rg« del- 
ivered in pursuance of the published notice that he 
would be entitled to recover. 

Cociplaint is -nade tiiat txie verdict ie ex- 
cessive, e believe this is true, 'he contract wae 
not that the f.ilk each month ?houJd be c^.Bb T/Ut j or 
a period it should average thtt for aacYi Piont}i, «nd 
in making a corputation ior the fiverate for the 
period '#« find that th« average price pnid wpp on« 
dollar and eifcrVity and five-eixth cent? and that txitre 


.5o"-?e ".for,^ Brit n-ru n'- zS^^str^atnt I.etjDX ^nciw. r, 

-let' ,}vr buintoq %t noar.»i 

..... , ^1 ■..*,-. -. 

u . . iioiallo Sasi 

Tiitftiflfq »ri* ^B^* 9V0Xl»rf 

Jdvooet oS boLti^m ^on %t llii njL,ttlq 

Zlmaqm xd bsi^tlo 9T9d npliotn$9 

ni -..;.. 'i ••* ^Ttuop ©iW 

Ula 9rlt "it Sadt 9nitSoob ftdS basla^ooifi 
ti. .9dBii<iiS(i %Ai to ^xuiBUBtuti ai h9t.9>fi. 

.levoodi oi b9litinii »J I>Iuo«r 

'iil9d 9 ,9Vi»390 

. ' ^i9va bLuodt ii boifq » 

iJtBiuqriO'j » anjtstBoi ttl 


T/«te a p'iortage on price of four "nd one-eixthr 
cents ^nd tii^t tLe t.'^tn] 'j'^^ount of milV delivered 
for the pix tncnthp wa? forty- eifht tT:oue•"■^d three 
hundred twenty (4S,.'*r?0) pounc!??, v/hich v.'ould 
result in a verdict of •'.20.12, si-nd the verdict is 
excessive hy 12.84, 

We find ro errors in therulinp and jud^^- 
nent of the court ind no re'?pcn for disturb: jnf this 
verdict, except that it is excessive. On aocnunt 
of the exce9i!ive Judi^ment the caiiee v;ill he reversed 
and remanded unless the appel]ee files ■with the 
clerk of tl-is court a remittitur of $?.84 wititin 
thirty days frcr. the date of fi]in£ t"'^:'-3 oninion, 
and unon the filing of such remittitur t'':C judfnent 
of the Icvrr court will be affirmed. 

I.ot tc he rerorted jn frll. 


Wri.t |>r-8«orf:r *ri:^l9--^;riol .sw ,riJn..- xi'. arf* lot 

-gftjjt fane iniluTcofi^ ni ^'i^^??.;^'^.?^?^ -'':'. 

b9,i^>.»i .0 .. w ea..ea 9.{:^ ^nsaiatH 9/i.890XS erf* lo 
,rfd- d^iw eain 99XI»qqi^- •Ai aaelnu bsbn/,m»;i bn^ 


/, CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of 
the State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true cope of the OPINION of the 
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in my office. 

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set my hand and affixed the seal of said Court 

at Mt. Vernon, this Zr<?^;^. day of December, 

A. D. 1915. 





:. .4 



ii37 - 21iJl« 


Oic CHICAGO, a corporation, 

Defendant in hrror, )/ 


i^KAKClii CHOii'KR, ' 

ilaintlfl' in Krroiii } 



197 I.A. ^96 

j£l{, JUuTlCl liAKJtH J3IL'.lVJiiU&i) THE OirlKIOil OF THJt CCUKT. 

Thi» bOtiOA wae k>rouf::ht by tfac plaintiff bank 
on seven oiiecJci dravn by Uefenriant Cropper to the order of 
Joseph Klor and by hiai endorsed in blanJk, acr for the aum 
®' j|?A«.*'?', 4»ted resj/eetively Aug, 15, cct. it&i K«ir, 15, 
J>ec^l4, 19«>7, iiaaroii 14, Aug. 16, and i?et. 1», ).«*oe. Klor 
wajL_liie iRndiord of Cropper and eaoii dieek waa given for a 
i:«(^tH)3tJLa...XAi»% . I Klor was accustomed to hold checics for a 
lontj tiioe before presenting theBi to the Bemk for payment. 
Cropper had been ilor's tenant for yearo and gave hiJG& a 
cJriecl: for rent every month. All the checks so given hsd 
been paid by the isank and returned to Cropper except the 
seven checks sued on. Cropper closed hies account with the 
plaintiff Bank June 15, l'^12, and sold his buainesa to 
atein. June IV, 191k2, Klor had in his possession the 
seven checks in question. On that day he endorsed then* in 
blank and delivered them to utruve, cropper's cianuger, and 
for them Lttruvs gave .< lor his ciieck on the plaintiff Bank 
for 4641.62, the sun the seven checks amounted to. .June 
26, lylki, the cneck ^>truve gave to Mor wao paid to Klor 
by the Bank. ;itruve, by accident or otherwise, failed to 
dejOBit witit the Bank the seven checks he received from 
Cropprr, and as a result hie account was overdrawn about 
46lb, About fiix months after Cropper cloeed his bank ac- 
count witi the f'wpk, the aeven checica sued on were found 


;.*S'J h.Z£L tS^i^^i^ 

liOi '^'■■ 

..*<> 1 J-U' 

in tne drawer of a type^irriter deaif in the office of the 
Fmncia Cropper Compnny, the succesaoi in baaineuo of 
francia Cropper, of wiiich Qotupnay jtruve waa the kanuger. 
In a^eptember, 1915, iitruve gnve the c'>«ok8 sued on to the 
attorneya of the plaintiff Bank, and told them to <«'ive the 
checks to tha Sank aa aecurity for their claim again at hiffi. J 

There ia in tne record & vaat amount of evi« 
danoa which wa regard aa irrelevant, the checka were given 
for rent by Cropper for prcaiises wlriloh were cccupied by 
hi«; tiiey were delivered by Klor to Litruve in excharifje for 
i^truve'e check for the «^ount of such checks, and 

collected the cJtruve check, the cheoka eued on beoasie the 
property of otruve, and he transferred theci to the iank ao 
aeourlty for his debt to the Dank. 

The only question in the ciiae is: Jiae Cropper 
in nxiy cjanner ; aid the aeven ciiecka in queationV /There km- /^-t-t'^-*-. 
no evidence tending to ahoxsr a direct payraent of the° checka 
y Cropper, Hii^ contention, na plaintiff in wvov hwr e ^ Jrtr y^-^.-t*.^ 
vhat Klor was paid for the checks by atruve out of funda in 
oia poaaeasion belonging to Cropper, Thla contention waa 
aupiorted at the trial only by the tcatiniony of defendant' a 
attorney in the oauae in the !> unioipal Court and in thia 
Oourt aa to an aditi salon by utruve, and hi a testimony waa 
contradicted by ^itruve. We think tne trial Court properly 
found agalnat the claiia of plaintiff in pirror taat otruve 
paid .sior out of the funds in hi a poaaeasion belon^^ing to 
hia, or that he in any manner paid the cneoka in suit, and 
properly gave Judgtnent for the plaintiff, and the jud^ent 
\la affirmed. 

A?FllU«Ei! . 


. taw %9j 

; - .i .. ; V A .i 

330 - k:l314 

EDWlll C., doing busincs 
na -dwin C. Lames & Bros., 

s ) 

WILLI Alt' K. i'^ARTIN, doing busi- 
ness as Martin & Martin, 


) Aii:vAl|FI>.OM SUI'l-JUOJi COURT, 


197 I.A. 298 


/ i I 

V mpintiff broufht suit !'(A- the price of two 

i / 

"iidipon Dictat%)f: J achines** with acceieory appliancea, vviaich 

v/ere riold and d^Tiveren to def endant/puruuant to o \7ritt0n 

order. Upon trial by tho court plri/ntiff had jud^rment for 



Thn oVder upon v.hich/thc appliances v;ere deliv- 


ered is explicit asY to prices ar.ji; aiaon^ otiier tilings 
it coptained a jproyifeicn triat Lf the purchaser should for any 
reason be unnlle tc uh^ tur::a jLhe.y should be returned in ten 
days end full credit foj*'v,tk^>r/i would be allowed, Thio order 
is5 dfted July 22, 1914. Thr appliances were delivered and 
used by the defendant, snd it wae not until iiepteKiber 5th 
that defendant notified plsi^'tiff thf.t the fuaciiines were not 
•.Tnntfd . 

Defendant wjia 0I5I iKatrd to pay for the appliances 
if he ia bound by the terms of the order, but he. fjays he is 
not bound for the r^aoon that his cashifir, JiicCailiater , who 
signed the order had no putiiOrity to do u). ^'^e hold that the 
evidence Justified the concluiion of tuc ^rial court that ko 
Call later did hnye suca authority ."7 i-ie had general ciuxxf^e of 
the office, bulling supplies, ait-^nin^ chechis, and Oiiiploying 
and diaci.argini^ sorae cf the ei-:ployeea. Durint; defendant's 

. 3- 

: nab [!•>'/ 

absence froxn the city he seerag to have been the general 
fiiiuiciger of the businoGO. 

Defendant contemplated leavin,*; the city, to be 
gone about aix weeks, and before he left i oCalliater told 
iixcu tiiHi iic proposed to try a dicoatinf;; luacnine in the of- 
fice, and defendant conuented to thia,\/ 

.Ve have considered the testiixiony as to 
the verbal moiifioat j.on of the ten day clause in the order, 
and bIso h3 to the extenaion of tiie triaJ period, claimed 
by defendant, but are unrible to agree tnat defendant has 
proven any mouif xcation of cue terms upon vnich the appli- 
ainces 'ffere sold. 

The judf:irient is affirmed. 


-J*-! "v ?)Ai 

541 - 21326 

lIia^tiCI.FL i.. UV/JX, AcuJir. of 
the Estate of HAKRY BUYD 
KXMCt deceaaed. 




Appellant. ) 


i I- 

<|00K COUNT V, 

19?I.A. 300 


k«. J-REiJlDIHC JUiiTiCit k#iUR]sXY 
DELXVfiliEiJ THE Oi'lMlON 0? jTHis COUKT, 

By thlB appeal defers lant ;«eelcs to have reversed 
a judgment afrnin«t hi» for ;:,l,5(;C in p. auit ciiargiri^^: that the 
death of plaintiff's inteatate, ilarr^r Boyd Kiiif;, was cr used 
by defendpnt's negligence, J 

In our opinion the eyidenoc shows that King by 
hia own n(?gligencG contributed to the accident resulting in 
hid death* This evidence in aubatance in as f.^liows:'*^ :je- 
fendant, who is in the teaaing and hauling buwineas, at the 
time in question was engaged in iiauling the material a of a 
diacuantled police stetion through an alley wuich runs 
easterly into i.arket atreet, Chicane, between the ouilamg 
occupied by tJie Oaalt ouae, on tiie nortii, and the building 
of the Chicago evening J oat on the south. The alley ia 1(^ 
feet 10 or 11 inches .vide, ana inclines upv/ard from the roiar 
of these buildings towards i^.arket street, with "quite a 
tfrade," The fiis.terlBlB loaded on th<! wagon fierv iron grntings 
and flat iron aheets about 10 feet lonj;; by b f«;et ..ide. n^ey 
were loaded so as to extend an equal distance on ench side 
of tne wagon, wt^icn loft a spnce of nl)out 18 inches between 
tiie edge of the load and either wall of the alley, Ihere 
ia ample evidence that tne iron 'whs ti«:x.tly tied clown with 

00 S .A.l V 


. ■:.iall'>(i.\A 

tfBxmvii '•' 

. i>>iajclo Hl' 

tot mih Santvv%B innftabut Ji 

.9dn9]ii:£:3^»fi B'Jnj&Jbrr«l 


ns**^', .1' J iSiic 

chiiina Rrni rcpca bo that it could not Blip. 

"he deoiiJtioed, King»[jieroir!After c«.31ed i lain- 
tiffT^fit tiiia time was about 20 yeare old, and w»s an ao- 
aistant cesi"*ior of ILe lout. In itie eai'ly aftprnoori of April 
22rd vith .v companion he came out of the rear of the j oat 
building intc the alley and '*©lk©d towarda .? arket ytreet, 
paeaing the loaded wagon an it utoc^i in tht- flley. After 
3tai?,'iing for a time in vsxket street they retraced their 
steps down the alley way. At thia tirar- the heavily loaded 
Migon was moving, with four horaea pullint"^ it up the slope 
towards !«arket etroet. ■ laintiff conti'ued walking to ards 
the approaching wagon and nltenptfd to prrso in the narrow 
space between it and the wall of the loot building. Just as 
he was opposite the hind i^eels a ^hcel otruci; a nole in the 
paveoient, causint^ the wa^jon to akid towards tae j oat buildin^;, 
catching and crushing ; laintiff a^.ttinst the wall. Prom the 
injuries thus received hn? died shortly txicreafter. At the 

time of the accident the wagon was nearly out of the alley, und 
if plfdntiff nad waited only a few seconds ne couly nave passed 
through the alley in safety. V.c jiust have seen and knovra that 
it as ©xtrertiely dangerous to enter tsis narrow space; that 
the wagon with its projecting lofid, drawn by four norses, 
irjLecht suddenly swerve to'jvardo the 3ide of Uie n;.«rro*i alley, 
indeed, tiiis reasonably could be expected, conaidering the 
roughness of the psvewwnt and the usual uneven traction of 
four aorses pulling a heavy lood up hill. V,y placing hitu- 
self in ttils darig-.erous situation plaintiff failed to exer- 
cise due care nnu caution for his own safety, fund this neg- 
ligence (iirectly contributed to the accident. 

There also appears no evidence sustaining the 
allegations of tiie declaration of neiK,lihence on the part of 
the defendant, either aa tc tne way the tKaai and wa^on were 


hsindled or as to the method of loading, v 

Ab there c&n be no recovery the judfTaent ia re- 

veraed witiiout reisandlng tlie caui^e. 



t !jHit9f 

341 - iiiaae 


The court finaa tuat the aeath of plaiuiiff's 
intestate, Harry lioyd Ing, #raa aouaed hy the contributory 
negl.le;cnce of the deceased, an.; tiiat the defendant, ''", J.andon, 
wa» not guilty of the negligence charged in tixe declaration 
or any count tnercof. 


dS'ti. - ii^c 


368 - 2X343 

MUTUAL trk'TECTION, (Coajplt,) 


\ Appedlee, 


\ Appellant^. 




197I.A. 302 


By Uii» appeaX Uif^re ia broufjht before u8 a de- 
cree of the Circuit Court on a bill of interileoder fllea by 
the Supreme Lod{:e order of :. utual Irotection againai lauline 
Eokhardt« Beulah Kckhardt »nd Anna t, Eckiiardt, claiisanta to 
a fund adtuitted to be due by said Lodge order under ita bene- 
fit certificate ie.iued to Charles .V. Kckhardt ii^. hia lifetime. 

Taurine J^ckhardt, the mother of the.' deceaoed 
Charleo, ia not entitled to any pnrt of the fund, and ahe jaakes 
no claim in ti.ia court tiint any rurt anould be given to her. 
The real contest ia between Beulah, tne firot «vife of Charles, 
and Anna Kckhardt, to wiioa3 h<; vaa oubaequently inarried, 

»?« might properly affirai thi^ decree on the ground 
that appellant' a abatraot of record givea uu no infoMuition aa 
to the decree of f/hicii she oomplaina. The only thing in the 
abstract touoidng thiti are tne words "decree of interu leader," 
WTilch ia ffieaninjjeaa, 

^ In the original benefit certificate Beulah Kck- 
bardt* then the wife of Cliarlea, waa nnrued aa the bHneficiary, 
In i:arch, 1913, BeulfOi brought suit for divorce in the chancery 
court of Lihelty Courity, Tenneauee, Ci^arging desertion. liefenu- 


£^£XS: - 305 

.ran- ■■ 



v:»XYadO o.t b^uuui o^isoiliiiAO ill 

ixlJlXo on 


irndO lo •IJtv •Hd 



ant was uerved and appeared by counsel. After iiearing, a 
decree of divorce was entered finding that the court had 
jurisdiction and that corsplainant had sustained her cr^-^rges 
by evidence, and ordering defendant to pay coffipJamant 
$1(000 in full of aiiiiiony» waich waa paid, Ko a;peal was 
taken and the decree ia still in force, Subsequently Charlss 
Eckhardt ibarried Anna ^arley, tixe otner claimant herein. 

Under the 1-?W8 of the Lodge Order a member had 
the right at any time to change his beneficiary, and after 
his m»rr iH«Le zo Anna, Ciuirles surrendered his original cer* 
tifirate, : nd a new certificate was ioBued in mdcn Anna 
Eckhardt was nariied as beneficiary. The fund which ia tixe , 
subject matter of txiia litigation arises frosia the pa./ment 
of thia lH3t certificate. \y^ 

We are informed by counsel ana the record that 
tiie chancellor found that Anna licknardt v/aa entitled to this 
fund, and we nre of the opinion that thia holtiinR was proper, 

Beulah Ecknardt, hereinrftcr called appellant, 
argues that the decree of divorce by the court of enDessee 
ia void, hence the marriaj^'.e to Anna, hereinafter called ap- 
pellee, is null and v id, and appellee is not e- titled to 
the fund as the v/ife of Charles '^ckhardt, as dhe ia described 
in the benefit certificate. 

Can appellant now question the Jurj.. diction of 
tiiie Tenneaaee court, w/iich at her request and upon ner teati- 
iiiony as to Jurisdictional facts founa that it had jurisdic- 
tion? >/e hold tiiat ane cannot, thai she ia estopped, Bl ed - 
so e V, vieaaan , 77 Kan, 679; ijn re hattitew Ellis ' .-:state , ij5 
Uinn, 401, Kapeclally is thia true v/hen ahe hau received the 
brncfito cf the liti^:ra tion. Ai lj e v, Tovyn , tiC lil.. 2(8; 
Mallory v. kallory , 16C' II}. App. 417; r/hittaic.r v. ;Vhi t ta^ ci , 
X51 111, ^66. 

« ,anlxa©.^ '^t^ijqQ 

•)i nciiut 

e»i . , ■ . , ■ i\ ' fioji^j 

-t^if rt.-t 

•:i i!f/i.; m; vrw-;;'> 'It. ■■ r .i> ..-snJ-J 

But, aaya counsel for appelia7;t, Hue is not <?3- 
topi>ed unletts siie made oocie nisrepreaentat ion as to ;a0,terial 
f-'Cts -nhich deceive-'i thf-^ Tennessee court finding.- it had 
jurisdiction; ILat she jtestific<3 trutj fi;ll..y, ov.l the court 
mi so one el ved " law. ani that Anna ; arley should havr-; known 
that upon the f&ct3 to w^hinh appelle.nt testified the court 
was in error in its adjudication as tc jurisdiction; hence 
appellant hao been gu.ilty of no frp.ud which caused hariii to 

Tjiis contention is unbound. (1) 'Diere is no 
basis for thr? assumption that on the f \ctj the Tennasaee court 
erroneously asa jroed j uriadict ion. (2) As eff^'cbj.nK estoppel, 
we see no difference between procurinrj; a favorable adjudica- 
tion through misrepresentation of facta or tniorepresentation 

a.3 to law. (3) Appellee married s^nd cjohabited with Charles 

Eckhardt, believing in and relying upon the integrity of the 
decree of divorce. If it be void ohe has suffp-red h rni; we 
doubt tne rrotectinf? efficacy of any legal presumption that 
she possessed knowledge of the law superior to that of the 
Tennessee court. 

tie see no reason to disagree witii tne conclusion 
of the chancellor, and the decree is affirmed. 


-83 w\,., ^- ,- .^,..^ii lot is^iwoo aYA^. . 

'Aoxi ii'ijbs filci^-r riv"t r rri"?'-""? asawistl aonaial'iii; on 9sa 9W 
noi;tiB;fo:«»asT;q9- jx^£dTi»6»Ttq»'i&lin, ilgxroTri* noli 

esX-j'^rtC' r'.tiw fts.t.?:dBrtco tne l)9liacia ssXisqqA (f)) .»-«I oi ea 

9i>aoi5 ;;!Qi.d"oi..bai lU' 
oi urt«xi baa; 

on 8/ 



lOiidqjje waX srid' 



on3t £)9&a9Bsoq sifa 




^7i - .'ilotia 

Filed Jan. '6, 1916 

fh ■.■,^.■IT^':''Y, by next friend, ) 
Appellee, j 


:i: i'l, Di'KliY ct ra . , 


) Aii':Ui. FBUK SUi,;-Kl()Jj COUBT, 



191 I.A. 309 

;>iiLi7j:iii;i> Til-; onriXOK o/ ?H:r. (jou;;v, 

jluth jVhitncy, plaintiff, ;/as irijured by v. atone 
railing; fid lint;; on iier aa zho vraa playir:;;: on the. from, otcps 
of n building -.viicre siio lived, v;;;icii buildinr: v.'iis ovrnc;;;. by 
l.iC derciiclanta. ohc^ broUiJit auit vnu. had jud;.i.;iC;nt. In her 

clr.r/.tion 'Siio I'llcced that tr^io utonc railing-, v.aa suffered 
ly tiiC clercadaiitD "to bci lcooo» lio it ■v;;,a li;.ely to 
ii.ll over," and tu<it " .iiile plaintiff v/aa about to Ci\lev 

id prcraiioa, in ■f-.n^'sinp; uv.on rx:d along aoiid ulcp^ in 
.;;,;<. rour; pi'oxi.r.ity of ;3C!.id utojtio ulr».b or railing, witlicut 

.y f.'iult or nccli(::once on iier pr-rt, by rc:t.;on of tiie cnrc- 
ic3i;nes:j /vn;i ner;li;..cncc of tiic cl^/f tn'.;,n.nts:, <'ind each of the::., 
•, the cEid atone ;;;lcib or r.-iilini,: foil or to^.pled 
'ini;t :.(id upon the iioid j. i.;:iatif f ," 

■.:c nro cofiip«Ilcd to revcrij<! tuia jud/;;..t-nt and 
''■ md the c.'iusc for a nc;^ trial for the follo^vint;; rciiaona: 
-i: vorriict v;ns contrary to txio v/ci^;:ii.t of ti^v: evidence. it 

•j a;;cv/n uliiiost :;oyond coi;:tr:idiotiof; bi.;/.t tj'ie utone oiu not 
' -i v;ithcut any fnult of tiic ilrii.itiff and "jololy b<rc:>.uoe 
-' t-.c carcleai.;noG;; of vne def eni.i;i.!it a;th!j t the j^laintiff , 
^i-i-:U;;h v;arnca of the cia/:.gcr at tlie tir;;e, "roc^ccd*' tii<r atone 
-'• ond forth and finally ouceecdcd in pulling,: it over upon - 
rcolf . 

I ■■ 

The injury received by plriirjtil'f vrjs not iv.uoh. 
^rc uLan ocrp.Lciica or abri.ui.jnc; 02-; tue leg, fr:.>;i: ^-iuich -ohc 
-jickly recovered. J'iierc v.o eviueiice .(i.icii vvoiild Justify 
r. verdict fixin;.. the dr!.:;:r)^.oc: at ,;i,25w, Tiirout'.h thft au,<-;cc'3- 
tion of the trirl caurt j.l.'.i:-itiff rt.-itted c,ov;n to :lG5;i, but 
t.r; .n'.ioimt of the verdict indicates pl:\inly tiiat thcj jury 
r.-is :noved to its vcifdict by prejudice- and ovi.roatiiy . 

■.Vg i\i:c. tiot sati~;ricd to i3fir:::i^ thlo Jud;-Mc-:nt to 
jt.ind; tiicre Gliould Ic tmothc'r tri^il. The jud; uient iG re- 
versed and the cauae rciandod, 

iiiiVi'-HSJ'-D A/i;D RE.iV.AKiAVl/, 


^ / 


mil. OTTr'RBKCK et al,, ) / 

Appellees, ) J 

Y», ■■. ) / 


EVAKa LAHiiu^, • ; 


Thia appeal tringa in raYiaw the record in a 
proceeding in chancery, brought by the beneficiaries uncier 
a %-ill aK^inst the trxatitee f c r ar^ acoc;unting« 

"^ On August ii4, 19Cb, Lauritz Jiortensan died. 
By hia will it tmz provided that after the payicent of 
debts and f /neral expenses ,jl,6' c should be paid to 
!i:Y8jns J.arson, appellfOit (herein/if tcr called defcnuantj; 
that rtefendnnt ahoula take joaseaaion of all the rest and 
residue of the estate and hold the BfW:e in trust for « 
period of five years, with power tu rent, repair and sell, 
••and to ao -whatever c;i se ho oeeaia beet for the interest of 
iiaid estate,** co3;peri«iiition to be i>u'm defendant for amnag- 
ing a&id estate at the rate of 7>:C at the end of each year 
on the fair cash value ol said estate, he was not required 
to i Ive bond. The will further provided that, at the end of/ 
five ytars after the dent/i of the testator said cstrite 
aliould be divided equally among Anna i.arie Larson, wife otj 
tue defendant and niece of tue testator, > ottn lielson, a 
niece of thp testaior, iaail tterbeck, a nephew, idward 
( tterbeo:, a brotjicr, rjjd l atniida Otterbeck, wife of fc;d* 
ward. Defendant was appointed executor of tii<' will witnout 

n ^ay 4, iiili, tue abovo u; D«^nef iciftries, 


■ iii 


ogni-xd lA^qqA «ljnT 
4 am tot 99tmmt •££# ^ai 

;o ...-; xtJJlft JjKa/ r.)9Joivo-iq . 

' • ')9i}jl«9 •d^ "Jo »«l»Jt8»n 

.'V«4jbi1 baa" 

94 Sit '.^ J la «■!•'; V, ovi? 

■ - i Muoxit 

o.idiojj ;o 909 in 

: Abiinj*. . . ..I., in i> , -o'.idtoiJ ■ 

...v,, ;.-,■*,, . ir,.v.,. .-.•»,» .Jbinw 


131 - 21105. 


Defendant in Erro ri 

Error to 

▼•• \ / ) Municipal Court 

« / ) of Chicago. 


"^aintifJ^ in^-Error. 


The plaintiff M. Goldstein, on October 29, 1913, 
filed hie statement of claim to recover cojnijdBsions as a real 
estate broker. The defendants entered their appearance and 
demanded a jury trial. Subsequently plaintiff filed an 
amended statement of claim in v;;iicli he alleged in oubstance 
that jiia claim was for comniiBsions due him as a licensed 
real estate broker for procuring at defendant's request a 
purchaser, one S. Oliff, for certain real estate witii irapreve- 
ments thereon owned by defendants and dituated in the city 
of Chicago; that the property was sold by the defendants to 
said Oliff on June 23, 1913, for the sua of |il3,500; and that 
the amount due plaintiff as comrfiissions was 2i% on said sum, 
or $337.50. The defendants in their affidavit of ineritc 
alleged in Kubstance that tiiey did not employ plaintiff as a 
broker or otherwise with reference to said sale and that 
plaintiff did not act as agent for aefendants but as ap;ent for 
said Cliff in the transaction. The jury returned a verdict 
finding the issues against the defendants and assessing plain- 
tiffs damages at :|337.50, upon which verdict the court entered 
the judgment here sou/jht to be reversed. 

.30 IIS - Ltl 

07 tOtlvi 

d-liioC.- leqioJtiiijK 


■^T aAHMYXJEO: IliLiiiiaD iuOiX&UU {}P-jiCi.iC::>: . 

,•£•:- e^? 


The evidence shows that plaintiff was a duly 
licensed real estate hroker, that defendants ovmed the pro- 
perty and that plaintiff carried on negotiations iFith Cliff 
with the knowledge of defendants which resulted it), the sale.^. 

It is contended the* as the evidence fails to show 
that defendants formally employed plaintiff to negotiate a 
sale and as there is evidence siiowinij that plaintiff was 
employed hy tae purchaser, the verdict and judgment cannot 
be Buotained, Je think tht re is aiaple evidencf^ to warrant 
the verdict and judgment. It appears that as a r^-'sult of the 
efforts anc negotiations of plaintiff the parties were brought 
together and signed a written contract whereby defendants 
agreed to sell, and Cliff to buy, the property for ^>14,C0C; 
that subsequently further negotiations were had which resulted 
in the price being reduced to $13,500; , that there was no 
special agreement between plaintiff ana defendants as to the 
comraisBicns to be received by plaintiff, but that those 
commissi ens were usually 2^^ on the purchase price, 'We think 
the evidence is such that the employment of plaintiff by 
defendants to negotiate a sale of the property may be implied, 
and that while it a.ppears that plaintiff was also acting as 
an agent for tiie purchaser the evidence discloses that de- 
fendants knew of that fact, and that no fraud was practiced 
upon defendants by plaintiff. "When a broker has presented 
to his principal a purchaser whom the principal is willing 
to and does accept, and they ent^r into a contract of sale, 
the broker's comiaitisions are earned." ( Fox v . Ryan . 240 111. 
391, 397.) 

And we do not think t.Vint the cert in the rulings on 
evidence, or in the oral charge to the jury, corxnitted any 
error prejudicial to the defendants as contended by counsel. 

rac.f^ j!«jii l)db«s;noo si ;tl 

. ..'.'dniaJbi/t ■ i* 

;; ;03,?:j? OCT b5t5i;d«'i 

.)i''.tftcr trr?''f9'"£SS XeJtaoqa 

, i&si'IcFf*'.*: '•■f •'.;,.r;'- .i'-'s « od'.a.t^o:,;:, •■;nRbn*»'Jf>-b 

. joqqjs Ji ©lirk: 

. iaXq x° 

; ' '-"..isSii,) "•«>''n'i noiaaimmo© ij'-xsjlotcr arid 

(,VQ& ,XQ£ 

The judgment of the "unicipal Court is affirmed, 


■i9€ m 21389 

AppttXiiintB, / ) app;<:al from 


JOUr M, aAnT4>X0ij; and 
KmtA !«• 0AR731I)E, 



197 I.A. 314 

jaiaLivsR/SD Tiis ca^iKiON OF rm G<r:irt^ 

Compln.inanta , Alfred 'u VnjrdI and "Jioma© -U arrwi, 
filed thoir uili in chnncary to foroolone a tuortgnft^ made by 
daf «jndtinth>« j^ftfcndfinta .raiowered latd nnie L. C5art»id« fil«d 
* ero08*i?ill pregring t^Uit thu nortgAg« b« dtxolurod void, The 
eourt deeread thi«t tha bill be dianiaaad for «unt of t* julty 
and thnt tha pray<i2>r of the crosaohili bo grtinted, ontplHinanta 
by thia appeal hava broufjht the record before a» for review, 

Lawrence J« tiaiu^hton of Aahevillo, Hort^t Carolina, 
died owning a<inr«iral thouaand aeraa of Ifmd in Joneu Cf)\.mty, 
Horth Carolina. By his will : • L. Hauf^ton and u ii^, Jones 
were appointed executors firtti vera giv@n ''full power to aelX 
my plantation in Joneu County known a» Havtmswood »and to 
aunke a deed for Uiet a^me." :• L» Uuughton died before the 
occurence of the tranaaction In question. Jonea, a» imrviving 
executor, by an inatmimont in ^tvriting executed by hint on 
Auguat '^i, 1909, gave to coiQpl&inanta, who resided in liorth 
Carolina, an option to pMrQ>:aHe aone 16,000 acres of land 
belonKinfi to the Lawrence J* Haug;;hton eatnte. (Thor*^ ia 
controTerey aa to the ajanunt of land*) By ita t<}mu9 the 
executor proniaed tiu^t upon payiiiont to him of JlOri^oro on or 
befor« tioveraber 1, 1909, he nuld dolivtsr a deed to the 






f ■ 

. ii-ti: 

5.;«z^t ;,q: 



I i • 1 1 1 - u • 


holders of the option; the option could be and was extend- 
ed to January 1, 1910, und*9r certain of ita proviuiona. 
On Kove^-sbsr 16, 19C9, this option tfaa a.'}aignect by coxi^laini;u}ta 
to tho defondmit John U, Qaxtaide, vyho in consideration for 
euch asaignKent a^;rttGd to pay or to eeoure the payment of 
#10,000, and to that end, on i-^econiber 21, 1909, a aortgage 
w&a axeoutcid by defmnd^utta and delivered to ooraiilainanto. 
It is tlUQ mortgage which compluinonts aunk. to foreelo&o, 

Araong other matters presented by defendants* 
anaw&r and hy th& crosoobill, it wu^ assorted that the 
aortisa^e «ras void for mimt of oonaideration, in th^it under 
the lavs of Korth Carolina, Jones, the executor, had no 
power to giro aa option to purchase the lands of tixe 
HiSiUghton eatate. After hearing, the chancellor, being of 
the opinion thf^^t this defenne nas ade<3:uate, disaisoed the 
bill and directed that tho mortgage be released and 
coM4>lain&nta be dnJoin«id from prosecuting any action on the 
aortgii^ci or opticm oontruot,"^ 

Had ^« Ui Jones, the aur-yiving executor under the 
Mill of Lu.inrance J* Huughton, powur to give thi«) option 
uontrnct, the asaignmunt of which was the consMeratitTn for 
tht^ mortga^^e? ^e hold that he had not. In so holding we 
are following th«ii decision of the k>upreBae court of North 
Carolina us cixpressed in its opinion in the case O' yrQgde;n 
V. wiliiaraa , 144 H, C, 192. Iri this o&ae the holders 
broT^t^t ouit to enforce the pv>rf orniunce of a ninety day 
opticm en lund given by executors who hud pow^ar to r.oix, 
rhic court hoida tliut the exocutoris had no powox' to «$iv« 
*ifi ooiiojs, uayinr^ i« ito opinion th.t ari optioifi '*ia -t 
lestat ta'jn>or.*rlly doatrwotivo of tiis power** to aell. •♦liuring 
the ninety days, if the option ia valid, the power to sell 
is suspended mid tiie executors have no ri|^t to accept im 

• fcr'.;::oX2' 



f»»#f«r*».i to til. 

kSi (TOJtfv 






thiia reasoning would not obtain in the oauo of em 
option fiiven by tl»8 O'meir hlnnelf. Hencta eitati fis ^*er« 
options of th« X«ti«/ !t>ort hr«ve btt^n upheld are not in 

It i3 oont«tnd«d thi^t the doeiaion on thia point 
In tho Trt>t|;dgg ) , caae ia obitar die tun: « ^« d« not think so. 
In a^iowftr to conpiaiuunt^^ auit for performanee of thv 
option contract th« 0(>urt replied that tha option wa^i gircn 
without 'fio^aor* CoBipluinarit^ then cont^nd<sd tJi: t ev«n if 
this, were ao, by tuiidi^ring ttio luaoitfit nttRiod in tlie option it 
c«aae<i to be tin option cantr'-%ct and beoaiM a contract of 
eal«, and tiie court hold no such tender «ra@ made, ^h&% 
naa Bibid by the. coitrt upon iho firtst point wne upon the 
'^usetion '-quuiiely proiusntci to it for decision, and the 
extended longuatgo in tirie opinion indicates tii&t it wui the 
deliberate oonelutsion of the «ntiro court. In jt^(?oi:i , X<j v. 
^iMAiL, 'Zm 111, 451, it is held UiAt an <sxpr«v>£}ion of or'inien 
upon a point dolib&rataly puti >t.)d upon \>y the court is not 
obiter dictum; aaid in j^^^ji, v. iiroffii^^. I'?'- Hi-* 49.3, t5^«5^« Ic 
luottid with likpproYitl from Anderat>n*B L«*w iJictionary the 
follo^Ying: "An expression of opinion upon a point in a case 
argued by counsel and deliberately pn»»€d upon by tho o>urt., 
though not esaontiul to the disposition of tho c».uii$, if i^ 
dictum t tell is u JutUoial dictum, as di&tinguiuhed fros a 
mere obit«?r dictun, - i, <£., an cxproauion origins&ting alone 
with the Judge who arites the opinion, 4m; t,n yiTgununt or 
illustration," It also should b<j not^d th^t in v;)l, 10 
h, 1?, •, H. ;>,, page H67, is a foot notu in ishich it ia 
statad thnt "^the few eases tliat have pfissed upon th^ matt'-r 
hold, au does Tre^d on v, ' ;;illiam8 ^^^ that an option und<!r such 
cireua»tanees iu not binding.** The deoision of the iSupreme court 




Of Kortl^i Carolina, rm a ccmtraet mndn wltliln th«i utat* 
1i;ct.vaon its citi^mna, touching I;j)d within tho utate. 
Is controlling. 

The option w««st not onf<>rcible ^%gji.lnPt Jon«e, 
•xeoutor; hence 0»rt9ldo« to ^hora it vms HUijlf^ned, received 
nothing of vwlue. It follonG th«t the? giving of th« 
mortgKK® therefor waa with ut <;on:»l>lQratlon* 

The doorae of the Circuit Court wasj proper 
and la fiJTf lrtiK3<l. 


396 * 213B5 




AppelSLant, / 

\ / 


197I.A. 316 


^About 10 a, «j. on tarch 3( , liJI.i, jjlainlirf vaiile 
driving a iiorae and wagon aouthward on dilate etreet *ma a truck 
by tt southb und street oar belon^Ung to defendant, he brou^^t 
suit and li^d judgment for $^»0 0, 

ilaintlff*a vvagon had f>n enclosed top with doors 
on the front., sides and rear. lie vas a tobaoco peddler and 
accustomed to <iriving In thc^ trtrecta of Cxilcagu, and was 
fjiBilliar ■fl'ita the locality near 15th ana ..tate streetis, v^here 
th© aeciaent tjapp^ed, iiia story ia mat ae drove into the 
southbound tracks, and after driving Uiere for about four 
minutes t-he street car unexpccLtuiy cmiie r.ii.idly from the 
north and struck nia wagon as he was attempting to pull out 
of the trflcks towards the west. Defendant's story is tiiat 
as Uie car a|;proached 15tji street tna gong was being rung; 
tliat plaintiff watt then driving betvveen the »outnbound track 
and the west curb of the atrcet; that «hen plaintiff reached 
15th iJtreet he auudenly turned eastward into the track in 
front of the car, then aeoinjj the car he attciapted to ourn 
back but before he could do so the wa^on was .struck and up- 
set; that the ciir'ii speed Ui d not exceed 6 or h iTiiles an 
hour* ruid it otojinKi within a very few feet .vfter tne 
collision. -efenuant claims that 3 laintiff wna guilty of 
contritjutory negligence and that, it was not f.uilty of negli- 

aaeiii - e^r. 


it%»Vii4iiiJii iiiii^ l^iritb 

■i Jiua 

■,a :J* 

\J^ aJtiall not narrate the varitint te»tiaiony at 
Uie vritnessea. '^e are strongly jbapresaed by the olJiia of 
defendant tnat the verdict \vaa {'^ainrit Uic -weight ot the evi- 
dence* bat xOvDever this «iuy be it r/aa r close caae and re- 
quired Inetructiono which ahculd fairly present the con- 
rilctin^r t8 3iieAA_J 'i'hc cv:;urt refused defendant's mqucat to 
give Instruction ''o. 4, wUlci 1k a» followD: 

"Vou are inotructed that the crew of the car ;n 
nuestion pre r^ot rcsuirea to exerciae tue iii^ degree 
of care to r-void injuring the jlrsintiff on tut ccoeaion 
in question, but were only required to exercise ordirzi'ry 
care; hu^i if you believe from tne evidence in tx.ia c^ae, 
unaer tiit- in.-.tract xon^ of tne couit» tuatt .sa the car ap- 
proached the place of the accident it ^&b being operated 
with ordinary cnrt, rmd Uini the :uOlor:iiun of thf^ car in 
queation, iu the exercise of refisonable ».na ordinary 
care, did nil he coulu to avoid the accident in queaticn 
as soon a^ it was apparent or ascertain';ble to hiii>, in 
tiie exercioe of reaiioiiatle and urdiniiry care, that the 
wagon in qu^Btion was upon the track, or ^^ctting upon or 
near the track into n tcaition of danger, tiicn tne jl sun- 
tiff cannot recover in t.isi case." v' 

This ia a stock instruction and haa been given mfijny tisiies in 

cases of Liiis «iojrt; it is cased un defendant's theory of the 

casti, und 3i»uuid have been f^iven. it is no!, cuv- red by any 

other inijtruction, as claimed by plaintiff' a counael. 

Inotruction Ko, 14 was f^ven ot the requfrtjt of 
plaintiff; it oonoerno plaintiff's int? reot ir. Uiv veriict, 
and told the Jury thai his testiiiiony ahould not be disre- 
garded because of auch interest. This inytruction was 
proper, but tiit court refuaed defendant's request to kIvc 
ita in^^truction .No. W, vnich concerned the tcatiuiony of the 
eraployees of defendant and told the jury that tii<;ir t-3ti orjy 
should not bo disregarded because of thf? fact of employaient. 
Both instructiona had to iu with tue personal interests in 
thfi c.ise of '^iit vitneoyea, • nu a vin^. given pi oi"^' "-If ^' 3 in- 
struction it was error to refuse aefenuant'a. 

The evidence tended to sjio- tnat the only in- 




, 'jcoquiq 

a6n*3'i»o to •••\8io;>.9 

itMiJatt^i&ul uUuH 

iIUXJUa;.'. . 

jury roceiTed by plnintiff vnaa a sprained aiikics, I'ro;.: vjtiicli 
he soon recovered. Ine verdict of ^is,0(:o indicates triat 
the jury wna not jcioved by cooliieab and iiapurtiriXity oi 

""or t/io rsfiaonn above a.i5Uica.t<:d the jua;:«ient is 
reversed ana tnr cnuee remajnded, 


298 - 21281 

ApplBllee, } 

\ ) MirAL^OU Till 3Uf?RlOR COUI^ 

▼s. \ ) 





y 197I.A.3 3 



"^ The appellee filed her bill for divorce against 
the appellant, alleging extreaie and repeated cruelty and 
praying for divorce and alijmony. The defendant was per- 
sonally served, did not appear, and an order of default 
was entered for failure to appear July 8, 1914, July 2ii, 
the cnuee was heard nnd a decree of divorce entered i*iu\ an 
order that defendant pay plaintiff #75 per month alimony. 
July 31 defendant filed his motion to vBcatc the decree, 
net aside the default of defendant and give him leave to 
tinswer. The hearing of the motion was continued, and i'co- 
ruary 15, 1915, tlic motion was denied, and from that order 
this npppal is prosecuted. 

In his affidavit in support of his motion he 
stated tnat the decree of divorce was entered during his 
absence from the iitate, Cn the h<rtaring of the motion it 
was admitted that at the time of the hearing of the bill 
for divorce, defendant was in tiie court house and apoke to 
the witnesaes. The graund on wuicxi defendant aaired the 
Court to vacate the decree of divorce was that coaiplainant 
had been guilty of ndultcry durinL the marriage, vThis de- 
fense was not aet up by anaver, nnd the decree will not be 
vacated to pf-rr.iit defendant to set up a defense to the bill 
in a laatter not aet up by answer, Elzas v. Elaas , 183 111. 
132; Buawel 1 v. liuswell , 146 la, 5^. Aside from that rule. 

lagfs - aes 


i xj* .JL 

i bvio^^ns saw 

^9i9ib iff yna 
, < 

atm darts t 

I J sex 

tae affidavits filed in support of the motion fail to Biiow 
that the defendant coulo not hove diocovered the tcstiaiony 
by the uae of reasonable diligence in time for the hearing, 
Klzaa V. Liza s, su p r a . 

v/e tiiink there was no abuue of discretion in 
denying defendant's motion, and the order of the Court ap- 
pealed from is affirmed, 


311 • 21205 


A]to«ll«t, \ J 


VB« \ ) / 

\ ) / OF COOK CO' BfTY, 

fILLlAii H, FISH, \. j / 

AppellN^t. ) / 

\y 19? I. A. 3 35 

m* JUSTIOK BAK2R i)2LIV1?im'D 117? CPIKION Orp TlfS CCUnT. 

^his iB an appeal tty the d«f aiKlattt , William H, 
FlBh, from a dtorotal ord :r ontereii Kovamber 21, 1914, ad» 
Jua^ii^i; him guilty of oonXmapt in failing to pay to Qota^ 
plainant $228, the amount of alimony deoroed to her July 
IC, 1910, at th(; ratft of $1Z per t:iionth frois ^aroh, 1913. 
By u former ot<i&r entered Cotober IC, 1915, defendant was 
adjudged guilty of ocntempt in failing to pay th«? aliejony 
decreed to coiaplainant up to an<l inclucSing liiaroh, 1913, 
Vrom that order he proeeoutod & writ of error to tliie 
Court and the order was affirmed Ootuber 5, 1915, (Fiah v« 
yish, Ho. 208164* V The fncte and the oontentions of counael 
and our deoision thereon sufficiently appear in th<e opinion 
filed October 5, and need not be h^re repeated. The only 
additional groundB of reversal urged are that, "the judg~ 
r.ient merged in the bond filed which satisfied the debt,** 
aad that the writ of erroj- ieeued in oase Ho, 20816 having 
been made a supersedas by erdc^r of this Court, tho ap* 
pellee "io thereby oe topped froja any further proaeedings 
at;ainet appellant as being contrary to publio policy.** 
Botii oi' tiuiise o.ntentions are without .aorit, ana tiic order 
appealed frota ic affirra«d for thf reascno ntatecl in the 
opinio* in Tlo, 2C816. 


« IIL 



X^iiKtSt bnT^bu\^.< 


'666 - ^1318 

In re K&late of t JOJjsHH 
00PXf.l?IC2. deceiifled. 
On Appeal of tAHY GOi.LEVVICZ, 



HJBKRY A. ?0«LER, AUA*!: of 
the latatc of JOJP.lm 
GCRLi:'«flCZ, deceased, \ 


(jp COOK courfY. 

O^I.A. 337 


The Irobnte Court entered a rule on the appell- 
ant here, y Gorlcwicz, to aiiow cauise miy dh<- had not 
conapliFU viith an order of inat Court directing her to turn 
over to the ad<alnl»tr&tor of tuc i-atalci of Jo;ieph Gorlewlcs 
certain peraoiml property luid a auloon license, or i,^,UbO 
received on a isale of the atute, en tne utwirin^; a rule 
wait entered direutini. her to pay owr to the adr^aniutrator 
$2,000, From auch order sh« appealed t;- the Circuit Court* 
On thf.' hearing: in, UiMt Court the following order waa entered 
following certain findinga: 

"Therefore, it, i^ considered b.v the Court that 
the appellant, iary Gorlo^ioz, Lake notning by ner af reaaid 
action, and that the adiaiiiiatratcr of uiie *-istate of Joaeph 
Gorlo'^ioz go hence witnout day and uo have and recover of 
and from the :ipp^ilnnt, .. nry Coriov/icz, tiif: dua of t.vo 
thou-iand dollaro, togcitiier wi Ua hia cc»ta tind charges in 
tnia behalf exf^nded and iiave execution therefor," 

\_ Treating ihia bunt,,linif, and uncleritlii\<- order 
a» an order tiiat aae pay .|2,00C to the adxiiiniistrator of 
joserh Gorlewloz, f>..ary Gorlewicz ai.pealcd to tiiia Court, 

fnerc is very iictit evid&nce in the record. 
The hill of exce; tiona contains tvventy-five pages f re- 
marks by oounmel and the preei<Ung Judge, but no agree:^;'ent 
between coun^jel ao to f;«ots io auown, and appellee has filed 

no brief. 


tteii - 6U 



oO ^JiiiSot 


. i-«il ln« 

, ., . 






. .ii« 

:i iJij 'it)Q ••..iiv jllci 


•I 'X'^OTto no fs 

Joaeph Corlewicz died May 4, 1911, and had at tne 
ti.nue of ill b death a dram ahop license yttiioh expired October 
31, 1911, The apj, ellftnt carried on tue draa atiop fiifter uia 
deatii, and ijctober ^7 1 1911, jsiade application for a dram shop 
license for aix laonths beginning ^ioveruber 1, »nci one was ia- 
aued to her by tlie City of Chicago, February 15, 191ii, she 
sold tne license so issued to her for |(2,0(0, There is in 
the record no ordinance in relation to dram shop licenses, 
uo fnr as appears from the record, tine license which p.pptiilant 
sold in February, 1911i, wa« her own licenue, in «'uich the ad- 
ifliniatrator uf Josejh Gorlevvicz nad no ir;t(rest, v^ 

The Jud<..ment of tiie Circuit Jourt ia reversed and 
the cause iu remanded to that Court with directions to enter 
an order disoJi^arging the rule entered by the l robate Court 
against appellant. 


•»^ oif iMtiaal 06 eunaoil »ifi bit 


343 - 21328 


?HAHK H, JO«l^, Tru;;t,ec, etc., y 

T». \ . / I 

/ ) OF COOK CrUm^Y, 

LOUIa ^, iARKEK^et al . , / ) 

\ Api;ello|Ja, j 

197 I.A. 338 


Tnla ie p.;j mipeiil froKs a jud|:ir.t>rit of n i l c apiat 
entered on a uirect<?U vnriviict cf rjct s'MlJty in an nevion ior 
deceit bruujyLt by *:'oK€a» tru.iicc in lisjiicrupicy of t,he eatate 
of Beueaette .lillitiiita, Kiui v;hti.rlQi5 LaciiitoUio ?.if!,ain8fc iJ^rker 
and Lickason, aa.vviv.iti^i jiartiiei'a cf tne I'irrr* of jjomvin a 
Co., coMpaas'.i uf wMe 'jefcr.danta fnxd W, K, Dorwin, '"he only 
qa«;*tian «ve aiiXiil oonalder ia arh^tiier the ev.lde»ic» eJvows 
any «ctiu?iable ;;iisr "presentation by T^orwin L Co,» relied on 
by ^ftilliftisa sj^d JcftciUtohie, vtAcu was the indue ini~- cauae of 
a loss Miicu tuff Buatained.V ■A ct-rtaln milroad company was 
cnpat;ed In ccnatructinfs r rfiiilroad ovor thr Atcl: afnlRya Kiver 
in IcuiMinnA, ( n eucL tide of the river wne r awaxip tinrough 
snich Hti f^mhHTiinic.firtt thrc-e oi- four ad lea l(.;ng had to be con- 
st2Ut;led Vu eliivnte tiic trackii, Tlwiti esiDnnkJaent on the west 
aiuo of wiie river extended frctu the hlgii ground at engineer* » 
a tat ion 3*.9 to the ^;»e8t bank of l.hft river, engineer's sta- 
uiou 1vj54. The eiabajiJcaent on Uiti oaat aide extended frcwi 
istution i05y at tht; erujt, bank of tiie rivi.r^Aat, to station 
1707, fiiiere it re?4v;iieii the -'ii^:;h ground, wctober 9, 1907, 
kjcrwin <s, Co, entered into a corj tract in vritinfi •nlh the 
r&iiro£;d cuoipany witii i-eference to thf-. cnatruction of the 
eabarikrijcrte. It provided tnat ijorwln ., Co, a/.ould, at the 
price of thirty centii per cubic ysra, co.wplvt* the work on 
the weal didc of the river in one hundred and twenty .iaya, 







269 - :ei344 



v». \ 



>KAj. FKCJK. aupERicn QQXmt 




'fliXQ aijieal brin;/;© in revitw a jud, aient for 
$l87b recovered by the plaintiff af.ainut the Cit / of Cnicago 
for perai.fifil injuric-ij all£t>ed to have teen austuined by her 
by roriaon of the negligence of the defendant in failing to 
keep a cjsrtain aidewalic and tho apace between tixe aidewoljk and 
the curl) in a proper oondltion nnd repair>/^'j iaintiff and 
her oon were walking north on iihef field avenue, plaintiff 
on the left or west side of her son, wnen she uuddeuly fell. 
The only witneases \ino had tiny personal knowledge of the ac- 
cident were plaintiff and her aon, then about sixteen years 
old, 3he wr»s asKltd where she walked, and an«vfered, "I can't 
tell, was it really on the Bidewnlk or next to Ihc t;idewalk « 
it was on the sidewalk I fell t>ecouse it w»8 like the aide- 
walk, just as atroight no the oidewaik, aa even," Jhe fur- 
tlier teetififtd in answer to the quewtion of her uvai coun^:iel - 
•ii. 'fiiich port of th^ aidewalk were you vftlking oin"* *'A. On 
the ■-utaide, iiie outer edge," Sne furtijer tesstifled t^iat iier 
foot caught ei.i',j\xnut. aaaaetiiing and sne fell; that 3h<: uid not 
knovv whnt her foot caught aguinst. Hex non testified that he 
waa «ralking on ihe. enat side of his mother; that tnere v?er« 
3cae people west of her; tiiat. he waa on t.he oidowalk ;tnu ao 
far as he knew hie jriother was on th(> sidewalk; th'it he noticed 
tliat there was a pipe or brick or aomething jrotru-ing fr^.m 
tiie ground; that he went hacK two days later ana saw a :;iu«h- 








room pipe west of the sidewalk; th'tt plaintiff fell in frunt 
of number <i249 Sheffield avenue; that there was anew here and 
there and a little ic^ un the street here and there* lie far- 
ther testified that 224^ was a double house. The evidence 
shows no defect in the aidewalk, and that west of and near 
the iildewalk was an iron pipe, a muahrooa-stuiped pipe or 
cover, intended for u»e au a ahut-off box for v/ater pipes 
leading to the adjoining house. 

The first count of the declaration alletied taat 
plaintiff fell aa siie was walJsing on the aidcwalk because of 
its uangerouB condition; Ui9 second, that plaintiff was pars- 
ing upon aaid oidewalk and fell becautie of the dangerous con- 
dition of tlxf! sidewalk and space used by pedestrians; th© 
third, that the defend?.nt hid negligently uaed and permitted 
a certain rublic street, viz, i^ieffleld avenue, to be out of 
repair with aant^erous pieces of iron pipe extending six inches 
above the ground, and that as plaintiff was passing along and 
upon said sidewalk and space she fell because of such danger- 
ous condition of the sidewalk and street ana the space between; 
the fourth count alleged that defendant h.ii.6 ncfiihently kept 
a certain sxdewalk and space in z^ dungeruus condition ^^ith 
pipes extending to a dangerous height and with a dangerous de- 
pression, and while plaintiff was passing along and uton said 
sidewalk, street and space, she struck H^^ain8t said pipe and 
obstruction and into df«ld depression arid fell, etc.\,^ 

The only defect mvich the evidence tonas to show, 
/if Irxieed that can be conBid^red a defect, id 'Jutxt in the 
space between the aidewalk and thp curb x,ii.ijX(i .<aa this iron 
aiiut-off box, and if it bo conceded tnat thio was a defect, 
still the evidence fails to prove the g:uilt of the defedant, 
because it fails to uhovr that she struci;. hur foot at),ainst 


•.60 &iiQ 


. i.J:.j 

aucii aliut-off box. It !« clear froci her teati&ony that ahe 
did !ioi kno« urtiat oaunftGi her fall. i'here was anow and ioe 
on the sldewaUc here and there and the nigJtit was cold. Her 
son did not cialsi that uc knew tual night the cause of his 
flBOther'a fall, but vrtien he went back two days later and saw 
the shut-off box in the apace between the sidewalk and the 
curb, he Juaiped to the conclusion that lahe struck her foot 
against the shut-off box and tiiereby her fall was caused. 
He did not notice that night ahfre mhe fell further tuan 
that it e.B in front of -C'dA^ ^ef field avenue - a u.uble 
house and therefore preausaably from 4v to 5(^ feei wiAc. 

A careful review of the evidence hna led us 
to the conclusion tiiat the evidence in the record fails 
to show that plaintiff's injuries were caused by the neg- 
ligence of the defendant, and trie jud^yaent will therefore 
be reversed, 


(over. ) 



it.' xotl Yi 

,i}m«uj»a BMv iUtI tc«K ie«f»i;<».' t1o«4^.Uf :aljn^ 

J^a bib da 


269 - 21544 - FINDING OJ? ?ACT, 

The Court from th« evidence in the record finda 
ft* a fact that the evidence faiXs to ssho'.v that plaintiff 'a 
injuries, for wSriich aho aued and recovered, were caused by 
the negligence of defendant, the City of Ci;.icago. 

;,30 - ;';1344 

Filed Jan. 3, 1916 

;-.'.!;Y 2i':^ITD, 


va , . ) 

■ ) OF ccoK Cv;ui;v:t. 

jr;Y oj^ Ciii(;AGO, ) 

Appellant. ) 

197I.A. 346 

• - 

Tiiio apptal orin/r^s in reviev; a jua^^.cnt for 
,1cj7j recovered by tiie plaintiff a-,ainat the City cf CJiicr'.(^';o 
for p(-roono,l injuriea ailcjj^cd to have been Jiustained by her 
jy reacon of trie^.-.TiCc of tna dofejifiant in failing to 
:-;f:cp n certain 3idcv/ai.V: ru'id tiie D.:;."ce between tae aidcv/alk cind 
tho curb in c. proper condition r:.nd rel^■■ir. -i.-iintiff and 
\.('V son were v.alkin^; nortn on ;;iiC'f field avcivae, plaiintiff 
;n the left or v/cst aiJe of her i:on, viien iihc tjuddcnly fell, 
:i;c only v/itnc:isc3 v,'jjo had .'.'.ny ptraorial knov;ied?.-,e of the ac- 
cidrnt T/cre plaintiff az^d her son, then about tiixteen 
old. oho \irxz j)akcd uhexe she v.'alhod, and answered, "I can't 
tell, wr<3 it re.-^lly on the oidevrall': or next to the aidewalk - 
it v/ac on the sidewrak I fell because it v;a3 like the side- 
^■'ilk, just as n;ji tlie oidc;,-.?.!]:, .o.a evcJi.*' Jn.'?. fur- 
t.'Cr tGotifioa in ."..nwf.'cr to the qiiciition of her o ..n c;.ur.wCl - 
" <,. Vihieh part of the . tjidev;alk v/crc^you 'udlkinis onV" "v:.. On 
■■'ic out!jidc,''the cater edae." dhe furtlier teijtixicu that her 
Toot c-uf-ht £)it;ain;it oo:i.cthing r-.nd she fell; th:i.t she aid not 
■;riov>-^ her foot o.-;.u<fat aso-iunt. her aon te3X.ificu t} ho 
••'-'s \;r'.li:tnij:' on the ea.-it aide of his j.;otlicr; tnaL thei'e v/ore . 
:-'j(rpcorjlG voot of her; ti^nt he v/as on the sidov/alk .'ind so 
-^r r.;3 he knev/ hia rnother '.■.as on the uidev/alk; that h-;-; ncticcid 
•^'^o tk<;rc v/n.3 a pipe or brick or so;uethinf^ protruviin,^: frcir. 
U:o (.-round; that he v/cnt b' t-.vo days later and snv/ a :..ush- pipe Mczt of the aidev/alk; th.-:l plraniifr fell in front 
jf nuTiber '2249 Sheffield avenue; tlrit thore v;ao onov/ here and 
ti.cre and a little ice on the- street here and thcrs. he far- 
mer tctitified thra 2^49 was a double houae. The evidence 
;.'.ows no defect in the sidewalk , n.nd that west of o-nd near 
the tiidewaljc was an iron pipe, a inuahroo;:i-aii;).poQ, pips or 
cover, intended for uae tin a shut-off box for -...iaer vipcs 
Irouini^ to the ndjoininf; house. 

The firat count of the declaration nlleiied taat 
^Irantiff fell aa she v.'.aS wnlk-ing on the oidcr/alk bocauae of 
itu uanccrouj conaition; tns aecond, that plaintiff -:;bi. p:'33- 
ir.c upon caid aide^mlk and fell becrmtje of the dan<'(:-rouo con- 
dition of the Gidev;n.l3c nnd .y^acc uoed oy pc'^estrians; the 
liiird, that the dcferalrnt h)d nc[-,lii;cntly u^ed and r;cr:ait':ed 
.1 certain public Gtrcct, viz, Sheffield avenue, to be out of 
repair v;ith dan£.:erouo pieces of iron i^ipe extending; six inches 
aucvc the ground, and that as plaintiff v/aa pasiiint; Cilong c^nd 
ucon oaid sidewalk and apace siie fell becav^se of ijuch dC!.nf;or- 
0U3 condition'of the sidewalk rj.n<X yti'ect and the space betv/ecn; 
the fourth cuant alleged thrit defendant rti'j.d nri-:J.if,enLly kept 
a ccrt^'.in sidev.'alk and a:.,^cc in z^. di-.-';r:eroua condition v/ith 
pipes extending to a danc-rous hci^'^ht wit'n n. d:;.nf;erouo de- 
prcaaion, o.nd v;uile plaintiff v/cio pr.Dsing o.long and uy-on said 
oiderrall:, Gtreet and avrtcc, ohe • struck af/ainst said pipe and 
obstruction and into u;.id cieprecoion and fell, etc. 

The only defect v/nieh tiie evidence tendti to i;hov/, 
if- indeed tliat can be conoids red a defect, is that in the 
:racc bet7/een the aidevialk rxnd the curb there v.c.3 tiii^ iron 
■ ;;ut-off box, and if it bo conceded tnat thia ?/a2 a defect, 
still the evidence failrj to prove '.ho i'^iilt of tlic cefcdant, 
because it failu to oho;.- that che ptruck her foot r.r.-'.inet 

.-ich shut-off Ijox. It is clecr frc:r> her testimony that che 
ild :".ot ::no\7 ;7hat caused iicr fall, Vhero '..•r.u 3iio'7.;n-.d ice 
;n tiic Bidev/allc here and ihcre and the ni^'-ht \v;:;.s cold. lier 
aon did not cin.i.T: that iio knew th;;.t nij^'ht the. criucio of hi a 
'.otlicr'j fall, but vihGn he .■ent t"'o duya later and saw 
the lihut-off box in the sp-icft betv/oen the sidcv/alk find the 
curb, he juiiijied to the conclucion thn,t slie struck her foot 
r-.-.ainst the shut-off box ('M'-}. tiicreby her fall v/aa cr.'u:.^ed, 
;.(; did liot notice that nigl^t whrrc uhe fell furtiier it ';?.s in front of '^'dAO Sheffield avcriuc - a double 
i/juse and tricrefore presu:!:iably frou 40 to ov feeu v/iuc. 

A direful review of the Gvidexice hria led us 
lo the conclusion that the evidence in the record fails 
to aho-:< that pir.intiff »s injuriei; xjcra cauocd "oy the ne^^- 
lifjc/rice of the defendant, und the jud;;..':K-nt will therefore 

'oc reversed. 


(Over. ) 

^^y - 21344 PIBiJiliG Oi? FACT, 

T/ic Court fro:;; tlic cviiJoncG in tiio record finds 
r.s a f''Ct that the evidence fails to sliov/ thn.t plaintiff's 
injurioa; for r/hich die aund and recovered, /ere erased by 
:;.c ru\';li^-cnce of defendant, the City of Chicaijo. 

397 - 21584 

E, P, KEJpLIlR, doint; buaineaa aa /) 

F, F, Ke«8bler ^ Co., / ) 

^. / ^ 


JOHS ?. DOTHE. Adi.i'r., etc., of ) 

the Kstnte If J.UCY P. /wLEXAHDElir, 
dec eased, ■■; 

\ Appellee. / 

\ / 

197 I.A. 353 


Tbio appeal is proaecuted to reverse a Judf;cjent 
°^ ni l en.} lat rendered in an -ction brou^,ht by ■.ipin'ciif in 
error as plaintiff anainat ; ra. Alexfuider, to recover com- 
niisBiona alleged to be due froru her for negotiHting a leaae 
of certain real estate in Chicago owned by iior and the sale 
of the buildings on tue demiued preuiiaeB. Lirs, Alexander 
died pending the suit, and her uaii^iniatrator was ii,ade defend- 
ant , • 

' v^iiLaintiff was a real edteite brokfjr in Chicago, 
Bjnd irs. Alexander resided at Spring Jtatioii, Kentucky. Be- 
fore 1907 pl!s.j.ntiff had negotiated leadca for :;avid .. ayer of 
Chicago and been paid coaimissiona therefor by hia, and J. 
Alexanaer /Hller hnd acted aa a^/cnt for Jira. Alexander in re- 
lation to the de.;atfed premiaea, but hud no autiiority fro^u ti,e,v 
to lease the aauie, in lay, 1907, plaintiff took iicGinnia 
to Waller as u prospective tenant or purchaaer, but aa 
cauie of thfj negotiations they ;aay be disregarded. Ji,ay 31, 
1907, plaintiff wrote to ira. Alexander. The letter ia not 
in the record, but frofii the answer dated June 3, 19C7, it 
ia apparent that it related to the leasing of tue real estate 
in queation. How plaintiff carae to -.vrite to Mra. Alexander 
ia a controverted queation, Gilbert F, Keebler, the aon and 

^a£is - ves 

i, fi oaiovDi oi b9i uoeaoiq el lAoqqM alxlT 

, xd idjiuo'KS aoiioiy. «« al b&itbn^i tRl'^no I in lo 

diii baa titti >(d t)«awo o;[)«ioirl3 ai 9iA3a9 Inun nlAinoa to 

'10 texa-. bira:: tot itattAnl b9Jtiiio^9tt bud lliJnu'.iq VofiX »to1 

. >. ibmi (Otiti ^d loJot&ili unoleaicomoo bljsq n<)9c( bnn osaaixlO 

"■ji tti i»bnajc9iA .aiu lut ^a9:>i« a« beJoa b^:£l isXXmV xnbnHXolA. 

oiiiuii oa biMi Sud ,s3aiia»-tq bB»LM9b ocli o;^ nolJuX 

Bit 'CO J mioXAlq ,VO<;X «>c*^ aJ ^^^ daadl oJ 

,'i:4&£d»'Ttfq 10 i»itc(9^ avIJosqcoiq « bh isIXbW oi 

. oobtflae^aib ad ^m x^ril 8aoiJs!l;;^ospci arlJ lo atusa 

^Jn«X»IA .BT 1 0.J yjoiw 1'tl^niiJlq ,V09X 

-i ,\wU;I ,^ snw« ii»iAb xaw&rut sdJ lucil Jjjd ^biooai 9di nl 

v)c.H.i3 Xfiai 9iiJf Im ^niaatl 'idi oi baiRl9t 3L Jam dno-xaqqa al 

!'\ ,htti. oi 9ii%* tiJ 9<i>no "iliinXwXq ' ti«»up .... 

an employee of plaintiff, testified that plaintiff wrote to 
Ur9, Alexander at the suggeation of -valler, but .,/aller denied 
tiiat he msde any swch suggeetion. In the letter of June 3, 
lira. Alexander stated the terms on svhlch ahe was willing to 
lease the real eatate for thirty or ninety-nine years. One 
of the conditions stated was that the tenant "should Kive a 
bond to guarantee the lease, •* The rentals named by k'rs. 
Alexander in her Intter of June 3 were, for a thirty year 
lease from twenty to twenty-eig/it thousand dollars per year 
and fifteen tnouaand dollars cash for the b. ilding^j then on 
the prersioes; and for a ninety-nine year lease, tveuty to 
twenty-fiTe tiiousand dollars per year and fifteen thousand 
dollars caoh for tnc buildintid, A few days later Gilbert ?, 
Keeblcr r/ent to the residence of iirs. Alexander at Spring ota- 
tion, Kentucky, showed her a copy of her letter of Juno 3 and 
told her txiat he had n. proposition to aubniit to her for the 
lease of the property, la fact^ Keebler v,ab sent to ira, 
Alexar: :er by Davi<kia>cr, who pnid txie expenses of hia trip 
there, but this fact Keebler concealed froa i ra. Alexander and 
did not disclose the niKOie of the person or corporation v/ho 
proposed to lease tne property, but told her that tlxe indi- 
vidual back of the proposition did not vrant tiie name known, 
and for that reason the Aestern Trust t leavings Bank would 
guarantee that ni3 proposition 'ivaa bona fide , iihe asked him 
what nis coiowission would be, and he told her, he reujained 
at her residence a week tktm coauiiunicated v/ith ,Javid ., ayer 
by long distance telephone every day. A week after his return 
to Chicago, ijr, Alexander, the son of ! rs, Alexander, ca^fie to 
Chicago, and Gilbert Keebler ana Uavid f ayer met him «t icr, 
Loeach's office. There iy some conflict in the testimony a» 
to vdiat was snid at this meetini ,,f out from the evidence the 
jury might jToperly find that tiie Co-operative Mercantile 

■J «'S0X£8tt *t<> itoiio<»Sj|M« x»baax&l,\ ^stii 

(At:? toi>Je-*« i^iifi/ix^tA ,aiii 
•floilibitoo ftiU to 

:^«^ aoil oaasi 
t £iafio sxRi.Xui] Di'm&voaJ nesJ'lll nnit 

/ ■• .••.'")■ .', 
\jiiv ymi 'to HUM Hat 

.Cdovia^A «noxJ 
eo444^t ii^ a*iil bXoJ 

"J lo »«jM.i: 
: S9«n«qx» 9sii J3i«q[ wtar ('xa^» oj.t».: ^o i9f>ci»x.9ir\ 

•x«Xtfd« ijcii Jt/d (OtsfliJ 

0^ ^tfd tX<^V*k '^ k*eoqei.r 

i»« Joa 6Xi> nci^lMoqotq 9iv> lo AOittf XAijtIt 

-irxX «tft.>««» ^^S tot bnr. 

&-'i\. noXl4.«yHdii4 ai.a Jaa^ •9^niBlJB&/^ 

. ox«u.UBoa03 ciii Satti! 

Company, a corporation witii a capital of only five thousand 
dollnra, wao mentioned as the proposed leiasee; that Alexander 
aaid the proposed lessee was not aatiafactory, that they 
would have to give further security; that the Alexanders 
wanted JiilOO,000 aeourity put up or the vreatern Trust A javinga 
Bank in the lease, or its equivalent; that Kej'er aaid: "I 
hold 2iy cosomlssions sacred to me, but I cannot ask my client 
to agree to any such terms," and that Alexander then said: 
*Ut, kayer, if that io the caae, the aeal is off," 

Dr. Alexander wrote appellant July 1, atating 
that they knew nothing about the corporation; that when the 
younger i;eebler was in Kentucky he emphasized the point taat 
tiie Weitf-rn Trusjt ii, savings Bank would be a party to the 
lease and add greatly to ita security . tr. tne letter the 
tcrma which iura* Alexander de.'uanded were sitated. One was 
thai, the \ife8tern Ti%iot & Savings Bank would be a party to 
the leaae, or a aubetaritial increase in the security by bond 
or equivalent. The meeting in J r» Loesch's office was on July 
12 4 Froza tiiat date no coannunlcation of any kind passed be- 
tween the Keeblers or either of thea and the Alexanders or 
either of theai until nftcr January ^2, 19o8, at which time 
the prcpRTty wos leased by i^rs. Alexander to David i&ycr for 
twenty years. 

Prom the evidence the jury might properly find 
that plaintiff, by his son and employee, was in June, l\iQ7 , 
secretly acting as the a<,,ent of David iayer and endeavoring 
to secure a leaae of krs, Alexander's property for the Co- 
operative iuercantile Company, a corporation, which uavid iiiay^ 
at the meeting in i=r, I.oesch's office called "my client," V 

une who attempts to act as agent for both parties 
without disclosing the fact to his principals, ia precluded 
from recovering coicuni aaiona for such services. David Mayer 

waa 30 connected with and intereated in the Co-operative Ler- 
cantile Coiapany that he muet be rec'.arded as standing in the 
relation of a principal, and that plaintiff, by prruiitting 
his Bon and employee, ro receive froKi kayer the expcnoeo of 
hia trip to Kentucky to visit km, /xlexander, is precluded 
froiu recovering cojaponaation for his aervicee. 

Young V, Trairior . IbQ 111. 428; 

HaTTiok V. agiith , 137 id. 004; 

B o y d V, i;illin^;hfim , 55 ill, App, ii66, 
lilra. Alexarider did not list iier property with 
plaintiff, Gilbert i-', Keebler testified that he diacusaed 
the propoiiition of leasinfc the real estate in cuestaon with 
Ijuvid k&.yBT four or five times before he went to ^.eiitucky 
and heard it diucusaed by plaintiff and Ur. Mayer aeveral 
tiJDe»; that up to that time neither witnesa nor hia father 
had ever :uet iSrs. Alexander; that before witneaa went to 
Kentucky, David i:ayer said he likea the property, would like 
to lease it on cettain conditions, ana autuorized witnesu to 
make certain propositions if he would go to Kentucky; that 
Mayer was the firat one to aui^f-eat that witaessu go to Ken- 
tucky. He testified in a i;eneral v?ay that plaintiff reprt- 
sented krs. Alexander ¥/hen he went to Kentucky, but he stated 
no facts tending; to ahov; tiiat ahe ever employed him or ever 
knew there was auch a man until ahe received tne letter from 
him of kay 31 . The moat favorable view tiiat can be taken of 
the evidence is taat plaintiff opened the negotiations with 
2irB. Alexander and was employed to negotiate a leaae on tiie 
terms stated by her for either tnirty or ninety-nine years; 
thfi,t nothing came of such aegctiationa, anu that six months 
afterward Layer secured a lease of tae preudaea for twenty 

year a. 

•?e also think that from the evidence the jury 


, »*iVO r-ii. 

..tXXitl .V bvoff 





.xi^ woila oi ^ttitintti 9i9a\ oa 

W.JSW »i9iii werot 

ii«M to 4tiiri 

ffiiciit properly find ixmx. the evidence faxitd to snow that 
plaintiff was the procuring; oauae of the lease to Dwvid 
Layer. As either finding of fact whicii the Jury,ht 
properly aiake and, in support of the jud,jijent, inaat be pre- 
sumed to have made, is sufficient for thrt affirmance of the 
judgnicnt, it is unnecessary to discuse other queationa 
ar^Tued by counsel In their briefs, and the jud^jjaent is 

427 - ;>il414 



vo. I 

CHICAGO b/usiVai. collegk, 

a Corp. , 


is^pcliant. / 197 I. A. 356 

\ / 


Vxhis record bring a in reriew tins action of the 
Court in pf-risitting plfiintiff to file an r-oiended declaration 
and an amended affidavit of claiia after aefendant had filed 
a plea of tue general issue and after th«'i srnne were filed 
striking out defendant 'a plea, ordering that the default 
of defendant b« entered and fntering judgement r>,,>',ait;8t it 
for ii5831,bo. The order giving plaintiff leave to file 
an aiiiended declaration nnu ar: rAjrtended affidevit of claim 
/j»s entered Tsoveniber ii, 1914. The aaiended drclaration and 
amended affidavit of claiib were filed the same day. The 
order provides tjfa'- defen ant's "plea now on file shall 
stand to aaended declaration, to ^riuicn letter ilfilntiff 
objects r<nv excepto," ^ovet^ber 25 defendant's j lea was 
stricken out, its default tftj« en and judfiaent entered 
against defendant. The bill of excei tions shows tnat 
defendant by Ita counoel objected to plain oiff's ujotion 
for lenvf; to atacrid, but its objection was ovtrruled and de- 
fendant exiepted; tnat defendant aiao exccptod tu the jujg- 
Baent and prayed an appeal, ■vhich was allovicd on defendant 
fili..g a bond, etc, The recora suqmq no .'iiOtion of dafend- 
ant for leave to file an affidavit of lacrita, V' 

We tnink the case of 3 pradl xnf;; v. Ruaaell , 1^0 
111, i>'.'>i, controls the decxaion in txiis ease. In tiiat 
case the Court aaid, p. 524: 



5 ■■ •:a\: 

"A majority of tiiia court nold tua Uio circuit 
court Jaaa tue powor, uitder tue stutute, at ar>y time before 
finai Juu^ment, tw a..«:..i cx-f- i ; era constituting the 
fvturiutetion un xilclx a plaintiff cluizas JuUt'ittficnt, and taat 
this, in a i^roper case, may be done by prriuitting an affi- 
davit of claia to be file-d, even nfter a plea hytj been 
filed. The bill of eiKseptionB does not purport to aixow 
what, caude rtas jixow. in uujjort of t-he otjon for leave 
to filt auch an "ffidaYit m !;;i.. case. It would doubt- 
less bfi un iiupr. evident cxerciae of diacrction in a court 
to allow an affidavit of claim to be filed at a atftge of 
the cass 30 late aa here ai.oan, witiiout good cauae broui;Jtit 
to the kno ledge of th<- court in aupi-ort of the .'.'iotion. 
This record failu to siiow tinat auch cause was not ai.ovm. 
Unless tne ccntrnry is aff iri:-atively 3Jiov?n, vre aiust aaaume 
that . ucz. cause /na aiiovm, an-.i the t th#» ciicult court acted 
properly. After tue affidavit of claim waa i:rop«^^rly on 
file, the plea of Upiadiing, unsuivorted by an affidaitt 
of {iiorits, tvas under our utntute no eufficxent bar to the 
action, and it was entirely proper to striite the aaia® from 
the files." 

.^efi, aluc, CrEiLi;aer v* Coia^fiercial keii^a Asaociu- 
tion, -sitio ill., bil, 

Vae record in inte froai <-rror end the judi^ifiaent 
is af fi rmed. 




i;ii . 

i«. ,i. Jj.: ; O 


ii Dijji .aojt^oa 

».■;:■ [r: -)flJ 

437 - 21478 

▼ ;i'< 

JCHK BKOD, Jir.,\ 

lla\intiff in ..rr 


for the u»e 0f THE 'aTATK iiOARD 
0? irrlALTH, \ . 

bef enantitsj in Krror, 
\ /} Kimon TO ilUTUOlPAL OUUftT 


197I.A. 358 



Thia is an nctzui^ of debt ta'ou£::;t by the i eupXe 
of the iitRte oi" ililnola for th^ u«e oi' tiie .vtnte hoard of 
Health a{:;ain8t John Brod, .ir., to reccfver U;.e penalty for 
practicing liedicine ^without a license fron the litntc i.oard 
of iiealth incipoaed by iection 9 of tJie AC^ entitled "An Act 
to Regi.i3r-.te th«? Iractice of Ledicinr in the ;itat<' of llii- 
nolB «nd to Repeal an Act therein naaaed," in force July 3, 
1899 (Lav7a of 1899, pT ^73^ The statement of claim alleges 

a former conTictaqr. for the same offense, -^nd becauBe tnoreOf 
clsiiiaa the pennlty of ^200. 

.'he aT^peal vtaa tak«n in the flrat, instance to 
the iiupreae Court ana tijat Court .noidang t^iiit no cfjn8 5.itu- 
tion&l queetion waii invwived, transferred the case to tnia 
uourt. Thia diaposeu of tjuc tiueaticn as to the constitu- 

tlonr.lity of tx.e Act argued lu the brief of rj sdiitiff in 

Plaintiff in error furtiier cont^jnde that if 
the Act is valid, it does not iti-i-ly to him taecauae he waa 
I.r«iC!tioinK raotUoinc v/heji tae Aot i.ook effect. Whia conten- 
tion is ciiBpoaed of oy i.,£0£le v. Lungaon , Zl9 ill., 189, 

We find nothing i^u^proper or erroneous in the 
3:^iling8 of tne Court on quentiona of evidence. 

Froui tiici evidence the jury properly find 

8 c 8 .A 


ar^is - vci^ 

c. ,-.., t t 

thsl th« defendant practiced R*«cHcine witnout a iiceueei 
and tJae TerUlct, tnerei'ore, caruiot. be held noc auataaned 
by tiie eTidcr3C0, 

?h«? oonAntioti of plaintiff in error tiiat the 
Judi'JDent la iir.prcpcr bocaui-c it ;;.ravi<leJ5 tnf^^ the defendant 
aht'.ll be i£6prl3oned until the auiount of the Jud;.'ffient and 
co£ts oi,Fli bf pr^id, ptc., .^nU ttia.i. auoii i.-iipriacntfiisut la 
not warm n ted by the Constitution, is vi.itMOut nerit. In 
Kenned) v. } oopi p, l2/i i.«l, 649, it '-vsu i;cld thwt the pro- 
hibition of tn<? Constitution against irripriBtniapnt, "does 
not extimd to ssotiona for tort£ nor to fints or pent! tied 
arising front a violation of the penai laws of tne btnte,* 

The recora i:i, jn our opir.ion, free fro^a 
error an:; the judgment in affirmed. 


J. <i ii- lo iv ii i^cij; 


2»1 - 21274 

CHATiLi^a F. THUHK, doing buaineiitt 
aa JOIiN L. THUKK A. CO., 

Ta. / 

BERTHA C, v>CH^'?Al^TZ, AdLiiriietratix^i 
ato.t et al., \ i3«f«nd«urtta. 

CUUBT 0? cook: CSi'UWTY^ 

<,n Appeal of IMtlK H/OIE and '^-R^PKA ) 

C, aCI-f/AilTZ, Acbiiiniatratrix of tjtae ) 

Eatate of CUiJTAV ^ABS, .Deceased, 

V / 197I.A. 3 59 


un July 23, 101<;, a ^uO^iuent for 4575.21 waa 
coDf<?8eed far.d entered a^iuinet arie ade and Uustav : ade in 
favor of plaintiff in the Superior Court. Guatnv .^ade, 
ttince entry of Jud,iaei;t, died, and on larch 20, 1914, , aiie 
Bade, hi J oo-def endant, and }^ertiaa C. achwartz aa adiainia- 
tratrix of the eatate of uuatav i^ade. deoeaaeci, i^ov«<ia the 
superior Court to vacate the Judgmait and for leave to 
plead* Tait> aiotian .vaa allowed. A trial vma hnd before 
court and Jury, whicn resulted in a verdict finding tiie 
iasues for tl^e plaintiff, A caotion for a {iew trial being 
denied, tl^e Jud^^xi^ent entered waa not a now Jud^picnt, but 
it waa ordered that the judicmt^nt theretofore r endeared 
July Ic., lyi , atand in full force and eff«ct onU that 
plaintiff have execution upon aaid Juci^iaent and for costa, (/"' 

m thi» atate of the record, notwithataj^iding 
a Jusy haa paaaed upon the raerita and founa them to he 
with plaintiff, and although we are in accord with the 
finding of the Jury both on fit and law, we are concerned 
only wxth the Judiimcnt entered by confeaaion. 

The laoiiea at ;ributaole to appellanta in 
waiting nearly fOur yeara before iaoving to vacate the 
Jud^fment to bt let in to defend^ is an effectual 





'^ \j »a1. 


;,-3l 9ti^.- 

,4if Yifc' 

n<ti4a« i"^ • 


,»»iBf T«*e». 



^(v,i ,0S :;. 



to QiA^ 

4 ;^a»aia'' ' 

; i;i*«ltU>:.' 

ukki iiii« ^Xao 

u'i v.^i !d»"! ^nlSLasm 

barrier to th« granting of such motion. The learned trial 
Judge erred in allowing', at Ihat time, a deferise to be 
iBBde and the Judgment to be suspended pending a trit^X on 
the merits. 

As held in Barrett v. ;i.ueen City Cycle Co. , 
179 ill. 66, diligence and aterit ciuat both appear to in«> 
▼oke the diacretion of tim court to open a Judgouent and 
let in o defense. Here no attention .fs^a given to the 
judfjBent by any party in interest until sn attempt to 
sell real estate after the deatn of one of the defendants 
disclosed the fuct that a sale could not be negotiated un^ 
til Uie lien whloh the law imposed in virtue of the Judg- 
ment was removed. Iven wiiere the affidavits discloae a 
sieritoriouB defense and diligence ia iHCicing, a »iOtion to 
atiHy the operation of the Jud^paent and for leave to defend 
will be denied, Sohultz v, i< els el bar . 144 111. 26. In 
Austin v. Lott , 28 ill, 519, it was held that a motion to 
oet aside a ju*/-;flient by conff-soion made after the lapse of 
four terujs of court catoe too late, 

The judfeffi<!nt of the duperior Court is affiraied. 


Jtidix^tui 9iii boa «ibia.-ti 

?0iJ9l0BlZi Bill friOV 

"k 9£U b9»oloeii> 

•j^>. Vilii 009 AViilnr a9ll »ii' 

300 - 21284 







Appellee, ) 

197 I.A. 361 


V Complainnnt filed in the Circuit Court a bill 
against his wife, the def eridsnt, for a divorce h vinculo 
jnatrinioni i and charged her with having couifnitted adultery 
v/itii one Clinton Vail on the 15th day of .'ieptemDer , 19] 1, 
and on the 24th day of larch, 1<J13, and the place of the 
adulterous intercourse was alleged to be tne City of Chi- 
cfigo, an he also chnrftcd generally, but not 35 f'cif ically, 
other adulterous acts with Vail, 

The anewer of the defendant denies categorically 
the two acto of adulte;ry specifically charged and also denies 
that ahe coinjiiitted adultery at any other titne or tiraea with 
Vail. it is likewiae charged in the bill and ads-iitted in the 
answer that one Ciiilu was born aa the fruit of tne union be- 
tween the parties, a daugatrr, Frances ale, who was betv;een 
six and aeven ycarw of age at the tiae of the filing of the 
bill, A replication mia filed to the answer ana the cause 
was tried before the Court on the pleadings thus forned. The 
Chancellor, after hearing all of the evidence, dioaiased the 
bill for want of equity, finding deferidant "not f:,uilty of 
the niotters and liiings chr^rged Bgriinst her" in tne bili, u' 

The record before us presents for our deterxuina- 
tion questions of fnct. tfhile the record iis 3ome-«hat volumin- 
ous, its ebsence is encoripaased within eouiewnat narrow limits. 
No good purpose can be sub served by here reciting- the criiaina- 



.ircaq » 

. ( .i«-..«.»'-t 

.. ..5.. .^ .. ,.- .^^ a«»v-' 

, .• -^, ..:,,..- 6crff 

iiliiirtir, '.iJ 

tiona and recriminations indulged in upon the trial by this 
unhappily wedded and Kiismated pair. TJae parties themselves 
need no enlightenment ouncerning the facts, and others are 
not concerned about theuj. in this opinion v/e si*all there- 
fore confine our observations to the controlling and ulti- 
mate facts. 

The law casts upon the complainant the burden 
of proving by a preponderance of the evidence, at least one 
charge of adultery, uncondoned, c^ade in Uia bill, aa a con- 
dition precedent to the granting of a decree of divorce on 
that ground. 

The learned Chancellor, after a patient and 
somewhat protracted hearing, concluded tliat complainant 
had failed to ouatain by a preponderance of the evidence 
any of the? charges of adultery (s.ade uy against his 
■?;ife. .■le have carefully read and weighed all the evidence 
in the record and after doin<: so and upon mature considera- 
tion are unable to disagree with the conclusions reached by 
the Chancellor, ./e v/ould not be Y/arranted in disturbing 
such findin^uj of fact unless we could say that they yrere 
palpably and clearly contrary to Uk? weight of the evi- 

v/e are not, and cannot be, in tiic advaritageous 
position of the Chancellor, he saw tiie vvitneasea and ob- 
served their manner ana appearance upon the witness stand - 
privileges denied ua, } e was therefore the better able to 
detcraine the weight to br accorded to the evidence of each 
witness. Their fairness and candor, their prejuriice and 
feeling, or the reverse if such exioted, neie apparent to 
him. Gf these frjctors we are unable to Judg-e, except as 
contradictory or unreasonable testimony, if ai;y, found in 
the record, xnny betray the unreliobility of a witness. 

J '^iJtt-viJ n 

Tile credibility of the witnesaes and the v/cignt to he given 
their testimony are so largely oiattera restinf.-; vvith the 
Chancellor hearing the case that his concluaiona upon the 
facts v/ill not he disturbed vinless the record discloses 
tiiat 3uch conclussions are .Tianifestly against the preponder- 
ating force of the evidence. 

The legal presu/uption of the rectitude of de- 
fendant and her innocence of the charge of adultery, iiii- 
posed upon coxaplainant the necesaity of proving such charge 
by a preponderance of the evidence. Ko presumptions of 
guilt can be indulged wnica do not rest for tneir support 
upon direct proof. As said in V/hitlock v. Vhitlock , 268 ill, 
218, referring to a charge of adultery - "When ouch a charge is 
made, it involves the character of both parties to the of- 
fense, and the character of the woman to whom it is of 
priceless value, ohe should not be found guilty on evi- 
dence w;-.ich may as well import innocnce aa guilt." The 
divorced wife of Vail was put upon the witness stand by 
coxaplainant; she proved an unsatisfactory witness for him; 
yet no inferences against defendant can be indulged that 
BTe not fairly deducible from fscts found in the testimony 
of this witness. Because she failed to remerjiber matters 
about which it would seem incredible that she could have 
no recollection, does not justify reading into her testi- 
mony that which counsel surmises she could in candor have 
testified about. The rulings of the Chancellor on such 
testimony were correct, i 

V Complainant ' 8 proof to sustain his charges of 
adultery are based up n the alleged confession of his wife 
made on the 16th day of September, 1911, and as to the adul- 
tery chargfid to have been coaimitted on Larch 24, 1913, on 
the testimony of two detectives. The alleged confession 

a9^ ifiOfiai i iilidibsno sxlT 

te anoxfcuXono:. 'ul;t 

.so- ' StatiJi 

ctoiiqmuuo'zq, legs I 

onsocnnx "xsrl btia i^njebrtsl 
U:aeo<? aoqiit b*soq 

, loJoAiacto Axfl DOS ^eBctsl 

laitfjBfin ; aisnlAlqmoo 

^'Qi. :bn9t9l> (^eRXJB^nonftastnl. on d'AX 

'?IcfiouI)«l> Ylilal; ion i-m 

. - , 'K>iioo.[Xoo9i on 

defendant deniea in to to , [so that, treating each of the par- 
ti fo aa equally worthy or unwortny of belief, tiiere is no 
preponderating evidence aa to auch confeaaion. jut, on the 
otlier hfund, the facts whicli the record abundantly substan- 
tiate* i*" Ihat. the parties continued to live in the marital 
relation fror.i that time until Uie iiiidale of i ay, 1912, that 
cofliplainant diu not finally leave iiia wife until August 7, 
1912, .^nd]^if further f.-^ct tha¥^ lettt^ra written by ni/ri to 
her during that time were couched in affectionate terxiis, 
»;ithout any reference to defendant* a having fallen from 
marital rectitude ^^ are f ■ cte which, in our opinion, 
effectu&lly condoned the alleged cot.fessed odultf ry if 
it hnd been comtsitted. \ 

In avoidance of tiiese wattera, complainant 
put in evidence a letter dated Auguat 7, lyl2, written to 
liim by the parents of deferidant, whicr. letter was prepared 
by a l£i'#yer for coiijpluinunt ana which recids on followa: 

'I regret that circufiRvjtances iuake it neceoaary 
or proper, in your apir;ion, for you t leave our nouse iind 
leave Clara witii us; but, knowing as 1 do that you nnd ohe 
have not lived totiethor as imsbaasd and vvire aince you made 
tiie j^air.ful discovery, and knowing, as I have hitnerto in- 
formed you, from what diie natj told u-e, that you hf<ve iitatu- 
tory grcunds for divorce, I can not urge or expect you to 
a^ay "Jiy longer with us, if your judhiaent and feelings 
projp|tt you not to do »o, I be^; of you, however, tnat if 
you uee> a divorce you will spare her feelings and ours aa 
much as you possibly cawi," 

Complainant also introduced a lf.ttt;r in evi- 
dence written by defendant to corriplninant ' a liuo tiier in Oc- 
tober, 1911.>^^here ia notning in those lettJira, standing 
toy themselves nnd unexj Jained, wi;ich is fiot just as coxa- 
patible with innocence aa with guilt. ihe Ittter of de- 
fendant's parents is in ti.c: n?'ture of a self -seivint, aocu- 
ment, it beint, procured by ci)a.plriinant as the foundation foi" 
an excuse for leaving the house of iiis wife's parents, .vith 
whoxu he was residing; he testified nimself tliat he left the 

ni •# i b'i^i.'th 



houae within a day or two after the receipt of that letter 
and hau since lived under a BCx^arRte roof. 

There is nothing in tiic letter of defendant to 
coiaplsinant' a mother which can by any reasonable interpreta- 
tion be aaid to be u confession of any adulterous act <vith 
Clinton Vnil. in tiie letter writter! to complainant by de- 
fendant's parents, the worde "and knowing, U8 J have hitnerto 
informed you, frow vdxkt she hf^a told '»e, that you hnve statu- 
tory grounds for divorce," are not su;iceptible of the in- 
terpretation that defendant had conauitted adultery v/ith 
Clinton Vail, Further/nore, tiiis letter was not connected 
with any eviuence of any confeoaion uiaue by defend: nt to her 
parents of any acl of adultery A'ith iJlinton Vnil, (n the 
contrary', both lihe and her parents denied tiiat any aucii con- 
fess i.on vrns ruade, and there arc no other facta or circumatances 
appearing in the record wiiich would of a finding that 
any sucii confftsaion was made by defendant or that luiy act of 
adultery -A-as coiiiaitted by her s?ith Clinton Vail, iho words 
"statutory ^roundrf for divorce," cannot be conatrued &a fi.ran- 
ing adultery. All grounds for oivorce in tuisj .tate arc 
statutury. ^he letter of defendant' o parenta was prepared 
by a lawyer of many years standing at this bar ana of good 
repute botn Cor le{':fi.l ] earning and integrity. if tiiis law- 
yer intended theae ptvrer-ts to ^Tite to cor.pli'inant a con- 
feoaion made by their dau^-hter of adultf^ry with Vail, v/e will 
aaaiune tyiat in all honesty he would n»ye ao stated in plain 
and understandable terras, nno vould not hove resorted to 
terras wnich mif<nt juot na well i;f.]:ort desertion, drunicenneas, 
cruelty or impotency aa iidultpry. .v'e cannot assume that this 
lawyer v/ould hnve tricked theae parents into stigaiati:'-inf; u:>eir 
dRUK'iter as an adultress by uning terri.s which they did not 
oompKehend aa Bu;;c*i:tible of any such rneaninf". And we cannot 


lliiiOM <i.i eiiiis 

,k.'i!"'J IIJ 


belif-ve, in the ligirit, of t/iio testiB:.ony, that defendant's 
parents 'I'htn they ai^ned 'vhat I'itter had the- remotest iaea 
that they were etigmr.tizing their dsugiiter as an adultereaa. 

i.'he teotimony of tne tv»o detective©, eve;; if 
given full credence, falls far 3i^ort of proving sven a sus- 
picion of adultery between defendant and Vnil. Jv'hile these 
detectives Bhado^red defendant for nevernl weeks and saw vnil 
and defendant at tiices togpther, tiiey ..ere never seen by ihem 
in any other but public plr'.ces, iiurrounded by mar;y people. 
It cannot, be aaid that at any time these detectives CBxat 
upon deiendfint and Vail \7hen tney vrere in a cu:i;piOi--i:5ing 
position, or .vhere tiie opportunity to cotjjuat. odultery, if 
they ao (xeaircci, was posoible, 

'Ihe iiupreme Court lihB judicially fro-jned upon 

tiaiu claaa of testimony, ±x\. .cjlai^^e v. Jlake , 7; £11, 62/-:, 

the Court 3ay: 

"The eiJiploycient of f> j rivate detective for the 
purpoae of ge-ttinf, up evit;ence, though in soiae few cases tney 
may afford UoefuJ asaiLii-irnce, io, aa a rule, very otjection- 
ehle, ';he.\ are u.oat dangeroua ai^ents, , and the court looks 
upon their cvidfsnde witb. tmcu uuijpicion. '.,hon a. man sets up 
as a hired discoverer of supposed delinquincies; -dien the 
amount of hio pay dei-enda upon tin? extent of hi 3 ''raplcyraf.nt, 
and the extent of his faiployment depends upon the (Uscoveries 
he ia able to raoke» then liit ino.n b^comao a iaoot u.i.ngcrous 
inatriimcnt ,•♦ 

And the Court furtiier aay in the Blake case, 

supra ; 

"It is insisted by appellant triat the circum- 
stances proven were aii-ply ijufficient to establisri tne fact 
that adultery »as cojiuratted. ihere can be no doubt but 
adijltery nuxy h^: eatf.olianed by circuir.ot-intial evid«nce» 
tu!: the proof, says liishop, vol. ^, page 613, ♦must con- 
vince the judicial a^ind af f ir:;.atively that j^.ctual adultery 
wau cojan-itted, since not;.ing Siioxt oi the carnal act can 
lay a foundation for divorce."* 

The like contention iu lafide nore, and the 

reaaoning of thf (,ourt io as pertxnK.nt here aa there. 

iVe. t/j.inx the record is free rroux reversible 

error, tiiot the decree of tiie circuit Court ia auatained by 
the evidence, and it is therefore affirmed, 

'' " " ' " * AFFIRKED. ■' 

,r', t'.iie.. 

uJt 4a 

oidw nf.«0 2'i adauAia 


))ni I'iouaati 

3^1x11.0 3'ro'ie'i9rlJ^ ei it baa .sonsbivs adi 

540 - 21Z^2b 

0-^y.r. k'UKJHTl, } 

I Appellee, ) 

^ All -ML mau Qv^mioti Qoum 

197 I.A. 369 

I ) / 01?' COCK COUKTY, 

GimKiMO e^atl^. ) / 

'^ppciXaiji. ; / 



^ Tiiia is 6in action on tu«i of=ae for per«orml in» 
jury in tho plair.tiff roooveroa y^^.ainut the; defendant 
in tac Superior Court a jucitiaient on Uie verdict of « Jury 
for 4^5,CH)0, ano dsfcndRnt ajpeaas, 

TiiiiB ai.pcft.1 lu proseoutfd fro;a the aeconii 
triai of tiit: cAuse. Or. the first trial a verilict ^ma 
instructed afjaijiat plaintiff and thia Court revera«d the 
Judgiiacftt entsr«i(i on that verdict for thfc re«ii8on tiiat in 
ita opinion tho facts found in the rocord tttiould haw 
Tj«.fen subii.ittea t% tiic jury for determination. The plead- 
ings are. the seuae as £«t Uie first triul « Xr. the opinion 
of tJ-i« Court on the former appeal the ploadinge and the 
fecttt arc fully stated; these we will not repeat, out 
reftr to Uric opinion of tiic Court for the 3«u;i*, the oylla- 
bus of Wilch appears in 164 ill, App. 455,^ in the opinion 
referred tG, vuiu court cnid: 

^Tho real «iueetion in tela case sauet neceaaarily 
be one of ffe^ci., tuat iu, wiiuther uT not the pls'.ijvliff in 
orror .*e» fccuiity of contributory Mtgj J.t;:«nce, The defect in 
tJtie top croiitt bar c^iuoed by the of a large con- 
ef»ait-d icnot ^aa one of orlj' construction, ana saa not 
cauttcd b^ decay, or oy subsequent v;ear or giving away of 
tne bar by roaaon of unytit!.in^ thfvt had hapjf^neiG to it -ifter 
ttie frojHe .Kiric waa put up, alti^ough the frais.e v>fcs about six 
ytaxi old. it -aaa no liuoi* defect as plaintiff in error was 
requix-«d or expecurd to anticipate, tb^ evi er.ce tcnii» 
atron(,';ly tu prove thfet b.y the? exerclde of ordiiiary care he 
would not «nd that, in f.-ict he dia not find the defect, be- 



eau&e it was covered uf v/iUi tha pantil na^ltid over it it 

i» tavj uuty oi the«3r or e:s.i>loy«r to fu.rni.'iu to hie 
©Kiploye a reasonably aafc fiaco in which to work, tind 

r«:'fttioi;s.bly nnta ».ypli.miVi&ik with, .iiicia So ■-^■oxh., una ua can 
not iejiev* iiiinaelf of that duty by (i«legating ii to 
.-another ," 

It M.p?ettrH froit the pi nuin tiff's omi testimony 
tlxet the duty of ins-pf-ctior. of t.'ic atructure frojs -ffiioh he 
fell >vaa aia. He teaMfiod ti^-ai, a« fore::.iui be unaordtood 
it waa his duty to look over a-na a«e whether t-'-e friica^vyork 
VCX9 a.Hfe, arjM. if he saw .-iriytiiing ti^e mftttf»r «i Ui it to fix 
it, if anything «iae wrong he was not to proocod. He 

recognised tna further fact, to which hn ttestified, tiiixt 
he owed tiu: duty, »» fcrenr^u-n of txir '*oric»fri, to look cut 
for the safnty of the other laen, anti that duty included 
not sending, tiietu into a ilaee tuat xie ouula 8«€t was unaafe, 
and that in hi a exaxsinntion it was nia duty to iook and sea 
Aiiether the naila<w«rtt rotten «o tjaat the footboard wa« 
liable to break and give '&ay. 

Bearing in nind tnat the aefendan>. xb h cor- 
poration and the duty of in«.pection aevolved upon plain- 
tiff, it follows that exactness in iiiw rulin(s^» of the court 
upon the evidence and plead^u({S and in the t;;ivin^ i^d re- 
fu:iinj. to Kive instructions was essential. 

Th(i structure was not erected oy defenuant, 
but purchiiaed by it. Therefore, if the knot in the top 
tioard was the proxiuate cause of the accident, or a con- 
tributing cause, and the defect saa latent una not diacov- 
erablc by tne exerciae of reasonable diii,.enGe in inspec- 
tion, there liiity be some serious doubt as to the liability 
of defendant, although we do not at t,i.i.a Li:;ie, in the con- 
ol.iaion to .v.\io}; we hav*? co.v.e, deeis; it proper to »ulve tnat 

The secon<i coujit of the declaration charged as 

tne & act of negligence af'iainst defendant, that it failed 


Uau^r tiie fv»rai«r decision of thiB 'Jourt it waa deciue<J thr-t 
th« duty of iaupection ie«ted u^-on i;laint,iff , and tJsat iie 
could not Jiaintfiin aa action for n defeot. In the footboard, 

Dcfendnnt (wved by an ep^fopriate iDBtruction 
to eliralnatc uuo oecond count tr<m the ccnsideratlon of the 
Jury, Tf.ic tJue Court denied. It v,t*n prror to refuse at to 
ir.atruc-t '-he jury, r?.s» tijcre ceuli' be r»c recovery under t)a« 
fteocnii count. It wcs al uc crrcr for ti^e Court to <give th# 
second inx.truction, which told the Jury, inter ali a, that 
if defendant failed to fcrnia/j ». r<fte«on»biy ©afw jlac© for 
pliilntlff to v^ork Jind ttiat plaintiff wan injured there^iy, 
"a* Cib^RTged In bis declcurotion*** they iculgiat find defendjsmt 
fciiiltyj and by no other .in»tructioD given w«r<9! the Jury 
Lolo tliflt tliexts could be r>o recovery under the aecond oount. 

The tJaird and ninth inatructiori«are sutojfict to 
the same crltAciom, The Jury were told by thr t/<ird instruc- 
tion that t}isre oculd bo a r<'?oo"r«ry if r.iaintiff "had proved 
ilia c-iB'n na lftld«in the declaration** and in the ninth in- 
etruotion the Jury were authorized to fin<i defendant guilty 
if fleiritiff'e injury "wae caused by tiie nefr,iit;.«?nce of de- 
fendant. At alleged in the declftration herein." 

Theee instruct ions era-e Alsleading, bcoaujie the 
Jury «*y hiftve predicated its verdict upon the averaients of the 
jBfCcnd count in th*; d«r cleretion, under wtiich t^iia Court had 
decided thtir« cwuld be no recovery. Whlls the Jury ««re r^aply 
iaiitructed, at tht> inetfenct; of defendant, upon it a tiisory yf 
the, **till vrs are unabls tt> jsaj ttiPt the Juj*y were not 
»iBled by the inatructiono vi.inh wt r«ir;ard as erroneoue and 
by thet failure of the Court to v'itl:!.draw the eeoomi count of 
the declaration froa the con ui deration of the jury, 

Counael for iL-antiff cxt** Uhica^t; ::ity E^. £0. 
V. FoBter, 226 ill. 286, aa auti.ority aunt&iniiif, an inatruc- 


iwiMtaunx i^insma'ii 



I'S .4':.'i 7r; ■', tj.i f 

tlon Lhfci the ,}urv way find for trie ilHintiit , if tney be- 

Ii«v«! fi'om Ui.0 ovid«noe Itnw plaintiff iias pr; van lu& Q&d« 

aa luAJ tn the declaration, even if tuere oe dcsae; counte 

which are not aupport%ii by iac cvlaonce. Tiie case at bar 

c^M&ca v>it.»iin tiie axocption i>t<^^.ted in um opinion, xti the 

i^oater case thero waa no reqac^u to eiu^iinate ».ny oount 

cr lor Ail inatructlon uiat a I'ecovcry ooxiia not oe xiad 

und«r >vny «v;ecifloU count oi. the declaration, ^n t;Ua 

corifiition of the record t/ie deteiuJ.ft?*tion of the Jourt was 

ron-oiicd . in Qoamnntiaa, on ijortfi Chjca^io ^treet Ha ij. road Co, 

^» ^ olk«y , 203 Ill« jiao, relied uj'on by a};j>eilrmt in the 

Foatcr caae, tlic* Court aay; 

"That caae does not austaxn ai-peliairit, in tue 
t ol ifrey cnso, iiHE££« ^'^'^i'*' v-^re fivfi ci.'!^jritsi in ts^e declaration 
charginK diff«rt!at acta of neglieienoe aa tho cause of the 
Injury. T.iere was no ©vJ -">rjc«- th.*t ten*i€C} t •- euitain 90iu« 
of thoffl. i'ii« at.reet railroad Uoixpany asketl the Court to 
i'.irc inatruct ion© cxrl< ing the isfcue© un;ier thf; caunts, 
out its request v/aa dftoied, and the Court Held tijat having 
tUvrr: for [.luii'tift th<f gt.-r)«?r»l instruction tijat if i^e.- iuid 
jjade out aio esse aa act forth ir the dsicleration he was nn- 
tltl.*d tc recover* KvOfi another inatruction teilin^; the Jury 
thftt they ^-ttiTe to try the issues un:ier the Rverat-nta of the 
(icclf-rsftior*, it mtp?. errcneoua to refuae dcf t?ndant's inBtruc- 
ticno defining imd cxil&ining the issut-e* In this case- no 
In struct ions 'ffere aaKfid 'by appcvIJ^nt def niiiig or explaining 
the iJisuca unixer the fiver-r-prstt of the der«;l'.i'i-:iti;>n or a.tjy 
count th«reof,* 

The Jolicoy oaoe vma revereed for lifee error« 
comjillairifed of here. 

For the errors Indicated tiie Juat^jf.ent cf UiC ;jU- 
pt^rior Court la r«}vereofi synd the cause rc^-:iind«d for a n{;w 

Xutt-i^ttii Jikkt^ti 

Ui> 1i%".. 

353 - 21338 


vs. s } 

L. K. CUBilING, \ J 

Appellee. ) 



197 I.A. 371 


The judgment involved in tide appeal is one of 
ni l ca jrip. t. which plaintiff asks this Court tc reverse. 

The cause of Ection arises upon a lease of the 
third cpe.rtiiient at I:c. 4417 rrexel Boulevard, G/iicago , the 
term of '.7x1 ich commenced on Lay 1, 1913, and W8.s to continue 
until the 30th of April, 1916, at a monthly rental of '^250, 
Under a poorer of attorney contained in the lease executed 
by the parties, dated Hiarch 14, 1913, judgment v;as entered 
for one month's rent with attorney's fees and costs. 

On motion made by defendant and a pertinent 
showing of facts he as let in to plead. The cause was 
tried before court and jury and resulted in the judgment 
as above stated. 

Defendant never icoved into nor took possession 
of the apartment, either actually or constructively. His 
reason fcr refusinr, to pay rent and tc oake possession of 
the apartment was that the apartment was not fit for habi- 
tation. At the time the lease 'vas made the Ijuilding in 
which the apartraent was situated was in course of construc- 
tion, and on the first of Jliay, 1913, it was in an incomplete 
condition in many respects. For instance, the elevator was 



8££XS - &<. 

,KAR;^UD AdL^lKaAc 

,0'OAOIHO 'n.J. \ 



u ;"- .', -:. ^ 

not installed; the front stairway leading from the ground uj.o 
wards was not usable, anci on tiic date the terci conusenced it 
was necessary to clixab u atep ladder to get to floors above 
the ground floor; for thirteen days thereafter the bade and 
front atalrwaye were of temporary conatructlon, so that it 
was iwpoasiblo to get houeehold goodo into the leased apart- 
ment in the usual way. By reason of auca conaition it v/as 
unsafe to tttteii»pt to get into liie apartment by the teiapo- 
rary stairway, and ttie apartment itaelf waa not sufficiently 
completed to make it comfortably habitable, 

These facts arc not seriously disputed, j Iain- 
tiff, nowever, aeeta t/tia condition Xiy the contention tijat 
uefendant, ia estopped frojai claiiaing that tae protiiaes were 
f not in a habitable condition at tne lixL^e the tenu coi^jj^eiiced, 
because hia Itase contained a oovencxiit on nis part that he 
had received possession of tlae deri-iaed premlaes in good or- 
der and condition. This covenant was patently contrary to 
tne fact, which fii6t is not denied, 

?irhilc in tiiis otate txie landiord ia not bound to 
put his ten nt in poaaession as a^ainat tiiird parties, still 
the landlord is bound to have the demised preaiises in a suit- 
able condition for occupancy at the cosimenceBient of the term 
deaaised, so that the tenant raay not only be ablt> to take 
possession but to occupy thf^ preciises for the purpose for 
whicn they .ver© leased. A failure of tlie landlord to have 
such presiises in a iiabltsble condition at the coauaencewent of 
tiie term exeoses tne tenant from all tne covenants of the 
lease which would otuerwiae be binuing upon hioi, incluaing 
the covenant to pay rent. 

As to the covenant by defendant that he had re- 
ceived possession of the preiaiaes, the case of Ratkov/ski v. 
f Kjaaolowski . 57 111, Appv i>ii?. la on .'iutnority. It vms tiiere 

ii fe»0s'rf*ai«{>5 !8*- '-cfftwjtf 99a ««w Bb-x 





.liaasaeoq Mvx 

held that the covenant could not nave been true, aa the term 
vas not to begin for fifty days aubaequent to the aate of 
Uie lease, uie difference in tixbe between that caac and 
this bein^ out tiiree c^yu* 

The law icnplitfs a covenant for quiet posaession 
and cnjoyfoent both ag^'iniJt thf? oct»j of the landlord himoelf 
ond parmaount title, Luudoi v, intern, 2(; 111, App. 68; 
Field V, Herricic, 10 111, App. 591. In the Field c se the 
court say the "plea alleges , in aubatance, tiiat wnen the 
term granted in tiie lease comuienced, the defendants were 
kept out of possession of the preciises deruised by the 
plaintiffs, and that neither they nor their assig^nees 
have ever received or been able to obtain posaession of 
the same. 

We are unable to see vthy tue pita doea not state 
a good defense to tne action, it ia true, the le-vise does 
not contain an exxress covenant of tiu; leuior againat in- 
cumbrances not for quiet pouseasion, but in tne absence of 
suoh covenants, the law implies a cuvenunt a^ciin^t all suoh 
^"Tacts of the landlord as destroy the beneficial enjoyment of 
* the thing leased. The possession and quiet enjoyixient of 
the preuiuea by the lessee, without any hindrance on the 
part of the lesaor is an implied condition to the obliga- 
tion to pay rent,* 

I" LeiferttJan v. Oiste.i , 64 ill, App. 578, the 
court, speaking by the late Vr* Juatice Gary, aay: "Nov/ 
it is perfectly settled that disturbance in the enjoynent 
of an eaaeuient, or n deprivation of it, is not an eviction 
_£er ae, but autnorizes the tenant to treat it ay an evic- 
tion by goini^ out," 

, M.'i.t asorf »▼£. i-A/oo Jnnrrgvoo ^r!5 ^nnJ bXsxl 

iioi&a -^rifsTr)*? R «•■» t C-TnT-t W'Tf ^d? 

itdJt '.■■ ■ , -rVt Y.«a :tt«j'i:>t> 

<«in«Too A •ftjifqtttX , . jntMiAvov do ... 

Ae plaintiff could not &nd did not t:ive de- 
fandant posaeaalon of the apartiiient vHieri the term de;i.iaed 
commenced, defendant waa released from tlie payment of rent 
and all the other ooyenanta of the lease. The lease is 
the contract controlling our decialon of thia case, and 
vnhile other phases of the c<se are discuaaed in the 
briefs we do not regard any of thee, as material to or 
as affecting, the rifcUiti of the parties. 

The vpruict of the jury nnd the juat:iBent of 
the 'Jourt thereon meet witi^ our approval, and the Jud; rrient 
of the ivunicipal Court ic therefore affirmed, 


. tnr,r-,-j-roo latfiO ^SLt Itc bil'- 

563 - 2X348 


Appell«e, } 

) Aiii^ VmU aUf^SBlOK COURT 


AP,.u».t. i/i97I.A. 372 




CAI.U1=.KT k. iiQiJTK CKICA<50 

Thia i3 0.U a^pfeaX from & jud(i£ient of ^10*000 
entered uvon the verdict of a jury in im action on Uie 
case fur pe>raonaX injuriea. 

The caaa has been tried three tiaieo with, 
▼lurying fortunes to tiie cojabatants. First, a verdict or 
defendant was rendered and a new trial granted. On tiie aeo- 
ond trial a verdict isas returned in favor of plaintiff for 
#2800, and on motion of defenoent another new trial waa 
allowed. The r#cord of the third trial is no a before us 
for review, 

this i» a paoeenger and carrier caoe. The dec- 
laration con tame four count a. The negJig^^nce chargtid a^.aiaat 
defendant in tnc ueveral cuunta i^ as fuilowa: 

In the first count it is cxmrged timt miile 
plaintiff was in the act of alighting from aefendant's car 
It vms cttrcleealy and negligently cauaed to be suddenly 
started and caoved. The second count charges notloe to de- 
fendant that plaintiff *vm» about to alight froci it 3 car 
and that defendant at thr; tiai5 and place mentioned negli- 
gently and i.^i.prope^ y failed and oaitted to afford vi»in- 
tlff a reasonable opportunity to alight fruiu the car in^ 
safety, but negligently started and moved forward Uic car 

a^exs - cd£ 

.99ti UMd •es'j »dl 

cm l>6i9Jbn9t #A«r ^nAbrtelttb 



before the car hud been stopped a sufficient length of time 
to permit plaintiff to aafely alight tJ[icrefroxo« It is 
charged in the third count that while the oar was m a. aimtd- 
still plaintiff, witn other pfvraona, attempted to alit'^t 
tiieref roffi , of vmich attempt UefenUant had actual or con- 
structive notice, and that wiiile so atteiaptinfe to alight 
dtfendant started the car before plnini.iff n«d an oppor- 
tunity to alit<xil in safety, tac- fourth count ciiargea that 
the offending car was so carelsaaly and iitupruptirly manai.;ed 
and operatf'd that by and tj;irougii such negligence, xaiAiaanage- 
aent and the unskillfulnsss of defendant, by it^i ticrvanta, 
plaintiff .-as* while atteiupting to alight, throtvn to the 
ground. To this declaration defendant pleaded not f:;uilty. 

The place where jifefimtiff fell off Uie oar was 
at the nortn intersection of Ninety-firat atreet and Buffalo 
arenue, ^?hlle the car was proceeding soutn along the west 
track of defendant. I'laintiff was with her husband, a light- 
house keeper, ami they were on their -.say home with their 
grandehild, whicr. the husband was carrying, ilaintiff pre- 
ceded ner nusband in her attoajpt tc get off ti.e oar. 3ojae 
years prior to the time of the accident there had been a car 
line on Ninrty-first .direct acrobs Buffalo avenue; taia had 
been remoTsd in April, 1910, ilaintiff contends txiat the 
lAX I utjual stopping place for southbound oars was the north cruBS- 


iiwftljlt, while defendant contends and proves that the 3..uth aide 

c^/of Kinety-first street \Mas the stopping place for uouthbound 
' cars by custom and ti\e Coaipnny's roles, before the reraoval 
of the cross-town line at lUnety-f irst atreet, all cars 
stopped on the near side approac^Jlnf- that atreet, 

The accident happened Koveaber b, ISilo, near Uaitt 
hour of eight o'clock in the evening. 

The testimony of plaintiff tends to prove that 


atfllo AaJ 

• a i»i<lv ,.j(ikii<i1^ 

x» >««»». 

o.ij»oSM>i %«d i»»^eo 

'.l»\;J-iiVik«;., ilSi 4)Ai.i 

her husband signaled the oonductor vihen near Ninetieth 
street to atop at Hlnety-firet street, and that the con- 
ductor sifinified that he had cau|^;ht the signal by nodding 
to her huiiband; that the oar sloped up and stopped on the 
nortn alUe of Nlnpty-flrst street; tnat i-laintiff nn.; hor 
husband walict^d te Uifc rear of the oar, ahe being in front 
of hlsi; tc-at seYeral men vrere on the rear platform, as 
veil as the conductor; that there were two steps from the 
platforci of the car to the ground; Uiat wiien plaintiff 
stepped from Uie first step, the oar started urltu a Jerk, 
and that by reason of the Jerk ahe was thrown to the 
street and severely injured; timt the car continued its 
course until it reached the soutii side of Hinety-first 
street, mmn it stopped, 

Th« testimony of defendant tends to prove 
that the only custowory atop i^ifde by cars at Buffalo avenue 
and !jinety-f Irst street viras on the souti; side of h'inety->f isst 
street where it Intc'^rseots with Buffalo avenue; that a signal 
mis given by t,he conductor to stop the car at Kinety-first 
street and tha^ it slowed do^m and came gradually tu a i^top; 
that when the car ym9 north of Sin* ty-firat street plaintiff 
and her husb»nd came upon Uie rear platfora^ and walked to its 
edge; that thci car was then proceeding simtii at about a three 
Ails speed; that there was but one step between tiie platform 
and the ground; that as plaintiff started to step down the 
conductor called to her, "Lody, don't 3i,op off," but not 
heeding the conductor's warning aue atepi^ed off Um car and 
fell to Uie (jX-und; tiiat lic wigriftl was t:xven by the conduc- 
tor to stop the car after the one given a Si.ort aiatanoe 
south of Niniitietii street to atop the car at T^inoty-first 
street; that nfter plaintiff fell tixe car continued on until 

- 3 '' ^rjn i ; 

;r: $■(';: 


it reriched the south side of }«ln«»ty-f irat stroet, -vhen it 
•topped for the onljr tlxae after tiie> conductor's »lgnal 
to atop the car hod been ^!;iven aout:. of ??ineticth atreet. 
Five erri^B arr aaalgned upon tiie recoroi for 
rcTersal , The concluoion at wx^Icai we nave amveu rciiJcra 
all but the first ftsaignment of error unimportant. The fira t 
aaaignojcnt of error is that "This ia jaanif «atly a case in 


which the preponderance of tne evidence ahov;s that plaintiff ♦• 
injury waa not dur to any negligence on tne part of Uu; de- 
fendf*nt» but wass due to her own improvident, if not nvgii- 
fc'cnt aot in stepiung off a tKovin/i car," 

ilaanviff and her huaband are the only wi tnease* 
supporting the theory of plaintiff aa to no a ahe ccujfie to fall 
off tii© car. While the witness Ryan /aa on tne rear platform 
at tne tiaic of the accident, he evidently wao non-obaervant 
Of eventa until plaintiff fell froto the platforra. He can 
scarcely be ref^arded as a vitneaa of the event ^> julch preosded 
and led up to Uift^ accident. On the other i:i5>ad, defendant's 
theory aa to ho*/ tne accident happened is sustained in every 
«9aential particular by three witnesses, while as to the fact 
that at the time of the accident plaintiff stepped off the 
car while it was in motion, it is sustained by the testimony 
of all the vvitrjeases to tne accident - six in numbi.r - who 
I were:- uwcrn tor uofen.ant, ThB evidence abundantly suataina 
the contention that plaintiff waa not thrown from the car by 
it a auddenly starting after huving cocao to a standstill, but 
lay plaintiff's stepping froca the car while it vms in motion. 
In so doint; she was not in tiie exercise of due care for her 
own oafety. It fivay be true plaintiff thought Urie car 
was not in notion at the t. liiir jiic atepx^d off, but that doea 
not chah^;e the fact, tiiat it was. Ita motion suay have been 
L-aperoeptiblft to her, but even so, tnat cannot be attributed 

llMt c 





to the ncjfilgance of defendant, but can be accounted for by 
the fact that the car had been slowed dovm by the i^otonaan so 
that he uiigiit brin*i it to a standotill at the south croaaing 
where the signal preirtkoualy <aven to turn by ute conductor 
required him to atop the cKr. 'he plaintiff having failed 
to prove Rny aci. of nftglij.ence churned agnlnrat defendant in 
her declaration or in any count, Uiereof, tho verdict of the 
jury and the Judiosent thereon cannot, be allowed to stand. 

It i8 an elementftry legal princiiile that before 
plaintiff can recover daaan/ea in an action of thia c .aractcr 
for pcreonal injury, proof au»T,airjinK by a. preponuerance of 
the eridenoe the negligence charged in some count of the dec- 
laration is indiapensible. The evidence found in the record 

s| hae no such preponderatin*, force. As aaid in iiiegiaund v 

Strackbein^ 14o ill, App, 4:>4, "An aff irr^intive iitate-^f nt, i/iet 
with a flat nnu cntet^orical denial by an equally credible 
''fitnoeB, uo< 8 not constitute that quan tuua of affirmative 
proof which the law requires to austain a judgcient,** ilere w« 
are met with aix witnesses, all of whom testify that plain- 
tiff alighted while the car was in uiolion, directly contra- 
dicting the t<?»tixaony of plaintiff and her nueband that the 

— I car stopped and utarted with a jerk as she viao about to 
alight, causing her to fall to the ground, wn the quantum 
of proof tniB Court aaid in Ke nyon v, iiaaipton , 7( IJ 1 , App. 
8u, and t.he l.-tnguage is likewise applicable here: "It is a 
faffdliar rule that a i laintiff must luake out hia or her case 
by a preponderance of t«;p evidence. In t/iia ci-se U^ore tvas a 
clear failure by the appellee in aucii regr>rd, and we are bound 
to hold that the verdict m,B so manifestly against the preponder- 
ance of tiif svi ience aa to require uia to rfr\ccr»c Uhe judgment," 

This Court on review is not reotrained, a» tne 
trial Court in, from determining the probative force of the 

' ."MMJ T.a:. 

.1-, .-^yiy A\i *;;><- 

. ... : -) '< u n .t kl 


evidence, anJ vthaa auoh evidence in its Jua;,rtient fttili* to aua- 

tain the recovery, this Court tiay reverse the jud^^iacnt with a 

finding of fact. Thl§ principle in fully stated in Loettkcr 

V. CliicaKO City H;y. Co . , 15v 111. App, 69, wlti. citntion of 

supKortin^; auti.ority, in that cfise the Court any: 

"An exasiinftion of the v'r ole evidence it^ptjla ua to 
the Gcnviction that it Ici ii^auf licient to support the judjiaient, 
'«/hilc it is true that prijnorily the jury are the Judges of the 
probative force of the evidence unu their finding is not to be 
Ii;>'htly aisturbed, yet when thia court, upon a review of the 
record, i^; of the opinion that the vf.rdict ia clearly coratrury 
to the manifest tyei^ht of the evidence, it becomes ita duty to 
reverse a jud(:;ment resting upon such unsupported and unvBrrant- 
ed verdict. This Uutv ie x/Jipoaed by tne atatutea of this 
Jtate, Aa aaid bv tiie cuurt in c, & K, I, R, »;, v, .'•Connor, 
1J9 111. 566: *\-duiTe there was evidence before the ji^ry tend- 
ing - how inucii iu iflifuaterial - to istabliah negligence, ^ «• « 
the question of the weif^ht of it nw. of thf: rt;aaoriab.t erie»a of 
the aaiount of daiufib'cs belongs pui'fcly to the Appcilote Court.' 
In Gejriffi v. The ieople, 87 ill. App, 15&, the court says: *The 
question wtiether the evidence As. sufficient to aupport the 
verdict is open to det<;rii.inatlon in ti^ia court; ajri^i *hile we 
iauat give due ,veight to the- superior facilities pooseBsed 
by the jury for dete^rtuining ti.e trat;< by seeing thf iiiaunfer of 
tiie v^itneuaea U! on t;ie atand, yet ti^at consideration is not 
conclusive upon ua that their verdict is juat,' Tiic aupret.'ie 
Court said in a chancery case, on questions of fact: *Wiien, 
as in the c at bar, the record dho^rs that the vt r sict ia 
eii,;iinut tut clear^wf if;ht and preponderance of the evidence, 
it -tfill be set aside, as in cases of law,' vide iir^diey v. 
inlmer, 193 ill, 15; I, C, P.. ?;, v, Gunninghaxa, lOkJ 111, App^ 
iiU6; C, f.. ?£. R, P., V. Speech, 163 ill. 3v;5; B. h. & G. k. Co. 
V, Bennett, 96 ill. App, 5)4, As was aaid in BorF, v, C, f., 1, 
^-; 1. Ry., 162 111. 340: 'It i3 plain thai the statute ia de- 
signed to confer upon the Appellate Court a.ore extended pow- 
ers than are possessed by the Judfjc of the trial court',* 

The reasoning of the Lc ttker caiie i;.. pertinent 
to the on' at i/ar. 

For the reasons hereinabove cUven tiie Jud^jaent of 
the Superior Court is reversed witii a finding of fact. 


V j ! ' • tj. ; .( L. A 111 i .■*"i <1 ,' yufi 

is* noi. 

L.i. ■);■■ 

.'aasivsT ai *tj9oK nolfaqflre »n. 

383 - .il34e FIKDIKG OF FACT, 

The Court fiuclo Uiat deff?xiuarit in i.ot guilty of 
any of the: acts of nHglijicnce charged against it in the plain, 
tiff 'a declaration or any count thereof. 



013 "Mii ?r ynn 

Piled Jan. 5, 1916 

;?9 - 21'6CiQ>, 

vILLIa:^ ;5G]IIi'{DL-;H, ) 

Appellant, ) 

VS. ^ imp an oil g 

) COOK CC";::TY. 
Apnollee, ) 

197 LA. 373 

?his io an action on tho case for ai:cault and 
battery all<;s-a to have boen c;:jru-, ittcd by one Joseph .'alah, 
r. foroiv;an of the <icfondant company, upon the plaintiff, in 
Uie coiirse of t]i.c baoinco:; of dcf tendon t, etc. 

The caoG has been t'.vico tr-ied. The firsst trial 
resulted in a verdict of :)9,0C0 and a now triiil \.-a;j crantod 
vX the iniJtnncG of defendant. Upon a Oi-oond ti'ial the 
court ini.> t?*UGtcd a. v;irdic;t for dcf c.nd:;nt and c-nltred a 
Judgment of rdl cntiir.t thex-eon, frons -vvnich plaintiff 
■1 '.-peals. • 

Plaintif f * ci dGolm-ation con::ir>ted of t-ao countci, 
A dtrAjrrer th<;rcto v/ao 5UQt;iined to tho3 first count and 
overruled r-.a to the second, Plfxintiff obtcinca leave to 
file aidition<:-,l country, and a demurrer to tlie::-c vYao uns- 
tained , Thcronpon plo.intiff cl^tr^ined leave to file amcn.iod 
iulditional counta and did ao, and a d<-;riiiirr»jr to tha^Ti aluo 
•■•an liuotained. 

The nccond cni;nt riVorred ili.-it '**tho defcnc-nt 
on to»v.'it, the ei/:hth dny of y.'rch, lOv'^C, v;a.G a corporation 
^aing buGinesu in the -ity of Oricaj-o ■!>' *, nnf\ pcoscr.sed 
of a certain * * plant cr f.-ctory in -.vhich it!5 naid buoinenc 
'■'•-2 trf,nsactQd; that in the cour:;o of naid buGinen^.^ ardd 

car-oav"tion h:^d end krpt in itu t.::.plo.y:;:ent certain ■» u:cn 
'., no v/crc cnt:ri.^;od in the couroo of dcfcndnnt'a "buoineaa as 
sjucri rianuifac taring; and plaintiff avora tiu-.t pn to-vit the 
dry aforesaid the dcf cci.i.nrit , "by one of ita i>crvants, 3o 
cni:vi;eQ. in the courhe of tiie bii.;incaij of dc;f cnd.'int ana in 
the coursjo of lu^- pro;.;CGution of ti,': objocta p.nd purpoaca 
of caid corporr-.tion, tiien ixivd there r/i iji force im<X arua 
i.;r,de an ay^ault upon ths'. body of plain i.iff in the County 
nforcanid, anoi then ;ind tiicrc inflicted upon tni: plain liff 
the h::r;Li.j uml injuries ::.otc p.:'.rticalarly deycriued in the 
ririit cuant of the pliuntiff ♦ s declaration, i^nd then and 
there other v;ronea to the plaintiff did with force and 
rtr.r.a," to his dar:ia£e» etc. 

The cause went to trial on tiie oocond cuunt of 
the u(:clfirf!.tion» a pico, of ihi: general ii..auc an.; three ad- 
iliuicaial pic;-. a, ''.hicii .'cre filed by leave of court cf tor tixo 
firiit triri.l» v/ith siiui liter to the plea of f;',cneral iasvie and 
p. re:-.lication to tho throe additiona.1 plena. 

\;;c h/tvo carefully ^orinned tiio^w ;-nd the 
cvivjencG in the record (the repetition of v;hich at tnia 
ti:.<e ■:ie. an not rci:ard a^ 3ervin{: nny tjood or u.,;'.ful puppoDe) 
tind f^dl to fina .'..ny err^.ra in the'ki*fi Ti<l±i-^i,-i eitiicr 
uyon the ple!Aaini,;;o or tnti Gvidc.nca. 

Al the tLiU; of ti.c cccurrencca i;;vc>lved' in tjiio 
liti:;rtion tUe defendant v/:;>.a eniiiOf.^ed in canuf r,cturinr: the 
co:;j,.oditif^u itz nniiic i/iplieo, vv-ith a fixctory at otev;rr.rt 
;" venue end Thirty-ninth street in tho City of Ci:icaco, 
.'nd -,;a3 inv-lved in \fut\t ho.ii been donoi.dn; t.':d a "iaJ^chin- 
iita' itrihc," in v/nicu aor;.c of the; jviP-chiniuts wcrKing for 
defendant tjcr's pc;.rticir,-anta, 

j\<j in the nataro-1 and hifitoric.-l ccurue of cvnts 
uau-!lly attendant upon strikes , the plant of dcfenaant v,ti3 

cor-ornticn h-^xx end kept in itti c;;.ploy:;:f;nt ccrtnin ■» Mcri 
■.no v/crc c;nc''n|.:c:d in the courco of dcfcndnnt'a Ijuiiinesia r.o 
Ducin nr-.nafacturihii:; and plaintiff avers tiu-.t pn to-vit the 
dry aforetiaid. the dcfcriunsil, by one of ito i>crvanto, 3o 
crii-fiiCd in the courae of the biivUncaa of dcfcfidr.nt una in 
ia<i coui'tiG of lii^- pro:.:OGutior. of txic objoctu :\nu purpoaoo 
of c.'iid corporn.tion, then un-d there •vilh force and arua 
-r,do an aaisault upon the body of plaini-iff in the County 
nforciijaid, ana then ;ind tucre inflicted u];on tne pla,i.'jiiff 
the hrir.'u.j an;; injuries ...ore p.;'.rtiCLiljirl5'- deiioribcd in the 
firsit cuunt of the pl^^incif f ♦ s declaration, ^-nd then and 
there other v/roncQ to the plaintiff did v/ith force and 
c"r.:.a," to hiii darija^c, cte. 

The eauoe '.jcnt to trial on liie oecond euunt of 
tl'ic- dcclcmtion, a i:i ea of lln: general i-v.;iuc en., •v.hrec od- 
(licional ploisa, \?hicii ivra filed by ler;.ve of court cXter tixe 
firut trirs.l, v/ith c^iiuilitor to tiie plea of f'.cneral iasuo and 
a re:-.lieation to the three additional pleaa, 

"i'c hrtve carefully iicnnned lue pler-.diw^w :--nd tiie 
cvix.-cnce in the record (the re^^ctition of which at tniii 
ti:..e VIE do not rej-ai-d au 3ervix3{: any {;ood or u..t;ful piippooe) 
.'jnd f't;,il to fina .'..ny err.^ra in tne Court 'a rulinj^si either 
upon the pleuttint'ja oi" tne evidt.r.ce.. 

Jit tii.e tiiix of Li.e ceeurrencea involved in tiiis 
liti::;-x,ion tiie defendant \/v>.\i en^rnccd in Kanufr.cturin.^: the 
co:..:..oditiea itz nosio i/swlics, v/ith a fevctory tj.t Lite'';>'r.rt 
;vc:2;ue end. Thirty-ninth street in the City ol', 
''iid -,/aa invi.lvcd in v;h.c;t haa been donas.dn: led a "iaftchin- 
:..ta' otrj-hc," in v/nicxi aor.-.c of the iT:achini:jts v/ori;ing for 
il c f c n d an t v; c r 's p ar t i c i ] .• a n t a , 

/'.ii in ■t^'C natural rml hiiitorie.-il course cf cv. :;t3 
u.~u-aiy r.ttendn.nt upon atrikea, the Mont of dcf enr.nnt v/ris 

'iC!^i:lo<l \>y union Kcn in mj atta'.ipt to y.rf.'Vci;t, by i'orcc or 
• (r.'i-f>» "iiooc v.". o 5?crc; i<illin^'i; lo work £ov ucftuiC.nrit fi^CLi 
-:n:: "3» "-'/iti; tlic intcr.lion of 3o cri;:;j i j.n^': tne uucir;c..a;i uf 
:^ffn .rrit f'-ii to cO:.:pci i i. to fiCccdo to Ix/C. trrLia de.'u.';nuecl 
:,• LhP uriion. It ia in cviac-iice "o.ti.'it aooiuslta v/tiru Ktnde 
, jn the v,'oi'i:;:.fn of ciefenUant, arid taai iu (.oin.(, to ;vn<i 
f;x.-. tl.cir eaiploy.'n%nt , ko'og of iitiu/.trii r.iiu oCi^cra .iould 
, "^-cc tiioir; that "/-'ti^h, the forc.>-u;, ;\>jd ;,.c;can, one 
cT tlu; ijuiKvrinteride'iitu, had been ..ii the j:i;u;it of eccv'rtinij 
:.:{•: of the i.'io-'i to tiitir h.'.;:..ioa, i^^d tiu.^t an tx^c- cYC'iing of 
u.c '-ay thnt //o.! oix aiiot tLn piitintiff, :. ci-caa iind Jaii-h 
p.'corted cert:-in of the i^cn cj^iidoyccd oy defoiiaiint fro:..i Ixic 
il'ifit to-rnrda ta-;jir hones, Thi:; little bonU of v.'criccrs, on 
•j.cir journey to.nrd t:icir ho.'';.cs., -ras f ol), o-.-ea Dy j.ic..;etii and 
. ..:• cliildi'un T'.rid :{tra{.\':lory » v.ixo (..•■ theu-cd by tx.c vray autil. 
'^.f.;, rcivched ?i y.ince abcut two dooii; nortii of 'ihi rty*t;i:vti;x 
:t.rcot on ■'i'nllr'.ce ^itrcet. 

■/xiilo thcri2 i'.tid been no actual f i-;;it .jij;. on the 
■'■■y u;- to t;hr\t ]:oirjt, thtrre cYiu<i:i!jtly vi-.u ;jui;.f- cOiiji«-icr.Ufio 
•-.•.'. otion, for it acc:aa tiia'., &ci.ic onf: thrcv/ a axio./baii v;-.,.ich 
.•.r.i?ci;cci ..aitsi-i's hat off, \,':xcrt;L-.i.ori -a-ilah fiouritihcd his re— 
v:!lvor, • i laiutilT tjxen cro-;:iea frci:.i th.o viezl xo \,i\c-. ;^aot 
iiiie of txio :;troet nxui li:i-cl ooj»c i;,(ord3 with ■.;;-.X;;h, f-rii.^ iu that 
^iitcrcraion i/alsih shot tiie jvlaintiff^ At thii, tiiue thoro 
-s no trcvjblo bct^^Gc;; the atrikcjra J^nd r/niuii or the mfiVi.^ 

i'X \.iiii 'cLuiQ of the shooting Valah vnvj> Xi\ clo::c 
.•- jXx. :ity tu Jii:'; o\m home, ..>ckindli;r , the pln.iri l.iff , -.jaa 
•'H a iKT;:iiinii3t, did x.ot --lork for df\f Cf:-d;uit , v-aa not ccnccrned 
♦' tnc otriice ar.d hnd lio u;.icn »if filiations, liy ocoiip^tion he 
' .■;^Jd worker and had bcon wcrkin/; for J';j.irdariks o- Cv3;;ip;'.ny, 
- ...N .-3 tnat plaintiff i-av; "vi'rai:!! r.^nd tho r;:cn Ov:.;:;int^ cut of 
-^•c fr'ctory tit;5t ovcnir)i> v.nd follov/cd thca tu th - :plr<,c:e v;hcre 

*>.-• '^ihooting occurred. T'ne altercation 'Di..tv7ecni ':,?il3h and 
•l:ii::tifi' "vao a pcryorial o/ie; ci-c^y indulj-r.d in c., it:;<;tu; 
.:lbh, OL ^1 :;.ir.t,iff cc-;t.i.fied, "yuncheti" x^i::. hrSovc alioot- 

At tj^o ti,'i.e of tLo chootinc V'lr'.intiff cut 
of v/crl: pnd had "bocii for ?ruoat tv.-o ^-'eekiv, lie h-'..<l no biioi- 
nc-c at or j^e-'r Lh« plrint of ci-aai-it, j\ccor;iini:;, to Lia 
o'.r. t: 'oti.!.-.ony, ho .' to dcf cr>a;.-.nt • 3 vrorka in i'.n ai;a- 
loi.^ f:!aiiion. lies teijtii'icd that he-: diu not icnov/ eiti^or }1g 
\,i--:i or iCiaii or any of tnc fucn th^t .vcrc .iLU-. ti:c:u <r;nd ohMt 
iic v^:^a not ir.ttreated iJ. tlit) vtri::<;? in ari,y way. ).cvcrti.ic- 
Itwj, he rc.rXlo?;ed along bcUinii tuaii, 

Tiiv; count undoi* v/i.ici: the Gr.u:;^ v;aJ3 tried 
avorrcti that at the ti.rac cf the; ai^otiult tlic :;.aiir,ult... nc 3ar~ 
v:'nt una {rri,:;c*r:cd iu the bu-arsosii cf defe?;dar!t iuui ivj the 
c;;-ari;c oi" tVic r-rooccution of tno cbj^cto nnd r.urpoacc of <le- 
fcnd.'mt's "buwinoca. i laintii'"!' ' s o»'n tcc.tii..oriy do; oiio traces 
beyond doubt or cavil t::;xt nciblicr '.'aluh nor re;. can or tije 
. f.n ..ith t-io;;:; at tiK, ticc v;ere cn,''<5(;,cd in the bu.^iriCGa jf 
tilt uefcjadp.nt at ti^e ti»?iG of tac aiicotin^;, Tiisy had Gil 
t;uit ^iiCir vv/or;; Tor tho day o.nd y.-c-Te, oa t^.cir v^a.y .i::::.i:e cad - 
h:'d ;.irrived :u";'.r the a.>£jO cf ;:al2ji ;vhc;i v;I:iiritirr jmlci-rcrc,:; 
with jr'.liih and t..c)oe v/itii hi.":;, cirid (jot iivco an nltoi'catian. 
vutu ''/aloii, ■j-.Gith&r tiiti def<i:':u:artt nor '.Valsii lior tac men 
■dth hiin }ittd :u>y duaineiiD -.vili.. jiai-fUfciff. The r;u;jai;.lt on 
i-iiM-iff '.v^uj liOt ;;;.ade in tiiiv coarse of the cuxployuaiu of 
-rdnh or in furtherance of dof eiidruvc 'c; buoirjc^o. Vhc fri-ico,a 
"id rtct arise ever* out of the otril.c. It vjaa purc2.y ?.;i.i'!.iOiKrl 
>-'■ the <;;\:.batn,nta. //alsh -n-c iicithnr dcferidin^ his e^>ploy&r 
i;or any one -Arith hioi at the time Jis shot plaintiff, iiio 


tr';ubl« w»):j oolcly bot'-'fjen p.lj'.inl.if f and .:oliiL, Tor v;.-.ich the 

uu-rv')ic>:.Afc/Waa in no ■■vay i"c-:ii;;onci.ioIf;. 'i'hf tx-ou\)lP v/,-(g of 

jiainti "i"' -i own acc';:xiv.';. lii? intrrfcred 'vit/i n, rruvt-tir v.';;xcii 

v;;jJ no'Dft of Yii.-i ajncom; ::.i:l v,'"iilc ve do not vripji to he undor- 

jtood »ii in. r.ny ;.;.Mnncr- jui:.tif.yiri(r Vr-.lyh'a cictiun, v/e C'.nnot 

czniiicnt ti.:;t dcfvjndn.nt shall be iield re;i,70n;iiblc for .'Alsh's 

lf.J.iccrctior. , ':ix:\[. occurred, "bdvjieen '.Jr^l uh n.nd plr^intiff hrid 

not cfci'. the .-i.ost ro.-^ote relation to tiic c;;:plcy;:ierit of ,.';.lcii 

or the buiiincoD of dcfcnJn.n&, 

It vrjuld rjec;:. to need no cit;ition of r.'.ut.iOriLy 

tc de.:.onotr.'xta U.:i in ti.caG circ^x.'.iatanceij io not 

iincwcrabl c to plaintiff in tiii:j c^ctiun, but rjcvertijclcaa v/q 

'All cite two. In C , ^ c-: .\ 1 ..J,. p..^_ Co. v, .r'l (::<;< an , 105 ill, 

t!/.6, the Court oay: 

'"J.ut. it, io ifda, 'Tiiat if the viriintiff vv'».a in- 
jured by a ocrvant of ;5ppellw.nt, it vvn.3 an act outiiidc of the 
c.i.plo.yi..cnt of the aervjint vvi.o 'ec.-i!.-4r.t«r'.'<i tJie r;.ct, iind, not in 
i"urlhc!ra;joe of hiu e-crplcy^enii by thr. fi.nater,' Yhia position 
i:; yroaic:.i.te<l ui^on iiC;. rnus v, Criokrrt, 1 I'lrji, 106, .'ind like 
caao3 v,'i.icii foliowr;d it, in the c.-jue cited. Lord }:cnyon 
c.-J.d: 'it io do^vn by holt, Ch, J,, at^i (i. gmornl pcai- 
Lion, tiiat no Tar.'.ot't.r ie ch",ri?;enulc witn t.!';'.i ncto cf hiy ser- 
vient, nut ;,'hcn he ixc'c:, in the <?:cocu lion of tho ; ut...o rity ,,ivcn 
iiiir., lio"-, v.'hon a servant quitu aif,ht of the object for .vhich 
ho is err.ployed, and v/it:iOut hnvin;:, in viev; i-ia Liiaater'a orders 
i'.ir3UC'3 tJ'.at v.'kich liin own «;.S'.lice 3Uf:/-.;Gs3ts, he no lonj^cr nets 
in i!ur»unnce of tiio aut.i.ority t"iven hir.: an;: accordinj". to the 
doctrine; of Lord ;,olt iiio i-viiter vi'ill not he i^ninr^rablc for 
svicit .'■.ct,'' The ui^oct-rine announced in no doubt correct <rhcY\ 
-"Pl'Hod to a proper cjjr>e, .if, for nxa.r):'le, a conuuotcr or 
iirakc. in in the e;.:ploy of a r.?J.lroad coiVipfiny;ould v/ilfuily 
or jr.r.liciouHiy a v. i.zv.r {-^vr - a" person to 'vhoa the 
rnilroj^d cor.pany cv;ed no oblig"!tion v;j:.^atf;ver - the :p.,"-uter in 
oUcL a vovd-l liot br xiaLjie for the act of the servr.nt,"- 

^•^^ 9* V.v. ..■'•>'.• y?.'- "^« L£ii!£» '^"^ ill. -yt'P. I'^i ouun- 

oel for Mppcllce i>ut tni:; .-.uciition in hio brief, •..■iiicii. the 

^-'ourt cOidra iiito the e.v.iiMon: 

**uocii tiif; <;jc;..:.on If-.w <;f IIJ inoia holu tbtit n. ser- 
vant doinr;, the i7.a ;i t cr ' r. wor'li ft one in,:t.:'.nt Zi^y be i::uilt:,' of 
■■'ii Met ox Qiuiuaion or c:v,i£r.:aii3ion v.'uioh v/ill render the ;;;;<;> tciT 
iicolc, and nold also at tho very irir;t;<iit, vviti....ut c Ik.? :-■■.; .ing 
-ii occu.p'jtion or hiti iiooiticn or .'.:.riyt};in,v;- cli:<:! f-er tannin,?;; to 
^•i:_, except t>ic 3i'..pie rr i:jin{:; of nia rj.UiO., ha i^:>.y inflict a 
<ifir'dly injury upon n tliird pcroon for -which thti jr.astcr in 
r.ot liable?" i.^nd the Court IrvCjonically rcj-liea, "wo t..inlc 

it does so iiold." 

. The r-roof faili.-iiT tc uu;-;:ort ^ j.ainiif f ' 3 plcud- 
,np, the ?:'Ctio.i oi' the tri:-.l JtuJc:g In ^'llovjinr:; the .■aouion of 
the deieriij/^nt to inafruct a vcrJicL m ito f-ivor iii ;vii;:-jut 
error, r:.nd trie jxAUi;:,cifnt of the ^jup-vrior Court i3 n.rr-t:;'aed, 


289 - idl376 

in re. Kstate of JAUm FOJTKR, 

un Appc'Rl of SAl-ThH yOdliih. 
et itl,, i'ixecatoro, etc,,* 

Appeilanta, /) 


'H, H. h'-J-i'KlKa, \ / } 

Appellee. / ) 




197 I.A. 374 


Thia action waa tried in the Circuit Court on an 
appeal frotu the allowance of a cl i^i in tnu , rebate Court 
ftgainat ttic Katatc of Jftiaes Foster, deceased. The circuit 
Court at thf Cijncluaion of all Ihe evij^ence io^jtruoted the 
jury to find a verdict ogainst the defcnaant testate* debt 
i^^,vL,ij, iMni to aa&eea damages at $964,5C, and the executors 
prosecute tnifi appeal. 

The action waa upon four bonua , iven in the .■ uiii- 
oipHl Court to p<;rfect sixitu of error from tnio Court to that. 
The four bonds were each taade by i/, G, Lcvandowoki aa princi- 
pal and James Fouter as surety, and ran to the plaintiff as 
obligee. Two of the bonds were for ,i;i,vCO eacu, one for ^50C 
and one for #3ou. the aeount of the jud^^ment io for rent of 
premises, 4546 Cottage (.rove avenue, Chicago, and cootu of 
suit, for which the bonds in suit were given aa security. 

It i3 first objected that all four bonds cannot 
be included in one action. Lowever, defen.iar;ta have failed to 
cite rmy authority oupporting auc'u contention and we are un- 
able to fintS nny. ».n tne contrary, in Jaitt.y on il., vol. i, 
p. lu^, the rult: control! infc m ati^tea thus: 

"In actions in form £x c.'ntractu , the plaintiff 
...ay join as many different counts aa ue iia;s cauaeo of action 
of thf/ same nature in asaatipiBit; bo also in covenant, debt, jhc- 
oount, annuity, or acire f iicxas . Jo dcDt on bond or Hijeoiii-ity 
Uifty be joineu in the sfi^^r , ct'ibn alth debt on judgment, or on 
aifliple contract." 

drCXSi - Ql 

u to 9imSaJi .SI n 
>UTiiOH gilTOAW lO Xinq 

.BKlH'iOH .H . 

.A.I Tex 

V .■, «'.ivtvi 

•di DsJuwiiool •onsj^iv 19 nolmiionoo 9tU J<i Jtuo 

.j«ud oi ^^xuo'J aluj ffloil lotl* 1(. -roolTctq oJ iiuoQ Inns 

"ioaitq, B/» i^8«obiiJivi».I .0 .W x*^ diiiiii aci al^inocf luol a^^ 

«A lliJnixiXq oiU oi nu-i bnm ,^i^»Tuo sju i.9j^Q% aoaual Jbrui Xji 

lo ^n»i "iol 81 ^I'jsjmbi.'t . jC^ TO I ^ao Ic 

> nM 

-tn C. W, D. Ky. Co . v. In^rabH/a , 151 HI. 6by, 

the rule i)i tLus stated: 

*?he general rulo of tiue coMi&on law is, that 
where several causes of action of the amav. nataro, - that i3, 
which require at thft coiiauon law the same Jud(jaent and are re- 
coverable in the «am<{ fonr. of action, ~ exist brtween the saac 
parties, in the aame ri^jiit, tney uB.y all be Joinecl by several 
counto, in one dcclarfition. (Gould's .;!,, cziap. 4, aeco, 7y, 
85, 105; Ghitty*8 il, ^i'^ib,) And tiiiii \?ould be so, notwith- 
atanaing they uiii^ht be ao far several and lUsttnct ri^inta 
of Motion tiuit a judtsjtjiont for onn woula be no bar to a re- 
covery for the other.* 

As no fonaal pleadings are required in the ) ro» 
bate Court, plaintiff wna free, regardleas of the rules of 
the cofluson law, to eoibody all hia cl ima ajiralnBt the deceased 
in one olaisri, ind on rxppeal the case was tried de no|V O untter 
the pleadings fourKS in the record of the i rebate Court, 

An er,»mination of the record diacloses suffi- 
cient unchallenged evidence to austnin the judj'jacnt -.sithout 
the neceaaity of considering the teatxffiony objtcucd tu aa 
hearsay, '''he record aaiply proved the several breaclriea of the 
bonds in suit entitling plaintiff to recover the aj^iount for 
which jud|^:;tnent waa given. 

The contenLion that tiie judi,;merittt recited in the 
bonds did not exist at the time tiie uonda were jiiveii, fi.nd8 
no support in the record. 
, It ia altfo contended Umt I'alter Footer, one of 

rA/ the executors of Jatar^B Foster, deceased, who teotifiod for 

I plaintiff, was disqualified. The teati:aony of Ihia witness 
H is not abatracted; therefore we arfc not bouna tu consider it. 
althouKh, contrarv to Vac rule, we have {.;one tu the record 
I and cxaiiiined it, liio teatifony waa rendtjred competent by 
^1 ;iec, ^, Cnap. 51 R, b. lie teatified to facta occurring sub- 
sequent to the death of hia teatator. 

The objection next aiade ia ti>ai, the court erred 
V,. I in refuainfc to rtceive in evidence certain recorua of tue mu- 
nicipal Court, ciaa-saan v. Behr . 181 111, App, ii5ii, ^.cttles 


Mil.; :(•■ i : :> :■ A J-. r 

r » .„ ^ 1 



the point adveraely to defendanta' contention; it holds taat 
the doctrine of estoppel preTentw tne ourety froci denying the 
Judgfflttnta recited in th# bonds, that the signature is "xi aoleaan 
admission that there was auch a judfe:ment," and tnpt the surety 
was estopped froia Rfterwards denying miH.i tue bond ftuaerted to 
1»e true. 

And finally, it is contended Umt the Court «»s 
in error in instructing the jury as t.; the form tmd amount of 
1 its verdict. When the records of the Municipal court offered 
by defendants were excluded, there was no counterrailing proof 
in the case. In other words, in this condition of the record 
defendants were without a defen^^e, and as Xnia court aald in 
E d. e yi t. .Drey ^, 7u ill, App, lOii, "if there wB,a no defenae the 
trial Court was warranted An mstructinif.: the jury to find for 
the plaintiff .»• 

Ko reversible error appearint; in thia record, tne 
Judj-nient of the Circuit Court ia affirujed, 


V i CVii J ■> ^ >*«' *# ** A vj-^i 


..^ ( 



400 - 21387 



Appellee, ) / 

va . 

) / AiiTAL mm CIRCUIT C(;UKT. 


Lion & HKALY, i^Cv^r- Y 

App'«Uant. /) 19 ^ i.A. O 4 O 

t.R. JU^JTICK ii^LDCHa DELlVEliKD TKE Ci>l>;IOJ? 0? TiiE C()l)J;t, 

Tlic tail! in thi»i cnoe was filed by complainant, 
0«or(!;e C, T/iBMaons, an arc:iitect, to enforce a H»echnriic*a 
lie»i for arcnitoct's feoa claiwed to "b* uup t'ruiii the Ue- 
fendRtt^, i-von ., Healy, for treparlnBt »akirjg and drawing 
certain plana or preli/iiin»«jry aketoheo for n factory building 
wiicii ooid Lyon & Henly contessipj fsted erwcting upon tot 4 in 
Jiuana W, Kedenberg*s ^ubdiviaion, etc., in Chicago, 

The oaua«t on bill, anawer and replication ^vas 
referred to a icaater, wixoae finding and report were in favor 
of cosaplainant and reooiaiuended a decree r.-LVing ixia. a jien 
upon aald i.ot 4 for the atuz of $ii»000, Uie. rvraount due; iilm 
for architect's fees. Jbjectiona to Utc report were over- 
ruled and ti.ey were by leave of court filed aa oxceptiona 
befort' the ChHncellor who, upon hearing, overruled the ex- 
oeptiona, confir«:©d the ainatwr'e report and entered a decree 
granting a lien to con>plainant for tzje aijuount reconia.ended by 
the izi?iater, ana defendant appeals. 

I The preliminary controveray be^tween the parties 

ia the claixii of oosnplainunt that defendant hired iiUu to 
oiake the plana and eketohea, .mile defendant inisitfta that 
there ivas no hiring and t2iat the plana and uketchea were 
furniahed in an effort on tiic part of ccaiplaxnant to pro- 
cure their ncccptance by defendant «nd hio eni^^af^ewent aa 
architect to erect the factory building conte<^piated by 
the plana. 

a . 


There was aiuch contradiction betw«>cn the wit-. 
neosea. The kasLer saw the ffitneesos and observed their man- 
ner and de.;>eanor upon the witneao atand, their fairneae or 
pr«judic«, or iuciv of it. If ouch appeared, and thcrefroro 
was able to detsrfuinc the credibility and woigiit to be ac- 
corded the fl-vidnnce of Uio several witne^iHes, The (iaater 
J-md rrivilpgee of observation denied us, nnd we isust accord 
his findinga of fact the 9.'u»<= weight snid consideration ati 
«e -jfoula tiie verdict ol a jury in a ^uit »t law. However, 
we have gone over all the testiiiiony in the record and are 
of the opinion th»t ooiiiplainant oiade out uiu case as atnted 
in Lla bill, txnd thvt the variance claixiied by aefenuant be- 
tween the uver.^cnte of coujplainant • 8 bill una nia proof 
do CO not nxiat. 

ve do not believe froiu tiic whole testiniony that 
complainant drew the sketches and plans aubisitted on a chance 
that if tiiey prpved acceptable to defendant he woula be e«j- 
ployed aa the architect for defendant's conteicpl fitted building. 
It was not « cnae of cuaipetitive j-lans, for to the time of .he 
diaagreeuicnt between Ur. Gratty and J;r. Kiimtons the record 
does not ohow thai any other architect ,ma contemplated or 
tiiat nny architect other than complainant furnished any draw- 
ings or was requpsted to do so, we think tiic record anows 
that thF. contention of aefenuant in t(*iy regard ia inconaia- 
tent with itd own proof ana irreconcilable -.iith the actions 
1 of itr> ovr-n officers having the jiiatter in oharge, 

jBir. Cratty, an officer of tht corporation and 
it3 li-sal ccuiiGel (unhapjiily since deceaiscd), wlio was a law- 
yer c'f niature ex3;erlence and of tioou reputation, gave no in- 
tiaiation by hi a ?iord» tnat he regarded the v/ork of coaiplain- 
ant as gratuitous or ao bping done upon a chance of nia plana, 

etc., being finally accepted by hia company. The teatiioony 
established as a fact that the final diamiuaal of co/aplainnnt 

MA AOl. 

-'.J 9b O- 

KiS no i 

•l£lI.'J.^.> io 

was not brought about becaxAse his plana wisr© unaatiafactory, 
but in a dispute between Cratty and i^icaaiona regarding a 
contractor named 1 eonard, who and orifUnaily brou{^,ht 

KiwTion?. tc the notice of Uefond-^nt. Ir. avrof? '«rny , r, ;ro.t- 
ty'o suspicion an well aa hl3 ire seeras to iiave been aroused 
in regard to a ouiigestion iaad« by Nifaisions tuat Leonard 
should be the contractor, aaa it was in auu.. diapute that 
jNiBuj:on3 .Tfua finally vji.aii;i»dea oy r. Cratty. 

it w&a liOt dei/ird thwt Cratty at Uii.: tithe said, 
•if you tiiink you ou^ht to be j.aid for aervicea rendered, we 
will j;*.;, u;c sa^te," XLiii vi&» undoubtedly Cr».tty'o - the 
I&wyer'i* -■ eetixuate oi the le^;al reayonoibiiity of nia 
clicint. the defena&nt; at Itaot sucm is inferable froia the 
lanfr:ua(,r i.e uucd. V'ith tiiito cpii'iion cf kr, Cratty, if auofa 
w&s tiie or.iruon, v/e ure iri accord. 

Defendant contend* that cucipli^inant ♦© failure 
to immediately •Hccept kr, Cratty' a offer of payiiient pre- 
cludes his now availing of that offer. "tie teatx&ony deiaon- 
utrateB tnat Niit.tnona was much upaet at the sudden t<rr:^iination 
of hia employnient, that he .vns fvnxiouo to continue in the 
«!Biploy!iient of defendant and be ito architect in the erection 
of its building, and with that end in view dedired, aa he 
augfested to tr. Urati,y, to aee ir. Larquette h«nly, an of- 
ficer of the defendant company, witii v^ioia he was apx'arently 
upon friendly tei'iaa, xne fact Ui&t ar, healy vjould not Join 
iaauc »/itij i.r, Cratty -a cuncluuion in no v/ay aej rived com- 
plainant of xiid right to receive psyxsent for services which 
he jkiad already rendered. 

It is argued that co.uplainant is not entitled 
to a lien for tuc services of preparint; auch plana, etc., 
because the b.-iioin^ conteiniplated by the j lanu #ao not ac- 
tually erected on the land sought to be charged witn the 

'£!>?»* ftOiiioas'- .:>t«3«-t tit 




lien, Tho evidence b/iowb not oiily tr.Ri the ;jlana were pre- 
pared for a building to "be erected for defeiiclaxat upon tiie 
land iioaj^ht to ba ohargod with the lien, bat t-f*at « Uiuiia- 
li^t> -i" fj^iCt v»as ^3l"^eirj»Ja^d3 fcreci-od therton w>f wutr acuiic t>cii- 
eral chrraotor as the one contemplated by th«* j X^ns prepared 
by compluinant. The Mechanic* 8 Lien >kCt ia auff iciiiitiy 
broftd, in our opinion, to iriciude cor.piainmjw'o claioi for 
a lien, nutwiti.'ttluji.iinj, the fact taat he Uxa not auperintend 
the construction, xf plana h»d been furniaiied witiaout rela- 
tion to any pHrticular plot of JanU, th«rR tuifu.'i be aoxae 
me.rit in the contention; but uere tne Innd utas aeaxf;;r.n.ted 
anU Ut-e-. pl^fja were prejifircd for r* ouiJdanf, to bi; erected on 

j thftt land. The f <t.c t, Uinl Hi'turwardu the ov^fier of the land 


I coucladed not to conatruct \.he building, difj riot operate to 

j de/Tive thp architect of thp lien ffiven to uisi by the atatute. 

In this refrnrd t'le '.ct of 19;-3 ia tht^ Biunc ms that of lb96, 

"bicf> ia conetru^d in V"re<»:;an v. :in.'.<ker, 185 ill, 176, in 

which the Court say: 

••It vrn.a evidently t>ie intention of the ^.egiala- 
ture, by tiie Act of 1895, to ^ivo to architects a lif<"n for 
their servioea for draxvinfr pi^J^ny ' r^-i stecii icra.tions for a 
building;, aa well as for their aorvicea in aaperintenainK 
the liatat', '^'r^n- words in .section 1, 'perfiTRied Bervicea aa 
an architect for any aiicii purpoae,' refer b?*ck to Uie pre- 
vious worda, «for the purpose of, or in buiiding any 
house.' in otner words, the lien i» iiven for utrrvicea aa 
architect, not only in building any houise, bat fur the pur- 

jpose of building!; aiiy house, v/hen an arciiii-ect drav/s plana 
and «pecif icatiouB for a builuinK* even thougn he doea not 

I auperintcndend ilij cori4'tiuction, he psrforma scrviccii for 

'' the pur;>oa<! of uuiiuAnt; it," 

„nile the lien in the i^maker case was aenied, 
it was j;laced axiojiether on otner grounds thiui tiiat the 
buildin^i; covered by the plans was not conatructed, ^c do 
not think tuat tue lien of the arcxiiteot for plans av;tually 
<^ ! drawn io dependent upon the owner of the Innd erecting a 
building tnereon as contemplated by ouch plans, 

Comjplaint is made concerning the amount awarded 

tftia »r lilt 




a 111 ilu</ 

complainant, on the (i^round that the first liill which he rtn* 

dercd was for f'.ieoo.* Th« evidence shows that the |1600 toill 
was a coriipro«ni8« arid dep<!-nde<i for ittj binding foroft upon 
its nccoptanc©, ?.ndl, not h.'ivtng been accepted, compialnant 
waa not bound by it. Tae contract haviag been end<»d by 

defcnaant before coi»pl».itiori, corapiainant .sfaa eii titled to 
recover urider tixe. proofo the ivsouKt w.-ic the Jtife8i>fcr 

There ia no reverBible error in this record, 
find the decree of the Circuit Court i^ therefore affirmed. 


237 - 21218 


Defendant in ;rror, 



Plaintiffs in h^ror, 


) mifm TO \ 


97 I.A. 394 




On October 24, 1914, John Cichon, a licensed real 
estate broker, conunenceci a fourth clasa acti Tn in the jjunicipal 
Court of Chioaf';o, to recover conrniiaaions alleged to hare been 
earn«d by him in bringing about a sale of certain property 
situated in the city of Chiengo and owned by defendants. 
Plaintiff Aup4h«T alleged in his Btatement of claim in substance 
that the defendant Franz Gartner employed p-latotlf^f^ to procure 
a purchaser for the property and aj;reed to pay p lwi n t 'tf^ the 
usual broker's oonunission; that plaintiff afterwards procured 
Pietro iiarcinkiewicz as a purchaser, f-e r ^h e- p-j^e^^rty", and on 
iiepte.'tber 16, 1914, the sale war. consurmwited at the price of 
$2,525 by the delivery by defendants of a warranty deed to the 
property to said Marcinkiewlcz; and that there waa due plaintiff 
the sum of $126.25, being 5^ commiaaion on said purchsne price. 
Both defendants entered their appearance and Franz Gartner, in 
behalf of himself and his co-defendant, filed an affidavit of 
merits in which he alleged in substance neither of the 
defendants at any time employed plaintiff or requested him to 
procure a purchaser for said property and that plaintiff never 
rendered any aerviccs whatever in the consummation Of caid sale 
and never had any dealings of any nature with defendants. The 
case waa triei without a Jury, resultinf^ in the court finding 
the issues against the defendants and assessing plaintiff's 

8XSIS' - V5S 

, . HOt 


^iv*"/...-; ic. •):■.; :Ci.c.^^ ■\al7inlt(S nl mid x€ faiM^ 

, .^rtl,■i; >'^ttri"i^: iirui lA.'iJit :ii^vtiSi5 ilari;^ ^t11oJ■^» QiitBbn^'Ysb ifioH 

'■" , • rw*"**!)-©!! alri has IXftaml:.' ". "rvriscT 

:;nr.,^fe<fiiri ni b©a©I-' 'ohf: nx ;. jiism 

'iT.'t,"f:-i .*0iT1»8 XnJB hfllSh«!91 


damages at the aum of $120, upon which finding Judgment 
against the defendants was entered. 

It is first contended by counsel for the defendants 
that plaintiff did not show by a preponderance of the evidence 
that he was ever employed "by either of the defendants to 
procure a pxirchaser for the pro erty. 'l-iile the testimony on 
this point is conflicting we cannot say that the finding is 
against the weight of the evidence.ylrrlaintiff *s testimony was 
-te-'-thTrnWTKrrt that in June, 1914, her-4»--e<«ip«ny'VttlT:rTe 

^i4, ner->^ JHft—e om|j m!iy w ivrywoaAPg /. * 

Uytlianiilrt-, called upon Franz Oartneit and fisked nil if the 
property was for sale^ -tlt«r*.^Gartner replied that defendants 
woiild sell the pjoo e gty for .$2,700, or tHic«A f or ^a* less 4MMi for 
cash; aiMhHdtitt- "Partner also said th.'.t if plaintiff ■<n)uld~ 
procure^a purchaser at a satisfactory price he would pay 
plaintif f a commission, 4j%~*hfe-f^'<>'ve'».p<Mrt4'Cftti«^Ni plain tiff^ wa» 
corroborated "by %jttr V&^Tti m m T'-vtrttmr vrilnBm i Rytlanski. Tirana 
/Kartner denied having ii^wy jnu eh^conversation w i th . p^ Lai inV i f ^, and 
Ilarie Partner's teHtija<a&ff wn i Jr\ tJam «f.&»»t that she never saw 

,xMiib^Mi\\\ ..t.q. 

plaintiff. Plaintiff further teBirifd-ed--ttT?Tt"tre"hTrd bveTr"-ir]^^ 
real estate business for about three years ajud- Wlis familiar 
with the usual comftsissions .ali'^wed brokers for procuring a 
sale of residential or onerty according to tht; ratew of t,h<; real 
■etrC^fe~Boara™;*'"imi'--ttm:t for a sale of such property at the price 
for which' thne--gg1:jr'1Eir''ia i ir9 ti w i w a g- cm i am mffa'ted- the commissions 
were 5 ,^ . ^ i.. B,4i ' A ' tJ v * c e . Dho 4 ootiiHonj > tff Joseph Olsowski wwa 

-t o tl T e e ff ec t" that he was an employe of plaintiffs thot h e. was 

directed b y p laint if ' f to find a purchaser for defendants' 

property; that he submitted the property .to l^arcinkiewicz; 

that on sieptember 0, 191-1, he, Ux eewp^'my ' " w i Wi Warcinkiewicz, 

called on Franz Gartner and informed him that he wao an 

employe of plaintiff; and that wr^nTn:'\Y&X€'''lW'-^im-:V^twt^*^-^*^ 

the contract for tJxe purchase of a;iid projiarty waff signed by 

Marcinkiewicz and Franz Gartner;,, Marcinkiewicz testified -i*- 



:'v T-,. .};.), 

i\..- ./...^ -.■....- •., airf* 



tr^ % f^ ru4 (^rto 

■^wbatana^t that 01b owski. called hie attention to the property 

V) r i n fj "^1^ 1 — It nrtrtt ; thj^t ©n •-•ept ember 6, 1914, he and Oleowski 

called on defendants and tJwt^^iMi»»-<^ r*8ul^'^;«f- »«g«^±at'tTWi8 

then hiflnhi: :<igned a contract for the purchase of the 

property at th<» n.ijreed price of ^2,525, and that eubaequently 

he Bsceived a deed to the pro>)erty from defendants. 

f^ifur I- t - mt k o d i olwi e d - Mn the cross-examination of >.^^^/ 

..jEjJLatB'tji^f-***^3if*»«*»»»» OlBOwski and Maroinkiewicz^ that afte r 
9 Aij '^ 

thel d g »l had bo e w c o tt e ungBw D-ed AlUiroinkiewiCB, at Olsowski'e 

use.* /^ 

request, paid Olsowaki the aum of ^10 "for finding the ho 
Mar^ciatk-i^w-ie*" tea^^i^dr""- '•tre" ^iftft I ad met o ' pay h im- ,iita&i#«r 
finding that place. I told him I.,.itm»ldn*t pay that, because 
I did not agree to pay cbmmisBion. I then paid him f-lO, 
He got 410 of me because I ain't got to pay corar'ission to buy 

-irfeouBe," It ia n a condiiyr.^ con tended by counsel for defendants 
that, even if pla,,intiff wao eniployed by defendants ar^ their 
broker to bring about a eale of the prouerty, plaintiff cannot 
recover commissionB of defendants becauae it appears from the 
above teotiraony that plaintiff wan also acting as a broker for 
KSarcinkiewicz, nd, it not appearing that the defendants knew 
of that fact, plaintiff waa guilty of unfair dealing towards 
defendants. "'e ^annot aj-ree with ^he c on t en t i on .^43M*BSBtedi 
^^Tfi n*^"^ ^Ijirl^*^^, that there was any a^^reement, between 
plaintiff and Varcinkiewicz that in tlie evL»t ^ plain tiff should 
find a aatiofaotory houje for tfaroinkiewicz tho latter would 
pay t o- %ha f op t ne y a coranii8»ion.~l T*»«-^tiS'trfei'inon^y--«f-4««^ 

-la^Q the contjcagy. And we do not think it follows thit, 
because i*arcinkiewicz aaw fit after thr; deal was consummated 
to pay Clsowski the sum of ;^10, and seemingly without plaintiff's 
knowledge or directicn, plaintiff wac guilty of such unfair 
dealing with defendants during the negotiations wiiich remilted 


13 - 20425 


. Def canciont in .mirror. 


) mwoH TO 




Plaintiff in iifror, ) 

\/ 197 1.A. 396 


Pellum, plaintiff below, was a junk peddler and 
dealer and occupied a barn on the rear of certain premises 
in Chicago where he kept his horse, wagon and Junk. The 
premises belonged to an estate of v/hich ifoaA^aa agent. 
Through him a cottage on the front of the preraiees whs 
leased to defen^JUit liawkiAs, who without title or authority 
rented the bam to plaintiff. Pursuant to a notice from 
the city health department defendant Mead, acting under the 
directions of the owners, hired one Grasis to tear dovm the 
bam. Thereupon Pellun brought suit againai Hawkins and 
Mead, claimin;^ that without notice from either of them to 
him, i;ead tore down the barn and his chattels therein were 
destroyed and removed throi^h the negligence of defendanta in 
consequence of wliich he suffered damages. 

iiawkins was defaulted for want of an affidavit of 
merits; but she testified that she had no notice or knowledge 
that the barn waa to be torn down. There was nothing in the 
proof or circumstances that tended to raise any special duty 
on her part to protect plaintiff's property or to establish 
liability against her. 

Kead testified that he had no knowledge of 
plaintiff's occupancy of the barn, and, in the absence of 
proof of any privity of contract or relationship between him 


t, V 


i. niial&l- 

; rhij^A-reiT mulled. rr>ijv^iQtCt .ontad 
•nJ^woo let xSlvitq y,a^ "io looiq 


and plaintiff, there wa£5 no thin,; to show thnt he owed 
plaintifi' any oth' r iuty ttian the exercise of reaaonahle 
care to protect his chattels from loan or damage until 
plaintiff had a reasonable opportunity to remove them 
from the premioiea. But the record contains no p'oof of 
what became of the goode, 'hile plaintiff proved they 
were in the barn when he left in the morning he did not 
prove they were not on the premises lii^aen he returned 
and foLwd ttie "bam torn down. But if it can be aaid thn.t 
the evidence tends to establish negliRonce in the failure 
of liead to exercise reasonable care of the goods until 
plaintiff had a reasonable opportunity to remove thorn, 
yet the court erroneously rejected Mead's offer to prove 
the averment in his tiffidavit of merits that no goods 
found in the barn or on tiie premises wore taken away or 
destroyed as chkrged in plaintiff's statement of claim. 
The judgment, therefore, will have to be reversed and the 
cause remanded not only because the r^ cord fails to 
disclose joint liability but becjuiue of the rejection of 
coa^etent evidence for the defon^^e. 



flffit/f.t SVfc 



.^at^i M 

o.t All 

, 9£llOO«tf ^«riV 

ixmimeiq er'-i no ^00 »i©tf x^^ ©TOiq 

.Uv<^iiX':1tj$ aid ni Svt»jR o'nstoi^sTa •^ 
' Xarat<^ e>nj «o -30 >;«*:<»£[ ©rU- ni bnuo% 

30 • ^0629 

AMAliD^l G;':RLC)CIL, 

\^ i lain tiff in Erj^op, 


JOHN V, coKnot» 

©•Cendant In Trror. 



197 I.A. 398 

Thl3 «raa an motion of -^saujupsit on s breach of 
protoise of mnrrlRgre. The court took thf caee from th«j: jury 
and iirenXed a verdict for oe^endant oguinat plaintiff a 
objection and ri^fused to grant a new trial, 

fbi« evifJcnce tended to :iho;v thft after a break 
in the prf-vious r^l'itions of the parties that led to a 
financial art^^lemont , he resUised hla attentions to her und 
told her th-H th^y would ajarry, that «h'. ayawnted; tnrit at 
hie request atie procured a divarce from her husband from 
whom 3iie hr-d not heard for over fifteen years; thai after 
thfi tUvccff at V .< t^ r*>quesjt and u^>on repetition of tA& .-;uate-> 
■ant th«t they were to marry, ahe sold hf r houic; that ho 
said in thP preaerc© of others that tnoy were to Biarry, riind 
'fter calling on bf?r frequently fo^^ two years told her he 
had changed hie anind about xfiarrying iiex, 

r/kiile there were fet^tureo of the case that af- 
fected the valur of plaintiff' a OTidencei, yet its -.miiuxl was 
not for th«? court but the ^iury, and as it was reasonably 
capable of construction favorablt? to her contKntion tiiiU 
there was a i>rojniue of !JiarrlaF« and a breach tnert-of, the 
court snould iiaYe subaiittcd tne case tc tne jury. ( «/oll' C o . 
■^^ Monarch Hef . Co.. Zb^ ill. 491» 5olj, The juUfcinent will 
reversed and u.e cau»e reruanded. 


8 Go 

t>;^,- ,if: 


tsdo^ - 

«>v)cxi":\o AaaAJiA 

51 «rnj»i>nr'>r 


■ irf , iO •; i> ;J J i ■•jv/ V, ,V 



51 - Zijbbb 

^. li. l^RilUv ana ICliAXZ ilLAT, / } 

▼»• \ / ) 

Uer^ncLants in m:voT , ) 

s^ / 197 I, A. 3 99 

MP., JtJ3TIC2 aARlSS3'1!3lLXV:-;ru^D IW- OPINION 0'^' THT^ GOUI'T, 

llaintiffs brou^lit a euit a^^aiimt def evidfi.'ita 

fet ti.oir requfst. i laintAff 8 veare ocj?umift6j.oKi it^ rc'-.'-jita and 
FinktOatf'irj vrr..» •■ dfttU^r .Ui poultry. i:o»iientt*ai we.* :?ifxkel- 
jtfjin'a yeui cjuvctu Ujiuut »vuu nccoiaaiodat««a hie^ nl LiUiea by 
t^AViiits iiifii ciiccka i'or caoii, '..^.e t;^^^ 'J'^ «u«.u f'^i.- .^eru tulcl 
tUiU Uciivijrcu to J iiikel3lein tuLueei. Jt.ceii'oei- ii and 14. ItX'^, 
; luinxif t8 iiac preYicusly aolo. tuia dtiiver€?u %'j .t»iiii ali'ilftT 
tiOcdo au.u rteciYct; pit^iicn't ».• i.i:i'!i-«ro>- in Uv« Xqi. ot airnGk.* 
*ii;ii«»(;i. by rvcusenthi'i J . I'*, »'i;-.a ri?- jjiuuti by pJ u^in tJi'.fi> ■Uie-t be- 
fore tlie s.'tl .} i^TRi viel l^v'ter^ of uaia g^>c.u» ;:030uviitil i»i«*J 
,rof,itf'£;d to i>4:».y for thoifc ov«* liie tPli:piion«, i'.osenUial 
<ierji<*c vnat It© ii.*a raiiui« fti.y jtuc^h prrisiie, o v- tha^ ins «>v«r 
t?3iteu ^'itiv tilt- telephone to oi- r.uw vvlaintif f« until «.ftsr 
Ut€ li'sntMictionB sued en 'ssrc Jii-.d, 'siicn iie enaeavarea to 
offf.-ct f! »<?tt lenient, 'a-f cnld that irfc?!: /-.f; p'jvo th« ci^eckt 
ir cueuticn it vt-u for cussli giiven jaini by i-,i.ri'.'el»t«?l?5 to the 
tifi.ount of rlftintlff 3» till», i.e wns oorrc bori»kt©d by fitiJcel- 
utrin.y Vnc only c.ueution ct i-isue "i^-aa sihetAior j^onKnttisl ari ori,- Iriml r.roi.i:* to ^■r:y foL' tJris i^ooctt. H*? c-uurt 
h^J-rd £ir;d s&w silJ ti.e vitr.«.8a«8 r;r.:: «r: ? brtt«r abl ? tc uo« 
tertsine the f'cta tvoiu tne convr»ftict.t.'ry i,ftMti lorjy u.usiU we 
are, ac carmot say tJriat itu fifiding was iuanit'eatiy "K&inat 
tiie weigiit of the eviie'^ce, and as tiint ie the only question 


t «. I 

pr«e<?rit,»^f; vi* i.iu«* lecox'A for cut ccniiiUf^ration, \.ha Judi-aient 



85 - 2105ft 

Defendant in Krror, / 

j tiRROR TO 

▼ a. /) MUNICIPAL Cn'.n^T 

\ / ) OF CHICAGO. 

ALCA^AH AMUoi^aihJNT CO., \ 

Plain ttff in rror. / ) ^ , > ^ ^ 

/ 19"^ I.A. 4L11 

MR. jTjsTic? s/vwK'i mi,i-/mxf.r) thk mnwiw of" th^, couht. 

Hoey brought auit against the Aluazur /uaubttnient 
Company to recov«r money under a «n*itten contract lor a 
theatrical performance given July 6, 1914, and uaaugus for 
failure of defendant to pormit iUm to perform foi- the 
following six days of the weeic, 

^■^ The contract ■bepitts ^vith a r*^cital that it *» A-^--t>-'*^ 

an agreement between said company and "in ('Id ilew Yoi k 
(Geo, Hoey, Mfjr,),* to be designated thereat" cer in the 
contract as mRnager and .irtist respectively. By its tR rms 
the manager en^ageA the artiat "in hia specialty or act" 
for a period of one week comrrencin;i July 6th, at the price 
nf ii:».5ri. 

P l»iniif] f^ lH gg^ ' 01 % urgep^ it was not a contract 

between the parties b^caune ffoey ^ no referred to ;.3 a 

p^^ty in +)te body thereof. The contract was signed by each 

of the pactifi"- ind the evidence tendii^ to show that the 

terra "In Old New York, Geo, Hoey, Wgr." was a name used by 

Hoey to designate his comofmy of ■ erf orraors composed of 

-'^••-/^ - .^ ^-- .^t 
himaelf and his employees, and thot p,1 aiji t i^£--4n. MvtHpeg knew 

it was dealing with Hoey personally and no one else. ^h-*r^ 

was a manifest meeting of minds. 

Plaintiff in error calls attention tt? a ilecislon 

of thi» court filed October 8, lOl-^i, in Alcazar AMuae»ent 

rieois: - aa 

i.-'(.r •-<■,£»'„ 


. V V 

.:; ;'::;ii oil.' / • njc« ;^^aJ. 

■.■■': ■■■■■' ■ -irn oifT 

• U" ;-ai--. \;:i 'c-c-^ j:5.i^j« rs<ivt^9rf in«..''.aarj:?i« n.^j 


-•ii- > It f. (,v:.' vtw iinti «;wa^j:. i.'nj "Vp 

yri .be«i; v.,i.;ii . m;.) . , v:.«>oH .o*'" ^^;-.-" - " klf^ nl* nis^ 

■jtc ^ -' -^ T vin,iiQro-> ..L.J !>.) uii^iaol) c* X'^oH 



Compjiny v. pereira, holding that because Pcreira was not 
named as a cont.raeting party in th« body of the instrument 
■ued on it did not appear to be a contr.ict between the 
parties to tho auit. But that was on demurrer. Hero thr 
aolni drtea not ^rise on demurrer or motion to Btrike but 
on the evidence, defendant having raised the i:isue as one 
of fact, and the evidence sustains plaintiff's aide of it, 
I-V-t»-?ribtio- uyg « d -ftfr error—fe^^tO. phe court refused 

I to permit doffjnd'int to orove 'wl-iether or not one Js-coba 
eamloyed by the booltin.«; R^ency that net^^otim ■sd the contract 
betvte^m Hosy and a;iiri cornp^iny reported tn th« Ir^tter -•% 
1 conv«Traat ion }ie had wlt'n .'loay.J Tho convfrrsation had no 
probative vnlue un.le«»fl it t»ndad to nhov/ an admifsaion by 
ioey th;it he had abandoned th« cont-'ict, ;o 1o not think 
it reasonably capable of th t conatrui^tion. TJut oth; 
fiQ to ao^ lihat report In;; the coniror?j?it.L'>n wu. Id hnye 
added nny Hpocitvl vilue to i'o in '^hn abaonce of pj'oof r,hat 
Jacoba wa.5 tictini-i at tho tirao aa an ttuthoriaed a(;«nt fo3' 

one rif.irty or tJi© other. 'rh«5 court h19 - j»r overly excluded a 
r ■ 
j letter frojs aaid oo-<)s.infT, agency to thfj dofandant purporting 

to acoa^t for iioey defondiiat' 9 nancoll-^^t: on of :'ie contrnct. 

Thero vfo.a no proof tn 't it had any authority so to lr>, rmr 

evidence justifyin« the cancellation. 

it is fur^h^:r contended th.-.t there w-ja no 

liability on the pnrt of daf<3n<Uint b«oaustt *»f/(ja clauise in 

tho contrict th;:t a failure on tho part of either party to 

perform "audi srook* should not be de mo-d a viol ti "^n of its 

[terms by either oerty It is evident tiwkl/ in fraiainj^ thv 

|eontr&ct the parties used a printed form of tJie booking 

agency designed to cov<ir various aituations^ and thnt said 

clause refers to a aituation where a contract is mtule for 

a lon«er time than one week, which was not the cuae here. 

It) it iso bawffi 





y© think the cvl lence wa^ imfiicient to show a contract 
■between t^ie parttei? uad thnt plaintiff did not abandon it 
nor authorize its can collation, Ve fin.i no reversible 
error. ">e jud^Tnont will b-.' affirmed. 


V J ). in 

96 - 21069 

\ Defendant in vrr^or 



^^lalntlff in ifirror. ) 



) OP GiilCAGO. 

i97I.A. 413 


Jt.iH'^^A MoscB, ^«.i«^4^f:f^%«*o^ brought an attechracnt 
suit against 'Jacobsohn, -Hte^^^wktUjiU^ k»«i-<H»f, on tht grr.iond that 


defendant wee a non-rcaidient of the rtate find owed plaintiff 
a sum of money, d-<!^f>»«it.i!d m the pui'ch.iBe pricB of i^nehinery 
whieh defendant hRd not dellv erect to plaintiff, arid 
ree^ivere et the Pere W.arauottP H. H. Co, were sumr:oned aa 
gfti'nlBhees. Defendant ,}^wM>*v»ehft put in a general appeaxance, /^<^ 
There is no bill of except! one, but Lhe record ahow» that 
evidence was heard an»i thj t the court f ^und b^c^ainat dKfondnnt 
both as to the ettachmen-, tmd tYui meritB of the jicticn and 
aEseassed plaintiff r damages at JftO-" and coHta. mile 
judgment was entered on the main iaaues only, it muat be 
presumod, in the abaenco of a bill of o:sc£pti fn^i, tVint the 
court heard aufficient evidence to sup :>ort it, iind it is 
iamaterial whether any judgment yt&a entered on the r*ttachinont 


The judgment will be affirmed, 



caoxs - b9 

■;01 i:i ■ 

■vrt»«iA>' ftSiirfsfuq '" . '>^i«»«^h .\oiiOBi to iTLue « 

, M^rriisitf e* bsTC*? viX'jf) Jon b.«f{ *flreftn»^*£> (i»liim 

oo^r sxlj Jutf ,«jioi*ci«oKy to ili«f on ai •isrif 

' 'i»m j>ri.t bnsK jniftniiotii ; b.« ASoii 

, <:-i}nk. ttlrm B^ii no b^-i'iitw uxv ."tttwaj^ai 

ftifi , ltd a t& £»o«tt«:flfr ,bomju«9'iq 

112 - ?10P6 

by C. G, CAKUiOH, hl8 ) 

noxt friend, ) .'SHRQ!-? TO 

Defendant in ;rror, ) 

v«. \ / ) OF CHICAGO, 

SIMKQN tiVnSMaOH, \ / ) 

Plaintiff in .;pror. ) 

I.A. 414 


The errors asHi.^ned on tJiii* record embrrtce two 
contentions, (1) th-j,t th« rourt wrrod in rofufiinR def '.!*ic1ant*8 
motion for a directnd verdict nuvde at the cinse of pl;,intiff •■ 
oRse, and (2) thr't the verdict was manifestly againBt the 
weight of the evidence. 

The first point is not preeerved for review because 
-After the motion wan overruled (I'^fenJunt introduoed hia 
proofs and did not renew the motion nt xhe cloae of all the 
evidence ( Reavely v, Harris, S39 111. 5-;6), awl ddffcr.iJant in 
crrcr urj^en thai: the second point likewir.e If, not preserved, 
as the irotion for new trial wnd t!ie rulin^'^ thereon do not 
appear in tiie bill of exceptions. That they should so 
appear together with the tokin(? of an exception to thu ruling 
har been the settled practice ( Cell v. Poo p It* , 201 in. 526 
and ooBes cited), ('jliether since the nmendinent in 1911 to 
aection 81 of the Jt;^r»ctice Act, dispensing with the noreM;:ity 
of incorporatinK forniE,l exceptiona into tiie recerd, ( filler 
^* Ari d era on . 269 id. 6v)8), that rule of practice should 
obtain where the transcript of the record, ho in this caae, 
contains a specific order of court overruling and denying 
the motion for a new trial, rauy well be questioned. .uch 
an order presumably would not have been entered hau the 



deo/-^ . £T.i 

Rilf , . . 

.1 ;friobn»1tst! 

i 'nHfttleLH. 

r.' o : 

o'ltM.- . .•(»*»«>nlh tin rol nelSfnn 

I no uTrootg 

?>??'■ . '._:._:_:,. ■ .„ „, - i^ourerrct ^•i:.ti«t• -ftri 

..ti- - - >;;.;;.■ , sOd ,bi ?^^?;' ,noeifvfcaA .v 

.fs^JROl: , i.T. ,ij»XT^ war: .. 'i-i^ 

siiv' «>T«ri ior. Mao»; .•:•..■.;.;<«.■ •.la ijabrco its 


iDOtion not been wade; and, na it, need not have been in 
writing? nor (in excertinn to the ruling preserved, the reason 
for the application of the rule to the car,e at bar apimrently 

lioKrever, ha that a:i it may, no would 
accrue to plaintiff in error, tor, on oxarninutiun of the 
ovidence in the «a?ie, w«3 can noz say thrj v«rcliot wr a 
manifeotly again ^t the weight of the evidence, it tends to 
show that defendant conductea a theatre on nis prerciseK in 
the lobby of 'v^iich were pictures and .•.idv<=>rti'j<3!ni^ntni hung for 
the public to oorae in find aee, tjtni thai in tho 'val^ of the 
lobby -vao r. radiator so inf^'jcrurexy fcvatoned thrs r, ;?itu;mt, 
apparent negligence on the p- rt of the^mlnor, for wha r.t-thfr- 
-a ttlt wf 'B— b r oug ; ht , it fell nut of it:-' place on ;aid injured 
him "fhll'? he w.s looking at the pictureaj ' , > ' e - think ' tha 
clrcuiBstancoB •»'»^^*8iich r-o raised the inference .\f naglect 
on t)ie part of d*?fend".nt to hav-' the radi'.tor so fafiti^aed 
thKt It Kould not fall over from contact nith it such .19 
might be e.xi;ef:teci in a public pifjcc, ^ 

The JudgTBtmt will be affirrccci. 


KCJSRsrj: 9iW ,t)fi»y'tt3a»n(5[ ?iniXinc pri^ o^ ;<. JiJ'yaox© mt ton^ltir 
y;I;^n&'iec?e[» "i wqfl »rW to"! 

hXi , ,19V0WCi! 

i/tq 94i^ no 

fv, ..III.''; J.?: rf;?]-*' ^oa/ftoi) '■ , ASii 

13C - iillOi 

ALf. HI1-«N, 

iijCfernifsnt in Irror, 


ALU AZAH Al. U Suy,' ElJT CO , , 

Hal^tlff in irroj^. ) 



miUJH TO iiiihlCLiAL CwUKT 

uj? CiiicAav,. 

197 I.A. 416 

kR. JUiiTICl &UUrJ£3 mhiym&D TiiS Oi'lNIOK OF TiiE UbUiiT. 

Pleintlff was foi ^damages fur breach 
of contract ^k*-- refualng to permit hie*- to carry out a 
tiica t r i c al en , Hf e» ; ;• e n t, «««< «■ a igg — 4e"4-4>«-^^gi6», f-^*'— »»e- - v«ek 

oiite/but was not periftitted by defendant to perform and wae 

uraole tc procure eiuploytfient pft^r dilitront search therefor 

^ ''j .^-Vi.^ Cf C/-- >->5. <'«••< -V. ^ -ry ii' ^-jst-" 

ui'ing Bai-d-^fr^k, ^? h » r e ■ 

judf-ment for th« 

contract price of thti w6«k* B- perforfflRuce, f*nd ooatu of aait^ 

iJftcauae tht contract 'fvoa r'ot ai^-ned by plain- 
tiff hipon it is contended that no contract existed. Jje- 
lendant eigred thf contrnct and it was auffiaiently clear 
frojsL the evidence that it acceptPd the contrtict for it 
thereupon entered the engagement with Kipon on its booka. 
Hence it was not necessary to its obliK»tion under tho con- 
tract tiiat plaintiff should have signed it or that it ahould 
have been in writing, he did not diaolaim oblit;ation3 under 
it and stood ready and willing to perform. if it «»aa not 
(vood as a rritten, it was as e verbal contract. ':here was 
sufficient evidence for the jury to fino the exidtence of a 
contract and ngalnot defendant's contention tnc^t the written 
instrument was a mere proposal thr.t v^raa revoked and can- 
celled oy defendant before acceptance or action therecn by 

The agreement contains a recital tliat a failure 

MiXS • Oil 

-Tk^ at wu^mi^ 

dl^ .A.l I 




rIT fe^F 

•T-» #f^' 

a«r ta«Mrtt«ni 

or Xh9 part ©f either uTty to poTforr. en "Bvch week" nU*ll 
not be d*«B*d • Tiolntlon of Itti terma. ilu oontrrci wii« 
drawn on a printed tofot evidantXy df<>alf lu-d to covvir (Uf> 
ferent pltuatione, and the recital clearly refera to r\ 
easa where the term of the onfi;ai;erc\ent in longer tnan ont 
waak, which i« r.ot th« onee ht-re. 

We dc not find rrveroJblp error <»ith#r Id tha 
rciparks of counsfl for plaintiff or in otiior reaTieota. 

The JudfUDent will be Rffirnied, 


138 - 21112 




Defendant in lari^tor, ) 




M, PIOWATY k liOJia, A Corp., j 

Plaintiff in r.rror. ) 

\ / 

'l97l.i^. 417 


Ford "brought a euit against plaintiff in error, a 
corporftion for the purchase price of goodB sold and de- 
livered Ht ita special instance and requ(?st. To prove the 
contract Pord testified to conversationa with one Max 
Piowaty which, unexplained or \maided by other competent 
testimony, raereiy tended to show a deal with Raid Piowaty 
nnd not with the corporation. There wjis no competent proof 
that he was an officer or authorized n.g®rit of the cor- 
poration, and to e.:.tabliBh liability secondary evidence 
waa offered and received over objection with tit laying a 
proper foundation t/ierefor. It consisted of the contents 
of a check purporting to come from defendant vithout 
adequate proof of notice to produce the original; rIbo of 
a letter purporting to cone from defend;int without adequate 
proof either that it came from or w.ib authorized by defendant 
and of certain enclosures therewith th; t were incompetent 
without adequate proof of the letter it»elf . '^ithnit proof 
Of those matters there vrns insufficient vidcnce to ??untain 
the judgment, hence the errors in th«t court' b rulings 
necessitate the rf^versal of the judgment and the rfit:J=nding 
of the crxUGc for a new trial. 

WAff ill' ^'rM 

"o if»5)i« fad iaqri;>wj, -xe •loolllc fie »aw 9ii ^ftriJ 
ttuiMt&lin': v^'^s^HYOnea Y^^JtXt'i^BiX jtisJtitfii^'&s od bim ^notsatoq 

rt.:-'.»(*j .ton ^iw TO i»».r«i«.<; ,tol<>^©ii^ noi^t-ubowoT: uftQcnq 

.J ^jubonq 04 00 lion 1% toiixq 9t»uptbA 

#nwJ«iv>t«o!..sti. s'tflK i ,iy fid iw»n»il;^ ••%ueoXon» ni^J ' «« 

.X*sii* w&n /. jo: *•/!;? 'to 

164 * lilI4I 

Defendant inr Xrror, 


iaOUTJliiiKli hAlLuAY CO., a COT]^,, ) 
i latin tiff in Errors' ) 


) OF CHiCAOv, 

197 I.A. 419 


Defendant in mvror pvurokased of plaintiff in 
error two ticlcete from uhicago to 'fork leach, j.aine, and re- 
turn, Yin the line of defendant to Buffalo, ';. t, anu froia 
there to Boaton, aea. via the line of tiie Hoston i Albany 
R. Ti, Co. and frons the latter point to York iieacu via the 
line of the Boston ft laine K. H, Co, The iiouton * Albany 
h. R, Co. refuaeo to honor the tickets from j-oston to tiuf- 
falo, neoeasltating an expenditure of $2U by defendant in 
error for traneporation between thooe points, to recover 
which he brout^ht suit dt^Klnut p]uintiff in error. The 
esse was triea b(>f ore the court witi.out a jury. 

ilaxntiff'a testimony tendea to establish the 
above state of facts but failed to »how the capacity in 
«^ich the defendant company aold the tickets in question or 
to refute the prestuiption that it acttio ua a mere air.ent for 
the otiier lines. in txiUt »tnte of the case counsel suoved, 
in effect, for a finoing for the defendant, calling the 
court's attention to the decision of the vJuprene Court in 
Chicago k Alton K. H, Co, v. kulford . 16k: 111. 62ki, -fihern 
the court adhered to the rule generally followed in tiiis 
country that through ticKets entitling persons holding them 
to pass over auccesiiive roads are to be regarded as diatinct 
tickets for each road, dold by the first cotapany aa an agent 
for tue others ao far aa tue paasenj^pr i^ concerned. But 


nnm ' t^bl 



i'':tfl'' ::-^"i.»-; t^-.' .of.n«»T:»u 

M-iv-q- t-^+jf' oil fe«i . ■ 


■toni. i?»fct4-»; 

.b»ai9onoo jiii ia»afi«««0 

.;>d *«W 

inHr'n « t«t 

«Joi»ll9 ni 

aoliaa^r^r) s»,tt«f6t> 

,>^ nci3l- 

-. inO 

■jjSI'* :<?> 



• tl-twoo 

01 sTlsewooij 


iii 10I 

the trial court Ignored the dieoiaion aayin^ it w&a not '*nuraan 
JustiCA." A3 both tke trial and this court are required to 
follow the decislona of tJae j.uprerue court, Uie juti^flKGnt muat 
be reTars«di aa oontrary to law. 

•-.nMi itio' 



266 . 21349 

TR£ PjSOPLK op THIS lilATif: 

OF ILi..IN0Ii5, I ) 

V8. \ 

OR'iiM J. m^wm, 

Defondant in irror, / ) ymnon TO 

I / ! 


PXaintlff in „or. -.197 X. A. 4 20 

\ / 


On 3 trial bofor- the c-^urt without a jury, 
plaintiff in error van convicted on an inf orrfl;; tion Gh:fir;':ing 
him with violation of .':>ec, 10 of the Jj^otor Vehicle Vet 
(Ch. 121, Par. 269, J, ;:urc!'s 1, ., 1911), prohibiting 
the (triving of a motor vehicle "upon uny puhlic hi^/iway 
at a. apeed greatar Uum reaaonable end. proper, yiavin^ 
regard to the traffic nd the u/e of the way or so as to 
endimger the life or limb or Injure the property of nny 
pern on." 

The principal issue of fuct raieed at tho hearing 
was aa to the- speod nt w-iich plaintiff in error was driving 
an autoroobile in a locality where apeed in (^xcoBs of fifteen 
miles {'n hour is by the act made ^rima facie evidence r\t its 
violation. On that istme there v/be om witneae only on 
behalf of the People, He teotiiier; t}>'.it the car was going 
t?7enty-five miles nn hour, l.n him own behalf, rinfendrmt 
tesstified that he m-.a not driving faster than twelve milos 
an hour, that hi {3 car lunt about fifteen feet after he 
started to stOTj it» and tii.t he could Htop it within thnt 
distance when running twelve miles an hour. The trinl 
Judge then sjnnounced that it waa unnoceasory for hiF»\ to 
hear any more evidence, that because of his own experience 


^*EXS' - das 




.'s, iflrjiD 


, . to itoii«.i:oi¥ iiitw aikii 

, tlnXoiv 


in driving a car he could not accept defendant's tsstimony 
aa to apeed, Defen'lnnt's couns'51 .':>skcd ienve to call 
other witnes9«?JJ and offered to prcve by tliem that defendant 
waa not running faster than tT?<;ive mileo an hour sn4 other 
circumstrtneci.-, rfsierant to the- issue. The Coiirt rtf\x&o& to 
hsar them, raying '*if you had fifty mor =. witnennea, it 
would not ehnnge Uin raind of the court," 

The refuenl of defendant's request was a dcniul 
of rightc GC fundaiEBntal that comment it; imneccsB; ry. It 
was a pBlpcble denial of justice, not only to refuse the 
manifest right to produce witnes^^eH to support dafondunt'e 
plea of net guilty, but to decide the isiues jon th« Judge's 
private experiences instead of evidence. The judgmf.'nt will 
he reveresd and the cause remanded. 




:PBJtviTt» nJt 

Z»*J r.o^^i Tt>;fe»T: {inlnnv;s ion saw 

.si, taut *io isirtab alrfaqisq a n&it 

fcMjQo oiii bar' b*>aic©V*»i orf 

325 - 20858 

/administrator of the 
estate of THOM-^r: M, oJflTH, 




/ StlPiRIOR COlfi'T, 


ciT. 0. cicxoc.^^^^^^ / J 197I.A.446 


Appellee Bued apr^ellant to recover d ar.agea 
eustaintid by the next of icin (cansiating of the widow raid 
aix minor children) of Thomas ir, l^mith, dccv!r-;ied, l>f cause 
of his death alleged to have heen CcvUdsd by the negligence 
of thft ap eliant on Uarch 7, 1908,JThisi case wati before 

/thia court at ••former term on an appeal proaoouted by the 
present appellant from a judgment in favor of appellee, 
reported in 182 111, App. IM, reveraing the judgniont 
because of error in i/i^roperly admitting teatin.ony of the 
existence of a particular defect in tt.e street pavenv-nt of 
;laton Avenue, in the City of Chicago, wliich did not con- 
tribute to the injury of fippelleii;'& intestate, fc.nd on the 
further ground that the > vidence did not sufficiently prove 
that the appellant, the City of C> icf^p.o, had notice eit>ier 
of the exiatence of a ct^rtuin other iWiffect, if &n^' existed 
in 3&id street, or of its dangercius condition, if it was 

I dangerous, which contributed to the injury and death of 
appellee's intestate, f>n tiic labt trial i\ verdict was 
rv; turned and judgment rendered in favor of appellee f->r 
eighty five hundred dollars, Froo that judgment this appeal 
is prosecuted. No change has be^m made in the pleadings 




mm . 

eaeos^ - flse 



-: : ■ .ion 



oince the f enter appeal. 

On Koverebor 2, .191?), hii ord rr wan enttu'ed in 
tlaia cy-.iTt sug^^jeatin^i of reoori the l>ath of Jo>in -^adio, 
Adalnistr.^tor of the eatatfj of Thoittis i^, ..<mitb, dtic^aaed, 
end that viliirun C. RsiXtray, AdminiBtrator, etc., bs 
subntituteil ' h appcllae in lieu of tht.' yaid John r^&tiie, 

A revorsttl of the Juogment of the IJup'rior Court 

la urged u on t*o ijroimdE: 

!• That the verdict hucI jud^itient are tigainBt 
the manifest wei^jht of the cvi ienne, 

2, That the trial court in^roperly admitted 
teetimony r.s to a defect in the paveratxrit of /Alston 
avenue, oth.?r than the defect which caused the injury 
complain fed of, 

T^ie deceased, at the tirre in queetion, w?:.ti driving 
in a &''Utherly direction on lilston Ave., in the City of 
Chicfigo, a four mule team vith a hea.fy •ugon att.^chfed thereto, 
Thero were three witnesses lo the accident, all of whoia 
tcBtifled in behalf of the plaintiff. Their evidence tendrf^ 
to aho^ thivt the ^ctident occurred in the night tijtiC, ajid 
that as the Rules reached tli« south croaa walk of /orBiitage 
Av«sriua, where the latter street intorsecte .'llaton Avenue, 
tho ri'.-Jit front .vheei of the wagon in ^utiution dropped Into a 
de«p hole in the puvein,ait in .luton Avenue, at a point south 
of the center line of ^trniitage Avenue, causing the deceaeed 
to fall from his aoat on the --^agon to tlir street pr*vein«:nt, 
sustaining lnjari<?a wiich resulted in hia death, 

Fred Tiedge find otanley Feist, two ef the witneaties 
to the aocidcait, did not testify tit the first trial, hut 
testified at the second ana third tri&la of taia ca- e. Their 
testimony at the iaat hearing, «u to the location of the hole 
in question, vfi that the rirnt front wheel of the wngon 
dropped into a hole on the outside of nnd immediately adjoining 
the west rail of the aouth-hoiind street Cfir track on KlBton 



tJtW fiSflftCf sXiiW llfO^ ?J .OJWIOiiiD 

■irf ar^Til 


AYenue, whicn testimon/, in that regard, -ia ?«t Tarianca 
witii the testimony of li&ry Becker. >"red Hedge and :;t3Jiley 
J«iet testified tha^l, Che wagon 'vent into a hole in front 
! of Paylor'o saloon. Tiedg^ testifirjd tiet "The men fell 

off to the Paylor way • * *,* The sntrar-c.'} to the Paylor 


; ealoon wf^s on the aouth-*est corntr of 'nritege ftnd ^'Iston 

, ATenuea. t.^ary Becker teistified thRt, "The hole wen right 
in front of Paylor'n tialoon * '>' * Infiide of the aouth-boimd 

■ tracJc ♦ » «, He f^sll riif';ht a brai^ht jm the front , mostly 
t oward i^ aylor'b iialoon , * « * he- l-vid in the Tnidf'ie of the 
ttouth-bound tracic." itanley ?«iBt did not testify c.n to the 
direction in w. ich the body of Uie dijcejised fell, ifivc other 
of £t p ooli o» j'' 6 witneases corroborated the teatl'^'iony of Tifldge 
and Feint as to the location of tho^ hole in frucjtiori, and 
Xm.z such condition had exiuted th«.'r«j during all of that 
winter, Cn the other hand, sev«5ral oth' r witneofes testified, 
in behalf of the city, that there wae no hole at t^c? place 
in queation of the size and character teetified to \>y 
appellee' b witnessec. 

The Jury and the court bolow havin/;: seen and henrd 
these witnea ea teutify were in a beti^-r position than this 
CDurt to pasG upon the credibility of thtir testimcny. It 
is maJiif est that all of- th(. witn^Hsem to tli-". accident 
testified in regard to the sama hole in the street p.%vcni'^nt . 
AS to the negligence of ap ialiant, it i« incifetc-rial Triaethcr 
the hole in qu.-^ation *as immediately to the ivest or t,o the 

{ tast of the we:it rail of ttie aouth-bound atxeet car track on 
i!ilaton Avenue, uch variance in the tG;itiiaony of the 
iitnesaes goej solely to their credibility. Aftfir a careful 

, review of the evidence, we are xmable to Bay th.H the verdict 
in this caee is against the manifeBt weight of thi; evidence. 
Counsel for appellant urge that as the oyjinion 

. .■>;n©r.A 

Mt.;^ jTi. 

'■ ♦ J:i;oJL.'i .'-a^' ' A.\ i];-3. wTU--iO>:- 

■OtfO-IlO? «9tlB»lViV '?-^-=r-!ri-!H— -,r-». "^.O 

111 -i :•.','!. iH if' -.laJniw 

•.■■.4t»^ii;t£,!.. at 
.,-;;-i ill a^lMii-A^ 

■ '■ "r-}-« 

" weirs'! I 


of this court In thj forKicr ha.irinft dlscloiied th£,.t appelloe 
did not prociuco uwon the first trial Fred Ticdge .'md 
iitanley It'eiet, ai'i.^ c»{j the testimony of Tiedgc and J^'sirrt as 
' to the locati.on cf th(t hole in 'iuection is vrholly inconsistent 
with the tetitimcny given, in th,i.t regard, by vritneaHcr; •; t the 
first trial, that the testimony of Tiedge ajrid I?ei8t is 
, un>. orthy of celisf, -e rcquirti to trj Uie caje on the 
j rtcord pieserit<Kl, anii ve h&Tf- no ri^^ht to lo .fc to tho transcript 
' in the fcrnier h^nrint: to detei-miii-i quuctions of f&ct In thii3 
caae, Au aaid by thfe Gupr&me Court in jj. B« ^ ^vi^, _R, j_.. Co , 
T. Lee, Adniiniotratgix . &'•' 111, 554, 451, *v;e nte.y x:*eviev' the 
fin4iU(5 of tho jury on the evitiorico, but oiily on th.«^ f^vidence 
th«y '-iftiird, aii;^ or* w.^iah th^y t/aoed. thiir fliMUnii, -o >iaYe no 
ri.'iht to lo Ic -utwidts of tiiia recorci to Llc*tvrBilne ^whetyiftr their 
finding wa-s carr^ot or incori fTct." 

The couri, cii'j not err in adiftittiiifc; ttic tejstifijony 
of Ti'idgo pjid Fftia^t. .)Uch evidence wtib cl'-urly coicpetont 
and the queiition of the Gr(idl'::ility of t/iei-e witnoBsoo and 
th»; '*'ei;:lit tc bt iiiven Uir-ir teutimouy way peculitirly within 
the province of ^hc jury, 

??inding no prejudicial error in tiie ricord, the 
judgment of the uperior Court will be affirffied, 

JUmUyMI: Al'JlRlCiiD. 

■ .jt:>'3: ail- ..<jji^^%% tf^a 

.■« .-.f rvv.- :. ii biooe'i 

, 'S '^ - ■ii__ii. 

:iiJiJU&"l^v ''■' i'*"'-^ 

544 - 2Q877 

Appellee, I 


T8. ) 



IKaUUAIJCE colli' AKY, ) 

Appellant, ) 

\ / 


197 I.A. 449 

1.:F. justice KcOOORTY DEXIVEHKD the OUEION of the COUhT. 

Benjaiain il , I,awrence, the appellee, recovered a 
Judi^ment of |15UU against the Northwestern National Insuranoe 
Company, appellant, in the ifunicipal Court, in an action of 
the first class. The case was tried vvitiiout n jury. 

The action arose out of a clnioi for losa under 
a fire inaurance Tiolicy by which appellant insured appellee 
in the suiii of V<^^^i on a two story fraixte dwelling in Lyone, 
Cook-JiQunty , lllinoia. The fire occurred July lib, 191.:, 
App&ile e filed sworn proofs of loss with appellant alleging 
the ajflount of the I033 to be .^2492,20, wuich is the amount 
set forth in appellee's statement of claiiB. Ajaii fi\ lawt, in 
its affidavit of r.crits, confine^ the isaueu to actB and 
derda R'hich occurred afte-r the fire, and piedicatel^ its de- 
fense Uion fraud ajtid false swearing in making the represen- 
tations, and expressing the opinions appearing in the proofs 
, of loas. 

The policy of insuranoe contains this language: 
"Thia entire policy shall be void * » « in CHse of any fraud 
or false swearing by the insured touching any matter relating 
to tnia insurance or the subject tiiereof, v/hether before or 
after the loos," The policy required the insured to deliver 
I the following instruments to the company: 


\ ■ 

.i >. M.i.}noo 

i>u aoi'.. 

..^.; . * - -^1 A 

•, . ■; n :« le, (/ 1 rt f 

6 3;' ; J_ 

^ - btfAll nofj'u »«n9 r 
unolt.j iiiataTi rX3 baa ,tu)'ji.Joj 


a. Complete inventory, stating the quantity and 
coat of each article and the aroount claimed 

b. Bworn state.:„ent setting forth the cash value of 
each item and the amount of loss; and, 

c. If requested, verified plana and apecificationa 
of the building, fixtures or jD;<ci)inery destroyed 
or dam ged. . 

Appol iae t a proof of loss included a plan certified 

by hijfi, showing a two story an d baaernen t fraaie building and a 

stattjuent -nd schedule containing a list of material sufficient 

to erect a building of aucii dixuenaiona with studding 2,A feet 

higiri, including a oiaple floor covering the entire first 

floor thereof, -bircli doors with plate glass, and oak trixa 

in the living and dining rooms, respectively, App o llwr rt con- 

tend#^hai the building destr^. yed by fire was one utory in 

hcigat with Bii 16 foo t studding only, containing no hard wood 

th plate AclasB, and only the kj 

TxallftHt further contender that 

trim nor birch aoora with plate_£:lasB,and only the kitehen 
floor was of ruaple. Appollawt further cont©ndif''that much of 

the lumber uaeo was old and second-hand, and the prices of 

material contained in sucii statement of lo»s are excesuive. 

The plan and specifications inoluaed in the proofs of loss 

were m^.d« by a building contractor named i/'UonoTaii, at th« 

request of and upon information given to him by a ppellee , who 

certified that such plan and specifications were true and 

correct to the beat of his knowledge and memory. 

There was a conflict of evidence upon all of 

the issues of fact raiaed by the plcadinga. ^ne of ajtipci - i - 

wit "- T i witneaaes, oalomon, a builainfc contractor, testified tnat 

the lumber price* seemed to be fair. The witnesses, in esti- 
mating the loss, gave opinions VFtryin^, from i,'i:'/d4 to i^ilDO» 
respectively J The finding of the trial court a a to the amount 
of thi lo35 is evidently based upon the opinions, in that re- 
gard, expr-saed by appellant's witnessses. 




o«i^ A v(al»o< 



It is contended, that na appellee aougiit to re- 
cover from appellant ^2492.^0, on I the finding of the trial 
court wais for only .;^15(>0, that the trial court aaould have 
found the policy void on account of fraud and false swearing, 
"A discrepancy, even of very considerable proportions, be- 
t'-veen the amount stated by tne insured in the proofs of 
loss and the value found by the jury dofi^a not conclut3lvely 
establish frtud or false swearing, but it reaaine a question 
of ff'Ct whether the overvaluation ■»;*» intentionally fraudu- 
lent or iTiV.rely an error of judf.njerjt," /\xa. and Kng, Kncy, of 
L»w, (iind ed, ) vol, 15, 344, In Commercial In auranc e Co, v, 
Frijed land e r . 156 ill. 595, 598, the estimate in the proof of 
loss was *9840, The jury returned a verdict of ;■ 1277.80. 
It was urped thie discrepancy waa sufficient to establish a 
fraudulent overvaluation within the meaning of the policy, 
but the court held: "The mere fi'Ct that the assured, in the 
proofs of loss, has made an over-v?3lar tion of the property 
destroyed will not defeat a recovery on the policy for the 
actual loss sustained. If the assured, in oiaking proofs of 
loss, acts in good faitxi, in thR rtonest belief thfit the 
property destroyed was worth the amount of the valuation 
placed upon it, and the excessive valuation v/a» not intended 
to dec«'ive or defraua the insurance coflipn/iy, such over- 
valuation cafuiot be held to be fraudulent, and it v^ill not 
defeat a recovery," citing, ( Rock fo rd i ns . Go . v. Keluon , 75 
111. 548; Pranklin >'i r e Ins , C o . v. Vaughan , 9^^ \i. d, 516.) 

The question of fraud ia one solely of fact, 
( Home Ins. Co . v. ; <;ndenhall , 164 ;li. 45b, 469, j and has been 
settled adversely to appellant. 

The trial judge was in a mucii better position 
than this court to pass upon the credibility of the witnesses 
and to deter.i;ine the v/eignt to be given to tneir testiii-ony. 

I«. . i..Sie^JJsV in»ll9t[qfi coo it tiiTOo 

1: *;«w izuvo 

iU JbtCUli QttOJ 


'1 iaot9ii 

^"1 Fraud is never pxeaimed, and the burden of establishing fraud 
is upon the party alleging? it. Apyelltsnii does not coiaplaxn 

L/- of the amount of th« judgncnt nnd relies wholly upon th» al- 
legation of fraud in seeking a reversal here. Je are of the 
opinion that fraud has not been established, and that the 
.judf^ent of the !.unioipal Court ahould be affirmed, 


3 - 2047?. 

defendant in S'^ror, 


HAROLD a, liCRTOK and OiilOHGa H. 
HORTON, doing bysinesB fs CHICAGO 



) l^HOH TO 

) / 

)'#yiCIPAL C'-^UT'T 



Plain tiff a in '.■.rrorj ) 

197I.A. 451 

MR. PR>filBl>^a oru -.TICS McaURl'ILY 
DSLI^^.^!lR^D TffiS OPiTilON OF fHT3 C^HRT. 

Plaintiff hrou(iht buit for a bal.uice claimed to be 
dufi for aiurainum uoid (lef.nljmto. Upon trial by the court 
it had judgment for ;v^'.97,07, 

The evidence showed th<-.t there was a dispute be- 
tween plaintiff s.nd (lef^;^dant3 concnTiint? Uie weights of the 
aluBiinuAi delivered; that one of the defendants, Hurold K. 
Horton, had a ttilk with the projident of plaintiff con- 
cerninif^ thiu, ruid it -svas a, -reed thi:t mea Yfwuld be ijent by 
the plaint i ft to veigh up the metal providing defendants 
would oX once pay on the bat-. is of the .veiglitB thus .ascer- 
tained, r lain t if iient men to •5 of end an tu* wor'r.s v^ho weighed 
the metftl. The noxt day a bill vau presented by plaintiff 
to defendonte, on which the shortage in weigh te found by 
plaintiff's .ren had 'oeen deducted, leaving a baiai-ce due of 
$1,606.43. Th:: d cf rmdantfi thereupon gave & check for thio 
amount find the st.. toment was nsirk^d paid. Die idieck given 
was Eub:equently coli otud by plaintiff. The evidence 
further tended to establish that thrit sveights aliov/n ir: che 
at&tsmcnt were .ir^ived .'.l after carefully weighing and 
checking the r.iotal .ano wore in ff, ct t}i - correct weights. 
Plaintiff introduceci no tet-tir.ony vvlUitever tending to prove 

H i 

KV^O£ - s 


-J UX«i.C 

.abnf)Ji> iicJ (tJt«Xq n&swj' 

Lai B- biUi ,rto;tioH 

:> am axO 

. .j.TiiQicj- 



tliat these weights were not correct.; 

Under the above circuinstsjices plaintiff was not 
entitled to recover, for either of two reason: (l) There 
was a full accord and satisfaction. We have a dispute 
between the parties and a tender of payment in full and 
its acceptance, (2) The evidence established that the 
amount of aluminum delivered was paid for; there was no 
evidence of any deliveries for which defendants did not 

For the reasons above indicated tlie Jucigraent 
is reversed and judgment of nil capiat will be entered in 
this court. 



^in^fto-' ^vr 8* rial ©w ©bbjdW iadS \- 

*on 3SW Ylij- •soaaiimiso'txo evods e>.rf;f- -xsi^rrtJ 

'^'t 8©i'xsviX' sonetivd 


19? l.A. 4:54 


35 « 2127? 

\ Plaintiff in '-rrw*, 


'" \ ■ 

jAMHiJ J, HARIlWoTQN, Jjr., / 

' «f :^n d f :n t in l?r r or « 

\ /' 
ja. PPJ£3'lIl!Ba JTJ'.TIGi? McSimKLY 

Thlr \*rit of error "brings in review the record, in 
an notion for deceit, to recoyer money expended by plaintiff 
in redeeming from a sn-le of property for pji unpaid special 
aoBessment t^hich plaintiff says should have been paid by 
defendant. Upon trial the curt foi«d the iznxxea a^gainst 
the plaintiff. 

Plaintiff, eeckinf; si reversal in thie court. In 
hie brief and argunicnt ref*;r8 to certain pnpern and doouments 
whidi were r«5C(5ived in evidence and considered by tl'.f? trial 
c^iurt, but none of th^iije doouraentn r.i .eoro in tho ;;tKtr?iot of 
rocord, either in ^fholc or in part or in Bubetance, This 
court will not search the record to find groimdc for revcroal. 
The Judgment raifd'it properly be affirmed on the ground that 
it will be pretsur.od the documente nare cufficient to support 
the conclusion reached by the trial court. 

It Gocffis that plaintiff nnd defendant, ovaning 
certein lots, ligre^id to mako im exchange; thnt on Au/rufit 'ifif 
1913, they rcet at the office of dcfend*mt to clooc th( deal; 
that defendant produced y.n opinion of title frons the Chicago 
Title & TruDt C "TTipany ehnwin^: that hir, property was subject 
to a np(5cial aoceaamont for ctroet pnving, confirmed Pebrujjry 
B9, 1913, payable in five annu-.l inotalljBentB. Plaintiff 

VTCX^i - (M 

a 'itiiPlHi 

,T, It'iMAl 

i^5„i^ /> 

? r 



. ,J iXE^Dt^a^rj^i- 


• 2* 

testified that defendant said th;t t the former owner of hie 
lots had paid the first installment of the upeoial ti8aeu£>raant» 
and thru aefenaunt woul.i g t, the receipt from him and turn 
it over to piuintiff, 'Chore wau evidence t«ndinf? to 
corroborate plaintifa . i)n the other, del*«sndant denieiK-' 
maicing sucn statement, iind i/iwry waa teutimony ttmding to 
corroborate nim« Itie deal ^v;lii closed, defendant giving 
plaintiff a warr^inty d^ed ox thixt date conveying t}»« property 
to plaintiff, 'liubjeot to Jiii t.-ixoa mid aiJiieHtsmento levied 
for the year 19l:i and to ?iny unpaid ap> cial tax68 or oijeuial 
attaesBraentte." Plaintiff -waya- that as a nuitt*^r of fact U-iia 
first in«taliifle:!t of th«? apccial asaeeamcnt had not lieen 
paid, Rnd^ that after ha acquired title the property way oold 
therefor and he waa obliged to and did deposit with the 
count/ clerk i?116,67, the amniint noceaaary to redeojT! frosa 
this sale. Plaintiff sa^yH}- thnt by dafandimt'a false re» 
presentatiOTx, knowingly made, he induced i^laintiff to act 
UDon it to hia losa and In.lury, <^ 

AS we have indicated, the t-^stimony aa to the maicing 
of any representation concern in,'^ the ^Irst inot^jllmcnt of the 
special aus'^3Jra!;nt was in conflict, find we co ild not suy that 
the court wua claarly Trong in failincc to find that the 
preponderance teniod to aun;ort plainttff*8 contention n^ to 
what occurred. 

It does appear th^t defendant at tJiis meeting of 
August 25th did aay that he had bought the property about five 
months before and h id ^^eceived a /^u«r^mty poliny ^ron the 
Chieag© Title ft Trust Co, wnioh Hhovi'd a r^lenr titlo excopt 
ac to the apeciai aaea anient. Furthermore, the opinion of 
title of the ChicaffO Title ft Trust Co, wh5ch plaintiff and 
hlH attorney had hefore them nt th >■ time isj dated Aup;ust ??1, 
191^5, and it sUitea that the title ifl in the defendant, tjub- 
ject to the taxes for 1913, and L^xe five inatallments of the 


. ai-J^-n-T} -T-: ,j'-.jriJ par* ixJcs.T 

.;ii;*;j; , ■' ■:< ••■j{i\}vi-i.vii 

I iiii ..-jv;. ■■■, n/l^ TCOt 

ItktSilM!' ■■■■■■■■-tiHB 

' '■ 1't»q 

• Y*i«tni tnrt saoX eiil r* "* .-..-. 

f . ■ - ■ 


special &sb0B)im6»t iji 'qur^ation* In view of the inf ormut i<-ft 
given by theuig docuiiiOtitic], v?e uc not t^iiix ii i& reu£onal}le 
to say that plaititiif reiicti Ui-ori « verbjiX atute; Uit.t 
the first instalinisnt hud oten paio. ever fire aicntha b«;fcre; 
at lea&t, the cpinior. of oitie ohoiild iuxvc pxxt plaintiff 
upon notice aa to tho ff.ct. Xt ia not ticnic^ct thr.t a^fimda^t 
stated bt the time Uiat- i^e vvouii;; convey tho title wr.ich he 
had as dhoim by txiia opinion* 

By the warrjmty dtjed plaini.iff took title i^ubject 
to all taxes an i aa:.caf>raenta levitd for the year 1912 -axia 
to all unpaid special aaaesun&ntB* It is a famillr^r rule 
that s written contruct executea between parties euperaedes 
all prior ncgotiationo, reprtsoentations and lir-Teensents upon 
the same subject* 

*e Bee no re.. con to dii>turb the judgaant of the 
trial court, and it is affirmed, 



Biia 1c> &n::'i\'i': 

^ a n* 


, , ■ . • - ■ ■ , .t 

97 • 21486 

Dttfendant in -rror. 


psT£R KL mn. 

Plaintiff in cx;/or. 




197 I A. 4 59 

Plaintiff, riding hia motor bicycle, collided with 
d«f end{int*a automobile), op. ratod by <J4>f tsndant, in Jackoon 
Park, Chicago, Plaintiff was injured ajid brnuf;ht ouit againwt 
defendimt for d -inuf.ges . TJ^Tion trial by the ooart he haUl 
Judgment for 44bO, 

Defendatit ralieu for revfersHl upon two Hllcged 
errors, the first of w ia atattni in '.is lirief au follo-.i?a: 
•1. 'rhe failure -and refusal of the cvi^'t to }ioia tlvat the 
plaintiff v/as guilty of oontritmtory nogligorioe and not 
entitled to recover na aho^sen by tho vnriouB rulin.^ti of tli© 
court," It ■? -aid a 5rve no ujoful pur.^oye to nnrrato tlio 
eTidancd. Tha cau« aeens to havo betm fairly tried by the 
trial court and the tOBtiraony cwefully weif^hcd. The ^udge 
even wont ao far a.j to viait thti aoiin« of th« collision find 
vuHtG a ptjracmai inaptjction of the aurroundinf-B . The court 
cculd reasonably believe thut while plaintiff wna proocrly 
riding U'>cn the rlf^t aid© of the ro.?td the def©nd"«t intpronerly 
croosdd over from hi» right to th« left aide; of thr <'.riv«?way. 
»e see no reason to dljju>;re;: with the conclusion thiit the 
plaintiff wan not guilty of imy negligent conduct v/hich 
caused or contributed to the accidont. 

The seccmd error assigned is: "2. Tho failure 

dJ tv 


de^x^i - VQ 

urr-^ i^l 


iil.ijij , -> fiifoi',?)-:? ■ ' <'a'5-'b 




, *ir?M' ■■^t'zStw-: 


and refusal of the com-t to hold that tlui' defend«tnt wne j^uilty 
of negligence aa shown by the variouB rulings of the court ,•* 
Taking this lunijuage literally, tho obviouB nnsver is that 
the court did not fail and rf»fuoe "to hold that the defendant 
waa ^^uilty of negligence. " If counsel intended to say that 
the court should have found that defen i{?nt was not guilty of 
negligtmce, it is a sufficient «vit?.wer to aay that in our 
opinion the conclusion of the c ■'Urt that the defendant was 
negligent waa amply justified un^er the evidence, 
fhe judgment is af firmed. 



XJ^liitf ^.\6w?<1t«> tod e.t ' .r;a«ulsi bna 

188 • 2X581 


IM^endant in Error, / ) mnon TO 



/ " 




COMPA?!Y, ' / ) 

.i.i«ti*f ta =*«/. 51971. A. 4 62 


Th0 ibitu&X Health & Accldeant Aeoeciutlon, efterwarda 
Bucoended by the CloTer Leaf Casualty Com^sny, the dof<mcLaat, 
isouod w^at is termed a "Hoalth and Aocidtmt Policy** to Guo 
Gertz, in wjilch hia wife, Johanna Gertas, plaintiff » w&» nanedl 
aa toenefici&ry. On Kovembor 20, 1913, Qertz died. Plaintiff 
broug>it »ult for ^1,000, the amount payable under the terms 
of the policy in V-ie ertrnt that the death of the inJJUfed was 
OAUsed through accident* iJjon trial by the court ahe had 
Judgment for that amotXnt. 

It is urged by the defendant th:?.t no accident «aB 

proved iind th.t the insured died^pon dioeaee. The evidence 

of an accident ie imrdly convincing, - ^iritnesf i to a t i f i ad 


that while t^H t iuaured -"w<»e loaning coal fg^OBfea- pile tof - a- 

wagon some lun^s fynm t>^«=> p4i<i> ro^4»d-'"«i:«>^Y' striking Q<srtz on 
the foot or legjj^ -ttrert ^t thu tieie he gave no ©xclaimiition or 
indication of. rprai^Miiwfi injury, but continued ew at»Ai e ' w orkiJ--^^i 
and neitiier then nor iT hwreuf te^ c viiille delivering the i#«d— esP — 
coal or^^olng home v r iUr' ti i T--g itne»« did G^rtas say.anythijis, 
-aiyovtt -awy coal falling Kteon him. **» TiTtB 'l^tneas wao working 
on the opposite aide of th: wfegon^ fr o m Or rr ^ g, it i a^ dt f f ieult 
t<ri}elTev« tbni lie cf'iiild see coal etrike G rta on the foot 





vrf X«i;' . •«bi!i>a^ jijjjLiQWt^ t4»«i;«io 

hiiX-'-;- atvfioe xXb^Ad sit ^aoolosis nx; "io 

■4«iiiiXiis .> t> » <i<Hw Ji f»-"rt»^ «wna;i grtio-j^ 10 i^o 

M^ra •JtiriH Jtuoo »•« f>Xiri sd ? /•LX»d' ^^ 


or l«g, ^ tojtiflbit l o %y Ifkie physician, the cause of doi-th 
was diabetes mellitus, Kcoompanled by a gangrenous condition 
of the foot inci ont to diabetic ulcer. It waa aiaply proved 
that the iniiUred had suffered for a lon^: time from tha di B Cftx 
of diabetou* and that for tv ro o r mora years before lii« denth 

had a diabatlo uloer of th« foot, ' whIoE vnnj tvto inches 
bread and an inch Icmg^ exposing bones one*lmlf inch to one 
inch deep, fiiw insured -jhrertt- d^ir ing thA s ti n w frequently 
complain ed about his f o ot «1^e— a~ i fr ttM b «r ~'Of""' H o quaint oif P itfa ^ A 
few days before hie death some of his fellow workman called 
i»f»on him, and to~ ff O «!)p o nu ' « ' to a suggestion that poghape hie 
foot hurt becauBe coal dropped on it, :a&, Gertz replied, •'.No, 
1 d(»i»t J«iOw nothing ab ut coal Urop Ing on it," and, again, 
h© aaid, "I don't rer.iewber of any ooal of an^ kind fallimL,_ 
upon my leg," A t th is-t-inwr ap p juunll y, he wos.ih^fuli 
poosesaion of hie Hfa«HF*«i faculties IlfTf ter giving full con- 
sideration to the evidence tending to support plaintiff's 
theory of accident, we w^uld bo Ju»tified in finding th&tt the 
injured did not come to his death throug^t accidental means* 
*• prefer, ho«revc;r, to base our ccmclunion on two 
other grounds, eitli«r of which is sufficient to require a 
reversal of the juagnserjt, 

I*laintif**a claim, as loade in her etatoment of 
claim and arnjued by her counsel. Is thnt tlio lni3ured died from 
blood-poisoning or infection through the foot, caused by the 
injury r^jcelved from the fulling coal. ven if w« RBouine 
this to bo true, liability for deatli from suob a cause was 
expreaaly excepted by the terms Of the policy,]r^« policy 
lnuure«( at^aAniat "Bodily Injuries, effected directly and 
independently of all other causeu tmd solely thrn«.igh extental, 
violent and accidental means.** It also 


o^H^-rtf- nit »iir SasU 

^—<S-.tb r. brti ^Mt- 

,• 'Jams »'>'' 
.i wjR^jfjwt •rf' t* Xii«'j»V(»« 

.c^^l^^tnl xHi»3&'' .#»ifi«^ Jkoi'ic^ttiufc 

• 5* 

proTiMp?*:, *^In the ov<,nt of * * * injury due wholly cr in 
j»art to or resulting 'lircctly or indirectly in or from * * 
finy (i.itioage or bodily infirwity, or * * ♦ inf«ction in any 
for»r, or manner * ♦ •» The Associ ition shall not be liable «''• 
A furtlisr proTiioion i::, "Oieehility resulting from « * « 
abGCQssiets, ulcers, and blood-poiaoninf?;, are classified as 
sickneed, and >svo covered only under the sick bemorit cluuees 
ef thi« policy, "Plii vie?? of thone proyloione it is clonr 
thiit plaintiff cannot r«coTer the accident doath liability 
for the death of the intsurcd from blood-poiuoning ana infee- 
tio t' « The liinKu«igft ic toe clev-r to re-iuiro construetitm 
by tlio court, 

.■f> ai-e of tJis opinion thfrt there v?ao a Ketticment 
between the- purtieu, ^ .ten iu a "bar to any further recovery on 
th« p9Xicy,GJ TtiQ policy ac^i-iTmn- Y-ri^ty of contingencies, 
witJi vtfri;jnt >jnc".in tfi to be p-if', It c b ^ ^ tb - not only dr^ath 
from Ji.c.-iiafint, bilt louu of har>da, fefvt, •?tn,, indensnity while 
diBubled from aocidt'nt, t irti-.l dirisbllity, illnesn indeajnity, 
and ao3ti« ^AtfUt or nin-ji other ccntlngimoio!?, inoludlnK death 
fro.Ti 8icicioii56.. it m>i* pfriv ' iid -W? t aftor th e d e tr ttt-'-of-'-'^Te 
inuured.plFiintjJ f d;?in,-jid <5 payrrent ^jt«*-*b*' the "liincsa indemnity* 
5H?4;»^»4UwUuj of U:e policy,, ♦-«4 .feikw^TjTh i.^ •?.'?.!?? on id ytu 1ii,!j*, and she 
tm:3 alao . » ;>^ikd ^tho Jiftcjjit puy?4l;lc ggt^^t ^- th .? pf f WT imgt'Tipr 
pSgSBX&X •*if tho death of ti e „ie:iiT-.r r<»?ultr. frow t'lcknees*; 
Rnct ohe eir-Tned a receipt f ar *v h i . --Wi%^*^#U.»>-4»M*».~ | ! > » » < W "in full 
satticnient cf ail claimfc. ' e-H^-M(^tV•fv<v-■«rTt^'t<»n«^#^--^f^--4^r•»ud<^-i^ 

■is h e v « g-"dT>Jtn^— '«a»<t wue atiaiEted by "hi r drujrbt-sr, r(« intelligent 
girl twenty yaaTs 0/ agft,(*/Cr»,iBea cited by plain tiff* 8 counsel 
are not in point. Xhia io not u nu .e whore there waa a certain 
fixed 8UH1 due, and a Battlement for a l«as? ajnount. n© we have 
indicated above, the amount payable under the policy depended 


\ \ 
fit \lx 



;*'.-'U!iUrf..' t3KMS0r 

i)?->bmiqnb xaiica nnUlt •ifsbwi »io'fi\;iSif J-fKicaui ^iU ,ovoom bvixioittu 

• 4- 

upon the contlni^encieo axlatlng rmd the facte roXfttln^f, to 
the insured. Plaintiff was in a better position thtm ^myone 
elxi« to know th@ facto conoernind; the illno»9 ixnd death of 
the inuured, ^.he was ooinpet<?nfc to aettle with diafondant upon 
the boais of her opinion and knowlfjdge of thesa* facts. Hriving 
done ao, .ilie cannot no*' aaaort anottJtir cle&isi* 

It wl^t al«o 1)« added, in Tiew of the provi»i<MEt of 
the policy th t disability resultin«^ fron ulcers and blood* 
poisoning should be claauified a^.; si<;3(ne»u ;m . eovcred only 
un^er the aick benefit olauseeof the policy, that we do not 
see how plaintiff properly could have laade olaia for henefits 
other thftn thoue wiTiicih wero paid to her. 

U:;)0« the record plaintiff i» not entitled to recover, 
and the Judgment is rcveroed withnut reisanding the oattse« 



t&» •aob 

la - i^aies 

\ Appelln.nt, ) 

▼ 8, 

HAJPS A. Ciimi&L, ) / 

Appellee, ) 

OF COOK coum'Y. 


/ 19 7I.A.4 71 


TJalw appeal brxnga in review a jud^^ent for 
the defendant entered on a vcraict of not guilty in an ac- 
tion on tno c«»e for pereorml injuriee auatalned by plain- > 
tiff through the alleged negligence of the defend«atw The 
defendart, ». oitngli , wnss driving his' gt t t OC :i 3 t >lt t> in the 
rigiit-hnnd atreet cnr track in J.-il'n/aukee aversue, ilain-' 
tiff started to cross tk e jfc rw et — 1«— fi dini^ow^lJj AirviUhion 
between two street intersections. The distance between 
the rifiht-hand of the rigJat-h»nd tracii and the curh 
V -ttj ten fent five incnes. . J laintiff ttetified thut he looked 
kv %hm ri fri h t.>4fcB<i ^4 > e tkr -fyft 4nd did not see tiie car^ anti: *''^— 
lAld n o t know tiiat. iiie ' i ' ia ^ms on^on the atreet until ha was 
struck. Defendant testified that he saw j>lHintiff when he 
stepped -^town from the curb; ismi th - r -c nr w m o tirien fifty 
feet ff em hiw and ^.oing at th<8 rate of ten atiles an hour; 
that <»w#tr»4*HB* sfmim***- tne horn of his oar^five or six 
times, a «a wheo h e oaw thot ^p lain tiff paid no attention 
the iiu r n he applied the brakes and locked ttte rear >*n©els 

• of -^ h e- oftg , &ut the trnck was wet and the oar slid 
gai - te and strucii plaintiff. /\ 

The contention that, the Court erred in refusing 
to adnlt a paper written in court by defendant at the re- 
quest of plaintiff's couneel, ria evidence tendin^.^ to i!;;peaoh 
defendant's testisaony that he did not write a certain other 


\iii<^i L'ix, L ! 

... J 


pAper ftdioltted in cvldenc«, la v/lthout merit. The genuineneas 
of handwriting oannot b* proved or tUaputed by s.Xlowing the 
Jury to compare it with other writing of the party proved 
or ad;jiittt>d to be genuine unless the writing witn which it 
is sought to ooiapare that clalffled as not genuine is prop'* 
erly in evidence and pertinent tc the case, 

Jugpert V, The i eopie , iil ill, 4i.;7; 
Brobaton v. Qmixll , 64 ia. 356, 

The jury w«sre fully irisitructcd aa to the law 
governing::, the case, »nd it w?>a not error to refuse j: Iain- 
tiff's first iniitruction. 

.;ur concluaion froa the eviaence in the record 
Is thst the question of whr^ther defendant was guilty of 
neglif-enoe in runr ing hi» cnr» and the question whether 
the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negli^/enoe, are 
botJx questiona of fact fcr th«> Jury, on w-dch their veraiot 
ia conclusive. 

Findin^^ no error in tiie record, the Jud»-:^ent 
is affirmed. 

itimiMi 'zo 

lie - 2lb06 

copartner©, and A,1X;rN & GARCIA ) 

Ijefendknta in Krror, ) 


\ ) / OF CHICACO, 

ARThUH li. L;V/£TT, \ 

. laintlff \n Krror. 

V""' / 197 I. A. 47 5 

teH. JlJ.iTlCl!; BAJ<.KH BKLIVEKED rm OHiaON 0}? TH*; COUKT. 


auit was brought JfmufWry X3, 19X4, by 
Allen and Garcia, copartners bb Allen I. Garcia, against 
A. II. awctt. larch 16, 1914. it wm» ordered that all 
papers an proceedings be imd they thereby were ar. ended by 
making Allen S~ Garoift Company, « corporation, co-plaintiff 
in the action. Garcia j ^* a mining engineer, and A n tfa e i^^c^^>-^^ 
|t ^ «««»«r-i»*^-*91r*- iiwett aoin^d nia to exM.;*.ine coal land in 
" Iowa and make a report. He did ao, and charged fo_r his 
services and expenses $338. 2(,. im^ for W*i* sum^plaintlffa 

™4>l^-errTrrr The Lucos Coal * jupply <:o., a corporation of 
which ^wett ^naa president and treasurer and a director, -vas 
thr owner of the mine, and the contention of plaintiff in 
error lu that the Lucas Uof-.pany and not jwett ts- liable 
for the services rendered.'^ The question waa one of fact 
for the trial Court. The burthen of proof was on the 
plaintiffs to prove that owett was liable. Cur conclusion 
from a careful examination of the evidence ia that the Court 
ifliKht from the evidence properly find that Uwett was liable, 
and that the findin^^: of the trial judge ought not to bo dis- 
turbed. It dorrs not appear that any objection on the ground 
of BlsJ cinder of plaintiffs was made in the Municipal Court, 
and the propriety of the Joinder of plnintiffs ia not ques- 

soeis - au 


( ,a:( hhox. 



a9tnbn9t ■•olnsa 9AJ 

it iaA& tif^i 

tioned by any aaslgnpent of arroT, nor la it argued in tixe 
brief of pifiintiff in error except in the reply brief, and 
tnerefore 2&u9t be considered as waived. 

The record ia in our opinion free froai re- 
▼ereible error, nnd the judgment is affirmed. 


11- *ill54 

JMi^ii D, nu^lJ^^ii doing 
bualneas a» WllXl&ais Grain 

Defendant in Error, 


JOii^l'H KRUG, 

ilaintiff in r.rror. 

V / 


) fmhi,ii. 'i'C MUKiC'UrAL COUKT 

ui»' Chic AUG, 

97I.A. 483 

kit. JU iTiCK lioLlXJK DE'.LIVERK.-S T,tiK OiraMIOK C.v ?HK COUJiT, 

ThlB writ of error iu iued out by defenuaiit to 
reyer»9 a judgment of $128.67 agalnat him on a claijji ti:i&t 
plaintiff sold and delivered to defendant certain oata, h1» 
falfa, grain rtnd bran. Tiie trial whs before the court iVith- 

out a jury. 

/• Thei 

there was no pereonal equniion uctween the 
parties to the tranuaotion nor any prior aea'lini^s bet*«een 
then. The order on «hicn the oata, etc., was delivered .vaa 
by telephone, but vhe peraon v?iio gave trie order, if *5.ny was 
given, reaiains unidentified. JtO attei^pt vms ii, to v&rify 
the order, but the oata, bran, ftc., were delivered rjot to 
defendant but nt a barn near 3927 Irairle avenue, Chicago, 
where three other /ruga - 's'llliaci, oeorKe find i enry - kept 
boraea. The receipts for the oata offered in evidence are 
algned neither by defenaarst nor by any person authorised by 
or acting for him, i?urthermorc, th*: teatiiony deirtonatratea 
that fit the tisnft the oatw, j'. rain, f^tc. , fiere delivered by 
plaintiff, defendant had a contract v^ith another firm for 
these eoBiiZiodities, whlcn were supplied by said firm to de* 
fendant regularly durinK that time. "/C? 

aend^ng blllu to a person ^vith Dridosi the sender 

i»^;ri. 1.1 

» ■'■ 

.iit^b t^' Jtttj h: 


BJOi"^ .06": 


^<J ij»t«»vi..I<»i> ^t:) 




has no oontrciotuaX relutiou or dealings haa nv valu« Bta «irl* 
d«nce, Xacisa probatiir« force and eatabXi»ii©» no fstot. it 
defendant actuuliy received the biliu uliUiaad to xik'^c been 
aent to lata by i laintiff, he was r.ot le-ticreby chr^rfo'ed. witk any 
duty concerriirit; th«m, l-.H-d tcere been imy contractuiil rela- 
tionship between the parties, the reeuipt o': ^uch l>.ill8, 
without objection, mititit have ripened iuio an accuanl. ^uataU, 
but ducii i:i not the situation between th«r parcica tu U^iu ao«* 

it looka vi?ry much aa if i^yjie of the quartet of 
Kru^a hati rtjoeived Ui,«3 jiteref.itwtdiii« of plaintiff l« iiuit and 
liiHt the ai*iri© iirj^ bcei) oor».i*.i/i.i5ii by the iiorsea of on« or 
worci of them. i /.i 513 good ooniscienoe rjlaintiff ahouXd re- 
c«:ive payBu>nt froi:.- «jiO«ver actuaXly r^c^AVed -xnti oviuletl of 
such cotanotiitiea, t:ut :.hejie equitablw aun^ldersttiona vill 
not jusitlfy this court in austB,iniftg a ju«ir:»fient v/iiieh Xaokn 
proof of ftr.y faot V'.ich in law i#; neceaaary to aupport it. 
The law afforae no re).if:f for dl;,.piy moi-dkl clrt.ti«» aa distin- 
guished fro/ji legnj. cX.'iiais. iXaintiff waw ovtr-confiding In 
failing to kno». the p&reon with «thom hft w«i8t dealing e.nd. in 
not vc^rlfyinfr the order before deXiveriotj the ^ooda, 

There ia no tvicience ir. {,:ul& record wajLaining 
plaintiff '« olaf-iffi ana th* jiud;;aient of the ; unicipaX .;ouj«t 
la reversed and one of ni l cH: i a t entered in t^-la aourt* 


16i • ^1192 

DefiitnUariit in 2rror, 


*.AlUi;K;iATA TOi^ZiUC and 

*lainuif^a In Error/ ) 


197I.A. 484 


ilaintiff ucoupxeU (ii« pr«£(aaes tiVol iarquetta 
«T«r,u«, w'iiloHgo, f'O.yins, Jtent tu UeferidAnts, under a lease 
expiring October 2i» 1914, i^elendttnta notified the 

plaintiff prior tu U»e t^tpiration of Uxo leaiie that they 
would expect prom|.-t surrender of j.Oi^aeeeion, as Uiey hnd 
Bsxnie a least; to anotuor terumt* Uiti term of %>hich con}- 
uencecl on : oveaiber 1, I.J14, and tht^t if ylRintiff re/.aincd 
in pooeeaaion after the ©xviration of jila lea;..e» rent 
W' uld be chftrgeS at the rate of ^75 p«r montii; that de- 
fendants needed pooaeaaion promptly in order to li^ake n«ce»- 
8«ry rcjBire for the nav tenisnt btlore i»is term ooatotnced. 
There wae iw furti^er nfigotijition for a new leaae or for an 
extension of the old tent between the parti e», and no new 
lease or extension of the old terai was made. On ootober 
7, 1914, deferidanttt interfered witi. plaintiff's poaseesion 
by coRineiiCin^ the luoJfcing of certaiu reja-ire. jl»intiff 
quit bu»ine»8 on tniit tiay i^oid three dayb liiereafter vacnted 
the premiaee and surrendered the aajfae to defendants, on 
October 29, 1914, plaintiff sent aef e-'idafita a post office 
order for 4*'^» whicjti wae returned, an s tie clntms th'^t 
through BecJfcr, his F«i;ent, he tendered the same in currency 
to flefendants earlier in the saoie month, Thrt trial "*>»» be- 
fore court and Jury end resulted in a vf^rdict and judgment 
for ^.I'^&t and defendants seek thia review and ask a reversal. 






A09« BJnjii/;*i'(»'il»ji7 vol 

llaintiff nas failed to favor the court with 
\ I any brief, it ia ur^ctd for reveraHi that the court err«d 
I I in its instruotiona to the jury, inatruotion '^$l9 b;«.8ed 
upon the theory that the IftR&e of plaintiff wa» extended. 
ji9 do not tttj (gather frosa the evidence. Defendante notified 
plaintiff in writing th»t they expected a prompt surrender 
of posaeaaion and threatened ^.o penalise plaintiff by 
charging hls^i rent at the rate of ^Ib a otonth if he h«fld ov«r , 
This was twice the amount of rent that plaintiff waa paying 
under hla lease. But tills did not conatltute an a^grceiiient 
\ either for a new lease or an extenaion of Um ter-tj of the 
existing lease* liaintlff did not intlu^ate for how long he 
would accept a new ter^i. Neither did defendant a intimate 
how long they <i^uld allow plaintiff to ie:oain aa tenant <ifter 
th«? expiration of the existing lease. Furtheri&ore, defendants 
had notified plaintiff in writing that they had 1 emeed to a 
new tenant for a terra oonuaenoing the first day of the auc- 
, ceedinf:^ laonth of i/ovember. The fact thai a new lease had been 
cr-l aade took away from defenviants the power to make another 

Iftase to plaintiff or uny one elBC, A tender of the :!!-75, 

I tiie amount of the threatened penalty in the notice to aurren- 
^ der possession, in no vmy constituted a meetini^' of the <uinds 
of the parties upon n new tersi. A contract to be binding 
nust be definite in all it» pruviisiuns, Tuere was neither 
i-.a offer nor an acceptance of a new term, llaintiff volun- 
tarily Jtioved out of tiie preiHiiBes upon oefend&nta »tarting to 
ffiake the repairs and j«bout two weeks prior to tiending to de- 
fendants the i:7J> post office order, it therefore follows 
tiiat the Instruction of the court t the jury that the lea** , 
of plaintiff expired ( otobcr 'i>, 


ourt t the jury that the leass , 
5, 1914jja*«i thct it '.vaa plain- 

tiff 8 duty to "vacate said pramises at that tisie unless you 

■'t Tr-,,-! l'*f*rf.i:Rjt r 


find frotu the evidence Ui»t he made soae arrangetienta witlj 
defendnnts whereby h« w»« to retain poseeaaion after tne 
ex-irotion of said lease f", wo e nr r unvoun ;, ■ ■ 

i'OT the errors indicwted tlie judi<;Bjtmt of liie 
municipal court is reversed and the cause reuAnded. 


■jniiX.v^Si '. 

AZ - 21346 



aurviving piHintiff,. i / 

Appellant, ) / 

i Aii-tAl. FUCL iiUPMtiOH COUHt 
ve. , ) / 


CHAflLJiii J, facClJlHE. ) / 

Appelloo, ] / 

197I.A. 486 

\ / 


Thill la an nction of trespass against defendant 
for brealcing the cloa«» of plaintiff and dif;f;ing and carting 
away the aoil frowi his land^ Ijefendant acLaitWthe trespaaa 
and the carrying Ai'^ray froia plaintiff 'a land of fifteen wag- 
ona of tii)il, containing two cubic yarda per wigon, while 
^ilaintiff iniJiatrtliat defendant carried a^way two hundred 

he value of such 


soil nt i tf"" ^ i r- ' -i't i t i ' i tt ■ ■ri f intTnA frtH i frtn i ntt f F'tt II r mi was 
^1,14 per cubic yard. 

A trial :>efore court :ini Jury resulted im a 
verdict and Judigaent for $2A,2C>; plaintiff, 'ooin«; distsatio* 
fied, bringa the record to this court for review. 

The queationu involved are largely of fact. 
It is flrnly eettled that taia court will not disturb a 
judiynent reating upon the verdict of a Jury unless it ia 
apparent froiH all the evidence that the Vf-rdint ie clearly 
contrary to its i-reponderating fcrce, or x,unt the ruling* 
of the court in procedure and in ita inutructlons were cal- 
culated to jiiialead the jury to th« coii. plaining party's in- 

j ^vy . 

The trial was attended with more taan one error 
in procedure ana aome of the inatruotiona were, in unimportant 
particulars, faulty. There was an a/uount of levity and flip- 



aaeic:-. :-^rt 


'^wiitf «>f!it..^;. 

pant conduct on the part of counsel for defendant in the 
course of the trial, which vras entirely unwarranted and ill 
became the occaaion. The trial cf a suit at law la alwaye a 
serious matter and ahould be oonduoted with the proprieties 
of the court room ever in mind. Counsel for defendant has 
continued his flippant treatment of the case in the brief 
wl-iich he has filed In this cuurt. .;»uch conduct doeo not meet 
with our approval. 

The paramount queation in iaaue is the oaiiount of 
soil removed and its value. The Jury evidently gave tuore 
credence to the testii^uony of the <?itne3aeB for defendant than 
to that of the witneaaes for plaintiff. This was within the 
power vf^eted in tiierc by law, A review of tiie evidence con- 
vinces u» that, the teatiiiiony of plaintiff was inaufficicnt to 
sustain hia contention that two hundred loads of soil were 
rei.oved by defendant frow the lana of plaintiff. The jury 
evidently paid little attention to the teati.vony of the '.■wit- 
ness who kept tab by isarks on the outaiue of her house of 
the loads reinoved by teanis, whether the teams were tuose of 
defendant or others, v?hioh marks were afterwards somewhat 
obscured by n coat of paint. The nuoiber of loads reinoved 
was not before the jury for deteru-ination, but the asaount of 
soil which defendant had removed. We tiiink tzie Jury were 
justified from all the evidence in finding; that defendant 
did not reiriove frosi plaintiff's land more than thirty cubic 
yards of soil, 

it ia urged that the court erred ir. refusing to 
adii'it in evidence Section 1495 of the i eviaed iunicipal Code 
of Chicago, act out in the declaration, lue orainaiice is 
penal, it provides for a fine of not leas than five nor 
more than fifty dollars for each offense of wnlnwfully tailing 
away earth frorfi the land of another without first obtaining 





oiiaoiSfi 3ilU0iiii^tAsi 0£iX 


the owner's consent. It is Qufficient tu 9&y ttmt the action 
was not brought under tlie ordinance for the ptnalty therein 
provided. The teatin^t'ony 4hat defendant obtained a perxuit to 
^ take away the a. il wnicxi he removed wat» iroaiaterial, as 

CruikahanJc, from vfhoja defendarjt claiaa he obtained the per- 
. ajit, was not proven to be the owner of txift land from ulriii^i 
the soil W&6 pilfered. The adriilssion of thli^ teatiuiony was, 
however* hannlesa error, aia it in no v/ay aff«cteti the ques- 
tion of the amount oT joil taiicen by defendant. i,Oi-eciver, 
the point was covered in an instruction given to the jury 
at the inatfuice of plnintiff. The feet t.hal aoiae of the 
defendant's ersployeeo \tere arrested for purloining soil 
from tiie land of plaintiff wao not a fr<ct pertinent to tiie 
I iseues involved in the oult, and if adiviitted could serve no 
good purpose. 1 roof of the f?'ct that jaen who were not ser- 
vants or aiients of defendant dug and carted avmy aoil froxa 
the land of plaintiff was admissible to rebut any inference 
that might otherwise be indulged tixat uuch «.en were acting 
for defendant, and that defendant would therefore be charge- 
able witii the soil uo re^iuved. 

Complaint ie made of improper rc-naarks made by 
counsel in his dossing argxunent to the Jury, jome of them 
were improper and aiiould not have been iaade. While counsel 
objected at the ttfli« by sifnply saying "I. object," he failed 
to press for the ruling of the court. At the conclusion of 
tiie argutacnt of counsel for defendant tiaire is noted an "ex- 
ception by plaintiff to eaon and every part of the argument 
of defendant's counsel." This was of no avail as an exception 
to the whole or any part of the argujiifint, Oojections tauat 
be specific so tnat the court may be able therefrom to rule 
upon the language specifically objected to, A ti«jnoral excep- 
tion at the end of the argument is insufficient. 

i:i7\CK) iit'Hr^?iO lij 

:j -. . . -! i . 

It r^. L. .iCn- 

M * 

fie arc unable to aay, after a careful exajnulna* 
tion of the Instructions about mxiah plaintiff ccuipiruna, 
that any one of theai la no inaccurate as to xisrc nad the 
•ffeot of .'s.i»leadlng the jury on the crucial question be- 
fore therr* for solution, na^-'-ely, the a;aount n,nd value of the 
soil reinoved by defendnnt from plaintiff's land« There vvas a 
Bharp conflict in the eTidence and the giving of the inutruo- 
tion concerning the veracity of the >/itnease8, etc., was 
therefore not improper. It ia in the for^ii approved by our 

courts. )/« tiiink the jury were siufficivrntlj inistrycted on 
tha law of tnp case and on !?ll .nutcrial ranttere properly be- 
fore them for con*icieration. Che jury *ore fully instructed 
at the instance of plaintiff as tj his theor.v of the case, 
ann the ;aodif Ication by the court of plaintiff's iruitruo- 
tlons "(OB, 5 and 4 »»» ?jithout error. 

The er.rjra tn tuia rf.corct d': not so nffcct tirie 
Merits of the case as to juotify a rever8v<?Ll of the judiiraont 
of the oujjerior Court, ana it is therefore affirmad. 


^OA ttOHttlC. .1 

49 - ^14 17 

jLi«fejiid&nt in, Error, 




Jrlaintlff In Krror/ j 

\ / 197I.A. 488 


ThlB is & writ of error calling for our review of 
the record of the Municipal court, in vviiich a Judgment upon 
the finding of the trial Judge was entered a^suinut def eiiciant 
and in favoi of plaintiff for #603.56, 

llaintiff claisied and proved thni iic h«d an 
•CrtttMlit vath tJfie defendant for tciti iJHyiuant, to hii<> by 
defendant of ten cents a yard for 5t3& yarda of wouXens 
which plaintiff, a» a br ker, had negotJiatcd viUi Jturm 
iichillwr • Coisptmy to uell to defendant, iliUntiff intro- 
duced dofenciant to Jturm :jchiller Company nnd rendered 
servioea in procuring thia Co^iipany to sell to defendant the 
wuolena above aientioned. There is a sharp conflict in the 
evidence aa to whether plaintiff rendered any service to 
defendant in this tranaaotion or whether defendant promiaed 
to pay the compensation deoianded. The defendant contends 
that if there was any understanding concerning the traxjsac- 
tion, it was Iv the purport «nd effect ta«t if defendant 
eould ouy the woolens for forty cents a yard, no t?ould then 
pay plaintiff ten cents a yard brokerai^e; that as a xaatter 
of fjiict defendant paid fifty-seven and wne-h«lf cents a 
yard for the vioulens. 

The evidence of ii^e i i.M.ntitt uncontradicted 
is sufficient to euatain the judjiKient, ^e will therefore 
assuae tiiat the trial Judge gave credence to the evidence 



tliJaiuXq ^Ait 

' «Y. 

of plaintiff and wa» not permiaded of the verity of the evi« 
dence of defendant, yhe advantaf;e« of tne trial court wer« 
•uperior to oure in judtUn^ oT tiie w(!:^ of the evidence 
and ao to ita preponderating force. The witirjessea came 
under the personal obftervntion of the trial, wulle 
our review is confined to the eviaence contained in the 
record, «itiiOut ti^e added Kdv&ntai/e of aeeing and hearing 
the witnestiee. There are no errors of i^rooedure affecting 
the merits of plaintiff • a clttiai. 

The aatfie weight muct be accorded the finding 
of the trial judise u.a in given to the verdict of a Jury, 
Hotwith«itanding plaintiff Imu fciiled to furniah any brief 
on tlils hearing, we aee no reaoun for disturbing the judg- 
ttent of the . unioipal Court, and it in affirmed. 


120 - 21510 


Deferidant in '"rror, 

\ /) mmuii TO iiuiuciiAL court 

▼8. \ • / ) 

HENRY JAC0J3I,\ ' ) 
ilaint'^ff in Error f ) 


197 I.A. 493 



Defendant was arreated and convicted on a com- 
plaint charging hiru with. vio]<>.ting oection 2012 of the i'.e- 
vised Municipal Code of Chicago and on the verdict of a 
jury W113 fined v200. Defendant seeka a review of the 
judgment entered on tJxia verdict and asks a reversal. 

Defendant filed his petition for a change of 
venue, whicn the court denied. Various errors are assigned 
upon the record, but in the condition of the record before 
us, the law vill not allow tais court L'j consider any of 

There is not.-inf; before us but the tjtatutory 
record. Thi3 does not preserve for our consideration the 
rulings of the couit upon the motion for a change of venue 
or any of the other niotions made, the evidence of wnich 
njust be preserved by a bill of exceptions. The fact that 
they v/ere copied into the statutory record is not suffi- 
cient. KeacocJ : v. F ^osmer , 1C9 111, 245. 

Exceptions to the rulingK of the court which 
appear in the cofiufion law record, but are not preserved by 
bill of exceptions, are not a part of the record and errors 
assigned thereon cannot be considered by the- reviewing 
court, grand 1 acif ic Hotel v. 1 inkerton , 217 111. 61. 

The rulings of tiie Municipal court on a peti- 
tion for a change of venue are not before the reviev/ing 


-■*' .JL. 


ais^fno ;rnoBr^btit 

0/5 eirfT .bioosr. 
/i ;< r.K'o 9({J^ lo agnilui 

■ it to YnjB to 
' f rd (» yd frfjvisBWjq 9d' Jswtc 


^nji>J:«aoo ocf J^etiniso ao*ti9ill bsngiscMt 

' i*A"^^^iI^-j: •''■ XpJoH a ll i 0-6 j b aflfi I) ..ttuoo 

:f> ■SjKjtli.'l flllT 

court unleas the pttition an.3 the rulings of the court thereon 
are made to appear either by a bill of exceptions, stenographic 
report or a stateuient of fact, as provided by the iunicipal Court 
Act. Cerdowalfcy v. Zawlewicz . 180 111, App. 481. 

A8 the questions sought to be presented for 
our consideration on this writ of error were not preserved 
in such manner that they can be reviewed by txiis court, the 
Judgment of the iiuuicipal Court is affirmed, 



156 - :1548 

K. LAiilKY, 

JDef andant in rror. 



•::,A5fU-^L\M-tfD'a.;'>0N and nms^Mis 

MEt^D.'uL.IOH, doing buisineias/as 
Plain tiff » in/tirror , 



) I'AmOii TO 


i97I.A. 494 


This CUB® waa here once before, «iion the judgratint 
of the trial court ^aa reveraad for error in refUBing to 
admit certain evidence proff';;red by defendant, l,aake/ v. 
Kendelaon . et al . 191 111, Apy, 697, A retrial has bean 
had, in which the error for which thia court reversed the 
former judgment Srae not repeated and plaintiff Bucoeoded 
on a trial before the court without a Jury in recovering n 
Judgment for il47,44, and defendnnt a^ain brings the renord 
before U8 for review. 

Th<9 controvoray in tiiiu cuio io whether the "feed*, 
the subject Biatt©r of this auit, wau »old to def<^danta or to 
the North vestern Paper it^toek Co. The latter company went 
Into bankruptcy but failed to schedule plaintiff au a 
creditor. This ia only a circurosjtance to b«? considered in 
connection with all the other evidence, ond although not 
conclusive is significant. Especially ia this so when it is 
taken into account, tuit defendants omied all but one ohare 
of the stock of the ilortli /extern Paper a took Co, 

An examination of all thu t^vidcnce leads us to the 
concluaion th.- t the trial judge mij^ht well find tlmt plaintiff 
had maintained his claim by a propond .ranee of proof which in 


I, q - - - - o r 

e^cJXS - diU 

. :.v 


, b : . 


hia Judgiaimt waa credible and worthy of beli^if ♦ The frjct 
thav tile defendant* and the oorporatican weir« engaged in 
th« ftaine line of buuineutt und that tho woigfmn o^m-d hy 
defendants wer*; lettered v/lth the name of th« crMnp.rany and 
tJrmt a fire occurred wnich destroyed the prooerty and "bookis 
of tlio compiwiy, are embarras a ing coniitions '.yfiioh In no omy 
were created by or are ohurjigeable to plaintiff. The uttenpt 
of defondanta to bar a recovery by plaintiff for tlie reavion 
t^iat while the account in euit was unpaid othor bills wex-e 
rendered by plaintiff to and pai<J by defendants, io entirely 
unwarrijjntcd, in view of tiie fact that there was no dicpute 
that the uccoimt in auit hid not '^eon paid. thetlier plaintiff 
by accident or design failed to render the account in suit 
before or at the time of rowdering the atli«^r accountB which 
were paid, woild not bar plaint iff froia rooovtiring, bo ion« 
as the accnunt r«aiained unpaid. We think plaintiff »8 refueul, 
upon requobtt to. file hie clains againat the estate of the 
bankrupt company is conaistsnt witJi hia attitude then and 
now, tliat Uifjfend^inta and not the company vrere his dobtor. 
There is no reveroible error in thia r'icord and 
the judgment of the »unioipal C ?urt iv. af firmed. 

ton bn» dt^OBtisal- 

I. V . -14 

267 - ^1662 

a corpomtion, 

uefVnaant iil } rror 

ilaiAtiff in 

mmn to MUi^icitAj. cuukt 


|p?I4. 505 


Cn a trial before court and jury there waa a 
jud^^jaent upon the verdict for ^55u and defendant brings 
tiie record to this court and asks a reveraal. 

At the cloae of the plaintiff a cose defendant 

fiioved for an inuitruoted verdict in hia favor, which the 

court denied. Defendant failing to put in tmy evidcinoe 

to support hi a defense, the cause went to the Jury upon 

plaintiff's proofs and the instructions of the court, 

. . 1 T hci o u ntA 'o lliny facte i n — tui c t tiae "axg-Trnct 

1/1- A) C-^v^^C (1:'./(tt^U0^f- 

|^ ^bne Cuatave I , Knospe, tii«-HrtiBTJratlTiyr"15rna-df«B4An-t.»>«~«i; 

kr^^ ^?WM» doing ouainesa under tlie ntiiite of Northern investcient 
Comjiaiiy ao d - d o f ei i t itort -irair -^gS 6 61 &t eS ~ wItK ICMO ape in -th» 
^•»0»94ncn, Knoape autd e a contractM^itii plaintiff in the naai« 
of the invoatcient Company for cert d iAK printing matter desig- 
nated as ''iinjiJc of i rosperity Certificates,** 'jUie whole or- 
der was for 4,2,bO,{jOO e f uuqh certificates, X*250,0. of 
which were delivered to and paid for by i noape. After;^-%tehi 

def endunt bought fi'om Knosr-e tiie a ua cb i a t-md buain.Q*B of the /«— 
I t « V \nx Ai » t i- ttrrv sTnureftt ^aipfiny flwtfJr asuuiJierails liaoilitles and 
continu^ftirto trani^act business in its nHiiae, iu tii e s ame t i iioji i'i qr 
in V'-if'" K'^apfi.Jt^.^.Jtil!?^^^"^^^'^"^*"^- Affiong otiier liabili- 
ties asauiiied by def - Qr Hi t w nt »a~-a^ j p» ir » - e f '"ttt e--<»»»^i,tMMgati.Qii..Xgy 
the HiViBtrteBHfc-t OwmpaHy tngBlTWSi w - i ft i flf i nfi- . tnim ei;v t -f^p«s- jotosps-,., 



'*— «.fM'»» -(»iv: t )-if?M;.'^*yc< ^»< ' 

KTSST* JiS^,''^"itit liiLA VitJ>;3;i.' 

.i.,t;j* asr 

■it? .iV-fc , , 

sr^ni.-:;. c;' ^ssj.'in-x^ f;;?V»LTri^nvU 

. i » ait; ccr- -;. nrfpr-o^L^ iAmtJ « « y . 

was plaint^'f * a,cln.lffl in Vnia action, althougn defendant «on« 
ten6wr\ o tiin ocntmay . Tht* 3 ,Ui>.'U*0('.iO' certif icatets vere de- 
llTered to defendant at his piaoe of bu8in«aa, but he re- 


t«»-^y<]!!efetidant to plaintiff, i«— »4ft»wfe-f4L-eati^ «ir~'»ttp?>»«tt4«j^ 

pXiiln ty f Vfl coii^teritlon thftt derswdjiftt ars^imediaiV It ability 

«nd-A«x«Ad_,fc.o akec«j»t tlawj eertifieiRte© and- p^aEjr-ftjr-'tbeRi* -Thi» 

Is -the iw1^%^»»4 

"The auciplo of tiie Fiank of Iroaperity billa 
tixat you aent tc me ero not quite up to standard, either 
In regard to qualitv or color of the aaajple on which you 
contracted Lo furniah t.e. i hereby notify you that i shall 
refuse to accept uame and lock to you to reimburae ine on my 
lOBses ^ muy Buiinain by being delayed en the advertisintj 


J"«T 0. 0. atilea, Kgr,* j^ 

it will be »eon from tnia letter that not only 
doeu defendant adi^jit.iiiu assuiuption of the contreict, but 
threatens to hold plaintiff in doj3ifi£;e3 for its breach. 

defendant invokes the ktatatn of i^'rauds on the 
theory that hi a promiae, if raadc, 7;aa a proaiisc to pay the 
debt of aiic Uier rjriu not bc;in(:; in .'/riting is void. ve do not 
thilik tho .itatutp of Trauda at all applicable to the condi- 
tiona found prooent in this record, it io the Inw tiiat vrriere 
one enters into a contract for the bcmafit of a tnird party, 
such third party way aaintain an action for its breach, as 
such a contract is not within the otatute of Frauds, iiucn a 
proL-iiae ia in the nature of an ori/^ undertaking and Is 
not rtequired to be in rriting. Brown v. Strait , 19 ill. bb; 
Mcyaalana v, Doorley , 47 ill. App. 513; ifilaon v, Bevana, bd 
ill, ii32. A8 aaid in Coifcmeroial etc . i^ank v. Kirkwood, 17a 
111, b63, ''it ia not neceaaary that the conaiaeration aiiould 
move frojTi the third person if he elects to affirai the cromiae 
aiade in nia beiialf, and he does affirw it by briniiing auit 

[.ni ■ ■ ^ 


upon it," 

Defendant contentSa that plaintiff, by its ;wiendcd 
claim, did not state a, cause of action. If this contention 
Is tenable, defendant waiyed it "by t^leading and proceeding to 
trinl upon tiie caerits. Br^jdley v, Federal . ,|j |if c I n a . Co. . 
178 111, App, tJii4. 

in defendant's affidftvit of defense ii© did not 
cl*«im that the ciroulara were not satisfactory or thot tjaey 
were not in accord with the contract, juch defonaeo, there- 
fore, could not be availed of upon the trial. Defendant i& 
limited to the defenses« by his pleading, Kadiapn v . 
yprtan e Bro3. Br ^ . Co., 163 111, App, 276, 

As defendant interposed no evidence to offset 
tlie case rr, by plaintiff's proofs, and ouch proof b estab- 
lishing plaintiff's clRiro, the court waa at liberty to di- 
rect a verdict in favor of plaintiff for the nmount of its 
claim. In such condition of the record we are not concerned 
with the instructions which the court gave to the Jury, if 
there are errors in the instructions, and we think there 
are, tiioy will not operate to justify a reversal. ])Ryidaon 
^- forger * IBl ill, App, 113; Taylor v, iitoJiuubra- , 1(5 ibid, 

The merits of the case are with the plaintiff 
and as there are no errors in the record calling for a re- 
versal, the Judgment of the k;unicipal court is affiriaed, 


" . .' I rtocru 

3'.& 84Qim. 

'^ -'■>P«»l ©If VXUSSIA S, 

Annul, fiiai 

for ue« of 0]$(aiffK 3Mtm*ll» «t aX*, ) 
KM. fVC^&lQim JOSTIOK PAM d«?llT»r«<i Ui« opinion of tht* eeuri. 

19^? l.A. 511 

Turn opinion (tcgotli<«r <^lUi tJtt«! <ai«.t«nent ef Fctctft 
av.u tJU<^r«to) h^r«tof)»r« fil«€l by ut la the ab«Te «ntltl«4 
..«« ftfflr»lii( Ui« jjtttfgaoBt of th« Ciroult eeurt« r<»«tdl» &• 

«ET*if^,:;:^jn OF J^ Ca8«, iHti*-^ jsri mppewl fxfi« 
an •i^ejr ©f. th;-' Cirouit oourt ^^"^ "'-'Ok «R>unty dlreatlng 

tio nil M»'« iJii{ipilll«B'%| (to distri-u... ^ifxii^- > .,.,— in h«r _ 

oatKito, in propdirtlon ic ^-■■■■•■> n.^. ant of . . . ^ ..^a, *»- ^t;;;^-v-»^f 

ya. . • .t/.^ .-rf , f'A:/' •7rajioi » A. »*»«»«• nna i.fX;.iuel.i£* i*l'l»h ^ ■r-?-^ no- 

i''^i.f>oh| ft> i 8- o tmaif %nix »i 1 i y ' J || . g ig) y^miw o , , ao r4»al «ut .. -^f^rOj 

/^"AT^^iiR^riU'^l ift* i*ttri&ii^ie<j i j ffi C i Ma b »g| H I C> 4 , *.^- is 

I>OOB«S- !!»<J hJLsa^nlf of tlw- ;i,Bf;f >4 will . :.: f^A^t-e 

•¥**«. bu.6irt« 8 js tu rmifter =#MW)h ^ ..,--.^-,...-w — . . tiiw nsi. x; ar 

f. A, A«ijnn<.>0 ^& :!r'.ap»«yt V_ — . ^^.^,C*<^ j ^,-JU.o 

awmfc « I »4 'i>«ri»lii» — Atijioiaiiiiint, lile widow, wus ftppoint«»4 
>4 al rai » t ya tr iat oC ii«)r <l«o«A0«d hu«l»»Jiid*B '■vXf^.t<:-l^ 

j-^^^ *l^mjt9y CI. Bj.rrt^B, a iMn oi ?» A, 

r j.ii "liiijpilWii #350 for hli.^ s^hoJTO of U>« ^' 

iTiag pjartni^r u. ' tiooth of 

pfoilcJfit, in a«n«$iA«ri!ttlon of |l,ftftc, m }<: . -sr 

i-ijjwMa^/ VxiKi rtitX -'i;X:^%r b\j»ln»»fi o' 9, A, i>»>ijfnMJ -x -v.* 

ArHJiuUing ti.n ,:;ocdl >'iJl ,^ir; r&j> rtlnfi; ania !:?i!ilr» tv i >*> 


'fcTt ♦>'! 

^?^ *y C. 




■ -. to 









toi %h' mxfa of |'16t>«55, vrhj^ch re]ix>«>tt«iited th« 
invftntoriea vfitiu« of tiic fixturost i^nd furr.ltura 
belont'injis to Bsld r^al ■"etote buQlnf^Bt^; le ving 
un««joount«s-i So th<" sma nf |I^38:i.4ij, At this 
tim« the pv»iu estate of ^'ranoiB A. Bamt^s »««» 
ineclTont to an macu t upw^truit of iiJXCjOCO, 

"•Theriuif ter in th*' Probate <K>urt of Oook. 
ocunty the «pv*»l'ittljt wan rul«!d to s)iow cau8« 
irny »ho ahouid not «;joourit for ihn »ai^ $1,535,45, 
Appellant* 8 r«ply was to t>u? effect timt th« ©aid 
isti» of'iS r»:'prf:'r-tent"ti the amount paiU by G,H. 
Uoimpitt'^r ^. Zo, for ino good wiii of th<? bupin*'«8 
of •, A« Barn<->a ^s Joiapanyj that tJif njRid good will 
w>X4 Ui G. Jl, Gohnwitinfr >?< Jocipany ■wrb h«r own p<'r» 
•eial property toy imrahaao frots i:'«roy :« Sarnee, 
tta4 h->;d UffYcr bem vest?;:; in thr <5tJtat«, 

•*Th» I'ro'bate oourt on he»»rlne .alloweti iip;;'<;Il«> 
ant credit for th« $3&Ci paiu to i'eroy C, Barnes, 
whiah <?xpt*nulture «ao approv'id as a puxch' r,e of em 
outstunUiim ftlnx.f in tn*- mt : «fc't of »?ild «Ktftt©, 
anti sie an exp«ni»« of adiai^niBtrHtAon; huc ora-^re^a 
Uic ap: eHunt to account to tiKi* w^tiat'? of said 
FranolR A. Iiarn»*R for fJie toFii».noe, via., <:'I,C33.<S, 
Appellant r^faeed, andfail?«dL to jsoctmr.t for Ui«? 
»fori?Bald tl, 033*45 una th rf»forft the iroi>ate 
oourt et&tttU an aoocmt for her, &u.iovD'ing a orcdlt /■ 

to thf eetat* uf the: aaid ^i,053«4fo, fro.r, whi.oh / •^ ■, 

artsalt a.'id a;jct>. anting ap, ell/.ut to... Hn np <snX 'J 

to Utf5 Jlrcuit gourt of -.jorit QCu i at , j>- .> ^wicrri^ up>-'ii 
» U«arij()4{, v.flwii ?• uer oojaplain«d of f- thie »pp«al 
«»« snter'^^u. Tf '' 

*aa. J"-':Ti.-:: r-ALi dtslirorf^a Uk^ opini'h of the oourt. 

%H!J!>«llant, on tfe?* triril of iht" ofiee in the 
Qlrouit court, to nurtain her ountention th»t Peroy 
CBarnnc -isac a partner, offerrd th^ di«pot-!ltion of 
th» r-aid Percy 0. Bttrn- c ; <3bJ»ctlun »aa si:.dr, how* 
^Y-^r, Jind tlin objection ouetfiinfd, 

*Appellvi,Tit alBo rfRTf f.i thf? t^atiuv ny of h*^r» 
•elf 5>e adaixniBtratrix, in d«tfan8« of hor r'porA; 
and iii nap :ort of h^r aote as odsianit^trntrix, to 
w ich ol)Jocti<:n wa» laaile ^niX th«« objection KUHt.-ined. 

"Anoth r l»euo ralfd wan tsf? qu«fsti«n wheth-'r 
or not thw j.:Ood vill was an aaisot of thf i»arttter«hip 
or thr individual property of Peroy C. Barn<»« whioij 
hp ao<iuirc!d up'. n the onath of iiitr- fatli'^r, jae ■,.-urTiv« 
Ing p.'irtner. In our vinw of tii© cause, liowever, it ic 
not nocfnjaary for um to pa»a uy n any of th«!B« oon» 

"Thfl acQ unt etfctwd by the Probate cOv rt oredlted 
thcr «rt«ta with $1,38^^.45 oaeh r<?o*'iv*>«l for •..'. T" 

Of the r^nl eBttttff bu}iin«*tj:: of F. A. Barn-;© j,'. 

It also dc»bit<?'; th: eutute -with th« |:!>6'. paic I'vsi^ 
C, Barnes* thi?) latter it«a y??pr»?Bent«d thf aao^.tnt 
paid by appellant t \\^x oon for *hat »he oliiiiaed 
«a« hit ehare in th'^ buBineo» of i<\ A, Barnes & COMpany, 
which included th'. ,,o<-u will. Thie ap,>t'are in iter 
aoaouni ar. adMini t.t.i-/:,trix, anc- aust be Gonsi(i'r«?d by 
tin.. .10 rt ae w yuyiaent by tiio appellant as adminis- 
tratrix of th«» Cfii.ite of ,. A. aarni'ie, d-ceaseti. 
That th.: appellant ht?r»elf »o trr^ated it i^ evident 
frota the fact that on hf^r apperil frotj th*? i'robiite 
oourt tc the Circuit oourtg when ruld to file a 
bill of partlciAlarn, appr^llant iijait«d the epi^ifsiil to 



th« it«a of •].9033*45, ^ilfsh i» tliff diff «'>rwric« 
IwtWMni th« fiKE&C'Unt »he rK-^oi-lTad for the sale 
of tH« bu»la««n of 7* A* Bantos & Cesqp«uGQr and the 
I3&0 ]»ai<i Povfl/ C4 Bamoo* Appollemt KOqiiioeeod in 
ftjxi ascept^-d thlR ohsjpge of ^$&0 flig;@.lmit thfi* e«tiito« 

"In Tlew of thft fact that apj^ollmit uood tho 
fUade of the ootaabo in tJrii& tx^anonctionn tho bono* 
fit tiv .^of flMot Rooeoeaurily inuirw to th«! CMtnt© 
otolvTJi oh«s r«pr(*«s«ntf^d« v/e tsanixot, th;- ofGr«»oon«ur 
in «ppollant*« contontlon that the good, wiXX of 
this l3U8iiMUii« purchriend 0.0 ahe olalmedy from hor 
ooHa liooMM ftpj^oIliAttt'e oeparato prov «'; ty| on the 
ooBtJmrjr* it TAffitod in tJbio oeicito of Frimolfi A« 
Ittjnitts. f%nd tho 9««o«od» re«tXis«il from the W&X9 
thfi oof should bo acoounted for ae dirootod >y 
the order of the ^^irtwit oourt* 

•yindiiJiK no rovoroible ©rror, tlie JudgKse'at 
tf the Qlroult oourt wiil bo affiraed** 

After tho mams 'mtm filed a rokioMTin^ii was ^rantftd* 

In th«lr potlt-lon for r<s$h«ariii£« oounoeX avntsnA 
%im% there? imB noUilng in the rooerd to Jutstlfy th«» ao rt 
in hoidiag that the ^300 paid 1^ appoXlont to h«r 00a F<>rfly 
Bajrao»« for iiio int^^i^st in thti buainooo of F« A« Bcirnoo it 
Oonp«43r» van PVd out of funao boXoagii^ to the <>et<3t« of 
Frtmcsio A* BturiMOt uooammI, WoavuMi naid «.coo'imt ratoted 
WRS not tho oc(M>unt otated by ttppoXX«jrit of h@r otrn yoXitioa 
but wao 8t&t''*d for hor by th«? Froboto oourt ux^on her faiX* 
ttre to Afloount for tho jaonoyo r«oli»od from Uin aalo of tlio 
good will of tho buKiaosfi of y» a* Borneo A OompAxnjr* 

Vo h*}.T« a&rofully cnaidt^rcd thiw point, &nc adh'^rt- 
to tttc Qcnelusioa prorlouoly arrived at* vls«« tb&t tho 
appoXXj&nt. in h<5r ojH'Oal to Ui* cJircuit oourt* by roaaoa of 
hor faiXuro to oxeept til tho allowaaoo of tho 1360, muot bo 
oonBld^^rod to h&rtt aoauiaoeod la tho nation of th«» Probata 
court* »io trial la tho Clroult oourt wao do noTO , but 
app«tll(iiat was thoro roquirfitd in hor bill of parti ouXaro to 
otfite the items la the aooouat etated by tb«> Proboto oovirt to 

whioh 8ii« objectptd. £ih« merely ooaplained, in Her bill 
of pertioulara, of th?' itma o'' 1,033,46, which ie the* 
iwaoant eh«s r»<JeiT< d for l;>i« nood will of th«? buBineae, 
lose 1350 aIlow4$o ln»r by th» Probate court. 

An vhosm in Imr bill of jmrtiaularw, «ipp«Hant 
was Willing to atoeopt the act of thf^ i'robsite cwurt in 
ttroditing h«r arith l^3&0; but now, whf^n ttudh aoorpt&nott 
is ased a£;tt;.nittt hier, tshe att-nxka v-Aiiy to ttaeail th<! 
action of th' 'rob«it« court in j^iaKlliig euch Allovmnoe* 
Thie point ebould have bpsn i«1b<»<1 in the» bill of p«rtl» 
culnrs* If «p:p)3>Xlant did not litc<? th«) act of the rrobatA 
Judge in or aiting it in that way, 6h« ehov^Io h^v©, in iier 
bill of pnrtlcuXara, stajfetd wiriat ws.e a trua AGeowmt* and 
qu«8tlon«td tbi^ aot of tb'^- Probate Judg(« in tbt> nrnttfiv of tlie 
or«^dit f • r |3bG, 

In that state of th<? r^oord, ftppollutit ic pre* 
cludea froia dor^in^ that Rhe pttroba««(i iiif iutsreet of 
Bttrcy Bam»B in the bu»in(?Be of F, a» a&rnct? & at.*iapa»x|ir, 
inoludiflg the e;ood will, for the benefit of the «ct».t« of 
Fran»i» A* Bajmrfu^ d<!!eeA8«d« 

SeoAasariiy, this eotire oontention of the 
ttpp«iXant r«et« upon her claim that Peroy Harae* w&b « 
partn<nr in tt>« firm of F» A, »arn«r» * Coiapany at tli' tim« 
•f tb«! arath of Franois A. Bamoii, becatttf* of which the 
goud v*ill of thf flna pasfl(?ci to hia ne ttoo «urviyin«; partnor, 
upon the dfrath of the said Francie A. Barnes. KnXees 
thp miid i*ercy aaroffs w«i» a partner, all of tho nsests 
of th< said firm of F, A. Barn«8 <& Coapany, inoluding 



iiuXi if A 


*sft } bv Sxtnk 


lh» gO( d will, aad all ^^<on•y» r<s»ll«ttd from tho aul^ 

or^'dltors of tsj^? wjstette. 

In ftupiwrt of jior claiia tim,t i'mtey iiairnns mui a 
partner in the g iid flra, japs><»ll»nt offRjrwd the d«ptsition 
of rnrc^ Beirn<rs, to the* ftdmieoiofi of srhioh obje«^tion «»• 
mML« an«L MUiitained.; tidtto the e^via^nce of onn waltpr A. 
J^ttXawn, «. Sara^r •rapley* of F. A, B«ra«e h Ocnipany, 

Vhllii w« hnT« s«rious doabt a« to th«* ndiaisKlMlltjr 
•f the iSttld dcpooitiORt ■ «?• huv? aereful'y sixtu!:iis<':u it in itn 
•ntirffty* i^ft«r jgivinig oaid 4i»p sltion iU.:^ itr^ probatif* 
value, an*.: eft«r o«ir«f«.lLy con»)d«?rlng all th« ©th'^r evidence 
In thf- "BIBB, ¥•« ar© satlsfie^l that thit? *Tri€j«i?no« dc:'?* not 
sitow, or evt^n t#ii(i to s^tow that tho naid Pertty Barnes had at 
any time prior U> in* d(»ath of .^rRncls /i« B«rnvjs b«?ooae a 
ai«mbft|> of th« fiai<i fljrw of F, A. aar«r;« h CSomimny, 

(m thf O0Rtrary, «• w« r««4 th^ r^^uortil in Uiis 
«»••, w« arf* of tl%« opinion i>.ml^ thti olaim of |»artn«>rohip 
waa but a «ubt<Rrfug* put forth by mpcxfllant to Ke;Ye ac the 
iMUiia of h«sT olaira; for in no other way oouid t&iie havo 
•ad«avorad to eamtro at tiH? i-xpenso i.-f the cr»?dit'."r» of h«r 
dftooaaad huaband'e ('>at«t*«* which v^aa groatly iasolvent • 
the BUM of tt»n«y for -j^ich Bh« sold tht* aooata of the eetate. 

ii5 t:;i«is view of t.U» aF4«a, it in needlonuj to »ay 
Ui'ft »« rind no error In th*' motion of tho 'ircuit oo ort 
in dirt'Oting: appelXnnt to m coo ant for tha eu.'a of J^,C3;S.46, 

and iti& ,3udgmir»nt will th r-^'-for*'- b«* affirra.«d, 

AryiHa i>. 








203 S0524 

AuausTA vomonat, * / t 

PXaintlff in ^ror. ) 

LOI)IS A. OT?, MAam. 
C. OTT, nilMY SilHlK 
and LUCy G3K1K, / 

J>9fttnan^i» in Krror. 


KRJitfl TC 

OF -mi: AGO, 

y 197I.A. 520 

BTATKXSKT OF TH^ CASS,« Plaintiff in error 
(plaintiff below) brou^^Jtit suit Ag&iast d«l>nciante in 
error (dcfea;. nta bclov) on an iatervst ooupon for 1^90 
du« January 13, 1914. c>n a hearing b«ferf^ th« court 
vlthuut a Jury, suit wan disraiaBed and judgT'iK'nt entered 
against th« plaintiff, to revcriie which plaintiff has 
•u«d out thic frit of arror* 

The record in this oasa la nade up of 0tnt<3j»cnts 
"bj ooiiBsel, and th^^ tf!Stir4ony of scTcral witnesses en behalf 
of thf cif fendants. The undii^putf^d facts are as follows} 


On July 18, 1911, d«fenuants Shrilcs " » f i r 9 ' ^k ^- ovmerd^ 
"»*. c«rt«in re«lty, upon which a loiga ii^-*h»"«wk of f3,0(X) 
was negotlatRd fa»-4te<HS-by John i?. Foarster & Oompany, roort- 
gage bankers. ?» -a vi d >>nBO telp l e an , defenuants ■ fthy i tee executed 
th s ir principal pjrojaiasory note ■kn-th^e i m *» of $3,000, due^^flre 
years fW Q ia tetS b with intereat at !»**►-♦«*•-♦*" six per cent. , 
per annua, p » i rnh l e .4MHdL<» w t m uaJ H y; wni-oh <i a fc »-int < ?r < »ei w a a ^eTl* 
denoed by ten interf>>st notes or ooupenSj ais a b e p ai i - f yoa i »» a Ae 
JjtXLJLaw^ltjei-Te. All -•#-««*■* -notes w< tp r,mde -ayable to and 
indorsed by the aaakers t£?n i 'i i fs .j and provided that unletss othflr-- 
wise specified in writing b:y the la w ful holder UieJ wwf; thoy 

•X3H j":!^ 



. • ^ -^ 



, '.. •; 

^Tj vi-o-r, 






. ' » 1 

. .:;. '. . 


.tiiw ni 

: lr#2'}iix«^i^ 


should be payabX* at tiie office of John P. 7o*reter ft 

Qtmpauf, OhioRgo. 



On May 16, 1912, dcff'^ndante Shrike sold mtttiL^^rf^al 
•state to d«f«nuanlP Ctta, subject to the «fOTrr«ttW incuiabrance 
•f $3 ,000. 

Th« evidence further s'nows that during Deooinbera 
1913, defpn vnts Otts reoelyed notice from John i', PoerFter 
& aoapftny that int'^rest coupon #6 for $90 wo ad be due 
January 18, 1914; that on January 6, 1914 one ftogy Thiss, 
a broth* r- in- law of defendant Louis Ctt, w e nt t e -the of rigs 

in^^^TWtr' uo Hf i Stt f ^-sarwi paid thf ^4Bhiei\#90 to take up the 
interest coupon « e w»ian ' ?d 'tn'"m!iindh~«»%4-«»i'- that the oashier 
stated that the note had not yet been received, but he gave 

kin a r^'ceipt in t}ie following fona: 


•Ko. 468. ahicago, Jan. 6, 15)14. 

Received of Louis A. Ott, |90.00 in payment 
of hie intrrest ooup' n due January 1:8, 1914, 
sans to be cancelled and smiled as soon as re* 
osived by us. 

John P. Foereter & Co., 

By U. . FoerBterj* 

that on January 9, 1915;' • thr> > . ■ f iu j* a,i'%0 t v~-4M.ii-~(iu^m»»^-^tt&--4^iB 
-♦W) - tsfeird John J?. S'oernter & Jompany w«rf: forced into inrrolun- 

tary bankrupt cy and t* >B satd J s' to -^JN^ - y »s w » t'g f "ITTSSpotSTT!^ 
rbnfore, i»sr-iaa¥a.^>»»#>-i^s» pal± the s aJr d $9C to plaintiff; 

t>iat tne interest coupon, at th ti- e paymont Wat Mnde by defen- 

axiji ''^■vi«K Mau 

dants Otts »»-Jtobjtt...£«.- J' ss>s t » > ^^ Cowp s ny , a » 4 4 * » tc ^^tM^-^^/^-^Lwo" 
fa(i|f-eff™ttrlrw— mrtt, was in pessession of the plaintiff. 

The evidence furthf^r shows that prior to 
payment e#--^4M>--ta.Jtolm,,X»,,. Jt*i:'ltJi;,,.i»Jio*^^ *» p a yas a t • S 
ia t e g e at -ee up s ifc #6 , fou r other interest ooupone had matured 

^■%i n'xi^ j,nj»v;Biai" 




.«v.-> -i(*«ei-.-oiiir.l. 

and «r. ,«l*^ %Hm 9. ^ H^^ !^e^UC^»**H <« 

I«t « "I'es t-<»t^jjan ..|X .wa*. ..du® -JAiUMtry lA, 1912* - SW-ie 
eviden « ahows that tlii s coupon wa» paid to John Pr"^^oerEt©r 
& Company on January 2, 1912. Coupon #2 trhiolt t&b due July 
13, 1912. was paid In thft bum isAnner on July 1, I912. Both 
theti* payments nvxn nad« by d«f«ndant8 Shrika, prior to the 
•ale of tho property by than to def andante Otta* 

Intf^rest eoupog l*» ^>mm January 18, 1913, w^b paid 
on Januax>y 2, 1913, to JpiJn P, yd«r»ter & Conpany. Interest 
ocupon ^4, due July^'ld, 1913, was paid July IG, 1913, also 

-tg"" ' 7LTnr^'y Jg» '«> *4 ax.Agg <j^^ t jUI of «aid intei-est coupons 
were st^uapffd aoroee the fae« Ytith the words, •Paid, John ?. Fo«*« 
Bter & Company, * nnu the respective dates upon shioh paym^-nts 
wr« made, 

^^<t 1 1 f I ■<, tha t ~Ai.t,.j|l eg jyggd ooapons #3 an d' #t f or def ongan t Ot 1 1 
that, kQ.t]b....t2k«»a. -pay»»»t»-were-^tti;ad¥ At '" tlii! ■»a^*"placi4,'"'fifi";?"'at 
the ofi'lflf pf So\in 2 , yp0T9tex A QwKpu^ eaKitt 

jaannar - in" im'i'Qh'"iM(ynsn t" ymm •■ i«ad«^«n ""ini«'r«at . OiOUpoa • M* 

It also appeared in the e Tld #isw»«, that counsel -4* 
the e gBr for tJie plaintiff were also counsel for .' hn ?• yoerster 
k Company in the bankruptcy pro oe«?di Jigs, and that >u sikJld pi'»* 
e orif .« i > »^ the claim of plaintiff's based upon this same interest 
•oupoa, was «t^./^*^rvui Ju i"*^^^<^i^^i . ^, 

T3pon thiB stftte of the record the Judgraent ooi^lained 
of was entered. 

,ifi ^iS-iiHs^t'i: Lest 


HR. PRT^SIDIISTG JUSTIOT? PAK cieliT«r«d the opinion rf the court; 

Plaintiff** position is that *8he i« tho bona fide 
holder of tiie note, whicii was introduced in evidenie uncan- 
celled and unpaid; that the note wae never in the poaeeesicn 
of Foereter A Gompany and def'^ndsnte h«d no notice cf that 
fact when they sent to pay it; tho t it 7»«b paid before laatur* 
ity at t)ie risk of defendants** 

Defenuants contend that the payiuent of $9C to 
John £•, Poereter & i>o«ipany, under th?- cirounmtances set forth 
in tho evid-^nce, wne a jmympnt maae to th<? duly authorised 
agent of th^ holder of eaid note, ev?m though the paymont 
waa made before naaturity and without securing pocsession of 
the note at th«^ time ol tlif* payment; and in sups-ort of eaid 
flontenticn tb«.y rely upon the principle set forth in Thorn- 
ton V. Lawther, 160 111. 228, wherein the court said (p.231) 

"It is well settled that auth. rity to an 
aiiaat to receive paym«nt of a U*?bt iB not, of 
itself, authority to do eo before it fcillo due. 
(iieohem on Aiienoy, sec. 330, nnu oaoeK in note 
1; Thompson v. raiiott, 73 111. 221.) But if 
thf^rf be a known usage of trade or oo .rse of 
baein^^BK in a particular employme jTt, or hobit of 
dealing between th'- parties, extending th" ordin- 
ary reach of autiority, that ri{a>"well bp '-.p-ld to 
givf full validity to th'^- act." (diting Gtory on 
Agency - cited and ayt>roved in Thoropson v. laiictt, 
eupra. } 

Tho primBiTy question, unrt-r th-^ se two oontentions, 
is whethf^r or not John P. Pcerstfr h Conipany were the duly 
autiioriaed agents of plaintiff on January 6, 1914, vYien defen- 
dants Otts paid the :iJ90 to them in payment of thf; int rest 
coupon in question. 


rpt9%9«/% Jo 

::i ; J ft • 


The •Tiderno« Bhows that this coupon, lilt* All 
thfl oth«»r«, wft» mudf payable at the ofrio« of John P. yo©r»t«r 
& Ooaypany, It was tizprcssly provided tb' rein and In the other 
Interest coupons as well, that unlesn otherwise notified in 
writing, all payments should be saade at tlie office of the said 
John P* Feereter Jk Oonpany, 

There' is nc eridencjc in the* record thet ars^' of 
the d«*f<?nd-^ntR ever knrw thsit plaintiff was the holder of this 
•r any ©trier not^s. The lean was originally made by John P. 
Poeretcr & ?.omi>s.ny» ¥.c notice hadevsr been served upon any 
•f the defendcnte tc pay anyone save John P. Foerster & Company, 

The four previoue interest coupons had hc-n paid to 

John P. Foornter .k Company. In every inatrince l(?tt<?rB had b' en 

defendants as to when 
sent by John ?, Foerster & Conpany notifying/tJiat j?ayr,3rnt6 were 

due. In every inBt?4no<^ these not«?» w<?rG paid befor^^ ".mturity, 
and ir, tliT? two J.n6t&noe8 prior to th*> last* they were paid 
uader thf eame oircumstanoes, viz,, t)ie notes ver^ not in 
possession of Jchn P, Focrcter & Oompriny, but w«tp to ^e de- 
livered th'.reafter, and they were actually doliv^xed and ;imrked 

Ho objection had ever fcoen lastde becauB© of payjfnents 
to said John P. Foerster <& Company, and only after t)te said 
John i-. Fooratcr 4 Company' u'-r- foroed intt banliraytcy, and 
after plaintiff had filed her claira on the interest coupon in 
questirn, in thr bankruptcy proeeedin^,0, did she aseert that the 
said P. Foerst'^r Sz Coiupaay w^rp not authorised to rfcfive 
payment for thin and the? othf»r intercBt coupons. 

Clearly, una^r thit state of facte, the court proper- 
ly found that the payment before ciaturity to Joiin P. Foeretsr 

'■I J ^) •>«* 

utwv -4*^ 


A Oonqpttny WM m 9igfM«at ftf this iater<^ii(t coupon to the duly 
authorised repri^Bent^tlve ot Xiia plmintlff. Th#» fact that 
•aid note was not la their poBSSisaivtt at the tlxsie in not 
oontrolling. As was w«ll saldi in J^oble v. _Nu£^t, c?t al., 
39 III. 52S (p«&2e:} 

"The clrou!:iBtano«« that the iMt«« wsr^ not 
surrendered, rs against clear proof thft they \«*re 
piaid to a person having authority to r-^ceive yiay- 
■* ttentSf aw <ints to nofning. Their possescicn it 
•iw^X^ preBumptlYS evia«na« of nonpayment, whioh 
au)^ sd-ways he oreroooM I6»y proof that they wer<f 
in fact paid.** 

7indlng no rever elble error, the judgneat will IM 






jrmi-^'- - 

-^-r. 1 


,^_. ,,.....,., 


\ / ? 

197 I.A. 523 

ef ill;? SftfUPtt 

Thl« iR ast «>0tlOiL fero-df^t Iji til® :^siaIea^aX «o-..5j'?, of 

"^r. Uia trial baf&ir^ tht e©urt without ^ |^a*S'» fe&g 

<»o^ir•^ fei«&^ ijMs i«fixi*>g for piaiatiff asd. es.s«^?es#<§ ^vcv 

e«aui?rw« ift t.^-jsi aviss ©f $&'^0, wj-j^ja «i!j:iieh fladliJis Ui*>- J~«l||~ 
asat was saWr'^f^ tc rarrai'Sft «-fe,i6h ^««f-S2aiS<sst» fetts au»4 sut 




work, ^n < { .iin nii ' Ot..l t'' g. - yJ bh iho ■ yi ' tyoH'' ' !! ' ^ 0'J,!L". i eV»j.ii.r. : ■»>•»:-*:>. ^^;- 

this 1^ . uTtWovtAwir - pubiientioa, -«»*ie^if ao, wh»i i.ta toi'^is 
W92f5, i'ffi g ec '^T& ri"'^''^*'*' ' ^' * Sfev*;- tbal. ia ^t in tv •' "'h n Ti... 

tisd thi^t Yiiua/^ m&M \.o pay all feiiis in eeaa^tiiur*. with 

t^,3i*e*tf tsr «!•« /cV<--'^^4i<'^,i »o«ic^, t>® satitl«4 tc ■* »»< »{> j? '*'^ V'xa an- 
tics ;-roeesria j^ . o nt ih^-t m^- l f€a^ l a^.-^!!a»#---ffft-ig» ■Qf seild dir*©©- 

of *As vjffiee in /?«Rer<s.i, '"^-^ "rserr, ^fjiy iia&?^T^l£u>tin:?C"%f«« 

In this la'-^i^T it. was aJlBo at&tod tliet Yc-uag wcs rrasid^^n'^, 

^a Ap i*ii 36 'Jaraire wrote hie »if'>-a*MBii-iir"ii i&?.t©r, 
w h^^v ^-^^fi^ in the aain.Jk'dii'^stad to tha pu\)ii«t«tivn of 
tills architeetit* directory and Yoogh's oonaectlon thei^owlth, 

la y^^si..^ — ,.....^ .^ tiiia i«tt»r, C'feiXiire s^idi 

•I wtiRt t^ 3*:at;w w^at Yv:«s^ ie e:oias. If ncthiiM! 

yoiH better* usa tlwj aoa«y fhore un6. s^^a^ out .-^oiiQi- 
tors for afiv^J'tislnr; d-.^'t ij&y ove:- a'v' •-.^n'' b* c-urjj- 
na of "bad ...r'd.-?rs - cr"t 11 '-. ii ' - ^tw ^ -- ■ ■y ^---' ^^— '*. - .>uf ti^yj' ■■ fw.r iTr: 

yn.u .jvititt ' .a«».. - fur Uu>r^ »n g w& Uuil, rlrfe, Saniilr* <h3Stla- 

**#i**-. She >>oirs-oi**<i frc;.; (iii.lntiff (li^^r aether) t.hfj Sssr. ..f > 


Plaintiff Wstlfied tMi* eSw l^isiR^d -his mm.^7 to ih* 

all aC'n®y# rac^ived im. ♦ ■ a i amiiiONii .i.i. ir ^-/ti- 

that iac 

after th^ l^ti-AT" of TliiPeh -i Jr*^ 

eat'i'i<j8^£iSi«5s OQ *>2ie books cf the d£>- 

?!i'fi, Trfeif^iir® fi*oia ;i.aintiff, for use of the defondan-U- oomr"Q i n-yy 

^*sf ^ndtoit , <■.« its btshaif J offered t.h@ dejHJfii * ion c f 
- „* ■«' > ^ Oetrmir-tj ttM ' U?; ' w a g tt£Qc»*fi in PortXeufi, wbers^iji few— ms^r 
CftT'Eli-o Btat.«^e t<h».t !,;r8, GfeJ'sai?**'' «?tj.a aiJt authorised te "bor- 
row ifiOfiij^ for the Oi>iai>aayj jmd :P%Hf'4'i*iN«w*4i4*, that th*f aoa- 
«ye tKJi*i'owi?.d fi»om i-itiiatlff s«f(j for Ms can. "b^.-asfiv, aad 
iS T ^titi BuiOii acRe^ ' yrt^ tifnro d«}'0^3i.t.«Jd Uj J2«fc-':. eh-^o'-^s draws bi/ 
hie in i'ortlund. J's- did, however, .ra ■T,r'i-;v..nau;,:AUi,, i,<f.,.i;U^ 
j ^' vit^ri t e-* ' ." " , adait fxml *Jhj,.s iacntj was ttdvttaefs'fi ^v j iiiiatiff 

lO }liE -«if-J, 


until h«f left ftfr ?ortj„aad, a;\-ia >t; liia\'iijd 't^c.^' jjj»«^et.-.'?c 

pxur^ltesaj £i&<g thai Sjs '4ie spria,*5^^;SJ#<riiJ8 Youa/? *ag act 
fxiamiiiir; tM3^*js to gull hi^p^-'-^o h'S &s^jaji/^0d tjlth S&'a, Oar- 
■air?? te l«>oJc af tjjjiap^'tSlsi.fc and iciofe sf t'-n' fisatte««« He al- 

so t3§.tii^ed that la T'*&t»8l:i, i&13 hs ©eld his laLert>§*. la 

rkirsirs further Wstifittd t > . M . i i i-a - ■r'': - 'i ' '4i' ' " n!3yx:» ^'^ai^-'.> 

to i'G 3;w;j^'^'f>ati'oi. *.ad sysna/;€6n«at ^fcilSB ^^"3 also tsjstl- 

th$ busjLSissss ejRd 'jsot saais!i solieltors aad ijut thajs out 
on the AroMtoctg, oa^ of th« books publiiiha4 by tliis 

nani/'i^*© teiitlfi%clthf ' ho v-ag s^erstwyv eirkl U'oasursr of 

itlf !%<:/, thCThc! v-ais 

H«iy, 19iS, i-tra* (Jsralr-a tj'5!u*'*w<*-'^»«^l'JLjii' ■»»*'' ist^tt3d_^ :>iu t sha 
hud « elair; for ;|J&00 against G&rsir^ personally but not a 
clRin a.JTifeinst tJae ec^)&a:.'", GA<i in^^uix*^^ ,»hothcsr ail ^^oneiJS 
hs*d be^a paid to ^rmirej»*td ersrytrntA tlu-. *- aliv -^s^sTtt-iriii l^Xi\>iiW\ 
tli«t fell Monays had. not b<»ea paid is Garaii-», Si> ^.^ cos-Id 

.:i5tt£©^^a^,^«fclaa-*«tr^lfi5i£7^lTer8d by dofv';«l»t 
Mrs, Ry.r-Kira hf:d |vr£'5?5j3,usl^^-*©rd!S3fiC^d salt f^r h«t*«alf 

that a}!;) told ^*i^ .iiu olaiis »r&a u^felast U^«d dafend&nt 


th® isev.iBs for tlMf ivlp.iaUff aa<i aaKe^isjad |j1is la tiff's 
d&iiaajtas is *v.hs sua of f.^0, A asotioa tm- u ai^w triiil 
uras HsiSa by dof33ad«at &3^ o▼0^*z*^li«dJ th«» foiifwexl a 

railed. J to all e>f t=Mch ruiii^'^s d«f«i3Bdi»at ^sja»tj|;t.<T(3. 

then entered judgment and 
7h© eoiu•^■/fi>;«<J l^\« t^Wi/' bvnd in ths »«^i of ^^sr-o, 

r-afendftnt thsa i;j'sa0iit»d i<» the ec^^^t Wo proi-o- 

sitioas t>f law, ^^hict; war« ss foli^wst 

a.* "thft e»urt. lioia« &s % Hssti^ir of law th&t^ 

laoaft;; for th.j U4S® <3f 6«^fe-Kt<s.«sjEit., 

2, *i^i? court holC& SAS £t SEJ&wttar of law l-!^et. 
th.«i i.I«ii£i'..iff urK^t"--- %h0 ovieisaee ia tills eus* 
Is not entitltid vo i-yec'Var c=;#^tin»t fJkHi (5«?feR- 

Both of th#8e t>ie eour*- rof^tiii^jc:. 

Th^ rseord slx-uira Uiat these i/S'opositioas cf .law 

ir»r« sulsjaitWd *ift«r tli« flRdisgs of the eourt ojsd 

Jufim®nt had ba®n 8alor*ed, Counsai oeaaot, thorsfors, 

aruil tihiossslvss of *^o fesai/^oiaent of isrror thet th«5 

eourt efrod in I'wfiisin/; these propoaitioaa of ia«* 

!>s»feadaai also assifqi&fi r.s svror Ihr.t vl^o ccurt 

«;rr«»a is f lading for the ilaiatiff/i'v tJRtsring jud/?- 

noat>« This &«ei^^aEiea^» howev&^r, /^ea oni ;/ te the 

que 15 Ilea whether, utvdor the ^vidsnoo, the court vue 

v&r2'&Q.t><3& ia f lading: tha issuais for tlia p i&intiff 
aad ia aat«itria.f; judgnyat thar^aoa. 

Thsr»t: ic, ao queati-s^n, fi'on the svidonee", Umt, 
; iaiatiff did advunoe egrtaia eien^yis to rxB^ Ctc:*B;ir«, 
Thoi^^i is ti c^-afliet In the ^vidaaee &s to whether 


this aonay was loas*jd to ^trs, O^r-j^re f«r ilii? ua^ of s, 
0« GttnrJ-r© p^rm^imilLy, or fot' tlio u«« of the ^©f©r«2&ai 
ocri."..oytktio.n, Tha og-^^% was «*vi«!!«atl^ cf the- o^Xai^.-a 
that ttia jaoiao;/ w&s loisijt'd ftir tjKt usq of sac' was in 
fttct uao<j fcr tii^ benefit v>f t,hfc' dof ^^iidtial. 

Ae Wi? reed tits reeoi'd, the co^s't, jBl.5;l*t. hix^fs e«*jcx» 
tt; wha^ eoaelugititt, sot onX^j ft^twa t^ho tsstiiaotty of 
the piuinliff ttttd ITru, CkiJialro, but felso f:-OEi tho t-fin- 
tiaoay c-f C. o« vroiiair^, offsirod on, bolmif of t,ho de- 
f«adanl, lo his tosi^inony, Oaraire alatad iliti^ h« ad- 
'viis^^d hie 3^if« tG s«ad out. soilci-Uira for tha ^irehi- 
l»c?e*-6' .vubi.iou'..ioa, •ojafir-aain/j ^liuai^^'by, the statsE^at 
la laia lettar* of Aj/ril S^s, ^l>«r?-»ia ho eu,«?^®st«d to her 
tlu^l s>i« bori'ow aon&y to soad out solieitors. 

^lii^i it, is trui?, that uf «3r :!ra, Giir'air* took 
QhiAT-ff^ uf the deifendimt/ us di.r«JOtsd by h«r husb-3in,^, 
ail aonaye »&r# daposlt^di In Ui* aaae of C. 0. Gariiircs, 
this was aei'sjftr foi.lowlng CTarairo's instructions no 
thtt'w Yoiifli^ -would hexvs ao e«sttt3"0l ovar the aoaey. Such 
ttetic-a ttff©cu«-*<2 ojil;/ th4> ist-sr-aal naR^sg^.^Ja'^a^* <'^f t,h» de- 
f^a<i&at 0Ciapiajay, taii- could aot &ffeot the rifjVits of e;'«- 
ditore. The swra fuet thet ^iS'S* tkii-siiPd di^ oot ant^ar 
ui>©n d«f*ia!d«uit*f: books aay r^ecrd of tho tr&ssa«tioG 
«ith i'ltiliitiff is eaij' «. aiTOM&l&n.^^ ^hich th« eo»jopt 
h<)-.<2 th© ri^ht to take intv; c* ■^.lac-^nniticn Ir, c' J;ta^'i'jininl> 
f'>; 't'<:uee in eontroTitrs, , 

'.i. wij rauO tha ■r0ccr5 in this e-'^sy, we are sutls- 
fiijd tliat th<.? noaoy obt&ia«<i frtyr; the i^ittintlff was 
used fox' the i-urpos® of y,ixYlnfr. exi/QaBee of th^i? ddfssc.-nt.; 
thttt, defen<i£tni ha5 the us© of this sioa©^?, anc! that la iuw 
it is C'.yi'si'ed ■??ith th<5 i-spa^^at of it, mrec tho^.^h W^t, 

f'jndaRt,^ at titi® tla* Jl« b€»u,^«it tSis stock, to©k &n e-ffi- 
cavit froia Curali'o a« tc any ©utgttiaiiiag infieteteda&sa of 
the corpcratioa* Such aftXdrsvXtf Itoaerv^'n*^ eua jaot V* 
u8o<3 &a a/;tiinet er-fediiers, Xiitle«g creditors hM.€. kaowi^d^?? 

oai," as u sirGOisaUiaea feffcctliv^ tl\« issue ia quostioa. 

Thfci'o ic, liijwevoi', ao svidoae© fc.t uil that j, iaiatiff Imow 

she knew 
of the oxistett«0 cf mjch affidavit, vr ihc^x>/d&f&-£i4km.t,*B 

books ClC not 62^w fh© j.ft<isl3t«<5a6KS ef th« 6^«a|!«iaF dU8 

Fiadin/j ac r«tr(»?£;n3l5 isrj*Oi*, tht> Jud^g^amt sill b-i 


^'JJG « CO^R?, 

i Dcfondant In '-r^^^f ) raEOR TO 



5 A '■■orTv*ratloR-,> 

\ ^' 1 

MR. JOrTICE GnoDWIH dellvorefl, tb^ opinion of the court ♦ 

7 T 

.A. 527 

This iTTlt of err^r '^ac suer! out tc r©vla'.v a ,1«dg- 

ruant obtained by ".'llz&'b&t'h '^arralrOf dc^fendant in error, 

)S9r©lnarter rsf error! to ac plaintiff, against -'oDonou^. 

^. GoEjpany, r-. corporeticB, horrlnafter referred f. as do- 

fendant, for Bervlccn a:}.^©!^'-^ to J^avo^^jK^ejg^^ t^orf crmod by the 

■^s^^/rlalntiff mui the wlfo of 

plaintiff in ite belv^lf , 

c. C* 'varmlrov, «:":5cretary and troasuror of th© <!:::fondaRt 

cosrp&ny^ and omaer of tvrenty-four of tlie twonty-flvo ehareo 

of Iti otoofe' One ehar© bo6"'d t<^ have been In the narrc of 

tho plaintiff J. but fy o T n hor to -^t- JMony It arp©ar«Jto have 

boon th© property of hor husb^and. Garmlrss h&d VTndertakon 

to publish fm archl toots' directory, and up t^- tbo tltne whon 

plaintiff' r sarvioes are -.lleg^cl to have begun, the '-Trirl: 

was bolnj:. carrlrd on by or throupih the defendant. 'Tb.e 

president &*Mr5»-"©ewp*ns'-r*«i' ' r*« ""'oungf tme at that tlrao 

Iri charne of tho wor^r - j ' j'^ o e ^ m g cti t yn <y< '-^' the propoe!3d 

directory, and all monoyc collected v/er© deposited to tho 

crodit of the defendant » "arttir©, ^c «»««?«©- -at. .tiia.t.....44»ih 

tn-Jias.QJbi:ML-£X^sE^^ in Portland, 

Or^iprkf wrote Me-wi ii 'o.> ^th6 plaint if pJ^lr ^'aroh, l""'!??, 

' Myoettnff >TryHbTr-rg ga r d "'Tr'''1;litr'^gtT!^^ g lal i irw 

,JiiyM^ls..Siilxui^-r ■Apf«<»©-»tl^ 4r« ■t?onyifeo'fra8"^tiijrr'trc3»e'^-r^ 

3i§l.,JtMuel,?j)Sj:|,u..aiaa- ■slw' inetructlng h^r tr take charge of 

th© diJTootcry, recGlv© all -all* attend tc all corTecrondonoo, 

receive all rsonety and pay it out, and to disohargo Young, 

4fa»^-ias»g4d«aat---^#^-" ttre^^r^ o , If ho ob;}oot0d . carolre 

T J? ."^- - .'^ ^ '^' 


asmarod plaintiff that she could do thle by calling a moet- 
ing of the oonrpany -n^'' voting his t^ren t y - tow^ Jg^r^y €> " of 

obEirgo of the dlroctcry- cl'^so'^ out the dsfen.-^.ant'«4e4M*wftrr~H- 
banlr aooeixntf ds-^oci' received to the ' « 'r '.".nHt 

-<«-^t,fa,* nrlvate accmjnt of .arriro- *wi-cju!i!tl'ftll6d "at tJs© 
^^^-r^-T-^-h^ : .^ ^ f ror. i';ar©h 'V l-eo®wber '^4, 191?. 

f>he alco testified that all incmeye rocoivsfl were usr^a ©ithor 
I 7 her liueband or hers©! : , thn.t whllo 5?h«s had oharge cf 

whatever boclcB tborc tax'-© » she navf^-'" -- laortj} ^nv otp..torao«i < t- 
Ttf»<»«» -» ,h p« o ■ » i<» f 4w » ' J .r>cl Ic at in;-- th-- ?«.e OKTloy©-' h'^ the 

ocnpany. The plaintiff aotert under the authority of armire 
alone. -o OY:l"-noe fail^ . ; ■^'^cl.iae^oGe any authority In hlc? 
to employ amy one on b«half of the coinpany. .fi o.« -' ,i"r.Aj j^-^4f~ 
ar!im?.5.'<5i:i T>f phe record fiarther dj gcloseia tha t, r ^ ' ^j', ' < m? ."it ^ 
the t.lni€ of h6ir....^>y^ l w'/ fTF? it . . the plaintiff;^ nctorj at? a^i^nt for 
f'ansire tw Wte peri?onal-^ ll?fe "< !? »"» ff 4'. ^ and f V ^' -^^r alone .^^^ very 
dollar Bho roi^eivcd ah© tiimed ever to hlr. or used horoolf . 
Prorn. the tlTse she took pooeespion, she conducted tho Iv.-joineoe 
a& the private concern cf h©r husband, disregarded th© cor-- 
porato entity entirely, and treatt^d all the proceeds cf the 
bualnose ae hie private, individual property, "he very 
probably mad© use of the nair« of the de'^endant, but only 
ao an asset to promote wh?jt she ^ae carrying or as hor hus- 
band*© buelnesE!. 

""Tin iaroh, ^'^\'$, the Btoel' nf tho defen^iant owied 
by plaintiff's hiisband ^mt- purehaeed by a third party, who 
did not know and could not have fenc-^m that plaintiff had 
any clairio a^inot defendtiint.y^Frorc this state cf tho record 
it is clear that tho plaintiff ^mo not hired by any one having 
legal authority tc represent the defend -nt, and that her only 
ground for recovery would be upon an itnplle'^ proirlee on 
account of the wrk done f -r the dc^fendant at its reauoet. 







Appellant < 



197I.A. 530 

BTATSKRirr OF TIFR CASE.- This 1b a bill for 
Separate maintenance brouriht by HOBe Martin Pratt, 
appellee, hereinafter referred to as Vna o ^iplainant, 
against John Pratt, Junior, appellant, defendant below. 

/f"the parties to thiis Ruit were married on the 26th 
da^ of Cotober, 1912, ii \ t t ichigau Mly -i I MYmiA , and lived 
together until the 23rd day of February, 1913, 

The anended bill upon suliioh thr- decree i« baaed 
«Mi filffd «MB ( ctobc-r 2, 1513t Ha:*tf*-irtiii aliege4pthat 

uTuCO Vv<^ 

coaplalnant at all times, during th >' ii,j c h?ir^ livecryith 
her huBband, faithfully disclmrged hor duties ae wife 
and treated defendant with kindneaa ami c-naideration; 
that defendant at no time proridod for complainant a 
proper ho»«. but durtttg--t h H ri riit'Ttmr^'l»0^e^i:9XrT^'tnifi:r- 
jnaxjfied-tlT^ siiggeoted that t)iey live apart, and th ro * 
«f1t«r provided jP»»^--*h«--^iaaHH:«^i«*n1f '*ff5'lI'«!r«WIU» u t' a room 
in the home of the defendant*© parents; that w>iile living 
th«?re, d- f endant treated her wi tli diBrespect ana without 


the ocn&i deration due a wife; thafc toe at all timet] com* 
pletely i,v;nored )ier, rcfueing to apeak to hf?r, «Rd"tre«1fed 
n(;r Tm^^mA Jt4»** as though Bh* ««»——* «tr«i«?«in th^t 


fi- J: er 



.1 .iinotfaff-; ^reri 


:'»4»»i;* brui 

iruic OEjtJ 

JiUuiindlai'' i«i^;J 

tJtTh-»i|» yii-n 

tfKOiri T:»qO'iq 

i; JtttT^^VtMML 

''.•./*,<. yi>' 

ijft.'>iVOtrj TWi^liB 

• Injaijo? 

: ni 

•^.*j!:> U' 

: ,.. »«»ri i 



•wkM acts yn "d^ f '" ntinyt t "*ir"' ' p «nrt made 4'-tt» »% > k» g Hying with 
him as hie wife unenduralile and a .ensLce to her health* 
T i i y r g#mm " i j f w i i lr-ch'-Btte- wat-g oci'ipelleu"^ to lesfvo arfff n uia^ t "^H/ 
on tJir J23rd day of Bobruary, 1913; and tkat nli e hft »-»ii>ce 
-^h e w , up to t}ip fili)ii< of tVtio bill, e«MTti?«wMh«%e llYe^sl 
separate and apart fr om h im; that when ehe informed d«» 
fondant ©he wao e owp^ iI J L od to leave Irini, >if- stated b o hW 
4,hat he was aatitified ahie ehould go at once; that ther"^- 
aft«r ehe endoavoreU to ^sork, but fcriiwi ttent owing to "Umu. 
poor Btat e o f h ey health elM >B » could not continue; that ahe 
repeatedly went to the none of d' fendant tmd requested hlra 
to penriit her to return and live with him and thrrtrite" provide 
her witli a hoiM; t**«fc4-~«»i*« ■-«i^»•■ -«jmI« H^^ 
~t«l»i!>J)toiief '♦hwrt deffndant>'JaPI «w< t ifry » refuoed, ^t ■ fM ^e vid e' -a r 

IhigBffi avifi linlri V.or' Viia j«aj^.A...«£kA...A«4o^ j^»*»>.-»>pny»if - ThPtt follOWed 

allegationB that, complainant waa phyBi<j«lly unable to con- 
tinue^ h a r i Afii <iil i » yw e i i t^y- thai she waB without fundo, and 4U&t 
oho j f t ad ne fuittra aeana of Bupuort. The"^bMrl— «<«»^*idra4 

The awB ^/ er ' o f ^M-H i^^efenuant^ categorically denied 
all tho oharge8# 4<L I fur t h i ? » -'-^he"-¥tl-l e-f- -cowpltMt-nt', On 
final hearing, the coart entered s. decree findinij that thf» 
oomplainant wao entitled to the relief souj^lit, fxn(\ decreed 
her ISC per raonth alimony, alao #60 Bolicitor*B fees; to 
revere* which d fendant has prosecuted thip appeal* 

MR. Pi^??niDlNC JUSTIGT? PAM delivered the opinion 
of thf» court; 

To maintain her bill, it war, necessary for com- 
plflj^inant to show that she was living separate and apart 
fron h£ir huoband, witiiout fault on Ixor part. 

. 'Mf- »*ttr.5Wrtrr^»fc no e*n^ 5**«r 

¥oi: 'f^ Hm ■*»-*.* iiJMk' Mem,. JSfSssid- 


; IP.5T0e 

i^^v+rfJw? '"'T 

I driBXilJI^Xq 


, l>jt flcfawK -Mwl jnoi:! 


Defendant contends that thft evidence offered by 
eomplaln&nt failed to niiow this. If it w&e neoeesary for 
the «vidcnce of the complainant to Bhow that def<»ndant 
was guilty of acta which would entitle complainant to a 
dirorce, thon the posit ion of the defendant would be . 
tenable. But the provision for separate maintenanoe Y\f^ *]«' 
does not oonteraplate such a situation. Wliile a wife is «^' 
not permitted to leave the hupband merely becaus^e oX~ in- 
aompatibility or trivial difficulties, yet she la not 
compelled to live witJi a husband who is guilty of conduct 
which endangers her health and which makes her married 
life Miserable and unendurable. 

Ill Johnson v. Johnson , 125 111, 510, our Supreme 
court has said on this point (p.515): 

"No encourageirjj'nt can be given to the 
living apart of husband r>.r\<i wife. TVie law 
and ejood of society alike forbid it. But a 
wife who is not herself in fault in not bound 
to live and rjohubit with her huEband if his 
conduct in Buch as to dirf^ctly endant^er her 
life, person or health, nor wh'^re t)ie husband 
pursues a persiotent, unjustifiable and wrong- 
fiil course of :v nduct toward her, which will 
necessarily and inevitably render her life 
miserable, and living as his wife unendurable.* 

In the name decision t>u? oo.rt held that the 
"•fault* here meant and contemplated, its a voluntary con- 
senting to the separation, or ouch failure of duty or mis- 
conduct on her part as 'Biaterially contributes to a dis- 
ruption of the marital relation. •• 

Tl-ie bill also alleges thai after th«^ complainant 
had left defendant and was living separate and apart from 
him she repeatedly requested him to take her back and pro- 
vide her witli a home, but. that drferjvi?'.nt refused to do so. 


; ^ .. /ill 


U ^^Jaoa 

ili»i-i;3>4.w ' 

<> ifoifbao? 

' .noi^«Xf»« 

X»!;?i.-i. noitnyx 


^ #rfc!»i>r *;< 

: XXi>».t A*:1(. o{ 


If th<» ejrldpnce supportn thp all«gationB in 
that rCi^ard, then even though the original leaving nay 
not hav« been warranted, th^ law would oonaidpr her liv- 
ing neparat* and apart without fault on h'"r part, entit- 
ling complainant to the relief prayed for. ' IhOB-Uie %, T hoia&g . 
44 111. App. 604; id. 152 111. 577. The law, as 8«t. forth 
in theee d^oieiona, hao not l)«*e'i departed from* 

The queftion, th' rM^fore, that presents itself 
to thip, court is whethf^r th" court below was warranted 
in finding in the decree t>iat the complainant was living 
separate and apart from defendant witho jt fault on her 
part. A detfiraiinatlon of the issues hrre involved depends 
practically ujjon the teetiiuony of two witneRsee • the 
eonplainant and the defendant. 


The evici*^nce on th'' part of tViP c mplaiiJant 
fairly tended to prov« the allegations material to the 
leBuea. The 'rvidence offered on behalf of the defendant, 
iriiile o ntradictory of the t??8tljnony offered on behalf 
of the complainant, wa« not bo direct, anti rather evaeive. 
The court evidently believed the testljnony of thf complain- 
ant and accordingly rendered a aecree based up n the evidence 
of the 'icmplainant. 

Certain lan^ua^v employed by the chancellor 
during the trial siiowe that he was improesed with tlie 
belief that the home orl^finall^ provided by the defendant 
for the complainant was inadequate, and the environment 
dioturbinii and unpleasant, lioreovtr, that thp conduct 
of the defendant wan calculated to force the eonplainant 
th«»refroja, "^md we cannot aay that it was not a fair inforenoo 




...J l»2C«»d 

^ ; .fiviij »'if;3 ToT' 


froiii the evidence, tliat. such was the intent of ti^^ie 

It further appears f r an the record, that the 
chancellor was cf the belief that the complainant desired 
to r<"'turn to the hojae of the defendant and offered to do 
BO rf'peatcdly, and that, d'^f milant did not desire )ier to 
do bo; and our own reading of the record confirmc the 
belief of the chancellor. 

While, aB alreadj/ stated, it was practically 

on« witness against tJ-ie other, save that defendant 

alGO had hie ;;icther testify in his beVialf , yet the 

number of the witnesaes is not alone detormi native 

of the question as to where the preponderance of the 

•Tidence/the case lies. An was well said in Johnson v. 

Johnson, supra (p. 514): 

"In cases-, in chancery, when the evidence 
is cr nflictinfi, and the witnesses have been 
exarainod orally in court, it is said, in Coari 
v. Cleen, that there is thp ?ame nnor-ssity 
•xisting as when th rf^ has been a tial by jury, 
that the error in the finding of fact shall be 
clear a7ici palpable to aut orize a roversal. 
The rule announcd if p juet one, when the 
evidence to w.^ich credit is I'iven iz sufficient 
to BUPtain the decree, for the v^ry mn-nifr-et rea- 
son thn t t.'io chancellor had thp witnesses before 
him, Willi an op lortunity of observing them while 
testifying, ana was tiuis afforded facilities, 
frequently of the greatest importance, in deteria- 
ining the weight and credibility of tiioir evidence, 
whi di we, from tlie ^ery nature of the hearing, on 
appeal, can not have." 

This same rule of law was announced bythie 
branch of the Appellate co rt in Springer v . David .Bradley 
Ufg. . Go . . 191 111. App. 45, whprein was cited the foUowin^ 
language from Calvert y. Carpenter . 96 111. 63 (p»59): 

^jiiiiifspi «wo ijuo fjRiS ;oe ob 

.ToXX9ona/l9 aurti "Jo leiXad 

. < J ii K 1 1 V) i J LI y >.) p 3 Ui to 


• ,"-/ -- ' '•' ,i 


.-... .V 

0* oX* To 

■> i .... I'j- 

.... o^ 



vTfirf ion a*' 

•Ji. iSiBSiJCLLx • f-'^^ '■'»q<jA Silt *?o rtoftjg'xd' 


"It can ocaroely bo repeated too often, 
that the 1 .:i^',«> and jury «(fr; o try a oaae in tho 
court below have vaatly suporior a-ivantai^oa 
for the aaoertaincoent of truth and the dotoc- 
tlon of falaeh ood ovar thia court sitting au a 
court of reviojf. All *e can do iiJ to follow 
^Tith the eye the cold words of the (Vitnosgi ag 
tranucribQd upon the record, kno'ving at the 
saiae time, from actual experience, that more 
or leiie of *iat tha vvit''oi*>i actually did uay 
hi al>-ifa/a lost in the proc(3'ia of transcribing." 

In tho ca*»<s at bar, we are not only of the cpinicn 
that tha finding of the court tts not clearly and manifestly 
againiit the weight of the evidence, but that the court waft 
fully warranted in finding that the complainant iva» ^u^ti- 
fied in living Boparato and apart from defendant, and that 
in iio doing it waa without fault of hor own. 

Defendant ccuiplaina of certain rulinga of the 
court with reference lo the admission and rofuaal of 
evidence. We have carefully examined the recori ^ith 
reforonce to t^to orrore complained of, and aro of the 
opinion that the defendant's contentions in regard thereto 
are without merit, 

Pindinp, no reveraibls error, the decree will be 


<i* f»!iy 


631 20969, 


Appellant, ) / 

^ ) ArifUiL FBOM 





19? I.A. 533 

MR. PRSSIDIHG JUiJTIJM PAM delivsrod th«» opinion of the court. 

Leopold JJathan, appollant, h' reinaf ter rpfrrred 
to aa thf» oomplainant, filed a bill against liar'ry U, Brown, 
•ppGllee, horpinafter designated as the defendant, asking 
for a. oonFtruction and rpforfnation of a certain acjroftmant 
dieaolving n partn*!rehip theretofore ©xleting between 
■aid complalnont anu defendant; also for an injunction 
restraining th<» defendant fro.i proaecutini^ a crtain 
proo«>«=*dlng then pending in thf> Municipal Co -rt of Chicago, 
and alpo enjoining th<» naicl defend-nt from instituting 
or prosecuting any further proceedings against th« ooin- 
plainant on aooount of eaid partnerBiiii(|) and the dissolu- 
tion thereof, 


^^ The "bill, alleged that the complainant had b"on 
•agagod in the r<^al estfite buftinenn for rrnxny years and 
i ms >1b o> «»-jswp»i»4--4^*-h*^^»<Ujx^ that 

in connecition mritk w u Q h . - lm»Jnf>»a«» he hr..d for 8t»v«rarr-y«ara^ 
been conducting a o ^^ i tain b r an oh - of th '? r'^'al estate busi- 
ness under tho narae of Local IraproTeiUPnt and Taxpayers 
Association, (nr-t incor,.'<.rated) ; tJiat he had krsown th<» 
defendant f tor mn^ y ^t^an s. pri'.r tc July 1, 19(8; Uml pritrr - 




;<v>vyi30i't 10 

rtermrtrf-TTirJ^'SYij) it %fii. 


to Tanimry 1» 1>0> t?rr d '^f tsndrxnt - hard "tjven 

a a^rohant tailor, ^mi that from that time on until 


,jCu ^ aa , l i KjO , he --'^!T'«- no tr^ ^i^n^■^^^ »,n^ ■ ■ . J x ujiJ .. n , K*B »i that on axi d. 
■«Ui>4<a th<r c mplainant fipcl clef«ndant ent/?rca into a pax tn e r « 
lahip wndg ir -a wrltien^agreRraeni.^^a* foil owe, muaely: 

Nfcrterod inti.; t)ii& 23r(i day of July A.;^. 
19CS, by ami botweon Leopold Nat>tan, party of 
the first part, rind Harry ». Brbwn, party of 
the second part, botVi pnrti' a of thP ''it./ of 
JJiicBiiO, 'ount^' of wook and .'tat© of Illinois, 

"That, Wherenui, the »aid Leopold Nathan 
iB nojv doln^; Vnioineon undf»r thf> firi:; rvmis of 
•Local ImprovQMif nt Yax PayerB Acnociution* of 
G>il:;ait:0, anifct'not inoorr-orated; it iv, h^ rR)>y 
a^jreed that all acccuntB now owini^ to the 
Firm or to L, Nathan Bii- 11 wh<^n oollected go 
to.,.tlie &eJu4 L* IfiKthan To r "lii e o wn ~ \ic« . 

"It ir rurth^^r Rfrrt^fftt ttijit the? umeye 

revuiivpd from contracts for reduction of 
li«6eniim<?.nts niKnod prior to t?ur- date shall 
be tKie individual proi:'<»aty of the eaid L. 
Nathan and any ff»e or feos that naay be hf^xe- 
af ter^ co^Xe(«1^Jf'lC-.C?.f'I?.,.*^^*^ businrss Bhal) t;o 
"ilCtrS" " Na than "f ©"y "" iVi »" own " tt'sre • 
. "Aepartieo hiiTf hereby further agreed 

V^ n nwt ii yii iin ' t w t a ■ inr iri "r i t ' ir - " 'mTir'TtrTmffrrttm 
tiinii«%t ahwlii. engaga in t'nc real «Rt t« buei- 

"On any buaineae done, in r'»al estate 
transactions and in smy other buoiness said 
firm flhalJ. agree to ontiaj-^e in under contracta 
nigni?d after thi? date tho pjofito shall be 
divided by the pi(trti(?8 hereto- share and nl^are 

"All expenses and losses shall be paid 
by both parties h-reto share pind share alike. 

"Tlie said l., NatVian ie to pay any and 
all debts hor' tofore oontract'd by the said 
Looal liuprovement Tax Payers Aes'n, The said 
Ilarry U. Brown havint; thir day paid to the 
said L, Nathan the sum of Two Hundred Fifty 
($25C,(Jt) Uollars, thf- receipt of .vnich is 
hereby acknowledged for an undivided one- 
half ii) int rest in and to the office fix- 
turoe no?i in saiu o'fice and owned by the 
said L, Nathan^ and the £jood will of said 

"This contract to be in forc« for a 
terra of three (3) yearo frora this date, unless 
dissolved by rautual consent, 

*A*r— tiie- «ml-«4^ "47h4« ae«ip«rtn«r«l^iip - tlif 
said L, Nathan ehnll liave the eacluaive ri/rht 
to uee thf nmue of th<? Local i.r:prove;'jpnt Tax 
Pa^««« Association. 



.H.,p... -■ -,^^, 



Ubat *H-»«'af tur. the •cNhM busineBB vae con- 
ducted as a co-partnrrrhip; tha* laJaou* l>«««»lMrr"^^l^^ 
^dAf iijodant .- ^haasMM .«Li »mm t i &f 4 <fii4^ ^ vi -tit - %!%« '»'i*<<»«wi tl " "~^T"'"th e 
i^tlitiiiflft*"' *"''* ^hat the partnership orr)tlnu<r>d until altout 
May 25, 1910, during w)uoii tim« all profita were divided 
acQordlng to agr«»<»ment; that on May 26, 191C, they 
agreed to diasolye partnership, m ^i qft—ttgyc o wn * w t-^wgrti »«444Mxetti> 
i4i»~<4w444«il> ftmA ' i t * an follows: 

•DiSSCLUTiO?? OF aO-.pARTH.13iSH If* . 

"Whereas mrticl'T of co-pa rln«»r ship 
was ent'3r*?d into on tho 23rd day of July, 19ca, 
by and between L(?opold Nathan and Harry U, Brown; 

"Whftreas th'' said Ha than and Brown have 
niutually a^:rettd to dissolve thin co-partnership 
by autuol corjo(?nt: 

•It io hereby stipulat'^d and a^jreed that 
all the assets of any kind an<i nature, all out- 
standing aooounta, office fixturon, etc., snd 
tho good will of said businf+BB aholl be thf? pro- 
perty of Baid L. Nathan for hie own uee and V^e- 
hoof forever; 

"ftie fjfdni I<eopold T^athan agrt^ed to assume 
and to pay all liabilities of mid firm, and 
for and in consideration of all intr-rests in 
said firm h^^rrtofore ownfd by the paid Harry 
U.. Brown thR said L. Nathan hoieb,y St'r.rees to 
pay to said Harry *. Brown Twenty-five (ISD) 
Dollars per week conanencing on t)ie 28th day 
of i^ay, 191C, until thf Tliirty-first day of 
KeceBiber, 191C; th"^ Baid Harry Brown in lieu 
of thi!- af.;r*:'emf*nt to '.ive such servlHsas as he 
jnay be able to give until said last naiaed date, 

"Dated at Chica^/o thie 2&th day of iay,19l0. 
tlAiUiY M. BHOWBf." 

'ilie bill furtli'-r alleged that tJ)P defendant, 
111 aooordance with -«a44^dls solution agrermrnt, was to 
enter and continue in ouraplainant*s employ until December 
31, 1910, at a salary of J;2S,00 per week, devoting all 
his time and energy to the promo ti'-n of eaid hueiness; 
that the defendant continued In complainant's employ 
until July 1, 1910, when he S m i ,3 t..' m m* was injured, -m**! up 




to which time h«» was paid n salary of $2S.(X) p«r week; 
that t'n^TRaf t«r th# defendant renclflr*»J no servioe* 
to thft ai > wH >-l< *A ri » i it n n<i . th a t uadflju. JtompA aifwuM^' » . oeli" 
struction of th^ dieaolution agreement k«wa» not 
entitled to roceiye any furtli»r eutu of liid.oc per week 
beoauee h'^ had r'mU-^Ted no furth r serviaee up to 
and inoludinc the filing of tlie bill whi >li was on 

The >»in furth,<»r sete forth that in October 
the aofoniiant broui^ht Buit against the complainant 
in th« *i<uniGipal Jourt for th^ earn of #35C«00, Bni < » 
aiTH i Wt b « Ang ',the amount alleged to be due from July 
let to October lOth under the disjjoluti-on agr' ement; 

that on NoveKiber 9, 1910, the defendant (sued out an 

atta<d%ment in aid txsm Viis ««Htd suit at law w}iiGh he 

oaueed to be l^evied upon the real estate of tlie aoisi* 

plainant, tmd thnt the defendant had oth rwise atteaipted 

to harrasB and injure complainant In hit; business and 

threatened to file additional suits from time to time 

until coraplainsnt sliould pay hiw the su-; of #350,00 

olaiaVd t(ri>e^d«ie upon Oct oVer 7th and continued to 

pay him at the furth' r rate of ^2J)»00 per vsfeek froa 

said October 27th to December 3l8t, awd^^i»ii» uojwrith- 

standing the fact t>iat defendant had wholly negleoted 

and r-^fused to perform s^ny oervice whatsoever for jow- 

pla in i jH f-eubsSitu^HaV is iNiiiy 1st, 19XX}* althou^sh^he had 

been well able to attend to bu&iness had he been 00 

inclined, and that defendant had informed complain^ 

ant that he did not int nd to re<,urn or to perform 

any further seryior for complainant. 

■rfitftUr •MH3 




a'il yi*': 


tew^f^icoi J i) B^'f 

:■; 1 !^;;.» J :j 

«8 «»■ 

* - 'low at»«»«r 



ThP bill furthf^r «Il«ged tliat the dioBolution 
agr««rfl'nt wa» ambiguous and cnpablfl of aox'P: th ri one con» 

then fcIlowirt)v« praj^er thai the dissolution 
atgrpf^went b^ t nistrued bo an to «xpreB« thp natual 
underatanding of the partien, and that any and all 
llabiliti«8 of complainant, if any, be adjusted and 
adjudioated, and asking for an injunction r«Btraining 
the (lefondant from furth' r prosecuting; tlip suit brought 

by him in t>ip Municipal Court of r;hic:g©». 
xxxjoaixjd/ -inG to enjoin him from instituting or prosecut- 
ing any further proo««dingBk«,«}»4nirt"~ttrr"r?nwr>*«^ 

On Deofimber 5, 1910, an injunction wa« 
iscu' d ae prayed, fwiH On December 12, 1910, the 
appearance of the dpf'ndent, by iiio eolloitors, was filed 
and in December 13, 1910, on aotion of defendant' 8 
Bolioitore the injanction p rcT i o\ jL B lji > >^b ta*a e d i*&» dle- 
Rolved and uf^fendant al loved to file suggostion of 
dojnages withir fivp dHya. firrthP sa tiinrggiSr^tfcnRiyla-iTmnt 
prayed an appeal to the Appellate court, irtVioh was 
allowed upon his filinj, o bond in the sum of #1,000, OC 
and eertlfioattt of eYidenoe within txenty daye. The 
fiLlJtpeal bond wae f il "d and apifroveS' on iHe"! SMi" a»^- 

On Deoetaber 19, 1910, eu4;;geptipn of damaees 
was filed by the defendant. 

On Noyernber 1, 1911, delcn.ant filed hie 
MUiwr. to thP binr-e^"CT»p^<>ijajL. Ii a -. -Ba id a n i nMT defen ant 
denied all the allegations B*4j-i*oTth in -BPrM complaint, 
Bove thoce i if »t!r r""'r': 'T i?rWi Wfe.^, to h*«» entering into the partner- 
ship Riire'-r; nt and also the agroement of the diesolution 

xM'J iPiX 

n *tt± OB Li: 



•f said partnerehip, Ii« admitted furthi^r the l>eeinning 
of the puit in thjf J^unioipal court a«ainot onaplainant 
and t>K- nttachnmnt cult In aid thereof. 

To thli? answer th«* ooniplainant filed a general 
replication on October 16, 1913. 

vn Hovembcr 22, 1913, o atl^iulation wae entered 
Intc- that the hearing on the Buctjestion of daumgee in 
•aid oau^e "be plaoed on tii*> contested uiotion calender 
for JeceBjb«?r 13, 1913. 

On JSay 29, 1914, oo rt entrred the following 

••ThiB aauoe }iavin^ come on to b« heard, 
upon the "bil). of ci.ira;.>laint herein and the 
answer thereto of tiie deff=;nuant ana the ntipu- 
lation of the partipfo by tlifir respective so- 
lioitors in open court, unci the court >j.aving 
h«?ard tAie ffvidf^nce, botli oral and dooujientary 
and the eame having been argued by oouncfl for 
the retipectivf {)orties« nnci th< ao *rt being fully- 
advised in thf* prf'miees dot>i find that it hae 
juriBciiotion both of th«» subject-inntter -■•.nd of 
the parti'*, tha ; the rtaid parties h^Hd entered 
into f ; ntract of dioBOlutitn hb eet out in 
complainant's bill o.' :os>;plaint nnu th'tt ae 
a r suit of n«id contract there if due to the 
defendant the eiua of Thref Hundred l-'ifty (^380,< C) 
liollars which includiHi not only t>ie auac unt accrued 
at the date of t>ie filing of t)**^ bill heiein but 
all amounts accrued and to accrue thereafter 
under said contract. 

"The co^^rt furthr-r findc that tJierf? is 
due to def'-nuant for wrongful issuance of writ 
of injiinction herein th<? further auni of ^ICC. 

"It ie- tli*Hrefore ord'.^red, adjudged and 
decreed that th^ ti»id defendant do have r.nd 
recover frnm t>ie naid complainant the f.uei of 
^AbC together with all ooote whioli said defendant 
ha« paid on account of uaid oauBe.'*-J|^ 

Frojcft thic! decree the ooiaplninant yarmrMl 
an appeal, which was allowed upon the coiaplainant filiog 
• b 'nu in the sum of |>700«00, to be approved by t>ie 
court, or th« clerk of thin oo.irt, withi i twenty days, 

n« to 



mnd o<mjilaxnaQt wmtt ^iren sixty days in wliicii to present 
and file hLfi certificate of eyid*j?nGe« 

In the reaord pr«!Bented to tids oo^rt no 
certificate of «vidctnce! appears. The praecipe of 
the record siiowB tluit the cleric i^ae askeo to prepare 
a complete transcript of thp record in tho aljoye 
entitled cause. Thft clerk certifies that thf record 
presented to this court Is r complete transcript of the 
record as asked for in the praecipe. It is fair to 
prrmwr.e, therefore, that no certificote of evidence was 
ever filfd ii. euii., fjnupe, 

Tho main o< ntentlon of the complainant ifs 
fkat the decrre is not 8up;jorted by any finding of 
fact therein or lay any eyiden :e in t>ie record, or by 
the pleading;*. Wliile it it; true that no certificate 
•f aTldenc:*? has been filed, yet , th« ooraplRinant'r. bill 
and the answer of the defendant set forth sufficient 
adoULtted facts to warrant the finding in the decree that 
the complainant is indebt' d to tne defRntJant in the rum 
of #350. 00. It is nf-ceesary to refer only to thp 
a^reerient of the ooopartnerehip and the agreejisnt to 
dissolve the Kame, to warrant the said finding in the 

fhile the ccBtplainant alleges in his bill of 
OMVplaint that said dissulutx^ n agreement in ambiguous 
and do B not truly net forth the agrpejafnt of the 
parties, and asks thnt the carae be refonsied bo as to 
expresH the actual understanding between tht* parties 
at thr^ ti^fse of such dissolution, we cannot, concur in 

that contention. 



. r< A #.f f**-'l«r/^ 


•how that tho dl«f|n4ant pa 11 |^&0.00 for an lntoro»t 
in aaid bu»in«i8»; that ho waP to roc^ ive ono-half of 
the pruflta and that ha »•» also tt have an undiridad 
ona*-half int's'-eiit In the office f Lttures and ijood «ill 
of aald loiiainaBa, Thia A^tbor-.-snt »ati to r^m fyr tliraa 
yaara. At tho tiajo of the d3»«3olution a^reecaefit It 

• till had moro than a year to run. 

Th9 olaiiaea in t>.a dlasolutlon agrioi&«nt« 
ttiQ coniitruoticai of 'i^lch U the aubjeot matter of 
th« oofitroverey bat<r«en the partioa, arf? a» foliowo: 

•It i» hereby stipulated and agreed 
that all the as acta o.f any kind and nature 
all outstanding accounts, office fixtures, 
Rto., and the good will of a-^id hMHinena 
uhall bo th« property of aaid L. Kathan 
for hie own ubo ard behoof forcverj 

■th« «iaid Leopold HatHari aft roe* to 
aw* auffio and to pay all liabiiiti^ju of aaid 
firm, and for and in consideration of all 
lntorcs#»» in li&id f inn ho ret of ore owned 
by the auid Harry U. Brown, the aaid L. 
Kathan than hereby agross to pay to uald 
Harry M. 3rowQ, Twonty-fiv« (t^i>) Dollars 
p-^iT week cojBiaencinjr on ^\q £-3th day of Mc^y, 
1910, until t)-.o Thirty-first day of December, 
1910; th6 aa id Harry Brovrn in lieu of this 
agroaawnt to give such Snsrvicea a» he may 
be able to (rive until aaid last natned date.* 

By th9a« olauosiii the complainant Odcaine 

entitled to all the «»»«t» of the* business, including 

the good will, and In conis iderat ion therefor, the 

• aid ccwplainant agreed "to a**Buiae and pay all liabilitiea 
of »aid f insi. « » • to pay to said Harry U. Brow, 
Tw«nty-fivo (|So.OO) Dollars por Keek ccoaaenoine, on the 
28th day of May, 1310, until the thlrty-firat day of 




Dwodiaber, 19IC,* Thie laneuago olearlj indioatvn 
th»t the Twonty-fiye Dollare (^25) per week w&s to 
be paid for and in conBidsratirn of th»' «%aid dfsfrsn- 
diant*B int«'r<}8t in Rfsid oo-pfirtnerohip. The acm-. 
plainant contends » howevnr, that the following 
language *the eaid Harry Brown in lieu t?f thin 
•«(re«tn«nt to give suoh eervioes ae he may be able 
to K^v® until Btiid leei named date", obligated 
the defendant to render eerTioee to tJaa oonplainant 
for wolcli he was to be .paid #25 per week* 

Any Buoi. o* nstructior. of this langua£;4l 
abeolutely obviutes thf ferae of th e preceding 
lenguafje whereby the aaid c mplaiofent in ooneiaf^ra^ 
tion of the aaid df^fendant giving up all hit. inte'iM^&t 
in eaid co-partnership, aj^reed to pay the defendant 
$25 per week froist the 2ath day of May, X9X0, until 
the 31 Bt day of ineoeiaber* 1910* 

The cont ntion of th*? cotaplalnant simply 
ammc' that thie intcrc^ot was obtain^-d wit)ujut any 
Qontiidf^-raticn, save thnt he a|preed to erapley the 
defendant during thiit period of time at a salary 
ot ^^;^ij per week* Duoh construction of thii? contract 


i» unri^aecnable and tstrainif^d, and that suoh Jkkxx ^kks 
the intention <5f ttie pa. tioe in making thio agreement 
la absolutely improbable. 

Tlierr- was notuirb-: oiiibiguous in tht^ language 
of the ocntraot, nor was th' re anything in the contraot 
that needed reforioation. 






Thc cjlauae in th^ c ntract upon which 
complainant based hio contention, cons trued niOBt 
favoral>ly tc him, c^.n ho held to mean only that 
if defendant oo dd render any eervice in connection 
with any transKCtion in whiiili he (defendant) 
wftB oonoernea while a memhcr of &aid co-partner ship « 
he would do bo* Tbis io a far cry from the contention 
of the complainant that the defendant was employed at 
a salary of #25 per weok, for which he was to devote 
all of hlf5 lime in tho internet of tlio complainant 
in anu to said buoineBB* 

We ar«, therefore, of the opinion that the 
chancellor was warranted in finding from tlK' record 
as it ip prrBented to thie court that the complainant 
was indehted to the defendant in the nuxa of $360.00; 
in fact, as we viRW the record th« chancellor should 
have fo ind the complainant indehtod in a larger sum. 
Complainant, howov r, cannot cojisplain of such action 
by the CO ;rt inasriuch as it is favorable to tiie interest 
of iiiB cli<»nt, nor can the defendant complain becaue* 
he has not assigned a oroec-error. 

In thir, view of thf? case ve are necesoarily 
further of the opinion thai tlie court properly dissolved 
the igijunction granted on thiR hill. The complainant 
alr.o coraplaine of the allowance of |>190*00 ss damages 
for the wron^jful is auance of ouch injunction and bases 
hlB contention upon the fact tJiat thi re ie no evideno« 
in the record supporting euch finding in the d<^cree, 
nor iB th' re any sufficient finding of fact in the 
decree itself. 


•Xo »lf3C 

floijrv ''OW »rf 

,..: .ti II4S 

.;ir">brri- ha"^ 


. xoti , 

.a-x t- ••?!«'■ • 

jf«i»A»iti«» >^p ton 

The rcoord, however, dO' 8 sshow tVuit an in- 
junoti^n wis XBBued; that the oo ^rt f cund it i&e iia- 
properly isBuea (uid diasolvod thf» i-aiae and t}iat 
■Ui^jeetionB of daraage, under leav« of court* were 

The CO <rt in its deoroe found as a fact 
that tli'rr WRB ciu«» to ttie defendant for th*? wrong" 
f\»l isRwrmc® of t)T.« writ of injiinotim in raid 
cpuK* tliK> BuiT Of #1C>C'«0C, Thin ie r Rufficipnt 
finding of f&ot upon wni -h to \:^.r.e a deore<? adding 
Bs.ld PiLOi of $100,00 to the ivinount tho occiplainant 
wan entitled to ri^covpr froy. the <lef f^naent. 

Findin?^ no rPYf»r«»i'bl'? error, th« decree 
of the Circuit Court will b« afflriaed, 


'-P - '"0^54. 


Uppellee, ) / ERB.'R TO 



Apfe9llant..' ) 

197 I.A, 539 

!',R. JUfTICE GOODWIN delivered the cpirion of t»o court- 

Aprelloe, hereinafter referred to as r;lalntiff, 
recovered -" Judgment aralnct opnellant, herelnaft'-r re- 
ferred to as defendarit. It appears frei ? feho ovl ^^^me^, thr-t 
ir. froveraber, 19]f5, pla.i~tiff vrs,B enploycd "by defcr.'pr.t to 
fy.c tr-. Tr»diarapoliB to '.vcrl' for a ntreet car oowpo.ny during 
tJ ^Kj o e> ritii i ucmoo " "Pf a ctrtlce 4ii*»4!— wb?» then in progress. 
^' H+*r. 433Pir**««. contr ct T>rovided tte.t he war tc receive ''7.Q0 
a day, board, lodrdng and trarsportatlorij a«^-=*e5*-%J%e«e 

talcen to Indiana^ oils di^t-«©¥«"4;*4fik»~.4« report for rrorlr and 

hold th«« g ol y«-&: IrR readijiaww to take out cars when order -d" 

te - d < » . ~ ft«i . It*|hliiSadniitted thnt "laintiff reported f oi- wn r te 

Saturday and unday after arriving in Indianapolis, "ho 

defendant's: aBslBtant superintend ent tertiflod that ho dlE- 

chej?gc-d plaintiff tlie foJLioaABC^ day, and isc is corroborated 

by the ■fe» «t 'tr ' t ?t J:y"T?f othf^r eirf-loyeB of the defendant. Plaln- 

ti f testlfl d thnt he reported fiiv w t> v^ . every day during 

the etrllre- and •VTao refularly ohecl:ed.b^-*i-*#l'-^««»w*-Ms.~oa- 
{ t J 

-i "J:o ye fi . -i-i*—**^ corroborated b--' t(3T'.'nT??^sy°T^ one fellov;- 
employe^ fsnf tlfx ^ ^ -rv^ ii.a '" b c j iBihE * . ;efendant*B superintendent 
tectifled thr^t beglnnlnjT with ondav, no chock inarlc a'^-^eared 
after plaintiff's nanie* that a croos ^my^j^laced after nlaln- 
tiff's na'-::6 ®i%-iste»»t~^tefr9', and the notation "open number." 
The tir.e-keeper tei.tified that an employe wrir. cheo'red vrhen 
he proeented Ms card: that the eheete offered ir evidence 
were carbons of the orlr-lnalc ; that the chcckr v^ere not rjut 

\3 '<-'■ 


on the BhoetB b^f^o the ^^tic^oan^to the bam^ ^^^^^^ 
44=t_tfe^^-cw«f--©^ a rar. -««*© dicl notTj ^i ' ui. i-ii l hii .^ Bwl i P , *tkdy^placed 
^ jy-rirn after hie naine. A t> arg i' i?ul e-ardnatior) of the carbon 
sheets -howsKhat. *lrinti*"f -Tac. rei^larly checked each flo.y 
in idontical& fee (sani a ranker ae ww^-^jiw* other eKr^loyee. 
A vertical mrlc &ppear/tkpot],<^>i thr-oe check marks, --r^ri the 
notation "open niJEiber" avr ear^n l-'-^'^^^oil; • *'"*"" '"l"" " '^ 
-ftffj rH g ill o n P ! ^ ' ihe vertical ir^arko tfe— a^c o^vieuc th^t thoy wot - pi - 
'^notv^e^^^^fe irnpresBion through the carl- or. paper, but ««*K^ft ^^ 
.^ lutK ^z&d.e Bome tl © after the orifr.irial entry .iTThe time ahoetp, 
therefore, tend tr corroborate the plairtiff- 

Plfi'intiff rurniehed hie own Roard and lodging, and 
\7r.8 allowed tc recover for the expeni-.e Incurred, presumably 
upon the £;roi.^nd that no auitable lodr^np: &r*i board vere furn- 
iGhed by the defenda.nt. 'here 1? a conflict of evif^onoe on 
this point c 'Jpon a carefi.3l revlev of the record. It Is iro- 
posslbl© t- Bay that the finding of the court '"aB ^anlfootly 
agalnet the '»igl5t of the rvidence. 

Defendant alen contends that pa re 1 evidence in 
regard to the terre -f the contr:^ot wara iisrproperly adjnltted. 
Plaintiff had served due nrd ti-el^' notice uiion the defendant 
to produce at the trial the 'rritten contract ^hich wan in its 
posseesion, but at the tirr!© rial > tiff te.tifiod it hJid not 
been pro<3uced. There wr.n, therefore, r.o error ir the court 'b 
ruling, m Tio'.7 of this state -f the record, the .^udjrnont 
ruGt be affirined. 




15 > 20440 

A. V. TODD, 

Dttfenlont in Error, 



Defeniant In Er»6r.} COOK COUNTY. 


Plaintiff In ifrror.) -^ ^ * 

\ / 197I.A. 544 

MR. JUSTICE O'CONNOR llellvered the opinion of the oourt. 

Th« deJ:4Mk4«»^~-i»^«»^p«t^» -^t-^lf'f^d, rooovered a judg- 
ment agalnot the plaintiff In error. Auto Taxloato Company, for 
personal injuries. The parties will be deelgnated as plaintiff 
and defendant a» In the court balow.JfTlbout midnight, September 
11, 1911, plaintiff entered a taxioab of the defendant at the 
Illinois Athletlo Club In Chicago, and Instructed the driver 
o^-4^>e- t a K lo ab to take him to the Lake Shore »«44«e«d station. 
The drlTer proceeded south on Michigan avenue, and then turned 
•reet on Jackson lioulevard. While croesing State street, wKlolr 

^«-two blocks west of Michigan avenue, the taxicab collided with 
. CmJ-~ 

a eouthboxmd street oar., The plaintiff wao 4 rnjug e d, belng -,«w*t='^ 

about the head, a»4 an artery in the region of the toraple •«•- 

Mvared. He was »«ir>0Vird-Tr6r*''n£r-tiart^^^ back to the 

Athletlo Club, where he received aedioal attention. He stayed 

at the club the b^lwi— -»f th»t night, the next dsiy and ni^ht, ^nd 

•ft^the— ftyil«w44g^day, agiinet thfLadvloe of his physician, he 

went to Atlantic City, and .;jk-*»«~ jbmJc* af t^rw*»4pe oa«e back to 

Cfcloago,bT-1raT^e^^^nal«^«proi^ia. He was a traveling ealessan 

(♦s^^ lumbar- ooapany of -St. Louls^ aad -***« earning «ore that 

tlO,000 per year. He wae unable to work for more thait three 

month « -if tar the aoc I dent ."^f October 24, 1911, plaintiff brought 

suit against the defendant. Auto Taxloab Company, and the Chicago 

City Railway Company. The jury returned a verdict for *25O0 

against the Auto Taxioab Company. The street oar company was 

found not gu'lty. Judgment was entered on the verdict. The 

0^>08 " SL 

rUA taz 

i. JL\ 

lOir^.TJl .rTtf 



1 ■■ - " ■ 


4 ao«i( 




death of the plaintiff hae tooen suggeeted to thle oourt and on 
motion hie adviinletrator hae bee^n substituted. 

The defendant oontende that the oourt oommitted reverei- 
ble error in refuelng'three inetruotlone offered on behalf of 
the defendant. The flret Inatruction told the jury that the 
law did not recjulre the drlrer of the t&xloab to guard against 
anything which was not reasonably to be expected, nor did the 
law require hire to regulate hie oonluot with reference to any 
ooniuot of others not reasonably to be expected by hljn, under 
the cirouaetanoee In evidence. This instruction might have 
been proper if the suit had been brought by the taxioab driver 
against the street c%t company, as held in Ohloago mtv ^v. Co. 
' goe^ynakl . 134 Til. App. 149, but wis not applicable where 
the BuU was brought by a passenger riding in the taxioab. 
Par ae lee Co. ▼ Wheelock. 234 111. 194. 

By the second Instruction which the court refused, the 
Jury were instructed that the plaintiff was not entitled to re- 
ooYer any damage« for any dleability or expenee that resulted 
from his own failure to exercise proper and reasonable care 
after he recelTed the Injury, which aggravated his condition 
by failing to observe the Inetructione of hie physician, and 
that the defendant was not responsible for any damages result- 
ing from any neglect on the plaintiff's part. This Instruction 
was clearly bad. It aaeuaes that the plaintiff had done some- 
thing which aggravated his physical condition, and thereby in- 
vaded the province of the jury. 

Instruction No. 3, which the court refueed, oorreotly 
stated the law to be that, in the absence of some warning or 
evidence to the contrary, the driver of the taxioab had a 
right to assume that the railway company would obey the ordi- 
nance of the South Park Commissioners and etop its car before 
crossing the boulevard; but. In applying this principle to the 


;'l!SiSi i-n. 

V . w.' s;?- ,: , 1 k ■> 


faotB, the Inetruotlofi merely etated that the Jury "ahould oon- 
Bider that the ohauffeur had a right to aeeuae that the oar 
would stop," but did sot say, aeeume 'in the abaenoe of bobm 
warning or evidence to the oontrary," whloh qualifloation wae, 
of course^ neoeseary to the oorreotneee of the Inetruotlon. 
north Chio.tKO gt . R. ^, Co. v Irwin . 302 111. 345; Brun ▼ 
Nacey £o . , 26*7 Iltl. 353; L.. N_. A. * £. '^. Co. v Patohen . 
167 111. 304. 

The defendant next contends that the hypothetical 
questlcs put to Dr. Harvey, a witness who testified on behalf 
of the plaintiff, and the doctor* a answer to the question, 
were improper, in that the question "called for on answer 
which Invaded the j)rovtnce of the ^ury." The objection urged 
on the trial to the question was: "It le not a proper hypo- 
thetioal question. The premieee are not hypothetical. The 
«r.entionlng of Mr. Todd's na«e, that of the Illlnoie Athletlo 
Club, and the raentlon of all th« facte and clrcumetanoee dl- 
reotly mentioned in thie oaee detraote from the question and 
the hypothetical character of it." It therefore clearly ap- 
peare that the objection here urged was never called to the at- 
tention of the trial court. It is a rule of imivereal applica- 
tion that an objection ie liaited to the grounde epeoified and 
ioee not cover othere not epeoified. Fir at Rational Bank of 
Haywood v Gerry . Gen. No. 30971, Appellate Court, First Dlutrlot; 
Ewen V Wjibor. 308 111. 492. An objedtioa cannot be urged for 
the first tiae in a court of review. Furthermore, the question 
and anewer under the facte in the case were proper. Defendant 
object© to the conclusion of the question and the witness** 
anewer, which are ae follows: "Have you an opinion, doctor, as 
to whether or not ths injury that Mr. Todd received in the 
taxicab h*d any connection with Mr. Todd's conlUlon a<i you 
found it *hen you made the examination?" A. "That hie condition 

aolaulonoo '-Ido 

iyuai Aiox n^^ 


was dependent upon the injury." There in no dispute ae to 
the m*inner in which the plaintiff wae injured^ ^nd under the 
doctrine announced *ln the caee of City of Chi q. ago v Didier , 
B27 111. 571, and the oases therein cited and analyzed, the 
qtieetion and answer were not objectionable. 

The defendant's next contention le th>»t the court 
erred in refusing to allow the driver of the taxioab in 
question to state what hie practioe was, with reference to 
obserTing the provisions of the ordinance of the South Park 
Co«ffil6Bionere, prior to the accident, and in sijpport of this 
contention oitea Toule v Paolfio I mp. Co. , 96 Cal^ 342; 
Smith V aiddleton . 112 Ky. 566; Jagger t Bank. 53 Minn. 386. 
The first of these citations sustains the contention of the 
defendant, but the last two are adverse to it. On re&eon 
and authority, the ruling of the trial court wae clearly 
proper. It was iBfluiterlal what the witness had done on prior 
occasions. Th# only proper inquiry was what he did at the 
time and place in que »t ion. Sasith v Middleton . eurra; 
JafcA® r V E%pk ^ eupra . 

It is next contipnded that the court erred in permit- 
ting the plaintiff to file additional counte to the declara- 
tion, Ir. that they set up different causes of action from 
that declared on in the original declaration, and which causes 
of action were barred by the etatute of limitations. During 
the progress of the trial, November, 35, 1913, the plaintiff 
asked and wae given leave to file an additional count over 
the objection of the defendant, and again on Deoember 1, 1&13, 
the cause being etlll on trial, the plaintiff was given leave 
to file another count to the declaration Instanter, and the 
pleas then on file were ordered to stand as pleas to this 
count. JJo objection wae to the entry of this order. Aesum- 


■-nl ?"! if not' 

I ^n iif. i.fl'p. hats 

.?;i v> -:! it 

J;-< 1 V .-■ '.T ftflr ;i- !?i: 


Ing tbat these two oovtnts set up different oaua«« of action 
from that d«clared on in the original declaration, the defend- 
ant is no position to complain, for he failed to file a plea 

Retting up the etattite of llmitatione, and It has been repeat- 
edly held that thiB is the onlx/in which the qtaeetion oan b« 

•aved. Heirr.ber^r ▼ Eliot Switch Co. , 245 111. 440j Houitls.nd 

▼ Avfcry Coal Co . , 246 1 11 . 609^ Wall v C . 4 0. Hj. 2.* SS.* * 

200 III. 66; Gun ton ▼ Huahee , 181 III. 138. 

The next oontention urged by the defendant le that 
the court should have euetalned the raotion in arreat of Juig- 
stent on ths ground that it (vae averred in the declaration 
that "it then and there beoawe the duty of the aaid defendant. 
Auto Taxioab Company, to uee the highest degr«9 of oare oon- 
Ri stent Tlth the operation of said taxioab to safely oontey 
thla plaintiff", etc.; that thle statement of the ^duty of the 
defendant was inoorreot; that the duty of the defendant was 
only to uee the highest degree of oare oonelatent «lth the 
reasonable or fraotioal operation of the taxloab. No Infltruc- 
tion embodying thle proposition wae submitted by the defendant, 
and If it desired to raise the objection to the declaration 
that it now urge 9, the proper procedure would have been to 
file a special demurrer. The declaration is euffloient to 
euet=:iln the judgment, and this ie all that is required after 
vgr<iict. Sargant y Bsublis, 315 111. 428. 

The defendant further oontenda that the juignsent ie 
exoeseive. The evidence oonolueively shows that the plaintiff 
Buffered great pain and man unable to attend to his affairs for 
over three months. Hie earnlnge prior to the Injury had averag- 
ed nearly *1000 per nsonth. In our opinion the evidence justi- 
fied the amo\mt of the verdict. The julgment of the Circuit 
Court of Cook County will be affirmed. 


.. f.,,4vf. +i fri T/.TT 

■^♦^'1 yf\<: 

,1 i>ii; n f\l <*; 

• ^ .; ^V " ■ . 

5 ' ■ •■" • I./ 







325 - 20665. 

|>ef»rjd«tnt in ^r/or, ^ 


\ / ) OF riHI'JAGC, 

»UX^BI?R«.^ai 4^E(KC OC,,a '.^or/ ration, ) 

Plnintiff Uxi Mrror, j 

\ / 

197 I.A. 547 

MM. JWtiTlUK C'aCNNOR cJf^liVfrru u-p ;.pini.;:.n of t.H< ^jourt. 

The wjit of error in thle C8.0« ««»'k8 to r<^view 
thp reoord of a Jucigwient for |S3a7»?i*0 r«?n«l«?rr!(jl in thp 
Iftunicipttl Court of ;';icat<© in favor of th<^ aefwndant in 
eri*or, h^ r^ iii«if t«r o»IleO tbe .^ilaintiff, and a(.<:ainet 
the plaintiff in error, hero^inafter oslled thf* d*?f©n6iant. 

4^ fa»^» m < I -iH»i2 , VtBBLj^T aome ti.'a« prior 4h*»#^to, 

a steam turbine 8t Ita 

» "4 ' M j»; *4 »« Thua <i H" ' -f - y r \ 'i.. ?a T r t 7 ""±n 

the defendant had tefon opf?rati4»|M 

plant in th^ i^ to eac y^j^ r da j »f ' t » "4 < i m; < 

Jtt iiq , 1 ^19, purchnaetl froro thp plaintiff o^'rtain eoara 

irtnidh i»niit»» to b4> utted jU a q « « metifci < n r wit« the. turbino* 

balane^ elwfr frnacdOtflfit BflP the p^redwiHr pri««» ♦f the g«ar0« 

It apstearff-^^POBr 4ih»"<»¥ A . d *wo« that t'n«? geara 
wors ordirfd in June, 1912, 4f'livcr<f(i in Jpily, 1912, 
ami inntalled b y ■ % > > » ■e wfcwdawt in^;^*«- plant, wt Dii^'-iteol^ 
-yapdc. After thf^v^^wer© in operation fug a peyi ed^/ from 
four to »ix weekft, eome of tlie teeth broke. The^««e«r» 

were then taken by »h» 4 e f BWMa ii t to^Hr^v maohine shop, 
turned dowfi on a lathe, thf broken par^e reraOTed unci then 



replaced sind w**^ u^^d at int^c'rvalii thf^rmkttwr* After 

^tnth th' ,'laintiffj the dofendant ol8l;»in|^ that the, g«ar» 
ir«»r« iwJjf^rently ctoffyctlv©, tt wat ■ tW4" «fc ..d<f«fti ,eauB«atH9 
br«;ak, anU that thK> i/oara BhOv<l(i^ fclrn A«fijril^1>» be repl)aa«d 
wlthOi;t GO0t. (' ■n- "t t t y --otlTrT"-' hw ii » <l , th^* plaintiff ccutcnd 
that thp trouble '^as o«,uBcd by roaeon of a faulty founda* 
tion on «hic/i thf: turbine was ,;jilaoed. After Romo oontro- 
veray IsMatatfftn tiie .jiiiXliAj^^^..aaaflfiuaalag^ the 

plaintin;, oa Augu8t 14» 1912, wrote the d'^fenuant 
f<Ht*«nrtTii!* letter)^ -^If" 


"Replying to y :;r valufd favor of tfie 13th 
instant, it »«pmc very likely that th'^ damage to 
tVio t/oTtrs of th<? DeljRVal turbine in this inntanoe 
has hc.en due to exactly ti;^' cnupe a» in pro- 
vicus br**«kdownB, As wo h.'^ve pr<?viously at.'jted, 
accit'entet of t!:ii kind are ali:io«t unhenrd of ^-horo 
fiw turbineo arf^ rfi'ting on a proper foundation, 
it ifi extrfv'.ifly unfortunate that you did not go 
ah«ad ifhu put, this turbine on a new fo'.indati;"!n bo- 
fore a tar ting it up, arnl it wo Id eejm to ue that 
yc r past experienc© with thxp. it3?i.ohinR would oor- 
tainly hnv« prcnpted you to put it on a t3ubet;.ntiJil 
foundation before puttinc it into operation. 

^If ytu Btil ' believe that thp trouble was 
due It; if'iporfeot rantejial anu oan find b-kjc evidencea 
of t!u f.f^ae, '';?«' wo. Id put:i"ff<?t that you KiL^ht ohip 
that ptirt to thp fnctory p.t Trenton, .N'.J«, wliore a 
c??roful inppoctli n of tls/^ i-nme can ba jnnd«. Thie 
ie in ac':3ordanco witVi thr- DeLaval CJo.'b cut? torn in 
oonnection wit; ouoh olaiiar.. The daraaged part will 
be (iiven a thorough incpeotion and test in the 
labratory and if t.h*>.y find evidence of defect, will 
doubtleao be willing to replace the sajae, 

"We und"rr.t..nd that yo.. have turn<i>d off 
the daiiiaged teeth and will put thp niachine in opera- 
tion und<';r i*f pjv nnnt conditin, '^le doubt very 
iouoh vfhetJK r th*' m»vohLne will give you any cervioe 
in its prcsont location, but If yut on a nev foimda- 
tion, we are inclined to believe that th*» g^-aro in 
t}ieir present ci-ndition rai^ht last ff>r a consider- 
able p«?riod of tijne." 

AJfe e r w ftr«i a, X^ aocordance wJ t: th'> fo »i g»i i « g 
latter, thr defc-ndrnt ef»nt t>io broken parte of tho geart 

to Trenton, N.J. and on October 16, 1912, plaintiff wrote 
"8r-tf-^4f4Lr to the defendant advising ,tt*«--^a4'*«r th»t .fter 

j^-ii-Tt^M*'- _, ,'ii^rrr^^-^^': 

.? r.'^'fr,ftf} Tf> r,»rtr , , ■•■.frrf.^V -} 


an exafaimtion of tb« brokim ^htU of the gears , thore 
was no evid«nae of inher.nt dcf^ott, ami ttei th rofore 
,w creciit or .-aiowanc« oould be m.d.-. f## W >«> bri »HM ,M^<>,»»%«.'T' 
^^^off ffiff )»virvfi refiised to pay for thp gears, this 
"" actipr. WHB brou,,nt. At th. clooe ot «li the »>Ti<ionce. the 
Oiv.rt t>ie> Jury to find th« is^meir for faa plain- 

(!P Th« genra In question were snanuf a ctur ed At 
Trenton. M«w Jersey, l^y tho DeLaval StOH>n Turbine, Company.^ 
The plaintiff oontend« that it puroh.«ed th^ good. fro.. 
the »« L..Y<^1 Company and .old their, to th. d^^fendnnt, *hil« 
the defenu..nt« Uiat th.. ,laintiff wa. .ior«ly th^ 
agent of t..c l>«3-aval ; .panyj that an. olaim for the 
pttrohaec prio« of th« goodi. in rjuention rm«l be madr by 
the lixtter couipar;y; that t).c only reason thr ruit wun 
bro^ieht Hy thr plaintiff, ana not l«.,- th« DeLaval Company, 
«»• tht.t th* DeLaval Company being th« mnufttntur.T» th re 
wa« an implied w rrrmty that the geara were fit for the 
purpose for *hioh they ^ere to be u«e<l by the defendant. 
ftnd thr.t as they were inherently defectiYS, there was a 
breach of such warranty which ooald be interpossd as a 
defrns* against the DsLaral Coiapany. but w>ii ah defenss 
could not be made as ar.ainst the plaintiff. It ^^^^^^ 
the nnnufa.turer. It i. c needed that in t)a. caei^^^S 
: -^ /a^a »as no express warranty of the geare.i'lt has be«n held 
in thi. state tlxat therp is no implisd warranty as to 
<,ualiV ^y « ^«»<i*'>- ''^^^ ^- "'^^ ^ .nanufaoturor. (BorderL. 
& sellscl. CC- v^ eraser j^P-l^^rr. 118 UL App.665, 






19 ill. SC5i Kaia T> UadXey . 39 111. 195,) In 
Y<lluride jj^ogey ::o, y. ;ranc Jo. . 208 ill. 218, 
thr CO rt said, {p««^27): 

•ThP rule ip ttiftt If iin article i« to •*! 
■Hide or Rup,>li«4 to the ortl^T of a purOuiser Ih'^re 
Ib an Ixnplied w«rr«nty of tu' fitnenc of thv article 
for the Bpeoisl purpoBO desiignated by thf^ buyer, if 
that purpooe b© Jcnovirr; to i ,^? ▼<?ntior; but in tiie l»ar« 
^aia and b&1» of an exiF.iinf: ctottftl th<:rr- in isot, 
in th^» abofinc? of friiuU, and implied wurrunt.i of 
good qurility ov condition of th triing «old.(B«n* 
jftiuin 0» J.^alfB, eec. 647; ticchem on iSalRfc, CRcy. 
1312-131GJ Kohl r^ i.imlley. 39 111. 195; Misner Xa. 
(irc^n j^gr y, 4 Ciljii. 69; jIaroMdPlet Iron .^orkp t» , 
.t4oorQ^ 7B 111. r>}).)* 

l0th partif^B to this oontroyrty cite the 
T el 1 uri (1 « Of I, B « « nu'ira. The plaintiff contendB that 
undcir thp rule ainnounorci in Umt OftBO, wh- re th r^ is 
a eale of axi exiatlrii; chattel) th-i'- is not, in tiip 
Abs«nct» of fr^j^ud, an implied warranty of good quality 
or condition of th*^? thin^; sold, and that aa ths defendant 
ord<»red "the 45fiars they iuiV« in ctook at tho prneent 
ti?!!©, * til* sale waa of an ftxiBtin^ ahattel , and thistrnforn 
th-^'rfi was no implied warranty. C)n thf-- othor h/^nd, the 
defendant oca^endsi that that oa&e lioldo tntit Irtiere the 
artiule ir. to be "■upplied" to tiie purohaBer« there 
iei an izapliod warranty of t)ie fitncee of tho article 
for th»? purpose deoign^d by thp buyer, if tsudti purpoce 
bo Known to t'l© vendor; t>tot in th«» oase at bar, th<? 
gear* wftr« to be supplied to the ordnr of th<!? purohaser 
for a speaial purpose which «ras known to thp vendor, and 
that this was sufficient tt show an i.tpliedwrranty 
of t'lif" Koods* 

In the view we take of t>ie oaae, we shal aasune 
that thcr*-: waa an implied warranty by the plaintiff of th? 


M.jiX M^ i**"^^ 

|f <>hf«<»v 

• ail'.'' 


goare in quention, and that, th- re «&• ft "broaoh of puoh 

Where ther^' in a male and delivf ly of pfrrssonal 
property wit! an exprear. or an implied warrj^nty, if th© 
property is f; anU to bf> aefeotive, t>?e purchaser cmy keep 
anii upe the property and sue for camagee on a breach of th© 
warranty, or wh^ n suod for the price, h«» ia?iy recoup ouch 
damagps, ( Underwood Vj. ,i Plf ♦ I'^l ill. 435,) In thut 
oaa«, tho court aaid, (p«435): 

•Whrre tJior-^ ie u cjtle and dalivery of 
personal pr perty in pr^^ar^at i wit;, expreei 
warranty, ana the property tume out to be 
defective, th« vendee :aij.j r oeive i\mi viee 
tiu^ property f<.ni p-ue for dani??,(."eB on a breach 
of thp 7' rranty, or, wlien Rxx'^d for the pur» 
cftiase price, he rsmy reocup Buch damage* under 
the general ieeue, or set them up in a epecial 
plea of »et off. Vpir; in a well settled rule.* 

Vhere there ia n warranty of goods sold, without 
fraud, and the i^oods have br«en accepted and there ie no 
etipulation in the c ntract that they raay be retarned, the 
Tendee han no rltjht to annul the o? ntract without the con- 
sent of the vendor, for a breach of the warranty. But 
when he Id sued for the purchase price, he may recoup the 
daina^ea sustained by reaeon of the hr«'aoh or warranty. 
( Pottne V. DatU^tttm . 65 III. 512; yarrie V. /qfred . 163 111. 
App. 163; Tokhoiro 'iiXn . , .;o. \^ IJtoylca . 142 111. App. 198.) 
The maasure of damages for breach of warranty ie the dif« 
ferenoc between th? value of the article as «.arranted, and 
its actual value in ite alleged defective condition. 
( Mayer v. Auto.tobilp' l^xcnanf^e . 125 111, App. 648; ::ki nner 
V. Hullifwn. 56 111. App. 47.) 



■i x'i^.o-jq 

'>o^:;rr' T 

In the «Hts« at iMur, the gf?a.r8 wx^ told anti 
dl«llvftr©d, ar)i<i tt^r-" ie no contention tliat th r<=- was any 
fraud ccinnect*?U with the sale of the gears. The defendant, 
tti' r«for<}, oould not annul th'- nale* by returning th«» 
aoodu without thi> consent of Ui« vendor. Th*' <i«fend«int, 
however, conttpnUn tiject It r'-'turnr»d the goods at th« 
request of the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff cannot 
noTT be heard to say that the gear» vf«re not properly 
returned. The d'-f »!;idant further oirgUAn that t >» goods 
were to be returne-d, and •♦if th' re ^vaa a breach of warranty 
the gears werf to be r<^.>lfi,a<5*d,* «nd thot ovid«ncf» of this 
faot is to b*? found in the letter of Au{:^ust 14, lOlB, above 
quoted, i1^ thip. contention, w« cannot concur. T>ut<? 
can bp no dispute but that tho plaintiff in the s-iid l<rtt«»r 
■u^iiiepted that thp gears be returned to the DeLaval Goiapany 
by tiJe defendant, 'ind tnat if thp said company foimU t)i«B 
inh«»r«ntly defective it vo Id doubtl -so be wil ing to re- 
place theia. The »vldpnce, however, stiows thai the plaintiff 
advised the defendant thfi', no such defects were found. ]!• 
evid«»n e was introduced t^nviin^; in anj^ raann'*r tc siiovi thffi 
amomt of tM'» aarAges eur.t'*in*'d by tn*' defoni'ftnt on' account 
of th»* alleged breach of the implied warranty, and thrre 
being no evldrnoe that fch^^ sale was annulled, th; re was 
nothing for the court to submit to Um* jury. 

Findinif no substantial error in th«» jud^Kiacnt 
of t}» e Municipal Court, it wdi be afim^d. 





. '<p.»©»m 



a Ivfo* 

bi>C . 2Cidd3. 



\ Appellant. 



197 I.A. 557 

STATSMKNT »Y THE ICirRT. Thiis is an appeal from 
a judgment ©f |>2fi00, ent«»i-«!d in th« Superior Court of Cook 
County, in fwvor of apppllwf» nnd at.a > net appellant, for 
personal injuries r^-'^ived by appellee. The parties here- 
after wilJ be d'^Bii^nated plaintiff and defendant ae in the 
court below. 

Tff^ «w~-#««t*'»r»-ttM»»«4^ Tlie plaintiff had b r en f^*^ 
employed by the defendant «• a laborer in cleaning and 
•venping cnrss at the defendant* b barns la oat a d between 

\ '^' 

69th and 7CLh strpete In the :ity of Chi«ai;0,for 
/IKxsxSi t h an- thr<" e yfM S k^M i prior t o th >i -Hwte-teef-twMt i'njured, April 
26, 1911. He also swept around the bam nnd otfioes, 
and wiien ord^rt'd, »ika*.would take a car out on some part 
of thp lint, wherp a oar had betwnte^' di8abl(>d, *mi turnl^^"-^/ 
to e aajs e.over to the regular atr ee V -fttrr men. In doAwy 
t)xis work he aot^d a» iotorman^ 1 'T-winfE i n^ arouh|C'"^ljH% 
bam, althou<;h not inr trunted^b y «nyo i»«», he bectme 
sufficiently fsjaillar with the mec>ianl8m and operation 
#f this mrf to atr t^ The barn »h«ra tlte 

a ao trtnnt i nn m i rr sd extended froa 69th to 7Cth streets and 
frOM Ashlund bo ulerard about one block in width. It was 


Tga.A. 9r 


, .'^IXf).^c,. 


♦ roXi»d jj'iuoo 


t... J (-^ <,■...( f:li 


, n, *f. rJ'r f; ^.Ti^ ft'^ 

i*}>.A '-wn' 


"^ ft ' L;' . 


:^^i tarf^-tr- h-r-^ ztnlr 

...•-■ • iiw ma 


dirided into seTen bay* by ^ri^ir partitions extending north 
anci BOuth from 69th to 70th streets* In each bay thfire were 
three traUca extending -tittf- entire length. Tho s e ■ t > i« e tai tp- 

were oonneoted with tlic tracks tSd in the etreRts. There 

were doors in tVi^ -Twri o u s partitions ruitimij-t connoct*'nthe 

dif ferf>nt bays^ rriih rir?" --fv^-i-i-^-t^g- About .tolfway betvrenn 
69th and 70t}i Btreotn th- r^H»«*« pitjB about f o ir f'^ot 
in depth under thw "s e ft i gal track ^ These pits werr m) » ■• 
el guulea to enable tho repair ifian to inepeot anci repair 
the car»ii,wiiJLiilx_mua«-4»--%*i««-4»«aTr'-fT^ As 

thf care came in tht^y werf' cleaned and irt«p**cted, put in 
condition and nov^d to tlie north end of th** barn n^&r 
69th etrppt, from wh^re tnpy wou U be taicen out when needed* 
aa.jUxe -)tft£iau©— Bt.«^»<^*•'. The barn wae in c nstant operation. 
Th'TP were day B.n<i night shifts* Twenty-eight men were 
in the nigh^ «}iift, including the .nlaintiff. The evio^^noe 
tentiftto Show that abo^t 8 o'clock on thr ni^^ht or-th*- 
apee>4iMWt, April 26, 1911, the car in question ^0.b inejK'ctPd 
and p ,t in r'.>pf'ir by an e/iploye af-»lJ*ft.<fc> i' e»iiM S* named 
J^ittle. After the car hsd been put in condition, Little 
ord'-rri hia helper GedraitiB to love thr 07:it to the north 
en'i or tw barn at 69th street, wniah he did. The cixr 
was left just outside of the barn wh' rp it rei:iaineU for 
about two and rme-half hours, when thf nit;ht forenaan told 
the plaintiff to take a car out " away* to 69 th strf-et, 
wher^' some trouble had occurred, find as wae the custom, •4d»e 
plaintiff wae teld to take a helper^ w t th Isfci . These helpers 
were ■^otti^^.i.tri^^f- known as troll e> boys, rind part of th'ur 
duty wae to ntand on thr' back platform durine th^ trip. 
Plaintiff calleci a helper and W*ejf-bot.h started towards 
the <i(\Tt sjlaintiff reaching it first. Tiie helper went 
to take a eitm off the car, an.i plaintiff stepped in 



bfthlnd th' (i&r and adjusted th*? trolley. As soon a^ 
th^' troll fly cain« in contact with thr wire, tlr oar 
bsck^^d up unci ,)loiintiff was caught between th«? oar 
and nnoth-r one standing a f e w f ff iyt -^ M ''?n"- »tfl« ttr!ty'^«ottth 
on th« »«uaf! track, c ne of }ii» lega was crusJied above 
the' knee. An h<- fell Vta th f j^ ro' T ii' Ht ', he» pul'.. ^'d thf! trolley 
pole frora the wire ond th»- oar stopped. The .'aech:<nl»M of 
the car was in such poeltiO'^ that thf car wou d back 
up when th'-- trolley was ))laoeU on thR wire, Thf-re ^'U-'O 
direct evidence an to liow th" mechanism came to be in 
this poijiticn. It wqb tiie cuetom, when care- v.'frn atnnding 
on the tracks, to l ' * av » "-tfH'e " -^«' ^ < T o f ' f ^-Tm^^^tli/- oar "dead". 
There *ere two kinds of care known as i5?iialX Mi»»^ and 
big cara. The mr in '.ueption wae a oaiall oar, and the 
spring on th trolley pole was stiff <ir th»n on tne laraer 
sure, -n ( i om thut v-«is*WH5»»t it was difficult to pi >.ce tho 
trolley nolo against tiie wire without standing behind the 
car. The evldpn r- also tend.F'*to tswow that it ao the 
ouBtom for eith- r th*"' helper» or the oan whfl jiuitad iiw 
raotorman to adjust tho trolley pole whrn a oar was to 
be taken out tun *hi' liTWj and to et )nd bphind thr; fuars, 
especially thf> amxll ones, in »o doing, Th^re Xs no eri- 
denoe that anyone was near thr car in question froii the 
tiiue it was placed at the entrance of the bam by ^ <i ed»ai ti4»., 
ai b o ut a i3 H > e-*-<?J:trcir, until thr tine of the accident, about 
11 o'clock, except that given by thf' witn<»B8 Daukintis 
who testified th t fifteen minut'-H bpfor" thf> ncciu' nt 
he saw thf» ni^rht forejnan, ?isrT-"t?wh«Tj , co;ne out of t>>f* back 
end o1 thr car in quf^ption, Qe ha wLd en i ed tliip and testified 
t}iat he hf»d not jo en near the qut for an hrur or two, -nn 

"l The declaration was fil?d October 27, 1911, find 
consistf'd of but one count. It avorreci in substonce that 


t}if defenaant wae (^erating stieet curB anU a barn in 
<jona«otifn V<u r'Mtithi th&t a foreman v/;iB in cJ.arge of 
thr ^ork in the barn of the employeB incladlng the* 
plaintiff, which foreman was not plaintiff's fellow 
servant , but »as a direct represents tire of tite def en- 
fant; that thf» def'«^n ant aaus*;d the trolley pole on 
one of its oar» to be rewiOVf-d frotn the trolley wire and 
p: rmitt^d and allovred thr ;!i«oh».ni8a of "SftA-C^car to be 
and remain in such ocndition and position that if the 
trolley were pltjcod in rmtact with the >vire thr car 
would raoTe bjf.oirwarde and f^uainst anotJ^'T Oi>r etrmding 
on the aamc track; that tlu' d fendant Jcnew t)iiB, or by 
the exercise of ordinary care, ViO ad havp known it; 
that the plaintiff did not know^ th r*' fao A, and by the 
exercise of ordinary car*, would not have known it; 
that, althou^ih th- dffendant knew of thrfB« facts, the 
forcir^n "ordf'red, directed, coewaanded, allowed and 
permitted the plaintiff to go between* the c;.r8 to place 
th*^; tr;'ll«y pole in c ntact with the wire, and ne^;llivcntly 
anu carelessly ffui' d to warn or adris* the plaintiff 
of the condition in shioh thn cnr V'.b standing and the 
plaintiff, while in tho (^xerclee of ordinary oure for 
his own safety, in the performance of sur^h order, 
dlr«cti;^n or comiriand, was injured, etc. Thr d- f ^ndfiint 

pleaded thr g'^n^'Tnl insue. -^e^j-ueiiftimr -i^l-S-f --th-e caw* 

^Mwswrnjni^r "hearing before A court end jury , ^awwi jlaring 
the trial plaintiff, by leave of oo ^rt, filed an addi- 
tional count. It averred in substance thftt the df^fendont 
operated certain street cars and barn in connection 
therewith; Vnat it net;! i gently and carlesaly caused the 
trolley pole of one oj its care to bo reuioved from 



'K£R9 jq<i;!» Y<^>^t!»£ 



Jiff , .ntfl>i* ar '?u?io 


VoM wire, and periuitted mmA ttllomA th(^ meahanisa 
of tVie oar to be and rciaain in auch ocwditin ami pof» itlcn 
that in tne event that th*^ trolley pole should be jjlacea 
in contact with th^ wire, thr- oar wcui d move backwards 
and ajifiiORt anoth«r car etanding on th*' ; arae track so that 
thr' first mentioned car wos not r^ aoonably oafe, but 
dangerous >yiu unsafe; thn.t the df'f«ndant knew, or by the 
•x«roiB« o-f ordinary oar©, wojid have known of thf? con- 
dition in wnioh Vne t^&T mxti i-t. ndingj t)iB.i U«f> plaintiff 
did not knOY.' and by th<^ excrnij^e of ordinary oam wo .Id 

not have known of oucj}i condition; that the plaintiff 

In til'' disoharge of iiis duti_/ b<'t>*«"?n thv csr© to plaoe 

thp troll py pol« in nontact with the wire, ana as h« 

did this, thr car, by r aeon of thr. carleecnesB ana nffgli«» 

S«noe of the d»f •?ndant, .raovcd backwards injured the 

plaintiff. €o thin count, th defendant fil-d plttikt of 

tlie general ieeue and iitatute of limitations. A d r;iurrer 

'ms »ustain«d to the latter plea. Defendant eli»ct«^d to 

Btand by said plea.7~The jury disagr^^d. Thf" eeoond trial 

resultfd in a verdict and jud£ra«?nt for '12500, from which 

the pr- sent apppr*! is proeecatea. 

jait. JUSTIC • 0»GONHOR deliver*'d thf- opinion of 
th' court. 

The defendant urgea ro«r reasona why the 
Judgm^irtt ehould b« reversed: (1) th«t the aduitional 

count stated a diff<»rent oau»e of acti'vn from that 
charged in thr- original dRclaration, and that the plea 
of thf statute of iiniitationo should hrjve been held good 
ae to Buch additional count; (2) that th'XP vm» no proof 



•i <8) ;;>n*.oa> i. 




of the nefjlltjonc*? alleged in thfi dnolaration ox' in the 
additiomU. count; (3) th*? proximate Ottuse of tii*^ accident 
was plaintiff •« own negligence; and (4) the court 9rre<i 
in giTing ijrliBtruotion No, 6, r«quf?Btedi by th'=' plaintiff. 

•here an ainendmen t to a deolRraticn eete up 
a new anc differ«9nt cau:e oi' action from that etated in the 
original declaration, after tho period of liiaitation haa 
run, thp statute of limitations luay be pleadf»d in bar. 
Bradley y. s^hi ca^xo - Virden Jcal lo. . 231 ill. 622; 
0. B. & ;^,H« R, G<>. T. Jcnc8 . 149 111, 361, Ir; such caa« 
tht» nerw or different caure of liction i*i treated an to the 
eosamenoement of a new r.uit. C?. B. & <. H. R. Co. v. J o ne^ ;. , 
eupra . But where such araendin<»nt ntater, no new matter or 
ol.'.in, but m'^rely restatea in n different forra tho cause 
©f acti n set up in the orif;;inol declaration, it relates 
buck to thr cs«iBaenc<'r!jPnt of the suit, and the statute of 
liMitatione ia arrested at that point. 0, 8. & ^. H. R. Qo . 
2a. Jonee, i-jupra : Chi ca^:o City Ijy . qq ■ ir, , ucMeen . 206 111. 
108. rfheth^r thr oauae of action stated in thf- original 
declaration and that in thn amendment or additional count 
are the same or different crduses of action, must be deter- 
mined, an a question of law, by an inspection of the plead* 
ings alone, Hef fron 2j. Ho Chester G erman Ins . Co. 220 111, 
Ijl4; UetroiJolitan Life Inc . po. y. The People. 209 111. 42, 

The (infendant contends that tlte original declara» 
ticn based thf; right of r^'covery on thr epeoifio ne/:licence 
of a particular serrant, whil*» ttie additional count charges 
the defendant with negligence ettnersilly , and thm. "eYidence 
to sustain the ori^rinal declaration would not euetain the 

or; .;i 

oo .a .i- 

, 01 




ad*itional count, nor could eyLc.enof! «<fiiich would oon«» 
Btitute a dnf rnee* to the original dcolaration be relied 
upon ae a defense to the additional count." Aioong 
oth» r ftut oriti'»B t)ip caeen oC 0_.^ & E, I, R, R. Co . yj^ 
ijrir-ooll . 176 111. 330 anfi Wabaah R. R« Co . t. bhjymer . 
214 111. 579, are cited. in the case of C. & E. I. R. R. Co . 
Y .^ ^ l>ribGolJ ^^i ^ nu.3ra t it wns held, whp;.re the declaration 
Qltarged negligence of a vice-principal in (-iring an order, 
that liability wae liiaitod to thf" acte of prtid vice-principal, 
and that thp dofendsjot would not be liable for f; broach 
of th*" K^neral duty whi -h it owee to a servant;' The 
court th^-ro aaid (p»336): "lyip ru4.e is fundamental that a 
plaintiff nauBt r'^^.over, if at all, upon the case made ly 
hit; declaration, ?nd in the application of thiK rule to 
actions for negligence, the plaintiff cannot all ge a 
apeoifie act fif nef!;llgence and recover upon proof of 
neglit^ence of a different character." in Wabasii H. H, Co > 
ia. Shymer . supra , th*? court said (p«5Bd): "Cne of the 
tests by which it ir determined whether different counts 
oonBtitute the samt cause of action or different causes of 
action i» whether the saae evidence will support the 
different counts.* On the othtr hand the plaintiff 
ocntendf. tliat thi? original deoleraticn was double, in 
that it rtatod several oiJiunes of action, anci that the 
amended count st ted but one of Buch cnnses of action; 
that where two or taore causes of action are Btat<?d, 
it if sufficient if thf= proof establishes but one of 
sucii causes. YhiF has long been the law in tliie etjvte, 
Yhe leber ff&«on :o . v. Kchl . 139 111. 64-1. in DeerinK v. 
Bareak, 227 ill. 71, th^ co^rt said (p,76): "The ^iet of 




■J ,ilL Mii 

'•■■■■■ ^"■' '':• 90# 

- Lttii 

...__„ ;na; 


the cau&e of action in th«=' origi.rin.1 declaration, 
and also in Uxp fijaended second go iot, ie, that 
appcllnntB net:ligently failR<i to une r«:!aiionntbl«> cnr« i.o 
furniBh appellee a r^^aaonably safe pla'i*; to do th'> >iork 
required of liim by tji'> oi; of appellants' f creraan, Th© 
aTenupnt in 1>i't orit^inal second count, that tnf^ ganj^TSfny 
mui obetruct'^d by ord'^-r of appellants* foreiaan, did not 
•tate any diff«er«nt oauee of action from that BtatPd 
in t}ie firrt < riginnl and second amended oo mta, whioh 
aver that the gangway had b*»on obptru ;tPd ^ith the 
knowledge of appellants' forenian. The cause of action, 
as state' in Woth inetanocs, is the uoiae, and each 
count grows out of the alleged failure of appellant© 
to furnish the appellee a reasonably safe place in 
whicJ-i to 7^0 r «* In the -jaKe at bar the gifit of the 
Cftuoo of action in tho adult nl count was th" failure 
of the defendant to furnish the plaintiff a oar in a 
reasonably saf*? condition. Tho same cause of action 
was also ooyered by the original declaration. It, 
therefore, follows that thr demurrer to t.'i«:' plea of the 
statute of limitations was jivoperly cuatalned. 

The defendant's next oont*;ntioiia are Uiixt thi re 
wfts no proof of thf* nei];iiK'?n'^« allegata in oiWvr the 
oriijinnl or nffitin-ml counts, and thnt the proxiniato 
oauBO of the -iccident was the plaintiff* o own negligence. 
fe have above set forth the principal facts which the 
evidence tends to establish. The law chmrged up n the 
defendant t>if' p nitive obligation to furnieh the plaintiff 
carB in a reasonably safe condition, QhicaKO U. T. (^o. Vj, 



S'-t [v r.\''f. 

... ^itflM- 


<UMmtd^ . 218 lll.'lSC; nchufaann y. ..ealiff . 178 IH.App. 
254; Jenkins y. Joal Jo , . 182 111. App, 36. The Jury 

W«re inBtruotf'd. Diat befiore the plaintirf co^ld rfooYer 
he muet prove, among other thinigs, by c preponderance of 
thf» pvid^noe, that he o in the exercise of ordinary 
oarc for hig ovrn safety; that ho did not knov. a,nd by 
th*' exorcieo of ordinary care and oaution, would not 
have known » of th'- ccndltion or position in v^hioh the 
oar Btood nt th" time of Dip aooidnt, and t)iat the 
defontJant knew, or by th« exerciBO of ordinary care 
iurid caution, would liave known, thnt the car was etandin^ 
la an unsafe condition. The jury by their verdict de- 
termined all three tiueetions in f-vor of the plaintiff 
and Rfjamst the def fntiant, and we cannot say that euch 
finding ir cilearly and iRanifestly against th'» wei<;{ht 
of tfi'' ^vld^noe. 

The def-^ndint next contends that the co ;rt 
erred in , iving instruction Mo. 6, requested by the 
plaintiff » becaufse it is not applicable to th' facte in 
th« oaee. In our o;,inio» th^v is no merit to tViie 

Finding n© Dubetantial error in the rooord, 
the judgmftnt Of tho Sup«jrior Court Of Gook County will 
be uffirraed, 

AFFIRM ;j). 


.«. , , ;;.' J.-. 

■■ KJJ ,1 »'C..5 . >»i.' 



«IU' 'IW!= i*l) 

" ' •' ban 



Wt£. Kt;HTCS, 

j?lalntiff in mirror 


WM. CLKi4E»a, ROBERT ttcLAUaiaXN, 

«t al, \ / ^ 

Defendants in/Krror. 



197 I.A. 563 

MR, JT^TIC" 0»C0NITC« d«liverecl the opinion of 
the court* 

The writ of error in thiB oast seeks to review 
the record of a judgment of the municipal Court of Chicago, 
entered in a fourth clasts contract case. The parties will 
be designated plaintiff and defendants as in tJir court below, 
Plaintiff brought suit against the defendants for daniageo for 
the breach of a contract, the amount claimed being $AZb, 
After iitBuen were formed the case was hoard before the court 
without a jury and judgment was entered in favor of the 
plaintiff and against the defendant iioLaufjhlin for ^425, 
The court found in favor of the other defendants. The writ 
of error in thir, case was then sued out by the plaintiff. 

On motions of t)ie defendants thir, court heretofore 
struck from the record the bill of exceptions, which in 
frtct was a stenographic report, or statement of facts, for 
the reason thai the same had not been filed within the time 
allowed by the trial court. All of the assigniaents of error 
are based on such stenographic report. There is, therefore, 
nothing for tuie court to pass upon, and the judgment of the 
Municipal Court will be affirmed. 




{ ,10fT' 

J 9 

eafi .AoiTei 

"to ;.'>rnit;- •^i{;t b^fyil^b aaWH': 

.^liJ^O ?!iU 

lot a<»;^smi4Z rtsj&na't' 'anl«^« llifft ;t£l^o-x(/ Vi^laiAX^ 

tit fi: , i4«0X9 't >r(J^ btooffH ftft^ AOtl sfovi^a 

*bf>iencilljK »{/ XIlw Siuoi) XjSQloiruiM 

312 - 30641 

PATRICK c. Ttnn, , ) 

Fl&ijt^ff in Error. 



Dtf^Rdl^t 4a fcrrso-.} COOK COUHTY. 

*■ z' 


19? I.A. 580 

MB, JUSTICE O'COSIOB dellv^sred thft opiraon of th« ooutt, 

PlalnUff In «rror, h-*r«tri«i]rt*T oall«a t1i« plsrlntiff, 
brcwgbt *n aotJoB Sn A^Jsuaspelt Agsainst tto« ;S^f«ndant In «rror, 
hereinafter o>ill«<J thtt <i«f©r.d?*nt, for hl» ial*ry ag polio* 
patrolisan, fro» th«-. %im of hi«» a!i»oh«>rg« fco« th« pollo« 
forofe, Au2,tt«t ac, 1803, u.-tU hl»» reln^tate^fnt, January 13, 
ISIK, ajttountiRg to *§73S.44, !««» th« awiowiit fe« hM «arn«d 

during 8&14 period — fS022,eo, l«ftTinc<* bala^tj* of *4«&a.a4, 

. ^. ^ ^,>-^- ^-A^iMacZ/Wr- 

for whioh »«oui5t th« action w«? btnu^jfet. ?iJi«Lilac-t« ..*«*,,..iii*««4 

In l8Sf5, tJw? plaivitlff pa*«»«4 th« olvil 9«r^t'3e <5«?i»ln*tinn 
and <4u&llfUl *i» pcllo'S pst.rcliB^n of «hl<j«ge, H* <3fintlnu«4 

iHM'-ii*2p4^^f4-,J^--«i«^^ r*>fflCL,iyk^ M m .. JTraiB »Hr-ffloat o # » 

.^ rfl ri.ttiiia%. AfVmf»5*4*,..^tK;e 19, 19C0, hfi flU4 % petition 
^-a- \i\\it^r,kX<iiiiX-J^imgA^-4^--Qm:k C<ymiiy-, |Mr#yAi»^'-%li<frt a writ of 
»ana«»uf8 1-r»i» to <Joi«^«i hie r« i n »t »t '^ sent , m r? n 1 1. a Imnii r gJ>». 
0%lfi-JiAA-4*4-M*y-«M» i Qfe D«ce»b«r 3^, 1908, t,Ji« oourt found 
_Ui|t th« (U80h<-irg« ©f plaintiff w«« unlawful, '^4 4W Kii"»» »4 

( ^ i»,T04l^t«i|f r«tnot^iit»(i>»^<^ ^ yiri;lj ' Tj, l g ia ^" Zwr tt -^<'- -°TTfif1oiT>n 

-^A«-*»i«MNl_^« to s-h-'it further w&o dos* until th* 33rd of 
Dec^sRb'^r, 1911, whtti im aXlft» «rU of w.inaiiM tt » . »»^ l««!««d 
an^l^p^rvwd on I5«o«B?ber ^7, 191). H^wi C'''un«««l for plaintiff 

•*1?*rHr«r-t-hr-TtrtTsy-t7 »t'-t Slui th?j,t the d«;f«»ad»nt announoftd it 



would &U9 Out -1 i*rlt of «rror twiw, tfaw ■ ^ t' l ' w^- ' imtw ffnu'K t<? r«- 
▼!•» t.h« JusgKunt, vhHh <t<:>m14 h*v« b«*»n ion« »ay tlm« within 
thr«« ytarHf «&d th^t ln««<liat«l7 %ft^r n^id p><>TLod of thr«e 
y«ii.rd, nitfflgilMrr r^y-r'-tfli J h« obtsiln*?i an allag writ .<yf auR*- 

y«brua.ry 7, 191^, t-frH^-. ^oiiit.xi ' <rM broutshV.^JjWh* oant wa« 
tried b«fori) th« ocurt #ltihout ;> jury. Th* ^ourt held thAt 
th« plt&lrttlff wa« iiti5%lti«d to !r«(iov«r th# a^asount of fel^ •ai&ry 
fro« th" ti«f.e «f ht© dlsohsirg*, Auguet »C, 190", until th« 
or^er fcr hl« reln«t4t«a»«itt n-soewber 22, i^C^, «ii»ounting to 
^6007, 23, le*« the «njpuat «ftrn«<it by th« pl.^^tntlff (mm th« 
ll»« h* w»o aisohsrgftd In 1905 until b« wis rf^irot'jt'Sd lii 
191£, whloh wa» *S0^3.80, Usvlosg * n«t flfeoynt of tl074.43, 
for whloh au» th«t oourt «nt«r««l ju-igrawnt. Fro* tbl« juJg- 
Kdnt both V'«fcr^l-«» pmyei »ni w«>tii allowed »pi>«5lf, aR4 t.h« 
dcfcnd«u)t h&» <i9i^1.g,n<s4 oroe0-«inror!<t. 

Plaintiff oontffids thf4t tb« Jti'igsBurjt <?nt«JT«'i In M»« 
•tndrjiRut proe««ding!» l» res fdjv.U-3ftt^. of th-^ f»iOt: *h-:jt h« 
wa« A putrclasajj d* jurf iuTVng ih** r«rlo4 <if t*,»*i for whloh 
fc« i!i«*ko to reoof«r hl« f9\\.9iry, ond th-it t>?«f«f«>ye th* court 
should have •)nt<»r«a JwdgBs^nt In f^vor of th<t pls\';tlff for 
th^ full «wcunt of mioh «*lary, ft*.»7^S.44, tii'i «ith'-5Ut any 
doiucJtloRB th«r«fr«»j that tti9 *sotirt 9T?*»d tn r^ifus^ng tbo 
plaintiff fts ©ppoTt'inlty to r>ror«* «rh«t p-Art, If -vny, <>f th« 
*50:tf2.8O he h*.1 «'5rn#d prior to th« -I'sto the Tli of a».jfi<U«u« 
»»« A«^r4«a- t>*»<5«iib9r '4'd, I90ft, Mmd ar£ju*e thit a*^ th« oourt 
h«ld plaljitlff could not r«<^0¥*r %?t«r Mid la«t ?r*ntlon«d 
dftt«, th« tot*l amount wtiJofe rlalr.tlff hud t^irned &« ft'&OT« 
sHiRtiofttd should not fceTfl l)««!i d«du«t<>d, but only that p%xt 
of It whloh «a*i «um«d ?Ti*>T to eald lart mentlcaed isto. 
Tho off«r to mttVe thl • froof •*« iii«4« *ft^r th« 4ourt had 

. » l< |)H i r m » |w 4> f i %.n i»ii^ I 11 

di«olA«4l tta* otttttt, larliLish tlte oeurt h«ld wsiis too liat«, 

Oia tiic a^cr ^mnci t^^e 4ef :»<JUmt oontendia that tht 
JuillEWmt r«iidifflr««i in the mai.ry^m.u» pr©oa«»tliaig8 ia re& «iiliMyL" 

jifcta cf thit- f^nQt *flrBt, ■Uii^.i tiie afficw or i>«ii8ition ©f 
90ll«(a s^atrSiLiaaa l«isxiilXy «ii3ci»t«?4 at th«'- tim« plaintiff wa« 
^ip<5»«d» r*mi tfeat h^ imd ®. I«gs.l ,ir%ht thrjr-«t»i tmd.eeecad* 
tiifi.*. «.t t».-.«9 tlR^« te*; court tii?it'r:.r»xl th« r.rder o*' r^tntitftte- 
a««»nt the office or position «xlBt»<i li^jaXly, anc. thuit plain* 
tiff w^e l«iS&lly entitl««i to tiold it, it vt&n m'm*cr.'»6«.ry 
for thf? 3»urt tc deter«LJ.n© t;4i«tlior or not, the; offioe os* po«i» 
tier) catleteti any -^y nil of t?'*- time frot"! t>:c d«t© of the dio» 
«h«Tg;o ♦,© th'!* ttAt«5 of '^nt^.Tlrjar t^^-"? <5T<:i«r cf y^in^tfcitci'ie'rjt 
auad After tJ^^ ''.itr^ of tn.*?- pyder of r«ir3«t';te5n»nt« The of* 
fioe or r^iesitictt «<l h^xra been fSLTsff i4 sH'^d nna 9r»at«d Muagr 
tlKee bfttw^jwn U'i'? (ii,«"3*i«r4t« feRd tfe-:^ orurr of rainatiit^iMatf 
«n<i yi9t tlifi *i>»;irt hfeTft prtt'^<Rrly entered mc orti^r riinatating 
thft :>iaint4ff# if it found tJuit Um offioc nr pociticm XOijfeX» 
ly e2;ioted nt the tlais of Ui?^ 4.i«cJiarti«, »nd at tk*" time ©f 
th© •ntsy ©f the ord^jrf* «MSii.# further, that in f«,at tUiS! d«» 
fttnO-mit pl«Ril«<i or<iin«iiWBfi in foroe in Cni«Rijo i»hioh did ^«ot 
or*mto tli» of ii.:!© or pcsttion. 

A pn^rsoj: B««fcing reiiiBt»t«u«3nt k.s ijctrolssmn l*y a 
writ of K5«n«ttRi«.«3 sRint f3hoi» the It?iiaX <tsdet9tio<» of the of fioe 
•r position, h?.« ©3.fiar right to th<; atfinm^ and th«t fluty oa 
the p»vrt of %hf roi»poiwl«Rt« tn porfewa the imt BtJught t© 
iMt enforced^ Mafelnnd Y. 'U^y of (^-^i o^i:<i. , <i«n. Ifc^. flfXi©9. 
AppolIfLttr court* Fir^t LMiitriotj .i^^LB Xfc i;iaJi2£« '•^•'^ ril,40$ 

ssxMmLi»,miLM,:M^i&' ^^^ i^- ^^^^^ 

^« for*? of Vi(tft t>dnicn titt^t the. oonteiition cf the 
d«fen.iimt io uat«naiac, arMi that the jud^aeut in Us*^ »»nda»iui 
aro©«»dittij8 « -r;«lui?lif<?ly estafelifehftd plainUff'e rift^t to 

^m*M£. «nait »mt^ ■bJb^ ^ .»«> ml- 





th« offls-je, wfei&n thd «rlt was or4«red to lfi«sue. If 4nything 
bftd ooourr«(i s-urinn the p«Tlo<i tlsich would h*v« t^PfRlnat^-l 
the ri^ht of tb« .o«tltlc««r to th* offlo«, it coul4 hftv« 
^•A Mt up by a prop«T pl«ift in th« ai«nd!\jnu« rre^^edlngs. 

Tb« plaintiff 2onteftsl» tfeet he »a» entitled to th« 
full aiaount of th« salary frcR th*^ t!»« h« »&« 4iAoh^(Jrg«4 
until b« *3i» TeltuBtftted, without any d«luotlr»n. Thl© waa 
not hi« ;Oeiii>n In th« trial oourt, Th«r« h« 's«ked that 
thft u."'»cunt whl'3h he h»4 ((i.^rn«fi In eth*?f nmplefn>»nt luriri|{ 
th« tit.*! h* «A<j ROt aotiftg s» patyol«i=in tr« 4« iuot«4 fro* 
t)i« &iicwiit of h.lfi filalw. R« cannot iihlft his poffltion in 
thlo court. At th-^^i aloiws of eiII th« «ivl'1ano«, Juns 15> 
1S14, th« (jourt took th'^ <i*»« wsjdur advisement until Ji;n« 
l?tb, and on Jun^ IGih, .^ovwtol -'ot pU^mtlff fU«4 «Uh 
th« court a erlttea t)Tl«f a&t ar^jujaent, whloh afip^^iifs ia 
the record, tn «ihloh he tjcnaght to eot^ibllah th* right of 
the plsiutiff to reooTer salary aft«r DeoeiRber 2", 1^08, 
by «xpi»sli»iK;i the delay of plaintiff In obtaining rflnU'ite- 
flMBt, 0O th ^t It olearly %pp9nT9 that ^heth<5r plaintiff w*e 
entitled to any ©uir aft^r r»e<j«<r.b**r '53, 1^08, »irn« om of the 
•aterlal ^uestione In the oaee. On June l?tb, ai't*r the 
oeurt b*(i annouaoed Ite dieclslon holding that th« jil»>irttiff 
ii4L» not entitled to reoover after the l&^% ;£»ntloB*4 date, 
the plaintiff asiteoi p«r»lef4on to reopes th*5 ca*^®, for the 
purpose of «howtng what jert of the fSOSS.eO eae earned 
before that date. It »«f? «rlthlB the «o\ind 41 eoret I on of 
the court to allow or deny thle «otloR. In our opinion, 
ootipid<!'rlng :«n the faot» Of the oiim , the dleoretl'^n of 
tb« oourt «Ae not a^^ueed In r^fuelr.^^ It. 

In our oplnicn, th« 50urt ptop-srXy heli that, the 
plaintiff wA« not entltUd to recover for any eale-ry ift«r 


■ifTit/a^o b*^. 


fJt9 too <r.X 


Bt«««l»«r 3^> 1808« tin(M tlw writ of m«iini%inu9 %wa.r<lftd on 

that dat« SBtitl«4 ^'Si* pl»lRt1.ff to l«i»*tdlat« r«in9tat«!f^ttt, 

•Ad pXftO^sl In hi^ hi^nd® i,h*i *hol« pow«r of the 'jt^it's! to -jn- 

foro« l«Bia8«diiit« oompllanas *'lth it a tfTi«B», Th« r#?i.«on *hy 

tl»« piiftintifi did net *Ak# an effort to ©©•S'lf r«iK«tJat>}fl8«nt 

as stated by his counsel, 
iioon«r waj/b»oau(»# h« f«aT«d fhst tJj® City of Chisago »c?ul4l 

X3araxxXJ(PQPix;gi(pasjpcx sue out « «rit of «?rflr» Zn wbSeh «v«nt 

had, of course, 
It would h».*|/tbe b*ft«fit «5ir th=? ruling of our Sjipr«sm« 

C«?virt In th-s aa9« of Bull Iff v City of ChX«ajj£, 235 IU,4?4 

(o^ilnlon filed Jiun« 18, 1^08, ?lx month© b^f^^r* the Jul^snt 

lA th* »andi««ttfl prod««dll?ig), *?fct}r«!ln It «f',v<» b«ld thst tb« 

effla*g of polloe patr«'lffian la tb?s City of Chio^go dl4 not 

•xlet, of «hioh rullni; oovaue*! for 3>lalntlff auet fe^f* 

te«ftB avc^rfit, &£ h« WAS oounntl In that o«o«. By douRo«l*9 

o«a «t&t«g;«'Ct, it «ipp«*r» th&t his Aelay ir. Anforolng his 

right wBier tha aTit imtt volvmttwry, and h« oannot th«4r^- 

for« r«ooiror for ealajry 4ur\ng that period. 

So «.fltt«n pr©po«Ui<>n« of l*if, to b« h«}14 *» litw, 
wiro «iubKltt«4 to th« «owrt toy «ither tfei« plaintiff or tfe« 
d«f«ttdaat. n&lntUf, ho»*Tfer, 41*1 «ttb»lt »rUt«B j>y©po«i- 
tlooB of law th« 4«y »i't«r tfe« oa«« *«« trltd, und th« oourt 
prop«rly refuMd tluia a» not having !»««!» tubmltted in tlwe. 

rin'lStig no 8ttb»tsntlftl «rror in th^ r«oo:ed, th« 
jttdgMnt of tli® Circtwlt C*)urt of <1ock County wlU to* ftffi3r»J«d. 


112 - iil50ii 

Defendanf in Lrror,/ 

▼ 8, 

ii-laintiff in Krijtir, 


197 I,A. 583 

DKLIVIRED THE OlrlKiOii Oif jL'hai UuUia'. 

Haintiff brought suit for an Jrnnount claimed 
to be due for advertising, enci hrd judtj&ent for 4)228,95 

ryhich oefendsnt seeks to have reversed, /fi laintiif pub- 

J rSxuX 

lishf:« a p'-rr-r, called "The .;oine Int-tructor." ^-4X- iriftd»' », 

contract witn defendant to advertise the product of the 

American Cereal Coffee Couipany. The order i ^ or th e- adveg - 

n a Will mi ♦ cr'lls for t/ie inisertiori in the. edition f(ar.,.uctiab»gi, 

1914, \wJUi^-d«44kil«^-A» .ito-^t*t«o «^*>ae«^^^^4^ i»f tfii(B"" 

efc^v.eaf'-ttTrew-fwrtf , tiift price to be 68 a line, leas com- 

rai ae i on . "^ hw*w«**!«:;;jt1TrtrTt^ 

■4Jj-a«t>-^^M»»-~-iwrt'<*-^^^ iin»a . The Hdvertisement 

duly appeared in t^ie October edition^ fjird-'^TI^tirtTrtrtff' ei-nliBS 

^hftt_ Ui er eu£on_fleleMan.t...*^ 

A provlaion in the •»«fc*ei»^'i-3li»e« order' is*««u-fi*i~ 

^■ta^ii t 

"Thia order is plnced wit,, the unaerstanuing 
tiiat tne cost x^er sale wxii nou exceed tue average coat of 
other rasil order raediuma used by this advertiser. That tnia 
and other copy not exceeding 587 iiutj .ij,.;. o's x-e^.^utted in 
the Dec. or nny .!r> iaciue if necessftry witnout cnarge in 
order to produce orders c^t tne averatje coai, ' JJ^. 

Bef^naarrt «ay3 tijis moans that the amount which it vas to pay 

fdi* advert! Bing vms not to . exceed for, •i*<?h ^^le resulting 

therefroia the aveTage coat per )4»l-fe rebultinf, froji sixiiilar 

p p p^ ^ /\ T r o r 



• iiua^iin a^ ttx 


.Dsu-iavs • 



ili, !*ij'. 



CiiH^jBBT -^JUUt 

advertiscinents ijluced in other i;iail order laecliiuaQ; tiiat the 
average cost per sale vnia 60 cents, ana that as the adycr- 
tiae/j-ent placed in plaintiff's publication resulted in but 
one sale, aefendanu xma liabl<! in the au;:i of bCi centa only. 
V/e do not ao oonatrue Inia proviaion. ,/e hold 
that the defendant was liable for the adverti&euent at the 
rate of 68 cents » line, less coriirai:-j3ion, when the adver~ 
tiyeaent appeared in the October edition of tihe Uorae In- 
structor. 7/e construe this ln\.ter provision to be an under- 
taking by tlie publiiiher to continue tho advcrtiaeaont witli- 
out furt;.er cost in 8Ut sequent issues until it had produced 
sa] CB sufficient in nuDiber to -^Pke the advert j. dint? cost per 
sole no preater titan ti;e advertising cost i>er sale in 
other publicationo of a similar claaa; or, to put it .a-^re suc- 
cinctly, to run the advertiaesent until t/ip results, ccnaiaer- 
ing, were #qual to results froir ot/ier papers. Tl'he ad- 
vertioeii.ent upd a coui on or forni of order .vitu a "key notaber" 
Mttached, wiiich purciiaaera of the goodo detached and forwarded 
to the *)* r i i n} ^ Coffee C0M.pany, In way account cuuld b -e^^Kept 
of trtg" »in.>iftt>«g.».»f 3ftlea reg n lt j rt g - throut'^\ the Hdvertiaeicentz-wu 
th e p a 3! i t4.aulAX-4>4 4 -l » 1 i e w t tot i . It a xjff j.c : i '. nt -^y. appear a fr^Mu-lh* 
e»i.4*^Te?» t.hat plaintiff tyr*i---4»®4--*telltia*«Jtj3..,x^ 
gation to continue- tne advertiser-ent i «"-**•©- wrt>l i. C'Tt'} •**m";r!!rBB3p-" 
waa yewdy nHd "-wi%»4«tS"''»^«-&-"tt^--d*;, but waa ordered by defend- 
ant net to run it Pf?r«wr« after th« October issue. Tljnder these 
circumatances plaintiff cannot be held to account fcr any failure 
to perform it8 full undertaking, and defendant is obligated for 
the auiount it contracted to pay. 

The Judt;;nient it; right ano is affinaed, 






172 - 21564 

Plaintiff in ;rror. 


SDWARD P. KiOBLiliii, 

Defendant in iiirrori 




197 I.A. 587 


Edward F. Keebler, defendant, ia a real eotate 

hrpjif^r in pnicago, doing business as J-!, ?. Keebler Ss Co^ 
-H*- ii*« i^tmiirBrrrCat-4n securJtt|| a tenant for^ Btore^b nlonfy 

ine to - p l rgtrnHfi^ , Plaintiff claira#'*that before he closed the 
lease he told defendant or d ef on d bvh44 b , ag en t that another 
broker, named Staff, might or did claim a coiortiBuion for 
procuring 4te43^oarae tenant, and t b ot -h*^ -44d^ "«H»t~'yi<ri»'"'%o - ge -on 
w±i;h'thir~treSlllKT§¥iH a^Q^ -<5ape"'Of r>ta«f»8 

niftim,.and thit defendant oaid; "If you wtiL. have to pay 

-out the money to the other broker we will pay this mum^y back*; 
and th, t thiweupon the transaction was closed and Kecbler was 


paid hia coniniiaaion. .Jubaequently taf f ba^wjgh^tj^jwjA^ 
■^^ -ag a AR tt »-plraA-ft^iff~r- gJ'«nimiiig..ximLaiJ.a^ir-^ fead judgmenty ft^^^<^ *" 

^ -Plaintiff in this auit now seeks to recover from defendant 
under the alleged promiue by defendant to return the amount 
he received as conrEisaion in cnse plaintiff was compelled 
to pay .vtaff , Upon trial the court found the iosues for the 

The determinatiOTx of this case depends solely upon 
the credibility of the witneasea, I Plaintiff 4»***4tt*sA« 
testimony tendiklk to support the promise olat w od t e h«¥0 b »s » 
made to him, while defendant denierff categorically thmt ho 

.no-vT-: «i IliJaiBll 

,% OilAWCia 

o r' 

: .>wfefi»."Mt ■ &n&lt»Jb Mo J- 92{ 9BJB9X 

veit J;ti. 

I , ■■ J" . ■ 

7^q Hi i^« 



1 rtoupftSu 


,f!Oil;.'i64AiBU>aw [^(-<,^li.v. 

o xJxXioxtiB'xo »fli 


Tift(i<r such «» agreoment. ' Ve think the court wm,8 
Justified in concludin,: that Jfidward P, Keobler, in person, 
never made the promise unon vrnicih plaintiff seeka to recover. 
(D There waa evidence tendin /; to ahow that tune Gilbert Keetoler 
-la«*^^made this promise tfi^-'pitetrrtttt , This was denied by 
Gilbert KeeblGr,P>riwr~wwe h o - 9 infi j ? <>y ew uf Oi« a t; f g |nUai* .<^ v'e 
do not find thr t Gilbert Keebler had any authority to make 
any such promiae so i>.a to bind the defendant, 

ve see no reason to disturb the judgment, cuid it 
is affirmed, 



>j(;-:j';!k o* ^c^irtorfJwe lem* bod ■xe»i</©'a>i irtstfXiO ^i<x{i fcnil; *cn eb 
tk hoR jinsMsibtfi. »dt <{ii!itilb oS no 



SOO - 21696. 


Defendant /in Error, 



Plain/iff in Error. 

Error to 

Municipal Court 
of Chicago. 

/ 197 I.A. 591 


Plaintiff broxight suit upon a v/ritten guaranty of 

the defendant and had judgment for .^51,974.06, which 

defendant seeks to have reversed. Plaintiff's statement 

of claim alleges an indebtedness due it from the Auto 

Card Index Company for goods sold and delivered; that 

the Index Company although frequently requested failed 

to pay; that plaintiff threatened suit; that thereupon 

defendant requested plaintiff to forbear suit; that he 

v/as a large stockholder in the Index Company and suit 

would cauae him personally heavy loss; that a deal was 

pending between himself, representing the Index Company, 

and other parties, looking to the investment of a large 

sum of money, and if plaintiff would forbear to bring 

suit for thirty days he, the defendant, would guarantee 

the payment of the amount due; that plaintiff agreed, 

provided defendant would enter Into a written guaranty, 

and this was done, said guaranty being in words as follows; 

"*^ "Whereas, at the date hereof the Auto Card Index 
■ Company, an Illinois Corporation, is indebted to the 
Automatic Electric Company in the sum of ;! 1,974. 06; and 
'A'hereas, said Auto Card Index Company is unable at 
the present time to pay said account; and 

V.Tiereas, Albert Campbell is heavily interested in 
said Auto Card Index Company as a stockholder; and 

-oeai^i - ooe 


YiSHuaoM 30iXc;ut -asKiiasgsc .ei 
.TRiioQ aET -^o H0ISI50 SEC craE3¥iJ.aa 

lo -^ufleiiitrs aetd-iiw s, aoqis Hub, iA^otd "ttiialRn 

iiolriw ,ac,:fe?e,X$ lol- ;/ xi9iasX)x;{; J5arf baa ia&hao'±&h sri* 

J&elial -be^J-asifpei "^iTaeupei^: iisuoxi*Ia ^5XtJ8q}IIoO xaSiil odi 

8xf ^Jtid^ j'J-iira laadf'io'i od l^italislq bQ^a&sgdi toBbaet^b 

'iiaa baa \aaqsaoO x9J5nI od^ sit -lab lodjloo^fn e'gt&S. s qjsw 

e^w iBQb a iedt ;QaoI \;va9.ri: ^IlBnoeTcui oiiif oauoo X>Ijjow 

, -^£U3qG.ioO xefiirl ©rid" ■$aliao&9'iqet ."ilsernlii no9%7;loa gxtiMoij 

agnfil a to taBniSQ'^sxJt add' oJ gaisiooX ,38X;^1Bq iorfJ"o Sflo 

3fliia' o." i03diol blisov \^ttal&iv, .C^iio/n xo mne 

,LedTS« H-itflJteXq i■J^If;^ ; awfi iTUfoms erf* lo ;^(IefmcJBq eriit 

awoXXol ae aw'row n± gxtiecf tJ;J"xl8xbi;s ijii-a ,enox> sjaf? alxlJ- .ftne 
xef»rtl fiA eril loo :? orf* ta .aBSiaxf/r' 

rtx ©Idamr ai -' x.&bal 5--."0 orx;A bl&^ , 

Whereas, said Albert Campbell is willing to guarantee 
the payment of said account by said Auto Card Index 

ITow, therefore, in consideration of forebearance on 
the part of Automatic Electric Company to urge the col- 
lection of said account from said A.uto Card Index 
Company for a period of thirty days from and after the 
date hereof, Albert Campbell hereby guarantees the pay- 
ment of said sura of ^c 1,974. 06, on or before June 11, 
1913; and further agrees to indemnify and save harmless 
Automatic Electric Company from any losses or damage it 
may sustain by reason of its forebearance as aforesaid. 

In consideration of said guarantee by the said Albert 
Campbell, as aforesaid, the Automatic Electric Company 
agrees to forlbear for thirty days from and after the 
date hereof, to urge the collection of the said account 
of -1,974.06, now due and owing to it from Auto Card 
Index Company. 

Witness the hands and seals of the parties hereto 
this l£th day of May, 1913. 

By H. A. SLUiRIS, Y. P. 


tiiai-4rtt*4ag_lJae--*ai4-JJai^ty---4a^ flaintiff forbore to sue 

upon the elaim^and t»ok-no .s.tfips-^y»'^urge t.^ collection, q£ 

t he ocme ; irtet-jjbth the Index Company and the defendant 

>^>faolly.. failed to p ay i s-ai d aiua- eg- €aay -j^ar t- -^hfrr eef-, an* Hon 
June 12, 1913, plaintiff notified defendant of the default 

•A£_iJae--i«4eiK--0oar|raiiy and demanded payment ef the . d » fendaj rt»y 
but defendant failed to pay. 

The affidavit of defense alleged that 8b*-.4;ije. -time.. -jda^rE 
■ f e ndcm ' lr -s^i^ie^,, the contract »«4--ed4^-4a-^plaivn.ti#fJ»-sta1»e- 

~fflaa-t— "e#-=«l€tiffl there V7as no enforceable debt to forbear and 

- thcrefo r-e-lrhere m«A no good and valid consideration for 
defendant 's promise < '»o~.^«^^4ifei6-'4.©l>^ 

The cause coming on for trial, plaintiff moved to 
strike the affidavit of defense from the files, and after 
argument it was so ordered. Defendant moved for leave to 
file an amended affidavit, which motion was denied, and a 
motion to amend the affidavit instanter wat denied. There- 
upon, as directed by the court, the jury returned a verdict 

sia^xxl .oijjO oJiri. £»iiBa ^d -^aiiooois Mas lo *n©ci^£q '^r't 

-iloo sfiJ" ..-jO oi's^oe.C.'l cJ., to Sxaq siivi 

?c-. ■ bii?a mal tnx/c , -a lo flox-o®! 

^jdoierf Xl9(f?jffl:eO ii"'iecfIJ'. ,!:09ief( eiBb 

CO cic .dO.i^Te,!^' lo mffa blsa lo d-nsm 

;lJ:niiie6GX o* a©dil9i$ lOriJiirx one jSXei 

10 aouiol ;ji3i». incr^- 'y^oerrcioO oiiuOcIM oitsmoiaA 

citf.' . isxae lo .- iexico nl 

.A ©e[3' «6ii.o • ye .IIodqmBO 

{i:o-ii H'^f.po \i^"ilr{j TO'i •xaodt-rcl oi aaei^ 

\T lo noxi'OQlIoo erf* ©3'2:i; ot ,lo97.©xI e;^sfi 

-viBO Ov^x;^ moi5: c^i oct' ^nxwo J&rta 90^ wort ,SO.^Ve,I"' 'io 

."^mximoO lo/jxil 

c;l:.-';dfi ooicT'*;. ..tad ©dd" aasri^iW 


X«&. in;a.iiJL/v 

: rij[ «t*eV-^*34ii*. £U' TMiy Je x4# 


nibtiBt&o &tsi bos ■^a8<pBoO xebcl ©xf^ rid^oi^^ ti^sth^ ; i»i b bb o ii^'J 

crlu«1:©i& erf;r lo a-aBfijaei&^ BenUoff 1:ii*«iJ8lq ,Siei , SI anx;^ 

jftc iBsdnoi 6^ trfoJ5 eXofaso^olce oxs eaw STexii^ cjia-X6'-%-o 4-e«»' 
tc^ flOiJ^fiiaJMenoo &IXbt i>fls /)0os oc ajWF sTeri* -^^e^^^eft*- 

oj fjSYora tfiii/rtalcj ^lahii 'Jtot flo B^laioo eax/so ©rfT 

, .eXil exit fflo-xl ©bo©^©^ lo ^IvaSnia ^'^ ©jlJt-sd-a 

: 9Vi>©X -soi 5©T0te J-aabxie' tl *a©J«i3iX"i 

, 3ixt96 aew aoid-ora xtoxrir ««riv«*>ix3:A Juau/iomB n.6 ©Xxl 

-o\3j': .xi'-jiii'^'j jaw lei-riatarci tlv^jbH^* 0Ifc^ Axtaoa oi aoliom 

d-oiiiTev s j&on'xuuoi '^iwt 9^'* ^i'lxioo 9x[* ^cf ^ed-oeilb ae «coqn 


for the plaintiff, aoad Judgment was entered thereon. 

It is first contended by defendant that it was an 

abuse of the court's discretion to refuse the defendant's 

motion for leave to amend the affidavit of defense or file 

an amended affidavit. We do not think so. In any event, 

there is nothing in the record before us to indicate how 

or in what manner defendant proposed to amend his affidavit 

of defense. The language of Mr. Justice Cartwright in 

Diloher v. Schorik . 207 111. 5£8, is precisely in point: 

"But if the petition could have been amended no amend- 
ment was presented, and the motion did not state in what 
respect appellant proposed to amend the petition. Ee does 
not even now suggest what amendment he desired to make or 
could have made, but says the amendment was presumably to 
meet some objection to the petition. A party is not 
entitled, as of right, to have leave to amend a pleading 
regardless of what the amendment is to be. A party who 
desires to file an amended pleading should prepare and 
submit it to the inspection of the court. There is no 
presumption that a proposed amendment will be a proper 
one, and it is not error to refuse to allow an amendment 
which is not presented and where there are no means oi 
determining v/hether the amendment will be a proper and 
sufficient one or not." 

The court did not err in holding that the affidavit stated 
no defense and ordering the same stricken from the files. 
It has been repeatedly held that a promise to forbear to 
sue, followed by an actual forbearance, is sufficient con- 
sideration to support a guaranty (McMicken v. Safford . 
100 111. App. 102; Hamlin v. riser . 163 111. App. 51), and 
that in a suit upon a guaranty the guarantor is estopped 
to deny the consideration of the guaranty or the validity 
of the original undertaking. Hall cable Iron 5ange Co . 
V. Pusey . 244 111. 184. The rule is that where the contract 
of guaranty is made at the same time of making the original 
obligation, or where it is made before it, jad the consider- 
ation of the original debt is the consider; tion upon which 
the guaranty is founded, in a suit upon the guaranty the 



' . 'u.'.'i.^:. J:'. ■ 

. 19X1 olid 

: ; " 71- ,•* 

r, ■■•^' 


^ •• .-^'^t: 





J, ' .. ^ ^ ... , 


J'sriw to 8' 


;.;.- c :-:■■■ -, 



■ .:..q 


• ■ ■ "^17 





consideration of Jhe original debt may be inquired into, 
not because it is the consideration of the original debt, 
but because it is the consideration of the guaranty. In 
cases where the guaranty is founded upon a new and inde- 
pendent consideration, as in the case at bar, the 
sufficiency of the consideration of the original debt 
cannot be inquired into, it forming no part of the con- 
sideration of the guaranty. 

The judgment is correct and is affirmed. 


,:tdei Ifixiijiiic odi Ic ]:ioxi"fiT:8jBJt8noo ©if* al ii eeiraosrf toe 

. itaaiBn'^ BAi to fioi*JS's;9.61aaoo fin;t ai ut eeixreoerf ;^JJ£f 

-ofini baa waxi s iioq[iJ AeBnflro^ al ^tjoexaffj >riw eeaeo 

■<sds.b LBat^ito ei cdsiafiiefloo arid" io ^oneioll.lj/a 

-noo srfct 1:o d"iJeq on -^xxlnici jX ,o#xi1 bQtJtispcii eti ioasx&o 

.igfliil^ijs ax Sfli^- itoeiioo b1 ;^xieffl§f!irt Qd^T 

256 - 21756 

CITY 0? CilCAOn, /) 

Defendant in .;Jfror, / ) liKROH TO 



OV C; lie AGO, 

V. a. hicmahdsohI / 

1' lain tiff in q^ror 


• ] 

97 I. A. 5 94 


]Defen<i.^int, chnrged with keeping a dicorderly house, 
wa3 tried by the court an'i found guilty and fined $200. 

D3fond;wit s^iyj the rt-'cord ccmt&ins no copy of the 
ordinance which he is yh;i.rged witli viols. ving. If he aenired 
to prjtocrvcj for pre iantcition to thla cour'c tho question whether 
tha court ZMSSJfZ frcaa tho ovidonce properly find hire f^uilty of 
a yioi.tion of sciCti'« 2019 of the Chicago Code, tlio section 
mentionGd in tiie cor^lair.t, he should h&ve incorporated tliat 
section into the stenographic report, .Q hicaf^o v« Ttscirnegr, 187 
111, /vpp, 441; GhicaGO v, Moran , 192 ill, Apv. f>7; C\%y v. 
Kfthn , App. Jfo, iiCoGl, Opinion filed December 6, 1915, 

It iK sufficient to any of the evidence that it juoti- 
fied the finding that the place \*ao a disorderly hrnjiue, as chtirged 
in tho complaint. 

The prob.^.tive force of the evidence as to the chiiTacter 
of the place was also aufficient to ;Ju;;tify tho ooncluoion of the 
ccirt that defendant knew tlrie kind of a place he wan keeping. 

The evidence 8i.iffici:.ntly identified the preir.iseo 
A'ith the prereiaea name i in the co/nplaint, 

Th(.?re being no revcreiblc error in tho rejcord, the 
judgment ie affirmed. 


tiSi'^Ui . eas 


fH:i\ »a ftoii.w »an«ni.frto 

KotSt>b V > OlT Jl 

■ . tsma 

. ;'coqpi otttq»%i\oan$u oii) esni noii09B 

-;eX jJK • . i:y .XXI 

3ia<: iiiq sxfj* ijotlt :»atbtUt eitt bell 

../ftiaXqmro oHU' Hi 

9niKL •tfi to 

271 - 21768 

1/efendant in Error, 

▼ 3. 

tlciii^itiff in Errogif". 


ERiiOR TO T4Tji.'iuii.\i ociiirj: 

/ J 0]? CKIOAGO. 

. . 197I.A. 5 96 




Pl5.intiff orought suit for money dxie on an or#l 
contract whereby defendant agreed to hire plaintiff for the 
period from Oc toller 16, 1S13, to J^^inuary 15, 1914, at $45 
a ^7eek. After plaintiff had worked for a week and five days 
he v^s discharged, as he claims, without cause. Upon trial 
a jury assessed hie damages at the suiii of $409.50 and Judg- 
ment was entered, v/hich defendant seeks to have reversed, 

LCudjJ bl(u f*^^'^^^' evidence U<^i^^i^y~-»^i±iL,^s^Si3i£3^^ 
^ that pleintiff was ,«*> experienced -flMwa in ladies reaay-to- 
wear clothing, and in October, 1912, v/as empioyed a a a a- 
- oictont g ig .i'fgr^ fr r <Ti^ a ladies cloak and suit concern, ■»**«»»• ^i-*^ 
he wo i o ropking $25 a week, with a ppar i eii ti y"'6ygry;^pr o sp ec t of 
continued employment; % hai t 78 1 this time defendant aiid one 
Bruns purchased i-ft— the aiBtricl..C.o^rt of th.e .United -States 
at— aH»~atttrtltrTr~«»ie a bankrupt stock of merchandise. Kej.ther 
-4^fe Hda«4 -'j»^y- Bym» B . had ever b,cen in the ii^dies cictning 
busin^aA .and t*^^ needed ^/ man trwtrred- Hrr^ tntB" bUBlnesB to 
fe«j&a»e.<W^ this stockj ttt~re*»**. Defendant SH^gdh-plwii*- 
't df f' -^to-^cramlTTg- the stro^hr-^-rra^airm) aske^^ iJal'ia wfe^^rrer-'iMS ^^ 
w uttin . take charge of the sale of this merchanaise, and 
plaintiff replied xXa,1 a© h«^-^:a -s-tcady-^ jM>«Jutio»--fi.»€i , it would 
nair pay him to leaTCiTt for a short o pao e &i time. Several 

aavxs - ivs 

, o-x.i.! ni. jiuiLnv . 

02 .A.I TGI 

?J.:JH1J..0i,l lOlTilUl C?fICII8a[£- . 

.t!-:ujl' .mi 'ic i^oitii'-io slht cmiaviisKi 

di»4 J-< , •' , " " ,'''""[ ^^l tpdoiQO moil boli<!>q 

/H9'x a9XJi%BX nj a«» bs 

^i ■ -y . 

esJa^ki b9^LHil t^cii.. ^» « .^aU u:aiai-a,j;G. , oriLt-^i baaaiioiuq eaviii 
OCT B83ni-cX- . .J • '- i"'-"^- ,.,."-'■■.'.• '-ce^J ■■"" ^■•:--'-Rud 

.)nti ,fj&i:jar^;i")T«in ^i.;:^ 'vr- -^rr^i. ■;,i.'; ^n a'^-rriiiy 93iiiJ I T ilW ff 
bluci .... . ., ,_... ,:.Xi..,o'i. 'i'liJalBitj 

j^&irreraat±^Tiw"-^otl'Owed Mli eH' t-es^ in /^ agreement , that 
ple,inuxff jiiould woxk for deferidant from October 16th until 
the fcllo-..-iiito January IStii at ^4& a wo«3k. rlaxntiff entered 
upon hio uuties and did the things viixicii are uauall^ done 
under aucL. circuiaat&.ncea to attract cuttoiaers, ij^ttjit--*:© -iit4*rk- 
in|^ hji.gil. prire^e i«i the gta-iaenta, then crossing these out 
.a.nd r:.BxXil^. ^^^^ "^'^-y ^ov;, ^ue displaying skill and ex- 
perience i«--4i*i'«--^iiTr'''Tr!p~-4Mi-iij>*B3. -¥he - su'iij'S ~ and gaiPMenta^ 

-itTjlhe stock 'i7ere sj/^oked and burned and of old style, and 
did not iiell at.^feiic prices, tfe:&^-diel'rrrdmTtr"t(rd:BiTan«"ti*o*ight 
tkeiL.&aould4,.tlufey..ja\ey4i.-i3<)t' ^rlai:•in:g■■»-■t^r0f■it, It is evid<Ma-tr - 
tlifijL-jd«f«*»'dent--fc-ec0a-E' tif • tue opini©ri-that he- was in a losing 
vetJt,ii,3rjfe.,.!aid.. c.yuld not affoid tc retain plaintiff, and after 

"^i/'U a '//eek aTid fxve days j» ri©^fr±$4*d- plaintiff ^xiat-4iar&-tM?rvaicrei 
j£fejMi-ii«---l-e«g-e*-"-<te»i*ed. /sf-t-er^-i-isi*. plaintiff maofi-^ff^oa'**" 

wcTf Titr T-fMTC-*^^ -<te»i*e d . /tf-t-ey-- 1 hi g 
<** to obtain otixer Ciiiplcj^-^ncnt, and fro^r. Octolaer .ioth until 
ItarCi.- 27th i^b.^ aole tc aecuie a position for only three 
and a half v7eerB at ^1^ per week. ;^~ 

it v/aa cl. limed i)y defendant upon the trial, and 
argued in this court, that plaintiff i/.ade Jiisrepresen cations 
as to his ability, his salary and lengta of seryice \vith nis 
former eznployer, that he did not perform his duties in a 
good and workmanlike manner and to the satisfaction of de- 
fendant, and that he .vas incompetent, and tnat his discharge 
was justified, liono of these contentions ii^pressed the 
jury as having merit. 

There are no questions .nvolved except ques- 
tions of fact, .vfc see no reason to disagree «?ith the ver- 
dict, and the jud^ent is afiirLied. jy-fiBMEJ). 


©rtoi^ ■^i'XajjBij sa*! xioiAlw agjiixiJ ^^U ^.^l ;jii-; uijij^jj cxxi noqi; 

~x?. .^.■- .ini:\aX<5aib awiW- .I'Oj; -c-iav rioiU 'i^i.^-tt^ia.brT^ 

bfi,e ,sl - ' >■■■ jiooJe 9xl4 '««- 

Jilj^*4>n# aiii/icL i.a-3 ^a^i-a • ' lae i-on Jsi!) 

*a©ljxv^^ '■' . ■ -'i-e- .5 :-:.n.L--.,:.ri j-j,., ... ; blwaxia ^^sijU 

jjiixiOL ja «i ti.ovi o . laiai 10 e»xiJ 'to -j-r/jj-'i j :.; r.ijwdlaii _ifiii4 

ayo^rtunt -Bin-iHiii- ' ' >i ii-.rv>;. 9'- ".'-i i>iixj ij'j-j/ .c 

Ci;f«ij xii-ais -.tsdoJ; l. . . .s9i'XxoX4.Hi3 xSiAJO nxiSjcfo :: 

. .■;..-^ . ' ' . . a.j.j? j'v . .• 

sin ii^tiw solTiae "^o lidsfi , . liu.'-. «iafO;t.aja 

fi nx soiJiib Bid ai-xolx;:: w cr. i;*; = .. j.^r.i .^s^uXiPi* o^^raol: 

i»]$iiijlOBil] aiii iBtii tati (drsoJaqjiLooni ajnr oxi ^i&iui«f i>£i» (;^ruai[>irox 
•dild' basea-xiT;.! ■ ■-'si'noo atioriJ "io ono5t .iwiliiaxiL *j8w 

.oiisiix srtl" • - ■:ii/t 

_^_ ,, .1.1., iv,.'ii*.'j J ^>i; y£>8 -• . . '■ '■ "* u (.:i;» i..} 


562 - 21759 










\ Appellant, 



197l,A. 611 

MR. JUaTIC3iI ii/iKER DE:.ITi!:iUsa) "TUK Oi'iKIOK OF THi'. CCUjIT. 


The parties V©-4rfiifl"-i:-±'t±Tgwti*» w«re aarried 
October 11, 1899, Mnd lived together aa nuaband »nd wife 
until October 1910, and thereafter continued to live in 
the snhe hou&* until j:)ecei.aber 4, 1912 .-^rite y - live « l -a4-.-S^y) 
Lake iark Avenue in n, house owned by the husband »«t>ject t» 
a nsortgot-e of two thouL>and dollar iD. Ch?: a eiu^i -annual inter- 
est on thi» iuortgage debt, ajaountin*^ to «ixty dollars, fell 
due about December 1, 1912, and Mf. Vaughnn fa.llinii to pay 
it a bill to foreclsse wa^ filed and a receiver appointed, 
TKho demanded twenty^hJllara per -■aonth rent, i?ailing to 
pay the rent ,>«firancied, the receiTer ordered Vau«jirian to 
ljiifftft"""¥bfi hiininffi .;l^lTl^--^rrr''TH^^tt"''1^1^-■^^t7l1•^frf "^"'-^ tvfo roo;na witn 
facilities for litiht housakeeping, and wanted his *ife and 
tliteir tyelYs year old daut^xitex to occupy aucn tooma^ -ii* ^IM " 
did .;ot hiraealf f*». t * ^ the Ptfma nt-W live, but went to the 
Laxlngton hotel nnd later to the Univ^-raity Club. Ke did 
not invite his wife fna daug/<-ter to coaan to hin; at either 
place ,T"H^--w>w--tfe«»---a«-V-«rf"Templ'oyffie^^ 
t'gftiYe thQUAand-dollara par, value of the, stooi of the 


- \ A . • ~ i»<i 'j 

, >iJii.i.L; 



• ilJ. ^.' kV J.1^.' « ,^IL.^ iJ -'■} -'.V*?'! VA< " ■" JO'S 

Bryant <■. t^tratton >Juaines3 c;«!ge,» he aold a yaar 
or longer afterrfarda for twj ttiouaand rioiiara. Deooxuber 
3, I'^lA, he filed a bill in the lurouit uoutt fyx" uivoroe 
on tne ^jround of desertion, allegin,; tnat. he had treated 
ilia wife as a fai Vuf ul und uatiful uu&band, and tiiat she 
without caust dftserted him October 1, 1910, ThR defendant 
answered,,, thf bij.l JamiRry '1, l'J13, .'denying its allagationa 
nnd t'ru' gnjni" dfiy fllftd hflr cross-bill allef^inR that she 
had lived separate s.nd apart fro.';i her husbanti sinca Doceia- 
b<»r 4, 191 '., without any fault on her pnrt, and pr&ying 
that thp defendflint be requirod to /aake reasonable provi- 
sion for thf? support of ijerself and dauf^hter. The defend- 
ant answered the orcss-bill January ii? , li313, denying its 
xaatcrial allefjntions, 

The cause was hrsrd j'ebruary ic , iyii>, and the 
coBipiainant ip«tht; origins/i biJl, before any tvicenct was 
introduced, s-fved for ] rave to disfliist. iiis bill without 
prejudice, nrid the Court by it8 final ciccrcc entered i. nrch 
3 2, 1915, denied the ::otion anc. udjuOged yjid accrc«d that 
tiie bill be disciiirsed for '^.-ant of equity. The Court by the 
decree found that the defrntiant to tut croey-bili had since 
Ijec ember 1912 been guilty of continuous und -sfilful desertion 
of the ccnpl&inp..nt therein; that ha had an i.ucon.e of four 
thousand per year, and that crMtpla^nant was fciiti\.led 
to separate maintenance, and it v/aa ;sdjuui<;6d and decreed tiiat 
the defeni:'art tr the cro:i8-bill pay to comt;lalnuixt therein 
fo/ tl.'i Bu'pport cf hrreelf ejici cau^i tcr &evtnly-five aollare 
per montn and one hundred seventy-five for hf-r soli- 
citor' a fees; and froir. tiiat decree the defendant to tne cross- 
bill prosecutes tuis appeal. rrV,/. ■^#i^<^-'^-V ''tf^ )^f^tK^^ ^^ 

The proviaioi; of the statute that, "no complain- 

•;a vims Jk-OkVi-h- ,'•"'■ . •■ i^tf 
a ;•'.- -• ..■ii ( -I .J ■.■ ■ '■"Ot.St 

■'.* 3:a:u ...... ,,..rx ^.-v.joab 

, ,,• ^ ^^ r -.'- . . f> . . T>«i: -r. 1 • 

...V . ,..-.w . . ^"xo Dili «* ^•?!.'? '■•■'''• : o^ij 

- 'v , . ,^'ta.'f 'io ^•xocii: . .... iO'X 

ant shall be allo./ed'to diautiisu his bill after a oross-bill 
has been filed without the consent of the defendant," is 
oonoluaive againut the contention of ap,:;ellant that the 
Court erred in denying hia motion to diauisB iiis bill v/ith- 
out prejudice. 

The trial Court did not err in it a rulings on 
questions of evidence. 

The «Tidence was preserved by a certificate of 
evidence, and the question presented is whether the evidence 
supports the decree, and no findings of fact are required 
to support the decree, 

'3t tiiink that froai the evidence the Court udght 
properly find that Jtra, V&ughan was living separate and apart 
from her husband without her fault and was therefore entitled 
to a decree for separate support and maintenance and solicitor's 
fees, and the decree appealed from is affirmed. 


• Of 


A* •»o; 



564 - 20899 

HAKRY W. KUETS.II?]YER , Adiaini3trat|r 
of the Estate of L«uis J. Iversc 



al., Appeal of illCHIGAK CENTftAI. 

App#llsiit . 




197 I.A. 6i6 


Tliis is an action for personal injuries in 
which plaintiff had judf^^ment for ^1,000 in trie tiuperior 
Court on the verdict of a jury against the defendant 
appellant, and it appeals to this Court for a reversal with 
a finding of fact in its favor. ilaintiff having died 
since the entry of judgment, tias appeal is defended by 
the adjrxinistrmtor of his estate, 

^k. Plaintiff ym» at the time of the accident 
counted upon in his deolar^tien, aft^-JaaA^-b^en f °^ » -^ xl^.ttukf 
quarter Of a century prior ^^W*«*«4A„\a painter. Atj^^JaA 
titi«-«4 the accident a«d--foJ^«o»e-t4«e -preceding ■«»«♦ 
4att« he ;7orKed for one Ettinger, a contract painter for 
the Illinois Central Railroad Company. a««r..^^.j>«.4j*tiBfr 
at various places along the roaa of the Illinois Central, 
..&e«»i«u»y. lie had heen acting for about ten days prior to 
the accident as foreiuan of painters on the painting job at 
which he was working when hurt. 

tlaintiff had been a sailor and was experienced 
in splicing ropes and ejecting scaffolds. On the day of the 
accident plaintiff was foreiaan ov4M;~4a-g»a«~A^P«*^«^8 and 
was engaged in splicing ropes and ^ with the other paiat^js 
-«irtter-hlm, in constructing a scaffold to be used in painting - 



yfeyois - i-i-.G 

, ... asvl .T. aixi'oJ. lo aJaiea 9x11 'to 

, bsacQooL 


J9 .W'>a OAOriJiAfl JLAHTZiaU iiiOfCIJJLI 
.YaA'iiloa CEAOffJlAfl 

X ^^ •ii.l. ® ^ J 

loxtc-^qjjti 3i-J ill 000, l<p 'xot JiIaal^U3ut bmi xliJnxBiq 

J^.|■-l:^i:'^1o. xsr 5Ai no i'lJjoU 

ricfiw .le»-i.0Y9i r, 'io'i ;J'ii/oO axiiJ Ov ciajtiqi:; Ji bun ,;fnBlX9qqi8 

bBtb aniveri Itl* ' r . ror/jl aii nl ioa'i io \iftii)nxl b 

«iWJai<&»t-^4ij--i>»6 .AimiqiaoO f>Juc'iXi.'jH lai-JnoO axonxlll oil.:^ 
slsncfaoO axonxXII mii to or.oi sx^j jjnoiii asoala euoxt.'?v Sb 
Ov' loxnq e\eLj asvf ^^juodii xot anx;^o« naad bfixl . 

"fc tfoi, ;jfli.d-nJL«q sxW no «5t«*ai«q io :i«ii-?.gj-ioi a^ .nisJbxo. 

f)'9 5jn»xa9'.xx.^ a^w bn£i ioix*io jb I'.o&cf bjsul lljij'iixxs i^ 

" 'io 'v].!: .ofclolljsofi anx-S^-oa";: jqon anioJ: 

i, ■ 

the train shed of the Illinois Central Conipany at a place 
jieBigjfta-t^d: a« "beiHftg iimnediately above the stone wall sepa- 
rating the St. Charles Air Line from the station tracks. 
Two or three feet east of this stone wall were two porallel 
tracks running north and south, known as the 3t , Charles 
Air Line, east of vmicii was a switch yard v/ith tnirty or 
forty tracks. The southbound track of the St. Charles Air 
Line was within three feet of this stone wall. Along these 
tracks wer* run engines of the i-ennsylvania, North Western, 
Burlington, Illinois Central, Micxiigan Central, and other 

The pla.ce where Iverson was working at the time 
''^•♦■.-.aiwka JauT-t ■■m.s about tnree feet higher than ■ti*e-4:eTei--«#-™-» 
the ground. It was a very busy spot. Botn freight and 
passenger trains^ jaua^ along the St. Charles Air Line tracks. 
T rains w ere laoYiog, .aLQjag the tracks . There was 
nothing in the — way at the tiroe of the accident to obstruct 
the view of Ivr-rson and tiie other painters of the moveiwent 
of trains north and nouth. Engines carae along these tracks 
both with and without cars , frlrtatfh:ed, Tne scaffold upon which 
Irerson was working had been laid upon the wall under his di- 
rection. Iverson was struck \iy a,n fjngine running along the 
south-bound track j:«-er-{»e- utii G riT - - Ai* ' eot 4^« , causing him to 
fall f i 'uiiJ th e -ym^yk. to the ground, ar'-d±^XmtCW"-^'%^ou.%'XaxeV 
-f*«tt. Iverson sv/ore that he was atrucA by the steps of 

the engine, which aung over the track about two feet. Iver- 
son also testified that the engine yEfca^>»*inxerKHsi*tk was marked 
«Ai. C. 8172." 

- Trhat iverson was and for several years had been 

well informed of the operation of engines and cars along the 
track near which he was working JKi*—««-fe-4*i~-^ir»p-itt-e-i ••iter~-,»»sk-» 

.alojsid" fJOicfi?J"a 9x1:^ oioil snia axA aoIi^xlO .tV. Qcii .^niJ'Bi 

XaJljSTaq ow;t siaw Ilew aooJ& v^'* "' ■ ''-■"■ '"■■'^'i ^eidi to owT 

ealiflriD .ic. edS ar. ■ '■■ •' ,:.,.>^.., ...-: ......... ^nxnn -^ onii 

10 \i'iiiii liJiw b-£Sv ;..,. ar-a s eiiw xioxiiw Tto J-bb-o , . i. _,.i. liA 

aeexiJ- a^olA ,j,Ii?w onoJ-e sxri:* ■ e^l asiri;^ nxiiJ'xw aaw axiiil 
iSLrL^i^'m"^ xiitofL ,aiii«vlx««ns>-i ... ^j asnxans nut a,T9\r sjioBid" 

oris cf i-l'^i^Tl xiloa .^O' v-^:t.' vr- u ^. .-ew :M .ijawona axU' 
.BsCojPi^ aniil ixA aaiiijexiO ... ... ,;• — ,— ui^«nlBT:it rte^aeaaaq 

d"owid"3do Ow in^hiooB '^^£ii lo &m.i BXii $& xs9-~'^i4-"»i. r^nxiictoa 

insnavoia sn* lio eioJaxjBq ■S9xio'o sil^ ijna noai-svl "io v/sxr axlJ- 

a>LoiJ-iJ 9a9x{i gno [a snuBo asniawis: .ittuoa bR3 liiion t,niRti lo 

-ib aiil Toljnjj iimi s>nj noqu i)i4:.I asaa fcoxi arfi:}I'row bjsw nooi^rl 
oxIj^ gnoie jjninniiT oai.3nv» rte ^c' Aouide. 8.«\7 noai3vX .noicfosi 

'to i3;it5;ta -sdi ^cf y.^iw-xJa a^w -an ^Hd;t a-io^ve aosiavl , J*«^ 

... .iasl ovti Jjjocsij jio-BTct ariJ -xaro j^ajjii iloxilw .aniaiTs 9iii 

'•.-^,'.r . .;. .M" 
jsrf iar. ia'iivsi. V 

;ii;J gnolB t<xco bj.r« Bsnxsna lo noxJ'iii'^qo oiij 'io Jba^rxolnx XIsw 

CV At the close of plaintiff ' s . py < w^e » both, de- 
fendants ifioved for an instructed verdictj in thci g' -fnToy , 
which the court allowed as to thf; Illinois Central Railroad 
Company but denied as to the T...ichig§,n Central Railroad Com- 
pany. Tne def endafitj;|^a»>j>"Ol- i-« iH 4 here again :L0ved, ?it the 
close of all the ^»*^-», for an instructed verdict irt»- ita- 
fntrsV'i vhich was again denied. (7) Lrror is assij_:ned and ar- 
gued on the refusal of the Court to in&truct a verdict in 
favor of defendant, the Lichigan Centr?j.l Railroad Company, and 
it is also assigned fcr error that Tver son v/as guilty of con- 
tributory negligence, and it is contended that defendant ap- 
pellant 'vas not guilty of the negligence charged ag:ainst it, 
'.Ve are satisfied from thf evidence in the rec- 
ord that Iverson v/as not '-.t the tjnie lie was injured in the 
exercise of due cKTe for i^is ov/n :-.afety. Kno^in^ the dangers 
of the .situation in '.^lica he found himself, he paid no atten- 
tion to the approach of the en^-i.'ne 'vhich struck hiw. If he 
had looked he could h^ve seen the enginr- in 1 irae to have 
avoided bein^f struoV by it; and there is no -vidence in the 
record rrhich excuses or absolves him fron th^ duty he owed 
himself to look and vmtch fcr the operation of thp rolling 
stock ^7hich he kne'v vras constantly laovJng along the track 
in close proxiraity to which he was working;. 

ITo count in the declaration charges wanton or 
wilful negligence on ttie part of appellmt defendant, nor is 
there any evidence showing that any one upon the engine .'.'^iich 
it is claimed injured Iverson knew of the presence of Iverson 
in time to have avoided the accident in the exercise of or- 
dinary care. We think the facts of this case are ithin the 

i.*U;^iaxiU)XivftiV *^»Q«N»4>-««i#^ /to •;fnr;s±f!ttjot>--«e-fct<*l-"-«'«T£fi 

iaes oeX« s.- 

3Jf»r a^xxBlI^q 

■ .r.DHO',: 

ruling of B el t Wy . Go. v. olrszypczak , 2<,5 111. 24^, vmere the 

Court say: 

"The general rule is, that negl ii^yjice t-nd con- 
tribucory negligence questions of fact, but wJaen tliere 
is no dispute as to the facts, or ivhon only tae evidence 
most favorable to the plaintiff, with the inferences reason- 
ably to be drawn therefrom, io considered, and vvhen all rea- 
sonable minds will agree, upon consideration of the facts, 
that the plaintiff's own ne^-lif^ence contribut^-^d to the in- 
jury, the question of contributory net'ligence becomes one of 
law, and the refuaaJ to -ive n per-^-iptory instruction for 
the defendant is then reversible error. Beidler v. Branshaw, 
200 111. 4^5; Hils on v. Illinois Central Hailroad Co., 210 id. 
603; Hewes v. Cl'dca^o a.nd Eas t ern Illinois' 'Ra'i 1 roayc o , , 217 
id. 500." 

We triihk it appears frora Iverson's testlraony 
that the engine ivhich struck him was in plain signt as it ap- 
proached from the north, and that his injury vmB caused by i;i3 
failure to look for the approaca of south-bound euw;ineg or 
cars. In taj. s condition of the record, the question as to 
Yttiether Iverson waj in the exercise of due care for his ovm 
safety nt the tin^e of his iujary, beca.ue on-.i of law for the 
court, and thr; peremptory inr.truction /isked should have been 

Tho ovidenca does not o'.iovr in that cionclusive 
way which the laiv requires that the en^;; whioji struck Iver- 
son was tho property of def^mdant appollnnt. Iverson -/as posi- 
tive that this enf^inr; was marked "M. C." and nuinbered "ol72,» 
while it is conc?.unively pi^oVen 'tnat tho engin-^ of defendant 
appellant 'narked '7J th this number 'vas not near Chicap;o at the 
time of the accident but, as a ma.i-,ter of fact, v/as being op- 
erated bet'veen Windsor, Canada, on the east oide of the De- 
troit River, and ?,uf f a].o , in the State of Few York, on the 
Canada L>oathern Division of defendant appellant's road; and, 
furthermore, that tliat online had never been operated be- 
tween Michigan City and Chicago,"^ 

We tiiink that on tnis issue defendant succeeds 

-; ,s.t slxn iM'X's " 

J >i& dvttKJfiifi Off Bi 

■ , .ill oom 

"■ - '"'*' "" ''.OOe ,fei 

-«W t3.;'>.i iiSjj"rJ8 UOiiiV Oiii.^flS SilJ' w«4* 

, '/.snnlW nefl^'jpn ©ajais 

f:i 1 U'- M^Mi.J'!.*) J 

.' IJ- ' J 151» .'4 3 J.> w' ».• U tl J 

under its piea denying ovvnership, operation and control of the 
engine Wi^icii struck ivjrson. 

There are other errors in this record, but the 
foregoing being fatal to the right of recovery, the .iud/^Taent 
of the superior Court is reversed with a fi^Kiing of facts. 


(Over. ) 

---... AouiiB iiaii'.- .=!nl-int 

564 - 20899 FINDING OP FACTS. 

The ;'.ourt finds as jnattera of fRct that defend- 
ant ^!?a3 not ty of the ne^-llfience char^.-ed B.{^f>.inAt it in 
lYeracu's dec Laraiiion, and that at the time Ive.rson suffered 
the injuries coraplained a&out hf; vas iiot in the exercise of 
due care for his o\vn safety, but was t^juilty of neg?Ligence 
wJiicii vnxii the pio:ci;!ate cause of the aocident and the at- 
tendant injuries. 

'^B!i^ir^hi^2&iSR^i;'& ^ M 


raXosi) •'noeisrl 

00 esiii/Lni sad' 
sc>f«^>-*. !->■=>'- , • '■ "ies. rtv'o c.x.iL rcot t^ifio sub 

3j'^mJtxoiq DxlJ" 3SW aolriW 

129 - 21520 

business as German Amerioan 
Oil Co., 

l)df endant in frror, 


AMBIilCAM 31iIi-l\iMG Ct^KPAKY, / 

a c or p o ra t i o n , \ / 

ilainiiff in ;..;rr0:. 

\ y 


197 I.A. 620 


I'lAintiff recovered a judgment, on a finding 
by tli« trial Judge, against defendant, for ^544,46, which 
defendant asks this Court to reverse, 

From the evidence in thia record we conclude 
that the trial J^udge might well find that defendant was 
indebted in the tranaaoticns involved in .luit in the 
amount for whicl^ plaintiff had jud&'fient. This leaves for 
our deterrai nation whether defendant's contract was with 
plaintiff as principal or as agent for Botho Farenholtz of 
Magdebcrg, Germany, Uiere doing business in the name of G. a, 
Farejiiioltz. To solve tixia problem recourse amst be h84 to 
the agreement between the parties as establiaiied by the evi- 
dence found in the record. 

-^l^laintiff -vas the resident agent 4»>-Ahi.» o-auatay 
of Botho Parenholz of ijagdeberg, Gerraany, a manufacturer of 
oils. Defendant was a custoiii house broker, having pieces 
of business in New York and Cixicago. i laintif f was— thfi^^ 
^firttQlT Ji'AaxwtftwVt-a-^-a.i'Mi had ciiarge, aa auon a^rent, of con- 
signraents of pe a nwt • mads dOhUigsT oils shipped by yarenholts to 
tiiis »/Ai'r^t.T>y i-o ji\iYf.M,iu»yfA ritaiaMtjt );iv>T*t Defendant, at the 
instance of plaintiff, did the brokerage business connected 
with the oils twjxai^jaad. by i'arenholta -awd shipped to Atlantic 

■i i 

O&CXS - CiX 




. .im •Si. -.'it 


• •IK I. 





forifjwii^^ oiJo." 




ports, ilaintift wa» paid a cumiaieaion by yarenholtz on the 
Bale of all aucl. olls^ Among a a dny iiatl gg'tt) BY<y yytTig'>^n plain- 
tiff>^a» the a,v!;ent and a p» j, ijp ^'«'ertt n ' t 4r¥« of Fareniioltz v/as the 
placing of sea and leakage insurance upon the oil ahippcd toy 
Fareniioltzj-ttrTiWsiTrrrtittrnw"!'**""'^^ llaintiff 

-twr arrangetfl|»4» with defendant to Fl-^ce i m e ii oea and Iwal c ft e*' - 

We are not concerned wita the varied rauifi cations 
of the bueineas transacted by plaintiff as agent for i^'aren- 
holtz or the connection of defendant therewitxi, except as the 
aame may have a bearing upon the matters in controversy in 
this auit, being the overcharge by defendant for preiaiums on 
certain laarine insurance placed by defenaant, on tiic instruc- 
tions of plaintiff, upon anipuaenta inade by Farenholtz of oils 
froxa Geraiaiiy to Atlantic porta in tnia country. The crucial 
question is: Was the contract 7rith defendant aade by plain- 
tiff as principal or aa agent for Varenixolt*? A careful 
scrutiny of all the evidence in the record on this question 
we think overwhelmini^ly establishes the fact that the con- 
tract in relation to auch marine insurance waa with plaintiff. 
The insurance was not placsd by defendant at the direction of 
ParenholtJS personally, although it covered his property. 
>'laintiff waa under no contractual obligation to Ciiiploy de- 
fendant to place the in>.urance; he could have placed it 
wheresoerer he saw fit, so far aa any inatructlona from hia 
principal were concerned* 

/Defendant vn^a in no .vay obligated to Farenholts^ 
P e f o ndnn VH» dealing8^-#er« wholly with plaintiff. To him de- 
fenaant rendered bills f o r proMi wpy and plaintiff paid thexu,-**- 
d«#«m»mt. ¥4*i«r ;?arenholt« subsequently reimbursed plaintiff/ 
lA- b»eir d tr t h e"' ry uca t ity n , The contr;.^ct unuer which tne insur- 




?<Hrcr <| oA4 ' «gX '»y 




«nc* was placed was between plaintiff and defendant. All 
the asoncys fhicii aefcendant received, botli £ot services as 
custom house broker and for insurance prejaiimas, ware paid 
to it by plaintiff. There being no contractual relation- 
ship between Farenholta and defendant, payjjent to the 
plaintiff of the asLounts here involved, wliether voluntary 
or otherwise, would be a complete satisfaction of the in- 

The fact that Farenholta laay have instructed 
plaintiff as his agent to cancel certain insurance in no 
way operated to change the fnct that the contract in the 
first instance was made between plaintiff and defendant, 
Parenholtt was operating in t-hid country throu{.;h j^laintiff 
and had n;. in.'ropendent place of business here, and con- 
tracts such as the one in tiie case at bar, raade by plain- 
tiff, are enforceable at hxa inatance. 

The title to tne oils insured is not involved 
In this action. The right to dofuana and sue for the over- 
charge on pre^^iuma is the subjeot'-iuatter of titis suit. 
The prerriiuaiB were originally paid by plaintiff to defendant 
under t^n arrangement between tnem, and as defendant was paid 
by plaintiff acre than its due, plaintiff had the ri^^t to 
demand ar»d receive the excess so paid, if plaintiff paid 
defendant more than he should for in lurance, this vrauld 
wit f:iv<^ hiis any ripiit to charge tiie excess pa,yiDent to 
farenholtz, We thlnic Uxe rule laid down by Lord Mansfield 
^'^ 'j 'teyenaon v, laortimer , 2 CJowp, 606, is not only appli- 
e^&ble to the facts in this record, but decisive of the 
rights of the parties. Lord Mansfield said: ".iQaere a man 
pays money by his agent, which ought not to have been paid, 
either tne agent or principal «ay brint; an action to recover 



OJ ..ri'l;,.. 



v/(xi Mi; 

it back." 

There is no reversible error in this record, and 
the judgment of the LunicipRl Court is therefore affiruied. 



294 - 4;1690 


H, i;, J0HN30B» heceiver, ] 
Def«ndi».nt in irror, 

. )/l1?H0R TO kUNIClfAJ. COURT 


THOkAU HKNNKUalBY and iLUa, h, U, J 


i'laintifJ^f in Error, ^' j 

. \ 

197I.A. 622 



Defendants seek this f«Yiev# and ask u reversal 
of a jua-juent against tneaa entered by confeeuion unuer power 
00 to do contained in a written lease of certain prexniees 
in ChioKgo from plaintiff to defendants, 

'Pf^ Defendants .';;oved on the affidavit oi defendant 
Henneaaey to open the jud^gmcnt and to ha let in to defend 
the action. The affidavit seta forth that Ine defendant 

Bettfflar 'fiBiZ in physioal posaeBSion of lae premises Xcaaedi 
that she waa, charge^ iHr^ii^in&intaining a disorderly house, 
w>ii o.b wn ■■ a«^~aufta^ aiiarga *raJ.AflA* )a^ -tiiti- |«i>li«^e ; that 
plaintiff told Hennessey that tenants in the building -i« 
%U\nh thfr-1 r m iini l praniiiBfts- wttrti coj;aplained ttr'Trtl& about the 

di so r der 1 y c s» tabl i snm ent -that.-iira« iXat^Mortav -««aa aondu«Kti«ig> 

and ■ea4rdr~4aa't.--.^«to«- ■^ * a tt3 i Ai 4i iJ Mf. e.»^^ move , iw^rr- that abe aeooy d ing ii y 
/ move4; trmt ne, iittn/iesaey , no-v^r had any physical possession 
i> f— V ttir yre m^.j ftt .a «- fW' ^jmMkj^ aigned the lease as guarantor only 

These facts, if fnota tney were, conatituted no 
defense to the claim for rent ana furniswied no reason au- 
thorizing tiie court to open tiie Judiaaent and let defendant* 
present their unavailing defense. 

Thv" rights of the parties must be adiaeaaured 
lay their contract, which is the written lease found in the 
record. By it both defendants are lessees of plaintiff and 
equnlly liable to perform all the- covenants of th«- lease 



OQbXi> - J^«S 

iddttii • 

JtU^DlHt) tu 

2S3 .A.I vei 

;jb«t>«ajC soAifln .toJL6«»««oq ljsoi»xtki ai ami tma$i9ii 

7.i ■tui>.i^-u»4>i>« •it> Jam <H-t»- . i'... (.4. ^>- f fclac . 


w'"»«»lt>;, . -•TOO an 

binding upon them. While, as between defendants, Hennessey 
may be a guarantor, and Dettmar, as between them, liable to 
recompense Hennessey for rent which he may be compelled to 
pay, yet as between the parties to the lease both defendants 
are liable to pay rent to plaintiff according to the contract 
80 to do found in the lease* Hennessey was also liable to 
plaintiff for allowing his co-tenant to conduct a disorderly 
house, and ^en the fact that such a disorderly house was 
being maintained was discovered, Hennessey's duty was to 
suppress it; but the removal of Dettmar from the premises, 
even by request, for the cause assigned, in no way relieved 
Hennessey from nia liability to pay txxp rent provided oy the 
terms of the lease, The reaovai of Dettmar and her disorderly 
associates froia the leased premises did not operate to bring 
to an end the relation of landlord and tenant. The authori- 
ties cited by defendants have no application to the facts 
of this case. 

Where a written instrument is not aiabiguous 
there can be no resort to parol proof to construe its terms, 
Gibbs V. Peoples liat . Bank, 195 111. 307. The liability of 
Hennessey ia tiiai, of a lessee v/ita his co-tenant Dettmar, and 
as Hennessey's affidavit disclosed neither a legal nor a 
meritorious defence, the trial Judge properly aenied defend- 
ants* motion to open the judgment, etc. 

The judgment of the Municipal Court is not er- 
roneous and it i;j therefore affirmed. 


saw 9£i.ucri v. ' is^ioaii a ^.iv-ifr^ oiil oxi* nsxiw brsi* ,9a«oil 

Jii'ict'iBii eia iKo'xIt x^^aa^imaH 

. JiXid4ix 

.9«f»o axitcT to 
^J'losd'x on ©cf ii^o exsXiJ^ 


342 - iil759 

ALFRED D. KOEMIG, a niinor» 
by DAVID KOFJSIG, his tiext 
friend, i ) 

Deflendant in ilrror, / ) 



l-lainli^iff in Krroif ) ^ ^ ^ 

; 197I.A. 6 24 

\ / 



Alfred D, Koenig, a aiinor, by iiis next friend, 
Darid Koenifv, recov :red a jud,irent upon the verdict of a 
Jury for |.40O in an action for personal injuri<;;s, and de- 
fendant by tiiis writ of error aakiS a reversal of the judg- 

-aa-t r-l>o*fe' tai nor^t-, "W&tW ttie " actt) r» a rr -tse- «0e i den V invol v ecL 
in Xkii m ■Bwip 4» John oemrau^waa driving hi a father *b large 
•■■•iTftjfi.. piaa.«.af^g,ex^.<.,i1;fllffitJL touring car, and Alfred D, Koenig 
was riding »K&-^v!nrtwg:' hi a t fr c r- o y l in <i'< M» .aotorcycle. 

But Qn e con teTitlott Ts'lraised and argued by et»i 
fendant, and that is that the verdict and judgment are con- 
trary to the probative force of tl-ip proof. If this conten- 
tion were well taken it v/ould be our duty to reverse the 
judgment. A careful examination, ho.vever, of all the tes- 
timony convinces us that John Uemrau wub ^-.uilty of the neg- 
ligence charged, whic:; negligence was the primal cauae of the 
accident, and that Alfred J). Koenig .ma at the time of the 
accident in the exercise of due care for iiia own safety and 
vas driving nis xi.otorcycle at a rcoaerate rate of spe«d vdaen 
the colli »i«»«courred . 

Xh &~:^^9^»4M^ftnee ^€- th^ 6V i <k«na» -«a t«b.l.lahca» 


N. <M-^K. /\ P 

V.V. - liC 


, J nam 

«ti OOiJ 

" th e « fl ^t , that John Semrau. »Ufidenly anu without giving eny 
warning turned irrg- f - atJiftfJ^ -s^ Q^^^ w M -<» h" - -h e---w«!ff"'-'fyi-Tll?g twrtii, 
'ttiuuml so Umt he laight drive it southward, vjh'ri- Alfred D, 
Koenig, vTho was riding south ot * - J itA ^fr^^rteJwyeyeJpe at a reaaonablc 
speed, antiy -wtt±i:-e~irtr~tlie-cx<?T'ei^c of due *insrr"tonrnr±ti--^^ 
^-iMj^BAX, collided witu defendant* s uar» injuring botirx himself 
and hi a motorcycle. *te■±i«Hrb■--4•*-4f«^^«-4i*•*-^awth ***«» aons of 
defendant who were in Uic car swore that they looked before 
Joxin turned, thiff-TfSlP am - d tu at n & i J U;ua r ->.<»J^-«« tJ 8 twm 'HWCTr any veiiicle 
in 8ignt^,yet--i«"V*€'iH^f--%i'j^~ i«dlaputafci.«-~^P«k»%**'t^^ D. 

Koenig waa riding hi a i a»4^-p«yoli-e-'gm<ttt% witi^iin clear view of 
the occupants of tuc car^ an4 t hit t.--iii.fc^.turt;ii«g -^aX, . JUoj^-cag- 
obatx-uctjed hia progreaa, euan eviuenee is notiitng worrtii. it 

adrsitted that thfe otreet waa clear of veiuclea and that 
tiiere were no otoataclea to obstruct the viaxon of Lnoae j.n 
the car,~)rin %k\i3 situation it waa ne;.;li^,ence not to have 
seen tnat wnic^j was clearly visible. 

Alfred D. Koenig, through ^^o fault of his own 
but solely througii tde negligent driving of the car of ae- 
fcndant by his son John, suffered a fracture of nis right 
arin in two places and his rfiotorcycle wa» so aiuch dainatied tnat 
it coot <^99,5i; to repair it. The da.-aages awarded are reabon- 
able for tne injuries inflicted to person and property. 

There are no errors in procedure and the verdict 
being supported by a prepi^nderunce of tne evidence, the jud^;- 
ment of the iiunicipal Court iS affirmed. 

The additional abstract filed by plaintiff was 
necessary throu|i:h the neglect of defendant to sufficiently 
abstract thf; record, and the coat thereof v/ill be taxed as a 

part of tne coats of tixe cauae, 


98 - P.IO*??. 

THE P/JOPLIS D? TH.'!: STJ15B / ) 


Defendant in .WtotJ ) mi\OR TO 

11UNICIPA3. CCv.nT! 

\ / } ^^ 0} lie AGO, 

HARRY DAVIB, '. / ) 

PlaVi tiff ijr* 'Jrror , 

'197I,A. 629 


Harry Davis, defendant, was tried in the Municipal 
Court of Chicago before a jury up on' jaa information, ;^s amended, 
churg«^ that on October 4, 1914, >h* "did then and there attempt 
to commit an offense prohibited by law, to-wit, the offonoe of 
petit l;irceny, and did then and there do a certain act toward 
the coniinission of same, to-wit, put his htind into the trouaer's 
pocket of the complainant where compirinant held name, and then 
find there failed and was prevented from committing the offense 
of petit larceny, contrary to the form of the statute," etc, 
.vhen the case was called for trial t>u» defendant was aJced whether 
he pleaded jjuilty or not guilty to the charge, and he replied 
"I refuse to be arraigned." Subsequently a jury was called and 
sworn, and evidence wau introduced, and a verdict was r(>tumod 
finding the defendant "guilty in manner and form an ch rged in 
the informc.tion, •* upon which verdict the court, aft^r overruling 
defendant's motions for a nev/ triel and in arrest of jmigraent, 
adjudged that he b^: confined in the house of correction for the 
term of six months ♦ 

the point is made by counsel for defendant that th« 
record does not disclose that when the d fendtint stateri that 
he refused to be arrainged the court ordered that a plea of 
not guilty be entered as provided by the statute, or th .t at 

S70XK - QQ 

♦ooAOiiro "ii 

go .AjTer 

, ■;iVACr YflHAH 


fi'io k; 


oracti^i'^is: .RM 

. y ■ 

Mfiwo.t ;^oc niflJ-ifto £ ab otsirij Jam? iisrii hib JboK ,itn'JOxaI ix.+ tq 
j'naQjtjpt* nrf.t o;tax bnnrt sJtxf oif<j ,.tiw-oi ,9iiua "io aoiaairatioo ©rW 

i:Xq?>a sfi fen.n ,(*a'U5«[o orfcT oJ "CjII:;-, don 10 \,;rXiiJS tri^r.slq »f( 

btatuint ««w ;foJ:Jbi'?'r ;s bnis , br^oi/'io-x^ni er,w ooi?«biYs l>aa «nirowa 
ni bQ^ja'-irfr) ux; "-tTO"^ Jbcj;^ lonnec ixi \i Llu-^s/' ;+rTr,bn'-i'ir^ oAi jjrfibnil 

\tii •xo'^ rtoi^ooi-xoo 'to 90iiox{ ^Ai nl Jbanilnc- .;: ..'SJbutb* 

•rfi iSKf!^ inebnti\Qt •xol leenucj «; ex cfoioq orfT 

;fl^ Im»#^^«i ;^xu;biwjl b &tii i^Ai saoXoalb *on a»ob bioosT 

w .0 ,9^uJaJe erij- ^^ bsJbiTO-xq ea b©"i- . „on 


any tim-^ iw.y -plev vv.f^ entcrod "by or for the def cnii'-j-it, and 
that in tha absence of a olea the judgment in erroncotAs. 

Upon ftxaminf tion we find that t)).e r-jcord v'\ri one 
prepared by the Clerk of the Ij'uricipal C-v.rt tr. per praecipe . 
in which praecipe the cilerk vpb directed to certify to this 
court R record to include on 1 y the inf omiRtim , the v?'rdict 
of the jury, the Judgment of the ccjrt, and the l-ill of 
exceptions. It appears from the certifiCMte of th3 cleric 
th^xt he certified "the ahove and f oro^^.oinr?; to be a true^ 
perfect find complete transscript of the record as per praecipe , 
incorporated herein," In the oecond pa-ragraph of section 81 
of the Practice /vet as amended, provision ia made for the 
certifying to an appellate court of certain parts of ihe 
record of a case as per praecipe , but this practice is 
limited as stated in said section to "any cause of a civil 
nature." This is a criminal ca5e. In the? absence of a 
cojs^letc raco3Ni, 've do not t>iink that ws can presume thji t 
when the defendant voiced hin refusal to be arraigned the 
court did not order s plea of ''not ,^uilty'* to be entered on 
"behalf of th"^ dcfondrvnt, or that such a plea v/as not in fact 
entered of record. On the contrary wc think that where tlie 
record is on its face fragmentary and incomplete the judgment 
of the llxinicipal Court is to be supported by every reasonable 
intendment and presumption , ( culver v, .Johroth, 153 111, 437, 
443; Tolro&n v. D reyfir . 50 111. App. 243, 244; Bartle tt v. 
ffoodbine .Savings Bank, 57 111. App. 423, 424; L>prinK er v. 
liaddock . 59 111, App. 40, 41; K ertrand v. Taylor. 07 111. 235,) 
And the fact the bill of exceptions in this case does 
not affirm;^). tively show that a plea of not guilty was entered 
by or for the defendant makes no difference. The bill of 
exceptions is not the proper place for the plea. The plea 
is a part of the common law record. "The use of a bill of 



j^.iJl '.y.ij 

o *:. i.tii' r. 'iUi 

,• 4,-, .-^Cl r, ■< t ''>Ti 

1. 1 J^ . : ' X X 

r:»;J-.(.;.. -. 


lid' 5[n.L- .;..n x^i..\-.- vw 

•' •L^."i£2-M I**"^ «''^^ •^^'^ •■^-^^ "^ «m"i£J^:. • ^^'-^'giXoY ;5^ik 

, V- tfi^^tt'iqh I »$:» ' ,eg|t ,cr(jA .'^''' ''"'' , -' e?a«.fcv«^ anXcfbo oW 

.aes .1X1 ve ,T0 l\;i^T ,v ^-TJbal-^a , wqA ,1X1 OS .^oobbaM 

Boob asivo aj:x{;^ nx ttnoii'qsox:. . --,icf ©/id-" iast^t toait sdi JbflA 

>iistrto aaw x* ^tOn Id ftsXq a tF.iW werfc \;X©lriiflttttl^'tj8 ^on 

■^o Xlirf erfT , sofioas't^iii on ao3(am in«bn»>"?i •'f^+ "xo^ ao \;cr 

■to XXi^f A ^- '>-■ '^••■'^'^ .'■■"■ 

ao j".. n-a OXi 


excftptions is not tc errlracc in it rnattora of record, but to 
make that «■. part of the record whitch otherv7iae would not "be 
""C^'*" (Cill<?y V. Hawkins, 48 111. ,'^08, :U1,) 

We concirl.cred the othor points raised and 
do not fin-" any reversible c-rror in tl-ie record, and the 
judgment of the Municipal Court is. therefore .-affirmed. 

.1 .":j. u'-u,; j. ^ •••7 

153 - 21129 

PHILOMIUA V. o}{i\J>IiCLt.', 

fiaintiff in bJrr< 


# ILL I AM KAMIN, \ / 

Def«ndant in/srror« 




\^ .^ 197 I. A. 630 


The plaintiff seeks to reverse a judgment rendered 
against her for costs by the Municipal Court of Chicago and 
have this apfiellate court enter a jungraent in her favor in the 
sum of $300. The claim is for money deposited as security with 
the defendfint under the terms of a written lear.e, dated June 10, 

yT" The defendant leased to plaintiff the store and 
haaement of premises knovm as 1391 Milwaukee Avenue, to he 

occupied as a •Mr-cwrt* theatre, from July 1, 1910, until 


April 30, 1913, --I»--tl»«.-f^ixBlr ciatrsetrf^ -t^ 1«»»* ^(plaintiff 
agree^/fto pay o.a rent f-^a?--»»id--d«mi»«d premises tJv«--»ui» ©f 
$5,100, p&jbM^ in monthly installments of ,$150, except the 
last three months of— -tta4s^ it««/«e which a«** sum of $450 ha*! 
been paid by— the 'iwemee as securi ty. wn deg-thia leaue. " "^i» 
^he seventh clause i^r^B providedV, .Jtjf said par^y of ^th« 
aec.Qn^--part'|(plaintiffy shall abandon or vacate •eribd^premises, 
they«««e shall be re-let by theH?««»*y--of-thtt*- first "part 
i4ef endfintii^ for such rent tmd upon such terms as a ^k^< p»^4^ 'W/ 
Mann see fit: and if a aufficient sum shall not be t*iu^* 
realized, after paying the expanses of such re-letting 8jid 
collecting, to satisfy the rent i»«»«)»y reserved, t ^ e p a rty . 
of the »ee-5ftd"M5^7(plaintiff.)i'ai.;ree^to satisfy and pay all 

(•>«' »'0- 

/■>r)ADlHO "SO 

QgO A I"?^f 

esiis - t^-t 

, av 

\',iiiuo^6 && ^»;txaoQ^fc Y»noBx tol ai aiioXo »dT .00£^ lo mam 


ijfiB y*ro?a 9;i;f lUinX-sXcT oj baaas^ JrtE^J:jfia>'if>b BifT '7 

'"iJrniaiQ t-iv...!. > :.T >fl-9Rtf«i:t3 trviiV .'-flKt ffl- ,f.X<?X ,05 XxtqA 

^i7ijo»e CA »»«»«X- «rt^— ijtf biistj n9«</ 
- vjTMi; : •; ' ivo^tq; ■#■■ "» * efc'UBXo rfinoTo* »ff4 

5S£iffij\V- hJhs« o^uo,av -^.o .i.-ip.i.-.n/-, XXiBile 'l'itiiKli«X<j)^***Bir-^«K>.aMk 
'": -^i--^ - v^ T»#%ai^-.iKi^ yrf i'j>X-9n scf Llasfa nama'Oetit 
irx.h:.„ i,. .'1.1 •'. „ tioqu bttfi ifi9i rfouG rco'^/l^ii'^ '' ' --"X 

U*jA^ 9'f *Onf J.X^:K - -.-x... '»^ fj^.^ ;.tXi yfc:a >,««. 

bn« 3ni:^iJ^X-sr^ rloua lo :'j*u;! ;i>..-5 u i.; vr,a.\.'.q rtoJ'ijf .bssiXfiSi 

liA'. yr- • ■*^--* " -**> • ^-^-^^ *~'^j:^- .^ri^'Lrto'afrw-.wfi^Tto 



In ^his origi nal affidavit of ineriM.,A?f.<5ncLa^t 

rS •■■-■ 

alleged in aubstance that »«*4*depoait was made ,ff6' security 
for the performance of the covenants and cqarciitionB of the 
entire leaBe; that plaintiff failed to,, lb ay the rent due on 
May 1, 1911, and alx subaequent ijifitallmentB; the.t deffaidant 
made ef forty to re-rent the j^sCemises and collected rental 
for the arane from new tep^ts comrrencing .'Jeptemlier 1, 1911, 
but did not receive j^y rents for the months of May, June, 
July and y\.uguHt,yl911; th?>t defenaant suffered loss by 
reason of plaintiff's failure to pay rent in the sum of .%nO, 
and by re?'Bon of vari.ous disbursements and time expended in 
re-renting the premisen in thee additional 3um of .^1?30; and 
th;it defendrmt was entitled to credit said d<^poBit on said 

On the trial, before the cotii't withoiit a jury 


appeared ftcua.JJi&,-jB3EJLjiajlfi.e that plaintiff vacated th,e premises 
on the last i;'.mdfty in May, 1911; tiaat- e^h^V'-'tkan owffdr defendant 
-a«~x«a^.,.jCxir...^«-.,iM»th-«f-'I*5Tpl'91rl, th^-ffoar-TfTf $150;jThat after 
such vacation defendant re-rented the premises to two tenants 
successively; that the first tenant went into possession some 
time during June or July 1911, and was given free rent until 
September 1, 1911; that said tenant or a sub-tenant paid rent 
from -jepteirber 1, 1911, until Earch 1, 1912, at tho rate of 
|ir)0 per month, and that on Warch 1, 1912, the premises were 
leased to another tenant from said date for a term expiring 
subsequent to ^pril 30, 1913, ot a monthly rental of ;i7f), 
iJef endant admitted that there had been paid by plaintiff and 
by the two subsequent tenants, ao rent for said premises for 
the term mentioned in plaintiff's original lease, tlie total 
sura of .^4,850, and that plaintiff had also deposited with 
defendant sj?.id sum of .?450 when the lea^o was signed. It 
thus appeared that including said deposit the total rental 


no »i3t fj- x«*t'0^ bfvXli?^ ^liinlBiq SBdi ittansl etiine 

,11" , >'/ia«^qsi; gxiiona^aBOo «*rtJ0«8* • : ;i ko 'i .: om^a sett lol 

"i a^J^nei xr!fiL ©vxerr ' '' itsd 

\j.'. iifioi - : -i.Bist) J-ijrf* ;XX6Jt , .J liij ;;;.-'.■. iiij::; -^Xi/t 

ill b9i)n»qX9 sfiiiJ^ - 3v''rt9iB»«ti/cfHifo aiJoxTav To noaitert ycf bna 

^iti-'Dji- 'fi'i T>V-'ipo n»f([.*.***(i»- J^wii jiX^^X ,\;j^M sti %hbras:i ,-tanX orf;) no 

toi'tM &Btt^}Oi*-L^ Ttnnm»-t!Hi* ,,XX©X't<t**r '^o ii*«oa a-ctf jmX Jamn •» 

' : armwncr »il^ ti9j'nj>i«»Tt ^njajbnolab noiijs^av dnua 

;i,tflo ^nai Dfti'i woTlg afsv; Ixito ,XXe*X Y.Xi<T, to ttnaX, gnitub asjui* 

J«e?n bx/jq c^(ifln«>i«<fi^K ij 10 insn^S tlsta t^tii ;XX?X «X ttd<*it»;f<j»S 

lo oiBi «>ff;t *« ^&St9£ ,X ri3TH« XlJ^rtW ,IXCX ,X ifnivaic^i' noil 

97.0W afflsi.iraicr ©fit ,SX??X «X ilo-xaX no d-azfJ brm ,ftJ«om is»q 06X4 

irtiiiqx© cn»J' .« lot ai^ab foit-s mo-il itistv-^i i^diorts oi h»Ki;©X 

•1 e»8lnotq fti*v« lo": trt&i • , ^- ru-ii-j ..;;;. i/peacfi/s ow^ artf fed 

liU'ioi ^ds ,«a*»9X Xanxsxi© iB^'tli^nMXq «1 i«»nolJn«m it'iaJ' gfLt 

f{* It ii^J-iaoqeb c- -^ -' "^i.^nimXc: ' ' 'rm tOdd.l^^ "io tawa 

•tl .bftn^i* :: - -: '- "■ . u isij;-.:: ■'-■'- tdb 


paid for said premises during said term was ^5,500, whilst 

the total rental reserved in plaintiff 'b lea.e was ;$5,100. 

i UAU :. ■*-?' (Uj '^-i H^A^i'A 

T^ After the^teatiaon^^iiad -all^-teettn-^waJc^an ond before 

th£__iLaur-t--hddr-Tnsdt!"a finding, the defendant asked emd obtained 
leave to file and did file an amended fxffidavit of merits, in 
which he alleged in part that plaintiff h.-id abandoned said 
premises; that defendant "hafj considered and treated said 
abandonment by plaintiff and her failure to pay rent as a 
terminrition of the tenancy and, cancellation of the lease , and 
has made efforts to re-rent the premises to other parties and 
did 80 in his own name as owner"; and that in finding new 
tenants and negotiating new leases he expended time and effort 
and paid attorney's fees, eto.~/ 

No further evidence was heard after the filing of 
this amended affidavit of merits. Notwithstanding the state- 
ment therein that when plaintiff vacated the premises defendant 
treated that act and plaintiff's failure to pay rent "as a 
termination of the tenancy and canoollation of the leaoe," and 
notwithstanding the fti.Gt that at tlie time of such vac.tion 
defendant had 25450 of plaintiff's money on deposit and that 
plaintiff only owed defendant the sum of t'l&O for rent for the 
month of liiSay, 1911, the coirt found the issues against the 
plaintiff and entered judgment in favor of the defendant for 


v/e are of the opinion that the trial court erred in 
the finding and in entering the Judgment. ^Ve think that under 
the pleadings &nd evidence the court should have entered a 
judgment in fav^r of the plaintiff in the aum of .15300, .Vhether 
a lease has been cancelled and the tenancy terminated is a 
question of fact. (Vrx v. Patrldge . 73 111, "jI, 53; liills v, 
otobie. 81 111, 202, 206.) It appears from the amended affidavit 
of merits of defendant that he considered that when plaintiff 


ialidw ,006 »S$ «lbw 1&1&& fclae snirrui? eeclnftiq bite lo* htaq 
.00l,S$ sjbw efiwX a*^^ltfrl^<Iq nt boyrtsno-r letry-r In^ot ari* 

ni , . bsbnani .ib fcirc t QVJsel 

bru.; |9£M9X orij i' lo n piJ^fiiXsoftao bptw voaMn 9& nrlS ^0 no IJ oniflrxttJ 

iiriB eei^'X'iq isxfcto o-J aselBteiq ftxW &n'ii'-^i oi siiot'ta dbnai ssasi 

wnxi snifanil al Siuii b^?. .-"•r'^nwo aa ftnuan rtvo eiri ni oa bXb 

d" TO 'tis bn& ©irci* ^obaoaxiv vsff 7^rfi::t".iJo8en b'<" 2t'?3n»;t 

' Y.^mo^.i bfUB 

'io anil. i^diiul <-■': 

:\9i9 tdS 8nibra£:.:^»K.tiwtoTf'r^m *io ^xvisbJtT^lB bobnsm* alrf* 
rtabrrc'^'^h «s«pj:!n»i'- ^.cjslq aefiTsr ^Brl'.+ .t.''*»T^rf.'? irf>'" 

bnJ8 ",9'vs;«; -^ ftoi ^+.s ■/•■--' .^rr. nlnri?** 

nnj J 3nJtbfu?iE . 

cislr >o caAJp b.Hff iftBbxtstnb 
•tfl -xol Jt' iialAlq 

riBbrrsI:. rrto bru lll^fllAX4{ 

•ni: -^bfft •*** s"ii'>*'»« tit bna snlbnil »j[tt 

ij be 10.. -ofl 8«iTit)K9Xq sii^ 

:> 'ix h&&Bnlmt9i TTonBttBi ftfli boa balXoortvo neacf SBd OKSdX a 

atJXia ; , , ^ ?iPA?JtSlL.* ^ \ '^: V .^txu'i lo noii-eoup 

jjbi'ita bBbaoatH 9x(i mr . ,>0£ ,SOS .Xil X8 .oiJocfc 

:fiiifliq rtPriw Sndi betebJtanoo eri ^«Jr(;^ inisbnolob to Bi^lnam "io 


ftbwKiOBod th<» premissa the X«a;;a had b«en oimcellcd and the 
tenancy teraiiaated. It fu.rth<3r appsnrvj th t «t th ?t tin« 
defend in t hud |450 of plaint if fa monay on donosjit <ixid that 
plaintiff only owad defendiujt fo:c aooruod rent th« jura of 
*150. Tiui righto of the partial \?ere fixed find detormina'blft 
aa of thfj date of such abandonaent ajid oLrnueliation of the 
leaae, a.nd iafondant crAiId I'oaort to snid aiwi on deposit for 
t>io purpo «i only of atitiafying the rent dun r*t thr^t time Bnd 
HXiy lo»a or dicx-uit-e then uccruod, ( ( :hauuj; v, r>_hej>fijrd, 122 
iLs. Xi S^'^'H'aar v. l uib int^on, 174 t<« Y. 493; <'unn inf;:>iRK y. 
VitocktOR ^ Bl Kiin, 760,) Tlie Judgsiciit of the fe'unlcipp.l Court 
i& reversed, and judgraent for :^.aor is entered here agp.inat 
the dftfendant, viilliaia Kawin, and in favor of th«? plaintiff, 

Rli-V1SRS.«D AND JTJDG1B13JT mmn. 

jmDmo OF JACTS. =Jir« find aa factn that in ?Aay,1911, 


th© plaintiff, i-hilemina v. ihiinlclln, phandonad ths prowiaes 
in quosrtlon, that at the time of «uch abandonniGnt th?^ lea-ns 
in qusHtion wan cancallod find plaintiff *n ton^jicy torminated, 
jind th'.t at 3aid timo th« dof«;id»jit had in hio possession the 
suiTi of $300 belomrin^- to plaintiff, no pert of wiich has tyv'^r 
been paid to her. 




201 - 21179 


Defendant in jirror, 


W. 0. J0HK30N, Receiver of 


Plaintiff in Krroj?^. 



197 I.A. 633 

STATISMMT OB" THE C'\;ilS, The defendant t)y this vyrit 
of error seeks to reverse a Judgment for .^2,500 rendered 
against hin, ib receiver, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, 
:^epte-'fl"ber 9, 1913, in favor of J;unes Honahan, plaintiff, in an 
action for damages for personal injuriea.^/frhe declarfition 
-tiate of loree counts. The f irsst oqijw% alleges in su"botance 
that on July M, 1911, the defenifint, n a -r - gooivey , war> in 
poij. eLiaion tmd control of and mn m opyrating an electric rail- 
way running through ^fel*««~At4JLJ.»g^-v'Of GlencoOj fa» -«»jb €h~«^vm-ty ; that 

on oaid day the defendant, 

"-se3rv«»t«"r waa^ prop el ling an 
electric cbj: aX«Mft#-»ttu4 up«n -^a- paiiTmy tracks in a southerly 
direction st or near the pl f ioe '.vhere^ ga t e t tracks intersected 
a public btroetj i«— ««»■»- viXiagA, known as Li-cott avenue; that 
plaintiff viuu driving a team of horaes and wagon u^on a»«l- -aleRS 



"tmrtf public street and acrosu M^WLtracke, and while he was xn 
the exercioe of ordina.ry care for Ixis ovan saiety the 'lefendant 
80 negligently iiianaged ajr*«]MM>iwsli4»tl f» oa,d «l'?ctrit; car that 
hiX&uae- o£. aui3ii.-.-r^«glig«»o« the car ran into and struck plain- 
tiff, and the wagon upon xiiich he was riding, and plaintiff 
was thrown rrM 1}tte--v«g«n arni— t*i>«<i4_ the ground and wnn seveiay 
injured, etc, The second count sets up an ordinance of »«44 


village requiring gates to be operated at -»«t44^* crossing and 
charges thts' negligent violation of the ordinance hy def eEwi«w»-t 

causing plaintiff's injury. The third count sets up an 

CVXI.^ - lOS 

OT J:0: 

( , ifAHA.}tOM 

lo .0 .»■ 

ji'v tUBbn'd']: . 

B rti. j'i'tid'ni^X < :fo?J bosjuL "ro ir>VF.i ni ,oxGi ^i- isioiiifi^qeU 

•aiHawB ni c!95,sa.j..;' ; •. • - " .sdnuco u©ti{; lo a#Bi:»- 

nx aavr ,<!»v' tft«g" Y ■ aw ,J^n»bns'i9i: &xi;? ,1- \:lifT* nr 

-Xiiji oi'i* njcaaewcioii 

ns ani i.Xoqoiq , , 

, ' oiXouq «i 

rijsiv :> x^^n-tJ^'3'0 "io eoioioxo jrid 

-ixi^iXq Jloui^«8 fottn oitti j'ki -n-o 9i-{;f »ntm^lL^0 rfaufe .1» (»at ; aaatf 
Jt^flifiXq Jbafl ,?!>ni' ^^^t^u noji , 


Ofi ecu B;toa *nuoo tiiixU arfT .\:iut"* o'lli^niflXq s«i«w«o 


ordinance limiting the speed of trains to twelve (12) miles 
per h-^ur and char^-ieB the negligent violption thereof by 
defendant, etc, A pX^a of the general iaoue was filed, also 
a plea denying possession or operation of- the -ra My o at T i by 
defendant, Cir"tfte--tr*ai^ie evidence tended to show XiuJk 
their a< <»t»w a violation of both ordinances, - in—th r t i' no fjates 

weyo maintained or operated at^ qatd crossin;^ and that.,the car 

f\ ' ^\ 

.viii gift ol j-i d?ed~"«rrtft'" anattj-yagen w»B-"tr-«v«M«j5- iimried lately 
prior to the collision a^—tsr-upftre^ greater than twelve miles per 
hour, XlLjaao contended by defendant that plaintiff could not 
recover beca,uae of iiis contributory negligence, but defendant's 
motions, mauo at tlie close of plaintiff's evidence and at the 
cl03e of all the evidence, for a dirtjcted veraict in his 
fuvoi', v¥ere ooth deniea. The jury found the defendant guilty 
and a-i^essed plaintiff's damages at the sum of $2,500, Defen- 
dajit's motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were 

^ '/^cott avenue, on the easterly side of the two 

parallel tracks of the ei-wrrj-trre railroad, runs in—fi north and 

south, di r ection ; tho tracics run tir » northwesterly and south- 
easterly dii «e - i)i<? ff; so that «ri*©n one approaches the tracics on 
ocott avenue from the noi'th atMU-«on4'inue«^^^e¥^~<h« crosses the 
trucij diagonally. Northbound cars ffere run on the east track 
and southbound cars on the west track. On the westerly side of 
the tracks there is a turn in ;;COtt Rvenue towards the nest, 
and the street crouaes the tracics of the GhiCfigo & Northwestern 
Railroad Company substantially at right angles, which last 
naiaed tracks are about 7}-> feet distant from the eletric rail- 
road tracks and run practically parallel therewith. For about 
three months prior to tlie accident plaintiff was employed as 
a teamsster by • ««»■< » & in eon tractors engaged in paving some of 
the streets in the village of Glencoe. He was about 58 years 
of age and his hearing and eyesight were good. During the 

9&llm (SI) «vXf» ) ib^acia erf* ^niiiaixl ^otmttkbto 

r.s ,b9i wVisneg fidt lo a»Xq A . ,.: n&bn»l9b 

^(OAU- w i XTKircJ- srr . . JiiisIiasloJ!) 

>q BflXixa ^tvl'v, . )*j&3i8 Jbrwatfr ^ ailXoo oilj ' . 

•welea, «0C , ■ muB orif /a a«sijai«Jt> s^lTti^ rtijaXq Jt?e. rto 

8tf)ir itVitffz^ L»it3 ^ .:t)i;^0» B'JiWfcfc 

to^ajB© ©fii? no ,ounoVi- 
Jbn* , beoiXiai oird'Er«Xr ejiofii;}- XolXausq 

-ii* 'JO 8 bitrs x^ 'xo* eawi' . ; nnrtfnwH* , rfJ-ij • 

no fr/Jo '|{i»:clojBeiq«« ©jik. ; f^o^Ttti .'^XisifeAd 

[»«'', .^)ttjjo<fri;f-iO?i .\;XXfl«05»,Bli> e»o«'xi 

Xi(«t.jae . .trcrfflifuof.' .{;r£js 

-Xxio oi-i.d'iait* »*tJ fin 

oBtr "tli^KXiaX^ ;^ad&l»o. / loXiq Btttnocd »drtri.t 

'to !9.<K)fj s^ni-^&n tsi. fee.s|«3a»^«ioiOB*xJ nor' ai ■>.-?. "t<f lo^BfRjsd^ a 

Btii ^ttitisO .hcoa ©afcflr iilfiiA^fv^ft bna )Bftii«»it oiri t>n« sji^x lo 


period of his employment he^^^ent over thin croesing a 

good many times and wcb thoroU(j;hly f.-jnilinr '.vith it,,f'0Jid 


ii4i. knew tlie eieAirlc railroad company ran bo^h expreas 
and local trains eMit«»-^^ -trae^w and that "expreno trains 
ran faster than the local trains," The accident happened 
about one e*'«*»«^c--tm"-^tiTe-'>8dF^e«'ft««»»-«.f July 31, 1*^11, rjhcwp^iyu. 
a£4^#H»l»4n tiff had f4ni»hedeatl«g^^ It w^a a bright, 

clei,r day. The e wp t y wagon o n whi<3h -filaA»- t * ff ^too -Hfffiyyfced was 
an ordinary dung? wagon with no coverings over or around the seat 
te-^teB-tiTjtrt hi« tl-ew. Plaintiff testified th4t as he approached 
the electric railroad tracks from the north nw ^vfimiq he 
was driving hia team ?it a walk in the center of the rofd; that 
when the--h«rres^' headB'"wei*e about 10 feet froni the Bag.thi1a.ou^nd- 
i^astV track he stopped and looked both .vaya; th-st when he then 
looked north he could only see about 7 5 feet up the -s^o-u-tto bwjRd- 
|west)f' track and that he did not se; any car eontiatg-. or hear any 
whistlel thwt then is«> started to cross tJ4«~tyaoka. and ttrsrt a 'B' h » 
istroTBr-ttp--iifi "kept looking all the time"; that w}>en the horses 
were on tlie weat track and tlic wagon on tiif eai3t track he first 
saw th e -ap-jac on. ish tog- c.:r, that it was then "right up against* 
him and th-t it struck the f^Spt wheel of the wagon; and that 
he did ' n o t knfiw wtMk-t-JiWAp$tettfiil after that until he was helped 
upstairs to a doctor's office in finnetka. It further appeared 
from tJie evidence that the train was an express train, <9 "m -- 
- Bir.t -4-ni?- of -t»«^©— etH»«*^ — #^«iii. 5-4 f eot in len;/th; that when it carae 
■fe«— 8. '&X<yira£^^«=»'--^M% - ''-e t >¥ki:9fkv»t the rear end of the rear car was 
about in the center of the street; thtTt-Trwr'thweaf~oT'r»o<D^^ 
avenue, and about 90 feet from the center of thi't street ax its 
intersection with the east track, there is a shelter station 
and platform ea-ot of ^.aid east track; that nortliwest of said 
avenue there is a slight ^o" or reverse curve in the tracks; 
but that, notwithstanding »a±d curve and the poRition 6f said 


ani. ?n.8 esifoBTd* ««^i '-oX baa 

ig9e ?)-:: nffiicTOD On lUlw nosis* qmi/b x'^«-^^»''to "« 

arc aiffmv; 

tt» JsuU»««t4-~»«^<: 

-toil hkh «i\ i« :)£o«id^ ji'a&irjr 

)s;tiaia '•it nori4 Ism* Isi^elriw 




Xl:^mi v' 

^teatilw ni ooif^o a'lo^or 


ct-ittb »A 




.9 maelcfjal; 


so ''*tQttttrr&( 



a*«rt±oirnmxl~^l«^H^Hrm^Vperson ]»4s»t«d in the center of 
Scott avenue a a point 19 feet east of said east track cifrttitf 
see a car approaching from -the north on the west track »i^^ - 
-i*~-4ij' 50'-^ feet away, «md th/-; t ati aaijd^person nove!3 nearer 9»i^ 
Of l it' ti g we* he can see a car 

at a 

greater dist-ance, : eyoralL%itneKS^ -^Hti-tirt-^tjy-TmrttrtrtWHP. 
t-atifie.d ai to tho spr^od of the train and^not hearing any 
whistle tan m iTiT^ediatoly prior to the col.inion, and aa-tcu 

&^jn©„-.^|i_4h-«»,;jlSef 3n;i;>nt'r3 v/itnensea teptified in sub- 
st.-ijice af? follovrs: C, •. Wood.v/Krd, n p^i^son-er ait»iiij» in the 
fron. c.r, testified th t ->U»^ f i rs t ^rinrr-tre- noticed Wfrs-tttB 
whisli^ng by the motcrnif^n, «Mb4. then h4»-nft iilfinti tho ^ngon 
a f p i » Oft ff te *i»fr. Jaifl.^.tg JifceJ«8 nrd th t thp team wtis walkinp r>nd **»**-, 
the motorraan continued tc WbflTr-«»«^ vhintle, and th t the wa^^on 
continued r a e ^fcMfe- towards the tracks, and th t th^ the motorman 

d«ijj (JI..UH11 ih« ■-:r^^ft-rst-*^ix^-^riT(T-^r\^ tried to stop JtT.^Thoriton 
M. Pratt, im nt^ui'iivfy trlr-S'mr-grn'rt'^fj pannenf^or in the front cjir 
testified th;t he felt a jnrhin;; of the cr.r^and h(;ard »jfciHultaTT*. 


' eousij^ sev-ral blants of the whistle; that ko lae].ga4.»«».t and 
saw a dump wgon, with two horses and a driver, approaching the 
^^'"^^^ on ■ ■'■ '•' i . i .ftj;»~^ >t < "- ■ep»r - w f !' w ■ yw m -fcffFr, -W*«4 a t^t^sr"*- tine the car 
wnc about 150 to sno feet the crossing 3.nd the horses were 
walking and th--ir he^ds v;ere about three feet from the east 
rail of snid tr;; thot -it that time the reins were hanging 
loose and then he snw the driver reach for the reins nnd then 
they became taut, r^xiA»Aiii3JLjausu~.Xha^ a crash, and the train 

raa_A..j»iwM-t--diTrt?)nTr^anar"'%T^ nnifred Hamm, a-y«**»^l»4y 

- n 1» 'ti f ind i ug -J x i g h s cbo.Ql>-and-. jeaiAijag . jaaar the »ewris"»f^ the accident , 
testified that she was standing on the plstforir eor,t of the 
tracks, vPTri-t*«^5,,.Xc«:..,jL..j^ ard that she saw the 

wagon ju t before it crossed the nortWiwaw* track. She further 
testified: "I saw the train c oming , fi um w hej f e I^wa a. Before 






coming to the curve he blew his whistle, « * I sn-w that the 
man did not see the c r, and I yelled to him twice, but he 
did not fcieeru to hear me, •"• ^ He looked arjleep. He didn't do 
anything. Hia horses did not stop at any time, Jle did not 
stop and look up and down the track "before he drove on, ** 
He wai-. sitting; stiff arid the reins v^^ere dOTur*, He w-isn't hold- 
infT the reins," P, V/, Tt'ollett, employed In the co^rrposing room 
of a Chicr.go newspaper nnd a passenger in the front c r, 
testified he first noticed the extraordinary 'bloT/ing of 
the Y7hiatle and looked out of the window and saw a vagon and a 
team of horsee; thct the hoi-fieo were moving at a elow waJ k and 
that the driver appeared to he ^isleep; that when he first saw 
the team the horses had not quite reached the oast tr? ck and 
that they were about three hundred feet from vViere the on.r 
then was; and that the horsos continued to ulowly iriovo onto 
the tracks. Charles Litchfield, the motormun, testified that 
he gave the -^cott avenue crossing signal by blowing; tl'ie v/histle 
when he was about 700 or 800 feet to the north of said crossing; 
that when he w^^; 300 or 400 feet to thr north of the crossing he 
first si^w the horses and /mgon, and that thiai he w^b runring about 
25 or 30 miles an hour; that he tnen reauced the npeed of the 
car ao that when ap reaching the str;tion lo the north of the 
crossing the car was going about 11 miles per hour; th t ob he 
approached the st-rblcm he gave several short blasts of the 
whittle; that the driver on the wagon (plaintiff) did not Been 
to pay any attention to the cignals^ that he did not look in 
the direction of the ap-jroaching train or make any attempt to 
stop; that when the vatness applied the brakes and "reversed 
thf2 cvr** and that when the car was right close to the teani the 
driver "picked up tho >.vhip and f5t -rtcd to lash the horseo to 
get by," 


. ^iii dixit* 

cni'if "■ 

rrlffre- , iso 

i. I'lfe- 
torr hi?- ■ .^ . . •, 'u oJ 



It is contended by counsel for defendant (1) that 
plaintiff .vas guilty of contributory negligence and therefore 
cajinot recover, and {2) that the trial court erred in refusing 
to give to the jury two instructions, Nos, 26 and 27, offered 
by the dc'fendfint. In the view we take of this chbc it will be 
unnscesaary for us to discuso ccunaels' secwid point. 

After a careful review of the evidence contained in 
the transcript we think that it cle-rly rppears that plaintiff 
was not in the exercioe of dxio vire for his own sa'^^ety when 
croRbing -ief endturit' a trackn at the tire ajnd place mentioned, 
and that consequently he cannot recover of the dei cndnnt for 
the injuries he suatainod. He testified in uubatance that 
shortly before he h tar ted to croaa t^^e traclcB ho looked to the 
north oaid did not see fmy aoutiibo-md car approaching, that he 
kept on Icokints, and that it .vau not until his horses were on 
ths; west track and the wagon on the ef.i.;t tracl< that hr. +"irat 
sevr the 8p;>ro.'. ching c.;r, at which time it war. ri{tht up against 
him. But it appears from the evidence that several 
on said car aa^* him, and his wagon and horsea , just before 
the horses «2nt upon the tracKs aiid when the car vnc-, over 200 
feet north of the croasing, and it further appears thiit .juiit 
before the horseo (v/hich ware walking -.m'i could be quickly 
stopped) had reached the eaat tr.-'ck plaintiff h<'id aji un- 
obstructed view of r.ny train approachin.'c from the north for a 
distance of oviir 50' fe^t. ^e think that the -vidcrice clearly 
establishes the fact th t plaintiff failed to lock to the north 
when he should have looked. H c3 he looked he could have seen 
the cur and stopped his team in ample time to Lave swoided the 
collision. He w;:s himrelf guilty of negligence which proxi- 
mately contributed to his injuries. In Chicaf ^o. R. I. 3e P. 
Ry. Co . v. Jones . 1::? 111. App. 380, 5; 3, it is said: "It 


gniaM^'''! ni boii; ,-vjvoo9-i .tonrrao 

xrij 'to a^s:" 

•rf^ y;iJ'2;oiie 

Xft J.XJ 


, .•.«t«'5.oa Jbna ao:.^ ^'tiM ..iuii .■■ .<;• no 



:ju:u' ;,;-LiJ.;-JV ......^ ill JUi&J oixi J^:,,^»iOJ ii .' OiiS 

-txo'rq rLix;:« aoiioii^ilaan 'io xillij-^ 'tisijajirf f' .nciuIiXoo 

*I* :fel«ji at &t ,5 it-:. ,08£ .nqA .XXI <1'X . aarroT, .v . oTJ ,xfi 


ie the duty of one approacl.inp t. r?iilroad cros;;ing upon a 

highway to look and lie ten for r.pprorching trains, if a 

reasonably prudent person, ao >oituatfd, noulfl look and lirten, 

and a failui'o to look and listen precludes a recovery for 

parscxial injuries where to have looked and liatonod v/ould 

have prevented the injury, ;md whore them were no eircuin- 

stancec or oonditionr. justifying;; ouch failure to look and 

listen and no ohotructicnu to the view," .'.nd in _Cl'lc nn:o .P, 

&_ 0t. L. :iy , Co. V. De Freit-a>. 109 111, "pp. 104, 106, it is 

aaid: "The Imw will not tolec'ate the absurdity of allowing a 

person to testify t/u;t he looked, but did not see the train, 

when the viev vma unobstructed, and Adhere, if he had prnperly 

exercised his r.iyht, he raur>t h^vo seen it," :jid the following 

other cases may with propriety he cited: To ledo, J>t, L » &. W « 

M^;.COjf V, Gall agh er, 109 111, App. ^1 , 69; ".'nbash n. Co. v, 

Kaniradt. 109 111. App. 20^ Toledo, l it, L. & W. R. Co. v. 

Chris ty. Ill 111. App. 247; Hauk y. Peori a Ry. Co. . 154 111. 

App. 473, 475; Sran d v. O sborne . IB-i 111. Apn, 11, 

The judgment of the Circuit Goirt is reversed, 

WH. .JU; TIC?: MoGOORTY "DISS-mTINC?: I feel compelled 
to diBBent from the opinion of the majority of the court that 
the plaintiff w? e; p;uilty of contributory neglip;encc, requiring 
a reversal of the judgment, but ^ra of the opinion that the 
trial court erred in r 'if unin;'; to i-^ive either of defendcnt'e 
inatructions, M os . 26 and ?-7, respectively, and th t bennuse 
of puch error the judgrif^nt sh'^uli be reversed and the cause 

KCJ.^Ju At ,-, •■ U(/ ... ■ .,^.^iJ..^' 

' c!'-, I. •■ ■* r.t<:; . 
.Ion- '■f^' " '. r rarPT" 'hidi 


• bain^wirei 

FINDING OF FVCT3, .*'« find n i ultimate fp.cte 
that ttic plrintiff, James Monahan, was not tn the exercise 
of aue ciTo for iily own j-vfety, aii'J w.jl? himaelf guilty of 
negligence, wbilc r.t temp tin"? to croeo the tracks mentioned 
in tho dsclerfe tir)n and tit the time end place mentioned, and 
thtit in conaeciience thereof he received the injuries 
complained of. 

221 - 21199 

. Defendant in Cri^or, 


Plaintiff in i.rror. 

■ iiRROR TO 


197 I.A. 637 

3TATaM:!5NT 07 TH3 CA'JiS. On ieptemloor 12, 1913, 
William H. .ielle, plaintiff. coir::r,enced in the ^'unicipal Court 
Of Chicago a fourth class action in tort af^ainst ^ernhard 
Rosenatiel and .\hrahivn iStiefel (copartners trading ar. the 
Grove pumiture and Carpet Company) and ISd. Rosenctiel. 
Plaintiff sought to recover damages in the s-m of .?,1,000 
because of an alleged assault and battery and an alleged 


malicious TJrosecu^ion of plaintiff hy defendants. ^Plaintiff 
-ft».4to«^ ^llos^n-tfis second amended statement of claim, 
in Buhstance. that on July 9. 1913, the defendan^in pur- 
suance of « conspiracy went to VoViogiff d a j mrtrnpn ij^store in 
th,»....^,fey.^ Chicago, where plaintiff was Hs^ employed, and 
il,^,,..^.^:^,^ assaulted, ^.^.^..^ixuck and MJ^^^M^a maltreated 
plaintiff ; -4h«Cj;^iL«^^ on ^uly 10. 1913, the defendants, 
conspiring and maliciously intending to injure plaintiff, caused 
a warrant issued oy^^-^B*^-mm±r,ivnl-eovrt for tttT" 
arrest o^^-rrMmrtTrf upon a cosnplaint charging pl»w*44,*i-»i4b an 
assault and battery, etc.. and caused plaintiff^W-^ arreBt<^ 
and:;wi-^tJw"'^^ f^e«a.™*«H«r*; that on July 30, 

1913. plain oiffv-^on ^ trial b.»«^. jae found not guilty 
e#-«,.i^^posed offenet^^was d«-ly^quitted ««*^4.retr^f^ ; 
and that the prosecution against Trlainti«- feM«i*-«*^.#^ 
-©fi:.«n8«a hai^ wholly ended. 

The tlwee defendants entered a joint appearance and 

eons - xss 

.If MLllJdlW 

A I 

• .■■-'rr-i r, ■- - _ _ _ .iff) (T.4-t t.-al- r n T'.ftoJtciJj ^q 

. - -. . '• ■ ' ^- n\ avoiD 

'^■~''^,:'- ._ _,.-■'.«& 18VQ0S1 .. -. inl&ll. 

..- „.. ■.•'>' bnc ^XwMP.eii h©3©IIit .... ... oauBO^fS 



filed separate affidavits of raerits.TThe cause was tried 
before a jury resulting in a verdict, entered October 26, 
1914, finding the <tefendant Abraham otiefel not guilty, but 
finding the Jefendanta Bernard Rosenstiel and Ed. Kosenstiel 
guilty, and assessing plaintiffs diimagea at the rfura of 
iJl,000. These two last named defendants entered rantions fora 
new trial and auh'iequently the court, on plaintiff's motion, 
on January 15, 191b, dismissed the nuit as to ;;d, Uosenstiel, 
denied Bernard 'iosenatiel's motions for a new trial and in 
arrest of judgment, and entered judgment againat 'Bemhard 
Rosenstiel for :,1,000, which judgment it is sought by this 
writ of error to reverse, 

plaintiff pxir chased some h '. u»ehoa ?t» furniture of 1tfM>-.-o^«a»4iB«is- 
«iwt]B>^iat«wn" U1B the Grove TJ'urniture and Carpet Cqmpany (}H)rein- 


after referred to as Pumiture Co.), t^wd >nad^ m9%o.^ partial 

payments thereon and the furniture Wc' delivore.: Ht^plaintif f 's 
residence, liubsequently plaintiff aecertaincd that he w««nW~4M 
a„.t Af^'iwwAi*"^ Tnake further payments ,(»-tiTi-Hh,«r*4H»«^HMid according 

residence, liubsequently plaintiff aecertaincd that he w«**4~be 
»«*i«»^ make further payments ^ Q«>-thi"~f«-ra^ui^« m t A , acco 

(i^'ovflLL i,*^^«ce^-f»r^%i^^#^»^-Tri«lTfrrrf, *^»-,r«r^agreed 

'&,rew«^'-T±^ttttff^'^'d,^;M. ^^osenstiel, »oo of Bei^hr.rd Kosenstiel 
and an €n-:ploye cf the Furniture Co., that plaintiff's mother, 
residing in s. different ?art of tnr- city, rd^t move the 
furniture- to her residence and make f-4H?4**«*- payments^ th^ioow, 
and the furniture was eo T.oveO . e-rly in July, 19i:i, the 


yurnitup^rco. sent an employe to *M^^tr.oth. r' s home to demand 
the return of the furniture to the IXirniture Co., hu^. »«4^ 

-4.f# July 9, 1913,^,Bemhord R^*H!ntrt*<* and .:d. Rosenstiel called 
on plaintiff -Ji'the ^e«»4--#l^«^^^af .-^Ab^-!«a. iepar.tment store^^- 
where plaintiff w.s employed, aa a a alas man . and inquired of-trt» 
why f^^-^^H^ payments had not been made or^mT-furni^^ or the 




iii bKVtc:- 


, . , v;'iiiunr,t no 

,9aiov»*i oj 1011© 1o i^imr 

, , ^TR«»qtlP .5;. 

ftooK'iew it:. 9«fc 


i ill 231 

iaifilq no 


furniture^etumed., /vcnto-tSlnnrfr^o Eaintiff 'b X^^tXifnJ 
,,,^,,,,^„,a£2^£\ft'^^^^ to explain, »«^fa«*. Bemhard 

- -1 i^_ ^. miiiu l ull';" 1 11 iiTiinn m- *— ^^*^*^^ Inn a w a. 
aMuaed plaintiff or Bt,iaXlnE tha fumituro anrt of boine a 
thief, and further .aid: - *«« m got thrn,,nn v,it,n you. you 
won-, have any jo',. .,■ ^ll~ folio, y.n, to the en* of the 
earth. Hot onl.^ th^.t. .« v-iU '•"'"' J-™ '*o^'^' *" '^^ ^'^^^ "'* 
ilck yoar f ' hB"rt „ff..i'lh«WH««rt!«witM*-M««><rt*»l- *'>'''' 

^ **"^)iS,e Roao„.tielo «th.r -.-.trunK .,t or »truck plaintiff. «.d 
" „ scun-lo endued -'.urlng ,*lc!.. :.ernh..r. »r.=er.=tl.a -.^-^ith^.- 
.^.^...^.^^^.^.....^..^^.^-^.t.^^^^' rcccivc^...n injury in 


th. • .o.uirln, t^e .ecvlcc^ ol a vhy.lci..n.T.>«*-M» 
Ho.e„»tlel. t.BUfieo th.,t the flrot U,o^.^ .^ueU hy 
„lHint=ff, but t.70 of sl.lntlff>..w«r:eer.«. -.■ho v,ere on-" 

l«ferir3ffiaSi«*-«ff^'-^-».*^^ «>^---««:^^" 
/O Bernhard .iosenstiol i,ei^tif ..->rt ^r— VT'i ^u ^H'-^IT 

he went to u W-cien's office: .or tro..n.en^. ^-.***n*^-»^ 

^^^^^^^^^__^^^^^^^ Lake. Iliinoia. 1,,^. 

. . . -Tir • t^Ht i.e t-ccor.p&niou h^u father to «rtd- 

C^'^ yon t.r.ii-'> trfc-in ^nd T***-* i.ncy w<».j. 

. . Mff ivrnhrr.- iioi^enstiei furtJicr testified 

that, or. *l.ii_iua..«s«*-«-*^' •'"^•' ^"■"' ■ <i^ 

.ttornoy .t ««.*.«^--^--- ^--^'^SlJTr *'''• ^ 

^^^^^.^^rr.^ to «.,: plaintiff .-"-eetea, .n. tV,M, Uien h. 

,vef,t tr. tfcr-rtlwrctFHl O...Jt "lu 

, t . .,-4...- <- B-e i i .e « h«>«i u J niw ^ 
and filed . co,.n>l«int •««**'*-***^r, ^^iTX-.. 

>i ..r miTtd B«Mt which wa» 
a/ ^rVl/- *C o-eloek, t*»*-4«». the record of,,**" — ^ 

,,^.,^. in evidence, disclosed that the eo^lalnt U- 
,,..,,.«„^1 ,ae filed July 1". 1^13; th.t it «. alleged 




tnr-'tiTe-^'eoniplrfttttt thnt on July 9, 1913, William H. 3elle did 
aid and assist in a riot and breach of the peace, and did 
imlawfully and -wilfully assault another person, that Selle 
will escape unless arrested and the t he is not a resident 
of the city of Chicago, is only temporarily in said city and 
is ahout to depart the name; that a warrant was issued f-^** 

at ■h*e ivas arr 

tja« ftg r i e at «»'f^-»eli'e and that "We was rirrested and brought 

into court July 18th, and that sufter a full hearing 
>3irt:y°3trt*t7"i"9'r^, -ite was found not guilty rmd discharged, *:*«»- 
• cuate^A y. Plaintiff testified he wu u at-jw at e d ai iowt 
Jii^^ the, nromiftg jw^ was confined in a cell for about four 
hours is^MBnJhe was released on bail. It further appesired ^t«»~ 
t he o vid e n -p«~that after plain t^t1!T*tr^,^arr est and up to the time 
of the trial of ^renrre'Btnrt action plaintiff's mother had 
made ftrrth«» paymoits fronh-trinie -to—tiiB© on •»44\^"^'^i*^^^ *° 
Furniture Co.W" (j.' 


It is first contended by counsel for plaintiff in 
error th t the verdict is contrary to the veight of the 
evidence, in that {») the prepondert-irice of tho evidence shows 
thp.t Selle -was not asHaulted by plaintiff in error, and (b) 
the prepon lersnce of the evidence shov/s that plaintiff in 
error had probable cf-.use for suinf:; o"^ the wrsrrant j-nd having 
oelle arrested and was not actuated by malice in uo doing, 
;^e cannot agree with counsel and arc of the opinion that the 
verdict is fully vmrranted by the evidence. 

It is also contended that because plaintiff in orrOr 
testified that he acted on the advice of his attorney in causing 
belle's arrest he is not liable in any jonount in the present 
action, .hile it is the law of this state that if a party 
comrrunicate to counsel all the f eta bearing upon the guilt 


. ■ -!!*'! i X £ J: ^' ^^£^1 , i rriiilri^mrrBrit'nk 

Jbib ■; rfojaftiv ::i ^stuaa ban Mb 

&lii; ,no«is>q f^'i&rtn''- 'Ivr.p^*; vIItf'>IJ:w bflui Y-^Iir'^tt.'rXns,' 

brv. . ^Xi-zatoqp^^ ^'Iko si ^oaaoirfO lo Y"^ ' 

^^rfywntrf hflfl hf?p ■r.f? »!/ ... ^fj 

-*^- *#^ -^fjitB^rt (ijol yX^^T. ^iijoo oial 

^-yyTTfy-ff^ t'-' T " - -■■ -•-•-:'■■■ hftk'^kf^&i J.-^.DnL . -^ivar^' 

dJfii. .; qxj bits ;J- tTttrntaicr is*\« SmtU- ^ o x t9 h.Y.v ^^~-tHr(^ 

'0 ^mJ ,tOTi!.; n.L rii>*ijJ;j3iq \;tf b-sct-lMBeiej* l-oa Jiaw 9XX»ci .t 'xlcf 

,3nior> c >or( a^dv bn?; b'iJCfaBixft 9XX»( 

. •, - .j:3iuuiii5V/ yiiwt ai irXijiar 

*Xli,r. otit noa^ S«l"«,od a^oi.l Bift X£^ i^«mroo oJ a^^uin- 


of the accused, of which he has knowledge or could have 
ascertained by reasonable diligence, and in ^oo d faith acts 
upon the advice cf i?uch counoel, he cannot be hold respon- 
sible for his conduct in an action for malicious prosecution 
(Anderson v, Friend, 71 111, 475, 479), yet it is also the 
law that before a party in such an action can shield himaelf 
under the plea of advice of counsel it must appear from the 
evidence that he in good faith made a full and fair statement 
of all material facts to such c-nansel and in good faith acted 
upon the advice given, (Roy v. G oings , 112 111. 656, 664,) 
And whether the party has fairly communicated to his counsel 
all the rraterial facts, and whether he acted in good faith 
upon the advice received, are questions of fact to be deter- 
mined by the Jury from all the evidence, ( Anderson v, Friend, 
supra : ochattgen v, Holnback . 149 111, 646, 651; Gruel v. 
iienyler , 74 111, App, 36.) It is evident from the jury's 
verdict in the instant case that they did not believe plain- 
tiff in error's testimony, to the effect that in causing .^elle's 
arrest he acted upon the advice of an attorney, but rather 
believed that he acted upon his own initiative and acted 
maliciously, and un icr all the evidence we are not disposed to 
dia :urb their verdict. 

It is further contended that the court, during the 
progress of the trial, made certain rerafirks prejudicial to 
plaintiff in error, Ve do not think that the language was 
prejudicial, or th...t the jury were misled thereby, particularly 
when taken in oonm-ction with the instructions w'lich the court 
afterwards gave. Neither do vie think th; t the court committed 
prejudicial error in his rulings on the admissibility of certain 
evidence, as urged by counsel. 

It is further contended that, the jury having found 
the defendant LJtiefel not guilty and both the Rosenstiels f^uilty, 
the court erred in dismissing the suit, on plaintiff's motion, 

«#Ofl ^A ^l , .'jfieaiXilj oXcr«non.?6i ^jcf b»nJ:i3;^ioo»A 

-Ufqa* I ,X«0«uoo doiJ iThj3 DriJ^ noqu 

©£ict oai , V tJbnei'sl ,v noatsboA) 

'ilaor.iA J&Xei; 3'ioi: .'.'«X 

.i>©c^Oii Atiiil booa iOl baa Ipsnuo- " 'i'«»*jw|i 4X« to 

( - ( ' 3«-t.c.{) ,v xfill) .nevi^ ooivi' 

Cif.,iol!CUJ:moo '^Xni;«l a«ii T^^aq eri^ iadi»Ayt Jbn/v 

jjiftairt?. .V noeii ^^fiA ) ,ftonobiv» dxf.t lie acxt x^^l -^^ X<^ baaim 
♦ V Xatr t O ;XS; , , , ^^cfnJJoH ,v no^Jiarioo Jjajtsau^. 

ba:^;>: 'ltf«i;Hni rtwo aid ntiqu t&ttJXi ©ri i'.-^itt bsvsiXod 

:>aoq^5l^ rti; l»rtff , \: X & uo 1 a ii jbih 

OCT Xaioiljuj^otcq e2t'5utMi9'X nlatf'x^o aljflm ^Xftii.' ^i'xsoiig 

B -V. , ■ ' IIJt^iaiMlq 

[.iRltjt.iii.iisi ,-»icf9t(> fJ boXeim aiaw yiii/t 9ri<t *pf^' . loXbuifiiq 

bBtilMF. h 't^dtl . V rts Bb'taHft&J't>:> 

Rd-too lo yJ-xXidleaiiij/.. ^ a-^ntlui airf ni loito Xflioiijwt^'^ 

lltj^ aletiBmraoFi etii xlSod ba» x^^tu^ ienr Isleitft: J-iioi>n-'>tat ortd^ 


as to Ed, Hoaenatiel and in entering judgment against 
plaintiff in error alone. This beinf^ an action in tort re 
do not think any error was comrritted in these particulars, 
(I llinois Cen tral .1. Co, v. goulks. 191 111. 57, 69; 
Lasher t. Litt ell^ 202 111. 551, 555.) 

It is finally contended that the verdict and 
judgment are excescive. The amount of damages to be awar^^ed 
in such actions aa the present one is always a question for 
the jury, and unless the verdict is manifestly excessive it 
should not be disturbed, (j ^ ea^rce v, i'i ee dham, 37 111, Apr), 90- 
93; jjeno v, .vilson, 49 Hi, 95; Ne lson v. Danielson. 82 111, 
545,) Punitive damages are recoverable where the arrest is 
made under circumstances that indicate a wanton di ^regard of 
the rights of the person arretted (Pearce v« Ne ddham^ atipra) y 
or where the arrest is procured by means of an untrue affidavit, 
(Roth V. Jmith, 54 111, 451,) In Gartwright v. .^liott, 45 
111, app, 458, the court, in rcfcrrinf: to the amount of 
d mafjes to be awarded in cases of malicious prosecution, says 
(p,461): '"fliere should be a wide differBnce between the 
punishment of one who has failed to slightly use ordinary 
care, and who acts without justifiable cause and without 
malice in fact, and one who Ib intent on doing another a 
wz-ong and makes uje of the criminal process for the purpose of 
gratifying hdia hatred and ili-wilJ., -^very case should be 
governed by its own facta and decided according to the dictates 
of reason and equity." '.Vhile it raeiy seem that the amount of 
damai^es swarded in the present case is Inrge, we do not t)link 
th 't under all the evidence it is so manifestly excessive aw to 
indicate passion or prejudice in the minds of the Jury, 
Neither do we think that we would be ju.,tified in reaucing the 
amount of the verdict and ( Flildreth v. Hancock, 55 111, 
App. 572, 576 „) 

icniflS-E in^oiTiliJl ■%ni'%9tr uj Xex.tca»eo;,: ,faa Ovt as. 

.sieiuoi i^ad^^iv'-moo »«»» lox** Xft» ainirii ion ob 

(,ctfc' , . aoS t,ll^^ ^ X j; . y 1- erfag J 

.06. . ' ,2!M{^^fiLaX..ail3ia§iL) ,i>90'ii/orel n iiXiKsria 

f (a^a^j:^^ ,tjruin i 't J9j::», , , T ,8p.iii 9^ ) b9ie9i^B iiLOQi^q etU to sid-gl^. ^-flt 

s-fibillis ©inJ n)j rneai^ Y<f JbifttfiiOtt^jil bx .Jasi.ija exit)' eivcw 10 

, . iiijitwrf-i . ■' .ill i^S ,riJi«i<.; .V xy-oH) 

.■■i-iata ■ .Stl^ ,uqA .ill 

»Y^ie ,Hoi,Jj,'o6.'&o'xq rtjjoi.t>xXiJffl lo a#<sBO «X /.>ai>xt;\«»S)cf oiJ eojvBflif-b 

Bdi nf«wjr»cf fto««rr.sltxb sfci?/ « au hXs-'oiia eiorfi"' :{.L(>*,qj 

yClMoibto 9ai/ \,XJrisiXfi 3^ l>^X44l: sjb/I 0*1v? sno lo Jnsauiyinuq 

« latij-onjs a«io^ no jriijj i{w ono bm" , u ©oiXaai 

taiv ■'\aibioo)>H iinalonb bta. two niil \,cf bsmaaTos 

^aiiii ion ob ev , .-»j^i -X bI ?aju9 .tmoaoiq 9ri;f sit JbdfeTCjBWB ai«,t,jB«utb 

svlfciesoxs YX^fi^llruFjoi oe ei J'i onaai^ivo 0>rt^^^^l« ttsJbniu .t rLt 

,y;ii;t ei-^ itin? sxU nX soiXJuf.oiq rto noisesq BS(\otbKt 

i'^ soxc . rU iax ditsTi 

,>£/Ocnji.-i »v riJ'a'iaXi]! ) . ji'.oci;gi>iJv, Jbiu; JoiJbiov «i;i.j lo auoms 


Pindinf!; no reversible error in the record the 
Judgmont of the Municipal Court is affirmed. 

^ rt"'- •-■■■^ '>' +n'^!n-^l)l.'t 

177 - ;1154 

(a corp,), 

Defenddht in Jrro», 


HARRY it. FIJK'-IR, / 

Plaintiff iaj,fj«rror. 


MimiCII>..\L CCU-?T 
) 0? CHICAGO, 

197 I.A. 641 

M;i. jUbTiCis BARHisa DKLivieRaD THE apimos OP THU: GOimT. 

Plaintiff (defendant in error) claimed a^ due 
from defendant (plaintiff in error), and recovered judgment 
for, .^537,^7, the price of adrertising less commieBiona 
done nt defendant's request and pursuant to a contract 
between thera. Defendant admitted existence of the contract 
but claimed in effect that moneys he had paid plaintiff in 
the course of their contractual relations were advances 
on hia part in. excess of ixhat the contract required. 
Accordingly he filed a aet-off claiming a balance in his 
favor. He also claimed non-liability because plaintiff 
had interfered with his collection of certain advertising 

Trial was had before the court without a jury. 
It holding that under the pleadings and court rules applicable 
thereto, plaintiff's claim wao admitted and that the 
affirmative of the issue was with defendant to eatablish 
his set-off, defendant accepted the ruling by proceeding to 
put in his proof. 

The errors assigned are substantially two, thRt 
the finding was against (1) the evidence and (2) the law. 
Plaintiff in error admits?, however, that a decision of 
either calls for a construction of the contract. But the 
r :cord in no way presents the queaticn for consideration. 

^<^XJC: • tvx 

. CUIflO* 
. jTtoo a) 

^'d ,A.I Teii 


li miixi.^i,-» 


1=J0 jgHI 


^■iv* ■^XXjE5l#a«*Rf/rr 

'• no: tin'- 

jnibleni it 


Ho ©"bjcction iu pointed out, no motion was made, except for 
a new trial which ift a case tried without a Jury preoervee 
no question for review ( Climax Tiitt^ Co . v. . jner i can Tag Co.. 
234 Hi. 179), and no proposition of law calling for a 
construction of the contract or any othar holding was 
submitted to tho court. 'Phere being no ruling of the 
court upon which to predicate error no question of law is 
before us. ( Grabbs v. City of Danville . 166 id, 441; 
yiOdin V, £, H, Lutea Co.. 131 111. App, 195; Overland 
l»'otor Co, Y, Tennant, 195 id, •.) otherwise we woi^ld be 
required to read the entire evidt-inoe to gather tiie court's 
theory of tiie contract or of otiicr questiims of law that 
might have arisen. 7or aught we isnow whatever view the 
court took of the contract it may, ae it could have done, 
have decided the iaaueo on othor grounda. It may have 
held, as it properly raif?ht, that plaintiff's items of 
account were admitted and that thore could be no recovery 
on defendant's set-off for moneyu advanced hecauuG, even 
though ifflade under miatake of law, they were voluntarily 
paid with full Jmowledge of all the facte and without .'iny 
fraud, duress or extortion, ( People v. ^''oster , 135 111, 
509; 7ilia«e v, Y-jnoyf ^ 199 id. 466; Yates y. Uoyal Xns, C£., 
200 id, 206.) 

Neither does the record preserve for reviov/ the 
court's rulin;* under the otnte of the pleadingo it w.-jc 
unneoesaary for plaintiff to put the contract in evidence. 
Regardless of the ruling dafendant's proof involved 
recognition of the terms of the contract. 

v?}iilQ absence of an exception to the Judgment 
would not prevent conaidcration of thn sufficiency of the 


^^t.>■ ,.,iei ,«j«A .If' I'^'iE « '^i. j£F^iiti •]: • - v.- tV'-.™ 

r^ fiGi^T-M.' ^ , : ^C.r »:;fr OK--'" - . -^ota*' 

•jffoi.? fJ4i«if '! " .1;; '. ■_ 

,__.___ ,' , .:n->:^'/:- laanwi-' ,Jbtr«ial 

bc>vXovftX troiq- fc*3nr.' i asXl?:ciJ5i&H 


evidence (Miller v.. And erson, 269 id, 608) it ia cwiceded 
thet its sufficiency dependa on a decision of quastions of 
law that are not "before us. 

The state of the record requires us to affirm 
the judgment. 



199 - 21177 

MARIB A. lli]L:3!<;, Admin iytratrix 
of tHe Estate of Frances / 
Branitzky, deceased, / 

Defendant In jError, 

) )iRROR TO 




JOHN A. COL^Y & iiONS, /a oorporation, ) 
Splaintiff in i^^rror. ) 

'v / 

1P7 T \ «4«, 

STATBJIRHT Of PACTS, -p- Prances Branitzky vras 
employed as a sales woman by ^^i^*»*4*^»->4ir-^eTroT»«-jraef eniant 
lao lftw y frr many years, and »e— mt«**-"^««»me..^specially 
valuable. In May 1908 che was injured b3MM»--«xi»l«u-MB in 
a building -ouuuy ied >»y^-^*f e«^*»* . ^yn^^«)f-^i^^-*f ^'®Ef^"'^y 
11, 1910, she executed a generRl release. in conalderation 
of $6,068.20 Urnn p at t l » o her ^«ii4^»«^^F^-Ei■€f««4^m4~4^ld^tjfc«*r• 
^ytiarain»»«»ad v/ore forever discharged from^any causeB of 
actions. Duit», debta, agreements, ptc, «rhich she then hrid 
•r she or h«r*admini0tratora mir^t thereafter have againnt 

«b4«*^-4«*«^-«# February 9, 1910, ahe entered 
into tlwr-F^i'ii****^!^ agreement with -Jefendant which refers to 
T^ •«!* fiw«MP<a release as executed therewith, -^o-wtV. ^< Y' ' 

ninth day of?ebJS,.ry. a. i). 1910, by ^^^^-^^^^ -^^^ 
A Oolby fa ions, an Illinoie corporation with ijs 
orinripal place of buainesu , .t Chicr.,vo, m said ..tate 
o? Illinois, party of the first part, and Vranceo 
Branitzky. of the City of Chicago, County and^tate 
afSeB^ld party of the Second pn*t. ?ltnea«etht 

*Thrit in coni^id^^raion of a general rele^^oe 

herewith executed by the Pf '^^ °^,^:;/^^^"f .ff ' rt 
the party of the firnt part cind others, and an a part 
of the consid.r.-tion for saici general releane. the 
n«rtv Of the firat part promises and agreea to pay 
to the party of the scMond part the sum of three thousand 
i .. L ?S noo^ Duvable monthly, commencing February 
fst^Tsiof ^d^ertf': payabl^'in e.ual inBtallmenta 
of fifty dollars { l^O) per month. 

^ The party of the eucond part, .b ^ Pf * «^ 

the con3id.rHtion for thiB P^f f *• ff "^^.'^i'J/^errSrm 
the five years from i.'ebra.ry Ist. 1910, ohe ^^^^ P^^J°^"' 
euch clerical services for the party of the firat pai t 
as she may be called upon to do nnd aa she may be 

VVIXi: - 4CX 


1s^ ^ "■ '^ 


ism wCo 6<>e£ y,K>i nl .aXrfawX 

X-x ■ , ' r-.i'jt*"?--. nibXiu'-' 

'to eesM^') 



.ip-'% ■"»*,' 



0.-; ^x£y 
, fi;' 

-; -: ,:'XCi ,n:I V, 

: to \rft£sq Slit 
lid X«m( oria ajs oits ch ot no 


.i ,JcX 

'ioXo iiouu 
d \-.<3ai a/fs Si) 


physically able to perform without injury to her 
health or strength. 

It is understood and agreec} by the parties 
hereto th.jt the ^oura of the pgtrty of the second part 
for such ser-riocs ihall be easy end thr^t she ahull be 
the judge as to whether or not S5he is; jible to work 
during said period of time, the meaning and intontion 
being that the party of the oecond part shall pf:rforra 
such clerical work for the .uixty of thn first pia-X as 
she is able to TDerform v?ithout injury to her health or 
strenr^th during suid period, 

iR'-iS-i-tn-efl-B '^ereo-f - ^h«--pi!rrty-i>-f' " thwf tt-jC't" 

part hao caused thd^ae prewenta to ho Hi^i^ned by Its 
President and oGcretary and. its corporate seal annexed, 
and the party of the second part hau signed and sealed 
these presents the day and ye^ firat above written. 

.JOHir A. COLBY ^. ^ONB, 
,j^'^'^ ^y Henry 0. Colby, 
"' Preeident, 

yrtuicea Branitaky, 
Att«»*i (aeal) 

8i^»y.-j:^ Ilett, 


P«g g ua ixl-J;A.,..Aai4.-.-a«y-»^?«Kartt <3i»f cndant paid 
plaintiff's inti otate )5o each month ( |1800 in all), up to 

5h month ( |1800 in ..all), up 

the t'i<a» '"»# h«r death in Februory, 1913. ^«Brin^~th«tV"*^^«# 

8he rendered n% services for defendant, but rendered services 


o f ..4>^» AiBAX«JP^..»iyttirr e for another firm from October 191?? until 
the month before hor doatli, working eight and one-half hours 
a day. far wUA^h--°ghiy"-wsrg^pti'td waggg -at -^he » r«te"'trf-^l€Hyr 
we e 'Ik Mc^ 

This suit waw based on said contract to collect 
seven installmenta of #50 each for the seven months inuoediately 
following her Joath. The cace was heard without a jury, and 
the finding and judgrat^nt were for plaintiff for the amount 

•x-ssi 9i xiulal ;s!<t^dilv (ait>li»q; o;t alda \11boLvx^(< 

, -,: i • -.-■ ,^r "XO ^ ^ tJS9 li 

Xrf b»: 

^rf li. r: rfoyB to*!. 


* « ^ • ■'«* 

. t -•; •■ fv ; 

%:,r -Afv •*K-^ -.•*■ .-i ..;-!.^» 


r nil »ili 



The Btatefflent of clftlm did not discloefl, but the 
affidavit of merits did, tho fact th.-.t the r,uit wan for 
installDJenta cov*>ring n period ©f tine f.fter th< ocaUi of 
plaintiff's intcptatc. If the contrtict he conetrued as 
one for personal sprviees, db nc think it Ehould, then 
with such ffjct of her death 5'tanr?ing unquentioned, the 
pleedingtj proeented no legnl c-'U; f? of tclion, provided the 
contrnct Buod on pnd "snnexed" to the Et.'j.lerfient of cijiim 
was a pi^rt of the ple-tiing. It would not "be bo deemed 
xinder the pructice in our other court b of law (Jones v. 
City of Chicafj-o. 167 111, Ap . 175, and cmies cited) and 
whether so under the Municipfjl Court rules in not mrdc to 
appear. However, it seoHia to have heen 30 trea ed by both 
parties, £?nd defend^int's affidavit of rnerito wac predicated 
upon existence* of such contract. Giving a liberal construction 
to a loo»e system of pleading and pri.ctice, we t ink it can 
be said thit the parties having, in their mutual understand- 
ing of the nature of the c?\oe, treated tho contract as a 
pari, of tho pleadings and,a£3 an admitted fact tiiorein, that 
decedent died before any of said inctallraentt) sued for fell 
due, jaec^alKtedK the pleadings presented a mere question of 
Iww, and that no Judgment for plaintiff could atand thereon. 

The contract r,>-:.o neither ambiguou:. nor uncertain. 
Its contitruction required no proof of extraneous facts or 
cir cuiastancoB, Its language ia unenuivocul and should be 
construed as written ( P,irk v. Mallory , 185 Ilx. 227, r^32.) 
It expressly called for such work by plaintiff's intestate 
as she was able to perform during the five years the con- 
tract vvaB to be in force, vmlle it made her the judge of 
whether she was able to work, y t it did not thereby leave 


liO -lU'. 


4^1^ ai a ' i,'Ll;iMJi.^lq 

V 't* i%/ 

:iri»«>*';'i ..ajd ^a^ilJus^ 


Nyliwpoi uw.^su'x^fauoo ail 


it optional ^^ith her to work oi' not, but callod for a 
bona fide exerci 3e of hor judgment in that regj.rd. It 
conteoplated th^t vThen(i5V^:;r ohe wan able to work during 
that period defendant was to have tlit! benefit of her 
services; and it mnnifetstly further contonrplated, whether 
conotruid with or aprTt from the general release, thnt in 
addition to the sum paid for the latter, defendant was to 
furnish her employment for five years )t a jBonthJry anl: ry 
of jjiSO without deductions for absence when 3he waa unable 
to work, 'fhia ^ve think is the construction the contract 
calls for on its face. 

A8 there was no isfmable fact before the court 
and the pleadings preoented no cause of action, no teatimony 
waa neceawary to a decision. On motion the court could have 
entered judgment for defendant with'>ut evidonco. No snotion 
therefor, however, waa made until the cloee of plaintiff's 
case, on which the court reserved its^ ruling; until all the 
evidence wib in v?hen it was adversely decided. 

But there was nothing in the evidence, -f^ether 
admissible for construction of the contrcict or not, that 
justified a different construction than should be given 
on its face, Ko purpo e, therefore, would be subserved 
by a review of the evidence or other proceedings in the 

The contract being one for the personal servicea 
of plaintiff's intestate it was terminated by her death 
(see authorities cited on thitj subject in notes to Mend«jnhall 
V. javis, 31 L. H. A. (N.3.) 914.) 

Aa plaintiff was not entitled to Judgment as a 
Batter of law, it will bo reversed, 


:<i tama^bi-il 


.roj»l »ii no TOl: aXiijo 



r-MH^xit Jbvivl'ja* 


)i anJtr' 



Tie a X»iioa-xt>c: tfrfv 

t3»iton iti ;r»»t<fu& alii;*' xwj i»ftJin aaistiioif^w.^ 

( . ;■■ i . - ... , Rlyr_ . 7 


- JU ,, A?^^T TA TE .^ElIB^_Q£lUXQIia- 

This reserve book is not transferable and 
must not be taken from the library, except when 
properly charged out for overnight use 

for^Zr^lT*^" "^""' f'' "'"^ '^ responsible 
r^^ulatio': '" "■'^"^'^"^^ ^'"^ '^^ P-'^d